Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02/17/2026 - Work Session - Meeting Materials
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WORK SESSION February 17, 2026 Tuesday 2:00 PM Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas. Council Work Room 451 South State Street Room 326 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com 7:00 pm Formal Meeting Room 315 (See separate agenda) CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Alejandro Puy, Chair District 2 Erika Carlsen, Vice Chair District 5 Victoria Petro District 1 Chris Wharton District 3 Eva Lopez Chavez District 4 Dan Dugan District 6 Sarah Young District 7 The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items scheduled on the Work Session may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers. The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork. Generated: 09:40:28 Welcome and public meeting rules Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change. Work Session Items 1.Ordinance: Sugar House Hotel Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments at Approximately 2111 South 1300 East ~ 2:00 p.m. 25 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of properties at approximately 2111 South 1300 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 .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. 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 2.Ordinance: Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 527, 537, and 539 South 400 East ~ 2:25 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of properties at approximately 527, 537 and 539 South 400 East from RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District) to MU-5 (Mixed-Use 5 District). The proposal would also amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Medium-High Density Residential to High-Density Mixed-Use. The proposed amendments would allow the developer to build a five-story residential building with ground-floor commercial space to complement the neighboring property to the north under the same ownership. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 4. Petitioner: Russ Poulsen with Thrive Development, 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, February 17, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 24, 2026 3.Ordinance: Recurring Nuisance Properties Follow-Up ~ 2:45 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a proposal that would amend Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private property. The proposal is intended to address persistent nuisance activity occurring on private properties and at commercial businesses where owners have failed to take proactive steps to curb illegal or disruptive conduct, including unruly parties, gatherings, and events on their premises. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 9, 2025, Tuesday, October 14, 2025, and Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 24, 2026 4.Informational: Expanding Housing Options Zoning Text Amendment Update ~ 3:15 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing on a proposed zoning text amendment called Expanding Housing Options, which was initiated through a Council legislative action. The proposal would include various updates and create a new permitted land use called Small Lot Dwelling in the R-1, R-2, and SR1-A zoning districts. The proposal would also modify flag lot standards. For more information and to share your input visit https://bit.ly/SLChousingoptions. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 5.Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 2260, 2270, and 2290 East 1300 South ~ 3:35 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of properties at approximately 2260, 2270 and 2290 East 1300 South from R-1-7000 (Single Family Residential District) to MU-3 (Mixed Use 3 District). The proposal is intended to allow for a portion of a 26-unit residential development, which includes eight townhomes and 18 condominiums. Currently the property contains existing single- family dwellings. 10% of the units are proposed to be set aside as affordable units for buyers who meet 80% of the Area Medium Income (AMI) as the proposed community benefit. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 6. Petitioner: J- Development, LLC, 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 6.Tentative Break ~ 3:55 p.m. 20 min. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 7.Informational: Downtown Alliance Planning and Support for 2027 Temple Open House ~ 4:15 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing from the Downtown Alliance about the planned support during the 2027 Salt Lake Temple Square Open House. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 8.Informational: Capitol Hill Community Plan Update ~ 4:45 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing from the Planning Division about an update to the Capitol Hill Community Plan. The briefing will include an understanding of the scope of work, project timeline, any barriers that may impact the process and give input on the public engagement process, stakeholders, and provide other information that may help the project. This briefing provides the Council an opportunity to provide input on the public engagement process, stakeholders, and other information relevant to the project. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 9.Informational: Wasatch Front Transit to Trails Program ~ 5:05 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing from Utah Open Lands (UOL) on the Wasatch Front Transit to Trails program. The Transit to Trails program was first piloted in 2022 designed to shuttle Nordic skiers to the Bonanza Flat Conservation Area. The service was expanded for three years before becoming a permanent offering in the Park City transit system in Summer 2025. Throughout this process, users have requested a Wasatch Front expansion of the program. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 10.Informational: Council Communications Performance Report ~ 5:25 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing on the July – December 2025 Communications Performance Report, including performance data across websites, email and social media channels. The presentation will review progress toward increasing public awareness, strengthening engagement and improving accessibility, and will discuss strategic planning efforts moving forward. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 11.Board Appointment: Planning Commission – Anna Sullivan ~ 5:45 p.m. 5 min. The Council will interview Anna Sullivan, resident of District 1, prior to considering appointment to the Planning Commission for a term ending February 17, 2030. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Standing Items 12.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair - - Report of the Chair and Vice Chair 13.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. 14.Tentative Closed Meeting - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into closed meeting. A closed meeting described under Utah Code Annotated (UCA) Section §52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to discussing: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual. b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining. c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation. d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration, or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms. e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration, or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms. (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale, and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale. f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems. g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on _____________________, the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. KEITH REYNOLDS SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slc.gov, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 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:February 17, 2026 RE: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment at Approximately 2111 South 1300 East (Sugar House Hotel) PLNPCM2025-00622/PLNPCM2025-00624 ISSUE AT A GLANCE The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the future land use and zoning maps for an approximately 0.83-acre privately owned parcel at 2111 South 1300 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 7-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council with the following conditions to which the applicant is amenable: Community benefits (outlined below) Installation of Sugar House gateway signage on 1300 East Enhanced active ground floor uses. Item Schedule: Page | 2 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 Area zoning map showing the subject parcel. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 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.) o Public access to paid underground parking. Page | 3 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 party. 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. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Consideration 1 – How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals and Policies Identified in Adopted Plans. Consideration 2 – Review of MU-8 Zoning District and its Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Consideration 3 – Department Reviews Page | 4 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 90 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 1300 East allows buildings up to 150 feet tall. This image shows a view of existing buildings that are ~50-60 feet tall. New construction west of the subject property would allow significantly taller buildings. Page | 5 View to the west from Sugar House Park showing existing buildings on the west side of 1300 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 21oo 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 1300 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 REGULATION MU-3 (existing)MU-8 (proposed) Building Height 35 feet (up to 40 feet with design review). 75 feet (up to 90 feet with design review). Lot Width 110 feet maximum No minimum or maximum Page | 6 Front/Corner Side Yard Setback 5 feet No minimum Maximum 10 feet Interior Side Yard Setback No minimum No minimum Rear Setback No minimum No minimum Parking Context Neighborhood Context Varies, the parking context will be determined by the property’s distance to Trax and FrontRunner Open Space 10%, 20% of which shall include vegetation 10%, 20% of which shall include vegetation Sidewalk Width 8 feet 10 feet CURRENT AND PROPOSED DESIGN STANDARDS REGULATION MU-3 (existing)MU-8 (proposed) Ground Floor Use %75%, enhanced active ground floor use required on 2100 South 75% Durable Building Materials: ground floor At least 70% of street-facing façades must be clad in durable materials (excluding doors and windows). At least 70% of street-facing façades must be clad in durable materials (excluding doors and windows). Building Materials: upper floors At least 70% of street-facing façades must be clad in durable materials (excluding doors and windows). At least 70% of street-facing façades must be clad in durable materials (excluding doors and windows). Glass: ground floor 40%40% Glass: upper floors 15%15% Reflective Glass 0%0% Building Entrances -Spaces between entries cannot exceed 40 feet. Blank Wall Maximum Length 15 feet 30 feet Street Facing Façade Maximum Length 110 feet 200 feet Upper Floor Step Back – Upper-Level Front -X Lighting: Exterior X X Lighting: Parking lot X X Screening of Mechanical Equipment X X Page | 7 Screening of Service Areas X X Parking Garages or Structures X X Public Improvements 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 Factor Finding 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. Generally complies Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Generally complies 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. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Coordination with and approvals from City/County/State will ensure compliance 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. Some utility and drainage systems may need upgrades to be funded by developers. Drainage study will be required to preserve water quality. 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. Will require meeting conditions from Engineering and Transportation divisions. Page | 8 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. Complies The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. Complies 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. N/A (no existing housing on property) 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. N/A (no existing businesses on property) The community benefits that would result from the proposed map amendment. Complies (community benefits discussed above) General Plan Amendment Factors Factor Finding Whether the proposal is consistent with citywide policies. Complies Whether the proposal is consistent with the goals, policies, or implementation actions of the general plan, including applicable element plans.. Complies Whether significant change has occurred that warrants the creation of a new plan or an update to an adopted plan. Salt Lake City experienced 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 actions of the plan to be amended have been achieved, are no longer relevant to or capable of Many goals, policies, and implementation actions of the Sugar Page | 9 addressing the current issues or needs of the neighborhood or the city, or are no longer aligned with policies in citywide plans. House plan have been achieved. Expansion of the business district to the site adheres to initiatives in Plan Salt Lake. 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. Planning staff believes the proposed public benefits are proportional to the request. 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. N/A 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. N/A The potential impacts to properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposal. Planning found the 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 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. Some utility and drainage systems may need upgrades to be funded by developers. Drainage study will be required to preserve water quality. The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. Complies Page | 10 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. Public infrastructure and stormwater management will be required under current or proposed zoning. Development impact would generally be comparable, regardless of zoning. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • 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 listserv 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. Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Salt Lake City Council –February 17, 2026 PLNPCM2025-00622 (General Plan Amendment) PLNPCM2025-00624 (Zoning Map Amendment) GENERAL PLAN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS // 2111 S 1300 E REQUESTS DETAILS •Applicant: John Potter with Magnus Commercial Properties (representing the property owner) •Property: .83 acres (36,155 SF) •Current Zoning: MU-3, which allows buildings up to 40’ tall •General Plan: Mixed-Use Low Intensity •Purpose: Developer intends to build a hotel on the site, which is not a permitted use in the MU-3 zone 2100 S 13 0 0 E GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Request to amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan from Mixed-Use Low Intensity to the Business District Mixed-Use – Town Center Scale ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Proposal to rezone the property from MU-3 (Form Based Mixed-Use 3 Subdistrict) to MU-8 (Form Based Mixed-Use 8 Subdistrict) RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission forwarded positive recommendations for both petitions. REQUESTS Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS – SECTION 19.06.070 ZONING AMENDMENTS – SECTION 21A.50.050 This process looks at consistency with adopted planning documents and policies, the purpose of the new land use designation and MU-8 zoning district, compatibility with adjacent properties, potential impacts of the request, and proposed community benefits that would result from the amendment. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning PROPERTY BACKGROUND UTAH STATE PRISON: 1855 - 1951 KUM & GO PROPOSAL: 2023 SIZZLER: 1964 - 2020 GAS STATION: 1942 RESTAURANT: 1950S Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning SUGAR HOUSE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST •Request to expand the Sugar House Business District – Town Center Scale to the east side of 1300 E •Town Center Scale – The highest-density district, designed for mixed-use development near transit, parks, and the retail core •The parcel is the only privately-owned piece of land on the east side of 1300 E •The SH Plan supports expanding the Business District to integrate compatible development along 2100 South •The Plan speaks to expanding the Business District if aligned with design standards that ensure compatibility Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning SUGAR HOUSE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Future Land Use Map Existing ‘mixed-use low intensity’ properties have been rezoned to higher intensity mixed-use zones Zoning Map – Adopted July 2025 2100 S 13 0 0 E Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning MU-8 ZONING DISTRICT PROPOSAL SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST •The MU-8 zone would allow up to 75’ of building height, with buildings up to a maximum of 90’ with Design Review approval •Rezone would permit the “hotel” land use 13 0 0 E Preliminary Building Elevations Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning ZONING COMPARISON MU-3 MU-8 Height: 35’, with buildings up to 40’ approved through the Design Review process Sidewalk Width: 8’ Ground Floor Use: 75% enhanced active uses Hotels are not permitted uses Height: 75’, with buildings up to 90’ through the Design Review process Sidewalk Width: 10’ Ground Floor Use: Any use that is not parking and/or storage Hotels are permitted Setbacks Open Space Area: 10%, 20% vegetation Design Standards in 21A.37 Parking: Neighborhood Center Existing Zone Proposed Zone Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning KEY CONSIDERATIONS Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Proposed Community Benefits Implementation of City Goals & Policies KEY CONSIDERATIONS Compatibility Community Input Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning CITY GOALS & POLICIES PLAN SALT LAKE •Growth •Natural Environment •Beautiful City •Economy SUGAR HOUSE PLAN •Town Center Scale – The highest-density district, designed for mixed-use development near transit, parks, and the retail core •The plan speaks to expanding the business district if aligned with design standards that ensure compatibility •New development should be built close to the sidewalk, include ample landscaping, and achieve “architectural merit through appropriate scale, massing, rhythm, and material…” Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning COMPATIBILITY & IMPACTS •The subject property has had a commercial zoning designation for 80+ years •The surrounding properties include MU-11 (up to 150’ of height), MU-6, MU-3, MU-2, and Sugar House Park •Outside of the business district, the Sugar House community is primarily composed of low-density residential neighborhoods •Transportation has reviewed a traffic study and recommends directing vehicular traffic to 2100 South during peak commute times •Public Utilities will require an analysis of water, sewer, and storm drain demands and capacities and determine any offsite improvement requirements 150’ of building height permitted on the west side of 1300 E 65’ of height permitted (NW corner)40’ of height permitted (NE corner) Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning COMMUNITY INPUT BUILDING HEIGHT & VIEWS •By-right development (up to 40’ in height) would block Wasatch views from the intersection •Future redevelopment of the shopping center (up to 150’ in height) may impact Oquirrh views ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS •Property is within the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay, which has additional regulations •Public Utilities will require a Technical Drainage Study •Approval from Salt Lake County Flood Control and the State Engineer required for construction near The Draw CONGESTION & PARKING •Access to the site is not permitted from within Sugar House Park •Right in/right out onto 1300 E and 2100 S Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning PROPOSED COMMUNITY BENEFIT •Proposal provides “commercial space for local businesses or charitable organizations” and “public infrastructure that expands capacity for future development” - 25% below market rental rates for local businesses - Interest-free tenant improvement financing (up to $430,000) - Free meeting space for community use - Public use of underground parking - New GREENbike station in Sugar House Park (if approved by the Sugar House Park Authority) •The City Council has full discretion on whether the proposal meets adopted policy considerations Proposed GREENbike station within the park Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT •Will include community benefits, as approved by the City Council •If rezoned, staff recommends requiring 75% “enhanced active ground floor uses” on the property (which currently applies under the MU-3 zone). Design standards could be modified by the PC through the Design Review process •The applicant is proposing additional building “gateway” signage that must be included in the DA •The DA runs with the land and must be amended by the City Council if a change is requested Proposed Sugar House “gateway” signage Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning RECOMMENDATION THE PLANNING COMMISSION FORWARDED POSITIVE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Amanda Roman // Urban Designer amanda.roman@slc.gov 801-535-7660 Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning SUGAR HOUSE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ANALYSIS •Substantial city-wide population growth since 2001 •Design standards call for a maximum building height of 4 stories within the Town Center Scale, which does not reflect existing development patterns or development potential •Property has been commercially zoned for 80+ years •MU zoning reflects change in city policies that support mixed-use, form-based development •Proposal meets Plan Salt Lake policies Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning MU-8 ZONING DISTRICT PROPOSAL ANALYSIS •Traffic study indicates that the level of service is “acceptable” •The hotel use does not substantially increase projected traffic volumes •Other corners of the intersection could redevelop with building heights of 40-150 feet •Rezoning to a higher intensity use does not set a new precedent Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning COMPATIBILITY •Under the existing MU zoning, nearly all properties along 2100 South could redevelop with taller buildings and higher intensity uses •The two shopping centers east of 1100 E/Highland Drive are expected to redevelop and have a maximum building height of 150’ •The allowable building height does not impact the single- family neighborhoods to the north 13 0 0 E Zoning map of the Sugar House Business District under the MU zoning Purple Properties: MU-11 zoning district (up to 11 stories of height – yellow boundary allows up to 150’ of height) Green Properties: MU-6 zoning district (up to 6 stories of height) 2100 S 13 0 0 E The Sugar House Hotel Project Salt Lake City • City Council February 17, 2026 About Us Utah-based Project Team o Developer o Operator o Architect 20-Year Local History o Local Office o Wasatch Based 7 Hotel Portfolio •200+ current employees in Northern Utah A Neighborhood Hotel Sugar House-Centric Design & Amenities o 145-room Upscale boutique hotel under the Hilton network o Sugar House influenced design and feel o Mixed use development, including a rooftop restaurant, banquet hall, retail, and more o Designed for travelers searching for a local experience and neighborhood while they visit Salt Lake City Gathering Space Linking City & Park Custom designed to be a linking element, with many proposed interactions and physical connections between the neighborhood,hotel, project amenities, and the park Amenities for guests, visitors, and the local community: A.Roof-top restaurant B.Banquet space (Top Floor) C.Meeting areas D.Lobby café E.Activity center F.Retail spaces G.GREENbike station (on or adjacent to site) H.Underground parking I.24-hour presence Hotel use, a private Business as a Public Hub Sugar House-Centric2100 S F F F 1 3 0 0 E B H G I ED C A Aligned with the ongoing evolution of Sugar House MU 3 to MU 8 Rezone request o Consistent with the overall general plan for Sugar House and Plan Salt Lake initiatives o Supports adjacent Sugar House Business District o Site location is isolated from single family homes and from lower height zoning north of project o Lower height than MU 11 zoning, directly across 1300 East o Area buildings already similar height to request Aligned with the ongoing evolution of Sugar House MU 3 to MU 8 Rezone Request o Complementary use to park and business district. o Hotel use and amenities not possible in MU3 o Identical Mountain view impact versus current zoning Sugar House Hotel Project The Right Fit o Connects the city and Sugar House Park o Zoning enables the hotel: a Private Business as a Public Hub o Local design shares with visitors an authentic SLC experience:neighborhood, nature, and trails o Provides multiple amenities and Community Benefits, due to increase in density o Supports Sugar House businesses, boosting local foot traffic with 150+ guests per night o $25M+ in sales/occ tax benefits over first 10 years o 75+ jobs created, including many over $100k per year o Mixed-use project that fully utilizes, respects, and engages the community worthy of this unique location Questions, Answers & Discussion Salt Lake City • City Council Work Session February 17, 2026 Site Plan 2100 S 1 3 0 0 E RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL PARKING MAIN COFFEEMAIN Hotel Plan Overview Level One 2 1 0 0 S 1300 E Hotel Plan Overview Level Two POOL MEETING ROOMS Hotel Plan Overview Level Three-Six JR SUITE SUITE QUEEN QUEEN KING ADA Hotel Plan Overview Level Seven REPLACE WITH PLAN FROM CURIOSIO BANQUET RESTAURANT PATIOREADING Parking Level P1 Traffic Study Minimal increase in traffic versus empty lot Evening rush hour statistics: o Of the ~2,056 cars that arrive at the hotel turn in on1300 E, ~41 are hotel driven(<2% of total) o Of the ~2,070 cars that arrive at the 1300E/2100 S intersection from the south,~55 are hotel related(~2.7% of total) Compared to existing zoning: The proposed hotel is anticipated to have less of a traffic impact than currently allowed uses on the site due to a lower trip count and offsetting peak hours that exist for a hotel. [Hales Engineering – November 2025] Parking Study o Communication with State and County officials confirm no foreseen impact to the dam o Salt Lake Flood Control – Aaron Murphy, CFM o Asst. State Engineer – Dam Safety/Stream Alterations – Matt Call, PE o Water table well below max excavation (Water at 51 feet) o Far outside of flood zone, as determined by engineers Water & Environmental Concerns Flood Impact Area Zoning & General Plan Amendment MU-8 [with height of 90’-0” ] Consistency with reclassification & rezoning of nearby Mixed Use – Low Intensity areas Compatible with recent adjacent rezone and zoning designation changes, including nearby MU 11 Hotel use with offered community benefits, requires increase in density through zoning change to provide Community Benefits Retail spaces with local business benefits o Discounted rents for at least one retail tenant at 25% below market rent, to local businesses o 0% financing for that local businesses building out the retail spaces Community use space o Schedulable meeting space availability, at no charge, throughout the year to community groups Community Benefits Public Use Parking Garage o Pay-for-use public Parking garage – built in excess capacity for hotel needs GREENBike program o Funding connection to and expansion of green transportation bike system o Location to be at hotel or, with permission, in Sugar House Park Site History o Privately owned commercial use for 80+ years o Previous historic uses include agas station, dry cleaner, and restaurant o Various proposals for uses since the Sizzler including apartments and a gas station o Current site is vacant and in need of revitalization with a project that includes context-specific community benefits The Sugar House Hotel SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 12/17/2025 Date Sent to Council: 12/24/2025 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Roman, Amanda E-mail amanda.roman@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 12/23/2025 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: Kelsey Lindquist, kelsey.lindquist@slc.gov Presenters/Staff Table Amanda Roman, amanda.roman@slc.gov Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? 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 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: 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 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 I-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 21A.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 (Design 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) Planning 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 1 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” 2 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. 3 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 4 ______________________________ 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:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney December 15, 2025 5 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 84°15'00" 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 87°57'24" EAST 51.15 FEET) TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENCY; (3) NORTH 00°01'10"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 0°14'54" WEST 225.07 FEET ALONG SAID SECTION LINE; THENCE SOUTH 84°16'10" 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 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 PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2025-00622 & PLNPCM2025-00624 June 19, 2025 Petition for the zoning map and general plan amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. June 24, 2025 Petitions assigned to Amanda Roman, Urban Designer. July 10, 2025 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. July 11, 2025 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 This page has intentionally been left blank 13 0 0 E A S T 2100 SOUTH DAM IMPACT AREA WORK PROHIBITED IN DAM AREA 2" 1" 0" 654321 654321 E D C B A 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 20 2 5 - 0 4 - 2 3 5 : 2 9 : 5 5 P M AS001 SITE PLAN 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 Zo n i n g A m e n d m e n t - 2 0 2 5 - 0 4 - 2 3 SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L , L L C 24096 LANDSCAPE PLAN DAM OVERLAY UP 5. 0 0 % 9. 8 1 % 10 5 ' - 7 7 / 8 " 10 5 ' - 7 7 / 8 " 1:12 10 7 ' - 1 7 / 8 " 10 7 ' - 1 7 / 8 " 1.35% UP UP SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME QTY TREES Ao Amelanchier alnifolia 'Obelisk' Standing Ovation™ Serviceberry 4 Gd Gleditsia triacanthos inermis 'Draves' Street Keeper® Honey Locust 9 Gd2 Gymnocladus dioicus 'Espresso' Espresso Kentucky Coffeetree 3 Kp Koelreuteria paniculata Golden Rain Tree 4 Mh Malus x 'Hargozam' Harvest Gold® Crab Apple 6 Pg Picea pungens 'Glauca' Blue Colorado Spruce 1 Ps2 Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine 1 SHRUBS Pd Pennisetum alopecuroides 'Desert Plains' Desert Plains Prairie Winds® Fountain Grass 55 Ps Pinus mugo 'Slowmound' Slowmound Mugo Pine 87 VINES Lh Lonicera japonica 'Halliana' Halls Honeysuckle Flowering Vine 5 SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SPACING GROUND COVERS Ag Annuals Mix TBD 6" o.c. Pp Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass PLANT SCHEDULE SITE LEVEL OPEN SPACE SUMMARY TOTAL ON-SITE OPEN SPACE AREA 7,492.6 SQFT TOTAL ON-SITE LANDSCAPE AREA 2,365.5 SQFT TOTAL SITE AREA 34,648 SQFT REFERENCE NOTES SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L 21 1 1 S 1 3 0 0 E , S L C , U T A H 8 4 1 0 6 SI T E P L A N R E V I E W - 2 / 1 3 / 2 0 2 5 DATE REVISION 654321 654321 E D C B A 2" 1" 0" PROJECT NUMBER 24096 KEY PLANKEY PLAN A B C D 05/16/2016 JWS LA501 Planting Plan 0'20'40'10'0'40'80'20'0'60'90'30'0'40'80'20' SITE LEVEL01 UP UP SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME QTY SHRUBS Je Juniperus communis 'Effusa' Effusa Common Juniper 127 PLANT SCHEDULE LEVEL 7 OPEN SPACE SUMMARY TOTAL ON-SITE OPEN SPACE AREA 7,492.6 SQFT TOTAL ON-SITE LANDSCAPE AREA 2,365.5 SQFT TOTAL SITE AREA 34,648 SQFT UPUP SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME QTY TREES Ao Amelanchier alnifolia 'Obelisk' Standing Ovation™ Serviceberry 3 SHRUBS Je Juniperus communis 'Effusa' Effusa Common Juniper 5 Pd Pennisetum alopecuroides 'Desert Plains' Desert Plains Prairie Winds® Fountain Grass 6 Tt Taxus x media 'Tauntonii' Taunton's Anglo-Japanese Yew 8 PLANT SCHEDULE LEVEL 2 0'40'80'20' REFERENCE NOTES SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L 21 1 1 S 1 3 0 0 E , S L C , U T A H 8 4 1 0 6 SI T E P L A N R E V I E W - 2 / 1 3 / 2 0 2 5 DATE REVISION 654321 654321 E D C B A 2" 1" 0" PROJECT NUMBER 24096 KEY PLANKEY PLAN A B C D 05/16/2016 JWS LA502 Planting Plan 0'20'40'10'0'40'80'20'0'60'90'30' LEVEL 2 - AMENITY DECK01 LEVEL 7 - AMENITY DECK02 DN DN UP UP UP UP UP UP -B- -B- 3 3 4 4 7 7 8 8 10 10 C C -D- -D- E E F F G G H H J J K K L L -M- -M- N N -Q- -Q- 5 5 12 12 -9--9- 2 2 A A S S 1 1 -6--6- P P R R GM OFFICE 131 VESTIBULE 114 CAFE 102 VALET STAIR 190 RECEIVING MAIN ENTRANCE SALES 119 VESTIBULE 107 STAIR 1.1 109 ACTIVITY 101 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 127 GRAB N' GO ELEV. E1 ELEV. E2 ELEV. E3 RESTAURANT LOBBY 113 5.50% CMU OFFICE 123A OFFICE 125 SALES 121 OPEN OFFICE 123 IDF/MDF 137 OFFICE 129 RETAIL B 130 LOBBY 104 7.00% 13.44% 13.44% EA S E M E N T 4' - 0 " X 5 ' - 0 " CENTER STAIR S3 7.96% 5.50% R2 R1 EA EB EC ED E1 E2 RA RB RC RD RETAIL A 118 2" 1 " 0 " 654321 654321 E D C B A REFERENCE NOTES DATE REVISION w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com 05 /16/2 016 JW S PROJECT NUMBER 5/ 2 2 / 2 0 2 5 9 : 1 9 : 5 9 A 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 Zo n i n g A m e n d m e n t - 2 0 2 5 - 0 4 - 2 3 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 UP UP UP UP 435 SF JUNIOR SUITE 242 326 SF KING 240 336 SF KING 238 346 SF KING 236 351 SF KING 234 343 SF QQ 228 343 SF QQ 226 343 SF QQ 224 325 SF KING 222 325 SF KING 220 456 SF JUNIOR SUITE 230 325 SF KING 218 320 SF KING 216 ? ? STAIR 1.2 S2 MEETING ROOM #1 201 POOL SPA ROOM #1 243 IDF 231 RR 239 32 Training RR 211 STORAGE 237 AV 205 SPA ROOM #2 245 POOL DECK 270 UTILITY CLOSET 213B VESTIBULE 213A PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 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 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE ELEV. E1 ELEV. E2 ELEV. E3 STORAGE 212 EA S E M E N T 4' - 0 " X 5 ' - 0 " HYDRATION STATION YOGA EQUIPMENT | TOWELS FITNESS CENTER 219 Room Types Legend JUNIOR SUITE KING QQ VEST. (2) / 435-455 SF (8) / 318-351 SF (3) / 342-345 SF 2" 1 " 0 " 654321 654321 E D C B A DATE REVISION w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com 05 /16/2 016 JW S PROJECT NUMBER 5/ 2 2 / 2 0 2 5 8 : 4 4 : 3 6 A M AP102 PRESENTATION FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 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 Zo n i n g A m e n d m e n t - 2 0 2 5 - 0 4 - 2 3 SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L , L L C 24096 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A1 PRESENTATION LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN UP UP UP VEST. 346 746 SF SUITE 344 330 SF KING 338 309 SF KING 339 309 SF KING 341 320 SF KING ADA 343 348 SF QQ 340 S1 NORTH STAIR 347 SF KING 336 353 SF KING 334 ELEC 331 IDF 329 313 SF KING 337 356 SF QQ 326 356 SF QQ 324 BOH 323 349 SF QQ 306 341 SF KING 308 425 SF KING 302 387 SF JUNIOR SUITE 305 387 SF JUNIOR SUITE 307 388 SF JUNIOR SUITE 309 388 SF JUNIOR SUITE 311 680 SF SUITE 303 S2 SOUTH STAIR 407 SF JUNIOR SUITE 319 363 SF QQ 321 310 SF KING 322 310 SF KING 320 310 SF KING 318 309 SF KING 316 335 SF KING 314 ELEVATOR LOBBY 313416 SF JUNIOR SUITE 317 371 SF QQ ADA 342 ROOF BELOW PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 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 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE ELEV. E1 ELEV. E2 ELEV. E3 CORRIDOR 310 EA S E M E N T 4' - 0 " X 5 ' - 0 " 335 SF KING 304 344 SF QQ 312 Room Types Legend JUNIOR SUITE KING KING ADA QQ QQ ADA SUITE VALET STAIRS #2 VEST. 357 SF QQ 328 464 SF JUNIOR SUITE 330 714 SF SUITE 345 (7) / 388-464 SF (15) / 309-424 SF (8) / 344-371 SF (3) / 680-746 SF 2" 1 " 0 " 654321 654321 E D C B A REFERENCE NOTES DATE REVISION w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com 05 /16/2 016 JW S PROJECT NUMBER 5/ 2 2 / 2 0 2 5 8 : 4 4 : 4 3 A M AP103 PRESENTATION FLOOR PLAN - LEVELS 3-6 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 Zo n i n g A m e n d m e n t - 2 0 2 5 - 0 4 - 2 3 SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L , L L C 24096 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A1 LEVELS 3-6 FLOOR PLAN UP UP -B- -B- 3 3 4 4 7 7 8 8 10 10 C C -D- -D- E E F F G G H H J J K K L L -M- -M- N N -Q- -Q- 5 5 12 12 -9--9- 2 2 A A S S 1 1 -6--6- P P R R STORAGE 716 FURNITURE STORAGE 730 ELECTRICAL 723 N STAIR S2 S STAIR S2 CIRCULATION 734 LIBRARY 721 RESTAURANT 707 8 Dining 3 Counter 3 Lounge 84 Dining 132 Seats UNISEX RR 717 ROOF-TOP TERRACE 701 20 Dining 4 Lounge LOUNGE 706 ELEVATOR LOBBY 713 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 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 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE ELEV. E1 ELEV. E2 ELEV. E3 EA S E M E N T 4' - 0 " X 5 ' - 0 " CUSTODIAL 725 REST ROOM 727 BANQUET 750 PRE-FUNCTION 740 LINEN 733 ROOM SERVICE 732 KITCHEN 720 KITCHEN OFFICE 722 DRY STORAGE 728 FREEZER 726 COOLER 724 JANITOR 714 2" 1 " 0 " 654321 654321 E D C B A DATE REVISION w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com w ww .f fkr . com 05 /16/2 016 JW S PROJECT NUMBER 5/ 2 2 / 2 0 2 5 8 : 4 4 : 5 4 A M AP107 PRESENTATION FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 7 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 Zo n i n g A m e n d m e n t - 2 0 2 5 - 0 4 - 2 3 SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L , L L C 24096 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A1 PRESENTATION LEVEL 7 FLOOR PLAN BENCHMARK ENGINEERING CONTACT: ALLISON G. ALBERT, PE DESIGN: TJB CHECK: MCP DATE: 12/17/2024 DRAFT AD DESCRIPTIONDATENo. PRELIMINARY CIVIL PLANS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 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 DATE: XX/XX/2024 DATE: XX/XX/2024 SUGAR HOUSE HOTEL DRAWING INDEX 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 OWNER/DEVELOPER: RON WITZEL SUGAR HOUSE HOTEL, LLC 4700 S HIGHLAND DRIVE, SUITE B MILLCREEK, UT 84117 801.860.9644 ron@rdwitzelconstruction.com VICINITY MAP N.T.S SITE COVER 9138 SOUTH STATE STREET SUITE # 100 SANDY, UTAH 84070 (801) 542-7192 www.benchmarkcivil.com BENCHMARK ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING 1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 020 20 40 20 10 NORTH PROJECT NO.2409146 OF 11 1 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 2111 SOUTH 1300 EAST SUGAR HOUSE HOTEL 13 0 0 E A S T (P U B L I C S T R E E T ) 2100 SOUTH (PUBLIC STREET) LI N C O L N S T 10 0 0 E 11 0 0 E MC C L E L L A N D S T WILLMINGTON AVE SIMPSON AVE 12 0 0 E DO U G L A S S T VI E W S T 14 0 0 E WESTMINSTER AVE 2100 S I-80 17 0 0 E CAUTION NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS 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. 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 SYMBOLS: NEW EXISTING LINETYPES: 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. X 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 X W H Y D W CATVCATV UGUG OHPOHP IRRIRR WW SDSD SSSS T GAS T GAS ** GENERAL 1. ALL MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY. 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 UTILITES 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. 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. 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 Ø LATERALS AND EVERY 100 L.F. FOR 6 INCH Ø 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 10' 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 C0MPACTION 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. FO FO VERTICAL POINT OF TANGENCY WM WV WATER VALVE WATER METER VPT TOG TOA TBC TMH TR TOP OF GRATE TOP OF ASPHALT TOP BACK OF CURB TELEPHONE MANHOLE TELEPHONE RISER ROW L BC MH SD EOC RR GW HW EOA CB FH FL R/W SSMH STORM DRAIN SEWER MANHOLE RIGHT-OF-WAY FIRE HYDRANT LIP OF CURB MANHOLE HEAD WALL RAILROAD GUY WIRE FLOW LINE EDGE OF CONCRETE CATCH BASIN EDGE OF ASPHALT BAR & CAP OHP RIGHT-OF-WAY OVERHEAD POWER TOW TOF UGP R TOP OF WALL TOP OF FOOTING UNDERGROUND POWER LP D GB LOW POINT LENGTH OF CURVE GRADE BREAK DELTA ANGLE RADIUS OF CURVE TOP TOP OF SLOPE TOC TOP OF CONCRETE I.E.INVERT ELEVATION TOE TOE OF SLOPE FFE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION VPI VERTICAL POINT OF VPC VERTICAL POINT OF PVI POINT OF INTERSECTION PVC PVT POINT OF CURVATURE POINT OF TANGENCY PP POWER POLE INTERSECTION CURVATURE SECTION CORNERCOR. MONUMENT TO MONUMENTM-M SURVEY MONUMENTMON. LIP ABBREVIATIONS PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT EX EXISTING TOC XX.XX CF CUBIC FEET LF LINEAR FEET SF SQUARE FEET CGN.01 GEN. NOTES LEGEND & ABBREV. 2 BOTTOM OF VISIBLE WALLBOW EXISTING GROUNDEG FG FINISHED GRADE 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ S I T E DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L CONSTRUCTION NOTES RESPONSIBLE DISTRICTS OR AGENCIES AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS CITY OR COUNTY- SALT LAKE CITY WATER UTILITY COMPANY- SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITES SEWER- SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITES STORM DRAIN/GROUNDWATER- SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITES ELECTRICAL- ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER TELEPHONE- CENTURY LINK NATURAL GAS- ENBRIDGE GAS UTAH APPLICABLE STANDARDS: APWA 2017 STANDARDS SCO SEWER CLEANOUT FIBER OPTIC PULL BOX FIBER OPTIC MANHOLE FIBER OPTIC CABINET FIBER OPTIC RISER TRAFFIC VAULT / PULL BOX TRAFFIC CABINET TRAFFIC SIGNAL 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 PROVDE 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. 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 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 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 M11 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 CGN.02 SALT LAKE CITY GENERAL NOTES 3 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ S I T E DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P UG P UG P UG P UG P UG P UG P UG P UGP UGP UGP GA S GA S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W OH P OH P OH P OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP EX. SIGN SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH EX. SDMH RIM = 4416.06 INV IN 24"RCP(S) = 4408.96 INV OUT 24"RCP(E) = 4408.86 EX. SDMH RIM = 4415.12 INV IN 12"RCP(N) = 4412.72 EX. SDMH RIM = 4417.47 (COULD NOT OPEN EX. SDMH RIM = 4419.37 (COULD NOT OPEN) EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4421.14 (FULL OF DEBRIS) EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4415.83 INV IN 6"PVC(E) = 4414.63 INV OUT 12"RCP(W) = 4414.48 EX. SDMH RIM = 4419.10 (COULD NOT OPEN) 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 EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4415.36 INV OUT 12"CPP(E) = 4413.01 EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4415.07 INV OUT 12"RCP(E) = 4411.57 FO EX. SDMH RIM = 4416.92 INV IN 12"RCP(SE) = 4413.62 INV IN 30"RCP(N) = 4408.92 BOTTOM OF BOX = 4408.72 EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4420.25 INV IN 6"PVC(W) = 4417.75 INV OUT 6"PVC(N) = 4417.45 EX. SSMH RIM = 4416.05 INV OUT (N) = 4408 25 EX. SDMH RIM = 4415.69 (COULD NOT OPEN) EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4418.65 INV OUT (W) 15"RCP= 4415.95 (SOUTH FULL OF DEBRIS) EX. SSMH 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) = 4405.02EX. SDMH RIM = 4415.66 INV IN 24"RCP(N) = 4408.76 INV OUT 24"RCP(S) = 4408.76 EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4418.78 (COULD NOT OPEN) EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4417 INV OUT 18"RCP(W) = 4411.6 EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4414.67 INV OUT 18"RCP(S) = 4410.67 EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4414.97 INV IN (W) = 4406.47 INV IN 18"RCP(N) = 4406.77 INV OUT (E) = 4406.37 CDP.01 DEMO PLAN 4 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ S I T E DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L 1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 020 20 40 20 10 NORTH EX. 24" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN EX. 24" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN (PROTECT) EX. 24" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN EX. 30" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (PROTECT) (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (REMOVE) (PROTECT) EX. UNDERGROUND POWER (CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH RMP TO REMOVE OR REUSE) EX. CONCRETE JERSEY BARRIER (REMOVE) (PROTECT) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. GAS LINE (REMOVE) EX. GAS LINE (COORDINATE EMBRIGE GAS UTAH TO REMOVE) EX. GAS LINE (PROTECT) EX. WATER MAIN (PROTECT) EX. OVERHEAD POWER LINE (COORDINATE WITH RMP TO REMOVE) EX. POWER POLE & GUY WIRES (COORDINATE WITH RMP TO REMOVE) (REMOVE) EX. COMMERCIAL SIGN (REMOVE) EX. CURB WALL (REMOVE) EX. STRIPING (REMOVE) EX. STRIPING (REMOVE) EX. CURB WALL (REMOVE) EX. DRIVE APPROACH (SAWCUT & REBUILD CURB & GUTTER AS NEEDED) EX. 12" RCP SEWER MAIN (PROTECT) EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE (PROTECT) EX. 8" RCP SEWER MAIN (PROTECT) EX. WATER SERVICE LINE (KILL AT MAIN) EX. CONCRETE JERSEY BARRIER (REMOVE) EX. DRIVE APPROACH (SAWCUT & REBUILD CURB & GUTTER AS NEEDED) EX. DRIVE APPROACH (SAWCUT & REBUILD CURB & GUTTER & PARK STRIP) EX. POWER POLE & GUY WIRE (PROTECT) EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE (REMOVE UP TO PL) EX. CURB WALL (REMOVE) EX. POWER POLE (PROTECT) EX. CURB WALL (REMOVE) EX. CONCRETE JERSEY BARRIER (REMOVE) EX. CURB WALL (REMOVE) EX. LIGHT POLE (REMOVE) EX. STRIPING (REMOVE) EX. ASPHALT PARKING (REMOVE) EX. 12" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN (PROTECT) EX. POWER POLE (PROTECT) EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE (PROTECT) EX. TRAFFIC LIGHT (PROTECT) EX. WATER METER (PROTECT) EX. GAS LINE (PROTECT) EX. GAS METER (REMOVE) EX. GAS LINE (REMOVE) EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE (CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH PROVIDER TO ROUTE AROUND NEW BLDG) EX. SD PIPE (REMOVE) EX. SD PIPE (REMOVE) CSP.01 SITE PLAN 5 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. CONSTRUCTION KEY NOTE REFERENCE NO.DESCRIPITON DETAIL 1 ASPHALT PAVEMENT WITH GRANULAR BASE 1A/CDT.01 2 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER PER APWA #205 TYPE 'A' 5 SIDEWALK PER APWA #231 4 DRIVE APPROACH PER APWA #222 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ S I T E DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L AREA TABLE PARTICULARS S.F.% BUILDING 17,360 50.1 HARDSCAPE 15,340 44.3 LANDSCAPE 1,942 5.6 TOTAL 34,642 100.0 NOTE: ALL WORK WITHIN PUBLIC ROADS TO BE DONE IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH SLC STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS 1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 020 20 40 20 10 NORTH 16-2 0 - 2 2 9 - 0 6 9 16-2 0 - 2 3 0 - 0 0 4 ENT # 1 3 9 5 4 0 3 7 16-2 1 - 1 0 1 - 0 0 5 ENT # 1 1 9 9 8 1 5 6 16-2 1 - 1 0 1 - 0 0 5 ENT # 1 1 9 9 8 1 5 6 R41 . 5 ' NEW BUILDING 17,360 S.F. EX. CONCRETE SIDEWALK (PROTECT) EX. CONCRETE SIDEWALK (PROTECT) EX. ADA RAMP (PROTECT) EX. TRAFFIC LIGHT (PROTECT) EX. CURB & GUTTER (PROTECT) EX. CURB & GUTTER (PROTECT) EX. CONCRETE SIDEWALK (PROTECT) EX. CURB & GUTTER (PROTECT) 4 STEPS 1 6 6 CONCRETE PAVEMENT WITH GRANULAR BASE 1B/CDT.01 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 5 5 2 5 6 5 5 3 7 8 4' WATERWAY PER APWA #211 8 EX. STONE FENCE (REMOVE) 13 0 0 E A S T (P U B L I C S T R E E T ) 2100 SOUTH (PUBLIC STREET) 9 SAWCUT PER SLC STDS* 9 9 9 9 19 3 . 8 ' 121.8' 4. 5 ' 24.7' 25.2' 56 . 6 ' 26.0' 3. 5 ' 54 . 7 ' 6. 4 ' 48 . 6 ' 67.9' 6.0' 6.0' 25 . 5 ' 7. 0 ' 5. 1 ' 7.7' 6.2' 5.3' 4.1' 5.0' 6. 0 ' 8. 0 ' 5.4' 19 7 . 6 ' R30 . 0 ' 24 . 0 ' 14.4' 20.6' 22.3' 124.3' 53.3' 25.4' 24.7' 30.0' 8.0' 54 . 8 ' 2. 2 ' 14.0' 39 . 2 ' 4.0' 4.8' 4. 8 ' 2.0' 29.4' 6. 5 ' 9. 2 ' 1.5' 16 . 6 ' 9. 2 ' 6. 5 ' 1.5' 2.5' 57 . 3 ' 41.1' 15 . 9 ' 5. 3 ' 72 . 8 ' 25 . 3 ' 32 . 0 ' 4.0' 1.0' R23.0 ' R15 . 0 ' 8 9. 0 ' NEW HANDRAIL (DESIGN BY OTHERS) 1 1 6 3 STAMPED CONCRETE PAVEMENT WITH GRANULAR BASE (PER ARCH.)1B/CDT.01 7 BRICK PAVERS PER ARCHITECT 3 WATER FEATURE (DESIGN BY OTHERS) 6.0' 7WALKWAY TO SUGARHOUSE PARK REPLACE PARK STRIP WITH CONCRETE WALKWAY (TYP) 5 REPLACE PARK STRIP WITH CONCRETE WALKWAY (TYP) 5 9 9 12 ADA ACCESSIBLE RAMP 1/CDT.02 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10.0' 5 5 *SAWCUT AND REPLACE ASPHALT 1' OFF LIP OF GUTTER WHERE REMOVING CURB & GUTTER 10 TREE PLANTER W/ GRATE PER SLC URBAN FORESTRY 11 11 2.5' 3. 2 ' 4.0' 7.3' 11 ROCK OR BLOCK RETAINING WALL (DESIGN BY OTHERS) 12 W SS SS SS SS W S SS SS SCO SCO W W W W W W W W W W WW DYHW SS SS SS SS W S SS SS SCO SCO W W W W W W W W W W WW DYH GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SS SS SS SS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD W W W W W W W W W W W W W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W OHP OHP OHP EX. SSMH RIM = 4416.05 INV OUT (N) = 4408 25 EX. SSMH 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 DDD SD SD 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. CUP.01 UTILITY PLAN 6 CONSTRUCTION KEY NOTE REFERENCE NO.DESCRIPITON DETAIL 1 GATE VALVE PER SLCPU STDS. 2 4" TYPE K COPPER WATER SERVICE LINE 3 4" WATER METER & VAULT PER APWA #523 4 4" POLY WATER SERVICE LINE 5 6" PVC C-900 FIRELINE 6 FIRE HYDRANT PER APWA #511 7 THRUST BLOCK PER APWA #561 8 4" PVC SDR-35 SEWER LATERAL @ 2.0% MIN SLOPE PER APWA #431 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ S I T E DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L 1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 020 20 40 20 10 NORTH EX. 24" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN EX. 24" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN (PROTECT) EX. 24" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN EX. 30" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN EX. GAS LINE (PROTECT) EX. WATER MAIN (PROTECT)EX. 12" RCP SEWER MAIN (PROTECT) EX. WATER SERVICE LINE (KILL AT MAIN) EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE (CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH PROVIDER TO ROUTE AROUND NEW BLDG) EX. POWER POLE (PROTECT) EX. 12" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN (PROTECT) EX. POWER POLE (PROTECT) EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE (PROTECT) EX. WATER METER (REMOVE) EX. GAS LINE (PROTECT) EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE (PROTECT) FFE=4418.50 128. 8 ' 105.4' 85 L.F. @ 4.8% 23 L.F. @ 5.2% 19 L.F. @ 2.0% 2 L.F. @ 2.0% EX. WATER LATERAL (KILL AT MAIN) IE: 4413.50 NEW GREASE TRAP RIM:4416.50 IE (E):4413.12 IE (W):4412.87 NEW SAMPLING MANHOLE RIM: 4415.95 IE (E):4412.83 IE (W):4412.50 (PROTECT) INV (NEW NE) = 4408.45 NOTE A: 12" OF VERTICAL SEPARATION REQUIRED BETWEEN STORM AND WATER LINES. LOOP WATER MAIN IF IN CONFLICT. NOTE B: 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. A B C A B C 32.5' 1 2 2 3 4 5 5 FIRE RISER ROOM 5 6 7 7 11 1500 GAL SEWER GREASE TRAP PER APWA #441 8 8 9 9 10 10 12 SAMPLING MANHOLE PER APWA #341.2 11 12 9 6" PVC SDR-35 SEWER LATERAL @ 1.0% MIN SLOPE PER APWA #431 10 SEWER CLEANOUT PER APWA #431 TRANSFORMER ACCESS EX. SEWER MAIN (PROTECT) DEMAND CULINARY WATER SEWER 200 GPM 237 GPM FIRE SPRINKLER XXX GPM FIRE FLOW XXX GPM 7. 3 '10.3' 7 GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 44 1 5 4415 44 2 0 44 2 0 442 0 44 2 5 4425 4425 4414 4414 441 4 44 1 6 44 1 6 4416 44 1 6 44 1 6 44 1 7 44 1 7 441 7 44 1 7 4417 44 1 8 44 1 8 4418 44 1 9 44 1 9 441 9 44 2 1 44 2 1 442 1 44 2 2 44 2 2 442 2 44 2 3 44 2 3 442 3 44 2 4 442 4 4424 44 2 6 44 2 6 442 6 44 2 7 44 2 7 44 2 7 44 2 7 442 7 44 2 8 44 2 8 44 2 9 4410 4415 4411 4412 4413 4414 4416 441 6 441 7 4417 4418 4418 4419 4419 23.16 TOC 23.16 TOC19.56 TOC 19.56 TOC17.85± TOC MATCH EX. 17.79± TOC MATCH EX. 18.50 TOC 17.68± TOC MATCH EX. 17.60± TOC MATCH EX. 18.50 TOC 24.66 TOA 24.66 TOA 23.16 TOA 23.16 TOA 23.16 TOA 23.16 TOA 18.99 TOC 18.48 TOC 18.50 TOC 18.50 TOC 23.16 TOA 18.74 TOC17.69 TOC 18.50 TOC 18.50 TOC 18.47 TOC 18.47 TOC 16.47 FG 17.91 TOC 16.48± TOC MATCH EX. 16.39± TOC MATCH EX. 18.37 TBC 18.34 TBC 18.37 TBC 17.56 TOC17.78 TBC 16.25 TBC-TAPER 15.64± TOC MATCH EX. 16.28 TBC-TAPER 15.72± TOC MATCH EX. 18.54 TBC 19.75 TBC 16.28 EG 19.12 EG 19.75 EG 20.93 EG 27.00 EG 26.77 EG 26.99 EG 20.18 TBC 20.55 TBC 23.26 BOW 24.76 TBC 25.02± TOC MATCH EX.25.84± TOC MATCH EX. 4418.50 FFE 17.56 TOC 18.50 TOC 17.46 FL 17.84 TOC 17.84 TOC 17.74 FL DDD SD NEW OIL/WATER SEPARATOR (#404) RIM:4416.64 IE (SE):4413.70 NEW SDIB (#401) TBC:4417.46 IE (N):4413.76 IE (NW):4413.76 NEW SDIB (#402) TBC:4416.89 IE (S):4413.89 NEW 3'X3' CATCH BASIN (#405) RIM:4415.97 IE (SW):4407.00 EX. SDIB (#406) TBC:4414.97 IE (NE):4406.77 IE (W):4406.47 IE (E):4406.37 12" Ø HDPE SD PIPE 26 L.F. @ 0.50% SLOPE 12" Ø HDPE SD PIPE 12 L.F. @ 0.50% SLOPE 15" Ø RCP CLASS III - SD 23 L.F. @ 1.00% SLOPE 17.89 TOC 17.95 TOC 18.41 TOC 18.41 TOC 21.00 EG 21.00 FG 25.66 EG 25.66 FG 27.06 EG 27.06 FG 27.17 EG 27.17 FG 21.80 FG 26.99 TOW 24.76 BOW 26.77 TOW 23.26 TBC 25.87 TOW 25.87 BOW 22.79 TOW 22.79 BOW 22.79 TBC 19.46 TOC 19.46 TOC 23.16 TOC 23.16 TOC 23.07 TOC 23.06 TOC23.06 TOC 23.06 TOC 20 16 17 18 1916 15 14 16 17 18 25 21 22 23 24 25 21 22 23 24 26 27 20 21 22 17 18 2524 16.27 EG 16.48 FG 19.89 TOC 18.87 EG 24.66 TOC 24.89 EG 17.77 FL 17.15 TOC -5 . 0 % -4 . 3 % -6 . 7 % -7 . 4 % -2.4% -6 . 3 % -4. 5 % -4.6% -4.3% -4.6% -1.0% -1.6% -2.8% -1.9% -1.9% -2.7% -5.4 % -5 . 0 % -4. 3 %-4.0 %-3.1 % -0 . 5 % -0 . 5 % -2.4% -4.1% -4.3% -2.6% -4.1% -25 . 5 % -31.2 % -26.0% -2.9% -0 . 5 % -3 . 8 % -2 . 3 % -6 . 2 % -3 . 8 % -0 . 5 % -2.2% -7 . 7 % -4.3% BENCHMARK: STREET MONUMENT AT 2100 SOUTH AND DOUGLAS AVENUE. NAVD88 ELEVATION = 4401.32' 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. CGD.01 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN 7 GRADING AND DRAINAGE KEY NOTE REFERENCE NO.DESCRIPITON DETAIL 1 GRADE SITE TO ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON PLAN 2 12" DIAMETER HDPE ADS N-12 STORM DRAIN LINE 3 STORM DRAIN INLET BOX 3/CDT.01 4 3'X3' CATCH BASIN 2/CDT.01 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ C G D . 0 1 DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L ALL HDPE/RCP CLASS III PIPE TO HAVE SOIL TIGHT JOINTS 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. 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. 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. 1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 020 20 40 20 10 NORTH UNDERGROUND CONCRETE STORM WATER STORAGE SYSTEM VOLUME:3800 C.F. (SEE MECHANICAL PLANS FOR DETAILS INCLUDING CONNECTIONS AND EJECTION PUMP) RAMP TO LOWER PARKING GARAGE (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR ELEVATIONS AND CONTINUATION) (SEE MECHANICAL PLANS FOR CONNECTION AND CONTINUATION) NOTE: STORM WATER TO ENTER CATCH BASIN FROM UNDERGROUND STORAGE SYSTEM VIA EJECTOR PUMP, SEE MECHANICAL PLANS FOR DETAILS. A A 4 STEPS (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DETAILS) 6 15" DIAMETER RCP-CLASS III STORM DRAIN LINE 5 OIL-WATER SEPARATOR (OLDCASTLE OR EQUAL) 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 CONTRACTOR TO SAWCUT AND REPLACE CONCRETE AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE 5'X5' CONCRETE PAD OUTSIDE DOORS COMPLIANT WITH ADA STANDARDS 4416 4424 4418 441 9 442 0 442 1 442 2 442 3 4425 442 6 44 2 7 44 2 4 44 2 3 44 2 5 44 2 2 44 2 1 44 2 0 44 1 9 44 1 8 44 1 7 44 1 6 441 4 44 1 7 44 1 9 44 2 0 44 2 1 44 2 2 44 2 3 4424 44 1 6 44 1 7 44 1 7 44 1 6 DDD SD SD CEP.01 EROSION CONTROL PLAN 8 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. SWPPP KEY NOTES REFERENCE NO.DESCRIPTION DETAIL PROVIDE, INSTALL AND/OR CONSTRUCT THE FOLLOWING PER THE SPECIFICATIONS GIVEN OR REFERENCED AND THE DETAILS NOTED AND AS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. 1 CONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENT 1/CEP.02 3 MATERIALS STORAGE 3/CEP.02 4 PORTABLE TOILETS 4/CEP.02 5 SILT FENCE 6/CEP.02 2 INLET PROTECTION WATTLE 2/CEP.02 6 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 7/CEP.02 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ S I T E DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L 1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 020 20 40 20 10 NORTH 3 1 2 2 6 4 X XXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 SWPPP INFORMATION DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCATION OF THE SWPPP DOCUMENTATION (BINDER AND SITE MAPS) ON THE SITE. 4' (MINIMUM) 4' ( M I N U M U M ) "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.) COPY OF PROJECT NOI COPY OF GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOI TRANSFER FORM OR CO-PERMITEE FORM COPY OF PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SITE NOTICE COPY OF PROJECT PERMIT AUTHORIZATION COPY OF GENERAL CONTRACTOR PERMIT AUTHORIZATION COPY OF STATE SUPPLIED CONSTRUCTION SITE NOTICE 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. 3' M I N . 3' M I N . C 1994 JOHN McCULLAH NOT TO SCALE INSTALLATION WITHOUT TRENCHING NOTES: 1. SILT FENCE SHALL BE PLACED ON SLOPE CONTOURS TO MAXIMIZE PONDING EFFICIENCY. 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. TRENCH DETAIL FLOW STEEL OR WOOD POST 36" (1m) HIGH MAX. EXTRA STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC NEEDED WITHOUT WIRE MESH SUPPORT STEEL OR WOOD POSTATTACH FILTER FABRIC SECURELY TO UPSTREAM SIDE OF POST FLOW 10' (3m) MAXIMUM SPACING WITH WIRE SUPPORT FENCE 6' (1.8m) MAXIMUM SPACING WITHOUT WIRE SUPPORT FENCE 3/4" (20mm) MIN. DRAIN ROCK 8" (2 0 0 m m ) FLOW 12 " M I N . (3 0 0 m m ) PONDING HEIGHT PONDING HEIGHT 4"x6" (100 X 150mm) TRENCH WITH COMPACTED BACKFILL 9" M A X . (2 2 5 m m ) ST O R A G E H T . 12 " M I N . (3 0 0 m m ) REF: FROM C 1994 JOHN McCULLAH REF: FROM FL O W FL O W FLOW PLAN FLOW SECTION A - A 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. DIVERSION RIDGE REQUIRED WHERE GRADE EXCEEDS 2% ROADWAY FILTER FABRIC 2% OR GREATER RO A D W A Y NOTE: USE SANDBAGS, STRAW BALES OR OTHER APPROVED METHODS TO CHANNELIZE RUNOFF TO BASIN AS REQUIRED. SPILLWAYSTRAW BALES, SANDBAGS, OR CONTINUOUS BERM OF EQUIVALENT HEIGHT SUPPLY WATER TO WASH WHEELS IF NECESSARY 20' ( 6 m ) R 2"-3" (50-75mm) COURSE AGGREGATE MIN. 6" (150mm) THICK 12 ' M I N . (3 6 m ) DIVERSION RIDGE 50' (15m) MIN. AA C 1994 JOHN McCULLAH REF: FROM SCALE:NTS 2INLET PROTECTION WATTLE SCALE:NTS 6SILT FENCE SCALE:NTS 7CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT TEMPORARY GRAVEL SCALE:NTS 1CONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENT SCALE:NTS 3MATERIALS STORAGE SCALE:NTS 4PORTABLE TOILETS SCALE:NTS 5SPILL CLEAN UP SCALE:NTS 8SWPPP INFORMATION SIGN CEP.02 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS 9 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ S I T E DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L 3" 9" NOTE: 1. FOR REINFORCEMENT DESIGN OF PCC PAVEMENT SECTIONS SEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 2. FOR DOWEL DESIGN OF PCC PAVEMENT SECTIONS SEE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. ASPHALT PAVEMENT 5' M A X . 12 " 6" 3'-0" 2'-0"6"6" 6" 3'-11 12" 6"2'-11 12"6" 6" 1 12" 3" CONSTRUCTION JOINT (TYP) (2) #4 x 18" (TYP) DIRECTION OF GUTTER FLOW DROP FLOWLINE PER NOTE 6 FRAME AND GRATE SEE PLAN SD-12 BEGIN WARP TOP OF CURB INVERT OF GUTTER BOTTOM OF CURB #4 REBAR (TYP) SEE NOTE 3 CONCRETE SEE NOTE 4 BACKFILL ALL SIDES SEE NOTE 2 SELECT FILL SEE NOTE 1 & 2 45 °45 ° #4 REBAR SOTH SIDES SEE NOTE 3 12" 8" BEGIN WARP C B C B A A SECTION B-B SECTION C-CSECTION A-A TYPE A - CURB INLET WITH SINGLE GRATE #4 @ 12" O.C. EACH WAY SEE NOTE 3 CURB FACE OPENING SEE NOTE 6 GROUND SURFACE 1. SELECT FILL: USE UNTREATED BASE COARSE GRADE 1 OR GRADE 3 4 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. SCALE:NTS 1PAVEMENT SECTIONS SCALE:NTS 3CURB INLET W/ SINGLE GRATE CDT.01 DETAIL SHEET 10 COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE ASPHALT 6" 5" CONCRETE PAVEMENT COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE CONCRETE 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ S I T E DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L B A UV446R UV445R UV444R UV443R UV442R UV441R 6' 5' 4' 3' 2' 1' RISER CODEHEIGHT CODEHEIGHT VAULT CB446 CB445 CB444 6' 5' 4' CB4433' HEIGHT 4" 6" CODE GR304 GR306 180# 270# WEIGHT 2,700# 8,100# 4,050# 5,400# 6,750# WEIGHT 1,350# WEIGHT 7,275# 5,925# 4,575# 3,225# 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. RING & GRATE RC30RG WT. 405# GRADE RING SCALE:NTS 23'x3' CATCH BASIN 3'x3' CATCH BASIN 4'-0"4'-0" 3'-0" RI S E R H E I G H T VA U L T H E I G H T + 6 " LIFTING INSERTS IN4T 3'x3' FRAME AND GRATE RISER VAULT 12" DIA. KNOCKOUTS TYP. ALL (4) SIDES CDT.02 DETAIL SHEET 11 24 0 9 1 4 6 _ S I T E DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E No . SA L T L A K E C I T Y , U T A H 91 3 8 S O U T H S T A T E S T R E E T S U I T E # 1 0 0 S A N D Y , U T A H 8 4 0 7 0 ( 8 0 1 ) 5 4 2 - 7 1 9 2 ww w . b e n c h m a r k c i v i l . c o m BE N C H M A R K EN G I N E E R I N G & LA N D S U R V E Y I N G DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y FI E L D C R E W DA T E DW G . F I L E 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 5 GA L L O W A Y MC P FA C / J H O PROJECT NO.2409146 SC A L E M E A S U R E S 1 - I N C H O N F U L L S I Z E S H E E T S AD J U S T A C C O R D I N G L Y F O R R E D U C E D S I Z E S H E E T S 0 1 0. 5 OF 11 21 1 1 S O U T H 1 3 0 0 E A S T SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L PARALLEL PEDESTRIAN RAMP A SIDEWALK 6" WIDE MONOLITHIC CURB LANDING RAMP RAM P 4' MI N . 4' MIN 4' MI N . 4' MI N . LANDING OPTIONAL AT THE DISCRETION OF ENGINEER PARK STRIP FLARE FLARE SIDEWALK OPTIONAL AT THE DISCRETION OF ENGINEER PERPENDICULAR PEDESTRIAN RAMP FLARE IS ACCEPTABLE IN LIEU OF FULL HEIGHT CURB SEE LOCAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS B B RA M P RA M P 4' M I N . 4' MIN. LANDING SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPE 6" WIDE MONOLITHIC CURB FLARE FLARE 2' MIN. NO LIP AT CURB LINE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS RAMP DETAIL SE E NO T E 3 RAMP SEE NOTE 4 C C 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. 4' MIN.2' MIN SECTION C-C 6" WIDE MONOLITHIC CURB IF REQUIRED TO CONTAIN LANDSCAPING 6" MIN UNTREATED BASE COURSE LRT DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE NO LIP AT CURB LINE 4' MIN. LR T 2' MIN. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE NO LIP AT CURB LINE SECTION B-B 6" MIN UNTREATED BASE COURSE SLOPE TABLE ITEM RUNNING SLOPE*CROSS SLOPE L LANDING R RAMP T TRANSITION SIDEWALK 1.5-2% (1V:48H) (b) 8.33% (1V:12H) (c) 5% (1V:20H) (a) 1.5-2% (1V:48H) (b) 1.5-2% (1V:48H) (d) 1.5-2% (1V:48H) (d) 1.5-2% (1V:48H)-- * 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. 4' MIN.2' MIN SECTION A-A 6" WIDE MONOLITHIC CURB IF REQUIRED 6" MIN UNTREATED BASE COURSE LT DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE NO LIP AT CURB LINE LIP OF GUTTERTRANSITION DETAIL OVERLAY 5%FEATHER EDGE OF OVERLAY TO 12" MAX. 0. 2 " 50% TO 65% OF BASE DIAMETER TRUNCATED DOME SPACING 1.6" MIN. 2.4" MAX. SP A C I N G 1. 6 " M I N . 2. 4 " M A X TRUNCATED DOME IN SQUARE GRID PATTERN DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE DETAIL A ℄℄ ℄ ℄ THIS DRAWING PRODUCED BY THE U.S. ACCESS BOARD STRIPING SYMBOLS SCALE: N.T.S. THIS DRAWING PRODUCED BY THE U.S. ACCESS BOARD INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY DIRECTION OF TRAVEL OR APPROACH THIS DRAWING PRODUCED BY THE U.S. ACCESS BOARD 4' - 0 " SQ U A R E REFLECTORIZED SIGN PANEL MIN. OF 16 GA. GALV. STL. W/PORCELAIN ENAMEL FIN. WHITE IMAGE ON BLUE FIELD BEADED REFLECTORIZED TEXTURE. COLOR #15090 FED. STANDARD 595a. INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL ACCESSIBILITY SIGN W/ LETTERING NO LESS THAN 1" HI. 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 CONC. FOOTING 6' - 8 " WH E N S I G N I S U S E D 1' - 6 " 6' - 8 " C L E A R 1' - 6 " 1'-0" 1'-0" VAN ACCESSIBLE WITH DISABILITIES FOR PERSONS RESERVED ADA SIGN POST DETAIL SCALE:NTS 1STANDARD ACCESS RAMP TABLE OF DIMENSIONS ELEMENT DIMENSION R C T 4 FEET WIDE MINIMUM 4 FEET SQUARE MINIMUM*L * WHERE LANDING SPACE IS CONSTRAINED ON 2 SIDES, PROVIDE 5 FEET IN THE DIRECTION OF THE CROSSWALK CLEAR SPACE CLEAR SPACE CLEAR SPACE FLARE 10% (1V:10H)-- C CLEAR SPACE 5% (1V:20H) (a)1.5-2% (1V:48H) (d) C C C 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 Poer, 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, demonstrang how it aligns with and enhances the goals for the Sugar House neighborhood. Our aim is to ensure that any new construcon serves not only the project's needs, but also contributes posively to the broader neighborhood. We have categorized the benefits into two main areas: Project‐Driven Benefits (which naturally arise from the hotel's operaon 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 presentaon helps illustrate the comprehensive posive impacts of the development. These benefits are specifically ed to the proposed zone change and would not be possible under the exisng zoning. Project‐Driven Benefits of MU‐11 Versus Exisng 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 exisng MU‐3 zoning. Major Economic Boost for Residents and the City: Our project produces several economic benefits that would not be possible, or nearly as large, under exisng zoning o Generates Substanal Tax Revenue: The hotel and its associated restaurants are esmated to generate nearly $25,000,000 in addional sales tax revenue over the first 10 years of operaon, alone. This includes a combinaon of sales tax (8.45%), transient room tax (7.07%), and an addional restaurant food tax (1.0%). Beyond sales tax, the proposed improvements will contribute several hundred thousand dollars in annual property taxes. o Creates High‐Quality Jobs: This project is set to create over 50 Full‐Time Equivalent jobs. These posions will offer an aracve average wage of $25 per hour, with several roles providing salaries exceeding $100,000 annually. All full‐me 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 acvely 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 essenal economic smulaon 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‐me residents of to the Salt Lake MSA and returns from the hotel will remain local. Amenies for Local and Guest Use If approved under the new zoning, this project will introduce several key amenies designed to serve both hotel guests and the broader Sugar House community. o Upscale Hotel Rooms: We will offer high‐quality accommodaons that provide a much‐needed opon for residents who have vising friends and family, as well as for business and vacaon travelers to the area. Sugar House currently lacks a hotel of this standard. o Acvity Center with Equipment Rentals: Located conveniently in the lobby, this center will provide equipment rentals such as: bikes, sporng gear, frisbees, etc., encouraging acve use of the adjacent park and surrounding areas. o Lobby Café & Coffee Shop: This inving 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. o 7th‐Floor Rooop Restaurant: This elevated dining experience will offer an upscale culinary opon 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 Versale Meeng & Event Space: The hotel will feature flexible rooms available for a wide array of uses, from business meengs and social funcons to government gatherings and community events, serving both hotel patrons and local organizaons. Frontage Acvaon /Encouraging Pedestrian Use/Park and Neighborhood Connecons Our proposed development will serve as a vital link between the Sugar House neighborhood and Sugar House Park, acvely encouraging pedestrian use and creang a welcoming gateway for everyone Gateway to the Park: We recognize our property's unique posion as an entry point to both Sugar House and the park. We embrace the opportunity and responsibility to foster this connecon. We will achieve this in two key ways: First, our building design, layout, and high‐end, locally inspired presentaon, including prominent neighborhood‐welcoming signage, will offer an inving entry point for those using 1300 East. This refined aesthec and improved entry perspecve is not feasible under current zoning due to height and cost limitaons. Second, our design ensures pedestrian connecons on all sides, with improved sidewalks surrounding the building. This effecvely 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 ulizing the soon‐to‐be‐created bike paths. We have meculously designed the building to minimize un‐acvated rear facades, maximizing this connecon. Vibrant Street Acvaon: The increased height allowed by our MU‐11 zoning request enables us to create aracve first‐floor retail space along the frontage. This will infuse life into the intersecon and energize the enre area. Addionally, the height allows us to dedicate most of the remaining first‐floor space to a bustling lobby, generang significant "buzz" from hotel acvies, publicly access to banquet and meeng spaces, and a ground‐floor café. Lower height, exisng zoning, would produce less acve first floor uses our higher density above will enable. The Unique Benefit of a Hotel Use: A hotel offers a unique and disnctly public benefit compared to other uses like apartments or offices. With those, one oen needs to be a resident or know a tenant to truly "use" the site as part of their experience. A locaon as prominent and special as ours deserves a more public‐engaging use. The various amenies and acvies 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. Transportaon Benefits The proposed hotel development provides substanal transportao n benefits, directly addressing local needs and promong 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 exisng parking pressures in the area. Lower Traffic Generaon: A hotel operaon, which requires the proposed height rezone, inherently generates less vehicular traffic compared to smaller, high‐traffic generang retail uses. Hotel guests typically rely less on personal vehicles during their stay and are more inclined to use public transportaon or rideshare services than local patrons, thereby reducing perceived development impact on overall traffic congeson. Opmized Rideshare Area: We have incorporated a well‐designed drop‐off and pick‐up area that is ideal for rideshare services and carpooling, benefing both hotel guests and park or neighborhood visitors. This publicly accessible space enhances convenience and safety, eliminang the need for vehicles to use the park loop road or other potenally hazardous locaons along busy city streets. Promong Mass Transit Use: A notable number of our out‐of‐state guests will likely ulize the S Line, connecng seamlessly from the airport via other TRAX lines. This increased ulizaon of mass transit uses among our guests, compared to other potenal site uses that would aract 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 synergisc, with a potenal line extension situated to within a quarter‐mile of the site. This strong compability with mass transit directly contributes to alleviang local traffic and parking concerns. Ground Lease Challenges: A Barrier to Future Redevelopment The current ground lease agreement presents a crical 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 duraon without approval of a project. This stems from the fact that the current leaseholder, Maverik, is contractually obligated to connue making rent payments, effecvely removing any financial incenve 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 iniaves. The site would then be highly viewed as an unfeasible locaon for significant capital investment. Consequently, without a rezone that supports an economically viable project from the perspecve 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. Ul mately, a failure to rezone will lock the property into its exisng condion for an extended period, as the ground lease structure removes any economic incenve for change on behalf of the land owner or perspecve tenant. Community Benefits (as defined per SLC Statute) Our proposed Hotel Development and requested zoning acvely addresses and meets several key criteria arculated within Salt Lake City's Community Benefits statute, Secon 21A.50.050. Housing Needs (secon A of SLC criteria) Our proposed development is housing‐neutral, as it does not displace any exisng long‐term residenal units. The key housing‐related benefit our project delivers is the creaon 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 plaorms 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, parcularly 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 substanal supply of such short‐term accommodaon s, our hotel will serve as a crical "release valve." This helps to reduce the incen ve for residenal properes 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 (secon B of SLC criteria) The proposed project incorporates three disnct 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 entlement process. Incenvized Leases for Local Businesses in Retail Spaces o 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, creang 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 construcon costs, tenant improvement budgets, and business property investments at a 0% interest rate. The term for principal repayment will be matched to the inial lease term. To migate potenal 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 compable with both the hotel operaons and other neighborhood uses (e.g., no vape shops). Implementaon Details: Further specifics will be defined later in this process, incorporang feedback from the community. Dedicated Community Meeng Room o Our approximately 2,000 square foot second‐floor meeng room is ideally suited for business meengs, social gatherings, or community funcons. Its generous size and direct stair access to the lobby (facilitang easy access to the adjacent park and neighborhood) enhance its ulity and convenience. o We commit to entering into an agreement with the city to make this second‐floor meeng room, in either of its potenal configuraons, available free of charge to qualified community groups at least twelve mes 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 ulizing the space will be required to observe standard hotel rules and policies regarding noise, room usage, and potenal damages, as applied to all other events. This provision will allow community organizaons to leverage the project's prime locaon and amenies. Lobby Café: Fostering Local Partnerships o We intend to acvely 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 priorizing the procurement of local products and flavors for sale within the café. During the design phase, all efforts will be made to idenfy suitable local partners to enable this offering. A locally‐infused café experience within the hotel lobby will undoubtedly enhance the guest experience and provide locals with an addional compelling reason to visit for coffee, parcularly as part of their park experience, creang a clear mutual benefit. Our business model is that our guests value the local experience as part of their stay. Dedicaon of Public Space (secon C of SLC criteria) Given our status as the applicant operang under a ground lease with the landowner, direct land dedicaon is not feasible. Nevertheless, we propose substanal contribuons to public space enhancement as follows: Public Art space and installaon: 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 duraon of our ground lease. Drawing inspiraon from the notable Whale sculpture in the 9th and 9th neighborhood, this large‐format art piece will be chosen through a publicly transparent applicaon and selecon process, managed by the hotel. The hotel will bear the full cost of the arst's work and provide the necessary space for the installaon. Furthermore, the hotel is open to financing periodic replacement projects in the future, ensuring the arsc contribuon remains vibrant and responsive to the evolving neighborhood character. Park Improvements: We have been in conversaons 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, irrigao n, grass, and trees that are compable 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 dedicaon of open space but an improvement on exisng open space. Our conversaons with the Park Authority to this point have been posive and we are opmisc 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 connecon from city and city bike/pedestrian access to the park through our property. This improves the walking infrastructure of the intersecon and area. Expanding Public Infrastructure (secon F of SLC criteria) 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 connuous, 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 situaon, we are also aware that police occasionally conduct park sweeps, which can lead individuals to gather near our property. Our round‐the‐clock operaons, coupled with 24‐hour camera surveillance, will acvely complement exisng police security plans in the park, enhancing their efforts for the benefit of both locals and law enforcement. At our other managed hotel properes, we rounely welcome police during their rounds, offering amenies like coffee and a safe parking spot, a pracce we intend to connue at this locaon. Substanal 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 indicang sufficient capacity, community feedback prompted us to connually increase the garage's size. As it is underground, this expansion creates no negave 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 dayme 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 calculaons confirm sufficient spots for non‐guest parking. This esmated $13 million infrastructure improvement is only feasible with the rezone, which allows us to achieve the necessary surface density. It represents a substanal 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 "Dedicaon of Public Space" secon (SLC Criteria Secon C), we are acve ly collaborang with the Sugar House Park Authority on significant park improvements. These enhancements are also directly applicable under this public infrastructure criterion, further bolstering connecvity and public amenies Conclusion The SHH Development represents a unique opportunity to bring substanal, tangible benefits to the Sugar House community. From significant tax revenues and job creaon to a vibrant public art installaon, dedicated public spaces, and crucial parking infrastructure, our project is designed to be a posive catalyst for the neighborhood. We appreciate the City's, and most importantly, the Community's me and consideraon throughout this engagement process. We are certainly looking to formalize, in a legally binding manner, any point raised in this document. We are commied to being a valuable and integrated part of the Sugar House fabric. Thank you John Poer Sugar House Hotel LLC and Magnus Hotel Management This page has intentionally been left blank Telephone - 801.201.0712 | Email - francis.lilly@gmail.com FRANCIS XAVIER LILLY, AICP 916 EAST QUEENSMILL LANE SALT LAKE 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 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 Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. 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 October 7, 2025 Amanda Roman, Urban Designer, SLC Planning Division Subject: In Opposition to General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment Request 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. 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 Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Hunter Stuercke To:Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) 2111 south 1300 east Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 10:27:45 AM 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 Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. 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 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 Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. 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 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://c.org/CqHkv2HCcn Thank you, Jennifer Mallory Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Judi Short To:Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) Another comment for the Sugar House Hotel Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 2:22:50 PM ---------- Forwarded message --------- 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 Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Lindsay Anderson To:amanda.roman@sic.gov; Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: Sugar house sizzler location Date:Sunday, October 19, 2025 8:22:23 PM ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Lindsay <lins727@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 2:16 PM Subject: Sugar house sizzler location To: <amanda.roman@sic.gov> 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 Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:lorna anderson To:Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) Sugarhouse Park Sizzler Lot Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 2:49:42 PM 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 Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. 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:image.png 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. 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 Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Judi Short To:Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: LUZ Comment Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 2:42:24 PM 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: <comments@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://sugarhousecouncil.org/aveda-vocational-school-855-garfield/ Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. 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 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 Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. 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 j Learn why this is important 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 City, UT 84103 Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. 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 important 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 Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. 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 important 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 Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Testimony | 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. Sugar House Park 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 11pm. 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 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 MANHATTAN BEACH DODO INVESTMENT GROUP SUGARHOUSE LLC ARHOUSE LLC 3690 FORT UNION BLVD #2O4 COTTONWOOD HTS SAMANTHA J DIAMANTI; JOSEPH HERRERA (JT) ERRERA (JT)2025 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY JEFFREY JOHNSTON EY JOHNSTON 2027 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE RAPE CRISIS CENTER INC CENTER INC 2035 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY ORCAS INVESTMENT COMPANY ENT COMPANY 4372 POINT WHITE DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WAYNE LEASING LLC LEASING LLC PO BOX 1610 COCKEYSVILLE HARMAN MANAGEMENT CORP GEMENT CORP 5544 S GREEN ST MURRAY MECHAM PARKVIEW ASSOCIATES, LLC CIATES, LLC PO BOX 521448 SALT LAKE CITY SKM PETERSON LLC ETERSON LLC 3574 N 150 W PROVO SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY RIVERPARK SUGARHOUSE, LLC RHOUSE, LLC 10701 S RIVER FRONT PKWY SOUTH JORDAN ROMNEY FARR PROPERTIES INC PERTIES INC 1052 S OAK HILLS WY SALT LAKE CITY SUGAR HOUSE PARK AUTHORITY INC 6332 S AIRPORT RD WEST JORDAN Current Occupant 1327 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 1355 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2036 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2037 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2071 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 1251 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 1255 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 1269 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2045 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 1228 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2150 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2110 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2118 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2120 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2138 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 1240 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 1316 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2111 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2139 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2155 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 2155 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY Current Occupant 1500 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY OWN_STATEOWN_ZIP CA 90266 UT 84121 UT 84105 UT 84105 UT 84105 WA 98110 MD 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 1220 North 500 West, Ste. 202 Lehi, UT 84043 p 801.766.4343 www.halesengineering.com Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study Salt Lake City, Utah April 18, 2025 UT24-2936 NO. 12890754 Jordi J. Berrett 04/18/2025 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study i 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 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Project Conditions · 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 2025 Background Plus Project Assumptions · None · Signal timing optimized Findings · Acceptable LOS · Excessive NB queuing on 1300 East during the evening peak hour · Poor LOS at the West Access / 1300 East intersection due to NB queuing on 1300 East Mitigations · 1300 East / 2100 South: o Adjust signal timing o City could consider dual NB LT lanes · None Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study ii 2030 Background Plus Project Assumptions · Signal timing optimized · Signal timing optimized Findings · Acceptable LOS · Excessive NB queuing on 1300 East during the evening peak hour · 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 Mitigations · None · None Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study iii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... i SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ iv LIST OF 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 iv 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 Table 5: Project Land Uses.................................................................................................................... 9 Table 6: 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 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 1 I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose 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. Figure 1: Vicinity map showing the project location in Salt Lake City, Utah Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 2 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. Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 3 Table 1: Level of Service Description LOS Description of Traffic Conditions Average Delay (seconds/vehicle) Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections A Free Flow / Insignificant Delay £ 10 £ 10 B Stable Operations / Minimum Delays > 10 to 20 > 10 to 15 C Stable Operations / Acceptable Delays > 20 to 35 > 15 to 25 D Approaching Unstable Flows / Tolerable Delays > 35 to 55 > 25 to 35 E Unstable Operations / Significant Delays > 55 to 80 > 35 to 50 F Forced Flows / Unpredictable Flows / Excessive Delays > 80 > 50 Source: Hales Engineering Descriptions, based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 7th Edition, 2022 Methodology (Transportation Research Board) Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 4 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 Intersection Crash Severity Total Crashes at Intersection Fatal Suspected Serious Injury Suspected Minor Injury Possible Injury Property Damage Only 1300 East / 2100 South 0 0 4 13 20 37 Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East 0 0 8 8 21 37 TOTAL 0 0 12 21 41 74 Source: UDOT Numetric AASHTOWare, April 2025 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 5 Table 3: Crash Type by Intersection Intersection Crash Type Total Crashes at Intersection Front to Rear Single Vehicle Angle Sideswipe Other 1300 East / 2100 South 15 4 15 5 3 37 Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East 10 4 18 3 2 37 TOTAL 23 8 33 8 2 74 Source: UDOT Numetric AASHTOWare, April 2025 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. Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 6 F. 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) 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 Intersection LOS (Sec. Delay / Veh.) / Movement1 Description Control Morning Peak Evening Peak 1300 East / 2100 South Signal C (28.0) D (48.4) Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East Signal A (8.0) C (25.1) 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 11 160 112 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Morning Peak Hour Existing (2025) Background Figure 2a Hales Engineering 801.766.4343 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 02/28/2025 39 282 172 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Evening Peak Hour Existing (2025) Background Figure 2b 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 9 III. PROJECT CONDITIONS A. Purpose 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 Land Use Intensity Hotel 145 Rooms Retail Space 3,500 sq. ft. Restaurant Space 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, 11th 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: 1,493 · Morning Peak Hour Trips: 78 · Evening Peak Hour Trips: 132 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 10 Table 6: Trip Generation 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 Direction % To Project % From Project North 25% 90% South 60% - East - 10% West 15% - Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 11 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. 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: Austin Kimmel DATE:February 17, 2026 RE: ORDINANCE: MASTER PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AT APPROXIMATELY 527, 537, AND 539 SOUTH 400 EAST ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Planning staff recommended approval, and the Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation for the proposed general plan and zoning map amendment to the City Council. Item Schedule: Page | 2 Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed general plan and zoning map amendment and determine if the Council supports moving forward. The Council will then hold a public hearing and consider adopting these changes at future meetings. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if there is adequate parking at the apartment building to the north. The applicant states that residents of this project can park at the neighboring property's parking structure under the same ownership. 2. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if residents of the proposed building will be charged for parking. 3. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if there are affordable units planned for the proposed building and, if so, at what percentage of area median income (AMI). 4. The Council may wish to ask Planning if commercial space should be considered an actual community benefit for future developments, given challenges in leasing ground-floor commercial space in other mixed-use projects throughout the city. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Rezoning the property from RMF-45 to MU- 5 would permit ground-floor commercial use, a one-story height increase (10 feet), and an increase in allowed density, among other changes. As shown in the image on the right, the subject property is adjacent to an existing MU-8 property and is in an area that also features MU-2, MU-6, RMF-75, and other zones. While single-family homes currently occupy the subject property, it does not abut any single-family specific zoning districts. The proposed community benefit includes about 1,100 square feet of ground floor commercial space, or 50% of the ground floor façade. Tenant relocation assistance and unit replacement will be included in the project’s eventual development agreement if the proposed changes are adopted by the Council. If the MU-5 is approved by the Council, the project would fall within the “Urban Center Context” under the City’s Off Street Parking ordinance, since it is about 1/3 mile from a TRAX station. In this context, there are no minimum parking requirements for studios, 0.5 spaces for 1-bedroom units, and 1 space for units with 2 or more bedrooms. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division Page | 3 The applicant states residents of the anticipated project will share parking and other amenities with the existing apartment building to the north, Citizen 1, which is the same owner. 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. 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. All three demolished residential dwelling units on the Property shall be replaced within the development with at least three 2-bedroom units in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.050.E1. b. A minimum of 1,100 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor of a building on the Property, which commercial space shall be accessible from 400 East. c. Tenants displaced by the demolition of residential dwelling units on the Property shall be provided with tenant relocation assistance in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.050.D KEY CONSIDERATIONS In its staff report to the Planning Commission, Planning staff identified three key considerations, summarized below. The complete analysis is on pages 4-12 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 amendments generally align with the goals identified in adopted plans listed below, including the Central Community Master Plan, which the applicant seeks to amend. Plan Salt Lake (2015): the proposal aligns with the citywide plan in the following areas: o Neighborhoods: adding about 1,100 sq. ft. of ground-floor commercial (50% of the building’s frontage) to promote walkability and social interaction on a stretch of 400 East that currently lacks these amenities. o Growth: concentrates development near existing infrastructure, such as TRAX, bus routes, and bike lanes, and encourages mixed-use infill. o Housing: allows moderate-density housing consistent with the surrounding area, with units ranging from studios to two-bedrooms. Housing SLC (2013): the proposal contributes to the plan’s goal of entitling 10,000 new housing units in the city by increasing units at a site currently occupied by three single-family homes. Central Community Master Plan (2005): the request to amend the plan from medium-high density residential to high-density mixed-use meets the goals for transit-accessible housing and pedestrian-oriented development. The proposal also aligns with other recent development in the area, such as the 2018 approval for a master plan and zoning map amendment that resulted in the six-story project (Citizen 1) to the north. The 2018 project is under the same ownership, and this proposal is intended to complement that neighboring property. Page | 4 400 South Livable Communities Project – Transit-Oriented Development (2012): the subject property is within one-third mile of the Library TRAX Station, so it is consistent with the plan’s strategy for Transition Areas by allowing mixed-use development with ground-floor commercial. Consideration 2 – Community Benefit, Unit Replacement, and Tenant Displacement Proposals Community Benefit Analysis: Section 21A.50.050.C of Salt Lake City Code requires all private property owner- initiated zoning amendments to identify community benefits that would not otherwise be provided. Planning staff identified the proposed ground-floor commercial space as meeting the requirement. Tenant Displacement and Unit Replacement: three single-family homes (two currently occupied) occupy the three subject parcels and are intended to be demolished. The applicant plans to replace the demolished units in the new development with comparable bedroom counts at the same or lower rent. Additionally, the applicant has submitted a tenant relocation plan that includes moving assistance and reimbursement for deposits and application fees, in accordance with City Code Section 21A.50.050.D. Consideration 3 – RMF-45 and MU-5 Zoning District Comparison Building Height: Increases from 45 feet (4 stories) to 55 feet (5 stories), maintaining an appropriate transition between the taller structures to the north and lower-scale development to the south. Permitted Density and Setbacks: The current RMF-45 zone would allow about 15 units, while the proposed MU- 5 zone has no unit maximum and instead is regulated by bulk and design standards. The setbacks under the proposed MU-5 zone are expected to support pedestrian-oriented design. Design Standards: The current RMF-45 district does not have design standards and the subject properties are not in a historic district. The proposed MU-5 zone would require durable materials, glazing and lighting standards, active ground floors, and limits on blank walls. CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING STANDARDS The tables below compare zoning standards for both the current and proposed zones and are found on page 11 of the Planning Commission staff report. Page | 5 ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment D of the Planning Commission staff report outlines the following general plan amendment and zoning map amendment standards for decision-makers to consider. The standards and findings are summarized in the chart below. Whether the proposal is consistent with citywide policies.Complies Whether the proposal is consistent with the goals, policies, or implementation actions of the general plan, including applicable element plans. Complies Whether significant change has occurred that warrants the creation of a new plan or an update to an adopted plan. Complies 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. Complies 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. Complies 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. Complies 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. N/A The potential impacts to properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposal.Complies 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. Complies The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment Complies 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. Complies Page | 6 Zoning Map Amendment Factor Finding 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. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the applicable purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies 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. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. N/A The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Complies; though the applicant will be required to provide waste- removal facilities with any development application. 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. Complies 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. Complies The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. Complies 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. Complies 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 Complies; no existing businesses on property The community benefits that would result from the proposed map amendment.Complies CITY DEPARTMENT AND DIVISION REVIEW The proposal was reviewed by the Department of Public Utilities and the Housing Stability, Transportation, and Building Services Divisions within the Community and Neighborhoods Department. Responding departments Page | 7 and divisions did not oppose the proposed rezone. Public Utilities and Housing Stability provided recommendations and comments to guide the petitioner as they redevelop the property. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition for a Master Plan Amendment reviewed for pre-screen. Petition for a Master Plan Amendment was accepted. Petition PLNPCM2025-00984 for a Master Plan Amendment was assigned to Olivia Cvetko, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. Notice was sent to the East Bench 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. An Early Notification sign was posted on the properties by the applicant. The applicant presented their proposal at the Central City Community Council meeting ATTACHMENTS Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning City Council February 17 2026 PLNPCM2025-00984 General Plan Amendment PLNPCM2025-00704 Zoning Map Amendment THE CITIZEN 2 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AT APPROX. 537 S 400 E Salt Lake City //Planning Division REQUEST Amend the Central Community Master Plan Map for the subject properties from Medium-High Density Residential to High- Density Mixed Use General Plan Amendment Amend the Zoning Map for the subject properties from the current RMF-45 to MU-5 Zoning Map Amendment Proposed Development • 5-story Mixed Use Development •Studio, One-Bedroom, and Two-Bedroom Units •Ground Floor Commercial CENTRAL COMMUNITY PLAN (2005) Existing Land Use Category Medium-High Density Residential •Roughly 30-50 units per acre •3-4 stories in height •Residential uses only Requested Land Use Category High-Density Mixed Use •50+ units per acre •Permits commercial and retail uses Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning EXISTING RMF-45 VS PROPOSED MU-5 Standard Existing RMF-45 Proposed MU-5 Maximum Building Height 45’55’ Front/Corner/ Side/Rear Yard Setbacks Front: 10’ Side: 4’ Rear: 10’ Front: 0’minimum for non-residential ground floor uses,10’for residential Side: 0’side minimum Rear: 10’minimum Buffer Yard Buffer required when abutting single or two-family district. Open Space 50 sq ft per unit 10%minimum Minimum Lot Area per unit 750 sq ft with a maximum of 20 units per building form N/A Under the RMF 45 Code the site could accommodate roughly 29 units across two buildings by-right. There is no maximum unit count under MU-5, but there is a height limit of 5 stories. Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning COMMUNITY BENEFIT Community Benefit B – Providing Commercial Space Applicant is providing roughly 1,100 sq ft of ground floor commercial (50% of ground floor façade) Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning TENANT DISPLACEMENT Unit Replacement: Proposal meets 21A.50.050.E by replacing all 3 demolished units with matching bedroom counts to be rented at the same rate Tenant Displacement: Applicant satisfies 21A.50.050.D with a full relocation assistance plan for all occupied units (moving costs, fees, deposits, rental assistance). Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to City Council for both the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment with the identified community benefit, tenant displacement, and unit replacement plan with details stipulated in a Development Agreement. RECOMMENDATION Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Olivia Cvetko// Principal Planner Olivia.Cvetko@slcgov.com 801-535-7285 Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Salt Lake City // Planning Division SITE CONTEXT Existing Land Use: Three Single Family Homes Nearby Land Uses: MU8 to the north (Citizen 1 development, 6 stories) RMF-45 to the south and west (multi-family 2-5 stories in height) Distance to TRAX: Library TRAX Station 1/3 mi to the northwest Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning NEXT STEPS Approval of Request Applicant subject to MU-5 •55’ height limit •No density limit •Ground-floor retail permitted Community benefit required (Ground-floor retail) Tenant relocation assistance required Demolished unit replacement required Denial of Request Applicant subject to RMF-45 •45’ height limit •39 units permitted w/o zoning incentives •Exclusively residential development Community benefit NOT required Tenant relocation assistance NOT required Demolished unit replacement NOT required SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 01/20/2026 Date Sent to Council: 01/23/2026 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Cvetko, Olivia E-mail Olivia.Cvetko2@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 01/22/2026 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 01/23/2026 Subject: Citizen 2 General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Additional Staff Contact:Presenters/Staff Table Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: That the City Council Adopt both the general plan and zoning map amendments with the recommended conditions 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 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: Thrive Development, the property owner, is requesting approval from Salt Lake City for a Master Plan Amendment and a Zoning Map Amendment for the following properties: 527 S. 400 E; 529 S. 400 E.; and 539 S. 400 E. The site is 0.41 acres (17,724 square feet) in size. If approved, the applicant intends to construct a five-story (55-foot) apartment building with a mix of studio, one-bedroom, and two- bedroom units, along with approximately 1,100 square feet of ground-floor retail along 400 E. A detailed unit breakdown has not yet been provided. To replace the existing single-family homes that will be demolished, the applicant is required to include three two-bedroom units in the project. Additional two-bedroom units are planned, with the remaining units consisting of studios and one-bedroom units. The new multifamily units would share parking and some amenities with The Citizen to the north. No renderings or site plans have been submitted at this stage. General Plan Amendment PLNPCM2025-00984: To support the change in zoning, the applicant is proposing to amend the Central Community Master Plan's future land use map from Medium-High Density Residential to High-Density Mixed-Use. The Medium-High Residential land use category is intended strictly for residential development up to four stories in height and 30-50 units per acre. The proposed land use category, High-Density Mixed-Use, is intended for mixed use development with 50 units or more an acre. The request to amend the Central Community Master Plan Map for the subject properties from Medium-High-Density Residential to the High-Density Mixed-Use future land use category would align with the requested zone change to the MU-5 district. Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2025-00704: The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RMF-45 to MU-5. The MU-5 district will ultimately permit ground floor commercial, a height increase of one story (ten feet), and an increase in allowed density among other differences. Under the newly amended RMF-45 district standards, the minimum lot area per unit would be 750 sq ft, allowing the site to accommodate roughly 29 units. In contrast, the proposed MU-5 designation does not establish a minimum lot area per dwelling or a maximum density, instead regulating development through bulk and design standards. Council Considerations For a general plan and zoning map amendment, council is required to consider the factors outlined in Titles 19 and 21A of the Salt Lake City Code. Included in these factors are consistent with citywide policies, goals, and applicable plans. The applicant must indicate the project’s consistent with efforts by the city to mitigate tenant displacement and unit demolition, along with the proportionality of the community benefit proposed by the petitioner and the increase in the development potential of the site. Section 19.06 of the City Code outlines the process for general plans and amendments and section 19.06.070 lists the factors to consider for amendments to the general plan. Likewise, section 21A.50.040 of the code outlines the process for amending the zoning map and section 21A.50.050 lists the factors to consider for those amendments. A complete analysis of those standards is found in Attachment E of the Staff Report. A decision to amend a plan is ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council. The proposed community benefit includes roughly 1,100 square feet, roughly 50% of the ground floor façade along 400 E., of ground floor commercial designed to serve residents and the local community. Ground floor commercial is not permitted under the current RMF-45 zoning district and is not required along 400 E. under the MU-5 code, however, ground floor commercial is supported by and consistent with adopted city and community plans. Details regarding the community benefit requirements, tenant relocation assistance and unit replacement will need to be finalized as part of the development agreement but have been deemed sufficient to advance to a public hearing. This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission in a public hearing on December 10th, 2025. The Planning Commission Voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation of both the General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to the City Council. 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: • 10.01.2025 Early Engagement Outreach o The Downtown 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. • November 26, 2025 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 • December 10, 2025 Planning Commission Public Hearing o The petition was heard by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. The Planning Commission voted unanimously 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: a. Each demolished residential dwelling unit shall be replaced in accordance with 21A.50.050.E. b. The developer shall provide tenant relocation assistance to tenants displaced by the demolition of the residential dwelling units on the subject properties as specified in subsection 21A.50.050.D. The full public meeting can be viewed using this link. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of December 10, 2025 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of December 10, 2025 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of December 10, 2025 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Public Hearing Notice 3. Original Petition 4. Mailing List 5. Ordinances 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 PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2025-00704; PLNPCM2025-00984 July 11, 2025 Application for a Zoning Map Amendment reviewed for pre-screen. July 11, 2025 Application for a Zoning Map Amendment was accepted. July 21, 2025 Petition PLNPCM2025-00704 for a zoning map amendment was assigned to Olivia Cvetko, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. October 1, 2025 Petition for a Master Plan Amendment reviewed for pre-screen. October 1, 2025 Petition for a Master Plan Amendment was accepted. October 1, 2025 Petition PLNPCM2025-00984 for a Master Plan Amendment was assigned to Olivia Cvetko, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. October 1, 2025 Notice was sent to the East Bench 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. October 1, 2025 An Early Notification sign was posted on the properties by the applicant. October 1, 2025 The applicant presented their proposal at the Central City Community Council meeting November 15, 2025 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. November 26, 2025 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. November 24, 2025 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. December 4, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report was posted. December 10, 2025 Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed map amendment. December 17, 2025 Requested Final Draft of Ordinance from Attorney’s Office January 16, 2026 Final Draft of Ordinance received from Attorney’s Office This page has intentionally been left blank 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 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2025-00704 and PLNPCM2025-00984 Russ Poulsen with Thrive Development, the property owner, is requesting a Master Plan Amendment and a Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 539 S 400 E. The site is 0.41 acres (17,724 square feet) in size. If approved, the developer intends to build a 5-story residential building with commercial on the ground floor to complement the neighboring property to the north under the same ownership. 1. General Plan Amendment: To support the change in zoning, the applicant is proposing to amend the Central Community Master Plan's future land use map from Medium-High Density Residential to High-Density Mixed-Use. 2. Zoning Map Amendment: The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RMF-45 to MU-5. 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.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at 801.535.7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call 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.gov. The application details can be accessed at https://www.slc.gov/planning/2025/10/17/openhouse2025-00704/ 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.gov, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. This page has intentionally been left blank The Citizen 2, General Plan Amendment Application Requirements A statement declaring the purpose and justification for the proposed amendment. The purpose of this amendment to the General Plan is to request a zone change from RMF-45 to MU-5 zoning. This change will allow a building height of up to 55 feet, enabling the development of a 5-story building. This will require a General Zone Amendment, and General Plan Amendment. The architecture will complement The Citizen (adjacent property owned by the Applicant), maintaining a clean, cohesive look between the properties. This property will be professionally managed. Overall, this project will enhance the neighborhood and provide the community with much-needed, high-quality housing, and commercial use. 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. The Applicant proposes to modify and change the future land use map. Currently, the area is categorized as medium/high residential (RMF-45). The proposed project requires a mixed-use zone (MU5), and falls under the High Mixed Use category in the Central Community Master Plan. 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. Address Parcel Number Parcel 1 527 S 400 E 16064540020000 Parcel 2 537 S 400 E 16064540030000 Parcel 3 539 S 400 E 16064540040000 Directly to the North of the subject property lies The Citizen apartment community. Directly to the East of the subject, lies the Trolley Towns development. Directly to the South are two duplex buildings next to the 4th East Community Garden. Directly to the West of the subject is the Towne Park Condominium community. 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. The Applicant plans to redevelop three parcels that we currently own into a 5-story building with some ground floor commercial use facing 400 E, and multifamily uses throughout the rest of the building. The land is approximately 0.42 acres. The multifamily units will share parking and some amenities with the existing apartment community to the north, and there will be street parking for the commercial along 400 E. We intend to begin design work during the rezone process so construction can start promptly once zoning and approvals are complete. 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 rights if the proposed amendment were to be adopted. See 21A.50.050.C for a list of community benefits that can be proposed. This project will benefit the community in multiple ways. Thrive Development is known for delivering high-quality projects that enhance neighborhoods and attract new residents. We are intentional about selecting sites that strengthen community connections—close to Salt Lake City, within walking distance of TRAX and bus stations, and surrounded by local amenities. By building in these vibrant, accessible locations, we support walkability, encourage public transit use, and contribute to the long-term growth and vitality of the neighborhood. This project is unique for several reasons: First, as the second phase of an existing project next door, this development will feature studio, one- and two-bedroom units to help meet the high demand for cost-effective and attainable housing. The Citizen’s units are already nearly fully occupied, demonstrating the strong market need. This project increases housing density in a walkable neighborhood while replacing three aging, dilapidated homes already surrounded by multifamily uses. Second, we plan to build ground floor commercial on just over 50% of the frontage facing 400 East. Although plans haven’t been started, this is estimated to be at least 1,100 square feet. This commercial will serve as a community gathering place for a future commercial use. In summary, Citizen 2 delivers meaningful community benefits that extend beyond the building itself, adding much-needed cost-effective housing, providing new neighborhood commercial in an area that doesn’t have much of this type of commercial. These features directly support the City’s goals for walkable, transit-oriented, and sustainable development. 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. Current number of Dwellings: 3 Unit 1: 2 Bed 2 Bath 1,023 SFT Rent $1,250/Month People Residing: 2 Unit 2: 2 Bed 1 Bath 891 SFT: Rent: $0 – This home was just purchased by the applicant, and is not rentable. The cost to make it livable would not be recouped by renting it. This home is being boarded up, or demolished. Unit 3: 2 Bed 1 Bath 1,500 SFT: Rent: $2,300 People Residing: 2 Currently sitting vacant but was rented for the last two years. Tenant Relocation Plan: Applicant plans to do the following for the residents of the homes when the time comes to demolish the three homes: a. Moving expenses based on a reasonable estimate provided by the tenant, up to a maximum of $1,500. b. Application fees for the replacement housing. c. If the property owner relocates the displaced tenant into an existing unit that is owned by the applicant within Salt Lake City at the same rental rate the displaced tenant was paying and without an additional applicant fee or deposit, then paragraphs a. and b. do not apply. This page has intentionally been left blank OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own_unit OWN_CITY OWN_STATE OWN_ZIP 466 SOUTH 400 EAST, LL 466 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 375 EAST 500 SOUTH LLC 466 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 NEXSTEP GROUP, LLC GR 176 N 2200 W # 200 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 AMERICA FIRST FEDERAL PO BOX 9199 OGDEN UT 84409 500 SOUTH LLC 0 SOUTH 2223 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 CITIZEN 2, LLC IZEN 2, LL 7585 S UNION PARK A MIDVALE UT 84047 JAMES N TASULIS S N TA537 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PARKER WILLEY CDC, LLC 501 E 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 WASATCH COMMUNITY 629 E 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 ANTHONY GEORGE HON 561 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ANDRES JR. PAREDES JR 563 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CLAUDIA PAREDES DIA P563 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JON K HALL & MARGERY 579 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DENVER DELIGHT, LLC EL 465 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MICHAEL WAHL ICHAEL 407 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TRINA MARISA VALDEZ R 415 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 RONALD B HILL NALD B 12506 S JANICE DR RIVERTON UT 84065 427E, LLC 427E, LLC 391 N WALL ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 JON P ROBERTS N P ROB 431 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 YOSHI K KONO OSHI K KO559 E VIRGINIA ST MURRAY UT 84107 THE CITIZEN, LLC ITIZEN, 7585 S UNION PARK A MIDVALE UT 84047 DENVER STREET PROPER 2136 S SCENIC DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 NFS MCRAE LLC S MCRA 452 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BOB R MANCHEGO R MA539 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MICHAEL J KIRKLAND LIV 541 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LUIS E MADRID; DELINA 545 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 HAVE A NICE DAY, LLC C 465 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 563 DENVER ST, LLC A SE 6304 W PASSENGER L WEST JORDAN UT 84081 MAYFAIR SLC, LLC IR SLC 7330 W MERCER WY MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 BRYAN POLI; MEGUMI T P O BOX 210050 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERIC 1875 S REDWOOD RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 JOSEPH MANDL; MARY M 1221 BAYSHORE RD NOKOMIS FL 34275 MAYWOOD INVESTMEN 923 E EXECUTIVE PAR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 UTAH DEVELOPMENT GR 4630 S LAKESHORE D TEMPE AZ 85282 451 E 600 S, LLC 600 S, L 465 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 BOMA LC; DON C HALE D 923 E EXECUTIVE PAR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 UNIVERSITY FIRST FEDER 3450 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 DAVID B ALLEN VID B AL PO BOX 510818 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84151 DJH REAL ESTATE LLC ES 466 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 537 DENVER LLC DENVE 881 W STATE RD PLEASANT GROVE UT 84062 SU H KIM SU H KIM 537 S DENVER ST 101 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TRAVIS & ALLISON JENSE 6296 PARK LN NORTH PARK CITY UT 84098 JOHN W TIMOTHY; ALIC 537 S DENVER ST 103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LUAT PHAN LUAT PHAN 532 S 500 E 104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 EMMANUEL ANDROULA 532 S 500 E 105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 EMMANUEL ANDROULA 385 E EAGLE RIDGE D NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054 VILUNE WAGNER; ANDR 532 S 500 E 107 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 LINDA A DOMBKOWSKI 538 S 500 E 111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 TATYANA FEDOROVA; ED 3573 E EASTWOOD D MILLCREEK UT 84109 JOHN D & JUDITH A REIN 656 TRIPLE TREE RD BOZEMAN MT 59715 CLAYTON ANDERSON ON 538 S 500 E 108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 ELIZABETH J ABEL BETH 530 S 400 E # 2201 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PATRICIA BRADSHAW; D 530 S 400 E 2202 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PSF FAM TRUST F FAM T835 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 BELMA BALIC BELMA BA339 N K ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 JONATHAN MARK NATH 530 S 400 E 2205 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BENJAMIN DEVEDZIC IN 6268 S LORREEN DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 DANIEL RANKIN CHAIT A 530 S 400 E 2207 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SETH T PEAVIER H T PEA 530 S 400 E 2208 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 GREGORY GODDARD; KA 530 S 400 E 2209 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ETHAN DARLING HAN DA530 S 400 E 2210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CONNOR JAMES WHITE 530 S 400 E # 2211 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PILCHER-SAVAGE REVOC 810 E SEVENTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 ILANA V SCHLEMAN V SC530 S 400 E 2301 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PATRICIA BRADSHAW; D 530 S 400 E 2302 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MOUNTAIN RESIDENCES 1601 HONEYSUCKLE L DRIGGS ID 83422 STEFAN DUTKOWSKI N D530 S 400 E 2304 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MEAGAN M KILBURN N 530 S 400 E 2305 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 RT LIV TRUST T LIV TRUS 530 S 400 E # 2306 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 STEPHEN THOMAS DON 530 S 400 E 2307 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JENNIFER A.E. EVANS A. 875 E ANGELINA AVE MILLCREEK UT 84106 BRAYTON A WIGHT TON 530 S 400 E 2309 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 THEODORE PETERSON R 530 S 400 E 2310 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED I PO BOX 2732 ELKO NV 89803 KEVIN BARNES EVIN BAR530 S 400 E 2401 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 HEATH D HARRIS TH D H 530 S 400 E # 2402 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ITF TOWNE LLC F TOWN 299 E OAK FOREST RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 LMDM HOLDINGS LLC O 841 CANTERBURY HIL SAN ANTONIO TX 78209 TOMOHIRO KEMMOCHI 530 S 400 E 2405 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LYNN & HOLLY WEBSTER 1285 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BENJAMIN I BAKER MIN 530 S 400 E 2407 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MAID KORKUT MAID KO 530 S 400 E # 2408 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LIN ZHANG LIN ZHANG 530 S 400 E # 2409 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MAREN LACY MAREN LA530 S 400 E 2410 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SYDNEY HART SYDNEY H 530 S 400 E # 2411 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 KIANA POURAEIN; FARZA 530 S 400 E 2412 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 KRISTIN E HILLER; KENNE 8 DUKE AVENUE CC10 KUNSHAN JIAN SU 21531 PATTE THOMPSON TE TH550 S 400 E 3202 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MICHAEL L COURTNEY L 550 S 400 E 3203 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 VIRGINIA A MAST INIA A 550 S 400 E 3204 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 WILLIAM BAXTER RONEY 550 S 400 E 3205 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 IGAL STEVEN STERIN EVE 550 S 400 E # 3206 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 WILLIAM DAYNE CONRA 550 S 400 E 3207 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ANASTASIYA BOBROVA 550 S 400 E 3208 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TODD GREENWAY DD GR550 S 400 E 3301 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TRAVIS J MITCHELL J MIT550 S 400 E 3302 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BARBARA A TATE BARA A 550 S 400 E 3303 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CFR INVESTMENTS LLC S 550 S 400 E 3304 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CFR INVESTMENTS LLC S 550 S 400 E 3305 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 COURTNEY MOORE YOU 550 S 400 E 3306 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LEENA BHOITE; NITIN PA 7641 S TIMBERLINE D COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 JEFFREY F KREBS; MICHE 550 S 400 E 3308 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JOHN EVANS JOHN EVANW272N6109 BASHAM SUSSEX WI 53089 ADAM A DEHLAVI M A D550 S 400 E 3310 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JOHN BOUZEK JOHN BO 407 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ANTHONY DRAKE MILLE 4502 HI LN DR BILLINGS MT 59106 VICENTE JAVIER ALVARE 550 S 400 E # 3401 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 KELLER HIGBEE LLER HIG550 S 400 E # 3402 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 COLIN F BIRCUMSHAW; 550 S 400 E 3403 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MARLENE F GONZALEZ F 550 S 400 E 3404 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TRAWICK FAMILY TRUST 550 S 400 E 3405 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 RICHARD S KOPF; GRANT 115 HIGHLAND OAKS SOUTHLAKE TX 76092 JEANNE M LEBER NNE M 550 S 400 E # 3407 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JAMES FRED JR HARRIS; 550 S 400 E 3408 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MARIA-CRUZ GRAY REVO 1605 S ORCHARD DR BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 MONTE R GRIFFITH; NAN 62 BENCHMARK VILLA TOOELE UT 84074 HYRUM J KERBS RUM J K5806 S MEADOW CRE MURRAY UT 84107 JOHN BLUTH JOHN BLUT550 S 400 E # 3412 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TOWNE PARK CONDMN 262 E 3900 S # 200 MURRAY UT 84107 BIAN LLC BIAN LLC 7329 PINE RIDGE DR PARK CITY UT 84098 TSUKASA HARRINGTON; 2702 NOTTINGHAM L AUSTIN TX 78704 TAYLOR Y RICHARDS Y R 379 E 600 S # 15 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 NOAH STACKLEATHER; B 379 E 600 S 16 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SETH H STEADMAN H ST 379 E 600 S 17 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CONNAUGHT PLACE CON PO BOX 2435 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 B FAM TRUST B FAM TR PO BOX 48 TEASDALE UT 84773 NICK P MATHEWS K P M 520 S 500 E # 102 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 ARTUR ROYZMAN TUR R 520 S 500 E 103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 ALEXANDER AU; BILL MA 3707 W ELK VALLEY L SOUTH JORDAN UT 84009 DON CHAN; DAYMEE CH 520 S 500 E # 105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 ALEXANDRA GERRARD; V 2201 S 2300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 BUHLER HUYNH, LLC HU 3994 S ARCO CIR HOLLADAY UT 84124 ROBERT D TANNER; ALIC 9001 W 67TH ST MERRIAM KS 66202 JOHN P SMITH; PAM T S PO BOX 223 DELTA UT 84624 LAI JIANG; WEI QIU (JT) 520 S 500 E 110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 WENKAI SUN WENKAI SU520 S 500 E 111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 WYMAN W CHEN (JT) W 520 S 500 E # 112 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 ONE AND NINE LLC ND N 420 N REDWOOD RD NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054 BERNIE T MORRIS; NADI PO BOX 481 PRICE UT 84501 HENRY LIU HENRY LIU 1117 CONNECTICUT OGDEN UT 84404 HUNG MING LEE; SZU CH 520 S 500 E 116 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 ADAM KAINOA FERGUSO 520 S 500 E 117 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 JULIET CHRISTINE BUCH 520 S 500 E 118 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 JENNIFER CHEN NNIFER 3349 FORNEY WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95816 MICHAEL DICOU; LESLIE 520 S 500 E # 201 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 JOSEPH S INNES EPH S IN520 S 500 E # 202 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 CHRISTINA SOK RISTINA 3112 SE SILVERSPRIN VANCOUVER WA 98683 ZACHARY GIURICICH Y G 520 S 500 E 302 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 ELIZABETH MITCHELL; B 520 S 500 E 303 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 TARIQ LIVING TRUST 11/ 520 S 500 E 304 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 TREVOR VILLALOBOS; JU 520 S 500 E 305 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 JOHN N HO JOHN N HO 520 S 500 E # 306 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 RICHARD GRANT PUGH & 585 E WASSAIL RD SANDY UT 84070 JIAN GAN; LILI ZHANG (J 5035 SHADOW CREEK IDAHO FALLS ID 83401 NGHIA V NGUYEN IA V N520 S 500 E 309 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 CHRISTOPHER A PIEPER 520 S 500 E 311 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 BRIAR SMALES; ROSS SM 520 S 500 E 312 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 WILLIAM HOANG LLIAM 7954 S ENGLISH OAKS SANDY UT 84093 TEARS OF LIFE FOUNDAT 6796 S MANORLY CIR COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 XG LIV TR XG LIV TR 249 E GREENBRIER DR EAST PEORIA IL 61611 KELLIE A MADSEN IE A M520 S 500 E # 316 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 CASEY ZAUGG CASEY ZA 14681 S PRISTINE DR DRAPER UT 84020 RACHEL HALL RACHEL HA12 DELGADA LN STANSBURY PARK UT 84074 INNOCENT SHUMBA CEN 520 S 500 E 319 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 BRICE E COFFER CE E CO 520 S 500 E 320 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 BEN SHI; YUNONG SARA 4885 S WASATCH BLV MILLCREEK UT 84124 JLB FAM INT VIV REV TR 520 S 500 E # 322 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 TROLLEY PLACE OWNER 4655 S 2300 E HOLLADAY UT 84117 FAME HOLDINGS LLC OL 978 E WOODOAK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 TROLLEY TOWNS CONDO 978 E WOODOAK LN MURRAY UT 84117 Current Occupant 375 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 461 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 455 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 475 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 370 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 527 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 539 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 545 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 553 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 559 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 575 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 548 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 562 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 425 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 419 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 421 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 427 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 437 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 515 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 446 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 515 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 557 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 563 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 542 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 550 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 556 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 560 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 570 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 443 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 451 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 457 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 463 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 475 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 490 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 555 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 536 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 537 S DENVER ST 102 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 532 S 500 E 106 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 538 S 500 E 110 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 538 S 500 E 109 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2201 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2203 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2204 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2206 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2211 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2212 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 E 400 S 2303 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2306 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2308 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2311 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2312 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2402 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2403 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2404 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2406 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2408 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2409 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 530 S 400 E 2411 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3201 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3206 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3307 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3309 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3311 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3312 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3401 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3402 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3406 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3407 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3409 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3410 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3411 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E 3412 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 550 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 379 E 600 S 13 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 379 E 600 S 14 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 379 E 600 S 15 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 379 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 101 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 102 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 104 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 105 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 106 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 107 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 108 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 109 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 112 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 113 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 114 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 115 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 119 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 201 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 202 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 301 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 306 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 307 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 308 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 310 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 313 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 314 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 315 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 316 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 317 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 318 SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 321 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E 322 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 520 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY 84102 UT Current Occupant 544 S DENVER ST 1 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 544 S DENVER ST 2 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 544 S DENVER ST 3 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 544 S DENVER ST 4 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 540 S DENVER ST 5 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 540 S DENVER ST 6 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 540 S DENVER ST 7 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 540 S DENVER ST 8 SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT Current Occupant 540 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY 84111 UT This page has intentionally been left blank 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2026 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 527, 537 and 539 South 400 East from RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District to MU-5 Mixed-Use 5 District and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 527, 537 and 539 South 400 East from RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District to MU-5 Mixed-Use 5 District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00704; and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Medium-High Density Residential (30-50 dwelling units/acre) to High Density Mixed-Use (50 or more dwelling units/acre) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00984. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (”Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on December 10, 2025, on applications submitted by the property owner to rezone the property located at 527 South 400 East (Tax ID No. 16-06-454-002-0000) 537 South 400 East (Tax ID No. 16-06-454-003-0000) and 539 South 400 East (Tax ID No. 16-06-454-004- 0000) (collectively, the “Property”) from RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District to MU-5 Mixed-Use 5 District and to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Medium-High Density Residential to High Density Mixed-Use. WHEREAS, at its December 10, 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: 2 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 RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi- Family Residential District to MU-5 Mixed-Use 5 District. SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the Central Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of the Property from Medium-High Density Residential (30-50 dwelling units/acre) to High Density Mixed-Use (50 or more dwelling units/acre). SECTION 3. Condition. This ordinance is conditioned upon the owner(s) of the Property entering into a development agreement with the city requiring: a. All three demolished residential dwelling units on the Property shall be replaced within the development with at least three 2-bedroom units in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.050.E1. b. A minimum of 1,100 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor of a building on the Property, which commercial space shall be accessible from 400 East. c. Tenants displaced by the demolition of residential dwelling units on the Property shall be provided with tenant relocation assistance in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.050.D. 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 condition set forth in Section 3 is satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. SECTION 5. Time. If the condition set forth in Section 3 above has not been met within one year after adoption, then this ordinance shall become null and void. Prior to such one year 3 period, the City Council may, for good cause shown, by resolution, extend the time period for satisfying the condition identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2026. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2026. Published: ______________. 527, 537-539 S 400 E to MU-5 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _______January 16, 2026_____________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney 4 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of the Property 527 South 400 East (Tax ID No. 16-06-454-002-0000) Commencing 4 1/2 rods North of the Southwest Corner of Lot 5, Block 23, Plat “B”, Salt Lake City Survey; and running thence North 2 rods; thence East 10 rods; thence South 2 rods; thence West 10 rods to the place of beginning. Together with a right of way over the following described land: Commencing 69.25 feet North of the Southwest Corner of Lot 5, Block 23, Plat “B”, Salt Lake City Survey; thence North 10 feet; thence East 10 feet; thence South 10 feet; thence West 10 rods to the point of beginning. 537 South 400 East (Tax ID No. 16-06-454-003-0000) Commencing at a point 2 1/2 rods North of the Southwest corner, Lot 5, Block 23, Plat “B”, Salt Lake City Survey, and running thence North 2 rods; thence East 10 rods; thence South 2 rods; thence West 10 rods to the place of beginning. Together with a right of way over: Commencing at a point 69.25 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Lot 5, and running thence North 10 feet; thence East 165 feet; thence South 10 feet; thence West 165 feet to the place of beginning. 539 South 400 East (Tax ID No. 16-06-454-004-0000) Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 5, Block 23, Plat “B”, Salt Lake City Survey; thence North 2.5 rods; thence East 10 rods; thence South 2.5 rods; thence West 10 rods to the point of commencement. 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 www.slc.gov/council/ TO:City Council Members FROM: Michael Sanders Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:January 17, 2026 RE:RECURRING NUISANCE PROPERTIES New information obtained since the 09/09/2025 briefing on this item has been added in blue. During the September 09, 2025 Work Session, the Council received a briefing on an ordinance which would: 1. Prohibit alcohol consumption in common areas of commercial and non-residential properties between 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM (this has since been removed from the current proposal) 2. Introduce an administrative process to both declare a nuisance and enforce on them Following subsequent discussions, Council Leadership requested that the Administration retransmit their proposal removing provisions related to after-hours alcohol consumption. The current proposal has removed provisions related to City after-hours alcohol consumption prohibitions and only has provisions related to nuisance declaration and enforcement. Please note that it is still unlawful to sell or consume alcohol at a licensed alcohol establishment generally between the hours of 2:00 AM and 10:00 AM.1 POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to describe how civil enforcement complaints are currently received, evaluated, and resolved, including which departments are involved and what discretion exists at each stage of the process. 2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration what safeguards are in place to prevent overuse or misuse of this new civil enforcement tool. Specifically, how the Administration will ensure that complaints are substantiated, consistently applied across neighborhoods and business types, and not driven by repetitive or bad-faith complaints. Current State Law vs. This Proposal Under Utah Code 78B-6-11, individuals whose property is adversely affected or whose personal enjoyment is diminished by a nuisance are authorized to take legal action. Such claims must be filed in a Utah district court 1 Utah Code 32B-5-301(7) PROJECT TIMELINE: 1st Briefing: September 09, 2025 Follow up Briefing: February 10, 2026 Set Date: February 10, 2026 Public Hearing: March 10, 2026 Consideration: March 24, 2026 Page | 2 and may seek injunctive relief, including a declaration of nuisance and a court order to cease the conduct or address the conditions that constitute the nuisance. This legal process does not involve the City assessing civil penalties or allow for the revocation of a business license. Additionally, this process requires significant City resources, and the timeframe for resolution varies based on several factors, including the quantity of cases pending in the state’s already burdened judicial system. Example – How the Ordinance Could Apply ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Goal of the briefing: Prepare to consider the ordinance at the March 24, 2026 Formal Meeting. A public hearing is scheduled for March 10,2026. ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Proposed Nuisance Declaration Process Page | 3 patrons or other persons. Examples of possible nuisance behaviors are included on lines 48-85 of the Legislative Draft. A written agreement lasting at least 12 months. Can include measures such as: o Hiring private security. o Installing lights, cameras, or metal detectors. o Changing hours of operation. o Cleaning/litter controls. o Restricting alcohol sales. o Providing camera footage to police. Plans must also identify City remedies if the plan is not followed. (Possible remedies are found on lines 205-250 of the Legislative Draft) Failure to Correct Nuisance - Penalties Violation Tier Condition Fine Amount 1st Violation 2nd Violation 3rd Violation 4th+ Violations Require the business enter into a Nuisance Abatement Plan Grant the City an abatement order Revoke the business license without the right to apply for another license at the property or another business premises for at least six months. Responsible Owner Ordinance What Council is being asked to do today •The current proposal has removed provisions related to City after-hours alcohol consumption prohibitions. •Adopt the Responsible Owner Ordinance, establishing a clear administrative pathway for chronic nuisance properties/businesses. A proactive, fair, and local tool to reduce chronic nuisance impacts while supporting responsible ownership Why this is a great tool for the City The problem we’re solving • A small number of locations drive repeated calls, chronic disturbances, and unsafe conditions • Court-based nuisance actions are slower and more resource- intensive than the pace of impacts • City teams need a consistent, measurable way to intervene earlier—before escalation What this delivers Earlier, flexible intervention Fairness + accountability Resource relief + outcomes How the ordinance works (partner first • enforce when needed) A simple, tiered administrative process 1) Clear nuisance thresholds A property/business is presumed a nuisance if: • 3+ incidents in 180 days • Ongoing violations for 30+ days • 5+ nuisance calls for service at a business in 30 days Presumption is rebuttable if the responsible party took all reasonable steps. 2) Notice + abatement plan City issues an administrative citation that: • Lists incidents/violations • Sets corrective actions + timelines • Explains remedies for noncompliance • Advises appeal rights Owners can show remediation or enter a nuisance abatement plan (security, lighting, cameras, operations). 3) Escalating accountability If the responsible party does not comply: • Civil fines: $500 → $750 → $1,000 • After >2 citations in 12 months without compliance, City may pursue business license suspension/revocation Appeals officer may order abatement, City-performed abatement with cost recovery, or license revocation (≥ 6 months). Due process is built in: notice • time to cure • abatement agreement option • right to appeal. Safeguards to prevent overuse/misuse Safeguards embedded in the draft process Administrative controls to prevent misuse (recommended) Complaint intake standards Consistency controls Substantiation rule Bad-faith protections Objective triggers Due process Remedial measures Defined nuisance standard How complaints are substantiated, applied consistently, and protected from repetitive or bad-faith filings SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 12/11/2025 Date Sent to Council: 12/19/2025 From: Department * Finance Employee Name: Garcia, Arturo E-mail Arturo.Garcia@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 12/17/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 12/19/2025 Subject: Responsible Owner Ordinance New transmittal or Revision New transmittal Revision Revision Updates: The Responsible Owner Ordinance will create a framework to hold property and business owners accountable for chronic nuisance conditions through administrative citations, abatement plans, and corrective measures. Revisions have been made to remove the portions related to after-hours alcohol consumption in common areas of commercial establishments. Additional Staff Contact: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Art Garcia, Director of Finance Operations, Bill Manzanares, Deputy Chief of Police, and Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney Presenters/Staff Table Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Art Garcia, Director of Finance Operations, Bill Manzanares, Deputy Chief of Police, and Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: Adopt an ordinance enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals, Welfare), establishing a “responsible Property Owner” framework that allows the City to identify, manage, and abate nuisance businesses through administrative citations, nuisance abatement plans, and related remedies. Background/Discussion The Responsible Owner Ordinance is intended to address persistent nuisance activity occurring on private properties and at commercial businesses where owners have failed to take proactive steps to curb illegal or disruptive conduct. In recent years, the City has faced increasing complaints about properties that attract crime, chronic disturbances, and unsafe conditions. The Responsible Owner Ordinance establishes a framework to hold property and business owners accountable when their premises become chronic sources of nuisance. The recommended ordinance introduces a tiered administrative enforcement process that allows for timely intervention, civil penalties, and the ability to require remedial measures or nuisance abatement plans. This comprehensive approach is recommended because it empowers the City to take earlier, more flexible action to address nuisance behavior; imposes accountability on property and business owners; and provides a fair process for correction and appeal. These measures collectively promote public safety, reduce ongoing enforcement burdens, and support the health and welfare of Salt Lake City residents and visitors. This ordinance imposes a legal duty upon business owners and property owners to properly manage their businesses and properties to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or the spread of disease. Through the potential imposition of civil fines and other penalties, the City seeks to incentivize property and business owners to work with the City to take reasonable steps to address the identified problems and provide a mechanism for the City to abate the nuisance in the event the business or property owner fails to take remedial measures. Utah Code 10-8-60 authorizes municipalities to define what constitutes a nuisance, to impose fines accordingly, and to facilitate the abatement of such nuisances. Ordinance Highlights Nuisance Conduct & Serious Violent Behavior The ordinance defines nuisance conduct as repeated activity that harms public health, safety, or neighbors’ quiet enjoyment (e.g., drug activity, public intoxication, prostitution, lewd conduct, chronic litter, noise, illegal dumping, or junk storage). Serious violent behavior is defined as the most serious crimes, such as homicide, aggravated assault, and rape. When a property or Business is presumed a Nuisance A property or business is presumed a nuisance if; There are 3 or more incidents of nuisance conduct or serious violent incidents in 180 days; For ongoing violations, the Nuisance conduct has continued for 30 days or more; or There are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct at a business in 30 days. This presumption can be rebutted if the responsible party demonstrates that it took all reasonable steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent a recurrence. Citations and Nuisance Abatement Plans Once a nuisance is declared, the City may issue an administrative citation that: List the incidents and violations Sets required corrective actions and timelines; and Explains available remedies the City may pursue if corrective action is not taken, Advises the responsible party of their appeal rights Owners must either show they have already fixed the problems or enter into a nuisance abatement plan with specific steps (e.g., added security, lighting, cameras, or operational changes). Penalties and Business License Consequences If the Owner does not comply Civil Fines Escalate from $500 to $750 to $1,000. After more than two citations in 12 months without compliance, the City may move forward with suspending or revoking the business license, and An administrative appeals officer may order abatement, allow City-performed abatement with cost recovery, or revoke a license for at least six months. Why is the City interested in pursuing the additional tool if state law already addresses nuisances? Under existing state law, individuals whose property is adversely affected or whose personal enjoyment is diminished by a nuisance are authorized to take legal action. Such claims must be filed in a Utah district court and may seek injunctive relief, including a declaration of nuisance and a court order to cease the conduct or address the conditions that constitute the nuisance. This legal process does not involve civil penalties or allow for the revocation of a business license. Additionally, this process requires signi ficant City resources, and the timeframe for resolution varies based on several factors, including the quantity of cases pending in the state’s already burdened judicial system. The proposed city administrative process is designed to facilitate efficient resolution of nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior that led to the City’s nuisance declaration by authorizing City enforcement o fficials to work with property and business owners to bring the property into compliance and abate the nuisance. This process involves issuing a notice and citation to the responsible party, outlining the basis for the City’s determination that the property constitutes a nuisance. The notice will specify a reasonable timeframe for the responsible party to address and remediate the issue(s), as detailed therein. The responsible party may elect to comply with the notice and demonstrate remediation, enter into an abatement agreement with the City to undertake necessary measures to eliminate or prevent future nuisances, or appeal the citation. If the responsible party fails to demonstrate compliance, enter into an abatement plan, or pursue an appeal, the city may impose civil fines or pursue other enforcement actions as outlined in the citation. Should the responsible party appeal the citation, they will be provided with notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the city's Administrative Appeal O fficer, during which they can contest the city’s findings and any associated fines or required corrective actions. Example: Convenience Store with Chronic Loitering, Drug Activity, and Litter Scenario A neighborhood convenience store with the following experiences: Regular loitering and suspected street-level drug transactions outside the front entrance. Public drinking and harassment of passers-by litter (bottles, wrappers, etc.) spilling into the public sidewalks More than five calls for service in 30 days related to disorderly behavior and suspected drug activity Refusal from the business owner to work with the city How the ordinance applies Because there are five or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in 30 days, the store is presumed to be a nuisance business. The city issues an administrative citation and requires the owner to show remedial steps already taken or to enter a nuisance abatement plan. Possible remedial measures include Adding site lighting and cameras at all entry points and/or in the parking area or; Hiring or assigning staff/security to actively manage loitering and report crime Installing signage prohibiting loitering, public drinking, and drug activity Adjusting product mix or store layout to reduce problematic activity Increasing trash receptacles and frequency of clean-ups around the store If the owner refuses to cooperate or repeatedly fails to meet plan obligations, the city may escalate to fines, and if the business refuses to cooperate with the City, the City may seek potentially temporary closure or license revocation if problems persist. 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 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2025 (Amending the text of Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private property) An ordinance enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to responsible business and private property ownership to abate nuisances. WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of public nuisances; WHEREAS, the city acknowledges a significant public safety burden placed on the citizens of the city when business owners and property owners permit nuisance activity or fail to otherwise implement necessary steps to prevent the nuisance activity; WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and WHEREAS, 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. Enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 11.18 in Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), is hereby enacted as follows: CHAPTER 11.18 RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNER 11.18.010: DEFINITIONS: In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set forth in this section: 2 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. BUSINESS OWNER: Any person engaged in business within Salt Lake City. CITY: Salt Lake City, Utah, including the mayor and all other employees of the administrative branch of the city. CRIMINAL CONDUCT: Any criminal offense at a place of business that can be reasonably linked to a patron, invitee, manager, owner, or employee of the business, an occupant of the place of business, or any person in the case of vacant property. EMERGENCY CONDITIONS: One or more conditions that exist in a building or on a property that create the likelihood of imminent danger to the life or safety of anyone who enters or occupies the property or building. ENGAGE IN BUSINESS: To conduct, manage, or carry on any business activity, as owner, officer, agent, manager, employer, or lessee. IMMINENT LIFE SAFETY HAZARD: Any condition that creates a serious and immediate danger to life, property, health, or public safety. ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. NUISANCE CONDUCT: Behavior that interferes with the health, safety or welfare of the community, materially and repeatedly infringes on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring uses, or results in the harassment of patrons or other persons including, but not limited to: (a) criminal conduct; (b) disturbance of the peace; (c) illegal consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages; (d) illegal drug activity; (e) unlawful street or sidewalk obstruction; (f) gambling and illegal gaming activities; (g) harassment of passers-by; (h) prostitution; (i) public urination or defecation; (j) lewd conduct; 3 (k) litter; (l) unlawful discharge of hazardous materials; (m) parking violations; (n) open storage of unlicensed, inoperable, unused or abandoned vehicles or vehicle parts, unless the property is licensed for such use; (o) open storage of junk, scrap metal, lumber, wastepaper products, building materials, machinery and associated parts, interior household furniture, appliances, tree limbs and cuttings, landscape debris, garbage, industrial waste, other spent, useless, worthless or discarded materials, or materials stored or accumulated for the purpose of discarding materials that have served their original purpose; (p) fouling of the air with offensive odors or contaminants, excessive dust, or excessive loud noise; (q) owning, operating or conducting a vehicle chop shop in any building or structure, including a lot or curtilage, for the purpose of dealing in stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle parts or illegally obtaining and altering vehicles or vehicle identification numbers of vehicle parts; (r) vehicles parked on the sidewalk; (s) use of street parking spaces or sidewalk for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, or storage or repair of inoperable vehicles; (t) unlawful firearms possession by a patron; (u) illegal dumping; (v) unlawful junk dealer operations; (w) obstruction of an investigation of nuisance behavior; (x) repeated or continuing violations of any other City ordinance and/or regulations; or (y) any other activity that constitutes a public nuisance under state law. OBSTRUCTION OF AN INVESTIGATION: Any obstruction of, interference with or other impediment of the investigation of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by a business owner, property owner, or other responsible person. PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. PLACE OF BUSINESS: A location maintained or operated by a person within the city at which business activities take place. Place of business includes a parking lot owned or leased by the business, parking areas traditionally used by patrons or employees of the business, and the public rights-of-way adjacent to the business premises as it is used by persons attracted to the business. REMEDIAL MEASURES: Specific, verifiable actions taken by a responsible party that are substantially likely to reduce, eliminate or prevent recurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior at issue. RESPONSIBLE PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. SERIOUS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR. Conduct that would constitute any of the following offenses as defined by state law: homicide, murder, aggravated assault, rape, or sexual assault. 4 11.18.020: PURPOSE AND INTENT: Business owners and property owners shall properly manage their property and place of businesses to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or the spread of disease. This chapter creates a system to initiate administrative actions to abate nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior and to impose civil fines or other penalties if a business owner or a property owner fails to take all remedial measures to address the identified nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. 11.18.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: The provisions of this chapter shall not invalidate any other title, chapter, or ordinance of this Code, but shall be read in conjunction with those titles, chapters, and ordinances and shall be used as an additional remedy for enforcement of violations thereof. 11.18.040: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION; EMERGENCY POWERS: A. The city shall have sole discretion in deciding whether to pursue remedies to address nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, to file a civil nuisance action under this chapter or under state law, to bring criminal charges, to order suspension or revocation of business licenses, to order immediate action to terminate or abate nuisance conduct, to pursue administrative enforcement actions for the violation of any of its ordinances or applicable code requirements, or any combination thereof, or to pursue any other remedy available under the law. City officials are permitted to exercise executive discretion in determining which course of enforcement to pursue, taking into consideration the severity of an incident, the culpability of involved parties, the history of the involved property, and whether other circumstances exist that exacerbate the public impact of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. B. The enforcement of the provisions of this chapter does not prevent the city from pursuing other remedies for specific violations, including fines, abatement, suspension, revocation, injunctions, or other penalties. Specific violations may be considered nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, even if the business owner or property owner has already incurred civil or criminal penalties related to that offense. C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from abating nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that denigrates the public health and welfare in a declared emergency. D. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense and may give rise to a separate citation, charge or other remedy. 11.18.050: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, ATTEMPTING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: 5 Whenever an act, condition, or omission is referred to or made unlawful in this chapter, it shall include causing, attempting to cause, permitting, aiding, or abetting such act, condition, or omission. 11.18.060: DUTY TO PROPERLY MANAGE: Every property owner and business owner shall have a duty to properly manage their private property or place of business, as applicable, to prevent the creation of a nuisance to neighboring businesses, residents, passers-by, or the public, that results from nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by patrons, guests, employees, occupants, or those who frequent the business premises or the property, regardless of whether the persons are owners, invitees, or trespassers. 11.18.070: NUISANCE DECLARED A. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-8-60, the city has determined the quiet enjoyment of property and the general health, safety, and welfare of the community are intolerably impaired—and a public nuisance exists—when nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurs at any private property or place of business. B. A business owner or property owner is presumed to have created a nuisance if (1) within 180 consecutive days, not less than 3 separate incidents of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occur at or within the property, (2) for ongoing violations of this Chapter the nuisance conduct has persisted for 30 days or more, or (3) in connection with a place of business there are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in a 30 day period. This presumption may be rebutted if the responsible party demonstrates that it took all reasonable steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent reoccurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurring at or within the property. 11.18.080: DECLARATION OF NUISANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: A. The city may declare the existence of nuisance, as described under Section 11.18.070 at any time. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a declaration of nuisance may be combined with any other notice from the city to the responsible party. B. Administrative Citation. Upon a determination that a business or private property has created a nuisance the city may issue an administrative citation. 1. The written citation shall state: a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible party; b. The date and location of each violation; c. The nature of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 6 d. That the nuisance must be corrected; e. Provide a specific date by which the corrective action ordered by the enforcement official be taken; f. The remedies, including any civil fines, that the enforcement official intends to pursue if corrective action is not taken; g. Recommendations regarding potential remedial measures and an opportunity for the responsible party to demonstrate use of remedial measures to the city; h. Identification of the procedure to appeal the citation; and i. The signature of the enforcement official. 2. The enforcement official shall serve the administrative citation on the responsible party by: a. Posting a copy of the administrative citation at the property, and b. By mailing the administrative citation through certified mail or reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. If the responsible party is the property owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt Lake County Recorder. If the responsible party is any other person or entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address of the responsible party on file with the city. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible party shall be sufficient to meet the service requirements of Subsection 11.18.080.B.2.b. 3. Corrective Action: Following the issuance of an administrative citation the responsible party shall either: a. Demonstrate that remedial measures have been implemented to address the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that led to the nuisance declaration, or b. Enter into a nuisance abatement plan pursuant to Section 11.18.090. 4. Failure to Correct: If corrective action has not been undertaken by the deadline identified in the administrative citation, the city may pursue any remedy, including civil fines identified in Section 11.18.110. 11.18.090: NUISANCE ABATEMENT PLANS: A. Any nuisance abatement plan executed by a responsible party and the city shall certify the responsible party’s agreement to take all necessary and appropriate measures to reduce, eliminate or prevent future recurrence of each nuisance conduct and each serious violent behavior giving rise to nuisance declaration. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Removal of unlawful items; 7 2. Taking steps to prevent the specific nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior, personally or through an agent such as a private security company; 3. Hiring sufficient licensed and insured security personnel to patrol the property and the abutting sidewalks; 4. Documenting proactive efforts with the police department regarding nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior activities; 5. Participating in regular meetings with community-based organizations at which specific efforts to address nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior are discussed; 6. Installing and maintaining improved lighting at each point of entry to and exit from the property and in designated common areas, if any; 7. Installing and maintaining surveillance cameras that are at all times: (i) active and operational at each point of entry to and exit from the business or property, in designated common areas and in interior spaces where business operations are conducted, on the street abutting the business, and any other locations where prior nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior has been reported; (ii) disclosed to the public through posted notice on the premises; (iii) illuminated in such a manner so as to enable persons entering and exiting the business or property to be visible and identified on recorded footage; and (iv) maintaining recorded footage for not less than 6 months after the recording occurs; 8. Installing metal detectors to screen persons visiting the business; 9. Maintaining an internal log or incident reporting system documenting the owner's response to specific incidents of illegal activity inside the property or on the abutting sidewalk; 10. Displaying signage identifying prohibited behavior at the property; 11. Making specific efforts to address litter and other cleanliness issues, such as additional or larger refuse bins, more frequent or targeted cleaning, signage, enhanced refuse bins, and changing business operations or products to reduce the likelihood of litter creation; 12. Installing soundproofing insulation or taking other steps to control noise; 13. Changing the hours of operation in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 14. Changing business operations or products sold in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 15. Removing any drug paraphernalia offered for sale or display in violation of applicable zoning requirements from the premises; 16. Providing surveillance camera footage to law enforcement upon request; and 17. Any other measures likely to abate or prevent the recurrence of the nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior. B. Term: Executed plans shall be effective for a minimum of 12 months, and may be extended by mutual agreement, or if ordered by the administrative appeals officer, if another nuisance is declared at the property prior to expiration of the plan. C. Remedies: All nuisance abatement plans shall identify remedies to the city if the responsible party does not comply with the plan. These remedies may include, but are not limited 8 to: granting the city the ability to enter and abate the nuisance with recovery of costs associated therewith to be made by the responsible party to the city upon presentation of an itemized statement of costs; financial penalties; reduction in business operating hours; temporary closure of the property or business; making some portions of the property inaccessible; and prohibiting all alcohol sales or consumption on the property. 11.18.100: APPEALS: A responsible party may appeal an administrative citation within ten (10) days of its issuance pursuant to Chapter 2.75. 11.18.110: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: A. Civil Fines: A property or business subject to a nuisance declaration may be subject to a range of penalties that increase in severity. These penalties progress as follows: 1. If a responsible party fails to complete a corrective action by the deadline set forth in an administrative citation, then for a first violation a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $500. 2. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a first violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $750, which shall constitute a second violation. 3. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a second violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000, which shall constitute a third violation. 4. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a third or any subsequent violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000. B. Revocation of Business License: In the event more than two citations are issued in any 12 month period, and the business at issue is not then a party to and in compliance with a nuisance abatement plan, then the city may suspend or revoke the associated business license pursuant to Chapter 5.02. C. Orders by the Administrative Appeals officer: In the event of an appeal of an administrative citation, the administrative appeals officer may: 1. Order that the responsible party and the city enter into a nuisance abatement plan consistent with Section 11.18.090 with the measures as directed by the administrative appeals officer. 9 2. Grant the city an abatement order. a. The order of abatement can require the responsible party to correct the nuisance and can authorize the city to abate such nuisance if the responsible party does not timely perform the abatement. b. In the event the city proves that nuisance conduct or conditions pose a reasonably imminent danger to human health or human life, unabated, the administrative appeals officer shall order the abatement as requested by the city. In such circumstances the city may perform the abatement of the nuisance at the first possible opportunity. c. The abatement order must permit the city to charge the responsible party for the costs the city incurs in abating the nuisance. The costs may be appealed to the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.70.150. 3. Revoke a business license without the right to apply for another license at the property or another business premises for at least six months. Orders of an administrative appeals officer issued pursuant to this Chapter are each an administrative enforcement order that may be appealed in accordance with 2.75.210. 11.18.120: CONTINUING SUPERVISION: A. When an administrative citation is not timely appealed or an administrative appeals officer has affirmed the city’s nuisance declaration, the responsible party is subject to continued supervision by an administrative appeals officer for twelve (12) months or the term of any applicable nuisance abatement plan. During that time, the administrative appeals officer may schedule review hearings to track the responsible party’s compliance with any nuisance abatement plan or abatement order, impose previously suspended penalties, and hold a hearing to consider any claim by the city that a responsible party has not complied with a nuisance abatement plan ordered by the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.18.110. B. At a hearing on a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan entered pursuant to 11.18.110, the administrative appeals officer shall consider the steps taken by the responsible party and determine whether such party has fulfilled its obligations under the nuisance abatement plan. 1. During a hearing reviewing a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan, the underlying nuisance declaration cannot be disturbed. 2. In the event the administrative appeals officer finds that the responsible party failed to comply with any obligation under the nuisance abatement plan, the administrative appeals officer shall impose one or more remedies as set forth in the nuisance abatement plan. 10 C. Each new administrative citation may be appealed. Such appeals are limited to a review of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior identified in the administrative citation and may not address previous administrative citations that were not timely appealed or orders by an administrative appeals officer that were not timely appealed. 11.70.170: DECLARATION OR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW BUSINESS OWNER AND PROPERTY LOCATION: A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior follows the business owner and/or runs with the property. A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior is not eliminated by transferring the property or the business to another person or entity, changing the name of the business, or moving the business to a new location. Transfer of business ownership shall not terminate any nuisance abatement plan in effect with respect to a nuisance business. The acquiring business owner shall be responsible for compliance with any enforcement action pending against the nuisance business and prior business owner. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2025. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR 11 ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2025. Published: ______________. Responsible Property Owner Ordinance(final)v4 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney September 19, 2025 This page has intentionally been left blank 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2025 2 3 (Amending the text of Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private 4 property) 5 6 An ordinance enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to responsible 7 business and private property ownership to abate nuisances 8 WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of 9 public nuisances; 10 WHEREAS, the city acknowledges a significant public safety burden placed on the 11 citizens of the city when business owners and property owners permit nuisance activity or fail to 12 otherwise implement necessary steps to prevent the nuisance activity; 13 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance 14 promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and 15 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s 16 best interests. 17 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 18 19 SECTION 1. Enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 11.18 in 20 Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), is hereby enacted as 21 follows: 22 CHAPTER 11.18 RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNER 23 11.18.010: DEFINITIONS: 24 25 In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set 26 forth in this section: 27 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 28 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 29 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 30 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: As that term is defined in Section 31 2.75.050. 32 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 33 BUSINESS OWNER: Any person engaged in business within Salt Lake City. 34 CITY: Salt Lake City, Utah, including the mayor and all other employees of the administrative 35 branch of the city. 36 CRIMINAL CONDUCT: Any criminal offense at a place of business that can be reasonably 37 linked to a patron, invitee, manager, owner, or employee of the business, an occupant of the 38 place of business, or any person in the case of vacant property. 39 EMERGENCY CONDITIONS: One or more conditions that exist in a building or on a 40 property that create the likelihood of imminent danger to the life or safety of anyone who 41 enters or occupies the property or building. 42 ENGAGE IN BUSINESS: To conduct, manage, or carry on any business activity, as owner, 43 officer, agent, manager, employer, or lessee. 44 IMMINENT LIFE SAFETY HAZARD: Any condition that creates a serious and immediate 45 danger to life, property, health, or public safety. 46 ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 47 NUISANCE CONDUCT: Behavior that interferes with the health, safety or welfare of the 48 community, materially and repeatedly infringes on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring uses, or 49 results in the harassment of patrons or other persons including, but not limited to: 50 (a) criminal conduct; 51 (b) disturbance of the peace; 52 (c) illegal consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages; 53 (d) illegal drug activity; 54 (e) unlawful street or sidewalk obstruction; 55 (f) gambling and illegal gaming activities; 56 (g) harassment of passers-by; 57 (h) prostitution; 58 (i) public urination or defecation; 59 (j) lewd conduct; 60 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (k) litter; 61 (l) unlawful discharge of hazardous materials; 62 (m) parking violations; 63 (n) open storage of unlicensed, inoperable, unused or abandoned vehicles or vehicle parts, 64 unless the property is licensed for such use; 65 (o) open storage of junk, scrap metal, lumber, wastepaper products, building materials, 66 machinery and associated parts, interior household furniture, appliances, tree limbs and 67 cuttings, landscape debris, garbage, industrial waste, other spent, useless, worthless or 68 discarded materials, or materials stored or accumulated for the purpose of discarding 69 materials that have served their original purpose; 70 (p) fouling of the air with offensive odors or contaminants, excessive dust, or excessive 71 loud noise; 72 (q) owning, operating or conducting a vehicle chop shop in any building or structure, 73 including a lot or curtilage, for the purpose of dealing in stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle 74 parts or illegally obtaining and altering vehicles or vehicle identification numbers of 75 vehicle parts; 76 (r) vehicles parked on the sidewalk; 77 (s) use of street parking spaces or sidewalk for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, or 78 storage or repair of inoperable vehicles; 79 (t) unlawful firearms possession by a patron; 80 (u) illegal dumping; 81 (v) unlawful junk dealer operations; 82 (w) obstruction of an investigation of nuisance behavior; 83 (x) repeated or continuing violations of any other City ordinance and/or regulations; or 84 (y) any other activity that constitutes a public nuisance under state law. 85 OBSTRUCTION OF AN INVESTIGATION: Any obstruction of, interference with or other 86 impediment of the investigation of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by a business 87 owner, property owner, or other responsible person. 88 PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 89 PLACE OF BUSINESS: A location maintained or operated by a person within the city at 90 which business activities take place. Place of business includes a parking lot owned or leased 91 by the business, parking areas traditionally used by patrons or employees of the business, and 92 the public rights-of-way adjacent to the business premises as it is used by persons attracted to 93 the business. 94 REMEDIAL MEASURES: Specific, verifiable actions taken by a responsible party that are 95 substantially likely to reduce, eliminate or prevent recurrence of the nuisance conduct or 96 serious violent behavior at issue. 97 RESPONSIBLE PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 98 SERIOUS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR. Conduct that would constitute any of the following 99 offenses as defined by state law: homicide, murder, aggravated assault, rape, or sexual assault. 100 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 11.18.020: PURPOSE AND INTENT: 101 Business owners and property owners shall properly manage their property and place of 102 businesses to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent 103 public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or 104 the spread of disease. This chapter creates a system to initiate administrative actions to abate 105 nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior and to impose civil fines or other penalties if a 106 business owner or a property owner fails to take all remedial measures to address the identified 107 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. 108 11.18.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: 109 The provisions of this chapter shall not invalidate any other title, chapter, or ordinance of this 110 Code, but shall be read in conjunction with those titles, chapters, and ordinances and shall be 111 used as an additional remedy for enforcement of violations thereof. 112 11.18.040: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION; EMERGENCY POWERS: 113 A. The city shall have sole discretion in deciding whether to pursue remedies to address 114 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, to file a civil nuisance action 115 under this chapter or under state law, to bring criminal charges, to order suspension or 116 revocation of business licenses, to order immediate action to terminate or abate nuisance 117 conduct, to pursue administrative enforcement actions for the violation of any of its ordinances 118 or applicable code requirements, or any combination thereof, or to pursue any other remedy 119 available under the law. City officials are permitted to exercise executive discretion in 120 determining which course of enforcement to pursue, taking into consideration the severity of 121 an incident, the culpability of involved parties, the history of the involved property, and 122 whether other circumstances exist that exacerbate the public impact of the nuisance conduct or 123 serious violent behavior. 124 B. The enforcement of the provisions of this chapter does not prevent the city from 125 pursuing other remedies for specific violations, including fines, abatement, suspension, 126 revocation, injunctions, or other penalties. Specific violations may be considered nuisance 127 conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, even if the business owner or property 128 owner has already incurred civil or criminal penalties related to that offense. 129 C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from abating nuisance conduct or serious 130 violent behavior that denigrates the public health and welfare in a declared emergency. 131 D. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense and may give rise to a 132 separate citation, charge or other remedy. 133 11.18.050: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, ATTEMPTING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: 134 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Whenever an act, condition, or omission is referred to or made unlawful in this chapter, it shall 135 include causing, attempting to cause, permitting, aiding, or abetting such act, condition, or 136 omission. 137 11.18.060: DUTY TO PROPERLY MANAGE: 138 Every property owner and business owner shall have a duty to properly manage their private 139 property or place of business, as applicable, to prevent the creation of a nuisance to 140 neighboring businesses, residents, passers-by, or the public, that results from nuisance conduct 141 or serious violent behavior by patrons, guests, employees, occupants, or those who frequent the 142 business premises or the property, regardless of whether the persons are owners, invitees, or 143 trespassers. 144 11.18.070: NUISANCE DECLARED 145 A. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-8-60, the city has determined the quiet enjoyment of 146 property and the general health, safety, and welfare of the community are intolerably 147 impaired—and a public nuisance exists—when nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior 148 occurs at any private property or place of business. 149 B. A business owner or property owner is presumed to have created a nuisance if (1) 150 within 180 consecutive days, not less than 3 separate incidents of nuisance conduct or serious 151 violent behavior occur at or within the property, (2) for ongoing violations of this Chapter the 152 nuisance conduct has persisted for 30 days or more, or (3) in connection with a place of 153 business there are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in a 30 day period. This 154 presumption may be rebutted if the responsible party demonstrates that it took all reasonable 155 steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent 156 reoccurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurring at or within the 157 property. 158 11.18.080: DECLARATION OF NUISANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: 159 A. The city may declare the existence of nuisance, as described under Section 11.18.070 at 160 any time. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a declaration of nuisance may be 161 combined with any other notice from the city to the responsible party. 162 B. Administrative Citation. Upon a determination that a business or private property has 163 created a nuisance the city may issue an administrative citation. 164 1. The written citation shall state: 165 166 a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible party; 167 b. The date and location of each violation; 168 c. The nature of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 169 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT d. That the nuisance must be corrected; 170 e. Provide a specific date by which the corrective action ordered by the 171 enforcement official be taken; 172 f. The remedies, including any civil fines, that the enforcement official intends 173 to pursue if corrective action is not taken; 174 g. Recommendations regarding potential remedial measures and an opportunity 175 for the responsible party to demonstrate use of remedial measures to the city; 176 h. Identification of the procedure to appeal the citation; and 177 i. The signature of the enforcement official. 178 179 2. The enforcement official shall serve the administrative citation on the responsible 180 party by: 181 a. Posting a copy of the administrative citation at the property, and 182 b. By mailing the administrative citation through certified mail or 183 reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. 184 If the responsible party is the property owner of record, then mailing 185 shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt 186 Lake County Recorder. If the responsible party is any other person or 187 entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last 188 known address of the responsible party on file with the city. 189 c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible 190 party shall be sufficient to meet the service requirements of Subsection 191 11.18.080.B.2.b. 192 193 3. Corrective Action: Following the issuance of an administrative citation the 194 responsible party shall either: 195 a. Demonstrate that remedial measures have been implemented to 196 address the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that led to the 197 nuisance declaration, or 198 b. Enter into a nuisance abatement plan pursuant to Section 11.18.090. 199 200 4. Failure to Correct: If corrective action has not been undertaken by the deadline 201 identified in the administrative citation, the city may pursue any remedy, 202 including civil fines identified in Section 11.18.110. 203 11.18.090: NUISANCE ABATEMENT PLANS: 204 A. Any nuisance abatement plan executed by a responsible party and the city shall certify 205 the responsible party’s agreement to take all necessary and appropriate measures to reduce, 206 eliminate or prevent future recurrence of each nuisance conduct and each serious violent 207 behavior giving rise to nuisance declaration. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, 208 the following: 209 210 1. Removal of unlawful items; 211 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Taking steps to prevent the specific nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior, 212 personally or through an agent such as a private security company; 213 3. Hiring sufficient licensed and insured security personnel to patrol the property 214 and the abutting sidewalks; 215 4. Documenting proactive efforts with the police department regarding nuisance 216 behavior or serious violent behavior activities; 217 5. Participating in regular meetings with community-based organizations at which 218 specific efforts to address nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior are 219 discussed; 220 6. Installing and maintaining improved lighting at each point of entry to and exit 221 from the property and in designated common areas, if any; 222 7. Installing and maintaining surveillance cameras that are at all times: (i) active and 223 operational at each point of entry to and exit from the business or property, in 224 designated common areas and in interior spaces where business operations are 225 conducted, on the street abutting the business, and any other locations where prior 226 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior has been reported; (ii) disclosed to 227 the public through posted notice on the premises; (iii) illuminated in such a 228 manner so as to enable persons entering and exiting the business or property to be 229 visible and identified on recorded footage; and (iv) maintaining recorded footage 230 for not less than 6 months after the recording occurs; 231 8. Installing metal detectors to screen persons visiting the business; 232 9. Maintaining an internal log or incident reporting system documenting the owner's 233 response to specific incidents of illegal activity inside the property or on the 234 abutting sidewalk; 235 10. Displaying signage identifying prohibited behavior at the property; 236 11. Making specific efforts to address litter and other cleanliness issues, such as 237 additional or larger refuse bins, more frequent or targeted cleaning, signage, 238 enhanced refuse bins, and changing business operations or products to reduce the 239 likelihood of litter creation; 240 12. Installing soundproofing insulation or taking other steps to control noise; 241 13. Changing the hours of operation in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of 242 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 243 14. Changing business operations or products sold in a manner designed to reduce the 244 likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 245 15. Removing any drug paraphernalia offered for sale or display in violation of 246 applicable zoning requirements from the premises; 247 16. Providing surveillance camera footage to law enforcement upon request; and 248 17. Any other measures likely to abate or prevent the recurrence of the nuisance 249 behavior or serious violent behavior. 250 251 B. Term: Executed plans shall be effective for a minimum of 12 months, and may be 252 extended by mutual agreement, or if ordered by the administrative appeals officer, if another 253 nuisance is declared at the property prior to expiration of the plan. 254 255 C. Remedies: All nuisance abatement plans shall identify remedies to the city if the 256 responsible party does not comply with the plan. These remedies may include, but are not limited 257 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT to: granting the city the ability to enter and abate the nuisance with recovery of costs associated 258 therewith to be made by the responsible party to the city upon presentation of an itemized 259 statement of costs; financial penalties; reduction in business operating hours; temporary closure 260 of the property or business; making some portions of the property inaccessible; and prohibiting 261 all alcohol sales or consumption on the property. 262 11.18.100: APPEALS: 263 A responsible party may appeal an administrative citation within ten (10) days of its issuance 264 pursuant to Chapter 2.75. 265 11.18.110: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: 266 A. Civil Fines: A property or business subject to a nuisance declaration may be subject to a 267 range of penalties that increase in severity. These penalties progress as follows: 268 1. If a responsible party fails to complete a corrective action by the deadline set 269 forth in an administrative citation, then for a first violation a fine shall be 270 assessed in the amount of $500. 271 2. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 272 first violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan then a fine shall 273 be assessed in the amount of $750, which shall constitute a second violation. 274 3. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 275 second violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine 276 shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000, which shall constitute a third 277 violation. 278 4. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 279 third or any subsequent violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement 280 plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000. 281 B. Revocation of Business License: In the event more than two citations are issued in any 282 12 month period, and the business at issue is not then a party to and in compliance with a 283 nuisance abatement plan, then the city may suspend or revoke the associated business license 284 pursuant to Chapter 5.02. 285 C. Orders by the Administrative Appeals Officer: In the event of an appeal of an 286 administrative citation, the administrative appeals officer may: 287 1. Order that the responsible party and the city enter into a nuisance abatement 288 plan consistent with Section 11.18.090 with the measures as directed by the 289 administrative appeals officer. 290 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Grant the city an abatement order. 291 a. The order of abatement can require the responsible party to correct the 292 nuisance and can authorize the city to abate such nuisance if the 293 responsible party does not timely perform the abatement. 294 b. In the event the city proves that nuisance conduct or conditions pose a 295 reasonably imminent danger to human health or human life, unabated, 296 the administrative appeals officer shall order the abatement as requested 297 by the city. In such circumstances the city may perform the abatement of 298 the nuisance at the first possible opportunity. 299 c. The abatement order must permit the city to charge the responsible party 300 for the costs the city incurs in abating the nuisance. The costs may be 301 appealed to the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 302 11.70.150. 303 3. Revoke a business license without the right to apply for another license at the 304 property or another business premises for at least six months. 305 Orders of an administrative appeals officer issued pursuant to this Chapter are each an 306 administrative enforcement order that may be appealed in accordance with 2.75.210. 307 11.18.120: CONTINUING SUPERVISION: 308 A. When an administrative citation is not timely appealed or an administrative appeals 309 officer has affirmed the city’s nuisance declaration, the responsible party is subject to 310 continued supervision by an administrative appeals officer for twelve (12) months or the term 311 of any applicable nuisance abatement plan. During that time, the administrative appeals officer 312 may schedule review hearings to track the responsible party’s compliance with any nuisance 313 abatement plan or abatement order, impose previously suspended penalties, and hold a hearing 314 to consider any claim by the city that a responsible party has not complied with a nuisance 315 abatement plan ordered by the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.18.110. 316 B. At a hearing on a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan entered pursuant to 317 11.18.110, the administrative appeals officer shall consider the steps taken by the responsible 318 party and determine whether such party has fulfilled its obligations under the nuisance 319 abatement plan. 320 1. During a hearing reviewing a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan, 321 the underlying nuisance declaration cannot be disturbed. 322 2. In the event the administrative appeals officer finds that the responsible party 323 failed to comply with any obligation under the nuisance abatement plan, the 324 administrative appeals officer shall impose one or more remedies as set forth in the 325 nuisance abatement plan. 326 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT C. Each new administrative citation may be appealed. Such appeals are limited to a review 327 of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior identified in the administrative citation and 328 may not address previous administrative citations that were not timely appealed or orders by an 329 administrative appeals officer that were not timely appealed. 330 11.70.170: DECLARATION OR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW BUSINESS OWNER 331 AND PROPERTY LOCATION: 332 A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior follows the 333 business owner and/or runs with the property. A declaration or determination of nuisance 334 conduct or serious violent behavior is not eliminated by transferring the property or the 335 business to another person or entity, changing the name of the business, or moving the business 336 to a new location. Transfer of business ownership shall not terminate any nuisance abatement 337 plan in effect with respect to a nuisance business. The acquiring business owner shall be 338 responsible for compliance with any enforcement action pending against the nuisance business 339 and prior business owner. 340 341 342 SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 343 first publication. 344 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 345 2025. 346 ______________________________ 347 CHAIRPERSON 348 349 350 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 351 352 ______________________________ 353 CITY RECORDER 354 355 356 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 357 358 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 359 360 ______________________________ 361 MAYOR 362 ______________________________ 363 CITY RECORDER 364 11 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (SEAL) 365 366 Bill No. ________ of 2025. 367 Published: ______________. 368 Responsible Property Owner Ordinance(legislative)v4 369 370 371 This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 09/24/2025 Date Sent to Council: 09/26/2025 From: Department * Finance Employee Name: Garcia, Arturo E-mail Arturo.Garcia@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 09/24/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 09/26/2025 Subject: Responsible Owner Ordinance & After Hours Alcohol Ordinance New transmittal or Revision New transmittal Revision Revision Updates: The proposed provisions previously presented under a single ordinance will now be transmitted as two separate ordinances. The first will address after-hours alcohol restrictions on non-residential and commercial properties, aligning City regulations with state-imposed restrictions on licensed establishments. The second, the Responsible Owner Ordinance, will create a framework to hold property and business owners accountable for chronic nuisance conditions through administrative citations, abatement plans, and corrective measures. Additional Staff Contact: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Art Garcia, Director of Finance Operations, Bill Manzanares, Deputy Chief Of Police, and Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney Presenters/Staff Table Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Art Garcia, Director of Finance Operations, Bill Manzanares, Deputy Chief Of Police, and Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City Council adopt amendments to Salt Lake City Chapter 5.51and enact section 11.12.130, Public Peace, Morals and Welfare Offenses Against Public Order. Background/Discussion After-House Alcohol Ordinance The proposed After-Hours Alcohol Ordinance addresses a gap in existing state regulations that limit after-hours alcohol consumption only for licensed retail establishments. While state law requires retail licensees to cease alcohol service by 1:00 am and consumption by 2:00 am, it does not extend these restrictions to non-residential premises or commercial properties operating without state-issued alcohol licenses. This has led to recurring issues where commercial establishments host late-night gatherings with ongoing alcohol consumption well past permitted hours. These activities often generate noise, public safety concerns, and criminal activity that strain City resources and place neighboring residents and businesses at risk. The ordinance would extend after-hours restrictions to non-residential and commercial common areas, mirroring the standards applied to licensed establishments. Aligning local code with state regulations, this gives the City additional enforcement tools to curb nuisance activity, protect neighborhoods, and promote consistent, responsible business practices. This ordinance encourages commercial and non-residential property owners to adopt proactive measures to improve public safety, protect quality of life, and promote fair and consistent regulation across the community. Responsible Owner Ordinance The Responsible Owner Ordinance is intended to address persistent nuisance activity occurring on private properties and at commercial businesses where owners have failed to take proactive steps to curb illegal or disruptive conduct. In recent years, the City has faced increasing complaints about properties that attract crime, chronic disturbances, and unsafe conditions. The Responsible Owner Ordinance establishes a framework to hold property and business owners accountable when their premises become chronic nuisances. The recommended ordinance introduces a tiered administrative enforcement process that allows for timely intervention, civil penalties, and the ability to require remedial measures or nuisance abatement plans. This comprehensive approach is recommended because it empowers the City to take earlier, more flexible action to address nuisance behavior; imposes accountability on property and business owners; and provides a fair process for correction and appeal. These measures collectively promote public safety, reduce ongoing enforcement burdens, and support the health and welfare of Salt Lake City residents and visitors. Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 202__ (Amending the text of Titles 5 and 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises) An ordinance amending Chapters 5.51 and 11.12 to prohibit the after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises. WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 32B-5-301 prohibits the after-hours consumption of alcoholic products and alcoholic beverages on the premises of retail licensees; and WHEREAS, non-residential premises and commercial establishments that do not adhere to the protections and safeguards required of retail licensees are permitting the consumption of alcoholic beverages on their premises long after the retail licensees are required to close; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that prohibiting the after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises pursuant to standards similar to those that govern the premises of retail licensees reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. WHEREAS, criminal activity associated with such after-hours consumption is a threat to the public safety of the city and is a burden on the city’s public safety resources; WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and WHEREAS, 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 text of Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code (Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations: Alcohol Establishments and Off Premises Beer Retailers), is hereby amended as follows: CHAPTER 5.51 REGULATIONS RELATED TO ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS, NONRESIDENTIAL PREMISES, AND OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILERS 5.51.010: DEFINITIONS: ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENT: Any business that has obtained a license from the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Service. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor. ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of the Utah Code, or its successor. COMMON AREA: Any portion of a licensee establishment that is generally accessible to all occupants, invitees, guests, or customers; or that is generally intended for the common use of such occupants, invitees, guests or customers. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not “common area.” DABS: the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Services. LICENSEE ESTABLISHMENT: The location where any holder of a Salt Lake City business license, obtained for any purpose, operates. OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILER: This term has the same definition as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 5.51.020: LICENSE REQUIRED: Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers must obtain a business license subject to the general requirements set forth in chapters 5.02 and 5.04 of this title and the requirements included in this chapter. 5.51.025: STATE ISSUED ALCOHOL LICENSES REQUIRED FOR ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS: No alcohol establishment may serve alcohol within the city without the appropriate valid license or permit issued by DABS pursuant to title 32B, Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 5.51.027: SPECIAL EVENT ALCOHOL PERMITS: A. Required: A city issued special event alcohol permit is required for all events which are required to obtain from DABS a single event permit or temporary special event beer permit under title 32B, Utah Code or its successor provisions, allowing alcohol to be stored, sold, served and consumed for short term events. B. Application Requirements: In addition to the application requirements set forth in section 5.02.060 of this title, the following information is required: 1. The time, dates, and location of the event. 2. A description of the nature and purpose of the event. 3. A description of the control measures to be imposed by the DABSC and where alcohol will be stored, served and sold. 4. Evidence that the applicant is not disqualified for the license or permit under Utah Code Section 32B-1-304 or its successor provisions or city ordinance. 5. A signed consent form stating that law enforcement and authorized city representatives shall have the unrestricted right to enter and inspect the premises during the event to ensure compliance with state law and city ordinance. C. Operational Restrictions: The permittee is subject to all operational restrictions imposed by the DABS under its state permit. No alcohol may be served at any special event unless the city permittee also obtains the appropriate state permit. D. Nontransferable: Special event alcohol permits are not transferable. E. Time Limits: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the time limitations applicable to DABS single event permits and temporary special event beer permits. F. Fees: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the fees that correspond to chapter 5.04 of this title and to an alcohol concession agreement fee. Such fees are set forth in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 5.51.030: ANNUAL LICENSE FEES: Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers are subject to the license fees set forth in chapter 5.04 of this title. For the purpose of establishing regulatory fees and disproportionate costs for alcohol establishments, the city may separate alcohol establishments into subcategories within schedules 1 and 2 of this title based on the types of alcohol served and the type of business conducted within the alcohol establishment. 5.51.040: RESTRICTIONS GOVENING CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS IN COMMON AREAS: Between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. a licensee establishment shall not: A. Furnish an alcoholic beverage or alcoholic product to an individual, nor B. Allow an individual to consume an alcoholic beverage or an alcoholic product in the common area of such establishment. 5.51.050: ENFORCEMENT: In addition to any enforcement procedures set forth in Utah Code Title 32B, any holder of a Salt Lake City business license found in violation of the provisions of this Chapter shall be (1) subject to a $1000 fine per occurrence, and (2) the City may seek to suspend or revoke the associated business license pursuant to the enforcement procedures set forth in Chapter 5.02. SECTION 2. Enacting Section 11.12.070 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Section 11.12.070 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare: Offenses Against Public Order) is hereby enacted as follows: 11.12.070: UNLAWFUL CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN COMMON AREAS OF NON-RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS: A. Definitions: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions. ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions. COMMON AREA: Any portion of a non-residential premises that is generally accessible to all occupants, invitees or licensees; or that is generally intended for the common use of such occupants, invitees or licensees. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not “common area.” NON-RESIDENTIAL PREMISES: Premises that do not meet any of the various definitions of dwelling set forth in Section 21A.62.040. B. An individual shall not consume an alcoholic beverage nor an alcoholic product in any common area of non-residential premises during the time period beginning at 2:00 AM and ending at 6:00 AM. C. Operators of non-residential premises shall not permit the consumption of alcoholic beverages or alcoholic products in any common area during the time period between 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM. D. Individuals found in violation of this Section shall be subject to a civil citation and penalty of $500 per occurrence. Operators not otherwise subject to Chapter 5.51 shall be subject to a civil citation and penalty of $1000 per occurrence. 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 ______________, 202__. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 202__. Published: ______________. After Hours Alcohol Ordinance(final)v1 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney September 19, 2025 This page has intentionally been left blank 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 202__ 2 3 (Amending the text of Titles 5 and 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to after-hours 4 consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential 5 premises) 6 7 An ordinance amending Chapters 5.51 and 11.12 to prohibit the after-hours consumption 8 of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises. 9 WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 32B-5-301 prohibits the after-hours consumption of 10 alcoholic products and alcoholic beverages on the premises of retail licensees; and 11 WHEREAS, non-residential premises and commercial establishments that do not adhere 12 to the protections and safeguards required of retail licensees are permitting the consumption of 13 alcoholic beverages on their premises long after the retail licensees are required to close; and 14 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that prohibiting the after-hours consumption of 15 alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises 16 pursuant to standards similar to those that govern the premises of retail licensees reasonably 17 furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. 18 WHEREAS, criminal activity associated with such after-hours consumption is a threat to 19 the public safety of the city and is a burden on the city’s public safety resources; 20 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance 21 promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and 22 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s 23 best interests. 24 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 25 2 26 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code. That 27 Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code (Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations: Alcohol 28 Establishments and Off Premises Beer Retailers), is hereby amended as follows: 29 CHAPTER 5.51 REGULATIONS RELATED TO ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS, 30 NONRESIDENTIAL PREMISES, AND OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILERS 31 32 5.51.005: PURPOSE: 33 34 The purpose of this chapter is to normalize the regulation of alcoholic beverages by the city by: 35 a) simplifying alcoholic beverage control regulation by not duplicating state regulations, and b) 36 limiting the city's regulatory interests to business licensing and to land use concerns as provided 37 in title 21A of this code. The provisions of this chapter shall be construed to effectuate those 38 purposes. This chapter does not limit in any way the responsibilities of Salt Lake City police 39 officers or Salt Lake City prosecutors under state law. 40 41 5.51.010: DEFINITIONS: 42 43 ALCOHOL: The same meaning as section 32A-1-105(2), Utah Code Annotated (2009), or 44 successor provisions. 45 46 ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENT: Any business that has obtained a license from the Utah 47 Department of Alcoholic Beverage Servicesells alcoholic beverages to patrons for consumption 48 on the premises, as set forth in section 21A.36.300 of this code. 49 50 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 51 of Utah Code, or its successor. 52 53 ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of 54 the Utah Code, or its successor. 55 56 COMMON AREA: Any portion of a licensee establishment that is generally accessible to all 57 occupants, invitees, guests, or customers; or that is generally intended for the common use of 58 such occupants, invitees, guests or customers. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not 59 “common area.” 60 61 DABS: the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Services. 62 63 LICENSEE ESTABLISHMENT: The location where any holder of a Salt Lake City business 64 license, obtained for any purpose, operates. 65 66 LICENSE ENFORCEMENT ACTION: The administrative process set forth in 67 section 5.51.070 of this chapter. 68 69 3 OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILER: This term has the same definition as defined in Section 70 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions.A retail business that sells beer in its 71 original packaging for consumption off the premises, but does not include the sale of beer in 72 sealed containers pursuant to section 32A-10-206(7), Utah Code Annotated (2009), or its 73 successor provision. 74 75 SEASONAL LICENSE: A city business license issued to an alcohol establishment that is valid 76 for a six (6) month period corresponding with the periods provided for "seasonal A" and 77 "seasonal B" licenses issued by the Utah alcoholic beverage control commission, pursuant to title 78 32A, Utah Code Annotated (2009), and its successor provisions. 79 80 81 5.51.020: LICENSE REQUIRED: 82 83 Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers must obtain a 84 business license subject to the general requirements set forth in chapters 5.02 and 5.04 of this 85 title and the requirements included in this chapter. Alcohol establishments which qualify for a 86 seasonal A or seasonal B license issued by the Utah alcoholic beverage control commission may 87 obtain a seasonal license for the same term for which the state license is issued. 88 89 90 5.51.025: STATE ISSUED ALCOHOL LICENSES REQUIRED FOR ALCOHOL 91 ESTABLISHMENTS: 92 93 No alcohol establishment may serve alcohol within the city without the appropriate valid license 94 or permit issued by DABSthe Utah alcoholic beverage control commission pursuant to title 95 32BA, Utah Code Annotated (2009), orand its successor provisions. 96 97 5.51.027: SPECIAL EVENT ALCOHOL PERMITS: 98 99 A. Required: A city issued special event alcohol permit is required for all events which are 100 required to obtain from DABSthe Utah alcoholic beverage control commission a single event 101 permit or temporary special event beer permit under title 32BA, Utah Code Annotated (2009) or 102 its successor provisions, allowing alcohol to be stored, sold, served and consumed for short term 103 events. 104 105 B. Application Requirements: In addition to the application requirements set forth in 106 section 5.02.060 of this title, the following information is required: 107 1. The time, dates, and location of the event. 108 2. A description of the nature and purpose of the event. 109 3. A description of the control measures to be imposed by the DABSC and where 110 alcohol will be stored, served and sold. 111 4. Evidence that the applicant is not disqualified for the license or permit under Utah 112 Code Section 32B-1-304 or its successor provisions or city ordinance. 113 4 54. A signed consent form stating that law enforcement and authorized city 114 representatives shall have the unrestricted right to enter and inspect the premises during 115 the event to ensure compliance with state law and city ordinance. 116 117 C. Operational Restrictions: The permittee is subject to all operational restrictions imposed 118 by the DABSC under its state permit. No alcohol may be served at any special event unless the 119 city permittee also obtains the appropriate state permit. 120 121 D. Nontransferable: Special event alcohol permits are not transferable. 122 123 E. Time Limits: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the time limitations applicable 124 to DABSC single event permits and temporary special event beer permits. 125 126 F. Fees: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the fees that correspond to chapter 127 5.04 of this title and to an alcohol concession agreement fee. Such fees are set forth in the Salt 128 Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 129 130 131 5.51.030: ANNUAL LICENSE FEES: 132 133 A. Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers are 134 subject to the license fees set forth in chapter 5.04 of this title. For the purpose of establishing 135 regulatory fees and disproportionate costs for alcohol establishments, the city may separate 136 alcohol establishments into subcategories within schedules 1 and 2 of this title based on the types 137 of alcohol served and the type of business conducted within the alcohol establishment. 138 139 B. The license fee for a seasonal license will be assessed at fifty percent (50%) of the 140 regulatory and disproportionate fee charged for the type of alcohol establishment to be licensed 141 as listed on schedules 1 and 2 of this title, plus the full base license fee provided in 142 section 5.04.070 of this title. 143 144 145 5.51.040: RESTRICTIONS GOVENING CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC 146 BEVERAGES AND ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS IN COMMON AREAS: 147 148 Between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. a licensee establishment shall not: 149 150 A. Furnish an alcoholic beverage or alcoholic product to an individual, nor 151 B. Allow an individual to consume an alcoholic beverage or an alcoholic product in the 152 common area of such establishment. 153 154 155 5.51.050100: OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILERS; OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS 156 AND ENFORCEMENT: 157 158 5 A. In addition to any enforcement procedures set forth in Utah Code Title 32B, any holder of 159 a Salt Lake City business license found in violation of the provisions of this Chapter shall be (1) 160 subject to a $1000 fine per occurrence, and (2) the City may seek to suspend or revoke the 161 associated business license pursuant to the enforcement procedures set forth in Chapter 162 5.02requirements under this code, off premises beer retailers are subject to the operational 163 requirements set forth in sections 32A-10-102 and 32A-10-103, Utah Code Annotated (2009), or 164 its successor provisions. 165 166 B. For violations related to underage sale of beer, the enforcement process set forth at 167 section 32A-10-103, Utah Code Annotated (2009), or its successor provisions, applies. 168 169 C. For all other violations, the requirements of chapter 5.02 of this title apply. 170 171 SECTION 2. Enacting Section 11.12.070 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Section 172 11.12.070 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare: Offenses Against Public Order) is hereby enacted 173 as follows: 174 11.12.070: UNLAWFUL CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN COMMON AREAS OF 175 NON-RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS: 176 177 A. Definitions: 178 179 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of 180 Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 181 182 ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of 183 Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 184 185 COMMON AREA: Any portion of a non-residential premises that is generally accessible to all 186 occupants, invitees or licensees; or that is generally intended for the common use of such 187 occupants, invitees or licensees. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not “common area.” 188 189 NON-RESIDENTIAL PREMISES: Premises that do not meet any of the various definitions of 190 dwelling set forth in Section 21A.62.040. 191 192 B. An individual shall not consume an alcoholic beverage nor an alcoholic product in any 193 common area of non-residential premises during the time period beginning at 2:00 AM and 194 ending at 6:00 AM. 195 196 C. Operators of non-residential premises shall not permit the consumption of alcoholic 197 beverages or alcoholic products in any common area during the time period between 2:00 AM 198 and 6:00 AM. 199 200 6 D. Individuals found in violation of this Section shall be subject to a civil citation and 201 penalty of $500 per occurrence. Operators not otherwise subject to Chapter 5.51 shall be subject 202 to a civil citation and penalty of $1000 per occurrence. 203 204 205 SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 206 first publication. 207 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 208 202__. 209 ______________________________ 210 CHAIRPERSON 211 212 213 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 214 215 ______________________________ 216 CITY RECORDER 217 218 219 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 220 221 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 222 223 ______________________________ 224 MAYOR 225 ______________________________ 226 CITY RECORDER 227 (SEAL) 228 229 Bill No. ________ of 202__. 230 Published: ______________. 231 After Hours Alcohol Ordinance (legislative)v1 232 This page has intentionally been left blank 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2025 (Amending the text of Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private property) An ordinance enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to responsible business and private property ownership to abate nuisances. WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of public nuisances; WHEREAS, the city acknowledges a significant public safety burden placed on the citizens of the city when business owners and property owners permit nuisance activity or fail to otherwise implement necessary steps to prevent the nuisance activity; WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and WHEREAS, 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. Enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 11.18 in Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), is hereby enacted as follows: CHAPTER 11.18 RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNER 11.18.010: DEFINITIONS: In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set forth in this section: 2 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. BUSINESS OWNER: Any person engaged in business within Salt Lake City. CITY: Salt Lake City, Utah, including the mayor and all other employees of the administrative branch of the city. CRIMINAL CONDUCT: Any criminal offense at a place of business that can be reasonably linked to a patron, invitee, manager, owner, or employee of the business, an occupant of the place of business, or any person in the case of vacant property. EMERGENCY CONDITIONS: One or more conditions that exist in a building or on a property that create the likelihood of imminent danger to the life or safety of anyone who enters or occupies the property or building. ENGAGE IN BUSINESS: To conduct, manage, or carry on any business activity, as owner, officer, agent, manager, employer, or lessee. IMMINENT LIFE SAFETY HAZARD: Any condition that creates a serious and immediate danger to life, property, health, or public safety. ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. NUISANCE CONDUCT: Behavior that interferes with the health, safety or welfare of the community, materially and repeatedly infringes on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring uses, or results in the harassment of patrons or other persons including, but not limited to: (a) criminal conduct; (b) disturbance of the peace; (c) illegal consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages; (d) illegal drug activity; (e) unlawful street or sidewalk obstruction; (f) gambling and illegal gaming activities; (g) harassment of passers-by; (h) prostitution; (i) public urination or defecation; (j) lewd conduct; 3 (k) litter; (l) unlawful discharge of hazardous materials; (m) parking violations; (n) open storage of unlicensed, inoperable, unused or abandoned vehicles or vehicle parts, unless the property is licensed for such use; (o) open storage of junk, scrap metal, lumber, wastepaper products, building materials, machinery and associated parts, interior household furniture, appliances, tree limbs and cuttings, landscape debris, garbage, industrial waste, other spent, useless, worthless or discarded materials, or materials stored or accumulated for the purpose of discarding materials that have served their original purpose; (p) fouling of the air with offensive odors or contaminants, excessive dust, or excessive loud noise; (q) owning, operating or conducting a vehicle chop shop in any building or structure, including a lot or curtilage, for the purpose of dealing in stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle parts or illegally obtaining and altering vehicles or vehicle identification numbers of vehicle parts; (r) vehicles parked on the sidewalk; (s) use of street parking spaces or sidewalk for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, or storage or repair of inoperable vehicles; (t) unlawful firearms possession by a patron; (u) illegal dumping; (v) unlawful junk dealer operations; (w) obstruction of an investigation of nuisance behavior; (x) repeated or continuing violations of any other City ordinance and/or regulations; or (y) any other activity that constitutes a public nuisance under state law. OBSTRUCTION OF AN INVESTIGATION: Any obstruction of, interference with or other impediment of the investigation of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by a business owner, property owner, or other responsible person. PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. PLACE OF BUSINESS: A location maintained or operated by a person within the city at which business activities take place. Place of business includes a parking lot owned or leased by the business, parking areas traditionally used by patrons or employees of the business, and the public rights-of-way adjacent to the business premises as it is used by persons attracted to the business. REMEDIAL MEASURES: Specific, verifiable actions taken by a responsible party that are substantially likely to reduce, eliminate or prevent recurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior at issue. RESPONSIBLE PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. SERIOUS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR. Conduct that would constitute any of the following offenses as defined by state law: homicide, murder, aggravated assault, rape, or sexual assault. 4 11.18.020: PURPOSE AND INTENT: Business owners and property owners shall properly manage their property and place of businesses to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or the spread of disease. This chapter creates a system to initiate administrative actions to abate nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior and to impose civil fines or other penalties if a business owner or a property owner fails to take all remedial measures to address the identified nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. 11.18.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: The provisions of this chapter shall not invalidate any other title, chapter, or ordinance of this Code, but shall be read in conjunction with those titles, chapters, and ordinances and shall be used as an additional remedy for enforcement of violations thereof. 11.18.040: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION; EMERGENCY POWERS: A. The city shall have sole discretion in deciding whether to pursue remedies to address nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, to file a civil nuisance action under this chapter or under state law, to bring criminal charges, to order suspension or revocation of business licenses, to order immediate action to terminate or abate nuisance conduct, to pursue administrative enforcement actions for the violation of any of its ordinances or applicable code requirements, or any combination thereof, or to pursue any other remedy available under the law. City officials are permitted to exercise executive discretion in determining which course of enforcement to pursue, taking into consideration the severity of an incident, the culpability of involved parties, the history of the involved property, and whether other circumstances exist that exacerbate the public impact of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. B. The enforcement of the provisions of this chapter does not prevent the city from pursuing other remedies for specific violations, including fines, abatement, suspension, revocation, injunctions, or other penalties. Specific violations may be considered nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, even if the business owner or property owner has already incurred civil or criminal penalties related to that offense. C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from abating nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that denigrates the public health and welfare in a declared emergency. D. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense and may give rise to a separate citation, charge or other remedy. 11.18.050: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, ATTEMPTING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: 5 Whenever an act, condition, or omission is referred to or made unlawful in this chapter, it shall include causing, attempting to cause, permitting, aiding, or abetting such act, condition, or omission. 11.18.060: DUTY TO PROPERLY MANAGE: Every property owner and business owner shall have a duty to properly manage their private property or place of business, as applicable, to prevent the creation of a nuisance to neighboring businesses, residents, passers-by, or the public, that results from nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by patrons, guests, employees, occupants, or those who frequent the business premises or the property, regardless of whether the persons are owners, invitees, or trespassers. 11.18.070: NUISANCE DECLARED A. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-8-60, the city has determined the quiet enjoyment of property and the general health, safety, and welfare of the community are intolerably impaired—and a public nuisance exists—when nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurs at any private property or place of business. B. A business owner or property owner is presumed to have created a nuisance if (1) within 180 consecutive days, not less than 3 separate incidents of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occur at or within the property, (2) for ongoing violations of this Chapter the nuisance conduct has persisted for 30 days or more, or (3) in connection with a place of business there are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in a 30 day period. This presumption may be rebutted if the responsible party demonstrates that it took all reasonable steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent reoccurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurring at or within the property. 11.18.080: DECLARATION OF NUISANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: A. The city may declare the existence of nuisance, as described under Section 11.18.070 at any time. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a declaration of nuisance may be combined with any other notice from the city to the responsible party. B. Administrative Citation. Upon a determination that a business or private property has created a nuisance the city may issue an administrative citation. 1. The written citation shall state: a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible party; b. The date and location of each violation; c. The nature of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 6 d. That the nuisance must be corrected; e. Provide a specific date by which the corrective action ordered by the enforcement official be taken; f. The remedies, including any civil fines, that the enforcement official intends to pursue if corrective action is not taken; g. Recommendations regarding potential remedial measures and an opportunity for the responsible party to demonstrate use of remedial measures to the city; h. Identification of the procedure to appeal the citation; and i. The signature of the enforcement official. 2. The enforcement official shall serve the administrative citation on the responsible party by: a. Posting a copy of the administrative citation at the property, and b. By mailing the administrative citation through certified mail or reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. If the responsible party is the property owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt Lake County Recorder. If the responsible party is any other person or entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address of the responsible party on file with the city. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible party shall be sufficient to meet the service requirements of Subsection 11.18.080.B.2.b. 3. Corrective Action: Following the issuance of an administrative citation the responsible party shall either: a. Demonstrate that remedial measures have been implemented to address the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that led to the nuisance declaration, or b. Enter into a nuisance abatement plan pursuant to Section 11.18.090. 4. Failure to Correct: If corrective action has not been undertaken by the deadline identified in the administrative citation, the city may pursue any remedy, including civil fines identified in Section 11.18.110. 11.18.090: NUISANCE ABATEMENT PLANS: A. Any nuisance abatement plan executed by a responsible party and the city shall certify the responsible party’s agreement to take all necessary and appropriate measures to reduce, eliminate or prevent future recurrence of each nuisance conduct and each serious violent behavior giving rise to nuisance declaration. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Removal of unlawful items; 7 2. Taking steps to prevent the specific nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior, personally or through an agent such as a private security company; 3. Hiring sufficient licensed and insured security personnel to patrol the property and the abutting sidewalks; 4. Documenting proactive efforts with the police department regarding nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior activities; 5. Participating in regular meetings with community-based organizations at which specific efforts to address nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior are discussed; 6. Installing and maintaining improved lighting at each point of entry to and exit from the property and in designated common areas, if any; 7. Installing and maintaining surveillance cameras that are at all times: (i) active and operational at each point of entry to and exit from the business or property, in designated common areas and in interior spaces where business operations are conducted, on the street abutting the business, and any other locations where prior nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior has been reported; (ii) disclosed to the public through posted notice on the premises; (iii) illuminated in such a manner so as to enable persons entering and exiting the business or property to be visible and identified on recorded footage; and (iv) maintaining recorded footage for not less than 6 months after the recording occurs; 8. Installing metal detectors to screen persons visiting the business; 9. Maintaining an internal log or incident reporting system documenting the owner's response to specific incidents of illegal activity inside the property or on the abutting sidewalk; 10. Displaying signage identifying prohibited behavior at the property; 11. Making specific efforts to address litter and other cleanliness issues, such as additional or larger refuse bins, more frequent or targeted cleaning, signage, enhanced refuse bins, and changing business operations or products to reduce the likelihood of litter creation; 12. Installing soundproofing insulation or taking other steps to control noise; 13. Changing the hours of operation in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 14. Changing business operations or products sold in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 15. Removing any drug paraphernalia offered for sale or display in violation of applicable zoning requirements from the premises; 16. Providing surveillance camera footage to law enforcement upon request; and 17. Any other measures likely to abate or prevent the recurrence of the nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior. B. Term: Executed plans shall be effective for a minimum of 12 months, and may be extended by mutual agreement, or if ordered by the administrative appeals officer, if another nuisance is declared at the property prior to expiration of the plan. C. Remedies: All nuisance abatement plans shall identify remedies to the city if the responsible party does not comply with the plan. These remedies may include, but are not limited 8 to: granting the city the ability to enter and abate the nuisance with recovery of costs associated therewith to be made by the responsible party to the city upon presentation of an itemized statement of costs; financial penalties; reduction in business operating hours; temporary closure of the property or business; making some portions of the property inaccessible; and prohibiting all alcohol sales or consumption on the property. 11.18.100: APPEALS: A responsible party may appeal an administrative citation within ten (10) days of its issuance pursuant to Chapter 2.75. 11.18.110: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: A. Civil Fines: A property or business subject to a nuisance declaration may be subject to a range of penalties that increase in severity. These penalties progress as follows: 1. If a responsible party fails to complete a corrective action by the deadline set forth in an administrative citation, then for a first violation a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $500. 2. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a first violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $750, which shall constitute a second violation. 3. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a second violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000, which shall constitute a third violation. 4. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a third or any subsequent violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000. B. Revocation of Business License: In the event more than two citations are issued in any 12 month period, and the business at issue is not then a party to and in compliance with a nuisance abatement plan, then the city may suspend or revoke the associated business license pursuant to Chapter 5.02. C. Orders by the Administrative Appeals officer: In the event of an appeal of an administrative citation, the administrative appeals officer may: 1. Order that the responsible party and the city enter into a nuisance abatement plan consistent with Section 11.18.090 with the measures as directed by the administrative appeals officer. 9 2. Grant the city an abatement order. a. The order of abatement can require the responsible party to correct the nuisance and can authorize the city to abate such nuisance if the responsible party does not timely perform the abatement. b. In the event the city proves that nuisance conduct or conditions pose a reasonably imminent danger to human health or human life, unabated, the administrative appeals officer shall order the abatement as requested by the city. In such circumstances the city may perform the abatement of the nuisance at the first possible opportunity. c. The abatement order must permit the city to charge the responsible party for the costs the city incurs in abating the nuisance. The costs may be appealed to the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.70.150. 3. Revoke a business license without the right to apply for another license at the property or another business premises for at least six months. Orders of an administrative appeals officer issued pursuant to this Chapter are each an administrative enforcement order that may be appealed in accordance with 2.75.210. 11.18.120: CONTINUING SUPERVISION: A. When an administrative citation is not timely appealed or an administrative appeals officer has affirmed the city’s nuisance declaration, the responsible party is subject to continued supervision by an administrative appeals officer for twelve (12) months or the term of any applicable nuisance abatement plan. During that time, the administrative appeals officer may schedule review hearings to track the responsible party’s compliance with any nuisance abatement plan or abatement order, impose previously suspended penalties, and hold a hearing to consider any claim by the city that a responsible party has not complied with a nuisance abatement plan ordered by the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.18.110. B. At a hearing on a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan entered pursuant to 11.18.110, the administrative appeals officer shall consider the steps taken by the responsible party and determine whether such party has fulfilled its obligations under the nuisance abatement plan. 1. During a hearing reviewing a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan, the underlying nuisance declaration cannot be disturbed. 2. In the event the administrative appeals officer finds that the responsible party failed to comply with any obligation under the nuisance abatement plan, the administrative appeals officer shall impose one or more remedies as set forth in the nuisance abatement plan. 10 C. Each new administrative citation may be appealed. Such appeals are limited to a review of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior identified in the administrative citation and may not address previous administrative citations that were not timely appealed or orders by an administrative appeals officer that were not timely appealed. 11.70.170: DECLARATION OR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW BUSINESS OWNER AND PROPERTY LOCATION: A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior follows the business owner and/or runs with the property. A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior is not eliminated by transferring the property or the business to another person or entity, changing the name of the business, or moving the business to a new location. Transfer of business ownership shall not terminate any nuisance abatement plan in effect with respect to a nuisance business. The acquiring business owner shall be responsible for compliance with any enforcement action pending against the nuisance business and prior business owner. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2025. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR 11 ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2025. Published: ______________. Responsible Property Owner Ordinance(final)v4 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney September 19, 2025 This page has intentionally been left blank 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2025 2 3 (Amending the text of Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private 4 property) 5 6 An ordinance enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to responsible 7 business and private property ownership to abate nuisances 8 WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of 9 public nuisances; 10 WHEREAS, the city acknowledges a significant public safety burden placed on the 11 citizens of the city when business owners and property owners permit nuisance activity or fail to 12 otherwise implement necessary steps to prevent the nuisance activity; 13 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance 14 promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and 15 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s 16 best interests. 17 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 18 19 SECTION 1. Enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 11.18 in 20 Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), is hereby enacted as 21 follows: 22 CHAPTER 11.18 RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNER 23 11.18.010: DEFINITIONS: 24 25 In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set 26 forth in this section: 27 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 28 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 29 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 30 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: As that term is defined in Section 31 2.75.050. 32 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 33 BUSINESS OWNER: Any person engaged in business within Salt Lake City. 34 CITY: Salt Lake City, Utah, including the mayor and all other employees of the administrative 35 branch of the city. 36 CRIMINAL CONDUCT: Any criminal offense at a place of business that can be reasonably 37 linked to a patron, invitee, manager, owner, or employee of the business, an occupant of the 38 place of business, or any person in the case of vacant property. 39 EMERGENCY CONDITIONS: One or more conditions that exist in a building or on a 40 property that create the likelihood of imminent danger to the life or safety of anyone who 41 enters or occupies the property or building. 42 ENGAGE IN BUSINESS: To conduct, manage, or carry on any business activity, as owner, 43 officer, agent, manager, employer, or lessee. 44 IMMINENT LIFE SAFETY HAZARD: Any condition that creates a serious and immediate 45 danger to life, property, health, or public safety. 46 ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 47 NUISANCE CONDUCT: Behavior that interferes with the health, safety or welfare of the 48 community, materially and repeatedly infringes on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring uses, or 49 results in the harassment of patrons or other persons including, but not limited to: 50 (a) criminal conduct; 51 (b) disturbance of the peace; 52 (c) illegal consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages; 53 (d) illegal drug activity; 54 (e) unlawful street or sidewalk obstruction; 55 (f) gambling and illegal gaming activities; 56 (g) harassment of passers-by; 57 (h) prostitution; 58 (i) public urination or defecation; 59 (j) lewd conduct; 60 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (k) litter; 61 (l) unlawful discharge of hazardous materials; 62 (m) parking violations; 63 (n) open storage of unlicensed, inoperable, unused or abandoned vehicles or vehicle parts, 64 unless the property is licensed for such use; 65 (o) open storage of junk, scrap metal, lumber, wastepaper products, building materials, 66 machinery and associated parts, interior household furniture, appliances, tree limbs and 67 cuttings, landscape debris, garbage, industrial waste, other spent, useless, worthless or 68 discarded materials, or materials stored or accumulated for the purpose of discarding 69 materials that have served their original purpose; 70 (p) fouling of the air with offensive odors or contaminants, excessive dust, or excessive 71 loud noise; 72 (q) owning, operating or conducting a vehicle chop shop in any building or structure, 73 including a lot or curtilage, for the purpose of dealing in stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle 74 parts or illegally obtaining and altering vehicles or vehicle identification numbers of 75 vehicle parts; 76 (r) vehicles parked on the sidewalk; 77 (s) use of street parking spaces or sidewalk for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, or 78 storage or repair of inoperable vehicles; 79 (t) unlawful firearms possession by a patron; 80 (u) illegal dumping; 81 (v) unlawful junk dealer operations; 82 (w) obstruction of an investigation of nuisance behavior; 83 (x) repeated or continuing violations of any other City ordinance and/or regulations; or 84 (y) any other activity that constitutes a public nuisance under state law. 85 OBSTRUCTION OF AN INVESTIGATION: Any obstruction of, interference with or other 86 impediment of the investigation of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by a business 87 owner, property owner, or other responsible person. 88 PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 89 PLACE OF BUSINESS: A location maintained or operated by a person within the city at 90 which business activities take place. Place of business includes a parking lot owned or leased 91 by the business, parking areas traditionally used by patrons or employees of the business, and 92 the public rights-of-way adjacent to the business premises as it is used by persons attracted to 93 the business. 94 REMEDIAL MEASURES: Specific, verifiable actions taken by a responsible party that are 95 substantially likely to reduce, eliminate or prevent recurrence of the nuisance conduct or 96 serious violent behavior at issue. 97 RESPONSIBLE PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 98 SERIOUS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR. Conduct that would constitute any of the following 99 offenses as defined by state law: homicide, murder, aggravated assault, rape, or sexual assault. 100 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 11.18.020: PURPOSE AND INTENT: 101 Business owners and property owners shall properly manage their property and place of 102 businesses to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent 103 public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or 104 the spread of disease. This chapter creates a system to initiate administrative actions to abate 105 nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior and to impose civil fines or other penalties if a 106 business owner or a property owner fails to take all remedial measures to address the identified 107 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. 108 11.18.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: 109 The provisions of this chapter shall not invalidate any other title, chapter, or ordinance of this 110 Code, but shall be read in conjunction with those titles, chapters, and ordinances and shall be 111 used as an additional remedy for enforcement of violations thereof. 112 11.18.040: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION; EMERGENCY POWERS: 113 A. The city shall have sole discretion in deciding whether to pursue remedies to address 114 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, to file a civil nuisance action 115 under this chapter or under state law, to bring criminal charges, to order suspension or 116 revocation of business licenses, to order immediate action to terminate or abate nuisance 117 conduct, to pursue administrative enforcement actions for the violation of any of its ordinances 118 or applicable code requirements, or any combination thereof, or to pursue any other remedy 119 available under the law. City officials are permitted to exercise executive discretion in 120 determining which course of enforcement to pursue, taking into consideration the severity of 121 an incident, the culpability of involved parties, the history of the involved property, and 122 whether other circumstances exist that exacerbate the public impact of the nuisance conduct or 123 serious violent behavior. 124 B. The enforcement of the provisions of this chapter does not prevent the city from 125 pursuing other remedies for specific violations, including fines, abatement, suspension, 126 revocation, injunctions, or other penalties. Specific violations may be considered nuisance 127 conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, even if the business owner or property 128 owner has already incurred civil or criminal penalties related to that offense. 129 C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from abating nuisance conduct or serious 130 violent behavior that denigrates the public health and welfare in a declared emergency. 131 D. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense and may give rise to a 132 separate citation, charge or other remedy. 133 11.18.050: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, ATTEMPTING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: 134 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Whenever an act, condition, or omission is referred to or made unlawful in this chapter, it shall 135 include causing, attempting to cause, permitting, aiding, or abetting such act, condition, or 136 omission. 137 11.18.060: DUTY TO PROPERLY MANAGE: 138 Every property owner and business owner shall have a duty to properly manage their private 139 property or place of business, as applicable, to prevent the creation of a nuisance to 140 neighboring businesses, residents, passers-by, or the public, that results from nuisance conduct 141 or serious violent behavior by patrons, guests, employees, occupants, or those who frequent the 142 business premises or the property, regardless of whether the persons are owners, invitees, or 143 trespassers. 144 11.18.070: NUISANCE DECLARED 145 A. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-8-60, the city has determined the quiet enjoyment of 146 property and the general health, safety, and welfare of the community are intolerably 147 impaired—and a public nuisance exists—when nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior 148 occurs at any private property or place of business. 149 B. A business owner or property owner is presumed to have created a nuisance if (1) 150 within 180 consecutive days, not less than 3 separate incidents of nuisance conduct or serious 151 violent behavior occur at or within the property, (2) for ongoing violations of this Chapter the 152 nuisance conduct has persisted for 30 days or more, or (3) in connection with a place of 153 business there are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in a 30 day period. This 154 presumption may be rebutted if the responsible party demonstrates that it took all reasonable 155 steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent 156 reoccurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurring at or within the 157 property. 158 11.18.080: DECLARATION OF NUISANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: 159 A. The city may declare the existence of nuisance, as described under Section 11.18.070 at 160 any time. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a declaration of nuisance may be 161 combined with any other notice from the city to the responsible party. 162 B. Administrative Citation. Upon a determination that a business or private property has 163 created a nuisance the city may issue an administrative citation. 164 1. The written citation shall state: 165 166 a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible party; 167 b. The date and location of each violation; 168 c. The nature of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 169 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT d. That the nuisance must be corrected; 170 e. Provide a specific date by which the corrective action ordered by the 171 enforcement official be taken; 172 f. The remedies, including any civil fines, that the enforcement official intends 173 to pursue if corrective action is not taken; 174 g. Recommendations regarding potential remedial measures and an opportunity 175 for the responsible party to demonstrate use of remedial measures to the city; 176 h. Identification of the procedure to appeal the citation; and 177 i. The signature of the enforcement official. 178 179 2. The enforcement official shall serve the administrative citation on the responsible 180 party by: 181 a. Posting a copy of the administrative citation at the property, and 182 b. By mailing the administrative citation through certified mail or 183 reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. 184 If the responsible party is the property owner of record, then mailing 185 shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt 186 Lake County Recorder. If the responsible party is any other person or 187 entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last 188 known address of the responsible party on file with the city. 189 c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible 190 party shall be sufficient to meet the service requirements of Subsection 191 11.18.080.B.2.b. 192 193 3. Corrective Action: Following the issuance of an administrative citation the 194 responsible party shall either: 195 a. Demonstrate that remedial measures have been implemented to 196 address the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that led to the 197 nuisance declaration, or 198 b. Enter into a nuisance abatement plan pursuant to Section 11.18.090. 199 200 4. Failure to Correct: If corrective action has not been undertaken by the deadline 201 identified in the administrative citation, the city may pursue any remedy, 202 including civil fines identified in Section 11.18.110. 203 11.18.090: NUISANCE ABATEMENT PLANS: 204 A. Any nuisance abatement plan executed by a responsible party and the city shall certify 205 the responsible party’s agreement to take all necessary and appropriate measures to reduce, 206 eliminate or prevent future recurrence of each nuisance conduct and each serious violent 207 behavior giving rise to nuisance declaration. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, 208 the following: 209 210 1. Removal of unlawful items; 211 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Taking steps to prevent the specific nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior, 212 personally or through an agent such as a private security company; 213 3. Hiring sufficient licensed and insured security personnel to patrol the property 214 and the abutting sidewalks; 215 4. Documenting proactive efforts with the police department regarding nuisance 216 behavior or serious violent behavior activities; 217 5. Participating in regular meetings with community-based organizations at which 218 specific efforts to address nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior are 219 discussed; 220 6. Installing and maintaining improved lighting at each point of entry to and exit 221 from the property and in designated common areas, if any; 222 7. Installing and maintaining surveillance cameras that are at all times: (i) active and 223 operational at each point of entry to and exit from the business or property, in 224 designated common areas and in interior spaces where business operations are 225 conducted, on the street abutting the business, and any other locations where prior 226 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior has been reported; (ii) disclosed to 227 the public through posted notice on the premises; (iii) illuminated in such a 228 manner so as to enable persons entering and exiting the business or property to be 229 visible and identified on recorded footage; and (iv) maintaining recorded footage 230 for not less than 6 months after the recording occurs; 231 8. Installing metal detectors to screen persons visiting the business; 232 9. Maintaining an internal log or incident reporting system documenting the owner's 233 response to specific incidents of illegal activity inside the property or on the 234 abutting sidewalk; 235 10. Displaying signage identifying prohibited behavior at the property; 236 11. Making specific efforts to address litter and other cleanliness issues, such as 237 additional or larger refuse bins, more frequent or targeted cleaning, signage, 238 enhanced refuse bins, and changing business operations or products to reduce the 239 likelihood of litter creation; 240 12. Installing soundproofing insulation or taking other steps to control noise; 241 13. Changing the hours of operation in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of 242 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 243 14. Changing business operations or products sold in a manner designed to reduce the 244 likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 245 15. Removing any drug paraphernalia offered for sale or display in violation of 246 applicable zoning requirements from the premises; 247 16. Providing surveillance camera footage to law enforcement upon request; and 248 17. Any other measures likely to abate or prevent the recurrence of the nuisance 249 behavior or serious violent behavior. 250 251 B. Term: Executed plans shall be effective for a minimum of 12 months, and may be 252 extended by mutual agreement, or if ordered by the administrative appeals officer, if another 253 nuisance is declared at the property prior to expiration of the plan. 254 255 C. Remedies: All nuisance abatement plans shall identify remedies to the city if the 256 responsible party does not comply with the plan. These remedies may include, but are not limited 257 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT to: granting the city the ability to enter and abate the nuisance with recovery of costs associated 258 therewith to be made by the responsible party to the city upon presentation of an itemized 259 statement of costs; financial penalties; reduction in business operating hours; temporary closure 260 of the property or business; making some portions of the property inaccessible; and prohibiting 261 all alcohol sales or consumption on the property. 262 11.18.100: APPEALS: 263 A responsible party may appeal an administrative citation within ten (10) days of its issuance 264 pursuant to Chapter 2.75. 265 11.18.110: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: 266 A. Civil Fines: A property or business subject to a nuisance declaration may be subject to a 267 range of penalties that increase in severity. These penalties progress as follows: 268 1. If a responsible party fails to complete a corrective action by the deadline set 269 forth in an administrative citation, then for a first violation a fine shall be 270 assessed in the amount of $500. 271 2. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 272 first violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan then a fine shall 273 be assessed in the amount of $750, which shall constitute a second violation. 274 3. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 275 second violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine 276 shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000, which shall constitute a third 277 violation. 278 4. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 279 third or any subsequent violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement 280 plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000. 281 B. Revocation of Business License: In the event more than two citations are issued in any 282 12 month period, and the business at issue is not then a party to and in compliance with a 283 nuisance abatement plan, then the city may suspend or revoke the associated business license 284 pursuant to Chapter 5.02. 285 C. Orders by the Administrative Appeals Officer: In the event of an appeal of an 286 administrative citation, the administrative appeals officer may: 287 1. Order that the responsible party and the city enter into a nuisance abatement 288 plan consistent with Section 11.18.090 with the measures as directed by the 289 administrative appeals officer. 290 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Grant the city an abatement order. 291 a. The order of abatement can require the responsible party to correct the 292 nuisance and can authorize the city to abate such nuisance if the 293 responsible party does not timely perform the abatement. 294 b. In the event the city proves that nuisance conduct or conditions pose a 295 reasonably imminent danger to human health or human life, unabated, 296 the administrative appeals officer shall order the abatement as requested 297 by the city. In such circumstances the city may perform the abatement of 298 the nuisance at the first possible opportunity. 299 c. The abatement order must permit the city to charge the responsible party 300 for the costs the city incurs in abating the nuisance. The costs may be 301 appealed to the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 302 11.70.150. 303 3. Revoke a business license without the right to apply for another license at the 304 property or another business premises for at least six months. 305 Orders of an administrative appeals officer issued pursuant to this Chapter are each an 306 administrative enforcement order that may be appealed in accordance with 2.75.210. 307 11.18.120: CONTINUING SUPERVISION: 308 A. When an administrative citation is not timely appealed or an administrative appeals 309 officer has affirmed the city’s nuisance declaration, the responsible party is subject to 310 continued supervision by an administrative appeals officer for twelve (12) months or the term 311 of any applicable nuisance abatement plan. During that time, the administrative appeals officer 312 may schedule review hearings to track the responsible party’s compliance with any nuisance 313 abatement plan or abatement order, impose previously suspended penalties, and hold a hearing 314 to consider any claim by the city that a responsible party has not complied with a nuisance 315 abatement plan ordered by the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.18.110. 316 B. At a hearing on a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan entered pursuant to 317 11.18.110, the administrative appeals officer shall consider the steps taken by the responsible 318 party and determine whether such party has fulfilled its obligations under the nuisance 319 abatement plan. 320 1. During a hearing reviewing a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan, 321 the underlying nuisance declaration cannot be disturbed. 322 2. In the event the administrative appeals officer finds that the responsible party 323 failed to comply with any obligation under the nuisance abatement plan, the 324 administrative appeals officer shall impose one or more remedies as set forth in the 325 nuisance abatement plan. 326 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT C. Each new administrative citation may be appealed. Such appeals are limited to a review 327 of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior identified in the administrative citation and 328 may not address previous administrative citations that were not timely appealed or orders by an 329 administrative appeals officer that were not timely appealed. 330 11.70.170: DECLARATION OR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW BUSINESS OWNER 331 AND PROPERTY LOCATION: 332 A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior follows the 333 business owner and/or runs with the property. A declaration or determination of nuisance 334 conduct or serious violent behavior is not eliminated by transferring the property or the 335 business to another person or entity, changing the name of the business, or moving the business 336 to a new location. Transfer of business ownership shall not terminate any nuisance abatement 337 plan in effect with respect to a nuisance business. The acquiring business owner shall be 338 responsible for compliance with any enforcement action pending against the nuisance business 339 and prior business owner. 340 341 342 SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 343 first publication. 344 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 345 2025. 346 ______________________________ 347 CHAIRPERSON 348 349 350 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 351 352 ______________________________ 353 CITY RECORDER 354 355 356 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 357 358 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 359 360 ______________________________ 361 MAYOR 362 ______________________________ 363 CITY RECORDER 364 11 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (SEAL) 365 366 Bill No. ________ of 2025. 367 Published: ______________. 368 Responsible Property Owner Ordinance(legislative)v4 369 370 371 This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 09/04/2025 Date Sent to Council: 09/04/2025 From: Department * Finance Employee Name: Garcia, Arturo E-mail Arturo.Garcia@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 09/04/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 09/04/2025 Subject: Responsible Owner Ordinance New transmittal or Revision New transmittal Revision Revision Updates: There were recent changes made to the ordinance that require a revision of the transmittal. The updated documentation below reflects these adjustments to ensure consistency with state law. Additional Staff Contact: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Art Garcia, Director of Finance Operations, and Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney Presenters/Staff Table Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Art Garcia, Director of Finance Operations, and Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City Council adopt amendments to Salt Lake City Chapter 5.51and enact section 11.12.130, Public Peace, Morals and Welfare Offenses Against Public Order. Background/Discussion This ordinance originated in response to persistent public nuisance issues and after-hours alcohol consumption in non-residential premises, which have placed significant strain on city resources and negatively impacted neighborhood safety and quality of life. The City has seen repeated incidents of criminal activity, noise disturbances, and hazardous conditions at certain business and private properties, with limited recourse under existing ordinances. The current regulatory framework did not adequately hold property or business owners accountable for recurring nuisance activity on their premises, nor did it address the increasing trend of unauthorized after-hours alcohol consumption in common areas of commercial properties. These gaps led to a disproportionate burden on law enforcement and public safety personnel, while also diminishing the well-being of surrounding communities. The recommended ordinance introduces a tiered administrative enforcement process that allows for timely intervention, civil penalties, and the ability to require remedial measures or nuisance abatement plans. It further amends the City Code to prohibit alcohol consumption in common areas of commercial and non-residential properties between 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM, aligning City regulations with state-imposed restrictions on licensed establishments. This comprehensive approach is recommended because it empowers the City to take earlier, more flexible action to address nuisance behavior; imposes accountability on property and business owners; and provides a fair process for correction and appeal. These measures collectively promote public safety, reduce ongoing enforcement burdens, and support the health and welfare of Salt Lake City residents and visitors. Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process This page has intentionally been left blank 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2025 (Amending the text of Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private property and after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises) An ordinance (1) enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to responsible business and private property ownership to abate nuisances and (2) amending Chapters 11.12 and 5.51 to prohibit the after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises. WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of public nuisances; WHEREAS, the city acknowledges a significant public safety burden placed on the citizens of the city when business owners and property owners permit nuisance activity or fail to otherwise implement necessary steps to prevent the nuisance activity; WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 32B-5-301 prohibits the after-hours consumption of alcoholic products and alcoholic beverages on the premises of retail licensees; and WHEREAS, non-residential premises and commercial establishments that do not adhere to the protections and safeguards required of retail licensees are permitting the consumption of alcoholic beverages on their premises long after the retail licensees are required to close; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that prohibiting the after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises pursuant to standards similar to those that govern the premises of retail licensees reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. 2 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and WHEREAS, 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 text of Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code (Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations: Alcohol Establishments and Off Premises Beer Retailers), is hereby amended as follows: CHAPTER 5.51 REGULATIONS RELATED TO ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS, NONRESIDENTIAL PREMISES, AND OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILERS 5.51.010: DEFINITIONS: ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENT: Any business that has obtained a license from the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Service. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor. ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of the Utah Code, or its successor. COMMON AREA: Any portion of a licensee establishment that is generally accessible to all occupants, invitees, guests, or customers; or that is generally intended for the common use of such occupants, invitees, guests or customers. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not “common area.” DABS: the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Services. LICENSEE ESTABLISHMENT: The location where any holder of a Salt Lake City business license, obtained for any purpose, operates. OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILER: This term has the same definition as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 3 5.51.020: LICENSE REQUIRED: Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers must obtain a business license subject to the general requirements set forth in chapters 5.02 and 5.04 of this title and the requirements included in this chapter. 5.51.025: STATE ISSUED ALCOHOL LICENSES REQUIRED FOR ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS: No alcohol establishment may serve alcohol within the city without the appropriate valid license or permit issued by DABS pursuant to title 32B, Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 5.51.027: SPECIAL EVENT ALCOHOL PERMITS: A. Required: A city issued special event alcohol permit is required for all events which are required to obtain from DABS a single event permit or temporary special event beer permit under title 32B, Utah Code or its successor provisions, allowing alcohol to be stored, sold, served and consumed for short term events. B. Application Requirements: In addition to the application requirements set forth in section 5.02.060 of this title, the following information is required: 1. The time, dates, and location of the event. 2. A description of the nature and purpose of the event. 3. A description of the control measures to be imposed by the DABSC and where alcohol will be stored, served and sold. 4. Evidence that the applicant is not disqualified for the license or permit under Utah Code Section 32B-1-304 or its successor provisions or city ordinance. 5. A signed consent form stating that law enforcement and authorized city representatives shall have the unrestricted right to enter and inspect the premises during the event to ensure compliance with state law and city ordinance. C. Operational Restrictions: The permittee is subject to all operational restrictions imposed by the DABS under its state permit. No alcohol may be served at any special event unless the city permittee also obtains the appropriate state permit. D. Nontransferable: Special event alcohol permits are not transferable. E. Time Limits: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the time limitations applicable to DABS single event permits and temporary special event beer permits. 4 F. Fees: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the fees that correspond to chapter 5.04 of this title and to an alcohol concession agreement fee. Such fees are set forth in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 5.51.030: ANNUAL LICENSE FEES: Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers are subject to the license fees set forth in chapter 5.04 of this title. For the purpose of establishing regulatory fees and disproportionate costs for alcohol establishments, the city may separate alcohol establishments into subcategories within schedules 1 and 2 of this title based on the types of alcohol served and the type of business conducted within the alcohol establishment. 5.51.040: RESTRICTIONS GOVENING CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS IN COMMON AREAS: Between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. a licensee establishment shall not: A. Furnish an alcoholic beverage or alcoholic product to an individual, nor B. Allow an individual to consume an alcoholic beverage or an alcoholic product in the common area of such establishment. 5.51.050: ENFORCEMENT: In addition to any enforcement procedures set forth in Utah Code Title 32B, any holder of a Salt Lake City business license found in violation of the provisions of this Chapter shall be (1) subject to a $1000 fine per occurrence, and (2) the City may seek to suspend or revoke the associated business license pursuant to the enforcement procedures set forth in Chapter 5.02. SECTION 2. Enacting Section 11.12.130 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Section 11.12.130 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare: Offenses Against Public Order) is hereby enacted as follows: 11.12.130: UNLAWFUL CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN COMMON AREAS OF NON- RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS. A. Definitions: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 5 ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions. COMMON AREA: Any portion of a non-residential premises that is generally accessible to all occupants, invitees or licensees; or that is generally intended for the common use of such occupants, invitees or licensees. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not “common area.” NON-RESIDENTIAL PREMISES: Premises that do not meet any of the various definitions of dwelling set forth in Section 21A.62.040. B. An individual shall not consume an alcoholic beverage nor an alcoholic product in any common area of non-residential premises during the time period beginning at 2:00 AM and ending at 6:00 AM. C. Operators of non-residential premises shall not permit the consumption of alcoholic beverages or alcoholic products in any common area during the time period between 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM. D. Individuals found in violation of this Section shall be subject to a civil citation and penalty of $500 per occurrence. Operators not otherwise subject to Chapter 5.51 shall be subject to a civil citation and penalty of $1000 per occurrence. SECTION 3. Enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 11.18 in Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), is hereby enacted as follows: CHAPTER 11.18 RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNER 11.18.010: DEFINITIONS: In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set forth in this section: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 6 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. BUSINESS OWNER: Any person engaged in business within Salt Lake City. CITY: Salt Lake City, Utah, including the mayor and all other employees of the administrative branch of the city. CRIMINAL CONDUCT: Any criminal offense at a place of business that can be reasonably linked to a patron, invitee, manager, owner, or employee of the business, an occupant of the place of business, or any person in the case of vacant property. EMERGENCY CONDITIONS: One or more conditions that exist in a building or on a property that create the likelihood of imminent danger to the life or safety of anyone who enters or occupies the property or building. ENGAGE IN BUSINESS: To conduct, manage, or carry on any business activity, as owner, officer, agent, manager, employer, or lessee. IMMINENT LIFE SAFETY HAZARD: Any condition that creates a serious and immediate danger to life, property, health, or public safety. ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. NUISANCE CONDUCT: Behavior that interferes with the health, safety or welfare of the community, materially and repeatedly infringes on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring uses, or results in the harassment of patrons or other persons including, but not limited to: (a) criminal conduct; (b) disturbance of the peace; (c) illegal consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages; (d) illegal drug activity; (e) unlawful street or sidewalk obstruction; (f) gambling and illegal gaming activities; (g) harassment of passers-by; (h) prostitution; (i) public urination or defecation; (j) lewd conduct; (k) litter; (l) unlawful discharge of hazardous materials; (m) parking violations; (n) open storage of unlicensed, inoperable, unused or abandoned vehicles or vehicle parts, unless the property is licensed for such use; (o) open storage of junk, scrap metal, lumber, wastepaper products, building materials, machinery and associated parts, interior household furniture, appliances, tree limbs and cuttings, landscape debris, garbage, industrial waste, other spent, useless, worthless or 7 discarded materials, or materials stored or accumulated for the purpose of discarding materials that have served their original purpose; (p) fouling of the air with offensive odors or contaminants, excessive dust, or excessive loud noise; (q) owning, operating or conducting a vehicle chop shop in any building or structure, including a lot or curtilage, for the purpose of dealing in stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle parts or illegally obtaining and altering vehicles or vehicle identification numbers of vehicle parts; (r) vehicles parked on the sidewalk; (s) use of street parking spaces or sidewalk for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, or storage or repair of inoperable vehicles; (t) unlawful firearms possession by a patron; (u) illegal dumping; (v) unlawful junk dealer operations; (w) obstruction of an investigation of nuisance behavior; (x) repeated or continuing violations of any other City ordinance and/or regulations; or (y) any other activity that constitutes a public nuisance under state law. OBSTRUCTION OF AN INVESTIGATION: Any obstruction of, interference with or other impediment of the investigation of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by a business owner, property owner, or other responsible person. PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. PLACE OF BUSINESS: A location maintained or operated by a person within the city at which business activities take place. Place of business includes a parking lot owned or leased by the business, parking areas traditionally used by patrons or employees of the business, and the public rights-of-way adjacent to the business premises as it is used by persons attracted to the business. REMEDIAL MEASURES: Specific, verifiable actions taken by a responsible party that are substantially likely to reduce, eliminate or prevent recurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior at issue. RESPONSIBLE PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. SERIOUS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR. Conduct that would constitute any of the following offenses as defined by state law: homicide, murder, aggravated assault, rape, or sexual assault. 11.18.020: PURPOSE AND INTENT: Business owners and property owners shall properly manage their property and place of businesses to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or the spread of disease. This chapter creates a system to initiate administrative actions to abate nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior and to impose civil fines or other penalties if a 8 business owner or a property owner fails to take all remedial measures to address the identified nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. 11.18.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: The provisions of this chapter shall not invalidate any other title, chapter, or ordinance of this Code, but shall be read in conjunction with those titles, chapters, and ordinances and shall be used as an additional remedy for enforcement of violations thereof. 11.18.040: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION; EMERGENCY POWERS: A. The city shall have sole discretion in deciding whether to pursue remedies to address nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, to file a civil nuisance action under this chapter or under state law, to bring criminal charges, to order suspension or revocation of business licenses, to order immediate action to terminate or abate nuisance conduct, to pursue administrative enforcement actions for the violation of any of its ordinances or applicable code requirements, or any combination thereof, or to pursue any other remedy available under the law. City officials are permitted to exercise executive discretion in determining which course of enforcement to pursue, taking into consideration the severity of an incident, the culpability of involved parties, the history of the involved property, and whether other circumstances exist that exacerbate the public impact of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. B. The enforcement of the provisions of this chapter does not prevent the city from pursuing other remedies for specific violations, including fines, abatement, suspension, revocation, injunctions, or other penalties. Specific violations may be considered nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, even if the business owner or property owner has already incurred civil or criminal penalties related to that offense. C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from abating nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that denigrates the public health and welfare in a declared emergency. D. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense and may give rise to a separate citation, charge or other remedy. 11.18.050: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, ATTEMPTING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: Whenever an act, condition, or omission is referred to or made unlawful in this chapter, it shall include causing, attempting to cause, permitting, aiding, or abetting such act, condition, or omission. 11.18.060: DUTY TO PROPERLY MANAGE: 9 Every property owner and business owner shall have a duty to properly manage their private property or place of business, as applicable, to prevent the creation of a nuisance to neighboring businesses, residents, passers-by, or the public, that results from nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by patrons, guests, employees, occupants, or those who frequent the business premises or the property, regardless of whether the persons are owners, invitees, or trespassers. 11.18.070: NUISANCE DECLARED A. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-8-60, the city has determined the quiet enjoyment of property and the general health, safety, and welfare of the community are intolerably impaired—and a public nuisance exists—when nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurs at any private property or place of business. B. A business owner or property owner is presumed to have created a nuisance if (1) within 180 consecutive days, not less than 3 separate incidents of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occur at or within the property, (2) for ongoing violations of this Chapter the nuisance conduct has persisted for 30 days or more, or (3) in connection with a place of business there are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in a 30 day period. This presumption may be rebutted if the responsible party demonstrates that it took all reasonable steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent reoccurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurring at or within the property. 11.18.080: DECLARATION OF NUISANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: A. The city may declare the existence of nuisance, as described under Section 11.18.070 at any time. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a declaration of nuisance may be combined with any other notice from the city to the responsible party. B. Administrative Citation. Upon a determination that a business or private property has created a nuisance the city may issue an administrative citation. 1. The written citation shall state: a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible party; b. The date and location of each violation; c. The nature of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; d. That the nuisance must be corrected; e. Provide a specific date by which the corrective action ordered by the enforcement official be taken; f. The remedies, including any civil fines, that the enforcement official intends to pursue if corrective action is not taken; 10 g. Recommendations regarding potential remedial measures and an opportunity for the responsible party to demonstrate use of remedial measures to the city; h. Identification of the procedure to appeal the citation; and i. The signature of the enforcement official. 2. The enforcement official shall serve the administrative citation on the responsible party by: a. Posting a copy of the administrative citation at the property, and b. By mailing the administrative citation through certified mail or reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. If the responsible party is the property owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt Lake County Recorder. If the responsible party is any other person or entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address of the responsible party on file with the city. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible party shall be sufficient to meet the service requirements of Subsection 11.18.080.B.2.b. 3. Corrective Action: Following the issuance of an administrative citation the responsible party shall either: a. Demonstrate that remedial measures have been implemented to address the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that led to the nuisance declaration, or b. Enter into a nuisance abatement plan pursuant to Section 11.18.090. 4. Failure to Correct: If corrective action has not been undertaken by the deadline identified in the administrative citation, the city may pursue any remedy, including civil fines identified in Section 11.18.110. 11.18.090: NUISANCE ABATEMENT PLANS: A. Any nuisance abatement plan executed by a responsible party and the city shall certify the responsible party’s agreement to take all necessary and appropriate measures to reduce, eliminate or prevent future recurrence of each nuisance conduct and each serious violent behavior giving rise to nuisance declaration. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Removal of unlawful items; 2. Taking steps to prevent the specific nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior, personally or through an agent such as a private security company; 3. Hiring sufficient licensed and insured security personnel to patrol the property and the abutting sidewalks; Type text here 11 4. Documenting proactive efforts with the police department regarding nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior activities; 5. Participating in regular meetings with community-based organizations at which specific efforts to address nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior are discussed; 6. Installing and maintaining improved lighting at each point of entry to and exit from the property and in designated common areas, if any; 7. Installing and maintaining surveillance cameras that are at all times: (i) active and operational at each point of entry to and exit from the business or property, in designated common areas and in interior spaces where business operations are conducted, on the street abutting the business, and any other locations where prior nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior has been reported; (ii) disclosed to the public through posted notice on the premises; (iii) illuminated in such a manner so as to enable persons entering and exiting the business or property to be visible and identified on recorded footage; and (iv) maintaining recorded footage for not less than 6 months after the recording occurs; 8. Installing metal detectors to screen persons visiting the business; 9. Maintaining an internal log or incident reporting system documenting the owner's response to specific incidents of illegal activity inside the property or on the abutting sidewalk; 10. Displaying signage identifying prohibited behavior at the property; 11. Making specific efforts to address litter and other cleanliness issues, such as additional or larger refuse bins, more frequent or targeted cleaning, signage, enhanced refuse bins, and changing business operations or products to reduce the likelihood of litter creation; 12. Installing soundproofing insulation or taking other steps to control noise; 13. Changing the hours of operation in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 14. Changing business operations or products sold in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 15. Removing any drug paraphernalia offered for sale or display in violation of applicable zoning requirements from the premises; 16. Providing surveillance camera footage to law enforcement upon request; and 17. Any other measures likely to abate or prevent the recurrence of the nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior. B. Term: Executed plans shall be effective for a minimum of 12 months, and may be extended by mutual agreement, or if ordered by the administrative appeals officer, if another nuisance is declared at the property prior to expiration of the plan. C. Remedies: All nuisance abatement plans shall identify remedies to the city if the responsible party does not comply with the plan. These remedies may include, but are not limited to: granting the city the ability to enter and abate the nuisance with recovery of costs associated therewith to be made by the responsible party to the city upon presentation of an itemized statement of costs; financial penalties; reduction in business operating hours; temporary closure 12 of the property or business; making some portions of the property inaccessible; and prohibiting all alcohol sales or consumption on the property. 11.18.100: APPEALS: A responsible party may appeal an administrative citation within ten (10) days of its issuance pursuant to Chapter 2.75. 11.18.110: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: A. Civil Fines: A property or business subject to a nuisance declaration may be subject to a range of penalties that increase in severity. These penalties progress as follows: 1. If a responsible party fails to complete a corrective action by the deadline set forth in an administrative citation, then for a first violation a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $500. 2. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a first violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $750, which shall constitute a second violation. 3. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a second violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000, which shall constitute a third violation. 4. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a third or any subsequent violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000. B. Revocation of Business License: In the event more than two citations are issued in any 12 month period, and the business at issue is not then a party to and in compliance with a nuisance abatement plan, then the city may suspend or revoke the associated business license pursuant to Chapter 5.02. C. Orders by the Administrative Appeals officer: In the event of an appeal of an administrative citation, the administrative appeals officer may: 1. Order that the responsible party and the city enter into a nuisance abatement plan consistent with Section 11.18.090 with the measures as directed by the administrative appeals officer. 2. Grant the city an abatement order. 13 a. The order of abatement can require the responsible party to correct the nuisance and can authorize the city to abate such nuisance if the responsible party does not timely perform the abatement. b. In the event the city proves that nuisance conduct or conditions pose a reasonably imminent danger to human health or human life, unabated, the administrative appeals officer shall order the abatement as requested by the city. In such circumstances the city may perform the abatement of the nuisance at the first possible opportunity. c. The abatement order must permit the city to charge the responsible party for the costs the city incurs in abating the nuisance. The costs may be appealed to the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.70.150. 3. Revoke a business license without the right to apply for another license at the property or another business premises for at least six months. Orders of an administrative appeals officer issued pursuant to this Chapter are each an administrative enforcement order that may be appealed in accordance with 2.75.210. 11.18.120: CONTINUING SUPERVISION: A. When an administrative citation is not timely appealed or an administrative appeals officer has affirmed the city’s nuisance declaration, the responsible party is subject to continued supervision by an administrative appeals officer for twelve (12) months or the term of any applicable nuisance abatement plan. During that time, the administrative appeals officer may schedule review hearings to track the responsible party’s compliance with any nuisance abatement plan or abatement order, impose previously suspended penalties, and hold a hearing to consider any claim by the city that a responsible party has not complied with a nuisance abatement plan ordered by the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.18.110. B. At a hearing on a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan entered pursuant to 11.18.110, the administrative appeals officer shall consider the steps taken by the responsible party and determine whether such party has fulfilled its obligations under the nuisance abatement plan. 1. During a hearing reviewing a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan, the underlying nuisance declaration cannot be disturbed. 2. In the event the administrative appeals officer finds that the responsible party failed to comply with any obligation under the nuisance abatement plan, the administrative appeals officer shall impose one or more remedies as set forth in the nuisance abatement plan. 14 C. Each new administrative citation may be appealed. Such appeals are limited to a review of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior identified in the administrative citation and may not address previous administrative citations that were not timely appealed or orders by an administrative appeals officer that were not timely appealed. 11.70.170: DECLARATION OR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW BUSINESS OWNER AND PROPERTY LOCATION: A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior follows the business owner and/or runs with the property. A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior is not eliminated by transferring the property or the business to another person or entity, changing the name of the business, or moving the business to a new location. Transfer of business ownership shall not terminate any nuisance abatement plan in effect with respect to a nuisance business. The acquiring business owner shall be responsible for compliance with any enforcement action pending against the nuisance business and prior business owner. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2025. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR Type text here 15 ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2025. Published: ______________. Responsible Property Owner Ordinance(final)v3 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney September 4, 2025 This page has intentionally been left blank 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2025 2 3 (Amending the text of Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private property 4 and after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and 5 non-residential premises) 6 7 An ordinance (1) enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to 8 responsible business and private property ownership to abate nuisances and (2) amending 9 Chapters 11.12 and 5.51 to prohibit the after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas 10 of commercial establishments and non-residential premises. 11 WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of 12 public nuisances; 13 WHEREAS, the city acknowledges a significant public safety burden placed on the 14 citizens of the city when business owners and property owners permit nuisance activity or fail to 15 otherwise implement necessary steps to prevent the nuisance activity; 16 WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 32B-5-301 prohibits the after-hours consumption of 17 alcoholic products and alcoholic beverages on the premises of retail licensees; and 18 WHEREAS, non-residential premises and commercial establishments that do not adhere 19 to the protections and safeguards required of retail licensees are permitting the consumption of 20 alcoholic beverages on their premises long after the retail licensees are required to close; and 21 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that prohibiting the after-hours consumption of 22 alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises 23 pursuant to standards similar to those that govern the premises of retail licensees reasonably 24 furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. 25 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance 26 promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and 27 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s 28 best interests. 29 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 30 31 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code. That 32 Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code (Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations: Alcohol 33 Establishments and Off Premises Beer Retailers), is hereby amended as follows: 34 CHAPTER 5.51 REGULATIONS RELATED TO ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS, 35 NONRESIDENTIAL PREMISES, AND OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILERS 36 37 5.51.005: PURPOSE: 38 39 The purpose of this chapter is to normalize the regulation of alcoholic beverages by the city by: 40 a) simplifying alcoholic beverage control regulation by not duplicating state regulations, and b) 41 limiting the city's regulatory interests to business licensing and to land use concerns as provided 42 in title 21A of this code. The provisions of this chapter shall be construed to effectuate those 43 purposes. This chapter does not limit in any way the responsibilities of Salt Lake City police 44 officers or Salt Lake City prosecutors under state law. 45 46 5.51.010: DEFINITIONS: 47 48 ALCOHOL: The same meaning as section 32A-1-105(2), Utah Code Annotated (2009), or 49 successor provisions. 50 51 ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENT: Any business that has obtained a license from the Utah 52 Department of Alcoholic Beverage Servicesells alcoholic beverages to patrons for consumption 53 on the premises, as set forth in section 21A.36.300 of this code. 54 55 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 56 of Utah Code, or its successor. 57 58 ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of 59 the Utah Code, or its successor. 60 61 COMMON AREA: Any portion of a licensee establishment that is generally accessible to all 62 occupants, invitees, guests, or customers; or that is generally intended for the common use of 63 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT such occupants, invitees, guests or customers. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not 64 “common area.” 65 66 DABS: the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Services. 67 68 LICENSEE ESTABLISHMENT: The location where any holder of a Salt Lake City business 69 license, obtained for any purpose, operates. 70 71 LICENSE ENFORCEMENT ACTION: The administrative process set forth in 72 section 5.51.070 of this chapter. 73 74 OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILER: This term has the same definition as defined in Section 75 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions.A retail business that sells beer in its 76 original packaging for consumption off the premises, but does not include the sale of beer in 77 sealed containers pursuant to section 32A-10-206(7), Utah Code Annotated (2009), or its 78 successor provision. 79 80 SEASONAL LICENSE: A city business license issued to an alcohol establishment that is valid 81 for a six (6) month period corresponding with the periods provided for "seasonal A" and 82 "seasonal B" licenses issued by the Utah alcoholic beverage control commission, pursuant to title 83 32A, Utah Code Annotated (2009), and its successor provisions. 84 85 86 5.51.020: LICENSE REQUIRED: 87 88 Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers must obtain a 89 business license subject to the general requirements set forth in chapters 5.02 and 5.04 of this 90 title and the requirements included in this chapter. Alcohol establishments which qualify for a 91 seasonal A or seasonal B license issued by the Utah alcoholic beverage control commission may 92 obtain a seasonal license for the same term for which the state license is issued. 93 94 95 5.51.025: STATE ISSUED ALCOHOL LICENSES REQUIRED FOR ALCOHOL 96 ESTABLISHMENTS: 97 98 No alcohol establishment may serve alcohol within the city without the appropriate valid license 99 or permit issued by DABSthe Utah alcoholic beverage control commission pursuant to title 100 32BA, Utah Code Annotated (2009), orand its successor provisions. 101 102 5.51.027: SPECIAL EVENT ALCOHOL PERMITS: 103 104 A. Required: A city issued special event alcohol permit is required for all events which are 105 required to obtain from DABSthe Utah alcoholic beverage control commission a single event 106 permit or temporary special event beer permit under title 32BA, Utah Code Annotated (2009) or 107 its successor provisions, allowing alcohol to be stored, sold, served and consumed for short term 108 events. 109 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 110 B. Application Requirements: In addition to the application requirements set forth in 111 section 5.02.060 of this title, the following information is required: 112 1. The time, dates, and location of the event. 113 2. A description of the nature and purpose of the event. 114 3. A description of the control measures to be imposed by the DABSC and where 115 alcohol will be stored, served and sold. 116 4. Evidence that the applicant is not disqualified for the license or permit under Utah 117 Code Section 32B-1-304 or its successor provisions or city ordinance. 118 54. A signed consent form stating that law enforcement and authorized city 119 representatives shall have the unrestricted right to enter and inspect the premises during 120 the event to ensure compliance with state law and city ordinance. 121 122 C. Operational Restrictions: The permittee is subject to all operational restrictions imposed 123 by the DABSC under its state permit. No alcohol may be served at any special event unless the 124 city permittee also obtains the appropriate state permit. 125 126 D. Nontransferable: Special event alcohol permits are not transferable. 127 128 E. Time Limits: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the time limitations applicable 129 to DABSC single event permits and temporary special event beer permits. 130 131 F. Fees: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the fees that correspond to chapter 132 5.04 of this title and to an alcohol concession agreement fee. Such fees are set forth in the Salt 133 Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 134 135 136 5.51.030: ANNUAL LICENSE FEES: 137 138 A. Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers are 139 subject to the license fees set forth in chapter 5.04 of this title. For the purpose of establishing 140 regulatory fees and disproportionate costs for alcohol establishments, the city may separate 141 alcohol establishments into subcategories within schedules 1 and 2 of this title based on the types 142 of alcohol served and the type of business conducted within the alcohol establishment. 143 144 B. The license fee for a seasonal license will be assessed at fifty percent (50%) of the 145 regulatory and disproportionate fee charged for the type of alcohol establishment to be licensed 146 as listed on schedules 1 and 2 of this title, plus the full base license fee provided in 147 section 5.04.070 of this title. 148 149 150 5.51.040: RESTRICTIONS GOVENING CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES 151 AND ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS IN COMMON AREAS: 152 153 Between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. a licensee establishment shall not: 154 155 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT A. Furnish an alcoholic beverage or alcoholic product to an individual, nor 156 B. Allow an individual to consume an alcoholic beverage or an alcoholic product in the 157 common area of such establishment. 158 159 160 5.51.050100: OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILERS; OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND 161 ENFORCEMENT: 162 163 A. In addition to any enforcement procedures set forth in Utah Code Title 32B, any holder of 164 a Salt Lake City business license found in violation of the provisions of this Chapter shall be (1) 165 subject to a $1000 fine per occurrence, and (2) the City may seek to suspend or revoke the 166 associated business license pursuant to the enforcement procedures set forth in Chapter 167 5.02requirements under this code, off premises beer retailers are subject to the operational 168 requirements set forth in sections 32A-10-102 and 32A-10-103, Utah Code Annotated (2009), or 169 its successor provisions. 170 171 B. For violations related to underage sale of beer, the enforcement process set forth at 172 section 32A-10-103, Utah Code Annotated (2009), or its successor provisions, applies. 173 174 C. For all other violations, the requirements of chapter 5.02 of this title apply. 175 176 SECTION 2. Enacting Section 11.12.130 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Section 177 11.12.130 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare: Offenses Against Public Order) is hereby enacted 178 as follows: 179 11.12.130: UNLAWFUL CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN COMMON AREAS OF NON-180 RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS. 181 182 A. Definitions: 183 184 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of 185 Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 186 187 ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of 188 Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 189 190 COMMON AREA: Any portion of a non-residential premises that is generally accessible to all 191 occupants, invitees or licensees; or that is generally intended for the common use of such 192 occupants, invitees or licensees. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not “common area.” 193 194 NON-RESIDENTIAL PREMISES: Premises that do not meet any of the various definitions of 195 dwelling set forth in Section 21A.62.040. 196 197 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT B. An individual shall not consume an alcoholic beverage nor an alcoholic product in any 198 common area of non-residential premises during the time period beginning at 2:00 AM and 199 ending at 6:00 AM. 200 201 C. Operators of non-residential premises shall not permit the consumption of alcoholic 202 beverages or alcoholic products in any common area during the time period between 2:00 AM 203 and 6:00 AM. 204 205 D. Individuals found in violation of this Section shall be subject to a civil citation and 206 penalty of $500 per occurrence. Operators not otherwise subject to Chapter 5.51 shall be subject 207 to a civil citation and penalty of $1000 per occurrence. 208 209 SECTION 3. Enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 11.18 in 210 Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), is hereby enacted as 211 follows: 212 CHAPTER 11.18 RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNER 213 11.18.010: DEFINITIONS: 214 215 In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set 216 forth in this section: 217 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 218 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 219 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 220 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: As that term is defined in Section 221 2.75.050. 222 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 223 BUSINESS OWNER: Any person engaged in business within Salt Lake City. 224 CITY: Salt Lake City, Utah, including the mayor and all other employees of the administrative 225 branch of the city. 226 CRIMINAL CONDUCT: Any criminal offense at a place of business that can be reasonably 227 linked to a patron, invitee, manager, owner, or employee of the business, an occupant of the 228 place of business, or any person in the case of vacant property. 229 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT EMERGENCY CONDITIONS: One or more conditions that exist in a building or on a 230 property that create the likelihood of imminent danger to the life or safety of anyone who 231 enters or occupies the property or building. 232 ENGAGE IN BUSINESS: To conduct, manage, or carry on any business activity, as owner, 233 officer, agent, manager, employer, or lessee. 234 IMMINENT LIFE SAFETY HAZARD: Any condition that creates a serious and immediate 235 danger to life, property, health, or public safety. 236 ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 237 NUISANCE CONDUCT: Behavior that interferes with the health, safety or welfare of the 238 community, materially and repeatedly infringes on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring uses, or 239 results in the harassment of patrons or other persons including, but not limited to: 240 (a) criminal conduct; 241 (b) disturbance of the peace; 242 (c) illegal consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages; 243 (d) illegal drug activity; 244 (e) unlawful street or sidewalk obstruction; 245 (f) gambling and illegal gaming activities; 246 (g) harassment of passers-by; 247 (h) prostitution; 248 (i) public urination or defecation; 249 (j) lewd conduct; 250 (k) litter; 251 (l) unlawful discharge of hazardous materials; 252 (m) parking violations; 253 (n) open storage of unlicensed, inoperable, unused or abandoned vehicles or vehicle parts, 254 unless the property is licensed for such use; 255 (o) open storage of junk, scrap metal, lumber, wastepaper products, building materials, 256 machinery and associated parts, interior household furniture, appliances, tree limbs and 257 cuttings, landscape debris, garbage, industrial waste, other spent, useless, worthless or 258 discarded materials, or materials stored or accumulated for the purpose of discarding 259 materials that have served their original purpose; 260 (p) fouling of the air with offensive odors or contaminants, excessive dust, or excessive 261 loud noise; 262 (q) owning, operating or conducting a vehicle chop shop in any building or structure, 263 including a lot or curtilage, for the purpose of dealing in stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle 264 parts or illegally obtaining and altering vehicles or vehicle identification numbers of 265 vehicle parts; 266 (r) vehicles parked on the sidewalk; 267 (s) use of street parking spaces or sidewalk for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, or 268 storage or repair of inoperable vehicles; 269 (t) unlawful firearms possession by a patron; 270 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (u) illegal dumping; 271 (v) unlawful junk dealer operations; 272 (w) obstruction of an investigation of nuisance behavior; 273 (x) repeated or continuing violations of any other City ordinance and/or regulations; or 274 (y) any other activity that constitutes a public nuisance under state law. 275 OBSTRUCTION OF AN INVESTIGATION: Any obstruction of, interference with or other 276 impediment of the investigation of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by a business 277 owner, property owner, or other responsible person. 278 PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 279 PLACE OF BUSINESS: A location maintained or operated by a person within the city at 280 which business activities take place. Place of business includes a parking lot owned or leased 281 by the business, parking areas traditionally used by patrons or employees of the business, and 282 the public rights-of-way adjacent to the business premises as it is used by persons attracted to 283 the business. 284 REMEDIAL MEASURES: Specific, verifiable actions taken by a responsible party that are 285 substantially likely to reduce, eliminate or prevent recurrence of the nuisance conduct or 286 serious violent behavior at issue. 287 RESPONSIBLE PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 288 SERIOUS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR. Conduct that would constitute any of the following 289 offenses as defined by state law: homicide, murder, aggravated assault, rape, or sexual assault. 290 11.18.020: PURPOSE AND INTENT: 291 Business owners and property owners shall properly manage their property and place of 292 businesses to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent 293 public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or 294 the spread of disease. This chapter creates a system to initiate administrative actions to abate 295 nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior and to impose civil fines or other penalties if a 296 business owner or a property owner fails to take all remedial measures to address the identified 297 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. 298 11.18.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: 299 The provisions of this chapter shall not invalidate any other title, chapter, or ordinance of this 300 Code, but shall be read in conjunction with those titles, chapters, and ordinances and shall be 301 used as an additional remedy for enforcement of violations thereof. 302 11.18.040: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION; EMERGENCY POWERS: 303 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT A. The city shall have sole discretion in deciding whether to pursue remedies to address 304 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, to file a civil nuisance action 305 under this chapter or under state law, to bring criminal charges, to order suspension or 306 revocation of business licenses, to order immediate action to terminate or abate nuisance 307 conduct, to pursue administrative enforcement actions for the violation of any of its ordinances 308 or applicable code requirements, or any combination thereof, or to pursue any other remedy 309 available under the law. City officials are permitted to exercise executive discretion in 310 determining which course of enforcement to pursue, taking into consideration the severity of 311 an incident, the culpability of involved parties, the history of the involved property, and 312 whether other circumstances exist that exacerbate the public impact of the nuisance conduct or 313 serious violent behavior. 314 B. The enforcement of the provisions of this chapter does not prevent the city from 315 pursuing other remedies for specific violations, including fines, abatement, suspension, 316 revocation, injunctions, or other penalties. Specific violations may be considered nuisance 317 conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, even if the business owner or property 318 owner has already incurred civil or criminal penalties related to that offense. 319 C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from abating nuisance conduct or serious 320 violent behavior that denigrates the public health and welfare in a declared emergency. 321 D. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense and may give rise to a 322 separate citation, charge or other remedy. 323 11.18.050: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, ATTEMPTING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: 324 Whenever an act, condition, or omission is referred to or made unlawful in this chapter, it shall 325 include causing, attempting to cause, permitting, aiding, or abetting such act, condition, or 326 omission. 327 11.18.060: DUTY TO PROPERLY MANAGE: 328 Every property owner and business owner shall have a duty to properly manage their private 329 property or place of business, as applicable, to prevent the creation of a nuisance to 330 neighboring businesses, residents, passers-by, or the public, that results from nuisance conduct 331 or serious violent behavior by patrons, guests, employees, occupants, or those who frequent the 332 business premises or the property, regardless of whether the persons are owners, invitees, or 333 trespassers. 334 11.18.070: NUISANCE DECLARED 335 A. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-8-60, the city has determined the quiet enjoyment of 336 property and the general health, safety, and welfare of the community are intolerably 337 impaired—and a public nuisance exists—when nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior 338 occurs at any private property or place of business. 339 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT B. A business owner or property owner is presumed to have created a nuisance if (1) 340 within 180 consecutive days, not less than 3 separate incidents of nuisance conduct or serious 341 violent behavior occur at or within the property, (2) for ongoing violations of this Chapter the 342 nuisance conduct has persisted for 30 days or more, or (3) in connection with a place of 343 business there are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in a 30 day period. This 344 presumption may be rebutted if the responsible party demonstrates that it took all reasonable 345 steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent 346 reoccurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurring at or within the 347 property. 348 11.18.080: DECLARATION OF NUISANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: 349 A. The city may declare the existence of nuisance, as described under Section 11.18.070 at 350 any time. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a declaration of nuisance may be 351 combined with any other notice from the city to the responsible party. 352 B. Administrative Citation. Upon a determination that a business or private property has 353 created a nuisance the city may issue an administrative citation. 354 1. The written citation shall state: 355 356 a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible party; 357 b. The date and location of each violation; 358 c. The nature of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 359 d. That the nuisance must be corrected; 360 e. Provide a specific date by which the corrective action ordered by the 361 enforcement official be taken; 362 f. The remedies, including any civil fines, that the enforcement official intends 363 to pursue if corrective action is not taken; 364 g. Recommendations regarding potential remedial measures and an opportunity 365 for the responsible party to demonstrate use of remedial measures to the city; 366 h. Identification of the procedure to appeal the citation; and 367 i. The signature of the enforcement official. 368 369 2. The enforcement official shall serve the administrative citation on the responsible 370 party by: 371 a. Posting a copy of the administrative citation at the property, and 372 b. By mailing the administrative citation through certified mail or 373 reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. 374 If the responsible party is the property owner of record, then mailing 375 shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt 376 Lake County Recorder. If the responsible party is any other person or 377 entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last 378 known address of the responsible party on file with the city. 379 11 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible 380 party shall be sufficient to meet the service requirements of Subsection 381 11.18.080.B.2.b. 382 383 3. Corrective Action: Following the issuance of an administrative citation the 384 responsible party shall either: 385 a. Demonstrate that remedial measures have been implemented to 386 address the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that led to the 387 nuisance declaration, or 388 b. Enter into a nuisance abatement plan pursuant to Section 11.18.090. 389 390 4. Failure to Correct: If corrective action has not been undertaken by the deadline 391 identified in the administrative citation, the city may pursue any remedy, 392 including civil fines identified in Section 11.18.110. 393 11.18.090: NUISANCE ABATEMENT PLANS: 394 A. Any nuisance abatement plan executed by a responsible party and the city shall certify 395 the responsible party’s agreement to take all necessary and appropriate measures to reduce, 396 eliminate or prevent future recurrence of each nuisance conduct and each serious violent 397 behavior giving rise to nuisance declaration. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, 398 the following: 399 400 1. Removal of unlawful items; 401 2. Taking steps to prevent the specific nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior, 402 personally or through an agent such as a private security company; 403 3. Hiring sufficient licensed and insured security personnel to patrol the property 404 and the abutting sidewalks; 405 4. Documenting proactive efforts with the police department regarding nuisance 406 behavior or serious violent behavior activities; 407 5. Participating in regular meetings with community-based organizations at which 408 specific efforts to address nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior are 409 discussed; 410 6. Installing and maintaining improved lighting at each point of entry to and exit 411 from the property and in designated common areas, if any; 412 7. Installing and maintaining surveillance cameras that are at all times: (i) active and 413 operational at each point of entry to and exit from the business or property, in 414 designated common areas and in interior spaces where business operations are 415 conducted, on the street abutting the business, and any other locations where prior 416 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior has been reported; (ii) disclosed to 417 the public through posted notice on the premises; (iii) illuminated in such a 418 manner so as to enable persons entering and exiting the business or property to be 419 visible and identified on recorded footage; and (iv) maintaining recorded footage 420 for not less than 6 months after the recording occurs; 421 8. Installing metal detectors to screen persons visiting the business; 422 12 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 9. Maintaining an internal log or incident reporting system documenting the owner's 423 response to specific incidents of illegal activity inside the property or on the 424 abutting sidewalk; 425 10. Displaying signage identifying prohibited behavior at the property; 426 11. Making specific efforts to address litter and other cleanliness issues, such as 427 additional or larger refuse bins, more frequent or targeted cleaning, signage, 428 enhanced refuse bins, and changing business operations or products to reduce the 429 likelihood of litter creation; 430 12. Installing soundproofing insulation or taking other steps to control noise; 431 13. Changing the hours of operation in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of 432 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 433 14. Changing business operations or products sold in a manner designed to reduce the 434 likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 435 15. Removing any drug paraphernalia offered for sale or display in violation of 436 applicable zoning requirements from the premises; 437 16. Providing surveillance camera footage to law enforcement upon request; and 438 17. Any other measures likely to abate or prevent the recurrence of the nuisance 439 behavior or serious violent behavior. 440 441 B. Term: Executed plans shall be effective for a minimum of 12 months, and may be 442 extended by mutual agreement, or if ordered by the administrative appeals officer, if another 443 nuisance is declared at the property prior to expiration of the plan. 444 445 C. Remedies: All nuisance abatement plans shall identify remedies to the city if the 446 responsible party does not comply with the plan. These remedies may include, but are not limited 447 to: granting the city the ability to enter and abate the nuisance with recovery of costs associated 448 therewith to be made by the responsible party to the city upon presentation of an itemized 449 statement of costs; financial penalties; reduction in business operating hours; temporary closure 450 of the property or business; making some portions of the property inaccessible; and prohibiting 451 all alcohol sales or consumption on the property. 452 11.18.100: APPEALS: 453 A responsible party may appeal an administrative citation within ten (10) days of its issuance 454 pursuant to Chapter 2.75. 455 11.18.110: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: 456 A. Civil Fines: A property or business subject to a nuisance declaration may be subject to a 457 range of penalties that increase in severity. These penalties progress as follows: 458 1. If a responsible party fails to complete a corrective action by the deadline set 459 forth in an administrative citation, then for a first violation a fine shall be 460 assessed in the amount of $500. 461 13 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 462 first violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan then a fine shall 463 be assessed in the amount of $750, which shall constitute a second violation. 464 3. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 465 second violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine 466 shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000, which shall constitute a third 467 violation. 468 4. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 469 third or any subsequent violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement 470 plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000. 471 B. Revocation of Business License: In the event more than two citations are issued in any 472 12 month period, and the business at issue is not then a party to and in compliance with a 473 nuisance abatement plan, then the city may suspend or revoke the associated business license 474 pursuant to Chapter 5.02. 475 C. Orders by the Administrative Appeals Officer: In the event of an appeal of an 476 administrative citation, the administrative appeals officer may: 477 1. Order that the responsible party and the city enter into a nuisance abatement 478 plan consistent with Section 11.18.090 with the measures as directed by the 479 administrative appeals officer. 480 2. Grant the city an abatement order. 481 a. The order of abatement can require the responsible party to correct the 482 nuisance and can authorize the city to abate such nuisance if the 483 responsible party does not timely perform the abatement. 484 b. In the event the city proves that nuisance conduct or conditions pose a 485 reasonably imminent danger to human health or human life, unabated, 486 the administrative appeals officer shall order the abatement as requested 487 by the city. In such circumstances the city may perform the abatement of 488 the nuisance at the first possible opportunity. 489 c. The abatement order must permit the city to charge the responsible party 490 for the costs the city incurs in abating the nuisance. The costs may be 491 appealed to the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 492 11.70.150. 493 3. Revoke a business license without the right to apply for another license at the 494 property or another business premises for at least six months. 495 14 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Orders of an administrative appeals officer issued pursuant to this Chapter are each an 496 administrative enforcement order that may be appealed in accordance with 2.75.210. 497 11.18.120: CONTINUING SUPERVISION: 498 A. When an administrative citation is not timely appealed or an administrative appeals 499 officer has affirmed the city’s nuisance declaration, the responsible party is subject to 500 continued supervision by an administrative appeals officer for twelve (12) months or the term 501 of any applicable nuisance abatement plan. During that time, the administrative appeals officer 502 may schedule review hearings to track the responsible party’s compliance with any nuisance 503 abatement plan or abatement order, impose previously suspended penalties, and hold a hearing 504 to consider any claim by the city that a responsible party has not complied with a nuisance 505 abatement plan ordered by the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.18.110. 506 B. At a hearing on a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan entered pursuant to 507 11.18.110, the administrative appeals officer shall consider the steps taken by the responsible 508 party and determine whether such party has fulfilled its obligations under the nuisance 509 abatement plan. 510 1. During a hearing reviewing a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan, 511 the underlying nuisance declaration cannot be disturbed. 512 2. In the event the administrative appeals officer finds that the responsible party 513 failed to comply with any obligation under the nuisance abatement plan, the 514 administrative appeals officer shall impose one or more remedies as set forth in the 515 nuisance abatement plan. 516 C. Each new administrative citation may be appealed. Such appeals are limited to a review 517 of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior identified in the administrative citation and 518 may not address previous administrative citations that were not timely appealed or orders by an 519 administrative appeals officer that were not timely appealed. 520 11.70.170: DECLARATION OR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW BUSINESS OWNER 521 AND PROPERTY LOCATION: 522 A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior follows the 523 business owner and/or runs with the property. A declaration or determination of nuisance 524 conduct or serious violent behavior is not eliminated by transferring the property or the 525 business to another person or entity, changing the name of the business, or moving the business 526 to a new location. Transfer of business ownership shall not terminate any nuisance abatement 527 plan in effect with respect to a nuisance business. The acquiring business owner shall be 528 responsible for compliance with any enforcement action pending against the nuisance business 529 and prior business owner. 530 531 532 15 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 533 first publication. 534 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 535 2025. 536 ______________________________ 537 CHAIRPERSON 538 539 540 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 541 542 ______________________________ 543 CITY RECORDER 544 545 546 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 547 548 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 549 550 ______________________________ 551 MAYOR 552 ______________________________ 553 CITY RECORDER 554 (SEAL) 555 556 Bill No. ________ of 2025. 557 Published: ______________. 558 Responsible Property Owner Ordinance(legislative)v3 559 560 561 This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 08/20/2025 Date Sent to Council: 08/20/2025 From: Department * Finance Employee Name: Garcia, Arturo E-mail Arturo.Garcia@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 08/20/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 08/20/2025 Subject: Responsible Owner Ordinance Additional Staff Contact: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Art Garcia, Director of Finance Operations, and Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney Presenters/Staff Table Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, Art Garcia, Director of Finance Operations, and Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City Council adopt amendments to Salt Lake City Chapter 5.51and enact section 11.12.130, Public Peace, Morals and Welfare Offenses Against Public Order. Background/Discussion This ordinance originated in response to persistent public nuisance issues and after-hours alcohol consumption in non-residential premises, which have placed significant strain on city resources and negatively impacted neighborhood safety and quality of life. The City has seen repeated incidents of criminal activity, noise disturbances, and hazardous conditions at certain business and private properties, with limited recourse under existing ordinances. The current regulatory framework did not adequately hold property or business owners accountable for recurring nuisance activity on their premises, nor did it address the increasing trend of unauthorized after-hours alcohol consumption in common areas of commercial properties. These gaps led to a disproportionate burden on law enforcement and public safety personnel, while also diminishing the well-being of surrounding communities. The recommended ordinance introduces a tiered administrative enforcement process that allows for timely intervention, civil penalties, and the ability to require remedial measures or nuisance abatement plans. It further amends the City Code to prohibit alcohol consumption in common areas of commercial and non-residential properties between 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM, aligning City regulations with state-imposed restrictions on licensed establishments. This comprehensive approach is recommended because it empowers the City to take earlier, more flexible action to address nuisance behavior; imposes accountability on property and business owners; and provides a fair process for correction and appeal. These measures collectively promote public safety, reduce ongoing enforcement burdens, and support the health and welfare of Salt Lake City residents and visitors. Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process This page has intentionally been left blank 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2025 (Amending the text of Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private property and after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises) An ordinance (1) enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to responsible business and private property ownership to abate nuisances and (2) amending Chapters 11.12 and 5.51 to prohibit the after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises. WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of public nuisances; WHEREAS, the city acknowledges a significant public safety burden placed on the citizens of the city when business owners and property owners permit nuisance activity or fail to otherwise implement necessary steps to prevent the nuisance activity; WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 32B-5-301 prohibits the after-hours consumption of alcoholic products and alcoholic beverages on the premises of retail licensees; and WHEREAS, non-residential premises and commercial establishments that do not adhere to the protections and safeguards required of retail licensees are permitting the consumption of alcoholic beverages on their premises long after the retail licensees are required to close; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that prohibiting the after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises pursuant to standards similar to those that govern the premises of retail licensees reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. 2 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; 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 text of Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code (Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations: Alcohol Establishments and Off Premises Beer Retailers), is hereby amended as follows: CHAPTER 5.51 REGULATIONS RELATED TO ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS, NONRESIDENTIAL PREMISES, AND OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILERS 5.51.010: DEFINITIONS: ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENT: Any business that has obtained a license from the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Service. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor. ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of the Utah Code, or its successor. COMMON AREA: Any portion of a licensee establishment that is generally accessible to all occupants, invitees, guests, or customers; or that is generally intended for the common use of such occupants, invitees, guests or customers. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not “common area.” DABS: the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Services. LICENSEE ESTABLISHMENT: The location where any holder of a Salt Lake City business license, obtained for any purpose, operates. OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILER: This term has the same definition as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 3 5.51.020: LICENSE REQUIRED: Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers must obtain a business license subject to the general requirements set forth in chapters 5.02 and 5.04 of this title and the requirements included in this chapter. 5.51.025: STATE ISSUED ALCOHOL LICENSES REQUIRED FOR ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS: No alcohol establishment may serve alcohol within the city without the appropriate valid license or permit issued by DABS pursuant to title 32B, Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 5.51.027: SPECIAL EVENT ALCOHOL PERMITS: A. Required: A city issued special event alcohol permit is required for all events which are required to obtain from DABS a single event permit or temporary special event beer permit under title 32B, Utah Code or its successor provisions, allowing alcohol to be stored, sold, served and consumed for short term events. B. Application Requirements: In addition to the application requirements set forth in section 5.02.060 of this title, the following information is required: 1. The time, dates, and location of the event. 2. A description of the nature and purpose of the event. 3. A description of the control measures to be imposed by the DABSC and where alcohol will be stored, served and sold. 4. Evidence that the applicant is not disqualified for the license or permit under Utah Code Section 32B-1-304 or its successor provisions or city ordinance. 5. A signed consent form stating that law enforcement and authorized city representatives shall have the unrestricted right to enter and inspect the premises during the event to ensure compliance with state law and city ordinance. C. Operational Restrictions: The permittee is subject to all operational restrictions imposed by the DABS under its state permit. No alcohol may be served at any special event unless the city permittee also obtains the appropriate state permit. D. Nontransferable: Special event alcohol permits are not transferable. E. Time Limits: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the time limitations applicable to DABS single event permits and temporary special event beer permits. 4 F. Fees: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the fees that correspond to chapter 5.04 of this title and to an alcohol concession agreement fee. Such fees are set forth in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 5.51.030: ANNUAL LICENSE FEES: Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers are subject to the license fees set forth in chapter 5.04 of this title. For the purpose of establishing regulatory fees and disproportionate costs for alcohol establishments, the city may separate alcohol establishments into subcategories within schedules 1 and 2 of this title based on the types of alcohol served and the type of business conducted within the alcohol establishment. 5.51.040: RESTRICTIONS GOVENING CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS IN COMMON AREAS: Between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. a licensee establishment shall not: A. Furnish an alcoholic beverage or alcoholic product to an individual, nor B. Allow an individual to consume an alcoholic beverage or an alcoholic product in the common area of such establishment. 5.51.050: ENFORCEMENT: In addition to any enforcement procedures set forth in Utah Code Title 32B, any holder of a Salt Lake City business license found in violation of the provisions of this Chapter shall be (1) subject to a $1000 fine per occurrence, and (2) the City may seek to suspend or revoke the associated business license pursuant to the enforcement procedures set forth in Chapter 5.02. SECTION 2. Enacting Section 11.12.130 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Section 11.12.130 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare: Offenses Against Public Order) is hereby enacted as follows: 11.12.130: UNLAWFUL CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN COMMON AREAS OF NON- RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS. A. Definitions: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 5 ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions. COMMON AREA: Any portion of a non-residential premises that is generally accessible to all occupants, invitees or licensees; or that is generally intended for the common use of such occupants, invitees or licensees. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not “common area.” NON-RESIDENTIAL PREMISES: Premises that do not meet any of the various definitions of dwelling set forth in Section 21A.62.040. B. An individual shall not consume an alcoholic beverage nor an alcoholic product in any common area of non-residential premises during the time period beginning at 2:00 AM and ending at 6:00 AM. C. Operators of non-residential premises shall not permit the consumption of alcoholic beverages or alcoholic products in any common area during the time period between 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM. D. Individuals found in violation of this Section shall be subject to a civil citation and penalty of $500 per occurrence. Operators not otherwise subject to Chapter 5.51 shall be subject to a civil citation and penalty of $1000 per occurrence. SECTION 3. Enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 11.18 in Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), is hereby enacted as follows: CHAPTER 11.18 RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNER 11.18.010: DEFINITIONS: In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set forth in this section: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 6 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. BUSINESS OWNER: Any person engaged in business within Salt Lake City. CITY: Salt Lake City, Utah, including the mayor and all other employees of the administrative branch of the city. CRIMINAL CONDUCT: Any criminal offense at a place of business that can be reasonably linked to a patron, invitee, manager, owner, or employee of the business, an occupant of the place of business, or any person in the case of vacant property. EMERGENCY CONDITIONS: One or more conditions that exist in a building or on a property that create the likelihood of imminent danger to the life or safety of anyone who enters or occupies the property or building. ENGAGE IN BUSINESS: To conduct, manage, or carry on any business activity, as owner, officer, agent, manager, employer, or lessee. IMMINENT LIFE SAFETY HAZARD: Any condition that creates a serious and immediate danger to life, property, health, or public safety. ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. NUISANCE CONDUCT: Behavior that interferes with the health, safety or welfare of the community, materially and repeatedly infringes on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring uses, or results in the harassment of patrons or other persons including, but not limited to: (a) criminal conduct; (b) disturbance of the peace; (c) illegal consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages; (d) illegal drug activity; (e) unlawful street or sidewalk obstruction; (f) gambling and illegal gaming activities; (g) harassment of passers-by; (h) prostitution; (i) public urination or defecation; (j) lewd conduct; (k) litter; (l) unlawful discharge of hazardous materials; (m) parking violations; (n) open storage of unlicensed, inoperable, unused or abandoned vehicles or vehicle parts, unless the property is licensed for such use; (o) open storage of junk, scrap metal, lumber, wastepaper products, building materials, machinery and associated parts, interior household furniture, appliances, tree limbs and cuttings, landscape debris, garbage, industrial waste, other spent, useless, worthless or 7 discarded materials, or materials stored or accumulated for the purpose of discarding materials that have served their original purpose; (p) fouling of the air with offensive odors or contaminants, excessive dust, or excessive loud noise; (q) owning, operating or conducting a vehicle chop shop in any building or structure, including a lot or curtilage, for the purpose of dealing in stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle parts or illegally obtaining and altering vehicles or vehicle identification numbers of vehicle parts; (r) vehicles parked on the sidewalk; (s) use of street parking spaces or sidewalk for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, or storage or repair of inoperable vehicles; (t) unlawful firearms possession by a patron; (u) illegal dumping; (v) unlawful junk dealer operations; (w) obstruction of an investigation of nuisance behavior; (x) repeated or continuing violations of any other City ordinance and/or regulations; or (y) any other activity that constitutes a public nuisance under state law. OBSTRUCTION OF AN INVESTIGATION: Any obstruction of, interference with or other impediment of the investigation of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by a business owner, property owner, or other responsible person. PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. PLACE OF BUSINESS: A location maintained or operated by a person within the city at which business activities take place. Place of business includes a parking lot owned or leased by the business, parking areas traditionally used by patrons or employees of the business, and the public rights-of-way adjacent to the business premises as it is used by persons attracted to the business. REMEDIAL MEASURES: Specific, verifiable actions taken by a responsible party that are substantially likely to reduce, eliminate or prevent recurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior at issue. RESPONSIBLE PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. SERIOUS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR. Conduct that would constitute any of the following offenses as defined by state law: homicide, murder, aggravated assault, rape, or sexual assault. 11.18.020: PURPOSE AND INTENT: Business owners and property owners shall properly manage their property and place of businesses to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or the spread of disease. This chapter creates a system to initiate administrative actions to abate nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior and to impose civil fines or other penalties if a 8 business owner or a property owner fails to take all remedial measures to address the identified nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. 11.18.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: The provisions of this chapter shall not invalidate any other title, chapter, or ordinance of this Code, but shall be read in conjunction with those titles, chapters, and ordinances and shall be used as an additional remedy for enforcement of violations thereof. 11.18.040: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION; EMERGENCY POWERS: A. The city shall have sole discretion in deciding whether to pursue remedies to address nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, to file a civil nuisance action under this chapter or under state law, to bring criminal charges, to order suspension or revocation of business licenses, to order immediate action to terminate or abate nuisance conduct, to pursue administrative enforcement actions for the violation of any of its ordinances or applicable code requirements, or any combination thereof, or to pursue any other remedy available under the law. City officials are permitted to exercise executive discretion in determining which course of enforcement to pursue, taking into consideration the severity of an incident, the culpability of involved parties, the history of the involved property, and whether other circumstances exist that exacerbate the public impact of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. B. The enforcement of the provisions of this chapter does not prevent the city from pursuing other remedies for specific violations, including fines, abatement, suspension, revocation, injunctions, or other penalties. Specific violations may be considered nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, even if the business owner or property owner has already incurred civil or criminal penalties related to that offense. C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from abating nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that denigrates the public health and welfare in a declared emergency. D. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense and may give rise to a separate citation, charge or other remedy. 11.18.050: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, ATTEMPTING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: Whenever an act, condition, or omission is referred to or made unlawful in this chapter, it shall include causing, attempting to cause, permitting, aiding, or abetting such act, condition, or omission. 11.18.060: DUTY TO PROPERLY MANAGE: 9 Every property owner and business owner shall have a duty to properly manage their private property or place of business, as applicable, to prevent the creation of a nuisance to neighboring businesses, residents, passers-by, or the public, that results from nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by patrons, guests, employees, occupants, or those who frequent the business premises or the property, regardless of whether the persons are owners, invitees, or trespassers. 11.18.070: NUISANCE DECLARED A. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-8-60, the city has determined the quiet enjoyment of property and the general health, safety, and welfare of the community are intolerably impaired—and a public nuisance exists—when nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurs at any private property or place of business. B. A business owner or property owner is presumed to have created a nuisance if (1) within 180 consecutive days, not less than 3 separate incidents of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occur at or within the property, (2) for ongoing violations of this Chapter the nuisance conduct has persisted for 30 days or more, or (3) in connection with a place of business there are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in a 30 day period. This presumption may be rebutted if the responsible party demonstrates that it took all reasonable steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent reoccurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurring at or within the property. 11.18.080: DECLARATION OF NUISANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: A. The city may declare the existence of nuisance, as described under Section 11.18.070 at any time. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a declaration of nuisance may be combined with any other notice from the city to the responsible party. B. Administrative Citation. Upon a determination that a business or private property has created a nuisance the city may issue an administrative citation. 1. The written citation shall state: a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible party; b. The date and location of each violation; c. The nature of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; d. That the nuisance must be corrected; e. Provide a specific date by which the corrective action ordered by the enforcement official be taken; f. The remedies, including any civil fines, that the enforcement official intends to pursue if corrective action is not taken; 10 g. Recommendations regarding potential remedial measures and an opportunity for the responsible party to demonstrate use of remedial measures to the city; h. Identification of the procedure to appeal the citation; and i. The signature of the enforcement official. 2. The enforcement official shall serve the administrative citation on the responsible party by: a. Posting a copy of the administrative citation at the property, and b. By mailing the administrative citation through certified mail or reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. If the responsible party is the property owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt Lake County Recorder. If the responsible party is any other person or entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last known address of the responsible party on file with the city. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible party shall be sufficient to meet the service requirements of Subsection 11.18.080.B.2.b. 3. Corrective Action: Following the issuance of an administrative citation the responsible party shall either: a. Demonstrate that remedial measures have been implemented to address the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that led to the nuisance declaration, or b. Enter into a nuisance abatement plan pursuant to Section 11.18.090. 4. Failure to Correct: If corrective action has not been undertaken by the deadline identified in the administrative citation, the city may pursue any remedy, including civil fines identified in Section 11.18.110. 11.18.090: NUISANCE ABATEMENT PLANS: A. Any nuisance abatement plan executed by a responsible party and the city shall certify the responsible party’s agreement to take all necessary and appropriate measures to reduce, eliminate or prevent future recurrence of each nuisance conduct and each serious violent behavior giving rise to nuisance declaration. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Removal of unlawful items; 2. Taking steps to prevent the specific nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior, personally or through an agent such as a private security company; 3. Hiring sufficient licensed and insured security personnel to patrol the property and the abutting sidewalks; 11 4. Documenting proactive efforts with the police department regarding nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior activities; 5. Participating in regular meetings with community-based organizations at which specific efforts to address nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior are discussed; 6. Installing and maintaining improved lighting at each point of entry to and exit from the property and in designated common areas, if any; 7. Installing and maintaining surveillance cameras that are at all times: (i) active and operational at each point of entry to and exit from the business or property, in designated common areas and in interior spaces where business operations are conducted, on the street abutting the business, and any other locations where prior nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior has been reported; (ii) disclosed to the public through posted notice on the premises; (iii) illuminated in such a manner so as to enable persons entering and exiting the business or property to be visible and identified on recorded footage; and (iv) maintaining recorded footage for not less than 6 months after the recording occurs; 8. Installing metal detectors to screen persons visiting the business; 9. Maintaining an internal log or incident reporting system documenting the owner's response to specific incidents of illegal activity inside the property or on the abutting sidewalk; 10. Displaying signage identifying prohibited behavior at the property; 11. Making specific efforts to address litter and other cleanliness issues, such as additional or larger refuse bins, more frequent or targeted cleaning, signage, enhanced refuse bins, and changing business operations or products to reduce the likelihood of litter creation; 12. Installing soundproofing insulation or taking other steps to control noise; 13. Changing the hours of operation in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 14. Changing business operations or products sold in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 15. Removing any drug paraphernalia offered for sale or display in violation of applicable zoning requirements from the premises; 16. Providing surveillance camera footage to law enforcement upon request; and 17. Any other measures likely to abate or prevent the recurrence of the nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior. B. Term: Executed plans shall be effective for a minimum of 12 months, and may be extended by mutual agreement, or if ordered by the administrative appeals officer, if another nuisance is declared at the property prior to expiration of the plan. C. Remedies: All nuisance abatement plans shall identify remedies to the city if the responsible party does not comply with the plan. These remedies may include, but are not limited to: granting the city the ability to enter and abate the nuisance with recovery of costs associated therewith to be made by the responsible party to the city upon presentation of an itemized statement of costs; financial penalties; reduction in business operating hours; temporary closure 12 of the property or business; making some portions of the property inaccessible; and prohibiting all alcohol sales or consumption on the property. 11.18.100: APPEALS: A responsible party may appeal an administrative citation within ten (10) days of its issuance pursuant to Chapter 2.75. 11.18.110: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: A. Civil Fines: A property or business subject to a nuisance declaration may be subject to a range of penalties that increase in severity. These penalties progress as follows: 1. If a responsible party fails to complete a corrective action by the deadline set forth in an administrative citation, then for a first violation a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $500. 2. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a first violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $750, which shall constitute a second violation. 3. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a second violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000, which shall constitute a third violation. 4. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a third or any subsequent violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000. B. Revocation of Business License: In the event more than two citations are issued in any 12 month period, and the business at issue is not then a party to and in compliance with a nuisance abatement plan, then the city may suspend or revoke the associated business license pursuant to Chapter 5.02. C. Orders by the Administrative Appeals officer: In the event of an appeal of an administrative citation, the administrative appeals officer may: 1. Order that the responsible party and the city enter into a nuisance abatement plan consistent with Section 11.18.090 with the measures as directed by the administrative appeals officer. 2. Grant the city an abatement order. 13 a. The order of abatement can require the responsible party to correct the nuisance and can authorize the city to abate such nuisance if the responsible party does not timely perform the abatement. b. In the event the city proves that nuisance conduct or conditions pose a reasonably imminent danger to human health or human life, unabated, the administrative appeals officer shall order the abatement as requested by the city. In such circumstances the city may perform the abatement of the nuisance at the first possible opportunity. c. The abatement order must permit the city to charge the responsible party for the costs the city incurs in abating the nuisance. The costs may be appealed to the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.70.150. 3. Revoke a business license without the right to apply for another license at the property or another business premises for at least six months. 4. Revoke a certificate of occupancy without the right to apply for another at the property for at least six months. Orders of an administrative appeals officer issued pursuant to this Chapter are each an administrative enforcement order that may be appealed in accordance with 2.75.210. 11.18.120: CONTINUING SUPERVISION: A. When an administrative citation is not timely appealed or an administrative appeals officer has affirmed the city’s nuisance declaration, the responsible party is subject to continued supervision by an administrative appeals officer for twelve (12) months or the term of any applicable nuisance abatement plan. During that time, the administrative appeals officer may schedule review hearings to track the responsible party’s compliance with any nuisance abatement plan or abatement order, impose previously suspended penalties, and hold a hearing to consider any claim by the city that a responsible party has not complied with a nuisance abatement plan ordered by the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.18.110. B. At a hearing on a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan entered pursuant to 11.18.110, the administrative appeals officer shall consider the steps taken by the responsible party and determine whether such party has fulfilled its obligations under the nuisance abatement plan. 1. During a hearing reviewing a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan, the underlying nuisance declaration cannot be disturbed. 2. In the event the administrative appeals officer finds that the responsible party failed to comply with any obligation under the nuisance abatement plan, the 14 administrative appeals officer shall impose one or more remedies as set forth in the nuisance abatement plan. C. Each new administrative citation may be appealed. Such appeals are limited to a review of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior identified in the administrative citation and may not address previous administrative citations that were not timely appealed or orders by an administrative appeals officer that were not timely appealed. 11.70.170: DECLARATION OR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW BUSINESS OWNER AND PROPERTY LOCATION: A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior follows the business owner and/or runs with the property. A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior is not eliminated by transferring the property or the business to another person or entity, changing the name of the business, or moving the business to a new location. Transfer of business ownership shall not terminate any nuisance abatement plan in effect with respect to a nuisance business. The acquiring business owner shall be responsible for compliance with any enforcement action pending against the nuisance business and prior business owner. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2025. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR 15 ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2025. Published: ______________. Responsible Property Owner Ordinance(final)v2 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney August 18, 2025 This page has intentionally been left blank 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2025 2 3 (Amending the text of Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to nuisance private property 4 and after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and 5 non-residential premises) 6 7 An ordinance (1) enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to 8 responsible business and private property ownership to abate nuisances and (2) amending 9 Chapters 11.12 and 5.51 to prohibit the after-hours consumption of alcohol in the common areas 10 of commercial establishments and non-residential premises. 11 WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of 12 public nuisances; 13 WHEREAS, the city acknowledges a significant public safety burden placed on the 14 citizens of the city when business owners and property owners permit nuisance activity or fail to 15 otherwise implement necessary steps to prevent the nuisance activity; 16 WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 32B-5-301 prohibits the after-hours consumption of 17 alcoholic products and alcoholic beverages on the premises of retail licensees; and 18 WHEREAS, non-residential premises and commercial establishments that do not adhere 19 to the protections and safeguards required of retail licensees are permitting the consumption of 20 alcoholic beverages on their premises long after the retail licensees are required to close; and 21 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that prohibiting the after-hours consumption of 22 alcohol in the common areas of commercial establishments and non-residential premises 23 pursuant to standards similar to those that govern the premises of retail licensees reasonably 24 furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. 25 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following ordinance 26 promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city; and 27 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that 28 adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 29 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 30 31 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code. That 32 Chapter 5.51 of the Salt Lake City Code (Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations: Alcohol 33 Establishments and Off Premises Beer Retailers), is hereby amended as follows: 34 CHAPTER 5.51 REGULATIONS RELATED TO ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS, 35 NONRESIDENTIAL PREMISES, AND OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILERS 36 37 5.51.005: PURPOSE: 38 39 The purpose of this chapter is to normalize the regulation of alcoholic beverages by the city by: 40 a) simplifying alcoholic beverage control regulation by not duplicating state regulations, and b) 41 limiting the city's regulatory interests to business licensing and to land use concerns as provided 42 in title 21A of this code. The provisions of this chapter shall be construed to effectuate those 43 purposes. This chapter does not limit in any way the responsibilities of Salt Lake City police 44 officers or Salt Lake City prosecutors under state law. 45 46 5.51.010: DEFINITIONS: 47 48 ALCOHOL: The same meaning as section 32A-1-105(2), Utah Code Annotated (2009), or 49 successor provisions. 50 51 ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENT: Any business that has obtained a license from the Utah 52 Department of Alcoholic Beverage Servicesells alcoholic beverages to patrons for consumption 53 on the premises, as set forth in section 21A.36.300 of this code. 54 55 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 56 of Utah Code, or its successor. 57 58 ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in Section 32B-2-102 of 59 the Utah Code, or its successor. 60 61 COMMON AREA: Any portion of a licensee establishment that is generally accessible to all 62 occupants, invitees, guests, or customers; or that is generally intended for the common use of 63 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT such occupants, invitees, guests or customers. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not 64 “common area.” 65 66 DABS: the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Services. 67 68 LICENSEE ESTABLISHMENT: The location where any holder of a Salt Lake City business 69 license, obtained for any purpose, operates. 70 71 LICENSE ENFORCEMENT ACTION: The administrative process set forth in 72 section 5.51.070 of this chapter. 73 74 OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILER: This term has the same definition as defined in Section 75 32B-2-102 of Utah Code, or its successor provisions.A retail business that sells beer in its 76 original packaging for consumption off the premises, but does not include the sale of beer in 77 sealed containers pursuant to section 32A-10-206(7), Utah Code Annotated (2009), or its 78 successor provision. 79 80 SEASONAL LICENSE: A city business license issued to an alcohol establishment that is valid 81 for a six (6) month period corresponding with the periods provided for "seasonal A" and 82 "seasonal B" licenses issued by the Utah alcoholic beverage control commission, pursuant to title 83 32A, Utah Code Annotated (2009), and its successor provisions. 84 85 86 5.51.020: LICENSE REQUIRED: 87 88 Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers must obtain a 89 business license subject to the general requirements set forth in chapters 5.02 and 5.04 of this 90 title and the requirements included in this chapter. Alcohol establishments which qualify for a 91 seasonal A or seasonal B license issued by the Utah alcoholic beverage control commission may 92 obtain a seasonal license for the same term for which the state license is issued. 93 94 95 5.51.025: STATE ISSUED ALCOHOL LICENSES REQUIRED FOR ALCOHOL 96 ESTABLISHMENTS: 97 98 No alcohol establishment may serve alcohol within the city without the appropriate valid license 99 or permit issued by DABSthe Utah alcoholic beverage control commission pursuant to title 100 32BA, Utah Code Annotated (2009), orand its successor provisions. 101 102 5.51.027: SPECIAL EVENT ALCOHOL PERMITS: 103 104 A. Required: A city issued special event alcohol permit is required for all events which are 105 required to obtain from DABSthe Utah alcoholic beverage control commission a single event 106 permit or temporary special event beer permit under title 32BA, Utah Code Annotated (2009) or 107 its successor provisions, allowing alcohol to be stored, sold, served and consumed for short term 108 events. 109 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 110 B. Application Requirements: In addition to the application requirements set forth in 111 section 5.02.060 of this title, the following information is required: 112 1. The time, dates, and location of the event. 113 2. A description of the nature and purpose of the event. 114 3. A description of the control measures to be imposed by the DABSC and where 115 alcohol will be stored, served and sold. 116 4. Evidence that the applicant is not disqualified for the license or permit under Utah 117 Code Section 32B-1-304 or its successor provisions or city ordinance. 118 54. A signed consent form stating that law enforcement and authorized city 119 representatives shall have the unrestricted right to enter and inspect the premises during 120 the event to ensure compliance with state law and city ordinance. 121 122 C. Operational Restrictions: The permittee is subject to all operational restrictions imposed 123 by the DABSC under its state permit. No alcohol may be served at any special event unless the 124 city permittee also obtains the appropriate state permit. 125 126 D. Nontransferable: Special event alcohol permits are not transferable. 127 128 E. Time Limits: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the time limitations applicable 129 to DABSC single event permits and temporary special event beer permits. 130 131 F. Fees: Special event alcohol permits are subject to the fees that correspond to chapter 132 5.04 of this title and to an alcohol concession agreement fee. Such fees are set forth in the Salt 133 Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 134 135 136 5.51.030: ANNUAL LICENSE FEES: 137 138 A. Alcohol establishments, licensee establishments, and off premises beer retailers are 139 subject to the license fees set forth in chapter 5.04 of this title. For the purpose of establishing 140 regulatory fees and disproportionate costs for alcohol establishments, the city may separate 141 alcohol establishments into subcategories within schedules 1 and 2 of this title based on the types 142 of alcohol served and the type of business conducted within the alcohol establishment. 143 144 B. The license fee for a seasonal license will be assessed at fifty percent (50%) of the 145 regulatory and disproportionate fee charged for the type of alcohol establishment to be licensed 146 as listed on schedules 1 and 2 of this title, plus the full base license fee provided in 147 section 5.04.070 of this title. 148 149 150 5.51.040: RESTRICTIONS GOVENING CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES 151 AND ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS IN COMMON AREAS: 152 153 Between 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. a licensee establishment shall not: 154 155 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT A. Furnish an alcoholic beverage or alcoholic product to an individual, nor 156 B. Allow an individual to consume an alcoholic beverage or an alcoholic product in the 157 common area of such establishment. 158 159 160 5.51.050100: OFF PREMISES BEER RETAILERS; OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND 161 ENFORCEMENT: 162 163 A. In addition to any enforcement procedures set forth in Utah Code Title 32B, any holder of 164 a Salt Lake City business license found in violation of the provisions of this Chapter shall be (1) 165 subject to a $1000 fine per occurrence, and (2) the City may seek to suspend or revoke the 166 associated business license pursuant to the enforcement procedures set forth in Chapter 167 5.02requirements under this code, off premises beer retailers are subject to the operational 168 requirements set forth in sections 32A-10-102 and 32A-10-103, Utah Code Annotated (2009), or 169 its successor provisions. 170 171 B. For violations related to underage sale of beer, the enforcement process set forth at 172 section 32A-10-103, Utah Code Annotated (2009), or its successor provisions, applies. 173 174 C. For all other violations, the requirements of chapter 5.02 of this title apply. 175 176 SECTION 2. Enacting Section 11.12.130 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Section 177 11.12.130 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare: Offenses Against Public Order) is hereby enacted 178 as follows: 179 11.12.130: UNLAWFUL CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN COMMON AREAS OF NON-180 RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS. 181 182 A. Definitions: 183 184 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of 185 Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 186 187 ALCOHOLIC PRODUCT: This term has the same meaning as defined in section 32B-2-102 of 188 Utah Code, or its successor provisions. 189 190 COMMON AREA: Any portion of a non-residential premises that is generally accessible to all 191 occupants, invitees or licensees; or that is generally intended for the common use of such 192 occupants, invitees or licensees. Hotel rooms or employee-only areas are not “common area.” 193 194 NON-RESIDENTIAL PREMISES: Premises that do not meet any of the various definitions of 195 dwelling set forth in Section 21A.62.040. 196 197 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT B. An individual shall not consume an alcoholic beverage nor an alcoholic product in any 198 common area of non-residential premises during the time period beginning at 2:00 AM and 199 ending at 6:00 AM. 200 201 C. Operators of non-residential premises shall not permit the consumption of alcoholic 202 beverages or alcoholic products in any common area during the time period between 2:00 AM 203 and 6:00 AM. 204 205 D. Individuals found in violation of this Section shall be subject to a civil citation and 206 penalty of $500 per occurrence. Operators not otherwise subject to Chapter 5.51 shall be subject 207 to a civil citation and penalty of $1000 per occurrence. 208 209 SECTION 3. Enacting Chapter 11.18 of the Salt Lake City Code. That Chapter 11.18 in 210 Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), is hereby enacted as 211 follows: 212 CHAPTER 11.18 RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNER 213 11.18.010: DEFINITIONS: 214 215 In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set 216 forth in this section: 217 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 218 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 219 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 220 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: As that term is defined in Section 221 2.75.050. 222 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 223 BUSINESS OWNER: Any person engaged in business within Salt Lake City. 224 CITY: Salt Lake City, Utah, including the mayor and all other employees of the administrative 225 branch of the city. 226 CRIMINAL CONDUCT: Any criminal offense at a place of business that can be reasonably 227 linked to a patron, invitee, manager, owner, or employee of the business, an occupant of the 228 place of business, or any person in the case of vacant property. 229 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT EMERGENCY CONDITIONS: One or more conditions that exist in a building or on a 230 property that create the likelihood of imminent danger to the life or safety of anyone who 231 enters or occupies the property or building. 232 ENGAGE IN BUSINESS: To conduct, manage, or carry on any business activity, as owner, 233 officer, agent, manager, employer, or lessee. 234 IMMINENT LIFE SAFETY HAZARD: Any condition that creates a serious and immediate 235 danger to life, property, health, or public safety. 236 ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 237 NUISANCE CONDUCT: Behavior that interferes with the health, safety or welfare of the 238 community, materially and repeatedly infringes on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring uses, or 239 results in the harassment of patrons or other persons including, but not limited to: 240 (a) criminal conduct; 241 (b) disturbance of the peace; 242 (c) illegal consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages; 243 (d) illegal drug activity; 244 (e) unlawful street or sidewalk obstruction; 245 (f) gambling and illegal gaming activities; 246 (g) harassment of passers-by; 247 (h) prostitution; 248 (i) public urination or defecation; 249 (j) lewd conduct; 250 (k) litter; 251 (l) unlawful discharge of hazardous materials; 252 (m) parking violations; 253 (n) open storage of unlicensed, inoperable, unused or abandoned vehicles or vehicle parts, 254 unless the property is licensed for such use; 255 (o) open storage of junk, scrap metal, lumber, wastepaper products, building materials, 256 machinery and associated parts, interior household furniture, appliances, tree limbs and 257 cuttings, landscape debris, garbage, industrial waste, other spent, useless, worthless or 258 discarded materials, or materials stored or accumulated for the purpose of discarding 259 materials that have served their original purpose; 260 (p) fouling of the air with offensive odors or contaminants, excessive dust, or excessive 261 loud noise; 262 (q) owning, operating or conducting a vehicle chop shop in any building or structure, 263 including a lot or curtilage, for the purpose of dealing in stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle 264 parts or illegally obtaining and altering vehicles or vehicle identification numbers of 265 vehicle parts; 266 (r) vehicles parked on the sidewalk; 267 (s) use of street parking spaces or sidewalk for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, or 268 storage or repair of inoperable vehicles; 269 (t) unlawful firearms possession by a patron; 270 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (u) illegal dumping; 271 (v) unlawful junk dealer operations; 272 (w) obstruction of an investigation of nuisance behavior; 273 (x) repeated or continuing violations of any other City ordinance and/or regulations; or 274 (y) any other activity that constitutes a public nuisance under state law. 275 OBSTRUCTION OF AN INVESTIGATION: Any obstruction of, interference with or other 276 impediment of the investigation of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior by a business 277 owner, property owner, or other responsible person. 278 PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 279 PLACE OF BUSINESS: A location maintained or operated by a person within the city at 280 which business activities take place. Place of business includes a parking lot owned or leased 281 by the business, parking areas traditionally used by patrons or employees of the business, and 282 the public rights-of-way adjacent to the business premises as it is used by persons attracted to 283 the business. 284 REMEDIAL MEASURES: Specific, verifiable actions taken by a responsible party that are 285 substantially likely to reduce, eliminate or prevent recurrence of the nuisance conduct or 286 serious violent behavior at issue. 287 RESPONSIBLE PERSON: As that term is defined in Section 2.75.050. 288 SERIOUS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR. Conduct that would constitute any of the following 289 offenses as defined by state law: homicide, murder, aggravated assault, rape, or sexual assault. 290 11.18.020: PURPOSE AND INTENT: 291 Business owners and property owners shall properly manage their property and place of 292 businesses to prevent them from becoming a nuisance to public safety personnel, adjacent 293 public property, neighboring residents or businesses, or deteriorating into havens for crime or 294 the spread of disease. This chapter creates a system to initiate administrative actions to abate 295 nuisance conduct and serious violent behavior and to impose civil fines or other penalties if a 296 business owner or a property owner fails to take all remedial measures to address the identified 297 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior. 298 11.18.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: 299 The provisions of this chapter shall not invalidate any other title, chapter, or ordinance of this 300 Code, but shall be read in conjunction with those titles, chapters, and ordinances and shall be 301 used as an additional remedy for enforcement of violations thereof. 302 11.18.040: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROSECUTION; EMERGENCY POWERS: 303 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT A. The city shall have sole discretion in deciding whether to pursue remedies to address 304 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, to file a civil nuisance action 305 under this chapter or under state law, to bring criminal charges, to order suspension or 306 revocation of business licenses, to order immediate action to terminate or abate nuisance 307 conduct, to pursue administrative enforcement actions for the violation of any of its ordinances 308 or applicable code requirements, or any combination thereof, or to pursue any other remedy 309 available under the law. City officials are permitted to exercise executive discretion in 310 determining which course of enforcement to pursue, taking into consideration the severity of 311 an incident, the culpability of involved parties, the history of the involved property, and 312 whether other circumstances exist that exacerbate the public impact of the nuisance conduct or 313 serious violent behavior. 314 B. The enforcement of the provisions of this chapter does not prevent the city from 315 pursuing other remedies for specific violations, including fines, abatement, suspension, 316 revocation, injunctions, or other penalties. Specific violations may be considered nuisance 317 conduct or serious violent behavior under this chapter, even if the business owner or property 318 owner has already incurred civil or criminal penalties related to that offense. 319 C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from abating nuisance conduct or serious 320 violent behavior that denigrates the public health and welfare in a declared emergency. 321 D. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate offense and may give rise to a 322 separate citation, charge or other remedy. 323 11.18.050: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, ATTEMPTING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: 324 Whenever an act, condition, or omission is referred to or made unlawful in this chapter, it shall 325 include causing, attempting to cause, permitting, aiding, or abetting such act, condition, or 326 omission. 327 11.18.060: DUTY TO PROPERLY MANAGE: 328 Every property owner and business owner shall have a duty to properly manage their private 329 property or place of business, as applicable, to prevent the creation of a nuisance to 330 neighboring businesses, residents, passers-by, or the public, that results from nuisance conduct 331 or serious violent behavior by patrons, guests, employees, occupants, or those who frequent the 332 business premises or the property, regardless of whether the persons are owners, invitees, or 333 trespassers. 334 11.18.070: NUISANCE DECLARED 335 A. Pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-8-60, the city has determined the quiet enjoyment of 336 property and the general health, safety, and welfare of the community are intolerably 337 impaired—and a public nuisance exists—when nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior 338 occurs at any private property or place of business. 339 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT B. A business owner or property owner is presumed to have created a nuisance if (1) 340 within 180 consecutive days, not less than 3 separate incidents of nuisance conduct or serious 341 violent behavior occur at or within the property, (2) for ongoing violations of this Chapter the 342 nuisance conduct has persisted for 30 days or more, or (3) in connection with a place of 343 business there are 5 or more calls for service for nuisance conduct in a 30 day period. This 344 presumption may be rebutted if the responsible party demonstrates that it took all reasonable 345 steps, including implementing the remedial measures directed by the city, to prevent 346 reoccurrence of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior occurring at or within the 347 property. 348 11.18.080: DECLARATION OF NUISANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: 349 A. The city may declare the existence of nuisance, as described under Section 11.18.070 at 350 any time. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a declaration of nuisance may be 351 combined with any other notice from the city to the responsible party. 352 B. Administrative Citation. Upon a determination that a business or private property has 353 created a nuisance the city may issue an administrative citation. 354 1. The written citation shall state: 355 356 a. The name and address, if known, of the responsible party; 357 b. The date and location of each violation; 358 c. The nature of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 359 d. That the nuisance must be corrected; 360 e. Provide a specific date by which the corrective action ordered by the 361 enforcement official be taken; 362 f. The remedies, including any civil fines, that the enforcement official intends 363 to pursue if corrective action is not taken; 364 g. Recommendations regarding potential remedial measures and an opportunity 365 for the responsible party to demonstrate use of remedial measures to the city; 366 h. Identification of the procedure to appeal the citation; and 367 i. The signature of the enforcement official. 368 369 2. The enforcement official shall serve the administrative citation on the responsible 370 party by: 371 a. Posting a copy of the administrative citation at the property, and 372 b. By mailing the administrative citation through certified mail or 373 reputable mail tracking service that is capable of confirming delivery. 374 If the responsible party is the property owner of record, then mailing 375 shall be to the last known address appearing on the records of the Salt 376 Lake County Recorder. If the responsible party is any other person or 377 entity other than the owner of record, then mailing shall be to the last 378 known address of the responsible party on file with the city. 379 11 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personal service upon the responsible 380 party shall be sufficient to meet the service requirements of Subsection 381 11.18.080.B.2.b. 382 383 3. Corrective Action: Following the issuance of an administrative citation the 384 responsible party shall either: 385 a. Demonstrate that remedial measures have been implemented to 386 address the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior that led to the 387 nuisance declaration, or 388 b. Enter into a nuisance abatement plan pursuant to Section 11.18.090. 389 390 4. Failure to Correct: If corrective action has not been undertaken by the deadline 391 identified in the administrative citation, the city may pursue any remedy, 392 including civil fines identified in Section 11.18.110. 393 11.18.090: NUISANCE ABATEMENT PLANS: 394 A. Any nuisance abatement plan executed by a responsible party and the city shall certify 395 the responsible party’s agreement to take all necessary and appropriate measures to reduce, 396 eliminate or prevent future recurrence of each nuisance conduct and each serious violent 397 behavior giving rise to nuisance declaration. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, 398 the following: 399 400 1. Removal of unlawful items; 401 2. Taking steps to prevent the specific nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior, 402 personally or through an agent such as a private security company; 403 3. Hiring sufficient licensed and insured security personnel to patrol the property 404 and the abutting sidewalks; 405 4. Documenting proactive efforts with the police department regarding nuisance 406 behavior or serious violent behavior activities; 407 5. Participating in regular meetings with community-based organizations at which 408 specific efforts to address nuisance behavior or serious violent behavior are 409 discussed; 410 6. Installing and maintaining improved lighting at each point of entry to and exit 411 from the property and in designated common areas, if any; 412 7. Installing and maintaining surveillance cameras that are at all times: (i) active and 413 operational at each point of entry to and exit from the business or property, in 414 designated common areas and in interior spaces where business operations are 415 conducted, on the street abutting the business, and any other locations where prior 416 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior has been reported; (ii) disclosed to 417 the public through posted notice on the premises; (iii) illuminated in such a 418 manner so as to enable persons entering and exiting the business or property to be 419 visible and identified on recorded footage; and (iv) maintaining recorded footage 420 for not less than 6 months after the recording occurs; 421 8. Installing metal detectors to screen persons visiting the business; 422 12 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 9. Maintaining an internal log or incident reporting system documenting the owner's 423 response to specific incidents of illegal activity inside the property or on the 424 abutting sidewalk; 425 10. Displaying signage identifying prohibited behavior at the property; 426 11. Making specific efforts to address litter and other cleanliness issues, such as 427 additional or larger refuse bins, more frequent or targeted cleaning, signage, 428 enhanced refuse bins, and changing business operations or products to reduce the 429 likelihood of litter creation; 430 12. Installing soundproofing insulation or taking other steps to control noise; 431 13. Changing the hours of operation in a manner designed to reduce the likelihood of 432 nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 433 14. Changing business operations or products sold in a manner designed to reduce the 434 likelihood of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior; 435 15. Removing any drug paraphernalia offered for sale or display in violation of 436 applicable zoning requirements from the premises; 437 16. Providing surveillance camera footage to law enforcement upon request; and 438 17. Any other measures likely to abate or prevent the recurrence of the nuisance 439 behavior or serious violent behavior. 440 441 B. Term: Executed plans shall be effective for a minimum of 12 months, and may be 442 extended by mutual agreement, or if ordered by the administrative appeals officer, if another 443 nuisance is declared at the property prior to expiration of the plan. 444 445 C. Remedies: All nuisance abatement plans shall identify remedies to the city if the 446 responsible party does not comply with the plan. These remedies may include, but are not limited 447 to: granting the city the ability to enter and abate the nuisance with recovery of costs associated 448 therewith to be made by the responsible party to the city upon presentation of an itemized 449 statement of costs; financial penalties; reduction in business operating hours; temporary closure 450 of the property or business; making some portions of the property inaccessible; and prohibiting 451 all alcohol sales or consumption on the property. 452 11.18.100: APPEALS: 453 A responsible party may appeal an administrative citation within ten (10) days of its issuance 454 pursuant to Chapter 2.75. 455 11.18.110: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: 456 A. Civil Fines: A property or business subject to a nuisance declaration may be subject to a 457 range of penalties that increase in severity. These penalties progress as follows: 458 1. If a responsible party fails to complete a corrective action by the deadline set 459 forth in an administrative citation, then for a first violation a fine shall be 460 assessed in the amount of $500. 461 13 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 462 first violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan then a fine shall 463 be assessed in the amount of $750, which shall constitute a second violation. 464 3. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 465 second violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement plan, then a fine 466 shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000, which shall constitute a third 467 violation. 468 4. If a responsible party receives an administrative citation within 12 months of a 469 third or any subsequent violation and does not enter into a nuisance abatement 470 plan, then a fine shall be assessed in the amount of $1,000. 471 B. Revocation of Business License: In the event more than two citations are issued in any 472 12 month period, and the business at issue is not then a party to and in compliance with a 473 nuisance abatement plan, then the city may suspend or revoke the associated business license 474 pursuant to Chapter 5.02. 475 C. Orders by the Administrative Appeals Officer: In the event of an appeal of an 476 administrative citation, the administrative appeals officer may: 477 1. Order that the responsible party and the city enter into a nuisance abatement 478 plan consistent with Section 11.18.090 with the measures as directed by the 479 administrative appeals officer. 480 2. Grant the city an abatement order. 481 a. The order of abatement can require the responsible party to correct the 482 nuisance and can authorize the city to abate such nuisance if the 483 responsible party does not timely perform the abatement. 484 b. In the event the city proves that nuisance conduct or conditions pose a 485 reasonably imminent danger to human health or human life, unabated, 486 the administrative appeals officer shall order the abatement as requested 487 by the city. In such circumstances the city may perform the abatement of 488 the nuisance at the first possible opportunity. 489 c. The abatement order must permit the city to charge the responsible party 490 for the costs the city incurs in abating the nuisance. The costs may be 491 appealed to the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 492 11.70.150. 493 3. Revoke a business license without the right to apply for another license at the 494 property or another business premises for at least six months. 495 14 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 4. Revoke a certificate of occupancy without the right to apply for another at the 496 property for at least six months. 497 Orders of an administrative appeals officer issued pursuant to this Chapter are each an 498 administrative enforcement order that may be appealed in accordance with 2.75.210. 499 11.18.120: CONTINUING SUPERVISION: 500 A. When an administrative citation is not timely appealed or an administrative appeals 501 officer has affirmed the city’s nuisance declaration, the responsible party is subject to 502 continued supervision by an administrative appeals officer for twelve (12) months or the term 503 of any applicable nuisance abatement plan. During that time, the administrative appeals officer 504 may schedule review hearings to track the responsible party’s compliance with any nuisance 505 abatement plan or abatement order, impose previously suspended penalties, and hold a hearing 506 to consider any claim by the city that a responsible party has not complied with a nuisance 507 abatement plan ordered by the administrative appeals officer pursuant to Section 11.18.110. 508 B. At a hearing on a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan entered pursuant to 509 11.18.110, the administrative appeals officer shall consider the steps taken by the responsible 510 party and determine whether such party has fulfilled its obligations under the nuisance 511 abatement plan. 512 1. During a hearing reviewing a failure to comply with a nuisance abatement plan, 513 the underlying nuisance declaration cannot be disturbed. 514 2. In the event the administrative appeals officer finds that the responsible party 515 failed to comply with any obligation under the nuisance abatement plan, the 516 administrative appeals officer shall impose one or more remedies as set forth in the 517 nuisance abatement plan. 518 C. Each new administrative citation may be appealed. Such appeals are limited to a review 519 of the nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior identified in the administrative citation and 520 may not address previous administrative citations that were not timely appealed or orders by an 521 administrative appeals officer that were not timely appealed. 522 11.70.170: DECLARATION OR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW BUSINESS OWNER 523 AND PROPERTY LOCATION: 524 A declaration or determination of nuisance conduct or serious violent behavior follows the 525 business owner and/or runs with the property. A declaration or determination of nuisance 526 conduct or serious violent behavior is not eliminated by transferring the property or the 527 business to another person or entity, changing the name of the business, or moving the business 528 to a new location. Transfer of business ownership shall not terminate any nuisance abatement 529 plan in effect with respect to a nuisance business. The acquiring business owner shall be 530 responsible for compliance with any enforcement action pending against the nuisance business 531 and prior business owner. 532 15 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 533 534 SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 535 first publication. 536 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 537 2025. 538 ______________________________ 539 CHAIRPERSON 540 541 542 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 543 544 ______________________________ 545 CITY RECORDER 546 547 548 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 549 550 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 551 552 ______________________________ 553 MAYOR 554 ______________________________ 555 CITY RECORDER 556 (SEAL) 557 558 Bill No. ________ of 2025. 559 Published: ______________. 560 Responsible Property Owner Ordinance(legislative)v2 561 562 563 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 www.slc.gov/council/ TO:City Council Members FROM: Michael Sanders Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:February 17, 2026 RE:EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS PLNPCM2025-01184 ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration has responded to a March 4th 2025 Legislative Action with a proposed text amendment known as Expanding Housing Options (EHO). The proposal includes a new permitted use for the R1, R2, SR-1, and SR1-A Zones, the Small Lot Dwelling which functions as a permitted-by-right development option within these base zones. This would allow Small Lot Dwellings in 36% of all land in the City and in 77% of all residentially zoned land in the City. The underlying zoning districts would remain in place, and the Small Lot Dwelling standards would operate alongside them. These standards include: Minimum lot area: 2,000 square feet Maximum building footprint: o Single-family dwellings: 1000 square feet o Duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes (up to four units): up to 850 square feet per unit Maximum gross floor area: 1,200 square feet per unit Additionally, the proposal consolidates the R1 and SR-1 zones into tables and includes modifications to various development standards, including changes to building height, setbacks, lot width, and building coverage. Goal of the briefing: Provide general feedback to Planning Staff regarding the ordinance. Please note that this proposal has yet to receive a Planning Commission recommendation. POLICY QUESTIONS 1.The Council may wish to discuss if the proposed building forms and units per lot are appropriate 2.The Council may wish to discuss if it is appropriate to include a unit density bonus for developments that retain an existing structure 3.The Council may wish to discuss whether an additional unit bonus is appropriate for projects that meet the size limitations of EHO and also provide deed-restricted affordable housing 4.The Council may wish to discuss if the front yard setbacks have been reduced enough to balance water conservation goals with lot coverage and size PROJECT TIMELINE: Informational Briefing: February 17, 2025 Page | 2 ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION The proposed Small Lot Dwelling standards are intended to enable new residential construction that is smaller in scale and relatively less expensive than the median single-family home. By placing limits on building size rather than relying solely on income restrictions, this housing type introduces a form of “natural affordability” that can help lower entry costs to homeownership. Below is a detailed table courtesy of the Planning Division of the Small Lot Dwelling standards. Page | 3 Please note that the EHO and the Small Lot Dwelling ordinance does not: Eliminate single-family zoning or the R-1, R-2, SR-1 and SR-1A districts Prohibit the construction of new single-family homes. Require all new construction or expansions to follow the Small Lot Dwelling standards Remove any Historic Overlay protections Modify the zoning map Differences with Affordable Housing Incentives Small Lot Dwellings and State First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Page | 4 typically $200,000 to $300,000 less expensive than standard single-family detached homes. If Small Lot Dwellings follow this trend, prices could reasonably fall within the $350,000 to $450,000 range. Median Income and Housing Affordability Major Changes in R1-5,000/7,000/12,000, R2 and SR-1/1A Alignment of setback standards across districts, including removal of the block face averaging requirement for front and corner side yards; Increase in maximum building coverage to 50 percent; Increase in maximum building height to: o 30 feet for pitched roofs (25 feet in SR-1A); and o 24 feet for flat roofs (20 feet in SR-1A); Elimination of maximum wall height requirements; Elimination of minimum lot width requirements; and Removal of restrictive duplex spacing language, including the provision limiting the number of two- family buildings adjacent to one another or along the same block face. Page | 5 Flag Lot Changes Proposed amendments would allow flag lots by right. While flag lots will be allowed by right, they will still require subdivision approval. Under the updated process: No public hearing would be required; Notice would be provided to property owners within a 300-foot radius; and A 10-day public comment period would apply. In addition to the process update, the minimum access strip (the “pole” portion of the flag lot) width would be reduced from 24 feet to 20 feet. This change has been reviewed and supported by Fire Code staff. To align flag lot standards with the base zoning district, it is proposed that the required flag lot area be reduced from 150% to 100% of the zoning district’s maximum lot size. Currently, only single-family dwellings may be developed on flag lots. The proposed update would expand eligibility to include all types of Small Lot Dwellings (single-family dwellings, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes (up to four units)). The following responses were provided by the Planning Division regarding EHO’s applicability to a variety of City goals. Water Conservation In 2025, the City Council voted to add a new section to Plan Salt Lake called “Water Conservation and Land Use Planning.” One of the policy recommendations to reduce per capita water use is to support decreased lot size and configuration standards. Research shows that changing the zoning code to encourage infill development with smaller lots and smaller setbacks can lead to more efficient water use (Blanchard, J.C.N., 2018). In the Great Salt Lake watershed, the distinction between indoor and outdoor water use is important. The State Division of Water Resources released a “Water Conservation Opportunities” report, which found that 95% of water used indoors returns to the Great Salt Lake, while only 20% of water used outdoors makes it back. Expanding Housing Options aims to support the City’s water conservation goals by allowing smaller lots to reduce per-capita water use and by replacing outdoor water use with indoor water use; returning more water to the Great Salt Lake. Housing Expanding Housing Options directly supports two of Plan Salt Lake’s Guiding Principles. o GP2: growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. EHO is simply about providing options for people. This project will not force anybody to build anything if they do not wish to do so. Before 1995, Salt Lake City’s historic development pattern allowed duplexes in the majority of what is now our single-family residential zones. Some of these areas even allowed for small multi-unit buildings. EHO would make these building types legal once again and allow people to have more choices for where they live and how they live. o GP3: Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. Our single-family neighborhoods are dominated by single-family detached homes. The median house cost is $615,000 and requires a median household income of $162,230 to afford it. However, SLC’s median household income is less than half of that ($74,925). This means that homeownership is out of reach for a large majority of Salt Lake City residents, especially for the younger generations and prospective first-time homebuyers. Expanding Housing Options strives to change this by allowing for smaller homes on smaller lots, creating more attainable ownership opportunities for all income levels throughout the city. Page | 6 EHO also accomplishes the goal of offering a wide variety of housing types. As mentioned, our single-family neighborhoods are largely single-family dwellings with a limited amount of small-scale multi-family buildings. Historically, Salt Lake City’s zoning allowed these buildings to be built until 1995 when a large portion of the city was downzoned. By allowing housing types in areas that historically allowed for them in Salt Lake City’s residential zones, we are aligning current zoning standards and permitted uses with how Salt Lake City developed historically. EHO also directly supports a goal from Housing SLC. o Goal 1: Make progress toward closing the housing gap of 5,500 units of deeply affordable housing and increase the supply of housing at all levels of affordability.” The metrics used to measure progress on Goal 1 is to entitle 10,000 new units of housing throughout the city, 2,000 of which are deeply affordable (30% or less AMI) and 2,000 affordable units (31-80% AMI). While it is difficult to guarantee an affordability level as there is no restrictive covenant required (unlike the Affordable Housing Incentives), homes built through EHO would contribute to the goal of entitling 10,000 new units of housing throughout the city. It is expected that these homes will be sold at a lower, more attainable price. Walkability As seen from Walkable SLC, many SLC housing units are already located in walkable neighborhoods, within a 15-minute walk of a variety of amenities, such as childcare, parks, retail, and restaurants. While some neighborhoods have access to more amenities than others, Salt Lake City overall is much more walkable than the surrounding suburbs. Allowing more homes in Salt Lake City would give more people and families the option to live in a walkable city instead of in the less-walkable suburbs. The proposed parking requirement for Small Lot Dwellings is one stall per unit. Similar to AHI and ADUs, this parking requirement is lower than the two spaces required for larger single-family dwellings. Allowing new buildings with fewer parking spaces is one strategy to help reduce car dependency and encourage walkability. Plan Salt Lake is clear that creating walkable neighborhoods and providing housing choices are key priority. o GP1: neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein. o GP2: growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. o GP3: access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. ATTACHMENTS A. March 04, 2025 Legislative Action B. Selected Planning Division Detail Sheets for R-1/5/7/12, R-2, and SR-1/1A Page | 7 ATTACHMENT A – March 04, 2025 Legislative Action Initiate a text amendment to consolidate and simplify the R-1 single-family residential districts, including updates to the residential flag lot standards, the addition of new housing options, and to the extent possible, eliminating barriers to homeownership and consider similar changes to the other low-density districts such as the R-2, SR-1, and SR1-A zones. The intent is to continue to study the benefits and impacts through the process of drafting, engaging the public, and finalizing a proposal leading to consideration by the Planning Commission and potential adoption by the Council. Specifically, the Council wants to identify how these potential changes impact the affordable housing incentives and City goals related to housing, walkability, and water conservation. A guiding principle of the Council is to increase home ownership opportunities for families in Salt Lake City. It is a priority of this Council to include affordable “missing middle” housing options along with family sized housing in any text amendment. Page | 8 ATTACHMENT B – Selected Planning Division Detail Sheets for R-1/5/7/12, R-2, and SR-1/1A Page | 9 Page | 10 Page | 10 Page | 11 Page | 11 Page | 12 Page | 12 Page | 13 Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS City Council Briefing Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS WHAT IS EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS? •Salt Lake City Council initiated changes to some residential zoning rules to ease the housing shortage. •The primary goal is to enable optional,small infill housing that is: •Compatible with existing neighborhoods •Attainable to buy or rent •Low-density zoning districts affected: R-1,R-2, SR-1, and SR-1A. •36% of all land, 77% of all residentially-zoned land Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning WHAT IT IS THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES SEVERAL KEY COMPONENTS: •Creating new zoning regulations that would allow small single-family dwellings, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes (up to four units) on smaller lots. •Modifying the R-1, R-2, SR-1 & SR-1A development standards, including lot dimensions, setbacks, building heights, lot coverage allowances, and other changes. •Changes to the flag lot standards. Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning WHAT IT ISN’T THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT: •Eliminate single-family zoning or the R-1, R-2, SR-1 and SR-1A districts. •Prohibit construction of new, large single-family homes. •Require Small Lot Dwelling standards to be followed for all new construction or expansions. •Remove any Historic Overlay protections. •Rezone or modify the zoning map in any way. Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning WHY IS THE CITY PROPOSING THIS? RISING HOUSING COSTS •Median home cost: $615,000 •Income needed to purchase median home: $162,230 •Median SLC income: $74,925 •Percent of SLC households not able to afford median house: 72.6% •From 2005 to 2021,median home values increased by 83% Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning WHY IS THE CITY PROPOSING THIS? SHRINKING OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP •Salt Lake City has a lower homeownership rate than the State of Utah •SLC: 43.5% •State: 69.0% •Renters priced out of homeownership: 86.4% •From 2005 to 2021, median rent increased by 38% •Only 14.5% of homeowners are younger than 35 Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning WHY IS THE CITY PROPOSING THIS? HOUSING OPTIONS FOR FAMILIES •Households with children: •SLC: 24.8% in 2010, 17.8% in 2023 •State: 35.2% in 2023 •SLC has lost 9,883 children under 18 since 2000 despite gaining 36,327 residents •Households with people over 60 (aging place): •SLC: 28.2% •State: 32.9% Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning HOUSING OPTIONS CAN REDUCE PRICES DATA FROM UTAH •Condos, townhomes & twin homes in Utah: ~$150,000 less than that of a single-family home DATA FROM OTHER STATES •Durham, NC: Small house ~$250,000 less than median •Portland, OR: Average sales price of new middle housing unit was $250,000-$300,000 less than new single detached house Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning SMALL LOT DWELLINGS KEY COMPONENTS •New building types permitted •Smaller lot sizes permitted: •2,000 sq. ft. per unit •Size limitations: •Max. Footprint: 850-1,000 sq. ft. •Max. Floor Area: 1,200-1,700 sq. ft. •Alley access required: •if within 15ft of a public alley •Parking: 1 space per unit, similar to ADU requirement •Similar height and setbacks to the base zoning districts Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning FOOTPRINT & GROSS FLOOR AREA •Footprint: measurement of the space the building takes up on the ground •Floor Area: measurement of the internal space. Ex: if the first and second floor are both 600sqft, the floor area would be 1,200sqft. 600sqft footprint Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning SMALL LOT DWELLINGS Building Regulation Building Type Single-Family Dwelling Two-Family Dwelling Multi-Family Dwelling Row House Sideways Row House Building Height District maximum Front Yard1 minimum 10 ft. Corner Side Yard1 minimum 10 ft. Interior Side Yard (Corner)1 minimum 4 ft. Interior Side Yard 11 minimum 4 ft. Interior Side Yard 21 minimum 10 ft. Rear Yard1 minimum 10 ft. Min. Lot Area 2,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit Max. Dwelling Units Per Building Type 1 2 4 Building Coverage 60% Max. Principal Building Footprint2 1,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit 850 sq. ft. per dwelling unit Max. Principal Building Gross Floor Area 1,700 sq. ft. per dwelling unit if the building is less than or equal to 17’ in height. 1,200 sq. ft. per dwelling unit if the building is more than 17’ in height. Required Landscape Yards1 The front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. Parking 1 off-street parking space per unit. Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning R-1 AMENDMENTS •Removes lot width requirement Regulation Current Proposed R-1/12,000 R-1/7,000 R-1/5,000 R-1/12,000 R-1/7,000 R-1/5,000 Building Height - Pitched 28 ft. or average of block face 30 ft. or average of block face Building Height - Flat 20 ft.24 ft. Front Yard minimum Block face average or 20 ft. if no buildings exist 20 ft. or equal to one abutting front yard on the same block face as the yard Corner Side Yard minimum Block face average or 20 ft. if no buildings exist 10 ft.20 ft. or equal to one abutting front yard on the same block face as the yard 10 ft. or equal to one abutting front yard on the same block face as the yard Interior Side Yard (Corner) minimum 8 ft.6 ft.4 ft.4 ft. Interior Side Yard 1 minimum 8 ft.6 ft.4 ft.4 ft. Interior Side Yard 2 minimum 10 ft.10 ft. Rear Yard minimum 25 ft.25% of depth, no more than 20 ft. 20% of lot depth or 25 ft., whichever is less 20% of lot depth or 20 ft., whichever is less Max. Building Coverage 35%40%50% Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning R-2 AMENDMENTS •Removes lot width requirement •Removes restriction on how many duplexes can be on a block face Regulation Current Proposed R-2 R-2 Building Height - Pitched 28 ft. or average of block face 30 ft. or average of block face Building Height - Flat 20 ft.24 ft. Front Yard minimum Block face average or 20 ft. if no buildings exist 20 ft. or equal to one abutting front yard on the same block face as the yard Corner Side Yard minimum 10 ft.10 ft. Interior Side Yard (Corner) minimum Twin homes: 10 ft. Other: 4 ft.4 ft. Interior Side Yard 1 minimum 4 ft.4 ft. Interior Side Yard 2 minimum 10 ft.10 ft. Rear Yard minimum 25% lot depth, no less than 15 ft., no more than 25 ft. 20% of lot depth or 15 ft., whichever is less Max. Building Coverage 45%50% Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning SR-1 & SR-1A AMENDMENTS Regulation SR-1 SR-1A Current Proposed Current Proposed Building Height - Pitched 28 ft. or average of block face 30 ft. or average of block face 23 ft. or average of block face 25 ft. or average of block face Building Height - Flat 20 ft.24 ft.16 ft.20 ft. Front Yard minimum Block face average or 20 ft. if no buildings exist 20 ft. or equal to one abutting front yard on the same block face as the yard Block face average OR 20 ft. if no buildings exist 20 ft. or equal to one abutting front yard on the same block face as the yard Corner Side Yard minimum 10 ft.10 ft.10 ft.10 ft. Interior Side Yard (Corner) minimum 4 ft.4 ft.4 ft.4 ft. Interior Side Yard 1 minimum 4 ft.4 ft.4 ft.4 ft. Interior Side Yard 2 minimum 10 ft.10 ft.10 ft.10 ft. Rear Yard minimum 25% of lot depth, min.15 ft., max. 30 ft. 20% of lot depth or 15 ft., whichever is less 25% of lot depth, min.15 ft., max. 30 ft. 20% of lot depth or 15 ft., whichever is less Max. Building Coverage 40%50%40%50% Note: The required side yards may be less depending on lot width. Required yards apply to the perimeter of the property. •Removes lot width requirement Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning FLAG LOT MODIFICATIONS KEY COMPONENTS •Flag lots allowed as a permitted use •Deletes unnecessary barriers: •Reduces driveway width •Reduces minimum flag lot area •Allows for Small Lot Dwellings Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning IMPACTS ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES Allows duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes AHI EHO •Allowed in R-1, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A zones •Limits unit size •No planning application required •No restrictive covenant required •No maximum unit count per lot, maximum per building with minimum lot size •Allowed in most zones •No size limits •Planning application required •Restrictive covenant required •Up to four units on a legal lot, regardless of size Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning UTAH FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER PROGRAM NEW CONSTRUCTION PAYMENT ASSISTANCE •This State program provides up to $20,000 of down payment assistance to first-time buyers purchasing a newly constructed home under $450,000 •While new Small Lot Dwellings would not be specifically required to meet this criteria, it is expected that many will likely qualify for this program Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning WATER CONSERVATION CITY GOALS •Plan Salt Lake recommends reducing lot sizes to reduce per capita water consumption •Smaller lots & smaller setbacks can lead to more efficient water use GREAT SALT LAKE •Utah Division of Water Resources reported that 95% of indoor water is returned to the Great Salt Lake, but only 20% of outdoor water returns to the lake •Replacing yard space with housing is one strategy to help return more water to the Great Salt Lake Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning HOUSING GOALS PLAN SALT LAKE •“Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around.” •“Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the city, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.” Housing SLC •“Make progress toward closing the housing gap of 5,500 units of deeply affordable housing and increase the supply of housing at all levels of affordability. The metrics used to measure progress on Goal 1 is to entitle 10,000 new units of housing throughout the city, 2,000 of which are deeply affordable (30% or less AMI) and 2,000 affordable units (31-80% AMI).” Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning WALKABILITY WALKABLE SLC •Walkable SLC shows that many homes are already located in walkable areas but some more than others •In general, Salt Lake City neighborhoods are more walkable than suburban neighborhoods •Allowing for gentle, infill density in neighborhoods would provide more housing options in walkable neighborhoods •Allowing new buildings with fewer parking spaces can help encourage walkability and reduce car dependency Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR IN-PERSON PUBLIC FEEDBACK •Public Open House (Eastside Neighborhoods) •Feb. 24, 6:00 pm @ Highland High School •Downtown Farmers Market: Winter Market •Mar. 7, 10:00 am @ The Leonardo •Public Open House (Westside Neighborhoods) •Mar. 12, 6:00 pm @ Sorenson Unity Center •District 5 Town Hall •Mar. 25, 5:30 pm @ Horizonte •Public Open House (Central Neighborhoods) •Mar. 31, 6:00 pm @ The Leonardo Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR ONLINE PUBLIC FEEDBACK •ShapeSLC Project Website •For additional information, scan the QR code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions •Email Comments •Comments can also be sent to housingoptions@slc.gov Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Expanding Housing Options housingoptions@slc.gov Andy Hulka // Senior Planner Ben Buckley // Principal Planner Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning SMALL LOT DWELLINGS & PARKING •1 required parking space per dwelling unit •Important to note that this is just the minimum requirement. Builders could provide up to 4 spaces per unit if they see fit. •No exceptions proposed like the ADU code contains (distance to transit or bike lanes) •Additional parking spaces drive up cost of housing •Parking spaces take up valuable space on the property that could be used for housing or open space (typically 20’ x 10’ = 200 sq. ft.) Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SMALL LOT DWELLINGS •Entrances with entry feature required for each dwelling •Garage standards •Street-facing: no more than 50% of the façade width •Sideways row houses: prohibited on street facing façade and includes a minimum livable depth •Glass requirements for multi-family and row houses Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning EXAMPLES IN SALT LAKE CITY Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning EXAMPLES IN SALT LAKE CITY Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning EXAMPLES IN SALT LAKE CITY Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning EXAMPLES IN SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 12/11/2025 Date Sent to Council: 12/19/2025 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Buckley, Benjamin E-mail benjamin.buckley@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 12/15/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 12/19/2025 Subject: Informational Transmittal: Update on the proposed zoning text amendment called Expanding Housing Options Additional Staff Contact: Andy Hulka - andrew.hulka@slc.govNick Norris - nick.norris@slc.govJohn Anderson - john.anderson@slc.govMichaela Bell - michaela.bell@slc.gov Presenters/Staff Table Ben Buckley - benjamin.buckley@slc.govAndy Hulka - andrew.hulka@slc.govNick Norris - nick-norris@slc.gov Document Type Information Item Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: No specific action requested. 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 ShapeSLC website and engagement events and public outreach will be scheduled in the coming months. 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: Following a presentation during a council work session on February 11, 2025, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the following legislative action on March 4, 2025: Initiate a text amendment to consolidate and simplify the R-1 single-family residential districts, including updates to the residential flag lot standards, the addition of new housing options, and to the extent possible, eliminating barriers to homeownership and consider similar changes to the other low density districts such as the R-2, SR-1, and SR1-A zones. The intent is to continue to study the benefits and impacts through the process of drafting, engaging the public, and finalizing a proposal leading to consideration by the Planning Commission and potential adoption by the Council. Specifically, the Council wants to identify how these potential changes impact the affordable housing incentives and City goals related to housing, walkability, and water conservation. A guiding principle of the Council is to increase home ownership opportunities for families in Salt Lake City. It is a priority of this Council to include affordable “missing middle” housing options along with family sized housing in any text amendment. This informational transmittal details the proposed text amendments that staff recommends in order to accomplish the goals laid out by the Council. Planning staff has reviewed the proposal internally with other City departments and has worked to refine the proposal based on feedback received. The proposal, collectively known as “Expanding Housing Options” (EHO), creates a new defined land use called “Small Lot Dwelling,” includes regulations for this land use, amends the R-1, R-2, and SR-1A zoning districts, and modifies the standards for flag lots. Creation of a “Small Lot Dwelling” Ordinance A Small Lot Dwelling, the new land use created by EHO, is proposed to be a permitted use in the R-1, R- 2, SR-1, and SR-1A districts. The SR-3 district is excluded because existing standards in that zone are already very similar to Small Lot Dwellings. After considering options, this approach accomplishes the goal without making significant modifications to the impacted zoning districts. Existing property rights are expanded through other changes proposed and no property owners are subject to the Small Lot Dwelling regulations unless they choose to utilize them. This approach minimizes the unintended consequences as a result. In addition, the requirements that apply to any overlay zoning district, including the Historic Preservation Overlay District, are still applicable. Small Lot Dwellings: Lot size, footprint, and floor area limitations The Small Lot Dwelling proposal reduces the minimum lot area to 2,000sqft. It then limits the building footprint to 1,000sqft for single-family dwellings and 850sqft per unit for the other dwelling types. A gross square floor area (internal space, basement area, enclosed porches, etc.) limit is set at 1,200sqft. These limits are intended to allow new construction that is relatively less expensive than the median standard single-family dwelling (which is typically larger) in Salt Lake City ($615,000 according to Kem C Gardner Policy Institute). Small Lot Dwellings take a different approach to affordability than the Affordable Housing Incentives (AHI). The Small Lot Dwelling is permitted by right, but the size of the dwelling is capped. The limits on footprint and gross floor area are intended to have a built-in natural affordability component – smaller dwellings tend to cost less to build and ultimately purchase, as demonstrated by the various precedents discussed in the R-1 study. The Affordable Housing Incentives do not limit the square footage of the dwellings. AHI instead relies on affordability levels for a specified number of dwellings. This means that homes built under AHI can be larger if some of the homes meet the affordability requirements in the AHI code. The two proposals work in conjunction with one another by offering two different approaches for creating more affordable housing. Housing Types Allowed as “Small Lot Dwellings” The Small Lot Dwelling proposal would allow compact-sized duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes (containing no more than four units) in the R-1, R-2, SR-1, and SR-1A zones. These housing types are frequently referred to as “missing middle housing” and are currently allowed in these districts via the AHI, so no new typologies are being introduced by this proposal. If this Small Lot Dwelling proposal is adopted, the result would be that any new missing middle housing built in residential neighborhoods must be either price-restricted (AHI) or size-restricted (EHO). Allowing these unit types aligns with the historical development pattern of Salt Lake City, where, up until 1995, duplexes were allowed in almost all residential areas of the city and multi-family housing was allowed in some of the areas. Building Regulations The table below details the proposed lot, bulk, and building regulations for Small Lot Dwellings. As noted in the transmittal from earlier this year, the Small Lot Dwelling ordinance would not eliminate the R-1, R-2, or SR-1 zoning regulations. Instead, it is a separate set of regulations allowing more units at a smaller scale within residential neighborhoods. It is important to note that these building regulations only apply to new Small Lot Dwellings. Property owners may still build a new house or expand their existing house under the base zoning regulations. Summary of Proposed Small Lot Dwelling Regulations Building Regulation Single-Family Dwelling and Twin- Home Multi- Family Dwelling Row House Sideways Row House lot1 4 feet Maximum dwelling units per building type 1 2 4 Maximum principal building footprint2 feet per dwelling unit 850 square feet per dwelling unit Maximum principal building gross floor area 17 feet in height. 1,200 square feet per dwelling unit if the building is more than 17 feet in height. 1. The minimum yard and landscape yard requirements shall be applied to the perimeter of the development and not to the individual principal buildings within the development. 2. If the dwelling units are arranged in a manner where one unit is stacked on top of the other, the maximum footprint of the building shall be 1,200 square feet for each unit that is on the ground floor. R-1, R-2, SR-1, and SR-1A Amendments and Consolidation As detailed in the January 2025 transmittal, the proposal includes amendments to the R-1, R-2, SR-1, and SR-1A districts. The proposal reorganizes the code so the R-1/5,000, R-1/7,000, and R-1/12,000 zoning standards are all in one chapter with easy-to-read tables. This was done to ensure that the same wording was used in each zoning district, with specific dimensional requirements being the only difference between the zones. The proposal also reformats the R-2 and SR-1/SR-1A zones to include similar tables for consistency. Other modifications to development standards, including changes to building height, setbacks, lot width, and building coverage are detailed in the tables below, which compare the existing and proposed standards for each of the affected districts. Specific changes to dimensional requirements are discussed after the tables. Summary of Proposed Changes to the R-1 Zoning Districts Regulation Maximum building height - pitched 28ft or average of block face height of the block face, whichever is 20ft 24 feet Minimum corner side yard Block face average OR 20ft if no buildings exist 10ft 20 feet or equal to one abutting front yard on the same block face equal to one abutting front yard on the same Minimum interior side yard - corner 8ft 6ft 4ft 4ft 8ft 6ft 4ft 4ft 10ft 10ft Minimum rear yard 25ft 25% of depth, no more than 20ft depth or 25ft, whichever 20% of lot depth or 20ft, whichever is less 35% 40% 50% Summary of Proposed Changes to the R-2 Zoning District Regulation Maximum building height - pitched 28ft or average of block face height of the block face, whichever is 20ft 24 feet 10ft 10 feet Minimum interior side yard - corner Other uses: 4ft if the other side yard is 4 feet 10 feet 10ft 4 feet Minimum rear yard 45% 50% Note: The required yards apply to the perimeter of the property. Summary of Proposed Changes to the SR-1 and SR-1A Zoning Districts Regulation Maximum building height - pitched 28ft or average of block face 23ft or the average of block face the average building height of the block face, whichever is 25ft or average of block face 20ft 16ft 24 feet 20ft Minimum front yard Block face average OR 20ft if no buildings exist 20ft or equal to abutting 10ft 10ft 4ft 4ft 10ft 10ft Minimum rear yard 15ft 40% 50% Note: The required side yards may be less depending on lot width. Required yards apply to the perimeter of the property. Setback Alignment A major goal of this proposal is to reduce inconsistencies across similar zones and to help simplify the code. Setbacks throughout the R-1 and SR-1 districts have been modified to align with one another while also removing the block face averaging requirement for front and corner side yards. The requirement to average the front yard and corner side yard setbacks is not only difficult to explain to residents, but can also be difficult, costly, and time consuming for residents to implement. Averaging front yard setbacks also relies on other property owners giving permission to access their property to accurately measure the setback, which becomes a method for a property owner who may not support a development on their block to keep an application from being complete. Building Coverage Building coverage is proposed to be increased to 50% in each of the affected districts. Building coverage maximums limit a property owner’s ability to build additions or accessory buildings, including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). For example, on a 5,000sqft lot, buildings can only cover up to 40% of the lot, or 2,000 square feet. This can limit the footprint of the home, the ability to add a garage, or build an ADU. Many homes in the city are masonry, where adding second stories is not practical or financially viable. The lot coverage restrictions limit the ability to expand the main level of the home, which may be more economically feasible. This could be a factor in the decrease in households with children and with the demolition of existing homes being replaced by two story homes that are more expensive. Increasing this allowance to 50% still leaves a minimum of 2,500 square feet of undeveloped land (minus driveways) on a typical R-1/5,000 lot, providing more flexibility with how the lot is used. Building and Wall Height Other major changes include increasing the maximum building height to 30ft for pitched roofs (+2ft from existing) and 24ft for flat roofs (+4ft from existing). The previous informational transmittal included a recommendation to remove the building height averaging option, however, internal review comments noted that this provision of code has been useful in the past and should be retained. Block face height averaging is merely an option available to property owners and not a requirement like front yard averaging is, so staff recommends keeping that option for pitched roof buildings. Increasing the overall building height will allow property owners more options that may fit their needs and may promote more households with children living in the city. In the SR-1A district, a district with lower building heights, heights have been increased to 25ft for a pitched roof (+2ft from existing) and 20ft for flat roofs (+4ft from existing). Building height analysis has shown that 35% of the buildings located in the SR-1A district exceed 23ft. However, it is important to note that the data does not differentiate roof forms so all 35% could be flat roofs or pitched roofs but likely a mix of the two. Staff is proposing an increase in building heights in this district to allow for two- story residential structures to be possible. In flat roofs buildings at 16ft, it is essentially impossible to get two full stories. Another proposed change that isn’t noted in the tables above is the elimination of maximum wall height. This elimination will allow a building’s wall height to be up to the maximum building height of the district. The existing standard is one of the most confusing standards found in the residential code and is frequently confusing for residents. Removing this standard helps simplify the code. The allowed height in each zone will still be regulated by the maximum building height regulations. The maximum height is different for buildings with pitched roofs and flat roofs. A pitched roof would still result in wall height that is less than the maximum building height because the zoning code defines a pitched roof as a 2-foot rise over a 12-foot run. A 30-foot-high building with a roof width of 36 feet would result in the walls being approximately 27 feet high. This proposal may consider modifying this definition to require a steeper pitch, requiring at least two roof planes to have a pitch, and requiring the pitch to angle down towards the exterior walls of the building. Minimum Lot Area Minimum lot areas in the R-1 districts have not been modified. In the SR-1 and R-2 districts, the minimum lot area for two-family and twin home dwellings has been reduced from 8,000sqft total to 5,000sqft. Because 5,000sqft is the minimum lot size for single-family dwellings, many existing lots in the zone are too small to meet the current lot area requirements for a duplex. This reduction is intended to promote the development of duplexes in the R-2 and SR-1 districts, where they are already permitted uses. Minimum Lot Width Removal Removal of the minimum lot width could make existing noncompliant lots (due to less lot width than required) compliant and buildable. This was briefly discussed in Potential Approaches to Simplifying and Improving R-1 Districts. Zoning currently requires between 50-100ft of lot width depending on location and land use. However, due to historical measuring practices and subdivision standards, there are many lots in the city that fall short by a mere couple feet of their specific required lot width, thus making them noncompliant. By removing the minimum lot width standards, all noncompliant lots due to lot width would become compliant and some lots that are currently unbuildable would become buildable. There are other standards in the code that regulate the size of lots and the spacing between dwellings, so prescribing a minimum lot width is not necessary. As detailed earlier, there are minimum setbacks that would equate to 14ft of the total lot width (10ft on one side, and 4ft on the other). After factoring in the width of a house and the minimum lot size, in addition to these required setbacks, it becomes apparent that lot width can operate as a self-regulating standard. If a property owner wants to divide their existing lot to create a new lot, the subdivision code requires a process to do so and requires the resulting lots to have a minimum building area. If the property is already in an existing subdivision, a subdivision amendment may be required. Removal of Restrictive Language for Duplexes In the land use tables, as well as within the R-2 zoning code, the following language is in place, restricting the development of duplexes and twin homes within the zone: Provided that no more than 2 two-family buildings are located adjacent to one another and no more than 3 such dwellings are located along the same block face (within subdivisions approved after April 12, 1995). Zoning standards that restrict duplexes and twin homes in the districts intended to allow these housing types are not consistent with the City’s goals related to easing the housing crisis. The proposal removes this restrictive language, allowing duplexes and twin-homes regardless of when the land was subdivided and existing development on the block face. Flag Lot Modifications Currently, flag lots are difficult to create as there are additional regulations that must be satisfied such as additional lot area requirements and conditional use approval. Under this proposal, flag lots would be allowed by right. The creation of a flag lot would still require a subdivision process, but it no longer would require a public hearing. The subdivision process to create a new flag lot requires a notice to those within a 300ft radius of the property as well as a 10-day public comment period. The additional lot area requirement for flag lots has been reduced from 150% to 100% of the zoning district’s minimum lot size, excluding the access strip. This is intended to simplify the requirements and streamline the process of creating flag lots for new housing and align flag lot standards with to the base zoning district. Another modification intended to remove barriers to flag lot development is a reduction to the 24ft wide access strip requirement. After consulting with the City’s Fire Code reviewers, staff proposes to reduce the minimum width from 24ft to 20ft, which is the minimum width required for fire access, ensuring adequate emergency vehicle access to the property. Flag lot access strips will require approval by the Fire Department. A flag lot is currently only able to be used for a single-family dwelling. This regulation has been modified to allow for Small Lot Dwellings on flag lots as it is expected that many Small Lot Dwellings may be on the rear of a lot. Impacts on Affordable Housing Incentives One key concern that both Council and staff share is the potential impact the Small Lot Dwelling proposal could have on the recently adopted Affordable Housing Incentives (AHI). The AHI ordinance allows the construction of up to 4 units on a residential lot, but only if 1 or 2 of the units are sold or rented below market rate. This incentive is a good option for homebuilders who have experience with below-market- rate housing, but the process can be complex for less experienced builders or average homeowners. EHO is an additional strategy to encourage new construction that is more affordable as it limits the size of new buildings on smaller lots. The Small Lot Dwelling proposal stipulates that new housing types must have a smaller footprint size and maximum floor area. This is an effort to encourage new construction that is relatively more affordable than a larger residential building without requiring the additional complexity of a below-market-rate project. This is a similar approach that Durham, NC and Portland, OR used. These cities have demonstrated that homes that followed the approach were as much as 40% less in purchase price than larger homes built. The primary difference between AHI and the EHO proposal is that AHI speaks to price limits and the EHO addresses home size limitations. Under AHI, new buildings and units can be any size, subject to the base zoning standards. With Small Lot Dwellings, the maximum footprint and floor area regulations would limit the size of the building while no deed restriction is required to limit the price of each unit. In addition to AHI’s required deed restrictions, there are also yearly reports that the property owner must file with the Planning Division in order to prove they have kept up their end of the deal regarding pricing. Small Lot Dwellings would not require deed restrictions or yearly reports, easing the burden on property owners and reducing the administrative resources and costs for the city. Both ordinances are intended to increase production of affordable housing, but the ordinances differ in the route getting there. There is data that supports the claim that smaller homes on smaller lots cost less. The Small Lot Dwelling ordinance would be considered naturally occurring affordable housing. Renderings of Potential Small Lot Development The following images are renderings of potential development scenarios created by staff. While every effort has been made to provide detailed, realistic examples, it is important to note that these are simply illustrative examples. Real world structures may differ in appearance and streetscape impact from what is shown in the renderings. The image above shows two single-family dwellings on a 4,000sqft lot with a 33% lot coverage. One example is a single-story home, which would be allowed additional floor area in the basement. The other example is a two-story home with a smaller footprint and no basement. Small lot single-family dwellings would be permitted to have up to a 1,000sqft footprint and 1,200sqft of internal space. The image above shows a two-story duplex with a pitched roof on a 4,000sqft lot. The footprint of this duplex is 1,445sqft (less than 850sqft per unit). The lot coverage in this example, including the detached garage, is 49%. The image above shows a two-story triplex with a flat roof on a 6,000sqft lot. The lot coverage in this example is approximately 47%, including the detached 3-car garage. This image above shows four townhomes on an 8,000sqft lot, with a 29% lot coverage. The townhomes are each two stories with a pitched roof, and parking is provided in the rear yard. PUBLIC PROCESS: Not Applicable EXHIBITS: 1) Information Sheets 2) Draft Text Amendment Ordinances a) Amendments to 21A.24.010 General Provisions i) Makes flag lots a permitted use in all residential districts, including other changes intended to simplify the standards required for new flag lots. b) Amendments to 21A.24.050 R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District: i) Consolidates the R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, and R-1/5,000 districts into a single section of code; moves and bulk and height regulations into a new table, and other changes to development standards. c) Amendments to 21A.24.080 SR-1 AND SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District i) Moves all bulk and height regulations into a new table and other changes to the development standards. d) Amendments to 21A.24.100 R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District i) Moves all bulk and height regulations into a new table and other changes to the development standards. e) Amendments to 21A.33.020 Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts i) Adds “Dwelling, Small Lot” as a permitted use in the R-1, SR-1 and R-2 districts. f) Adding a new section 21A.36.370 Small Lot Dwellings i) Establishes zoning standards for Small Lot Dwellings. g) Amendments to 21A.62.040 Definitions of Terms i) Adds “Dwelling, Small Lot” as a defined term. 1. INFORMATION SHEETS For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions Important Note | This Proposal Does Not °Eliminate single-family zoning or the R-1, R-2, SR-1 & SR-1A districts. °Require all new construction or expansions to follow the Small Lot Dwelling standards. °Remove any Historic Overlay protections. °Prohibit the construction of new single-family homes. °Modify the zoning map. Expanding Housing Options Expanding Housing Options is a change to zoning rules that would give property owners in lower-density neighborhoods more options for how they use their property. The changes would make it possible to build more types of housing, like smaller homes and townhomes, while still preserving the character and unique qualities of each neighborhood. This initiative does not require anyone to build new housing. Instead, it provides flexibility—whether a homeowner wants to add a second unit, create space to age in place, build starter homes for future generations, expand their existing house, or simply leave their property as it is. Any new housing that is built should fit the scale of the neighborhood and be priced at attainable levels, whether for rent or ownership. The goal is to create gentle infill opportunities that fit in with the character of low- density Salt Lake City neighborhoods. °Allowing small homes (up to 1,200 sq. ft. of gross floor area) to be built on small lots (2,000 sq. ft. lots). °New building types, such as duplexes and townhomes, would be allowed subject to the Small Lot Dwelling rules. °See Small Lot Dwelling fact sheet for more information. °Simplifying each section by placing standards into tables. °Combining the three R-1 districts into one section of code for ease of use (the three distinct districts remain). °Increases in building coverage to 50%. °Changes to setback measurements. °Removal of lot width requirements. °Increase in building heights. °Allows flag lots as a permitted use in residential districts, removing the conditional use process. °Modifies the required lot area from 150% of the base zoning district’s minimum lot size to 100%. °Reduces the required width of the driveway from 24 ft. to 20 ft. Creation of a Small Lot Development Ordinance Changes to the R-1, R-2, SR-1, & SR-1A Zoning Flag Lot Modifications What is the City Proposing? Why is the City Proposing This? The City Council asked the Planning Division to prepare amendments to the single- and two-family zoning districts. These amendments are focused on two primary goals: making housing less expensive and providing more housing options for families at all stages of life. °Shrinking homeownership opportunities: 86.4% of SLC renters are priced out of homeownership. Only 14.5% of homeowners in SLC are younger than 35 years old. °Rising housing costs: The median SLC home costs $615,000, and has increased more than 83% since 2005. 72.6% of SLC households cannot afford the median house. °Decline in households with children: Only 17.8% of SLC households had at least one child living at home in 2023, down from 24.8% in 2010. °Missing middle homes and smaller homes are more affordable: The median sales price of condos, townhomes, and twin homes in Utah was approximately $150,000 less than that of a single- family home. Cities that have adopted similar missing middle and small lot ordinances have found that the new homes are up to $300,000 less than typical market-rate single-family homes. For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions R-1 Zoning The R-1 zones are the single-family residential zoning districts. These zones allow a typical detached house, along with other housing options like Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and affordable housing developments with up to 4 units. There are three R-1 zoning districts, each with different minimum lot sizes: R-1/5,000, R-1/7,000, and R-1/12,000. R-1 | Zoning Districts Standards Comparison Regulations Current Proposed R-1/12,000 R-1/7,000 R-1/5,000 R-1/12,000 R-1/7,000 R-1/5,000 Building Height (Pitched Roof)28 ft. or average of block face 30 ft. or average of block face Building Height (Flat Roof)20 ft.24 ft. Front Yard Block face average or 20 ft. if no buildings exist 20 ft. or equal to abutting front yard Corner Side Yard Block face average or 20 ft. if no buildings exist 10 ft. 20 ft. or equal to abutting front yard 10 ft. or equal to abutting front yard Interior Side Yard (Corner)8 ft. 6 ft. 4 ft.4 ft. Interior Side Yard 1 8 ft. 6 ft. 4 ft.4 ft. Interior Side Yard 2 10 ft.10 ft. Rear Yard 25 ft. 25% of depth, no more than 20 ft. 20% of lot depth or 25 ft., whichever is less 20% of lot depth or 20 ft., whichever is less Max. Building Coverage 35%40%50% Proposed Modifications Changes to the base zoning standards are proposed to allow homeowners more flexibility to build on their property. °Pitched Roofs: 28 ft. to 30 ft. °Flat Roofs: 20 ft. to 24 ft. Building Height Setbacks Lot Coverage Lot Width Other Changes °Interior setbacks standardized to 4 ft. on one side and 10 ft. on the other side. °Front yard averaging has been replaced with “equal to one abutting front yard on the block face.” Lot coverage has been increased from 35% (R-1/12,000) or 40% (R-1/7,000 and R-1/5,000) to 50% in all three districts. Minimum lot widths have been removed. °The three districts have been simplified and reformatted from three sections of the zoning code to one section. Many standards have been put into a table to help make the code easier to use. °The proposal does not delete the single-family zoning districts or change the zoning map. For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions Proposed Modifications Changes to the base zoning standards are proposed to allow homeowners more flexibility to build on their property. °Pitched Roofs: 28 ft. to 30 ft. °Flat Roofs: 20 ft. to 24 ft. Building Height Setbacks Lot Coverage Lot Width Other Changes Front yard averaging has been replaced with “equal to one abutting front yard on the block face.” Lot coverage has been increased from 40% to 50%. Minimum lot widths have been removed. °The three districts have been simplified and reformatted from three sections of the zoning code to one section. Many standards have been put into a table to help make the code more usable. °The proposal does not delete the single-family zoning districts or change the zoning map. R-1/5,000 The R-1 zones are the single-family residential zoning districts. These zones allow a typical detached house, along with other housing options like Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and affordable housing developments with up to 4 units. There are three R-1 zoning districts, each with different minimum lot sizes: R-1/5,000, R-1/7,000, and R-1/12,000. R-1/5,000 | Zoning Standards Comparison Table Regulations Current Proposed Building Height (Pitched Roof) 28 ft. or average of block face 30 ft. or average of block face Building Height (Flat Roof)20 ft.24 ft. Front Yard Block face average or 20 ft. if no buildings exist 20 ft. or equal to abutting front yard Corner Side Yard 10 ft.10 ft. Interior Side Yard (Corner)4 ft.4 ft. Interior Side Yard 1 4 ft.4 ft. Interior Side Yard 2 10 ft.10 ft. Rear Yard 25% of depth, no more than 20 ft. 20% of depth, no more than 20 ft. Max. Building Coverage 40%50% VSCurrent Proposed For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions Site Plan ViewExample of Development Standards R-1/5,000 Notes To illustrate the proposed changes to the base zoning standards, the examples above show the maximum possible development potential for a typical residential property. The existing and proposed standards are represented side-by-side, with the home built to the maximum existing standards, and the home built to the maximum proposed standards highlighted in blue. Label Details Current Proposed A Building Height 28 ft.30 ft. B Front Yard 20 ft.20 ft. C Side Yard 1 4 ft.4 ft. D Side Yard 2 10 ft.10 ft. E Rear Yard 20 ft. (38 ft. shown) 20 ft. (28 ft. shown) F Lot Size 5,000 sq. ft.5,000 sq. ft. G Lot Coverage 40% (2,000 sq. ft.) 50% (2,500 sq. ft.) H Parking 2 spaces 2 spaces A B D C H E F G G For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions R-1/7,000 The R-1 zones are the single-family residential zoning districts. These zones allow a typical detached house, along with other housing options like Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and affordable housing developments with up to 4 units. There are three R-1 zoning districts, each with different minimum lot sizes: R-1/5,000, R-1/7,000, and R-1/12,000. R-1/7,000 | Zoning Standards Comparison Table Regulations Current Proposed Building Height (Pitched Roof) 28 ft. or average of block face 30 ft. or average of block face Building Height (Flat Roof)20 ft.24 ft. Front Yard Block face average or 20 ft. if no buildings exist 20 ft. or equal to abutting front yard Corner Side Yard Block face average or 20 ft. if no buildings exist 20 ft. Interior Side Yard (Corner)6 ft.4 ft. Interior Side Yard 1 6 ft.4 ft. Interior Side Yard 2 10 ft.10 ft. Rear Yard 25 ft.20% of depth, no more than 20 ft. Max. Building Coverage 40%50% Lot Coverage Lot coverage has been increased from 40% to 50%. Proposed Modifications Changes to the base zoning standards are proposed to allow homeowners more flexibility to build on their property. °Pitched Roofs: 28 ft. to 30 ft. °Flat Roofs: 20 ft. to 24 ft. Building Height Setbacks Lot Width Other Changes °Interior setbacks standardized to 4 ft. on one side and 10 ft. on the other side. °Front yard averaging has been replaced with “equal to one abutting front yard on the block face.” Minimum lot widths have been removed. °The three districts have been simplified and reformatted from three sections of the zoning code to one section. Many standards have been put into a table to help make the code easier to use. °The proposal does not delete the single-family zoning districts or change the zoning map. Site Plan View VSCurrent Proposed For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions Example of Development Standards R-1/7,000 Notes To illustrate the proposed changes to the base zoning standards, the examples above show the maximum possible development potential for a typical residential property. The existing and proposed standards are represented side-by-side, with the home built to the maximum existing standards, and the home built to the maximum proposed standards highlighted in blue. Label Details Current Proposed A Building Height 28 ft.30 ft. B Front Yard 20 ft.20 ft. C Side Yard 1 6 ft.4 ft. D Side Yard 2 10 ft.10 ft. E Rear Yard 25 ft. (40 ft. shown) 20 ft. (30 ft. shown) F Lot Size 7,000 sq. ft.7,000 sq. ft. G Lot Coverage 40% (2,800 sq. ft.) 50% (3,500 sq. ft.) H Parking 2 spaces 2 spaces A B D C H E F G G For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions R-1/12,000 The R-1 zones are the single-family residential zoning districts. These zones allow a typical detached house, along with other housing options like Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and affordable housing developments with up to 4 units. There are three R-1 zoning districts, each with different minimum lot sizes: R-1/5,000, R-1/7,000, and R-1/12,000. R-1/12,000 | Zoning Standards Comparison Table Regulations Current Proposed Building Height (Pitched Roof) 28 ft. or average of block face 30 ft. or average of block face Building Height (Flat Roof)20 ft.24 ft. Front Yard Block face average or 20 ft. if no buildings exist 20 ft. or equal to abutting front yard Corner Side Yard Block face average or 20 ft. if no buildings exist 20 ft. Interior Side Yard (Corner)8 ft.4 ft. Interior Side Yard 1 8 ft.4 ft. Interior Side Yard 2 10 ft.10 ft. Rear Yard 25 ft.20% of depth, no more than 25 ft. Max. Building Coverage 35%50% Lot Coverage Lot coverage has been increased from 35% to 50%. Proposed Modifications Changes to the base zoning standards are proposed to allow homeowners more flexibility to build on their property. °Pitched Roofs: 28 ft. to 30 ft. °Flat Roofs: 20 ft. to 24 ft. Building Height Setbacks Lot Width Other Changes °Interior setbacks standardized to 4 ft. on one side and 10 ft. on the other side. °Front yard averaging has been replaced with “equal to one abutting front yard on the block face.” Minimum lot widths have been removed. °The three districts have been simplified and reformatted from three sections of the zoning code to one section. Many standards have been put into a table to help make the code easier to use. °The proposal does not delete the single-family zoning districts or change the zoning map. Site Plan View VSCurrent Proposed For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions R-1/12,000 Example of Development Standards Notes To illustrate the proposed changes to the base zoning standards, the examples above show the maximum possible development potential for a typical residential property. The existing and proposed standards are represented side-by-side, with the home built to the maximum existing standards, and the home built to the maximum proposed standards highlighted in blue. Label Details Current Proposed A Building Height 28 ft.30 ft. B Front Yard 20 ft.20 ft. C Side Yard 1 8 ft.4 ft. D Side Yard 2 10 ft.10 ft. E Rear Yard 25 ft. (45 ft. shown) 25 ft. (30 ft. shown) F Lot Size 12,000 sq. ft.12,000 sq. ft. G Lot Coverage 30% (3,600 sq. ft.) 50% (6,000 sq. ft.) H Parking 2 spaces 2 spaces A B D C H E F G For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions SR-1 & SR-1A Zoning The SR-1 & SR-1A zones are the special development pattern residential zoning districts. These zones allow typical detached houses and duplexes, along with other housing options like Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and affordable housing developments with up to 4 units. SR-1 & SR-1A zoning is most common in District 3 (Avenues/Capitol Hill) but is present in all City Council Districts except District 1 (Rose Park/Fairpark) and District 4 (Downtown). SR-1 & SR-1A | Zoning Standards Comparison Table Regulations Current Proposed Building Height (Pitched Roof) SR-1: 28 ft. or average of block face SR-1A: 23 ft. or average of block face SR-1: 30 ft. or average of block face SR-1A: 25 ft. or average of block face Building Height (Flat Roof) SR-1: 20 ft. SR-1A: 16 ft. SR-1: 24 ft. SR-1A: 20 ft. Front Yard Block face average or 20 ft. if no buildings exist 20 ft. or equal to abutting front yard Corner Side Yard 10 ft.10 ft. Interior Side Yard (Corner) Twin Homes: 10 ft. Other Uses: 4 ft.4 ft. Interior Side Yard 1 4 ft.4 ft. Interior Side Yard 2 10 ft.10 ft. Rear Yard 25% of lot depth, min. 15 ft., max. 30 ft. 20% of depth, no more than 15 ft. Max. Building Coverage 40%50% Lot Coverage Lot coverage has been increased from 40% to 50%. Proposed Modifications Changes to the base zoning standards are proposed to allow homeowners more flexibility to build on their property. °Pitched Roofs: 28 ft. to 30 ft. °Flat Roofs: 20 ft. to 24 ft. SR-1 Building Height Setbacks Lot Width Other Changes Minimum lot widths have been removed. °Standards placed into a table to help make the code more usable. °Accessory structure regulations in the SR-1A district modified to allow larger structures. °Pitched Roofs: 23 ft. to 25 ft. °Flat Roofs: 16 ft. to 20 ft. SR-1A Building Height °Front yard averaging has been replaced with "equal to one abutting front yard on the block face." °Rear yard reduced to 20% of lot depth or 15 ft., whichever is less. For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions Site Plan View VSCurrent Proposed SR-1A Example of Development Standards Notes To illustrate the proposed changes to the base zoning standards, the examples above show the maximum possible development potential for a typical residential property. The existing and proposed standards are represented side-by-side, with the home built to the maximum existing standards, and the home built to the maximum proposed standards highlighted in blue. Label Details Current Proposed A Building Height 16 ft.20 ft. B Front Yard 20 ft.20 ft. C Side Yard 1 4 ft.4 ft. D Side Yard 2 10 ft.10 ft. E Rear Yard 15 ft. (42 ft. shown) 15 ft. (25 ft. shown) F Lot Size 8,000 sq. ft.8,000 sq. ft. G Lot Coverage 40% (3,200 sq. ft.) 50% (4,000 sq. ft.) H Parking 4 spaces 4 spaces A B D C H E F G For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions R-2 The R-2 zone is the single- and two-family residential zoning district. This zone allows typical detached houses and duplexes, along with other housing options like Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and affordable housing developments with up to 4 units. R-2 zoning is most commonly found in the Central City, University, and Capitol Hill neighborhoods, but pockets of R-2 zoning exist in all City Council districts except District 6 (East Bench) and District 7 (Sugar House). R-2 | Zoning Standards Comparison Table Regulations Current Proposed Building Height (Pitched Roof) 28 ft. or average of block face 30 ft. or average of block face Building Height (Flat Roof)20 ft.24 ft. Front Yard Block face average or 20 ft. if no buildings exist 20 ft. or equal to abutting front yard Corner Side Yard 10 ft.10 ft. Interior Side Yard (Corner) Twin Homes: 10 ft. Other Uses: 4 ft.4 ft. Interior Side Yard 1 4 ft.4 ft. Interior Side Yard 2 10 ft.10 ft. Rear Yard 25% of lot depth, minimum 15 ft., maximum 30 ft. 20% of depth, no more than 15 ft. Max. Building Coverage 45%50% Lot Coverage Lot coverage has been increased from 45% to 50%. Proposed Modifications Changes to the base zoning standards are proposed to allow homeowners more flexibility to build on their property. °Pitched Roofs: 28 ft. to 30 ft. °Flat Roofs: 20 ft. to 24 ft. Building Height Setbacks Lot Width Other Changes °Front yard averaging has been replaced with “equal to one abutting front yard on the block face.” °Rear yard reduced to 20% of lot depth or 15 ft., whichever is less. Minimum lot widths have been removed. °Many standards have been put into a table to help make the code more usable. °A footnote in the zoning text that limits the number of duplexes in a subdivision or on a block has been removed. Site Plan View For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions R-2 Example of Development Standards Notes To illustrate the proposed changes to the base zoning standards, the examples above show the maximum possible development potential for a typical residential property. The existing and proposed standards are represented side-by-side, with the home built to the maximum existing standards, and the home built to the maximum proposed standards highlighted in blue. Label Details Current Proposed A Building Height 28 ft.30 ft. B Front Yard 20 ft.20 ft. C Side Yard 1 10 ft.4 ft. D Side Yard 2 10 ft.10 ft. E Rear Yard 15 ft. (30 ft. shown) 15 ft. (32 ft. shown) F Lot Size 8,000 sq. ft.8,000 sq. ft. G Lot Coverage 45% (3,600 sq. ft.) 50% (4,000 sq. ft.) H Parking 4 spaces 4 spaces VSCurrent Proposed A B D C H E F G G For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions Small Lot Dwellings “Small Lot Dwelling” is a technical term used to describe types of housing that are on smaller lots than a typical residential lot. “Small Lot Dwelling” would be a new land use in the zoning code that is proposed to be a permitted use in the R-1, R-2, SR-1, & SR-1A districts. Small lot dwellings would have additional regulations that ensure the buildings are compatible with their surroundings, such as limitations on the building footprint and internal space. Proposed Standards °The Small Lot Dwelling land use would allow compact-sized duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes (no more than four units). °The Small Lot Dwelling proposal reduces the minimum lot area to 2,000 sq. ft.. °Small Lot single-family dwellings would be limited to a footprint of 1,000 sq. ft. and the other dwelling types would be limited to a footprint of 850 sq. ft. per unit (unless the units are stacked). °A gross square floor area (internal space, basement area, enclosed porches, etc.) limit for all unit types is set at 1,200 sq. ft.. These limits are intended to allow new construction that is relatively less expensive than the median standard single- family dwelling in Salt Lake City. °Building heights and setbacks are similar to the R-1 standards. °Each Small Lot Dwelling is required to provide one off-street parking space. °Front and corner side yards are required to be maintained as landscaped yards. °Design standards related to building entrances, attached garages, glass, and alley access would be required by this proposal. °To encourage the preservation of existing homes, a bonus dwelling unit may be granted for projects that retain an existing dwelling, subject to specific requirements. Small Lot Development Standards Building Regulation Building Type Single-Family Dwelling Two-Family Dwelling Multi-Family Dwelling Rowhome Sideways Rowhome Building Height District maximum Front Yard 1 10 ft. Corner Side Yard 1 10 ft. Interior Side Yard (Corner) 1 4 ft. Interior Side Yard 1 1 4 ft. Interior Side Yard 2 1 10 ft. Rear Yard 1 10 ft. Min. Lot Area 2,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit Max. Dwelling Units per Building Type 1 2 4 Building Coverage 60% Max. Principal Building Footprint 2 1,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit 850 sq. ft. per dwelling unit Max. Principal Building Gross Floor Area 1,700 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, if the building is less than or equal to 17 ft. in height 1,200 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, if the building is more than 17 ft. in height Required Landscape Yards 1 The front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards Parking 1 off-street parking space per unit Footnotes | 1. The minimum yard and landscape yard requirements shall be applied to the perimeter of the development and not to the individual principal buildings within the development. | 2. If the dwelling units are arranged in a manner where one unit is stacked on top of the other, the maximum footprint of the building shall be 1,200 sq. ft. for each unit that is on the ground floor. Site Plan View For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions VSStandard Lot Small Lot Single-Family Home Example Small Lot Dwellings Label Details Standard Lot Small Lot A Building Height 30 ft. 17 ft. (Bldg 1) 30 ft. (Bldg 2) B Front Yard 20 ft.10 ft. C Side Yard 1 4 ft.4 ft. D Side Yard 2 10 ft.10 ft. E Rear Yard 20 ft.10 ft. F Lot Size 5,000 sq. ft./unit 2,000 sq. ft./unit G Lot Coverage 40%50% H Parking 2 spaces/ unit 1 space/ unit Notes To illustrate the proposed small lot dwelling standards, examples have been prepared to show possible development potential for typical residential properties. The standard lot and small lot standards are represented side- by-side, with the standard lots generally built to the maximum existing standards, and the small lot dwelling(s) built to the maximum proposed standards. A B D C H H E F G G Site Plan View VSStandard Lot Small Lot For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions Small Lot Dwellings Label Details Standard Lot Small Lot A Building Height 30 ft.30 ft. B Front Yard 20 ft.10 ft. C Side Yard 1 4 ft.4 ft. D Side Yard 2 10 ft.10 ft. E Rear Yard 20 ft.10 ft. F Lot Size 5,000 sq. ft./unit 2,000 sq. ft./unit G Lot Coverage 40%50% H Parking 2 spaces/ unit 1 space/ unit Notes To illustrate the proposed small lot dwelling standards, examples have been prepared to show possible development potential for typical residential properties. The standard lot and small lot standards are represented side- by-side, with the standard lots generally built to the maximum existing standards, and the small lot dwelling(s) built to the maximum proposed standards. Duplex Example A B D C H E F G G Site Plan View VSStandard Lot Small Lot For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions Small Lot Dwellings Notes To illustrate the proposed small lot dwelling standards, examples have been prepared to show possible development potential for typical residential properties. The standard lot and small lot standards are represented side- by-side, with the standard lots generally built to the maximum existing standards, and the small lot dwelling(s) built to the maximum proposed standards. Triplex Example Label Details Standard Lot Small Lot A Building Height 30 ft.30 ft. B Front Yard 20 ft.10 ft. C Side Yard 1 4 ft.4 ft. D Side Yard 2 10 ft.10 ft. E Rear Yard 20 ft.10 ft. F Lot Size 5,000 sq. ft./unit 2,000 sq. ft./unit G Lot Coverage 40%50% H Parking 2 spaces/ unit 1 space/ unit A B D C H E F G G Site Plan View VSStandard Lot Small Lot For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions Label Details Standard Lot Small Lot A Building Height 30 ft.30 ft. B Front Yard 20 ft.10 ft. C Side Yard 1 4 ft.4 ft. D Side Yard 2 10 ft.10 ft. E Rear Yard 20 ft.10 ft. F Lot Size 5,000 sq. ft./unit 2,000 sq. ft./unit G Lot Coverage 40%50% H Parking 2 spaces/ unit 1 space/ unit Notes To illustrate the proposed small lot dwelling standards, examples have been prepared to show possible development potential for typical residential properties. The standard lot and small lot standards are represented side- by-side, with the standard lots generally built to the maximum existing standards, and the small lot dwelling(s) built to the maximum proposed standards. Small Lot Dwellings Fourplex Example A B D C H E F G Site Plan View For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions VSStandard Lot Small Lot Small Lot Dwellings Label Details Standard Lot Small Lot A Building Height 30 ft.30 ft. B Front Yard 20 ft.10 ft. C Side Yard 1 4 ft.4 ft. D Side Yard 2 10 ft.10 ft. E Rear Yard 20 ft.10 ft. F Lot Size 5,000 sq. ft./unit 2,000 sq. ft./unit G Lot Coverage 40%50% H Parking 2 spaces/ unit 1 space/ unit Notes To illustrate the proposed small lot dwelling standards, examples have been prepared to show possible development potential for typical residential properties. The standard lot and small lot standards are represented side- by-side, with the standard lots generally built to the maximum existing standards, and the small lot dwelling(s) built to the maximum proposed standards. Rowhouse Example A B D C H E F G Site Plan View For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions VSStandard Lot Small Lot Label Details Standard Lot Small Lot A Building Height 30 ft.30 ft. B Front Yard 20 ft.10 ft. C Side Yard 1 4 ft.4 ft. D Side Yard 2 10 ft.10 ft. E Rear Yard 20 ft.10 ft. F Lot Size 5,000 sq. ft./unit 2,000 sq. ft./unit G Lot Coverage 40%50% H Parking 2 spaces/ unit 1 space/ unit Notes To illustrate the proposed small lot dwelling standards, examples have been prepared to show possible development potential for typical residential properties. The standard lot and small lot standards are represented side- by-side, with the standard lots generally built to the maximum existing standards, and the small lot dwelling(s) built to the maximum proposed standards. Sideways Rowhouse Example Small Lot Dwellings A B D C H E F G Site Plan View For additional information scan the QR Code or visit: bit.ly/SLChousingoptions Small Lot Dwellings Label Details Standard Lot Small Lot A Building Height 30 ft.30 ft. B Front Yard 20 ft.10 ft. C Side Yard 1 4 ft.4 ft. D Side Yard 2 10 ft.10 ft. E Rear Yard 20 ft.10 ft. F Lot Size 5,000 sq. ft./unit 2,000 sq. ft./unit G Lot Coverage 40%50% H Parking 2 spaces/ unit 1 space/ unit Notes To illustrate the proposed small lot dwelling standards, examples have been prepared to show possible development potential for typical residential properties. The standard lot and small lot standards are represented side- by-side, with the standard lots generally built to the maximum existing standards, and the small lot dwelling(s) built to the maximum proposed standards. Cottage Example VSStandard Lot Small Lot A B D C H E F G G G G 2. DRAFT ORDINANCES Public Draft Project Title: Expanding Housing Options – Amendments to the Residential General Provisions Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-01184 Version: Public Draft Date Prepared: 12/10/2025 Recommended by Planning Commission: To Be Scheduled This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only): • Amends section 21A.24.010 to make flag lots a permitted use in all residential districts, including other changes intended to simplify the standards required for new flag lots. 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. SECTION 1: Amending section 21A.24.010 to make flag lots a permitted use in all residential districts, 1 including other changes intended to simplify the standards required for new flag lots, as follows: 2 21A.24.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: 3 G. Flag Lots In Residential Districts: Flag lots are a permitted use only as part of a new subdivision in 4 the FP, FR-1, FR-2 and FR-3 Districts. Flag lots in all other residential districts, unless being approved 5 through the planned development process, may be allowed as a conditional use pursuant to chapter 6 21A.55 of this title, provided that the Planning Commission finds the flag lot proposal to be compatible 7 with the existing pattern of property development of the surrounding area. The Planning Commission 8 shall also make findings on subject to the standards listed in subsections G1 through G14 G10 of this 9 section: 10 1. In residential districts other than new subdivisions in the FP, FR-1, FR-2, FR-3 Districts, flag 11 lots shall be approved only when one flag lot is proposed at the rear of an existing lot, unless being 12 approved through the planned development process; 13 1. 2. Flag lots shall be used exclusively to provide lots for permitted or conditional uses within 14 the zoning district. single-family residential dwellings; 15 2. 3. All lot and yard requirements applicable to flag lots shall apply to the main body of the flag 16 lot. For flag lots, the front yard shall begin at the point where the access strip joins the main body of the 17 lot; 18 3. 4. Except for the special provisions contained in this subsection G, the creation of a flag lot 19 shall not result in a violation of required lot area, lot width, yards or other applicable provisions of this 20 title; 21 5. Flag lots shall have a minimum lot depth of one hundred feet (100') measured from the point 22 where the access strip joins the main body of the lot; 23 4. 6. The flag lot access strip or access easement shall have a minimum of twenty four feet (24') 24 20 feet of frontage on a public street. No portion of the flag lot access strip shall measure less than twenty 25 four feet (24') in width between the street right-of-way line and main body of the lot. A minimum sixteen 26 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: ___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney Public Draft foot (16') wide hard surfaced driveway shall be provided along the entire length of the access strip. A four 27 foot (4') minimum landscape yard shall be provided on each side of the driveway. (See illustration in 28 chapter 21A.62 of this title.); Access to the flag lot is subject to approval by the fire official. 29 5. 7. Flag lots, including the access strip, shall be held in fee simple ownership; The flag lot 30 access strip shall be held either in fee title as part of the flag lot, or the access may be evidenced by a 31 recorded express, irrevocable easement for ingress and egress, benefiting the flag lot, over and across the 32 original (front) lot. The easement must grant fire access, as determined by the fire official. 33 6. 8. The minimum lot area of a flag lot shall not be less than 1.5 times be equal to the minimum 34 lot area of the applicable district. The lot area calculation excludes the lot access strip; 35 9. The minimum required side yard for a single-story building on a flag lot is ten feet (10'). If any 36 portion of the structure exceeds one story in height, all side yard setbacks shall meet the required rear 37 yard setback of the underlying zoning district. The Planning Commission may increase the side or rear 38 yard setback where there is a topographic change between lots; 39 7. 10. Unless otherwise indicated in this section, Bboth the flag lot and any remnant property 40 resulting from the creation of a flag lot (including existing buildings and structures) shall comply with all 41 applicable base zoning district and overlay zoning district standards and requirements. meet the minimum 42 lot area, width, frontage, yard setback, parking and all other applicable zoning requirements of the 43 underlying zoning district; 44 11. Any garage, whether attached to or detached from the main building, shall be located in the 45 buildable area of the lot; 46 12. Accessory buildings other than garages may be located in the rear yard area, however, 47 Planning Commission approval is required for any accessory building that requires a building permit; 48 13. A four foot (4') wide landscaped strip is required along both side property lines from the front 49 to rear lot lines; 50 8. 14. Reflective house numbers shall be posted at the front of the access strip; 51 9. 15. In addition to any other provisions that may apply, the creation of a flag lot is considered a 52 subdivision and shall be subject to applicable subdivision regulations and processes. 53 Public Draft Project Title: Expanding Housing Options – Amendments to the R-1 Zoning Districts Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-01184 Version: Public Draft Date Prepared: 12/10/2025 Recommended by Planning Commission: To Be Scheduled This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only): • Amends the text of section 21A.24.050 (Single-Family Residential District) by consolidating the R-1/12,000; R-1/7,000; and R-1/5,000 into a single section of code, moving all bulk and height regulations into a new table, and making other changes to the development standards. 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 SECTION 2: Amending the text of section 21A.24.050 (Single-Family Residential District) by 2 consolidating the R-1/12,000; R-1/7,000; and R-1/5,000 into a single section of code, moving all bulk 3 and height regulations into a new table, and making other changes to the development standards. 4 21A.24.050: R-1/12,000 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: 5 A. Purpose Statement: The R-1 Single-Family Residential Districts include the R-1/5,000, R-1/7,000, 6 and R-1/12,000 zoning districts. Their The purpose of the R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District 7 is to provide for single-family residential dwellings and, affordable housing incentives developments with 8 up to four units on lots twelve thousand (12,000) square feet in size or larger, and small lot dwelling 9 developments. This district is appropriate in areas of the city as identified in the applicable community 10 master plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. 11 The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, 12 promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the 13 neighborhood. 14 B. Uses: Uses in the R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential Districts, as specified in section 15 21A.33.020, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this title, are 16 permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this section. 17 C. Bulk and Height Regulations: The bulk and height regulations in these districts are as follows: 18 R-1/12,000 R-1/7,000 R-1/5,000 Maximum building height - Pitched roof block face, whichever is greater height - Flat roof 24 feet Minimum front yard block face APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: By: Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney Public Draft Minimum corner side yard 20 feet or equal to one abutting front yard on the same block face to one abutting front yard on the same block face side - Corner lot 4 feet side yard 1 4 feet side yard 2 10 feet Minimum rear yard or 25 feet, whichever is 20% of lot depth or 20 feet, whichever is less coverage 50% 19 20 D. C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required for specific 21 uses in these districts are as follows: Standards for Lots and Parcels: All new lots and parcels or 22 modifications to existing lots and parcels shall comply with the following standards: 23 Land Use Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width utility uses and police and fire stations No minimum No minimum public and private Parks, open space, and natural areas No minimum No minimum Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 square feet 80 feet greenways No minimum No minimum Public/private utility transmission wires, lines, pipes and poles No minimum No minimum Single-family detached dwellings R-1/5,000: 5,000 square feet R-1/7,000: 7,000 square feet R-1/12,000: 12,000 square feet Interior: 80 feet Corner: 100 feet Small lot dwellings (see chapter 21A.36.370 for use specific requirements) 2,000 square feet per unit Public Draft Corner: 100 feet in section 21A.33.020 of this title square feet R-1/7,000: 7,000 square feet R-1/12,000: 12,000 square feet Interior: 80 feet Corner: 100 feet 24 25 E. Building Height Regulations: D. Maximum Building Height: 26 1. The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs, as measured from the established grade, 27 shall be: 28 a. Twenty eight feet (28') measured to the ridge of the roof; or 29 b. The average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 30 2. The maximum height of a flat roof building, as measured from the established grade, shall be 31 twenty feet (20'). 32 3. Maximum exterior wall height adjacent to interior side yards shall be twenty feet (20') for 33 exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. Exterior wall 34 height may increase one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) in height for each foot (or fraction thereof) of 35 increased setback beyond the minimum required interior side yard. If an exterior wall is approved with a 36 reduced setback through a special exception, variance or other process, the maximum allowable exterior 37 wall height decreases by one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) for each foot (or fraction thereof) that the wall 38 is located closer to the property line than the required side yard setback. 39 a. Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may 40 be increased by one-half foot (0.5') for each one foot (1') difference between the elevation of the average 41 grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. 42 b. Exceptions: 43 (1) Gable Walls: Walls at the end of a pitched roof may extend to a height necessary to 44 support the roof structure except that the height of the top of the widest portion of the gable wall must 45 conform to the maximum wall height limitation described in this section. 46 (2) Dormer Walls: Dormer walls are exempt from the maximum exterior wall height if: 47 (A) The width of a dormer is ten feet (10') or less; and 48 (B) The total combined width of dormers is less than or equal to fifty percent (50%) 49 of the length of the building facade facing the interior side yard; and 50 (C) Dormers are spaced at least eighteen inches (18") apart. 51 1. 4. Building height for initial construction of a building shall be measured as the vertical 52 distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building coverage. 53 Building height for any subsequent structural modification or addition to a building shall be measured 54 from finished grade existing at the time a building permit is requested. Building height for the R-1 55 districts, R-2 District and SR districts is defined and illustrated in chapter 21A.62 of this title. 56 5. Where buildings are stepped to accommodate the slope of terrain, each step shall have a 57 horizontal dimension of at least twelve feet (12'). Public Draft 58 2. 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties 59 located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark 60 commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 61 E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 62 1. Front Yard: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to 63 the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are no existing 64 buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front 65 yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For 66 buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the 67 established setback line of the existing building. 68 2. Corner Side Yard: The minimum depth of the corner side yard for all principal buildings shall 69 be equal to the average of the existing buildings on the block face. Where there are no other existing 70 buildings on the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum corner 71 side yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. 72 3. Interior Side Yard: 73 a. Corner lots: Eight feet (8'). 74 b. Interior lots: Eight feet (8') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. 75 4. Rear Yard: Twenty five feet (25'). 76 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be 77 located in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B of this title. 78 F. Maximum Building Coverage: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall 79 not exceed thirty five percent (35%) of the lot area. 80 F. G. Maximum Lot Size: With the exception of lots created by a subdivision or subdivision 81 amendment recorded in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder, the maximum size of a new lot shall 82 not exceed eighteen thousand (18,000) square feet. The maximum lot area of a new lot shall not exceed 83 150% of the minimum lot area, if there is a minimum lot area listed in Table 21A.24.050.D. Lots in 84 excess of this maximum lot area may be created through the subdivision process subject to the following 85 standards: 86 1. The size of the new lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; 87 2. The configuration of the lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; and 88 3. The relationship of the lot width to the lot depth is compatible with other lots on the same 89 block face. 90 G. H. Standards for Attached Garages: 91 1. Width of an Attached Garage: The width of an attached garage facing the street may not 92 exceed fifty percent (50%) of the width of the front facade of the house. The width of the garage is equal 93 to the width of the garage door, or in the case of multiple garage doors, the sum of the widths of each 94 garage door plus the width of any intervening wall elements between garage doors. 95 2. Located Behind or In Line with the Front Line of the Building: No attached garage shall be 96 constructed forward of the "front line of the building" (as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title), 97 unless: 98 a. A new garage is constructed to replace an existing garage that is forward of the "front line 99 of the building". In this case, the new garage shall be constructed in a similar location as the garage being 100 replaced with dimensions that do not increase the degree of noncompliance; or Public Draft 101 b. At least fifty percent (50%) of the existing garages on the block face are located forward of 102 the "front line of the building". 103 21A.24.060: R-1/7,000 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: 104 A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide 105 for single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives developments with up to four 106 units on lots not less than seven thousand (7,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas 107 of the city as identified in the applicable community master plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with 108 the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide 109 for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development 110 patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. 111 B. Uses: Uses in the R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District, as specified in section 21A.33.020, 112 "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this title, are permitted subject to 113 the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this section. 114 C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district 115 are as follows: 116 Land Use Minimum Lot Area Width and fire stations feet 21A.33.020 of this title 117 118 D. Maximum Building Height: 119 1. The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs, as measured from the established grade, 120 shall be: 121 a. Twenty eight feet (28') measured to the ridge of the roof; or 122 b. The average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 123 2. The maximum height of a flat roof building, as measured from the established grade, shall be 124 twenty feet (20'). 125 3. Maximum exterior wall height adjacent to interior side yards shall be twenty feet (20') for exterior 126 walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. Exterior wall height may 127 increase one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) in height for each foot (or fraction thereof) of increased setback 128 beyond the minimum required interior side yard. If an exterior wall is approved with a reduced setback 129 through a special exception, variance or other process, the maximum allowable exterior wall height Public Draft 130 decreases by one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) for each foot (or fraction thereof) that the wall is located 131 closer to the property line than the required side yard setback. 132 a. Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may be 133 increased by one-half foot (0.5') for each one foot (1') difference between the elevation of the average 134 grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. 135 b. Exceptions: 136 (1) Gable Walls: Walls at the end of a pitched roof may extend to a height necessary to support 137 the roof structure except that the height of the top of the widest portion of the gable wall must conform to 138 the maximum wall height limitation described in this section. 139 (2) Dormer Walls: Dormer walls are exempt from the maximum exterior wall height if: 140 (A) The width of a dormer is ten feet (10') or less; and 141 (B) The total combined width of dormers is less than or equal to fifty percent (50%) of the 142 length of the building facade facing the interior side yard; and 143 (C) Dormers are spaced at least eighteen inches (18") apart. 144 4. Building height for initial construction of a building shall be measured as the vertical distance 145 between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building coverage. Building 146 height for any subsequent structural modification or addition to a building shall be measured from 147 finished grade existing at the time a building permit is requested. Building height for the R-1 districts, R-2 148 District and SR districts is defined and illustrated in chapter 21A.62 of this title. 149 5. Where buildings are stepped to accommodate the slope of terrain, each step shall have a horizontal 150 dimension of at least twelve feet (12'). 151 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties 152 located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark 153 commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 154 E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 155 1. Front Yard: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the 156 average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are no existing 157 buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front 158 yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For 159 buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the 160 established setback line of the existing building. 161 2. Corner Side Yard: The minimum depth of the corner side yard for all principal buildings shall be 162 equal to the average of the existing buildings on the block face. Where there are no other existing 163 buildings on the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum corner 164 side yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. 165 3. Interior Side Yard: 166 a. Corner lots: Six feet (6'). 167 b. Interior lots: Six feet (6') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. 168 4. Rear Yard: Twenty five feet (25'). 169 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located 170 in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B of this title. 171 F. Maximum Building Coverage: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall 172 not exceed forty percent (40%) of the lot area. Public Draft 173 G. Maximum Lot Size: With the exception of lots created by a subdivision or subdivision amendment 174 recorded in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder, the maximum size of a new lot shall not exceed 175 ten thousand five hundred (10,500) square feet. Lots in excess of the maximum lot size may be created 176 through the subdivision process subject to the following standards: 177 1. The size of the new lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; 178 2. The configuration of the lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; and 179 3. The relationship of the lot width to the lot depth is compatible with other lots on the same block 180 face. 181 H. Standards for Attached Garages: 182 1. Width of an Attached Garage: The width of an attached garage facing the street may not exceed 183 fifty percent (50%) of the width of the front facade of the house. The width of the garage is equal to the 184 width of the garage door, or in the case of multiple garage doors, the sum of the widths of each garage 185 door plus the width of any intervening wall elements between garage doors. 186 2. Located Behind or In Line with the Front Line of the Building: No attached garage shall be 187 constructed forward of the "front line of the building" (as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title), 188 unless: 189 a. A new garage is constructed to replace an existing garage that is forward of the "front line of the 190 building". In this case, the new garage shall be constructed in a similar location as the garage being 191 replaced with dimensions that do not increase the degree of noncompliance; or 192 b. At least fifty percent (50%) of the existing garages on the block face are located forward of the 193 "front line of the building". 194 21A.24.070: R-1/5,000 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: 195 A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide 196 for single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives developments with up to four 197 units on lots not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of 198 the city as identified in the applicable community master plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with 199 the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide 200 for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development 201 patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. 202 B. Uses: Uses in the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District, as specified in section 21A.33.020, 203 "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this title, are permitted subject to 204 the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this section. 205 C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district 206 are as follows: 207 Land Use Minimum Lot Area Width Municipal service uses, including City utility uses and police and fire stations No minimum No minimum Natural open space and conservation areas, public and private No minimum No minimum Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 square feet 80 feet Public Draft Single-family detached dwellings 5,000 square feet 50 feet 208 209 D. Maximum Building Height: 210 1. The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs, as measured from the established grade, 211 shall be: 212 a. Twenty eight feet (28') measured to the ridge of the roof; or 213 b. The average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 214 2. The maximum height of a flat roof building, as measured from the established grade, shall be 215 twenty feet (20'). 216 3. Maximum exterior wall height adjacent to interior side yards shall be twenty feet (20') for exterior 217 walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. Exterior wall height may 218 increase one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) in height for each foot (or fraction thereof) of increased setback 219 beyond the minimum required interior side yard. If an exterior wall is approved with a reduced setback 220 through a special exception, variance or other process, the maximum allowable exterior wall height 221 decreases by one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) for each foot (or fraction thereof) that the wall is located 222 closer to the property line than the required side yard setback. 223 a. Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may be 224 increased by one-half foot (0.5') for each one foot (1') difference between the elevation of the average 225 grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. 226 b. Exceptions: 227 (1) Gable Walls: Walls at the end of a pitched roof may extend to a height necessary to support 228 the roof structure except that the height of the top of the widest portion of the gable wall must conform to 229 the maximum wall height limitation described in this section. 230 (2) Dormer Walls: Dormer walls are exempt from the maximum exterior wall height if: 231 (A) The width of a dormer is ten feet (10') or less; and 232 (B) The total combined width of dormers is less than or equal to fifty percent (50%) of the 233 length of the building facade facing the interior side yard; and 234 (C) Dormers are spaced at least eighteen inches (18") apart. 235 4. Building height for initial construction of a building shall be measured as the vertical distance 236 between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building coverage. Building 237 height for any subsequent structural modification or addition to a building shall be measured from 238 finished grade existing at the time a building permit is requested. Building height for the R-1 districts, R-2 239 District and SR districts is defined and illustrated in chapter 21A.62 of this title. 240 5. Where buildings are stepped to accommodate the slope of terrain, each step shall have a horizontal 241 dimension of at least twelve feet (12'). 242 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties 243 located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark 244 commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 245 E. Minimum Yard Requirements: Public Draft 246 1. Front Yard: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the 247 average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are no existing 248 buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front 249 yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For 250 buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the 251 established setback line of the existing building. 252 2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10'). 253 3. Interior Side Yard: 254 a. Corner lots: Four feet (4'). 255 b. Interior lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. 256 4. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, or twenty feet (20'), whichever is less. 257 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located 258 in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B of this title. 259 F. Maximum Building Coverage: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall 260 not exceed forty percent (40%) of the lot. 261 G. Maximum Lot Size: With the exception of lots created by a subdivision or subdivision amendment 262 recorded in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder, the maximum size of a new lot shall not exceed 263 seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet. Lots in excess of the maximum lot size may be created 264 through the subdivision process subject to the following standards: 265 1. The size of the new lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; 266 2. The configuration of the lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; and 267 3. The relationship of the lot width to the lot depth is compatible with other lots on the same block 268 face. 269 H. Standards for Attached Garages: 270 1. Width of an Attached Garage: The width of an attached garage facing the street may not exceed 271 fifty percent (50%) of the width of the front facade of the house. The width of the garage is equal to the 272 width of the garage door, or in the case of multiple garage doors, the sum of the widths of each garage 273 door plus the width of any intervening wall elements between garage doors. 274 2. Located Behind or In Line with the Front Line of the Building: No attached garage shall be 275 constructed forward of the "front line of the building" (as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title), 276 unless: 277 a. A new garage is constructed to replace an existing garage that is forward of the "front line of the 278 building". In this case, the new garage shall be constructed in a similar location as the garage being 279 replaced with dimensions that do not increase the degree of noncompliance; or 280 b. At least fifty percent (50%) of the existing garages on the block face are located forward of the 281 "front line of the building". Public Draft Project Title: Expanding Housing Options – Amendments to the SR-1 and SR-1A Zoning Districts Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-01184 Version: Public Draft Date Prepared: 12/10/2025 Recommended by Planning Commission: To Be Scheduled This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only): • Amends the text of section 21A.24.080 (SR-1 and SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District) by moving all bulk and height regulations into a new table, and making other changes to the development standards. 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. SECTION 3: Amending the text of section 21A.24.080 (SR-1 and SR-1A Special Development Pattern 1 Residential District) by moving all bulk and height regulations into a new table, and making other 2 changes to the development standards, as follows: 3 21A.24.080: SR-1 AND SR-1A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: 4 In this chapter and the associated zoning map, the SR-1 District is divided into two (2) subareas for the 5 purpose of defining design criteria. In other portions of this text, the SR-1 and SR-1A are jointly referred 6 to as the SR-1 District because all other standards in the zoning ordinance are the same. 7 A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District is 8 to maintain the unique character of older predominantly single-family and two-family dwelling 9 neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes and bulk characteristics. Uses are intended to be 10 compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are 11 intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible 12 development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. 13 B. Uses: Uses in the SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District, as specified in section 14 21A.33.020, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this title, are 15 permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this section. 16 C. Bulk and Height Regulations: The bulk and height regulations required in this district are as 17 follows: 18 19 SR-1 SR-1A Maximum building height - Pitched roof building height of the block face, whichever is greater building height of the block face, whichever is greater height - Flat roof 24 feet 20 feet APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: ___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney Public Draft Minimum front yard1 face yard1 10 feet side - Corner lot1 4 feet side yard 11 10 feet 1 4 feet coverage 50% 1. The minimum yard and landscape yard requirements shall be applied to the perimeter of the property. 20 21 D. C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required for specific 22 uses in these districts are as follows: Standards for Lots and Parcels: All new lots and parcels or 23 modifications to existing lots and parcels shall comply with the following standards: 24 Land Use Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Municipal service uses, including City utility uses and police and fire stations No minimum No minimum Natural open space and conservation areas, public and private Parks, open space, and natural areas greenways pipes and poles dwelling in section 21A.33.020 of this title E. Building Height Regulations: D. Maximum Building Height: Maximum building height limits 25 vary, depending upon the location. The following regulations apply for each area within the SR-1 district: 26 1. Pitched Roofs: The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs, as measured from the 27 established grade, shall be: 28 Public Draft a. SR-1: Twenty eight feet (28') measured to the ridge of the roof, or the average height of 29 other principal buildings on the block face. 30 b. SR-1A: Twenty three feet (23') measured to the ridge of the roof, or the average height of 31 other principal buildings on the block face. 32 2. Flat Roofs: The maximum height of a flat roof building, as measured from the established 33 grade, shall be: 34 a. SR-1: Twenty feet (20'). 35 b. SR-1A: Sixteen feet (16'). 36 3. Exterior Walls: Maximum exterior wall height adjacent to interior side yards: 37 a. SR-1: Twenty feet (20') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the 38 minimum required yard. 39 b. SR-1A: Sixteen feet (16') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by 40 the minimum required yard. 41 c. In both the SR-1 and SR-1A districts, the exterior wall height may increase one foot (1') 42 (or fraction thereof) in height for each foot (or fraction thereof) of increased setback beyond the minimum 43 required interior side yard. If an exterior wall is approved with a reduced setback through a special 44 exception, variance or other process, the maximum allowable exterior wall height decreases by one foot 45 (1') (or fraction thereof) for each foot (or fraction thereof) that the wall is located closer to the property 46 line than the required side yard setback. 47 (1) Cross Slopes: For lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill 48 exterior wall height may be increased by one-half foot (0.5') for each one foot (1') difference between the 49 elevation of the average grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. 50 (2) Exceptions: 51 (A) Gable Walls: Walls at the end of a pitched roof may extend to a height 52 necessary to support the roof structure except that the height of the top of the widest portion of the gable 53 wall must conform to the maximum wall height limitation described in this section. 54 (B) Dormer Walls: Dormer walls are exempt from the maximum exterior wall 55 height if: 56 (i) The width of a dormer is ten feet (10') or less; and 57 (ii) The total combined width of dormers is less than or equal to fifty percent 58 (50%) of the length of the building facade facing the interior side yard; and 59 (iii) Dormers are spaced at least eighteen inches (18") apart. 60 1. 4. Initial Construction: Building height for initial construction of a building shall be measured 61 as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of 62 building coverage. Building height for any subsequent structural modification or addition to a building 63 shall be measured from finished grade existing at the time a building permit is requested. Building height 64 for the R-1 districts, R-2 District and SR districts is defined and illustrated in chapter 21A.62 of this title. 65 5 Stepped Buildings: Where buildings are stepped to accommodate the slope of terrain, each step 66 shall have a horizontal dimension of at least twelve feet (12'). 67 2. 6 Additional Building Height Requests for additional building height for properties located in 68 an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which 69 may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 70 F. E. Narrow Lot Yard Reductions: Minimum Yard Requirements: 71 1. Front Yard: 72 Public Draft a. SR-1: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to 73 the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are no existing 74 buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front 75 yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For 76 buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the 77 established setback line of the existing building. 78 b. SR-1A: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to 79 the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are four (4) or more 80 SR-1 principal buildings with front yards on a block face, the average shall be calculated excluding one 81 property with the smallest front yard setback and excluding the one property with the largest front yard 82 setback. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty 83 feet (20'). Where the minimum front yard depth is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the 84 requirement specified therein shall prevail. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required 85 front yard depth shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. 86 2. Corner Side Yard: 87 a. SR-1: Ten feet (10'). For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required corner 88 side yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. 89 b. SR-1A: Ten feet (10'). 90 3. Interior Side Yard: 91 a. Twin Home Dwellings: No side yard is required along one side lot line while a ten foot 92 (10') yard is required on the other. 93 b. Other Uses: 94 (1) Corner lots: Four feet (4'). 95 (2) Interior lots: 96 (A) SR-1: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. 97 (B) SR-1A: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. 98 1. (i) Where the width of a lot is forty seven feet (47 feet') or narrower, the total minimum side 99 yard setbacks shall be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the lot width with one side being four feet (4 feet') 100 minimum and the other side being thirty percent (30%) of the lot width minus four feet (4 feet') rounded 101 to the nearest whole number. 102 2. (ii) Where a lot is twenty seven feet (27 feet') or narrower, required side yard setbacks shall be 103 a minimum of four feet (4 feet') and four feet (4 feet'). 104 3. (iii) Where required side yard setbacks are less than four feet (4 feet') and ten feet (10 feet') an 105 addition, remodel or new construction shall be no closer than ten feet (10 feet') to a primary structure on 106 an abutting property. The ten foot (10 feet') separation standard applies only to the interior side yard that 107 has been reduced from the base standard of ten feet (10 feet'). 108 4. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than fifteen feet (15') and 109 need not exceed thirty feet (30'). 110 G. Accessory Buildings and Structures in Yards: 111 51. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be 112 located in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required 113 Yards", and section 21A.40.050 of this title. 114 a. SR-1A: 115 Public Draft (1) Maximum building coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed six hundred 116 (600720) square feet. 117 (2) Primary accessory building: One accessory building may have up to the following 118 dimensions: 119 (A) A footprint of up to four hundred eighty (480600) square feet, subject to 120 compliance with subsection 21A.40.050B1 of this title. 121 (B) Roof peak/ridge height of up to fourteen feet (14') above the existing grade. 122 (C) A flat roof height limit of nine feet (9') above the existing grade. 123 (D) An exterior wall height of nine feet (9') above the existing grade. 124 (i) Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior 125 wall height may increase by one-half foot (0.5') for each one foot (1') difference between the elevation of 126 the average grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. 127 (3) Secondary accessory buildings: All other accessory buildings shall have the 128 following dimensions: 129 (A) Roof peak/ridge height of up to ten feet (10') above the existing grade. 130 (B) Flat roof height limit of eight feet (8') above the existing grade. 131 (C) An exterior wall height of eight feet (8') above the existing grade. 132 (D) Secondary accessory buildings may be attached to the primary accessory 133 buildings so long as all buildings conform to the required wall and roof ridge height restrictions. 134 (4) Exceptions: 135 (A) If the accessory structure is an Accessory Dwelling Unit that complies with 136 section 21A.40.200, the ADU is exempt from the standards in 21A.24.080.G.1.a. 137 F. Maximum Building Coverage: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall 138 not exceed forty percent (40%) of the lot area. For lots with buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, 139 the coverage of existing buildings shall be considered legal conforming. 140 H. G. Maximum Lot Size: With the exception of lots created by a subdivision or subdivision 141 amendment recorded in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder, the maximum size of a new lot shall 142 not exceed eighteen thousand (18,000) square feet. The maximum lot area of a new lot shall not exceed 143 150% of the minimum lot area, if there is a minimum lot area listed in Table 21A.24.080.D. Lots in 144 excess of this maximum lot area may be created through the subdivision process subject to the following 145 standards: 146 1. The size of the new lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; 147 2. The configuration of the lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; and 148 3. The relationship of the lot width to the lot depth is compatible with other lots on the same 149 block face. 150 I. H. Standards for Attached Garages: 151 1. Width of an Attached Garage: The width of an attached garage facing the street may not 152 exceed fifty percent (50%) of the width of the front facade of the house. The width of the garage is equal 153 to the width of the garage door, or in the case of multiple garage doors, the sum of the widths of each 154 garage door plus the width of any intervening wall elements between garage doors. 155 2. Located Behind or In Line with the Front Line of the Building: No attached garage shall be 156 constructed forward of the "front line of the building" (as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title), 157 unless: 158 Public Draft a. A new garage is constructed to replace an existing garage that is forward of the "front line 159 of the building". In this case, the new garage shall be constructed in a similar location as the garage being 160 replaced with dimensions that do not increase the degree of noncompliance; or 161 b. At least fifty percent (50%) of the existing garages on the block face are located forward of 162 the "front line of the building" 163 Public Draft Project Title: Expanding Housing Options – Amendments to the R-2 Zoning District Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-01184 Version: Public Draft Date Prepared: 12/10/2025 Recommended by Planning Commission: To Be Scheduled This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only): • Amends the text of section 21A.24.110 (R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District) by moving all bulk and height regulations into a new table, and making other changes to the development standards. 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. SECTION 4: Amending the text of section 21A.24.110 (R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential 1 District) by moving all bulk and height regulations into a new table, and making other changes to the 2 development standards, as follows: 3 21A.24.110: R-2 SINGLE- AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: 4 A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District is to 5 preserve the character of existing neighborhoods which exhibit a mix of predominantly single- and two-6 family dwellings. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the 7 neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to 8 live and play and to promote sustainable and compatible development patterns. 9 B. Uses: Uses in the R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District, as specified in 10 section 21A.33.020, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this title, 11 are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this 12 section. 13 C. Bulk and Height Regulations: The bulk and height regulations required in this district are as 14 follows: 15 R-2 Maximum building height - Pitched roof 30 feet or equal to the average building height of the block face, whichever is greater Maximum building height - Flat roof 24 feet Minimum front yard block face yard 10 feet APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: ___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney Public Draft Minimum interior side - Corner lot 4 feet side yard 1 10 feet side yard 2 4 feet coverage 50% 16 D. C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required for specific 17 uses in these districts are as follows: Standards for Lots and Parcels: All new lots and parcels or 18 modifications to existing lots and parcels shall comply with the following standards: 19 20 Land Use Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Municipal service uses, including City utility uses and police and fire stations public and private Parks, open space, and natural areas greenways pipes and poles for use specific requirements) dwelling Qualifying provisions: 21 1. In subdivisions approved after April 12, 1995, no more than 2 lots may be used for such dwellings 22 located adjacent to one another and no more than 3 such dwellings may be located on the same block 23 face. 24 E. D. Building Height Regulations: Maximum Building Height: 25 1. The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs shall be: 26 a. Twenty eight feet (28') measured to the ridge of the roof; or 27 b. The average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 28 2. The maximum height of a flat roof building shall be twenty feet (20'). 29 Public Draft 3. Maximum exterior wall height adjacent to interior side yards shall be twenty feet (20') for 30 exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. Exterior wall 31 height may increase one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) in height for each foot (or fraction thereof) of 32 increased setback beyond the minimum required interior side yard. If an exterior wall is approved with a 33 reduced setback through a special exception, variance or other process, the maximum allowable exterior 34 wall height decreases by one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) for each foot (or fraction thereof) that the wall 35 is located closer to the property line than the required side yard setback. 36 a. Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may 37 be increased by one-half foot (0.5') for each one foot (1') difference between the elevation of the average 38 grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. 39 b. Exceptions: 40 (1) Gable Walls: Walls at the end of a pitched roof may extend to a height necessary 41 to support the roof structure except that the height of the top of the widest portion of the gable wall must 42 conform to the maximum wall height limitation described in this section. 43 (2) Dormer Walls: Dormer walls are exempt from the maximum exterior wall height 44 if: 45 (A) The width of a dormer is ten feet (10') or less; and 46 (B) The total combined width of dormers is less than or equal to fifty percent 47 (50%) of the length of the building facade facing the interior side yard; and 48 (C) Dormers are spaced at least eighteen inches (18") apart. 49 1. 4. Building height for initial construction of a building shall be measured as the vertical 50 distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building coverage. 51 Building height for any subsequent structural modification or addition to a building shall be measured 52 from finished grade existing at the time a building permit is requested. Building height for the R-1 53 districts, R-2 District and SR districts is defined and illustrated in chapter 21A.62 of this title. 54 5. Where buildings are stepped to accommodate the slope of terrain, each step shall have a 55 horizontal dimension of at least twelve feet (12'). 56 2. 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties 57 located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark 58 commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 59 E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 60 1. Front Yard: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to 61 the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are no existing 62 buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front 63 yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For 64 buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the 65 established setback line of the existing building. 66 2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10'). 67 3. Interior Side Yard: 68 a. Twin home dwellings: No side yard is required along one side lot line. A ten foot (10') 69 side yard is required along the other. 70 b. Other uses: Four feet (4'); provided, that on interior lots one yard must be at least ten feet 71 (10'). 72 Public Draft 4. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than fifteen feet (15') and 73 need not exceed twenty five feet (25'). 74 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be 75 located in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required 76 Yards", of this title. 77 F. Maximum Building Coverage: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall 78 not exceed forty five percent (45%) of the lot for single-family and two-family uses. For lots with 79 buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of existing buildings shall be considered legal 80 conforming. 81 F. G. Maximum Lot Size: With the exception of lots created by a subdivision or subdivision 82 amendment recorded in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder, the maximum size of a new lot shall 83 not exceed one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the minimum lot size allowed by the base zoning district. 84 The maximum lot area of a new lot shall not exceed 150% of the minimum lot area, if there is a minimum 85 lot area listed in Table 21A.24.110.D. Lots in excess of the maximum lot size may be created through the 86 subdivision process subject to the following standards: 87 1. The size of the new lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; 88 2. The configuration of the lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; and 89 3. The relationship of the lot width to the lot depth is compatible with other lots on the same 90 block face. 91 G. H. Standards for Attached Garages: 92 1. Width of an Attached Garage: The width of an attached garage facing the street may not 93 exceed fifty percent (50%) of the width of the front facade of the house. The width of the garage is equal 94 to the width of the garage door, or in the case of multiple garage doors, the sum of the widths of each 95 garage door plus the width of any intervening wall elements between garage doors. 96 2. Located Behind or In Line with the Front Line of the Building: No attached garage shall be 97 constructed forward of the "front line of the building" (as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title), 98 unless: 99 a. A new garage is constructed to replace an existing garage that is forward of the "front line 100 of the building". In this case, the new garage shall be constructed in a similar location as the garage being 101 replaced with dimensions that do not increase the degree of noncompliance; or 102 b. At least fifty percent (50%) of the existing garages on the block face are located forward of 103 the "front line of the building". 104 Public Draft Project Title: Expanding Housing Options – Amendments to the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-01184 Version: Public Draft Date Prepared: 12/10/2025 Recommended by Planning Commission: To Be Scheduled This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only): • Amends the text of Table 21A.33.020 (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts) by adding “Dwelling, Small Lot” as a permitted use in the R-1, SR-1, and R-2 districts. 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. SECTION 5: Amending the text of Table 21A.33.020 (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted 1 and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts) by adding “Dwelling, Small Lot” as a permitted use in 2 the R-1, SR-1, and R-2 districts, as follows: 3 Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District R-1/12,000 R-1/7,000 R-1/5,000 SR-1 R-2 Dwelling, Small Lot twin home two-family 2. Provided that no more than 2 two-family buildings are located adjacent to one another and no more 4 than 3 such dwellings are located along the same block face (within subdivisions approved after April 12, 5 1995). 6 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: ___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney Public Draft Project Title: Expanding Housing Options – Creation of the Small Lot Dwellings Ordinance Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-01184 Version: Public Draft Date Prepared: 12/10/2025 Recommended by Planning Commission: To Be Scheduled This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only): • Adds new section 21A.36.370 (Zoning: Regulations of General Applicability: General Provisions: Small Lot Dwellings), which establishes zoning standards for Small Lot Dwellings. 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. SECTION 6: Adding new section 21A.36.370 (Zoning: Regulations of General Applicability: General 1 Provisions: Small Lot Dwellings), which establishes zoning standards for Small Lot Dwellings, as 2 follows: 3 21A.36.370: SMALL LOT DWELLINGS: 4 A. Applicability: The provisions in this section apply to all Small Lot Dwellings. Unless specifically 5 stated below, all other applicable provisions in the base zoning district or overlay districts shall apply. 6 B. Small Lot Dwelling Building Type Zoning Standards: The standards of this section shall apply to 7 all Small Lot Dwelling building types. 8 9 Table 21A.36.370.C 10 Building Regulation Single- Family Dwelling Family and Twin- Home Dwelling Multi- Family Dwelling Row House Sideways Row House type 1 2 4 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: ___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney Public Draft Maximum building coverage 60% Maximum principal building footprint2 square feet per dwelling unit 850 square feet per dwelling unit Maximum principal building gross floor area equal to 17 feet in height. 1,200 square feet per dwelling unit if the building is more than 17 feet in height. Required landscape yards1 yards. 1. The minimum yard and landscape yard requirements shall be applied to the perimeter of the 11 development and not to the individual principal buildings within the development. 12 2. If the dwelling units are arranged in a manner where one unit is stacked on top of the other, the 13 maximum footprint of the building shall be 1,200 square feet for each unit that is on the ground 14 floor. 15 C. Small Lot Dwelling Lot Standards: 16 1. Designation of Small Lot Dwelling: 17 a. If a subdivision is required, the final plat shall include a note indicating the utilization of 18 Small Lot Dwellings, specifying the building type permitted and associated regulations. 19 b. If a subdivision is not required, the building permit associated with the construction of the 20 Small Lot Dwellings shall identify the use as a Small Lot Dwelling, specify the Small Lot building type, 21 and indicate that the development will comply with all applicable regulations. 22 2. Lots Without Public Street Frontage: Lots without public street frontage may be created to 23 accommodate Small Lot Dwellings without planned development approval subject to the following 24 standards: 25 a. Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall development as opposed to each individual 26 lot within the development, except for single-family dwelling developments, coverage that shall be 27 calculated for each individual lot. 28 b. A final subdivision plat is required for any development creating new lots without public 29 street frontage. The final plat must document that the new lots have adequate access to a public street by 30 way of easements, a shared driveway, or an alley. 31 D. Small Lot Dwelling Design Standards: 32 1. Arrangement of Dwelling Units: 33 a. Dwelling units may be arranged in any manner within the building. 34 b. Dwelling units may be located on the same lot, on separate lots, or as condominium units. 35 2. Building Entrances: 36 a. All dwelling units with public street frontage shall have a primary entrance on the ground 37 floor of the street-fronting facade of the building with an entry feature as defined in 21A.37.050. 38 3. Attached Garages: 39 a. The width of an attached garage with public street frontage may not exceed 50% of the 40 width of the front facade of the building. The width of the garage is equal to the width of the garage door, 41 Public Draft or in the case of multiple garage doors, the sum of the widths of each garage door plus the width of any 42 intervening wall elements between garage doors. 43 4. Off-Street Parking Location: 44 a. Required off street parking for a unit within the development is permitted on any lot within 45 the development. 46 5. Small Lot Dwellings located within 15 feet of a public alley shall include the following: 47 a. Primary access shall be taken from the alley. 48 b. A 4-foot-wide path from the alley to the entrance of the Small Lot Dwelling shall be 49 provided. If there is a fence between the Small Lot Dwelling and the alley, a gate shall be provided, and 50 the path shall lead to the gate. If the Small Lot Dwelling is located within 15 feet of two or more public 51 alleys, this requirement shall only apply to one of the alleys. 52 c. Exceptions and modifications: 53 1. The planning director or transportation director may approve modifications to the 54 requirements provided that the director determines that the adjustment will not create adverse impacts 55 on pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle safety and that the adjustment is required to accommodate an 56 unusual site feature (such as shape, topography, or access point constraints) and that the need for the 57 adjustment has not been created by the actions of the applicant. 58 2. Small Lot Dwellings located within 15 feet of a public alley may be exempt from the 59 requirements if the alley exists on the recorded plat maps or Atlas Plats of the city but has not been 60 used for vehicular access or is otherwise blocked by encroachments such as, but not limited to, 61 fences, vegetation, or the presence of public utilities. 62 6. Additional Development Standards for Multi-Family Dwelling Building Forms: 63 a. All street-facing building façades shall have a minimum 15% of glass. 64 7. Additional Development Standards for Sideways Row House Building Forms: 65 a. Garage doors are prohibited on the façade of the building that is parallel to, or located 66 along, a public street. 67 b. The ground floor of all street-facing building façades shall have a use other than parking. 68 The ground floor use shall extend a minimum of 10 feet into the building. 69 c. All street-facing building façades shall have a minimum 15% of glass. 70 E. Preservation of a Principal Building: 71 1. Density Bonus: To encourage the preservation of existing structures, a bonus dwelling unit 72 may be granted when an existing principal structure is retained as part of a project that adds at least one 73 additional dwelling unit, pursuant to the following: 74 a. A density bonus may only be requested at the time of filing for a building permit 75 application to add at least one additional unit where that unit meets the minimum lot area requirement. 76 b. Only one bonus unit may be granted for the retention of an existing dwelling. 77 c. A bonus unit may be added within or attached to the existing principal structure or as a 78 separate building provided that all other applicable zoning requirements are met. Bonus units are not 79 subject to minimum lot area or lot coverage requirements. 80 d. The addition of a bonus unit to an existing principal structure does not change the building 81 type of the existing structure. 82 e. Bonus units are exempt from off-street parking requirements. 83 f. No more than 25% of the street facing façade and no more than 50% of the existing 84 principal structure’s exterior walls may be removed; however, architectural elements such as window 85 Public Draft openings and doorways may be modified; dormers may be added; and additions to the rear of the 86 structure are allowed. 87 g. The building permit associated with the construction of the bonus unit shall indicate that 88 this unit was established through the preservation of the existing structure on the site. 89 2. Small Lot Dwelling Regulations Waived: For lots where an existing principal building is 90 retained as part of a Small Lot Dwelling development, the following standards from Table 21A.36.370.C 91 may be waived for the building that is retained: 92 a. Maximum principal building footprint 93 b. Principal building gross square footage 94 c. Maximum lot coverage 95 F. Use Regulations: 96 1. A small lot dwelling shall not be rented as a short term rental as defined in Section 21A.62.040. 97 Public Draft Project Title: Expanding Housing Options – Amendments to the Definitions of Terms Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-01184 Version: Public Draft Date Prepared: 12/10/2025 Recommended by Planning Commission: To Be Scheduled This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only): • Amends the text of section 21A.62.040 (Definitions of Terms) by adding “Dwelling, Small Lot” as a defined term. 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. SECTION 8: Amending the text of section 21A.62.040 (Definitions of Terms) by adding “Dwelling, 1 Small Lot” as a defined term, as follows: 2 DWELLING, SMALL LOT: Any dwelling that has been approved pursuant to the provisions of chapter 3 21A.36.370 of this title. 4 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: ___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney 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:February 17, 2026 RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 2260, 2270, and 2290 East 1300 South PLNPCM2025-00558 The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for parcels at 2260 East, 2270 East, and 2290 East 1300 South in City Council District Six from their current R-1/7,000 (Single-family Residential) zoning designation to MU-3 (Mixed Use 3). The properties are between Foothill Drive and 2300 East. Each has a single-family dwelling currently used as rental housing. Amending the zoning map for the subject properties would result in consistent zoning for all properties bordered by Foothill Drive, 1300 South, and 2300 East. The petitioner submitted concept development plans that include consolidating the lots and constructing a total of 26 two- to three-bedroom for sale residential units consisting of 8 townhomes and 18 condominiums. The proposed plans call for approximately 12 of the units (8 townhomes and 3-4 condominiums) to be constructed on the subject properties and the rest on MU-3 zoned property to the south that is currently used as a surface parking lot as shown in the image below. Under the proposal a minimum of three units, or 10% of the total number of units (whichever is greater) would be offered to buyers at 80% of area median income (AMI) as a community benefit. These units would be constructed within the boundaries of the proposed zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed zoning map amendment during its November 12, 2025 meeting and held a public hearing at which seven people spoke sharing concerns about increased traffic and pedestrian safety, changes to the neighborhood character, and preserving the Donner Trail. Planning staff recommended and the Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council with condition that the applicant enter into a development agreement with the City that includes the following: Item Schedule: Page | 2 Replacement housing to be provided as outlined in 21A.50.050.E A minimum of three housing units, or 10% (whichever is greater) built on the site be offered for sale to those earning at or below 80% AMI. Affordable units on the site shall not be used to count toward eligibility requirements of any future affordable housing zoning incentive applications to the City. The developers are to provide relocation assistance to any tenants displaced by demolition of the existing housing units on the subject properties as specified in 21A.50.050.D. The Commission also suggested that the Council review whether the proposal meets components of Thriving in Place. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if the Affordable Housing Incentives may impact this petition or development potential on the property. Concept site plan showing subject properties outlined in red, and adjacent property not included in the proposed rezone but part of the development outlined in yellow. Image courtesy of applicant and Salt Lake City Planning Division Page | 3 Area zoning map with subject properties in yellow. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Some Council Members may recall a 2024 proposal to rezone the subject properties from R-1/7,000 to CB (Community Business) which is what property to the south was zoned at the time. CB zoning was changed to MU-3 as part of the July 2025 mixed use consolidation. The Council denied the request because it did not provide affordable housing as a community benefit. Adjacent properties to the south and west are zoned MU-3 and include a parking lot, gas station/fast food restaurant, a two-story restaurant and office building, and a three-story hotel. Properties on the north side of 1300 South are zoned R-1/12,000 and include single-family homes. A cemetery zoned OS (Open Space) is on the east side of 2300 East. The Foothill Village shopping center is on the west side of Foothill Drive and is zoned MU-5 (Mixed Use 5). 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 party. 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. Page | 4 KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 7-16 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals and Policies Identified in Adopted Plans Planning staff found that the proposed zoning map amendment supports several initiatives in Plan Salt Lake, East Bench Master Plan, Housing SLC and Thriving in Place. It has the potential to increase moderate-density housing in a neighborhood with existing infrastructure. Combining the parcels with adjacent parcels already zoned MU-3 would allow cohesive development for the block and vehicular access from a key intersection on Foothill Drive. Consideration 2 – Community Benefit Planning staff believes the proposed community benefit of 10% of units being offered to those earning 80% AMI would provide affordable homeownership opportunities near several amenities and an arterial transportation corridor. Planning also noted the proposal would provide medium density housing options for various life stages and incomes in a predominantly single-family housing area. Consideration 3 – Neighborhood Impacts. Planning received input from neighbors related to concerns with parking and traffic, neighborhood compatibility and character. These are similar to comments received at the Planning Commission public hearing and briefly discussed below. Parking and Traffic The site is served by three streets: Foothill Drive (arterial), 1300 South (collector) and 2300 East (local street). Arterial streets are designed for heavy traffic volume; collectors have lower volume and speeds than arterials and serve as connections between those and local streets, which are lower volume and provide direct access to and from properties located on them. Planning staff noted that collector streets with easy access to arterials, as is the case with the subject properties, “are ideal locations for additional density or commercial businesses.” The subject properties are located close to Foothill Drive which will help reduce traffic from the site impacting the surrounding neighborhood. A traffic study submitted by the applicant supports this. City Transportation staff reviewed the study and agreed that traffic generated by the proposed development will not significantly impact surrounding roadways. Parking for the proposed development would need to be on site. It would be within the Neighborhood Center Context which is “for small- or moderate-scale shopping, gathering, or activity spaces often within or adjacent to General Context (which includes single-family zones), but that are not necessarily well served by transit. The category includes zoning districts with pedestrian-scale development patterns, building forms, and amenities.” (21A.44.040.B.2 Salt Lake City code) Building Height Buildings in the current R-1/7,000 zone and R-1/12,000 zone across 1300 South can be up to 28 feet tall. The proposed MU-3 zone allows 35-foot-tall buildings, with an additional five feet through design review. Affordable housing incentives allow an added story. MU-3 zoning would allow buildings of similar height to others currently or potentially developed on the block. Planning noted the separation between the subject properties and R-1/12,000 properties to the north provided by 1300 South would help minimize Page | 5 impact. Neighborhood Character DEVELOPENT STANDARDS COMPARISON R-1/7,000 (Current)MU-3 (Proposed) Maximum Building Height 28 feet for pitched roofs or average of block face. 20 feet for flat roofs. 20-foot maximum exterior wall height adjacent to interior side yards. Urban house, Two-family, Cottage: 35 feet. Row house: 35 feet Multi-family residential, Vertical mixed use, Storefront: 35 feet (additional five feet through design review). Front/Corner Side Yard Setbacks All uses: average of buildings on block face or 20 feet where none exist. (All required front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards in conformance with the requirements of chapter 21A.48.) Urban House, Two-Family Dwelling and Cottage: Minimum 5 feet Row House: Minimum 5 feet Multifamily Residential, Vertical Mixed Use, and Storefront: Minimum 5 feet Exception: Roof coverings for outdoor dining may encroach into the required setback (Provided yards exceeding the minimum requirement shall be maintained as landscape yards, subject to 21A.48.060.C) Interior Side Yard Setbacks All Uses: Corner Lots: Minimum 6 feet Interior Lots: Minimum 6 feet on one side, 10 feet on the other. Urban House, Two-Family Dwelling and Cottage: Min. 4 feet Row House: Min. 4 feet Multifamily Residential, Vertical Mixed Use, and Storefront: No minimum. Rear Yard Setback All Uses: Minimum 25 feet Urban House, Two-Family Dwelling and Cottage: Minimum 10 feet Row House: Minimum 10 feet Multifamily Residential, Vertical Mixed Use, and Storefront: No minimum. Buffer Yard N/A 10-foot-wide landscape buffer required when abutting single and two family, foothill and special development residential zoning districts. Page | 6 Lot Size Municipal Services, open space, trails, utility lines: No minimum required. Places of worship less than 4 acres in size: Minimum 12,000 square feet. All other permitted and conditional uses: Minimum 7,000 square feet. Urban House, Two-Family Dwelling and Cottage: No minimum required Row House: No minimum required Multifamily Residential, Vertical Mixed Use, and Storefront: No minimum required Lot Width Municipal Services, open space, trails, utility lines: No minimum required. Places of worship less than 4 acres in size: Minimum 80 feet All other permitted and conditional uses: Minimum 50 feet All building forms: No minimum required. Maximum lot width of 110 feet. This standard may be modified through the Design Review process (21A.59) or Planned Development process (21A.55) subject to Planning Commission review and approval. Building Size Limits N/A All building forms: Maximum of 7,500 square feet of floor area on the first floor. Maximum of 15,000 square feet of floor area overall. Buildings in excess of 7,500 square feet of floor area on the first floor or in excess of 15,000 gross square feet of floor area overall shall only be allowed through the design review process. Includes additions that bring the floor area above the maximum thresholds. An unfinished basement used only for storage or parking shall be allowed in addition to the total square footage. Building Form Separation N/A Urban House, Two-Family Dwelling and Cottage: 6 foot separation required when multiple building forms are located on a single lot. Row House: 6 foot separation required when multiple building forms are located on a single lot. Multifamily Residential, Vertical Mixed Use, and Storefront: N/A Open Space Area N/A All building forms: Minimum of 10% of lot area. May include landscape yards, patios, dining areas, common balconies, rooftop gardens, and other similar outdoor living spaces. • A minimum of 20% of open space area shall include vegetation. • At lease one open space area shall have a minimum dimension of 15 feet by 15 feet. • Open space areas greater than 500 square feet are required to include one Page | 7 usable element as specified in 21A.25.010.D Mid-Block Walkway N/A All building forms: Midblock walkway required when identified in applicable City adopted plan. Compatibility N/A All building forms: Proposals subject to design review: The proposed height and width of new buildings and additions shall be visually compatible with buildings found on the block face. Vehicular Access N/A Multifamily Residential, Vertical Mixed Use, and Storefront: If subject to design review: New buildings and additions shall provide a continuous street wall of buildings with minimal breaks for vehicle access. Façade Design N/A Multifamily Residential, Vertical Mixed Use, and Storefront: If subject to design review: Façade treatments shall be used to break up the mass of larger buildings, so they appear to be multiple, smaller-scale buildings. Varied rooflines, varied facade planes, upper story step backs, or lower building heights for portions of buildings next to zoning districts with a maximum height of 30 feet or less may be used to reduce the apparent size of the building. Stepbacks N/A Multifamily Residential, Vertical Mixed Use, and Storefront: If subject to design review: When abutting single-story development or a public street the planning commission may require that any story above the ground story be stepped back from the building foundation at grade to address compatibility issues with the other buildings on the block face and/or uses. Off-Street Parking and Loading (21A.44.040.A) Parking Context: General Single Family Detached: Minimum 2 spaces per dwelling unit (DU) Other Uses: Parking requirements vary depending on use as identified in 21A.44.040.A. Parking Context: Neighborhood Center Single Family Attached/Detached: Minimum: 2 spaces per DU Maximum: 4 spaces per DU Twin Home: Minimum 1 space per DU Maximum: 4 spaces per DU Two-family: Minimum 1 space per DU Maximum: 4 spaces per DU Multifamily: Minimum: Studio and 1+ bedrooms: 1 space per DU Page | 8 Maximum: Studio & 1 Bedroom: 2 spaces per DU 2+ bedrooms: 3 spaces per DU Other Uses: Parking requirements vary depending on use as identified in 21A.44.040.A. Bike Parking: 1 per 4 DU MU-3 Applicable Design Standards (Table 21A.373060.B) Note: R-1/7,000 zone is not subject to design standards Requirement Urban House, Two- Family Dwelling and Cottage Rowhouse Multi-Family Residential, Vertical Mixed Use, and Storefront Ground Floor Use (21A.37.050.A) % of ground-floor façade length (excluding parking access) must consist of a use other than parking must occupy at least: 75%75%75% Building Materials, ground floor (21A.37.050.B.1) % of street-facing facades must be clad in durable materials (excluding doors and windows) N/A 50 70 Building Materials, upper floors (21A.37.050.B.2) % of street-facing facades must be clad in durable materials (excluding doors and windows) N/A 50 70 Glass: ground floor (21A.37.050.C.1) % of street-facing façades must have transparent glass N/A 15 15 Glass: upper floor (21A.37.050.C2) % of street-facing façades must have transparent glass N/A 15 15 Reflective Glass (21A.37.050.C3) Maximum percentage of reflective glass, which creates a mirror like appearance N/A 0 0 Building Entrances (21A.37.050.D) X (Subject to Requirement)X Every 40 feet Page | 9 A least one pedestrian building entrance provided Page | 9 along each street facing façade. At least one pedestrian building entrance required for residential units along the street. Each street facing entrance shall include a permitted entry feature. Blank Wall Maximum Length (21A.37.050.E) N/A 15 15 Maximum Length of Street- facing Façade (21A.37.050.F) N/A 110 110 Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) All proposed exterior lighting must be shielded and directed downward. X X X Lighting: Parking Lot (21A.37.050.I) All lighting for parking lots cannot exceed 16 feet in height and must be directed downward when adjacent to a residential zoning district. X X X Screening of Mechanical Equipment (21A.37.050.J) All mechanical equipment must be screened from view. X X X Screening of Service Areas (21A.37.050.K) Screened from public view. X X X Parking Garages or Structures (21A.50.050.L) Parking garages and structures subject to specific design requirements. N/A N/A X Public Improvements (21A.50.050.M) Subject to minimum sidewalk width requirements (6 feet), streetlighting and applicable public right of way improvements. X X Page | 10 Analysis of Standards Attachment E (pages 67-71) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with and helps implement the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent and nearby properties due to the change in development potential and allowed uses that do not currently to the property. Minimal impact Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Complies The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Some City public facilities and services may need to be upgraded and improved if the density changes or if land use changes to a more intense use. 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. Adequate transportation facilities to support additional growth. 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. Site has easy access to these amenities without reliance 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. Public safety resources are adequate. Page | 11 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. Potential loss of three dwelling units and displacement of tenants. Petitioner will work with tenants and provide relocation assistance. 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. N/A No businesses are located on the properties. The community benefits that would result from the proposed map amendment as identifies in 21A.50.050.C 10% of units will be available to those earning 80% AMI. City Department Review During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the proposal but stated additional review and permits would be required if the property is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • May 30, 2025 – Petition for zoning map amendment accepted by Planning Division. • June 6, 2025 – Petition assigned to Brooke Olson, Senior Planner. • July 9, 2025 – o Notice sent to East Bench Community Council. o Early notification sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject properties. o Proposal posted for an online open house. • July 16, 2025 – Early notification posted on the properties by the applicant. • August 21, 2025 – Applicant presented at the East Bench Community Council meeting. • August 23, 2025 – 45-day comment period ended. • October 8, 2025 – MU zoning consolidation went into effect. This changed the adjacent property and the applicant’s request to rezone the subject properties from CB (Community Business) to MU-3. • October 29, 2025 – o Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing posted and mailed to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject properties. o Notice of public hearing posted on City and State websites and emailed to listserv accounts. • November 1, 2025 – Planning Commission public hearing notice posted on the property by the applicant. Page | 12 • November 12, 2025 – Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation, with conditions outlined above, to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. • November 21, 2025 – Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s Office. • January 12, 2025 – Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • January 22, 2026 – Transmittal received in City Council Office. Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning City Council–February 17, 2026 PLNPCM2025-00558 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT// 2260, 2270,& 2290 E 1300 S Salt Lake City //Planning Division ZONING MAP AMENDMENT •Existing Zone: R-1-7000 •Proposed Zone: MU-3 •Intent: Portion of 26-unit residential development •Community Benefit: 10% units affordable for buyer at 80% AMI RECOMMENDATION Approval with conditions. REQUEST Vicinity Map Salt Lake City // Planning Division •Develop in conjunction with adjacent property •12 units approx. 8 townhomes, 3-4 condos on subject properties •Unit Mix: 2-3 bedrooms •Renderings are conceptual OVERVIEW Vicinity Map Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning SUBJECT PROPERTIES 2260 E 1300 S 2270 E 1300 S 2290 E 1300 S Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning CONTEXT Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning ZONING MAP AMENDMENT CHAPTER 21A.50.050. •Consistency with City goals/policies •Purpose of the zoning ordinance •Proximity of amenities •Potential displacement of occupants •Impacts on adjacent properties & city services •Community benefit STANDARDS OF APPROVAL Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Purpose: Provide 3-4 story moderately scaled development adjacent to low-density residential Uses: Mix of residential & commercial Building Forms: Range of residential, storefront and mixed use Height: Max. 35, additional 5 FT subject to Design Review Setback, open space and coverage: More permissible in comparison to low density residential Design Standards: Facilitate development of smaller scale structures – Ex. Max Lot width, building length & size. MU-3 ZONE OVERVIEW Salt Lake City // Planning Division East Bench Community Master Plan Future Land Use Area: Community Node & Fringe of Neighborhoods •Variety of medium density housing types & neighborhood serving uses •Need for mix of housing choices Citywide Plans •Plan SLC, Housing SLC & Thriving In Place •Proposal consistent with community and citywide plans with conditions PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Vicinity Map Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning •Proposed: 10% of new for sale housing units to those with incomes at 80% AMI •Unit Mix: Approx. 2-3 bedrooms* •Finding: Benefit is proportionate to the development potential of the properties. •Details regarding the community benefit and affordable unit mix finalized by Council prior to decision •Secured through a development agreement COMMUNITY BENEFIT Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 21A.50.050.E. •Each demolished residential dwelling unit on the property shall be replaced. The replacement unit shall have the same number of bedrooms. In addition, applicant shall propose one option: •E.1: Replacement unit be rented at the same amount as the demolished unit with no more than a 3% annual increase on the rental rate for 20 years. •E.2: The applicant may propose a payment to the city’s housing fund in lieu of rental restriction on the new unit. •Council may waive or modify requirements DEMOLISHED UNIT REPLACEMENT Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 21A.50.050.D: Displaced Tenants Resulting from Demolition of Housing Council may require the owner to provide tenant relocation assistance: a)Moving expenses b)Application fees for replacement housing c)Deposits for replacement housing d)Monthly rental assistance: Cost different between rent of demoed unit and comparable unit - $7,200 Max. e)Owner may relocated displace tenant into another unit at the same rental rate •Council may waive or modify requirements TENANT DISPLACEMENT Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 1. Council review components of Thriving in Place to ensure they are represented. 2. Development Agreement Recommended Provisions: a)Each demolished residential dwelling unit shall be replaced in accordance with 21A.50.050.E. b)A minimum of 3 housing units, or 10% of all housing units (whichever is greater) constructed within the boundaries of the zoning map amendment, shall be affordable homeownership units for households earning at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI). The affordable units shall be comparable to the market rate units in terms of unit size, and number of bedrooms. c)The applicant shall not use the proposed community benefit of providing affordable units for the zoning amendment to count toward the eligibility requirements for any future Affordable Housing Zoning Incentives applications to the City. d)The developer shall provide tenant relocation assistance to tenants displaced by the demolition of the residential dwelling units on the subject properties as specified in subsection 21A.50.050.D. RECOMMENDATION Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 1) Each demolished residential dwelling unit shall be replaced 21A.50.050.E. •Number of bedrooms required for each replacement unit •If option E.1 rental restriction on replacement unit, or E.2 payment to the city in lieu of rental restriction to city’s housing fund 2) The affordable units shall be comparable to the market rate units. •Number of bedrooms required for each affordable unit 3) The developer shall provide tenant relocation assistance. •If any of the requirements were to be modified or waived COUNCIL CONSIDERATIONS Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Brooke Olson// Senior Planner Brooke.Olson@slc.gov Announcing a New Proposed Community for St Marys & Foothill Neighbors THE RESIDENCES AT FOOTHILL A Neighborhood Community At The Entrance of St. Marys & Foothill HOMES FOR EASTBENCH LIVING J • DEVELOPMENT method studio The Residences At Foothill N 1300 S 266’ Fo o t h i l l D r PROPOSED SITE PLAN 8 PROPOSED TOWNHOMES GARAGE ENTRY GARAGE ENTRY RESIDENT AMENITIES MID-BLOCK WALK LANDSCAPED AREAS MAIN ENTRY 20 PROPOSED CONDOMINIUMS (3 affordable) 20 Condominiums 8 Townhomes 23 0 0 E methodstudio Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 1 Northeast Corner View Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 2 Entrance on 2300 East Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 3 Street side of 2300 East Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 4 Street side of 2300 East Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 5 Corner of 1300S and 2300E Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 6 Northwest Corner Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 7 North Elevation East Elevation Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 8 South Elevation West Elevation Dan Dugan Salt Lake City Councilman | District 6 Anthony Wright Eastbench Community Council Chair COMMUNITY LEADERS WE HAVE MET The J Development team has taken the initiative to meet with Councilman Dan Dugan and Eastbench Council Chair, Anthony Wright. Both offered feedback and suggestions for the development effort. Mr. Dugan expressed support for affordable housing, while Mr. Wright suggested a focus on amenities and encouraged improvement to the entrance of St Marys neighborhood. COMMUNITY LEADERS WE HAVE MET The J Development team also met with the 1300 South Capital Improvement Program leaders, Jon Lear, Laura Gaylord, and James Webster. We are excited to help support this community effort to improve the entrance and historical landmarks of the Foothill and St. Marys neighborhood. C O MMUNITYBENEFITS Project Highlights •Project will provide 26 new homes for home ownership and support the city's goal of "Housing SLC" plan. •Project will provide affordable housing for home ownership and the city's goal of 2,000 affordable units. •Project will work closely with residents and organizers of the CIP plan to improve green scape, paths, and sidewalks in front of project. •Project will deliver an identity and entrance with monument signs for the community. THE COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY CHANGE HOMES... NOT ZIP CODES •The historic St. Marys neighborhood is filled with beautiful estate homesites...occupied by families for generations. •How do we keep the movement of home ownership in Salt Lake for the next generation? •When the estate becomes too much maintenance and headache for mom and dad... where do they go to downsize while remaining in the neighborhood near family and f riends? •Where can families and all find new, easy- living, and accessible homes East of Foothill Drive? Envision It. Build It. We Look Forward To Working Together on The Residences at Foothill! WWW.JDEVUTAH.COM 801.382.8866 | info@jdevutah.com SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 01/13/2026 Date Sent to Council: 01/22/2026 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Olson, Brooke E-mail brooke.olson@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 01/21/2026 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 01/22/2026 Subject: Zoning Map Amendment - 2260, 2270, and 2290 E 1300 S Additional Staff Contact:Presenters/Staff Table Brooke Olson, brooke.olson@slc.gov Amy Thompson, amy.thompson@slc.gov Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval for the request, with conditions. 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 City Council public hearing required for zoning map amendments per City Code 21A.50 Public Process Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council. Next Steps: Once transmitted to the Council Office, the City Council will schedule a briefing and public hearing regarding the matter. 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: J-Development, LLC property owner representative, is requesting approval of a zoning map amendment petition for three properties located at approximately 2260, 2270, and 2290 E 1300 S. The proposal is to rezone the properties from R-1-7000, Single Family Residential to MU-3, Mixed Use 3 District. Each property is currently occupied by a single-family dwelling. The MU-3 district allows for greater density, height and a wider range of uses than permitted in the R-1- 7000 zoning district. If the zoning map amendment is approved, the applicant intends to apply for a lot consolidation to combine the subject properties with the property to the south which is zoned MU-3 and construct a residential development consisting of approximately 26 residential units including 8 townhomes and 18 condominiums. Approximately 12 of the units would be constructed on the subject properties including the 8 townhome units and 3-4 condominium units. 10% of the units are proposed to be set aside as affordable units for buyers who meet 80% of the Area Medium Income (AMI) as the proposed community benefit. The subject properties are located in the boundaries of the East Bench Community Master Plan within a “Community Node” and located on the fringe of the “Neighborhoods” future land use area where a variety of medium density housing types and a mix of neighborhood serving uses are appropriate. COUNCIL CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed community benefit is intended to provide housing that aligns with the general plan by dedicating 10% of the new for sale housing units to those with incomes at 80% of the AMI. The applicant Current Zoning Map anticipates both the market rate and affordable unit mix would consist of 2-3 bedroom units. The applicant has also been coordinating with a community group that has a Capitol Improvement Program (CIP) application in for review regarding public right of way improvements along 1300 S including along the subject property frontages. The applicant is considering including public right of way improvements in addition to the community benefit of providing affordable for sell housing units during the City Council review of the petition. Details regarding the community benefit requirements, tenant relocation assistance and unit replacement will need to be determined as part of the development agreement. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Early Notification – On July 9, 2025, notice of the proposal was mailed to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the property. The East Bench Community Council a was sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations. Staff and the applicant attended the August 21, 2025, community council meeting. An online open house has been posted on the Planning Division’s website since July 2025. • Planning Commission Meeting – The petition was heard by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on November 12, 2025. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval for the request, with the following conditions of approval: 1) Council review the components of Thriving in Place to ensure they are all represented in the potential rezone. 2) The following provisions be incorporated into a development agreement for the zoning map amendment: a. Each demolished residential dwelling unit shall be replaced in accordance with 21A.50.050.E. b. A minimum of 3 housing units, or 10% of all housing units (whichever is greater) constructed within the boundaries of the zoning map amendment, shall be affordable homeownership units for households earning at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI). The affordable units shall be comparable to the market rate units in terms of unit size, and number of bedrooms. c. The applicant shall not use the proposed community benefit of providing affordable units for the zoning amendment to count toward the eligibility requirements for any future Affordable Housing Zoning Incentives applications to the City. d. The developer shall provide tenant relocation assistance to tenants displaced by the demolition of the residential dwelling units on the subject properties as specified in subsection 21A.50.050.D. The full public meeting can be viewed using this link starting at 21.32. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of November 12, 2025 b) PC Minutes of November 12, 2025 c) PC Staff Report of November 12, 2025 EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Original Petition 4. Mailing List 5. Ordinance This page has intentionally been left blank EXHIBITS: 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 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 PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2025-00558 May 3, 2025 Application for a Zoning Map Amendment reviewed for pre-screen. May 30, 2025 Application for a Zoning Map Amendment was accepted. June 6, 2025 Petition PLNPCM2025-00558 was assigned to Brooke Olson, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. July 9, 2025 Notice was sent to the East Bench 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. July 16, 2025 An Early Notification sign was posted on the properties by the applicant. August 21, 2025 The applicant presented their proposal at the Central City Community Council meeting August 23, 2025 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. October 8, 2025 The MU zoning consolidation went into effect. This changed the existing zoning of the subject property, and the applicant’s request from CB (Community Business) to MU-3. October 29, 2025 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. November 1, 2025 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property by the applicant. November 6, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report was posted. November 12, 2025 Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed map amendment. November 21, 2025 Requested Final Draft of Ordinance from Attorney’s Office January 12, 2025 Final Draft of Ordinance received from Attorney’s Office 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 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 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2025-00558 . J-Development, LLC property owner representative, is requesting approval of a zoning map amendment petition for the properties at approximately 2260, 2270, and 2290 E 1300 S. The proposal is to rezone the properties from R-1-7000, Single Family Residential to MU-3, Mixed Use District 3. The subject properties contain existing single-family dwellings. The proposed rezone is intended to allow for a portion of a 26-unit residential development, which includes 8 townhomes and 18 condominiums. 10% of the units are proposed to be set aside as affordable units for buyers who meet 80% of the Area Medium Income (AMI) as the proposed community benefit. 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.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at 801.535.7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Brooke Olson at 801-535-7118 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or by e-mail at brooke.olson@slc.gov. The application details can be accessed at https://www.slc.gov/planning/2025/07/08/openhouse2025-00558/ . The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slc.gov, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com October 15, 2025 RE: J Development Rezone Application Questions (Revised) RE: 2260, 2270, 2290 East 1300 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 Submittal Requirements Checklist 1. A statement declaring the purpose and justification for the proposed amendment. Our rezone request stems from the desire to complete the continuity and overall integration of our property with the recent surrounding MU-3 zone adjustments by Salt Lake City. This rezone from R-1-7000 to MU-3 will provide Salt Lake City, the Foothill & St. Mary neighborhood residents, and our property, the cohesiveness for needed housing and retail patrons. This amendment will complement the aging neighborhood housing demands while providing retail support for ongoing upgrades to the nearby Foothill Village Community. 2. 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. The petition rezone request stems from the desire to provide future housing options for the immediate Foothill and St Mary’s neighborhoods. This housing focused, community concept, would include approximately 28 total condominium and brownstone townhome units. Our vision is to dedicate ten percent (10%) units for affordable buyers who meet the 80% AMI requirements of the surrounding area. This threshold meets the required city ordinance of providing 10% of total units at 80% AMI for affordable purchase. Timing of the development is early and conceptual with guidance from Salt Lake City’s planning team. We have met with area Councilman, Dan Dugan, neighbors, and the East bench Community Council organization. We are arranging other leadership meetings with other neighbors and business leaders for feedback and direction. We are currently engaging nearby community and neighborhood residents for comment. This project will maintain all building standards and continuity contained in Salt Lake City’s newly reformed MU-3 zoning code. 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com Visual renderings and conceptual site plans have and will be provided to planners and city leadership as requested. 3. 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. The request is focused on the following (3) parcels which are currently zoned, R -1-7000. The request is to amend and provide continuity with these parcels to the MU-3 zone, so that they fully integrate with the larger surrounding land block. Parcel: 16-10-379-004 Parcel: 16-10-379-005 Parcel: 16-10-379-006 4. 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. N/A. The request is to amend the zoning ordinance only in accordance with Salt Lake City newly adopted MU-3 zoning code and ordinance. Community Benefit 5. 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.C for a list of community benefits that can be proposed. The project currently titled, The Residences at Foothill, provides exceptional community benefits for the surrounding commercial and residential area, including the following and specifically: A. The amendment will provide the ability for the project to construct ~28 new, for sale, units/homesites for the area. 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com B. Ten percent (10%) of the units will be dedicated for 80% AMI market area for affordability. C. An ancillary benefit will expand the uses of eliminating an underutilized parking lot and while providing the community increased tax base and retail support to a newly renovated nearby Foothill Village Shopping Center. D. A contribution to the fulfillment of Salt Lake City’s goals of providing over 10,000 new units and 2,000 new affordable units within the area. E. An additional community benefit will be to improve the sidewalk and walkability of 1300 South and 2300 East with improved sidewalks and park strips, with the potential to add speed bumps to mitigate speeding. F. Enhanced landscaping along 1300 South and 2300 East will provide a beautiful gateway to Saint Mary’s. 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com October 14, 2025 Brooke Olsen, AICP Principal Planner Planning Division | Salt Lake City Corp. RE: Petition Number: PLNPCM2025-00558 To Whom It May Concern: Please find below additional context, as requested by Principal Planner, Brooke Olsen, explaining the following renderings and rezone petition PLNPCM2025-00558 questions: i. Please specify the anticipated impact the existing land uses and occupants of the land subject to the proposal in the written general description. “The existing subject parcels contain three older single-family houses. Our future proposal replaces the adjacent underutilized parking lot as defined with structured underground and secure parking stalls for residents’ use while replacing the existing houses with an overall community of 28 total residential units…exceeding the lost homes replacement and adding a net of 25 new, for sale, homes for the neighborhood. Proposed housing unit breakdowns are as follows: 8 market-rate townhouses and 20 stacked condominiums and ten percent (10%) affordable units based on 80% area AMI within the project (community benefit), as well as resident amenities such as a gym, club room, outdoor patios, and enhanced landscaped yards and open space. Our proposal maintains the existing number of parking stalls (transferring underground) and adds 28 for-sale dwelling units. These preliminary numbers and unit counts are based on our good faith effort to comply with the nuanced and newly released MU-3 zoning code and regulations. City planning has advised us best of their ability…realizing additional regulations and ordinances may need to be understood and applied with the new zoning code.” ii. Please see following attached visual renderings and basic site plan for future consideration. *Conceptual and preliminary. # # # Petitioner Contact: Matt Knight, Joe Johnsen, J Development, Millcreek UT. matt@jdevutah.com Site Conditions The Residences At Foothill N 1300 S Fo o t h i l l D r EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 3 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES MU-3 R-1-7000 23 0 0 E EXISTING SURFACE PARKING methodstudio The Residences At Foothill N 1300 S 266’ Fo o t h i l l D r PROPOSED SITE PLAN 8 PROPOSED TOWNHOMES GARAGE ENTRY GARAGE ENTRY RESIDENT AMENITIES MID-BLOCK WALK LANDSCAPED AREAS MAIN ENTRY 20 PROPOSED CONDOMINIUMS (1 0 % affordable) 20 Condominiums 8 Townhomes 23 0 0 E methodstudio 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com October 14, 2025 Brooke Olson, AICP Senior Planner Salt Lake City Corporation RE: Standards for General Amendments Insights J Development Rezone application: 2260, 2270, 2290 East 1300 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Hello Brooke, As requested, please find the following insights into our rezone petition specifically addressing sections “B” and “C” found in Salt Lake City’s Standards for General Amendments. SECTION B – Standards for General Amendments 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; a. The proposed rezone amendment for the subject properties is consistent with the entire block between 2300 E and Foothill Blvd. This amendment will enhance the existing residential uses of the three subject properties by providing increased density in an appropriate location. Our clear objective is taking 3 dwelling units and turn them into 8 dwelling units. The current housing situation is critical for Utahns and Salt Lake City’s overall housing plans goals for 2023-2027 to provide 10,000 new units and 2,000 affordable units throughout the city is a massive effort. Identifying locations such as this are key to the city’s redevelopment efforts. This location is an appropriate designated area to adjust and make consistent for housing as it is surrounded by the newly adopted MU-3 zone. Our proposal will help implement the purposes and goals of the city to provide critical housing in an approved and accepted zoning district which encourages multi-family housing options. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the applicable purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com a. The proposed rezone amendment is appropriate and furthers the applicable purpose of the newly adopted zoning ordinance, MU-3, adjacent to the subject properties. Per the MU-3 zoning ordinance specification sheet, it states, “…the goal of these residential building forms is to promote the efficient use of space….while providing a variety of housing options.” *MU -3 Informational Spec Sheet (v4.24.25) – Salt Lake City. 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; a. The proposed rezone amendment will enhance nearby existing residential properties values by creating a new, updated, and modern styled multifamily community. This property will improve efficiencies, infrastructure, safety, and build qualities from the 1940’s era to modern date. This location is highly visible and considered by locals the “gateway” to the St Mary’s neighborhood. This visual and functional neighborhood improvement will increase value and functionality for all approaching and utilizing this critical MU -3 designated property. By updating the zoning for these three subject properties, it establishes consistency and unity with the surrounding island block which is currently zoned MU-3. There is added benefits of inclusion and use if these three outlying lots are merged as one with the newly updated MU-3 zoning. 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 a. The proposed rezone amendment is consistent with the current and future anticipated overlay zoning districts and in line with those standards. 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. a. The proposed rezone amendment has been preliminarily reviewed by various utility and engineering departments with Salt Lake City. Additional public utility correspondence has been initiated by the petitioner for serviceability and feasibility. There have been no immediate concerns for servicing or utility connections from city departments to date. 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com 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. a. The proposed rezone amendment is under review and will have an independent traffic study analysis and report prior to planning commission and city council meetings. Preliminary review(s) by Salt Lake City transportation departments , we assume, will be reviewed and completed in a timely manner prior to such meetings, providing additional insights. 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. a. The proposed rezone amendment and future community will provide various connecting sidewalks, open space, and gathering areas for future residents. All proposed areas are accessible without vehicle use. Proximity to critical services such as shopping, dining, and entertainment at Foothill Village is accessible by pedestrian walking. Proximity to major corridor, Foothill Drive, encourages public transit use to employment hubs such as the University of Utah and Hospital networks. 8. The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. a. The proposed rezone amendment will have minor to limited impact to public safety resources as a private, secure, and professionally maintained community with the added benefit of 28 new homes and living units. Salt Lake City Police Departments initial review of the proposal yielded no concerns with the addition. 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. a. The proposed rezone amendment will enhance the existing residential use of the three subject properties by providing increased density and new, for sale, housing units critical for Utahns and Salt Lake City’s overall housing plans to provide 10,000 new units and 2,000 affordable units in the short term. Currently, the three subject properties are rental homes which have various renters and tenants occupying. The new townhome community will replace these older outdated homes (built in the 19 40s) with the latest architecture, safety and technology features, and with improved infrastructure to support home ownership. The net effect of the proposal is to provide updated housing options for the existing tenants and encourage home ownership in the same location. 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com In addition, the proposal aims to provide needed for -sale housing options on the East Bench which will encourage and serve various demographic and economic profiles in the area…including, but not limited to, empty-nester active-adults, working adults and families, and those seeking affordable housing options. 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. a. This is not applicable with this rezone petition. 11. The community benefits that would result from the proposed map amendment, as identified in Section 21A.50.050. a. The proposed rezone amendment will provide exceptional community benefits for the surrounding commercial and residential area, including, but not limited, to the following researched needs specifically: i. The amendment will provide the ability for the project to construct much needed for sale housing units for the Salt Lake East Bench community. The proposed project is to construct ~28 new, for sale, condominium and townhome units which would provide homeowner opportunities on the East Bench for a wide range of demographics. It will also provide opportunities for current residents in the area who desire to remain in the area to move from larger estate homes and open inventory for move -up families. This project aligns with the Governor’s mandate to increase housing options in appropriate areas for Utahns. ii. This location aligns perfectly for new multifamily product type in conjunction with the recently adopted MU-3 zoning by Salt Lake City Corporation. The rezone will bring consistency to the entire island between 2300 E and Foothill Drive. iii. Affordability component. 10% of the units will be dedicated for 80% AMI for area affordability. Critical to accommodate Utah’s housing market. iv. This amendment will help address a HUGE gap in the housing market for older senior neighbors residing in the St. Mary’s neighborhood who want to downsize from generational single -family homes but want to remain in their communities. This product type will allow them to move freeing up homes for families and younger professionals to move to the East Bench. v. An ancillary benefit will expand the uses of eliminating an underutilized parking lot and while providing the community increased tax base and retail support to a newly renovated nearby Foothill Village Shopping Center. vi. An additional community benefit will be to improve the sidewalk and walkability of 1300 S and 2300 E with improved sidewalks and park strips, with the potential to add speed bumps to mitigate speeding on 1300 S. vii. Enhanced landscape along 1300 S and 2300 E will provide a beautiful gateway to Saint Mary’s. 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com viii. These condo units will provide housing opportunities for families looking to relocate aging parents to keep them close to their communities. ix. Underground, secured parking encouraging parking off streets. SECTION C – Standards for General Amendments 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; The proposed rezone amendment will provide exceptional community benefits for the surrounding commercial and residential area, including, but not limited, to the following researched specifically: i. The amendment will provide the ability for the project to construct ~28 new, for sale, and affordable units/homesites for the area. This petition ultimately encourages primary home ownership and management. This project aligns with the State of Utah mandate to increase new housing options in appropriate areas for Utahns. ii. Location aligns perfectly for new multifamily product types, uses, and availability in conjunction with the recently adopted MU-3 zoning by Salt Lake City Corporation. iii. Ten percent (10%) of units will be dedicated for 80% AMI for area affordability. Critical to accommodate Utah’s housing market demands. iv. Our team has researched and believes this amendment will provide needed housing options for older senior neighbors residing in the St. Mary’s neighborhood who want to downsize from generational single - family homes, while remaining near friends and neighbor s. This will “free-up” much needed housing inventory in St Mary’s for younger and move-up ready families and buyers. j. Providing commercial space for local businesses or charitable organizations; 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com a. This is not applicable with this rezone petition. k. Providing a dedication of public open space; a. The amendment would provide improved, landscaped, interior and exterior open space and enhanced landscaping to the subject properties on both the private and public right of ways. Park strip and common areas will be enhanced with Urban Forestry planting direction. l. 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; a. This is not applicable with this rezone petition. m. Preserving historic structures not otherwise protected; a. This is not applicable with this rezone petition. n. Expanding public infrastructure that expands capacity for future development. a. This is subject to Salt Lake City’s engineering and public works departments which ownership recognizes and will be subject to within good faith and reason. 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; a. This is considered and will be adopted within the community proposal based on city codes and ordinances. b. The percentage of space allocated to commercial use compared to the total ground floor area that could be developed on the site; a. This is not applicable with this rezone petition. c. The size of the public open space compared to the total developable area 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com of the lot, exclusive of setbacks, required landscaped yards, and any open space requirement of the proposed zoning district; a. This is noted by the petitioner and has/will be met based on city codes and ordinances. d. The relative size and environmental value of any land that is to be dedicated; a. This is not applicable with this rezone petition. e. The historic significance of the structures proposed to be preserved; a. This is not applicable with this rezone petition. 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; a. This is noted by the petitioner. g. The input received related to the community benefit during the 45 -day engagement period; a. This is noted by the petitioner. h. Policies in the general plan that support the proposed community benefit. a. This is noted by the petitioner. 3. The community benefit shall be subject to public input as part of the required 45 - day public input period. a. This is noted by the petitioner. 4. The planning commission may make a recommendation to the city council regarding accepting the proposed public benefit. a. This is noted by the petitioner. 3816 S. Highland Drive, Suite 101 Millcreek, Utah 84106 jdevutah.com 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. a. This is noted by the petitioner. 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. a. This is noted by the petitioner. 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 f ines identified in Section 21A.20.040. a. This is noted by the petitioner. # # # Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 1 Northeast Corner View Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 2 Entrance on 2300 East Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 3 Street side of 2300 East Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 4 Street side of 2300 East Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 5 Corner of 1300S and 2300E Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 6 Northwest Corner Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 7 North Elevation East Elevation Conceptual Design The Residences at Foothill methodstudio 10/14/25Page: 8 South Elevation West Elevation Site Conditions The Residences At Foothill N 1300 S Fo o t h i l l D r EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 3 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES MU-3 R-1-7000 23 0 0 E EXISTING SURFACE PARKING methodstudio The Residences At Foothill N 1300 S 266’ Fo o t h i l l D r PROPOSED SITE PLAN 8 PROPOSED TOWNHOMES GARAGE ENTRY GARAGE ENTRY RESIDENT AMENITIES MID-BLOCK WALK LANDSCAPED AREAS MAIN ENTRY 20 PROPOSED CONDOMINIUMS (1 0 % affordable) 20 Condominiums 8 Townhomes 23 0 0 E methodstudio 3816 S. Highland Drive, Ste 101 Millcreek, UT 84106 jdevutah.com Date: October 28, 2025 Attn: Brooke Olsen, SLC Planning RE: Petition Number: PLNPCM2025-00558 – Tenant Displacement Plan 21A.50.050: STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AMENDMENTS: D. Displaced Tenants Resulting from Demolition of Housing: If a proposed amendment submitted by a property owner includes the likely demolition of any dwelling, the city council may require the petitioner to provide relocation assistance for the current tenant(s), or a replacement dwelling as required by this section for each demolished dwelling within a future development. 1. This subsection may be applied by the city council when a proposal for a property owner initiated zoning map amendment is likely to result in an existing housing unit being demolished due to the increase in development rights that may result from the proposed amendment. 2. For the purpose of this section, any term that is used in the singular shall be interpreted to include the plural of the term. 3. A petitioner may not terminate a lease or evict a tenant for the purpose of evading the obligation to provide tenant relocation assistance and other requirements set forth in this section. A: Noted. The J Development Team and property ownership group anticipates providing adequate and legal noticing to existing residents well in advance of demolition and construction initiation. The J Development Team has other nearby rental assets that will be communicated to tenants as possible relocation properties if they so choose. J Development will NOT prematurely terminate any existing leases outside of lease contractual timelines. Most tenants of subject properties are currently on month -to-month leases. 4. Tenant Relocation Assistance: When a petition is likely to result in the demolition of a dwelling unit, the property owner may be required to provide the tenant with relocation assistance to supplement the costs of leasing a comparable replacement dwelling. The rental relocation assistance includes the following: a. Moving expenses based on a reasonable estimate provided by the tenant, up to a maximum of $1,500. 3816 S. Highland Drive, Ste 101 Millcreek, UT 84106 jdevutah.com b. Application fees for the replacement housing. c. The deposit that the displaced tenant would have to pay to secure replacement housing. d. Monthly Rental Assistance Payment. The rental assistance payment is 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. A: Noted. The J Development Team and property ownership group are willing to explore the best path forward with the city to ensure points a -d with tenant relocation assistance is addressed either by assistance or a fee in leau of. e. If the property owner relocates the displaced tenant into an existing unit that is owned by the applicant within Salt Lake City at the same rental rate the displaced tenant was paying and without an additional applicant fee or deposit, then paragraphs b, c, and d do not apply. A: Noted. The J Development Team and property ownership group anticipates providing adequate and legal notice to existing residents well in advance of demolition and construction initiation. The J Development Team has other nearby rental assets that will be communicated to tenants as possible relocation properties if they so choose. f. Any and all payments should be received by the tenant 24 hours in advance of leaving the unit to be demolished. g. Tenant Relocation Assistance Exemptions: If the project is receiving identified federal funds and subject to the Uniform Relocation Assistance (URA) and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, 42. U.S.C 4601-4655. The relocation assistance rules for the developer/tenant under that act will govern and the Tenant Relocation Assistance outlined in this section will not apply. The developer shall inform the city if they are subject to URA and details of assistance to be provided. Tenants who receive tenant relocation assistance from this section are not eligible to receive relocation benefits from the city. A: Noted, however, this is not applicable to this petition. 3816 S. Highland Drive, Ste 101 Millcreek, UT 84106 jdevutah.com E. Demolished Unit Replacement. The future development may be required to replace the demolished housing unit within the new development. The replacement housing unit shall have the same number of bedrooms. In addition, the applicant shall propose one of the options listed in this section. The city council has the authority to waive or modify this requirement. A: Noted. The proposed project in concept currently has scheduled over 70 beds within the entire community. We are replacing and adding well above the existing 12 beds lost within the existing 3 residential homes. ***A reminder that our proposal is NOT a rental community. We are proposing a FOR SALE community and home ownership which the neighborhood and community are looking for. 1. 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. A: This option is not applicable as the petitioner is proposing replacing existing rental units with market rate and affordable for-sale units. As a result, changing the existing housing unit type and encouraging home ownership. 2. 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. A: This option does not appear applicable as the petitioner is proposing replacing existing rental units with market rate and affordable for-sale units. As a result, changing the existing housing unit type and encouraging home ownership. # # # Best, J Development Millcreek, UT Attn: Brooke Olsen RE: Email Response from 10/29/25 Brooke, please find our responses to your questions from your email dated 10.29.25. Thank you, Matt & Joe J Development 1. Tenant relocation assistance – Tenant relocation assistance obligations will be negotiated at the Council level, however, please note that paying a fee to the city in lieu of relocation assistance is not specifically listed as an option. Noted. Sounds like this item is a decision that we are at the mercy of the council with and negotiated. We anticipate this recommendation will be utilized in a fair and evaluated manner. We note the council reserves the right to mandate tenant relocation assistance from us if the tenants decide to move and pursue other lodging. 2. Your narrative states the existing 12 bedrooms will be replaced, however, the data you submitted regarding the number of bedrooms in each existing single family dwelling equates to a total of 10 bedrooms (two three bedroom homes and one four bedroom home). Does each single family home contain 4 bedrooms? If so please correct the data you have submitted. According to the document we previously submitted with our application, and dated May 22, 2025, the owner information we have on the existing homes is as follows: • Dwelling Unit 2260: 3056 square feet. 4 bedrooms • Dwelling Unit 2270: 2788 square feet. 3 bedrooms • Dwelling Unit 2290: 2270 square feet. 3 bedrooms So, if we mentioned 12 recently, then we misspoke. It appears a total of 10 bedrooms are across all three existing homes. 3. Your narrative should address the plan for replacing demolished units within the boundaries of the zoning map amendment, rather than the anticipated project site which includes land outside of the boundaries of the amendment. We are anticipating the 3 existing older homes, currently within the boundaries of the zoning map amendment , will be replaced with a total of 8 new townhome(s) product. All new units will be constructed within the boundaries of the zoning map amendment . We anticipate a total of 22 bedrooms across all new townhomes which we note will all lie within the boundaries of the zoning map amendment. As a note, our greater cohesive community plan will also have cross-over of a few condominium units (3-4) which will also reside within the boundaries of the zoning map amendment property. 4. The narrative should also address how the existing 3 units will be replaced in terms of bedroom count for each replacement unit, rather than number of bedrooms proposed for the entire site. Please note the regulations specifically state “The replacement housing unit shall have the same number of bedrooms.” The replacement housing bedroom count within the zoning map amendment boundaries WILL exceed the existing housing bedroom count. With an anticipated total of 8 new townhome units…with the following bedroom breakdown by unit. *This is conceptual but a good faith number for our petition. (2) Large Townhomes: 6 beds total. (3 beds per unit) (4) Medium Townhomes: 12 beds total. (3 beds per unit) (2) Small Townhomes: 4 beds total. (2 beds per unit) Total New Beds Across Zoning Map Amendment Area: 22 beds *Anticipated Condominium Bedrooms: 6 – 12 total between 3 – 4 condominium units also residing within the boundaries of the zoning map amendment property. 5. How many bedrooms do you anticipate will be provided in the affordable units? 10% of units (3 units out of 26 total units within project ) at 80% AMI will be affordable. Of those 3 units, we ANTICPATE anywhere from 7 – 9 bedrooms will be available and deemed affordable. # # # 4. MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY OWN_STATE OWN_ZIP FIRST SECURITY BANK OF UTAH, N A F UTAH, N A PO BOX 2609 CARLSBAD CA 92018 KSD TRUST KSD TRUST 2241 E LAIRD WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 ERIC R SWANSON C R SWANSON 2249 E LAIRD WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 KATHRYN LINDQUIST; JRMT QUIST; JRMT 2253 E LAIRD WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 BRADLEY D RUSSELL; AMY H RUSSELL (JT) USSELL (JT)2259 E LAIRD WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 RALPH L. GOCHNOUR; ROSETTA S GOCHNOUR S GOCHNOUR 2289 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 ANNE-MARIE WRIGHT LAMPROPOULOS TRUST 05/18/2007 05/18/2007 2211 E LAIRD WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 CHENGJIAN CHE; JINQIU KUANG (JT) KUANG (JT)1221 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 JAMES H DEMET MES H DEMET 1227 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED IDENTIFIED 1233 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 DONALD J JONES; KRISTY W JONES (JT) JONES (JT)2223 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED IDENTIFIED 2235 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 STEVEN M LYNCH; JOANNA MASI-LYNCH (JT) -LYNCH (JT)2228 E LAIRD WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 WALTER Y COWIE; NANCY J COWIE (JT) COWIE (JT)2236 E LAIRD WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 JODY W GROW; RICHARD F GROW (JT) F GROW (JT)623 N CAPITOL PARK AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 CHARLES E WEBB; ANNETTE WEBB (JT) E WEBB (JT)2252 E LAIRD WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 RELIANCE BUILDING COMPANY ING COMPANY 3591 E COVEPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 TJDD PROPERTIES, LLC ERTIES, LLC 4222 S WANDER LN HOLLADAY UT 84124 TJDD PROPERTIES, LLC ERTIES, LLC 348 E 6400 S # 200 MURRAY UT 84107 FOREST CORPORATION CORPORATION 5330 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 SIS 010, LLC IS 010, LLC 5330 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 DEE'S FOOTHILL INVESTMENTS LLC STMENTS LLC 1136 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 LAURA G GAYLORD LIVING TRUST 5/27/2001 T 5/27/2001 2321 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 260 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 AP FOOTHILL VILLAGE, LLC ILLAGE, LLC 1616 CAMDEN RD # 210 CHARLOTTE NC 28203 CD BONNEVILLE LLC; THOMAS A DUFFIN AS A DUFFIN 4222 S WANDER LN HOLLADAY UT 84124 MICHAEL J KATZOURAKIS KATZOURAKIS 1375 S 2300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 ALEXANDRA LONGE; DASHIELL LONGE (JT) LONGE (JT)2315 E SHERIDAN RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 DANIEL FELDMAN; KRISTINA J FELDMAN (JT) ELDMAN (JT)2323 E SHERIDAN RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1290 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2241 E LAIRD WAY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2249 E LAIRD WAY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2253 E LAIRD WAY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2259 E LAIRD WAY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2315 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1229 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2228 E LAIRD WAY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2236 E LAIRD WAY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2244 E LAIRD WAY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2252 E LAIRD WAY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1300 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1304 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2260 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2270 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2290 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1310 S 2300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1309 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1313 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1345 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2350 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1400 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1375 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 5. ORDINANCE 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2026 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 2260, 2270 & 2290 E 1300 S from R-1-7000 Single Family Residential District to MU-3 Mixed Use 3 District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to properties located at 2260, 2270 & 2290 E 1300 S from R-1-7000 Single Family Residential District to MU-3 Mixed Use 3 District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00558. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on November 12, 2025 to consider a petition by J-Development, LLC, representing the property owners, to rezone the parcels located at 2260 E 1300 S (Tax ID No. 16- 10-379-004-0000) 2270 E 1300 S (Tax ID No. 16-10-379-005-0000) and 2290 E 1300 S (Tax ID No. 16-10-379-006-0000) (collectively, the “Property) from R-1-7000 Single Family Residential District to MU-3 Mixed Use 3 District; and WHEREAS, at its November 12, 2025, meeting the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive 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 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 R-1-7000 Single Family Residential District to MU-3 Mixed Use 3 District. 2 SECTION 2. Condition. This map amendment is conditioned upon the owner(s) of the Property entering into a development agreement with the city requiring: a. Each demolished residential dwelling unit on the Property shall be replaced in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.050.E. b. A minimum of 3 housing units or 10% of all housing units, whichever is greater, constructed within the boundaries of the Property shall be affordable homeownership units for households earning at or below 80% of the area median income. The affordable units shall be comparable to the market rate units in terms of unit size and number of bedrooms. c. The affordable units required pursuant to Section 2.b shall not count towards the eligibility requirements for any future affordable housing zoning incentive applications to the city. d. Tenants displaced by the demolition of residential dwelling units on the Property shall be provided with tenant relocation assistance in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.050.D. SECTION 3. 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 condition set forth in Section 2 is satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. SECTION 4. Time. If the condition set forth in Section 2 above has not been met within one year after adoption, then this ordinance shall become null and void. Within such one year period the City Council may, for good cause shown, by resolution, extend the time period for satisfying the condition identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2026. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER 3 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2026. Published: ______________. Ordinance rezoning 2260, 2270, & 2290 E 1300 S to MU-3 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date January 12, 2026_______________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney 4 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Descriptions of Property 2260 E 1300 S (Tax ID No. 16-10-379-004-0000) Beginning at a point on the South property line of 13th South Street which point is North 89º53’42” West 156.5 feet from the Northeast corner of Lot 12, Block 15, Five Acre Plat “C”, Big Field Survey, and running thence South 0º02’52” East 110.0 feet; thence North 89º53’42” West 91.5 feet; thence North 0º02’52” West 110.0 feet; thence South 89º53’42” East along the South property line of 13th South Street 91.5 feet to the point of beginning. 2270 E 1300 S (Tax ID No. 16-10-379-005-0000) Beginning at a point on the South property line of 13th South Street which point is North 89º53’42” West 88.0 feet from the Northeast corner of Lot 12, Block 15, Five Acre Plat “C”, Big Field Survey, and running thence South 0º02’52” East 110.0 feet; thence North 89º53’42” West 68.5 feet; thence North 0º02’52” West 110.0 feet; thence South 89º53’42” East along the South property line of 13th South Street 68.5 feet to the point of beginning. 2290 E 1300 S (Tax ID No. 16-10-379-006-0000) Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 12, Block 15, Five Acre Plat “C”, Big Field Survey, and running thence East 8 feet; thence South 0º02’52” W East 114 feet; thence West 96 feet; thence North 0º02’52” W West 114 feet; thence East 88 feet to the point of beginning. This page has intentionally been left blank Downtown opportunity: 2027 Salt Lake Temple open house HOW WILL THE OPEN HOUSE IMPACT DAILY DOWNTOWN VISITATION? 25% inc. in the daily customer volume 18,000 - 25,000 additional visitors / day HOW WILL THE OPEN HOUSE IMPACT DAILY DOWNTOWN VISITATION? Visitor volume will be spread across the day VISITOR VOLUME BY DAY Downtown SLC 2024 LOW 18,380 AVERAGE 91,894 PEAK 172,049 VISITOR VOLUME BY HOUR Downtown SLC 2024 VISITOR VOLUME BY DAY Downtown SLC 2024 SL TEMPLE OPEN HOUSE Notes on transportation: 1. Downtown parking is sufficient for most days*. 2. UTA/TRAX service is rich near Temple Square. 3. A hotel shuttle bus route would help reduce traffic and parking congestion. *Parking and transportation math: 23,000 daily open house guests 14,950 guests arriving by car (assumes 65% arrive by car) 4,271 parking spaces needed per day (assumes 3.5 persons per car) 2,200 spaces needed at a time (assumes just one turn-over during a 12-hour day) 2027 access pinch points for all Downtown users: 1. Entertainment District construction: a. The plaza over 300 West b. Delta Center renovation c. Salt Palace reconstruction 2. North Temple, West Temple closures? Alliance goals for Temple open house 1. Present a vibrant downtown to SLC visitors. 2. Induce spending at downtown businesses. Alliance plans for attracting visitor spending during open house 1.Produce activations and entertainment. 2. Support retail development on Main Street. 3. Support hospitality kiosk staffing. CURRENT PLANNING 1. Evaluating performance sites within a block of the Main Street core. 2. Assessments of Main Street storefronts is underway to identify activation opportunities. 3. Working on visual design elements to attract visitors into the Main Street core. CURRENT PLANNING > Communications: Varied targets; varied messages 1. New visitors 2. Regular Wasatch Front visitors 3. Downtown merchants 4. Downtown workers and residents A recent assessment of Main Street current conditions … … sparks of artful urban intervention … deteriorated and outdated hardscape elements … inconsistent design elements … and some missing teeth in our smile Main Street Current Conditions Assessment These maps: ●address linear feet on Main Street ●do not address leasable square feet Add maps Add maps Add maps Add maps 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: Kate Werrett Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:February 17, 2026 RE:Capitol Hill Community Plan Update ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing from the Planning Division about an update to the Capitol Hill Community Plan. The briefing will include an understanding of the scope of work, project timeline, any barriers that may impact the process. It will also give the Council an opportunity to share input on the public engagement process, stakeholders, and provide other information that may help the project. The Planning Division is in the early stages of the Capitol Hill Community Plan update. This update will replace the existing 2001 plan, which took the place of the original 1981 plan. At this time, the existing conditions portion of the plan is drafted, and community engagement has begun. Planning is seeking Council policy input and direction on focus elements to include in the plan update, which will eventually go to the Planning Commission, then Council for a public hearing and adoption. Goal of the briefing: Receive the draft existing conditions report, review the Engagement Timeline, and provide policy feedback on key plan element updates. At this stage, no action or public hearing is required. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. What large City budgetary items are anticipated to be included in the Capitol Hill Community Plan, and will the plan indicate that those budgetary items may need to be implemented in context with overall City budget needs? 2. What significant changes may arise in the upcoming plan (public space improvements such as Warm Springs Park and North Gateway Park), street changes, zoning modifications (housing, mixed use), new multi-modal options, etc.)? 3. How will the plan address the foothill open space and access? How will it support/collaborate with the Foothills Trail Master Plan? 4. Are there specific elements in other plans that apply to this area, such as Thriving in Place, that the Council would like to place special focus on as the Planning Division continues their work? ITEM SCHEDULE: Briefing: February 17, 2026 Set Date: N/A Public Hearing: N/A Potential Action: N/A Page | 2 ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Resolution 14 of 2020 acknowledges City Council’s legislative duty to “adopt policies and ordinances to address the present and future needs of the city and to guide growth and development within the city”. The resolution outlines the request that plans be brought to City Council at the early stages so that early input and feedback can be provided. At this stage of the plan updates, Resolution 14 of 2020 provides details on the City Council’s role: - Receive existing conditions report and written executive summary of deliverables - Review calendar and framing document - Support public engagement process This early briefing provides the City Council the opportunity to express concerns and ideas relevant to the Capitol Hill Community Plan. This early update provides details on the proposed scope of work, timeline, and any potential barriers in the process. Planning staff is seeking City Council input, ideas, suggested stakeholders, and concerns on key plan updates such as the public engagement process. The plan is in Phase 1 of a six-step process to update the community plan. The Planning Division project website includes the current status of the plan update, which is summarized in the timelines below: The Capitol Hill Community Plan Update page shares timeline status, public engagement opportunities, and public access to the Existing Conditions Report. The 7.24 square miles of the Capitol Hill Community is generally located between North Temple Street and the north city limit, and between I-15, and City Creek Canyon. The Planning Division provided the map below: Vicinity map with Capitol Hill Community Area shaded Map courtesy of the Salt Lake City Planning Division Phase 1: Opportunities & Issues Phase 2: Big Ideas Phase 3: Future Vision Council Review Council Public Input Council Decision Page | 3 The Capitol Hill community is comprised of several neighborhoods, including: Desoto/Cortez, Ensign Downs, Guadalupe, Kimball, Marmalade, West Capitol Hill, Swedetown, and an industrial area along Beck Street. The area contains the broadest and most diverse range of zoning designations within a Salt Lake community. In total, the neighborhood includes 26 distinct zoning districts, reflecting a wide variety of land uses and development patterns. The Planning Division provided the current zoning map below: Capitol Hill Community Area Zoning Map Map courtesy of the Salt Lake City Planning Division Citywide Plans ATTACHMENTS Page | 4 1.Informational Administrative Transmittal: Capitol Hill Community Plan Update 2.Resolution 14 of 2020: Declaring City Council Policy and Objectives for Preparing Master Plans 3.Capitol Hill Community Plan Update Project Page 4.Capitol Hill Existing Conditions Report Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Salt Lake City Council –February 17, 2026 CAPITOL HILL COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE // WORK SESSION Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning PURPOSE & NEED •Existing Community Plan (2001) •Create a vision for the next 15 years •Align with Citywide plans Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning FROM PLAN TO REALITY COMMUNITY PLANSELEMENT PLANSCITYWIDE PLAN Zoning Infrastructure Improvements Private Development Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning WE ARE HEREPROCESS Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning ENGAGEMENT TIMELINE Opportunities & Issues(Fall - Winter 2025)Big Ideas (Spring 2026)Final Vision (Summer 2026) •Existing conditions •Stakeholder interviews •Project webpage & survey •Outreach events •Council & Commission briefings •Share initial engagement results •Get feedback on themes & draft initiatives •Get feedback on final draft plan •Community meetings •Online open house •Public hearings Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning EXISTING CONDITIONS HIGHLIGHTS Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning PLAN AREA The plan area is approximately 7.25 square miles or 4,633 acres in size. Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning NEIGHBORHOODS Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning DEMOGRAPHICS 1002.00 1001.00 1007.00 1008.00 8,193 Population (5% of City’s population) 82% of growth was in Guadalupe 10,533 in 2023 in 2000 Households 5,779 (6% of City’s households) 22% Non-White Population (35% Citywide) 61% Working Age Population (56% Citywide) 58% Bachelors or Higher (51% Citywide) Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning DEVELOPMENT PERIODS 52% of residential buildings were constructed by 1920 60% of nonresidential buildings were constructed between 1960-1980 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Construction by Decade Residential Non-Residential Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning LAND USE + ZONING 54% 27% 4% 2.5% 12% Open Space Manufacturing & Extractive Residential Mixed-Use Institutional & Public Lands Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Existing Housing Types HOUSING Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Affordable Housing Units 691 Deed restricted units across 9 projects 7 Projects are rental opportunities HOUSING AFFORDABILITY 8%11%16% 24%7% 8% 17% 23% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Capitol Hill Owners Salt Lake City Owners Capitol Hill Renters Salt Lake City Renters Cost Burdened Households Extremely Cost Burdened (More than 50% of Income Spent on Housing) Cost Burdened (30-50% Income Spent on Housing) Median Home Price* $582,500 In Capitol Hill $563,500 In Salt Lake City *according to 2023-2024 MLS info 2 Projects are ownership opportunities %AMI # of rented units # of owned units 20%14 30%37 40%255 50%189 60%167 80%29 8 120%3 Breakdown of Deed Restricted Units Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Map Number Name Park Type Size (acre) 1 Memory Grove Community 11.3 2 Warm Springs Park Community 19.6 3 North Gateway Park Community 6.1 4 City Creek Park Neighborhood 2.1 5 Ensign Downs Park Neighborhood 6.5 6 Marmalade Neighborhood .6 7 Ensign Peak Nature Park Entry Mini 1.8 8 Guadalupe Park Mini .8 9 Pugsley Ouray Park Mini .1 10 Silver Park Mini .2 11 Swede Town Park Mini .6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 100% of households are within a 15-minute walk of a park or trail. PARKS + OPEN SPACE 10 11 Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning TRANSPORTATION Daily Traffic Volumes •I-15, Beck Street, North Temple, 300 W •Victory Road, 600 North, State Street & Main Street Existing Bus Routes + Frequency •South Temple & State Street North (every 15 min) •U of U Davis, 500 East & Ogden Salt Lake (every 30 min) •2300 East/3rd Ave (every 60 min) •Toole – Salt Lake City, Riverdale – Salt Lake Express & Ogden U of U Express (limited service) •Toole – Salt Lake Flex (frequency varies) UTA Trax &FrontRunner •Trax Green Line (every 15 min) •North Temple Gudalupe Frontrunner Station (every 30 min) Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning PRESERVATION 3 National Register Districts 2 Local Historic Districts 35 Individually Listed Sites Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/ NEXT STEPS Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 6 In-person events: •Jam Fest •Ensign Peak trailhead •Lee’s Marketplace •Capitol Hill Community Council •Marmalade Library •Mountain West Cider 09.18.25 Published the project webpage & existing conditions report 11.05.25 Published the online survey •60 responses 1.28.26 Planning Commission 2.05.26 Historic Landmark Commission 4 Stakeholder interviews Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Monday, Feb. 23 5 PM – 6:30 PM Lee’s Market (Upstairs Café) 225 N 400 W Bldg. 1040 Wednesday, Feb. 25 5 PM – 6:30 PM Handle Bar 751 N 300 W ENGAGEMENT EVENTS Wednesday, Feb. 11 5:30 PM – 7 PM Mountain West Cider 425 N 400 W Thursday, Feb. 19 12 PM – 2 PM 801 Coffee Roasters 550 N 300 W Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning ENGAGEMENT TIMELINE Opportunities & Issues(Fall - Winter 2025)Big Ideas (Spring 2026)Final Vision (Summer 2026) •Existing conditions •Stakeholder interviews •Project webpage & survey •Outreach events •Council & Commission briefings •Share initial engagement results •Get feedback on common themes & draft initiatives •Get feedback on final draft plan •Community meetings •Online open house •Public hearings Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Brooke Olson // Senior Planner brooke.olson@slc.gov Katilynn Warr // Principal Planner katilynn.warr@slc.gov SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 01/20/2026 Date Sent to Council: 01/23/2026 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Olson, Brooke E-mail brooke.olson@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 01/22/2026 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 01/23/2026 Subject: Capitol Hill Community Plan Update Additional Staff Contact: Amy Thompson, amy.thompson@slc.govKatilynn Warr, katilynn.warr@slc.gov Presenters/Staff Table Brooke Olson, brooke.olson@slc.govAmy Thompson, amy.thompson@slc.govKatilynn Warr, katilynn.warr@slc.gov Document Type Information Item Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: In accordance with Resolution 14 of 2020 the Planning Division is providing this informational transmittal for the City Council regarding an update to the Capitol Hill Community Plan. The resolution indicates that the City Council should be updated early in the process so there is an understanding of the scope of work, project timeline, and any barriers that may impact the process. Additionally, this is an opportunity for the City Council to provide input on the public engagement process, stakeholders, and provide other information that may help the project. 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 In accordance with Resolution 14 of 2020 the Planning Division is providing this informational transmittal for the City Council regarding an update to the Capitol Hill Community Plan. The resolution indicates that the City Council should be updated early in the process so there is an understanding of the scope of work, project timeline, and any barriers that may impact the process. Additionally, this is an opportunity for the City Council to provide input on the public engagement process, stakeholders, and provide other information that may help the project. 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: In accordance with Resolution 14 of 2020 the Planning Division is providing this informational transmittal for the City Council regarding an update to the Capitol Hill Community Plan. The resolution indicates that the City Council should be updated early in the process so there is an understanding of the scope of work, project timeline, and any barriers that may impact the process. Additionally, this is an opportunity for the City Council to provide input on the public engagement process, stakeholders, and provide other information that may help the project. The Capitol Hill Community Plan area is located north of downtown. It is generally bound by North Temple Street on the south, I-15 on the west, City Creek Canyon and open space lands on the east and the northern boundary of the city itself. The plan area is approximately 7.24 square miles or 4,633 acres in size. Capitol Hill Community Plan Boundary Purpose and Need The plan currently in place for Capitol Hill was adopted in 2001. As a result of its age, it doesn’t address some of the current city goals and policies found in citywide plans, such as Plan Salt Lake and Housing SLC. The main purpose of the update is to establish a vision for the area for the next 15 years and align the Capitol Hill Community Plan with Plan Salt Lake. The update also aims to simplify the plan and establish goals that are more achievable and within the City’s purview. The intent is to develop a plan that is focused on land use, links the land use policies with other citywide plans such as Plan Salt Lake and Housing SLC, various transportation plans, and Reimagine Nature, and identifies key action items to implement the land use plan. The Planning Division envisions a plan that is easy to use, direct, can be implemented, includes metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan, and set up to be updated on a more frequent basis instead of taking decades. Planning Process and Timeline The overall planning process is anticipated to take approximately 10 months. The project team will engage other city departments as well as public agency representatives throughout the process for input as the plan is developed. Phase 1- Opportunities & Issues: Fall/ Winter 2025-26 The first phase of engagement will focus on learning from the community—hearing about likes, challenges, ideas, and opportunities. Input will be gathered on topics such as housing, historic preservation, neighborhood amenities, parks and transportation. • Existing Conditions Report: The team compiled an Existing Conditions Report that is accessible from the Capitol Hill Community Plan Update Webpage. The report can be viewed here: Capitol Hill Existing Conditions Report • Initial Community Engagement: The team kicked off the initial public engagement effort by presenting key findings from the Existing Conditions Report to the community to enable ongoing conversations and gather feedback that will inform the Capitol Hill Plan Update. o Stakeholder Interviews: This involves technical interviews with representatives of City departments, associated agencies, and interviews with property owners, residents, business owners, developers, and other public stakeholders to help inform the plan’s development. These interviews are ongoing. o Community Outreach: Community engagement will include several in-person outreach events at various locations throughout the neighborhood. These outreach events will include information about the process as well as interactive posters where comments and opinions can be shared. The team also published an Online Survey in early November 2025, to collect feedback on specific topics. A report summarizing the feedback received from the in-person events and the online survey will be published on the project website as the project moves forward. • Analysis: The team will compile all feedback gathered during the initial community engagement and analyze how it aligns with existing community conditions and relevant citywide policies. From this, common themes will be identified to inform the development of goals, policies, and initiatives that will shape the updated plan. Phase 2 - Big Ideas: Spring 2026 In this phase, we’re building on what we heard in Phase 1. Community feedback and current conditions will be reviewed together to identify common themes and shape draft initiatives— specific actions that can be taken to address community priorities and citywide goals. In short: what we heard, what we learned, and how we’ll move from ideas to action. • Draft Plan & Outreach: During this phase, the team will draft a plan with two overarching goals in mind: (1) align the updated plan with city wide initiatives, and (2) incorporate the wants and needs from the community engagement into a plan that will guide development in Capitol Hill for the next 15 years. The draft plan will be shared online for public feedback and through other venues that are to be determined. Phase 3 – Final Vision: Summer 2026 This final phase is focused on the Draft Vision—a plan that reflects the ideas and priorities shared throughout the process. This stage focuses on refining the community plan through public input, meetings, and hearings before it’s finalized and adopted. • Historic Landmark Commission, Planning Commission, & City Council The team will present the final draft plan to the Historic Landmark Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council. These meetings will include public hearings, which is another opportunity for the public to provide additional input. Project Management Team • Nick Norris, Planning Director • Michaela Bell, Deputy Planning Director • Amy Thompson, Planning Manager • Brooke Olson, Senior Planner • Katilynn Warr, Principal Planner The project team will meet regularly throughout the planning process. Additionally, the Planning Division will provide periodic updates to the City Council in accordance with Resolution 14 of 2020. Risks All planning projects have some degree of risk that may result in a longer timeline or require additional resources. These risks include: • Needing to modify engagement activities to achieve equity. • Conflicts in public input that require additional time to find consensus. • Opposition to the draft plan. • Time to coordinate with neighboring and overlapping government agencies. • A change in priorities that requires assigning staff to other projects. • An increase in development applications that require shifting staff resources. The Project workplan will adjust as needed to respond to these risks as they arise. Most of the risks can be addressed utilizing existing staff and deferring to other existing plans or engagement results without any additional resources. EXHIBITS 1) Capitol Hill Existing Conditions Report This page has intentionally been left blank CAPITOL HILL COMMUNITY PLAN PLANNING DIVISION SLC.GOV/PLANNING E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S R E P O R T | 2 0 2 5 DRA F T CAPITOL HILL COMMUNITY PLAN E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S R E P O R T | 2 0 2 5 VERSION | SEPT 18, 2025 PROJECT TEAM Nick Norris, Planning Director Michaela Bell, Assistant Planning Director Amy Thompson, Planning Manager Rylee Hall, Principal Planner Katilynn Warr, Principal Planner Madison Blodgett, Principal Planner Lex Traughber, Senior Planner Hayden Callaway, City Apprentice Brian Maya, Graphic Design Specialist DRA F T CONTENTS Salt Lake City is undertaking an effort to update the Capitol Hill Community Plan, which was last updated in 2001. This Existing Conditions Report marks the first step in that process by providing a comprehensive overview of the Capitol Hill community’s current demographics, land use, connectivity, open space and natural resources, historic and cultural assets and infrastructure. Serving as a “snapshot in time,” this report helps establish a foundational understanding of the community’s present state. The information gathered will help guide appointed and elected officials in shaping plans for the Capitol Hill neighborhood, ensuring they align with citywide plans and goals as the overall planning process moves forward. Additionally, this report will serve as a valuable resource for residents, businesses, and community organizations interested in understanding the community’s unique strengths and opportunities. PLAN AREA 9 LOCATION + BOUNDARIES 12 CONSTRUCTION PERIODS DEMOGRAPHICS 16 DEMOGRAPHICS 21 CAPITOL HILL BY CENSUS TRACT LAND USE + ZONING 29 CURRENT ZONING 43 LAND OWNERSHIP 44 NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES HOUSING 49 DENSITY 50 HOUSING TYPES + NUMBER OF UNITS 53 AFFORDABILITY 55 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PARKS, RECREATION + OPEN SPACE 59 PARKS, RECREATION + OPEN SPACE 62 URBAN TREE COVERAGE TRANSPORTATION 66 STREET TYPES 68 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 70 ROADWAY CONDITIONS 72 BICYCLE NETWORK 75 TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY 76 COMMUTING + CONNECTIVITY 78 TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY 80 DENSITY + TRANSPORTATION 80 SIDEWALKS +ADA RAMPS PRESERVATION 84 HISTORIC DISTRICTS 86 HISTORIC RESOURCES ARTS + CULTURE 90 ART 93 COMMUNITY EVENTS 94 CULTURAL ATTRACTIONS INFRASTRUCTURE 98 INFRASTRUCTURE 98 WATER 100 SEWER 100 STORM DRAIN 100 POWER GRID 102 STREETLIGHTS GEOLOGY + NATURAL HAZARDS 106 AQUIFER RECHARGE 107 FLOOD MAPS 108 FAULT LINES + LIQUEFACTION 109 WILDFIRE URBAN INTERFACE PLAN AUDITS 112 PLAN SALT LAKE 118 HOUSING SLC 120 THRIVING IN PLACE 122 GROWING WATER SMART 124 CAPITOL HILL COMMUNITY PLAN 138 CITY CREEK PLAN 142 BECK STREET RECLAMATION PLAN 146 NORTH TEMPLE BOULEVARD PLAN DRA F T | 7 01 PLAN AREA The Capitol Hill Community was named after the Utah State Capitol building, which sits prominently on a hill overlooking downtown Salt Lake City. Established in the mid-19th century, Capitol Hill grew alongside the early development of the City. It’s home to one of the oldest residential communities in Salt Lake City with structures dating to when the Mormon Pioneers first entered the valley. The community has distinct neighborhoods, the character of which is largely dictated by location and the topography of the land. The Capitol Hill Community also spans the spectrum of land uses –accommodating low- density residential, high intensity industrial uses along the northwestern edge, and a considerable portion of area dedicated to public lands. Neighborhoods contain a scattering of restaurants and cafes. The Capitol Hill Local Historic district, along with numerous individual historic landmark and cultural sites, highlight the area’s heritage, while parks and trails provide access to outdoor recreation and natural beauty. DRA F T | 9 Northwest City Creek Northwest Quadrant West Salt Lake Capitol Hill East BenchCentral City Downtown Sugar House Avenues LOCATION + BOUNDARIES The Capitol Hill Community Plan area is located adjacent and to the north of downtown. It is generally bound by North Temple Street on the south, I-15 on the west, City Creek Canyon and open space lands on the east, and the northern boundary of the city itself. The plan area is approximately 7.24 square miles or 4,633 acres in size. N E I G H B O R H O O D S DESOTO / CORTEZ This area, with streets named after early explorers, is located north of the State Capitol Building and is bounded by Victory Road & Columbus Street on the west, 700 North on the north, and East Capitol Blvd on the east. The DeSoto/Cortez neighborhood is characterized by single family and duplex dwellings built between 1920 - 1950, and streets lined with mature trees. ENSIGN DOWNS This area is located to the north of the DeSoto/ Cortez Neighborhood and is accessed via East Capitol Blvd. A large portion of this neighborhood lies south of Ensign Peak except for North Cove which is located at the north end of East Capitol Blvd east of Ensign Peak. Ensign Downs is a modern subdivision consisting of very low-density, single- family homes, the earliest being constructed in the 1950’s, and the North Cove area developing later (post 1980’s – current). S L C C O M M U N I T Y B O U N D A R I E S C A P I T O L H I L L C O M M U N I T Y B O U N D A R I E S GUADALUPE NEIGHBORHOOD Bounded by North Temple to the south, 600 North to the north, I-15 and the railroad tracks to the west, and 400 West to the east, the Guadalupe neighborhood was originally established as an agricultural village by Mormon settlers shortly after 1847. Early development featured wide streets, irrigation ditches, and small adobe houses on large 10-acre blocks. The arrival of the railroad in 1870 physically separated Guadalupe from the rest of the Capitol Hill community and spurred commercial and industrial growth. More recently, the creation of the North Temple transit corridor and the opening of the North Temple Viaduct Station in 2012 have begun to reshape the area, encouraging a shift toward a walkable, mixed-use, transit-oriented neighborhood. Most of the new residential development has taken the form of multifamily housing, adding density and new residents near transit. KIMBALL The Kimball neighborhood is bounded by North Temple Street to the south, 200 West to the west, Canyon Road to the east, and 300 North to the north. While Temple Square is located just outside the plan area, two LDS facilities—the Conference Center and the Church History Library—are within Kimball itself. Moving north from North Temple, land uses shift from institutional to primarily residential. Development of the neighborhood accelerated after the completion of the State Capitol in 1915. Today, Kimball is a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood with tree-lined streets, uniform blocks connected by alleys, and a diverse range of housing types. MARMALADE Located generally to the west of the State Capitol Building, the neighborhood is bound by 300 North on the south, 200 West, and Columbus Street & Victory Road on the east. This is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the State of Utah, with many homes being constructed prior to 1900. DRA F T 10 | 0 0.40.2 Miles Ensign Downs I- 1 5 St a t e S t Beck S t Eas t C a p i t o l B l v d Victory Rd Industrial Area Marmalade Kimball DeSoto/ Cortez 30 0 W 600 N North Temple West Capitol Hill Guadalupe Ensign Peak Cit y C r e e k Utah State Capitol Ensign Downs Industrial Area Marmalade Kimball DeSoto/ Cortez West Capitol Hill Guadalupe CITY CREEK In 1986, Salt Lake City adopted a specific plan for City Creek to address land use and circulation in the City Creek Canyon area. The plan area extends from the North Temple and State Street intersection to the top of City Creek Canyon and is approximately 10,700 acres. It encompasses the residential pocket along Canyon Road, Memory Grove Park, as well as the entire undeveloped canyon. The western half of City Creek is located in the Capitol Hill Community Plan Area, and the eastern half is located in the Avenues Community Plan area; the divide is roughly the City Creek waterway itself. The Plan focuses on the preservation of City Creek Canyon as a whole and emphasizes maintaining this area in its natural state. It recommends canyon activities be limited to watershed protection, water treatment facilities, and limited public recreation opportunities. For additional information, see the Plan Audit section of this report, page 138. This neighborhood is characterized by steep, narrow streets and irregularly shaped lots. Homes in this neighborhood feature a variety of architectural styles and are commonly oriented towards property interiors. WEST CAPITOL HILL Located north of North Temple, between 200 and 400 West, and Victory Road on the north, the neighborhood is part of the original plat “A” of the Salt Lake City Survey. It consisted of 10-acre blocks and was developed prior to the development of the adjacent hillside because the settlers preferred the richer flat valley floor soil which could be more easily irrigated as garden areas. The neighborhood has always been an area of mixed uses including residential, commercial, and industrial. By the 1870’s many of the holdings of the first tenant farmers were subdivided and sold to develop as residential neighborhoods. In the 1880’s, the neighborhood population increased with the construction of the Denver and Rio Grand Western Railroad. Residents were close to the city center, well served by public transportation, and accommodated by nearby retail and service enterprises. Today, the West Capitol Hill neighborhood is a mixed-use area with a well-established residential component. Neighborhood serving uses are sprinkled throughout the neighborhood, with clusters along 300 West, 400 West, and North Temple Street. I N D U S T R I A L The industrial area within the Capitol Hill community extends from 600 North to the northern boundary of the plan area, and from I-15 on the west to approximately 500 West on the east. In some locations, it also extends east of Victory Road and Beck Street. SWEDETOWN Located between Beck Street and I-15, and between Everette Avenue and 1900 North, Swedetown was historically a suburban development promoted by businessmen eager to profit from the great influx of Swedish immigrants into Salt Lake City in the 1880s. The land was surveyed, sidewalks laid, trees planted, and homes built in hopes of creating a large suburban development. Water was supplied from a large artesian well and a spring in the mountains to serve the residents of the newly created neighborhood, however the water supply was not enough to support the population which resulted in restricted growth. Over time, its population declined, and residences were replaced by industrial and heavy manufacturing uses, which now border and encompass the area. Today, the neighborhood is characterized largely by industrial activity with only about 23 homes remaining. 0 0.40.2 Miles Ensign Downs I- 1 5 St a t e S t Beck S t Eas t C a p i t o l B l v d Victory Rd Industrial Area Marmalade Kimball DeSoto/ Cortez 30 0 W 600 N North Temple West Capitol Hill Guadalupe Ensign Peak Cit y C r e e k Utah State Capitol Ensign Downs Industrial Area Marmalade Kimball DeSoto/ Cortez West Capitol Hill Guadalupe C A P I T O L H I L L N E I G H B O R H O O D S DRA F T 12 | | 13 CONSTRUCTION PERIODS In contrast, only 4% of nonresidential buildings were built by 1920. Nonresidential building stock was largely constructed much later compared to residential buildings, with 60% constructed between 1960 and 1980. The oldest known residential structure dates to 1852, while the earliest nonresidential building was constructed in 1861. Across all building types, two major periods of construction stand out: °32% of the buildings were constructed by 1920 °30% were built between 1961 and 1980 Over half (52%) of the residential buildings in Capitol Hill were constructed by the 1920s, reflecting a historic development pattern that predates the adoption of Salt Lake City’s first zoning ordinance in 1927. Construction Periods CONSTRUCTION BY DECADE Early development was concentrated in the Marmalade, West Capitol Hill, Swedetown, the western portion of Guadalupe, and the northeastern portion of Kimball neighborhoods. Between 1921 and 1941, growth continued in these areas while new construction began in the Desoto/Cortez neighborhood and the industrial corridor along Beck Street. Between 1942 and 1960, the central portion of the Guadalupe neighborhood saw increased development, and Desoto/Cortez expanded northward into the southern portion of Ensign Downs. From 1961 to 1981, substantial new construction occurred in the industrial area and extended further east into Ensign Downs. Since the 1980s, most new development has been concentrated in the industrial corridor, along 300 West, in the northern portions of Ensign Downs, and in the southern end of the plan area between North Temple and 300 North. Residential Non-Residential DRA F T | 15 Every year, the U.S. Census Bureau collects information about people and housing in the United States. This survey, known as the American Community Survey (ACS), cover topics like age, sex, race, education, income, jobs, rent, etc. Instead of surveying every household (like the Census every 10 years), the ACS gathers information from a sample of households and uses statistics to estimate the population at large. One of the statistical methods is known as a 5-year estimate. For 5-year estimates, the Census Bureau combines responses collected over five years to create more reliable results for smaller areas like neighborhoods. Small areas do not get enough responses in a single year to be accurate but combining five years of surveys provides a large enough sample to estimate the population with more confidence. While never exact, the estimates provided by the ACS are close enough to provide a reliable picture of an area’s demographics especially when averaged over five years. 02 DEMOGRAPHICS DRA F T | 17 DEMOGRAPHICS This section provides a snapshot of the Capitol Hill plan area using data from the 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates. This means the numbers provided show the average characteristics of the neighborhood from 2019-2023. C A P I T O L H I L L S N A P S H O T 10,533 RESIDENTS (5% of City’s Population) 5,779 HOUSEHOLDS (6% of City’s Households) 61% WORKING AGE POPULATION (25-64) (56% Citywide) 58% POPULATION OVER 25 WITH A BACHELOR’S DEGREE OR HIGHER (51% Citywide) 28% OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING (47% Citywide) 28% NON-WHITE POPULATION (35% Citywide) 18% POPULATION MOVED IN THE LAST YEAR FROM WITHIN UTAH (15% Citywide) 7% POPULATION MOVED IN THE LAST YEAR FROM OUT OF STATE OR ABROAD (6% Citywide) AGE BREAKDOWNDRA F T 18 | CAPITOL HILL DIVERSITY SALT LAKE CITY DIVERSITY DRA F T | 21 1002.001002.00 1001.00 1007.00 1008.00 CAPITOL HILL BY CENSUS TRACT Census tracts are small, relatively permanent geographic subdivisions of a county used by the U.S. Census Bureau to collect and analyze population data. They provide a neighborhood- level view of population and housing characteristics, allowing for detailed analysis of specific areas within a city or county. The Capitol Hill plan area consists of 4 different census tracts each with its own ID number. The map shows the boundaries and ID number of each tract. Several demographics characteristics are broken down into these tracts to show how the population differs depending on location. Since the last plan update in 2001, there have been some demographic changes to the Capitol Hill neighborhoods. Generally speaking, the most drastic changes have occurred in the Guadalupe neighborhood, which is in census tract 1001.00. These changes can mostly be attributed to the rapid redevelopment around the North Temple transit station in the past few years. The following numbers were pulled from the 2000 Decennial Census and 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates. The total population of the Capitol Hill plan area in 2000 was 8,193. By 2023, the area had grown to about 10,533. 82% of that growth occurred in the Guadalupe neighborhood alone, growing from about 1,630 people to 3,552 people in the 23-year period. The growth in total number of households was similar; in 2000, there were around 3,768 households in Capitol Hill. In 2023 that had grown to about 5,779 households. C A P I T O L H I L L B Y C E N S U S T R A C T DRA F T 22 | | 23 Again, the Guadalupe neighborhood accounted for most of that, growing from 528 households in 2000 to about 1,981 households in 2023 – that equates to 72% of new households in Capitol Hill being established in the Guadalupe neighborhood since the turn of the century. MEDIAN AGE The neighborhood with the most change in median age was in census tract 1008.00, which is largely the Kimball neighborhood. The median age of other three census tracts increased by 3-4 years since 2000 whereas the median age of the Kimball neighborhood decreased by 10 years from 42.20 years old in 2000 to 32.60 years old in 2023. AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE As can be expected given its share of the population growth, the most changed census tract in terms of average household size is tract 1001.00 – the Guadalupe neighborhood. In 2000, the average household size was approximately 3.09 people. By 2023, that had dropped to 1.79 people per household. Household size in the other three census tracts stayed about the same.RENT OR OWN Of the four census tracts in the plan area, the share of households renting vs. owning only changed significantly in two; census tract 1001.00 – the Guadalupe neighborhood – and census tract 1007.00 – the Marmalade and West Capitol Hill neighborhoods. In the Guadalupe neighborhood, the share of renting households increased from 58% in 2000 to 86% in 2023. In the Marmalade and West Capitol Hill neighborhoods, the share of renting households decreased from 72% in 2000 to 59% in 2023. The other two census tracts stayed largely the same. HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN UNDER 18 Overall, the share of households with children under 18 in the Capitol Hill plan area dropped from 17% of households in 2000 to 11% of households in 2023. MEDIAN AGE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE RENT OR OWN HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION Most of this change can be accounted for in the changing demographics of the Guadalupe neighborhood in census tract 1001.00; in 2000, 33% of households had children under 18 whereas by 2023, only 7% of households had children under 18 living in the home. Census tract 1007.00 – the Marmalade and West Capitol Hill neighborhoods – also saw a decline in households with children decreasing from 19% of households in 2000 to 13% of households in 2023. Alternatively, in tract 1002.00 – Ensign Downs and Desoto/Cortez neighborhoods – the percentage of households with children actually increased from 23% in 2000 to 29% in 2023. The Kimball neighborhood – census tract 1008.00 – also saw a modest increase in households with children, rising from 6% in 2000 to 8% in 2023. Households with Children under 18 Households with Adults over 60 DRA F T 24 | MEDIAN INCOME HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES BELOW POVERTY LEVEL MEDIAN INCOME Adjusted for inflation, each census tract saw income increases to varying degrees. Census tract 1007.00 – Marmalade and West Capitol Hill neighborhoods – saw a 7% increase in median income while census tract 1001.00 – Guadalupe neighborhood – saw a 55% increase in median income from 2000 to 2023. HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES BELOW POVERTY LEVEL Households below the poverty level decreased throughout the Capitol Hill plan area from 17% of households in 2000 to 13% of households in 2023. Most of this change is accounted for in census tract 1007.00 – Marmalade and West Capitol Hill neighborhoods – which saw a drop in poverty rates from 21% in 2000 to 9% in 2023. EDUCATION (POPULATION OVER 25) As a whole, the education level of Capitol Hill increased from 42% of residents over 25 with a college degree in 2000 to 80% of residents over 25 with a college degree in 2023. This increase was largely reflected across all census tracts with the most significant increases in the Guadalupe neighborhood – census tract 1001.00 – which saw its share of residents over 25 with a college degree increase from 23% in 2000 to 74% in 2023. EDUCATION (POPULATION OVER 25) DRA F T 03 LAND USE + ZONING | 27 The Capitol Hill Plan area has the broadest range of zoning and land use types of all the communities in the city, encompassing everything from the least intensive residential developments in the foothills to the highest intensity industrial uses in the northwest portion of the plan area. DRA F T | 29 CURRENT ZONING The Capitol Hill Plan area is made up of the following broader zoning district categories: Residential, Mixed-Use, Commercial, Manufacturing, Open Space and Public Land, and Institutional. Within these broad categories are 28 distinct zoning districts – each with specific regulations governing land use, building height, setbacks, among other development standards. The following sections provide a detailed breakdown of the amount of land in Capitol Hill dedicated to each of these zoning districts. Over half of the land area in the community (54%) is located within the Open Space category. Over a ¼ of the area is designated as Manufacturing and Extractive at approximately 27%. Outside of these larger categories are Residential encompassing 12%, and Mixed- Use at approximately 3%. Approximately 2.5% of land is zoned Institutional and Public Lands, and there is marginal Commercial zoning in the community at 0.54%. LAND USE BREAK DOWN C A P I T O L H I L L C U R R E N T Z O N I N G DRA F T | 31 O P E N S P A C E + N A T U R A L O P E N S P A C E D I S T R I C T S 54% of the Capitol Hill land area is in an Open Space (OS) or Natural Open Space (NOS) zoning district. These zones are designated for parks, recreational areas, and natural open space. OPEN SPACE 51% of the land area is within the Open Space (OS) zoning district. This zone includes spaces that are open to the public, such as: City Creek Canyon, Warm Springs Park, Ensign Peak Nature Park, or the foothills of Capitol Hills. All of these areas are located in the northeast and eastern portion of the plan area. NATURAL OPEN SPACE 3% of the land area is within the Natural Open Space (NOS) zoning district. The intent of this district is to preserve and protect natural areas of environmental or scenic importance. Uses in this district are limited to ecosystem management, conservation or passive recreational land uses. This district is located to the north of the State Capitol building and above extractive industries where the area is highly visible. OPEN SPACE & NATURAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS Open Space & Natural Zone Capitol Hill Acres % of land in Capitol Hill SLC Acres % of land in SLC OS 2,105 51%10,260 20.5% NOS 117 2.8%408 28.6% Totals 2,222 53.7%10,668 20.8%DRA F T | 33 M A N U F A C T U R I N G + E X T R A C T I V E I N D U S T R I E S D I S T R I C T S 27% of the Capitol Hill land area is in either Manufacturing or Extractive Industries zoning districts. These districts lie entirely to the north of 600 North, along the Union Pacific rail line, Beck Street, and east of I-15. EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES 11% of the land area is within the Extractive Industries (EI) zoning district. Capitol Hill is the only community in the city with EI zoned land. The purpose of this district is to provide locational control over extractive uses and promote the reclamation of these sites and to provide appropriate buffering to adjacent districts. The district is on the east side of Beck Street in the northern section of the community. MANUFACTURING 8% of the land area is in the Heavy Manufacturing (M-2) zoning district. The purpose of this district is to provide spaces for larger more intensive industrial uses and uses that are not adversely impacted by the types of uses allowed in this zone. This district is located in the western portion of the community between I-15 and Beck Street. 8% of the land area is in the Light Manufacturing (M-1) zoning district. The purpose of this district is to provide for light industrial uses such as assembly, fabrication, or processing of goods and materials using processes that generally do not create impacts outside of the building. This district acts as a buffer for the Heavy Manufacturing district and is located west of 400 West and east of I-15. MANUFACTURING + EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES DISTRICTS Manufacturing & Extractive Industries Zone Capitol Hill Acres % of land in Capitol Hill SLC Acres % of land in SLC EI 463 11.2%463 100% M-2 321 7.8%845 37.9% M-1 317 7.7%16,971 1.8% Totals 1,101 26.7%18,279 6%DRA F T 34 | | 35 Residential Districts R E S I D E N T I A L D I S T R I C T S 12% of the Capitol Hill land area is zoned exclusively for Residential. The majority of the community’s residential zoning districts range from very low to moderate- density districts, with only 0.22% of the land being zoned for high density. FOOTHILL RESIDENTIAL 5% of the land area is in the Foothill Residential zoning districts (FR-1, FR-2, or FR-3). The Foothill Residential zoning districts are very low- density districts that require 1, ½, and ¼ acre minimum lot sizes respectively, with limited building coverage, and restrictions for building on slopes. This zoning designation is located along the foothills, north the State Capitol building and in development pockets to the west and east of Ensign Peak. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN RESIDENTIAL 4% of the land area is in the Special Development Pattern Residential District, either SR-1A, or SR-3. The SR-1A district is a low- density zoning district, while the SR-3 district is medium- density. These districts are intended to be compatible with the historic development patterns established before zoning districts were formed and are within older neighborhoods to the west and northwest of the State Capitol building. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 2% of the land area is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1-5,000 or R-1-7,000). These are low-density zoning districts with minimum lot sizes of 5,000 or 7,000 square feet respectively and are located to the north of the State Capitol building, near the foothills of Ensign Peak. MODERATE DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1% of the land area is zoned for Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential (RMF-35) or Moderate/ High Density Multi-Family Residential (RMF-45). These zones are located to the south of the State Capitol building, along 300 West and areas surrounding 300 West. SINGLE- AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL <1% of the land area is in the Single-and Two- Family Residential (R-2) zoning district. The intent of this district is to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods with a mix of one- and two- family homes. This is a low-density district that is predominantly found to the north of the State Capitol building. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY <1% of the land area is in the High Density Residential Multi-Family (RMF-75) zoning district. This district has a maximum density of less than 85 dwelling units per acre, accommodates both apartment and condominium homes, and is located in the southeast corner of the plan area. Zone Capitol Hill Acres % of land in Capitol Hill SLC Acres % of land in SLC FR-1 124 3%153 81% FR-2 45 1%191 23.5% FR-3 38 0.91%596 6.3% SR-1A 135 3.3%499 27% SR-3 8 0.19%78 10.2% R-1-5000 6 0.14%2,475 0.2% R-1-7000 57 1.4%2,933 1.9% R-2 37 0.90%287 12.8% RMF-35 34 0.82%444 7.6% RMF-45 14 0.34%169 8.3% RMF-75 9 0.22%41 21.9% Totals 507 12.2%7,866 6.4% RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS DRA F T | 37 M I X E D - U S E D I S T R I C T S 3% of the Capitol Hill land area is in a Mixed-Use zoning district. These areas promote pedestrian oriented urban neighborhoods that contain a mix of residential and commercial land uses. TRANSIT STATION AREA URBAN CENTER 2% of the land area is in a Transit Station Area- Urban Center (TSA-UC) zoning district. The purpose of Transit Station Areas is to promote attractive transit and pedestrian oriented mixed- use development near fixed- rail transit stations. The Urban Center allows for the highest intensity levels and mix of land uses to support the downtown area. Properties with this zoning designation are located along 500 West and the western portion of North Temple. °1% of land area is in the Transit Station Area Urban Center Core (TSA-UC-C) zoning district which is intended to provide areas for intense land development to enhance the areas closest to a transit station as a pedestrian oriented place. °1% of land area is in the Transit Station Area Urban Center Transition (TSA-UC-T) zoning district which provides areas of moderate development intensity to support core areas as well as buffer surrounding neighborhoods from the intensity of the core area. RESIDENTIAL / MIXED USE 1% of the land area is in the Mixed-Use (MU) or Residential Mixed-Use (R-MU) zoning districts. This district promotes a mix of commercial uses that are compatible with residential to support urban neighborhoods. Both the MU and R-MU districts support high density and are located near and along North Temple, 300 West, and 600 North. MIXED-USE DISTRICTS Mixed-Use Districts Zone Capitol Hill Acres % of land in Capitol Hill SLC Acres % of land in SLC TSA-UC-C 49 1.1%59 83% TSA-UC-T 51 1.2%51 100% MU 31 0.75%31 100% R-MU 13 0.32%145 8.9% Totals 144 3.5%286 50.3% DRA F T | 39 I N S T I T U T I O N A L + P U B L I C L A N D S D I S T R I C T S 2.5% of the Capitol Hill land is zoned Public Lands (PL) or in an Institutional zoning district, either Institutional (I) or Urban Institutional (UI). These zones delineate areas for public use, and regulate the development of larger public, semipublic and private institutional uses to help promote compatibility with surrounding uses. The majority of these zones are found in the southern portion of the plan area. PUBLIC LANDS 2% of the land area is within the Public Lands (PL) zoning district. The purpose of the PL district is to delineate areas for public use – uses found in the PL district are government buildings --like the State Capitol Building, Marmalade Library, public schools, public infrastructure, and fire station. INSTITUTIONAL <1% of the land area is within the Institutional (I) zoning district. This zoning designation is intended to ensure public, semi-public, and private institutional uses are cohesive with the surrounding community. This district is limited to one property in the Capitol Hill community which is currently a private school. URBAN INSTITUTIONAL <1% of the land area is within the Urban Institutional (UI) zoning district. This district’s purpose is to accommodate institutional uses that have a campus-like setting, and in this community, is located exclusively along North Temple where the LDS Conference Center and LDS Church History Library reside. Institutional & Public Lands Districts INSTITUTIONAL + PUBLIC LANDS DISTRICTS Zone Capitol Hill Acres % of land in Capitol Hill SLC Acres % of land in SLC PL 82 2%662 12.3% I 6 0.14%988 0.60% UI 15 0.36%54 27.7% Totals 103 2.51%1,704 6% DRA F T | 41 COMMERCIAL + MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT CONSOLIDATION On July 8, 2025, the Salt Lake City Council approved an ordinance to consolidate 27 commercial, form- based, and mixed-use zoning districts into 6 new mixed-use (MU) districts. The new mixed-use districts resemble the former zones, but feature adjustments to setbacks, building height, lot coverage, permitted land uses, and other related provisions. These changes will go into effect on October 8, 2025. The following zoning districts in the plan area will be consolidated into the new MU zoning districts as follows: Visit bit.ly/MUconsolidation for more information about the consolidation. C O M M E R C I A L 1% (0.54%) of the Capitol Hill land area is in a Commercial zoning district. The commercial districts in the plan area include: BUSINESS PARK (BP) This zoning district provides for office and warehouse types of development in a campus- like setting while creating an environment that is compatible with nearby established communities. CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL (CC) This district provides for commercial areas along arterial and major collector streets while promoting compatible designs that considers adjacent residential neighborhoods. GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) The purpose of this district is to provide for a variety of commercial uses that are focused on retail sales and services, entertainment, office and heavy commercial. COMMUNITY BUSINESS (CB) This zoning district is intended to integrate moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN) This district promotes small scale, low intensity commercial uses that have limited impact on surrounding residential neighborhoods. Existing Zoning Districts Consolidated MU Zoning Districts CN, SNB MU-2 CB MU-3 CC MU-5 RO, TSA-UC-T MU-6 RMU MU-8 CG, TSA-UC-C MU-11 Zone Avenues Acres % Avenues Acres SLC Acres % SLC Acres BP 8 0.19%708 1.1% CC 5 0.12%326 1.5% CG 4 0.09%1,067 0.37% CB 4 0.09%171 2.3% CN 0.29 0.007%66 0.44% Totals 21.29 0.54%2,338 0.91% COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Commercial DistrictsDRA F T | 43 OVERLAY DISTRICTS Overlay districts apply supplemental regulations to the “base” or underlying zoning district. These additional standards are aligned to unique geographic or land use characteristics. There are three overlay districts within the Capitol Hill Plan boundaries: Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay District (CHPA) The purpose of this overlay district is to protect the view corridor to the Utah State Capitol Building by prohibiting any process (such as incentives or a planned development) to exceed the maximum height allowed in the underlying zoning district. The CHPA includes 588 properties surrounding the State Capitol building on the east, west, north, and south. Historic Preservation Overlay District (H) Properties subject to the H Overlay include local landmark sites and properties within a local historic district. The purpose of the Local Historic Overlay District is to preserve individual structures and sites having historic, architectural, or cultural significance. For more details on local historic districts and sites in Capitol Hill that are subject to this overlay, refer to the Historic Preservation section of this report. Airport Flight Path Protection (AFPP) The intent of the Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay district is to reduce potential hazards of obstruction or incompatible uses within an established perimeter near the airport. The northwest section of the community is within this overlay district (Airport influence zone H), which has specific height restrictions of 150 feet above the airport elevation. Properties that are within this overlay district have a base zoning designation of M-1 or M-2. Overlay Districts Land Ownership LAND OWNERSHIP 50% Privately Owned 50% Government & Public Owned Of the government and publicly owned land, Salt Lake City owns the largest share—approximately 33% of the total land area. Most of this is designated as open space in the foothills, with smaller portions allocated to parks, a fire station, and a public library. Federal land accounts for about 14% of the area, primarily located within the Wasatch National Forest in the northern portion of the plan area. The remaining 3% is owned by state, county, and utility entities, which includes properties such as the Utah State Capitol, public schools, Utah Transit Authority (UTA) facilities, and communication towers. Source: SLC Parcel Data DRA F T 44 | | 45 NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES Walkable Salt Lake City evaluated neighborhood access to certain amenities by measuring the share of housing units within a 15-minute walk. In the Capitol Hill community, most housing units are within walking distance of nearly all listed amenities. Access is highest in the more central parts of the neighborhood, which are closer to downtown and feature higher density and mixed-use development. In contrast, housing units in the foothills, where land use is primarily single family residential, are farther from most amenities. At least 90% of housing units in Capitol Hill are within a 15-minute walk of 9 amenities, which include parks, bus stops, trails, offices, recreation, retail, restaurants, schools, healthcare, libraries, and childcare. The neighborhood's only grocery store, Lees Market, is accessible to 84% of housing units. Less than 50% of Capitol Hill households have a pharmacy or hospital within a 15 minute walk. Compared to city-wide averages, Capitol Hill performs similarly or better in most categories. The neighborhood stands out in access to trails and libraries. Notable gaps are for pharmacies and hospitals, where Capitol Hill has significantly lower access than the city overall. Source: Walkable Salt Lake City, 2025 Amenities Capitol Hill Citywide Difference Parks 100.0%98.7%1.30% Bus Stops 98.6%98.3%0.30% Trials 98.6%82.1%16.50% Offices 97.9%96.7%1.20% Recreation 97.5%90.6%6.90% Retail 97.5%94.6%2.90% Restaurants 97.1%96.0%1.10% Schools 97.1%93.9%3.20% Healthcare 95.5%91.0%4.50% Libraries 91.4%41.4%50.00% Childcare 90.7%90.7%0.00% Grocery Stores 83.7%81.0%2.70% Pharmacies 46.3%77.6%-31.30% Hospitals 6.2%31.4%-25.20% HOUSING UNITS WITH WALKABLE ACCESS TO AMENITIESDRA F T 04 HOUSING | 47 Housing is foundational to the health and vitality of any community. Key elements of a healthy and vibrant community are housing stability, aging in place, affordable and accessible housing, diversity of housing types, and livable housing. DRA F T | 49 DENSITY The Housing Density Map depicts housing density per block in Capitol Hill. Density is determined by the number of dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The color gradient represents varying density levels, with darker shades indicating higher densities and lighter shades representing lower densities. °The average density in the plan area is 12 du/ ac and the majority of areas in Capitol Hill fall between 10 and 25 du/ac. °The Ensign Downs neighborhood exhibits the community’s lowest density at 1 du/ac or less. This very low density is largely due to the Foothills Residential zoning districts in this area that require large minimum lot sizes between ¼ acre for FR-3 and 1 acre for FR-1. °Capitol Hill’s highest housing density, approximately 69 du/ac, is found in the northern portion of the Kimball neighborhood between 200 and 300 North, and Almond and Vine Streets. Areas around the North Temple Bridge/Guadalupe Trax Station also contain higher densities of 62 du/ac. Capitol Hill Community Existing Housing Density Source: SLC Housing Density by Block, 2024 C A P I T O L H I L L H O U S I N G D E N S I T Y DRA F T 50 | | 51 HOUSING TYPES + NUMBER OF UNITS There are approximately 7,331 housing units in the Capitol Hill Community, which accounts for approximately 7% of the total number of units in Salt Lake City. Residential uses occupy roughly 10% of the land in the plan area. Single family homes are found throughout Capitol Hill. In the northern portion of the plan area in the Ensign Downs neighborhood, single family homes are the only housing type that can be found with densities ranging from five to less than one dwelling unit per acre, accounting for the difference between the percentage of housing units compared to the large amount of land occupied by single family homes. SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES 17% of housing units Apartments make up the largest percentage of housing units in the plan area but only account for 17% of the land area. Apartments are scattered throughout Capitol Hill, with the majority of this building type being smaller scale (<20 units). Larger apartment buildings are located in the southwestern portion of the plan area in the Guadalupe neighborhood, and the southern portion in the Kimball neighborhood. APARTMENTS 65% of housing units These housing types both include two units— either as a duplex or as a primary home with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) that may be attached or detached from the home. Duplexes are found throughout most of the plan area. Since Salt Lake City adopted its ADU ordinance, three ADUs have been constructed in Capitol Hill, out of the total of 121 ADUs built citywide. DUPLEXES + SINGLE FAMILY ADUS 5% of housing units Condos in Capitol Hill are primarily located in the Kimball and Marmalade neighborhoods, with developments ranging in size from as few as 4 units up to 258 units. Condos provide an important alternative to single-family homes while still offering ownership opportunities. CONDOMINIUMS (CONDOS) 9% of housing units Townhomes represent the fewest number of housing units and the least amount of residential land area and are mostly located in the Kimball, Marmalade, and Guadalupe neighborhoods They offer an ownership option for those who want a home with some yard space but generally at a lower purchase price than a single-family home. TOWNHOMES 4% of housing units Capitol Hill Housing Types Townhomes - 105 N Salt Street DRA F T 52 | | 53 Housing Inventory Type Capitol Hill Citywide # of Units # of Acres % of Units % of Acres # of Units # of Acres % of Units % of Acres Apartment 4733 78 65.1% 15.9% 49,011 968 9.7%8.0% Condo 678 14 9.2% 2.9% 7,750 208 8.8% 6.7% Duplex 396 29 5.4% 5.9% 4,778 385 8.3% 7.5% Single Family 1239 355 16.9% 72.5% 38,672 7371 3.2% 4.8% ADU 3 N/A 0.04%N/A 121 N/A 2.5%N/A Townhome 282 13 3.8% 2.7% 1,484 89 0.19% 3.2% Mobile Home 0 0 0 0 526 75 0 0% Totals 7,331 489 102,342 9096 7.1% 5.4% HOUSING TYPES BY UNIT COUNT + LAND ALLOCATED HOUSING TYPES + LAND AREA Utah Geospatial Resource Center Utah Housing Unit Inventory SLC Building Permits Note: The inventory doesn't include the following types of residential properties: Nursing, rehabilitation, or assisted living centers, and student housing or dormitories H O M E V A L U E S The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers housing to be affordable when a household is paying no more than 30% of their total gross income towards housing expenses (rent/mortgage, utilities, and mandatory fees). The 30% standard applies to households of any income level. Households that spend more than 30% of their gross income on housing are considered cost burdened, while those spending 50% or more are classified as extremely cost burdened. Cost-burdened households often struggle to afford other necessities such as transportation, healthy food, or emergency expenses. This chart identifies the percentage of households that are cost burdened or extremely cost burdened within the plan area and the city as a whole. American Community Survey % Year Estimates, 2019-2023 COST BURDENED HOUSEHOLDS According to 2023-2024 MLS information, the median home price in the Capitol Hill Plan area is $582,500, which is slightly higher than the median home price in Salt Lake City which is $563,500. AFFORDABILITY DRA F T | 55 Median Home Price in Capitol Hill as of 2024 Interest Rate as of May 2025 Down Payment Monthly Mortgage Min. Household Income to Avoid Cost Burden $582,500 6.7%20% - $116,500 $3,682.00 $147,280 $582,500 6.7%5% - $29,125 $4,476.38 $169,832 COST BURDEN SCENARIO A R E A M E D I A N I N C O M E ( A M I ) Area median income (AMI) is the median income for all households in a specific geography, and the most common measure of affordability in the United States. In Salt Lake City, AMI is based on households in the Salt Lake City metro area which includes Salt Lake and Tooele counties. HUD uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau to determine AMI each year. AMI is adjusted for household size—as a household size increases, the income threshold for AMI also increases. This means the AMI for a two-person household will be lower than for a four-person household. Salt Lake City's Housing Stability Division provides additional information on how AMI is calculated at https://www.slc.gov/housingstability/ami/ AFFORDABLE HOUSING Affordable housing units are deed-restricted and set-aside for income-verified households at a range of affordability levels. Capitol Hill includes 691 affordable housing units across nine projects—two of which are affordable homeownership projects where the homes were sold at affordable rates with a deed restriction, and the remaining seven are deed-restricted rental units. % of AMI 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 80% 120% # of Rental Units 14 26 255 189 167 29 # of Home Ownership Units 8 3 Source: Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency Source: HUD, Bureau of Labor Statistics The following represents occupations and housing costs for an individual supporting a 4-person household at different income levels. Level of Affordability: 30% AMI Extremely Low-Income: $0K—$36K Max. Affordable Monthly Housing Costs: $920 Example Occupation / Average Wages: Food Server / $31,220 /($15/hr) Level of Affordability: 80% AMI Low-Income Income: $62K—$98K Max. Affordable Monthly Housing Costs: $2,400 Example Occupation / Average Wages: Nurse / $86,070 / ($41/hr) Level of Affordability: 50% AMI Very Low-Income Income: $37K—$61K Max. Affordable Monthly Housing Costs: $1,500 Example Occupation / Average Wages: Kindergarten Teacher / $56,620 ($27/hr) Level of Affordability: 120% AMI Moderate Income Income: $99K—$147K Max. Affordable Monthly Housing Costs: $3,700 Example Occupation / Average Wages: Software Developer / $120,910 ($58/hr)DRA F T 05 PARKS, RECREATION + OPEN SPACE | 57 The Capitol Hill Plan area offers a diverse mix of public parks, trails, natural lands, and outdoor recreation opportunities that enhance the community’s quality of life. Key amenities include Memory Grove—one the earliest parks created in the city and most popular amongst Capitol Hill residents—and Ensign Peak, which is the main access point for the northern foothills. The foothills above Capitol Hill provide direct access to regional trail systems like the Bonneville Shoreline Trail and City Creek Canyon, offering opportunities to hike, bike, and enjoy the outdoors. DRA F T | 59 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 5 Capitol Hill Community Existing Housing Density | Source: SLC Housing Density by Block, 2024 PARKS, RECREATION + OPEN SPACE Parks, open space, and recreation land uses owned by the city occupy 22% of the Capitol Hill Plan area and encompass approximately 1,028 acres of land. 100% of households in Capitol Hill are within a 15-minute walk of a park or open space. Walking time was measured from homes to city owned parks, trailheads, natural lands, and the Utah State Capitol Grounds. Map # Name Park Type Address Size (acre) 1 Memory Grove Community 300 N Canyon Rd 11.3 2 Warm Springs Park Community 840 N Beck St 19.6 3 North Gateway Park Community 910 N Beck St 6.1 4 City Creek Park Neighborhood 110 N State St 2.1 5 Ensign Downs Park Neighborhood 125 E Dorchester Dr 6.5 6 Marmalade Plaza Neighborhood 524 N 300 W 0.6 7 Ensign Peak Nature Park Entry Mini 1002 N Ensign Vista Dr 1.8 8 Guadalupe Park Mini 619 W 500 N 0.8 9 Pugsley Ouray Park Mini 491 N Pugsley St 0.1 10 Silver Park Mini 126 W 500 N 0.2 11 Swede Town Park Mini 840 W 1500 N 0.6 PARKS WITHIN CAPITOL HILL P A R K S , R E C R E A T I O N + O P E N S P A C E L E V E L O F S E R V I C E Level of Service (LOS) is a calculation that provides the number of acres per 1,000 people. When combined with a walkability analysis, LOS can help reveal how well Capitol Hill’s parks and natural lands meet the needs of its residents. Data pulled from the April 2019 SLC Parks and Public Lands Needs Assessment. LEVEL OF SERVICE 6DRA F T 60 | | 61 In summary, the Capitol Hill planning area relies heavily on adjacent natural lands. It has a slightly higher level of park service than other planning areas but lacks flat land more conducive to park development, particularly the development of athletic fields. The areas of greatest need are (1) the Marmalade neighborhood which is served primarily by well dispersed mini parks and the State Capitol Grounds and (2) the Guadalupe neighborhood which is served by a single mini park and a new multi-use path that will eventually connect to the Jordan River Trail. The Guadalupe neighborhood is growing rapidly surrounding the transit station therefore access to additional parks or open space will become a more significant issue over time. P A R K S The Capitol Hill Plan area features several types of parks and open space within its boundaries. These range from large community parks to mini parks. Community parks are large parks focused on meeting the major park and recreation needs of the city rather than just the surrounding neighborhood. Memory Grove, the most used park in Capitol Hill, has restrooms, walking paths, an off-leash dog area, drinking fountains, and picnic tables. Warm Springs & North Gateway parks are primarily multi-purpose fields with walking paths, drinking fountains, and restrooms. Neighborhood parks are generally smaller than community parks and primarily serve neighborhood needs. City Creek Park is the second most visited park in Capitol Hill which includes a plaza, drinking fountains, and a daylighted portion of City Creek. Ensign Downs Park is the most traditional park in Capitol Hill with various sports courts, a playground, walking path, and drinking fountains. Marmalade Plaza is a new urban park built in conjunction with the new Marmalade Library branch. It features a plaza, landscaped areas, water features, and public art. As the name suggests, mini parks are small sites that range in size from less than an acre to almost two acres. They are the most prevalent park type in the city and are typically found in older, urbanized areas like Capitol Hill. Because of their limited size, these parks typically offer one or two amenities like basketball courts and playgrounds. While not owned or managed by the city, the State Capitol Grounds serve as a popular, critical park space where people come to walk, run, and recreate. The spring cherry blossoms draw visitors from around the state every year. N A T U R A L L A N D S There are two types of natural lands within the Capitol Hill planning area. Urban natural lands are natural lands typically surrounded by urban development or adjacent to manicured parks. These lands often serve a parklike function, and they require a higher level of maintenance and resources than non-urban natural lands. Non- urban lands require less maintenance and often directly connect with other public lands. They are dominated by large areas of intact habitat and bisected by recreational trails. The City Creek Natural Area, Bonneville Shoreline Preserve, Columbus Hillside Preserve, Ensign Peak Natural Park, and Stansbury Shoreline Preserve represent the city owned natural lands within the plan area. There are also numerous state, federal, and privately owned natural areas that provide recreational access in this part of the city. The City Creek Natural Area includes the lower portion of City Creek Canyon and the surrounding undeveloped hills, half of which are in the Capitol Hill Plan area, and the other half in the Avenues. This area is a major recreational site for the entire city. Ensign Peak Natural Park is another area with regional draw and primarily protects the historic site and trail leading up to the peak. The remaining natural lands protect the wildlife corridors and hillsides from development and are popular with hikers and birdwatchers. The Parks and Public Lands division recently completed work on the Victory Road trailhead located north of Victory Road between Warm Springs Park and the Utah State Capitol. This location represents the lowest elevation (4450 ft) and westernmost access to the Foothills Trail System within Salt Lake City. This trailhead serves as a major access point for the northern and western Foothills trails around Ensign Peak, Meridian Peak, Hell Canyon, and the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. These three trails provide access to the rest of the foothills trail system which is largely comprised of informal social trails. Users have carved out these trails to the various peaks, canyons, and groves through years of use. The majority of these social trails follow ridgelines or drainage bottoms and run perpendicular to existing contours; other trails follow old jeep routes and fire roads. Therefore, the existing network consists of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail and a great number of social trails that accommodate direct access from Capitol Hill neighborhoods to the BST and nearby peaks. In addition to the foothills trail system, the Freedom Trail and Lower City Creek Loop within the City Creek Natural Area and Memory Grove Park connect Capitol Hill to City Creek Canyon and the recreational opportunities provided there. The newest trail accessible from the Capitol Hill plan area is the Folsom Trail, an off-street paved walking and bicycling path that was completed in 2022. Although the trail itself lies outside the plan boundaries, it begins at the North Temple Frontrunner Station, within the plan area, providing critical recreation access to a rapidly redeveloping portion of the Capitol Hill community. The trail currently runs between 500 and 1000 W. In 2022, the Parks and Public Lands division received funding to expand the trail from 1000 W to the Jordan River Parkway. The expansion phase of the Folsom Trail is still in the design and planning stage as staff work with adjacent property owners to acquire the preferred trail alignment. T R A I L S The most significant planned trail in the foothills trail system, the Bonneville Shoreline Trail (BST) was conceived to follow the shoreline of the ancient Lake Bonneville, as well as to represent the encroachment limit from development into the foothills. Salt Lake City’s portion of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail stretches about 20 miles from North Salt Lake to Parley’s Canyon with the northernmost section running above Capitol Hill. Another major foothill trail within the plan area is Ensign Peak, a popular area for its historic significance, easy access, and stunning views of the city and valley. Access to the larger foothill trail system within Capitol Hill is funneled primarily through the Ensign Peak trailhead which originates on a small residential street with no off-street parking. Ensign Peak Trail DRA F T 62 | URBAN TREE COVERAGE Tree canopy coverages vary greatly in each Salt Lake neighborhood. In Capitol Hill, tree canopy coverage is 16.5%, which is similar to the tree canopy coverage of Salt Lake as a whole. In comparison, overall city-wide tree canopy coverage is 15.6%. S U R F A C E T E M P E R A T U R E S The Urban Forest Action Plan found that surface temperatures in Capitol Hill reached 118.3 - 123°F in July 2020, among the hottest conditions recorded citywide. Capitol Hill shares the highest heat category with Downtown and the Northwest Quadrant. In comparison, the Sugar House and East Bench neighborhoods recorded lower temperatures, averaging between 100 and 115°F. Lower temperatures correlate to areas with more tree canopy, and vice versa. To address disparities of heat and tree canopy coverage the Urban Forestry Action Plan recommends planting more trees in heat-prone corridors and exposed areas. Master Plan Area Percent Cover Avenues 25 Sugar House 24 East Bench 23.6 Central Community 21.9 Capitol Hill 16.5 Northwest 13.5 Westside 10.8 Downtown 6.4 Northwest Quadrant 1.1 Airport 0.5 Tree Canopy Surface Temperature 100°F 100.1 - 115°F 115.3 - 118°F 118.3 - 123°F Northwest City Creek Northwest Quadrant West Salt Lake Capitol Hill East BenchCentral City Downtown Sugar House Avenues Airport Surface temperature by General Plan boundaries - Temperature measured on July 31, 2020 at 5:05pm local time by NASA’s ECOSTREESS satellite. | 63 DRA F T 06 TRANSPORTATION | 65 The transportation network in Capitol Hill has been shaped by access to the State Capitol, interstate access and the steep terrain due to the topography of the foothills. This section examines the area's roadway system, traffic patterns, transit access, and active transportation infrastructure, with a focus on safety, connectivity, and mobility. DRA F T | 67 Street Classifications STREET TYPES Capitol Hill contains a total of 265 street segments consisting of mostly local streets and arterials. Below is the breakdown of street types in the Capitol Hill neighborhood: C L A S S I F I C A T I O N S ARTERIAL STREETS Arterial streets are major roads designed to carry high volumes of traffic. They act as the backbone of street networks connecting collector and local streets to highways, interstates, and other major destinations in the city. They are characterized by multiple lanes, higher speeds, and signalized intersections. In Capitol Hill there are 30 street segments on 11 streets that are classified as arterial with various speed limits depending on the road ranging from 25-50 mph. Arterial streets in the community provide interstate access to I-15, downtown areas, and the State Capitol. COLLECTOR STREETS Collector streets are low to moderate capacity roads that connect arterial and local streets. Collectors can be multi-lane but are meant to carry less traffic at lower speeds and for shorter distances than Arterials. They provide direct access to abutting property and carry a mix of local traffic and commuter traffic headed for nearby destinations. There are only two collector street segments in Capitol Hill both on 300 North, specifically between State Street to Capitol Street and 300 West to 400 West, and have a designated speed limit of 25-30 mph. LOCAL STREETS Local streets, the most common street type in Capitol Hill, are low-capacity roads that provide direct access to individual properties. They are generally two lanes and may or may not include pavement markings. In Salt Lake City all local streets have a speed limit of 20 mph. DRA F T 68 | TRAFFIC VOLUMES The 2023 Average Daily Traffic Map shows the average daily number of cars that travel each monitored road segment. This data was collected by Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and does not indicate the level of service of the roadway or the estimated capacity of the roadway, it only represents the number of cars that travel on the roadway per day. The main routes in Capitol Hill include I-15, Beck Street, North Temple, 300 West, Victory Road, 600 North, State Street and Main Street. I-15 which is along the western boundary of the plan area has the highest traffic volume with between 135,000 to 171,000 vehicles each day. Traffic Volumes DRA F T 70 | P A V E M E N T O V E R A L L C O N D I T I O N I N D E X ( O C I ) Roadway conditions in the plan area range from an OCI of 5 to 88 or failed to good condition. This is tracked by the Overall Condition Index (OCI), which is the value given to a road segment to communicate the condition using various factors such as cracking, potholes, rideability, age, traffic volume, maintenance history, climate and pavement type. OCI ratings are measured on a scale of 0 to 100 with 0 meaning the pavement has failed to 100 meaning the pavement is in good condition with ratings of serious, poor, fair and satisfactory in between. OCI RATING SCALE °Good: 100-86 °Satisfactory: 85-71 °Fair: 70-56 °Poor: 55-41 °Very Poor: 40-26 °Serious: 25-11 °Failed: 10-0 The streets in the Capitol Hill neighborhood have an average Overall Condition Index (OCI) of 54.1 out of 100, which is slightly worse than the citywide average OCI of 56.5. ROADWAY CONDITIONS The OCI is only tracked for City owned roads. The only main routes that are city owned are Main Street, 400 West and North Temple. 400 West and North Temple have OCI ratings ranging from 57 to 88 (fair to good condition) for most street segments. One segment of North Temple between West Temple and Main St is in poor condition, with an OCI of 45. While the condition of Main Street is poor with an OCI of 42. Pavement Conditions R O A D S A F E T Y Between 2008 and April 2025 there have been 4,728 crashes in Capitol Hill. Of the total crashes, 3,852 involved no injuries, 444 had possible injuries, 379 involved injuries, 41 involved severe injuries and 12 were fatal. Of the 4,728 crashes 58 involved bicyclists, 89 involved pedestrians (3 of which were fatal), 8 involved electric scooters, and 2 involved trains. During this 17-year period the streets and intersections with the highest concentration of crashes has remained consistent. The intersection of 300 West and North Temple has had the highest number of crashes with 289, followed by the 300 West 600 North intersection with 125 crashes. The intersection of North Temple and State Street, 300 North and 300 West, and 600 North and 400 West all have a higher concentration of crashes, as well as along North Temple, 300 West/Beck St, State Street, 300 North, 600 North, and Main Street. 600 N 400 S - Intersection DRA F T 72 | | 73 Bike Network BICYCLE NETWORK In the Capitol Hill Community, there are both commuter and recreational bike networks. Most of the bike network is commuter, which are bike lanes that are part of the street network. The recreational bike network includes the trail system in the foothills in the northern part of the plan area. Additionally, there are 16 city- maintained bike racks and four GREENbike stations located in the plan area. GREENbike is a nonprofit bike share where members can rent ebikes throughout the city. C O M M U T E R B I K E N E T W O R K In Capitol Hill approximately 73% of parcels are within .25 mi of a bike route. The main bike routes are on 200 and 300 West and continues onto Beck Street, North Temple, and East Capitol Boulevard. There are no protected bike lanes, and the bike network consists of on road bike routes with mainly low to medium comfort ratings. The comfort level is determined by vehicle traffic volume, bike facilities such as physical separation or painted lanes, and vehicle traffic speed. C O M F O R T HIGH COMFORT Off road trails, on road lanes with physical separation, or streets with low vehicle speed and traffic volume. MEDIUM COMFORT Painted bike lanes on moderate volume roads, bike lanes with paint buffers on higher volume traffic roads and shared lanes with slower speeds. LOW COMFORT Bike lanes or shoulders on busy streets and important connections without bike facilities on moderate volume roads. EXTREMELY LOW COMFORT Routes not recommended for bicycle travel but have no practical alternative for some trips. R E C R E A T I O N A L B I K E N E T W O R K The eastern boundary of Capitol Hill is defined by City Creek Canyon. The canyon includes many mountain biking trails and a high comfort paved bike loop on Bonneville Blvd. Additionally, the northern portion of Capitol Hill includes mountain biking trail access including Ensign Peak Trail Head. GREENBikes at Marmalade Library Branch Bonneville Blvd DRA F T | 75 TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY Within Capitol Hill there is a range of transit options including bus, light rail, and rail provided by Utah Transit Authority (UTA). Buses make up most of the transit options in the plan area with nine bus routes. These routes mainly run along North Temple, 300 West near West High, and around the Capitol. The only light rail or TRAX routes within Capitol Hill are along North Temple on the southeast boundary of the plan area. There are two routes the Blue and Green lines which service Salt Lake Central Station to Draper and the Airport to West Valley City. There is one FrontRunner stop located in the plan boundary, with access at the North Temple Bridge/ Guadalupe Station. There are several other TRAX and bus stations within .25 mile of the community that provide access to the rest of the UTA transit network. Additionally, the western part of the plan area west of 300 West has access to UTA’s On Demand service. The purpose of On Demand is to connect people to other forms of transit such as light rail or bus. It is an app-based service where a user can book a ride to be picked up within the designated service area and brought to a transit stop to complete their trip. This helps to fill the gaps for areas that are under served by fixed transit routes. T R A N S I T F R E Q U E N C Y Utah Transit Authority (UTA) bus routes operate on different levels of frequency depending on the route, demand, and stops serviced. The route frequency is the amount of time between each route bus at any given stop. In Capitol Hill, the South Temple, State Street North and 500 East bus routes are every 15 minutes which is the highest frequency for UTA bus routes. The U of U Davis County and Ogden Salt Lake Intercity are every 30 minutes, and the Tooele Fast Bus, SLC-Ogden HWY 89 Express and Ogden/Salt Lake Express routes are every 30 minutes during peak hours. The 2300 East/Holladay bus route only runs every 120 minutes. UTA rail generally operates on a 15-minute frequency for TRAX and 30 minutes for FrontRunner service. Transit Routes Frequency T R A N S I T R O U T E S DRA F T COMMUTE MODES In Capitol Hill, the majority of people drove to work, with 71.66% commuting by car, truck, or van. Of those who drove, 90% drove alone. In 2023, 15.72% of Capitol Hill residents worked from home. Mode of Transportation % of Total Residents Car, truck, or van 71.66% Drove alone 64.70% Carpooled 6.96% In 2-person carpool 5.81% In 3-person carpool 0.97% In 4-person carpool 0.00% In 5- or 6-person carpool 0.18% In 7-or-more-person car- pool 0.00% Public transportation (excluding taxicab)4.79% Bus 1.89% Long-distance train or commuter rail 1.08% Light rail, streetcar or trolley 1.30% Taxicab 1.70% Motorcycle 0.00% Bicycle 0.62% Walked 5.37% Other means 0.15% Worked from home 15.72% 76 | COMMUTING + CONNECTIVITY The breakdown of commute times, mode of transportation, and location of work for people in the Capitol Hill neighborhood varies. The below tables break down employment and travel data based on 2023 census data. Commute Average Time % of Commuters Less than 5 minutes 0.98% 5 to 9 minutes 9.62% 10 to 14 minutes 23.50% 15 to 19 minutes 26.57% 20 to 24 minutes 15.48% 25 to 29 minutes 3.99% 30 to 34 minutes 9.10% 35 to 39 minutes 4.85% 40 to 44 minutes 0.49% 45 to 59 minutes 3.60% 60 to 89 minutes 1.82% COMMUTE TIME The average commute time for residents in Capitol Hill is approximately 19.78 minutes compared to 19.3 minutes average citywide, and the majority of residents have an average commute time of 10 to 24 minutes. CONNECTIVITY Where People Work Percentage Worked in SLC 67.16% Worked outside SLC 32.84% North Temple Station DRA F T 78 | TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY The existing commercial uses and zoning districts have been highlighted in the below maps in context of bike and transit routes. The map shows the commercial uses and zones within the Capitol Hill plan area boundaries and within .25 mi of the boundaries in comparison to the existing bike and transit routes/stops. The buffer indicates .25 mi from the existing commercial uses which highlights the proximity of these uses to the existing bike and transit routes. The existing commercial uses are generally concentrated along 300 W where most of existing mixed use and commercial zoning is located. Just outside the plan boundary, there is also a cluster of commercial uses in Downtown where there is more density and access to transit. Transit Connectivity Bike Routes T R A N S I T C O N N E C T I V I T Y | T R A N S I T R O U T E S DRA F T DENSITY + TRANSPORTATION The below map highlights density in relation to transit routes and stops and bike routes. The buffer indicates .25 mi from parcels with density greater than 25 units per acre and highlights transit and bike routes within that proximity. The higher density parcels are located in southern portion of the plan area, close to downtown, where there is more access to transit. SIDEWALKS + ADA RAMPS The majority of local streets within the Capitol Hill neighborhood have sidewalks and ADA ramps on both sides of the roadway, except some streets located in steep, hillside areas and industrial areas. The portion of this plan area that is primarily made up of industrial uses generally lacks sidewalks and ADA ramps, along with other road infrastructure like curbs and gutters. Existing sidewalks and ADA ramps are continuously evaluated by the Salt Lake City Engineering Department to ensure they are properly maintained and upgraded as needed. C A P I T O L H I L L D E N S I T Y + T R A N S I T DRA F T | 83 Capitol Hill plays an important role in historic preservation as it is the oldest surviving residential area in the city, with homes dating back to the arrival of Mormon pioneers. This longevity has created a diverse mix of historical and architectural resources, providing a unique glimpse into the city's past. 07 PRESERVATION DRA F T | 85 civic improvement. City Creek Canyon is significant as Salt Lake City’s first park to take advantage of existing natural terrain. Defined by the edges of the shallow canyon that separates Capitol Hill from the Avenues, the park embodies early efforts by city improvement groups—part of a broader national movement led by organizations like the American Civic Association, which promoted civic improvements and urban planning. The district also includes Memory Grove, a significant commemorative space. Due to the canyon’s strong geographic boundaries, a small group of residences is closely associated with the area and included in the historic district. These homes, replacing earlier structures, were built in architectural styles typical of the 1880–1920 period. NORTHWEST NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT °National Historic District Listing: 2001 The Northwest National Historic District, covering 28-square-blocks, is a primarily residential area that developed between the 1850s and the 1950s. Only the eastern portion of the district is within the Capitol Hill Plan area, and encompasses portions of the Guadalupe Neighborhood, where the oldest homes in the historic district are located. Architecturally and historically significant, the district reflects a blend of its proximity to downtown Salt Lake City and separation created by the railroad lines near 500 West. This combination shaped both its development pattern and cultural diversity. The social, economic, and cultural history of the district is tied to the railroad industry, which brought economic opportunity to the area. The development patterns illustrate a gradual shift from semi-agricultural blocks to residential courts and streetcar subdivisions. CAPITOL HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT °National Historic District Listing: 1982 °Local Historic District Designation: 1984 Preservation efforts began in the Marmalade neighborhood as early as 1975 when the Utah Heritage Foundation (renamed Preservation Utah) moved its headquarters to Quince Street and began promoting the area for historic preservation. The Capitol Hill Historic District is significant as the oldest surviving residential district in Salt Lake City. Its streets and houses document approximately 175 years of construction and neighborhood development. The scale and irregularity of the streets and blocks are not typical of the rest of Salt Lake, rather they are a product of steep hillside which made the area unattractive for redevelopment and also helped ensure its survival. The district preserves a representative cross section of the City and State’s architectural and historical resources, ranging from high style mansions of Arsenal Hill (now the Kimball neighborhood) to the tightly packed workmen’s cottages on Reed Street. Much of the historic character of the Marmalade and Kimball neighborhoods has been preserved. The Marmalade neighborhood is characterized by its steep narrow streets, irregular shaped lots, various setbacks and houses oriented to the site rather than the street. This unusual physical layout and the high concentration of historic homes makes the Marmalade area unique. One of the distinctive features of the Kimball neighborhood are the varied historic stone retaining walls, found mostly on the east side of the State Street corridor. CITY CREEK CANYON HISTORIC DISTRICT °National Historic District Listing: 1980 °Local Historic District Designation: 2015 The City Creek Canyon Historic District is made up of park areas with a small residential section at its southern end. The parks and the homes document an important era of city growth and HISTORIC DISTRICTS The Capitol Hill Community Plan area includes the Capitol Hill historic district, which is primary located in the Kimball and Marmalade neighborhoods, the western portion the City Creek Canyon historic district (west of City Creek itself), and a portion of the Northwest national historic district. NATIONAL VS LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS National Historic District These are resources that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Listing at the national level does not restrict what a property owner may do with a property but does provide federal or state tax credits for a rehabilitation project. It does not protect historic properties from alteration or demolition. Local Historic District These are resources that are designated by Salt Lake City for their artistic, historic, or cultural significance. Locally designated properties require review for any exterior changes to the property to ensure that changes are compatible and retain the most significant, or “character-defining” elements. In Local Historic Districts, this additional level of review contributes to neighborhood stability, since current and prospective property owners know that the distinctive architectural features of a particular neighborhood are protected over time. Historic Districts Solid-colored areas represent Local Historic Districts. Hatched areas indicate National Historic Districts. DRA F T 86 | | 87 Property Name Address Designation 24th Ward Meeting House 700 North 200 West Local Bowman House (Robert)434 North Quince Street Local Brooks-Geoghgan House 105 North East Capitol Street (204 N. State Street)Local Browning-Aures House 328 North Center Street Local Carlson House (August W.)378 North Quince Street Local Christenson House (Neils C.)375 North Quince Street Local Dickson-Gardner-Wolf House 273 North East Capitol Street Local Ensign Peak 1300 North 100 East Local Groesbeck House (Nicholas)222 North West Temple Local Jenkinson House (Charles H.)31 East Gray Avenue Local Jonasson House (Swen J.)390 North Center Street Local Kimball Grave Site (Heber C.)45 East Gordon Place (155 N State Street)Local Kimball House (J. Golden)36 East 200 North Local Morrow-Taylor House 390 North Quince Street Local Mullett House (Charles James)680 North Wall Street Local Nutting House (Rev. John)160 West 400 North Local Quayle House (Thomas)355 North Quince Street Local Rawlings House (Edwin)318 North Almond Street Local Snow-Lieff-Stieffel House 217 North Canyon Road Local Widdison House (Robert R.)464 North Pugsley Street Local HISTORIC RESOURCES There are 35 individually listed historic structures (National, Local and some are on both register) located in the Capitol Hill community. The following is a list of the individually listed sites in the Capitol Hill Plan Area: Property Name Address Designation State Capitol Building 450 North State Street National Morris House (Richard Vaughn)314 North Quince Street National Morrison-Merrill Lumber Co. Office and Warehouse 205 North 400 West National Salt Lake Hardware Co. Warehouse 155 North 400 West National 19th Ward Meeting House and Relief Society Hall 168 West 500 North National & Local Beesley, Ebenezer, House 80 West 300 North National & Local Council Hall 120 East 300 North National & Local Gibbs-Thomas House 137 North West Temple National & Local Hawk Cabin (William)458 North 300 West National & Local McCune, Alfred W., Mansion 200 North Main Street National & Local Ottinger Hall (located in City Creek) 233 North Canyon Road National & Local Platts, John, House 364 North Quince Street National & Local Wasatch Springs Plunge 840 North 300 West National & Local Whipple House (Nelson Wheeler)564 West 400 North National & Local Woodruff-Riter-Stewart House 225 North State Street National & Local HISTORIC TAX CREDITS Historic Tax Credits are available to owners who rehabilitate eligible buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places. More information about historic tax credits can be found on the Utah State Historic Preservation Office website. The Utah State Historic Preservation Tax Credit Program provides a 20% state income tax credit for the rehabilitation of historic buildings used as owner-occupied residences or residential rentals. The Federal Investment Tax Credit Program offers a 20% non-refundable federal income tax credit for the rehabilitation of income-producing historic buildings, including those used for commercial or residential rental purposes. From 1982 to 2024, the Capitol Hill Community has seen 129 historic tax credit projects, resulting in a combined total of $2,570,678 million in tax credits. DRA F T | 89 Anchored by the Utah State Capitol, the Capitol Hill Community features a museum, theater, public art, and community events that celebrate history, the arts, and civic life. 08 ARTS + CULTURE DRA F T 90 | | 91 BRIDGES OVER BARRIERS I-15 Underpass - 300 N between 600 & 700 W Artist: Led by, Lily Yeh Christensen This long-term public art project was launched in 2005 by NeighborWorks Salt Lake as part of a neighborhood-building initiative for Salt Lake City’s West Side. Led by Lily Yeh of Barefoot Artists, this project brought together countless local artists and neighborhood residents to create one of Utah’s largest public art projects. Through mosaic and stain concrete murals, the artwork reflects the spirit of the community, inspired by the lives and stories of those who call this neighborhood home. Many residents participated in its creation through workshops held in local churches, schools, community centers, and other spaces. On the north side, Mother Earth symbolizes the nurturing spirit of Salt Lake City’s natural landscape and resilient communities, representing life and growth. Father Time, on the south side, honors the past while guiding the community forward. Together, they invite reflection on the cycles of life, the passage of time, and our shared role in building a connected and inclusive community. The images in each of the sixteen mosaic- covered columns were determined by the various communities of this area and brought to life by participating artists. The mosaic images depict the diversity, livelihoods, professions, and traditions of the residents of the neighborhood. DREAM DOG Warm Springs Park – 840 N 500 W Artist: Silvia Davis S A L T L A K E C I T Y A R T S C O U N C I L + P U B L I C A R T P R O G R A M Salt Lake City Arts Council, founded in the late 1970’s, was created to ensure that the community established a local arts organization to provide public programming and support for the arts. The mission of the Arts Council is to promote, present, and support artists, arts organizations, and arts activities in order to further the development of the arts community and to benefit the public by expanding awareness, access, and participation. The Arts Council manages the Salt Lake City Public Art Program. Recognizing the social and economic benefits realized through an aesthetic experience in public spaces, the public art program’s purpose is to add high quality, site-specific artists’ work to the natural and built environments. Salt Lake City’s growing public art collection includes over 130 permanent artworks, in various mediums, in parks and City buildings, skate parks, recreation centers, sidewalks, city streets and plazas in all seven of the City’s Council Districts. P U B L I C A R T P R O J E C T S I N C A P I T O L H I L L APRICOT Marmalade Plaza – 500 N 300 W Artist: Day Christensen This project was made possible through the Salt Lake City Arts Council’s Public Art Program, with support from the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake Art Design Board. “The steep streets of the Marmalade District were all originally named after fruit-bearing trees that were grown by the first residents of the neighborhood. The fruit of the trees was made into marmalade and sold at the bottom of the hill.” - Day Christensen ART Bridges Over Barriers Apricot (Marmalade Plaza)Dream Dog (Warm Springs Park) DRA F T 92 | Lupita , The Woman (Guadalupe Park) Dancing Clowns (250 W North Temple) COMMUNITY EVENTS The Marmalade Jam Fest is an annual event held in the Marmalade area of Capitol Hill hosted by the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council featuring arts, crafts and music. LUPITA, THE WOMAN Guadalupe Park – 619 W 500 N Artist: William Littig Littig’s interpretation of the Virgin of Guadalupe stands in the middle of a Guadalupe neighborhood pocket park watching over all that visit the park. Guadalupe Park was dedicated by the city officials and residents in December 1987 in conjunction with the Feast Day of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The park serves as a symbol of community pride and fulfilled a 15-year dream of organizing the neighborhood and this corner park. At the dedication one city official told the gathering, “it (Lupita, the Woman) represents the same compassion Our Lady of Guadalupe has expressed to us.” DANCING CLOWNS 250 W North Temple – in street median Artist: Kazuo Matsubayashi This project was created as part of a downtown improvement program. It was installed at this location in the center median to mark the west end of downtown and welcome motorists who are entering downtown from the North Temple overpass. Image courtesy of The Mermalade Jam Fest via Facebook, August 2024 https://www.facebook.com/TheMarmaladeJamFest/ DRA F T | 95 CULTURAL ATTRACTIONS UTAH STATE CAPITOL The Utah State Capitol is a cornerstone of the Capitol Hill neighborhood and a defining feature of Salt Lake City’s skyline. Completed in 1916, the neoclassical building stands as a symbol of Utah’s statehood and cultural heritage. In addition to housing the state’s legislative chambers and executive offices, the Capitol serves as a public gathering place for civic events, cultural celebrations, and educational tours. The building itself is a historic landmark, and the surrounding grounds feature numerous memorials, monuments, and plaques that highlight significant people and events in Utah’s history. Inside, the Capitol displays hundreds of works of art that depict key moments and figures in the state’s cultural and political story. PIONEER MEMORIAL MUSEUM Operated by the Daughters of Utah Pioneers, this museum holds the world's largest collections of nineteenth-century pioneer artifacts. The museum offers an in-depth look at pioneer life with displays and collections of memorabilia from the time the earliest settlers entered the Valley of the Great Salt Lake until the joining of the railroads at a location known as Promontory Point, Utah, on May 10, 1869. The museum plays a vital role in preserving and sharing the stories of Utah’s early settlers. Capitol Hill is home to a diverse array of cultural spaces that reflect the history and heritage of Salt Lake City. The following are a few of the cultural attractions in the community: ENSIGN PEAK Ensign Peak is famously known as the spot where early settlers surveyed the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, envisioning the future city. A short but steep hike leads to the summit, where a monument marks the site and interpretive signage explains its significance. Today, Ensign Peak is a popular recreation spot, offering panoramic views of the valley. SALT LAKE ACTING COMPANY (168 W 500 N) For over 50 years, Salt Lake Acting Company (SLAC) has been a celebrated cultural institution known for commissioning, developing, and producing bold, contemporary plays. As a core member of the National New Play Network, SLAC presents a year-round season of Regional and World Premieres and supports over 150 professional theatre artists annually. Housed in the historic 19th Ward House in the Marmalade neighborhood, SLAC also plays a vital role in arts education, serving students from kindergarten through university. Its unique programming and commitment to emerging voices have made it one of Utah’s leading performing arts institutions. UTAH OPERA PRODUCTION STUDIOS This space hosts events for the Utah Symphony and Opera throughout the year. UTAH FILM CENTER (375 W 400 N) Utah Film Center’s mission is to connect people, stories, and ideas through film exhibition, artist support, and media arts education. It makes high- quality cinema accessible to diverse audiences by offering free or low-cost access to independent, international, and socially relevant films year-round and for all ages. The Center provides media arts education to K–12 students and educators and supports filmmakers through resources like fiscal sponsorship. The Center’s programs are designed to raise critical awareness, build empathy, and nurture artistic expression, all while establishing a local, thriving Utah-based filmmaking ecosystem. Utah State Capitol Ensign Peak DRA F T 09 INFRASTRUCTURE | 97 Public utilities provide essential basic services that support daily life. Water, sewer, and stormwater systems ensure City residents have access to clean drinking water and a safe and healthy environment. These systems are critical for public health, economic development, and overall quality of life. Without efficient and accessible public utilities, Salt Lake City would struggle to meet the needs of its rapidly growing population. DRA F T 98 | INFRASTRUCTURE Infrastructure can have a variety of impacts on existing and future development because new development relies on connectivity to existing systems. Growth may place greater demands on water, sewer, and storm drain systems, which could exceed the capacity of the existing infrastructure. Property owners and developers are required to upgrade the off-site public utilities to ensure sufficient capacity for the new development, and developers must consider the financial impact resulting from required off-site utility improvements, which have the potential to increase overall construction costs. Identifying any gaps or barriers can assist with the development of long-term project planning, budget decisions, and large policy decisions of the city. The Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities owns and operates 3 surface water treatments plants - one of which is located in City Creek Canyon near Capitol Hill. The Capitol Hill neighborhood has adequate infrastructure to serve its current water needs, however, upgrades to existing systems may be needed to accommodate new growth and additional density. The public water system is continuously analyzed to ensure it can meet the specific demand needs (culinary water demand, fire sprinkler demand, and required fire hydrant demand) of any development in the study area. Additionally, each new development that is proposed must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to ensure it can meet the specific demand needs for its water systems. This analysis determines if the current system capacity is adequate or if the developer will need to install upgrades to the existing system. The standard water main size is 12” in commercial areas. WATER Any water mains smaller than 12” in the study area may be subject to up-size requirements. Per State Law, all fire hydrants must be served by public water mains 8” in size or greater. This sizing requirement should be considered for any areas that require new or relocated fire hydrants, in addition to the base analysis of the system’s capabilities noted above. Any new development that requires new or relocated fire hydrants must comply with this requirement and update the existing water main if needed. M A J O R P R O J E C T S CITY CREEK WATER TREATMENT PLANT The City Creek Water Treatment Plant, located in City Creek Canyon to the northeast of Capitol Hill, was the first municipal water treatment plant built in the State of Utah. The plant has been an integral component of Salt Lake City drinking water supply since 1955. Due to aging infrastructure and mechanical inefficiencies, The City Creek Water Treatment Plant requires facility, and process upgrades to increase the efficiency, resiliency, and reliability of this water treatment plant. FEMA has awarded Salt Lake City with a $36.7 million grant to help construct upgrades to this facility, which are currently underway and planned to be finished by 2027.DRA F T 100 | | 101 POWER GRID Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) has indicated that current and future planned capacity increases will be sufficient to serve the Capitol Hill community. There is one existing substation in this neighborhood at approximately 900 North near Beck Street, and several more in the surrounding area. The maps below depict the high voltage power lines network throughout the Capitol Hill neighborhood, including to and from the existing substation. RMP doesn’t typically master plan its distribution network (lower voltage systems that are fed by higher voltage systems), because it’s highly dependent on individual requests for new service. Any economic development request or new customer request triggers a study for capacity and the required improvements that will be needed to serve the specific request. However, as stated above, RMP has the ability to serve this community based on normal, historic growth patterns. Northeast Salt Lake Area Transmission & Substation Plan Northwest Salt Lake Area Transmission & Substation PlanNorthwest Salt Lake Area Transmission & Substation Plan 900 NORTH I-80 I- 2 1 5 90 0 W E S T 400 SOUTH 600 NORTH ROSEPARK WEST TEMPLE 3RD WEST JORDAN ORANGE GADSBY 5TH WEST ` BECK STREET CAPITOL38.4/38.4 22.4/30 54.9/54.9 94.4/94.458.3/58.3 60/60 30/30 NORTH TEMPLE 0/60 GRANTS TOWER 0/80 LEGEND 46 KV 138 KV COMPANY SUBSTATION PRIVATE SUBSTATION SUBSTATION CAPACITY CURRENT/FUTURE CC/FC SEWER STORM DRAIN The Public Utilities Department analyses the proposed sewer flow for all new development proposals and determines whether the existing sewer system requires upsizing. Sewer mains are required to be upgraded when they reach 75% capacity. All new development or land use intensification impacts the existing capacity of the sewer system. This applies to all work within the entire sewer shed that contributes to each sewer line, not just development along the immediate vicinity of each sewer main. Where public storm drain is available, the existing system is sized to support a discharge of .2 cfs/acre. New development in areas where there isn’t access to a public storm drain will be required to extend the existing system to provide service. The Public Utilities Department analyzes each new development proposal to verify the nearby utility systems are sufficient or if upgrades are needed. DRA F T 102 | STREETLIGHTS Street and pedestrian lighting plays a key role in how people experience the city in which they live, work, and play. Lighting helps drivers and pedestrians understand the streetscape through visual cues and heightened awareness of their environment. Providing good visibility with lighting increases comfort levels and encourages use of public streets and spaces. The Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan identifies the citywide design and implementation strategies for public street lighting. The residential areas in Capitol Hill have a robust street light system, with lights that are both publicly and privately owned. Salt Lake City has a Private Lighting program which allows city residents to purchase, install, and maintain streetlights on their blocks, to supplement the existing lighting system. The program is designed to allow city residents to choose the poles and luminaries that are installed, while still ensuring sufficient lighting is provided. Each city block is required to have at least 6 lights, including at least one at each intersection. The majority of blocks within Capitol Hill have at least one light per intersection, with additional privately owned lights scattered throughout the neighborhood. Street LightDRA F T 10 GEOLOGY + NATURAL HAZARDS | 105 Capitol Hill sits in Salt Lake City’s northernmost foothills. At the southern edge of the plan area begins at the edge of Downtown then continuously slopes north towards Ensign Peak with an elevation of 5,417 feet. Capitol Hill is shaped by the increasing slopes of the foothills to the north and City Creek Canyon to the east. DRA F T 106 | Aquifer Recharge Areas AQUIFER RECHARGE Most of the Capitol Hill neighborhood is in what is called an ‘Aquifer Recharge’ areas. A recharge area is where the surface water is expected to flow through the soil and into underground aquifers. Recharge is essential for maintaining groundwater levels and ensuring a reliable water supply for both urban and agricultural uses. Recharge areas are further divided into ‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’ Recharge areas. Primary recharge areas are generally located along adjacent mountain fronts and extend into valleys at the mouths of major drainages, and secondary recharge areas are located on the benches and uplands of valleys. Understanding the location of aquifer recharge areas is important for determining if ground water protections are needed. The northeastern and eastern portions of Capitol Hill are located in the primary recharge area and only a small portion of the very southeastern area of Capitol Hill is in the secondary recharge zone. In Salt Lake City, there are Groundwater Source Protection regulations for both primary and secondary discharge areas. These regulations establish criteria for the storage, handling, and use of potential groundwater contaminants. For example, septic tanks are prohibited within primary recharge areas. The western portion of Capitol Hill is located in the aquifer discharge area. | 107 Streams + Floodplain FLOOD MAPS The flood plain X zone is described as having moderate flood hazards, with 0.2% annual chance of flood – or within the 500-year flood zone. The flood plain A zone has a 1% annual chance of flood and is considered to be in the 100-year flood zone. Four of the seven streams in the Capitol Hill are considered ephemeral streams, meaning they are active immediately after a rain or snow event. Towards the western boundary of Capitol Hill are two portions of streams. The northern most stream is a canal and the one south of that is an underground aqueduct. City Creek is the only perennial creek (flows year-round) in the Capitol Hill plan area boundary. Most of Capitol Hill is within the flood plain X zone, except for areas along City Creek which are within a flood plain A zone. DRA F T 108 | | 109 FAULT LINES + LIQUEFACTION There are several fault lines within Capitol Hill. The faults are concentrated to the central and eastern portions of the plan area as well as a large line running the entirety of the plan area starting from the northwestern corner running southeast to the plan boundary. Additionally, all of Capitol Hill is located in a liquefaction zone with varying levels of potential. Liquefaction is the phenomenon where saturated or water-logged soil behaves like a liquid due to earthquake shaking. This may cause buildings to sink and crumble, slope failures, and ground to shift resulting in surface cracking and subsidence. The liquefaction potential categories depend on the probability of having an earthquake within a 100-year period that will be strong enough to cause liquefaction in those zones. °High liquefaction potential (there is a 50% probability of having an earthquake within a 100-year period that will be strong enough to cause liquefaction). °Moderate (probability is between 10% and 50%). °Low means (probability is between 5 and 10%). °Very low (probability is less than 5%). The majority of Capitol Hill plan area east of 300 West has very low liquefaction potential. West of 300 West, the liquefaction potential is high, which means there is a 50% chance of having an earthquake within a 100-year period that will be strong enough to cause liquefaction. Fault lines + Liquefaction WILDFIRE URBAN INTERFACE The wildfire urban interface highlights the area focal area where human-environmental conflicts may occur. These areas show where houses meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland vegetation creating conflicts between urban areas and wildfires. Along and near the foothills of Capitol Hill lies the focal area of the impacts of wildfire on urban environments. It is recommended that development is limited in these areas and that certain building materials are used, additional fire accesses required, and site features enforced. The city is currently in the process of mapping the wildfire urban interface where the appropriate development regulations would be applied. Source: Salt Lake City Zoning Map, 2025.Natural Unimproved Land DRA F T 11 PLAN AUDITS | 111 This section compares the existing Capitol Hill Community Plan with adopted citywide plans to identify areas for alignment and improvement to better support Salt Lake City’s vision. The Capitol Hill Community Plan, now over 25 years old, reflects the community’s vision and priorities at the time of its adoption. However, since then, Salt Lake City’s goals, policies, and priorities have evolved to address new challenges and opportunities. This section evaluates how the 2001 Capitol Hill Community Plan aligns with recently adopted citywide plans, highlighting areas of consistency as well as potential gaps. This analysis will help determine what updates may be needed to the Capitol Hill Community Plan to support broader goals for Salt Lake City’s future. The following sections evaluate the Capitol Hill Community Plan and related plans—including the City Creek Plan, Beck Street Reclamation Framework, and Foothill Area Plan—in the context of key citywide initiatives such as Plan Salt Lake, Housing SLC, Thriving in Place, and Growing Water Smart. DRA F T 112 | | 113 Plan Salt Lake Guiding Principles Plan Salt Lake 2040 Targets Capitol Hill Community Plan Comparison Summary 1/ Neighborhoods Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein. °Community Amenities (Parks, Natural Lands, Libraries, Schools, Recreations Centers) Located within ¼ Mile Walking Distance of Every Household ° Safe Neighborhoods – Reduction in Crime This plan identifies lack of neighborhood services as a major concern and includes policies for maintaining these uses and encouraging new neighborhood serving commercial uses in specific areas, like 300 West. Additionally, the plan encourages a neighborhood shopping node at 300 West and between 500-600 North that is compatible with surrounding residential development. The plan talks about improving access and safety to recreation opportunities for pedestrians and cyclists. Action items include providing lower scale street lighting whose primary purpose is pedestrian safety. If a viaduct remains, solutions should be developed to eliminate undesirable activities under the viaduct. Plan Salt Lake Guiding Principles Plan Salt Lake 2040 Targets Capitol Hill Community Plan Comparison Summary 2/ Growth Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. °Increase Salt Lake City’s Share of the population along the Wasatch Front The Capitol Hill Plan aligns with the Growth guiding principle by identifying opportunities for compatible infill development on underutilized lots within existing neighborhoods. Medium and higher density residential uses are encouraged along the 400 W and North Temple corridors. This plan also contains goals for responsible growth that include preventing new development in hillside areas and other designated open spaces, like City Creek Canyon. Additionally, the plan contains policies limiting expansion of institutional uses, like West High School and LDS Church Campus, into residential neighborhoods, however, some action items associated with these policies are not enforceable. 3/ Housing Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. °Increase diversity of housing types °Decrease % of income spent on housing for cost-burdened households The Capitol Hill plan supports increased diversity of housing types and mixed-use development primarily along North Temple Boulevard and west of 300 W. The plan includes policies to allow moderate increases in multi-family uses in appropriate locations and within the mixed-use areas and encourages new medium/high density housing opportunities in certain appropriate locations. There are recommendations and strategies to increase compatible housing options in established neighborhoods, like Guadalupe. However, in the marmalade neighborhood, the plan recommends providing incentives to convert nonconforming dwellings back to single family or duplex, which would result in a loss of units. Additionally, the plan lacks a comprehensive approach to address affordability for all income levels. PLAN SALT LAKE ADOPTED IN 2015 Plan Salt Lake, adopted in 2015, sets a citywide vision for Salt Lake City through 2040. It considers where the city is currently, where it aims to go, and establishes a framework for decision-making to achieve these goals. At the heart of the Vision is enhancing the quality of life for both current and future generations. Built on existing policies and extensive public input, the Plan is structured around thirteen Guiding Principles—each with specific Initiatives, targets, and metrics for measuring success over time. Plan Salt Lake serves as the foundation for ensuring that future neighborhood, community, and element plans align with and contribute to the collective city vision. DRA F T 114 | | 115 Plan Salt Lake Guiding Principles Plan Salt Lake 2040 Targets Capitol Hill Community Plan Comparison Summary 4/ Transportation & Mobility A transportation and mobility network that is safe, accessible, reliable, affordable, and sustainable, providing real choices and connecting people with places. °Public transit within 1/4 mile of all homes °Reduce single occupancy auto trips °Decrease pedestrian, bike and auto accidents The Capitol Hill Plan align with the Transportation Guiding Principle by supporting transportation alternatives and reducing vehicle emissions by encouraging mass transit options, such as light rail and bus systems, flexible work schedules, and telecommuting. The plan also includes policies to improve transportation circulation and infrastructure with an emphasis on safety for pedestrians and cyclists from vehicular traffic. It calls for exploring possibilities of an urban trail system that uses existing alleys to enhance pedestrian networks. 5/ Air Quality Air that is healthy and clean. °Reduce Emissions °Reduce city wide consumption of energy (reduce carbon footprint 50% below the 2005 level by 2040) The Capitol Hill Plan advocates for reducing vehicle emissions by encouraging alternate transportation modes, like mass transit, and telecommuting. In response to the impacts from industrial, heavy manufacturing, and extractive uses in the community, the plan recommends prohibiting any new industry that would be a 'Major Source' of air pollution by UDAQ (Utah Division of Air Quality) standards. In addition, the plan promotes maintaining existing parks, preserving natural areas - like the foothill trail system, and expanding the urban forest by adding street trees and increasing landscaping requirements for private properties. These efforts align with Plan Salt Lake's goal of ensuring our air is healthy and clean. Plan Salt Lake Guiding Principles Plan Salt Lake 2040 Targets Capitol Hill Community Plan Comparison Summary 6/ Natural Environment Minimize our impact on the natural environment. °Expand natural lands and watershed protection acreage ° Reduce water consumption ° Increase recycling and reduce waste The Capitol Hill Plan aligns with Plan Salt Lake's Natural Environment goals by providing recommendations to preserve foothill areas, wetlands, and conserve water. The plan recommends limiting development in the foothills and addresses preserving vegetation and revegetation to prevent soil erosion and dust problems. Policy statements prohibit development of new extractive industries and oppose expansion of existing operations in foothills areas. The plan recommends ensuring the protection and enhancement of designated wetlands, contains policies to protect watersheds, support wildlife habitat, and promote the use of drought tolerant and indigenous plant species in landscaping. 7/ Parks & Recreation Protecting the natural environment while providing access and opportunities to recreate and enjoy nature. °Increase park space °Parks or open space within walking distance of every household ° Increase miles of trails The Capitol Hill plan supports efforts to maintain and encourage parks and recreation areas in various forms and locations to enhance the community. It calls for exploring opportunities to develop an additional neighborhood park, expand existing parks, maintain mini parks, and address park improvements. Policies support adequate public access to existing parks and trails, as well as linking existing trails. The plan includes action items to locate a community recreation center within the community. 8/ Beautiful City A beautiful city that is people focused. °Pedestrian oriented design standards incorporated into all zoning districts that allow residential uses ° Active and vibrant parks and plazas The Capitol Hill Plan aligns with this Plan Salt Lake guiding principle by supporting pedestrian oriented design features in higher density and mixed-use areas. Specifically, this plan calls for increasing pedestrian oriented lighting, adding street trees, and burying utility lines to improve pedestrian-oriented spaces. The plan also emphasizes the importance of view corridors and identifies specific community landmarks worthy of view corridor protection. DRA F T 116 | | 117 Plan Salt Lake Guiding Principles Plan Salt Lake 2040 Targets Capitol Hill Community Plan Comparison Summary 9/ Preservation Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. °Increase the number of protected structures and sites The Capitol Hill Plan encourages historic preservation efforts for the purpose of enhancing the visual and aesthetic qualities of the community. Action items include identifying new historic sites (other than buildings), conducting historic surveys, and encouraging historic designation of qualified areas and individual sites. Several publicly owned historic buildings are in the community and the plan stresses the importance of maintenance and appropriate use of these resources. 10/ Arts & Culture Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture. °Increase overall participation in arts and cultural activities °Embedded art in all city infrastructure projects The Capitol Hill Community Plan mentions art specifically in relation to recommended infrastructure improvements on 600 N and Center Street. In terms of culture, there is some overlap with the Historic Preservation Guiding Principle—the plan recommends plaques with information about the history and cultural significance of sites in the community. 11/ Equity Ensure access to all City amenities for all citizens while treating everyone equitably with fairness, justice, and respect. °Decrease combined cost of housing and transportation ° Improve our opportunity index score in all areas of the City While the Capital Hill plan includes goals aimed at improving access to some amenities and services, it does not address broader equity challenges, particularly in healthy food access and housing choices in terms of aging in place and affordability. Plan Salt Lake Guiding Principles Plan Salt Lake 2040 Targets Capitol Hill Community Plan Comparison Summary 12/ Economy A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an environment for commerce, local business, and industry to thrive. °Increase household income °Percentage of households within ½ mile of a neighborhood, community, or regional node. The Capitol Hill Plan aligns with the Economy Guiding Principle, and includes statements acknowledging that the development of appropriate neighborhood- oriented retail services, which cater to both vehicular and non-vehicular patrons, will help improve the livability of the community. Plan policies support maintaining existing neighborhood commercial land uses and identify appropriate areas for new commercial land uses. Additionally, the Plan includes action item to create a new ordinance to encourage the reuse of small neighborhood commercial structures to provide needed services to the community and potentially help eliminate some vehicle trips. 13/ Government A local government that is collaborative, responsive, and transparent. °Increase public participation The Capitol Hill Plan supports community involvement in city programs and collaboration among community members, city and state officials, and other governments agencies such as UDAQ (Utah Department of Air Quality) and DWR (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources) for various purposes. The goals of governmental collaboration as detailed in this plan include reducing crime, facilitating environmental clean- up, examining the impact of activities at the Capitol on nearby residential areas, supporting and maintaining community amenities like parks, preserving deer habitat in the foothills, protecting water sources and promoting other water conservation efforts. These goals support an increase in public participation, which aligns with Plan Salt Lake’s Government guiding principle.DRA F T | 119118 | HOUSING SLC 2023 - 2027 Housing SLC 2023-2027, is a plan to guide the City’s housing-related efforts over the next 5 years. Six key findings resulted from public engagement that will guide the City’s efforts over the course of this Plan. K E Y F I N D I N G S 1. Rental vacancy rates are low and home sale prices are unaffordable to most residents, putting strain on existing rental housing and causing rents to rise dramatically. 2. Despite a housing construction boom, housing prices suggest a shortage of housing supply overall, but especially housing that is deeply affordable (affordable to renters earning 30% of AMI or less), with demand for housing outpacing supply. 3. Salt Lake City is majority renter, and half of all renters are cost burdened, spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs. Residents are concerned about renter’s rights and resources. 4. According to a survey of city residents, affordable housing and behavioral health services are preferred over additional emergency shelters and homeless resource centers as solutions for homelessness. 5. 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. 6. Wages have not kept pace with cost of living, especially housing- related costs, and residents are feeling increased stress about everyday expenses. To address these key findings, the City developed the following three goals and associated metrics to measure progress. These goals are supported by more than 40 action items that will be implemented over the next five years. GOAL 1 Make progress toward closing the housing gap of 5,500 units of deeply affordable housing and increase the supply of housing at all levels of affordability. METRICS A. ENTITLE 10,000 NEW HOUSING UNITS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. 1. Minimum 2,000 units deeply affordable (30% AMI or below) 2. Minimum 2,000 units affordable (31% - 80% AMI) CAPITOL HILL COMMUNITY SUMMARY Salt Lake City has provided a total of 691 government program-assisted housing units in Capitol Hill. °A household income of 40% AMI or less is required for 295 of these units, °A household income of 50% AMI or less is required for 484 dwelling units, °And a household income of 80% AMI or less is required for 688 of these dwelling units. GOAL 2 Increase housing stability throughout the city. METRICS A. TRACK, ANALYZE, AND MONITOR FACTORS THAT IMPACT HOUSING STABILITY IN THE CITY. B. ASSIST 10,000 LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS ANNUALLY THROUGH PROGRAMS FUNDED TO INCREASE HOUSING STABILITY BY THE CITY. C. DEDICATE TARGETED FUNDING TO: 1. Mitigate displacement 2. Serve renter households 3. Serve family households 4. Increase geographic equity 5. Increase physical accessibility CITY SUMMARY °The Relocation Assistance Fund for Tenants was created in 2024 and $180,000 in funds was allocated. °Tenant Resource Center was created in 2024, with $92,000 allocated to the center. °15 Salt Lake City households were helped with Utility Assistance Foreclosure Prevention and Homebuyer Assistance from 2023-2024. °Salt Lake City provided $1.93 million in funding for Utility Assistance, foreclosure Prevention, and Homebuyer Assistance from 2023-2024. GOAL 3 Increase opportunities for homeownership and other wealth and equity building opportunities. METRICS A. PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP AND WEALTH AND EQUITY BUILDING OPPORTUNITIES TO A MINIMUM OF 1,000 LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. CAPITOL HILL COMMUNITY SUMMARY Out of the total affordable units built in the Capitol Hill area, 11 of them are wealth-building (for sale) – 8 of those require a household income of 80% AMI or less and 3 require a household income of 120% AMI or less. The Housing Stability Dashboard shows that 22 individuals were given home ownership assistance from the city, but this is not specific to Capitol Hill. DRA F T 120 | Through a community-driven engagement process, the City worked with its partners to develop an Anti-Displacement Strategy, which recommends policies, programs, and actions to counter displacement while strengthening long-term community stability and access to opportunity for all. The strategy and its actions aim to balance growth and investment in new housing with the preservation of existing housing, tenant protections, and a focus on equitable development that benefits all residents, including those most at-risk of displacement. THRIVING IN PLACE The Community Benefit Policy will guide developers, residents, staff and decision makers in the development agreement process, setting expectations for benefits to be provided in return for changes to zoning and general plans. MAKE ADUS EASIER + LESS EXPENSIVE TO BUILD Regulations for accessory dwelling units were amended in 2023. These amendments streamline the approval process for the construction of an ADU. CREATE MORE DIVERSE HOUSING CHOICES IN ALL AREAS Salt Lake City is taking several steps to create more diverse housing options throughout the city. The following are currently in process: °Consolidation of all commercial, form- based, Transit Station Area, and mixed-use zoning districts to enable more housing and mixed-use construction. °Combining the RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family) and the RMF-45 (Moderate/ High Density Multi-Family) zoning districts to promote the development of more affordable and attainable housing while supporting residents in existing moderate-density neighborhoods. °In 2025, the Salt Lake City Council initiated a legislative intent to modify single and two-family zoning districts (R-1, R-2, and SR) to create more housing options in all neighborhoods in the city. L A N D U S E A C T I O N I T E M S R E L A T E D T O H O U S I N G S L C + T H R I V I N G I N P L A C E ADOPT + IMPLEMENT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES (AHI) ORDINANCE The AHI was adopted in 2024. The ordinance allows for increased development capacity in exchange for maintaining a percentage of the housing units as affordable for households earning 80% of the area median income (AMI) or less. The ordinance allows for different capacities based on the current zoning on the property. This is a tool to increase both the overall housing stock and the affordable housing stock in the city. CONVERT EXISTING BUILDINGS TO HOUSING An adaptive reuse incentives ordinance was adopted in 2024 to facilitate the conversion of historic buildings into housing. ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY BENEFIT POLICY In 2024, Salt Lake City adopted a community benefit policy requiring developments preserve, replace, or otherwise mitigate the demolition of existing housing units in return for an increase in development capacity, with a focus on retaining or replacing affordable housing. DRA F T | 123 In 2022, the Utah Legislature passed Senate Bill (S.B.) 110, requiring municipalities and counties to include a water use and preservation element in their general plans by the end of 2025. This means, plans must account for how land use affects water demand and how to use water more efficiently. Utah Growing Water Smart is an initiative designed to help communities integrate water and land use planning to ensure long-term water sustainability. It provides training, technical assistance, and resources to local governments, planners, and decision-makers to support water-conscious growth strategies. The initiative emphasizes collaboration among municipalities, water providers, and stakeholders to align policies, zoning regulations, and conservation efforts with Utah’s water availability and future development needs. It is part of a broader effort to address water challenges in the face of population growth and climate change. At the local level, planning and regulatory tools provide an opportunity to consider how to better integrate water and land use in order to reduce future risks and strengthen resiliency through water-smart development strategies such as: PLANNING + GOAL SETTING Set the foundation for integrated land-water planning with general plans as well as specific plans and goals for water conservation, stormwater management, hazard mitigation, response, and recovery, and capitol improvement plans. WATER SMART LAND USE + DEVELOPMENT POLICIES °Promoting higher density, cluster development, and infill, especially where infrastructure already exists. °Promote water saving and climate appropriate landscaping standards and maintenance practices. WATERSHED RESILIENCE + WATER SMART INFRASTRUCTURE °Map all sensitive areas. °Adopt mitigation plans that designate sensitive areas and goals for mitigation. °Create zoning districts with lower densities and/ or cluster development to protect surface and groundwater sensitive areas. °Consider the potential to use stormwater recapture for a centralized urban natural open space. Conveying this water to a common area or neighborhood park may enhance the vision of your community or neighborhood. °Use green infrastructure for traffic calming, beautification, and placemaking. GROWING WATER SMART C A P I T O L H I L L P L A N C O M P A R I S O N S U M M A R Y The Capitol Hill Plan contains policies on water conservation to protect watersheds and promote the use of drought tolerant and indigenous plant species in residential and commercial landscaping. In addition, it advocates for preserving foothill land and limiting development in these areas to preserve open space, protect wildlife habitats, and safeguard the City Creek Canyon watershed. It contains statements to address issues within watershed areas, supports compliance with regulations to protect of aquifer recharge areas, and promotes coordination with state, county, and neighboring communities to protect water sources. C I T Y C R E E K P L A N C O M P A R I S O N S U M M A R Y The City Creek Plan supports watershed protection, stemming from the Salt Lake County 208 Water Quality Plan “Composite Land Suitability Study.” The overarching goal of this plan, in 1986 when the City Creek Master Plan was adopted and now, is to improve watershed functions – including water quality, hydrology, habitat, and social and recreational services. The Plan focuses on the preservation of City Creek Canyon as a whole and emphasizes maintaining this area in its natural state. It recommends canyon activities be limited to watershed protection, water treatment facilities, and limited public reaction opportunities. These goals align with the ‘Watershed Resilience and Water Smart Infrastructure’ policies of Growing Water Smart. City Creek Canyon and its surrounding area have since been rezoned to OS (Open Space) - a zoning district that is intended to preserve natural areas, provide opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protect watersheds. As noted in the City Creek Plan, City Creek is the only canyon along the Salt Lake Valley that is not affected by fault lines. If the Wasatch front experiences a major earthquake, City Creek will be essential in providing a reliable water source. B E C K S T R E E T R E C L A M A T I O N P L A N C O M P A R I S O N S U M M A R Y The Beck Street Plan addresses several water- related concerns associated with extractive uses, including erosion, stormwater runoff, and groundwater contamination. It proposes measures such as slope stabilization, revegetation, and limiting further disturbance in sensitive foothill areas. To prevent environmental impacts on water resources, the plan recommends implementing spill prevention and control measures, developing stormwater controls to reduce soil erosion and prevent off-site stormwater runoff, and establishing onsite water recycling procedures for concrete washout facilities and scrubber process water. However, the plan does not include strategies specifically focused on water conservation or watershed protection. It does not consider stormwater recapture, green infrastructure, or climate-appropriate landscaping. The emphasis is primarily on mitigating existing impacts rather than incorporating water considerations into future land use planning. DRA F T 124 | | 125 In 2001, the Capitol Hill Community Plan was adopted, replacing the former 1981 Plan. Land Use, Historic Preservation, Urban Design, Transportation and Circulation, Environment and Public Facilities are all elements of planning that were reevaluated regarding established goals and policies at that time. The update also introduced a Capital Improvement Program section to refine recommendations and support plan implementation. CAPITOL HILL COMMUNITY PLAN ADOPTED 2001 E X I S T I N G G O A L S , P O L I C I E S + S T R A T E G I E S The Overall Goal of the Capitol Hill Community Plan is to ensure safe, convenient and desirable residential neighborhoods that preserve quality of life. The plan provides policy direction and strategies that focus on the following topics: °Land Use °Open Space and Recreation °Historic Preservation °Urban Design °Transportation and Circulation °Environment °Public Facilities and Utilities °Implementation The following is a summary of the goals, policies and strategies from the 2001 Capitol Hill Community Plan. This is a summary only. The 2001 Plan should be referenced for a more detailed discussion related to each summary point . O V E R A L L P L A N G O A L S °Encourage appropriate housing opportunities in the community in appropriate locations through renovation of existing structures and compatible infill development and redevelopment. °Provide for commercial establishments which minimize the impacts of non-residential land uses on the residential community. °Encourage neighborhood commercial services °Enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities of the community by implementing historic preservation principles, designing public facilities to enhance the established residential character of the Capitol HIll Community and encouraging private property improvements that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. °Provide for appropriate industrial uses which are clean, quiet, and attractively developed, buffered from surrounding residential areas. °Provide for institutional development that is compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. °Provide for and encourage parks and recreation areas in various forms and locations to enhance residential neighborhoods and the surrounding community. °Provide for safe, convenient circulation patterns for vehicular and non-vehicular traffic movement, while discouraging commuter and commercial traffic on residential streets and restricting industrial traffic to appropriate routes. N E I G H B O R H O O D S DESOTO/CORTEZ & ENSIGN DOWNS °Ensure the established very low-density residential character of the neighborhood is preserved. °Ensure infill development is compatible with the existing character of the immediate neighborhood by maintaining restrictive zoning. °Continue the implementation of foothill regulations prohibiting development on land with slopes in excess of 30% and prohibit regrading of natural slopes greater than 30% to slopes less than 30% °Maintain dead end streets in a manner which will not invite development speculation but will provide opportunity for emergency vehicles to better service the area and provide a visually improved street terminus. °Encourage the State to consider impacts on the character and views of the neighborhoods from the north for any new development on the State Capitol grounds. °Create a new zoning district for public lands in the foothills which prohibits the development of structures. GUADALUPE °Prohibit the development of a viaduct or underpass at 300 N between 400 and 500 W for vehicular traffic. °Prohibit wholesale demolition of existing residential structures. °Preserve the 600 W corridor as a low-density residential corridor. DRA F T 126 | | 127 °Require that new residential development be compatible in scale, design, site configuration and character with the historical development patterns present in the Guadalupe, to strengthen the stability of the neighborhood. °Subdivision of land should consider the area's existing land development pattern. °Provide resources for housing rehabilitation of existing structures. °Find a solution which accommodates access across the rail lines, such as a pedestrian/bicycle bridge, without creating negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. °Rezone existing industrial and heavy commercial properties between 400 West and approximately 550 West to accommodate medium density residential west of 500 West; and a mixed-use area east of 500 West with medium density allowed north of 300 North and medium/high density south of 300 North. Development in this area should focus on good design, pedestrian orientation and maximization of open space. °Ensure the 500 West Redevelopment Corridor emphasizes residential development to create a connection between the Guadalupe and West Capitol Hill Neighborhoods. °Promote the development of the 500 West Boulevard as a limited access street to help ensure the success of the redevelopment of this area as a residential corridor. °Ensure compatible development between this area and the northern portion of the Gateway Area. °Ensure future development does not preclude the development of commuter rail. °As LDS church owned surface parking lots along north temple are redeveloped, ensure the final parking provided is adequate to meet the needs. °Ensure that steps are taken to minimize negative impacts of new development along North Temple on the residential neighborhoods to the north including creating a residential permit parking program which address the issues in specific neighborhoods. °Create a transitional buffering area between the central business district and residential areas of the community including extending city creek along the north frontage of north temple. °Encourage traffic access into Downtown from the north on 400 West while discouraging through traffic in the residential neighborhoods of the Capitol Hill and Avenues Communities °Develop or assist in the development of a coordinated parking management plan for the church campus and downtown. °Establish temple square as the primary focus of the LDS church campus and orient new development towards it. °Ensure a proper balance between historic preservation and appropriate new development. °Analyze appropriate height for structures along North Temple. °Address issues relating to open space. MARMALADE °Retain the existing low-density (SR-1) zoning pattern in the Marmalade Neighborhood. °Limit medium and high-density residential development to existing developments zoned for such uses. °Provide incentives to encourage nonconforming dwellings to be converted back to single family or duplex dwellings. KIMBALL °Maintain low density zoning patterns to protect low density segments of the neighborhood. °Modify the zoning in residential areas between approximately 150 N and 300 N and between Main Street and Canyon Road to encourage preservation of historic structures and allow for, but not increase, existing heights and densities. °Ensure that historic preservation is a priority in this neighborhood and that infill development is compatible with and complies with adopted design guidelines to ensure the existing historic character of the neighborhood is retained. °Enhance the pedestrian experience by increasing pedestrian oriented lighting, burying utility lines and other improvements. °Retain existing public access easement across Gordon Place. °Increase pedestrian oriented amenities. °Prohibit the expansion of the urban institutional zoning district boundaries along North Temple. °Prohibit the encroachment of institutional uses into the residential neighborhood beyond the existing North Temple frontage. °Prohibit the expansion of institutional uses associated with the West High School campus into the residential neighborhoods. °Retain the existing City Creek Park, Brigham Young Park, and Gordon Place Park. °LDS Church owned properties should be guided by an overall church campus development plan. °The area west of the church campus should develop as a residential mixed-use area. °Adequate provisions must be taken to ensure any new structures on the north side of North Temple do not block views of the state capitol building. WEST CAPITOL HILL °Ensure the existence of low-density residential development as an important component of the residential land uses in the West Capitol Hill neighborhood. °Encourage the development of the area along North Temple as an urban neighborhood which combines high-density residential development with supportive retail, service commercial and small-scale office uses. °Promote the rehabilitation of the existing housing stock in the West Capitol Hill neighborhood to assure long term viability. °Incorporate adequate landscaping into all future development. °Allow moderate increases in multi-family uses in appropriate locations and within the mixed- use area. °Encourage new medium/high density housing opportunities in certain appropriate locations within the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood. °Provide improvements along 300 West Street to make 300 West Street less of a barrier and to allow the residential areas west of 300 West to more closely tie into the existing residential area east of 300 West Street.DRA F T 128 | | 129 I N D U S T R I A L °Discourage the expansion of industrial land uses within the neighborhood. °Promote the relocation of industrial uses to industrial zones areas north of 900 N or in other appropriate areas within the City. °Require screening and buffering of industrial land uses which abut less intensive land uses. °Enforce ordinances as necessary to require screening and buffering of industrial land uses. °Encourage the relocation of existing industrial and heavy commercial land uses to industrially zoned land in other appropriate areas of the city by rezoning the existing properties to a zoning classification which will allow a mix of less intensive land uses, by analyzing the feasibility of establishing a redevelopment project area and by using city resources to encourage mixed use development of residential and office/ commercial in this area. °Require buffering treatments, relocation of loading docks and adequate access measures to help mitigate impacts of existing industrial uses on residential land uses. P A R K I N G °Ensure adequate community parking while mitigating adverse effects of parking that comes from outside the community. °Prohibit a reduction in the parking requirements for new developments in the Marmalade, Kimball and West Capitol Hill Neighborhoods or in neighborhoods where inadequate amounts of off-street parking already exist. °Ensure unit-legalization approvals provide for adequate off-street parking to the extent that it is physically possible. °Encourage and require, when possible, traffic generators to continue efforts to provide alternative means of transportation for employees and event patrons. °Encourage downtown groups to provide parking and shuttle services for large events. °Require parking lot access for all commercial and institutional uses to direct traffic away from, not through, residential portions of the Capitol Hill neighborhood. C O M M E R C I A L °Maintain existing neighborhood oriented commercial land uses and encourage new neighborhood commercial uses in areas where appropriate such as 300 W. °Amend the existing Capitol Hill community zoning map to place incompatible commercial activities in residential neighborhoods in a nonconforming state to phase them out. °Create a new ordinance which encourages the reuse of small neighborhood commercial structures to provide neighborhood commercial uses where appropriate. °If an appropriate commercial or mixed-use development is proposed for commercial node at 500 N and 300 W, which requires additional property, the western properties along Arctic Court may be rezoned to commercial shopping. °Development of the commercial node mixed use area should include specific design features as outlined in the plan to ensure compatibility with the residential development to the east. °Ensure new commercial development along 300 W is sensitive to pedestrian oriented access and is sensitive to the historic character of the neighborhood. °Encourage community-oriented businesses that will provide a high level of visual quality and property maintenance. °Discourage commercial development from expanding into residential areas and along side streets. °Maintain the historic development pattern along 300 W by prohibiting parking in the front yard. °Shift focus of commercial activity to retail and service commercial which caters to the residential community by implementing the mixed-use zoning district. °Commercial development must be oriented toward the street and not be allowed to expand into residential areas. °Preserve the mixed-use character that has historically developed within areas of the capitol hill community. °Ensure commercial development that is compatible with residential development. °Discourage the development or expansion of intensive commercial and industrial uses in this area. °Implement design guidelines in the mixed- use zoning district to ensure mitigation of existing or potential land use conflicts and ensure compatibility. °Prohibit future expansion of heavy commercial land uses east of 400 W. °Promote the redevelopment of the area between the Guadalupe and West Capitol Hill neighborhoods as a mixed-use area with medium density residential mixed-use development west of 500 W and medium high density residential mixed-use development east of 500 W. °Ensure that impacts of a 500 W Boulevard are mitigated to minimize the effects on the adjacent residential neighborhoods. °Ensure the design of 500 W takes into consideration the future alignment of commuter rail. INDUSTRIAL AREA BETWEEN 900 N AND NORTH CITY LIMITS °Work closely with various governmental agencies and private property owners to ensure adequate and timely environmental cleanup where appropriate. °Continue regulations which require improved visual appearances of industrial properties. °Encourage improvements to the visual appearance of new and existing industrial sites and areas, including the continuance of requiring landscaping of industrially zoned properties. °Prohibit new industrial development or the expansion of existing industrial uses from diminishing the amount of wetlands in the immediate vicinity, especially along Beck Street. SWEDETOWN °Initiate redevelopment of Swedetown in the nonresidential area first. °Ensure the new interchange at 1800 North enhances access to Swedetown °Ensure that any vacations/street closures in this area do not eliminate important buffer areas between land uses. DRA F T 130 | | 131 E X T R A C T I V E I N D U S T R I E S Oppose expansion of extractive industries beyond that identified in the Beck Street Reclamation Framework and Foothill Area Plan. Where excavation rights exist, the City should explore the feasibility of obtaining the rights through conservation easements, purchase of development rights, purchase of fee title or trade to ensure expansion does not occur. I N S T I T U T I O N A L °Discourage the state from intensifying activities at the state capitol building site. Any expansion should be within the existing site and should take into account traffic impacts on the surrounding residential areas and should comply with city zoning and traffic regulations. °Oppose any attempts to widen State Street between North Temple and 300 North to accommodate traffic to the state capitol building, including developing an agreement with the state or the city to take over jurisdiction of state street at least between North Temple and 300 N. °Encourage the state to continue addressing ways to decrease the number of vehicular trips to the state capitol building including continuing to develop satellite campuses, providing shuttle services and promoting the use of mass transit and carpooling by employees. O P E N S P A C E + R E C R E A T I O N °Pursue the development of an additional neighborhood park or expansion of existing parks. °Address Warm Springs Park improvements including resurfacing the tennis courts, renovating restrooms, developing more play fields, stabilizing the hillside and providing more easily accessible parking to encourage park usage by residents of the community. °Ensure the expansion of the LDS church Campus is to the west rather than into residential neighborhoods to the north other than existing Urban Institutional zoned areas. °Prohibit the expansion of the UI district boundaries beyond the existing frontage along North Temple. °Prohibit the encroachment of institutional uses into the residential neighborhood beyond the existing North Temple frontage. °Encourage access to the LDS Church campus primarily from the south and west, not from the north and east. °Height limitations to the northwest of LDS temple square should remain to insure continued visual access. °Encourage design of building, landscape and parking facilities on the block bounded by North Temple, 200 North, Main and State Streets to ensure that any development will support and enhance the residential neighborhood to the north as well as maintain view corridors to the capitol from the south. °As LDS church owned surface parking lots along north temple are redeveloped, ensure the final parking provided is adequate to meet the parking requirement for both existing and proposed uses. °Encourage, as well as require where applicable, the continued use of public transportation and carpooling by employees. °Mitigate impacts on the residential areas to the north from new development in the LDS church campus, including noise, parking, traffic and overall congestion. °Require parking lot access for all commercial and institutional uses to direct traffic away from, not through, residential portions of the capitol hill neighborhood. °Require that parking access for any new development on the former Lafayette school site shall be on North Temple or Main Street or shall utilize existing parking entrances. °Support creation of an entry feature and retention of open space at the northwest corner of state street and north temple, in deference to city creek park and Brigham Young park, and to allow city creek to be raised above ground along North Temple. °Prohibit encroachments into city creek park. The city should seek to re-acquire the existing access easement for a potential parking ramp from the LDS church. WEST HIGH SCHOOL °Prohibit commercial development on the former Horace Mann Jr. High property. °Prohibit the expansion of SLC school district facilities from encroaching onto residential properties. CHILDREN’S MUSEUM (WASATCH SPRINGS PLUNGE) °Encourage the continued use of the city- owned facility. °Ensure adequate funding is provided for the restoration and maintenance of this historic structure. °Study the feasibility of extending Warm Springs Park northward to the intersection of Beck Street/Victory Road. °Ensure the long range use of the Wasatch Plunge Building for public/quasi-public uses that support community needs and support abutting Warm Springs Park. °Prohibit the expansion of Pugsley park where existing housing would be eliminated. °Allow for the redevelopment of Swedetown Park once the residential land uses have been relocated from Swedetown. °Encourage maintaining the capitol west boys and girls club as a community amenity. Support future expansion needs if feasible or relocation efforts within the Guadalupe or West Capitol Hill Neighborhoods. °Maintain the existing policy in City Creek Canyon as it relates to automobiles. °Retain City Creek Park as public open space and encourage the LDS Church to retain the Brigham Young Historic Park and Gordon Place Park as usable open space. °Visually enhance publicly owned property while creating recreational opportunities for the community. °The City should work with the School District and private sector to locate a community recreation center with aquatic facilities within the community.DRA F T | 133132 | H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N °Analyze the potential designation of the Guadalupe Neighborhood, or individual properties in the Guadalupe Neighborhood, to the National Register of Historic Places. °Promote fullest and broadest application of historic preservation standards and design guidelines, especially relative to new construction, so that historic neighborhood fabric, character and livability are not compromised. °Ensure the redevelopment and revitalization efforts proposed for the areas west of 300 W are balanced with the preservation of important historic resources. °Ensure the maintenance and continued appropriate use of publicly owned historic resources. °Tree species should be consistent with the heritage of the district and include flowering fruitless trees in the Marmalade Neighborhood. U R B A N D E S I G N °Encourage the removal of billboards from 300 W and the 600 N off-ramp. °Use urban design features to signify community entries. °Improve landscape features throughout the community where feasible. °Any application requesting approval to exceed base height regulations within the capitol hill community should be specifically analyze to ensure protection of any view corridors. °(Foothill views) Height limitations should remain around the State Capitol and to the northwest of LDS Temple Square to insure continued visual access. °Prohibit further development which encroaches onto Ensign Peak. The city should work to acquire any remaining private parcels of land. °Ensure view corridors are not blocked by overhead wires or sky bridges. URBAN DESIGN POLICIES FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS °New developments in the Guadalupe Neighborhood should include traditional street layout, front facades oriented to the street and structures which are compatible with the existing singe-family structures. °Require adherence to the mixed-use design guidelines for new construction to ensure compatibility between different adjacent land uses. °Consider renaming Main Street between North Temple and 300 N to emphasize the neighborhood character of the street in this area. URBAN DESIGN POLICIES FOR COMMERCIAL AREAS °Implement the objectives and design guidelines of the MU zoning district, as specifically outlined in the west capitol hill neighborhood plan, as the means of promoting appropriate land use, building scale and mass in the 300 west corridor and other areas zoned MU. °Encourage design treatment to 300 W which strengthen the community's residential character by visually tying 300 west to the area's core residential neighborhood to the east and west. °Ensure that street improvements in the commercial and institutional areas along and south of North Temple match the established downtown design theme. °Encourage the landscaping of Beck Street frontages with drought tolerant plans by public and private property owners. °Require buffering between differing land uses. °Screen heavy, extensive outdoor storage and use. °Remove billboards and develop new uses on the lots where billboards exist. °Street trees should be required as part of any new development or street improvement project where curb, gutter and sidewalk are replaced. Street tree type should be under the direction of the City's Urban Forester with every effort made to select trees which are uniform in terms of height and fullness yet with adequate numbers of species to meet the diversity requirement of the urban forestry policy. °Encourage flexibility in street tree planting in the historic district to accommodate historic spacing of street tree planting patterns. °Selection of street trees should take into consideration species which do not tend to drip especially in areas where on-street parking is common. UTILITY LINES & COMMUNICATION TOWERS °Residents should be encouraged to accomplish underground utility conversion on a block-by block basis. The city and utility companies should make every effort to accommodate residents desiring to pursue these improvements. °Encourage the consolidation of overhead utility lines where possible. Utility lines should be located in the rear of properties if possible. Co-location of utilities is strongly encouraged. °Prohibit the expansion of the existing substation at Wall Street and 800 North and encourage its relocation to the industrial areas of the community. °The substation should be relocated to the industrial areas in the northern part of the community. °Ensure communication towers are located in the existing communication tower corridor and regulations such as the camouflage of such towers are enforced. °Limit size, number and location of communication towers. °Require, to the degree possible, cellular communication towers be approved and installed in a way which is visually compatible with its surroundings. Where possible, such towers should be co-located or placed on or inside other structures. °Minimize the visual impacts of the towers on the community.DRA F T 134 | | 135 T R A N S P O R T A T I O N + C I R C U L A T I O N °Support the capitol hill and avenues joint statement on commuter traffic. °Strongly oppose any traffic modifications to Victory Road, Columbus Street, and Main Street that require demolition of residential structures, or that include widening or removing important urban design elements (trees, park strips, curbline) in order to increase traffic volumes. Modifications should not be designed to increase or facilitate additional "through" commuter traffic but should be designed to "calm" existing through traffic and accommodate neighborhood cross traffic. °Provide for traffic controls on Victory Road, Columbus Street, and Main Street that are of the highest aesthetic quality, which reflect the historic character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. °400 W is the primary commuter surface street in the community. °Ensure street improvements which encourage through traffic to enter onto 400 W rather than 300 West are retained. °Ensure measures are taken to ensure safety for West High School students who cross 300 and 400 W. °Modify parking lanes, where feasible, along 300 W with curb extension at intersections to protect pedestrians and parked cars. °Construct and landscape center islands. °Evaluate the feasibility of implementing urban design modifications to 300 W street. °Maintain 300 and 400 W streets as two- way streets. 3 0 0 N P E D E S T R I A N C I R C U L A T I O N °Discourage any proposed access on 300 N, such as a viaduct, which would have a negative impact on the Guadalupe Neighborhood, while improving pedestrian access across 500 W railroad tracks. °Ensure that any reconstruction of either the 600 North or North Temple Viaducts includes adequate pedestrian access. °Prohibit the development of a viaduct or underpass at 300 N between 400 and 500 W for vehicular traffic. °Encourage the elimination of rail crossings conflicts on Beck Street. °Synchronize traffic lights along North Temple, 300 W and 400 W. °Encourage a reconfiguration of the US-89/I-15 merge in North Salt Lake so only one lane steers traffic on to Beck Street. °Ensure the proposed Legacy Highway does not allow for a direct commuter connection into the residential neighborhoods of the Capitol Hill Community. °Oppose any Bountiful Boulevard proposal. °Strongly support a 500 W collector system from Davis County to provide access to downtown while bypassing residential areas of the Capitol Hill community. °Encourage residents to participate in the city's traffic calming program in an effort to implement appropriate traffic calming techniques. °Prohibit the elimination of travel lanes on East Capitol Boulevard north of 500 North. °Prohibit the installation of gates across the lower portion of East Capitol Boulevard which would prevent public access to the foothills. °Strongly oppose any attempt at widening State Street north of North Temple. °As the development of the LDS Campus occurs, evaluate the impacts upon the neighborhood and require traffic calming mitigation that is responsive to development patterns and protection of the neighborhood from intrusion by these institutional uses. °As curb and sidewalk replacement occurs, retain or construct tight turning radius to protect pedestrians and prevent cars from making high speed turns. °Retain the west-bound double left turn lane on State Street at North Temple. °Promote infrastructure improvements as well as the redesign and widening of streets to improve access, circulation and visibility into the area, facilitating the redevelopment of Swedetown as a business park type development. °Encourage the consolidation of the rail lines. °Analyze the feasibility of constructing a pedestrian and bicycle overpass access across the rail lines at 300 N. Any solution to providing access for pedestrians and cyclists should address access, safety and minimizing negative impacts to the community. °Prohibit the development of a viaduct or underpass at 300 N between 400 and 500 W for vehicular traffic. °Evaluate the potential impacts of the routing of industrial traffic in the event jurisdiction of state highways is transferred to the city. °Restriction of truck traffic on 600 W street should take place when alternative routes are established such as 500 W Boulevard or direct access to 400 West without railroad crossing conflicts. °Encourage UTA to continue to provide adequate bus service in the Capitol Hill Community and make improvements where necessary. °Promote the development of light rail to service Davis County. °Ensure future development does not preclude the development of commuter rail. °Ensure that any new viaducts at 600 North and North Temple have a sidewalk for use by pedestrians and cyclists. P E D E S T R I A N C I R C U L A T I O N Solutions to mitigating traffic volumes and speeds on Columbus Street and Victory Road should not include the demolition of existing residential properties. E N V I R O N M E N T A L °Maintain public ownership of existing publicly owned property in the foothills. °Maintain and strictly enforce existing regulations which prohibit development of land with 30% or greater slopes. °Maintain minimum 16-acre land requirements for residential development in the FP Foothill Protective Overlay Zone. °Require that negative impacts of residential development on foothills are minimized and, where necessary, that damage to adjacent open space is mitigated. DRA F T 136 | °Continue to coordinate with state, county and neighboring communities in efforts to protect water sources. °Prohibit new industry within the community that would constitute a "Major Source" of air pollution by standards of the State's Division of Air Quality. °Ensure landscaping requirements for new developments are met. °Encourage existing industrial uses, especially those which emit pollutants, to increase landscaping on their properties. °Improve transportation circulation and encourage transportation alternatives that reduce vehicle emissions, such as mass transit, flexible work schedules and telecommuting. °Promote the use of directional railroad whistles which are located at the crossing rather than on the train in the Guadalupe neighborhood. °Work with appropriate government agencies to ensure that cleanup of hazardous sites is undertaken. °Work with appropriate government agencies to determine the feasibility and appropriateness of reuse of the properties once cleanup has occurred. °Mitigate dust by increasing vegetation densities within and surrounding gravel pits. The city's zoning ordinance includes reclamation measures for gravel excavation companies along Beck Street requiring revegetation concurrent with operations and not just after operations cease. °Preserve vegetation along the dry west facing slopes of the foothills to prevent soil erosion and dust problems. To assure the protection of this vegetation, monitoring human impacts in the community's foothills is highly recommended. °Ensure the Reclamation Framework and foothill Area Plan is adopted and implemented. °Prohibit development of new extractive industries in the foothills of the community. °Oppose expansion of extractive industries. Where excavation rights exist, the city should explore the feasibility of obtaining the rights through conservation easements, purchase of development rights, purchase of fee title or trade to ensure expansion does not occur. °Provide adequate public access to foothills. °Pursue methods of limited access on the west foothill slopes. °Promote existing trails, as well as create more urban trail systems and open space to help preserve natural areas. °Coordinate with the State Division of Wildlife Resources ongoing monitoring of deer winter feeding range and take appropriate action to ensure the preservation of the deer habitat. °Continue to enforce existing watershed protection regulations to ensure development and recreational uses int eh foothills of the Capitol Hill Community do not negatively impact the City Creek Canyon watershed. °Ensure compliance with the regulations regarding protection of the aquifer recharge areas. °Emphasize compliance with local watershed and ground water protection ordinances. P U B L I C F A C I L I T I E S + U T I L I T I E S °Maintenance and improvements to streets and infrastructure in Swedetown should take into account a transition from residential uses to business park uses, including improved access. °Evaluate the significance of the historic sandstone curb and gutters in the Capitol Hill Community and preserve them where feasible. °Evaluate the need to improve street circulation plans prior to undertaking street and infrastructure repairs. °As center medians are replaced, they should be constructed with a curb which is high enough to discourage people from driving over them. °Encourage designs and land uses that place activity adjacent to alleys. °Investigate the use of alleys as an alternate pedestrian system with security pedestrian level lighting. °Coordinate any new street lighting program in designated historic districts with the Historic Landmark Commission to ensure the design of the streetlights are compatible with the historic character and comply with the historic district regulations. °Provide a consistent design theme and increase the amount of street lighting on 300 West and 400 West. °Encourage low water consumption in residential and commercial landscape development by requiring the utilization of drought tolerant and indigenous species where appropriate. °If the Fire Department decides to build a new Fire Station in the Capitol Hill Community, the new station should be located west of 400 West. °Prohibit commercial development on the former Horace Mann Jr. High School property. °Prohibit the expansion of Salt Lake City School District facilities from encroaching onto residential properties. °Prohibit the expansion of institutional uses associated with the West High School campus into the residential neighborhoods. °Ensure the continued preservation of publicly owned historic resources.DRA F T 138 | | 139 In 1986, Salt Lake City adopted a specific plan for City Creek to address land use and circulation in the City Creek Canyon area. The plan area extends from the North Temple and State Street intersection to the top of City Creek Canyon and is approximately 10,700 acres. It encompasses the residential pocket along Canyon Road, Memory Grove Park, as well as the entire undeveloped canyon. The western half of City Creek is located in the Capitol Hill Community Plan Area, and the eastern half is located in the Avenues Community Plan area; the divide is roughly the City Creek waterway itself. CITY CREEK PLAN ADOPTED 1986 P L A N N I N G G O A L City Creek Canyon should serve as a valuable watershed and recreation/open space amenity of city-wide significance. These uses should take precedence over other land use alternatives. P L A N N I N G P O L I C I E S °Preserve the historic Canyon Road residential pocket and formal Memory Grove Park to depict the city’s heritage, and as a link between the Central Business District (CBD) and the upper canyon. °Preserve City Creek Canyon above Memory Grove for watershed and limited public recreation. °Promote the "City Creek Park" concept for the entire canyon. Areas extending into the canyon from the formally maintained park should be maintained in their natural state, much as they are today, with only minimal improvements to enhance recreation opportunities, stabilize hillsides, and define public/private property boundaries in areas near the mouth of the canyon. B A C K G R O U N D / P H Y S I C A L C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S Slopes on the canyon sides are not conducive to development. Most of the canyon is under public ownership and has generally steep terrain. The Salt Lake County 208 Water Quality Plan "Composite Land Suitability Study" indicates that the large majority of land in City Creek Canyon between the canyon entrance and the end of the road at Rotary Park consists of soil constraints that could not be mitigated to accommodate development. Soil problems and steep slopes would preclude development in most areas of the canyon even if public policy was supportive of development. Extending into the canyon from Rotary Park the terrain becomes very steep and rocky. Any development in this area would require significant alteration of natural features. Therefore, development of any type is not a viable land use alternative. MEMORY GROVE - CANYON ROAD AREA This area extends from North Temple to Bonneville Boulevard loop and encompasses the undeveloped hillsides to the ridges of the canyon. This area consists of the Canyon Road residential pocket; Memory Grove Park: undeveloped, natural canyon areas that are part of Memory Grove but not formally maintained; and undeveloped hillsides, (the majority of which are owned by the city). CITY CREEK CANYON PARK/MEMORY GROVE - CANYON ROAD AREA POLICIES, GOALS & RECOMMENDATIONS °Maintain and enhance the existing features and characteristics, and to create a link between the canyon and the Central Business District (CBD). The city has a unique opportunity to capitalize on historic and architecturally significant residential pocked along Canyon Road, and Memory Grove Park. °Create a visual pedestrian link between the CBD and the Memory Grove - Canyon Road area. °Preserve the historically significant homes and low-density residential pocket along Canyon Road. °Preserve the undeveloped canyon and hillsides as natural open space. C.B.D.-MEMORY GROVE ENTRANCE PARK: The city should acquire property near the intersection of North Temple and State Street for development of an entrance into Memory Grove. The northeast corner of the intersection is the preferred location. A small historic theme park with a variety of art forms depicting the city's heritage, maps with walking tours, small park to provide benches, tables and shady areas. CANYON ROAD RESIDENTIAL POCKET Preserve and enhance these homes and their low- density neighborhood atmosphere (R-2 zoning) and historic preservation overlay. Large street trees should also be preserved. OTTINGER HALL & MEMORIAL HOUSE RECEPTION CENTER Organize coordinated direction needed regarding the use and maintenance of Ottinger Hall, Memorial House, and the development of new facilities at Memory Grove. Establish an advisory committee to oversee maintenance and new uses. DRA F T 140 | | 141 S H O R T R A N G E C I R C U L A T I O N G O A L S The city should implement and support land use policies enhancing the canyon as a unique recreation amenity in Salt Lake City. Emphasis should be shifted from accommodating through- traffic to providing access for recreation purposes such as bicycling, running, and providing reasonable vehicular access to recreation amenities in City Creek Canyon. L O N G R A N G E C I R C U L A T I O N G O A L S Monitor land use patterns and the extent and success of recreation facility improvements in the City Creek/Memory Grove area. C I T Y C R E E K C A N Y O N A B O V E B O N N E V I L L E B O U L E V A R D One of the major purposes of this study is to re-evaluate the somewhat informal policies that have evolved through the years regarding land use in City Creek Canyon. The City Department of Public Utilities has managed the watershed through recent years, including the enforcement of recreation policies and regulations. Appropriately, watershed protection has been given priority over recreation. Other than picnicking, fishing and hunting, recreation in the canyon is limited to enjoying the canyon and its natural flora and fauna. City residents participating in this study are very supportive of maintaining restrictive land use policies. The group endorses the policy of giving watershed protection first priority in the canyon, limiting recreation to activities presently permitted and prohibiting any development in the canyon. Residential or recreation development of private property and any development of public property, such as a ski resort, are identified as unacceptable land use activities. GOALS °Promote city property acquisition and annexation to insure future control over land use in the canyon. °Prohibit future development and/or commercial endeavors. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS °Initiate actions necessary to annex the entire canyon. Upper portions or the canyon are under the jurisdiction of unincorporated Salt Lake County. Annexation is desirable from the standpoint of maintaining control over land use and other elements that may interfere with watershed protection. °Discourage the development of new recreation facilities in the canyon. °Design and develop future public utility facilities with sensitivity to the policy of maintaining the canyon in its natural state. If a water storage reservoir eventually develops in the upper canyon, the design should be compatible with the natural canyon setting. Access to the reservoir should be limited to a small utility vehicle right-of-way, preferably with a dirt or gravel surface, and access to the reservoir should be limited to public utility vehicles. In addition to effects on the natural setting, residents are also concerned that additional water storage capacity will perpetuate additional undesirable foothill development in the upper Capitol Hill and Avenues Communities. °Prohibit access to, and development of privately owned property in the canyon. °Devise a long-range strategy of acquiring all privately owned property in the canyon. °Include City Creek Canyon in the proposed city "Open Space Plan." If the plan recommends an open space zone that offers more protection from development than the present "P-1" Zone, the new more restrictive zoning should encompass the entire City Creek drainage. Residents feel strongly that more restrictive zoning is essential. °Coordinate the ongoing decisions regarding recreation policies in the canyon above Bonneville Boulevard. Public Utilities, Parks and Recreation, Police, Planning, and other involved city departments should work together on an ongoing basis to make decisions regarding appropriate recreation activities and restrictions. Any department advocating a significant policy change must assume the responsibility to contact and coordinate with other departments and concerned citizens. S U M M A R Y Salt Lake City is fortunate to have a natural amenity such as City Creek Canyon so close to the central business district. The city should take pride promoting the "City Creek Park" concept and enhancing the canyon as a natural watershed and wilderness recreation area for residents and visitors to enjoy. Effort must be taken to preserve upper segments of the canyon in their natural state. Land use activities such as residential development or commercial recreation will destroy the natural canyon environment.DRA F T 142 | | 143 The Beck Street Reclamation Plan, adopted in 1999, provides a long-term vision for transitioning extractive and industrial lands along Salt Lake City’s northern edge into a combination of business park development and preserved open space. In response to growing concerns about the visual, environmental, and land use impacts of mining operations in the foothills and along the Beck Street Corridor, Salt Lake City and North Salt Lake contracted with a consultant team to study the area and try to reach some consensus concerning the future land use of the area. The plan was developed in conjunction with a 26 member Citizens Advisory Committee consisting of representatives of local governments, local landowners, and excavation operators and identifies a phased strategy for reclaiming and repurposing the land to better support environmental protection, recreational access, and long-term economic development. The Plan area is divided along the Salt Lake/Davis County border. The portion of the Plan Area that is within the Capitol Hill Plan Area boundaries includes Beck Street at 900 North, north to the city limits and east of Beck Street to the Bonneville Bench. BECK STREET RECLAMATION PLAN ADOPTED IN 1999 O V E R A L L P L A N N I N G G O A L S °Transition land from extractive uses to business park and open space. °Prohibit new extractive uses and limit expansion of existing ones. °Preserve foothill open space and formalize trail systems. °Improve the visual appearance of Beck Street through landscaping and screening. °Establish reclamation standards for slope stabilization and revegetation. °Buffer incompatible land uses and promote better transitions between zones. K E Y C O N C E P T S + R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S The plan promotes a campus-style business park with internal roadways, green space, and a regional park at Hell Canyon. The foothills are to be preserved through open space zoning, conservation easements, and land acquisition strategies. Trails such as the Bonneville Shoreline and Warm Springs Fault Trail are formalized and integrated with new development. Site enhancements, including landscaping, environmental art, and pedestrian improvements, help reshape Beck Street into a scenic entry point into the city. Reclamation standards require phased slope stabilization and environmental controls to address air quality, noise, and water contamination. L A N D U S E °Transition extraction and industrial sites to mixed-use business parks with a campus- style design. °Improve northern access to the future business park, including long-term connections to I-15. °Designate a large regional park at the mouth of Hell Canyon. °Prohibit direct lot access from Beck Street. °Use cluster development in business parks to preserve open space corridors. Z O N I N G °Prohibit new extractive operations in the foothills. °Restrict expansion of existing operations through zoning and land acquisition. °Designate Bonneville Shoreline Trail and Warm Springs Fault Corridor as official open space corridors via easements, dedications, or development right purchases. °Implement Performance Overlay Zones to ensure adequate buffering between uses. °Finalize an excavation limit line and coordinate phased zoning changes. P L A N S T R A T E G I E S DRA F T 144 | S T A N D A R D S F O R T H E I N D U S T R Y °Require phased reclamation, slope stabilization based on site-specific risk. °Establish revegetation and slope standards for extraction sites. °Promote buffering between incompatible uses. °Apply and monitor best practices to control air quality, noise, vibration, and soil contamination in compliance with City standards. °Encourage on-site water recycling practices for concrete washout facilities and scrubber process water. O P E N S P A C E °Designate all publicly owned foothill land as open space. °Create and connect multiple trail systems, including the Bonneville Shoreline Trail and the Warm Springs Fault Trail, and preserve unique natural features. °Apply open space zoning to trails, trailheads, and bench properties post-extraction. °Secure long-term preservation through conservation easements or by purchasing development rights. S I T E E N H A N C E M E N T S & A E S T H E T I C S °Encourage landscaping and visual screening for industrial operations. °Install gateway treatments and environmental art elements at corridor ends. °Create a greenway along the east side of Beck Street. °Add pedestrian infrastructure, including sidewalks, lights, and bus stops. DRA F T | 147146 | In 2010, Salt Lake City adopted a specific plan for the North Temple corridor. The North Temple Boulevard Plan provides a framework for land use and urban design decisions that will be required as North Temple changes from an auto oriented street to a street that accommodates mass transit, pedestrians, bicyclists and automobiles, and provides transportation options for people of all ages and abilities. The Plan is intended to provide direction regarding the community’s vision for North Temple Boulevard. NORTH TEMPLE BOULEVARD PLAN ADOPTED IN 2010 The North Temple plan area is approximately 2.5 along North Temple Street, from 600 West to 2200 West. The plan area is broken down into 5 smaller study areas, called Station Areas. Only one Station Area – the Viaduct Station Area – is within the Capitol Hill Community Plan Area. The following is a summary of the land use goals, policies and strategies from the North Temple Boulevard Plan overall, and the Viaduct Station Area within Capitol Hill. This is a summary only; the 2010 Plan should be referenced for a more detailed discussion related to each summary point. O V E R A L L P L A N G O A L S °Turn North Temple into a boulevard street that is the main street that connects neighborhoods to one another. °Create compact, walkable, transit oriented neighborhoods around each station. °Increase transit ridership. °Improve the overall safety of the community. °Establish guidelines for street design and connectivity that will accommodate all users. °Create opportunities for affordable and accessible living options while increasing the residential densities near the stations by providing a mix of housing types. °Provide for a diverse mix of uses and building types around the transit stations. °Create long term economic stability to the station areas. V I A D U C T T R A N S F E R S T A T I O N A R E A BACKGROUND/PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The North Temple transfer Station incorporates an above grade TRAX Station with an at grade FrontRunner station and a local bus connection point. This station serves as the primary connection between Downtown and the neighborhoods along North Temple. Over the last decade, this area has transformed into a vibrant, urban neighborhood influenced by the Gateway and major investments in the Guadalupe and West Capitol Hill neighborhoods. STATION AREA VISION The Viaduct Transfer Station Area will become a major regional destination and transfer station for commuters from the north and south and those traveling to the Salt Lake City International Airport. Future development will continue to create a vibrant, active, safe and well-connected urban center with a diverse mix of intense land uses. The area will contain a rich mix of transportation options that attract people from the entire region. Major destination points within the station area will be enhanced and continue to provide a diverse mix of amenities for those that live, work, shop, dine or come to the area for entertainment. STATION AREA TYPOLOGY The Viaduct Transfer Station Area displays characteristics most commonly found in an Urban Center Station. This type of station area is generally served by at least three types of transit service, and includes a core, which exhibits the most intense level of development and mix of uses and the greatest density. K E Y C O N C E P T S + R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S The North Temple Viaduct Transfer Station area is unique because of its location in the City and the region. The viaduct and the railroad tracks divide the area into four quadrants and the station platforms are separated vertically. Each quadrant has its own identity and development issues. The northwest and northeast quadrants of this station area overlap the Capitol Hill Community. Pedestrians, bicycles, automobiles and buses are all able to access the FrontRunner station at grade while an elevator, escalator, and stairs connect the FrontRunner Station to the TRAX Station on top of the viaduct. Because of this, overall connectivity is the key issue and challenge. To address this challenge, several key concepts and recommendations have been identified. 500 WEST, EAST OF THE TRACKS Extend the 500 West Parkway to 300 North and eventually to 600 North to provide pedestrian and bicycle access to the transit station at North Temple and amenity space for adjacent development. 500 WEST, WEST OF THE TRACKS This street should be improved to better connect the Guadalupe neighborhood to the transit station platform. Improvements should include lighting, curb, gutter, park strips, and sidewalks. A new midblock street should be added to 600 West between North Temple and 200 North. The transition areas are those areas that are further from the station (up to 1/2 mile), contain a less intense mix of uses and less residential density, although there may be very dense residential uses. DRA F T 148 | | 149 200 NORTH Extend access to the Viaduct Station Area along the 200 N right-of-way for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars. EAST-WEST PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS There are no pedestrian or bicycle connections from 400 West or 600 West, other than the North Temple Viaduct. For better connectivity, sidewalk connections should be added from the Viaduct to all four quadrants of the station area, but especially the 2 quadrants north of the Viaduct within the Capitol Hill neighborhood. PUBLIC REALM/TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE Infrastructure within this area should be designed to create a special place within the city and add to the unique nature of the station area. CITY CREEK OPEN SPACE CONNECTION The station area should connect the 500 West open space to the recommended City Creek corridor and continue west to connect to the Jordan River Parkway. P O L I C I E S These policies are based on the future vision for the station area and are intended to guide future infrastructure improvements and land use decisions. POLICY #1: DEVELOPMENT Use proactive zoning tools and design guidelines to create a built environment that creates high quality projects that build on and enhance the station area assets. These regulations should focus on creating pedestrian-friendly environments while still accommodating automobiles. New development near station areas should be dense and compact, while new development further away from the station and closer to low- density neighborhoods should be compatible and relate to existing development patterns. POLICY #2: CONNECTIVITY Development around station areas should be well-connected to adjacent neighborhoods and destinations by providing a wide range of transportation options. Transit networks should provide a safe, comfortable, and interesting environment for walking, cycling, and similar modes of transit. POLICY #3: MIX OF USES Intended to give people choices on where they live, what type of building they live in, where they are going to eat or shop, and how they get around. This can be accomplished by intensifying the mix of uses around the Viaduct Transfer Station, including commercial, office, residential, institutional, and entertainment. Uses should be arranged and placed in areas where they can take full advantage of the various transit modes. K E Y P R O J E C T S + F O L L O W U P A C T I O N S The vision of the North Temple Viaduct Station Area requires catalyst projects to bring it to fruition. These are projects that will have noticeable, positive changes on the community and encourage further development. The following are key projects that have been identified in this plan: °The area near the Viaduct Station should be rezoned to a more transit-friendly zoning district. The future zoning districts of the area should reflect the core, transitional, and stable areas identified in this plan. °500 West should be extended to the north under the viaduct in order to provide access to the rail station platform. This will improve direct access to the platform and contribute to the overall connectivity of the station area. °500 West is a paved street that is missing adequate curb, gutter, sidewalks, and landscaping. Improving the street will make the street function better and enhance the safety of all users. °The station should be served by local buses, in addition to rail. °Billboards restrict development opportunities on private property. In the surrounding area, no new billboards should be allowed, and all existing billboards should be removed. Future zoning regulations should prohibit new billboards from being installed. °Supporting the arts in the community would help make the Viaduct Station Area unique and enhance a sense of identity. Public art, like murals and places where artists can display their work, should be implemented into the surrounding area. °The city should continue to work with UTA, on the design of future stations and upgrades to existing stations, and connections between station areas. POLICY #3: PLACEMAKING Should be facilitated by a mix of uses, infrastructure, and amenities to create desirable and attractive places at each station area. The Viaduct and the open space underneath it should be recognized as important public space. Public spaces should be designed for and allow a wide array of activities, contribute to the unique character of the area, and enhance the connections between the transit stations and nearby developments. Landscaping should be incorporated into the pedestrian and bicycle connections to the station area. POLICY #4: DESTINATIONS The station area should be enhanced as a regional destination and major entry point into the city. The existing destinations near the station area should be used to encourage future development. DRA F T DRA F T This page has intentionally been left blank Transit to Trails: Wasatch Front Pilot Reducing canyon traffic w hile maintaining access to Bonanza Flat BONANZA FLAT •Protected mountain landscape above Park City •Popular hiking & biking destination •Accessed via Big Cottonwood Canyon •Limited parking In 2 019 10/ 14/ 2 02 5 This is w hat changes w hen more people leave the car behind. OUR VISION •WHEN: July 4 – Sept 30 (Sat + Sun) •HOW: Free, reservation -based shuttle •VEHICLES: 2 vans, bike capacity •DEPARTS FROM: Cottonw ood Heights Program Cost •Summer/fall pilot cost: ~$75,000 •UOL contribution: up to 50% •Remaining: partner cities + other funding Our Ask of Salt Lake City •$5,000 contribution Transit to Trails: A Summer Canyon Access Solution for Salt Lake Residents Prepared for Salt Lake City, February 2026 Each summer, as valley temperatures rise, Salt Lake City residents head to the Central Wasatch in search of cooler temperatures, fresh air, and time in nature. Bonanza Flat Conservation Area lies just on the other side of Big Cottonwood Canyon and since its protection by Utah Open Lands and Park City in 2017, it has become one of the most popular places to escape the valley heat. It offers hiking and biking trails, alpine lakes, and cooler mountain temperatures. But for many Salt Lake City households, access to places like Bonanza Flat can be unpredictable. A long drive up Big Cottonwood Canyon and over Guardsman Pass can end with full lots on arrival, driving in circles, and ultimately a wasted trip up the canyon. Canyon traffic is a real challenge during peak summer weekends, and there is only so much parking available at Bonanza Flat. Reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips also supports the Salt Lake Valley’s broader air quality goals. That’s why access to Bonanza Flat needs to be managed as thoughtfully as the land itself. Utah Open Lands and Park City take a proactive approach to managing Bonanza Flat Conservation Area. Part of that is improving access to the trails there while reducing single vehicle impacts.That’s where Transit to Trails comes in. Transit to Trails is a shuttle-based access program created to improve the visitor experience while reducing congestion, parking pressure, and vehicle-related impacts. Piloted by Utah Open Lands and Park City, the program proved so popular and effective that it is now a permanent part of Park City’s transit system. It replaces a high-friction experience (drive, park, gamble) with a simpler one: ride, recreate, return. Utah Open Lands wants to bring this same innovative solution to the Wasatch Front. We are pursuing a summer 2026 pilot expansion of this proven model to serve Salt Lake Valley communities. The proposed pilot would provide weekend shuttle access from July 4 through September 30, to Bonanza Flat Conservation Area’s two primary trailheads, helping residents reach a destination they already use, decreasing vehicles in Big Cottonwood Canyon and reducing pressure on parking areas. This is about serving existing demand more responsibly.* July through September is peak valley heat. During this period, access to cooler outdoor adventures is a quality-of-life issue. Research consistently shows that as little as two hours per week in nature supports physical health, mental health, and stress reduction. Transit to Trails is designed around this reality. It helps residents get out of the heat and into nature while functioning as a premium concierge service by improving access while reducing traffic, emissions, and congestion in a shared canyon system. Surveys conducted during the Park City pilot program showed strong rider satisfaction. Users, including those from the Salt Lake Valley, consistently reported that the service made access easier and reduced the stress associated with driving and parking. Utah Open Lands is funding up to half of the pilot cost. We have heard from Salt Lake City residents who want a better way to reach Bonanza Flat and who care about reducing canyon congestion and improving air quality. Transit to Trails gives Salt Lake City a practical way to be part of that solution through a time-limited pilot. Utah Open Lands has a long history of working across jurisdictions to protect land and manage use responsibly. When Bonanza Flat was at risk, Park City voters approved a $25 million open space bond, and Utah Open Lands led a $13 million regional fundraising effort in six months to save this 1500 acres from planned development. Many of those donors live in the Salt Lake Valley, and helped secure permanent protection of this land. Transit to Trails builds on that shared investment by ensuring access keeps pace with protection. AND it would be Free! From an operational standpoint, two shuttle vehicles would operate on Saturdays and Sundays, with departures approximately every 90 minutes between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Riders would reserve seats at no cost through an app. Pickup locations would be selected in coordination with local jurisdictions to minimize disruption and keep vehicles out of the canyon. Utah Open Lands has already secured approximately half of the funding needed to operate this year ’s pilot program and keeping it free. We are already planning to apply for the Central Wasatch Commission's short term grant program making it very economical for cities to provide a top-notch service to residents and address very real canyon congestion. Utah Open Lands is actively building additional momentum and support through municipal partnerships and other regional partners. At its core, Transit to Trails is about: ● meeting residents’ demands for decreased canyon traffic, ● summer heat alternatives, ● public health ● responsible recreation ● and a step towards better air quality for the region. *2025 data shows that roughly 40% of Bonanza Flat visitors came from the Salt Lake valley, with 22.2% coming from Salt Lake City. That’s nearly 70,000 visitors from Salt Lake City. Utah Open Lands | utahopenlands.org Contact: Josh Stasinos, josh@utahopenlands.org Prepared by SLC Council Communications Team COMMUNICATIONS PERFORMANCE REPORT JULY 1-DEC. 31, 2025 FDA COMMUNICATIONS PERFORMANCE REPORT – DECEMBER 2025 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 3 WEBSITE ............................................................................................................................................................... 4 Most Visited Pages ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 EMAIL .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Subscriber Growth ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 Engagement ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 SOCIAL MEDIA .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Audience Growth ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 Publishing & Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Most Engaging Posts ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Paid Social Media ............................................................................................................................................................ 10 MEETING RECAPS............................................................................................................................................. 11 PRINT & CREATIVE .......................................................................................................................................... 12 KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 13 GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................................................................... 14 FDA COMMUNICATIONS PERFORMANCE REPORT – DECEMBER 2025 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This reporting period (July-December 2025) reflects meaningful progress toward the Communications Plan’s three core goals: • Awareness: increasing public awareness and understanding of the Council’s role • Engagement: strengthening community engagement and participation • Accessibility & Equity: ensuring transparent, timely and accessible communication across platforms. The data in this report illustrate momentum toward each priority and identify strategic opportunities to deepen impact through intentional planning and capacity alignment. Awareness: Website visits and page views increased year over year—driven largely by meeting-related content, election information and district pages—signaling stronger visibility and successful traffic-driving efforts across email, social media and media coverage. Meeting recaps continue to serve as a critical civic education tool for residents and journalists alike, with consistent engagement o n agenda portals and watch links. Video-first content and policy-focused posts helped translate complex Council decisions into clear, accessible information, reinforcing the Council’s role in shaping city policy. Engagement: Email lists grew across all districts, with several districts showing notable year -over-year engagement improvements. Click activity indicates that residents are opening emails and interacting with content—especially when it relates to budget decisions, capital improvement projects, zoning updates and community events. Paid digital advertisements, primarily social media ads, provided a cost- effective method to amplify organic messaging, generate buzz around events and surveys, and connect with audiences who may not already follow the Council’s digital channels. These trends reflect growing behavioral engagement rather than passive visibility. Accessibility & Equity: Across platforms, communications remained focused on clarity, plain language and expanded Spanish -language outreach. Print materials, in-person engagement and on-the-spot digital sign-ups supported list-building efforts and improved access for residents with lower digital connectivity. At the same time, elevated website traffic paired with high bounce rates highlights an opportunit y to strengthen navigation, improve content pathways and guide users toward related information—reinforcing the website as a true information hub rather than a single-visit destination. Ongoing efforts to refine content structure, enhance mobile usability and implement tracking tools directly support this goal. Strategic Alignment & Capacity: While the data shows growing visibility and reach, it also points to an important opportunity: intentionally converting resident interest into deeper engagement and understanding through proactive planning. As demand for communications support grows, developing annual district communications calendars, aligning deliverables with Council priorities and prioritizing high-impact, multi-use content will allow the team to advance awareness, engagement and accessibility goals in a sustainable and equitable way across districts. This approach emphasizes quality over volume—focusing staff time on communications that deliver the greatest return, including a stronger and more navigable website, a planned video-first social strategy, consistent meeting recaps that serve both residents and media and continued email and SMS list growth through in-person engagement and print materials. To sustain this momentum, establishing clear baseline expectations and aligning deliverables early in the year will ensure staff capacity is deployed where it delivers the greatest value. With shared planning and intentional prioritization, the Council is well- positioned to deepen public understanding, strengthen participation and deliver communications that remain accurate, accessible and sustainable over time. FDA COMMUNICATIONS PERFORMANCE REPORT – DECEMBER 2025 WEBSITE From July–December 2025, Council web pages saw higher overall visits and page views than in the same period in 2024, indicating stronger visibility and successful traffic-driving efforts (likely driven by email newsletters, social posts and news coverage). This suggests more people are finding Council content and using the website as an entry point for information. Average Monthly Visits Average Monthly Page Views Average Bounce Rate 11,800 (+28% over 2024) 18,400 (+27% over 2024) 78% (+1% over 2024) However, bounce rates remain high, indicating that many visitors leave after viewing only one page. In many cases, this reflects purposeful use—such as checking an agenda, watching a briefing or confirming a decision —rather than disengagement. To encourage deeper exploration, staff are already implementing improvements outlined in the Communications Plan. These inclu de refining content organization and navigation to prioritize high-traffic pages, reviewing and optimizing the mobile experience, and adding “Related Content” and “Go Back” options to help users navigate the site more easily. Campaign tracking links (UTMs and unique URLs) also allow staff to better understand how visitors arrive and where pathways can be improved. Together, these ef forts focus on making it easier for residents to find what they need—and discover what’s next. Council Visits & Views July to December 2025 Council Visits & Views July to December 2024 FDA COMMUNICATIONS PERFORMANCE REPORT – DECEMBER 2025 Most Visited Pages The most visited Council web pages during this period reflect residents actively seeking practical, time-sensitive information, particularly related to civic participation and representation. Unsurprisingly, the Homepage and Agendas / Meeting Information rank highest, reinforcing the website’s role as a primary hub for legislative updates, meeting access and decision -making transparency. High traffic to “Find Your Council Member” and “Contact Us” further suggests residents are using the site to connect directly with their representatives and Council staff. The 2025 Municipal Election page ranking in the top five indicates heightened interest in local elections and Council leaders hip. This appears to have driven increased traffic to district-specific pages, particularly Districts 1, 3 and 7, all of which had incumbents on the ballot. Visits to Council Member bios and district pages suggest voters were researching candidates, reviewing backgrounds and seeking district-specific context before Election Day. Overall, this pattern shows the website is serving its intended civic education function—supporting residents as they seek to understand who represents them, how decisions are made and how to participate. Council Page Views 1. Homepage 2. Agendas / Meeting Information 3. Find Your Council Member 4. Contact Us 5. 2025 Municipal Election 6. District 4 | Council Member Bio 7. Council’s Role 8. District 7 | Council Member Bio 9. District 1 | Council Member Bio 10. District 3 | Homepage • 8,688 • 8,439 • 6,109 • 4,064 • 3,044 • 2,433 • 2,398 • 1,929 • 1,597 • 1,507 FDA COMMUNICATIONS PERFORMANCE REPORT – DECEMBER 2025 EMAIL Subscriber Growth In 2025, all district email lists demonstrated subscriber growth, with District 1 seeing the highest percentage increase. Dis trict 6 continues to have the largest overall list, while the remaining districts show strong potential for continued expansion. To accelerate list-building and reach residents who are not already connected through email, Council staff could promote newsletter sign-ups at in-person events and community tabling, post flyers about Council newsletters on community bulletin boards and offer on - the-spot digital sign-ups using a dedicated iPad. These approaches reduce barriers to participation and allow residents to opt in to district newsletters and SMS updates in real time. Engagement Our district email newsletter open rates continue to exceed industry benchmarks, demonstrating that our subscribers are interested in the news they receive from their Council member. Click rates are also strong, signaling that the content and resources included in newsletters resonate with readers. FDA COMMUNICATIONS PERFORMANCE REPORT – DECEMBER 2025 SOCIAL MEDIA Audience Growth The combined social media audience of the Council and District accounts grew to 25,146 followers, an increase of 23.8%. Instagram is the primary growth driver, surpassing 10,000 followers and growing by nearly 50%, signaling strong performance for visual and story-based content. Facebook also saw steady growth (+9.5%), while X remained flat (-0.5%), suggesting it is stable but not expanding. Threads is emerging but still small, indicating potential for experimentation without significant resource investment yet. Growth is being driven primarily by Instagram and Facebook, suggesting that prioritizing high-quality visual content on these platforms will deliver the strongest return on staff time and effort. Instagram FDA COMMUNICATIONS PERFORMANCE REPORT – DECEMBER 2025 Publishing & Performance Despite publishing significantly fewer posts across platforms , overall engagement and reach increased substantially. This demonstrates that our quality-focused strategy is working. On Instagram, posting 23% less content still resulted in +8% organic engagement and +47% follower growth, showing that fewer, more intentional posts drive stronger results. Facebook activity was reduced by over 80%, yet organic views and engagements remained steady relative to output, indicating t hat fewer posts did not diminish reach. Overall, the data suggests that prioritizing relevance, clarity, and timeliness over volume is helping the Council connect more effectively with the public. FDA COMMUNICATIONS PERFORMANCE REPORT – DECEMBER 2025 Most Engaging Posts This period’s most engaging posts included a Council statement, Council funding decisions and other informational content relevant to our audiences. With the exception of a Council statement and a Capital Improvement Program graphic, most top-performing posts were videos, reinforcing video-first as an effective approach for reaching and engaging audiences. While video production is more time-intensive—requiring planning, filming, editing, captioning and review—advanced planning and a continued quality -over- quantity strategy can help maximize staff capacity while maintaining strong engagement. FDA COMMUNICATIONS PERFORMANCE REPORT – DECEMBER 2025 Paid Social Media Paid Instagram and Facebook campaigns have proven to be cost-effective and highly targeted ways to engage residents, especially compared to traditional advertising and mailers. With modest budgets, these campaigns generated tens of thousands of impressi ons and reached constituents directly within specific districts—often at less than $1 per result. Geographic targeting enables focused outreach by neighborhood, language, and interests, making paid social an efficient way to reach residents who may not already be subscribed to Council communications. These campaigns have been especially effective at raising awareness and participation in community events, resident surveys, and district-specific initiatives, while also amplifying organic content produced by the Communications Team. Paid promotion helps extend the reach of high-value content, build momentum for in-person engagement, and drive residents to sign up for district email newsletters and follow Council social channels—supporting both short-term engagement and long-term relationship building with the community. FDA COMMUNICATIONS PERFORMANCE REPORT – DECEMBER 2025 MEETING RECAPS During this period, our meeting recap emails had open rates exceeding 100%, with many recipients opening them multiple times. That’s typical when emails are used as a reference tool rather than a one-and-done read. Since our recaps are sent to our media list, we assume assignment desks and reporters often reopen recaps multiple times, search their inbox for specific topics or click back into older emails while working on stories—each action counts as another open. Our unique open rate is a closer indicator of our reach, with more than half of recipients opening the meeting recap. It shows that a stable, engaged group of recipients opens each recap at least once, while the gap between total opens and unique opens reflec ts depth of use. The dip in opens in the fall was a learning opportunity for us. The email’s subject was swapped for the title of a press release we embedded in the recap, instead of the usual subject “SLC Council Meeting Recap – Date.” We learned that our usual subject line cuts through the noise and draws opens, so we have continued to include it. This click-rate pattern aligns closely with how—and why—people use Council meeting recap emails. The higher click rates in July– August align with Budget and CIP, when agenda items are more complex, decisions are more consequential, and readers need to dig deeper. When meetings include budget adoption, capital funding, zoning changes or major land -use items, readers are far more likely to click through to supporting materials. Click-rate dips in October and early November don’t indicate disengagement so much as a shift in agenda intensity. When meetings include fewer high-impact or time-sensitive items—or fewer actionable links—click behavior naturally declines. Click performance is driven less by volume and more by newsworthiness and utility. Including clear “Watch,” “Agenda,” and “Learn More” links — especially for budget, zoning, housing and CIP items—directly increases engagement. FDA COMMUNICATIONS PERFORMANCE REPORT – DECEMBER 2025 PRINT & CREATIVE The team completed 25+ major deliverables between July and December 2025, demonstrating consistent delivery velocity across graphics, mailers, swag and communication materials. This work included high-visibility materials for Council Member transitions and neighborhood events, newsletter mailers, design updates, and tools that improve access to civic information. Collectively , these projects strengthened public communication, reinforced design consistency and supported transparency around Council priorities and decision-making. FDA COMMUNICATIONS PERFORMANCE REPORT – DECEMBER 2025 KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Prioritize High-Impact, Multi-Use Content: • Focus staff time on materials that support civic education, transparency and participation across multiple platforms (website , email, social, print). • Emphasize quality over quantity to deliver clearer, more impactful communications. Plan Council Member Communications Annually: • Develop annual, district-level communications calendars to align outreach with Council priorities, major policy milestones and citywide campaigns. • Use advanced planning to balance staff capacity, reduce reactive work and ensure equitable service across all districts. Strengthen the Website as a Central Information Hub: • Improve navigation, content organization and cross-linking to guide users from high-traffic pages (agendas, meetings, elections) to related resources. • Continue testing features like “Related Content” and clearer calls to action to encourage deeper exploration . Maintain a Planned, Video-First Social Media Strategy • Continue prioritizing short-form, captioned video to explain Council actions, highlight district work and support civic education. • Plan content in advance to maximize reach while managing production time and staff workload. Grow the Email and SMS Subscriber Base: • Promote sign-ups through social media, in-person events, print materials and on-the-spot digital enrollment using tablets. • Use signage or flyers in libraries, rec centers or other community spaces. Use Paid Digital Campaigns Strategically: • Continue leveraging low-cost, geographically targeted ads to amplify organic campaigns, promote events and surveys and grow newsletter and social subscribers. • Use paid campaigns as an option to reduce reliance on more costly traditional advertising and mailers. FDA COMMUNICATIONS PERFORMANCE REPORT – DECEMBER 2025 GLOSSARY A/B Testing A method of testing two versions of an email (e.g., different subject lines) to see which performs better. Call to Action (CTA) A prompt in the email (like “Learn more” or “Register here”) encouraging readers to take a specific action. Click Rate The percentage of recipients who clicked on a link within the email. This helps measure how engaging and actionable the content is. Engagement A general term for how actively subscribers interact with a newsletter, often measured through open and click rates. Open Rate The percentage of recipients who opened the email. Influenced by factors like subject lines, sender name and timing. Organic Typically refers to content posted to social media without paying for distribution. Paid Typically refers to paid content/advertisements on social media to reach wider/targeted audiences. Subscriber Count The total number of unique email addresses receiving the newsletter. Unique Clicks The number of individual recipients who clicked at least one link (doesn’t count multiple clicks from the same person). SALT LAKE CITY BOARD MEMBER TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 02/04/2026 Date Sent To Council: 02/05/2026 From: Otto, Rachel Subject: Board appointment Recommendation: Planning Commission Recommendation: The Administration recommends the Council approve the appointment of Anna Sullivan to the Planning Commission for a 4 year term starting on the date of City Council advice and consent . Anna Sullivan currently lives in District 1. Approved:* Otto, Rachel City Council Announcements February 17, 2026 Information Needed by Council Staff A. Salt Lake Chamber Board of Governors Meeting Representative The Council can fill an ex-officio position on the Salt Lake Chamber Board of Governors. In years past, the Council Chair has typically been included. This year, the Chair and Vice Chair asked to offer the meetings to other Council Members who may be in interested in attending. The meeting dates are: 2026 Board of Governors Meeting Schedule: o March 10, 8:00 - 9:00, Zions Bank Founders Room (buffet breakfast at 7:30 a.m.) o June 9, Board of Governors Retreat, 9:00 - 1:30, Location TBD o September 8, 8:00 - 9:00, Zions Bank Founders Room (buffet breakfast at 7:30 a.m.) o December 8, 8:00 - 9:00, Zions Bank Founders Room (buffet breakfast at 7:30 a.m.) Are any Council Members interested in attending these meetings? For Your Information B. Staff Report Template For the Council and public’s awareness, we wanted to walk through the format of our Council Staff report templates. Attached is an example. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY www.slc.gov/council/ TO:City Council Members [Georgia Font, 10 pt.] FROM: First Last Budget & Policy Analyst (please include your title) DATE:include the briefing / meeting date RE: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM [Georgia Font, CAPS, 10 pt., bold] Reminder: [[Insert a link to View the Administration’s proposal]] ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE [Georgia Font, CAPS, 11 pt., bold] [Georgia Font, 10 pt.] As few sentences as possible. Provide a) a statement of the issue - to most succinctly state the Who, What, Why, How, How much, and maybe When, b) identify the legislative role and why it is coming to the Council (adopt an ordinance, amend the budget, approve a fee, etc.), and c) link or reference to the Council’s Philosophies / priorities – (only if a clear connection is present – do not force a link if it’s a stretch). This section would provide the most pertinent information, “the bottom line” or “what is at risk”. You might consider what the Council Members must know about the issue in order to be conversant about it at the grocery store; or what they might be embarrassed by if they were not aware. Aim for short – don’t ‘max’ out the section; be as succinct as possible. Updated note: When discussing a public hearing that may or may not be required, stick with the State Statute, City Ordinances and Council policy: Simply state whether or not a hearing is required. If it is required, cite whether it is a requirement is a State or City ordinance or a Council policy, and its advertising requirement if applicable (once a week for 4 weeks; 7 days; 10 days;). Avoid asking the Council whether to hold a hearing that is not required. Include the information in your staff report and allow the Council to ask. [Georgia Font, 10 pt., bold italics] Goal of the briefing: [Georgia Font, 10 pt., italic]? Include a statement regarding the goal or purpose of the briefing – answer the question “Why is this briefing being held, and/or what does the staff need for the item to move on?”) Possible answers: straw poll, prepare for hearing, review new information, prepare to consider resolution, etc. (There will be no motions included in the staff reports. Staff should use the “Motions” form.) NEW INFORMATION [Georgia Font, CAPS, 11 pt., bold, blue (R 0 G 112 B 192) ] POLICY QUESTIONS [Georgia Font, CAPS, 11 pt., bold] new section, “Additional & Background Information.” ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION [Georgia Font, CAPS, 11 pt., bold] Use footnotes where possible to refer to related information in an addendum without lengthening the staff report. Be sure to properly label attachments. The author of the report is responsible to compile and confirm attachments for copies / electronic packets. ATTACHMENTS