Loading...
02/16/2021 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WORK SESSION February 16,2021 Tuesday 2:02 PM This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. SLCCouncil.com 7:00 pm Formal Meeting (See separate agenda) Welcome and public meeting rules The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters.The public is welcome to listen.Items scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and /or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers. Please note:Dates not identified in the FYI -Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined.Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion. Generated:11:25:11 This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Chair’s determination that conducting the City Council meeting at a physical location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location. The Salt Lake City Council Chair has determined that conducting a meeting at an anchor location under the current state of public health emergency constitutes a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may attend in person.For these reasons,the Council Meeting will not have a physical location at the City and County Building and all attendees will connect remotely. Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings.We want to make sure everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable.If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings,they are available on the following platforms: •Facebook Live:www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/ •YouTube:www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings •Web Agenda:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ •SLCtv Channel 17 Live:www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public Hearings or general comment period,you may do so through the Webex platform.To learn how to connect through Webex,or if you need call-in phone options,please visit our website or call us at 801-535-7607 to learn more. As always,if you would like to provide feedback or comment,please call us or send us an email: •24-Hour comment line:801-535-7654 •council.comments@slcgov.com More info and resources can be found at:www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/ Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found here:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ We welcome and encourage your comments!We have Council staff monitoring inboxes and voicemail,as always,to receive and share your comments with Council Members.All agenda- related and general comments received in the Council office are shared with the Council Members and added to the public meeting record.View comments by visiting the Council Virtual Meeting Comments page. Work Session Items 1.Informational:Updates from the Administration ~2:00 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive an update from the Administration on major items or projects, including but not limited to: •COVID-19,the March 2020 Earthquake,and the September 2020 Windstorm; •Updates on relieving the condition of people experiencing homelessness; •Police Department work,projects,and staffing,etc.;and •Other projects or updates. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a 2.Informational:Updates on Racial Equity and Policing ~2:30 p.m. 20 min. The Council will hold a discussion about recent efforts on various projects City staff are working on related to racial equity and policing in the City.The conversation may include issues of community concern about race,equity,and justice in relation to law enforcement policies,procedures,budget,and ordinances.Discussion may include: •An update or report on the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing;and •Other project updates or discussion. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a 3.Informational:State Legislative Briefing ~2:50 p.m. 20 min. The Council will be briefed by the Administration about issues affecting the City that may arise during the 2021 Utah State Legislative Session. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,January 12,2021;Tuesday,February 2,2021;Tuesday,February 9,2021; and Tuesday,February 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a 4.Ordinance:Rezone at approximately 706 to 740 West 900 South and 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue ~3:10 p.m. 20 min. The Council will be briefed about a proposal that would rezone properties at 706 to 740 West 900 South and 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue,including portions of two alleys,from M-1 (Light Manufacturing)to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use).The applicant intends to develop the remaining portion of the site with multi-family residential housing that is not currently permitted under the existing zoning designation.The developer has not proposed a specific development plan as part of the rezone application.The applicant also intends to renovate two vacant commercial buildings on the site for commercial uses.Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.Other sections of Title 21A –Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,February 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,March 2,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 16,2021 5.Ordinance:2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan ~3:30 p.m. 30 min. The Council will be briefed about the 2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan.Some major changes in the proposed plan include adjustments to how the City chooses lighting in public spaces based on pedestrian activity and transportation needs,as well as identifies new street lighting standards for retrofit and new construction. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,February 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -TBD Hold hearing to accept public comment -TBD TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD 6.Tentative Break ~4:00 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.Ordinance:Zoning Text Amendments for Off-street Parking ~4:20 p.m. 45 min. The Council will be briefed about a proposal that would amend various sections of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to off-street parking regulations.The proposal would: •Update parking requirements to better reflect demand; •Simplify parking regulations; •Address technical issues in enforcement;and •Establish a responsive ordinance to the City’s changing development patterns. Other sections of Title 21A –Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,February 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,March 16,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,April 6,2021 8.Ordinance:Building Inspections for Modular or Factory-Built Structures ~5:05 p.m. 20 min. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend sections of the Salt Lake City Code to allow off-site inspection of “modular”or “factory-built”structures.These types of homes may be used either as accessory dwelling units (ADUs)on existing residential properties or as stand-alone units on a larger site.Modular homes are built in factories and then delivered to the site for “installation,”which can result in lower costs per unit compared to traditional,on- site construction.The proposed ordinance would provide a process for permitting,inspecting, and approving these buildings. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,February 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 16,2021 9.Informational:Ranked Choice Voting Overview and Pilot Project ~5:25 p.m. 30 min. The Council will be briefed about an option to participate in the State-authorized Municipal Alternative Voting Method Pilot Program project,otherwise known as single-winner ranked- choice voting or instant runoff voting.Discussion will include how the ranked-choice voting process works,how the elections would be conducted,relevant bills in the Legislature’s 2021 General Session and public education efforts. Under ranked choice voting,voters rank the candidates in order of preference.Election equipment tabulates the preference numbers for each ballot.If none of the candidates receive more than 50%of the overall vote after the first round of tabulation,the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated.The voters who had selected the eliminated candidate as their first choice would then have their votes tabulated for their second-choice candidate. This process of elimination continues until a candidate crosses the 50%threshold and is declared the winner. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,February 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a 10.Board Appointment:Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board –Shelley Bodily ~5:55 p.m. 5 min. The Council will interview Shelley Bodily prior to considering appointment to the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board for a term ending December 30,2024. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,February 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 16,2021 11.Board Appointment:Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board –José Organista ~6:00 p.m. 5 min. The Council will interview José Organista prior to considering appointment to the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board for a term ending December 30,2024. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,February 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 16,2021 Standing Items 12.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. 13.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director Report of the Executive Director,including a review of Council information items and announcements.The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business,including but not limited to scheduling items. 14.Tentative Closed Session The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session.A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including,but not limited to: a.discussion of the character,professional competence,or physical or mental health of an individual; b.strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c.strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d.strategy sessions to discuss the purchase,exchange,or lease of real property,including any form of a water right or water shares,if public discussion of the transaction would: (i)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration;or (ii)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e.strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property,including any form of a water right or water shares,if: (i)public discussion of the transaction would: (A)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration;or (B)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii)the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale;and (iii)the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f.discussion regarding deployment of security personnel,devices,or systems;and g.investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code §78B-1-137,and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 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. CINDY LOU TRISHMAN SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda,including but not limited to adoption,rejection,amendment,addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation,which may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids and services.Please make requests at least two business days in advance.To make a request,please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com,801-535-7600,or relay service 711. 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 16, 2021 RE: Zoning Map Amendment for Properties Located at Approximately 706 to 740 West 900 South, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and Portions of Two Unnamed Alleys From M-1 to R-MU PLNPCM2019-01137 and PLNPCM 2020-00442 The Council will be briefed about an ordinance to amend the zoning map for properties located at approximately 706 to 740 West 900 South, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed alleys adjacent to the properties. (Note: The Council voted to vacate one of the alley segments in August 2020 and was briefed on vacating the other alley segment in January 2021. A public hearing on vacating the second alley segment is scheduled for March 2 with a potential Council vote March 16, 2021.) An aerial image of the subject parcels and alley segments is below. The subject parcels are currently zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and the request is to change the zoning designation to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use). Two existing commercial buildings on the parcels are planned to be rehabilitated for restaurant and retail type uses which are permitted under both the current M-1 as well as the proposed R-MU zoning designations. This rezone is being requested to allow future development of the vacant eastern portion of the site for high density multi-family housing. Residential uses are not permitted in the current M-1 zoning designation. Though no development plan has been submitted, conceptual renderings are included in on pages 125-133 of the Administration’s transmittal. There are two separate petitions related to this zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission reviewed them separately and voted to forward positive recommendations to the City Council on both petitions. Conditions of the Planning Commission’s positive recommendations are included in the Additional Information section below. The Administration included both rezone petitions in one transmittal and they are combined in this report. Item Schedule: Briefing: February 16, 2021 Set Date: February 16, 2021 Public Hearing: March 2, 2021 Potential Action: March 16, 2021 Page | 2 Council Member Johnston is scheduled to meet with the applicant and concerned neighbors to discuss impact of the rezone. At the time the staff report was prepared that meeting had not happened, however staff will update the Council on this meeting during the work session briefing. A summary of the concerns is below. Summum, a religious organization that owns abutting property north of the subject properties, objects to the proposed rezone. According to a letter submitted to the Planning Commission by its attorneys, Summum believes buildings constructed to the height allowed under the R-MU zoning designation would reflect and intensify noise from the nearby I-15 freeway onto its temple and gardens, negatively impacting the peace and serenity of the site. Summum recommended rezoning the subject parcels to R-MU 35 which would limit building height to 35 feet. The organization believes lower building height will better protect the atmosphere at its property. It should be noted under the existing M-1 zoning designation the maximum building height is 65 feet, though residential buildings are not permitted in M-1. Aerial image of subject property outlined in yellow. Alley segment in green was vacated by the City Council in August 2020. Alley segment in red is scheduled for a public hearing March 2, with a potential Council vote March 16, 2021. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendment, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. Page | 3 POLICY QUESTIONS 1.The Council may wish to ask what changes, if any, were made as a result of the public process since the Planning Commission meetings. 2.The Council may wish to ask if the applicant is considering partnering with the City on potential incentives, such as the Revolving Loan Fund, for affordable housing. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Planning Commission included two conditions as part of its recommendation. First, is to include a requirement for the applicant to purchase the above-mentioned alley segments, provided the Council approves vacating the second alley segment. The other condition is to impose additional design standards. These additional standards are discussed in the Key Considerations section below. A chart briefly summarizing regulations for the current M-1 zoning designation and proposed R-MU designation is below. A full chart comparing the two zoning designations is found in Attachment C on pages 56-59 of the Administration’s transmittal. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Two key considerations were identified through Planning’s analysis of the proposed project, neighbor and community input, and department reviews. A summary of each is below. See pages 32-34 of the Administration’s transmittal for the complete analysis. Consideration 1: Existing City Plan Guidance – Westside Master Plan For zoning map amendments, Planning staff considers associated City master plans and applicable adopted policies. The subject parcels are within the Westside Master Plan boundaries. In addition, Planning staff considered policies within Plan Salt Lake when reviewing this application. A summary of the Westside Master Plan guidance is below. Please see Attachment D (pages 60-62 of the Administration’s transmittal) for the full analysis of City plans Planning staff considered. The proposed project’s location on 900 South and the 700 West industrial corridor is an area the Westside Master Plan identifies as an important gateway into the larger Westside community. Five of six routes to the Westside from the east pass through the 700 West Industrial Corridor making it a significant part of the eastern gateways to the Westside. Planning staff noted “A first-time visitor to the community, regardless of their mode of transportation, is first greeted by a land use and development pattern that is not representative of the true character of the community. During the public input gathering process for the Westside Master Plan, 900 S was generally considered the gateway in need of the most attention.” Planning further noted “The proposed R-MU zoning district provides for a vibrant mix of uses that are more consistent with the future development goals envisioned for this area, than what could be developed under the existing M-1 zoning designation.” Page | 4 It is Planning’s opinion the proposed rezone is consistent with master plan goals promoting reinvestment and redevelopment. They found the subject parcels are underutilized and mostly vacant land in an area the master plan identified as appropriate for high density housing. Consideration 2: Design Standards Under the proposed R-MU zoning district, only two design standards apply to new developments. They are a requirement for 40% ground floor glass on street facing façades, and a 15-foot maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art, or architectural detail on the ground floor level along a façade facing the street. Structured parking or some other use not consistent with the active pedestrian-oriented design envisioned in the area’s master plan could be included without additional design standards. The Planning Commission adopted Planning staff’s recommendation to impose design standards in section 21A.37 of the zoning ordinance applicable to the D-2 (Downtown Support) zoning district to any new project on the subject parcels developed under the proposed R-MU zoning district. These are included in the following table. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment E of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 63-65 of the Administration’s transmittal) outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Planning staff found this proposal complies with applicable standards. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for full details. PUBLIC PROCESS • September 25, 2019 Prior to submitting application, applicants attend the Poplar Grove Community Council meeting to discuss plans to submit a zoning map amendment. • January 9, 2020 Notice sent to Poplar Grove and Glendale Community Councils informing them of the petition. Early notice was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project area. Page | 5 A Planning Division Open House was also held this day at the Salt Lake City Library. • March 26, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing notices mailed to nearby residents and property owners. Email notice sent to interested parties and residents/property owners who requested notice. Newspaper notice published. Public hearing notices posted on the site. • April 8, 2020 Planning Commission holds a public hearing and forwards a positive recommendation with conditions to the City Council on the proposed rezone. • April 16, 2020 Applicant requests delay in transmitting proposal because they want to add property to the rezone request, which requires a new map amendment application. • July 13, 2020 Notice sent to Poplar Grove and Glendale Community Councils. Early notification sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project area. Notice of an online open house posted on Planning’s website with information about where to learn more about the project and who to contact with questions and comments. • October 2, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing notices mailed to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project area. Email notice sent to interested parties and residents/property owners who requested notice. Newspaper notice published. Public hearing notice signs posted on the site. • October 14, 2020 Planning Commission holds a public hearing and forwards a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed rezone. West End Zoning Map Amendment Subject properties are highlighted in yellow. The orange areas identify portions of alley included in the rezone request. VIEW OF SUBJECT SITE FROM 900 SOUTH AND 700 WEST KEY CONSIDERATION –CITY PLAN GUIDANCE SUBJECT SITE This project is situated along 900 S and the 700 W industrial corridor, an area that the Westside Master Plan identifies as an important gateway into the larger Westside Community. SUBJECT SITE COMPARISON OF EXISTING &PROPOSED ZONING REGULATIONS DESIGN GUIDELINES RECOMMENDED CONDITION –IMPOSE D-2 DESIGN GUIDELINES •Supported by Master Plan policies •Community Feedback ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Zoning Map Amendment located at approximately 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed, city-owned alleys, Petition PLNPCM2019-01137 and PLN2020-00442 STAFF CONTACT: Amy Thompson, Senior Planner, amy.thompson@slcgov.com, 385-226- 9001 and Chris Earl, Associate Planner, christopher.earl@slcgov.com 385-386-2760 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to amend the zoning map (with conditions) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use) from the current designation of M-1 (Light Manufacturing) for the properties located at approximately 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed, city-owned alleys. BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The property owner, Maximilian Coreth, is requesting to rezone twelve parcels and portions of city owned public alley from the current M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning designation to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use). There are two existing commercial buildings on the site that are planned to be rehabilitated for restaurant and retail type uses that are currently permitted under the current M-1 zoning designation as well as the proposed R-MU zoning designation. The purpose of the rezone request 12/30/2020Lisa Shaffer 1/6/2020 is to accommodate future development of the vacant eastern portion of the site for high density multi-family residential. Residential uses are not permitted in the existing M-1 zoning designation. The developer has not proposed a specific development plan as part of the rezone application. The proposal includes two petitions, both to amend the zoning map for the subject properties from M-1 to R-MU. The first application includes ten parcels and a portion of a city owned alley, and the second petition is to rezone two additional properties and a portion of a city owned alley. Subject properties are highlighted in yellow. The orange areas identify portions of the city owned alley included in the rezone request. The properties could currently be developed for light industrial uses under the M-1 zoning district designation. A full chart comparing the current M-1 zoning regulations and the proposed R-MU zoning regulations and allowed uses is located in Exhibit 3b. The following is a brief summary of some of the development regulations that would change with the proposed rezone request: Planning Commission Recommended Conditions In their recommendation to approve the proposal, the Planning Commission adopted the Planning Staff’s recommended conditions of approval which include a requirement for the petitioner to enter into a purchase agreement to acquire the vacated portions of the alleys, provided those alley vacations are approved by the city council, and to impose additional design standards. The condition related to the alleys was recommended at the request of Salt Lake City Real Estate Services. In regard to the recommended condition for additional design standards, the proposed R-MU zoning district only has two design standards that would apply to any new development under that zoning designation. Those design standards are a 40% ground floor glass requirement for facades facing a street, and the 15 FT maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the ground floor level along any street facing facade. Under the R- MU design standards, something like structured parking could be located on the ground floor, which would not be consistent with the active pedestrian-oriented design envisioned in the master plan for this important westside gateway. Additionally, the community council in the area expressed concerns early on in the engagement process with the lack of design standards in the proposed zoning district, and the recommended condition was in part to address those concerns. The design standards are intended to utilize planning and architecture principles to shape and promote a walkable environment, foster place making as a community and economic development tool, protect property values, assist in maintaining the established character of the City, and implement the City's master plans. Master Plan policies in the area as well as planning best practices suggest that a new development in this area would benefit from additional design standards such as an active ground floor use and durable building material requirements on ground and upper floors, to encourage pedestrian activity and a vibrant active mixed-use gateway into the westside neighborhoods. The Commission adopted Planning Staff’s recommendation to impose the design standards in section 21A.37 of the zoning ordinance applicable to the D-2 (Downtown Support) zoning district to any new project on the subject parcels developed under the proposed R-MU zoning district. One way this could be accomplished is through a development agreement approved by City Council. The following are the D-2 design standards the Planning Commission recommends are imposed on the rezone request: Design Standards Ground Floor Use % 75 Ground Floor Use + Visual Interest % 60/25 Building Materials – Ground Floor 80 Building Materials – Upper Floors 50 Glass – Ground Floor % 40 Glass – Upper Floors % 25 Building Entrances (feet) 50 Blank Wall – Maximum Length (feet) 15 Street Facing Façade – Maximum Length (feet) 200 Upper Floor Step Back (feet) Lighting – Exterior X Lighting – Parking Lot X Screening Mechanical Equipment X Screening of Service Areas X Parking Garages or Structures X Ordinance Note There are two ordinances included with this transmittal for consideration by the council – one with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and one without the recommended conditions. In regard to the conditions of approval, the Planning Commission adopted the recommended conditions into their recommendation to City Council for petition PLNPCM2019-01137 (request to rezone ten parcels and a portion of a city owned alley), on April 8, 2020. For the motion related to petition PLN2020-00442 (request to rezone two parcels and a portion of a city owned alley), the conditions were inadvertently left out of the October 14, 2020 motion. The ordinance with conditions included with the transmittal incorporates the conditions of approval for both petitions because staff believes it was the intent of the Commission to include the conditions of approval in their recommendation as it was included in the staff report recommendation and discussed during the public hearing. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Prior to submitting the rezone application, the applicants attended the September 25, 2019 Poplar Grove Community Council meeting to discuss their plans for rezoning the properties. • The applicant submitted petition PLNPCM2019-01137 to rezone ten parcels and a portion of a city owned alley from M-1 to R-MU in December 2019. o A notice of application was sent to the chair of the Poplar Grove & Glendale Community Councils in January 2020. The Community Councils were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or comments. o Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the project site in January 2020 to provide notice about the proposal and information on how to give public input on the project. o The proposal was presented at a City Planning Division Open House in January 2020. o A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on April 8, 2020. The Planning Commission voted 4-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposal with conditions. •The applicant submitted petition PLNPCM2020-00442 to rezone two parcels and a portion of a city owned alley from M-1 to R-MU in June 2020. o A notice of application was sent to the chair of the Poplar Grove & Glendale Community Councils in July 2020. The Community Councils were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or comments. o Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the project site in July 2020 to provide notice about the proposal and information on how to give public input on the project. o An Online Open House with information about the proposal, where to get more information, and who to contact for questions and comments was published on July 2020 on the Salt Lake City Planning’s website - https://www.slc.gov/planning/open-houses/. o A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on October 14, 2020. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposal with conditions. Public Comments Both the Poplar Grove Community Council and the Glendale Community Council submitted letters in support of the proposal (attached in Exhibit 3f and 4f). Legal counsel representing the Summum religious organization, who owns property adjacent to the proposal on the north east corner of the block, submitted a letter expressing concerns about the proposal on October 13, 2020 (see letter in Exhibit 4f). The letter outlines concerns with the height that would be permitted under the proposed R-MU zoning district as well as makes a claim the proposed rezone would impose a substantial burden on its right and the rights of its members to practice their religion, in violation of the First Amendment. EXHIBITS: 1)CHRONOLOGY 2)NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3)PLANNING COMMISSION - April 8, 2020 a)Mailed Notice b)Staff Report c)Agenda/Minutes d)Staff Presentation Slides e)Applicant Presentation Slides f)Additional Public Comments 4)PLANNING COMMISSION - October 14, 2020 a)Mailed Notice b)Staff Report c)Agenda/Minutes d)Staff Presentation Slides f) Additional Public Comment 4)ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITIONS a)PLNPCM2019-01137 b)PLNPCM2020-00442 5)MAILING LIST 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 202_ (Amending the zoning map pertaining to parcels of property located at 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed, city-owned alleys to rezone the parcel from M-1 Light Manufacturing District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to parcels of property located at 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed, city-owned alleys to rezone the parcels from M-1 Light Manufacturing District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to petition numbers PLNPCM2019-01137 and PLNPCM2020-00442. WHEREAS, Maximilian Coreth submitted applications to rezone parcels of property located at 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed, city-owned alleys from M-1 Light Manufacturing District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to petition numbers PLNPCM2019-01137 and PLNPCM2020-00442; and WHEREAS, at its April 8, 2020 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on petition number PLNPCM2019-01137 to rezone parcels located at 717 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, and a portion of city-owned alley situated between 739 West Genesee Avenue and 740 West 900 South Street and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said application. At its October 14, 2020 meeting, the planning commission held a public hearing on petition number 2 PLNPCM2020-00442 to rezone parcels located at 710 and 715 West Genesee Avenue and a portion of city-owned alley abutting the west side of 740 West 900 South Street and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the city council on said application; 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 parcels located at 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed, city-owned alleys, as they are more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, are rezoned from M-1 Light Manufacturing District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District. SECTION 2. Condition. This zoning map amendment is conditioned upon the applicant satisfying the following conditions: 1. The rezone of the portions of city-owned alley identified herein is subject to the petitioner entering into a purchase agreement with the city to acquire the vacated portions of alleys that are the subjects of Petition Nos. PLNPCM2019-00813 and PLNPCM2020-00268 provided that those petitions are approved by the city council. 2. Design standards for the D-2 zone shall be applied to any new development on the properties subject to this zoning map amendment. To ensure that this requirement is followed, this ordinance shall be recorded against the affected parcels and Salt Lake City Corporation shall retain the right to pursue all legal remedies to ensure compliance with this requirement. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed not to publish this ordinance or cause it to be recorded until condition 1 identified above has been met as certified by the Salt Lake City Real Estate Services Division. 3 SECTION 4. Time. If condition 1 identified above has not been met within one year after adoption, this ordinance shall become null and void. The city council may, for good cause shown, by resolution, extend the time period for satisfying the condition(s) identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 20__. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 20__ Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney December 4, 2020 4 Exhibit “A” Legal description of the properties: Tax ID No. 15-11-278-001-0000: LOT 40 & THE W 7 FT OF LOT 41, CUMMINGS SUB. Tax ID No. 15-11-278-002-0000: E 18 FT OF LOT 41 & ALL LOTS 42 & 43 CUMMING'S SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C Tax ID No. 15-11-278-003-0000: LOT 44 & W 5 FT OF LOT 45 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C Tax ID No. 15-11-278-004-0000: E 20 FT OF LOT 45 & ALL LOT 46 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C Tax ID No. 15-11-278-005-0000: LOT 47 & W 10 FT OF LOT 48 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C Tax ID No. 15-11-278-006-0000: CUMMINGS SUB 0722 BEG 10 FT E OF NW COR LOT 48 CUMMINGS SUB; E 30 FT; S 141 FT W 30 FT; N 141 FT TO BEG TOGETHER WITH 1/2 VACATED ALLEY ABUTTING ON S. Tax ID No. 15-11-278-008-0000: LOT 12 & 13, CUMMINGS SUB. LESS STREET & THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO ANDRUS Tax ID No. 15-11-278-012-0000: LOTS 3 & 4 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C Tax ID No. 15-11-278-013-0000: LOTS 1 & 2 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C 5 Tax ID No. 15-11-278-014-0000: LOTS 5 THRU 12, CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2, PLAT C, SLC SURVEY. LESS RAILROAD. Tax ID No. 15-11-278-016-0000: BEG W 18 FT FR SE COR LOT 41, CUMMINGS SUB, BLK 2, PLAT C, SLC SUR; S 15 FT M OR L; E 178 FT; N 15 FT M OR L; W 178 FT TO BEG. Tax ID No. 15-11-278-017-0000: 0712 BEG W 10 FT & S 7.5 FT FR SE COR LOT 49, CUMMINGS SUB, BLK 2, PLAT C, SLC SUR; S 7.5 FT; W 30 FT; N 7.5 FT; E 30 FT TO BEG. Portion of unnamed, city-owned alley abutting the west edge of property located at 740 West 900 South Street: A PORTION OF LOT 13, BLOCK 2, CUMMINGS SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN BOOK “B” OF PLATS AT PAGE 53 IN THE OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY RECORDER, SAID PORTION BEING DESCRIBED MORE PARTICULARLY AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 13, AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 0°03’47” WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 13 A DISTANCE OF 101.07 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A 312.77 FOOT NON TANGENT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18°51’16” A DISTANCE OF 102.92 FEET, CHORD BEARS SOUTH 9°30’03” EAST 102.46 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 13; THENCE SOUTH 89°56’03” WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 16.80 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINS 560 SQ. FT. Portion of unnamed, city-owned alley situated between property located at 739 West Genesee Avenue and 740 West 900 South Street: A PORTION OF THE 15.00 FOOT ALLEY LOCATED IN BLOCK 2, CUMMINGS SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN BOOK “B” OF PLATS AT PAGE 53 IN THE OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY RECORDER, SAID PORTION BEING DESCRIBED MORE PARTICULARLY AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 13 OF SAID BLOCK 2, AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 89°56’22” EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 13 AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 12 OF SAID BLOCK 2 A DISTANCE OF 32.04 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 12; THENCE NORTH 0°01’41” WEST 15.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 6 41 OF SAID BLOCK 2; THENCE SOUTH 89°56’22” WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 41 AND THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 40 OF SAID BLOCK 2 A DISTANCE OF 32.04 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 40; THENCE SOUTH 0°03’47” EAST 15.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINS 481 SQ. FT. 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 202_ (Amending the zoning map pertaining to parcels of property located at 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed, city-owned alleys to rezone the parcel from M-1 Light Manufacturing District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to parcels of property located at 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed, city-owned alleys to rezone the parcels from M-1 Light Manufacturing District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to petition numbers PLNPCM2019-01137 and PLNPCM2020-00442. WHEREAS, Maximilian Coreth submitted applications to rezone parcels of property located at 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed, city-owned alleys from M-1 Light Manufacturing District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to petition numbers PLNPCM2019-01137 and PLNPCM2020-00442; and WHEREAS, at its April 8, 2020 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on petition number PLNPCM2019-01137 to rezone parcels located at 717 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, and a portion of city-owned alley situated between 739 West Genesee Avenue and 740 West 900 South Street and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said application. At its October 14, 2020 meeting, the planning commission held a public hearing on petition number 2 PLNPCM2020-00442 to rezone parcels located at 710 and 715 West Genesee Avenue and a portion of city-owned alley abutting the west side of 740 West 900 South Street and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the city council on said application; 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 parcels located at 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed, city-owned alleys, as they are more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, are rezoned from M-1 Light Manufacturing District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 20__. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 3 Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 20__ Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney November 20, 2020 4 Exhibit “A” Legal description of the properties: Tax ID No. 15-11-278-001-0000: LOT 40 & THE W 7 FT OF LOT 41, CUMMINGS SUB. Tax ID No. 15-11-278-002-0000: E 18 FT OF LOT 41 & ALL LOTS 42 & 43 CUMMING'S SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C Tax ID No. 15-11-278-003-0000: LOT 44 & W 5 FT OF LOT 45 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C Tax ID No. 15-11-278-004-0000: E 20 FT OF LOT 45 & ALL LOT 46 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C Tax ID No. 15-11-278-005-0000: LOT 47 & W 10 FT OF LOT 48 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C Tax ID No. 15-11-278-006-0000: CUMMINGS SUB 0722 BEG 10 FT E OF NW COR LOT 48 CUMMINGS SUB; E 30 FT; S 141 FT W 30 FT; N 141 FT TO BEG TOGETHER WITH 1/2 VACATED ALLEY ABUTTING ON S. Tax ID No. 15-11-278-008-0000: LOT 12 & 13, CUMMINGS SUB. LESS STREET & THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO ANDRUS Tax ID No. 15-11-278-012-0000: LOTS 3 & 4 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C Tax ID No. 15-11-278-013-0000: LOTS 1 & 2 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C 5 Tax ID No. 15-11-278-014-0000: LOTS 5 THRU 12, CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2, PLAT C, SLC SURVEY. LESS RAILROAD. Tax ID No. 15-11-278-016-0000: BEG W 18 FT FR SE COR LOT 41, CUMMINGS SUB, BLK 2, PLAT C, SLC SUR; S 15 FT M OR L; E 178 FT; N 15 FT M OR L; W 178 FT TO BEG. Tax ID No. 15-11-278-017-0000: 0712 BEG W 10 FT & S 7.5 FT FR SE COR LOT 49, CUMMINGS SUB, BLK 2, PLAT C, SLC SUR; S 7.5 FT; W 30 FT; N 7.5 FT; E 30 FT TO BEG. Portion of unnamed, city-owned alley abutting the west edge of property located at 740 West 900 South Street: A PORTION OF LOT 13, BLOCK 2, CUMMINGS SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN BOOK “B” OF PLATS AT PAGE 53 IN THE OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY RECORDER, SAID PORTION BEING DESCRIBED MORE PARTICULARLY AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 13, AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 0°03’47” WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 13 A DISTANCE OF 101.07 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A 312.77 FOOT NON TANGENT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18°51’16” A DISTANCE OF 102.92 FEET, CHORD BEARS SOUTH 9°30’03” EAST 102.46 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 13; THENCE SOUTH 89°56’03” WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 16.80 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINS 560 SQ. FT. Portion of unnamed, city-owned alley situated between property located at 739 West Genesee Avenue and 740 West 900 South Street: A PORTION OF THE 15.00 FOOT ALLEY LOCATED IN BLOCK 2, CUMMINGS SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN BOOK “B” OF PLATS AT PAGE 53 IN THE OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY RECORDER, SAID PORTION BEING DESCRIBED MORE PARTICULARLY AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 13 OF SAID BLOCK 2, AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 89°56’22” EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 13 AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 12 OF SAID BLOCK 2 A DISTANCE OF 32.04 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 12; THENCE NORTH 0°01’41” WEST 15.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 6 41 OF SAID BLOCK 2; THENCE SOUTH 89°56’22” WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 41 AND THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 40 OF SAID BLOCK 2 A DISTANCE OF 32.04 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 40; THENCE SOUTH 0°03’47” EAST 15.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINS 481 SQ. FT. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) CHRONOLOGY 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3) PLANNING COMMISSION - April 8, 2020 a) Mailed Notice b) Staff Report c) Agenda/Minutes d) Staff Presentation Slides e) Applicant Presentation Slides f) Additional Public Comments 4) PLANNING COMMISSION - October 14, 2020 a) Mailed Notice b) Staff Report c) Agenda/Minutes d) Staff Presentation Slides e) Additional Public Comments 5) ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITIONS a) PLNPCM2019-01137 b) PLNPCM2020-00442 6) MAILING LIST 1) CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2019-01137/PLNPCM2020-00442 September 25, 2019 Prior to submitting the rezone application, the applicants attended the September 25, 2019 Poplar Grove Community Council meeting, to discuss their plans to submit a zoning map amendment. December 3, 2019 Maximilian Coreth, property owner, submitted Zoning Map Amendment to rezone ten parcels and a portion of a city owned alley to R-MU, Residential Mixed Use. December 19, 2019 Petition PLNPCM2019-00137 assigned to Amy Thompson, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. January 9, 2020 Notice sent to Recognized Community Organizations (Poplar Grove & Glendale Community Councils) informing them of the petition. Early notification of the project was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. January 9, 2020 Planning Division holds Open House for the proposal at the Salt Lake City Library. Residents and property owners near the rezone site, and other interested parties, were sent mailed and e-mailed notice. March 26, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing notices mailed to nearby residents and property owners. E-mail notice sent to interested parties and residents/property owners who requested notice. Newspaper notice published. Public hearing notice signs posted on the site. April 8, 2020 Planning Commission holds a public hearing and makes a positive recommendation to approve the proposed rezone with conditions. April 16, 2020 Applicant scheduled a call with staff to discuss proposal and next steps. Applicant requested to hold off on transmitting the proposal because they want to add additional property into the rezone request, which would require a new map amendment application. June 8, 2020 Maximilian Coreth, property owner, submitted a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone two parcels and a portion of a city owned alley to R-MU, Residential Mixed Use. June 18, 2020 Petition PLNPCM2020-00442 assigned to Chris Earl, Associate Planner, for staff analysis and processing. July 13, 2020 Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chairs of the Poplar Grove and Glendale Community Councils. Early notification was sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project area. An Online Open House with information about the proposal, where to get more information, and who to contact for questions and comments was published on the Salt Lake City Planning’s website. October 2, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing notices mailed to residents and property owners within 300 feet. E-mail notice sent to interested parties and residents/property owners who requested notice. Newspaper notice published. Public hearing notice signs posted on the site. October 14, 2020 Planning Commission holds a public hearing and makes a positive recommendation to approve the proposed rezone. 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2019-01137 and PLNPCM2020- 00442 Zoning Map Amendment – A request by Maximilian Coreth, the owner of the properties, to rezone the parcels located at approximately 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed, city-owned alleys from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use). There are two vacant commercial buildings on the site the applicant intends to renovate for commercial uses. The applicant intents to develop the remaining portion of the site with multi-family residential and the proposed rezone to R-MU would allow for residential uses that are not currently permitted under the existing M-1 zoning designation. The properties are located in Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: Date #1 and Date #2 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location. **This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our website at https://www.slc.gov/council/ to learn how you can share your comments during the meeting. 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 Amy Thompson at 385-226-9001 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at amy.thompson@slcgov.com 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@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3) PLANNING COMMISSION - April 8, 2020 a) Mailed Notice SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION .,:.~ TRANSPORTATION DIVISION t:;§ 349 SOUTH 200 EAST. SUITE 150 P.O. BOX 145502, SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84114-5502 Salt Lake City Plan ning Division Amy Thompson PO BOX 145480 Salt Lake City UT 84114 II u.s POSTAGE» PITNEY BOWES ~-,,~~ (l':' ~..-.-~--~~ ~ri116 $ 000.500 0001403432MAR 26 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 8, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. This nweting will be an electronic 1neeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclan1ation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b) A P.ublic hearing will be held on the following matter. Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 706-740 West 900 South -A ·request by West End LLC, the owner of the property, to rezone ten parcels and a portion of a city owned public alley from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use). There are currently two commercial buildings on the site the applicant intends to restore tor commercial uses. The applicant intents to redevelop the remainder of the site, and the proposed rezone to R-MU would allow for residential uses that are not currently permitted under the existing M-1 zoning designation. No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time. The properties are located in Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff Contact: Amy Thompson at (801) 535-7281 or amy.thompson@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2019-01137 This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and· County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely. The Planning Commission meeting will be available on the following platforms: • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 Providing Comments: If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email: planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on WebEx at: • https://saltlakecity.webex.com/salllakecity/onstage/g.php? MTID=e5b1ac4b74376cb992dc30b0a85230851 For instructions on how to use WebEx visit: www.slc.gov/planning/public- meetings For Planning Co111n1ission agendas, staff reports, and ntinutes, visit the Planning Division's website at slc.gov/pfanningmublic-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the n1eeting and minutes will be posted two days after they a1·e ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled nweting of the Planning Conunission. PLANNING COMMISSION - April 8, 2020 b) Staff Report SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801.535.7757 FAX 801.535.6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Amy Thompson, amy.thompson@slcgov.com, 801-535-7281 Date: March 31, 2020 (publication date) Re: PLNPCM2019-01137 - Zoning Map Amendment Zoning Map Amendment MASTER PLAN: Westside ZONING DISTRICT: M-1 Light Manufacturing PROPERTY ADDRESS: 706-740 West 900 South (approximate) – includes 10 parcels and a portion of a city owned public alley REQUEST: Maximilian Coreth, the owner of the properties, is requesting to rezone ten parcels and a portion of a city owned public alley at approximately 740 W 900 South. The properties are currently zoned Light Manufacturing (M-1) and the request is to rezone them to Residential Mixed Use (R-MU). The purpose of the requested rezone is to accommodate a future multi-family residential development on a portion of the subject site. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings and analysis in this staff report and the factors to consider for zoning map amendments in 21A.50.050 of the zoning ordinance, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding this proposal with the conditions noted below: 1. The rezone of the portion of the City owned alley included in the request is subject to the petitioner entering into a Purchase Agreement with the City to acquire the vacated alley if the alley vacation is approved by City Council. 2. Design standards for the D-2 zone shall be applied to any new development on the subject site. This requirement could be executed through a development agreement with City Council or some other mechanism decided on by City Council. ATTACHMENTS: A. Zoning and Vicinity Maps B. Applicant’s Narrative C. M-1 & R-MU Zoning Comparison D. City Plan Considerations E. Analysis of Zoning Amendment Standards F. Property Photographs G. Public Process & Comments H. City Department Review Comments PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The property owner, Maximilian Coreth, is requesting to rezone ten parcels and a portion of a city owned public alley from the current M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning designation to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use). The total area of the proposed rezone is approximately 1.8 acres or 78,742 square feet. There are two existing commercial buildings on the site that are planned to be rehabilitated for restaurant and retail type uses that are currently permitted under the current M-1 zoning designation as well as the proposed R-MU zoning designation. The requested rezone would accommodate future development of the vacant eastern portion of the site for high density multi- family residential. The developer has not proposed a specific development plan as part of the rezone and does not have any pending building permits or other development applications for the property. The applicant has submitted an alley vacation application for the portion of the city owned alley that is included in the rezone request and that application is currently being processed. Please refer to Attachment B for a detailed narrative submitted by the applicant for the proposed rezone. The subject properties are located approximately 330 FT west of Interstate 15 along 900 S, one of the gateways to the Westside neighborhoods. Several community uses surround the subject site including the 9-line trail, 9-line dirt jumps and pump track, and community gardens. The predominant street frontage of the vacant portion of the properties is along 900 S as well as 700 W. The surrounding properties on the block are zoned M-1, however, with the exception of just a few properties, the primary use is predominantly single family residential. There is also a religious use (Summum) adjacent to the site on the north east corner of the block. The block to the north of the subject site is also zoned M-1 with uses that include commercial and light manufacturing type uses as well as some residential uses. The block to the south of the subject site is zoned M-1 with current uses that include Utah PaperBox, moving and storage warehouses, and other light manufacturing uses. Blocks south of the proposed rezone are zoned R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential) and R-MU- 35 (Residential Mixed Use); blocks to the east on the other side of Interstate 15 are zoned CG (General Commercial). The primary reason for the rezone request is so the applicant will have the ability to develop the properties for residential uses, which are not currently allowed under the existing M-1 zoning designation. The M-1 zoning district allows for a variety of light manufacturing and industrial uses that are not allowed in the proposed R-MU zone. Some examples of uses that are currently permitted or conditional uses in the M-1 zone that would no longer be allowed in the proposed R- MU zone include: bus line station/terminal, community correctional facility, impound lot, industrial assembly, light manufacturing, and outdoor public storage. For a complete list of uses that are allowed under the existing M-1 zone and the proposed R-MU zone, please refer to Attachment C. The properties could currently be developed for light industrial uses under the M-1 zoning district designation. A full chart comparing the current M-1 zoning regulations and the proposed R-MU zoning regulations is located in Attachment C. The following is a brief summary of some of the development regulations that would change with the proposed rezone request: Existing M-1 Zone Proposed R-MU Zone Setbacks Front and corner side yard setback – 15’ Interior and rear yard setback – None Front, corner, and interior yard setback – None Rear yard setback – 25% of lot depth up to 30’ Height 65’ 75’ for residential uses 45’ for non-residential uses Open Space None required 20% of lot for residential uses Zoning Map Amendment Considerations Planning staff is required by ordinance to analyze proposed zoning map amendments against existing adopted City policies and other related adopted City regulations. Planning staff is also directed to consider whether zoning text amendments implement best planning practices. However, ultimately, a decision to amend the zoning map is fully up to the discretion of the City Council and is not subject to any particular standard of review or consideration. The full list of factors to consider for a zoning map amendment are located in Attachment E. KEY CONSIDERATIONS: The key considerations and concerns below have been identified through the analysis of the project, neighbor and community input, and department reviews. 1. Existing Area Plan Guidance 2. Design Standards Consideration 1: Existing City Plan Guidance – Westside Master Plan For zoning map amendments, Planning Staff is directed by ordinance to consider the associated City master plans and adopted policies that apply to a proposal. Staff reviews general City policies, including adopted policies in Citywide master plans such as Plan Salt Lake, and considers plans that are specific to an area. In this case the property is within the boundaries of the Westside Master Plan that was developed specifically for this area. The full plan can be accessed here: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/WSLMPA.pdf. See Attachment D for policy statements and goals from various city plans that staff considered as part of the review of this rezone request. This project is situated along 900 S and the 700 W industrial corridor, an area that the Westside Master Plan identifies as an important gateway into the larger Westside Community. Five of six routes into the Westside from the east cut through the 700 West Industrial Corridor. As a result, 700 W is a significant part of the eastern gateways in the Westside. The impact is most evident along 900 South, where one side of the street is residential and the other industrial. A first-time visitor to the community, regardless of their mode of transportation, is first greeted by a land use and development pattern that is not representative of the true character of the community. During the public input gathering process for the Westside Master Plan, 900 S was generally considered the gateway in need of the most attention. The proposed R-MU zoning district provides for a vibrant mix of uses that are more consistent with the future development goals envisioned for this area, than what could be developed under the existing M-1 zoning designation. The proposed rezone is consistent with Master Plan goals to promote reinvestment and redevelopment in the Westside community through changes in land use to spur development that meets the community’s vision while maintaining the character of Westside’s existing stable neighborhoods. The parcels included in the proposed rezone are currently underutilized mostly vacant land that is identified in the Master Plan as an appropriate area for high density housing. The development regulations in the proposed R-MU zone further these goals by providing for attractive, compatible and high-density, mixed-use development with an emphasis on pedestrian scale activity while acknowledging the need for transit and automobile access. Consideration 2: Design Standards The proposed R-MU zoning district only has two design standards that would apply to any new development under that zoning designation. Those design standards are a 40% ground floor glass requirement for facades facing a street, and the 15 FT maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the ground floor level along any street facing facade. Under the R-MU design standards, something like structured parking could be located on the ground floor, which would not be consistent with the active pedestrian-oriented design envisioned in the master plan for this important gateway. The design standards are intended to utilize planning and architecture principles to shape and promote a walkable environment, foster place making as a community and economic development tool, protect property values, assist in maintaining the established character of the City, and implement the City's master plans. Master Plan policies in the area as well as planning best practices suggest that a new development in this area would benefit from additional design standards such as an active ground floor use and durable building material requirements on ground and upper floors, to encourage pedestrian activity and a vibrant active mixed-use gateway into the westside neighborhoods. Planning Staff is of the opinion the design standards in section 21A.37 applicable to the D-2 zoning district should be applied to any new project on the subject parcels developed under the proposed R-MU zoning district. One way this could be accomplished is through a development agreement. Development agreements can only be approved by the City Council. The following are the design standards Planning Staff is recommending are imposed on the rezone request: Design Standards Ground Floor Use % 75 Ground Floor Use + Visual Interest % 60/25 Building Materials – Ground Floor 80 Building Materials – Upper Floors 50 Glass – Ground Floor % 40 Glass – Upper Floors % 25 Building Entrances (feet) 50 Blank Wall – Maximum Length (feet) 15 Street Facing Façade – Maximum Length (feet) 200 Upper Floor Step Back (feet) Lighting – Exterior X Lighting – Parking Lot X Screening Mechanical Equipment X Screening of Service Areas X Parking Garages or Structures X A definition of each of the design standards above can be found in section 21A.347.050 of the zoning ordinance. NEXT STEPS: The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposal and as part of a recommendation, can add conditions or request that changes be made to the proposal. The recommendation and any requested conditions/changes will be sent to the City Council, who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing on the proposed zoning changes. The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the proposed zoning map amendment. If ultimately approved by the City Council, the changes would be incorporated into the official City Zoning map and any new development on the rezoned parcels would be required to follow the regulations of the R-MU zoning district along with any development agreement requirements adopted by the City Council. If the proposed zoning amendment is not approved by the City Council, the property could still be developed under its current M-1 zoning designation, however, the property would not be able to be developed for multi-family residential uses as they are not permitted in the light manufacturing zoning district. Zoning and Vicinity Maps ZONING MAP Applicant’s Narrative ---~-- -----~ L I ~1 _, _, I <1 i i I I \ I I \ I I \ I I '""'"''"' ..... E XISTING NORTH BUILDING PHASE1 E XISTING SOUTH BUILDING GEN ESEE AVENUE -:-----------,--- 1 I I I : I I I I I -------, I I I L ~"' I -----------1 PHASE 2 I I I : I I I I I : I I I I I ~· ________________________ _J 900 SOUTH \ II . @ NORTH -------------- ------~--- :c ...... ::::> 0 (/) 0 0 m l: 0 a: u.. ...... (/) <( LU :c ...... a: o~ z C> w~ ~ f-0 0 (/) ...J ~ w~~ ~LU~ -, >:: ~ u 0 ...I al I 0 l: l: 0 a::: u. 1-c.n Cl~ z C) w~ ~ 1-0 (/) g OI W>O ~ Gj ~ -, >::: _ ... ................ -I ---. C :-::!'·· ~---,::.o..-3 -..f_f-. ~-4£ f• =-----i::::::::----------·-.. --~-r"-· --\--.-. .. ---· t" ..... , t---- --...... ----- ~ ' _ . .,....~.... .:. " -~ 1-4' • ---_.r.' .. ;: . : ,, ---· __ rr r ,.... ... ·-~---'-........... ~~.: ~~~ .-....... -;....•' !_ ----. I I I I I View looking northeast from above 900 South --::-~ ;_._~:---~-1-l.,.. -C..:: -l 4 --· Q .... .... .. ,\.. i Id F '!" <f -.. l ...... . --- -·· J •' ---.i -..,.....t-----._,. View look ing east from above 800 West --=-, ---·--.... -------.,. __ ... ------------------~------ .#--. View looking east from 900 South Project Description: M-1 to RMU Zone Map Amendment December 3, 2019 Project Description : Emerging from the adaptive re-use of two existing ba r rel-vaulted warehouse buildings, the West End development is envisioned as a true mixed-use community. The retail opportunities will be an asset to the existing residential fabric. The development will also include the addition of medium to high density housing, which will promote the success of these retail and service possibilities. These residences will provide a consistent level of patronage to support and sustain local commercial activity. A strong midblock connection in the form of an alley breaks down the large -scale block pattern and welcomes visitors into the neighborhood . It is this alley that invites people into the block and creates a sense of place. The current M -1 zoning is not congruent with the desired land use envisioned by the city. The zone amendment is supported by the following documents : Westside Masterplan 9 Line Corridor Master Plan Growing SLC : A Five Year Housing Plan Plan Salt Lake Background: As cited in the Westside Master Plan, the development patterns of the Westside were influenced by the development of the rail corridor in the late 1800s. The addition of the rail line created the initial physical barrie r between the Westside and the development on the east side of the city. Proximity to the Jordan River also influenced both development and associated uses due to seasonal flooding. This unpredictability made agriculture difficult. Even less inviting, the Jordan River was used for sewerage and as refuse dumps thus discouraging many uses, including residential development. With the advent of the Surplus Canal in 1885, the river was less variable and both agricultural activities and bridge building could take place. With its proximity to the established rail tracks, the Westside began to see more industria l uses in addition to requisite housing and subdivision development. Throughout the 20 th century, the level of connectivity from the Westside to other parts of the city wa s variable. With the advent of the streetcar early in the century, the area enjoyed a level of connection with other parts of the city. However, as the century marched on, the dependence on the automobile created more vertical infrastructure that afforded great access to the freeway but further isolation via at-grade street connection . In terms of the current conditions, the Westside masterplan rightly points out : "A 1968 bus route map shows evidence of the beginnings of 1-15 and the east-west disconnect it would further exacerbate: only two bus routes provided access from the Westside to the Downtown and central neighborhoods of Salt Lake City. One route was on I I Page 400 South and the other, 200 South. No routes south of 400 South ventured east of 900 West." By 1988, many of the freeways and interchanges were elevated with concrete construction, solidifying the connectivity challenges for Westside. Proposed Project and Compliance with Salt Lake City Policy Directives: The West End Development block is located at 900 South between 700 West and 800 West. The proposed West End Development is an ideal project to realize the visions and goals of the adopted Master Plans. The active mixed-use environment is primed to foster aspects of neighborhood and community. The phased plan includes commercial opportunities (restaurant and retail) and medium to high density residential. These components align with stated city goals. The City has recognized the importance of the area and the associated challenges in both the Westside Master plan and the 9 Line Master Plan. In addition to the adopted master plans, the project is also in alignment with the adopted city-wide vision document Plan Salt Lake and the Housing and Neighborhood Development publication titled Growing SLC: A Five Year Vision. The Westside Master Plan, adopted in 2014, states the following goals: • Promote reinvestment and redevelopment in the Westside community through changes in land use, improved public infrastructure and community investment to spur development that meets the community's vision while maintaining the character of Westside's existing stable neighborhoods: The adaptive reuse of two underutilized commercial structures will vastly increase the site's commercial activity while preserving and highlighting the character of these long-standing buildings. Through a change in land use, the addition of residential units will support these commercial uses in a symbiotic way. • Protect and encourage ongoing investment in existing, low-density residential neighborhoods while providing attractive, compatible and high density residential development where needed, appropriate or desired : This adaptive reuse project is the catalyst in a development that will include the construction of medium to high density residential. The two commercial structures will provide an attractive transition between the existing, low-density residential neighborhood to the west and medium to high density residential development on our site. The residential development will act as a buffer between the freeway and the extant residential neighborhood to the west of the site. The retail offerings will visually connect to the alley and create an activated ground plane. • Recognize, develop and foster opportunities for unique, mixed use neighborhood and community nodes in the Westside that reflect the diverse nature of the community and provide resources to allow for their growth : 2 1Page The transformation of two commercial structures that were previously closed to the neighborhood into publicly-accessible spaces will create a neighborhood node easily accessible by foot or bike. Our tenants could also provide services that attract customers from outside the neighborhood, thus fulfilling a key requirement of the creation of a community node. • Enhance and expand the internal network of assets, nodes and resources ensuring that all residents and employees in the Westside have access to goods, services and activities and the opportunity to walk or bicycle safely to them: This project will attract new commercial tenants that provide Westside resident s with access to goods and services that were heretofore scarce or unavailable in the area . It will also reinvigorate a mid-block crossing that isn't currently conducive to safe pedestrian or cyclist access. With the addition of residential stacked flats, the people and eyes on the alley and streets will naturally create a safe space. •Create a beautiful community with a system of guidelines to create and strengthen public spaces that will foster community interaction and pride and catalyze ongoing redevelopment and growth: Adaptive reuse of these buildings will re-emphasize their architectural attractiveness while opening them to the public for commercial activity. This project will increase community interaction and pride and should attract further investment in the surrounding area . The West End development is a prime example of a site that will support the goals of the Westside Master Plan . Through a change in permitted land use, this project will foster reinvestment in the community. This mixed-use neighborhood and community node will be a unique place and will provide services to the neighborhood with the potential for coffee shops, restaurants or other reta ii opportunities. These uses will be supported by the presence of medium and high density residential units. The development will serve as a gateway to the Westside and will strengthen 900 South as a multi modal transportation corridor and reinforce the Jordan River as a local amenity. Similarly, the 9 Line Corridor Master Plan states the following goals: • Connecting stable residential neighborhoods, growing commercial and neighborhood centers, and promoting thriving recreation locations; • Embracing a diverse assemblage of people and user groups, providing the opportunity for enhancing their connections to the surrounding businesses and neighborhoods that form a unique and attractive community; •Improving physical and cultural connections between the east and west sides of the City that in turn offer regional connections; •Featuring retail, service, recreational, and educational options at key nodes along the 9 Line, as well as encouraging and facilitating connections to neighborhood nodes in the surrounding community; •Facilitating the goal of We st Salt Lake becoming the primary destination in Salt Lake City for river recreation and other types of parks and public spaces ; 3 I Page •Serving as a mechanism for the neighborhoods of West Salt Lake to celebrate their history and character by functioning as a co mmunity and cultural asset that conn ects people of al l ages to services and educa tional opportunities; and • Supporting connections to the West Salt Lake industrial business co mmunity, helping it continue to be a healthy and diverse growing employment and economic ba se for Salt lake City. Via th e 9 line trail, The West End Project creates and connects residential neighborhoods with rec reation opportunities. The West End de ve lopment is an opportunity to acco mplish the goals li sted in the 9 line Master Plan. The co mmerc ial components will be a key node along the trail system. The residential apartment units will provide opportunities for more diversity to supp lement the ex i st ing co mmunity fabri c. The mix of uses will foster a unique and attractive atmosphere. The reuse of the warehouse structures recognizes the industrial roots of the site and creates a gathering point for the co mmunity. The Sa lt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) division also provides insight in the document labeled Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan. This document recognize s that e leme nts such as zoning changes are necessary to support the addition of re sidential units and the establishment of communities and affordable places to live. Th e first policy change listed by the plan is to focus on updates to the zoning co de : Goal 1, Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city. Th e Growing SLC plan encourages fl ex ible zon in g, in particular along transportation routes. The plan also encourages infill projects with an em pha si s on providing hou sing diversity and stock with a variety of product types and levels of affordability. Develop infill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimiz ing neighborhood impacts . Plan Salt Lake In order to articulate a city wid e vision, Salt l ake City Planners c rafted the Plan Sal t Lak e vi sioning document which was adopted December 201 5. The West End project is congruent with this vision a nd it will provide benefits to the e ntire ci ty, beyond the borders of the West sid e. This project is compatible with the framework that th e city has identified to anticipate growth and matches the vision towards sust ainability and livability. As a part of the sustainable growth and development st rateg i es identified, empha sis o n development that includes placemaking features, broad mix of uses, co nn ec tivity and density are considered positive meas ures to accomplish responsible growth. The W est End project aims to include these sa me co mpon ents in their ma ster plan of the block. Pl ace m aki ng is ce lebrated in the adaptive r e -use of the barrel vau lt warehouse bu ildings. Access from the mid -block alley provides opportunity for outdoor dining with e leme nts su ch as festoon lighting a nd site furnishing. These commercial uses create vibrancy througho ut the day and night. With adjacent access to the 9 line Trail and the mid-block connection which breaks down the large block dime nsions, multi modal circulation is e nhan ced. The guiding princ iples identified include 41 P age Neighborhoods, Housing, Transportation & Mobility, Air Quality, Natural Environment, Parks & Recreation, Beautiful City, Preservation, Arts & Culture, Equity, Economy, Government. More specifically, with the proper zoning, the West End Project can provide a safe environment, opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the well-being of the community. It is the draw along 900 South that welcomes people into the Westside and provides a business node. Another congruent stated initiative to accommodate growth is to promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. Access to a variety of housing types is important in particular adjacent to trails and other outdoor recreation . The 9 Line Trail and the Jordan River Trail can provide these connections and general mobility for higher density nodes for projects like the West End . The West End project complies resoundingly with the vision of the city-wide plans by creating additional housing stock along a transportation corridor. This additional housing stock and bolstering of community occurs through a land use change: the zone map amendment. This approach is recognized as one of the primary solutions to addressing the housing shortage by choos ing to change current zoning. The development team has been proactive with the existing community and neighbors. They have sponsored an open house meeting on site and have an ongoing dialogue with the local community council. Additionally, the team received a unanimous recommendation from the RDA Finance Committee forthe approval of a loan to finance the adaptive re-use of the two commercial structures on site. This development loan was recently presented to the RDA Board for their consideration and won its approval as well. Purpose: The purpose of the Zone Map amendment is to facilitate the sta ted goals and vision of the city's adopted masterplans and other planning and visioning documents. The project planned for this site is in alignment with the city plans and policies. The zo ne ame ndment process is the mechanism outlined many times in the city policy documentation. The existing zoning is outdated and is preventing the ideal growth pattern for the area . This development can achieve the goals and visions with the appropriate zoning designation . As discussed with members of the city planning staff, the development team has identified RMU zone as the most relevant zo ning designation to match the overall city vision as well as the local master plan documentation. As evidenced by the community outreach already performed, the West End Developme nt team is invested in the community beyond their own property boundary. The team held an open house with the Poplar Grove community at which they received initial feedback from the community and the block to the w est in particular. As further illustration of this applicant's dedication to the neighborhood, the West End team has also hired Architectural Nexu s to explore the potential of a re-zone for the block immediately to the west of their site at the request of the PGCC. Working with the community co uncil, consensus is being established to determine the appropriate departure from the no longer suitable M-1 designation . SI Pa ge Parcels for Zone Map Amendment 1511278001, 1511278002, 1511278003,1511278004, 1511278005,1511278008,1511278014, 1511278012, 1511278013,1511278016 RMU Zoning: The purpose statement of the RMU is as follows : The purpose of the R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District is to reinforce the mixed use character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high density residential urban neighborhoods conta ining retail, service commercial, and small scale office uses. This district is appropriate in areas of the City where the applicable master plans support high density, mixed use development. The stand a rds for the district are intended to facilitate the creation of a walkable urban neighborhood with an emphasis on pedestrian scale activity while acknowledging the need for transit and automobile access. The West End development squarely fits the purpose statement of the RMU zone. As a proper mixed-use project, it will thrive on the connectivity of the 9 Line trail system. Medium to high density residential units will benefit from and support the commercial aspects of the project. The intent of the amendment would be to follow the established strategy of Salt Lake City's master plan documents and to allow the neighborhood to flourish with the appropriate zone designation . This amendment will allow projects on this block to serve as a gateway to this district. The height allowed by RMU zoning for multifamily development will help shield the extant low density neighborhood to the west from the 45 foot high freeway to the site's east. The RMU Zone requirements are as follows: MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS 6j Page 1. Single-Family Detached Dwellings: a. Front Yard: Fifteen feet (15'). b. Corner Side Yard : Ten feet (10'). c. Interior Side Yard: (1) Corner lots : Four feet (4'). (2) Interior lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. d. Rear Yard : Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but need not be more than twenty feet (20'). 2. Single-Family Attached, Two-Family And Twin Home Dwellings: a. Front Yard : Fifteen feet (15'). b. Corner Side Yard : Ten feet (10'). c. Interior Side Yard: (1) Single-family attached: No yard is required, however if one is provided it shall not be less than four feet (4'). (2) Two-family: (A) Interior lot: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. (B) Corner lot: Four feet (4'). (3) Twin home: No yard is required along one side lot line. A ten foot (10') yard is required on the other. d. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of lot depth or twenty five feet (25'), whichever is less. 3. Multi-Family Dwellings And Any Other Residential Uses: a. Front Yard: No setback is required. b. Corner Side Yard : No setback is requ ired. c. Interior Side Yard : No setback is required. d. Rear Yard : Twenty five percent (25%) of lot depth, but need not exceed thirty feet (30'). 4 . Nonresidential Development: a . Front Yard : No setback is required . b. Corner Side Yard : No setback is required . c. Interior Side Yard : No setback is required. d . Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of lot depth, but need not exceed thirty feet (30'). 1. Front Yard: No setback is required . 2. Corner Side Yard: No setback is required. 3. Interior Side Yard : No setback is required. 4. Rear Ya rd : Twenty five percent (25%) of lot depth, but need not exceed thirty feet (30'). 5. Existing Lots: Lots legally existing on the effective date hereof, April 12, 1995, shall be considered legal conforming lots. 6. Minimum Lot Area Exemptions: For multiple-unit residential uses , nonresidential and mixed uses, no minimum lot area is required . In addition, no front, corner side or interior 71 Page side yards or landscaped setbacks are required; except where interior side yards are provided, they shall not be less than four feet (4'). 7. Existing Buildings: For buildings legally existing on the effective date hereof, required yards shall be no greater than the established setback line. 8. Maximum Setback: For single -family, two-family, and twi n home dwellings, at least twenty five percent (25%) of the building facade must be located within twenty five feet (25') of the front lot line. For all other uses, at least twenty five percent (25%) of the building facade must be located within fifteen feet (15') of the front lot line. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as design review, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Planning Director, in consultation with the Transportation Director, may modify this requirement if the adjacent public sidewalk is substandard and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The Planning Director may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion , or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than fifty percent (50%) if the Planning Director finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure or the surrounding architecture. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. Appeal of administrative decision is to the Planning Commission. 9. Parking Setback: Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a thirty foot (30') landscape setback from the front property line or be located behind the primary structure. Parking structures shall maintain a forty five foot (45') minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line or be located behind the primary structure. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on underground parking. The Planning Director may modify or waive this requirement if the Planning Director finds the following: a. The parking is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure or the surrounding architecture. b . The parking is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. c. The horizontal landscaping is replaced with vertical screening in the form of berms, plant materials, architectural features, fencing and/or other forms of screening. d. The landscaped setback is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood character. e. The overall project is consistent with section 21A.59.050 of this title. Appeal of administrative decision is to the Planning Commission . 8 1Page F. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75'), except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections Fl and F2 of this section . Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75'), up to a maximum of one hundred twenty five feet (125'), may be authorized through the design review process (chapter 21A.59 of this title) and provided, that the proposed height is located within the one hundred twenty five foot (125') height zone indicated in the map located in subsection F3 of this section. 1. Maximum height for nonresidential buildings: Forty five feet (45'). 2. Maximum floor area coverage of nonresidential uses in m ix ed use buildings of residential and nonresidential uses: Three (3) floors. 3. One hundred twenty five foot (125') height zone map for the R-MU District: FIGURE 21A.24.170.F.3 G. Minimum Open Space Area: For residential uses and mixed use s containing res idential use, not less than twenty percent (20%) of the lot area shall be maintained as an open space area. This open space ·area may take the form of landscape yards or plazas and courtyards, subject to site plan review approva l. H. Land scape Yards: All front and co rner side yards provided shall be maintained as a landscape yard in conformance with chapter 21A.48, "Landscaping And Buffers", of this title. I. Landscape Buffers: Where a lot in the R-MU District abuts a lot in a Single -Fam ily or Two- Family Residential District, landscape buffers shall be provided as required in chapter 21A.48, "Landscaping And Buffers", of this title. (Ord.14-19, 2019 : Ord .13-19, 2019: Ord. 46-17, 2017: Ord . 12-17, 2017) In addition to sup porting the type of development described in the purpose statement of the RMU zone, the amendment will allow projects to meet the visions and goals of the Westside Master Plan, 9 Line Master Plan, Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan and Plan Salt Lak e. The zone map change will promote reinvestment and redevelopment on a local neighborhood sca le which will then become a part of the overall successful citywide vision. These new development opportunities will encourage "unique, mixed use neighborhood and com munity nodes." From a citywide perspective, the Growing SLC: A Five Year Hou sing Plan and the Plan Sa lt Lake vision can only be accomplished by utilizing the appropriate zoning to foster the desired land use s. 9I P age Surrounding Zoning: M-1 Existing M-1 Zoning Text : A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the M-1 Light Manufacturing District is to provide an environment for light industrial uses that produce no appreciable impact on adjacent properties, that desire a clean attractive industrial setting, and that protects nearby se nsitive lands and waterways. This zone is appropriate in locations that are supported by the applicable Master Plan policies adopted by the City. Th is d istrict is intended to provide areas in the City that generate employment opportunities and to promote economic development. The uses include other types of land uses that support and provide service to manufacturing and i ndustrial use s. Safe, convenient and inviting connections that provide acces s to businesses from public sidewalks, bike paths and streets are necessary and to be provided in an equal way. Certain land uses are prohibited in order to preserve land for manufacturing uses and to promote the importance of nearby environmentally sensi tive lands. B. Uses: Uses in the M-1 Light Manufacturing District as specified in section 21A.33.040, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Manufacturing Districts", of this title are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.28.010 of this chapter. C. Minimum Lot Size: 1. Minimum Lot Area : Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. 2. Minimum Lot Width : Eighty feet (80'). 3 . Existi ng Lots: Lots legally existing as of April 12, 1995, shall be considered legal conforming lots. D. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: Fifteen feet (15'). 2. Corner Side Yard : Fifteen feet (15'). 3. Interior Side Yard : None required . 4. Rear Yard: None required . 5 . Accessory Uses, Bu ildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory uses, buildings and structures may be located in a required yard area subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B of this title. 6. Additional Setback When Adjacent To AG-2 And AG-5 Districts: When adjacent to a lot in the AG -2 or AG-5 Zo ning District, buildings or portions of bu i ldings, shall be set back one foot ( 1 ') beyond the required landscape buffer as required in section 21A.48.080 of this title for every one foot (1') of building height above thirty feet (30'). E. Landscape Yard Requirements: 1. Front And Corner Side Yards: All required front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards in conformance with the requi re ments of chapter 21A.48 of this title. 2. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting a lot in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yard requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title . 3. Northwest Quadrant Overlay District: Properties located within the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District are subject to special landscape requirements as outlined in subsection 21A.34.140B2 of this title. F. Maximum Height: 1. Di stillation Column Structures; Development In AFPP Overlay District: No building shall exceed sixty five feet (65') except that emission free distillation column structures, IO I Page necessary for manufacture processing purposes, shall be permitted up to the most restrictive Federal Aviation Administration imposed minimal approach surface elevations, or one hundred twenty feet (120') maximum, whichever is less. Said approach surface elevation will be determined by the Salt Lake City Department of Airports at the proposed locations of the distillation column structure. Any proposed development in the Airport Flight Path Protection (AFPP) Overlay District, as outlined in section 21A.34.040 of this title, will require approval of the Department of Airports prior to issuance of a building permit. All proposed development within the AFPP Overlay District which exceeds fifty feet (SO') may also require site specific approval from the Federal Aviation Administration. 2. Location Exception: In the M-1 Zoning Districts located west of the Salt Lake City International Airport and north of Interstate 80 (1 -80), buildings may exceed sixty five feet (65') in height subject to the design review standards and procedures of chapter 21A.59 of this title. In no case shall any building exceed eighty five feet (85'). 3. Railroad Offloading Structures : Cranes, lifts, and other similar offloading structures related to the operation of a railroad freight terminal are allowed up to eighty five feet (85') in height and are also subject to the Airport Flight Path Protection (AFPP) Overlay District and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements. (Ord. 14-19, 2019: Ord. 3-18, 2018) The M-1 zone is not a path to further develop city goals. Driven by historical constraints, the Westside's previous lack of connectivity segregated its communities from the rest of the city. With the advent of the 9 Line trail and other trail network connections, the Westside is poised to blossom. The means to create the alignment with the city vision is through appropriate zoning. Summary The zone amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City. The relevant standards for map amendments as taken from ordinance 21A.59.0SO are as follows: • Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents. • The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; • 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. As referenced above in specific detail, there are innumerable references in adopted city plan documents to support and encourage this zone amendment, including the following: Westside Masterplan 9 Line Corridor Master Plan Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan Plan Salt Lake New residents and employees to the neighborhood will enjoy access to parks and recreational facilities including the 9 Line trail, Jordan River Parkway Trail, Jordan Park and the 9 th South River lll P age park. In addition, the proposed map amendment will have positive impacts for the adjacent properties and existing residents. Currently, the West End property and adjacent alley have been underutilized and have invited unwelcome activities. The activation and re -use of these spaces will breathe life into this block. The existing residential fabric will benefit from the commercial uses and increased positive activity in the area. This property owner has proactively engaged with the community and the local community council and has taken a transparent approach to communicating the goals for the project. This development aims to create a tangible benefit to the neighborhood, community and city. This proactive approach extends to coordination with the city. This development team has participated in a pre-submittal conference with Salt Lake City planners. They have reviewed the project with the Development Review Team (DRT). During these discussions, adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection were reviewed . At the conceptual level, these important factors can be addressed and no items were introduced to preclude development. As the project gains momentum and more robust design, engineering and calculations are developed, more in -depth discussions with entities such as Public Utilities, Salt Lake City Fire Department, Engineering and Zoning will occur. The existing zoning designation of M-1 does not advance the goals of the city . The proposed zone map amendment will foster alignment with the both the Westside Master Plan and the 9 Line Master Plan. Congruence with the principles and initiatives outlined in Growing Salt Lake and Plan Salt Lake documents can also be achieved with these type of infill projects. With the proper zo ning, creating a node that connects to the 9 Line trail, the West End Development will break down the large blocks with an activated and safe alley at the midblock. Welcoming retail can thrive with patronage from existing and new residents. Previously segregated from the rest of the city, the West End project will provide an exciting portal to the Westside community while celebrating the past with adaptive re-use. The proje ct is looking to the future with the activation of the area through mixed use commercial and residential functions. While Phase 1 of the project, including the adaptive re-use commercial, can proceed under the M-1 Zoning, the critical addition of residential cannot. These uses are dependent on each other in a symbiotic way. The importance of creating more residential nodes to support and activate this potential gateway is critical to cultivating the desired neighborhood fabric. It is this mixed -use environment that will drive economic vitality and foster a sense of place. We are excited to provide an activated, true mixed-use environment congruent with the city goals that will bolster a neighborhood and community. 12 1P age M-1 & R-MU Zoning Comparison REGULATION EXISTING ZONING (M-1) PROPOSED ZONING (R-MU) Lot Area/Width 10,000 SF/ 80 FT Multi-Family Dwellings – No minimum/50 FT Single Family Attached – 3,000 SF/22 FT for interior & 32 FT corner Single Family Detached – 5,000 SF/50 FT Twin Home Dwelling – 4,000 SF/25 FT Two Family Dwelling – 8,000 SF/50 FT Non-Residential Uses – No minimum/No Minimum Other permitted or conditional uses in 21A.33.020 - 5,000 SF/50 FT Setbacks Front Yard – 15 FT Corner Side Yard – 15 FT Interior Side Yard - No setback required Rear Yard – No setback required *All required front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards in conformance with the requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title Front Yard – No setback required; Maximum setback - at least 25% of the building facade must be located within 15 FT of the front lot line Corner Side Yard - No setback required Interior Side Yard - No setback required Rear Yard – 25% of the lot depth/need not exceed 30 FT Parking Setback No specific parking setback regulations Surface Parking Lots Within an Interior Side Yard – 30 FT landscape setback from the front property line or be located behind the primary structure. Parking Structures – 45 FT minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line or be located behind the primary structure. Building Height Building Height – 65 FT Residential Building Height – 75 FT Non-Residential Buildings/Uses – 45 FT (Maximum floor area coverage of nonresidential uses in mixed use buildings is limited to 3 floors) Open Space No specific open space regulations Residential uses and mixed uses containing residential use - 20% of the lot area The following uses are not currently allowed in the M-1 zoning district but are listed as permitted or conditional uses under the proposed R-MU zoning district designation: New Permitted New Conditional Art Gallery Dwelling, group home (large) Bed and breakfast, inn/manor Dwelling, residential support (large) Clinic (medical, dental) Library Daycare, nonregistered home daycare Theatre, movie Dwelling, accessory unit Dwelling, assisted living facility (large) Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity) Dwelling, assisted living facility (small) Dwelling, group home (small) Dwelling, manufactured home Dwelling, multi-family Dwelling, residential support (small) Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house Dwelling, single-family (attached) Dwelling, single-family (detached) Dwelling, twin home and two family Eleemosynary facility Funeral home Mixed use development The uses in the table below are currently listed as permitted or conditional uses in the land use table for the M-1 zoning district. These uses below would no longer be allowed under the proposed R-MU zoning district: Changing from Permitted to Not Allowed Changing from Conditional to Not Allowed Alcohol, Distillery Animal, Raising of furbearing animals Alcohol, Winery Animal, Stockyard Animal, Cremation service Community correctional facility (large) Animal, Kennel Community correctional facility (small) Animal, Pet Cemetery Concrete and/or asphalt manufacturing Animal, Pound Grain Elevator Bakery, commercial Railroad freight terminal facility Blacksmith shop Railroad repair shop Bottling plant Recycling, processing center (outdoor) Brewery Rock, sand, and gravel storage and distribution Building materials distribution Utility, electric generation facility Bus line station/terminal Utility, sewage treatment plant Bus line yard and repair facility Utility, solid waste transfer station Check cashing/payday loan business Vehicle, automobile salvage and recycling (outdoor) Contractor’s yard/office Changing from Permitted to Not Allowed Changing from Conditional to Not Allowed Equipment, heavy (rental, sales, service) Equipment rental, (indoor and/or outdoor) Food processing Gas station Golf course Greenhouse Hotel/motel Impound lot Industrial assembly Large wind energy system Laundry, commercial Light manufacturing Package delivery facility Parking (commercial, off-site, park and ride lot, park and ride lot shared with existing use) Photo finishing lab Printing plant Radio, television station Recycling, collection station Recycling, processing center (indoor) Restaurant with a drive through Retail goods establishment with a drive through Sexually oriented business Sign painting/fabrication Small brewery Storage and display (outdoor) Storage, public (outdoor) Storage, self Store, convenience Studio, motion picture Taxicab facility Tire distribution retail/wholesale Truck freight terminal Vehicle, auction Vehicle, automobile truck and repair Vehicle, automobile truck and rental (including large truck) Vehicle, automobile, part sales Vehicle, automobile salvage and recycling (indoor) Vehicle, Recreational vehicle sales and service Vehicle, truck repair (large) Changing from Permitted to Not Allowed Changing from Conditional to Not Allowed Warehouse Welding shop Wholesale distribution Woodworking mill City Plan Considerations Adopted City Plan Policies and Guidance Zoning map amendments are reviewed for compliance with City master plans and adopted policies. The below plans were adopted for the area: • Westside Master Plan (Current Community Plan) o The subject properties are located along the north end of the 700 West industrial corridor which is between I-15 and 800 West from 800 South to approximately 1700 South. o The steps identified for gradual change along the 700 West corridor include —zoning changes, design guidelines and capital improvements. o The plan includes several goals for increasing the community’s residential density. o Adding more commercial and multi-family residential infill should be pursued when the opportunity for redevelopment arises along the corridor. o Residents’ ideas for the future of the 700 West corridor had a focus on phasing out of the intense industrial uses. o Consider permitting residential and commercial infill on vacant parcels in the industrial corridor. Height and bulk regulations for infill development should be as flexible in order to achieve high density development (50 or more dwelling units per acre). o Identify underutilized or unmaintained areas within large residential blocks in the Westside. These mid-block areas should be targeted for development through flexible zoning and design standards. o Some design elements that are used to increase density, such as height and bulk, can be made compatible through appropriate architectural design and landscaping techniques. o Review the uses that are permitted in the current light manufacturing zoning district and determine if a new zone may be more appropriate. A new district should more specifically regulate building and site design and should completely prohibit any uses that produce noxious odors, fumes or other discharge or other uses that rely heavily on outdoor storage. • 9 Line Corridor Master Plan o Major & Minor Gateways - The 9 Line enjoys an excellent relative location in the Salt Lake Valley, passing many important transportation corridors, neighborhood nodes, parks and other points of interest. Nowhere is this more obvious than at several of the major potential gateways to the corridor; places where the 9 Line intersects with important modes of transportation such as UTA Trax, or the Jordan River Parkway. In order to increase its visibility, and to welcome potential corridor users, these important intersections – major and minor – should be considered gateways, and provide the appropriate amenities and infrastructure to that end. Moreover, they should consider the needs of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. o Where the 9-line passes under I-15 is a major gateway and 700 West acts is identified as a minor gateway. o On 900 S between the I-15 node and the 9th and 9th node is identified as a Corridor Type C - The corridor is widest in this area connecting users to regional parks and neighborhood commercial centers along the paved trailway. This area features a mixture of residential, commercial and light industrial uses. The neighborhood node at 900 South & 900 West presents a strong opportunity to catalyze future development o I-15 Node Analysis and Potential - The 9 Line corridor changes dramatically between I-15 and 900 West. Adjacent land uses in this section of the corridor transition from commercial and light industrial on the eastern end to neighborhood commercial, single-family residential and open space on the west end. There is some vacant land and a new bike park adjacent to the Interstate which present opportunities for programmed activities and other trailway development. • Plan Salt Lake o Growth – Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. o Housing – Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people oriented. o Beautiful City - Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that is people-focused, responds to its surrounding context and enhances the public realm, reflects our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage and is sustainable, using high quality materials and building standards. o Create opportunities to connect with nature in urban areas. o Reinforce and preserve neighborhood and district character and a strong sense of place. o Preservation - Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. o Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate. o Economy - Support the growth of small businesses, entrepreneurship and neighborhood business nodes. • Growing SLC o Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes o Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of life  Salt Lake City Comprehensive Housing Policy The Salt Lake City Comprehensive Housing Policy was adopted on March 1, 2016. The Housing Policy represents the City Council’s efforts to establish a policy direction to address current conditions in Salt Lake City. The intent is that this direction will be followed whenever the City engages in housing funding assistance, zoning and land use planning, master planning neighborhoods, and creating economic incentives. Additionally, the Housing Policy is intended to achieve the following that relate to the requested rezone:  Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition  Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City  Promote a diverse and balanced community by ensuring that a wide range of housing types and choices exist for all income levels, age groups, and types of households • Transit Master Plan o 900 S is identified as a high priority corridor as it provides opportunities for additional east/west cross- town connections as well as connections. 900 W is also discussed as improving connections to the neighboring Fairpark and Glendale communities. o Building off existing plans and policies, the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan recognizes the importance of land use, street connectivity, and placemaking to implement a well-used and attractive frequent transit network (FTN). The FTN must be supported by a concentration of land uses, connections to key destinations, a rich mix of uses, and interconnected streets. The Transit Master Plan embraces these concepts to help achieve the City’s goals to increase transit ridership in Salt Lake City. o Provide a rich mix of uses that support street-level activity throughout the day and night. A diversity of land uses (including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and recreational uses) promotes walking and transit ridership, and reduces driving. o A mix of land uses allows more daily needs to be met within shorter distances, encouraging people to walk and take transit for more trips. Land use diversity also creates a more interesting and active urban environment that makes walking and taking transit feel safer and more attractive at all times of the day and night o Salt Lake City also plays an important role in working with developers to set standards for new development. These standards can help ensure land uses support the FTN, including: Pedestrian-oriented design: Identify design standards that promote pedestrian-oriented urban design features, such as active frontages built right to the street with parking located at the rear of the building and landscaping that provides a buffer between the sidewalk and the street. o Land use and placemaking recommendations –Continue to monitor zoning along the FTN to ensure transit is supported by a mix of uses, adequate densities, parking requirements, and other transit supportive elements. o Provide a mix of housing options along the FTN to support housing affordability and diversity Staff Discussion As discussed in the considerations section of the staff report, the proposal generally complies with the master plan policies for the area by providing the opportunity to add more compatible commercial and residential infill along the 700 W corridor and along 900 S which acts as an important gateway into the broader Westside community. The proximity to Downtown, the Jordan River and the 9 Line Trail all make the area attractive to many residents. The proposed R-MU zone would allow for residential uses that are not permitted under the existing M-1 zoning designation, which further promotes the goals and visions of city plans by promoting redevelopment of underutilized land. The proposed R-MU zone also restricts some of the industrial uses allowed in M-1 that currently have a negative visual impact on this Westside gateway such as outdoor storage of materials and finished products. Analysis of Zoning Amendment Standards ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS 21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: FACTOR FINDING RATIONALE 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Complies The property is located within the Westside Master Plan area. See Attachment D for discussion of relevant City policies and plans and the proposal’s compliance. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The purpose of the R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District is to reinforce the mixed-use character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high density residential urban neighborhoods containing retail, service commercial, and small-scale office uses. This district is appropriate in areas of the City where the applicable master plans support high density, mixed use development. The standards for the district are intended to facilitate the creation of a walkable urban neighborhood with an emphasis on pedestrian scale activity while acknowledging the need for transit and automobile access. In compliance with this purpose statement, the proposed location of the zoning district fits the location criteria of the zone. The zone would be located in an area supported by the master plan for a mixed of uses including high density residential. The standards of the R-MU zone, such as distance from the buildings to the sidewalk, also help promote a walkable urban neighborhood with pedestrian scale activity. 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; Complies The proposed R-MU zoning district would allow a mix of land uses and residential uses that are not currently allowed by the M-1 zoning. The development standards in the R- MU zoning district are intended to encourage the development of areas as a mix of compatible residential and commercial uses, which is consistent with the Master Plan policies and goals in this area. The proposal would add residential uses as allowed uses to the properties; however, even though the surrounding properties are zoned M-1, many of the adjacent properties contain residential uses so the proposed zone would be more compatible with the existing uses than the M-1 zoning district. Many of the more visually and environmentally impactful industrial uses that are currently allowed in the M-1 zone would no longer be allowed under the requested zoning designation. See Attachment C for a comparison of the permitted and conditional uses in the M-1 and R-MU zone. The proposed zoning district does allow for heights up to 75’ for residential development, which is an increase in 10’ from the 65’ that is currently allowed in the M-1 zone, however, staff does not believe that to be a substantial change that would cause any different or significantly increased impacts than a 65' building. Additionally, the R-MU zone requires a rear yard setback (25% of the lot depth) whereas is in the M-1 zone, there is no setback requirement and the allowed uses may be more impactful to surrounding residential uses. The proposed R-MU zoning is not anticipated to introduce substantive new or additional negative impacts to adjacent properties. The proposal will lessen the potential for negative impacts in a number of ways versus the current development allowances under the M-1 zoning designation. Given the likely future transition of the area into one of mixed-use zoning, specifically the 700 W industrial corridor and the 900 S gateway into Westside neighborhoods, having mixed-use zoning along the frontage of 700 W as well as 900 S is desirable in the context of future development and plans for the area. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the Complies The proposed map amendment is not within any overlay zoning district. This standard is not applicable to the proposal. purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards 5. 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 The subject property is located within a built environment where public facilities and services already exist. The site is currently served by 900 south, 700 west, Genesee Ave, and a public right of way. Future development on these properties, such as commercial or multifamily development may require upgrading utilities and drainage systems that serve the properties. Any required infrastructure upgrades will be evaluated with a specific site development plan. Comments from public utilities indicate the water system in the area is undersized and any new development may require utility upgrades at the owner’s expense. Additionally, there is a sewer main running through the property that will need to be abandoned or relocated or may limit available building areas. Photographs View of subject site from 900 S facing north View of subject site from 900 S facing north east View of subject site from corner of 900 S and 700 W facing north west View of subject public right of way from 900 S facing north View of subject site from Genesee Ave. facing south View across the street to the south of the subject site – south side of 900 S View of surrounding development on the block face to the west of the subject site View of surrounding development – 800 W facing east View of surrounding development to the north of the subject site – Genesee Ave. facing west View of surrounding development on Genesee west of subject site Public Process And Comments The following attachment lists the public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project. All written comments that were received throughout this process are included within this attachment. Poplar Grove Community Council Meeting The property is within the boundaries of Poplar Grove Community Council. Prior to submitting the rezone application, the applicants attended the September 25, 2019 Poplar Grove Community Council meeting, which was hosted on the subject site in the vacant warehouse buildings. During the meeting the applicant discussed their plans to request a rezone for the properties and their ideas and intent for future development of the site with multi-family housing. Planning Staff also attended the meeting to answer any city process and zoning related questions. Questions were asked about height, design standards, and building materials that would be applicable under the requested R-MU zoning district. Early Notification A notice of application was sent to the chair of the Poplar Grove & Glendale Community Councils. The Community Councils were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or comments. Notice of the application was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project. The purpose of this notice is to inform surrounding property owners and residents that an application has been submitted, provide details regarding the request, outline steps in the planning review and decision making process, and to let them know how to obtain more information and submit comments early on in the review process. City Open House Because the property is located within 600 feet of two community council districts, the City Planning Division held an open house on January 16, 2020 for the proposal in order to obtain feedback from residents and property owners and to provide information about the public process and City regulations. For the open house, the City provided mailed notice to residents and property owners within approximately 300 feet of the proposal two weeks in advance of the open house. Notices were also e-mailed to the City’s general Planning mailing list and to those individuals that requested notice for meetings for the proposal. Public Hearing Notice The Planning Division provided the following notices for the Planning Commission meeting: • Mailed notice sent March 26, 2020 • E-mailed notice to listserv sent March 26, 2020 • Public hearing notice signs posted on the property March 26, 2020 Public Input Received Planning Staff received a letter of support from both the Poplar Grove Community Council and the Glendale Community Council. No other formal public comments have been received as of the publication of this staff report. The adjacent property owner on the north east corner of the block occupied by the Summum Pyrimid, came into the city planning office expressing concerns with setbacks of a new development in relation to their property as well as potential residential uses on the site that could be developed under the proposed R-MU zoning designation. Staff informed the adjacent property owner to send an email to staff outlining these concerns and to submit any comments or questions they had so they could be addressed. No comments or questions were ever submitted to planning staff from this adjacent property owner. The proposed R-MU zoning district has greater setback restrictions in relation to the adjacent property than what could be developed under the existing M-1 zoning designation. Under the proposed zoning R-MU zoning district, the interior side yard setback is the same as the interior side yard setback of the existing M-1 zone (no setback required), and the proposed R-MU zone does have a rear yard setback requirement of 25% of the lot depth up to 30 FT, compared to the existing M-1 zone which does not have a rear yard setback requirement. All written public comments received to date are attached on the following pages of this attachment. February 19, 2020 ATTN Amy Thompson Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S State St Rm 406 PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City UT 84114-5480 RE: 706-740 West 900 South Rezone Application Dear Amy Thompson, The Poplar Grove Community Council (PGCC) enthusiastically supports the request by West End LLC, the owner of the property, to rezone ten parcels and a portion of a city owned public alley from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use). We believe that this rezone will jump start and facilitate deliberate and proper redevelopment and investment in our neighborhood. West End LLC has been a great partner to work. They have done a fantastic job of informing and presenting their plans to the community throughout the entire process of making this redevelopment a reality. Consider this letter of support a ringing endorsement from the community about the proposed rezone! Respectfully, Erik Lopez, Chair Poplar Grove Community Council 385.743.9767 PoplarGroveCouncil@gmail.com PoplarGroveCouncil @PoplarGroveCC PoplarGroveCouncil Glendale Community Council 1375 S. Concord Street Salt Lake City, UT 84104 Board of Directors Turner C Bitton Chair Ashley King First Vice Chair Latu Patetefa Second Vice Chair Jeremy King Treasurer Dane Hess Past Chair Ryan Curtis At-Large Member February 16, 2020 Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S State St Rm 406 PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City UT 84114-5480 To Whom It May Concern: It is my pleasure to submit this letter on behalf of the Glendale Community Council. After our extensive review, we would like to express our enthusiastic support for the rezoning of the parcels located at 706-740 W. 900 S. from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use). With the current shortage of housing in Salt Lake City, more is always welcome. Above that, though, the prospect of commercial development is very exciting to us. Here on the west side, residents often have to travel outside the neighborhood for basic things like shopping and dining; projects like this are sorely needed. The proposed development is exactly the kind of thing that Glendale's residents have repeatedly expressed interest in for the past several years. It will act as an anchor to bring much-anticipated commercial development to the east side of the neighborhood and tie the neighborhood together in a more cohesive manner. Adding more amenities to our community is a step in the right direction and we look forward to seeing this development move forward in the process. Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on the development. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to engage in discussions affecting our neighborhood. Thank you, Turner C. Bitton Chair, Glendale Community Council City Department Review Comments Transportation Transportation doesn't have any issues with the rezone. The parking provided with any development must meet the requirements of 21A.44. Engineering No objections to the proposed rezone. Public Utilities No objections to the propose zone change. The water system in the area is undersized and any new development of commercial buildings may require utility upgrades at the owner’s expense. There is also a sewer main running through the property that will need to be abandoned, relocated or may limit available building areas. Fire Building Services finds no Fire Code related issues associated with this rezone. A thorough fire review will be done with any future proposed development plan on the site. Building Services (Zoning) Building Services finds no Building Code related issues associated with this rezone. SLC Real Property Management Salt Lake City property management authorizes the applicant to move forward with the small portion of the city owned alley included in the rezone request. Please include a condition that the rezone is subject to the petitioner entering into a Purchase Agreement with the City to acquire the vacated alley if the vacation is approved by the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION - April 8, 2020 c) Agenda/Minutes SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b) April 8, 2020 , at 5:30 p.m . (The order of the items may change at the Commission 's discretion) This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely . We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commiss ion meetings , they are available on the following platfo1ms: • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • SLCtv Channel 17 L ive: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the P ublic Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email; planning.comments@ slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at: • https://saltlakecity.webex.com/sa ltlakecity/onstage/g.php?MTID=e5blac4b74376cb992dc30b0a852 30851 o Instrnctions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 11 , 2020 REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Rose Park Buddhist Temple Conditional Use at approximately 1185 West 1000 North -K.C. Liao , of KC L Des ign , representing the Rose Park Buddhist Temple, is requesting Conditiona l Use approva l for a renovated 2-story church build ing to be located at 1185 W 1000 N in the R-1 /7 ,000 Single Family zoning district. T he site currently contains an existing church bu il ding which will be renovated to include sanctuary space, offi ce, and support spaces. The property is located within Council District 1, represented by James Roge rs . (Staff Contact: Krissy Gilmore at (801) 535-7780 or kristina.g il more@s lcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2020-00078 2. The Ellie Planned Development and Preliminary Plat at approximately 347 , 353 & 359 North 700 West -A request by CW Land Co., representing RECM Investments , LLC , for approval of a planned deve lopment petition and re lated prelimina ry subdiv ision plat for a proposed 24 -unit res idential project at approximately 34 7 , 353, and 359 N 700 W. The proposa l includes four separate principal bu il dings with six un its in each building. T he bu ildings will be approximate ly 30 feet tall , and each unit footprint w ill be its own lot that does not front a public street. The project as proposed is subj ect to a pend ing zoning change from SR-1 (Specia l Deve lopment Pattern Residential) to RM F- 35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) t hat is be ing considered by the Sa lt Lake City Council. The site is located in Council district #2 , represen ted by Andrew Johnston (Staff contact; Casey Stewart at 801 -535-6260 or casey.stewart@s lcgov.com) Case numbers PLNSUB2019-00963 & PLNSU82020-00169 3. Salt Lake Crossing Design Re v iew at approx imately 470 West 200 North -Sa lt Lake C ity has re ceived a request from Brian Hobbs , with Salt Development, for approval of modifications to the des ign standards to construct a new mixed -use deve lopment. The standards proposed to be mod ified include ground -f loor use other than parking a long at least 80% of the street-facing building facades , ground floor fa9ade consisting of at least 60% glass, providing operable bu ild ing entrances at least every 40' on street-fac ing facades, and the max imum length of a street-fac ing fa9ade of 200 '. The project site is located in the TSA-UC -C (Transit Station Area Urban Center Core) zoning district and is located in Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton (Staff Contact: Nannette Larsen at (801) 535 -7645 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-01106 4. Zoning Map Amendment at approx imately 706-7 40 West 900 South -A request by West End LLC , the owner of the property, to rezone ten parce ls and a portion of a city owned public alley from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-MU (Residentia l Mixed Use). There are currently two commercial build ings on the site the applicant intends to restore for commercial uses. The appl icant intents to redevelop the remainder of the site, and the proposed rezone to R-MU wou ld all ow for res idential uses that are not currently permitted under the existing M-1 zon ing designation. No specific site development proposal has been submitted at th is time. The properties are located in Council D istrict 2 , represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff Contact: Amy Thompson at (801) 535-7281 or amy.thompson@s lcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2019-011 37 5. Zoning Map and Master Pl an Amendment at approx imately 261 N Redwood Rd. -The property owner, lain Cameron, is requesting Master Plan and Zoning Map amendments for an approximately 0.94-acre property located at approximately 261 N. Redwood Road. The applicant is requesting a Master Plan amendment to change the Northwest Community Future Land Use Plan des ignat ion from Low Dens ity Res idential to Med ium Density Residentia l. The property is cu rrently split-zoned with the approximately 172' feet closest to Redwood Road zoned RMF -35 and the rema in ing approximately 366' zoned R-1/5 ,000. The app li cant is requesting a Zoning Map amendment to change the zoning of the entire parcel to RM F-35. The subj ect property is located w ithin District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff Contact: Sara Javoronok at (80 1) 535-7625 or sara.j avoronok@slcgov.com) Case Numbers PLNPCM2019-01086 and PLNPCM2019-01087 For Pl anning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Pl anning Division 's website at s lc.govlplanninglpublic- meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Pl anning Commission. SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City & County Building 451 South State Street , Room 326 , Salt Lake City , Utah Wednesday, April 8, 2020 A roll is be ing kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeti ng . T he meeting was called to order at 5 :37:55 PM . Audio recordings of the Planning Co mmission meetings are reta ined for a period of t ime. Present for the Plann ing Commission meeting were: Chairperson Ad rienne Bel l; V ice Chairpe rson Br enda S cheer ; Commissioners Maurine Bachman , A my Barry, Jon Lee, Matt L yon , Sara Urquhart, and Crysta l Young -Otterstrom . Comm issione rs Carolynn Hosk ins , and Andres Paredes were excused. Plann ing Staff membe rs present at the meeting were Nick Norris , Pl anning Di rector; Michaela Oktay, Plann ing Deputy Director; Paul N ielson , Attorney; Wayne Mills , Pl anning Manager; John Ande rson , Plann ing Manager; Krissy Gilmore, Principal Planner; Casey Stewart, Senior Planner; Nannette L arsen , Principal Planner; Amy T hompson, Senior Planner; Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner; and Marlene Rankins , Administrati ve S ecretary. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 11, 2020 , MEETING MINUTES 5 :38:17 PM MOTION 5:38:28 PM Commissioner Scheer moved to approve the March 11 , 2020 , meeting minutes. Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman , Barry, Lee , Lyon , Scheer, and Urquhart voted "Aye". Commissioner Young-Otterstrom abstained from voting. The motion passed 6-1. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:39 :18 PM Chairperson Bell stated she had nothing to repo rt. Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report . REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5 :39:41 PM Nick Norris , Planning D irector, provided virtua l meet ing tips and access information. He also we lcomed new Commissioner Crysta l Young -Otterstrom to the Pl anning Comm iss ion. 5 :46 :35 PM Rose Park Buddhist Temple Conditional Use at approximately 1185 West 1000 North -K.C. Li ao, of KC L Des ign , representing the Rose Park Buddhist Temple , is requesting Conditiona l Use approval for a renovated 2-story church bu il ding to be located at 1185 W 1000 N in the R-1 /7 ,000 Sing le Fam ily zoning district. T he site currently contains an ex isting church building which w ill be renovated to i nclude sanctuary space, office, and support spaces. The property is located w ithin Council District 1, rep resented by James Rogers. (Staff Contact: Krissy Gilmore at (801) 535 -7780 or kris ti na.gilmore@slcgov.co m) Case Number PLNPCM2020-00078 Krissy Gilmore, Pr inc ipal Planner, reviewed the petit ion as out li ned in the Staff Report (located in the case fil e ). She stated Staff reco mmended that the Pl anning Commission approve the Conditional Use. KC Liao , architect, p rov ided f urthe r design details . Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 8, 2020 Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING 5:54:00 PM Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing ; seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hearing. MOTION 6 :00:5 1 PM Commissio ner Barry stated, b ased on the informatio n in the staff re port, the informatio n presented, and the input re ceiv ed du r ing the public hearing , I m ove that the Planning Commission approv e petition PLNPCM2020-00078 with the following conditions: 1. Any modifications to the approv ed plans after the issuance of a building permit must be specific ally requested by the applica nt an d approv ed by the Pl anning Division pr i o r t o execution. 2. The applicant shall c omply w ith all other department/div isio n requirements. Commissio ner Schee r sec onded the motion. Commissioners Ba c hman , Barry, Lee , Lyon, S c heer, Urquhart, an d Yo ung-Otterstrom v oted "Ay e". The motion pas sed unanimously . 6:02 :22 PM The Ellie Pl anned Development and Preliminary Pl at at approx imately 347, 353 & 359 No rth 700 West -A request by CW Land Co., represent ing RECM Investments , LLC, for approva l of a planned development petition and related pre li minary subdiv ision plat for a proposed 24 -unit res idential project at approximately 347 , 353 , and 359 N 700 W. The proposal includes four separate principal build ings with six units in each bu il ding. The bu il dings will be approximately 30 feet tall , and each unit footprint w ill be its own lot that does not front a pub li c street. T he project as proposed is subject to a pending zon ing change from SR -1 (Special Development Pattern Residential) to RMF -35 (Moderate Dens ity Mu lti-Family Residential) that is being considered by the Sa lt Lake City Council. The site is located in Council district #2 , represented by Andrew Johnston (Staff contact: Casey Stewart at 801 -535-6260 or casey.stewart@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNSUB2019-00963 & PLNSUB2020-00169 Casey Stewart, Principa l Planner, rev iewed the petit ion as out li ned in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the request with the conditions in the staff report. The Comm iss ion and Staff discussed the follow ing: • Clarification on when the zone change went before the Planning Commission • Whether staff worked with the applicant with the des ign details • Clarification on compatibility with the character of the surrounding ne ighborhood • Clarification on standards that are being considered • The process of approval for street facing fa9ade Jon Galbraith , CW Urban , prov ided a presentation along with further design deta il s. The Comm iss ion and Applicant discussed the fo ll owing: • Landscape surrounding the property • Proposed materials PUBLIC HEARING 6 :42:4 7 PM Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing ; seeing no one wished to speak ; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hearing. Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 8, 2020 Page 2 T he Co mmiss ion , Applicant and Staff further discussed the fo ll owing: • Current changes to the fa9ade f rom the original proposal • Clari fi cation on lack of w indows on the facades in be tween the two buildings • Fencing materia ls • Clari fi cation on use of vacant space 6 :55 :15 PM Nick No rris , P lanning Director, read two pub li c co mment ema il s that were provided regard ing the proposal. MOTION 7:01:38 PM Commissioner Urquhart stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Commission approve The Ellie Planned Development PLNSUB2019-00963 and Preliminary Subdivision Plat PLNSUB2020-00169 with the following conditions: 1. Approval is subject to the related zoning map amendment PLNPCM2019-00638 being adopted by the City Council, thereby changing the zoning of the subject parcels to RMF- 35 2. This approval is limited to the identified modifications in the report and all other zoning regulations continue to apply 3. The applicant shall submit and record a final subdivision plat for the creation of the lots as proposed 4. The applicant shall work with staff to simplify the materials and refine the fac;ade design per the Planning Commission discussion. Commissioner Scheer seconded the motion. Commissioners Young-Otterstrom, Urquhart, Scheer, Lee, Barry, and Bachman voted "Aye". Commissioner Lyon voted "Nay". The motion passed 6-1. 7:05 :22 PM Salt Lake Crossing Design Review at approximately 470 West 200 North -Salt Lake City has received a request from B rian Hobbs, with Salt Development, fo r approval of modifications to the des ign standards to construct a new mixed -use development. T he standards proposed to be modified i nclude ground -fl oor use other than parking along at least 80 % of the st reet-fac ing building facades , ground floor fa9ade cons isting of at least 60% g lass , providing operable bu il ding entrances at least every 40' on street- facing facades . and the maximum length of a street-facing fa9ade of 200 '. T he project site is located in the T SA -UC -C (Trans it Station Area Urban Center Core) zon ing district and is located in Council District 3 , represented by Chris Wharton (Staff Contact: Nannette Larsen at (801) 535 -7 645 or nannette.la rsen@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-01106 7 :05 :37 PM Chairperson Bell and Commissioner Lee recused themselves due to potentia l conflict of interest. Nannette Larsen , Principal Planner, rev iewed the pet ition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She sta ted Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review with the conditions listed in the staff report . Ethan Bed ingfield , applicant, provided a presentation with furthe r design details. Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 8, 2020 Page 3 The Co mmiss ion and Applicant discussed the fo ll owing: • Proposed mate rials to be used • Clari fi cation on percentage of brick PUBLIC HEARING 7 :24:30 PM Vice Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; Brian Hobbs -Provided i nfo rmat ion regarding Community Council meetings and engagement. Seeing no one else wished to speak ; Vice Chairperson Scheer closed the Pub li c Hea ring . MOTION 7:29:14 PM Commis sioner Bachman stated , based on the information in the staff report I move that the Planning Commission approve petition PLNPCM2019-01106 , regarding the Salt Lake Crossing Design Review. In order to comply with the applicable standards, the following conditions of approval apply: 1. The design of the project shall be consistent with this staff report and submitted Design Review applicat ~on. 2 . TSA Development Score approval is required prior to building permit approval. 3. The ground floor shall be built in such a way as to allow for future active commercial uses along the street-facing facades. 4 . Any changes to the site shall comply with all standards required by City Departments. Commissioner Barry seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry , Ba chman , Lyon , Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom v oted "Ay e". The motion passed unanimously. 7:3 1 :51 PM Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 706-740 West 900 South -A request by West End LLC, the owner of the property, to rezone ten parcels and a port ion of a city owned public alley from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use). There are currently two commercial buildings on the site the applicant intends to restore for commercial uses . The applicant intents to redevelop the remainder of the site , and the proposed rezone to R-MU would allow for residential uses that are not currently perm itted under the existing M-1 zon ing des ignation. No spec ific site deve lopment proposa l has been submitted at this time. The propert ies are located in Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff Contact: Amy Thompson at (80 1) 535 -728 1 or amy.thompson@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2019-01137 Amy Thompson , Senior Planner , rev iewed the pet ition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case f il e). She stated Staff recommended that the Plann ing Commission forward a pos itive recommendat ion with the conditions listed in the staff report. The Comm iss ion and Staff discussed the follow ing: • Whether staff reviewed the alley vacat ion that is included in the area proposed for the rezone • Clari fi cation on why an R-MU is being proposed versus R-MU35 • Clari fi cation on whether modifying des ign review standards on a zoning change is a standard procedure • Staff recommendation to impose additiona l Design standards and compatibi li ty with surrounding ne ighborhood Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 8, 2020 Page 4 Max Coreth , applicant , prov ided a presentation. The Com mi ss ion and Applicant discussed the fo ll owing: • Height of a building all owed under proposed R-MU zone • Whether there are protections in place for the exist ing warehouse bu il dings on the site • Clari fi cation on whether a building built under the proposed R-MU zone cou ld be taller than the highway PUBLIC HEARING 8 :04:10 PM Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing ; Dennis Faris , Vice Chairperson Poplar Grove Community Counc il -Stated support in the project and commended the applicant 's engagement with the community. Mike Reed -Ra ised concerns with lack of affordable housing. Bern ie Aua -Provided comments v ia email stat ing opposit ion of the request. Seeing no one else wished to speak ; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hear ing. The Comm iss ion and Staff further discussed the fol lowing: • Locat ion of the ne ighbo ring church The applicant addressed concerns of the public. The Co mmi ss ion made t he fo ll owing comments : • With affordable housing; one of the misconceptions is that creat ing more hous ing auto matically makes everything else more expensive • We shou ld be focusing on areas that are more pr ime for high density to try to meet our housing needs as we cont inue to look at how the City cont inues to change • Having high dens ity near highways is noisy and creates air po ll ution and I have some issues with chang ing the zon i ng to allow for residentia l property to be built , where children will be allowed to live there • There have been other Planning Commission approvals of res idential buildings adjacent to f reeways. Why aren 't we concerned that high densi ty res idential buildings are currently be ing built ad j acent to freeways eve rywhere? MOTION 8:26:06 PM Commissioner Urquhart stated, based on the analysis and findings listed in the staff report , information presented , and the input received during the public hearing , I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Zoning Map Amendment from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use), file PLNPCM2019-01137, for ten parcels and a portion of a city owned alley located at approximately 706-740 W 900 South with the conditions listed in the staff report. Also , with a third condition: • That any new development must go through the design review process. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion . Commissioners Bachman , Barry , Lee , Lyon , Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted "Aye". Commissioner Scheer voted "Nay". The motion passed 7-1. Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 8, 2020 Page 5 8 :28:38 PM Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment at appro ximately 261 N Redwood Rd. -T he property owner, lain Cameron, is requesting Master Plan and Z on ing Map amendments for an approximately 0.94- acre property located at approximately 261 N. Redwood Road . The appl icant is requesting a Master Pl an amendment to change the Northwest Commun ity F uture Land Use Plan designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. T he property is current ly sp li t-zoned with the approx i mate ly 172' feet c losest to Redwood Road zoned RMF-35 and the remaining approximately 366' zoned R- 1 /5 ,000. The applicant is requesting a Z on ing Map amendment to change the zoning of the entire parcel to RM F-35. T he subj ect p roperty is located w ithin District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff Contact: Sara Javoronok at (801) 535-7625 or sara.javoronok@s lcgov.com) Case Numbers PLNPCM2019- 01086 and PLNPCM2019-01087 Sara Javoronok, Senio r Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case fil e). She stated Staff recommended that the Pl anning Com mi ss ion forward a pos itive recommendation to the C ity Council. lain Cameron , applicant, was present but was experienc in g technical d ifficulties . PUBLIC HEARING 8 :36:07 PM Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing; Mike Reed -Ra ised concerns with affordable housing . See ing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hearing. The Comm iss ion and Staff discussed the following: • C larifi cation on whether Gem in i Drive is closed • Width of the property • Whether it would be viable to p rov ide drive -thru access from Redwood with a private drive Di scussion was made o n how to proceed with the item as no communication w ith the app li cant was availab le. MOTION 8:50:29 PM Commissioner Scheer stated , based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, testimony , and discussion at the public hearing , I move that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed Zoning Map Amendment, file PLNPCM2019- 01086 , proposed zone· change from R-1 /5,000 (Single-family Residential District) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-family Residential) and file PLNPCM2019-01087 proposed master plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Commissioner Barry seconded the motion. Commissioners Young-Otterstrom , Urquhart, Scheer, Lyon , Lee , Barry , and Bachman voted "Aye". The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8 :53:38 PM Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 8, 2020 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION - April 8, 2020 d) Staff Presentation Slides Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 8, 2020 Planning Commission 706-740 W 900 S Zoning Map Amendment •Approval with conditions DEVELOPMENT SITE RECOMMENDATION – Planning Commission SITE PHOTOS VIEW OF SUBJECT SITE FROM 900 SOUTH AND 700 WEST Planning Commission 706-740 W 900 S Zoning Map Amendment SUBJECT SITE Planning Commission VIEW FROM 600 W LOOKING SOUTH EAST VIEW FROM STATE STREET LOOKING SOUTH EAST VIEW FROM GENESEE LOOKING SOUTH VIEW OF PUBLIC ALLEY TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY BETWEEN GENESEE AND 900 SOUTH Planning Commission VIEW FROM 600 W LOOKING SOUTH EAST VIEW FROM EDISON STREET FACING SOUTH WEST VIEW OF SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT ON THE BLOCK FACE WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE VIEW OF SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT –800 WEST FACING EAST Planning Commission KEY CONSIDERATION –CITY PLAN GUIDANCE SUBJECT SITE Planning Commission This project is situated along 900 S and the 700 W industrial corridor, an area that the Westside Master Plan identifies as an important gateway into the larger Westside Community. SUBJECT SITE Planning Commission KEY CONSIDERATION –DESIGN GUIDELINES RECOMMENDED CONDITION –IMPOSE D-2 DESIGN GUIDELINES •Supported by Master Plan policies Planning Commission 706-740 W 900 SZoning Map Amendment RECOMMENDATION – STANDARDS OF REVIEW – •Forward a positive recommendation to City Council with conditions •Zoning Map Amendment PUBLIC PROCESS – •Recognized Organization notice •Early notification to property owners •Open House •Public Hearing notice •Public Comments PLANNING COMMISSION - April 8, 2020 e) Applicant Presentation Slides 2015 Business StrategyTransaction OverviewWest End Zone AmendmentM-1 to R-MU 2SummaryPRELIMINARY•Proposed zone amendment is consistent with the Westside Master Plan (WSMP) and 9 Line Corridor Master Plan (9LMP)•Zone amendment will positively impact the surrounding neighborhood by reinvigorating formerly blighted site with new commercial and residential activity•Site will become an attractive gateway to the Westside due to new commercial activity and multifamily infill. Zone amendment will prevent incompatible industrial uses in this residential neighborhood and buffer residents from those uses and I-15 3West End SitePRELIMINARY•Located at 706-740 West 900 South and 717-739 W Genesee Street•1.80 acres•Acquired on February 8 and March 13, 2019 by High Boy Ventures•Consists of two vacant commercial buildings and open land•Financing for the adaptive re-use of the two buildings (Phase I of redevelopment) obtained from the SLC RDA. GSBS of Salt Lake City hired as project architect•Requesting zone amendment from Light Manufacturing (M-1) to Residential Mixed Use (R-MU) 4Gateway to the Westside - WSMPPRELIMINARY•“One of the most common issues brought up in community meetings was the lack of connectivitybetween the Westside and the rest of the city” (pg 13)•WSMP main goal: “Strengthen the connections both within and between the Westside and other parts of Salt Lake City byimproving the community’s gatewaysand corridors and strengthening the transportation network for all modes of travel” (pg 4) 5Gateway to the Westside – 9LMPPRELIMINARY•The area around the I-15 underpass is a “major gateway” (pg24) and a “key node” (pg 53)•“As the 9 Line passes underneath the bridge at I-15, it becomes an uncomfortable and unsafe experience. For many users of the trail, this is a major gateway or connection point for east to west travel or vice versa. However, in its current condition, it feels more like a barrier” (pg 59)•The improvement of the area is a “foundational project” (pg59) 6Gateway to the WestsidePRELIMINARYSite (green icon) can act as a gateway to the Westside, creating a more cohesive development pattern with the vibrant GranaryDistrict (orange area) west of I-15 and the railroad tracks 7Incompatible Industrial Use - WSMPPRELIMINARY•“[The 700 West Industrial Corridor] abuts single-family neighborhoods and schools, creating an uneven and undesirable transition and an unattractive gateway” (pg 69)Source: WSMPSource: WSMP 8Multifamily Infill – WSMP & 9LMPPRELIMINARYWSMP Goals:•“Promote reinvestment and redevelopment in the Westside community through changes in land use, improved public infrastructure and community investment to spur development that meets the community’s vision while maintaining the character of Westside’s existing stable neighborhoods” (pg 4)•“Protect and encourage ongoing investment in existing, low-density residential neighborhoods while providing attractive, compatible and high density residential development where needed, appropriate or desired” (pg 4)Source: WSMPSource: 9LMP 9West End Adaptive Re-use DevelopmentPRELIMINARY•Site currently consists of vacant commercial structures and blighted land. Want to reenergize this area while highlighting the site’s history and unique characteristics•Opportunity to make a public gathering place accessible by the community, including those who come on foot or bicycle•Will also reinvigorate the currently neglected mid-block crossing to the west of our buildings 10West End Adaptive Re-use DevelopmentPRELIMINARY•Obtained a financing commitment from the RDA of SLC for building renovation. Commitment is contingent on fulfilling several public benefit criteria•Will create a nexus of activity at the connection point between the two buildings. Will result in services for not only the local community and future multifamily residents but will also draw activity from the Granary District and greater Downtown•Will extend the vibrancy of the Granary District to the west of I-15 and increase usership of the Jordan River Trail PLANNING COMMISSION - April 8, 2020 f) Additional Public Comments PARR BROWN GEE &._ LOVELESS ATTORNEYS AT LAW October 13, 2020 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street, Room 406 Post Office Box 145480 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5480 Re: PLNPCM2019-0113 7 -Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2020-00442 -Zoning Map Amendment Dear Planning Commissioners : RONALD G. RUSSELL Direct Dial : 801.257 .7942 e-mail: rrussell @parrbrown.com This firm represents Summum with respect to the following matters . Summum is a religious organization and owns the property located at 707 Genesee A venue in Salt Lake City. The purpose for this letter is to submit and express Summum's comments and concerns with respect to the above-referenced zoning applications . The zoning applications seek to re-zone the properties located immediately adjacent to and surrounding the Summum property from the current zoning of light manufacturing (M-1) to residential mixed use (R-MU). According to the information we have been provided, the purpose for the requested re-zone is for the future construction of a multi-family residential development. Summum was established in 197 5 to reintroduce an ancient philosophy based on natural principles of creation. Beginning in 1977, Summum constructed its iconic pyramid on its Genesee property, which is surrounded by peaceful gardens. Summum's adherents view the pyramid as a sanctuary and temple . The Summum temple was completed in 1979 and not only provides a place of respite and sanctuary for its adherents, but has been an important part of Salt Lake City's cultural and religious fabric for more than 40 years . The Summum sanctuary is located in close proximity to Interstate 15. Because I-15 is elevated at this location, the Summum property is currently nestled in a quiet and peaceful setting . The proposed R-MU re-zone of the adjacent parcels, however, would permit the construction of multi-family residential buildings that would completely surround the sanctuary to a height of 75 feet. The tall buildings would undoubtedly reflect and intensify the noise from Interstate 15 directly onto the Summum temple and would destroy the atmosphere of peace and serenity that has been cultivated for the past four decades . Summum recognizes the value of quality development in the area, but objects to the proposed re-zone due to the excessive height of the buildings that would be permitted. Summum submits that the R-MU 35 zone would better serve the interests of the community and better protect the serenity of the Summum temple and gardens by restricting the height of buildings adjacent to the property to no more than 3 5 feet. Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, A Professional Corporation 101 South 200 East, Suite 700, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 T 801.532. 7840 F 801.532. 7750 www.parrbrown.com Salt Lake City Planning Commission Page2 October 13, 2020 In addition, Summum believes that a decision to approve an R-MU zone for the immediately adjacent property would impose a direct and substantial burden on its right and the rights of its members to practice their religion, in violation of federal law and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIP A), 11 [ n Jo government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. 11 42 U.S .C . § 2000cc. This test both codifies and expands the free exercise protections of the First Amendment, which likewise prohibits substantial burdens on religious exercise. In applying these provisions, Congress has directed that RLUIPA is to be "construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution. 11 42 U.S.C . § 2000cc-3(g). The test the statute imposes, like the First Amendment, is strict scrutiny, with the government bearing the significant burden of showing that the interest served is truly compelling, and that there are no less restrictive alternatives that could serve that interest. 42 U .S .C . § 2000cc-2(b ); see also Grace Church of N Cnty . v. City of San Diego , 555 F . Supp. 2d 1126 , 1135 (S .D . Cal. 2008); Fortress Bible Church v. Feiner, 734 F. Supp . 2d 409 (S.D .N.Y. 2010). Speculation, conclusory assertions, and generalized land use analysis is not sufficient to carry that burden. As described above, there is little question that a decision to approve an R-MU zone for the adjacent property would impose a substantial burden on Summum's right to religious exercise. Surrounding the Summum temple sanctuary with buildings 75 feet in height would destroy the privacy and peacefulness of this religious sanctuary and would reflect and magnify noise from the nearby elevated freeway . Moreover, there is no evidence that Salt Lake City has undertaken the heavy burden of justifying such a decision under strict scrutiny. Mere land use decisions such as changes to zoning classifications do not constitute the type of compelling government interest required by law . See Grace Church, 555 F . Supp . 2d at 1140. Even if they did, there are less restrictive means, such as the less intrusive R-MU35 zone, to accomplish the government's interests in this particular area of the city that do not require encircling an active house of worship with intrusive buildings . For all of those reasons , too, the re-zone should be rejected . Thank you for your consideration of Summum's comments and objections to the re-zone pet· · ons referenced above. c: Christopher Earl Amy Thompson Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, A Professional Corporation www.parrbrown.com 4) PLANNING COMMISSION - October 14, 2020 a) Mailed Notice SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION 451 S State Street -Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 -5480 PO BOX 145480 en I/) :3 0 I- I/) Qf u. Salt Lake City Planning Division Chris Earl PO BOX 145480 Salt Lake City UT 84114 U.S. POSTAGE))PITNEV BOWES ~-, ----..---ZIP 84116 $ 000 500 02 m • 000 • 403432 OCT 02 2020 PLAN NIN G CO MMISSION MEETING October 14 , 2020 , at 5 :30 p .m . Thi s m ee ting w ill be an elec tronic m eeting purs uant to Sa lt Lake Ci ty E m ergency Proclama tion No. 2 of 202 0 (2)(b) A public hearing will be held on the following matter. West End Rezone at approximately 715 W Genesee Ave -A request by Maximilian Coreth , property owner, to rezone the parcel located at approximately 715 W Genesee Avenue and a portion of a city owned public alley at approximately 740 W 900 South . The properties are currently zoned Light Manufacturing (M-1) and the request is to rezone them to Residential Mixed Use (R-MU). The purpose of the requested rezone is to accommodate a future multi-family residential development on a portion of the subject site . The property is zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535 -7932 or christopher .earl@slcgov .com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00268 This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building . Commission Members will connect remotely . The Planning Commission meeting will be ava ilable on the following platforms : • YouTube: www .youtube .com /slcl ivemeetings • SLCtv Channel 17 Live : www .slctv .com /livestream /SLCtv-L ive /2 Providing Comments: If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments , email : planning .comments@s lcgov .com or connect with us on WebEx at: • http ://t iny.cc/slc-p c-l 014202 0 For instructions on how to use WebE x visit: www .slc .gov/plann inq /public-meetinqs Fo r Planning Co mmission agendas, s taff reports, a nd minutes , v isit th e Plann ing Div i sion 's webs ite at s lc.govlplannin glvublic-mee tin gs. S taff R ep orts will be p os ted the Frid ay prior to the m eeting and minutes will be posted two day s after th ey are ra tified, w hic h usually occurs at the next reg ula rly scheduled m eeti ng of the Planning Co mmission . PLANNING COMMISSION - October 14, 2020 b) Staff Report SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801.535.7757 FAX 801.535.6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Chris Earl, Associate Planner, christopher.earl@slcgov.com, 801-535-7932 Date: October 7, 2020 Re: PLNPCM2020-00442 - Zoning Map Amendment Zoning Map Amendment MASTER PLAN: Westside ZONING DISTRICT: M-1 Light Manufacturing PROPERTY ADDRESS: Approximately 715 W Genesee Avenue – includes 2 parcels and a portion of a city owned public alley REQUEST: Maximilian Coreth, property owner, is requesting to rezone the parcel located at approximately 715 W Genesee Avenue (which will include the landlocked parcel located at approximately 710 W 900 S) and a portion of a city owned public alley at approximately 740 W 900 South. The properties are currently zoned Light Manufacturing (M-1) and the request is to rezone them to Residential Mixed Use (R-MU). The purpose of the requested rezone is to accommodate a future multi-family residential development on a portion of the subject site. This rezone is in conjunction with a previous rezone request in which the applicant requested to rezone 10 parcels and a portion of city-owned alley adjacent to the subject parcel from M-1 to R-MU. This request has already been presented to the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings and analysis in this staff report and the factors to consider for zoning map amendments in 21A.50.050 of the zoning ordinance, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding this proposal with the conditions noted below: 1. The rezone of the portion of the City owned alley included in the request is subject to the petitioner entering into a Purchase Agreement with the City to acquire the vacated alley if the alley vacation is approved by City Council. 2. Design standards for the D-2 zone shall be applied to any new development on the subject site. This requirement could be executed through a development agreement with City Council or some other mechanism decided on by City Council. ATTACHMENTS: A. Zoning and Vicinity Maps B. Applicant’s Narrative C. M-1 & R-MU Zoning Comparison D. City Plan Considerations E. Analysis of Zoning Amendment Standards F. Property Photographs G. Public Process & Comments H. City Department Review Comments PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The property owner, Maximilian Coreth, is requesting to rezone the subject parcel and a portion of a city owned public alley from the current M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning designation to R- MU (Residential Mixed Use). The total area of the proposed rezone is approximately .116 acres or 5,060 square feet. The subject parcel currently contains a single-family residential dwelling that will be demolished as part of the overall development plan. This rezone request is related to a rezone request and two alley vacation requests that have previously been heard by the Planning Commission: • December 11, 2019, the Planning Commission heard a request to vacate a small portion of alley abutting the north property line of 740 W 900 S. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. • April 8, 2020, the Planning Commission heard a request for a zoning map amendment for 10 parcels and a portion of city-owned alley in the project area. The Commission voted 7- 1 in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council. • August 18, 2020, City Council approved this alley vacation. • August 26, 2020, the Planning Commission heard a request to vacate a portion of alley abutting the west property line of 740 W 900 S. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to City Council. The requested rezone would accommodate future development of the vacant eastern portion of the site for high density multi-family residential. The developer has not submitted a specific development plan for the multi-family portion of the proposed development but has provided detailed renderings depicting what is intended for the development. Please refer to Attachment B for a detailed narrative submitted by the applicant for the proposed rezone. The subject properties are located approximately 330 FT west of Interstate 15 along 900 S, one of the gateways to the Westside neighborhoods. Several community uses surround the subject site including the 9-line trail, 9-line dirt jumps and pump track, and community gardens. The predominant street frontage of the vacant portion of the properties is along 900 S as well as 700 W. The surrounding properties on the block are zoned M-1, however, with the exception of just a few properties, the primary use is predominantly single family residential. There is also a religious use (Summum) adjacent to the site on the north east corner of the block. The block to the north of the subject site is also zoned M-1 with uses that include commercial and light manufacturing type uses as well as some residential uses. The block to the south of the subject site is zoned M-1 with current uses that include Utah PaperBox, moving and storage warehouses, and other light manufacturing uses. Blocks south of the proposed rezone are zoned R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential) and R-MU- 35 (Residential Mixed Use); blocks to the east on the other side of Interstate 15 are zoned CG (General Commercial). The primary reason for the rezone request is so the applicant will have the ability to develop the properties for residential uses, which are not currently allowed under the existing M-1 zoning designation. The M-1 zoning district allows for a variety of light manufacturing and industrial uses that are not allowed in the proposed R-MU zone. Some examples of uses that are currently permitted or conditional uses in the M-1 zone that would no longer be allowed in the proposed R- MU zone include: bus line station/terminal, community correctional facility, impound lot, industrial assembly, light manufacturing, and outdoor public storage. For a complete list of uses that are allowed under the existing M-1 zone and the proposed R-MU zone, please refer to Attachment C. The properties could currently be developed for light industrial uses under the M-1 zoning district designation. A full chart comparing the current M-1 zoning regulations and the proposed R-MU zoning regulations is located in Attachment C. The following is a brief summary of some of the development regulations that would change with the proposed rezone request: Existing M-1 Zone Proposed R-MU Zone Setbacks Front and corner side yard setback – 15’ Interior and rear yard setback – None Front, corner, and interior yard setback – None Rear yard setback – 25% of lot depth up to 30’ Height 65’ 75’ for residential uses 45’ for non-residential uses Open Space None required 20% of lot for residential uses Zoning Map Amendment Considerations Planning staff is required by ordinance to analyze proposed zoning map amendments against existing adopted City policies and other related adopted City regulations. Planning staff is also directed to consider whether zoning text amendments implement best planning practices. However, ultimately, a decision to amend the zoning map is fully up to the discretion of the City Council and is not subject to any particular standard of review or consideration. The full list of factors to consider for a zoning map amendment are located in Attachment E. KEY CONSIDERATIONS: The key considerations and concerns below have been identified through the analysis of the project, neighbor and community input, and department reviews. 1. Existing Area Plan Guidance 2. Design Standards Consideration 1: Existing City Plan Guidance – Westside Master Plan For zoning map amendments, Planning Staff is directed by ordinance to consider the associated City master plans and adopted policies that apply to a proposal. Staff reviews general City policies, including adopted policies in Citywide master plans such as Plan Salt Lake, and considers plans that are specific to an area. In this case the property is within the boundaries of the Westside Master Plan that was developed specifically for this area. The full plan can be accessed here: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/WSLMPA.pdf. See Attachment D for policy statements and goals from various city plans that staff considered as part of the review of this rezone request. This project is situated along 900 S and the 700 W industrial corridor, an area that the Westside Master Plan identifies as an important gateway into the larger Westside Community. Five of six routes into the Westside from the east cut through the 700 West Industrial Corridor. As a result, 700 W is a significant part of the eastern gateways in the Westside. The impact is most evident along 900 South, where one side of the street is residential and the other industrial. A first-time visitor to the community, regardless of their mode of transportation, is first greeted by a land use and development pattern that is not representative of the true character of the community. During the public input gathering process for the Westside Master Plan, 900 S was generally considered the gateway in need of the most attention. The proposed R-MU zoning district provides for a vibrant mix of uses that are more consistent with the future development goals envisioned for this area, than what could be developed under the existing M-1 zoning designation. The proposed rezone is consistent with Master Plan goals to promote reinvestment and redevelopment in the Westside community through changes in land use to spur development that meets the community’s vision while maintaining the character of Westside’s existing stable neighborhoods. The parcels included in the proposed rezone are currently underutilized mostly vacant land that is identified in the Master Plan as an appropriate area for high density housing. The development regulations in the proposed R-MU zone further these goals by providing for attractive, compatible and high-density, mixed-use development with an emphasis on pedestrian scale activity while acknowledging the need for transit and automobile access. Consideration 2: Design Standards The proposed R-MU zoning district only has two design standards that would apply to any new development under that zoning designation. Those design standards are a 40% ground floor glass requirement for facades facing a street, and the 15 FT maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the ground floor level along any street facing facade. Under the R-MU design standards, something like structured parking could be located on the ground floor, which would not be consistent with the active pedestrian-oriented design envisioned in the master plan for this important gateway. The design standards are intended to utilize planning and architecture principles to shape and promote a walkable environment, foster place making as a community and economic development tool, protect property values, assist in maintaining the established character of the City, and implement the City's master plans. Master Plan policies in the area as well as planning best practices suggest that a new development in this area would benefit from additional design standards such as an active ground floor use and durable building material requirements on ground and upper floors, to encourage pedestrian activity and a vibrant active mixed-use gateway into the westside neighborhoods. Planning Staff is of the opinion the design standards in section 21A.37 applicable to the D-2 zoning district should be applied to any new project on the subject parcels developed under the proposed R-MU zoning district. One way this could be accomplished is through a development agreement. Development agreements can only be approved by the City Council. The following are the design standards Planning Staff is recommending are imposed on the rezone request: Design Standards Ground Floor Use % 75 Ground Floor Use + Visual Interest % 60/25 Building Materials – Ground Floor 80 Building Materials – Upper Floors 50 Glass – Ground Floor % 40 Glass – Upper Floors % 25 Building Entrances (feet) 50 Blank Wall – Maximum Length (feet) 15 Street Facing Façade – Maximum Length (feet) 200 Upper Floor Step Back (feet) Lighting – Exterior X Lighting – Parking Lot X Screening Mechanical Equipment X Screening of Service Areas X Parking Garages or Structures X A definition of each of the design standards above can be found in section 21A.347.050 of the zoning ordinance. NEXT STEPS: The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposal and as part of a recommendation, can add conditions or request that changes be made to the proposal. The recommendation and any requested conditions/changes will be sent to the City Council, who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing on the proposed zoning changes. The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the proposed zoning map amendment. If ultimately approved by the City Council, the changes would be incorporated into the official City Zoning map and any new development on the rezoned parcels would be required to follow the regulations of the R-MU zoning district along with any development agreement requirements adopted by the City Council. If the proposed zoning amendment is not approved by the City Council, the property could still be developed under its current M-1 zoning designation, however, the property would not be able to be developed for multi-family residential uses as they are not permitted in the light manufacturing zoning district. Zoning and Vicinity Maps Applicant’s Narrative Project Description M-1 to RMU Zone Map Amendment June 3, 2020 West End LLC is submitting this zone map amendment to rezone the following two parcels from M-1 (light manufacturing) to RMU (residential mixed use). West End LLC is in negotiations to purchase both parcels and has provided signed affidavits from each owner authorizing West End LLC to act as their agent for this zone map amendment. Parcel ID Address Owner 1511278006 715 W. Genesee, SLC, UT 84104 Teodoro Nava; Socorro Alatorre (JT) 1511278017 717 W. Genesee, SLC, UT 84104 Salt Lake County West End LLC has an active zone map amendment petition PLNPCM2019-01137 for adjacent parcels (owned by West End LLC) that received a positive recommendation from the planning commission on April 8th, 2020. All application materials submitted with petition PLNPCM2019-01137, processed by Amy Thompson, are applicable to this project with the exception of the site map which is revised to reflect the additional parcels that are being added. _Alley Vacation Petition PLNPCM2019-00813 inc luded in zone map amendment: request. received positive recommendation f rom Planning Commission on 12/11 /2020 Scheduled with City Council: Briefing -7!7/2020 1st Publi c Hearing -7/14/2020 2nd Public Hearing -8/1112020 ~--- PLNPCM2019-01137: Site Map Upd ate 6/4/2020 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ZONE MAP AMENDMENT 2001 <;>. £.TATE. Sr. s 5 -~. St.c..... VT 8 <..\\qo (print names), being duly sworn, depose and say that I (we)'am (are) the owner(s) of the property located at (parcel ID: 15-11-278-017-0000) will allow the zoning for our property to be amended from the current M-1 light manufacturing to RMU Residential Mixed Use. I (we) am authorizing West End LLC to submit an application for a zone map amendment on my (our) behalf. Signatur~ ~ Signature ___________ _ Print 0=<2'2. \('..,~ Ga..tk>Se .J Sl.(..C> 0ES\-LtsT~ N\f\i.J~~llC:f:_. Signature ------------ Print -------------- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF f,/[ couNTY oSa ff UJt :ss. ) Signature ___________ _ Print -------------- @) LISA O'BRYAN Notiry Publlc State ~ Utlh MJ Commlalon ElQllf9S or. februlry 24, 2024 Comm . Number : 710750 LI --1' • 0 J ~·<A , f) IDRib. IA , On this _::r__day of ~ll.1\.A_. , in the year 20M, before me,_=:f__,__~ __ __,.12"--'~---+-="'-"'-=--"" a Notary Public, personally appeared fuvrz"Lk:. St> Vf/1.Sft/l proved on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) (is/are) subscribed to this instrument, and acknowledged (he/she/they) executed the same. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ZONE MAP AMENDMENT 1 (we> •• Saco@ Ala.focre,. J(l2c/or~ Na.Vq ---,-----,-----,----,--,-,...-----,-.,-------.,.-,---,-,----(print names), be ing du ly sworn, depose and say that I (we) am (are) th e owner(s) of the property located at 71 5 W. Genesee, SLC, UT 84104 (pa rcel ID : 15·11 ·2 78 -006-0000) wi ll allow the zon ing fo r our p ropert y to be amende d fro m the c urre nt M-1 lig ht ma nu factu ri ng to RM U Res idential M ixed Use . I (we) am authorizing West End LLC to subm it an appl icatio n for a zone map amendme nt on my (our) be half. Signature------------ Print ____________ _ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEOF VT ) :ss. couNTY OF ~ttt IA~-v > Print t:;,oco<O A \q_ w-rrc: Signatu re------------ Pri nt ------------- On this I BhAday of M a j . in the year 20 1.-11 . before me, I r.e.-n.e., l?io r h O 2£1 a Notary Publ ic, personall y appeared _So=...;c;_;o;..:.r...:.r...::o'--..... Pi.........,I Q""h........,r_.r._~"'--0\'--l'\.-d;..:_ __ _ 1.e od orv NctvCA proved o n the basis o f satisfactory evidence to be t he perso n (s ) whose name(s) (is/are) subscribed to this instrument, and acknowledged (helshefthey) executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC • IRENE BARBOZA COMM. I 709802 MY COM MISSION EXPIRES JANUARY 3, 2024 STATE OF UTAH EST END OPMENT I OCTOBER, 2019 GSBS •11111!.: ARCHITECTS •ii WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT I OCTOBER, 2019 Remodel of 2 existing warehouse buildings into commercial space. North building is approximately 6,000 SF and the south building is 5,000 SF. Activation of a mid-block roadway with mid-block plaza space. Commercial spaces include associated outdoor dining areas. PROJECT DESCRIPTION GSBS •llll'!.: Ai;>CHITFC:T~ iai WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT |OCTOBER, 2019 SCALE: 1” = 40’-0” (WHEN PRINTED 11”X17”) SITE PL AN NORTH BUILDING SOUTH BUILDINGMID- BLOCK ROADWAYGENESEE AVE FUTURE DEVELOPEMENT SITE PROPERTY LINE 30 PARKING STALLS WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT |OCTOBER, 2019 SITE PL AN SCALE: 1” = 20’-0” (WHEN PRINTED 11”X17”) NORTH BUILDING 30 PARKING STALLS SOUTH BUILDING MID- BLOCK ROADWAY RAISED OUTDOOR PATIO WITH FURNITURE AND TRELLIS TERRACED STAIRS WITH SEATING AND ACCESS TO RAISED PATIO ENTRY GATEWAY RAISED OUTDOOR PATIO WITH FURNITURE AND TRELLIS RAMP ACCESS TO RAISED PATIO RAMP ACCESS TO RAISED PATIO SHARED PATIO SPACE WITH MOVEABLE FURNITURE ENTRY GATEWAY SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE STRIP STAIRSTERRACED STAIRS WITH SEATING AND ACCESS TO RAISED PATIO TERRACED STAIRS WITH SEATING AND ACCESS TO RAISED PATIO STAIRSGENESEE AVE900 SOUTH WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT |OCTOBER, 2019 // EAST ELEVATION // WEST ELEVATION 1. STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM IN EXISTING OPENING 2. STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM (ON NEW RETAIL SPACE) 3. METAL PANEL (ON NEW RETAIL SPACE) 4. METAL SHADE CANOPY 5. EXISTING BRICK, PATCH AND REPAIR TO MATCH EXISTING 6. ROOFING MEMBRANE WITH ADDITIONAL ROOF INSULATION BELOW 7. METAL TRELLIS 1 1 5 6 6 5 5 6 5 4 1 11 7 1 4 4 4 11 1 1 CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS scale : 1” = 20’-0” 1 1 1 1 11 44 5 4 4 6 WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT |OCTOBER, 2019 NORTH BUILDING // NORTH ELEVATIONNORTH BUILDING // SOUTH ELEVATION SOUTH BUILDING // SOUTH ELEVATIONSOUTH BUILDING // NORTH ELEVATION 1. STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM IN EXISTING OPENING 2. STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM (ON NEW RETAIL SPACE) 3. METAL PANEL (ON NEW RETAIL SPACE) 4. METAL SHADE CANOPY 5. EXISTING BRICK, PATCH AND REPAIR TO MATCH EXISTING 6. ROOFING MEMBRANE WITH ADDITIONAL ROOF INSULATION BELOW 7. METAL TRELLIS 1 11 1 1 1 5 4 5 5 4 4 1 1 1 CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS scale : 1” = 20’-0” 1 4 5 4 7 WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT |OCTOBER, 2019 // WEST ELEVATION SIGNAGE PL AN scale : 1” = 20’-0” 100’110’ North Building, Business 1 Flat Sign 48 sf =12’ x 4’ Code Max: 220 sf * 1/2 = 110 sf North Building, Business 2 Flat Sign 48 sf =12’ x 4’ Code Max: 220 sf * 1/2 = 110 sf Plaza, Pole Sign 48 sf =12’ x 4’ Code Max: 75 sf ,gnidliuBhtuoS Business 1 Flat Sign 30 sf =10’ x 3’ Code Max: 200 sf * 1/3 = 66 sf ,gnidliuBhtuoS Business 2 Flat Sign 30 sf =10’ x 3’ Code Max: 200 sf * 1/3 = 66 sf ,gnidliuBhtuoS Business 3 Flat Sign 30 sf =10’ x 3’ Code Max: 200 sf * 1/3 = 66 sf North Building, North Elevation Flat Sign 75 sf =15’ x 5’ Code Max: 100 sf Plaza Monument Sign 30 sf =10’ x 3’ Code Max: 150 sf, Min 5’ setback 50’50’ South Building, South Elevation Flat Sign 48 sf =12’ x 4’ Code Max: 100 sf North Building, South Elevation Flat Sign 75 sf =15’ x 5’ Code Max: 100 sf 900 South Monument Sign 30 sf =10’ x 3’ Code Max: 150 sf, Min 5’ setback // NORTH ELEVATION// SOUTH ELEVATION END GSBS •11111! ARCHITFCT~ mill WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT I JULY 10, 2019 • 7 >;'---=--:· --1 --\ t ·\-I -, -, --L -1-I--i- I r --, r--1 --,. - T----pr -+ -(" -, f- [--. -~,_ -+ r -+ /' J _" ______..___ ______ __ VIEW FROM ABOVE GSBS •911! ARCHITECTS 11.I WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019 VIEW FROM 900 SOUTH LOOKING NORTHEAST WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019 VIEW FROM I-15 LOOKING NORTHWEST WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019 SHADOW STUDY _ PLAN VIEWWEST END DEVELOPMENT | Shadow Study 05/27/2019Scale: NTS January 10 am January 2 pm January 4 pm January 6 pm April 10 am April 2 pm April 4 pm April 6 pm July 10 am July 2 pm July 4 pm July 6 pm October 10 am October 2 pm October 4 pm October 6 pm WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019 FLOOR PLAN _ GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL: Gross Area 9,675 sf Amenities 1,800 sf Studio 8 Units Parking 78 Stalls LEVEL 1: Gross Area 9,675 sf Studio 11 Units Parking 69 Stalls LEVEL 2-6: Gross Area 34,320 sf 1-bed 8 Units Studio 35 Units -------------------------------------------------- TOTAL: Studio (600 sf) 194 Units 1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units Total 234 Units PARKING: %65 Required Parking: 152 Stalls Provided Parking: 147 Stalls GROUND LEVEL: Amenities 1,800 sf Studio 8 Units Parking 78 Stalls LEVEL 1: Studio 11 Units Parking 81 Stalls LEVEL 2-6: 1-bed 8 Units Studio 37 Units -------------------------------------------------- TOTAL: Studio (600 sf) 204 Units 1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units Total 244 Units PARKING: %65 Required Parking: 159 Stalls Provided Parking: 159 Stalls WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019 FLOOR PLAN _ FIRST LEVEL GROUND LEVEL: Gross Area 9,675 sf Amenities 1,800 sf Studio 8 Units Parking 78 Stalls LEVEL 1: Gross Area 9,675 sf Studio 11 Units Parking 69 Stalls LEVEL 2-6: Gross Area 34,320 sf 1-bed 8 Units Studio 35 Units -------------------------------------------------- TOTAL: Studio (600 sf) 194 Units 1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units Total 234 Units PARKING: %65 Required Parking: 152 Stalls Provided Parking: 147 Stalls GROUND LEVEL: Amenities 1,800 sf Studio 8 Units Parking 78 Stalls LEVEL 1: Studio 11 Units Parking 81 Stalls LEVEL 2-6: 1-bed 8 Units Studio 37 Units -------------------------------------------------- TOTAL: Studio (600 sf) 204 Units 1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units Total 244 Units PARKING: %65 Required Parking: 159 Stalls Provided Parking: 159 Stalls WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019 FLOOR PLAN _ LEVEL 2-6 GROUND LEVEL: Gross Area 9,675 sf Amenities 1,800 sf Studio 8 Units Parking 78 Stalls LEVEL 1: Gross Area 9,675 sf Studio 11 Units Parking 69 Stalls LEVEL 2-6: Gross Area 34,320 sf 1-bed 8 Units Studio 35 Units -------------------------------------------------- TOTAL: Studio (600 sf) 194 Units 1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units Total 234 Units PARKING: %65 Required Parking: 152 Stalls Provided Parking: 147 Stalls GROUND LEVEL: Amenities 1,800 sf Studio 8 Units Parking 78 Stalls LEVEL 1: Studio 11 Units Parking 81 Stalls LEVEL 2-6: 1-bed 8 Units Studio 37 Units -------------------------------------------------- TOTAL: Studio (600 sf) 204 Units 1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units Total 244 Units PARKING: %65 Required Parking: 159 Stalls Provided Parking: 159 Stalls M-1 & R-MU Zoning Comparison REGULATION EXISTING ZONING (M-1) PROPOSED ZONING (R-MU) Lot Area/Width 10,000 SF/ 80 FT Multi-Family Dwellings – No minimum/50 FT Single Family Attached – 3,000 SF/22 FT for interior & 32 FT corner Single Family Detached – 5,000 SF/50 FT Twin Home Dwelling – 4,000 SF/25 FT Two Family Dwelling – 8,000 SF/50 FT Non-Residential Uses – No minimum/No Minimum Other permitted or conditional uses in 21A.33.020 - 5,000 SF/50 FT Setbacks Front Yard – 15 FT Corner Side Yard – 15 FT Interior Side Yard - No setback required Rear Yard – No setback required *All required front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards in conformance with the requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title Front Yard – No setback required; Maximum setback - at least 25% of the building facade must be located within 15 FT of the front lot line Corner Side Yard - No setback required Interior Side Yard - No setback required Rear Yard – 25% of the lot depth/need not exceed 30 FT Parking Setback No specific parking setback regulations Surface Parking Lots Within an Interior Side Yard – 30 FT landscape setback from the front property line or be located behind the primary structure. Parking Structures – 45 FT minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line or be located behind the primary structure. Building Height Building Height – 65 FT Residential Building Height – 75 FT Non-Residential Buildings/Uses – 45 FT (Maximum floor area coverage of nonresidential uses in mixed use buildings is limited to 3 floors) Open Space No specific open space regulations Residential uses and mixed uses containing residential use - 20% of the lot area The following uses are not currently allowed in the M-1 zoning district but are listed as permitted or conditional uses under the proposed R-MU zoning district designation: New Permitted New Conditional Art Gallery Dwelling, group home (large) Bed and breakfast, inn/manor Dwelling, residential support (large) Clinic (medical, dental) Library Daycare, nonregistered home daycare Theatre, movie Dwelling, accessory unit Dwelling, assisted living facility (large) Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity) Dwelling, assisted living facility (small) Dwelling, group home (small) Dwelling, manufactured home Dwelling, multi-family Dwelling, residential support (small) Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house Dwelling, single-family (attached) Dwelling, single-family (detached) Dwelling, twin home and two family Eleemosynary facility Funeral home Mixed use development The uses in the table below are currently listed as permitted or conditional uses in the land use table for the M-1 zoning district. These uses below would no longer be allowed under the proposed R-MU zoning district: Changing from Permitted to Not Allowed Changing from Conditional to Not Allowed Alcohol, Distillery Animal, Raising of furbearing animals Alcohol, Winery Animal, Stockyard Animal, Cremation service Community correctional facility (large) Animal, Kennel Community correctional facility (small) Animal, Pet Cemetery Concrete and/or asphalt manufacturing Animal, Pound Grain Elevator Bakery, commercial Railroad freight terminal facility Blacksmith shop Railroad repair shop Bottling plant Recycling, processing center (outdoor) Brewery Rock, sand, and gravel storage and distribution Building materials distribution Utility, electric generation facility Bus line station/terminal Utility, sewage treatment plant Bus line yard and repair facility Utility, solid waste transfer station Check cashing/payday loan business Vehicle, automobile salvage and recycling (outdoor) Contractor’s yard/office Changing from Permitted to Not Allowed Changing from Conditional to Not Allowed Equipment, heavy (rental, sales, service) Equipment rental, (indoor and/or outdoor) Food processing Gas station Golf course Greenhouse Hotel/motel Impound lot Industrial assembly Large wind energy system Laundry, commercial Light manufacturing Package delivery facility Parking (commercial, off-site, park and ride lot, park and ride lot shared with existing use) Photo finishing lab Printing plant Radio, television station Recycling, collection station Recycling, processing center (indoor) Restaurant with a drive through Retail goods establishment with a drive through Sexually oriented business Sign painting/fabrication Small brewery Storage and display (outdoor) Storage, public (outdoor) Storage, self Store, convenience Studio, motion picture Taxicab facility Tire distribution retail/wholesale Truck freight terminal Vehicle, auction Vehicle, automobile truck and repair Vehicle, automobile truck and rental (including large truck) Vehicle, automobile, part sales Vehicle, automobile salvage and recycling (indoor) Vehicle, Recreational vehicle sales and service Vehicle, truck repair (large) Changing from Permitted to Not Allowed Changing from Conditional to Not Allowed Warehouse Welding shop Wholesale distribution Woodworking mill City Plan Considerations Adopted City Plan Policies and Guidance Zoning map amendments are reviewed for compliance with City master plans and adopted policies. The below plans were adopted for the area: • Westside Master Plan (Current Community Plan) o The subject properties are located along the north end of the 700 West industrial corridor which is between I-15 and 800 West from 800 South to approximately 1700 South. o The steps identified for gradual change along the 700 West corridor include —zoning changes, design guidelines and capital improvements. o The plan includes several goals for increasing the community’s residential density. o Adding more commercial and multi-family residential infill should be pursued when the opportunity for redevelopment arises along the corridor. o Residents’ ideas for the future of the 700 West corridor had a focus on phasing out of the intense industrial uses. o Consider permitting residential and commercial infill on vacant parcels in the industrial corridor. Height and bulk regulations for infill development should be as flexible in order to achieve high density development (50 or more dwelling units per acre). o Identify underutilized or unmaintained areas within large residential blocks in the Westside. These mid-block areas should be targeted for development through flexible zoning and design standards. o Some design elements that are used to increase density, such as height and bulk, can be made compatible through appropriate architectural design and landscaping techniques. o Review the uses that are permitted in the current light manufacturing zoning district and determine if a new zone may be more appropriate. A new district should more specifically regulate building and site design and should completely prohibit any uses that produce noxious odors, fumes or other discharge or other uses that rely heavily on outdoor storage. • 9 Line Corridor Master Plan o Major & Minor Gateways - The 9 Line enjoys an excellent relative location in the Salt Lake Valley, passing many important transportation corridors, neighborhood nodes, parks and other points of interest. Nowhere is this more obvious than at several of the major potential gateways to the corridor; places where the 9 Line intersects with important modes of transportation such as UTA Trax, or the Jordan River Parkway. In order to increase its visibility, and to welcome potential corridor users, these important intersections – major and minor – should be considered gateways, and provide the appropriate amenities and infrastructure to that end. Moreover, they should consider the needs of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. o Where the 9-line passes under I-15 is a major gateway and 700 West acts is identified as a minor gateway. o On 900 S between the I-15 node and the 9th and 9th node is identified as a Corridor Type C - The corridor is widest in this area connecting users to regional parks and neighborhood commercial centers along the paved trailway. This area features a mixture of residential, commercial and light industrial uses. The neighborhood node at 900 South & 900 West presents a strong opportunity to catalyze future development o I-15 Node Analysis and Potential - The 9 Line corridor changes dramatically between I-15 and 900 West. Adjacent land uses in this section of the corridor transition from commercial and light industrial on the eastern end to neighborhood commercial, single-family residential and open space on the west end. There is some vacant land and a new bike park adjacent to the Interstate which present opportunities for programmed activities and other trailway development. • Plan Salt Lake o Growth – Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. o Housing – Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people oriented. o Beautiful City - Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that is people-focused, responds to its surrounding context and enhances the public realm, reflects our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage and is sustainable, using high quality materials and building standards. o Create opportunities to connect with nature in urban areas. o Reinforce and preserve neighborhood and district character and a strong sense of place. o Preservation - Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. o Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate. o Economy - Support the growth of small businesses, entrepreneurship and neighborhood business nodes. • Growing SLC o Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes o Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of life  Salt Lake City Comprehensive Housing Policy The Salt Lake City Comprehensive Housing Policy was adopted on March 1, 2016. The Housing Policy represents the City Council’s efforts to establish a policy direction to address current conditions in Salt Lake City. The intent is that this direction will be followed whenever the City engages in housing funding assistance, zoning and land use planning, master planning neighborhoods, and creating economic incentives. Additionally, the Housing Policy is intended to achieve the following that relate to the requested rezone:  Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition  Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City  Promote a diverse and balanced community by ensuring that a wide range of housing types and choices exist for all income levels, age groups, and types of households • Transit Master Plan o 900 S is identified as a high priority corridor as it provides opportunities for additional east/west cross- town connections as well as connections. 900 W is also discussed as improving connections to the neighboring Fairpark and Glendale communities. o Building off existing plans and policies, the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan recognizes the importance of land use, street connectivity, and placemaking to implement a well-used and attractive frequent transit network (FTN). The FTN must be supported by a concentration of land uses, connections to key destinations, a rich mix of uses, and interconnected streets. The Transit Master Plan embraces these concepts to help achieve the City’s goals to increase transit ridership in Salt Lake City. o Provide a rich mix of uses that support street-level activity throughout the day and night. A diversity of land uses (including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and recreational uses) promotes walking and transit ridership, and reduces driving. o A mix of land uses allows more daily needs to be met within shorter distances, encouraging people to walk and take transit for more trips. Land use diversity also creates a more interesting and active urban environment that makes walking and taking transit feel safer and more attractive at all times of the day and night o Salt Lake City also plays an important role in working with developers to set standards for new development. These standards can help ensure land uses support the FTN, including: Pedestrian-oriented design: Identify design standards that promote pedestrian-oriented urban design features, such as active frontages built right to the street with parking located at the rear of the building and landscaping that provides a buffer between the sidewalk and the street. o Land use and placemaking recommendations –Continue to monitor zoning along the FTN to ensure transit is supported by a mix of uses, adequate densities, parking requirements, and other transit supportive elements. o Provide a mix of housing options along the FTN to support housing affordability and diversity Staff Discussion As discussed in the considerations section of the staff report, the proposal generally complies with the master plan policies for the area by providing the opportunity to add more compatible commercial and residential infill along the 700 W corridor and along 900 S which acts as an important gateway into the broader Westside community. The proximity to Downtown, the Jordan River and the 9 Line Trail all make the area attractive to many residents. The proposed R-MU zone would allow for residential uses that are not permitted under the existing M-1 zoning designation, which further promotes the goals and visions of city plans by promoting redevelopment of underutilized land. The proposed R-MU zone also restricts some of the industrial uses allowed in M-1 that currently have a negative visual impact on this Westside gateway such as outdoor storage of materials and finished products. Analysis of Zoning Amendment Standards ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS 21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: FACTOR FINDING RATIONALE 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Complies The property is located within the Westside Master Plan area. See Attachment D for discussion of relevant City policies and plans and the proposal’s compliance. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The purpose of the R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District is to reinforce the mixed-use character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high density residential urban neighborhoods containing retail, service commercial, and small-scale office uses. This district is appropriate in areas of the City where the applicable master plans support high density, mixed use development. The standards for the district are intended to facilitate the creation of a walkable urban neighborhood with an emphasis on pedestrian scale activity while acknowledging the need for transit and automobile access. In compliance with this purpose statement, the proposed location of the zoning district fits the location criteria of the zone. The zone would be located in an area supported by the master plan for a mixed of uses including high density residential. The standards of the R-MU zone, such as distance from the buildings to the sidewalk, also help promote a walkable urban neighborhood with pedestrian scale activity. 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; Complies The proposed R-MU zoning district would allow a mix of land uses and residential uses that are not currently allowed by the M-1 zoning. The development standards in the R- MU zoning district are intended to encourage the development of areas as a mix of compatible residential and commercial uses, which is consistent with the Master Plan policies and goals in this area. The proposal would add residential uses as allowed uses to the properties; however, even though the surrounding properties are zoned M-1, many of the adjacent properties contain residential uses so the proposed zone would be more compatible with the existing uses than the M-1 zoning district. Many of the more visually and environmentally impactful industrial uses that are currently allowed in the M-1 zone would no longer be allowed under the requested zoning designation. See Attachment C for a comparison of the permitted and conditional uses in the M-1 and R-MU zone. The proposed zoning district does allow for heights up to 75’ for residential development, which is an increase in 10’ from the 65’ that is currently allowed in the M-1 zone, however, staff does not believe that to be a substantial change that would cause any different or significantly increased impacts than a 65' building. Additionally, the R-MU zone requires a rear yard setback (25% of the lot depth) whereas is in the M-1 zone, there is no setback requirement and the allowed uses may be more impactful to surrounding residential uses. The proposed R-MU zoning is not anticipated to introduce substantive new or additional negative impacts to adjacent properties. The proposal will lessen the potential for negative impacts in a number of ways versus the current development allowances under the M-1 zoning designation. Given the likely future transition of the area into one of mixed-use zoning, specifically the 700 W industrial corridor and the 900 S gateway into Westside neighborhoods, having mixed-use zoning along the frontage of 700 W as well as 900 S is desirable in the context of future development and plans for the area. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the Complies The proposed map amendment is not within any overlay zoning district. This standard is not applicable to the proposal. purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards 5. 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 No comment was provided by the Public Utilities Department; however, the subject property is located within a built environment where public facilities and services already exist. The site is currently served by 900 south, 700 west, Genesee Ave, and a public right of way. Future development on these properties, such as commercial or multifamily development may require upgrading utilities and drainage systems that serve the properties. Any required infrastructure upgrades will be evaluated with a specific site development plan. Photographs View of subject site from 900 S facing north View of subject site from 900 S facing north east View of subject site from corner of 900 S and 700 W facing north west View of subject public right of way from 900 S facing north View of subject site from Genesee Ave. facing south View across the street to the south of the subject site – south side of 900 S View of surrounding development on the block face to the west of the subject site View of surrounding development – 800 W facing east View of surrounding development to the north of the subject site – Genesee Ave. facing west View of surrounding development on Genesee west of subject site Public Process And Comments The following attachment lists the public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project. All written comments that were received throughout this process are included within this attachment. Poplar Grove and Glendale Community Council Meetings The property is within the boundaries of Poplar Grove Community Council. Planning staff nor the applicant were invited to speak at a Poplar Grove or Glendale Community Council meeting regarding this proposed zoning map amendment request; however, prior to submitting the previous rezone application, the applicants attended the September 25, 2019 Poplar Grove Community Council meeting, which was hosted on the subject site in the vacant warehouse buildings. During the meeting the applicant discussed their plans to request a rezone for the properties and their ideas and intent for future development of the site with multi-family housing. Planning Staff also attended the meeting to answer any city process and zoning related questions. Questions were asked about height, design standards, and building materials that would be applicable under the requested R-MU zoning district. Early Notification A notice of application was sent to the chair of the Poplar Grove & Glendale Community Councils. The Community Councils were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or comments. Notice of the application was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project. The purpose of this notice is to inform surrounding property owners and residents that an application has been submitted, provide details regarding the request, outline steps in the planning review and decision making process, and to let them know how to obtain more information and submit comments early on in the review process. City Open House Because the property is located within 600 feet of two community council districts, the City Planning Division held an online open house on the Salt Lake City website for the proposal in order to obtain feedback from residents and property owners and to provide information about the public process and City regulations. For the open house, the City provided mailed notice to residents and property owners within approximately 300 feet of the proposal two weeks in advance of the open house. Notices were also e-mailed to the City’s general Planning mailing list and to those individuals that requested notice for meetings for the proposal. Public Hearing Notice The Planning Division provided the following notices for the Planning Commission meeting: • Mailed notice sent October 2, 2020 • E-mailed notice to listserv sent October 2, 2020 • Public hearing notice signs posted on the property October 2, 2020 Public Input Received Planning Staff received a letter of support from the Glendale Community Council. No other formal public comments have been received as of the publication of this staff report. Glendale Community Council 1375 S. Concord Street Salt Lake City, UT 84104 Board of Directors Turner C Bitton Chair Ashley King First Vice Chair Latu Patetefa Second Vice Chair Jeremy King Treasurer Dane Hess Past Chair Ryan Curtis At-Large Member July 27, 2020 Chris Earl Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S State St Rm 406 PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City UT 84114-5480 RE: PLNPCM2020-00442 Dear Chris, It is my pleasure to submit this letter on behalf of the Glendale Community Council. After our review, we would like to express our enthusiastic support for the zoning map amendment proposed in this development. With the current shortage of housing in Salt Lake City, more is always welcome. Above that, though, the prospect of commercial development is very exciting to us. Here on the west side, residents often have to travel outside the neighborhood for basic things like shopping and dining; projects like this are sorely needed. The proposed development is exactly the kind of thing that Glendale's residents have repeatedly expressed interest in for the past several years. It will act as an anchor to bring much-anticipated commercial development to the east side of the neighborhood and tie the neighborhood together in a more cohesive manner. Adding more amenities to our community is a step in the right direction and we look forward to seeing this development move forward in the process. Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on the development. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to engage in discussions affecting our neighborhood. Thank you, Turner C. Bitton Chair, Glendale Community Council City Department Review Comments Transportation Transportation doesn't have any issues with the rezone. Engineering No objections to the proposed rezone. Public Utilities No comment provided. Fire Building Services finds no Fire Code related issues associated with this rezone. Building Services Building Services finds no building code or zoning related issues associated with this rezone. SLC Real Property Management Salt Lake City property management authorizes the applicant to move forward with the small portion of the city owned alley included in the rezone request. Please include a condition that the rezone is subject to the petitioner entering into a Purchase Agreement with the City to acquire the vacated alley if the vacation is approved by the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION - October 14, 2020 c) Agenda/Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION - October 14, 2020 d) Staff Presentation Slides Planning Commission Zoning Map Amendment715 W Genesee Avenue PLNPCM2020-00442 Current Zoning: •M-1 Light Manufacturing Requested Zone: •R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. Subject Properties Planning Commission Zoning Map Amendment715 W Genesee Avenue PLNPCM2020-00442 Planning Commission Zoning Map Amendment715 W Genesee Avenue PLNPCM2020-00442 Planning Commission Zoning Map Amendment715 W Genesee Avenue PLNPCM2020-00442 Subject Property Subject Properties Planning Commission Zoning Map Amendment715 W Genesee Avenue PLNPCM2020-00442 Planning Commission Zoning Map Amendment715 W Genesee Avenue PLNPCM2020-00442 Planning Commission Zoning Map Amendment715 W Genesee Avenue PLNPCM2020-00442 Key Considerations: Existing City Plan Guidance o The rezone request aligns with many policies found within the Westside Master Plan. o The rezone request helps to promote the visions found in the 9 Line Master Plan. o Supports the goals found in Plan Salt Lake and Growing SLC. o Promotes goals found within the Transit Master Plan. Design Standards o The proposed R-MU zoning only has two design standards. o New development in this area would benefit from additional design standards. o Planning Staff is of the opinion the design standards applicable to the D-2 zoning district should be applied to any new project on the subject parcels developed under the proposed R-MU zoning district. Planning Commission Zoning Map Amendment715 W Genesee Avenue PLNPCM2020-00442 Public Process: •Notice was sent to the Poplar Grove and Glendale Community Councils •Early notification was sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject area •Public comments Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. PLANNING COMMISSION - October 14, 2020 e) Additional Public Comments 5) ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITION a) PLNPCM2019-01137 ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITION b) PLNPCM2020-00442 WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019VIEW FROM 900 SOUTH LOOKING NORTHEAST WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019VIEW FROM I -15 LOOKING NORTHWEST WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019SHADOW STUDY _ PL AN VIEWJanuary 10 am January 2 pm January 4 pm January 6 pmApril 10 am April 2 pm April 4 pm April 6 pmJuly 10 am July 2 pm July 4 pm July 6 pmOctober 10 am October 2 pm October 4 pm October 6 pm WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019FLOOR PL AN _ G ROUND LEVE LGROUND LEVEL: Gross Area 9,675 sf Amenities 1,800 sf Studio 8 Units Parking 78 StallsLEVEL 1: Gross Area 9,675 sf Studio 11 Units Parking 69 StallsLEVEL 2-6: Gross Area 34,320 sf 1-bed 8 Units Studio 35 Units --------------------------------------------------TOTAL: Studio (600 sf) 194 Units 1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units Total 234 UnitsPARKING: %65 Required Parking: 152 Stalls Provided Parking: 147 Stalls GROUND LEVEL: Amenities 1,800 sf Studio 8 Units Parking 78 StallsLEVEL 1: Studio 11 Units Parking 81 StallsLEVEL 2-6: 1-bed 8 Units Studio 37 Units --------------------------------------------------TOTAL: Studio (600 sf) 204 Units 1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units Total 244 Units PARKING: %65 Required Parking: 159 Stalls Provided Parking: 159 Stalls WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019FLOOR PL AN _ FIRST LEVE L GROUND LEVEL: Gross Area 9,675 sf Amenities 1,800 sf Studio 8 Units Parking 78 StallsLEVEL 1: Gross Area 9,675 sf Studio 11 Units Parking 69 StallsLEVEL 2-6: Gross Area 34,320 sf 1-bed 8 Units Studio 35 Units --------------------------------------------------TOTAL: Studio (600 sf) 194 Units 1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units Total 234 UnitsPARKING: %65 Required Parking: 152 Stalls Provided Parking: 147 Stalls GROUND LEVEL: Amenities 1,800 sf Studio 8 Units Parking 78 StallsLEVEL 1: Studio 11 Units Parking 81 StallsLEVEL 2-6: 1-bed 8 Units Studio 37 Units --------------------------------------------------TOTAL: Studio (600 sf) 204 Units 1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units Total 244 Units PARKING: %65 Required Parking: 159 Stalls Provided Parking: 159 Stalls WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019FLOOR PL AN _ LEVEL 2- 6GROUND LEVEL: Gross Area 9,675 sf Amenities 1,800 sf Studio 8 Units Parking 78 StallsLEVEL 1: Gross Area 9,675 sf Studio 11 Units Parking 69 StallsLEVEL 2-6: Gross Area 34,320 sf 1-bed 8 Units Studio 35 Units --------------------------------------------------TOTAL: Studio (600 sf) 194 Units 1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units Total 234 UnitsPARKING: %65 Required Parking: 152 Stalls Provided Parking: 147 Stalls GROUND LEVEL: Amenities 1,800 sf Studio 8 Units Parking 78 StallsLEVEL 1: Studio 11 Units Parking 81 StallsLEVEL 2-6: 1-bed 8 Units Studio 37 Units --------------------------------------------------TOTAL: Studio (600 sf) 204 Units 1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units Total 244 Units PARKING: %65 Required Parking: 159 Stalls Provided Parking: 159 Stalls 6) MAILING LIST OWN_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY OWN_STATOWN_ZIP ROCKWOOD INVESTMENT GROUP 162 DUNLOP CT PARK CITY UT 84060 MARIA NOVOA 1160 N COLONEL RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JLC AUTO SALES, LLC 16 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SCOTT W SIMONS 711 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 NICHOLAS R STODDARD 819 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 JACOB W SEITZ-SAMPSON; LEI 825 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 JOSE G D ALEMAN 835 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 EFRAIN CABRERA 837 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 4B PROPERTIES, LLC 748 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ASHMENT & PASILLAS LLC 830 S 700 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SQUARE KITCHEN, LLC 434 N HODGES LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 4B PROPERTIES, LLC 748 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 QUALITY CARPENTRY, LLC 10284 N CARRIAGE LN CEDAR HILLS UT 84062 MICHAEL J HOPPER; HERMELIN 865 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 JIMMY FERNANDEZ 869 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 BRITT K VELTRI 871 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ROBERT G MAY; DRM TR 729 S KILBY CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ROBERT G MAY; DRM TRST 729 S KILBY CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ARLINE STONE; TRACY BUTTER 763 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 2251 E ALVA CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 GENESEE, LLC 755 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 LINNUS WEGE 751 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ROSA M VEGA 756 W 900 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 JESUS CHACON; RAQUEL CHAVE 750 W 900 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 PETER R VIOLETTE; ALANA C 1576 ELVADO DRWAY #6 SIMI VALLEY CA 93065 PETER R VIOLETTE; ALANA C 1576 ELVADO DRWAY #6 SIMI VALLEY CA 93065 J & B PROPERTIES UTAH 2 LL 729 S KILBY CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 LINDA M BEDDICK 851 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 LAWRENCE H IV FRAMME 847 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 UNREAL ESTATE LLC 767 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ARLINE STONE; TRACY BUTTER 763 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 RFG 1 LLC PO BOX 17232 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 RFG 3 LLC PO BOX 17232 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 WEST END LLC 345 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 WEST END LLC 205 HUDSON ST NEW YORK NY 10013 WEST END LLC 205 HUDSON ST NEW YORK NY 10013 WEST END LLC 205 HUDSON ST NEW YORK NY 10013 WEST END LLC 205 HUDSON ST NEW YORK NY 10013 TEODORO NAVA; SOCORRO ALAT 715 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 WEST END LLC 205 HUDSON ST NEW YORK NY 10013 WEST END LLC 205 HUDSON ST NEW YORK NY 10013 SALT LAKE CO PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 SUMMUM OF SALT LAKE CITY 707 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 WEST END LLC 205 HUDSON ST NEW YORK NY 10013 WEST END, LLC 205 HUDSON ST NEW YORK NY 10013 ROSE PRINTING CO.680 W 900 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 LLP GEOSTAR ENTERPRISES 930 S 700 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 UTAH PAPER BOX COMPANY 920 S 700 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 LRM PARTNERS, LLC 15302 PIPELINE LN HUNTINGTON BEACA 92649 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 POPLAR GROVE COMMUNITY COUNCIL CHAIR - ERIK LOPEZ 848 W. ARAPAHOE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION- AMY THOMPSON PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 Occupant PARCEL_ADDR CITY ZIPCODE STATE Current Occupant 765 W 800 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 755 W 800 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 747 W 800 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 823 S 800 W Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 756 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 751 W 800 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 853 S 800 W Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 875 S 800 W Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 792 W 900 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 757 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 748 W 900 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 746 W 900 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 766 W 900 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 765 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 855 S 800 W Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 857 S 800 W Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 739 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 733 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 723 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 721 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 717 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 740 W 900 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 706 W 900 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 710 W 900 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 755 W 900 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 959 S 800 W Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 939 S 700 W Salt Lake City 84104 UT Current Occupant 675 W 900 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT 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:Sam Owen, Policy Analyst DATE:February 16, 2021 RE:2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing on the proposed Street Lighting master plan. The new plan synthesizes community feedback and technical advice into a document by which the department proposes to guide street lighting improvement and maintenance throughout the city. The plan seeks to create accommodation for different lighting needs and desires throughout the city. Adoption of the street lighting master plan does not have a budget impact for this fiscal year; however it is likely that deliberation on and adoption of the plan would pave the way for a new capital improvement program and financial strategy for the Street Lighting enterprise fund. These subsequent phases would have budgetary impacts for the enterprise fund, as well as potential impacts to ratepayers. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND From the transmittal: “The most recent street lighting plan was completed in 2006. In 2013, the management of the streetlight system was transferred from the Transportation Division to the Department of Public Utilities. This transfer included changing the funding source for the operation, maintenance and capital improvements of the system from the General Fund and Special Assessment Areas [SAA] to a newly created street lighting enterprise fund.” The city provides different tiers of lighting service through the Street Lighting enterprise fund that the current system inherited from the previous SAA structure; for example, enhanced lighting areas in Rose Park, Yalecrest, and in the downtown area are assessed different rates for corresponding lighting service that varies from the basic streetlighting in most of the city. Additionally, the department maintains a private lighting program that receives a $20,000 annual grant from the general fund. This funding allows property owners to obtain matching funds from the city for private light installation in the public right-of-way. Maintenance of those private lights is the responsibility of the property owner, although the department facilitates access to a lighting contractor to support that. From the transmittal: “During the first few years of conversion to the new LED fixtures mainly within industrial, commercial and higher density residential areas, Public Utilities received more positive feedback than negative. When installation [of new LED lights] began in the residential neighborhoods, Item Schedule: Briefing: February 16, 2021 Public Hearing: TBD Potential Action: TBD Page | 2 there were more complaints. Residents were not pleased with the brightness of the lights as well as the white light emitted. The City is also proactively working on various streets projects, community improvement projects, pedestrian and bicycle friendly projects, and issues related to crime. Street lighting has a role to play in all of these endeavors.” To this end, the plan also contemplates its intersections with other adopted city planning documents. (transmittal page 39 et seq., plan page 19 et seq.) The department conducted extensive outreach through community and technical advisor groups. A more detailed report on the outreach is located in the transmittal on pages three and four. Furthermore, Council Members met in small groups with the administration to discuss the plan over the summer of 2020. ATTACHMENTS 1. Administration transmittal POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Council Members often receive persistent and sometimes conflicting requests from community members and community groups for lighting. a. The Council might be interested in hearing from the administration about how requests from community members and community groups would be vetted so that lighting implementation takes place with inclusive engagement. b. Council Members might wish to know how the administration proposes resolving conflicting lighting requests; e.g. would those be resolved by taking polls of property owners; what other methods would be available to determine how to move forward when requests are conflicting for one area. 2. Council Members have adopted the expectation through resolution that master plans go through a vetting process that includes review by the city’s Planning Commission. The Street Lighting master plan has been in progress since before that resolution was officially adopted in 2020. The Council has adopted other planning documents since the resolution adoption that have not been reviewed by the Planning Commission. a. Council Members might wish to request feedback from the administration on the potential value of the Planning Commission reviewing the lighting plan before its potential adoption. 3. The Council might wish for more specific figures related to the anticipated annual budget impact when it comes to ongoing, regular implementation of the guidance in the plan. a. Additionally, when it comes to annual budget deliberations for the Street Lighting enterprise fund, the Council might request a more extensive oversight and guidance role when it comes to capital planning and appropriations for each coming year, not unlike the general fund capital improvement program process. b. An opportunity to review this enterprise fund budget in greater depth each year and throughout the interim could give the Council greater opportunity to review the capital planning and budget proposals for equity considerations. c. Because the technical and service requirements of the Street Lighting fund are different from the other Public Utilities enterprise funds, additional budget oversight and engagement could be more appropriate when it comes to the improvements and expansions of the city’s lighting system on the basis of the proposed plan. Page | 3 4. Community members have inquired about the creation of enhanced lighting areas through the general fund capital improvement program (CIP). Council Members might ask for feedback from the department about the feasibility of creating these enhanced lighting areas through general fund CIP, and then transferring the asset to the enterprise fund for maintenance and cost recovery through increased lighting fees. APPENDIX A The master plan proposes the following policy statements (transmittal page 18; plan page 10): Based on the application of planning guideposts and input of the steering and technical committees, the master plan implements the following major policies: • Street lighting will enhance safety through the implementation of industry recognized standards. • Street lighting standards include allowances to encourage dimming strategies relating to pedestrian activity, wildlife and dark skies lighting. • Street lighting will minimize the obtrusive effects of light at night resulting from light trespass, light pollution, and glare through the selection and placement of appropriate poles, fixtures, light type, and light levels. • Provide pedestrian lighting in accordance with neighborhood plans and in accordance with the typologies in this plan. • Provide street and pedestrian lighting that minimizes impacts to sensitive wildlife species. • Select fixture types to provide dark skies protection. • Implementation based on neighborhood and community input to determine pole, fixture type, maximum and minimum light level, and the implementation of adaptive dimming applications when appropriate. The plan also enumerates a number of implementation priorities and steps; “proposed for highest priority are neighborhoods current underserved for street and/or pedestrian lighting based on adjacent land uses.” (plan page 11) Furthermore, “high conflict areas” such as neighborhood byways and transit stations are proposed to be highest priority. High conflict refers to the potential for an area to have a diversity of uses and needs. The plan offers a helpful side-by-side table showing how the policy proposals have been revised from their 2006 predecessors. (transmittal pages 34-35, plan pages 14-15) Page | 4 APPENDIX B The plan proposes the following process for implementation (transmittal page 19, plan page 11). This process, all four steps, would take place systematically based on recommendations and classifications made in the plan. STEP ONE: • Identify high conflict areas in the City • Review the current lighting map to identify underserved neighborhoods and high conflict areas • Respond to request from community or neighborhood for lighting change STEP TWO: • Contact community and neighborhood representatives to identify priorities and review options according to the matrix •Identify neighborhood-preferred option according to the matrix STEP THREE: • Estimate cost of preferred option • Seek funding approval STEP FOUR: • Design, schedule and implement preferred option Page | 5 APPENDIX C Page | 6 APPENDIX D ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR LAURA BRIEFER, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 1 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL _______________________ Date Received: ___________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 10-14-2020 FROM: SUBJECT: Amy Fowler, Chair Laura Briefer, Director, Department of Public Utilities 2020 Salt Lake City Street Light Master Plan STAFF CONTACTS: Jesse Stewart, Deputy Director, jesse.stewart@slcgov.com; Jason Brown, PE, Chief Engineer, jason.brown@slcgov.com; David Pearson, PE, Street Lighting Manager, david.pearson@slcgov.com; Jeff Snelling, PE, Senior Engineer, jeff.snelling@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the 2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan. BUDGET IMPACT: The adoption of the 2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan does not have a budget impact for this fiscal year. The Street Lighting Utility budget is prepared annually, and implementation of this proposed plan will be reflected in future annual budgets. Due to certain recommended changes related to pedestrian lighting and safety, it is anticipated that Public Utilities will need to prepare an updated capital improvement program and financial strategy for the Street Lighting Enterprise Fund to implement the Plan beginning in Fiscal Year 2022. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City was the 5th City in the United States to have streetlights. The City’s first systematic plan for installing streetlights was adopted in 1908. The most recent street lighting plan was completed in 2006. In 2013, the management of the streetlight system was transferred from the Transportation Division to the Department of Public Utilities. This transfer included changing the funding source for the operation, maintenance and capital improvements of the system from the General Fund and Special Assessment Areas (SAA’s) to a newly created street lighting enterprise fund. Currently Public Utilities maintains over 15,500 streetlights within Salt Lake City boundaries. The Street Lighting Enterprise Fund was primarily developed to maintain existing lighting and upgrade fixtures to newer technology LED. First generation LED lights installed had few options regarding lumen output (measure of light output and brightness) and color temperature (whiteness of the light). The City’s practice was to replace the older fixtures with LED fixtures at the same lumen output using a 4,000-Kelvin temperature, which at the time was the industry standard. These new LED fixtures had the same measurable light output but were perceived as a brighter light. During the first few years of conversion to the new LED fixtures mainly within industrial, commercial and higher density residential areas, Public Utilities received more positive feedback than negative. When installation began in the residential neighborhoods, there were more complaints. Residents were not pleased with the brightness of the lights as well as the white light emitted. The City is also proactively working on various streets projects, community improvement projects, pedestrian and bicycle 10/14/2020 1/13/2021 Lisa Shaffer (Jan 13, 2021 13:43 MST) friendly projects, and issues related to crime. Street lighting has a role to play in all of these endeavors. 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan Development and Content In 2018, Public Utilities began the process of updating the Streetlighting Master Plan (Plan). This planning effort includes a review and update of policies related to the system, engagement of stakeholders in the planning process and design guidance for the City’s street light system. Public Utilities partnered with GSBS Consulting and Clanton & Associates to develop the Plan. This Plan provides design guidance for improving street and pedestrian lighting that will create a quality nighttime visual experience while being more energy efficient. Four guideposts, developed by stakeholder committees, that include Safety, Character, Responsibility, and Equity, drive the Plan’s policies. The Plan also draws on bodies of knowledge throughout the world regarding advancements in the technology and science of how we can light our public ways. The 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan incorporates two volumes, including the Master Plan itself and Technical Guidance and Implementation guide. Both are attached to this transmittal, as well as the Executive Summary for the Master Plan. Primary components of the Plan include: •System Background •System Evaluation •Plan Guideposts •Street Lighting Basics Overview •Process for Evaluating the Lighted Environment •Comprehensive Improvements •Minimal Improvements •Lighting Controls and Adaptive Dimming Strategies •Lighting Calculations •Appendices o Lighting Terms o Meeting Notes o Existing Conditions Report o Nocturnal Infrastructure for Ecological Health (report) o Luminaire Submittal Form If approved, the 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan would implement the following major policy statements for the City: 1)Street lighting will enhance safety through the implementation of industry recognized standards. 2)Street lighting standards will include allowances to encourage dimming strategies relating to pedestrian activity, wildlife, and dark skies lighting. 3) Street lighting will minimize the obtrusive effects of light at night resulting from light trespass, light pollution, and glare through the selection and placement of appropriate poles, fixtures, light type, and light levels. 4) Provide pedestrian lighting in accordance with neighborhood plans and in accordance with the typologies of this Plan. 5) Provide street and pedestrian lighting that minimizes impacts to sensitive wildlife species. 6) Select fixture types to provide dark skies protection. 7) Implementation based on neighborhood and community input to determine pole, fixture type, maximum and minimum light level, and the implementation of adaptive dimming applications when appropriate. Funding and prioritization are the key drivers in implementation of the polices, standards, and strategies in the Plan. Implementation recommendations outlined in the Plan are as follows: 1)Priority One a.Neighborhoods currently underserved for street and/or pedestrian lighting based on adjacent land uses b. High conflict areas including school zones, bus stops, transit stations, and neighborhood byways. 2)Priority Two a. Areas with non-compliant existing street lighting. 3) Ongoing a. Replacement of lamps with LED luminaires on regular maintenance schedule as appropriate. b. Replacement of non-compliant street lighting in areas of ecological sensitivity. c. Installation of dimming capability. d. New development or redevelopment proposals. 4) Step One a. Identify high conflict areas in the City b. Review the current lighting map to identify underserved neighborhoods. c. Respond to requests from community or neighborhoods for lighting changes 5) Step Two a. Contact community and neighborhood representatives to identify priorities and review options according the matrix developed in the Plan. b. Identify the community preferred option. 6) Step Three a. Estimate cost of preferred option. b. Seek funding approval/develop financial strategy 7) Step Four a. Design, schedule, and implement the preferred option. If the Plan is adopted, it will reflect public feedback and the City’s street lighting system will be better incorporated into City livability and development goals. Major changes in the 2020 Plan from the 2006 Plan include a systematic approach for choosing lighting strategies of public ways based on adjacent land use, pedestrian activity, and street typology. Procedures for determining pedestrian lighting are included, as are lighting procedures for environmentally sensitive areas. Because of this, the current base street lighting standard will likely change depending on the land use, pedestrian activity, and street typology. It is anticipated that Public Utilities will need to prepare an updated capital improvement program and schedule for the street lighting system if this Plan is adopted, along with an updated evaluation of street lighting rates, rate structure and financial strategies for capital improvements. PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Utilities consistently receives feedback regarding the current lighting system, both positive and negative. A major driver of the 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan includes this public feedback. For instance, Public Utilities has received feedback regarding the performance of LED fixtures, public safety, environment, and equity. As part of the Plan effort, three groups were formed to advise in the development of the Plan. The first group, the Advisory Committee, consisted of representatives from each City Council District recommended by City Councilmembers or Council staff. Advisory Committee members were asked to provide input on lighting in their specific district and in common areas of the City. Throughout the course of developing the Plan this committee helped in evaluating the existing system and provided guidance pertaining to the Plan’s scope and reach. A second group formed as a Technical Committee consisting of staff from City Departments and Divisions who hold a direct interest in the street lighting program. Technical Committee members include representatives from Salt Lake City Police Department, Fire Department, Sustainability Department, Engineering Division, Planning Division, and the Urban Forestry Division. Technical Committee members provided input based on their unique responsibilities with respect to how streetlighting influenced their tasks. This committee provided direction in how lighting design criteria could assist in meeting the City’s goals and more specifically, helping to accomplish their Department’s individual responsibilities. The third group was formed from stakeholders in the community including representatives from agencies and groups in the transportation, education, environmental, and business sectors who have a vested interest in Salt Lake City. The primary purpose of this group was to provide input as the Plan progressed. This provided a level of transparency and allowed for feedback to ensure the Plan had a solid foundation to address the multiple values of a comprehensive lighting system. Public Utilities and the GSBS Consulting team met with the Advisory and Technical Committees to help frame the vision and goals of the Plan. The committees were encouraged to offer their opinion on existing lighting conditions throughout the City and what improvements could be made. These Committees toured 17 sites throughout the City with varied lighting characteristics and land use. At each of these sites committee members were asked several questions to gauge their opinion on the existing lighting conditions. The GSBS Consulting team also took light measurements at each of these locations to compare with current industry lighting standards. Using the data collected from the measured light readings and input from the committees, GSBS created an Existing Lighting Conditions report. This report summarized current lighting conditions to assist with developing design criteria and a future implementation plan using the guideposts detailed in the Plan. Meetings and Formal Engagement: •November 5, 2018: Street Lighting Site Tour and Surveys – Advisory and Technical Committees •April 3, 2019: Street Lighting 101 – Advisory Committee •April 25, 2019: Visioning Session – Advisory Committee •April 26, 2019 – Technical Committee •May 24, 2019: City Council and Mayor’s Office Briefing •July 29 and 30, 2019: Stakeholder Update •April 2019 – November 2019: Public Street Lighting Survey, 160 respondents •January 8, 2020: Progress Update – Advisory Committee •October 22nd, 2020: Public Utilities Advisory Committee (planned) Enclosures: Draft Ordinance Adopting the 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan Executive Summary 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan Volume 1 – Master Plan (June 2020) 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan Volume 2 – Technical Guidance and Implementation (June 2020) SALT LAKE CITY, UT Street Lighting Master Plan VOLUME 1 - MASTER PLAN JUNE 2020 3 INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS..........7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................. 9 Current System Evaluation ................................9 Policy Statements ................................................10 Implementation Steps ..........................................11 SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORY ..........................13 CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION ..........................16 CURRENT LIGHTING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS ...16 2006 Street Lighting Master Plan .............16 Special Improvement Districts ...................16 Private Lighting Program ..............................16 EXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS ........................17 Process ...................................................................17 CITY PLANNING GUIDANCE .................................19 Plan Salt Lake ......................................................19 Neighborhood Master Plans ......................20 Lighting Levels & Gaps ..................................24 Evaluation by Community/District ..........25 PLAN GUIDEPOSTS ..................................................27 Safety .........................................................................27 Character ..................................................................27 Responsibility .........................................................27 Equity .........................................................................28 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW ..................29 SYSTEMWIDE CONSIDERATIONS ............................29 Health and Wellbeing..........................................29 Wildlife Impacts .....................................................29 LIGHTING CHARACTERISTICS ..................................29 Appropriate Light Levels ..................................29 Glare Reduction .....................................................31 Uniformity vs. Contrast ......................................32 Adaptation ...............................................................33 Color Rendering and Nighttime Visibility ....................................................................34 Color Temperature and Nighttime Visibility .....................................................................35 Light Trespass ........................................................36 Light Pollution ........................................................37 COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION ................................38 Initial Costs ..............................................................38 Long Term Life Cycle Costs .............................38 Maintenance ............................................................39 Energy ........................................................................39 Standardization .....................................................39 STREET LIGHTING PLAN..........................................40 Lighting Improvement Strategies ...........40 Purpose ................................................................40 Lighting Layout Strategies .........................40 Street Lighting Only ........................................42 Street and Pedestrian Lighting .................43 Pedestrian Lighting Only .............................44 TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS 4 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 Special Lighting Districts ............................ 45 Intersection Lighting .....................................46 Vertical Illumination in Crosswalks ..........47 Bus Stop ..............................................................48 Environmentally Protected Areas ...........48 IMPLEMENTATION OF UPGRADED LIGHTING .......48 Street Lighting Equipment and Technology ........................................................50 Lighting Improvements Complexity & Cost ...........................................52 Minimal 1-for-1 Replacements .....................52 Supplemental .....................................................52 Comprehensive .................................................52 PRIORITIZING LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS ...........52 Areas Underserved by Street Lighting ...................................................53 High Priority Conflict Areas ........................53 1-for-1 Lighting Improvements ...................57 APPENDIX ..........................................................59 A. Glossary of Lighting Terms ........................59 B. Committee Meeting Notes ..........................61 C. Existing Conditions Report Presentation ......................................................67 D. Nocturnal Infrastructure for Ecological Health ...........................................89 E. Luminaire Submittal Forms ......................123 5 FIGURE 1: Site Evaluation Map ...................................10 FIGURE 2: Neighborhood Master Plans Map – 2017 ...........................................20 FIGURE 3: Street Light Density Map .......................24 FIGURE 4: Community Character Map ..................25 FIGURE 5: Appropriate Light Level ..........................29 FIGURE 6: Glare Reduction ...........................................31 FIGURE 7: Uniformity Vs. Glare ..................................32 FIGURE 8: Adaptation ....................................................33 FIGURE 9: Color Rendering ........................................34 FIGURE 10: Color Temperature ..................................35 FIGURE 11: Light Trespass .............................................36 FIGURE 12: Light Pollution ............................................37 FIGURE 13: Initial Costs: Guidepost Synergy & Balance ...............................................................................38 FIGURE 14: Energy ..........................................................39 FIGURE 15: Street Lighting Warrants Matrix .........41 FIGURE 16: Street Lighting Only Cross Section ..................................................................42 FIGURE 17: Street & Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section............................................... 43 FIGURE 18: Pedestrian Only Lighting Cross Section...............................................44 FIGURE 19: Cactus Lights Cross Section .............. 45 FIGURE 20: Intersection Lighting Plan ..................46 FIGURE 21: Crosswalk Lighting ..................................47 FIGURE 22: School Locations .....................................53 FIGURE 23: Bus Stop Locations ................................54 FIGURE 24: Transit Stations .........................................55 FIGURE 25: Neighborhood Byways .........................56 TABLE OF FIGURES TABLE OF TABLES TABLE 1: Plan Policy Statement Comparison 2006-2020 ........................................................................14 TABLE 2: Street and Sidewalk Lighting Conditions Council District Locations ..................17 TABLE 3: Street and Sidewalk Existing Lighting Ratings ............................................19 TABLE 4: Street Lighting Policy and Implementation Items .........................................21 TABLE 5: Lighting Layout Strategy By Land Use ....................................................................49 TABLE 6: Recommended Luminaries By Land Use ......................................................................51 6 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 7 The 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan was developed with the input and guidance of two committees and reviewed by a Stakeholders group. The Advisory Committee included representatives from: • Each City Council District • Department of Public Utilities • Mayor’s Office The Advisory Committee met six times during the process to provide guidance on policy issues: • Street Lighting Site Tour & Surveys (November 5, 2018) • Street Lighting 101 (April 3, 2019) • Visioning Session (April 25, 2019) • Council & Mayor’s Office Briefing (May 24, 2019) • Stakeholder Update (July 30, 2019) • 50% Progress Update (January 8, 2020) The Advisory Committee created a list of lighting concerns and priorities for each district across the City as well as provided guidance on the City’s street lighting vision and guideposts. Notes from their meetings are found in the appendix. The second committee was the Technical Committee with representatives from the following City departments: • Police • Fire • Sustainability • Engineering • Planning • Urban Forestry Technical Committee members represented the interests of their departments in the master planning process. They also participated in the street lighting site tour. Technical Committee input also contributed to the vision and guiding principles used in the planning process. Notes from their meetings are found in the appendix. The current system evaluation and the plan vision and guideposts were reviewed by stakeholder groups on July 29-30, 2019 with representatives from: • Education • Business • Transit/Multi-modal transportation • Environmental Stakeholder input is included in this draft plan. This draft plan is submitted to the City Council for review, possible revision, and adoption. Following adoption, the Department of Public Utilities will hold a series of community meetings to familiarize residents, developers, and stakeholders on the policies, standards and processes included in this plan.INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS 8 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY Salt Lake City requested an evaluation of existing street lighting conditions and a master plan to aid in transitioning all Salt Lake City-owned street lighting from a high pressure sodium system to an LED system, a process begun in 2013. In addition, the master plan identifies methods to improve visibility and aesthetics while reducing energy and maintenance through a lighting control system. The master plan identifies new street lighting standards for retrofit and new construction. The goal of this document is to provide Salt Lake City with a consistent approach for street and pedestrian lighting that creates a quality nighttime visual experience. 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 plan identifies a strategy that balances safety, character, responsibility, and equity using a series of guideposts for evaluating the lit environment and the technical elements of a streetlighting system. CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION The Advisory and Technical Committees along with the consulting team surveyed seventeen locations in the city. In addition, the consulting team conducted nighttime surveys and measured the light levels along primary arterial, minor arterial, collector and local streets. Survey sites were selected in each Council District to represent a variety of existing lighting conditions throughout the city. Based on the survey and evaluations, the consulting team created an Existing Conditions Report (Appendix C) to aid the city in understanding relationship of visual perception to measured light levels. The consulting team categorized each survey site according to IES standards acceptability light level, lamp wattage, street type, luminaire spacing and measured lighting levels. The four levels of acceptability are: • Excellent. the survey sites identified as “Excellent” received the highest scores from the Advisory and Technical Committees, indicating excellent visibility, appropriate light levels, low glare, uniformity and good color. • Acceptable. the street meets lighting standards based on street classification and existing luminaire spacing. Block faces categorized as “Acceptable” require only LED retrofit. • Moderate. the street does not meet lighting standards based on street classification and existing luminaire spacing. Block faces categorized as “Moderate” require minor improvements to address relatively small dark spaces between poles as well as LED retrofit. • Poor. the street has very low or no street lighting. Block faces categorized as “Poor” require significant investment in new lighting and electrical infrastructure to meet lighting standards. As seen in Figure 1, of the sites surveyed, 17 percent are categorized as Excellent, 35 percent are Acceptable, 24 percent are Moderate and 24 percent are Poor. The following policy statements are intended to guide the approach to addressing identified needs and gaps in the City’s current street lighting as well as apply to future changes in the system. 10 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARYPOLICY STATEMENTS Based on the application of planning guideposts and input of the steering and technical committees, the master plan implements the following major policies: • Street lighting will enhance safety through the implementation of industry recognized standards. • Street lighting standards include allowances to encourage dimming strategies relating to pedestrian activity, wildlife and dark skies lighting. • Street lighting will minimize the obtrusive effects of light at night resulting from light trespass, light pollution, and glare through the selection and placement of appropriate poles, fixtures, light type, and light levels. • Provide pedestrian lighting in accordance with neighborhood plans and in accordance with the typologies in this plan. • Provide street and pedestrian lighting that minimizes impacts to sensitive wildlife species. • Select fixture types to provide dark skies protection. • Implementation based on neighborhood and community input to determine pole, fixture type, maximum and minimum light level, and the implementation of adaptive dimming applications when appropriate. The standards and implementation strategies to achieve Salt Lake City’s major street lighting policies are included in this plan. Salt Lake City utilizes IES standards with allowances to respond to pedestrian, wildlife, and dark skies priorities. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 SLC Public Utilities Excellent Site Acceptable Site Moderate Site Poor Site 1000 North I-80 Redwood RoadSouth Temple 400 South 900 South 1300 South 1700 South Sunnyside Avenue Footh i l l D r ive 1300 East700 EastState StreetI-15900 West1 2 Figure 1: Site Evaluation Map Site # Site Name Street Classification Existing Lighting Sterling & American Beauty Dr. Local / Residential Excellent Riverside Park & 600 North Arterial / Park Acceptable Redwood Rd. & South Temple Collector / Industrial Poor 700 South & Post Street Local / Residential Poor 500 West & Dalton Ave.Arterial / Residential Acceptable Glendale Dr. & Navajo St. Collector / Residential / Commercial Moderate J St. & 2nd Ave. Local / Residential Poor 800 East & South Temple Arterial / Commercial Excellent 200 South & Floral St. Arterial / Commercial Excellent 650 South & Main St. Arterial / Commercial Acceptable 700 East & Harrison Ave.Arterial / Residential Poor 900 East & 900 South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable Layton Ave. & West Temple Local / Residential Moderate 1500 South & Yale Collector / Residential Acceptable 19th East & Sunnyside Arterial / Residential / Commercial Moderate 1400 East & Redando Local / Residential Moderate 1000 East & 2100 South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11 IMPLEMENTATION STEPS Funding and prioritization are the key drivers in implementation of the policies, standards, and strategies in this plan. Road classification and adjacent land use are the driving factors in selection of street lighting type, spacing and light levels. There are neighborhoods and high conflict areas of the City that are recommended for priority implementation. In all cases, the initial step in implementation is coordination with the community and immediate neighborhood to ensure that the solution identified meets resident, business owner and user needs. Implementation recommendations prioritize the following: • PRIORITY ONE: - Neighborhoods currently underserved for street and/or pedestrian lighting based on adjacent land uses. - High conflict areas including: • School Zones • Bus Stops • Transit Stations • Neighborhood Byways • PRIORITY TWO: - Areas with non-compliant existing streetlighting (luminaire, light source or pole spacing) • ONGOING: - Replacement of lamps with LED luminaires on regular maintenance schedule as appropriate - Replacement of non-compliant street lighting in areas of ecological sensitivity - Installation of dimming capability at neighborhood request - New development or redevelopment proposals STEP ONE: • Identify high conflict areas in the City • Review the current lighting map to identify underserved neighborhoods and high conflict areas • Respond to request from community or neighborhood for lighting change STEP TWO: • Contact community and neighborhood representatives to identify priorities and review options according to the matrix • Identify neighborhood-preferred option according to the matrix STEP THREE: • Estimate cost of preferred option • Seek funding approval STEP FOUR: • Design, schedule and implement preferred option 12 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK SALT LAKE CITY, UT Street Lighting Master Plan VOLUME 1 - MASTER PLAN JUNE 2020 3 INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS..........7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................9 Current System Evaluation ................................9 Policy Statements ................................................10 Implementation Steps ..........................................11 SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORY ..........................13 CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION ..........................16 CURRENT LIGHTING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS ...16 2006 Street Lighting Master Plan .............16 Special Improvement Districts ...................16 Private Lighting Program ..............................16 EXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS ........................17 Process ...................................................................17 CITY PLANNING GUIDANCE .................................19 Plan Salt Lake ......................................................19 Neighborhood Master Plans ......................20 Lighting Levels & Gaps ..................................24 Evaluation by Community/District ..........25 PLAN GUIDEPOSTS ..................................................27 Safety .........................................................................27 Character ..................................................................27 Responsibility .........................................................27 Equity .........................................................................28 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW ..................29 SYSTEMWIDE CONSIDERATIONS ............................29 Health and Wellbeing..........................................29 Wildlife Impacts .....................................................29 LIGHTING CHARACTERISTICS ..................................29 Appropriate Light Levels ..................................29 Glare Reduction .....................................................31 Uniformity vs. Contrast ......................................32 Adaptation ...............................................................33 Color Rendering and Nighttime Visibility ....................................................................34 Color Temperature and Nighttime Visibility .....................................................................35 Light Trespass ........................................................36 Light Pollution ........................................................37 COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION ................................38 Initial Costs ..............................................................38 Long Term Life Cycle Costs .............................38 Maintenance ............................................................39 Energy ........................................................................39 Standardization .....................................................39 STREET LIGHTING PLAN..........................................40 Lighting Improvement Strategies ...........40 Purpose ................................................................40 Lighting Layout Strategies .........................40 Street Lighting Only ........................................42 Street and Pedestrian Lighting .................43 Pedestrian Lighting Only .............................44 TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS 4 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 Special Lighting Districts ............................45 Intersection Lighting .....................................46 Vertical Illumination in Crosswalks ..........47 Bus Stop ..............................................................48 Environmentally Protected Areas ...........48 IMPLEMENTATION OF UPGRADED LIGHTING .......48 Street Lighting Equipment and Technology ........................................................50 Lighting Improvements Complexity & Cost ...........................................52 Minimal 1-for-1 Replacements .....................52 Supplemental .....................................................52 Comprehensive .................................................52 PRIORITIZING LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS ...........52 Areas Underserved by Street Lighting ...................................................53 High Priority Conflict Areas ........................53 1-for-1 Lighting Improvements ...................57 APPENDIX ..........................................................59 A. Glossary of Lighting Terms ........................59 B. Committee Meeting Notes ..........................61 C. Existing Conditions Report Presentation ......................................................67 D. Nocturnal Infrastructure for Ecological Health ...........................................89 E. Luminaire Submittal Forms ......................123 5 FIGURE 1: Site Evaluation Map ...................................10 FIGURE 2: Neighborhood Master Plans Map – 2017 ...........................................20 FIGURE 3: Street Light Density Map .......................24 FIGURE 4: Community Character Map ..................25 FIGURE 5: Appropriate Light Level ..........................29 FIGURE 6: Glare Reduction ...........................................31 FIGURE 7: Uniformity Vs. Glare ..................................32 FIGURE 8: Adaptation ....................................................33 FIGURE 9: Color Rendering ........................................34 FIGURE 10: Color Temperature ..................................35 FIGURE 11: Light Trespass .............................................36 FIGURE 12: Light Pollution ............................................37 FIGURE 13: Initial Costs: Guidepost Synergy & Balance ...............................................................................38 FIGURE 14: Energy ..........................................................39 FIGURE 15: Street Lighting Warrants Matrix .........41 FIGURE 16: Street Lighting Only Cross Section ..................................................................42 FIGURE 17: Street & Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section...............................................43 FIGURE 18: Pedestrian Only Lighting Cross Section...............................................44 FIGURE 19: Cactus Lights Cross Section ..............45 FIGURE 20: Intersection Lighting Plan ..................46 FIGURE 21: Crosswalk Lighting ..................................47 FIGURE 22: School Locations .....................................53 FIGURE 23: Bus Stop Locations ................................54 FIGURE 24: Transit Stations .........................................55 FIGURE 25: Neighborhood Byways .........................56 TABLE OF FIGURES TABLE OF TABLES TABLE 1: Plan Policy Statement Comparison 2006-2020 ........................................................................14 TABLE 2: Street and Sidewalk Lighting Conditions Council District Locations ..................17 TABLE 3: Street and Sidewalk Existing Lighting Ratings ............................................19 TABLE 4: Street Lighting Policy and Implementation Items .........................................21 TABLE 5: Lighting Layout Strategy By Land Use ....................................................................49 TABLE 6: Recommended Luminaries By Land Use ......................................................................51 6 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 7 The 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan was developed with the input and guidance of two committees and reviewed by a Stakeholders group. The Advisory Committee included representatives from: • Each City Council District • Department of Public Utilities • Mayor’s Office The Advisory Committee met six times during the process to provide guidance on policy issues: • Street Lighting Site Tour & Surveys (November 5, 2018) • Street Lighting 101 (April 3, 2019) • Visioning Session (April 25, 2019) • Council & Mayor’s Office Briefing (May 24, 2019) • Stakeholder Update (July 30, 2019) • 50% Progress Update (January 8, 2020) The Advisory Committee created a list of lighting concerns and priorities for each district across the City as well as provided guidance on the City’s street lighting vision and guideposts. Notes from their meetings are found in the appendix. The second committee was the Technical Committee with representatives from the following City departments: • Police • Fire • Sustainability • Engineering • Planning • Urban Forestry Technical Committee members represented the interests of their departments in the master planning process. They also participated in the street lighting site tour. Technical Committee input also contributed to the vision and guiding principles used in the planning process. Notes from their meetings are found in the appendix. The current system evaluation and the plan vision and guideposts were reviewed by stakeholder groups on July 29-30, 2019 with representatives from: • Education • Business • Transit/Multi-modal transportation • Environmental Stakeholder input is included in this draft plan. This draft plan is submitted to the City Council for review, possible revision, and adoption. Following adoption, the Department of Public Utilities will hold a series of community meetings to familiarize residents, developers, and stakeholders on the policies, standards and processes included in this plan.INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS 8 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY Salt Lake City requested an evaluation of existing street lighting conditions and a master plan to aid in transitioning all Salt Lake City-owned street lighting from a high pressure sodium system to an LED system, a process begun in 2013. In addition, the master plan identifies methods to improve visibility and aesthetics while reducing energy and maintenance through a lighting control system. The master plan identifies new street lighting standards for retrofit and new construction. The goal of this document is to provide Salt Lake City with a consistent approach for street and pedestrian lighting that creates a quality nighttime visual experience. 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 plan identifies a strategy that balances safety, character, responsibility, and equity using a series of guideposts for evaluating the lit environment and the technical elements of a streetlighting system. CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION The Advisory and Technical Committees along with the consulting team surveyed seventeen locations in the city. In addition, the consulting team conducted nighttime surveys and measured the light levels along primary arterial, minor arterial, collector and local streets. Survey sites were selected in each Council District to represent a variety of existing lighting conditions throughout the city. Based on the survey and evaluations, the consulting team created an Existing Conditions Report (Appendix C) to aid the city in understanding relationship of visual perception to measured light levels. The consulting team categorized each survey site according to IES standards acceptability light level, lamp wattage, street type, luminaire spacing and measured lighting levels. The four levels of acceptability are: • Excellent. the survey sites identified as “Excellent” received the highest scores from the Advisory and Technical Committees, indicating excellent visibility, appropriate light levels, low glare, uniformity and good color. • Acceptable. the street meets lighting standards based on street classification and existing luminaire spacing. Block faces categorized as “Acceptable” require only LED retrofit. • Moderate. the street does not meet lighting standards based on street classification and existing luminaire spacing. Block faces categorized as “Moderate” require minor improvements to address relatively small dark spaces between poles as well as LED retrofit. • Poor. the street has very low or no street lighting. Block faces categorized as “Poor” require significant investment in new lighting and electrical infrastructure to meet lighting standards. As seen in Figure 1, of the sites surveyed, 17 percent are categorized as Excellent, 35 percent are Acceptable, 24 percent are Moderate and 24 percent are Poor. The following policy statements are intended to guide the approach to addressing identified needs and gaps in the City’s current street lighting as well as apply to future changes in the system. 10 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARYPOLICY STATEMENTS Based on the application of planning guideposts and input of the steering and technical committees, the master plan implements the following major policies: • Street lighting will enhance safety through the implementation of industry recognized standards. • Street lighting standards include allowances to encourage dimming strategies relating to pedestrian activity, wildlife and dark skies lighting. • Street lighting will minimize the obtrusive effects of light at night resulting from light trespass, light pollution, and glare through the selection and placement of appropriate poles, fixtures, light type, and light levels. • Provide pedestrian lighting in accordance with neighborhood plans and in accordance with the typologies in this plan. • Provide street and pedestrian lighting that minimizes impacts to sensitive wildlife species. • Select fixture types to provide dark skies protection. • Implementation based on neighborhood and community input to determine pole, fixture type, maximum and minimum light level, and the implementation of adaptive dimming applications when appropriate. The standards and implementation strategies to achieve Salt Lake City’s major street lighting policies are included in this plan. Salt Lake City utilizes IES standards with allowances to respond to pedestrian, wildlife, and dark skies priorities. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 SLC Public Utilities Excellent Site Acceptable Site Moderate Site Poor Site 1000 North I-80 Redwood RoadSouth Temple 400 South 900 South 1300 South 1700 South Sunnyside Avenue Footh i l l D r ive 1300 East700 EastState StreetI-15900 West1 2 Figure 1: Site Evaluation Map Site # Site Name Street Classification Existing Lighting Sterling & American Beauty Dr. Local / Residential Excellent Riverside Park & 600 North Arterial / Park Acceptable Redwood Rd. & South Temple Collector / Industrial Poor 700 South & Post Street Local / Residential Poor 500 West & Dalton Ave.Arterial / Residential Acceptable Glendale Dr. & Navajo St. Collector / Residential / Commercial Moderate J St. & 2nd Ave.Local / Residential Poor 800 East & South Temple Arterial / Commercial Excellent 200 South & Floral St.Arterial / Commercial Excellent 650 South & Main St.Arterial / Commercial Acceptable 700 East & Harrison Ave.Arterial / Residential Poor 900 East & 900 South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable Layton Ave. & West Temple Local / Residential Moderate 1500 South & Yale Collector / Residential Acceptable 19th East & Sunnyside Arterial / Residential / Commercial Moderate 1400 East & Redando Local / Residential Moderate 1000 East & 2100 South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11 IMPLEMENTATION STEPS Funding and prioritization are the key drivers in implementation of the policies, standards, and strategies in this plan. Road classification and adjacent land use are the driving factors in selection of street lighting type, spacing and light levels. There are neighborhoods and high conflict areas of the City that are recommended for priority implementation. In all cases, the initial step in implementation is coordination with the community and immediate neighborhood to ensure that the solution identified meets resident, business owner and user needs. Implementation recommendations prioritize the following: • PRIORITY ONE: - Neighborhoods currently underserved for street and/or pedestrian lighting based on adjacent land uses. - High conflict areas including: • School Zones • Bus Stops • Transit Stations • Neighborhood Byways • PRIORITY TWO: - Areas with non-compliant existing streetlighting (luminaire, light source or pole spacing) • ONGOING: - Replacement of lamps with LED luminaires on regular maintenance schedule as appropriate - Replacement of non-compliant street lighting in areas of ecological sensitivity - Installation of dimming capability at neighborhood request - New development or redevelopment proposals STEP ONE: • Identify high conflict areas in the City • Review the current lighting map to identify underserved neighborhoods and high conflict areas • Respond to request from community or neighborhood for lighting change STEP TWO: • Contact community and neighborhood representatives to identify priorities and review options according to the matrix • Identify neighborhood-preferred option according to the matrix STEP THREE: • Estimate cost of preferred option • Seek funding approval STEP FOUR: • Design, schedule and implement preferred option 12 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 13 SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORYSalt Lake City was the fifth city in the United States to have electric lights. By 1887, streetlights were operating on Main Street and along First and Second South Streets. The City’s first systematic plan for locating streetlights was adopted in 1908. The most recent previous update to Salt Lake City’s streetlighting plan was completed in 2006 when the system was operated and maintained by the Salt Lake City Transportation Department within the Community Development Department. In 2012 responsibility for streetlight policy, operations and maintenance was transferred to the Street Lights Department within the Department of Public Utilities. This move coincided with the implementation of a monthly user included in business and residential public utility bills along with drinking water, wastewater, stormwater and sanitation services. The Department manages and maintains more than 15,500 streetlights in Salt Lake City and has overseen the conversion of the City’s inventory to high-energy efficiency LED lamps with a target completion date of 2021. The Department placed the conversion to LED streetlights on hold in 2018 to allow this Street Lighting Master Plan to guide the conversion of the remaining streetlights. As part of the Street Light Master Plan update, the current system was reviewed and recommendations for changes to the system and updates to Salt Lake City’s streetlighting policies were developed. In addition, guidance for installation of new lighting in newly developed areas as well as changes to existing areas is included in Volume 2 - Technical Guidance and Implementation Plan. SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORY 14 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORYThe 2012 LED conversion project implements the 2006 Master Plan policy statements. In the interim there have been lighting technology advances, revisions in standards and a new awareness of the impact of exterior lighting on human and environmental health as well as attention to dark skies initiatives. This plan updates Salt Lake City’s policies and standards to reflect these advances and changes. Table 1 provides a comparison of the 2006 Street Lighting Master Plan policy statements and revisions and additions to those policy statements recommended in this update to the Plan. TABLE 1 - PLAN POLICY STATEMENT COMPARISON 2006 TO 2020 2006 PLAN POLICY STATEMENT 2020 PLAN PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDED POLICY REVISIONS/ADDITIONS Salt Lake City lighting standards are based on IES recommendations Revise policy: Salt Lake City lighting standards are based on IES recommendations with allowances for adaptive standards that encourage dimming strategies relating to pedestrian activity, community engagement, wildlife and dark skies lighting. Lighting level and design will be upgraded to current standards as lights are replaced and new lights are installed No Change All newly installed utility lines shall be underground No Change When practical installation of underground conduit for utility lines shall be included in road reconstruction projects No Change Only dedicated publicly owned streets are eligible for street lighting funded by the City No Change (Possible future revision for public alleyways. Discussion with transportation and planning.) Placement of street light poles shall meet safety standards including lateral clearance requirements No Change Energy efficient lights shall be used for new and replacement lighting. Revise policy to balance energy efficiency with human/environmental health. Process to identify areas better suited to amber LEDs primarily for open space and wildlife. All new streetlights must meet, at a minimum, the “dark sky semi-cutoff” standard with the exception that all new “shoe box” or “cobra head” style streetlights must meet the “dark sky cutoff” standard. Provide street and pedestrian lighting that reduces the obtrusive effects of light at night, including light trespass that intrudes on private property, light pollution to preserve dark skies, and glare that reduces visibility and annoys drivers, pedestrians and residents. 15 SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORY2006 PLAN POLICY STATEMENT 2020 PLAN PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDED POLICY REVISIONS/ADDITIONS Lighting appropriate for conditions shall insure uniform and safe lighting on major streets and commercial district streets No change to the policy. Standards relating to decorative poles and fixtures to be updated. Standards relating to private lighting standards in the Northwest Quadrant to be developed. Public input may be sought regarding fixture and pole type in commercial areas Additional public input may be sought to determine maximum and minimum light levels on residential collector and local streets for adaptive dimming application. Residential neighborhoods may adopt a decorative street light fixture and pole from the approved list on non-major streets in accordance with a neighborhood master plan No Change All new and replacement lighting shall be from the approved list developed by the City Transportation Engineer No change to the policy (except departmental designation.) Possible changes to the approved list. It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Transportation Department to support the use of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles in the design and operation of street lighting within Salt Lake City. No Change (except departmental designation) It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Transportation Department to support the use of banners on street light poles to enhance a sense of community and contribute to traffic calming. No Change (except departmental designation) It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Transportation Department to coordinate the location of new street lights with the Salt Lake City Forester and, in turn, coordinate on the planting of new trees such that both are compatible in providing desired benefits to the neighborhood. No Change (except departmental designation) Provide street and pedestrian lighting that minimizes impacts to sensitive wildlife species. Pedestrian scale lights (typically 12’ to 15’ mounting height) are on any streets where streetlighting alone does not effectively illuminate the sidewalk due to shadowing from trees, or the location of the sidewalk in relation to the street. Pedestrian scale lights on local residential streets to minimize light trespass and create more pedestrian friendly streets, and in commercial areas to encourage pedestrian usage. 16 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION2006 STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN Salt Lake City last published a Street Lighting Master Plan in 2006. While most of the lighting principles and goals from 2006 are continued in this master plan, technical advancements in lighting equipment have allowed improvements to be made in the control and application of light. The 2006 Master Plan pushed the lighting in the city to be safer and more pedestrian friendly while minimizing light pollution and light trespass. It encouraged the use of decorative luminaires to match the character of the neighborhood or enhance downtown commercial districts. These principles of safety and character established in 2006 are guideposts to this Master Plan and will be continued in the lighting strategies and principles throughout the City. The new Master Plan is striving to create a more pedestrian centric city where auto-alternate solutions can be safer and more widely used. The new plan is still encouraging the use of decorative luminaire options in certain areas throughout the city but is requiring enhanced control of light to further minimize light pollution and light trespass. Since 2006 advances in LED technology have allowed for significant increases in control of light distribution and color. The new Master Plan takes advantage of these advances to recommend the best lighting solutions for each block based on adjacent land use, pedestrian volume, and environmentally sensitive areas. The new plan sets luminaire criteria for lumen output, distribution, and color temperature to ensure appropriate and effective lighting that aims to reduce light pollution and light trespass. Additionally, this master plan provides guidance on lighting controls to help the City establish a citywide wireless control network that will assist in more efficient management and control of streetlights. SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS Certain areas within the City have decorative lighting as a replacement or supplement to the baseline lighting as part of a Special Improvement District. In these residential or commercial areas, the property managers agree to pay the capital costs for new or replacement lighting plus 75% of the ongoing operating and maintenance costs. Special Improvement Districts include the Cactus Poles in the downtown commercial area and the pedestrian post top lights in the Rose Park Neighborhood. PRIVATE LIGHTING PROGRAM In 1995 Salt Lake City started the Private Lighting program, allowing residents to purchase, install and maintain streetlights on their blocks. The program is designed to allow the residents of Salt Lake to choose the poles and luminaires that are installed on their block while still ensuring sufficient lighting in the neighborhood. Each block is required to have at least six lights, including at least one at each intersection. Lights are owned by the residents and are connected to home of the owner with underground wiring. Residents can apply for a one-time grant from the city to help offset costs. Depending on funding, the grant can be up to $5,000 per block, but must be matched by the neighborhood, dollar for dollar. The City must approve all lighting equipment and will inspect all installations. CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION 17 CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONEXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS PROCESS The Advisory and Technical Committees surveyed seventeen sites in different areas of the city. The sites were selected based on street type, arterial, collector, or residential, and on their surrounding environments in the city, industrial, commercial, transit or residential. The diversity of the sites provide an understanding of the lighting and environmental conditions found in different neighborhoods and along different transportation corridors throughout the city. Only streets, sidewalks and pedestrian paths in the Public Right of Way were evaluated. Privately owned lighting was not included. The survey asked participants about the street and sidewalk lighting conditions at each of the following seventeen sites. TABLE 2: STREET AND SIDEWALK LIGHTING CONDITIONS COUNCIL DISTRICT LOCATIONS LOCATION CLASSIFICATION COUNCIL DISTRICT Sterling Drive & American Beauty Drive Local/Residential 1 700 North & Riverside Park Arterial/Park 1 Redwood Road & South Temple Collector/Industrial 1 & 2 Boundary 700 South & Post Street Local/Residential 2 900 West & Dalton Avenue Arterial/Residential 2 Glendale Drive & Navajo St.Collector/Residential/ Commercial 2 J St. & 1st Avenue Local/Residential 3 800 East South Temple Arterial/Commercial 3 & 4 Boundary 200 South Floral Street Arterial/Commercial 4 650 South Main Street Arterial/Commercial 4 700 East Harrison Avenue Arterial/Residential 5 900 South & 900 East Arterial/Commercial 5 Layton Ave. & West Temple Local/Residential 5 1500 East & Yale Avenue Collector/Residential 6 1900 East & Sunnyside Arterial/Residential/Commercial 6 1400 East & Redondo Local/Residential 7 1000 East & 2100 South Arterial/Commercial 7 The survey included the following statements to which participants indicated their level of agreement by ranking their response between Strongly Agree and Strongly Disagree. • It would be safe to walk here alone during daylight hours. • It would be safe to walk here alone during darkness hours. • The light is uneven (patchy). • The light sources are glaring. • The lighting is poorly matched to the neighborhood. 18 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONTo supplement survey responses, High Dynamic Range photographs were taken and horizontal and vertical illuminance light measurements recorded for the sidewalks and luminance measurements taken along the roadway at each site. The measurements were compared to recommended levels in the IES Recommended Practice for Roadway Lighting (RP-8-18). Based on survey results, HDR photographic evidence and light measurements, the consulting team rated lighting at each site as Excellent, Acceptable, Moderate or Poor. Excellent rated lighting is sufficient and appropriate on the roadway, provides adequate vertical illumination to allow for object detection and facial recognition. Excellent lighting is relatively uniform, free of direct glare and properly illuminates the roadway and sidewalk. Acceptable rated lighting is comfortable. In some cases, such as residential areas, the light level might be lower than the IES Recommended Practice but the lack of glare and shadowing from surrounding landscaping, along with some surrounding surface brightness, creates a comfortable nighttime environment without light trespass. Moderate rated lighting does not provide enough light on the roadway or on the sidewalk. The color of the light may be inconsistent, and the presence of glare may result in an uncomfortable space. Some of these sites were shadowed due to trees, and lighting was not appropriately spaced. Poor rated lighting occurs when the luminaires are spaced too far apart to provide adequate light levels and uniformity or there are no luminaires on the street at all. These sites included residential areas without sufficient light, industrial sites and an arterial road where lights were malfunctioning. Of the 17 sites evaluated, three were excellent. Of the excellent sites one is a local residential street and two are arterial commercial streets. Six sites were ranked good. Of the good sites five are arterials, one adjacent to a park, one in a residential area, three in commercial areas, and one is a collector in a residential area. Four sites were moderate. Of the moderate sites two are local residential streets, one is a collector in a residential/commercial area, and one is an arterial in a residential/commercial area. Four sites were rated poor. Of the poor sites one is a collector in an industrial area, two are local residential areas and one is an arterial residential area. 19 CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONTable 3: Street and Sidewalk Existing Lighting Ratings SITE #CLASSIFICATION EXISTING LIGHTING RATING 1 Sterling Drive & American Beauty Drive Local/Residential Excellent 2 700 North & Riverside Park Arterial/Park Acceptable 3 Redwood Road & South Temple Collector/Industrial Poor 4 700 South & Post Street Local/Residential Poor 5 900 West & Dalton Avenue Arterial/Residential Acceptable 6 Glendale Drive & Navajo St.Collector/Residential/ Commercial Moderate 7 J St. & 1st Avenue Local/Residential Poor 8 800 East South Temple Arterial/Commercial Excellent 9 200 South Floral Street Arterial/Commercial Excellent 10 650 South Main Street Arterial/Commercial Acceptable 11 700 East Harrison Avenue Arterial/Residential Poor 12 900 South & 900 East Arterial/Commercial Acceptable 13 Layton Ave. & West Temple Local/Residential Moderate 14 1500 East & Yale Avenue Collector/Residential Acceptable 15 1900 East & Sunnyside Arterial/Residential/Commercial Moderate 16 1400 East & Redondo Local/Residential Moderate 17 1000 East & 2100 South Arterial/Commercial Acceptable The ratings provide an understanding of the variety of nighttime environments in different areas of the city and guided the development of improvement options. Each option focuses on improving light levels and uniformity, reducing glare, and enhancing wayfinding. The full report including site specific metrics can be found in Appendix C. CITY PLANNING GUIDANCE PLAN SALT LAKE In Plan Salt Lake adopted in 2015 the community identified 13 guiding principles. Although not always specifically mentioned, high quality street lighting can contribute to achievement of most of the guiding principles. Six of the principles can be directly affected through the implementation of quality street lighting: 1/Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein. 4/A transportation and mobility network that is safe, accessible, reliable, affordable, and sustainable, providing real choices and connecting people with places. 6/Minimize our impact on the natural environment. 7/Protecting the natural environment while providing access and opportunities to recreate and enjoy nature. 20 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION8/A beautiful city that is people focused. 13/A local government that is collaborative, responsive, and transparent. Plan Salt Lake includes specific initiatives to that mention street lighting to achieve the Guiding Principles. These include “Incorporate pedestrian oriented elements, including street trees, pedestrian scale lighting, signage, and embedded art, into our rights-of-way and transportation networks” as an initiative to create a safe mobility network. This is a critical initiative to achieve several other initiatives, including overall connectivity and safety in the public realm. Plan Salt Lake also includes an initiative to “promote and expand the city’s street lighting program throughout the City” as part of the beautiful city Guiding Principle. This is also a critical initiative to achieve several other initiatives, including reinforcing and preserving neighborhood and district character and providing a strong sense of place. In addition, implementation of this Street Lighting Master Plan to identify and address current gaps in service and upgrade overall lighting will contribute to the fulfillment of several other of the Guiding Principles. NEIGHBORHOOD MASTER PLANS Salt Lake City has completed eleven neighborhood master plans for the areas of the City represented on the map in Figure 2. Figure 2: Neighborhood Master Plans Map - 2017 21 CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONThe master plans date from the 1980s through 2017 with amendments and updates. Street lighting is mentioned in many of them as a tool to enhance community character and identify the City’s special lighting district program as a tool for implementation. Several of the plans also identify the installation of pedestrian level lighting as a community enhancement strategy. Some plans identified specific policies and implementation measures relating to street lighting as identified in the table below: TABLE 4: STREET LIGHTING POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION ITEMS COMMUNITY ADOPTION GOAL OR POLICY STATEMENT ACTION OR IMPLEMENTATION ITEMS Avenues 1987 None • Streetscape “demonstration project” to illustrate use of streetscape, including street lighting, to improve the neighborhood. Capitol Hill 1999 Amended 2001 • Coordinate any new street lighting program in designated historic districts with the Historic Landmark Commission to ensure the design of the street lights 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. • Analyze the feasibility and demand for increasing the amount of street lighting in areas of the Capitol Hill Community where needed and determine funding sources. • Develop and implement a consistent lighting and street furniture theme for the Capitol Hill neighborhood (north of North Temple). Central 2002 Amended 2006 • Relate right-of-way designs to land use patterns. • Ensure that public streets are maintained and improved throughout the Central Community • Encourage where appropriate rights- of-way that have landscaped street medians, landscaped park strips, street trees, on-street parking, pedestrian lighting, and furnishings such as major arterials. • Provide consistent neighborhood design themes for street lighting and ensure that street lighting is provided at a pedestrian scale. Coordinate street lighting in designated historic districts with the Historic Landmark Commission to ensure that compatible design and placement patterns are met. 22 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONDowntown 2016 • Make downtown a unique destination for visitors. • A complete pedestrian network that makes walking downtown safe, convenient and comfortable. • A public realm that is looked after 24/7. • A downtown known for its well-maintained public realm. • Maintain and refresh existing policies regarding sidewalk paving materials and street lighting in districts where these items have already been established in this plan or other plans such as the Street Lighting Master Plan. • Address pedestrian safety and comfort issues with regularly planted trees, shortened crossing distances, tighter curb radii, hawk or other pedestrian- activated signals, pedestrian lighting, and regularly spaced benches and seating. • Continue implementation of pedestrian lighting throughout downtown. • Maintain the city improvements such as street lights, seating, and paving. Westside 2014 • Create a more conducive environment for redevelopment at neighborhood nodes. • Street lighting should be emphasized at intersections and be scaled to the pedestrian level. 23 CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONEast Bench 2017 • Business Districts that Promote Neighborhood Identity • Improve the Street Rights-of- way to Create Beautiful and Safe Gateway Corridors • Dark Sky Friendly Lighting • Building features, such as height, placement and materials, as well as street improvements such as signage, landscaping, lighting, paving materials, and pedestrian crossings activate the individual business districts, create a distinct identity, create a sense of place, and help create a more pleasant auto- pedestrian interface. • Establishing a gateway should not stop at creating an entrance feature at the beginning of the street, but should carry through the entire length of the corridor with consistent design treatment, such as street lighting, street furniture, and pavement treatments that relate to the character of each gateway. • The East Bench is the interface between the natural and urban environment. As such the built environment within the community should respect the natural surroundings. One particular aspect of development that can impact both the natural and human environment is lighting. In an effort to minimize disruption to wildlife, impacts on adjacent property, and the community’s enjoyment of the night sky, lighting should: - Only be on when needed; - Only light the area that needs it; - Be no brighter than necessary; - Minimize blue light emissions; and - Be fully shielded and pointing downward. Northwest 1990 None None Northwest Quadrant 2016 • Promote the design of transportation corridors that support the natural landscape • North of I-80, provide a common Northwest Quadrant design theme for the public infrastructure, such as native landscaping, lighting, bridge design, signs, etc. • Use appropriate but minimal levels of lighting to keep sites darker near Natural Areas - Direct lights down and away from natural habitats. - Avoid tall street lights that may negatively impact wildlife habitat. - Use the minimum number of street lights necessary for safety. - Along trails, use lights that only light the trail and not wildlife habitat. • Street lighting should use poles and fixtures that are compatible with the natural environment. 24 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONIt’s clear from Salt Lake City’s adopted policy statements and implementation priorities in both citywide and community-level plans that pedestrian level street lighting is an important element for creating a sense of safety and community. LIGHTING LEVELS & GAPS Implementation of Salt Lake City’s current lighting policy, standards, and approach is illustrated in the streetlight density map in Figure 3. Key Lighting Strategies Heat Map SLC Boundary Streetlights Dense Sparse Each streetlight in the City is represented as a white dot on the map. The density of lighting generated is represented from gray and blue in the lowest light density areas to yellow in the highest light density areas. Not surprisingly, the highest density lighting occurs in Salt Lake’s commercial areas including downtown and the Sugar House business district and along arterials and other major highways. Lowest light density occurs in residential neighborhoods, parks, and industrial areas. Non-Salt Lake City Public Utilities lighting, including the interstate highways, at the University of Utah and at the Salt Lake International Airport, is not represented. Figure 3: Street Light Density Map 25 CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONEVALUATION BY COMMUNITY / DISTRICT The approach to recommended street lighting improvements in this plan is influenced and informed by the street classification, adjacent land use, pedestrian levels, and specific situations found in each area of the City. Because past policies focused on street lighting for safety on the City’s roads, most areas of the city have lighting in compliance with IES and APWA road safety standards. As seen in the summary adopted master plan goals and implementation measures, many neighborhoods in the city would like to see additional pedestrian level lighting. Figure 4 is a map of the existing character districts in the City. Sugar House Wasatch Hollow Liberty Wells Glendale Central City/Liberty Wells Yalecrest Ballpark Central City DowntownPoplar Grove Fairpark Rose Park Capitol Hill Westpointe Greater Avenues SL International Airport East Liberty Wells East Central/Yalecrest East Central East Central/East Liberty Park Downtown/ Central 9th Ballpark/Central 9th East Central/University Gardens Federal Heights/Greater Avenues Residents, developers, and other interested parties can identify existing lighting location and type using the interactive map on the city’s website. The map provides the following information: • Location • Pole type • Luminaire type • Light source Figure 4: Community Character Map 26 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 27 PLAN GUIDEPOSTS PLAN GUIDEPOSTThe Advisory and Technical Committees developed a series of guideposts as a basis of evaluating street and pedestrian lighting characteristics. The four guideposts: • Safety • Character • Responsibility • Equity Lighting improvement strategies and characteristics were evaluated based on these guideposts. The safety, character and responsibility guideposts depend on the district in which the lighting is located and adjacent land uses. The equity guidepost underpins the entire plan and implementation strategy to encourage lighting improvements based on community need. The guideposts are intended to result in design decisions that contribute to safe and comfortable nighttime environments. The application of the guideposts and the design decisions they affect contribute to identifying lighting designs and approaches that best fit the needs of each project. SAFETY Appropriate street and pedestrian lighting improves safety by improving visibility for drivers, bikers, and pedestrians. Effective visibility in the nighttime environment depends more on the quality of light than the quantity. Higher light levels do not always result in better visibility. The qualities of light that achieve excellent visibility and therefore improve safety are: • Appropriate Light Level • Reduced Glare • Uniformity vs. Contrast • Adaptation • Color CHARACTER Salt Lake City’s existing street and pedestrian lighting is diverse with a variety of historic and industrial cobra-head style lights. Special Districts use street lighting to create distinct character and enhance the unique identity of the district. The characteristics of street and pedestrian lighting that can support and enhance the character of an area include: • Scale: Street Scale, Pedestrian Scale • Style: Luminaires, Mounting Brackets, Poles, Pole Bases, Additional Amenities • Appropriate Light Level • Glare • Color: Finish Color, and Color of Light Source RESPONSIBILITY Responsible implementation of street lighting includes minimizing potential negative effects of light intensity and spectrum on human and ecological health balanced with the responsible use of public funds. This is a complex challenge that includes many issues that sometimes require balancing opposing opinions and perspectives. This Master Plan references the 28 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1EXISTING CONDITIONSlatest research in the effects of light intensity and spectrum on visibility and human and ecological health in exterior nighttime environments. To implement the Responsibility guidepost the following issues are considered and balanced: • Light Trespass • Light Pollution • Health & Wellbeing • Impacts on Wildlife • Energy Use • Cost • Maintenance EQUITY The implementation of this Street Lighting Master Plan is intended to address issues related to street lighting in the most equitable way possible. The prioritization of street lighting funding will be an ongoing process within annual budget allocations. Recognizing that there are differing opinions throughout the City about the balance between the Guideposts and how to implement the Lighting Strategies in this master plan, particularly in residential neighborhoods, it is important that there is ongoing public engagement to determine the appropriate lighting strategies within each neighborhood. While some lighting strategies will be optional, there are some minimum requirements for lighting improvements to address safety needs in a consistent way throughout the Salt Lake City. • Ongoing Public Engagement • Prioritizing Areas Currently Underserved by Street Lighting 29 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWSTREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW SYSTEMWIDE CONSIDERATIONS HEALTH AND WELLBEING The natural daily cycle of light and dark is directly linked to the healthy sleep/wake cycles, also known as circadian rhythm. Light is the primary stimulus that triggers the suppression of melatonin in humans. Darkness at night is needed to allow the production of melatonin for healthy and complete sleep. Exposure to blue spectrum light after sunset can delay the nighttime production of melatonin. Controlling glare and light trespass and using light sources with warmer color reduces the exposure to blue spectrum content of LED for street, pedestrian, and area lighting. Warmer colors encourage healthy melatonin and sleep patterns for residents. It is also important to note that the current status of research related to light exposure at night and human health is still ongoing. According to the Lighting Research Center1 at typical street lighting levels, per IES RP-8-18, using LED light sources are “below the threshold for suppressing nocturnal melatonin (in humans) by light at night following a 30-minute exposure”. WILDLIFE IMPACTS Salt Lake City contains important wildlife habitat, from the foothills in the east to the open shore lands of the Great Salt Lake. Additional wildlife habitat is found along the north-south route of the Jordan River and along the four urban creeks extending west and south out of the foothills. Light at night can disrupt these wildlife habitats. Migratory species pass through the city itself, with nocturnally migratory birds attracted to the city lights. Controlling light pollution and light trespass, using only necessary lighting levels, and choosing an appropriate spectrum (color) of light for each area can protect these natural resources. Dimming lights during seasonal bird migrations is another wildlife-friendly approach. LIGHTING CHARACTERISTICS Each of the following characteristics represent considerations and decisions to be made in implementing street lighting in the various areas and neighborhoods of the city. Each characteristic is evaluated based on each of the guideposts. When one or more of the guideposts converge and coalesce around the characteristic, synergy is created. When the guideposts diverge decisions must be made to balance competing needs. Each characteristic is identified and described then evaluated based on four Guideposts. A comparative example of the characteristic is also included to enhance understanding of the concept. APPROPRIATE LIGHT LEVELS Appropriate light levels vary based on roadway classification, adjacent land use, pedestrian activity, and proximity to open space and wildlife habitat. The recommendations in the plan apply adaptive lighting criteria to the Illuminating Engineering Society’s Recommended Practice for Street and Roadway Lighting (IES RP-8-18) to allow for dimming during reduced pedestrian activity and the use of broad spectrum, white light sources, such as LED. Character, Safety and Equity converge around moderate light levels. • Using appropriate amounts of light increases nighttime visibility creating a safer and more comfortable environment. Figure 5: Appropriate Light Level 1 Rea MS, Smith A, Bierman A, Figueiro MG. 2012. The potential of outdoor lighting for stimulating the human circadian system. Alliance for Solid-State Illumination Systems and Technologies (ASSIST) 30 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW • The City is working to upgrade lighting to appropriate light levels based on locations with the greatest need. Appropriate light levels are balanced with environmental responsibility. • In environmentally sensitive areas, lower light levels are desired. The City will be installing more environmentally friendly luminaires with a lower CCT and better glare control Appropriate Light Levels: This photo demonstrates appropriate light levels for a commercial area with medi- um to high pedestrian usage, where moderate light levels provide excellent visibility through out the public streets and sidewalks. 31 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWGLARE REDUCTION Glare is caused by excessive or undesirable light entering the eye from a bright light source. Glare can result in discomfort, annoyance, and decreased visibility. There is the potential for direct glare when a light source is in direct view. The presence of direct glare depends on the intensity of the light source and contrast with the surrounding environment. With direct glare, the eye has a harder time seeing contrast and details. A lighting system designed solely on lighting levels aim more light at higher viewing angles, thus producing more potential for glare. Direct glare can be minimized with careful equipment selection as well as placement. Character, Safety, Equity, and Responsibility converge around reducing glare levels as it leads to more effective lighting and safer, more comfortable environments. Reducing glare: • Improves visibility on the roadways • Creates a more enjoyable nighttime environment • Reduces sky glow and light trespass, minimizing the obtrusive effects of light. Figure 6: Glare Reduction Lights that create glare can result in a range of negative effects for drivers, pedestrians and residents. From annoyance to reduced visibility, and may generate complaints from residents. Lights with low glare provide more comfortable streets and public spaces, providing lights, where it is needed without annoying nearby residents. 32 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWUNIFORMITY VS. CONTRAST Lighting uniformity refers to the evenness of light. Our eyes are continually adapting to the brightest object in our field of view. Any object lighted to 1/10 the level of the immediate surroundings appears noticeably darker. For roadway lighting, good uniformity indicates evenly lighted pavement. However, good visibility requires the contrast of an object against the background. An environment with perfectly uniform lighting provides low contrast, which can reduce visibility. To create enough contrast for good visibility, there should be a balance between uniform perception and having enough contrast to improve visual detection of objects on the road. Uniformity criteria are typically described as ratios of maximum to minimum and average to minimum luminance or Illuminance. Contrast is the difference between two adjacent luminance values. High contrast is necessary for good visibility. Differences in color also produce a visible contrast, even when both objects have similar luminance values, which support the benefits of using higher color rendering sources, as discussed below in the Color Rendering and Nighttime Visibility section. Character, Safety, Equity, and Responsibility converge around semi-uniform medium contrast lighting. This provides the proper balance of uniformity and contrast and is essential to quality lighting design. • Safety on the roadway is improved when street lighting properly strikes this balance, and subtle contrast can add character to an area with a unique lighting design. • When the proper balance of uniformity and contrast is achieved, the lighting is more effective at lower light levels reducing over lighting and light pollution. Figure 7: Uniformity Vs. Glare Color Contrast: In the photos above, the black- and-white image shows that the luminance of the flower and background are very similar. Only when the color is rendered does the color con- trast of the yellow flower make it highly visible next to its background. This demonstrates why street lighting with good color rendering can im- prove visibility of objects in a street, even at the same, or lower light levels. Further study on the effects of color contrast in street lighting appli- cations is needed to understand the improved visibility of broad spectrum light sources at light levels below current IES RP-8-18 recommenda- tions.2 2 Clanton N, Gibbons R, Garcia J, Mutmansky M. 2014. Seattle LED Adaptive Lighting Study. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Report #E14-286 33 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWADAPTATION Adaptation refers to the eye’s ability to adjust between changes in luminance. Our eye will automatically adjust to the brightest object in our field of view. Glare from headlights or fixed lighting can affect one’s ability to adapt to lower surface luminance. This is especially true as one ages. Another form of adaptation occurs when driving from a brightly lighted area to a non- lighted section of roadway. Here, the lighted area should slowly transition to darker to allow adaptation time. Off roadway brightness, such as driving past a brightly lighted gas station or LED sign, can also cause adaptation issues. While this Master Plan does not directly address lighting on private property, it is intended to set an example for future lighting guidelines that could apply these lighting strategies to all exterior lighting in Salt Lake City. Character, Safety, Equity, and Responsibility converge around low to medium levels of visual adaptation to improve visibility when transitioning from private parking lots and property into public streets. • When street lighting and adjacent private lighting is designed to appropriate light levels, the eye can maintain a proper degree of adaptation. When the eye is adapted to the existing light, it is more effective at detecting and identifying objects, increasing safety. Figure 8: Adaptation The privately owned lighting at this auto dealership are too bright and lack proper shielding creating high adaptation issues transitioning from the sales lot to the street. When roadways are illuminated to appropriate light levels with good control of light, the eye is able to adapt, increasing visibility and safety on the streets. 34 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWCOLOR RENDERING AND NIGHTTIME VISIBILITY The Color Rendering Index (CRI) is the standard metric used to evaluate how well a light source renders the true color of an object. CRI is measured on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 representing how an object would look under a reference incandescent light source. The higher the number, the better the color rendering capacity. Traditional High-Pressure Sodium (“HPS”) streetlights have a very low CRI of approximately 30, making color detection difficult. Today’s standard LED streetlights are not only significantly more energy efficient, they also have a much higher CRI, typically 65 or higher, increasing color detection, visual acuity, and overall effectiveness of the streetlights. LED lighting technology advancements allow streetlights to be tuned to a specific correlated color temperature (“CCT”) without drastically reducing the CRI. This technology can be used to reduce the color temperature in environmentally sensitive areas without significantly reducing the CRI, preserving the effectiveness of the lighting system. LED’s emit light across the visual spectrum, considered white light, which appears brighter at night. When traditional HPS lights are replaced with LED’s similar light levels often appear to be much brighter with LED lights. Residents may find the light to be obtrusive. When upgrading to LEDs in residential areas, it is essential to have a dimming system to respond to complaints from residents. Safety and character converge around using higher CRI of 65 or higher. Eliminating blue spectrum light with lower CRI is responsible in areas with critical wildlife habitat. • Using a higher CRI improves safety by increasing visual acuity and object detection, making the roads safer or vehicles and pedestrians. • Higher CRI improves character in the area by enhancing colors of landscaping and objects within the streetscape. • Within or adjacent to critical wildlife areas a luminaire with a lower CRI and CCT should be used to responsibly illuminate the area while also minimizing impacts on wildlife. This car is illuminated by two different light sources. On the left, an LED light, with high color rendering, clearly reveals the color and details of the car. On the right, a low pressure sodium light, with low color rendering, distorts the color of the car and details of the vehicle are not clear. Figure 9: Color Rendering 35 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWCOLOR TEMPERATURE AND NIGHTTIME VISIBILITY Appropriate Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) of streetlights is largely depends on the location of the lights within the city. Salt Lake City consists of diverse land uses, ranging from high density urban areas to environmentally sensitive lowlands and foothills. Street type and adjacent land use determine the appropriate color of light. There are opposing effects on how the spectrum of light at night affects visibility for Safety and human and environmental health for Responsibility. Limiting the CCT of light sources for the City to a maximum of 3000K, and then adjusting to warmer CCT in residential and wildlife habitats provides a balance between the guideposts. CCT should vary throughout the City to achieve comfortable, safe and responsible street and pedestrian lighting throughout the City. • High Density Urban Areas – 3000K CCT (max). Lighting in higher density urban areas should prioritize color rendering for color contrast and object detection on the roadway. This increases visibility for drivers and pedestrians. In urban areas light should have a CCT of 3000K. This CCT is considered a warm white light source, which improves visibility at night, but also minimizes the amount of light in the spectrum that can cause disruptions to the surrounding environment as well as human health. The American Medical Association and International Dark Sky Association both recommend a maximum CCT of 3000K. • Residential Areas – 2700K CCT (max). Visual acuity from white light sources is needed for pedestrian safety, but residents typically prefer a warmer color temperature in their neighborhood. The recommended color temperature for residential local and collector streets is 2700K. On arterial streets in residential areas, 3000K CCT should be used due to increased speeds. This range will provide the appropriate amount of white light to preserve object detection but will also allow a warmer, more comfortable color of light in neighborhoods. • Environmentally Sensitive Areas – 2200K CCT (max). There are varying types of environmentally sensitive areas within and along the perimeter of the city. Where streets pass through or adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas, very warm, phosphor- converted amber light sources with CCT of 2200K or lower, should minimize impacts of light on plants and animals in the area. Additional shielding of both back light and front light may also be required to further reduce light trespass into these sensitive areas. Figure 10: Color Temperature In the distance, the warm amber glow of low CCT (1800K) high pressure sodium street lights is shown in comparison to higher CCT (4000K) LED street lights in the foreground. 36 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWLIGHT TRESPASS Light trespass is defined as a stray light that crosses a property boundary. The most obtrusive form of light trespass is often caused by an excessively bright luminaire that is unshielded and distributes light into adjacent property. Uncontrolled, non-shielded light sources are usually the cause of light trespass. However, even a controlled, fully shielded luminaire may cause light trespass if not properly located or oriented. In cases where the location of a light standard cannot be changed, additional shielding may be necessary to prevent light trespass. Although designers should always strive to minimize light trespass, sometimes higher levels may be acceptable in downtown, commercial, and area adjacent to civic land uses. The following strategies will identify acceptable levels of light trespass to balance the design guideposts. • When designing in residential areas and environmentally sensitive areas, minimizing light trespass should be the highest priority. • When designing in downtown commercial or retail environments, pedestrian safety should prioritize increasing vertical light levels in crosswalks. • The character of a certain light may result in high levels of light trespass, but designers should strive to find luminaires that meet the character of the area while still maintaining zero uplight and minimizing light at angles known to be obtrusive. A pedestrian light with inappropriate light distribution and poor shielding creates a significant amount of light trespass on a nearby residence. Figure 11: Light Trespass A well shielded street light with appropriate light distribution provides adequate light for the street and sidewalk with minimal light spill beyond the sidewalk. 37 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWLIGHT POLLUTION Light pollution and sky glow are caused by light aimed directly up into the sky and by light reflected from the ground or objects. Any additional light will add to light pollution. However, it is the direct uplight component that does not contribute to useful street level visibility, and is the most objectionable form of pollution. Unshielded luminaires are major contributors to sky glow. Over lighting, even with fully shielded or U0 luminaires, reflects unnecessary light into the atmosphere and adds to sky glow. To minimize light pollution, first minimize the overall amount of light. Exterior lighting should be used only where and when it is needed. Define the lighting requirements of each street or public area and provide only the necessary lighting. Street and pedestrian lighting in residential areas should be dimmable and have house side shielding options to allow the City to proactively address specific complaints about light pollution or light trespass. All lighting in the city should be designed based on the criteria in this plan to reduce over lighting. In addition, lighting should be shielded and dimmable. The strategies to limit light pollution are similar to those identified for Light Trespass. • Lighting in environmentally sensitive areas should always prioritize minimizing light pollution by not over lighting and using luminaires with zero uplight and minimal light at high angles. • In areas of heavy pedestrian traffic, light at higher angles may be necessary to provide the vertical illuminance and positive contrast to safely light crosswalks with more light at higher angles. • Decorative luminaires can contribute more to sky glow, but designers can still install decorative luminaires with minimal uplight component that maintain the historic character of the area. The historic acorn style lights currently used on the Downtown “Cactus” pole distribute a significant amount of light upward, contributing to increased light pollution and sky glow. Figure 12: Light Pollution 38 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWCOSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION The implementation of this Street Lighting Master Plan will require additional investment in the lighting and electrical infrastructure throughout Salt Lake City and multiple years to install. To ensure the equitable distribution of street lighting improvement projects, this Master Plan recommends how the City prioritizes these projects and some changes in the funding mechanisms. The current funding strategy provides a base level of street lighting under the standard Public Utility Street Lighting Fee. To apply for additional pedestrian scale lighting under the Special Improvement Districts program, an additional fee is required to install pedestrian scale lighting in a specific neighborhood. This results in more affluent neighborhoods with more lighting than less affluent neighborhoods. The City should develop an alternative funding mechanism that provides more equitable distribution and access to pedestrian scale lights throughout the City, not just in areas that can afford the additional fees. INITIAL COSTS The initial investment in street and pedestrian lighting improvements will vary based on the strategy chosen to bring the current system into compliance with this plan. Comprehensive improvements, such as lighting redesign, will have the highest initial costs, whereas 1-for-1 replacements of existing luminaires will have lower initial costs. In many areas the 1-for-1 replacement strategy will achieve plan purposes. Other areas require more comprehensive improvements, such as relocation of poles or installation of new lighting. Costs included design and engineering costs (Design & Construction Documents, Utility Surveying), lighting equipment costs (Luminaires, Poles, Lighting Controls), and infrastructure costs (Foundations, Conduit & Wire, Surface Replacement). The public engagement process identified that increasing the use of pedestrian scale lighting is a community-wide high priority. Prioritization of pedestrian scale lighting upgrades include: • Lighting upgrades and additional pedestrian lighting in currently underlit areas. • Strategic placement and appropriate light levels will minimize power consumption and eliminate unnecessary equipment. • Lighting upgrades and new projects in areas identified as critical wildlife habitats using proper equipment and lighting levels. LONG TERM LIFE CYCLE COSTS • Changing to LED lighting will drastically reduce the life cycle and operating costs of the street lighting system. LED lighting requires significantly less power than legacy sources, such as high-pressure sodium, reducing the life cycle energy costs of the system. With a lifespan of up to 100,000 hours, LEDs need to be replaced significantly less often than legacy luminaires, reducing maintenance costs. • Energy Costs (Luminaire Watts, Dimming, Part-Night Lighting, Annual kWh baseline, Annual kWh projected) • Maintenance Costs (Minimizing Lighting Equipment SKUs, Equipment Life) Figure 13: Initial Costs: Guidepost Synergy & Balance 39 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWMAINTENANCE • Proper maintenance is critical for the effectiveness of the lighting design. LEDs are known for their durability, longevity, and consistency in lighting, but quality components are essential to ensure this. The LED electronic driver will fail first if a low-quality luminaire is purchased. Planning and budgeting for high-quality luminaires ensures a longer lifespan with much less required maintenance. • Another aspect of maintenance involves the dirt and dust that can accumulate inside or on the outside lenses of luminaires. Because street lighting will rarely, if ever, be cleaned, luminaires must have adequate ingress protection (IP) against dust and water. Requiring the use of street and pedestrian luminaires with a minimum rating of IP65 means that the luminaire is dust-tight and watertight. ENERGY Reducing energy use in Salt Lake City can be achieved by using energy efficient LED light sources, providing appropriate light levels without over-lighting, and reducing light levels after a curfew by dimming or turning off non- essential lighting. Reduction in Energy use for street and pedestrian lighting is consistent with the guideposts as transitioning all lighting to LED significantly reducing the amount of energy that will be used. • The City is striving to reduce over lighting by installing a control system to allow for dimming and further reduction of lighting, adding to the energy savings. • In more environmentally sensitive areas, this master plan requires phosphor converted amber LEDs with additional shielding. Although these do not use as much energy as legacy light sources, they are still not as efficient as broad spectrum white LEDs. These lights will be used to reduce the adverse effects of lighting on the wildlife in ecologically sensitive areas. STANDARDIZATION Salt Lake City has a very diverse street and pedestrian lighting system that utilizes historic decorative lights of various types and provides distinct character to different districts within the City. Providing variety of character requires Public Utilities to stock more components to service and maintain the lighting system. While this Street Lighting Master Plan establishes Character as one of its Guideposts, this must also consider the balance with Responsibility to minimize costs and inventory for Public Utilities to manage and maintain the street and pedestrian lighting system within their budget. To strike this balance between Character and Responsibility, this Street Lighting Master Plan intends to provide some variety of options within a set of Standardized Components. • Luminaire Styles • Pole Styles • Armature Styles • Base Styles • Color Options Figure 14: Energy 40 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 STREET LIGHTING PLAN LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES PURPOSE There are several strategies the city can use to implement this Street Lighting Master Plan and improve the quality of street and pedestrian lighting. Each of the strategies will result in a safe environment for drivers and pedestrians while using equipment that minimizes light pollution and light trespass. The plan recommends that the city utilize each of the strategies as appropriate for the specific current streetlighting configuration, road classification, pedestrian volume adjacent land use, neighborhood or districts character and the presence of environmentally sensitive wildlife areas. In addition, each strategy should be discussed through a neighborhood engagement process and reviewed to ensure an optimal balance of the four guideposts is achieved. LIGHTING LAYOUT STRATEGIES Volume II – Technical Lighting Development Guide of this Master Plan provides a matrix by which the appropriate strategy should be identified using street types and warrants. The matrix is applied on a block by block basis to ensure the most appropriate lighting for each area. Figure 15 is a snapshot of the Salt Lake City Lighting Warrants matrix described in more detail in Volume II.STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW 41 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWPEDExisting ConditionsStreet Lighting Ped LightingPEDExisting ConditionsStreet Lighting Ped LightingPEDExisting ConditionsStreet Lighting Ped LightingSidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousOptional Non-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousORContinuousSidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousORContinuousSidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&ContinuousSidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&ContinuousSidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightNon-cont.&ContinuousSidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousOptional Non-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousORContinuousSidewalk Lit By StreetlightNon-Cont. ORContinuousSidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&Non-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&Non-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightNon-cont.ORContinuousSidewalk Lit By StreetlightNon-Cont.NASidewalk Lit By StreetlightNon-Cont.NASidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. OnlyORNon-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightNon-cont.NASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightNon-cont.NASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. OnlyORNon-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightNon-Cont.NASidewalk Lit By StreetlightNon-Cont.NASidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. OnlyORNon-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightNon-cont.NASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightNon-cont.NASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. OnlyORNon-cont.Cactus PolesCactus PolesCactus PolesSidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousOptional Non-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousORContinuousSidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousORContinuousSidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&ContinuousSidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&ContinuousSidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightNon-cont.&ContinuousCactus PolesCactus PolesCactus PolesSidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousOptional Non-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousORContinuousSidewalk Lit By StreetlightNon-Cont. ORContinuousSidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&Non-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&Non-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightNon-cont.ORContinuousSidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousOptional Non-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousOptional Non-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. Only&ContinuousSidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&Non-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&Non-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. Only&ContinuousSidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousOptional Non-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightNon-Cont.ORNon-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. OnlyOptionalNon-Cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuousOptional Non-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. Only&Non-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. OnlyOptionalNon-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightNon-Cont.NASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightNon-cont.NASidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. OnlyNAOffice ParkOffice ParkOffice ParkLowLowLowLowLowCommercialHigh CommercialHigh CommercialHigh MedMedMedSLC Lighting WarrantsArterial StreetCollectorLocalLowMedMedMultifamily ResidentialLowHigh DowntownMedLowLowMedMedMedLowLowLowSingle Family ResidentialOpen SpaceNANAMultifamily ResidentialSingle Family ResidentialOpen SpaceMultifamily ResidentialSingle Family ResidentialOpen SpaceMedLowIndustrialIndustrialIndustrialHigh High MedMedContinuous Cactus Pole LightingContinuous Cactus Pole LightingLowLowDowntownContinuous Cactus Pole LightingContinuous Cactus Pole LightingContinuous Cactus Pole LightingContinuous Cactus Pole LightingDowntownFigure 15 - Street Lighting Warrants Matrix 42 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWThis section summarizes the strategies identified in the matrix. STREET LIGHTING ONLY PURPOSE • Quality street lighting must consider the entire context of the streetscape environment, extending beyond the street itself to provide quality light for sidewalks while controlling obtrusive light trespass, glare and light pollution. • Street trees with large canopies and thick foliage are integral to the character of Salt Lake City’s streets and public realm. Street Lighting Only can be a successful strategy in areas that have smaller and fewer trees but may result shadowing sidewalks on streets with large trees. • The wide streets and right-of-way in Salt Lake City provide opportunities on many streets to have a very wide Park Strip that separates the sidewalk from the street. The width of the Park Strip also affects the ability of Street Lighting Only to effectively illuminate the sidewalks. Figure 16: Street Lighting Only Cross Section 43 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWSTREET AND PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING • A combination of Street and Pedestrian Lighting is used in areas of high pedestrian activity, and on streets with street trees that create shadowing, or with wide Park Strips where Street Light Only is ineffective at illuminating the sidewalks. This will support a safer and more visually comfortable pedestrian environment. Figure 17: Street & Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section 44 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWPEDESTRIAN LIGHTING ONLY • Pedestrian lighting helps differentiate an area as pedestrian centric and is a visual cue for drivers to be more aware of people in the public right of way. • Pedestrian lighting in residential areas reduces light trespass into homes, and the character of the lights can differentiate neighborhoods throughout the city. • In downtown environments, pedestrian lighting identifies restaurants, retail and other pedestrian centric areas, creating a more inviting and safer place for people walking the city. • When using this Pedestrian Lighting Only strategy, street lights should still be located at intersections. Figure 18: Pedestrian Only Lighting Cross Section 45 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWSPECIAL LIGHTING DISTRICTS • There is a rich history of street lighting in Salt Lake City that has established Special Lighting Districts with unique street lighting character. Areas like Downtown and Sugarhouse District have unique historic street lighting that with a combination of both street and pedestrian lights mounted on the same light pole. As Salt Lake City evolves, new Special Lighting Districts may be desired to create and enhance a unique sense of place. Any new Special Lighting Districts must be coordinated with Salt Lake City to determine the ownership and maintenance agreements, and must follow the lighting strategies and lighting criteria established in this Street Lighting Master Plan. Figure 19: Cactus Lights Cross Section 46 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWINTERSECTION LIGHTING • Proper lighting at intersections is critical for vehicle and pedestrian safety throughout the entire city. • Intersection lighting is the minimum standard throughout the city. • Intersection lighting encompasses the roadway after the stop bar as well as any painted crosswalks. • See Intersection & Crosswalk Lighting for layout and spacing criteria. Figure 20: Intersection Lighting Plan 47 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWVERTICAL ILLUMINATION IN CROSSWALKS • Proper crosswalk lighting in high traffic areas, commercial corridors, will support a safer and more pedestrian friendly city. • Lighting in the vertical plane will increase visibility in crosswalks and help to reduce vehicle- pedestrian accidents. • See Intersection & Crosswalk Lighting for layout and spacing criteria. Figure 21: Crosswalk Lighting 48 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 BUS STOP • Uncovered bus stops should be lit by a street luminaire positioned 1/2 to 1 mounting height from the bus stop in the direction of oncoming traffic. • Bus shelters with integrated lights should provide vertical illumination to aid in facial recognition. Street lights in close proximity increase ambient light and visual comfort. • See Volume 2 for additional information. ENVIRONMENTALLY PROTECTED AREAS The Salt Lake Valley is not only home to a bustling urban city but is also home to diverse and vulnerable wildlife populations and sensitive Dark Sky Areas. Salt Lake City recognizes the impacts that street lighting can have on these sensitive areas and wants to minimize the negative effects of street lighting at night. The map below highlights environmentally sensitive areas where the following lighting characteristics should be used: • Color Temperature (CCT) no higher than 2200K, • All lights should have increase backlight control to reduce the amount of spill light • All lights should have zero uplight. To read more on the impacts of light at night within the Salt Lake Valley, reference Appendix D: Nocturnal Infrastructure for Ecological Health. IMPLEMENTATION OF UPGRADED LIGHTING When deciding which Lighting Layout Strategy to use at various locations throughout the city, the adjacent land use is a critical factor in determining nighttime pedestrian activity. Although there are many different zoning designations in Salt Lake City, this master plan consolidates land uses into seven different categories: Commercial, Office Park, Downtown, Industrial, Multi-Family Residential, Single Family Residential, and Open Space. The different adjacent land uses throughout the city and more information on determining adjacent land use can be found in Volume 2. Each adjacent land use has different primary considerations that determine lighting strategy and criteria. The most critical of these considerations is pedestrian and vehicle volume during nighttime hours. Areas of higher volume at night, such as Downtown and Commercial, require additional lighting, whereas industrial areas do not see the same traffic volumes during dark hours. This Master Plan also strives to be environmentally responsible, and balances vehicle and pedestrian safety with environmentally protective actions based on adjacent land use. The table below shows the main considerations, environmentally protective actions, max CCT, and lighting strategies for each adjacent land use. STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW 49 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWTABLE 5: LIGHTING LAYOUT STRATEGY BY LAND USE ADJACENT LAND USE MAIN CONSIDERATIONS ENVIRONMENTALLY PROTECTIVE ACTIONS MAX CCT*LIGHTING STRATEGIES Commercial • Diverse Land Use with High, Medium, and Low Pedestrian and Vehicle Activity During Night Hours • Adaptive Dimming • 3000K • All Lighting Strategies Possible to Safely and Appropriately Light the Streets and Sidewalks. Office Park • Low Pedestrian Conflict at Night • Overlap with Environmentally Protected Areas • Lower CCT • Adaptive Dimming • 3000K • Non-Continuous Street Lighting • Possible Non- Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Downtown • High and Medium Pedestrian and Vehicle Activity During Night Hours • Historic Character using Cactus Pole Lights • Adaptive Dimming • 3000K • Continuous Street and Pedestrian Lighting Industrial • Low Pedestrian Conflict at Night • Environmental Concerns • Lower CCT • Adaptive Dimming • 2200K • Street Lighting at Intersections Only Multifamily Residential • Pedestrian Safety • Representing the Character of the Area • Minimizing Light Trespass • Controlling Spectrum • Adaptive Dimming • 3000K (Arterial) • 2700K (Collector/ Local) • Continuous and Non-Continuous Street Lighting • Continuous and Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Single Family • Pedestrian Safety • Representing the Character of the Area • Minimizing Light Trespass • Controlling Spectrum • Adaptive Dimming • 3000K (Arterial) • 2700K (Collector Local) • Continuous and Non-Continuous Street Lighting • Continuous and Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Open Space • Environmental Concerns • Minimizing Light Trespass • Controlling Spectrum • Adaptive Dimming • 2200K • Non-Continuous Street Lighting • Street Lighting at Intersections Only *Max CCT to be 2000K in Environmentally Sensitive Areas. 50 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWSTREET LIGHTING EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY When future improvements are made to the lighting throughout Salt Lake City, the lighting equipment selected should reflect the principles established by the Guideposts of Safety, Character and Responsibility. New equipment should match or enhance the character of the area, while also safely and responsible lighting the area. This Street Lighting Master Plan places an increased priority on responsible lighting by using luminaires that reduce wasted light to sky glow and light trespass, and have the highest levels of energy efficiency. Future luminaires installed in the city will all be fully shielded LED lights with no light directed upward from the light source, understanding that there is a minimal allowance for reflected uplight from post-top style luminaires. As existing luminaires are upgraded to LED and new projects are constructed, the City will become a safer place for pedestrians and commuters. New pedestrian lighting will better illuminate sidewalks and crosswalks, while all new lights will reduce glare and improve nighttime visibility. As these upgrades are being made to safer and more responsible luminaires, the character of the new lights should also match the character of the area. The lighting equipment installed at a particular site will depend on the character of the site and the adjacent land use. Precedent character, such as Downtown Cactus Poles or Sugarhouse Teardrop luminaires, will be upgraded to similar style of luminaire that reduces uplight and light trespass onto adjacent private property. 51 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWLuminaires (Style, Finish Color, Lumens, Distribution, CCT, CRI, BUG Rating, Shielding, Dimming Driver (0-10V, DALI), ANSI 7-Pin Receptacle, Integral Wireless Dimming Node) Light Standards (Pole, Arms, Base, Finish Color, Banner Arms, Holiday Receptacles, Planter Arms, Traffic Signs, ANSI 7-Pin Receptacle (alt location)) Lighting Controls (Adaptive Dimming, Maintenance Reporting, Asset Management) Smart City Devices (4G/5G Small Cell, Security Cameras, Air Quality Sensors, Smart Parking, Speakers, Gun Shot Detection, EV Charging Stations, Traffic Monitoring, Noise Monitoring TABLE 6: RECOMMENDED LUMINARIES BY LAND USE CACTUS POLE TEAR DROP COBRA HEAD PEDESTRIAN ACORN PEDESTRIAN ARM MOUNT ADJACENT LAND USE Commercial N/A S. Temple State Street Sugarhouse BD Base Level N/A Non-Continuous or N/A Office Park N/A N/A Base Level N/A Non-Continuous Downtown Downtown Historic S. Temple State Street Sugarhouse BD Base Level N/A Continuous or Non-Continuous Industrial N/A N/A Base Level N/A N/A Multi-Family Residential N/A N/A Intersection & Mid- Block or Intersection Only Rose Park Continuous or Non-Continuous Single Family Residential N/A N/A Intersection & Mid- Block or Intersection Only Rose Park Continuous or Non-Continuous Open Space N/A N/A Intersection & Mid- Block or Intersection Only N/A N/A 52 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS COMPLEXITY & COST Throughout Salt Lake City, there are various existing lighting conditions, which results in lighting improvement projects with different levels of complexity and cost that range from minimal improvements, such as 1-for-1 replacements, to comprehensive improvements, such as complete lighting redesign. The complexity and cost to improve the lighting in certain areas will depend on the existing lighting conditions, location within the city, and the need for improved lighting. The City should evaluate each site and determine which level of improvements need to be made. MINIMAL: 1-FOR-1 REPLACEMENTS The most cost effective and quickest way to improve the lighting is 1-for-1 replacements. Salt Lake City has already begun the process for upgrading old HPS lights to new LEDs. This should be and has been implemented in areas that already have acceptable existing lighting layouts and where street lighting sufficiently illuminates the roadway and adjacent sidewalks. 1-for-1 replacements from HPS to LED will lead to lower life cycle costs through reduced energy and maintenance. When upgrading to LED luminaires, adjacent land use must be considered. 1-for-1 replacement luminaires should reflect the character of the area, while also maintaining consistent light levels and color temperature appropriate to the site. SUPPLEMENTAL: Additional street and pedestrian lighting may be required where the existing lighting layout does not sufficiently light the street or sidewalk. Additional street lighting may be needed if existing lights are spaced too far apart to uniformly light the roadway, or if there is no street lighting at all. Additional pedestrian lights may be needed when there is a large park strip between the sidewalk and the streetlights, where there is excessive shadowing from trees, or in areas where pedestrian lights are desired. See Volume 2 on recommendations on additional pedestrian lighting. COMPREHENSIVE: Comprehensive improvements to the current conditions call for complete lighting redesign. This should be considered in areas of the City where lighting redesign is required to meet requirements in the Lighting Warrants Table. Comprehensive improvements will need to be done on streets where new continuous or non-continuous street or pedestrian lighting is required. Streets without any lighting will also require comprehensive improvements and should comply with the lighting requirements in the lighting warrants table. PRIORITIZING LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS Evaluating where lighting improvements should be made, and which projects should be prioritized can be a difficult process. The purpose of this section is to help provide guidance when deciding where and when lighting improvements should be made. Areas that are currently underserved by the existing lighting and are adjacent to “High Priority Conflict Zones” should be the first to be upgraded. The more “High Priority Conflict Zones” that an underserved area is adjacent to, the higher priority it should be to improve the lighting. If an underserved area is not adjacent to any “High Priority Conflict Zones” the City should get public opinion from residents in the neighborhood to determine is upgraded or additional lighting is desired. STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW 53 AREAS UNDERSERVED BY STREET LIGHTING As seen in the lighting density map in Figure 3 on page 24, there are neighborhoods and areas of the city currently underserved by street lighting. Public outreach is required in these areas to identify neighborhood interest in upgrading lighting in these areas, particularly for pedestrians. Neighborhood outreach will allow interested residents to review the options identified in the lighting matrix and make an informed decision for their area. HIGH PRIORITY CONFLICT AREAS High Priority Conflict Areas are locations throughout the city where there is typically increased pedestrian or bicycle activity. If a location underserved by the existing lighting and is near a High Priority Conflict Area(s), that site should be prioritized. Maps showing these areas are shown below. A site with more High Priority Conflict Areas should become a priority area for implementation. School Zones Streets within a one-block radius of all schools within the Salt Lake Valley should be lighted according to the appropriate adjacent land use and increased pedestrian conflict level as a result of being close to a school. If a school falls within a neighborhood where minimum lighting is desired by residents, additional lighting for pedestrian safety should be installed. Lighting near school zones should ensure that crosswalks are sufficiently lighted as well as all entrances and exits to the campus. 0 1 20.5 MilesSchool Overlay Key Lighting Strategies Heat Map SLC Boundary Schools Streetlights Dense Sparse STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWFigure 22: School Locations 54 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 Bus Stops Lighting near bus stops should also be prioritized within the city. If a bus stop is not already sufficiently lighted, placing one light on the approach side of an uncovered bus stop one half to one mounting height is required. See Volume 2 for more information on covered and uncovered bus stops. 1 Mile I-215 I-15 I-80 I-80 700 E.STATE ST.FOOTHILL SOUTH TEMPLE REDWOODRD.5600 W.2100 S. 400 S. ¯STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWFigure 23: Bus Stops 55 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWTransit Stations Transit stations within the Salt Lake Valley are lighted by UTA and are not within the jurisdiction on Salt Lake City. However, these transit stations result in higher pedestrian and vehicle traffic volume on adjacent streets. Adjacent streets should be lighted according to the appropriate adjacent land use and the increased pedestrian volume as a result of being close to a transit station. ¯1 Mile I-15 I-80 I-80 Transit Stops Commuter Rail Stations Commuter Rail Light Rail Stations Light Rail I-215 I-80 700 E.STATE ST.FOOTHILL SOUTH TEMPLE REDWOODRD.5600 W.2100 S. 400 S. Figure 24: Transit Station Locations 56 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWNeighborhood Byways Salt Lake City is working on encouraging more biking and walking in the City by creating pedestrian centric streets called neighborhood byways. The streets should be continuous lighting with pedestrian lights to help encourage more pedestrian travel. ¯1 Miles I-215 I-15 I-80 I-80 700 E.STATE ST.FOOTHILL SOUTH TEMPLE REDWOODRD.5600 W.2100 S. 400 S. Figure 25: Neighborhood Byways Locations 57 STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWPRIORITIZING 1-FOR-1 LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS For areas where current street lighting is adequate in terms of pole type and head placement and type, one-for-one replacements from HPS to LEDs is the appropriate response to improve light quality and achieve energy savings. The City is currently working toward upgrading all street lights to LED, but should prioritize locations with existing HPS lights, are well as locations where LED lights are glaring or obtrusive. Streets with Existing High-Pressure Sodium Street Lights The City should prioritize upgrading existing HPS lights to new LEDs with increased glare control and dimming capabilities. More information on selecting the proper replacement luminaire can be found in Volume 2. Reduce Glare and Light Trespass Some LED lights within Salt Lake City are too bright and can cause glare and light trespass. These lights should be replaced with new LEDs that have better glare control and are compatible with the City’s lighting control system. Additionally, some LEDs within the city have a higher color temperature than 3000K and should be replaced by a luminaire with appropriate CCT based on adjacent land use. Reduce Light Pollution from Existing Decorative Lights Converting the existing Cactus Pole lights to LED lights with “U0” uplight rating will significantly reduce the amount of sky glow and light pollution around Salt Lake City. EXISTING CACTUS POLE LIGHTS UPGRADED CACTUS POLE LIGHTS 58 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 DESCRIPTION OF VOLUME 2: TECHNICAL LIGHTING DEVELOPMENT GUIDESTREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW 59 LLiigghhtt TTeerrmmss aanndd DDeeffiinniittiioonn The following terms are used throughout this Master Plan and in the lighting industry. Understanding these terms is essential to properly understanding and implementing this Lighting Master Plan. LLiigghhttiinngg TTeerrmm UUnniitt DDeeffiinniittiioonn Backlight, Uplight, and Glare (BUG) Ratings B0 – B5 U0 – U5 G0 – G5 Luminaire Classification System for Outdoor Luminaires per IES TM-15 describing the amount of uplight, backlight and glare. Lower numbers in each classification are associated with lower impacts. • BB == bbaacckklliigghhtt, or the light directed behind the luminaire. • UU == uupplliigghhtt, or the light directed above the horizontal plane of the luminaire. • GG == ggllaarree, or the amount of light emitted from the luminaire at angles known to cause glare. Color Rendering Index (CRI) 0 - 100 The color rendering index (CRI) is a developed metric on a scale of 0 to 100, to communicate the ability of the light to render an object’s natural color Continuous Lighting A street lighting system made up of regularly spaced luminaires along the street. Criteria typically defines minimum and maximum illuminance or luminance values and overall uniformity along the lighted area. Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) Kelvin (K) The color appearance of the light emitted by a lamp. The CCT rating for a lamp is a general "warmth" or "coolness" measure of its appearance. Fire has a CCT of 1850K and daylight is 6000K. Glare The visual sensation created by luminance (or brightness) that is significantly higher than the surrounding luminance that the eyes are adapted to, causing annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility (disability glare). Illuminance Footcandle (Fc) The density of light (lumens per square foot) falling onto a surface. Commonly measured in the horizontal and vertical planes. Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) The IES strives to improve the lighted environment by publishing recommended practices to guide lighting designers, architects, engineers, sales professionals, and researchers. The IES’s The Lighting Handbook and Recommended Practices are the recognized authoritative reference on the science and application of lighting. Legacy Light Source All non-LED light sources: incandescent, halogen, high pressure sodium, low pressure sodium, induction, and fluorescent. Life Cycle Cost An economic analysis of an investment that covers all the costs and benefits over the expected life of the equipment or system. Unlike a simple payback analysis, it accounts for maintenance and energy even after the system is paid for with projected savings. APPENDIX A 60 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 61 DRAFT SURVEY 9/5/2018 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SURVEY QUESTIONS: 1. Place pin on map in general location of where you live or work. o Provide map with pin location ability 2. Does the street lighting around this location allow you to feel safe while walking outside during dark hours of the day? (Mark One) o Yes o No 3. If the pin located reflects where you live, does the current street lighting interfere with your sleeping habits? (Mark One) o Yes o No o N/A (Pin does not reflect location of my home) 4. What is your impression of the light level on the street you live on? (the response will change the color of the pin) o Comfortable (pin color: green) o Too Dark (pin color: blue) o Too Bright (pin color: red) 5. Do you like the color of the light source? o Yes o No 6. Does the light source create too much glare? o Yes o No 7. Please provide any additional comments: o Write in additional comments APPENDIX B 62 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1APPENDIX B AGENDA PROJECT #: 2018.075 MEETING #: 2 PROJECT: SLC Street Lighting Master Plan NEXT MEETING: Tentative: Sept 19, 2018 MEETING DATE: September 5, 2018 ISSUED BY: L. Smith | GSBS Architects Revised post meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ATTENDEES: X Jesse Allen X Brad Stewart X Lauren Smith Jesse Stewart Christine Richmond X Dane Sanders X Riley Rose X Jason Brown X David Pearson AGENDA ITEMS: 1. Review Public Outreach Strategy o Advisory Committee Members ▪ District 1 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative) ▪ District 2 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative) ▪ District 3 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative) ▪ District 4 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative) ▪ District 5 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative) ▪ District 6 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative) ▪ District 7 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative) ▪ Mayor’s Office Representative ▪ Public Utilities Representative o Technical Committee Members ▪ SLC Engineering, Sean Fyfe ▪ SLC Transportation, Jon Larsen ▪ SLC Planning, Doug Dansie ▪ SLC Planning, Molly Robinson ▪ SLC Parks + Public Lands, Nancy Monteith ▪ SLC Fire ▪ SLC Police o Stakeholder Groups (Individual Groups + representatives representing each group) Draft List ▪ Downtown Alliance + Business Districts (9th and 9th, Sugarhouse) ▪ Environmental (Dark Sky, Tracy Aviary, Audubon) ▪ Multi-modal (UTA, Bicycle Transit) ▪ School District ▪ Inland Port, NW Quadrant o Draft Public Survey ▪ See Attachment ‘DRAFT SURVEY’ 63 2. Review Proposed Project Schedule o See Attachment 3. Status of Contract o Updates 4. Next Steps o SLC Public Utilities to review pass along revised Draft Survey for review o GSBS and Clanton to review and revise scope and fee – get to Public Utilities early next week o Brad to send GSBS and Clanton contact for Open City Hall to work together on upload process and capabilities of public survey OTHER INFORMATION: APPENDIX B 64 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1APPENDIX B MEETING NOTES PROJECT #: 2018.075 MEETING #: 9 PROJECT: SLC Street Lighting Master Plan NEXT MEETING: TBD MEETING DATE: April 26, 2019 ISSUED BY: L. Smith | GSBS Architects ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These notes represent the general understanding of the author concerning the topics covered. If there are errors or misrepresentations, please inform the author in writing and adjustments will be made with the next issuance of notes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ATTENDEES: X Jesse Allen, GSBS Architects Laura Briefer, Public Utilities X Lauren Smith, GSBS Architects Holley Mullen, Public Utilities X Dane Sanders, Clanton and Associates X Katie, Clanton and Associates X Riley Rose, Clanton and Associates X Technical Committee X David Pearson, Public Utilities X Annette, Planning X Jesse Stewart, Public Utilities X Cooper, Police Brad Stewart, Public Utilities X Ron Fife, Fire Department X Jack, SLC Engineering X Peter, Sustainability NEW BUSINESS: 1. Goal: o How to spend the budget within ▪ The next 5-10 years ▪ What is needed to budget and how to prioritize 2. Planning (Annette filling in for Mayara) o Design and color of the streetlights fit within the neighborhood • Historic Districts • Rose Park • Poplar Grove o Color meaning: the LED color temperature and the color of the poles/luminaries o Day time aesthetics ▪ No planning master plans include streetlights currently ▪ Need to double check to make sure if there is any overlap o Conflict between districts if they do not get the same thing? ▪ Historic districts are treated completely differently than others ▪ Guidelines for street lighting in historic districts o Have the street lighting master plan acknowledge the design guidelines o Review the historic districts and guidelines o Other districts: ▪ Downtown district o Districts vs. neighborhoods ▪ Rose park and poplar grove are known for their street trees ▪ These should be on the website ▪ Maybe already in GIS o Make sure to get those layers in GIS 3. Engineering o What existing programmatic controls does the city have that protect the existing streetlight utility/ power supply? o As more lights get installed, what can be done to make sure that the power supply is protected? o Subsurface in the right of way is getting really crowded 65 APPENDIX Bo Currently the lines are not in Blue Stake o Is it practical/room for improvement on location of lines? o As time/budget allows, possibility to move the lines into blue stake ▪ This would keep survey crews busy for about 2 years ▪ This would lie more in implementation vs. master plan ▪ Important to note in recommendations of how to move forward 4. Sustainability o Energy 2040 ▪ 80% reduction in our Green House Gases by 2040 (community wide for the whole city) ▪ 50% renewable energy goal by 2020 ▪ Baseline is 2009 o Updating Climate response plans o Solar Street Light just received ▪ On a cul-de-sac off 2700 S testing o Solar Roadways ▪ Lot of progress in Europe and a company in Idaho o Slowed wholesale replacements until this master plan is complete ▪ Replacing as needed but not overhaul now o What % of the City’s energy does Street light make up? o Strategies: ▪ LED obvious ▪ Dimming ▪ Lumens/watt o Technology, part of our perception o Dimmable LED’s at 17th and 17th ▪ Maybe run a test program and dim the lights down to 50% for a week then possibly dim down to 25% o Dark Sky 5. Police o Evidence Preservation o Preventing Crime o Controlling Crime o Smart Lighting ▪ Help a lot with tactical teams to go into a standoff – control the lighting on that block would be immensely important and helpful ▪ Dimming down and making brighter both could be helpful ▪ Dave can give Police and Fire log in to Smart Lights to be able to control on their own when needed ▪ Gunshot detection ▪ Lead the fire truck ▪ Citizens are asking for it too o Opportunities ▪ Brighten up when Jazz game lets out ▪ Lower the lights during snowstorm ▪ Over design for brighter level and dim? ▪ Or overdrive the LEDs for short period of time during when you want them up • What are those cost implications? o Lighting for the sidewalks in different neighborhoods o Support LED because of the color rendering for victims and witnesses to identify colors of cars and suspects o Trees block a lot of the light in different neighborhoods o Even/consistent lighting throughout neighborhoods o Lots of midblock lights are blocked by the trees o Acorn lights - because of the way they light ▪ A lot of glare ▪ The way it glares it creates a blind spot especially right at the pole o Stop the light right at the back of the sidewalk ▪ Glare makes it nearly impossible to see anything from a camera o Distribution of light 6. Fire o Inclusive with police o Uneven light when responding can lead to inability to see pedestrians and cars 66 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 ▪ Even light help the drivers see vehicle and pedestrians ▪ Evening lighting on the street and approach at a minimum to get where they need to be without obstruction o On seen ▪ Visualizing the addresses ▪ Ongoing issue ▪ Maybe hard to address with street lighting ▪ Able to illuminate the seen if needed see obstacles ▪ People step in holes because they cannot see where they are going, ▪ Focused on the issue they are there to solve End of meeting notes. APPENDIX B 67 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 1 Existing Street Lighting Conditions Salt Lake City, Utah Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Salt Lake City requested an evaluation of the existing street lighting conditions and a Master Plan to aid in transitioning the remainder of the street lighting from a high pressure sodium system to an LED system and implement a lighting control system,with the intent to improve visibility and aesthetics while reducing energy and maintenance. The Master Plan develops new street lighting standards for retrofit and new construction.To obtain a comprehensive understanding of the existing lighting, Clanton & Associates surveyed seventeen locations within the city,conducted nighttime surveys, and calculated the light levels along primary arterial,minor arterial, collector and local streets.From these evaluations, existing condition templates were created to aid the city in prioritizing improvement areas which will influence street lighting retrofits.By enhancing the street lighting, the city will promote a higher standard of well being as well as a more comfortable place for residents and commuters. Evaluation of Existing Lighting Conditions In November 2018,Clanton & Associates evaluated the current lighting conditions at seventeen sites around the city that provided an understanding of the diversity of lighting conditions. The selected sites included arterial, collector and local streets with industrial, commercial,and residential areas.Both horizontal and vertical illuminance 1measurements were taken along the sidewalks at each site. Luminance 2 measurements were also taken to provide an understanding of surrounding surface brightness. These measured light levels were used to compare the existing light levels to the light level recommendations by the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES). Clanton & Associates also took high-dynamic- range (HDR)images as a visual representation of the perceived nighttime experience.Along with the lighting measurements, the Advisory and Technical Committees completed a subjective survey assessing the lighted environment at each site. The survey evaluated how each participant felt about the lighting strategies and overall light levels at each site as well as how comfortable participants were at the sites. The survey results will be compared to existing light levels and lighting criteria to guide the development of the Street Lighting Master Plan and the lighting standards included in it. The site evaluations,and lighting measurements can be found in this report. Street Lighting Levels To understand the street lighting throughout the entire city,Clanton & Associates will calculate light levels on arterial, collector and residential streets. These calculations will be compared to existing street lighting GIS data to determine how well roadways were lighted.Street blocks will be categorized into three levels of acceptability based on the calculations, lamp wattage, street type,luminaire spacing,and by comparing measure lighting levels to IES standards. Acceptable:Streets that met the lighting standards based on street classification with existing luminaire spacing. These areas would not require any lighting improvements beyond the LED retrofit assuming all current luminaires are operating properly. Moderately Acceptable:Streets that do not meet lighting standards based on street classification with existing luminaire spacing.Typically,these are blocks that have relatively small dark spaces between poles and would require minor improvements in order to meet lighting standards. Poor:Streets that have very low,or no,street lighting. These are blocks that typically do not have enough existing street lights and will most likely require significant investment in new lighting and electrical infrastructure to meet lighting standards. Lighting Improvements Lighting improvements in Salt Lake City will enhance lighting on arterial,collector and residential streets by classifying each street,setting standards and guidelines for street lighting retrofit and new construction projects.Well lit streets will help to reduce vehicle accidents as well as pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Various character districts will be designated throughout the city in order to provide cohesive and quality lighting based on the surrounding environment. Vertical light levels will also be increased to enhance pedestrian and object visibility.LED luminaires consume significantly less energy and require far less maintenance than traditional lighting systems resulting in a quick return on investment. Executive Summary Existing Conditions Example 3.5 0.1 0.9 cd/m2 The following High Dynamic Range images (HDR)and measured illuminance levels were taken during the November 2018 site visit.An analysis of the seventeen sites surveyed can be found in this report. 1000E 2100S–Acceptable (1.76 average luminance) 1900E & Sunnyside –Unacceptable (0.41 average luminance) Measured Illuminance Levels Criteria Acceptance Level Luminance Type (cd/m^2)Street Luminance Arterial Street Criteria Acceptable Average 0.9 1000E. 2100S.Acceptable Average 1.76 1900S. Sunnyside Unacceptable Average 0.41 3.5 0.1 0.9 cd/m2 1 Illuminance: the amount of light reaching a surface, expressed in units of footcandles [fc] 2 Luminance: the amount of light reflected from a surface that the eye perceives, expressed in units of candela per square meter [cd/m2]APPENDIX C 68 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 3 Street Classifications Street Classifications Map Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 6 SITE EVALUATIONS Surveys Conducted 04-01-2019APPENDIX C 69 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 7 INTRODUCTION Four “Levels of Acceptability”were determined from an analysis of the site observations and survey results: Excellent, Good, Moderate and Poor. Excellent acceptability is obtained by providing sufficient and appropriate lighting on the roadway,while also providing adequate vertical illumination to allow for object detection and facial recognition. The lighting in this location will be relatively uniform,free of direct glare and properly illuminates the roadway and sidewalk. Good acceptability indicates that the lighting in the area feels comfortable.In some cases, such as residential areas,the light level might be lower than the IES Recommended Practice but the lack of glare and shadowing from surrounding landscaping, along with some surrounding surface brightness, creates a comfortable nighttime environment without light trespass. Moderate acceptability is often seen in locations that do not provide enough light on the roadway or on the sidewalk. The color of the light may be inconsistent and sources may be glary resulting in a uncomfortable space.Some of these sites were shadowed due to trees and lighting was not appropriately spaced. Poor acceptability occurs when the luminaires are spaced too far apart to provide adequate light levels and uniformity or there are no luminaires on the street at all. These sites included residential areas without sufficient light,industrial sites and an arterial road where lights were malfunctioning. These levels of acceptability provide an understanding of the nighttime environments found throughout the city.This allows a variety of lighting improvement options to be developed. These future lighting options will enhance the nighttime safety and security around the city.Each option will focus on improving light levels, uniformity,and wayfinding while reducing glare.700E. Harrison Daytime Environment700E. Harrison Nighttime Environment700E. Harrison High-Dynamic RangeThis Salt Lake City Street Lighting Study provides an understanding of the current street lighting in seventeen different locations throughout the city. The sites were surveyed by representatives from each of the seven council districts,as well as Salt Lake City representatives from the Police,Fire,Engineering,City Planning, Sustainability, Transportation,and Urban Forestry departments. The sites were selected based on street type,arterial, collector,or residential,and on their surrounding environments in the city,industrial, commercial, transit or residential. The selected sites will help provide a collective understanding of the lighting and environmental conditions found throughout the city.This study and the Street Lighting Masterplan are limited to streets,sidewalks and pedestrian paths in the Public Right of Way and do not include any privately owned lighting. The seventeen sites surveyed asked about the street and sidewalk lighting conditions. Those sites included: Establishing Levels of AcceptabilitySite Observations Example of Good Residential Lighting Example of Poor Residential Lighting Each site was photographed using High Dynamic Range photography techniques and lighting measurements were recorded for the streets and sidewalks. Both horizontal and vertical illuminance (the amount of light reaching a surface) measurements were taken along the sidewalk. Luminance (the amount of light on a surface that the eye perceives) measurements were taken along the roadway to provide an understanding of roadway brightness at each site. These measured light levels were used to compare the existing light levels to the light level recommendation from the IES Recommended Practice for Roadway Lighting (RP-8-18).Clanton & Associates also took high-dynamic-range (HDR) images as a visual representation of the perceived nighttime experience.An example,of the images taken,is shown to the left. After measurements were taken,the Advisory and Technical Committee were broken into two groups and taken on a nighttime tour of the selected sites and asked to complete a survey assessing the lighted environment. The survey was comprised of several subjective questions regarding the safety and aesthetics of each site. The survey includes,but was not limited to, the following questions: •It would be safe to walk here, alone, during daylight hours. •It would be safe to walk here, alone, during darkness hours. •The light is uneven (patchy). •The light sources are glaring. •The lighting is poorly matched to the neighborhood. Participants answered each question with a ranking between Strongly Agree and Strongly Disagree. The answers to each question were combined to provide an understanding of each site. Participants surveyed 11 different sites featuring arterial, collector and residential streets in industrial, commercial and residential areas. 1.Sterling & American Beauty Dr. 2.600N & Riverside Park 3.Redwood Road & South Temple 4.700S & Post Street 5.900W & Dalton Ave 6.Glendale Dr. & Navajo St 7.Jay St & 1st Ave 8.800E & South Temple 9.200S & Floral St 10.650S & Main Street 11.700E & Harrison Ave 12.9th & 9th 13.Layton Ave & West Temple 14.1500S & Yale 15. 19 th E & Sunnyside 16.1400E & Redondo 17.1000E & 2100S Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 9 LIGHTING MEASUREMENTS AND SUBJECTIVE SURVEY SUMMARY Site # Site Name Street Classification Existing Lighting Sterling & American Beauty Dr. Local / Residential Excellent Riverside Park & 600N Arterial / Park Acceptable Redwood Rd & South Temple Collector / Industrial Poor 700S & Post Street Local / Residential Poor 900W & Dalton Ave Arterial / Residential Acceptable Glendale Dr. & Navajo St Collector / Residential / Commercial Moderate J St & 2nd Ave Local / Residential Poor 800E & South Temple Arterial / Commercial Excellent 200S & Floral St Arterial / Commercial Excellent 650S & Main St Arterial / Commercial Acceptable 700E & Harrison Ave Arterial / Residential Poor 9th & 9th Arterial / Commercial Acceptable Layton Ave & West Temple Local / Residential Moderate 1500S & Yale Collector / Residential Acceptable 19th E & Sunnyside Arterial / Residential / Commercial Moderate 1400E & Redondo Local / Residential Moderate 1000E & 2100S Arterial / Commercial Acceptable 1 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 4 17 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 SLC Public Utilities Excellent Site Acceptable Site Moderate Site Poor Site 1000 North I-80 Redwood RoadSouth Temple 400 South 900 South 1300 South 1700 South Sunnyside Avenue Footh i l l D r i ve 1300 East700 EastState StreetI-15900 West1 2 APPENDIX CSite # Site Name Street Classification Existing Lighting Sterling & American Beauty Dr. Local / Residential Excellent Riverside Park & 600 North Arterial / Park Acceptable Redwood Rd. & South Temple Collector / Industrial Poor 700 South & Post Street Local / Residential Poor 500 West & Dalton Ave.Arterial / Residential Acceptable Glendale Dr. & Navajo St. Collector / Residential / Commercial Moderate J St. & 2nd Ave.Local / Residential Poor 800 East & South Temple Arterial / Commercial Excellent 200 South & Floral St.Arterial / Commercial Excellent 650 South & Main St.Arterial / Commercial Acceptable 700 East & Harrison Ave.Arterial / Residential Poor 900 East & 900 South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable Layton Ave. & West Temple Local / Residential Moderate 1500 South & Yale Collector / Residential Acceptable 19th East & Sunnyside Arterial / Residential / Commercial Moderate 1400 East & Redando Local / Residential Moderate 1000 East & 2100 South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 70 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 Site 17 Site 15 Site 13 Site 11 Site 09 Site 07 Site 05 Site 03 Site 01 Summary of Surveys -100% -50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% -10.0-8.0-6.0-4.0-2.00.02.04.06.08.010.012.014.016.018.020.0 Site 17Site 16Site 15Site 14Site 13Site 12Site 11Site 10Site 09Site 08Site 07Site 06Site 05Site 04Site 03Site 02Site 01Survey Evaluations w/ Percent of Critiera Site Score % From Criteria Site # Site Name Street Classification Existing Lighting Sterling & American Beauty Dr. Local / Residential Excellent Riverside Park & 600N Arterial / Park Acceptable Redwood Rd & South Temple Collector / Industrial Poor 700S & Post Street Local / Residential Poor 900W & Dalton Ave Arterial / Residential Acceptable Glendale Dr. & Navajo St Collector / Residential / Commercial Moderate J St & 2nd Ave Local / Residential Poor 800E & South Temple Arterial / Commercial Excellent 200S & Floral St Arterial / Commercial Excellent 650S & Main St Arterial / Commercial Acceptable 700E & Harrison Ave Arterial / Residential Poor 9th & 9th Arterial / Commercial Acceptable Layton Ave & West Temple Local / Residential Moderate 1500S & Yale Collector / Residential Acceptable 19th E & Sunnyside Arterial / Residential / Commercial Moderate 1400E & Redondo Local / Residential Moderate 1000E & 2100S Arterial / Commercial Acceptable 1 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 4 17APPENDIX C 71 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Surveyed by: Group 1 Site : Sterling & American Beauty Dr Local / Residential 1 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Sterling & American Beauty Dr 13 Green Bars are Positive Responses Blue Bars are Negative Responses 3.5 0.0 cd/m2 Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance (cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min) Local Criteria Low Conflict Average 0.4 0.1 0.3 Ave/Min 4 -6 Site 1 Average 0.2 0.0 0.1 Ave/Min 5.9 -1.9 Surveyed by: Group 1 1 1 Level of Acceptability: Excellent (Lighting Score = 17.5) Sterling Dr is in Tier 1 of the Enhanced Lighting Program with acorn lights spaced at intersections and mid block. Initial Site Observations •Local Residential street in Rose Park neighborhood. •Part of Enhanced Lighting Program Tier 1. •Adjacent to Rose Park Elementary School Lighting Measurements •Street lighting does not meet criteria for a local road with a low pedestrian conflict. •Low vertical light levels make it difficult for cars to identify pedestrians and objects in the roadway. Participant Survey •Participants said: •“Great lighting for a residential area.” •“This is nice lighting. A model for rest of city “ % From Criteria: -36% Below Site : Sterling & American Beauty Dr Local / Residential APPENDIX C 72 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Surveyed by: Group 1 Site : Riverside Park @ 600N Arterial / Park 2 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Riverside Park @ 600N 15 3.5 0.0 cd/m2 Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance (cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min) Arterial Criteria Medium Conflict Average 0.5 0.2 0.9 Ave/Min 4 -3 Site 2 Average 0.5 0.0 1.0 Ave/Min 15.8 -1.9 Surveyed by: Group 1 2 2 Level of Acceptability: Acceptable (Lighting Score = 9.8) 600N is lit with LED luminaires in a staggered arrangement and meets roadway lighting criteria. Initial Site Observations •This is a wide arterial road with heavy traffic from commuters and shipping. •This site is located between Riverside Park and Backman Elementary School. •Street lights are LED and arranged in a staggered arrangement. Lighting Measurements •This street meets the roadway luminance criteria for an arterial street with a medium pedestrian conflict. •Horizontal illuminance on the sidewalks meets criteria, but vertical illuminance does not. Participant Survey •Participants felt the amount of light was good, however the style and color does not match the neighborhood. •Participants found the light the be slightly glaring % From Criteria: 14% Above Site : Riverside Park @ 600N Arterial / Park Green Bars are Positive Responses Blue Bars are Negative ResponsesAPPENDIX C 73 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Surveyed by: Group 1 Site : Redwood Rd & S Temple Collector / Industrial 3 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Level of Acceptability: Poor (Lighting Score = -2.9) S. Temple is lit with HPS luminaires in a staggered arrangement and does not meet roadway criteria. Initial Site Observations •This site is an industrial part of town next to a ABF Freight. •There is no sidewalk on either side of the road and very minimal pedestrian traffic. •S. Temple dead ends at private property to the east. Lighting Measurements •The street is under lighted and does not meet roadway criteria. •The are currently no sidewalks, and light does not meet the edge of roadway where pedestrians would be walking. Participant Survey •Participants were very uncomfortable with this site. •Participants did not feel safe on this site during the day or night, due to the industrial location. •Participants felt that there was not enough light at this site. 17 3.5 0.0 cd/m2 Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance (cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min) Collector Criteria Low Conflict Average 0.3 0.08 0.4 Ave/Min 6 -4 Site 3 Average 0.1 0.0 0.2 Ave/Min 1.3 -2.3 Surveyed by: Group 1 3 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Redwood Rd & S Temple % From Criteria: -54% Below Site : Redwood Rd & S Temple Collector / Industrial Green Bars are Positive Responses Blue Bars are Negative Responses APPENDIX C 74 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Surveyed by: Group 2 Site : 700S Post Street Local / Residential 4 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 19 3.5 0.0 cd/m2 Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance (cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min) Local Criteria Low Conflict Average 0.3 0.08 0.3 Ave/Min 6 -6 Site 4 Average 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ave/Min --- Surveyed by: Group 2 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 700S Post Street 4 4 Level of Acceptability: Poor (Lighting Score = -1.8) 700S is an extremely wide residential street with cobrahead style luminaires at intersections. Initial Site Observations •700S is an extremely wide residential street and was described by one resident as an “air strip.” •The streets in this area are lit by HPS luminaires located at intersections. Current luminaires are not capable of providing light across the wide intersections. Lighting Measurements •This street is dark and only lit by passing cars. •There is no light on sidewalks except directly below luminaires. Participant Survey •Participants felt uncomfortable in this location at night, but very safe during the day, which indicates additional lighting could be helpful. •They felt strongly that there was not enough light on the roadway or sidewalk and were not able to identify faces and colors. % From Criteria: -97% Below Site : 700S Post Street Local / Residential Green Bars are Positive Responses Blue Bars are Negative ResponsesAPPENDIX C 75 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Surveyed by: Group 2 Site : 900W & Dalton Ave Arterial / Residential 5 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Level of Acceptability: Acceptable (Lighting Score = 5.2) 900W is an arterial street lit by HPS luminaires in a staggered arrangement. Initial Site Observations •This is a 5 lane arterial road next to Jordan Park. •Luminaires are LED and are in a staggered arrangement. •Sidewalks are separated from roadway by landscaping, but have sufficient horizontal illuminance. Lighting Measurements •Heavy traffic while measurements were being taken contributed to light levels. •Roadway luminance measurements meet criteria, but street feels slightly underlit. •Sidewalk horizontal criteria is met, but vertical illuminance is low. Participant Survey •Participants felt that the lighting was patchy and that trees obstructed light from hitting the sidewalks. •Overall they felt that this wide street had good coverage, however light sources appeared glaring. •Participants were split over if the sidewalks were sufficiently lit or not. 21 3.5 0.0 cd/m2 Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance (cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min) Arterial Criteria Low Conflict Average 0.3 0.08 0.6 Ave/Min 6 -3.5 Site 5 Average 0.3 0.0 1.4 Ave/Min 2.9 -5.1 Surveyed by: Group 2 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 900W & Dalton Ave 5 5 % From Criteria: 137% Above Site : 900W & Dalton Ave Arterial / Residential Green Bars are Positive Responses Blue Bars are Negative Responses APPENDIX C 76 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Surveyed by: Group 2 Site : Glendale Dr. & Navajo St Collector / Residential / Commercial 6 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Level of Acceptability: Moderate (Lighting Score = 2.7) Glendale Dr. is lit by HPS lights and also sees major contribution from nearby private lighting. Initial Site Observations •This is a residential/commercial area near the US Dream Academy and a Church. •The street lighting is located midblock and at intersections, but private lighting from parking lots contribute to light on the street and sidewalk. •Building mounted lights are glaring and shine into residences across the street. Lighting Measurements •The roadway is under lighted, even with contribution from private lighting. •The horizontal and vertical illuminance on the sidewalk does not meet criteria. Participant Survey •Participants felt that the lighting was patchy with different types and colors and several dark areas. •Overall they were split over the nighttime conditions. 23 3.5 0.0 cd/m2 Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance (cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min) Collector Criteria Medium Conflict Average 0.5 0.2 0.6 Ave/Min 4 -3.5 Site 6 Average 0.2 0.0 0.2 Ave/Min 1.5 -1.7 Surveyed by: Group 2 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Glendale Dr. & Navajo St 6 6 % From Criteria: -60% Below Site : Glendale Dr. & Navajo St Collector / Residential / Commercial Green Bars are Positive Responses Blue Bars are Negative ResponsesAPPENDIX C 77 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Surveyed by: Both Groups Site : Jay St & 1st Ave Local / Residential 7 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Level of Acceptability: Poor (Lighting Score = -0.3) 2nd Ave is residential street lit by a single HPS luminaire at each intersection. Initial Site Observations •This site is located in a residential neighborhood adjacent to a Church. •Sidewalks are separated from the road by landscaping and feel dark. Large trees shadow the sidewalks. •Sidewalk adjacent to the Church has light contribution from parking lot lighting. Lighting Measurements •The luminance on 2nd Ave does not meet criteria for a local street, but the lighting layout is in accordance with the current SLC Street Lighting Masterplan. •Sidewalks are dark and do not have any light, except directly below luminaire. Participant Survey •Participants felt that the street light only sufficiently illuminates the intersection. The remaining roadway and the sidewalks are dark. •Participants were split on nighttime safety and comfort levels. 25 3.5 0.0 cd/m2 Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance (cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min) Local Criteria Low Conflict Average 0.3 0.08 0.3 Ave/Min 6 -6 Site 7 Average 0.1 0.0 0.1 Ave/Min 9.9 -3.3 Surveyed by: Both Groups -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Jay St & 1st Ave 7 7 % From Criteria: -67% Below Site : Jay St & 1st Ave Local / Residential Green Bars are Positive Responses Blue Bars are Negative Responses APPENDIX C 78 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Surveyed by: Both Groups Site : 800E & S. Temple Arterial / Commercial 8 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Level of Acceptability: Excellent (Lighting Score = 13.9) S. Temple is lit using LED Acorn style luminaires arranged in an opposite arrangement. Initial Site Observations •S. Temple is a 4 lane arterial road connecting downtown, the avenues and the University. •This is a commercial area with a restaurants, condominiums and businesses nearby. •Sidewalks are separated from the street by landscaping and are shadowed by large trees. Additional pedestrian lights are placed at crosswalks. Lighting Measurements •Heavy traffic while measurements were being taken contributed to light levels. •Roadway luminance far exceeds criteria, but light levels felt appropriate for this street. •Sidewalks are slightly below criteria, and there is some light contribution from nearby businesses. Participant Survey •Participants felt that the lighting at this sight was better than other similar site throughout the city. •Participants were split on light levels. Some felt it was too bright, while others desired slightly more light. 27 3.5 0.0 cd/m2 Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance (cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min) Arterial Criteria Medium Conflict Average 0.5 0.2 0.9 Ave/Min 4 -3 Site 8 Average 0.4 0.1 1.5 Ave/Min 3.0 -1.8 Surveyed by: Both Groups 8 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 800E & S. Temple 8 % From Criteria: 65% Above Site : 800E & S. Temple Arterial / Commercial Green Bars are Positive Responses Blue Bars are Negative ResponsesAPPENDIX C 79 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Surveyed by: Both Groups Site : 200S Floral St Arterial / Commercial 9 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Level of Acceptability: Excellent (Lighting Score = 13.8) 200S is an arterial road running through the heart of downtown with cactus style poles. Initial Site Observations •This site is in the heart of downtown SLC nearby multiple bars and restaurants. •Cactus style poles are closely spaced on both sides of the road. •There is a large, non signalized, mid block crosswalk across 200S. Lighting Measurements •The roadway essentially meets criteria at this site and feels comfortable. •The cactus poles use acorn style luminaires that provide good vertical illuminance on pedestrians. •This site is essentially meets all criteria. Participant Survey •Participants felt that the lighting at this site was better then similar areas throughout the city. •Participants felt that the light sources were glaring and light could be better directed toward the street. •Participants also felt that the light fixtures meet the character of the area, but there are too many of them. 29 3.5 0.0 cd/m2 Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance (cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min) Arterial Criteria Medium Conflict Average 0.5 0.2 0.9 Ave/Min 4 -3 Site 9 Average 0.8 0.5 0.8 Ave/Min 4.2 -1.7 Surveyed by: Both Groups -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 200S Floral St 9 9 % From Criteria: -8% Below Site : 200S Floral St Arterial / Commercial Green Bars are Positive Responses Blue Bars are Negative Responses APPENDIX C 80 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Surveyed by: Both Groups Site : 650S Main Street Arterial / Commercial 10 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Level of Acceptability: Acceptable (Lighting Score = 6.3) Main St. is a collector street with a shared transit line, lit with LED luminaires in a staggered arrangement. Initial Site Observations •Main St. is shared by both vehicles and the TRAX line. •North and Southbound lanes are separated by a large landscape median that supplies power for TRAX. •Sidewalks are separated from the road by landscaping and are shaded by large trees. Lighting Measurements •The roadway exceeds criteria. Luminaires used are glaring. •Sidewalk essentially meets criteria, but have significant contribution from private lighting. •Overall, this site is well lit. Participant Survey •Participants felt that the trees blocked a lot of light to the sidewalks which caused the light to be uneven. •Overall, participants felt that the roadway was sufficiently lighted. 31 3.5 0.0 cd/m2 Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance (cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min) Collector Criteria Medium Conflict Average 0.5 0.2 0.6 Ave/Min 4 -3.5 Site 10 Average 0.4 0.1 1.3 Ave/Min 2.5 -1.6 Surveyed by: Both Groups -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 650S Main Street 10 10 % From Criteria: 116% Above Site : 650S Main Street Arterial / Commercial Green Bars are Positive Responses Blue Bars are Negative ResponsesAPPENDIX C 81 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Surveyed by: Group 2 Site : 700E Harrison Ave Arterial / Residential 11 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Level of Acceptability: Poor** (Lighting Score = -2.1) 700E is a large arterial road spanning the whole Salt Lake valley with heavy traffic. Initial Site Observations •700E is a 7 lane arterial road with heavy commuter and shipping traffic, along with bike lanes that runs throughout the whole valley. •The site is adjacent to Herman Franks Park and Liberty Park. •The roadway is lit using LED luminaires in a staggered arrangement. Lighting Measurements •The roadway exceeds lighting criteria, but luminance levels feel appropriate for this size of street. •Light on the sidewalk does not meet horizontal or vertical illuminance criteria, but heavy traffic provides additional light. Participant Survey •**Lights on the west side of the roadway were not operational during surveys.** •Overall, participants felt this site was dark and was worse than similar sites throughout the city. 33 3.5 0.0 cd/m2 Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance (cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min) Arterial Criteria Medium Conflict Average 0.5 0.2 0.9 Ave/Min 4 -3 Site 11 Average 0.2 0.0 1.6 Ave/Min 1.7 -4.6 Surveyed by: Group 2 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 700E Harrison Ave 11 11 ** % From Criteria: 78% Above Site : 700E Harrison Ave Arterial / Residential Green Bars are Positive Responses Blue Bars are Negative Responses APPENDIX C 82 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Surveyed by: Group 1 Site : 9th & 9th Arterial / Commercial 12 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Level of Acceptability: Acceptable (Lighting Score = 10.1) 900S is a collector street in a commercial area with by pedestrian style luminaires Initial Site Observations •9th & 9th is a bustling commercial area and a destination in Salt Lake. •The streets and sidewalks are lit mostly by pedestrian style luminaires along with cobra heads mounted on signal poles. •Landscaping and on street parking separate the sidewalk from the roadway. Lighting Measurements •Overall, this site meets or exceeds the lighting criteria. •The roadway luminance exceeds the target criteria, but luminance levels feel appropriate on the street. •Sidewalk horizontal and vertical illuminance criteria is met. Participant Survey •Participants felt that this site was appropriately lit and was better than similar sites throughout the city. •Participants noted that lighting could be better controlled and less glaring. •Participants liked the style of lighting for the neighborhood character. 35 3.5 0.0 cd/m2 Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance (cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min) Collector Criteria Medium Conflict Average 0.5 0.2 0.6 Ave/Min 4 -3.5 Site 12 Average 0.5 0.3 1.2 Ave/Min 5.6 -2.0 Surveyed by: Group 1 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 9th & 9th 12 % From Criteria: 101% Above Site : 9th & 9th Arterial / Commercial12 Green Bars are Positive Responses Blue Bars are Negative ResponsesAPPENDIX C 83 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Surveyed by: Both Groups Site : Layton Ave & W Temple Local / Residential 13 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Level of Acceptability: Moderate (Lighting Score = 3.6) West Temple is a collector road passing through residential area lit with HPS Luminaires along one side of the road. Initial Site Observations •West Temple is a 2 lane collector road passing through a residential area lit with HPS lights along the east side of the road. •Large, dense trees block most of the light from hitting the roadway or sidewalk. Lighting Measurements •Due to the large trees, most of the light does not reach to ground, causing the roadway and sidewalks to be under lighted. •Sidewalks feel dark is dramatic shadowing from trees. Participant Survey •Participants were split on how appropriate the roadway and sidewalk lighting was. •Participants were also split on nighttime safety and comfort levels at this site. •Overall, this is a very polarizing site. 37 3.5 0.0 cd/m2 Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance (cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min) Collector Criteria Low Conflict Average 0.3 0.08 0.4 Ave/Min 6 -4 Site 13 Average 0.1 0.0 0.2 Ave/Min 6.5 -10.1 Surveyed by: Both Groups -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Layton Ave & W Temple 13 13 % From Criteria: -50% Below Site : Layton Ave & W Temple Local / Residential Green Bars are Positive Responses Blue Bars are Negative Responses APPENDIX C 84 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Surveyed by: Group 1 Site : 1500S Yale Ave Collector / Residential 14 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Level of Acceptability: Acceptable (Lighting Score = 6.0) 1500S is a collector road bordering neighborhoods with Enhanced and base level lighting. Initial Site Observations •This site has both cobrahead HPS lights as well as acorn style lights that are part of the Enhanced Lighting Program. •1500S is a collector street connecting multiple residential areas with private and enhanced street lighting. Lighting Measurements •The street is slightly below criteria, but feels appropriate in this area. •Sidewalk lighting does not meet horizontal or vertical criteria. •Overall the site does not meet criteria, but feels lighting feels appropriate to the area. Participant Survey •Participants were divided on if the lighting was better or worse compared to similar areas, however they did generally agree that this street might need additional lighting. •Overall, participants felt that this site could use additional light. •Survey was taken in a different location than the measurements were. 39 3.5 0.0 cd/m2 Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance (cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min) Collector Criteria Low Conflict Average 0.3 0.08 0.4 Ave/Min 6 -4 Site 14 Average 0.2 0.0 0.3 Ave/Min 5.5 -8.4 Surveyed by: Group 1 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 1500S Yale Ave 14 14 % From Criteria: -37% Below Site : 1500S Yale Ave Collector / Residential Green Bars are Positive Responses Blue Bars are Negative ResponsesAPPENDIX C 85 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Surveyed by: Group 1 Site : 19th E & Sunnyside Ave Arterial / Residential / Commercial 15 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Level of Acceptability: Moderate (Lighting Score = 2.2) Sunnyside Ave is an arterial street connecting the residential neighborhoods with the University and Foothills. Initial Site Observations •This 5 lane arterial street is lit with LED lights from the north side of the road at a large spacing. •The side borders residential neighborhoods, Sunnyside Park, a church, University housing and is a major path into the University of Utah campus and to downtown. •Lights are glaring and cause light trespass at residences across the street. Lighting Measurements •Both the sidewalk and roadway are under lighted and do not meet criteria. •Lights are spaced too far apart and overly bright and glaring luminaires are used to help get light across and down the street. Participant Survey •Participants felt that the lighting was insufficient on the south side of the road, due to the single-side lighting arrangement. •Overall, participants felt that this lighting was worse than similar areas and could use additional light. 41 3.5 0.0 cd/m2 Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance (cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min) Arterial Criteria Medium Conflict Average 0.5 0.2 0.9 Ave/Min 4 -3 Site 15 Average 0.1 0.0 0.4 Ave/Min 5.7 -2.3 Surveyed by: Group 1 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 19th E & Sunnyside Ave 15 15 % From Criteria: -55% Below Site : 19th E & Sunnyside Ave Arterial / Residential / Commercial Green Bars are Positive Responses Blue Bars are Negative Responses APPENDIX C 86 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Surveyed by: Group 2 Site : 1400E Redondo Ave Local / Residential 16 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Level of Acceptability: Moderate (Lighting Score = 3.2) Redondo Ave is a residential street in the Sugarhouse area with private street lighting. Initial Site Observations •Redondo Ave is a residential street with private acorn style street lights. •Multiple lights along the street were burnt out or malfunctioning. •Large trees on the street shaded most of the lights. Lighting Measurements •This site does not meet roadway or sidewalk criteria. •The infrastructure for decent street lighting is present, but multiple lights were not on resulting in a dark street. Participant Survey •Some participants felt that the light sources were glary, and provided patchy, insufficient light coverage. •Participants liked the style of lights, but they did not feel comfortable, and would like to see more light on the roadway and sidewalk. 43 3.5 0.0 cd/m2 Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance (cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min) Local Criteria Low Conflict Average 0.3 0.08 0.3 Ave/Min 6 -6 Site 16 Average 0.1 0.0 0.0 Ave/Min 5.3 -- Surveyed by: Group 2 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 1400E Redondo Ave 16 16 % From Criteria: -48% Below Site : 1400E Redondo Ave Local / Residential Green Bars are Positive Responses Blue Bars are Negative ResponsesAPPENDIX C 87 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Surveyed by: Group 2 Site : 1000E 2100S Local / Commercial 17 Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 Level of Acceptability: Acceptable (Lighting Score = 12.0) 2100S is in the heart of the Sugarhouse business district and is part of the Special Assessment Lighting program Initial Site Observations •The site is in the middle of the Sugarhouse business district and is surrounded by commercial properties. •The luminaires used at this site have a street light as well as two pedestrian level light sources. •2100S is a four lane arterial road and luminaires are in an opposite arrangement. •Acorn style luminaires are bright and slightly glaring. Lighting Measurements •There is a lot of light at this site and all criteria is exceeded. •Multi-head luminaires with street and pedestrian luminaires plenty of light on the sidewalk and street. Participant Survey •Most participants felt that there was too much light, and that the light sources were glaring. •Overall, participants felt safe at this location. 45 3.5 0.0 cd/m2 Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance (cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min) Collector Criteria Medium Conflict Average 0.5 0.2 0.6 Ave/Min 4 -3.5 Site 17 Average 2.5 0.3 1.8 Ave/Min 8.2 -2.6 Surveyed by: Group 2 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 1000E 2100S 17 17 % From Criteria: 194% Above Site : 1000E 2100S Local / Commercial Green Bars are Positive Responses Blue Bars are Negative Responses APPENDIX C 88 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 89 APPENDIX D Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan Nocturnal Infrastructure for Ecological Health Prepared by: Travis Longcore, Ph.D. Prepared for: Clanton and Associates, Boulder, Colorado May 2020 Lights of Salt Lake City wash out the Milky Way viewed from Antelope Island State Park. Photograph: Ryan Andreasen. 90 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 Potential Impacts of Streetlights on Wildlife in Salt Lake City .............................................. 4 2.1 Physical Geography ........................................................................................................ 4 2.1.1 Great Salt Lake Shorelands ..................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Jordan River ............................................................................................................ 7 2.1.3 Urban Creeks .......................................................................................................... 7 2.1.4 Wasatch Mountains ................................................................................................. 8 2.2 Sensitive Species ............................................................................................................. 8 2.3 Effects of Lighting on Key Wildlife Groups ................................................................ 10 2.3.1 Attraction and Disorientation ................................................................................ 10 2.3.2 Loss of Connectivity ............................................................................................. 12 2.3.3 Foraging ................................................................................................................ 13 2.3.4 Interference with Visual Communication ............................................................. 14 2.3.5 Physiological Responses ....................................................................................... 14 3 Consideration of Spectrum in Municipal Street Lighting Systems ...................................... 16 3.1 Effects on Wildlife ........................................................................................................ 16 3.2 Effects on Dark Skies .................................................................................................... 19 3.3 Human Circadian Rhythms ........................................................................................... 22 4 Design Strategies for a Healthy Nocturnal Infrastructure ..................................................... 27 4.1 Systemwide Approaches ............................................................................................... 27 4.1.1 Need-based Lighting ............................................................................................. 27 4.1.2 Shielding and Directionality ................................................................................. 27 4.1.3 Intensity, Dimming, and Controls ......................................................................... 27 4.1.4 Spectrum ............................................................................................................... 28 4.2 Ecological Overlay Strategies ....................................................................................... 30 4.2.1 Bird Collision Zone............................................................................................... 32 4.2.2 Critical Wildlife Habitat Zone .............................................................................. 32 4.2.3 Jordan River and Urban Creeks ............................................................................ 33 4.2.4 Community Parks and Natural Lands ................................................................... 33 5 References ............................................................................................................................. 34 APPENDIX D 91 1 1 Introduction Salt Lake City is located in a region connected to its night sky. The awe and wonder inspired by a view of the Milky Way and sky overflowing with stars attracts visitors to Utah and contributes to the identity of the region for residents. Salt Lake City itself is brightly illuminated, with its cultural and institutional centers, commercial zones, and unique urban design. But just north of the city, Antelope Island State Park has sought and received recognition as a Dark Sky Park by the International Dark-Sky Association, joining eight other Dark Sky Parks, a Dark Sky Community, and a Dark Sky Heritage Place in Utah (Figure 1). The future of Antelope Island’s long-term status as a Dark Sky Park depends on the decisions of the cities along the Wasatch Front in protecting the night sky (see cover). Cities set the tone for night lighting in a region. They are the most brightly lit, and their size influences the markets, practices, and professionals in a region. Commercial zones of cities and towns tend to contribute the most light escaping upward (and therefore wasted), along with lighted sports fields when they are illuminated (Luginbuhl et al. 2009). Historically, street lights contributed a significant and constant amount to both useful and wasted light through the night, while residential lights and lighting from vehicles declines substantially through course of the night (Bará et al. 2017). Within residential zones, most of the light is from the streetlighting system, especially later in the evening when traffic rates are low and ornamental lighting is switched off (Bará et al. 2017). Decisions made at municipal level about its street lighting system therefore have a large contribution to the overall amount of useful and wasted light in a city. Because perception of lighting is based on contrasts (the same light appears dim next to a brighter source and bright next to a dimmer source), the decisions made in terms of municipal street lighting systems have ramifications to the nocturnal environment that extend beyond the system itself. As a metropolitan area, compared with the 125 largest metropolitan areas in the United States, Salt Lake City is well above average in terms of the average amount of light escaping upward that can be measured by satellites (Figure 2). It does not waste as much light as other larger cities with their greater areas, but on a per area basis it contributes more to regional light pollution than the average city, although not so much as New Orleans, which is a similar size. Figure 1. Distribution of recognized dark sky places in and near Utah. Circles are Dark Sky Parks, triangles are Dark Sky Communities, and diamonds are Dark Sky Heritage Sites. Source: List of Dark Sky Places maintained by Dark Skies Advisory Group, IUCN. APPENDIX D 92 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 2 Figure 2. Light escaping upwards from Salt Lake City 2012–2017 within the 125 largest metropolitan regions in the United States. Top: radiance normalized for area. Bottom: total radiance from entire city extent. Data from VIIRS DNB as analyzed by Horton et al. (2019). Large-scale transformations of municipal street lighting systems have occurred over the past decade as older lighting technologies have been replaced by light emitting diode (LED) systems. Because of the history of the technology, where the early high-efficiency LEDs had a high content of blue light, residents of many jurisdictions objected to the new lights. The bluish-white light of LEDs in those installations was perceived as brighter because of the visual sensitivity of the human eye to the greater proportion of shorter (blue) wavelengths in the light produced. In addition, when lights are more efficient and less expensive to operate, there is a tendency to use more light (Kyba et al. 2014). Not only does the color of light affect how humans perceive the lights; the color of lights is recognized as influencing the contributions lights have to light pollution (Aubé et al. 2013, Kinzey et al. 2017), wildlife (Longcore et al. 2015b, Donners et al. 2018, Longcore 2018), and human health (Garcia-Saenz et al. 2018). Researchers and engaged lighting designers are developing techniques to minimize undesirable effects of outdoor lighting on both astronomical and ecological light pollution. These include guidance for protected lands (Longcore and Rich 2017), recommendations for specific groups of species (Voigt et al. 2018), and recommendations balancing human vision and wildlife impacts (Longcore et al. 2018a). As Salt Lake City prepares a new Street Lighting Master Plan, this research can be synthesized and applied to inform decisions about the design of the future street lighting system that is consistent with the values embodied in the plan. Mean RadianceSummed Radiance0 10 20 30 40 50 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 New York Chicago Los Angeles Las Vegas Salt Lake City New Orleans New York Chicago Los Angeles Las Vegas Salt Lake City New Orleans 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Area RankAPPENDIX D 93 3 This report provides guidance for minimizing the adverse impacts of unnecessary light at night on species, habitats, and ecosystems in the development of a Street Lighting Master Plan for Salt Lake City. The organization of the report is as follows. In the next chapter, the potential impacts of street lighting on wildlife in Salt Lake City are reviewed, based on the published scientific research. The following chapter explores the role of spectrum in determining the level of impact on dark skies, circadian rhythms, and wildlife. Then, this information is synthesized in a chapter outlining spatially explicit design strategies to reduce adverse impacts of street lighting on sensitive biological resources within the context of the further development of Salt Lake City’s municipal lighting system. With these strategies, Salt Lake City can build a nocturnal infrastructure that supports ecological health by providing high-quality lighting for human safety and well-being while protecting the night sky and nighttime environment within the city and across the region, setting an example for others to follow. APPENDIX D 94 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 4 2 Potential Impacts of Streetlights on Wildlife in Salt Lake City Street lighting has a large spatial footprint within the area of a city. For a medium-sized city like Salt Lake City, street lighting is provided throughout its residential, commercial, and industrial districts to different extents. In this chapter, the potential effects of this system on wildlife are considered, which requires assessment of the geographic extent of the city. To describe the environment potentially affected by lighting in Salt Lake City, the physical geography and habitats of the city were described and lists of sensitive species were compiled. Together, these natural features and species distributions can provide the background to devise spatially explicit schemes to minimize potentially adverse effects. Figure 3. Location of Salt Lake City within the physical geography of the region (USGS topographic maps, 1885, from http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/). 2.1 Physical Geography Salt Lake City is located on lacustrine terraces between the Wasatch Mountains and the Great Salt Lake. It grew up as a central location for travel, commerce, and mining, supported by a swath of irrigated lands extending north-south along the Wasatch Mountains. Although other regional cities were established first (e.g., Ogden), Salt Lake City arose as the most significant city through a confluence of its irrigation resources and its importance as a religious center. APPENDIX D 95 5 The growth of Salt Lake City depended in part on the array of some 35 streams that flowed downward from the Wasatch Mountains to the rich soils of the terraces above the Great Salt Lake (Harris 1941). These streams were not deeply incised and therefore they could be diverted for irrigation, compared with the rivers of the region, which although larger, are incised into canyons and consequently could not be used easily be irrigation by the white settlers in the 1840s. The climate is mild, with a long growing season extended by proximity to the Great Salt Lake. Snow accumulation in the mountains and a long melt season made agriculture attractive and productive within the region. The creeks flowing out of the Wasatch Mountains, City Creek, Red Butte Creek, Emigration Creek, Parley’s Cañon Creek (now Parley’s Creek), Big Cottonwood Creek, in turn flowed into the Jordan River, which flowed northward to debouche through a small distributary delta into the Great Salt Lake (Figure 3). The Jordan River has a winding, low-gradient pathway that remains to this day, dividing the territory of the city into eastern and western halves. The eastern half is characterized by the rising terraces climbing up toward the mountains with the remaining extents of the westward-flowing creeks, while the western portion of the city is an almost entirely flat open plain extending toward the shore of the Great Salt Lake (Figure 3). These features of the physical geography of Salt Lake City are a useful organizing framework to discuss zones that remain important to the ecology and sensitive species of the City today: 1) the Salt Lake shorelands, 2) the Jordan River, 3) the urban creeks, and 4) the Wasatch Mountains. Figure 4. Example of the open landscape of the Great Salt Lake shorelands. Photo from Google Local Guide Neil Martin, looking due east toward Salt Lake City. 2.1.1 Great Salt Lake Shorelands The shorelands surrounding the Great Salt Lake extend far into the City limits of Salt Lake City. The airport and western commercial and industrial areas extend into this zone. These flat, open areas are made up of deep lacustrine sediments of clay and loam (Flowers 1934). Although the vegetation changes by zones extending away from the lake, the plains and ponds within them tend to be saline, which leads to a flora free from trees and dominated by low succulent herbs and low shrubs, such as pickleweed, salt bush, salt grass, and seepweed (Flowers 1934). Open habitats such as these (Figure 4) are vulnerable to disruption by light pollution because light encounters no barriers and even a single unshielded streetlight can be seen from a great distance APPENDIX D 96 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 6 (De Molenaar et al. 2006, Longcore and Rich 2017). Birds in landscapes like this can be influenced by the direct glare from streetlights and will locate nests farther from lights when such sites are available (De Molenaar et al. 2006). These shoreland ecosystems are extremely important to shorebirds for foraging and breeding. The brine shrimp and salt flies that feed on algae in and around the lake provide food and the undisturbed open areas are used by Snowy Plovers, American Avocets, Black-necked Stilts, Long-billed Curlew, and dozens of other shorebird and waterbird species (Jones 2008). A portion of this area with Salt Lake City has been established and managed as the Inland Sea Shorebird Reserve by Rio Tinto/Kennecott as mitigation for impacts from its nearby mining operations. They took advantage of existing shallow depressions with soils high in clay that naturally held water and managed the drainage system to extend inundation times and provide high-quality bird habitat. The 3,670-acre reserve provides habitat for around 120,000 birds annually. The Great Salt Lake as a whole has been recognized as a site of “hemispheric importance” within the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Network (Andres et al. 20016). Nearly all the western shorelands with Salt Lake City have been designated as Very Important Bird Areas (IBAs) by Birdlife International. They are the Gilbert Bay/South Arm IBA and the Farmington Bay IBA, which each extend into and cover the undeveloped reaches of the shorelands. These IBAs are of global importance (the highest possible ranking). Figure 5. Extent of globally significant Important Bird Areas (blue) in Salt Lake City with City Council districts (red) for reference. APPENDIX D 97 7 Figure 6. Example of the vegetation of the Jordan River as it winds through Salt Lake City. Image from Google Local Guide Ross Pincock. 2.1.2 Jordan River The Jordan River is a low-gradient, meandering river that flows north to south through Salt Lake City. Considerable development has affected the banks and floodplain, but recent years have brought attention and restoration efforts to enhance the river, its habitats, and its water quality. The Jordan River supports riparian (streamside) habitats that are used for nesting by neotropical migratory bird such as Bullock’s Oriole, Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-breasted Chat, all of which nest along the Jordan River and then migrate to Central America for the winter. The Tracey Aviary conducts surveys and nest monitoring along the Jordan River and birding hotspots along the river include Glendale Golf Course, Jordan River Parkway (200 S to 2100 S), Fife Wetlands Preserve, and Rose Park Golf Course. 2.1.3 Urban Creeks Salt Lake City has a series of creeks that flow down from the Wasatch Mountains and cut east to west across the city toward the Jordan River (Figure 7). Over time, the lower extents of these creeks have been undergrounded, cutting off the surface flows and diverting them to underground pipes. For example, City Creek, was undergrounded along North Temple Street in 1909 (Love 2005). These creeks have been the focus of daylighting and restoration activities that may Figure 7. Footprint of the Jordan River running south to north through the center of Salt Lake City. APPENDIX D 98 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 8 extend into the future (Love 2005). Because of the water flows and support of riparian vegetation, the remaining aboveground creeks remain important habitats for wildlife. They are now surrounded by neighborhoods and receive heavy recreational use and provide valuable access to nature within the urban fabric (Figure 8). Figure 8. Image of Emigration Creek as it flows through the Wasatch Hollow Open Space. Photo by Google Local Guide Joseph Muhlestein. 2.1.4 Wasatch Mountains The foothills of the Wasatch Mountains to the west of the Salt Lake City are contiguous with a large block of contiguous open space and wilderness area and therefore are easily recognized as being environmentally sensitive. One of the vulnerabilities of mountainous habitats to light pollution is that their slopes are directly in the light of sight for any light that is emitted upward from nearby sources (Longcore and Rich 2017). Any light from Salt Lake City that is emitted above the horizontal plane and directed toward the east has the potential to degrade the habitats of the Wasatch Mountains. 2.2 Sensitive Species Important wildlife species of Salt Lake City were reviewed in a 2010 program for the acquisition of natural lands. The program identified and mapped the distribution of critical habitat for wildlife. A list of species for which potential habitat is found in the City was also provided. This map identified all parcels within the city that intersected with areas that had potential habitat for Black Bear, Band- Figure 9. Four urban creeks (purple) extending out of the Wasatch Mountains into Salt Lake City. APPENDIX D 99 9 tailed Pigeon, Blue Grouse, Chukar Partridge, Moose, Mule Deer, Ring-necked Pheasant, Rocky Mountain Elk, Ruffed Grouse, or Snowshoe Hare. The resulting map forms a ring around the core of Salt Lake City, with critical wildlife habitat extending down the slopes of the Wasatch range to the urban edge on the east and also enveloping the shorelands and extending from the west to and around the north of the airport (Figure 10). The city also has potential habitat for a range of sensitive plant and wildlife species. These species include birds of the open shorelands (Bobolink, Burrowing Owl, Long-billed Curlew, Northern Goshawk, Short-eared Owl) those associated with the foothills and creeks (Lewis’s Woodpecker, Three-toed Woodpecker, Greater Sage Grouse, and some found throughout (e.g., Ferruginous Hawk, Grasshopper Sparrow). Other sensitive wildlife species include the Smooth Greensnake, found in the mountains, spotted bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat. Figure 10. Distribution of parcels (green) that intersect with critical wildlife habitat, with City Council districts for reference. Other wildlife species, although not recognized formally as sensitive, deserve attention in a street lighting plan intended to reduce and avoid impacts. Fireflies are known to be sensitive to light pollution and have popular appeal as wondrous symbols of the dusk and nighttime environment (Lloyd 2006). The Natural History Museum of Utah is collecting firefly sightings from around the state and has reports from both north and south of Salt Lake City and a few records have been reported from within Salt Lake City. APPENDIX D 100 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 10 Bats are also significantly influenced by lighting conditions. Mexican free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) are well-known to residents because they roost at West High School near downtown during migration. Other documented species include hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus; https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/3742269). It is likely that more species and locations for bat foraging and roosting would be documented if acoustic surveys were conducted (O’Farrell et al. 1999). 2.3 Effects of Lighting on Key Wildlife Groups Artificial light at night can have a range of lethal and sub-lethal effects on wildlife (Longcore and Rich 2004, Rich and Longcore 2006, Gaston et al. 2012, Gaston et al. 2013, Meyer and Sullivan 2013). Some wildlife species will avoid areas with additional lighting (Beier 1995, 2006, Stone et al. 2009, Stone et al. 2012) or otherwise be adversely impacted (Hölker et al. 2010a, Hölker et al. 2010b, Longcore 2010, Gaston et al. 2013). The formally recognized sensitive species in Salt Lake City, or at least potentially present, include large and small mammals, migratory and resident birds, bats, one reptile, and at least one plant species. The types of disruption from lighting that could occur for these groups include attraction and disorientation leading to injury or death, disruption of connectivity between habitat patches, interference with predator-prey relations and circadian rhythms that influence foraging decisions, and disruption of pollination. 2.3.1 Attraction and Disorientation Attraction/repulsion and disorientation are possible outcomes of encounters between wildlife and artificial light at night (Longcore and Rich 2004). The most well-known situation is the attraction and disorientation of hatchling sea turtles on ocean beaches, which results in the death of the juvenile turtles that do not reach the ocean (McFarlane 1963). The two most relevant instances of attraction and disorientation for Salt Lake City are the impacts on migratory birds and on insects. Migratory Birds. Research with weather radar over the past five years has dramatically improved understanding of the influence of city lights on migrating birds. Most songbird species migrate at night and they can be detected and mapped on weather radar. A massive trove of radar data has been accumulated over the past 25 years and so researchers can now use those data and powerful new computing approaches to understand the influence of lights on the migratory paths of birds. Light at night escaping upwards so that it can be measured by a satellite is associated with greater numbers of birds present during the day, especially in the fall when juveniles are migrating south (La Sorte et al. 2017). As the birds are migrating southward they are attracted to the lights of the city and then end up disproportionately using habitats in and around cities as compared with potentially better habitats farther from cities (McLaren et al. 2018). Lights can rapidly increase the density of migratory birds in an area at night. A study of the Tribute in Light installation in New York documented an increase from 500 birds within 0.5 km of the vertical APPENDIX D 101 11 light beams before they were turned on to 15,700 birds within 0.5 km 15 minutes after illumination (Van Doren et al. 2017). Attraction at night is only the first hazard. Urban habitats and especially business districts are quite hazardous to these birds because once they are on the ground, they are susceptible to collisions with glass, which they do not perceive as a barrier (Klem 1990, Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The combination of night-time lights followed by daytime glass exposure is a significant threat to songbirds during the already strenuous migratory period (Cabrera-Cruz et al. 2018). Radar data have been used to track the relative exposure of migratory birds to lights within U.S. metropolitan areas ranked by area. The Salt Lake City–West Valley City urban area ranks 74th in area among cities in the continental US by area. When evaluated for the number of migrating birds based on radar tracking (average for 1995–2017) and the intensity to light as measured by the VIIRS DNB satellite (average for 2012–2017), the city ranks 120th in exposure for the spring and 112th in exposure for the fall (Horton et al. 2019) (Figure 11). Other cities have far more migratory birds flying overhead per unit area. For example, New Orleans has many more birds flying overhead because of its location on the Gulf Coast, where all of the birds heading to the northern forests and back again to Central and South America funnel overhead. Figure 11. Relative exposure of migrating birds to light in Salt Lake City within the 125 largest metropolitan regions in the United States (Horton et al. 2019). Salt Lake City has relatively fewer migratory bird species overhead during migration than other similarly sized metropolitan regions. Even though the relative exposure is low compared with other similar-sized cities, birds are attracted to and die at the buildings of Salt Lake City. The city can take a leadership position by reducing the amount of light escaping upward from lighting throughout the city and especially downtown to reduce this unfortunate outcome. Insects. Many families of insects are attracted to lights, including moths, lacewings, beetles, bugs, caddisflies, crane flies, midges, hoverflies, wasps, and bush crickets (Sustek 1999, Kolligs 2000, Eisenbeis 2006, Frank 2006, Longcore et al. 2015a). Any lamp with significant emissions 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Fall Exposure RankSalt Lake City New Orleans 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Area Rank APPENDIX D 102 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 12 in the ultraviolet or blue wavelengths is highly attractive to insects (Eisenbeis 2006, Frank 2006, van Langevelde et al. 2011, Barghini and de Medeiros 2012). Insects attracted to lights are subject to increased predation from a variety of predators, including bats, birds, skunks, toads, and spiders (Blake et al. 1994, Frank 2006). Moths are especially attracted to lights and they play a special role in the ecosystem as pollinators. Moths are killed in collisions with the lights or by becoming trapped in housings (Frank 1988, 2006). Short of death, this attraction removes native insects from their natural environments (Meyer and Sullivan 2013) in what Eisenbeis (2006) calls the “vacuum cleaner effect.” Attraction of insects by light results in significant reduction in pollination (Macgregor et al. 2015, Macgregor et al. 2017) and this effect spills over into daytime insect communities because of the decreased seed set and reproduction of plants (Knop et al. 2017). Bats. The responses of different bat species to lighting are complex (Rydell 2006). Some faster- flying and more maneuverable species will be attracted to lights, where they forage on insects also attracted to the lights. Slower and less maneuverable species will avoid lights, essentially being repulsed by their presence (Stone et al. 2009, Stone et al. 2012, Stone et al. 2015). Light at the entrance of a roost can keep bats from emerging for their nightly foraging (Boldogh et al. 2007). 2.3.2 Loss of Connectivity As is implied by the repulsion of some bat species by nighttime lighting, the presence of permanent outdoor lighting can severe landscape connectivity for wildlife species (Stone et al. 2009). The existence of the lights themselves, shielded or not, is sufficient to influence wildlife movement (Beier 1995, 2006). This phenomenon was illustrated by a radio telemetry study of young mountain lions in Orange County, California (Beier 1995): All travel in corridors and habitat peninsulas occurred at night. During overnight monitoring, the disperser usually avoided artificial lights when in the corridor or peninsula. For example, M12 [a juvenile mountain lion] consistently used dark areas as he rapidly (<4 hr) traveled the grassy ridge (6.0 X 1.5 km) separating San Juan Capistrano from San Clemente (Fig. 1). Also M12 seemed to use light cues when he negotiated the tightest part of the Pechanga Corridor; his consistent movements in the direction of the darkest horizon caused him to miss the only bridged undercrossing of I- 15. Overnight monitoring showed that dispersers especially avoided night-lights in conjunction with open terrain. On M12’s initial encounter with a well-lit sand factory and adjacent sand pits, he took 2 hours and 4 attempts to select a route that skirted the facility, after which he rested on a ridgetop for 2 hours. During 2 nights in the Arroyo Trabuco, M8 explored several small side canyons lacking woody vegetation. He followed each canyon to the ridgetop, where city lights were visible 300–800 m west. He stopped at each canyon ridgetop for 15–60 minutes before returning to the arroyo, without moving >100 m into the grasslands west of the ridgeline in view of the city lights. APPENDIX D 103 13 Further data on the use of underpasses and the influence of lighting on landscape connectivity have been reported. An experimental evaluation of underpass use by wildlife found that for mule deer, even nearby lights affected movement compared with a reference period (Bliss-Ketchum et al. 2016). Research conclusively shows that artificial night lighting can have an adverse impact on the foraging behavior of bat species, and exclude certain species from foraging routes or areas (Stone et al. 2009, Polak et al. 2011). 2.3.3 Foraging Small mammals respond to illumination in their foraging activities. For example, artificial light of 0.3 and 0.1 lux reduced the activity, movement, or food consumption of a cross-section of rodent species (Clarke 1983, Brillhart and Kaufman 1991, Vasquez 1994, Falkenberg and Clarke 1998, Kramer and Birney 2001). This phenomenon also has been shown in natural (in addition to laboratory) conditions (Kotler 1984a, Bliss-Ketchum et al. 2016, Wang and Shier 2017, Wang and Shier 2018). The driving force behind patterns of activity and foraging by animals influenced by artificial lights is presumably predation. Additional (artificial) light might increase success of visually foraging predators, thereby increasing risk to their prey, with one critical exception: prey species with a communal predator defence, such as schooling or flocking, have decreased risk of predation with additional light. Evidence for this general pattern continues to accrue. Partridge are documented to roost closer to each other on darker nights and can see predators farther away on lighter nights (Tillmann 2009). Some species of bats avoid artificial lights to reduce predation risk (Stone et al. 2009, Polak et al. 2011). A general review of nocturnal foraging suggests that night is a refuge with decreased overall predation on birds and mammals, and that foraging groups are larger at night, especially for clades that are not strictly nocturnal (Beauchamp 2007). Songbirds that were experimentally relocated moved back to their home ranges at night, a result that is most consistent with predator avoidance (Mukhin et al. 2009). Pollination is determined by foraging activities and the distribution of insect foragers, which in turn are susceptible to attraction, disorientation, and other behavioral disruptions from artificial lights (Knop et al. 2017). Predator-prey systems are tightly tied into lunar cycles, with many relationships affected by lunar phase (Williams 1936, Sutherland and Predavec 1999, Topping et al. 1999, Riou and Hamer 2008, Upham and Hafner 2013). Even within species, variation in color interacts with lunar cycle to affect foraging success. White-morph Barn Owls have an advantage foraging during the full moon because the light reflecting off their white feathers triggers their rodent prey to freeze in place, while Barn Owls with darker colored feathers do not have this advantage (San-Jose et al. 2019). Light pollution can be expected to interfere with such patterns (San-Jose et al. 2019). Predator-prey relations probably also drive the influence of artificial lighting on bird nest location. The one experimental study of the effect of streetlights on breeding bird density shows a negative impact (De Molenaar et al. 2006). The streetlights in De Molnenaar et al.’s study created a maximum illumination of 20 lux (1.8 footcandles). The adverse effects of these lights (decreased density of Black-tailed Godwit nests) were experienced up to 300 m (984 ft) from APPENDIX D 104 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 14 these lights, extending into areas with negligible increased illumination, which means that the adverse impact results from the light being visible, rather than the amount of light incident on the sensitive receptor. 2.3.4 Interference with Visual Communication Artificial light at night affects species such as fireflies that communicate visually at night with light. Although the distribution of fireflies is limited within the city, their recovery could be a laudable urban conservation goal. Artificial light washes out the signals that fireflies use for communication and is potentially contributing to the decline of fireflies and other organisms that rely on bioluminescent communication (Lloyd 2006, Hagen and Viviani 2009, Viviani et al. 2010, Bird and Parker 2014). A Brazilian study documented lower species richness of fireflies in areas of 0.2 lux and greater (even from sodium vapour lamps, which are otherwise considered to be more wildlife friendly), except for those few species that naturally fly at greater illumination (Hagen and Viviani 2009). 2.3.5 Physiological Responses Birds. The research on the effects of ambient and artificial lighting on bird reproduction goes back to the 1920s (Rawson 1923, Rowan 1938). Birds can be extremely sensitive to illumination, and extension of foraging by species under artificial lights is documented in the literature (Goertz et al. 1980, Sick and Teixeira 1981, Frey 1993, Rohweder and Baverstock 1996). Research shows an earlier start to seasonal breeding of birds in urban (lighted) environments than rural (dark) environments (Havlin 1964, Lack 1965). Many of the physiological impacts of lighting on birds are reviewed by De Molenaar et al. (2006) and Longcore (2010). • Dawn song in American Robins (Turdus migratorius) is influenced by ambient illumination (Miller 2006); • Dawn song and lay date in a songbird have been shown to be associated with proximity to streetlights, with evidence that this affected mate choice, which has implications for fitness (Kempenaers et al. 2010); • Light of 0.3 lux can move reproductive seasonality of songbirds by a month and cause irregular molt progression (Dominoni et al. 2013a, Dominoni et al. 2013b); • Light is a major driver of the daily activity patterns of songbirds (study animal European Blackbird; Turdus merula), causing them to be active earlier in the morning (Dominoni et al. 2014); • A songbird (Tree Sparrow; Passer montanus) exposed to 6 lux in the laboratory secreted luteinizing hormone earlier than controls, and urban birds exposed to 3–5 lux exhibited this pattern in the field; both of these response were statistically associated with night lighting (Zhang et al. 2014); • Artificial light outside of nest boxes affects perceived photoperiod of Great Tits (Parus major), which the authors interpret as creating an ecological trap (Titulaer et al. 2012); • Artificial light rather than traffic noise affects dawn and dusk song timing in common European songbirds (Da Silva et al. 2014). APPENDIX D 105 15 Artificial night lighting affects diurnal species substantially as well. As noted above, it affects timing of dawn and dusk song, seasonality of reproduction, mate choices, and can extend activities of diurnal species into the night (Stracey et al. 2014). Birds that sing earliest are responding to increases in illumination so faint that they are undetectable by humans (Thomas et al. 2002). This is true for impacts across species, where diurnal species are affected in numerous ways by an altered nighttime environment (Miller 2006, Kempenaers et al. 2010, Titulaer et al. 2012, Dominoni et al. 2013a, Dominoni et al. 2013b, Da Silva et al. 2014, Dominoni et al. 2014, Zhang et al. 2014, Da Silva et al. 2015). Mammals. Similar impacts on both seasonality and daily rhythms are documented for mammals. For example, lighting from a military base was shown to desynchronize the breeding time of tammar wallabies in the field in Australia, as well as to suppress nightly melatonin production (Robert et al. 2015). Studies on the physiological effects of light at night on mammals are abundant, partly because of the implications for understanding human health (e.g., Zubidat et al. 2007, Zubidat et al. 2010). As a whole, they show that artificial light at levels far less intense than previously assumed are able to entrain circadian rhythms and influence physiological functions such as immune response (Bedrosian et al. 2011). For example, extremely dim light is sufficient to entrain rhythms in mice, and can be done without phase shifting or reducing production of melatonin (other physiological indicators of light influence) (Butler and Silver 2011). For shorter wavelengths (blue and green) entrainment takes place at 10–3 lux. Much greater intensity, 0.4 lux, is needed for red light to entrain rhythms (Butler and Silver 2011). This research is consistent with recently documented differences in mice behaviour for exposure to 20 lux vs. 1 lux at night (Shuboni and Yan 2010). Mice that were exposed to dim (5 lux) light at night consumed the same amount of food as those under dark controls, but gained weight as a result of the shift in time of consumption (Fonken et al. 2010). Plants. Plants “anticipate” the dawn with a synchronized circadian clock and increase immune defence at the time of day when infection is most likely (Wang et al. 2011). The timing of resistance (R)-gene mediated defences in Arabidopsis to downy mildew is tied to the circadian system such that defences are greatest before dawn, when the mildew normally disperses its spores (Wang et al. 2011). Preliminary experiments show that carbon assimilation is lower in trees exposed to continuous night lighting, compared with controls in a “stereotypical urban setting” (Skaf et al. 2010). Some plants might use light-triggered circadian rhythms to synchronize expression of anti-herbivory compounds with periods of peak herbivory, leading to increased loss from herbivory in out-of-phase plants (Goodspeed et al. 2012). The importance of circadian rhythms in plants, for everything from disease response and flowering time to seed germination, and the potential for disruption by night lighting, has not been explored widely (Resco et al. 2009, Bennie et al. 2016). Light at night also affects the perception of seasonal change by plants and their associated physiological responses. Exposure to light at night is associated with earlier budburst in plants in the United Kingdom, in a pattern that cannot be explained by the greater temperatures in cities (ffrench-Constant et al. 2016). Trees exposed to nearby lights have long been observed to hold on to their leaves later in the fall (Briggs 2006, Škvareninová et al. 2017, Massetti 2018) and prevent seed set in plants cued to shorter daylengths (Palmer et al. 2017). APPENDIX D 106 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 16 3 Consideration of Spectrum in Municipal Street Lighting Systems The LED revolution in outdoor lighting has created new possibilities to select the spectral composition of lights. Unlike lighting technology of the past, such as high-pressure sodium or metal halide lamps, the range of colors that can be deployed using LEDs is wide. As a result, it is possible to select spectral profiles that can either reduce or increase the effects of a street lighting system on the visibility of stars in the night sky, on human circadian rhythms, and on wildlife (Longcore 2018). 3.1 Effects on Wildlife This review of the effects of lighting spectrum on wildlife is drawn from my recent article (Longcore 2018), which can be consulted for additional details. The effects of lights of different spectral composition on wildlife depends on the responses of different wildlife groups to those lights. A limited number of “response curves” are available that track the response for a species or group of species to light throughout the entire visible spectrum (and into the portion of the spectrum invisible to humans). These curves have been developed for insects in general, bees, moths, juvenile salmon, seabirds, and sea turtles. My colleagues and I have developed methods to compare different lamp types for their effects across these groups (Longcore et al. 2018a). Some patterns are clear. Insect attraction to LEDs is lower across the board when compared with lamps that emit ultraviolet light. Both “warm” and “cold” LEDs have been compared with metal halide and mercury vapor lamps and found to attract less than a tenth of the number of insects, a finding that is attributable to the difference in ultraviolet emissions (Eisenbeis and Eick 2011). Conversely, most broad-spectrum LEDs used in outdoor lighting do have a potential to adversely impact the perception of daylength (and thus seasonality) in plants, because the peak sensitivity of the phytochromes that detect daylength are in range of LED peak emissions for most full- spectrum LEDs. Several approaches are available to summarize the quality of light from different sources. One is to use the Correlated Color Temperature (CCT). This metric, although imperfect, is widely used in lighting design. Some jurisdictions that regulating lighting to protect species have a hard cut- off (e.g., no light allowed < 540 nm) or measure the amount of light emitted below certain thresholds. Another possible metric is the degree to which a light interferes with the non-image forming photoreceptors that result in disruption in circadian rhythms in humans, because nearly all vertebrates will have a similar response curve for suppression of melatonin production at night. Drawing on data from Longcore et al. (2018a), the response of different wildlife groups against these possible metrics describing spectrum were plotted (Figure 12). Across all groups, less blue light (shorter wavelengths) resulted in lower effects. As for metrics to describe this pattern, correlation with CCT was strong, but melanopic lux (the brightness of the light as sensed by melanopsin) correlated the best. These results will only hold true for lamps without ultraviolet or violet emissions, however. APPENDIX D 107 17 Figure 12: Relationship of modeled effect of lamps on different wildlife species or groups (juvenile salmon, Newell’s shearwater, sea turtles, insects, and their average) with percent emissions <530 m, % emissions < 500 nm, correlated color temperature (CCT), and melanopic power of the lamps. Data from (Longcore et al. 2018b). CCT is not a perfect predictor of effects on wildlife, but it is a reasonable rule of thumb that lower CCT will be less disruptive to wildlife and we already know that it will be less disruptive for circadian rhythms and astronomical observation (Aubé et al. 2013). The lamps with the lowest projected influence on wildlife overall were low pressure sodium (which is being phased out), high pressure sodium, PC amber LEDs, and filtered LEDs (Figure 13). APPENDIX D 108 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 18 Figure 13: Relationship of correlated color temperature to average wildlife sensitivity with lamps and illuminants labelled. Data from (Longcore et al. 2018b). These results represent the predicted effects of the lamps on wildlife. To account for preferences in outdoor lighting, another ranking was created that incorporated a penalty for low color rendering index (CRI). Any lamp with a CRI over 75 was assumed to have adequate color rendering, while those with lower CRI were penalized in the overall index. The resulting ranking of lamps is notable in that low pressure sodium ranks lower because of its extremely low CRI, while PC Amber and filtered LEDs rank the highest, balancing both lower wildlife impacts with reasonable if not high CRIs (Figure 14). As a rule of thumb, CCT can be used as an indicator of wildlife effects, but this may not hold true across all applications. Migrating birds cannot orient under red light and therefore solid red lights are to be avoided on communication towers (Longcore et al. 2008). Green light has support for minimizing attraction of nocturnal migrant birds (Poot et al. 2008). Many other special cases exist and would require consultation with experts on a taxonomic group or species at risk. For the species of concern in Salt Lake City, however, including insects as indicators of riparian health, bats, and nesting birds, lower CCT will decrease ecological impacts when combined with other good street lighting practices (low glare, no uplight, appropriate intensity, and only lighting when warranted). APPENDIX D 109 19 Figure 14: Ranking of lighting sources that equally weights wildlife response, melanopic response, astronomical light pollution (Star Light Index (Aubé et al. 2013)), and Color Rendering Index. Reprinted from (Longcore et al. 2018b). Shorter bars represent a combination of lower wildlife responses and higher CRI. None of the effects measured with these metrics addresses the scattering of light in the atmosphere, but tools to evaluate the effects of different spectra on astronomical light pollution are available to do that. 3.2 Effects on Dark Skies The introduction and widespread adoption of 4000K and greater LED streetlights poses a significant threat to astronomical observation and the quality of the night sky as a recreational amenity. It is well-established that the preponderance of light at shorter wavelengths found in high color temperature LEDs scatters more in the atmosphere and if replacing high-pressure sodium lamps with similar intensity and shielding, will result in degradation of the night sky (Kinzey et al. 2017). The effects of the adoption of high color temperature LEDs were quickly noticed and documented by night sky advocates, who could see the degree to which full- spectrum white lights adversely impacted the aesthetics of the night sky when compared with lower color temperature high-pressure sodium systems (Figure 15). APPENDIX D 110 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 20 Figure 15. View eastward from Antelope Island State Park, showing visible effect of spectrum on night sky aesthetics. Photo from park’s application to become recognized as a Dark Sky Park by the International Dark-Sky Association (2017). Although the U.S. Department of Energy originally paid little attention to the adverse environmental impacts of high-color temperature LEDs, focusing instead solely on energy savings, it has recently returned to this question and issued a report (Kinzey et al. 2017) investigating the role of lamp spectrum in degradation of the night sky, measured as sky glow. Rather than focusing solely on spectrum, the report investigates the influence of associated variables that are commonly adjusted in the process of converting from older lighting technology to LEDs. For example, it is common for older lamps to have a drop lens below the lamp that results in a portion of the light being reflected upward, above the horizontal plane from the lamp. It has also become increasingly common for full-spectrum LEDs (e.g., at CCT 2700–4200 K) to be reduced in measured intensity for daytime (photopic) vision when compared with the high- pressure sodium lamp that the LED is replacing. Such reductions in intensity result from complaints from residents that the new LEDs, although producing the same (photopic) illumination (in lux) as the HPS, are perceived as far brighter because they intersect more with the sensitivity of human dark-adapted (scotopic) vision. It is therefore often possible to reduce the intensity of LEDs (measured in photopic lux) compared with HPS and still achieve equal or greater visibility. The study modeled the effects of different combinations of spectrum, uplight, and intensity under different weather conditions, human vision adaptation levels, and distance from the lights. For the purpose of illustration, the nearby viewer results are reproduced here (Figure 16). These results compare high-pressure sodium as the baseline, with PC Amber LED (1872 K), and 2700– 6100 K LEDs. When compared on an equal basis for other factors (same uplight and intensity), only the PC Amber produced roughly equivalent light pollution compared with HPS and all full- spectrum LEDs produced significantly more light pollution, especially when considering human night vision. When both HPS and LEDs were assumed to have 0% uplight and the LEDs were set at half the intensity of the LEDs, then LEDs with CCT < 3000 K were comparable to or produced less light pollution than HPS. Results were similar with HPS at 2% uplight and LEDs at 0% uplight and 50% intensity. The take-home message of this research for the Salt Lake City street lighting master plan is that for LED lamps lights to reduce light pollution compared with the previously common HPS lamps, they must be 0% uplight, 50% less bright, and with a CCT of no greater than 3000 K. The minimum impact on light pollution could be achieved with PC Amber or comparable filtered LEDs that produce a similar CCT as HPS (~ 1800 K). APPENDIX D 111 21 Figure 16. Comparison of light pollution from different LED spectral power distributions (SPDs) with light pollution from a high-pressure sodium light (horizontal dotted red line). SPDs (see right): SPD5: 1872 K (PC Amber), SPD6 = 2704 K, SPD7 = 2981 K, SPD8 = 3940 K, SPD9 = 4101 K, SPD10 = 5197 K, SPD11 = 6101 K. APPENDIX D 112 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 22 3.3 Human Circadian Rhythms It is only in the last twenty years that the mechanism by which light affects human circadian rhythms has been discovered (Berson et al. 2002). The human eye has non-image forming retinal ganglion cells that detect light and perhaps contribute to perception of brightness but not to discerning objects (Hattar et al. 2002). The pigment that detects the light is called melanopsin and it differs in its sensitivity to light from the rods and cones that humans use for vision (Brainard et al. 2001, Schmidt and Kofuji 2009). The peak sensitivity of melanopsin is around 480 nm, in the middle of the blue portion of the spectrum. Evidence is strong that chronic exposure to light at night increases risk of cancer, diabetes, obesity, and heart disease (Fonken and Nelson 2014, Bedrosian et al. 2016, Lunn et al. 2017). The question for human circadian impacts from outdoor lighting is whether the exposures are bright enough and whether time of exposure is sufficient to affect circadian rhythms. Circadian rhythms can be affected by light in many pathways. The first pathway is suppression of melatonin through exposure in the evening, especially after dusk. This exposure could be indoors or outdoors, either in the sleeping habitat or not. Dose-response curves for light exposure and melatonin suppression have been developed and it is the basis for the definition of Circadian Light (Rea et al. 2010). The second pathway is through sleep disruption through exposure to light in the sleeping habitat, even if the light levels are insufficient to suppress melatonin. Lack of sleep and reduced long wave sleep, which is critical to recovery and repair (Cho et al. 2016), can result from disturbance glare, as anyone ever awakened by moonlight can attest. It remains an open question whether indoor exposure to street lighting is of sufficient magnitude to affect circadian rhythms directly, but recent research investigating light spectrum and cancer risk suggests that the color of light outdoors in the vicinity of residences is an important risk factor (Garcia-Saenz et al. 2018). The influence of outdoor lighting on sleep has been investigated through epidemiological studies that measure exposure using satellites, epidemiological studies using portable individual-level measuring devices (comparing with satellite measures), and experimental studies in humans. A set of studies from Haim, Kloog, Portnov, and colleagues provided correlational data connecting satellite-measured light at night from the DMSP OLS system to breast and prostate cancer, indicating a connection between outdoor lighting levels and rates of these cancers (Kloog et al. 2008, Kloog et al. 2009a, Kloog et al. 2009b, Kloog et al. 2010, Kloog et al. 2011, Haim and Portnov 2013). Similar studies have reinforced these findings in different populations around the world (Bauer et al. 2013, Hurley et al. 2014, James et al. 2017). Studies investigating sleep as the outcome also find an association with satellite-measured outdoor lighting. For example, those in the higher exposure to light at night in South Korea as measured by DMSP were 20% more likely to sleep less than 6 hours per night and on average slept 30 minutes less than subjects in areas with lower outdoor lighting levels (Koo et al. 2016). In a study in the United States, higher levels of outdoor lighting as measured by DMSP was significantly associated with reporting < 6 hours of sleep per night, an effect that remained in APPENDIX D 113 23 place even after accounting for noise and population density (Ohayon and Milesi 2016). In this study, people who lived in the brightest areas were more likely to go to bed later, get up later, and sleep less. They also were more likely to report that they were dissatisfied with sleep quality or quantity and to be sleepy during the day. DMSP-measured light at night was negatively associated with restorative long wave sleep. Importantly, this study validated that brightness in bedrooms correlated positively with satellite-measured outdoor light (Ohayon and Milesi 2016). Satellite-measured light at night was also associated with the use of more drugs for insomnia in a second South Korean study (Min and Min 2018). Residents living in the lowest two quartiles of light at night as measured by DMSP used significantly less insomnia medication, even after accounting for age, sex, population density, income, body mass index, smoking status, alcohol consumption, exercise, and psychiatric disease. Mean use of insomnia medication increased with each quartile of light exposure from lowest to highest for each of three insomnia medications (Min and Min 2018). Most recently, a study of the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study cohort in the United States investigated sleep and exposure to light at night as measured by the DMSP satellite (Xiao et al. 2020). The highest levels of light exposure associated with 16% (women) and 25% (men) increased probability of reporting short or very short sleep duration. Probability of reporting short or very short sleep increased from lowest to highest quintiles of light at night in models that adjusted for age, race, marital status, state of residency, smoking, alcohol, vigorous physical activity, TV viewing, and median home value, population density and poverty rate at census tract level (Xiao et al. 2020). The authors concluded that, “Taken together, these findings suggest that the prevalence of sleep deficiency is higher in places with higher levels of LAN [Light at Night]” (Xiao et al. 2020). While studies using remotely sensed data detect associations between sleep disturbance, circadian disruption, and associated diseases and light at night, others question the relationship between outdoor lighting and indoor exposure to light at night. Leaving aside the point that outdoor exposure to lighting can also contribute to circadian disruption, these studies focus on relationships between indoor and outdoor exposure. Recent work confirms the relationship between ground-level irradiance outdoors and satellite-based proxies for light at night. Using a dataset or 515 ground-based measurements of illumination from the upper hemisphere, Simons et al. (2020) showed that ground-based light exposure correlates highly with remotely-sensed light (VIIRS DNB annual composite) and even more with the New World Atlas of Artificial Night Sky Brightness (Falchi et al. 2016). This work conclusively establishes that satellite- measured light at night is a proxy for ambient light in the environment on the ground at night, as one would expect. With this relationship now established (Simons et al. 2020), in retrospect the individual-level studies of correlation between indoor light levels and satellite-measurements of light at night are testing whether increased outdoor light levels correlate with higher indoor light levels and documenting what those indoor levels might be. Along these lines, Rea et al. (2011) used a Daysimeter device with a resolution of 0.1 lux and found that DMSP measurements had “no apparent relationship” with personal-level exposure. The study concluded that outdoor lighting could have little effect on circadian rhythms in their study population of teachers in upstate New York, basing this conclusion on the assumption that measurable melatonin suppression would be APPENDIX D 114 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 24 needed to cause sleep disruption. That is, they assume that light equivalent to a full moon shining into a sleeping environment cannot affect sleep or circadian rhythms, which is a dubious assumption. In a more recent Dutch study, individual-level light exposure for children was measured indoors with a device that had a resolution of 0.1 lux (Huss et al. 2019). They found an influence of outdoor light on indoor light during the darkest time period with a correlation of 0.31. It should be noted, however, that 94% of the children in the study had curtains that controlled light entering the room. In a survey of lighting designers using their own light meters, Miller and Kinzey (2018) reported measurements in a number of different contexts within homes. At windows without drapes a maximum of 20 lux was reported, with a mean of 5 lux and median of 0.5 lux. All of these dramatically elevated above natural conditions (a full moon would produce 0.1–0.2 lux). Experiments that involve exposures to light at night document illumination levels that affect health and sleep outcomes. Sleeping under 5 lux of 5779 K light caused more frequent arousals, more shallow sleep, and more REM sleep (at the expense of long wave deep sleep) (Cho et al. 2016). Light greater than 3 lux during the last hour of sleep was associated with weight gain in an elderly population (Obayashi et al. 2016). In another study of an elderly population, increased light at night and especially light at night > 5 lux was associated with 89% increased risk of depression (Obayashi et al. 2013). Further studies indicate that elevated illumination is associated with higher blood pressure as well, with associated excess deaths, at 3, 5, and 10 lux exposures (Obayashi et al. 2014). Metrics of sleep quality (efficiency) were also consistently lower with higher illumination at each category (3, 5, and 10 lux) (Obayashi et al. 2014). Taken together, this research is consistent with a few different interpretations of the influence of outdoor lighting on human circadian rhythms and health outcomes. It is possible that the correlations between light at night and adverse health outcomes indicate instead variation in another factor, such as air pollution, as suggested by Huss et al. (2019). The robustness of sleep disruption correlations when controlling for population density, however, argues against that interpretation (Ohayon and Milesi 2016). Xiao et al. consider this question and conclude: “[I]t is also possible that the observed associations in our study population represent a true relationship, but primarily driven by individuals whose ALAN exposure was more heavily influenced by outdoor ALAN (e.g. individuals living in rooms facing bright streets and/or with insufficient window treatments to block out light, or individuals with a high amount of nighttime activities outside home).” Such an interpretation, that outdoor light can influence indoor sleeping environments and associated sleep and health outcomes, is consistent with the literature as it currently stands. Accepting a plausible argument that outdoor lighting affects human sleep in at least some contexts that depend on factors associated with socioeconomic status, the following areas of concern follow for design of a street lighting system. First, attention should be paid to minimize direct glare into windows of any habitable structure. One cannot assume that people only sleep in bedrooms; residents challenged by housing costs often use many rooms in apartments and houses for sleeping environments and the safest assumption is that any room in a residence might be used for sleeping. The assumption should also not be made that all residents have or can afford blackout shades or curtains. This becomes an issue of environmental justice; circadian disruption is exacerbated in low income communities APPENDIX D 115 25 (Xiao et al. 2020), presumably because the same amount of light results in more impact because of a lack of capacity to block light. Second, circadian responses that result from melatonin suppression are heavily dependent on the spectrum of light. As light is concentrated closer to the wavelengths of peak sensitivity for melanopsin, the intensity of light (measured in lux) required to suppress melatonin decreases (Grubisic et al. 2019). At 424 nm, the minimum illuminance for melatonin suppression is 0.1 lux (Souman et al. 2018). The relative impact of different lighting sources can be predicted using the melanopic response curve (Aubé et al. 2013, Longcore et al. 2018a). To illustrate this approach, the melanopic power of lamp sources was standardized to compare with high pressure sodium (HPS; Figure 17). All full-spectrum LED sources have a greater potential circadian impact than HPS, including 2200 K (1.5 times HPS), 3200 K (2.5 times HPS), and 4300 K (3 times HPS). Figure 17. Ranking of light sources by melanopic response (i.e. potential for circadian disruption), compared with a typical High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lamp. Green colors have equal or less melanopic response per lux, while purple colors have more melanopic response per lux than HPS. The sources that would have the lowest circadian impact are filtered LEDs that avoid the blue portion of the spectrum almost entirely, or PC amber LEDs that do the same. Calculations have not been done to compare LEDs at 50% intensity as has been done for astronomical light pollution impacts. It is reasonable to assume that a similar result would be obtained, with a reducing 50% in intensity for a ~3000K LED compared with HPS bringing it into parity with the potential circadian disruption potential of HPS. Anna's Light LPS 18 W AEL 75W PC Amber Cree 74 WW CW10 74 WW CW7 150 W HPS LLT Telescope Light Kerosene Oil Lumican 2251K LSG Good Night 2016 CFL Greenlite 13 W Iwasaki 60W Philips AmbientLED Cosmopolis 60W Ceramic Metal Halide 70 W 3000K LED A OCTRON 32 W Los Angeles LED Yard Blaster Full moon LEDway Streetlight CW 54W TL950 SORAA Vivid D65 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600% Circadian Impact Relative to HPS APPENDIX D 116 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 26 Third, planning for a healthy circadian environment should recognize high variation between individuals in their sensitivity to light, including a 50-fold variation between people in melatonin response to light exposure (Phillips et al. 2019). Children are more sensitive to disruption from light at night than adults (Nagare et al. 2019). Office workers exposed only to dim light during the day are more sensitive to disruption from light at night than those who work outside. Men are more sensitive to light at night, including decreased “long sleep” with increased exposure (Xiao et al. 2020). Some individuals are debilitated by the visual glare from LEDs that are not properly directed and diffused (Ticleanu and Littlefair 2015). A fair and equitable lighting design approach would recognize a need to accommodate the most sensitive individuals in society in a manner that still allows lighting to achieve its goal of providing a safe environment for pedestrians, cyclists, and people in vehicles. Because some of the medical conditions that are exacerbated by glare may be considered disabilities, it furthermore might be a prudent risk management step to explicitly incorporate these concerns in design to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Published studies thus far have not shown a decrease in traffic accidents associated with conversion to full-spectrum white LEDs (e.g., >2700 K) (Marchant et al. 2020). Total pedestrian and cyclist deaths in Los Angeles have increased since conversion from HPS to 3000–4300 K LEDs in 2009.1 Whatever marginal benefits might be associated with higher CCT street lighting, they have not been sufficient to result in significant decreases in accidents that have been documented in published studies. Although a full cost-benefit analysis is beyond the scope of this report and should be the subject of future research, a prudent approach to balance these human health and safety issues is to: use the lowest CCT deemed acceptable, specify high-quality optics to ensure delivery of light on desired surfaces instead of as glare, and avoid light trespass onto windows of any residential property. 1 See https://la.streetsblog.org/2019/10/29/vision-non-zero-the-human-and-financial-toll-of-los-angeles-dangerous- roads/ APPENDIX D 117 27 4 Design Strategies for a Healthy Nocturnal Infrastructure With the adoption of a Street Lighting Master Plan, an opportunity arises to reduce unwanted outcomes from outdoor lighting that might include degradation of the experience of the night sky in the region, disruption of human circadian rhythms, and interference with behavior of sensitive wildlife species within the city. Strategies are available to reduce these impacts, some of which can be implemented at all locations where street lighting is warranted, and others that could be applied in zones with sensitive resources or known adverse impacts. 4.1 Systemwide Approaches Reducing the adverse effects of artificial light at night is a matter of ensuring that the light is away enough for the identified need, but not more. 4.1.1 Need-based Lighting In defining the terms under which street lighting is warranted, consideration should be given in all instances to the threshold for need to ensure that the installation is supported by verifiable benefits. The need for lighting at night is in part a subjective judgment based on human feelings, so equal consideration should be given to those who are more comfortable with less light as to those who desire more light and final determinations made through a transparent and fair process that evaluates the costs and benefits. 4.1.2 Shielding and Directionality For all of the reasons discussed in this report, lights should be directed toward their intended targets (mostly roads and sidewalks) and not upwards or into other locations where sensitive receptors might be present (e.g., bedroom windows, habitats). This consideration will usually be built into a modern street lighting plan through specification of luminaire performance in terms of backlight, uplight, and glare. Uplight should be assiduously avoided throughout the system. This step alone will significantly reduce the current contribution of Salt Lake City to light pollution in the region as viewed from the surrounding open spaces and natural lands. 4.1.3 Intensity, Dimming, and Controls Any time a natural environment is experiencing illumination greater than the full moon (>0.1 lux), or even greater than a quarter moon (0.01 lux), one can assume that species are being affected. This is the case because many species show lunar cycles in behavior, often driven by predator–prey relationships that can be interrupted by elevated illumination (Price et al. 1984, Daly et al. 1992, Upham and Hafner 2013). For example, light as dim as 0.01 lux can inhibit foraging by small rodent species (Kotler 1984b). Strategies that could be deployed around light intensity across the street lighting system include setting the maximum intensity of lights lower, dimming or extinguishing lights according to a pre-set schedule, and use of programmable and flexible controls to adjust intensity in response to need. APPENDIX D 118 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 28 1. If full-spectrum LEDs are to be used (e.g., 2700K, 3000K), then the intensity must be at least half of that measured (in lux) for high pressure sodium to avoid increased light pollution impacts. Lower color temperature LEDs (e.g., 1800K, 2000K, 2200K) would require testing to set the maximum operational intensity to achieve system objectives. 2. Regularly programmed dimming or shut-off is a possibility for the system. Part-night lighting, where lights are shut off after a curfew is an improvement over whole-night lighting for bats but not adequate to reduce all impacts (Azam et al. 2015, Day et al. 2015). For the whole system in Salt Lake City, a dimming schedule, especially for residential areas, that reduced output from (for example) midnight to 5 a.m. seems feasible and would reduce overall contribution to regional light pollution, reduce human circadian disruption, and save energy. 3. Controls can be used as a complement to a lower overall intensity setting. When additional illumination is needed, in coordination with City officials, lighting levels can be increased during the period of the need and then reduce to the “normal” level. Controls can also be used on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis to find the illumination level that is most consistent with and useful within the character of the neighborhood. 4.1.4 Spectrum The unwanted impacts of the street lighting system would be minimized by using the lowest possible CCT for the most lights in the system. For wildlife, human health, and preserving dark skies, the preferable choice would be lamps with CCT <2000K. Other considerations lead to the use of higher color temperatures in some zones, but the lower the color temperature can be kept on average, the greater the environmental benefit. Low CCT lights are commercially available. For example, Signify makes 1800K cobra-head street lights (StreetView, RoadView, EcoForm, RoadStar) and decorative models as well (Domus, MetroScape, UrbanScape, LytePro). Cyclone produces a 1800K street light, as does Ignia Light (Figure 18). SNOC provides a 2200K light that mixes white and amber diodes, as does Ignia Light (Figure 19). Lumican also sells a range of street light luminaires that include 1700K through 2200K. RAB lighting sells a 2000K luminaire (Triboro) to match the color of HPS (https://www.rablighting.com/feature/led-roadway-lighting-triboro; Figure 20). Siteco sells 1750K, 1900K and 2200K street lights. CWES builds luminaire systems that use a warm white LED and a filter to avoid blue light emissions while keeping lumens per Watt high in comparison with 2700K and 3000K LEDs (Figure 21). Some communities in Utah are even manufacturing their own filters to protect the night sky and the tourism industry associated with it (Figure 22). Where full-spectrum light is desired for aesthetic reasons or other considerations, it should in no instance exceed 3000K and preferably not 2700K. Lower CCTs should be considered for residential neighborhoods citywide as acceptable to City officials and residents. APPENDIX D 119 29 Figure 18. Application of PC Amber lights by Ignia Light. Figure 19. Demonstration of mix of white and amber diodes to produce 2200K light for a roadway application by Ignia Light. Figure 20. RAB application of 2000K light to match color of High Pressure Sodium lamps. APPENDIX D 120 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 30 Figure 21. C+W Energy Solutions provides filtered LEDs that use with a warm white LED and filter blue light, resulting in a greenish yellow color that contrasts with yellow light of stop lights. Figure 22. Ivins, Utah is using filtered LEDs to protect the night sky (https://www.kuer.org/post/fast-growing-southwest-utah-one-city-organizes-protect-night- sky#stream/). 4.2 Ecological Overlay Strategies In addition to systemwide strategies, which would be implemented throughout all instances of land uses and road segment conditions (e.g., roadway type and associated land use combinations), several ecological overlay strategies would be appropriate that recognize the sensitive natural resources of Salt Lake City. These strategies are tailored to geographic regions where modifications to the light specifications could be used to reduce unwanted environmental impacts. APPENDIX D 121 31 Each of these strategies is based on a geographic footprint. Spatial data to delineate these regions were either obtained from custodians of those data or digitized by hand based on aerial photograph interpretation. These data sources include: • Important Bird Areas (from National Audubon Society spatial data webserver); • Bird Collision Survey Zone (digitized from map provided by Tracy Aviary); • Parcels that intersect with Critical Wildlife Habitat (digitized from Salt Lake City open space acquisition plan); • Jordan River Habitat Zone (digitized from aerial photograph interpretation of natural habitat); • Urban Creek Zone (digitized from aerial photograph interpretation of natural habitat); and • Community Parks and Neighborhood Parks (from Salt Lake City spatial data webserver). The digitized habitat zones could be revised with field checks. The purpose of these layers is only to classify roadway lengths for lighting strategies and should not be interpreted as a precise mapping of habitat values. Figure 23. Zones considered for ecological lighting strategies. A set of additional guidance to reduce impacts that are targeted to the resources in each of these zones is proposed (Table 1). APPENDIX D 122 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 32 Table 1. Strategy matrix for ecological overlay zones and major land uses. Strategy Uplight Spectrum (CCT K) Dimming Part-night lighting Intensity (of HPS lumens) Commercial / Bird collision zone 0.02 ≤3000 During migration No 50% Critical Wildlife Habitat 0 ≤2200K No No 50% Community Parks Natural Lands 0 ≤2200K No Yes 50% Jordan River 0 ≤1900K No Yes 50% Urban Creeks 0 ≤1900K No Yes 50% 4.2.1 Bird Collision Zone The area which is currently monitored for bird collisions is found in the central business district. It is also the brightest location when observing the region from space. Mortality of birds results from the mixture of lights that attract nocturnally migrating birds with the presence of tall buildings with large expanses of glass with which bird collide. The lights draw the birds in and then the glass kills them (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). Current lighting in this zone includes many decorative lights that are not yet shielded to direct light downward. The high lighting levels provided in a commercial zone with the lack of shielding explains the brightness of this area from above at night. Recognizing the need for lighting appropriate for a commercial business district and its level of activities leads to a suggestion of compromise for lighting. Rather than proposing no uplight, even reducing uplight to 2% would represent a dramatic improvement over existing conditions. If no uplight is possible, it would be preferable. Color temperature in this area, and other commercial zones, should be capped at 3000 K. Intensity of lights should be set to 50% of that measured for previous high-pressure sodium lamps to account for human sensitivity to 3000 K lights. With full controls available for the system, a dimming program could be further implemented during peak migration periods (April/May and September/October). If only one period is chosen, it should be fall because the fall migration includes all of the young of the year, which are especially susceptible to collision. Such additional dimming could be implemented either all night or after midnight or another set time. For this area, actions on the part of the City might catalyze participation in mitigation approaches by property managers (Light Out Salt Lake organized by the Tracy Aviary); turning lights out inside buildings at night would further reduce attraction of birds and resulting mortality. 4.2.2 Critical Wildlife Habitat Zone The region that intersects with parcels containing critical wildlife habitat is found in the foothills to the east of downtown and then in the flat shorelands to the west. The western area also includes the two globally significant Important Bird Areas. Because this zone contains a range of land uses, including commercial, industrial, and residential areas, the proposal is to match the low color temperature of previous lighting systems (e.g., 2000–2200 K) with full cut-off lighting APPENDIX D 123 33 to reduce impacts on nearby sensitive resources. This lower temperature is especially important near the Great Salt Lake, which is a source of fog (Hill 1988). Fog is extremely efficient at reflecting light and recent research has shown that foggy conditions result in a 6-fold increase in night sky brightness (a measure of light pollution) (Ściężor et al. 2012). Fog also scatters light down into habitats. Full cut-off lighting at a low enough color temperature to allow reasonable color rendering should balance the needs of the land uses in these zones with the sensitive resources found there. 4.2.3 Jordan River and Urban Creeks The Jordan River and the urban creeks cut through the street grid such that they intersect with only a few street lights along any given segment. It might therefore be possible to minimize impacts to these riparian zones by using low color temperature lights as street segment intersect these zones. Two major considerations in riparian zones are insect attraction and bat impacts, since both groups will be found at higher density in these zones. Best practices for reducing impacts to bats (Voigt et al. 2018) include a limit on light at the edge of habitat of 0.1 lux, avoiding direct glare into habitats, and seeking to avoid light <540 nm. A low CCT light would minimize insect attraction (Longcore et al. 2018a). Red lights are being used in Europe to minimize impacts to bats (Spoelstra et al. 2017) but it is not clear if red light would be acceptable within this context. 4.2.4 Community Parks and Natural Lands Community parks and natural lands may contain sensitive species and often have areas that are closed after dark. Lighting surrounding them could be limited in CCT to 2200 K and lights on roads within parks might be shut off after a curfew. Darkness in these instances can serve to reduce unwanted activity because any lights brought into a dark park would indicate unallowable activity. Recommendations for community parks and natural lands will probably need to be tailored by site to accommodate variations in use, park type, and surrounding land uses. Tracy Aviary is located in a community park and has captive birds that are kept outdoors. Reducing or eliminating street lighting around any outdoor exclosures with captive birds is recommended for the health of the birds. APPENDIX E 124 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 34 5 References Andres, B., R. Clay, and C. Duncan. 20016. Shorebird species of conservation concern in the Western Hemisphere. Western Hemispher Shorebird Reserve Network. Aubé, M., J. Roby, and M. Kocifaj. 2013. Evaluating potential spectral impacts of various artificial lights on melatonin suppression, photosynthesis, and star visibility. PLoS ONE 8:e67798. Azam, C., C. Kerbiriou, A. Vernet, J.-F. Julien, Y. Bas, L. Plichard, J. Maratrat, and I. Le Viol. 2015. Is part-night lighting an effective measure to limit the impacts of artificial lighting on bats? Global Change Biology 21:4333–4341. Bará, S., Á. Rodríguez-Arós, M. Pérez, B. Tosar, R. C. Lima, A. Sánchez de Miguel, and J. Zamorano. 2017. Estimating the relative contribution of streetlights, vehicles, and residential lighting to the urban night sky brightness. Lighting Research & Technology:1477153518808337. Barghini, A., and B. A. S. de Medeiros. 2012. UV radiation as an attractor for insects. Leukos 9:47–56. Bauer, S. E., S. E. Wagner, J. Burch, R. Bayakly, and J. E. Vena. 2013. A case-referent study: light at night and breast cancer risk in Georgia. International Journal of Health Geographics 12:23. Beauchamp, G. 2007. Exploring the role of vision in social foraging: what happens to group size, vigilance, spacing, aggression and habitat use in birds and mammals that forage at night? Biological Reviews 82:511–525. Bedrosian, T. A., L. K. Fonken, and R. J. Nelson. 2016. Endocrine effects of circadian disruption. Annual Review of Physiology 78:109–131. Bedrosian, T. A., L. K. Fonken, J. C. Walton, and R. J. Nelson. 2011. Chronic exposure to dim light at night suppresses immune response in Siberian hamsters. Biology Letters 7:468– 471. Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:228–237. Beier, P. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on terrestrial mammals. Pages 19–42 in C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Bennie, J., T. W. Davies, D. Cruse, and K. J. Gaston. 2016. Ecological effects of artificial light at night on wild plants. Journal of Ecology 104:611–620. Berson, D. M., F. A. Dunn, and M. Takao. 2002. Phototransduction by retinal ganglion cells that set the circadian clock. Science 295:1070–1073. Bird, S., and J. Parker. 2014. Low levels of light pollution may block the ability of male glow- worms (Lampyris noctiluca L.) to locate females. Journal of Insect Conservation 18:737– 743. Blake, D., A. M. Hutson, P. A. Racey, J. Rydell, and J. R. Speakman. 1994. Use of lamplit roads by foraging bats in southern England. Journal of Zoology (London) 234:453–462. Bliss-Ketchum, L. L., C. E. de Rivera, B. C. Turner, and D. M. Weisbaum. 2016. The effect of artificial light on wildlife use of a passage structure. Biological Conservation 199:25–28. Boldogh, S., D. Dobrosi, and P. Samu. 2007. The effects of the illumination of buildings on house-dwelling bats and its conservation consequences. Acta Chiropterologica 9:527– 534. APPENDIX D 125 35 Brainard, G. C., J. P. Hanifin, J. M. Greeson, B. Byrne, G. Glickman, E. Gerner, and M. D. Rollag. 2001. Action spectrum for melatonin regulation in humans: evidence for a novel circadian photoreceptor. Journal of Neuroscience 21:6405–6412. Briggs, W. R. 2006. Physiology of plant responses to artificial lighting. Pages 389–411 in C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press, Washington, DC. Brillhart, D. B., and D. W. Kaufman. 1991. Influence of illumination and surface structure on space use by prairie deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus bairdii). Journal of Mammalogy 72:764–768. Butler, M. P., and R. Silver. 2011. Divergent photic thresholds in the non-image-forming visual system: entrainment, masking and pupillary light reflex. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 278:745–750. Cabrera-Cruz, S. A., J. A. Smolinsky, and J. J. Buler. 2018. Light pollution is greatest within migration passage areas for nocturnally-migrating birds around the world. Scientific Reports 8:3261. Cho, C.-H., H.-J. Lee, H.-K. Yoon, S.-G. Kang, K.-N. Bok, K.-Y. Jung, L. Kim, and E.-I. Lee. 2016. Exposure to dim artificial light at night increases REM sleep and awakenings in humans. Chronobiology International 33:117–123. Clarke, J. A. 1983. Moonlight's influence on predator/prey interactions between Short-eared Owls (Asio flammeus) and deermice (Peromyscus maniculatus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 13:205–209. Da Silva, A., J. M. Samplonius, E. Schlicht, M. Valcu, and B. Kempenaers. 2014. Artificial night lighting rather than traffic noise affects the daily timing of dawn and dusk singing in common European songbirds. Behavioral Ecology 25:1037–1047. Da Silva, A., M. Valcu, and B. Kempenaers. 2015. Light pollution alters the phenology of dawn and dusk singing in common European songbirds. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 370:20140126. Daly, M., P. R. Behrends, M. I. Wilson, and L. F. Jacobs. 1992. Behavioural modulation of predation risk: moonlight avoidance and crespuscular compensation in a nocturnal desert rodent, Dipodomys merriami. Animal Behaviour 44:1–9. Day, J., J. Baker, H. Schofield, F. Mathews, and K. J. Gaston. 2015. Part-night lighting: implications for bat conservation. Animal Conservation 18:512–516. De Molenaar, J. G., M. E. Sanders, and D. A. Jonkers. 2006. Road lighting and grassland birds: local influence of road lighting on a Black-tailed Godwit population. Pages 114–136 in C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Dominoni, D., M. Quetting, and J. Partecke. 2013a. Artificial light at night advances avian reproductive physiology. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 280:20123017. Dominoni, D. M., E. O. Carmona-Wagner, M. Hofmann, B. Kranstauber, and J. Partecke. 2014. Individual-based measurements of light intensity provide new insights into the effects of artificial light at night on daily rhythms of urban-dwelling songbirds. Journal of Animal Ecology 83:681–692. Dominoni, D. M., M. Quetting, and J. Partecke. 2013b. Long-term effects of chronic light pollution on seasonal functions of European Blackbirds (Turdus merula). PLoS ONE 8:e85069. APPENDIX E 126 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 36 Donners, M., R. H. A. van Grunsven, D. Groenendijk, F. van Langevelde, J. W. Bikker, T. Longcore, and E. Veenendaal. 2018. Colors of attraction: modeling insect flight to light behavior. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology 329:434–440. Eisenbeis, G. 2006. Artificial night lighting and insects: attraction of insects to streetlamps in a rural setting in Germany. Pages 281–304 in C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Eisenbeis, G., and K. Eick. 2011. Studie zur Anziehung nachtaktiver Insekten an die Straßenbeleuchtung unter Einbeziehung von LEDs [Attraction of nocturnal insects to street lights — a study of lighting systems, with consideration of LEDs]. Natur und Landschaft 86:298–306. Eisesbeis, G. 2006. Artificial night lighting and insects: attraction of insects to streetlamps in a rural setting in Germany. Pages 281–304 in C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, DC. Falchi, F., P. Cinzano, D. Duriscoe, C. C. Kyba, C. D. Elvidge, K. Baugh, B. A. Portnov, N. A. Rybnikova, and R. Furgoni. 2016. The new world atlas of artificial night sky brightness. Science Advances 2:e1600377. Falkenberg, J. C., and J. A. Clarke. 1998. Microhabitat use of deer mice: effects of interspecific interaction risks. Journal of Mammalogy 79:558–565. ffrench-Constant, R. H., R. Somers-Yeates, J. Bennie, T. Economou, D. Hodgson, A. Spalding, and P. K. McGregor. 2016. Light pollution is associated with earlier tree budburst across the United Kingdom. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 283:20160813. Flowers, S. 1934. Vegetation of the Great Salt Lake region. Botanical Gazette 95:353–418. Fonken, L. K., and R. J. Nelson. 2014. The effects of light at night on circadian clocks and metabolism. Endocrine Reviews 35:648–670. Fonken, L. K., J. L. Workman, J. C. Walton, Z. M. Weil, J. S. Morris, A. Haim, and R. J. Nelson. 2010. Light at night increases body mass by shifting the time of food intake. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 107:18664–18669. Frank, K. D. 1988. Impact of outdoor lighting on moths: an assessment. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 42:63–93. Frank, K. D. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on moths. Pages 305–344 in C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Frey, J. K. 1993. Nocturnal foraging by Scissor-tailed Flycatchers under artificial light. Western Birds 24:200. Garcia-Saenz, A., A. Sánchez de Miguel, A. Espinosa, A. Valentin, N. Aragonés, J. Llorca, P. Amiano, V. Martín Sánchez, M. Guevara, and R. Capelo. 2018. Evaluating the association between artificial light-at-night exposure and breast and prostate cancer risk in Spain (MCC-Spain study). Environmental Health Perspectives 126:047011. Gaston, K. J., J. Bennie, T. W. Davies, and J. Hopkins. 2013. The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biological Reviews 88:912–927. Gaston, K. J., T. W. Davies, J. Bennie, and J. Hopkins. 2012. Reducing the ecological consequences of night-time light pollution: options and developments. Journal of Applied Ecology 49:1256–1266. APPENDIX D 127 37 Goertz, J. W., A. S. Morris, and S. M. Morris. 1980. Ruby-throated Hummingbirds feed at night with the aid of artificial light. Wilson Bulletin 92:398–399. Goodspeed, D., E. W. Chehab, A. Min-Venditti, J. Braam, and M. F. Covington. 2012. Arabidopsis synchronizes jasmonate-mediated defense with insect circadian behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109:4674–4677. Grubisic, M., A. Haim, P. Bhusal, D. M. Dominoni, K. Gabriel, A. Jechow, F. Kupprat, A. Lerner, P. Marchant, and W. Riley. 2019. Light Pollution, Circadian Photoreception, and Melatonin in Vertebrates. Sustainability 11:6400. Hagen, O., and V. R. Viviani. 2009. Investigation of the artificial night lighting influence in firefly (Coleoptera: Lampyridae) occurrence in the urban areas of Campinas and Sorocaba municipalities [extended abstract]. Pages 1–2 in Anais do IX Congresso de Ecologia do Brasil, São Lourenço. Haim, A., and B. A. Portnov. 2013. Light pollution as a new risk factor for human breast and prostate cancers. Springer, Dordrecht. Harris, C. D. 1941. Location of Salt Lake City. Economic Geography 17:204–212. Hattar, S., H. W. Liao, M. Takao, D. M. Berson, and K. W. Yau. 2002. Melanopsin-containing retinal ganglion cells: architecture, projections, and intrinsic photosensitivity. Science 295:1065–1070. Havlin, J. 1964. Zur Lösung der Amselfrage [The solution to the blackbird question]. Angewandte Ornithologie 2:9–14. Hill, G. E. 1988. Fog Effect of the Great Salt Lake. Journal of Applied Meteorology 27:778–783. Hölker, F., T. Moss, B. Griefahn, W. Kloas, C. C. Voight, D. Henckel, A. Hänel, P. M. Kappeler, S. Völker, A. Schwope, S. Franke, D. Uhrlandt, J. Fischer, R. Klenke, C. Wolter, and K. Tockner. 2010a. The dark side of light: a transdisciplinary research agenda for light pollution policy. Ecology and Society 15:article 13. Hölker, F., C. Wolter, E. K. Perkin, and K. Tockner. 2010b. Light pollution as a biodiversity threat. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:681–682. Horton, K. G., C. Nilsson, B. M. Van Doren, F. A. La Sorte, A. M. Dokter, and A. Farnsworth. 2019. Bright lights in the big cities: migratory birds’ exposure to artificial light. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 17:209–214. Hurley, S., D. Goldberg, D. Nelson, A. Hertz, P. L. Horn-Ross, L. Bernstein, and P. Reynolds. 2014. Light at night and breast cancer risk among California teachers. Epidemiology 25:697–706. Huss, A., L. van Wel, L. Bogaards, T. Vrijkotte, L. Wolf, G. Hoek, and R. Vermeulen. 2019. Shedding some light in the dark—a comparison of personal measurements with satellite- based estimates of exposure to light at night among children in the Netherlands. Environmental Health Perspectives 127:067001. James, P., K. A. Bertrand, J. E. Hart, E. S. Schernhammer, R. M. Tamimi, and F. Laden. 2017. Outdoor light at night and breast cancer incidence in the Nurses’ Health Study II. Environmental Health Perspectives 87010:1. Jones, L. R. 2008. Ecological factors determining nesting habitat for American Avocets on the Inland Sea Shorebird Preserve. Utah Birds 21:2–12. Kempenaers, B., P. Borgström, P. Loës, E. Schlicht, and M. Valcu. 2010. Artificial night lighting affects dawn song, extra-pair siring success, and lay date in songbirds. Current Biology 20:1735–1739. APPENDIX E 128 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 38 Kinzey, B., T. E. Perrin, N. J. Miller, M. Kocifaj, M. Aubé, and H. S. Lamphar. 2017. An investigation of LED street lighting’s impact on sky glow. U.S. Department of Energy (Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830), Richland, Washington. Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120–128. Kloog, I., A. Haim, and B. A. Portnov. 2009a. Using kernel density function as an urban analysis tool: investigating the association between nightlight exposure and the incidence of breast cancer in Haifa, Israel. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 33:55–63. Kloog, I., A. Haim, R. G. Stevens, M. Barchana, and B. A. Portnov. 2008. Light at night co- distributes with incident breast but not lung cancer in the female population of Israel. Chronobiology International 25:65–81. Kloog, I., A. Haim, R. G. Stevens, and B. A. Portnov. 2009b. Global co-distribution of light at night (LAN) and cancers of prostate, colon, and lung in men. Chronobiology International 26:108–125. Kloog, I., B. A. Portnov, H. S. Rennert, and A. Haim. 2011. Does the modern urbanized sleeping habitat pose a breast cancer risk? Chronobiology International 28:76–80. Kloog, I., R. G. Stevens, A. Haim, and B. A. Portnov. 2010. Nighttime light level co-distributes with breast cancer incidence worldwide. Cancer Causes & Control 21:2059–2068. Knop, E., L. Zoller, R. Ryser, C. Gerpe, M. Hörler, and C. Fontaine. 2017. Artificial light at night as a new threat to pollination. Nature 548:206–209. Kolligs, D. 2000. Ökologische Auswirkungen künstlicher Lichtquellen auf nachtaktive Insekten, insbesondere Schmetterlinge (Lepidoptera) [Ecological effects of artificial light sources on nocturnally active insects, in particular on moths (Lepidoptera)]. Faunistisch- Oekologische Mitteilungen Supplement 28:1–136. Koo, Y. S., J.-Y. Song, E.-Y. Joo, H.-J. Lee, E. Lee, S.-k. Lee, and K.-Y. Jung. 2016. Outdoor artificial light at night, obesity, and sleep health: cross-sectional analysis in the KoGES study. Chronobiology International 33:301–314. Kotler, B. P. 1984a. Effects of illumination on the rate of resource harvesting in a community of desert rodents. American Midland Naturalist 111:383–389. Kotler, B. P. 1984b. Risk of predation and the structure of desert rodent communities. Ecology 65:689–701. Kramer, K. M., and E. C. Birney. 2001. Effect of light intensity on activity patterns of patagonian leaf-eared mice, Phyllotis xanthopygus. Journal of Mammalogy 82:535–544. Kyba, C., A. Hänel, and F. Hölker. 2014. Redefining efficiency for outdoor lighting. Energy & Environmental Science 7:1806–1809. La Sorte, F. A., D. Fink, J. J. Buler, A. Farnsworth, and S. A. Cabrera‐Cruz. 2017. Seasonal associations with urban light pollution for nocturnally migrating bird populations. Global Change Biology 23:4609–4619. Lack, D. 1965. The life of the robin. H. F. & G. Witherby, London. Lloyd, J. E. 2006. Stray light, fireflies, and fireflyers. Pages 345–364 in C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Longcore, T. 2010. Sensory ecology: night lights alter reproductive behavior of blue tits. Current Biology 20:R893–R895. Longcore, T. 2018. Hazard or hope? LEDs and wildlife. LED Professional Review 70:52–57. APPENDIX D 129 39 Longcore, T., H. Aldern, J. Eggers, S. Flores, L. Franco, E. Hirshfield-Yamanishi, L. Petrinec, W. Yan, and A. Barroso. 2015a. Tuning the white light spectrum of light emitting diode lamps to reduce attraction of nocturnal arthropods. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 370:20140125. Longcore, T., H. L. Aldern, J. F. Eggers, S. Flores, L. Franco, E. Hirshfield-Yamanishi, L. N. Petrinec, W. A. Yan, and A. M. Barroso. 2015b. Tuning the white light spectrum of light emitting diode lamps to reduce attraction of nocturnal arthropods. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 370:20140125. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:191–198. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2017. Artificial Night Lighting and Protected Lands: Ecological Effects and Management Approaches (Revised August 2017). Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/NSNS/NRR—2017/1493. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Longcore, T., C. Rich, and S. A. Gauthreaux, Jr. 2008. Height, guy wires, and steady-burning lights increase hazard of communication towers to nocturnal migrants: a review and meta-analysis. Auk 125:485–492. Longcore, T., A. Rodríguez, B. Witherington, J. F. Penniman, L. Herf, and M. Herf. 2018a. Rapid assessment of lamp spectrum to quantify ecological effects of light at night. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology 329:511– 521. Longcore, T., A. Rodríguez, B. Witherington, J. F. Penniman, L. Herf, and M. Herf. 2018b. Rapid assessment of lamp spectrum to quantify ecological effects of light at night. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology. Love, R. 2005. Daylighting Salt Lake’s City Creek. Golden Gate University Law Review 35:343–376. Luginbuhl, C. B., G. W. Lockwood, D. R. Davis, K. Pick, and J. Selders. 2009. From the ground up I: light pollution sources in Flagstaff, Arizona. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 121:185–203. Lunn, R. M., D. E. Blask, A. N. Coogan, M. G. Figueiro, M. R. Gorman, J. E. Hall, J. Hansen, R. J. Nelson, S. Panda, and M. H. Smolensky. 2017. Health consequences of electric lighting practices in the modern world: a report on the National Toxicology Program’s workshop on shift work at night, artificial light at night, and circadian disruption. Science of the Total Environment 607:1073–1084. Macgregor, C. J., D. M. Evans, R. Fox, and M. J. O. Pocock. 2017. The dark side of street lighting: impacts on moths and evidence for the disruption of nocturnal pollen transport. Global Change Biology 23:697–707. Macgregor, C. J., M. J. O. Pocock, R. Fox, and D. M. Evans. 2015. Pollination by nocturnal Lepidoptera, and the effects of light pollution: a review. Ecological Entomology 40:187– 198. Marchant, P., J. D. Hale, and J. P. Sadler. 2020. Does changing to brighter road lighting improve road safety? Multilevel longitudinal analysis of road traffic collision frequency during the relighting of a UK city. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Massetti, L. 2018. Assessing the impact of street lighting on Platanus x acerifolia phenology. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 34:71–77. McFarlane, R. W. 1963. Disorientation of loggerhead hatchlings by artificial road lighting. Copeia 1963:153. APPENDIX E 130 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 40 McLaren, J. D., J. J. Buler, T. Schreckengost, J. A. Smolinsky, M. Boone, E. E. van Loon, D. K. Dawson, and E. L. Walters. 2018. Artificial light at night confounds broad-scale habitat use by migrating birds. Ecology Letters 21:356–364. Meyer, L. A., and S. M. P. Sullivan. 2013. Bright lights, big city: influences of ecological light pollution on reciprocal stream–riparian invertebrate fluxes. Ecological Applications 23:1322–1330. Miller, M. W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American Robins. Condor 108:130–139. Miller, N. J., and B. R. Kinzey. 2018. Home nighttime light exposures: how much are we really getting? IALD News. International Association of Lighting Designers. Min, J.-y., and K.-b. Min. 2018. Outdoor artificial nighttime light and use of hypnotic medications in older adults: A population-based cohort study. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine 14:1903–1910. Mukhin, A., V. Grinkevich, and B. Helm. 2009. Under cover of darkness: nocturnal life of diurnal birds. Journal of Biological Rhythms 24:225–231. Nagare, R., B. Plitnick, and M. Figueiro. 2019. Effect of exposure duration and light spectra on nighttime melatonin suppression in adolescents and adults. Lighting Research & Technology 51:530–543. O’Farrell, M. J., B. W. Miller, and W. L. Gannon. 1999. Qualitative identification of free-flying bats using the Anabat detector. Journal of Mammalogy 80:11–23. Obayashi, K., K. Saeki, J. Iwamoto, Y. Ikada, and N. Kurumatani. 2013. Exposure to light at night and risk of depression in the elderly. Journal of affective disorders 151:331–336. Obayashi, K., K. Saeki, J. Iwamoto, Y. Ikada, and N. Kurumatani. 2014. Association between light exposure at night and nighttime blood pressure in the elderly independent of nocturnal urinary melatonin excretion. Chronobiology International 31:779–786. Obayashi, K., K. Saeki, and N. Kurumatani. 2016. Ambient light exposure and changes in obesity parameters: a longitudinal study of the HEIJO-KYO cohort. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 101:3539–3547. Ohayon, M. M., and C. Milesi. 2016. Artificial outdoor nighttime lights associate with altered sleep behavior in the American general population. Sleep 39:1311–1320. Palmer, M., R. Gibbons, R. Bhagavathula, D. Davidson, and D. Holshouser. 2017. Roadway Lighting's Impact on Altering Soybean Growth: Volume 1. 0197-9191, Illinois Center for Transportation/Illinois Department of Transportation. Phillips, A. J., P. Vidafar, A. C. Burns, E. M. McGlashan, C. Anderson, S. M. Rajaratnam, S. W. Lockley, and S. W. Cain. 2019. High sensitivity and interindividual variability in the response of the human circadian system to evening light. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116:12019–12024. Polak, T., C. Korine, S. Yair, and M. W. Holderied. 2011. Differential effects of artificial lighting on flight and foraging behaivour of two sympatric bat species in a desert. Journal of Zoology 285:21–27. Poot, H., B. J. Ens, H. de Vries, M. A. H. Donners, M. R. Wernand, and J. M. Marquenie. 2008. Green light for nocturnally migrating birds. Ecology and Society 13:47. Price, M. V., N. M. Waser, and T. A. Bass. 1984. Effects of moonlight on microhabitat use by desert rodents. Journal of Mammalogy 65:353–356. Rawson, H. E. 1923. A bird’s song in relation to light. Transactions of the Hertfordshire Natural History Society and Field Club 17:363–365. APPENDIX D 131 41 Rea, M. S., J. A. Brons, and M. G. Figueiro. 2011. Measurements of light at night (LAN) for a sample of female school teachers. Chronobiology International 28:673–680. Rea, M. S., M. G. Figueiro, A. Bierman, and J. D. Bullough. 2010. Circadian light. Journal of Circadian Rhythms 8:1–10. Resco, V., J. Hartwell, and A. Hall. 2009. Ecological implications of plants’ ability to tell the time. Ecology Letters 12:583–592. Rich, C., and T. Longcore, editors. 2006. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Riou, S., and K. Hamer. 2008. Predation risk and reproductive effort: impacts of moonlight on food provisioning and chick growth in Manx Shearwaters. Animal Behaviour 76:1743– 1748. Robert, K. A., J. A. Lesku, J. Partecke, and B. Chambers. 2015. Artificial light at night desynchronizes strictly seasonal reproduction in a wild mammal. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 282:20151745. Rohweder, D. A., and P. R. Baverstock. 1996. Preliminary investigation of nocturnal habitat use by migratory waders (Order Charadriiformes) in northern New South Wales. Wildlife Research 23:169–183. Rowan, W. 1938. London starlings and seasonal reproduction in birds. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London A108:51–78. Rydell, J. 2006. Bats and their insect prey at streetlights. Pages 43–60 in C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C. San-Jose, L. M., R. Séchaud, K. Schalcher, C. Judes, A. Questiaux, A. Oliveira-Xavier, C. Gémard, B. Almasi, P. Béziers, A. Kelber, A. Amar, and A. Roulin. 2019. Differential fitness effects of moonlight on plumage colour morphs in barn owls. Nature Ecology & Evolution. Schmidt, T. M., and P. Kofuji. 2009. Functional and morphological differences among intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells. Journal of Neuroscience 29:476–482. Ściężor, T., M. Kubala, and W. Kaszowski. 2012. Light pollution of the mountain areas in Poland. Archives of Environmental Protection 38:59–69. Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-Friendly Building Design, 2nd Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia. Shuboni, D., and L. Yan. 2010. Nighttime dim light exposure alters the responses of the circadian system. Neuroscience 170:1172–1178. Sick, H., and D. M. Teixeira. 1981. Nocturnal activities of Brazilian hummingbirds and flycatchers at artificial illumination. Auk 98:191–192. Simons, A. L., X. Yin, and T. Longcore. 2020. High correlation but high scale-dependent variance between satellite measured night lights and terrestrial exposure. Environmental Research Communications 2:021006. Skaf, J. R. G., E. T. Hamanishi, O. Wilkins, S. Raj, and M. M. Campbell. 2010. The impact of artificial night lighting in an urban environment on plant photosynthesis and gene expression. Plant Biology 2010. American Society of Plant Biologists and Canadian Society of Plant Physiologists, Montréal, Canada. Škvareninová, J., M. Tuhárska, J. Škvarenina, D. Babálová, L. Slobodníková, B. Slobodník, H. Středová, and J. Minďaš. 2017. Effects of light pollution on tree phenology in the urban environment. Moravian Geographical Reports 25:282–290. APPENDIX E 132 SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1 42 Souman, J. L., T. Borra, I. de Goijer, L. J. Schlangen, B. N. Vlaskamp, and M. P. Lucassen. 2018. Spectral tuning of white light allows for strong reduction in melatonin suppression without changing illumination level or color temperature. Journal of Biological Rhythms 33:420–431. Spoelstra, K., R. H. A. van Grunsven, J. J. C. Ramakers, K. B. Ferguson, T. Raap, M. Donners, E. M. Veenendaal, and M. E. Visser. 2017. Response of bats to light with different spectra: light-shy and agile bat presence is affected by white and green, but not red light. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 284:20170075. Stone, E. L., S. Harris, and G. Jones. 2015. Impacts of artificial lighting on bats: a review of challenges and solutions. Mammalian Biology-Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 80:213– 219. Stone, E. L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2009. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats. Current Biology 19:1123–1127. Stone, E. L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2012. Conserving energy at a cost to biodiversity? Impacts of LED lighting on bats. Global Change Biology 18:2458–2465. Stracey, C. M., B. Wynn, and S. K. Robinson. 2014. Light pollution allows the Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) to feed nestlings after dark. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 126:366–369. Sustek, Z. 1999. Light attraction of carabid beetles and their survival in the city centre. Biologia (Bratislava) 54:539–551. Sutherland, D. R., and M. Predavec. 1999. The effects of moonlight on microhabitat use by Antechinus agilis (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae). Australian Journal of Zoology 47:1–17. Thomas, R. J., T. Székely, I. C. Cuthill, D. G. C. Harper, S. E. Newson, T. D. Frayling, and P. D. Wallis. 2002. Eye size in birds and the timing of song at dawn. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269:831–837. Ticleanu, C., and P. Littlefair. 2015. A summary of LED lighting impacts on health. International Journal of Sustainable Lighting 17:5–11. Tillmann, J. E. 2009. Fear of the dark: night-time roosting and anti-predation behaviour in the grey partridge (Perdix perdix L.). Behaviour 146:999–1023. Titulaer, M., K. Spoelstra, C. Y. M. J. G. Lange, and M. E. Visser. 2012. Activity patterns during food provisioning are affected by artificial light in free living great tits (Parus major). PLoS ONE 7:e37377. Topping, M. G., J. S. Millar, and J. A. Goddard. 1999. The effects of moonlight on nocturnal activity in bushy-tailed wood rats (Neotoma cinerea). Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:480–485. Upham, N. S., and J. C. Hafner. 2013. Do nocturnal rodents in the Great Basin Desert avoid moonlight? Journal of Mammalogy 94:59–72. Van Doren, B. M., K. G. Horton, A. M. Dokter, H. Klinck, S. B. Elbin, and A. Farnsworth. 2017. High-intensity urban light installation dramatically alters nocturnal bird migration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114:11175–11180. van Langevelde, F., J. A. Ettema, M. Donners, M. F. WallisDeVries, and D. Groenendijk. 2011. Effect of spectral composition of artificial light on the attraction of moths. Biological Conservation 144:2274–2281. Vasquez, R. A. 1994. Assessment of predation risk via illumination level: facultative central place foraging in the cricetid rodent Phyllotis darwini. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 34:375–381. APPENDIX D 133 43 Viviani, V. R., M. Y. Rocha, and O. Hagen. 2010. Fauna de besouros bioluminescentes (Coleoptera: Elateroidea: Lampyridae; Phengodidae, Elateridae) nos municípios de Campinas, Sorocaba-Votorantim e Rio Claro-Limeira (SP, Brasil): biodiversidade e influência da urbanização. Biota Neotropica 10:103–116. Voigt, C. C., C. Azam, J. Dekker, J. Ferguson, M. Fritze, S. Gazaryan, F. Hölker, G. Jones, N. Leader, D. Lewanzik, H. J. G. A. Limpens, F. Mathews, J. Rydell, H. Schofield, K. Spoelstra, and M. Zagmajster. 2018. Guidelines for Consideration of Bats in Lighting Projects. EUROBATS Publication Series No. 8. UNEP/EUROBATS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. Wang, T., and D. M. Shier. 2018. Effects of anthropogenic lighting on San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) foraging behavior, persistence and fitness. Revised final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research, San Deigo, California. Wang, T. B., and D. M. Shier. 2017. Effects of anthropogenic lighting on Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus) foraging bhevior, persistence and fitness. Final Report prepared for Wildlife Management Branch Environmental Security Dept. Marine Corps, Base Camp Pendleton. San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research, San Diego. Wang, W., J. Y. Barnaby, Y. Tada, H. Li, M. Tör, D. Caldelari, D.-u. Lee, X.-D. Fu, and X. Dong. 2011. Timing of plant immune responses by a central circadian regulator. Nature 460:110–114. Williams, C. B. 1936. The influence of moonlight on the activity of certain nocturnal insects, particularly of the family Noctuidae, as indicated by a light trap. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 266:357– 389. Xiao, Q., G. Gee, R. R. Jones, P. Jia, P. James, and L. Hale. 2020. Cross-sectional association between outdoor artificial light at night and sleep duration in middle-to-older aged adults: The NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. Environmental Research 180:108823. Zhang, S., X. Chen, J. Zhang, and H. Li. 2014. Differences in the reproductive hormone rhythm of tree sparrows (Passer montanus) from urban and rural sites in Beijing: the effect of anthropogenic light sources. General and Comparative Endocrinology 206:24–29. Zubidat, A. E., R. Ben-Shlomo, and A. Haim. 2007. Thermoregulatory and endocrine responses to light pulses in short-day acclimated social voles (Microtus socialis). Chronobiology International 24:269–288. Zubidat, A. E., R. J. Nelson, and A. Haim. 2010. Differential effects of photophase irradiance on metabolic and urinary stress hormone concentrations in blind and sighted rodents. Chronobiology International 27:1–29. APPENDIX E SALT LAKE CITY, UT Street Lighting Master Plan VOLUME 2 - TECHNICAL GUIDANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION JUNE 2020 3 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSHOW TO USE THIS GUIDE ..........................................1 LUMINAIRE SUBMITTAL FORMS .................................3 PROCESS FOR EVALUATING THE LIGHTED ENVIRONMENT .........................................................3 Determine Lighting Strategy based on Site Location .......................................................................3 Establish Lighting Warrants ..............................3 Determine Street Classifications .....................5 Determine Adjacent Land Use .........................5 Determine Pedestrian Activity Levels ...........7 COMPREHENSIVE IMPROVEMENTS ...........................8 Purpose ........................................................................8 Lighting Design Process ......................................8 Lighting Applications ............................................8 MINIMAL IMPROVEMENTS ......................................51 Confirm Existing Conditions .............................51 Supplemental Improvements ...........................51 One-For-One Replacement ..............................51 LIGHTING CONTROLS AND ADAPTIVE DIMMING STRATEGIES ............................................................51 LIGHTING CALCULATIONS ......................................54 Purpose .....................................................................54 How To Set Up A Calculation .........................54 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 5 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSHOW TO USE THIS DESIGN GUIDE This section outlines the street lighting design process and the steps to developing quality street and pedestrian lighting. The criteria used is from the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America’s (IES) American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting (RP- 8-18). Lighting designers should evaluate each lighting installation on a block by block basis and use the criteria to identify the appropriate lighting strategy based on the information provided in the following sections. LUMINAIRE SUBMITTAL FORMS Designers and engineers will use street and pedestrian luminaire submittal forms found in Appendix E to ensure that all luminaire criteria, set forth in this chapter as well as in the Luminaire Criteria Tables, are met. These forms should be completed during the lighting design process and most of the information on the forms can be found in the luminaire specification sheet. These forms will aid the City in approving luminaire selection for construction. PROCESS FOR EVALUATING THE LIGHTED ENVIRONMENT DETERMINE LIGHTING STRATEGY BASED ON SITE LOCATION The majority of lighting installations in Salt Lake City are street and/or pedestrian lights for which the City has adopted a standard. Using the same equipment for most installations reduces inventory and makes replacements and repairs more efficient and cost effective. However, this master plan and existing lighting programs allow for areas within the city to differentiate themselves with unique lighting features. When designing street and pedestrian lighting, the designer must be aware of the area and if there are any unique influences. All new lighting in a character area should match and comply with luminaire style and criteria established in this Master Plan. Some character districts in the City, such as residential areas, may require lighting redesign, regardless of existing conditions to meet applicable criteria. Areas not included in a character district will be lighted with cobrahead style luminaires and standard pedestrian scale luminaires that meet the criteria and spacing based on road classification established in the Master Plan. ESTABLISH LIGHTING WARRANTS The Lighting Warrants Table below considers all factors and leads the designer to the appropriate lighting strategy based on street classification, adjacent land use, and pedestrian conflict. The next sections provide the user with background and guidance on the Lighting Warrants Chart to identify appropriate attributes and select the appropriate lighting strategy. The designer must use the appropriate strategy and include any character influences in their design. Not all streets in the City will warrant continuous lighting, but all streets with continuous lighting must meet the lighting criteria set forth by IES RP-8-18. LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESS 6 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 TABLE 1: LIGHTING WARRANTS - ARTERIAL ARTERIAL STREET PED EXISTING CONDITIONS STREET LIGHTING PED LIGHTING PG. # COMMERCIAL HIGH Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25, 31 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Continuous 29 MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Non-cont.31 LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-Cont. NA 27 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont. NA 27 OFFICE PARK LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-Cont. NA 27 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont. NA 27 DOWNTOWN HIGH Cactus Poles Continuous Cactus Pole Lighting 19 Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25, 31 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Continuous 29 MED Cactus Poles Continuous Cactus Pole Lighting 19 Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Non-cont.31 INDUSTRIAL LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only NA 33 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only NA 33 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25, 31 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Non-cont.31 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25, 31 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25, 31 OPEN SPACE MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-Cont. NA 27 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont. NA 27 LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only NA 33 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only NA 33 * High pedestrian conflict is only found in Downtown, Sugarhouse, Trolley Square, and within one block of the University of Utah and Smith’s Ballpark 7 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 2: LIGHTING WARRANTS – COLLECTOR * High pedestrian conflict is only found in Downtown, Sugarhouse, Trolley Square, and within one block of the University of Utah and Smith’s Ballpark COLLECTOR PED EXISTING CONDITIONS STREET LIGHTING PED LIGHTING PG. # COMMERCIAL HIGH Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous OR Continuous 34 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Continuous 38 MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous OR Continuous 34 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Non-cont.40 LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-cont. NA 36 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-Cont. NA 36 OFFICE PARK LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-cont. NA 36 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont. NA 36 DOWNTOWN HIGH Cactus Poles Continuous Cactus Pole Lighting 19 Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous OR Continuous 34 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Continuous 38 MED Cactus Poles Continuous Cactus Pole Lighting 19 Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous OR Continuous 34 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Non-Cont.40 INDUSTRIAL LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only NA 44 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only NA 44 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.42 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Non-cont.40 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-Cont.OR Non-cont.36,42 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only &Non-cont.44,42 OPEN SPACE MED N/A LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only NA 44 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only NA 44 8 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 TABLE 3: LIGHTING WARRANTS – LOCAL * High pedestrian conflict is only found in Downtown, Sugarhouse, Trolley Square, and within one block of the University of Utah and Smith’s Ballpark LOCAL PED EXISTING CONDITIONS STREET LIGHTING PED LIGHTING PG. # COMMERCIAL HIGH Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous OR Continuous 45,50 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont.&Continuous 48 MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-Cont. OR Continuous 47, 50 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont.OR Continuous 47, 50 LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only OR Non-cont.36 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only OR Non-cont.36 OFFICE PARK LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only OR Non-cont.53, 52 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only OR Non-cont.53, 52 DOWNTOWN HIGH Cactus Poles Continuous Cactus Pole Lighting 19 Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous OR Continuous 45,50 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont.&Continuous 48 MED Cactus Poles Continuous Cactus Pole Lighting 19 Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-Cont. OR Continuous 47, 50 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-Cont.OR Continuous 47, 50 INDUSTRIAL LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only NA 53 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only NA 53 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only &Continuous 53 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only &Continuous 53 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only Optional Non-Cont.53, 52 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only Optional Non-cont.53, 52 OPEN SPACE MED N/A LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only NA 53 Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only NA 53 9 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSStreet classification is used to determine the lighting warrants for a street, along with the surrounding environment and pedestrian conflict. Figure 1 shows all street classifications throughout the city. The following street and roadway definitions are from IES RP-8-18. FREEWAY: A divided highway with full control of access. Oftentimes with great visual complexity and high traffic volumes. This roadway is usually found in major metropolitan areas in or near the central core and will operate at or near design capacity through some of the early morning or late evening hours of darkness. *Freeway, which are UDOT facilities, are not included in the scope of this Masterplan. MAJOR (ARTERIAL): That part of the roadway system that serves as the principle network for through-traffic flow. The routes connect areas of principle traffic generation and important rural roadways entering and leaving the city. These routes are often known as “arterials”. They are sometimes subdivided into primary and secondary; however, such distinctions are not necessary in roadway lighting. These routes primarily serve through traffic and secondarily provide access to abutting property. COLLECTOR: Roadways servicing traffic between major and local streets. These are streets used mainly for traffic movements within residential, commercial, and industrial areas. They do not handle long, through trips. Collector streets may be used for truck or bus movements and give direct service for abutting properties. LOCAL: Local streets are used primarily for direct access to residential, commercial, industrial, or other abutting property. They make up a sizable percentage of the total street system but carry a small proportion of vehicular traffic. INTERSECTIONS: A traffic conflict area in which two or more streets join or cross at the same grade. The outside edge of pedestrian crosswalks defines intersection limits. If there are no pedestrian crosswalks, the stop bars define the intersection. If there are no stop bars, the intersection is defined by the radius return of each intersection leg. Intersection limits may also include the area encompassing channelized areas in which traffic is directed into definite paths by islands with raised curbing. DETERMINE STREET CLASSIFICATIONS 0 1.5 30.75 Miles STREET CLASSIFICATIONS KEY LOCAL ARTERIAL COLLECTOR FREEWAY I-80 I-80 I-215I-215 I-15 HWY 154 400 S. S. TEMPLE FOOTHILL700 E.1700 S.1700 W.Figure 1: Street Classifications Map 10 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 Adjacent land use is a key factor in determining lighting strategy as it directly correlates to the number of pedestrians and vehicles in the area during nighttime hours. Areas of increased traffic volume at night warrant additional lighting, whereas areas that typically do not have much traffic after dark warrant base level lighting. Figure 2 is the Land Use Map. Adjacent land use should be evaluated according to the consolidated zoning provided in this master plan. For projects that are on the boundaries between land uses, the designer should select the lower criteria with more stringent light trespass to protect residential and open space uses. If the project includes areas that are within, or adjacent to, a Critical Wildlife Area, all luminaire installed should meet the luminaire requirements of the protected area. COMMERCIAL Commercial land use is a diverse classification encompassing high, medium and low pedestrian and traffic volumes. Areas with concentrated restaurant and retail establishments, such as the Sugarhouse Business District and 9th & 9th, typically see medium to high pedestrian and traffic volumes during nighttime hours and should have increased light levels and possibly additional pedestrian lighting. However, big box stores and strip malls do not typically see the same number of pedestrians during nighttime hours and can have reduced light levels. Designers must carefully evaluate the pedestrian and traffic volume where lighting improvements are being made and select the proper lighting criteria to create a safe and comfortable nighttime environment for pedestrians and vehicles. OFFICE PARK Office Parks are defined as areas where people tend to work during the day but are mostly vacant during nighttime hours. Establishments in this classification are generally open between 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. but typically close in the early evening and are not open into the night. DOWNTOWN Downtown Salt Lake City is the heart of the retail and restaurant business in the valley and attracts people at all times of the day. This area typically sees high and medium pedestrian and traffic volumes and is lighted by the historic Cactus Poles. Lighting in Downtown should focus on pedestrian safety and properly illuminating crosswalks and sidewalks. In most cases luminaire spacing has already been established so it is essential that designers select the proper distribution and lumen output INDUSTRIAL Industrial land use is defined by manufacturing and distribution within the City. This land use includes, but is not limited to, the establishments found south of the airport off of California Ave. Industrial land use has very minimal pedestrian usage, especially during nighttime hours and requires minimal lighting. Additionally, most of the industrial land use areas within Salt Lake City are also within Critical Wildlife Habitats and will require appropriate lighting to minimize environmental impacts. MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DETERMINE ADJACENT LAND USE 11 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSMultifamily residential is characterized by multiple separate housing units for residential inhabitants are contained within on building or several buildings within one complex. When designing lighting on streets adjacent to multifamily residential areas a medium pedestrian conflict should be used as there are typically higher pedestrian and vehicle volumes. Residential areas are typically on streets with lower speed limits and less traffic, however this is not always the case. Salt Lake City has residential land use on all street classifications, arterial, collector and local creating multiple lighting strategies that may be appropriate. Designers should consider the safety of pedestrian and vehicles when selecting the appropriate lighting strategy while respecting the residents by minimizing light trespass. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Single family residential is characterized by a stand-alone dwelling serving as the primary residence for one family. Single family residential areas typically have less pedestrian volume, and when designing lighting in these areas, a low pedestrian conflict should be used. Residential areas are typically on streets with lower speed limits and less traffic, however this is not always the case. Salt Lake City has residential land use on all street classifications, arterial, collector and local, creating multiple lighting strategies that may be appropriate. Designers should consider the safety of pedestrian and vehicles when selecting the appropriate lighting strategy while respecting the residents by minimizing light trespass. OPEN SPACE The purpose of the OS Open Space District is to preserve and enhance public and private open space, natural areas, and improved park and recreational areas. These areas provide opportunities for active and passive outdoor recreation, provide contrasts to the built environment, preserve scenic qualities, and protect sensitive or fragile environmental areas. Examples of Open Space within the City include City Creek Canyon, Salt Lake City Cemetery, and along the Jordan River. Any Streets bordering the foothills are considered to be along Open Space as well. These streets typically see minimal pedestrian usage and are within Critical Habitat areas requiring additional measures to ensure environmentally friendly street lights are used. ¯0 1 20.5 Miles Zones Low Density Residential Multi Family Residential Industrial Commercial Downtown Office Park Agriculture Institutional Airport Transit Service Areas Parks Open Space Public Land/Civic Figure 2: Adjacent Land Use Map 12 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 IES pedestrian volumes represent the total number of pedestrians walking in both directions on a typical block or 660 foot section. Pedestrian counts and traffic studies take precedence over other references. The following are pedestrian classification definitions per IES RP-8-18. The pedestrian counts should be taken during darkness hours when the typical peak number of pedestrians are present. This typically occurs during early morning hours if a school or similar destinations are nearby. The lighting designer should determine what the typical peak hours are for each street. HIGH: Areas with significant numbers (over 100 pedestrians an hour) of pedestrians expected to be on the sidewalks or crossing the streets during darkness. Examples are downtown retail areas, near theaters, concert halls, stadiums, and transit terminals. MEDIUM: Areas where fewer (10 to 100 pedestrians an hour) pedestrians utilize the streets at night. Typical are downtown office areas, blocks with libraries, apartments, neighborhood shopping, industrial, parks, and streets with transit lines. LOW: Areas with very low volumes (10 or fewer pedestrians per hour) of night pedestrian usage. A low pedestrian classification can occur in any street classifications but may be typified by suburban streets with single-family dwellings, very low-density residential developments, and rural or semi-rural areas. DETERMINING PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY LEVELS 13 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSPURPOSE This section applies to new installations of public street and pedestrian lighting, either standalone or on traffic signal installations, and modifications to existing street lighting installations that affect pole types or locations, excluding minor maintenance work. Refer to Volume 2: Minimal Improvements for projects involving 1-for-1 luminaire replacement and supplemental improvements. LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESS Performing a lighting design for new installations of streetlights is an iterative process. This occurs because the lighting design is altered (spacing, arrangement, mounting height) until the target goal is met, per criteria set forth in this document, for the specific street. The most efficient method is to calculate luminance for straight streets or illuminance for intersections and non-straight streets, along with sidewalks and other pedestrian areas with varying luminaire parameters. The selected luminaire must comply with the lumen output, efficacy, BUG ratings, and other luminaire requirements specified in Volume 2. Care should be taken, when selecting a luminaire to illuminate the surrounding sidewalks and public spaces without causing light trespass, or unwanted light spills onto surrounding properties and through residential windows. Instructions on setting up the lighting design calculations are found later in this volume. Lighting designers should use the Lighting Warrants Table to determine the appropriate strategy based on street classification, adjacent land use, and pedestrian conflict. Once the appropriate lighting strategy is determined, designers can find lighting and luminaire criteria and spacing guidance in the corresponding sheets below. All lighting layouts for each street classification are broken out below and should be referenced during the design process. LIGHTING APPLICATIONS The following pages describe the luminaire selection and lighting layout for each street classification as defined by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division. Designers should strive to meet the luminaire spacing that will provide the highest quality street lighting possible, but this is not always feasible. It is necessary to integrate lighting locations in correspondence to other improvements: • Clearance from driveways (10 feet commercial and 5 feet residential). • Clearance from fire hydrants (5 feet). • Trees (centered in between trees or 20 feet from the tree trunk). • Streetlight offset should be a minimum of 3’-0” and a maximum of 8’-0” from back of curb. • Pedestrian lights should be a minimum of 1’-0” and a maximum of 6’-0” from the sidewalk. • Light standards integrated into sidewalk should maintain a minimum of 5’-0” clear zone. • Light standards should be located a minimum distance of 10’-0” from trees. Place poles and luminaires near property lines wherever practical and avoid locations in front of doorways, windows, and lines of egress. COMPREHENSIVE IMPROVEMENTS 14 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 INTERSECTIONS & CROSSWALKS The same luminaires are to be used throughout the intersection. When an intersection is between two different street classifications, the higher street classification target criteria is used throughout the entire intersection. The recommended streetlight layout for an intersection also depends on whether the street classification calls for continuous or non- continuous lighting. The following requirements are recommended to guide all traffic signal mounted streetlights. The intersection design should ensure that the crosswalks are sufficiently lighted to light the vertical surface (body) of pedestrians in the crosswalk. This may require that additional streetlights be located before the intersection as shown in the Figures 3 and 4 below. Mid-block crossings and denoted crosswalks are recommended to always be lighted. Crosswalks can be denoted by striping, signage, flashing beacons, etc. Crosswalks are important parts of the streetscape and an appropriate lighting design will improve the visibility of pedestrians in the crosswalk. The lighting should be installed between the vehicle and the crosswalk (ie: half to one pole height before the crosswalk) to ensure that the body of the pedestrian is adequately lighted. If streetlights are installed above or immediately adjacent to the crosswalk, only the top of the pedestrian’s head will be lighted making it difficult for motorists to see the pedestrian. Crosswalks and mid-block crossings are recommended to be lighted to the Vertical Illuminance requirements in the table below. Vertical illuminance measurements are taken 5ft. above the roadway surface in the direction of oncoming traffic. Figure 3: Streetlight Located Before Crosswalk Figure 4: Streetlight Placement with Respect to Crosswalk 15 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 4: INTERSECTION & CROSSWALK TARGET HORIZONTAL CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18 STREET CLASS PED CONFLICT AVERAGE HORIZONTAL ILLUMINANCE (FC) UNIFORMITY RATIO (FCAVG/ FCMIN) AVERAGE VERTICAL ILLUMINANCE (FC) MOUNTING HEIGHT (FEET) MAST ARM LENGTH (FT) DISTRIBUTION MAX BUG RATING LUMEN OUTPUT RANGE Arterial / Arterial High 3.4 3 1.4 35-40 10 Type 2 or 3 3-0-3 16,000-25,000 Medium 2.6 3 0.9 35-40 10 Type 2 or 3 3-0-3 10,000-16,000 Low 1.8 3 0.5 30-40 10 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 7,000-12,000 Arterial / Collector High 2.9 3 0.9 35-40 10 Type 2 or 3 3-0-3 10,000-18,000 Medium 2.2 3 0.6 35-40 10 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 8,500-13,500 Low 1.5 3 0.4 30-40 10 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 5,000-10,000 Arterial / Local High 2.6 3 0.8 30-35 10 Type 2 or 3 3-0-3 10,000-16,000 Medium 2.0 3 0.6 30-35 10 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 7,500-12,500 Low 1.3 3 0.4 30-35 10 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 4,000-8,500 Collector / Collec- tor High 2.4 4 0.7 30-35 6 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 7,500-12,000 Medium 1.8 4 0.5 30-35 6 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 4,500-7,500 Low 1.2 4 0.5 30-35 6 Type 2 or 3 1-0-2 3,500-6,000 Collector / Local High 2.1 4 0.6 30-35 6 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 6,000-10,500 Medium 1.6 4 0.5 30-35 6 Type 2 or 3 1-0-2 4,000-7,000 Low 1.0 4 0.3 30-35 6 Type 2 or 3 1-0-2 3,000-5,500 Local / Local >30mph High 1.8 6 0.5 25-30 6 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 5,000-8,000 Medium 1.4 6 0.4 25-30 6 Type 2 or 3 1-0-1 4,000-6,000 Low 1.0 6 0.2 25-30 6 Type 2 or 3 1-0-1 3,000-5,500 Local / Local <30mph High N/A Medium N/A Low N/A * A U2 BUG rating is acceptable when using a house side shield? 1. Arterial mid block crossing shall follow the arterial/arterial intersection criteria. 2. Collector mid block crossing shall follow the collector/collector intersection criteria. 16 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 SIGNALIZED/CONTINUOUS LIGHTING For a signalized intersection with continuous lighting the typical streetlight arrangement is interrupted by placing streetlight signal poles. This is called out as “1/2 to 1 mounting height to centerline of crosswalk (Typical)” in Figure 5 below. Additional streetlights should be located on signal poles if additional lighting is needed to meet the intersection criteria. Figure 5: Typical Intersection Lighting Layout with Signals and Continuous Lighting NON- SIGNALIZED/CONTINUOUS LIGHTING For a non-signalized intersection with continuous lighting the typical streetlight arrangement is continued through the intersection (see Figure 6). The streetlights should be located along the approach to the crosswalk, if it exists, installed half to one luminaire mounting height in front of the crosswalk, between approaching vehicles and pedestrians. Figure 6: Typical Intersection Lighting Layout with No Signals and Continuous Lighting 17 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSIGNALIZED/NON-CONTINUOUS LIGHTING For signalized intersections with non-continuous lighting luminaires are located half to one luminaire mounting height in front of the crosswalk, illuminating the approach to the intersection. If these four luminaires do not provide sufficient lighting throughout the entire intersection, two more additional luminaires may be used, to be mounted on the signals as shown in Figure 7. Figure 7: Typical Intersection Lighting Layout with Signals and Non-Continuous Lighting NON-SIGNALIZED/NON-CONTINUOUS LIGHTING For streets with non-continuous lighting and no signals, one luminaire is to be placed at each intersection, as shown in Figure 8. Refer to the Local Street chapter for more information. Figure 8: Typical Intersection Lighting Layout with No Signals and Non-Continuous Lighting 18 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 MID-BLOCK CROSSWALKS The standard is a streetlight located one half to 1 mounting height in front of the crosswalk on both sides of the street for all mid-block crossings, shown in Figures 9 and 10. Figure 9: Streetlight Placement with Respect to Mid-Block Crossing Figure 10: Cactus Pole Placement with Respect to Mid-Block Crossing 19 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSCACTUS POLE LAYOUTS Cactus Poles within downtown SLC should be upgraded to fully shielded LED luminaires. The Cactus Pole locations and spacing will not change, but the lumen output and distribution of new luminaire should meet the criteria in Table 7 and 8 based on the location of the lighting improvements seen in Figure 11 and 12. Figure 11: Cactus Pole Lighting Layouts Striped Median ℄ Walk Tree Lawn Bike Street Width Parking Drive Lane Drive Lane ℄ WalkTree Lawn Bike ParkingDrive Lane Drive Lane CACTUS POLESFigure 12: Cactus Pole Sections TABLE 5: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC) High 1.2 3:1 1.0 Medium 0.9 3:1 0.5 TABLE 6: COLLECTOR STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC) High 0.8 3:1 1.0 Medium 0.6 4:1 0.5 20 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 TABLE 7: RECOMMENDED CACTUS POLE LUMINAIRE CRITERIA – ARTERIAL STREETS STREET WIDTH PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY STREET LIGHT LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) STREET LIGHT PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. STREET LIGHT BUG RATING PEDESTRIAN LIGHT LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) PEDESTRIAN LIGHT PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. PEDESTRIAN LIGHT BUG RATING 70-90 High 8,500-10,500 Type III or IV B3-U0-G2*3,000- 5,000 Type III or IV B1-U0-G1 Medium 5,500-9,000 Type III B3-U0-G2* 3,000- 5,000 Type III B1-U0-G1 90-110 High 6,500-9,500 Type II B3-U0-G2* 3,500- 5,500 Type III B1-U0-G1 Medium 8,000-11,500 Type III B3-U0-G2* 2,500- 5,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 TABLE 8: RECOMMENDED CACTUS POLE LUMINAIRE CRITERIA – COLLECTOR STREETS STREET WIDTH PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY STREET LIGHT LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) STREET LIGHT PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. STREET LIGHT BUG RATING PEDESTRIAN LIGHT LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) PEDESTRIAN LIGHT PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. PEDESTRIAN LIGHT BUG RATING 70-90 High 5,500-8,500 Type III or IV B2-U0-G2 2,500- 4,500 Type III or IV B1-U0-G1 Medium 4,500-8,000 Type II or IV B2-U0-G2 2,500- 4,500 Type III or IV B1-U0-G1 90-110 High 9,000-11,500 Type III B3-U0-G2 3,000- 5,000 Type III or IV B1-U0-G1 Medium 4,500-7,500 Type III or IV B2-U0-G2 3,000- 5,000 Type III or IV B1-U0-G1 * These BUG Ratings apply to all Cactus Pole lights, except at intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings, which may have B3-U3-G2 Ratings to provide adequate vertical illuminance at crosswalks.” 21 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSStreet Width Walk Tree Lawn Striped Median Drive Lane Drive Lane ℄ WalkTree Lawn Drive Lane Drive Lane SUGARHOUSE TEAR DROP SUGARHOUSE POLE LAYOUT The teardrop luminaires in the Sugarhouse Business District should be upgraded to fully shielded LED luminaires. The locations and spacing will not change, but the lumen output and distribution of new luminaire should meet the criteria in Table 10. This is illustrated in Figures 13 and 14. Figure 13: Sugarhouse Pole Lighting Layouts Figure 14: Sugarhouse Pole Lighting Section 22 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 TABLE 9: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC) High 1.2 3:1 1.0 Medium 0.9 3:1 0.5 TABLE 10: RECOMMENDED SUGARHOUSE POLE LUMINAIRE CRITERIA PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY STREET LIGHT LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) STREET LIGHT PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. STREET LIGHT BUG RATING PEDESTRIAN LIGHT LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) PEDESTRIAN LIGHT PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. PEDESTRIAN LIGHT BUG RATING High 6,000-8,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 2,000-3,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 Medium 3,000-7,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G1 1,000-2,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 23 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTEAR DROP POLE LAYOUT The teardrop luminaires along South Temple and State Street should be upgraded to fully shielded LED luminaires. The locations and spacing will not change, but the lumen output and distribution of new luminaire should meet the criteria in Table 12. This is illustrated in Figures 15 and 16. Figure 15: Tear Drop Lighting Layouts Figure 16: Tear Drop Lighting Section Street Width Striped Median Drive Lane ℄ Drive Lane Drive Lane WalkBikeParking Walk Tree Lawn Tree Lawn Drive Lane Drive Lane Drive Lane Bike Parking S TEMPLE STATE ST TEAR DROP 24 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 TABLE 11: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC) High 1.2 3:1 1.0 Medium 0.9 3:1 0.5 Low 0.6 4:1 0.4 TABLE 12: RECOMMENDED TEAR DROP LUMINAIRE CRITERIA STREET WIDTH PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING 50-70 High 11,000-14,750 Type III B2-U0-G2 Medium 8,500-12,000 Type III B2-U0-G2 Low 5,500-8,500 Type III B2-U0-G2 70- 100 High 16,500-20,500 Type III B3-U0-G3 Medium 16,500-20,500 Type III B3-U0-G3 Low 11,000-16,500 Type III B2-U0-G2 25 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSARTERIAL STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non- median lighting layout when designing an arterial street with only street lighting. Luminaires are to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at an intersection, Figures 17 and 18. Figure 17: Typical Arterial with Continuous Street Lighting Plan Figure 18: Typical Arterial with Continuous Street Lighting Cross Section 26 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 TABLE 13: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC) High 1.2 3:1 1.0 Medium 0.9 3:1 0.5 Low 0.6 4:1 0.4 TABLE 14: RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL (NON-MEDIAN MOUNTED) LUMINAIRE & POLE CRITERIA STREET WIDTH (FT) PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT)POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING 50-70 High 120-140 30-35 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 140-180 30-35 8,500-14,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G2 Medium 140-180 30-35 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 180-220 30-35 8,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 Low 180-220 30-35 6,000-8,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 70-90 High 140-180 30-35 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 180-220 30-35 12,000-18,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G3 Medium 120-160 30-35 7,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 160-200 30-35 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G2 Low 140-180 30-35 6,500-9,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 180-220 30-35 7,500-11,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 90-110 High 120-160 30-35 11,000-18,000 Type II B3-U0-G3 Medium 140-180 30-35 10,000-18,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 180-220 30-35 15,000-19,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G3 Low 140-180 30-35 8,000-13,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 180-220 30-35 12,000-14,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 27 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSARTERIAL STREET – NON-CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non- median lighting layout when designing an arterial street with non-continuous street. Street luminaires are to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at an intersection, Figures 19 and 20. Figure 19: Typical Arterial with Non-Continuous Street Lighting Plan Figure 20: Typical Arterial with Non-Continuous Street Lighting Cross Section 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) SIGNAL-MOUNTED LUMINAIRE (TYP) Striped MedianDrive Lane Bike/ Shoulder/ Parking Drive LaneWalkTree Lawn Drive Lane Bike/ Shoulder/ Parking Drive Lane WalkTree Lawn Street Width ARTERIAL STREET LIGHTING ONLY MAX SPACING TO BE DOUBLE RECOMMENDED SPACING FOR CONTINUOUS LIGHTING 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) Striped MedianDrive Lane Bike/ Shoulder/ Parking Drive LaneWalk Tree Lawn Drive Lane Bike/ Shoulder/ Parking Drive Lane WalkTree Lawn Street Width ARTERIAL NON CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING 28 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 TABLE 15: RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL (NON-MEDIAN MOUNTED) LUMINAIRE & POLE CRITERIA STREET WIDTH PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT)POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING 50-70 Medium 240-280 30-35 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 280-360 30-35 8,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 Low 360-440 30-35 6,000-8,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 70-90 Medium 240-320 30-35 7,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 320-400 30-35 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G2 Low 280-360 30-35 6,500-9,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 360-440 30-35 7,500-11,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 90-110 Medium 280-360 30-35 10,000-18,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 360-440 30-35 15,000-19,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G3 Low 280-360 30-35 8,000-13,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 360-440 30-35 12,000-14,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 29 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSARTERIAL STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING AND CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non- median lighting layout when designing an arterial street with continuous street and pedestrian lighting. Street lights are to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at an intersection. Pedestrian lights should be coordinated with the landscape and street lighting layouts to maintain a consistent spacing, Figures 21 and 22. Figure 21: Typical Arterial with Continuous Street and Pedestrian Lighting Plan Figure 22: Typical Arterial with Continuous Street and Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) Striped MedianDrive Lane Bike/ Shoulder/ Parking Drive LaneWalk Tree Lawn Drive Lane Bike/ Shoulder/ Parking Drive Lane WalkTree Lawn Street Width ARTERIAL CONT STREET AND PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:29 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) Striped MedianDrive Lane Bike/ Shoulder/ Parking Drive LaneWalkTree Lawn Drive Lane Bike/ Shoulder/ Parking Drive Lane WalkTree Lawn Street Width ARTERIAL CONT STREET AND PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:29 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 30 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 TABLE 16: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC) High 1.2 3:1 1.0 TABLE 17: RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL (NON-MEDIAN MOUNTED) STREET LUMINAIRE & POLE CRITERIA STREET WIDTH PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT)POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING 50-70 High 120-140 30-35 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 140-180 30-35 8,500-14,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G2 70-90 High 140-180 30-35 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 180-220 30-35 12,000-18,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G3 90-110 High 120-160 30-35 11,000-18,000 Type II B3-U0-G3 TABLE 18: RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL (NON-MEDIAN MOUNTED) PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE & POLE CRITERIA PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT)POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING High 50-80 12-15 3,000-5,500 Type II or III B1-U2-G1 31 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSARTERIAL STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING AND NON-CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non- median lighting layout when designing an arterial street with continuous street lighting and non- continuous pedestrian lighting. Street luminaires are to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at an intersection. Pedestrian luminaire should be located to illuminate locations shadowed by trees or at vehicle-pedestrian conflict points, Figures 23 and 24. Figure 23: Typical Arterial with Continuous Street Lighting and Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Plan Figure 24: Typical Arterial with Continuous Street Lighting and Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) Striped MedianDrive Lane Bike/ Shoulder/ Parking Drive LaneWalk Tree Lawn Drive Lane Bike/ Shoulder/ Parking Drive Lane WalkTree Lawn Street Width ARTERIAL CONT STREET AND NON CONT. PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:35 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) Striped MedianDrive Lane Bike/ Shoulder/ Parking Drive LaneWalkTree Lawn Drive Lane Bike/ Shoulder/ Parking Drive Lane WalkTree Lawn Street Width ARTERIAL CONT STREET AND NON CONT. PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:35 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 32 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 TABLE 19: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC) High 1.2 3:1 1.0 Medium 0.9 3:1 0.5 Low 0.6 4:1 0.4 TABLE 20: RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL (NON-MEDIAN MOUNTED) LUMINAIRE & POLE CRITERIA STREET WIDTH (FT) PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT)POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING 50-70 High 120-140 30-35 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 140-180 30-35 8,500-14,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G2 Medium 140-180 30-35 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 180-220 30-35 8,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 Low 180-220 30-35 6,000-8,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 70-90 High 140-180 30-35 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 180-220 30-35 12,000-18,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G3 Medium 120-160 30-35 7,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 160-200 30-35 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G2 Low 140-180 30-35 6,500-9,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 180-220 30-35 7,500-11,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 90-110 High 120-160 30-35 11,000-18,000 Type II B3-U0-G3 Medium 140-180 30-35 10,000-18,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 180-220 30-35 15,000-19,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G3 Low 140-180 30-35 8,000-13,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 180-220 30-35 12,000-14,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 TABLE 21: RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL (NON-MEDIAN MOUNTED) PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE & POLE CRITERIA PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT)POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING High 50-80 12-15 3,000-5,500 Type II or III B1-U2-G1 Medium 50-80 12-15 3,000-5,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 80-120 12-15 3,000-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 Low 50-80 12-15 2,000-4,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 80-120 12-15 2,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 33 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSARTERIAL STREET – INTERSECTION ONLY LIGHTING The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-median lighting layout when designing an arterial street with intersection only street light- ing. Street luminaires are to be placed at the intersection with luminaire on half to one mounting height in front of any existing crosswalks, Figures 25 and 26. Figure 25: Typical Arterial with Street Lights at Intersections Only Plan Figure 26: Typical Arterial with Street Lights at Intersections Only Cross Section 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) Striped MedianDrive Lane Bike/ Shoulder/ Parking Drive LaneWalkTree Lawn Drive Lane Bike/ Shoulder/ Parking Drive Lane WalkTree Lawn Street Width ARTERIAL STREET INT. ONL 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) Striped MedianDrive Lane Bike/ Shoulder/ Parking Drive LaneWalkTree Lawn Drive Lane Bike/ Shoulder/ Parking Drive Lane WalkTree Lawn Street Width ARTERIAL STREET INT. ONL See Intersections & Crosswalks Section on page 14 for lighting criteria and luminaire recom- mendations. 34 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 COLLECTOR STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non- median lighting layout when designing a collector street with only street lighting. Luminaires are to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at an intersection, Figures 27 and 28. Figure 27: Typical Collector Street with Continuous Street Lighting Figure 28: Typical Cross Section for Collector with Continuous Street Lighting 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) Travel Lane ℄ Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Striped Median Street Width Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane COLLECTOR STREET LIGHTING ONLY 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) Travel Lane ℄ Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Striped Median Street Width Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane COLLECTOR STREET LIGHTING ONLY 35 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 22: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC) High 0.8 3:1 1.0 Medium 0.6 4:1 0.5 TABLE 23: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR STREET LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA ROADWAY WIDTH (FT) PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT) POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING 30-50 High 140-160 30 6,500-7,800 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 180-220 30 7,000-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 Medium 140-160 30 5,000-7,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 180-220 30 6,500-8,800 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 50-70 High 140-160 30 6,500-8,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 180-220 30 7,000-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 Medium 140-160 30 6,000-7,700 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 180-220 30 7,000-8,700 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 70-100 High 120-140 30 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 Medium 140-160 30 7,000-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 180-220 30 9,000-13,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 36 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 COLLECTOR STREET – NON-CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non- median lighting layout when designing a collector street with non-continuous street lighting. Luminaires are to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at an intersection, Figures 29 and 30. Figure 29: Typical Collector Street with Non-Continuous Street Lighting Figure 30: Typical Collector Street with Non-Continuous Lighting Cross Section 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) Travel Lane ℄ Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Striped Median Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Street Width COLLECTOR NON CONTINUOUS STREETZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:40 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) Travel Lane ℄ Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Striped Median Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Street Width COLLECTOR NON CONTINUOUS STREETZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:40 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 37 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 24: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR STREET LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA ROADWAY WIDTH (FT) PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT) POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING 30-50 Medium 280-320 30 5,000-7,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 320-440 30 6,500-8,800 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 Low 280-360 30 4,000-5,500 Type III B1-U0-G1 360-440 30 4,500-6,000 Type III B1-U0-G1 50-70 Medium 280-320 30 6,000-7,700 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 320-440 30 7,000-8,700 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 Low 280-320 30 4,000-5,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G1 320-440 30 5,000-8,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 70-100 Medium 280-320 30 7,000-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 320-440 30 9,000-13,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 Low 280-360 30 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 360-440 30 6,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 38 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 COLLECTOR STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET AND CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non- median lighting layout when designing a collector street with continuous street and pedestrian lighting. Street luminaires are to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at an intersection. Pedestrian lights should be coordinated with the landscape and street lighting layouts to maintain a consistent spacing, Figures 31 and 32. Figure 31: Typical Collector Street with Continuous Street and Pedestrian Lighting Figure 32: Typical Collector with Continuous Street and Pedestrian Lighting 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) Travel Lane ℄ Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Striped Median Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Street Width COLLECTOR CONT STREET & PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:44 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) Travel Lane ℄ Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Striped Median Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Street Width COLLECTOR CONT STREET & PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:44 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 39 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 25: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC) High 0.8 3:1 1.0 TABLE 26: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR STREET LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA ROADWAY WIDTH (FT) PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT) POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING 30-50 High 140-180 30 6,500-7,800 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 180-220 30 7,000-10,000 B2-U0-G2 50-70 High 140-160 30 6,500-8,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 160-220 30 7,000-9,000 B2-U0-G2 70-100 High 120-140 30 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 TABLE 27: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT) POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING High 50-80 12-15 3,000-5,000 Type II or III B1-U2-G1 80-120 12-15 3,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U2-G1 40 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 COLLECTOR STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET AND NON-CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non- median lighting layout when designing a collector street with continuous street lighting and non- continuous pedestrian lighting. Street luminaires are to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at an intersection. Pedestrian luminaire should be located to illuminate locations shadowed by trees or at vehicle-pedestrian conflict points, Figures 33 and 34. Figure 33: Typical Collector Street with Continuous Street and Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Plan Figure 34: Typical Collector with Continuous Street and Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) Travel Lane ℄ Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Striped Median Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Street Width COLLECTOR CONT STREET NON CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:49 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) Travel Lane ℄ Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Striped Median Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Street Width COLLECTOR CONT STREET NON CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:49 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 41 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 28: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC) High 0.8 3:1 1.0 Medium 0.6 4:1 0.5 TABLE 30: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT) POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING High 50-80 12-15 3,000-5,000 Type II or III B1-U2-G1 80-120 12-15 3,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U2-G1 Medium 50-80 12-15 2,000-4,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 80-120 12-15 2,500-5,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 TABLE 29: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR STREET LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA ROADWAY WIDTH (FT) PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT) POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING 30-50 High 140-180 30 6,500-7,800 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 180-220 30 7,000-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 Medium 140-160 30 5,000-7,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 160-220 30 6,500-8,800 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 50-70 High 140-160 30 6,500-8,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 160-220 30 7,000-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 Medium 140-160 30 6,000-7,700 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 160-220 30 7,000-8,700 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 70-100 High 120-140 30 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 Medium 140-160 30 7,000-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 160-220 30 9,000-13,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 42 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 COLLECTOR STREET – CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non- median lighting layout when designing a collector street with continuous pedestrian lighting. Pedestrian lights should be coordinated with the landscape and street lighting layouts to maintain a consistent spacing, Figures 35 and 36. Figure 35: Typical Collector Street with Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Figure 36: Typical Collector with Continuous Pedestrian Lighting 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) 60'-0" Travel Lane ℄ Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Striped Median ROW Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane COLLECTOR CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:57 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) 60'-0" Travel Lane ℄ Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Striped Median ROW Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane COLLECTOR CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:57 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 See Intersection Section on page 46 for intersection lighting criteria and luminaire recommendations. 43 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 31: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT) POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING High 50-80 12-15 3,000-5,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 Medium 50-80 12-15 2,000-4,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 44 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 COLLECTOR STREET – NON-CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non- median lighting layout when designing a collector street with street lighting at intersections and non-continuous pedestrian lighting. Street luminaires are to be placed at the intersection with luminaire on half to one mounting height in front of any existing crosswalks. Pedestrian luminaire should be located to illuminate locations shadowed by trees or at vehicle-pedestrian conflict points. Figure 37: Typical Collector Street with Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Plan Figure 38: : Typical Collector with Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) Travel Lane ℄ Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Striped Median Street Width Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane COLLECTOR NON CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:59:02 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) Travel Lane ℄ Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Striped Median Street Width Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane COLLECTOR NON CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:59:02 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3See Intersections and Crosswalks section on page 14 for intersection lighting criteria and luminaire recommendations. 45 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 32: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT) POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING Medium 80-120 12-15 2,500-5,000 Type II or III B1-U2-G1 Low 80-120 12-15 2,500-4,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 46 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 COLLECTOR STREET – STREET LIGHTING AT INTERSECTIONS ONLY The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non- median lighting layout when designing a collector street with street lighting at intersections and non-continuous pedestrian lighting. Street luminaires are to be placed at the intersection with luminaire on half to one mounting height in front of any existing crosswalks, Figures 39 and 40. Figure 39: Typical Collector with Street Lighting at Intersections Only Plan Figure 40: Typical Collector with Street Lighting at Intersections Only Cross Section See Intersections & Crosswalks Section on page 14 for intersection lighting criteria and luminaire recommendations. 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) Travel Lane ℄ Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Striped Median Street Width Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane COLLECTOR STREET INT ONLY 12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK (TYPICAL) Travel Lane ℄ Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane Striped Median Street Width Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Travel Lane COLLECTOR STREET INT ONLY 47 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSLOCAL STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING Figure 41: Typical Local Continuous Street Lighting Layout Figure 42: Typical Local Continuous Street Lighting Cross Section Local Continuous Street Lighting ℄ Parking & Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Parking & Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Street Width LOCAL CONT STREET LIGHTING Local Continuous Street Lighting ℄ Parking & Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Parking & Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Street Width LOCAL CONT STREET LIGHTING 48 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 TABLE 33: LOCAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC) High 0.6 6:1 1.0 TABLE 34: RECOMMENDED LOCAL STREET LUMINAIRE CRITERIA STREET WIDTH (FT) PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT) POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING 30-50 High 140-180 30 4,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 180-220 30 4,500-7,750 Type II or III B2-U0-G1 50-80 High 120-160 30 4,500-7,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 160-200 30 5,500-8,250 Type II or III B2-U0-G1 49 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSLOCAL STREET – NON-CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING Figure 43: Typical Local Street with Non-Continuous Street Lighting Plan Figure 44: Typical Local Street with Non-Continuous Street Lighting Cross Section Local Non Continuous Street Lighting ℄ Parking & Travel Lane Parking & Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Sidewalk & Park Strip Street Width LOCAL NON CONT STREET LIGHTING Local Non Continuous Street Lighting ℄ Parking & Travel Lane Parking & Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Sidewalk & Park Strip Street Width LOCAL NON CONT STREET LIGHTING TABLE 35: RECOMMENDED LOCAL STREET LUMINAIRE CRITERIA STREET WIDTH (FT) PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT) POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING 30-50 High 280-360 30 4,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 360-440 30 4,500-7,750 Type II or III B2-U0-G1 Medium 320-440 30 4,000-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 50-80 High 240-320 30 4,500-7,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 320-400 30 5,500-8,250 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 Medium 300-400 30 4,500-6,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 50 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 LOCAL STREET – NON-CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING AND CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING Figure 45: Typical Local Street with Non-Continuous Street and Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Plan Figure 46: Typical Local Street with Non-Continuous Street and Continuous Ped Lighting Cross Section Local Non Continuous Street Continuous Ped Lighting ℄ Parking & Travel Lane Parking & Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Sidewalk & Park Strip Street Width Sidewalk & Park Strip LOCAL NON CONT STREET CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:59:07 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 Local Non Continuous Street Continuous Ped Lighting ℄ Parking & Travel Lane Parking & Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Sidewalk & Park Strip Street Width Sidewalk & Park Strip LOCAL NON CONT STREET CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:59:07 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 51 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 38: RECOMMENDED LOCAL PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE CRITERIA STREET WIDTH (FT) PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT) POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING 30-50 High 60-90 12 2,500-4,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 90-120 12 4,000-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 50-80 High 60-90 12 3,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 TABLE 36: LOCAL SIDEWALK TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY SIDEWALKS AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC) High 1.0 Medium 0.5 TABLE 37: RECOMMENDED LOCAL STREET LUMINAIRE CRITERIA STREET WIDTH (FT) PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT) POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM) TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING 30-50 High 280-360 30 4,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 360-440 30 4,500-7,750 Type II or III B2-U0-G1 50-80 High 240-320 30 4,500-7,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 320-400 30 5,500-8,250 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 52 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 LOCAL STREET –CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING Figure 47: Typical Local Street with Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Plan Figure 48: Typical Local Street with Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section Local Continuous Ped Lighting 36'-0" ℄ Parking & Travel Lane Parking & Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Sidewalk & Park Strip Street Width LOCAL CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:59:11 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 Local Continuous Ped Lighting36'-0" ℄ Parking & Travel Lane Parking & Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Sidewalk & Park Strip Street Width LOCAL CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:59:11 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3See Intersections and Crosswalks section on page 14 for intersection lighting criteria and luminaire recommendations. 53 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 39: LOCAL SIDEWALK TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY SIDEWALKS AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC) High 1.0 Medium 0.5 TABLE 40: RECOMMENDED LOCAL PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE CRITERIA STREET WIDTH (FT) PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT) POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING 30-50 High 60-90 12 2,500-4,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 90-120 12 4,000-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 Medium 60-90 12 2,500-3,500 Type II, III, or IV B1-U0-G1 90-120 12 3,500-5,500 Type II, III, or IV B1-U0-G1 50-80 High 60-90 12 3,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 Medium 60-90 12 4,000-5,550 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 54 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 LOCAL STREET – NON-CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING Figure 49: Typical Local Street with Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Plan Figure 50: Typical Local Street with Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section TABLE 41: RECOMMENDED LOCAL PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE CRITERIA STREET WIDTH (FT) PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT) POLE HEIGHT (FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING 30-50 Medium 120-180 12 2,500-3,500 Type II, III, or IV B1-U0-G1 180-240 12 3,500-5,500 Type II, III, or IV B1-U0-G1 Low 120-240 12 2,000-4,000 Type II, III, or IV B1-U0-G1 50-80 Medium 120-180 12 4,000-5,550 Type II or III B1-U0-G1 Low 160-240 12 2,500-4,000 Type II, III or IV B1-U0-G1 See Intersections and Crosswalks section on page 14 for intersection lighting criteria and luminaire recommendations. Local Non Continuous Ped Lighting ℄ Parking & Travel Lane Parking & Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Sidewalk & Park Strip Street Width LOCAL NON CONT PED Local Non Continuous Ped Lighting ℄ Parking & Travel Lane Parking & Travel Lane Sidewalk & Park Strip Sidewalk & Park Strip Street Width LOCAL NON CONT PED 55 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSLOCAL STREET – INTERSECTION ONLY LIGHTING Figure 51: Typical Local Street Intersection Only Lighting Plan Figure 52: Typical Local Street with Intersection Only Lighting Cross Section See Intersections and Crosswalks section on page 14 for intersection lighting criteria and luminaire recommendations. 56 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 Figure 53: Uncovered Bus Stop Lighting Layout BUS STOP LIGHTING UNCOVERED BUS STOP Uncovered bus stops should be lit by a street luminaire positioned 1/2 to 1 mounting height from the bus stop in the direction of oncoming traffic. The illuminance criteria at bus stops are found in Table 42. Figure 54: Covered Bus Stop Lighting Section BUS SHELTERS Bus Shelters criteria are found in Table 42. Vertical illuminance aids in facial recognition and visible comfort and is to be measured 5 ft. above the ground. Street luminaires within 100 ft of bus shelters increase ambient light and visual comfort. TABLE 42: LOCAL SIDEWALK TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18 BUS STOP CRITERIA HORIZONTAL ILLUMINANCE (FC) VERTICAL ILLUMINANCE (FC) Uncovered Bus Stop 1.0 0.2 Covered Bus Stop 1.0 1.0 57 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSMINIMAL IMPROVEMENTS CONFIRM EXISTING CONDITIONS Current existing conditions where improvements are being made should be evaluated prior to beginning lighting improvement design. One-for-one replacements should be done where the existing lighting strategy meets the required lighting strategy in the Lighting Warrants Table 1-3. If the existing lighting strategy is appropriate, the spacing of the existing lights should be upgraded to meet the lumen requirements for the specific type and land use and the necessary infrastructure, such as wiring, foundation, and poles are all in good condition. If the lighting strategy in the area requires additional street or pedestrian lights, supplemental improvements will need to be made. Supplemental improvements may also need to be made if the spacing is not met or there are infrastructure issues. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS Supplemental improvements entail adding a limited quantity of new street or pedestrian light locations to the existing lighting system to illuminate any dark areas on the street. If any of the following conditions exist, then the improvement area should follow the comprehensive improvement methodology: • The existing lighting on the block does not meet the lighting strategy in Tables 1-3: Lighting Warrants and additional pedestrian or streetlights are necessary to comply with the appropriate lighting strategy. • Existing street or pedestrian light spacing exceeds two times the recommended value based on lighting strategy. • Lighting only exists on one side of the street and does not sufficiently light the whole street. To maintain consistency in the lighting design, all luminaires used in supplemental improvements should match the luminaires chosen for 1-for-1 replacements. ONE-FOR-ONE REPLACEMENT Salt Lake City is upgrading existing HID lights to new energy efficient LEDs. The new replacement lights should meet the lighting criteria set forth in the Luminaire Criteria Tables based on street classification, adjacent land use and pedestrian conflict. The City is also working to upgrade any previously installed LEDs that are not within the luminaire specification and are causing obtrusive glare and light trespass to a luminaire that is more appropriate to the specific location. All one- for-one replacements should match the appreciate color temperature based on adjacent land use and existing LEDs that do not meet the appropriate CCT should be considered for replacement. 58 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 As part of the lighting upgrades throughout the city, the new LED lights will be compatible with a city-wide wireless lighting control system. This lighting control system will allow Salt Lake City to have precise control over each individual light throughout the City, enabling the City to raise or lower light levels when needed or desired. Dimming strategies will vary throughout the City based on adjacent land use, pedestrian conflicts, and time of day to ensure vehicle and pedestrian safety while working to minimize light pollution and light trespass. When dimming lighting in a certain area, the lighting strategy must be considered, speed limit on the streets, and vehicle and pedestrian volumes. • When dimming continuous street or pedestrian lighting, the first strategy is to dim from high or medium pedestrian criteria to medium or low pedestrian criteria. If continuous lighting is already in a low pedestrian area, research supports that when using broad spectrum LED sources, dimming to 70% of current output or lower can still provide sufficient lighting. If the City is interested in dimming below a low pedestrian criteria for a certain continuously lighted street, the City should undergo a public engagement pilot study with residents, city council, police, fire, and the city attorney to further understand the implications of reduced lighting in the area. • Along streets with non-continuous street and pedestrian lighting, there is not a required lighting criteria and lights should be dimmed to comfortable levels while still maintaining the desired effect of the lighting design. DIMMING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS: All street classifications are found in all single-and multi-family residential areas in Salt Lake City. The Table below summarizes the recommended dimming strategies based on street classification, and pedestrian conflict. TABLE 43: RECOMMENDED DIMMING STRATEGIES FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS ARTERIAL STREET COLLECTOR STREET LOCAL STREET Multifamily Residential (Med Ped Conflict) Dim Street and Pedestrian Lights to Low Ped Conflict Dim Street and Pedestrian Lights to Low Ped Conflict Dim Street and Pedestrian Lights to Low Ped Conflict Single Family Residential (Low Ped Conflict) *Dim Street and Pedestrian Lights to Comfortable Light Levels *Dim Street and Pedestrian Lights to Comfortable Light Levels *Dim Street and Pedestrian Lights to Comfortable Light Levels * Dimming to comfortable light levels below the Low Pedestrian Criteria requires a public engagement process. LIGHTING CONTROLS AND ADAPTIVE DIMMING STRATEGIES 59 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSDIMMING IN DOWNTOWN RESTAURANT/RETAIL ENVIRONMENTS It is essential to maintain proper light levels based on pedestrian conflict when adjusting light levels in the downtown. Pedestrian traffic fluctuates based on the night of the week, as well as the time of day. If an event is happening within a public gathering space or venue, higher pedestrian volume should be expected, and the recommended dimming strategy should be overruled and the areas surrounding the event center should be lighted to criteria. The table below shows the dimming strategies based on night of the week and time of night. TABLE 44: RECOMMENDED DIMMING STRATEGIES FOR DOWNTOWN DIMMING STRATEGY Sunday Night - Wednesday Night Dusk to 10PM Light to Criteria 10PM to Midnight Reduce Criteria to a Lower Pedestrian Conflict Midnight to 2:30AM Reduce Criteria to Low Pedestrian Conflict or to Comfortable Light Levels 2:30AM to Dawn Reduce Criteria to Low Pedestrian Conflict or to Comfortable Light Levels Thursday Night - Saturday Night Dusk to 10PM Light to Criteria 10PM to Midnight Reduce Criteria to a Lower Pedestrian Conflict Midnight to 2:30AM Light to Criteria 2:30AM to Dawn Reduce Criteria to Low Pedestrian Conflict or to Comfortable Light Levels * Dimming to comfortable light levels below the Low Pedestrian Criteria requires a public engagement process DIMMING INTERSECTION AND MID-BLOCK CROSSINGS Intersections and mid-block crossing should be dimmed separately from the rest of the streetlights; however, the same strategy should be used. If the intersection or crossing has less traffic at certain times throughout the night, the criteria can be reduced to a lower pedestrian conflict criteria. If further reduction in light levels are desired, a similar public engagement process should be done to ensure the safety of pedestrians and vehicles at intersection and mid-block crossings. 60 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 LUMINAIRE SPECIFICATIONS Luminaire specifications are found in Tables 55 & 56 TABLE 55: SPECIFICATION OVERVIEW CONTROLS ELECTRICAL SYSTEM Integral 0-10V dimmable drivers to adjust light levels. All streetlights will be installed with an ANSI 7 pin photocell receptacle to be compatible with wireless controls in the future. Single phase 120/240V electrical system voltage. LIGHT STANDARD SPECIFICATION LIGHT STANDARD FOUNDATIONS The light standard - also referred to as the pole - should be tapered, round galvanized steel with a 12-inch bolt circle. Color match the head and arm of the pole. Design replacement poles, heads, and/or arms to match existing color and type of adjacent poles if appropriate and with written City approval. City approval of decorative or non-standard poles is required. Painted over galvanized is required for any pole requiring color change. All new mast arm installations are required to be 2, 6, or 10 feet. The City must approve all poles with banner arms and power receptacles. City standard design for all precast concrete or poured-in-place light standard foundations. While the City accepts poured-in-place foundations, precast concrete foundations are preferred and should be installed whenever possible. 61 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 56: LUMINAIRE SPECIFICATIONS Correlated Color Temperature (CCT)3000K Maximum Color Rendering Index (CRI)≥65 in most areas, or > 40 in Critical Wildlife Habitat Luminaire Lumen Range The lumen output should comply with the lumen range specified in the Recommended Luminaire Criteria Tables based on street classification, adjacent land use and pedestrian conflict. Criteria for luminaire CCT are found in Volume 1 Table 5. Luminaire Finish Die cast aluminum housing with fade and abrasion resistant polyester powder coat finish. Finish should match existing color of luminaires along street. Luminaire Warranty 10 years on luminaire and components. Luminaire Warranty Period Earliest warranty period allowed starts on the date of receipt by City. Luminaire Identification Luminaire external label per ANSI C136.15, and an interior label per ANSI C136.22 required. Operation and Storage Temperature '-40°C to +40°C. Frequency Vibration 'Luminaire should withstand low and high frequency vibration, per ANSI C136.31, over the rated life of the light source. Minimum Rated Life 70,000 hours minimum at 55°C, per IES TM-21 IP rating IP65 or greater. Voltage 120/277. Control Dimmable and installed with ANSI 7 pin photo receptacle to be compatible with wireless luminaires controls in the future. Cooling System Passive utilizing heat sinks, convection, or conduction. Upper surfaces required to shed precipitation. Cooling fans are not allowed. Photocontrol Individual multi-contact 7-pin twist lock receptacle per ANSI C136.41. Or control module. Electrical Immunity Luminaire are required to meet the performance requirements specified in ANSI C136.2 for dielectric withstand, using the DC test level and configuration.LUMINAIREPower Factor (PF)Minimum of 0.9 at full input power. Total Harmonic Distortion (THD)Maximum of 20 percent at full input power. Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS)Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) compliant drivers required. Surge Protection Protection from all electrical surges with an elevated electrical immunity rating, including but not limited to lightning strikes and stray current in rebar and concrete required for all LEDs. Integral surge protection to the LED power supply required. “Elevated” (10kV/10kA) requirements per IEEE/ANSI C62.41.2 for luminaire. Manufacturer indication of failure of the electrical immunity system can possibly result in disconnect of power to luminaire required. Total Power Consumed in Off State Maximum 8 watt off-state power consumption for luminaire, including driver. Electromagnetic interference Electromagnetic interference: Compliance with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 47 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 15 non- consumer radio frequency interference (RFI) and/or electromagnetic interference (EMI) standards.LED DRIVERS 62 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 LIGHTING CALCULATIONS PURPOSE Lighting design calculations for new installations is an iterative process. The use of lighting models to calculate the luminance along streets and illuminance on sidewalks is the most efficient and accurate way to design to criteria. Light trespass calculations should also be included to limit the amount of obtrusive light in the City. This section describes the required calculations to ensure that all criteria is met for all new installations. HOW TO SET UP A CALCULATION The following sections document the parameters and considerations when calculating street lighting levels. IES FILES The first step in running a calculation is to find and download the photometric in IES file format for the specific luminaire being considered. This file is available on the manufacturer’s website and can be downloaded into any lighting calculation simulation software. The IES file will contain all information for the luminaire, such as lumen output, color temperature, wattage, distribution, and voltage. LIGHT LOSS FACTOR FOR LED A light loss factor should be applied to every luminaire considered, to ensure that the maintained light levels will meet the target criteria. Table 57, below, lists typical light loss factors for LEDs and legacy products found throughout Salt Lake City. TABLE 57: TYPICAL LIGHT LOSS FACTORS LIGHT SOURCE LUMINAIRE DIRT DEPRECIATION (LDD) LUMINAIRE LUMEN DEPRECIATION (LLD) TOTAL LIGHT LOSS FACTOR (LLF) LED 0.9 0.97 0.818 HPS 0.9 0.9 0.81 MH 0.9 0.7 0.63 HPS: High Pressure Sodium MH: Metal Halide 7 Use 0.9 or LM value provided by the Manufacturer at 60,000 hours, if L70 is greater than 100,000 hours 8 If using an LM value provided by the Manufacturer, the Total LLF is equal to 0.9 x LM60,000hr 63 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSLUMINANCE AND ILLUMINANCE CALCULATIONS Calculations should be done in AGi32, DIALux, Visual, or comparable software, and include the following calculation grids: • ROADWAY LUMINANCE - A calculation grid is required for every lane of traffic and oriented in the direction of travel spaced 10’ OC along each lane, with two points across each lane. - Every section of roadway where criteria changes requires a separate calculation grid. • INTERSECTION ILLUMINANCE - Intersection calculations done using horizontal illuminance grids that include the whole intersection, as well as all crosswalks associated with the intersections. Calculation points placed in a 5’x5’ grid. • SIDEWALK ILLUMINANCE - Horizontal sidewalk illuminance grids placed on all sidewalks, spaced every 5’-10’ OC along the sidewalk with two points across the sidewalk. • LIGHT TRESPASS ILLUMINANCE - Light trespass grids located 5’ past the edge of ROW, into private property. Light trespass grids placed 5’ AFF, oriented toward the street with calculation points every 5’-10’ OC. - Light trespass calculation grids separated based on adjacent land use. If the project goes from a residential area to a commercial area, a separate light trespass calculation grid required for each section of the project. - If a structure is within 5’ from the property line, light trespass grid to be placed on the structure, 5’ AFF. - Light trespass values should not exceed the following: • Single Family Residential, Multifamily Residential, Industrial and Open Space properties: 0.1FC MAXIMUM. - If this criteria is not feasible with proper shielding and distribution, a variance may be considered to allow up to 0.2Fc Maximum light trespass in residential areas. Designer will be required to submit a narrative describing the efforts to control light trespass to the City Engineer. • Commercial, Restaurant/Retail/Civic, and Mixed-use Residential properties: 0.3FC MAXIMUM • CROSSWALK VERTICAL ILLUMINANCE - Vertical illuminance grids are required in all crosswalks at 5’ AFF, and oriented toward oncoming traffic (See Figure 55). Calculation points should be located along the center line of each crosswalk, placed every 5’ OC. 64 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2 Designers submissions to the City should include a calculation summary table for each calculation grid and include the average illuminance or luminance, maximum illuminance or luminance, minimum illuminance or luminance, and Avg:Min ratio. Calculated values may vary from criteria by no more than 10% above or below. Figure 55: Horizontal Intersection Illuminance Grid Figure 56: Vertical Intersection Illuminance Grid 65 LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSFigure 57: Roadway, Sidewalk, and Light Trespass Calculation Grid Setup 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: Russell Weeks Senior Policy Analyst DATE:May 27, 2021 at 5:26 PM RE: OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Goal of the briefing: To review proposed amendments to the City’s off-street parking regulations. o The proposed ordinance is a rewrite of current ordinances regulating off-street parking. o The proposed ordinance divides off-street parking into four “contexts” – general, neighborhood center, urban center, and transit. (Please see table in Additional Background and Information section of this report, and attached map.) The contexts are intended to regulate off-street parking based on land-uses in those categories. o The proposed ordinance amends minimum and maximum allowable parking spaces in many areas. o The primary goals of the revisions include “updating parking requirements to better reflect market demand and city objectives; simplifying how the ordinance reads and is administered; updating and simplifying technical requirements; and establishing a framework that allows the ordinance to be responsive to changing City dynamics,” according to the Administration.1 o The Administration has proposed two amendments to the ordinance in the transmittal – one regulating parking spaces for bicycles in areas zoned for commercial or industrial use; the other for loading berths for multi-family residential structures. o The proposed rewrite includes a new parking standards manual as a guide to technical specifications (such as dimensional requirements) of the off-street parking regulations. POLICY QUESTIONS Item Schedule: Briefing: February 9, 2021 Set Date: February 16, 2021 Public Hearing: March 16, 2021 Potential Action: April 6, 2021 Page | 2 1. The proposed rewrite is significant. Should developers with fairly immediate projects in the works have a choice of starting the projects under the existing ordinance or under the proposed ordinance – if the City Council adopts the revisions? Or, should the City Council set a future date for the ordinance to take effect to give developers a choice to decide whether to start projects under the current or a future ordinance, if it’s adopted? 2. Are the proposed changes to increase required bicycle parking for industrial and commercial land uses and to change the ratio of vehicle loading spaces in multi-family buildings suggest by the Planning Division acceptable to the City Council? 3. What might be the effect on the parking revisions of future overlay zones that are under way or under study? 4. Is the “General Context” designation too broad to accommodate smaller land uses such as infill development, and too car oriented in areas with commercial and industrial uses? 5. The proposed ordinance includes a provision that parking areas with four or fewer vehicle parking spaces are not required to identify an accessible parking space, but if parking is provided, at least one parking space would have to comply with the ADA standard dimensions. Should all the parking spaces in that category comply with ADA standard dimensions, and should those dimensions be for vehicles that can carry a motorized wheelchair? ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Mayor Jacqueline Biskupski filed the petition to amend the off-street parking section of the City’s zoning ordinance in September 2017. The Mayor filed the petition after the City advertised for and contracted with a company to research and then rewrite the off-street parking ordinance. The Administration’s phase of the public process to rewrite the ordinance started in September 2017 and ended on January 8, 2020, with a public hearing held by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission. After the hearing the Commission unanimously adopted a motion to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. The stated purpose of the main revisions can be found in 21A.44.010: “This chapter is intended to require that new development and redevelopment projects provide off street parking and loading facilities in proportion to the parking, loading, and transportation demands of the buildings and land uses included in those projects. This chapter is also intended to help protect the public health, safety, and general welfare by: A.) Avoiding and mitigating traffic congestion and reducing the financial burden on taxpayer funded roadways; B.) Providing necessary access for service and emergency vehicles; C.) Providing for safe and convenient interaction between vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians; D.) Providing flexible methods of responding to the transportation and access demands of various land uses in different areas of the city; E.) Reducing storm water runoff, reducing heat island effect from large expanses of pavement, improving water quality, and minimizing dust pollution; F.) Establishing context-sensitive parking standards to reflect the current and future built environment of neighborhoods; and G.) Avoiding and mitigating the adverse visual and environmental impacts of large concentrations of exposed parking,” As indicated in the previous section, a main feature of the proposed revisions is to tailor off-street regulations to the land-use contexts -- general, neighborhood center, urban center, and transit. Here are brief descriptions of the four contexts: General Context –includes zoning districts that tend to be more auto dependent and/or suburban in scale and parking needs. The context also applies broadly to all zoning districts that are not specifically listed in the other context areas. Areas that fall into the category are the 300 West commercial corridor, the Redwood Road commercial corridor, and other developments in zoning districts not identified in a specific context area in the ordinance’s Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Table.2 Neighborhood Center: The context includes areas with small- or moderate-scale shopping, gathering, or activity spaces, often within or adjacent to General Context areas, but that are not necessarily well served by transit. The category includes zoning districts with pedestrian-scale development patterns, building Page | 3 forms, and amenities. Areas that fall into the category are the Ninth and Ninth commercial node, the Fifteenth and Fifteenth commercial node, and other moderate scale commercial and mixed-use developments within the zoning districts identified in the Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Table.3 Urban Center: The context includes zoning districts with dense, pedestrian-oriented development within more intensely developed urban centers. Parking demand in the context is higher than in the Transit Center Context, but lower than areas in the Neighborhood Center Context. Areas that fall into this category are the Sugar House Business District, areas adjacent to Downtown, and other developments that are within the zoning districts identified in the Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Table.4 Transit Context: The context includes zoning districts that immediately surround mass-transit facilities and/or are in the Downtown core. These areas have the lowest parking demand and may be exempt from minimum parking requirements or be required to provide minimal off-street parking. Areas that fall into this category are the Central Business District, Central Ninth, the North Temple/400 South transit corridor, and other developments that are within the zoning districts identified in the Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Table.5 Here are the specific zoning districts within each context area. Page | 4 Besides the 300 West Street and Redwood Road commercial corridors, other zoning districts in the General Context category include areas zoned for single and two-family residential districts, mobile home park districts, manufacturing districts, research park districts, business park districts, airport district, institutional districts agricultural districts, public lands districts, and open space areas. Two Proposed Revisions The ordinance in the transmittal contains two sections that the Administration on reflection would like to amend. The first involves a different formula for bicycle parking for commercial and industrial land uses. The second involves a different calculation of vehicle loading spaces at multi-family housing. According to the Administration, “The proposed method for calculating bicycle parking is based on use, context, and building size or residential unit count, which is the same method used to calculate vehicle parking. … However, the required bike parking for commercial uses in the General Context area is low.”6 The Administration proposes changing bicycle parking space requirements in the General Context category from one per 20,000 square feet in commercial uses to one per 10,000 square feet. It also proposes for areas zoned for industrial uses to change from having no bicycle parking requirement to the following requirements: General Context – 1 space per 15,000 square feet. Neighborhood Center Context – 1 space per 8,000 square feet. Urban Center Context – 1 space per 5,000 square feet. Transit Context – 1 space per 3,000 square feet.7 The Administration has proposed the revised amendments “to be more consistent with city-wide goals related to air-quality and bike-friendliness.”8 After receiving comments about the amount of proposed space for vehicle loading spaces, the Administration is recommending the following changes for loading berths in areas zoned for multi-family residential uses: Instead of requiring one loading berth in buildings with 40 to 150 units per building; two loading spaces for buildings with 151 to 300 units per building; and one extra loading berth for every 200 units above 300 units, the Administration recommends requiring one loading berth in buildings with 80 to 200 units, and an extra loading berth per 200 units for buildings with more than 200 units.9 Other Items The proposed revisions are extensive. Using the Administration’s transmittal letter and Planning Division staff report to the Planning Commission, Council staff has taken some items that should be noted. Minimum and Maximum Parking Requirements – The Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Table lists numerous land uses. Specific minimum and maximum parking requirements can be found in section 21A.44.040.A (Page 61 of the proposed ordinance; Page 65 of the transmittal.) Exemptions from Parking Requirements – According to the Administration, the current zoning code exempts nonresidential uses in buildings smaller than 1,000 square feet within commercial districts and the D-2 and D-3 zoning districts from having to provide parking. The exemption is now expanded to apply city-wide to all uses on lots (other than single-family or two-family dwellings) created prior to April 12, 1995, that are smaller than 5,000 square feet. The proposed change would add another level of flexibility for small property and business owners that would otherwise not be able to use or develop the lot due to parking constraints. However, any development that is exempt from providing parking, but that elects to provide parking, will be required to comply with all location and design standards adopted by the City.10 Accessible Parking – Parking areas with four (4) or fewer vehicle parking spaces are not required to identify an accessible parking space; however, if parking is provided, a minimum of one (1) parking space shall comply with the ADA standard dimensions.11 Page | 5 Changes of Use – Any change of use outside of the Urban Center Context area or Transit Center Context area (the largest portions affected by the proposed revisions) that would require an increase in the minimum number of off-street parking spaces by 10 or more spaces or by 25 percent or more spaces, would be required to provide additional parking in compliance with the parking regulations. However, older buildings (built prior to 1944) would not require additional parking to be provided for changes in use. The provision is intended to encourage adaptive reuse of older buildings.12 Parking Calculations – The current zoning ordinance assigns a “catch-all” minimum parking requirement of three (3) spaces per 1,000 square feet for “all other uses.” The proposed section retains that minimum and adds a maximum parking allowed requirement of five (5) spaces per 1,000 square feet. Two additional means have also been introduced by which parking requirements can be assigned to an unlisted use. The Planning Director now has the authority to assign a minimum or maximum number of off- street parking spaces required for an unlisted use based on a listed use with similar operating characteristics, occupancy classification or other factors. The Director can also determine the parking and loading requirements for any use based on a parking study submitted by the applicant that demonstrates the anticipated demand for the proposed development.13 Parking Garages – According to the Administration, parking provided in structures such as parking garages is proposed to include maximum parking allowed. … Well located and planned parking garages can provide shared parking solutions for multiple properties. ... The intent of the proposed provision is to encourage and facilitate parking solutions that serve multiple properties. In addition, “discussions with The Downtown Alliance also indicated that national employers may insist on certain parking counts being provided for their employees. In this sense, parking garages can be a tool to incentivize employers to relocate downtown.”14 Shared Parking – The current maximum distance allowed for shared parking areas of 500 feet has been proposed to increase between 600-1,200 feet, based on parking context and to reflect national trends and Salt Lake City’s large block sizes. The proposed approach would allow mixed-use development the opportunity to reduce the minimum number of required parking spaces to better reflect the parking demands of a mixed-use development.15 1 Administration transmittal letter, Eric Daems, November 2, 2020, Page 2. 2 Planning Division Staff Report, Eric Daems, January 8, 2020, Page 5. 3 Planning Division Staff Report, Page 5. 4 Planning Division Staff Report, Page 6. 5 Planning Division Staff Report, Page 6. 6 Administration transmittal letter, Page 2. 7 Administration transmittal letter, Page 3. 8 Administration transmittal letter, Page 2. 9 Administration transmittal letter, Page 3. 10 Planning Division Staff Report, Page 4. 11 Planning Division Staff Report, Page 8. 12 Planning Division Staff Report, Page 4. 13 Planning Division Staff Report, Page 4 14 Planning Division Staff Report, Page 7. 15 Planning Division Staff Report, Page 8. ZONING ORDINANCE //21A.44 OFF STREET PARKING, MOBILITY, AND LOADING Update regulations for off-street parking including: •Minimum/maximum parking requirements •Permitted alternatives •Parking lot design and dimensional standards REQUEST & BACKGROUND PURPOSE •Realigned purpose statements •Relaxed requirements for expansion or change of use •Created parking “contexts” •Revised strategy for minimum & maximum parking •Increased bike parking •Updated parking alternatives -eliminated TDM KEY CHAPTER UPDATES PARKING CONTEXTS ( e.g. Downtown, Gateway, North Temple and 400 South corridors, Central 9th ) •Highest density development •Adjacent to mass -transit facilities •Lowest parking demand APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICTS D-1, D-3, D-4, FB-CS, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, G-MU, R-MU, TSA-C, UI TRANSIT CONTEXT ( e.g. Sugar House, Marmalade, Downtown Adjacent, Guadalupe) •Higher density, pedestrian-scale development •Increased development/mobility options •Low/moderate parking demand APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICTS CSHBD1, CSHBD2, D-2, MU, TSA-T URBAN CENTER CONTEXT ( e.g. 9th & 9th, 1100 E Commercial Corridor, Foothill Village) •Small/Moderate -scale activity nodes •Pedestrian-scale development & amenities •Usually not well served by transit •Most varied parking needs APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICTS CB, CN,FB-UN1, FB-SE, RB, R-MU-35, R-MU-45, SNB, SR-3 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CONTEXT ( e.g. Redwood Rd, South State Street, Single -family Neighborhoods, Industrial Areas ) •Applies in all areas not defined in other contexts •More auto -dependent and/or suburban in scale •Fewest mass -transit options available •Highest parking demand APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICTS All areas not defined in other contexts GENERAL CONTEXT (based on current zoning districts) PROPOSED PARKING CONTEXT AREAS KEY CONSIDERATIONS •Dropped TDM strategies •Up to 40% combined reductions •Affordable and senior housing •Carpool and car share •Proximity to mass transit (TRAX or HF bus routes) •Shared parking •Parking Study (to reduce or increase parking) ALTERNATIVES TO PARKING CALCULATIONS •Parking counts based on consultant recommendations, City and neighborhood goals,and input from property managers and developers​ •Minimums generally lower •Maximums now based on best practice, rather than percent of minimum​ •Structured parking not counted against parking maximum​ •Maximum restaurant parking in Neighborhood Center increased from 2.5 stalls per 1,000 sf. to 7 per 1,000 sf. ​ PARKING MINIMUMS & MAXIMUMS •Lower minimums for: D-1, D-3, D-4, G-MU, UI, R-MU, CSHBD1,CSHBD2,RB, SNB​ •Lower studio, higher 1+ bedroom: D-2,TSA-T​ •Higher minimums for: FB-UN1​ •Are the maximums appropriate for each context? MULTI-FAMILY PARKING General​Neighborhood Center​Urban Center​Transit​Maximums​ Studio and 1​ bedrooms: 1 space​ per DU 2+ bedrooms​: 1.25 space per DU​ Studio and 1+​ bedrooms: 1 space​ per DU​ Studio: No ​Minimum 1 bedroom: 0.5​ space per DU​ 2+ bedrooms: 1 space​ per DU​ No ​Minimum All Contexts:​ Studio & 1 Bedroom:​ 2 spaces per DU​ 2+ bedrooms: 3​ spaces per DU​ •Text amendment from eleemosynary facility to congregate care •Pending changes to special exceptions •Front yard parking •Vehicle storage without hard surfacing •Parking Study (Central 9th and 9th & 9th areas) •Are affordable housing reductions adequate? RECENT ITEMS TO ADDRESS FEEDBACK/DISCUSSION Eric Daems, AICP eric.daems@slcgov.com 385-226-3187 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS BLAKE THOMAS Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Chris Wharton, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2017-00753 – Off-Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading Zoning Text Amendments STAFF CONTACT: Eric Daems, Senior Planner (801) 535-7236, eric.daems@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council adopt the proposed parking modifications including the complete re-write of Chapter 21A.44 and all associated ordinance language as has been recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: As transportation and land uses change over time, the demand for parking changes. Cities frequently struggle to strike a balance between too much parking and inadequate parking. Parking requirements that are too high can waste land, increase development costs, lead to demolition of structures to meet parking requirements, increase stormwater runoff, compromise water quality, and discourage pedestrian activity. Parking requirements that are too low may lead to increased traffic congestion, difficulty leasing or selling property, and spillover parking onto adjacent residential streets. Beginning in June 2017, the Planning Division started working with consulting firm Clarion and Associates to perform a comprehensive review and update of Chapter 21A.44 Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading and associated sections of the zoning ordinance. The provisions reviewed determine the parking regulations in all areas of the City, but do not include regulations for on- street parking. The process included internal meetings with City divisions most closely involved with the parking chapter and a thorough public engagement plan that is outlined in Attachment G of the Staff Report (Exhibit 4b). Following the completion of the work of the consultant, Planning SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145460, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5460 TEL 801.535.6230 November 2, 2020 11/4/2020Lisa Shaffer (Nov 9, 2020 07:39 MST) 11/09/2020 Staff worked to address commentary received, finish the public engagement efforts, and to produce a fully revised parking ordinance. Primary goals of the rewrite include updating parking requirements to better reflect market demand and city objectives, simplifying how the ordinance reads and is administered, updating and simplifying technical requirements, and establishing a framework that allows the ordinance to be responsive to changing City dynamics. The Planning Commission Staff Report in Exhibit 4b provides a comprehensive overview and detailed analysis of the proposed zoning text amendments. Additional Considerations: Since the time when the public hearing was held, Planning Staff has identified several items that may warrant additional consideration from the City Council. Bicycle Parking: The current parking ordinance bases bicycle parking standards on vehicle parking stalls provided. The trouble with this approach is that, as reductions to parking are granted through various alternatives, required bicycle parking is also reduced. The approach was creating reduced bicycle parking when it was most needed. The proposed method for calculating bicycle parking is based on use, context, and building size or residential unit count, which is the same method used to calculate vehicle parking. The basic table is shown below: The table reflects progressive and generally increased bicycle parking requirements for most uses in most of the context areas; however, the required bike parking for commercial uses in the General Context area is low (1 per 20,000 sq. ft.) and no minimum bicycle parking is required for industrial uses in all context areas. The original reasoning behind this was that these uses in these areas may not generate as much bicycle traffic, so bicycle parking would be provided by the developer/business owner on an as-needed basis. In order to be more consistent with city-wide goals related to air-quality and bike-friendliness, the City Council may want to consider increasing the minimum required bicycle parking for industrial and commercial uses. Planning Staff recommends the table be revised as follows: Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements* (Calculation of Bicycle Parking Spaces to be Provided per Residential Unit or Based on Usable Floor Area) Use General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R-MU-35, R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1, CSHBD2 D-1, D-3, D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, R-MU Residential Uses 1 per 5 units 1 per 4 units 1 per 3 units 1 per 2 units Public, Institutional, and Civic Uses 1 per 10,000 sq. ft. 1 per 5,000 sq. ft. 1 per 5,000 sq. ft. 1 per 3,000 sq. ft. Commercial Uses 1 per 10,000 sq. ft. 1 per 5,000 sq. ft 1 per 4,000 sq. ft. 1 per 2,000 sq. ft. Industrial Uses 1 per 15,000 sq. ft. 1 per 8,000 sq. ft. 1 per 5,000 sq. ft. 1 per 3,000 sq. ft. *For all uses: In determining the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required, fractional spaces are rounded to the nearest whole number, with one-half counted as an additional space Loading Berths: Two of the attached letters (Exhibit 4e) present a concern with the proposed requirements for off street loading berths for multi-family residential uses. The current ordinance bases the requirement on building size (square feet) rather than unit count. The current requirement is 1 short berth for buildings between 100,,000-200,000 square feet and 1 additional berth for each 200,000 square feet. The 100,000 square foot starting point was placing a burden on the public right-of-way for smaller buildings that still had a high unit count. To that end, the new requirements were developed and are shown below: These standards are based off similar size cities with newer parking ordinances. However, after re-examining it, Planning Staff agrees that these may be too demanding and may require too much space to be dedicated to loading berths and therefore inhibit City housing and development goals. The City Council may want to consider a higher threshold for requiring the initial or additional loading berths. Planning Staff recommends the table be revised as follows: Multi- Family Residential86 # of Dwelling Units (Per Building) Number and Size of Berths 80-200 1 short Greater than 200 1 additional short per 200 units PUBLIC PROCESS: Development of the proposed Parking Ordinance and associated amendments was the result of a robust community engagement process that involved targeted stakeholders as well as the general public through numerous engagement activities. Attachment G in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 4b) provides a summary of the public engagement activities that were conducted throughout the ordinance revision process. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 8, 2020. Five people spoke at the public hearing with varying level of support or concern to the proposed ordinance amendments. A summary of those concerns has been included in this memo (Exhibit 4c). The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation the City Council to adopt the Chapter 21A.44 Off Street Parking and associated zoning text amendments. Since the Public Hearing, Planning Staff has received six letters from the public in regard to the proposed amendments. Two of the letters reflect comments made during the Public Hearing for the Planning Commission. All of the letters have been included in this memo (Exhibit 4e). EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Hearing 3. Planning Commission- January 8, 2020 a. Agenda Notice b. Staff Report c. Agenda & Minutes d. Staff Presentation Slides e. Additional Public Comments Received 4. Original Petition 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 202_ (An ordinance amending various sections of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to off street parking regulations) An ordinance amending various sections of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2017-00753 pertaining to off street parking regulations. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 8, 2020 to consider a petition submitted by then-Mayor Jacqueline Biskupski (“Applicant”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2017-00753) to amend portions of Chapters 18.80 (Buildings and Construction: Parking Lot Construction); 20.56 (Subdivisions and Condominiums: Condominiums); 21A.24 (Zoning: Residential Districts); 21A.26 (Zoning: Commercial Districts); 21A.30 (Zoning: Downtown Districts); 21A.31 (Zoning: Gateway Districts); 21A.32 (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts); 21A.36 (Zoning: General Provisions); 21A.37 (Zoning: Design Standards); 21A.38 (Zoning: Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures); 21A.40 (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures); 21A.44 (Zoning: Off Street Parking, Mobility and Loading); 21A.52 (Zoning: Special Exceptions); 21A.60 (Zoning: List of Terms); and 21A.62 (Zoning: Definitions) of the Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to off street parking; and WHEREAS, at its January 8, 2020 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake 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: 2 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 18.80.020. That Section 18.80.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Buildings and Construction: Parking Lot Construction: Permit; Required for Construction; Issuance Conditions) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 18.80.020: PERMIT; REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION; ISSUANCE CONDITIONS: No parking lot or parking area shall be constructed without first obtaining a permit authorizing such construction. No permit shall be issued without first securing the recommendations of the city transportation engineer and no permit shall be issued until the applicant has complied with the provisions of this chapter. SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 20.56.060.B. That Subsection 20.56.060.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Subdivisions and Condominiums: Condominiums: Condominium Conversion Process: Planning Official Duties and Responsibility) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Planning Official Duties and Responsibility: 1. Coordination of Review: The planning official shall review the application material submitted for accuracy and completeness and transmit the submittal to pertinent departments for review and comment. 2. Consistent with State Law: The planning official shall review the application and related documents to determine compliance with requirements of the Utah Condominium Ownership Act, Title 57, Chapter 7 of the Utah Code, and applicable provisions of this chapter. 3. Previous Conditions: The planning official shall review applicable conditions on the use or building imposed by ordinances, variances, and conditional uses. 4. Site Improvements: The planning official shall review the proposed building and site plans and shall have the authority to require additional improvements to be made to the existing site including, but not limited to, landscaping, exterior repairs, and improvements to common areas. This review shall include an analysis of the parking, including internal circulation issues, such as surfacing and control curbs. The analysis shall also include the number of existing parking stalls, noting any deviation from current standards. Based upon this information, the planning official may require 3 construction of additional parking stalls on the site, or may require reasonable alternative parking solutions as outlined in Section 21A.44.050 “Alternatives to Minimum and Maximum Parking Calculations”, of this code. Any additional parking developed on site or alternative parking solutions may not increase the parking impacts on neighboring properties, and will not develop existing common areas used as open space or green space. Additionally, any remodeling proposal which increases the number of bedrooms would require compliance with existing parking requirements. The total number of parking stalls available to the owners of the project shall be disclosed on the condominium plat. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.164.H. That Subsection 21A.24.164.H of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use District: Parking Structures) shall be, and hereby is DELETED. SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.168.H. That Subsection 21A.24.168.H of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District: Parking Structures) shall be, and hereby is DELETED. SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.170.E. That Subsection 21A.24.170.E of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District: Parking Structures) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Single-Family Detached Dwellings: a. Front Yard: Fifteen feet (15’). b. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10’). c. Interior Side Yard: (1) Corner lots: Four feet (4’). 4 (2) Interior lots: Four feet (4’) on one side and ten feet (10’) on the other. d. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but need not be more than twenty feet (20’). 2. Single-Family Attached, Two-Family and Twin Home Dwellings: a. Front Yard: Fifteen feet (15’). b. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10’). c. Interior Side Yard: (1) Single-family attached: No yard is required, however if one is provided it shall not be less than four feet (4’). (2) Two-family: (A) Interior lot: Four feet (4’) on one side and ten feet (10’) on the other. (B) Corner lot: Four feet (4’). (3) Twin home: No yard is required along one side lot line. A ten foot (10’) yard is required on the other. d. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of lot depth or twenty five feet (25’), whichever is less. 3. Multi-Family Dwellings and Any Other Residential Uses: a. Front Yard: No setback is required. b. Corner Side Yard: No setback is required. c. Interior Side Yard: No setback is required. d. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of lot depth, but need not exceed thirty feet (30’). 4. Nonresidential Development: a. Front Yard: No setback is required. b. Corner Side Yard: No setback is required. c. Interior Side Yard: No setback is required. 5 d. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of lot depth, but need not exceed thirty feet (30’). 5. Existing Lots: Lots legally existing on the effective date hereof, April 12, 1995, shall be considered legal conforming lots. 6. Minimum Lot Area Exemptions: For multiple-unit residential uses, nonresidential and mixed uses, no minimum lot area is required. In addition, no front, corner side or interior side yards or landscaped setbacks are required; except where interior side yards are provided, they shall not be less than four feet (4’). 7. Existing Buildings: For buildings legally existing on the effective date hereof, required yards shall be no greater than the established setback line. 8. Maximum Setback: For single-family, two-family, and twin home dwellings, at least twenty five percent (25%) of the building facade must be located within twenty five feet (25’) of the front lot line. For all other uses, at least twenty five percent (25%) of the building facade must be located within fifteen feet (15’) of the front lot line. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as design review, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the planning commission. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may modify this requirement if the adjacent public sidewalk is substandard and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The planning director may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than fifty percent (50%) if the planning director finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure or the surrounding architecture. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. Appeal of administrative decision is to the planning commission. SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.26.020.F. That Subsection 21A.26.020.F of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CN Neighborhood Commercial District: Minimum Yard Requirements) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: F. Minimum Yard Requirements: 6 1. Front or Corner Side Yard: A fifteen foot (15’) minimum front or corner side yard shall be required. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as design review, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the planning commission. 2. Interior Side Yard: None required. 3. Rear Yard: Ten feet (10’). 4. Buffer Yards: Any lot abutting a lot in a Residential District shall conform to the buffer yard requirements of Chapter 21A.48 of this title. 5. Accessory Buildings and Structures in Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to Section 21A.36.020, Table 21A.36.020.B of this title. 6. Maximum Setback: A maximum setback is required for at least sixty five percent (65%) of the building facade. The maximum setback is twenty five feet (25’). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the planning commission. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may modify this requirement if the adjacent public sidewalk is substandard and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The planning director may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than fifty percent (50%) if the planning director finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure or the surrounding architecture. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. Appeal of administrative decision is to the planning commission. SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.26.025.F. That Subsection 21A.26.025.F of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: SNB Small Neighborhood Business District: Yard Requirements) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: F. Yard Requirements: 7 1. Front and Corner Side Yard: Front and corner side yard setbacks shall be equal to the required yard areas of the abutting zoning district along the block face. When the property abuts more than one zone the more restrictive requirement shall apply. 2. Interior Side Yard: Interior side yard equal to the required yard areas of the abutting zoning district along the block face. When the property abuts more than one zone the more restrictive requirement shall apply. 3. Rear Yard: Rear yard setbacks shall be equal to the required yard areas of the abutting zoning district along the block face. When the property abuts more than one zoning district the more restrictive requirement shall apply. 4. Buffer Yards: Any lot abutting a lot in a Residential District shall conform to the buffer yard requirements of Chapter 21A.48, “Landscaping and Buffers”, of this title. 5. Accessory Buildings and Structures in Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to Section 21A.36.020, Table 21A.36.020.B, “Obstructions in Required Yards”, of this title. SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.26.030.F. That Subsection 21A.26.030.F of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CB Community Business District: Minimum Yard Requirements) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: F. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front or Corner Side Yard: No minimum yard is required. If a front yard is provided, it shall comply with all provisions of this title applicable to front or corner side yards, including landscaping, fencing, and obstructions. 2. Interior Side Yard: None required. 3. Rear Yard: Ten feet (10’). 4. Buffer Yards: Any lot abutting a lot in a Residential District shall conform to the buffer yard requirements of Chapter 21A.48 of this title. 5. Accessory Buildings and Structures in Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to Section 21A.36.020, Table 21A.36.020B of this title. 8 6. Maximum Setback: A maximum setback is required for at least seventy five percent (75%) of the building facade. The maximum setback is fifteen feet (15’). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the planning commission. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may modify this requirement if the adjacent public sidewalk is substandard and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The planning director may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than fifty percent (50%) if the planning director finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure or the surrounding architecture. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. Appeal of administrative decision is to the planning commission. SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.26.078. That Section 21A.26.078 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: TSA Transit Station Area District) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.26.078: TSA TRANSIT STATION AREA DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the TSA Transit Station Area District is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive transit and pedestrian oriented commercial, residential and mixed use development around transit stations. Redevelopment, infill development and increased development on underutilized parcels should include uses that allow them to function as part of a walkable, mixed use district. Existing uses that are complementary to the district, and economically and physically viable, should be integrated into the form and function of a compact, mixed use pedestrian oriented neighborhood. Each transit station is categorized into a station type. These typologies are used to establish appropriate zoning regulations for similar station areas. Each station area will typically have two (2) subsections: the core area and the transition area. Due to the nature of the area around specific stations, the restrictions of overlay zoning districts, and the neighborhood vision, not all station areas are required to have a core area and a transition area. 1. Core Area: The purpose of the core area is to provide areas for comparatively intense land development with a mix of land uses incorporating the principles of sustainable, transit oriented development and to enhance the area closest to a transit station as a 9 lively, people oriented place. The core area may mix ground floor retail, office, commercial and residential space in order to activate the public realm. 2. Transition Area: The purpose of the transition area is to provide areas for a moderate level of land development intensity that incorporates the principles of sustainable transit oriented development. The transition area is intended to provide an important support base to the core area and transit ridership as well as buffer surrounding neighborhoods from the intensity of the core area. These areas reinforce the viability of the core area and provide opportunities for a range of housing types at different densities. Transition areas typically serve the surrounding neighborhood and include a broad range of building forms that house a mix of compatible land uses. Commercial uses may include office, retail, restaurant and other commercial land uses that are necessary to create mixed use neighborhoods. B. Station Area Types: A station area typology is the use of characteristics, such as building types, mix of land use, transit service and street network to create generalizations about an area that can be used to define a common vision for development of a transit station area. Each typology recognizes the important difference among places and destinations and takes into account the local context of a station and its surroundings. Refer to the official Salt Lake City zoning map to determine the zoning of the land within each station area. 1. Urban Center Station (TSA-UC): An urban center station contains the highest relative intensity level and mix of uses. The type of station area is meant to support downtown Salt Lake and not compete with it in terms of building scale and use. 2. Urban Neighborhood Station (TSA-UN): An evolving and flexible development pattern defines an urban neighborhood station area. Urban neighborhoods consist of multilevel buildings that are generally lower scale than what is found in the urban center station area. The desired mix of uses would include ground floor commercial or office uses with the intent of creating a lively, active, and safe streetscape. 3. Mixed Use Employment Center Station (TSA-MUEC): A mixed use employment station is an area with a high concentration of jobs that attract people from the entire region. Buildings are often large scale in nature and may have large footprints. Land uses that support the employment centers such as retail sales and service and restaurants are located throughout the station area and should occupy ground floor space in multi-story buildings oriented to the pedestrian and transit user. A mix of housing types and sizes are appropriate to provide employees with the choice to live close to where they work. Building types should trend toward more flexible building types over time. Connectivity for all modes of travel is important due to the limited street network. 4. Special Purpose Station (TSA-SP): The special purpose station is typically centered on a specific land use or large scale regional activity. These areas are generally served by a mix of transit options. Land uses such as restaurants and retail support the 10 dominant land use and attract people to the area. A mix of housing types and sizes are appropriate in certain situations. Future development should be aimed at increasing the overall intensity and frequency of use in the station area by adding a mix of uses that can be arranged and designed to be compatible with the primary use. C. Review Process: The review process for all new development and redevelopment within the Transit Station Area Zoning District is based on the development score which is generated by the “Transit Station Area Development Guidelines” hereby adopted by reference. 1. The following types of development are required to go through this review process: a. Any addition of one thousand (1,000) square feet or more that extend a street facing building facade or are located to the side of a building and are visible from a public space; or b. Additions that increase the height of an existing building or change the existing roofline; c. Additions to the rear of buildings that are not adjacent to a public street, trail or other public space are not required to obtain a development score but must comply with all other applicable regulations. Signs, fences, accessory structures and any other structure or addition not listed in this section are not required to obtain a development score. d. Single-family detached dwellings and two-family dwellings are not required to obtain a development score. 2. Application process steps: a. Presubmittal Conference: All applicants for development within the TSA Transit Station Area Zoning District are required to attend a presubmittal conference with the planning division. The purpose of the presubmittal conference is to notify the applicant of the goals of the station area plans, the standards in this section, and the review and approval process. b. Development Review Application: After a presubmittal conference, the developer can submit a development review application. This application and all submittal requirements will be used to determine the development score. The application shall include a score sheet on which the development guidelines and their assigned values are indicated and two (2) checklists: one for the applicant’s use and one for the planning division’s use. c. Public Noticing: A notice of application for a development review shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 21A.10 of this title. 11 d. Application Review: Table 21A.26.078.C.2.d of this Subsection C summarizes the application review process. All applications shall be processed as follows: (1) Tier 1 Planning Commission Review: If a project is assigned a score less than 125 points, the project can only be approved by the planning commission through the design review process in Chapter 21A.59 of this title. Once the applicant receives written notice of their score, they will be given thirty (30) days to notify the planning division of their intention to proceed with the project through the design review process or make necessary plan adjustments to increase their development score to the minimum level in order to go through an administrative review process. (2) Tier 2 Administrative Review: The planning director has the authority to approve a project scoring 125 points or more without holding a public hearing. The project shall be allowed to go through the standard building permit process. A public hearing is not required because the project incorporates adequate development guidelines or development incentives to be deemed compliant with the vision for the station area. TABLE 21A.26.078.C.2.d APPLICATION REVIEW Development Score Review Process 0 - 124 points Planning commission design review process 125 or more points Administrative review D. Development Score: The purpose of the development score is to allow flexibility for designers while implementing the city’s vision of the applicable station area plans and the purpose of this zoning district. The development score measures the level of compatibility between a proposed project and the station area plan. A “station area plan” is a development, land use, urban design and place making policy document for the area around a specific transit station. The development score is based on the development guidelines and development incentives in the “Transit Station Area Development Guidelines” book, hereby adopted by reference. The “Transit Station Area Development Guidelines” shall be amended following the adopted procedures for zoning text amendments in Chapter 21A.50, “Amendments”, of this title. 1. Formulating the Score: The development score is formulated by calculating all of the development guideline values for a particular project. Each design guideline and incentive is given a value based on its importance. Some guidelines are considered more important and carry a higher value than others. All other applicable zoning regulations shall be complied with by all projects and are not calculated in the development score. 12 2. Project Review: A development score shall be assigned to all projects within the TSA Transit Station Area District after a complete development review application is submitted. The planning director shall provide, in writing, a copy of the review checklist and explanation of the outcome of the score to the applicant within thirty (30) days of submitting a complete application. 3. Appeals: The development score may be appealed. All appeals of the development score are heard by the appeals hearing officer. In hearing the appeal, the appeals hearing officer shall hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 21A.10.030 of this title. In deciding the appeal, the appeals hearing officer shall base its decision on its interpretation of the development guidelines and the development score. 4. Expiration: No development score shall be valid for a period longer than one year unless a building permit has been issued or complete building plans have been submitted to the Division of Building Services. E. Development Standards: 1. Application: The dimensional requirements of this section apply to all new buildings and developments as well as additions to existing buildings. Additions that bring the property closer to compliance are allowed. The following development standards apply to the core and transition areas of all station types. 2. Building Height: The minimum and maximum building heights are found in Table 21A.26.078.E.2, “Building Height Regulations”, of this Subsection E.2. The following exceptions apply: a. The minimum building height applies to all structures that are adjacent to a public or private street. The building shall meet the minimum building height for at least fifty percent (50%) of the width of the street facing building wall. b. Projects that achieve a development score that qualifies for administrative review are eligible for an increase in height. The increase shall be limited to one story of habitable space. The height of the additional story shall be equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. This is in addition to the height authorized elsewhere in this title. TABLE 21A.26.078.E.2 BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS Minimum Height1 Maximum Height Urban center: Core 40’ 90’2 Transition 25’ 60’ 13 Minimum Height1 Maximum Height Urban neighborhood: Core 25’ 75’ Transition 0’ 50’ Mixed use employment center: Core 25’ 75’ Transition 0’ 60’ Special purpose: Core 25’ 75’ Transition 0’ 60’ Notes: 1. Minimum building heights apply to those properties with frontage on the street where fixed rail transit is located. 2. Buildings with a roof that has at least 2 sloping planes may be allowed up to 105 feet. The slope of the plane must have a minimum slope of a 2 feet rise over a 12 foot run. The additional height may include habitable space. The sloping planes must be clearly visible and create a sloped roof shape. The sloping planes shall not be hidden by a parapet wall. 3. Setbacks: a. General Standards for Front/Corner Side Yards: (1) All portions of the yard not occupied by building, driveways, walkways or other similar features must be landscaped or include an active outdoor use, such as outdoor dining, plazas, courtyards or other similar outdoor use. See Subsection F of this section for specific front yard design requirements. (2) Walls up to three feet (3’) in height, patios and other similar elements intended to activate the sidewalk can be located to the property line. (3) Awnings or canopies may be located within any portion of the yard and are not subject to the front or corner side yard restrictions in Subsection 21A.36.020.B, Table 21A.36.020.B of this title. (4) Balconies may project up to two feet (2’) into the required yards and are not subject to the front or corner side yard restrictions in Subsection 21A.36.020.B, Table 21A.36.020.B of this title. 14 (5) All front and corner side yard standards in Table 21A.26.078.E.3.b of this Subsection E may be modified through the design review process of Chapter 21A.59 of this title, except that the front and corner side yard setback for 400 South shall not be reduced below the minimum. b. Table 21A.26.078.E.3.b Setback Standards: TABLE 21A.26.078.E.3.b SETBACK STANDARDS Property Frontage Front/Corner Side Yard Setback Interior Side Yard Rear Yard 400 South Minimum: 10’, and at least 50% of the street facing building facade must be built to the minimum. Minimum: None, except a 25’ setback is required when adjacent to an OS, R-1, R-2, SR, RMF-30, RMF-35 or RMF-45 zoning district. The minimum shall increase 1’ for every 1’ increase in building height above 25’ and is applied to the portion of the building over 25’ in height. Maximum setback: 20’, but may be increased if the additional setback is used for plazas, courtyards, or outdoor dining areas. In locations where the sidewalk is not a minimum of 10’ wide, additional sidewalk width shall be installed by the developer so there is a minimum width sidewalk of 10’. This applies to new buildings and to additions that increase the gross building square footage by more than 50%. This standard does not require removal of existing buildings or portions thereof. North Temple Minimum: 5’, and at least 50% of the street facing building facade must be built to the minimum. Maximum: 15’, but may be increased if the additional setback is used for plazas, courtyards, or outdoor dining areas. In locations where the sidewalk is not a minimum of 10’ wide, 15 Property Frontage Front/Corner Side Yard Setback Interior Side Yard Rear Yard additional sidewalk width shall be installed by the developer so there is a minimum width sidewalk of 10’. This applies to new buildings and to additions that increase the gross building square footage by more than 50%. This standard does not require removal of existing buildings or portions thereof. 300 South, 500 South, 600 East Minimum: Equal to the average setback of other principal buildings on the same block face. Streets with right- of-way width of 50’ or less with R- 1, R-2, SR, RMF- 30, RMF-35 or RMF-45 zoning district on either side of the street Minimum: 25% of lot depth, up to 25’. For buildings taller than 25’, setback shall increase 2’ for every 1’ of building height above 25’ and is applied to the portion of the building over 25’ in height. All other streets Minimum: None At least 50% of the street facing building facade shall be within 5’ of the front or corner side property line. c. Special Setback Provisions for Properties Adjacent to Jordan River: For properties that are adjacent to the Jordan River, the building setback from the Jordan River shall be fifty feet (50’), measured from the annual high water level as defined in Section 21A.34.130 of this title. For buildings over fifty feet (50’) in height, the setback shall increase one foot (1’) for every foot in height over fifty feet (50’) up to a maximum of seventy five feet (75’). Portions of buildings over fifty feet (50’) in height may be stepped back to comply with this standard. 4. Minimum Lot Area and Lot Width Requirements: 16 TABLE 21A.26.078.E.4 MINIMUM LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH STANDARDS Standard Required Dimension Minimum lot area 2,500 square feet Minimum lot width 40 feet a. The minimum lot area applies to all new subdivisions of land and shall not be used to calculate residential density. b. Any legally existing lot may be developed without having to comply with the minimum lot size or width requirements. c. Lots subdivided for single-family detached, single-family attached, and two- family residential dwellings are exempt from minimum lot width requirements. d. Lots subdivided for single-family attached dwellings are exempt from minimum lot area provided that: (1) Parking for units shall be rear loaded and accessed from a common drive shared by all units in a particular development; (2) Driveway access shall connect to the public street in a maximum of two (2) locations; and (3) No garages shall face the primary street and front yard parking shall be strictly prohibited. 5. Open Space Area: Open space areas shall be provided at a rate of one square foot for every ten (10) square feet of land area included in the development, up to five thousand (5,000) square feet for core areas, and up to two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet for transition areas. Open space areas includes landscaped yards, patios, public plazas, pocket parks, courtyards, rooftop and terrace gardens and other similar types of open space area amenities. All required open space areas shall be accessible to the users of the building(s). 6. Circulation and Connectivity: Development within the station area shall be easily accessible from public spaces and provide safe and efficient options for all modes of travel. Circulation networks, whether public or private, require adequate street, pedestrian and bicycle connections to provide access to development. The internal circulation network shall be easily recognizable, formalized and interconnected. a. All parking lots shall comply with the standards in Section 21A.44.020, “General Off Street Parking Regulations”, of this title. 17 b. Parking is prohibited between the street-facing building line and any front or corner side property line. This shall include any drive aisle that is not perpendicular to the front or corner side property line. c. Any new development shall provide a midblock walkway if a midblock walkway on the subject property has been identified in a master plan that has been adopted by the city. The following standards apply to the midblock walkway: (1) The midblock walkway must be a minimum of ten feet (10’) wide and include a minimum six foot (6’) wide unobstructed path. (2) The midblock walkway may be incorporated into the building provided it is open to the public. A sign shall be posted indicating that the public may use the walkway. 7. Accessory Structures: No accessory structure shall be located in a required front yard or between the primary building and a property line adjacent to a public street. F. Design Standards: 1. Development shall comply with the design standards in Chapter 21A.37 of this title when applicable as specified in that chapter. 2. All developments required to obtain a review score by Subsection C of this section shall comply with the following additional design standards. These specific standards may be modified through the design review in Chapter 21A.59 of this title if the modifications meet the intent of the specific design standard requested to be modified: a. EIFS and Stucco Limitation: Use of Exterior Insulation and Finishing System (EIFS) or traditional stucco is not allowed as a building material on the ground floor of street facing building facades. Use of EIFS and stucco is allowed for up to ten percent (10%) of the upper level street facing facades. b. Front and Corner Side Yard Design Requirements: (1) In yards greater than ten feet (10’) in depth, one shade tree shall be planted for every thirty feet (30’) of street frontage. For the purpose of this section, a shade tree is any tree that has a mature minimum tree canopy of thirty feet (30’) and a mature height that is forty feet (40’) or greater. (2) At least fifty percent (50%) of the front or corner side yards shall be covered in live plant material. This can include raised planter boxes. This percentage can be reduced to thirty percent (30%) if the yard includes outdoor dining, patios, outdoor public space, or private yards for ground floor residential uses 18 that cover at least fifty percent (50%) of the provided front or corner side yard. (3) At least thirty percent (30%) of the front or corner side yard shall by occupied by outdoor dining areas, patios, outdoor public space, or private yards for ground floor residential uses. (4) Driveways necessary for vehicle access to the site are allowed regardless of compliance with the minimum percentages required by this subsection. c. Entry Feature Requirements: All required building entries shall include at least one of the following features: (1) An awning or canopy over the entrance that extends a minimum of five feet (5’) from the street facing building facade; (2) A recessed entrance that is recessed at least five feet (5’) from the street facing facade; (3) A covered porch that is at least five feet (5’) in depth and at least forty (40) square feet in size; or (4) A stoop that is at least two feet (2’) above sidewalk level and that includes an awning or canopy that extends at least three feet (3’) from the street facing building facade. d. Ground Floor Use Requirement For 400 South and North Temple Boulevard: When facing 400 South or North Temple Boulevard, the ground floor use area required by Chapter 21A.37 of this title shall be built to accommodate an allowed commercial, institutional, or public use. Live/work uses qualify as a commercial use for this subsection. (1) Exception: Residential uses may be permitted within the required area in lieu of the required use, if the ground floor is designed so that it can be converted to an allowed commercial use in the future. To accommodate this conversion, the shell space of the ground floor shall be built to an occupancy standard required by the adopted building code that can accommodate conversion of the interior of the space to a future permitted commercial use. (2) The following additional requirements shall apply to the ground floor space if used for residential uses: (A) The shell space shall be at least twelve feet (12’) in height; (B) The street facing facade of each ground floor residential unit shall be at least sixty percent (60%) glass; 19 (C) Each ground floor unit shall have a direct entrance from the sidewalk to the unit; (D) Each ground floor unit shall be ADA accessible; and (E) Each ground floor unit shall include a porch, patio, stoop or other entrance feature that is a minimum depth of at least five feet (5’). G. Multiple Buildings on a Single Parcel: Multiple principal buildings on a single parcel are permitted provided each principal building meets the requirements of this chapter and each principal building obtained a separate development score. New principal buildings can be located toward the rear of a parcel provided there is an existing or additional new principal building that complies with the front yard building setbacks. If one principal building receives a development score lower than other principal buildings on the site, the project shall be processed based on the lowest development score obtained. Multiple single-family detached dwellings and two-family dwellings may be located on one lot and are not required to obtain a development score. H. Conflicting Regulations: In cases where the regulations of this section conflict with another section of this zoning ordinance, this section shall take precedence except in situations where the conflict is related to the use of the property, in which case the more restrictive regulation takes precedence. In station areas within an overlay district, the overlay district shall take precedence. I. Developments Over Five Acres: 1. Intent: Large scale developments have the potential to function as a self-contained mixed use neighborhood and could have both positive and negative impacts on nearby properties. All developments over five (5) acres in size shall be designed and planned to include a series of blocks and a network of public or private streets that connects to the existing public streets in the area and to adjacent development and neighborhoods. Buildings should be oriented to this street network. Regulating block size is necessary to provide development sites that are oriented to the pedestrian while accommodating other modes of transportation. A street network is required to ensure adequate circulation for pedestrians, bicycles, automobiles and service vehicles through the site, to adjacent sites and the public streets. 2. Application: These standards are in addition to all other applicable standards. In situations where the standards in this section conflict with a standard in another section, the standard in this section shall take precedence. A separate development score is required for each new principal building in a development over five (5) acres. a. Block Layout: The intent of regulating block size and dimension is to create a development pattern where all principal buildings have their primary facades facing a street, whether public or private. All developments over five (5) acres in size shall be designed to include a series of blocks based on the standards below: 20 (1) The maximum perimeter dimension of any block shall be one thousand six hundred feet (1,600’). The maximum length of any individual block face shall be four hundred forty feet (440’). (2) The maximum perimeter dimension of a block may be increased to two thousand four hundred (2,400) linear feet, and the maximum length of any block face increased to six hundred feet (600’) provided a mid block pedestrian network is included. The mid block pedestrian network must be a minimum of twenty feet (20’) wide and include pedestrian amenities such as lighting, benches, and other similar features. The mid block walkway shall connect to at least two (2) block faces or be extended to the property line to allow for future extension. b. Connectivity to Public Streets, Sidewalks, and Bicycle Lanes: In order to ensure that the development will be fully integrated into the transit station area, that safe and efficient travelways are provided, and to limit the impact on the primary transit street and other adjacent streets, the internal circulation system, including private streets, drive aisles, sidewalks and bicycle lanes shall connect to the public street, sidewalks and bicycle lanes. All new streets shall be designed as a “complete street” defined as a street that provides dedicated space for pedestrians, bicyclists and automobiles. c. Vehicle Access: Regulating access to private property from public streets is necessary for integrating private development and public spaces. Limiting the number of access points and spacing between access points reduces areas of conflict between vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. Maximum access widths promote a development pattern that is oriented to pedestrians and bicyclists while accommodating vehicles. (1) Access points located on public streets intended for vehicles shall be spaced a minimum of one hundred feet (100’) apart. (2) No property shall have more than one (1) vehicle access point for every two hundred (200) linear feet of frontage on a public street. (3) No access drive shall be greater than twenty four feet (24’) wide. (4) The location of all vehicle access points is subject to approval from the transportation division of the city. The standards of this section may be modified by the Transportation Division when, in the opinion of the director of the transportation division, a different design would improve the overall safety for all modes of transportation or improve the efficiency of the transportation network. d. Internal Circulation: Internal circulation systems allow for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists to move safely and efficiently throughout a development site. A 21 logical, simple and well designed internal circulation system that connects with adjacent circulation networks provides room for vehicles, safe walking paths for pedestrians through the parking lot and the site to the public way, and well marked routes for bicycles traveling from public spaces to bicycle parking areas within a site. All new developments over five (5) acres are required to submit an internal circulation network plan. (1) Travel Lanes That Connect Parking Areas With a Public Street: All internal vehicle travel lanes that connect internal parking areas with a public street shall be designed to meet the minimum requirements in Section 21A.44.060.A.6 of this title. (2) Design Speed: The internal circulation system shall be designed to move vehicles at speeds of twenty (20) miles per hour or less. (3) Future Access to Adjacent Properties and Rights-Of-Way: All internal drive aisles, sidewalks, and paths shall be extended to property lines to allow for future cross access to adjacent properties when the adjacent property is undeveloped and to rights-of-way. (4) Centerlines: The centerline of all internal streets shall be in line with the centerline of a street on the opposite side of an intersecting street unless the intersecting street is divided by a median. Offset streets shall be a minimum of two hundred feet (200’) apart, measured from centerline to centerline. (5) Publicly Dedicated Streets: Any street that is to be publicly dedicated shall meet the city’s minimum construction and design standards (including street lighting, park strip, street trees, etc.). (6) Pedestrian Routes: Pedestrian routes that provide safe, comfortable, clear and direct access throughout the development shall be provided. Pedestrian paths shall be bordered by residential fronts, green space, active open space, or commercial storefronts. (7) Bicycle Paths: A coordinated system of bicycle paths should be provided. (8) Approval; Modification of Standards: The internal circulation network is subject to approval from the transportation division of the city. The standards of this section may be modified by the transportation division when, in the opinion of the director of the transportation division, a different design would improve the overall safety for all modes of transportation or improve the efficiency of the transportation network. e. Parking: Parking may be provided along any private street within a development over five (5) acres. The parking shall be counted toward the applicable off street parking standard when provided on private streets. All parking areas and 22 spaces must comply with the parking lane widths identified in Section 21A.44.060.A.6 of this title. f. Open Space Area: In order to provide space for passive and active recreation, public and private gatherings, offset storm drainage due to nonpermeable surfaces and as an amenity to individual developments and their residents, employees and customers, usable open space areas are required for all new developments. (1) Required: In the core and transition areas of all station areas, a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the site, up to fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, shall be devoted to open space areas. “Usable open space area” is defined as landscaped areas, plazas, outdoor dining areas, terraces, rooftop gardens, stormwater retention areas, and any other similar type of area. (2) Connectivity to Adjacent Open Space Area: When adjacent to public open space areas, parks, trails and pathways, open space areas on developments over five (5) acres in size are encouraged to provide access to the public open space area. g. Landscaping: All areas not occupied by buildings, plazas, terraces, patios, parking areas, or other similar feature shall be landscaped. If a project is developed in phases, only those areas in a phase that is under construction shall be landscaped. Landscaping in future phases shall be installed as those phases develop. Areas in future phases may be used as community gardens or other active open space until such time as development of that phase begins. SECTION 10. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.30.020.D. That Subsection 21A.30.020.D of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Downtown Districts: D-1 Central Business District: D-1 District General Regulations) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: D. D-1 District General Regulations: The regulations established in this section apply to the D-1 District as a whole. 1. Minimum Lot Size: No minimum lot area or lot width is required, except in block corner areas as specified in Subsection E.5 of this section. 2. Yard Requirements: a. Front and corner side yards: No minimum yards are required, however, no yard shall exceed five feet (5’) except as authorized through the design review process. Such design reviews shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of 23 this title. Where an entire block frontage is under one ownership, the setback for that block frontage shall not exceed twenty five feet (25’). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. b. Interior side and rear yards: None required. 3. Interior Plazas, Atriums and Galleries: Interior plazas, atriums and galleries shall be permitted throughout the D-1 Central Business District. 4. Location of Service Areas: All loading docks, refuse disposal areas and other service activities shall be located on block interiors away from view of any public street. Exceptions to this requirement may be approved through the site plan review process when a permit applicant demonstrates that it is not feasible to accommodate these activities on the block interior. If such activities are permitted adjacent to a public street, a visual screening design approved by the zoning administrator shall be required. 5. Landscape Requirements: All buildings constructed after April 12, 1995, shall conform to the special landscape requirements applicable to the D-1 Central Business District as contained in Chapter 21A.48 of this title. 6. Mid Block Walkways: As part of the city’s plan for the downtown area, it is intended that mid block walkways be provided to facilitate pedestrian movement within the area. To delineate the public need for such walkways, the city has formulated an official plan for their location and implementation, which is on file at the planning division office. All buildings constructed after the effective date hereof within the D- 1 Central Business District shall conform to this officially adopted plan for mid block walkways. 7. Landscape Requirements for Demolition Sites: Vacant lots, resulting from demolition activities where no replacement use is proposed, shall conform to Chapter 21A.48 of this title, special landscape requirements applicable to the D-1 Central Business District. SECTION 11. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.30.030. That Section 21A.30.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Downtown Districts: D-2 Downtown Support District) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.30.030: D-2 DOWNTOWN SUPPORT DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the D-2 Downtown Support Commercial District is to provide an area that fosters the development of a sustainable urban neighborhood that 24 accommodates commercial, office, residential and other uses that relate to and support the D-1 Central Business District. Development within the D-2 Downtown Support Commercial District is intended to be less intensive than that of the D-1 Central Business District, with high lot coverage and buildings placed close to the sidewalk. This district is appropriate in areas where supported by applicable master plans. Design standards are intended to promote pedestrian oriented development with a strong emphasis on a safe and attractive streetscape. B. Uses: Uses in the D-2 Downtown Support District, as specified in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.30.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Lot Size Requirements: No minimum lot area or lot width shall be required. D. Maximum Building Height: The maximum permitted building height shall not exceed one hundred twenty feet (120’) subject to the following review process: Buildings over sixty five feet (65’) in height are subject to design review according to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front and Corner Side Yard: There is no minimum setback. The maximum setback is ten feet (10’). 2. Interior Side Yards: No minimum side yard is required except a minimum of fifteen feet (15’) side yard is required when the side yard is adjacent to a single or two family residential zoning district. 3. Rear Yard: No minimum rear yard is required except a minimum of twenty five feet (25’) rear yard is required when the rear yard is adjacent to a single or two family residential district. 4. Buffer Yards: Any lot abutting a lot in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yard requirements of Chapter 21A.48 of this title. F. Landscape Yard Requirements: If a front or corner side yard is provided, such yard shall be maintained as a landscaped yard. The landscaped yard can take the form of outdoor dining, patio, courtyard or plaza, subject to site plan review approval. G. Mid-Block Walkways: Any new development shall provide a midblock walkway if a midblock walkway on the subject property has been identified in a master plan that has been adopted by the city. The following standards apply to the midblock walkway: 1. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of ten feet (10’) wide and include a minimum six foot (6’) wide unobstructed path. 25 2. The midblock walkway may be incorporated into the building provided it is open to the public. A sign shall be posted indicating that the public may use the walkway. H. Ground Floor Uses: To activate the ground floor of structures, retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters or performing art facilities are required on the ground floor of structures facing State Street, Main Street, 800 South and 900 South. I. Existing Vehicle Sales or Lease Lots: 1. Vehicle Display Area: The parking provided in the vehicle display area will not be counted as off street parking when computing maximum parking requirements and is not considered to be a surface parking lot when determining required setbacks in this section. 2. Design Standards: Structures associated with accessory uses such as but not limited to repair shops or vehicle washing do not need to meet required design standards and may exceed the maximum front and corner side yard setbacks. Primary structures that contain sales floors and auto display areas must meet all design standards and setbacks. 3. Landscaping: A landscaped yard of at least ten feet (10’) in depth is required along any portion of the street frontage of the property that is not occupied by a permanent structure. All other landscaping requirements in Chapter 21A.48 remain applicable. 4. Multiple Buildings: Vehicle sales or lease lots may have multiple buildings on a parcel subject to all buildings being associated with the use of the lot as vehicles sales or lease. SECTION 12. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.30.040. That Section 21A.30.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Downtown Districts: D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.30.040: D-3 DOWNTOWN WAREHOUSE/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District is to provide for the reuse of existing warehouse buildings for multi-family and mixed use while also allowing for continued retail, office and warehouse use within the district. The reuse of existing buildings and the construction of new buildings are to be done as multi- family residential or mixed use developments containing retail or office uses on the lower floors and residential on the upper floors. This district is appropriate in areas where supported by applicable master plans. The standards are intended to create a unique and 26 sustainable downtown neighborhood with a strong emphasis on urban design, adaptive reuse of existing buildings, alternative forms of transportation and pedestrian orientation. B. Uses: Uses in the D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District as specified in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title, are permitted subject to the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. C. Controls Over Mixed Use: The concept of mixed use is central to the nature of the D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District. To ensure that mixed use developments provide for on site compatibility as well as neighborhood compatibility, the change of land use type or an increase in floor area by twenty five percent (25%) of existing principal buildings and the construction of buildings for new uses after April 12, 1995, shall conform to the following provisions. Construction related to the rehabilitation including remodeling or modification of existing uses, or the change of use to a similar use, shall not be subject to these provisions: 1. Buildings containing commercial/office uses located above the second story shall incorporate multi-family dwellings, boarding house, bed and breakfast, or hotel uses in the amount of at least fifty percent (50%) of the total floor area of the building; 2. Commercial/office uses shall be permitted as the sole use in two-story buildings only; and 3. Commercial/office uses in buildings of three (3) stories or more without multi-family dwellings shall be allowed only as a conditional use and then only when the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed location is not suitable for multi-family residential use. D. Lot Size Requirements: No minimum lot area or lot width shall be required. E. Maximum Building Height: No building shall exceed seventy five feet (75’). Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75’) but less than ninety feet (90’) may be authorized through the design review process, provided the additional height is supported by the applicable master plan, the overall square footage of the buildings is greater than fifty percent (50%) residential use, and subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. F. Mid Block Walkways: As a part of the city’s plan for the downtown area, it is intended that mid block walkways be provided to facilitate pedestrian movement within the area. To delineate the public need for such walkways, the city has formulated an official plan for their location and implementation, which is on file at the planning division office. All buildings constructed within the D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District shall conform to this plan for mid block walkways. 27 G. Minimum Open Space Area: All lots containing dwelling units shall provide common open space area in the amount of twenty percent (20%) of the lot area. This common open space area may take the form of ground level plazas, interior atriums, landscape areas, roof gardens and decks on top of buildings or other such forms of open space available for the common use by residents of the property. SECTION 13. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.30.045. That Section 21A.30.045 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Downtown Districts: D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.30.045: D-4 DOWNTOWN SECONDARY CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District is to foster an environment consistent with the area’s function as a housing, entertainment, cultural, convention, business, and retail section of the city that supports the D-1 Central Business District. Development is intended to support the regional venues in the district, such as the Salt Palace Convention Center, and to be less intense than in the D-1 Central Business District. This district is appropriate in areas where supported by applicable master plans. The standards are intended to achieve established objectives for urban and historic design, pedestrian amenities, and land use control, particularly in relation to retail commercial uses. B. Uses: Uses in the D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District as specified in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.30.010 of this chapter. In addition, all conditional uses in the D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District shall be subject to design evaluation and approval by the planning commission. C. D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District General Regulations: 1. Minimum Lot Size: No minimum lot area or lot width is required. 2. Yard Requirements: a. Front and Corner Side Yards: No minimum yards are required, however, no yard shall exceed five feet (5’) except as authorized through the design review process. Such designs shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. Where an entire block frontage is under one ownership, the setback for that block frontage shall not exceed twenty five feet (25’). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review process subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. 28 b. Interior Side And Rear Yards: None required. 3. Interior Plazas, Atriums and Galleries: Interior plazas, atriums and galleries shall be permitted throughout the D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District. 4. Location of Service Areas: All loading docks, refuse disposal areas and other service activities shall be located on block interiors away from view of any public street. Exceptions to this requirement may be approved through the site plan review process when a permit applicant demonstrates that it is not feasible to accommodate these activities on the block interior. If such activities are permitted adjacent to a public street, a visual screening design approved by the zoning administrator shall be required. 5. Landscape Requirements: All buildings constructed after April 12, 1995, shall conform to the special landscape requirements applicable to the D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District as contained in Chapter 21A.48 of this title. 6. Maximum Building Height: No building shall exceed seventy five feet (75’). Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75’) but less than one hundred twenty feet (120’) may be authorized through the design review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. Additional height may be allowed as specified below: a. Additional Permitted Height Location: Additional height greater than one hundred twenty feet (120’) but not more than three hundred seventy five feet (375’) in height is permitted in the area bounded by: (1) The centerlines of South Temple, West Temple, 200 South, and 200 West Streets; and (2) Beginning at the Southeast Corner of Block 67, Plat ‘A’, Salt Lake City Survey, and running thence along the south line of said Block 67, N89°54’02”W 283.86 feet; thence N00°04’50”E 38.59 feet; thence N10°46’51”W 238.70 feet; thence N24°45’15”W 62.98 feet; thence S89°54’02”E 355.45 feet to the east line of said Block 67; thence along said east line S00°06’35”W 330.14 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 102,339 square feet, or 2.349 acres, more or less. 29 b. Additional Permitted Height Conditions: Buildings may exceed the one hundred twenty foot (120’) height limit to a maximum height of three hundred seventy five feet (375’), provided they conform to the standards and procedures outlined in the design review process of Chapter 21A.59 of this title and the following requirements: (1) Additional Setback: To minimize excessive building mass at higher elevations and preserve scenic views, some or all of the building mass shall be subject to additional setback, as determined appropriate through the design review process. (2) Exception: The first fifty feet (50’) of height shall not be set back from the street front more than five feet (5’) except that setbacks greater than five feet (5’) may be approved through the design review process. (3) Ground Floor Uses: See Subsection 21A.37.050.A and Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060, Subsection D of this title for this requirement. 7. Mid Block Walkways: As a part of the city’s plan for the downtown area, it is intended that mid block walkways be provided to facilitate pedestrian movement within the area. To delineate the public need for such walkways, the city has formulated an official plan for their location and implementation, which is on file at the planning division office. All buildings constructed after the effective date hereof within the D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District shall conform to this plan for mid block walkways. 30 8. Mid Block Streets: Developments constructing mid block streets, either privately owned with a public easement or publicly dedicated, that are desired by an applicable master plan: a. May use a portion or all of the overhead and underground right-of-way of the new mid block street as part of their developable area irrespective of lot lines, subject to design review and approval of the planning commission. b. May increase the height of the building on the remaining abutting parcel, subject to the design review process in conformance with the standards and procedures of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. SECTION 14. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.31.010. That Section 21A.31.010 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Gateway Districts: General Provisions) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.31.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: A. Statement of Intent: The Gateway district is intended to provide controlled and compatible settings for residential, commercial, and industrial developments, and implement the objectives of the adopted gateway development master plan through district regulations that reinforce the mixed use character of the area and encourage the development of urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail, service commercial, office, industrial uses and high density residential. B. Uses: Uses in the Gateway district as specified in Section 21A.33.060, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Gateway District”, of this title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in this section. C. Permitted Uses: The uses specified as permitted uses, in Section 21A.33.060, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Gateway District”, of this title are permitted; provided, that they comply with all requirements of this chapter, the general standards set forth in Part IV of this title, and all other applicable requirements of this title. D. Conditional Uses: The uses specified as conditional uses in Section 21A.33.060, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Gateway District”, of this title, shall be permitted in the Gateway district provided they are approved pursuant to the standards and procedures for conditional uses set forth in Chapter 21A.54 of this title, and comply with all other applicable requirements of this title, including the urban design evaluation and/or the design review process established in this chapter and Chapter 21A.59 of this title. E. Site Plan Review; Design Review: In certain districts, permitted uses and conditional uses have the potential for adverse impacts if located and oriented on lots without careful 31 planning. Such impacts may interfere with the use and enjoyment of adjacent property and uses. Site plan review is a process designed to address such adverse impacts and minimize them where possible. The design may also be evaluated to address elements of urban design. Site plan review, pursuant to Chapter 21A.58 of this title, for all of the Gateway district, is required to protect the local economy, maintain safe traffic conditions, maintain the environment, and assure harmonious land-use relationships between commercial uses and more sensitive land uses in affected areas. Design evaluation is necessary to implement the policies of the urban design plan as adopted by the city council. Design review shall apply to conditional uses in the Gateway district. In the Gateway district, the design review process is used to evaluate and resolve urban design. F. Mid Block Walkways: As a part of the city’s plan for the downtown area, it is intended that mid block walkways be provided to facilitate pedestrian movement within the area. To delineate the public need for such walkways, the city has formulated an official plan for their location and implementation, which is on file at the planning division office. All buildings constructed after the effective date hereof within the G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District shall conform to this plan for mid block walkways. G. Location of Service Areas: All loading docks and other service activities shall be located on block interiors away from view of any public street. Exceptions to this requirement may be approved through the site plan review process when a permit applicant demonstrates that it is not feasible to accommodate these activities on the block interior. If such activities are permitted adjacent to a public street, a visual screening design approved by the zoning administrator shall be required. H. Impact Controls and General Restrictions: 1. Refuse Control: Refuse containers must be covered and shall be stored within completely enclosed buildings or screened in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 21A.48 of this title. For buildings existing as of April 12, 1995, this screening provision shall be required if the floor area or parking requirements are increased by twenty five percent (25%) or more by an expansion to the building or change in the type of land use. 2. Lighting: On site lighting, including parking lot lighting and illuminated signs, shall be located, directed or designed in a manner to prevent glare on adjacent properties. I. Outdoor Sales, Display and Storage: “Sales and display (outdoor)” and “storage and display (outdoor)”, as defined in Chapter 21A.62 of this title, are allowed where specifically authorized in Section 21A.33.060, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Gateway District”, of this title. These uses shall conform to the following: 32 1. Outdoor sales and display and outdoor storage may also be permitted when part of an authorized temporary use as established in Chapter 21A.42 of this title; 2. The outdoor permanent sales or display of merchandise shall not encroach into areas of required parking; 3. The outdoor permanent sales or display of merchandise shall not be located in any required yard area within the lot; 4. The outdoor sales or display of merchandise shall not include the use of banners, pennants or strings of pennants; and 5. Outdoor storage shall be allowed only where specifically authorized in the applicable district regulation and shall be required to be fully screened with opaque fencing not to exceed eight feet (8’) in height. J. Off Street Parking and Loading: All uses in the Gateway district shall comply with the provisions governing off street parking and loading in Chapter 21A.44 of this title. K. Environmental Performance Standards: All uses in the Gateway district shall conform to the environmental performance standards in Section 21A.36.180 of this title. L. Wall or Fencing: All uses in the Gateway district shall comply with the provisions governing fences, walls and hedges in Section 21A.40.120 of this title. M. Affordable Housing: 1. Notwithstanding the minimum height requirements identified above, any buildings that have ten (10) or more residential units with at least twenty percent (20%) of the units as affordable shall be allowed to have a minimum building height of thirty feet (30’). 2. Affordable housing units within a market rate development shall be integrated throughout the project in an architectural manner. N. Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Accessory uses and structures are permitted in the Gateway district subject to the requirements of this chapter, Chapter 21A.36, Subsection 21A.36.020.B, Section 21A.36.030, and Chapter 21A.40 of this title. O. Urban Design: The urban design standards are intended to foster the creation of a rich urban environment that accommodates growth and is compatible with existing buildings and uses in the area. All general development and site plans shall be designed to complement the surrounding existing contiguous (historic) development. The following design standards will provide human scale through change, contrast, intricacy, color and materials where the lower levels of buildings face public streets and sidewalks. They will also spatially define the street space in order to concentrate pedestrian activity, create a 33 clear urban character and promote visibility of commercial activities at the ground level. The standards will also encourage diversity through the use of building forms and materials, while respecting the patterns, styles and methods of construction traditionally used in the gateway area. The following urban design standards will be reviewed as part of the site plan review process, with assistance from planning division staff as necessary: 1. Architectural Character and Materials: a. A differentiated base (on a building over 45 feet high) will provide human scale through change, contrast, and intricacy in facade form, color and/or material where the lower levels of the building face the sidewalk(s) and street(s). Scaling elements such as insets and projections serve to break up flat or monotonous facades, and respond to older nearby buildings. Therefore, all buildings in the Gateway district are subject to the following standards: (1) All buildings over forty five feet (45’) in height shall be designed with a base that is differentiated from the remainder of the building. The base shall be between one and three (3) stories in height, be visible from pedestrian view, and appropriately scaled to the surrounding contiguous historic buildings. The base shall include fenestration that distinguishes the lower from upper floors. Insets and/or projections are encouraged. (2) All new buildings in the Gateway district shall have a minimum of seventy percent (70%) of the exterior material (excluding windows) be brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete and/or cut stone. With the exception of minor building elements (e.g., soffit, fascia) the following materials are allowed only through the design review process: EIFS, tilt-up concrete panels, corrugated metal, vinyl and aluminum siding, and other materials. (3) All buildings which have been altered over seventy five percent (75%) on the exterior facade shall comply with the exterior material requirement for new construction. Buildings older than fifty (50) years are exempt from this requirement if alterations are consistent with the existing architecture. (4) Two-dimensional curtain wall veneer of glass, spandrel glass or metal as a primary building material is prohibited. The fenestration of all new construction shall be three-dimensional (e.g., recessed windows, protruding cornice, etc.). b. The climate in Salt Lake City is such that in the summer months shade is preferred, and in the winter months protection from snow is preferred. By providing the pedestrian with a sidewalk that is enjoyable to use year round, a pedestrian oriented neighborhood is encouraged. Therefore, new construction in the gateway area is subject to the following standards: 34 (1) Arcades are permitted in the Gateway district, but where an arcade extends over the public way, a revocable permit is required. Where an arcade is on private property facing the street, the maximum setback for the building shall be measured to the supporting beams for the arcade or the facade of the upper floors, not the facade of the arcade level. (2) Awnings and/or marquees, with or without signage, are required over entry doors which are set back from the property line and may be allowed, under revocable permit, when an entry is at a property line. (3) Awnings, with or without signage, are permitted over ground level windows. Where awnings extend out over the public way, a revocable permit is required. 2. Windows and Building Fenestration: a. Buildings whose exteriors are smooth, and do not provide any three-dimensional details or fenestration are not appropriate in the Gateway district. Recessed windows will eliminate flat, sterile elevations. Highly reflective materials are distracting, and focus attention away from the positive qualities of the Gateway district. Therefore, all buildings in the Gateway district are subject to the following standards: (1) Buildings with completely smooth exterior surfaces shall not be permitted, all new construction shall have three-dimensional details on the exterior that includes cornices, windowsills, headers and similar features. (2) All windows shall be recessed from the exterior wall a minimum of three inches (3”). Bay windows, projecting windows, and balcony doors are exempt from this requirement. (3) The reflectivity of the glass used in the windows shall be limited to eighteen percent (18%) as defined by the ASTA standard. 3. Entrance and Visual Access: a. The intent in the Gateway district is to encourage pedestrian activity between the public street/sidewalk and buildings. Sidewalks shall provide continuous, uninterrupted interest to the pedestrian by providing visual interest and/or amenities. The gateway environment will benefit with increased pedestrian activity; this activity will only occur if opportunities are provided that make walking to a destination a preferred and an enjoyable pursuit. The use of blank building facade walls is discouraged. Therefore, all buildings in the gateway area are subject to the following standards: 35 (1) Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new buildings or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front facade within the Gateway district shall not have less than forty percent (40%) glass surfaces. All first floor glass shall be nonreflective. Display windows that are three-dimensional and are at least two feet (2’) deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent (40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the planning commission. The planning director may approve a modification to this requirement if the planning director finds: (A) The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, or (B) The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building. (C) The ground level of the building is occupied by residential uses, in which case the forty percent (40%) glass requirement may be reduced to twenty five percent (25%). Appeal of administrative decision is to the planning commission. (2) Facades: Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street. Buildings that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on either street, if the facades for both streets meet the forty percent (40%) glass requirement. (3) Maximum Length: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet (15’). (4) Screening: All building equipment and service areas, including on-grade and roof mechanical equipment and transformers that are readily visible from the public right-of-way, shall be screened from public view. These elements shall be sited to minimize their visibility and impact, or enclosed as to appear to be an integral part of the architectural design of the building. 4. Building Lines and Front Area Requirements: a. A continuity of building frontage adjacent and parallel to the street encourages a more active involvement between building uses and pedestrians. Leftover or ambiguous open space that has no apparent use or sense of place will not contribute positively to an active street life. Therefore, all buildings in the Gateway district are subject to the following standard: 36 (1) The majority of the ground level facade of a building shall be placed parallel, and not at an angle, to the street. 5. Public Amenities and Public Art: a. Amenities and works of art enhance quality of life as well as visual interest. Public amenities and public art encourage pedestrian activity and contribute to the pedestrian experience. A cohesive, unified lighting and amenity policy will help give the Gateway district its own distinctive identity. Therefore, public amenities and public art are subject to the following standards: (1) Sidewalks and street lamps installed in the public right-of-way shall be of the type specified in the sidewalk/street lighting policy document. (2) Public art (which may include artists’ work integrated into the design of the building and landscaping, sculpture, painting, murals, glass, mixed media or work by artisans), that is accessible or directly viewable to the general public shall be included in all projects requiring design review approval for a site or design standard. The plan to incorporate public art shall be reviewed by the Salt Lake Art Design Board. 6. Design Review Approval: A modification to the urban design provisions of this section may be granted through the design review process, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. P. Definitions: For the purposes of this section, the following terms shall have the following meanings: AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Housing which persons of income below the County area median are able to afford. See definitions of moderate income, low income and very low income. BLOCK FACE: Structures that appear on one of four (4) sides of a block, the structures along a street that are between two (2) other streets. CONTIGUOUS: Next in sequence, touching or connected throughout an unbroken sequence. FACADE: The front of a building, or any other “face” of a building on a street or courtyard given special architectural treatment. FENESTRATION: The arrangement, proportioning and design of windows and doors in a building, an opening in a surface. LOW INCOME: Between fifty percent (50%) and eighty percent (80%) of the County area median income. 37 MASSING: The principal part or main body of matter, bulk. MODERATE INCOME: Between eighty percent (80%) and one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the County area median income. PROPORTION: The relation of one part to another or to the whole with respect to magnitude, quantity or degree. PROPORTIONAL: Corresponding in size, degree or intensity, having the same or a constant ratio. REMODEL: To alter the structure of, remake. SCALE: A proportion between two (2) sets of dimensions. STREETSCAPE: A general description of all structures along a street frontage that may include: multiple buildings, benches, works of art, and landscaping. VERY LOW INCOME: At or below fifty percent (50%) of the County area median income. SECTION 15. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.31.020. That Section 21A.31.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Gateway Districts: G-MU Gateway- Mixed Use District) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.31.020: G-MU GATEWAY-MIXED USE DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District is intended to implement the objectives of the adopted gateway development master plan and encourage the mixture of residential, commercial and assembly uses within an urban neighborhood atmosphere. The 200 South corridor is intended to encourage commercial development on an urban scale and the 500 West corridor is intended to be a primary residential corridor from North Temple to 400 South. Development in this district is intended to create an urban neighborhood that provides employment and economic development opportunities that are oriented toward the pedestrian with a strong emphasis on a safe and attractive streetscape. The standards are intended to achieve established objectives for urban and historic design, pedestrian amenities and land use regulation. B. Uses: Uses in the G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District as specified in Section 21A.33.060, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Gateway District”, of this title are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.31.010 of this chapter and this section. 38 C. Planned Development Review: All new construction of principal buildings, uses, or additions that increase the floor area and/or parking requirement by twenty five percent (25%) in the G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District may be approved only as a planned development in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.55 of this title. D. Special Provisions: 1. Commercial Uses, 200 South: All buildings fronting 200 South shall have commercial uses that may include retail goods/service establishments, offices, restaurants, art galleries, motion picture theaters or performing arts facilities shall be provided on the first floor adjacent to the front or corner side lot line. The facades of such first floor shall be compatible and consistent with the associated retail or office portion of the building and other retail uses in the area. 2. Residential Units, 500 West: Buildings fronting on 500 West shall be required to have residential units occupying a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the structure’s gross square footage. 3. Mid Block Street Development: Developments constructing mid block streets, either privately owned with a public easement or publicly dedicated, that are desired by an applicable master plan: a. May use a portion or all of the overhead and underground right-of-way of the new mid block street as part of their developable area irrespective of lot lines, subject to design evaluation and approval of the planning commission. b. May increase the height of the building on the remaining abutting parcel, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Chapter 21A.59, “Design Review”, of this title. 4. Design Reviews: A modification to the special provisions of this section may be granted through the design review process, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. E. Building Height: The minimum building height shall be forty five feet (45’) and the 200 South Street corridor shall have a minimum height of twenty five feet (25’). The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75’) except buildings with nonflat roofs (e.g., pitched, shed, mansard, gabled or hipped roofs) may be allowed, up to a maximum of ninety feet (90’) (subject to subsection I of this section). The additional building height may incorporate habitable space, but not for parking structures. 1. Design Review: A modification to the minimum building height or to the maximum building height (up to 120 feet) provisions of this section may be granted through the design review process, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Chapter 21A.59 of this title, and subject to compliance to the applicable master plan. 39 2. Height Exceptions: Spires, tower, or decorative noninhabitable elements shall have a maximum height of ninety feet (90’) and with design review approval may exceed the maximum height, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. F. Minimum Lot Area and Lot Width: None required. G. Minimum Yard Requirements: No minimum setback requirements. There is not a maximum front yard or corner side yard setback except that a minimum of twenty five percent (25%) of the length of the facade of a principal building shall be set back no farther than five feet (5’) from the street right-of-way line. H. Signs: Signs shall be allowed in the Gateway district in accordance with provisions of Chapter 21A.46 of this title. I. Affordable Housing: Notwithstanding the maximum height requirements identified above, any buildings that have at least ten (10) or more residential units with at least twenty percent (20%) of the units as affordable shall be allowed a maximum building height of ninety feet (90’). The affordable units shall be integrated throughout the project in an architectural manner. SECTION 16. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.32.130.E. That Subsection 21A.32.130.E of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts: MU Mixed Use District: Minimum Yard Area Requirements) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: E. Minimum Yard Area Requirements: 1. Single-Family Detached, Single-Family Attached, Two-Family, and Twin Home Dwellings: a. Front Yard: Ten feet (10’). b. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10’). c. Interior Side Yard: (1) Corner lots: Four feet (4’). (2) Interior lots: (A) Single-family attached: No yard is required, however if one is provided it 40 shall not be less than four feet (4’). (B) Single-family detached, two-family and twin home dwellings: Four feet (4’) on one side and ten (10) on the other. d. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but need not be more than twenty feet (20’). 2. Multi-Family Dwellings, Including Mixed Use Buildings With Less Than Twenty Five Percent Nonresidential Uses: a. Front Yard: Ten feet (10’) minimum. b. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10’). c. Interior Side Yard: Ten feet (10’). d. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but need not exceed thirty feet (30’), however, if one hundred percent (100%) of the off street parking is provided within the principal building and/or underground, the minimum required rear yard shall be fifteen feet (15’). 3. Nonresidential Development, Including Mixed Uses With Greater Than Twenty Five Percent Nonresidential Uses: a. Front Yard: Ten feet (10’) minimum. b. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10’). c. Interior Side Yard: No setback is required. d. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of lot depth, but need not exceed thirty feet (30’). 4. Legally Existing Lots: Lots legally existing on the effective date hereof, April 7, 1998, shall be considered legal conforming lots. 5. Additions: For additions to buildings legally existing on the effective date hereof, required yards shall be no greater than the established setback line. 6. Maximum Setback: A maximum setback is required for at least seventy five percent (75%) of the building facade. The maximum setback is twenty feet (20’). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the planning commission. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may modify this requirement if the adjacent public sidewalk is substandard 41 and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The planning director may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than fifty percent (50%) if the planning director finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure or the surrounding architecture. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. Appeal of administrative decision is to the planning commission. SECTION 17. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.36.161.B.13. That Subsection 21A.36.161.B.13 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Mobile Food Courts: Qualifying Provisions) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 13. Hard surface paving at the vehicular entrance to the mobile food court, and for each individual mobile food business is required. Alternatives to asphalt and cement may be approved as part of the conditional use process if the applicant is able to demonstrate that the alternative will not result in the accumulation of mud or debris on the city right-of-way. SECTION 18. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.36.200.I. That Subsection 21A.36.200.I of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Qualifying Provisions for an Urban Farm: Parking) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: I. Parking: Parking for an urban farm shall comply with the provisions governing off street parking and loading in Chapter 21A.44 of this title. All vehicular circulation, staging, and parking shall be on a hard surface. SECTION 19. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.37.050. That Section 21A.37.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards: Design Standards Defined) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.37.050: DESIGN STANDARDS DEFINED: 42 The design standards in this chapter are defined as follows. Each design standard includes a specific definition of the standard and may include a graphic that is intended to help further explain the standard, however the definition supersedes any conflict between it and a graphic. A. Ground Floor Use and Visual Interest: This standard’s purpose is to increase the amount of active uses and/or visual interest on the ground floor of a building. There are two (2) options for achieving this, one dealing solely with the amount of ground floor use, and the other combining a lesser amount of ground floor use with increased visual interest in the building facade’s design. 1. Ground Floor Use Only: This option requires that on the ground floor of a new principal building, a permitted or conditional use other than parking shall occupy a minimum portion of the length of any street facing building facade according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. All portions of such ground floor spaces shall extend a minimum of twenty five feet (25’) into the building. Parking may be located behind these spaces. a. For single-family attached uses, the required use depth may be reduced to ten feet (10’). b. For single-family or two-family uses, garages occupying up to fifty percent (50%) of the width of the ground floor building facade are exempt from this requirement. c. For all other uses, vehicle entry and exit ways necessary for access to parking are exempt from this requirement. Such accessways shall not exceed thirty feet (30’) in width. Individual dwelling unit garages do not qualify for this exemption. 2. Ground Floor Use and Visual Interest: This option allows for some flexibility in the amount of required ground floor use, but in return requires additional design requirements for the purpose of creating increased visual interest and pedestrian activity where the lower levels of buildings face streets or sidewalks. An applicant utilizing this option must proceed through the design review process for review of the project for determination of the project’s compliance with those standards, and in addition, whether it contributes to increased visual interest through a combination of increased building material variety, architectural features, facade changes, art, and colors; and, increased pedestrian activity through permeability between the building and the adjacent public realm using niches, bays, gateways, porches, colonnades, stairs or other similar features to facilitate pedestrian interaction with the building. B. Building Materials: 1. Ground Floor Building Materials: Other than windows and doors, a minimum amount of the ground floor facade’s wall area of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and 43 fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the ground floor facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the planning director if it is found that the proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the ground floor of a structure. 2. Upper Floor Building Materials: Floors above the ground floor level shall include durable materials on a minimum amount of any street facing building facade of those additional floors according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. Windows and doors are not included in that minimum amount. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be approved at the discretion of the planning director if it is found that the proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the upper floor of a structure. C. Glass: 1. Ground Floor Glass: The ground floor building elevation of all new buildings facing a street, and all new ground floor additions facing a street, shall have a minimum amount of glass, or within a specified percentage range, between three feet (3’) and eight feet (8’) above grade according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. All ground floor glass shall allow unhampered and unobstructed visibility into the building for a depth of at least five feet (5’), excluding any glass etching and window signs when installed and permitted in accordance with Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, of this title. The planning director may approve a modification to ground floor glass requirements if the planning director finds: a. The requirement would negatively affect the historic character of an existing building; b. The requirement would negatively affect the structural stability of an existing building; or c. The ground level of the building is occupied by residential uses that face the street, in which case the specified minimum glass requirement may be reduced by fifteen percent (15%). 2. Upper Floor Glass: Above the first floor of any multi-story building, the surface area of the facade of each floor facing a street must contain a minimum amount of glass according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. D. Building Entrances: At least one operable building entrance on the ground floor is required for every street facing facade. Additional operable building entrances shall be required, at a minimum, at each specified length of street facing building facade according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. The center of each additional entrance shall be located within six feet (6’) either direction of the specified 44 location. Each ground floor nonresidential leasable space facing a street shall have an operable entrance facing that street and a walkway to the nearest sidewalk. Corner entrances, when facing a street and located at approximately a forty five degree (45°) angle to the two (2) adjacent building facades (chamfered corner), may count as an entrance for both of the adjacent facades. E. Maximum Length of Blank Wall: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the ground floor level along any street facing facade shall be as specified according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. Changes in plane, texture, materials, scale of materials, patterns, art, or other architectural detailing are acceptable methods to create variety and scale. This shall include architectural features such as bay windows, recessed or projected entrances or windows, balconies, cornices, columns, or other similar architectural features. The architectural feature shall be either recessed a minimum of twelve inches (12”) or projected a minimum of twelve inches (12”). F. Maximum Length of Street Facing Facades: No street facing building wall may be longer than specified along a street line according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. A minimum of twenty feet (20’) is required between separate buildings when multiple buildings are placed on a single parcel according to Subsection 21A.36.010.B, “One Principal Building Per Lot”, of this title. The space between buildings shall include a pedestrian walkway at least five feet (5’) wide. G. Upper Floor Step Back: 1. For street facing facades the first full floor, and all additional floors, above thirty feet (30’) in height from average finished grade shall be stepped back a minimum horizontal distance from the front line of building, according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. An alternative to this street facing facade step back requirement may be utilized for buildings limited to forty five feet (45’) or less in height by the zoning ordinance: those buildings may provide a four foot (4’) minimum depth canopy, roof structure, or balcony that extends from the face of the building toward the street at a height of between twelve feet (12’) and fifteen feet (15’) above the adjacent sidewalk. Such extension(s) shall extend horizontally parallel to the street for a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the face of the building and may encroach into a setback as permitted per Section 21A.36.020, Table 21A.36.020.B, “Obstructions in Required Yards”, of this title. 2. For facades facing single- or two-family residential districts, a public trail or public open space the first full floor, and all additional floors, above thirty feet (30’) in height from average finished grade shall be stepped back a minimum horizontal distance from the corresponding required yard setback (building line) according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. H. Exterior Lighting: All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed down to prevent light trespass onto adjacent properties. Exterior lighting shall not strobe, flash or flicker. 45 I. Parking Lot Lighting: If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use, any poles for the parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to sixteen feet (16’) in height and the globe must be shielded and the lighting directed down to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties or into upper level residential units in multi-story buildings. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. J. Screening of Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment for a building shall be screened from public view and sited to minimize their visibility and impact. Examples of siting include on the roof, enclosed or otherwise integrated into the architectural design of the building, or in a rear or side yard area subject to yard location restrictions found in Section 21A.36.020, Table 21A.36.020.B, “Obstructions in Required Yards”, of this title. K. Screening of Service Areas: Service areas, loading docks, refuse containers and similar areas shall be fully screened from public view. All screening enclosures viewable from the street shall be either incorporated into the building architecture or shall incorporate building materials and detailing compatible with the building being served. All screening devices shall be a minimum of one foot (1’) higher than the object being screened, and in the case of fences and/or masonry walls the height shall not exceed eight feet (8’). Dumpsters must be located a minimum of twenty five feet (25’) from any building on an adjacent lot that contains a residential dwelling or be located inside of an enclosed building or structure. L. Ground Floor Residential Entrances for Single-Family Dwellings: For the zoning districts listed in Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter all attached single-family dwellings, townhomes, row houses, and other similar single-family housing types located on the ground floor shall have a primary entrance facing the street for each unit adjacent to a street. Units may have a primary entrance located on a courtyard, mid block walkway, or other similar area if the street facing facades also have a primary entrance. M. Residential Character in RB District: 1. All roofs shall be pitched and of a hip or gable design except additions or expansions to existing buildings may be of the same roof design as the original building; 2. The remodeling of residential buildings for retail or office use shall be allowed only if the residential character of the exterior is maintained; 3. The front building elevation shall contain not more than fifty percent (50%) glass; 4. Signs shall conform with special sign regulations of Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, of this title; 5. Building orientation shall be to the front or corner side yard; and 46 6. Building additions shall consist of materials, color and exterior building design consistent with the existing structure, unless the entire structure is resurfaced. N. Primary Entrance Design in SNB District: Primary entrance design shall consist of at least two (2) of the following design elements at the primary entrance, so that the primary entrance is architecturally prominent and clearly visible from the abutting street. 1. Architectural details such as arches, friezes, tile work, canopies, or awnings. 2. Integral planters or wing walls that incorporate landscape or seating. 3. Enhanced exterior light fixtures such as wall sconces, light coves with concealed light sources, or decorative pedestal lights. 4. A repeating pattern of pilasters projecting from the facade wall by a minimum of eight inches (8”) or architectural or decorative columns. 5. Recessed entrances that include a minimum step back of two feet (2’) from the primary facade and that include glass on the sidewalls. SECTION 20. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.37.060. That Section 21A.37.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards: Design Standards Required in Each Zoning District) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.37.060: DESIGN STANDARDS REQUIRED IN EACH ZONING DISTRICT: This section identifies each design standard and to which zoning districts the standard applies. If a box is checked, that standard is required. If a box is not checked, it is not required. If a specific dimension or detail of a design standard differs among zoning districts or differs from the definition, it will be indicated within the box. In cases when a dimension in this table conflicts with a dimension in the definition, the dimensions listed in the table supersede those in the definition. TABLE 21A.37.060 A. Residential Districts: Standard (Code Section) District RMF- 30 RMF- 35 RMF- 45 RMF- 75 RB R- MU- 35 R- MU- 45 R- MU RO Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 75 75 47 Standard (Code Section) District RMF- 30 RMF- 35 RMF- 45 RMF- 75 RB R- MU- 35 R- MU- 45 R- MU RO Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) 80 80 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 60 60 40 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) 75 75 X Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 15 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) Upper floor step back (feet) (21A.37.050.G) 10 Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X X X Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.44.060.A.15.) 48 Standard (Code Section) District RMF- 30 RMF- 35 RMF- 45 RMF- 75 RB R- MU- 35 R- MU- 45 R- MU RO Residential character in RB Residential/Business District (21A.37.050.N) X B. Commercial Districts: Standard (Code Section) District SNB CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG TSA Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050A.1) 80 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) 60/25 Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) 90 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) 60 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 40 40 40 40 60 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) X X X X X X X 40 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 15 15 15 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) 200 49 Standard (Code Section) District SNB CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG TSA Upper floor step back (feet) (21A.37.050.G) 15 Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X X X X X X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X X X X Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050.L) X Parking garages or structures (21A.44.060.A.15) Primary entrance design SNB Small Neighborhood Business District (21A.37.050.O) X C. Manufacturing Districts: Standard (Code Section) District M-1 M-2 Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 50 Standard (Code Section) District M-1 M-2 Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) Upper floor step back (feet) (21A.37.050.G) Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.44.060.A.15) D. Downtown Districts: Standard (Code Section) District D-1 D-2 D- 3 D- 4 Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 75 753 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) 60/25 Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) 80 702 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) 50 702 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 40/601 40 40 40 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 25 Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) 50 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) 200 Upper floor step back (feet) (21A.37.050.G) 51 Standard (Code Section) District D-1 D-2 D- 3 D- 4 Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050K) X Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.44.060.A.15) X Notes: 1. Minimum requirement is 60 percent when project is within the Main Street retail core. 2. In the D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District this percentage applies to all sides of the building, not just the front or street facing facade. 3. This percentage applies only as a requirement as noted in Subsection 21A.30.045.C.7.b of this title for projects that are seeking conditional height. E. Special Purpose Districts: Standard (Code Section) District RP BP FP AG AG -2 AG -5 AG -20 PL PL- 2 I UI OS NOS MH EI MU Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) 52 Standard (Code Section) District RP BP FP AG AG -2 AG -5 AG -20 PL PL- 2 I UI OS NOS MH EI MU Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 40- 70 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) X Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) Upper floor step back (feet) (21A.37.050.G) Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.44.060.A.15) 53 SECTION 21. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.38.070. That Section 21A.38.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures: Legal Conforming Single-Family Detached Dwellings, Two-Family Dwellings, and Twin Homes) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.38.070: LEGAL CONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS, TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, AND TWIN HOMES: Any legally existing single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home located in a zoning district that does not allow these uses shall be considered legal conforming. Legal conforming status shall authorize replacement of the single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home structure to the extent of the original footprint. A. Alterations, Additions or Extensions or Replacement Structures Greater Than the Original Footprint: In zoning districts other than M-1 and M-2, which do not allow detached single-family dwelling units, two-family dwelling units or twin homes, any alterations, extensions/additions or the replacement of the structure may exceed the original footprint by twenty five percent (25%) of the existing structure subject to the following standards: 1. Any alterations, extensions/additions or the replacement structure shall not project into a required yard beyond any encroachment established by the structure being replaced. 2. Any alterations, additions or extensions beyond the original footprint which are noncomplying are subject to special exception standards of Subsection 21A.52.030.A.15 of this title. 3. All replacement structures in nonresidential zones are subject to the provisions of Section 21A.36.190, “Residential Building Standards for Legal Conforming Single- Family Detached Dwellings, Two-Family Dwellings and Twin Homes in Nonresidential Zoning Districts”, of this title. Any alterations, additions or extensions or replacement structures which exceed twenty five percent (25%) of the original footprint, or alterations, additions or extensions or replacement of a single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling or twin home in an M-1 or M-2 zoning district may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the provisions of Chapter 21A.54 of this title. B. Off Street Parking: When replacing a legal conforming single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling or twin home, the number of new parking stalls 54 provided shall be in accordance with the parking spaces required by Section 21A.44.040. SECTION 22. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.065. That Section 21A.40.065 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Outdoor Dining) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.40.065: OUTDOOR DINING: “Outdoor dining”, as defined in Chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be allowed within the buildable lot area, in all zoning districts where such uses are allowed, as either a permitted or conditional use. Outdoor dining in the public way shall be permitted subject to all city requirements. Outdoor dining is allowed within the required landscaped yard or buffer area, in commercial and manufacturing zoning districts where such uses are allowed. Outdoor dining is allowed in the RB, CN, MU, R-MU, RMU-35 and the RMU-45 zones and for nonconforming restaurants and similar uses that serve food or drinks through the provisions of the special exception process (see Chapter 21A.52 of this title). All outdoor dining shall be subject to the following conditions: A. All requirements of Chapter 21A.48 and Section 21A.36.020 of this title are met. B. All required business, health and other regulatory licenses for the outdoor dining have been secured. C. A detailed site plan demonstrating the following: 1. All the proposed outdoor dining activities will be conducted on private property owned or otherwise controlled by the applicant and that none of the activities will occur on any publicly owned rights-of-way unless separate approval for the use of any such public rights-of-way has been obtained from the city; 2. The location of any paving, landscaping, planters, fencing, canopies, umbrellas or other table covers or barriers surrounding the area; 3. The proposed outdoor dining will not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic; and 4. The main entry has a control point as required by state liquor laws. D. The proposed outdoor dining complies with all conditions pertaining to any existing variances, conditional uses or other approvals granted for property. 55 E. Live music will not be performed nor loudspeakers played in the outdoor dining area unless the decibel level is within conformance with the Salt Lake City noise control ordinance, Title 9, Chapter 9.28 of this Code. F. Smoking shall be prohibited within the outdoor dining area and within twenty five feet (25’) of the outdoor dining area. G. The proposed outdoor dining complies with the environmental performance standards as stated in Section 21A.36.180 of this title. H. Outdoor dining shall be located in areas where such use is likely to have the least adverse impacts on adjacent properties. SECTION 23. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 21A.44. That Chapter 21A.44 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking, Mobility and Loading) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.44.010: Purpose 21A.44.020: Applicability 21A.44.030: Calculation of Parking 21A.44.040: Required Off Street Parking 21A.44.050: Alternatives to Minimum and Maximum Parking Calculations 21A.44.060: Parking Location and Design 21A.44.070: Off Street Loading Areas 21A.44.080: Drive-Through Facilities and Vehicle Stacking Areas 21A.44.090: Modifications to Parking Areas 21A.44.100: Use and Maintenance 21A.44.110: Nonconforming Parking and Loading Facilities 21A.44.010: PURPOSE: This chapter is intended to require that new development and redevelopment projects provide off street parking and loading facilities in proportion to the parking, loading, and transportation demands of the buildings and land uses included in those projects. This chapter is also intended to help protect the public health, safety, and general welfare by: A. Avoiding and mitigating traffic congestion and reducing the financial burden on taxpayer funded roadways; B. Providing necessary access for service and emergency vehicles; 56 C. Providing for safe and convenient interaction between vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians; D. Providing flexible methods of responding to the transportation and access demands of various land uses in different areas of the city; E. Reducing storm water runoff, reducing heat island effect from large expanses of pavement, improving water quality, and minimizing dust pollution; F. Establishing context-sensitive parking standards to reflect the current and future built environment of neighborhoods; and G. Avoiding and mitigating the adverse visual and environmental impacts of large concentrations of exposed parking. 21A.44.020: APPLICABILITY: A. Amounts of Parking, Loading, and Drive-Through Facilities Required: The standards of this chapter are intended to establish: minimum and maximum amounts of vehicle parking; minimum required bicycle parking, minimum required loading facilities, and minimum capacity of drive-through facilities and shall apply to projects involving the activities listed below. In some instances, other standards of this chapter provide alternatives for required compliance. Certain exemptions are intended to encourage utilization of existing structures and preserve desirable characteristics of locations built prior to parking requirements. 1. New Development: Unless otherwise exempted by Section 21A.44.020.A.4, the standards in this chapter shall apply to all development and land uses upon adoption of this ordinance. 2. Expansion of Use or Structure: The number of off street parking and loading spaces for the expansion of a use or structure shall comply with the requirements of Table 21A.44.040-A, “Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking“ and the standards of this chapter when: a. One or more additional dwelling units is created; or b. The addition to or expansion of one or more structures or uses that, when considered together with any other expansions during the previous two-year period, would increase the total usable floor area of the structure(s) by more than twenty- five percent (25%); or c. The addition to or expansion of one (1) or more structures or uses that requires conditional use permit approval. 3. Change of Use: 57 a. Except when located within an Urban Center or Transit Context, or as stated in Subsection b below, off street parking shall be provided pursuant to this chapter for any change of use that increases the minimum number of required vehicle parking spaces by: (1) More than ten (10) parking spaces; or (2) More than twenty-five percent (25%) of the parking spaces that currently exist on-site or on permitted off-site locations. b. For changes in use in buildings built prior to 1944, no additional parking shall be required beyond what is existing. 4. Exemptions from Parking Requirements: The following shall be exempt from providing the minimum parking required by Table 21A.44.040-A, “Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking“, but shall comply with maximum parking allowed and location and design standards in Section 21A.44.060 if parking is provided: a. Lots created prior to April 12,1995 that are less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in lot area, except those being used for single- family, two-family, and twin home dwelling uses; b. Expansions or enlargements that increase the square footage of usable floor area of an existing structure or parking requirements for the use by twenty-five percent (25%) or less, provided that existing off street parking and loading areas are not removed. B. Location and Design: Section 21A.44.060, “Parking Location and Design“, shall apply to all vehicle parking, bicycle parking, loading, and drive-through facilities, regardless of whether the project is subject to the requirements for additional parking spaces or other facilities pursuant to Subsection 21A.44.020.A above. Parking garages are subject to design standards found in Subsection 21A.44.060.A.16 and specific requirements of other zoning districts found in Subsection 21A.44.060.B. 21A.44.030: CALCULATION OF PARKING: A. Generally: 1. All parking and loading requirements that are based on square footage shall be calculated on the basis of usable floor area of the subject use, unless otherwise specified in Table 21A.44.040-A, “Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking“. 2. Parking spaces shall not be counted more than once for required off-site, shared, and/or alternative parking plans, except where the development 58 complies with off-site, shared, and/or alternative parking standards. 3. Parking spaces designed or designated exclusively for motorcycles, scooters, and other two wheeled vehicles shall not count toward the number of minimum required or maximum allowed off street parking spaces. 4. Parking spaces intended for storage of business vehicles, such as fleet vehicles, delivery vehicles, or vehicles on display associated with sales or rental shall not count toward the number of minimum required or maximum allowed off street parking spaces unless otherwise stated in Table 21A.44.040-A, “Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking“. 5. Parking spaces designed or designated exclusively for recreational vehicles shall not count toward the number of minimum required or maximum allowed off street parking spaces. 6. When calculations of the number of required off street parking spaces for vehicles or bicycles result in a fractional number, any fraction of 0.5 or larger shall be rounded up to the next higher whole number. Calculations for more than one use in a project shall be calculated for each individual use and may be rounded individually and added, or added then rounded as determined by the applicant. 7. Lots containing more than one (1) use may provide parking and loading based on the shared parking calculations in Subsection 21A.44.050.B, “Shared Parking”. B. Unlisted Uses: For uses not listed in Table 21A.44.040-A, “Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking” the planning director is authorized to do any of the following: 1. Apply the minimum or maximum off street parking space requirement specified in Table 21A.44.040-A, “Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking“, for the listed use that is deemed most similar to the proposed use as determined by the planning director based on operating characteristics, the most similar related occupancy classification, or other factors related to potential parking demand determined by the director. 2. Apply a minimum parking requirement of three (3) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of usable floor area for the use and a maximum parking allowance of five (5) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of useable floor area for the use. 3. Establish the minimum off street parking space and loading requirements based on a parking study prepared by the applicant according to Subsection 21A.44.050.F. 59 21A.44.040: REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING: A. Minimum and Maximum Parking Spaces Required: 1. Unless otherwise provided in this code, each development or land use subject to this chapter pursuant to Section 21A.44.020 shall provide at least the minimum number, and shall not provide more than the maximum number, of off street parking spaces required by Table 21A.44.040-A, “Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking“. 2. A parking standard shown in Table 21A.44.040-A, “Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking”, is not an indication of whether the use is allowed or prohibited in the respective zoning district or context area. See Chapter 21A.33, “Land Use Tables” for allowed and prohibited uses. 3. The maximum parking limit does not apply to parking provided in parking garages, stacked or racked parking structures, or to off-site parking that complies with all other requirements of this title. 4. The maximum parking limit does not apply to properties in the M-1, M-2, BP, or Airport zoning districts that are located west of the centerline of Redwood Road. 5. If a conditional use is approved by the planning commission in accordance with Chapter 21A.54, “Conditional Uses”, and the conditional use approval states a different parking requirement than that required by this Chapter 21A.44, and is determined necessary to mitigate a detrimental impact, then the parking requirement in the conditional use approval shall apply. 6. All uses with vehicle stacking and/or drive-through facilities shall comply with Section 21A.44.080, “Drive-Through Facilities and Vehicle Stacking Areas”, in addition to the requirements of Table 21A.44.040-A, “Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking“. 7. All uses with outdoor sales, display, leasing, and/or auction areas shall also provide one-half (1/2) parking space and no more than two (2) parking spaces per one thousand (1,000) sq. ft. of outdoor sales, display, leasing, and/or auction area. This additional parking shall not count toward the maximum allowed per Table 21A.44.040-A, “Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking”, when a maximum is specified. Context Approach: 60 Salt Lake City has a wide variety of development contexts that make any single approach to minimum and maximum parking requirements ineffective. The parking demand for a downtown area served by transit will be much lower than a downtown adjacent neighborhood or suburban shopping center. To ensure that minimum and maximum parking requirements reflect the built context (and future built context) of the area, we created four distinct “context areas”, and then tailored minimum and maximum parking standards to each. The Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking Table below lists the specific zoning districts included in each context area. The following is a brief narrative introducing each context area: 1. General Context: This category includes the city’s zoning districts that tend to be more auto-dependent and/or suburban in scale and parking needs. This context applies broadly to all of the zoning districts that are not specifically listed in the other context areas. 2. Neighborhood Center: This category includes areas with small- or moderate-scale shopping, gathering, or activity spaces, often within or adjacent to General Context areas, but that are not necessarily well served by transit. This category includes zoning districts with pedestrian-scale development patterns, building forms, and amenities. 3. Urban Center: This category includes zoning districts with dense, pedestrian-oriented development within more intensely developed urban centers. The parking demand in this context is higher than in the Neighborhood Center Context, but lower than areas with good transit service. 4. Transit Context: This category includes those zoning districts that immediately surround mass-transit facilities and/or are in the downtown core. These areas have the lowest parking demand and may be exempt from minimum parking requirements or be required to provide minimal off street parking. 61 TABLE 21A.44.040-A: MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM OFF STREET PARKING: DU = dwelling unit sq. ft. = square feet Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Parking Allowed General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R-MU-35, R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1. CSHBD2 D-1, D-3 D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB- UN3, FB-SC. R-MU Vehicle Stacking and Drive-Through Facilities: See Subsection 21A.44.040.A.6 Outdoor Sales/Display/Leasing/Auction Areas: See Subsection 21A.44.040.A.7 RESIDENTIAL USES Household Living Artists’ loft/studio 1.5 spaces per DU 1 space per DU 0.5 spaces per DU No Minimum No Maximum Manufactured home 2 spaces per DU 1 space per DU No Minimum All Contexts: 4 spaces, not including recreational vehicle parking spaces Mobile home Single-family (attached) Single-family (detached) Single-family cottage development building form 1 space per DU Twin home 2 spaces per DU Two-family 62 Multi-family Studio and 1 bedrooms: 1 space per DU, 2+ bedrooms 1.25 space per DU Studio and 1+ bedrooms: 1 space per DU Studio: No Minimum 1 bedroom: 0.5 space per DU 2+ bedrooms: 1 space per DU No Minimum All Contexts: Studio & 1 Bedroom: 2 spaces per DU 2+ bedrooms: 3 spaces per DU Group Living Assisted living facility 1 space for each 6 infirmary or nursing home beds; plus 1 space for each 4 rooming units; plus 1 space for each 3 DU See Table Note A 1 space for each 8 infirmary or nursing home beds; plus 1 space for each 6 rooming units; plus 1 space for each 4 DU See Table Note A No Minimum No Maximum Nursing care facility Eleemosynary facility 1 space per 4 persons design capacity; See Table Note A 1 space per 6 persons design capacity; See Table Note A 1 space per 4 persons design capacity; See Table Note A No Minimum All Contexts: 1 space per 3 persons design capacity; See Table Note A Group home Residential support Dormitory, fraternity, sorority 1 space per 2 persons design capacity 1 space per 3 persons design capacity 1 space per 4 persons design capacity No Minimum All Contexts: 1 space per 1 persons design capacity Rooming (boarding) house 1 space per 2 guest rooms 1 space per 3 guest rooms 1 space per 4 guest No Minimum No Maximum 63 rooms Shared housing 0.5 spaces per unit 0.25 spaces per unit No Minimum No Maximum PUBLIC, INSTITUTIONAL, AND CIVIC USES Community and Cultural Facilities Art gallery 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. 0.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum All Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Studio, Art Exhibition hall Museum Crematorium 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum No Maximum Daycare center, adult Daycare center, child Homeless resource center Library Community correctional facility, 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Community recreation center Jail Government facility 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area No Minimum No Maximum Social service mission and charity dining hall 64 Municipal service use, including city utility use and police and fire station 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area, plus 1 space per service vehicle 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area, plus 1 space per service vehicle No Minimum No Maximum Club/lodge 1 space per 6 seats in main assembly area 1 space per 8 seats in main assembly area 1 space per 10 seats in main assembly area No Minimum All Contexts: 1 space per 4 seats in main assembly area Meeting hall of membership organization Convent/monastery 1 space per 4 persons design capacity 1 space per 6 persons design capacity 1 space per 8 persons design capacity No Minimum No Maximum Funeral home 1 space per 4 seats in main assembly area 1 space per 5 seats in main assembly area 1 space per 6 seats in main assembly area No Minimum Urban Center and Transit Center Context: 2 spaces per 4 seats in main assembly areas Neighborhood Center and General Context: No maximum Place of worship All Contexts: 65 1 space per 6 seats or 1 space per 300 sq. ft., whichever is less 1 space per 8 seats or 1 space per 400 sq. ft., whichever is less 1 space per 10 seats or 1 space per 500 sq. ft., whichever is less No Minimum 1 space per 3.5 seats or 1 space per 200 sq. ft., whichever is greater Fairground See Table Note B No Maximum Philanthropic use See Table Note B All Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office, plus 1 space per 6 seats in assembly areas Zoological park See Table Note B No Maximum Ambulance service Cemetery No Minimum Plazas Park Open space Educational Facilities College and university 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. office, research, and library area, plus 1 space per 6 seats in assembly areas 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. office, research, and library area, plus 1 space per 10 seats in assembly areas K - 12 private Elementary or Middle: 1 space per 20 students 66 K - 12 public design capacity High Schools: 1 space per 8 students design capacity No Minimum All Contexts: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Dance/music studio 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Music conservatory Professional and vocational Professional and vocational (with outdoor activities) Seminary and religious institute Healthcare Facilities Clinic (medical, dental) 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum All Contexts: 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft Blood donation center 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Transit and Urban Center Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft Neighborhood Center and General Context: 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Hospital 1 space per 3 patient beds design capacity 1 space per 2 patient beds design capacity All Contexts: 1 space per 2 patient beds design capacity Hospital, including accessory lodging facility COMMERCIAL USES 67 Agricultural and Animal Uses Greenhouse 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Context: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft Neighborhood Center and Kennel Pound Veterinary office Cremation service, animal 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Kennel on lots of 5 acres or larger Poultry farm or processing plant General Context: No Maximum Raising of furbearing animals Slaughterhouse Agricultural use No Minimum Community garden Farmer’s market Grain elevator Pet cemetery Stable Stockyard Urban farm Botanical garden See Table Note B Recreation and Entertainment Auditorium 1 space per 4 seats in assembly areas 1 space per 6 seats in 1 space per 8 seats in No Minimum All Contexts: 1 space per 3 seats in assembly Theater, live performance 68 Theater, movie assembly areas assembly areas areas Amphitheater See Table Note B Athletic Field Stadium Tennis court (principal use) 2 spaces per court No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Bowling 2 spaces per lane Context: 2 spaces per court or lane Neighborhood Center and General Context: No Maximum Convention center 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum All Contexts: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Swimming pool, skating rink or natatorium Health and fitness facility 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. All Contexts: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Performing arts production facility Reception center Recreation (indoor) 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Recreational vehicle park (minimum 1 acre) 1 space per designated camping or RV spot No Maximum Amusement park See Table Note B Recreation (outdoor) See Table Note B 69 Food and Beverage Services Brewpub Indoor tasting/seating area: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.; Outdoor tasting/seating area: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Indoor tasting/ seating area: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.; Outdoor tasting/ se ating area: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Context: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft indoor tasting/seating area Neighborhood Center and General Context: 7 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. indoor tasting/seating area All Contexts: Outdoor tasting/ seating area: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Restaurant Tavern Social club 1 space per 6 seats in main assembly area, or 1 space per 300 sq. ft., whichever is less 1 space per 8 seats in main assembly area, or 1 space per 400 sq. ft., whichever is less 1 space per 10 seats in main assembly area, or 1 space per 500 sq. ft., whichever is less No Minimum All Contexts: 1 space per 4 seats in main assembly area, or 1 space per 200 sq. ft., whichever is greater Office, Business, and Professional Services Check cashing/payday loan business General Context: 70 Dental laboratory/ research facility 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum 4 spaces per 1,000 Neighborhood Center Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 Urban Center and Transit Center Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 Financial institution Research and laboratory facilities Office (excluding medical and dental clinic and office) 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail Sales & Services Photo finishing lab No Minimum 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center and General Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Electronic repair shop Furniture repair shop Upholstery shop Radio, television station 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. 71 Store, Convenience 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. General Context: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Auction, Indoor 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Transit Context: 2 Store, Department Fashion oriented development 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Urban Center and Neighborhood Center Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. General Context: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Flea market (indoor) Flea market (outdoor) Store, Mass merchandising Store, Pawn shop Store, Specialty Retail goods establishment Retail service establishment Store, Superstore and hypermarket Store, Warehouse club 72 Retail shopping center over 55,000 sq. ft. usable floor area Up to 100,000 sq. ft. : 2. spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. . Above 100,000 sq. ft. : sq. ft. 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Up to 100,000 sq. ft. : 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. . Above 100,000 sq. ft. : 1.25 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Transit and Urban Center Contexts: up to 100,000 sq. ft.: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft., above 100,000 sq. ft.: 1.75 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center and General Context: Up to 100,000 sq. ft.: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft., above 100,000 sq. ft.: 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. General Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 73 Lodging Facilities Bed and breakfast 1 space per guest bedroom 0.5 spaces per guest bedroom No Minimum All Contexts: 1.25 spaces per guest bedroom Hotel/motel All Contexts: 1.5 spaces per guest bedroom Vehicles and Equipment Vehicle Auction 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area plus 1 space per service bay 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area plus 1 space per service bay No Minimum No Maximum Automobile part sales 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of indoor sales/leasing/office area plus 1 space per service bay 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of indoor sales/leas ing/ office area plus 1 space per service bay No Minimum All Contexts: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of indoor sales/leasing/ office area, plus 1 space per service bay Automobile and truck repair sales/rental and service Boat/recreational vehicle sales and service (indoor) Equipment rental (indoor and/or outdoor) Equipment, heavy (rental, sales, service) 74 Manufactured/mobile home sales and service Recreational vehicle (RV) sales and service Truck repair sales and rental (large) Car wash No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. General Context: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Car wash as accessory use to gas station or convenience store that sells gas Gas station 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum General Context: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Urban Center Context: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Bus line yard and repair facility 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. , plus 1 space per commercial fleet vehicle No Minimum No Maximum 75 Impound lot Limousine service Taxicab facility Tire distribution retail/wholesale Adult Entertainment Establishments Sexually oriented business 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum All Contexts: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. TRANSPORTATION USES Airport Determined by Airport Authority No Maximum Heliport Bus line station/terminal No Minimum Urban Center and Transit Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center and General Context: 1 space per 150 average daily passenger boardings Intermodal transit passenger hub Railroad, passenger station Transportation terminal, including bus, rail and trucking Railroad, repair shop 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. , plus 1 space per fleet vehicle generally stored on-site No Minimum No Maximum Truck freight terminal Railroad, freight terminal facility No Minimum INDUSTRIAL USES 76 Manufacturing and Processing Artisan food production 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of production area, plus 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office/retail 0.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of productio n area, plus 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office/ret ail No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of production area, plus 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office/retail Neighborhood Center and General Context: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of production area, plus 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office/retail Bakery, commercial Automobile salvage and recycling (outdoor) 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of office 0.5 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of office No Minimum All Contexts: 7 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office/retail Processing center (outdoor) Automobile salvage and recycling (indoor) Blacksmith shop Bottling plant Brewery/Small Brewery 77 Chemical manufacturing and/or storage 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum No Maximum Commercial food preparation Distillery Drop forge industry Explosive manufacturing and storage Food processing Heavy manufacturing Incinerator, medical waste/hazardous waste Industrial assembly Jewelry fabrication Laundry, commercial Light manufacturing Manufacturing and processing, food Paint manufacturing Printing plant Processing center (indoor) Recycling Sign painting/ fabrication Studio, motion picture 78 Welding shop No Minimum Winery Woodworking mill Collection station No Minimum Concrete and/or asphalt manufacturing Extractive industry Manufacturing, concrete or asphalt Refinery, petroleum products Storage and Warehousing Air cargo terminals and package delivery facility 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. , plus 1 space per fleet vehicle generally stored on-site No Maximum Building materials distribution Flammable liquids or gases, heating fuel distribution and storage Package delivery facility Warehouse Warehouse, accessory to retail and wholesale business (maximum 5,000 square foot floor plate) Wholesale distribution 79 Storage, self 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area, plus 1 space per 30 storage units 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office All Contexts: 1 space for every 15 storage units Contractor’s yard/office 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area All Contexts: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area Rock, sand and gravel storage and distribution No Minimum No Maximum Storage (outdoor) Storage and display (outdoor) Storage, public (outdoor) PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC UTILITY USES Utility: Building or structure No Minimum No Maximum Antenna, communication tower Antenna, communication tower, exceeding the maximum building height in the zone Large wind energy system Solar array Utility: Electric generation facility Utility: Sewage treatment plant 80 Utility: Solid waste transfer station Utility: Transmission wire, line, pipe or pole Wireless telecommunications facility ACCESSORY USES Accessory Dwelling Unit See Section 21A.40.200: Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory guest and servant’s quarter 1 space per DU No Minimum Living quarter for caretaker or security guard All Contexts: 4 spaces per DU Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal building 2 spaces per 1,000 1 space per 1,000 Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. General Context: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal building and operated primarily for the convenience of employees No Minimum Warehouse, accessory 0.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of warehouse/wholesale No Minimum 81 Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere in this title No Minimum No Maximum Heliport, accessory Reverse vending machine Storage, accessory (outdoor) TEMPORARY USES Mobile food business (operation in public right-of-way) No minimum, unless required by temporary use permit or as determined by the Zoning Administrator No Maximum Mobile food business (operation on private property) Mobile food court Vending cart, private property Vending cart, public property Farm stand, seasonal Table Notes: A. Facilities that are (a) occupied by persons who’s right to live together is protected by the federal Fair Housing Act, and that (b) occupy a building originally constructed for another residential use shall have the same parking requirements as the residential use for which the building was constructed. B. Parking requirements to be determined by the transportation director based on considerations of factors such as estimated facility use, vehicle traffic to the facility, transit use to the facility, potential traffic congestion, and likelihood of overflow parking in surrounding neighborhoods. B. Electric Vehicle Parking: Each multi-family use shall provide a minimum of one (1) parking space dedicated to electric vehicles for every twenty five (25) parking 82 spaces provided on-site. Electric vehicle parking spaces shall count toward the minimum required number of parking spaces. The electric vehicle parking space shall be: 1. Located in the same lot as the principal use; 2. Located as close to a primary entrance of the principal building as possible; 3. Signed in a clear and conspicuous manner, such as special pavement marking or signage, indicating exclusive availability to electric vehicles; and 4. Outfitted with a standard electric vehicle charging station. C. Accessible Parking: 1. The number and design of accessible (ADA) parking spaces shall be pursuant to the standards provided in the Salt Lake City Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 2. Parking areas with four (4) or fewer vehicle parking spaces are not required to identify an accessible parking space; however, if parking is provided, a minimum of one (1) parking space shall comply with the ADA standard dimensions. 3. The number of required accessible spaces shall be based on the total number of vehicle spaces provided to serve the principal uses, as shown below in Table 21A.44.040-B, “Accessible Parking Required“. TABLE 21A.44.040-B: ACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIRED: Off Street Parking Spaces Provided Minimum Required Accessible Spaces 1 to 100 1 per 25 parking spaces 101 to 500 1 per 50 parking spaces 501 to 1,000 2 percent of total number of parking spaces 1,001 and more 20, plus 1 for each 100 parking spaces over 1,000 83 D. Bicycle Parking: 1. Applicability: The following regulations apply to all uses except for single- family, two-family, and twin home residential uses and nonresidential uses having less than one thousand square feet (1,000 sq. ft.) of usable floor area. 2. Calculation of Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces: The number of required bicycle spaces shall be based on the use within the defined parking contexts as shown in Table 21A.44.040-C, “Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements”, unless another city standard requires a different number of bicycle parking spaces for a specific use, in which case the use-specific bicycle parking standard shall apply. TABLE 21A.44.040-C: MINIMUM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS*: (Calculation of Bicycle Parking Spaces to be Provided per Residential Unit or Based on Usable Floor Area) Use General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R-MU-35, R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1, CSHBD2 D-1, D-3, D-4, G-MU, TSA- C, UI, FB-UN2, FB- UN3, FB- SC, R-MU Residential Uses 1 per 5 units 1 per 4 units 1 per 3 units 1 per 2 units Public, Institutional, and Civic Uses 1 per 10,000 sq. ft. 1 per 5,000 sq. ft. 1 per 5,000 sq. ft. 1 per 3,000 sq. ft. Commercial Uses 1 per 20,000 sq. ft. 1 per 5,000 sq. ft 1 per 4,000 sq. ft. 1 per 2,000 sq. ft. Industrial Uses No requirement No requirement No requirement No Requirement *For all uses: In determining the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required, fractional spaces are rounded to the nearest whole number, with one-half counted as an additional space 3. Building Expansions or Changes of Use: Building expansions or changes of use that require additional vehicle parking spaces pursuant to Section 84 21A.44.020 and Section 21A.44.040 shall provide additional bicycle parking spaces based on the calculations in Table 21A.44.040-C, “Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements”, for the entire use. 4. Secure/Enclosed Bicycle Parking: Each one (1) bicycle parking space that is within a secure/enclosed bicycle parking facility may be used to satisfy the requirement of two (2) required bicycle parking spaces. 5. Existing Public Bicycle Parking Facilities: Permanent public bicycle racks or bike corrals located within fifty feet (50’) of the primary entrance to the principal building may be used to satisfy up to two (2) required bicycle parking spaces. 6. Accessory and Temporary Uses: No bicycle parking spaces are required for accessory or temporary uses. 21A.44.050: ALTERNATIVES TO MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PARKING CALCULATIONS: The amount of off street vehicle parking required pursuant to Table 21A.44.040-A, “Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking”, may be adjusted by the factors listed in this section. These adjustments may be applied as part of the calculation of parking requirements and do not require discretionary approval by the City. A. Limitations on Adjustments to Minimum Required Parking: The adjustments listed in Subsections 21A.44.050.B through 21A.44.050.G may be used in any combination, but shall not be combined to reduce the minimum required parking established in Table 21A.44.040-A, “Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking“, by more than forty percent (40%). B. Shared Parking: 1. Shared Parking for Two or More Uses: a. Where two (2) or more uses listed in Table 21A.44.040-A, “Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking”, share a parking garage or parking lot that is located on one of the properties that is sharing parking, or is located within the maximum permitted distance of all of the properties sharing parking shown in Table 21A.44.060-B, “Maximum Distances for Off-Site Parking”, the total minimum off street parking requirement for those uses may be reduced by the factors shown in Table 21A.44.050-A, “Shared Parking Reduction Factors“. b. The minimum number of off street parking spaces shall be the sum of the parking requirements for the uses divided by the factor shown in Table 21A.44.050-A, “Shared Parking Reduction Factors”, for that combination of uses. 85 Example: If a 5,000 square foot art gallery shared a parking lot with a 5,000 square foot retail goods establishment, and a 100 unit multi-family residential use in the Urban Center Context, the minimum off street parking required would be calculated as follows: 〉 Use 1: Art Gallery 〉 0.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. x (5,000 sq. ft.) = 3 parking spaces 〉 Use 2: Retail Goods Establishment 〉 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. x (5,000 sq. ft.) = 5 parking spaces 〉 Use 3: Multi-Family Residential 〉 0 per studio unit x (20 studio units) = 0 parking spaces 〉 0.5 per 1 bedroom unit x (36 1 bedroom units) = 18 parking spaces 〉 1 per 2+ bedroom units x (44 2+ bedroom units) = 44 parking spaces 〉 0+18+44 = 62 parking spaces 〉 Sum of two largest minimum parking requirements: 〉 5 (retail goods establishment)+ 62 (multi-family) = 67 parking spaces 〉 Reduction Factor (two largest minimums): 〉 67 ÷ 1.2 reduction factor = 55.8 or 56 parking spaces 〉 Add Remaining Minimum(s): 〉 56 (retail & multi-family) + 3 (art gallery) = 59 parking spaces required TABLE 21A.44.050-A: SHARED PARKING REDUCTION FACTORS: Property Use Multi-Family Residential Public, Institutional, or Civic Food and Beverage, Recreation and Entertainment, or Lodging Retail Sales Other Non- Residential Multi-Family Residential [1] Public, Institutional and Civic 1.1 Food and Beverage, Recreation and Entertainment, or 1.1 1.2 86 Lodging Retail Sales 1.2 1.3 1.3 Other Non-Residential 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.2 [1] Applies to multi-family residential, assisted living facility (large), group home (large), and residential support (large) uses 2. Documentation Required: a. The owners of record involved in the joint use of shared parking shall submit written documentation of the continued availability of the shared parking arrangement to the Transportation Director for review. b. The Director shall approve the shared parking arrangement if the Director determines that the documentation demonstrates the continued availability of the shared parking facility for a reasonable period of time. No zoning or use approval shall be issued until the Director has approved the shared parking documentation. c. If the shared parking arrangement is later terminated or modified and the Director determines that the termination or modification has resulted in traffic congestion, overflow parking in residential neighborhoods, or threats to pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle safety, the property owners involved in the shared parking arrangement may be held in violation of this chapter. C. Proximity to Fixed-Rail Transit: Required parking for a development located within one-quarter mile (when measured radially in a straight line from the subject property line) of a fixed-rail transit station platform in the General Context, Neighborhood Center Context, and Urban Center Context areas may be reduced by up to twenty-five percent (25%). This shall not apply to single or two-family uses including: single-family (attached or detached), twin homes, or two-family. D. Affordable and Senior Housing (Multi-Family Structures): The minimum number of required off street parking spaces for multi-family residential developments with at least ten (10) dwelling units may be reduced by twenty-five percent (25%) if the multi-family development has: 1. A minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the dwelling units are restricted to residents with no greater than sixty percent (60%) area median income (AMI) 87 for leased units; or 2. A minimum of thirty-five percent (35%) of the dwelling units are restricted to residents with no greater than eighty percent (80%) AMI for sale units; or 3. A minimum of seventy-five percent (75%) of the dwelling units are restricted to persons sixty-five (65) years of age or older. For a development that meets any of the scenarios above, an additional reduction of up to fifteen percent (15%) may be allowed when the development is located within one-quarter mile (when measured radially in a straight line from the subject property line) of a bus stop that is serviced by the same route at least every fifteen (15) minutes during daytime hours, Monday - Saturday. E. Car Pool and Carshare Parking: 1. For parking lots with one hundred (100) or more parking spaces, each off street parking space designated and signed for the exclusive use of a shared car pool vehicle shall count as three (3) spaces toward the satisfaction of minimum off street vehicle parking requirements. 2. For parking lots with one hundred (100) or more parking spaces, each off street parking space designated and signed for the exclusive use of a shared vanpool vehicle shall count as seven (7) spaces toward the satisfaction of minimum off street vehicle parking requirements. 3. For parking lots of any size, each off street parking space designated and signed for the exclusive use of a carshare vehicle shall count as four (4) spaces toward the satisfaction of minimum off street vehicle parking requirements. F. Valet Parking Services: Modifications to minimum on site parking spaces may occur on a one-to-one basis if off site valet parking is provided and: 1. The design of the valet parking does not cause customers who do not use the valet services to park off the premises or cause queuing in the right-of-way; 2. The availability of valet parking service is clearly posted outside the establishment and near the main entrance; and 3. The applicant provides adequate written assurances for the continued operation of the valet parking, and a written agreement to notify future owners and tenants of the property of the duty to continue to provide off-site valet parking. G. Parking Study Demonstrating Different Parking Needs: 88 1. The transportation director, in consultation with the planning director, may authorize a change in the amount of off street parking spaces. The authorization shall be based on the applicant submitting a parking study that demonstrates a different off street parking demand for the proposed development, use, or combination of uses than calculated from Table 21A.44.040-A, “Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking“, and subject to the overall limits on parking adjustments in Subsection 21A.44.050.A above. 2. The transportation director and planning director shall determine whether the information and assumptions used in the study are reasonable and whether the study accurately reflects anticipated off street parking demand for the proposed development, use, or combination of uses. 3. Considerations for an alternative parking requirement (parking provided below the minimum required or exceeding the maximum allowed) shall be granted only if the following findings are determined: a. That the proposed parking plan will satisfy the anticipated parking demand for the use; b. That the proposed parking plan will be at least as effective in maintaining traffic circulation patterns, reducing the visibility of parking areas and facilities as would strict compliance with the otherwise applicable off street parking standards; c. That the proposed parking plan does not have a materially adverse impact on adjacent or neighboring properties; d. That the proposed parking plan includes mitigation strategies for any potential impact on adjacent or neighboring properties; and e. That the proposed alternative parking plan is consistent with applicable city plans and policies. 21A.44.060: PARKING LOCATION AND DESIGN: All required parking areas shall be located and designed in accordance with the standards in this Chapter 21A.44: Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading and the standards in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. Modifications to the standards of this Section 21A.44.060 may be granted through the design review process, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Chapter 21A.59: Design Review. A. Generally: 1. Parking Located on Same Lot as Use or Building Served: All parking spaces required to serve buildings or uses erected or established after the 89 effective date of this ordinance shall be located on the same lot as the building or use served, unless otherwise allowed pursuant to Subsection 21A.44.060.A.4, “Off-Site Parking Permitted”. 2. Biodetention and Landscape Islands in General and Neighborhood Center Contexts: For parking lots with one hundred (100) or more parking spaces in the General Context and Neighborhood Center Context areas, parking lot islands or biodetention areas shall be provided on the interior of the parking lot to help direct traffic flow and to provide landscaped areas within such lots. 3. Parking Location and Setbacks: All parking shall comply with the parking restrictions within yards pursuant to Table 21A.44.060-A, “Parking Location and Setback Requirements”. TABLE 21A.44.060-A: PARKING LOCATION AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: N = parking prohibited between lot line and front line of the principal building Zoning District Front Lot Line Corner Side Lot Line Interior Side Lot Line Rear Lot Line GENERAL CONTEXT Residential (FR Districts, RB, RMF, RO) FR N Parking in driveways that comply with all applicable city standards is exempt from this restriction. 6 ft. 0 ft. R-1, R-2, SR-1, SR-2 0 ft. RMF-30 N 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district RMF-35, RMF- 45, RMF-75, RO 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district. Limited to 1 side yard except for single- family attached lots. 90 Commercial and Manufacturing (CC, CS, CG, M-1, M-2, SNB) CC 15 ft. 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any residential district CS 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any residential district CG 10 ft. M-1 15 ft. M-2 0 ft.; or 50 ft. when abutting any residential district Special Purpose Districts A 0 ft. 0 ft. AG, AG-2, AG- 5, AG-20 N BP 8 ft.; or 30 ft. when abutting any residential district EI 10 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. FP 20 ft. 6 ft. 0 ft. I 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any residential district MH 0 ft. OS 30 ft. 10 ft. PL 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any residential district PL-2 20 ft. RP 30 ft. 8 ft.; or 30 ft. when abutting any residential district NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CONTEXT CB , CN, SNB N 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district 91 R-MU-35, R- MU-45 Surface Parking: N Parking Structures: 45’ or located behind principal building Limited to 1 side yard, 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district RB, SR-3, FB- UN1, FB-SE N 0 ft. URBAN CENTER CONTEXT CSHBD1 N 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any residential district CSHBD2 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district D-2 Surface Parking: 20 ft. Parking Structures: N 0 ft. MU Surface Parking: 25 ft. or located behind principal structure Parking Structures: 45 ft. or located behind principal structure 0 ft.; limited to 1 side yard 0 ft. TSA-T See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.2 0 ft. TRANSIT CONTEXT D-1 See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.1 D-3 D-4 See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.1 0 ft. G-MU FB-UN2, FB- UN3, FB-SC N TSA-C See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.2 92 R-MU Surface Parking: 30 ft. Parking Structures: 45 ft. or located behind principal structure 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district Surface parking at least 30 ft. from front lot line. 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district UI 0 ft; Hospitals: 30 ft. 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district; Hospitals: 10 ft. 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district; Hospitals: 10 ft. 4. Off-Site Parking Permitted: When allowed as either a permitted or conditional use per Chapter 21A.33, “Land Use Tables”, off-site parking facilities may be used to satisfy the requirements of this chapter and shall comply with the following standards: a. Maximum Distance of Off-Site Parking: Off-site parking shall be located according to the distance established in Table 21A.44.060-B, “Maximum Distances for Off-Site Parking” (measured in a straight line from the property boundary of the principal use for which the parking serves to the closest point of the parking area). Table 21A.44.060-B: Maximum Distances for Off-Site Parking: Context Maximum Distance to Off-Site Parking Neighborhood Center 600 ft. General Legal Nonconforming Use in Residential District Urban Center 1,200 ft. 93 Transit 1,000 ft. b. Documentation Required: (1) The owners of record involved in an off-site parking arrangement shall submit written documentation of the continued availability of the off-site parking arrangement to the planning director for review. (2) The planning director shall approve the off-site parking arrangement if the director determines the location meets the standards of this section. No zoning or use approval shall be issued until the director has approved the off-site parking arrangement and the documentation has been recorded in the office of the Salt Lake County Recorder. (3) If the off-site parking arrangement is later terminated or modified and the planning director determines that the termination or modification has resulted in traffic congestion, overflow parking in residential neighborhoods, or threats to pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle safety, the property owners of the uses for which the off-site parking was provided may be held in violation of this chapter. 5. Circulation Plan Required: Any application for a building permit shall include a site plan, drawn to scale, and fully dimensioned, showing any off street parking or loading facilities to be provided in compliance with this title. A tabulation of the number of off street vehicle and bicycle parking, loading, and stacking spaces required by this chapter shall appear in a conspicuous place on the plan. 6. Driveways and Access: a. Compliance with Other Adopted Regulations: (1) Parking lots shall be designed in compliance with applicable city codes, ordinances, and standards, including but not limited to Title 12 of this code: Vehicles and Traffic and the Off Street Parking Standards Manual to the maximum degree practicable, with respect to: (a) Minimum distances between curb cuts; (b) Proximity of curb cuts to intersections; (c) Provisions for shared driveways; (d) Location, quantity and design of landscaped islands; and (e) Design of parking lot interior circulation system. 94 (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.a(1) above, relocation of a driveway for a single-family, two-family, or twin home residence in any zoning district shall only be required when the residence is replaced, and shall not be required when the residence is expanded or renovated in compliance with the city code. b. Access Standards: Access to all parking facilities shall comply with the following standards: (1) To the maximum extent practicable, all off street parking facilities shall be designed with vehicular access to a street or alley that will least interfere with automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic movement. (2) Parking facilities in excess of five (5) spaces that access a public street shall be designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit the lot in a forward direction. (3) Parking facilities on lots with less than one hundred feet (100’) of street frontage shall have only one (1) curb cut, and lots with one hundred feet (100’) of street frontage or more shall be limited to two (2) curb cuts, unless the transportation director determines that additional curb cuts are necessary to ensure pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety or to comply with the fire code. Public safety uses shall be exempt from limitations on curb cuts. (4) All vehicular access roads/driveways shall be surfaced as required in accordance with Subsection 21A.44.060.A.8, “Surface Materials”. c. Driveway Standards: All driveways shall comply with the following standards: (1) Driveway Location in Residential Zoning Districts: With the exception of legal shared driveways, driveways shall be at least twenty feet (20’) from street corner property lines and five feet (5’) from any public utility infrastructure such as power poles, fire hydrants, and water meters. Except for entrance and exit driveways leading to approved parking areas, no curb cuts or driveways are permitted. (2) Driveway Widths: All driveways serving residential uses shall be a minimum eight feet wide and shall comply with the standards for maximum driveway widths listed in Table 21A.44.060-C, “Minimum and Maximum Driveway Width”. TABLE 21A.44.060-C: MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH: Zoning District Minimum Driveway Width (in front and corner side yard) Maximum Driveway Width* (in front and corner side 95 yard) SR-1, SR-2 and SR-3 8 ft. 22 ft. MH 8 ft. 16 ft. Other Residential Zoning Districts 8 ft. 30 ft. M-1 and M-2 12 ft. single lane and 24 ft. for two-way 50 ft. Other Non-Residential Zoning Districts 12 ft. single lane and 24 ft. for two-way 30 ft. * Maximum width is for all driveways combined when more than one driveway is provided (3) Shared Driveways: Shared driveways, where two (2) or more properties share one (1) driveway access, may be permitted if the transportation director determines that the design and location of the shared driveway access will not create adverse impacts on traffic congestion or public safety. (4) Driveway Surface: All driveways providing access to parking facilities shall be improved and maintained pursuant to the standards in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 7. Minimum Dimensional Standards: All parking spaces shall comply with the dimensional standards in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 8. Surface Materials: All parking spaces shall comply with the standards for surfacing of access, driving, and parking surfacing in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 9. Grading and Stormwater Management: All surface parking areas shall comply with city grading and stormwater management standards and shall be reviewed for best management practices by Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Refer to the Salt Lake City Stormwater Master Plan, Storm Drainage Manual, and Green Infrastructure Toolbox for additional information. 10. Sight Distance Triangles: All driveways and intersections shall comply with the sight distance triangle standards as defined in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 11. Landscaping and Screening: All parking areas and facilities shall comply with the landscaping and screening standards in Chapter 21A.48, “Landscaping and Buffers”. 96 12. Lighting: Where a parking area or parking lot is illuminated, the light source shall be shielded so that the light source is not directly visible from any abutting property or abutting private or public street. 13. Signs: All signs in parking areas or related to parking facilities shall comply with Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, and applicable provisions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 14. Pedestrian Walkways: a. Surface parking lots with between twenty-five (25) and one hundred (100) parking spaces shall provide a pedestrian walkway or sidewalk through the parking lot to the primary entrance of the principal building. Pedestrian walkways shall be identified by a change in color, material, surface texture, or grade elevation from surrounding driving surfaces. b. Parking lots with more than one hundred (100) parking spaces shall provide: (1) One (1) or more grade-separated pedestrian walkway(s), at least five feet (5’) in width, and located in an area that is not a driving surface, leading from the farthest row of parking spaces to the primary entrance of the principal building. (2) Vehicles shall not overhang the pedestrian walkway(s). (3) Where the walkway(s) crosses a drive aisle, pedestrian walkway(s) shall be identified by a change in color, material, surface texture, or grade elevation from surrounding driving surfaces. (4) One (1) pedestrian walkway meeting these standards shall be provided for each one hundred (100) parking spaces provided on site or part thereof, after the first one hundred (100) parking spaces. 15. Parking Garages: The following standards shall apply to all above-ground parking garages except those located in the FB zones subject to Subsection 21A.27.030.C.4, whether freestanding or incorporated into a building: a. Each façade or a parking garage adjacent to a public street or public space shall have an external skin designed to conceal the view of all parked cars. Examples include heavy gauge metal screen, precast concrete panels, live green or landscaped walls, laminated or safety glass, or decorative photovoltaic panels. b. No horizontal length of the parking garage façade shall extend longer than 40 feet without the inclusion of architectural elements such as decorative grillwork, louvers, translucent screens, alternating building materials, and other external features to avoid visual monotony. Facade elements shall align with parking 97 levels. c. Internal circulation shall allow parking surfaces to be level (without any slope) along each parking garage facade adjacent to a public street or public space. All ramps between levels shall be located along building facades that are not adjacent to a public street or public space, or shall be located internally so that they are not visible from adjacent public streets or public spaces. d. The location of elevators and stairs shall be highlighted through the use of architectural features or changes in façade colors, textures, or materials so that visitors can easily identify these entry points. e. Interior parking garage lighting shall not produce glaring sources toward adjacent properties while providing safe and adequate lighting levels. The use of sensor dimmable LEDs and white stained ceilings are recommended to control light levels on-site while improving energy efficiency. f. In the Urban Center Context and Transit Context areas, the street-level facades of all parking garages shall be designed to meet applicable building code standards for habitable space to allow at least one (1) permitted or conditional use, other than parking, to be located where the parking garage is located. g. Vent and fan locations shall not be located on parking garage facades facing public streets or public spaces, or adjacent to residential uses, to the greatest extent practicable. 16. Tandem Parking: Where more than one (1) parking space is required to be provided for a residential dwelling unit, the parking spaces may be designed as tandem parking spaces, provided that: a. No more than two (2) required spaces may be included in the tandem parking layout; and b. Each set of two (2) tandem parking spaces shall be designated for a specific residential unit. 17. Cross-Access between Adjacent Uses: The transportation director may require that access to one or more lots be through shared access points or cross-access through adjacent parcels when the transportation director determines that individual access to abutting parcels or limited distance between access points will create traffic safety hazards due to traffic levels on adjacent streets or nearby intersections. Such a determination shall be consistent with requirements of state law regarding property access from public streets. Required cross- access agreements shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office. B. Zone Specific Location and Design Standards: 98 1. D-1, D-3, D-4, and G-MU Zoning Districts: The following regulations shall apply to surface or above-ground parking facilities. No special design and setback restrictions shall apply to below-ground parking facilities. a. Block Corner Areas: (1) Within the D-1 zoning district, above-ground parking facilities located within the block corner areas and on Main Street, shall be located behind principal buildings and: a. All above-ground parking facilities that front a street shall contain uses other than parking along the entire length of the building façade and along all stories or levels of the building. b. Vehicle access to parking shall be located to the side of the building or as far from the street corner as possible unless further restricted by this title. (2) Within the D-3, D-4, or G-MU zoning districts, above-ground parking facilities shall be located behind principal buildings, or at least seventy-five feet (75’) from front and corner side lot lines, and shall be landscaped to minimize visual impacts. b. Mid-Block Areas: (1) Within the D-1 zoning district, above-ground parking facilities shall be located behind the front line of principal buildings or shall be located at least seventy- five feet (75’) from front and corner side lot lines. Parking lots proposed as a principal use to facilitate a building demolition are prohibited. (2) Within the D-3, D-4, or G-MU zoning districts, parking facilities shall be located behind principal buildings, or at least thirty feet (30’) from front and corner side lot lines. (3) Parking garages shall meet the following: a. Retail goods/service establishments, offices and/or restaurants shall be provided on the first floor adjacent to the front or corner side lot line. The facades of such first floors shall be compatible and consistent with the associated retail or office portion of the building and other retail uses in the area. b. Levels of parking above the first level facing the front or corner side lot line shall have floors and/or facades that are horizontal, not sloped. c. Landscape Requirements: Surface parking lots, where allowed shall have a 99 minimum landscaped setback of fifteen feet (15’) and shall meet interior parking lot landscaping requirements as outlined in Chapter 21A.48, “Landscaping and Buffers”. 2. TSA Transit Station Area District: New uses and development or redevelopment within the TSA Transit Station Area District shall comply with the following standards. a. Surface Parking on Corner Properties: On corner properties, surface parking lots shall be located behind principal buildings or at least sixty feet (60’) from the intersection of the front and corner side lot lines. b. Surface Parking in the Core Area: Surface parking lots in the core area are required to be located behind or to the side of the principal building. (1) When located to the side of a building, the parking lot shall be: (a) Set back a minimum of thirty feet (30’) from a property line adjacent to a public street. The area between the parking lot and the property line adjacent to a public street shall be landscaped or activated with outdoor dining, plazas, or similar features; (b) Screened with a landscaped hedge or wall that is at least thirty-six inches (36”) above grade and no taller than forty-two inches (42”) above grade. Landscaping berms are not permitted; and (c) No wider than what is required for two (2) rows of parking and one (1) drive aisle as provided in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. (2) Unless a second driveway is necessary to comply with the fire code, a maximum of one (1) driveway and drive aisle shall be permitted per street frontage. The access point shall be located a minimum of one hundred feet (100’) from the intersection of the front and corner side lot lines. If the front or corner side lot line is less than one hundred feet (100’) in length, then the edge of the drive approach shall be located within twenty feet (20’) of the side or rear property line. c. Surface Parking In the Transition Area: (1) Surface parking lots in the transition area are required to be located behind the principal building or to the side of a principal building. (2) When located to the side of a principal building, the parking lot shall be: (a) Set back so that no portion of the parking area (other than the driveway) shall be closer to the street than the front wall setback of the building. In cases where the front wall of the building is located within five feet (5’) of 100 a property line adjacent to a street, the parking lot shall be set back a minimum of eight feet (8’). The space between the parking lot and the property line adjacent to a street shall be landscaped or activated with outdoor dining, plazas, or similar features; and (b) Screened with a landscaped hedge or wall that is at least thirty-six inches (36”) above grade and no taller than forty-two inches (42”) above grade. Landscaped berms are not permitted. C. Recreational Vehicle Parking: 1. Generally: a. Recreational vehicle parking spaces shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, required off street vehicle parking spaces. b. Recreational vehicles shall not be used for storage of goods, materials, or equipment other than those that are customarily associated with the recreational vehicle. c. All recreational vehicles shall be stored in a safe and secure manner. Any tie downs, tarpaulins, or ropes shall be secured from flapping in windy conditions. d. Recreational vehicles shall not be occupied as a dwelling while parked on the property. e. Recreational vehicle parking is permitted in any enclosed structure conforming to building code and zoning requirements for the zoning district in which it is located. f. Recreational vehicle parking outside of an approved enclosed structure shall be permitted for each residence and shall be limited to one motor home or travel trailer and a total of two (2) recreational vehicles of any type. g. Recreational vehicle parking outside of an enclosed structure shall comply with the standards in this section. 2. Front Yard Parking: Recreational vehicle parking is prohibited in any required or provided front yard. 3. Rear Yard Parking: Recreational vehicles may be parked in the rear yard when they are on a hard surfaced pad compliant with surfacing standards in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual and with access provided by either a hard surfaced driveway, hard surfaced drive strips or an access drive constructed of turf block materials with an irrigation system. 101 4. Side Yard Parking: Recreational vehicle parking in side yards shall be allowed only when topographical factors, the existence of mature trees, or the existence of properly permitted and constructed structures prohibit access to the rear yard. The existence of a fence or other structure that is not part of a building shall not constitute a lack of rear yard access. Any recreational vehicle parking area in a side yard shall: a. Be on a hard surface compliant with the Off Street Parking Standards Manual; b. Be accessed via a driveway compliant with driveway standards of this chapter; c. Not obstruct access to other required parking for the use. 21A.44.070: OFF STREET LOADING AREAS: A. Number and Size of Loading Areas Required: 1. Unless otherwise specified, a required off street loading berth shall be at least ten feet (10’) in width by at least thirty-five feet (35’) in length for short berths, and twelve feet (12’) in width by at least fifty feet (50’) in length for long berths, exclusive of aisle and maneuvering space. Maneuvering aprons of appropriate width and orientation shall be provided and shall be subject to approval by the transportation director. 2. All loading areas shall have a vertical clearance of at least fourteen feet (14’). 3. Off street loading facilities for new developments or for expansion of an existing development shall be provided at the rate specified for a particular use, or if multiple uses, at the rate of the uses combined, in Table 21A.44.070-A, “Off Street Loading Requirements”. Regardless of the combination of uses, all buildings with a gross floor area over 50,000 square feet shall have a minimum of 1 short berth. TABLE 21A.44.070-A: OFF STREET LOADING REQUIREMENTS: Use Gross Floor Area (Square Feet) Number and Size of Berths Hotels, Institutions, and Institutional Living 50,000 - 100,000 1 short Each additional 100,000 1 short 50,000 - 100,000 1 short 102 Office/Commercial Each additional 100,000 up to 500,000 1 short Retail 50,000 - 100,000 1 long Each additional 100,000 1 long Industrial 25,001 - 50,000 1 long 50,001 - 100,000 2 long Each additional 100,000 1 long Multi- Family Residential # of Dwelling Units (Per Building) Number and Size of Berths 40-150 1 short 151-300 2 short Greater than 300 1 additional short per 200 units B. Location and Design of Loading Areas: 1. All required loading berths shall be located on the same development site as the use(s) served. 2. No loading berth shall be located within thirty feet (30’) of the nearest point of intersection of any two (2) streets. 3. No loading berth shall be located in a required front yard. 4. Each required loading berth shall be located and designed to: a. Allow all required vehicle maneuvering and backing movements on-site; b. Minimize conflicts with pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic movement or encroachments into any pedestrian walkway, bicycle lane, public right-of-way, and fire lane; and c. Avoid the need to back into a public street while leaving the site to the maximum extent practicable, as determined by the planning director and the transportation director. 103 5. Landscaping and screening of all loading berths shall be provided to comply with the requirements of Chapter 21A.48, “Landscaping and Buffers”. 6. Where a loading berth is illuminated, the light source shall be shielded so that the light source is not directly visible from any abutting property or abutting private or public street. 7. All signs in loading areas shall comply with Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, and applicable provisions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 8. All required loading berths shall comply with the surfacing standards of the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 21A.44.080: DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES AND VEHICLE STACKING AREAS: A. Number of Stacking Spaces Required: The following standards apply for all uses with vehicle stacking and/or drive-through facilities. 1. All uses with drive-through facilities shall provide the minimum number of on-site stacking spaces indicated in Table 21A.44.080-A, “Required Vehicle Stacking Spaces”. TABLE 21A.44.080-A: REQUIRED VEHICLE STACKING SPACES: Use General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R-MU-35, R-MU-45, SR- 3, FB-UN1, FB- SE D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1, CSHBD2 D-1, D-3, D-4, G-MU, TSA- C, UI, FB- UN2, FB- UN3, FB-SC, R-MU Car Wash, Self-Service 3 spaces per bay or stall 2 spaces per bay or stall Car Wash, Automated 4 spaces per lane or stall 3 spaces per lane or stall Food and Beverage Service Uses 5 spaces per service lane 4 spaces per service lane Other Uses 3 spaces per service lane 3 spaces per service lane 104 B. Location and Design of Drive-Through Facilities: 1. In zoning districts where uses with drive-through facilities are allowed and where no front or corner side yard setback is required, the drive-through lanes shall not be located between the front or corner side lot line and any walls of the principal building. 2. Drive-through lanes shall be arranged to avoid conflicts with site access points, access to parking or loading spaces, and internal circulation routes, to the maximum extent practicable. 3. In the General Context zoning districts, a by-pass lane, driveway, or other circulation area around a drive-through facility stacking lane shall be provided for all uses other than automated car washes. financial institutions and restaurant/retail uses. 4. All required stacking spaces shall measure nine (9) feet by twenty (20) feet and shall be counted from the point of service, or final service window. 5. Air quality: Drive through facilities shall post idle-free signs pursuant to Chapter 12.58 of this code. 6. When a drive through use adjoins any residential use or any residential zoning district, a minimum six foot (6’) high masonry wall shall be erected and maintained along such property line. 7. Drive through facility will not result in adverse impacts upon the vicinity after giving consideration to the hours of operation, noise and light generation, traffic circulation, and the site plan. 21A.44.090: MODIFICATIONS TO PARKING AREAS: Applicants requesting development permits or approvals may request adjustments to the standards and requirements in this Chapter 21A.44, “Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading“, and the city may approve adjustments to those standards, as described below. A. Administrative Modifications: The planning director or transportation director may approve the following types of modifications without requiring approval of a special exception, provided that the director determines that the adjustment will not create adverse impacts on pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle safety and that the adjustment is required to accommodate an unusual site feature (such as shape, topography, utilities, or access point constraints) and that the need for the adjustment has not been created by the actions of the applicant. 105 1. Modification to dimensions or geometries of parking, loading, or stacking space, aisles, or maneuvering areas otherwise required by this chapter, other city regulations, or the Off Street Parking Standards Manual; provided that those modifications are consistent with federal and state laws regarding persons with disabilities, including but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act. 2. Modifications to bicycle parking or loading berth location or design standards. B. Special Exceptions: The following types of exceptions may be approved through the Special Exception process in Section 21A.52.040, provided that the application meets the criteria for approval of a Special Exception in Section 21A.52.060 in addition to the standards provided in this section. 1. Exceptions Permitted: a. Front Yard Parking Exception: For any zoning district, if front yard parking is prohibited in Table 21A.44.060-A, “Parking Location and Setback Requirements”, it may be allowed if all of the following conditions are met: (1) The rear or side yards cannot be reasonably accessed by vehicles, specifically: (a) Clearance for a driveway could not be provided in the side yard on either side of the building that is free from obstructions that cannot reasonably be avoided, such as utilities, window-wells, a specimen tree, a direct elevation change of three feet (3’) or greater, or retaining walls three feet (3’) high or greater; and (b) There is not a right-of-way or alley adjacent to the property with established rights for access, where: a. The travel distance to the property line is less than one hundred feet (100’) from an improved street and the right-of-way or alley has at least a minimum twelve foot (12’) clearance that is, or could be paved; or b. The travel distance to the property line is more than one hundred feet (100’) from an improved street and the right-of- way or alley has an existing minimum twelve foot (12’) wide paved surface. (2) It is not feasible to build an attached garage that conforms to yard area and setback requirements; (3) Parking is limited to an area that is surfaced in compliance with the Off 106 Street Parking Standards Manual; (4) The parking area is limited to nine feet (9’) wide by twenty feet (20’) deep; (5) Vehicles using the parking area will not project across any sidewalk or into the public right-of-way; and (6) Parking is restricted to passenger vehicles only. b. Vehicle and Equipment Storage Surfacing Exception: Vehicle and equipment storage without hard surfacing may be permitted in the CG, M- 1, M-2 and EI zoning districts provided that: (1) The lot is used for long-term vehicle storage, not for regular parking and/or maneuvering; (2) The vehicles or equipment stored are large and/or are built on tracks that could destroy normal hard surfacing; (3) The parking surface is compacted with six inches (6”) of road base and other semi-hard material with long lasting dust control chemical applied annually; (4) A hard-surfaced cleaning station is installed to prevent tracking of mud and sand onto the public right-of-way; and (5) Any vehicles or equipment that contain oil are stored with pans, drains, or other means to ensure that any leaking oil will not enter the soil. 21A.44.100: USE AND MAINTENANCE: A. Use of Parking Areas: Except as otherwise provided in this section, required off street parking facilities provided for uses listed in Table 21A.44.040-A, “Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking” shall be solely for the parking of automobiles or authorized temporary uses. B. Maintenance: 1. Space allocated to any off street loading berth or related access or maneuvering area shall not be used to satisfy the parking space requirements for any off street parking. 2. Except in the M-1, M-2, CG, and D districts, no cleaning or maintenance of loading areas using motorized equipment may be performed between ten 107 o’clock (10:00) P.M. and seven o’clock (7:00) A.M. each day, except for snow removal. 21A.44.110: NONCONFORMING PARKING AND LOADING FACILITIES: Nonconforming parking and loading facilities shall be subject to the standards established in Chapter 21A.38, “Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures”, and the criteria established in this section. A. Continuation of Nonconforming Parking and Loading Facilities: Any parking spaces, loading facilities, or access to public rights-of-way that were lawfully existing or created prior to the effective date of this ordinance, but that have since become nonconforming with the provisions of this chapter through the actions of the city or any governmental entity, shall be allowed to continue, but any expansion of the use or structure, or change of use, after the adoption date of this ordinance shall comply with the provisions of this Chapter 21A.44, “Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading“. B. Nonconformity Due to Governmental Acquisition: Where a lot, tract, or parcel is occupied by a lawful structure or use, and where the acquisition of right-of-way by eminent domain, dedication, or purchase by a city, county, state, or federal agency creates noncompliance of the parking, loading, or drive-through facilities with any requirement of this chapter, the parking, loading, or drive-through facility shall be deemed lawful and conforming. This designation shall apply only to noncompliance resulting directly from the acquisition of right-of-way. C. Damage or Destruction: Reconstruction, reestablishment, or repair of any nonconforming parking, loading, or drive- through area involuntarily damaged or destroyed by fire, collapse, explosion or other natural cause is not required to comply with the standards of this chapter. The parking and loading facilities may be restored or continued as they existed prior to the damage or destruction, or in a manner that reduces any nonconformity that existed prior to the damage or destruction. D. Legalization of Garages Converted to Residential Use: Garages attached to single-family and two-family residential structures converted to residential uses before April 12, 1995, and any associated front yard parking, may be legalized by complying with the following requirements: 1. The property owner shall obtain a building permit for all building modifications associated with converting the garage to residential use and the city shall inspect the conversion for substantial compliance with adopted life safety regulations. 2. The driveway leading to the converted garage shall not be removed without 108 replacing the same number of parking spaces (up to the minimum required by this chapter) in a location authorized by this chapter. 3. Parking on the driveway in the front yard is restricted to passenger vehicles only. SECTION 24. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.52.030. That Section 21A.52.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Special Exceptions: Special Exceptions Authorized) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.52.030: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AUTHORIZED: A. In addition to any other special exceptions authorized elsewhere in this title, the following special exceptions are authorized under the provisions of this title: 1. Accessory building height, including wall height, in excess of the permitted height provided: a. The extra height is for architectural purposes only, such as a steep roof to match existing primary structure or neighborhood character. b. The extra height is to be used for storage of household goods or truss webbing and not to create a second level. c. No windows are located in the roof or on the second level unless it is a design feature only. d. No commercial use is made of the structure or residential use unless it complies with the accessory dwelling unit regulations in this title. 2. Accessory structures in the front yard of double frontage lots, which do not have any rear yard provided: a. The required sight visibility triangle shall be maintained at all times. b. The structure meets all other size and height limits governed by the zoning ordinance. 3. Additional height for fences, walls or similar structures may be granted to exceed the height limits established for fences and walls in Chapter 21A.40 of this title if it is determined that there will be no negative impacts upon the established character of the affected neighborhood and streetscape, maintenance of public and private views, and matters of public safety. Approval of fences, walls and other similar structures 109 may be granted under the following circumstances subject to compliance with other applicable requirements: a. Exceeding the allowable height limits; provided, that the fence, wall or structure is constructed of wrought iron, tubular steel or other similar material, and that the open, spatial and nonstructural area of the fence, wall or other similar structure constitutes at least eighty percent (80%) of its total area; b. Exceeding the allowable height limits on any corner lot; unless the city’s traffic engineer determines that permitting the additional height would cause an unsafe traffic condition; c. Incorporation of ornamental features or architectural embellishments which extend above the allowable height limits; d. Exceeding the allowable height limits, when erected around schools and approved recreational uses which require special height considerations; e. Exceeding the allowable height limits, in cases where it is determined that a negative impact occurs because of levels of noise, pollution, light or other encroachments on the rights to privacy, safety, security and aesthetics; f. Keeping within the character of the neighborhood and urban design of the city; g. Avoiding a walled-in effect in the front yard of any property in a residential district where the clear character of the neighborhood in front yard areas is one of open spaces from property to property; or h. Posing a safety hazard when there is a driveway on the petitioner’s property or neighbor’s property adjacent to the proposed fence, wall or similar structure. 4. Additional building height in commercial districts are subject to the standards in Chapter 21A.26 of this title. 5. Additional foothills building height, including wall height, shall comply with the standards in Chapter 21A.24 of this title. 6. Additional residential building height, including wall height, in the R-1 districts, R-2 districts and SR districts shall comply with the standards in Chapter 21A.24 of this title. 7. Barbed wire fences may be approved subject to the regulations of Chapter 21A.40 of this title. 8. Conditional home occupations subject to the regulations and conditions of Chapter 21A.36 of this title. 110 9. Dividing existing lots containing two (2) or more separate residential structures into separate lots that would not meet lot size, frontage width or setbacks provided: a. The residential structures for the proposed lot split already exist and were constructed legally. b. The planning director agrees and is willing to approve a subdivision application. c. Required parking equal to the parking requirement that existed at the time that each dwelling unit was constructed. 10. Use of the front yard for required parking when the rear or side yards cannot be accessed and it is not feasible to build an attached garage that conforms to yard area and setback requirements, subject to the standards found in Chapter 21A.44 of this title. 11. Grade changes and retaining walls are subject to the regulations and standards of Chapter 21A.36 of this title. 12. Ground mounted central air conditioning compressors or systems, heating, ventilating, pool and filtering equipment located in required side and rear yards within four feet (4’) of the property line. The mechanical equipment shall comply with applicable Salt Lake County Health Department noise standards. 13. Hobby shop, art studio, exercise room or a dressing room adjacent to a swimming pool, or other similar uses in an accessory structure, subject to the following conditions: a. The height of the accessory structure shall not exceed the height limit established by the underlying zoning district unless a special exception allowing additional height is allowed. b. If an accessory building is located within ten feet (10’) of a property line, no windows shall be allowed in the walls adjacent to the property lines. c. If the accessory building is detached, it must be located in the rear yard. d. The total covered area for an accessory building shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the building footprint of the principal structure, subject to all accessory building size limitations. 14. In line additions to existing residential or commercial buildings, which are noncomplying as to yard area or height regulations provided: a. The addition follows the existing building line and does not create any new noncompliance. 111 b. No additional dwelling units are added to the structure. c. The addition is a legitimate architectural addition with rooflines and exterior materials designed to be compatible with the original structure. 15. Operation of registered home daycare or registered home preschool facility in residential districts subject to the standards of Chapter 21A.36 of this title. 16. Outdoor dining in required front, rear and side yards subject to the regulations and standards of Chapter 21A.40 of this title. 17. Razor wire fencing may be approved subject to the regulations and standards in Chapter 21A.40 of this title. 18. Replacement or reconstruction of any existing noncomplying segment of a residential or commercial structure or full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure provided: a. The owner documents that the new construction does not encroach farther into any required rear yard than the structure being replaced. b. The addition or replacement is compatible in design, size and architectural style with the remaining or previous structure. 19. Underground building encroachments into the front, side, rear and corner side yard setbacks provided the addition is totally underground and there is no visual evidence that such an encroachment exists. 20. Window mounted refrigerated air conditioner and evaporative swamp coolers located in required front, corner, side and rear yards within two feet (2’) of a property line shall comply with applicable Salt Lake County Health Department noise standards. 21. Vehicle and equipment storage without hard surfacing in the CG, M-1, M-2 or EI districts, subject to the standards in Chapter 21A.44 of this title. 22. Ground mounted utility boxes may be approved subject to the regulations and standards of Section 21A.40.160 of this title. 23. Legalization of excess dwelling units may be granted subject to the following requirements and standards: a. Purpose: The purpose of this subsection is to implement the existing Salt Lake City community housing plan. This plan emphasizes maintaining existing housing stock in a safe manner that contributes to the vitality and sustainability of neighborhoods within the city. This subsection provides a process that gives owners of property with one or more excess dwelling units not recognized by the 112 city an opportunity to legalize such units based on the standards set forth in this subsection. b. Review Standards: A dwelling unit that is proposed to be legalized pursuant to this subsection shall comply with the following standards. (1) The dwelling unit existed prior to April 12, 1995. In order to determine whether a dwelling unit was in existence prior to April 12, 1995, the unit owner shall provide documentation thereof which may include any of the following: (A) Copies of lease or rental agreements, lease or rent payments, or other similar documentation showing a transaction between the unit owner and tenants; (B) Evidence indicating that prior to April 12, 1995, the city issued a building permit, business license, zoning certificate, or other permit relating to the dwelling unit in question; (C) Utility records indicating existence of a dwelling unit; (D) Historic surveys recognized by the planning director as being performed by a trained professional in historic preservation; (E) Notarized affidavits from a previous owner, tenant, or neighbor; (F) Polk, Cole, or phone directories that indicate existence of the dwelling unit (but not necessarily that the unit was occupied); and (G) Any other documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record which indicates the existence of the excess unit prior to April 12, 1995. (2) The excess unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit since April 12, 1995. In order to determine if a unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit, the following may be considered: (A) Evidence listed in Subsection A.24.b(1) of this section indicates that the unit has been occupied at least once every five (5) calendar years; (B) Evidence that the unit was marketed for occupancy if the unit was unoccupied for more than five (5) consecutive years; (C) If evidence of maintaining a separate dwelling unit as required by Subsections A.24.b(2)(A) and A.24.b(2)(B) of this section cannot be established, documentation of construction upgrades may be provided in lieu thereof. 113 (D) Any documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record which provides evidence that the unit was referenced as a separate dwelling unit at least once every five (5) years. (3) The property where the dwelling unit is located: (A) Can accommodate on site parking as required by this title, or (B) Is located within a one-fourth (1/4) mile radius of a fixed rail transit stop or bus stop in service at the time of legalization. (4) Any active zoning violations occurring on the property must be resolved except for those related to excess units. c. Conditions of Approval: Any approved unit legalization shall be subject to the following conditions: (1) The unit owner shall apply for a business license, when required, within fourteen (14) days of special exception approval. (2) The unit owner shall allow the city’s building official or designee to inspect the dwelling unit to determine whether the unit substantially complies with basic life safety requirements as provided in Title 18, Chapter 18.50, “Existing Residential Housing”, of this code. Such inspection shall occur within ninety (90) days of special exception approval or as mutually agreed by the unit owner and the city. (3) All required corrections indicated during the inspection process must be completed within one year unless granted an extension by the zoning administrator. d. Application: In addition to the application requirements in this chapter, an applicant shall submit documentation showing compliance with the standards set forth in Subsection A.24.b of this section. 24. Designation, modification, relocation, or reinstatement of a vintage sign as per Chapter 21A.46 of this title. 25. Additional height for sports related light poles such as light poles for ballparks, stadiums, soccer fields, golf driving ranges and sport fields or where sports lights are located closer than thirty feet (30’) from adjacent residential structures. 114 SECTION 25. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.60.020: LIST OF DEFINED TERMS: A-frame sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Abutting. Access taper. Accessory building or structure. Accessory lot. Accessory structure. Accessory use. Accessory use (on accessory lot). Adaptive reuse of a landmark building. Administrative decision. Agricultural use. Air circulation system. See Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Airport. See also Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Airport elevation. See Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Airport hazard. See Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Airport master plan. See Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Airport reference point. See Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Alcohol, bar establishment. Alcohol, bar establishment (indoor). Alcohol, bar establishment (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area). See Alcohol, bar establishment. Alcohol, bar establishment (outdoor). Alcohol, bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less in floor area). See Alcohol, bar establishment. Alcohol, brewpub. Alcohol, brewpub (indoor). Alcohol, brewpub (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area). See Alcohol, brewpub. Alcohol, brewpub (outdoor). Alcohol, brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor area). See Alcohol, brewpub. Alcohol, distillery. Alcohol, liquor store. Alcohol related establishment. Alcohol, tavern. Alcohol, tavern (indoor). Alcohol, tavern (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area). See Alcohol, tavern. Alcohol, tavern (outdoor). Alcohol, tavern (2,500 square feet or less in floor area). See Alcohol, tavern. Alcohol, winery. 115 Alley. Alteration. Alteration, sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Alternative parking property. Ambulance service. Ambulance service (indoor). Ambulance service (outdoor). Amphitheater, formal. Amphitheater, informal. Amusement park. Ancillary mechanical equipment. Animal, cremation service. Animal, kennel. Animal, kennel on lots of five acres or larger. Animal, pet cemetery. Animal, pound. Animal, raising of furbearing animals. Animal rendering. Animal, stable (private). Animal, stable (public). Animal, stockyard. Animal, veterinary office. Animated sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Antenna. Antenna, communication tower. Antenna, communication tower, exceeding the maximum building height in the zone. See Antenna, communication tower. Antenna, low power radio service. Antenna, low power radio service - monopole with antennas and antenna support structures greater than two feet in width. Antenna, low power radio service - monopole with antennas and antenna support structures less than two feet in width. Antenna, roof mounted. Antenna, satellite dish. Antenna, stealth. Antenna, TV. Antenna, wall mounted. Antenna, whip. Apartment. Appeals Hearing Officer. Aquatic resource. Arcade. Architecturally incompatible. Art gallery. Artisan food production. Artists’ loft/studio. 116 Auction (indoor). Auction (outdoor). Auditorium. Automatic amusement device. Automobile. Awning. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Awning sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. BMP. Backflow preventer. Backlit awning sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Bakery, commercial. Balloon. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Banner, public event. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Banner, secured. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Banner, unsecured. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Base zoning district. Basement. Bed and breakfast. Bed and breakfast inn. Bed and breakfast manor. Bench sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Best Management Practice (BMP) (applies only to Chapter 21A.48 of this title). Billboard. See Subsection 21A.46.160.B of this title. Billboard bank. See Subsection 21A.46.160.B of this title. Billboard credit. See Subsection 21A.46.160.B of this title. Billboard (outdoor advertising sign). See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Billboard owner. See Subsection 21A.46.160.B of this title. Biodetention. Blacksmith shop. Block. Block corner. Block face. Blood donation center. Boarding house. Botanical garden. Bottling plant. Brewery. Buffer yard. Buildable area. Building. Building, accessory. Building connection. Building coverage. Building face. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Building, front line of. 117 Building height - in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, FP, R-1/5,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/12,000, R-2, SR-1 and SR-3 Districts. Building height - outside FR, FP, R-1, R-2 and SR Districts. Building line. Building materials distribution. Building official. Building or house numbers sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Building plaque sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Building, principal. Building, public. Building security sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Building sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Bulk. Bulk material storage. Bus line station/terminal. Bus line yard and repair facility. Business. Business, mobile. Business park. Caliper. See Subsection 21A.48.135.D of this title. Canopy. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Canopy, drive-through. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Canopy, drive-through, sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Canopy sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Car pool. Carshare. Car wash. Car wash as accessory use to gas station or convenience store that sells gas. Carpet cleaning. Carport. Cemetery. Certificate of appropriateness. Certificate of occupancy. Certificate, zoning. Change of use. Character Conservation District feasibility study. Character defining features. Charity dining hall. Check cashing/payday loan business. Chemical manufacturing and storage. City Council. City Forester. Clearance (of a sign). See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Clinic (medical/dental). Cold frame. Commercial Districts. 118 Commercial food preparation. Commercial service establishment. Commercial vehicle. Commercial video arcade. Common areas, space and facilities. Communication tower. Community correctional facility. Community correctional facility, large. Community correctional facility, small. Community garden. Community recreation center. Compatibility. Compatible design. Compatible land use. Complete demolition. Composting. Concept development plan. Concrete and/or asphalt manufacturing. Conditional use. Condominium - condominium project and condominium unit. Condominium Ownership Act of 1975. See title 20, cChapter 20.56 of this Code. Condominium Ownership Act of 1975 or Act. Condominium unit. Consensus. Construction period. Construction sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Contractor’s yard/office. Convent/monastery. Convention center. Conversion. Corner building. Corner lot. Corner side yard. Crematorium. Critical root zone. dbh. See Subsection 21A.48.135.D of this title. Daycare. Daycare center, adult. Daycare center, child. Daycare, nonregistered home. Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool. Decibel. Dental laboratory/research facility. Design capacity. Design review. Development. 119 Development entry sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Development pattern. Diameter at breast height. See Subsection 21A.48.135.D of this title. Directional or informational sign (private). See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Directory sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Disabled. District plan and design standards. Dormer. Drive-through facility. Drop forge industry. Dwell time. See Subsection 21A.46.160.B of this title. Dwelling. Dwelling, accessory guest and servants’ quarters. Dwelling, accessory unit. Dwelling, assisted living facility (large). Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity). Dwelling, assisted living facility (small). Dwelling, fraternity, sorority. Dwelling, group home (large). Dwelling, group home (small). Dwelling, group home (small), when located above or below first story office, retail, or commercial use, or on the first story where the unit is not located adjacent to street frontage. See Dwelling, group home (small). Dwelling, living quarters for caretaker or security guard. Dwelling, living quarters for caretaker or security guard, limited to uses on lots one acre in size or larger and accessory to a principal use allowed by the zoning district. See Dwelling, living quarters for caretaker or security guard. Dwelling, manufactured home. Dwelling, mobile home. Dwelling, modular home. Dwelling, multi-family. Dwelling, residential support (large). Dwelling, residential support (small). Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house. Dwelling, single-family. Dwelling, single-family attached. Dwelling, single room occupancy. Dwelling, twin home and two-family. Dwelling, two-family. Dwelling unit. ET or ETo. ETAF. Ecological restoration project. Electronic billboard. See Subsection 21A.46.160.B of this title. Electronic changeable copy sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Electronic sign. See Subsection 21A.46.160.B of this title. 120 Eleemosynary facility. Elevation area. Elevation area, first floor. Emergency medical service facility. End of life care. Equipment rental (indoor and/or outdoor). Equipment rental, sales, and service, heavy. Evapotranspiration (ET) rate. Evergreen. Excess dwelling units. Exhibition hall. Existing billboard. See Subsection 21A.46.160.B of this title. Existing/established subdivision. Explosive manufacturing and storage. Externally illuminated sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Extractive industry. FAA. See Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Fairground. Family. Farmers’ market. Fee schedule. Fence. Fence, electric security. Fence, opaque or solid. Fence, open. Financial institution. Financial institution, with drive-through facility. Fixed dimensional standards. Flag, corporate. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Flag lot. Flag, official. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Flag, pennant. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Flammable liquids or gases, heating fuel distribution and storage. Flat sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Flea market (indoor). Flea market (outdoor). Floor. Floor area, gross. Floor area, usable. Food processing. Foot-candle. See Subsection 21A.46.160.B of this title. Freestanding sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Front yard. See Yard, front. Fuel center. Fugitive dust. Funeral home or mortuary. 121 Garage. Garage, attached. Garage/yard sale sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Gas price sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Gas pump sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Gas station. Gateway. See Subsection 21A.46.160.B of this title. General Plan. Golf course. Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes. Government office. Government sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Governmental facility. Grade, established. Grade, finished. Grade, natural. Grain elevator. Greenhouse. Gross floor area. Ground cover. Guest. Hard surfaced. Hazardous waste processing or storage. Health and fitness facility. Health hazard. Heavy manufacturing. Height. See Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Height, exterior wall. Height (of a sign). See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Height, sign face. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Heliport. Heliport, accessory. See Heliport. Historic buildings or sites. Historic Landmark Commission. Historic site. Historical marker. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Home occupation. Homeless resource center. Homeless shelter. Hoop house. Hospice. Hospital, including accessory lodging facility. Hotel/motel. House museum in landmark site. Hunting club, duck. Hydrozones. 122 Illegal sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Illuminance. See Subsection 21A.46.160.B of this title. Impact mitigation report. Impact statement. Impound lot. Incinerator, medical waste/hazardous waste. Incompatible use. See Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Industrial assembly. Infill. Inland port. Inland port land use application. Inland port use. Institution. Interior side yard. Interior sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Intermodal transit passenger hub. Internally illuminated sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Interpretation. Interpretation, use. Irrigation audit. Jail. Jewelry fabrication. Kiosk. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Laboratory, medical, dental, optical. Laboratory, testing. Land use. Land Use Appeal Authority. Land use applicant. Land use application. Land Use Authority. Land use type (similar land use type). Landfill. Landfill, commercial. Landfill, construction debris. Landfill, end use plan. Landfill, Municipal. Landmark site. Landscape area. Landscape BMPs manual. Landscape buffer. Landscape plan. Landscape yard. Landscaping. Lattice tower. Laundry, commercial. Legal conforming. 123 Letter sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Library. Light manufacturing. Limousine service. Limousine service (large). Limousine service (small). Locally grown. Lodging house. Logo. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Lot. Lot area. Lot area, net. Lot assemblage. Lot, corner. Lot depth. Lot, flag. Lot, interior. Lot line, corner side. Lot line, front. Lot line, interior side. Lot line, rear. Lot width. Low volume irrigation. Major streets. Manufactured home. Manufactured/mobile home sales and service. Manufacturing, heavy. Manufacturing, light. Marquee. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Marquee sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Master plan. Maximum extent practicable. See Subsection 21A.48.135.D of this title. Meeting hall of membership organization. Memorial sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Mid block area. Mixed use development. Mobile food business. Mobile food court. Mobile food trailer. Mobile food truck. Monument sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Motel/hotel. Motion. See Subsection 21A.46.160.B of this title. Mulch. Municipal service uses, including City utility uses and police and fire stations. Museum. 124 Nameplate sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Natural open space. Natural resource. Neighborhood identification sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Neon public parking sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. New billboard. See Subsection 21A.46.160.B of this title. New construction. New development sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Noncomplying lot. Noncomplying structure. Nonconforming billboard. See Subsection 21A.46.160.B of this title. Nonconforming sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Nonconforming use. See also Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Nonconformity. Nonprecision instrument runway. See Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Nursing care facility. Oasis. Obstruction. Off premises sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Off-site. Off street parking. Office. Office, accessory use supporting an institutional use. Office and/or reception center in landmark site. Office, excluding medical and dental clinic and office. Office, publishing company. Office, research related. Office, single practitioner medical, dental, and health. On premises sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Open air mall. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Open space. Open space area. Open space on lots less than four acres in size. Outdoor advertising sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Outdoor dining. Outdoor television monitor. Overlay district. Overspray. Owner occupant. Package delivery facility. Paint manufacturing. Parcel. Park. Park and ride lot. Park banner sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Park strip. 125 Park strip landscaping. Parking, commercial. Parking facility, shared. Parking garage. Parking garage, automated. Parking, intensified reuse. Parking, leased. Parking, leased - alternative parking. Parking lot. Parking, off-site. Parking, shared. Parking space. Parking study. Parking study - alternative parking. Parking, tandem. Parking, unbundled. Patio. Pedestrian connection. Perennial. Performance standards. Performing arts production facility. Person. See also Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Persons with disabilities. Philanthropic use. Pitched roof. Place of worship. Place of worship on lot less than four acres in size. Planned development. Planning commission. Planning director. Planting season. Plaza. Pole sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Political sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Portable sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Poultry farm or processing plant. Precision instrument runway. See Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Premises. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Prepared food, takeout. Primary entrance. Primary surface. See Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Printing plant. Projecting building sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Projecting business storefront sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Projecting parking entry sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Public safety sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. 126 Public transportation, employer sponsored. Quality of life. Radio, television station. Railroad, freight terminal facility. Railroad, passenger station. Railroad, repair shop. Rainwater harvesting. Real estate sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Rear yard. Reception center. Record of survey map. Recreation (indoor). Recreation (outdoor). Recreation vehicle park. Recreational (playground) equipment. Recycling collection station. Recycling container. Recycling processing center (indoor). Recycling processing center (outdoor). Refinery, petroleum products. Relocatable office building. Research and development facility. Research facility, medical. Research facility, medical/dental. Residential districts. Residential structure. Restaurant. Restaurant, with drive-through facility. Restaurant, with or without drive-through facility. Retail goods establishment. Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area. Retail goods establishment, with drive-through facility. Retail goods establishment, with or without drive-through facility. Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal building. Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal building and operated primarily for the convenience of employees. Retail service establishment. Retail service establishment, electronic repair shop. Retail service establishment, furniture repair shop. Retail service establishment, upholstery shop. Retail service establishment, with drive-through facility. Retaining wall. Reuse water. Reverse vending machine. Rock, sand and gravel storage and distribution. Roof sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. 127 Runway. See Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Sales and display (outdoor). Salt Lake City landscape BMPs for water resource efficiency and protection. Salt Lake City plant list and hydrozone schedule. School, college or university. School, K - 12 private. School, K - 12 public. School, medical/nursing. School, music conservatory. School, professional and vocational. School, professional and vocational (with outdoor activities). School, professional and vocational (without outdoor activities). School, seminary and religious institute. Schools, public or private. Seasonal farm stand. Seasonal item sales. Setback. Sexually oriented business. Shopping center. Shopping center identification sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Shopping center pad site. Side yard. Sight distance triangle. Sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Sign face. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Sign face area. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Sign graphics. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Sign maintenance. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Sign master plan agreement. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Sign painting/fabrication. Sign painting/fabrication (indoor). Sign structure or support. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Single-family dwelling. Site development permit. Site plan. Sketch plan review. Slaughterhouse. Sludge. Small brewery. Smoke or smoking. Snipe sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Snow cone and shaved ice hut. Social service mission. Social service mission and charity dining hall. Soil amendment. Solar array. 128 Solar energy collection system, small. Sound attenuation. See Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Special event sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Special gateway. See Subsection 21A.46.160.B of this title. Special purpose districts. Specimen tree. See Subsection 21A.48.135.D of this title. Spot zoning. Stabilizing. Stable. Stadium. See also Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Storage, accessory (outdoor). Storage and display (outdoor). Storage (outdoor). Storage, public (outdoor). Storage, self. Store, convenience. Store, conventional department. Store, fashion oriented department. Store, mass merchandising. Store, pawnshop. Store, specialty. Store, specialty fashion department. Store, superstore and hypermarket. Store, warehouse club. Storefront. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Story (floor). Story, half. Street. Street frontage. Street trees. Streetscape. Structural alteration. Structural soil. Structure. See also Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Structure, accessory. Studio, art. Studio, motion picture. Subdivision. TV antenna. Taxicab facility. Temporarily irrigated area. Temporary embellishment. See Subsection 21A.46.160.B of this title. Temporary sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Temporary use. Theater, live performance. Theater, live performance or movie. 129 Theater, movie. Tier 2 water target. Tire distribution retail/wholesale. Transportation terminal, including bus, rail and trucking. Treasured landscape. Tree. See Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Tree protection fencing. See Subsection 21A.48.135.D of this title. Tree protection zone. See Subsection 21A.48.135.D of this title. Trellis. Truck freight terminal. Truck stop. Trucking, repair, storage, etc., associated with extractive industries. Turf. Twirl time. See Subsection 21A.46.160.B of this title. Two-family dwelling. Undevelopable area. Unique residential population. Unit. Unit legalization, implied permit. Unit legalization permit. Unit legalization, substantial compliance with Life and Safety Codes. Urban agriculture. Urban farm. Use, principal. Use, unique nonresidential. Used or occupied. Utility, building or structure. Utility, electric generation facility. Utility runway. See Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Utility, sewage treatment plant. Utility, solid waste transfer station. Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole. Vacant lot. Vanpool. Vanpool, employer sponsored. Variance. Vegetation. Vehicle. Vehicle, auction. Vehicle, automobile and truck repair. Vehicle, automobile and truck sales and rental (including large truck). Vehicle, automobile part sales. Vehicle, automobile rental agency. Vehicle, automobile repair, major. Vehicle, automobile repair, minor. Vehicle, automobile sales/rental and service. 130 Vehicle, automobile sales/rental and service (indoor). Vehicle, automobile salvage and recycling (indoor). Vehicle, automobile salvage and recycling (outdoor). Vehicle, boat/recreational vehicle sales and service. Vehicle, boat/recreational vehicle sales and service (indoor). Vehicle, electric. Vehicle, recreational. Vehicle, recreational vehicle (RV) sales and service. Vehicle, truck repair (large). Vehicle, truck sales and rental (large). Vehicular sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Vending cart. Vending machine sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Vertical clearance. Vintage sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Visible. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Visual runway. See Section 21A.34.040 of this title. Wall sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Warehouse. Warehouse, accessory. Warehouse, accessory to retail and wholesale business (maximum 5,000 square foot floor plate). Water body/waterway. Water budget. Water feature. Welding shop. Wholesale distribution. Wind energy system, large. Wind energy system, small. Window sign. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. Wireless telecommunications facility. Woodworking mill. Yard. Yard, corner side. Yard, front. Yard, interior side. Yard, rear. Yard, side. Zoning Administrator. Zoning districts. Zoning lot. Zoning map. Zoological park. 131 SECTION 26. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms), shall be and hereby is amended as follows: a. Amending the definition of “Automobile.” That the definition of “Automobile” shall be amended to read as follows: AUTOMOBILE: A self-propelled vehicle with wheels that can legally operate within a public right-of-way. The term includes but is not limited to passenger cars, light trucks, and recreational vehicles. b. Amending the definition of “Alternative parking property.” That the definition of “Alternative parking property” shall be amended to read as follows: ALTERNATIVE PARKING PROPERTY: The property for which an alternative parking requirement is proposed, pursuant to Section 21A.44.050 of this title. c. Amending the definition of “Biodetention.” That the definition of “Biodetention” shall be amended to read as follows: BIODETENTION: A low impact development term also sometimes called a rain garden, biofilter or porous landscape detention that achieves on-site retention of stormwater through the use of vegetated depressions engineered to collect, store, and facilitate runoff infiltration. d. Amending the definition of “Car pool.” That the definition of “Car pool” shall be amended to read as follows: CAR POOL: A group of two or more commuters, including the driver, who share the ride to and from work or other destination on a regularly scheduled basis. e. Adding the definition of “Carshare.” That Section 21A.62.040 shall be amended to add the definition of “Carshare”, which shall read as follows: CARSHARE: A membership-based model of car use where people rent or borrow cars for short periods of time, often by the hour. Vehicles may be made available 132 through private individuals, a property owner/manager, or commercial companies, but are managed through a facilitator. f. Amending the definition of “Change of use.” That the definition of “Change of use” shall be amended to read as follows: CHANGE OF USE: The replacement of an existing use by a new use, or a change in the nature of an existing. A change of ownership, tenancy, name or management, or a change in product or service within the same use classification where the previous nature of the use, line of business, or other function is substantially unchanged is not a change of use. The conversion of existing residential units to condominiums is not a change of use. g. Amending the definition of “Commercial vehicle.” That the definition of “Commercial vehicle” shall be amended to read as follows: COMMERCIAL VEHICLE: A vehicle associated with a business that exceeds one (1) ton capacity. This includes but is not limited to buses, dump trucks, stake body trucks, step vans, tow trucks and tractor trailers. Taxis and limousines shall also be considered commercial vehicles. h. Adding the definition of “Design capacity.” That Section 21A.62.040 shall be amended to add the definition of “Design capacity”, which shall read as follows: DESIGN CAPACITY: The maximum occupancy of a building or structure based on the fire and/or building code, whichever allows occupancy by a larger group of people. i. Amending the definition of “Development.” That the definition of “Development” shall be amended to read as follows: DEVELOPMENT: A. The carrying out of any building activity, the making of any material change in the use or appearance of any structure or land, or the dividing of land into parcels by any person. The following activities or uses shall be taken for the purposes of these regulations to involve “development”: 1. The construction of any principal building or structure; 133 2. Increase in the intensity of use of land, such as an increase in the number of dwelling units or an increase in nonresidential use intensity that requires additional parking; 3. Alteration of a shore or bank of a pond, river, stream, lake or other waterway; 4. Commencement of drilling (except to obtain soil samples), the driving of piles, or excavation on a parcel of land; 5. Demolition of a structure; 6. Clearing of land as an adjunct of construction, including clearing or removal of vegetation and including any significant disturbance of vegetation or soil manipulation; and 7. Deposit of refuse, solid or liquid waste, or fill on a parcel of land. B. The following operations or uses shall not be taken for the purpose of these regulations to involve “development”: 1. Work by a highway or road agency or railroad company for the maintenance of a road or railroad track, if the work is carried out on land within the boundaries of the right-of-way; 2. Utility installations as stated in sSubsection 21A.02.050.B of this title; 3. Landscaping for residential uses; and 4. Work involving the maintenance of existing landscaped areas and existing rights-of-way such as setbacks and other planting areas. j. Amending the definition of “Floor area, gross.” That the definition of “Floor area, gross” shall be amended to read as follows: FLOOR AREA, GROSS: A. For determining size of establishment, the sum of the gross horizontal area of all floors of the building measured from the exterior face of the exterior walls or from the centerline of walls separating two (2) buildings. The floor area of a building shall include basement floor area, penthouses, attic space having headroom of seven feet (7’) or more, interior balconies and mezzanines, enclosed porches, and floor area devoted to accessory uses. Space devoted to open air off street parking or loading shall not be included in floor area. 134 B. The floor area of structures devoted to bulk storage of materials including, but not limited to, grain elevators and petroleum storage tanks, shall be determined on the basis of height in feet (i.e., 10 feet in height shall equal 1 floor). k. Amending the definition of “Floor area, usable.” That the definition of “Floor area, usable” shall be amended to read as follows: FLOOR AREA, USABLE: For determining off street parking and loading requirements, the sum of the gross horizontal areas of all floors of the building, as measured from the outside of the exterior walls, devoted to the principal use, including accessory storage areas located within selling or working space such as counters, racks, or closets, and any floor area devoted to retailing activities, to the production or processing of goods or to business or professional offices. Floor area for the purposes of measurement for off street parking spaces shall not include: A. Floor area devoted primarily to mechanical equipment or unfinished storage areas; B. Floor area devoted to off street parking or loading facilities, including aisles, ramps, and maneuvering space. l. Amending the definition of “Garage.” That the definition of “Garage” shall be amended to read as follows: GARAGE: An accessory building or portion of a building designed or used for the storage of vehicles used by the occupants of the principle building. m. Amending the definition of “Garage, attached.” That the definition of “Garage, attached” shall be amended to read as follows: GARAGE, ATTACHED: A garage that has a roof or wall of which fifty percent (50%) or more is attached to and in common with a principal building. An attached garage shall be considered part of the principal building and shall be subject to all yard requirements of the principal building. n. Amending the definition of “Hard surfaced.” That the definition of “Hard surfaced” shall be amended to read as follows: 135 HARD SURFACED: A concrete, asphalt, brick, stone turf block, or other surface approved by the city engineer that is suitable for vehicle traffic. o. Amending the definition of “Off site.” That the definition of “Off site” shall be amended to read as follows: OFF-SITE: A lot that is separate from the lot on which the principal use is located. p. Amending the definition of “Off street parking.” That the definition of “Off street parking” shall be amended to read as follows: OFF STREET PARKING: A site or portion of a site devoted to the parking of automobiles in an area that is not a public or private street or other public right-of- way, including parking spaces, aisles, driveways, and associated landscaped areas. q. Amending the definition of “Outdoor dining.” That the definition of “Outdoor dining” shall be amended to read as follows: OUTDOOR DINING: A dining area with seats and/or table(s) located outdoors of a restaurant, brewpub, bar establishment, tavern, market, deli, or other retail sales establishment that sells food and/or drinks, and which is either: a) located entirely outside the walls of the building of the subject business, or b) enclosed on two (2) sides or less by the walls of the building with or without a solid roof cover, or c) enclosed on three (3) sides by the walls of the building without a solid roof cover. r. Adding the definition of “Park and ride lot.” That Section 21A.62.040 shall be amended to add the definition of “Park and ride lot”, which shall read as follows: PARK AND RIDE LOT: An area or structure intended to accommodate parked vehicles for the general public, where commuters park their vehicles and continue travel to another destination via public transit, carpool, vanpool, or bicycle. Parking lot may be shared with other uses or stand alone. s. Adding the definition of “Parking garage.” That Section 21A.62.040 shall be amended to add the definition of “Parking garage”, which shall read as follows: 136 PARKING GARAGE: A structure or part of a structure used primarily for the housing, parking, or storage of automobiles. t. Amending the definition of “Parking, intensified reuse.” That the definition of “Parking, intensified reuse” shall be amended to read as follows: PARKING, INTENSIFIED REUSE: “Intensified reuse parking” means the change of the use of a building or structure, the past or present use of which may or may not be legally nonconforming as to parking, to a use which would require a greater number of parking stalls available on site which would otherwise be required pursuant to Section 21A.44.040 of this title. Intensified parking reuse shall not include residential uses in residential zoning districts other than single room occupancy residential uses and unique residential populations. u. Amending the definition of “Parking, intensified reuse.” That the definition of “Parking, intensified reuse” shall be amended to read as follows: PARKING LOT: An area on the surface of the land used for the parking of more than four (4) automobiles. Areas designated for the display of new and used vehicles for sale are not included in this definition. v. Amending the definition of “Parking, off site” That the definition of “Parking, off site” shall be amended to read as follows: PARKING, OFF-SITE: An off-street parking area intended to serve one or more uses and that is located on a different parcel or lot than the use(s) it is intended to serve. w. Deleting the definition of “Parking, off site (to support nonconforming uses in a residential zone or uses in the CN or CB zones).” That Section 21A.62.040 shall be amended to delete the definition of “Parking, off site (to support nonconforming uses in a residential zone or uses in the CN or CB zones)”. x. Deleting the definition of “Parking, park and ride lot.” That Section 21A.62.040 shall be amended to delete the definition of “Parking, park and ride lot”. 137 y. Deleting the definition of “Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use.” That Section 21A.62.040 shall be amended to delete the definition of “Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use”. z. Amending the definition of “Parking, shared” That the definition of “Parking, shared” shall be amended to read as follows: PARKING, SHARED: Joint use of a parking lot or area for more than one principal use. aa. Amending the definition of “Parking space” That the definition of “Parking space” shall be amended to read as follows: PARKING SPACE: Space within a parking area of certain dimensions as defined in Chapter 21A.44 of this title, exclusive of access drives, aisles, ramps, columns, for the storage of one vehicle. bb. Amending the definition of “Parking study” That the definition of “Parking study” shall be amended to read as follows: PARKING STUDY: A study prepared by a licensed professional traffic engineer specifically addressing the parking demand generated by a use and which provides information necessary to determine whether proposed parking will have a material negative impact to adjacent or neighboring properties. cc. Amending the definition of “Parking, tandem” That the definition of “Parking, tandem” shall be amended to read as follows: PARKING, TANDEM: The in-line parking of one vehicle behind another in such a way that one parking space can only be accessed through another parking space. dd. Adding the definition of “Planning director.” That Section 21A.62.040 shall be amended to add the definition of “Planning director”, which shall read as follows: 138 PLANNING DIRECTOR: The director of the Salt Lake City Planning Division, or his/her designee. ee. Deleting the definition of “Planning official.” That Section 21A.62.040 shall be amended to delete the definition of “Planning official”. ff. Adding the definition of “Primary entrance.” That Section 21A.62.040 shall be amended to add the definition of “Primary entrance”, which shall read as follows: PRIMARY ENTRANCE: The entrance to a building, parcel, or development most used by the public for day-to-day ingress and egress. gg. Amending the definition of “Street” That the definition of “Street” shall be amended to read as follows: STREET: A vehicular way which may also serve for all or part of its width as a way for pedestrian traffic, whether called street, highway, thoroughfare, parkway, throughway, road, avenue, boulevard, lane, place, alley, mall or otherwise designated. hh. Amending the definition of “Vanpool” That the definition of “Vanpool” shall be amended to read as follows: VANPOOL: A group of seven (7) to fifteen (15) commuters, including the driver, who share the ride to and from work or other destination on a regularly scheduled basis. ii. Adding the definition of “Vehicle.” That Section 21A.62.040 shall be amended to add the definition of “Vehicle”, which shall read as follows: VEHICLE: A device by which any person or property may be transported upon a public highway except devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks or exclusively moved by human power. 139 jj. Amending the definition of “Vehicle, electric” That the definition of “Vehicle, electric” shall be amended to read as follows: VEHICLE, ELECTRIC: A device which is considered a vehicle that uses electricity as its primary source of power, such as a plug-in electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. An electric vehicle does not include devices that are moved by human power. kk. Adding the definition of “Vehicle, recreational.” That Section 21A.62.040 shall be amended to add the definition of “Vehicle, recreational”, which shall read as follows: VEHICLE, RECREATIONAL: Any motorized vehicle and/or associated non- motorized equipment used for camping, traveling, boating, or other leisure activities including, but not limited to campers, boats, travel trailers, motor homes, snow mobiles, wave runners, and other vehicles designed for traveling on water (motorized and non-motorized). Trailers used for transporting this type of vehicle are also included within this definition. SECTION 27. Replacing Illustration I in Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.050. That Section 21A.62.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Illustrations of Selected Definitions) shall be, and hereby is amended to replace Illustration I as follows: ILLUSTRATION I SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE 140 SECTION 28. 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 _______________________. 141 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 202_. Published: ______________. Ordinance amending parking regulations (final) APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney August 31, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. PLANNING COMMISSION A) AGENDA NOTICE B) STAFF REPORT C) AGENDA AND MINUTES D) STAFF PRESENTATION SLIDES E) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED 4. ORIGINAL PETITION 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PARKING CHAPTER PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2017-00753 21A.44- Off Street Parking, Mobility and Loading Zoning Text Amendments May 2017 Planning staff developed and released a Request for Proposal to re-write Chapter 21A.44, Off Street Parking, Mobility and Loading Chapter of the zoning ordinance Clarion Associates submitted the lone response to the request June 2017 Selection committee awarded contract to Clarion Associates. Committee represented the following divisions/departments: Planning, Transportation, Redevelopment Authority, and Housing and Neighborhood Development July 2017 Contract finalized, and project kickoff meeting held with Clarion Associates to discuss issues and goals September 2017 Mayor initiates the petition PLNPCM2017-00753 regarding Chapter 21A.44 amendment City’s Public Engagement Team conducts meeting with Clarion Associates and identified business and developer stakeholders to gather initial comments Collected comments from Bicycle Advisory Board at monthly meeting Internal meetings with the following divisions: Planning, Building Services, and Transportation divisions October 2017 Planning Commission briefing Business Advisory Board briefing November 2017 Public survey conducted online with results given to Clarion Associates for consideration December 2017 Public open house held at Liberty Senior Center February 2018 Draft chapter received from Clarion Associates March – April 2018 Draft chapter circulated to city departments for review and comment Department comments sent to Clarion for incorporation into a public draft May 2018 Clarion provided first public draft and met with external steering group June – Dec 2018 Project on hold due to changes in Planning staff, new project manager Jan – June 2019 Planning staff re-started work on the project and began public outreach with The Downtown Alliance and community council presentations June – July 2019 Draft chapter published on city’s website and emailed to more than 2,000 public contacts for review Planning staff conducted six public open houses to acquire public input - Main library (2) - Glendale library - Partners in the Park evening event - Sugar House fire station (2) September 2019 Planning staff held two work sessions with the Planning Commission (September 11 and September 25) January 2020 Public Hearing and Planning Commission recommendation for adoption 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2017-00753 Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading Ordinance - A request by former Mayor Jackie Biskupski to modify Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21A.44 Off-Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading. The overall goal of the project is to make the parking chapter more user friendly while still accomplishing related citywide goals related to economic development, sustainability, and land use. The proposed text amendments to the Off Street Parking Ordinance include: 1. Updated parking requirements to better reflect current market demand in the City based on community feedback and previous parking studies commissioned by the City and RDA; 2. Simplify confusing parking regulations that are difficult for property owners to understand and use significant staff resource to interpret and administer; 3. Address technical issues that have been identified through the day to day administration of the parking chapter; and 4. Establish a framework that allows for a parking ordinance that can be responsive to the changing dynamics of Salt Lake City’s development patterns. The amendment will affect chapter 21A.44 of the zoning ordinance. Related parking provisions of Title 21A.44 may also be amended as part of this petition. As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: Date #1 and Date #2 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location. **This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our website at https://www.slc.gov/council/ to learn how you can share your comments during the meeting. 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 Eric Daems at 801-535-7236 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at eric.daems@slcgov.com 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@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION A. Original Notice and Postmark December 30, 2019 3. PLANNING COMMISSION B. Staff Report January 8, 2020 PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS Staff Report TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Eric Daems, AICP, Principal Planner DATE: January 8th, 2020 RE: PLNPCM2017-00753- Off-Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading Ordinance Amendment ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT PROPERTY ADDRESS: City-Wide MASTER PLAN: Plan Salt Lake ZONING DISTRICTS: All REQUEST: A request by Mayor Jackie Biskupski to review and modify Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21A.44 Off- Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading. The overall goal of the project is to make the parking chapter more user friendly while still accomplishing related citywide goals related to economic development, sustainability, and land use. The proposed text amendments to the Off-Street Parking Ordinance include: 1.Updated parking requirements to better reflect current market demand in the City based on community feedback and previous parking studies commissioned by the City and RDA; 2.Simplify confusing parking regulations that are difficult for property owners to understand and use significant staff resource to interpret and administer; 3.Address technical issues that have been identified through the day to day administration of the parking chapter; and 4.Establish a framework that allows for a parking ordinance that can be responsive to the changing dynamics of Salt Lake City’s development patterns. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report and the factors to consider for zoning text amendments, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed zoning ordinance text amendments with the following condition: 1.Ordinance language be amended as necessary to ensure consistency with other code sections and references in the zoning ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: A.Petition Initiation B.Proposed Parking Ordinance Page 1 C.Off-Street Parking Manual D.Parking Context Map E.Analysis of Standards F.Master Plan Compatibility G.Public Process Timeline H.Public Comments I.City Department Comments BACKGROUND: As transportation and land uses change over time, the demand for parking changes. Cities frequently struggle to strike a balance between too much parking and inadequate parking. Parking requirements that are too high can waste land, increase development costs, lead to demolition of structures to meet parking requirements, increase stormwater runoff, compromise water quality, and discourage pedestrian activity. Parking requirements that are too low may lead to increased traffic congestion, difficulty leasing or selling property, and spillover parking onto adjacent residential streets. In June 2017, the Planning Division hired consulting firm Clarion and Associates to perform a comprehensive review and update of Chapter 21A.44 Off-Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading of the zoning ordinance. The provisions of this chapter determine the parking regulations in all areas of the City, but do not include regulations for on-street parking. The process included internal meetings with City divisions most closely involved with the parking chapter and a thorough public engagement plan that is outlined in Attachment G of this report. Following the completion of the work of the consultant, Planning Staff worked to address commentary received, finish the public engagement efforts, and to produce a fully revised parking ordinance. The proposed revisions are primarily located within Chapter 21A.44, but other sections of the zoning code related to parking are also proposed to be amended. Project Scope: This project updates the City’s regulations for off-street parking including: •Minimum and maximum number of parking stalls required/allowed •Permitted alternatives to off-street parking requirements •Parking lot design, access, and dimensional standards Purpose: Implement citywide goals related to economic development, sustainability, and land use including: •Create parking regulations that reflect current market demand in the City •Reinforce Salt Lake City as a place for people, not cars •Eliminate barriers to economic growth and affordable/sustainable housing •Allow for flexibility •Reduce auto dependency – encourage safe and efficient alternatives •Protect neighborhoods •Minimize visual impacts of parking (surface and structured) •Minimize pedestrian conflicts with vehicles •Be environmentally friendly (emissions, water quality, heat island) Page 2 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: General Comments The following sections introduce the proposed chapter 21A.44 and highlight significant changes. These changes are based on the cumulative feedback of the community and stakeholders, internal staff discussions, feedback from the Planning Commission, objectives identified in Salt Lake City’s various master plans, recommendations from project consultant Clarion & Associates, and industry best practices. The proposed ordinance is included in Attachment B. A version of the proposed ordinance which includes comprehensive footnotes documenting each proposed revision is available upon request from the Salt Lake City Planning department. 21A.44.010: Purpose This section outlines the objectives of the off-street parking chapter. The language has been updated from the previous ordinance to include the stated purpose of: A.Avoiding and mitigating traffic congestion and reducing the financial burden on taxpayer funded roadways; B.Providing necessary access for service and emergency vehicles; C.Providing for safe and convenient interaction between vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians; D.Providing flexible methods of responding to the transportation and access demands of various land uses in different areas of the city; E.Reducing storm water runoff, reducing heat island effect from large expanses of pavement, improving water quality, and minimizing dust pollution; F.Establishing context-sensitive parking standards to reflect the current and future built environment of neighborhoods; and G.Avoiding and mitigating the adverse visual and environmental impacts of large concentrations of exposed parking. 21A.44.020: Applicability This section establishes the thresholds and requirements for when developments are required to comply with the parking regulations. All new development is required to comply. Expansions The current standards require compliance with the parking regulations for any expansions – large or small. A low threshold tends to discourage small expansion projects as the cost to improve and/or expand the parking facilities may outweigh the benefits of expanding the building or use. The proposed expansion threshold would require expansions (and cumulative expansions over a two-year period) that are larger than 25 percent of usable floor area to come into compliance with the parking regulations. Expansions less than 25 percent would not be required to comply with the proposed provisions. Developments would also be required to comply with the addition of one or more dwelling units, and the addition to or expansion of one or more structures that require conditional use permit approval. Change of Use This section proposes significant changes to the applicability thresholds for when a property changes from one type of land use to another. The current zoning code exempts development in the D-1, D-2, and D-3 zoning districts from needing to provide additional parking as a result of a change of use. To allow for broader flexibility and to encourage infill development and redevelopment, this exemption has been expanded to include all developments within the Urban Center Context and Transit Context areas. Page 3 Any change of use outside of the Urban Center Context area or Transit Center Context area that would require an increase in the minimum number of off-street parking spaces by 10 or more spaces or by 25 percent or more spaces, would be required to provide additional parking in compliance with the parking regulations. Older buildings (built prior to 1944) would not require additional parking to be provided for changes in use. This provision is intended to encourage adaptive reuse of older buildings. Exemptions from Parking Requirements This section also introduces changes to which developments are exempt from parking requirements all-together. The current zoning code exempts nonresidential uses in buildings smaller than 1,000 square feet within commercial districts and the D-2 and D-3 zoning districts from having to provide parking. This exemption is now expanded to apply city-wide to all uses on lots (other than single-family or two-family dwellings) created prior to April 12, 1995 that are smaller than 5,000 square feet. This adds another level of flexibility and relief for small property and business owners that would otherwise not be able to use or develop the lot due to parking constraints. Any development that is exempt from providing parking, but that elects to provide parking, will be required to comply with all location and design standards adopted by the City. 21A.44.030: Calculation of Parking This section explains how parking and loading requirements are calculated in the proposed parking chapter as well as identifies which types of parking spaces do not count toward minimum and maximum parking space requirements. This section has been mostly carried forward from the current code, with grammatical and formatting edits. All parking and loading requirements based on square footage are calculated using “usable floor area” as is current practice in Salt Lake City. Usable floor area includes all areas of a building with the exception of areas devoted to mechanical equipment and unfinished storage. The section includes a proposed procedure for how parking and loading requirements are determined for a land use that is not listed in the table of Minimum and Maximum Off-street Parking requirements. The current zoning ordinance assigns a “catch-all” minimum parking requirement of three (3) spaces per 1,000 square feet for “all other uses.” The proposed section retains that minimum and adds a maximum parking allowed requirement of five (5) spaces per 1,000 square feet. Two additional means have also been introduced by which parking requirements can be assigned to an unlisted use. The Planning Director now has the authority to assign a minimum or maximum number of off-street parking spaces required for an unlisted use based on a listed use with similar operating characteristics, occupancy classification or other factors. The Director can also determine the parking and loading requirements for any use based on a parking study submitted by the applicant that demonstrates the anticipated demand for the proposed development. 21A.44.040: Required Off-street Parking Context Areas The current parking ordinance largely treats minimum parking required and maximum parking allowed based solely on the use of the property. Yet, Salt Lake City has a wide variety of development contexts that make any single approach to minimum and maximum parking requirements ineffective. The parking demand for a downtown area served by transit will be lower Page 4 than a downtown adjacent neighborhood or suburban shopping center. To ensure that minimum and maximum parking requirements reflect the built context (and future built context) of the area, the proposed parking ordinance includes four distinct “context areas” with minimum and maximum parking standards tailored to each. The Minimum and Maximum Off-street Parking Table lists the specific zoning districts included in each context area. The following is a brief narrative introducing each context area: General Context: This context includes the City’s zoning districts that tend to be more auto dependent and/or suburban in scale and parking needs. This context applies broadly to all zoning districts that are not specifically listed in the other context areas. Areas that fall into this category are the 300 West commercial corridor, the Redwood Road commercial corridor, and other developments that are in zoning districts not identified in a specific context area in the Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Table. Neighborhood Center: This context includes areas with small- or moderate-scale shopping, gathering, or activity spaces, often within or adjacent to General Context areas, but that are not necessarily well served by transit. This category includes zoning districts with pedestrian-scale development patterns, building forms, and amenities. Areas that fall into this category are the 9th and 9th commercial node, the 15th and 15th commercial node, and other moderate scale commercial and mixed-use developments that are within the zoning districts identified in the Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Table. Image 1: Typical Development Patterns within General Context Image 2: Areas such as 9th and 9th are included as part of the Neighborhood Center Context Page 5 Urban Center: This context includes zoning districts with dense, pedestrian-oriented development within more intensely developed urban centers. The parking demand in this context is higher than in the Transit Center Context, but lower than areas in the Neighborhood Center Context. Areas that fall into this category are the Sugar House Business District, areas adjacent to Downtown, and other developments that are within the zoning districts identified in the Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Table. Transit Context: This context includes those zoning districts that immediately surround mass-transit facilities and/or are in the downtown core. These areas have the lowest parking demand and may be exempt from minimum parking requirements or be required to provide minimal off-street parking. Areas that fall into this category are the Central Business District, Central Ninth, the North Temple/400 South transit corridor, and other developments that are within the zoning districts identified in the Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Table. Image 3: Areas such as Sugar House are included as part of the Urban Center Context Image 4: Areas well serviced by mass-transit are included as part of the Transit Context Page 6 Required Parking Table This section replaces and consolidates the current tables in Section 21A.44.030.G(1): Schedule of Minimum Off-street Parking Requirements; Section 21A.44.030.G(2): Table of District Specific Minimum Off-street Parking Requirements; and Section 21A44.030.H(2): Table of District Specific Maximum Parking Allowance. This table includes all of the use types listed in current Section 21A.33: Land Use Tables, making it clear how much parking is required for each land use allowed in the City. To make the table more user-friendly, similar use types have been grouped into categories and subcategories. All land uses have been included in the table. The inclusion of a land use within the parking table does not authorize the use within a zone or context. Section 21A.33 will still be used to authorize land uses within a zoning district. Parking Minimums All minimum parking standards have been reviewed against those used in other large but relatively low-density cities, and numerous changes have been made. In many cases the minimum requirements have been reduced or eliminated altogether (Transit/Urban Center contexts), but in a few cases (notably retail and restaurant uses) the exceptionally low standards in the current ordinance have been increased in order to reduce overflow parking in neighborhoods. The concerns of “spill-over” parking within neighborhoods was a major concern brought to light by the public and within the neighborhood master plans. Parking Maximums In effort to limit excess parking on a lot, the current parking chapter limits the amount of parking that can be provide on a property to 125% of the minimum parking amount. The current 125 percent maximum parking standard has been replaced with tailored maximums, by context, and targeted at the limited number of land uses where excessive parking significantly undermines planning goals aimed at walkability and urbanism. Land uses that are not typically associated with over-parking, such as day cares, parks, warehouses, and several industrial uses, do not have maximum parking requirements in the revised chapter. The maximum parking standards column in the table of Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking clarifies whether the maximum standard applies to only one context area, a combination of context areas, or to all context areas. Parking provided in structures such as parking garages is proposed to include maximum parking allowed. Well located and planned parking garages can provide shared parking solutions for multiple properties. The placement and design of parking garages is already governed by the parking chapter and design standards of the zoning code. The intent of this provision is to encourage and facilitate parking solutions that serve multiple properties. Discussions with Downtown Alliance also revealed that national employers may insist on certain parking counts being provided for their employees. In this sense, parking garages can be a tool to incentivize employers to relocate downtown. Electric Vehicle Parking These standards were carried forward with minor grammatical and formatting edits. No substantive changes are proposed. Although not included as part of the proposed ordinance, Planning Staff worked closely with Salt Lake City’s Sustainability department on new language and standards for Electric Vehicle Readiness. The intent will be to propose requirements that multi-family developments provide a certain percentage of Electric Vehicle Ready parking stalls at the time of development. The language should be anticipated as part of a future ordinance revision and could be included in the design section of the parking ordinance. Page 7 Accessible Parking These standards were carried forward and simplified with minor grammatical and formatting edits. A proposed standard clarifies that parking areas with four (4) or fewer vehicle parking spaces are not required to identify an accessible space with signs or striping, but that a minimum of one (1) space needs to comply with ADA standard dimensions. The table of Accessible Parking Required was simplified. Bicycle Parking This section has been thoroughly revised as existing standards were not meeting the goals and objectives listed in the various City master plans. The existing bicycle parking standards are based on a percentage of vehicle parking provided. This meant that the less parking a development provided, whether through reductions or otherwise, the less bicycle parking that was required to be provided. That logic does not match the City’s goals to be more bikeable and less dependent on automobiles. The proposed standards are based on use and are categorized by context. They have been compared with cities of similar size and dynamic. When a development provides secure/enclosed bicycle parking, the requirement is reduced by half. 21A.44.050: Alternatives to Minimum and Maximum Parking Calculations To increase flexibility, this section is proposed to include new tools allowing by-right adjustments to parking requirements as well as authorizing the Planning Director to modify parking requirements based on an approved parking study. The adjustments allowed under this section can be used in any combination to reduce the minimum number of required parking spaces identified in the Minimum and Maximum Off-street Parking table by up to 40 percent. Certain alternatives are proposed to be removed from the current ordinance based on community feedback and internal observation. It was found that certain provisions were not reducing overall parking demand and that the burden was shifting from developers to neighboring properties, including along the public right-of-way. For example, the provision to allow on-street parking proved hard to administer and created a sense of ownership or entitlement to parking that should have been public. Removing the standard would allow for future flexibility within the public right- of-way. Those alternatives that are proposed to be eliminated include: credit for on-street parking, pedestrian friendly amenities, off-site parking (as a reduction tool), and use of excess parking in a park and ride lot. Many of the items currently listed as Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies are now included in other sections of the proposed parking chapter and are not listed in this section. Shared Parking These standards explain how much parking is required when two (2) or more uses share a parking area. A new system for calculating parking reductions is introduced that establishes reduction factors based on the land uses rather than the hours of operation (which is difficult to enforce and administer). The current maximum distance allowed for shared parking areas of 500 feet has been increased between 600-1,200 feet, based on parking context and to reflect national trends and Salt Lake City’s large block sizes. This proposed approach allows mixed-use development the opportunity to reduce the minimum number of required parking spaces to better reflect the parking demands of a mixed-use development. For reference, example calculations have been provided in the text to help users navigate the proposed methods for determining parking requirements. Standards for required documentation for shared parking facilities are introduced and are intended to simplify administration and avoid continued monitoring of cooperation agreements over time. Page 8 Proximity to Fixed-Rail Transit This standard is proposed to allow all multi-family or commercial properties (not just new development) within one-quarter (1/4) mile of a fixed transit station to reduce the number of minimum required parking spaces by 25 percent (down from 50%). The measurement technique is changed from “based on walking distance” to “measured radially in a straight line.” The reduction is available for all contexts except Transit, as the minimums in that context are already based on their proximity to transit. Affordable and Senior Housing These standards would allow for a reduction to the number of minimum parking spaces required if the development provides income restricted and/or age restricted units. The current reduction of 50 percent has been decreased to 25 percent to reflect the already reduced parking requirements and tailored minimums in the Minimum and Maximum Off-street Parking table. Eligibility requirements and thresholds are also clarified. New to this chapter is that qualifying affordable or senior housing projects could reduce their parking by an additional 15 percent when they are located within one-quarter mile of a bus stop that is serviced by a high-frequency bus route. Car Pool and Carshare Parking These proposed standards would allow developments with 100 or more parking spaces to count every dedicated van pool space towards seven of the minimum parking spaces required, and every car pool space to count towards three of the minimum parking spaces required. Working with the City Sustainability department, the section is proposed to include a provision to allow for parking lots of any size to count four spaces towards each designated carshare vehicle space. Valet Parking Services These provisions would allow for parking stalls be replaced on a one-to-one basis for each valet stall provided. The section clarifies qualifying standards but is largely carried over from the current code. Parking Study Demonstrating Different Parking Needs This standard is proposed to allow an applicant to submit a parking study to the Planning Director justifying adjustments to the minimum or maximum required parking standards. This provides a “relief valve” for unique projects that justify alternative parking requirements. 21A.44.060: Parking and Loading Location and Design The current parking and loading location and design standards are found throughout chapter 21A.44 and other parts of the zoning ordinance. This section proposes to consolidate those standards and update them to reflect the proposed context area approach. Notably, the table for parking setbacks has been reorganized into parking contexts and relocated to this section. Specific design standards for the D-1, D-3, D-4, G-MU, TSA, and parking garages have been relocated to this chapter with minor grammatical modifications. The provisions for recreational vehicle parking have been clarified and are located at the end of this section. Some standards were simplified and/or removed because they were no longer necessary as a result of other edits within the parking chapter. Technical standards were largely moved to the proposed Parking Standards Manual. 21A.44.070: Off-street Loading Areas This section includes the proposed standards for how many off-street loading areas are required for developments. These standards were revised to reflect current trends toward more frequent Page 9 deliveries by smaller trucks that do not require large spaces to load or unload without blocking traffic or parking areas. The standards were also clarified to include mixed-use buildings. 21A.44.080: Drive-Through Facilities and Vehicle Stacking Areas This section includes the standards regulating drive-through facilities and vehicle stacking areas. Standards were largely carried over from the existing code, however drive-through stacking spaces were organized by parking context. As part of this revision, redundant provisions for drive- through facilities found in chapter 21.A.40.060 have been proposed to be eliminated. 21A.44.090: Modifications to Parking Areas Administrative Adjustments This tool is largely carried over from the existing ordinance and would grant the Planning or Transportation Director the authority to make minor modifications to the standards in the parking chapter based on certain criteria. Examples include modifications to dimensions or geometries of parking, loading, or maneuvering areas. Special Exceptions The revised ordinance would eliminate the parking “catch-all” exception (#7), currently found in the Special Exceptions chapter 21A.52, as more specific standards have been incorporated into the provisions throughout. The two special exceptions that would continue to be authorized are for front yard parking and surfacing materials for vehicle and equipment storage. 21A.44.100: Use and Maintenance This section proposes standards for how parking areas can be used as well as the maintenance requirements. These standards were largely carried forward as-is with minimal edits. 21A.44.110: Nonconforming Parking and Loading Facilities This section includes the proposed standards addressing nonconforming parking and loading facilities. Chapter 21A.38: Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures, lays the foundation for how nonconformities are addressed in the zoning ordinance; however, there is some overlap with the standards provided in chapter 21A.44 specific to parking and loading facilities. The current 21A.38.070.B is proposed to be deleted as this content is now addressed in the proposed parking chapter. The ordinance includes proposed tools that will provide a level of flexibility that should address any concerns related to the reconstruction of parking and loading areas on challenging sites. It also introduces a standard that allows a site made nonconforming as a result of an acquisition of property by eminent domain for a right-of-way to be deemed lawful and conforming. This provides an outlet for a site that is made non-conforming when land area or setbacks are reduced by circumstances outside of their control. Parking Standards Manual City staff has elected to create a new Parking Standards Manual (Attachment C) in conjunction with this effort to relocate technical/engineering material from chapter 21A.44 into a technical design manual. This approach would simplify the zoning ordinance and remove details from the code that are of little/no interest to the general public. Including design and engineering minutia in the zoning code makes it more difficult for citizens to navigate and find what they are looking for. This approach would also allow the City to update minor technical/engineering standards without going through the zoning ordinance amendment procedure. It is important for the City to continue updating its technical standards as research and best practices emerge. Page 10 Grammar and Minor Corrections The proposed ordinance includes updated grammar and formatting throughout. Spelling errors, typos, or grammatical errors from the current regulations have been corrected. Definitions The revised chapter includes proposed parking-related definitions that were not previously included in chapter 21A.62: Definitions. KEY CONSIDERATIONS: The following key considerations have been identified for the Planning Commission’s review and potential discussion. 1.Align with the goals of Plan Salt Lake and the various neighborhood master plans 2.Encourage infill development and redevelopment 3.Simplify to be more user-friendly and easier to implement 4.Modernize to reflect best practices and current market trends for parking 5.Reconsider the current “one-size fits all” approach in favor of “context based” parking 6.Required parking minimums for multi-family developments in General Context 7.Parking Reductions for Developments Adjacent to High-Frequency Bus Stops Consideration 1: Align with the goals of Plan Salt Lake and the various neighborhood master plans The various City master plans contain the collective goals and objectives of Salt Lake City. Many of these goals and adopted policies relate to how the City grows and how to provide balanced transportation networks that reduce automobile dependency while supporting economic growth and affordability. Goals of the City also focus on neighborhood vitality, providing transportation choices, and enhancing the public realm through design, architecture, and development that is context sensitive. Throughout the revision process, Staff sought to implement as many objectives within the master plans as possible. A comprehensive analysis of those standards and the proposed changes can be found in Attachment F of this report. Consideration 2: Encourage infill development and redevelopment Infill development and the redevelopment of under-utilized properties are important components for economic growth within an established community like Salt Lake City. The proposed ordinance encourages these types of developments by: •Establishing context-based parking standards that are responsive to the unique characteristics of Salt Lake City’s neighborhoods and development patterns •Providing alternative methods to modify minimum and maximum parking •Allowing parking reductions for affordable/senior housing •Relaxing parking requirements for change or expansion of use Image 5: Master Plans such as Plan Salt Lake helped frame the proposed ordinance Page 11 Consideration 3: Simplify to be more user-friendly and easier to implement Improved ordinance usability was a focus of the revised parking chapter. The goal was to create a chapter that was clear for the public and developers to use but was also simpler to administer for City Staff. The proposed ordinance has been modified to include: • Improved ordinance usability through the use of tables and the consolidation of parking standards that were previously scattered throughout the code • New parking requirement tables with uses organized by category and context • Simplified processes for adjustments to minor technical matters • Clarified layout and language throughout Consideration 4: Modernize to reflect best practices and current market trends for parking The current parking ordinance for Salt Lake City has not evolved with modern planning practices. Many of the parking count figures are based on outdated models and have not considered the built context or alternative options to traditional parking. The proposed ordinance seeks to implement the latest planning practices and allow for more flexibility based on current market demands for parking. Specifically, the proposed ordinance includes: • Tailored standards based on four parking contexts • Market driven minimum and maximums, particularly where mass transit is available • Adjusted standards for drive-through & loading areas based on best practices • Revised method of calculating bicycle parking standards to match development activity • New options for car/van-pool, car share, and shared parking • Lowered overall required parking in effort to reduce surface area heat gain and water contamination from parking lots and to encourage alternative means of transportation to lower emissions Consideration 5: Reconsider the current “one-size fits all” approach in favor of “context based” parking The existing ordinance contains parking minimums and maximums that are largely based only on a proposed land use. In some cases, there were some minor modifications based on the underlying zoning designation, but it was still largely a one-size fits all approach. The idea of standards that were adaptive to their setting or context was a key consideration presented throughout the various master plans of the City and was a common theme throughout the public engagement process. To this end, the revised parking ordinance has been organized to include four parking contexts: Transit Center, Urban Center, Neighborhood Center, and General. These contexts will help the parking standards to be more responsive to the unique circumstances of the various neighborhoods within Salt Lake City. The proposed ordinance also establishes a frame work that would allow for additional parking contexts in the future if needed. Page 12 Consideration 6: Required parking minimums for multi-family developments in General Context Throughout the public engagement process, the minimum parking requirements for multi-family uses was listed at 2 stalls per dwelling unit, regardless of bedroom type. The public was generally supportive of this standard in each of the engagement events held. However, during the work sessions with the Planning Commission, most felt that this number was too high. Staff has now proposed 1 stall per unit for studio and 1-bedroom apartments and 1.25 stalls per unit for units with more than 1 bedroom. Staff felt this would provide some additional parking for residents that have more than 1 vehicle or for guest parking. Furthermore, these would only be the minimums. A development may choose to include surface parking for up to 2 spaces per dwelling unit for studio ad 1-bedroom units, or 3 stalls per unit for larger apartments. Typical multi-family developments in the general context are averaging about 1.6 stalls per unit. The proposed standards would still allow for that amount of parking to be provided but would not dictate that it had to be installed if the market demand was for less. Consideration 7: Parking Reductions for Developments Adjacent to High-Frequency Bus Stops This particular consideration has produced a split opinion throughout the revision process. Most residents felt that parking reductions should not be granted alone for proximity to high-frequency bus stops. The reasons cited included that they felt the stops lacked permanency and they feared the service was not reliable enough to be counted on for users other than commuters. This was discussed considerably in the work-sessions with the Planning Commission. Some commissioners agreed with public sentiment, while others felt it would be a lost opportunity considering the amount of investment Salt Lake City has made in these routes, particularly when the other goals of the City, such as improved air quality and providing affordable housing, are considered. Image 6: Proposed parking for Multi-family in General Context Page 13 Given these viewpoints, Staff has recommended to tie the reduction specifically to the goal for more affordable housing by allowing for an additional parking reduction of up to 15% for qualifying affordable housing developments located within one-quarter mile of a bus stop that is serviced by high- frequency routes (proposed 21A.44.050.D). Currently, this would include routes 2,9,21, and 200 (see map and chart below). As additional routes improve frequency, including for nights and weekends, they would also qualify for this provision. Bus Service Frequency Rte. Street Weekday Sat. Sun. After 7PM 2 200 S 15 min 15 min 30 min 30 min 9 900 S 15 min 15 min 30 min 30 min 21 21st S 15 min 15 min 30 min 30 min 200 State St. North 15 min 15 min 30 min 30 wk/60 Sat 205 500 E 15 min 30 min 60 min 60 min 209 900 E 15 min 30 min 60 min 60 min 217 Redwood Rd. 15 min 30 min 60 min 60 min 220 Highland/1300 E 15 min 30 min 60 min 30 wk./60 Sat Images 7 (map) & 8 (table): Existing and proposed high-frequency bus routes Page 14 NEXT STEPS: The City Council has the final authority to make changes to the text of the Zoning Ordinance. The recommendation of the Planning Commission for this petition will be forwarded to the City Council for their review and decision. Page 15 ATTACHMENT A: PETITION INITIATION Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 ATTACHMENT B: PROPOSED PARKING ORDINANCE The proposed ordinance revision is largely comprised of a re-written chapter 21A.44- Off-Street Parking, Loading, and Mobility. However, the following related sections of code are also proposed to be altered: • Parking design elements from the D-1, D-3, D-4, G-MU, and TSA zoning chapters have been relocated to the proposed parking chapter with minor grammatical or other errors corrected • Special Exception #7 (21A.52) is proposed to be eliminated • Parking garage design standards (21A.37.050.M) has been relocated to the proposed parking chapter with minor grammatical or other errors corrected • Some of the drive-through standards found in 21A.40.060 have been relocated to the proposed parking chapter and redundancies have been eliminated Page 19 Chapter 21A.44: Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading December 2019 (Document format provided for convenience of Planning Commission. Adopted format will be consistent with standard ordinance formatting) Page 20 Table of Contents Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading ............................. 1 21A.44.010 Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 1 21A.44.020 Applicability .............................................................................................................. 1 A. Amounts of Parking, Loading, and Drive-Through Facilities Required ............................................................................. 1 B. Location and Design ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2 21A.44.030 Calculation of Parking .............................................................................................. 2 A. Generally ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 B. Unlisted Uses .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 21A.44.040 Required Off Street Parking .................................................................................... 3 A. Minimum and Maximum Parking Spaces Required .................................................................................................................. 3 B. Electric Vehicle Parking ....................................................................................................................................................................... 18 C. Accessible Parking ................................................................................................................................................................................ 19 D. Bicycle Parking ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 19 21A.44.050 Alternatives to Minimum and Maximum Parking Calculations ......................... 20 A. Limitations on Adjustments to Minimum Required Parking ............................................................................................... 20 B. Shared Parking ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 C. Proximity to Fixed-Rail Transit ......................................................................................................................................................... 22 D. Affordable and Senior Housing (Multi-family Structures) ................................................................................................... 22 E. Car Pool and Carshare Parking ........................................................................................................................................................ 22 F. Valet Parking Services ......................................................................................................................................................................... 23 G. Parking Study Demonstrating Different Parking Needs ....................................................................................................... 23 21A.44.060 Parking Location and Design ................................................................................. 24 A. Generally ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 B. Zone Specific Location and Design Standards.......................................................................................................................... 31 C. Recreational Vehicle Parking ............................................................................................................................................................ 33 21A.44.070 Off Street Loading Areas ........................................................................................ 34 A. Number and Size of Loading Areas Required ........................................................................................................................... 34 B. Location and Design of Loading Areas ........................................................................................................................................ 34 21A.44.080 Drive-Through Facilities and Vehicle Stacking Areas .......................................... 35 A. Number of Stacking Spaces Required .......................................................................................................................................... 35 B. Location and Design of Drive-Through Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 35 21A.44.090 Modifications to Parking Areas ............................................................................. 36 A. Administrative Modifications ........................................................................................................................................................... 36 B. Special Exceptions ................................................................................................................................................................................. 36 21A.44.100 Use and Maintenance ............................................................................................. 37 A. Use of Parking Areas ............................................................................................................................................................................ 37 B. Maintenance ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 38 21A.44.110 Nonconforming Parking and Loading Facilities .................................................. 38 A. Continuation of Nonconforming Parking and Loading Facilities ..................................................................................... 38 B. Nonconformity Due to Governmental Acquisition ................................................................................................................. 38 C. Damage or Destruction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 38 D. Legalization of Garages Converted to Residential Use ......................................................................................................... 38 Definitions 1 Page 21 Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading 21A.44.010 Purpose This chapter is intended to require that new development and redevelopment projects provide off street parking and loading facilities in proportion to the parking, loading, and transportation demands of the buildings and land uses included in those projects. This chapter is also intended to help protect the public health, safety, and general welfare by: A. Avoiding and mitigating traffic congestion and reducing the financial burden on taxpayer funded roadways; B. Providing necessary access for service and emergency vehicles; C. Providing for safe and convenient interaction between vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians; D. Providing flexible methods of responding to the transportation and access demands of various land uses in different areas of the city; E. Reducing storm water runoff, reducing heat island effect from large expanses of pavement, improving water quality, and minimizing dust pollution; F. Establishing context-sensitive parking standards to reflect the current and future built environment of neighborhoods; and G. Avoiding and mitigating the adverse visual and environmental impacts of large concentrations of exposed parking. 21A.44.020 Applicability A. Amounts of Parking, Loading, and Drive-Through Facilities Required The standards of this chapter are intended to establish: minimum and maximum amounts of vehicle parking; minimum required bicycle parking, minimum required loading facilities, and minimum capacity of drive-through facilities and shall apply to projects involving the activities listed below. In some instances, other standards of this chapter provide alternatives for required compliance. Certain exemptions are intended to encourage utilization of existing structures and preserve desirable characteristics of locations built prior to parking requirements. 1. New Development Unless otherwise exempted by Section 21A.44.020A.4, the standards in this chapter shall apply to all development and land uses upon adoption of this ordinance. 2. Expansion of Use or Structure The number of off street parking and loading spaces for the expansion of a use or structure shall comply with the requirements of Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking and the standards of this chapter when: a. One or more additional dwelling units is created; or b. The addition to or expansion of one or more structures or uses that, when considered together with any other expansions during the previous two-year period, would increase the total usable floor area of the structure(s) by more than twenty-five percent (25%); or Page 22 c. The addition to or expansion of one (1) or more structures or uses that requires conditional use permit approval. 3. Change of Use a. Except when located within an Urban Center or Transit Context, or as stated in subsection b below, off street parking shall be provided pursuant to this chapter for any change of use that increases the minimum number of required vehicle parking spaces by: (1) More than ten (10) parking spaces; or (2) More than twenty-five percent (25%) of the parking spaces that currently exist on-site or on permitted off-site locations. b. For changes in use in buildings built prior to 1944, no additional parking shall be required beyond what is existing. 4. Exemptions from Parking Requirements The following shall be exempt from providing the minimum parking required by Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking, but shall comply with maximum parking allowed and location and design standards in Section 21A.44.060 if parking is provided: a. Lots created prior to April 12,1995 that are less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in lot area, except those being used for single-family, two-family, and twin home dwelling uses; b. Expansions or enlargements that increase the square footage of usable floor area of an existing structure or parking requirements for the use by twenty-five percent (25%) or less, provided that existing off street parking and loading areas are not removed. B. Location and Design Section 21A.44.060: Parking Location and Design, shall apply to all vehicle parking, bicycle parking, loading, and drive-through facilities, regardless of whether the project is subject to the requirements for additional parking spaces or other facilities pursuant to Section 21A.44.020A above. Parking garages are subject to design standards found in 21A.44.060.A.16 and specific requirements of other zoning districts found in 21A.44.060.B. 21A.44.030 Calculation of Parking A. Generally 1. All parking and loading requirements that are based on square footage shall be calculated on the basis of usable floor area of the subject use, unless otherwise specified in Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking. 2. Parking spaces shall not be counted more than once for required off-site, shared, and/or alternative parking plans, except where the development complies with off-site, shared, and/or alternative parking standards. 3. Parking spaces designed or designated exclusively for motorcycles, scooters, and other two wheeled vehicles shall not count toward the number of minimum required or maximum allowed off street parking spaces. Page 23 4.Parking spaces intended for storage of business vehicles, such as fleet vehicles, delivery vehicles, or vehicles on display associated with sales or rental shall not count toward the number of minimum required or maximum allowed off street parking spaces unless otherwise stated in Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking. 5.Parking spaces designed or designated exclusively for recreational vehicles shall not count toward the number of minimum required or maximum allowed off street parking spaces. 6.When calculations of the number of required off street parking spaces for vehicles or bicycles result in a fractional number, any fraction of 0.5 or larger shall be rounded up to the next higher whole number. Calculations for more than one use in a project shall be calculated for each individual use and may be rounded individually and added, or added then rounded as determined by the applicant. 7.Lots containing more than one (1) use may provide parking and loading based on the shared parking calculations in section 21A.44.050BB: Shared Parking. B.Unlisted Uses For uses not listed in Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking the Planning Director is authorized to do any of the following: 1.Apply the minimum or maximum off street parking space requirement specified in Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking, for the listed use that is deemed most similar to the proposed use as determined by the Planning Director based on operating characteristics, the most similar related occupancy classification, or other factors related to potential parking demand determined by the Director. 2.Apply a minimum parking requirement of three (3) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of usable floor area for the use and a maximum parking allowance of five (5) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of useable floor area for the use. 3.Establish the minimum off street parking space and loading requirements based on a parking study prepared by the applicant according to Section 21A.44.050F. 21A.44.040 Required Off Street Parking A.Minimum and Maximum Parking Spaces Required 1.Unless otherwise provided in this Code, each development or land use subject to this chapter pursuant to Section 21A.44.020 shall provide at least the minimum number, and shall not provide more than the maximum number, of off street parking spaces required by Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking. 2.A parking standard shown in Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking, is not an indication of whether the use is allowed or prohibited in the respective zoning district or context area. See Chapter 21A.33: Land Use Tables for allowed and prohibited uses. 3.The maximum parking limit does not apply to parking provided in parking garages, stacked or racked parking structures, or to off-site parking that complies with all other requirements of this title. 4.The maximum parking limit does not apply to properties in the M-1, M-2, BP, or Airport zoning districts that are located west of the centerline of Redwood Road. Page 24 5. If a conditional use is approved by the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 21A.54: Conditional Uses, and the conditional use approval states a different parking requirement than that required by this Chapter 21A.44, and is determined necessary to mitigate a detrimental impact, then the parking requirement in the conditional use approval shall apply. 6. All uses with vehicle stacking and/or drive-through facilities shall comply with Section 21A.44.080: Drive-Through Facilities and Vehicle Stacking Areas, in addition to the requirements of Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking. 7. All uses with outdoor sales, display, leasing, and/or auction areas shall also provide one-half (1/2) parking space and no more than two (2) parking spaces per one thousand (1,000) sq. ft. of outdoor sales, display, leasing, and/or auction area. This additional parking shall not count toward the maximum allowed per Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking, when a maximum is specified. Context Approach Salt Lake City has a wide variety of development contexts that make any single approach to minimum and maximum parking requirements ineffective. The parking demand for a downtown area served by transit will be much lower than a downtown adjacent neighborhood or suburban shopping center. To ensure that minimum and maximum parking requirements reflect the built context (and future built context) of the area, we created four distinct “context areas”, and then tailored minimum and maximum parking standards to each. The Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking Table below lists the specific zoning districts included in each context area. The following is a brief narrative introducing each context area: 1. General Context: This category includes the City’s zoning districts that tend to be more auto-dependent and/or suburban in scale and parking needs. This context applies broadly to all of the zoning districts that are not specifically listed in the other context areas. 2. Neighborhood Center: This category includes areas with small- or moderate-scale shopping, gathering, or activity spaces, often within or adjacent to General Context areas, but that are not necessarily well served by transit. This category includes zoning districts with pedestrian-scale development patterns, building forms, and amenities. 3. Urban Center: This category includes zoning districts with dense, pedestrian-oriented development within more intensely developed urban centers. The parking demand in this context is higher than in the Neighborhood Center Context, but lower than areas with good transit service. 4. Transit Context: This category includes those zoning districts that immediately surround mass-transit facilities and/or are in the downtown core. These areas have the lowest parking demand and may be exempt from minimum parking requirements or be required to provide minimal off street parking. Page 25 Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking DU = dwelling unit sq. ft. = square feet Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Parking Allowed General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R- MU-35, R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1. CSHBD2 D-1, D-3 D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB- SC. R-MU Vehicle Stacking and Drive-Through Facilities: See 21A.44.040A.6 Outdoor Sales/Display/Leasing/Auction Areas: See 21A.44.040A.7 Residential Uses Household Living Artists' loft/studio 1.5 spaces per DU 1 space per DU 0.5 spaces per DU No Minimum No Maximum Manufactured home 2 spaces per DU 1 space per DU No Minimum All Contexts: 4 spaces, not including recreational vehicle parking spaces Mobile home Single-family (attached) Single-family (detached) Single-family cottage development building form 1 space per DU Twin home 2 spaces per DU Two-family Multi-family Studio and 1 bedrooms: 1 space per DU, 2+ bedrooms 1.25 space per DU Studio and 1+ bedrooms: 1 space per DU Studio: No Minimum 1 bedroom: 0.5 space per DU 2+ bedrooms: 1 space per DU No Minimum All Contexts: Studio & 1 Bedroom: 2 spaces per DU 2+ bedrooms: 3 spaces per DU Group Living Assisted living facility 1 space for each 6 infirmary or nursing home beds; plus 1 space for each 4 rooming units; plus 1 space for each 3 DU See Table Note A 1 space for each 8 infirmary or nursing home beds; plus 1 space for each 6 rooming units; plus 1 space for each 4 DU See Table Note A No Minimum No Maximum Nursing care facility Eleemosynary facility 1 space per 4 persons design capacity; See Table Note A 1 space per 6 persons design capacity; See Table Note A 1 space per 4 persons design capacity; See Table Note A No Minimum All Contexts: 1 space per 3 persons design capacity; See Table Note A Group home Residential support Dormitory, fraternity, sorority 1 space per 2 persons design capacity 1 space per 3 persons design capacity 1 space per 4 persons design capacity No Minimum All Contexts: 1 space per 1 persons design capacity Page 26 Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking DU = dwelling unit sq. ft. = square feet Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Parking Allowed General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R- MU-35, R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1. CSHBD2 D-1, D-3 D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB- SC. R-MU Vehicle Stacking and Drive-Through Facilities: See 21A.44.040A.6 Outdoor Sales/Display/Leasing/Auction Areas: See 21A.44.040A.7 Rooming (boarding) house 1 space per 2 guest rooms 1 space per 3 guest rooms 1 space per 4 guest rooms No Minimum No Maximum Single room occupancy 0.5 spaces per unit 0.25 spaces per unit No Minimum No Maximum Public, Institutional, and Civic Uses Community and Cultural Facilities Art gallery 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. 0.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum All Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Studio, Art Exhibition hall Museum Crematorium 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum No Maximum Daycare center, adult Daycare center, child Homeless resource center Library Community correctional facility, 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Community recreation center Jail Government facility 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area 1 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area No Minimum No Maximum Social service mission and charity dining hall Municipal service use, including city utility use and police and fire station 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area, plus 1 space per service vehicle 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area, plus 1 space per service vehicle No Minimum No Maximum Club/lodge 1 space per 6 seats in main assembly area 1 space per 8 seats in main assembly area 1 space per 10 seats in main assembly area No Minimum All Contexts: 1 space per 4 seats in main assembly area Meeting hall of membership organization Convent/monastery 1 space per 4 persons design capacity 1 space per 6 persons design capacity 1 space per 8 persons design capacity No Minimum No Maximum Page 27 Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking DU = dwelling unit sq. ft. = square feet Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Parking Allowed General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R- MU-35, R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1. CSHBD2 D-1, D-3 D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB- SC. R-MU Vehicle Stacking and Drive-Through Facilities: See 21A.44.040A.6 Outdoor Sales/Display/Leasing/Auction Areas: See 21A.44.040A.7 Funeral home 1 space per 4 seats in main assembly area 1 space per 5 seats in main assembly area 1 space per 6 seats in main assembly area No Minimum Urban Center and Transit Center Context: 2 spaces per 4 seats in main assembly areas Neighborhood Center and General Context: No maximum Place of worship 1 space per 6 seats or 1 space per 300 sq. ft., whichever is less 1 space per 8 seats or 1 space per 400 sq. ft., whichever is less 1 space per 10 seats or 1 space per 500 sq. ft., whichever is less No Minimum All Contexts: 1 space per 3.5 seats or 1 space per 200 sq. ft., whichever is greater Fairground See Table Note B No Maximum Philanthropic use See Table Note B All Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office, plus 1 space per 6 seats in assembly areas Zoological park See Table Note B No Maximum Ambulance service Cemetery No Minimum Plazas Park Open space Educational Facilities College and university 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. office, research, and library area, plus 1 space per 6 seats in assembly areas 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. office, research, and library area, plus 1 space per 10 seats in assembly areas No Minimum All Contexts: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. K - 12 private Elementary or Middle: 1 space per 20 students design capacity High Schools: 1 space per 8 students design capacity K - 12 public Dance/music studio 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Music conservatory Professional and vocational Page 28 Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking DU = dwelling unit sq. ft. = square feet Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Parking Allowed General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R- MU-35, R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1. CSHBD2 D-1, D-3 D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB- SC. R-MU Vehicle Stacking and Drive-Through Facilities: See 21A.44.040A.6 Outdoor Sales/Display/Leasing/Auction Areas: See 21A.44.040A.7 Professional and vocational (with outdoor activities) Seminary and religious institute Healthcare Facilities Clinic (medical, dental) 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum All Contexts: 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft Blood donation center 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Transit and Urban Center Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft Neighborhood Center and General Context: 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Hospital 1 space per 3 patient beds design capacity 1 space per 2 patient beds design capacity All Contexts: 1 space per 2 patient beds design capacity Hospital, including accessory lodging facility Commercial Uses Agricultural and Animal Uses Greenhouse 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Context: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft Neighborhood Center and General Context: No Maximum Kennel Pound Veterinary office Cremation service, animal 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Kennel on lots of 5 acres or larger Poultry farm or processing plant Raising of furbearing animals Slaughterhouse Agricultural use No Minimum Community garden Farmer's market Grain elevator Pet cemetery Page 29 Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking DU = dwelling unit sq. ft. = square feet Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Parking Allowed General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R- MU-35, R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1. CSHBD2 D-1, D-3 D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB- SC. R-MU Vehicle Stacking and Drive-Through Facilities: See 21A.44.040A.6 Outdoor Sales/Display/Leasing/Auction Areas: See 21A.44.040A.7 Stable Stockyard Urban farm Botanical garden See Table Note B Recreation and Entertainment Auditorium 1 space per 4 seats in assembly areas 1 space per 6 seats in assembly areas 1 space per 8 seats in assembly areas No Minimum All Contexts: 1 space per 3 seats in assembly areas Theater, live performance Theater, movie Amphitheater See Table Note B Athletic Field Stadium Tennis court (principal use) 2 spaces per court No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Context: 2 spaces per court or lane Neighborhood Center and General Context: No Maximum Bowling 2 spaces per lane Convention center 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum All Contexts: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Swimming pool, skating rink or natatorium Health and fitness facility 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. All Contexts: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Performing arts production facility Reception center Recreation (indoor) 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Recreational vehicle park (minimum 1 acre) 1 space per designated camping or RV spot No Maximum Amusement park See Table Note B Recreation (outdoor) See Table Note B Food and Beverage Services Brewpub Indoor tasting/seating area: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.; Outdoor tasting/seating area: Indoor tasting/seating No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Context: 5 spaces per 1,000 Page 30 Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking DU = dwelling unit sq. ft. = square feet Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Parking Allowed General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R- MU-35, R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1. CSHBD2 D-1, D-3 D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB- SC. R-MU Vehicle Stacking and Drive-Through Facilities: See 21A.44.040A.6 Outdoor Sales/Display/Leasing/Auction Areas: See 21A.44.040A.7 Restaurant 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. area: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.; Outdoor tasting/seating area: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. sq. ft indoor tasting/seating area Neighborhood Center and General Context: 7 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. indoor tasting/seating area All Contexts: Outdoor tasting/ seating area: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Tavern Social club 1 space per 6 seats in main assembly area, or 1 space per 300 sq. ft., whichever is less 1 space per 8 seats in main assembly area, or 1 space per 400 sq. ft., whichever is less 1 space per 10 seats in main assembly area, or 1 space per 500 sq. ft., whichever is less No Minimum All Contexts: 1 space per 4 seats in main assembly area, or 1 space per 200 sq. ft., whichever is greater Office, Business, and Professional Services Check cashing/payday loan business 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum General Context: 4 spaces per 1,000 Neighborhood Center Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 Urban Center and Transit Center Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 Dental laboratory/ research facility Financial institution Research and laboratory facilities Office (excluding medical and dental clinic and office) 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail Sales & Services Photo finishing lab No Minimum 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Electronic repair shop Furniture repair shop Upholstery shop Page 31 Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking DU = dwelling unit sq. ft. = square feet Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Parking Allowed General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R- MU-35, R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1. CSHBD2 D-1, D-3 D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB- SC. R-MU Vehicle Stacking and Drive-Through Facilities: See 21A.44.040A.6 Outdoor Sales/Display/Leasing/Auction Areas: See 21A.44.040A.7 Radio, television station 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center and General Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Store, Convenience 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. General Context: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Auction, Indoor 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Transit Context: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Urban Center and Neighborhood Center Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. General Context: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Store, Department Fashion oriented development Flea market (indoor) Flea market (outdoor) Store, Mass merchandising Store, Pawn shop Store, Specialty Retail goods establishment Retail service establishment Store, Superstore and hypermarket Store, Warehouse club Page 32 Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking DU = dwelling unit sq. ft. = square feet Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Parking Allowed General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R- MU-35, R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1. CSHBD2 D-1, D-3 D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB- SC. R-MU Vehicle Stacking and Drive-Through Facilities: See 21A.44.040A.6 Outdoor Sales/Display/Leasing/Auction Areas: See 21A.44.040A.7 Retail shopping center over 55,000 sq. ft. usable floor area Up to 100,000 sq. ft. : 2. spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. . Above 100,000 sq. ft. : sq. ft. 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Up to 100,000 sq. ft. : 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. . Above 100,000 sq. ft. : 1.25 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Transit and Urban Center Contexts: up to 100,000 sq. ft.: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft., above 100,000 sq. ft.: 1.75 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center and General Context: Up to 100,000 sq. ft.: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft., above 100,000 sq. ft.: 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. General Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Lodging Facilities Bed and breakfast 1 space per guest bedroom 0.5 spaces per guest bedroom No Minimum All Contexts: 1.25 spaces per guest bedroom Hotel/motel All Contexts: 1.5 spaces per guest bedroom Vehicles and Equipment Vehicle Auction 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area plus 1 space per service bay 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area plus 1 space per service bay No Minimum No Maximum Automobile part sales No Minimum All Contexts: Page 33 Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking DU = dwelling unit sq. ft. = square feet Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Parking Allowed General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R- MU-35, R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1. CSHBD2 D-1, D-3 D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB- SC. R-MU Vehicle Stacking and Drive-Through Facilities: See 21A.44.040A.6 Outdoor Sales/Display/Leasing/Auction Areas: See 21A.44.040A.7 Automobile and truck repair sales/rental and service 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of indoor sales/leasing/office area plus 1 space per service bay 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of indoor sales/leasing/ office area plus 1 space per service bay 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of indoor sales/leasing/ office area, plus 1 space per service bay Boat/recreational vehicle sales and service (indoor) Equipment rental (indoor and/or outdoor) Equipment, heavy (rental, sales, service) Manufactured/mobile home sales and service Recreational vehicle (RV) sales and service Truck repair sales and rental (large) Car wash No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. General Context: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Car wash as accessory use to gas station or convenience store that sells gas Gas station 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum General Context: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Urban Center Context: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Bus line yard and repair facility 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. , plus 1 space per commercial fleet vehicle No Minimum No Maximum Impound lot Limousine service Taxicab facility Page 34 Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking DU = dwelling unit sq. ft. = square feet Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Parking Allowed General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R- MU-35, R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1. CSHBD2 D-1, D-3 D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB- SC. R-MU Vehicle Stacking and Drive-Through Facilities: See 21A.44.040A.6 Outdoor Sales/Display/Leasing/Auction Areas: See 21A.44.040A.7 Tire distribution retail/wholesale Adult Entertainment Establishments Sexually oriented business 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum All Contexts: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Transportation Uses Airport Determined by Airport Authority No Maximum Heliport Bus line station/terminal No Minimum Urban Center and Transit Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center and General Context: 1 space per 150 average daily passenger boardings Intermodal transit passenger hub Railroad, passenger station Transportation terminal, including bus, rail and trucking Railroad, repair shop 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. , plus 1 space per fleet vehicle generally stored on-site No Minimum No Maximum Truck freight terminal Railroad, freight terminal facility No Minimum Industrial Uses Manufacturing and Processing Artisan food production 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of production area, plus 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office/retail 0.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of production area, plus 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office/retail No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of production area, plus 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office/retail Page 35 Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking DU = dwelling unit sq. ft. = square feet Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Parking Allowed General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R- MU-35, R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1. CSHBD2 D-1, D-3 D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB- SC. R-MU Vehicle Stacking and Drive-Through Facilities: See 21A.44.040A.6 Outdoor Sales/Display/Leasing/Auction Areas: See 21A.44.040A.7 Bakery, commercial Neighborhood Center and General Context: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of production area, plus 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office/retail Automobile salvage and recycling (outdoor) 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of office 0.5 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of office No Minimum All Contexts: 7 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office/retail Processing center (outdoor) Automobile salvage and recycling (indoor) 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum No Maximum Blacksmith shop Bottling plant Brewery/Small Brewery Chemical manufacturing and/or storage Commercial food preparation Distillery Drop forge industry Explosive manufacturing and storage Food processing Heavy manufacturing Incinerator, medical waste/hazardous waste Industrial assembly Jewelry fabrication Laundry, commercial Light manufacturing Manufacturing and processing, food Paint manufacturing No Minimum Printing plant Page 36 Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking DU = dwelling unit sq. ft. = square feet Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Parking Allowed General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R- MU-35, R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1. CSHBD2 D-1, D-3 D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB- SC. R-MU Vehicle Stacking and Drive-Through Facilities: See 21A.44.040A.6 Outdoor Sales/Display/Leasing/Auction Areas: See 21A.44.040A.7 Processing center (indoor) Recycling Sign painting/ fabrication Studio, motion picture Welding shop Winery Woodworking mill Collection station No Minimum Concrete and/or asphalt manufacturing Extractive industry Manufacturing, concrete or asphalt Refinery, petroleum products Storage and Warehousing Air cargo terminals and package delivery facility 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. , plus 1 space per fleet vehicle generally stored on-site No Maximum Building materials distribution Flammable liquids or gases, heating fuel distribution and storage Package delivery facility Warehouse Warehouse, accessory to retail and wholesale business (maximum 5,000 square foot floor plate) Wholesale distribution Storage, self 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area, plus 1 space per 30 storage units 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office All Contexts: 1 space for every 15 storage units Contractor's yard/office 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area All Contexts: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area Rock, sand and gravel storage and distribution No Minimum No Maximum Storage (outdoor) Page 37 Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking DU = dwelling unit sq. ft. = square feet Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Parking Allowed General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R- MU-35, R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1. CSHBD2 D-1, D-3 D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB- SC. R-MU Vehicle Stacking and Drive-Through Facilities: See 21A.44.040A.6 Outdoor Sales/Display/Leasing/Auction Areas: See 21A.44.040A.7 Storage and display (outdoor) Storage, public (outdoor) Public and Semi-Public Utility Uses Utility: Building or structure No Minimum No Maximum Antenna, communication tower Antenna, communication tower, exceeding the maximum building height in the zone Large wind energy system Solar array Utility: Electric generation facility Utility: Sewage treatment plant Utility: Solid waste transfer station Utility: Transmission wire, line, pipe or pole Wireless telecommunications facility Accessory Uses Accessory Dwelling Unit See Section 21A.40.200: Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory guest and servant's quarter 1 space per DU No Minimum All Contexts: 4 spaces per DU Living quarter for caretaker or security guard Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal building 2 spaces per 1,000 1 space per 1,000 Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. General Context: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal building and operated primarily for the convenience of employees No Minimum Page 38 Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking DU = dwelling unit sq. ft. = square feet Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Parking Allowed General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R- MU-35, R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1. CSHBD2 D-1, D-3 D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB- SC. R-MU Vehicle Stacking and Drive-Through Facilities: See 21A.44.040A.6 Outdoor Sales/Display/Leasing/Auction Areas: See 21A.44.040A.7 Warehouse, accessory 0.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of warehouse/wholesale No Minimum No Maximum Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere in this title No Minimum Heliport, accessory Reverse vending machine Storage, accessory (outdoor) Temporary Uses Mobile food business (operation in public right-of- way) No minimum, unless required by temporary use permit or as determined by the Zoning Administrator No Maximum Mobile food business (operation on private property) Mobile food court Vending cart, private property Vending cart, public property Farm stand, seasonal Table Notes: A.Facilities that are (a) occupied by persons who’s right to live together is protected by the federal Fair Housing Act, and that (b) occupy a building originally constructed for another residential use shall have the same parking requirements as the residential use for which the building was constructed. B.Parking requirements to be determined by Transportation Director based on considerations of factors such as estimated facility use, vehicle traffic to the facility, transit use to the facility, potential traffic congestion, and likelihood of overflow parking in surrounding neighborhoods. B.Electric Vehicle Parking Each multi-family use shall provide a minimum of one (1) parking space dedicated to electric vehicles for every twenty five (25) parking spaces provided on-site. Electric vehicle parking spaces shall count toward the minimum required number of parking spaces. The electric vehicl e parking space shall be: 1.Located in the same lot as the principal use; 2.Located as close to a primary entrance of the principal building as possible; 3.Signed in a clear and conspicuous manner, such as special pavement marking or signage, indicating exclusive availability to electric vehicles; and Page 39 4.Outfitted with a standard electric vehicle charging station. C.Accessible Parking 1.The number and design of accessible (ADA) parking spaces shall be pursuant to the standards provided in the Salt Lake City Off-Street Parking Standards Manual. 2.Parking areas with four (4) or fewer vehicle parking spaces are not required to identify an accessible parking space; however, if parking is provided, a minimum of one (1) parking space shall comply with the ADA standard dimensions. 3.The number of required accessible spaces shall be based on the total number of vehicle spaces provided to serve the principal uses, as shown below in Table 21A.44.040-B: Accessible Parking Required Table 21A.44.040-B: Accessible Parking Required Off Street Parking Spaces Provided Minimum Required Accessible Spaces 1 to 100 1 per 25 parking spaces 101 to 500 1 per 50 parking spaces 501 to 1,000 2 percent of total number of parking spaces 1,001 and more 20, plus 1 for each 100 parking spaces over 1,000 D.Bicycle Parking 1.Applicability The following regulations apply to all uses except for single-family, two-family, and twin home residential uses and nonresidential uses having less than one thousand square feet (1,000 sq. ft.) of usable floor area. 2.Calculation of Mimimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces31 The number of required bicycle spaces shall be based on the use within the defined parking contexts as shown in Table 21A.44.040-C: Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements, unless another City standard requires a different number of bicycle parking spaces for a specific use, in which case the use-specific bicycle parking standard shall apply. Table 21A.44.040-C: Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements* (Calculation of Bicyle Parking Spaces to be Provided per Residential Unit or Based on Usable Floor Area) Use General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, CSHBD2, R-MU-35, R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE D-2, D-3, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1 D-1, D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-SC, R-MU Residential Uses 1 per 5 units 1 per 4 units 1 per 3 units 1 per 2 units Page 40 Table 21A.44.040-C: Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements* (Calculation of Bicyle Parking Spaces to be Provided per Residential Unit or Based on Usable Floor Area) Use General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, CSHBD2, R-MU-35, R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE D-2, D-3, MU, TS