Loading...
07/20/2021 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WORK SESSION July 20,2021 Tuesday 3:30 PM Council Work Room 451 South State Street Room 326 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com 3:30 PM Work Session Or immediately following the 2:00 PM Redevelopment Agency Meeting 7:00 pm Formal Meeting Room 326 (See separate agenda) Welcome and public meeting rules Please enter the City &County Building through the ADA ramp on the east side of the building. 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:17:10:50 After a year of conducting online public meetings,the Salt Lake City Council is coming back with a hybrid meeting approach. This approach will allow people who are joining either in-person or remotely via Webex to fully participate in the Council Meetings. Public Comments:The public will be able to provide comments in-person in Room 326 of the City and County Building or online through Webex.For more information, including Webex connection information,please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual- meetings.(A phone line will also be available for people whose only option is to call in.) What to expect:The hybrid format allows in-person participation and remains mindful of existing COVID-19 protocols and gathering limits.A maximum of 24 people,including Council members and City staff,will be permitted in a meeting room.If the capacity has been reached in the primary meeting room,overflow space will be provided. We are following CDC guidelines to prevent and reduce transmission of COVID-19 and maintain healthy business operations and work environments.Per CDC guidelines: •Face coverings are strongly recommended for all,and are required for those who are not fully vaccinated. •Social distancing will be maintained. Please note -All other City offices within the City &County Building remain closed to the public.Individuals are required to make an appointment with the department/division they require service from.Visit www.slc.gov/city-directory for a list of departments and divisions. Work Session Items 1.Informational:Updates from the Administration ~3:30 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 ~4:00 p.m. 15 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.Ordinance:Text Amendment Eliminating the Special Exception Process from the Zoning Ordinance ~4:15 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance.A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures.The purpose of this proposal is to amend the zoning ordinance related to special exceptions to accomplish the following: •Simplify the zoning ordinance by updating regulations and eliminating special exceptions; •Reallocate staff resources away from processing land use applications that favor individual properties and towards updating zoning codes to align with adopted master plans;and, •Increase predictability and reduce neighbor conflicts that are created by requests for exceptions to the zoning regulations; There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance.The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted,permitted,or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance.Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts.Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division,the Planning Commission,or Historic Landmark Commission.Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning and Title 14 may be amended as part of this petition. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,July 20,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 17,2021 at 6 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021 4.Ordinance:Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment ~4:35 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning ordinance pertaining to appeals of administrative decisions.Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning Commission,Historic Landmark Commission,or the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the zoning ordinance.The amendments primarily clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer,who can appeal decisions, and when an appeal can stay a decision,modify City Code to align with State law,related case law,and make other clarifications to the appeals chapter of the zoning ordinance,including: •Clarify that the City Appeals Hearing Officer can only make decisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of Salt Lake City Code,not provisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of the Utah State Code,the Utah Constitution,Utah common law or federal law. •Modify the list of allowed appellants to the land use applicant,City board or officer,or “an adversely affected party”to comply with new State Code. •Eliminate automatic stays of decisions.An appellant would have to specifically request and justify a “stay”(a hold on further proceedings on a matter)when appealing an administrative decision. The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.16 of the zoning ordinance.Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,July 20,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 17,2021 at 6 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021 5.Ordinance:Rezone at 329-331 South 600 East (Encircle)~4:55 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would rezone the property at 329-331 South 600 East from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-family Residential District)to R-MU-35 (Residential/Mixed Use District).The proposed rezone to R-MU would allow for a café eatery within the existing building,which is not currently permitted under the existing RMF-35 zoning designation.This property houses the offices of Encircle Family and Youth Services Center a nonprofit working with LGBTQ+people and their friends and families.Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,July 20,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 17,2021 at 6 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021 6.Ordinance:Rosewood Park Street and Alley Vacation at 1400 North 1200 West ~5:10 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would vacate five unimproved City- owned alleys and six unimproved City-owned streets,situated within Rosewood Park located at approximately 1400 North 1200 West.The proposal would allow for the consolidation of property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,July 20,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 17,2021 at 6 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021 7.Resolution:Funding Our Future:Addenda to Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement with Utah Transit Authority (UTA)~5:25 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution that would authorize the Mayor to enter into two proposed agreements (the fourth and fifth addenda to date)for the City’s interlocal agreement (ILA)with UTA.The fourth addendum continues service on East-West connecting Routes 2 (200 South),9 (900 South)and 21 (2100 South).The fifth addendum initiates mobilization on Route 1 (1000 North)which allows UTA to gather the resources needed,such as additional vehicles,to launch the new service.The ILA is a twenty-year agreement with a goal of full implementation of the Frequent Transit Network as described in the City’s Transit Master Plan. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 17,2021 8.Resolution:Capital Improvement Program Projects Follow-up ~5:40 p.m. 45 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP)which involves the construction,purchase or renovation of buildings,parks,streets or other physical structures.Generally,projects have a useful life of five or more years and cost $50,000 or more.The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding in the annual budget process,while project-specific funding is approved by September 1 of the same year. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,June 1,2021;Tuesday,July 13,2021;and Tuesday,July 20,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,June 8,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,July 13,2021 at 7 p.m.and Tuesday,August 17,2021 at 6 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021 9.Ordinance:Campaign Finance Reporting and Personal Campaign Committees ~6:25 p.m. 5 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend sections of the Salt Lake City Code relating to campaign finance reporting and personal campaign committees.The proposed ordinance would add a new campaign finance report requirement when participating in the Municipal Alternate Voting Method Pilot Program (commonly known as Ranked Choice Voting).The proposed ordinance also has general campaign finance changes to align City ordinance with current State Code. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,July 20,2021 10.Resolution:Utah Performing Arts Center Interlocal Agreement Written Briefing The Council will receive a written briefing about a resolution ratifying execution of a second amendment to an interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City,the Redevelopment Agency (RDA),and the Utah Performing Arts Center Agency (UPACA),for operation of the George S. and Delores Dore Eccles Theater. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,July 20,2021 Standing Items 11.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. 12.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. 13.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. The City &County Building is an accessible facility.People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation,which may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids and services.Please make requests at least two business days in advance.To make a request,please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com,801-535-7600,or relay service 711. Administrative updates July 20, 2021 Current metrics COVID-19 update •Salt Lake County is back in the "moderate transmission" level, according to state guidelines. •Crude rates (cases per 100K) are climbing in ALL city zip codes, with 84101 at 315.6 and 84116 next highest at 179.79. •Vaccinations in the Central City and West Side areas are still behind the east side, which is about 55 -64% fully vaccinated. West Side vaccination rates COVID-19 update May 25 June 1 June 8 July 13 July 20 84101 55.8%full 15.68%partial 58.73%full 13.99%partial 60.80%full 13.11partial 68.5%full 11.66%partial ​69.23% full 11.76% partial 84104 28.37%full 9.03% partial 30.31%full 9.03%partial 31.82% full 8.03%partial 37.72% full 6.19%partial ​38.52% full 6.12% partial 84116 31.05%full 9.06% partial 33.74%full 8.39%partial 35.07%full 8.01%partial 41.26%full 5.96%partial ​41.09% full 6.01% partial Countywide vaccination demographics COVID-19 update May 25 June 1 June 8 July 13 July 20 Asian 42.58%44.53%46.14%53.24%​54.00% White 40.55%42.19%43.58%49.07%​49.66% Black or African American 24.99%27.03%28.58%36.30%​37.37% American Indian or Alaska Native 27.96%29.86%31.27%37.70%​38.80% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 22.08%23.51%24.74%30.09%​30.84% Hispanic ethnicity 24.21%26.14%27.70%34.59%​35.51% Non-Hispanic ethnicity 39.46%40.99%42.28%47.37%​47.91% COVID-19 update •The good news is that ~62% of unvaccinated Utahns (including about 72% of Salt Lake County residents) are still interested in being vaccinated. •We are working on a big back-to-school vaccine push and will share details as soon as we can. Update on people experiencing homelessness Men's HRC King HRC Miller HRC Total Previous Current Previous Current Previous Current Previous Current Shelter capacity 300 200 200 700 Avg. number of beds occupied each night 240 238 194 190 185 185 619 613 Avg number of beds unoccupied each night 60 62 6 10 15 15 81 87 Avg % of beds occupied each night 80.1%79.3%97.1%95.2%92.5%92.5%88%88% Avg % of beds unoccupied each night 16.3%20.7%2.9%4.8%7.5%7.5%12.2%12% Kayak Court’s third run was this past Friday. The courts heard 17 cases from 14 defendants. The breakdown of cases: •3 rd District-4 defendants seen/4 cases heard •SL County-1 defendant seen/1 case heard •WVC Justice –3 defendants seen/6 cases heard •SLCJC –6 defendants seen/6 cases heard Homelessness update Abatements The following areas underwent camp abatement on Thursday of last week:​ 2234 S Highland 250 E 700 S 176 W 600 S 270 W High Ave 9 N Chicago St​ 17 S 800 W Homelessness update 2021 Community Commitment Program Update Housing/ Stability Current unmet SL County needs: -2950 Low-income units -450 PSH -85 additional case managers Emergency Shelters/ Resource Centers Current capacity: -1100 beds -mostly congregate Unsheltered Homelessness Salt Lake City: -300+ unsheltered -Up to 100 vehicle campers Current Homelessness Status and Needs Housing/ Stability Current unmet SL County needs: -2950 Low-income units -450 PSH -85 additional case managers Emergency Shelters/ Resource Centers Current capacity: -1100 beds -mostly congregate Unsheltered Homelessness Salt Lake City: -300 unsheltered -50-100 vehicle campers •State of Utah-Homeless Council, Coordinator •Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness •Salt Lake County •Salt Lake City •Partners: Shelter the Homeless VOA, The Road Home, Utah Community Action, The Other Side Village, Catholic Community Services, Switchpoint System Structure & Partners Housing/ Stability Current unmet SL County needs: -2950 Low-income units -450 PSH -85 additional case managers Emergency Shelters/ Resource Centers Current capacity: -1100 beds -mostly congregate Unsheltered Homelessness Salt Lake City: -300+ unsheltered -50-100 vehicle campers 1a) 300+ new beds by Winter 2020 1b) Community Commitment Program: •Camp Abatement Prioritization Plan •Revised Public Camping Ordinance •Decreased Police Dept Vacancies/ Other enforcement support •Increased Police Social Worker Program •Car/RV Camping Interventions •Enforcement of Camping/ Parking Ordinance 2) Salt Lake City Deeply Affordable Housing Plan 3) State/County Deeply Affordable Housing Plans Plans to address current needs Andrew Johnston, LCSW Director of Homeless Policy & Outreach Andrew.Johnston@slcgov.com 801.440.7822 To report camping/ street parking- On your smart phone: slcmobile app Email: michelle.hoon@slcgov.com Call: 801.535.7712 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: July 20, 2021 RE: Text amendment: Eliminating the Special Exception Process PLNPCM2020-00606 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing July 20, 2021 Set Date: July 20, 2021 Public Hearing: Aug, 17 2021 Potential Action: Aug, 24 2021 ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed on a proposal to that would remove the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. The purpose of this proposal is to amend the zoning ordinance related to special exceptions to accomplish the following: Simplify the zoning ordinance by updating regulations and eliminating special exceptions Reallocate staff resources away from processing land use applications that favor individual properties and toward updating overall zoning codes to align with adopted master plans Increase predictability and reduce neighbor conflicts that are created by requests for exceptions to the zoning regulations for single parcels A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. Common examples of special exceptions include requests for exceptions to the maximum height requirements for buildings and fences, additions to existing buildings that do not comply with current setback requirements, grade changes over four feet in height, legalization of dwelling units when there is no record of the unit be permitted, and modifications to building bulk requirements in historic districts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission depending on location/designation of the property. The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council. Page | 2 Policy Questions 1. The Council may wish to ask if this change will enable planning staff to process other initiatives more quickly, and how this staff time would be coordinated with the positions added in the FY 22 budget process. 2. Given the breadth of these changes and City-wide nature, the Council may wish to discuss with planning staff how public feedback was sought and incorporated, and whether additional public process is concluded. Public Process The proposed text amendment went through the required public process outlined in City Code See pages 2-3 of the transmittal letter for details. Early engagement period ran from August 13 to October 10, 2020 o The public information document was posted on the Planning Division website o Notice sent to all recognized organizations, AIA Utah, and the Planning Divisions email list Planning Commission held a work session on September 30, 2020 Historic Landmark Commission virtual public hearing on November 5, 2020 o HLC adopted a motion recommended that the City Council adopt the proposal Planning Commission virtual public hearing on November 18, 2020 o PC unanimously adopted a motion recommending that the City Council adopt the proposal During the public process, Planning staff reached out to the Utah chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and Rocky Mountain Power (RMP), in addition to all recognized organizations. RMP provided suggestions to the proposal. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Definition (21A.52.020): A "special exception" is an activity or use incidental to or in addition to the principal use(s) permitted in a zoning district or an adjustment to a fixed dimension standard permitted as exceptions to the requirements of this title of less potential impact than a conditional use but which requires a careful review of such factors as location, design, configuration and/or impacts to determine the desirability of authorizing its establishment on any given site. Purpose Statement (21A.52.010): The planning commission or historic landmark commission may delegate its authority as necessary to the planning director to make a determination regarding special exceptions. The planning director may approve the special exceptions authorized by this title in accordance with the procedures and standards set out in this chapter and other regulations applicable to the district in which the subject property is located. Budget /Staffing Impact Pages 2-3 of the transmittal letter outlines the budgetary and staffing impact of the proposed amendments. Below are some of the key info taken from that section. If adopted, revenue from application fees would decrease approximately $43,000.00 o application fee of ($265) x average number of applications submitted annual (156) Approximately 150 applications for special exceptions are received each calendar year. The application fee is $265.00. Page | 3 Eliminating this process would result in significant staff time savings. See calculation summary in the following two sections: Typical Special Exception Process o The processing time for a typical special exception is about17 hours. The cost to process the applications is determined primarily by the hours of staff needed. the cost to the city is between approximately $460.00 and $575.00 depending on the classification of the planner processing the application. The application fee covers between 48-57% of the cost. Special Exception that Requires Planning Commission or Historic Landmark Commission Review o Average processing time for special exceptions that require approval by the Planning Commission or Historic Landmark Commission is approximately 52 hours. Staff hour cost is between $1,370.00 and $1,765.00 which is 5-6.6 times the application fee. The application fee only covers between 15% and 52% of the cost to process which means that the rest of the cost is subsidized by the city. Summary of Proposed Changes Currently there are 42 special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each of them being either deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. The list below uses a color code to easily identify the proposed changes for each item. Process to be Permitted (see items in the list below in blue) Most special exceptions do not generate public input and either require no conditions of approval or require consistent conditions of approval regardless of the property location. The special exceptions that fall into this category will be allowed by right and some of them will have specific qualifying provisions Processes Proposed to be Eliminated (see items in the list below in red) These exceptions are being eliminated because they make up the bulk of denied special exceptions requests, there are other processes to address the exception already in the zoning ordinance, or due to the high level of controversy that are generated by the exceptions. Proposed Changes that Generated Public Input (see items in the list below in green) The Planning Division identified some special exceptions that have generated public input during the process, as potentially impactful and the Planning Commission asked for more detailed information those items. See pages 23-25 Planning Commission Staff report for full discussion on these items: Historic Landmark Commission would retain authority to make modifications to dimensional requirements through existing processes in 21A.34.020 Historic Preservation Overlay District. Ground mounted utility boxes will be required to be on private property when serving individual developments. Accessory building heights would be able to increase slightly up to a district specific maximum with increased setbacks. Page | 4 Outdoor dining would be permitted with qualifying provisions intended to reduce the impact when next to residential zoning districts, including a setback from the shared property line and time limitations for outdoor music. Front yard parking would be allowed for residential uses only when no other yard is accessible for parking and there is no option for an attached garage. Inline additions would be allowed to follow existing building lines in front and rear yards. In side yards, an inline addition would be allowed to extend an existing wall that doesn’t met setbacks up to 25% of the length of the wall. In commercial zoning districts, building height would be allowed to be increased by up to 10% if the lot is sloped, the increased height is not creating an additional habitable, upper level to the building, and at least 50% of the building complies with the height requirement. Zoning districts where vintage signs can be used as art are expanding to include the following zoning districts: CSHBD-2, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, and TSA. Vintage signs as art is already authorized in the D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, G-MU, and CSHBD1 zoning districts. The following is a simple summary of the proposed changes. The change for each item is identified as either; deleted/no longer authorized, permitted with some qualifying provisions, or permitted/authorized through a different process. (Attachment A of the November 18, 2020 staff report for the Planning Commission) 1. Additional Accessory structure height: increased height (up to 75% of the principal structure) allowed with increase in setbacks 2. Accessory structures on double frontage lots: standards added to match location of accessory buildings of the block. 3. Additional height for fences: removed exception process, sets maximum heights. 4. Additional building height in commercial districts: deleted special exception; standards added to allow 10% increase on sloping lots. 5. Additional height in foothill districts: deleted special exception 6. Additional height in R-1, R-2, SR districts: deleted special exception 7. Alternative to off street parking: deleted 8. Barbed wire fences: standards added, restricted to industrial and agricultural zones and for land uses that require added security, such as public utility facilities. 9. Conditional home occupations: deleted. This was changed several years ago to permitted but was not deleted from the special exception chapter. 10. Dividing exiting lots with existing detached dwellings: allowed through the subdivision process with standards added. 11. Front yard parking: Standards added to allow front yard parking in very limited instances. 12. Grade changes over 4 feet: will become permitted with a step between retaining walls necessary to retain the grade change. 13. Ground mounted AC units, pool equipment, etc. within 4 feet of side or rear property line: standards updated to allow equipment in additional situations when there is no impact, or the equipment is screened. 14. Hobby shop, art studio, exercise room in accessory buildings: deleted, will become permitted. 15. Inline additions: permitted to match the existing building setback in front and rear yards; allowed in a limited manner in side yards. 16. Home day care: will become permitted or conditional based on Utah Code requirements for number of kids. 17. Outdoor dining in required yard: will be permitted with specific standards for setbacks, noise, etc. when next to residential zone. 18. Razor wire fencing: limited to industrial and agricultural zones and some uses that require a high level of security. Page | 5 19. Replacement of noncomplying building or portion of a noncomplying building: allowed by right within the noncomplying chapter of the zoning ordinance. 20. Underground encroachments: permitted in the encroachment table with standards. 21. Window mounted AC units: deleted special exception, will be permitted. 22. Vehicle and equipment storage in CG, M1, M2, EI: permitted with specific standards for water quality and to reduce mud, dirt, gravel being carried onto public streets. 23. Ground mounted utility boxes: prohibited in the public right of way unless the box serves a broader area than just a private development and with specific standards; location requirements on private property added. Size limitations deleted. 24. Unit legalizations: will be addressed as a determination of nonconforming use in chapter 21A.38. Standards related to continuing use maintained. Other standards that require update to parking standards deleted. 25. Vintage signs: Changed to permitted with existing standards in the ordinance, expanded where a vintage sign could be used as public art. 26. Additional height for lights at sports fields: changed to permitted with screening of light trespass, increased setback from residential uses. 27. Recreation equipment height in OS zone: capped at 60 feet in height with no exceptions. 28. Public utility buildings in OS zone: will be allowed to exceed building height for critical public utility infrastructure. Does not include office buildings. 29. Fence and wall height over 6 feet for homeless resource centers: Planning Commission will be given the authority to approve taller fences for buffering purposes. 30. Enlargement of structure with noncomplying use: allowed by right provided the addition complies with zoning requirements. 31. Horizontal inline additions: permitted to match existing portions of buildings that do not meet setback when the addition is in the front or rear yards, with limited application in side yards. 32. Alteration to an existing SFD [single family dwelling] when the use is not allowed: alterations will be permitted. 33. Amateur HAM radio antennae over 75 feet in height: special exception deleted. 34. Electrical equipment for cell towers: will need to be in a side or rear yard with specific setback and screening requirements. 35. Electrical security fences: permitted with updated qualifying provisions. 36. Covered ADA ramps: deleted, will be addressed through a reasonable accommodation authorized under federal laws. 37. Ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the right of way: will be deleted and required to be located on private property when serving individual developments. 38. Front yard parking for SFD when side or rear yard not accessible: deleted and will be allowed in very limited instances. 39. Parking exceeding the maximum: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to parking ordinance. 40. Alternative parking requirements: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to parking ordinance. 41. Commercial signs in historic districts: delete special exception requirement; will be authorized through existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay. 42. HLC bulk modifications: delete special exception requirement: will be authorized through existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay. Removing Special Exceptions From the Zoning Code Or Making Zoning Easier Or Streamlining Zoning Processes Or Removing Inequities in the Allocation of Planning Resources Or Removing Barriers CITY COUNCIL Allowed variations from a zoning requirement •Minor in nature (although code does not cap degree of variation) •Most often dimensional •Can be ancillary uses •Sometimes legalizes past actions WHAT IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION Over-height fences Additions to buildings that don’t meet setbacks Mechanical equipment size Grade changes Historic districts Additional garage height/size MOST COMMON EXAMPLES 42 authorized special exceptions HLC can modify any lot or bulk standard Average 156 per year 2021: 120 through end of June •Projected 240 HOW MANY DO WE PROCESS? Fence height •Part of companion proposal/separate transmittal •7/14/2021: in council office KEY ISSUES Outdoor Dining •Adjacency to residential uses •Noise Qualifying provisions •Requires setback •No music between 9 pm and 9 am •Typo on pg. 16 of transmittal: should say outdoor dining is not considered an expansion of the use for parking purposes. •Some want an approval process for outdoor dining in smaller zoning districts adjacent to residential(conditional use) KEY ISSUES HLC Authority •Bulk/lot modifications through H Overlay •Eliminates the need for multiple applications •Supports preservation goals KEY ISSUES Grade Changes •Requires a “step” between tiers •Sets max height of each tier KEY ISSUES Extra building height •Based on characteristics of block face •HLC can still approve taller KEY ISSUES Inline Additions •Allows by right up to a certain extent •Public input: may be too restrictive •Second story must meet setbacks •Addressed in noncomplying chapter KEY ISSUES Accessory building height •Increases allowed height •up to 75% of principal building with a cap •R-1 zones and multi-family/mixed use zones •Flat roof: from 12 to 15 ft •Pitched: from 17 to 21 ft •*typo multi family zones: says max of 15 for pitched, should be 21. (pg. 14, section 25, C.1.b) •SR-1 zones •Flat roof: 9 to 11 ft •Pitched: 14 to 15 ft •Requires additional setback on a 1:1 basis if going up to 75% of principal height KEY ISSUES Use of Accessory Buildings •Stand alone buildings, over garages •Allows home office, hobby shop, fitness room •No special approval KEY ISSUES Noncomplying Buildings •Allowed to be rebuilt, expand meeting current standards •Retains property rights •Most pre -1950s buildings are noncomplying •Unit legalizations are noncomplying issues, legalizing based on facts. KEY ISSUES Front Yard parking •Properties without access to off street parking •Allowed in certain instances •Historic approval required in historic districts KEY ISSUES Ground Mounted Utility Boxes •Individual developments •Not allowed in ROW •Setback requirements (for access to service provider) •Screening required in front or corner side yard •Exception •Adaptive reuse when there are not private property alternatives KEY ISSUES Ground Mounted Utility Boxes •When serving the neighborhood: •Allowed in ROW with standards •Spacing from trees •Cannot impact other infrastructure •Cannot impede future planned ROW needs (bike lanes, wider sidewalks, etc.) KEY ISSUES Ground Mounted Utility Boxes •Dimensional Standards: •Removed from Zoning Code •Title 14 regulates objects in the ROW (other that street trees) •Subjects ROW permits to land use appeals process •Limits flexibility when boxes are beneficial or required •Approval establishes a property right in ROW KEY ISSUES Application fee: $265 Average staff hours: 52 hours •Zoning review •Review by other depts •Noticing •Findings •Staff reports Fee covers between 10-40% of staff cost WHAT DOES IT COST? Geographic inequities: 85% of applications are east of I-15 Staff resources forced towards expand property rights of individual property rights, not on city goals. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF SUBSIDIZING SPECIAL EXCEPTIO Simplify the zoning code Remove uncertainty Neighbor vs Neighbor OTHER REASONS FOR THE PROJ Deletes the special exception process Authorized special exceptions will be: •Allowed by right •Allowed by right with qualifying provisions •No longer allowed KEY POINTS ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ 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: PLNPCM2020-00606 Text amendment eliminating the special exception process from Title 21A. STAFF CONTACT: Nick Norris, Planning Director, 801-641-1728 or nick.norris@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the proposal as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: If adopted, revenue from application fees would decrease approximately $43,000.00 (application fee of ($265) x average number of applications submitted annual (156)) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The purpose of this proposal is to amend the zoning ordinance related to special exceptions to accomplish the following: Simplify the zoning ordinance by updating regulations and eliminating special exceptions; Reallocate staff resources away from processing land use applications that favor individual properties and towards updating zoning codes to align with adopted master plans; Increase predictability and reduce neighbor conflicts that are created by requests for exceptions to the zoning regulations; This proposal would eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance and make changes to multiple sections of the zoning ordinance to address each of the 42 authorized 1 March 18, 2021 Lisa Shaffer (Mar 23, 2021 12:47 MDT) 03/23/2021 03/23/2021 special exceptions. Each of the authorized special exceptions would be addressed in one of the following ways: Prohibited and no longer authorized; Permitted by right, some with qualifying provisions; Permitted through a different process within the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor change to a dimensional requirement or to approve accessory or ancillary uses on a property. Common examples of special exceptions include requests for exceptions to the maximum height requirements for buildings and fences, additions to existing buildings that do not comply with current setback requirements, grade changes over four feet in height, legalization of dwelling units when there is no record of the unit be permitted, and modifications to building bulk requirements in historic districts. The Planning Division receives approximately 150 applications for special exceptions each calendar year. The application fee is currently $265.00. The cost to process the applications is determined primarily by the hours of staff needed. The average processing time is about 17 hours and includes application intake, review for completeness, preparing public notices, routing for departmental review, reviewing the proposal to verify that applicable standards and other zoning regulations are complied with, explaining the proposals to neighbors who receive notice, determining if the proposal impacts neighbors and if so applying conditions to reduce those impacts, and producing decision letters. Some special exceptions require approval by the Planning Commission or Historic Landmark Commission. Additional tasks are required that include preparing staff reports, scheduling and noticing public hearings, and preparing for presentations for the public hearing. The level of public engagement increases because public hearing notices are mailed to a broader segment of the neighborhood. Special exceptions that are reviewed by one of the commissions require approximately 52 staff hours. Based on this information, the cost to the city to process a typical special exception application that is approved by staff is between approximately $460.00 and $575.00 depending on the classification of the planner processing the application. The application fee covers between 48- 57% of the cost. If the special exception is required to go to a commission for approval, the staff hour cost increases to between $1,370.00 and $1,765.00 which is 5-6.6 times the application fee. The application fee only covers between 15% and 52% of the cost to process which means that the rest of the cost is subsidized by the city. There are some exceptions that will be prohibited by this proposal. These exceptions are being eliminated because the make up the bulk of denied special exceptions, there are other processes to address the exception already in the zoning ordinance, or due to the high level of controversy that are generated by the exceptions. The following is a short list of exceptions that will no longer be allowed: Additional height for dwellings in residential districts unless the block face already has buildings that exceed the current height limit or the property is located in a historic district; Additional height for fences, including in the front yard. Changes to fence height regulations were initiated by the City Council in 2019. This is being processed separately because fence height regulations impact every single parcel of land in the city; 2 Ground mounted utility boxes in rights of way unless the box serves the broader neighborhood or community; Grade changes and retaining walls over six feet in height that are not broken up by a horizontal step. This change was also initiated by the City Council in 2016 after a very tall retaining wall was built in the upper Federal Heights neighborhood. Most special exceptions do not generate public input and either require no conditions of approval or require consistent conditions of approval regardless of the property location. The special exceptions that fall into this category will be allowed by right and some of them will have specific qualifying provisions. These are detailed in the Planning Commission staff report from November 18, 2020 (Attachment 3.a.iii). There are some special exceptions that have generated public input during the process, that the Planning Division identified as potentially impactful, that the Planning Commission asked for more detailed information, or that have generated enforcement actions by the city. These special exceptions are summarized in detail in the Planning Commission staff reports, but briefly discussed here for reference: Historic Landmark Commission would retain authority to make modifications to dimensional requirements through existing processes in 21A.34.020 Historic Preservation Overlay District. Ground mounted utility boxes will be required to be on private property when serving individual developments. Accessory building heights would be able to increase slightly up to a district specific maximum with increased setbacks. Outdoor dining would be permitted with qualifying provisions intended to reduce the impact when next to residential zoning districts, including a setback from the shared property line and time limitations for outdoor music. Front yard parking would be allowed for residential uses only when no other yard is accessible for parking and there is no option for an attached garage. Inline additions would be allowed to follow existing building lines in front and rear yards. In side yards, an inline addition would be allowed to extend an existing wall that doesn’t met setbacks up to 25% of the length of the wall. In commercial zoning districts, building height would be allowed to be increased by up to 10% if the lot is sloped, the increased height is not creating an additional habitable, upper level to the building, and at least 50% of the building complies with the height requirement. Zoning districts where vintage signs can be used as art are expanding to include the following zoning districts: CSHBD-2, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, and TSA. Vintage signs as art is already authorized in the D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, G-MU, and CSHBD1 zoning districts. PUBLIC PROCESS: The proposed changes went through an early engagement process that included notice to all recognized organizations, notice to AIA Utah, and notice to the Planning Divisions email list. The official early engagement period started on August 13 and ended on October 10, 2020. The public information document on this topic that was posted on the 3 Planning Division website was accessed by 147 individuals during this period. Comments were submitted from the Sugar House Community Council and four individuals. After the early engagement period several changes were made to the proposal in response to the comments. These changes included expanding the zoning districts where vintage signs could be placed as public art, modifying the inline addition regulations to allow minor extensions to buildings walls that do not meet current side yard setback requirements, and changes to the location of mechanical equipment when next to driveways, parking areas, or accessory buildings. As part of the public review process the Planning Division also reviewed zoning complaints to determine what types of issues are commonly associated with complaints related to special exceptions. The most common complaint was associated with mechanical equipment and outdoor dining. The outdoor dining regulations were modified to include a 10-foot setback when adjacent to a residential zone and hours that music could be played outdoors. Changes to the mechanical equipment regulations include prohibiting equipment from being placed on the roofs of accessory buildings and requiring screening when locating in a front or corner side yard. The Planning Commission held a work session on September 30, 2020 to review the proposal and provide input. The meeting was held virtually and broadcast on the City’s YouTube channel, Channel 17 and through the WebEx platform. During the work session, the PC directed the Planning Division to address the following issues: 1. Front yard parking when there are no other options for off street parking on the site; 2. Extra building height in commercial districts on sloping lots; 3. Inline additions within noncomplying side yards; 4. Ground mounted utility boxes; and 5. Accessory structure building height. The proposal was modified to address the issues. Front yard parking would be allowed in very limited situations with specific dimensional requirements; maximum building height in commercial zoning districts would be allowed up to a 10% increase in building height on sloping lots and the extra height does not result in the creation of an additional story; inline additions were limited in scale; ground mounted utility boxes were prohibited in rights of way when serving only a private development; and up to a 25% increase in accessory building height was allowed with an equal increase in setback. The Historic Landmarks Commission held a virtual public hearing on the proposal on November 5, 2020. The meeting was broadcast on the City’s YouTube channel and Channel 17 and available through the WebEx platform. The public was able to submit comments during the meeting to a public comment email address that was monitored by staff during the meeting. One person spoke during the public hearing and discussed the importance that the proposal maintains the authority of the HLC to modify lot and bulk modifications within local historic districts and for landmark sites. The HLC adopted a motion recommended that the City Council adopt the proposal. The Planning Commission held a virtual public hearing on November 18, 2020. The meeting was broadcast on the City’s YouTube channel and Channel 17 and available through the WebEx platform. The public was able to submit comments during the meeting to a public comment 4 email address that was monitored by staff during the meeting. Two people spoke during the public hearing, one person in favor of the proposal for streamlining approval processes and the resulting reallocation of staff resources to other city planning needs. Another person discussed the impact of making more things permitted and the loss of notice associated with that. It should be noted that notice is only sent to adjacent property owners/occupants and to property owners directly across the street. Nearly of all special exception requests are approved by staff after the noticing period ends. The special exceptions that generate the most opposition and are make up the bulk of denials include requests for extra height for single family homes and over height fences. These two options are being deleted as part of this proposal and would no longer be allowed. After discussing these issues, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted a motion recommending that the City Council adopt the proposal. It should be noted that this petition has no direct mailing list because the text amendment does not directly impact specific properties, no property owners or stakeholders indicated that they would like to receive notice regarding the changes, and no entities have requested direct notice related to special exceptions. EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Planning Commission Meetings A. November 18, 2020 Public Hearing i. Agenda and Minutes ii. Hearing Notice iii. Staff Report B. September 30, 2020 Work Session i. Agenda and Minutes ii. Staff Report 4. Historic Landmark Commission Meeting November 5, 2020 A. Agenda and Minutes B. Staff Report 5. Original Petition 5 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2021 (An ordinance amending various sections of the Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to eliminate special exceptions from that title) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00606 to eliminate special exceptions from the city’s zoning ordinances. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 18, 2020 to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall (Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00606) to amend portions of Chapters 21A.06 (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials); 21A.24 (Zoning: Residential Districts); 21A.26 (Zoning: Commercial Districts); 21A.32 (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts); 21A.34 (Zoning: Overlay Districts); 21A.36 (Zoning: General Provisions); 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.46 (Zoning: Signs) 21A.52 (Zoning : Special Exceptions); 21A.60 (Zoning: Defined Terms); and 21A.62 (Zoning: Definitions) of the Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to off street parking; and WHEREAS, at its November 18, 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 Subsection 21A.06.050.C.6 as follows: 6. Review and approve or deny certain modifications to dimensional standards for properties located within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. This authority is also granted to the planning director or designee for applications within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District that are eligible for administrative approval by the planning director or zoning administrator. The certain modifications to zoning district specific development standards are listed as follows and are in addition to any modification authorized elsewhere in this title: a. Building wall height; b. Accessory structure wall height; c. Accessory structure square footage; d. Fence height; e. Overall building and accessory structure height; f. Signs pursuant to Section 21A.46.070 of this title; and g. Any modification to bulk and lot regulations, except density, of the underlying zoning district where it is found that the proposal complies with the applicable standards identified in Section 21A.34.020 and is compatible with the surrounding historic structures. SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.010.P.2 as follows: 2. Repealed. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.010.P.6 (Grade Changes) as follows: 6. Grade Changes: No grading shall be permitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. The grade of any lot shall not be altered above or below established grade more than 4 feet at any point for the construction of any structure or improvement except: a. Within the buildable area. Proposals to modify established grade more than 6 feet shall be permitted for the construction of below grade portions of structures, egress windows, and building entrances. Grade change transition areas between a yard area and the buildable area shall be within the buildable area; b. Within the side and rear yard areas, grade changes greater than 4 feet are permitted provided: 3 (1) The grade change is supported by retaining walls. (2) No individual retaining wall exceeds 6 feet in height. c. Within the required front and corner side yards, grade changes up to 6 feet in height are permitted provided: (1) The grade change is necessary for driveways accessing legally located parking areas; and (2) The grade changes are supported by retaining walls. SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.050.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.060.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.070.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.080.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Building Height: Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay 4 District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.100.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.110.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 10. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.26.010.J (Modifications to Maximum Height) as follows: J. Modifications to Maximum Height: The maximum height of buildings in commercial zoning districts may be increased up to 10% on any building face due to the natural topography of the site pursuant to the following standards: 1. At least 50% of the building complies with the maximum height of the underlying zoning district; 2. The modification allows the upper floor of a building to be level with the portion of the building that complies with the maximum building height of the zone without the 10% modification; and 3. The height of the ground floor is at least 12 feet in height measured from finished floor to finished ceiling height. SECTION 11. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.32.100.D.3 as follows: 5 3. Recreation equipment heights are permitted to a height not to exceed 80 feet when needed due to the nature of the equipment or for the use to operate safely, such as fences surrounding golf course driving ranges. SECTION 12. Amending to the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.32.100.D as follows: D. Maximum Building and Recreation Equipment Height: 1. Lots 4 acres or less: Building height shall be limited to 35 feet; provided that for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet, each required yard and landscaped yard shall be increased one foot. 2. Lots greater than 4 acres: Building heights in excess of 35 feet but not more than 45 feet may be permitted provided, that for each foot of height over 35 feet, each required yard and landscaped yard shall be increased one foot. Building heights in excess of 45 feet up to 60 feet may be approved through the design review process and that for each foot of height over 35 feet, each required yard and landscaped yard shall be increased one foot. 3. Recreation equipment heights or heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department that are not specifically exempt in Section 21A.02.050 of this title, in excess of 60 feet may be approved through the special exception process. 4. Heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department that are not specifically exempt in Section 21A.02.050 of this title, are exempt from the height restrictions in this zoning district provided the building or structure is deemed by the director of the public utilities department as critical infrastructure necessary to provide specific utility needs to the public. SECTION 13. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.32.100.H (Lighting) as follows: H. Lighting: All uses and developments that provide lighting shall ensure that lighting installations comply with the following standards: 1. Lighting is installed in a manner and location that will not have an adverse impact on the natural environment when placed in areas with wildlife habitat, traffic safety or on surrounding properties and uses; 2. Light sources shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent properties and have cutoffs to protect the view of the night sky; and 3. Light poles for outdoor uses, such as sports fields, amphitheaters, and other similar uses may be permitted up to 70 feet in height provided the lights are located a 6 minimum of 30 feet from a residential use and directed to reduce light trespass onto neighboring properties. SECTION 14. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.34.120.G (Special Exception for Garages) as follows: G. Garages Built into Hillsides in Front or Corner Side Yards: A garage built into a hillside and located forward of the front line of the building may be allowed subject to the following standards: 1. The rear and side yards cannot be reasonably accessed for the purpose of parking. 2. Because of the topography of the lot it is impossible to construct a garage and satisfy the standards of the YCI. 3. The ceiling elevation of the garage is below the elevation of the first or main floor of the house. 4. The garage meets all applicable yard requirements. SECTION 15. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection Table 21A.36.020.B (Obstructions in Required Yards) as follows (only the identified rows and columns in the table are amended): TABLE 21A.36.020B OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS1 Type Oof Structure Oor Use Obstruction Front and Corner Side Yards Side Yard Rear Yard Below grade encroachments underground obstructions when there is no exterior evidence of the underground structure other than entrances and required venting provided there are no conflicts with any easements or publicly owned infrastructure or utilities. X X X Changes of established grade of 4 feet or less except for the FP and FR Districts which shall be subject to the provisions of Subsection 21A.24.010.P of this title. (All grade changes located on a property line shall be supported by a retaining wall.) Grade changes greater than 4 feet in height provided the grade change includes a retaining wall, a horizontal step that is a minimum of 3 feet in depth is provided for every 4 vertical feet of retaining wall. X X X 7 Laundry drying equipment (clothesline and poles) X X X Window mounted refrigerated air conditioners and evaporative “swamp” coolers located at least 2 feet from the property line. X X X Notes: 1. ”X” denotes where obstructions are allowed. 2. Reserved. 3. The accessory structure shall be located wholly behind the primary structure on the property. SECTION 16. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.36.350.A.3.c.(3) as follows: (3) A decorative masonry wall that is a minimum of 6 feet high shall be provided along all interior side and rear lot lines and that complies with all required site distance triangles at driveways and walkways. Walls in excess of 6 feet may be required as a condition of approval of a conditional use if it determines a taller wall is necessary to mitigate a detrimental impact created by the homeless resource center or homeless shelter; SECTION 17. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.38.040.H.2 (Enlargement of a Structure With a Nonconforming Use) as follows: 2. Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use: Enlargement of a legal nonconforming use are limited to a one time expansion of up to 25% of the gross floor area, or 1,000 gross square feet, whichever is less and subject to the site being able to provide required off street parking that complies with any applicable parking requirement of this title. An approved expansion shall be documented through an updated zoning certificate for the property. Any expansion to the nonconforming use beyond these limits is not permitted. The expansion shall be limited to a one-time expansion after April 12, 1995, the effective date of this title. Any expansion granted as a special exception after April 12, 1995 shall be considered as fulfilling the one-time expansion. SECTION 18. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.38.050.B (Enlargement) as follows: B. Enlargement: A noncomplying structure may be enlarged if such enlargement and its location comply with the standards of the zoning district in which it is located or as provided in this section. 1. Noncomplying as to setbacks. 8 a. Front yard: A principal building with a front yard setback that is less than the minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does not further reduce the existing front yard setback and complies with all other applicable requirements of Title 21A. b. Corner side yards: A principal building with a corner side yard setback that is less than the minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does not further reduce the existing corner side yard setback and complies with all other applicable requirements of Title 21A. c. Interior side yards: Additions to a principal structure with noncomplying side yard setback(s) are permitted as follows: (1) Single story additions are permitted to follow the existing setback line provided the following standards are complied with: i. The exterior wall height of the addition is equal to or less than the exterior wall height of the existing building. When a cross slope exists along the exterior wall, the interior floor to ceiling height of the addition shall match the interior floor to ceiling height of the existing building. ii. The addition may extend the noncomplying exterior wall of the building up to 20% of the length of the existing wall. This shall be a one-time addition and no further additions are permitted. (2) Two story or greater additions shall comply with the side yard setback requirement(s) and maximum wall height as specified in the underlying zone. (3) In determining if a side yard is noncomplying, the narrower of the two side yards shall be interpreted to be the narrower side yard required in the underlying zoning district. (4) All other provisions of the underlying zoning district and any applicable overlay zoning district shall apply. d. Rear yards. A principal building noncomplying to rear yard setbacks may be expanded provided the expansion follows an existing noncomplying building wall and does not result in a decrease of the existing rear yard setback and complies with side and corner side yard setbacks of the underlying zoning district. If the building does not comply with the existing side or corner side yard setback, the expansion shall be permitted to extend to the side or corner side yard setback of the underlying zone. 2. Noncomplying as to Height: A principal structure that exceeds the maximum height of the underlying zoning district may be expanded at the existing height of the building provided the setbacks of the underlying zoning district are complied with. 9 SECTION 19. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.38.050.F (Replacement or Reconstruction of a Noncomplying Structure) as follows: F. The replacement or reconstruction of any existing noncomplying portion of a principal structure or full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure is permitted provided the replacement is in the same location or in a location that reduces the degree of noncompliance and is of substantially the same dimension. Enlarging a full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure is permitted provided the enlarged section complies with all setback, height, maximum square feet, and lot or yard coverage requirements. SECTION 20. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.38.060 (Noncomplying Lots) as follows: 21A.38.060: NONCOMPLYING LOTS: Subdividing Lots Containing Two or More Separate Principal Buildings: Lots that contain two or more separate principal buildings on a single parcel may be subdivided to place each structure on a separate lot subject to the following provisions: A. The properties shall be subdivided by recording of a plat. B. The proposed lots are exempt from the minimum lot area, lot width, lot coverage, and street frontage requirements of the underlying zoning district; C. The proposed setbacks shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director after consultation with applicable city departments; D. The proposed subdivision plat shall identify the front, corner side, interior side, and rear yards for the purpose of future development. E. Parking may be located anywhere within the proposed subdivision except front yards (unless already existing) and shall not be reduced below the existing off-street parking F. All lots that are part of the subdivision must include adequate access to a public street. Adequate access shall include pedestrian walkways and when off-street parking is required, vehicle access and parking. G. All necessary easements for access and utilities are shown on the plat. A note shall be added to indicate responsibility for maintenance of shared access and utilities. H. All other applicable regulations of the Salt Lake City Code shall apply. A lot that is noncomplying as to lot area or lot frontage that was in legal existence on the effective date of any amendment to this title that makes the existing lot noncomplying shall be considered a legal complying lot and is subject to the regulations of this title. Any noncomplying lot not approved by the city that was created prior to January 13, 1950, may be approved as a legal noncomplying lot subject to the lot meeting minimum zoning 10 requirements at the time the lot was created and documented through an updated zoning certificate for the property. Any noncomplying lot not approved by the city that was created on or between January 13, 1950 to April 12, 1995, may be approved as a legal noncomplying lot subject to the lot meeting minimum zoning and subdivision requirements at the time the lot was created and documented through an updated zoning certificate for the property. Noncomplying lots may be combined to create a conforming lot or more conforming lot subject to any maximum lot size standards of the zoning district in which the lot is located. SECTION 21. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.38.070 (Legal Conforming Single-Family Detached Dwelling, Two-Family Dwellings, and Twin Homes) as follows: Any legally existing single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home 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 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 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. 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. 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 provided shall be equal to or more than the number of parking stalls being replaced. The maximum number of outdoor parking stalls shall be 4 parking stalls per dwelling unit SECTION 22. Adopting a new Section 21A.38.075 (Unit Legalizations) to the text of the Salt Lake City Code as follows: 11 21A.38.075: UNIT LEGALIZATIONS: A. Purpose: The purpose of this subsection is to implement the existing Salt Lake City community housing plan by providing a process that gives owners of property with one or more excess dwelling units not recognized by the city an opportunity to legalize such units based on the standards set forth in this section. The intent is to maintain existing housing stock in a safe manner that contributes to the vitality and sustainability of neighborhoods within the city. B. Review Standards: A dwelling unit that is proposed to be legalized pursuant to this section 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); or 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 B.1 of this section indicates that the unit has been occupied at least once every 5 calendar years; b. Evidence that the unit was marketed for occupancy if the unit was unoccupied for more than 5 consecutive years; c. If evidence of maintaining a separate dwelling unit as required by Subsection B.1 of this section cannot be established, documentation of construction upgrades may be provided in lieu thereof. 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 5 years. 12 C. Conditions of Approval: Any approved unit legalization shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. All required corrections indicated during the inspection process must be completed within 1 year unless granted an extension by the Building Official. D. Application: A determination of non-conforming use application, provided by the zoning administrator, shall be required to legalize unrecognized dwelling units. SECTION 23. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.040 “Use Limitations” as follows: 21A.40.040: USE LIMITATIONS: In addition to the applicable use limitations of the district regulations, no accessory use shall be permitted unless it complies with the restrictions set forth below: A. An accessory use shall be incidental and subordinate to the principal use or structure in area, extent and purpose; B. An accessory use, building or structure shall be under the same ownership or control as the principal use or structure, and shall be, except as otherwise expressly authorized by the provisions of this title, located on the same lot as the principal use or structure; C. No accessory use shall be established or constructed before the principal use is in operation or the structure is under construction in accordance with these regulations; D. No commercial sign, except as expressly authorized by this chapter or by the provisions of Chapter 21A.46 of this title, shall be maintained in connection with an accessory use or structure. E. An accessory use shall be permitted if it is routinely and customarily associated with the principal use and not otherwise prohibited by this title. For residential uses, this includes accessory uses that are customarily associated with a dwelling, such as home office, outdoor living space, pool houses, storage, personal use, hobbies, and other similar uses but does not include short term rentals or other uses not allowed in the zoning district. SECTION 24. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.050.A as follows: 13 A. Location of Accessory Buildings in Required Yards: 1. Front Yards: Accessory buildings are prohibited in any required front yard and shall be set back at least as far as the principal building when the principal building exceeds the required front yard setback. Notwithstanding the foregoing, hoop houses and cold frame structures up to 24 inches in height may be placed in a front yard. 2. Corner Lots: No accessory building on a corner lot shall be closer to the street than the distance required for corner side yards. At no time, however, shall an accessory building be closer than 20 feet to a public sidewalk or public pedestrianway and the accessory building shall be set back at least as far as the principal building. Notwithstanding the foregoing, hoop houses and cold frame structures up to 24 inches in height may be placed in a corner side yard. 3. Side Yards: Accessory buildings are prohibited in any required interior side yard; however, hoop houses, greenhouses, and cold frame structures associated solely with growing food and/or plants are allowed in an interior side yard but no closer than one foot to the corresponding lot line. If an addition to residential buildings results in an existing accessory building being located in a side yard, the existing accessory building shall be permitted to remain, subject to maintaining a 4 foot separation from the side of the accessory building to the side of the residential building, as required in Subsection A.4.b of this section. 4. Rear Yards: Location of accessory buildings in a rear yard shall be as follows: a. In residential districts, no accessory building shall be closer than one foot to a side or rear lot line except when sharing a common wall with an accessory building on an adjacent lot. In nonresidential districts, buildings may be built to side or rear lot lines in rear yards, provided the building complies with all applicable requirements of the adopted building code. b. No portion of the accessory building shall be built closer than 4 feet to any portion of the principal building; excluding cold frames associated solely with growing food and/or plants. c. Garages on 2 or more properties that are intended to provide accessory building use for the primary occupants of the properties, in which the garage is located, may be constructed in the rear yards, as a single structure subject to compliance with adopted building code regulations and the size limits for accessory buildings on each property as indicated herein. 5. Accessory or Principal Lot: No portion of an accessory building on either an accessory or principal lot may be built closer than 10 feet to any portion of a principal residential building on an adjacent lot when that adjacent lot is in a residential zoning district; excluding hoop houses, greenhouses, and cold frames associated solely with growing food and/or plants. 6. Double Frontage Lots: Accessory structures and buildings located on a property where both the front and rear yards have frontage on a street may be located in a front yard provided the accessory building or structure: 14 a. Is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard where the primary entrance to the principal building is located; b. Is in a location that is consistent with other accessory building locations on the block; c. Complies with any clear view triangle requirements of this title; and d. Complies with all other accessory building and structure requirements of this title. SECTION 25. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.050.C (Maximum Height of Accessory Structures) as follows: C. Maximum Height of Accessory Buildings/Structures: 1. Accessory to Residential Uses in the FP District, RMF Districts, RB, R-MU Districts, SNB and the RO District: The height of accessory buildings/structures in residential districts are measured from established grade to the highest point of the accessory building and shall conform to the following: a. The height of accessory structures with flat roofs shall not exceed 12 feet. The height of flat roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 15 feet provided the setbacks increases one foot for every one foot of building height above 12 feet. b. The height of accessory structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 17 feet measured to the midpoint of the roof. The height of pitched roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not exceed 15 feet provided the setbacks increase one foot for every one foot of structure height above 17 feet. 2. Accessory to Residential Uses in the FR, R-1 Districts, R-2 District and SR Districts: The height of accessory buildings/structures in the FR districts, R-1 districts, R-2 district and SR districts are measured from established grade to the highest point of the accessory structure and shall conform to the following: a. The height of accessory structures with flat roofs shall not exceed 12 feet; 9 feet in the SR-1A zoning district. The height of flat roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 15 feet or 11 feet in the SR-1A zoning district provided the setbacks are increased one foot for every one foot of building height above 12 feet or 9 feet in the SR-1A zoning district. b. The height of accessory structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 17 feet at any given point of building coverage. In the SR-1A zoning district the height of accessory structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 14 feet. The height of pitched roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 21 feet or 15 feet in the SR-1A zoning district provided 15 the setbacks are increased one foot for every one foot of building height above 17 feet or 15 feet in the SR-1A zoning district. SECTION 26. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.065 (Outdoor Dining) as follows: 21A.40.065: OUTDOOR DINING: “Outdoor dining”, as defined in Chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be allowed in any zoning districts where restaurant and retail uses are allowed subject to the provisions of this section: A. Where allowed: 1. Within the buildable lot area; 2. Within a required or provided front or corner side yard; 3. Within a required side yard provided: the outdoor dining is setback a minimum of 10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does not permit restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not considered adjacent for the purpose of this section. 4. Within a required rear yard provided the outdoor dining is setback a minimum of 10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does not permit restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not considered adjacent for the purpose of this section. 5. Within a public right of way or an adjacent public property subject to all applicable lease agreements, applicable regulations, and the outdoor dining design guidelines. B. All outdoor dining shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. All applicable requirements of Chapter 21A.48 and Section 21A.36.020 of this title are met. 2. All required business, health and other regulatory licenses for the outdoor dining have been secured. 3. A detailed site plan demonstrating the following: a. 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; b. The main entry has a control point as required by state liquor laws. 4. The proposed outdoor dining complies with all conditions pertaining to any existing variances, conditional uses or other approvals granted for property. 16 5. 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. Live music and loudspeakers are prohibited outside between the hours of 9:00 pm and 9:00 am when the property is adjacent to a residential zoning district. 6. Outdoor dining shall be by considered an expansion of the use for the purpose of determining if additional parking is required as stated in Chapter 21A.44 (Parking). 7. Smoking shall be prohibited within the outdoor dining area and within 25 feet of the outdoor dining area. SECTION 27. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.090.D (Amateur Radio Facilities With Surface Area Exceeding Ten Square Feet) as follows: D. Amateur Radio Facilities With Surface Area Exceeding 10 Square Feet: Any antenna and antenna support having a combined surface area greater than 10 square feet or having any single dimension exceeding 12 feet that is capable of transmitting as well as receiving signals and is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission as an amateur radio facility shall be permitted as an accessory use, but only in compliance with the regulations set forth below: 1. Number Limited: No more than one such antenna or antenna support structure with a surface area greater than 10 square feet or any single dimension exceeding 12 feet may be located on any lot. 2. Height Limited: No such antenna and its support structure shall, if ground mounted, exceed 75 feet in height or, if attached to a building pursuant to Subsection D.3 of this section, the height therein specified. 3. Attachment to Buildings Limited: No such antenna or its support structure shall be attached to a principal or accessory structure unless all of the following conditions are satisfied: a. Height: The antenna and its support structure shall not extend more than 20 feet above the highest point of the building on which it is mounted. b. Mounting: The antenna and its support structure shall not be attached to or mounted upon any building appurtenance, such as a chimney. The antenna and its support structure shall not be mounted or attached to the front or corner side of any principal building facing a street, including any portion of the building roof facing any street. The antenna and its support structure shall be designed to withstand a wind force of 80 miles per hour without the use of supporting guywires. c. Grounding: The antenna and its support structure shall be bonded to a grounding rod. 17 SECTION 28. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.090.E.3.b (Electrical Equipment Located on Private Property) as follows: b. Electrical Equipment Located on Private Property: Electrical equipment shall be subject to the following standards: (1) Located in a rear yard, interior side yard, or within the building area of the lot. (2) If located in a zoning district without a require front or corner side yard setback, the equipment shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from the front or corner side yard property line. (3) Located a minimum of 4 feet from a side or rear property line unless located in an enclosed structure or a vault where the equipment will not be visible. (4) If the equipment is located next to a public trail, park, open space, or other public space other than a street, the equipment shall be screened by a masonry wall or solid fence so the equipment is not visible. (5) The electrical equipment and any structure associated with the electrical equipment is subject to the maximum lot coverage of the underlying zoning district. SECTION 29. Amending Section 21A.40.100 (Mechanical Equipment) to the text of Salt Lake City Code as follows: 21A.40.100: LOCATION OF MECHNICAL EQUIPMENT: All mechanical equipment shall be located as follows: A. Front and Corner Side Yards and Double Frontage Lots: Only allowed if located within 4 feet of the principal building and screened by vegetation, a solid wall or fence so the equipment is not visible and at least 10 feet from the front and corner side yard property lines. B. Side Yards: At least 4 feet from a side property line. If the equipment is adjacent to a driveway, parking stall, or accessory structure on an adjacent parcel, the setback may be reduced to 2 feet. C. Rear Yards: at least 4 feet from a rear property line. If the equipment is adjacent to a driveway, parking stall, or accessory structure on an adjacent parcel, the setback may be reduced to two feet. D. Prohibited Areas: in addition to the yard requirements above, mechanical equipment is prohibited to be located on the roof of an accessory structure, with the exception of exhaust fans and mechanical vents serving the accessory building in which case the fans or vents shall be at least 10 feet from a property line. 18 SECTION 30. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.I (Barbed Wire Fences) as follows: I. Barbed Wire Fences: Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the following instances: 1. AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1, and M-2 districts and to secure critical infrastructure located in any other zoning district not listed subject to the following requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are necessary to protect the facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety. Barbed wire is also permitted to secure construction sites and sites where construction is pending provided it is removed once construction is complete. 2. Barbed wire fences shall be subject to the following provisions: a. Not allowed in a provided or required front yard. b. The barbed wire is permitted to exceed the maximum fence height. c. No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than 7 feet in height above the ground except for agricultural purposes provided the barbed wire is vertically aligned. d. No more than 3 strands of barbed wire are permitted. e. The barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than 60 degrees from a vertical line. f. All barbed wire shall be setback a minimum of 3 feet from public property. g. The barbed wire is not located along a property line shared with a residential use when the subject property is in a CG zoning district. SECTION 31. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.J (Razor Wire Fences) as follows: J. Razor Wire Fences: Razor wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the M-1, M-2 and EI zoning districts and to secure critical infrastructure structures and sites located in any other zoning district subject to the following requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are necessary to protect the facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety. 1. Razor wire is not allowed in a provided or required front or corner side yard. 2. Razor wire is permitted to exceed the maximum fence height to a height necessary to reasonably secure the site. 19 3. No strand of razor wire shall be permitted on a fence that is less than 7 feet high. Razor wire coils shall not exceed 18 inches in diameter and must slant inward from the fence to which the razor wire is being attached. 4. All razor wire shall be setback a minimum of 3 feet from public property in zoning districts that do not have a minimum setback. SECTION 32. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.L (Electric Security Fences) as follows: L. Electric Security Fences: 1. Permitted Use: Electric security fences are allowed as a permitted use in the M-1 and M-2 zones. Electric security fences on parcels or lots that abut a residential zone are prohibited. 2. Location Requirements: Electric security fences shall not be allowed in required front yard setbacks or on frontages adjacent to residentially zoned properties. 3. Compliance With Adopted Building Codes: Electric security fences shall be constructed or installed in conformance with all applicable construction codes. 4. Perimeter Fence or Wall: No electric security fence shall be installed or used unless it is fully enclosed by a nonelectrical fence or wall that is not less than 6 feet in height. There shall be at least one foot of spacing between the electric security fence and the perimeter fence or wall. 5. Staging Area: All entries to a site shall have a buffer area that allows on site staging prior to passing the perimeter barrier. The site shall be large enough to accommodate a vehicle completely outside of the public right of way. 6. Height: Electric security fences shall have a maximum height of 10 feet. 7. Warning Signs: Electric security fences shall be clearly identified with warning signs that read: “Warning-Electric Fence” at intervals of not greater than 60 feet. Signs shall comply with requirements in Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, of this title. 8. Security Box: Electric security fences shall have a small, wall mounted safe or box that holds building keys for police, firefighters and EMTs to retrieve in emergencies. SECTION 33. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.130 (Access for Persons with Disabilities) as follows: 21A.40.130: ACCESS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: Building permits for an uncovered vertical wheelchair lift, or for an uncovered access ramp, for persons with disabilities, under 4 feet in height, or any other form of uncovered access, for persons with disabilities, under 4 feet in height, that encroaches into required yard areas, may be approved by the zoning administrator as a permitted accessory structure. Covered ramps or other access structures for persons with disabilities that encroach into required yard 20 areas, shall be considered as a reasonable accommodation under applicable federal regulations. SECTION 34. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.160 (Ground Mounted Utility Boxes) as follows: 21A.40.160: GROUND MOUNTED UTILITY BOXES: A. Purpose: Utility infrastructure provides a necessary service to the community. The regulations of this section are intended to allow for ground mounted utility boxes while reducing the negative impacts they may create. B. Compliance With Regulations Required: All ground mounted utility boxes shall be subject to the regulations of this section and any applicable requirement in Title 21A, unless exempted within Section 21A.02.050 of this title and any applicable adopted code and regulation. The location and access for maintenance of all required utility infrastructure is subject to approval by the utility provider and complying with all applicable adopted codes and regulations. No construction shall be undertaken without the applicable city permits and public way permits. C. Location: Ground mounted utility boxes shall be located as required by this section. 1. On the subject parcel or an adjacent parcel when part of new construction or as an addition to an existing building that requires additional utility service subject to the following standards: a. Rear and Side Yards: the ground mounted utility box shall be located a minimum of one foot from a side or rear property line. b. Front and Corner Side Yards: The ground mounted utility box shall be located within 5 feet of the building façade when located in required or provided front or corner side yard and at least one foot from a front or corner side yard property line. Utility boxes in a front or corner side yard shall be screened by a wall, fence, or hedge of at least equal height not to exceed the maximum height for a wall or fence allowed in the applicable yard. c. Ground mounted utility box(es) may be placed in a required landscaped yard if screened by a wall, fence or hedge of at least equal height not to exceed the maximum height for a wall or fence allowed in the applicable yard. d. If proposed on an adjacent parcel, an easement shall be provided for the utility boxes and associated equipment along with consent from the owner of the adjacent parcel. 2. In a public right of way if each of the following criteria are satisfied: a. There is an existing building on the subject property that is located in a manner that prohibits the placement of required utility infrastructure on the property; 21 b. There is no existing front yard, corner side yard, interior side yard, or rear yard of sufficient size to accommodate ground mounted utility box(es) and access for maintenance, as required by the utility provider, of the box(es) within the yard. A right of way may be used to accommodate necessary working space; c. There is not an alley adjacent to the subject property that provides sufficient access as required by the utility provider to a yard of sufficient size to accommodate ground mounted utility box(es). If the alley is not a public alley, necessary permissions and easements must be provided; d. The existing utilities are not being relocated to support an expansion of the use or building or for any new use or accessory use on the property; e. The ground mounted utility box will not negatively impact any existing or planned public improvement within the right of way; f. The ground mounted utility box is located at least 10 feet away from any tree in the right of way; g. The ground mounted utility box(es) comply with all requirements of Chapter 14.32 or its successor; and h. The applicant has provided to the city and the utility provider the dimensions and space requirements necessary for the utility needs, as determined by the utility provider, of the proposed development. 3. In a public right of way when the ground mounted utility box is necessary to provide utility service to the broader neighborhood, the location is consistent with any legal agreement between the utility provider and the city, and the proposed utility box complies with all applicable regulations. 4. The city engineer may issue a permit for the installation of a ground mounted utility box in the public right of way in accordance with standards set forth in this section and Title 14, Chapter 14.32 of this code. D. Materials: All ground mounted utility boxes shall consist of high quality material such as stainless steel or other durable painted or colored material. The finish shall be a neutral color such as dark or light green, beige or gray or color similar to utility boxes within the vicinity and coated with a graffiti resistant treatment. E. Post installation Obligations: All ground mounted utility boxes and any related screening materials shall remain the service provider’s responsibility to keep in a state of good visual quality and repair. 1. Franchise Agreements: Permitted and installed ground mounted utility boxes shall also comply with all conditions as set forth in the service provider’s/owner’s franchise agreement with the city. If the terms of any franchise agreement conflict with the provisions of this title, the ordinance regulations shall prevail and govern. 2. Discontinued Use: If the service provider/owner of a ground mounted utility box in the public right of way discontinues the use or has no defined need for said box, it is that service provider’s/owner’s sole responsibility to remove the box and all associated conduit and wiring at its own expense in compliance with all engineering division requirements. 22 3. Required Contact Information: A service provider shall place a permanent notice on the box containing the service provider’s name and telephone number for the purpose of notification in the event of graffiti or damages to the equipment. 4. Maintenance: A service provider shall be solely responsible for maintaining ground mounted utility box sites in reasonably good repair in a clean, safe and level condition. “Level condition” shall mean not tilting greater than 15° from plumb. A service provider shall repair any damage to a ground mounted utility box within 72 hours after discovering or being notified of such damage to a box. SECTION 35. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.44.090 Modification to Parking Areas as follows: 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. Authority to Approve Modifications: The planning director or transportation director may approve the following types of modifications 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 due to the nature of the site and the surrounding context (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. B. Authorized Modifications: 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. 3. Front Yard Parking: a. The lot contains an existing residential building. b. No other off-street parking exists on the site. c. No provided side yard is greater than 8 feet. If greater than 8 feet, no tree over 6 inches in caliper is present in the side yard that would necessitate the removal of the tree to locate a parking stall in the side yard or rear yard. d. The rear yard does not have frontage on a public street or public alley and the property does not have access rights across an adjacent private street or alley. e. The front yard parking complies with the following standards: 23 (1) The front yard parking is limited to no wider than 10 feet in width and is a minimum depth of 20 feet. (2) The front yard parking is accessed by an approved drive approach. (3) The location of the front yard parking is placed within 10 feet of a side lot line or for corner properties, may also be within 10 feet of a rear lot line and is consistent with the location of other driveways on the block face. (1) Parking is restricted to passenger vehicles only. 4. Vehicle and Equipment Storage Without Hard Surfacing: a. The property is located in a CG, M-1, M-2, or EI zoning district b. The lot is used for long term vehicle storage, not for regular parking and/or maneuvering. b. The storage areas are not located within any required front yard or corner side yard. c. The storage area surface is compacted with 6 inches of road base or other similar material with dust control measures in place. d. A mechanism, such as a wash bay, gravel guard, or rumble strip is used to remove mud, sand, dirt, and gravel from the vehicle with a minimum of 50 feet of paved driveway between the mechanism and a public street. The mechanism used is subject to approval by the Transportation Director or designee provided it is a commonly used device that is effective at removing debris from vehicle tires. SECTION 36. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.070.V (Historic District Signs) as follows: 21A.46.070.V Historic District Signs: The historic landmark commission may authorize, as a minor alteration modification to an existing sign or the size or placement of a new sign in a historic district or on a landmark site, including placement of a sign type not allowed in the underlying zone, if the applicant can demonstrate that the location, size and/or design of the proposed sign is compatible with the design period or theme of the historic structure or district and/or will cause less physical damage to the historically significant structure. If a sign in a local historic district or on a landmark site has been designated a vintage sign as per Section 21A.46.125 of this chapter, the modifications allowed in that section may be authorized by the historic landmark commission subject to the appropriate standards of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. 24 SECTION 37. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 21A.46.125 (Vintage Signs) as follows: A. The purpose of this section is to promote the retention, restoration, reuse, and reinstatement of nonconforming signs that represent important elements of Salt Lake City’s heritage and enhance the character of a corridor, neighborhood, or the community at large. B. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this title: 1. An application for designation of vintage sign status as well as for the reinstatement of, modifications to, or relocation of a vintage sign shall be processed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.08 and Section 21A.46.030 as well as the following: Application: In addition to the general application requirements for a sign, an application for vintage sign designation or modification shall require: (a) Detailed drawings and/or photographs of the sign in its current condition, if currently existing; (b) Written narrative and supporting documentation demonstrating how the sign meets the applicable criteria; (c) Detailed drawings of any modifications or reinstatement being sought; (d) Detailed drawings of any relocation being sought; and (e) Historic drawings and/or photographs of the sign. 2. The zoning administrator shall designate an existing sign as a vintage sign if the sign: a. Was not placed as part of a Localized Alternative Signage Overlay District and has not been granted flexibility from the base zoning through a planned development agreement or by the historic landmark commission; b. Is not a billboard as defined in Section 21A.46.020 of this chapter; c. Retains its original design character, or that character will be reestablished or restored, based on historic evidence such as drawings or photographs; and d. Meets at least 4 of the following criteria: (1) The sign was specifically designed for a business, institution, or other establishment on the subject site; (2) The sign bears a unique emblem, logo, or another graphic specific to the city, or region; (3) The sign exhibits specific characteristics that enhance the streetscape or identity of a neighborhood; (4) The sign is or was characteristic of a specific historic period; (5) The sign is or was integral to the design or identity of the site or building where the sign is located; or 25 (6) The sign represents an example of craftsmanship in the application of lighting technique, use of materials, or design. 3. A designated vintage sign may: a. Be relocated within its current site. b. Be modified to account for changing uses within its current site. These modifications shall be in the same style as the design of the original sign including: (1) Shape and form, (2) Size, (3) Typography, (4) Illustrative elements, (5) Use of color, (6) Character of illumination, and (7) Character of animation. c. Be restored or recreated, and reinstated on its original site. d. Be relocated to a new site for use as a piece of public art, provided that the original design and character of the sign is retained, or will be restored, and it advertises a business no longer in operation. Vintage signs may only be relocated for use as public art to sites in the following districts: D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, G-MU, CSHBD1, CSHBD2, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, TSA. e. Be relocated and reinstalled on the business’s new site, should the business with which it is associated move, provided that the business’s new location is within the same contiguous zoning district as the original location. 4. Once designated, a vintage sign is exempt from the calculation of allowed signage on a site. SECTION 38. Deleting Chapter 21A.52 Special Exceptions of the Salt Lake City Code Chapter. Chapter 21A.52 (Special Exceptions) is deleted in its entirety. SECTION 39. Amending the text of the Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020 (List of Defined Terms) by adding the following term in alphabetical order: Ground mounted utility box. SECTION 40. Adding the following definition in alphabetical order to Section 21A.62.040 (Definition of Terms) of the Salt Lake City Code as follows: 26 Ground mounted utility boxes: shall mean such equipment and facilities, including pedestals, boxes, cabinets, meters or other ground mounted facilities and associated equipment that extend over 6 inches above ground level used for the transmission or distribution of utilities. SECTION 41. 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 ______________, 2021. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2021. Published: ______________. Ordinance deleting special exceptions from city code(legislative) APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney March9, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS A. NOVEMBER 18, 2020 PUBLIC HEARING i. AGENDA AND MINUTES ii. HEARING NOTICE iii. STAFF REPORT B. SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 WORK SESSION i. STAFF REPORT ii. MINUTES 4. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 2020 A. AGENDA AND MINUTES B. STAFF REPORT 5. ORIGINAL PETITION 6 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 7 Petition: PLNPCM2020-00606 August 5, 2020 The mayor initiated a petition to remove the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. August 5, 2020 Petition PLNPCM2018-00606 assigned to Nick Norris, Planning Director, for staff analysis and processing. August 11, 2020 Petition routed to each City Department and Division for review and comment. August 13, 2020 Early engagement period started by sending an email containing preliminary information sent to all Community Council Chairs informing them of the proposed text amendments, and that Planning Commission and City Council meetings would be scheduled in the future. August 13, 2020 Public information posted to the Planning Division website explaining the proposal and containing proposed text of code changes. August 14, 2020 Email notice of the digital open house sent to the Planning Division list- serve. This email is sent every two weeks with each item that is in the public engagement phase. September 17, 2020 Email sent to American Institute of Architects Utah Chapter with information on the proposal and seeking input from the architecture community. September 21. 2020 Presentation to the Sugar House Land Use Committee. September 30, 2020 Planning Commission work session to discuss proposal October 5, 2020 Planning Division internal review and drafting of recommendations from Planning Commission October 23, 2020 Public notice for November 5, 2020 HLC meeting sent to Division list serve, posted on city website, and posted on Utah Public Meeting website. October 24, 2020 Public hearing notice posted in newspaper October 29, 2020 Ground Mounted Utility Box discussion with City Departments and Rocky Mountain Power November 5, 2020 Public Hearing with the Historic Landmark Commission. HLC recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed changes. 8 November 6, 2020 Public hearing notice for November 18, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing published in newspaper, posted on the Planning Division website and on the State of Utah Public Meeting website, and emailed to Planning Division list serve. November 18, 2020 Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and conducted a public hearing. The Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed changes. December 7, 2020 Transmittal forwarded to Community and Neighborhood Department.                                                             9                                                                                 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 10   The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Text Amendments - A request by Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning and Title 14 may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. 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 Nick Norris at 801-641-1728 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at nick.norris@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.   11                                                                     3A. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING – NOVEMBER 18, 2020 i. AGENDA AND MINUTES 12 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AMENDED AGENDA This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation November 18, 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 Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:  YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings  SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 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:  http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-11182020 Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 1. Consideration of a Stay of Decision - On October 28, 2020 the Planning Commission approved a special exception for additional building height to add a second story to existing home located at approximately 1400 East Federal Way; Case number PLNPCM2020- 00465. That decision has been appealed. City ordinance 21A.52.120.B authorizes the Planning Commission to consider whether to stay the decision that is being appealed. A stay prevents the city from taking any further action regarding the application, including issuing building permits, performing inspections, or finalizing inspections, until a decision is reached by the appeals hearing officer. A stay does not prohibit the applicant from performing work on the subject property that does not require a permit or for work related to a permit that has already been issued. If a stay is not granted, the city would be obligated to issue permits, perform inspections and approve permits. The property owner proceeds at their own risk pending a decision on the appeal. (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 315-8115 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) CONSENT AGENDA 2. Kensington Tower Time Extension Request – Steve Brown, project representative, is requesting a one-year time extension of approval for the Kensington Tower Design Review. The applicant has indicated that additional time is needed due to delays related to the current COVID-19 pandemic. Design Review was approved by the Planning Commission on November 13, 2019 for a 448-foot-tall multi-family residential tower. The subject property is 13 located at approximately 75 E. 200 S., in the D-1 (Central Business District) within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: John Anderson at (385) 226-6479 or john.anderson@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00786 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 28, 2020 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use ADU at approximately 2321 S Windsor St - Andrea Palmer with Modal, representing the property owner, is seeking Conditional Use approval for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in a detached structure at approximately 2321 S Windsor Street. The ADU will be located in the Southeast corner of the rear yard of the subject property. The ADU will measure approximately 561 square feet and will measure a height of approximately 11 feet 7 inches. The subject property is located in the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential zoning district and is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00512 2. East Liberty Tap House Conditional Use for a Bar at approximately 850 East 900 South - Caroline & Josh Stewart, the property owners, are requesting Conditional Use approval for a bar establishment to be located at 850 E 900 S. The space is currently occupied by the East Liberty Tap House and the bar establishment will retain the same name and ownership. The applicants are proposing to change the existing tavern/restaurant license and approval at this location to a bar establishment which requires a new Conditional Use approval. A Bar is allowed as a Conditional Use in the CB – Community Business zoning district subject to certain size limitations. An area that previously functioned as a private dining room will be incorporated into the bar's space for patrons. The building's exterior, parking and other aspects are not being modified through this request. The subject property is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (385) 226- 3860 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00558 3. Emeril Townhomes Planned Development, Design Review and Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 833 W Emeril Avenue - Jarod Hall, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for a new townhome development at 833 Emeril Avenue. The project will replace one single family residence on a single lot with 12 single family attached townhomes. The total site is 0.27 acres. The proposed project is subject to the following applications: a. Planned Development: The Planned Development is needed to address the lack of street frontage and modifications to the TSA zoning regulations. Case number PLNPCM2020-00288 b. Design Review: The development requires Design Review approval as the development did not receive enough points through the TSA development review process for administrative (staff level) approval. Case number PLNPCM2020-00289 c. Preliminary Subdivision: The development also involves a preliminary plat to create the individual new townhome lots. Case number PLNSUB2020-00347 The subject property is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at (801) 535- 6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) 4. Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance and Associated Ordinance Changes - Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting 14 amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning and Title 14 may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-0606 For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-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 Planning Commission. 15 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation Wednesday, November 18, 2020 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30:26 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Vice Chairperson, Amy Barry; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Adrienne Bell, Carolynn Hoskins, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, Sara Urquhart, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Wayne Mills, Planning Manager; John Anderson, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Caitlyn Miller, Principal Planner; Chris Earl, Associate Planner; David Gellner, Principal Planner; Katia Pace, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary. Chairperson Brenda Scheer read the emergency proclamation for conducting a virtual meeting. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:31:35 PM Chairperson Scheer stated that it is her and Amy Barry’s first time serving as Chair and Vice- Chair and asked the public for their patience while they settle into their new roles. Vice Chairperson Barry stated she had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:32:08 PM Wayne Mills, Planning Manager, provided the public with instructions on how to join and participate during the meeting. 6:41:48 PM Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance and Associated Ordinance Changes - Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A- Zoning and Title 14 may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. ( 16 Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-0606 Nick Norris, Planning Director, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). The Commission and Staff discussed the following:  Clarification on whether extra height for buildings is allowed if the primary structure is nonconforming in height  Clarification on nonconforming structures PUBLIC HEARING 7:04:10 PM Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; Cindy Cromer – Stated she mentioned to the Historic Landmark Commission the issue of lack of public notice once the changes are approved. She also stated that over time uses associated with special exceptions have changed dramatically; an example is outdoor dining. Zachary Dussault – Stated his support of the request. Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing. Nick Norris, Planning Director, provided information on notices that are provided to the public. The Commission and Staff further discussed the following:  Whether public comments received by staff are sent to City Council  Clarification on whether the neighborhood will still receive notices if the petition is approved  Clarification on the number of special exceptions in the zoning ordinance that are being changed  Clarification on how the proposed changes affect daycares MOTION 7:17:02 PM Commissioner Bell stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed text amendment, PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Text Amendment. Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Young-Otterstrom, Urquhart, Paredes, Lyon, Hoskins, Bell, Barry and Bachman voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:20:37 PM 17 3A. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING – NOVEMBER 18 2020 ii. NEWSPAPER NOTICE 18 19 3A. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING – NOVEMBER 18, 2020 iii. STAFF REPORT 20 PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & NEIGHORHOOD DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Nick Norris, 801-535-6173, nick.norris@slcgov.com Date: November 18, 2020 Re: PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Changes Text Amendment Zoning Text Amendment REQUEST: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility in administering the regulation and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings listed in the staff report, the Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation for the text amendment request to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: A. Quick guide of changes to each special exception B. Proposed Text Amendment C. Analysis of Zoning Amendment Factors D. Public Outreach Summary E. Department Review Summary 21 Petition Description The special exception code changes project is a proposal to eliminate the special exception process from the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. There are more than 40 authorized exceptions in the zoning ordinance. This proposal would result in one of the following actions for each authorized special exception: • Prohibit exceptions that are routinely denied; • Permit exceptions with additional standards for those exceptions that are routinely approved; or • Move specific exceptions to other processes already authorized in the ordinance. The number of special exception applications have grown from 37 in 2011 to 149 in 2019. The increase is directing staff resources away from addressing citywide growth-related issues and instead focusing staff resources towards individual developments. Special exceptions required the equivalent of almost two full time employees to process the applications in 2019. This accounts for about 10% of the total workload. Special exceptions have grown in scope and level of controversy. Without any real cap on the scope of an exception, the requested exceptions are asking for larger modifications. This is increasing the amount of staff required to respond to inquiries, answer questions, negotiate with the applicant, and decide on each application. Proposed Changes The number of changes to remove special exceptions from the ordinance are extensive. The Planning Commission was briefed on those changes during a September 30, 2020 work session. A quick guide to the changes can be found in Attachment A. The proposed text changes can be found in Attachment B. Applicable Review Processes and Standards Review Processes: Zoning Text Amendment Zoning text amendments are reviewed against four considerations, pertaining to whether proposed code is consistent with adopted City planning documents, furthers the purposes of the zoning ordinance, are consistent with other overlay zoning codes, and the extent they implement best professional practices. Those considerations are addressed in Attachment C. The primary focus of this text amendment is addressing best professional practices in managing growth by implementing the following practices: • removing processes that are preventing staff resources from being allocated to growth related issues, • modernizing the zoning ordinance by removing outdated regulations and processes (such as special exceptions that are rarely, if ever, applied for), What is a special exception? A special exception is a minor modification to a dimensional standard or accessory use with minimal impact to adjacent properties. 22 • removing regulations that restrict property rights and that do not reflect current trends in how property is used for accessory and ancillary land uses, and • removing regulations that are not necessary to protect and further the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhoods located in the city. City Code amendments are ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council and are not controlled by any one standard. Community Input Public Outreach is summarized in Attachment D and includes who was noticed, when the notice was sent, presentation and meetings held, and submitted comments. Below is a discussion of the key issues identified by the community, how the comments relate to the proposal, and how the comments were reflected in the proposed update. The following issues were identified through the public engagement process as of October 31, 2020: 1. Outdoor Dining The Department of Community and Neighborhoods have had several recent complaints about outdoor dining and the impact to adjacent and nearby neighbors. The primary complaints involve noise, proximity to property lines, and businesses not obtaining special exception approvals. The proposed changes would allow outdoor dining as a permitted use to a restaurant, coffee shop, or other food serving business. The proposal maintains some existing standards and adds some new standards: • A ten-foot setback for outdoor dining when located next to a residential zoning district (new); • Limits amplified and live music to decibel levels required by the Salt Lake County Health Department and places hours that music can be played outdoors when the business is adjacent to a residential zoning district. 2. Fence Heights and buffering Changes to fence height are being processed as a separate application and those comments related to this special exception have been included and analyzed in that project. 3. Discrepancy with Special Exception Approvals The Planning Division did hear from a resident of the East Bench Neighborhood regarding special exception approvals. The resident indicated that the process was used to create inequities in property rights, with some property owners benefiting from the process and then using the public process to deny other nearby property owners of the same benefits. The Planning Division has heard similar complaints from applicants and the process does create the potential for an applicant to gain approval if the neighbors are favorable towards a proposal and be denied or have a more rigorous approval process if the neighbors are not in favor. Special exceptions are an administrative process because the PC is the approval authority. The PC does have discretion in the process because the current standards are subjective, and applicants are not being denied a property right because the applicant typically has the option to comply with the zoning requirements without the need for a special exception. No changes were necessary from this comment. 4. Noncomplying Issues 23 Public comment was received identifying that many properties in the city likely have some level of noncompliance due to the age of the building and changing zoning regulations. The comment indicated that noncomplying issues should be resolved easily and retain property rights. There are changes to chapter 21A.38, which regulates nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures that accomplish this by simplifying the regulations and reducing the need to submit land use applications. 5. Front yard Parking The Sugar House Community Council indicated that they do not support allowing front yard parking. This is highlighted here because the Planning Commission indicated that it should be allowed under narrow circumstances. The Planning Division has prepared a draft proposal that follows the input of the Planning Commission and is discussed under the “Planning Commission Recommendations” section. 6. Unit Legalizations The comments received regarding unit legalizations focused on the need for the definition of a unit to be applied more uniformly and updated if needed. This is separate from this proposal. The comment including inconsistent application of the definition to include things such as water heaters. The zoning definition of a dwelling unit is: A building or portion thereof, which is designated for residential purposes of a family for occupancy on a monthly basis and which is a self-contained unit with kitchen and bathroom facilities. The term "dwelling" excludes living space within hotels, bed and breakfast establishments, apartment hotels, boarding houses and lodging houses. It should be noted that this definition is being changed slightly as part of the Shared Housing (formerly known as SROs) zoning amendment. The changes address a shared housing unit not being fully self-contained. No changes were made to this proposal in response to this comment. 7. Vintage Signs A comment was received about vintage signs and that they should be allowed in the CSHBD 2 (Sugar House Business District) zone. A vintage sign is a historic sign that adds some distinctive nature to a neighborhood. Vintage signs can be relocated within the same zoning district, be moved with a business if it relocates, and are allowed to be used as public art in some zoning districts. This comment is in reference to the use of vintage signs as public art. The ordinance currently restricts this to the Downtown zones, Gateway Mixed Use, and Sugar House Business District 1 zoning districts. The comment from the Sugar House Community Council is related to adding CSHBD2 to the allowed zones where vintage signs could be relocated as public art. The Planning Division used this suggestion to update the proposal to add this zoning district and other similar zoning districts: FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, and TSA. It may be worth considering if vintage signs create an impact in any commercial or mixed-use zoning district and allow them in those districts as well. 8. Inline Additions A comment was received about the need to maintain inline additions as an option to provide flexibility when designing additions that fit in with the characteristics of the built environment. This is a true statement. This issue was also identified by the Planning Commission with a 24 recommendation to find a way to maintain inline additions in the side yard. Options are discussed in the next section of this report. Inline additions within side yards do create new impacts that the adjacent property owner may not have anticipated. The impacts often cited by the public when reviewing an inline addition within a side yard include privacy and shadowing. Privacy impacts include how windows are aligned with windows on neighboring properties and expanding the living space so that adjacent rear yards are less secluded. Issues associated with shadowing are identified when the proximity of the addition starts to shade a portion of a neighboring yard that was not previously in the shade. Trees and fences also create shading issues, fences are shorter than building walls and tree heights are not regulated by city ordinances. The remaining processes in the zoning ordinance do not contain similar flexibility or do not contain standards that help determine if an inline addition within a side yard is appropriate. The closest process is the design review process. That process does not contain specific standards about inline additions and would require some standards be added in order to be a useful tool for inline additions. 9. HVAC Locations and Setbacks HVAC equipment is generally required to be at least 4 feet from a property line and are not allowed to be in a required front yard setback. An average of 11 applications per year are made requesting to locate HVAC equipment within four feet of a property line or within a required front yard. In response to this comment, the proposal was modified to add flexibility, such as allowing the equipment in a front yard if it is located within 4 feet of the building, at least 10 feet from the front property line, and screened. There was a public comment that suggested that mechanical equipment may be appropriate if it was within 4 feet of a property line and adjacent to a driveway on a neighboring property. This was added as an allowed encroachment when next to a driveway, parking area, or an accessory building provided a 2-foot setback is maintained to allow future maintenance without the need to use adjacent property to access the equipment. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: The following section outlines the recommended changes made by the Planning Commission during the work session held on September 30, 2020. 1. Inline Additions An inline addition is an addition to an existing building where the building does not meet the minimum setback requirements. Inline additions have become a popular application for additions to homes. Most inline additions are requested for older homes that were built at a time when building setbacks, mostly side yards, were related to the height of the structure. If a structure was relatively low in height, such as a small cottage or bungalow, it could have smaller side yards. Buildings built prior to zoning also have setbacks that are noncomplying. The Planning Commission supported allowing inline additions to buildings that already encroach into a required front or rear yard. The proposal presented by the Planning Division did not allow inline additions in noncomplying side yards that did not comply with current side yard setbacks. This means that any new addition would be required to meet the setbacks. The Commission requested that the Division consider options for inline additions in 25 noncomplying side yards and suggested limited those additions to single story in height or rethinking how building height is measured. The Division created a proposal that would allow an inline addition within a noncomplying side yard provided: • The addition is limited to a single story; • The addition maintains the exterior wall height (or lower) of the existing building; • The addition can extend the existing noncomplying exterior wall no more than 20% in length. These provisions provide some flexibility in the regulations and reduce the potential impacts to neighbors. The proposal would allow the extension “by-right” and there would be no public process for meeting the provisions. An additional suggestion was to allow an addition to extend a noncomplying wall by up to 50% of the existing wall, but no more than 16 feet, which would be enough to accommodate an additional room within the building. The Commission can decide which option is best upon considering impacts and the need to be flexibility and allow for growth within existing buildings to better accommodate changing housing needs. The HLC would retain the ability to modify setbacks within historic districts, which cover significant portions of the city. The provisions for inline additions would not apply to properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District because the H Overlay already has standards and processes to address additions with noncomplying setbacks. 2. Front Yard Parking The Planning Commission recommended that front yard parking be allowed provided there are no other alternatives for off-street parking on the property. The Planning Division has added standards that: • Only permits front yard parking when the property has no other off-street parking; • Limits front yard parking to residential uses; • The front or rear yard are not accessible due to the width of a side yard, lack of a side yard, or lack of a wide enough rear yard for corner properties; and • Adds dimensional standards to ensure that the front yard parking does not impact the sidewalk or bike lanes. 3. Additional Height for Accessory Structures The primary concern raised by the Planning Commission involved how high an accessory building could be if the principal structure was more than two stories in height. Standards were added that: • Limited the increase to no more than 25% of the permitted height and restricts the height to no more than 75% of the height of the principal structure; • Requires an increased setback of one foot for every one foot in additional height. Several issues were identified by Planning staff regarding extra height and the likelihood for it to promote second story use in accessory buildings. The existing special exception for extra height in accessory buildings limited the extra height to storage purposes and did not allow windows to face a neighboring yard. The use of the secondary story requires a separate special 26 exception under the current code. However, with the proposed changes, second story use would be permitted. 4. Commercial Building Height The Planning Commission discussed that there could be some benefit for allowing extra height on sloping lots in commercial zoning districts. The concerns raised were mainly focused on buildings with wide frontages and the impact extra height would have. The ability to obtain extra height, up to 10%, was added as a permitted increase provided that at least 50% of the building volume complies with the height, the height allows for the top story to have level floors without internal stepping, and the ground floor has a minimum height of twelve feet. 5. Ground Mounted Utility Boxes The recommendation from the City is to prohibit ground mounted utility boxes in public rights of way when the utility box is only serving private development. The reason for this change is because the private development benefits from placing the boxes in the rights of way because doing so does not require space on private property for private infrastructure. However, this creates long term planning issues for the City because those boxes will never be able to be moved out of the right of way if the City desires or needs to make changes to the rights of way. Examples include planting trees, expanding underground infrastructure (such as water pipes, storm drainage, or sewer lines), widening sidewalks, adding grade separate bike lanes, managing curb space, and other public uses within the ROW. This section was modified to require utility provider approval for location and access to utility boxes, setbacks from property line of one foot, and multiple requirements for locating a box in the ROW (each requirement must be satisfied) only when the box is necessary for neighborhood wide service and when an existing building on the property is being reused and there is no other location on the subject property. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: The Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing on the proposed changes on November 5, 2020. There was one public comment in support of the proposed changes as it retains the HLC ability to make modifications to lot and bulk requirements but simplifies the process to do so. The HLC passed a motion unanimously recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed changes. DISCUSSION: The proposed code updates have been reviewed against the Zoning Amendment consideration criteria in Attachment C. The proposed code changes implement best practices by ensuring the code is up to date, does not conflict with other applicable State or City Code, and complies with the City’s zoning purposes by ensuring that City ordinances can be legally administered and enforced. Due to these considerations, staff is recommending that the Commission forward a favorable recommendation on this request to the City Council. NEXT STEPS: 27 The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposed text amendments. The recommendation will be sent to the City Council, who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing(s) on the proposed text amendments amendment. The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the proposed zoning text amendments. If the text amendments are approved by the City Council, appeals would be subject to the new City ordinance standards. The Planning Commission may also recommend a modified version of the proposal. This would be advisable if the commission identifies potential issues with any aspect of the proposal. Instances where this may happen include: • The commission wants to add a standard or modify a proposed regulation; • The commission wants to delete a standard or requirement within the proposal; • The commission wants additional information about any aspect of the proposal. There may be situations where the Planning Commission makes a request and the Planning Division is not able to provide information regarding that request. An example of this may be a request for a significant amount of research or data that the Division does not have the capability to provide. 28 This is a simple summary of the proposed changes. Please refer to the draft code in Attachment B for all proposed changes. Additional Accessory structure height: increased height (up to 75% of the principal structure) allowed with increase in setbacks Accessory structures on double frontage lots: standards added to match location of accessory buildings of the block. Additional height for fences: removed exception process, sets maximum heights. Additional building height in commercial districts: deleted special exception; standards added to allow 10% increase on sloping lots. Additional height in foothill districts: deleted special exception Additional height in R-1, R-2, SR districts: deleted special exception Alternative to off street parking: deleted Barbed wire fences: standards added, restricted to industrial and agricultural zones and for land uses that require added security, such as public utility facilities. Conditional home occupations: deleted. This was changed several years ago to permitted but was not deleted from the special exception chapter. Dividing exiting lots with existing detached dwellings: allowed through the subdivision process with standards added. Front yard parking: Standards added to allow front yard parking in very limited instances. Grade changes over 4 feet: will become permitted with a step between retaining walls necessary to retain the grade change. Ground mounted AC units, pool equipment, etc. within 4 feet of side or rear property line: standards updated to allow equipment in additional situations when there is no impact or the equipment is screened. Hobby shop, art studio, exercise room in accessory buildings: deleted, will become permitted. Inline additions: permitted to match the existing building setback in front and rear yards; allowed in a limited manner in side yards. Home day care: will become permitted or conditional based on Utah Code requirements for number of kids. Outdoor dining in required yard: will be permitted with specific standards for setbacks, noise, etc. when next to residential zone. Razor wire fencing: limited to industrial and agricultural zones and some uses that require a high level of security. Replacement of noncomplying building or portion of a noncomplying building: allowed by right within the noncomplying chapter of the zoning ordinance. Underground encroachments: permitted in the encroachment table with standards. 29 Window mounted AC units: deleted special exception, will be permitted. Vehicle and equipment storage in CG, M1, M2, EI: permitted with specific standards for water quality and to reduce mud, dirt, gravel being carried onto public streets. Ground mounted utility boxes: prohibited in the public right of way unless the box serves a broader area than just a private development and with specific standards; location requirements on private property added. Size limitations deleted. Unit legalizations: will be addressed as a determination of nonconforming use in chapter 21A.38. Standards related to continuing use maintained. Other standards that require update to parking standards deleted. Vintage signs: Changed to permitted with existing standards in the ordinance, expanded where a vintage sign could be used as public art. Additional height for lights at sports fields: changed to permitted with screening of light trespass, increased setback from residential uses. Recreation equipment height in OS zone: capped at 60 feet in height with no exceptions. Public utility buildings in OS zone: will be allowed to exceed building height for critical public utility infrastructure. Does not include office buildings. Fence and wall height over 6 feet for homeless resource centers: Planning Commission will be given the authority to approve taller fences for buffering purposes. Enlargement of structure with noncomplying use: allowed by right provided the addition complies with zoning requirements. Horizontal inline additions: permitted to match existing portions of buildings that do not meet setback when the addition is in the front or rear yards, with limited application in side yards. Alteration to an existing SFD when the use is not allowed: alterations will be permitted. Amateur HAM radio antennae over 75 feet in height: special exception deleted. Electrical equipment for cell towers: will need to be in a side or rear yard with specific setback and screening requirements. Electrical security fences: deleted and will become nonpermitted. Covered ADA ramps: deleted, will be addressed through a reasonable accommodation authorized under federal laws. Ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the right of way: will be deleted and required to be located on private property when serving individual developments. Front yard parking for SFD when side or rear yard not accessible: deleted and will be allowed in very limited instances. Parking exceeding the maximum: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to parking ordinance. Alternative parking requirements: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to parking ordinance. 30 Commercial signs in historic districts: delete special exception requirement; will be authorized through existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay. HLC bulk modifications: delete special exception requirement: will be authorized through existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Special Exception Text Amendment Public hearing notice for the HLC meeting was sent through the Division email list on mailed on October 22, 2020 Public hearing notice published to newspaper October 24, 2020 Public notice posted on City and State websites on October 22, 2020 No formal requests to receive notice of the proposed text amendment were received prior to the noticing deadline of this public hearing. 72 From:John Blankevoort To:Norris, Nick Subject:(EXTERNAL) Special Exceptions Date:Thursday, August 13, 2020 6:46:34 PM Attachments:EBCC 6-17-2020 meeting.pdf Hello Nick I totally agree with your premise on the new special exception process changes, frankly the city is already overwhelmed with frivolous requests on a number of subjects. I also have some further recommendations and would to participate to help you to evaluate the wider problem. We have several District chairpersons ( District 5, 6 etc) that are stoking the fire with these notices of special exceptions. I would think this is driving more people to call into the zoning and planning office, only to stymie the process and become actual obstacles for your Dept. Please find attached meeting minutes June 17, 2020. Item 7, brought up the subject of a neighbor in Indian Hills subdivision and his special exception for building a home and height limits. The neighbor and architect already had engaged with zoning and planning and they had already gone through and contacted each of the abutting neighbors to work through the issue. Our chairperson (Aimee Burrows) decided to 'follow through' with the process as if to say she was the street captain on zoning and planning. I told her it was a frivolous use of our time. The neighbor is already following the protocols then we should not allow our District Chairs to muddy up your depts. time by making more work. I propose to you that zoning and planning does not need anymore 'help; from local District Council meetings and that a statement should be mentioned in your new process changes to not encourage creating anymore duplicate work for special exceptions. And although we all have the right to public information, it is not the charter of local meetings to drive special exception agenda. We need to be more efficient, don't you agree? Best John 73 From:Ann Robinson To:Norris, Nick; Annie V. Schwemmer Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes Date:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:56:57 PM Well, these situations were handled previously by special exceptions because each circumstance is unique. By eliminating special exceptions, you are now trying to make rules that cover all possibilities—probably not possible. Let us think about this a bit and get back to you. Ann Robinson, AIA Principal // Renovation Design Group 824 SOUTH 400 WEST | SUITE B123 | SALT LAKE CITY | UTAH | 84101 O.801.533.5331 | M. 801.230.2080 RenovationDesignGroup.com | Facebook Fans | Houzz Portfolio From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:48 PM To: Annie V. Schwemmer Cc: Ann Robinson Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes Thanks Annie, these are helpful comments. Do you have some ideas on how we can accommodate these issues within the proposal? NICK NORRIS Director Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL     801-535-6173 CELL   801-641-1728 Email   nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Annie V. Schwemmer Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:33 PM To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Cc: Ann Robinson Subject: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes Hi Nick- We’ve reviewed the proposed special exception changes and since we do so many renovations/additions in SLC we have the following comments: 74 Garages Built into Hillsides in Front or Corner Side Yards: It seems there will be very few of these that would not also need to project into a front yard setback. Central Air Condensers: There are many side yards that can accommodate a condenser without causing undue hardship on the neighbor (for instance, a 4’ side yard adjacent to a neighbor’s driveway) and there should be a way for these to be allowed. Corner side yards: We think in-line additions need to be allowed in side yard setbacks to avoid awkward interior spaces & rooflines. Noncomplying as to height: We think rear additions should be allowed to match the height of the existing roofline even if the existing structure is noncomplying. This change will create odd looking rooflines and will preclude 2nd stories on rear additions if the lower roofline makes the upper level ceiling lower than 7’ high. Thanks- Annie Annie V. Schwemmer, AIA    Principal           // Renovation Design Group 824 SOUTH 400 WEST  |  SUITE B123  |   SALT LAKE CITY   |   UTAH   |  84101 O. 801.533.5331       |       M. 801.560.7171     RenovationDesignGroup.com     | Facebook Fans     |     Houzz Portfolio 75 76 77 From:Kyle Deans To:Norris, Nick Subject:(EXTERNAL) Special Exceptions Date:Monday, November 9, 2020 3:09:19 PM Nick, If the exceptions have been addressed in each of their specific sections of zoning code I fully support deleting the Special Exceptions from the code. Kyle R Deans Salt Lake City Resident 78 Special Exception Text Amendment Planning Staff Note: This proposal was routed to the City Departments and Divisions for review on August 11, 2020. In addition, follow up meetings were held on September 30, 2020 and October 29, 2020 with Engineering, Real Estate Services,Building Services and Rocky Mountain Power to discuss ground mounted utility boxes and how to address them. Below are submitted comments from each Department or Division and a summary of associated meetings. Airports: no comments received. Building Services (zoning review): Indicated that they thought this would be time saver for staff and would be helpful. They provided specific changes to the following sections of the proposal: o Edit suggestions regarding Table 21A.36.020.B Obstructions in yards; o Support addressing grade changes and retaining walls as it removes vagueness in doing related zoning reviews. o Requested that the expansions of nonconforming uses be limited to a one-time request to avoid repeated requests over time. o Regarding noncomplying lots, add provision about complying with all applicable provisions so that it includes building and fire codes. o Remove some of the standards for unit legalizations that deal with past zoning violations. Past violations that are unrelated to the existence of a dwelling unit should not be a factor in determining if the unit can be recognized as a legal dwelling unit. o Concerns with letting any accessory use go into an accessory building. Is a welding shop appropriate in a shed, for example? Building Services (civil enforcement): no comments provided. Economic Development: inquired about eliminating the ability to seek additional building height in commercial districts. Planning staff provided the department with the number of applications received requesting additional height in commercial districts and information on other processes available to seek additional height. The Division also mentioned that there will be a future analysis of building heights in commercial districts to align with building code requirements, promote more housing, and encourage improved street engagement. Comments were provided by Roberta Reichgelt. Engineering: Engineering is concerned with prohibiting all utility boxes in the ROW. This puts the burden on Engineering to make decisions about the aesthetics of utility boxes when they are mostly focused on the engineering and impact to physical infrastructure, such as sidewalks, curb, and gutter. Finance: no comments received. This was routed to Finance due to the impact on revenue from special exception application fees. It is anticipated that Planning Division revenue will decrease by $40,000 to $45,000 per year. 79 Special Exception Text Amendment  Fire Department: no comments provided.  Housing and Neighborhood Development: no comments provided.  Information Management Services (IMS): no comments provided. Deleting special exceptions will require deactivating the application in the Accela system.  Mayor’s Office: The Mayor was briefed on the concept before the petition was initiated. The Mayor asked that the project include a comprehensive approach and that changes be considered to maintain flexibility while limiting impacts.  Police Department: no comments provided.  Public Services: o Parks and Public Lands: Parks and Public Lands provided comments relating to fence height around outdoor recreation facilities and light poles associated with sports fields. o Golf Division: provided comments regarding fence heights around golf course driving ranges. o the Salt Lake Regional Sports Complex provided input on the height and setbacks of athletic field lighting.  Public Utilities: Public Utilities provided comments about exempting some necessary infrastructure and utility buildings from height requirements in the OS Zoning District, asking if the riparian and lowland overlay zoning districts still apply, clarifying that underground encroachments are on private property only, and ensuring that antennae height would allow the necessary infrastructure to monitor utility facilities. Comments provided by Jason Draper.  Redevelopment Agency: The RDA indicated that they supported the changes because they will help to streamline the building permit review process and provide more predictability for property owners. Comments provided by Lauren Parisi.  Sustainability: no comments provided.  Transportation: Indicated that they had no suggested changes. Comment provided by Michael Barry.  Urban Forestry: no comments provided. 80 3B. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 i. AGENDA AND MINUTES 81 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation September 30, 2020, at 1:00 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 Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:  YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings  SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating or provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:  http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-09302020 Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 1:00 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 26, 2020 REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR WORK SESSIONS: No public comment will be heard 1. 800 South & State Street Design Review at approximately 754 S. State St. – Aabir Malik, an applicant with Colmena Group, is requesting Design Review approval to develop a portion of the former Sears property into an 11-story, 120 foot tall, mixed-use development consisting of ground floor retail and 360 multi-family residential units in upper floors. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow for additional building height, modification to the spacing of building entrances and to exceed the maximum street facing facade length. The project site is located in the D-2 (Downtown Support) zoning district and is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff Contact: Nannette Larsen at (801) 535-7645 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00439 2. Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance & Associated Ordinance Changes - Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. 82 The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. This briefing is intended to introduce the changes to the Commission in anticipation of a future public hearing. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-6060 For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-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 Planning Commission. 83 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation Wednesday, September 30, 2020 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 1:00:43 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Adrienne Bell; Vice Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Commissioners, Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Sara Urquhart, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Commissioner Andres Paredes was excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Wayne Mills, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 26, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 1:00:59 PM MOTION 1:01:09 PM Commissioner Scheer, moved to approve the August 26,2020 meeting minutes. Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Lyon, Scheer, Barry, Urquhart, Bachman and Bell voted “Aye”. Commissioner Lee abstained from voting as he was not present for the said meeting. The motion passed 6-1. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 1:02:04 PM Chairperson Bell stated she had nothing to report. Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 1:02:18 PM Nick Norris, Planning Director, thanked the Commission for attending the meeting for work session items. 2:25:25 PM Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance & Associated Ordinance Changes – Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and 84 structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. This briefing is intended to introduce the changes to the Commission in anticipation of a future public hearing. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-6060 Nick Norris, Planning Director, briefed the commission with an overview of the proposal and seek input on 5 key issues with the proposal. The Commission and Staff discussed the following:  Front yard parking: proposal is to eliminate. a. Have an issue with eliminating it. b. May impact more modest neighborhoods than wealthier neighborhoods. Some westside neighborhoods have narrow lots where side/rear cannot be accessed. It is not just the avenues or capitol hill. c. Reality is that even if someone has a driveway that leads to a garage, they park in the portion of the driveway in the front yard. If that is allowed, how is this any different in terms of seeing cars parking in the front yard area? d. Would like to see a proposal to allow it with some standards (dimensions, materials, location within front yard) e. If the block face has driveways, it should be allowed. f. Consider standards about parking slab being located closer to the side property line so it is similar to other driveways and not going directly into the middle of the lot.  Commercial Building height a. Is this an issue that is created by how building height is measured in commercial districts? i. For example, if the height is averaged on one slope, how does that translate to the next building face? One side gets the benefit of the slope, but the other doesn’t so in effect it is a meaningless. b. Try to figure out how to allow this when it isn’t adding an additional story of habitable space. Like if the front yard is fine, but the property slopes towards the back, can the rear of the building be level with the street facing façade? c. Can it be based on the length of the lot? Really wide lots may have to have some sort of stepping.  Ground Mounted utility boxes a. Support removing them from the ROW or private developments. b. Understands the need for flexibility with underground power requirements and the tradeoff with some utility boxes.  Accessory building height a. Concerns with just allowing an accessory building up to 75% of the height of the principal structure. What if the principal building is 35 feet tall, should the accessory building be allowed to be almost as tall as the maximum principal building of 28 feet? i. Consider an “up to height” as part of the increased height. 85 b. Concerned with the use of second stories on accessory buildings.  Inline additions a. Want to find a way to allow them inside yards. i. Can we allow a single-story addition to follow the existing setback line, but require a second story to comply with current step backs? b. OK with the front and rear yard proposals. Next Steps:  Engagement period ends on Oct 11th. Will see if there are any additional issues and address them when this comes back to the PC  Will work on addressing the key issues above and work solutions into the proposal.  Targeting November PC meeting for a public hearing due to workloads but would like to transmit by end of December. The meeting adjourned at 3:05:03 PM 86 3B. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 ii. STAFF REPORT 87 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 COMMUNITY & NEIGHORHOOD DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To : Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Nick Norris, 801-535-6173, nick.norris@slcgov.com Date: September 25, 2020 (publication) Re: PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Changes Text Amendment Zoning Text Amendment REQUEST: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. RECOMMENDATION: This is a briefing only. The purpose of the briefing is to introduce the Planning Commission to the proposal, the purpose of the project, identify key issues, and answer questions. ATTACHMENTS: A. Public Information Guide Petition Description The special exception code changes project is a proposal to eliminate the special exception process from the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. There are more than 40 authorized exceptions in the zoning ordinance. This proposal would result in one of the following actions for each authorized special exception:  Prohibit exceptions that are routinely denied; 88 Special Exception Text Amendment  Permit exceptions with additional standards for those exceptions that are routinely approved; or  Move specific exceptions to other processes already authorized in the ordinance. The number of special exception applications have grown from 37 in 2011 to 149 in 2019. The increase is directing staff resources away from addressing citywide growth-related issues and instead focusing staff resources towards individual developments. Special exceptions required the equivalent of almost two full time employees to process the applications in 2019. This accounts for about 10% of the total workload. Special exceptions have grown in scope and level of controversy. Without any real cap on the scope of an exception, the requested exceptions are asking for larger modifications. This is increasing the amount of staff required to respond to inquiries, answer questions, negotiate with the applicant, and decide each application. Proposed Changes and Most Frequently Applied for Special Exceptions The number of changes to remove special exceptions from the ordinance are extensive. The key changes are discussed below and based on the most frequently applied for exceptions. The chart shows the number of applications received in the last three years for each type of special exception. Unit Legalizations: Regulations will be relocated to the nonconforming chapter because this is recognized an existing use that has been in existence prior to the current zoning regulations. Replacing Non-Complying Building or building segment: regulations will be moved to noncomplying section because these are legally existing structures that retain certain noncomplying status rights. Home Day Care: This will be addressed through another text amendments that will make home day cares permitted or conditional uses based on the number of children cared for. Hobby Shops: These will become permitted uses in accessory buildings. Type of Special Exception # of  applications  Unit Legalizations 32  Replace Noncomplying Building 37  Home Day Care 37  Hobby Shop 42  Grade Changes 43  Mechanical Equipment in Required  Yard 44  Additional Height Accessory Building 47  HLC Bulk Modification 51  Inline Additions 97  Fence Height 104  What is a special exception? A special exception is a minor modification to a dimensional standard or accessory use with minimal impact to adjacent properties. Top ten most applied for special exceptions for the past three years 89 Special Exception Text Amendment Grade Changes: specific regulations will be added to reduce the size of retaining walls necessary to retain the associated grade changes. The retaining walls will be required to be stepped based on the base zoning districts. Mechanical equipment in required yards: Will be permitted with setback and screening requirements added to reduce negative impacts. Additional Accessory Building Height. The permitted height will remain at seventeen feet for most residential districts (SR-1 and SR-1A have different height requirements). However, the height may be increased up to 75% of the height of principal building for an equal increase to side yard and rear yard setbacks. HLC Bulk Modifications: the authority of the Historic Landmark Commission would remain and authorized through the required process in the overlay zoning district for new construction and additions. Currently two different applications are required. This would reduce the need for a redundant application. Staff authority would be expanded to allow for similar allowances for minor modification applications. Inline Additions: additions to a side yard where the building does not comply with the minimum requirement would be prohibited. Additions in a front or rear yard would be allowed when a portion of the building already encroaches into a required front or rear yard. This is because front yard and rear yard setbacks are larger than side yard setbacks and do not create the same impacts to neighboring properties. Fence Height: this would be deleted. Specific maximum heights would be added. The HLC and PC will retain the ability to approve taller fences to mitigate a negative impact associated with a land use application. (this is being processed as a separate text amendment). Other changes can be found in Attachment A as a quick summary of what would happen to each special exception. The proposed text changes can be found in Attachment B. Review Processes: Zoning Text Amendment Zoning text amendments are reviewed against four considerations, pertaining to whether proposed code is consistent with adopted City planning documents, furthers the purposes of the zoning ordinance, are consistent with other overlay zoning codes, and the extent they implement best professional practices. These factors will be fully analyzed in the final staff report prepared for the public hearing. The primary focus of this text amendment is addressing best professional practices in managing growth by implementing the following practices:  removing processes that are preventing staff resources from being allocated to growth related issues,  modernizing the zoning ordinance by removing outdated regulations and processes (such as special exceptions that are rarely, if ever, applied for), 90 Special Exception Text Amendment  removing regulations that restrict property rights, do not create unexpected impacts, and that do not reflect current trends in how property is used for accessory and ancillary land uses, and  removing regulations that are not necessary to protect and further the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhoods located in the city. City Code amendments are ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council and are not controlled by any one standard. Community Input The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposal that have been received as of Friday, September 25, 2002:  Early notification/online Open House notices e-mailed out August 13, 2020. o Notices were e-mailed to all recognized community organizations (community councils) per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage  One community council (Sugar House) requested that staff attend and present the changes to their Land Use and Zoning Committee  On September 21, 2020 staff attended the meeting over video conference, reviewed the proposal, and answered questions. The discussion included the following key subjects: o The application fee and the degree to which an application is subsidized. o The ability of the decision makers to require additional fence height to address impacts between incompatible land uses, including when apartment buildings are next to single family. o Whether or not the ability to modify bulk requirements, such as setbacks, building heights, etc. would apply to historic buildings that not located within an existing historic district.  No other formal input has been received from any community councils.  One email has been received from a resident of the East Bench Community. The text from that email is copied below. The actual email will be provided as part of the staff report for the public hearing on this item. Hello Nick I totally agree with your premise on the new special exception process changes, frankly the city is already overwhelmed with frivolous requests on a number of subjects. I also have some further recommendations and would to participate to help you to evaluate the wider problem. 91 Special Exception Text Amendment We have several District chairpersons ( District 5, 6 etc) that are stoking the fire with these notices of special exceptions. I would think this is driving more people to call into the zoning and planning office, only to stymie the process and become actual obstacles for your Dept. Please find attached meeting minutes June 17, 2020. Item 7, brought up the subject of a neighbor in Indian Hills subdivision and his special exception for building a home and height limits. The neighbor and architect already had engaged with zoning and planning and they had already gone through and contacted each of the abutting neighbors to work through the issue. Our chairperson (Aimee Burrows) decided to 'follow through' with the process as if to say she was the street captain on zoning and planning. I told her it was a frivolous use of our time. The neighbor is already following the protocols then we should not allow our District Chairs to muddy up your depts. time by making more work. I propose to you that zoning and planning does not need anymore 'help; from local District Council meetings and that a statement should be mentioned in your new process changes to not encourage creating anymore duplicate work for special exceptions. And although we all have the right to public information, it is not the charter of local meetings to drive special exception agenda. We need to be more efficient, don't you agree? o The American Institute of Architects Utah Chapter was notified of the proposed amendments on September 17, 2020. The Planning Division asked for their help in notifying the local architecture community. No response has been provided. o Information on the online open house posted to the Planning Division website was posted on August 13, 2020. The information was emailed out to the Planning Division list-serve every other week from August 14, 2020 through the October 11, 2020 early engagement period. Website analytics as of September 22, 2020 indicate 135 people have accessed the public information on the Planning Division website concerning this item. Changes That are Most Likely to be Controversial: Most of the changes associated with this proposal are minor in nature. However, some of the changes require more study and input before they can be adequately addressed and may be controversial. It is possible that additional challenges are identified before the public hearing. The known issues are discussed below: 1. Inline Additions Proposed Change:  Remove the special exception process from the ordinance and require inline additions to comply with existing side yard setbacks but allow inline additions in front and rear yards when a portion of the building already encroaches into the front or rear yard. An inline addition is an addition to an existing building where the building does not meet the minimum setback requirements. Inline additions have become a popular application for additions to homes. Most inline additions are requested for older homes that were built at a 92 Special Exception Text Amendment time when building setbacks, mostly side yards, were related to the height of the structure. If a structure was relatively low in height, such as a small cottage or bungalow, it could have smaller side yards. Buildings built prior to zoning also have setbacks that are noncomplying. This proposal would require additions to comply with existing side yard setbacks. This is being proposed to reduce the impacts that additions to noncomplying buildings have on adjacent properties. While a property owner clearly knows how close the existing building is to their property, an addition that increases that impact may not be expected. The proposal would allow inline additions in the rear and front yards when a portion of the building already encroaches into a required yard but would not be allowed to encroach further into a required yard. This is because in most cases the front and rear yards are larger, and the impacts are already reduced. 2. Extra Height in Commercial Districts This special exception is proposed to be deleted. However, recent development proposals have indicated that the rules for measuring height may be problematic on sloping lots. Prior to a final recommendation, the Planning Division will consider practical ways to address this so that property owners do not have to go through a process to address issues with sloping lots. 3. Ground Mounted Utility Boxes in Rights of Way. City staff from Planning, Transportation, and Engineering are proposing eliminating above grade ground mounted utility boxes from being in the rights of way when the utility boxes are only serving a private development. The purpose for this is that the equipment and infrastructure necessary for development should be provided on the private property associated with that development. When utility boxes are in the rights of way, it impacts the future use of the rights of way and limits the city’s ability to make changes, such as planting more trees, building protected bike lanes, widening sidewalks, and providing utility upgrades. 4. Bulk Modifications within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District The ability of the Historic Landmark Commission to make modifications to setbacks, building heights, and other dimensional requirements helps new development fit into the historic development patterns of local historic districts. This authority is proposed to be authorized trough the existing processes required for changes to historic properties instead of requiring a second application and process. Staff is also considering expanding this authority to the planning staff for minor alterations that are approved at a staff level. This would allow staff to make some modifications in situations where someone is restoring a historic structure to its original condition when the current ordinance prohibits it or when additions to historic buildings require some modification to reduce the impact to the historic structure. DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS RECEIVED AS OF 9/24/2020: Planning Staff Note: This proposal was routed to the City Departments and Divisions for review on August 11, 2020. In addition, a follow up meeting is scheduled for September 30, 2020 with Engineering and Building Services to discuss ground mounted utility boxes and how to address them. Below are submitted comments from each Department or Division and a summary of associated meetings.  Airports: no comments received. 93 Special Exception Text Amendment  Building Services (zoning review): Indicated that they thought this would be time saver for staff and would be helpful. They provided specific changes to the following sections of the proposal:  Building Services (civil enforcement): no comments received  Economic Development: inquired about eliminating the ability to seek additional building height in commercial districts. Planning staff provided the department with the number of applications received requesting additional height in commercial districts and information on other processes available to seek additional height. The Division also mentioned that there will be a future analysis of building heights in commercial districts to align with building code requirements, promote more housing, and encourage improved street engagement. Comments were provided by Roberta Reichgelt.  Engineering: no comments received; however, a specific meeting is scheduled for September 30, 2020 to discuss.  Finance: no comments received. This was routed to Finance due to the impact on revenue from special exception application fees. It is anticipated that Planning Division revenue will decrease by $40,000 to $45,000 per year.  Fire Department: no comments provided.  Housing and Neighborhood Development: no comments provided.  Information Management Services (IMS): no comments provided. Deleting special exceptions will require deactivating the application in the Accela system.  Mayor’s Office: The Mayor was briefed on the concept before the petition was initiated. The Mayor asked that the project include a comprehensive approach and that changes be considered to maintain flexibility while limiting impacts.  Parks and Public Lands: no comments provided  Police Department: no comments provided.  Public Services: no comments provided  Public Utilities: no comments provided  Redevelopment Agency: The RDA indicated that they supported the changes because they will help to streamline the building permit review process and provide more predictability for property owners. Comments provided by Lauren Parisi.  Sustainability: no comments provided.  Transportation: Indicated that they had no suggested changes. Comment provided by Michael Barry.  Urban Forestry: no comments provided 94 Special Exception Text Amendment NEXT STEPS: The public comment period for this item runs through October 11, 2020. After the public comment period ends, the Planning Division will review the comment received (both internal and external) and make modifications to the proposal as needed. Due to Planning Commission workloads, this item is not likely to be scheduled for a public hearing until November 18, 2020. Please note that this is the third Wednesday of November. The meeting date has been changes to accommodate Veterans Day on November 11, 2020. It is possible that this item may be scheduled for a public hearing on October 28, 2020 depending on how many private development applications are ready to be heard on that date. That date already has two other city text amendments that are time sensitive. The goal is to have a recommendation and transmit this change to the City Council by the end of the calendar year. 95 Special Exception Text Amendment 96 4. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING – NOVEMBER 5, 2020 A. AGENDA AND MINUTES 97 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation November 5, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion) This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Chair’s determination that conducting the Historic Landmark Commission Meeting at a physical location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Historic Landmark Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Historic Landmark Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:  YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings  SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email; historiclandmarks.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:  http://tiny.cc/slc-hlc-11052020 Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM Approval of Minutes for October 1, 2020 Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Director’s Report Public Comments - The Commission will hear public comments not pertaining to items listed on the agenda. Public Hearings 1. Fisher Mansion Carriage House Chemical Coating at approximately 1206 West 200 South - CRSA, on behalf of Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands, is requesting a Major Alteration to the Carriage House associated with the Fisher Mansion. The applicant is requesting approval to administer an anti-graffiti coating to the exterior of the Fisher Mansion Carriage House located at 1206 W. 200 S. The anti-graffiti coating is associated with the approved adaptive reuse of the carriage house as a River Recreation and Community Engagement Hub. The subject property is located at 1206 W. 200 S., which is designated as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site. Both structures, the mansion and the carriage house, are listed as contributing to the landmark site. The subject property is located within the I (Institutional) zoning district and within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff Contact: Kelsey Lindquist at (385) 226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case number PLNHLC2020-00509 98 2. Harvard Avenue Landscape Alterations at approximately 1362 E Harvard Avenue - Dean Anesi, Landscape Designer, on behalf of the property owners, Joan Hammond, and Joe Dick, is requesting approval from the City for site grading, landscaping, and a 20” high, stone veneer wall installed in the front yard without a Certificate of Appropriateness at the above-listed address. This type of project must be reviewed as a minor alteration to a property in a historic district. The house is a contributing building within the SLC Harvard Heights Historic District and is zoned R-1-7,000 Single-Family Residential District. The subject property is within Council District 6, represented by Dan Dugan. (Staff contact: Nelson Knight at (801) 535-7758 or nelson.knight@slcgov.com) Case number PLNHLC2020-00692 3. Special Exception Text Changes - Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance and Associated Ordinance Changes. Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The ability to make exceptions to bulk and lot dimensional requirements in local historic districts will be retained through the processes outlined in 21A.34.020 of the City Code. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-0606 Other Business Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson elections The next regular meeting of the Commission is scheduled for Thursday, December 3, 2020, unless a special meeting is scheduled prior to that date. For Historic Landmark Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-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 Historic Landmark Commission. Appeal of Historic Landmark Commission Decision Anyone who is an “adversely affected party” as defined by Utah Code Section 10-9a-103, may appeal a decision of the Historic Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal with the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) calendar days following the date on which a record of decision is issued. The applicant may object to the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal with the appeals hearing officer within thirty (30) calendar days following the date on which a record of decision is issued 99 SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation Thursday, November 5, 2020 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30:27 PM. Audio recordings of the Historic Landmark Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Historic Landmark Commission meeting were: Chairperson Kenton Peters; Vice Chairperson Robert Hyde; Commissioners Babs De Lay, John Ewanowski, Aiden Lillie, Victoria Petro-Eschler, David Richardson, and Michael Vela. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Director; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner; and Nelson Knight, Senior Planner. Chairperson Peters read the declaration to hold an electronic meeting without an anchor site. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 1, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 5:35:51 PM MOTION 5:35:57 PM Commissioner Richardson moved to approve the October 1, 2020 meeting minutes. Commissioner Petro-Eschler seconded the motion. The three new commissioners abstained from voting. Commissioners Hyde, Richardson, Petro-Eschler, and Vela voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:37:18 PM Chairperson Peters welcomed our three new commissioners! Vice Chairperson Hyde stated he had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:38:17 PM Michaela Oktay let the commission know that we can make badges for HLC members to wear so if they visit a site they can show official credentials. Marlene will send out an email and each commissioner can contact HR to have one made. Public Comment- Chair Peters asked if there were any members of the public who wanted to provide public comments. There were no responses from the public. Director Norris showed a presentation how to “raise the hand” on webex, he also went through all the ways the public can alert the commission and staff how to participate. 7:46:31 PM Special Exception Text Changes - Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance and Associated Ordinance Changes. Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A 100 special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The ability to make exceptions to bulk and lot dimensional requirements in local historic districts will be retained through the processes outlined in 21A.34.020 of the City Code. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-0606 Nick Norris, Planning Director, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). The Commission and Staff discussed the following:  Retention of HLC authority when it pertains to special exceptions  The importance of addressing the multiple special exceptions authorized and fixing the code  Overall a valuable and well thought out amendment. PUBLIC HEARING 8:11:00 PM Chairperson Peters opened the Public Hearing; Cindy Cromer – Stated that the importance of the special exceptions authorized by the HLC. She mentioned projects of different use and magnitude that were only possible since the institution of HLC authorization of special exceptions. A well done project. Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Peters closed the Public Hearing. The Commission made the following comments:  All for simplifying the process. All HLC authorities are maintained, simplified and a step in the right direction.  Supportive of all the changes, a great idea. MOTION 8:14:33 PM Commissioner Hyde stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Historic Landmark Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed text amendment, PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Text Amendment. Commissioner Richardson seconded the motion. Commissioners Lillie, DeLay, Richardson, Ewanowski, Vela, Petro-Eschler, and Hyde voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. 101 4. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING – NOVEMBER 5, 2020 B. STAFF REPORT 102 PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & NEIGHORHOOD DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission From: Nick Norris, 801-535-6173, nick.norris@slcgov.com Date: October 29, 2020 (publication) Re: PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Changes Text Amendment Zoning Text Amendment REQUEST: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. RECOMMENDATION: Briefing and public hearing only. This proposal involves multiple chapters of the code and changes regulations that apply city wide. The purpose of the briefing is to inform the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) on the proposal and the process to date, specifically in regards to how the changes impact the authority of the HLC and the Planning Division when reviewing certificates of appropriateness proposals within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Although not required, the HLC may make a recommendation on the proposal. The recommendation would be provided to the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council for consideration. ATTACHMENTS: A. Quick guide of changes to each special exception B. Proposed Text Amendment 103 C. Analysis of Zoning Amendment Factors D. Public Outreach Summary E. Department Review Summary Petition Description The special exception code changes project is a proposal to eliminate the special exception process from the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. There are more than 40 authorized exceptions in the zoning ordinance. This proposal would result in one of the following actions for each authorized special exception: • Prohibit exceptions that are routinely denied; • Permit exceptions with additional standards for those exceptions that are routinely approved; or • Move specific exceptions to other processes already authorized in the ordinance. For the purposes of the HLC, the major change proposed result in moving special exceptions under the certificate of appropriateness process. The number of special exception applications have grown from 37 in 2011 to 149 in 2019. The increase is directing staff resources away from addressing citywide growth-related issues and instead focusing staff resources towards individual developments. Special exceptions required the equivalent of almost two full time employees to process the applications in 2019. This accounts for about 10% of the total workload. Special exceptions have grown in scope and level of controversy, particularly outside of the H Overlay. Without any real cap on the scope of an exception, the requested exceptions are asking for larger modifications. This is increasing the amount of staff required to respond to inquiries, answer questions, negotiate with the applicant, and decide on each application. Proposed Changes The number of changes to remove special exceptions from the ordinance are extensive. The Planning Commission was briefed on those changes during a September 30, 2020 work session. A quick guide to the changes can be found in Attachment A. The proposed text changes can be found in Attachment B. The most impactful change that impacts the HLC involves the authority of the HLC to address bulk modifications. The HLC currently has the authority to approve bulk modifications as a special exception. This includes building height, setbacks, lot coverages, and any other regulation that deals with the placement of a building or structure on property located within the H Historic Preservation Overlay Zoning District. This authority includes the ability of staff to address bulk modifications to accessory buildings and structures and other proposals listed as minor alterations. This has proven to be a beneficial tool for the HLC because it has What is a special exception? A special exception is a minor modification to a dimensional standard or accessory use with minimal impact to adjacent properties. 104 provided flexibility in acknowledging that most historic buildings and development patterns within local historic districts were established prior to zoning. It has allowed the HLC to focus on design review standards with the overarching goal of preserving the integrity of a building, site and the established historic context. It has provided a mechanism to develop some lots within the city that were previously unbuildable and to design new construction on those lots with buildings that fit into the historic context. This proposal maintains that authority but eliminates the need to require a separate special exception application and process. The process to approve modification of lot and bulk standards would be now be retained through the existing Certificate of Appropriateness processes outlined in 21A.34.020. The benefits of this change include: • property owners would only need one type of application instead of the two currently required; • decisions would be based on the applicable standards in 21A.34.020 (alteration, new construction) and the general standards for special exception would not be needed; • Review time for staff is reduced due to the reduced analysis necessary with elimination of the special exception standards; and • Staff reports become shorter without the need for additional process review, motions, etc. The proposed changes include changing the authority section so that the surrounding context is more applicable than the current ordinance requires. The current ordinance says that the HLC can only approve a special exception if it is found that the underlying zoning district is incompatible with the historic district or landmark site. That wording is being changed to focus on the proposal complying with the applicable certificate of appropriateness standards and being compatible with the surrounding historic structures. Planning staff would be specifically granted the authority to approve modifications for those things listed in the ordinance as minor alterations. Those items listed include: 1. Minor alteration of or addition to a landmark site or contributing site, building, and/or structure; 2. Substantial alteration of or addition to a noncontributing site; 3. Partial demolition of either a landmark site or a contributing principal building or structure; 4. Demolition of an accessory building or structure; 5. Demolition of a noncontributing building or structure; and 6. Installation of solar energy collection systems pursuant to section 21A.40.190 of this title. This would most likely be used for proposals that fall into items one and two. The HLC would retain the authority to approve modifications for new construction and major alterations. The Planning Division would retain the ability to refer a matter to the HLC for decision if there is a question about the level of compliance with standards. 105 It is conceivable that any of the proposed changes within this proposal could impact properties within historic districts. However, the H Overlay District takes precedence over any other base zoning district requirement or general provision within the ordinance. Properties within the H Historic Overlay District may also be impacted by other proposed changes. Those key changes are discussed within the “Community Input” and “Key Code Changes” sections of this report. The provisions and processes within the H Overlay District would not be impacted by the changes and all exterior modifications of a property subject to the H Overlay would maintain some review process. Applicable Review Processes and Standards Review Processes: Zoning Text Amendment Zoning text amendments are reviewed against four considerations, pertaining to whether proposed code is consistent with adopted City planning documents, furthers the purposes of the zoning ordinance, are consistent with other overlay zoning codes, and the extent they implement best professional practices. This staff report focuses on the factors that are directly related to the HLC and the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and can be found in Attachment C. The primary focus of this text amendment is addressing best professional practices in managing growth by implementing the following practices: • removing processes that are preventing staff resources from being allocated to growth related issues, • modernizing the zoning ordinance by removing outdated regulations and processes (such as special exceptions that rarely, if ever, applied for), • removing regulations that restrict property rights and that do not reflect current trends in how property is used for accessory and ancillary land uses, and • removing regulations that are not necessary to protect and further the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhoods located in the city. City Code amendments are ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council and are not controlled by any one standard. Community Input Public Outreach is summarized in Attachment D and includes who was noticed, when the notice was sent, presentation and meetings held, and submitted comments. Below is a discussion of the key issues identified by the community, how the comments relate to the proposal, and how the comments were reflected in the proposed update. The following issues have been identified through the public engagement process (as of October 29, 2020): 1. Outdoor Dining The Department of Community and Neighborhoods have had several recent complaints about outdoor dining and the impact to adjacent and nearby neighbors. The primary complaints involve noise, proximity to property lines, and businesses not obtaining special exception approvals. The proposed changes would allow outdoor dining as a permitted use to a restaurant, 106 coffee shop, or other food serving business. The proposal maintains some existing standards and adds some new standards: • A ten -foot setback for outdoor dining when located next to a residential zoning district (new); • Limits amplified and live music to decibel levels required by the Salt Lake County Health Department 2. Fence Heights and buffering Changes to fence height are being processed as a separate application and those comments related to this special exception have been included and analyzed in that project. 3. Discrepancy with Special Exception Approvals The Planning Division did hear from a resident of the East Bench Neighborhood regarding special exception approvals. The resident indicated that the process was used to create inequities in property rights, with some property owners benefiting from the process and then using the public process to deny other nearby property owners of the same benefits. The Planning Division has heard similar complaints from applicants and the process does create the potential for an applicant to gain approval if the neighbors are favorable towards a proposal and be denied or have a more rigorous approval process if the neighbors are not in favor. There is some risk that this creates unequal treatment and application of the special exception process and standards. 4. Noncomplying Issues Public comment was received identifying that many properties in the city likely have some level of noncompliance due to the age of the building and changing zoning regulations. The comment indicated that noncomplying issues should be resolved easily and retain property rights. 5. Front yard Parking The Sugar House Community Council indicated that they do not support allowing front yard parking. This is highlighted here because the Planning Commission indicated that it should be allowed under narrow circumstances and the Planning Division has prepared a draft proposal that follows the input of the Planning Commission. 6. Unit Legalizations The comments received regarding unit legalizations focused on the need for the definition of a unit to be applied more uniformly and updated if needed. This is separate from this proposal. The comment including inconsistent application of the definition to include things such as water heaters. However, that is not within the definition within the zoning ordinance and cannot be used to determine if a unit is self-contained. The zoning definition of a dwelling unit is: A building or portion thereof, which is designated for residential purposes of a family for occupancy on a monthly basis and which is a self-contained unit with kitchen and bathroom facilities. The term "dwelling" excludes living space within hotels, bed and breakfast establishments, apartment hotels, boarding houses and lodging houses. It should be noted that this definition is being changed slightly as part of the Shared Housing (formerly known as SROs) zoning amendment. The changes address a shared housing unit not being fully self-contained. 107 7. Vintage Signs A comment was received about vintage signs and that they should be allowed in the CSHBD 2 (Sugar House Business District) zone. A vintage sign is a historic sign that adds some distinctive nature to a neighborhood. Vintage signs can be relocated within the same zoning district, to be moved with a business if it relocates, and are allowed to be used as public art in some zoning districts. This comment is in reference to the use of vintage signs as public art. The ordinance currently restricts this to the Downtown zones, Gateway Mixed Use, and Sugar House Business District 1 zoning districts. The comment from the Sugar House Community Council is related to adding CSHBD2 to the allowed zones where vintage signs could be relocated as public art. The Planning Division updated the proposal to add this zoning district and other similar zoning districts: FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, TSA. It may be worth considering if vintage signs create an impact in any commercial or mixed-use zoning district and allow them in those districts as well. KEY CODE CHANGES: Most of the changes associated with this proposal are minor in nature. However, some of the changes may have broader implications and deserve to be discussed in more detail. The following specific issues were discussed by the Planning Commission during a work session and are included as information for the Historic Landmark Commission. 1. Inline Additions An inline addition is an addition to an existing building where the building does not meet the minimum setback requirements. Inline additions have become a popular application for additions to homes. Most inline additions are requested for older homes that were built at a time when building setbacks, mostly side yards, were related to the height of the structure. If a structure was relatively low in height, such as a small cottage or bungalow, it could have smaller side yards. Buildings built prior to zoning also have setbacks that are noncomplying. The HLC would retain the ability to approve appropriately designed inline additions. However, outside of the H Overlay additions would be required to comply with existing side yard setbacks. This is being proposed to reduce the impacts that additions to noncomplying buildings have on adjacent properties. While a property owner clearly knows how close the existing building is to their property, an addition that increases that impact may not be expected. The proposal would allow inline additions in the rear and front yards when a portion of the building already encroaches into a required yard but would not be allowed to encroach further into a required yard. This is because in most cases the front and rear yards are larger than side yards and the impacts are already reduced. The Planning Commission supported allowing inline additions to buildings that already encroach into a required front or rear yard. The proposal presented by the Planning Division did not allow inline additions in noncomplying side yards that did not comply with current side yard setbacks. This means that any new addition would be required to meet the setbacks. The Commission requested that the Division consider options for inline additions in noncomplying side yards and suggested limited those additions to single story in height or rethinking how building height is measured. 108 After reviewing these options, the Planning Division is of the opinion that trying to accommodate in line additions as suggested may trigger unintended consequences. The issues identified by Planning Staff include: • Limiting an inline addition to a single story: this required defining what a single story is, how it is measured, and how it interacts with the rest of the structure. For example, an addition could add a single story that had a larger floor to ceiling height than the existing structure, but still be considered a single story. The addition could potentially be a 28-foot-tall space and have the same impacts that a two-story structure may have. • Establishing a new method to measure height for single story additions may create unintended consequences to other structures and would require greater analysis. There are tens of thousands single family structures in the city that were build prior to the current side yard setbacks. Understanding the impact that such a change would have to those properties and the adjacent properties is a challenging task that would require significant staff research that is not currently available. The HLC would retain the ability to modify setbacks, building height and other mass related regulations within historic districts. Maintaining this authority creates a benefit for properties within the H Overlay and is a relatively small, but effective, carrot for creating local historic districts. 2. Front Yard Parking The Planning Commission recommended that front yard parking be allowed provided there are no other alternatives for off-street parking on the property. The Planning Division has added standards that: • Only permits front yard parking when the property has no other off-street parking; • Limits front yard parking to residential uses; • The front or rear yard are not accessible due to the width of a side yard, lack of a side yard, or lack of a wide enough rear yard for corner properties; and • Adds dimensional standards to ensure that the front yard parking does not impact the sidewalk or bike lanes. Front Yard parking is currently an authorized special exception, including in the H Overlay. The applicable approval processes in the overlay would apply to any request for front yard parking. Front yard parking would be considered a minor alteration in most circumstances because it would be proposed on properties that were developed prior to parking requirements being added to the Zoning Ordinance and new construction must comply with current parking requirements, including location of the parking. 3. Additional Height for Accessory Structures The primary concern raised by the Planning Commission involved how high an accessory building could be if the principal structure was more than two stories in height. Standards were added that: • Limited the increase to no more than 25% of the permitted height and restricts the height to no more than 75% of the height of the principal structure; • Requires an increased setback of one foot for every one foot in additional height. 109 Several issues were identified by Planning staff regarding extra height and the likelihood for it to promote second story use in accessory buildings. The existing special exception for extra height in accessory buildings limited the extra height to storage purposes and did not allow windows to face a neighboring yard. The use of the secondary story requires a separate special exception under the current code. However, with the proposed changes, second story use would be permitted. The HLC already has the authority within the H Overlay to approve additional height for accessory structures. This proposal does put some parameters around that additional height that are not currently within the ordinance. However, the HLC would have the authority to modify the height further on a case by case basis. 4. Commercial Building Height The Planning Commission discussed that there could be some benefit for allowing extra height on sloping lots in commercial zoning districts. The concerns raised were mainly focused on buildings with wide frontages and the impact extra height would have. The ability to obtain extra height, up to 10%, was added as a permitted increase provided that at least 50% of the building volume complies with the height, the height allows for the top story to have level floors without internal stepping, and the ground floor has a minimum height of twelve feet. The HLC is currently granted this authority through the general modification to bulk requirements within the code. As this typically applies to new construction, it would more than likely be reviewed by the Commission and not at the staff level. It is possible however that additions to commercial buildings that are within the H Overlay may be eligible for staff review. 5. Ground Mounted Utility Boxes The recommendation from the City is to prohibit ground mounted utility boxes in public rights of way when the utility box is only serving private development. The reason for this change is because the private development benefits from placing the boxes in the rights of way because doing so does not require space on private property for private infrastructure. However, this creates long term planning issues for the City because those boxes will never be able to be moved out of the right of way if the City desires or needs to make changes to the rights of way. Examples of city actions that may be impacted by allowing utility boxes to be placed in the rights of way include planting trees, expanding underground infrastructure (such as water pipes, storm drainage, or sewer lines), widening sidewalks, adding grade separate bike lanes, managing curb space, and other public uses within the ROW. The proposed prohibition would eliminate the ability for utility boxes within historic districts to be placed in the public rights of way when the box is only serving a private development. Utility boxes that serve the broader neighborhood would still be allowed provided they comply with the size requirements in the code. It is possible that a utility box could be proposed in excess of the size requirements because the size requirements are considered bulk regulations. 110 NEXT STEPS: There are a few issues that remain unresolved and some modifications may be made after the HLC public hearing. Those issues involve the key code changes discussed by the Planning Commission. An additional issue that has been identified is additional building height in the Foothill Zoning Districts. There are no local districts mapped within the Foothill Zoning Districts. The relatively steep slopes and large grade changes across individual properties make it difficult to build a new building are make additions to existing homes and comply with the height requirements. This may be addressed by allowing minority percentage of the building to exceed the height, like the proposal in commercial districts. The HLC may provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposed text amendments. The recommendation will be sent to the Planning Commission and City Council, who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing(s) on the proposed text amendments amendment. The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the proposed zoning text amendments. If the text amendments are approved by the City Council, appeals would be subject to the new City ordinance standards. The HLC may also recommend a modified version of the proposal. This would be advisable if the commission identifies potential issues with any aspect of the proposal. Instances where this may happen include: • The commission wants to add a standard or modify a proposed regulation; • The commission wants to delete a standard or requirement within the proposal; • The commission wants additional information about any aspect of the proposal. There may be situations where the HLC makes a request and the Planning Division is not able to provide information regarding that request. An example of this may be a request for a significant amount of research or data that the Division does not have the capability to provide. 111 This is a simple summary of the proposed changes. Please refer to the draft code in Attachment B for all proposed changes. Additional Accessory structure height: increased height (up to 75% of the principal structure) allowed with increase in setbacks Accessory structures on double frontage lots: standards added to match location of accessory buildings of the block. Additional height for fences: removed exception process, sets maximum heights. Additional building height in commercial districts: deleted special exception; will rely on processes in base zoning district. Additional height in foothill districts: deleted special exception Additional height in R-1, R-2, SR districts: deleted special exception Alternative to off street parking: deleted Barbed wire fences: standards added, restricted to industrial and agricultural zones and for land uses that require added security, such as public utility facilities. Conditional home occupations: deleted. This was changed several years ago to permitted but was not deleted from the special exception chapter. Dividing exiting lots with existing detached dwellings: allowed through the subdivision process with standards added. Front yard parking: deleted Grade changes over 4 feet: will become permitted with a step between retaining walls necessary to retain the grade change. Ground mounted AC units, pool equipment, etc. within 4 feet of side or rear property line: deleted. Will be required to meet standards in code without exceptions. Hobby shop, art studio, exercise room in accessory buildings: deleted, will become permitted. Inline additions: permitted to match the existing building setback in front and rear yards; prohibited when buildings don’t comply with side yard setbacks. Home day care: will become permitted or conditional based on Utah Code requirements for number of kids. Outdoor dining in required yard: will be permitted with specific standards for setbacks, noise, etc. when next to residential zone. Razor wire fencing: limited to industrial and agricultural zones and some uses that require a high level of security. Replacement of noncomplying building or portion of a noncomplying building: allowed by right within the noncomplying chapter of the zoning ordinance. Underground encroachments: permitted in the encroachment table with standards. 112 Window mounted AC units: deleted special exception, will be permitted. Vehicle and equipment storage in CG, M1, M2, EI: permitted with specific standards for water quality and to reduce mud, dirt, gravel being carried onto public streets. Ground mounted utility boxes: permitted in the public right of way if under a certain size and if the box serves a broader area than just a private development and with specific standards. Unit legalizations: will be addressed as a determination of nonconforming use in chapter 21A.38. Standards related to continuing use maintained. Other standards that require update to parking standards deleted. Vintage signs: Changed to permitted with existing standards in the ordinance, expanded where a vintage sign could be used as public art. Additional height for lights at sports fields: changed to permitted with screening of light trespass, increased setback from residential uses. Recreation equipment height in OS zone: capped at 60 feet in height with no exceptions. Public utility buildings in OS zone: will be allowed to exceed building height for critical public utility infrastructure. Does not include office buildings. Fence and wall height over 6 feet for homeless resource centers: Planning Commission will be given the authority to approve taller fences for buffering purposes. Enlargement of structure with noncomplying use: allowed by right provided the addition complies with zoning requirements. Horizontal inline additions: permitted to match existing portions of buildings that do not meet setback when the addition is in the front or rear yards, but prohibited in side yards. Alteration to an existing SFD when the use is not allowed: alterations will be permitted. Amateur HAM radio antennae over 75 feet in height: special exception deleted. Electrical equipment for cell towers: will need to be in a side or rear yard with specific setback and screening requirements. Electrical security fences: deleted and will become nonpermitted. Covered ADA ramps: deleted, will be addressed through a reasonable accommodation authorized under federal laws. Ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the right of way: will be deleted and required to be located on private property when serving individual developments. Front yard parking for SFD when side or rear yard not accessible: deleted and will no longer be allowed. Parking exceeding the maximum: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to parking ordinance. Alternative parking requirements: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to parking ordinance. Commercial signs in historic districts: delete special exception requirement; will be authorized through existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay. 113 HLC bulk modifications: delete special exception requirement: will be authorized through existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay. 114 Special Exception Text Amendment 115 Special Exception Code Changes (Current as of 10/26/2020) This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments to Title 21A. Zoning: • Amends section 21A.06.050 C 6 • Deletes section 21A.24.010 P 2 • Amends section 21A.24.010 P 6 • Amends section 21A.24.050.D.6.a • Amends section 21A.24.060.D.6.a • Amends sections 21A.24.070.D.6.a • Amends section 21A.24.080.D.6.a • Amends section 21A.24.100.D.6.a • Amends section 21A.24.110.D.6.a • Amends section 21A.26.010.J • Amends section 21A.32.100.D.3 • Amends section 21A.32.100.D.4 • Amends section 21A.32.100 H • Amends section 21A.34.120.G • Amends section Table 21A.36.020.B • Amends section 21A.36.350.A.3 • Amends section 21A.38.040.H.2 • Amends section 21A.38.050.A • Amends section 21A.38.050.G • Amends section 21A.38.060 • Amends section 21A.38.070 • Adds new section 21A.38.075 • Amends section 21A.40.040 • Amends section 21A.40.050.A.6 • Amends section 21A.40.050.C • Amends section 21A.40.065 • Amends section 21A.40.090.D • Amends section 21A.40.090.E.3.b • Adds new section 21A.40.100 Mechanical Equipment • Amends section 21A.40.120.I Barbed Wire Fences • Amends section 21A.40.120.J Razor Wire Fences • Amends section 21A.40.120.L Electric Security Fences • Amends section 21A.40.130 Access for Persons with Disabilities • Amends section 21A.40.160 Ground mounted Utility Boxes • Amends section 21A.44.090 Parking Modifications (this is the proposed parking chapter, not the current parking chapter) • Amends section 21A.46.070.V Historic District signs • Amends section 21A.46.125 Vintage signs • Deletes chapter 21A.52 Special Exceptions • Makes technical changes • Makes changes to references associated with the amended sections 116 Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. All other text is existing with no proposed change. Amending 21A.06.050.C.6 1 6. Review and approve or deny certain special exceptions modifications to dimensional 2 standards for properties located within an H historic preservation overlay district. This 3 authority is also granted to the planning director or designee for applications within the 4 H Historic preservation overlay district that are eligible for administrative approval by 5 the planning director or zoning administrator. The certain special exceptions 6 modifications to zoning district specific development standards are listed as follows and 7 are in addition to any modification authorized elsewhere in this title: 8 a. Building wall height; 9 b. Accessory structure wall height; 10 c. Accessory structure square footage; 11 d. Fence height; 12 e. Overall building and accessory structure height; 13 f. Signs pursuant to section 21A.46.070 of this title; and 14 g. Any modification to bulk and lot regulations, except density, of the underlying 15 zoning district where it is found that the underlying zoning would not be compatible 16 with the historic district and/or landmark site proposal complies with the applicable 17 standards identified in 21A.34.020 and is compatible with the surrounding historic 18 structures. 19 20 Delete section 21A.24.010.P.2 (eliminating additional height in foothill zones) 21 21A.24.010.P.2 22 Height Special Exception: The Planning Commission, as a special exception to the height 23 regulations of the applicable district, may approve a permit to exceed the maximum 24 building height but shall not have the authority to grant additional stories. To grant a 25 height special exception the Planning Commission must find the proposed plan: 26 a. Is a design better suited to the site than can be achieved by strict compliance to 27 these regulations; and 28 b. Satisfies the following criteria: 29 (1) The topography of the lot presents difficulties for construction when the 30 foothill height limitations are applied, 31 (2) The structure has been designed for the topographic conditions existing on 32 the particular lot, and 33 (3) The impact of additional height on neighboring properties has been identified 34 and reasonably mitigated. 35 c. In making these considerations the Planning Commission can consider the size 36 of the lot upon which the structure is proposed. 37 d. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to submit sufficient data to persuade 38 the Planning Commission that the criteria have been satisfied. 39 e. The Planning Commission may deny an application for a height special 40 exception if: 41 117 (1) The architectural plans submitted are designed for structures on level, or 42 nearly level, ground, and the design is transposed to hillside lots requiring support 43 foundations such that the structure exceeds the height limits of these regulations; 44 (2) The additional height can be reduced by modifying the design of the structure 45 through the use of stepping or terracing or by altering the placement of the structure on 46 the lot; 47 (3) The additional height will substantially impair the views from adjacent lots, 48 and the impairment can be avoided by modification; or 49 (4) The proposal is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 50 Repealed 51 Amending 21A.24.010 P 6 (modifying grade change requirements in foothill zones) 52 6. Grade Changes: No grading shall be permitted prior to the issuance of a building 53 permit. The grade of any lot shall not be altered above or below established grade 54 more than four4 feet (4') at any point for the construction of any structure or 55 improvement except: 56 a. Within the buildable area. Proposals to modify established grade more than 6 six 57 feet (6') shall be reviewed as a special exception subject to the standards in 58 chapter 21A.52 of this title shall be permitted for the construction of below grade 59 portions of structures, egress windows, and building entrances. Grade change 60 transition areas between a yard area and the buildable area shall be within the 61 buildable area; 62 b. Within the front, corner side, side and rear yard areas, proposals to modify 63 established grade more grade changes greater than 4four feet (4') shall be 64 reviewed as a special exception subject to the standards found in chapter 21A.52 65 of this title are permitted provided: and 66 (1) The grade change is supported by retaining walls. 67 (2) No individual retaining wall exceeds 6 feet in height. 68 69 c. As necessary to construct driveway access from the street to the garage or 70 parking area grade changes and/or retaining walls up to six feet (6') from the 71 established grade shall be reviewed as a special exception subject to the standards 72 in chapter 21A.52 of this title Within the front and corner side yards, grade 73 changes up to 6 feet in height are permitted provided: 74 (1) The grade change is necessary for driveways accessing legally located parking 75 areas 76 (2) The grade changes are supported by retaining walls. 77 Delete reference to special exception for extra height in R-1, R-2, and SR districts 78 21A.24.050.D.6.a: 79 6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, 80 additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning 81 Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 82 title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 83 pattern on the block face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with 84 conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 85 118 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height 86 for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be 87 reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 88 subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 89 21A.24.060.D.6.a 90 6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, 91 additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning 92 Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 93 title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 94 pattern on the block face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with 95 conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 96 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height 97 for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be 98 reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 99 subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 100 21A.24.070.D.6.a 101 6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, 102 additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning 103 Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 104 title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 105 pattern on the block face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with 106 conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 107 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height 108 for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be 109 reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 110 subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 111 21A.24.080.D.6.a 112 6. Additional Building Height: 113 a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, 114 additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning 115 commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 116 title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 117 pattern on the block face. The planning commission will approve, approve with 118 conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 119 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building 120 height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be 121 reviewed by the historic landmarks commission which may grant such requests 122 subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 123 21A.24.100.D.6.a 124 6. Additional Building Height: 125 a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, 126 additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning 127 commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 128 title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 129 pattern on the block face. The planning commission will approve, approve with 130 conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 131 b. Additional Principal Building Height:: Requests for additional building 132 height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be 133 119 reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 134 subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 135 21A.24.110.D.6.a 136 6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, 137 additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning 138 Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 139 title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 140 pattern on the block face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with 141 conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 142 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height 143 for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be 144 reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 145 subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 146 Delete special exception for extra height in all commercial zoning districts in 21A.26.010 J 147 21A.26.010 J: 148 J. Modifications To Maximum Height: The maximum height of buildings in 149 commercial zoning districts may be increased up to 10% on any building face 150 Additions to the maximum height due to the natural topography of the site may 151 be approved pursuant to the following procedures and standards: 152 1. At least 50% of the building complies with the maximum height of the 153 underlying zoning district; 154 2. The modification allows the upper floor of a building to be level with the 155 portion of the building that complies with the maximum building height 156 of the zone without the 10% modification; and 157 3. The height of the ground floor is at least 12 feet in height measured from 158 finished floor to finished ceiling height. 159 1. Modifications Of Ten Percent Or Less Of Maximum Height: 160 a. The Planning Commission may approve, as a special exception, additional 161 height not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the maximum height pursuant to the 162 standards and procedures of chapter 21A.52 of this title. Specific conditions for 163 approval are found in chapter 21A.52 of this title. 164 2. Modifications Of More Than Ten Percent Of Maximum Height: 165 a. Design Review: Through design review for properties on a sloping lot in 166 Commercial Zoning Districts, pursuant to chapter 21A.59 of this title, the 167 Planning Commission, or in the case of an administrative approval the Planning 168 Director or designee, may allow additional building height of more than ten 169 percent (10%) of the maximum height, but not more than one additional story, if 170 the first floor of the building exceeds twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. The 171 additional story shall not be exposed on more than fifty percent (50%) of the 172 total building elevations. 173 Changes to 21A.32.100 D 3 and D 4 deleting special exception for recreation equipment height 174 and heights for public utility buildings in the OS Open Space zoning district 175 3. Recreation equipment heights or heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake 176 City Public Utilities Department that are not specifically exempt in section 177 21A.02.050 of this title, in excess of sixty feet (60') may be approved through the 178 120 Special Exception process. are permitted to a height not to exceed 80 feet when 179 needed due to the nature of the equipment or for the use to operate safely, such as 180 fences surrounding golf course driving ranges. 181 4. Heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department 182 that are not specifically exempt in section 21A.02.050 of this title, are exempt from 183 the height restrictions in this zoning district provided the building or structure is 184 deemed by the director of the public utilities department as critical infrastructure 185 necessary to provide specific utility needs to the public. 186 Changes to 21A.32.100 H additional height for sports related light poles in the OS zone. 187 H. Lighting: All uses and developments that provide lighting shall ensure that lighting 188 installations comply with the following standards 189 1. Lighting is installed in a manner and location that will do not have an adverse 190 impact on the natural environment when placed in areas with wildlife habitat, 191 traffic safety or on surrounding properties and uses. 192 2. Light sources shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into 193 adjacent properties and have cutoffs to protect the view of the night sky. 194 3. Light poles for outdoor uses, such as sports fields, amphitheaters, and other 195 similar uses may be permitted to exceed the maximum heights up to 70 feet 196 in height provided the lights are located a minimum of 30 feet from a 197 residential use and directed to reduce light trespass onto neighboring 198 properties. 199 200 Changes to 21A.34.120 Garages located in hillsides in the YCI Yalecrest Compatible Infill 201 Overlay 202 G. Special Exception For Garages Built into Hillsides in Front or Corner Side Yards: A 203 garage built into a hillside and located forward of the front line of the building may 204 be allowed as a special exception granted by the planning commission, subject to the 205 following standards: 206 1. The rear and side yards cannot be reasonably accessed for the purpose of 207 parking. 208 2. Because of the topography of the lot it is impossible to construct a garage and 209 satisfy the standards of the YCI. 210 3. The ceiling elevation of the garage is below the elevation of the first or main 211 floor of the house. 212 4. The garage meets all applicable yard requirements. 213 Changes to Table 21A.36.020 B Obstructions in Required yards 214 TABLE 21A.36.020B 215 OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS1 216 217 121 Type Of Structure Or Use Obstruction Front And Corner Side Yards Side Yard Rear Yard Below grade encroachments underground obstructions when there is no exterior evidence of the underground structure other than entrances and required venting provided there are no conflicts with any easements or publicly owned infrastructure or utilities. 2 X X X Central air conditioning systems, heating, ventilating, pool and filtering equipment, the outside elements shall be located not less than 4 feet from a lot line..Structures less than 4 feet from the property line shall be reviewed as a special exception according to the provisions of section 21A.52.030 of this title X X Changes of established grade for commercial or industrial uses in zones, where conditionally or otherwise permitted, the grade is changed to accommodate site retention or detention requirements X X X Changes of established grade of 4 feet or less except for the FP and FR Districts which shall be subject to the provisions of subsection 21A.24.010P of this title. (All grade changes located on a property line shall be supported by a retaining wall.) For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, Changes of established grade greater than 4 feet are special exceptions subject to the standards and factors in chapter 21A.52 of this title Grade changes greater than 4 feet in height provided the grade change includes a retaining wall, a horizontal step that is a minimum of 3 feet in depth is provided for every 4 vertical feet of retaining wall. X X X Laundry drying equipment (clothesline and poles) X X X Window mounted refrigerated air conditioners and evaporative "swamp" coolers located at least 2 feet from the property line. Window mounted refrigerated air conditioner units and "swamp" coolers less than 2 feet from the property line shall be reviewed as a special exception according to the provisions of section 21A.52.030 of this title X X X Notes: 218 1. "X" denotes where obstructions are allowed. 219 2. Below grade encroachments (encroachments which are completely below grade where the 220 surface grade remains intact and where the below grade encroachment is not visible from the 221 surface) into required yards shall be treated as a special exception in accordance with the 222 procedures set forth in chapter 21A.52 of this title. reserved 223 3. The accessory structure shall be located wholly behind the primary structure on the 224 property. 225 226 Changes to 21A.36.350 A 3: fence and wall height associated with homeless resource center 227 122 21A.36.350.A.3. A decorative masonry wall that is a minimum of six6 feet (6') high shall 228 be provided along all interior side and rear lot lines and that complies with all required 229 site distance triangles at driveways and walkways. Walls in excess of 6six feet (6') may be 230 approved by the Planning Commission as a special exception required as a condition of 231 approval of a conditional use if it determines a taller wall is necessary to mitigate a 232 detrimental impact created by the homeless resource center or homeless shelter; 233 Changes to 21A.38.040 H 2 enlarging a structure with a legal non-conforming use 234 21A.38.040.H.2 235 2. Enlargement Of A Structure With A Nonconforming Use: Alterations or modifications 236 to a portion of a structure with Enlargement of a legal nonconforming use may be 237 approved by special exception, subject to the provisions of chapter 21A.52 of this title, 238 are limited to a one time expansion of up to if the floor area for the nonconforming use 239 does not increase by more than twenty five 25 percent (25%) of the gross floor area, or 240 one thousand (1,000) gross square feet, whichever is less and subject to the site being 241 able to provide required off street parking that complies with any applicable parking 242 requirement of this title. within the limits of existing legal hard surfaced parking areas 243 on the site. An approved expansion shall be documented through an updated zoning 244 certificate for the property. Any expansion to the nonconforming use portion of a 245 structure beyond these limits is not permitted. The expansion shall be limited to a one-246 time expansion after April 12, 1995, the effective date of this title. Any expansion granted 247 as a special exception after April 12, 1995 shall be considered as fulfilling the one-time 248 expansion. 249 Changes to 21A.38.050 A Noncomplying structures and inline additions 250 A. Enlargement: A noncomplying structure may be enlarged if such enlargement and its 251 location comply with the standards of the zoning district in which it is located or as 252 provided in this section. Horizontal in line additions or extensions to existing 253 noncomplying building portions are considered not creating a new nonconformance 254 and are subject to special exception standards and approval of subsection 255 21A.52.030A15 of this title. Vertical in line additions or extensions to existing 256 noncomplying building portions are considered creating a new nonconformance and 257 are not permitted. 258 1. Noncomplying as to setbacks 259 a. Front yard: A principal building with a front yard setback that is less than the 260 minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does not further 261 reduce the existing front yard setback and complies with all other applicable 262 requirements of Title 21A. 263 b. Corner side yards: A principal building with a corner side yard setback that is 264 less than the minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does 265 not further reduce the existing corner side yard setback and complies with all 266 other applicable requirements of Title 21A. 267 c. Interior side yards: Any addition to a principal structure with a 268 noncomplying setback is permitted provided the addition complies with the 269 minimum side yard setback requirement and maximum wall height as 270 specified in the underlying zone. In determining if a side yard is 271 123 noncomplying, the narrower of the two side yards shall be interpreted to be 272 the narrower side yard required in the underlying zoning district. 273 274 d. Rear yards. A principal building noncomplying to rear yard setbacks may be 275 expanded provided the expansion follows an existing noncomplying building 276 wall and does not result in a decrease of the existing rear yard setback and 277 complies with side and corner side yard setbacks of the underlying zoning 278 district. If the building does not comply with the existing side or corner side 279 yard setback, the expansion shall be permitted to extend to the side or corner 280 side yard setback of the underlying zone. 281 2. Noncomplying as to height: A principal structure that exceeds the maximum 282 height of the underlying zoning district may be expanded at the existing height of 283 the building provided the setbacks of the underlying zoning district are complied 284 with. If the existing setbacks of the structure are noncomplying, then an 285 expansion of the building shall comply with the height and applicable setback 286 requirements of the underlying zoning district. 287 Changes to 21A.38.050 G replacement/reconstruction of a noncomplying structure 288 The replacement or reconstruction of any existing noncomplying portion of a principal 289 structure or full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure is subject to the 290 special exception standards of subsection 21A.52.030A19 of this title permitted provided 291 the replacement is in the same location or in a location that reduces the degree of 292 noncompliance and is of substantially the same dimension. Enlarging a full replacement 293 of a noncomplying accessory structure is permitted provided the enlarged section 294 complies with all setback, height, maximum square feet, and lot or yard coverage 295 requirements. 296 Changes to 21A.38.060 Noncomplying lots: adding paragraph A addressing subdividing a lot 297 with two or more principal buildings. 298 A. Subdividing Lots containing two or more separate principal buildings. Lots that 299 contain two or more separate principal buildings on a single parcel may be subdivided to 300 place each structure on a separate lot subject to the following provisions 301 1. The properties shall be subdivided by recording of a plat. 302 2. The proposed lots are exempt from the minimum lot area, lot width, lot coverage, 303 and street frontage requirements of the underlying zoning district; 304 3. The proposed setbacks shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director 305 after consultation with applicable city departments; 306 4. The proposed subdivision plat shall identify the front, corner side, interior side, 307 and rear yards for the purpose of future development. 308 5. Parking may be located anywhere within the proposed subdivision except front 309 yards (unless already existing) and shall not be reduced below the existing off-310 street parking 311 6. All lots that are part of the subdivision must include adequate access to a public 312 street. Adequate access shall include pedestrian walkways and when off-street 313 parking is required, vehicle access and parking. 314 124 7. All necessary easements for access and utilities are shown on the plat. A note 315 shall be added to indicate responsibility for maintenance of shared access and 316 utilities. 317 8. All other applicable regulations of the Salt Lake City Code shall apply. 318 Changes to 21A.38.070 Legal conforming single-family detached dwelling, tw0-family dwelling, 319 and twin home. 320 Any legally existing single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home 321 located in a zoning district that does not allow these uses shall be considered legal 322 conforming. Legal conforming status shall authorize replacement of the single-family 323 detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home structure to the extent of the 324 original footprint. 325 326 A. Alterations, Additions Or Extensions Or Replacement Structures Greater Than 327 The Original Footprint: In zoning districts other than M-1 and M-2, which do 328 not allow detached single-family dwelling units, two-family dwelling units or 329 twin homes, any alterations, extensions/additions or the replacement of the 330 structure may exceed the original footprint by twenty five25 percent (25%) of the 331 existing structure subject to the following standards: 332 1. Any alterations, extensions/additions or the replacement structure shall not 333 project into a required yard beyond any encroachment established by the 334 structure being replaced. 335 2. Any alterations, additions or extensions beyond the original footprint which 336 are noncomplying are subject to special exception standards of subsection 337 21A.52.030A15 of this title. 338 3. All replacement structures in nonresidential zones are subject to the 339 provisions of section 21A.36.190, "Residential Building Standards For Legal 340 Conforming Single-Family Detached Dwellings, Two-Family Dwellings And 341 Twin Homes In Nonresidential Zoning Districts", of this title. 342 343 Any alterations, additions or extensions or replacement structures which exceed twenty 344 five percent (25%) of the original footprint, or alterations, additions or extensions or 345 replacement of a single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling or twin home in 346 an M-1 or M-2 zoning district may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the 347 provisions of chapter 21A.54 of this title. 348 Adding new section 21A.38.075 Unit Legalizations: relocated from special exception chapter. 349 A. Purpose: The purpose of this subsection is to implement the existing Salt Lake City 350 community housing plan by providing a process that gives owners of property with one 351 or more excess dwelling units not recognized by the city an opportunity to legalize such 352 units based on the standards set forth in this section. The intent is to maintain existing 353 housing stock in a safe manner that contributes to the vitality and sustainability of 354 neighborhoods within the city. 355 B. Review Standards: A dwelling unit that is proposed to be legalized pursuant to this 356 section shall comply with the following standards. 357 358 125 1. The dwelling unit existed prior to April 12, 1995. In order to determine whether 359 a dwelling unit was in existence prior to April 12, 1995, the unit owner shall 360 provide documentation thereof which may include any of the following: 361 a. Copies of lease or rental agreements, lease or rent payments, or other similar 362 documentation showing a transaction between the unit owner and tenants; 363 b. Evidence indicating that prior to April 12, 1995, the city issued a building 364 permit, business license, zoning certificate, or other permit relating to the 365 dwelling unit in question; 366 c. Utility records indicating existence of a dwelling unit; 367 d. Historic surveys recognized by the Planning Director as being performed by a 368 trained professional in historic preservation; 369 e. Notarized affidavits from a previous owner, tenant, or neighbor; 370 f. Polk, Cole, or phone directories that indicate existence of the dwelling unit 371 (but not necessarily that the unit was occupied); or 372 g. Any other documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public 373 record which indicates the existence of the excess unit prior to April 12, 1995. 374 2. The excess unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit since April 12, 375 1995. In order to determine if a unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling 376 unit, the following may be considered: 377 a. Evidence listed in subsection B.1 of this section indicates that the unit has 378 been occupied at least once every 5 calendar years; 379 b. Evidence that the unit was marketed for occupancy if the unit was unoccupied 380 for more than 5 consecutive years; 381 c. If evidence of maintaining a separate dwelling unit as required by subsections 382 B.1 of this section cannot be established, documentation of construction 383 upgrades may be provided in lieu thereof. 384 d. Any documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record 385 which provides evidence that the unit was referenced as a separate dwelling 386 unit at least once every 5 years. 387 3. The property where the dwelling unit is located: 388 a. Can accommodate on-site parking as required by this title, or 389 b. Is located within a one-fourth (1/4) mile radius of a fixed rail transit stop or 390 bus stop in service at the time of legalization. 391 4. Any active zoning violations occurring on the property must be resolved except 392 for those related to excess units. 393 C. Conditions Of Approval: Any approved unit legalization shall be subject to the following 394 conditions: 395 1. The unit owner shall allow the City's building official or designee to inspect the 396 dwelling unit to determine whether the unit substantially complies with basic life 397 safety requirements as provided in title 18, chapter 18.50, "Existing Residential 398 Housing", of this Code. 399 2. All required corrections indicated during the inspection process must be 400 completed within 1 year unless granted an extension by the Building Official. 401 3. If a business license is required by Title 5 of the Salt Lake City Code of ordinance, 402 the unit owner shall apply for a business license, when required, within fourteen 403 (14) days ofany correction required by this section being completed and approved 404 by the City Building Official.. 405 406 126 D. Application: A determination of non-conforming use application, provided by the Zoning 407 Administer, shall be required to legalize unrecognized dwelling units. A notice of 408 application shall be sent to property owners and occupants as required by chapter 409 21A.10. The purpose of the notice is to allow neighbors to submit evidence regarding the 410 existence of the dwelling unit and the length of time that the unit has been in existence. 411 Changes to 21A.40.040 Use limitations: clarifies accessory uses. 412 21A.40.040: USE LIMITATIONS: 413 In addition to the applicable use limitations of the district regulations, no accessory use, 414 building or structure shall be permitted unless it complies with the restrictions set forth 415 below: 416 A. An accessory use, building or structure shall be incidental and subordinate to the 417 principal use or structure in area, extent and purpose; 418 B. An accessory use, building or structure shall be under the same ownership or 419 control as the principal use or structure, and shall be, except as otherwise expressly 420 authorized by the provisions of this title, located on the same lot as the principal 421 use or structure; 422 C. No accessory use, building or structure shall be established or constructed before 423 the principal use is in operation or the structure is under construction in 424 accordance with these regulations; and 425 D. No commercial sign, except as expressly authorized by this chapter or by the 426 provisions of chapter 21A.46 of this title, shall be maintained in connection with an 427 accessory use or structure. 428 E. An accessory use shall be permitted if it is routinely and customarily associated with 429 the principal use and not otherwise prohibited by this Title. For residential uses, 430 this includes accessory uses that are customarily associated with a dwelling, such as 431 home office, outdoor living space, pool houses, storage, personal use, hobbies, and 432 other similar uses but does not include short term rentals or other uses not allowed 433 in the zoning district. 434 435 Changes to 21A.40.050 A 6 accessory structures on double frontage lots. Clarifies where 436 accessory structures can be located on lots that have two front yards (a street along the front 437 yard and back yard) 438 21A.40.050 A 6: Double Frontage lots: Accessory structures and buildings located on a 439 property where both the front and rear yards have frontage on a street may be located in 440 a front yard provided the accessory building or structure: 441 a. Is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard where the 442 primary entrance to the principal building is located; 443 b. Is in a location that is consistent with other accessory building locations on the 444 block; 445 c. Complies with any clear view triangle requirements of this Title; and 446 d. Complies with all other accessory building and structure requirements of this 447 title. 448 449 Changes to 21A.40.050 C Maximum height of accessory structures. Changes how accessory 450 buildings are measured for height and increases the allowed height up to 75% of the principal 451 structure if the setbacks are increased. 452 127 C. Maximum Height Of Accessory Buildings/Structures: 453 1. Accessory To Residential Uses In The FP District, RMF Districts, RB, R-MU 454 Districts, SNB And The RO District: The height of accessory buildings/structures 455 in residential districts are measured from established grade to the highest point of 456 the accessory building and shall conform to the following: 457 a. The height of accessory buildings structures with flat roofs shall not exceed 458 twelve12 feet (12'). The height of flat roof structures may be increased up to 459 75% of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 15 feet provided 460 the setbacks increases 1 foot for every one 1 foot of building height above 12 461 feet. 462 b. The height of accessory buildings structures with pitched roofs shall not 463 exceed 17 seventeen feet (17') measured to the midpoint of the roof. The 464 height of pitched roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of 465 the principal structure, not exceed 15 feet provided the setbacks increase 1 466 foot for every 1 foot of structure height above 17 feet. ; and 467 c. Accessory buildings with greater building height may be approved as a 468 special exception, pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 469 2. Accessory To Residential Uses In The FR, R-1 Districts, R-2 District And SR 470 Districts: The height of accessory buildings/structures in the FR districts, R-1 471 districts, R-2 district and SR districts are measured from established grade to the 472 highest point of the accessory structure and shall conform to the following: 473 a. The height of accessory buildings structures with flat roofs shall not exceed twelve 474 12 feet (12'); nine9 feet (9') measured from established grade in the SR-1A 475 zoning district. The height of flat roof structures may be increased up to 75% 476 of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 15 feet or 11 feet in the 477 SR-1A zoning district provided the setbacks are increased 1 foot for every one 478 1 foot of building height above 12 feet or 9 feet in the SR-1A zoning district. 479 b. The height of accessory buildings structures with pitched roofs shall not 480 exceed seventeen17 feet (17') measured as the vertical distance between the 481 top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building 482 coverage. In the SR-1A zoning district the height of accessory buildings 483 structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 14fourteen feet (14'). The 484 height of pitched roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of 485 the principal structure, not to exceed 21 feet or 15 feet in the SR-1A zoning 486 district provided the setbacks are increased 1 foot for every 1 foot of building 487 height above 17 feet or 15 feet in the SR-1A zoning district.; and 488 c. Accessory buildings with greater building height may be approved as a 489 special exception, pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, if the proposed 490 accessory building is in keeping with other accessory buildings on the block 491 face. 492 493 128 Changes to 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining. Outdoor dining changed to permitted with clarified 494 standards related to noise, setbacks, and location. 495 21A.4o.065 Outdoor Dining 496 "Outdoor dining", as defined in chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be allowed in any 497 zoning district where restaurant and retail uses are allowed and for any noncomplying 498 restaurant or retail use subject to the provisions of this section: 499 A. Where allowed: 500 A. Within the buildable lot area, Outdoor dining in the public way shall be 501 permitted subject to all City requirements. 502 B. Within a required or provided front or corner side yard; 503 C. Within a required side yard provided: the outdoor dining is setback a 504 minimum of 10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does 505 not permit restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not 506 considered adjacent for the purpose of this section. 507 D. Within a required rear yard provided the outdoor dining is setback a 508 minimum of 10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does 509 not permit restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not 510 considered adjacent for the purpose of this section. 511 E. Within a public right of way or an adjacent public property subject to all 512 applicable lease agreements, applicable regulations, and the outdoor dining 513 design guidelines. 514 B. Outdoor dining is allowed within the required landscaped yard or buffer area, in 515 commercial and manufacturing zoning districts where such uses are allowed. 516 Outdoor dining is allowed in the RB, CN, MU, R-MU, RMU-35 and the RMU-45 517 Zones and for nonconforming restaurants and similar uses that serve food or 518 drinks through the provisions of the special exception process (see chapter 519 21A.52 of this title). All outdoor dining shall be subject to the following 520 conditions: 521 1. All applicable requirements of chapter 21A.48 and section 21A.36.020 of this 522 title are met. 523 2. All required business, health and other regulatory licenses for the outdoor 524 dining have been secured. 525 3. All the proposed outdoor dining activities will be conducted on private 526 property owned or otherwise controlled by the applicant and that none of 527 the activities will occur on any publicly owned rights-of-way unless separate 528 approval for the use of any such public rights-of-way has been obtained 529 from the City. 530 b. The location of any paving, landscaping, planters, fencing, canopies, 531 umbrellas or other table covers or barriers surrounding the area; 532 c. The proposed outdoor dining will not impede pedestrian or vehicular 533 traffic; and 534 4d. The main entry has a control point as required by State liquor laws. 535 5e. The proposed outdoor dining complies with all conditions pertaining to 536 any existing variances, conditional uses or other approvals granted for 537 property. 538 6f. Live music will not be performed nor loudspeakers played in the outdoor 539 dining area unless the decibel level is within conformance with the Salt 540 Lake City noise control ordinance, title 9, chapter 9.28 of this Code. Live 541 129 music and loudspeakers are prohibited outside between the hours of 9:00 542 pm and 9:00 am when the property is adjacent to a residential zoning 543 district. 544 7g. No additional parking is required unless the total outdoor dining area 545 ever exceeds five hundred (500) square feet. Parking for outdoor dining 546 areas in excess of five hundred (500) square feet is required at a ratio of 547 two (2) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of outdoor dining 548 area. No additional parking is required in the D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, TSA, or 549 G-MU Zone. Outdoor dining shall be by considered an expansion of an 550 use for the purpose of determining if additional parking is required as 551 stated in Chapter 21A.44 Parking. 552 8. Smoking shall be prohibited within the outdoor dining area and within 553 twenty five25 feet (25') of the outdoor dining area. 554 ii. H. The proposed outdoor dining complies with the 555 environmental performance standards as stated in 556 section 21A.36.180 of this title. 557 iii. i. Outdoor dining shall be located in areas where 558 such use is likely to have the least adverse impacts on 559 adjacent properties. 560 561 Changes to 21A.40.090 D Amateur radio facilities with surface area exceeding 10 square feet. 562 Removes the special exception process for extra height. 563 21A.40.090 D: Amateur Radio Facilities with Surface Area Exceeding 10 Square Feet 564 Amateur Radio Facilities With Surface Area Exceeding 10 Square Feet: Any antenna and 565 antenna support having a combined surface area greater than ten (10) square feet or 566 having any single dimension exceeding twelve 12 feet (12') that is capable of transmitting 567 as well as receiving signals and is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission 568 as an amateur radio facility shall be permitted as an accessory use, but only in 569 compliance with the regulations set forth below: 570 1. Number Limited: No more than one such antenna or antenna support structure with 571 a surface area greater than ten (10) square feet or any single dimension exceeding 572 twelve12 feet (12') may be located on any lot. 573 2. Height Limited: No such antenna and its support structure shall, if ground mounted, 574 exceed seventy five75 feet (75') in height or, if attached to a building pursuant to 575 subsection D3 of this section, the height therein specified. 576 3. Attachment To Buildings Limited: No such antenna or its support structure shall be 577 attached to a principal or accessory structure unless all of the following conditions 578 are satisfied: 579 a. Height: The antenna and its support structure shall not extend more than twenty 580 20 feet (20') above the highest point of the building on which it is mounted. 581 b. Mounting: The antenna and its support structure shall not be attached to or 582 mounted upon any building appurtenance, such as a chimney. The antenna and 583 its support structure shall not be mounted or attached to the front or corner side 584 of any principal building facing a street, including any portion of the building 585 roof facing any street. The antenna and its support structure shall be designed to 586 withstand a wind force of eighty (80) miles per hour without the use of 587 supporting guywires. 588 130 c. Grounding: The antenna and its support structure shall be bonded to a grounding 589 rod. 590 d. Other Standards: The antenna and its support structure shall satisfy such other 591 design and construction standards as the Zoning Administrator determines are 592 necessary to ensure safe construction and maintenance of the antenna and its 593 support structure. 594 e. Special Exception For Increased Height: Any person desiring to erect an amateur 595 ("ham") radio antenna in excess of seventy five feet (75') shall file an application 596 for a special exception with the Zoning Administrator pursuant to chapter 21A.52 597 of this title. In addition to the other application regulations, the application shall 598 specify the details and dimensions of the proposed antenna and its supporting 599 structures and shall further specify why the applicant contends that such a design 600 and height are necessary to accommodate reasonably amateur radio 601 communication. The Zoning Administrator shall approve the proposed design 602 and height unless the Zoning Administrator finds that a different design and 603 height which is less violative of the City's demonstrated health, safety or aesthetic 604 considerations also accommodates reasonably amateur radio communication 605 and, further, that the alternative design and height are the minimum practicable 606 regulation necessary to accomplish the City's actual and demonstrated legitimate 607 purposes. The burden of proving the acceptability of the alternative design shall 608 be on the City. 609 610 Changes to 21A.40.090 E 3 b electrical equipment exceeding the permitted size for cell towers. 611 Requires electrical equipment to be located on private property and prohibits the equipment 612 from being located between the street facing façade and the street. 613 21A.40.090.E.3.b Electrical Equipment Located On Private Property: Electrical 614 equipment shall be subject to the following standards: located in the rear yard, interior 615 side yard, or within the buildable area on a given parcel. In the case of a parcel with an 616 existing building, the electrical equipment shall not be located between the front and/or 617 corner street facing building facades of the building and the street. 618 619 Electrical equipment located in a residential zoning district, shall not exceed a width of 620 four feet (4'), a depth of three feet (3'), or a height of four feet (4') to be considered a 621 permitted use if located outside of an enclosed building. Electrical equipment exceeding 622 these dimensions shall be located inside of an enclosed building. 623 624 Electrical equipment located in all other CN, PL, PL-2, CB, I or OS Zoning Districts shall 625 not exceed a width of six feet (6'), a depth of three feet (3'), or a height of six feet (6') to 626 be considered a permitted use if located outside of an enclosed building. Electrical 627 equipment exceeding these dimensions shall be located inside of an enclosed building. 628 . 629 630 Electrical equipment exceeding the dimensions listed above shall be reviewed 631 administratively as a special exception per chapter 21A.52 of this title. 632 633 The electrical equipment and any necessary building shall be subject to the maximum lot 634 coverage requirements in the underlying zoning district. 635 i. Located in a rear yard, interior side yard, or within the building area of the lot. 636 131 ii. If located in a zoning district without a require front or corner side yard setback, the 637 equipment shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from the front or corner side yard 638 property line. 639 iii. Located a minimum of 4 feet from a side or rear property line unless located in an 640 enclosed structure or a vault where the equipment will not be visible. 641 iv. If the equipment is located next to a public trail, park, open space, or other public 642 space other than a street, the equipment shall be screened by a masonry wall or solid 643 fence so the equipment is not visible. 644 v. The electrical equipment and any structure associated with the electrical equipment is 645 subject to the maximum lot coverage of the underlying zoning district. 646 647 Adding new section 21A.40.100 Mechanical equipment. Requires mechanical equipment to be 648 located on private property subject to specific standards. 649 21A.40.100 Location of Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment shall be 650 located as follows 651 A. Front and corner side yards and double frontage lots: Only allowed if located within 652 4 feet of the principal building and screened by vegetation, a solid wall or fence so the 653 equipment is not visible and at least 10 feet from the front and corner side yard 654 property lines. 655 B. Side yards: At least 4 feet from a side property line. 656 C. Rear yards: at least 4 feet from a rear property line. 657 D. Prohibited areas: in addition to the yard requirements above, mechanical equipment 658 is prohibited to be located on the roof of an accessory structure, with the exception of 659 exhaust fans and mechanical vents serving the accessory building in which case the 660 fans or vents shall be at least 10 feet from a property line. 661 662 Changes to 21A.40.120 I Barbed wire fences: removes special exception requirements and adds 663 standards to address impacts. 664 I. Barbed Wire Fences: 665 1. Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the following 666 instances: 667 a. AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1, and M-2 and D-2 districts and to secure 668 critical infrastructure located in any other zoning district not listed subject to the 669 following requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are necessary 670 to protect the facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety. Barbed 671 wire is also permitted to secure construction sites and sites where construction 672 is pending provided it is removed once construction is complete. 673 b. Barbed wire fences shall be subject to the following provisions: 674 (1) Not allowed in a provided or required front yard. 675 (2) The barbed wire is permitted to exceed the maximum fence height. 676 (3) No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than 7 feet in height above 677 the ground except for agricultural purposes provided the barbed wire is 678 vertically aligned. 679 (4) No more than 3 strands of barbed wire are permitted. 680 (5) The barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than 681 60 degrees from a vertical line. 682 (6) All barbed wire shall be setback a minimum of 3 feet from public property. 683 132 (7) The barbed wire is not located along a property line shared with a 684 residential use when the subject property is located in a CG zoning district. 685 2. Special Exception: Barbed wire fencing may be approved for 686 nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of 687 this title, in all zoning districts except for those listed above as permitted 688 uses. The planning commission may approve as special exceptions, the 689 placement of barbed wire fences, for security reasons, or for the keeping 690 out of animals around nonresidential properties, transformer stations, 691 microwave stations, construction sites or other similar publicly 692 necessary or dangerous sites, provided the requested fence is not in any 693 residential district and is not on or near the property line of a lot which is 694 occupied as a place of residence. 695 3. Location Requirements: Barbed wire fencing shall not be allowed in 696 required front yard setbacks nor along frontages on streets defined as 697 gateway streets in Salt Lake City's adopted urban design element master 698 plan. 699 4. Special Design Regulations: No strand of barbed wire shall be 700 permitted less than six feet (6') high. No more than three (3) strands of 701 barbed wire are permitted. The barbed wire strands shall not slant 702 outward from the fence more than sixty degrees (60°) from a vertical 703 line. No barbed wire strand shall project over public property. If the 704 barbed wire proposed slants outward over adjoining private property the 705 applicant must submit written consent from adjoining property owner 706 agreeing to such a projection over the property line. 707 5. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission may 708 approve, as a special exception, the building permit for a barbed wire 709 fence if it is found that the applicant has shown that the fence is 710 reasonably necessary for security in that it protects people from 711 dangerous sites and conditions such as transformer stations, microwave 712 stations or construction sites. 713 714 Changes to 21A.40.120 J Razor wire fencing: removes special exception requirements and adds 715 standards to address impacts. 716 J. Razor Wire Fences: Razor wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the M-1, M-2 717 and EI zoning and D-2 districts and to secure critical infrastructure structures and 718 sites located in any other zoning district not listed subject to the following 719 requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are necessary to protect the 720 facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety. 721 1. Special Exception: Razor wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as 722 a special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, in the A, CG, D-2, M-1 723 and M-2 zoning districts. The planning commission may approve as a special 724 exception the placement of razor wire fences, for security reasons, around 725 commercial or industrial uses, transformer stations, microwave stations, or other 726 similar public necessity or dangerous sites; provided, that the requested fence is 727 not on the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. Not 728 allowed in a provided or required front or corner side yard. 729 133 2. Location Requirements: Razor wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front 730 or corner side yard setback The razor wire is permitted to exceed the maximum 731 fence height to a height necessary to reasonably secure the site. 732 3. Special Design Regulations: No strand of razor wire shall be permitted on a fence 733 that is less than seven7 feet (7') high. Razor wire coils shall not exceed eighteen18 734 inches (18") in diameter and must slant inward from the fence to which the razor 735 wire is being attached. 736 4. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission may approve 737 razor wire fencing if the commission finds that the applicant has shown that razor 738 wire is necessary for the security of the property in questionAll razor wire shall be 739 setback a minimum of three (3) feet from public property in zoning districts that 740 do not have a minimum setback. 741 742 Changes to 21A.40.120 L Electric security fencing: removes special exception requirements and 743 adds standards to address impacts. 744 L. Electric Security Fences: 745 1. Permitted Use: Electric security fences are allowed as a permitted use in the M-1 746 and M-2 zones. Electric security fences on parcels or lots that abut a residential zone are 747 prohibited. 748 2. Special Exception: Electric security fences on parcels or lots adjacent to a 749 commercial zone may be approved as a special exception pursuant to the requirements 750 in chapter 21A.52 of this title. 751 23. Location Requirements: Electric security fences shall not be allowed in required 752 front yard setbacks or on frontages adjacent to residentially zoned properties. 753 34. Compliance With Adopted Building Codes: Electric security fences shall be 754 constructed or installed in conformance with all applicable construction codes. 755 45. Perimeter Fence Or Wall: No electric security fence shall be installed or used 756 unless it is fully enclosed by a nonelectrical fence or wall that is not less than six6 feet 757 (6') in height. There shall be at least one1 foot (1') of spacing between the electric security 758 fence and the perimeter fence or wall. 759 56. Staging Area: All entries to a site shall have a buffer area that allows on site 760 staging prior to passing the perimeter barrier. The site shall be large enough to 761 accommodate a vehicle completely outside of the public right of way. 762 67. Height: Electric security fences shall have a maximum height of ten10 feet (10'). 763 78. Warning Signs: Electric security fences shall be clearly identified with warning 764 signs that read: "Warning-Electric Fence" at intervals of not greater than sixty60 feet 765 (60'). Signs shall comply with requirements in chapter 21A.46, "Signs", of this title. 766 89. Security Box: Electric security fences shall have a small, wall mounted safe or 767 box that holds building keys for police, firefighters and EMTs to retrieve in emergencies. 768 769 Changes to 21A.40.130 Access for persons with disabilities. Removes the special exception 770 process and allows staff level decisions based on federal regulations. 771 21A.40.130 Access for persons with disabilities: building permits for an uncovered 772 vertical wheelchair lift, or for an uncovered access ramp, for persons with disabilities, 773 under four 4 feet (4') in height, or any other form of uncovered access, for persons with 774 disabilities, under four feet4 (4') in height, that encroaches into required yard areas, may 775 be approved by the Zoning Administrator as a permitted accessory structure. Covered 776 ramps or other access structures for persons with disabilities that encroach into required 777 134 yard areas, shall be considered as a reasonable accommodation under applicable federal 778 regulations. approved, pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. Application for a special 779 exception for an access structure for persons with disabilities shall not require the 780 payment of any application fees. 781 782 Changes to 21A.40.160 Ground mounted utility boxes: removes the ability to locate these in the 783 right of way when it exceeds a certain size and prohibits the ability to place utility boxes in the 784 right of way when the box only serves a single development. (this section may be see additional 785 changes) 786 21A.40.160E2: The city engineer may issue a permit for the installation of a ground 787 mounted utility box in the public right of way in accordance with standards set forth in 788 this section and title 14, chapter 14.32 of this code. 789 a. Below grade utility boxes that do not extend greater than six6 inches (6") above 790 ground level. 791 b. A ground mounted utility box installed in a park strip or behind the sidewalk in 792 the public way meeting the following criteria: 793 (1) A ground mounted utility box not exceeding a height of three3 feet (3') and 794 a footprint of four (4) square feet, or a box not exceeding two2 feet (2') in 795 height and a footprint of eight (8) square feet. 796 (2) The pad for a ground mounted utility box shall not extend more than six6 797 inches (6") beyond the footprint of the box. 798 (3) A ground mounted utility box in a residential zoning district is located 799 within fifteen15 feet of the interior lot line of an adjacent property. 800 (4) Excluding manufacturing, business park and general commercial zoning 801 districts no more than three (3) ground mounted utility boxes, excluding 802 exempt utility boxes, shall be allowed within a six hundred sixty foot (660') 803 foot segment of street right of way, unless approved as a special exception. 804 (5) Any small ground mounted utility box that is less than sixty percent (60%) 805 of the allowed size in subsection E2b(1) of this section shall be exempt from 806 the special exception requirement of subsection E2b(4) of this section. The 807 dimensional requirements of this section do not apply to the equipment 808 necessary for placing electrical service under ground. 809 c. A ground mounted utility box installed in a public alley that does not interfere 810 with the circulation function of the alley. 811 d. Ground mounted utility boxes that only serve a single development or parcel 812 are prohibited in a public right of way. 813 21A.40.160 F: delete 814 F. Special Exception: Proposed ground mounted utility boxes not specifically 815 addressed in subsection E of this section or that do not meet the standards of 816 subsection E of this section may be approved as a special exception pursuant to 817 chapter 21A.52 of this title and the following requirements: 818 1. Application: A special exception application shall be made on a form 819 prepared by the planning director or designee and submitted to the 820 planning division, that includes required information and the following 821 additional information: 822 a. Described plan of the proposed ground mounted utility box: 823 135 (1) Dimensions of box and footing/platform detail. 824 (2) Location of contact information on the box. 825 (3) Description of cabinet materials and finish treatment. 826 b. A location analysis which identifies other sites considered as 827 alternatives within five hundred feet (500') of the proposed location. 828 The applicant shall provide a written explanation why the 829 alternatives considered were either unavailable, or technologically or 830 reasonably infeasible. 831 2. General Standards And Considerations For Special Exception Review Of 832 Ground Mounted Utility Boxes: No special exception application for a 833 ground mounted utility box shall be approved unless the planning 834 director or the planning director's designee determines that the ground 835 mounted utility box satisfies the applicable standards related to size, 836 spacing and/or location of the following criteria: 837 a. Evidence that the existing ground mounted utility box location 838 and/or size are within a pattern that allowing an additional or larger 839 ground mounted utility box will not create a significant impact on the 840 character of the area. 841 b. Evidence submitted that shows another location is not practical to 842 service the subject area. 843 c. Sufficiently demonstrates the reason that the larger cabinet is 844 necessary. 845 d. Demonstrates that the subject block face location is the only feasible 846 location for the ground mounted utility box based on technical or 847 physical constraints. 848 e. Ground mounted utility boxes are spaced in such a manner as to limit 849 the visual impact of the box when viewed from the street or an 850 adjacent property. 851 f. The location will not obstruct access to other installed utility facilities. 852 g. The additional cabinet is compatible in design and size with the 853 existing ground mounted utility boxes in the area. 854 855 Amending 21A.44.090 (proposed chapter) 856 21A.44.090 MODIFICATIONS TO PARKING AREAS 857 Applicants requesting development permits or approvals may request adjustments to the 858 standards and requirements in this Chapter 21A.44: Off Street Parking, Mobility, and 859 Loading, and the City may approve adjustments to those standards, as described below. 860 A. Administrative ModificationsAuthority to Approve Modifications 861 The Planning Director or Transportation Director may approve the following types of 862 modifications without requiring approval of a Special Exception, provided that the Director 863 determines that the adjustment will not create adverse impacts on pedestrian, bicycle, or 864 vehicle safety and that the adjustment is required due to the nature of the site and the 865 surrounding context to accommodate an unusual site feature (such as shape, topography, 866 utilities, or access point constraints) and that the need for the adjustment has not been 867 created by the actions of the applicant. 868 136 869 B. Authorized Modifications 870 1. Modification to dimensions or geometries of parking, loading, or stacking space, aisles, 871 or maneuvering areas otherwise required by this chapter, other City regulations, or the 872 Off Street Parking Standards Manual; provided that those modifications are consistent 873 with federal and state laws regarding persons with disabilities, including but not 874 limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act. 875 2. Modifications to bicycle parking or loading berth location or design standards. 876 B. Special Exceptions 877 The following types of exceptions may be approved through the Special Exception process in 878 section 21A.52.040, provided that the application meets the criteria for approval of a Special 879 Exception in section 21A.52.060 in addition to the standards provided in this section. 880 3. Exceptions PermittedFront Yard Parking 881 a. The lot contains an existing residential building. 882 b. No other off-street parking exists on the site. 883 c. No provided side yard is greater than 8 feet. If greater than 8 feet, no tree over 6 884 inches in caliper is present in the side yard that would necessitate the removal of the 885 tree to locate a parking stall in the side yard or rear yard. 886 d. The rear yard does not have frontage on a public street or public alley and the 887 property does not have access rights across an adjacent private street or alley. 888 e. The front yard parking complies with the following standards: 889 (1) The front yard parking is limited to no wider than 10 feet in width and is a 890 minimum depth of 20 feet. 891 (2) The front yard parking is accessed by an approved drive approach. 892 (3) The location of the front yard parking is placed within 10 feet of a side lot line or 893 for corner properties, may also be within 10 feet of a rear lot line and is 894 consistent with the location of other driveways on the block face. 895 a. Front Yard Parking Exception 896 For any zoning district, if front yard parking is prohibited in Table 21A.44.060-A: 897 Parking Location and Setback Requirements, it may be allowed if all of the 898 following conditions are met: 899 (1) The rear or side yards cannot be reasonably accessed by vehicles, specifically; 900 (a) Clearance for a driveway could not be provided in the side yard on either 901 side of the building that is free from obstructions that cannot reasonably 902 be avoided, such as utilities, window-wells, a specimen tree, a direct 903 elevation change of three feet (3') or greater, or retaining walls three feet 904 (3') high or greater; and 905 (b) There is not a right-of-way or alley adjacent to the property with 906 established rights for access, where: 907 a. The travel distance to the property line is less than one hundred feet 908 (100') from an improved street and the right-of-way or alley has at 909 least a minimum twelve foot (12') clearance that is, or could be paved; 910 or 911 137 b. The travel distance to the property line is more than one hundred feet 912 (100') from an improved street and the right-of-way or alley has an 913 existing minimum twelve foot (12') wide paved surface. 914 (2) It is not feasible to build an attached garage that conforms to yard area and 915 setback requirements; 916 (3) Parking is limited to an area that is surfaced in compliance with the Off Street 917 Parking Standards Manual; 918 (4) The parking area is limited to nine feet (9') wide by twenty feet (20') deep; 919 (5) Vehicles using the parking area will not project across any sidewalk or into the 920 public right-of-way; and 921 (6) Parking is restricted to passenger vehicles only. 922 4. Vehicle and Equipment Storage Without Hard Surfacing 923 a. The property is located in a CG, M-1, M-2, or EI zoning district 924 b. The lot is used for long term vehicle storage, not for regular parking and/or 925 maneuvering. 926 b. The storage areas are not located within any required front yard or corner side 927 yard. 928 c. The storage area surface is compacted with 6 inches of road base or other similar 929 material with dust control measures in place. 930 d. A mechanism, such as a wash bay, gravel guard, or rumble strip is used to remove 931 mud, sand, dirt, and gravel from the vehicle with a minimum of 50 feet of paved 932 driveway between the mechanism and a public street. The mechanism used is 933 subject to approval by the Transportation Director or designee provided it is a 934 commonly used device that is effective at removing debris from vehicle tires. 935 a. Vehicle and Equipment Storage Surfacing Exception 936 Vehicle and equipment storage without hard surfacing may be permitted in the CG, 937 M-1, M-2 and EI zoning districts provided that: 938 (1) The lot is used for long-term vehicle storage, not for regular parking and/or 939 maneuvering; 940 (2) The vehicles or equipment stored are large and/or are built on tracks that 941 could destroy normal hard surfacing; 942 (3) The parking surface is compacted with six inches (6") of road base and other 943 semi-hard material with long lasting dust control chemical applied annually; 944 (4) A hard-surfaced cleaning station is installed to prevent tracking of mud and 945 sand onto the public right-of-way; and 946 (5) Any vehicles or equipment that contain oil are stored with pans, drains, or 947 other means to ensure that any leaking oil will not enter the soil. 948 949 950 21A.46.070 V Historic District signs: removes the special exception and allows the existing 951 processes to modify sign dimensions in historic districts to be reviewed as a minor alteration. 952 21A.46.070V Historic District Signs: The Historic Landmark Commission may authorize, 953 as a minor alteration special exception, modification to an existing sign or the size or 954 placement of a new sign in a historic district or on a landmark site, including placement 955 of a sign type not allowed in the underlying zone, if the applicant can demonstrate that 956 the location, size and/or design of the proposed sign is compatible with the design period 957 138 or theme of the historic structure or district and/or will cause less physical damage to the 958 historically significant structure. If a sign in a local historic district or on a landmark site 959 has been designated a vintage sign as per section 21A.46.125 of this chapter, the 960 modifications allowed in that section may be authorized by the Historic Landmark 961 Commission subject to the appropriate standards of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 962 963 21A.46.125 Vintage signs: removes the special exception process and establishes the zoning 964 certificate as the process to approve vintage signs. 965 The purpose of this section is to promote the retention, restoration, reuse, and 966 reinstatement of nonconforming signs that represent important elements of Salt 967 Lake City's heritage and enhance the character of a corridor, neighborhood, or the 968 community at large. 969 B. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this title: 970 1. An application for designation of vintage sign status as well as for the 971 reinstatement of, modifications to, or relocation of a vintage sign shall be 972 processed through the zoning certificate process in accordance with the 973 procedures for a special exception, as per chapter 21A.52 of this title21A.46.030: 974 a. Application: In addition to the general application requirements for a special 975 exceptionsign, an application for vintage sign designation or modification shall 976 require: 977 (1) Detailed drawings and/or photographs of the sign in its current condition, 978 if currently existing; 979 (2) Written narrative and supporting documentation demonstrating how the 980 sign meets the applicable criteria; 981 (3) Detailed drawings of any modifications or reinstatement being sought; 982 (4) Detailed drawings of any relocation being sought; and 983 (5) Historic drawings and/or photographs of the sign. 984 2. The Zoning Administrator shall designate an existing sign as a vintage sign if the 985 sign: 986 a. Was not placed as part of a Localized Alternative Signage Overlay District and 987 has not been granted flexibility from the base zoning through a planned 988 development agreement or by the Historic Landmark Commission; 989 b. Is not a billboard as defined in section 21A.46.020 of this chapter; 990 c. Retains its original design character, or that character will be reestablished or 991 restored, based on historic evidence such as drawings or photographs; and, 992 d. Meets at least four (4) of the following criteria: 993 (1) The sign was specifically designed for a business, institution, or other 994 establishment on the subject site; 995 (2) The sign bears a unique emblem, logo, or another graphic specific to the 996 City, or region; 997 (3) The sign exhibits specific characteristics that enhance the streetscape or 998 identity of a neighborhood; 999 (4) The sign is or was characteristic of a specific historic period; 1000 (5) The sign is or was integral to the design or identity of the site or building 1001 where the sign is located; or, 1002 (6) The sign represents an example of craftsmanship in the application of 1003 lighting technique, use of materials, or design. 1004 3. A designated vintage sign may, by special exception: 1005 139 a. Be relocated within its current site. 1006 b. Be modified to account for changing uses within its current site. These 1007 modifications shall be in the same style as the design of the original sign 1008 including: 1009 (1) Shape and form 1010 (2) Size, 1011 (3) Typography, 1012 (4) Illustrative elements, 1013 (5) Use of color, 1014 (6) Character of illumination, and 1015 (7) Character of animation. 1016 c. Be restored or recreated, and reinstated on its original site. 1017 d. Be relocated to a new site for use as a piece of public art, provided that the 1018 original design and character of the sign is retained, or will be restored, and it 1019 advertises a business no longer in operation. Vintage signs may only be 1020 relocated for use as public art to sites in the following districts: D-1, D-2, D-3, 1021 D-4, G-MU, CSHBD1, CSHBD2, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, TSA. 1022 e. Be relocated and reinstalled on the business's new site, should the business 1023 with which it is associated move, provided that the business's new location is 1024 within the same contiguous zoning district as the original location. 1025 4. Once designated, a vintage sign is exempt from the calculation of allowed signage 1026 on a site. 1027 1028 140 Special Exception Text Amendment ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 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 deciding to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: CONSIDERATION FINDING RATIONALE 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; The proposed amendments are generally consistent with the goals and policies the City’s plans. The Salt Lake City Preservation Plan includes statements regarding how zoning impacts the preservation of property and that flexibility is necessary to ensure changes do not negatively impact the public benefit of historic districts. (Please see action pg. III-22 Action 2 of the Preservation Plan) This concept is expanded in more detail with specific policies related to regulations in policies 3.3a through 3.3h. A link to the plan can be found here: http://www.slcdocs.com/historicpreservation/Poli cy/presplan.pdf 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; The proposal generally furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance by ensuring their enforcement and administration. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to “promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the City, and carry out the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act (State Code). The proposed amendments reduce conflicts between City and State Code, better allowing enforcement and administration of the City’s zoning ordinance. The proposed changes maintain conformity with the general purpose statements of the zoning ordinance and ensure that the code can be legally administered and enforced to further those ordinance purposes. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and The proposal is consistent with and does not impact the enforceability of any existing appeal process references in any zoning overlays. The purpose of the H Overlay District includes the following statement: Encourage new development, redevelopment and the subdivision of lots in Historic Districts that is compatible with the character of existing development of Historic Districts or individual landmarks;”. This proposal helps achieve this purpose by providing the HLC the authority to consider modifications within the overlay for the purpose of ensuring compatibility with the surrounding historic buildings. 4. The extent to which a proposed text The proposed changes This proposal removes red tape in the approval process and provides a benefit for property owners within the H 141 Special Exception Text Amendment amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. eliminate legal conflicts, improve enforceability and administration of City Code, and so implement best professional practices. Overlay by allowing for flexibility for appropriate changes to properties within the Overlay. The proposal reduces staff time necessary to review proposals, reduces the time spent by the HLC in considering changes, and allows for a more streamlined approval process. The benefits lead to a more efficient use of city resources at a reduced expense to the property owner. 142 Special Exception Text Amendment Public Notice, Meetings, Comments The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposal:  Early notification/online Open House notices e-mailed out August 13, 2020. o Notices were e-mailed to all recognized community organizations (community councils) per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage  One community council (Sugar House) requested that staff attend and present the changes to their Land Use and Zoning Committee  On September 21, 2020 staff attended the meeting over video conference, reviewed the proposal, and answered questions. The discussion included the following key subjects: o The application fee and the degree to which an application is subsidized. o The ability of the decision makers to require additional fence height to address impacts between incompatible land uses, including when apartment buildings are next to single family. o Whether or not the ability to modify bulk requirements, such as setbacks, building heights, etc. would apply to historic buildings that not located within an existing historic district. o The Sugar House Community Council submitted a forma response in response to the proposal.  No formal input was received from other community councils.  Emails were submitted by a resident of the East Bench neighborhood that was generally in support of the proposal. o The American Institute of Architects Utah Chapter was notified of the proposed amendments on September 17, 2020. The Planning Division asked for their help in notifying the local architecture community. No response was provided from AIA. However, comments were received via email from a local architecture firm. That email was not in support of the changes primarily due to the removal of flexibility that special exceptions may provide. o Information on the online open house posted to the Planning Division website was posted on August 13, 2020. The information was emailed out to the Planning Division list-serve every other week from August 14, 2020 through the October 11, 2020 early engagement period. Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included: 143 Special Exception Text Amendment  Public hearing notice for the HLC meeting was sent through the Division email list on mailed on October 22, 2020  Public hearing notice published to newspaper October 24, 2020  Public notice posted on City and State websites on October 22, 2020  No formal requests to receive notice of the proposed text amendment were received prior to the noticing deadline of this public hearing. 144 From:John Blankevoort To:Norris, Nick Subject:(EXTERNAL) Special Exceptions Date:Thursday, August 13, 2020 6:46:34 PM Attachments:EBCC 6-17-2020 meeting.pdf Hello Nick I totally agree with your premise on the new special exception process changes, frankly the city is already overwhelmed with frivolous requests on a number of subjects. I also have some further recommendations and would to participate to help you to evaluate the wider problem. We have several District chairpersons ( District 5, 6 etc) that are stoking the fire with these notices of special exceptions. I would think this is driving more people to call into the zoning and planning office, only to stymie the process and become actual obstacles for your Dept. Please find attached meeting minutes June 17, 2020. Item 7, brought up the subject of a neighbor in Indian Hills subdivision and his special exception for building a home and height limits. The neighbor and architect already had engaged with zoning and planning and they had already gone through and contacted each of the abutting neighbors to work through the issue. Our chairperson (Aimee Burrows) decided to 'follow through' with the process as if to say she was the street captain on zoning and planning. I told her it was a frivolous use of our time. The neighbor is already following the protocols then we should not allow our District Chairs to muddy up your depts. time by making more work. I propose to you that zoning and planning does not need anymore 'help; from local District Council meetings and that a statement should be mentioned in your new process changes to not encourage creating anymore duplicate work for special exceptions. And although we all have the right to public information, it is not the charter of local meetings to drive special exception agenda. We need to be more efficient, don't you agree? Best John 145 From:Ann Robinson To:Norris, Nick; Annie V. Schwemmer Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes Date:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:56:57 PM Well, these situations were handled previously by special exceptions because each circumstance is unique. By eliminating special exceptions, you are now trying to make rules that cover all possibilities—probably not possible. Let us think about this a bit and get back to you. Ann Robinson, AIA   Principal // Renovation Design Group 824 SOUTH 400 WEST | SUITE B123 | SALT LAKE CITY | UTAH | 84101 O. 801.533.5331 | M. 801.230.2080 RenovationDesignGroup.com | Facebook Fans | Houzz Portfolio From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:48 PM To: Annie V. Schwemmer <annie@rdgslc.com> Cc: Ann Robinson <ann@rdgslc.com> Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes Thanks Annie, these are helpful comments. Do you have some ideas on how we can accommodate these issues within the proposal? NICK NORRIS Director Planning Division   DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION   TEL     801-535-6173 CELL   801-641-1728 Email   nick.norris@slcgov.com   WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Annie V. Schwemmer <annie@rdgslc.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:33 PM To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Cc: Ann Robinson <ann@rdgslc.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes Hi Nick- We’ve reviewed the proposed special exception changes and since we do so many renovations/additions in SLC we have the following comments: 146 Garages Built into Hillsides in Front or Corner Side Yards: It seems there will be very few of these that would not also need to project into a front yard setback. Central Air Condensers: There are many side yards that can accommodate a condenser without causing undue hardship on the neighbor (for instance, a 4’ side yard adjacent to a neighbor’s driveway) and there should be a way for these to be allowed. Corner side yards: We think in-line additions need to be allowed in side yard setbacks to avoid awkward interior spaces & rooflines. Noncomplying as to height: We think rear additions should be allowed to match the height of the existing roofline even if the existing structure is noncomplying. This change will create odd looking rooflines and will preclude 2nd stories on rear additions if the lower roofline makes the upper level ceiling lower than 7’ high. Thanks- Annie Annie V. Schwemmer, AIA               Principal            // Renovation Design Group 824 SOUTH 400 WEST  |  SUITE B123  |   SALT LAKE CITY   |   UTAH   |  84101 O. 801.533.5331       |       M. 801.560.7171     RenovationDesignGroup.com     | Facebook Fans     |     Houzz Portfolio 147 148 149 Special Exception Text Amendment Planning Staff Note: This proposal was routed to the City Departments and Divisions for review on August 11, 2020. In addition, a follow up meeting was held on September 30, 2020 with Engineering and Building Services to discuss ground mounted utility boxes and how to address them. Below are submitted comments from each Department or Division and a summary of associated meetings.  Airports: no comments received.  Building Services (zoning review): Indicated that they thought this would be time saver for staff and would be helpful. They provided specific changes to the following sections of the proposal: o Edit suggestions regarding Table 21A.36.020.B Obstructions in yards; o Support addressing grade changes and retaining walls as it removes vagueness in doing related zoning reviews. o Requested that the expansions of nonconforming uses be limited to a one-time request to avoid repeated requests over time. o Regarding noncomplying lots, add provision about complying with all applicable provisions so that it includes building and fire codes. o Remove some of the standards for unit legalizations that deal with past zoning violations. Past violations that are unrelated to the existence of a dwelling unit should not be a factor in determining if the unit can be recognized as a legal dwelling unit. o Concerns with letting any accessory use go into an accessory building. Is a welding shop appropriate in a shed, for example?  Building Services (civil enforcement): no comments provided.  Economic Development: inquired about eliminating the ability to seek additional building height in commercial districts. Planning staff provided the department with the number of applications received requesting additional height in commercial districts and information on other processes available to seek additional height. The Division also mentioned that there will be a future analysis of building heights in commercial districts to align with building code requirements, promote more housing, and encourage improved street engagement. Comments were provided by Roberta Reichgelt.  Engineering: Engineering is concerned with prohibiting all utility boxes in the ROW. This puts the burden on Engineering to make decisions about the aesthetics of utility boxes when they are mostly focused on the engineering and impact to physical infrastructure, such as sidewalks, curb, and gutter.  Finance: no comments received. This was routed to Finance due to the impact on revenue from special exception application fees. It is anticipated that Planning Division revenue will decrease by $40,000 to $45,000 per year. 150 Special Exception Text Amendment  Fire Department: no comments provided.  Housing and Neighborhood Development: no comments provided.  Information Management Services (IMS): no comments provided. Deleting special exceptions will require deactivating the application in the Accela system.  Mayor’s Office: The Mayor was briefed on the concept before the petition was initiated. The Mayor asked that the project include a comprehensive approach and that changes be considered to maintain flexibility while limiting impacts.  Police Department: no comments provided.  Public Services: o Parks and Public Lands: Parks and Public Lands provided comments relating to fence height around outdoor recreation facilities and light poles associated with sports fields. o Golf Division: provided comments regarding fence heights around golf course driving ranges. o the Salt Lake Regional Sports Complex provided input on the height and setbacks of athletic field lighting.  Public Utilities: Public Utilities provided comments about exempting some necessary infrastructure and utility buildings from height requirements in the OS Zoning District, asking if the riparian and lowland overlay zoning districts still apply, clarifying that underground encroachments are on private property only, and ensuring that antennae height would allow the necessary infrastructure to monitor utility facilities. Comments provided by Jason Draper.  Redevelopment Agency: The RDA indicated that they supported the changes because they will help to streamline the building permit review process and provide more predictability for property owners. Comments provided by Lauren Parisi.  Sustainability: no comments provided.  Transportation: Indicated that they had no suggested changes. Comment provided by Michael Barry.  Urban Forestry: no comments provided. 151 From:Reichgelt, Roberta To:Norris, Nick Subject:RE: Special Exception Text Amendment Date:Monday, August 31, 2020 3:02:32 PM Got it. Thanks From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 2:22 PM To: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment This type of special exception says that it has to be approved by the Planning Commission. The PC processing time for special exceptions is historically around 45 days. We don’t have an application for additional height in a commercial district that hasn’t also required design review or planned development due to some other requested modification. So we don’t have any data on how long this specific special exception would normally take. NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 2:07 PM To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment Thanks, is the special exception process generally shorter than a planned development? So this different would be that it might take the applicant longer in the future? From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 1:29 PM To: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment Not common. We have had two requests in the last three years and only one other in the previous 10. Most are already in the planned development or design review process anyways and address height in those processes. This option is mostly used in zoning districts that don’t have the extra height option through the design review process. ICK ORRIS 152 N N Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 1:01 PM To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Subject: FW: Special Exception Text Amendment Hi Nick, Could you help me understand if this is a common request? I have followed planned development process on height requests that are much larger than this. How did the special exception process for this type of request come to be and why was it not able to be approved through the Design Review? You can call me if it’s easier than responding via email: 385-214-9628. Thanks, Roberta Special Exceptions in 21A.26 Commercial Zoning DistrictsZoning ordinance section 21A.26.010 Paragraph J authorizes a special exception for additional height if the additional height is less than 10% of the maximum allowed in the specific zone. For example, in the CB zone the maximum height is thirty feet. A special exception could approve up to three feet. This has resulted in three different ways for extra height to be granted: Through the planned development process (limited to a maximum of five feet); Through the design review process (including when allowed under the base zoning and in cases where the lot is sloping, which is almost every lot); and Through the special exception process. The proposal would be to delete this paragraph so that the extra height is authorized only through the planned development process or when allowed by the base zoning district through the design review process. From: Kolendar, Ben <Ben.Kolendar@slcgov.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 9:59 AM To: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com>; Wright, William <William.Wright@slcgov.com> Cc: Makowski, Peter <Peter.Makowski@slcgov.com> Subject: FW: Special Exception Text Amendment 153 From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 8:44 AM To: Mikolash, Gregory <gregory.mikolash@slcgov.com>; Padilla, Antonio <Antonio.Padilla@slcgov.com>; Young, Kevin <Kevin.Young@slcgov.com>; Weiler, Scott <scott.weiler@slcgov.com>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com>; Eggertsen-Goff, Lani <Lani.Eggertsen-goff@slcgov.com>; Nielson, Paul <paul.nielson@slcgov.com>; Gliot, Tony <Tony.Gliot@slcgov.com>; Paulsen, Paul <paul.paulsen@slcgov.com>; Lyons, Debbie <debbie.lyons@slcgov.com>; Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com> Cc: Bennett, Vicki <vicki.bennett@slcgov.com>; Bentley, Aaron <aaron.bentley@slcgov.com>; Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com>; Brown, Mike <Mike.Brown@slcgov.com>; Burnette, Lisa <Lisa.Burnette@slcgov.com>; Kolendar, Ben <Ben.Kolendar@slcgov.com>; Lewis, Katherine <Katherine.Lewis@slcgov.com>; Lieb, Karl <Karl.Lieb@slcgov.com>; Lofgreen, Pamela <Pamela.Lofgreen@slcgov.com>; Preece, Curtis <Curtis.Preece@slcgov.com>; Thompson, Mary Beth <MaryBeth.Thompson@slcgov.com>; Vogt, Lorna <Lorna.Vogt@slcgov.com>; Walz, Danny <Danny.Walz@slcgov.com>; Wyatt, Bill <Bill.Wyatt@slcgov.com>; Mcgrath, Jennifer <Jennifer.Mcgrath@slcgov.com>; Shaffer, Lisa <Lisa.Shaffer@slcgov.com> Subject: Special Exception Text Amendment Attached is information regarding a change to the zoning ordinance that would eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. The document explains what would happen with each authorized special exception. There are 42 different special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. Each special exception would fall into one of the following categories: The exception would become “by-right” without special approval required. An example would be using an accessory building on a residential property as a hobby shop. The exception would be allowed with specific qualifying provisions. An example would be grade changes and retaining walls over four feet in height. The exception will be specifically prohibited and would have to comply with the existing standards in the ordinance. An example would be an inline addition to a building that does not meet existing setbacks. The addition would have to comply with the required setbacks. There are some special exceptions that may directly impact your Department or Division or that we would like to receive input on. Here is a partial list: Building Services: Most of these changes will impact zoning reviews. Public Utilities: Specific exceptions listed in the OS zone for public utility buildings/structures over the maximum height would be exempt from the height regulations instead of requiring a special exception. Parks and Public Lands: the exception of over-height outdoor recreation equipment/structures and play field lighting would be eliminated and replaced with maximum heights for these structures. Engineering: the special exception authorizing ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the ROW would be eliminated. Utility boxes that serve a private development would be required to be located on private property. Civil Enforcement: the option to bring a property into compliance through a special exception will be eliminated. 154 HAND: the unit legalization process would become a determination of nonconforming use process. Finance: this will have an impact on Division revenue. Special exceptions generate approximately $40,000 annually in application fees. Please review the attached document and provide comments by September 11, 2020. The process includes a 45 day early engagement period with the community and a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission. It is anticipated that these steps will be complete by late October. The transmittal and City Council process will follow. Comments can be emailed to me or entered directly into Accela under the file number: PLNPCM2020-00606. You can choose to add your comments to the attached document that has been provided in word format to make it easy to add comments and propose changes. I have included Dept. Directors as an FYI so they can decide if a response is necessary. Please share any concerns with your Department or Division and provide as comprehensive of a list of comments/issues as possible. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. Thank you for your time! NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING 155 From:Draper, Jason To:Norris, Nick; Briefer, Laura Subject:RE: Special Exception Text Amendment Date:Monday, October 5, 2020 11:23:59 AM Sounds good We just want to make sure that we don’t run into problems with antennae height for SCADA systems and other communications. It seems that these changes are specific to amateur and private property, but just want to make sure we are able to at least have review available for these antennae. Thanks! Jason Draper, PE, CFM Development Review Manager - Floodplain Administrator Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 11:15 AM To: Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com>; Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment Thanks Jason, a few questions The riparian, lowland, and any other flood zone requirements would still apply and not be impacted by these changes. They would be reviewed during building permit review. The underground encroachments in this instance apply to private property. Wasn’t sure if that was made clear in the info provided or if there are other issues that Public Utilities has. There are a couple of sections that address antennae tower height. Can you clarify which section that comment is referring to? None of the public utilities facility on West Temple is zoned OS. NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 10:28 AM To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>; Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment 156 I have a couple of comments: Replacement of noncomplying building must meet riparian and flood zone requirements. Changes of established grade of 4 feet or less – must meet provisions of the flood hazard and riparian overlay and lowland conservancy overlay zones Underground encroachments – We would rather see this as not permitted or at least need to establish the encroachment table before this goes away. Public Utility buildings in OS Zone: I think this looks good – no office buildings in OS Ground mounted utility boxes – support this action. I’m a little concerned with a 60 ft max for an antenna tower and no mechanism to present a case for anything taller. Some years ago there was a discussion to zone the 1530 South West Temple Park as OS. We may need the property for future expansion of our campus. Do you know if any of our campus is currently OS? Thanks! Jason Draper, PE, CFM Development Review Manager - Floodplain Administrator Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:47 AM To: Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com> Subject: FW: Special Exception Text Amendment Wanted to follow up with these proposed zoning changes that may impact public utilities. I haven’t received any comments yet, so wanted to do a final check to see if there are potential issues. The biggest changes for public utilities are the changes exempt public utility structures from the height requirements in the OS zone (pg 11 of the attached) and permits taller fences when necessary to secure critical infrastructure and facilities (pg 26-27). We hope to take this to the PC on November 18th for a recommendation. The other change that you may want to know about it is prohibiting ground mounted utility boxes in the ROW when they are only serving a private development. The change would require those to be on private property. Let me know if you have any concerns with the changes. NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING 157 From: Norris, Nick Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 8:44 AM To: Mikolash, Gregory <gregory.mikolash@slcgov.com>; Padilla, Antonio <Antonio.Padilla@slcgov.com>; Young, Kevin <Kevin.Young@slcgov.com>; Weiler, Scott <scott.weiler@slcgov.com>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com>; Eggertsen-Goff, Lani <Lani.Eggertsen-Goff@slcgov.com>; Nielson, Paul <paul.nielson@slcgov.com>; Gliot, Tony <Tony.Gliot@slcgov.com>; Paulsen, Paul <paul.paulsen@slcgov.com>; Lyons, Debbie <debbie.lyons@slcgov.com>; Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com> Cc: Bennett, Vicki <vicki.bennett@slcgov.com>; Bentley, Aaron <aaron.bentley@slcgov.com>; Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com>; Brown, Mike <Mike.Brown@slcgov.com>; Burnette, Lisa <Lisa.Burnette@slcgov.com>; Kolendar, Ben <Ben.Kolendar@slcgov.com>; Lewis, Katherine <Katherine.Lewis@slcgov.com>; Lieb, Karl <Karl.Lieb@slcgov.com>; Lofgreen, Pamela <pamela.lofgreen@slcgov.com>; Preece, Curtis <Curtis.Preece@slcgov.com>; Thompson, Mary Beth <MaryBeth.Thompson@slcgov.com>; Vogt, Lorna <Lorna.Vogt@slcgov.com>; Walz, Danny <Danny.Walz@slcgov.com>; Wyatt, Bill <Bill.Wyatt@slcgov.com>; Mcgrath, Jennifer <jennifer.mcgrath@slcgov.com>; Shaffer, Lisa <Lisa.Shaffer@slcgov.com> Subject: Special Exception Text Amendment Attached is information regarding a change to the zoning ordinance that would eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. The document explains what would happen with each authorized special exception. There are 42 different special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. Each special exception would fall into one of the following categories: The exception would become “by-right” without special approval required. An example would be using an accessory building on a residential property as a hobby shop. The exception would be allowed with specific qualifying provisions. An example would be grade changes and retaining walls over four feet in height. The exception will be specifically prohibited and would have to comply with the existing standards in the ordinance. An example would be an inline addition to a building that does not meet existing setbacks. The addition would have to comply with the required setbacks. There are some special exceptions that may directly impact your Department or Division or that we would like to receive input on. Here is a partial list: Building Services: Most of these changes will impact zoning reviews. Public Utilities: Specific exceptions listed in the OS zone for public utility buildings/structures over the maximum height would be exempt from the height regulations instead of requiring a special exception. Parks and Public Lands: the exception of over-height outdoor recreation equipment/structures and play field lighting would be eliminated and replaced with maximum heights for these structures. Engineering: the special exception authorizing ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the ROW would be eliminated. Utility boxes that serve a private development would be required to be located on private property. Civil Enforcement: the option to bring a property into compliance through a special exception will be eliminated. HAND: the unit legalization process would become a determination of nonconforming use 158 process. Finance: this will have an impact on Division revenue. Special exceptions generate approximately $40,000 annually in application fees. Please review the attached document and provide comments by September 11, 2020. The process includes a 45 day early engagement period with the community and a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission. It is anticipated that these steps will be complete by late October. The transmittal and City Council process will follow. Comments can be emailed to me or entered directly into Accela under the file number: PLNPCM2020-00606. You can choose to add your comments to the attached document that has been provided in word format to make it easy to add comments and propose changes. I have included Dept. Directors as an FYI so they can decide if a response is necessary. Please share any concerns with your Department or Division and provide as comprehensive of a list of comments/issues as possible. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. Thank you for your time! NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING 159 From:Barry, Michael To:Norris, Nick Cc:Young, Kevin; Larsen, Jonathan; Larson, Kurt Subject:RE: Special Exception Text Amendment Date:Monday, August 31, 2020 1:23:56 PM Nick, I do not have any suggested changes. Thanks. MICHAEL BARRY, P.E. Transportation Engineer TRANSPORTATION DIVISION COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7147 From: Young, Kevin <Kevin.Young@slcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 10:22 AM To: Larsen, Jonathan <jon.larsen@slcgov.com>; Larson, Kurt <Kurt.Larson@slcgov.com>; Barry, Michael <Michael.Barry@slcgov.com> Subject: FW: Special Exception Text Amendment FYI If you have any comments or input, please provide them by September 11. KEVIN J. YOUNG, P.E. Deputy Director TRANSPORTATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL      801-535-7108 From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 8:44 AM To: Mikolash, Gregory <gregory.mikolash@slcgov.com>; Padilla, Antonio <Antonio.Padilla@slcgov.com>; Young, Kevin <Kevin.Young@slcgov.com>; Weiler, Scott <scott.weiler@slcgov.com>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com>; Eggertsen-Goff, Lani <Lani.Eggertsen-goff@slcgov.com>; Nielson, Paul <paul.nielson@slcgov.com>; Gliot, Tony <Tony.Gliot@slcgov.com>; Paulsen, Paul <paul.paulsen@slcgov.com>; Lyons, Debbie <debbie.lyons@slcgov.com>; Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com> Cc: Bennett, Vicki <vicki.bennett@slcgov.com>; Bentley, Aaron <aaron.bentley@slcgov.com>; Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com>; Brown, Mike <Mike.Brown@slcgov.com>; Burnette, Lisa <Lisa.Burnette@slcgov.com>; Kolendar, Ben <Ben.Kolendar@slcgov.com>; Lewis, Katherine <Katherine.Lewis@slcgov.com>; Lieb, Karl <Karl.Lieb@slcgov.com>; Lofgreen, Pamela <Pamela.Lofgreen@slcgov.com>; Preece, Curtis <Curtis.Preece@slcgov.com>; Thompson, Mary Beth 160 <MaryBeth.Thompson@slcgov.com>; Vogt, Lorna <Lorna.Vogt@slcgov.com>; Walz, Danny <Danny.Walz@slcgov.com>; Wyatt, Bill <Bill.Wyatt@slcgov.com>; Mcgrath, Jennifer <Jennifer.Mcgrath@slcgov.com>; Shaffer, Lisa <Lisa.Shaffer@slcgov.com> Subject: Special Exception Text Amendment Attached is information regarding a change to the zoning ordinance that would eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. The document explains what would happen with each authorized special exception. There are 42 different special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. Each special exception would fall into one of the following categories: The exception would become “by-right” without special approval required. An example would be using an accessory building on a residential property as a hobby shop. The exception would be allowed with specific qualifying provisions. An example would be grade changes and retaining walls over four feet in height. The exception will be specifically prohibited and would have to comply with the existing standards in the ordinance. An example would be an inline addition to a building that does not meet existing setbacks. The addition would have to comply with the required setbacks. There are some special exceptions that may directly impact your Department or Division or that we would like to receive input on. Here is a partial list: Building Services: Most of these changes will impact zoning reviews. Public Utilities: Specific exceptions listed in the OS zone for public utility buildings/structures over the maximum height would be exempt from the height regulations instead of requiring a special exception. Parks and Public Lands: the exception of over-height outdoor recreation equipment/structures and play field lighting would be eliminated and replaced with maximum heights for these structures. Engineering: the special exception authorizing ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the ROW would be eliminated. Utility boxes that serve a private development would be required to be located on private property. Civil Enforcement: the option to bring a property into compliance through a special exception will be eliminated. HAND: the unit legalization process would become a determination of nonconforming use process. Finance: this will have an impact on Division revenue. Special exceptions generate approximately $40,000 annually in application fees. Please review the attached document and provide comments by September 11, 2020. The process includes a 45 day early engagement period with the community and a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission. It is anticipated that these steps will be complete by late October. The transmittal and City Council process will follow. Comments can be emailed to me or entered directly into Accela under the file number: PLNPCM2020-00606. You can choose to add your comments to the attached document that has been provided in word format to make it easy to add comments and propose changes. I have included Dept. Directors as an FYI so they can decide if a response is necessary. Please share any concerns with your Department or Division and provide as comprehensive of a list of comments/issues as possible. If you have any questions, please 161 don’t hesitate to ask. Thank you for your time! NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION   TEL   801-535-6173 Email   nick.norris@slcgov.com   WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING 162 From:Laughlin, Chris To:Norris, Nick Cc:Bollwinkel, Lee Subject:RE: text changes impacted OS zone Date:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 8:45:44 AM Hey Nick, Hope we’re not too late. I just spoke with Bruce Brown in engineering and he said the poles are 70 ft. tall for our field lights. 30 ft sounds good for property distance. Chris Laughlin | RAC Program Manager From: Kogan, Lewis Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:57 AM To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>; Riker, Kristin <Kristin.Riker@slcgov.com>; Bollwinkel, Lee <lee.bollwinkel@slcgov.com>; Laughlin, Chris <Chris.Laughlin@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: text changes impacted OS zone Importance: High Nick, my sincere apologies, I must have missed your first email and it got lost in my inbox. I am going to defer to the experts here: Lee, Chris, can you please review Nick’s questions below at your earliest convenience, and let him know how the proposed changes to ordinance would impact lighting and recreational equipment heights, particularly for the Regional Athletic Complex? Thanks! Lewis From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:39 AM To: Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com>; Riker, Kristin <Kristin.Riker@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: text changes impacted OS zone Wanted to follow up on this to see if you have any input. NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com 163 WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Norris, Nick Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:57 AM To: Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com> Subject: text changes impacted OS zone Lewis, We are working on a massive text change that will eliminate special exceptions from the zoning ordinance. There are two specific special exceptions that could impact parks and recreational facilities in the OS open space zone. The first impacts recreational equipment in excess of 60 feet. Right now a special exception could be granted to exceed that height. This was put in to provide flexibility for hogle zoo who wanted to add a ropes course to the zoo and they were not sure how tall the poles were going to be. It also allows for things like driving range fences to be up to 60 feet tall. Can you let us know if limiting the height to 60 feet is going to cause problems or if there is any structure that exceeds 60 feet currently? I don’t know how tall driving range fences are. The second addresses light poles for recreational facilities. The code allows a special exception for these to be taller when located within thirty feet of an adjacent residential structure. The current code allows the lights to be 60 feet in height. Taller lights would trigger the special exception cited above as well as if the light is within 30 feet of dwelling. There are screening requirements as well to reduce light pollution. We are proposing to allow these up to 80 feet in height, but are trying to figure out how far away they should be from the property line. Can you give us an idea of how tall these lights tend to be and how far from property lines they should be? We would like to publish public info on this in the next week or so. If that is not enough time, let me know how much time you need so we can figure something out. Thanks. NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING 164 From:Kammeyer, Matt To:Norris, Nick; Kogan, Lewis Subject:RE: text changes impacted OS zone Date:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 2:38:34 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Nick and Lewis, I’m responding directly to you in relation to Kristin’s question about driving range fence heights. Driving range fences typically fall within the 60 to 80 foot range. The Top Golf range fence is upward of 125 feet. Let me know if I can provide more info. MATT KAMMEYER Director, Golf Program   GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-485-7823 FAX 801-466-6705 WWW.SLC-GOLF.COM WWW.SLCGOV.COM From: Riker, Kristin <Kristin.Riker@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 1:23 PM To: Kammeyer, Matt <Matt.Kammeyer@slcgov.com> Subject: FW: text changes impacted OS zone Hi Matt- Hope you all had a great event today. I apologize I missed it, thank you for asking me! I’m tied to being close to my mom right now as she is not healthy and needs a lot of care. Anyhow, please see Nick’s email below. Can you tell me how tall driving range fences are? KRISTIN RIKER Public Services Deputy Director; Public Lands Salt Lake City Public Lands Divisions Parks, Trails & Natural Lands, Urban Forestry CELL 801-514-0205 TEL 801-972-7804 FAX 801-972-7847 165 From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:39 AM To: Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com>; Riker, Kristin <Kristin.Riker@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: text changes impacted OS zone Wanted to follow up on this to see if you have any input. NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Norris, Nick Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:57 AM To: Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com> Subject: text changes impacted OS zone Lewis, We are working on a massive text change that will eliminate special exceptions from the zoning ordinance. There are two specific special exceptions that could impact parks and recreational facilities in the OS open space zone. The first impacts recreational equipment in excess of 60 feet. Right now a special exception could be granted to exceed that height. This was put in to provide flexibility for hogle zoo who wanted to add a ropes course to the zoo and they were not sure how tall the poles were going to be. It also allows for things like driving range fences to be up to 60 feet tall. Can you let us know if limiting the height to 60 feet is going to cause problems or if there is any structure that exceeds 60 feet currently? I don’t know how tall driving range fences are. The second addresses light poles for recreational facilities. The code allows a special exception for these to be taller when located within thirty feet of an adjacent residential structure. The current code allows the lights to be 60 feet in height. Taller lights would trigger the special exception cited above as well as if the light is within 30 feet of dwelling. There are screening requirements as well to reduce light pollution. We are proposing to allow these up to 80 feet in height, but are trying to 166 figure out how far away they should be from the property line. Can you give us an idea of how tall these lights tend to be and how far from property lines they should be? We would like to publish public info on this in the next week or so. If that is not enough time, let me know how much time you need so we can figure something out. Thanks. NICK NORRIS Planning Director   PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING 167 From:Parisi, Lauren To:Norris, Nick Subject:Special Exception Text Amendment Date:Tuesday, September 8, 2020 5:15:00 PM Hi Nick, Danny had asked if I could review the special exception text amendment information you sent over and, upon review, the RDA fully supports the proposed texts amendments as they are. These amendments will help to streamline the building permit review process and provide more predictability for property owners. We commend your team’s great work. Thanks, LAUREN PARISI Project Manager REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7242 WWW.SLCRDA.COM   Attached is information regarding a change to the zoning ordinance that would eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance.  The document explains what would happen with each authorized special exception.  There are 42 different special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance.  Each special exception would fall into one of the following categories: The exception would become “by-right” without special approval required. An example would be using an accessory building on a residential property as a hobby shop. The exception would be allowed with specific qualifying provisions.  An example would be grade changes and retaining walls over four feet in height. The exception will be specifically prohibited and would have to comply with the existing standards in the ordinance.  An example would be an inline addition to a building that does not meet existing setbacks.  The addition would have to comply with the required setbacks.   There are some special exceptions that may directly impact your Department or Division or that we would like to receive input on.  Here is a partial list: Building Services:  Most of these changes will impact zoning reviews. Public Utilities:  Specific exceptions listed in the OS zone for public utility buildings/structures over the maximum height would be exempt from the height regulations instead of requiring a special exception. Parks and Public Lands: the exception of over-height outdoor recreation equipment/structures and play field lighting would be eliminated and replaced with maximum heights for these structures.  Engineering: the special exception authorizing ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the ROW would be eliminated.  Utility boxes that serve a private development would be required to be located on private property.  Civil Enforcement:  the option to bring a property into compliance through a special exception 168 will be eliminated.  HAND:  the unit legalization process would become a determination of nonconforming use process.  Finance: this will have an impact on Division revenue. Special exceptions generate approximately $40,000 annually in application fees.    Please review the attached document and provide comments by September 11, 2020.  The process includes a 45 day early engagement period with the community and a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission.  It is anticipated that these steps will be complete by late October.  The transmittal and City Council process will follow.  Comments can be emailed to me or entered directly into Accela under the file number: PLNPCM2020-00606.  You can choose to add your comments to the attached document that has been provided in word format to make it easy to add comments and propose changes.  I have included Dept. Directors as an FYI so they can decide if a response is necessary. Please share any concerns with your Department or Division and provide as comprehensive of a list of comments/issues as possible. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask.  Thank you for your time!       169 5. ORIGINAL PETITION 170 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 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Erin Mendenhall Cc: Lisa Shaeffer, Chief Administrative Officer; Jennifer McGrath, Deputy Director Department of Community and Neighborhoods; From: Nick Norris, Planning Director Date: August 4, 2020 Re: Zoning amendment related to the special exception process in Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21A.52 The Planning Division would like to request that a zoning text amendment be initiated to eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance authorizes more than 40 exceptions to the zoning ordinance through this process. An average of 150 applications are submitted each calendar year, generating approximately 3,000 hours of staff time and about 8% of the total workload in the Division. The purpose of the change is to reallocate staff hours to better respond to the city-wide needs that are created by growth, align the zoning ordinance with city goals, and restore the long range land use planning function of the city. One of the reasons for the proposal is partly due to the allocated resources for the Planning Division which does not support the workload of land use applications that are authorized or required by the zoning ordinance. Eliminating this process helps delay the need for additional staffing in the Planning Division. Exceptions would fit into one of the following categories: • Deleted from the ordinance and no longer allowed. This is for those exceptions where an application has not been submitted in several years, relatively few applications have been received or where applications are routinely denied. • Allowed by right in the ordinance. This is for those exceptions that are routinely approved with little or no public input, that match changing trends in how property is used, or do not create impacts that are greater than permitted activities. • Allowed through an existing process. This is for those exceptions where the zoning ordinance already has an established process and the special exception application is redundant, when the exception is used to determine legal status of a use or structure, or when another process may be more appropriate. A public process will be conducted to gauge public input on the proposed changes. It is possible that the public input received could change the direction or outcomes of the proposal. Due to the inability to hold community meetings in person, all engagement will be performed virtually. All recognized organizations will be notified of the proposal and staff will be made available to provide an overview of the proposal and answer questions that the community may have. This proposal will impact the development community and builders, architects, and developers will be included in the engagement process. The Planning Division typically provides a memo to the Mayor to sign to initiate a zoning amendment. The memo explains the issue, provides a brief description of the process, and the resources required. For this potential proposal, the process would follow the typical engagement processes that include notification of all community councils and a 45-day comment period. Following the 45-day comment period the Planning Division would prepare for a public hearing with the Planning Commission. After the Planning Commission makes a recommendation, the matter is transmitted to the City Council for a decision. 171 l Page 2 This memo includes a signature block to initiate the petition if that is the decided course of action. If the decided course of action is to not initiate the application, the signature block can remain blank. Please notify the Planning Division when the memo is signed or if the decision is made to not initiate the petition. Please contact me at ext. 6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com if you have any questions. Thank you. Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. _____________________________________ Erin Mendenhall, Mayor _____________ Date August 5, 2020 172 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: July 20, 2021 RE: Text Amendment: Administrative Decision Appeals PLNPCM2020-00352 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: July 20, 2021 Set Date: July 20, 2021 Public Hearing: Aug 17, 2021 Potential Action: Aug 24, 2021 ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to appeals of administrative decisions. Administrative decisions are made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the zoning ordinance. The amendments clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer, who can appeal decisions, and when an appeal can stay a decision, modify City Code to align with State law, related case law, and make other clarifications to the “appeals chapter of the zoning ordinance, including: Clarify that the City Appeals Hearing Officer can only make decisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of Salt Lake City Code, not provisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of the Utah State Code, the Utah Constitution, Utah common law or federal law. Modify the list of allowed appellants to the land use applicant, City board or officer, or “an adversely affected party” to comply with new State Code. Eliminate automatic stays of decisions. An appellant would have to specifically request and justify a “stay” (a hold on further proceedings on a matter) when appealing an administrative decision. The Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to the City Council. Page | 2 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Key Changes A short summary of the key changes is provided below. See pages 2-5 of the Planning Commission staff report for full details. 1. Appeals Hearing Officer Authority Over City and State Code Appeals Clarify that the City Appeals Hearing Officer can only make decisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of Salt Lake City Code, not provisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of the Utah State Code, the Utah Constitution, Utah common law or federal law. 2. State Code Updates Narrowing Appellants The proposed changes to the City’s appeals chapter would revise the list of allowed appellants to comply with the current State Code allowance. The list of allowed appellants includes: o The land use applicant o City board or officer o An adversely affected party 3. Stays of Decisions for Appeals Eliminate automatic stays of decisions. An appellant would have to specifically request and justify a stay. o Currently City Code specifies that a land use decision is automatically stayed upon submission of an appeal. o The proposal would no longer automatically stay a decision and instead require that an appellant formally request a stay. o The appellant would also need to justify the stay by showing how it would be necessary “to prevent substantial harm” to the appellant. o The Appeals Hearing Officer would then decide on whether to impose a stay. 4. Miscellaneous Changes Clarifications to code references and removal of potentially conflicting language. o Removal of potentially conflicting code regarding record keeping. City record keeping timeframes are imposed by other City Code and State law and the code change reduces the language to simply refer to those in order to avoid conflicts. o Reference the current types of City applications and processes the Appeals Hearing Officer has authority over. o Clarify that there is an application and fee for appeals is included in the “Procedure” section. o Delete reference to the “Historic Preservation Appeal Authority” shown in the draft. Those are intended to reflect a recently adopted ordinance that deleted that entity, which has just not yet been incorporated or “codified” into the official city zoning text. o All the references to that entity were already deleted by another ordinance (5 of 2020). The strike-throughs shown in the legislative version of the ordinance related to the “Historic Preservation Appeal Authority” are now redundant. When the code was being drafted, those changes just weren’t yet codified. Policy Questions: Are there any stakeholders the Administration reached out to, notifying them about the proposed changes? Would it be helpful if the billboard or cell tower companies were contacted directly to inform them of these changes? Are there any other groups who have commonly appealed administrative decisions that could be contacted to work through and/or address potential unintended consequences? Admin. Appeals Text Amendment Appeals Chapter 21A.16 •Regulates appeals of administrative decisions Decisions by: •Planning Commission •Historic Landmarks Commission •Other Administrative decisions •Zoning Administrator/Planning Director/Staff •Appeals heard by an appointed Appeals Hearing Officer •Technical changes to Appeals chapter •Comply with recent state code and case law Admin. Appeals Text Amendment •Clarify authority of Appeals Hearing Officer •Authority over City code appeals only, not state code •Align allowed appellant definition with State Code •(2) "Adversely affected party" means a person other than a land use applicant who: (a) owns real property adjoining the property that is the subject of a land use application or land use decision; or (b) will suffer a damage different in kind than, or an injury distinct from, that of the general community as a result of the land use decision. •Stays of decisions with appeals •Appeals will not automatically stay decisions •Appeals Hearing Officer would decide on stay requests from appellants •Appellant must demonstrate potential substantial harm •Other wording , clarification changes for consistency ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ 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: PLNPCM2020-00352 Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, 801-535-7165, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the proposed modifications to Chapter 21A.16 as recommended by the Planning Commission and Attorney’s Office. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This proposed ordinance includes changes to the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to appeals of administrative land use decisions. The proposal was initiated by the City Council in May of this year. The changes were initiated due to issues with the code being identified by the Attorney’s Office in responding to and processing recent “Administrative Decision” appeals, particularly related to recent appeals regarding billboards. Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator (City Staff) in the administration of the zoning ordinance. Administrative decisions include decisions on such processes as Planned Developments, Design Reviews, Subdivisions, Special Exceptions, and Major/Minor Alterations to historic properties. Administrative decisions also include when City staff is administering the ordinance by directly issuing decisions on development proposals or permits, or when the Planning Commission or Historic Landmarks Commission are the decision makers on proposals. 12/4/2020 Lisa Shaffer (Dec 14, 2020 11:15 MST) 12/14/2020 12/14/2020 The proposed amendments would modify City Code to align with State law, related case law, and make other clarifications to the “Appeals” chapter of the Zoning Ordinance. The amendments primarily do the following: • Clarify that the City Appeals Hearing Officer can only make decisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of Salt Lake City Code, not provisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of the Utah State Code, the Utah Constitution, Utah common law or federal law. • Modify the list of allowed appellants to the land use applicant, City board or officer, or “an adversely affected party” to comply with new State Code. • Eliminate automatic stays of decisions. An appellant would have to specifically request and justify a “stay” (a hold on further proceedings on a matter) when appealing an administrative decision. Other minor, miscellaneous clarifications are included in the code changes for consistency and enforceability. The details of the code changes can be found in the staff report located in Exhibit 3b. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Early notification and online Open House notices were e-mailed out June 18, 2020: o Notices were e-mailed to all recognized community organizations (community councils) per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage with the proposed code. o One community council (Sugar House) requested that staff attend and present the changes to their Land Use and Zoning Committee. o Staff attended the Sugar House meeting over video conference, reviewed the proposal, and answered questions. o No formal input was received from any community councils. o No public comments were received. • The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal on October 14, 2020: o A public hearing notice was published in the newspaper, posted on City and State websites, and sent out on the Planning Division notification listserv on September 30, 2020. o No members of the public spoke at the public hearing. o Planning Commission members asked the City Attorney’s Office staff technical questions about the ordinance. o The Planning Commission passed a unanimous recommendation that the City Council approve the ordinance. EXHIBITS: 1) Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Hearing 3) Planning Commission a) Newspaper Notice b) Staff Report c) Agenda and Minutes d) Presentation Slides 4) Original Petition SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2020 (An ordinance amending Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Appeals of Administrative Decisions) An ordinance amending Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Appeals of Administrative Decisions, pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2020-00352 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 14, 2020 to consider a request made by the Salt Lake City Council (Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00352) to amend Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code; and WHEREAS, at its October 14, 2020 hearing, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council; 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, WHEREAS, Utah Code § 10-9a-701 requires a municipality that adopts a land use ordinance to establish an appeal authority to hear and decide requests for variances from the terms of the land use ordinances and appeals from decisions applying the land use ordinances; WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has adopted a land use ordinance and established such an appeal authority; WHEREAS, Utah Code § 10-9a-701 also provides that a municipality may provide that specified types of land use decisions may be appealed directly to the district court; WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds it necessary to clarify, as provided for in Utah Code § 10 -9a-701, the authority of that appeal authority and to specify the types of land use decisions that may be appealed directly to district court; WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds it is also necessary to clarify the process for filing appeals with the appeal authority; WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds, after holding a public hearing on this matter, that adopting this ordinance is in the City’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.16. That chapter 21A.16 Appeals of Administrative Decisions of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: Chapter 21A.16 APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS 21A.16.010: Authority 21A.16.020: Parties Entitled to Appeal 21A.16.030: Procedure 21A.16.040: Appeal of Decision 21A.16.050: Stay of Decision 21A.16.010: AUTHORITY: A. Title 21A Appeals, Applications and Determinations: As described in section 21A.06.040 of this title, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide or make determinations regarding: 1. Appeals alleging an error in any administrative decision made by the zoning administrator, the planning commission or the historic landmark commission involving the application, administration, enforcement or compliance with Title 21A of this code; 2. Appeals from decisions made by the planning commission concerning subdivisions or subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 20 of this code; 3. Applications for variances as per chapter 21A.18 of this title; 4. The existence, expansion or modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, “Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures”, of this title; and 5. Any other matter involving application, administration or enforcement of this code where specifically authorized by a provision of this code. B. State and Federal Law: The appeals hearing officer shall not hear and decide or make determinations regarding any of the following: 1. Appeals alleging an error in the application, administration, enforcement or compliance with a provision of state or federal law, including but not limited to provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and federal common law; 2. Appeals alleging a violation of state law or federal law, including but not limited to provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and federal common law; 3. Appeals requesting legal or equitable remedies available under state or federal law. An appeal seeking the determinations identified in this subsection must be made directly to the district court, as provided for in Utah code section 10-9a-701(4)(e) or its successor. C. Requirement to Disclose: An appeal that alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer has authority to hear and decide must include every theory of relief that can be presented in district court, including theories the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and decide. D. Mixed Appeals: When an appeal alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer has authority to hear and decide and one or more claims that the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and decide, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide only the claims the hearing officer has the authority to hear and decide. The claims the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and decide may be brought in district court on conclusion and exhaustion of all remedies available for the claims the hearing officer has authority to hear and decide. 21A.16.020: PARTIES ENTITLED TO APPEAL: An applicant, a board or officer of the municipality, or an adversely affected party, as that term is defined by Utah code section 10-9a-103 or its successor, may appeal to the appeals hearing officer. 21A.16.030: PROCEDURE: Appeals of administrative decisions by the zoning administrator, historic landmark commission or planning commission shall be taken in accordance with the following procedures: A. Form: The appeal shall be filed using an application form provided by the zoning administrator. To be considered complete, the application must include all information required on the application, including but not limited to identification of the decision appealed, the alleged error made in connection with the decision being appealed, and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error. Incomplete applications will not be accepted. B. Filing: The application must be submitted as indicated on the form by the applicable deadline, together with all applicable fees. C. Time for Filing an Appeal: The deadlines for filing a complete application for appeal are: 1. Administrative decisions made by the zoning administrator: ten (10) days; 2. Planning commission decisions: ten (10) days; 3. Historic landmark commission: thirty (30) days for appeals filed by the applicant, ten (10) days for appeals filed by any other party entitled to appeal. D. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the following fees: 1. The applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule; and 2. The fees established for providing the public notice required by chapter 21A.10 of this title. All fees are due at the time of filing the appeal. An appeal will not be considered complete until all applicable fees are paid. E. No Automatic Stay: Filing an appeal with a hearing officer does not stay the decision appealed, unless a provision of this code specifically states otherwise. F. Requesting a Stay: The hearing officer may grant a request filed by the Appellant, Respondent, or any other party to the appeal, to stay a decision of the zoning administrator, planning commission or historic landmark commission for a specified period of time or until the appeals hearing officer issues a decision, if the requesting party can show a stay is necessary to prevent substantial harm to the requesting party. No request is required, if a provision of this code imposes an automatic stay on the filing of an appeal with a hearing officer. G. Notice Required: 1. Public Hearing: Upon receipt of an appeal of an administrative decision by the zoning administrator, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule and hold a public hearing in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth in chapter 21A.10 of this title. 2. Public Meeting: Appeals from a decision of the historic landmark commission or planning commission are based on evidence in the record. Therefore, testimony at the appeal meeting shall be limited to the appellant and the respondent. a. Upon receipt of an appeal of a decision by the historic landmark commission or planning commission, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule a public meeting to hear arguments by the appellant and respondent. Notification of the date, time and place of the meeting shall be given to the appellant and respondent a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the meeting. b. The city shall give e-mail notification, or other form of notification chosen by the appeals hearing officer a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the hearing to any organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to Title 2, chapter 2.60 of this code. H. Time Limitation: All appeals shall be heard within one hundred eighty (180) days of the filing of the appeal. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered void and withdrawn by the appellant. I. Standard of Review: 1. The standard of review for an appeal, other than as provided in subsection I2 of this section, shall be de novo. The appeals hearing officer shall review the matter appealed anew, based upon applicable procedures and standards for approval, and shall give no deference to the decision below. 2. An appeal from a decision of the historic landmark commission or planning commission shall be based on the record made below. a. No new evidence shall be heard by the appeals hearing officer unless such evidence was improperly excluded from consideration below. b. The appeals hearing officer shall review the decision based upon applicable standards and shall determine its correctness. c. The appeals hearing officer shall uphold the decision unless it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record or it violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect when the decision was made. J. Burden of Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving the decision appealed is incorrect. K. Action by the Appeals Hearing Officer: The appeals hearing officer shall render a written decision on the appeal. Such decision may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may modify the administrative decision. A decision shall become effective on the date the decision is rendered. L. Notification of Decision: Notification of the decision of the appeals hearing officer shall be sent to all parties to the appeal within ten (10) days of the decision. M. Record of Proceedings: The proceedings of each appeal hearing shall be recorded. Recordings shall be retained by the planning division for a period that is consistent with city retention policies and any applicable retention requirement set forth in state law. N. Policies and Procedures: The planning director shall adopt policies and procedures, consistent with the provisions of this section, for processing appeals, the conduct of an appeal hearing, and for any other purpose considered necessary to properly consider an appeal. O. Matters Delayed: For all matters delayed by the appeals hearing officer, any subsequent written materials shall be submitted a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the rescheduled meeting date. 21A.16.040: APPEAL OF DECISION: Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the appeals hearing officer may file a petition for review of the decision with the district court within thirty (30) days after the decision is rendered. 21A.16.050: STAY OF DECISION: The filing of a petition in district court does not stay the final decision of the appeals hearing officer. A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for under Utah code section 10-9a-801(9)(b) or its successor. SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.18.120. That section 21A.18.120 Stay of Decision of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.18.120: STAY OF DECISION: A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for in section 21A.16.050 or its successor. SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020L.3(e). That section 21A.34.020L.3(e) Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.34.020L.3(e) Appeal: Any owner adversely affected by a final decision of the Historic Landmark Commission may appeal the decision in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision. That section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.52.120: APPEAL OF DECISION: A. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning director may appeal the decision to the planning commission pursuant to the provisions in chapter 21A.16 of this title. B. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission on an application for a special exception may file an appeal to the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) days of the date of the decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A.160.30F. SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.54.160 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.54.160 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.54.160: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the planning commission on an application for a conditional use may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A16.030F of this title. SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.55.070 Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.55.070 Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.55.070: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the Planning Commission on an application for a planned development may appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the Planning Commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A.16.030F of this title. SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its passage. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ____ day of _________, 2020. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2020. Published: ______________. Approved As To Form Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By: _________________________ Katherine Lewis, City Attorney Date: ______________________ November 3, 2020   LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2020 2 (An ordinance amending Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code 3 pertaining to Appeals of Administrative Decisions) 4 5 An ordinance amending Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Appeals of 6 Administrative Decisions, pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2020-00352 7 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 14, 2020 to 8 consider a request made by the Salt Lake City Council (Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00352) to amend 9 Chapter 21A.16 of the Salt Lake City Code; and 10 WHEREAS, at its October 14, 2020 hearing, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a 11 positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council; and 12 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the city council has determined that adopting this 13 ordinance is in the city’s best interests, 14 WHEREAS, Utah Code § 10-9a-701 requires a municipality that adopts a land use ordinance 15 to establish an appeal authority to hear and decide requests for variances from the terms of the land 16 use ordinances and appeals from decisions applying the land use ordinances; 17 WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has adopted a land use ordinance and established such an 18 appeal authority; 19 WHEREAS, Utah Code § 10-9a-701 also provides that a municipality may provide that 20 specified types of land use decisions may be appealed directly to the district court; 21 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds it necessary to clarify, as provided for in 22 Utah Code § 10 -9a-701, the authority of that appeal authority and to specify the types of land use 23 decisions that may be appealed directly to district court; 24   LEGISLATIVE DRAFT WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds it is also necessary to clarify the process for 25 filing appeals with the appeal authority; 26 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds, after holding a public hearing on this matter, 27 that adopting this ordinance is in the City’s best interests. 28 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 29 SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.16. That chapter 30 21A.16 Appeals of Administrative Decisions of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is 31 amended to read as follows: 32 Chapter 21A.16 33 APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS 34 35 21A.16.010: Authority 36 21A.16.020: Parties Entitled To to Appeal 37 21A.16.030: Procedure 38 21A.16.040: Appeal Of of Decision 39 21A.16.050: Stay Of of Decision 40 41 21A.16.010: AUTHORITY: 42 43 A. Title 21A Appeals, Applications and Determinations: As described in section 21A.06.040 of 44 this title, the Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer shall hear and decide or make determinations 45 regarding: 46 47 1. Aappeals alleging an error in any administrative decision made by the zZoning 48 aAdministrator, or the Administrative Hearing Officer in the administration or 49 enforcement of this title, as well as administrative decisions of the Pplanning 50 Ccommission or the historic landmark commission involving the application, 51 administration, enforcement or compliance with Title 21A of this code;. 52 53 2. Appeals from decisions made by the planning commission concerning subdivisions or 54 subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 20 of 55 this code; 56 57 3. Applications for variances as per chapter 21A.18 of this title; 58 59 4. The existence, expansion or modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying 60 structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, 61 “Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures”, of this title; and 62   LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 63 5. Any other matter involving application, administration or enforcement of this code where 64 specifically authorized by a provision of this code. 65 66 B. State and Federal Law: The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer may shall not hear and decide or 67 make determinations regarding any of the following: 68 69 1. Aappeals alleging an error in the application, administrative decisions made by the 70 Historic Landmark Commission pursuant to section 21A.16.020 of this chapter. 71 administration, enforcement or compliance with a provision of state or federal law, 72 including but not limited to provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal 73 constitutions and state and federal common law; 74 75 2. Appeals alleging a violation of state law or federal law, including but not limited to 76 provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and 77 federal common law; 78 79 3. Appeals requesting legal or equitable remedies available under state or federal law. 80 81 An appeal seeking the determinations identified in this subsection must be made directly to 82 the district court, as provided for in Utah code section 10-9a-701(4)(e) or its successor. 83 84 C. Requirement to Disclose: An appeal that alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer 85 has authority to hear and decide must include every theory of relief that can be presented in 86 district court, including theories the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and 87 decide. 88 89 D. Mixed Appeals: When an appeal alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer has 90 authority to hear and decide and one or more claims that the hearing officer does not have 91 authority to hear and decide, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide only the claims 92 the hearing officer has the authority to hear and decide. The claims the hearing officer does 93 not have authority to hear and decide may be brought in district court on conclusion and 94 exhaustion of all remedies available for the claims the hearing officer has authority to hear 95 and decide. 96 In addition, the Appeals Hearing Officer shall hear and decide applications for variances as per 97 chapter 21A.18 of this title and shall make determinations regarding the existence, expansion or 98 modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures pursuant to the procedures and 99 standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, "Nonconforming Uses And Noncomplying Structures", of 100 this title. 101 As described in section 21A.06.080 of this title, the Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may 102 hear and decide appeals alleging an error in administrative decisions of the Historic Landmark 103 Commission pursuant to section 21A.16.020 of this chapter. 104 105 21A.16.020: PARTIES ENTITLED TO APPEAL: 106 107   LEGISLATIVE DRAFT An applicant, a board or officer of the municipality, or any other person or entityan adversely 108 affected party, as that term is defined by Utah code section 10-9a-103 or its successor, by a 109 decision administering or interpreting this title may appeal to the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer. 110 For decisions made by the Historic Landmark Commission, the applicant may appeal to either 111 the Historic Preservation Appeal Authority or the Appeals Hearing Officer. 112 113 21A.16.030: PROCEDURE: 114 115 Appeals of administrative decisions by the zZoning aAdministrator, hHistoric lLandmark 116 cCommission or pPlanning cCommission shall be taken in accordance with the following 117 procedures: 118 119 A. Form: The appeal shall be filed using an application form provided by the zoning 120 administrator. To be considered complete, the application must include all information 121 required on the application, including but not limited to identification of the decision 122 appealed, the alleged error made in connection with the decision being appealed, and the 123 reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error. Incomplete applications will not be 124 accepted. 125 126 B. Filing: The application must be submitted as indicated on the form by the applicable 127 deadline, together with all applicable fees. 128 129 AC. Time for Filing Of an Appeal: The deadlines for filing a complete application for appeal 130 are:All appeals shall specify the decision appealed, the alleged error made in connection with 131 the decision being appealed, and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error, 132 including every theory of relief that can be presented in District Court. The deadlines for 133 filing an appeal are as indicated below: 134 135 1. Administrative decisions made by the zZoning aAdministrator: tTen (10) days;. 136 137 2. Planning cCommission decisions: tTen (10) days;. 138 139 3. Historic lLandmark cCommission: tThirty (30) days for appeals filed by the applicant, 140 ten (10) days for appeals filed by any other party entitled to appeal. 141 142 BD. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable following fees: 143 144 1. The applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule; and 145 146 2. . The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of allThe fees established for 147 providing the public notice required by chapter chapter 21A.10 of this title. 148 149 All fees are due at the time of filing the appeal. An appeal will not be considered complete 150 until all applicable fees are paid. 151 152   LEGISLATIVE DRAFT CE. No Automatic Stay: Filing an appeal with a hearing officer does not stay the decision 153 appealed, unless a provision of this code specifically states otherwise. Stay Of Proceedings: 154 An appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall 155 stay all further proceedings concerning the matter about which the appealed order, 156 requirement, decision, determination, or interpretation was made unless the Zoning 157 Administrator certifies in writing to the Appeals Hearing Officer or Historic Preservation 158 Appeal Authority, after the appeal has been filed, that a stay would, in the Zoning 159 Administrator's opinion, be against the best interest of the City. 160 161 F. Requesting a Stay: The hearing officer may grant a request filed by the Appellant, 162 Respondent, or any other party to the appeal, to stay a decision of the zoning administrator, 163 planning commission or historic landmark commission for a specified period of time or until 164 the appeals hearing officer issues a decision, if the requesting party can show a stay is 165 necessary to prevent substantial harm to the requesting party. No request is required, if a 166 provision of this code imposes an automatic stay on the filing of an appeal with a hearing 167 officer. 168 169 DG. Notice Required: 170 171 1. Public Hearing: Upon receipt of an appeal of an administrative decision by the zZoning 172 aAdministrator, the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer shall schedule and hold a public hearing 173 in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set 174 forth in chapter 21A.10 of this title. 175 176 2. Public Meeting: Appeals from a decision of the hHistoric lLandmark cCommission or 177 pPlanning cCommission are based on evidence in the record. Therefore, testimony at the 178 appeal meeting shall be limited to the appellant and the respondent. 179 180 a. Upon receipt of an appeal of a decision by the hHistoric lLandmark cCommission or 181 pPlanning cCommission, the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation 182 Appeal Authority shall schedule a public meeting to hear arguments by the appellant 183 and respondent. Notification of the date, time and place of the meeting shall be given 184 to the appellant and respondent a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance 185 of the meeting. 186 187 b. The cCity shall give e-mail notification, or other form of notification chosen by the 188 aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority, a minimum 189 of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the hearing to any organization entitled to 190 receive notice pursuant to title Title 2, chapter chapter 2.60 of this cCode. 191 192 3H. Time Limitation: All appeals shall be heard within one hundred eighty (180) days of the 193 filing of the appeal. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered void and 194 withdrawn by the appellant. 195 196 EI. Standard oOf Review: 197 198   LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1. The standard of review for an appeal, other than as provided in subsection E2 I2 of this 199 section, shall be de novo. The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal 200 Authority shall review the matter appealed anew, based upon applicable procedures and 201 standards for approval, and shall give no deference to the decision below. 202 203 2. An appeal from a decision of the hHistoric lLandmark cCommission or pPlanning 204 cCommission shall be based on the record made below. 205 206 a. No new evidence shall be heard by the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic 207 Preservation Appeal Authority unless such evidence was improperly excluded from 208 consideration below. 209 210 b. The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall 211 review the decision based upon applicable standards and shall determine its 212 correctness. 213 214 c. The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall 215 uphold the decision unless it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record or 216 it violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect when the decision was made. 217 218 FJ. Burden Oof Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving the decision appealed is 219 incorrect. 220 221 GK. Action bBy tThe Appeals Hearing Officer Or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority: 222 The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall render a 223 written decision on the appeal. Such decision may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or 224 may modify the administrative decision. A decision shall become effective on the date the 225 decision is rendered. 226 227 HL. Notification oOf Decision: Notification of the decision of the aAppeals hHearing 228 oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall be sent to all parties to the appeal 229 within ten (10) days of the decision. 230 231 IM. Record oOf Proceedings: The proceedings of each appeal hearing shall be recorded. on 232 audio equipment. The audio Rrecordings of each appeal hearing shall be retainedkept by the 233 planning division for a period that is consistent with city retention policies and any applicable 234 retention requirement set forth in state law. minimum of sixty (60) days. Upon the written 235 request of any interested person, such audio recording shall be kept for a reasonable period of 236 time beyond the sixty (60) day period, as determined by the Appeals Hearing Officer or 237 Historic Preservation Appeal Authority. Copies of the tapes of such hearings may be 238 provided, if requested, at the expense of the requesting party. The Appeals Hearing Officer 239 and Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may have the appeal proceedings 240 contemporaneously transcribed by a court reporter. 241 242   LEGISLATIVE DRAFT JN. Policies aAnd Procedures: The Pplanning Ddirector shall adopt policies and procedures, 243 consistent with the provisions of this section, for processing appeals, the conduct of an appeal 244 hearing, and for any other purpose considered necessary to properly consider an appeal. 245 246 KO. Matters Delayed: For all matters delayed by the Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer and 247 Historic Preservation Appeal Authority, any subsequent written materials shall be submitted 248 a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the rescheduled meeting date. 249 250 21A.16.040: APPEAL OF DECISION: 251 252 Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer or 253 Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may file a petition for review of the decision with the 254 Ddistrict Ccourt within thirty (30) days after the decision is rendered. 255 256 21A.16.050: STAY OF DECISION: 257 258 The filing of a petition in district court does not stay the final decision of the appeals hearing 259 officer. A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for under Utah 260 code section 10-9a-801(9)(b) or its successor. 261 The Appeals Hearing Officer and Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may stay the issuance 262 of any permits or approvals based on its decision for thirty (30) days or until the decision of the 263 District Court in any appeal of the decision. 264 265 SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.18.120. That section 266 21A.18.120 Stay of Decision of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as 267 follows: 268 21A.18.120: STAY OF DECISION: 269 270 A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for in section 21A.16.050 271 or its successor. The appeals hearing officer may stay the issuance of any permits or approval 272 based on its decision for thirty (30) days or until the decision of the district court in any appeal of 273 the decision. 274 275 276 277 SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020L.3(e). That 278 section 21A.34.020L.3(e) Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is 279 amended to read as follows: 280 Appeal: Any owner adversely affected by a final decision of the Historic Landmark Commission 281 may appeal the decision in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. The 282   LEGISLATIVE DRAFT filing of an appeal shall stay the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission pending the 283 outcome of the appeal. 284 285 SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.52.120 Appeal of 286 Decision. That section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and 287 hereby is amended to read as follows: 288 21A.52.120: APPEAL OF DECISION: 289 A. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning director may appeal the decision to the 290 planning commission pursuant to the provisions in chapter 21A.16 of this title. 291 B. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission on an application for a 292 special exception may file an appeal to the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) days of the 293 date of the decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning 294 commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 295 21A.160.30F. unless the planning commission takes specific action to stay a decision. 296 297 298 SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.54.160 Appeal of 299 Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.54.160 Appeal of Planning Commission 300 Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 301 21A.54.160: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: 302 Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the planning commission on an application for a 303 conditional use may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 304 21A.16 of this title. Notwithstanding section 21A.16.030 of this title, tThe filing of the appeal shall not 305 stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for 306 under section 21A16.030F of this title. unless the planning commission takes specific action to stay a 307 decision. 308 309 SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.55.070 Appeal of 310 the Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.55.070 Appeal of the Planning Commission 311 Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 312 21A.55.070: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: 313   LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the Planning Commission on an application 314 for a planned development may appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer in accordance with the 315 provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. Notwithstanding section 21A.16.030 of this title, tThe 316 filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the Planning Commission pending the outcome 317 of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A.16.030F of this title. unless the Planning 318 Commission takes specific action to stay a decision. 319 SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 320 passage. 321 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ____ day of _________, 2020. 322 323 324 ______________________________ 325 CHAIRPERSON 326 327 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 328 329 330 ______________________________ 331 CITY RECORDER 332 333 334 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 335 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 336 337 ______________________________ 338 MAYOR 339 340 ______________________________ 341 CITY RECORDER 342 343 344 (SEAL) 345 346 347 Bill No. ________ of 2020. 348 Published: ______________. 349 350 351 Approved As To Form Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By: _________________________ Katherine Lewis, City Attorney Date: ______________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. PLANNING COMMISSION – Oct. 14, 2020 a. Newspaper Notice b. Staff Report c. Agenda/Minutes d. Presentation Slides 4. ORIGINAL PETITION 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2020-00352 Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment May 5, 2020 City Council initiates petition May 12, 2020 Petition assigned to Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner June 8, 2020 Draft ordinance prepared by Attorney’s Office June 18, 2020 Early notification notices sent to all recognized organizations and posted on City webpage for public input July 20, 2020 Staff attends Sugar House Community Council Land Use and Zoning Committee meeting via web video conference to discuss proposal August 3, 2020 Early notification period ends September 30, 2020 Public hearing notice for Planning Commission meeting published in newspaper, posted on City/State notice websites, and sent out on Planning notification listserv. October 8, 2020 Staff report for the item is published October 14, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing held. Planning Commission passes unanimous motion recommending approval of the proposal 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON DATE and DATE at 7:00 p.m. public hearings will be held by the Salt Lake City Council to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance relating to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00352. A proposed ordinance is before the Council to amend the text of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to appeals of administrative decisions. Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendments would modify City Code to align with State law, related case law, and make other clarifications to that code section. The amendments primarily clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer, who can appeal decisions, and when an appeal can stay a decision. The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.16 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. This meeting will be electronic pursuant to the Chair’s determination that conducting the meeting at a physical location may present a substantial risk to the health & safety (due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic) of those who would otherwise be present at an anchor location, and pursuant to SLC Emergency Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit the website 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. Publish: 3. PLANNING COMMISSION – Oct. 14, 2020 a. Newspaper Notice The Salt Lake Tribune Publication Name: The Salt Lake Tribune Publication URL: Publication City and State: Salt Lake City, UT Publication County: Salt Lake Notice Popular Keyword Category: Notice Keywords: plnpcm2020-00352 Notice Authentication Number: 202011250158583150503 3430682078 Notice URL: Back Notice Publish Date: Saturday, October 03, 2020 Notice Content Notice of Public Hearing On Wednesday, October 14, 2020, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider making recommendations to the City Council regarding the following petitions: 1. Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment - The City Council is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding appeals of administrative decisions. Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendments would modify City Code to align with state law, related case law, and make other clarifications to that code section. The amendments primarily clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer, who can appeal decisions, and when an appeal can stay a decision. The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.16 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria at (801) 535-7165 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2020-00352 The public hearing will begin at 5:30 p.m. via Webex. To participate go to: http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-10142020 This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms: YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLC tv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com. 1300772 UPAXLP Back PLANNING COMMISSION – Oct. 14, 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 COMMUNITY & NEIGHORHOOD DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Daniel Echeverria, 801-535-7165, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com Date: October 8, 2020 (publication) Re: PLNPCM2020-00352 Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment Zoning Text Amendment REQUEST: The City Council is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding appeals of administrative decisions. Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in th e administration of the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendments would modify City Code to align with State law, related case law, and make other clarifications to that code section. The amendments primarily clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer, who can appeal decisions, and when an appeal can stay a decision. The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.16 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A- Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings listed in the staff report, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation for the text amendment request to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: A.Proposed Code Text B.Existing Code Text C.Analysis of Standards – Zoning Text Amendment D.Public Process and Comments E.Department Review Comments Petition Description The City Council initiated a petition to amend the Appeals chapter of the zoning ordinance in May of this year. The changes were initiated due to issues with the code being identified by the Attorney’s Office in responding to and processing recent “Administrative Decision” appeals. 1 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the zoning ordinance. Administrative decisions include such items as Planned Developments, Design Review s, Subdivisions, Special Exceptions, and Major/Minor Alterations. These include when City staff is administering the ordinance by issuing decisions for these items directly or when the Planning Commission or Historic Landmarks Commission are the decision makers. The proposed amendments would modify City Code to align with State law, related case law, and make other clarifications to that code section. The amendments primarily do the following: •Clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer, •Modify who can appeal decisions to comply with State Code, and •Modify when an appeal can stay a decision to comply with State Code and case law. Other minor miscellaneous clarifications are included in the code changes for consistency and enforceability. The changes are discussed in more detail in the Key Code Changes section below. Applicable Review Processes and Standards Review Processes: Zoning Text Amendment Zoning text amendments are reviewed against four considerations, pertaining to whether proposed code is consistent with adopted City planning documents, furthers the purposes of the zoning ordinance, are consistent with other overlay zoning codes, and the extent they implement best professional practices. Those considerations are addressed in Attachment C. City Code amendments are ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council and are not controlled by any one standard. Community Input Notification of this proposal was sent out in June to all registered community councils to get community input and an online open house website was posted with the proposed draft and an overview of the proposal to get wider input. One community council (Sugar House) responded with a request to attend their Land Use and Zoning Committee meeting to go over the changes and staff attended that meeting. No other input has been received from community councils on the proposal. KEY CODE CHANGES: The below sections go over the primary code changes proposed with this amendment. 1.Appeals Hearing Officer Authority Over City and State Code Appeals 2.State Code Updates Narrowing Appellants 3.Stays of Decisions for Appeals 4.Miscellaneous Changes 1.Appeals Hearing Officer Authority Over City and State Code Appeals Proposed Change: •Clarify that the City Appeals Hearing Officer can only make decisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of Salt Lake City Code, not provisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of the Utah State Code, the Utah Constitution, Utah common law or federal law. 2 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Utah State Code requires that a municipality that adopts a land use ordinance, shall also establish one or more appeal authorities to hear and decide the following: (1) requests for variances under the City’s land use ordinance; (2) appeals from decisions applying the land use ordinance, and (3) appeals from certain fees imposed by the City, e.g. review of building plans and hook-up fees. Utah Code § 10-9a-701(1) Most applications the City receives, and most interpretations it must make on a day-to-day basis, concern interpretation and application of provisions of the City’s local land use ordinance (City Code). If an affected person disagrees with the City’s interpretation of a provision of the City’s local land use ordinance, such as a zoning setback requirement, they can appeal it to the City’s Appeals Hearing Officer (the local land use appeal authority.) On occasion, the City will receive an application that requests a land use that is provided for in Utah Code, not City ordinance. For example, Utah Code provides for relocation of billboards, where specifically prohibited by the City’s local land use ordinance. These applications require the City to review the application and determine if the applicant meets the requirement s of a provision of state law, not City Code. In circumstances where the City has found the applicant does not meet the requirements of the provision, applicants have sought to appeal these decisions to the City’s Appeals Hearing Officer. On occasion, the City’s hearing officers, over the objection of the City, have heard and issued decisions on these appeals. Neither Salt Lake City Code, nor Utah State Code, permit a City Hearing Officer to make these decisions. See Utah State Code § 10-9a-701(1) (requiring an appeal authority to hear appeals from a city’s land use ordinance); Salt Lake City Code 21A.16.010 & 020 (stating hearing officer’s authority is to hear appeals alleging an error in interpretation, administration or enforcement of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code). These appeals should be made directly to the State’s district courts. Thus, to remove any confusion, the amendments to the ordinance make clear the authority of the City’s hearing officers is limited to reviewing the City’s interpretation and application of provisions of the Salt Lake City Code, not provisions of State or Federal law. This clarification of the authority of the City’s Appeals Hearing Officers is specifically provided for and permitted by the provision of State Code requiring the City to establish a land use appeal authority. See Utah Code § 10-9a-701(4)(e) (stating a municipality may by ordinance “provide that specified types of land use decisions may be appealed directly to the district court.) The changes are shown starting on line 39 of the redline draft in Attachment A. 2.State Code Updates Narrowing Appellants Proposed Change: •Modify the list of allowed appellants to the land use applicant, City board or officer, or “an adversely affected party” to comply with new State Code. This year the State Legislature with House Bill 388 adopted changes to Utah State Code section 10-9a-7 “Appeal Authority and Variances.” That code section authorizes cities to establish land use appeal processes. That code section includes provisions that also limit land use appellants to three entities. The code changes narrowed the list of the entities that can appeal land use decisions by making the following change to that list of possible appellants (strikethroughs show deleted text and underlines show new text): 3 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment The (1) land use applicant, (2) a board or officer of the municipality, or (3) [any person adversely affected by the land use authority's decision administering or interpreting a land use ordinance] an adversely affected party may… The entity defined as “any person adversely affected by the land use authority’s decision” was revised to the term “adversely affected party.” State Code then defines that term as: (2) "Adversely affected party" means a person other than a land use applicant who: (a) owns real property adjoining the property that is the subject of a land use application or land use decision; or (b) will suffer a damage different in kind than, or an injury distinct from, that of the general community as a result of the land use decision. While still using the term “adversely affected” it narrowly defines it to the two specific circumstances above in (a) and (b). The proposed changes to the City’s appeals chapter would revise the list of allowed appellants to comply with the current State Code allowance. The changes are shown starting on line 80 of the redline draft in Attachment A. 3. Stays of Decisions for Appeals Proposed Change: •Eliminate automatic stays of decisions. An appellant would have to specifically request and justify a stay. Currently City Code specifies that a land use decision is automatically stayed upon submission of an appeal. A “stay” means that the decision is put on hold and no further proceedings can occur on the matter, pending a decision by the appeal authority on the appeal. For example, if the Planning Commission approved a development, but it was appealed and a stay was imposed, the developer couldn’t pull permits or start construction on their proposal. The current City Code also provides that an automatic stay can be released if the City’s Zoning Administrator (a member of City Planning staff) certifies in writing to the Appeals Hearing Officer that the stay would be against the best interest of the City. The proposal would change the code section to no longer automatically stay a decision and instead require that an appellant formally request a stay. The appellant would also need to justify the stay by showing how it would be necessary “to prevent substantial harm” to the appellant. The Appeals Hearing Officer would then decide on whether to impose a stay. This change is intended to reflect State Code (10-9a-801(3)(b)) and case law wherein the decision of the Planning Commission or Historical Landmark Commission (“land use authority”) is to be initially presumed to be valid by a court or appeal authority in reviewing an appeal. An automatic stay is contrary to that presumption and so the proposal would eliminate that automatic stay. Additionally, automatic stays incentivize appeals that have no merit and put applicants in a difficult position whereby City approvals may be put on hold for up to six months when there may be no justification for such a stay. The related changes are shown starting on line 129 of the redline draft in Attachment A. Other changes are included to other related sections of the code, such as the Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Commission sections, to reflect and reference that change starting on line 231 and continuing to 292 of the redline draft in Attachment A. 4 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment 4.Miscellaneous Changes Proposed Changes: •Clarifications to code references and removal of potentially conflicting language The code includes other minor changes and clarifications to the appeals chapter. These include removal of potentially conflicting code regarding record keeping. City record keeping timeframes are imposed by other City Code and State law and the code change reduces the language to simply refer to those in order to avoid conflicts. These changes begin on line 208 of the draft code in Attachment A. They also include changes to reflect and reference the current types of city applications and processes the Appeals Hearing Officer has authority over. Those changes are in the Authority section, starting on line 16 in Attachment A. Changes clarifying that there is an application and fee for appeals is included in the “Procedure” section, starting on line 96 in Attachment A. There are also deletions of the reference to the “Historic Preservation Appeal Authority” shown in the draft. Those are intended to reflect a recently adopted ordinance that deleted that entity, which has just not yet been incorporated or “codified” into the official city zoning text. DISCUSSION: The proposed code updates have been reviewed against the Zoning Amendment consideration criteria in Attachment C. The proposed code changes implement best practices by ensuring the code is up to date, does not conflict with other applicable State or City Code, and complies with the City’s zoning purposes by ensuring that City ordinances can be legally administered and enforced. Due to these considerations, staff is recommending that the Commission forward a favorable recommendation on this request to the City Council. NEXT STEPS: The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposed text amendments. The recommendation will be sent to the City Council, who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing on the proposed text amendments amendment. The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the proposed zoning text amendments. If the text amendments are approved by the City Council, appeals would be subject to the new City ordinance standards. 5 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment This attachment includes a “clean” version of the code without strikethroughs and underlines that show deleted and new text, and a “draft” version that identifies such deletions and new text with strikethroughs and underlines, respectively. 6 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text – Clean Version SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.16. That chapter 21A.16 Appeals of Administrative Decisions of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: Chapter 21A.16 APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS 21A.16.010: Authority 21A.16.020: Parties Entitled to Appeal 21A.16.030: Procedure 21A.16.040: Appeal of Decision 21A.16.050: Stay of Decision 21A.16.010: AUTHORITY: A.Title 21A Appeals, Applications and Determinations: As described in section 21A.06.040 of this title, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide or make determinations regarding: 1.Appeals alleging an error in any administrative decision made by the zoning administrator, the planning commission or the historic landmark commission involving the application, administration, enforcement or compliance with Title 21A of this code; 2.Appeals from decisions made by the planning commission concerning subdivisions or subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 20 of this code; 3.Applications for variances as per chapter 21A.18 of this title; 4.The existence, expansion or modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, “Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures”, of this title; and 5.Any other matter involving application, administration or enforcement of this code where specifically authorized by a provision of this code. B.State and Federal Law: The appeals hearing officer shall not hear and decide or make determinations regarding any of the following: 1.Appeals alleging an error in the application, administration, enforcement or compliance with a provision of state or federal law, including but not limited to provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and federal common law; 7 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text – Clean Version 2.Appeals alleging a violation of state law or federal law, including but not limited to provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and federal common law; 3.Appeals requesting legal or equitable remedies available under state or federal law. An appeal seeking the determinations identified in this subsection must be made directly to the district court, as provided for in Utah code section 10-9a-701(4)(e) or its successor. C.Requirement to Disclose: An appeal that alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer has authority to hear and decide must include every theory of relief that can be presented in district court, including theories the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and decide. D.Mixed Appeals: When an appeal alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer has authority to hear and decide and one or more claims that the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and decide, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide only the claims the hearing officer has the authority to hear and decide. The claims the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and decide may be brought in district court on conclusion and exhaustion of all remedies available for the claims the hearing officer has authority to hear and decide. 21A.16.020: PARTIES ENTITLED TO APPEAL: An applicant, a board or officer of the municipality, or an adversely affected party, as that term is defined by Utah code section 10-9a-103 or its successor, may appeal to the appeals hearing officer. 21A.16.030: PROCEDURE: Appeals of administrative decisions by the zoning administrator, historic landmark commission or planning commission shall be taken in accordance with the following procedures: A.Form: The appeal shall be filed using an application form provided by the zoning administrator. To be considered complete, the application must include all information required on the application, including but not limited to identification of the decision appealed, the alleged error made in connection with the decision being appealed, and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error. Incomplete applications will not be accepted. B.Filing: The application must be submitted as indicated on the form by the applicable deadline, together with all applicable fees. C.Time for Filing an Appeal: The deadlines for filing a complete application for appeal are: 1.Administrative decisions made by the zoning administrator: ten (10) days; 8 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text – Clean Version 2.Planning commission decisions: ten (10) days; 3.Historic landmark commission: thirty (30) days for appeals filed by the applicant, ten (10) days for appeals filed by any other party entitled to appeal. D.Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the following fees: 1.The applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule; and 2.The fees established for providing the public notice required by chapter 21A.10 of this title. All fees are due at the time of filing the appeal. An appeal will not be considered complete until all applicable fees are paid. E.No Automatic Stay: Filing an appeal with a hearing officer does not stay the decision appealed, unless a provision of this code specifically states otherwise. F.Requesting a Stay: The hearing officer may grant a request filed by the Appellant, Respondent, or any other party to the appeal, to stay a decision of the zoning administrator, planning commission or historic landmark commission for a specified period of time or until the appeals hearing officer issues a decision, if the requesting party can show a stay is necessary to prevent substantial harm to the requesting party. No request is required, if a provision of this code imposes an automatic stay on the filing of an appeal with a hearing officer. G.Notice Required: 1.Public Hearing: Upon receipt of an appeal of an administrative decision by the zoning administrator, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule and hold a public hearing in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth in chapter 21A.10 of this title. 2.Public Meeting: Appeals from a decision of the historic landmark commission or planning commission are based on evidence in the record. Therefore, testimony at the appeal meeting shall be limited to the appellant and the respondent. a.Upon receipt of an appeal of a decision by the historic landmark commission or planning commission, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule a public meeting to hear arguments by the appellant and respondent. Notification of the date, time and place of the meeting shall be given to the appellant and respondent a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the meeting. b.The city shall give e-mail notification, or other form of notification chosen by the appeals hearing officer a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the 9 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text – Clean Version hearing to any organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to Title 2, chapter 2.60 of this code. H.Time Limitation: All appeals shall be heard within one hundred eighty (180) days of the filing of the appeal. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered void and withdrawn by the appellant. I.Standard of Review: 1.The standard of review for an appeal, other than as provided in subsection I2 of this section, shall be de novo. The appeals hearing officer shall review the matter appealed anew, based upon applicable procedures and standards for approval, and shall give no deference to the decision below. 2.An appeal from a decision of the historic landmark commission or planning commission shall be based on the record made below. a.No new evidence shall be heard by the appeals hearing officer unless such evidence was improperly excluded from consideration below. b.The appeals hearing officer shall review the decision based upon applicable standards and shall determine its correctness. c.The appeals hearing officer shall uphold the decision unless it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record or it violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect when the decision was made. J.Burden of Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving the decision appealed is incorrect. K.Action by the Appeals Hearing Officer: The appeals hearing officer shall render a written decision on the appeal. Such decision may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may modify the administrative decision. A decision shall become effective on the date the decision is rendered. L.Notification of Decision: Notification of the decision of the appeals hearing officer shall be sent to all parties to the appeal within ten (10) days of the decision. M.Record of Proceedings: The proceedings of each appeal hearing shall be recorded. Recordings shall be retained by the planning division for a period that is consistent with city retention policies and any applicable retention requirement set forth in state law. N.Policies and Procedures: The planning director shall adopt policies and procedures, consistent with the provisions of this section, for processing appeals, the conduct of an appeal hearing, and for any other purpose considered necessary to properly consider an appeal. 10 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text – Clean Version O.Matters Delayed: For all matters delayed by the appeals hearing officer, any subsequent written materials shall be submitted a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the rescheduled meeting date. 21A.16.040: APPEAL OF DECISION: Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the appeals hearing officer may file a petition for review of the decision with the district court within thirty (30) days after the decision is rendered. 21A.16.050: STAY OF DECISION: The filing of a petition in district court does not stay the final decision of the appeals hearing officer. A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for under Utah code section 10-9a-801(9)(b) or its successor. SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.18.120. That section 21A.18.120 Stay of Decision of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.18.120: STAY OF DECISION: A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for in section 21A.16.050 or its successor. SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020L.3(e). That section 21A.34.020L.3(e) Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: Appeal: Any owner adversely affected by a final decision of the Historic Landmark Commission may appeal the decision in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision. That section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.52.120: APPEAL OF DECISION: A. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning director may appeal the decision to the planning commission pursuant to the provisions in chapter 21A.16 of this title. 11 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text – Clean Version B.Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission on an application for a special exception may file an appeal to the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) days of the date of the decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A.160.30F. SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.54.160 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.54.160 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.54.160: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the planning commission on an application for a conditional use may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A16.030F of this title. SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.55.070 Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.55.070 Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.55.070: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the Planning Commission on an application for a planned development may appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the Planning Commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A.16.030F of this title. 12 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.16. That chapter 1 21A.16 Appeals of Administrative Decisions of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is 2 amended to read as follows: 3 Chapter 21A.16 4 APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS 5 6 21A.16.010: Authority 7 21A.16.020: Parties Entitled To to Appeal 8 21A.16.030: Procedure 9 21A.16.040: Appeal Of of Decision 10 21A.16.050: Stay Of of Decision 11 12 13 21A.16.010: AUTHORITY: 14 15 A.Title 21A Appeals, Applications and Determinations: As described in section 21A.06.040 of16 this title, the Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer shall hear and decide or make determinations17 regarding:18 19 1.Aappeals alleging an error in any administrative decision made by the zZoning20 aAdministrator , or the Administrative Hearing Officer in the administration or21 enforcement of this title, as well as administrative decisions of the Pplanning22 Ccommission or the historic landmark commission involving the application,23 administration, enforcement or compliance with Title 21A of this code;.24 25 2.Appeals from decisions made by the planning commission concerning subdivisions or26 subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 20 of 27 this code; 28 29 3.Applications for variances as per chapter 21A.18 of this title;30 31 4.The existence, expansion or modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying32 structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, 33 “Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures”, of this title; and 34 35 5.Any other matter involving application, administration or enforcement of this code where36 specifically authorized by a provision of this code. 37 38 B.State and Federal Law: The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer may shall not hear and decide or39 make determinations regarding any of the following:40 41 1.Aappeals alleging an error in the application, administrative decisions made by the42 Historic Landmark Commission pursuant to section 21A.16.020 of this chapter.43 13 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version administration, enforcement or compliance with a provision of state or federal law, 44 including but not limited to provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal 45 constitutions and state and federal common law; 46 47 2.Appeals alleging a violation of state law or federal law, including but not limited to48 provisions of state and federal statutes, state and federal constitutions and state and 49 federal common law; 50 51 3.Appeals requesting legal or equitable remedies available under state or federal law.52 53 An appeal seeking the determinations identified in this subsection must be made directly to 54 the district court, as provided for in Utah code section 10-9a-701(4)(e) or its successor. 55 56 C.Requirement to Disclose: An appeal that alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer57 has authority to hear and decide must include every theory of relief that can be presented in 58 district court, including theories the hearing officer does not have authority to hear and 59 decide. 60 61 D.Mixed Appeals: When an appeal alleges one or more claims that the hearing officer has62 authority to hear and decide and one or more claims that the hearing officer does not have 63 authority to hear and decide, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide only the claims 64 the hearing officer has the authority to hear and decide. The claims the hearing officer does 65 not have authority to hear and decide may be brought in district court on conclusion and 66 exhaustion of all remedies available for the claims the hearing officer has authority to hear 67 and decide. 68 In addition, the Appeals Hearing Officer shall hear and decide applications for variances as per 69 chapter 21A.18 of this title and shall make determinations regarding the existence, expansion or 70 modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures pursuant to the procedures and 71 standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, "Nonconforming Uses And Noncomplying Structures", of 72 this title. 73 As described in section 21A.06.080 of this title, the Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may 74 hear and decide appeals alleging an error in administrative decisions of the Historic Landmark 75 Commission pursuant to section 21A.16.020 of this chapter. 76 77 21A.16.020: PARTIES ENTITLED TO APPEAL: 78 79 An applicant, a board or officer of the municipality, or any other person or entityan adversely 80 affected party, as that term is defined by Utah code section 10-9a-103 or its successor, by a 81 decision administering or interpreting this title may appeal to the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer. 82 For decisions made by the Historic Landmark Commission, the applicant may appeal to either 83 the Historic Preservation Appeal Authority or the Appeals Hearing Officer. 84 85 86 87 88 89 14 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version 21A.16.030: PROCEDURE: 90 91 Appeals of administrative decisions by the zZoning aAdministrator, hHistoric lLandmark 92 cCommission or pPlanning cCommission shall be taken in accordance with the following 93 procedures: 94 95 A.Form: The appeal shall be filed using an application form provided by the zoning96 administrator. To be considered complete, the application must include all information 97 required on the application, including but not limited to identification of the decision 98 appealed, the alleged error made in connection with the decision being appealed, and the 99 reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error. Incomplete applications will not be 100 accepted. 101 102 B.Filing: The application must be submitted as indicated on the form by the applicable103 deadline, together with all applicable fees. 104 105 AC. Time for Filing Of an Appeal: The deadlines for filing a complete application for appeal 106 are:All appeals shall specify the decision appealed, the alleged error made in connection with 107 the decision being appealed, and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error, 108 including every theory of relief that can be presented in District Court. The deadlines for 109 filing an appeal are as indicated below: 110 111 1.Administrative decisions made by the zZoning aAdministrator: tTen (10) days;.112 113 2.Planning cCommission decisions: tTen (10) days;.114 115 3.Historic lLandmark cCommission: tThirty (30) days for appeals filed by the applicant,116 ten (10) days for appeals filed by any other party entitled to appeal.117 118 BD. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable following fees: 119 120 1.The applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule; and121 122 2.. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of allThe fees established for123 providing the public notice required by chapter chapter 21A.10 of this title.124 125 All fees are due at the time of filing the appeal. An appeal will not be considered complete 126 until all applicable fees are paid. 127 128 CE. No Automatic Stay: Filing an appeal with a hearing officer does not stay the decision 129 appealed, unless a provision of this code specifically states otherwise. Stay Of Proceedings: 130 An appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall 131 stay all further proceedings concerning the matter about which the appealed order, 132 requirement, decision, determination, or interpretation was made unless the Zoning 133 Administrator certifies in writing to the Appeals Hearing Officer or Historic Preservation 134 15 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version Appeal Authority, after the appeal has been filed, that a stay would, in the Zoning 135 Administrator's opinion, be against the best interest of the City. 136 137 F.Requesting a Stay: The hearing officer may grant a request filed by the Appellant,138 Respondent, or any other party to the appeal, to stay a decision of the zoning administrator,139 planning commission or historic landmark commission for a specified period of time or until140 the appeals hearing officer issues a decision, if the requesting party can show a stay is141 necessary to prevent substantial harm to the requesting party. No request is required, if a142 provision of this code imposes an automatic stay on the filing of an appeal with a hearing143 officer.144 145 DG. Notice Required: 146 147 1.Public Hearing: Upon receipt of an appeal of an administrative decision by the zZoning148 aAdministrator, the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer shall schedule and hold a public hearing149 in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set150 forth in chapter 21A.10 of this title.151 152 2.Public Meeting: Appeals from a decision of the hHistoric lLandmark cCommission or153 pPlanning cCommission are based on evidence in the record. Therefore, testimony at the154 appeal meeting shall be limited to the appellant and the respondent.155 156 a.Upon receipt of an appeal of a decision by the hHistoric lLandmark cCommission or157 pPlanning cCommission, the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation158 Appeal Authority shall schedule a public meeting to hear arguments by the appellant159 and respondent. Notification of the date, time and place of the meeting shall be given160 to the appellant and respondent a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance161 of the meeting.162 163 b.The cCity shall give e-mail notification, or other form of notification chosen by the164 aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority, a minimum165 of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the hearing to any organization entitled to166 receive notice pursuant to title Title 2, chapter chapter 2.60 of this cCode.167 168 3H. Time Limitation: All appeals shall be heard within one hundred eighty (180) days of the 169 filing of the appeal. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered void and 170 withdrawn by the appellant. 171 172 EI. Standard oOf Review: 173 174 1.The standard of review for an appeal, other than as provided in subsection E2 I2 of this175 section, shall be de novo. The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal176 Authority shall review the matter appealed anew, based upon applicable procedures and177 standards for approval, and shall give no deference to the decision below.178 179 16 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version 2.An appeal from a decision of the hHistoric lLandmark cCommission or pPlanning 180 cCommission shall be based on the record made below. 181 182 a.No new evidence shall be heard by the aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic183 Preservation Appeal Authority unless such evidence was improperly excluded from184 consideration below.185 186 b.The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall187 review the decision based upon applicable standards and shall determine its188 correctness.189 190 c.The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall191 uphold the decision unless it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record or192 it violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect when the decision was made.193 194 FJ. Burden Oof Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving the decision appealed is 195 incorrect. 196 197 GK. Action bBy tThe Appeals Hearing Officer Or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority: 198 The aAppeals hHearing oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall render a 199 written decision on the appeal. Such decision may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or 200 may modify the administrative decision. A decision shall become effective on the date the 201 decision is rendered. 202 203 HL. Notification oOf Decision: Notification of the decision of the aAppeals hHearing 204 oOfficer or Historic Preservation Appeal Authority shall be sent to all parties to the appeal 205 within ten (10) days of the decision. 206 207 IM. Record oOf Proceedings: The proceedings of each appeal hearing shall be recorded. on 208 audio equipment. The audio Rrecordings of each appeal hearing shall be retainedkept by the 209 planning division for a period that is consistent with city retention policies and any applicable 210 retention requirement set forth in state law. minimum of sixty (60) days. Upon the written 211 request of any interested person, such audio recording shall be kept for a reasonable period of 212 time beyond the sixty (60) day period, as determined by the Appeals Hearing Officer or 213 Historic Preservation Appeal Authority. Copies of the tapes of such hearings may be 214 provided, if requested, at the expense of the requesting party. The Appeals Hearing Officer 215 and Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may have the appeal proceedings 216 contemporaneously transcribed by a court reporter. 217 218 JN. Policies aAnd Procedures: The Pplanning Ddirector shall adopt policies and procedures, 219 consistent with the provisions of this section, for processing appeals, the conduct of an appeal 220 hearing, and for any other purpose considered necessary to properly consider an appeal. 221 222 KO. Matters Delayed: For all matters delayed by the Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer and 223 Historic Preservation Appeal Authority, any subsequent written materials shall be submitted 224 a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the rescheduled meeting date. 225 17 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version 226 227 228 21A.16.040: APPEAL OF DECISION: 229 230 Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer or 231 Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may file a petition for review of the decision with the 232 Ddistrict Ccourt within thirty (30) days after the decision is rendered. 233 234 21A.16.050: STAY OF DECISION: 235 236 The filing of a petition in district court does not stay the final decision of the appeals hearing 237 officer. A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for under Utah 238 code section 10-9a-801(9)(b) or its successor. 239 The Appeals Hearing Officer and Historic Preservation Appeal Authority may stay the issuance 240 of any permits or approvals based on its decision for thirty (30) days or until the decision of the 241 District Court in any appeal of the decision. 242 243 SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.18.120. That section 244 21A.18.120 Stay of Decision of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as 245 follows: 246 21A.18.120: STAY OF DECISION: 247 248 A final decision of an appeals hearing officer may be stayed as provided for in section 21A.16.050 249 or its successor. The appeals hearing officer may stay the issuance of any permits or approval 250 based on its decision for thirty (30) days or until the decision of the district court in any appeal of 251 the decision. 252 253 SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020L.3(e). That 254 section 21A.34.020L.3(e) Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is 255 amended to read as follows: 256 Appeal: Any owner adversely affected by a final decision of the Historic Landmark Commission 257 may appeal the decision in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. The 258 filing of an appeal shall stay the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission pending the 259 outcome of the appeal. 260 261 18 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment 262 263 264 Attachment A: Appeals Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision. That section 21A.52.120 Appeal of Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.52.120: APPEAL OF DECISION: 265 A. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning director may appeal the decision to the266 planning commission pursuant to the provisions in chapter 21A.16 of this title.267 B. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission on an application for a268 special exception may file an appeal to the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) days of the269 date of the decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning270 commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for under section271 21A.16.030F. unless the planning commission takes specific action to stay a decision.272 273 SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.54.160 Appeal of 274 Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.54.160 Appeal of Planning Commission 275 Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 276 21A.54.160: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: 277 Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the planning commission on an application for a 278 conditional use may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 279 21A.16 of this title. Notwithstanding section 21A.16.030 of this title, tThe filing of the appeal shall not 280 stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except as provided for 281 under section 21A.16.030F of this title. unless the planning commission takes specific action to stay a 282 decision. 283 SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.55.070 Appeal of 284 the Planning Commission Decision. That section 21A.55.070 Appeal of the Planning Commission 285 Decision, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 286 21A.55.070: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: 287 Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the Planning Commission on an application 288 for a planned development may appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer in accordance with the 289 provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. Notwithstanding section 21A.16.030 of this title, tThe 290 filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the Planning Commission pending the outcome 291 of the appeal, except as provided for under section 21A.16.030F of this title. unless the Planning 292 Commission takes specific action to stay a decision. 293 19 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment 20 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment B: Existing Code Text CHAPTER 21A.16 APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SECTION: 21A.16.010: Authority 21A.16.020: Parties Entitled To Appeal 21A.16.030: Procedure 21A.16.040: Appeal Of Decision 21A.16.050: Stay Of Decision 21A.16.010: AUTHORITY: As described in Section 21A.06.040 of this title, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide appeals alleging an error in any administrative decision made by the zoning administrator or the administrative hearing officer in the administration or enforcement of this title, as well as administrative decisions of the planning commission. The appeals hearing officer may hear and decide appeals alleging an error in administrative decisions made by the historic landmark commission pursuant to Section 21A.16.020 of this chapter. In addition, the appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide applications for variances as per Chapter 21A.18 of this title and shall make determinations regarding the existence, expansion or modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 21A.38, "Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures", of this title. 21A.16.020: PARTIES ENTITLED TO APPEAL: An applicant or any other person or entity adversely affected by a decision administering or interpreting this title may appeal to the appeals hearing officer. 21A.16.030: PROCEDURE: Appeals of administrative decisions by the zoning administrator, historic landmark commission or planning commission shall be taken in accordance with the following procedures: A.Filing of Appeal: All appeals shall specify the decision appealed, the alleged error made in connection with the decision being appealed, and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error, including every theory of relief that can be presented in district court. The deadlines for filing an appeal are as indicated below: 1.Administrative decisions made by the zoning administrator: ten (10) days. 2.Planning commission decisions: ten (10) days. 3.Historic landmark commission: Thirty (30) days for appeals filed by the applicant, ten (10) days for appeals filed by any other party entitled to appeal. B.Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for 21 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment B: Existing Code Text payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10 of this title. C.Stay of Proceedings: An appeal to the appeals hearing officer shall stay all further proceedings concerning the matter about which the appealed order, requirement, decision, determination, or interpretation was made unless the zoning administrator certifies in writing to the appeals hearing officer, after the appeal has been filed, that a stay would, in the zoning administrator's opinion, be against the best interest of the city. D.Notice Required: 1.Public Hearing: Upon receipt of an appeal of an administrative decision by the zoning administrator, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule and hold a public hearing in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth in Chapter 21A.10 of this title. 2.Public Meeting: Appeals from a decision of the historic landmark commission or planning commission are based on evidence in the record. Therefore, testimony at the appeal meeting shall be limited to the appellant and the respondent. a.Upon receipt of an appeal of a decision by the historic landmark commission or planning commission, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule a public meeting to hear arguments by the appellant and respondent. Notification of the date, time and place of the meeting shall be given to the appellant and respondent a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the meeting. b.The city shall give e-mail notification, or other form of notification chosen by the appeals hearing officer, a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the hearing to any organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to Title 2, Chapter 2.60 of this code. 3.Time Limitation: All appeals shall be heard within one hundred eighty (180) days of the filing of the appeal. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered void and withdrawn by the appellant. E.Standard of Review: 1.The standard of review for an appeal, other than as provided in Subsection E.2 of this section, shall be de novo. The appeals hearing officer shall review the matter appealed anew, based upon applicable procedures and standards for approval, and shall give no deference to the decision below. 2.An appeal from a decision of the historic landmark commission or planning commission shall be based on the record made below. a.No new evidence shall be heard by the appeals hearing officer unless such evidence was improperly excluded from consideration below. b.The appeals hearing officer shall review the decision based upon applicable standards and shall determine its correctness. c.The appeals hearing officer shall uphold the decision unless it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record or it violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect when the decision was made. 22 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Attachment B: Existing Code Text F.Burden of Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving the decision appealed is incorrect. G.Action by the Appeals Hearing Officer: The appeals hearing officer shall render a written decision on the appeal. Such decision may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may modify the administrative decision. A decision shall become effective on the date the decision is rendered. H.Notification of Decision: Notification of the decision of the appeals hearing officer shall be sent to all parties to the appeal within ten (10) days of the decision. I.Record of Proceedings: The proceedings of each appeal hearing shall be recorded on audio equipment. The audio recording of each appeal hearing shall be kept for a minimum of sixty (60) days. Upon the written request of any interested person, such audio recording shall be kept for a reasonable period of time beyond the sixty (60) day period, as determined by the appeals hearing officer. Copies of the tapes of such hearings may be provided, if requested, at the expense of the requesting party. The appeals hearing officer may have the appeal proceedings contemporaneously transcribed by a court reporter. J.Policies and Procedures: The planning director shall adopt policies and procedures, consistent with the provisions of this section, for processing appeals, the conduct of an appeal hearing, and for any other purpose considered necessary to properly consider an appeal. K.Matters Delayed: For all matters delayed by the appeals hearing officer, any subsequent written materials shall be submitted a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the rescheduled meeting date. 21A.16.040: APPEAL OF DECISION: Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the appeals hearing officer may file a petition for review of the decision with the district court within thirty (30) days after the decision is rendered. 21A.16.050: STAY OF DECISION: The appeals hearing officer may stay the issuance of any permits or approvals based on its decision for thirty (30) days or until the decision of the district court in any appeal of the decision. 23 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 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: CONSIDERATION FINDING RATIONALE 1.Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; The proposed amendments are generally consistent with the goals and policies the City’s plans. None of the existing adopted Salt Lake City master plans specifically address the proposed amendments. However, the changes clarify the code and remove conflicts to ensure that the ordinance is enforceable. Master Plan provisions involving land use are implemented through the zoning ordinance and so an enforceable zoning ordinance is consistent with the City’s Master Plans. The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the appeals process will clarify processes and reduce legal issues with the code, which supports implementation of the City’s adopted plans and policies. 2.Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; The proposal generally furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance by ensuring their enforcement and administration. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to “promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the City, and carry out the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act (State Code). The proposed amendments reduce conflicts between City and State Code, better allowing enforcement and administration of the City’s zoning ordinance. The proposed changes maintain conformity with the general purpose statements of the zoning ordinance and ensure that the code can be legally administered and enforced to further those ordinance purposes. 3.Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and The proposal is consistent with and does not impact the enforceability of any existing appeal process references in any zoning overlays. The proposed amendments will impact appeals relating to all sections of the zoning ordinance, including any overlays. Various overlays reference the appeals process in the affected code sections. Those references will remain in place and will continue to be enforceable. 4.The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, The proposed changes eliminate legal conflicts, The proposed changes eliminate legal conflicts in the code, allowing for better enforceability and administration of City Code provisions. Legal, enforceable code is a best professional practice in urban 24 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment professional practices of urban planning and design. improve enforceability and administration of City Code, and so implement best professional practices. planning. The regulation changes do not pertain to professional practices of design. 25 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Public Notice, Meetings, Comments The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposal: •Early notification/online Open House notices e-mailed out June 18, 2020 o Notices were e-mailed to all recognized community organizations (community councils) per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage o One community council (Sugar House) requested that staff attend and present the changes to their Land Use and Zoning Committee ▪Staff attended the meeting over video conference, reviewed the proposal, and answered questions. o No formal input was received from any community councils. o No public comments were received. Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included: •Public hearing notice published to newspaper September 30, 2020 •Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv on September 30, 2020 26 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment Planning Staff Note: This text amendment generally does not impact most other City departments and so other departments did not provide any concerns. Appeals can be submitted regarding building permits issued by Building Services; however, Building Services did not have any concerns with the changes. 27 10/8/2020Admin. Decision Appeals Text Amendment PLANNING COMMISSION – Oct. 14, 2020 c. Agenda/Minutes SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation October 14, 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 Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms: • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 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: • http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-10142020 Instructions 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 SEPTEMBER 23, 2020 REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 1. Union Pacific Hotel Time Extension Request - Mark Sanford, project representative, is requesting a one- year time extension for the Union Pacific Hotel Planned Development and Conditional Building and Site Design Review, located at 2 S. 400 West. The applicant has indicated that additional time is needed to finalize financing for the proposed hotel project. The Planned Development and Conditional Building and Site Design Review was approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 2018 for an 8-story, 225-room hotel to be located on the west side of the existing Union Pacific Railroad Station. All new construction in the Gateway- Mixed Use zoning district must be reviewed as a planned development. The subject property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at (385) 226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNSUB2018-00617 & PLNSUB2018-00618 2. Edison House Conditional Use Time Extension Request - Bubba Holdings, LLC, applicant, request a one- year time extension for the Edison House Conditional Use at 335 South 200 West. The Planning Commission approved the conditional use on October 9, 2019. The project is a 3-story structure that would house a membership-based social club. In the D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District, a Conditional Use review is required if a structure is 3 or more stories in height and contains commercial uses but no residential uses. Indoor and Outdoor Bar Establishments are also subject to a Conditional Use review in this zone. Building permit plans have been submitted but the applicant needs additional time to solve technical issues resulting from the permit plan review. The property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Wayne Mills at (801) 535-7282 or wayne.mills@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019- 00671 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Height & Grade Change Special Exceptions at approximately 333 N Federal Heights Circle - Scott and Jennifer Huntsman, the property owners, are requesting special exception approval to construct a new single-family detached structure that exceeds the maximum permitted building and wall height and maximum allowable grade changes in the FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential District. The subject property is located at 333 N Federal Heights Circle and is currently vacant. The proposed structure will exceed the height limit of 28’ by 2’-8" at two points on the rear and middle of the structure. The requested grade changes in the rear yard will exceed the permitted 4 feet in the setback area and 6 feet in the buildable area. The subject property is located in the FR-3/12,000 (Foothills Residential) zoning district and within Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton (Staff contact: Kristina Gilmore at (801) 535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00639 2. 800 South & State Street Design Review at approximately 754 S. State Street - Aabir Malik, an applicant with Colmena Group, is requesting Design Review approval to develop a portion of the former Sears property into an 11-story, 120 foot tall, mixed-use development consisting of ground floor retail and 360 multi-family residential units on the upper floors. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow for additional building height, modification to the spacing of building entrances and to exceed the maximum street facing facade length. The project site is located in the D-2 (Downtown Support) zoning district and is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff contact: Nannette Larsen at (801) 535-7645 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00439 3. Kozo House Apartments Design Review at approximately 157 & 175 North 600 West, & 613, 621, 625, & 633 West 200 North – A request by David Clayton for Design Review approval to develop a 312-unit mixed use building on six parcels located at 157 North 600 West, 175 North 600 West, 613 West 200 North, 621 West 200 North, 625 West 200 North, and 633 West 200 North. These properties are located in the TSA- UC-T Zoning District. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow the proposed building to exceed the maximum street facing façade length and to modify the spacing of building entrances. The project is located within Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 315 - 8115 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00258 4. 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 5. Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment - The City Council is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding appeals of administrative decisions. Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendments would modify City Code to align with state law, related case law, and make other clarifications to that code section. The amendments primarily clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer, who can appeal decisions, and when an appeal can stay a decision. The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.16 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria at (801) 535-7165 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2020-00352 For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-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 Planning Commission. Salt Lake City Planning Commission October 14, 2020 Page 1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING EXCERPT This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation Wednesday, October 14, 2020 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:56:09 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Adrienne Bell; Vice Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Commissioners; Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, Sara Urquhart, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Commissioner Carolynn Hoskins was excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Director; Paul Neilson, Attorney; Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner; Wayne Mills, Planning Manager; Kristina Gilmore, Principal Planner; Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner; Caitlyn Miller, Principal Planner; Chris Earl, Associate Planner; Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary. ------------------------------------------- 8:43:00 PM Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment - The City Council is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding appeals of administrative decisions. Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendments would modify City Code to align with state law, related case law, and make other clarifications to that code section. The amendments primarily clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer, who can appeal decisions, and when an appeal can stay a decision. The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.16 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria at (801) 535-7165 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2020-00352 Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • Clarification on who oversees the hearing officer to determine whether the property analyzing City code issues versus State code issues • Clarification on the difference between applying State law and interpreting it PUBLIC HEARING 8:54:33 PM Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hearing. MOTION 8:55:33 PM Commissioner Scheer stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission Salt Lake City Planning Commission October 14, 2020 Page 2 recommend that the City Council approve the proposed text amendment, PLNPCM2020-00352 Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment. Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Lee, Lyon, Paredes, Scheer, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:57:50 PM PLANNING COMMISSION – Oct. 14, 2020 d. Presentation Slides Salt Lake City Planning Commission October 14, 2020 Administrative Decision Appeals Zoning Text Amendment Planning Commission Admin. Appeals Text Amendment Appeals Chapter 21A.16 •Regulates appeals of administrative decisions Decisions by: •Planning Commission •Historic Landmarks Commission •Other Administrative decisions •Zoning Administrator/Planning Director/Staff •Appeals heard by an appointed Appeals Hearing Officer •Technical changes to Appeals chapter •Comply with recent state code and case law Planning Commission Admin. Appeals Text Amendment •Clarify authority of Appeals Hearing Officer •Authority over City code appeals only, not state code •Align allowed appellant definition with State Code •(2) "Adversely affected party" means a person other than a land use applicant who: (a) owns real property adjoining the property that is the subject of a land use application or land use decision; or (b) will suffer a damage different in kind than, or an injury distinct from, that of the general community as a result of the land use decision. •Stays of decisions with appeals •Appeals will not automatically stay decisions •Appeals Hearing Officer would decide on stay requests from appellants •Appellant must demonstrate potential substantial harm •Other wording, clarification changes 4. ORIGINAL PETITION City Council Announcements May 5, 2020 For Your Information A. Billboard Ordinance Amendments 6:13:46 PM In October 2019, the Salt Lake City Attorney's Office let the Council know about areas of the City's zoning ordinances pertaining to billboards that need updating to be in line with state law. Those changes include: • amending the zoning code to remove the City billboard bank • clarify the scope of administrative land use appeals The City Council may wish to initiate a petition requesting those amendments be made. The Attorney’s Office would work with other City departments to process those changes and then transmit them to the Council for final consideration. ➢ If the Council supports this text amendment, it may officially be initiated during tonight’s (May 5) formal meeting. Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director, said the ordinance needed to be updated to adhere to State law. She said in order for this to go through the proper procedure, it would be best if the request was made by the Council. She said it was scheduled for action tonight during the formal meeting unless objections were raised. Councilmember Dugan asked if this would increase the chance for more billboards. Ms. Gust-Jenson said no. Council Members had no objections. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: July 20, 2021 RE: Rezone: 329-331 South 600 East PLNPCM2021-00268 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing July 20, 2021 Set Date: July 20, 2021 Public Hearing: Aug, 17 2021 Potential Action: Aug, 24 2021 ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed on a proposal to that would rezone the property at 329-331 South 600 East from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District) to R-MU-35 (Residential/Mixed Use District). The proposed rezone to R-MU would allow for a café eatery within the existing building, which is not currently permitted under the existing RMF-35 zoning designation. This property houses the offices of Encircle Family and Youth Services Center a nonprofit working with LGBTQ+ people and their friends and families. A master plan amendment is not needed to facilitate this zoning change. PUBLIC PROCESS The proposed rezone went through the required public process outlined in city code See page 2 of the transmittal letter for details. Notice was sent to the Central City Community Council and the East Central Community Council on April 28, 2021. o Neither requested a presentation on the proposed rezone Online Open House held beginning on May 3, 2021. Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday June 23, 2021. o Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council. Page | 2 Vicinity Map Page 2 of the Transmittal Letter Page | 3 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The primary reason for the rezone request is so the applicant will have the ability to establish a small café within their existing office building, which is not currently allowed under the existing RMF- 35 zoning district but is allowed as a permitted use under the requested R-MU-35 zoning district. All uses permitted in the existing zoning district are allowed in the proposed R-MU-35 zone except for a community recreation center; this is a conditional use in the RMF-35 zone but would not be allowed in the R-MU-35 zone. Attachment C of the Planning Commission Staff report shows a complete list of the permitted and conditional uses for both zoning districts. The Planning Commission Staff report (page 3) noted the following key issue for consideration. Existing City Plan Guidance Central City Master Plan - The Future Land Use Map associated with the Central City Master Plan indicates the subject property is intended to be a medium residential/mixed use land use which is consistent with the proposed zoning map amendment. Plan Salt Lake - encourages the development of small businesses, entrepreneurship, and neighborhood business nodes. The proposed zoning change would allow for the establishment of this small business and support the spirit of Plan Salt Lake. Zoning District Comparison RMF-35 R-MU-35 Minimum Lot Area Non-residential use 5,000 square feet No minimum Max Height 35’ Thirty-five feet (35') Buildings taller than thirty-five feet (35'), up to a maximum of forty-five feet (45'), may be authorized through the design review process. i Front Yard Twenty feet (20')Minimum five feet (5') Maximum fifteen feet (15') Rear Yard Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than twenty feet (20') and need not exceed twenty- five feet (25'). Twenty five percent (25%) of lot depth, but need not exceed thirty feet (30') Page | 4 Interior Side Yard At least ten feet (10'). No setback is required unless an interior side yard abuts a Single- or Two-Family Residential District. (subject property does not abut single/two family residential) Max Building Coverage Sixty percent (60%) of the lot area N/A Landscape Yard The front yard, corner side and, for interior multi-family lots, one of the interior side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. Buffer yard Where a lot abuts a lot in a single- family or two-family residential district, a landscape buffer shall be provided in accordance with chapter 21A.48 Where a lot in the R-MU-35 District abuts a lot in a Single- Family or Two-Family Residential District, landscape buffers shall be provided as required in chapter 21A.48, "Landscaping And Buffers" i Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'), except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections E1, E2, E3 and E4 of this section. Buildings taller than thirty five feet (35'), up to a maximum of forty five feet (45'), may be authorized through the design review process (chapter 21A.59 of this title); and provided that the proposed height is supported by the applicable master plan. 1. Maximum height for nonresidential buildings: Twenty feet (20'). 2. Nonresidential uses are only permitted on the ground floor of any structure. 3. Nonresidential uses in landmark sites are exempt from the maximum height for nonresidential buildings and the maximum floor area coverage limitations. 4. For any property abutting a Single-Family or Two-Family Residential District, the maximum height is limited to thirty-five feet (35') and may not be increased through any process. Salt Lake City City Council Briefing July 20, 2021 Planning Commission Encircle Family and Youth ServicesZoning Map Amendment(PLNPCM2021-00268) •Positive Recommendation RECOMMENDATION – Planning Commission •Located in the RMF-35 Residential Zoning District •Proposed Zoning is R-MU-35 •Applicant seeks to establish a small café in their offices to serve their clients and clients’ families •0.22 acres in size REQUEST DETAILS –Zoning Map Amendment Planning Commission •Consistent with adopted planning documents. •Furthers purpose statements of zoning ordinance. •Effect on adjacent properties. •Consistent with purposes of zoning overlays. •Adequacy of public utilities and infrastructure. APPROVAL STANDARDS –Zoning Map Amendment •Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a Positive Recommendation to the City Council. Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION – •Positive Recommendation PUBLIC PROCESS – •Early notification to property owners •Public Hearing notice •Public Comments Encircle Rezone –PLNPCM2020-00268 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ 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: Encircle Family and Youth Services Center Zoning Map Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Caitlyn Tubbs, Principal Planner: (385)-315-811 Caitlyn.Tubbs@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Approve an ordinance amending the Zoning Map of approximately 0.23 acres at 329-331 South 600 East from RMF-35 to R-MU -35 as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: McKay Ozuna and Wade Budge, representing the property owner, are requesting a Zoning Map Amendment for their client’s property at 329-331 South 600 East. This property houses the offices of En circle Family and Youth Services Center (the “Center”) which is a nonprofit working with LGBTQ+ people and their friends and families. The Center offers services to the LGBTQ+ community and is looking to establish a small café within the existing envelope of the building to serve refreshments to its clients. Restaurant uses are not permitted in the RMF-35 Zoning District (existing) but are allowed in the R-MU -35 Zoning District (proposed). The subject property is located within the Central City Master Plan area. The future land use map designates the subject property as a medium density residential/mixed use area wh ich supports the proposed zoning designation of R-MU -35. A master pla n amendment is not needed to facilitate this zoning change. July 8, 2021 Lisa Shaffer (Jul 8, 2021 15:03 MDT) 07/08/2021 07/08/2021 PUBLIC PROCESS: Community Councils and Early Public Notification: A notice was sent to the Central City Community Council and the East Central Community Council on April 28, 2021 providing information about the Zoning Map Amendment request and where to obtain additional information. Since the subject property is within 600 feet of two Recognized Community Organizations a n online Open House blogpost was also created. This blo gpost can be accessed by clicking here. Neither the Central City Community Council or the East Cen tral Community Council requested this item to be heard at their meetings or reached out to Staff for additional information. Planning Commission: The Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this matter on Wednesday June 23, 2021. One citizen provided an email indicating their support of the request. No further public comments were received at the hearing. The Planning Commission found the request compliant with the goals of the Central City Master Plan and goals of Salt Lake City and unanimously forwarded a positive recommendation of the request to the City Council. Pla nning Commission (PC) Records a)PC Agenda of June 23, 2021 (Click to Access) b)PC Minutes of June 23, 2021 (Attached following memo) c)Planning Commission Staff Report of June 23, 2021 (Click to Access) EXHIBITS: i)Project Chronology ii) Notice of City Council Hearing iii)Notice Letter to Recognized Community Organizations iv)Notice Letter to Neighbors v)Public Comments vi)Original Petition vii)Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2021 (Amending the zoning of property located at 329-331 South 600 East from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 329-331 South 600 East from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00268. WHEREAS, Wade Budge on behalf of the property owner, Encircle Family and Youth Resource Center, submitted an application to rezone the property located at 329-331 South 600 East (the “property”) from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to R- MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00268 (the “petition”); and WHEREAS, in addition to the underlying RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District zoning, the parcels are further zoned with overlay zoning designations of Groundwater Source Protection and Local Historic District Overlays ; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on June 23, 2021 on the petition, had a discussion, and voted to forward a recommendation of approval to the Salt Lake City Council (the “City Council”) to rezone property located at 329-331 South 600 East (Tax ID No.16-06-428-003-0000) (the “Property”) from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00268; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance to amend the Salt Lake City zoning map to change the underlying zoning as set forth herein is in the city’s best interests; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to retain the overlay designations of the Groundwater Source Protection and Local Historic District Overlays, and, nothing contained herein should be construed to remove those existing designations. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the property identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated by reference shall be and hereby are rezoned from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use District. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2021. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2021. Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Hannah Vickery, Senior City Attorney 6/29/2021 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned 329-331 South 600 East Tax ID No. 16-06-428-003-0000 BEGINNING 43.58 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5, BLOCK 39, PLAT “B”, SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 59.51 FEET EAST 10 RD S 59.51 FT W 10 RD TO BEGINNING. 5052-833,834,835,5052-0840 1979-622 7296-2893 CONTAINS 10,018.8 SQUARE FEET OR 0.23 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Page 1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically Wednesday, June 23, 2021 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at approximately 5:30 pm. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete commentary and presentation of the meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Vice Chairperson, Amy Barry; Commissioners; Maurine Bachman, Adrienne Bell, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Commissioners Carolynn Hoskins and Sara Urquhart were excused from the meeting. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; John Anderson, Planning Manager; Hannah Vickery, Attorney; Katia Pace, Principal Planner; Caitlyn Tubbs, Principal Planner; Linda Mitchell, Principal Planner; Aubrey Clark, Administrative Secretary. APPROVAL OF THE June 9, 2021, MEETING MINUTES. MOTION Commissioner Jon Lee moved to approve the June 9, 2021 meeting minutes. Commissioner Adrienne Bell seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bell, Lee, Paredes voted “Aye”. Commissioner Bachman and Lyon abstained. Commissioner Young-Otterstrom had not yet joined the meeting. The motion passed with 4 “aye” and 2 abstaining. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Chairperson Scheer reported that Planner Chris Earl had passed away. Vice Chairperson Barry stated she had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR Nick Norris, Planning Director, reported that Commissioner Matt Lyon is at the end of his two terms and this is his last meeting. Matt Lyon spoke about his experience on the Planning Commission. Nick Norris also reported that the Planning Commission meetings will be moving to a hybrid protocol starting in July. He also discussed the budget passed by City Council and plans for new staff. PUBLIC HEARINGS Commissioner Adrienne Bell recused herself, due to a conflict of interest, from the Bueno Avenue Apartments project. Bueno Avenue Apartments - Planned Development, Conditional Use, Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment at approximately 129 S 700 East - Kevin Perry, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for a new residential development, the Bueno Avenue Apartments, at the stated location. The project proposes to consolidate 10 parcels and replace the existing structures with two Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Page 2 buildings: a single-story amenity building fronting 700 East and a 4-story apartment building on the interior of the site. The apartment building would consist of a “Rooming House” with 65 units ranging from 1 bedroom to 4-bedroom units. The total site is approximately 1.55 acres. The proposed project is subject to the following applications: a. Planned Development - The Planned Development is needed to address modifications to the RMF-45 zoning requirements. Changes comprise of reducing the side (proposed 2.8’, required 8’) and rear yard (proposed 15.4’, required 30’) setbacks, additional 5’ in height, reduction of lot width (66’ proposed, 80’ required) and allowing the accessory building in the front yard. b. Conditional Use - Requesting a “Rooming House” land use designation, which is allowed in the RMF-45 zoning district as a conditional use. c. Zoning Map Amendment – The current zoning of 7 of parcels on the site is SR-3, and zoning on 3 of the parcels is RMF-45. The applicant is requesting to amend the zoning map designation of the seven parcels zoned SR-3 to RMF-45. d. Master Plan Map Amendment - The associated future land use map in the Central Community Master Plan currently designates the property as "Medium Density Residential". The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map for the parcels to be "Medium High Density Residential". The project is located within the RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District zoning district) within Council District 4, represented by Analia Valdemoros (Staff contact: Katia Pace at (385) 226-8499 or katia.pace@slcgov.com). Case numbers PLNPCM2021-00045, PLNPCM2021-00046, PLNPCM2021-00048 & PLNPCM2021-00047 Katia Pace, Principal Planner, reviewed the request outlined in the staff report. She stated that Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to city council for the Zoning and Master Plan amendments She also stated that Staff recommends the Commission approve the request for Planned Development and Conditional Use with conditions. She outlined the conditions: 1. That the Zoning and Master Plan amendments are approved by the City Council. 2. That the 10 parcels be consolidated into one parcel. 3. Provide an access easement for the property at 135 S 700 East. 4. That a housing mitigation plan be submitted to the City's Planning Director and the Director of Community and Neighborhoods and be accompanied by a housing impact statement. 5. That each bedroom on this project be limited to single occupancy and that parking is provided according to the Salt Lake City Parking Ordinance. The Commission had no comments prior to the applicant’s presentation. Kevin Parry, the applicant, stated the Bueno Avenue project is a new style of project to Salt Lake City stating it is a co-living project. He mentioned that this type of housing is attainably priced. He stated the company is looking to implement social impact investing into their operations. He outlined why they are requesting the proposed changes, stating the site currently lacks utility infostructure. The Master Plan allows for 40 units per acre and they are seeking 42 units per acre with the proposal. He remarked on Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Page 3 the standing structures on Bueno Avenue being in major disrepair. He stated that renovating the current homes is cost prohibitive and shared slides showing the disrepair of the homes. Commissioner Scheer opened the meeting to the Commission for questions. Commissioner Barry asked about management. Kevin Parry said there will be a manager on site. Commissioner Scheer asked about a price point. Kevin Parry stated that it will rent at market value at $869 month for a single furnished bedroom. Commissioner Lyon asked why they were seeking the Planned Development. Kevin Parry discussed the fire turn around being the reason. Commissioner Scheer asked about a possible outlet on the east 600 side. Kevin Parry sighted then grading on the site not allowing for that option. Commissioner Scheer opened the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING Cassy McDonough is in opposition to the project. He stated he feels it is the wrong location. Cindy Cromer is in opposition to the project. She remarked on the Fair Housing Act and asked whether limiting the occupancy to one person per room is legal. Jen Colby, East Central Community Council, does not support the project. She asked the Planning Commission to deny the applications. Monica Hilding is on opposition to the project. Rich Wilcox is in opposition to the project. Aaron Woodall in opposition to the project and stated that the rooms are not affordable. Jeff Taylor represents the current owners – said they cannot fix up the existing structures and maintain affordability. Nick Norris relayed an email sent on behalf of Dorian Owen and Jamie Skinner who were not able to join the meeting that are opposed to the project John Anderson read into the record two emails that were sent prior to the meeting. The first one is from Glenna Wallis. She is opposed to the setback reduction. The second email read into the record was from Eran Rosines who is in favor of the rezone but in opposition to the height setback. Commissioner Scheer, seeing that no one else wished to speak, closed the public hearing. The Commission and the Applicant discussed: • The Fair Housing Act • The protection of interior blocks • The setbacks and the fire lanes and how that ties in with attainably priced housing • Whether a similar project has come before the Commission previously MOTION Commissioner Matt Lyon stated, I make a motion to table the Planned Development PLNPCM2021- 00045 pending the City Council approval of the Master Plan zoning amendment and a motion to table Conditional Use PLNPCM2021-00046 until additional clarity on the fair housing act can be supplied. Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Page 4 Commissioner Jon Lee seconded the motion. Commissioner Bachman, Lee, Lyon, Paredes, Young-Otterstrom voted “aye”. Commissioner Barry voted “no”. The motion to table passed 5 to 1. Commissioner Matt Lyon stated, based on the initial staff report and the information presented and the input received in a public hearing with the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the Master Plan Amendment PLNPCM2021-00047 and the Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2021-00048. Commissioner Amy Barry seconded the motion. Commissioner Bachman, Barry, Lee, Lyon voted “aye”. Commissioners Paredes and Young-Otterstrom voted “no”. The motion passed 4 to 2. Commissioner Adrienne Bell rejoined the meeting. Encircle Family Services Rezone at approximately 331 South 600 East - Wade Budge and McKay Ozuna, representing the property owner, are requesting a zoning map amendm ent to allow for the establishment of a small café within the property owner’s building located at the address listed above. The current zoning is RMF-35 and the Applicants have requested the zoning designation of R-MU-35. The subject property is located in Council District 4 represented by Analia Valdemoros. (Staff contact is Caitlyn Tubbs at caitlyn.tubbs@slcgov.com or 385-315-8115). Case number PLNPCM2021-00268. Caitlyn Tubbs, Principal Planner, reviewed the request outlined in the staff report. She stated that Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to City Council. Adrienne Bell asked if height restrictions were looked at. The Applicant, Wade Budge, spoke about the reason for requesting the rezone. Jacob Dunford spoke on the purpose of Encircle. Wade Budge shared concept drawings. Commissioner Scheer opened the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING Seeing that no one wished to speak, Commissioner Scheer closed to the public hearing. MOTION Commissioner Amy Barry stated, Based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission forward a Positive Recommendation to the City Council for the requested Zoning Map Amendment from RMF-35 to R-MU-35 for 0.22 acres at approximately 331 South 600 East for petition PLNPCM2021-00268. Commissioner Maurine Bachman Seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry. Bell, Lee, Lyon, Paredes, Young-Otterstrom all voted “aye”. The motion passed unanimously. Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 23, 2021 Page 5 Cowley ADU at approximately 738 E 1700 S - Cody Cowley, property owner, is requesting Conditional Use approval for a conversion of the existing loft space above the detached 2-car garage into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at approximately 738 E 1700 S. No changes to the exterior are proposed. The subject property is located in the R-1/7000 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district and is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Linda Mitchell at 385-386-2763 or linda.mitchell@slcgov.com). Case number PLNPCM2021-00259 Linda Mitchell, Principal Planner, reviewed the request outlined in the staff report. She stated that Planning Staff is recommending approval for this ADU as proposed. Commissioner Scheer asked if the applicant wished to speak. The applicant did not wish to speak but said he was willing to answer any questions if there were any. Commissioner Scheer opened the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING Judy Short, Sugar House Community Council member, is in favor of the application. Commissioner Scheer closed the public hearing. MOTION Commissioner Adrienne Bell stated, Based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information presented, and input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use request (PLNPCM2021-00259) as proposed. Commissioner Matt Lyon seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Lee, Lyon, Paredes, and Young-Otterstrom voted “aye”. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Legislative Update - Staff from the Department of Community and Neighborhoods will provide an update from the 2021 Legislative session, including changes to state law that impact the function and duties of the Planning Commission Angela Price gave a presentation providing the Commission with updates regarding the 2021 Legislative session. There were 17 bills reviewed. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:29 pm. 1. Project Chronology Project Chronology Encircle Family and Youth Services Zoning Map Amendment – PLNPCM2021-00268 March 23, 2021 Wade Budge and McKay Ozuna of Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P. filed the zoning map amendment application on behalf of the property owner, Encircle Family and Youth Services Center. The subject property is located at 329-331 South 600 East and encompasses approximately 0.23 acres (10,019 square feet). April 23, 2021 Application assigned to Caitlyn Tubbs, Principal Planner. April 28, 2021 Sent notifications to Central City Community Council and East Central Community Council and surrounding neighbors. May 3, 2021 Open House Blogpost published; public input period opens. June 9, 2021 Sign posted on subject property. June 10, 2021 Public hearing notice sent out and posted to city website. June 14, 2021 Public input period closed. June 23, 2021 Planning Commission held public hearing and forwarded a positive recommendation of the requested zoning map amendment to the City Council. June 24, 2021 Ordinance review requested from City Attorney’s Office. 2. Notice of City Council Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM20 21-00268 – Zoning Map Amendment at 329/331 South 600 East – Wade Budge and McKay Ozuna, on behalf of the property owner, are requesting a zoning map amendment to allow for the establishment of a small café within the property owner’s building located at the address listed above. The current zoning is RMF-35 and the Applicants have requested the zoning designation of R -MU-35. The change is consistent with the Central City Master Plan . The Master Plan is not being changed. The property is located within Council District 4, represented by Analia Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Caitlyn Tubbs at (385) 315-8115 or caitlyn.tubbs@slcgov.com ) As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No.2 of 2020(2)(b). Please visit https://www.slc.gov/council/news/featured-news/virtually -attend -city- council-meetings/ to learn how you can share your comments live during electronic City Council meetings. If you would like to provide feedback or comment, via email or phone, please contact us at: 801-535 -7654 (24- Hour comment line) or by email at: council.comments@slcgov.com . If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Caitlyn Tubbs at 385-315-8115 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e -mail at caitlyn.tubbs@slcgov.com 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.(P 19-19) 3. Notice Letter to Recognized Community Organizations Recognized Organization Input Notification 331 South 600 East – Encircle Family and Youth Resource Services Rezone TO: Bekka Carlson, Chair, Central City Community Council Esther Hunter, Chair, East Central Community Council FROM: Caitlyn Tubbs, Principal Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division (caitlyn.tubbs@slcgov.com or 385-315-8115) DATE: April 28, 2021 RE: PLNPCM2021-00268 – Zoning Map Amendment (Rezone) The Planning Division has received the below request and is notifying your organization to solicit comments on the proposal: Request Type: Rezone Location: Approximately 331 South 600 East Current Zone: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential Zoning District) Request Description: A request by McKay Ozuna, representing the owner of the property (Encircle Family and Youth Resource Services), to rezone a parcel from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use). There is an existing building on the property where the property owner provides their services. The property owner intents to establish a café eatery within the existing building that is not currently permitted under the existing RMF-35 zoning designation. Rezone requests require a recommendation from the Planning Co mmission and final approval from the City Council. I have attached information submitted by the applicant relating to the project to facilitate your review. Request for Input from Your Recognized Organization As part of this process, the applicant is required to solicit comments from Recognized Organizations. The project is within the boundaries of the Central City Community Council, and borders the East Central Community Council area. The purpose of the Recognized Organization review is to inform the community of the project and solicit comments/concerns they have with the project. The Recognized Organization may also take a vote to determine whether there is support for the project, but this is not required. Per City Code 2.60.050 - The recognized community organization chair(s) have forty five (45) days to provide comments, from the date the notice was sent. A public hearing will not be held, nor will a final decision be made about the project within the forty five (45) day notice period. This notice period ends on the following day: June 14, 2021 Comment Guidance Public comments will be received up to the date of the Planning Commission public hearing. However, you should submit your organization’s comments within 45 days of receiving this notice in order for those comments to be included in the staff report. As a Recognized Organization, we ask that you address the following questions in your comments: • What issues were raised at the meeting and whether any suggestions were made to address the issues. • The number of persons that attended the meeting (not including those with the applicant or City Staff). • Whether a vote was taken on the matter and if so, what the vote tally was. Comment Submission Address You may submit your written comments via e-mail to caitlyn.tubbs@slcgov.com or mail them to: ATTN Caitlyn Tubbs Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S State St Rm 406 PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City UT 84114-5480 Open House The Planning Division will also be holding an online Open House to solicit comments on this project because the project is located within 600 FT of two community council districts. If you have any questions, please call me at (385)-315-8115 or contact me via e -mail. 21A. 50.050: Standards for Zoning Map Amendments A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and 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. 4. Notice Letter to Neighbors Notification of a Project in Your Neighborhood Salt Lake City has received a request for a zoning map amendment from McKay Ozuna , representing Encircle Family and Youth Resource Center (property owner), to rezone one parcel from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-family Residential District ) to R-MU (Residential/Mixed Use District). There is an existing commercial building already on the property where the property owner provides their services. The proposed rezone to R-MU would allow for the establishment of a café eatery within the existing building which is not currently permitted under the existing RMF-35 zoning designation. This type of request requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission and a final decision by the City Council. A public hearing with the Planning Commission has not been scheduled. You will be notified of the public hearing at a later date in advance of the meeting. The purpose of this notice is to make you aware of the proposed change and let you know how you may obtain more information about and comment on the project early in the review process. If you would like additional information, please contact the project planner , Caitlyn Tubbs at (385)-315-8115 or caitlyn.tubbs@slcgov.com. Please refer to petition number PLNPCM2021-00268 or the “Encircle Rezone.” You may also find information that includes submitted plans online at https://aca.slcgov.com/citizen/ by clicking under “Planning” and typing in the petition number s referenced above. The Planning Division will also be holding an online Open House to solicit comments on this project. Notice of this application has also been sent to the Central City and East Central Community Council Chairs. The Community Councils may choose to schedule the matter at an upcoming meeting. Please contact the Central City Community Council Chair Bekka Carlson at bekkacarlson@gmail.com or the chair of the East Central Community Council Esther Hunter at eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com for more information on whether the community council s will review the matter and details at their meeting. 5. Public Comments From:Kyle Deans To:Tubbs, Caitlyn Subject:(EXTERNAL) 331 S 600 E Date:Friday, June 11, 2021 2:10:12 PM Caitlyn, I fully support the zone change to allow for a cafe within the property. Any addition to retail with the East Downtown Neighborhood is a positive addition to the city and it's overall walkability. Kyle Deans SLC Resident 6. Original Petition Updated 11/20/2020 Zoning Amendment F Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance F Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): Name of Applicant: Phone: Address of Applicant: E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property: F Owner F Contractor F Architect F Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): E-mail of Property Owner:Phone: Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE Map Amendment: filing fee of $1,058 plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre Text Amendment: filing fee of $1,058, plus fees for newspaper notice. Plus, additional fee for mailed public notices. Noticing fees will be assessed after the application is submitted. SIGNATURE Î If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: SALT LAKE CITY PLANNINGSnell & Wilmer, L.L.P. (Wade Budge; McKay Ozuna)801-257-1906; 801-257-1807 wbudge@swlaw.com; mozuna@swlaw.com William@encircletogether.org 801-513-8334 ✔ 331 South 600 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 15 W. South Temple, Suite 1200, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 ✔ Encircle Family and Youth Resource Center (Attn: William Bates, Esq.) 03/23/2021 Updated 11/20/2020 Staff Review SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the Amendments ordinance.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED ______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. MO ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 4832-6016-3038 ENCIRCLE FAMILY AND RESOURCE CENTER’S APPLICATION FOR A ZONING AMENDMENT Statement of Purpose and Description This firm (the “Applicant”) represents Encircle Family and Resource Center (“Encircle”) in its interest to amend the zoning map for Encircle’s property located at 331 South 600 East, Salt Lake City (“City”), Utah 84102 (the “Property”). The Property is more particularly identified in Salt Lake County’s official records as Parcel ID No. 16-06-428-003. The Property is currently zoned as RMF-35, Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District (“RMF-35”), and is also located, in pertinent part, in the Central City Local Historic and Central City National Historic overlay districts (collectively, the “Historic Overlays”). Encircle is a non-profit organization whose mission is to bring family and community together to enable LGBTQ+ youth to thrive. It accomplishes this important mission by providing LGBTQ+ youth educational and social programs, a safe environment to socialize, and therapy. Originally founded in 2016, Encircle continues to expand its operations throughout Utah, including the Property, and plans to eventually expand into surrounding states for the betterment of the LGBTQ+ community. Similarly, the operations and services Encircle has to offer have likewise expanded. As part of this expansion effort, Encircle would now like to offer its patrons food and beverages from a small café on the Property. This additional use of the Property would ease socialization amongst those who use the Property and further Encircle’s mission. However, under the RMF-35 zoning district a restaurant or retail use is not a permitted or conditional use. The Applicant, on behalf of Encircle, thereby submits this Application for a Zoning Amendment to amend the zoning map for the City from RMF-35 to R-MU-35, Residential/Mixed Use District (“R-MU-35”). The City’s development file shows that the Property has historically been used for office uses from at least the 1970s. Moreover, the Property is adjacent to the TSA- UN-C, Transit Station Area, Urban Neighborhood-Core (“TSA-UN-C”), which permits high- intensive uses such as a grocery chain, numerous restaurant chains, and other commercial and retail operations. A buffer between the high-intensive uses of the TSA-UN-C zoning district and RMF-35 is appropriate and this zoning map amendment will provide that transition and buffer area. Further, this rezone and map amendment will assist the City in accomplishing its stated goal of blending uses more harmoniously.1 The R-MU-35 is an appropriate zoning designation for the Property. As described above, the Property is surrounded by more intensive uses on neighboring properties and the R-MU-35 acts as a transition between potentially incompatible uses.2 Again, this is likewise consistent with the present and historical use of the Property. Moreover, this zoning district change is explicitly supported by City’s master plans. Under the Central Community Master Plan, the Future Land Use Map provided therein designates the Property as either “Medium Residential/Mixed Use” or “High Density Transit Oriented Development”3 – both of which are consistent with the R-MU-35 zoning 1 See Note 8 below. 2 Aside from other neighboring properties zoned as RMF-35, other neighboring properties are zoned to include R-MU west of the Property and the TSA-UN-C is adjacent to the south of the Property. 3 See Central Community Master Plan (adopted Nov. 1, 2005), at Page 2, 4832-6016-3038 district. Moreover, the change to the R-MU-35 accomplishes the master plan’s fundamental goals of creating (i) livable communities and neighborhoods; (ii) vital and sustainable commerce; (iii) unique and active places; and (iv) increased pedestrian mobility and accessibility.4 Finally, the R- MU-35’s permitted and conditional uses better encourage services for residents within walking distance of their homes, focuses commercial activity to such residents without competing with the Central Business District, and provides more diverse and pedestrian oriented activities with a mixture of retail, entertainment, and restaurants.5 Similarly, under the East Downtown Neighborhood Plan, the Property is designated as within the proposed “MU-RH, Mixed Use Residential Host” and “Sub Area 2: Brownstone- Apartment Mixed Use,” which permits such uses as “General Commercial” and “Service Commercial.”6 A change to the R-MU-35 zoning district will help accomplish the City’s vision of the East Downtown Neighborhood as “Utah’s premier, vibrant, diverse, mixed use urban neighborhood.”7 Additionally, the change in zoning district blends with the existing character of the area.8 Finally, the proposed change of zoning district from RMF-35 to R-MU-35 does not disrupt the goals of either aforementioned master plan as to the Historic Overlays. Under both master plans, preservation of the historical nature of the existing buildings is an important consideration. Encircle is committed to such preservation efforts, as shown by its 2019 renovations to the historic structure on the Property, which maintained and revitalized the historic integrity of the structure. The proposed rezone to the R-MU-35 zoning district would not impair these historic values or diminish the historic nature of the structure. In light of the foregoing, the Applicant respectfully requests that this Application for a change to the existing zoning map of the City be favorably recommended and approved by the City. The requested zoning change for the Property to the R-MU-35 is supported by the present and existing uses of the Property, the surrounding intensive uses in the area, and the guiding principles of the master plans. Moreover, a change to the R-MU-35 zoning district will help promote Encircle’s mission and enable it to better serve the LGBTQ+ youth of the City and State of Utah. http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/cent.pdf. 4 See id. at Page 3. 5 See id. at Page 5. 6 See East Downtown Neighborhood Plan (adopted 1990), at Pages 8 and 11 (respectively), http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/ED.pdf. 7 Id. at Page 1. 8 See id. at Page 8. 7. Mailing List Name Street City State ZIP VINCENT COURT LLC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107 WILLIAMSEN SOUTH JORDAN INC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107 MAKOA HOLDINGS, LLC 580 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 UTAH FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 564 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 MERCER SLC, LLC 333 WASHINGTON BLVD MARINA DEL REY CA 90292 BAMBOO LLC 1008 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BAMBOO LLC 1008 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 DAVID KIMBERLY; MEGAN KIMBERLY (JT)618 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 MARY L PICIOCCHI; PAUL J SVENDSEN (JT)908 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BASES LOADED INVESTING LLC 636 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 RAVINDER SINGH AHLUWALIA 640 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 BIRTOK LLC 561 KEYSTONE AVE RENO NV 89503 SACHA S MASEK 644 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 VINCENT COURT LLC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 3-303 MURRAY UT 84107 ELEVATE HIGHLAND LLC; ELEVATE BOULDER LLC 104 E MAIN ST BOZEMAN MT 59715 EFFROSENE K SERGAKIS; GEORGE M SERGAKIS (JT)9499 S CANDLE TREE LN SANDY UT 84092 ESSEX TPV LLC 1816 11TH AVE SEATTLE WA 98122 KINGSPORT, LLC 2280 S MAIN ST SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 SIXTH EAST, LLC 321 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 2840 E WILLOW HILLS DR SANDY UT 84093 ENCIRCLE FAMILY AND YOUTH RESOURCE CENTER 893 S 1100 E OREM UT 84097 VINCENT COURT LLC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107 400 SOUTH ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS LC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107 400 SOUTH ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS LC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107 VINCENT COURT LLC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107 VINCENT COURT LLC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107 400 SOUTH FOOD CORP 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107 PAYSON PLACE LLC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107 VINCENT COURT, LLC 154 E MYRTLE AVE # 303 MURRAY UT 84107 OCCUPANT 650 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 655 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 580 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 564 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 556 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 602 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 612 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 618 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 630 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 636 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 640 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 624 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 644 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 315 S VINCENT CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 343 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 318 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 350 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 575 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 321 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 323 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 329-331 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 316 S VINCENT CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 609 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 613 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 332 S VINCENT CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 332 S VINCENT CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 621 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 325-329 S VINCENT CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 OCCUPANT 331 S VINCENT CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 PLANNING DIVISION C/O CAITLYN TUBBS PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 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:July 20, 2021 RE: ROSEWOOD PARK STREET VACATION AND ALLEY VACATION (PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037) ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed about a proposal from City Real Estate Services to vacate five alleys and six streets within Rosewood Park at approximately 1400 North 1200 West in City Council District One. Rosewood Park was constructed in 1977 on part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887. The subdivision was platted for residential lots with alleys and streets servicing the parcels. The subject streets and alleys were never constructed and do not physically exist. Rosewood Park includes numerous parcels, streets, and alleys as shown in the image below. The Administration is requesting vacating these alleys and streets to consolidate them and the parcels within the park into one parcel. This will simplify the permitting process for future park improvements. City Planning staff noted the platted streets and alleys are not connected to any established road network system, do not provide access to adjacent private property, or serve a connectivity function. Planning further noted the City’s Transportation Master Plan does not include proposals for the subject streets or alleys and vacating them will not negatively affect future area development. If approved by the Council, Planning advises the Administration to amend Section 15.04.350 Salt Lake City Code to include an updated description of Rosewood Park. Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forwarded positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed street and alley vacations, and the planning commission forwarded a positive recommendation after their public process. Item Schedule: Briefing: July 20, 2021 Set Date: July 20, 2021 Public Hearing: August 17, 2021 Potential Action: August 24, 2021 Page | 2 Aerial image of Rosewood Park showing proposed street vacations in red and alley vacations in blue Image courtesy Salt Lake City Planning Division Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed street and alley vacations, address questions Council Members may have and prepare for a public hearing. POLICY QUESTION 1.Is the Council supportive of vacating the subject streets and alleys in Rosewood Park? 2.Is the Council interested in an update of proposed improvements at Rosewood Park, and the extent to which these vacations/closures facilitate those improvements? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Attachments E and F of the Administration’s transmittal (pages 31-35) are an analysis of factors related to the City’s street and alley closure policies. Planning staff found the proposed street and alley vacations comply with all factors. For the complete analysis, please refer to the transmittal. During City department review of the proposal no responding department found issues with the proposal. The proposed ordinance includes a requirement for parcels within Rosewood Park to be consolidated into one lot. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified two key considerations during analysis of the project which are summarized below. For the complete analysis, please refer to pages 19-20 of the Administration’s transmittal. 1. City Goals and Policies None of the adopted City master plans providing guidance for Rosewood Park specifically address street and alley vacations. However, the Northwest Master Plan, Rose Park Small Area Plan, Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan, and Plan Salt Lake emphasize the importance of recreational facilities and the ability to maintain and improve facilities as the city grows. Planning found the proposed street and alley vacations will allow for a more efficient and flexible manner for the City to improve Rosewood Park. Page | 3 2. Lack of Connectivity Streets and alleys dedicated in the subdivision were planned to service parcels within it. However, Rosewood Park was built on many of these parcels so they will not be developed. Rosewood Park has its own connections to the road network system that do not coincide with platted streets and alleys within the park. It is Planning staff’s opinion the subject streets and alleys are not needed. PUBLIC PROCESS December 2, 2019 – Notice of the project and request for comments sent to Chairs of the Rose Park and Capitol Hill Community Councils. Neither Chair responded to the request. December 12, 2019 – Proposal presented at the Planning Division Open House. January 10, 2020 – Planning Commission hearing notice mailed to owners and tenants of property within 300 feet of the streets and alleys. January 22, 2020 – Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public hearing. No one spoke at the hearing. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. August 26, 2020 – Street closure (closed to travel, but property remains a street) petition amended to street vacation (closed to travel and property no longer listed as a street). The Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public hearing. No one spoke at the hearing. The Commission unanimously voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. ALLEY CLOSURE PROCESS The process for closing or vacating a City-owned alley is outlined in Section 14.52 Salt Lake City Code. 14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS: The city supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part, with regard to city owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth herein. 14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR ABANDONMENT OF CITY OWNED ALLEYS: The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack Of Use: The city's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an onsite inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right of way; B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity, unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area; C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element; or D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS: There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of city owned alleys under this section. Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. A. Administrative Determination Of Completeness: The city administration will determine whether or not the petition is complete according to the following requirements: Page | 4 1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property; 2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition; 3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in the block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located; 4. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate community organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.60 of this code; and 5. The appropriate city processing fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule has been paid. B. Public Hearing and Recommendation From The Planning Commission: Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the planning commission to consider the proposed disposition of the city owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report and recommendation to the city council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: 1. The city police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant city departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property; 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; 3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property adjacent to the alley; 4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked; 5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the city, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit; 7. The petition furthers the city preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and 8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from the planning commission, the city council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of the subject alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the city council will make a decision on the proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 58-13, 2013: Ord. 24-11, 2011) 14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION: If the city council grants the petition, the city owned alley property will be disposed of as follows: Page | 5 A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low density residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low density residential use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin home residential uses. B. High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the alley will be closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the city of the fair market value of that alley property, based upon the value added to the abutting properties. C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density residential properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold for fair market value. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW: Any party aggrieved by the decision of the city council as to the disposition of city owned alley property may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the city council's decision becomes final, in the 3rd district court. STREET CLOSURE PROCESS Street closure process is dictated by Section 10-9a-609.5 Utah State Code which is included below for reference. 10-9a-609.5. Petition to vacate a public street. (1)In lieu of vacating some or all of a public street through a plat or amended plat in accordance with Sections 10-9a-603 through 10-9a-609, a legislative body may approve a petition to vacate a public street in accordance with this section. (2)A petition to vacate some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement shall include: (a)the name and address of each owner of record of land that is: (i)adjacent to the public street or municipal utility easement between the two nearest public street intersections; or (ii)accessed exclusively by or within 300 feet of the public street or municipal utility easement; (b)proof of written notice to operators of utilities and culinary water or sanitary sewer facilities located within the bounds of the public street or municipal utility easement sought to be vacated; and (c)the signature of each owner under Subsection (2)(a) who consents to the vacation. (3)If a petition is submitted containing a request to vacate some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement, the legislative body shall hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 10-9a-208 and determine whether: (a)good cause exists for the vacation; and (b)the public interest or any person will be materially injured by the proposed vacation. (4)The legislative body may adopt an ordinance granting a petition to vacate some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement if the legislative body finds that: (a)good cause exists for the vacation; and (b)neither the public interest nor any person will be materially injured by the vacation. (5)If the legislative body adopts an ordinance vacating some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement, the legislative body shall ensure that one or both of the following is recorded in the office of the recorder of the county in which the land is located: (a)a plat reflecting the vacation; or (b)(i)an ordinance described in Subsection (4); and (ii)a legal description of the public street to be vacated. (6)The action of the legislative body vacating some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement that has been dedicated to public use: Page | 6 (a)operates to the extent to which it is vacated, upon the effective date of the recorded plat or ordinance, as a revocation of the acceptance of and the relinquishment of the municipality's fee in the vacated public street or municipal utility easement; and (b)may not be construed to impair: (i)any right-of-way or easement of any parcel or lot owner; (ii)the rights of any public utility; or (iii)the rights of a culinary water authority or sanitary sewer authority. (7)(a)A municipality may submit a petition, in accordance with Subsection (2), and initiate and complete a process to vacate some or all of a public street. (b)If a municipality submits a petition and initiates a process under Subsection (7)(a): (i)the legislative body shall hold a public hearing; (ii)the petition and process may not apply to or affect a public utility easement, except to the extent: (A)the easement is not a protected utility easement as defined in Section 54-3-27; (B)the easement is included within the public street; and (C)the notice to vacate the public street also contains a notice to vacate the easement; and (iii)a recorded ordinance to vacate a public street has the same legal effect as vacating a public street through a recorded plat or amended plat. (8)A legislative body may not approve a petition to vacate a public street under this section unless the vacation identifies and preserves any easements owned by a culinary water authority and sanitary sewer authority for existing facilities located within the public street. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ 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: PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037 – Rosewood Park Street Vacation and Alley Vacation STAFF CONTACT: Chris Earl, Associate Planner, christopher.earl@slcgov.com, (801)535- 7932 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the proposed street vacation and alley vacation. Upon completion of lot consolidation, Section 15.04.350: OTHER PARKS will need to be amended to reflect the changes to the description of Rosewood Park. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a request by Olga Crump of the Real Estate Services Department of Salt Lake City for street vacations and alley vacations within Rosewo od Park in order to consolidate the property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects. The original Street Closure petition was amended to a Street Vacation petition. Rosewood Park is located at approximately 1400 N and 1200 W in the Rose Park area of Salt Lake City. The park is located between 1200 W and I-15 and encompasses approximately 28 acres. Rosewood Park was constructed in 1977 over a portion of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887, that was originally platted for residential lots with alleys and March 22, 2021 streets servicing those parcels. These alleys and streets were never constructed and do not physically exist, but they still exist legally on paper. The area where Rosewood Park is located is broken up into numerous parcels due to the existence of these platted streets and alleys. The alley vacation and street closure applications are requesting to remove these alleys and streets from the plat in order to consolidate the parcels and form one parcel to simplify the building permit process for future improvement projects. The platted streets and alleys within Rosewood Park are disconnected from any established road network system, do not provide access to adjacent private property and would not serve a broader connectivity function. The City’s Transportation Master Plan does not show proposals for these roads or alleys and the deletion of these will have no adverse effects to any future development in the area. Rosewood Park, as well as the adjacent land to the north, are zoned OS Open Space, which would further limit other types of development of the area. Staff finds that the subject streets and alleys provide no significant pedestrian or vehicular connection and hinder the goals of adopted area master plans which emphasize the importance of recreational facilities and the ability to maintain and improve the facilities to match City growth. Once the streets and alleys within Rosewood Park are vacated and the parcels contained within are consolidated into a singular parcel, the Salt Lake City Ordinance Section 15.04.350: OTHER PARKS will no longer reflect an accurate description of Rosewood Park. Because of this, it is advised that Real Estate Services or the Parks Department seek an amendment to this section of the ordinance in order to update and reflect the correct description of Rosewood Park. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Staff held an Open House at the Salt Lake City Main Library on December 12, 2019. Staff discussed the project with attendees who generally supported the project. One comment was received that was in support of the project. • A public hearing with the Planning Commission was held on January 22, 2020. No one from the public commented on the proposal. The Planning Commission discussed the request and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. • Due to the amendment of the Street Closure application to Street Vacation, a second public hearing with the Planning Commission was held on August 26, 2020. No one from the public commented on the proposal. The Planning Commission discussed the request and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Hearing 3) Planning Commission Record (January 22, 2020) a) Hearing Notice b) Staff Report c) Agenda and Minutes 4) Planning Commission Record (August 26, 2020) a) Hearing Notice b) Memo to Planning Commission c) Agenda and Minutes 5) Public Comments 6) Original Petition 7) Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ________ of 2021 (Vacating five unimproved, city-owned alleys and six unimproved, city-owned streets, situated within Rosewood Park located at approximately 1400 North 1200 West Street) An ordinance vacating five unimproved, city-owned alleys and six unimproved, city- owned streets situated within Rosewood Park located at approximately 1400 North 1200 West Street, pursuant to Petition Nos. PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 26, 2020 to consider a request made by Olga Crump with the Salt Lake City Capital Asset and Real Estate Services Division (“Applicant”) (Petition Nos. PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037) to vacate five unimproved, city-owned alleys and six unimproved, city- owned streets; and WHEREAS, at its August 26, 2020 hearing, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation on said petitions to the Salt Lake City Council; and WHEREAS, the city council finds after holding a public hearing on this matter, that there is good cause to vacate the alleys and streets described below, and that vacating the city-owned alleys and streets described below will not materially injure the public interest or any person; and NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Vacating City-Owned Alleys. That five unimproved, city-owned alleys situated within Rosewood Park located at approximately 1400 North 1200 West Street, which are the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2019-01037, and which are more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, hereby are, vacated and declared not presently necessary or available for public use as alleys. SECTION 2. Vacating City-Owned Streets. That six unimproved, city-owned streets situated within Rosewood Park located at approximately 1400 North 1200 West Street, which are the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2019-01036, and which are more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, hereby are, vacated and declared not presently necessary or available for public use as streets. SECTION 3. Requirement. In connection with the adoption of this ordinance, the unimproved streets and alleys described herein and all lots adjacent to them constituting the land area of Rosewood Park shall be consolidated into one lot. The lot consolidation may occur concurrently with the recording of this ordinance or shortly thereafter. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2021. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2021 Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney February 4, 2021 EXHIBIT “A” COMBINED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT ALLEYS AND STREETS Beginning at the Southeast Corner of Block 15, Kinney & Gourlay's Improved City Plat, as recorded in Book 'A', Page '89', of Subdivisions in the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office and running thence along the north line of 1400 North Street West 957.25 feet more or less to the west line of Mill Street; thence along said west line North 600.00 feet to the south line of 1500 North Street; thence along said south line East 1188.25 feet more or less to the west line of I-15 right-of-way and the Northeast Corner of Parcel # 08-23-379-002; thence along said west line the following 3 courses: 1) S21°11'30"E 25.00 feet to a 23,003.30 foot radius curve to the left; 2) along said curve 584.62 feet (chord bears S21°34'48"E 584.60 feet); 3) S22°35'00"E 117.04 feet to the Northeast Corner of Parcel # 08-26-203-002; thence West 60.00 feet to the Northwest Corner of Block 18, said Kinney & Gourlay's Improved City Plat; thence South 175.00 feet to the Southwest Corner of Parcel # 08-26-203-001 and the Southwest Corner of Lot 10, Block 18, said Kinney & Gourlay's Improved City Plat; thence West 440.00 feet to the Southeast Corner of Parcel # 08-26-126-012 and the Southeast Corner of Lot 3, Block 20, said Kinney & Gourlay's Improved City Plat; thence North 250.00 feet to the point of beginning. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 22, 2020 A. HEARING NOTICE B. STAFF REPORT C. AGENDA AND MINUTES 4. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD - AUGUST 26, 2020 A. HEARING NOTICE B. MEMO TO PLANNING COMMISSION C. AGENDA AND MINUTES 5. ORIGINAL PETITION 6. MAILING LABELS 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037 November 1, 2019 Petitions received by the Planning Division. November 12, 2019 Petitions assigned to Chris Earl, Associate Planner, for staff analysis and processing. December 2, 2019 Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chairs of the Rose Park and Capitol Hill Community Councils. Neither Chair provided response to the request for comment. December 12, 2019 Proposal presented at the Planning Division Open House. January 10, 2020 Planning Commission hearing notice mailed to owners and tenants of property within 300 feet of the streets and alleys. January 22, 2020 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public hearing. The commission then voted to send a positive recommendation to the City Council. August 26, 2020 Street Closure petition amended to Street Vacation. Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public hearing. The commission then voted to send a positive recommendation to the City Council. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019- 01037 Rosewood Park Street Closure and Alley Vacation - A request by Olga Crump of the Real Estate Services Department of Salt Lake City for alley vacations and street closures within Rosewood Park in order to consolidate the property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects. These streets and alleys were platted as part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887, but were never constructed. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at 801-535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) a. Street Closure A street closure is required in order to remove the existing platted streets within Rosewood Park to prepare for lot consolidation. Case number PLNPCM2019-01036 b. Alley Vacation An alley vacation is required in order to remove the existing platted alleys within Rosewood Park to prepare for lot consolidation. Case number PLNPCM2019-01037 The property is located in OS Open Space and is located in Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at 801-535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Room 315 City & County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Chris Earl at 801-535-7932 between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at christopher.earl@slcgov.com The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535- 7600, or relay service 711. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION A. Hearing Notice August 26, 2020 3. PLANNING COMMISSION B. Staff Report August 26, 2020 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Chris Earl, Associate Planner (801) 535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com Date: January 16, 2020 Re: PLNPCM2019-01036 – Rosewood Park Street Closure PLNSUB2019-01037 – Rosewood Park Alley Vacation Street Closure and Alley Vacation PROPERTY ADDRESS: Approximately 1400 N 1200 W MASTER PLAN: Northwest Master Plan; Rose Park Small Area Plan ZONING DISTRICT: OS Open Space OVERLAY DISTRICT: AFPP Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District Zone H REQUEST: A request by Olga Crump of the Real Estate Services Department of Salt Lake City for alley vacations and street closures within Rosewood Park in order to consolidate the property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects. These streets and alleys were platted as part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887, but were never constructed. The Planning Commission’s role in this application is to provide a recommendation to the City Council for the street closure request. The City Council will make the final decision regarding the requests. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the request to close the streets and vacate the alleys within Rosewood Park with the following conditions: • The closed streets and vacated alleys, as well as remaining parcels, will be consolidated into one parcel. ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Property Photographs C. Kinney and Gourlay’s Subdivision Plat D. Application Materials E. Analysis of Standards – Street Closure F. Analysis of Standards – Alley Vacation G. Public Process and Comments H. Department Review Comments PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rosewood Park, developed in 1977, is located at approximately 1400 N and 1200 W in the Rose Park area of Salt Lake City. The park is located between 1200 W and I-15 and encompasses approximately 28 acres which is mostly grass (primarily used as soccer fields) but has amenities such as baseball and softball fields, a playground, tennis courts, a dog park and a skate park. The proposed street closure and alley vacation involves six unimproved streets and 5 unimproved alleys within Rosewood Park dedicated in the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision. The subdivision was platted in 1887 but never developed as intended. No modifications will be made to Rosewood Park as part of these applications. Rosewood Park was constructed in a part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s subdivision that was originally platted for residential lots with alleys and streets servicing those parcels. Although these alleys and streets do not physically exist, they still exist legally on paper. The area where Rosewood Park is located is broken up into numerous tiny parcels due to the existence of these streets and alleys. The alley vacation and street closure applications are requesting to remove these alleys and streets from the plat in order to consolidate the parcels and form one parcel to make it easier to obtain building permits for future improvement projects. When construction occurs on any property within Salt Lake City, a building permit is required. Building permits are issued based on the parcel in which the construction will occur. If construction will occur on multiple parcels, a building permit would be required for each parcel and zoning regulations would apply to each individually. It was a common practice for the City to construct parks or other public facilities over multiple parcels and right-of-ways when the City owned all of the land within the development. Because a separate permit must be pulled for each parcel, this would often create problems when trying to meet zoning requirements such as setbacks or lot coverage for each of the separate parcels within the development. Building within public right-of-ways can also present challenges since permissions could be required from Salt Lake City Engineering or Real Estate Services Department in order to build within these right-of-ways. With the large number of parcels that exist within Rosewood Park, an improvement project could require multiple permits. Tracking multiple building permits through the permitting * Existing parcels within Rosewood Park process as well as the inspections process is a daunting task. One that would be streamlined if only one permit were required. If Rosewood Park were to be consolidated into one singular parcel, it would greatly increase the ease and efficiency of obtaining and tracking building permits as well as meeting the standards for zoning requirements. KEY CONSIDERATIONS: Consideration 1: City Goals and Policies Although none of the City master plans that provide guidance for these properties specifically address street closures, the Northwest, Rose Park Small Area, Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plans and Plan Salt Lake help to determine if the request is in line with city goals and is in the city’s best interest. The Northwest Master Plan, adopted in 1992, recognizes the importance of recreation to the residents of Salt Lake City. It was indicated that with increased population, there is a need for new recreational facilities as well as improvements to existing facilities. The current Northwest Master Plan intends to continue the efforts to meet recreational needs outlined in the 1977 Salt Lake City Parks and Recreation Plan and the 1980 Northwest Master Plan. The citywide master plan, Plan Salt Lake, adopted in 2015, contains sections that align with the Northwest Master Plan vision. One of the guiding principles of that plan is to protect and enhance existing parks, recreational facilities and trails allowing for modifications to enhance usability and promote activity. The City’s Major Street Plan, approved in 2018, which is part of the City’s Transportation Master Plan, shows that the platted streets and alleys within Rosewood Park do not exist nor are they proposed for the future. This suggests that these alleys and streets are not crucial to current or future transportation goals. These adopted plans emphasize the importance of recreational facilities and the ability to maintain and improve the facilities to match City growth. This proposal will make the permitting process easier for future improvements and will allow for a more efficient and flexible manner in which the City can improve Rosewood Park. Consideration 2: Lack of Connectivity The streets and alleys dedicated in the Kinney and Gourlay’s Subdivision were planned to service the parcels that were platted within the subdivision. However, Rosewood Park has been built in place of a number of these parcels. Because of the existence of the park, the parcels will no longer be developed as intended and the need for the streets and alleys no longer exist. The parcels that neighbor the park to the south are now part of a number of amendments of the Rose Park Plat. Development in the area did not follow the street pattern the plat created, leaving the dedicated streets and alleys disconnected from a road network system. Rosewood Park currently has its own connections to the road network system that do not coincide with any platted street or alley within the park, and thus, the platted streets and alleys are not needed. The parcels to the north of Rosewood Park are currently undeveloped. When development does occur on these properties, it will be limited due to the parcels being zoned OS Open Space, but they will have access to the road network system via 1200 W. The alleys and streets within Rosewood Park are disconnected from any type of future development to the east due to the I-15 freeway that abuts along the eastern edge of these properties, further decreasing their need. DISCUSSION: The Kinney and Gourlay’s Subdivision was recorded in 1887 before the existence of the current adopted master plans that effect future growth of the area. Since the recording of the plat, there has been a stronger emphasis for recreational facilities for the growing number of residents. Rosewood Park was built over these streets, alleys and parcels which was common in the past making their existence unnecessary and a hindrance to the future improvements of the park. With Rosewood Park in place along with the current Open Space zoning, there is an unlikeliness that the park will be redeveloped and puts in question the likelihood of these streets and alleys ever being developed as intended. The public benefit of maintaining these dedicated streets and alleys in its current situation is close to none because they only exist on paper and therefore, do not serve a transportation or public purpose. That is especially relevant when considering that with the current development, these “paper streets” have become obstacles to future improvement to Rosewood Park. Eliminating these dedicated streets and alleys could help in fulfilling the goals of applicable master plans. NEXT STEPS: After the Planning Commission reviews the request, their recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The City Council will make the final decision with respect to these requests. ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP 1200 W Dupont Ave N N Rosewood Park Rosewood Park Rose Park Golf Course ATTACHMENT B: PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS Photos of the grassy areas of Rosewood Park including baseball/softball fields and soccer fields Skate Park Playground Tennis Courts Dog Park Houses on Dupont Ave and their rear yards that abut Rosewood Park 1200 W looking north adjacent to Rosewood Park Rosewood Park access to 1200 W ATTACHMENT C: KINNEY AND GOURLAY’S SUBDIVISION PLAT ATTACHMENT D: APPLICATION MATERIALS ATTACHMENT E: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS – STREET CLOSURE In 1999, the City Council adopted a street closure policy that includes the following provisions: Factor Analysis Finding 1. It is the policy of the City Council to close public streets and sell the underlying property. The Council does not close streets when the action would deny all access to other property. The platted streets which were never constructed do not provide access to adjacent private property and do not serve a broader connectivity function. Due to the design of the park and the surrounding development, the streets as depicted in the Kinney and Gourlay’s Subdivision Plat would not provide connection to any established development or right-of-way. Complies 2. The general policy when closing a street is to obtain fair market value for the land, whether the abutting property is residential, commercial or industrial. This application was initiated in order to consolidate Rosewood Park into one parcel for ease of permitting for future improvement projects to the park. No property will be sold and will remain under City ownership. Complies 3. There should be sufficient public policy reasons that justify the sale and/or closure of a public street and it should be sufficiently demonstrated by the applicant that the sale and/or closure of the street will accomplish the stated public policy reasons. Adopted master plans take into consideration the need for recreation facilities and the ability to provide improvements to existing facilities. As discussed in the Key Considerations of this staff report, the streets in the Kinney and Gourlay’s Subdivision exist as a platted streets, but not as a physical streets. The platted streets, alleys and parcels make the permitting process difficult due to the need to pull permits for each individual parcel when improvement is required. The permitting process can be simplified by consolidating the parcel into one parcel. The parcel cannot be consolidated until the streets have been closed. A simplified permitting process will allow for a more streamlined and cost- effective approach to improvement projects; which will help achieve the goals set forth by the adopted master plans. Complies 4. The City Council should determine whether the stated public policy reasons outweigh alternatives to the The alternative to this request is to maintain the property as it currently exists. However, this makes improvement projects more difficult Complies closure of the street. and there is no public benefit since these dedicated streets do not physically exist and do not serve a transportation or public purpose. Eliminating these streets would allow for easier improvement to occur once the property is consolidated and help achieve city goals. ATTACHMENT F: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS – ALLEY VACATION Salt Lake City Code, Section 14.52.020: Policy Considerations for Closure, VACATION or Abandonment of City Owned Alleys The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack of Use: The city’s legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an on-site inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way. B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity or unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area. C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element. D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. Discussion: The applicant cites policy considerations A – Lack of Use, C – Urban Design and D – Community Purpose in their narrative. The applicant states that the streets and alleys exist on the Kinney and Gourlay’s Subdivision Plat but were never constructed and do not physically exist. In addition, the argument is made that the existence of the streets and alleys, along with the many parcels that exist along with the streets and alleys, create complications for project permitting that are costly and time consuming to navigate. The streets and alleys are not needed for the design of the park and hinder improvements efforts. Finding: The proposed alley vacation complies with policy consideration A – Lack of Use and C – Urban Design, as discussed in this staff report. 14.52.030B: Processing Petitions – Public Hearing and Recommendation from the Planning Commission Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed disposition of the City owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a report and recommendation to the City Council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: Factor Rationale Finding 1. The City Police Department, Fire Department, Transportation Division, and all other relevant City Departments and Divisions have no objection to the proposed disposition of the property; No objections were received from City Department review. Complies 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; Consideration A: Lack of Use The platted streets and alleys within Rosewood Park are disconnected from any established road network system, do not provide access to adjacent private property and would not serve a broader connectivity function. The City’s Transportation Master Plan does not show proposals for these roads or alleys and the deletion of these will have no adverse effects to any future development in the area. Consideration C: Urban Design Keeping the platted streets and alleys would be a hindrance to urban design. Because of the development that has occurred around Rosewood Park, the undeveloped streets and alleys have been left disconnected, and would make it difficult to develop the parcels as they currently exist. These constraints most likely would not create a cohesive design with the current surrounding development. Consideration D: Community Purpose The petitions align with adopted master plans regarding improvement to public recreation facilities by helping improvement efforts within Rosewood Park by simplifying the permitting process through the removal of streets and alleys which will allow for lot consolidation. With Rosewood Park being one singular parcel, permits will be simpler to obtain making for more cost effective and time efficient improvements to the park. Complies 3. The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property; The petition will not have an impact with accessing any surrounding property or development of the subject area. Complies 4. The petition will not result in any property being landlocked; Landlocked parcels will be created by the removal of the streets and alleys within Rosewood Park. Because of this, a lot consolidation will be required. Once the consolidation is complete, the one remaining parcel will have street frontage along 1200 W. Complies 5. The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; No pedestrian paths, trails or walkways or any other alternative transportation use will be affected by the disposition of the alley property. Complies 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit; No opposing property owners have been identified. No permits have been proposed or issued for garages that require access from the subject property. Complies 7. The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and The entirety of all streets and alleys will be disposed and no partial segments shall remain. Ordinance 54 of 1955 vacated the west line of Mill Street to the west line of Marion Street from the north line of 1100 N to the north line of 1300 N, leaving segments of alleys and streets remaining. These petitions would complete the closure and vacation process and remove all remaining Complies streets and alleys, 8. The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. There are no residences within the subject area. Complies ATTACHMENT F: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to this project: Public Notices: − Notice of the project and request for comments were sent to the Chairs of the Rose Park and Capitol Hill Community Councils on December 2, 2019 in order to solicit comments. No comments were received. − Open House notice was mailed on November 21, 2019. − Open House was held at the Salt Lake City Main Library on December 12, 2019. Staff discussed the project with multiple attendants and received one written comment. The comment received was generally in favor of the project. Public Hearing Notice: − Public hearing notice mailed on January 10, 2020. − Public hearing notice posted on City and State websites on January 1o, 2020. − Sign posted on the property on January 12, 2020. Public Comments: − At the time of the publication of this staff report, one public comment was received and is attached to this report. Any comments received after the publication of this staff report will be forwarded to the Commission. ATTACHMENT G: DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS Transportation, Building, Zoning, Fire and Police found no issues with the request. Public Utilities, Engineering and Sustainability provided no comments. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION C. Agenda/Minutes August 26, 2020 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA AMENDED This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b) August 26, 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 Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms: • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 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: • http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-08262020 Instructions 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 AUGUST 12, 2020 Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of the Director PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Rosewood Park Alley & Street Vacation - Olga Crump of the Real Estate Services Department of Salt Lake City is requesting alley and street vacations within Rosewood Park in order to consolidate the property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects. These streets and alleys were platted as part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887, but were never constructed. These requests were brought before the Planning Commission on January 22, 2020 seeking a recommendation for a street closure and alley vacation. The request for a street closure has been amended and is now a request for a street vacation. The property is zoned OS (Open Space) and is located within Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2019-01036 & PLNPCM2019- 01037 2. West End Alley Vacation at approximately 740 West 900 South - Maximilian Coreth, property owner, is requesting to vacate a small triangular portion of the alley abutting the west side of the property at the above said address. This is not a request to vacate the entire alley. The applicant is requesting to vacate this portion of the alley in order to acquire the property to square off the southwestern corner of his property for future development. 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 3. Izzy South Design Review at approximately 534 East 2100 South - Ryan McMullen, Applicant, is requesting Design Review approval for a proposed 71-unit mixed use building located at approximately 534 East 2100 South by the name of “Izzy South.” The Applicant is requesting a modification of the maximum height requirement to accommodate architectural features on the front-facing façade of the proposed building. The property is zoned CB (Community Business) and is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff Contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 202-4689 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00222 4. Gateway Storage Planned Development at approximately 134 South 700 West - Austin Lundskog, Applicant, is requesting Planned Development and Design Review approval of a proposed self-storage facility 103,500 sq. ft. in size at approximately 134 South 700 West. The property is zoned GMU (Gateway Mixed Use) and is located within Council District 4, represented by Analia Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 202-4689 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00182 and PLNPCM2020-00399 5. Stanford Commons Planned Development & Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 2052 E Michigan Avenue – Jessica Sluder from Alta Development Group, LLC, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for a new residential development at the above listed address. The proposal includes demolishing the discontinued pool area on the site and subdividing the property into four (4) lots for a proposed construction of three (3) single-family attached dwellings. The proposed project is subject to the following petitions: a. Planned Development – Planned Development is requested to modify the required front yard setback, grade changes greater than four feet (4’) within a required yard and required lot area from 3,000 square feet to approximate lot area ranging between 2,000 and 2,500 square feet for the new lots. Case number PLNPCM2020-00230 b. Preliminary Subdivision – Preliminary Plat approval is needed to create four (4) new lots. Case number PLNSUB2020-00231 The property is zoned RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 6, represented by Dan Dugan (Staff contact: Linda Mitchell at (385) 386-2763 or linda.mitchell@slcgov.com) 6. Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 1301 & 1321 South State Street - Glen Anderson, representing the property owner, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the properties at 1301 and 1321 S. State Street currently zoned CC (Corridor Commercial) to the FB-UN2 (Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2) zoning district. This zoning amendment will also add this corner to other sites/corners in the FB-UN2 that allow buildings up to 65 feet in height. The applicant feels that the intent of the FB-UN2 zoning district better aligns with the potential use of the corner lot and the potential for a new mixed-use building (to replace the existing buildings on the parcels). The FB- UN2 also has design standards that were created to reduce the impacts of increase height and density. The properties are located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at (801) 535- 6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00328 7. ADU & Special Exception at approximately 1362 South 1300 East - Dwight Yee, property owner representative, is requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in the rear yard of the property located at 1362 S 1300 E. The ADU will measure 640 square feet with a height of approximately 16 1/2 feet. The applicant is also requesting Special Exception approval for grade changes and retaining walls exceeding 4 feet in height. The requested grading and retaining walls are located within the rear and side yards. The property is zoned R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at (801) 535-7660 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00358 & PLNPCM2020-00454 For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-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 Planning Commission. Salt Lake City Planning Commission August 26, 2020 Page 1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b) Wednesday, August 26, 2020 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30:17 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Vice Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Commissioners; Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, Sara Urquhart, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Chairperson Adrienne Bell was excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Director; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Chris Earl, Associate Planner; Katia Pace, Principal Planner; Amanda Roman, Principal Planner; and Rosa Jimenez, Administrative Secretary. Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Directory provided participation information for the public. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 12, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 5:32:32 PM MOTION 5:32:41 PM Commissioner Bachman moved to approve the August 12, 2020 meeting minutes. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman, Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lee, and Lyon voted “Aye”. Commissioner Urquhart abstained from voting as she was not present for the said meeting. The motion passed 7-1. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:34:09 PM Chairperson Bell was not present for the said meeting. Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:34:17 PM Nick Norris, Planning Director, provided the commission with updates on projects that the commission has previously seen that are now up before the City Council. 5:40:09 PM Vice Chairperson Brenda Scheer read the emergency proclamation. 5:41:16 PM Rosewood Park Alley & Street Vacation - Olga Crump of the Real Estate Services Department of Salt Lake City is requesting alley and street vacations within Rosewood Park in order to consolidate the property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects. These streets and alleys were platted as part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887, but were never constructed. These requests were brought before the Planning Commission on January 22, 2020 seeking a recommendation for a street closure and alley vacation. The request for a street closure has been amended and is now a request for a street vacation. The property is zoned OS (Open Space) and is located within Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535- 7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2019-01036 & PLNPCM2019-01037 Salt Lake City Planning Commission August 26, 2020 Page 2 Christopher Earl, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council with the conditions listed in the staff report. PUBLIC HEARING 5:46:07 PM Vice-Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Vice-Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing. MOTION 5:46:51 PM Commissioner Bachman stated, based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, the policy considerations for street vacation and alley vacation, and the input received I move that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the street vacation and alley vacation proposed in PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037 with the condition listed in the staff report. Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman, Urquhart, Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lee and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:19:41 PM 4. ORIGINAL PETITION Petition PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037 5. MAILING LABELS GATEPARK CORPORATION 51 E 400 S # 210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 GUADALUPE HOLDING COMPANY 1385 N 1200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CANAL STREET, LLC 51 E 400 S # 210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TESORO LOGISTICS OPERATIONS LLC PO BOX 592809 SAN ANTONIO TX 78259 DAVIS STREET, LLC 51 E 400 S # 210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JOSE M NEGRETE; MARGARITA C GUERRERO (JT)1246 W SUNSET DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ANTHONY J BONNER; TAYLEE A FOULGER (JT)1236 W SUNSET DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1230 W SUNSET DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 EBRIMA BAH; SUKAINATOU JALLOW (JT)1222 W SUNSET DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ROBERT S BLACKHAM; SUZANNAH C BLACKHAM (JT)1216 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 VIRGILIO G MERCADO; ROSELIA MERCADO (JT)1206 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MICHAEL J BASSETT; CHRISTINE M BASSETT (JT)1323 N VALENTINE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 TIFFANY K BARNES 648 E REDONDO AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 CLARISSA AVILA; JESUS AVILA (JT)1316 N VALENTINE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SARAH CHALUPA; NATHAN J OMANA (JT)1333 N BUCCANEER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 NATHAN R KENNARD 1319 N BUCCANEER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 GILBERT A ULIBARRI; EVELYN E ULIBARRI (JT)1198 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JOSEPH R BOOROM; NINA L BOOROM (JT)13073 S CHARING WY RIVERTON UT 84065 RUDY PEREZ 271 E MILLPOINT PL SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 KEVIN S BAKER; JENNIFER L BAKER (JT)1166 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ELAINE TUCK FAMILY LIVING TRUST 09/25/2018 1154 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MICHAEL BAILEY; KRISTINA BAILEY (JT)1142 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 BRIAN D ANDERSON 1130 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1120 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 FRED TOMINAGA & BETSY M TOMINAGA REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 06/17/201 8066 TOP OF THE WORLD DR COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1127 N COLORADO ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 RAQUEL GAMEZ; JOSE A GAMEZ (TC)1082 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 STEVEN L MELLEN; BROOKE W MELLEN (JT)1072 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 BEAU DELAMARE; AMY DELAMARE (JT)1064 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 RIN FM TRST 1056 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MICHAEL H DIXON; SHEILA F DIXON (JT)1048 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1038 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 RICK L JACKSON; SUZANNE B JACKSON (JT)1028 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CELESTE T ROSENLOF; BRANDEN D ROSENLOF (JT)1018 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 DIXIE L F SORENSEN; RICHARD B SORENSEN (JT)1008 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 HAL T PECK 996 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 KIMBERLY YOUNG; ANDREW YOUNG (JT)1334 N BUCCANEER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SHANNON S BREA 1320 N BUCCANEER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 LAURENT D COURTEILLE; SARAH A COURTEILLE (JT)1333 N CAPISTRANO DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JERRAD L HINKLE 1321 N CAPISTRANO DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 1334 CAPISTRANO LLC PO BOX 17843 HOLLADAY UT 84117 CLAY CHURCH; JESSICA CHURCH (JT)715 SUNDANCE HILLS RD DURANGO CO 81303 RESTORE UTAH, LLC 1600 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 RAMON VILLA VAZQUEZ; DE VILLA, IRMA RIOS VAZQUEZ (JT)1319 N NOCTURNE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 WAYNE B LUECK 1334 N NOCTURNE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 KYLE M NIXON; AGNES ROBL (JT)1320 N NOCTURNE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 G B NUGTER; MARIE F EATON-NUGTER (JT)1323 N AMERICAN BEAUTY DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MARY LOUISE BARBER REVOCABLE TRUST 01/08/1996 1313 N AMERICAN BEAUTY DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 DAVID CRITTENDEN 1055 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CHAD T ANDERSON 568 E CARMEL DR MIDVALE UT 84047 ROSALINO SANTOS; DIONICIA FELIX (JT)1041 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1033 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MARIA D GARDUNIO 1025 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 GORDON H WELLINGTON; JONNIE MAE WELLINGTON (JT)1009 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MAKA A MANU; ANA M MANU (JT)1005 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 COLBY TAKAHASHI; JAZMIN TAKAHASHI (JT)995 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 820 N MAIN ST CENTERVILLE UT 84014 TAMMY GRAINGER 988 W DUPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 WILLIAM BACUS; DALENE BACUS (JT)1332 N VICTORIA WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 LYNNE E WOLF; MYRLE B ANDERSON (JT)1324 N VICTORIA WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1316 N VICTORIA WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JOSE T HERNANDEZ; MARCELINA HERNANDEZ (JT)1306 N VICTORIA WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 1510 N 1200 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1468 N 1200 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1490 N 1200 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1209 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1316 N VALENTINE ST Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1333 N BUCCANEER DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1198 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1188 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1178 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1112 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1100 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1092 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1334 N CAPISTRANO DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1322 N CAPISTRANO DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1333 N NOCTURNE DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1319 N NOCTURNE DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1334 N NOCTURNE DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1320 N NOCTURNE DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1323 N AMERICAN BEAUTY DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1313 N AMERICAN BEAUTY DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1055 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1049 W DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1321 N VICTORIA WAY Salt Lake City UT 84116 Chris Earl - Salt Lake City Planning Division PO Box 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Kira Luke, Russell Weeks, Ben Luedtke Budget & Policy Analysts DATE: July 20, 2021 RE: FUNDING OUR FUTURE Transit Update: Interlocal Agreement with Utah Transit Authority Addenda 4 and 5 ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Funding Our Future: in 2018, following significant public engagement, the City approved a 0.5% sales tax rate increase to address unfunded critical needs for projects and services, including improved transit service. To this end, the Council set four priorities to improve transit: Increasing coverage for under-served areas, particularly the West side but not excluding other underserved areas of the City; Increasing ridership, particularly in the City’s downtown core; Building out infrastructure on Transit Master Plan routes; The budget and timeline are based on 1000 North, 600 North, 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South. 400 South will be the last route implemented. The Council prioritized 200 South, 900 South, and 2100 South for the first phase of transit improvements, with later improvements planned for 600 North and 1000 North. i NEW INFORMATION The resolution included for the Council’s consideration would approve a fourth addendum (4) the Interlocal Agreement (ILA) governing the City and Utah Transit Authority (UTA)’s collaboration, continuing service on East-West connecting Routes 2 (200 South), 9 (900 South) and 21 (2100 South). The resolution also approves a fifth addendum (5), which initiates mobilization on Route 1 (1000 North) by January 2022. The addenda can be found on page 43 of the administrative transmittal. Addendum 4 Addendum 4 authorizes funding and continued City sponsorship for enhanced (more frequent service and extended hours on nights and weekends) services on routes 2, 9, and 21. Once service reaches a specific threshold in terms of riders served, UTA assumes sponsorship and funding of that service, and City-funded sponsorship is no longer required. This was realized on Route 2 in Addendum 3, which resulted in a -$156,175.35 savings to the City. Information provided in Addendum 4 notes that Route 21 has also met UTA’s weekday threshold, but since that route was not prioritized in UTA’s 5-year plan, UTA is not sponsoring service at this time. The 5-year plan was adopted February of 2021, and receives biennial updates. More information about the threshold evaluation standards can be found on page 77 of the Administrative transmittal. Addendum 5 Mobilization is distinct from operating costs in that funding covers additional vehicles and hiring needed to accommodate the new services. Service funding will be requested at a later date; mobilization will allow UTA to gather the resources needed to launch the new service. Page | 2 With the mobilization of 1000 North, the City is drawing closer to the routes originally prioritized during the 2018 Funding Our Future discussions. Those priorities were strongly influenced by the Transit Master Plan Tier I route priorities, as well as Council direction from constituent feedback. In the spirit of equity, Funding Our Future routes have historically focused on improving east-west connectivity, so routes identified in the TMP focusing on North-South have not been contemplated. The envisioned path of 1000 North appears to fall within the spirit of the TMP recommendation of service on South Temple. More information on the Transit Master Plan can be found on page 5. BUDGET IMPACT Items Funding Bu dget Estimates 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South/2100 East FTN Operating costs $3,761,154.74 Fuel Costs $221,200.49 Vehicle Costs $493,061.40 Addendum 4 Totals $4,500,000 $4,475,416.63 Items Funding Bu dget Estimates 500 North mobilization $1,100,000 $949,322 Addendum 5 Totals $1,100,000 $949,322 Addendum 4 & 5 Totals $5,600,000 $5,424,739 Amount Remaining in the budget allocation $175,261 Fiscal Year 22 Addenda 4 & 5 Addendum 4 Addendum 5 POLICY QUESTIONS 1.Excess allocation: The Council may wish to discuss the Administration’s recommendation or other potential uses for the available $175,261.37 2.Route 9: earlier drafts of Route 9 indicated connection to North Temple, although service to date has yet to go farther North than 400 South, due to first/last mile considerations and plans for new transit hubs. The Council may wish to ask for an update on planned hubs and whether North Temple connectivity is still anticipated in future addenda. 3.Alternate transit modes: How will UTA’s study of downtown light-rail extensions and the City’s study of livable streets affect discussions of future addenda? 4.Fare pass analysis: $30,000 from the FY18-19 Funding Our Future allocation was authorized for an outside study of fare pass efficacy and recommendations to increase transit use and accessibility throughout the City. The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an update on this analysis. 5.Additional routes: During the Fiscal Year 2020-21 discussions, the Council received an update that UTA plans to sponsor (cover costs for) 600 North. However, staff understands that there are significant delays or increased costs to implement those routes as planned in addition to lingering pandemic-related uncertainty. The current Phase I Map does not yet include a projected route for 600 North. The Council may wish to request a formal update detailing implementation plans for 600 North. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Interlocal Agreement Background Routes The ILA categorizes the City’s service improvements as Frequent Transit Network (FTN) routes and refers to the City’s Transit Master Plan (TMP) for the controlling definition. The minimum service for routes serving 200 South, 900 South, and 2100 South is as outlined below. UTA may choose to provide Page | 3 additional service with no cost to the City; any City-requested service expansions are subject to additional negotiation and funding. The map on page 50 of the Administrative transmittal currently reflects a modified Route 9 from the original plans, ending at 400 South instead of continuing to North Temple. This was due to multiple factors involving pending plans for a Westside Transit Hub, the location of which is anticipated to affect multiple westside bus routes, and changes at the eastern end of the line, where 2019 realignment to all routes on the University of Utah campus resulted in changes to several routes, including Route 9. Source: Administrative Transmittal, Page 51 Responsibilities in the Interlocal Agreement City UTA Provide funding to support route operation; appropriate funding and notify UTA of available funding annually Manage and operate routes, equipment, personnel, insurance and accounting May construct new bus stops, in compliance with UTA’s standards; enhanced* maintenance to be negotiated prior to construction and funded by the City Produce/install branded bus stop signs Send designee (City Transportation Director) to technical working group Send designee (UTA Planning Director) to technical working group Regularly exchange information to assess performance and report to the parties** Share fuel costs via a semiannual “true-up” *The Addendum template provides a section to define baseline (non-enhanced) services. **Performance metrics could be added to the Funding Our Future website The interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City and the Utah Transit Authority has two parts – a 20-year master agreement, and specific addenda, which are negotiated each year. The master agreement is scheduled to end June 30, 2039. The master agreement is intended to form the framework of how transit improvements in the City’s Transit Master Plan will be implemented. Addendum 2, Amendment 1 (2.1) The second addendum governed the first year of services from August 2019 to August 23, 2020, the latter half of which has been impacted by COVID-19 since adoption. An Amendment to the second addendum addressed impacts on services from COVID-19. During the peak of the “Stay Safe, Stay Home” phase, UTA sharply reduced services, including those governed by the ILA. The amendment takes this reduction into account, along with decreased costs for fuel, and a slight increase in actual miles funded and amends the addendum to reflect a net reduction of $511,472. The amendment proposes to credit this amount to the City for the next service period governed by Addendum 3 (August 2020-August 2021). Addendum 3 (3) The third addendum authorized funding for frequent transit network (FTN) service from August 2020 to August 2021, including operator wages, benefits, service administration, vehicles and maintenance, fuel, paratransit, and customer service for Routes 2, 9, and 21. As of August 23, 2020, UTA restored services system wide to 91% of pre-pandemic levels, which includes frequent service on Routes 2, 9, and 21. Transit Master Plan (TMP) Implementation The agreement contemplates following the Frequent Transit Network as identified in the Transit Master Plan. Page | 4 Source: Transit Master Plan The plan laid out a number of recommendations for short term implementation, many of which are reflected in the priorities for Funding Our Future distributions. Tier 1 Recommendations can be found on page 53 of the Transit Master Plan. The Transit Master Plan used a formula based on transit industry standards to develop the Frequent Transit Network recommendations. According to the plan, the formula can be used in the future to help determine when the plan’s recommendations can be revised to reflect population or job growth within the City. Here is the formula: o Operate light rail in areas where there are 12 to 24 or more households per acre and/or 16 to 32 or more jobs per acre. o Operate Bus Rapid Transit in areas where there are 10 to 15 households per acre and/or 12 to 20 jobs per acre. o Operate buses every 15 minutes in areas where there are 10 to 12 households per acre and/or 12 to 16 jobs per acre. o Operate buses every 30 minutes in areas where there are 6 to 10 households per acre and/or 8 to 12 jobs per acre. o Operate buses every hour in areas where there are 3 to 6 households per acre and/or less than 4 jobs per acre.ii According to the Administration, the thresholds are best practices based on current industry research and should be used as guidelines rather than standards. Transit planning would take a variety of local conditions into consideration about appropriate densities, as would UTA in establishing service levels. The guidelines also can be helpful to communicate the relationship between density and successful transit. Glossary Frequent Transit Network – FTN Fiscal Year - FY Interlocal Agreement – ILA Transit Master Plan - TMP Utah Transit Authority – UTA Attachments UTA’s 5-year service plan Page | 5 Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan i Videotape, Council work session, Russell Weeks, October 9, 2018, 1:09. ii Transit Master Plan, Page 6-4, 6-5. (Attachment 1) ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ 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: Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with Utah Transit Authority (UTA), Addendum No. 4 and Addendum No. 5 – Continuation of FTN (Frequent Transit Network) Routes on 200 S, 900 S, and 2100 S and mobilization for a 2022 route on 1000 N STAFF CONTACT: Julianne Sabula, Transit Program Manager, julianne.sabula@slcgov.com or 801-535-6678 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution (Exhibit 1) authorizing the Mayor to enter into the proposed addenda Nos. 4 and 5 to the ILA with UTA (Exhibit 2). Addendum No. 4 (Exhibit 3) would continue FTN service on Routes 2, 9 and 21, and Addendum No. 5 (Exhibit 4), which would initiate mobilization for Route 1. BUDGET IMPACT: The budget impacts are twofold. The budget impact of Addendum No. 4 is $4,475,416.63 for the FTN service to be provided during FY 21-22 along Routes 2, 9 and 21, which is currently funded to run until August Change Day 2021. This covers the cost of labor, fuel, paratransit service, vehicles, and maintenance. The budget impact of Addendum No. 5 is $949,322 and covers the cost of recruitment, hiring and training of operators and mechanics, as well as vehicle procurement, for the future Route 1 that will begin operation in 2022 and which will operate on 1000 North from Redwood Road to 300 West and then along South Temple Street to the University of Utah. These are included in the Mayor’s recommended budget, and cost details appear in Exhibit 5. June 9, 2021 Lisa Shaffer June 17, 2021 June 17, 2021 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The ILA is a twenty-year agreement that has the goal of full implementation of the Frequent Transit Network as described in Salt Lake City’s Transit Master Plan. Council adopted the Plan in 2017 with the intent that six corridors would be included in the implementation of phase one. These corridors are 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South, 1000 North, 600 North and 400 South. Council has since approved Addendum No. 1, along with a corresponding $2,047,473 budget appropriation, to mobilize for service on the Routes 2 (200 South), 9 (900 South) and 21 (2100 South/2100 East), which began operations in August 2019. Addendum No. 2 and the corresponding $4,308,021 budget, sponsored additional frequency and hours of operations on these routes. UTA does periodic “true-ups” to determine whether actual costs came in at, above or below projections. This yielded an amendment to Addendum No. 2, which was approved in January 2021 and resulted in a credit to Salt Lake City in the amount of $467,540. This amount was applied to the initial invoices for sponsored service in 2020. Addendum No. 3, along with a corresponding $4,565,380.45 budget appropriation, also approved in January, extended service on the 2, 9 and 21 from August 2020 to August 2021. If approved, Addendum No. 4, along with a corresponding $4,475,416.63 budget appropriation will continue that service until August 2022, and Addendum No. 5, along with a corresponding $949,322 budget appropriation, will prepare for the launch of Route 1 next year. During Funding Our Future discussions, Council expressed the intent to allocate $8-12 million annually to a comprehensive transit program with frequent service as its foundation. While that level of funding has yet to be realized, it is anticipated that as ridership on sponsored routes grows, resources can be reinvested in additional FTN routes. This occurred last year during the first “true-up”, when Route 2 met UTA productivity thresholds during some of the service miles that were previously City-sponsored. Addendum No. 4 reflects this cost decrease to the City, and Addendum No. 5 anticipates the City’s ability to shift resources toward the launch of Route 1 (1000 North/South Temple St) in 2022, particularly since UTA anticipates launching service on 600 North in 2022, independent of City sponsorship and supported by Trips to Transit service. Exhibit 6 summarizes the timeline related to implementation of the Transit Master Plan. PUBLIC PROCESS: The Transit Master Plan public process was very robust and included 16 stakeholder interviews, 18 mobile events, and over 2000 unique online comments. The Transportation Advisory Board and Bicycle Advisory Committee provided guidance on both the Master Plan and the guiding principles for the ILA. Specific to the ILA, addenda, and corresponding City budget appropriations, the process included City-hosted public hearings on the ILA and prior addenda. This year’s budget process, including public hearings, will provide for additional public comment on the transit service and mobilization line items. In addition, UTA holds a public hearing process for each “change day”, of which there are three per year for the purpose of making service changes. That process will occur in advance of the August 2021 change day during which continuation of service levels would be confirmed. EXHIBITS: 1) Resolution 2) Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement 3) Addendum No. 4 a) Description of the 2021-22 FTN Routes b) 2021-22 Baseline Services c) Funding for 2021-22 Transit Service 4) Addendum No. 5 a) Description of the 2022-23 FTN Routes b) Funding for Mobilization 5) 2021 Cost Calculator a) 2017 National Transit Database (NTD) b) 2018 NTD c) 2019 NTD d) 2017 Paratransit e) 2018 Paratransit f) 2019 Paratransit g) Baseline Methodology h) 2019 Baseline Service i) 2020 Baseline Service j) 2021 Baseline Service k) Addendum 1 2019-20 Mobilization l) Addendum 2 2019-20 Sponsored Service m) Amendment 1 to Addendum 2, True-Up n) Addendum 3 2020-21 Sponsored Service o) Addendum 4 2021-22 Sponsored Service p) Addendum 5 2022-23 Mobilization 6) Transit Timeline EXHIBIT 1 RESOLUTION ________ OF 2021 Authorizing approval of Addenda Nos. 4 and 5 to an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority providing for transfer of City funds for implementation of the Transit Master Plan. WHEREAS, Utah Code Title 11, Chapter 13 allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, Salt Lake City Council authorized that the City enter into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority providing for transfer of City funds for implementation of the Transit Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Interlocal Agreement contemplated that the parties would enter into an annual addendum to provide funding for the frequent transit network routes and other transit improvements; and WHEREAS, a draft agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah as follows: 1. It does hereby approve the execution and delivery of the following: THE FOURTH AND FIFTH ADDENDA TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY PROVIDING FOR THE TRANSFER OF CITY FUNDS FOR THE THIRD YEAR OF CITY-SPONSORED SERVICE PURSUANT TO THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY PROVIDING FOR THE TRANSFER OF CITY FUNDS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSIT MASTER PLAN. 2. Erin Mendenhall, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah or her designee is hereby authorized to approve, execute, and deliver said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, in substantially the same form as now before the City Council and attached hereto, subject to such minor changes that do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City thereunder and as shall be approved by the Mayor, her execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. PASSED by the City Council of Salt Lake City this day of , 2021. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL ___________________________________ CHAIR ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ________________________ CITY RECORDER Approved as to form: __________________________ Rusty Vetter City Attorney’s Office Date: June 8, 2021 EXHIBIT2 C'r:1-y /r1q tk..r//t'j AJu . 00-3-19 -!J-'-f'-I RECORDED MAR 1 3 2019 CITY RECORDER SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THIS TRANSIT MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENT A TlON INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made this Ce±k_day of ,t1a--t.d, 2019, by and between UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a public transit district organized under the laws of the State of Utah ("UTA"), and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Utah municipal corporation ("City"). RECITALS A. Utah Code § 11-13-202 provides that any two or more public agencies may enter into an agreement with one another for joint or cooperative action; and B. UTA and the City are public agencies as contemplated in the referenced section of the Utah Code (more specifically referred to as Utah Code § 11-13-101, t::l st::q., known as the "Interlocal Cooperation Act"); and C. The City and UTA both serve the transit-riding public in Salt Lake City; and D. UTA is responsible for the equitable distribution of transit service in the region , of which Salt Lake City is a major travel market; and E. UTA currently provides transit services to , from and within Salt Lake City at levels that reflect this equitable distribution of service; and F. The City adopted a Transit Master Plan ("Plan") on the 5th day of December, 2017;and G. This Plan was jointly developt::d by UTA and tht:: City and it is the Parties' shared intent to implement the Plan over the next twenty years; and H. The Plan recommends a suite of transit improvem e nts (the "Transit Improvements"), including the expansion of UT A 's current service level within the City to include higher frequencies, expanded serv ice hours, and adjustments to alignments that UTA is ab le to provide with current financial resources; and I. The Transit Improvements also in clude alternative transportation programs enhancing first-mil e/last-mile connections, capita l improvements, and oth er improv ements de sc ribed in the Plan ; and sa l SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTA H TRA NSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN IMP LEi\d ENTA TION AG REEM ENT Page I of 11 J. UTA and the City agree the Transit Improvements are complementary to UTA's current transit service and enhance each Party's goal of having attractive and effective transit service for people working, studying and living in and around Salt Lake City; K. The City desires to fund the incremental costs associated with the addition of the Transit Improvements for building out infrastructure on Citywsponsored routes to increase coverage and ridership, particularly in the City's downtown core for underwserved areas, specifically the West side and other underwserved areas of the City; L. The City desires initially to prioritize funding the incremental costs associated with increased frequency of routes on 1000 North, 600 North, 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South, with routes on 400 South likely being the last routes initially implemented; and M. This Agreement is intended to form the framework of how the Transit Improvements (including, without limitation, the currently p lanned and future potential frequent transit network service routes in the City) will be planned and coordinated by UTA and the City. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE AND INTENT. UTA and the City share a desire to grow and improve the transit system in which efficiencies are reinvested. UTA and the City recognize that the Plan's success is interdependent with the Wasatch Front Regional Council Regional Transportation Plan ("RTP") and that local and regional investments should be complementary to maximize the benefits of each. The coordinated planning of the Pinn und the RTP should consider additional revenue sources that become available to fund the RTP during the term of this Agreement. UTA and the City desire to enable people and businesses to rely on transit and encourage permanence and stability in services. UTA and the City recognize the value of establishing a process for decision making and a methodology for calculating the cost of Cityw funded service enhancements. UTA and the City are implementing a plan driven by data analysis and public engagement, and transparency and accountability should shape the execution of the program. As such, it is the intent of the Parties to continue to work together to suppo1t the implementation of the Transit Improvements identified in the Plan. Both Parties have sustainability goals and agree to consider clean technologies (such as electric vehicles) and infrastructure in the implementation of the Plan, where feasible. sal SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTA H TRANSIT A UTHORJTY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT Page 2 of 11 2. COOPERATION. The City and UTA shall each designate a primary representative responsible for the implementation of this Agreement and shall each also provide additional subject matter experts to comprise a technical working group who will aid the primary representative. City and UTA staff will confer in good faith and regularly exchange relevant information to report progress to their respective organizations. 3. FREQUENT TRANSIT NRTWORK ROUTES. (a) As of the date this Agreement is executed, the term "Baseline Service" shall mean the level of transit service that UTA provides on the UT A change day immediately preceding the commencement of the initial City-sponsored service, "Baseline Service" will be re-evaluated on an annual basis based on then-current UTA service design guidelines, including propensity and productivity factors. The routes/fre quency of routes identified by the City, in cooperation with UTA, to be sponsored by the City shall be identified as the frequent transit network routes ("FTN Routes") and shall further depicted and described in addenda to this Agreement. Typical addendum content is shown in Exhibit "A." UTA and the City shall coordinate the implementation of the FTN Routes with the RTP. (b) No service shall be funded using the City funds provided pursuant to thi s Agreement except as described and depicted in an addendum issued in accordance with this Agreement. For each year that money is appropriated by the City to fund the FTN Routes, the Parties shall execute an addendum that identifies the City-sponsored FIN Routes and describes the City's payment obligations (including the calculation of the Annual Service Mileage Cost as described in -Section 5 of this Agreement). The Parties may, upon mutual agreement in writing, further modify the addendum from time-to-time as necessary to implement this Agreement. 4. UTA'S OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO FTN ROUTES. (a) UTA shall continue to manage and operate the FTN Routes. UTA shall be solely responsible for operations, management, ad mini stration, and service delivery functions, including provision of vehicles, vehicle maintenance, insurance, and accounting for the FTN Routes. Except as specifically provided herein, the City shall have no responsibility for the operations and management of the FTN Routes. The City shall have no responsibility for, nor autho rity or control with respect to, the supervision and management of any employees , third- party consultants, or UTA agents of any kind. sal SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT Page 3 of 11 (b) UT A shall accommodate specially branded bus stop signs at all UT A s ign post and shelter locations that are located along the FTN Routes. UTA shall cause the production and, installation of the specially branded bus stop signs. The design and cost responsibility for such specially branded bus stop signs shall be negotiate d and memorialized in an addendum subsequently executed between UT A and the City. (c) UT A's obligations with respect to the FTN Routes are subject to UTA's receipt of the City Funding (as defined by and as provided in Section 6 of this Agreement). (d) Nothing in this Agreement prohibits UTA from using other (non-City) funding sources to provide services in addition to, or complementary with, the FTN Routes. As additional revenue sources that become available to fond the RTP during the term of this Agreement, UTA shall, in cooperation with the City and other regional stakeholders, work to program additional funding to coordinate with and enhance the FTN Routes and other Transit Improvements. ( e) UTA shall annually calculate an annual cost (the "Annual Service Mileage Cost") for the FTN Routes in accordance with Section 5 below. 5. CALCULATION OF ANNUAL SERVICE MILEAGE COST. The Annual Service Mileage Cost shall be calculated annually and memorialized in the addend um executed by the City and UTA for the applicable period. (a) The Annual Service Mileage Cost shall be derived from UTA's then most recently reported total bus operating expenses (the "Total BOE Amount"), as published in the National Transil Database ("NTD"), and as adjusted by the following methodology. (b) The reported Total BOE Amount will first be adjusted to: (i) deduct total fuel expenses allocated to bus operations in the NTD reporting year as identified in UT A's financial statements for such year or as certified by UT A's Comptroller; and (ii) add the capital maintenance expenses allocated to bus operations in the NTD reporting year as identified in UTA's financial statements for such year or as certified by UTA's Comptroller. The resulting amount (after applying the deduction in item (i) above and the addition in item (ii) above) shall then be escalated at a rate equal to two and two-tenths percent (2.2%), per year, from the NTD reporting year to the upcoming service year. The adjusted and escalated number will be known as the "Adjusted BOE Amount." ( c) The Adjusted BOE Amount shall then be divided by the total annual bus miles sal SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORJTY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT Page4 of 11 most recently reported in the NTD to determine an "Adjusted Per Mile BOE Rate." (d) The Adjusted Per Mile BOE Rate includes administrative and overhead costs. The Adjusted Per Mile BOE Rate shall be discounted by twenty percent (20%) to reflect the administrative and overhead expenses that would be incurred by UTA regardless of the sponsored service. For the purposes of this Agreement, administrative and overhead expenses for bus operational support are listed in the table attached as Exhibit "B." Because the Parties are estimating the administrative and overhead expenses that are attributable to the City- sponsored service, the Parties agree to review the actual costs incurred by UTA every two years, and adjust the administrative discount based on any actual increases or decreases directly attributable to the City-sponsored service relative to the transit system as a whole. To facilitate the Parties' review, UTA agrees to provide a breakdown of bus administration, bus operational support, and administration for all modes agency-wide (and supporting information showing , how the cost information is calculated into the reported NTD data) every year by September 30 of the year after the service is provided, in a reporting format substantially similar to the format attached as Exhibit "D." UTA further agrees to cooperate with the City in the review and provide further information in a timely manner if requested by the City. (e) After application of the administrative and overhead discount set forth in Section 5(d), the Adjusted Per Mile BOE Rate shall be multiplied by the total sponsored revenue miles to arrive at the "Service Mileage Cost, Without Fuel or Paratransit Costs." (1) A charge for paratransit service shall then be added. The charge for paratransit services shall be a sum equal to a fixed percentage of the Service Mileage Cost; Without Fuel or Paratransit Costs. The percentage factor applied to determine the paratransit service charge shall be determined by dividing the most recently reported NTD Annual Vehicle Revenue Service Hours for Demand Response services by the most recently reported NTD Annual Vehicle Revenue Service Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus and Light Rail transportation modes. (g) The estimated fuel costs for the total sponsored revenue miles shall then be added to determine the "Annual 8ervice Mileage Cost." (h) The methodology for calculating the Annual Service Mileage Cost is set forth in Exhibit "C." 6. CITY OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO FfN ROUTES. (a) The City shall contribute funding (the "City Funding") to UTA to support the Sil l SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN llvf PLEMENTA110N AGREEMENT Page 5 of 11 operation of the FTN Routes. The City Funding shall consist of: (i) a mobilization charge (as applicable) to be set forth in the annual addendum, which mobilization charge s hall reflect one- time costs to be incurred by UTA with respect to FTN Routes; (ii) capital lease charges for the new buses necessary to support the FTN Routes; (iii) the Annual Service Mileage Cost; and (iv) other costs, as may be agreed between the City and UTA. The total amount of City Funding during any year shall not exceed the amount set forth in the applicable addendum. (b) All City Funding is subject to the annual appropriation b y the City's legislative body. The City shall notify UTA of the appropriated funding for each upcoming year, as soon as such information is publicly available. (c) The City s hall have the right to-construct new bus stops with respect to the FTN Routes. Any bus stops constructed by the City must comply with the siting requirements and minimum standards set forth in UTA's Bus Stop Master Plan. The City may include additional functional and ai1istic amenities with respect to the bus stops. Howc:v er, any incremental maintenance costs associated with additional amenities wHl be: (i) d e te rmined thro ugh negotiation prior to the construction of the bus stops; and (ii) funded by the City pursuant to subsequent addenda through the remaining term of this Agreement. 7. INVOICING AND PAYMENT. UTA shall submit invoices for m obilization charges in accordance with each addendum. UTA shall submit invo ices for the monthly capital lease charge for buses supporting the FTN routes thirty (30) days prior to the date that UTA is required to pay such monthly lease charges. UTA s hall also submit monthly invoices to the City for Annual Service Mileage Cost in u m o nthly amount equal to one-twelfth (1 /1 2) of the total Annual Service Mileage Cost. Monthly charges for each component of the City Funding may be combined on invoices, as appropriate. The City shall pay all approved invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. If the City does not approve an invoice, a written explanation of disputed items will be sent within ten (10) business days of the City's receipt of the invoice. The City agrees not to withhold approval of any invoice amounts unreasonably, and further agrees to cooperate with UT A in good faith to resolve di sputes concerning invoices in an expeditious manner. Undisputed amounts will be paid within thirty (3 0) days of receipt. Any undisputed amounts which are not paid within thirty (30) days ofreceipt shall accrue interest at a rate equal to the higher of two percent (2%) or the daily Public Treasurer's Investment Fund interest rate. sal SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRA NSIT MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT Page 6 of 11 .. 8. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN FUEL COSTS. Fuel is included in the Annual Service Mileage Cost. As described in Section 5, the Annual Service Mileage Cost will be calculated by UTA, and paid by the City, based on UTA's budgeted fuel costs for the period covered by the applicable addendum. Except as provided below, the Annual Service Mileage Cost shall be based on budgeted, and not actual, fuel costs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Annual Service Mileage Cost shall be subject to a semi-annual "true-up" payment/credit in the event that the average daily fuel costs for any six-month period covered by an addendum varies from the budgeted cost by more than thirty percent (30%). 9. ADDITIONAL TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS. The City and UTA may use this Agreement, and the addenda contemplated hereunder, to address commitments with respect to other elements of the Transit Improvements (beyond the FTN Routes), as mutually agreed. 10. ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF FUNDING. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent either Party from collecting contributions, fees, or other funding to help defray the cost of the Transit Improvements. UTA shall not be a party to the assessment or collection of such special contributions, fees, or funding and shall not receive any direct allocation of or credit for such special fees or contributions collected by the City. The City Funding and any additional funding provided by the City shall be used solely to supplement UTA funding of the Transit Improvements and will not be used to supplant any funding for the Baseline Service. 11. RECORDS. UTA will maintain full and complete financial records and detailed operations information regarding the FTN Routes and any other Transit Improvements -funded-by the City pursuant to thi s Agreement. City shall have access to alJ financial information regarding the FTN Routes upon request. 12. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT. The Transit Improvements performance will be monitored during the term of this Agreement based upon the metrics derived from the goals set forth in the Plan including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Improve Air Quality. (b) Increase Transit Riders hip. (c) Provide a Safe and Comfortable Transit Access and Waiting Experience. (d) Provide Access and Opportunity to Vulnerable Populations. (e) Create Economically Vibrant, Livable Places the Support Use of Transit. Representatives from the Parties shall meet regularly to exchange relevant information and Sal SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSJT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT Page 7 of 11 discuss performance related issues. 13. DISPUTE RESOLUTION, Th t.! Pnt·ti e~ will use th e Pinn as th e basis for their go al s nnd dec isio ns. ospednll y where th en! is n lack of co nse nsus betwe en the Pn t'ti es. Whcl'e appli cabl e, th e Pinn in clud es n,etri cs Lhnt mn y pro v id e objective. dnta-dl'iv en guid ance in deci sion *mnkin g. Withdrawal fr om this Agree ment should be n lnst resOl't fo ll ow in g a good • faith dTort to ward resolution nt both the prnj ect level. 14 . TERM. The term of this Agreement is intended to run con current ly with the Plan, w hi ch has a 20-year horizon , and shall be deemed to have begun on the Effective Date and sha ll remain in effect until June 30, 2039, unless terminated earlier by either Party. I f the Parties decide to continu e to provide funding and service for some but not all of the Transi t Improvements, this Agreement shal l remain in effect on ly as to t hose roules specifica ll y funded , as provided specifica ll y in the exhibits. 15. TERMINATION. E ither Patty may terminate this Agreeme nt on twe lve (12) months written notice to the other Patty , which enables appropriate changes in service to be made w ith the UT A change day process. 16. STATUS OF PARTIES. (a) Ind ependent Contractors . The Patties agree that the status of each Patty s hall be that of a n independent contractor to the other, and it is not intended, nor shall it be construed , that one Party or any officer, employee, agent or contractor of s uch Party is an employee, officer, agent, o r representative of the oth er Parly. Nothing contained in the Agreement or documents in corporated by reference herein or othe rw ise c reates any pattnership, joint ventur e, or other assoc iation or relationsh ip between UTA and the City. Any approval, revi ew, inspection, direction or instruction by UTA or any party on behalf of UTA sha ll in no way affect either Party 's independent contractor status or obli gation to perform in accordance w ith this Agreement. Neith er Party ha s authorization, express or implied, to bind the other to any agreements, liability, nor un derstanding except as expressly set fo1th in thi s Agreement. (b) Insurance. As b etween the Parties, llTA sha ll be responsible for a ll appl icab le federal and state taxes and contributions for Social Security, unemployment insurance, income withholding tax, and other taxes measured by wages paid to employees, as well as any subcontractor or vendor. UTA shall be solely respons ible for its own actions, its employees a nd agents. sal SALT LAKE CITY CO RPORATIO N AND UTAH TRA NSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLA N IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT Page 8 o f 11 (c) Legal Advice. As independent parties, UTA and the City shall be responsible for each obtaining its own legal services/advice. 17. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY. Each of the Parties is a governmental entity for purposes of the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah, Utah Code Ann. Section 63G, Chapter 7. Consistent with the terms of this Act, it is mutually agreed that each party is responsible and liable for its own wrongful or negligent acts which it commits or which are committed by its agents, officials, or employees. No party waives any defenses otherwise available under the Governmental Immunity Act. 18. NO THIRD-PARTY R:RNEFICIARIES.The Parties expressly agree that enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the Patties, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall give or allow any such claim or right of action by any other or third person on such Agreements, including but not limited to subcontractors, subconsultants, and suppliers. The Parties expressly intend that any person other than the Parties who receives services or benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed to be an incidental beneficiary only. 19. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS. This Agreement does not contain any multiple-fiscal year financial obligations by either party that extend beyond its current fiscal year, that are not subject to annual appropriation of sufficient funds by its governing body. Nothing herein obligates either Pa1ty to budget, authorize or appropriate funds for any future fiscal year. 20. LEGAL AUTHORITY. The City and UTA represent and warrant to each other that they have all necessary authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform their obligations hereunder and that this Agreement does not conflict with any other agreement that each Party is subject or to which it may be bound. The person signing and executing this Agreement on behalf of either Party represents that he/she has been fully authorized to execute this Agreement and to validly and legally bind a Party to all the terms, performances and provisions herein set forth. 21. NO ASSIGNMENT. Except as otherwise provided in the Agreement, neither party may assign the Agreement and/or any of its rights and obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other Party. 22. WRITTEN AM.1!:NJJM.ENTS. This Agreement may be modified or amended ~c1I SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT Page 9 of 1 I only by a written document duly t:xecuted by both Parties. 23. NOTICES. Correspondence regarding this Agreement shall be sent to: lfto UTA: Utah Transit Authority A ttn: 669 West 200 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 If to City: Department of Community and Neighborhoods Transportation Division 349 South 200 East, Suite 450 P.O. Box 145502 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5502 With a copy to: Managing Attorney Utah Transit Authority 669 West 200 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 With a copy t o: City Attorney's Office 451 South State Street, Rm SOSA Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 The addresses or contacts may be changed by the Parties by written notice. 24. EXHIBITS. The exhibits attached hereto and specifically incorporated h er ein by reference are as follows. (a) Exhibit "A" Typical Addendum Template (b) Exhihit "B" Table of Administrative Costs for Bus Operations (c) Exhibit "C" Methodology for Calculating Annual Service Mileage Cost (d) Exhibit "D" Form of Annual Administrative Cost Report 25. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. The terms and provision s of this Agreement, including but not limited to the Recitals above and the Exhibit(s) incorporated by reference herein, represent the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement, and merge, incorporate and supersede all prior communications between the City and UTA concerning that subject. No representations or warranties are made by the City or UT A except as set forth here in. 26. W AIYER AND BREACH. The waiver of any breach of a term hereof shall not be construed as a waiver of any other term, or the same term upon a subsequent breach. 27. GOVERNING LAW; VENUE. Each and every term, provision, condition, of this Agreement is subject to the provisions of Utah law. This Agreement is subject to such modifications as may be required by changes in Utah or federal law, or their implementing sal SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT Page 10 of 11 regulations. Any such required modification shall automatically be incorporated into and be part of this Agreement on the effective date of such change as if fully set forth herein. Venue for any action arising hereunder shall be in the Salt Lake City District Courts for the State of Utah. 28. SEVERABILITY. The Parties expressly agree that if any part, term, or provision of this Agreement is by the courts held to he illegal or in conflict with any law of the State of Utah, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular part, term, or provision held to be invalid. 29. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement shall be executed in two counterpa11s eac;h of which when so executed and delivered shall be an original, but all of which shall together constitute one and the same instrument. 30. INTERLOCAL ACT REQUIREMENTS. (a) This Agreement shall be approved by each party pursuant to § 11-13-202.5 of the Interlocal Act; (b) This Agreement shall be reviewed as to proper form and compliance with applicable law by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of each party, pursuant to§ 11-13-202.5 of the Interlocal Act; (c) A duly executed original counterpart of this Agreement shall be filed with the keeper of records of each pa11y, pursuant to § 11-13-209 of the lnterlocal Act; (d) Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, each party shall be responsible for its own costs of a:ny action done pursuant to this Agreement, and for any financing of such costs. ( e) No separate legal entity is created by the terms of this Agreement. To the extent that this Agreement requires administration other than as set forth herein, it shall be administered by the UTA Board of Trustees and Salt Lake City. No real or personal prope1iy shall be acquired jointly by the Parties as a result of this Agreement. To the extent that a party acquires, holds, or disposes of any real or personal property for use in the joint or cooperative undertaking contemplated by this Agreement, such pa1ty shall do so in the same manner that it deals with other property of such party. (f) Either party may withdraw from the joint or cooperative undertaking described sal SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT A UTHOIUTY TRAN!:J'JT MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT Page 11 of 11 in this Agreement only upon the termination of this Agreement. (g) Voting of each Party shall be based on one vote per Party. (h) The functions to be performed by the joint or cooperative undertaking are those described in this Agreement. [THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.] sal SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT Page 12 of 11 WHEREFORE, the Parties have entered into this Agreement as of the date executed and approved by each of the Party's governing body. CITY: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION , a Utah municipal corporation APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lak ttorney ' ffi B Senior City All m y 1 Date: v] l l / 5" ATTEST & COUNTERS IG N: Salt Lake C ity Recorder's Office , By «~ ~it y Recorder UTA: APP RECORDED MAR 13 2019 CITY RECORDER UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a Utah public transit district organized under the la ws By: ---~----\------ 1 ts: 13 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~~~-un_s_e_l ------- Date s igned: 3 -/ -z.o 19 Exhibit A Typical Addendum Template ANNUAL ADDENDUM No. To Interlocal Agreement Between Utah Transit Authority and Salt Lake City Corporation THIS ANNUAL ADDENDUM No._ to that certain Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement ("[LA") is made this __ day of ____ , 20_, by and between UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a public transit district organized under the laws of the State of Utah ("UTA"), and Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal corporation ("City"). UTA, and City arc hereinafter collectively referred to as "Parties" and each may be referred to individually as "Party," all as governed by the context in which such words are used. RECITALS A. On -, 2018, the Parties entered into the ILA, whereby the parties agreed to participate jointly in planning and funding for public transportation improvements in and around the City; and B. The Parties desire to specifically identify certain components of the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan to be governed by this Addendum No._, pursuant lo the terms of the ILA (the "Addendum No._"). NOW, THEREFORE , the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Pursuant to Section 22 of the ILA written changes may be made to the ILA upon the mutual consent of the Parties. 2. Pursuant to Section 3 of the ILA, the City, in cooperation with UT A, identified as the City-sponsored frequent transit network routes ("FTN Routes ") to be provided by UTA from change day of August of20_until change day of August 20_. 3. The description of Transit Services for the Addendum No._ is set forth and outlined on Attachment 1, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. 4. The description of the Baseline Services is set forth as outlined in Attachment 2 . 5. The calculation of the cost per service mile of the City-sponsored F1N Routes and detailed description thereof is outlined in Attachment 3. 6. This Addendum No._ may be executed in one or more counterparts, t::mch uf which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures were upon the same instrument. 7. This Addendum is limited to the terms expressly provided herein and except as set forth herein, the Original Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. If there is a conflict between this Addendum and the ILA, the terms of this Addendum shall prevail and control. 8. This Addendum No. will be effective _____ , 20_ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Addendum effective the date first set forth herein. [Signature pages t o follow] [Signature pages to Addendum No._ to Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement] UTAH T RANS IT AUTHORJTY By _______________ _ Its ---------------- By _______________ _ It s ---------------- Approved as to Form UTA Legal Counsel 3 [Signature pages to Addendum No._ to Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority Transit Mastt:r Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement] APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney's Office By: ___________ _ Senior City Attorney Date: ------------ ATTEST & COUNTERSIGN: Salt Lake City Recorder's Office By:------------ City Recorder SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By _______________ _ Its ---------------- [Attach Salt Lake City Council Resolution Approving Addendum] 4 ATTACHMENT 1 Description of Transit Services For This Addendum No. 5 ATTACHMENT 2 Description of Baseline Services For This Addendum No. 6 ATTACHMENT 3 Funding for Transit Services For This Addendum No. 7 ATTACHMENT4 Funding for Transit Services For This Addendum No. 8 Exhibit B Table of Administrative Cos ts for Bus Operations Motor Bus (less FLEX) NTD Administration Cost Centers 2017 Cost Category Ops Support Admini stration ACCOUNTING 737,110.99 APPLI CATION DEVELOPMENT !,246,608.34 ASSET MANAGEMENT 11,264.4 5 BOARD COORDINATI ON 153,595.51 CHIEF COMMUNICIATIONS OFFICER 396,216.78 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFF ICER 279,921.65 CHIEF PEOPLE OFFICER 160,487.28 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER 399,621.16 CIVI L RIGHTS 204,762 .3 3 CORPORATE & BOARD SUPPORT 129,367.41 CORPORATE SUPPORT 399,282.54 CUSTOMER SERVICE 1,395,613.69 DATA QUAI LI TY & RIDERSH IP 147,378.30 FACILITIES 6,854,609.52 FARE STRATEGY & OPERATIONS 417,903.87 FED ~UNDS 8.3 1 FINANCIAL SERVICES 4 16,364.11 GENERAL COUNSEL 1,396,792.90 GENERAL MANAGER 793,591.89 HUMAN SERVICES 1,288,48 2.41 INTERNAL AUDIT 206,113.25 MAJOR INVESTEM ENT STUDIES 5,UU.Ul MAJOR PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 1,490,541.69 MATERIALS 204,000.39 NETWORK SUPPOR T 1,892.080. 72 ORGAN IZATIONA L EFFECTIVENESS 817,445.48 PLANNING & PROGRAMMING 887,7 11.67 PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT & SA LES 295,611.85 PUBLIC HELATIONS & MARKETING 1,433,703 .71 PURCHASING & CONTRACTS 583,080.28 QUALITY ASSURANCE 64,370.02 QUALITY ASSURANCE & STATS 47,640 .82 REA L ESTATE 479,169.27 RIDESHARE/VANPOOL 9,541.73 RISK MANAGEMENT 641,489.42 RIVERSIDE PARATRANSIT OPERATIONS 95,116.71 SAFETY 1,092,196.86 SALT LAKE INTERMOOAL EXPENSES 828.28 SECURITY 3,646,238.62 STRATEGIC THINK TANK 150,365.08 SUPPLY CHA IN AOMIN 161,775.98 T ECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT 326,861 .77 TECHN OLOGY DEVELOPMENT 31,237.84 T ECHNOLOGY SUPPORT S67,448.40 TE CHNOLOGY SU PPORT FACI LITY 284,603.% TE LECOMMUNICATIONS 257,649.57 TRAINING 485,898.48 TRANSIT COMMUNICAT ION CENTER 411,902.61 TRANS IT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT 154,744.Sl VEH ICLE DISPOSAL 7 ,336.37 VP OPERATIONS AND CAPITAL 281 ,382.32 WAREHOUSING 1,381,380.90 WORKFORCE SYSTEMS 335,183.27 973 (grant) (44,218.95) 9075 (grant) (30,705.90) 100-15 {grant) 1,056.49 Granil Tota l 17,100,656.00 18,385,331.92 Notes: Highlighted categories are bus operationa l support costs. Base year is defined as the year or the most c urrent NTP data Exhibit C Methodology for Calculating Annual Service Mileag e Cost Http,//WP!M rn;le,J!3 QOm( 669 'Nest 200 Sou tt, Salt Lake C ty, UT B4101 Utah Transit Authority 2017 Annual Agency Profile ~ Arna Staotistics-2010 Census Salt Lake City-West Valley City, UT 278 Square Miles 1,021 ,243 Population 42 Pop. Rank out of 498 UZAs Otha-UZAs SeNed General Information s.,,,,;c., cons .... plion 364 ,859,219 Annual Passenger MIies (PMT) 45,078.919 Annual Unlinked Trips (UPT) 155,4 37 Average Weekday Unlinked Trips 78,690 Average Saturday Unlinked Trips 29,651 Average Sunday Uninked Trips 77 Ogden-Layton, UT, 82 Provo-Orem, UT, 0 Utah Non-UZA So,n;ice"""' Statistics 737 Square Miles 1,683.504 Population Sema, Suppried 38.713,261 Annual Vehicle Revenue MIies (VRM) 2,11 0,811 Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours (VRH) Vehicles Operated 1,086 Vehicles Operated In Maximum Service (VOMS) 1.387 Vehicles Av ailable for Maximum Service (VAMS) Modal Oliaracteristics Database Information NTOID: 800:J1 Reporter Type: Full Reporter Financial lnfonn atlon Sources of O perating Funds Expended Oper1Ung funding Sources Fare Revenues $52 ,159,202 Local Funds $0 State Funds S270,e47,394 Federal Assistance $42.~2.677 Other Funds $9,195,344 l otal Opcraung F~mcfs Upended $37◄,734,$17 13.9%1 0.0% 72.3% 1 1.4% 2.5 % 100.0% Sources of Capital Funds Expended 12 ,,,. Fare Revenu es SO 0.0% Local funds S2,S-50,116 1.9 % State Funds $75,7 10 ,373 49.7% Federal Assistance $73,741.341 48.4% 11.4% :..2.5% n .•"I Other Funds $0 0.0 % Capital Fundi ng Soim;.es Total Capit.'41 Funds Expended $152.301.830 100.0% illoda!Ovm-riew In II-um Service Uses of Capital Funds Summary of Operating Expenses (OE) -48.◄% 1.9% Directly Pu1<:hased Revenue Systems and Mode Operated Transportation Vehicles Guide ways Commuter Bus 43 so S84.027 Commuter Rall 45 $475,980 S13,278,303 Demand R.esp:>nse 65 43 $4,267,530 $923,304 Light Rail 91 $7,756,217 $6,381 ,1 60 Bus 388 6 S27 ,549, 172 $1,740,977 Vanpool 405 $1,365,433 S162,618 T""'I u,31 411 $,dl 41,SJ.J' H'1.570.l89 ~ Cbar.lcleri$tics Operating Use.s of Annual Mode Expenses Fare Revenues Capital Funds Passenger Miles Commuter Bus S7,749 ,445 S501,682 $235,786 12,565.005 Ccmmuter Rail $34,4 38,729 $7,212 ,605 S 15,161.569 122,257.990 De-mand Respons.e S17.851 ,347 5591.545 $6,917,367 4,230,640 Light Rail S64,680,283 S17,968,710 S15,671 .687 92,586,564 Bus $129,545,459 $21,155,730 S34,780.,152 86,462,342 Vanpool $3,469,358 $4,728,930 $1,559 ,917 46,756,678 l<"1:tl SHT'34,sn SS2.1i;~ . .?ft-! ~74.326.472 364,,8.5~.219 Facilities and Stations Other Total $31,594 $120,165 $,35,786 $774,663 $632,623 S15,161,569 S1.103,067 $623.466 $6,917,367 $737,892 $796.418 $15,071,687 S3.563.409 $1,926.~94 $34,780,152 $5,244 S26,622 $1,559,9 17 'f.6.215.86! S4.125.~88 $74 ,326.-478 Annual Annual Vehicle Annual Vehicle Unlinked Trips Revenue Miles Revenue Hours· 553,595 1,017,334 41 ,678 4,854,099 5,34 9,524 154,744 396,977 2 ,727,127 162,198 18,823,578 6,732,768 358,645 19,196,260 16.437,069 1,216,770 1,264,41 0 6.449,<39 176,776 •s.o;s,919 38.713,,61 2110.81' Salary, Wages, Benefits Materials and Supplies Purchased T ransportalion OU-er Operating Expenses Total Ope:rat.mg Expenses Reronciling OE Cash Expenditures P urchased Transportation (Repcrted Separately) Fixed Guideway Direction.al Route Miles 0 .0 174,5 0.0 93.9 2.1 0 .0 270 5 Ve hicles Available for Maximum Service 63 6 9 142 1 14 51 1 48 8 1,387 $188,208,688 $31,966,376 $4,165,973 $33,393,584 S257,734.6Z1 $1 16 ,999,996 $0 Ve hic les Operated in Maximum Servi ce 43 45 108 9 1 394 4 05 1,086 73,0% 12..4% 1.6% 13.0%, 100,0% ":' Percent Spare Vehlc l es 3' ,8% 34.8% 23.9% 2 0 .2% 22.9% 17 .0% 21.7% -48.7"' Average Fleet Age In Years• 1 2,1 15.9 3.6 10.4 8.0 5.4 f'erfonnance Measures Service Efficiency Service Effectiveness Operating Expenses per Operating Expenses per Operating Expenses per Operating Expenses pe1 Unlinked Trips per Unlinked Trips per Mode Commuter 8us Commuter Rail Demand Response Light Rail Bus Vanpool Tot.al O~ratlng Expense per Vehicle Revonue Mi.le· Bus Vehicle Revenue Mlle $7,62 $6.44 $6,55 $9,6' $7,88 S0.54 SH!' Operating Expense per Passenger Mile.:Bus "'"'· ""'~ ~;:' I a r: • a • e • !'.: ~,}J ========================t!.e.t\ SH.~------------\(••~ R~J ~~ Ve h icle Revenue H:>ur S18: 94 S222 55 $11 0.06 $18C.35 $10€.47 SHL63 $1'22..lO Mode Commuter Bus Comm1,Jler Rall Demand Response Light Rall Bus Van pool Toi.al Passenger Mile S0.62 $0.28 S4.22 $0.70 $1 .50 $0,07 $0.71 Unlinked Passenger Trip Vehicle Revenue Mile S 14.00 0,5 $7 .09 0 ,9 $46.13 0 .1 $3.44 2 8 S6,75 1.2 S2,74 0 ,2 UJ2 1i Vehicle Revenue Hour 13 ,3 31 ,4 2 .4 52.5 15,8 7.2 21.4 l.kllinked Passertli; er Trip per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Bas :~I'•. I • I • ~1>1'1 . -:-:::,.. ... ------~==- at" EXPense P9" Vet:iicle • oo ~ ~ -":.. ""''"'"·, .. I ,..... .. • a I Ir .,,., .,., .... . . ''" ••'1111 Operat ing Expense per Passenger Mile: Ligrl Rall Unlinked Passenge r Trip per Vehicle R.evenue M ile: Light Rail ~ --- O.~ JI!! 11> n 12 IJ U t~ !I\-1t ,S ~•MHl&1~1At',t,,1 ~-,;1 lll !I If' \ I II " I~ 11 I 1-· a -.. ft "" t==========;=;~~~=;=~~=~ [)OQ ot (II ltl II 12 t.1 "'" ~ .... . .,., . " ,; ,. " ~•.,-~ L ___ -::---;::-;:~;;---;;---;;--;;--... ('(• I" .. 'M u, lt ,1 •l ,. 1, ,~ 11 Ol II.fl 10 I\ I~ I) 1• ,§: I~ 17 Notes· -Oemand Response-Taxi (DT) and non-dedicated fleets do not report Oeet age data, EXAMPLE AGENCY PROFILE Source: https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/transit -agency-profiles So u rces: Utah Transit Authority Operating Cost pe r Mile by Mode 20_ Federa l Transit Administ ration's Nati onal Transit Database (N TD ), Agency Profile, https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/transit-agency-profiles 20_ Utah Transit Authority Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), http://www.rideuta.com/About-UTA/UTA-Reports-and-Documents Bus Service Commuter Bus Commuter Rail Lig ht Rail Pa ratra nsit Service Other Service NTD To tals Fuel Costs NTD Plus Fuel $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2017 NTD OQerating ExQenses b~ Mode --. CAFR plus $0.00 (Capital Maintenance) Difference Less Fue l Cos t s (D i esel, CNG Add Cap ital and Gasoline) Maintenance $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -$ $ $ -$ $ 20 Debt Service $ $ -$ -$ -$ -$ $ DeQreciation - - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Costs Cost Per Vehi cle Revenue Mile Without Fuel Annua l Vehicle excluding Vehicle Revenue Miles DeQreciation -#D IV/0 ! -/.ID IV/0! #DIV/0! -#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! -#DIV/0! Bus Service Commuter Bus Commuter Rai l Light Rail Para transit Service Other Service SPONSORED SERVICE PARATRANSIT COST -Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan --------- #DIV/0! Commuter Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (Most recent NTD) Light Rail Vehicle Revenue Hours (Most recent NTD) Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (Most recent NTD) Tot a I Vehicle Revenue Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus, and LRT Total Demand Response Vehicle Revenue Hours (Most recent NTD) Demand Response Percentage of Total Vehicle Revenue Hours SPONSORED SERV I CE COST CALCULATOR -SLC TMP Implementation VARIABLE VALUES I I Most recent NTD Cost per Revenue M ile, Bus Service (1 ) 1-. ----------1.Annual escalator rate (2) .__ ______ ___.N umber of Year s since NTD report I !Admini strative Discount (3) ~==============~Spo nsored Revenue Miles: 200 South, 900 South and 2100 South ..__ ______ ___. Sponsored Paratransit Service rate (3) I I Fu el Cost per Gallon (Service Year Budgeted Cost) ===============Fuel Efficiency, Miles per Gallon {adjust per vehicle type) I ! Sp onsored Vehicle Lease Costs _ Sponsored Vehicles ..__ ______ __. (1) NTD Cost per Revenue M ile has been adjusted to exclude fuel expense but does include approxi mately 2% for capital maintenance (e.g . eng ine replacement, etc). (2) The annual escalator is a calculated average of the PCE CP I over a twenty year period. (3) Paratransit Service rate is equal to the percentage of the most recent NTD reported total demand response vehicle revenue hours as compared to total vehicle revenue hours for Bus, Commuter Bus and Light Rail. SPONSORED SERVICE COST $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Most re cent NTD Co st Per M ile -Bus Service NDT rate Adj usted t o Se rvi ce Yea r Costs Discoun t ed NTD Adju sted to Serv ice Ye ar Cos t s 0 Sponsored Revenue Miles Total Mileage Cost, Without Fuel, Annual Add Paratransit Service Total Annual Operating Costs without fuel Fuel Cost per Ga llon 0.0 Bus M iles per Gallon 0 Sponso r ed Revenue Miles Tota l Fuel Cost Per Vehicle Principal+ 4 % Interest Ra t e, Annua l 0 Vehicles needed for spo nso red servi ce Total Annual Vehicle Cost for Sponsored Service TOTAL ExhibitD Form of Annual Administrative Cost Report 2015 2016 2017 I Motor Bus (less FLEX) I All Modes (including Flex) Motor Bus (les s FLEX) I All Modes (i ncluding Flex) Motor Bus (les, FLEX) I All Modes (including Flex) I Cost Category Ops Support Administration Oos Suooort Administration ~Ort Administration OesSupport Admi ni stratio n Ops Support Administration Op~port Adm inistratLon_ ACCOUNTING 577,081.27 1,164,328.01 666,909.3·2 1,314,805.28 737,110.99 1,419,810.26 APPLICATIO N DEVELOPMENT --1,030,426.48 -2,079,004.26 1,133,030.39 -2,332,332.99 1,246,608.34 2,401,195.1 2 ASSET MANAGEMENT -11,264.4S 821,605 00 eoARD COORDI NATION 82,699.67 166,856.12 36,773 .69 171,013.50 153,595.51 295,852.98 CHIEF COMMUNICIATIO~S OFFICER 186,786.52 376,863,35 201,183.0 1 396,630.37 396,216.78 763,185.82 CHI EF FIN ANCIAL OFFICER 233,436.31 470,984.68 237,494.S3 468,2.18.17 279,921.65 535,763.18 CHIEF PEOPLE OFFICER 182,461.62 368 ,137.37 103,309.l O 203,672.90 160,487.18 309,127.79 CH IE F TECHNOLOGY OFFIC ER 141,536.56 2S5,566.33 138,519.79 273,090.4 2 399,622.16 767,399.37 CIVIL RIGHTS 147,136.38 296,864.62 153,964.53 303,539.s ·g 204,762.33 394,409 .60 CORPORATE & BOARD S,UPPORT -669,348.50 1,350,487.79 477,947.25 941,968.39 528,649.95 1,018,276.26 CUSTOMER SERVICE -1,071,5 19.44 2,161,914.06 1,169,413.90 2,305~488.22 1,395,613.69 2.6~.206 6 2 DATA °'UAILITY & RIDERSHIP ~-----147,378.30 413,730.76 FACILITIES 6,064,326.54 12.235,478_22 6 ,698,321.39 13,205,675.97 6,854,609.52 13,203,228.63 FARE STRATEGY ~ OPERATIONS --357,889.94 72~,084.24 390,610.36 770,084.56 417,903.87 804,959.10 FED FUNDS 8.31 FINANCIAL SER VICES 363,784.58 733,977.34 391,850.85 772,5;0.)7 416,364.11 801,993.LS GE NERAL COUNSEL 1,18 0,592.01 '2,381,980.54 1,271,4 54.65 2,506,660.57 1,396,792.90 2,6904477 .98 ~ENERALMANAGER 1,397,4 50.51 2 ,819,517.58 1,087,954.38 2,144,891.56 793,59).89 1,528,602.77 HUMA N >ERVICES 1,049,176.56 2,116,834,72 l,149,286,11 2,265,806.48 1,288,482 .41 2,481,852.L2 INTERNAl AUD[T 152,678 .46 30ll,046.40 187,564.37 369,761.35 206,113 .25 397,011.73 MAJOR PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT --1,173,627.69 2,367,929.22 1,598,408.03 3,151,2.4 6.00 l..1495,761.70 1,942,151.31 MATERIALS --174,665.82 352,408.44 178,74.S.97 352,40 1.86 204,000 39 39i,94! 97 NETWOR K SUPPORT 1 ,546,281.00 3,119,800.26 1,676,98 7.06 3.10G.1e3.a1 1 ,8 9 2,080.72 3,644,492, 70 ORGANIZATIONA L EFFECTIVENESS 467,582.39 943,401.39 500,31 1.15 986,358,60 817,445.48 2,185,345.52 PLANNING & PROGRAMMING 746,397.16 1,505,942,36 649.436 .. 68 :,280,358.14 887,711.67 1,709,894.65 PRODUCT DEVELO PMENT & SALES 63),281.36 628,336.07 295,611.85 569,402.37 PUBLIC RELATIDr!S & MARKETIN G 1,419,355.89 2,863,714,.20 1,204,454.3) 2,374,570.05 1,433,703.71 2,761,574.94 PURCHASING & CONTRACTS -500,184.57 1,009,180.0S 528,276,<2 1,041,491.87 583,080.28 1,123,119,00 IRADIO CONTROL --833,131.42 1,274,034.71 911,887.54 1,363,883.37 CUALITY ASSURANCE 64,370.02 197,775.48 CUALITY ASSURANCE & STATS 47,640.82 .91 ,764,92 RfAL ESTATE 294,302.97 593,790.18 643,445.15 1,268,54 5.90 4 79,169.27 922,967.45 RIDESHME/VAN ?OOL 188,001.73 2,796,086.27 9,54 1.73 2,982,175.05 RJSK MArMGEMENT 1,334,281 ,29 2,692,066 40 1,782,278 _96 3,513,745.76 64),489.42 1,262,704.53 RIVERSIDE PARATRANSIT OPERATIONS -12,617,157,0 2 I 3,280,748.59 96,:16 .71 13,993,787.71 SAFffi 724,357 15 ~ ---1,461.474 )9 970,522.13 1,913,37 5.02 1,092,196.86 2,10 3,770.43 SALT LAKE INTERMODAL EX PENSES -81,l Sl.28 81,214.43 ~28.28 98,086.37 s ,cuR1n· -3,070,18).92 ~4.446.1_!-3,14613 72.21 6,203,042.45 3,646,238.6 2 7,018,159.59 STRATEGIC TH IN(TANK 149,609.50 301,8'5 4 .42 164,105.49 323,532.38 150,365.08 269,630.58 SJPPLY CH AIN AOM IN --115,212.20 232,453.90 131,738.C4 259,7'/fJ.27 161,775.98 311,610.06 TECHNOLO GY DEPLOYMENT --148,216.61 Z99,044 10 194,037.77 382,543.60 __ 3_26,861~ 6 29,595.4 1 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT -888,9C9.92 1,793,478.28 1,052,346.28 2,0741691.71 31,237.84 59,619.78 TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT 220.720.32 445,328 .70 265,26• 18 522,965.78 567,448.40 2,101,819.07 T~CflNOLOGY SUPPORT FAClllT) -42 5,164.4 5 857,818.32 --974,013.82 284,603 96 999,665.9 3 T:LECOMMU NICATIONS -481,0~6.36 9)0,647.22 -1__;067,755.90 257,649.57 1,211,818.55 T'IANSIT :OMMUNICATION CENTER -411,902.61 l ,463,666.14 nANSIT :lRIENTED DEVELOPMENT -43s,an,oG 879,432.24 142,805.7 5 281,540.lS 154,/44.51 311,306.05 !TRAININ G ~ 663,882.11 1,339,458.73 1,986,983.77 485,898.48 1,812,74 8.77 VEHICLE DISPOS;.L 7,336.37 14i'l31.00 VP OPERATIO NS AND CAPITAL -~ 281,382.32 545,579.00 WAREHOUSI NG 507 ,666.93 1,024,276.58 1,019,706.04 2,010,340.62 1,381,380.9 0 2,660,791.67 WORKfORCE SYSTEMS 466,000.16 940,209.06 702,725.91 1,385,417 35 335,183 27 675,667 63 973 (grant) {44 ,218.95) 9075 (cram ) (30,705.90) 100·15 (grant) 1,056.49 Gra nd Total 14 727 722.82 16 947 303.42 29,307,975.36 47,716130.62 15 647,610 .41 17,411,835.87 33,376,216.39 52,181,107.64 17,415,106.79 18,070,811.13 37,376,825.96 _2b!~,626.ll t,fote,; Highlighted rnogones ,ro bus oper,Tnal s uppon cosis Fare Ops 10 be excluded when r,rcs gencra1cd ,re.rcwmcd bJ LIA Ba« i•c,r is der,ned as 1hcye,r of the moSI c1,rrcnl NT D d"1o, 2018 Motor Bus (less FLEX) I All Modes (including Flex) Cost Category ACCOUNTING APPLICAT ION DEVELO ASSET MANAGEMENT BOARD COORDINATIO CHIEF COMMUNICIAT CHIEF FINANCIAL OFF CHIEF PEOPLE OFFl~E CHIEF TECHNOLOGY 0 CIVIL RIGHTS CORPORATE & BOARD CUSTOMER SERVICE DA-A QUAIUTV & P.IO FACILITIES -_ Ops Support Administration ~~ Ad mi~tra~ MENT ---I INS OFFICER ER FICER iUPPORT - ~ ~SHI P -- IATIONS ~- ElOPMENT -- CTIV'E NESS 1MING NT & SALES IARKETING ACTS --- I STATS FARE STRA-EGY & OP FED FUNDS FINANCIALSERVICTS GEr.ERAL COUNSEL GEl.,ERA L MANAGER HU\1AN SERVI CES INTERNAL AUDIT MAJOR PROGRAM DE MATERIALS NtWORK SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONAL EF PLANN ING & PROGRA PRODUCT DEVELOPM PUBLICRHATIONS & PURCHASltlG & CONT• I RADIO CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE QUALITY ASSURANCE REALEST ATE RIDESHARE/VANPOO RISK MANAGEME'l RIVE.ASIDE PARATRAN IT OPERATIDNS SAFETY SALT LAKE I NTERMO SECURITY 1l E)(PENSES < ~EIIT >M ENT r T FACI LITY IS STRATEGIC THINK TA SUPPLY CHAIN ADM I TECH NOLCGY DEPLO TECH.,.NOl◊GY DEVEL TECHNOLOGY SUPPO TECHNOLOGY SUPPO TELECOMMUNICATIO TR ANSIT COMMU r'1CA TRANSIT ORIENTED D !TRAINING TION CENTER VE-ilCLE D SPOSAL VP OPERArlONS AND WAREHOUSING WORKFORCE SYSTEM 973 (grant! 9075 (grant) 1oa-1s (grant) Grand Total VELOPMENT :APITAL -- -- ----- - ~ - -- -- .:i1egones .:ire ous opernf Not~• ll1fhlightcd c -------- -- NTD Administra1 2019 2020 I Motor Bus (less FLE X) I All Modes (including Flex) Motor Bus ( less FLEX) I All Modes (including Flex) I Ops Support Administration Ops Support Administration Ops Support Administration Ops Suppo rt . Administration I I .I J I 7 l J -------------~ ---- :ion Cost Centers ---------- 2021 2022 2023 I Motor Bus (less FLEX) I All Modes (including Flex) Motor Bus (less FLEX) I All Modes (including Fl ex) Motor Bus (less FLEX) I All Modes (including Fle x) I Cost .f!!.4_"!'£....__ .Q~ssue(!!!rt Administration Oes Suee2!!_ Administration .QJ>s Sueeort Administration O~p,.!!i:t_ ~c!_m ini.stratLo!!.__ Op s Sueeort Administration OpsSu~".1 Administration ACCOUNTING APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT ---------ASSET M ANAGE M ENT ------i BOARD COO RO I riA TION CHIEF COMM UN ICIATIO'IS OFFl~ER CHIEF FIN ANCIAL OFFICER CHIEF PEOPLE OFFICER CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER CIVIL RIGHTS CORPORATE & a,ARD S.UPPORT -- CUSTOMER SJRVICE --I OATA QUAIUTY & RIDERSHIP --FACILITIES I FARE STRATEGY!. OPERATIONS ~- FED FUNDS FINANCIAL SERViCES GENERAL COUNSE L GE NERA L M ANA:iER l-4UMAN SERVICES INTERNAL AUDIT MAJOR PROGR~ '1 DEV.ELOPME NT - MATERIALS -I NETWORK SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS PlANNING & PROGRAMMING PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT & SALES PUBLIC RElATIONS & MARKETING PURCHASING & CONTRACTS -I RADIO CONTROL - QUALITY ASSURANCE QUALiTY ASSURANCE & STATS REA L ESTATE RlDESHA~E/VANPOOL RISK MANAGEMENT RIVERSIDE PARATRANSIT OPERATIO NS SAFETY SALT lAKE INTERMODAL EXPENSES J -SECURITY -I STRATEGIC THI NK TANK ~UPPLY CHAIN AOM IN -- TECH NOLOGY DEPLOYMENT --I TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT -·TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT I TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT FACILITY . TELECOMMUNICATION S TRANSIT COM M~Nl ~TION CENTE!\-_ I TRANSIT OR IENT :0 DEV EL OPMENT . !TRAINING I - VEHICLE JI SPOSAL VP OPERATIONS ANO CAPITAL --\oiAREHOUSING I WORKFORCE SYSTEMS -- 973 (grartl 9)75 (grant ) ll)Q.15 (grant) Grand Total Notes 1-HghHght~d co 1cgori es are bus op,mll Co>t Ca tegory ACCOUNTltiG - 2024 Motor Bus (les s FLEX) I All Modes (including Flex) OpsSu_ll~'!_ Administratio~ps ~po~inistr~ Motor Bus (less FLE X) Ops Support Adminis tration APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT ASS ET MANAGEMENT BOARD COORDINATION ------------ CH IEF COMMUNICIATIONS Of: CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CHIEF PEOFLE OFFICER CHIEF TECHNOLOGV OFFICER CIV L RIGHTS CORPORAE& BOARD SUPPO CUSTOMER SERVIC[ DATA QUAllTY & ~IDERSHI P FACILITIES FICER n IS FARE STRATEGY & OPE RAT ON FEO FUNOS f lNANCIAl SERVICES GHIERAL COUNSEl GEJJERAL MANAGER HUMAN SERVICES INTERNAL AUDIT MAJOR PROGRAM D EVELOPM MATERIALS ENT lfSS NElWORK SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONAL =FFECTl'o/E PLANNING&. PROGRAM MING PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT & S, PUBLIC RELATIONS & MAR<ET PURCHASING & CONTRACTS I RADIO CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE QUALITY ASSURANCE & STAT REAL ESTATE RIDESHARE/VANPOOL \l£S ING - - - -- -~ -- --- RISK MANAGEMENT RIVERSIDE PARATRANSIT OPE ~ATIDNS SAFETY SALT LAKE I NTERMODAL EKP: NSES -- ----- ITY - SECURITY STRATEGICTH INKTANK SUPPLY CHAIN AO MIN TECH NOLO GV DfP_OYMENT TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT TECII NOLCGY SUP?ORT TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT FhCI T£LECOMMUNl CATIONS (TRANSIT COMMUIJICATIO~ C TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOP ENTER - !TRAIN IN G VEH ICLE DISPOSAL VP OPERATIONS AND CAPITA WARfHOUSI NG WORKFOR:E SYST,MS 973 (grant; 9075 (grant) 100-15 (g,ant) Grand Total No tes· H1£l1l1ghleo cn1egor1es -~ENT -- -- --- arc biis opcc;u ----------------------~ I 2025 2026 I I All Modes (including Flex ) M otor Bus (Jess FLEX ) I All Modes (including Flex) I . Ops Suppo rt Administration Ops Support Administration Ops Suppo rt Administration ----l J I I J J j I I l ------~--~~ ~--- EXHIBIT3 ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UT AH TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (2021-22 FTN Routes) This Addendum No. 4 ("Addendum") to that certain Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement ("ILA") is made this __ day of_~ 2021, by and between Utah Transit Authority, a public transit district organized under the laws of the State of Utah ("UT A"), and Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal corporation ("City"). UTA and City are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Parties" and each may be referred to individually as "Party," all as governed by the context in which such words are used. RECITALS A. On the 6th day of March, 2019, the Parties entered into the ILA, whereby the parties agreed to participate jointly in planning and funding for public transportation improvements in and around the City; and B. Pursuant to the terms of the ILA, the Parties desire to specifically identify certain components of the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan to be governed by this Addendum. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Pursuant to Section 3 of the ILA, the City, in cooperation with UT A, identified as the City-sponsored frequent transit network routes for the 2021-22 ("FTN Routes") to be provided by UTA for a one-year period from the August 2021 change day until the next succeeding August change day. 2. The description of those 2021-22 FTN Routes is set forth in Attachment 1. 3. The description of the 2021-22 Baseline Services is set forth in Attachment 2. 4. The calculation of the Annual Service Mile Charge for the City-sponsored 2021- 22 FTN Routes is set forth in in Attachment 3. 5. The final routing and implementation of the FTN Routes shall be determined in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations and policies regarding transit service planning (including, without limitation, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act) and operational considerations shall be addressed in consultation with the City. 6. Invoicing for implementation of the FTN Routes will be according to Section 7 of the ILA. 7. This Addendum may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures were upon the same instrument. 8. This Addendum is limited to the terms expressly provided herein and except as set forth herein, the ILA shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. If there is a conflict between this Addendum and the ILA, the terms of this Addendum shall prevail and control. 9. Any capitalized terms that are not specifically defined in this Addendum shall have 1 the meanings set forth in the ILA. 10. This Addendum will become effective upon Salt Lake City Council's adoption of a resolution authorizing the Mayor or her designee to enter into this Addendum; and appropriation of funding to meet the City's financial obligations under this Addendum (the "Effective Date"). [THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE JS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.] 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Addendum as of the Effective Date. [Signature pages to Addendum No. 4 to Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement] UT AH TRANSIT AUTHORITY By _______________ _ Its ---------------- By _____________ _ Its ---------------- Approved as to Form UT A Legal Counsel 3 [Signature pages to Addendum No. 4 to Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement] SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By _______________ _ Its ---------------- APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney's Office By: ___________ _ Senior City Attorney Date: ----------- ATTEST & COUNTERSIGN: Salt Lake City Recorder's Office By: ___________ _ City Recorder [ Attach Salt Lake City Council Resolution Approving Addendum] 4 ATTACHMENT A Description of the 2021-22 FTN Routes For This Addendum No. 4 5 ATTACHMENT B 2021-22 Baseline Services For This Addendum No. 4 6 ATTACHMENT C Funding for 2021-22 Transit Service For This Addendum No. 4 7 N A Phase I SLCTMP Implementation LEGEND Already Implemented -2 1000NORTH Future North Temple/ Redwood 600NORTH Mobility Hub -NORTH TEMPLE Location TBD POPLAR GROVE BLVD Cl "~ ~ ~ a:: Cl V) 0 Q ~ § fa <( a:: <= I 1--~ ~ 0 0 "' - 1-- ~ 0 0 CY) 1--~ 0 0 CY) 400SOUTH ...., ~ "' ~ 0 0 1--s;;! 1--~ v, -i =!: V, i! ;;j V, :.I :::i --i SOUTH TEMPLE 200SOUTH UNIVERSITY BLVD 900SOUTH -9 -21 To Be Implemented -1 Unfunded -4 Future University of Utah Mobility Hub C, §;; I )> <: -------------------· i 7300SOUTH c:l '° 0 0 0 ~ ~ V, V, --i --i 2100SOUTH 0 w 0 0 ~ V, --i 0.5 -< 1 Miles 2 ~ <( ~ ~ :::, (/) w > ~ :::, u w X w z <( ..I D. c,: w Iii <( :I: .. iii z g ~ u !:! <( ..I !::; ;,; "j SALT LAKE CITY'S Frequent Transit Network The Transit Master Plan provides a vision for an expanded Frequent Transit Network (FTN); it is a long-term, 20-year vision that identifies the corridors where high-frequency service should be provided in Salt Lake City. Building off the existing grid network, the FTN is a set of designated transit corridors that offers frequent and reliable service connecting major destinations and neighborhood centers seven days a week throughout the day and evening. The lines on the FTN map (following page) do not represent individual routes, but are corridors where frequent service would be provided by a combination of bus or rail technologies. Defining an FTN vision allows Salt Lake City to work closely with Utah Transit Authority (UTA) to set priorities for service provision now and in the future. Why a Grid Network? Salt Lake City's existing, centralized hub model is effective for regional connections but is inefficient for some local trips. Currently, many of UTA's routes terminate at Central Station, which provides good connectivity to commuter rail service, but creates challenges for people who need to travel to other destinations throughout the city, necessitating multiple transfers and/or indirect trips. The FTN builds on Salt Lake City's strong street network grid. FTN Frequency and Span Frequency ■15 minutes (or better) ■30 minutes Monday • Friday Saturday Sunday 4 6 8 W U 2 4 6 8 W U AM PM AM Hours of Service Radial vs. Grid Network Radial (Hub and Spoke) I --~-............... ---.................... - Grid 1000 N ~ w 0 0 ..... w 0 0 O'I w 0 0 M .... Legend 0 -Funded Unfunded UTA Rail 0.5 1 Mile 8 Draft for Spring 2021 Approval Addendum 4: 2021 Baseline Service Please refer to the UTA Five-Year Service Plan adopted on 2/24/2021 for UTA's baseline service. www.rideuta.com/serviceplan Summary: • The Five-Year Service Plan includes FTN level service on Route 2 on weekdays as part of UTA's baseline service level. • UTA made improvements to the span of service on Routes 2, 9, and 21 in August 2020, which are now included in the baseline at not additional cost to SLC. • While Route 21 also meets UTA's Service Design Guidlines on Weekdays, it was not inclued in UTA's baseline service in the current Five-Vear Service Plan due to other needs taking priority. Annual August 2020 2021 Baseline Miles Total Miles Miles 2 213,344 173,704 9 476,251 120,704 21 374,658 278,290 Total 1,064,254 572,697 Annual August 2020 2021 Hours Total Hours Baseline Hours 2 24,712.33 18,271.60 9 45,458.27 2,042.00 21 34,891.40 25,192.87 Total 105,062.00 45,506.47 2021 Sponsored Miles 39,641 355,547 96,369 491,557 2021 Sponsored Hours 6,440.73 43,416.27 9,698.53 59,555.53 Route 2 9 21 LEGEND People-Based TPI WKD Pass/Hr SAT Pass/Hr exceeds standards (under served) meets standards partially meets standards does not meet standards (over served) SUN Pass/Hr htto· 1/wy(,N rideuta com/ 669 West 200 South Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Utah Transit Authority 2019 Annual Agency Profile Executive Director: Ms. Carolyn Gonot (801) 262-5626 Urbanized Area Statistics• 2010 Census Salt Lake City-West Valley City, UT 278 Square Miles 1,021,243 Population 42 Pop. Rank out of 498 UZAs Other UZAs Served 77 Ogden-Layton, UT, 82 Provo-Orem, UT, O Utah Non-UZA Service Area Statistics 737 Square Miles 1,883,504 Population General Information Service Consumption 355,283,691 Annual Passenger Miles (PMT) 44,578,161 Annual Unlinked Trips (UPT) 152,903 Average Weekday Unlinked Trips 77,094 Average Saturday Unlinked Trips 29,486 Average Sunday Unlinked Trips Service Supplied 39,461,217 Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles (VRM) 2,236,481 Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours (VRH) 1, 141 Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service {VOMS) 1,475 Vehicles Available for Maximum Service (VAMS) Modal Characteristics Database Information NTDID: 80001 Reporter Type: Full Reporter Financial Information Sources of Operating Funds Expended Fares and Directly Generated $63,441,106 Local Funds $265,436,369 State Funds $0 Federal Assistance $69,746,231 Total Operating Funds Expended $398,623,706 Sources of Capital Funds Expended Fares and Directly Generated $0 Local Funds $33,768,058 State Funds $7,286,829 Federal Assistance $16,395,069 15.9%■ 66.6%■ 0.0% 17.5% 100.0% 0.0% 58.8%■ 12.7%-28.5% Total Capital Funds Expended $57,449,956 100.0% Operating Funding Sources 17.5% II.I% Capital Funding Sources 21.5% Modal Overview Mode Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service Uses of CaE!ilal Funds Summary of Operating Expenses (OE) Commuter Bus Commuter Rail Demand Response Light Rail Bus Vanpool Total Operation Characteristics Mode Commuter Bus Commuter Rail Demand Response Light Rail Bus Vanpool Total Performance Measures Mode Commuter Bus Commuter Rail Demand Response Light Rail Bus Vanpool Total Directly Purchased Revenue Systems and Operated Transportation Vehicles Guideways 41 $0 $0 50 $0 $6,668,392 64 46 $142,702 $50,668 89 $0 $18,486,994 416 5 $11,494,983 $8,750,091 430 $3,118,109 $47,753 1,090 51 $14,755,794 $34,003,898 Operating Uses of Annual Expenses Fare Revenues Capital Funds Passenger Miles $8,448,535 $522,214 $0 12,128,093 $44,291,302 $7,084,619 $8,932,406 133,685,517 $20,257,462 $349,801 $285,378 4,423,804 $71,152,658 $17,630,129 $19,630,942 83,098,538 $150,988,092 $18,988,821 $25,424,825 84,921,158 $15,911,105 $3,927,899 $3,176,407 37,026,581 $311,049,152 $48,503,483 $57,449,956 355,283,691 Service Efficiency Operating Expanses par Vehicle Revenue Mile $9.34 $620 $7.03 $10.83 $8.75 $2.47 $7.88 Operating Expanses par Vehicle Revenue Hour $239.23 $265.75 $111.46 $194.60 $116.93 $81.22 $139.08 Facilities and Stations $0 $2,237,066 $92,006 $1,077,775 $5,138,773 $0 $8,545,620 Annual Unlinked Trips 549,661 5,193,879 388,285 17,128,008 20,249,984 1,068,364 44,578,161 Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Operating Expanse par Passenger Mila: Mile: Bus Bus Unlnked Passenger Trip per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Bus $10.00 ,;=~;;;;;;;;;:;:~.::;;::;.;;;;;..:: $2,60 $8JIO I I I •• ..,... $2.00 ,-----<~.._-----~-~ $UICI : ........ ._ -$1.10 . I~ ~ $4JI0'-------------'1.00 .... ::'-------------=:c--=--------•ooE ,.. ... ,.oo .... .... Other $0 $26,948 $0 $66,173 $40,978 $10,545 $144,644 Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles 904,101 5,401,987 2,881,355 6,569,208 17,252,754 6,451,812 39,461,217 Mode Commuter Bus Commuter Rail Demand Response Light Rail Bus Vanpool Total Total Labor $214,935,053 69.1% $0 Materials and Supplies $57,731,526 18.6% $8,932,406 Purchased Transportation $4,681,383 1.5% $285,376 Other Operating Expenses $33,701,190 10.8% $19,630,942 Total Operating Expenses $311,049,152 100.0% $25,424,825 Reconciling OE Cash Expenditures $87,574,554 $3,176,407 Purchased Transportation $57,449,956 (Reported Separately) $0 Fixed Guideway Vehicles Available Annual Vehicle Directional for Maximum Vehicles Operated in Revenue Hours Route Miles Service Maximum Service 35,315 0.0 45 41 166,668 174.5 69 50 181,749 0.0 165 110 365,639 93.9 117 89 1,291,215 9.4 535 421 195,895 0.0 544 430 2,236,481 277.8 1,475 1,141 Service Effectiveness Operating Expanses par Passenger Mile $0.70 $0.33 $4.58 $0.86 $1.78 $0.43 $0.88 Operating Expanses par Unlinked Passenger Trip $15.37 $8.53 $52.17 $4.15 $7.46 $14.89 $6.98 Unlinked Trips par Vehicle Revenue Mile 0.6 1.0 0.1 2.6 1.2 0.2 1.1 Percent Average Fleet Spare Vehicles Age in Years• 8.9% 14.4 27.5% 17.5 33.3% 4.1 23.9% 12.3 21.3% 6.7 21.0% 5.6 22.&o/. Unlinked Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour 15.6 31.2 2.1 46.8 15.7 5.5 19.9 Operating Expense per Ve hide Revenue Mile: Light Rail Operating Expense per Passenger Mile: Light Rail Unlinked Passenger Trip per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Light Rail $16.00 I $1.00 ,--------~-... -----LOO µ1-------------$::: r.-..... _____ •~-■--r-"-• __ •_-__ ~~ >-•--•----•--~------~~ ~ e e I I I e $0JIO L. -------------$0.00 .~------------<OO L. -------------10 11 12 13 U 11 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 ,. 17 18 ,, 10 11 12 13 14 15 ,. 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 ,. 17 18 19 ~ •Demand Response -Taxi (OT) and non-dedicated fleets do not report fleet age data. Sources: Utah Transit Authority Operating Cost per Mile by Mode 2019 Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD), Agency Profile, https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/transit-agency-profiles 2019 Utah Transit Authority Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), http://www.rideuta.com/ About-UTA/UTA-Reports-and-Documents 2019 NTD 012erating Ex12enses b~ Mode Bus Service $ 150,988,092 Commuter Bus $ 8,448,535 Commuter Rail $ 44,291,302 Light Rail $ 71,152,656 Paratransit Service $ 20,257,462 Other Service NTDTotals Fuel Costs NTD Plus Fuel $ 15,911,105 $ 311,049,152 Less Fuel Costs {Diesel, CNG and Gasoline) $ (8,534,028) $ $ (507,673) $ (5,613,091) $ $ $ (961,710) $ $ (905,831) $ $ (16,522,333) $ CAFR less revenue amortization (Capital Maintenance) Difference 2018 COST PER MILE De12reciation 25,412,263 57,000,066 57,000,066 4,171,785 2,527,944 146,112,123 Total Costs $ 167,866,327 $ 7,940,862 $ 95,678,277 $ 128,152,722 $ 23,467,537 $ 17,533,218 $ 440,638,942 $ 16,522,333 $ 457,161,275 $ 457,161,275 $ Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles 17,252,754 904,101 5,401,987 6,569,208 2,881,355 6,451,812 39,461,217 Cost Per Vehicle Revenue Mile Without Fuel excluding Vehicle De12reciation $ 8.26 Bus Service --$ 8.78 Commuter Bus $ 7.16 Commuter Rail $ 10.83 Light Rail $ 6.70 Paratransit Service $ 2.33 Other Service $ 7.46 DRAFT for Spring 2020 Approval Addendum 4: Paratransit Costs 2020-2021 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South 35,315 Commuter Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (2019 NTD) 365,639 Light Rail Vehicle Revenue Hours (2019 NTD) 1,291,215 Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (2019 NTD) ---------1,692,169 Total Vehicle Revenue Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus, and LRT 181,749 Total Demand Response Vehicle Revenue Hours (2019 NTD) 11% Demand Response Percentage of Total Vehicle Revenue Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus, and Light Rail May 2021 Approval Addendum4 2021-2022 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, and 2100 South VARIABLE VALUES $ 8.26 2.2% 2 Most recent NTD Cost per Revenue Mile, Bus Service (1) Annual escalator rate (2) Number of Years since NTD report I 20%1Administrative Discount off the 35% built into NTD (3) 491,557 Sponsored Revenue Miles: 200 S weekends, 900 S, and 2100 S I 11%ISponsored Paratransit Service rate (4) I $ 2.251 Fuel Cost per Gallon (Service Year Budgeted Cost) 5 Fuel Efficiency, Miles per Gallon (adjust per vehicle type) I $ 493,061 I Annual Sponsored Vehicle Lease Costs 10 Sponsored Vehicles .__ ______ _. (1) NTD Cost per Revenue Mile has been adjusted to exclude fuel expense but does include approximately 2% for capital maintenance (e.g. engine replacement, etc). (2) The annual escalator is a calculated average of the PCE CPI over a twenty year period. (3) UTA will discount the administrative charges in proportion to the scale of the service increase in revenue miles. (4) Paratransit Service rate is equal to the percentage of the most recent NTD reported total demand response vehicle revenue hours as compared to total vehicle revenue hours for Bus, Commuter Bus and Light Rail. SPONSORED SERVICE COST $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 8.26 Most recent NTD Cost Per Mile -Bus Service 8.62 NDT rate Adjusted to Service Year Costs 6.90 Discounted NTD Adjusted to Service Year Costs 491,557 Sponsored Revenue Miles 3,389,849.87 Total Mileage Cost, Without Fuel, Annual 371,304.87 Add Paratransit Service 3,761,154.74 Total Annual Operating Costs without fuel 2.25 Fuel Cost per Gallon 5.0 Bus Miles per Gallon 491,557 Sponsored Revenue Miles 221,200.49 Total Fuel Cost 49,306.14 Per Vehicle Principal+ Interest Rate 10 Vehicles needed for sponsored service 493,061.40 Total Annual Vehicle Cost for Sponsored Service 4,475,416.63 TOTAL  ADDENDUM NO. 5 TO SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UT AH TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (Mobilization Funding for 1000 North) This Addendum No. 5 ("Addendum") to that certain Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement ("ILA") is made this __ day of June, 2021, by and between Utah Transit Authority, a public transit district organized under the laws of the State of Utah ("UT A"), and Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal corporation ("City") is made and entered into as of the date the Addendum is stamped by the Salt Lake City Recorder's Office ("Effective Date"). UTA and City are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Parties" and each may be referred to individually as "Party," all as governed by the context in which such words are used. RECITALS A. On the fX th day of June, 2021, the Parties entered into the ILA, whereby the parties agreed to participate jointly in planning and funding for public transportation improvements in and around the City; and B. Pursuant to the terms of the ILA, the Parties desire to specifically identify certain components of the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan public transportation improvements to be governed by this Addendum. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. As contemplated in Section 3 of the ILA, the City, in cooperation with UTA, has identified and funded a total of four corridors for City-sponsored frequent transit network routes ("FTN Routes") to be provided by UT A for a one-year period from the August 2021 change day until the next succeeding August change day. The corridors are depicted in Attachment A to this Addendum. hree of the corridors began service in August of 2019, and are subject to other addenda. These are 200 South, 900 South, and 2100 South. One additional corridor, 1000 North, is proP.osed for mobilization in January of 2022, and is the subject of this Addendum. The service characteristics of the FTN Routes, the additional vehicles necessary to support the FTN Routes, and the Annual Service Mile Charge (as such term is defined in the ILA) applicable to the FTN Routes shall all be memorialized pursuant to an additional addendum to be subsequently executed by the parties. 2. The term of this Agreement is from the Effective Date until August _, 2022 ("Term"). 3. Pursuant to Section 6 of the ILA, UTA has identified a mobilization charge reflecting the costs to be incurred by UTA to prepare for the sponsored FTN Routes (the "Mobilization Funding"). The Mobilization Funding shall be utilized solely for implementation of the FTN Routes according to the itemized description in Attachment B to this Addendum. 4. UTA shall submit invoices for the Mobilization Funding in accordance with the milestone payment schedule included as Attachment B. To the extent that the hiring of additional headcount contemplated in Attachment B does not match the proposed schedule identified in Attachment B, then UT A shall adjust the invoices for milestone payments to reflect hiring of 1 additional headcount during the Tenn; provided, however, that any adjustment of amounts invoiced shall not exceed $x during the Tenn of this Agreement. The City shall pay all approved invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. If the City does not approve an invoice, a written explanation of disputed items will be sent within ten (10) business days of the City's receipt of the mv01ce. 5. This Addendum may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original , with the same effect as if the signatures were upon the same instrument. 6. This Addendum is limited to the terms expressly provided herein and except as set forth herein, the ILA shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. If there is a conflict between this Addendum and the ILA, the terms of this Addendum shall prevail and control. [THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.] 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Addendum effective the date first set forth herein. [Signature pages to Addendum No. 4 to Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement] UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY By _______________ _ Executive Director By _____________ _ Chief Planning and Engagement Officer Approved as to Form UTA Legal Counsel 3 [Signature pages to Addendum No. 4 to Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement] SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By _______________ _ Its ---------------- APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney's Office By: ___________ _ Senior City Attorney Date: ----------- ATTEST & COUNTERSIGN: Salt Lake City Recorder's Office By: ___________ _ City Recorder [Attach Salt Lake City Council Resolution Approving Addendum] 4 ATTACHMENT A Description of FTN Routes For This Addendum No. 5 5 ATTACHMENT B Funding for Mobilization For This Addendum No. 5 6 N A Phase I SLCTMP Implementation LEGEND Already Implemented -2 1000NORTH Future North Temple/ Redwood 600NORTH Mobility Hub -NORTH TEMPLE Location TBD POPLAR GROVE BLVD Cl "~ ~ ~ a:: Cl V) 0 Q ~ § fa <( a:: <= I 1--~ ~ 0 0 "' - 1-- ~ 0 0 CY) 1--~ 0 0 CY) 400SOUTH ...., ~ "' ~ 0 0 1--s;;! 1--~ v, -i =!: V, i! ;;j V, :.I :::i --i SOUTH TEMPLE 200SOUTH UNIVERSITY BLVD 900SOUTH -9 -21 To Be Implemented -1 Unfunded -4 Future University of Utah Mobility Hub C, §;; I )> <: -------------------· i 7300SOUTH c:l '° 0 0 0 ~ ~ V, V, --i --i 2100SOUTH 0 w 0 0 ~ V, --i 0.5 -< 1 Miles 2 Addendum 5 1000 North Mobilization (122,274 miles, 22,918 hours) Monthly Cost Mobilization FTE/Unit Position/Item per FTE/unit January February March April May June July Total 2 Mechanics $ 7,192 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 100,688 1 Fixed Supervisors $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 52,500 1 TCC Dispatch $ 5,234 $ -$ -$ -$ 5,234 $ 5,234 $ 5,234 $ 5,234 $ 20,936 0 Para Supervisors $ 7,200 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -15 Operator Recruitment one time $ 3,000 $ 2,400 $ 1,800 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ -$ 9,000 15 Operator Training one time $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 275,500 15 Operator Service $ 5,964 $ 14,910 $ 47,712 $ 59,640 $ 89,460 $ 89,460 $ 301,182 4 Vehicle Procurement $ 3,912 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15,648 $ 15,648 $ 31,296 Sub Total $ 24,884 $ 70,201 $ 84,511 $ 121,347 $133,275 $178,743 $178,143 $ 791,102 20% Administration $ 4,977 $ 14,040 $ 16,902 $ 24,269 $ 26,655 $ 35,749 $ 35,629 $ 158,220 TOTAL $ 29,861 $ 84,241 $101,413 $ 145,616 $159,930 $214,491 $213,771 $ 949,322 Mobilization Milestone Invoices Month Expense* Admin Total 1/1/2022 $ 24,884 $ 4,977 $ 29,861 2/1/2022 $ 70,201 $ 14,040 $ 84,241 3/1/2022 $ 84,511 $ 16,902 $ 101,413 4/1/2022 $ 121,347 $ 24,269 $ 145,616 5/1/2022 $ 133,275 $ 26,655 $ 159,930 6/1/2022 $ 178,743 $ 35,749 $ 214,491 7/1/2022 $ 178,143 $ 35,629 $ 213,771 Subtotal $ 791,102 $158,220 $ 949,322 * Expense costs represent a not-to-exceed amount, invoices will be based on actual FTE hires.  Sources: Utah Transit Authority Operating Cost per Mile by Mode 2017 Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD), Agency Profile, https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/transit-agency-profiles 2017 Utah Transit Authority Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), http://www.rideuta.com/About-UTA/UTA-Reports-and-Documents 2017 NTD Operating Expenses by Mode Bus Service $ 129,545,466 Commuter Bus $ 7,749,445 Commuter Rail $ 34,438,729 Light Rail $ 64,680,283 Paratransit Service $ 17,851,347 Other Service NTD Totals Fuel Costs NTD Plus Fuel $ 3,469,358 $ 257,734,628 Less Fuel Costs {Diesel, CNG and Gasoline} $ {6,613,860) $ $ (4,740,099) $ $ $ {682,671) $ $ (751,355) $ $ {12,787,985) $ CAFR plus $20,602,• (capital maintenance) Difference Add Capital Maintenance 2,373,470 3,033,791 $ 12,963,472 $ 1,564,585 667,112 20,602,430 $ 2017 COST PER MILE Debt Service Depreciation $ 20,842,359 44,095,481 $ 51,793,725 44,095,481 $ 67,516,834 $ 5,678,317 $ 3,609,652 88,190,962 $ 149,440,887 Total Costs $ 146,147,435 $ 7,749,445 $ 128,621,627 $ 189,256,070 $ 24,411,578 $ 6,994,767 $ 503,180,922 $ 12,787,985 $ 515,968,907 $ 515,968,907 $ Cost Per Vehicle Revenue Mile Without Fuel Annual Vehicle excluding Vehicle Revenue Miles Depreciation 16,437,069 $ 7.62 Bus Service 1,017,334 $ 7.62 Commuter Bus 5,349,524 $ 14.36 Commuter Rail 6,732,768 $ 18.08 Light Rail 2,727,127 $ 6.87 Paratransit Service 6,449,439 $ 0.52 Other Service 38,713,261 $ 9.14 l·tfn ... 0(·J~AM,• t df:·C:: t' ]d tJ ~•-:. v'Ja-iit 2Cl03omt, ·~olt Lt .ce ct~. UT i!<:'IUI Utah Transit Au1lhority 201·1'Annual Ag~ncy Profile· Urbanized Area 51:i,;is!ICS"-:pfo census $sit ..,-J~~ Cil:~-West)/i:ll=lV ety,U- 278 S quar•Mlln l ,02'.243 !'l)puluUoo General Information S""'1ce Consu1T4Jtlon 3&4,859,218 Annual P u sen911tr ,.H (PMT) ~5 018 9 ~8 Annual UnHnhd Trip• (~T) 42 P op. Rank CIIJtOf 498 i..iz.-.s Other UZAs Se,ved ;; CJden..L~IOn,t.r. l2 ">i:OVD-O=lil, J1 , 6uta~k6/\-IJ!A 155 437 Av1r1ge Wu k:day Unlink eel Tripi 78,iaJ: Avarqe·Saturday U"linlc e4 -Trfps 29 651 Avuage Sunday Unthk•d Tri pt Sentce Area statistic• 7'37 S·quare Mll n l .89.S,SQd. P opulation Stll'Vlte Supplied 38 7 13 231 Annual V•hic l11ReY l!flue."M IH IVRM' 2 110,a 1t Annual Vahicl11ReYeiluotHours fVRH) 1.000 V.t!JcluOpented in M~ic imum Serv fi:e ~OMS) t ,337 Vehlclu lwa,11 ,bl ■ r~r ~xl111 u m S ■rvice fl~MS}1 Modal Charaa:eristlcs V'8hlcles Openled Datsbue lntarm~Qn NTCID, so,jo I R•pcr1tr1~>•: 'FUl Re~-:irt=l' Financial Information Sources or OperatinR Funds. E>:~ended ---_-o-,-.,.-~-•-g_f _u_nd-fr"t,g Sc,urces Fare.N',e,,.,enues $5<,l:5~.~IY,2 13S% wocal F Urteli $0 0 O'¼ SlateFun<Js $27 l",t'~;'.,'94 723% Fe.Gera.l As$st·ance: ~'.l:.t~l.l:71 11 4% -Otne.'Fun11S: if ,1i:;i,::-04 25% if:111 Ope~ting Fund, Expend•d $.l)'.,734,Gtt 100 f),t. Sources ot Capital Funds Expended Fare. Re.-@nue!S $0 !.OC'al Minds i :::,CtJ,t Iii State FUl'tds $1 t ., u.~ 13 Feoeral A.s:SstallCe $1:: 7 ,1· .::.;~ Olk F\lll<ls 10 Total C;apl\al Funcb El:pencl,w .c,52,:,01 .sso D ill<, I -91< ,s 1% 484~ 00¼ IO0 0J. 11 ,4¼ ;i,_lj._ •13.!Ji.. 72.ft Cnlt1t Funding ~).16('.it Modal Ovetvlew _1,1-Maxl~ Setylce _ ~ ------___ u"!!'i ,r_C~I FJmd•,_ ____ ----SUmmaryofOper,.ting E,q,81'l$QS (OEf "·"~ , ... Mod_, c J iJ'ilOler &Js 'C:i1nru1e.rFi1nl r. =! n 1nd Resporse I irt-t RaA □us \,~;i nrool Tot.I.I OJ>eralton Ch111ct"'1otlcs Mode C J ·f ffiiUerBJ~ (':',"l"lTfUter fii:1 L'_•~1~nd ReSp.ot'IS!' Lit;t"t Ra~ Rur. \'An:-Ool 1 ... 1 Performance Me.asires ~dt C..1·(1T111te:r8..l:i CYnnurerRatl r.=! n 1r,a Re$po~ LV t Ra! Ru~. \':J11!;J}(!I lt,ta/ Dirtcdy Purchuld RtY•nu• S'yswrns and Fi.clllt)!-5 and Operattd Tta nspcrtuton V•hlcltl Guld ■w:,1s $'1alians 43 i n ssa10 ~~ $~ 1 04 $13,278,3 (: $7R EJj 45 35 91 388 40, 1-m Op·o!:rlting Ex:-p ulsH ~· '.i49,445 C~ 4,<SS,729 ~-1 i ,8t.i ).3l7 GE4,600,21/J £1:--,:::_:11s,.;se- ~~.:=.--ria.3.se 1267.131~21 43 Fin Ra \l■nu ■s S501,B!t! $7'.li25!ii S591 545 S 17 968 71C si1 155 730 S 4 '28.933 "~-15t.202 $<:75)ljll 14,267.SSO $1.158.2"1 Sll.~2.1?2 1-1.365-.433 ~1"H-332 Utts of Capita l Furtds $2:35,7~6 S>S,181,56& $6.917.3$7 s ~::ien ,en -S:l4,780,l!.1 $1,55li.9'l $14..3t6.419 $923.3.f,•l -$1 ,l fl ;'=f:~I ;;' S6'.J8t ,l f-f-m 1,r~1:, $1 740.9 71 $3,f:6 [!1)~ $f 61J,1.F f.f. ✓-1-1 :2 570~~ 16.216,.!lff9 Annu:111 Af'lnUAI Pus11ng.,-&.1 es llnlll"lk" ~rlpt 12585,0lt f~•!..: t.Jb 121257.llff .Q}=Stir:l-=I ~ 2J0,64L :2.IH:!.:/t nsae.;,4 1 u.e2: :57 ) e6482,9d' 18 ;Htf ,'::='il 46"75ft,67F 1:~ti:1-r 1 Z&,,I ~crQ.2tS 44,,0,ei,11t _S8f\'ice Efflclet1c_l( Opera.ting ::a;·p•rtus P.•r V4hlcl• R11wnut hllt $/ ll2 $6.44 S M6 n ~, $7 36 $0,54 16.8!1 Optn,t)11g E)(p•ns-, p e,- Vehl~I• Revenue Ho ur $185 f cl $222 ,·, $f!Q rr $)SO.:, $10ti ~P $1!1 t~ •12:..10 Ol'ltr :t 1~0 i65 tE:.2 1i73 $C,S,l68 t'rn lul •t· .S~G $0.4 ,~::ri m l<!.1~~- •■..""1..al Vl!h Clt R.evienue M In · ',L·1'1 ,84 s::i1 !'l ,'"2'" '1,('.:: 1 t27 6,7 '.2-'68 ·r.:·l::"':'.s9 n;-H~-l31, ,-,,1; ;ie· Metde ::\n·1(11'.:· 3 p: ~Crr.-tUt9' ~~i -JFl"\S nr. RF~r~n s-1: _;;ihtRa ~IJO: Y\n :i uul TAUi Total ·~23C ,<.E~ ·flt:,61 ,:;;·i::; t.r,fll7 }T 1 :"t1f:,Ri'l ,r-n J::J--1 ,70(, I:;;:,. $ l,:i1•,:::,r,1 ; $],i,,321!1 ... 78 ~".nu:.tl V~llii::I• Rev enue Houn 41,t ':!: . ~!I,' !I~ '::'.::,1!.:~ J,C,,4 , 1.,?lf7'i '7f,7'l1, 2 .110.~1 , 'Sa1ary. Wig~s; Beoeli:tS Matenais ~nd SUpphes r urct"las:ed Transpart-ation :-:ttier Opetab"'=I EJIPertses- Tot.il o ,.nthg Er;an,~ Rtc:J'l:::-lir90E Ca.sh &:t1ei,d«uru . .$l &l .~L~.t-88 $;l l ,[Ci,:::16 £4 .U:5.0 J .~:=,:=v:i,r.94 i~7.7U.6:Z1 $U E,SS~.[9& Pwchsed Transportation ("t{)Of!f!O Sepaf3t!ly) $0 Fh:.ed Guhleway □1Nctl6 nal R,ut• MIIH · n.o 174,5 0 .0 23,2 2.1 o.n 27f) & Ve hltles Awa!l:a,ble rar MulntiL1 n1 \il~l11el,u o~~~d.tlia S ■rvl et In Mulm1.1n1 StrVlc• ::LI i,2, R!'I 4,5. 142 1~ I I< ii 5 · . ,!!< 4 M J.)87 -1[)5 1,0L-4: i30l> 12.4¼ 19% i3 0l> IO0 0'< Pll'Urwt Sp:a.r. Vthlcltt 31.8!f 3• ,e,; 1:?.9% 20,2% 22.9% 1 7 .0 % 21N t,!l~, A YE1'.31S i!, Ftut:A.g~lt1 'r'u.n~ f '.,!_' :=;.,.1 ;:l.::l 0.4 " :i-1 Ope'ratin9 Ei,;penses p« SelVI ce Jli;lfe<.tlveness --U.nlink•dTrips~ Op■ra;ttn s Expi•nsll!I p er Unlinked Puseng•r Tril# $1! 00 $1-09 $.48 1~ $3.~c Unllnhd Trip-s; per P.nsenger Mile $0.82 io-10 $/" ;"? f..0 .. 70 $1 ,,o $U.U' $0.71 $6 ,,, $1,/0 S5.1'!1: V ehicle ReY'tnue l'AI• 0.5 0,9 o l a 1.2 0.2 u Vtlilcl• Rewnue Hour . 3.J J f .4 -:'-1 51.5 . :~ =: i .1,. :!1.4 -ooe.a~ng El r:,: e(lSe r:,:.ar w:i':fe ;;ieven...=l ',1.e:au~ c;,qt ta.!fi\£1 E,¢1!!ns! o_@r Pa~l!l'\9:!I' Mue:eu~ Uni~ F ss~,n~i'" lriJJ J;·er•/ehlcle R:.ver.;et,tltfr 8~ ~~-::~u~)t~1.~-~U:1~:~cle 0~!13111g"1:i:~~~FJ·;~~.1¥!f~• Ur\l!Ni:::=,s,;~:::~~t'. _. ,m -1 ,.~ .,,, I .... ,.A._ •" ~-J .~ ----11.,; -,-........... • ,. ~~ -::; 7 ►• 09 "" '-----------,.),2! ■JI ---• 0-QI It I~ II•, •a ~ •f f 119 ~ : 11 ·:2 t: • _, UC O »· :a • ....... - , • ..., iU ,, t1Mc:. UL» _,.,,,,,,,,.... ~- •:: h-■ -.:,...,_~ ~=I" I I :··-·,:I' I....._ 0. I I • ,(1(111 I= --_.,,. ~-___________ ,_ .. ~. --------- • -I( -11 ~:-'-. M ltl-•If 'f' CE !» 1D tj "' 11 "'-15" 8 ii Ni Cl!! ,:, ~ ~:.=lmmt: Ql!'JIIJ,~S!-~:t,cl ([ffl "M.a 1'11").C=ldlczlBnll!et!l ~'r\OCffTK>!'l r-eeJ~!U8t3 Sources: Utah Transit Authority Operating Cost per Mile by Mode 2018 Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD), Agency Profile, https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/transit-agency-profiles 2018 Utah Transit Authority Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), http://www.rideuta.com/About-UTA/UTA-Reports-and-Documents 2018 NTD Operating Expenses by Mode Bus Service $ 140,001,661 Commuter Bus $ 8,635,671 Commuter Rail $ 43,421,951 Light Rail $ 71,414,293 Paratransit Service $ 18,695,571 Other Service NTD Totals Fuel Costs NTD Plus Fuel $ 18,784,904 $ 300,954,051 Less Fuel Costs {Diesel, CNG and Gasoline} $ {10,183,098) $ $ {635,588) $ $ (7,002,733) $ $ $ (1,367,502) $ $ (963,770) $ $ {20,152,691) $ CAFR plus $38,654, (capital maintenance) Difference Add Capital Maintenance 5,973,050 382,833 1,287,135 $ 11,146,472 $ 672,761 180,162 19,642,413 $ 2018 COST PER MILE Debt Service Depreciation $ 17,144,993 45,500,194 $ 28,412,725 45,500,194 $ 28,412,725 $ 4,290,318 $ 2,304,317 91,000,388 $ 80,565,077 Total Costs $ 152,936,606 $ 8,382,916 $ 111,619,272 $ 156,473,684 $ 22,291,148 $ 20,305,613 $ 472,009,238 $ 20,152,691 $ 492,161,929 $ 492,161,929 $ Cost Per Vehicle Revenue Mile Without Fuel Annual Vehicle excluding Vehicle Revenue Miles Depreciation 16,845,223 $ 8.06 Bus Service 1,066,181 $ 7.86 Commuter Bus 5,429,232 $ 15.33 Commuter Rail 6,655,535 $ 19.24 Light Rail 2,798,928 $ 6.43 Paratransit Service 6,354,828 $ 2.83 Other Service 39,149,927 $ 10.00 hito f~ '1dE'1. ~ co,,.. 669 Y\1eil 200 S: .rth Satla,lllc;r,, UI .'.'1101 llt~h Transit Authority 20111 Aril):Liat it:.g@llcy Prffia Urtanlzed ArH stul&llcs -2010 CfrlU!I :!~.llke.01',:\'v\:d.\h'f!,JOty UT '..:: ,~1:1 Sq1.11r1 MIIM l ,flJ l/:,1;1 Pop11ladon 4'..: Pop. Rllnk outof.488 lZAs Otht rUZAs Sened nc.Q'1eo-La:-t:in, ~T,82PrOV0-0::m. UT OUtah l\cWZ4 ser,lee Ar~n, St3tlsllcs •Sf Squ1.r1Mil• l al:l::.t_i.:. Pop1,1ladon General tnronnatJon s~nl cei Consumption ;3:1E t.i8.B81 Annual Pass.,,9w Mllu fPMTj .:.4 116 331 Annual lx'ltlnhd Tripi tU>T) 15,\,S()l .-,.,,.,.1,g1WMkday Unllr!ktid Tri!)!; 15,207 AWl'.a.1111 Saturcl~ Unllnke,Trip!i 29'91 t Avier.a;1 SUndiy Unllnkff Trip!i, service Supplll1d ;:I!.: t ,<9 ~2'l Annual V.t,lcl• RiWlf'IIH t.tt~tvRM) '..:: l6!J,5in Arwl'al al-Vet,lcJ,e Rwe,1 L1 .. H:io1,m; (VRH} ' l 13 Vffllcle5 Operated il1 Mldn um Seli'ic,e ('f0MS) l 386 Vehtcltt AvalllbleforMaxlmum Seivic,e,(VAMS) Modal Characterlsttc~s~--- Database l'lfotma,tlan NTDID: EJ:00.l Rc,pcinE-r Type: ~ .JJ R~oro.•J Financial lnfonnatlon Sou,-.::11. of :rptntllnt F unds £)!pended Open.ting F~g-Sources t.1esanc.Oir!i::Dij =~~n-r..tetl' ~.2ll8,427 LL-"<-11-.~ S-A3;41B,83J 'Stl'ltl" r·rnts. so IGJI\I 66:D11 '0.0!1 F!!.de:ra1 4.•;.,fd,•ce S:&1,75_8,422 14.4',\ 'tr_. Op•flllny Furrdt hl>CHi Id ~,30◄ 712 I00,011 Scurcu ofCapltaf Funds E>;pended ~ esaoc~:-~_-r._•1<.tea SO l.J..:.<.11-.~ $'6,753,477 .SUtte FJ \IIS ST.<15,678 f edera ,:,.,~:.:,·•~L,«:t Sll ,Bfli)~6 Tot.I O•laJ (un d lll E~ 11, "'6,03>.JO, Q.n!I 54 ,:r,. B.711 .37 ,01, IOOD\I 'M ,G 1-i'u .. .,.. Capital Funding soureots Mocfat Overview MoJa Gcr-m,JterElu·~ Veh ~le,s Opo&r~ In Maxim um Service Olncu., ------Pu-cii"iid OplnWCI Tru,1i,or:atlon •2 --Re\let!~ Vthlc-lfl to $0 $3;$34$40 Sf~m s i~!e:' 0~:di!~!n~"~~ Sumtliary tf Op&rating E x p1nsesc (OEJ ,, ... Co . .-fTIJter"ail {le,-a11tl'Re1,:µv11,:...: Ugr1 R all Eus ¥JrT.ioDI r .. ~ Op!ra,tlon Chzi~ct«fstic.s Mo• Corrruter Su~ ·corm.aer F.:'3il {)er 8P~ P.e•tµL 'f'J~' U)ir1 Rail ~us V.,-µool To,!lt Pedorman ce Measures Mode ('o.r-m.,ler Elus CGr·mJter h ~ilt Oer-~rt!S Rl!r,pr ,r:=! l.J91"1RSII oUS ~.,--p~•J Totlf Gl.lld.v,ayt S2ilon1 t14 r•: i:f.l.~E.t 50 59 ~0:::J s=3 2aa,S73 67 45 t:.: .' §::. :::i ::'b"S,574 91 -~D -519,615.9;1! $1,149~9 12A.oi9.120 .$i2,0C21:i $C!6,6~9 417 6 -'1., IC; 043 lo,Qli3.81fl $.>•>'L4 i,30.(lel f,)60 o, $Z,,3Zo,:,:;2 '1,t811J. Op.n.tltig Uses af Amn..r ~I i\nni,gl EXFNISN FtnR.of'HnUN Cl.pltal Funds P1H11n11•r MIIN Unlnked Trips $~.6,5,6)1 m 1,ern f41,S14 1_:r.3(S!Jt) ~S3.56~ $4:i,41'.95 ' f'a15.985 $9,2()7~5 129,6')6() 5,032,U:'J $16,B95",57J 140D ,461i $8.6 SD)76 .:.,01:: ,' ti ~:::i ,34.816 i:1i,414.m $1Cl0&9,935-i 1;1,71/2,j7J 09,'1'125t) H ,0391,7)6, Sl 40.001.61i1 -~,, ,71!8.256 128,22313.l 7A.J11I .-;:_:i 1S:.fl61.~J2 $iU!4.M4 $C ,§,S1% si.1'7 res -rn :op :•F=t 1.1 7➔,M~ 53009~1 ~1>122.~ ~-"46 .j5e,1.tG.68 l ~lfi.'f'JIL Z3: _ _ S~ry~e !_flf.!£l!f!t't _ _ Operating Etpi:!:uts-pw OpW11tlngExpmse1>per V•hid• R...--,u• Mt• Vffllcl•Rtv.nu•Ho1.1r -$8,10 i:::JLfi $8.00 $:£«~, $6 .. 6E Hlc r, 110 .. 11 $()(.\4 $8,at $1 ··:.r.d nee H·,.,4 $1~ $'1~.2!1: Othtr tumt: f.£:J.251: $4J :Ul:: 11EJ.1J4 l3~J 38(. f.1'1.::11'14 $112.~ Annt1.:,I Vetiicle ~\'tf"I.IIMl!H ·,o_U :-81 ~ . ..:.::::)2:3:;; 1Jt:5 J:.C:I: l.s=s-s::i= 11.R-1-)J':';: :, ::l:'::·1 i::'F ,~:•!$.t:17 Modi Comm..-:er[;s Comm..J..1 H~I Oumr n F.P.;.:-rn1·fr- UQ/1':R,·. 6a. Von~••I TotaJ TC:1Z.I '""' Matt,ialsar:1 ':'.rµr. ies. °WchsiiedTratsJc•1~0f\' );herCoe,a~ b:_:..ii..:r _;es- ~!016t7,7'7B St8A15.:N6 $1,725,168 Sl>,13~.660 y0Jl',1 16.◄II 1,671 12.~ ~(~1~ S-3;207 50~ S:3,1:lUU :3~~ $1'2 '92 5".I.) s:ra'.22.3 -33 S t ,:Ji' ,'th $5§,3:-J!J,"4·~ rot1l Ops-,.tin!J e:-:,.11.-, ftfOiOC rtJ Cf:° Dri\ B:1::-r:lit.(eS P\!rt0aixdTra·1'.;"JL ·L,{or, {RE,:;..orte-d ~;t:..i.:c· :::ib!fy} PIO.S$1,Ql·1 S llB,430.711 $0 100JYh flKN 'iitlld1Way V,e,hicles-.v.ailaQle Annu:aJ Vehicle arection1.I rorMu imun ·Vehcln 0.:11rated iri ~ver,1.1tH0:ur, Rc1.1t•Mi lH -S.-vlr• hlaiclm 11r, SW¥1c• <1 '21 0.0 ,1 OJ 1643JJ 174,5 ea 511. 18U~/.. Jn 1,2 112 362 2-51 6}9 1 ,. 112 I _'.:i;:;-111~l JD &al 418 TfoR-.ifil ')j) 4 Ff 398 t,160.5bl 2f;t!,,,~ 1.31:t< 11,> Operatitlg°Expen1n p11t Service Eff'ecti-.i,ness 6p.rat1ngExp..,Sff~.,,--~ UnilnktdTrlpspw Unll,.ed Pan-,ger Tfl:11 \'thiclt R.IWM'IUt Milt PJ.Hlil'lSWMlfe .$().70 $0.33 $4.09 $080 $176 l~"" .... Sf 5.::2 0-= $&.'4 0$ ;,4755 0.1 $3.C9 2.1 $7 "' I.I i!o El 02 .u_t, 1~1 .,,. ~~ Perc•nt A vera9,e, fleoet Sp,,.._ Vtfllcl•s Ag• 111 Years.• 8.514 '2.6 27.5% ·1:1: 21.1% .:..::i ISS-79, "1.J 21.3% 7A 17.~!1, :~,. ii.8'% ~llnk•d'Tri ps p _er· V.tllcl• R.vtnU• H~ur ·::i.7 JU.I:! 4!J . .:. 'o.::I 7.0 2().4 ~-,,~11~-?.~fi!rise·p,-VJ!ltf Re\E-~ ,;-·~sm O~i~rat nJ =it~fl\se Oe' ~.a.ne!li~'M~fl ,.,, Jt1··11i~1'.· :i ,r;-_._, -~:-\Jlftu ').•Yt•·'1ul: \' H~ au~ l.1Hr 1bR]E,ul !l:'.:i :·V:111 Reveru, Q::ie:f~t_g =.)!OM5'e ffB"P3Stef1S~Mlle U,rrl!eGPassengerTnpperven.cle '"" -""''JF~·· __ .,,,~ ui1:...i1 ""' Revowe Mlle:Ug'ltR> """ 'i~;.;i~;~;;~~~~ .. --..... cr .... -,,.___ ... ~ 1------------:~ • ~ b~LL•:::::::::::::::::::::~~ ......... 'tl.!.;tl &'.lfL -----------~ * •t l , ~ t• ~ ~ -~ ~ C ~1 t ~ ~. ~ ~ - e i11-J;!1rn:,Jr ;_•-1'.y :t)Tfa,i.~~feo:'ieel:s: -t. f.!Jl '-'µJ1lfl1.'it,:,agedati, ;~f I ►• t a) Jo ~ 1--U -'"'' ~= J --,......~:• "S.oe F 144 '"' ----~------tQ.40' -~a;> 60'.t( -----------= :::::::::::::::::::::::=: ===================--:ie. •'O ... ., 1Y ,i-te ir • 11 .> • 11 I-!iii 4-a It: S · ,r. Ill ~ '!: '"I'-J:I' n ,..,. • ~ •7 ts Utah Transit Authority Operating Cost per Mile by Mode Sources: 2019 Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD), Agency Profile, https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/transit-agency-profiles 2019 Utah Transit Authority Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), http://www.rideuta.com/About-UTA/UTA-Reports-and-Documents 2019 NTD 012erating Ex12enses by Mode Bus Service $ 150,988,092 Commuter Bus $ 8,448,535 Commuter Rail $ 44,291,302 Light Rail $ 71,152,656 Paratransit Service $ 20,257,462 Other Service NTD Totals Fuel Costs NTD Plus Fuel $ 15,911,105 $ 311,049,152 Less Fuel Costs {Diesel, CNG and Gasoline} $ (8,534,028) $ $ (507,673) $ (5,613,091) $ $ $ (961,710) $ $ (905,831) $ $ (16,522,333) $ CAFR less revenue amortization (Capital Maintenance) Difference 2018 COST PER MILE De12reciation 25,412,263 57,000,066 57,000,066 4,171,785 2,527,944 146,112,123 Total Costs $ 167,866,327 $ 7,940,862 $ 95,678,277 $ 128,152,722 $ 23,467,537 $ 17,533,218 $ 440,638,942 $ 16,522,333 $ 457,161,275 $ 457,161,275 $ Cost Per Vehicle Revenue Mile Without Fuel Annual Vehicle excluding Vehicle Revenue Miles De12reciation 17,252,754 $ 8.26 <-plug into cost calculat1 --904,101 $ 8.78 5,401,987 $ 7.16 6,569,208 $ 10.83 2,881,355 $ 6.70 6,451,812 $ 2.33 39,461,217 $ 7.46 d.,1 "IINAV--ld~, _.:, o..-n' f69 w,,110,J ScJt~ Sfl1u,~ Ct<, VT &11 0, Utah Transit Authority 2019 AMual A go,i iv Prefilo Exect..d·~ :Wect:r IAs Cir¥ Gonot ($>• 262,56,6 Urbanized A,.., Statlst1c1 .2010 C~hsus $W:_ake.Ctfy-Vlilell ½lfly 0-tv,lJT ,11 -~•-MIi .. 1 ,U21,243 P•plllltl•n 42 P•p. Rant c.tJtofM UZAs OU,erUZAa Sernd 71 C \l-l=11-U.U,O, UT ~ PnYvo.0-ffl\ ~ J ULat1 ~!¥1-UV Se rviceAr'9• Statfstlcs ?il ~41u.,.Miln 1,833,634 Fl'•pwlrt1•11 General lnfor111aaon S el"f lf• CaMutnptlon -355,2E] BQ i Annual Passenger frJI• (?MT} 44,S'la 161 Annual Unlinkid Tript (UPl) 1~2..9Cl Aflrts• Weekd2y Unlln\itel mp, 11 (64 Avtnge Ss.turclay U nlirlt:M T"p• 3t68 Avtrts• S:ul'lday Un htff Tri,, Ser,loo SUpplled .39 .tf;.717 Annual Vehic~ Re..,EIMltMil.u: (VRMJ Z.T.la~&J Annual Vehicle R'=Vief!UI He.-. (\'RH) 1 141 VtNclec Op•ated ir, Mulnu,1111 SMVice (VtJMSl t ,15 VtNc:les Avail.lble for Mol11u111 Strvice(VAMS) Modal Characlerislt cs Da.tabl!lse Information NTDID: HL W ] R4porterT1·po: Full Rerortw Flnanclal Jn formlltion Sources of Op1ra.tfno Funds Elll)M1cltd ---0-,1>.-,• flu,1111r,. Sourtes q"IIWG Ui rectty Ge,e~!t $11]4-Ql t Jti 16 .1:l'fu -~ Loe~ Fune s $l.S 43E ),9 ffi.G% St.:i:e t--u~ r ~der~I As:!:i:staoc:e --... p,,.,.lltlR§I f\md."i e-<p, """ ::;·u U.U% s,H•e,2 i · 17.5% NiJ'kn Ne 100.0% Source, ol CoPi •I Funds E>cponded =1 'H an£t Orectlv G,e.-ier:;ted tU U.U% Lpcat Funes $311'SE l 58 58.8% State Fu ~!K $1286.:1 2.9 12.1% F:-d.cm!As:;i:ctonc:1. St !l 395030 28.5% .... _. C ap'rtal Fund-. fcpanJ 11-s.166 100.0% ,,..., IUII - Ca'9:tnl ,u n4irlsi s,wc--Modal Ov tNhW Vehicles Operated '" Maximum service Dl re"ctly P~~h•ecl Us_g_plCoP1181 Funds Summery~ Op«ltlng Expan•H (OE) Mede Cc•rr m l~r R!JS Ct"l'm.iter Ral Oe-tanj r-esQC~ ugl• R :~i 8,s Vilflpcbl 'oul Oper2tion Charact•rt•tla Mede Cei-nu ter e us. Cm--r miter R3III Of"Tanj 1-.o;esoc,se Ugtit R~i 8J> Vanpcol 1"ot•I P•rformance Mttsuns Mede Ccrrmuter ~JS- Cc-tmuter llatl Oet r ar d Fit"Spo,ise- Uglll ~a/ BJ> Vannrrt T.:rt.ll Rf!V.'1U@ s.i·"•n 2nd OJiented Tr1Mp11rtdo,n Vehio:IH i.uldM2.ys 4 1 $n $n 50 &< •e $0 ff..6Ei .31::2 $142,7(2 S~.6EO ,, $0 Et&,'4c:6,Hi:4 4 '6 $11,4J4,0E3 tl!.7-ltl,0[1 430 $3,1 18,1[9 W ,7[3 1.090 !.1 $14.756.154 ~4 ..,,,.BS8 Operating \J$,es of Annu;il Exp•nu,; F'1,.R~ C,.pit~ Funds Plntn1erMil es $8,£48.c:JG $5,-).214 $0 l~.111!,0t3 $44;'91,301 U ,M.4819 $8,932,.::[6 l.33,E3f:,5 11 $20,:::b I /lb".J $:14300 ' $'.J::1:),J{O ilJ ,4 7J,HL-'1 $"1,152.6£6 $1 7 ,s:i(J.121 $19,6)0,9-'l 2 63.D.E ,5:□ lllll,s,J8,002 $18 ,111!3821 f25,424 ,8.j5 84,52t ,1E8 $'5 ,1111,105 $9,11'178£3 :~3,176/(7 3".fllil.m av t0491G2 ..a,W.J,4J•;J $ST .114~~56 _ 6 20.(91 Service Efficiency O,entlna&,..,.np., -Operatll'\1Et"1"1ttt Per Vahle!■ R ..... m,e hlla VehlckR.,_,enu,e Hour s; 34 s·uti.:.:::i $!;IQ S:U.75 $7.03 .J• 11,46 I I DH 511!4.tU $;JS s•h1.f3 'S2C7 161 i ? f' Gi .__,9C8 F.c:Hlt)H.,11 StdOont so $2,231.Cl!I; SS..wi' SI ,071,77E $5,138,77:l I() ~ !Wt.lV"D ~ ..... , I.INlnk• Trip, 649,f!lt 5,I92,&l'A 38t,2o5 11,12uae 20.l<ltJ!iM l ,W,:1114 &Ori, 1 Qher $7 $26,913 $J .SRR1Tl $40,073 S'O.a4J 1,144.644 Amlual Vli'hitle Rw•nu• r.'.ilM 91JL 101 5,401,987 -.:.,l:ll:l1 ,:3t-:> B 569 20) 1,25:".754 6/151,812 39.451217 ..... CJmm.Jter ~ C~Jter !-ai Cernarii..:Re::;µur1~ L.,.c!l~ail eu. v.,.,..1 f ord 'ToQ( L,;,,c;• $2149.6053 B0,1% t 2:r& $0 h'at~'i:~l:-:;.rnf 311:t 11ies S571:!151' IA R% $E.1il2.ol06 P\..'t.1lasej Trarq:iJrtakl'l $41181 3 33 1.5% $,95,371 ~erCperetn ~ Cxp~ses Ul101 130 10,0% '\._ ... -$1~,610,9,:? Total Op11ratin11l::•lfl•~~ .. 11·,.oa 152 1m n% $2E,424,92S =ieconc lrJ C€ :Dsh &:pcncij1 es Si1Sla554 $3,116,407 Pl.f'O"l3se::I Trai-:sp ::,1t~IICff" $07'"9-(Rr;r-on?ct Separat,etyf so FIKff 'iWcleway Vehicles -'01 111,lti /lnnualV.,..~11 OiN'C'tlcmAI for lhKimi...n Vlhlcltt: Op~ i n Pen1r1t Awras• f l• ~11•nu•Htun RoU1e Mks s .... 1ot Mul111 UM Strvl ee Spa~Vtnlc-lH A.1elnV•rs• 35,;!16 0 .0 '6 4' 9911 l◄.4 11111.888 174.5 "' 50 ""' 17 5 181.7<9 u.u HIS , ,u 3UI, 4 .1 ~.638 UJB 117 JO l l i'i 17! l.291.21S 9 A 515 ., . ,,~ u 1115,895 ~D rn 4 30 "°" 6-8 ,2)1 • "Ill ,,. 11.ti 22 --Open:ina El(p-,s• pit Ser-vie:• Brectl\1-enus ~xp..,INS:.,-Undnkecl TriPs-pe-,---l.Wlnk.:, Tiipt pw Pan.,...-Mire !'l 70 -s,)33 iol!iB 1036 i t 78 IU3 .•. Unli nked Pc.HtnlW Trip $15'17 $3 53 $51 17 $4 ,~ S n! it•,. 'U(. IJllhicle Revenue t.tfe Veh k leRewnn Hour- U~ ~S · .0 31 1 0.1 1 i "2.1) 4&JI '.2 ,~ 1 n? s s ~ 1 J S- -Cpel1~0:,e,sap!rl.1!"t=ieRr.e.."W.le ~:Jllj ~!m!l)(f""PalsergerM~e: U'ttikt'1 Pa:s~e,·gu-·-n-.,?Ef ~t't • J:ierot:ingC~:r::trllper~,!~.J.t Cp~atin9.aq,e,,siei:er.:im~il"N ·!.. Jrirlcd 7 :oxri:p-,ipw,VcNclr Mle:&ta ':IH ~eve,ue Jllile'~ r-v .e·tJgT.RI ---l51R:a Re--'011..C Mie:l,V'tG• .. ,., ~~~~ .. ,.. ... .T.., •n I -~ I . ----'-----g 1-4 • •.,.. ~~1 ~ ...... ::I'" 4 0 2 •::I ---=-• a -;~ 4--4 t ~ :~ -::-s__ a 1 11 - ... L. -----------ro:u, L. -----------'yt $CW L. ___________ ,, L. ----,------,----" --·• --0, 'I Q a ,-. fl' 10, ·1$ • f1 Oil:' l:l ~., •-"J,. .C --• lU 1'1 I.I I !~ • "' ,. It • ... ~ 11 1% d .M, 1!!11 '\'T .. iO t1 12 H ll ... 1f -'Oe.i1.::·rt.1 ~~F-01"'9!!-1.J>d(Of:lf1l rvtMJ!dr:a.u fl cl:±)IJJnJl"!fC'll(e-t!l.• cm.. APPROVEDJune2019 Addendum 2: Paratransit Costs 2019-2020 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South 41,678 Commuter Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (2017 NTD) 358,645 Light Rail Vehicle Revenue Hours (2017 NTD) 1,216,779 Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (2017 NTD) ---------1,617,102 Total Vehicle Revenue Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus, and LRT 162,198 Total Demand Response Vehicle Revenue Hours (2017 NTD) 10% Demand Response Percentage of Total Vehicle Revenue Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus, and Light Rail Approved September 2020 Addendum 3: Paratransit Costs 2020-2021 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South 41,128 Commuter Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (2018 NTD) 362,257 Light Rail Vehicle Revenue Hours (2018 NTD) 1,243,058 Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (2018 NTD) ---------1,646,443 Total Vehicle Revenue Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus, and LRT 180,342 Total Demand Response Vehicle Revenue Hours (2018 NTD) 11% Demand Response Percentage of Total Vehicle Revenue Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus, and Light Rail DRAFT for Spring 2020 Approval Addendum 4: Paratransit Costs 2020-2021 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South 35,315 Commuter Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (2019 NTD) 365,639 Light Rail Vehicle Revenue Hours (2019 NTD) 1,291,215 Bus Vehicle Revenue Hours (2019 NTD) ---------1,692,169 Total Vehicle Revenue Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus, and LRT 181,749 Total Demand Response Vehicle Revenue Hours (2019 NTD) 11% <-plug into cost calculator, cell B16 Demand Response Percentage of Total Vehicle Revenue Hours for Bus, Commuter Bus, and Light Rail DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ILA ADMINISTRATION PROCESS For ANNUAL BASELINE SERVICE REVIEW 1. As part of regular administration of this lnterlocal Cooperation Agreement, UTA and SLC will annually review UTA's baseline service network: a. After sponsored service has been operational for at least two full years, and subsequently yearly thereafter, which is the average time for a new bus route to mature and travel patterns to establish, and b. Following a regularly scheduled update to the on a two-year cycle. 2. Sponsored service will be considered to be fu e services if all the following 3. arefouild: a. The service meets UTA's current i. if both the ns1 (TPI) metrics average weekday, ende for weekdays, Saturdays and ays of the week to be absorbed rvice Plan, developed with a budget ake City, includes the currently sponsored agency's network. ces necessary to absorb the cost of the sponsored service, et resource capacity. ·u be made at the end of each sponsored service term and in mileage, and leasing cost reconc iliations. 4. While sponsored y be absorbed into UTA's baseline service network, the cost of vehicle lease payments associated with any sponsored service will remain the responsibility of Salt Lake City until such time that: a. UTA and SLC have jointly agreed that at least a portion of the SLC-sponsored service will be absorbed into UTA's baseline service, and b. UTA has identified an operational need for the additional vehicles to deliver the agency's baseline service, or c. UTA has determined that assuming full responsibility for the lease payments for sponsored vehicles will offset the need to procure additional vehicles as part of the agency's fleet replacement program. Approved June 2019 Addendum 2: 2019 Baseline Service Please refer to UTA’s August 2018 published schedules for Routes 2, 9 and 21 Route 2 SEE SOMETHING? SAY SOMETll lNGI b Q;tnbd UTA poll.it. CaN: &01·281-DU (80l•2S7-l9'37} Or fl:t½UtATtP'a nd yma-r .. tG '21463:7 INTERPRETER K01 ·Rl 0HJTA cal (801"7"4:3~3882) Toll-r .. •(88&-,CJ-3882 ) _CIIS_..,..., ,, ~~ ""''" OOlm&tlctWlt .... HOW 10 USUM!l SOUi!Wll b.1lffl'IM..,_\l~bDldanwiWll~WJ1111 t• ......... ',li,ll'l'linll 1'91"1--.1l•li ■P"lll•illfJaMI' ....... ~iD!l-i ...... 11t,,.,.,._wwil@.e!l ... -1 1,...i, A Hlil h ,_p 11 l""!'Wilild I m ilt,.,I~ --,ll■t• 11 IM !I~•~ ~1'1~Wi~~~ 4 · .... r~N~Mr. UT.-.:Mh'ICIDIUC'IOn .._Gl-allril-11:ii\~ l,_"1.~■nd ~,_...~,,,,,IIIOl'.•Ul'/ttl011itl.JIU) •Dlihi4"Sl'l !■i..c;-.ni,-•UfllltJJii\(9LVlo-,.~ ..... •fo:arl,1 .................. -.t.-'"iet-b,_.~ ~ ~tQpllM1,HNiiMoplNll'llllfrMdl~~fl ~~Clorl)(lll.....r.t.,\WJ,.&Jlll, •·~llyl;llll~1hlf-pi..~~ -•f a,~l')'rllef!IIIWOffl'llli~al-'4!11 l\!llfl.ffe'n/10.,,f'J~t/ ••T"'1tllirllllllr,eSUl ·ltN2'5 WSTMOF°""° w.bw/Soullt~I a::Jt-67t,,VO)llflll111t:J ut,'li c-.r,i Mni1n-~n Wt1Jlllll~y"3f.)JN.,_. t,.-.JlltPflJ5»5 , .... f.lbci l11r1i.~r-.. ~i.m.,p. ACCH$1M.IJIJIVta WIM-l.~~'-""-....aitil••" ....... N1.-iw;11:I~~'"-~-,..,._ ,:.-~~11111 r•GN(ihN1111L""",.i ... ll:'9h flt~ 111 tltAM'llltS ~P'J'l"ll!:l'll.,,11,...,""'"'-1.t•~rn .....,lllndlM..'llllklllnt:,allftl l,i,,.,e1 r.a(l) JIii/nii ..... ,.,..~ lti.~il~l ....... 4Vf"llinb •lttt II"!• ,.,... N"""' W"f• • Int-,..Jl/ik altfl f.,.._ 11tlr.10NIVS:ll ,~111:n-.. ._....,i~i..,ni..~ ,._., -....11.n,,.~ ........ fW•dlliO.,lda.,u,-CQm fWW.,l~ll!faronll_,. ,oo ..... Sa fi Ll lce CfnV'.111 St11kln DoNnt.owns.tub \lo!UC.,,,,,U, Uol'IJNll!ldlal CMl llll' UTAl(II 111!'11'?1 '/.I.I BUS WEEKOAYS To Ce nt ral Point S t a tio n i ~ .i ~ 2 1 I 1 -= I "' 12. ,~ ~8 ~~ ~1 s~ ll !l ~~ ~~ ~~ Qa u~ ---···------ 539a 609 639 709 743 813 843 913 940 1010 1040 mo 1140 121cii, 1240 110 140 210 242 :m 342 ◄12 444 514 544 614 ~40_ S53a 623 6S3 n4 758 828 8511 928 9!i5 1025 1055 1125 TI55 ITT5r 12S5. 125 155 226 2S8 328 358 428 soo 530 600 629 ~ 559• 1529 659 729 803 833 903 933 1000 1030 1100 Jl30n 1200jl 1230 100 130 200 232 304 334 404 434 506 536 606 63-1 ;l,09. 604• 61l7a 614• ~ 637 64~ 704 1Cfl 714 733 739 i46 1109 813 820 1139 843 850 909 913 920 939 943 950 ll)(Mj 1010 1017 1036 1040 104? n0o 1110 1111 1)36 1145) 1147 1206f: 1710p 1217p 1236 1240 1247 106 110 TI7 136 1'10 147 206 210 217 m 2•2 249 309 314 321 339 3'14 351 .-09 414 421 439 444 451 511 516 -523 S41 546 553 611 616 623 6J<J 642 649 10 5 zoa ,1 1 To U o f U t .,: J .. I "' I -= 1 · I"' 1 .. -~j g~ lj ~~ •i tf !~ Q~ ~~ §~ §~ 3~ ----------- "621• 061 721 751 821 851 921 951 1021 1051 1121 1151 1221p 1251 121 151 221 251 321 351 421 451 521 ss:i 621 627• 657 m 757 827 857 927 957 1027 1057 1127 l15L 1227J, 1257 127 1?] 227 258 327 357 427 457 si, 557 617_ 630• 636, 700 7<Mi 730 736 800 806 H30 836 900 -930 936 1000 1006 1030 1036 noo 1\06 mo 1136 1200i, 1206p 1230 12:Wi 100 106 130 136 200 "206 230 236 301 3 08 331 337 401 407 437 437 501 507 531 537 601 6/J1 631 fJ7 6431 713 70 813 643 913 943 1013 IOC 1113 1143 1213~ 1243 113 143 213 243 313 3~2 412 442 512 S4'2 612 6~2 6;93 n, 759 829 659 929 959 1029 1059 1129 11S9 1229p 1259 1:19 1!59 229 2S9 !31 358 4Z8 08 528 5!8 lull 658 Fe, .....,...ttan C•UOl-Rlllf.\J IA (801-l'O· 311112) ..,--,lde S.h Lob ~""'I' 888•R 01:.\J l ._ (81!8·1"!-1882) w..w.rtdeuta.com H OWTO USETMISSOIEDULE Da:t.nrlrte )'Ollr ·drropo6nt hued on, wti-eri Y°" w.-nt to feaw Of whet1 •f0U wan1 toilf1N'r..R•ad •·cross Nlr yout du"t1t1~1o n iiWlO ckMn fur-~ttrrr. and dfr11ctlon tf'tfiln~ .\ roui•f'l•P 11 prcw&deo to N!lp you ttla,e to tht- 1ft11e~:i ,t()Wf\, W IN!l-d.ay. 5"-'\UP'd.'?j & 51,mday t.thedules dfffier lrol"'I one flnOther. UTA S[IIVICE D IAECTIIRV • Gmcnl lnto~~!lon, Sdle::Mn., Trfp pt-,,n1n,: and CvstOfT'lff F•K1bacta B01•RIOC·UTA (.80'M~3·38Bl) • Ou!slte S1H Lau Cou"'l'c,tl 886-~IDMJ1A (881-743 - )88~ • for24 hout automat@d-sM--riat iot'rtllt bus available; use optio,, L H.wt stop rti"'be, ilnd l df11t rot.rte ne.mbto, (1,,u Oor-00 tf "-Mhr Is r,1)1 3 dltits.J • P.;ss BY MaO fnfOf'r".UOO 8<Jl•262•.s626 • t-w Employmfflt Informa tion pl•n• 'f'lstt ht'co://WWW.tlc:tu.~lc,r11e,t,/ • , .... , ........ 801-287-22)5 LOST A~D FO ~D W.bovSouth a'"'" 801-626-1201 <>p11011 l Utah C....myt 801-22)4923 sa1r1 .. o .. eo.....,,eo1-21!7-'IE~ F·"""1e: 801-281-5355 FARES [>ea« Fare Is rtc~r•d, Farws iH 1,1,1e:.,c: lo ch.vi re, .. ACCUSil~( SERVICI W~eeldl.llt accesslble buses are tlVlllll*e. a,1 all route, ~'1ffl\ate-'ormilt sdlttc'ules a1e available upoo request Telephar!e: corrm11nlcotfon foe deat/tin"'11 lmpeii'ec ..,....., lo .. .iloblo by dlaHn~ 711 111ANSF£11S Upan paymertt~ 11 fM"O. au1n1•tt ls,ood fot u·wtt ll'l.,V dlten1ort1 li'ldtldln& ,m.rn trlp1 for 1wo (2)fiours.vntfl ttte ilmt «.L 1hit 11alue of a transfM 1o--afds • t~ or a "-Pf* ~xp tnslve: u rvlc.e Is UM re&Ut.-cash fare. IIKES ON ausu The Bliin on &LIH:I qr\'ice ls..avall.bt1 an Al bU$eS. e-xcept P••m1nstt H DLIDAfl Plt6M (tied( t1debt.l.eot"' ~ ~~ldty .HnitC. l!'ffON1'3tlt'ir 9 '/.I.II 900 SoutlT University Medical Center Station University of Utah East High School Liberty Park 900SStatlon Central Pointe Station UTA @ BUS lmt'll ........ D•U!-IN201' Route21 2100 South/2 100 East SUNDAY Ta Crnt r•I Poin leSta1ion To Unl ••nity of Uhh ~11-1~ 1~ 1 ◄ 11 i ;!;1 .. .. 11 -ii-i~ i~ Jj H !i --~ALN~~ .. ~!.,, ii !! w. .. ,. .... -.... -.... .... .., .., -"" .,, .,. ... "'" ~ ""' .,,. ,.,. l0C "" 11"' n .... ..MJ ,, ... ~.,. ..... Q35o u~ •1oi1p OIi ..... ,.. ,., tll D5 UI ,., , .. ,,. lOt ~-"' rn .,. ,., ..,. "' ,Gt ... ·~ ... ,,. )'14 ,,. .., 500 ,.,. ,.. ... ·~ .,, 43!1 ... .,. "' 000 ... .... .,, .,. ffl .,. ,.. i:l: ii ,.. ... "" ~ 'ii' ii .,. ... .. ~I !i H .... 901, ... l-00/ .,.. "'I' JtlS ,,.,,. """' IOI ,.. ,., , .. .. , ... ..,. ... '°" ,.. -m ... II ~-c-u~~l C:.-Str.ion 111,9,P,lll 471 9111. Roatla SEE SOMETHING? sAYSOMETHING! 1l> OOll!><t VTA polot: C>it 80~l8MYES(601,281-39'37) 0, Tot UTAT\P a,nd ,OU,bp la lJ4fJ1 M°"'""'5 "' g ! Rl2l8 Aid ___ ......,, QOOS 17001 KOW''JOUH lMIIIOtlDUll D.-...... ,..,.,,.,.,..._.,,.._,.."'_..,,_,~,• t.w ...... .,.. ...... ,.w'1.wt,..,c,9q ....... c1a•1uu,.1,-,~bfrci--....,..••~QI.,.,.,.. ,,....,._,1.a,.,.,,.. .... ,. ;.i,,,..,""" ... t. .... ., ..... fll.li.._... ~S.IWW¥&~ ....... -dl...,..,_ __ ,__ UTA MIMU OUIICTOn . ,__. .... ......r""~ .. 'Mc,~ ...... o..-..,....*•u:icutA.(tOl'4lltt2' • ll.Jl'16t'lil la.C.....ydllM9tlOfUTAffl8&,.JO' ...,, • ....,t,.......,•WIOl'Nl'tfs~Wwt iut-,d11ll• _.,.,._., 11,-.t,lW..,-M3*"..._, IHIJCIW t...O IWOO ,, Nl'OW It, ... I dlJ!lO, • ,_ Ir ~1111 ~• &m-2'-I-SQt. ... ,~ ...................... 11 •u-wrfdMt~ •f...t~&cn-111»))1 LOn ANDfDWID ~ p,. J ... (ol111JU7 .,..--; '---" c.., so, 11.) ,,z, aJ1 • .i,c,,,,,,,y,so,.;tt,. .... ,...,,.._lm-'lC7-SEi rAMs t.cl,_eb.ff'IUM,.._,,_ua,e11rv--. ll~CZ.M~RVIU ~· ___,. .. ~ ....... ltMI-.... ~. ,..~.,.,.. ...... MW,i1 .. .,...,...a114illllll",..._ l....,.. ........... ,., .. v,i.,,.,1111111 ... _,.. ,..._i. .......... ..,, ...... rit ..,..., ... ~ .. ~ .......... ,..,.,. .. •&fl0'1l4o.,...,.,, .. ntd""ttt-M. 'll'!Jd"\lf'et;fl"llt'";,,b-""9M1'ort"•r tlwL-call U111._.-.. ,tni'lllilw1-191Mra.,_, ~ ~,.,.. ~• ;, 1\,"'1:,J1, c,lh •"' ■IC.SOHIUKJ ?\o.U.._.,...._~• ...... .Jflf•e'l °:..I~ -..,pt'-tr9~) MOUDA'ts ,. .. »CMcM~CIMlorMlill'fwwl'dJMotwf-M INTERPRETER SOH!IDHJTA c,j1 (80H43• l882) 11>11 f1M<U8'4.l J882l -CII Nnodich'""' ... ,~ .. --,(;,'l tV VOolmelschlf" .. ,- "l100 S..-111/2100 lllt Centnl,alnraStaum 5-..,....,~ urww111:y or uUlh '/Ill U T A~ BU S --- Route2 WEEKDAYS SATURDAYS T0S1lt l.llkt To University To Salt Lake Ce ntral Station Medical Center Central Station 'II/I ~ '5 s l ~ C e ~ 1 I ; f V a ] V < 1 I 'I· 1·~1J ~!1:~1~~12U'j ,-1~1 1~~1~~1t .f ':I.,, -... ... • l I s.,;lUUU ):I ~di u ; ! .u ~ .. u u .a .. ,. .... -· ""' --.,.. "" -.... -.... .... .... ..,, . ., .. , ... ... lOO 610 "' .. .., 625 611 .,. .. , ,oo /0, ,,. ... .., .... .... '" m no '" 9N .. , n, ,., ru ns ,.. ... ... ... 1Q] nJ '°'' 10,C ,.,. ,.,. ,.., 111 Ml ,., '" ... ... !<RS Ill m m J\16 IJlG "l' 113' .. , 7$1 ID m I07 "° 115 72, ,,, 7.17 ,., ,,,., WOp ~ 1ll'1p ,mp I07 .,, ... 1%) 1)6 m ,,. , .. rn IOI 12" DO ... 13' .., l?1 12i .,. .,, ... ... 156 Oil! .. , .,, ll• llO ll4 2l9 "' .., .. , "" ISJ -,.. .,, "' 121 111 J26 ])O "' ... .. , .., ... ... "1Q ... .,. ... .., ... , .,. '30 ... ... •<7 !OIi .,, 916 tll 9>6 829 ffl .. , .,, t/11 .,. <JC ... 5l9 567 911 .,. 9JO ... ♦.lO .., .,. .., 101 .,, .,. 630 .,. 6)9 6'7 .,. .., ... ... -... ... .,,. ..,, '" 7l6 1lO ,.. ,,. 747 .., ... IOOO 100I .,,. .,. .,. ,,. . .. ... 11101 IOU I016 -IOl+ 929 931 •.i ••• ..... 1022 '°'' .... 1CBI .... ... ... ... -,.,. 101II ,.., .... '""' -... -'"" ,.,. -To Unlvcr.s.ity --1IOO TIOI 1120 ,.,. .... 1029 1034 -Medical Center , ... 1111 ,,,. 112' !06 mt -,.., .... -'JI// 1122 TT26 11lO 11ll •;g_ 104i -.... 1104 m• ""' nu n .. -,, ... 10,i 11llll m, ml 112' l!SJ-1!?• I uoo,. ,,.,.,. '"" '"' .,.. -""' "" J j I llOJo ,101r "" '"" "'' 1119 '"' ""' ,,.. ,, ... ,,,, "" m, UD ,,.. lW ~ 12CMO mC- 17.U 12'1 ,,., ,,.. "" .... _,,.,.,.,,., ,,,. 1221 ~j .. ~ .. !l jg 1m 12'1 ""' ,., ,,. '1210p 1719 1U4 mt ,,,. ii ii 102 107 m 119 01 122A 033 12.18 11,1 12SJ u '" "' ,,,. '" Ma l)«J .... .... ~ .. ""' "" 111 '" "' ,., -,., ... nJ 1ZI 757• 80•• 8011 81•• 1:n, , .. "' ~ >OJ "' 110 "' ,,. "' ,,. 1>7 ... 101 ... ,m ,112 101 m ,,, "' '1lA U'.J UI .., ... 9S1 1006 I00II ,.,,. IO:!I :nt DI ru m ... , .. ,., ,s; ,,. "" 1051 1,0, ~1• 12J.. a, n, iM1 ... ... 1,, ,.. ""' ,,. :DJ 115? 1204, U08o 111 .. Wlo ,.. ,., 15& JO] !1~ 110 ,,. lli m %19 1l51p ... IOI ,,. "' JOO ,.,, 310 "' "' m m "2311 , .. 1'3 "'' -'208 a,. z:n ... Jlt ... :m ... 240 "' ... 159 -lS1 30; :IOI ,,, 121 DO ... "° ,.. ... ,.. .., lol m m ]57 .... .... ... '71 -... ... .... .,. l10 11' 12• n, -. ., '°" IOI .,, "" 400 ,.,. ... ... ... 1" m 3111 Kl ... .., .... .... ... .,, ... .... .,, .., ... ,.,, ,.. .,. -l,E;1 -,.,. .,, . 721 4lO . ,., ... ... ,., b4 403 401 <ti 4ll ... ... ... 50.l ... ... ... .,. . .. ... MIO so, ~· "' .., .,. ,(J3 .,. .... All '" '" ,.. SD '" .... ... ... . .. -""' >1' ..., ... .., ... SW -;u SU ... ... ... .., ... 5111 .,. ,,. 5lU .. ., ""' ..,. ... .. . .., ., . ... ... ... ... 614 619 .,. 6D 145 540 .... ~ ;61 60II t,,o 6"' ... ... IOI 0)4 "" o,n .,, ~ ... ... 164 103 ,,, '10 ... "' ., . ... 1W ,.. ,u r,u ,,, 6,6 ... ... .., ... m 722 m ,,., , .. .... ... ... ... ,.. "' "' l<ll f>O .., to, 104 IOI nl m "" ,., ,., .... ... 710 711 m m ... 1115 "" m .,. Ill ,,. 7l3 1l1 142 ,., ................... ., ........ ... Route 9 900 South Medical Center 1 ' 1 1 \ ,-~ + I ~ ,--L~~_,_ . . ~~ ·~1-~ j :~T 1 . 223. 228.313. _· 2~.3;-2 ...W.--'-..da-a:J"~ ,-. -;--,-..,.1---. 455 , 473 L c -rter r-cb ~-~~--~=::i;::::=:::J::::::C=:';::;r:~1b, ·_...,A__;,~~ Station 1--r-r-,....--t-r ;1 tid/ '1s1:ar ,....... ...... _ , , Rts. 17. 21. 213 . _ ~J ,nsfeqioioL rum, ion 473,902 0 South Station I I -. .I =>--"" .g Red Line ~ Red, Green lines ,--+ A'~ . + -~ i%" -!ii g> + ,.,__: ~'2. i:!s~ ""! fo7 -~µ !i a. _.I "Z ;L :.r.--'.""', ~ ;:; fl 9 > ~ ~ I o --t ~_., "-' ~o O--!:,l· r-'::-11:l ;§ o => 0 900 s V, I O s w 1 II w -----.=-·-~----' Station ~-~ -g) -LL == -~ ~.,;~---1'i:n e- ~ ~ TT1 r c...::r---"'~~a=f=r ~ .rl ,-., JL "' --1J!i1:_ ---l-s:J T f'~ I Central Poilte Station , ,-,-,--, ]I' uto Rts.1 7. 21 . / -1 ~r-=~-an~d~S lines ,,J:::::;:;;;~:;b.c pZ]>-~~ . --~ 1-,,__ liNpOfflUJO•--ond ..., .. ,y .. loroodondtraflkcoowltioo,s ~,,, SEE SOMETHING? SAY SOMETHING! To contact UTA police: Call: 801-287-EYES (801-287-3937) Or Text UTATIP and your tip t o 274637 ,unsiwAr(\\ INTERPRETER 801-RIDE-UTA call (801-743-3882) Toll-Free (888-743-3882) ~ lnlerprele □!.t lhoog dich Vien $fl ~1 ;(l tumal! nepeBOll'-tlllK ,(:, I/ -,r I) 11 Oolmetscher .,..>a WEEKDAYS To Cl!fltr a l Poi nt• Station .... .,, i H -711 ... "" 1Dl7l17f177071J mn:Rl1'~KI UJ ~ "Ml 1~ "l30 756 '117\1l'MM)~ttt N1JOl!ll'U•tft20D 1!01!1 BD Q ffl ffl Ml .., "" "' JU l 't ♦,U 91' HJ '5f. w ,. ,u ,., "' .,, -,,, "" ... ,oe '" m ... ... ♦U t)8 ~ .., w, $1 tJ8 ,..,, 958 ""' ..,. b! ()Of' IQ!) ,aoe W2J r.1Z1 IDJ2 JDJ5. lCMII a,10..~'°'"''°'11(),0~ ID!! 'ml KM nm t1D5 nu a.J noa mo m. 11mffl.lmlfll2.M5'1,ilt ru.,-~ 1,,1.1 lHO mtt 16! roll Jl"'-,JIQlo_>t.., ':h':J?w :.,~ = '::. 12J-1: 12,t! Qill t»o \h .. 1U.t 124, lZ5" ns, IOI 107 u., ~ 1oit tn e» m , .. .. ,,. ... .... 2M ,Ult)'IH.1b1"1 l77k:M7'5015' e,l'S7Xb10S~ ~ 2U: 10 2Z> 22, 222127..il:UJ;lq ?J71'1201SOZW. ~Z,JIOOJOJlptl ~'i,llnW,t,~~ Joi m :s11 m !Jj "' ... )U ~)I, U) 141 ~ 1.11-., .... .aoi~-411 Ml £0' "" "" .UO ,111 -,n, .tu 4JO ~1 o, .tl.~-$..WOM!t .... ~ u,, •• 4M'!,Q1IQl~t MS',O,LS•SD S)OPI fflSlll'-'2~~ »4 .S.I SG' 510 5'JI t.JO~ ~M),1~ •n Ht'7&201ll ""' 6.~ ,~ ,.., ~16'1td0b6 HA~1M1M ...... ""' , .. "' .,. l,.H ,.., 703 ,., ™ ,.,, m ,., ... 14' anqsum "' ... .... ... .. , ll!l!&1ts!!~,«.ffl kllt22t2tffltllMI To Un1vtrslly of Utah 'Ol.,~S.'tl~!if'II\.U. .st'~UJ'17H>._.,@ ,,..VtO\.SJ~IOCt•1• &0t O MIi "1 ,~ Ul 1116 120 "' ... ...... 6D ... "'' 611 610 M! ..., ... .,,. '" IIIO "' JfflJD510971'ffl!J• '""Q7~nt7Ul'!\. m "' m "° m 1AJ • '" 1SJ JSI IOJ lll- m .a t:os $1, ?t$ t,af $'1♦t20WU1:t.Htit IJI BliiDC.IJilft,18911 !A• ~ ,w Ui 1(1.! ~- IOI '°' -9' .. W11 t,,,I ll1 9l!i "Jl9 ......... -.... ""' ..,. mo "" 'iQ:11 10? ~ --..,.. "" nm noa "'' nzCI ra.t 11'1 Mli nJI llid mo 1"1 ,io. '10,P 110IJ u" U20 WJ in, 11~ 1»1'1 ~, mo taJ , ..... .. .,. ... 12] "' ,,, ... !,U; l'..(I I~ ,;g• KIOJ ~ IOU _,,. IMl 1023 ,an l>5f. '9<' 1048 nn ,~ 1W).! m., ffll me ,,.., n,z,. nu 11M nu JW fl11p Hit I~ WIii nu, un 124, ua WJ uw ""-' 12,&& lll WA IOJ Ill tGt 205 1os m ne '1'1 )1•»on1ntmM l:1'Z112ltW)lt~ 7i&' 1!'!0 ,._, 1" 1.CH u, 10IIO\.IOtt1(J1tW :n, 32'0 )2J )2t P4 1',1 u, 111 ........ lJt ¥4 )4' 41J ,~, .u, "°" ''" iMn 4CII 401 •• 420 .. u Cl1 Gl4"oMt~2 <Ml 450 <t6l ... \(IS ..,. * :.l.O !t2J <i,)1 ~Ir; W'J: ... l&O ~ '" ~o ,11 M6 fM> 61 459 5,04 5l1 ..... \19 W1 ~, !t.S.& ~' ~ ~ ,., 1,4, '°" 611 Ut f.-\4. 6'7 tM m. m ffl735738J43'N6!G,1, IG1tolQIU:Not.M lllfRfflfflM6?2' -.. -.. .., ......... -- SAnlRDAY To Con tr.ii Po inte St a Uo n .... ,,, "' .,, . ., "' .. , 6':J/1 ,,, ,., .. ,, .,,. ,., ,., .. , ""' '"' '" m '"' ..,, 1011 "(127 lQJJ 10-ll Vbf llOJ m, ,m nl] -~t1SJ-1101p 1lTIJI: lUl,:i ll.lZ ., .. 136 I'll lll'l,,.,. 1'5 m .... ... IMS -... ... -ffi --.... -"" ,... "" ltt)(« 110h ,, .. -"'" .... ,.. ,, .. '""' ,,., lN7 1;157 101 10,. lOf ... kS l1S , .. ,Ot ti. 111 1U tit t)I 151, 2D'\ ~ 209 l!Ol:a.wn.m J15 m 156 »'I ln6 :ii! JMDS\J1l»lltUS "" ... <)I .,. $34 ..,. ,,. .. , ifb 4J1i ... ..., SD <>O S!il "'° .;, ""' Q 1 09 f1i ... 4)f 4-'6 ....... ...... ...... ,,. ... 615 ... .., tY, Ill. /13 ffi (.16 ,~ To Uolvcn lty ofUt;ih '/Ill 'Ill ,... ""' ,., -... . .. IJIS" 14.h ... .,, ..... , ,... '"' n "" ... .,, "" .,, "" '" ,oos •OIi ,,. .,, .... .., ... ... ,nn 1091 ..., ""' _,,,, ·~ .. 1ffl "" !Oli nos ~ "°"' ,, .. ,,,. "' u, -,m noa 108 '""" ,,. ... ll8 ,., 105 "" 11' 1JS JJIJ 10U '°" "" N.l vu, ,,., tu )43 m ,., 301 m J OI J14 .I.A .U> :Ui 3,44 "'" -m• "'" '""" ,,., ,., ,., ,,. , .. .,, ..., ,.,, .,,. .JliL ~ ,,., ,,, ;,n "' ••• ,m . .., •O'I .tOS •Ot .. ,. lt,lQ "' .. , '" -~ """ '" ·~ "' .., ~ ~ SOI 51 4 53'1 ~ ~ Su eO, 605 6¢1 .-14 ~6JS6.Jli-44 n1 ffl ... ... ... ... '" ,-u 1ll ... "' ... '13' Approved September 2019 Addendum 3: 2020 Baseline Service 2020 Assessment of Sponsored Routes Meets Meets Meets Population Weekday Saturday Meets Route BasedTPI PPH PPH Sunday PPH Baseline Service Adjustment 2 9 21 Weekday Miles Route 2 yes yes yes no yes no April 2019 August 2019 525 .23 603.81 Baseline Service Cost Adjustment no no no Delta 78.58 $ 4,446,268 original costs of sponsored service no no no *252 WKD 19,802.16 $ 4,290,092 new cost after baseline adjustment (-19,802 .1 miles) $ 156,175 value of service being added to UTA baseline UTA to absorb weekday route 2 miles into baseline service Full city sponsorship still required Full city sponsorship still required August 2019 to August 2020 Comprehensive System Analysis LEGEND exceeds standards (under served) meets standards partially meets standards does not meet standards (over served) All-Day Service -Routes Serving Salt Lake City Route Current Tier 2 9 21 33 1 3 1 1 People-WKD Based TPI Pass/Hr SAT Pass/Hr SUN Pass/Hr Draft for Spring 2021 Approval Addendum 4: 2021 Baseline Service Please refer to the UTA 2021-2025 Service Plan adopted on 2/24/2021 for UTA's baseline service. www.rideuta.com/serviceplan Summary: • The Five-Year Service Plan includes FTN level service on Route 2 on weekdays as part of UTA's baseline service level. • UTA made improvements to the span of service on Routes 2, 9, and 21 in August 2020, which are now included in the baseline at no additional cost to SLC. • Please visit this link to access route performance data on UT A's Open Data Portal. Annual August 2020 2021 2021 Baseline Sponsored Miles Total Miles Miles Miles 2 213,344 173,704 39,641 9 476,251 120,704 355,547 21 374,658 278,290 96,369 Total 1,064,254 572,697 491,557 <-plug into cost calculator, cell B13 Annual 2021 August 2020 2021 Sponsored Hours Total Hours Baseline Hours Hours 2 24,712.33 18,271.60 6,440.73 9 45,458.27 2,042.00 43,416.27 21 34,891.40 25,192.87 9,698.53 Total 105,062.00 45,506.47 59,555.53 APPROVED March 2019 Addendum 1: Mobilization 2019-2020 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South Feb Mar Apr May 4Mechanics $ 24,584 $ 24,584 $ 24,584 $ 24,584 2 Fixed Supervisors $ 13,832 $ 13,832 $ 13,832 $ 13,832 Operator Recruitment $ 30,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 TCC Dispatch 2 FTE $ 10,468 $ 10,468 $ 10,468 Operator Training $ 83,333 $ 83,333 $ 83,333 Operator Service $ 252,720 2 Para Supervisors Fuel/Parts/Ma int Vehicle Procurement Administration $ 17,104 $ 40,554 $ 33,304 $ 96,484 Total2019 $ 68,416 $ 133,217 $133,217 $ 385,937 Start-Up Start-Up Start-Up June Jul Sub-Total Admin TOTAL $ 24,584 $ 24,584 $ 147,504 $ $ 147,504.00 $ 13,832 $ 13,832 $ 82,992 $ $ 82,992.00 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 35,000 $ $ 35,000.00 $ 10,468 $ 10,468 $ 52,340 $ $ 52,340.00 $ 83,333 $ 83,333 $ 416,665 $ $ 416,665.00 $ 252,720 $ 252,720 $ 758,160 $ $ 758,160.00 $ 13,832 $ 13,832 $ 27,664 $ $ 27,664.00 $ $ 44,167 $ 44,167 $ 88,334 $ $ 88,334.00 $ 110,984 $ 110,984 $ 409,414 $ 409,414.00 $ 554,920 $ 443,936 $ 1,608,659 $ 409,414 $ 2,018,073.00 Operational Start-up-Expenses (Jan 2019 -Aug 2019) $ SLC Budget FYlS-19 $ Difference $ 2,018,073 2,863,000 844,927 VARIABLE VALUES $ 7.62 2.2% 2 Most recent NTD Cost per Revenue Mile, Bus Service (1) Annual escalator rate (2) Number of Years since NTD report I 20%1Administrative Discount (3) 503,359 Sponsored Revenue Miles: 200 South, 900 South and 2100 South ----------I 10%ISponsored Paratransit Service rate (4) I $ 2.50 I Fuel Cost per Gallon {Service Year Budgeted Cost) 5 Fuel Efficiency, Miles per Gallon {adjust per vehicle type) I $ 53,000 !Sponsored Vehicle Lease Costs 10 Sponsored Vehicles ...._ ______ .... (1) NTD Cost per Revenue Mile has been adjusted to exclude fuel expense but does include approximately 2% for capital maintenance {e.g. engine replacement, etc). (2) The annual escalator is a calculated average of the PCE CPI over a twenty year period. (3) UTA will discount the administrative charges in proportion to the scale of the service increase in revenue miles. (4) Paratransit Service rate is equal to the percentage of the most recent NTD reported total demand response vehicle revenue hours as compared to total vehicle revenue hours for Bus, Commuter Bus and Light Rail. SPONSORED SERVICE COST $ $ $ 7.62 Most recent NTD Cost Per Mile -Bus Service 7.96 NDT rate Adjusted to Service Year Costs 6.37 Discounted NTD Adjusted to Service Year Costs 503,359 Sponsored Revenue Miles $ 3,204,886.18 Total Mileage Cost, Without Fuel, Annual $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 321,455.37 Add Paratransit Service 3,526,341.55 Total Annual Operating Costs without fuel 2.50 Fuel Cost per Gallon 5.0 Bus Miles per Gallon 503,359 Sponsored Revenue Miles 251,679.50 Total Fuel Cost 53,000.00 Per Vehicle Principal+ 4% Interest Rate, Annual 10 Vehicles needed for sponsored service 530,000.00 Total Annual Vehicle Cost for Sponsored Service 4,308,021 TOTAL Approved September 2020 -COVID true-up Addendum 2, Amendment 1 Attachment B 2019-2020 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South Fuel True-Up Addendum Annual Fuel COVID-19 Addendum 2, Amendment 2 true-up Reduction 1 Cost per gallon $2.50 $1.59 $1.59 Fuel efficiency (mpg) s 4.82 4.82 Miles 503,359 511,664 288,760 Total Annual Cost $251,679.50 $168,785.43 $95,254.85 Total Monthly Cost $20,973.29 $14,065.45 $7,937.90 8 months (August-March) $167,786.33 $112,523.62 $112,523.62 4 months (April-July) $31,751.62 $31,751.62 Total Cost to City $144,275.24 Original Annual Cost $ 251,680 Reduced Annual Cost $ 144,275 Discount Amount $ 107,404 Fuel True-Up Detail Cost Per Gallon Vehicle Efficiency Diesel CNG Diesel 19-Jun 1.86 0.93 19-Jun 4.79 19-Jul 2.02 0.91 19-Jul 4.53 19-Aug 2.04 0.9 19-Aug 4.58 19-5ep 2.12 0.91 19-Sep 4.8 19-0ct 2.24 0.91 19-0ct 5.01 19-Nov 2.63 0.91 19-Nov 4.98 19-Dec 1.91 1.14 19-Dec 4.92 20-Jan 1.87 1.12 20-Jan 4.92 20-Feb 1.85 0.95 20-Feb 4.79 20-Mar 1.59 0.9 20-Mar 5.18 20-Apr 1.11 0.9 20-Apr 5.49 20-May 1.11 0.9 20-May 5.32 Avg Cost Gal $ 1.86 $ 0.95 Avg MPG 4.94 Weighted Cost per Gallon $ 1.59 Weighted Fuel Efficiency Diesel 70% CNG 30% TOTAL DISCOUNT $ 4,308,021.05 Original Addendum2 $ 569,637.63 Fuel+ mileage True-up $ 3,738,383.42 Adjusted Addendum 2 CNG Addendum 2, Amendment 1 Attachment A 2019-2020 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South Service True-Up Addendum Annual mileage COVID-19 Addendum 2, Amendment 2 true-up Reduction 1 Cost per mile $ 7.62 $ 7.62 $ 7.62 Annual escalator 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% number years since NDT 2 2 2 Administrative Discount 20% 20% 20% Miles 503,359 511,664 288,760 Total mileage cost $ 3,204,975 $ 3,257,852 $ 1,838,584 Paratransit rate 10% 10% 10% Total Paratransit Cost $ 320,497 $ 325,785 $ 183,858 Number Vehicles 10 10 10 Lease Cost $ 41,088 $ 41,088 $ 41,088 Total Vehicle cost $ 410,885 410,885 410,885 Total annual cost w/o fuel $ 3,936,357 $ 3,994,521 $ 2,433,327 Total monthly cost w/o fuel $ 328,030 $ 332,877 $ 202,777 8 months (August -March $ 2,663,014.22 $ 2,663,014 4 months (April -July) $ 811,109 $ 811,109 4.55 Total Cost to City without Fuel $ 3,474,123 4.12 5.18 4.2 Original Annual Cost $ 3,936,357 4.45 Reduced Annual Cost $ 3,474,123 4.33 Discount Amount $ 462,233 4.5 4.29 4.17 4.46 4.9 Service True-Up Detail (in miles) March 2020 Reduced Miles Miles 5.08 WKD 2 627.13 333.29 4.52 21 1123.52 593.59 9 1396.21 734.67 4.82 Weekday Daily Total 3146.86 1661.55 Annualized 793,008.72 418,710.60 SAT 2 658.53 388.97 21 1120.19 606.59 9 1414.01 762.67 Saturday Daily Total 3192.73 1758.23 Annualized 166,021.96 91,427.96 SUN 2 289.08 312.48 21 450.69 450.69 9 592.00 586.40 Sunday Daily Total 1331.77 1349.57 Annualized 69,252.04 70,177.64 Annualized Total 1,028,283 580,316 56.44% Sponsored miles 503,359 284,073 56.44% Addendum 3 2020-2021 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South VARIABLE VALUES $ 8.06 2.2% 2 Most recent NTD Cost per Revenue Mile, Bus Service (1) Annual escalator rate (2) Number of Years since NTD report I 20%1Administrative Discount (3) 491,557 Sponsored Revenue Miles: 200 S weekends, 900 Sand 2100 S I 11%1Sponsored Paratransit Service rate (4) I $ 2.00 I Fuel Cost per Gallon {Service Year Budgeted Cost) 4.8 Fuel Efficiency, Miles per Gallon (adjust per vehicle type) I $ 41,088 ISponsored Vehicle Lease Costs 10 Sponsored Vehicles .__ ______ .... (1) NTD Cost per Revenue Mile has been adjusted to exclude fuel expense but does include approximately 2% for capital maintenance (e.g. engine replacement, etc). (2) The annual escalator is a calculated average of the CPI-U over a twenty year period. (3) UTA will discount the administrative charges in proportion to the scale of the service increase in revenue miles. (4) Paratransit Service rate is equal to the percentage of the most recent NTD reported total demand response vehicle revenue hours as compared to total vehicle revenue hours for Bus, Commuter Bus and Light Rail. SPONSORED SERVICE COST $ $ $ 8.06 Most recent NTD Cost Per Mile -Bus Service 8.42 NDT rate Adjusted to Service Year Costs 6.73 Discounted NTD Adjusted to Service Year Costs 491,557 Sponsored Revenue Miles $ 3,309,486.04 Total Mileage Cost, Without Fuel, Annual $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 362,502.27 Add Paratransit Service 3,671,988.31 Total Annual Operating Costs without fuel 2.00 Fuel Cost per Gallon 4.8 Bus Miles per Gallon 491,557 Sponsored Revenue Miles 204,815.42 Total Fuel Cost 41,088.45 Per Vehicle Principal+ 4% Interest Rate, Annual 10 Vehicles needed for sponsored service 410,884.50 Total Annual Vehicle Cost for Sponsored Service 4,287,688.23 TOTAL Draft for Spring 2021 Approval Addendum 4 2021-2022 Sponsored Service: 200 South, 900 South, and 2100 South VARIABLE VALUES $ 8.26 2.2% 2 Most recent NTD Cost per Revenue Mile, Bus Service (1) Annual escalator rate (2) Number of Years since NTD report I 20%1Administrative Discount off the 35% built into NTD (3) 491,557Sponsored Revenue Miles: 200 S weekends, 900 S, and 2100 S I 11%1Sponsored Paratransit Service rate (4) I $ 2.25 IFuel Cost per Gallon (Service Year Budgeted Cost) 5 Fuel Efficiency, Miles per Gallon (adjust per vehicle type) I $ 493,061 !Annual Sponsored Vehicle Lease Costs 10 Sponsored Vehicles ..._ ______ _, (1) NTD Cost per Revenue Mile has been adjusted to exclude fuel expense but does include approximately 2% for capital maintenance (e.g. engine replacement, etc). (2) The annual escalator is a calculated average of the PCE CPI over a twenty year nprinrl (3) UTA will discount the administrative charges in proportion to the scale of the service increase in revenue miles. (4) Paratransit Service rate is equal to the percentage of the most recent NTD reported total demand response vehicle revenue hours as compared to total vehicle revenue hours for Bus, Commuter Bus and Light Rail. SPONSORED SERVICE COST $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 8.26 Most recent NTD Cost Per Mile -Bus Service 8.62 NDT rate Adjusted to Service Year Costs 6.90 Discounted NTD Adjusted to Service Year Costs 491,557 Sponsored Revenue Miles 3,389,849.87 Total Mileage Cost, Without Fuel, Annual 371,304.87 Add Paratransit Service 3,761,154.74 Total Annual Operating Costs without fuel 2.25 Fuel Cost per Gallon 5.0 Bus Miles per Gallon 491,557 Sponsored Revenue Miles 221,200.49 Total Fuel Cost 49,306.14 Per Vehicle Principal + Interest Rate 10 Vehicles needed for sponsored service 493,061.40 Total Annual Vehicle Cost for Sponsored Service 4,475,416.63 TOTAL Addendum 5 1000 North Mobilization (122,274 miles, 22,918 hours) Monthly Cost Mobilization FTE/Unit Position/Item per FTE/unit January February March April May June July Total 2 Mechanics $ 7,192 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 14,384 $ 100,688 1 Fixed Supervisors $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 52,500 1 TCC Dispatch $ 5,234 $ -$ -$ -$ 5,234 $ 5,234 $ 5,234 $ 5,234 $ 20,936 0 Para Supervisors $ 7,200 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -15 Operator Recruitment one time $ 3,000 $ 2,400 $ 1,800 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ -$ 9,000 15 Operator Training one time $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 45,917 $ 275,500 15 Operator Service $ 5,964 $ 14,910 $ 47,712 $ 59,640 $ 89,460 $ 89,460 $ 301,182 4 Vehicle Procurement $ 3,912 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15,648 $ 15,648 $ 31,296 Sub Total $ 24,884 $ 70,201 $ 84,511 $ 121,347 $133,275 $178,743 $178,143 $ 791,102 20% Administration $ 4,977 $ 14,040 $ 16,902 $ 24,269 $ 26,655 $ 35,749 $ 35,629 $ 158,220 TOTAL $ 29,861 $ 84,241 $101,413 $ 145,616 $159,930 $214,491 $213,771 $ 949,322 Mobilization Milestone Invoices Month Expense* Admin Total 1/1/2022 $ 24,884 $ 4,977 $ 29,861 2/1/2022 $ 70,201 $ 14,040 $ 84,241 3/1/2022 $ 84,511 $ 16,902 $ 101,413 4/1/2022 $ 121,347 $ 24,269 $ 145,616 5/1/2022 $ 133,275 $ 26,655 $ 159,930 6/1/2022 $ 178,743 $ 35,749 $ 214,491 7/1/2022 $ 178,143 $ 35,629 $ 213,771 Subtotal $ 791,102 $158,220 $ 949,322 * Expense costs represent a not-to-exceed amount, invoices will be based on actual FTE hires. EXHIBIT6 Timeline of Transit Programs 2017-2022 Why a Transit Master Plan ::-::=.~::....:.:..-:-... .... ~-----'"" ho---------··--.. ---,.,___...,..__.,. .......... __ E:.::=::-..::..-=: -~ __, ________ _ ·--· -~----1-·-------~·· ~- approves Funding Our Future sales tax Top 4 Priorities of 2017 Transit Master Plan 1) Implement a Frequent Transit Network (FTNJ: Council's direction at the time was phase 1 priority (Bus routes 2, 9, 21) & new routes on 600 North, 1000 North, and 400 South 2) Develop pilot programs for employer shuttles & on-demand ride services 3) Implement capital investments along FTN corridors 4) Implement a variety of transit-supportive programs and transit access improvements that overcome barriers to using transit FUNDING OUR FUTURE @ UTA Ongoing Implementation of 2017 Transit Master Plan -FTN Routes & Marketing/Branding: Bus routes 2, 9, 21 plus additional routes -Transit Improvements: Signal upgrades, ADA. bus stop improvements, first/last mile enhancements, etc -Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) & Trips to Transit (T2T): Managing transportation to major employment centers & on-demand microtransit pilot in Westside SLC neighborhood(s) -Transit Staff: Positions supporting transit programs & public outreach 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 tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:July 20, 2021 RE: FY22 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) BUDGET BOOK PAGES: D-1 to D-6 CIP BUDGET BOOK: Debt Service Overview Section B, General Fund Projects Sections C & D NEW INFORMATION At the July 13 briefing, the Council reviewed the full Funding Log (Attachment 2) and identified several follow up questions. Those questions were sent to the Administration and are copied below for reference. Responses are expected to be available for the August 17 briefing. Some Council Members also identified projects without a funding recommendation from the advisory board and the Mayor which they are interested in funding. Below are updates on changes to recapture funding amounts, the Administration’s responses to policy questions from June and project #75 the 600 North Corridor Transformation. Staff is working with the Administration to determine how much of project #3 Odyssey House Annex Building Renovations is eligible for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding and under new guidance from the U.S. Treasury Department if additional CIP projects may qualify. $150,753 Decrease in Class C (gas tax) Funds Recapture The Administration reports $150,753 is still needed of the $208,981 in Class C (gas tax) funds from completed projects that the Council recaptured as part of the annual budget. This means the new recaptured balance is $58,228, and that a correction will need to be made in a budget amendment to move the $150,753 back to the original projects so pending invoices can be paid. The situation could be an example of a system improvement opportunity for communication between departments and divisions. The projects in question were completed from a construction and engineering perspective but some post-construction invoices have not been paid. The new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system might help in similar situations in the future by improving the City’s ability to track and coordinate on finances and assets. Project Timeline: Budget Hearings: May 18 & June 1, 2021 1st Briefing: June 1, 2021 2nd Briefing & Public Hearing: July 13, 2021 3rd Briefing: July 20, 2021 4th Briefing & Public Hearing: August 17, 2021 5th Briefing & Potential Action: August 24, 2021 Note: The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding in the annual budget. Project specific funding is approved by September 1. Page | 2 $38,334 Increase in General Fund Recapture The Administration reports $38,334 in additional General Fund dollars can be recaptured for use in FY22 CIP. Three projects were completed and had remaining funds encumbered but are no longer needed. This funding will need to be part of a budget amendment to formally be added into FY22 CIP since they were not part of the annual budget. General Fund dollars are the most flexible CIP funding source and can go to any project. Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions (Attachment 12) The Administration’s responses to the Council’s policy questions are available in Attachment 12. The Administration will be available to discuss with the Council the responses and potential next steps at the July 20 meeting. The Council may wish to identify policy interests for follow up after adoption of the FY22 CIP project specific funding (September 1 deadline). Some of the issues could benefit from additional time and discussion to improve existing processes and policies. Project #75 600 North Corridor Transformation Diagrams, Preferred Concept and Goals See Attachments 10 and 11 The Transportation Division provided Attachment 10 which has diagrams of six segments along the corridor showing potential changes to the public right of way based on public engagement to-date. Public engagement included pop-up events, several meetings, community events before the pandemic, an online survey in the spring this year and presented to community councils. Attachment 11 is a longer document summarizing the narrative and goals for the current preferred concept. A final preferred concept is expected to be available later this summer or fall. Several funding sources (Federal, State, UTA and City) have been identified but the project is not yet fully funded. Note that the $58 million bond proposal includes $4 million for this project. The description states the total project cost is $8.7 million but that may not be enough to fully fund the project given construction inflation the City experienced in other recent projects. Fully funding the street reconstruction would mean less disruption to the neighborhood (one construction period instead of two) and some modest mobilization cost savings and efficiencies from a consolidated design. Also, a final preferred concept based on more public engagement and updated engineering designs will inform the project’s total estimated cost later this year. Construction is expected to be done in phases. In recent years, the Council funded safety improvements to the 600 North and 800 West intersection and a study of the 600 North Corridor. The total corridor is from 2200 West to Wall Street with three primary segments within: 2200 West to Redwood Road, Redwood Road to I-15, and then several blocks from I-15 to Wall Street. The project builds upon the upcoming Frequent Transit bus route on 600 North which is part of implementing the City’s Transit Master Plan with UTA. For example, the partnership with UTA includes new bus stops and improvements to existing bus stops along the corridor. UTA is paying for those new and improved bus stops and long-term maintenance. The City is paying for the concrete pads. Council Follow Up Questions to Administration The below questions were sent to the Administration following the July 13 briefing. Responses are expected to be available for the Council’s August 17 CIP briefing. What is the available to spend balance of: o The Art Maintenance Fund? o The New Art Fund? o The CIP Cost Overrun Account? o The Surplus Land Fund? Could you please help update the attached spreadsheet listing general cost estimates for regular CIP projects? This was last updated in July 2019 and we know costs for some construction materials have experienced significant inflation during the pandemic. And feel free to add rows for new projects if departments think those additions would be helpful. Is the FY22 list of projects for the Facilities capital asset replacement need to be updated given that the FY21 funding was recaptured for the emergency Central Plant boiler replacements? Page | 3 Could you please provide a written description of the $3.4 million for westside parks that’s listed as part of the $58 million bond proposal? The bond is separate from but related to CIP and this information would help the Council evaluate the City’s overall investments in parks and public lands and individual project proposals. #10 Training Tower, #11 Single Family Prop, #51 Mixed-use Prop and #52 Fire Training Ground Improvements – Is there a comparison available between these four fire applications to help the Council understand the similarities, differences, benefits, locations, etc? My recollection from the advisory board presentation is that: o The order on the funding log is the Fire Department’s order of priority between the four projects o #10 would significantly upgrade the nine story main fire training facility It’s been in use since the 1970s and the tower is almost obsolete The company is pulling working parts from old facilities around the country and installing here in SLC to keep it operating There are four areas for fire simulation and all are nearing end of life This is a primary training facility and without these upgrades fire fighters would need to travel elsewhere to conduct some trainings o #11 is located next to the tower in #10 The facility provides advanced training specific to this type of building structure There are five different training areas The facility is important to provide single-family home trainings given the many neighborhoods in the City with that type of building o #51 is three stories tall plus a roof deck It was not fully built out and there are concerns about the structure not meeting current engineering standards There are eight training areas o #52 is several upgrades to the overall training grounds and former fire station and logistics facility Approximately 45,000 square feet of unused space The project would build a mini city for multiple kinds of training Add significant areas of pavement so training can include vehicles A security fence would also be added to the property All of the facilities are used by other fire departments in the area Only a nominal fee is charged for this longstanding practice #22 Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt – Could you please provide a general timeline for this project? #33 Corridor Transformations, #36 Neighborhood Byways and #42 Kensington Byway – To what extent do these three funding requests overlap in allowable uses? Are there elements of #42 that could be funded by #33 and/or #36? #32 Local Link Construction – Could you please provide some details from the draft study about how this funding would be used? For example, is there an implementation and projects section that could be shared with the Council? We understand this funding request is intended to provide general flexibility for complete street enhancements to planned reconstructions but additional examples at specific locations would be helpful context. #54 Wasatch Tennis Court Reconstruction – What percentage of this project is parks impact fees eligible?  Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings  Council-added Funding to CIP As part of the FY22 annual budget adoption, the Council added $3,245,759 to the CIP budget. This additional funding brought CIP from 6.1% in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget up to 7.2% of ongoing General Fund revenues. The added funding includes three components: Page | 4 - $1,879,654 or the upcoming 600 North Corridor Transformation Complete Streets project. Two years in a row the frequent bus routes contract with UTA was less than budgeted and the Council placed the excess funds into the Funding Our Future transit holding account. The full amount from the holding account was appropriated for this project. - $1,157,124 in General Fund dollars available for any project and these do not have funding recommendations from the CDCIP Board or the Mayor. The CDCIP Board did recommend the Council consider the Board’s combined project scoring as a guide for any additional funding. The scoring is available in Attachment 5. Of this additional funding, $155,709 was recaptured from previously completed projects. - $208,981 in Class C (gas tax) funding which was recaptured from previously completed projects. See Additional Info section for allowable uses of Class C funds are determined by state law. Updated Funding Log Attachment 2 has been updated since the June briefing to reflect Council-added funding, the 600 North corridor transformation project, reformatting the spreadsheet to include the Council’s funding decisions and several other improvements. The following might be helpful in navigating the Funding Log: - The first column on the far left identifies the ID# for every project to allow easier reference. - The second column has the short-title for each application. Council staff added a note where an application overlaps with a project proposed in the Mayor’s $58 million bond proposal - The third column “Scope of Work” provides a project description and often a cost breakdown with further details. - The blue heading columns are the CDCIP and Mayor funding recommendations. This year, the two sets of funding recommendations are identical exception for application #42 on Page 13 which the CDCIP Board did not recommend funding but the Mayor recommends full funding. - The green heading columns furthest to the right are the Council’s funding decisions. Staff copied the Mayor’s funding recommendations into these columns as a starting place for the Council’s deliberations. - The top right corner shows the “Available Funding” for each funding source. These amounts reflect funds that have not been appropriated to an application. - Note that all text in blue on the Funding Log was added by Council staff. Policy Questions Update Per Council Members request at the June briefing, staff sent all the policy questions to the Administration. Responses were forthcoming at the time of publishing this staff report. The Council also identified an additional policy question during unresolved issues briefings which has been sent to the Administration and is copied below: - To what extent, if any, do street reconstruction projects and other public-right-of-way projects including funding for construction mitigation? The Council expressed interest in funding construction mitigation as a standard part of all street reconstruction projects similar to the built in contingency percentage. The Council also asked for clarification on what specific measures will be used with the $200,000 construction mitigation funding. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Each year, the Council appropriates the overall funding available for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and approves debt payments as part of the annual budget in June. Over the summer, the Council reviews individual projects and per state law must approve project specific funding by September 1. CIP is an open and competitive process where residents, local organizations and City departments submit project applications. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board reviews the applications in public meetings and makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and Council. The Mayor provides a second set of funding recommendations to the Council which ultimately decides project specific funding. Note that for FY 21 the Administration conducted an abbreviated CIP process which did not include outside applications. As defined in the Council-adopted 2017 Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies (Attachment 1), a CIP project must “involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures, … have a useful life of five or more years, … have a cost of $50,000 or more, … or significant functionality can be demonstrated…such as software.” The Council also set a three-year spending deadline as Page | 5 part of the guiding policies. CIP accounts older than three years are periodically reviewed for recapture from projects that finished under budget or were not pursued. Overview of the FY22 CIP Budget The total FY22 CIP budget is $34.7 million which is $5.5 million (19%) more than last year. Only looking at the ongoing General Fund transfer to CIP excluding Funding Our Future shows a decrease of $456,798 (3%) less than last year. $5.5 Million Overall Increase – This is largely due to a $4.9 million increase from the new funding source County 1/4¢ sales tax for transportation and streets and a $3.2 million increase in impact fees. $456,798 Decrease in General Fund Transfer – The proposed ongoing General Fund (excluding Funding Our Future dollars) transfer is $14.1 million to CIP which is 6.1% of the ongoing FY22 General Fund budget. If the Council wishes to increase the CIP funding level to 7% an additional $2,775,049 is needed. The Council would need to identify corresponding cuts in other General Fund expenses or revenue increases. $5.7 Million Unrestricted Funds – The sources of CIP funds are detailed further in the chart below. $5,705,720 of the ongoing transfer from the General Fund are unrestricted funds available for any new projects (the most flexible funding available). $10.7 Million Debt Payments and Ongoing Commitments – $10.7 million (58%) of the General Fund transfer to CIP (including Funding Our Future dollars) is needed to cover debt payments. However, it should be noted that $3,657,667 of this amount is for a first-year payment on a proposed bond that the Council has not discussed in detail or approved the list of projects. This funding could be used for FY22 project applications if the Council declines to proceed with the bond or approves a smaller bond. Overall, debt service is 30% of ongoing CIP funding which is a significant improvement over FY21 when the debt load was 46%. The drop is because a sales tax revenue bond was paid off in FY21. Comparison of CIP Funding Sources by Fiscal Year C I P Fu n di n g So u rc es A do p t ed 2 0 19 -2 0 A do p t ed 2 0 2 0 -2 1 Pro p o sed 2 0 2 1-2 2 FY 2 1 t o FY 2 2 $ C h an ge FY 2 1 t o FY 2 2 % C h an ge Ge ne r a l Fund 1 5 ,2 3 9,4 7 9$ 1 4 ,5 82 ,2 6 7$ 1 4 ,1 2 5 ,4 6 9$ (4 5 6 ,7 9 8)$ -3 % Fund ing Ou r Fu tur e *6 ,1 6 9,3 6 7$ 4 ,880 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,5 80 ,0 0 0$ (1 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0 )$ -2 7 % Class C 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,0 2 1 ,7 0 6$ 2 1 ,7 0 6$ 1 % I m p a c t Fe e **4 ,5 6 7 ,9 1 3$ 5 ,0 5 8,0 1 1$ 8,2 7 6 ,1 0 3$ 3 ,2 1 8,0 9 2$ 6 4 % CDBG -$ -$ 3 2 2 ,0 0 0$ 3 2 2 ,0 0 0$ ONE-TI ME Re p u r p o se Old CI P A c c o unts 3 ,5 7 2 ,9 6 8$ 1 ,1 4 9,6 1 6$ PENDI NG -ONE-TI ME Co u nt y 1 /4 ¢ Sa le s Tax ***N/A N/A 4 ,9 0 0 ,0 0 0$ NEW NEW Sur p lu s Land Fu nd 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ -$ 0 % Sm it h 's Nam ing Right s Re v e nu e 1 5 9,5 85$ 1 5 6 ,0 0 0$ 1 5 4 ,0 0 0$ (2 ,0 0 0 )$ -1 % SLC Sp o r ts Co m ple x ESCO 1 4 8,5 0 5$ 1 5 4 ,7 0 6$ 1 4 8,5 0 5$ (6 ,2 0 1 )$ -4 % Me m o r ial Ho u s e Re nt Re v e nu e 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ -$ 0 % TOTA L 3 3 ,1 2 6,3 7 1$ 2 9 ,2 2 6,2 6 2$ 3 4 ,7 7 3 ,4 4 5$ 5 ,5 4 7 ,1 83$ 1 9 % TOTA L w it h o ut ONE-TI ME 2 9 ,5 3 0 ,5 1 1$ 2 8,0 7 6,6 4 6$ 3 4 ,4 5 1 ,4 4 5$ 6 ,3 7 4 ,7 9 9$ 2 3 % *I nc lu d e s % t o CI P "o ff t h e to p ," transit a nd pu b lic rig h t o f w a y infrastru c t ure . A ls o , fund ing so u rc e is o ng o ing b ut Co u nc il c o u ld c h a ng e th e u s e c ate g o rie s in t h e futu re **Th e re are fo u r im p a c t fe e ty p e s: fire , p arks, p o lic e a nd s tre e t s No te : FY 2 1 & FY 2 2 inc lude s a $2 2 ,89 2 d e b t se rv ic e re sc o pe re d u c tio n w h ic h is no t se pa ra t e d o u t in th e t a b le ab o v e ***Ne w re v e nu e so u rc e in FY 2 1 w h ic h t h e Co u nc il dire c t e d b e inc lude d in CI P fo r FY 2 2 a nd th e re a fte r, lim it e d to tra nsp o rta tio ni and st re e t infra s truc tu re use s Page | 6 Significant changes to CIP in FY22 and in upcoming years include: FY22 is the third year with a CIP Budget Book detailing individual projects and debts. Administration is continuing work on creating a Capital Facilities Plan (10-year comprehensive CIP plan). Updates to all four sections (fire, parks, police, and streets/transportation) of the Impact Fees Facilities Plan that was funded by the Council in Budget Amendment #6 of FY19 of which three are pending. An approximately $80 million bond was paid off in FY21 which removes $5.3 million of annual debt payments. The Mayor is recommending a new, smaller bond for several capital improvement projects. See Additional Info section for debt load projections chart and Attachment 4 for a spreadsheet summarizing the proposed $58 million bond-funded projects. No constituent applications were considered for funding in FY21 as part of an abbreviated CIP process, rather they were carried over into FY22 CIP resulting in a higher number competing for limited funds Three Differences in Advisory Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations (See Attachment 2 for Funding Log and Attachment 3 for the CIP Budget Book) Board and Mayoral funding recommendations are detailed at the bottom of each project page in the CIP Budget Book and on the CIP Funding Log. The CIP Log is Attachment 2 which first shows projects the Mayor is recommending for funding and then projects which are not recommended for funding. This year the funding recommendations from the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board and the mayor are nearly identical with three differences listed below. - The Board did not recommend funding for the Kensington Byway on Andrew Ave. from West Temple to Main Street and Kensington Ave. from Main Street to 800 East (note that the street has different names on either side of Main Street). The Mayor recommends fully funding the project using $500,000 from Funding Our Future Streets. Note that several projects scored higher by the Board but are not recommended for funding or less than full funding. - Fully funding the 900 South Signal Improvements project (from 900 West to Lincoln Street) with slightly different sources. The Mayor proposes to use $100,000 from the County 1/4¢ sales tax for transportation and streets and $233,500 from Funding Our Future Streets while the Board proposes to use $333,500 from Funding Our Future Streets. - Mostly funding Transportation Safety Improvements project with slightly different sources. The Mayor proposes to use $400,000 from the County 1/4¢ sales tax for transportation and streets while the Board proposes to use $400,000 from Funding Our Future Streets. Use Combined Project Scores from CDCIP Board as Guide if Additional Funding is Available (See Attachment 5 for a summary sheet of Board votes and combined scores) The CDCIP Board scored and voted on each CIP application. The Board recommends that their combined scoring be used as a guide for how to spend additional CIP funding if it becomes available for FY22 projects. The combined scores are shown in the right-most column and votes in the adjacent column. Note that board members may not have voted on a project because they were unavailable at the time (technical difficulties or not at the public meeting) or they couldn’t decide. Over $300 Million Unfunded Capital Needs and the Mayor’s New $58 Million Bond Proposal (See Attachment 4 pages three and four for a spreadsheet summarizing the proposed bond-funded projects) Last year, the Council discussed the upcoming opportunity of an approximately $80 million sales tax revenue bond being paid off in 2021. This removed a $5.3 million annual debt payment from CIP which has been paid using General Fund dollars. Council Members expressed interest in holding further discussions on how best to prioritize use of this funding opportunity (assuming available revenues) given that the City’s unfunded capital needs significantly exceed $5.3 million. The Mayor is proposing a new $58 million bond with an estimated $3.6 million annual debt payment. Note that some of the projects would be issued under a tax-exempt bond while others would need to be a separate taxable (more expensive) bond. Also, the total cost of the bond is greater than the sum of the individual projects because it includes the cost of issuance and a contingency up to the $58 million maximum proposed. The proposed capital improvement projects include: $19.2 Million for Facilities Projects (34% of bond total) - $2.5 Million for Central Plan electrical transformer upgrade - $3 Million for Warm Springs historic structure stabilization - $1.7 Million for an urban wood reutilization equipment and storage additions - $1.5 Million for Fisher Mansion improvements Page | 7 - $7.5 Million for Fisher Mansion restoration - $3 million for improvements to the Ballpark Note that the City has $47.7 million in total deferred facilities needs $11.1 Million for Transportation and Streets Projects (19% of bond total) - $4 Million for 600 North complete street transformation - $1 Million for cemetery road repairs - $6.1 Million for railroad quiet zones on the West Side (trains would stop blowing horns at crossings) Note that the City is about halfway through the 2018 voter-approved $87 Million Streets Reconstruction Bond. More ongoing funding for street reconstructions and overlays will be needed after the bond funds are gone. $26.54 Million for Parks and Natural Lands Projects (47% of bond total) - $1.2 Million public lands multilingual wayfinding signage - $440,000 for Jordan River Paddle Share Program at Exchange Club Marina 1700 South - $1.3 Million for Allen Park activation of historic structures - $3.4 Million for West Side neighborhood parks - $5 Million for Foothills trail system phases 2 and 3 trailheads and signage o Note that the Mayor is also recommending $1.7 million in FY22 CIP for this project - $5.2 Million for improvements to Pioneer Park - $10 Million for redevelopment of the Glendale Water Park o Note that the Mayor is also recommending $3.2 million in FY22 CIP for this project Over $300 Million in Unfunded Capital Needs over the Next Decade Below is a short list of the City’s unfunded capital needs from large single-site projects to long-term best management of capital assets like buildings, streets, and vehicles. This list is not comprehensive, and some costs may be higher since originally estimated. The total unfunded needs of the below list exceed $300 million and may be closer to $500 million depending on the specifics of new construction projects in the first bullet point. Note that these estimates for new assets do not include maintenance costs. If the City had a Capital Facilities Plan, then it would be a mechanism to identify, track, prioritize and schedule unfunded capital needs over a long-term horizon. $TBD new construction and major redevelopments: Fleet Block, Eastside Police Precinct, multiple aging fire stations, The Leonardo (old library), expansion of the S-Line Streetcar, downtown TRAX loop, quiet zones and undergrounding rail lines that divide the City’s west and east sides, implementing rest of the 9-Line and McClelland urban trails, historic structures like Fisher Mansion and Warm Springs, etc. $133 million over ten years (in addition to existing funding level) to increase the overall condition index of the City's street network from poor to fair $50.9 million above the FY22 recommended funding level over next 10 years to fully fund the City’s Fleet needs $47.7 million over ten years to bring all City facilities out of deferred maintenance $25 million for capital improvements at the City Cemetery, of which $12.5 million is for road repairs $20 million for a new bridge at approx. 4900 West from 500 South to 700 South $6 million for planned upgrades to the Regional Athletic Complex $3.1 million for downtown irrigation system replacement $1.3 million for solar panels, parking canopy and security upgrade at Plaza 349 Recapture Funds from Completed Projects and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years (Attachment 9) The CIP and Debt Management Resolution (Attachment 1) requests that remaining funds from completed projects be recaptured and that remaining funds from unfinished projects over three years old also be recaptured. The table in Attachment 9 is staff’s attempt to follow up on the Council’s policy guidance for CIP projects. 53 projects are listed most of which received General Fund dollars and are over three years old. Several projects also received Class C funds, CDBG funds or are old donations. The total funding is just over $4.2 million. Some of this funding could be recaptured by the Council as one-time revenue for General Fund uses, however, the Class C, CDBG and donations have uses limited by law. The table was sent to the Administration to identify whether a project is completed and status updates for unfinished projects. A response and potential funding to recapture by project will be added to one of the Council’s upcoming unresolved issues briefings. Page | 8 Council Member Rogers’ Proposal During the Non-Departmental budget briefing on May 25, Council Member Rogers expressed interest in using some or all the $1,879,654 in the Funding Our Future transit holding account for the 600 North complete street transformation project. Two years in a row the frequent bus routes contract with UTA was less than budgeted and the Council placed the excess funds into the holding account. Council staff is meeting with Transportation Division staff to better understand the project scope, phases, cost estimates and existing funding. The Mayor’s Series 2021A and 2021B bond proposal (Attachment 4) includes $4 million for the 600 North complete street transformation project. The description states the total project cost is $8.7 million but with recent construction inflation costs may already be higher. It also mentions a phase 1 is already funded. In recent years the Council funding safety improvements at the 600 North and 800 West intersection and funding for a safety study of the 600 North corridor. POLICY QUESTIONS 1.$300+ Million Unfunded Capital Needs and $58 Million Bond Proposal – The Council may wish to discuss if the proposed bond funding by category (listed below) aligns with the Council’s policy priorities. The Council may also wish to discuss how to balance the City’s $300+ Million unfunded capital needs including deferred maintenance for existing assets with funding construction of new assets. The Council is scheduled to review the bond projects in detail over the summer when also reviewing individual CIP projects. $19.2 Million for Facilities Projects (34% of bond total) $11.1 Million for Transportation and Streets Projects (19% of bond total) $26.54 Million for Parks and Natural Lands Projects (47% of bond total) 2.American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding for CIP – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to review all CIP applications for FY22 to determine which, if any project, are eligible for ARPA funding. The U.S. Treasury release eligibility guidance after the advisory board and Mayor provided project funding recommendations to the Council. A review for ARPA feasibility could be completed in time for the Council’s July and August project-specific funding deliberations. 3.Policy Guidance for When to Disqualify an Application – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration if it would be helpful for the Council to provide policy guidance on disqualifying an application such as if it violates a stated City position in an adopted master plan or other policy document, if the primary beneficiary would not be the public, if the City should no longer allow constituent street reconstruction applications because the City’s chosen strategy is reconstructing the worst first based on a data-driven process, etc. 4.Resources to Support Constituent Applications – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the need to address geographic equity issues with additional targeted City resources for neighborhoods that submit few or no constituent applicants. Some Council Members expressed interest in being proactive to support constituent applications from neighborhoods with higher poverty rates. Some constituents and CDCIP Board Members commented at public meetings that they felt like some projects get more support from departments than others. 5.Move $200,000 Ongoing Property Maintenance Expenses Out of Surplus Land Fund – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how to advance this legislative intent. The Council may also wish to ask the Administration what challenges exist to provide an accounting of vacant building maintenance costs and whether a property management contract approach could be more efficient. See Additional Info section for more on the Surplus Land Fund. In Budget Amendment #1 of FY20 the Council adopted the following legislative intent: The Council expresses the intent to fund ongoing property maintenance expenses out of the Public Services Department and/or Community and Neighborhoods Departments’ (CAN) budget rather than continuing to use one-time revenues from the Surplus Land Fund. The Council requests the Administration include this approach based on actual expenses in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for FY2021. This approach builds upon the Council’s FY19 decision to shift funding for a CIP-related FTE away from the Surplus Land Fund and into CAN’s base budget. Page | 9 6.CIP Project Status Reports – The Council may wish to ask the Administration about mechanisms to facilitate the up-to-date sharing of information on current CIP projects. In the past, there were a variety of mechanisms to share information, ranging from topic by topic email requests to consolidated monthly reports. Council Members could then quickly provide accurate/timely information to interested constituents. 7.Additional 0.20% County Sales Tax for Transit Option (not currently collected/levied) – The State Legislature authorized this optional county sales tax for transit capital improvements and services. The Council may wish to ask the Administration about any discussions with the County or plans regarding this potential funding source. For example, could partnering with the County help implement the City’s Transit Master Plan, downtown TRAX loop and/or undergrounding railway lines that divide the City? Under current state law, the option to enact the additional sales tax expires at the end of FY23. 8.Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a status update on the CFP (10-Year Comprehensive CIP Plan). It’s envisioned as a living document that prioritizes capital needs across City plans and departments within funding constraints. The Council held a briefing in January 2019 about a draft of the plan. See Attachment 6 for the Council’s potential policy goals, metrics, and requests. 9.Balancing Funding for Streets and Transportation – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how to balance funding for streets and transportation in coming years between Class C funds which goes to street reconstructions and overlays with the new County 1/4¢ sales tax which goes to transportation. Both of those funding sources are eligible for streets and transportation uses but are only going to one of the two uses. There may be a need for greater ongoing streets funding when the voter-approved 2018 Streets Reconstruction Bond funds are all spent. ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Surplus Land Fund (See Policy Question #7) The Surplus Land Fund receives proceeds from the sale of real property (land and buildings). According to City policy the Surplus Land Fund can be spent on purchasing real property and some funds may be diverted into the Housing Trust Fund. The funds are one-time because the real property can only be sold once. The FY22 budget proposes to continue a $200,000 appropriation to the CAN Department for property maintenance expenses such as utilities, security, and minor repairs. This is using one-time funding for an ongoing expense. Cost Overrun Account The Council established this account for projects that experience costs slightly higher than budgeted. A formula determines how much additional funding may be pulled from the Cost Overrun account depending on the total Council-approved budget. See section 11 of Attachment 1 for the formula. This process allows the Administration to add funding to a project without returning to the Council in a budget amendment. A written notification to the Council on uses is required. The purpose is to allow projects to proceed with construction instead of delaying projects until the Council can act in a budget amendment which typically takes a few months. Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking (See Attachment 7) The Council approved several million dollars in impact fee projects the past few years. Attachment ??? is the most recent impact fee tracking report from the Administration. The table below is current as of April 20, 2021. Available to spend impact fee balances are bank account balances subtracting encumbrances and expired funds. The Mayor’s recommended CIP budget proposes using $6,800,450 of parks impact fees and $491,520 of streets / transportation impact fees. Type Unallocated Cash “Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring Impact Fees Fire $1,002,114 More than a year away - Parks $8,435,142 More than a year away - Police $421,062 June 2021 $30,017 Transportation $5,125,188 More than a year away - Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract Impact Fee Eligibility Page | 10 Impact fees are one-time charges imposed by the City on new development projects to help fund the cost of providing infrastructure and services to that new development. This is part of the City’s policy that growth should pay for growth. A project, or portion of a project, must be deemed necessary to ensure the level of service provided in the new development area matches what is currently offered elsewhere in the city. As a result, it’s common for a project to only be partially eligible for impact fee funding (the growth-related portion) so other funding sources must be found to cover the difference. It is important to note that per state law, the City has six years from the date of collection to spend or encumber under a contract the impact fee revenue. After six years, if those fees are not spent then the fees are returned to the developer with interest. CIP Debt Load Projections through FY26 (Note an $80 million bond was paid off in FY21 and the Mayor proposed a new $58 million bond) The Administration provided the following chart to illustrate the ratio of ongoing commitments to available funding for projects over the next six fiscal years. Most of these commitments are debt payments on existing bonds. Other commitments include, ESCO debt payments, the Crime Lab lease, capital replacement funding for parks and facilities, contributions to the CIP cost overrun account and the 1.5% for art fund. The CIP Budget Book includes an overview and details on each of the ongoing commitments. 79% of the General Fund transfer into CIP was needed for these ongoing commitments in FY21. The projected debt load significantly decreases in FY22 because Series 2014A Taxable Refunding of 2005 bonds matures (paid off). It was approximately $80 million when the bond was originally issued (before refunding). This reduces the debt load from 79% to 45% and removes a $5.3 million annual debt payment. The Mayor is recommending a new sales tax revenue bond totaling $58 million with an estimated annual debt payment of almost $3.7 million. Note that General Obligation (G.O.) bonds are not paid from CIP because they are funded through a separate, dedicated voter-approved property tax increase. 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100% FY 2020-21 FY 2021 -22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-2 4 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 Allocation of C IP General Fund Transfer Amount, 6 Year Projection, assuming 2% revenue growth per year, and continued allocation of 7% of GF revenue to CIP Debt Se r vice On Bonds Othe r Debt Servic e Other Commitments Pay a s You G o Pro jec ts Page | 11 1.5% for Art Fund (for new art and maintenance of existing artworks) Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 2.30, established the Percent for Art Fund and designates roles for the Art Design Board and Arts Council related to artist selection, project review and placement. The Public Art Program also oversees projects with funding from the Airport and RDA. In April 2021 the Council amended Chapter 2.30 to make several changes to the ordinance including an increase from 1% to 1.5% of ongoing unrestricted CIP funding for art minimum. There is no ceiling so the Council could approve funding for art above 1.5%. The ordinance also sets a range of 10%-20% for how much of the 1.5% is allocated to maintenance annually. This section of the ordinance also states that before funds are deposited into the separate public art maintenance fund a report from the Administration will be provided to the Council identifying works of art that require maintenance and estimated costs. This creates the first ongoing dedicated funding for conservation and maintenance of the City’s public art collection consisting of over 270 pieces. The collection is expected to continue growing. Note that in Budget Amendment #2 of FY20 the Council made a one-time appropriation of $200,000 to establish an art maintenance fund. Of that amount, up to $40,000 was authorized for a study to determine the annual funding need for art maintenance and identify specific repairs for artworks. Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) (See Attachment 6) The CFP is a comprehensive 10-year CIP plan. See Attachment 6 for a summary of the Council’s requests and guidance during the January 2019 briefing from the Administration and discussion. It’s important to note, the Council expressed interest in identifying a couple measurable goals to accomplish through the CFP and guide prioritization of project planning. Regular CIP Project Cost Estimate (See Attachment 8) Attachment 8 lists cost estimates for various types of projects based on actual costs from recent years. The document was developed by Council staff in collaboration with the Administration. The figures may not be up to date cost estimates but provide a ballpark figure when considering project costs. The three categories of project cost estimates are parks, streets, and transportation. The document was last updated July 2019. Updated cost estimates will be provided for the Council’s budget deliberations in July and August. County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding The County fourth quarter-cent transportation funding is a new ongoing sales tax funding source dedicated to transportation and streets. The City has taken a progressive view of transportation beyond a vehicle-focused perspective and uses a multi-modal, more inclusive approach (walking, biking, public transit, accessibility and ADA, ride-share, trails, safety, scooters, etc.). The Wasatch Front Regional Council summarized eligible uses for this funding as “developing new roads or enhancing (e.g. widening) existing roads; funding active transportation, including bike and pedestrian projects; or funding transit enhancements. It can also be used for maintenance and upkeep of existing facilities.” (SB136 of 2018 Fourth Quarter Cent Local Option Sales Tax Summary June 22, 2018). Revenue from the 0.25% sales tax increase is split 0.10% for UTA, 0.10% for cities and 0.05% for Salt Lake County as of July 1, 2019 and afterwards. Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between this funding source and Class C funds (next section). Class C Funds (gas tax) Class C funds are generated by the Utah State Tax on gasoline. The state distributes these funds to local governments on a center lane mileage basis. The City’s longstanding practice has been to appropriate Class C funds for the general purpose of street reconstruction and asphalt overlays. The Roadway Selection Committee selects specific street segment locations (See next section below). Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between this funding source and the County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding (previous section). Per state law, Class C funds may be used for: 1. All construction and maintenance on eligible Class B & C roads 2. Enhancement of traffic and pedestrian safety, including, but not limited to: sidewalks, curb and gutter, safety features, traffic signals, traffic signs, street lighting and construction of bicycle facilities in the highway right-of-way 3. Investments for interest purposes (interest to be kept in fund) 4. Equipment purchases or equipment leases and rentals 5. Engineering and administration costs 6. Future reimbursement of other funds for large construction projects 7. Rights of way acquisition, fencing and cattle guards 8. Matching federal funds Page | 12 9. Equipment purchased with B & C funds may be leased from the road department to another department or agency 10. Construction of road maintenance buildings, storage sheds, and yards. Multiple use facilities may be constructed by mixing funds on a proportional basis 11. Construction and maintenance of alleys 12. B & C funds can be used to pay the costs of asserting, defending, or litigating 13. Pavement portion of a bridge (non-road portions such as underlying bridge structure are not eligible) Roadway Selection Committee The Roadway Selection Committee determines specific projects for street improvement general purpose appropriations, e.g., reconstruction or overlay. In recent years this Committee guided use of Class C funds and revenues from the 2018 voter-approved Streets Reconstruction G. O. Bond. The Committee is led by Engineering and includes representatives of Streets, Transportation, Public Utilities, Public Services, HAND, Finance, the RDA and Council Staff. Information provided to the committee to consider in their selection process includes: Public requests for individual road repair On-going costs to keep a road safely passable Existing or planned private development or publicly funded construction activities in a neighborhood or corridor such as the Sugar House Business District or the 900 South corridor Safety improvement goals and crash data Public Utilities’ planned capital projects that would include a variety of underground facilities replacements, repairs, or upgrades Private utilities’ existing infrastructure, planned installations or repairs, e.g., fiber, natural gas, power Neighborhood or transportation master plan considerations Pavement condition survey data for ideal timing of asphalt overlays to extend useful life of a street In reviewing the above-mentioned criteria, open deliberations are held between committee members, and roads are selected for repair by consensus. The number of projects selected is contingent on available funding. Other City projects and master plans sometimes help in extending funds by combining project funding sources. CIP Planning Technology Improvements The Administration reports improvements are ongoing to CIP tracking of projects and applications. The City currently provides a public interactive construction and permits project information map available here: http://maps.slcgov.com/mws/projects.htm ATTACHMENTS 1. Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution 29 of 2017 2. FY 22 CIP Funding Log – Note the spreadsheet from the Administration is not formatted for printing 3. FY22 CIP Budget Book – Note an electronic version was pending at the time of publishing this staff report for the June 1 Council meeting 4. Summary Project Spreadsheet for Proposed Sales Tax Bonds Series 2021A and 2021B 5. FY22 CDCIP Board Project Scores and Votes 6. Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Council Requests from January 2019 7. Impact Fee “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking (April 20, 2021) 8. Regular CIP Projects Cost Estimates (July 3, 2019) 9. List of Completed and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years for Potential Funding Recapture 10. 600 North Corridor Transformation Diagrams Draft 11. 600 North Corridor Transformation Preferred Concept, Narrative and Goals Draft 12. Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions ACRONYMS CAN – Community and Neighborhood Development Department CDCIP – Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board CFP – Capital Facilities Plan CIP – Capital Improvement Program ESCO – Energy Service Company FTE – Full-time Employee FY – Fiscal Year Page | 13 G.O. Bond – General Obligation bond HAND – Housing and Neighborhood Development Division RDA – Redevelopment Agency RESOLUTION NO . _29_0F 2017 (Salt Lake City Council capital and debt management policies.) R 17-1 R 17-13 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council" or "Council") demonstrated its commitment to improving the City's Capital Improvement Program in order to better address the deferred and long-term infrastructure needs of Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, the analysis of Salt Lake City's General Fund Capital Improvement Program presented by Citygate Associates in February 1999, recommended that the Council review and update the capital policies of Salt Lake Corporation ("City") in order to provide direction to the capital programming and budgeting process and adopt and implement a formal comprehensive debt policy and management plan; and WHEREAS, the City's Capital Improvement Program and budgeting practices have evolved since 1999 and the City Council wishes to update the capital and debt management policies by updating and restating such policies in their entirety to better reflect current practices; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to improve transparency of funding opportunities across funding sources including General Fund dollars, impact fees, Class C (gas tax) funds, Redevelopment Agency funds, Public Utilities funds, repurposing old Capital Improvement Program funds and other similar funding sources. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City: Capital Policies 1. Capital Project Definition-The Council intends to define a capital project as follows: "Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. A capital improvement must have a useful life of five or more years. A capital improvement is not a recurring capital outlay item (such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine) or a maintenance expense (such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches). In order to be considered a capital project, a capital improvement must also have a cost of $50,000 or more unless such capital improvement's significant functionality can be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project (such as software). Acquisition of equipment is not considered part of a capital project unless such acquisition of equipment is an integral part of the cost of the capital project." 2. Annual Capital Budget Based on 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan-The Council requests that the Mayor's Recommended Annual Capital Budget be developed based upon the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan and be submitted each fiscal year to the City Council for consideration as part of the Mayor 's Recommended Budget no later than the first Tuesday of May. 3. Multiyear Financial Forecasts-The Council requests that the Administration : a. Prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts that correspond to the capital program period; b . Prepare an analysis of the City's financial condition , debt service levels within the capital improvement budget, and capacity to finance future capital projects; and c . Present this information to the Council in conjunction with the presentation of each one- year capital budget. 4. Annual General Fund Transfer to CIP Funding Goal-Allocation of General Fund revenues for capital improvements on an annual basis will be determined as a percentage of General Fund revenue . The Council has a goal that no less than nine percent (9%) of ongoing General Fund revenues be invested annually in the Capital Improvement Fund. 5. Maintenance Standard-The Council intends that the City will maintain its physical assets at a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance and replacement costs. 6 . Capital Project Prioritization-The Council intends to give priority consideration to projects that: a. Preserve and protect the health and safety of the community; b. Are mandated by the state and/or federal government; and c. Provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in a preservation of the community's prior investment, in decreased operating costs or other significant cost savings , or in improvements to the environmental quality of the City and its neighborhoods. 7. External Partnerships -All other considerations being equal, the Council intends to give fair consideration to projects where there is an opportunity to coordinate with other agencies , establish a public/ private partnership, or secure grant funding . 8. Aligning Project Cost Estimates and Funding-The Council intends to follow a guideline of approving construction funding for a capital project in the fiscal year immediately following the project's design wherever possible. Project costs become less accurate as more time passes. The City can avoid expenses for re-estimating project costs by funding capital projects in a timely manner. 9. Advisory Board Funding Recommendations-The Council intends that all capital projects be evaluated and prioritized by the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board . The resulting recommendations shall be provided to the Mayor , and shall be included along with the Mayor 's funding recommendations in conjunction with the Annual Capital budget transmittal , as noted in Paragraph two above. 10. Prioritize Funding Projects in the 10-Year Plan-The Council does not intend to fund any project that has not been included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan for at least one (1) year prior to proposed funding, unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified. 11. Cost Overrun Process -The Council requests that any change order to any capital improvement project follow the criteria established in Resolution No. 65 of2004 which reads as follows: a. "The project is under construction and all other funding options and/ or methods have been considered and it has been determined that additional funding is still required. b. Cost overrun funding will be approved based on the following formula: 1. 20% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets of $100,000 or less; ii. 15% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets between $100,001 and $250,000; iii. 10% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets over $250,000 with a maximum overrun cost of $1oo,ooo. c. The funds are not used to pay additional City Engineering fees. d. The Administration will submit a written notice to the City Council detailing the additional funding awarded to projects at the time of administrative approval. e. If a project does not meet the above mentioned criteria the request for additional funding will be submitted as part of the next scheduled budget opening. However, if due to timing constraints the cost overrun cannot be reasonably considered as part of a regularly scheduled budget opening, the Administration will prepare the necessary paperwork for review by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting." 12. Recapture Funds from Completed Capital Projects-The Council requests that the Administration include in the first budget amendment each year those Capital Improvement Program Fund accounts where the project has been completed and a project balance remains. It is the Council's intent that all account balances from closed projects be recaptured and placed in the CIP Cost Overrun Contingency Account for the remainder of the fiscal year, at which point any remaining amounts will be transferred to augment the following fiscal year's General Fund ongoing allocation. 13. Recapture Funds from Unfinished Capital Projects-Except for situations in which significant progress is reported to the Council, it is the Council's intent that all account balances from unfinished projects older than three years be moved out of the specific project account to the CIP Fund Balance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, account balances for bond financed projects and outside restricted funds (which could include grants, SAA or other restricted funds) shall not be moved out of the specific project account. 14. Surplus Land Fund within CIP Fund Balance -Revenues received from the sale of real property will go to the unappropriated balance of the Capital Projects Fund and the revenue will be reserved to purchase real property unless extenuating circumstances warrant a different use. It is important to note that collateralized land cannot be sold. 15 . Transparency of Ongoing Costs Created by Capital Projects-Any long-term fiscal impact to the General Fund from a capital project creating ongoing expenses such as maintenance, changes in electricity /utility usage, or additional personnel will be included in the CIP funding log and project funding request. Similarly, capital projects that decrease ongoing expenses will detail potential savings in the CIP funding log. 16. Balance Budget without Defunding or Delaying Capital Projects -Whenever possible, capital improvement projects should neither be delayed nor eliminated to balance the General Fund budget. 17. Identify Sources when Repurposing Old Capital Project Funds-Whenever the Administration proposes repurposing funds from completed capital projects the source(s) should be identified including the project name, balance of remaining funds, whether the project scope was reduced, and whether funding needs related to the original project exist. 18. Identify Capital Project Details -For each capital project, the capital improvement projects funding log should identify: a. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board's funding recommendations, b. The Administration's funding recommendations, c. The project name and a brief summary of the project, d . Percentage of impact fee eligibility and type, e. The project life expectancy, f. Whether the project is located in an RDA project area, g. Total project cost and an indication as to whether a project is one phase of a larger project, h. Subtotals where the project contains multiple scope elements that could be funded separately, 1. Any savings derived from funding multiple projects together, j. Timing for when a project will come on-line, k. Whether the project implements a master plan, 1. Whether the project significantly advances the City's renewable energy or sustainability goals, m . Ongoing annual operating impact to the General Fund, n. Any community support for the project -such as community councils or petitions, o. Communities served, p. Legal requirements/mandates, q. Whether public health and safety is affected, r. Whether the project is included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan, s. Whether the project leverages external funding sources, and t. Any partner organizations . Debt Management Policies 1. Prioritize Debt Service for Projects in the 10 -Year Capital Facilities Plan -The Council intends to utilize long-term borrowing only for capital improvement projects that are included in the City's 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan or in order to take advantage of opportunities to restructure or refund current debt. Short-term borrowing might be utilized in anticipation of future tax collections to finance working capital needs. 2. Evaluate Existing Debt before Issuing a New Debt-The Council requests that the Administration provide an analysis of the City's debt capacity, and how each proposal meets the Council's debt policies, prior to proposing any projects for debt financing. This analysis should include the effect of the bond issue on the City's debt ratios , the City 's ability to finance future projects of equal or higher priority , and the City's bond ratings. 3. Identify Repayment Source when Proposing New Debt-The Council requests that the Administration identify the source of funds to cover the anticipated debt service requirement whenever the Administration recommends borrowing additional funds. 4. Monitoring Debt Impact to the General Fund-The Council requests that the Administration analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City's operating budget and coordinate this analysis with the budget development process. 5. Disclosure of Bond Feasibility and Challenges -The Council requests that the Administration provide a statement from the City's financial advisor that each proposed bond issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed. Such statement from the City's financial advisor should also include an indication of requirements or circumstances that the Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue (such as any net negative fiscal impacts on the City 's operating budget, debt capacity limits , or rating implications). 6. A void Use of Financial Derivative Instruments -The Council intends to avoid using interest rate derivatives or other financial derivatives when considering debt issuance. 7 . Maintain Reasonable Debt Ratios-The Council does not intend to issue debt that would cause the City's debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate ranges as indicated by the municipal bond rating industry . 8. Maintain High Level Bond Ratings-The Council intends to maintain the highest credit rating feasible and to adhere to fiscally responsible practices when issuing debt. 9. Consistent Annual Debt Payments Preferred -The Council requests that the Administration structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the financed project(s) unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or the useful life of the financed project(s) suggests a different maturity schedule. 10. Sustainable Debt Burden-The Council intends to combine pay-as-you-go strategy with long-term financing to keep the debt burden sufficiently low to merit continued AAA general obligation bond ratings and to provide sufficient available debt capacity in case of emergency. 11. Lowest Cost Options-The City will seek the least costly financing available when evaluating debt financing options . 12. Avoid Creating Structural Deficits-The City will minimize the use of one-time revenue to fund programs/projects that require ongoing costs including debt repayments. 13. Aligning Debt and Project Timelines-Capital improvement projects financed through the issuance of bonded debt will have a debt service that is not longer than the useful life of the project. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this -~3L.Lr_...d ___ day of October , 2017. ATTEST : HB _A TTY -#64309 -v3-CIP _a nd _ Debt_ Management_Pol icies SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By 4 = ASL CHAIRPERSON -=-::::::::____ Salt Lake City App ed As To Form By: ~~~~~~~.P aysen Oldroyd Da e: lt:>/-:z.../ 17 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit 1 1.5% for Art Required by City ordinance and calculated as 1.5% of the General Fund available to spend revenues in the Mayor's Recommended Budget. Overseen by the Arts Council. Ordinance allows the Administration to use some of the funding for maintenance of existing artworks and the rest goes to new artworks.$85,586 $34,500 $85,586 $34,500 2 Cost Overrun Account Required and governed by the CIP Resolution 29 of 2017. Provides additional funding for projects with expenses that come in slightly higher than estimated. $114,114 $46,000 $114,114 $46,000 3 Odyssey House Annex Facility Renovation Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Engineering Project Odyssey House is seeking funding from Salt Lake City to complete a significant renovation of the Annex building rented by the agency located at 623 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102. Currently, the Annex has a multitude of structural problems that pose life and safety risks for the residential clients who inhabit the facility at this time. The roof is deteriorating, and the gutters are becoming unstable. This damage is causing a multitude of different leaks within the building, harming interior and exterior walls. To fully replace the roof and gutters, it will cost about $28,000. The building's foundation, primarily in the rear, is beginning to crumble and needs to be repaired, treated, and braced, which will ultimately cost about $250,000. The roof and foundation must be restored to complete all other necessary renovations before other workers can be deployed inside the building. Following the roof and foundation's replacement and repairs, the interior beams, walls, and overall structural skeleton need to be reinforced and stabilized due to extensive water damage, costing about $33,000. All exterior walls need to be cleaned, repaired, and repainted, costing about $41,500. Windows and doors within the facility have to be wholly replaced. Due to structural and foundational problems, all interior doors and windows cannot shut or lock because their frames are warped and/rotting. To complete an overhaul of the windows and doors, it will cost about $19,500. Additionally, the electrical and mechanical systems in the building, such as wiring, hardware, plumbing, etc., will need to be evaluated and repaired or replaced, which will cost about $35,500. Lastly, exterior site work, such as sidewalk repairs, drainage slope, ADA access, and miscellaneous fees, such as permits, additional insurance, and project management, will add $42,500 to the total project cost. In total, the renovation of the Annex will cost about $450,000. However, Odyssey House is looking to build in a contingency of $50,000 to prepare for any additional work that may appear after beginning construction resulting in an overall cost of $500,000. $300,000 $300,000 4 Street Improvements 2021/2022 Requested $3.5 million from Class C; Engineering Project Deteriorated city streets will be reconstructed or rehabilitated using funding from this program. This will provide replacement of street pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage improvements as necessary. Where appropriate, the program will include appropriate bike way and pedestrian access route improvements as determined by the Transportation Division per the Complete Streets ordinance. $2,046,329 $2,046,329 5 Pavement Conditions Survey Requested $175,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project Approximately every five years the entire pavement network is surveyed. This condition survey is accomplished by a third party with state of the art equipment and results in a report summarizing possible options and costs. The data collected is used by Engineering’s Pavement Management Team to determine the overall street network condition, provide street rehabilitation and reconstruction recommendations, and prioritize proposed maintenance activities. $3,571 $171,429 $3,571 $171,429 6 Public Way Concrete 2021/2022 Requested $750,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project This project will address displacements in public way concrete through saw-cutting, slab jacking, and removal and replacement of deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks, accessibility ramps, curb and gutter, retaining walls, etc. $75,000 $675,000 $75,000 $675,000 AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 1 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 7 Bridge Preservation 2021/2022 Requested $300,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project There are 23 bridges in Salt Lake City, most crossing either the Jordan River or the Surplus Canal. UDOT inspects these bridges every two years and provides the city with a basic condition report. The city is responsible for performing appropriate maintenance activities based on statements in the UDOT report. City Engineering has prepared an ongoing bridge maintenance strategy with the objective of extending the functional life of these structures, and extending the time between major repairs. The requested funds will be used to address needed repairs and routine maintenance. $21,429 $278,571 $21,429 $278,571 8 Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2021/2022 Requested $70,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project This program addresses uneven pavement adjacent to railway crossings. Engineering designs pavement improvements and contracts the construction.$70,000 $70,000 9 Capital Asset Replacement Program $19.2 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR SIX FACILITIES PROJECTS Requested $5,860,449 from General Fund; Facilities Project The Facilities Division’s Facility Condition Index database categorizes asset renewal projects based on the criticality of projects starting with Priority 1, Life Safety. Projects in Priority 2 address Structural Integrity, Property Loss, and Contractual Obligations. To eliminate the $47,733,403 in total deferred capital renewal, Facilities proposes an annual investment through CIP of $7,000,000. For FY22 CIP funding, Facilities is requesting funding for Projects of Priority1 and 2 for $5,860,449. (The amount requested is derived from an initial 2017 facility assessment to which a 3% annual inflationary rate has been applied. It should be noted that the current construction environment is very heated; with the 10% contingency and 21% Design/Engineering costs Facilities request is $5,860,449.) $1,252,230 $1,252,230 10 Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade Requested $318,279 from General Fund; Fire Project The Fire Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade consist of modernizing the existing natural gas fire props within the Tower. The scope includes upgrading the fuel control station, PLC5 to the new ControlLogix PLC operating system, and the bedroom, storage, desk, and car fire props. Fuel control station: Replace existing assembly whose components are currently obsolete. The upgrade will replace the existing FCS (fuel control station) to “auto” open style FCS which will have the automatically controlled main gas safety shut off valve and the latest version of the low- and high-pressure switches. PLC Upgrade – PLC5 to Logix includes upgrade the existing PLC 5 to new ControlLogix PLC: *New Allen Bradley PLC ControlLogix, input modules, output modules, analog modules, and Ethernet adapter modules * Replacement of control room PC’s with the latest PC hardware available at time of delivery * Microsoft operating system (currently Windows 10) * KFT Fire Trainer software * Ethernet to Data Highway Interface for both systems * Upgrade Outdoor PLC to New Logics PLC. Fire prop upgrade: KFT's advanced burner design, AquaMesh, produces increased levels of radiant heat, a more realistic flame signature, lower levels of unburned gases during fire suppression, and more challenging flames that cannot be swept off the fire mock-up with hose stream application. Water, used to disperse the propane or natural gas, is not visible through the fireplace mock-up. AquaMesh fires are capable of withstanding repeated direct hose line stream attacks, without having any significant amount of water dispelled from the burner assembly within the fire mock-up. $318,279 $318,279 FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 2 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 11 Single Family/Fire Behavior Prop Requested $374,864 from General Fund; Fire Project Drager Phase V Rambler/Fire-Behavior Prop to include: One (1) story unit comprised of Five (5) 40’ fire training modules NFPA 1402 $ OSHA-compliant system Two (2) high-temperature thermal-insulated burn chamber with emergency exits as required Burn baffles High-heat thermal-insulated wall with door(s) Standard windows Standard doors One (1) sliding door Hallway Vents with pull cable Cleanout cargo doors Freight to customer site On-site installation & set up to include: Full Project management support from Drager staff Pre-installation site surveys and in-process review of the build site Drager contracted and project-managed installation to ensure that the fire prop system is installed properly, safely, and with minimal disruption Insured and bonded installation and crane service Train-the Trainer Program Two-day on-site training for up to ten (10) fire department instructors Complete documentation package on operation and maintenance $374,864 $374,864 12 Tracy Aviary Historic Structure Renovations Requested $156,078 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project Two historical elements at Tracy Aviary in Liberty Park are in need of repair and are the subject of this CIP request. The Bath House (a.k.a.Custodial Storage Building (CSB)) and the East Gate. The CSB needs a new roof. This will require removing the solar panels, replacing asphalt shingles and re-installing the solar panels. The East Gate was identified during our 2019 AZA accreditation inspection as an area of concern due to being an insufficient perimeter barrier. The solution is to re-align the existing fence and add additional fencing to block a gap. Brick work to repair damaged areas, signage, and landscaping surrounding the space is also included. $156,078 $156,078 13 Three Creeks West Bank Trailway $3.4 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR WESTSIDE PARKS Requested $490,074 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project Reconstruct a half-block of the Jordan River Parkway Trail where it’s eroding into the river at 1300 South and 1000 West. $484,146 $484,146 14 Three Creeks West Bank New Park $3.4 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR WESTSIDE PARKS Requested $150,736 from parks impact fees; Constituent Public Lands Project This project will create a new multiuse park on 1.4 acres owned by the city at 1050 W 1300 South, along the Jordan River. Grading and landscaping would need to take place. Park amenities can be determined as the project moves forward. Pickleball courts have been suggested by the Glendale Community Council. Note that the Three Creeks Confluence Park on the east side of the Jordan River completed construction and opened to the public in July 2021. $150,736 $150,736 15 Sugar House Park Fabian Lake Pavilion Remove and Replace Requested $183,834 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project Scope of work is to remove and replace existing Fabian Lakeside Pavilion. SHPA hired Arch Nexus to review, analyze and recommend solutions for the deteriorating pavilions, and completed the attached report in December of 2015. Arch Nexus factored in escalation costs through 2020. $183,834 $183,834 FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 3 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 16 Liberty Park Basketball Court Requested $99,680 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project This project is for resurfacing the existing basketball court in the center of the park and the replacement of two new basketball hoops. $99,680 $99,680 17 Glendale Waterpark Master Plan & Landscape Rehabilitation & Active Recreation Component $10 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR THIS PROJECT AND $3.4 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR WESTSIDE PARKS Requested $3.2 million from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project This project is Public Lands' highest priority impact fee request. The goal of this project is to provide a new active recreation amenity at the former Glendale Water Park. This project will build on the results of a City sponsored community visioning process, planned for 2021, that will determine the program and character for development. Funds from this request will be allocated for technical drawings and site improvements. Forty years ago, the Glendale water park was built using Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF). LWCF protects funded sites in perpetuity, to remain active recreation facilities open to the public. Removal of the obsolete water slides and pools has triggered a three-year clock in which SLC must replace the amenity with another public outdoor, active recreation facility. It does not have to be water based, but it cannot solely be open fields of grass or natural area. In the first phase, $3,200,000 will construct a community directed, active recreation amenity on site within the three-year time limit. The scope of this project will reflect the communities’ priorities and character, resources allocated and alignment with LWCF requirements. SLC Council and/or designees will be briefed on phase one project selection prior to design and construction. Full development of the 17-acre site will likely require several phases and funding cycles. $3,200,000 $3,200,000 18 A Place for Everyone: Emerald Ribbon Master Plan $3.4 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR WESTSIDE PARKS AND $440,000 FOR JORDAN RIVER PADDLE SHARE Requested $420,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project The Jordan River Emerald Ribbon Master Plan is, fundamentally, a placemaking initiative for the Jordan River corridor, built on creative, diverse and deep community engagement through four Salt Lake City neighborhoods. Engagement will seek to identify features, improvements, stories, artwork and institutional connections that are important to individual neighborhoods and communities along the river. The planning effort will be led by the SLC Public Lands Division with support from an experienced consulting firm, and extensive involvement of community partner organizations imbedded in the neighborhoods. This approach will build on the connections made with University Neighborhood Partners to further this collaborative relationship in the west side communities, and will ensure that creative and diverse engagement tactics produce public feedback that captures the voices and opinions of groups and community members that have been traditionally underrepresented. Placemaking engagement activities will be broken into four distinct but complimentary neighborhood efforts: Glendale (Hwy 201 to 900 South), Poplar Grove (900 South to North Temple), Fairpark/Jordan Meadows (North Temple to 700 North), and Rose Park/Westpointe (700 North to I-215). Each engagement effort will draw on existing Public Land assets along and nearby the river corridor, as well as the direction established by the Blueprint Jordan River 2.0, the Westside Master Plan, 9Line Master Plan, Northwest Master Plan, North Temple Boulevard Plan, Rose Park Small Area Plan, Northpointe Small Area Plan, Jordan River Flood Control, Habitat and Green Infrastructure Plan, the Reimagine Nature SLC Public Lands Master Plan, and other relevant documents. The final Master Plan will include block-by-block improvement components along with recommended phasing and high- level cost estimates for implementation that will guide subsequent allocation of CIP and Impact Fee resources, investments in programming, and strategic partnerships. $416,667 $416,667 FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 4 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 19 Downtown Green Loop Implementation: Design for 200 East linear Park Requested $610,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project Several streets along the Downtown Plan's visionary Green Loop Regional Park project are already under consideration by the Transportation Division for corridor-wide changes, including improvements for active transportation. This request from the Public Lands Division would fund the collaborative visioning, public engagement, and conceptual design of the nontransportation elements of the Green Loop. The design of public green space, park elements, and stormwater rain gardens / bio-swales will be proposed within the 132' public way, facilitated by a significant reallocation of space from pavement to park. Based on the Transportation Division's current and pending work on 200 East, it is anticipated that this funding will go primarily to 200 East, with some lesser attention to other corridors along the loop. The result of this phase of the project will be public awareness, interest and excitement about this regionally-significant project; a conceptual and preliminary design; a construction cost estimate suitable for seeking construction funds; and strategies for short and long term maintenance approaches and costs. Specific tasks associated with this scope of work include: • Public engagement for conceptual design and design development of the 200 East leg Green Loop corridor • Conceptual design for the green space component of the 200 East Corridor/ Segment of the Green Loop. • Analysis of site opportunities and constraints with special attention to underground utilities and infrastructure that may impact above ground improvements. • Design development of the 200 East green space development and amenities. To include full construction cost estimates with short and long term maintenance cost estimates. $610,000 $610,000 20 Liberty Park Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan Requested $475,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project Liberty Park is Salt Lake City’s most iconic – and most popular – park space, with well over one million visitors each year. The features that draw visitors to Liberty Park – this historic features and mature trees that give Liberty Park its unique atmosphere – are in a state of accelerating deterioration. The formal tree plantings framing the central walkway and perimeter of the park are suffering tree loss due to old age and a planting plan to maintain historic character is desperately needed. The project has three integral components: 1. A Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) is the principal document based on standards established by the National Park Services. The report documents the history and physical changes of the site, determines periods of historic significance and develops treatment recommendations for historic features and plantings. The report will build on previous studies such as the 19XX Historic American Landscape Survey and look to including information on underrepresented communities for this site. A CLR will include guidance for capital improvements, deferred maintence projects and maintence. 2. The Liberty Park Master Plan will establish a vision and actionable plan that builds on the CLR recommendations and provide an orderly framework for consistent planning, development and administration of the park for the next twenty years. The plan deliverable will include concept level designs and renderings; a prioritized list of capital improvements with high-level cost estimates; and policy direction for decision makers. The plan will go though a formal adoption process. 3. This project will also include a study of the Liberty Park Greenhouse adaptive reuse for plant production, visitor access, sustainability and potential revenue generation. The study will look at significantly expanding capacity for growth of the City’s rare and native plant propagation program, allowing biodiversity enhancements at more parks and natural areas citywide. $354,167 $354,167 FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 5 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 21 Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park $1.3 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR THIS PROJECT Requested $420,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project • Structural and occupancy analysis of the historic structures • Development of architectural drawings and bid-ready cost estimates for baseline structural, safety and functional improvements for eleven (11) structures, sufficient to utilize them as twenty-three (23) separate art studio spaces without plumbing, and the historically-sensitive adaptation of one (1) structure to serve as a restroom/supplies washroom. • Development of preliminary architectural plans, renderings and high-level cost analysis for the historic reconstruction of the George Allen Home to serve as a community education space for art classes and workshops, and historic reconstruction of the adjoining “Rooster House” duplex to serve as a small café space with outdoor dining. • Development of construction documents and cost estimates for demolition of all aging/leaking septic systems buried on property, and construction of a sewer connection from the adapted restroom structure to the sewer connection on 1300 East. • Development of construction documents and cost estimates for replacement of the two broken water meters that serve the property, water connections to service the adapted restroom structure, fire suppression systems in the art studios, a fire hydrant on the east side of the property, underground drip irrigation to support trees throughout the property, and spray irrigation to support select flowerbeds and turf areas, and a replumbed connection to the decorative fountains. • Construction documents and cost estimates for repair and stabilization of exterior art pieces on the Allen Property at risk of collapse or severe deterioration, reconstruction of the lighting along Allen Park Drive, adaptation of the north and south driveways to include public and ADA accessible parking for Allen Park, resurface the degraded Allen Park Drive into an ADA-accessible, permeable surface pathway. • High-level plan drawings and preliminary cost estimates for pedestrian stairway connections to 1400 East and 1500 East. $420,000 $420,000 22 Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt $3.4 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR WESTSIDE PARKS Requested $440,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project Poplar Grove Park is currently underutilized and does not have recreation amenities in demand by the community. This project will remove two failing tennis courts, constructed over forty years ago, and construct either two new tennis courts or six new pickleball courts in the existing footprint. A brief community survey will be conducted to determine neighborhood priority. Should pickleball courts be selected, six courts would make the site ideal for tournament play. There is an existing restroom that was recently updated, and a recently constructed concessions stand, currently underutilized, that would provide desired support amenities for tournaments. The project includes: • Engagement with the community on project preference • Full demolition of the existing tennis courts and associated pavement • Development of site design and technical drawings for bidding and construction • Construction of post-tension court facility • Installation of associated perimeter fences, gates, nets, and benches • Replacement of related perimeter sidewalks • Installation of waterwise use plantings and irrigation in associated landscape areas $433,333 $433,333 FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 6 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 23 SLC Foothills Trailhead Development $5 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND Requested $1,304,682 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project This project is part of a phased development of trailheads within Salt Lake City Foothills. The Foothill Trails Master Plan adopted by Council in early 2020 identified key trailhead locations and recommended improvements to better accommodate the growing trail network. Phase 1, Conceptual Design: This phase was funded during FY19 and is currently underway. The SLC Public Lands team has been working with Alta Planning Consulting to develop concept designs for five key trailhead locations including: Emigration Canyon, Popperton Park, Bonneville Boulevard, Morris Mountain (I-Street) and Victory Road. Concepts are attached. Following completion of the conceptual design process and cost estimates, SLC Public Lands is now requesting funding to implement two of the five trailhead improvement projects. Due to substantial costs associated with all five locations the remaining locations will be included in FY23 Phase II, construction will implement trailhead improvements at both Bonneville Boulevard and Emigration Canyon. Implementation of key trailhead improvements is a fundamental component for sustainability, accessibility, and functionality of the 100+ mile recreational trail system recommended by the SLC Foothills Trail System Plan and these two locations will provide a good start to implementation of the master plan recommendations. If the Council approves this funding, then it would be subject to the FY22 annual budget adoption ordinance contingency on all foothill trails funding. $1,304,682 $1,304,682 24 SLC Foothills Land Acquisitions $5 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND Requested $425,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project The project scope is limited to the acquisition of property rights for six parcels of undeveloped natural open space in the north and central Foothills Natural Area, totaling approximately 275 acres, which will allow SLC to consolidate ownership interest in the subject parcels, putting the City in a position to protect the parcels from future development, and to guide property management for habitat protection, restoration, and recreational access. For three parcels, the proposed acquisitions would give SLC 100% property ownership; for two parcels, the proposed acquisitions would move SLC from a minority ownership interest to a majority property ownership interest; an in one case, would move SLC from a slight majority interest to a 90% interest. Increasing the fractional ownership interest in these parcels substantially improves the City's ability to protect and manage them for foothill protection, habitat restoration and nonmotorized recreational use. If the Council approves this funding, then it would be subject to the FY22 annual budget adoption ordinance contingency on all foothill trails funding. The Council could request a closed session briefing from the Administration about the proposed property purchases. $425,000 $425,000 25 Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways $3.4 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR WESTSIDE PARKS AND $1.2 MILLION FOR PUBLIC LANDS SIGNAGE Requested $510,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project This project will design and construct more than 3000 linear feet of new looped pathways in Jordan Park. New trail segments will connect to existing sidewalks in order to create new desired pedestrian connections and a looped network around the multi-use fields. This project builds on a previous request, approved in 2019 for new multi- use trails in Jordan Park. This funding will be used to develop construction drawings for the pathways and construction of the new pathways. Site furnishings, wayfinding and orientation signage will also be installed. $510,000 $510,000 FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 7 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 26 RAC Playground with Shade Sails $3.4 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR WESTSIDE PARKS Requested $450,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project Cost Estimates $300,000- Playground materials and construction $150,000- Design, engineering and contingency This project will add a new playground at the Regional Athletic Complex. The RAC has been open for 5 years and currently doesn’t have any amenities for children to use while visiting the complex. The full scope of this project includes: • Design for a new playground for ages 5-12 • Development of technical drawings • Grading and surfacing preparations • Playground Construction • Walkway and fencing Note that since FY17, the Council approved $2,421,518 for six RAC capital improvement projects $180,032 $180,032 27 700 South Westside Road Configuration Requested $514,450 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project A particular area of concern is the intersection of 700 S and 1000 W. 10th west (a massively wide road) intersects with 700 S (another, even more massively wide road). I propose that 700 S be reconfigured to include a traffic circle with a pocket park in the center, and include at least two, perhaps 3 medians along 700 South. I picture these medians planted with large, native trees and plants. I picture clearly defined traffic lanes for pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars, including clearly marked, perhaps even raised cross walks. I picture a quality, speed controlling traffic circle with some low maintenance vegetation, benches, maybe even a simple playground. This vision benefits the community in more ways than we could count. Improving roads, reducing the heat island effect by the massive asphalt slabs, beautifying our surroundings, creating community gathering places, mitigating crime, reducing vehicle speeds, and so much more. I have discussed this concern with neighbors, the poplar grove community council, and had a brief conversation with Councilman Andrew Johnston about my concerns and our ideas for reconfiguration, and he suggested I submit a CIP grant, which brings me here today. I hope the city will consider the benefit that this kind of project will offer to our community. Cost – provided by SLC Engineering Traffic Circle Construction Crosswalk Construction 2-3 Planted Medians Clearly defined traffic lines. Useful Life – >10 years Salt Lake City Owned Asset – Roads and sidewalks are all public Salt Lake City Owned Assets $223,450 $291,000 $223,450 $291,000 28 Highland High Crosswalk Enhancements Requested $85,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project The scope of work will include upgrading the crossing to include Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB) as well as enhancements to shorten the crosswalk and make it safer (bulbouts on the east and west side of the intersection and a raised median) $85,000 $85,000 FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 8 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 29 200 South Transit Complete Street Supplement Requested $284,691 from transportation impact fees, $415,800 from Quartercent for transportation and $2,561,409 from Funding Our Future; Transportation Project As part of the Funding Our Future program, Salt Lake City will reconstruct 200 South from 400 West to 900 East beginning in 2022. The current budget allocated to this project is $12,000,000 inclusive of construction and professional design fees. The Transportation Division is requesting $3,261,900 to supplement the reconstruction funds that reflects the recommendations from the 200 South Transit Corridor, Complete Street, and Downtown Transit Hub Study. The preliminary design includes: • Side-running Business Access and Transit (BAT) priority lanes, which operate as dedicated bus lanes but still provide access to curbside uses and can be used in mixed traffic conditions. • In-street bus stop islands will allow buses to stay in the driving lane, which reduces bus travel time and minimizes conflicts that occur when weaving to curbside bus stops. • Additional transit access and walkability elements, including mid-block crosswalk upgrades, landscaping, sidewalk repair, human-scale lighting, traffic signal replacements (3), and bicycle lanes. The low-end cost estimate for the preliminary design is approximately $15,500,000; the majority of the expense is going to pavement robust enough handle the amount of bus activity expected on the corridor. Without supplementary funds the budget shortfall will require removing many of the elements that make this a transformative multi-modal project. It is expected that the project will need to be implemented in phases, specifically the East Downtown Transit Hub envisioned in the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan and WFRC Regional Transportation Plan. However, there are many elements that are important to build in the initial construction phase that are structural to the road reconstruction project (e.g. curb extensions that affect flow lines and drainage inlets); these are the priority elements the supplemental funds will be directed towards. $37,422 $415,800 $37,422 $415,800 30 900 South 9Line RR Crossing Requested $28,000 from transportation impact fees and $172,000 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project The 2018 9-Line Trail Extension Study is the basis for recent 9-Line Trail projects’ design and budgeting approaches. It recommends two very different design options near Interstate 15 and Union Pacific’s (UPRR) and the Utah Transit Authority’s (UTA) rails. The more expensive, longer-term option is to grade-separate either just the trail or both the trail and the roadway. The easier, less expensive, and shorter-term option is an improved at- grade (or ground-level) crossing of the rails and routing the trail under the interstate. The latter is the focus of this application. More information about the overall project’s timeline (2021-2023), approach, benefits, and robust past engagement can be found at www.900SouthSLC.com. This funding request seeks additional monies that would be used to: • Fund an increase in the coordination and design budgets for the City’s contracted design and engineering consultants (including multiple field and coordination meetings with UPRR, UTA, and the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT); research; and, more in-depth design), around $10,000 • Fund the UPRR consultant’s (RailPros) design review fees, typically up to $20,000. • Construct three new railroad panels south of the existing panels, which are necessary to accommodate a 9-Line Trail crossing capable of serving people walking and bicycling perpendicular to the rail corridor, typically around $30,000 for all three. • Construct additional improvements and/or new support infrastructure at the at-grade crossing per recent experience with standard UPRR and UDOT guidance (e.g., back flashers, blankout signs, signage, pavement markings, detectable warning surfaces and trail delineation, audible devices, fencing, swing arms, gates), typically around $120,000. • Fund UPRR and UTA-required training, traffic control, permitting, and miscellaneous other costs related to construction, typically around $10,000. • Engineering Division fees, typically about 10% (estimated at $10,000) $28,000 $172,000 $28,000 $172,000 FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 9 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 31 Trails Maintenance Requested $200,000 from Quartercent for Transportation; Transportation Project This funding request from 4th Quarter of a Cent Sales Tax for Transportation is requested to be moved from the capital list into the annual operating budget for the Public Lands Division. Maintenance is an eligible expense of the state-authorizing legislation for this fund. These funds will be used to fund city staff, equipment and material to maintain new and recently constructed trails including portions of the 9-Line, McClelland Trail, and the Jordan River Trail, and other urban trail segments that potentially come online during the course of the fiscal year. The maintenance of these trails are necessary to keep them safe for all that use them and also so they can be used year round. $200,000 $200,000 32 Local Link Construction Requested $50,000 from transportation impact fees and $450,000 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project The Local Link Circulation Study (adoption pending, summer/fall 2021), prepared as an update to the 2013 Sugar House Circulation Plan, continues the 2013 plan’s focus on improving conditions for walking, bicycling, and transit in Sugar House. This funding request is supplemental construction dollars to implement some of the recommendations of the Local Link circulation study in the Sugar House area. Many Sugar House streets are planned to be reconstructed as part of the Funding our Future Streets Bond, which included some Complete Streets funding. However, these budgets had only limited funding for more extensive Complete Streets elements such as would reconfigure curbs or intersections. This funding will allow the City to build higher-quality, higher-comfort facilities for walking and biking in this key area, above and beyond what could be constructed with currently allocated funding. These roadways include Highland Drive, 1100 East and 2100 South; 1300 East will be reconstructed with a federal grant allocated through the Wasatch Front Regional Council. These recommendations of the Local Link study include: providing better walking and biking connections between Sugar House and Millcreek on Highland Drive and 1300 East, construction of bike facilities around Sugar House Park, intersection enhancements at various locations around Sugar House (modifying turn movements, shortening crossing distances). $50,000 $450,000 $50,000 $450,000 33 Corridor Transformations Requested $75,604 from transportation impact fees and $780,438 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project This programmatic request will fund the design and construction of significant infrastructure additions to corridors NOT currently planned for reconstruction -- to include corridor-based complete streets changes to signing, striping and wayfinding. corridor-long consideration and placement of bus stops with shelters, benches, trash cans, and other amenities; improved bikeways; reconfigured intersections for improved pedestrian and bicycle safety in the context of a corridor study; and consideration of business access / on-street parking. Possible corridors include 600/700 North, 2100 South, and corridors on the Downtown Green Loop. $25,398 $282,200 $25,398 $282,200 FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 10 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 34 Area Studies Requested $14,000 from transportation impact fees and $201,000 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project These funds will be used to study and provide recommendations for streets and circulation in the rapidly- developing Granary area, including the incorporation of bike, pedestrian and rail transit in the area, as well as an understanding of how the existing streets should be improved. The cost of this study is estimated at $120,000, and the City has applied for $111,000 in Transportation and Land Use Connection funding. The study will be complemented by a study work being conducted by UTA in the area. These funds will also be used to develop design recommendations for selected streets in the Sugar House area, following on the more general guidance provided by the Local Link Circulation Study. This study (adoption process anticipated, summer/fall 2021), prepared as an update to the 2013 Sugar House Circulation Plan, continues the 2013 plan’s focus on improving conditions for walking, bicycling, and transit in Sugar House. The purpose of this funding would be to allow us to design higher-quality, higher-comfort facilities for walking and biking in this key area, above and beyond what could be constructed with currently allocated funding. These roadways include Highland Drive, 1100 East and 2100 South; 1300 East will be reconstructed with a federal grant allocated through the Wasatch Front Regional Council. These recommendations of the Local Link study include: providing better walking and biking connections between Sugar House and Millcreek on Highland Drive and 1300 East, construction of bike facilities around Sugar House Park, intersection enhancements at various locations around Sugar House (modifying turn movements, shortening crossing distances). $14,000 $201,000 $0 $201,000 35 400 South Viaduct Trail Requested $310,000 from General Fund, $90,000 from transportation impact fees and $500,000 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project This project will add a low-profile, concrete barricade along with striping changes to create a multi-use trail on the south side of the 400 South Viaduct, connecting the Poplar Grove Neighborhood with Downtown Salt Lake City for those walking or bicycling. Construction includes changes to sidewalks and bike / pedestrian ramps, striping removal and replacement, and minor construction to relocate medians. The multi-use trail will tie into existing sidewalks on the east and west, and connect to existing and planned bike lanes. $310,000 $90,000 $500,000 $310,000 $90,000 $500,000 36 Neighborhood Byways Requested $104,500 from transportation impact fees and $940,500 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project These funds will be used for design and construction of four neighborhood byways, as well as to create a neighborhood byway conceptual design and guidance document to be used as reference material in the development of future neighborhood byways. This will make future neighborhood byway development more streamlined and efficient, and is anticipated to cost $100,000. Two neighborhood byways -- 800 East Phase 1 ($275,000) and Poplar Grove Phase 2 ($600,000) -- will receive construction dollars, while the additional two byways -- Sugar House to the U and Rose Park West -- will enter community collaboration leading to conceptual designs ($35,000 per byway). $104,500 $940,500 $104,500 $940,500 FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 11 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 37 900 South Signal Improvements Requested $430,000 from General Fund and $70,000 from transportation impact fees; Transportation Project The 2021-2023 900 South Reconstruction project runs from 900 West to Lincoln Street (945 East). From 700 East to 200 West, the proposed design includes reducing the roadway width and cross section from four lanes to three, improving safety and reducing speeds. The reduction in width also provides space for a separated path (the 9-Line Trail), from 700 West to Lincoln Street (945 East) on the south side of 900 South. The narrowing and other project elements will largely be achieved by moving the southern curb line to the north. These improvements are fully funded and are currently in design, and construction will begin in 2021. For more about timeline, benefits, and the robust past engagement for this project, visit www.900SouthSLC.com. The new street design requires updated signal design and some additional infrastructure at most intersections along the corridor. The layout of the proposed improvements has been designed to reduce the number of signal poles required to be moved to keep project costs as low as possible. 1. West-facing signal mast arms on the south side of the corridor would generally be lengthened, or the entire pole and mast arm would be relocated farther north. 2. East-facing signal mast arms on the north side may be shortened. 3. All signal heads would be adjusted to line up with the new lane configuration. 4. The new street design and the introduction of the trail on the south side require relocating or adding new or relocated pedestrian push buttons to coincide with the new curb ramp locations. 5. The existing signal detection on cross streets (for northbound and southbound traffic) would also be upgraded with radar or camera sensors at the 200 East, 300 East, 400 East, and 500 East intersections, the only four intersections where such state-of-the-practice detection technology does not currently exist. $96,500 $70,000 $100,000 $233,500 $96,500 $70,000 $100,000 $233,500 38 Urban Trails Requested $6,500 from transportation impact fees and $1,038,500 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project This programmatic funding application is for a suite of projects that represent collaborations between Transportation Division and the Trails & Natural Lands Division of Public Lands. These funds will enable conceptual development, design, and construction of selected urban trails, including: • design of the Folsom Trail west of 1000 West • design of the Grit & Gravel Trail (Beck St.) providing a key connection to Davis County • design of the Parley's Trail in Sugar House following on the Local Link Circulation Plan • design and initial quick-build implementation of portions of 200 East and/or other streets included in the Green Loop linear park recommended in the Downtown Master Plan. Quick-build designs will be linked to the project’s public engagement process and may be temporary, seasonal, or semi-permanent. • initial conceptual design of potential west side trails such as Stegner Trail along CWA drain • neighborhood connections to the Jordan River Trail • rehabilitation of badly deteriorated sections of the Jordan River Trail $6,500 $1,038,500 $6,500 $1,038,500 39 Multimodal Street Maintenance Requested $200,000 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project This project provides funding to hire contractors for specialized maintenance of infrastructure for which current in- house staff doesn’t have the equipment or staff to accomplish. Examples include enhanced crosswalks, bike lanes, bike racks, colored pavement including downtown green bike lanes, bus shelters, enhanced medians: Snow plowing, striping, signals, signage, delineators, etc. $200,000 $200,000 FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 12 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 40 Transportation Safety Improvements Requested $450,000 from General Fund and $50,000 from transportation impact fees; Transportation Project Traffic safety projects include the installation of warranted crossing beacons, traffic signals, or other traffic control devices and minor reconfiguration of an intersection or roadway to address safety issues. Salt Lake City's program places a strong emphasis on pedestrian and bicyclist safety, particularly in support of access to and from transit. This funding will further the City’s on-going effort to reduce injuries to pedestrians and bicyclists citywide and to improve community health and livability by promoting walking and bicycling. This funding will be used for the installation of safety improvements throughout the city as described in the Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan, and also to address ongoing needs as safety studies are completed. Crossing improvements such as HAWKs or TOUCANs, flashing warning lights at crosswalks or intersections, refuge islands, bulb-outs, improved signalized crossings and new or improved pavement markings are examples of the safety devices that are installed with this funding. Projects are identified by using data to analyze crash history, roadway configuration and characteristics, and with citizen input. Identified projects to improve traffic safety involve conditions that pose a higher relative risk of injury to those traveling within SLC and are therefore deemed a high priority for implementation. $44,400 $400,000 $44,400 $400,000 41 1700 South Corridor Transformation Requested $326,835 from General Fund and $36,315 transportation impact fees; Transportation Project Transformation of 1700 South to provide improved neighborhood connections to Glendale Park, 1700 River Park, support a possible new regional park replacing the defunct water park, and to create an improved east-west walking and bicycling corridor at the approximate north-south midpoint between the 9-Line Trail and the Parley’s Trail. Improvements will also include street crossings to connect the parks on the north (1700 South River Park) and south (Glendale Water Park and Glendale Park) sides of the street. Funds to be used for design, public engagement, and construction of curb changes to improve ped/bike safety and street tree planting sites, semi- permanent quick build linear elements, striping changes, and signage. $317,792 $35,300 $317,792 $35,300 42 Kensington Byway Ballpark Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project The CDCIP Advisory Board did not recommend funding this project. The Ballpark Community Council and Liberty Wells Community Council are requesting CIP funds for development of a neighborhood byway on Kensington Avenue as suggested in the Utah Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan (December 2015). “Improvements that make a street a neighborhood byway include bicycle and pedestrian crossing improvements (for example, signals, crosswalks, curb extensions (aka bulb-outs), curb ramps, signage, street markings, and other traffic calming techniques), wayfinding signage, and connectivity enhancements to existing bicycle and pedestrian routes.” (source: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/neighborhood-byways/ ) Note the CDCIP Board did not recommend funding this project. $500,000 $500,000 43 3000 South Sidewalk and Curb Requested $449,315 from General Fund; Constituent Engineering Project Install curb and gutter and adjacent sidewalk and asphalt tie in on the north side of 3000 South from Highland Drive to 1500 East and an asphalt overlay over the entire street. Installation will require the removal of trees and landscaping and adjustment of drive approaches and retaining walls. 44 Logan Ave Reconstruction Requested $1,405,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project This project will reconstruct the deteriorated streets affected following the Public Utilities storm drain project. This will provide replacement of street pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage improvements as necessary. Where appropriate, the program will include appropriate bike way and pedestrian access route improvements as determined by the Transportation Division per the Complete Streets ordinance. FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 13 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 45 Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River) Requested $3.5 million from General Fund; Engineering Project This project will include the complete removal and replacement of the existing vehicle bridge for 200 South over the Jordan River. Design will consider complete streets features, accommodations for the adjacent Jordan River Trail, and the historic nature of the adjacent Fisher Mansion, and potential art components incorporated into or around the new bridge. 46 Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South and 650 North over Jordan River) Requested $3 million from General Fund; Engineering Project The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate the 400 South and 650 North vehicle bridges over the Jordan River. A bridge inspection performed by UDOT gave these bridges a Health Index score of 48.55 and 46.58, respectively, out of 100. Combining the two bridges into one project will result in economies of scale since the rehabilitation work for both bridges will be similar. The existing asphalt surface will be removed and the underlying deck will be treated for cracking and delaminated concrete. The deck will receive a waterproofing membrane, a new asphalt overlay, and deck drains to remove storm water from the deck. The under surface of the bridge will be treated for cracking and delaminated concrete on the deck, girders, pier caps, and abutments. The steel piles supporting the piers exhibit heavier than typical corrosion. The piles will be dewatered and treated for corrosion. The existing damaged parapet wall will be removed and rebuilt which will widen the sidewalk and improve the pedestrian access route. Additionally, aesthetic enhancements will be incorporated including replacing the chain link fence and railings mounted on the outside of the sidewalk with decorative railings. A consulting firm with specialized experience will be used for this project. 47 Wingpointe Levee Design Requested $800,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project The cost estimate includes conceptual design, final design, and geotechnical investigations performed by Engineering consultants. Current levee conditions will be evaluated, required improvements identified, and modifications recommended. Typical sections of levee reconstruction determined in order to develop construction cost estimates and required plans and documents for permitting, then construction. This design effort will inform future funding construction requests to bring the levee into compliance. 48 Three Creeks West Bank Roadways Requested $1,158,422 from General Fund; Constituent Engineering Project This project calls for reconstructing a little over a block of 1300 South and 1/3 of a block of 1000 West and installing storm sewers. 49 Delong Salt Storage Requested $1,504,427 from General Fund; Facilities Project This salt storage building would cover 4000 tons of salt during winter months and seasonal remnants of salt the rest of the year. The salt will be protected from the elements which reduces waste and allows for an overall, more efficient snow removal process. See attached estimate. 50 Steam Bay Requested $363,495 from General Fund; Facilities Project When the new Streets and Fleet facility was built in 2010, one equipment steam bay was installed to clean asphalt and other heavy equipment. The bay is designed to remove asphalt products, separate oil from water runoff, and capture the runoff to meet storm water pollution prevention requirements. A single Streets crew could alternate equipment cleaning and repair, but with the addition of the second crew, all equipment is running simultaneously, and the steam bay’s capacity has been exceeded to that point of jeopardizing equipment cleaning and the creating a storm water pollution risk. Additionally, the current pump system is at the end of its expected lifespan. Funds will go toward a larger, more robust, and better designed system. This additional steam bay will be 22X45 with 4 foot pony walls and tie in to the upgraded pumping system. FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 14 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 51 Mixed-Use Three Story Prop Requested $815,895 from General Fund; Fire Project Drager Phase V Training Gallery (Mixed-use fire prop) to include: Three (3) story unit with roof top deck/fourth floor comprised of seven (7) 40’ and one (1) 20’ training modules Three (3) high-temperature thermal-insulated burn chambers with emergency exits (as required) Two (2) clean out decks for burn chambers Burn room baffles Exterior scissor staircase from the ground level to the fourth story/roof with interior access on each floor Exterior stairs to single container roof Interior stairs connecting first to second and second to third stories Fall protection railings around all roofs of containers Rappelling anchor on top of fourth story/roof Two bailout windows Vent/enter/search windows Eleven (11) exterior doors Two (2) interior doors Emergency fire escape stairs Four (4) training deck containers On-site installation & set up to include: Full project management support from Drager staff, Pre-installation site surveys and in-process review of the build site, Drager contracted and project-managed installation to ensures that the fire prop system is installed properly, safely, and with minimal disruption, Insured and bonded installation and crane service, Train-the Trainer Program Two-day on-site training for up to ten (10) fire department instructors Complete documentation package on operation and maintenance 52 Training Ground Site Improvements Requested $694,785 from General Fund; Fire Project The fire training ground site improvement includes the excavation and construction of paved areas surrounding fire training props to allow access for firefighters and fire vehicles as they train. Ideally this training ground would simulate a small cross section of the structures that are in Salt Lake City and the site improvement would resemble streets and access points like what is in the city. Currently there is approximately 45,000 square feet of underutilized training ground. Key components of this project include: Training ground site design Site excavation Drainage and retention system Site back fill and compaction Various paved access roads Reinforced concrete pads for vehicle extrication training Technical and confined rescue training props Curb and gutter along Wallace St. Perimeter landscaping and fencing 53 Sunnyside Park Sidewalk Requested $72,740 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project Construct sidewalk on south side of Valdez Dr. from east gate of Dept. of Veterans Affairs to intersecting sidewalk inside Sunnyside Park. See map. Sidewalk is approximately 365-ft long by 4-ft wide. Federal funding was explored but we are prohibited from applying those funds to non-federal property. Costs could include wider surface or other improvements to meet the minimum spending requirement. FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 15 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 54 Winner on Wasatch Dee Glan Tennis Court Construction Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project A critically important construction project replacing four old asphalt tennis courts at Dee Glen (Wasatch Hills Tennis Center/formerly Coach Mike's Tennis Academy) inside the current bubble. These new courts would be post- tension concrete courts (long-lasting compared to asphalt) would be preparatory to a new privately funded year- round tennis air dome by the Coach Mike's Friends of Public Tennis Foundation (a 501 c3 non-profit whose mission is to assist the main funding source, Salt Lake City, in supporting Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Centers). 55 Lighting Upgrade at Liberty Park Tennis Center Requested $202,100 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project LED Energy Efficient Lighting Upgrade of 120 outdated metal halide light fixtures at Liberty Park Tennis Center. 56 Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Court Resurfacing Requested $300,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project 26 Tennis Courts resurfacing at Liberty park tennis center and wasatch hills tennis center 57 Harrison Ave and 700 E Community Garden Requested $103,500 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project This community garden would be developed through the Green City Growers Program, a partnership between Wasatch Community Gardens (WCG) and Salt Lake City’s Parks and Public Lands Division to establish community gardens on Cityowned and managed land with the primary goals to increase access to fresh, local produce and reduce barriers to urban food production. The scope of work to develop a new community garden includes working with community members for 12 to 18 months to develop the interest, support, and design of the project. WCG will work to build the community support. Our organization will work with stakeholders to create a coalition of gardeners, garden leaders, volunteers and donors to raise any remaining funds to complete the garden design process, provide the materials for planting boxes (including ADA accessible raised beds), soil, amendments, and irrigation. WCG will enlist and provide oversight of volunteer in-kind labor, and oversee services that are contracted out. The cost estimate of $103,500 is based upon three recent community garden starts in this program; the 9-Line Community Garden, the Gateway Community Garden, and the Richmond Park Community Garden. The scope of work includes; soil testing for contaminants to help guide the bed design, landscape design, site demolition and preparation, water main hook up, fencing, ADA beds and pathways, garden beds, a drip irrigation system, soil, amendments, and mulch for pathways, tools and supplies, a shade and gathering structure, and signage, benches, and common area plantings. 58 1300 South Camping Reisitant Landscaping Requested $100,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project The Ballpark Community Council is requesting CIP funds for landscaping improvements for the park strips on 1300 South and the areas immediately surrounding Horizonte. Rather than the lawns and grass that currently exist on these park strips, we’re asking the City to invest in re-planting these areas with new low- to no-water options such as combinations of trees with xeriscaping and/or rockscapes. These new park strip designs would have the dual effect of assisting the City with its goal of reducing nonagricultural use of water and would also serve as a loiter and camping-resistant landscapes. FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 16 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 59 Wingate Walkway Requested $286,750 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project • This budget includes removal and transplanting of trees as requested by constituents. This is quite expensive at estimated $5000 per tree, and would include using a crane, as well as contracted extra care for 2 years by a landscaping company to get the trees reestablished. This is not something that can be done in-house. Tree removal is much less expensive, at $500 per tree. This would mean the removal of 15 mature trees for this project, but at a construction cost savings of $67,500. • This budget assumes that the power pole at the eastern end of the corridor, and the power drop to the traffic signal, will not be relocated. If those do need to be relocated, an additional approximate $30,000 would be added to the project construction costs, along with associated design and engineering fees. There may also be ROW acquisition costs to site the pole and its guy-wires. • This budget does not include 36 parking headers that would need to be purchased by Wingate Condo Association and placed on Wingate property at an estimated cost of $2,500-3,000 (for all 36). The parking headers would be needed to protect the fence from regularly being hit and damaged by Wingate residents parking. It is suggested that this be placed into legal agreement as part of the easement, and that the Condo Association be responsible for any damage to the fence caused by not having the parking headers in place. • A less expensive fence could be installed to save costs. This budget is for wrought iron fencing at $48 per linear foot. Chain link would be half or less of that cost. • This project has been budgeted as a 10' multi-use path, similar to the photos the constituents included. This also recongizes the recommended use as both bicycle and pedestrian facility, as referenced in the City's Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan. To save costs, the path could be constructed as a sidewalk, at 6' wide instead of 10'. The thickness may be able to be reduced to sidewalk standard at 4" thick. However, further discussion should be had with SLC Police Department about their preferred approach to emergency access. 60 1200 East Median Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project The curbing and irrigation systems for these medians has fallen into serious disrepair. This project seeks to install new curbing around each island to prevent cars from driving across the turf and will allow the soil to be raised to match the grade of the top of the root ball of the existing trees, replace the irrigations system and a significant amount of trees supplementing the urban forest that remains. The tree planting portion of the project is in support of the “Trillion Tree Campaign” in an effort to aid in enhancing Salt Lake City’s air quality. The cost estimate is $500,000 to include design, engineering fees, contingency and construction. 61 Parleys Historic Nature Park Structure Preservation Requested $765,325 from General Fund; Public Lands Project The proposed CIP project will fund the following work in Parleys Historic Nature Park (PHNP): 1. identify key historic structures and artifacts, assess preservation needs, and create detailed rehabilitation/protection recommendations for each; 2. develop fully-engineered designs and construction cost estimates for historic structural rehabilitation; 3. if feasible, develop and secure a conservation easement to protect irreplaceable historic and natural features, per the recommendations of the 2011 PHNP Management Plan. 4. if feasible within project budget, develop a detailed signage & interpretive materials plan to improve public awareness/appreciation of historic features & structures, and construct/install the recommended interpretive signage. FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 17 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 62 Enhancement of the Cemetery for Visitor Research and Knowledge $1.2 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR PUBLIC LANDS SIGNAGE Requested $790,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project Cemetery listed on National Register of Historic Places- $30,000 Website Enhancement, Cemetery GIS data and input- $250,000 Arboretum Accreditation and new planted tree protection- $65,000 Plat Markers- $100,000 Interpretive/Wayfinding Signage Design and 10 Sign placements-$75,000 Two years inflation adjustment - $52,000 Engineering Consultant fees - $208,000 Contingency - $10,000 63 Cemetery Roadway Improvements, Phase 1 $1 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND Requested $3,838,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project Phase 1a of a 6 phase road repair project identified in the Cemetery Master Plan. With 7.9 miles of roads and an estimated $12.5 million dollars in repairs. Roadway Repair Priority Cemetery roadways were prioritized for repair based on the following characteristics: Roads more frequently used for public and maintenance vehicular circulation. Roads that also serve as main routes as outlined on the Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Plan. Roads in poor condition were prioritized over those in fair or average condition (See Appendix E for detailed Roadway Condition Analysis). Road width was given some consideration. Total roadway length within a priority category was considered in an effort to separate roadways into projects that would be of a more manageable size. -Costs include: full replacement including demo, reconstruction with asphalt, concrete edge/curb and gutter and storm drainage improvements, 15% estimate contingency and 40% design/engineering fees. Other soft costs such as project and construction contingencies, City project management, and permits and fees are not included and should be added to budget requests as appropriate. Cost Breakout - Full Repair of All Roads (Priority Street Name Length Width Total SF Repair Cost) 1a Main (N) 1,188 22 26,136 Full $701276 1a Main (N) 167 21 3,507 Full $94,099 1a Main (middle) 1,242 19 23,598 Full $ 633,176 1a Main (sexton) 367 17 6,239 Full $ 167,403 1a 240 N 1,090 16 17,440 Full $ 467,947 1a 330 N(Lindsey) 36 27 972 Full $ 26,080 1a 330 N 1,433 25 35,825 Full $ 961,250 1a Hillside 998 25 24,950 Full $ 669,453 Priority 1a Total 1.3 miles 139,000 sf $ 3,838,000 64 9Line and Rose Park Asphalt Pump Tracks $3.4 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND FOR WESTSIDE PARKS Requested $1,393,600 from General Fund; Public Lands Project The proposed project incorporates the design and construction of two asphalt bike pump tracks, one at the existing 9Line Bike Park located at 700 West 900 South and the second near the Day Riverside Library at 871 North Cornell Avenue. The proposed pump track at the 9Line Bike Park will reconstruct the small existing pump track at the 9Line Bike Park. While the 9Line Bike Park will still retain its large signature dirt jumps under the freeway this amenity will improve the pump track and provide a more accessible riding amenity for users of the bike park. Since the construction of the 9Line Bike Park in 2016 it has become increasingly popular for families of all ages. This improvement will provide a safe more durable riding surface for park users. The proposed pump track adjacent to the Day Riverside Library will construct a new asphalt pump track adjacent to the Rosepark Community Garden. In 2020 SLC Public Utilities began a large storm water improvement project at this location. This project required the removal of a small dirt pump track that was constructed by local users groups. Construction of the asphalt pump track will replace this asset with a new community amenity for the Rosepark neighborhood. FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 18 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 65 Richmond Park Playground and Park improvements Requested $690,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project This project will replace the existing playground and pavilion at Richmond Park. Both assets are more than twenty years old. Redevelopment of these features is an opportunity to build on the recent success of the new community garden. The project will evaluate the location of the new playground and pavilion so that it can respond to the community garden to create synergies between the three uses and increase visibility into and out of the site. The full scope of this project includes: • Design for a new playground and pavilion • Engagement with the community on project character and site development • Development of technical drawings for bidding and negotiation • Demolition of existing playground and pavilion • Construction of a playground and pavilion • Construction of new sidewalk connections • Planting of new trees and waterwise plantings • Installation of new site furnishings and park signage 66 Library Square Feasibility, Civic Engagement and Design Development Requested $225,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project The 2002 Council adopted plan for block 37, Library Square, is to create an asset to the community, that is safe, well used and attracts new development to the area. Library Square is an underutilized public space with wall and paving system (uneven surfaces, paver movement and concrete settling), failures that are posing a safety hazard. This project will fund a feasibility study to identify solutions for the failing paving and wall systems; facilitate outreach to identify new amenities for positive activation; and develop comprehensive design solutions with phasing strategies for implementation. Summary of work: 1. Feasibility study: Library Square has multiple paving and wall system failures due to settling of the parking structure. A compressive study is needed to determine appropriate solutions to ameliorate safety hazards. Existing conditions analysis and feasibility studies will determine a critical path to correct site failures and propose appropriate solutions. 2. Civic engagement: The Public spaces at Library Square are underutilized outside of the four major events that occur during the summer. Salt Lake City’s rapidly growing and densifying population needs places to be outside. A civic engagement study would identify desired community elements to be incorporated on the Square that would increase positive activity throughout the day and week. 3. Design development and implementation strategy: The feasibility study will inform design solutions for the wall and paving failures on the site. Civic engagement will inform new everyday uses to implement as well as design moves to incorporate to make the site more functional and desirable for large events, this would include shade, access and circulation improvements. The design will identify a phasing strategy with estimates of probable costs and implementation strategies for a multi-year improvement plan. FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 19 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 67 Donner & Rotary Glen Park Community Park Irrigation & Landscape Design and Construction Requested $650,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project 2018 was the driest year on record for the state of Utah. Public Lands experienced budgetary restrictions on water use, resulting in significant impacts to our properties. Protecting the trees and living landscape requires carefully designed and managed landscapes and irrigation systems. Decreasing our water needs is a critical element of climate adaption and a top priority for Public Lands. Significant water use reduction can be achieved by installing a water efficient irrigation system and reducing passive use areas of manicured turf by installing regionally appropriate water wise plant material. Areas of high use such as sport-fields can be isolated on an irrigation zone while trees, shrubs and low water grasses can be on separate zones. Designed appropriately, these landscapes require less than half the water to maintain conventional landscapes. In addition to creating a more climate resilient landscape, Public Lands will work with the community to identify desired new amenities such as fitness equipment, benches and interpretive signage. Planning and design will also focus on improving the parks circulation network in order to offer a diversity of loops and difficulty ratings for park users. This project includes: 1) Community engagement to create a vision for Donner and Rotary Park; 2) Design development, best practices, and construction documents for Phase I of site implementation; and 3) Construction of new improvements for a portion of the site (approximately 25% or 3 acres) Two future funding requests will ask for funding for the rest of the site. Design standards and best practices developed in this project will be used as a tool for future site redevelopment. 68 Capitol Hill Traffic Calming Requested $595,194 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project Mitigate commuter cut-through traffic, chronic speeding and industrial traffic: a) the installation of vertical speed- reduction elements, (b) striping crosswalks, stop lines and bike lanes, (c) curb extensions, pedestrian refuge islands, partial barriers and 'road diet' measures 69 Harvard Heights Residential Concrete Street Reconstruction Requested $1,311,920 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project This project will rehabilitate the existing severely deteriorating street, including concrete pavement replacement, drive approaches, curb and gutter and sidewalk repairs along Harvard Avenue. This street was initially constructed in the mid-1920's and has not been replaced in the 90+ years since. Rather, temporary fixes have been employed continuously by paving over the deteriorating concrete using asphalt. The key flaw with this approach--and the main issue at play here--is that the asphalt doesn't adhere to the concrete surface below, resulting in severe, year- round potholing. This is both a serious eye-sore and a real safety concern to residents. Concurrent with the reconstruction of the street, this project will also install several speed humps, speed tables, and/or any other traffic measures deemed appropriate by the Transportation Division to reduce traffic speed. There is an understanding of the need to work with city on a final approved design FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 20 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 70 Liberty Wells Traffic Calming Requested $400,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project The “Liberty Wells Traffic Calming” project seeks to slow motor vehicles, improve safety near the school and near homes, encourage more transportation choices, and implement recommendations from several Salt Lake City master plans. These goals are based on feedback from residents of the sections of 600 East, and Kensington, Bryan, and Milton Avenues, surrounding Hawthorne Elementary School. The project area was determined by the project team and the applicants in order to avoid pushing negative traffic conditions “down the road” and to benefit students, parents, and teachers at Hawthorne as much as the neighbors on adjacent streets. The project will also enhance the existing 600 East Neighborhood Byway and extend the partially funded, proposed Kensington Avenue Neighborhood Byway east of 600 East. The intersection of the two neighborhood byways is a unique and cost-effective opportunity. (Neighborhood byways are traffic-calmed, bicycling and walking-oriented streets with low traffic volumes and speeds.) To date, neighbors have offered their support for physical street design elements that would accomplish these goals, including traffic circles, median islands, signage, improved lighting, bulb-outs, and speed cushions. The exact elements to be constructed, however, will depend on further community engagement, including discussions with neighbors, Hawthorne Elementary School administrators and school community council, as well as the Salt Lake City School District. The project scope will include the following elements: 1. Community engagement of neighbors that live and/or own property on and near the project’s streets (Kensington, Bryan, and Milton Avenues, and 600 East) in order to determine the most popular, feasible, and effective traffic calming interventions. 2. Design and construction of the recommended interventions. 71 Stratford Bike Crossing Requested $200,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project This proposal has not gone through a public process or a formal review and approval process by the city. There is an understanding of the need to work with the city on an approved final design. I'm requesting a modification to the current 4 way stop at the intersection of 1700 E. and Stratford Ave. This would include removing the current stop signs on both the east and west sections of road coming from Stratford Ave., and putting in place some form of traffic reduction system that only allows bikes to go straight through east/west on Stratford. Then placing something like what's on the crossing at 1300 E and Stratford, where bikers can press a button and the straight through N/S traffic on 1700 E would yield to bikers as they cross. 72 Sugar House Safe Side Streets Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project This project is intended to improve the safety and comfort of local, neighborhood streets in Sugar House. It is made up of two basic parts: 1. A study of (1) existing conditions, constraints, and opportunities; (2) the effectiveness of existing traffic calming measures on Hollywood Avenue (1990s) and McClelland Street (2010s); and, (3) infrastructure and programmatic recommendations, including the most effective, cost-efficient, and community-supported methods of improving neighborhood street livability. This study may also include a series of tests of the recommendations. 2. Design and construction, or implementation, of the above recommendations on the project area’s six local streets: Hollywood Avenue, Ramona Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Lincoln Street, 1000 East, and McClelland Street. Initial ideas from the community include curb modifications, striping, stop signs, street narrowing, raised crosswalks, increased and enforced truck restrictions, and gateway monuments. The project area was determined by the project team and the applicants in order to avoid pushing negative traffic conditions “down the road”, so to speak. FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 21 1,157,124$ 208,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ #Application Title Scope of Work General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit General Funds Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 ¢ Transportation FOF Streets FOF Transit AVAILABLE FUNDING Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions 73 Sunnyside 9Line Trail Missing Piece Requested $350,000 from General Fund; Transportation Project Just before the construction of the Sunnyside Trail between approximately 1400 East and Foothill Drive in 2016- 2017 (part of the soon-to-be-completed 9-Line Trail), the City determined that it was unable to acquire the property necessary to complete the trail in front of the 1805-1851 East Sunnyside Avenue property owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is now a roughly 600’ (or one-block) long missing piece of the trail where only a narrow, four-foot wide sidewalk exists. CIP funding would construct a new section of the 10-12' concrete trail and fill this gap, connecting to and replicating the look, feel, and impact of the existing segments of the trail to the east (University of Utah property) and the west (City property). The City estimates that $350,000 (in 2022 dollars) will be needed to reassess site conditions and constraints, complete the design (currently at 40%), fund Engineering Division oversight, partially fund property acquisition or easement, and construct this critical, missing piece of a citywide asset. Included in the trail construction costs are additional adjustments to slopes, irrigation, fencing, trees and landscaping, driveways, wet utility inlets and cleanouts, the central walkway leading to the front door of the chapel, power pole guy wires, and signs that are necessary to ensure appropriate drainage, ADA compliance, and trail user comfort. 74 Multimodal Intersections & Signals Requested $945,000 from General Fund and $105,000 from transportation impact fees; Transportation Project • Upgrade five aging traffic signals • Combine with safety and operational improvements for all modes • Possible transit-focused signal improvements on key Frequent Transit Network corridors This project will remove the existing traffic signal equipment that has reached the end of its useful life, including steel poles, span wire, signal heads, and traffic signal loops and will upgrade the intersections with mast arm poles, new signal heads, pedestrian signal heads with countdown timers, improved detection, and left turn phasing, as needed. Fluctuations in construction pricing are particularly relevant to this project, with steel tariffs, labor costs, and overall construction costs all affecting price. 75 600 North Corridor Transformation $4 MILLION IN MAYOR'S PROPOSED BOND During the FY22 annual budget, the Council approved adding $1,879,654 into CIP for the upcoming 600 North Corridor Transformation Complete Streets project. Two years in a row the frequent bus routes contract with UTA was less than budgeted and the Council placed the excess funds into the Funding Our Future transit holding account. The full amount from the holding account was appropriated for this project. The Mayor’s Series 2021A and 2021B bond proposal (Attachment 4) includes $4 million for the 600 North complete street transformation project. The description states the total project cost is $8.7 million but with recent construction inflation costs may already be higher. It also mentions a phase 1 is already funded. In recent years the Council funding safety improvements at the 600 North and 800 West intersection and funding for a safety study of the 600 North corridor. $1,879,654 $5,705,720 $2,046,329 $7,305,970 $4,900,000 $2,300,000 $0 $5,705,720 $2,046,329 $7,291,970 $4,900,000 $2,300,000 $1,879,654 Note: text in blue is information added by Council staff Totals by Funding Source: FY2022 CIP Funding Log Last Updated July 8, 2021 Page 22 MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114 TEL 801-535-6403 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL _________________________ Date Received: __________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: ______________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 20, 2021 Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer ________________________________ SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and 2021B STAFF CONTACT: Marina Scott, City Treasurer 801-535-6565 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing RECOMMENDATION: 1) That the City Council hold a discussion on June 15, 2021 in anticipation of adopting a Bond Resolution for the aforementioned bond issue; 2) That the City Council consider adopting a Bond Resolution on July 13, 2021 approving the issuance and sale of up to $58,000,000 principal amount of Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and 2021B (the “Bonds”), and give authority to certain officers to approve the final terms and provisions of and confirm the sale of the Bonds within certain parameters set forth in the attached Bond Resolution. BUDGET IMPACT: Tax- Exempt Sales Tax and Excise Tax Revenue Bond, Series 2021A – $22,490,000: Proceeds from the Bonds will be used to finance the cost of the various capital improvement projects. The list of the capital improvement projects to be financed by this bond issue is attached. The City’s Bond Counsel has reviewed the attached list of projects and provided their recommendations to the tax status of the bonds. The list is color-coded to reflect their responses. Responses highlighted in green are for projects that are eligible for tax-exempt financing. Responses highlighted in yellow are for projects that are eligible for tax-exempt financing but have potential private business use. rachel otto (May 21, 2021 13:58 MDT) 05/21/2021 05/21/2021 Salt Lake City Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and 2021B Transmittal to City Council May 11, 2021 Page 2 of 2 Responses highlighted in red are projects that either have or are likely to have private business use. The Administration proposes to issue tax-exempt bonds for the projects highlighted in green for the total of $22,490,000. Based on preliminary estimates and the current interest rate environment, annual debt service costs would average $1,307,595 per year for 21 years. Attached are preliminary numbers including estimated sources and uses of funds as well as debt amortization schedules. Taxable Sales Tax and Excise Tax Revenue Bond, Series 2021B - $34,600,000: The Administration proposes to issue taxable bonds for the projects highlighted in yellow and red for the total of $34,600,000. Based on preliminary estimates and the current interest rate environment, annual debt service costs would average $2,111,765 per year for 21 years. Attached are preliminary numbers including estimated sources and uses of funds as well as debt amortization schedules. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The table below summarizes the proposed bond issue: NEW MONEY New Money Project List $57,090,000 Tax-Exempt (green highlight) $22,490,000 Taxable (red & yellow highlights) $34,600,000 The current plan calls for the Bonds to be sold on August 25, 2021. An estimated debt service, a draft copy of the authorizing resolution of the City are included for your review. Please keep in mind that these are preliminary drafts and are subject to change. The Certificate of Determination will need to be signed by the Mayor and Council Chair or their respective designees on the afternoon of the date of pricing and sale of the bonds, which is currently scheduled for August 25, 2021. Attachments cc: Mary Beth Thompson, Boyd Ferguson, Steven Bagley, Lisa Shaffer, Mathew Cassel, Lorna Vogt, Cory Rushton, Blake Thomas. Department Project Dollar Amount Description Facilities CCB Transformer 2,500,000$ CCB Transformer Need square footage of all buildings served by the transformer. May have private business use of the portion serving the Leonardo. Depending on private payments and other private business use, consider financing portion relating to Leonardo on a taxable basis. CAN Warm Springs historic structure stabilization 3,000,000$ Full roof, flashing, drain replacement. Chimney stabilization. Lateral force tier 3 seismic upgrade. Stucco and window treatment. Since the City is treating the direct and indirect costs of the improvements as a capital expenditure, entire project is eligible for tax-exempt financing. PL Urban Wood Reutilization Equipment and Storage Additions 1,700,000$ Storage Building, Equipment Awning, Fencing, Lighting, Utilities to develop a fully functional Urban Wood Reutilization facility $1,700,000. Horizontal Grinder: Primary piece of equipment, will produce landscape mulch and EWF playground surface $1,100,000. Wood Mill: Mill will produce lumber products from urban trees $200,000. Base on project as described, including usage of wood, entire project is eligible for tax-exempt financing. Wood sales, if any, should be to general public. PL Public Lands Multilingual Wayfinding Signage 1,200,000$ This proposal is for Wayfinding signage throughout the City for the Parks, trails and natural lands system. Eligible for tax-exempt financing. PL Jordan River Paddle Share improvements at Exchange Club Marina 1700 S 7 JR 440,000$ Bond-funded infrastructure includes paddle share lockers (2 locations) with functional life of 20+ years, reconstruction of Paddle Share/River Access parking with improved entryway, signage & crosswalk/RRFB pedestrian crossing to existing restroom at 17th South River Park. Funding for additional paddle-share stations that would compliment this project is currently being requested from other sources (grants). Eligible for tax-exempt financing. CAN Fisher Mansion improvements and 1,500,000$ Concrete, masonry and seismic, thermal and moisture protection. Since the City is treating the direct and indirect costs of the improvements as a capital expenditure, entire project is eligible for tax-exempt financing. PL Allen Park Activation Historic Structures 1,300,000$ Adaptive re-use/restoration of historic residences in Allen Park to allow them to serve as artist studio spaces similar to Balboa Park Spanish Village model, with more frequent rotation of artists & art residencies. Improvements to Allen Park site to accommodate frequent gallery strolls, art & music festivals, etc. Will it include power source to allow food trucks, events, etc.? Will full utility upgrades be needed as the structures are now on septic systems. Based on currently described project and the City's intention to treat the direct and indirect costs of the improvements as capital expenditures, the project is eligible for tax-exempt financing; however, there could be private business use and payments. The City will need to actively monitor to ensure compliance with short term exceptions and potentially management contracts (see prior email and memo). Trans 600 North Complete Street Transformation 4,000,000$ A low-cost phase 1 is already funded. Our latest cost estimate shows that we only need $8.7M, but construction prices keep going up, so that doesn't give much wiggle room. Any construction that impacts PU? Yes. We have been and will continue to coordinate with them. Eligible for tax-exempt financing. PL West Side Neighborhood Parks 3,400,000$ Early stages of planning. Should be able to finance with tax-exempt financing; however, repairs could count against 5% working capital limit and there could be private business use. The City will likely need to actively monitor to ensure compliance with short term exceptions. CAN Fisher Mansion restoration 7,500,000$ The full restoration would allow for end uses including community gathering space, venue for music/art & special events, and potentially a commercial kitchen for food & beverage service and/or leasable office space. Leasable office space would create private business use and private payments. Consider financing office space portion with taxable financing. Other portions of the project could be financed on a tax-exempt basis since the City will treat the direct and indirect costs of the improvements as capital expenditures. The City would need to monitored to ensure compliance with short term exceptions. PL Cemetery Road Repairs 1,000,000$ Eligible for tax-exempt financing. PL Foothills Trails System, Phase II, III, Trailheads & Signage 5,250,000$ See Foothills Trails System Plan for Trails Plan Phase II Scope. Major trailhead project locations = Victory Road: 670 North Victory Road, Popperton Park: 1375 East Popperton Park Way, Bonneville Blvd: 675 North Bonneville Boulevard, I Street: 925 Hilltop Road Emigration: 2755 East Sunnyside. Bathrooms included at Bonneville Blvd, Popperton Park and Victory Road. No Bathrooms included at Emigration or I Street. Phase III Trails probably not feasible for construction within 3-year window so are excluded from this budget and planned for future phase, and very possibly funded through external sources including grants and private donations. Eligible for tax-exempt financing. Ballpark 3,000,000$ 1M-Security & Fencing 1M-Stadium Seating/Stairs Railings 1M Interiors Restrooms & Elevator Still under evaluation and need additional information, but private business use is probable as are private payments. Depending on determinations made with other projects may want to consider taxable financing to provide flexibility. Quiet Zones 6,100,000$ Eligible for tax-exempt financing. PL Pioneer Park 5,200,000$ Pioneer Park has impact fee funding to develop new components in the park. This funding would be utilized to rebuild comfort stations (restrooms), take out existing and build new playground, tennis/pickleball reconstruction and to rebuild the event power for farmers market and larger scale events. PL has a consultant preparing to start public engagement in summer of 2021. This project can easily fit in the 3 year time line. Based on currently described project and the City's intention to treat the direct and indirect costs of the improvements as capital expenditures, the project is eligible for tax-exempt financing; however, there could be private business use and payments. The City will need to actively monitor to ensure compliance with short term exceptions and any management contract for the concession stand would need to be reviewed for compliance. May want to consider taxable financing for the concession stand portion to provide flexibility. PL Glendale Water Park 10,000,000$ The community's initial requests include a water feature (splash pad, indoor/outdoor pool etc.) as well as options for open space use including increasing tree canopy, create natural buffer zones for the river, community open spaces using the site's hills for viewing sheds and outdoor classrooms. nostalgia-related public art installations to reflect the site’s original water park use, a food truck court with eating areas, water sports rentals (in coordination with the Jordan River), and a variety of meeting and seating areas around the park. The community also has suggested nostalgia-related public art installations to reflect the sites original water park use, foot truck court, water sports rentals and meeting / seating areas around the park, sports courts, recreation fields, perimeter walking/running trails and an ADA-accessible playground. Lastly the community sees a connected regional park, similar in scope to Liberty Park or Sugarhouse, connecting the existing Glendale Park, 1700 South Park, Glendale Golf Course and the former Raging waters site. Early stages of planning. Should be able to finance with tax-exempt financing; however, there could be private business use. The City needs to actively monitor to ensure compliance with short term exceptions and management contract guidelines, if applicable. Total 57,090,000$ Preliminary; subject to change. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH $53,640,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2021 A&B (September 16, 2021 ) ($57.09M Projects) Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 09/16/2021 | Delivered 09/16/2021 2021A TAX- EXEMPT 2021B TAXABLE Issue Summary Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $18,840,000.00 $34,800,000.00 $53,640,000.00 Reoffering Premium 3,759,835.65 -3,759,835.65 Total Sources $22,599,835.65 $34,800,000.00 $57,399,835.65 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (0.275%)51,810.00 95,700.00 147,510.00 Costs of Issuance 56,520.00 104,400.00 160,920.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 22,490,000.00 34,600,000.00 57,090,000.00 Rounding Amount 1,505.65 (100.00)1,405.65 Total Uses $22,599,835.65 $34,800,000.00 $57,399,835.65 2021AB Comb New Money | Issue Summary | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM Stifel Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 1 Preliminary; subject to change. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH $53,640,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2021 A&B (September 16, 2021 ) ($57.09M Projects) Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 09/16/2021 ----- 04/01/2022 --803,666.50 803,666.50 - 06/30/2022 ----803,666.50 10/01/2022 2,080,000.00 1.593%741,846.00 2,821,846.00 - 04/01/2023 --725,277.50 725,277.50 - 06/30/2023 ----3,547,123.50 10/01/2023 2,115,000.00 1.674%725,277.50 2,840,277.50 - 04/01/2024 --707,577.50 707,577.50 - 06/30/2024 ----3,547,855.00 10/01/2024 2,155,000.00 1.899%707,577.50 2,862,577.50 - 04/01/2025 --687,113.50 687,113.50 - 06/30/2025 ----3,549,691.00 10/01/2025 2,200,000.00 2.202%687,113.50 2,887,113.50 - 04/01/2026 --662,893.50 662,893.50 - 06/30/2026 ----3,550,007.00 10/01/2026 2,250,000.00 2.408%662,893.50 2,912,893.50 - 04/01/2027 --635,808.50 635,808.50 - 06/30/2027 ----3,548,702.00 10/01/2027 2,310,000.00 2.644%635,808.50 2,945,808.50 - 04/01/2028 --605,271.00 605,271.00 - 06/30/2028 ----3,551,079.50 10/01/2028 2,370,000.00 2.800%605,271.00 2,975,271.00 - 04/01/2029 --572,091.00 572,091.00 - 06/30/2029 ----3,547,362.00 10/01/2029 2,445,000.00 2.939%572,091.00 3,017,091.00 - 04/01/2030 --536,162.50 536,162.50 - 06/30/2030 ----3,553,253.50 10/01/2030 2,515,000.00 3.024%536,162.50 3,051,162.50 - 04/01/2031 --498,133.50 498,133.50 - 06/30/2031 ----3,549,296.00 10/01/2031 2,590,000.00 2.752%498,133.50 3,088,133.50 - 04/01/2032 --462,497.25 462,497.25 - 06/30/2032 ----3,550,630.75 10/01/2032 2,665,000.00 2.826%462,497.25 3,127,497.25 - 04/01/2033 --424,843.75 424,843.75 - 06/30/2033 ----3,552,341.00 10/01/2033 2,740,000.00 2.895%424,843.75 3,164,843.75 - 04/01/2034 --385,181.25 385,181.25 - 06/30/2034 ----3,550,025.00 10/01/2034 2,820,000.00 2.965%385,181.25 3,205,181.25 - 04/01/2035 --343,369.75 343,369.75 - 06/30/2035 ----3,548,551.00 10/01/2035 2,910,000.00 3.035%343,369.75 3,253,369.75 - 04/01/2036 --299,207.50 299,207.50 - 06/30/2036 ----3,552,577.25 10/01/2036 3,000,000.00 3.104%299,207.50 3,299,207.50 - 04/01/2037 --252,649.50 252,649.50 - 06/30/2037 ----3,551,857.00 10/01/2037 3,095,000.00 3.171%252,649.50 3,347,649.50 - 04/01/2038 --203,584.00 203,584.00 - 06/30/2038 ----3,551,233.50 10/01/2038 3,195,000.00 3.236%203,584.00 3,398,584.00 - 04/01/2039 --151,891.75 151,891.75 - 06/30/2039 ----3,550,475.75 10/01/2039 3,295,000.00 2.920%151,891.75 3,446,891.75 - 04/01/2040 --103,792.75 103,792.75 - 06/30/2040 ----3,550,684.50 10/01/2040 3,395,000.00 2.981%103,792.75 3,498,792.75 - 04/01/2041 --53,182.75 53,182.75 - 06/30/2041 ----3,551,975.50 10/01/2041 3,495,000.00 3.043%53,182.75 3,548,182.75 - 06/30/2042 ----3,548,182.75 Total $53,640,000.00 -$18,166,570.00 $71,806,570.00 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $615,750.00 Average Life 11.479 Years Average Coupon 2.9503159% Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.3636613% True Interest Cost (TIC)2.2524970% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.1028374% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)2.2817455% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 2.1873941% Weighted Average Maturity 11.474 Years 2021AB Comb New Money | Issue Summary | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM Stifel Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 2 Preliminary; subject to change. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH $18,840,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2021A (September 16, 2021 ) ($22.49M New Money, 20-Years Level) Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 09/16/2021 ----- 04/01/2022 --422,391.67 422,391.67 - 06/30/2022 ----422,391.67 10/01/2022 585,000.00 5.000%389,900.00 974,900.00 - 04/01/2023 --375,275.00 375,275.00 - 06/30/2023 ----1,350,175.00 10/01/2023 615,000.00 5.000%375,275.00 990,275.00 - 04/01/2024 --359,900.00 359,900.00 - 06/30/2024 ----1,350,175.00 10/01/2024 650,000.00 5.000%359,900.00 1,009,900.00 - 04/01/2025 --343,650.00 343,650.00 - 06/30/2025 ----1,353,550.00 10/01/2025 680,000.00 5.000%343,650.00 1,023,650.00 - 04/01/2026 --326,650.00 326,650.00 - 06/30/2026 ----1,350,300.00 10/01/2026 715,000.00 5.000%326,650.00 1,041,650.00 - 04/01/2027 --308,775.00 308,775.00 - 06/30/2027 ----1,350,425.00 10/01/2027 755,000.00 5.000%308,775.00 1,063,775.00 - 04/01/2028 --289,900.00 289,900.00 - 06/30/2028 ----1,353,675.00 10/01/2028 790,000.00 5.000%289,900.00 1,079,900.00 - 04/01/2029 --270,150.00 270,150.00 - 06/30/2029 ----1,350,050.00 10/01/2029 835,000.00 5.000%270,150.00 1,105,150.00 - 04/01/2030 --249,275.00 249,275.00 - 06/30/2030 ----1,354,425.00 10/01/2030 875,000.00 5.000%249,275.00 1,124,275.00 - 04/01/2031 --227,400.00 227,400.00 - 06/30/2031 ----1,351,675.00 10/01/2031 915,000.00 4.000%227,400.00 1,142,400.00 - 04/01/2032 --209,100.00 209,100.00 - 06/30/2032 ----1,351,500.00 10/01/2032 955,000.00 4.000%209,100.00 1,164,100.00 - 04/01/2033 --190,000.00 190,000.00 - 06/30/2033 ----1,354,100.00 10/01/2033 990,000.00 4.000%190,000.00 1,180,000.00 - 04/01/2034 --170,200.00 170,200.00 - 06/30/2034 ----1,350,200.00 10/01/2034 1,030,000.00 4.000%170,200.00 1,200,200.00 - 04/01/2035 --149,600.00 149,600.00 - 06/30/2035 ----1,349,800.00 10/01/2035 1,075,000.00 4.000%149,600.00 1,224,600.00 - 04/01/2036 --128,100.00 128,100.00 - 06/30/2036 ----1,352,700.00 10/01/2036 1,120,000.00 4.000%128,100.00 1,248,100.00 - 04/01/2037 --105,700.00 105,700.00 - 06/30/2037 ----1,353,800.00 10/01/2037 1,165,000.00 4.000%105,700.00 1,270,700.00 - 04/01/2038 --82,400.00 82,400.00 - 06/30/2038 ----1,353,100.00 10/01/2038 1,210,000.00 4.000%82,400.00 1,292,400.00 - 04/01/2039 --58,200.00 58,200.00 - 06/30/2039 ----1,350,600.00 10/01/2039 1,255,000.00 3.000%58,200.00 1,313,200.00 - 04/01/2040 --39,375.00 39,375.00 - 06/30/2040 ----1,352,575.00 10/01/2040 1,295,000.00 3.000%39,375.00 1,334,375.00 - 04/01/2041 --19,950.00 19,950.00 - 06/30/2041 ----1,354,325.00 10/01/2041 1,330,000.00 3.000%19,950.00 1,349,950.00 - 06/30/2042 ----1,349,950.00 Total $18,840,000.00 -$8,619,491.67 $27,459,491.67 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $225,240.00 Average Life 11.955 Years Average Coupon 3.8268033% Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.1805479% True Interest Cost (TIC)1.9544659% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.4430546% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)1.9803279% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 1.8125237% Weighted Average Maturity 11.864 Years 2021AB Comb New Money | 2021A TAX-EXEMPT | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM Stifel Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 4 Preliminary; subject to change. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH $34,800,000 TAXABLE SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2021B (September 16, 2021 ) ($34.6M New Money, 20-Years Level) Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 09/16/2021 ----- 04/01/2022 --381,274.83 381,274.83 - 06/30/2022 ----381,274.83 10/01/2022 1,495,000.00 0.260%351,946.00 1,846,946.00 - 04/01/2023 --350,002.50 350,002.50 - 06/30/2023 ----2,196,948.50 10/01/2023 1,500,000.00 0.310%350,002.50 1,850,002.50 - 04/01/2024 --347,677.50 347,677.50 - 06/30/2024 ----2,197,680.00 10/01/2024 1,505,000.00 0.560%347,677.50 1,852,677.50 - 04/01/2025 --343,463.50 343,463.50 - 06/30/2025 ----2,196,141.00 10/01/2025 1,520,000.00 0.950%343,463.50 1,863,463.50 - 04/01/2026 --336,243.50 336,243.50 - 06/30/2026 ----2,199,707.00 10/01/2026 1,535,000.00 1.200%336,243.50 1,871,243.50 - 04/01/2027 --327,033.50 327,033.50 - 06/30/2027 ----2,198,277.00 10/01/2027 1,555,000.00 1.500%327,033.50 1,882,033.50 - 04/01/2028 --315,371.00 315,371.00 - 06/30/2028 ----2,197,404.50 10/01/2028 1,580,000.00 1.700%315,371.00 1,895,371.00 - 04/01/2029 --301,941.00 301,941.00 - 06/30/2029 ----2,197,312.00 10/01/2029 1,610,000.00 1.870%301,941.00 1,911,941.00 - 04/01/2030 --286,887.50 286,887.50 - 06/30/2030 ----2,198,828.50 10/01/2030 1,640,000.00 1.970%286,887.50 1,926,887.50 - 04/01/2031 --270,733.50 270,733.50 - 06/30/2031 ----2,197,621.00 10/01/2031 1,675,000.00 2.070%270,733.50 1,945,733.50 - 04/01/2032 --253,397.25 253,397.25 - 06/30/2032 ----2,199,130.75 10/01/2032 1,710,000.00 2.170%253,397.25 1,963,397.25 - 04/01/2033 --234,843.75 234,843.75 - 06/30/2033 ----2,198,241.00 10/01/2033 1,750,000.00 2.270%234,843.75 1,984,843.75 - 04/01/2034 --214,981.25 214,981.25 - 06/30/2034 ----2,199,825.00 10/01/2034 1,790,000.00 2.370%214,981.25 2,004,981.25 - 04/01/2035 --193,769.75 193,769.75 - 06/30/2035 ----2,198,751.00 10/01/2035 1,835,000.00 2.470%193,769.75 2,028,769.75 - 04/01/2036 --171,107.50 171,107.50 - 06/30/2036 ----2,199,877.25 10/01/2036 1,880,000.00 2.570%171,107.50 2,051,107.50 - 04/01/2037 --146,949.50 146,949.50 - 06/30/2037 ----2,198,057.00 10/01/2037 1,930,000.00 2.670%146,949.50 2,076,949.50 - 04/01/2038 --121,184.00 121,184.00 - 06/30/2038 ----2,198,133.50 10/01/2038 1,985,000.00 2.770%121,184.00 2,106,184.00 - 04/01/2039 --93,691.75 93,691.75 - 06/30/2039 ----2,199,875.75 10/01/2039 2,040,000.00 2.870%93,691.75 2,133,691.75 - 04/01/2040 --64,417.75 64,417.75 - 06/30/2040 ----2,198,109.50 10/01/2040 2,100,000.00 2.970%64,417.75 2,164,417.75 - 04/01/2041 --33,232.75 33,232.75 - 06/30/2041 ----2,197,650.50 10/01/2041 2,165,000.00 3.070%33,232.75 2,198,232.75 - 06/30/2042 ----2,198,232.75 Total $34,800,000.00 -$9,547,078.33 $44,347,078.33 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $390,510.00 Average Life 11.222 Years Average Coupon 2.4447718% Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.4692782% True Interest Cost (TIC)2.4424344% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.4136979% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)2.4739105% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 2.4447718% Weighted Average Maturity 11.222 Years 2021AB Comb New Money | 2021B TAXABLE | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM Stifel Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 7 Draft of 5/20/21 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) v3 8709966/RDB/mo RESOLUTION NO. __ OF 2021 A Resolution authorizing the issuance and the sale of not to exceed $58,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, in one or more series, on a taxable or tax-exempt basis, for the purpose of financing various City capital improvement projects; authorizing the execution and delivery of one or more supplemental trust indentures to secure said bonds; giving authority to certain officials and officers to approve the final terms and provisions of the bonds within the parameters set forth herein; authorizing the taking of all other actions necessary for the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this resolution; and related matters. *** *** *** WHEREAS, Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), is a duly organized and existing city of the first class, operating under the general laws of the State of Utah (the “State”); WHEREAS, the City considers it necessary and desirable and for the benefit of the City to issue its sales and excise tax revenue bonds, in one or more series, on a taxable or tax-exempt basis, as hereinafter provided for the purpose of (a) financing all or a portion of the cost of (i) acquiring, constructing and improving [various City parks, trails, historic structures, roads, streets, intersections and electrical facilities], as further described in the below defined Supplemental Indenture, and (ii) acquiring, constructing, improving and remodeling various other capital improvement program projects (collectively, the “Series 2021 Project”); (b) funding any necessary reserves and contingencies in connection with the Series 2021 Bonds (defined below) and (c) paying all related costs authorized by law pursuant to authority contained in the the Local Government Bonding Act, Chapter 14 of Title 11 (the “Act”), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the “Utah Code”), and other applicable provisions of law; WHEREAS, for the purposes set forth above, the City has determined (a) to issue its Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, in one or more series, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $58,000,000 (the “Series 2021 Bonds”) (subject to the further limitations outlined herein) pursuant to the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of September 1, 2004, as amended and supplemented to the date hereof (the “Master Indenture”), a copy of which is attached here as Exhibit A and one or more Supplemental Trust Indentures (the “Supplemental Indenture”), between the City and Zions Bancorporation, National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”) (the Master Indenture and the Supplemental Indenture are sometimes collectively referred to hereinafter as the “Indenture”), and (b) to cause the proceeds of the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds to be applied in accordance with the Indenture; WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the Act to finance the Series 2021 Project, to enter into the Supplemental Indenture, and to issue the Series 2021 Bonds to finance all or a portion of the costs of financing the Series 2021 Project, to fund any necessary reserves, and to pay all related costs authorized by law; - 2 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) WHEREAS, Section 11-14-316 of the Utah Code provides for the publication of a Notice of Bonds to be Issued (the “Notice of Bonds”) and the running of a 30-day contest period, and the City desires to cause the publication of such Notice of Bonds at this time in compliance with said section with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds; WHEREAS, Section 11-14-318 of the Utah Code requires that a public hearing be held to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Series 2021 Project will have on the private sector and that notice of such public hearing be given as provided by law and, in satisfaction of such requirement, the City desires to publish a Notice of Public Hearing and Intent to Issue Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds (the “Notice of Public Hearing”) pursuant to such Section; WHEREAS, Section 11-14-307(7) of the Utah Code requires the City to submit the question of whether or not to issue the Series 2021 Bonds to voters for their approval or rejection if, within 30 calendar days after the publication of the Notice of Public Hearing, a written petition requesting an election and signed by at least 20% of the registered voters in the City is filed with the City; and WHEREAS, in the opinion of the City, it is in the best interests of the City that (a) the Designated Officers (defined below) be authorized to approve the final terms and provisions relating to the Series 2021 Bonds and to execute the Certificate of Determination (defined below) containing such terms and provisions and to accept the offer of the underwriter for the Series 2021 Bonds (the “Underwriter”) for the purchase of the Series 2021 Bonds; and (b) the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor or the Mayor’s designee (the “Mayor”), be authorized to execute the Official Statement with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds, all as provided herein; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: Section 1. Issuance of Bonds. (a) For the purposes set forth above, there is hereby authorized and directed the execution, issuance, sale and delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds in one or more series (with such adjustments to the series designation as are necessary), on a taxable or tax-exempt basis, in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $58,000,000. The Series 2021 Bonds shall be dated as of the date of the initial delivery thereof. The Series 2021 Bonds shall be in authorized denominations, shall be payable, and shall be executed and delivered all as provided in the Indenture. The Series 2021 Bonds shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity as provided in the Indenture. (b) The form of the Series 2021 Bonds set forth in the form Supplemental Indenture, subject to appropriate insertions and revisions in order to comply with the provisions of the Indenture, is hereby approved. (c) The Series 2021 Bonds shall be special obligations of the City, payable from and secured by a pledge and assignment of the Revenues (as defined in the Indenture) received by the City and of certain other moneys held under the Indenture on a parity with any other Bonds (as defined in the Indenture) issued from time to time under the Master Indenture, including but not limited to the City’s (i) Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A, (ii) Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, - 3 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) Series 2013B, (iii) Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2014A, (iv) Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B, (v) Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A, (vi) Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A and (vii) Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B. The Series 2021 Bonds shall not be obligations of the State or any other political subdivision thereof, other than the City, and neither the faith and credit nor the ad valorem taxing or appropriation power of the State or any political subdivision thereof, including the City, is pledged to the payment of the Series 2021 Bonds. The Series 2021 Bonds shall not constitute general obligations of the City or any other entity or body, municipal, state or otherwise. Section 2. Series 2021 Bond Details; Delegation of Authority. (a) The Series 2021 Bonds shall mature on October 1 (or such other dates as specified in the Certificate of Determination) of the years and in the principal amounts, and shall bear interest (calculated on the basis of a year of 360 days consisting of twelve 30-day months) from the Closing Date, payable semiannually on April 1 and October 1 (or such other dates as specified in the Certificate of Determination) of each year, and at the rates per annum and commencing on the dates, all as provided in that certain Certificate of Determination, a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, of the Designated Officers (defined below) delivered pursuant to this Section 2, setting forth certain terms and provisions of the Series 2021 Bonds (the “Certificate of Determination”). (b) There is hereby delegated to the Designated Officers, subject to the limitations contained in this resolution, the power to determine and effectuate the following with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds and the Designated Officers are hereby authorized to make such determinations and effectuations: (i) the principal amount of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds necessary to accomplish the purpose of the Series 2021 Bonds set forth in the recitals hereto and the aggregate principal amount of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds to be executed and delivered pursuant to the Indenture; provided that the aggregate principal amount of the Series 2021 Bonds shall not exceed Fifty-eight Million Dollars ($58,000,000); (ii) the maturity date or dates and principal amount of each maturity of the Series 2021 Bonds to be issued; provided, however, that the Series 2021 Bonds mature over a period of not to exceed twenty-two (22) years from their date or dates; (iii) the interest rate or rates, which may be taxable or tax-exempt rates, of the Series 2021 Bonds and the date on which payment of such interest commences, provided, however, that the interest rate or rates to be borne by any Series 2021 Bond shall not exceed __________ percent (____%) per annum; (iv) the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds and the purchase price to be paid by the Underwriter of such Series 2021 Bonds; provided, however, that the discount from par of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds shall not exceed two percent (2.00%) (expressed as a percentage of the principal amount); - 4 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) (v) the Series 2021 Bonds, if any, to be retired from mandatory sinking fund redemption payments and the dates and the amounts thereof; (vi) the time and redemption price, if any, at which the Series 2021 Bonds may be called for redemption prior to their maturity at the option of the City; provided, however, the first optional redemption date shall not be later than ten and a half years from the date of delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds; (vii) the amount of reserves necessary to be maintained in connection with each series of the Series 2021 Bonds, if any; (viii) the use and deposit of the proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds; and (ix) any other provisions deemed advisable by the Designated Officers not materially in conflict with the provisions of this resolution. For purposes of this resolution and the Series 2021 Bonds, “Designated Officers” means (a) the (i) Mayor of the City; or (ii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Mayor, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff; or (iii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of both the Mayor and the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, the City Treasurer; or (iv) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Mayor, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff and the City Treasurer, the Deputy Treasurer of the City and (b) (i) the Chair of the City Council; or (ii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Chair of the City Council, the Vice Chair of the City Council; or (iii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of both the Chair and Vice Chair of the City Council, any other member of the City Council. Following the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds, the Designated Officers shall obtain such information as they deem necessary to make such determinations as provided above and shall make such determinations as provided above and shall execute the Certificate of Determination containing such terms and provisions of such series of the Series 2021 Bonds, which execution shall be conclusive evidence of the action or determination of the Designated Officers as to the matters stated therein. The provisions of the Certificate of Determination shall be deemed to be incorporated into this Section 2. Section 3. Approval and Execution of the Supplemental Indenture. One or more Supplemental Indentures, in substantially the form of the Thirteenth Supplemental Trust Indenture attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby authorized and approved, and the Mayor is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver each Supplemental Indenture on behalf of the City, and the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to affix to each Supplemental Indenture the seal of the City and to attest such seal and countersign each such Supplemental Indenture, with such changes to each Supplemental Indenture from the form attached hereto as are approved by the Mayor, her execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. The provisions of each Supplemental Indenture, as executed and delivered, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this resolution. The Master Indenture and the Supplemental Indenture shall constitute a “system of registration” for all purposes of the Registered Public Obligations Act of Utah. - 5 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) Section 4. Final Official Statement. A final Official Statement of the City in substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement presented at this meeting and in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D, is hereby authorized with such changes, omissions, insertions and revisions as the Mayor shall deem advisable, including the completion thereof with the information established at the time of the sale of any Series 2021 Bonds by the Designated Officers and set forth in the Certificate of Determination. The Mayor shall sign and deliver a final Official Statement for distribution to prospective purchasers of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds and other interested persons. The approval of the Mayor of any such changes, omissions, insertions and revisions shall be conclusively established by the Mayor’s execution of such final Official Statement. Section 5. Preliminary Official Statement to be Deemed Final. The use and distribution of a Preliminary Official Statement, in substantially the form presented at this meeting and in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D, is hereby authorized and approved, with such changes, omissions, insertions and revisions as the Mayor and the City Treasurer, or the Deputy Treasurer of the City (the “City Treasurer”), shall deem advisable. The Mayor and the City Treasurer are, and each of them is, hereby authorized to do or perform all such acts and to execute all such certificates, documents and other instruments as may be necessary or advisable to provide for the issuance, sale and delivery of any Series 2021 Bonds and to deem final each Preliminary Official Statement within the meaning and for purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission, subject to completion thereof with the information established at the time of the sale of any Series 2021 Bonds. Section 6. Other Certificates and Documents Required to Evidence Compliance with Federal Tax and Securities Laws. Each of the Mayor, the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder and the City Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to execute (a) such certificates and documents as are required to evidence compliance with the federal laws relating to the tax- exempt status of interest on any Series 2021 Bonds and (b) a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit E, and such other certificates and documents as shall be necessary to comply with the requirements of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission and other applicable federal securities laws. Section 7. Other Actions With Respect to the Series 2021 Bonds. The officers and employees of the City shall take all action necessary or reasonably required to carry out, give effect to, and consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and shall take all action necessary in conformity with the Act to carry out the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, including, without limitation, the execution and delivery of any closing and other documents required to be delivered in connection with the sale and delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds. If (a) the Mayor, (b) the City Recorder or (c) the City Treasurer shall be unavailable or unable to execute or attest and countersign, respectively, the Series 2021 Bonds or the other documents that they are hereby authorized to execute, attest and countersign, the same may be executed, or attested and countersigned, respectively, (i) by the Chief of Staff, (ii) by any Deputy City Recorder or (iii) by the Deputy Treasurer of the City. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the officers and employees of the City are authorized and directed to take such action as shall be necessary and appropriate to issue the Series 2021 Bonds. - 6 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) Section 8. Notice of Bonds to be Issued; Contest Period. In accordance with the provisions of Section 11-14-316 of the Utah Code, the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder shall cause the Notice of Bonds, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit F, to be published one time in The Salt Lake Tribune, a newspaper published and of general circulation within the City. For a period of thirty (30) days from and after publication of the Notice of Bonds, any person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of this resolution (including the Supplemental Indenture attached hereto) or the Series 2021 Bonds hereby authorized or any provisions made for the security and payment of the Series 2021 Bonds. After such time, no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality or legality of this resolution (including the Supplemental Indenture) or the Series 2021 Bonds or any provisions made for the security and payment of the Series 2021 Bonds for any cause. Section 9. Public Hearing. In satisfaction of the requirements of Section 11-14-318 of the Act, a public hearing shall be held by the Council on Tuesday, August 17, 2021, during the Council meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m., which, as determined by the Council Chair, shall be held either virtually, at the regular meeting place of the Council in the Council Chambers, Room 315 in the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, or any combination thereof, to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance by the City of the Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Series 2021 Project will have on the private sector. Section 10. Publication of Notice of Public Hearing. The City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder (the “City Recorder”) shall publish or cause to be published the Notice of Public Hearing on the Utah Public Notice Website, created under Section 63F-1-701 of the Utah Code, no less than 14 days before the public hearing. The Notice of Public Hearing shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit H. Section 11. Form of Petition. The form of the petition to be used by registered voters in requesting that an election be called to authorize the Series 2021 Bonds shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit I. Section 12. Issuance of Bonds After Thirty-Day Period. In accordance with the provisions of Section 11-14-307(7) of the Act, if within thirty days after the publication of the Notice of Public Hearing by posting on the Utah Public Notice Website, a petition or petitions, in the form specified by Section 11 hereof, are filed with the City Recorder, signed by not less than twenty percent (20%) of the registered voters of the City (as certified by the County Clerk of Salt Lake County) requesting that an election be called to authorize the Series 2021 Bonds, then the Council shall proceed to call and hold an election on the Series 2021 Bonds. If such election is held and a majority of the registered voters of the City voting thereon approve the Series 2021 Bonds, then, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the City shall thereupon be authorized to issue the Series 2021 Bonds. If no petition is filed within the thirty-day period after the date of the final publication of such notice, or if it is determined that the number of signatures on the petitions filed within the thirty-day period after the date of the final publication of such notice is less than the required number, the City shall proceed to issue the the Series 2021 Bonds. - 7 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) Section 13. Sale of the Series 2021 Bonds; Purchase Contract. The Series 2021 Bonds authorized to be issued herein are hereby authorized to be sold and delivered to the Underwriter, upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Contract. The Mayor is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver the Purchase Contract on behalf of the City in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit G, with such changes therein from the form attached hereto as are approved by the Mayor, her execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. The City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to affix to the Purchase Contract the seal of the City and to attest such seal and countersign the Purchase Contract. Section 14. City Recorder to Perform Certain Acts. The City Recorder is hereby directed to maintain a copy of this Resolution (together with all exhibits hereto), a copy of the Master Indenture and the form of the Supplemental Indenture on file in the City Recorder’s office (or the City Recorder’s temporary office, as applicable) during regular business hours 1 for public examination by registered voters of the City and other interested persons until at least thirty (30) days from and after the date of publication of the Notice of Bonds and upon request to supply copies of the form of petition specified in Section 11 hereof. Section 15. Prior Acts Ratified, Approved and Confirmed. All acts of the officers and employees of the City in connection with the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. Section 16. Resolution Irrepealable. Following the execution and delivery of a Supplemental Indenture, this resolution shall be and remain irrepealable until all of the Series 2021 Bonds and the interest thereon shall have been fully paid, cancelled, and discharged. Section 17. Severability. If any section, paragraph, clause, or provision of this resolution shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause, or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this resolution. Section 18. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon its approval and adoption. (Signature page follows.) 1 Appointments are encouraged as the temporary office is not occupied during business hours due to the COVID-19 pandemic. - 8 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 13th day of July 2021. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH _______________________________________ Chair Salt Lake City Council ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Recorder [SEAL] APPROVED: By ____________________________________ Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ____________________________________ Senior City Attorney A-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) EXHIBIT A [ATTACH COPY OF MASTER TRUST INDENTURE] B-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) EXHIBIT B [ATTACH FORM OF THIRTEENTH SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE] C-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) EXHIBIT C [ATTACH FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION] D-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) EXHIBIT D [ATTACH FORM OF PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT] E-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) EXHIBIT E [ATTACH FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT] F-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) EXHIBIT F NOTICE OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of Section 11-14-316, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, that on July 13, 2021, the City Council (the “Council”) of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), adopted a resolution (the “Resolution”) in which it authorized and approved the issuance of its sales and excise tax revenue bonds in one or more series, on a taxable or tax-exempt basis (collectively, the “Bonds”), in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $58,000,000, to bear interest at a rate or rates of not to exceed ____% per annum and to mature not later than 22 years from their date or dates and to be sold at a discount from par not to exceed 2.00%. The Bonds shall be subject to such optional and mandatory redemption and other provisions as are contained in the Master Trust Indenture, described below, and the final form of the Bonds and a Supplemental Trust Indenture, described below. Pursuant to the Resolution, the Bonds are to be issued for the purpose of paying all or part of the cost of (a) (i) acquiring, constructing and improving [various City parks, trails, historic structures, roads, streets, intersections and electrical facilities] and (ii) acquiring, constructing, improving and remodeling various other capital improvement program projects; (b) funding any necessary reserves and contingencies in connection with the Bonds and (c) paying all related costs authorized by law. The Bonds are to be issued and sold by the City pursuant to the Resolution, including as part of the Resolution a draft, in substantially final form, of a Supplemental Trust Indenture, and a copy of the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of September 1, 2004, as heretofor amended and supplemented (the “Master Indenture”), between the City and Zions Bancorporation, National Association, a trustee, that were before the Council and attached to the Resolution at the time of the adoption of the Resolution. The City will cause one or more Supplemental Trust Indentures to be executed and delivered in such form and with such changes thereto as certain designated officers of the City shall approve, provided that the principal amount, interest rate or rates, maturity and discount, if any, will not exceed the respective maximums described above. The repayment of the Bonds will be secured by a pledge of the legally available revenues from: (a) Local Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 59, Chapter 12, Part 2, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.04 of the Salt Lake City Code); (b) Municipal Energy Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of the Salt Lake City Code); (c) the franchise fees for energy and utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of Salt Lake City Code); (d) the Municipal Telecommunications License Tax revenues received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 4, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.10 of Salt Lake City Code); (e) the franchise fees associated with public utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 17.16.070 of Salt Lake City Code); and (f) the franchise fees associated with cable television received by the City pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.20 (collectively, the “Pledged Taxes”). F-2 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) The City currently has $102,490,000 par amount of bonds or notes currently outstanding that are secured by the Pledged Taxes. More detailed information relating to the City’s outstanding bonds can be found in the City’s most recent Comprehensive Annual Financial Report that is available on the Office of the Utah State Auditor’s website (www.sao.state.ut.us). Assuming a final maturity for the Bonds of approximately 21 years from the date hereof and that the Bonds are issued in an aggregate principal amount of $__________ and are held until maturity, based on the City’s currently expected financing structure and interest rates in effect around the time of publication of this notice, the estimated total cost to the City of the proposed Bonds is $__________. A copy of the Resolution (including the draft of the Supplemental Trust Indenture and a copy of the Master Indenture attached to the Resolution) may be examined by appointment at the temporary office of the City Recorder located at Plaza 349, 349 South 200 East in Salt Lake City, Utah, during regular business hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. To schedule an appointment please call (801) 535-7671. Additionally, a protected, pdf copy of the Resolution may be requested by sending an email to the City Recorder at SLCRecorder@slcgov.com. The Resolution shall be so available for inspection for a period of at least thirty (30) days from and after the date of the publication of this notice. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to law for a period of thirty (30) days from and after the date of the publication of this notice, any person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of the Resolution (including the Supplemental Trust Indenture attached thereto) of the City or the Bonds authorized thereby or any provisions made for the security and payment of the Bonds. After such time, no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality or legality of the Resolution, the Bonds or the provisions for their security or payment for any cause. DATED this 13th day of July, 2021. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH By ____________________________________ City Recorder [SEAL] G-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) EXHIBIT G [ATTACH FORM OF PURCHASE CONTRACT] H-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) EXHIBIT H SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND INTENT TO ISSUE SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on July 13, 2021, the City Council (the “Council”) of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), adopted a resolution (the “Resolution”), calling for a public hearing to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of its Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds (the “Bonds”) to finance all or a portion of the cost of acquiring, constructing and improving [various City parks, trails, historic structures, roads, streets, intersections and electrical facilities] and acquiring, constructing, improving and remodeling various other capital improvement program projects (collectively, the “Project”) and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector, pursuant to the Local Government Bonding Act, Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the “Act”). PURPOSE FOR ISSUING BONDS The City intends to issue the Bonds for the purpose of (1) financing all or a portion of the costs of the Project, (2) funding any necessary reserves and contingencies in connection with the Bonds, and (3) paying the costs incurred in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds. MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE BONDS The City intends to issue the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding Fifty- eight Million Dollars ($58,000,000) to finance the Project. The Bonds may be issued with other Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds being issued for other purposes so the principal amount may exceed the amount listed above to finance the costs of the Project. SALES TAXES PROPOSED TO BE PLEDGED The City proposes to pledge to the payment of the Bonds all of the legally available revenues from: (a) Local Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 59, Chapter 12, Part 2, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.04 of the Salt Lake City Code); (b) Municipal Energy Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of the Salt Lake City Code); (c) the franchise fees for energy and utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of Salt Lake City Code); (d) the Municipal Telecommunications License Tax revenues received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 4, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.10 of Salt Lake City Code); (e) the franchise fees associated with public utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 17.16.070 of Salt Lake City Code); and (f) the franchise fees associated with cable television received by the City pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.20. H-2 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) TIME, PLACE AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC HEARING The City will hold a public hearing during its City Council meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m. on August 17, 2021. The public hearing will be held either virtually, at the regular meeting place of the Council in the Council Chambers, Room 315 in the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, or any combination thereof, as determined by the Chair of the City Council. All members of the public are invited to attend and participate in the public hearing in the manner that will be described in the agenda for the meeting. Written comments may be submitted to the City, to the attention of the City Recorder, prior to the public hearing. PURPOSE FOR HEARING The purpose of the hearing is to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of the Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE PETITION TO HOLD AN ELECTION NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to Section 11-14-307(7), Utah Code, if within 30 calendar days of the publication of this notice on July __, 2021, by posting on the Utah Public Notice Website, a written petition requesting an election and signed by at least twenty percent (20%) of the registered voters of the City is filed with the City, then the City shall submit the question of whether or not to issue the Bonds to the voters of the City for their approval or rejection. If no written petition is filed or if fewer than 20% of the registered voters of the City sign a written petition, in either case, within 30 calendar days of the posting of this notice on July __, 2021, the City may proceed to issue the Bonds without an election. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH By ____________________________________ City Recorder I-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) EXHIBIT I PETITION To: City Recorder Salt Lake City, Utah We, the undersigned citizens and registered voters of Salt Lake City, Utah, respectfully request that an election be called by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, pursuant to the provisions of Section 11-14-307(7), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, to authorize the issuance by Salt Lake City, Utah, of its Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, in a maximum principal amount not exceeding $58,000,000, as to which notice of intention to issue was published on July __, 2021, by posting on the Utah Public Notice Website, pursuant to the provisions of a resolution passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on July 13, 2021, and each for himself or herself says: I have personally signed this petition; I am a registered voter of Salt Lake City, Utah; my residence and post office address are correctly written after my name: I-2 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) WARNING It is a felony for any one to sign any initiative or referendum petition with any other name than one’s own, or knowingly to sign one’s name more than once for the same measure, or to sign such petition when one knows that he or she is not a registered voter. REGISTERED VOTER’S PRINTED NAME (MUST BE LEGIBLE TO BE COUNTED) SIGNATURE OF REGISTERED VOTER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE [The following certification shall appear on the reverse side of each page [attached to the Petition containing the signature of voters] I-3 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, _________________________, of _____________________, hereby certify that I am a registered voter of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, that all the names which appear on this sheet were signed by persons who professed to be the persons whose names appear thereon, and each of them signed his or her name thereto in my presence, I believe that each has printed and signed his or her name, and written his or her post office address and residence correctly, and that each signer is a registered voter of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of __________, 2021. Notary Public (or other official title) Signature: Email:Garrett.Danielson@slcgov.com 2021‐22 Capital Improvement Program [Grand Totals Only (anonymous)] Division (Priority) / App Ref Organization Name / Application Title Requested Amount Votes Committee Score 72 displayed 2 not included (Duplicates)60,584,684.35 T7 Division of Transportation  / 400 South Viaduct Trail (1/4 Cent)900,000.00 6 to 0 18.17 T13 Division of Transportation  / 1700 South Corridor Transformation (Redwood to 300 W)363,150.00 7 to 0 18.14 P2 Public Lands  / A Place For Everyone: The Emerald Ribbon Master Plan 420,000.00 6 to 0 17.57 P1 Public Lands  / Glendale Water Park Development Phase 1 3,200,000.00 7 to 0 17.07 E5 Engineering  / Bridge Preservation 2021/2022 300,000.00 7 to 017 T12 Division of Transportation  / Transportation Safety Improvements 500,000.00 7 to 017 E3 Engineering  / Public Way Concrete 2021/2022 750,000.00 6 to 0 16.8 C20 Sugar House Community Council  / Highland High Crosswalk Enhancements 85,000.00 6 to 0 16.31 T11 Division of Transportation  / Street Multi‐Modal Maintenance (1/4 Cent)200,000.00 6 to 0 16.29 F1 Fire  / Fire Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade 318,278.75 7 to 0 16.26 C5 Public Lands  / Three Creeks West Park Planning and Design 150,736.00 7 to 0 16.2 T2 Division of Transportation  / 900 South & 9‐Line Trail Railroad Crossing (1/4 Cent)200,000.00 6 to 016 E2 Engineering  / Pavement Condition Survey 175,000.00 7 to 0 15.85 T3 Division of Transportation  / Trail Maintenance (1/4 Cent)200,000.00 6 to 0 15.83 F4 Fire  / Fire Training Ground Site Improvements 694,784.80 6 to 0 15.79 P10 Public Lands  / Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt 440,000.00 6 to 0 15.79 T10 Division of Transportation  / Urban Trails & Connections (1/4 Cent)1,045,000.00 6 to 0 15.74 C4 Public Lands  / Three Creeks West (Jordan River Trail and Bank Stabilization)490,074.00 5 to 0 15.7 T6 Division of Transportation  / Area Circulation Studies / Design (1/4 Cent)215,000.00 6 to 0 15.67 F2 Fire  / Single‐Family/Fire‐Behavior Prop 374,863.94 6 to 0 15.57 T1 Division of Transportation  / 200 South Transit Transformation (Funding Our Future Transit, 1/4 Cent)3,261,900.00 6 to 0 15.33 T4 Division of Transportation  / Local Link Construction Fund / Sugar House (1/4 Cent) 500,000.00 6 to 0 15.33 C6 Sugar House Park Authority  / Sugar House Park Fabian Lake Pavilion ‐ Remove and Replace 183,834.00 6 to 0 15.31 P5 Public Lands  / Liberty Park Master Plan and Cultural Landscape Report 475,000.00 6 to 0 15.29 F3 Fire  / Mixed‐Use Three‐Story Fire Training Prop 815,894.86 5 to 0 15.29 C12 Public Lands  / SOS Liberty Park Basketball Courts 99,680.00 6 to 0 15.21 T8 Division of Transportation  / Neighborhood Byway Design & Construction (1/4 Cent) 1,045,000.00 5 to 0 15.17 E6 Engineering  / Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2021/2022 70,000.00 5 to 1 14.8 T9 Division of Transportation  / 900 South Signal Improvements (900 South Reconstruction & 9‐Line Trail Project, 2021‐2023 500,000.00 6 to 0 14.67 C17 Poplar Grove Community Member  / 700 S Westside Road Reconfiguration 514,450.00 5 to 0 14.67 T14 Division of Transportation  / Multi‐Modal Intersection / Traffic Signal Upgrades 1,050,000.00 6 to 0 14.33 T5 Division of Transportation  / Corridor Transformations (1/4 Cent) 856,042.00 5 to 1 14.29 P13 Public Lands  / Jordan Park Looped Pathways 510,000.00 7 to 0 14.14 P12 Public Lands  / Foothills Natural Area ‐ Open Space Acquisition 425,000.00 6 to 1 14.14 P11 Public Lands  / Foothills Trailhead Development 1,304,682.00 7 to 0 14.07 C14 Odyssey House ‐ Inc, Utah  / Odyssey House’s Annex Facility Renovation 500,000.00 4 to 2 14.03 E8 Engineering  / Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South and 650 North over the Jordan River) 3,000,000.00 6 to 014 C22 Ballpark Community Council  / Kensington Avenue Neighborhood Byway Capital Improvement Program Constituent Requ 500,000.00 4 to 114 E7 Engineering  / Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River) 3,500,000.00 6 to 0 13.87 FA3 Public Services Facilities Division  / Streets Steam Bay 363,495.00 6 to 0 13.87 P3 Public Lands  / Downtown Green Loop, Phase 1 610,000.00 6 to 1 13.86 C15 Engineering  / CR ‐ 3000 South Sidewalk and Curb 449,315.00 5 to 1 13.85 T15 Division of Transportation  / Sunnyside / 9‐Line Trail Missing Piece (1850 East)350,000.00 5 to 1 13.6 E1 Engineering  / Street Improvements 2021/2022 3,500,000.00 6 to 0 13.4 C1 Tracy Aviary  / Renovations to Historic Structures: east gate and bath house.156,078.00 5 to 1 13.31 C21 Public  / Liberty Wells Traffic Calming 400,000.00 3 to 2 13.2 P6 Public Lands  / Preparing for Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park 420,000.00 5 to 1 13.07 C18 Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council  / Capitol Hill Traffic Calming 595,194.00 4 to 2 12.9 P14 Public Lands  / Richmond Park Playground and Pavilion Replacement 690,000.00 6 to 0 12.86 C11 Wingate Village Townhomes  / Wingate Walkway 286,750.00 5 to 1 12.86 C7 Liberty Hills Tennis  / Outdoor Lighting Upgrade at Liberty Park Tennis Center 202,100.00 3 to 3 12.83 P9 Public Lands  / 9Line and Rosepark Asphalt Pump tracks 1,393,600.00 6 to 0 12.79 C23 N/A  / Stratford Bike Crossing ‐ 17th E and Stratford 200,000.00 4 to 2 12.71 C9 Wasatch Community Gardens  / Harrison Ave & 700 E. Community Garden 103,500.00 4 to 2 12.43 C24 Citizen  / Sugar House Safe Side Streets 500,000.00 5 to 1 12.31 P15 Public Lands  / Library Square feasibility study, civic engagement, and design development 225,000.00 3 to 2 12.29 C16 David B. Troester  / Three Creeks West 1 – Roadways 1,158,422.00 4 to 1 12.17 C8 Liberty Hills Tennis  / Re‐surfacing of all existing tennis courts at Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Centers 300,000.00 4 to 2 12.14 C13 Public Lands  / 1200 East Median, Raise Curb, New Irrigation, New Tree Planting 500,000.00 4 to 1 12.1 FA1 Public Services Facilities Division  / Facilities Capital Asset Replacement Program (6M investment) (Deferred Capital Repla 5,860,449.00 4 to 1 11.83 C3 Liberty Hills Tennis  / "Winner on Wasatch" A Four‐Court Total Re‐Construction Project Preparatory to a New Tennis Air D 500,000.00 2 to 3 11.77 P8 Public Lands  / Cemetery Multi‐Use Roadway Repair (Phase 1) 3,838,000.00 5 to 1 11.62 C2 Dept of Veterans Affairs  / Sunnyside Park Sidewalk 72,739.00 4 to 1 11.43 P17 Public Lands  / Donner and Rotary Glen Park Landscape Improvements 650,000.00 4 to 2 11.29 P16 Public Lands  / Regional Athletic Complex Playground 450,000.00 5 to 1 11.17 E4 Engineering  / Logan Avenue Reconstruction 1,405,000.00 4 to 211 E9 Engineering  / Wingpointe Levee Design 800,000.00 5 to 1 10.55 FA2 Public Services Facilities Division  / Delong Salt Storage Facility 1,504,427.00 5 to 1 9.43 C19 Streets and Sanitation  / Harvard Heights Residential Concrete Street Reconstruction 1,311,920.00 2 to 4 8.43 C10 Ballpark Community Council  / 1300 South Camping Resistant Landscaping 100,000.00 1 to 5 7.67 P7 Public Lands  / Cemetery Enhancement for Visitor Research and Knowledge 790,000.00 4 to 2 7.43 P4 Public Lands  / Parleys Historic Nature Park Structure Preservation 765,325.00 3 to 3 6.86 #Division Priority Organization Name / Application Title Requested Amount Votes Committee Score 3 C14 Odyssey House ‐ Inc, Utah / Odyssey House’s Annex Facility Renovation $ 500,000 4 to 2 14.03 4 E1 Engineering / Street Improvements 2021/2022 $ 3,500,000 6 to 0 13.4 5 E2 Engineering / Pavement Condition Survey $ 175,000 7 to 0 15.85 6 E3 Engineering / Public Way Concrete 2021/2022 $ 750,000 6 to 0 16.8 7 E5 Engineering / Bridge Preservation 2021/2022 $ 300,000 7 to 0 17 8 E6 Engineering / Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2021/2022 $ 70,000 5 to 1 14.8 9 FA1 Public Services Facilities Division / Facilities Capital Asset Replacement Program (6M investment) (Deferred Capital Repla $ 5,860,449 4 to 1 11.83 10 F1 Fire / Fire Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade $ 318,279 7 to 0 16.26 11 F2 Fire / Single‐Family/Fire‐Behavior Prop $ 374,864 6 to 0 15.57 12 C1 Tracy Aviary / Renovations to Historic Structures: east gate and bath house. $ 156,078 5 to 1 13.31 13 C4 Public Lands / Three Creeks West (Jordan River Trail and Bank S