09/07/2021 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsCOUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: September 7, 2021
RE: Rezone: 554 and 560 South 300 East
from RO to R-MU
PLNPCM2020-00604 & 00712
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: September 7, 2021
Set Date: September 7, 2021
Public Hearing: Oct 5, 2021
Potential Action: Oct 19, 2021
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of property at 554 and
560 South 300 East from RO (Residential/Office District) to R-MU (Residential/Mixed Use District) and
would amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The applicant is proposing to
amend the Central Community Master Plan to designate the subject sites as High Mixed Use land use
designation. The applicant is not proposing to alter the site in anyway at this time
According to the Planning Commission Staff report, the existing buildings are used for offices and medical
offices. Earlier this year a business license application for retail services was submitted. The application
was denied because the RO district does not permit retail services. The proposed amendments are intended
to allow retail service uses on the property, in addition to office use.
Page | 2
Vicinity and Zoning Map
(pages 2-3 of the Planning Commission Staff report)
Page | 3
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Pages 4-9 of the Planning Commission staff reports includes a discussion about three key issues
identified by the Planning Staff. A short summary of those is provided below. See the planning
commission staff report to view the full analysis.
1. RO and R-MU Zoning District Comparison
Allowed Use Comparison
The majority of land uses between the RO and R-MU zoning districts are very similar.
The few notable exceptions are included in the table below
Permitted / Conditional Land Use Table Comparison
Zone Office
Clinic
(Medical
dental)
Tavern,
Bar,
Brewpub
Mobile
Food
Business
Reception
Center
Retail
Goods
Retail
Service
Assisted
Living
(large/Small)
RO P P
R-MU P P C P P P P P
Building height for non-residential uses actually reduces the maximum building height
allowed if the amendments are approved.
Height and Yard Requirements
Zone Building Height Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard
Non-residential
RO 60’ 25’ 15’/25’
25% lot depth
Max 30’
R-MU 45’ 0’ 0’
25% lot depth
Max 30’
Residential
RO 60’ 25’ 15’/25’
25% lot depth
Max 30’
RM-U 75’ 0’ 0’
25% lot depth
Max 30’
Page | 4
2. Compatibility with Master Plan Policies
Planning Staff found the proposed amendments meet many of the initiatives identified in the
Central Community Master plan and Plan Salt Lake such as: supporting commerce in Salt Lake
City by encouraging a diversity of land uses, locating retail and other uses closers to residences
which reduce energy consumption through making a wider range of uses accessible, and by
reducing the number of vehicle trips thereby reducing the production of vehicle emissions.
3. Zoning Compatibility with Adjacent Properties
The applicant is not proposing to alter the site in anyway at this time. However, the proposed
amendments would allow for the future redevelopment of the site that would be considered
denser and more urban oriented.
The differences between the RO and R-MU center around the walkability and density allowed
in the R-MU as well as an increase in the number of uses allowed, and that any potential
development which will become available if the amendments are approved have been found
compatible with the surrounding existing neighborhood. (Planning Commission staff report,
page 9)
PUBLIC PROCESS
The public process is outlined on page three of the transmittal letter. It met the standard requirements
of noticing surrounding property owners, informing the Community Council and a public hearing at
the Planning Commission.
This item had to go back to the Planning Commission for a new public hearing due to a noticing error
at the first public hearing.
Erin Mendenhall DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT:PLNPCM2020-00604/00712 – 554 and 560 South 300 East Master Plan and
Zoning Map Amendments
STAFF CONTACT:Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner, nannette.larsen@slcgov.com
801-535-7645
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: City Council follow the recommendations of the Planning
Commission to approve the proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map amendments.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In September of last year a representative with Associated
Properties initiated a petition to amend the Central Community Master Plan and Zoning Map.
The request is for two properties located at approximately 554 and 560 South 300 East and
would amend the properties from Residential/Office Mixed Use to High Mixed Use in the
Central Community Master Plan and from RO (Residential Office) to R-MU (Residential Mixed
Use).
The properties under review
to amend the master plan
and zoning map are located
on the corner of 600 South
and 300 East and are located
in the Central Community
Master Plan area.
The Central Community
Master Plan includes a
Future Land Use map which
currently designates the
subject properties as
“Residential/Office Mixed
Use”. Residential/Office
Mixed use provides for
spaces to include multi-
family residential dwellings
and office uses within the
same or separate structures.
The applicant is proposing to
amend the Central
Community Master Plan to
designate the subject sites as
High Mixed Use land use
designation. High Mixed Use provides for spaces medium to high density residential and higher
intensity commercial uses.
The proposal is also to amend the zoning map to change the zoning district of the properties.
Currently the properties are within the RO (Residential Office) zoning district, the applicant is
proposing to rezone to R-MU
(Residential Mixed Use).
The applicant has stated that
the request is to allow retail
services on the site, -- earlier
this year a business license
for retail services was denied
due to the standards in the
RO district where retail
services are not permitted. If
the master plan and zoning
map amendments are
approved the property owner
would be allowed to fully
redevelop the site in
accordance to the R-MU
(Residential Mixed Use)
zoning district standards
and permitted land uses.
Figure 1: Amendment Location
Figure 2: Vicinity Zoning Map
The properties under review for a master plan and zoning map amendment currently have an
office building on each of the properties at 554 S and 560 S. These structures and their
accompanying parking structures were constructed around 1970 and have been in continuous use
since. In 1993 a subdivision plat was recorded with Salt Lake County that includes the two lots,
the Worker’s Compensation Subdivision creates a 20’ shared drive and two lots that are the
subject properties.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
The surrounding property owners within 300’ received an early notification by mail on
October 13, 2020.
o Staff received one comment from the neighborhood which is found in the staff
report in Attachment 3b.
Information concerning this petition was sent to the chair of the Central City Community
Council on October 13, 2020.
o The Central Community Council chose not to meet on the proposed amendments.
Public notification for the Planning Commission Hearing was mailed December 31, 2020
and April 16, 2021, to all neighbors within 300’ of the proposed Master Plan and Zoning
Map amendment site.
Public notification for the Planning Commission Hearing was posted in the newspaper
April 16, 2021.
The petition was heard by the Planning Commission on January 13, 2021.
o There were multiple public comments heard from the public during this hearing.
The public comments were positive towards the proposed amendments to the
Master Plan and zoning map amendments.
The petition was returned to the Planning Commission for a new public hearing due to an
error in the public notice on April 28, 2021.
o The Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to
the City Council regarding the proposed Master Plan and zoning map
amendments.
Planning Commission (PC) Records:
a) PC Agenda of April 28, 2021 (Click to Access)
b) PC Minutes of April 28, 2021 (Click to Access)
c) Planning Commission Staff Report of April 28, 2021 (Click to Access Report)
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2021
(Amending the zoning of property located at approximately 554 and 560 South 300 East Street
from RO Residential/Office District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District, and amending
the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately
554 and 560 South 300 East Street from RO Residential/Office District to R-MU
Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00604, and amending the
Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-
00712.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 28,
2021 on an application submitted by the Mariel Wirthlin (“Applicant”) on behalf of the property
owner, Associate Properties, LC, to rezone property located at 554 and 560 South 300 East Street
(Tax ID Nos. 16-06-378-008 and 16-06-378-009) (the “Property”) from RO Residential/Office
District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00604,
and to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to those
parcels from Residential/Office Mixed Use to High Mixed Use pursuant to Petition No.
PLNPCM2020-000712; and
WHEREAS, at its April 28, 2021 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said applications; and
WHEREAS, following a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined
that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the Property identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be
and hereby is rezoned from RO Residential/Office District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use
District.
SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use
Map of the Central Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future
land use designation of the Property identified in Exhibit “A” from Residential/Office Mixed
Use to High Mixed Use.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
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 amending zoning and MP 554 S 300 E
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
May 27, 2021
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned
and Subject to Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment:
554 South 300 East
Tax ID No. 16-06-378-008
0302 LOT 1, WORKERS COMPENSATION SUB. 6667-0001
560 South 300 East
Tax ID No. 16-06-378-009
0308 LOT 2, WORKERS COMPENSATION SUB. 5103-606 4414-445 6353-2573 6667-1
6776-0775
EXHIBITS:
1) Project Chronology
2) Notice of City Council Hearing
3) Mailings
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
554 and 560 South 300 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment
Project Chronology
Located at approximately 554 & 560 S. 300 E.
PLNPCM2020-00604; 00712
August 5, 2020 Zoning Amendment application received by the City.
August 27, 2020 Petition assigned to and received by Nannette Larsen.
September 11, 2020 Master Plan Amendment application received by the City.
September 14, 2020 Petition assigned to and received by Nannette Larsen
October 13, 2020 Application deemed complete and forwarded project review to
applicable City departments.
October 13, 2020 Early Notification sent to neighbors located within 300’ of property
October 13, 2020 The Central Community Council chair notified of the petition and
forwarded information.
November 13, 2020 Open House posted online.
November 18, 2020 Public comment received through email. Stated concern over
building height allowances in the D-3 and R-MU districts.
December 30, 2020 Notice of Planning Commission Hearing posted at the property.
December 31, 2020 Notice for Planning Commission Hearing mailed to property
owners and residents within 300’ of the subject property.
January 7, 2021 Staff Report for Master Plan and Zoning Map amendment public
hearing posted online
January 13, 2021 Planning Commission Public Hearing.
January 20, 2021 Public comment received through email. These comments
supported the amendments and are included in this report.
April 16, 2021 Notice of Planning Commission Hearing posted at the property.
April 16, 2021 Notice for Planning Commission Hearing mailed to property
owners and residents within 300’ of the subject property.
April 16, 2021 Newspaper notice posted.
April 21, 2021 Staff Report for Master Plan and Zoning Map amendment public
hearing posted online
April 28, 2021 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Planning Commission
recommended approval to the City Council for the Master Plan
and Zoning Map amendments on the subject property.
2. NOTICE OF COUNCIL HEARING
3. MAILINGS
554 and 560 South 300 East
Mailing List
555 PARTNERS LLC 555 S 300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
ACW LIV TR 220 N 'A' ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ALEXANDER JOHNSTONE;
JENNI 322 E STANTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
ANRONG LIU; HANGFEI
ZHANG 4664 S DANNA CIR TAYLORSVILLE UT 84129
ASSOCIATED PROPERTIES LC PO BOX 478 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110
BEEHIVE BAIL BONDS INC 268 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
CAROLYN K SCOTT 228 E 500 S # 306 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
CATHERINE BHASKAR 228 E 500 S # 405 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
CHAD E FARLEY 228 E 500 S # 301 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
CHRISTINE ANGUSTMAN 228 E 500 S # 305 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
CHRISTOPHER TRUMBULL 228 E 500 S #300 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 210 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 210 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 210 E 600 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 227 E COLFAX AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #100 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #101 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #102 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #103 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #104 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #202 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #203 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #205 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #206 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #207 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #208 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #301 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #302 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #303 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #304 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #305 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #306 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #307 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #400 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #401 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #402 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #405 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #406 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S #407 Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 228 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 233 E COLFAX AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 234 E 600 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 235 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 237 E COLFAX AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 240 E 600 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 250 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 260 E 600 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 266 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 270 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 280 E 600 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 303 E 600 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 307 E 600 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 309 E 600 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 310 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 314 E STANTON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 318 E STANTON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 319 E 600 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 319 E STANTON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 320 E BELDON PL Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 321 E STANTON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 505 S 200 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 535 S 300 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 541 S 300 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 547 S 300 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 553 S 300 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 555 S 200 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 559 S 300 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 560 S 300 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 567 S 200 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 577 S 200 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 615 S 300 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 650 S 300 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
DANIEL JOSEPH MEJLA 228 E 500 S #201 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
DEWEY'S INC 1545 E 3300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DEWEY'S, INC 1545 E 3300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DEWEY'S, INC 212 E 500 S # A SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
EIGHTH CORP
50 E NORTHTEMPLE
# FL-22 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150
EMILY CRANE 228 E 500 S # 402 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
FLS TRUST 228 E 500 S # 206 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
GEBHARDT 300 EAST LLC 235 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
HOLLY ESCH 228 E 500 S #403 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
JAW TRUST
3004 E EVERGREEN
AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109
JENNIFER ROBYN DENHAM;
AND 1051 E FULLER AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
JENNIFER S BURNAZOS; RYAN 217 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
JHK PROPERTIES
1471 S AMBASSADOR
WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108
JODY A ENGAR 228 E 500 S #204 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
JRC PROPERTIES LLC
2747 E APPLE
BLOSSOM LN HOLLADAY UT 84117
JUNKO THIEME; MICHAEL
THIE 1500 SW 11TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97201
KATHY ANGLESEY 228 E 500 S # 401 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
LEGRAND N OLSEN
520 OCCIDENTAL AVE
S SEATTLE WA 98104
LIBERTY METRO HOUSING
PART
6440 S WASATCH
BLVD # 100 HOLLADAY UT 84121
LIBRARY SQUARE
CONDOMINIUM PO BOX 171014 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117
LMM TRUST 350 S 200 E # 605 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
MARY R DEHERRERA 228 E 500 S # 103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
MATTHEW EDWARDS
1716 CENTRAL AVE
SW #217 ALBUQUERQUE NM 87104
MICHAEL A MOORE 228 E 500 S # 208 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
MICHAEL D MACKAY TRUST
02/
3908 W
FARMINGDALE CT
SOUTH
JORDAN UT 84009
MICHAEL L FAIRBANKS 83 S 900 E LINDON UT 84042
MICHAEL P KLEIN 228 E 500 S # 202 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
MILES C PETTY 319 E BELDON PL SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
MOJO RISING LLC 204 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
PARKER WILLEY CDC, LLC 501 E 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105
PRICE 200 EAST LLC
230 E SOUTHTEMPLE
ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
RICHARD T WADE
314 E STANTON AVE
# F SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
SEASONS AT LIBRARY SQUARE 95 W 100 S #340 LOGAN UT 84321
SEASONS AT LIBRARY SQUARE, 95 W 100 S STE 340 LOGAN UT 84321
SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND
U 2401 NW 23RD ST
OKLAHOMA
CITY OK 73107
ST. MARK'S TOWER, LLC
7351 S UNION PARK
AVE MIDVALE UT 84047
STATE BUILDING OWNERSHIP
A
450 N STATE ST #
4110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
STEPHEN CRUZ 1113 S 200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
STEPHEN SEYBOLDT 228 E 500 S #404 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
STEVEN D SCOVILLE 228 E 500 S # 101 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
TAMRIKA KHVTISIASHVILI; JO 407 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
THOMAS R MUTTER 228 E 500 S # 100 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 223 E COLFAX AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
TRUSTEES OF AFRICAN M. E. 239 E 600 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
TYRION 5264 LLC 4468 S 2300 E HOLLADAY UT 84124
UTAH BUILDING OWNERSHIP
AU
450 N STATE ST #
4110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
UTAH NONPROFIT HOUSING
COR 223 W 700 S # C SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
VALLEY MENTAL HEALTH INC PO BOX 572070 MURRAY UT 84157
VIKTOR CAVRAG; IVANKA
CAVR 228 E 500 S # 302 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
WASATCH MANOR INC 535 S 200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet
DATE:September 7, 2021
RE: Urban Forest Action Plan and associated
Zoning Amendment Update
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: September 7, 2021
Set Date: N/A
Public Hearing: N/A
Potential Action: N/A
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive a briefing about the Urban Forest Action Plan and associated zoning amendment.
The Planning Division is developing an Urban Forest Action Plan (an element plan) in tandem with a
zoning code amendment (Attachment A) related to the regulation of trees on private lands and within
public streets. Planning is collaborating closely with Urban Forestry on this effort, along with
Sustainability, Public Utilities, and other relevant City departments.
The primary goal of the action plan is to develop a strategic plan to preserve (or maintain) and expand the
urban forest. By increasing the number, health, growing conditions, and longevity of trees in the urban
landscape, the Urban Forest Action Plan and tree-related ordinance amendment will contribute to Salt
Lake City’s resilience ecologically, economically, and socially. In addition, the Action Plan will develop
realistic and ambitious objectives and actions to align the management and preservation of the City’s living
infrastructure (or Urban Forest system) with its strategic directives for sustainability and equity.
(Transmittal Letter, page 12)
According to the transmittal letter, the anticipated outcomes include:
1. Alignment of Salt Lake City’s Urban Forest ordinance, policies, and practices with City goals for
sustainability and equity.
2. Establishment of a prioritized approach to urban forest distribution and maintenance to redress
specific, persistent adverse public health impacts resulting from environmental racism.
Page | 2
Since this is a similar to a master plan, the Administration is following the Council adopted resolution
outlining the policy and objectives for preparing masterplans (Resolution 14 of 2021). The resolution states
the “City Council policy input to be included early in the process so that such input can be incorporated
into broad community outreach efforts.” This check-in is meant to give fulfill that goal and give the
Council opportunity to review and provide feedback on the public engagement process.
This is just a check-in briefing. Council action is not needed at this time.
Policy Questions
1. The scope for the proposed plan states “The Urban Forest Action Plan and zoning ordinance
amendment regulating trees on private lands and within public streets...” (Transmittal Letter, page
11)
o The Council may wish to ask why type of regulations are being considered for
private property.
o The Council may wish to ask if the proposed text amendment would apply to
existing trees or only newly planted trees on private property.
If the text amendment would apply to existing trees, does the
Administration plan to reach out to all City residents to make them
aware of the proposal?
2. Pages 18 and 29 of the transmittal letter outline the stakeholder meetings that will help provide
guidance on the development of the plan. These stakeholders include:
Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry & Trails Advisory Board (PNUT)
Stormwater/Water Quality
Sustainable Infrastructure group
Water Conservation
Rocky Mountain Power
Other underground utility providers
Relevant Business Improvement District or Chamber of Commerce Representatives
Relevant Community Councils (in areas lacking adequate street trees)
Developers
Designers and Engineers
o Does the Council have any other names or stakeholders they think should be
included in that group?
Next Steps
Page four of the transmittal letter outlines the next steps for the project:
1. Brief Council on Plan (consistent with Resolution 14 of 2020)
2. Meet with focus groups (designers, engineers, developers)
3. Meet with Community Councils/neighborhood groups located where additional street trees are
recommended
4. Complete chapter 5 –Strategies for Salt Lake City’s Urban Forest (in process)
5. Complete Draft Street and Private Lands Trees Zoning Code Amendment (in process)
6. Complete stakeholder review of all draft chapters (in process)
Page | 3
7. Planning Commission (PC) work session on Draft Urban Forest Action Plan and Zoning Code
Amendment
8. Citywide survey and targeted public outreach
9. Present Plan and Text Amendment to PC in December 2021 or January 2022 for adoption
10. Transmit to City Council in early 2022
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:August 1 , 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT:Urban Forest Action Plan and associated Zoning Amendment
STAFF CONTACT:Laura Bandara, Urban Designer, laura.bandara@slcgov.com,
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Item
RECOMMENDATION: Review
BUDGET IMPACT:None
BACKGROUND
The Planning Division is developing an Urban Forest Action Plan (an element plan) in
tandem with a zoning code amendment related to the regulation of trees on private
lands and within public streets. Planning is collaborating closely with Urban Forestry
on this effort, along with Sustainability, Public Utilities, and other relevant City
departments.
Anticipated Outcomes:
1. Alignment of Salt Lake City’s Urban Forest ordinance, policies, and practices with
City goals for sustainability and equity.
2. Establishment of a prioritized approach to urban forest distribution and
maintenance to redress specific, persistent adverse public health impacts
resulting from environmental racism.
The urban forest is a modified natural system that is a public good and has long term
value similar to constructed systems like public utilities and streets. The urban forest
provides a wide range of benefits, including:
Mitigation of adverse environmental impacts;
Reduction of energy consumption;
Improvement in public health outcomes; and
Urban design improvement in neighborhoods and business districts.
The urban forest plays a critical role in reducing the environmental impacts resulting
from Salt Lake City's rapid development and population growth. The interrelated
imperatives of climate change adaptation and sustainable approaches to urban design
and planning requires a reassessment of existing policies and practices. Further, the
pace of development in Salt Lake City has increased competition for public land in the
right-of-way, and trees have often been the first sacrificed to accommodate other types
of infrastructure. The Plan can help establish criteria for decision making regarding the
competition for space on city streets.
To ensure the Urban Forest’s benefits are distributed equitably across the city, Salt Lake
City needs to plan for the health and expansion of the urban forest. Salt Lake City should
develop and implement clear policy directives to:
ensure effective protection of the urban forest as a public good through land use
policy and land management practice;
codify the City's commitment to sustainable infrastructure;
value the urban forest for the entire range of ecosystem and quality-of-life
benefits it provides;
provide solutions in the right-of-way that will accommodate trees, access, and
utilities where they compete for the same space; and
provide guidance on urban forest priorities and preservation to project reviewers
and inspectors.
The Urban Forest Action Planning process began in 2019, but was suspended due to
high-priority, previously funded projects within the Department of Community and
Neighborhoods, and further delayed due to the emergency created by the COVID-19
pandemic. Planning resumed work on the Plan in late 2020 and anticipates completion
in 2021.
Please contact Laura Bandara at (385) 226-3117 or laura.bandara@slcgov.com if you
have any questions. We are happy to provide a briefing at your request.
STEERING COMMITTEES
An internal City working group and a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) have been
established to provide guidance on the deliverables of the plan as it is developed. The
TAC consists of people within and outside of the city government.
Technical Advisory Committee Representatives
SLC CORPORATION NON-PROFIT/PROFESSIONAL ACADEMIC (U OF U)
Development Review TreeUtah Urban Ecology
Economic Development ReLeaf Atmospheric Sciences
Golf Utah ASLA Mechanical Engineering
Water Conservation (PU)
Streets
Utah Society for Environmental
Education (USEE)
University Neighborhood
Partners (UNP)
Hawk Watch
The Nature Conservancy
Working Group Committee Representatives (Internal to Salt Lake City)
Engineering RDA
HAND Sustainability
Transportation Parks/Public Lands
Public Utilities
(water quality)
Urban Forestry
*bold text indicates project team member
PROGRESS TO DATE
Work completed 2019:
Completed revised work plan with stakeholder input
Briefed Public Services, Public Utilities, Sustainability Department, and SLC
Sustainable Infrastructure Committee
Briefed Working Group and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Created goals and objectives with Project Team (Public Utilities, Sustainability,
Urban Forestry)
Public Engagement:
o tabled at 3 community events in 2019 (Poplar Grove, Sugarhouse, Liberty
Park Farmers Market)
o Summer Planning Series walking tour – August 2019
o Collaborated with SLC TV on promo created for Summer Planning Series
Chapter 1 completed and reviewed by Working Group
Work completed 2020:
Initiated petition for zoning code amendment
Chapter 2 completed and reviewed by Working Group
Chapter 4 GIS analysis
o canopy map completed
o data sources identified
Work completed 2021:
Briefed administration on Urban Forest Action Plan
Chapter 2 reviewed by TAC
Chapter 3 completed and reviewed by Working Group and TAC
Chapter 4 completed and reviewed by Working Group
GIS analysis
o redlining/canopy cover correlation completed
o public utilities/tree location conflict analysis completed
o costs of LIDAR and UAV Thermal Imaging analysis identified
Briefed DA Downtown Development Committee on Urban Forest Action Plan and
requested participation in fall downtown urban forest goal setting workshop
Goals achieved:
Collaborated with Transportation, Urban Forestry, and members of SLC
Sustainable Infrastructure Committee to create and implement changes
to parking policy to preserve adequate soil volumes for trees in park
strips
Led Urban Design strategies on Street Typologies Design Guide to
include trees as environmental impact mitigation and placemaking
strategy
NEXT STEPS
1. Brief Council on Plan (consistent with Resolution 14 of 2020)
2. Meet with focus groups (designers, engineers, developers)
3. Meet with Community Councils/neighborhood groups located where additional
street trees are recommended
4. Complete chapter 5 –Strategies for Salt Lake City’s Urban Forest (in process)
5. Complete Draft Street and Private Lands Trees Zoning Code Amendment (in
process)
6. Complete stakeholder review of all draft chapters (in process)
7. Planning Commission (PC) work session on Draft Urban Forest Action Plan and
Zoning Code Amendment
8. Citywide survey and targeted public outreach
9. Present Plan and Text Amendment to PC in December 2021 or January 2022 for
adoption
10. Transmit to City Council in early 2022
EXHIBITS
Planning Preparation
Scope and Work Plan
2.Project Budget
3.Timeline
4.Potential Barriers to Scope, Budget, and Timeline
Existing Conditions
Existing Plans
Trends Analysis
Public Engagement
Draft Public Engagement Calendar (approximate dates)
UFAP Vision Statement
Summer Planning Series 2019: Seeing the Urban Forest for
the Trees (SLC TV )
Draft Metrics
DRAFT WORK PLAN: Urban Forest Action Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to the
Regulation of Trees on Private Lands and Within Public Streets
Overview
Salt Lake City's urban forest is a critical asset and a living infrastructure system that is
currently underutilized. Urban forests are a public good. When planned and managed
effectively, they are a vital component of a resilient city and make significant, quantifiable
contributions to communities' public, economic, and environmental health. A large body of
research supports the benefits provided by urban forests.
A strategic plan is needed to harness the benefits trees provide to cities and implement
the Plan Salt Lake vision for Guiding Principle 8: Beautiful City. The Planning Division is
developing an Urban Forest Action Plan in tandem with an amendment to Salt Lake City’s
zoning ordinance related to the regulation of trees on private lands and within public
streets.
Through collaboration with multiple departments and divisions, Planning will assess and
evaluate opportunities to increase tree canopy citywide. The Plan will prioritize these
opportunities based on sustainability, urban forestry, urban design, land use, economic
development, and social and environmental equity criteria.
An increase in canopy coverage, appropriate street tree selection, and emphasis on the
health of the urban forest can support a wide range of Salt Lake City’s economic,
environmental, public health, social, and urban design goals, including improvements to:
Air quality;
Water quality;
Energy conservation;
Mental and physical health;
School performance;
Business performance;
Environmental equity;
Walkability;
Active transportation routes;
Traffic calming;
Streetscapes;
Urban design identity; and
The number and quality of human-scale places in the public realm.
WORK PLAN: Urban Forest Action Plan and Tree Regulations Zoning Ordinance Amendment
06/23/2021 2 L. Bandara/SLC Planning Division
These improvements are briefly summarized below. For detailed information and
supporting studies, see the Vibrant Cities Lab, a joint project of the US Forest Service,
American Forests, and the National Association of Regional Councils.
Urban Forest Benefits to the Public 1
Environmental Benefits
Trees mitigate urban heat island effects created by heat-absorbing surfaces (such as
asphalt) by lowering surface and ambient temperatures. The shade and
evapotranspiration properties of trees can reduce peak summer temperatures between 2 –
9 degrees Fahrenheit. A study of Salt Lake City parks found that high tree cover reduced
daytime temperatures by several degrees Fahrenheit compared to adjacent
neighborhoods (Gomez-Navarro et al. In review)
Trees can reduce air pollution through the uptake of ozone, carbon dioxide, nitrogen
dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, airborne, inhalable particles smaller
than 10 micrometers, or 1/10 the width of a single strand of a human hair). Notably, a well-
designed urban forest can play a critical role in emissions reductions by making active
transportation and public transit more comfortable and attractive options.
Urban forests slow stormwater flows and reduce flooding during storms by holding water
in the canopy and root system, thereby contributing to a healthier hydrologic system and
aquatic ecology. Trees also filter pollutants from water, including nitrogen and
phosphorus (typically found in fertilizer and pet waste).
Shade trees reduce the energy consumption of commercial and residential buildings.
According to the Lawrence Berkeley Lab Heat Island Group estimates, "each one-degree
Fahrenheit increase in peak summertime temperature leads to an increase in peak demand
of 225 megawatts." Increased demand results in an annual cost to ratepayers of $100
million (Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2010).
Public Health Benefits
Numerous studies demonstrate the connection between the ability to experience nature
and improved mental and physical health. Urban forests reduce the incidence of
respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, and skin cancer.
Walking in areas with trees and other vegetation and even viewing green places through
windows has been demonstrated to reduce anxiety, stress, depression, and aggression.
WORK PLAN: Urban Forest Action Plan and Tree Regulations Zoning Ordinance Amendment
06/23/2021 3 L. Bandara/SLC Planning Division
Trees and vegetated spaces in cities improve school performance and reduce ADHD
symptoms.
Economic Benefits
Tree-lined streets increase retail sales and attract customers from further away. Studies
have also demonstrated that trees and plants boost employee productivity and job
satisfaction. Urban trees also have a well-known impact on increases in property values.
Additionally, the shade cast by trees can preserve asphalt street surfaces and decrease the
rate of resurfacing, thereby creating savings for municipalities.
Social Impacts and Environmental Equity
Trees have considerable impacts on neighborhoods by creating inviting gathering places
and providing more opportunities for neighbors to socialize and build community. Studies
demonstrate an association between the number of trees and community cohesion in
urban neighborhoods.
Careful planning of the urban forest is needed to ensure an equitable distribution of its
benefits. Numerous studies have shown that lower-income, historically marginalized
groups and renters tend to live in urban areas with the fewest street trees in public rights
of way. This inequitable distribution results in more significant cooling benefits of urban
trees in wealthier neighborhoods (Litvak et al., 2017). Salt Lake City also follows this
national trend (Salt Lake City Tree Equity Score, treeequityscore.org).
Transportation Benefits
The effective use of trees in streetscape design results in traffic calming, reduces collision
risks and creates an inviting environment for walking and biking. Tree canopy provides
shade for pedestrians and cyclists during the hot summer months. Pairing shade with
increased aesthetic appeal encourages sidewalk use, thus making active transportation
more attractive physically and mentally. In this way, trees promote and enhance active
transportation and recreation activities. Public transit's appeal (and equity) can also be
enhanced when trees are planted near bus and rail stops.
Trees create a visual and physical barrier between pedestrians and vehicles. Trees can calm
traffic when used in streetscape design to create the perception of a narrowed street,
increasing pedestrian safety.
Urban Design Benefits
Street trees and urban forests make vital contributions to the urban design identity of
neighborhoods and business districts. In Salt Lake City, Planning can develop design
guidelines for urban forest streetscapes intended to increase the number and quality of
WORK PLAN: Urban Forest Action Plan and Tree Regulations Zoning Ordinance Amendment
06/23/2021 4 L. Bandara/SLC Planning Division
human-scale spaces in our large public rights-of-way. By creating attractive, pedestrian-
scaled places in the City using street trees, we can foster community through creating sites
that encourage positive interactions between residents.
Urban Forest Action Plan Purpose
The Urban Forest Action Plan represents an initial step to full implementation of the vision
established in Plan Salt Lake’s Guiding Principle 8: Beautiful City:
Salt Lake City residents and visitors recognize our green network, including
our urban forest, parks, and street trees, as one of our greatest assets. Our
green network plays an important role in shaping our streetscapes and
urban form.
It enhances the livability of the City, improving air and water quality while
providing shade, buffering noises, and enhancing walkability and
streetscapes citywide. We recognize that this green network contributes to a
healthy and beautiful city. We will continue to make its maintenance and
expansion a priority. (Plan Salt Lake, 2015, p. 31)
The primary goal of the Urban Forest Action Plan is to develop a strategic plan to preserve
(or maintain) and expand the urban forest. The action plan provides a comprehensive
approach to the urban forest as a living infrastructure system. Action plans take a holistic
view of an issue to address interconnected challenges, develop priorities, find solutions
and build a long-term plan of action. Policymakers, planners, and community members
create and implement action plans to unite various community stakeholders, nonprofit
organizations, private interests, institutions, and governmental agencies around a shared
cause.
The proposed Urban Forest Action Plan and zoning ordinance amendment regulating
trees on private lands and within public streets are based on the need for strategic
planning to address Salt Lake City resilience (especially emissions reduction, water quality,
public health, and urban heat island impacts), equity, and urban design goals. An increase
in the number of trees in our City, along with more robust preservation of existing trees,
can contribute to our ability to adapt to and mitigate the adverse environmental impacts
exacerbated by climate change.
The numerous potential benefits of growing the urban forest are paired with significant
existing opportunities in Salt Lake City. A recent Urban Forestry resource analysis estimates
there are currently more than 20,000 vacant tree planting sites in city-owned park strips.
This number is in addition to unquantified planting areas within parks and golf courses.
WORK PLAN: Urban Forest Action Plan and Tree Regulations Zoning Ordinance Amendment
06/23/2021 5 L. Bandara/SLC Planning Division
Planning will integrate aspects of this Action Plan and ordinance update with ongoing
planning and assessment efforts in Transportation, Sustainability, and Public Utilities. Data
gathered, including examples of urban forests in arid climates and standards created
through this planning process, may be integrated into or influenced by the:
Complete Streets Ordinance and Street Typologies (led by the Transportation
Division);
Sustainable Code Review (led by the Sustainability Department);
Stormwater Master Plan (Public Utilities Division);
Transportation Master Plan; and
Parks Master Plan.
The ordinance amendment process will develop criteria for trees based on:
1. environmental impact mitigation (air and water quality);
2. public health impact mitigation (respiratory and heat-related diseases);
3. creating an equitable distribution of public trees in residential and mixed-use
zoning districts; and
4. scale and form according to street and neighborhood characteristics (right-of-way
dimensions, building heights, and dimensions of existing and proposed park strips
and medians, among others).
The Plan will evaluate best management practices, including urban forest policy and
oversight, air quality, and water quality goals. The Plan will also develop strategies to
anticipate and resolve underground utility conflicts with tree root zones and implement
appropriate pavement treatments. The Plan will identify and prioritize opportunities for
Salt Lake City to:
1. reduce the urban heat island effect,
2. manage stormwater flows,
3. improve water quality,
4. mitigate air pollution at busy intersections,
5. enhance active transportation routes,
6. reduce building energy consumption,
7. enhance urban design identity in neighborhoods and business districts, and
8. create a more equitable distribution of urban forest canopy in residential areas.
Plan Goals
The primary goal of the action plan is to develop a strategic plan to preserve (or maintain)
and expand the urban forest. By increasing the number, health, growing conditions, and
WORK PLAN: Urban Forest Action Plan and Tree Regulations Zoning Ordinance Amendment
06/23/2021 6 L. Bandara/SLC Planning Division
longevity of trees in the urban landscape, the Urban Forest Action Plan and tree-related
ordinance amendment will contribute to Salt Lake City’s resilience ecologically,
economically, and socially. In addition, the Action Plan will develop realistic and ambitious
objectives and actions to align the management and preservation of the City’s living
infrastructure (or Urban Forest system) with its strategic directives for sustainability and
equity.
A defined strategy with goals, objectives, actions, timelines and priority areas for
increased canopy cover outlined in the Action Plan;
A revision to tree-related regulations in the city code aimed toward achieving goals
set out in the Plan;
Prioritized action steps to create and implement proposed plans, policies, practices,
and future ordinance revisions to:
o Manage the urban forest as public infrastructure,
o increase canopy cover and number of trees,
o effectively enforce tree protection measures,
o implement tree-related urban design goals on City-owned land,
o along with recommended actions to increase canopy cover on private
property;
An increase in the number and longevity of trees in public rights-of-way, parks, and
golf courses (where appropriate); and
The regular assessment of canopy cover, tree stocking goals, and other
environmental benefit metrics related to the urban forest.
The Urban Forest Action Plan and amendments to tree-related ordinances will impact all
City departments and divisions managing systems and assets in public rights-of-way and
parks and golf courses. Planning will involve them as critical team members and
stakeholders to integrate their land use and management needs into any proposed
changes. It is anticipated that working group members will take an active and engaged
role in the process.
Planning will develop a public outreach campaign with the civic engagement team and Urban
Forestry. Early engagement will include tabling at community events, a Summer Planning Series
walking tour, and an SLCTv segment. During the public comment period, Planning will host a
webinar related to the urban forest and land use that includes live and asynchronous polling.
The webinar will be recorded for inclusion with traditional online open house materials. Planning
WORK PLAN: Urban Forest Action Plan and Tree Regulations Zoning Ordinance Amendment
06/23/2021 7 L. Bandara/SLC Planning Division
and Urban Forestry will conduct additional outreach with community councils and nonprofit
organizations working in areas that benefit most from additional trees.
Public engagement efforts will also include outreach to designers and developers via the Urban
Land Institute’s Utah Chapter, the ASLA Utah Chapter, the AIA Utah’s Urban Design Committee,
and/or local chambers of commerce. The project team will develop focus groups to provide
specialized input.
The Planning Division will lead the action plan, with guidance from Urban Forestry and supported
by Sustainability and Public Utilities. Project team members will participate in working group
meetings and provide specialized technical information to the Plan.
The team will establish an internal City Working Group, along with a Technical Committee.
The Working Group will consist of representatives from City divisions identified by division
heads. The working group will aid the project team in developing and executing the
planning process, technical guidance, plan development, and draft ordinance review.
Working group responsibilities will include reviewing draft chapters, reviewing the draft
ordinance, final draft review, and attendance at six meetings.
Working Group Dept./Division Representatives
*bold text indicates project team member
Engineering RDA
HAND Sustainability
Parks & Public Lands Transportation
Public Utilities (water quality) Urban Forestry
WORK PLAN: Urban Forest Action Plan and Tree Regulations Zoning Ordinance Amendment
06/23/2021 8 L. Bandara/SLC Planning Division
Technical Committee members representing public agencies, nonprofits, academia, and
others with specialized knowledge of urban forests, streetscapes, and infrastructure will
serve as a resource for the project team. In the future, some may become potential
partners in funding and implementing urban forest expansion. Responsibilities include the
identification of constraints and opportunities and a technical review of the draft plan.
Technical Advisory Committee Agency Representatives
SLC Corporation Nonprofit/State Agency Research Area (U of U)
Development Review
Team
Breathe Utah Atmospheric Sciences
Economic Development HawkWatch Mechanical Engineering
Salt Lake City Golf ReLeaf Utah Urban Ecology
Streets The Nature Conservancy
Transportation (cycling) TreeUtah
Urban Forestry U of U Neighborhood Partners
Public Utilities (water
conservation)
Utah Chapter ASLA
Utah DNR – Division of Forestry,
Fire, & State Lands (Wasatch
Front Area)
The ordinance revision process will take approximately 16 months, including ordinance
adoption and plan preparation and revision. See attached schedule for details.
There will be some incidental expenses associated with printing costs and mailing notices.
WORK PLAN: Urban Forest Action Plan and Tree Regulations Zoning Ordinance Amendment
06/23/2021 9 L. Bandara/SLC Planning Division
Action Plan Follow-Up: Pilot Projects
Following the Urban Forest Action Plan's adoption, the urban designer will pursue grant
funding for a public and environmental health education campaign. The campaign will
provide the public with information about the multiple economic, environmental, climate,
aesthetic, and public health values of trees in our streetscapes, possibly in collaboration
with Public Utilities or Sustainability.
During the planning process, the urban designer will gather input from the team, working
group, and technical committee members to craft a public education campaign. For
example, a public education campaign could address the ways our urban forest mitigates
urban heat island impacts and the air quality benefits provided by woody plants or
planting strategies.
Using the lessons learned from public engagement, Planning (Urban Design) and Urban
Forestry will implement priority action steps by pursuing partnerships. Partners could
potentially provide funding for planting and irrigation in underserved communities on
both public and privately-owned land, where appropriate. Potential partners may include
Salt Lake County, private foundations, nonprofits, hospitals, and community organizations.
WORK PLAN: Urban Forest Action Plan and Tree Regulations Zoning Ordinance Amendment
06/23/2021 10 L. Bandara/SLC Planning Division
Project Tasks
1. Planning Preparation
Description: The project team will develop an agreed-upon communications process,
create and refine goals for what the street tree ordinance update will accomplish, identify
critical internal and external stakeholders, and designate responsibility for various tasks to
team members.
1.1. Develop communication procedures and meeting schedules with the working
group and technical committee members
1.2. Develop introduction to frame need for the action plan
Deliverable: Chapter 1: Introduction
2. Existing Conditions: Chapter 2. Urban Forest Strengths, Vulnerabilities, Opportunities,
and Constraints Analysis
2.1. Existing guidance
Review existing master plans for guidance regarding trees and park strips
Identify existing GIS resources
2.2. STRENGTHS
Existing UF
Public support
Ordinance/Policies
2.3. VULNERABILITIES (WEAKNESSES)
Lack of strategic planning
Utility conflicts
Inadequate soil volumes downtown
Lack of awareness regarding the responsibility to water trees
Inconsistent irrigation: asking residents to water City trees
Tree replacement policy lacks ecosystem services approach
Lack of impact data around public outreach and engagement around trees
The City lacks $ to maintain pervious paving systems
Ordinance/policy contradictions
Environmental inequity
2.4. OPPORTUNITIES
Create canopy cover goal
WORK PLAN: Urban Forest Action Plan and Tree Regulations Zoning Ordinance Amendment
06/23/2021 11 L. Bandara/SLC Planning Division
Trees as public infrastructure
Create a resilient UF
Education on Irrigation/Water Conservation
Education on UF benefits
Rethinking the ROW
Public-Private Partnerships
2.5. CONSTRAINTS (THREATS)
Arid Climate
Water Conservation balance
Climate change impacts
Deliverable: DRAFT Chapter 2: SWOT Analysis, to include:
GIS map with relevant layers identified
3. Stakeholder Coordination and Public Engagement
3.1. Stakeholder meetings
Present to PNUT board
Stormwater/Water Quality
Sustainable Infrastructure group
Water Conservation
Rocky Mountain Power
Other underground utility
providers
Others?
3.3. Public Engagement
Develop narrative to explain the importance of planting trees when SLC was established
in the mid-nineteenth century. (Trees are one of the founding urban gestures of the City,
and we should work to reintegrate them into every aspect of our urban design – work
with civic engagement on how to share stories with the community).
Public outreach to community members and groups (tabling, tree walks)
Presentations to community councils
Webinar during open house period to attract interested residents and those who want
to learn more, record and add to OH posting
Developers – Present to Downtown Development Committee
Work with UF to distribute information on ordinance revision/text amendment to
residents requesting street trees
Urban Forest Strategic Action Plan and Street Tree Ordinance Text Amendment Work Plan
06/23/2021 12 L. Bandara/SLC Planning Division
4. Best Management Practices
4.1. Policy
Oversight
Planning
PLAN: Contact other cities with similar climates to see how their tree ordinance works
(Boise, Denver, Sacramento) – ask them what is working in the ordinance, ask them how
they handle utility conflicts
UF: Has the PNUT Board addressed UF questions in the last two decades? Would a
Forestry Advisory Board be beneficial?
Look at the Sacramento ordinance update process as a model (esp. for outreach)
Impact mitigation
4.2. Preservation
Living infrastructure – urban ecosystem health
BMPs for mitigation measures – how can fee structure be more in line with tree
appraisal? Can we create a "security deposit" for tree protection?
Work with UF: what are we charging now, and what should we be charging?
BMPs for conflicts between trees and underground utilities in ROW (look at conduit
installation and vaults)
Underground/ aboveground utilities – what are different conduit types?
UF: Develop GIS layer with 10-foot o.c. bubbles around existing water lines (see if we
can get info from PU about which lines they plan to retire)
4.3. Promotion
Funding
Communication
Partnerships
Find example community/look in books for education/outreach and community
involvement (also talk to local nonprofits about how they do outreach)
Look at Vancouver's Green Streets program and see if Planning should include similar
in the final chapter.
Look at Sacramento’s program for street trees
Look at Melbourne and SF outreach/education
4.4. Placemaking
UD: Scale/Form, Spacing
PLAN: Does every 30 feet make sense? Look at research for 20 feet (See Jim Urban)
PLAN: Research on street trees and economic development (Susan Wolf) to compare
with existing retail/commercial corridors in SLC
Neighborhood UF districts
Look at Melbourne DGs
Urban Forest Strategic Action Plan and Street Tree Ordinance Text Amendment Work Plan
06/23/2021 13 L. Bandara/SLC Planning Division
Transitional Elements: Street trees can take decades to mature; what are interim
strategies to achieve human scale?
Cultural Meaning
Deliverable: DRAFT Chapter 3: Best Management Practices, to include:
BMPs to prioritize for inclusion in ordinance and Action Plan to enhance
landscape performance.
5. Livability and the Urban Forest in Salt Lake City
5.1. PLAN: Perform code/ordinance analysis using “Making your community forest friendly”
guide
Determine which existing SLC regulations might deter or prevent increased tree cover
5.2. PLAN: Look at Sustainable Code Review suggestions on trees/UF
5.3. GIS Analysis - Equity
5.4. Analyze implications of developing neighborhood forest districts with species guidelines
Irrigation zoning
Urban Design
5.5. Tree Form/Streetscape
Develop rough proportional ratio of tree form (height/canopy spread) to building
height
Develop rough proportional ratio of tree form to street width
Review Jan Gehl’s work for guidance on human scale
Create graphic with approximate tree forms
Determine proportional relationships for double rows/alleés of trees
Overlay zoning map with park strips to determine desired tree height ranges
Assess growing conditions needed for tree form in collaboration with UF
Consider situations where streetscapes might need exceptions to tree form
requirements; Assess if or how to include them in the ordinance.
Consider areas to change dimensions of park strips
Consider sites to add medians with trees
o Alleés
o Linear parks
Look at tree height for medians
Consider underutilized streets to add linear parks and/or bosques
Look at creating bosques at the intersection of mid-block walkways
Create diagram/sections for ordinance
5.6. Feasibility of Transitional Elements
Removable canopies? Market streets?
Public art to develop human scale, changing interventions.
Deliverables: DRAFT Chapter 4: Analysis and Recommendations, to include:
Urban Forest Strategic Action Plan and Street Tree Ordinance Text Amendment Work Plan
06/23/2021 14 L. Bandara/SLC Planning Division
GIS map with relevant layers identified
A graphic that demonstrates tree/building height/street width proportional
ratios
Tree height/form zone map based on existing/future land use zones
6. Salt Lake City’s Urban Forest Strategy
6.1. Use SWOT and livability analysis and public feedback to prioritize goals
6.2. Assess existing or proposed tools to achieve urban forestry and tree-related sustainability
goals. These may include: plans, policies, ordinances, and grant partnership opportunities,
among others:
Urban forest design & sustainability guidelines
Urban Forest Management Plan
Amendment to existing master plans?
Grant partnership opportunities? (US Forest Service Community Forests, etc.)
Determine which mechanisms are most effective to implement change
6.4. Develop prioritized list and timeline of short- and long-term actions
Deliverables:
DRAFT Chapter 5: Strategies for SLC’s Urban Forest, to include strategic
direction, goals, objectives, actions
DRAFT Appendix: Public input summary, outreach materials, relevant existing
conditions
DRAFT Executive Summary
7. Text Amendment Process and UFAP Document Production
Initiate petition
Draft amendments to zoning code
Include Urban Forestry park strip standards into code
Include height and form guidelines
Take amendments to PC and CC for adoption
Staff report
Create three educational materials (one-sheets/website posts):
Economic development benefits of trees to give developers
Equity benefits of trees to provide to HAND, nonprofits, environmental groups
Mitigation of environmental impacts using trees (to add to the website)
Deliverables: FINAL Urban Forest Action Plan
Zoning code amendment
Staff report
Educational materials
Potential Barriers to Scope, Budget and Timeline
DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY URBAN FOREST ACTION PLAN
Potential Barriers to Scope
The most significant barriers to the scope relate to the ambition of the scope and constraints on
staff capacity. These constraints have required a delicate balancing act between extending
timelines or paring down the scope. The project is led by the Urban Designer, who has multiple
responsibilities as the sole employee with that title.
Planning and GIS staff have experienced an increased number of applications and project
requirements due to rapid development in Salt Lake City. Urban Forestry and Public Utilities are
regularly called on to respond to emergencies due to extreme weather events, which limits their
ability to participate as project team members. Recent staff turnover in Sustainability has also had
a minor impact to items in the scope.
Potential Barriers to Scope
The plan has no budget beyond that for minor expenses related to mailing and printing. This
impacts our ability to use data that is not publicly available without charge, and places limits on
community outreach opportunities. This impact was anticipated and accounted for in the work
plan.
Potential Barriers to Timeline
Barriers to the timeline may occur due to the time and care required to build consensus and
support among both internal and external City stakeholders. These stakeholders include:
all City departments that work in the public right of way,
park and golf course managers and users,
developers and contractors,
business district members, and
community members.
DRAFT Urban Forest Action Plan Vision Statement
The vision for the Urban Forest Action Plan is found in Plan Salt Lake, Guiding
Principle 8: Beautiful City (2015)
Salt Lake City residents and visitors recognize our green network, including
our urban forest, parks, and street trees, as one of our greatest assets. Our
green network plays an important role in shaping our streetscapes and
urban form. It enhances the livability of the City, improving air and water
quality while providing shade, buffering noises, and enhancing walkability
and streetscapes citywide. We recognize that this green network contributes
to a healthy and beautiful city and we will continue to make its maintenance
and expansion a priority (31).
The Urban Forest Action Plan will goals, objectives, and actions to
implement this vision.
Draft Public Engagement Metrics
DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY URBAN FOREST ACTION PLAN
Citywide survey
Response from minimum 3% of residents in each Council district
Planning Open House
Minimum of 100 individual views
Local surveys
Business districts needing trees:
responses from BID or Chamber of Commerce representatives
responses from 3-5 business owners in district (with Economic Development)
Neighborhoods needing trees:
Civic engagement to provide flyers/social media content to Community Councils
Aim to match the demographics representative of census tract with intercept surveys
(modeled after SLC Public Lands Master Plan engagement)
Posted signs in park-strips with QR codes or text numbers - response from minimum 3% of
households in census tract
Focus Groups
Targeted survey response from minimum 25% focus group participants
Neighborhoods needing trees
Community Councils
Developers
Downtown Development Committee
ULI Utah
Designers/Engineers
Urban Design Utah
AIA EQxD (Equity x Design) Committee
WIA (Women in Architecture)
WTS (Women’s Transportation Seminar)
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:September 7, 2021
RE: 461 South 400 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments
PLNPCM2020-00804/00806
The Council will be briefed about an ordinance to amend the Central Community Master Plan and
associated zoning map for the property located at 461 South 400 East. The property is currently zoned R-
MU-45 (Residential Mixed Use), and the proposal would rezone it to TSA-UN-C (Transit Station Area
Urban Neighborhood Core). Under the proposal the Future Land Use Map would be amended from the
current Residential/Office Mixed Use to High Density Transit Oriented Development.
Residential/Office Mixed Use provides for multi-family residential units and office uses within the same
building or separate buildings. High Density Transit Oriented Development designation is typically found
near fixed transit stations and transit-oriented areas.
The subject property has street frontage on three sides: 400 East, 500 South, and Denver Street. An office
building is on the corner of 400 East and 500 South, and three parking structures front on 400 East and
Denver Street. The office building and parking structures were developed in the mid-1970s and have been
used for these purposes since then.
If the master plan map zoning and amendments are approved, this would accommodate redevelopment of
the property including residential, retail, and live/work units, while eliminating the parking structures
fronting 400 East and Denver Street. It should be noted any redevelopment of the property is not part of
this proposal. It is the Council’s role to determine if the proposed changes are appropriate for the property.
Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the
City Council for the proposed Master Plan and zoning map amendments.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: September 7, 2021
Set Date: September 7, 2021
Public Hearing: October 5, 2021
Potential Action: October 19, 2021
Page | 2
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed future land use and zoning map amendments, determine if
the Council supports moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Is the Council supportive of the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments?
2.The Council may wish to ask if the developer considered including affordable housing units in
the proposed development.
3.The Council may wish to inquire how parking standards may or may not be affected by the
current off-street parking ordinance before the council.
Vicinity zoning map with subject parcels outlined in red
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The subject parcel is within the East Downtown View Protection Area. Maximum height recommendation
for this area is 75 feet to protect view corridors of the State Capitol, Cathedral of the Madeline, and the City
& County Building. Maximum height under the proposed TSA-UN-C zoning designation is 75 feet and
meets the view corridor recommendation.
The site is near existing infrastructure including the Central Business District and Trolley Square job
centers, and within approximately ¼ mile of two light rail stops at the Library, and 600 East. Bus routes
run along State Street, 400 South, and 500 East. Bike lanes are on 300 South and 500 South, and 300 East
and 600 East.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified four key considerations which are summarized below. For the complete analysis
see pages 7-13 of the Planning Commission staff report.
Page | 3
Key Consideration #1: R-MU-45 and TSA-UN-C Zoning District Comparison
Building height and yard requirements for the two zoning districts are summarized below. See Attachments
F and G (pages 27-41 of the Planning staff report) for additional details.
Zone Maximum Building Height
R-MU-45 45’ (55’ with design review)
TSA-UN-C 75’
Zone Front Yard Min Front Yard Max Side/Corner Side
Yards
Rear Yard
R-MU-45 5’ 15’ 0’/5’-15’ 25% lot depth
(max 30’)
TSA-UN-C 0’ 5’ 0’/500 South
average of the block
25% lot depth
(max 30’)
The TSA-UN-C zoning district allows more dense and intense development via setbacks and building
height. Buildings may be built to the property line in the front and side yards.
The subject parcel is in a developed urban and commercial area that does not require a landscape buffer
under the current or proposed zoning designations. However, open space is required under both zoning
districts. R-MU-45 requires not less than 20% of the lot area to be landscaped or designed so it is usable by
occupants of the adjoining building. TSA-UN-C zoning requires one square foot of open space for each 10
square feet of land area, up to 5,000 square feet.
Parking is a major consideration particularly with multi-family and commercial developments. Under the
R-MU-45 zoning designation, land use in the building determines the number of required parking stalls.
However, residential units in this zoning district require ½ stall per multi-family unit regardless of the
number of bedrooms.
TSA zoning districts within the core (which this property would be under the proposal) do not require any
parking spaces regardless of use. For residential use one space per dwelling unit is allowed. Non-residential
uses are allowed up to 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet. These parking limits are due to TSA districts
generally being in areas of the city with existing or proposed infrastructure supporting vehicle free living.
Design standards for TSA zoning districts are more stringent than R-MU-45 zoning. Standards for ground
floor uses, more durable ground and upper floor materials, building entrances, and building façade length
are included in these design standards.
Anticipated uses for this parcel include live/work units, multi-family residential, and retail. The proposed
uses are permitted in both the current F-MU-45 and proposed TSA-UN-C zoning designations. Most land
uses permitted in both zoning districts are similar as both districts are dense and urban. The table below
shows several permitted and conditional uses for both zoning districts.
Zone Boarding
House
Live
Theater
Movie
Theater
Bar,
Brewpub
Tavern Off Site
Parking
Group Home
(large)
R-MU-45 C C C C C C
TSA-UN-C P C P P P
Page | 4
Key Consideration #2: Compatibility with Master Plan Policies
It is Planning staff’s opinion the Central Community Master Plan’s four fundamental goals will be met if
the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments are adopted.
Livable communities and neighborhoods
Vital and sustainable commerce
Unique and active places
Increased pedestrian mobility and accessibility
The Planning staff report states the following:
“The intent of the Central Community Master Plan will be met if the proposed amendments are
approved. By approving the proposed amendments the TSA district on this site will encourage
livable communities and neighborhoods and activate places by encouraging transit oriented uses
and structures in an area that is highly walkable and urban. Further, by permitting more dense
residential and retail uses it will encourage residents to use pedestrian infrastructure and makes
for a more accessible and equitable type of development.”
Planning noted the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments support the goals of Plan Salt Lake
by providing residential and retail development near a variety of accessible transit options, access to
essential services, aging in place, and more equitable and sustainable development.
Key Consideration #3: Zoning Compatibility with Adjacent Properties
Building Height
As stated above, the maximum building height in the proposed TSA-UN-C zone is 75 feet. Adjacent
properties north of the subject parcel are also zoned TSA-UN-C. Properties to the east and west across
Denver Street and 400 East are zoned R-MU-45. Planning noted properties across Denver Street and 400
East with their respective widths of 50’ and 129’ provides separation between the zoning districts.
Parking
Proposed amendments to the property would significantly reduce the number of required parking stalls.
Currently nearly 75% of the site is for parking. The proposed TSA zoning designation encourages active
transportation given its proximity to a variety of transit options. While parking is not required, most
developments in the TSA district provide parking to residents and patrons. Properties to the east, west, and
south have parking standards based on land use of the buildings.
Building Setbacks and Landscape Buffer
Setbacks required in both the current and proposed zoning districts are similar. Buildings in both districts
may be built close or up to the property line. Landscape buffers are required in both districts when the
property abuts a residential zone. This requirement is not applicable when a residential district is across a
street.
Design Standards and TSA Scorecard
The proposed TSA zoning district has stricter design standards than other zoning districts in the area.
These standards are more urban and pedestrian friendly than other residential mixed-use districts around
the subject property.
In addition, TSA zoning requires new or redeveloped sites to be reviewed for a development score through
Transit Station Area Development Guidelines. These required guidelines allow Planning staff or the
Planning Commission to review proposed developments to ensure they are well integrated into the
community, creating a sense of place encouraging active and safe pedestrian streets.
Page | 5
Key Consideration #4: Resiliency, Sustainability, and Equity
The Planning staff report states “Resiliency includes aspects such as environmental sustainability and
social equity of the larger community and the City as a whole that improve the ability of the
community and residents to sustain fluctuations in the market while maintaining the value of the
surrounding natural environment.”
Pedestrian friendly transit-oriented development generally improves the sustainability of communities by
supporting active transportation which provides health benefits to building residents and patrons.
Encouraging mass transit use and other active transportation helps reduce vehicle emissions.
As housing demand in the city and surrounding areas increases, housing costs also increase. Adding
density will help satisfy some of this demand and potentially reduce cost. Increased housing options near
transit corridors encourage more affordable transportation options helping decrease costs.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment E (pages 25-26) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment
standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Planning staff found proposed
amendment comply with or are consistent with applicable standards. Please see the Planning staff report
for full details.
PUBLIC PROCESS
• November 23, 2020-Information about the petition sent to central City Community Council. The
community council chose not to meet on the proposed amendments.
• November 24, 2020-Property owners within 300’ of the subject property received early
notification by mail.
• January 29, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed to properties within 300’ of
the subject property.
• February 10, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing.
• April 16, 2021-Due to a public hearing notice error another notice was mailed to properties within
300’ of the subject property. Planning Commission public hearing notice published in newspaper.
• April 28, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission voted to forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council.
Erin Mendenhall DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT:PLNPCM2020-00804/00806 – 461 South 400 East Master Plan and Zoning Map
Amendments
STAFF CONTACT:Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner, nannette.larsen@slcgov.com
801-535-7645
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: City Council follow the recommendations of the Planning
Commission to approve the proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map amendments.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In early October of last year a representative with NextStep
Group initiated a petition to amend the Central Community Master Plan and Zoning Map. The
request is for a property located at approximately 461 South 400 East and would amend the
properties from Residential/Office Mixed Use to High Density Transit Oriented Development
and from R-MU-45 (Residential Mixed Use) to TSA-UN-C (Transit Station Area Urban
Neighborhood Core). The Planning Commission heard the petition on February 10 th of this year
and forwarded a positive recommendation to City Council to amend the Central Community
Master Plan and the Zoning Map.
The property under review to amend the master plan and zoning map is located on a parcel along
three street frontages of 400 East, 500 South, and Denver Street, it is also located within the
Central Community Master
Plan area.
The Central Community
Master Plan includes a Future
Land Use Map which
designates the subject
property as
“Residential/Office Mixed
Use”. Residential/Office
Mixed use provides for spaces
to include multi-family
residential dwellings and
office uses within the same
structure or separate
structures. The proposed
amendment is to change the
Master Plan Future Land Use
to High Density Transit
Oriented Development. This
designation is generally
located near fixed transit
stations and provides for an
area that is transit oriented.
The proposal is also to amend
the zoning map and change the zoning district of the site. The property is currently within the R-
MU-45 (Residential Mixed Use) zoning district, the applicant is proposing to rezone to TSA-UN-
C (Transit Station Area Urban Neighborhood Core). The proposal to rezone the site is to
accommodate a future redevelopment of the site to include residential, retail, and live/work units
while eliminating the parking structures which front 500 South and Denver Street. If the master
plan and zoning map amendments are approved the property owner would be allowed to fully
redevelop the site in accordance to the TSA-UN-C (Transit Station Area Urban Neighborhood
Core) zoning district standards and permitted land uses.
The site under review for the rezone and master plan amendment was originally developed in the
middle of the 1970s with an office building on the corner of 400 East and 500 South and three
parking structures fronting along 400 East and Denver Street. These structures have been in
continuous use since their construction.
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Information concerning this petition was sent to the chair of the Central City Community
Council on November 23rd, 2020.
o The Central Community Council chose not to meet on the proposed amendments.
The surrounding property owners within 300’ received an early notification by mail on
November 24th, 2020.
o Staff received one comment from the neighborhood which is found in the staff
report in Attachment 3b.
Public notification for the Planning Commission Hearing was mailed January 29 th, 2021
and April 16, 2021, to all neighbors within 300’ of the proposed Master Plan and Zoning
Map amendment site.
Public notification for the Planning Commission hearing was posted in the newspaper,
April 16, 2021.
The petition was heard by the Planning Commission on February 10 th, 2021. The
Planning Commission voted 4 to 1 to forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council regarding the proposed Master Plan and zoning map amendments.
o There were multiple public comments heard from the public during this hearing.
The public comments were positive towards the proposed amendments to the
Master Plan and zoning map amendments.
o The Planning Commission discussed:
Concerns over whether a rezone was necessary to redevelop the site and
the landscaping/building setbacks along 500 South.
The removal of parking lot and increase density of the site.
The petition was returned to the Planning Commission for a new public hearing due to an
error in the public notice, April 28, 2021.
o The Planning Commission voted 6 to 2 to forward a positive recommendation to
the City Council regarding the proposed Master Plan and zoning map
amendments.
Planning Commission (PC) Records:
a) PC Agenda of April 28, 2021 (Click to Access)
b) PC Minutes of April 28, 2021 (Click to Access)
c) Planning Commission Staff Report of April 28,2021 (Click to Access Report)
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2021
(Amending the zoning of property located at approximately 461 South 400 East Street
from R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District to TSA-UN-C Transit Station Area Urban
Neighborhood Core District, and amending
the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately
461 South 400 East Street from R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use to TSA-UN-C Transit Station
Area Urban Neighborhood Core District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00804, and
amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map pursuant to Petition No.
PLNPCM2020-00806.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 28,
2021 on an application submitted by the Majid Kharrati (“Applicant”) on behalf of the property
owner, NextStep Group, to rezone property located at 461 South 400 East Street (Tax ID No. 16-
06-406-019) (the “Property”) from R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District to TSA-UN-C
Transit Station Area Urban Neighborhood Core District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-
00804, and to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to
that parcel from Residential/Office Mixed Use to High Density Transit Oriented Development
pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-000806; and
WHEREAS, at its April 28, 2021 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said applications; and
WHEREAS, following a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined
that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the Property identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be
and hereby is rezoned from R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District to TSA-UN-C Transit
Station Area Urban Neighborhood Core District.
SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use
Map of the Central Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future
land use designation of the Property identified in Exhibit “A” from Residential/Office Mixed
Use to High Density Transit Oriented Development.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
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 amending zoning and MP 461 S 400 E
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
May 27, 2021
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned
and Subject to Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment:
461 South 400 East
Tax ID No. 16-06-406-019
1102 BEG 1.5 RDS W FR SE COR LOT 2, BLK 34, PLAT B, SLC SUR; N 396 FT; W 140.25
FT; S 66 FT; W 8.25 FT; S 1 FT; W 156.75 FT; S 329 FT; N 89^57'40" E 305.25 FT TO BEG.
4576-637. 4996-8*
EXHIBITS:
1) Project Chronology
2) Notice of City Council Hearing
3) Mailing List
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
461 South 400 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment
Project Chronology
Located at approximately 461 S. 400 E.
PLNPCM2020-00804; 00806
October 1, 2020 Zoning Amendment application received by the City.
October 13, 2020 Master Plan Amendment application received by the City.
November 10, 2020 Petitions assigned to and received by Nannette Larsen.
November 19, 2020 Application deemed complete and forwarded project review to
applicable City departments.
November 23, 2020 The Central Community Council chair notified of the petition and
forwarded information.
November 24, 2020 Early Notification sent to neighbors located within 300’ of property
January 28, 2021 Public comment received through email. Supported amendments.
January 29, 2021 Notice of Planning Commission Hearing posted at the property.
January 29, 2021 Notice for Planning Commission Hearing mailed to property
owners and residents within 300’ of the subject property
February 4, 2021 Staff Report for Master Plan and Zoning Map amendment public
hearing posted online
February 9, 2021 Public comment received through email. Supported amendments.
February 10, 2021 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Planning Commission
recommended approval to the City Council for the Master Plan
and Zoning Map amendments on the subject property.
April 16, 2021 Notice of Planning Commission Hearing posted at the property.
April 16, 2021 Notice for Planning Commission Hearing mailed to property
owners and residents within 300’ of the subject property.
April 16, 2021 Newspaper notice posted.
April 21, 2021 Staff report for Master Plan and Zoning Map amendment public
hearing posted online.
April 28, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing. Planning Commission
recommended approval to the City Council for the Master Plan
and Zoning Map amendments on the subject property.
2. NOTICE OF COUNCIL HEARING
3. MAILING LIST
461 South 400 East
Mailing List
DAVID BOYD WAGSTAFF; KIMERLY
ANN WAGSTAFF (JT) 1061 S CRESTVIEW CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108
EXCHANGE B CONDOMINIUM
OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC 11 PARK PL NEW YORK NY 10007
PATIENCE LLC 1366 E ARLINGTON DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
NEXSTEP GROUP, LLC 176 N 2200 W # 200 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
SIC REVOCABLE TRUST 08/15/2018 1969 E SOUTHBRIDGE WY SANDY UT 84093
DENVER STREET PROPERTIES LLC 2136 S SCENIC DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108
GREY OAK LLC 2157 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
500 SOUTH LLC 2223 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
COLLUM ENTERPRISES INC 3007 S STATE ST SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115
COLLUM ENTERPRISES INC; MINNIE E
KITCHENS 3007 S STATE ST SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115
CA - 400 SOUTH LLC 3051 WEST MAPLE LOOP DR LEHI UT 84043
UNIVERSITY FIRST FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION 3450 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
FRESHMAN ENTERPRISES 353 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
376 PLACE LLC 376 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
CYPRUS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 3876 W CENTER VIEW WY WEST JORDAN UT 84084
CO-WORKS SLC LLC 392 E WINCHESTER ST MURRAY UT 84107
Current Occupant 405 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 409 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 410 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
LP 426 APARTMENTS 411 N GRANT ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
5TH EAST APARTMENTS, LLC 411 N GRANT ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
FIRST STEP HOUSE 411 N GRANT ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
Current Occupant 412 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 413 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 414 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 416 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 420 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 420 S 500 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 421 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 423 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
JACOBY GROUP LLC 425 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 426 S 500 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 430 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 430 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 431 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 432 S DENVER ST Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 433 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 434 S 500 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
PRABHA LLC 435 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 440 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 440 S 500 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 446 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
AI&I HOLDINGS, LLC 448 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 448 S 500 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
NFS MCRAE LLC 452 E 500 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 454 S 500 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 455 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 460 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 460 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 461 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 462 S 500 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
TROLLEY PLACE OWNER'S
ASSOCIATION INC 4655 S 2300 E HOLLADAY UT 84117
Current Occupant 466 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
HOBBS PEAK PROPERTIES LLC 466 E 500 S # 200 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 466 S 400 E Salt Lake City UT 84111
466 SOUTH ASSOCIATES LLC 466 S 400 E # 200 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
CO-WORKS SLC LLC 466 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 475 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 480 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 490 E 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84111
KM8 HOLDINGS, LLC; PROTEAN
PROPERTIES, INC 515 S 400 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 515 S DENVER ST Salt Lake City UT 84111
Current Occupant 520 S 500 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
448 A SERIES OF HUK HOLDINGS, LLC 869 E 4500 S MILLCREEK UT 84107
PROTEAN PROPERTIES INC 965 S 2200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108
UT UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD
APARTMENTS LLC 9757 NE JUANITA DR KIRKLAND WA 98034
KBA TRUST; RCA TRUST 998 S OAK HILLS WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108
BLDG CAT, LLC PO BOX 11491 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84147
SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
G & S PROPERTIES, LLC PO BOX 9069 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109
AMERICA FIRST FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION PO BOX 9199 OGDEN UT 84409
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:September 7, 2021
RE: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments for 203 East 2100 South,
221 East 2100 South, and 1991 South 200 East
PLNPCM2021-00029 & PLNPCM2021-00104
The Council will be briefed about an ordinance to amend the Central Community Master Plan future land
use map and the zoning map for the properties located at 203 East 2100 South, 221 East 2100 South, and
1991 South 200 East from their current RMF-45 zoning to FB-UN2 form based urban neighborhood
district zoning. A mixed-use development including multi-family housing is proposed for the site. The
current RMF-45 zoning designation does not allow for mixed-use. Under the proposal both zoning map
and master plan amendments are required. It should be noted a specific site development proposal has not
been submitted at this point. The Council’s role is to determine if the proposed FB-UN2 zoning designation
is appropriate for the parcels.
Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the
City Council for the proposed zoning map amendments.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed future land use and zoning map amendments, determine if
the Council supports moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Is the Council supportive of the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments?
2.The Council may wish to ask if the developer considered including affordable housing units in
the proposed development.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: September 7, 2021
Set Date: September 7, 2021
Public Hearing: October 5, 2021
Potential Action: October 19, 2021
Page | 2
Vicinity zoning map with subject parcels outlined in red.
Note-a portion of the Salt Lake County Government complex
is the blue shaded parcel to the left.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The 203 East 2100 South parcel includes the former Georgia Apartments which are currently being
rehabilitated. The concept plan calls for including the renovated buildings as multi-family housing and
constructing new buildings on the site that include both residential and commercial uses. The concept plan
also includes demolishing a single-family home at 1991 south 200 East. As no detailed development plans
have been submitted, it is unclear what the overall site layout and design will look like.
A table below compares the existing RMF-45 zoning with the proposed FB-UN2 zoning designation. This
information is taken from Chapter 21A.21.140 and Chapter 21A.27.050 Salt Lake City Code.
Planning staff noted “The main differences between the existing RMF-45 and proposed FB-UN2 zoning districts
are:
The FB-UN2 zone allows for a variety of commercial uses, whereas the RMF-45 zone does not. Both
zones permit multi-family residential.
Both zones have similar height allowances; however, the FB-UN2 requires buildings taller than 30’ in
height to be stepped back when adjacent to FB-UN1 zone or zoning with a height requirement less than
35’.
Except for front and corner side yard setbacks, both zones have similar setback requirements.”
RMF-45 – Existing Zoning FB-UN2 – Proposed Zoning
Minimum Lot Area
(Square Feet)
Multi-family (3-14 units): 9,000 sf
Multi-family (15 or more units):
21,000 sf
Single-family attached: 3,000 sf
per unit
Single-family detached: 5,000 sf
Cottage: 4,000 sf
Row House: 1,500 sf
Multi-family, Mixed-use or
Storefront:
4,000 sf
Minimum Lot Width
(Feet)
Multi-family: 80’ Cottage: 15’ per unit facing a street
Page | 3
Single-family attached: 22’ for
interior, 32’ for corner
Single-family detached: 50’
Row House: 15’ per unit facing a
street.
Multi-family, Mixed-use or
Storefront:
30’
Max. Building Height
(Feet)
45' Cottage: 2.5 stories, 30’
Maximum
Row House: 4 stories, 50’
Maximum
Multi-family, Mixed-use or
Storefront: 4 stories, 50’
maximum
Minimum Yard
Requirements (Feet)
Front yard– 20% of lot depth, but
need not exceed 25'
Corner side yard–
Single-family attached dwellings:
10’
Multi-family dwellings: 20’
All other uses: 20’
Interior side yards–
Single-family attached: None
Multi-family: 8'
All other uses: 10’ on each side
Rear yard– 25% of the lot depth
and need not exceed 30'.
Front and corner side yard –
All building forms: No
minimum, 10’ maximum
Interior side yards –
Cottage: 4’
Row House: Minimum of 15'
along a side property line
adjacent to FB-UN1 or any
residential zoning district that
has a maximum building
height of 35' or less, otherwise
4' setback required
Multi-family, Mixed-use or
Storefront:
Minimum of 15' along a side
property line adjacent to FB-UN1
or any residential zoning district
that has a maximum building
height of 35' or less, otherwise no
setback required
Rear yard –
Cottage: Minimum of 20' along a
rear property line adjacent to FB-
UN1 or any residential zoning
district that has a maximum
building height of 35' or less,
otherwise no setback required
Row House: Minimum of 25' along
a rear property line adjacent to
FB-UN1 or any residential zoning
district that has a maximum
building height of 35' or less,
otherwise no setback required
Multi-family, Mixed-use or
Storefront:
Minimum of 20' along a rear
property line adjacent to FB-UN1
or any residential zoning district
Page | 4
that has a maximum building
height of 35' or less
Maximum Building
Coverage
60% A minimum of ten percent (10%)
of the lot area shall be provided for
open space area.
Parking Requirements –
Number of Spaces
Single-family attached and
detached:
2 parking spaces for each dwelling
unit
Multi-family:
2 parking spaces for each dwelling
unit containing 2 or more
bedrooms;
1 parking space for 1 bedroom and
efficiency dwelling
All uses – No spaces required.
A detailed comparison of permitted and conditional uses for the two zones is included on page 6 of the
Planning Commission staff report.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified two key considerations which are summarized below. For the complete analysis
see pages 8-12 of the Planning Commission staff report.
Key Consideration #1: Neighborhood and City-Wide Master Plan Considerations
Planning staff stated the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments align with the following
Central Community Master Plan residential and mixed-use goals in the following Residential Land Use
Policies:
1.0 - Based on the Future Land Use map, use residential zoning to establish and maintain a variety of
housing opportunities that meet social needs and income levels of a diverse population.
1.5 - Use residential mixed-use zones to provide residential land uses with supportive retail, service,
commercial, and small-scale offices and monitor the mix of uses to preserve the residential
component.
3.0 - Promote construction of a variety of housing options that are compatible with the character of
the neighborhoods of the Central Community.
4.0 – Encourage mixed used development that provides residents with a commercial and institutional
component while maintaining the historic residential character of the neighborhood.
4.2 – Support small mixed-use development on the corners of major streets that does not have
significant adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods.
The Central Community Master Plan future land use map associated with the subject properties
designates them as “Medium High Residential.” The applicant is requesting “High Mixed Use” designation.
This along with the requested zoning map amendment would allow developing street-facing commercial
uses while providing housing options in the area. Planning staff believes the proposed FB-UN2 zoning
would allow for these changes while maintaining an urban neighborhood feel compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood character.
Planning staff found overall the proposed project and zoning map amendment aligns with the vision and
guiding principles in Plan Salt Lake: Neighborhoods, Growth, Housing, and Air Quality. Planning further
found the proposal aligns with guiding principles found in Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan.
Page | 5
Key Consideration #2: Change in Zoning and Compatibility with Adjacent Properties
Commercial uses are not allowed under the current RMF-45 zoning but restaurants, retail stores and
alcohol related establishments would be if the proposed FB-UN2 zoning is approved. Commercial uses can
have significant impact on the area. However, nearby properties to the east on 2100 South are zoned CB
(Community Business) and 2100 South properties on the south side of the street in South Salt Lake are
zoned for commercial use and professional offices. Planning staff noted adding uses allowed in the FB-UN2
zone would be similar to current uses. The applicant expressed interest in leasing commercial spaces to
local business providing goods and services the neighborhood desires if possible.
The current RMF-45 and proposed FB-UN2 zoning districts have similar allowed heights (45’ in RMF-45
and 50’ in FB-UN2). Setback requirements for both zones are included in the table above. In addition, FB-
UN2 zoning requires buildings be stepped back an additional one foot for every foot of building height
above 30 feet along the side adjacent to FB-UN1 or residential zoning district with a maximum building
height of 35 feet or less. Buildings adjacent to the R-1/5,000 properties would need to be stepped back if
they exceed 30 feet. In addition, FB-UN2 zoning has design standards for entries, façade length, building
massing, glazing, and building materials RMF-45 zoning does not have. Planning staff’s opinion is these
more stringent controls would result in a more compatible and better overall design.
Parking is another factor to consider. Multi-family developments in the RMF-45 zone require one parking
space per one-bedroom and efficiency unit and two parking spaces for each unit containing two or more
bedrooms. The FB-UN2 zoning district does not require parking spaces for any use type. This lack of
required parking can be a concern with additional residential and commercial uses. Access to the nearby S-
Line station on 300 East, the Parley’s Trail, and 2100 South bus routes could lessen parking impacts on the
neighborhood. The applicant’s conceptual plan includes retaining 51 existing parking stalls and adding 55-
65 underground parking stalls which would further minimize parking impact on the surrounding area.
Planning’s staff report provides the following summary:
“It is staff’s opinion that the change in zoning from RMF-45 to FB-UN2 would be appropriate
when considered in the context of the area and is recommending approval. Staff is also
recommending approval of the master plan amendment in order to provide consistency between
the zoning and master plan.”
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment D (pages 24-26) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment
standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Planning staff found proposed
zoning map amendment complies with applicable standards except it does not fully comply with the
current Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. A master plan amendment was submitted
as part of the request. Please see the Planning staff report for full details.
PUBLIC PROCESS
• February 22, 2021-Project notice and request for comments provided to Liberty Wells Community
Council Chair as well as nearby property owners and residents.
• Planning staff held a virtual open house for the project on the Salt Lake City website.
• Liberty Wells Community Council invited the applicant and Planning staff to attend its March 10,
2021 meeting to discuss the project and answer questions.
• April 30, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing notice sent to nearby property owners and
sign posted on the property. Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division
Page | 6
list serve.
• As of the date of this report, the Planning Commission received two comments, one in favor and
one against. Those comments are found on pages 28-29 of the Planning staff report.
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:PLNPCM2021-00029 & PLNPCM2021-00104 CTAG/Green Haven Zoning Map &
Master Plan Amendments
STAFF CONTACT:John Anderson, Planning Manager, john.anderson@slcgov.com (385) 226-
6479
DOCUMENT TYPE:Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: Follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and
approve the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments.
BUDGET IMPACT:None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:Chris Lee, representing CTAG, LLC and Green Haven
Homes, LLC, the property owners, is requesting to amend the Central Community Master Plan
future land use map and the zoning map for the properties located at 203 E 2100 S, 221 E 2100 S
& 1991 S 200 E. The intent is to allow development of a mixed-use project which includes
multi-family housing on the subject parcels. Mixed-use is currently not allowed under the
current RMF-45 zoning. No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time.
This project requires both a Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment.
The request involves three (3) property parcels. The parcel at 203 East is approximately 1.36
acres or 59,376 square feet in size and contains the former Georgia Apartments. The applicant is
currently in the process of rehabilitating the former Georgia Apartments with plans to included
them in the proposed development. The plan would be to rehabilitate these buildings as multi-
family housing and include new building forms on the site that would include a mix of
residential and commercial. Specific development plans have not been submitted, so Staff is
unable to determine how these buildings will be incorporated into the overall site layout and
design.
The proposed amendments
are generally supported by
the visions and policies
contained in the Central City
Master Plan, Plan Salt Lake
and Growing SLC. Staff is
recommending approval of
the zoning change and the
change to the future land use
map in the Master Plan to
designate the property as
High Mixed Use from the
current Medium High
Residential designation and
to change the zoning map
designation from RMF-45 to
FB-UN2 as requested.
PUBLIC PROCESS: Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chair of the
Liberty Wells Community Council on February 22, 2021.
Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property
owners located within 300 feet of the project site on February 22, 2021 providing notice
about the project and information on how to give public input on the project.
Staff held a virtual Open House for the project on the Salt Lake City website to solicit
comments.
The Liberty Wells CC invited staff and the applicant to attend their March 10th meeting
where the applicant discussed their proposal. Staff was on hand to discuss any planning
related questions. The intent of the proposal proposed uses and parking were discussed.
A public hearing with the Planning Commission was held on May 12, 2021. The
Planning Commission discussed the request and voted 5-2 in favor of forwarding a
positive recommendation to the City Council.
Planning Commission (PC) Records
a)PC Agenda May 12, 2021(Click to Access)
b)PC Minutes from May 12, 2021 meeting (Click to Access)
c)PC Staff report from May 12, 2021 meeting Click to Access Report)
EXHIBITS:
1) Project Chronology
2) Notice of City Council Hearing
3) Original Petition
4) Mailing List
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2021
(Amending the zoning of properties located at 203 East 2100 South Street, 221 East 2100 South
Street and 1991 South 200 East Street from RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family
Residential District to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District, and amending
the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to properties located at 203 East 2100
South Street, 221 East 300 South Street, and 1991 South 200 East Street from RMF-45
Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban
Neighborhood District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00029, and amending the Central
Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00104.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 12,
2021 on an application submitted by Chris Lee representing GTAG, LLC and Green Haven
Homes, LLC (“Applicant”) to rezone properties located at 203 East 2100 South Street (Parcel ID
No. 16-18-382-019-0000), 221 East 2100 South Street (Parcel ID No. 16-19-126-008-0000) and
1991 South 200 East Street (Parcel ID No. 16-18-382-003-0000) (the “Properties”) from RMF-
45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban
Neighborhood District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00029, and to amend the Central
Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to the Properties from Medium High
Residential to High Mixed Use pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00104; and
WHEREAS, at its May 12, 2021 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said applications; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the Properties identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be
and hereby is rezoned from RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District
to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District.
SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use
Map of the Central Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future
land use designation of the Properties identified in Exhibit “A” from Medium High Residential
to High Mixed Use.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
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 amending zoning and MP 203 and 221 E 2100 S and 1991 S 200 E
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
June 21, 2021
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description of Properties to be Rezoned
and Subject to Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment:
203 East 2100 South Street
Parcel ID No. 16-18-382-019-0000
BEG N 89°52'23" E 32.99 FT FR SW COR LOT 1, BLK 5, 5 AC PLAT A, BF SUR; N 0°13'40"
E 441.33 FT; N 89°52'30" E 156.19 FT; S 0°09'51" W 305.4 FT; W 72.2 FT; S 0°13'40" W 136.08
FT; S 89°52'23" W 84.33 FT TO BEG. 8229-1072 8263-2050 10097-8216 10311-2348.
CONTAINS 59,241 SQUARE FEET OR 1.36 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
221 East 2100 South Street
Parcel ID No. 16-19-126-008-0000
BEG N 89°52'23" E 117.32 FT FR SW COR LOT 1, BLK 5, 5 AC PLAT A, BF SUR; N 0°14'40"
E 136.08 FT; E 72.2 FT; S 0°09'51" W 10.88 FT; N 89°52'11" E 39.95 FT; S 0°08'52" W 125.05
FT; S 89°52'23" W TO BEG. 5859-0485 8229-1068,1070 8264-8482 8341-6545 8378-6912 8721-
7970 9494-0182 10162-4275 10389-3906
CONTAINS 14,810 SQUARE FEET OR .34 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
1991 South 200 East Street
Parcel ID No. 16-18-382-003-0000
BEG 33 FT E & 83 FT S OF NW COR LOT 20, BLK 5, 5 AC PLAT A B SUR S 50 FT E 156
3/4 FT N 50 FT W 156 3/4 FT TO BEG 6861-0271 7082-0142 7101-0001 7257-2350 7661-0607
8273-6923 8275-6662 8359-5694 8870-1760,6088 9084-3986 9088-2134 9269-8835 9468-2191
CONTAINS 7,840 SQUARE FEET OR .18 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. ORIGINAL PETITION
4. MAILING LABELS
1. CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition:PLNPCM2021-00029 & PLNPCM2021-00104
January 19, 2021 &
February 11, 2021
Petition PLNPCM2021-00029 received by the Planning Division.
Petition PLNPCM2021-00104 received by the Planning Division.
February 2, 2021 &
February 11, 2021
Petitions assigned to Chris Earl, Principal Planner, for staff analysis
and processing.
February 22, 2021 Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chair of
the Liberty Wells Community Council. Early notification was sent to
property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project area.
March 10, 2021 Proposal presented at the Liberty Wells Community Council meeting.
April 30, 2021 Planning Commission hearing notice mailed to owners and tenants of
property within 300 feet of the subject property.
May 12, 2021 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 Petition PLNPCM2021-00029 & PLNPCM2021-
00104 CTAG/Green Haven Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment -
a.
b.
The property is located in the RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District
and is located in Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: John Anderson at
385-226-6479 or john.anderson@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
John Anderson at 385-226-6479 between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday or via e-mail at john.anderson@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. ORIGINAL PETITION
Petitions PLNPCM2021-00029 & PLNPCM2021-00104
4. MAILING LABELS
Name Address City State Zip
NOAH WALDMAN 1171 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
MATTHEW E JUSSILA; SHARILYN M JUSSILA (JT) 13633 S ANNABERG WY RIVERTON UT 84065
EDWARD M ASHTON; BECKY J ASHTON (JT) 1186 E ZENITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DIANE B HUDSON 373 ESSLINGER DR GURLEY AL 35748
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 8667 S 2200 W WEST JORDAN UT 84088
JASON WATERMAN; JUSTIN WATERMAN (JT) 1246 E ZENITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
MARY T ANDERSON 1252 E ZENITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
BLANKEVOORT FAMILY TRUST 11/05/2018 PO BOX 58643 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84158
PINE SISKINS LLC 532 S ANGEL ST LAYTON UT 84041
JONATHAN HARRISON; VARSHA IYER (JT) 1185 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1203 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
EILEEN P AVERY; PAUL R AVERY (JT) 1217 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
LESLIE A WOODS 1229 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DEREK A ROWE; KAREN G ROWE (TC) 379 AEW/JA APO AE 09309
IVAN ZAHRADNIK; ADINA ZAHRADNIK (JT) 1214 E ZENITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
1237 HUDSON TRUST 06/24/2019 1237 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
JJR FAM TRUST 2961 S HUDSON CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
SW TR 1182 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
RICHARD J FARLEY 1186 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
JOSEPH T JR GEORGE 1200 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
ANDREW D EDWARDS 1539 E TOMAHAWK DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1216 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
CHRISTOPHER MILES 540 ALCATRAZ AVE #111 OAKLAND CA 94609
2012 DKF TRUST 4944 S 5020 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84118
REES MOORE; SUE ANN SMITH (JT) 1230 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
MICHAEL M HAHN; DAWN B HAHN (TC) 2965 S HUDSON CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
CAROL DEVERAL DIANA; TONY JERALD DIANA (JT) 6512 S VINECREST DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121
SHANNON A SCHMIDT 2969 S HUDSON CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 3320 S OAKWOOD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED PO BOX 9121 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED PO BOX 9121 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109
LAM S PROP REV TRUST 15019 GUADLUPE DR RANCHO MURIETA CA 95683
DEBRA S WESTLAKE-MATHEWS 11048 LYNN LAKE CIRCLE TAMPA FL 33625
STAR TEAM PROPERTIES LLC 1257 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
PAULA GONZALES 1263 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DE LA CRUZ; AQUILES H 1269 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
MARK W SARGENT; LOUISE M SARGENT (JT) 1275 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
SUGAR HOUSE POST #3586 VETERANS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS 2920 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
GOLDBERG ESTATES PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 900517 SANDY UT 84090
SANDRA GOLDBERG TRUST 06/02/2006 PO BOX 900517 SANDY UT 84090
BRANDON S KISER 1268 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
ANDREW M WALLMAN; KATHLEEN K WALLMAN (JT) 2970 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
RICHMOND PLACE PUD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 10757 S RIVER FRONT PKWY SOUTH JORDAN UT 84095
Current Occupant 1182 E ZENITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1208 E ZENITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1240 E ZENITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1252 E ZENITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1258 E ZENITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1181 E HUDSON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1233 E HUDSON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1204 E HUDSON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1220 E HUDSON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1226 E HUDSON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2967 S HUDSON CIR Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2969 S HUDSON CIR Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2964 S RICHMOND ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2960 S RICHMOND ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2970 S RICHMOND ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1270 E ZENITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1245 E HUDSON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1286 E ZENITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1254 E HUDSON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1278 E HUDSON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2966 S RICHMOND VIEW CT Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2968 S RICHMOND VIEW CT Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2970 S RICHMOND VIEW CT Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2972 S RICHMOND VIEW CT Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2974 S RICHMOND VIEW CT Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1264 E RICHMOND VIEW PL Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1266 E RICHMOND VIEW PL Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1272 E HUDSON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2971 S RICHMOND VIEW CT Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2973 S RICHMOND VIEW CT Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2975 S RICHMOND VIEW CT Salt Lake City UT 84106
RILEY, DONNA J 1171 E ELGIN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
LEE, BRIGITTE R; JT ET AL 1159 E ELGIN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
ANDERSON, SUSAN & HUFF, LAURA E; TRS 1189 E ELGIN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
ARB LITTLE WHITE HOUSE LLC 3320 S OAKWOOD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109-3044
RICHMOND, A SERIES OF J.J. JONES INVESTM PO BOX 1770 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110-1770
CHAVIRA, ELSY 3004 S RICHMOND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-3006
ELLEFSEN, GIANNI 3010 S RICHMOND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-3006
PENNING-HARRIS, CAROL J & HARRIS, DAVID 1175 E ELGIN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2523
CARTER, RONALD K & RONALD M; JT 1183 E ELGIN AVE MILLCREEK UT 84106-2523
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115-5223
CASSIDY, JAMES P JR & PAMELA B; JT 1221 E ELGIN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-3013
RUSSELL J STEWART LIV TR; STEWART, RUSSE 1207 E PAINTER WY MILLCREEK UT 84106-2945
MILLER, CHRISTOPHER & DOHERTY, REBEKAH; 1215 E PAINTER WY MILLCREEK UT 84106-2945
HARDMAN, PAISLEY 1217 E PAINTER WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2945
KAMINSKI, KAREN E 1208 E PAINTER WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2945
LI, WENHUA & WANG, LESI; JT 1210 E PAINTER WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2945
CHOW, KEITH TRAN, VALERIE 1216 E PAINTER WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2945
SUGARHOUSE MANAGMENT LLC 900 DARTMOUTH NE ALBURQUERQUE NM 84106
EHRGOTT, DREW & VILLAREAL, SARINA; JT 3010 S PAINTER WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2942
STEPHENSON, SUSAN & CHRIS; JT 1219 E ELGIN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-3013
PAINTER, ROY W; TR ET AL 1215 E ELGIN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-3013
PAINTER PLACE PUD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 4208 W NIKE DR # H WEST JORDAN UT 84088-5947
REYNOLDS, BRETT 574 E AUTUMN BRANCH WY DRAPER UT 84020-6606
SOUTH, JENNIFER L 1235 E ELGIN AVE MILLCREEK UT 84106-3037
K.B.I.K. HOLDINGS LLC 1232 W PITCHFORK RD MURRAY UT 84123-7670
BRICKYARD LOFTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 3002 S ELGIN HILL CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-1438
CUSHNIR, COURTNEY L 2992 S ELGIN HILL CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-1438
SUMMER HEIGHTS, LLC 2994 S ELGIN HILL CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-1438
BRICKYARD LOFTS, LLC 2996 S ELGIN HILL CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-1438
BRICKYARD LOFTS, LLC 2998 S ELGIN HILL CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-1438
PALMER, DAVID 3004 S ELGIN HILL CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-1438
BRICKYARD LOFTS, LLC 3006 S ELGIN HILL CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-1438
ADAMS, JASE 3008 S ELGIN HILL CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-1438
BALLINGER, ALEX J; JT BALLINGER, SHANNON 2991 S ELGIN HILL CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-1438
RICHARDSON, REBEKAH M; JT FELLENZ, JACOB 2993 S ELGIN HILL CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-1438
BRICKYARD LOFTS, LLC 2995 S ELGIN HILL CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-1438
TUFEKCIC, AIDA; JT TUFEKCIC, BEHUDIN; JT 2997 S ELGIN HILL CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-1438
BRICKYARD LOFTS, LLC 3003 S ELGIN HILL CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-1438
GODDARD, GRAYDON 3005 S ELGIN HILL CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-1438
BRICKYARD LOFTS, LLC 3007 S ELGIN HILL CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-1438
Current Occupant 3001 S RICHMOND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108
Current Occupant 1225 E ELGIN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108
Current Occupant 1218 E ELGIN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108
Current Occupant 3008 S PAINTER WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 1207 E PAINTER WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 1173 E ELGIN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 1179 E ELGIN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 3000 S RICHMOND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 2996 S RICHMOND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
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:September 7, 2021
RE: Elm Avenue Alley Vacation
PLNPCM2020-00999
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate an east/west City-owned alley segment behind the
homes at 968 East, 974 East, and 980 East Elm Avenue, and adjacent to the home at 2188 South 1000 East
as shown in the image below. The western portion of the alley segment continues to Lincoln Street
(approximately 945 East), but that segment is not part of this petition.
Unpermitted structures were built on the east and west ends of the alley blocking access. Property owners
abutting the alley incorporated the alley into their yards. Lack of use and public safety were identified by
the applicant as primary reasons for the alley vacation request. Planning staff noted the structures blocking
alley access contribute to the lack of use. It was also noted the applicant believes opening the alley may
attract unlawful activity.
If the alley vacation is approved, it may be possible to legalize the existing unpermitted structures in the
alley and land use provided the structures comply with applicable zoning standards and building code
regulations. That would be a separate Administrative process not involving the Council.
Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City
Council, but the Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation for the alley vacation.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: September 7, 2021
Set Date: September 7, 2021
Public Hearing: October 5, 2021
Potential Action: October 19, 2021
Page | 2
Vicinity map with the subject alley highlighted in red
and structures built on the alley outlined in yellow.
Alley segments shaded with white marks are not part of this proposal.
Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed alley closure, address questions Council Members may
have and prepare for a public hearing.
POLICY QUESTION
1. The Council may wish to consider the different findings Planning staff had compared to the
conclusion reached by the Planning Commission.
2. Does the Council agree with the Planning Commission’s recommendation on this alley closure
request?
ADDITONAL INFORMATION
The Sugar House Community Council Land Use Chair sent a letter to the Planning Commission expressing
the community council’s opposition to the proposed alley vacation. The letter is on pages 18-19 of the
Administration’s transmittal.
Alley vacation requests receive three phases of review, as outlined in section 14.52.030 Salt Lake City Code
(see pages 6 - 7 below). 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.
The Planning Commission staff report provides information relating to the following four key
considerations related to this alley vacation. A short description of each issue is provided below for
reference. Please see pages 2-5 of the Planning Commission staff report for full analysis of these issues.
1. Structures Built on the Alley
The above-mentioned structures built without permits block access to the subject alley segment.
Aerial photographs indicate a structure on the west side of the alley segment has been there since at
least 2003. Planning stated the current structure was likely built in 2016 or 2017.
Page | 3
A structure on the east side of the alley segment was likely constructed between 2012 and 2015.
Planning noted City records show in 2012 the property owner of 980 East Elm Avenue at the time
inquired about building a detached garage on the property and was informed about the City-owned
alley and the vacation process. The property was sold in 2015, which indicates the owner at the
time built the structure with an awareness it was City property and in violation of City code.
City Engineering is responsible for violations in the public right-of-way and is aware of the
encroachments on the subject alley. The Engineering Division will oversee enforcements of
violations through a separate process. The Planning Commission staff report noted the alley
vacation proposal should be considered independently of the violations and the enforcement case
should not interfere in a decision whether to vacate the alley.
2.Policy Considerations
City Code states alley vacations will be considered only when proposals satisfy at least one of the
following policy considerations: Lack of Use; Public Safety; Urban Design; Community Purpose.
The applicant included the following considerations in their application.
Lack of Use
The applicant states structures built on the alley blocked public access to the right-of-way for
several years making it unusable. Planning staff acknowledged the structures contributed to the
alley’s lack of use, but they should not be used as justification for the assertion. Planning staff also
acknowledged historic aerial photographs suggest the subject section of alley never existed as an
improved right-of-way and there is no evidence whether the alley would have been used if the
structures were not there. Planning noted while partially satisfying the lack of use policy, potential
alley use was hindered when the structures were built.
Public Safety
The applicant believes current alley obstructions help prevent crimes at the location noting crimes
that occur immediately to the west. Comments from the Salt Lake City Police department and
neighbors support the claim. Planning staff believes the argument does not adequately address the
policy consideration as it relies on assumptions of the future and does not address how the alley’s
existence contributes to unsafe conditions today. Planning noted reasonable doubt a dead-end alley
would be safer than one connecting to streets as through alleys allow for more activities and traffic.
Urban Design and Community Purpose
The applicant stated using the alley as private property will be a greater benefit to the community.
Planning staff disagrees with that assertion as a potential connection between streets for walking
and biking is not possible. Planning noted the private benefit to abutting property owners does not
serve a community purpose.
3.Utilities Access and Maintenance
The subject alley is used for Rocky Mountain Power utility poles and overhead utility lines. Section
12.04.030 Salt Lake City Code defines an alley as:
“Alley” means a public way within a block primarily intended for service and access to abutting
property by vehicles and not designed for general travel.
It is Planning’s opinion the alley is being used for essential services, and therefore, there is no lack
of use. Planning staff contacted Rocky Mountain Power to understand how accessible its
Page | 4
infrastructure must be. The response from Rocky Mountain Power indicates their opinion is the
alley vacation would increase maintenance costs, hinder quick restoration in the event of a power
outage, and potentially increase risk to their employees if accessing the alley area from private
property. If the alley vacation is approved an easement will likely be recorded ensuring utility
access to infrastructure.
4.Master Plan Policies
The Sugar House Master Plan Mobility, Access & The Pedestrian Experience section states:
“In Sugar House, alleys have traditionally been incorporated into development patterns and
many alleyways currently serve both residential and commercial use. This is one of the factors
that contribute to the pedestrian orientation that many of the well-established neighborhoods
embody.”
An initiative of Plan Salt Lake, the citywide master plan, is to promote increased connectivity
through mid-block connections. Planning staff states retention of the alley as City property would
be in line with the master plan.
Attachment E (pages 18-20 of the Planning Commission staff report) is an analysis of factors City Code requires
the Planning Commission to consider for alley vacations (Section 14.52.030 B Salt Lake City Code). In addition
to the information above, other factors are summarized below. Planning staff found the proposed alley vacation
complies with four of the eight factors below. For the complete analysis, please refer to the staff report.
City Code required analysis: 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.
Finding: Does not comply. City Engineering objected to the alley vacation due to power utility
infrastructure noted above, and lack of evidence in the applicant’s policy considerations. Other divisions
had no issues with the proposal or provided no comments.
City Code required analysis: The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations for closure,
vacation or abandonment of City owned alleys (Lack of Use, Public Safety, Urban Design, Community
Purpose).
Finding: Does not comply. Planning staff determined the proposed alley vacation does not fully satisfy
any policy consideration.
City Code required analysis: The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to
any adjacent property.
Finding: Complies. All abutting properties have driveway access from public streets.
City Code required analysis: The petition will not result in any property being landlocked.
Finding: Complies. All abutting properties have public street access.
City Code required analysis: 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.
Finding: Does not comply. As mentioned above an initiative of Plan Salt Lake is to promote increased
connectivity through mid-block crossings. In addition, Sugar House Master Plan policies are contrary
to the alley vacation as it would undermine walkability.
Page | 5
City Code required analysis: 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.
Finding: Complies. All four abutting property owners signed the alley vacation petition.
City Code required analysis: The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire
alley, rather than a small segment of it.
Finding: Does not comply. The applicant is requesting to vacate only the eastern alley half already
blocked by unpermitted structures. The alley’s western half is being used for access by abutting property
owners.
City Code required analysis: The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to
residences or for accessory uses.
Finding: Complies. All properties abutting the alley have driveway access from public streets.
PUBLIC PROCESS
January 7, 2021-Email notification of the petition sent to Sugar House Community Council.
February 8, 2021-Proposal discussed at Sugar House Community Council online meeting.
February 25, 2021-Sign posted on property.
February 26, 2021-Planning Commission hearing notices posted on City and State websites and Planning
Division listserv. Notices mailed to nearby property owners/residents.
March 10, 2021-Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council.
ALLEY DISPOSITION PROCESS
In order for the City to dispose of its interest in an alley, it must be demonstrated at least one of the
following criteria is satisfied:
A.Lack of Use-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-existence of the alley substantially contributes to crime, unlawful activity or unsafe
conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area.
C.Urban Design-Continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element.
D.Community Purpose-Petitioners propose to restrict the general public from use of the alley in
favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden.
The applicant cited Lack of Use and Public Safety as considerations for the alley closure. Planning staff
found the proposed alley closure complies with the Lack of Use consideration. However, they stated the
Public Safety consideration was not evident from an on-site inspection. This consideration was found to be
questionable since the alley has been closed off for many years and no additional information was provided
by the applicant to support the argument.
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,
Page | 6
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:
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:
Page | 7
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:
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
Page | 8
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.
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:PLNPCM2020-00999 – Elm Avenue Alley Vacation
STAFF CONTACT:Amanda Roman, Principal Planner
amanda.roman@slcgov.com, (801) 535-7660
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to approve an Ordinance to vacate the alley.
BUDGET IMPACT:None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Jonas and Danielle Sappington, property owners and petition
representatives, are requesting to vacate the alley that runs south of their property, more
specifically between 1000 E and Lincoln Street. The alley is orientated east-west and the proposal
is to vacate the eastern half of the alley. The applicant is requesting to vacate this portion of the
alley in order to acquire the property and incorporate it into 968 E Elm Avenue, 974 E Elm Avenue,
980 E Elm Avenue, and 2188 S 1000 E. The applicants identify public safety and lack of use of
the public right-of-way as the main reasons for the request.
The eastern portion of the alley has been
physically incorporated into the four
referenced properties and has not been used
as a public right-of-way for at least 15 years.
The lack of use could be contributed to there
being two structures that block the right-of-
way, which were built without permits. If
approved, the alley vacation could
potentially make it possible to legalize the
existing structures and use of the land
through potential lot line adjustments if the
structures comply with all applicable zoning
standards and building code regulations.
The existing alleyway is used by Rocky
Mountain Power to access utility poles and
overhead utility lines. The company did not
provide a statement in favor or opposition of
the vacation – but indicated that the alley
vacation could increase the cost of
infrastructure maintenance and potentially
hinder quick restoration in cases of power
outage.
The applicant also referenced safety concerns as a reason the alley should be vacated. They believe
that incorporating the land into private property would benefit the community because if opened,
the alley may attract unlawful activity, but did not provide evidence that a public safety issue
currently existed.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City
Council with the reasoning that the vacation would not support the City’s master plan policies,
which aim to increase pedestrian connectivity and active transportation. Staff also found that the
proposal does not satisfy Section 14.52.020 of the Salt Lake City Ordinance, which states alley
vacations may be considered when the proposal satisfies a lack of use, public safety, urban design,
or community purpose policy. More information can be found in the staff report. Planning
Commission reviewed the staff report, accepted public comment, and proceeded to vote in favor
of forwarding a position recommendation to the City Council.
If the City Council votes to vacate the alley, it should be noted that the vacation does not
automatically authorize the structures that were built in the alley to remain and does not provide
an exception to applicable regulations regarding the locations of accessory structures.
Additionally, the ordinance does not affect the distribution of vacated right of way as established
in Utah Code Subsection 72-5-105(2).
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Community Council Notice:A notice of application was sent to the Sugar House Community
Council on January 7, 2021. The applicant and staff attended a community council meeting on
February 8, 2021. The initial comments were generally supportive of the proposal, but prior to
the Planning Commission meeting the Community Council Chair, Judi Short, submitted a letter
in opposition of vacating the alley. The letter can be found in Attachment 4b. The community
council believes the alley should remain open to accommodate utility access, parking, and
pedestrian circulation.
Planning Commission Meeting: On March 10, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing regarding the proposed alley vacation. One citizen was concerned the city would vacate
the entire alley, which would block access to their property. Five citizens provided testimony in
support of the request. The citizens in favor of the alley vacation stated that utility access will
not be impacted because they can be accessed from private property. Those in favor also stated
that opening the alley would not improve walkability and could attract unwanted people and
activity.
The Commission discussed the timeline of when the two structures were built in the right-of-way
and if vacating the alley to accommodate private property owners would set a poor precedence.
Additionally, the Commission discussed future city plans for the alley and if vacating it would
impact utility access and increase crime levels.
The Commission voted 6-3 to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the
alley vacation, inconsistent with the staff recommendation.
Planning Commission (PC) Records
a) PC Agenda of March 10, 2021 (Click to Access)
b) PC Minutes of March 10, 2021 (Click to Access)
c)Planning Commission Staff Report of March 10, 2021 (Click to Access Report)
EXHIBITS:
1) Ordinance
2) Project Chronology
3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing
4) Planning Commission
a) Public Hearing Notice
b) Community Council Comments
5) Original Petition
6) Mailing Labels
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) ORDINANCE
2) PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
3) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
4) PLANNING COMMISSION
a) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
b) COMMUNITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
5) ORIGINAL PETITION
6) MAILING LABELS
Senior City Attorney
June 28, 2021
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 10, 2021
OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_UNIT OWN_CITY OWN_STATOWN_ZIP
AARON N STEVENSON; CAITLIN B STEVENSON (JT)956 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
ABRAHAM SMITH; KIMBERLY COLTON (JT)2186 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
ANGELA M WAAGEN; KIM C WAAGEN (JT)924 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
AURELIO RUELAS 1015 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
BARRY NOLEN 2767 S FILMORE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
BEHUNIN PROPERTIES LLC 4087 W FENWICK CIR SOUTH JORDAN UT 84009
BENJAMIN M MCADAMS; JULIE J MCADAMS (JT)2205 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
CAMERON SHANER 1002 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
CATHERINE M VANIER 2208 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
CIH REV TRUST 1380 BONITA BAHIA BENICIA CA 94510
DARREN D FARNSWORTH; BRENNA GARDNER (JT)2204 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DAVID SALAS WHEELER; MICHELLE M WHEELER (JT)2196 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DEVLIN ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED 2156 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DIANE P STEWART; SAMUEL S STEWART (JT)2204 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DIXON PLACE LLC 2319 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109
ERIC L SMITH; LAURIE L SMITH (JT)1010 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
FOREST ROBERT GOOD 2187 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
GARETT MILES; HALEY MILES (JT)42843 CHAMPNEY CT BROADLANDS VA 20148
HAO NGOC EVANS TRUST 12/23/2015 1024 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
INGRAM BARTON HOLDINGS, LLC 733 N MAIN ST SPANISH FORK UT 84660
ISAIAH RAMIREZ; TANYA MANIFOLD (JT)1059 E 900 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105
JAMES FLEEGE 922 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
JOHN W CARLISLE; BETH E DREES (JT)2195 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
JONAS I SAPPINGTON; DANIELLE K SAPPINGTON (JT)968 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
JOSEPH TUENGE 980 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
KRISTI M JOHNSON; MARSHA GIBSON (JT)2187 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
LAVENA M SMITH 5303 S PENGUIN CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117
LC ROCKWOOD INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES 5882 S HOLLADAY BLVD HOLLADAY UT 84121
LIBERTY VILLAGE PROPERTIES, LLC 6440 S WASATCH BLVD # 100 HOLLADAY UT 84121
LINDA S COLLARD 2211 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
MARC W TAYLOR; JOANNE TAYLOR (JT)2200 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
MARK E PITTMAN REVOCABLE TRUST 10/16/2015 2195 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
MP VENTURES LC 2157 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
PATRICK REIMHERR 482 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT LLC 2157 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY PO BOX 145518 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
ROBERT DEVLIN 2160 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
ROBERT J HART 2190 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
ROSA M CASTRO TRUST 01/31/2018 2192 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
RYANS ON ELM, LLC 948 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
SAMUEL & DIANE STEWART FAMILY TRUST 03/19/2019 269 N A ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
SCOTT BREEN; ALAINA BROWN (JT)2197 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
SCSC LEASING LC 2202 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
SMITH'S FOOD KING PROPERTIES INC 1014 VINE ST 7TH FLOOR CINCINNATI OH 45202
SUGARHOUSE VETERINARY HOSPITAL BUILDING PTRN 2206 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
SUGARMONT PLACE DEVELOPMENT LLC 733 N MAIN ST SPANISH FORK UT 84660
TIMO RINNE 974 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
TOHLER PROPERTIES LLC 1525 E REDONDO AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105
TREMBLAY SIMES FAMILY TRUST 09/19/2017 8769 S WILLOW GREEN DR SANDY UT 84093
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY 669 WEST 200 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
VALERIE MURDOCK 2193 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
ZHONGLIANG ZHAO; WEI TANG (JT)8156 S MAIO DR SANDY UT 84093
Current Occupant 922 E 2100 S Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 2195 S 900 E Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 910 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 916 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 932 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 940 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 2198 S LINCOLN ST Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 2204 S LINCOLN ST Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 2205 S 900 E Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 2215 S 900 E Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 975 E SUGARMONT DR Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 2185 S 900 E Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 2198 S LINCOLN ST #NFF Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 2131 S LINCOLN ST Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 2134 S 1000 E Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 2140 S 1000 E Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 960 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 2203 S LINCOLN ST Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 2207 S LINCOLN ST Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 2188 S 1000 E Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 2208 S 1000 E Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 968 E SUGARMONT DR Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 1003 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 1007 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 2141 S 1000 E Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 2150 S MCCLELLAND ST Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 1014 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 2170 S MCCLELLAND ST Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 2190 S MCCLELLAND ST Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 2216 S MCCLELLAND ST Salt Lake City 84106 UT
Current Occupant 1040 E SUGARMONT DR Salt Lake City 84106 UT
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
FundingOurFutureSLC.com
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Kira Luke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE: September 7, 2021
RE: FUNDING OUR FUTURE: Resolution: Street Reconstruction General Obligation Bond Issuance
and Sale
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Funding Our Future: In 2018, the City identified
street conditions, affordable housing, public transit, and neighborhood safety as important
City services in need of additional ongoing funding. To fund these service needs, the Council
implemented a state-authorized sales tax increase by 0.5% and placed an $87 million Streets
Reconstruction General Obligation bond on the 2018 ballot, which City voters approved.
General Obligation Bonds: When approved by voters, as this one was, a General
Obligation Bond is issued by the City and paid with a dedicated property tax revenue increase. A key point in
favor of the General Obligation Streets Reconstruction Bond is the accountability legally embedded in the
process – the City is prohibited from spending the funds for any purpose other than those described on the
ballot. After approval, the City has up to ten years to issue bonds and can choose to spread them out over
multiple issuances. Once issued, the City has three years to spend the bond funds, so timing is a key
consideration when planning bond sales. Factors involved in issuance timing can include bond market
conditions, impact on property taxes, engineering capacity to design and oversee projects, and labor market
conditions.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
If adopted, the resolution for September 7 would authorize the City Finance Department to issue the
third block of General Obligation Streets Reconstruction bonds for up to $23,600,000, at interest rates
no greater than 5% per year - likely closer to 2%. Final amounts and timing of the issuance may vary,
depending on market conditions at the time of sale. The resolution authorizes the Administration to
issue the bonds at a time deemed favorable for Salt Lake City. This is the third issuance of this General
Obligation Bond, with $28 million still available for future issuances.
The City uses a worst-first approach when selecting which streets to reconstruct. Funding Our Future
sales tax funds a streets maintenance crew that focuses on repairs and treatments to extend the life of
streets in good and fair condition.
The Council recently approved funding for a new citywide pavement condition survey of the entire
street grid. The results will provide an update on how the combination of worst-first reconstruction and
streets maintenance crew approach is working to improve the City’s overall street conditions. It will
also inform the funding needs of the City’s streets over the next several years.
Page | 2
Engineering indicates that when all the $87 million bond funds have been spent, additional ongoing
funding above current levels (excluding bond funding) would be needed to address all City streets in
poor or worse condition.
ENGAGEMENT
Funding Our Future received extensive engagement through Spring 2018, and the
“Funding Our Future” brand continues to keep residents apprised of the progress.
One of the consistently recurring top themes residents raised throughout the
engagement process was the importance of transparency, accountability, and trust
that the funds raised through sales tax or bonding would be used as the City
represented. To this end, the FundingOurFutureSLC.com website has been created
to report Funding Our Future funds and expenses.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Market conditions: Compared to market conditions when voters approved the bond, the market
has changed considerably in relation to the global pandemic. This prompts two timing questions:
a. Property tax increase: issuance of general obligation bonds means a levy will be applied to
property owners’ tax bill in order to generate revenue for the debt service. According to the
Administration, these bonds were timed when other bonds expired, which would ideally
minimize or eliminate any increase to property tax bills. However, due to the economic
impact the pandemic has on our community, it is worth mentioning that this will appear on
property tax bills. It could also be noted that there is sometimes a benefit additional
construction projects can have on the local economy. If the Council has any questions
about this, the Administration is ready to address this topic.
b. Bond market: Thanks to the Triple A bond rating the City maintains due to responsible
stewardship of City debts, Salt Lake City bonds are generally considered a good investment in
the municipal bond markets. However, the health of the bond market is correlated with the
health of the stock market. The Council may wish to ask, how does the
Administration anticipate the current market conditions could impact bond
issuances?
c.Current events: The Covid-19 pandemic, 2020 Windstorm, and other recent events are
acknowledged in the Administrative transmittal as events financially impacting Salt Lake
City. The Council may wish to ask the Administration for any updates on how
these events have impacted the City’s fiscal health and bonding capacity.
2. Engagement: Since the bond will be issued in multiple parts and the funded projects will have
some engagement efforts, there will be many opportunities for engagement. The 300 West project,
funded by the previous bond issuance, has received national recognition for the planning and
engagement process. The Council may wish to ask the Administration about engagement
planned for each of the bond-funded road reconstruction projects through Civic
Engagement’s standard outreach and engagement process.
PROJECTS
Funds from the first Streets Reconstruction bond issuance were used for projects scheduled for
construction or design in 2020-22.
Funds from the second issuance focused on 300 West, scheduled for design and construction in this
year and through 2022. The Transportation Division has a project webpage with more information
on the design process and reconstruction plans for 300 West.
Funds from the third issuance are planned as outlined below.
$12 million for design and reconstruction of 200 South from 400 West to 900 East. The funding is
distributed across two phases. (District 4). The Transportation Division has a project webpage with
more information about the 200 South project.
$6.8 million for 1100 East/Highland Drive from 900 South to Warnock Avenue (District 7)
Page | 3
$1.6 million for 300 North from 300 West to 1000 West (District 1)
$3 million for local street reconstruction projects (see figure 2 for a list of planned projects)
Major Streets
The table below shows the timeline for reconstruction projects using funds from this issuance. High-
capacity urban streets that deliver traffic at the highest level of service possible are considered major streets.
These projects range from design to full replacement with a new structural system, including pavement,
curb and gutter, drive approaches, sidewalks, accessibility ramps. Projects also include consideration of
complete street elements like pedestrian or bicycle paths.
Figure 1 - Administrative Transmittal, page 3
Local Streets
The local streets are small streets that carry less traffic and have fewer lanes than major streets. Local street
reconstruction projects include new pavement, sidewalks, drive approaches, curbs, and updating
accessibility ramps. Funding for local street reconstruction projects has been rotated through all seven
districts to ensure geographic equity in funding distribution, but projects are prioritized based on condition
ratings before location. This was also with the policy approval of the Council. The table below shows
candidates for local street reconstruction projects using bond funds from this issuance, based on current
information and evaluations, but could change.
Page | 4
Figure 2 - Administrative Transmittal, page 6
During policy discussions, the Council set direction for an 80/20 split of funding between major and local
streets. When combined with the earlier two issuances, which were split 75/25 and 85/15 between major
and local streets, this issuance tips the average distribution toward 82/18. At least one additional issuance is
planned.
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:___________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council:______________
_____________________________________________________________________________
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE:August 17, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM:Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer___________________________________
SUBJECT:General Obligation (Street Reconstruction) Bonds, Series 2021
STAFF CONTACT:Marina Scott, City Treasurer 801-535-6565
DOCUMENT TYPE:Informative
RECOMMENDATION:1) That the City Council hold a discussion on September 7, 2021 in
anticipation of adopting a Bond Resolution for the aforementioned bond issue; 2) That the City
Council adopt a Bond Resolution on September 21, 2021 approving the issuance and sale of up to
$23,600,000 principal amount of Salt Lake City, Utah, General Obligation (Street Reconstruction)
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 form in the attached Bond Resolution.
BUDGET IMPACT:None. Tax collections resulting from the issuance of voter-authorized general
obligation bonds for the Street Reconstruction Project will be sufficient to cover debt service
costs for the period in which the bonds are outstanding.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:On November 6, 2018, voters within Salt Lake City authorized the
City to issue and sell general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $87 million for the
purpose of financing the cost of improving various streets and roads throughout the City and
related infrastructure improvements.
The bonds are the third block of bonds to be issued from the November 6, 2018, voted
authorization. Exhibit 1, prepared by Engineering and attached to the transmittal, details street
project selected for the second bond issuance.
The current plan calls for the Bonds to be sold on November 3, 2021.
General Obligation (Street Reconstruction) Bond, 2021 - 081721
Transmittal to City Council
August 17, 2021
Page 2 of 2
The Designated Officers defined in the attached Bond Resolution are authorized to approve the
interest rate(s) and other terms and provisions relating to the Bond by executing the Certificate
of Determination, which is also attached.
An estimated debt service, a draft copy of the Bond Resolution, and most of its attachments are
included for your review. Please keep in mind that these are preliminary drafts and are subject to
change.
PUBLIC PROCESS:N/A
EXHIBITS:Attachments
Cc: Mary Beth Thompson, Boyd Ferguson, Steven Bagley, Lisa Shaffer, Sara Montoya, Mathew
Cassell
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$19,795,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
SERIES 2021 (November 30, 2021 )
Sources & Uses
Dated 11/30/2021 | Delivered 11/30/2021
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $19,795,000.00
Reoffering Premium 3,779,024.95
Total Sources $23,574,024.95
Uses Of Funds
Total Underwriter's Discount (0.350%) 69,282.50
Costs of Issuance 103,198.25
Deposit to Project Construction Fund 23,400,000.00
Contingency 1,544.20
Total Uses $23,574,024.95
2021 NM 8.16.21 Est | SINGLE PURPOSE | 8/16/2021 | 10:33 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR) Page 1
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$19,795,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
SERIES 2021 (November 30, 2021 )
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
11/30/2021 - - - - -
06/15/2022 3,845,000.00 5.000% 481,839.58 4,326,839.58 4,326,839.58
12/15/2022 - - 348,650.00 348,650.00 -
06/15/2023 540,000.00 5.000% 348,650.00 888,650.00 1,237,300.00
12/15/2023 - - 335,150.00 335,150.00 -
06/15/2024 565,000.00 5.000% 335,150.00 900,150.00 1,235,300.00
12/15/2024 - - 321,025.00 321,025.00 -
06/15/2025 595,000.00 5.000% 321,025.00 916,025.00 1,237,050.00
12/15/2025 - - 306,150.00 306,150.00 -
06/15/2026 620,000.00 5.000% 306,150.00 926,150.00 1,232,300.00
12/15/2026 - - 290,650.00 290,650.00 -
06/15/2027 655,000.00 5.000% 290,650.00 945,650.00 1,236,300.00
12/15/2027 - - 274,275.00 274,275.00 -
06/15/2028 685,000.00 5.000% 274,275.00 959,275.00 1,233,550.00
12/15/2028 - - 257,150.00 257,150.00 -
06/15/2029 720,000.00 5.000% 257,150.00 977,150.00 1,234,300.00
12/15/2029 - - 239,150.00 239,150.00 -
06/15/2030 755,000.00 5.000% 239,150.00 994,150.00 1,233,300.00
12/15/2030 - - 220,275.00 220,275.00 -
06/15/2031 795,000.00 5.000% 220,275.00 1,015,275.00 1,235,550.00
12/15/2031 - - 200,400.00 200,400.00 -
06/15/2032 835,000.00 4.000% 200,400.00 1,035,400.00 1,235,800.00
12/15/2032 - - 183,700.00 183,700.00 -
06/15/2033 870,000.00 4.000% 183,700.00 1,053,700.00 1,237,400.00
12/15/2033 - - 166,300.00 166,300.00 -
06/15/2034 900,000.00 4.000% 166,300.00 1,066,300.00 1,232,600.00
12/15/2034 - - 148,300.00 148,300.00 -
06/15/2035 940,000.00 4.000% 148,300.00 1,088,300.00 1,236,600.00
12/15/2035 - - 129,500.00 129,500.00 -
06/15/2036 975,000.00 4.000% 129,500.00 1,104,500.00 1,234,000.00
12/15/2036 - - 110,000.00 110,000.00 -
06/15/2037 1,015,000.00 4.000% 110,000.00 1,125,000.00 1,235,000.00
12/15/2037 - - 89,700.00 89,700.00 -
06/15/2038 1,055,000.00 4.000% 89,700.00 1,144,700.00 1,234,400.00
12/15/2038 - - 68,600.00 68,600.00 -
06/15/2039 1,100,000.00 4.000% 68,600.00 1,168,600.00 1,237,200.00
12/15/2039 - - 46,600.00 46,600.00 -
06/15/2040 1,140,000.00 4.000% 46,600.00 1,186,600.00 1,233,200.00
12/15/2040 - - 23,800.00 23,800.00 -
06/15/2041 1,190,000.00 4.000% 23,800.00 1,213,800.00 1,237,600.00
Total $19,795,000.00 - $8,000,589.58 $27,795,589.58 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $190,802.29
Average Life 9.639 Years
Average Coupon 4.1931308%
Net Interest Cost (NIC) 2.2488447%
True Interest Cost (TIC) 1.9729834%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.2602381%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC) 2.0274709%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 1.7999441%
Weighted Average Maturity 9.949 Years
2021 NM 8.16.21 Est | SINGLE PURPOSE | 8/16/2021 | 10:33 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR) Page 2
AARON BENTLEY
CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYORINFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
349 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 200, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
TELEPHONE: 801-535-7948 FAX: 801-535-7634
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_______________________ Date Received: ___________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
__________________________________________________________________
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: July 29, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM:Aaron Bentley, Director, Information Management Services Department
_____________________
SUBJECT:2021 Resident Survey Results
STAFF CONTACTS: Elizabeth Buehler, Innovation Team Lead,
elizabeth.buehler@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Item
RECOMMENDATION: None
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:In April 2021, Y2 Analytics conducted the biannual resident
survey for Salt Lake City. In total, 1,214 randomly sampled Salt Lake City residents responded to
the 2021 Resident Survey, either via telephone or online interviews, with more than 700
respondents completing the full-length, online survey.
The five key takeaways from the 2021 Resident Survey are:
1. Though quality of life remains stable, most residents report being negatively affected by
COVID-19 in some way. Quality of life and optimism for Salt Lake did not change
significantly from previous waves. In other aspects, however, the pervasive effects of
COVID-19 are evident.
2. Residents are satisfied with their neighborhoods and are willing to pay for infrastructure
improvements. Respondents report satisfaction with their neighborhoods on many
dimensions, including walkability, location, and safety. We also find overwhelming
support for a fee to fund infrastructure improvements.
3.positive. A majority of
respondents say they agree Salt Lake City has job opportunities for them, though the
number has decreased from last wave. Likely exacerbated by COVID-19, respondents
were very enthusiastic about the need to support local businesses.
4. Email is a popular two-way mode of interacting with the city, but many residents still
prefer to reach out via telephone. Respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with
communicating with the City. Regarding preferred communication channels,
respondents prefer to interact via telephone or email, while email, social media, and
newspaper are the most preferred news sources.
5. Residents trust the police but are supportive of community-based changes. Though
certain sub-groups differ, the majority say they trust SLCPD. However, the
overwhelming majority of our respondents also support greater community involvement
on the part of the police.
Staff from Y2 Analytics is available to present the full findings to City Council.
Notes:
Kyrene Gibb of Y2 Analytics and Elizabeth Buehler plan on being at the table at the work
session.
Attachments 2021 Resident Survey Report, Representativeness & Demographic
Comparisons, SLC Resident Survey Topline Report, and SLC Resident Survey Topline
Report Appendix
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________Date Received: 9/2/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 9/2/2021
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: 9/2/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT:Board Appointment Recommendation: Planning Commission
STAFF CONTACT:Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Mike Christensen as a member
of the Planning Commission.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
September 2, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Fowler,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Plammimg Commission.
Mike Christensen – to be appointed for a four year term starting from the date of City Council
advice and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 8/18/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 8/18/2021
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: 8/18/20201
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT:Board Appointment Recommendation: Art Design Board
STAFF CONTACT:Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Art Design Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Alejandro Moya as a member of
the Art Design Board.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
August 18, 2020
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Fowler,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Art Design Board.
Alejandro Moya – to be appointed for a term ending exactly three years from the date of City
Council advice and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________Date Received: 8/18/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 8/18/2021
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: 8/18/20201
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT:Board Appointment Recommendation: Art Design Board
STAFF CONTACT:Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Art Design Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Colour Maisch as a member of
the Art Design Board.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
August 18, 2020
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Fowler,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Art Design Board.
Colour Maisch – to be appointed for a term ending exactly three years from the date of City Council
advice and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________Date Received: 8/18/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 8/18/2021
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: 8/18/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT:Board Appointment Recommendation: Arts Council Board.
STAFF CONTACT:Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Arts Council Board.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Josanne Glass as a member of
the Arts Council Board.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
August 18, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Arts Council Board:
Josanne Glass– to be appointed for a term ending in exactly three years starting the date of City
Council advice and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 8/18/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 8/18/2021
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: 8/18/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT:Board Appointment Recommendation: Arts Council Board.
STAFF CONTACT:Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Arts Council Board.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Sarah Longoria as a member of
the Arts Council Board.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
August 18, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Arts Council Board:
Sarah Longoria – to be appointed for a term ending in exactly three years starting the date of City
Council advice and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________Date Received: 9/2/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 9/2/2021
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: 9/2/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT:Board Appointment Recommendation: Historic Landmark Commission
STAFF CONTACT:Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Historic Landmark
Commission
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Carleton Getz as a member of
the Historic Landmark Commission.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
September 2, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Fowler,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Historic Landmark
Commission.
Carlton Getz – to be appointed for a four year term starting from the date of City Council advice
and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
City Council Announcements
September 7, 2021
For Your Information
A. Wasatch Front Regional Council Workshop
The Wasatch Front Regional Council plans to hold a workshop November 1 for municipal
elected and appointed officials in northern Salt Lake County to update transportation
components of the Wasatch Choice Regional Vision (link here: Wasatch Choice Regional
Vision). The Regional Council revises its plan every four years. The November meeting will run
from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.
According to the Regional Council, “This workshop is specifically designed for local
government leaders in your area - mayors/commissioners, council members, planning
commission, and key staff.” This year’s Wasatch Front Regional Council Chair Millcreek Mayor
Jeff Silvestrini, said at WFRC’s August meeting that the workshop is “a critical … opportunity
for local governments to shape the organization’s Regional Transportation Plan.” Using the
plan, the Wasatch Front Regional Council is a conduit for federal transportation funds. The
Regional Council staff has yet to determine where the November 1 meeting will be held, and
whether the workshop will be held in person or digitally.
Council staff has added the workshop to the November 1 calendar.
B. Opportunity to Close Previous Years’ Legislative Intents before the September 14
Briefing
The Council will have the opportunity to hear the Administration’s preliminary comments and
questions on the FY22 Legislative Intents during the September 14 work session. There also
may be some time to discuss Legislative Intents that are pending from FY21 or before. This
step is usually taken during the budget discussions but there was not sufficient time for it this
year.
To facilitate this discussion, the Chair and Vice Chair request that Council Members review the
list of Previous Years’ Intents which was sent by Allison Rowland last Thursday, September 2.
Please alert her of any disagreements or questions you may have about the “Staff
Recommendations” for closing specific Intents—or leaving them open—by Friday,
September 10. This will facilitate the discussion on September 14 and allow the
Administration time to notify any department leaders involved so they can be prepared to
respond to questions that day.
If there is not time to discuss Previous Years’ Intents on September 14, the next planned
opportunity will be in January.