04/14/2021 - Meeting Materials SALT LAKE CITY
BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARD
Wednesday,April 14th, 2021
8:30 a.m.— 10:00 a.m.
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of
2020(2)(b).
To access and participate in the meeting please visit:
https://saltlakecity.webex.com/saltlakecity/j.php?MTID=m2e 16ff59a287f943735b4b8a04ce 1 e37
Meeting password: eiMn7YP2P58
I,Darin Piccoli, Chairperson of the Business Advisory Board,hereby determine that conducting the
Business Advisory Board meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety
of those who may be present at the anchor location. The World Health Organization,the President of the
United States,the Governor of Utah,the Salt Lake County Health Department, Salt Lake County Mayor,
and the Mayor of Salt Lake City have all recognized a global pandemic exists related to the new strain of
the coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2.
Due to the state of emergency caused by the global pandemic,I find that conducting a meeting at an
anchor location under the current state of public health emergency constitutes a substantial risk to the
health and safety of those who maybe present at the location.
AGENDA
1. Roll call
2. Announcements
o City Council Announcements
a. Adopted increased annual minimum funding for public art
b. Agreed to expand the Downtown Ambassadors program
c. Discussed 650 South Main TRAX Station Update (RDA)
d. Considering an ordinance that would amend off-street parking regulations
e. Moving toward FY22 budget season
o Economic Development Announcements
a. COVID Updates
b. Outdoor Dining Campaign
c. New Staff Members
o Board Announcements
a. Spring Stoll—Local First
b. Open Streets Downtown—Downtown Alliance
3. Approval of the minutes of the March 10`h,2021 meeting
4. Business Item
A. Delivery Services Fees in SLC—Wrap Up and Recommendation from BAB—
Roberta Reichgelt
B. Inland Port Discussion on BAB priorities and participation—Ben Kolendar&Darin
Piccoli
C. Outdoor Dining Restrictions—Peter Makowski
5. Adjournment
Mission: To foster an equitable and robust business ecosystem as ambassadors, advocates, and advisors.
Core Values:
o Commitment
o Vision
o Respect
o Collaboration
o Inclusivity
o Impactful
ERIN MENDENHALL =� !![ BEN KOLENDAR
MAYOR DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARD STAFF MEMO
DATE: April 14, 2021 ITEM#: 1
PREPARED BY: Roberta Reichgelt
RE: Last month discussion on Delivery Services Fee Caps
REQUESTED ACTION: Recommendation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ANALYSIS:
The BAB member along with invited guests from Utah Restaurant Association(URA), Salt Lake
Area Restaurant Association (SLARA) and Door Dash held a discussion surrounding the
nationwide movement of Cities implementing fee caps for delivery food services. Some cities
have implemented caps since back in May of 2020 as it has been reported that some delivery
services charge as high a fee as 40% that falls solely on the restaurant to cover leaving the
restaurant with very minimal profit. Restaurants have been dependent on these delivery app
services (namely discussed were Grub Hub, Door Dash and Uber Eats) since COVID hit and most
diners are not eating inside restaurants. Unfortunately, when a delivery fee cap is imposed by a
City it is just transferred to the customer instead of the businesses and there are studies that have
shown a decrease in ordering through these apps once the fee is in place.
While digging into this conversation some other issues arose with the food delivery apps that
seemed to be more concerning that the delivery fee cap. URA brought up that some restaurants
were paying an additional market facilitator tax to use the Apps so essentially paying a tax twice.
It was suggested to exempt restaurants from this tax. Another concern brought up by URA was the
case of the deliver apps "highjacking"the website of the restaurants and offering their services on
the restaurant website even when there is no contract between the restaurant and the delivery app.
This is very concerning for many restaurants for quality and demand purposes.
SLARA brought up the concern that the food delivery drivers are not required to hold food
handlers permit so there is concern about what happens during the time of picking up the food
from the restaurant to deliver it to the customer and quality/cleanliness control. This results in
unfavorable reviews from the restaurant when the delivery was out of their control. SLARA also
brought up the need to make curbside pickup more accessible for all food businesses. In my
concentrated areas there is simply no parking available and the process to try and mitigate this at
the City is very onerous and expensive (and not necessarily supported in the long-term of City
goals).
Door Dash rep brought up that background checks are required for drivers but do not require food
handlers permits. He mentioned that the high fees were necessary to provide the platform+
delivery services. A clear advantage to being on this platform is to bring new customers in. He
said in their data that the restaurant located in a city with a fee cap saw 5-14% drop in deliveries.
Recommendations to consider for City to pursue relating to this issue:
1) Regulation to cap the fee on delivery services
2) Regulation that would require a contract between the delivery app and restaurant
3) Regulation that would require the delivery drivers to hold a food handler permit
Other considerations:
Short Term
Educate food industry and the fees that are included upon using the delivery app services as assess
whether it is essential to their business model and encourage them to promote pickup options to
customers
Long Term
City provide more accessibility in pick up options for restaurants
ERIN MENDENHALL =� !![ BEN KOLENDAR
MAYOR DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARD STAFF MEMO
DATE: April 14, 2021 ITEM #: 2
PREPARED BY: Roberta Reichgelt
RE: Inland Port
REQUESTED ACTION: NA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ANALYSIS:
About Inland Port
The Utah Inland Port Authority(UIPA) is a state corporation directed to maximize the long-term
economic and other benefits of a robust logistics system while still maintaining a high quality of
life. We are a forward-thinking agency aiming to channel logistics in a way that benefits all of
Utah by ensuring a safe, smart, and sustainable system statewide.
By creating the UIPA, Utah has opened the way to become the Crossroads of the World,
allowing the state to not only benefit from,but to help influence and be a leader in the global
economy. The Port Authority enables Utah to bring the largest economic opportunities in the
history of this state, without compromising our values, environment, and lifestyle. Having one
Authority looking at the entire logistics system provides stewardship, prosperity, equity, and
opportunity statewide.
Governance
The UIPA is governed by an appointed Board of Directors that approves all major policy,program,
and financial decisions.
Funding
UIPA obtains funding from state appropriations and property tax differential. Property tax
differential is levied on the difference between current land values and improvements made upon
the land to increase its value. The Authority primarily uses the tax differential to advance desired
activities and outcomes.
Additionally, UIPA may obtain funding from other sources: infrastructure development, strategic
investments, development financing, and advisory services.
Location
The current Utah Inland Port jurisdictional area is made up of approximately 16,000 acres in one
of the few remaining undeveloped areas of Salt Lake County. It sits at the intersection of two
interstate freeways, major national railways, and an international airport which puts the area in
high demand for expanding warehouse, distribution, and manufacturing.
Most of the area is privately-owned and approximately 7,000 acres are vacant and suitable for
development.
p -
r T: ;le,.-- .r.L a ,� � �l' ,r-•-. .�. _ i
i `
s
. A - i
,-, - • : - 1 t r 1 sin tl aka C(ty - , ro
_l• f.` ws's' 1 1
o1_
r a , `,�) 6 i� `, list +
/`.-► • "tA I I� I.i7 /f is
_ �1 -� ) �7
i ,,,411 - - c jyHj
,y,:.K. % - ' ""-- %., liLlig - '.4- FA i I i .,I"pril ,II, .., V ,--- i .,,..._ ef0;k,,, ''',.' - +.
la / � }. I- � � s J•�[ ,� 1 , -r --;14- I, a TT.Ain^ll, -i y �t � '4''
. \ j y �"deli`i� L j',r.(r Ii; ''ii�,,g - "-
LEGEND ...-. t'�� ; 3 F _ t• �s s.
—Interstate Highways ; a�' T '• ,�
Major Arterial Roads , I r4. {'=''-sVIAllt 4 m ` ,,�ie1,,
Highway Links -` y -4
`u.
L
Railroads : ':"ExistingInfrastructure Inland Port Boundary , r . i'
" Sr ,$.
Natural Area '� r .. k� . s
Eco-Industrial Buffer a . t
v ,
ERIN MENDENHALL =� r:^i,;,::i, BEN KOLENDAR
MAYOR DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARD STAFF MEMO
DATE: April 14, 2021 ITEM#: 3
PREPARED BY: Peter Makowski
RE: Outdoor Dining Considerations
REQUESTED ACTION: Recommendation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ANALYSIS:
Under the current Emergency Proclamations issued by the Salt Lake City Mayor's Office and City
Council,businesses can expand outdoor business activities, increasing their outdoor dining and
retail operations. These activities will no longer be allowed, and temporary permits will no longer
be available once the Mayor's Emergency Proclamations expire. Once expired, the regulations
below will go back into effect and limit outdoor business activities. The Department of Economic
Development is recommending extending the waiving of these regulations to assist businesses in
financial recovery as pandemic restrictions are lifted, after a year of economic hardship.
ATTACHMENTS: See Outdoor Dining Guide and Matrix Below
Outdoor Dining, Outdoor Market, and Artist Performance Considerations
Consideration/ Public Regulation Appropriation Staff Time Notes
Tools Benefits barriers (not including
Analysis (not 10.8.2 and
(10.8.2)
including assuming to.8.2 Includes references
Includes 10.8.2) is approved) to previous
specific fees proclamations
Includes
specific
codes
Road closures Trans.Permit Roads: Temporary Yes- May require state
Fee-$33+ 14.32.418 barriers substantial support for long term
$28 per one time closures.
metered stall Parking: and limited
12.56.210 ongoing Temporary closures
may be addressed
through special permit
process outlined below
Business Bus.Lic.Fee 5.04.07o No Yes-
licenses $157 limited one
time and
ongoing
Building services Temp.Use 21A.42.o6o No Yes- Required for multiple
temporary Permit Fee- limited one categories of other
structure $265 21A.14.o90 time and tools
permits ongoing
PBA is dependent on
where temporary
structure resides
Temporarily addressed
in Emergency
Proclamation 17(does
not include 10.8.2)
Temporary Use
Permits will be needed
for structures over 200
sq feet
Time spent for
inspections of
structures over 200 sq
feet
Building services Building 18.84.07o No Yes-
permanent Permit-varies limited one
structure time and
permits ongoing
Fire Dept. Operational 2.02.040 No Yes- Temporarily addressed
permits Fire Permit limited one in Emergency
(tents over time and Proclamation 17(does
40o sqft.)- ongoing not include 10.8.2 and
$173+$1 each requires nightly tear
additional tent down of temporary
structures on public
right of way)
Special events Special Events 3.50.08o No Yes-
permits Permit Fee- limited one
$ii9 time and
ongoing
Use of private NA 63-1 No Maybe and Emergency
property limited one Proclamation#u-
time and Outdoor business
ongoing activities on private
property
Use of public Temp.Bus. 14.32.410 No Yes- Would still have to go
right of way Permit Fee- limited one through permit
$9/mon(6 time and process
tables), ongoing
$u/mon(6+ Temporarily addressed
tables) in Emergency
Proclamation i7(does
not include io.8.2 and
requires nightly tear
down of temporary
structures)
Programming Sidewalk 14.38 Yes Yes-
Entertainers& medium
Artists Permit- one time
$34 and limited
ongoing
Infrastructure NA NA Yes Yes- For medium to long
investments substantial term economic
one time activation
opportunities such as
closure of Main Street
Outdoor heating NA NA Yes Yes- Time required for
equipment and medium program creation for
purchases of one time grant
temporary
structures
Parklets Commercial 57-8-4 No Yes- Temporary or
revocable limited one permanent structures
permit- time and in parking stalls
$35o/year, ongoing allowed overnight
$28/day per
parking stall
SALT LAKE CITY
BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARD
Wednesday,March 10th,2021
8:30 a.m.— 10:00 a.m.
Vice-Chairperson Liedtke read the following statement:
I,Kestrel Liedtke,Vice-Chairperson of the Business Advisory Board,hereby determine that conducting
the Business Advisory Board meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and
safety of those who may be present at the anchor location. The World Health Organization,the President
of the United States,the Governor of Utah,the Salt Lake County Health Department, Salt Lake County
Mayor, and the Mayor of Salt Lake City have all recognized a global pandemic exists related to the new
strain of the coronavirus, SARS- CoV-2.
Due to the state of emergency caused by the global pandemic,I find that conducting a meeting at an
anchor location under the current state of public health emergency constitutes a substantial risk to the
health and safety of those who may be present at the location.
MINUTES
1. Roll call
The following members of the Business Advisory Board were present:
Darin Piccoli, Chair(by phone) Kestrel Liedtke,Vice-Chair
Abudujannah Soud Jeff Carleton
Sue Rice John Lair
Alfonso Brito
The following members of the Business Advisory Board were absent:
JD Smith Karen Gunn
Angela Brown
Also Present:
Rachel Molinari,Depai ltiient of Economic Development; Roberta Reichgelt,Depai tment of Economic
Development;Will Wright,Department of Economic Development; Peter Makowski,Department of
Economic Development; Clark Cahoon, Department of Economic Development;Andrew Wittenberg,
Department of Economic Development; Allison Rowland, Salt Lake City Council Office; Peter Nelson,
Sustainability(by phone); Casey Steward,Planning Department; Wayne Mills,Planning Department;
Edward Bennett, Suazo Center; Derek Deitsch, Downtown Alliance; and Kristen Lavelett, Local First
Utah; Chad Horrell,Door Dash; Michelle Corigliano, Salt Lake Area Restaurant Association(SLARA);
Melva Sine,Utah Restaurant Association.
2. Announcements
City Council Announcements
Ms. Rowland did not have any announcements for the Board but asked if any member had questions.
No BAB members had questions.
Economic Development Announcements
COVID-19 Update
• Mr. Wittenberg announced that as of April 1,2021, all Utahans will be eligible for a Covid-19
vaccine. He also said the State Legislature plans to let the mask mandate expire on April 10,
2021. Salt Lake City will still advise all residents to continue to wear masks. Mr. Wittenberg
shared the Salt Lake Chamber's policy discussion regarding Covid-19 vaccinations
(https://slchamber.com/covid-19-vaccination-policy-webinar/). He said that under the Center for
Disease Control(CDC)guidelines,businesses can suggest their employees get a vaccine and can
go further to make it a business-wide policy. Regardless of what a business decides, if the
business has more than 10-15 employees, owners must have a clearly written policy and the
policy must be distributed to all employees. There also must be a point of contact person within
the business available to answer any questions. In addition,businesses should continue to socially
distance their employees and guests.
Mr. Wittenberg said that by late April to May 2021 there will be an increase in business activity
and activation in Salt Lake City. He also mentioned the CDC's new guidelines for gathering with
others who have been vaccinated.
Vice-Chairperson Liedtke asked if the City will keep a mask mandate even after the April 10,021
expiration. Mr. Wittenberg said there has no formal decision by the Mayor. Ms.Reichgelt said
the City will follow the direction from the County.
Mr. Carleton asked how the restaurant associations in the meeting felt about the mask mandate
expiring. Ms. Corigliano said that she's heard that most restaurants will keep requiring masks and
will also continue to limit capacity inside restaurants.
Mr. Soud expressed his concern for the importance of getting restaurant workers and staff
vaccinated before they worry about extending the mask mandate. He said that there will always
be customers who refuse to wear a mask and that it would be better to be vaccinated than have to
confront non-mask wearing customers.
Ms. Sine said the Utah Restaurant Association has heard that the majority of restaurants will still
require front facing employees to wear masks but that the backend and kitchen staff workers will
vary by restaurant and county. She also said that restaurants do not have enough time to get back
to 100%occupancy before the mask mandate expires so it is likely they will continue to operate
at lower capacities and work up over time.
Department Name Change
• Ms. Reichgelt said the Department has collected feedback from the Arts Council Advisory Board
and the Human Rights Commission regarding the name change to Economic Opportunity and is
working to consolidate those into a transmittal to go before the Council. She said she would share
the details with the Board at a later meeting.
Board Announcements
• Vice-Chairperson Liedtke shared notes from Chairperson Piccoli about the previous Board
meeting. She said Chairperson Piccoli wanted to point out the importance of having the Police
Chief come and discuss matters with the Board as well as Mr. Milner who discussed the Housing
and Urban Development(HUD) funds. She reiterated the comments made in the last meeting
about the Council being open to the needs of the Board's Agenda items. She said that
Chairperson Piccoli has been attending the Council meetings and will continue to do so until a
member rotation schedule has been set and can provide advice for new Board members attending
City Council meetings.
• Vice-Chairperson Liedtke reminded the Board that vacant Board spots will be available in the
next few months as they look to expand the Board to 15 members. She urged everyone to think
about how to recruit these new members.
3. Approval of the minutes of the February 10d',2021 meeting
Ms. Rice made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 10, 2021 meeting. Mr. Lair seconded
the motion. Upon roll call,the motion passed unanimously.
4. Business Item
A. Delivery Fee Discussion—Invited Guests,Econ Dev to moderate
Ms. Reichgelt explained that she's had conversations with some business owners, about putting a cap on
delivery fees. She said the article included in the packet covered how some cities across the country acted
quickly in the Spring of 2020 to put a cap on food delivery fees. She stated that she had not heard from
many restaurants in Salt Lake City who wanted to engage with the City Council to pursue a cap, so due
to the lack in interest the Department did not move forward with it early on in the pandemic. Since then,
there is now more of a concern from restaurant owners, due to the increase of 30-40%of fees on their
deliveries.
Ms. Sine said the Utah Restaurant Association has discussed the delivery fee with the State and multiple
cities and communities. She also said that while some communities require contracts for 3rd party
delivery,many restaurants still do not have contracts in place with delivery service companies. She said
whatever is decided that should not put into jeopardy the continuing market trend for 3rd party delivery
services. Ms. Sine said that the Utah Restaurant Association made all restaurants exempt from the
marketplace facilitator tax which allowed the delivery service company to collect the tax on the food and
service purchases. The intent behind that was to have people avoid paying double tax when they use their
services to order food. Ms. Sine encouraged all Salt Lake City residents to react to this tax in the best
interest of the local restaurants and said that President Biden's American Rescue Plan includes $28.6 B
for the restaurant industry nationwide and that more details on that funding will be available once the bill
is signed. Ms. Sine also said the Restaurant Association asked Salt Lake City to allow 2-3 curbside pickup
or delivery parking spots available for restaurants who cannot set up drive-through processes on their
property.
Ms. Corigliano said SLARA tried to get Salt Lake County to pass ordinances to prohibit the predatory
fees charged by 3rd party delivery services. She also mentioned that some 3rd party services hijack
restaurant's websites and offer their services without a signed agreement and how this has the potential to
ruin a restaurant's brand reputation. She said that she had talked with Ms. Reichgelt about the process for
business owners to designate parking spots in front of their locations for deliveries or curbside pickup but
that it is an onerous process and quite expensive for business owners to do.
Ms. Corigliano discussed the food safety issue with having 3rd party drivers handle customer's food. She
said that every restaurant worker is required to have a food handler's permit,but that there are no
requirements like this for delivery drivers. She said that is should be an ordinance that requires all 3rd
party food delivery drivers to hold some sort of food training license. She also said she would like to see
some sort of payment protection put in place for drivers in a future ordinance. Ms. Sine added that there
should also be data privacy concerns written into an ordinance to keep credit card data private.
Mr. Brito said that his business tried using Grub Hub,Door Dash, and Uber Eats when the pandemic
started but has stopped using all these services because of the number of fees which were close to 40%of
his payments. He said the goal of any restaurant is to deliver good,warm food,and once it's in the hands
of a delivery driver you don't know what happens to it.After canceling all the 3rd party delivery services
his business has seen an increase of 130%in sales since last year because of the loyal customers. Ms.
Reichgelt asked Mr. Brito if SLC were to put a fee cap in place if he would go back to using the services
and he said no.
Vice-Chairperson Liedtke said her restaurant has been closed since the beginning of the pandemic so
there has not been a need for delivery services,but that she had a bad experience with Grub Hub because
of the fees they wanted to charge for delivery. She said that she did not want to go through with a contract
with that service and then her restaurant's website was hijacked by the company.
Mr. Deitsch said these delivery service platforms unfairly give an advantage to national chains that can
afford to pay these fees over many of the local restaurants that cannot afford them. He also said he wasn't
sure if a fee cap would make much of an impact and that he felt it is not in the best interest of local
businesses right now.
Mr. Bennett and Mr. Deitsch both stated that they had stopped using 3rd party delivery services because
of the fees they charge and felt that it might be more effective for local restaurants to campaign for
customers picking up their orders so that they don't have to be hit by the delivery fees.
Mr.Horrell said that 100%of the restaurants Door Dash partners with have contracts in place that specify
the fees and the agreed-upon prices that are set by the restaurant,not Door Dash. He stated that Door
Dash never hijacks restaurant websites and only operates through their platform. He also said the
company does background checks on all of its drivers and made the point of saying that Door Dash is a
delivery service and that it needs to cover its costs in order to provide the expensive service. Mr. Horrell
said one of the major benefits of Door Dash is that it can provide restaurants with new customers.He
stated that Door Dash has to be responsive to its restaurant partners and that in every instance where a fee
cap went into effect there has been a 5-14%drop in delivery. When that happens their drivers make less
and so do the restaurants.
Ms. Corigliano asked Mr. Horrell what Door Dash looks for in its driver background checks.He said they
do a criminal history check. Mr. Deitsch asked if there is any food safety training or requirements for
Dashers. Mr. Horrell said food safety is part of the training every Dasher gets but that different localities
have different rules when it comes to what is required to handle food and that when a food handler's
permit is required that Door Dash complies fully. Ms. Sine said that Utah does not require delivery
drivers to have any food safety training or a food handler's permit.
Ms. Rice asked Mr. Horrell how Door Dash determines its fees. He said that there is a model across the
board but that it is mostly determined by volume through the platform. He added that they are trying to
roll out a new pricing model nationwide that might take some time to hit every community. He also stated
that Door Dash has a restaurant advisory committee that meets regularly,and the company has made a lot
of changes based on committee suggestions. He explained one of those suggestions was a storefront
platform that is free for restaurants with 6 or fewer locations that did not have a website set up. With a
digital presence,the restaurant can provide carry-out service or delivery directly through their restaurant.
Mr. Soud shared his experience with delivery fees and said that he used to pay$3,000 per month for
delivery services but now gives his employees the option to deliver orders when they are scheduled off so
that they can earn more money and tips. He said that this model works better for his business than the 3rd
party platforms and that his employees already know about the food and are trained.
Ms. Reichgelt summarized the concerns of the discussion to instead of looking at a fee cap to instead look
into building an educational campaign around how delivery services work and to make it more accessible
for curbside pickup options. Vice-Chairperson Liedtke added the importance of having contracts in place
when restaurants use 3rd party delivery services. Ms. Reichgelt said she would take that back to the
attorney's office for consideration.
B. Off-Street Parking Ordinance—Wayne Mills and Casey Stewart,Planning Dept
Mr. Mills provided a presentation concerning Off-Street Parking,Mobility,and Loading. He said the
overall purpose of the project was to update the parking requirements to better reflect market demand and
to establish a framework that allows parking regulations to be responsive to the changes in Salt Lake City.
He explained that these parking regulations would only apply to new development or when additional
dwelling units are being added. Mr. Mills said the Planning Department briefed the City Council about
these parking updates during the February 16,2021 meeting and a public hearing is scheduled for the
March 16,2021 City Council Meeting. He said if any Board members wanted more information on the
project that they could reach out to Eric.Daems@slcgov.com in Planning.
The PowerPoint presentation is attached.
5. Adjournment
There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned.
Darin Piccoli,Chairperson
This document and the recording constitute the official minutes of the Economic Development
Business Advisory Board meeting held March 10,2021.
OFF STREET PARKING ,
MOBILITY, AND LOADING
ZONING ORDINANCE 21A.44
PROJECT PURPOSE
• Update parking requirements to better reflect market demand
• Establish framework that allows parking regulations to be
responsive to a changing city
• Simplify and clarify
• Note: This proposed changes do not impact on-street parking
GENERAL OVERVIEW
• Created parking "contexts" (eliminating one size fits all approach)
• Revised strategy for minimum & maximum parking regulations
• Revised alternatives to the parking regulations
• Moved technical specifications to an engineering standards manual
• Language clean-up
PROPOSED PARKING CONTEXT AREAS
• 4., • _ Legend
e tGENERAL CONTEXT
roo 3 V
E 8 soo ■� - NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CONTEXT
�. II t;
a •I. sr i7 1.',' x - URBAN CENTER CONTEXT
lithilkiiilhhigI `d�.� \ - TRANSIT CONTEXT
1 se•m r.moie
=t11stiMI■ i �CEINA �00 No UTARAILLINES
�IMINII ■E�EP-SEEE■ -- ''
pIIMEEE+IEEEEI ■ V N . Ir
I .J IMM00EE1 ■ h-o
9eo •� aye ,, _l - ....F;;,,,,, (based on current zoning districts)
- , - IEIminva r• 1 -r7 i
8 aE;J E'_ r';F.4 - p
`i, �„a 'L_ IEfI"I-IE44A_. +ILWJE s...wa. s,.ov.�e.
a _ CIE'..
$I c 1
crrar. wma. '- --. .. S i
r700 ''
sY 4". t_ 1 8'1 _n"
•
1 \- .-, -1
TRANSIT CONTEXT _ - , . r3,. ; .. fit**:.--!" -
.
(e g Downtown, Gateway, North Temple and 400 South ,.
corridors, Central 9th) tom' ,�,,
• Highest density development - - r ;
• Adjacent to mass-transit facilities --, =11. .
I� ' I I I , '1�1
• Lowest parking demand _ _ mmpph�
•
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICTS . 1 1 1 11 11, s
.10 i i I I .11 II • f. --- t
D-1. D-3, D-4, FB-CS, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, G-MU. R-MU, I 11 " ` .��Ir„I 1 11 1,'�� Ii. , ' ,
TSA-C, UI v _-_ -_ !!IR S .
17: ri.t US I -1 -
= ' ' ,'
1
' •„ it ti . r
; rF i
li:. 1... ....
. ., , . _ :.
URBAN CENTER ado. .
CONTEXT -IR
(e.g. Sugar House, Marmalade, Downtown Adjacent, -
Guadalupe)
• Higher density, pedestrian-scale development f(-- -flit - - t
yrv, 4 1,1—1
• Increased development/mobility options '-'-- . lime l_r-i ....
r 1 IN I 1' `.
• Low/moderate parking demand ;•i--,--- w I
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICTS x` -
CSHBD1, CSHBD2, D 2, MU, TSA T
ri . 4
-
T _
�— -- _ • -- -
NEIGHBORHOOD « .
CENTER CONTEXT .�x '.' • ......, c. ,.„ . '''''''..P,
Ma' wCV� q{'.• ��' y'Q 1P9R01'?i �/1 5 ! '^,
e g 9rn&9rn 1100 E Commercial Corridor, Foothill Village) s� � 4 �'' �•' , . «y 17 x . ,:
4.
• Small/Moderate-scale activity nodes
• Pedestrian-scale development & amenities �jf,4,� 4- . - I'l°w �i
• Usually not well served by transit �'�
fn ,
• Most varied parking needs {_ - - -e. �®
! ,Iri • 1
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICTS _ ilig
� � ----- . ' 7 . iii v ,, . . IN
ir""
Y
CB, CN, FB-UN1, FB-SE, RB, R-MU-35, R-MU-45, SNB, a ,�, "�_
SR-3 _.—
;..•....,.,_ ,,,r..- r.-,::. .,..'.', ,of -
7
GENERAL CONTEXT
(e.g. Redwood Rd, South State Street, Single-family
Neighborhoods, Industrial Areas)
• Applies in all areas not defined in other contexts
• More auto dependent and/or suburban in scale �►— �y�piESILLE w
• Fewest mass-transit options available
• Highest parking demand
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICTS amfack.
All areas not defined in other contexts _
REVISED PARKING # HIGHLIGHTS
• Parking counts based on consultant recommendations, City &
neighborhood goals, & input from developers & business community
• Minimums generally the same or lower
• Maximums now based on best practice, rather than % of minimum
• Structured parking not counted against maximums
Current Base Standard Other Standards Maximums
Applicable
Office 3/1,00o sq ft main floor+1.25/1,o00 other floors D-i,D-2,D-3,D- Based on%of minimum and zone
4,GMU,TSA-T, • Often equivalent to the minimum
TSA-C,FB-SC, • Never more than 3/1,00o sq ft except
Retail 2/1,000 sq ft FB-SE,FB-UN for west of Redwood Rd
Restaurant
Proposed General Neighborhood Center Urban Center Transit Maximums
Office 3/1,00o sq ft 2/1,000 sq ft i/1,000 sq ft No Minimum 2/1,000 sq ft Transit
3/1,00o sq ft Urban&Neighborhood
Retail 2/1,000 sq ft 1.5/1,00o sq ft Center
4/1,00o sq ft General
Restaurant
2/1,000 sq ft 5/1,00o Transit&Urban Center
7/1,00o Neighborhood Center&General
When do the new parking regulations apply?
• New development
• Additional dwelling units
• Expansion by more than 25%
• Change of use requiring an additional 10+ stalls by use, or an
increase of 25% of existing
ALTERNATIVES TO
PARKING CALCULATIONS
• New includes up to 40% combined reductions
• Affordable & senior housing
• Carpool and car share
• Valet
• Proximity to mass transit (TRAX or high-frequency bus routes)
• Shared parking
• Parking Study (to reduce or increase parking)
NEXT STEPS
• Briefed City Council on February 16
• City Council public hearing on March 16
• Ongoing discussions with City Council
• Planning Staff Report and proposed ordinance
• https://www.slc.gov/planningLpublic-meetings/2006-
2018-planning-commission-records/2020-planning-
commission-records/
• January 8, 2020 meeting date
CONTACT
Eric Daems, AICP
eric.daems@slcgov.com
385-226-3187