The URL can be used to link to this page

Transmittal - 4/5/2023ERIN 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: April 5, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: North Rose Park Lane Annexation and Zoning Map Amendment (Petitions PLNPCM2021-01124 and PLNPCM2021-01134) STAFF CONTACT: Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com, 801- 535-7165 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the annexation and the requested zoning map amendment designation of R-MU for the two involved private properties. BUDGET IMPACT: No direct budget impact. If annexed, the properties would be subject to receiving City services for such things as fire, police, and utilities. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: JWright Communities, LLC, property owner and applicant, is requesting a zoning map amendment for an approximately 6-acre parcel of land located at 2350 N Rose Park Lane. The applicant is requesting a rezone from the AG-2, Agricultural, zone to the R-MU, Residential/Mixed-Use zone. The zoning is intended to support future development of an 1,800-unit multi-family residential development. No formal plans have been submitted for that development. The property is currently within Salt Lake City boundaries. Lisa Shaffer (Apr 5, 2023 13:13 MDT)04/05/2023 04/05/2023 In conjunction with the rezone request, the property owner filed a petition to annex approximately 28 acres of property located at approximately 2441 N Rose Park Lane. The annexation process requires that the City apply a zone at the same time a property is annexed into the City. The City Council reviewed the annexation petition in April 2022 and referred the annexation petition to the Commission for a recommendation on the proposed zoning. The properties involved and the requested zones are below: 1. 2440 N Rose Park Lane a. This is a City-owned property and has been shown as a future Regional Athletic Complex phase in City plans. b. The City proposed to zone the property OS, Open Space, to support future recreational use. 2. 2441 N Rose Park Lane (“Hunter Stables”) a. This is a privately owned parcel, owned by the applicant, JWright. b. The applicant is proposing the R- MU, Residential/Mixed-Use, zone to support an 1,800 dwelling unit development. 3. 2462 N Rose Park Lane a. This is a State-owned property utilized as part of the State’s Jordan River Off-Highway Vehicle State Park. b. The City proposed to zone the property OS, Open Space, to support continued recreational use. Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed the zoning map amendment and annexation zoning requests at their March 8th meeting and forwarded a negative recommendation on both requests. The meeting can be viewed here with this particular item beginning at 1:55:53. The vote on the motion was 6 to 4. The Commission’s motion to recommend denial was the following, recommending denial of: 1. The zoning map amendment, for the reason that it does not comply with the stated zoning goals of the small area master plan (Rose Park Small Area Plan). Map of the rezone and annexation properties, showing the OHV State Park, RAC, and a planned “North Access Road.” 2. The annexation, based on Plan Salt Lake and the access to open space are not met. And the 2016 Salt Lake Housing Policy points of emphasizing the value of transit-oriented developments and the livability of neighborhoods. For the zoning map amendment, the Commission’s motion refers to the Rose Park Small Area Plan (2001) which has policies that call for the Open Space or Agricultural zoning in the future for the rezone and associated annexation property. The requested R-MU zone does not align with those specific zones. For the annexation, the Commission’s motion refers to the citywide plan, Plan Salt Lake, and one of its policies that encourages access to parks and recreational spaces within a half mile of all residents. In its discussion, the Commission noted that despite the property being adjacent to the Regional Athletic Complex (RAC), use of the RAC is generally restricted to organized groups, such as leagues, and future residents of the conceptual 1,800 dwelling unit development wouldn’t be able to freely use the facility. The Commission’s motion also refers to the City Council’s adopted “Housing Policy Statements” from 2016 that emphasize transit-oriented development and livability of neighborhoods. The full referenced policies are as follows: • Emphasize the value of transit-oriented development, transit accessibility, and proximity to services; • Address the livability of neighborhoods and concentrations of ageing adults, and plan and implement strategies that will allow residents to Age in Place. There are similar policies in both Plan Salt Lake and the City’s adopted housing plan Growing SLC (2017.) The Commission’s motion and discussion were focused on the R-MU requests and the Commission did not offer any concerns regarding the proposed zoning designation of Open Space for the City and State properties involved in the annexation; however, since the zoning of these properties was included in the same petition, the Commission simply recommended denial of the entire petition. Nine individuals addressed the Commission during the public hearing, including a representative of the Westpointe Community Council. Comments at the public hearing addressed limited resident access to the RAC, traffic from the RAC, concerns with limited infrastructure, easement impacts on the developable area of the property, loss of the horse boarding facility and agricultural lifestyle, piecemeal annexations of this area of the City, safety related to mosquitoes and canals, parking issues and congestion on Rose Park Lane, air quality impacts from I-215, and RAC/OHV negative impacts on potential residents. A comment questioning why this area was appropriate for housing, while properties to the west in the Northpoint area were not, was also made. Planning Staff Recommendation to the Planning Commission The Commission recommendation was opposite that of the Staff recommendation. The Staff recommendation was to forward a positive recommendation with several conditions related to infrastructure requirements, water quality, air quality, and noise. Those are detailed on the second page of the staff report. Two additional conditions regarding HVAC system air filters to mitigate health impacts from the freeway and mitigation of construction impacts on adjacent property owners, were added after staff report publication in response to late arriving public comments. These conditions are located on the attached Staff presentation slides (Exhibit 2b). The Staff recommendation acknowledged the Rose Park Small Area Plan’s future land use map designations of Open Space and Agriculture do not correspond with the requested R-MU zone, but cited the plan’s policy reason for that zoning, which was to ensure those properties maintain compatibility with the RAC and OHV properties. The recommendation noted that residential and low-intensity commercial uses are generally compatible with recreational uses. The recommendation also relied on general policies from Plan Salt Lake and Growing SLC that support more housing throughout the City, including policies supporting housing with access to recreational uses (RAC/Jordan River Trail), existing infrastructure (I-215 freeway, new “North Access Road,”) and using underutilized properties for housing. Since the Commission forwarded a negative recommendation, an ordinance has not been prepared by the Attorney’s Office for the zoning map and annexation requests. If the City Council indicates support for the requests, the Attorney’s Office will draft an ordinance at that time. PUBLIC PROCESS: The proposal followed the City’s public input requirements required for a zoning amendment. The annexation was processed following the same input process. Details on that process are located in Attachment H of the Planning Commission staff report. The applicant met with the applicable community council on two occasions, but the community council did not provide any formal written comments to Planning Staff. A community council representative attended the Commission hearing and their comments focused on the limited or no access to the RAC facility that any new residents would have due to the facility’s current use policies. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of March 8, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of March 8, 2023 (Click to Access) c) PC Staff Report of March 8, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Planning Commission – March 8, 2023 a) Additional Written Public Comments b) Staff Presentation c) Applicant Presentation 3) Notice of City Council Hearing 4) Original Petitions 5) Mailing List EXHIBITS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. PLANNING COMMISSION – March 8, 2023 a. Additional Public Comments b. Staff Presentation Slides c. Applicant Presentation Slides 4. ORIGINAL PETITIONS 5. MAILING LIST 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petitions: PLNPCM2021-01124 and PLNPCM2021-01134 November 1, 2021 Applicant submits original annexation petition that includes only the applicant’s property at 2441 N Rose Park Lane. November 3, 2021 Applicant submits rezone petition for 2350 N property to Planning Division. November 18, 2021 Applications assigned to John Anderson, Planning Manager. Applications subsequently put on hold as applicant works with City and County to adjust the boundary request of their annexation to include the 2440 N (City) and 2462 N (State) properties in order not to create a new peninsula of County land. March 22, 2022 Salt Lake County Council approves resolution number 5956 agreeing to requested annexation to Salt Lake City. County Council reviewed the annexation request as the annexation property leaves a peninsula of County land. County resolution also encourages City to annex additional land in the area. March 24, 2022 Applicant resubmits annexation petition to City, now including the 2440 N and 2462 N properties. April 5, 2022 Salt Lake City Council approves Resolution 6 of 2022 agreeing to accept annexation petition for further consideration. Petition is forwarded to Planning Division for a Planning Commission recommendation on the zoning. May 5, 2022 Applications re-assigned to Dave Gellner, Senior Planner, for processing. May 16, 2022 Notice sent to Westpointe community council. Open house webpage posted to the Planning website. May 17, 2022 Mailed noticed provided to nearby property owners within 300 feet of the properties. October 4, 2022 Applications re-assigned to Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, for processing. February 8. 2023 For the February 22nd public hearing, public hearing notice signs posted on the properties, notices mailed to properties and residents within 300 feet, and notices posted on City and State websites. Notices sent on Planning Division listserv. February 22, 2023 Public hearing canceled due to weather. February 23, 2023 Project re-noticed for March 8th public hearing. Notice signs, mailers, online notice, and listserv notice all re-sent out. March 8, 2023 Planning Commission holds public hearing and provides negative recommendation on both the zoning amendment and annexation requests. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering petitions PLNPCM2021-01124/01134: JWright Communities, LLC, property owner, is requesting a zoning map amendment for a ~6 acre parcel of land located at 2350 N Rose Park Lane. In conjunction with this request, the property owner has filed a petition to annex approximately 28 acres of property located at approximately 2441 N Rose Park Lane. The following petitions are associated with this proposal: 1. Annexation (PLNPCM2021-01124) – A petition to annex into Salt Lake City approximately 28 acres of property generally located at approximately 2441 N Rose Park Lane. The annexation requires designating a zone for each property within the annexation area. The properties are proposed to be zoned as follows: a. 2440 N Rose Park Lane – OS, Open Space b. 2441 N Rose Park Lane – R-MU, Residential/Mixed-Use c. 2462 N Rose Park Lane – OS, Open Space 2. Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-01134) – A petition to rezone property located at approximately 2350 North Rose Park Lane from AG-2 – Agricultural to R-MU, Residential Mixed Use. The zoning is intended to support future development of an 1,800-unit multi-family residential development. The property is currently within Salt Lake City boundaries. The annexation process requires that the City apply a zone at the same time a property is annexed. Although the petition proposes specific zones for the properties, the Council may consider other zones. The properties at 2350 and 2441 N are currently used for horse boarding and outdoor equipment storage. The properties at 2440 N and 2462 N are currently vacant. The properties are in or near Council District 1, represented by Victoria Petro-Eschler. On March 8, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to recommend denial of the associated petitions by the City Council. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petitions. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TBD TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Daniel Echeverria at 801-535-71765 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at www.slcpermits.com, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2021-01124 or PLNPCM2021-01134. Additional information is also available on the Planning webpage here: https://bit.ly/slc-openhouse-01124 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 make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION – March 8, 2023 a. Additional Public Comments From: cindy cromer Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 5:09 PM To: SLC Planning Commission Subject: Fw: comments about Rose Park Lane 1 It is part of the piecemeal annexation process which guarantees poor enforcement and coordination of services. Please ask for a briefing on how the Special Improvement District, not the County, is in charge and what has to happen to get to a comprehensive process instead of proceeding the way we have been. It is essential to the health of the Great Salt Lake that we have coordination of governmental efforts near the Lake. 2 This staff report is amazing and contains one of the longest lists of conditions of approval I have ever seen. But it doesn't require that the necessary road improvements occur PRIOR to construction. We are seeing a nightmare play out in Northpoint on 2200 West as the trucks for a million sq. ft. facility make their way down a country road which is no longer a safe place to travel on foot or by bicycle. And the permits from the County were NOT in place. Neither was the road you were promised, leading back to my first point about annexation. 3 It is inconceivable that you could conclude that there is no opportunity for housing in Northpoint, west of 215, but room for 1800 units immediately east of the freeway. It is unreasonable to decide that future airplane traffic above Northpoint makes it unusable for residences, but the noise and pollution from the freeway is just fine on Rose Park Lane next to an off-road vehicle park. It is hard for me to imagine a place more ill-suited for high density residential use than this one. And you took all sort of precautions with a hotel property in terms of noise attenuation when you removed it from the airport overlay at the expense of the organization providing the supported housing, but I see nothing about measuring ambient levels of sound here. 1 Echeverria, Daniel From:Mark Sweet Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 3:54 AM To:Echeverria, Daniel Subject:(EXTERNAL) Rezoning 2441 N Rose Park Lane Questions on purpose and funding. Question the wisdom of cramming 1,800 condos onto 34 acres between I-215 and a flood control canal.(testing positive for West Nile Virus). Or will the DNR's ATV facility be used for this development? The area is served by a dead end road that is barely two lanes wide. And the nearest fire station is four and half miles away. Is the developer paying the impact fees for the cost of; 1- water line upgrades 2- sewer lines. 3- power lines 4- the canal contains gasoline, diesel and Lord knows what other contaminants. 5- how many causeways/culverts will there be. 6- rebuilding/upgrading North Rose Park Lane 7- sound barriers along the freeway. Will any of these units be designated low income? The bond issue voted on 20 years ago for the Regional Athletic Complex; called for a dozen plus soccer fields and a similar number of baseball/softball fields. Are the fields still to be built? Or are they to be replaced with high density housing? On days of soccer matches, traffic is terrible/obscene. Adding some 2,000 plus residents to the area will make it all the more worse. Mark Sweet Dear Commission Members: RE: PLNPCM2021-01124 and PLNPCM2021-01134: North Rose Park Lane Annexation and Zoning Amendment It has been well established in extensive research (cited herein) that residents, schools, and workers close to major highways are hugely affected negatively health wise. This new development proposal sits back to back on I 215, recently opened to heavy diesel truck traffic. 1800 units speaks loudly to the number of citizens that will be affected. There also will be a sound issue given heavy diesel truck traffic. While PM2.5 particulates are the major concern, it is known that some PM 2.5 contains black carbon (soot produced by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels) Additionally, the OHV park will be a major contributor to dust issues, acknowledged by the staff report This development needs to be required to: 1. Install the latest air filtration technology in every apartment and public space in the development. Either have HEPA install a central system, or provide each apartment with a HEPA filter system; 2. Require that UDOT plant a major pollution absorbing tree barrier on the west side of the property; 3. The developers work with the state and Davis County to plant a tree buffer at Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area; and, 4. Notice the applicants leasing/purchasing of the health risks associated with living close to a major highway as is noted in the staff recommendation for the sound issue. https://www.healtheffects.org/publication/mortality-air-pollution-associations- low-exposure-environments-maple-phase-2 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, JULY 14, 2022 – A comprehensive new study published today by the Health Effects Institute (HEI) reports increased risks of mortality in millions of Canadian citizens, including at the lowest levels of exposure to fine particulate matter air pollution (PM2.5), levels that fall below current U.S. and other ambient air quality standards. Long-term outdoor PM2.5 exposures as low as 2.5 micrograms per cubic meter were associated with increased risk of death, suggesting that lowering regulatory standards could yield further health benefits. http://jhr.uwpress.org/content/57/3/747.short ABSTRACT We examine the effect of traffic pollution on student outcomes by leveraging variation in wind patterns for schools the same distance from major highways. We compare within-student changes in achievement for students transitioning between schools near highways, where one school has greater levels of pollution because it is downwind of a highway. As students graduate from elementary/middle school to middle/high school, their test scores decrease, behavioral incidents increase, and absence rates increase when they attend a downwind school, relative to when they attend an upwind school in the same zip code. Even within zip codes, microclimates can contribute to inequality. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-021-18458-3 Continual exposure to toxic metals through road dust might develop lifetime cancer risk in local inhabitants. 1 Clark, Aubrey From:Terry Marasco Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:56 AM To:Clark, Aubrey Cc:Mendenhall, Erin; Petro-Eschler, Victoria; Norris, Nick; Kevin Parke; Westpointe 2 Subject:(EXTERNAL) Re: Please pass this document to all Commissioners Aubrey, please pass these also. Daniel Medoza at the U led these" https://www.mdpi.com/1660‐4601/17/18/6931 More frequent peak exposures were associated with reduced math and ELA proficiency, as was greater school disadvantage. High frequency peak exposures were more strongly linked to lower math proficiency in more advantaged schools. Findings highlight the need for policies to reduce the number of days with peak air pollution. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748‐9326/abbf7a Pollution reduction benefits would be greatest in schools located in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. Heterogeneity in exposure, disproportionately affecting socioeconomically disadvantaged schools, points to the need for fine resolution exposure estimation. The economic cost of absences associated with air pollution is substantial even excluding indirect costs such as hospital visits and medication. These findings may help elucidate the differential burden on individual schools and inform local decisions about recess and regulatory considerations for localized pollution sources. Terry Marasco Salt Lake City, Utah "Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear" On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 1:56 PM Terry Marasco <wrote: Re: PLNPCM2021-01124 and PLNPCM2021-01134: North Rose Park Lane Annexation and Zoning Amendment Thank you! Terry Marasco Salt Lake City, Utah "Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear" PLANNING COMMISSION – March 8, 20233 b. Staff Presentation Slides PLANNING COMMISSION // MARCH 8, 2023 NORTH ROSE PARK LANE ANNEXATION AND ZONING AMENDMENT 2350, 2440, 2441, AND 2462 N ROSE PARK LANE PLNPCM2021-01124/01134 •Requests by JWright Properties (2350/2441 N) •Two requests: •Zoning Map Amendment (2350 N Rose Park Lane) •From AG-2, Agricultural •To R-MU, Residential/Mixed Use •Annexation from County to City –Zoning Requests •Apply R-MU to 2441 N •Apply OS to 2462 N •Apply OS to 2440 N •Intended to accommodate an 1,800 unit multi -family development on the 2350 N and 2441 N properties •City and State properties not involved in development Recommendation: Staff is recommending a positive recommendation to the City Council with several conditions REQUEST Salt Lake City // Planning Division 2441 (J Wright) 2350 (J Wright) 2440 (City) 2462 (State) CONTEXT Salt Lake City // Planning Division 2100 North Interchange (Access) PROCESS AND ZONE Zoning Map Amendment •Requires review against standard City considerations •Consistency with plans, compatibility, impacts to services Annexation: •No consideration standards •City & State property included to comply with State law regarding creating “peninsulas” •Requires a zone be applied when annexed •Council forwarded the annexation to Commission for a zoning recommendation •Staff utilized considerations for a rezone Salt Lake City // Planning Division ZONING AMENDMENT &ANNEXATION PROCESS •Proposed Zone for J Wright (private)properties •Height: •Max.75'(multi-family/mixed-use), •Max.45'(non-residential) •Setbacks: •No front/side;min.25%lot depth/up to 30'rear setback •Max.Setback/Build-to Line: •Min.25%of building must be within 15'of front lot line •Open Space:20%of lot area •Freeway Landscape Buffer: •20'wide,shade tree for every 300 sq ft (equivalent to every 15'feet) •Allowed Use Examples: •Multi-family,retail,restaurant,office Salt Lake City // Planning Division R-MU -RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE KEY CONSIDERATIONS 2440 (City) & 2462 (State): •Rose Park Plan (2001) calls for Open Space (OS) or Agriculture (AG) •Proposed OS –will be used for park/recreation -RAC and OHV facility 2350 & 2441 (JWright) •Rose Park Plan policy: •Zone properties OS or AG •“to be compatible with the State recreational (OHV) and open space land uses (RAC)” •Residential compatible with recreational uses •Citywide policies support additional housing throughout City •Access to healthy lifestyle (recreational access –sports/trail) •Redevelopment of underutilized property •Locating near existing infrastructure (significant planned improvements) •Compatibility and Citywide policies support requested zone Salt Lake City // Planning Division PLAN CONSIDERATIONS F St r e e t 2441 (J Wright) 2350 (J Wright) 2440 (City) 2462 (State) •Traffic study shows need for road improvements •Abutting roadway is only semi-improved (no curb/gutter/etc.) •Inadequate utilities •Recommended conditions: •Phased improvements identified in traffic study •Roadway improvements to widen/improve adjacent street (Rose Park Lane) •Sidewalks and crosswalk to link development to existing sidewalks at RAC •All necessary utility improvements Salt Lake City // Planning Division PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS F St r e e t Turn Lane Signal/ Turn Lanes New Road (Partially funded) •Improve/Widen Road •Add Sidewalk/ Crosswalk •R-MU has no parking requirement •Mostly mapped in higher transit areas •Site has no current transit access •Recommend “General Context” intended for low/no transit access areas •Ex: 1.25 parking stalls for 2-bedroom units, 2 spaces for every 1,000 sq ft for retail •R-MU has a maximum front setback (15') •Public Utilities recommending condition for 50' setback for canal water quality •Setbacks conflict (15' vs 50’) •Recommend condition waiving R-MU setback where canal setback conflicts Salt Lake City // Planning Division R-MU ZONE CONDITIONS •Freeway -Noise and pollution from vehicles •Noise attenuation requirements condition •30 dbs attenuation for bedrooms/25 dbs elsewhere •Freeway landscaping (already required)help mitigate pollution •New condition not in report: •MERV 13 rated air filters in HVAC systems to reduce PM 2.5 air pollution from the freeway •OHV Park (ATVs)-Noise and dust from ATVs: •Intermittent noise can be very loud •Dust has negative health impacts •Recommend sound notice be provided to tenants/future owners •Recommend landscape buffer to help capture dust Salt Lake City // Planning Division FREEWAY NOISE/POLLUTION I-215 bordering site on west OHV State Park bordering site on east •Applicant original RMF-75 zone request •Concerns with single-use, no potential for local services (retail) •Staff discussed with applicant •Recommending the mixed-use residential zone to allow for services •Considered other zones and impacts •General Commercial/Industrial zones •Higher impact uses, loud outdoor mechanical uses •Residential/lower intensity commercial (office, retail, restaurant) •Little to no negative impacts to recreational uses •Additional recreational users •Activity and eyes on the recreational spaces Salt Lake City // Planning Division ALTERNATIVE ZONES/USES •Applicant included a concept plan, showing 1,800 dwelling units •Planned Development would be required due to having buildings without street frontage Salt Lake City // Planning Division CONCEPT SITE PLAN •Two letters generally opposed to the residential zone •One letter with conditions related to health/air quality •No letter from community council •RAC Use Clarification •Doesn’t currently have drop-in play hours •Use requires reservation and insurance policy •Construction Mitigation •Concerns regarding future construction activity •Condition: Work on a condition regarding construction mitigation to limit impacts Salt Lake City // Planning Division PUBLIC INPUT RECOMMENDATION Salt Lake City // Planning Division Staff recommends a positive recommendation to the City Council with conditions as listed in the report: 1.Roadway/Traffic Improvements 2.Rose Park Lane Improvements 3.Sidewalk Improvements 4.Public Utility Improvements 5.City Drain Lift Station 6.City Drain Setbacks 7.R-MU Setback Modification 8.General Parking Requirement 9.Sound Attenuation 10.State Park Landscape Buffer 11.State Park Noise Disclosure Salt Lake City // Planning Division RECOMMENDATION Additional conditions not in report: 12. HVAC Filters: •That air filters with a minimum rating of MERV 13, or equivalent, shall be used in all HVAC equipment. This applies to any replacement filters. 13.Construction Impacts: •That City Staff develop a condition to mitigate impacts on adjacent properties from construction activity on the 2350 and 2441 properties. QUESTIONS Salt Lake City // Planning Division Daniel Echeverria // Senior Planner daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com PLANNING COMMISSION – March 8, 202333 c. Applicant Presentation Slides Albuquerque | Boise | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Phoenix | Portland | Reno | Salt Lake Ci ty | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. 2350 N Rose Park Lane North Rose Park Lane Annexation and Zoning Amendment PLNPCM2021-01124 and PLNPCM2021-01134 Salt Lake City Planning Commission– February 22, 2023 Context Aerial 2 Context Aerial 3 Applicant Parcel to be Rezoned Salt Lake City Parcel to be Annexed State of Utah Parcel to be Annexed Applicant Parcel to be Annexed and Zoned City Boundary Rose Park Small Area Plan (2001) 4 Rose Park Small Area Plan (2001) -Policy: •Retain existing agricultural land uses along Rose Park Lane. -Policy: •If properties in the County are annexed into the City, retain the existing land use development by zoning the properties either agricultural or Open Space. -Discussion: •If and when existing properties in the County are annexed into the City they should be zoned for either agricultural or open space land uses to be compatible with the State recreational and open space land uses between Redwood Road and Interstate-215. 5 Current Zoning AG-2 BP PL M-1 6 Salt Lake County Zoning: A-5 Proposed Zoning R-MU BP PL M-1 7 Site Plan 8 Site Plan 9 Site Rendering 10 Conditions of Approval 11 1.That the owner of the 2350 N and 2441 N properties enter into a development agreement with the City that does the following: i.Traffic Impact Study Improvements: That the improvements noted in the transportation impact study addendum (dated 12/23/22), or equivalent improvements as determined by the Transportation Director, are completed prior to any Certificates of Occupancy being issued for development of the property. If other uses are proposed on site that differ from those evaluated in the study, the Transportation Director shall have the ability to require additional traffic studies and may require different off-site improvements for traffic impacts identified in such studies. (See Consideration 2) ii.Rose Park Lane Improvements: The developer shall make all public right of way improvements to the adjacent street Rose Park Lane that would be required by a subdivision process for each phase of their development in compliance with the improvement standards of Chapter 20.40 “Improvements and Flood Control” and Chapter 20.12 “Design Standards and Requirements” including, but not limited to, road widening, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities, and park strip landscaping. This may include additional right-of-way improvement beyond the west-half of the adjacent Rose Park Lane right-of-way. (See Consideration 2) iii.Sidewalk Improvements: Sidewalk shall be installed both adjacent to the site and off-site to provide a complete pedestrian connection from each phase of the development to existing sidewalk infrastructure along the Regional Athletic Complex. Sidewalk shall have a minimum width of 5 feet. A crosswalk shall also be installed across Rose Park Lane. The final configuration of the sidewalk and crosswalk is subject to Transportation, Engineering, and Planning Director approval. (See Consideration 2) iv.Public Utility Improvements: That the developer complies with all Public Utility Department requirements to serve the development, including, but not limited to, installation of offsite water and sewer improvements. (See Consideration 2) v.City Drain Usage: If future development plans require discharging to City Drain, there may be offsite lift station upgrades required as determined by the Public Utilities Director. (See Consideration 2) vi.City Drain Setback: That a 50' setback from the City Drain apply to development of the property, measured from the average high-water elevation of the City Drain. No buildings or parking pavement shall be constructed within the setback. Fences, landscaping, sidewalks, and other improvements may be located within the setback. (See Consideration 3) Conditions of Approval 12 vii.R-MU Setback Conflicts: That the maximum front setback provisions of the R-MU ordinance in section 21A.24.170.E.8 do not apply where a greater setback is required along the City Drain (canal) or by the Freeway Scenic Landscape Setback where conditioned to apply along Rose Park Lane. (See Consideration 3) viii.Parking Requirement: That any uses comply with the General Context minimum parking requirements in Table 21A.44.040-A of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. This does not preclude modifications through the options provided in the Zoning Ordinance. (See Consideration 3) ix.Sound Attenuation: That residential uses be built with at least 30 dBs of sound attention in sleeping areas and 25 dBs of attenuation in other areas, due to the proximity to the freeway and noise impacts. A sound attenuation study would need to be provided to verify compliance, as described in City Code 18.88.020. (See Consideration 4) x.State Park Adjacent Landscaping: That the landscaped setback requirements of the “Freeway Scenic Landscape Setback” of 21A.48.110 (or its successor) be applied along the east property line where it is directly across the street from the Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area (2462 N Rose Park Lane). The requirement shall apply where new development occurs within 100' of that portion of the east property line. (See Consideration 4) xi.State Park Noise Disclosure: That a disclosure be provided to future residents, tenants, and owners regarding the potential for high levels of noise from the Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area. (See Consideration 4) North Rose Park Lane Annexation and Zoning Amendment PLNPCM2021-01124 and PLNPCM2021-01134 Salt Lake City Planning Commission–February 22, 2023 4. ORIGINAL PETITIONS Updated 7/1/20 Zoning Amendment  Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance  Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): Name of Applicant: Phone: Address of Applicant: E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property:  Owner  Contractor  Architect  Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): E-mail of Property Owner:Phone: Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at (801) 535-7700 prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE Map Amendment: filing fee of $1,058 plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre Text Amendment: filing fee of $1,058, plus fees for newspaper notice. Plus additional fee for mailed public notices. SIGNATURE If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: SA L T L A K E C I T Y P L A N N IN G 10/28/2021 X n JAW Development, LLC; Attn.: Jeffrey D. Wright, P.E. and Jay Bollwinkel 801-302-2200; 801-364-9696 jeff@jwright.biz; jayb@grassligroup.com 801-386-6820; 801-364-9696 n jeff@jwright.biz 801-302-2200 2350 N. Rose Park Ln., Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 357 West 6160 South, Murray, UT 84107 JWright Communities Updated 7/1/20 St a f f R e v i e w SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1.Project Description (please attach additional sheets.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Mailing Address: Planning Counter PO Box 145471 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 In Person: Planning Counter 451 South State Street, Room 215 Telephone: (801) 535-7700 INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED ______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. X X X X X 4842-6277-7292 EXHIBIT A SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. PURPOSE FOR THE AMENDMENT IN QUESTION: •Acreage: 4.93 acres •Address: 2350 N. Rose Park Ln., Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 (the “Property”) •Current Zoning: Agricultural 2 Acre Minimum (AG-2) •Proposed Zoning: High Density Multi-Family Residential District (RMF-75) 2. A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY BEING REZONED: The Property is currently in Salt Lake City. The intention is to annex in adjoining land from unincorporated Salt Lake County (the “Annexation Property”)1 and have a single, integrated multifamily project located on the combined land. The requested rezone will facilitate the development of this project, and will tie in infrastructure improvements intended for the area to facilitate development. The conceptual site plan, attached hereto as Exhibit B, contemplates, among other things for both the Property and Annexation Property: •11 buildings (5 stories – less than 75’ in height); •164 units per building (500 sq. ft. minimum); •Total density of 1,804 units; •Building coverage of 29%; •Parking Provided: Podium (2 levels each building) (1,760 parking spaces), and Surface (775 parking spaces) (total of 2,535 parking spaces); •Parking coverage of 30%; and •Landscaping coverage of 41%. 3. REASONS WHY THE PRESENT ZONING MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA: •The Property is adjoined by the following zoning districts: •North: N/A Unincorporated [Annexation Property (High Density Multi-Family Residential District (RMF-75)) upon completion of annexation and rezone)] •East: Open Space (OS) •South: Single Family Residential (R-1-7000) separated by I-215 and Frontage Rd. •West: Business Park (BP) separated by I-215 •The Property is located within an agricultural area of the Rose Park Small Area Plan (adopted 2001), and other details therein are very limited. The Property is generally located within the Northwest Jordan River/Airport Master Plan (adopted 1992) but the exact location of the Property is not discussed within such Master Plan. The Northwest Jordan River/Airport Master Plan highlights the importance of eliminating use conflicts between adjacent properties. Multi-family residential housing does not conflict with the surrounding uses detailed above. Further, we intend to preserve open space and existing 1 The Annexation Property adjoins the Property to the north (2441 N. Rose Park Ln., Salt Lake City, Utah 84116). The Annexation Property is approximately 17.21 acres. Applicant is simultaneously seeking to annex the Annexation Property into Salt Lake City with requested zoning of RMF -75. 4842-6277-7292 trees on the Property and the Annexation Property in accordance with the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry. •A rezone of the Property would support business park uses in the area, if they develop in accordance with current zoning. The existing Salt Lake City Regional Athletic Complex (RAC) to the east provides an adjacent, complimentary use. Multi-family residential housing will involve efficient use of the Property and Annexation Property and coordinate well with existing and planned public infrastructure. •A rezone of the Property and the Annexation Property will support nearby developments, including, without limitation, the RAC, and will provide infrastructure improvements for the area to facilitate development. We have been in contact with the Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City Public Utilities, and others with respect to constructing and/or contributing to: (i) Sports Park Boulevard, (ii) the upgrade of the intersection of Sports Park Boulevard and Redwood Road, (iii) new water and sewer lines through Sports Park Boulevard, and (iv) a Salt Lake City drain bridge on or near the Property. The installation of Sports Park Boulevard and the upgrade of the aforementioned intersection will reduce traffic congestion on Rose Park Lane after RAC sporting events. The construction of new water and sewer lines and the drain bridge will facilitate development in the area generally. 4.PARCEL NUMBERS TO BE CHANGED: •Property: Parcel Id. No. 08153010030000; AG-2 to RMF-75 •Annexation Property: Parcel Id. No. 08151000240000; Unincorporated to RMF-75 4842-6277-7292 EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN [See Attached] 20 21 23 54 13 65 48 68 18 46 12 2 5 44 95 45 56 22 42 11 3 13 5 44 DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % PARKING ( T Y P ) 25 ' 25 ' 25 ' 25 ' 40'Rose P a r k L a n e Co u n t y Utah State Parks Jordan River OHV Park I-215 Sa l t L a k e C i t y Club House PLAYGROUND PERIMETER TRAIL GATHERING AREA FENCED DOG AREA PERIMETER TRAIL LAWN SALT LAKE DRAIN Pool HUNTER STABLES APARTMENTS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 12 MAY 2021SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Scale: 1" = 100'-0" 0 50' 100'200' Plotted: 5/12/21 at 9:42am By: dans P:\Projects\19-103 Hunter Stables HD\02-Working\01-Drawings\01-SD\19-103 Site Plan MColor 210512.dwgFile Path: SLC RAC TRAIL CONNECTING TO JORDAN RIVER AND LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL ROAD CONNECTING TO N REDWOOD RD 23 13 65 48 68 18 46 12 2 5 44 95 45 56 22 42 11 3 13 5 44 DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN DWN 10% PA R K I N G ( T Y P ) 25' 40 ' Ro s e P a r k L a n e County Ut a h S t a t e P a r k s Jo r d a n R i v e r O H V P a r k Salt Lake City N R E D W O O D R D JO R D A N R I V E R SPOTS PARK BOULEVARD Cl u b Ho u s e JORDAN RIVER AND LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL PL A Y G R O U N D SA L T L A K E D R A I N Po o l HUNTER STABLES APARTMENTS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 13 APRIL 2120SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Scale: 1" = 100'-0" 0 50' 100'200' Plotted: 4/13/21 at 2:37pm By: tylerr P:\Projects\19-103 Hunter Stables HD\02-Working\01-Drawings\01-SD\19-2013 Site Plan MColor.dwgFile Path: SLC RAC TRAIL CONNECTING TO JORDAN RIVER AND LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL ROAD CONNECTING TO N REDWOOD RD hƉĚĂƚĞĚϭϬͬϮϳͬϮϭ $QQH[DWLRQWR6DOW/DNH&LW\ K&&/h^KE>z WƌŽũĞĐƚη͗ZĞĐĞŝǀĞĚǇ͗ĂƚĞZĞĐĞŝǀĞĚ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚEĂŵĞ͗ W>^WZKs/d,&K>>Kt/E'/E&KZDd/KE /ƐƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚĂƌĞĂďŽƌĚĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐŽĨ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚǇ͍ FzĞƐFEŽ ZĞƋƵĞƐƚ͗ >ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͗ EĂŵĞŽĨƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͗WŚŽŶĞ͗ ĚĚƌĞƐƐŽĨƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͗ ͲŵĂŝůŽĨƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͗Ğůůͬ&Ăǆ͗ ƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͛Ɛ/ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚŝŶ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͗ Î WůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŵĂǇďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďǇƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƉůĂŶŶĞƌƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĨŽƌƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐ͘ůůŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨŽƌƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐǁŝůůďĞĐŽƉŝĞĚĂŶĚ ŵĂĚĞƉƵďůŝĐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůŽƌĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐ͕ĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐŽĨƉƵďůŝĐ ƌĞǀŝĞǁďǇĂŶǇŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚĞĚƉĂƌƚǇ͘ s/>>KE^h>dd/KE Î WůĂŶŶĞƌƐĂƌĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŝŽƌƚŽƐƵďŵŝƚƚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘WůĞĂƐĞĞŵĂŝů ǌŽŶŝŶŐΛƐůĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵŝĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶǇƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘ t,ZdK&/>d,KDW>dWW>/d/KE ƉƉůǇŽŶůŝŶĞƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞŝƚŝǌĞŶĐĐĞƐƐWŽƌƚĂů͘dŚĞƌĞŝƐĂƐƚĞƉͲďǇͲƐƚĞƉŐƵŝĚĞƚŽůĞĂƌŶ ŚŽǁƚŽƐƵďŵŝƚŽŶůŝŶĞ͘ ZYh/Z& &ŝůŝŶŐĨĞĞŽĨΨϭ͕ϯϰϰ WůƵƐĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĨĞĞĨŽƌƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƉƵďůŝĐŶŽƚŝĐĞƐǁŝůůďĞĂƐƐĞƐƐĞĚĂĨƚĞƌƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚ͘ ^/'EdhZ /ĨĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ͕ĂŶŽƚĂƌŝǌĞĚƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚŽĨĐŽŶƐĞŶƚĂƵƚŚŽƌŝǌŝŶŐĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚƚŽĂĐƚĂƐĂŶĂŐĞŶƚǁŝůůďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͘ ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞŽĨKǁŶĞƌŽƌŐĞŶƚ͗ĂƚĞ͗ 6$ / 7 / $ . ( & , 7 < 3 / $ 1 1 , 1 * ϮϯϱϬE͘ZŽƐĞWĂƌŬ>Ŷ͕͘^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚǇ͕hƚĂŚϴϰϭϭϲ :tĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕>>͖ƚƚŶ͗͘:ĞĨĨƌĞǇ͘tƌŝŐŚƚ͕W͘͘ĂŶĚ:ĂǇŽůůǁŝŶŬĞů ϴϬϭͲϯϬϮͲϮϮϬϬ͖ϴϬϭͲϯϲϰͲϵϲϵϲ ũĞĨĨΛũǁƌŝŐŚƚ͘ďŝǌ͖ũĂǇďΛŐƌĂƐƐůŝŐƌŽƵƉ͘ĐŽŵ ϯϱϳtĞƐƚϲϭϲϬ^ŽƵƚŚ͕DƵƌƌĂǇ͕hdϴϰϭϬϳ ϴϬϭͲϯϴϲͲϲϴϮϬ͖ϴϬϭͲϯϲϰͲϵϲϵϲ y ŶŶĞǆϮϴ͘ϮϴĂĐƌĞƐŝŶƚŽ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚǇ͕ĨƌŽŵƵŶŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŽƵŶƚǇ KǁŶĞƌΘZĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞ March 24, 2022 (via email)Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder Hunter Stables PLNPCM2021-01124 hƉĚĂƚĞĚϭϬͬϮϳͬϮϭ ^ƚ Ă Ĩ Ĩ Z Ğ ǀ ŝ Ğ ǁ ^hD/dd>ZYh/ZDEd^ ϭ͘>ĞƚƚĞƌƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶ ϭ͘ůĞƚƚĞƌƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞĚƚŽƚŚĞDĂǇŽƌŽĨ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚǇ͘ Ϯ͘WůĞĂƐĞĂŶƐǁĞƌƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐŽŶĂŶĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚƐŚĞĞƚͬƐ͗ ϭ͘ tŚĂƚŝƐƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞůĂŶĚ͍ Ϯ͘ tŚĂƚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂƌĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďǇĂŶŽƚŚĞƌŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚǇ͕ĐŽƵŶƚǇ͕ŽƌƐƉĞĐŝĂůĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͍ ϯ͘ WůĞĂƐĞŝĚĞŶƚŝĨǇĂŶǇůĞŐĂůŽƌĨĂĐƚƵĂůďĂƌƌŝĞƌƐƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚŶĞŐĂƚŝǀĞůǇĂĨĨĞĐƚƚŚĞƉƌŽďĂďŝůŝƚǇŽĨ ĂŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͍ ϯ͘WůĞĂƐĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ ϭ͘ĚŝŐŝƚĂů^ŝĚǁĞůůŵĂƉŽĨƚŚĞĂƌĞĂ͘ Ϯ͘ĚŝŐŝƚĂů;W&ͿĐŽƉǇŽĨƚŚĞŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶWůĂƚ͘ ϯ͘dŚĞŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶWůĂƚƐŚŽƵůĚƐŚŽǁƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗ Ă͘ƚŚĂƚŝƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚĂŶĚĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĞĚďǇĂůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚůĂŶĚƐƵƌǀĞǇŽƌ͖ ď͘ĂĐĐƵƌĂƚĞůǇĚƌĂǁŶƚŽƐĐĂůĞ͖ Đ͘ĂĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůĞŐĂůĚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂ͖ Ě͘ƚŽƚĂůĂĐƌĞĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĞĂƌĞĂ͖ĂŶĚ Ğ͘ƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞďůŽĐŬƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƚǇŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ͕ŝƚǇƚƚŽƌŶĞǇ͕ŝƚǇZĞĐŽƌĚĞƌ͕ ĂŶĚ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŽƵŶƚǇZĞĐŽƌĚĞƌ͘ ϰ͘EĂŵĞĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽǁŶĞƌƐ͘ ϱ͘WĞƚŝƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞƐŽĨƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽǁŶĞƌƐǁŚŽƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŚĞŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶ͘ x ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽǁŶĞƌƐĂŶĚŶŽƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƌĞŶƚĞƌƐ͘ x dŚĞƉĞƚŝƚŝŽŶƐŚŽƵůĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽǁŶĞƌƐ͘ &/>>/E't/d,^>d><KhEdz>Z<͛^K&&/ Î WůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚĂĐŽƉǇŽĨƚŚĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŵƵƐƚĂůƐŽďĞĨŝůĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŽƵŶƚǇůĞƌŬ͛Ɛ KĨĨŝĐĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐZĞĐĞŝƉƚĂƚƚŚĞŝƚǇZĞĐŽƌĚĞƌ͛ƐŽĨĨŝĐĞ͘dŚĞŽƵŶƚǇůĞƌŬ͛ƐŽĨĨŝĐĞŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚ͗ϮϬϬϭ^ŽƵƚŚ^ƚĂƚĞ ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕ZŽŽŵ^ͲϭϭϬϬ /EKDW>dWW>/d/KE^t/>>EKdWd ͺͺͺͺͺͺ/ĂĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞƚŚĂƚ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚǇƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƚŚĞŝƚĞŵƐĂďŽǀĞƚŽďĞƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞŵǇĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĐĂŶďĞ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĞĚ͘/ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĂƚWůĂŶŶŝŶŐǁŝůůŶŽƚĂĐĐĞƉƚŵǇĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƵŶůĞƐƐĂůůŽĨƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐŝƚĞŵƐĂƌĞ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂůƉĂĐŬĂŐĞ͘ y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y hƉĚĂƚĞĚϭϬͬϮϳͬϮϭ Wd/d/KEdKEEyWZKWZdz/EdK^>d></dz:hZ/^/d/KE ;ƚŚŝƐƉĂŐĞŵĂǇďĞĚƵƉůŝĐĂƚĞĚŝĨŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇͿ EĂŵĞŽĨƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ĚĚƌĞƐƐŽĨƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ĂƚĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ 127,&(7KHUHZLOOEHQRSXEOLFHOHFWLRQRQWKHDQQH[DWLRQSURSRVHGE\WKLVSHWLWLRQEHFDXVH8WDKODZGRHV QRWSURYLGHIRUDQDQQH[DWLRQWREHDSSURYHGE\YRWHUVDWDSXEOLFHOHFWLRQ ,I\RXVLJQWKLVSHWLWLRQDQGODWHUGHFLGHWKDW\RXGRQRWVXSSRUWWKHSHWLWLRQ\RXPD\ZLWKGUDZ\RXU VLJQDWXUHE\VXEPLWWLQJDVLJQHGZULWWHQZLWKGUDZDOWRWKH6DOW/DNH&LW\5HFRUGHU,I\RXFKRRVHWR ZLWKGUDZ\RXUVLJQDWXUH\RXVKDOOGRVRQRODWHUWKDQGD\VDIWHU6DOW/DNH&LW\UHFHLYHVQRWLFHWKDWWKH SHWLWLRQKDVEHHQFHUWLILHG ƐĂŶŽǁŶĞƌŽĨƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶŝŶƚŽ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚǇ:ƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶ͕/ĂŐƌĞĞƚŽƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶ͘ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ :tĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕>>͖ƚƚŶ͗͘:ĞĨĨƌĞǇ͘tƌŝŐŚƚ͕W͘͘ĂŶĚ:ĂǇŽůůǁŝŶŬĞů ϯϱϳtĞƐƚϲϭϲϬ^ŽƵƚŚ͕DƵƌƌĂǇ͕hdϴϰϭϬϳ 01/0138z/7.1z 233z/z53!z /6-49z/z2)3z)(vz vz vddz "z oCz z z z ?CMZJz BlQrz do\bz BC^\dCz =ZBzd=rzeK=ez #z oCz =Vz =_Cz eKCz \oZC_dz \DzeLCz ^_\z C_frz MBCZeMGCBz Mz eKCz =hg=@KCBz =^^QM@=eM\[z =[Bz eK=ez eKCz de=eCWCZedz KC_CMZz @\Ze=M[CBz =[Bz eKCz MZH_X=fM\[z ^_\mMBCBz M[z eKCz =fg=@KCBz ^Q=Zdz =[Bz \eKC_z CpKM?Medz =_CzM[z =QQz _Cd^C@edz e_lCz =[Bz @\__C@ez e\ez eKCz ?Cdez \EzWrz \l_z PZ\oQCBJC z "z =Qd\z =@OZ\oQCBJCz eK=ez #z oCz K=mCz _C@CMmCBz o`MefC[z M[dkl@eM\Zdz _CJ=_BMZJz eKCz ^_\@Cddz I_z oKM@Kz #z oCz =Wz =_Cz =^^QrM[Jz=ZBz eKCz2=Qez*=OCz Mfrz 0Q=[ZMZJz 2e=Fz K=nCz MZBM@=eCBzeKCrz=_Cz=m=MQ=?QCze\z=ddMdezVCzMZzW=ON[JzeKNdz=^^QM@=eM\Zz $ -+)- %""-,'- - 0_\^C_erz/o[C_z 0_]^C_irz/oZC_z ,\e=_rz 1CdMBMZJzM[z2=Sfz*=OCz\l[ftz 5e=Kz +rz@\YMddM\[zCp^M_Cdz &zz wz $z%z#z oCz<x A Ta:z;z eKCz\oZC_zdz \DzeKCz_C=Qz ^_\^C`erz BCd@_M?CBz MZz eKCz =fj=@KCBz=^^QM@=eM\Zz B\z=leQz \_MuCBz=dzWrz\z _z =JC[edz '=sz\QQoMZPCRz z e\z_C^_CdCZezVCzldz _CJ=_BMZJz eKCz =fj=@KCBz =^^QM@=eM\[z =[Bz g\z =^^C=_z \Zz Wrz z\l_z ?CK=QDz ?CH_Cz =[rz =BVM[Mde_=eMmCz \_z QCJMdQ=eMmCz ?\Brz M[z eKCz Merz@\ZdMBC_MZJz eKMdz =^^QM@=eM\[z >Bze\z =@ez M[z=QQz _Cd^C@edz =dz \l_z =JCZez M[z V=eeC_dz ^C_f=MZMZJze\zeKCz=ef=@KCBz=^^QM@=eM\Zz 0_\^C_irz/o[C_z 0_\^C_erz/oZC_z =hCyMdzB=rz\Dz z z ^C_d\Z=Urz=^^C=_CBz ?CH_CzWCz eKCz dMJZC_dz \DzeKCz =JCZez =lez cu=eM\Zz oKz BQrz =@P[\oQCBJCBz e\z XCz eK=ezeKCrzCpC@leCBzeKCzd=WCz $!!-+*- &##-,(- - ,\e=_tz 1CdMBMZJzMZz2=Qez*=OCz\lZerz5e=Kz +rz@\VWNddM\ZzCq^M_Cdz 145 W 200 S – Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 – 801-364-9696 – www.grassligroup.com 0DUFK, 202 Mayor Mendenhall Salt Lake City 451 S. State Street, Suite 306 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Subject: Annexation of Acres on 2664 North Rose Park Lane Dear Mayor Mendehall, We formally request the annexation of the above referenced parcel to be classified as RMF75 zoning. We have attended the Westpointe Community Council and presented our project twice to gather input. We are now ready to proceed with Planning Commission review of our project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jay Bollwinkel, Principal MGB+A, Inc. 145 W 200 S – Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 – 801-364-9696 – www.grassligroup.com ϭ͘What is the current use of the land? – ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯ͘What services are currently provided by another municipality, county, or special district? - EŽŶĞ ϯ͘Please identify any legal or factual barriers that would negatively affect the probability of annexation of the subject property? – EŽŶĞ tĞŚĂǀĞƌĞƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚƚŚŝƐĂŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶƉĞƚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞĂŶŶĞǆĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚǁŽ;ϮͿƉƵďůŝĐůǇ ƉĂƌĐĞůƐ͕ƉĞƌƚŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŽĨ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŽƵŶƚǇ͘dŚĞƐĞƉĂƌĐĞůƐĂƌĞŽǁŶĞĚďǇ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚǇŽƌƉ͘ ;ƉĂƌĐĞůηϬϴϭϱϭϬϬϬϯϬϬϬϬϬͿĂŶĚƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞŽĨhƚĂŚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶƐŽĨWĂƌŬƐΘZĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶͲ;ƉĂƌĐĞůη ϬϴϭϱϭϬϬϬϮϵϬϬϬϬͿ͘ Property Owners: Jeff Wright JWright Communities, LLC 357 W 6160 S Murray, UT 84107 All ƉƌŝǀĂƚĞproperty owners support this annexation 1 PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO: CITY RECORDER’S OFFICE OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE OF SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH: The undersigned owner (the “Petitioner”) of a portion of the Property (defined below) submits this Petition for Annexation (this “Petition”) and respectfully represents the following: 1.This Petition is made in accordance with the requirements of Utah Code § 10-2- 403. 2.The real property subject to this Petition: (i) contains land that is privately-owned by the Petitioner, (ii) contains land that is publicly owned by Salt Lake City Corp. and the State of Utah Division of Parks and Recreation, (iii) contains approximately 28.28 acres, (iv) is located within the unincorporated area of Salt Lake County, (v) is contiguous to the northern boundary of Salt Lake City’s limits, and (vi) is more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto (the “Property”). 3.The signature affixed hereto is that of the Petitioner and who, by so affixing its signature, states and confirms that: a.the Petitioner is the owner of all private land area within the Property; b. the Property is accurately described and depicted on the recordable map, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, which was prepared by a licensed surveyor and which is made a part hereof by such reference; c.in accordance with Utah Code § 10-2-403(2)(a)(i)(A), a notice of intent to file a petition was properly filed with the City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”; and d.in accordance with Utah Code § 10-2-403(2)(a)(i)(B), a notice was properly mailed to each “affected entity”, including, without limitation, the public entities that own a portion of the Property, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” , as evidenced by that certificate of completion attached hereto as Exhibit “C”. 4.The Petitioner hereby designates the following person as the sole sponsor, and the contact sponsor, for this Petition. The sponsor’s contact information is as follows: Jay Bollwinkel 145 W 200 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101 jayb@grassligroup.com 5.The Property is not, in whole or in part, subject to any other petition for annexation that was previously filed that has not been denied, rejected, or granted, in accordance to Utah Code § 10-2-403(4). 2 WHEREFORE, Petitioner hereby requests that this Petition be considered, accepted, and certified by the Salt Lake City Recorder in accordance with Utah Code § 10-2-405. DATED this day of March 2022. PETITIONER: JWright Communities By: Name: Jeffery D. Wright Its: NOTICE: THERE WILL BE NO PUBLIC ELECTION ON THE ANNEXATION PROPOSED BY THIS PETITION BECAUSE UTAH LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR AN ANNEXATION TO BE APPROVED BY VOTERS AT A PUBLIC ELECTION. IF YOU SIGN THIS PETITION AND LATER DECIDE THAT YOU DO NOT SUPPORT THE PETITION, YOU MAY WITHDRAW YOUR SIGNATURE BY SUBMITTING A SIGNED, WRITTEN WITHDRAWAL WITH THE RECORDER OR CLERK OF SALT LAKE CITY. IF YOU CHOOSE TO WITHDRAW YOUR SIGNATURE, YOU SHALL DO SO NO LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER SALT LAKE CITY RECEIVES NOTICE THAT THE PETITION HAS BEEN CERTIFIED. CONTACT SPONSOR: By: Name: Jay Bollwinkel Its: 23rd 3 EXHIBIT “A” Recordable Map or Plat [See Attached] 4 4852-6058-5424.4 5 EXHIBIT “B” Notice of Intent to File Petition & Notice to Affected Entities [See Attached] 6 7 8 9 10 11 EXHIBIT “C” Certificate of Completion [See Attached] 12 13 14 5. MAILING LIST Name Mailing Address City/State ZIP PROVO-JORDAN RIVER PARKWAY 1545 WEST 1000 NORTH SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ATTN Nancy B Regier UTAH DIVISION OF PARKS & RECREATION 1596 W North Temple SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 STATE OF UTAH AND PROVO-JORDAN RIVER PARKWAY AUTHORITY STATE OFFICE BUILDING RM 404 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 JWRIGHT COMMUNITIES 357 W 6160 S MURRAY UT 84107 ATTN RHONDA DEVEREAUX HAPPY HORSE RANCH LLC 88 E EDGECOMBE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 ERIC PORTER 2800 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ATTN: PROPERTY MANAGER STATE OF UTAH DIVISION OF PARKS AND 1594 W NORTHTEMPLE ST # 116 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ATTN: JEFF WRIGHT JWRIGHT COMMUNITIES, LLC 357 W 6160 S MURRAY UT 84107 ATTN: PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 ETG LV TR 2125 N 2800 W BRIGHAM CITY UT 84302 ATTN: TAX ADM DIV 513-5346 ROSE PARK STAKE OF CHURCH OF JC OF LDS 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST #2225 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 PARK MANAGEMENT II, LLC 1302 W MILLBRIDGE LN WEST BOUNTIFUL UT 84087 ATTN: HAMILTON PARTNERS HAMILTON I-215 LOGISTIC CENTER LLC 222 S MAIN ST # 1760 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 LBA RVI-COMPANY XLIII, LLC PO BOX 847 CARLSBAD CA 92018 CURRENT RESIDENT 2441 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2575 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2800 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2462 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2440 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2350 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2280 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2280 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2280 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2075 W 2670 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2075 W 2670 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2476 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2596 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2520 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2390 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2320 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2220 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ATTN DANIEL ECHEVERRIA SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City UT 84114