The URL can be used to link to this page

Transmittal - 2/9/2024ERIN 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: _________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: February 8, 2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: 300 West Corridor/Central Pointe Station Area Plan – Mid-Process Update STAFF CONTACT: Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com, 801- 535-7165 DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Only RECOMMENDATION: Review information regarding the planning process. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In June 2023, City Planning Staff provided an introduction and overview of the proposed planning process for the 300 West Corridor and Central Pointe Station Area Plan to the City Council. The update was in accordance with Resolution 14 of 2020, which directs the administration to provide updates to the Council during a plan development effort. Following that City Council briefing, the project team began public outreach for the planning effort and the planning effort is currently ongoing. This transmittal is intended to provide an update on the public outreach efforts, materials developed by the consultant team so far, key plan priorities as informed by community input, and a timeline for the next planning efforts. For background, this planning effort is focused on the area extending from 1700 South to 2100 South and from I-15 to West Temple. The State recently adopted legislation that directs cities to develop rachel otto (Feb 9, 2024 14:04 MST)02/09/2024 02/09/2024 “Station Area Plans” for the areas around transit stations and this plan is intended to fulfill that requirement for the area around the Central Pointe Station, which is located on the south edge of the plan area at the intersection of the TRAX line and 2100 South. Part of this planning effort also involves implementation of the plan through zoning changes, and those changes will be developed following the plan's adoption. Public Engagement Efforts and Process Below is a list of engagement activities held for the project so far with key details of the activities. All of the city-hosted online and in-person engagements were publicized with direct mailers (businesses, property owners, and residents, including all apartment building units, in and near the project area), e- mails to city-maintained contact lists (listserv), and social media postings. Summer 2023 - Visioning • Initial online outreach for general concerns and ideas. o Webpage included an interactive map allowing people to add location-specific comments to the map o Open from July to September 2023 o 765 unique visitors to the site o 65 persons provided 163 comments. o The top comments pertained to pedestrian or bicycle safety concerns or were general suggestions (26% of comments for each). o The comments with the most upvotes from participants pertained to pedestrian and bicycle safety or connections. o An overview of the input provided is in Exhibit 2. • Met with area stakeholders including both one-on-one and in a formal stakeholder meeting setting, including Council Member Mano, City departments, UDOT, UTA, and South Salt Lake. o Meetings were intended to provide an introduction to the project and get initial input and information on their organization or department’s plans that impact the area. o Held on various dates. • Consultant-led conversations with local businesses, residents, and property owners (phone calls, e-mails, on-site visits). o The intent of this outreach was to have a conversation and get in-depth responses from individuals about their concerns and hopes for the area. o 18 individuals participated in the conversations. o A summary and excerpts of the conversations are in Exhibit 3. Fall/Winter 2023 – Scenario Development • Draft scenario meeting with stakeholders to help inform draft scenarios. • In-person Open House for draft scenarios input. o For this engagement the consultant prepared two draft scenarios that illustrate how the area might look in the next 20 years. ▪ Scenario 1 was the lower intensity scenario, showing lower intensity new development and limited full-scale redevelopment of properties. The scenario showed limited in-fill around existing buildings on vacant or parking lot property. ▪ Scenario 2 was the higher intensity scenario, showing high density and scale new development and full-scale redevelopment of most properties west of the TRAX line. o Held on September 26th in the late afternoon/early evening at Ballpark Playground and on the 27th during the morning commute hours at the Central Pointe TRAX Station. o 45 persons participated in the open houses. o The boards from the open houses are in Exhibit 4. o An overview of the feedback from the open houses is in Exhibit 5. o Elements (such as building types or transportation improvements) shown in Scenario 1 received more preference votes than Scenario 2 (34 versus 27). o Generally there was support for more density and development in the area, but there were concerns about new development on West Temple. • Online engagement/survey held from October to mid-December o The online survey included an overview of the draft scenarios and asked for respondents’ preferences regarding the two scenarios. o 320 persons participated in the survey. o About 30% of participants live in the area, with 30% working near the area, and 60% shopping or visiting the area. o Preference for the scenarios was generally split, with participants overall slightly preferring scenario 2 more than 1. o Respondents were asked to rate how important particular concepts were to the future of the area, like “mixed-use development” or “retain existing housing.” The highest-rated concept was “Walkable district with dining and shopping options.” o An overview of the responses is in Exhibit 6. • Ballpark Community Council update on the draft scenarios - December 7th o Attendees provided questions/comments regarding integration with other planning efforts, trees/tree canopy coverage, freeway expansion, and retention of big box stores. Winter/Spring 2024 (Current Phase) – Draft Plan Development • The consultant is currently developing a draft plan based on feedback on the draft scenarios. • Additional outreach will be held for the plan draft to get feedback. • The final draft will be taken through the adoption process, including formal Planning Commission and City Council meetings and hearings. General Community Input Themes The input received has been wide-ranging, but some key themes have emerged from that input and are listed below. Concerns: • Concerns with scale and density of development along West Temple. • Concerns with the loss of retailers that provide needed services to the general area. • Concerns with lack of green space, including trees and heat island impacts. • Concerns with lack of pedestrian amenities. Support: • Support for more housing generally. • Support for better pedestrian-focused design and pedestrian-friendly features. • Support for bicycle-related improvements. • Support for more green space and trees. Existing Conditions Report The project team has produced an existing conditions report that provides information regarding existing public policies related to the area both directly and indirectly, demographic information, recent development trends, and built and environmental conditions. The full draft report is attached in Exhibit 1. Below are some key takeaways from the report: • The number of households in the area has increased by about 60% since 2010. (291 to 465) • The population has increased by about 30% since 2010. (582 to 829) • In the last three years, 335 new units were added to the area, comprised of two new apartment buildings and a townhome development. The next most recent major residential development was in 2016 with approximately 112 units added by the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City. • Based on current Census Bureau estimates and racial categories, most of the population is “white” at 66%, followed by the category “other races” at 11.5%, and “two or more races” at 11.8%. Approximately 28% of the population have a Hispanic origin. This is not a racial category and is a separately tracked data point by the Census. • There is a large daytime worker population of 2,015 people working in the businesses in the study area. • There are 35 policies in the 2005 Central Community Plan applicable to the area, with 21 of those having been implemented or currently underway to implementation. • This area of the City has a tree canopy coverage similar to downtown, which is generally low, with 1% to 11% of the area covered by trees. This is much lower than most single-family residential areas of the City, which generally have 20% to 36% tree canopy coverage. • There are no public facilities, such as public parks, police stations, fire stations, or libraries in the study area. The existing conditions report is a draft document that may be updated as the plan is prepared and will become an addendum to the plan itself. Plan Priorities Guiding Plan Development The plan’s priorities are informed by the plan area scope, City initiating petition, funding grant parameters from Wasatch Front Regional Council, State of Utah requirements for “station area plans,” project team analysis, and community input. The key goals of the plan include: • Support the use of the 300 West bikeway improvements. • Support the use of the TRAX station by increasing the surrounding population and ridership. • Support new development and public improvements that create a pedestrian-friendly environment. • Help the City meet its housing goals while balancing the need to provide and retain businesses and services in the area. • Meet the State requirements for a “station area plan,” which include promoting the following objectives: o To increase the availability and affordability of housing, including moderate income housing; o To promote sustainable environmental conditions; o To enhance access to opportunities; and o To increase transportation choices and connections. Next Steps The consultant is in the process of developing a draft plan document. That document will be shared with the community with an in-person meeting with the community council, an in-person open house, and will be shared online in a format that provides the opportunity for additional community feedback. Based on that feedback, the draft will be refined and finalized. The draft will then go to the Planning Commission to begin the formal review and adoption process. EXHIBITS: 1) Existing Conditions Report Draft 2) 1st Phase Engagement Report – General Ideas and Concerns Map Activity 3) 1st Phase Engagement – Community Interviews 4) 2nd Phase – Open House “Draft Scenario” Boards 5) 2nd Phase Engagement Report – September Open Houses 6) 2nd Phase Engagement Report – Online Survey Exhibit 1: Existing Conditions Report Draft DR A F T 77 EXISTING CONDITIONS 02 DR A F T 78 | Existing Conditions PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION Boundaries In addition to Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County, this analysis references the study area, which is bounded by 1700 S, 450 W, 2100 S, and West Temple Street (Figure 1). The corridor is primarily auto dominant with exclusively general commercial businesses, including big box stores such as Home Depot, Sam’s Club, and Costco. There are seven multifamily buildings along the corridor, including one managed by the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC). The eastern edge of the study area is dominated by single family residential land uses. The Central Pointe TRAX station anchors the site on the south. Geographic Areas of Focus It should be noted that the project area for the 300 West and Central Pointe Station area extends from 2100 South to 1000 South. Because the recently adopted Ballpark Plan contains an existing conditions evaluation for the area between 1700 South and 1000 south, this existing conditions report is focused solely on the area between 1700 South and 2100 South. Recommendations that stem from this planning effort will build upon those set forth in the Ballpark Plan. LAND USE & ZONING Existing Land Uses and Zoning The area between 1700 South and 2100 south and 200 West to I-15 is within the General Commercial (CG) zoning district (Figure 2). There is a mix of zoning districts that between West Temple and 200 West, including Residential Office (RO), Moderate Density Multi-Family (RMF-35 and RMF-45), Corridor Commercial (CC), Community Business District, and Single Family Residential (R-1-5000). The General Commercial district allows for a variety of commercial uses including retail, entertainment, office, residential, heavy commercial, light manufacturing, and warehouses. Recent code updates from the Downtown Building Heights & Pedestrian Space Code project included increasing the maximum height in this district from 60 feet to 75 feet and decreasing the minimum front yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet. Developments that implement a maximum setback of 10 feet are required to require seating, landscaping, or weather protection. Additionally, projects in the CG Zone are required to provide a midblock walkway if a midblock walkway on the subject propriety has been identified in a master plan that has been adopted by the city. The 300 West Corridor and Central Pointe Station Area Plan presents an important opportunity to advance recommendations for mid- block walkways to promote pedestrian connectivity in the project area. The single-family residential district is the second most prevalent land use, which allows for single-family dwellings on lots that are at least 5,000 square feet in size. The other districts allow for single-family and two-family dwellings, DR A F T Existing Conditions | 79 Figure 1: Study Area DR A F T 80 | Existing Conditions office, and small-scale commercial services; higher density housing is allowed in the moderate density multi-family (RMF-35 and -45) and residential office (RO) districts. The maximum height in these districts ranges from 35’ to 75’. 30 0 W 2100 S 1700 S We s t T e m p l e S t I - 1 5 N B F w y 1830 S Harris Ave 4 5 0 W 1600 S Hartwell Ave Grove Ave Je f f e r s o n S t Hansen Ave Ri c h a r d s S t Westwood Ave Harris Ave Hartwell Ave I- 1 5 N B F w y Ri c h a r d s S t ¯ Salt Lake City Planning Division 1/16/2024 Plan Study Area Zoning Districts CB Community Business CC Commercial Corridor CG General Commercial R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi- Family Residential RO Residential/Office R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use PL Public Lands Figure 2: Study Area Zoning. Source: Salt Lake City Zoning Map DR A F T Existing Conditions | 81 DR A F T 82 | Existing Conditions PREVIOUS PLAN REVIEW Two relevant plans were reviewed by the project team in order to build upon and progress relevant planning efforts that have occurred within and adjacent to the 300 West Corridor & Central Pointe Station project area: • Ballpark Station Area Plan (2022) • Central Community Master Plan (2005) The City has several other general plans with policies that cover the area. Please see appendix A for a review of those plans and policies. The following is a brief summary that highlights key takeaways and other information deemed to be relevant to the 300 West Corridor and Central Pointe Station Area planning effort. The Ballpark Plan The Ballpark Plan was completed in 2022 and is considered a guiding document for portions of the 300 West project, especially as it overlaps with the northern portion of the corridor from 1000 South to 1700 South. The Ballpark Plan contains several “big moves” for the future. These address light rail connectivity and integration into the neighborhood, better utilizing parking lots and vacant properties, and placemaking. A bike lane is recommended on 300 West, the majority of which has already been built. The plan illustrates a desire for the project area to support pedestrian activity through a redeveloped urban interface and pedestrian focused uses throughout the study area. These plans include redesigning the urban streetscape to promote pedestrian safety from vehicular traffic. This includes a streetscape design that incorporates bike lanes, medians, and pedestrian lighting. Character Areas The plan identifies several character areas, one of which is the “300 West Transitional Area.” This is described as a corridor that is transitioning from an industrial and major commercial area to one that supports higher density mixed use. The plan separates the 300 West Transitional Area into four Character Areas. The area east of 300 West and south of 1300 South is noted as experiencing transition around several large scale, long-term uses. Long-term tenants that are anticipated to remain are Lowes Home Improvement, the Gail Miller Homeless Resource Center, and the Utah State Liquor Store. The plan recommends adding multi- family housing, public amenities, and neighborhood serving commercial uses. The Plan promotes commercial uses on the ground floor as a way to transition from big box retail to desired multifamily development throughout the area. The area west of 300 West and south of 1300 South is also expected to transition; the plan recommends using the properties that have transitioned as a guide for future zoning updates. The “Heart of the Neighborhood” character area also overlaps with the project area, from 1300 South to Hope Avenue. The plan recommends DR A F T Existing Conditions | 83 applying “Transit Station Area District Zoning” to support higher densities, entertainment uses, and redevelopment. Multi-modal access is recommended through existing properties and parking lots to the east on 1400 South (dependent on owner agreement). The plan recommends that streetscape elements include art and historic interpretation, shaded pedestrian corridors, and visual Figure 3: Ballpark Plan Character Areas. Source: Ballpark Station Area Plan, 2022. elements that relate to the Ballpark neighborhood. The plan includes a discussion regarding a future “transit hub” at 1700 South serving both light rail and east-west bus service. Although not formally in any City transportation plans, members of the community recommended a future transit station. The plan notes that the “should adopt an “urban form” including extensive DR A F T 84 | Existing Conditions “last mile” connections to surrounding neighborhoods and uses and implementation of appropriate Transit Supportive Zoning.” Along 1700 South between the TRAX line and West Temple, the plan identifies the future land use as the “Medium Density Transitional Area.” The plan identifies the area for redevelopment that “should include medium density housing and commercial buildings with reduced height along the West Temple frontage adjacent to the neighborhood character area.” Although the current Public Utilities facility property is included in Figure 4: Map of the Ballpark Plan future land use designations for properties located near the boundary of the plan study area. 20 0 W / T R A X 1700 S Ma i n S t St a t e S t 30 0 W We s t T e m p l e S t 40 0 W 30 0 W We s t T e m p l e S t ¯ Salt Lake City Planning Division 10/26/2023 Plan Study Area Ballpark Station Area Plan - Future Land Use Map Places of Interest Adopted Project Catalyst Area Community Recommended Catalyst Area Community Recommended Gateway Area Future Community Amenity Proposed Future 1700 S TRAX Station Future Land Use Concept Overlays Areas with Opportunity to Integrate Additional Green Space Future Land Use Concept 300 West Transitional Area Heart of the Neighborhood / Ballpark Entertainment Zone Main Street Area Medium Density Transitional Area Neighborhood Areas State Street Corridor 0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet the “medium density” area, the property is identified more specifically as a “future catalytic area for community uses and open space. Property on the east side of West Temple at 1700 South is designated as “Neighborhood Areas.” The plan notes that these areas were “down- zoned” and that the “scale and density of this area should be maintained with targeted redevelopment of vacant abandoned structures with new or rehabilitated structures at a comparable scale and character as the existing housing stock. DR A F T Existing Conditions | 85 POLICY / ACTION STATUS Land Use FLUM and Future Specific Plans Invest in a public library within the station area that can serve as a neighborhood anchor and public amenity space or a community center to provide community meeting and education space, and/or recreation facilities. Underway Residential Land Use Promote a diversity in the size of new units in the neighborhood to accommodate residents in different stages of life, including families with children. No progress Explore alternative options for ownership strategies including land trusts and co-ops.No progress Provide down-payment assistance or other programs for qualifying residents Underway Provide education and renter legal assistance to help current renters stay in place.Underway Commercial Land Use Need for public amenities and neighborhood serving commercial should be added to this area No progress Institutional Land Use Preserve existing social services and provide additional services as development occurs to support housing options and access to opportunity at a variety of income levels. No progress Parks, Open Space and Recreation Include a wayfinding and signage campaign that makes it easier to explore nearby parks, trails and public spaces Underway Access and Mobility Install pedestrian crossings east and west of TRAX on 1300 South on either side of the UTA crossing barrier. Underway Where appropriate, development proposals incorporate access to existing and planned TRAX crossings. No progress Study the potential future lane re-configuration of 1300 South to eliminate or narrow traffic lanes and expand and improve the sidewalk. No progress Utilize existing alleyways, mid-block, and truncated connections to create a system of bike and pedestrian pathways through the neighborhood. No progress Widen and enhance sidewalks to improve pedestrian comfort through the addition of street furnishings, pedestrian lighting and a buffer from moving traffic. No progress Reconfigure Ballpark TRAX Station to change from a suburban-style station that has northern platform access only from the east parking lot into an urban-style station that allows access from both the east and west sides of the station. This would include new access at the north end of the platform from Lucy Avenue/200 West on the west side of the TRAX rails No progress Redevelop part of the current surface parking lots to transit supportive uses that include retail, shops, and service near the Ballpark Station platform. No progress Establish a pedestrian crossing to the east and west of the UTA crossing barrier across 1300 South. Underway Study future crossings south of the 1300 South crossing at the TRAX line.No progress Utilize unused rail spur that is proposed for a light rail extension into the Granary District and the possibility of an adjacent trail, which is also being evaluated. Underway Table 1: Ballpark Station Area Plan Review Matrix DR A F T 86 | Existing Conditions POLICY / ACTION (continued)STATUS This recommendation connects West Temple to 300 West. This connection is dependent on a future agreement with UTA to provide a TRAX crossing on or near 1400 South. No progress Urban Design Require activation of the 1300 South frontage with restaurants, shops, street furniture and trees.No progress Implement streetscape improvements to accommodate pedestrian volumes.No progress Allow heights comparable to heights in other Urban Station Areas.No progress Require development proposals to include mid-block and other connections to break down current large commercial blocks into smaller, more walkable blocks. No progress Integrate green space and “green” elements into the urban landscape.Unknown Identify a strategy to bury power lines as development in the Ballpark Neighborhood occurs.No progress Environment Enhance the urban tree canopy in under-served areas of the neighborhood and require additional street trees and urban greenery with new development. Underway Maintain all green spaces with trash receptacles, pedestrian lighting and pedestrian furniture.No progress Ensure funding for additional maintenance and staffing as additional green space is added.No progress Table 2: Ballpark Station Area Plan Review Matrix Continued DR A F T Existing Conditions | 87 Central Community Master Plan The Central Community Plan (2005) encompasses a broader area than the Ballpark Plan, including all of Downtown, the Gateway, the Granary, Central City, 9th and 9th, Liberty Wells, and the project area (referred to as “People’s Freeway neighborhood planning area” Figure 4). The plan identifies issues of mitigating impacts related to incompatible land use adjacencies, transitioning to transit- oriented development, improving infrastructure and landscaping of commercial and industrial areas, and retaining lower density zoning south of 1700 South. The plan also identifies challenges of pedestrian circulation due to interspersed residential land uses and major roadways. High Density Transit-Oriented development is proposed between 200 West and 300 West, from Paxton Avenue to High Avenue (the TRAX line and stops had just been constructed). This land use emphasizes a mix of land uses with pedestrian access, including residential, retail, office, cultural, institutional, open space, and public uses. The other portion of the project area (High Avenue to 2100 South) is identified as regional commercial/industrial. This land use is characterized as attracting large volumes of traffic from customers and employers and would attract tenants such as automobile dealers, light manufacturing, assembly, and “big box” and “superstore” retailers. The future land use map reflects these land use policies (Figure X). Amendments to the Central Community Plan Figure 5: People’s Freeway Neighborhood. Source: Central Community Master Plan (2005) Policy/Action Implementation Tracking Relevant policies and actions that are recommended in these two plans are provided via the following matrix. Table 3 provides an understanding of the city’s progress on policy topics the Master Plan update is expected to address: • Land use • Access and mobility • Historic preservation • Urban design • Environment • Public utilities and facilities DR A F T 88 | Existing Conditions POLICY / ACTION STATUS Land Use FLUM and Future Specific Plans “Review the zoning district map and initiate and process appropriate zoning petition changes to make the zoning district map consistent with the Future Land Use map of the Central Community Master Plan.” No progress “Mitigate impacts relating to the adjacency of residential and non-residential / heavy commercial land uses.” No progress Improve infrastructure and landscaping of commercial and industrial areas.Underway “Retain the current lower density zoning south of 1700 South to preserve the character of this area.” Implemented Residential Land Use Continue and develop programs that assist development of rental and owner-occupied affordable housing, residential rehabilitation and neighborhood improvement programs. Implemented Evaluate distribution and spacing of independent senior, assisted and elderly care residential facilities. Such facilities should be located near accessible commercial retail sales and service land uses and mass transit stops or stations. Unknown Consider site-specific land use studies and plans for residential infill development areas including targeting specific residential areas for block redesign and/or infrastructure improvements. No progress Create a separate TOD zoning district that includes residential land use and urban design regulations to support transit and pedestrian developments. Underway Commercial Land Use “Evaluate neighborhood commercial nodes to determine appropriate design guidelines and amend zoning regulations and maps appropriately. Implement a neighborhood commercial node program that addresses land use, design, infrastructure, funding assistance and boundaries relevant to neighborhood commercial and residential growth patterns.” No progress Evaluate and amend City ordinances to encourage the use of transfer of development rights, first right of refusal (city authority), and density bonus incentives. Underway Institutional Land Use Review zoning regulations to allow institutional, cultural and entertainment facilities within Transit Oriented Development areas to create destinations and increase accessibility. Implemented Parks, Open Space and Recreation Support a long-range park construction schedule to implement a Parks and Recreation Master Plan for the Central Community. Underway Encourage Community Councils to implement public participation programs that include plant- a-tree, playground equipment placement, and park maintenance. No progress Support the proposed trail system that will serve the Central Community No progress Transit-Oriented Development Create Transit Oriented Development zoning regulations and apply to the transit areas depicted on the Future Land Use map. Underway Develop pedestrian amenities in high-density areas near light rail stations.No progress Table 3: Central Community Master Plan Review Matrix DR A F T Existing Conditions | 89 POLICY / ACTION (continued)STATUS Access and Mobility Improve circulation so it is safe for residents and children who must cross busy roadways to get to school or other public services. Underway Develop ways to address the isolation between major roadways and improve pedestrian orientation. Underway Incorporate the Transportation Master Plan policies during the site plan review process.Unknown Incorporate the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan policies during site plan review of development applications. Continue to develop bike paths and trails on 300 East, 800 and 1300 South, and 200 West. Unknown Encourage interior mid-block access corridors for more convenient pedestrian and non- motorized circulation through the City’s 10-acre block neighborhoods. Underway Coordinate with the Utah Transit Authority on the location of bus stops and transfer points to support the community land use patterns. Underway Provide improved and safer pedestrian corridors connecting People’s Freeway to the residential areas east of State Street, especially for school children. Implemented/Ongoing Evaluate City policies for the conversion of private streets to public streets for roadways that do not comply with standard city street specifications. Implemented Investigate the use of shared parking between day and evening land uses to encourage off- street parking. Implemented Historic Preservation Investigate ways to assist property owners in maintaining or rehabilitating historic properties to satisfy design guidelines. Evaluate a grant or matching loan program to assist residential and commercial property owners in the maintenance and renovation of historicproperties. Implemented Urban Design Consider creating a compatibility ordinance for new construction (infill), renovations, and restorations in some areas or neighborhoods. No progress Support design guidelines that support neighborhood and community development in Transit Oriented Development districts with emphasis on pedestrian and residential spaces and the public realm. Implemented Consider the use of CPTED principles of all public parks, open space and recreation facilities.Implemented Encourage the relocation of overhead utilities underground during new construction and when replacing outdated facilities. No progress Provide street trees and replace dead or damaged trees in parks and open space areas.Implemented Environment Review all building permits to determine if sites are located in 100-year floodplains. Require that buildings in a floodplain be designed to resist flooding. Implemented Develop programs and literature to help educate citizens about the importance of groundwater protection and appropriate handling and disposal of potential contaminants. Underway Consider policies to promote further conservation and decrease water waste.Underway Develop transportation and parking policies that favor use of mass transit and non-motorized transportation methods in order to help reduce cumulative air emissions. Implemented/Ongoing DR A F T 90 | Existing Conditions Amendments to the Central Community Plan After the Central Community plan’s original adoption, there were four amendments to the future land use designations of properties within the study area. The changes are reflected in the map in Figure 6. Each of the future land use designation amendments also included changing the zoning to a similar designation. The amendments and the properties they impacted are listed below: Ordinance 79 of 2008 - This amended the property at 1812 S West Temple from low density residential (1-15 dwelling units an acre) to Medium High Density Residential (30-50 dwelling units an acre.) This amendment supported the building of a new multi- family development by the Salt Lake City Housing Authority. Ordinance 14 of 2016 - This amendment was part of a City effort that affected several properties throughout the broader Ballpark neighborhood. Within the study area, it impacted five properties near 1746 S West Temple and two properties near 1888 S West Temple. The amendment changed their designation from Medium Density Residential (30 to 50 dwelling units an acre) to Low Density Residential (1 to 15 dwelling units an acre). The amendments were intended to stabilize housing in the neighborhood by encouraging investment in existing homes and to keep the development intensity compatible with the lower scale neighborhood. Ordinance 23 of 2017 - This changed the designation of property at 1978 S West Temple from Medium Density Residential to Medium Residential/ Mixed Use. This change supported the expansion of an existing office building. Ordinance 26 of 2022 - This changed the designation of property at 1948/1950 S West Temple from Medium Density Residential to Medium Residential/Mixed Use. This change was intended to support the expansion of an existing business on the property. Ordinance 66 of 2023 - This changed the designation of the property at 1720 and 1734 S West Temple from Low Density Residential (1 top 15 dwelling units an acre) to Medium Density Residential (30 to 50 dwelling units an acre.) The change was intended to support new residential development. The property was previously amended by Ordinance 14 of 2016, discussed previously in this section. DR A F T Existing Conditions | 91 Figure 6: Map showing the future land uses designated in the Central Community Plan. The amendments to the plan since its adoption are also highlighted. 30 0 W 2100 S 1700 S We s t T e m p l e S t I - 1 5 N B F w y 1830 S Harris Ave 4 5 0 W 1600 S Hartwell Ave Grove Ave Je f f e r s o n S t Hansen Ave Ri c h a r d s S t Westwood Ave Harris Ave Hartwell Ave I- 1 5 N B F w y Ri c h a r d s S t ¯ Salt Lake City Planning Division 1/16/2024 Plan Study Area Amendments (Ord./Year) 66 of 2023/14 of 2016 14 of 2016 23 of 2017 26 of 2022 79 of 2008 Central Community Future Land Use Map Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units/acre) Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units/acre) Medium High Density Residential (30-50 dwelling units/acre) Medium Residential/Mixed Use (10-50 dwelling units/acre) Residential/Office Mixed Use High Mixed Use (50 or more dwelling units/acre) Community Commercial Regional Commercial/Industrial Medium Density Transit Oriented Development (10-50 dwelling units/acre) High Density Transit Oriented Development (50 or more dwelling units/acre) Open Space Institutional DR A F T 92 | Existing Conditions Future Near Term Transportation Improvements 1700 South, from 300 West to Redwood Road is slated for resurfacing in summer of 2024. As part of this resurfacing, the lanes between 300 West and 900 West may be reconfigured. The Transportation Division has created a concept for the stretch between 300 West and 900 West that removes one vehicle travel lane in each direction while also creating wider and more comfortable buffered bike lanes. These changes are meant to improve safety and east-west connections for people riding bicycles, since bike lanes will go from relatively narrow spaces at the edge of the roadway to much wider, paint-buffered lanes that are only next to one lane of vehicles. The Transportation Division has analyzed traffic volume data for the full project extent and is confident that one vehicle travel lane in each direction will support the relatively low vehicle traffic volumes on this corridor. Figure 7: Cross-sections of 1700 South showing existing (four travel lanes) and proposed (two travel lanes) conditions. Existing Proposed DR A F T Existing Conditions | 93 300 West Public Utilities Existing Conditions Water There is an existing 8” water main on the east side of 300 West, installed in 1995. This main is undersized and will need to be upsized to 12” to accommodate additional densification and fire demands. Public Utilities’ current approach would be to require upsizing as Public Utilities analyzes each development on the east side that applies for a building permit. There is an existing 12” water main on the west side of 300 West, installed in 2021 with the roadway reconstruction project. This main is adequate in size and does not need any upgrades/ improvements. Sewer There is an existing 21” sewer main down the center of 300 West, installed in 1939. This sewer main underwent repairs during the roadway reconstruction project. There are no current plans to address any other repairs/upsizes/improvements with this sewer main by Public Utilities. Based on Public Utilities’ modeling of existing conditions, there appears to be adequate capacity for future development. The pipe is approximately 10% to 25% full in this area. Public Utilities analyzes the proposed sewer flow of every development that applies for building permits and requires upsizing when the sewer main reaches 75% capacity. With the high rates of development, it is difficult to anticipate how long the available capacity will last. This information is only accurate with the existing conditions (as of September 2023) - each new development, redevelopment, or change of use has the potential to decrease the available capacity. This applies to all work within the entire sewer shed that contributes to this line, not just development along the 2100 South corridor. Storm Drain There is a new storm drain in 300 West, installed in 2022 with the roadway reconstruction project, plus old (1898) storm drain that was not upgraded with the roadway project. The storm drain should be sufficient, as long as all developments are held to the 0.2 cfs/ acre discharge requirements of Public Utilities. Public Utilities reviews each project that applies for building permits for conformance with this standard. DR A F T 94 | Existing Conditions Figure 8: Map of water, sewer, and storm drain lines within the plan study area. 2100 S 1700 S 30 0 W We s t T e m p l e S t ¯ Salt Lake City Planning Division 10/25/2023 Plan Study Area Sewer Main Water Main Storm Drain 0 670 1,340 2,010335 Feet Ballpark Playground DR A F T Existing Conditions | 95 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS This section describes the socioeconomic conditions of the study area (Figure 9) including population and growth projection, age, race and ethnicity. Population & Growth Projections Between 2020 and 2022, the population in the study area grew from 668 to 829, a 24.10% growth rate, significantly higher than the city (2.11%) and county (3.37%) (Table 1). This may be due to the recent construction of multifamily buildings, including 21Lux (204 2100 S) and @2100 Apartments (1977 S 300 W). Projected growth for the study area between 2022 and 2027 is projected to be 3.98%, which is closer to the city (4.06%) and county (3.63%). Household & Growth Projections There are 465 households in the study area, compared to 86,737 in the city and 420,281 in the county. Between 2020 and 2022, the study area experienced a significantly higher growth rate, 15.10%, than the city (2.83%) and the county (3.71%). This is likely a result of the construction of new multifamily apartment buildings in the study area. The annual growth rate between 2022 and 2027 is projected to be 4.95%, which is more in line with the city at 5.42% and the county at 4.14%. The average household size for the study area (1.75) is smaller than both the city (2.26) and county (2.86). This suggests that there are fewer families with children in the study area and a higher percentage of single-income households, which could also be a product of the type of housing currently available. Age The median age for the study area is 36.2, which is higher than both the city (33.1) and county (33.0). The population of residents from the Baby Boomer generation (born between 1946 and 1964) is higher for the study area than for the city and county. This suggests a higher population of people who are retired and on fixed incomes. Taylor Gardens and Taylor Springs are 55+ senior apartment communities owned and managed by HASLC within the study area. These two apartment complexes most likely account for the high proportion of Baby Boomers. Figure 9: Socioeconomic Conditions of Study Area. Source: ArcGIS Business Analyst DR A F T 96 | Existing Conditions POPULATION STUDY AREA SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE COUNTY 2010 Total Population 582 186,411 1,029,629 2020 Total Population 668 199,723 1,185,238 2010-2020 Growth Rate 14.8%7.1%15.1% 2022 Total Population 829 203,928 1,225,168 2020-2022 Growth Rate 24.10%2.11%3.37% 2027 Total Population 862 212,210 1,269,661 2022-2027 Growth Rate 3.98%4.06%3.63% 2030 Projected Population -243,898 - 2040 Projected Population -263,717 - 2050 Projected Population -277,920 - Source: ESRI Table 4: Population and Growth Projections HOUSEHOLDS STUDY AREA SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE COUNTY 2010 Households 291 74,547 342,613 2020 Households 404 84,349 405,229 2010-2020 Annual Growth Rate 38.83%13.15%18.28% 2022 Households 465 86,737 420,281 2020-2022 Annual Growth Rate 15.10%2.83%3.71% 2027 Households 488 91,442 437,683 2022-2027 Annual Growth Rate 4.95%5.42%4.14% 2010 Average Household Size 2.00 2.44 2.96 2020 Average Household Size 1.62 2.27 2.88 2022 Average Household Size 1.75 2.26 2.87 2027 Average Household Size 1.74 2.24 2.86 Source: ESRI Table 5: Average Household Size and Annual Growth Rate, 2010-2027 DR A F T Existing Conditions | 97 The proportion of people under 18 is projected to decline and the proportion of those over 70 is projected to increase between 2022 and 2027. There is also growth projected in the 20 to 29 age range, likely due to the newer construction of multi-family units in the area that may attract students and young adults. Area Median Income The median income for the study area ($39,758) is significantly lower than both the city ($70,189) and county ($85,944) (Table 5). The 2022-2027 projected growth rate in median incomes is 13.34%, which is also lower than the city (25.44%) and county (19.35%). More than one-third of residents in the study area (37.63%) earn less than $25,000, compared to the city (17.72%) and county (9.97%). The distribution of households earning $100,000 or more is lower in the study area (6.24%) than both the city (33.39%) and county (42.19%). This may be due in part to the higher percentage of the population above age 60 and the prevalence of public housing. Area Race and Ethnicity The racial makeup of the study area is similar to the city and county, with a majority white population (Table 6). The distribution is slightly higher for Black/ African American (3.98%) American Indian/Alaska Native populations EMPLOYMENT & COMMERCE Employment Population The total daytime population in the study area is 2,464, a 197% increase from the total residential population of 829 (Table 7). The daytime population of workers is 2,015, an 81.78% increase. The unemployment rate in the study area is 4.9%, more than double the city (2.1%) and county (1/9%) unemployment rates. Business Profile The study area is primarily a commercial corridor with food and dining accounting for a quarter of businesses followed by retail at 22.03% of businesses1. There are anchor tenants occupying pad sites with large parking lots including Costco, Sam’s Club, and Home Depot. Food and beverage businesses include fast food and fast casual national chains including McDonald’s and Jimmy 1 Accommodation/Food Services (NAICS 72) and Food Services and Drinking Places (NAICS 722) account for 12.72% of businesses each in the study area. Source: ESRI, July 2023. (2.29%) Other Race Population (11.58%) and Population of Two or More Races (11.82%) than the city and county. The diversity index for the study area is 71.6, compared to the city (67.4) and the county (63.7). The ESRI Diversity Index is a measure of diversity that includes race and ethnicity – from 0 (no diversity) to 100 (complete diversity). When the index is closer to 100, an area’s population is more evenly divided across all racial and ethnic groups. $39,758 Study area median income (ESRI) DR A F T 98 | Existing Conditions HOUSEHOLD INCOME STUDY AREA SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE COUNTY 2022 Median Household Income $39,578 $70,189 $85,944 2027 Median Household Income $44,856 $88,045 $102,572 2022-2027 Annual Growth Rate 13.34%25.44%19.35% <$15,000 23.01%10.82%5.48% $15,000-$24,999 14.62%6.90%4.49% $25,000-$34,999 5.16%7.33%5.26% $35,000-$49,999 18.49%10.23%8.99% $50,000-$74,999 13.98%17.19%17.53% $75,000-$99,999 18.49%14.15%16.05% $100,000-$149,999 4.09%17.31%22.28% $150,000-$199,999 0.00%7.42%10.79% $200,000+2.15%8.66%9.12% Source: ESRI Table 6: Median Household Income and Income Distribution RACIAL DISTRIBUTION STUDY AREA SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE COUNTY White Population 66.10%67.87%71.22% Black/African American Population 3.98%2.99%2.03% American Indian/Alaska Native Population 2.29%1.49%1.13% Asian Population 3.62%5.69%4.43% Pacific Islander Population 0.60%2.11%1.84% Other Race Population 11.58%9.79%9.35% Population of Two or More Races 11.82%10.07%10.02% 2023 Hispanic Population 296 2,479 247,622 2023 Hispanic Population (%)27.85%17.24%20.16% 2022 Diversity Index 71.6 67.4 63.7 Source: ESRI Table 7: Racial Distribution EMPLOYMENT STUDY AREA SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE COUNTY Total Population 829 203,928 1,225,168 Total Daytime Population 2,464 354,099 1,302,595 Daytime Population: Workers 2,015 265,978 741,325 Daytime Population: Workers (%)81.78%75.11%56.91% Daytime Population: Residents 449 88,121 561,270 Daytime Population: Residents (%)18.22%24.89%43.09% Civilian Population Age 16+ in Labor Force 408 120,140 682,155 Employed Civilian Population Age 16+ 388 117,625 669,524 Unemployment Rate (%)4.9%2.1%1.9% Source: ESRI Table 8: Employment DR A F T Existing Conditions | 99 John’s, as well as local restaurants, including Beans and Brews, Squatters and Wasatch Taproom, and Kathmandu II. Many of the businesses are auto oriented, such as autobody and repair shops. HOUSING What is Moderate Income Housing? Moderate income households are considered by the State of Utah to be those making less than 80% of the area median income (AMI). AMI is determined by the county in which the city is located. Other targeted income groups are defined as those making less than 50% and 30% of AMI (identified as very low- income and extremely low-income respectively). According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the affordable monthly housing payment for either mortgage or rent should be no more than 30% of gross monthly income (GMI) and should include utilities and housing costs such as mortgage, property taxes, and hazard insurance. To calculate affordability in relation to household size, HUD estimates median family income (MFI) annually for each metropolitan area and non- metropolitan county. It is not clearly stated in the Utah Code whether those of moderate income must be able to purchase a home, so the allowance is applied to both rental rates and mortgages. Affordable housing is any housing option that accommodates the targeted income groups and meets the payment requirements. Per HB462, if a municipality intends to apply for Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone (HTRZ) funding for station areas, then greater than or equal to 20% of the housing units must meet the definition of moderate income housing units. Area Median Income The area median income (AMI) is the midpoint of a region’s income distribution–half of the households in the region earn more and half earn less. AMI is important because each year HUD calculates the median income for every metropolitan region in the country and this statistic is used to determine whether families are eligible for certain affordable housing programs. HUD focuses on the entire region, not just the city, because families searching for housing are likely to look beyond the city itself to find a place to live. AMI is typically distinguished between three types of households. Per HUD, low-income is defined as households earning less than 80% of the AMI. Very low-income is defined as households earning less than 50% of the AMI. And extremely low-income is defined as households earning less than 30% of the AMI. Note: Moderate income housing, as defined by the State of Utah, is “housing occupied or reserved for occupancy by households with a gross household income equal to or less than 80% of the DR A F T 100 | Existing Conditions median gross income for households of the same size in the county in which the city is located.” Salt Lake City’s 2023 Housing Plan includes the goal of entitling 10,000 new housing units throughout the city, with a minimum 2,000 units that are deeply affordable (30% AMI or below) and a minimum 2,000 units that are affordable (31-80% AMI).2 HUD Area Median Income Limits The area median income (AMI) for a family of four in the Salt Lake City MSA is $106,000. Table 9 shows the distribution of income levels for a family of four. Two-thirds of households in the study area are classified as low or extremely low income, with 48.80% of those being extremely low income. Because AMI thresholds outlined by HUD do not exactly match the distribution of households by income bracket as recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau, which is the source for ESRI data, the estimated number of households within each income level are matched as closely as possible with their corresponding income bracket. Therefore, the number of households within each AMI threshold should be considered an approximation. 2 https://www.slc.gov/can/wp-content/uploads/ sites/8/2023/05/Housing-SLC-Plan_No-Appendices.pdf Housing Stock Existing Conditions Single vs. Multifamily Housing There are 137 single-family units in the study area, which are primarily located on the eastern edge of the study area, between the railroad tracks and W Temple Street. There are 559 existing multi-family units in the study area3 . The neighborhood has seen a dramatic population increase due to the construction of multifamily buildings between 2016-2023. Additionally, there is one planned development of 47 units slated for 2023. The recent and planned construction includes luxury studio, 1- and 2-bedroom units, including a 160-unit market rate development at 1967 S 300 W. Four of the existing multi-family complexes are owned by the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC), one caters to seniors and another houses Veterans. All four provide affordable housing. Total Occupied Units and Average Housing Tenure The study area has a higher percentage of renter occupied housing than the city and county (Table 14). There is also a higher percentage of vacant housing units in the study area than in the city and county. Vacancy is defined as any housing unit that is neither owner- nor renter-occupied. For example, short- term rental (i.e., Airbnb) properties are included in the vacancy rate. Projections for the area include 29.30% owner occupied housing and 70.70% renter occupied housing in 2027, with 3 HASLC, CoStar DR A F T Existing Conditions | 101 10.95% vacancy . Rental housing generally indicates apartments. The percentage of renter-occupied housing within the study area has steadily increased over the past 12 years. While this isn’t necessarily a negative, generally it is preferred to see more of a balance between renter and owner-occupied housing because of the ability to cater to different household types and individuals. A wide variety of rental and for-sale homes can help to create economically and demographically diverse neighborhoods. For example, due to the existing housing stock of smaller rental units within the study area, it would be difficult for a growing family to stay in this neighborhood because of the lack of larger homes for purchase. Affordability Monthly Allowance for Rental and For-sale Products Table 11 illustrates the monthly allowance for rental and for-sale products based on the household size. An extremely low-income household with one person, which is 42.80% of the study area population, should pay no more than $558 per month in housing expenses ($22,300/12 x 30% = $558). These numbers are based on the assumption that households spend no more than 30% of their income on housing, which includes rent and expenses such as utilities and insurance. Taylor Springs is one of two 55+ affordable housing developments in the study area. Source: HASLC Figure 10: Location of multi-family buildings in the study area. Source: CoStar DR A F T 102 | Existing Conditions INCOME LEVEL INCOME CLASSIFICATION AMI THRESHOLD FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLDS PERCENTAGE <30% of AMI Extremely Low Income $31,800.00 199 42.80% 30% to 50% of AMI Low Income $31,800 -$53,000 86 18.49% 50% to 80% of AMI Moderate Income $53,000 - $84,800 65 13.98% 80% to 100% of AMI N/A $84,800 - $106,000 86 18.49% 100% to 120% of AMI N/A $106,000 - $127,200 19 4.09% >120% of AMI N/A >$127,200 10 2.15% Source: ESRI, HUD Table 9: Distribution of Household Income INCOME CATEGORY PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Extremely Low Income (30% AMI) $22,300 $25,450 $25,650 $31,800 $35,140 $40,280 $45,420 $50,560 Very Low Income (50% AMI)$37,100 $42,400 $47,700 $53,000 $57,250 $61,500 $65,750 $70,000 Low Income (80% AMI)$59,400 $67,850 $76,350 $84,800 $91,600 $40,280 $105,200 $111,950 Median Family Income (100% AMI)$74,200 $84,800 $95,400 $106,000 $114,500 $123,000 $131,500 $140,000 Above Median Income (120%)$89,040 $101,760 $114,480 $127,200 $137,400 $147,600 $157,800 $168,000 Source: HUD Table 10: Area Median Income by Household Size INCOME CATEGORY PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Extremely Low Income (30%)$558 $636 $641 $795 $879 $1,007 $1,136 $1,264 Very Low Income (50%)$928 $1,060 $1,193 $1,325 $1,431 $1,538 $1,644 $1,750 Low Income (80%)$1,485 $1,696 $1,909 $2,120 $2,290 $1,007 $2,630 $2,799 Median Family Income (100%)$1,855 $2,120 $2,385 $2,650 $2,863 $3,075 $3,288 $3,500 Above Median Income (120%)$2,226 $2,544 $2,862 $3,180 $3,435 $3,690 $3,945 $4,200 Source: HUD Table 11: Affordability Monthly Allowance for Rental and For-sale Products PROPERTY ADDRESS PROPERTY NAME NUMBER OF UNITS YEAR BUILT 1977 S 300 W @2100 Apartments 82 2020 385 W 1700 S SUR17 Townhomes+47 2023 204 W 2100 S 21Lux 206 2021 1790 S West Temple Taylor Gardens Senior Apartments*112 2016 1812 S West Temple Taylor Springs*95 1901 1882 S West Temple Hidden Villa Apartments 32 1965 1926-1934 S West Temple Cedar Crest*12 1967 1750 S Jefferson Circle Jefferson Circle Apartments*20 - Total number of Units 606 Source: CoStar, HASLC +Under Construction*Indicates HASLC complex Table 12: Multifamily Properties in the study areaDR A F T Existing Conditions | 103 Market Rent per square foot for office space within the study area has steadily increased since 2013, with current rental rates at $20.40 per square foot. Rental rates have increased annually, often keeping pace with inflation. Over the past ten years rental rates have increased on average between 0.5% and 6.6% annually. Class C office space is the lowest commercial rental option. They are often older buildings with lower quality finishes and few amenities. Class A and B buildings are newer, in premier locations, and feature amenities such as on-site parking, security, bike storage, valet, gyms, private outdoor space, and daycare centers. Industrial The study area includes 35 industrial properties, many of which are clustered along 1700 S on the northern edge of the study area, near the I-15 on/off ramp. Industrial space in the study area has a vacancy rate of 5.0% (35,000 square feet). PROPERTY ADDRESS CLASS YEAR BUILT STORIES PARKING SPACES PARKING RATIO 1719 S 300 W C 1979 1 -- 2005 S 300 W C 1976 2 30 4.74 140 W 2100 S C 1975 2 84 2.89 1776 S West Temple C -1 45 3.73 1978 S West Temple B 1997 2 55 2.15 Source: CoStar REAL ESTATE TRENDS Retail Retail exists mostly along the 300 West corridor and includes big box stores like Home Depot, Costco, and Sam’s Club. Of the 847,000 square feet of retail along the corridor, 98.1% is leased and occupied. The 1.9% vacancy rate indicates that the retail in the study area is performing well. There has not been new retail in the last decade, suggesting demand and opportunity to develop, especially with the existing low vacancy rate. Office Many of the office buildings are located along West Temple on the eastern edge of the study area (Figure 10). There is 83,500 square feet of office space in the study area with a 0% vacancy rate. The area has not seen new office space since 1997 (Table 13). The negative net deliveries in the 2010s indicate demolition of two office buildings (Figure 11). The 100% lease rate indicates an opportunity for more office space. Table 13: Office properties in th BLe study aDG.rea DR A F T 104 | Existing Conditions Real Estate Glossary of Terms Net Absorption: For existing buildings, the measure of total square feet occupied less the total space vacated over a given period of time. Lease renewals are not factored into net absorption. However, in a lease renewal that includes the leasing of additional space, that additional space is counted in net absorption. Pre-leasing of space in non-existing buildings (Planned, Under Construction or Under Renovation) is not counted in net absorption until actual move in, which by definition may not be any earlier than the delivery date. Absorption: Refers to the change in occupancy over a given time period. Lease renewals are not factored into absorption unless the renewal includes the occupancy of additional space. (In that case, the additional space would be counted in absorption.) Pre-leasing of space in non-existing buildings (e.g., Proposed, Under Construction, Under Renovation) is not counted in absorption until the actual move-in date. Delivery Assumption: In context of Property Professional analytic forecasting, a user-entered variable for projecting vacancy rates. This assumption variable is for net deliveries and can be entered as a fixed or variable rate. Vacancy Rate: Expressed as a percentage - it identifies the amount of New/Relet/Sublet space vacant divided by the existing rentable building area. This can be used for buildings or markets. View of 300 West looking east. Source: Design Workshop.. DR A F T Existing Conditions | 105 MOBILITY Existing Strengths & Assets Existing Barriers & Challenges Future Improvements (Relevant Plan Recommendations) OBSERVATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS DR A F T DR A F T ADDITIONAL PLAN REVIEW A DR A F T Additional Plan Review | 111 CONTENTS PLANNING CONTEXT – SALT LAKE CITY AND SOUTH SALT LAKE Plan Salt Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113 Housing SLC – 2023 to 2027 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113 Thriving in Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115 Community Preservation Plan – (Historic Preservation Policy Plan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116 Urban Forest Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116 Open Space Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120 Public Lands General Plan – Imagine Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121 Lighting Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123 Salt Lake City Transit Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125 Major Street Plan (Part of the City’s Transportation Master Plan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129 Utah Unified Transportation Plan (2023 - 2050)/WFRC Regional Transportation Plan . .130 Adjacent Jurisdiction Plans – South Salt Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134 DR A F T 112 | Additional Plan Review LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: The Plan Salt Lake cover page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113 Figure 2: The Housing SLC cover page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115 Figure 3: The City’s Thriving in Place plan includes policies to help mitigate housing displacement . . . . . . . . .115 Figure 4: Map from the Urban Forestry Action Plan showing the percentage of land covered by tree canopy per census tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117 Figure 5: Map showing the location of street trees in the study area . The data is from 2019 and does not reflect the tree plantings done along 300 West in 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119 Figure 6: Map showing the trails proposed near the study area in the Open Space Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120 Figure 7: Map from the Public Land plan showing near term and transformative project sites near the study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122 Figure 8: Map of streetlight density from Lighting Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123 Figure 9: Map of the Frequent Transit Network plan from the Transit Master Plan along with current bus routes by frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124 Figure 10: Multi-use trails, neighborhood byways, and enhanced pedestrian crossing map from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126 Figure 11: Bicycling Network Existing Conditions and 20 Year Vision Map from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127 Figure 12: Map from the South Salt Lake Strategic Mobility Plan showing existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements within the study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128 Figure 13: Transportation improvements identified in the 2023-2050 Unified Transportation Plan . . . . . . . . . . .131 Figure 14: Map from the South Salt Lake Strategic Mobility Plan showing existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements within the study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132 Figure 15: Future land use map from the South Salt Lake General Plan showing the proposed future land uses in the study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61DR A F T Additional Plan Review | 113 PLANNING CONTEXT – SALT LAKE CITY AND SOUTH SALT LAKE Several Salt Lake City plans provide policies and guidance directly or indirectly related to the study area and immediately adjacent areas . The study area is adjacent to South Salt Lake, which has a few different plans that cover the area . Salt Lake City’s and South Salt Lake’s plans that affect the area are discussed below . Plan Salt Lake Plan Salt Lake is the City’s Citywide general plan . The plan establishes general policies that are intended to be implemented throughout the City . The plan includes policies related to housing, transportation, sustainability, economic development, and recreation . Most of the policies in the plan can be applied to any area of the City and are focused on preparing the City for growth, while being sustainable and maintaining and improving livability in the City’s neighborhoods . The policies are intended to guide the City toward the plan’s long-term vision for the City in 2040 . The plan provides a framework for all neighborhood, community, and element plans, and that framework also applies to the forthcoming 300 West Corridor and Central Pointe Station Area Plan . There are several “2040 Targets,” or long-term goals, from the plan that are applicable to this planning effort . Examples include: 1 . Neighborhoods: Community amenities (parks, natural lands, libraries, schools, recreation centers) located within 1/4th mile walking distance of every household 2 . Housing: Increase diversity of housing types for all income levels throughout the city 3 . Growth: Increase Salt Lake City’s share of the population along the Wasatch Front 4 . Transportation: Reduce single occupancy auto trips 5 . Parks: Parks or open space within walking distance of every household . 6 . Air Quality: Reduce emissions . 7 . Beautiful City: Pedestrian oriented design standards incorporated into all zoning districts that allow residential uses . 8 . Equity: Decrease combined cost of housing and transportation 9 . Government: Increase public participation Housing SLC – 2023 to 2027 The City recently adopted a new citywide housing “element” or plan, titled Housing SLC – 2023 to 2027 . This plan builds on the prior City housing plan Growing SLC – 2018 to 2022 and was structured to comply with recent State requirements for each Utah city to create a “moderate income housing plan” that “provides a realistic opportunity to meet the need for additional moderate income housing within the municipality during the next five years .” The State defines moderate income housing as “housing occupied or reserved for occupancy by households with a gross household income equal Figure 1: Figure 1 The Plan Salt Lake cover page .DR A F T 114 | Additional Plan Review to or less than 80% of the median gross income for households of the same size in the county in which the housing is located .” Within the plan, Cities are required to choose from a selection of specific State required “strategies” to help meet the city’s need for moderate income housing . The plan establishes three key goals with metrics intended to track those goals . These are: Goal 1: Make progress toward closing the housing gap of 5,500 units of deeply affordable housing and increase the supply of housing at all levels of affordability . Metric: A . Entitle 10,000 new housing units throughout the city . 1 . Minimum 2,000 units deeply affordable (30% AMI or below) 2 . Minimum 2,000 units affordable (31% - 80% AMI) Goal 2: Increase housing stability throughout the city . Metrics: A . Track, analyze, and monitor factors that impact housing stability in the city . B . Assist 10,000 low-income individuals annually through programs funded to increase housing stability by the City . C . Dedicate targeted funding to: 1 . Mitigate displacement 2 . Serve renter households 3 . Serve family households 4 . Increase geographic equity 5 . Increase physical accessibility Goal 3: Increase opportunities for homeownership and other wealth and equity building opportunities . Metric: A . Provide affordable homeownership and wealth and equity building opportunities to a minimum of 1,000 low-income households . The City is required to choose from a number of State established “strategies” to accomplish the moderate-income housing goals . Many of the strategies apply citywide and could have some level of impact to this area; however, strategies more directly related to this area include: Strategy E: Zone or rezone for higher density or moderate income residential development in commercial or mixed-use zones near major transit investment corridors, commercial centers, or employment centers • 2023 Action: Adopt zoning or land use ordinance to increase density limits in the Ballpark neighborhood of the city • 2024 Action: Monitor response to increased density in the Ballpark neighborhood through annual reporting on number of new permits, number of units created, etc . (ongoing) Strategy G: Amend land use regulations to allow for higher density or new moderate income residential development in commercial or mixed- use zones near major transit investment corridors • Action: Increase building height limits in compatible areas of the city Strategy J: Implement zoning incentives for moderate income units in new developments Strategy P: Create a housing and transit reinvestment zone pursuant to Title 63N, Chapter 3, Part 6, Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Act • Action: Establish at least one housing and transit reinvestement zone (HTRZ) in the city DR A F T Additional Plan Review | 115 • 2023 Action: Redevelopment Agency to engage in conversations with interested parties • 2024 Action: Work through details and application to establish an HTRZ • 2025 Action: Establish HTRZ Strategy V: Develop and adopt a station area plan in accordance with Section 10-9a-403 .1 • 2024 Action: Planning staff work with Planning Commission, City Council, and the public to develop new SAPs for station areas where such SAPs are needed Strategy W: Create or allow for, and reduce regulations related to, multifamily residential dwellings compatible in scale and form with detached single-family residential dwellings and located in walkable communities within residential or mixed-use zones Thriving in Place The City recently adopted a plan intended to help mitigate housing displacement and prevent the loss of existing affordable housing in the City, titled Thriving in Place . The plan includes a wide range of policies intended to limit displacement . These include policies aimed at the creation of new regulations to prevent displacement and creation of tenant rights information and assistance resources . Most of the policies relate to the creation of Citywide programs to support the plan’s goals . Policies more directly related to the subject area include: Strategic Priority 3C: Facilitate Creation of More Diverse Housing Choices • Create More Diverse Housing Choices in All Areas so that people can find housing that meets their needs in locations that work for them . • Adopt and implement additional middle housing policies and programs as part of the Housing SLC plan and in conjunction with other Thriving in Place actions to ensure a diversity of also include the ADU policies, tools, and resources described in Strategic Priority 3B . Strategic Priority 3E: Prioritize Long-Term Affordability, Integrated Services, and Transit Access • Prioritize Long-Term Affordability, Integration of Support Services, and Access to Transit and Other Amenities to create stable living environments where lower income families and residents can thrive . HOUSING SLC 2023-2027 Figure 2: The Housing SLC cover page . Figure 3: The City’s Thriving in Place plan includes policies to help mitigate housing displacement DR A F T Community Preservation Plan – (Historic Preservation Policy Plan) The City’s Community Preservation Plan, adopted in 2012, provides goals and policies generally related to preservation of historic buildings and neighborhoods . There are a wide range of policies that cover items such as historic preservation regulations and administration of those regulations, narrowing the focus of new historic districts to preserving significant history rather than just character preservation, encouraging adaptive reuse of historic structures, and encouraging historic structure preservation as a means of meeting City sustainability goals . There are no location specific policies that apply to the study area . There are a limited number of historically significant buildings identified in City materials and datasets within the study area; however, there may be other historically significant properties that could be identified with a historic survey . Please see the discussion of existing historic resources on page 139 . Urban Forest Action Plan The Urban Forest Action Plan , adopted in February 2023, contains policies related to growing and protecting the City’s urban forest . A large amount of the plan focuses on identification of the existing urban forest condition and conditions or policies that may be negatively impacting the urban forest . The plan includes maps showing tree coverage (both private and public trees) by census tract (Figure 4) . The census tract that covers the study area extends from 900 South to 2100 South and from I-15 to State Street . The plan notes that the census tract has “1 – 11%” tree coverage . This compares to the highest coverage rates in the City of “27 - 36%” found generally in or near highly single-family residential areas, such as Sugar House, East Bench, Avenues, and parts of Capitol Hill . 116 | Additional Plan Review The plan also includes a map of surface temperatures by Census Tract for a specific date – July 31, 2020 . The census tract covering this area notes a range of 118 – 121 degrees Fahrenheit . This area of the City is more commercial than other areas of the City and those commercial uses generally do not have yards with vegetation, including trees, and often do not have enough park strip space to include street trees . These factors contribute to the low tree canopy rating and higher average surface temperatures in the area . The Urban Forest Action Plan outlines several key goals, objectives, and actions to enhance the city’s urban environment . Most of these are general and apply citywide, but some that relate more specifically to this planning effort include: Goal: Incorporate the urban forest into all of Salt Lake City’s planning and project implementation efforts to mitigate environmental impacts . Mid-Term Action: Incorporate canopy cover (or tree stocking) goals into all new master and area plans . Goal: Improve growing conditions for the urban forest in challenging sites Objective: Amend the city code to strengthen tree protection and codify ecosystem service value . Near-Term Action: Recommend changes to the zoning code to increase trees where they will mitigate environmental impacts . Goal: Protect trees on city-owned land and in the right of way Objective: Incorporate Mitigation Techniques into Urban Forestry’s Planting Strategies Near-Term Action: Identify and prioritize large park strips that would give ample space for large trees, even allées (double rows) of trees . DR A F T Additional Plan Review | 117 42 ¯ 0 3.5 7 Miles 1 - 11 % 11 - 20 % 20 - 27 % 27 - 36 % Tree Cover Percent by Census Tract Salt Lake City Tree Canopy Cover 0 - 473 474 - 1015 1016 - 1734 1735 - 3300 ACS Population Less than 18 Years 0 3.5 7 Miles ¯ 0 - 4 7 3 47 4 - 1 0 1 5 10 1 6 - 1 7 3 4 17 3 5 - 3 3 0 0 AC S P o p u l a t i o n L e s s t h a n 1 8 Y e a r s 0 3. 5 7 Mi l e s ¯ ¯ 0 3.5 7 Miles 1 - 11 % 11 - 20 % 20 - 27 % 27 - 36 % Tree Cover Percent by Census Tract Salt Lake City Census Tract Analysis ¯ 0 3.5 7 Miles 108 - 112° F 112 - 115° F 115 - 118° F 118 - 121° F Surface Temperature by Census Tract - July 31 Salt Lake City Surface Temperature (5:05 p.m. MDT, July 31, 2020) 0 - 473 474 - 1015 1016 - 1734 1735 - 3300 ACS Population Less than 18 Years 0 3.5 7 Miles ¯ 0 - 4 7 3 47 4 - 1 0 1 5 10 1 6 - 1 7 3 4 17 3 5 - 3 3 0 0 AC S P o p u l a t i o n L e s s t h a n 1 8 Y e a r s 0 3. 5 7 Mi l e s ¯ ¯ 0 3.5 7 Miles 108 - 112° F 112 - 115° F 115 - 118° F 118 - 121° F Surface Temperature by Census Tract - July 31 2019 AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY (ACS) TRACT DATA Figure 4: Map from the Urban Forestry Action Plan showing the percentage of land covered by tree canopy per census tract . DR A F T 118 | Additional Plan Review Near Term Action: Plant large evergreens property bordering freeways to mitigate air pollution . Long Term Action: Plant deciduous trees on the north and east sides of streets to conserve energy (blocking the southern and western sun in the summer and allowing it to passively warm buildings in the winter) . Goal: Coordinate with Regional Agencies and neighboring municipalities on urban forest planning and expansion to improve air and water quality . Partner with neighboring municipalities to add trees to high-volume traffic corridors, or other shared areas with poor air quality . Objective: Create framework for partnerships between municipal and state agencies, nonprofits, and volunteers to equitably preserve and grow the urban forest . Long Term Action: Partner with neighboring municipalities to add trees to high-volume traffic corridors, or other shared areas with poor air quality . Long Term Action: Planning to create policies and incentives to expand the urban forest on private land, including parking lots, using existing regulations in the City code), including amendments to the City Code where feasible . Goal: Implement equity through irrigation distribution Objective: The city assumes irrigation responsibility for all park strip trees, beginning in the most impacted neighborhoods . Mid-Term Action: Assume responsibility for watering park strip trees in locations where local urban heat island effects are greatest . Goal: Plan for equitable urban forest expansion in neighborhoods and business districts Near Term Action: Plant trees to create microclimates that increase access to summer shade and winter sun . Near Term Action: Plant trees to strategically provide shade on roadways to increase asphalt lifespan . Goal: Rethink row to allocate more space for trees & pedestrians Objective: On streets with low traffic volumes, create a strategy to reduce vehicle lanes, and lane widths, where supported by future traffic projection data . Goal: Enhance City’s image and livability through incorporating pedestrian-first streetscape design . Objective: Amend zoning code to introduce new urban design criteria for spacing and scale of trees Near Term Action: Recommend new tree spacing requirements based on environmental benefit and urban design criteria . Near Term Action: Recommend tree height and scale at maturity requirements based on average heights in zoning districts . Near Term Action: Recommend including shade on all active transportation routes in the City’s revised Complete Streets ordinance . Near Term Action: Require additional trees at transit stops and along transit routes . Goal: Develop urban forest districts throughout residential and commercial areas to enhance sense of place . (This goal includes several actions related to the creation of specific urban forest “districts” that would ultimately provide guidance for specific types of trees in particular districts.) DR A F T Additional Plan Review | 119 2100 S 1700 S 30 0 W We s t T e m p l e S t 1830 S Hartwell Ave ¯ Salt Lake City Planning Division 10/26/2023 Plan Study Area Street Tree Inventory - 2019 Street Tree 0 710 1,420 2,130355 Feet Figure 5: Map showing the location of street trees in the study area . The data is from 2019 and does not reflect the tree plantings done along 300 West in 2023 . DR A F T 120 | Additional Plan Review Open Space Plan The 1992 City Open Space Plan shows the location of potential trails throughout the City . The plan includes one trail adjacent to the study area, located within the Ballpark Plan area on the north end of the study area . The proposed trail is shown on an abandoned rail line . However, the rail line property was sold to private property owners and so the trail was never implemented by the City . The 2005 Central Community Plan includes a policy supporting implementation of the trail system shown in the Open Space plan, but no progress has been made on the rail spur trail in Ballpark since that time . There are currently no near-term plans for implementation of the trail . Figure 6: Map showing the trails proposed near the study area in the Open Space Plan 1700 S1700 S 1300 S1300 S DR A F T Additional Plan Review | 121 Public Lands General Plan – Imagine Nature The City recently adopted a new plan focused on City public lands, titled Reimagine Nature . Though there isn’t a specific public lands improvement identified in the study area, the plan has several general policies and “action items” applicable to the area and this small area planning effort . These include the following: • Central City Near Term Investments (Policies) • Identify opportunities for separated bike lane/ multiuse paths • Encourage developers to create park space as part of their development for their residents, at a minimum . • Look for community garden and pocket park opportunities • Action 1.3B Engage the community and the Planning Division to develop or update holistic Community/Neighborhood Master Plans which include community priorities for park and public space investment and redesign, and which manage the impacts park renewal can have on the immediately adjacent community (i .e . gentrification) by developing innovative partnerships (such as with housing providers), considering impacts, using a community-led approach to design and management, and advocating for planning and policy that reduces displacement . • Action 1.2D Engage with the Planning Division, Housing & Neighborhood Development, Economic Development Department, and other City entities to further community goals for housing, business development, community health and livability through collaboration with Public Lands . • Action 1.3A Modify city development codes to simplify park improvement projects and mitigate technical obstacles like inaccurate park zoning or internal property subdivisions within park spaces . • Action 1.3C Integrate the work of Planning & Public Lands; actively engage Public Lands staff in future Area and Neighborhood Master Plans, and engage Planning staff in future park master plans and improvement plans . DR A F T 122 | Additional Plan Review Chapter Seven: Grow 150 Figure 30: Future Investments By Planning Area Map. INCREASING LEVEL OF SERVICEAND FUTURE INVESTMENTSThe National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) ﬁnds that city parks departments on average oer one park for every 2,777 residents and 9.9 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. While this is a national benchmark average, NRPA acknowledges that park agencies are as diverse as the landscapes and people they serve. There is no one, standard way of measuring level of service that works for every city. The people, sta and stakeholders of a city must provide input on the values and needs of their own communities for access to the urban outdoors and environmental services provided by parks, urban forests and green spaces. Level of service is often measured by acres of parks and open space per person. Yet many measures such as park investment and availability of park amenities contribute to the level of park service each neighborhood receives. Due to limited available space, areas of the city with higher densities will need to ﬁnd creative solutions to increase park level of service to meet the demands of a growing population. At the same time other planning areas contain substantial acreage of parks and natural lands which are in need improved maintenance and the addition of amenities to equally serve the community. Figure 30, the map to the right shows near-term Public Lands’ investments that seek to improve the level of service of parks and amenities across the city. Signiﬁcant near-term investments are broken down by planning area on the following pages, highlighting major improvements and transformative projects that will serve each community. AVENUES EAST BENCH SUGAR HOUSE NORTHWEST CENTRAL COMMUNITY DOWNTOWN WEST SALT LAKE CAPITOL HILLGROW:EXPAND OUR PUBLIC LANDS SYSTEM FUTURE PUBLIC LANDS INVESTMENTS GOLF COURSES EXISTING TRAILS PROPOSED TRAILS PARKS AND NATURAL LANDS CEMETERY HIGH EQUITY PRIORITY HIGH EQUITY PRIORITY MEDIUM EQUITY PRIORITY MEDIUM EQUITY PRIORITY LOW EQUITY PRIORITY LOW EQUITY PRIORITY NEAR-TERMCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTSTRANSFORMATIVE PROJECTS EXISTING ELEMENTS LEGEND Chapter Seven: Grow 150 Figure 30: Future Investments By Planning Area Map. INCREASING LEVEL OF SERVICEAND FUTURE INVESTMENTS The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) ﬁnds that city parks departments on average oer one park for every 2,777 residents and 9.9 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. While this is a national benchmark average, NRPA acknowledges that park agencies are as diverse as the landscapes and people they serve. There is no one, standard way of measuring level of service that works for every city. The people, sta and stakeholders of a city must provide input on the values and needs of their own communities for access to the urban outdoors and environmental services provided by parks, urban forests and green spaces. Level of service is often measured by acres of parks and open space per person. Yet many measures such as park investment and availability of park amenities contribute to the level of park service each neighborhood receives. Due to limited available space, areas of the city with higher densities will need to ﬁnd creative solutions to increase park level of service to meet the demands of a growing population. At the same time other planning areas contain substantial acreage of parks and natural lands which are in need improved maintenance and the addition of amenities to equally serve the community. Figure 30, the map to the right shows near-term Public Lands’ investments that seek to improve the level of service of parks and amenities across the city. Signiﬁcant near-term investments are broken down by planning area on the following pages, highlighting major improvements and transformative projects that will serve each community. AVENUES EAST BENCH SUGAR HOUSE NORTHWEST CENTRAL COMMUNITY DOWNTOWN WEST SALT LAKE CAPITOL HILL GROW:EXPAND OUR PUBLIC LANDS SYSTEM FUTURE PUBLIC LANDS INVESTMENTS GOLF COURSES EXISTING TRAILS PROPOSED TRAILS PARKS AND NATURAL LANDS CEMETERY HIGH EQUITY PRIORITY HIGH EQUITY PRIORITY MEDIUM EQUITY PRIORITY MEDIUM EQUITY PRIORITY LOW EQUITY PRIORITY LOW EQUITY PRIORITY NEAR-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TRANSFORMATIVE PROJECTS EXISTING ELEMENTS LEGEND STUDY AREA Figure 7: Map from the Public Land plan showing near term and transformative project sites near the study area . DR A F T Additional Plan Review | 123 Lighting Master Plan The Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan was adopted in 2021 . The plan provides guidance on transitioning the City’s lighting to LED based lighting and balancing lighting needs with energy use and environmental (light pollution) concerns . The plan prioritizes lighting improvements in areas underserved by existing lighting, that are in or near “high priority conflict areas” defined as areas where there is increased pedestrian or bicycle activity . These “conflict areas” include bus stops, light rail stops, and neighborhood byways (pedestrian and bicycle priority corridors identified in the City Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan discussed in a following section) . The plan includes a map showing streetlight locations and the subject area does not appear to be underserved in general . However, there may be small areas, such as along the 1700 West bike route near 300 West, that may warrant being prioritized based on the plan’s direction . 53AREAS UNDERSERVED BY STREET LIGHTINGAs seen in the lighting density map in Figure 3 on page 24, there are neighborhoods and areas of the city currently underserved by street lighting. Public outreach is required in these areas to identify neighborhood interest in upgrading lighting in these areas, particularly for pedestrians.Neighborhood outreach will allow interested residents to review the options identified in the lighting matrix and make an informed decision for their area.HIGH PRIORITY CONFLICT AREAS High Priority Conflict Areas are locations throughout the city where there is typically increased pedestrian or bicycle activity. If a location underserved by the existing lighting and is near a High Priority Conflict Area(s), that site should be prioritized. Maps showing these areas are shown below. A site with more High Priority Conflict Areas should become a priority area for implementation.School ZonesStreets within a one-block radius of all schools within the Salt Lake Valley should be lighted according to the appropriate adjacent land use and increased pedestrian conflict level as a result of being close to a school. If a school falls within a neighborhood where minimum lighting is desired by residents, additional lighting for pedestrian safety should be installed. Lighting near school zones should ensure that crosswalks are sufficiently lighted as well as all entrances and exits to the campus. 0120.5 MilesSchool Overlay KeyLighting Strategies Heat MapSLC BoundarySchoolsStreetlightsDenseSparse STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW Figure 22: School Locations Figure 8: FMap of streetlight density from Lighting Master Plan Study Area DR A F T 124 | Additional Plan Review Salt Lake City Transit Plan The Transit Master Plan, adopted in 2017, primarily discuses goals, policies, and priorities related to the City’s “Frequent Transit network” (FTN .) The FTN is a set of “designated transit corridors that offer frequent, reliable service connecting major destinations and neighborhood centers seven days a week and in the evenings .” The network is divided into Tier 1 and Tier 2 lines, intended for near- and medium-term implementation and longer-term implementation based on future conditions and community input, respectively . There is one FTN Tier 1 bus route in the project area on 2100 South . The next nearest FTN bus route is on State Street, two blocks to the east of the project area . The plan also identifies the TRAX line on 200 West as a Tier 1 FTN line . Although not identified as an FTN route, 300 West is currently served by bus route 17 between 1700 South and 2100 South . Figure 9: Map of the Frequent Transit Network plan from the Transit Master Plan along with current bus routes by frequency . 20 0 W / T R A X 2100 S 1700 S 1300 S Ma i n S t St a t e S t I-15 Ramp Central Pointe TRAX Station Ballpark TRAX Station 30 0 W We s t T e m p l e S t 40 0 W 70 0 W 30 0 W We s t T e m p l e S t ¯ Salt Lake City Planning Division 10/25/2023 Plan Study Area Transit Facilities UTA Rail Stops Bus Route by Frequency 15 Minutes 30 Minutes Transit Master Plan - Frequent Transit Network Tier 1 (Near to Medium Term Implementation) Tier 2 (Longer Term Implementation) 0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet Ballpark Playground DR A F T Additional Plan Review | 125 The plan also priorities specific corridors for moderate or high levels of investment . The nearest corridor identified as a high priority on State Street and is designated for a moderate level of investment . The plan includes a map identifying “transit propensity” by census block group . The “propensity” level is based on the combine densities of low-income households, zero vehicle households, seniors aged 65 and older, and the disabled population The blocks in this area are shown as being somewhere near the middle of the higher end of the spectrum . The Transit Master Plan explains that the plan does not include any specific land use or zoning recommendations; rather it provides information for coordination of land use plans to ensure that growth is supportive of goals in the plan . The plan discusses several goals that are intended to improve connections to transit . The following goals and policies from the plan are applicable to the 300 West Corridor and Central Pointe Station Area Plan: •Create economically vibrant, livable places that support use of transit . Align transit investments with transit-supportive land use policies and development . •Land use density and transit service should be developed in concert to ensure their mutual benefit and success . High-quality transit modes that provide frequent service and a high-level of amenities require supportive land use to generate enough riders to be cost-effective . •The Transit Master Plan does not dictate priorities for land use plan updates; rather it provides information for coordination of land use plans, to ensure that future land development patterns are supportive of Transit Master Plan goals . •Pages 85 and 141 of the plan provide guidelines for transit service upgrades based on density, such as development density around Central Pointe Station . •Create pedestrian and bicycle routes using mid-block crossings and passageways, wide sidewalks, and signage; •Designate a well-connected network of multiuse paths; buffered and protected bike lanes; neighborhood byways; and regular bike lanes that provide direct connections to local destinations •Provide interior block connections, mid-block crossings, and a pedestrian and bicycle network that connects to destinations and transit stops Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan The City adopted a plan focused on bicycle and pedestrian improvements in 2015 titled the Salt Lake City Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan . The plan establishes recommended routes for enhanced pedestrian and transportation improvements, such as trails, wide multi-use paths, or enhanced bicycle lanes . The plan recommends that West Temple be a “neighborhood byway” with a timeframe for any needed improvements to fully realize this designation to be completed in the next 10-20 years . The plan defines neighborhood byways as the following and notes the types of improvements intended for these: Neighborhood byways are multi-modal linear facilities on streets with low traffic volumes and speeds . Additionally, intersection improvements that allow bicyclists and pedestrians to cross DR A F T 126 | Additional Plan Review large or busy streets are critical to their utility . Wayfinding signage and shared lane markings are also important components . Traffic diversion and calming measures are often used when traffic volumes or speeds are higher than desirable . A proposed network of “neighborhood byways” taps quiet neighborhood streets and formalizes them into transportation corridors designed to crisscross the city and link to key destinations including neighborhood retail areas and corridors, parks, schools, and transit stations . Few changes are needed on the quiet streets themselves; the network is realized by providing for safe, often signalized crossings at the major barrier streets, and reducing traffic volumes to make walking safer and more enjoyable . “Neighborhood byways” is a term recognizing that these corridors create a network for both pedestrians and bicyclists . The plan identifies 1700 South as an “East- West Pedestrian Priority Corridor” targeted as a priority for pedestrian improvements . 1700 South currently includes a striped bike lane, separated by vehicle traffic by a single lane striping . The plan recommends buffered or protected bike lanes on 1700 South from State Street to just west of I-215 as a long term (10-20 year) recommendation . The City is considering near term changes to some of this section of 1700 South, including within the plan study area, to implement this . Please see the discussion on page 92. . Figure 10: Multi-use trails, neighborhood byways, and enhanced pedestrian crossing map from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan . CHAPTER FIVE: PEDESTRIAN RECOMMENDATIONSSALT LAKE CITY PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Downtown Refer to Figure 5-1, “Mid-Block Walkways Map from the draft Downtown Community Master Plan” in Chapter 5 of this plan. West Side RWT T r a i l Beck Sunnyside Mo u n t a i n V i e w C o r r i d o r P a t h 9 Line Parley's Tr a i l S A LT L A K E C I T YI N T ’ L A I R P O R T 900 S AirportPath ¦80 ¦80 ¦15 ¦15 ¦80 ¦80 ¦215 ¦215 Jordan River T r ail JordanRiverTrail C i t y C r e e k C a n y o nBonnevilleShorelineTrail P a rle y ’ s Parley's Trail S A LT L A K E C I T YI N T ’ L A I R P O R T U N I V O F U T A H Ant e l o p e I s l a n d T r a i l Parle y ' s T r a i l Re d w o o d North Temple 900 S 800 S Foothill Folsom Trail B a l l p a r k - G r a n a r y T r a i l SoccerComplexPath S u rplus CanalTrail 60 0 E 20 0 E Kensington Kensington Starcrest 13 0 0 W / E m e r y Stratford C e n t e r Elgin El i z a b e t h 200 N Hollywood Ramona Westminster Gareld 6 0 0 E Miami 80 0 E 80 0 E 40 0 E Herbert Yale Yale Herber t Emerson10 0 0 E 13 0 0 S / N a v a j o 80 0 W 2 0 0 0 E 300 N 600 N 10 0 0 W 300 S Q S t 1300 S Paxton 400 S North Temple 1700 S Vi r g i n i a American Beauty Wo l c o t t F a i r f a x / P e n r o s e 800 N 11 0 0 E 11 0 0 E We s t T e m p l e 600 S T S t M S t Ch e y e n n e / 1 5 0 0 W D S t Su n s e t / C o l o r a d o / D u p o n t / 1 3 0 0 W 800 N 700 S 80 0 W B o n n v e v i l l e S horeline Trail Ü Enhanced Road Crossings and SignalsIntersections and SignageNew Pavement and Curb CutsStructure Improvements Neighborhood Byways (0-10 Yrs) Neighborhood Byways (10-20 Yrs) Neighborhood BywaysCrossings & Improvements B a n g e r ter HighwayPath *The exact alignment for the Transvalley Corridor (800 S/900 S) is pending. Per the 1992 Salt Lake City Open Space Plan, the Transvalley Corridor is an opportunity to link "the City east of I-15 to the City west of I-15 and provide a pedestrian and bicycle route from the foothills, through the urban area, into the wetlands." The map shows a western terminus based on the City's 1992 Open Space Plan. Due to changes in this area of the city, a different western connection may now be appropriate, possibly extending to the Salt Lake Marina or Antelope Island. 0120.5 Miles December 2015 TRAX/Streetcar/FrontRunner Stop TRAX/Streetcar/FrontRunner Line Multi-Use Paths Natural Surface Trails (Bonneville Shoreline) Existing Facilities Existing Transit and Other Facilities Recommended FacilitiesRecommended PedestrianSpot ImprovementsMulti-Use Paths (0-10 Yrs)Multi-Use Paths (10-20 Yrs)Transvalley Corridor*East-West Pedestrian Priority CorridorsFigure 5-2 Multi-Use Trails, Neighborhood Byways, & Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings Map CHAPTER FIVE: PEDESTRIAN RECOMMENDATIONSSALT LAKE CITY PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Downtown Refer to Figure 5-1, “Mid-Block Walkways Map from the draft Downtown Community Master Plan” in Chapter 5 of this plan. West Side RWT T r a i l B e c k Sunnyside Mo u n t a i n V i e w C o r r i d o r P a t h 9 Line Parley's Tr a i l S A L T L A K E C I T Y I N T ’ L A I R P O R T 900 S A i r p ort Path ¦80 ¦80 ¦15 ¦15 ¦80 ¦80 ¦215 ¦215 JordanRiver T r ail Jor d a n R i v e r T r a i l C i t y C r e e k C a n y o n B o n n e villeSh o r elineTrail P a rle y ’s Parley's Trail S A L T L A K E C I T Y I N T ’ L A I R P O R T U N I V O F U T A H Ant e l o p e I s l a n d T r a i l Parle y ' s T r a i l Re d w o o d North Temple 900 S 800 S Foothill Folsom Trail B a l l p a r k - G r a n a r y T r a i l Socce r C o m p l exPath S urplusCanalTrail 60 0 E 20 0 E Kensington Kensington St a r c r e s t 13 0 0 W / E m e r y Stratford C e n t e r Elgin El i z a b e t h 200 N Hollywood Ramona Westminster Gareld 60 0 E Miam i 80 0 E 80 0 E 40 0 E Herbert Yale Yale Herber t Emerson10 0 0 E 13 0 0 S / N a v a j o 80 0 W 2 0 0 0 E 300 N 600 N 10 0 0 W 300 S Q S t 1300 S Paxton 400 S North Temple 1700 S Vi r g i n i a Am e r i c a n B e a u t y Wo l c o t t F a i r f a x / P e n r o s e 800 N 11 0 0 E 11 0 0 E We s t T e m p l e 600 S T S t M S t Ch e y e n n e / 1 5 0 0 W D S t Su n s e t / C o l o r a d o / D u p o n t / 1 3 0 0 W 800 N 700 S 80 0 W B o n n v e v i l l e Shoreline Trail Ü Enhanced Road Crossings and Signals Intersections and Signage New Pavement and Curb Cuts Structure Improvements Neighborhood Byways (0-10 Yrs) Neighborhood Byways (10-20 Yrs) Neighborhood Byways Crossings & Improvements B a n g e r ter HighwayPath *The exact alignment for the Transvalley Corridor (800 S/900 S) is pending. Per the 1992 Salt Lake City Open Space Plan, the Transvalley Corridor is an opportunity to link "the City east of I-15 to the City west of I-15 and provide a pedestrian and bicycle route from the foothills, through the urban area, into the wetlands." The map shows a western terminus based on the City's 1992 Open Space Plan. Due to changes in this area of the city, a different western connection may now be appropriate, possibly extending to the Salt Lake Marina or Antelope Island. 0 1 20.5 Miles December 2015 TRAX/Streetcar/FrontRunner Stop TRAX/Streetcar/FrontRunner Line Multi-Use Paths Natural Surface Trails (Bonneville Shoreline) Existing Facilities Existing Transit and Other Facilities Recommended Facilities Recommended Pedestrian Spot Improvements Multi-Use Paths (0-10 Yrs) Multi-Use Paths (10-20 Yrs) Transvalley Corridor* East-West Pedestrian Priority Corridors Figure 5-2 Multi-Use Trails, Neighborhood Byways, & Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings Map DR A F T Additional Plan Review | 127 300 West is also identified for the same “buffered or protected bike lane” improvements as another long term recommendation . These were implemented with fully separated, raised bike lanes (separated from vehicle traffic by curb and park strip) constructed on the west side of 300 West, with the City’s reconstruction of 300 West in 2023 . The lanes end short of 2100 South at Hartwell Avenue (1940 S), so future opportunities could be explored by the City to fully link the path to South Salt Lake’s bicycle path on the south side of 2100 South . There are no specific improvements identified for 2100 South . 2100 South is a State road and is planned and maintained by the State; however, the City has ownership and responsibility for improvements outside of the vehicle roadway behind the curb, such as park strips and sidewalks . The plan also includes several general policies that apply citywide that are intended to help encourage bicycling and walking and promote its safety . Examples include intersection updates, signal light timing changes, improved bike lane maintenance, wayfinding, event promotion, and safety enforcement efforts . Figure 11: Bicycling Network Existing Conditions and 20 Year Vision Map from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan . CHAPTER SIX: BICYCLE RECOMMENDATIONSSALT LAKE CITY PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Figure 6-6 Bicycling Network Existing Conditions + 20 Year Vision Map (2035) 90 0 E 80 0 E 90 0 W 40 0 E 1700 S 900 S 800 S Herbert Yale Yale Herber t St a t e 56 0 0 W 2700 S F o o t h i l l California 60 0 E 19 0 0 E 17 0 0 E 2 0 0 0 E 13 0 0 E 20 0 E 300 N 30 0 W Kensington KensingtonEmerson 700 S 1300 S 70 0 E 500 SWest Side RWT T r a i l 10 0 0 W B e c k 2100 S S u r p l u s C a n a l T r a i l 20 0 W 300 S Warm Springs 100 S Re d w o o d 10 0 0 E Sunnyside Mo u n t a i n V i e w C o r r i d o r P a t h 50 0 E 9 Line 13 0 0 S / N a v a j o 80 0 W St a r c r e s t 13 0 0 W / E m e r y 50 0 W 40 0 W Parley's Trail Harold Gatty 30 0 E 700 N S A L T L A K E C I T Y I N T ’ L A I R P O R T U N I V O F U T A H South Temple 600 N600 N Amelia Earhart Ant e l o p e I s l a n d T r a i l V i c t o r y Parle y ' s T r a i l 800 S 600 S Stratford 60 0 W We s t T e m p l e E C a p i t o l 600 S Ma i n 12 0 0 W 500 S C e n t e r M a r i o C a p e c c h i Q S t T S t M S t Elgin 1300 S Paxton 20 0 0 E Ar a p e e n Vi r g i n i a A m e r i c a n B e a u t y Ch e y e n n e / 1 5 0 0 W K S t G S t D S t Pa r l e y ' s W a y Wo l c o t t C h i p e t a 200 S200 S Gu a r d s m a n North Temple Su n s e t / C o l o r a d o / D u p o n t / 1 3 0 0 W Cr e s t v i e w H i g h l a n d North Temple Jo h n G l e n n 5 0 0 W El i z a b e t h VA C e n t r a l 200 N F a i r f a x / P e n r o s e 1800 N 800 N Wilmington Hollywood Ramona Westminster Gareld 70 0 E 50 0 E 70 0 E 13 0 0 E 700 S 400 S 900 S 900 S 2100 S 700 S 11 0 0 E Foothill 400 S 500 S 1700 S1700 S 1700 S 30 0 W 2100 S 60 0 E 30 0 W 100 S 20 0 E 700 S 2100 S 11 0 0 E 56 0 0 W Or a n g e 80 0 W Miam i ¦80 ¦80 ¦15 ¦15 ¦15 ¦80 ¦80 ¦215 ¦215 Folsom Trail B a l l p a r k - G r a n a r y T r a i l Socc e r C o m p l exPath Ch a r l e s L i n d b e r g h B o n n e v illeSh o r elineTrail B o n n v e v i l l e Shoreline Trail Ü 72 0 0 W 1300 S ¦80 **The exact alignment for the Transvalley Corridor (800 S/900 S) is pending. Per the 1992 Salt Lake City Open Space Plan, the Transvalley Corridor is an opportunity to link "the City east of I-15 to the City west of I-15 and provide a pedestrian and bicycle route from the foothills, through the urban area, into the wetlands." The map shows a western terminus based on the City's 1992 Open Space Plan. Due to changes in this area of the city, a different western connection may now be appropriate, possibly extending to the Salt Lake Marina or Antelope Island. Recommended Bikeways Multi-Use Paths Buffered or Protected Bike Lanes Neighborhood Byways Neighborhood Byways Crossings & Improvements Bike Lanes Shared Roadways* Bikeways Proposed in Univ. of Utah Bicycle Master Plan Requires Further Study Transvalley Corridor** 0 1 20.5 Miles December 2015 Note: The protected bike lanes on 200 E (South Temple to 900 S) and 300 E (100 S to 600 S) are both shown on the map, but only one of the two options will be constructed. TRAX/Streetcar/FrontRunner Stop TRAX/Streetcar/FrontRunner Line All Existing Bikeways Natural Surface Trails (Bonneville Shoreline) Existing Bikeways Existing Transit Facilities *Includes marked & signed shared roadways B a n g e r ter HighwayPath CHAPTER SIX: BICYCLE RECOMMENDATIONSSALT LAKE CITY PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE MASTER PLANFigure 6-6 Bicycling Network Existing Conditions + 20 Year Vision Map (2035) 9 0 0 E 8 0 0 E 9 0 0 W 4 0 0 E 1700 S 900 S 800 S Herbert Yale Yale Herbe r t S t a t e 5 6 0 0 W 2700 S F o o t h i l l California 6 0 0 E 1 9 0 0 E 1 7 0 0 E 2 0 0 0 E 1 3 0 0 E 2 0 0 E 300 N 3 0 0 W Kensington KensingtonEmerson 700 S 1300 S 7 0 0 E 500 S West Side R W T T r a i l 1 0 0 0 W Beck 2100 S S u r p l u s C a n a l T r a i l 2 0 0 W 300 S Warm Springs 100 S Redwood 1 0 0 0 E Sunnyside M o u n t a i n V i e w C o r r i d o r P a t h 5 0 0 E 9 Line 1 3 0 0 S / N a v a j o 8 0 0 W Starcrest 1 3 0 0 W / E m e r y 5 0 0 W 4 0 0 W Parley's Trail Harold Gatty 3 0 0 E 700 NS A LT L A K E C I T YI N T ’ L A I R P O R T U N I V O F U T A H South Temple 600 N600 N Amelia Earhart Ant e l o p e I s l a n d T r a i l Victory Parl e y ' s T r a i l 800 S 600 S Stratford 6 0 0 W W e s t T e m p l e E Capi t o l 600 S M a i n 1200 W 500 S C e n t e r M a r i o C a p e c c h i Q S t T S t M S t Elgin 1300 S Paxton 2 0 0 0 E Ar a p e e n V i r g i n i a American Beauty C h e y e n n e / 1 5 0 0 W K S t G S t D S t Pa r l e y ' s W a y W o l c o t t C h i p e t a 200 S200 S G u a r d s m a n North Temple S u n s e t / C o l o r a d o / D u p o n t / 1 3 0 0 W Cre s t v i e w H i g h l a n d North Temple J o h n G l e n n 5 0 0 W E l i z a b e t h VA C e n t r a l 200 N F a i r f a x / P e n r o s e 1800 N800 N Wilmington Hollywood Ramona Westminster Gareld 7 0 0 E 5 0 0 E 7 0 0 E 1 3 0 0 E 700 S 400 S 900 S 900 S 2100 S 700 S 11 0 0 E Foothill 400 S 500 S 1700 S1700 S 1700 S 3 0 0 W 2100 S 6 0 0 E 3 0 0 W 100 S 2 0 0 E 700 S 2100 S 11 0 0 E 5 6 0 0 W O r a n g e 8 0 0 W Miami ¦80 ¦80 ¦15 ¦15 ¦15 ¦80 ¦80 ¦215 ¦215 Folsom Trail B a l l p a r k - G r a n a r y T r a i l SoccerComplexPath C h a r l e s L i n d b e r g h BonnevilleShorelineTrail B o n n v e v i l l e Shorelin e T rail Ü 7200 W1300 S¦80 **The exact alignment for the Transvalley Corridor (800 S/900 S) is pending. Per the 1992 Salt Lake City Open Space Plan, the Transvalley Corridor is an opportunity to link "the City east of I-15 to the City west of I-15 and provide a pedestrian and bicycle route from the foothills, through the urban area, into the wetlands." The map shows a western terminus based on the City's 1992 Open Space Plan. Due to changes in this area of the city, a different western connection may now be appropriate, possibly extending to the Salt Lake Marina or Antelope Island. Recommended BikewaysMulti-Use PathsBuffered or Protected Bike LanesNeighborhood BywaysNeighborhood BywaysCrossings & ImprovementsBike LanesShared Roadways*Bikeways Proposed in Univ. of UtahBicycle Master PlanRequires Further StudyTransvalley Corridor** 0120.5 Miles December 2015 Note: The protected bike lanes on 200 E (South Temple to 900 S) and 300 E (100 S to 600 S) are both shown on the map, but only one of the two options will be constructed. TRAX/Streetcar/FrontRunner Stop TRAX/Streetcar/FrontRunner Line All Existing Bikeways Natural Surface Trails (Bonneville Shoreline) Existing Bikeways Existing Transit Facilities *Includes marked & signed shared roadways B a n g e r t e r H ighway Path DR A F T 128 | Additional Plan Review South Salt Lake Bike Lane Context South Salt Lake’s portion of 300 West, south of 2100 South, currently does not have any specific bicycle improvements within about a block of 2100 South, similar to Salt Lake City on the north side . However, a block south of 2100 South, the road layout includes a narrow, unprotected bike lane within the shoulder of the road . There is an unsigned, segment of striped shoulder that may function as a bike lane on the west side of 300 West that extends from about 2100 South to Andy Ave/TRAX line . South Salt Lake’s portion of West Temple has bike lanes that extend all the way to the 2100 South intersection . The lanes are a mix of conventional on road bike lanes, both buffered (with buffer striping) and simply striped . The street is identified in South Salt Lake’s Strategic Mobility Plan as a “Proposed high comfort bike route on (an) existing bike lane .” Figure 12: Map from the South Salt Lake Strategic Mobility Plan showing existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements within the study area . 64 | South Salt Lake Strategic Mobility Plan 15 1 ¯0 0.5 10.25 Miles Jo r d a n R i v e r P a r k w a y T r a i l Legend City on the Move Mobility PlanBike and Pedestrian Existing Trail Proposed Trail Existing Bike RouteProposed Bike Route Proposed high comfort bike route on existing bike lane Proposed high comfort bike route on proposed bike lane Proposed Greenway/Trail Schools Sidewalk Improvement or add new sidewalk Parks and Open Space Future Bike Route 1/2 mile radius Improve Existing Pedestrian Crossing Proposed Pedestrian Crossing Increase ped/bike safety/comfort at highway underpass crossings Pedestrian access needed Existing TRAX Station Proposed / Future TRAX Station Bike Crossing/ Intersection Sidewalk and bicycle facility improvements Proposed Bridge Crossing TRAX and Streetcar Penney Ave. Millcreek Way Baird Ave.Price Ave. 2100 S 2700 S 3300 S 90 0 W 50 0 W St a t e S t r e e t 50 0 E 3900 S Upgrade Parley’s Trail 70 0 W 30 0 W W T e m p l e Ma i n S t . 30 0 E 15 80 15 70 0 E 900 W Future Extension WV C T r a i l 300 W Main St. Potential pedestrian bridge, E. Oak- land Avenue Upgrade interchange Parley’s Trail 300 E 500 E Future Meadowbrook Trail N 1mile Need access from 900 W to new Parley’s Trail bridge Parley’s Trail Bridge (2020) Upgrade Bridge Crossing Repair/ Rebuild New I-80 access Millcreek Trail New pedestrian/ bike access Existing bike lane, road rebuild (2021) Road rebuild with future bike lanes (2023) New Pedestrian Bridge 700 W900 W Millcreek Trail Meadowbrook Trail W Temple 71 171 Leland Ave. 200 E Gregson Ave. Future (2020)Existing and Proposed Bike and Pedestrian Network 64 | South Salt Lake Strategic Mobility Plan 15 1 ¯0 0.5 10.25 Miles Jo r d a n R i v e r P a r k w a y T r a i l Legend City on the Move Mobility Plan Bike and Pedestrian Existing TrailProposed Trail Existing Bike Route Proposed Bike Route Proposed high comfort bike route on existing bike lane Proposed high comfort bike route on proposed bike lane Proposed Greenway/Trail Schools Sidewalk Improvement or add new sidewalk Parks and Open Space Future Bike Route 1/2 mile radius Improve Existing Pedestrian Crossing Proposed Pedestrian Crossing Increase ped/bike safety/comfort at highway underpass crossings Pedestrian access needed Existing TRAX Station Proposed / Future TRAX Station Bike Crossing/ Intersection Sidewalk and bicycle facility improvements Proposed Bridge Crossing TRAX and Streetcar Penney Ave. Millcreek Way Baird Ave.Price Ave. 2100 S 2700 S 3300 S 90 0 W 50 0 W St a t e S t r e e t 50 0 E 3900 S Upgrade Parley’s Trail 70 0 W 30 0 W W T e m p l e Ma i n S t . 30 0 E 15 80 15 70 0 E 900 W Future Extension WV C T r a i l 30 0 W Ma i n S t . Potential pedestrian bridge, E. Oak- land Avenue Upgrade interchange Parley’s Trail 30 0 E 50 0 E Future Meadowbrook Trail N 1mile Need access from 900 W to new Parley’s Trail bridge Parley’s Trail Bridge (2020) Upgrade Bridge Crossing Repair/ Rebuild New I-80 access Millcreek Trail New pedestrian/ bike access Existing bike lane, road rebuild (2021) Road rebuild with future bike lanes (2023) New Pedestrian Bridge 70 0 W 90 0 W Millcreek Trail Meadowbrook Trail W T e m p l e 71 171 Leland Ave. 20 0 E Gregson Ave. Future (2020) Existing and Proposed Bike and Pedestrian Network DR A F T Additional Plan Review | 129 Trails Nearby existing and planned trails include the Parley’s Trail, located generally along the east- west running S-line (east of 200 West) and TRAX lines (west of 200 West, heading west to West Valley) in the area . South Salt Lake Context The South Salt Lake Strategic Mobility Plan identifies a trail corridor along Interstate 15, proposing that it be located either on the east or west side of that freeway and continuing north into Salt Lake City . Crossings The Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan doesn’t identify any specific crossing improvements within or adjacent to the study area boundary . South Salt Lake Context The South Salt Lake Mobility Plan calls for a crossing on 2100 South at the TRAX line at approximately 200 West . Major Street Plan (Part of the City’s Transportation Master Plan) The City has an adopted Major Streets Plan (last amended in 2018) that identifies the location of existing and future planned City streets . It also classifies streets by type, which provides guidance for the width and type of improvements that should be constructed within the street, such as the number of vehicle lanes, park strips, and sidewalk requirements, that a street should include . The Major Streets Plan identifies the following streets and designations in the plan area: •West Temple – Collector Street •300 West - Arterial City Street •1700 South – Arterial City Street •2100 South – Arterial State Route •All other streets are local streets . The plan describes these streets as the following: Arterial State Routes: These are State Highways operated and maintained by the Utah Department of Transportation . State Routes typically operate as Arterial streets . Arterial City Streets: These streets facilitate through traffic movement over relatively long distances such as from one end of the city to the other and from neighborhood to neighborhood . Arterials are generally Multi-Lane streets carrying high traffic volumes at relatively high speed limits . These are commuter streets and typically offer controlled access to abutting property . Collector Streets: Collector streets provide the connection between Arterial and Local streets . Collectors can be Multi-Lane but are meant to carry less traffic at lower speeds and for shorter distances than Arterials . They provide direct access to abutting property and carry a mix of local traffic and commuter traffic headed for nearby destinations . There are no new streets proposed for the study area in the Major Streets Plan . As the guiding document for the location of new City streets, if new streets are proposed within a new general plan, the Major Streets Plan should be amended to reflect those . DR A F T Utah Unified Transportation Plan (2023 - 2050)/WFRC Regional Transportation Plan The Utah Unified Transportation Plan is a statewide transportation plan, representing a collaboration among the state’s metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) . These organizations come together to compile and prioritize a variety of transportation projects or improvements across the state . These are categorized into one of three phases or priorities - 2023 to 2032 (phase 1), 2033 to 2042 (phase 2), and 2043 to 2050 (phase 3) . The projects identified in the plan area come from the Regional Transportation Plan managed by the Wasatch Front Regional Council, the MPO that covers the study area . The most recent version of the plan (2023- 2050) identifies three future bicycle related improvements (shown in the associated map as “AT” or Active Transportation projects) on the edges of the study area . These include a bicycle lane on 300 West from Hartwell Avenue (1940 S) to the Central Pointe TRAX Station, an at-grade pedestrian crossing at 300 West across the 2100 South intersection, and new buffered bike lanes on 1700 South from 300 West to Redwood Road . For context, currently the bike lanes on 300 West stop about one block short of the 2100 South intersection, on both the South Salt Lake (south) and Salt Lake City (north) sides of the street . The proposed improvements would connect those two routes . The buffered bike lanes proposed for 1700 South may be implemented by the City with forthcoming restriping to 1700 South (see page 92.) 130 | Additional Plan Review For automobile related improvements, the plan identifies general 2100 South “operational improvements” from I-15 to State Street as a phase 1 improvement . The plan also identifies the following improvements to I-15: •Managed motorways implementation – Phase Needed 1 •Variable Pricing Implementation (I-15 Variable-Priced Freeway Lanes Operations from Davis County Line to Utah County Line) -Phase Needed 2 •Freeway Widening, I-15 (Northbound) Widening from 400 South to I-215, Phase Needed 1 •Freeway HOT Lanes (I-15 Dual HOT Operations from Davis County Line to Utah County Line) – Phase Needed 3 The plan also identifies the following transit improvements: •300 West Corridor Core Route (10 min service) from North Temple FrontRunner Station to Central Pointe TRAX Station – Phase 1 •Foothill Drive - 2100 South Core Route (10 min service) from University South Campus TRAX Station to Central Pointe TRAX Station –Phase 1 •Lake Park Core Route (15 min service) from 5600 West to Central Pointe TRAX Station – Phase 2 DR A F T Additional Plan Review | 131 30 0 W 2100 S 1700 S I- 1 5 S B F w y I- 1 5 N B F w y We s t T e m p l e S t I- 1 5 S B C o l l e c t o r R a m p 1830 S 45 0 W Hartwell Ave Je f f e r s o n S t Hansen Ave Westwood Ave Jefferson Cir ¯ Salt Lake City Planning Division 10/24/2023 Highway 2100 South Operations from I-15 to State Street I-15 Improvements Active Transportation 1700 South Buffered Bike Lane from Redwood Road to 300 West 300 West Protected Bike Lane from Hartwell Avenue to Central Pointe TRAX Station via Utopia Avenue Transit 1700 South Core Route (15 min service) from Redwood Road to Foothill Drive 300 West Corridor Core Route (10 min service) from North Temple FrontRunner Station to Central Pointe TRAX Foothill Drive - 2100 South Core Route (10 min service) from University South Campus TRAX Station to Central Lake Park Core Route (15 min service) from 5600 West to Central Pointe TRAX Station Mainline TRAX Improvements from 1300 South to I-80 S-Line Street Car Double Tracking from Central Pointe S-Line Station to Highland Drive Site Specific Improvements 300 West At-Grade Pedestrian / Bike Crossing @ 2100 South Central Pointe Station Transit Hub @ 2100 South and TRAX 0 670 1,340 2,010335 Feet Figure 13: Transportation improvements identified in the 2023-2050 Unified Transportation Plan . DR A F T 132 | Additional Plan Review Adjacent Jurisdiction Plans – South Salt Lake The plan’s study area is located on the south edge of the City boundary, which for this area is 2100 South . The neighboring jurisdiction is South Salt Lake . Their future plans may impact Salt Lake City’s plans and vice versa . It’s important to coordinate planning efforts to help ensure the area functions cohesively . Although South Salt Lake’s current plans are cited here, South Salt Lake is in the process of creating a new small area plan that will provide new guidance for the area around Central Pointe Station, so the policies cited here may change in the near term . South Salt Lake Mobility Plan Context South Salt Lake has an adopted transportation element plan titled the South Salt Lake Strategic Mobility Plan . The plan includes policies that cover all forms of transportation including walking, bicycling, and driving . The plan identifies 300 West as an “existing bike route” and calls for Figure 14: Map from the South Salt Lake Strategic Mobility Plan showing existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements within the study area . 64 | South Salt Lake Strategic Mobility Plan 15 1 ¯0 0.5 10.25 Miles Jo r d a n R i v e r P a r k w a y T r a i l Legend City on the Move Mobility PlanBike and Pedestrian Existing Trail Proposed Trail Existing Bike RouteProposed Bike Route Proposed high comfort bike route on existing bike lane Proposed high comfort bike route on proposed bike lane Proposed Greenway/Trail Schools Sidewalk Improvement or add new sidewalk Parks and Open Space Future Bike Route 1/2 mile radius Improve Existing Pedestrian Crossing Proposed Pedestrian Crossing Increase ped/bike safety/comfort at highway underpass crossings Pedestrian access needed Existing TRAX Station Proposed / Future TRAX Station Bike Crossing/ Intersection Sidewalk and bicycle facility improvements Proposed Bridge Crossing TRAX and Streetcar Penney Ave. Millcreek Way Baird Ave.Price Ave. 2100 S 2700 S 3300 S 90 0 W 50 0 W St a t e S t r e e t 50 0 E 3900 S Upgrade Parley’s Trail 70 0 W 30 0 W W T e m p l e Ma i n S t . 30 0 E 15 80 15 70 0 E 900 W Future Extension WV C T r a i l 300 W Main S t . Potential pedestrian bridge, E. Oak- land Avenue Upgrade interchange Parley’s Trail 300 E 500 E Future Meadowbrook Trail N 1mile Need access from 900 W to new Parley’s Trail bridge Parley’s Trail Bridge (2020) Upgrade Bridge Crossing Repair/ Rebuild New I-80 access Millcreek Trail New pedestrian/ bike access Existing bike lane, road rebuild (2021) Road rebuild with future bike lanes (2023) New Pedestrian Bridge 700 W900 W Millcreek Trail Meadowbrook Trail W Tem p l e 71 171 Leland Ave. 200 E Gregson Ave. Future (2020) Existing and Proposed Bike and Pedestrian Network 64 | South Salt Lake Strategic Mobility Plan 15 1 ¯0 0.5 10.25 Miles Jo r d a n R i v e r P a r k w a y T r a i l Legend City on the Move Mobility Plan Bike and Pedestrian Existing TrailProposed Trail Existing Bike Route Proposed Bike Route Proposed high comfort bike route on existing bike lane Proposed high comfort bike route on proposed bike lane Proposed Greenway/Trail Schools Sidewalk Improvement or add new sidewalk Parks and Open Space Future Bike Route 1/2 mile radius Improve Existing Pedestrian Crossing Proposed Pedestrian Crossing Increase ped/bike safety/comfort at highway underpass crossings Pedestrian access needed Existing TRAX Station Proposed / Future TRAX Station Bike Crossing/ Intersection Sidewalk and bicycle facility improvements Proposed Bridge Crossing TRAX and Streetcar Penney Ave. Millcreek Way Baird Ave.Price Ave. 2100 S 2700 S 3300 S 90 0 W 50 0 W St a t e S t r e e t 50 0 E 3900 S Upgrade Parley’s Trail 70 0 W 30 0 W W T e m p l e Ma i n S t . 30 0 E 15 80 15 70 0 E 900 W Future Extension WV C T r a i l 30 0 W Ma i n S t . Potential pedestrian bridge, E. Oak- land Avenue Upgrade interchange Parley’s Trail 30 0 E 50 0 E Future Meadowbrook Trail N 1mile Need access from 900 W to new Parley’s Trail bridge Parley’s Trail Bridge (2020) Upgrade Bridge Crossing Repair/ Rebuild New I-80 access Millcreek Trail New pedestrian/ bike access Existing bike lane, road rebuild (2021) Road rebuild with future bike lanes (2023) New Pedestrian Bridge 70 0 W 90 0 W Millcreek Trail Meadowbrook Trail W T e m p l e 71 171 Leland Ave. 20 0 E Gregson Ave. Future (2020) Existing and Proposed Bike and Pedestrian Network DR A F T Additional Plan Review | 133 “Sidewalk and bicycle facility improvements” to the section of 300 West located between 2100 South and the S-Line Corridor/Parley’s Trail . Other related policies from the plan are discussed in the context of the Salt Lake City Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan on page 125 . South Salt Lake General Plan and Future Land Uses The South Salt L ake General Plan, adopted in 2021, identifies the area south of 2100 South between I-15 and State Street as the “Downtown South Salt Lake Area” with the area divided into the “Core” and “Transition” areas . The plan’s discussion of these areas is below: This area is divided into subareas based on distance from the station platforms . This area should be considered for a future civic center with a community gathering area for public use . The core subarea is 1/4 mile from the station platform . The transitional subarea is the remaining area of the Neighborhood . Core Area: This area is the closest to transit and supported by access to major arterials and the I-15 interchange . This area can support the highest densities in the city . •Within 1/4 mile of TRAX or Streetcar Station •Density is not limited . Buildings must meet minimum and maximum setback, height minimum, and parking requirements only •Retail and service uses existing or planned in the immediate area •Public realm improvements to enhance the pedestrian environment, provide connectivity to community amenities and services and encourage community interaction •Installation of pedestrian amenities on primary street frontages to create walkable and human-scaled environments that encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use . •Street trees and landscaping Transition Area: This area is beyond the 1/4 mile distance from the transit station, but is within the Downtown South Salt Lake Neighborhood . This area can support high densities . •Within the Downtown South Salt Lake Neighborhood •More than 1/4 mile from transit station •Density is not limited . Buildings must meet minimum and maximum setback, height minimum and maximum, and parking requirements •Retail and service uses existing or planned in the immediate area •Public realm improvements to enhance the pedestrian environment, provide connectivity to community amenities and services, and encourage community interaction •Installation of pedestrian amenities on all street frontages to create walkable and human-scaled environments that encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use •Street trees and landscaping The plan also identifies “Community Gateways” where special improvements should be made . One of these is at 2100 South around 300 West . The plan describes these areas and what kinds of improvements should be made with the following: These areas mark primary access points to South Salt Lake, the areas where people are coming into the community from adjacent jurisdictions . Urban design standards, streetscape treatments, and monument and wayfinding signage will increase the visibility of South Salt Lake in the region . DR A F T 134 | Additional Plan Review Figure 15: Future land use map from the South Salt Lake General Plan showing the proposed future land uses near the study area . 20 OUR NEXT MOVESOUTH SALT LAKEGENERAL PLAN 2040 |LAND USE & NEIGHBORHOODS FUTURE LAND USE MAP & DESCRIPTIONS The Future Land Use Map is the heart of the General Plan. This map guides future development and land use decisions.This is a broad conceptual map. The map identifies areas for preservation of current land use, scale, and density and areas for transformation (Figure III-10). The following density definitions are used for the Future Land Use Map: AREA TYPES: Neighborhood Character Areas - Areas with existing residential and/or neighborhood-serving commercial where current neighborhood character, defined by building mass,street orientation and overall density,is to continue. Low-Medium Residential Areas - Areas appropriate for primarily residential development at 12-35 dwelling units per acre. Low-Medium Mixed Use Areas - Areas with a mix of residential and commercial uses. Residential densities ranges from 12-35 dwelling units per acre. Commercial buildings are limited to 1-2 stories in height. Neighborhood Nodes - Areas for consideration of low-density, neighborhood serving retail and services. These areas are in or adjacent to Neighborhood Character, Low-Medium Residential, or Low-Medium Mixed Use areas.When developing or applying the zone the following should be considered: •Capacity of collector and neighborhood road network •Walking and biking access •Parking requirements and location •Street trees and landscaping Medium-Density Corridor Development - Areas along major arterials that are currently developed as automobile-focused commercial areas. These areas are appropriate for selective redevelopment into mixed use areas at approximately 35-60 du/acre and 3-6 story commercial buildings if the following criteria are met: •Preservation of existing building stock of appropriate scale and character •Access to an arterial with adequate capacity to serve the new development HARMONY PARK LINCOLN PARK MCCALL PARK 0 0.5 1 Miles FIRE STATION 42 FIRE STATION 43 LIONS PARK FITTS COMMUNITYPARK JAMES MADISON PARK GENERAL HOLM PARK CENTRAL PARK MILLCREEK TRAILHEAD PARK BICKLEY PARK 2700 S 70 0 E 2100 S 3300 S 3900 S 2100 S 50 0 E ST A T E S T Historic Scott SchoolCommunity Campus Central Park Community Center FIRE STATION 41 Animal Shelter City Hall 201 201201 County Library Public Works SOUTH SALT LAKE POLICE STATION Creekside Building - Head Start ColumbusCommunity Center PROMISE PARK FIGURE III-10: FUTURE LAND USE MAP LEGEND South Salt Lake City Boundary Trailheads Existing Proposed Salt Lake County South Salt Lake PARLEY’S TRAIL PARKS MAINTAINED BY: Roads Highways Granite District Schools Public Facilities Existing Proposed MILLCREEK TRAIL Existing Proposed MEADOWBROOK TRAIL Jordan River Parkway Transit Line TRANSPORTATION Gateway Areas Catalyst Areas Public Libraries Proposed Transit Central Pointe Half Mile Radius Streams Flex Commercial Area Medium Density Mixed Use Area Rail Serviced Commercial Area Business District Area Institutional Low-Medium Residential Area Low-Medium Mixed Use Area Neighborhood Character Areas FUTURE LAND USE CONCEPT AREA Downtown SSL Area Possible Neighborhood Nodes New Park Space Opportunity NATURAL PRESERVATION AREAS Natural Preservation Area Multi-Modal Friendly Corridor FUTURE CORRIDOR CONCEPT AREAS Medium Density Corridor Life on State Gateway Plan Fire Stations Police Station JORDAN RIVER PARKWAY TRAIL Proposed Transit Station TOD Area Transit Station TRANSIT STATION SUPPORTIVE AREA Transit Station Supportive Area NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AREAS OPEN SPACE MEDIUM DENSITY CORRIDORS COMMERCIAL DENSITY: High Density = 6 + stories office/retail Medium Density = 3-6 stories office/retail Low Density = 1-2 stories office retail RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: High Density = 60+ du/acre Medium Density = 35-60 du/acre Low-Medium Density = 12 – 35 du/acre Low Density = 1-12 du/acre DR A F T ADDITIONAL EXISTING CONDITIONS REVIEW B DR A F T Additional Existing Conditions Review | 135 CONTENTS ADDITIONAL NON-PLAN EXISTING CONDITION ITEMS ................137 South Salt Lake Current Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137 State of Utah Transit Station Area Plan Requirements Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138 Preservation and Historic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139 Environmental Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139 Traffic Counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139 Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142 Parks Needs Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 Public Street Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145 Geological Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146 City Neighborhood Business Improvement Program (NBIP) Façade Grants . . . . . . . . . . .146 DR A F T 136 | Additional Existing Conditions Review LIST OF FIGURES Figure 16: Map of the South Salt Lake zoning subdistricts in the MPMU zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137 Figure 17: Map showing DEQ data points in the area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140 Figure 18: Average annual daily traffic for routes within or along the study area for the period from 2010 to 2020, excluding Interstate 15 . The numbers from 2020 are lower due to declines in traffic related to COVID-19 . .141 Figure 19: Map showing the location of public facilities near the study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142 Figure 20: The needs assessment map from the Parks and Public Lands Needs Assessment shows the area generally having a high need for additional parks and open space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 Figure 21: The report identifies areas within 1/2 walking distance to a park, showing much of the study area not being within 1/2 mile walking distance of a park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144 Figure 22: Map of street trees in the study area . The map does not reflect recent tree planting done by the City along 300 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145 Figure 23: Flood hazard map from FEMA showing limited flood hazards in the study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146 DR A F T Additional Existing Conditions Review | 137 ADDITIONAL NON-PLAN EXISTING CONDITION ITEMS South Salt Lake Current Zoning To the south of the project area is South Salt Lake’s Downtown MPMU (Master Planned Mixed Use) district (Figure 16) . Zoning regulations for this district can be found in the Downtown South Salt Lake Form Based Code and Design Standards . Within this district are three subdistricts which abut the project area on 2100 South: Mixed Use, Retail Destination, and Station . These subdistricts allow for most commercial uses that are allowed in other commercial zones, although auto-oriented and high-intensity uses are prohibited in the station subdistrict . The minimum building height is 50’ in the Station subdistrict, 32’ in the Mixed Use subdistrict, and 26’ in the Retail Destination subdistrict . There is no maximum building height . Figure 16: Map of the South Salt Lake zoning subdistricts in the MPMU zone . DR A F T 138 | Additional Existing Conditions Review State of Utah Transit Station Area Plan Requirements Context The Utah legislature has adopted a requirement for municipalities to adopt “Station Area Plans” around transit stations . The plan being developed for this study area is intended to satisfy those requirements . Station area plans are required to promote the following objectives: i . Increasing the availability and affordability of housing, including moderate income housing; ii . Promoting sustainable environmental conditions; iii . Enhancing access to opportunities; and iv . Increasing transportation choices and connections . The requirements also provide guidance on actions the City may consider implementing as part of the station area plan to promote each of the above objectives . These include: Objective (i) A . Aligning the station area plan with the moderate income housing element of the municipality’s general plan; B . Providing for densities necessary to facilitate the development of moderate income housing; C . Providing for affordable costs of living in connection with housing, transportation, and parking; or D . Any other similar action that promotes the objective . Objective (ii) A . Conserving water resources through efficient land use; B . Improving air quality by reducing fuel consumption and motor vehicle trips; C . Establishing parks, open spaces, and recreational opportunities; or D . Any other similar action that promotes the objective . Objective (iii) A . Maintaining and improving the connections between housing, transit, employment, education, recreation, and commerce; B . Encouraging mixed-use development; C . Enabling employment and educational opportunities within the station area; D . Encouraging and promoting enhanced broadband connectivity; or E . Any other similar action that promotes the objective . Objective (iv) A . Supporting investment in infrastructure for all modes of transportation; B . Increasing utilization of public transit; C . Encouraging safe streets through the designation of pedestrian walkways and bicycle lanes; D . Encouraging manageable and reliable traffic conditions; E . Aligning the station area plan with the regional transportation plan of the applicable metropolitan planning organization; or F . Any other similar action that promotes the objective . DR A F T Additional Existing Conditions Review | 139 Preservation and Historic Resources There are no national or local historic districts and no local or national landmarks within the study area . One national historic district, Boulevard Gardens, abuts the study area on the east side of West Temple at about 1791 S West temple . One building within the study area that isn’t covered by a landmark designation, but that has some historical significance is the Stanley F Taylor Home, located on the Salt Lake Housing Authority property at 1812 S West Temple . The building was required to be preserved as part of a development approval process for the multi-family housing that surrounds it . Although the Stanley F Taylor Home subsequently went through a landmark designation process, it ultimately was not designated as a landmark by the City due in part to building alterations done after its original construction . There may be other buildings or properties that warrant a historic designation in the study area; however, no historic surveys have been done within the study area . Environmental Hazards The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains a database of facilities or sites that may have the potential for environmental impacts, such as fuel tanks, or that are associated with existing environmental contamination (Figure 17) . Contaminated sites identified and regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) are commonly known as Superfund sites . There are no Superfund sites identified in the DEQ database in this area . There are a number of fuel tanks within the planning area, generally associated with existing or former gas stations . There is one site within the area on the department’s air emissions inventory and that is a printing company with large printing presses . There is a site on the north end of West Temple associated with the department’s voluntary cleanup program whereby the property owner has agreed to actions to prevent exposure to the existing contamination . This was done as part of a redevelopment of the property for a large multi- family housing development . Traffic Counts The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) maintains annual average daily traffic data for their streets and higher traffic City streets that intersect their streets . UDOT defines this as: The total volume of vehicle traffic of a highway or road for a year divided by 365 days. It is meant to represent traffic on a typical day of the year. UDOT maintains data for 2100 South, West Temple, 300 West, and 1700 South . Traffic counts for these routes from the most recent 11 years is shown in the graph (Figure 18) . 300 West saw a gradual increase in traffic between 2013 and 2019 . 1700 South remained relatively stable from 2010 to 2019, declining by about 1,000 vehicles from 2010 to 2013, and then gradually increasing back to a peak of 12,232 in 2019 . For West Temple, the data shows a jump from 3,490 to 5,180 from 2010 to 2011 and saw a gradual increase to a peak of 5,804 in 2019 . For 2100 South, the data shows yearly increasing levels of traffic from 2013 to 2019, but then a drop in 2020 . All the 2020 traffic counts are lower than the 2019 counts, likely due to COVID-19’s impact on travel that year . DR A F T 140 | Additional Existing Conditions Review ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 30 0 W 2100 S 1700 S I- 1 5 S B F w y I - 1 5 N B F w y We s t T e m p l e S t I- 1 5 S B C o l l e c t o r R a m p 1830 S 45 0 W Hartwell Ave Je f f e r s o n S t Hansen Ave Westwood Ave Jefferson Cir ¯ Salt Lake City Planning Division 10/19/2023 Plan Study Area Air Emissions Inventory Permitting and Compliance Approval Orders Dry Cleaners Hazardous Waste and Used Oil Facilities Environmental Incidents Enforceable Written Assurances Petroleum Storage Tanks Water Rights Points of Diversion CERCLA/Superfund Site Assessments TIER2 Facilities List Toxic Release Inventory Voluntary Cleanup Program 0 670 1,340 2,010335 Feet Figure 17: Map showing DEQ data points in the area . DR A F T Additional Existing Conditions Review | 141 14,305 14,265 13,980 13,630 13,780 14,370 15,133 15,542 15,697 15,980 14,270 21,815 22,820 22,365 21,805 22,045 22,990 24,211 24,865 25,114 25,566 22,830 3,490 5,180 5,080 4,950 5,005 5,220 5,497 5,645 5,701 5,804 5,183 11,440 10,915 10,700 10,430 10,545 11,000 11,584 11,897 12,016 12,232 10,923 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Av e r a g e A n n u a l D a i l y T r a f f i c ( V e h i c l e s ) Year 300 West (2100 South via 300 West) 2100 South (300 West to State Street via 2100 South) West Temple (2100 South via West Temple) 1700 South (300 West via 1700 South) Figure 18: Average annual daily traffic for routes within or along the study area for the period from 2010 to 2020, excluding Interstate 15 . The numbers from 2020 are lower due to declines in traffic related to COVID-19 . DR A F T 142 | Additional Existing Conditions Review Public Facilities Public facilities include things like parks, fire stations, police stations, community centers, and libraries . There are no such facilities within the study area, but there are some facilities just outside the boundary of the area . There is one small City park located at 1560 S West Temple known as Ballpark Playground (previously named People’s Freeway Park .) The recently adopted Ballpark Plan also identifies the existing Public Utilities facility that surrounds this playground as a future larger park site if the facility moves locations . There is a greenspace identified on some online mapping services as Jefferson Circle Park, located at about 1750 S Jefferson Circle . However, this is a private green space associated with the Salt Lake Housing Authority’s residential development and not a public park . There is a fire station located at 77 W 1300 s on the north-east corner of the baseball park property (City owned) and the ballpark stadium building itself currently houses a police substation that was added in 2022 . The City is also planning to build a new public library at approximately 1410 S West Temple . Figure 19: Map showing the location of public facilities near the study area . 20 0 W / T R A X 2100 S 1700 S 1300 S Ma i n S t St a t e S t 30 0 W We s t T e m p l e S t 40 0 W 70 0 W 30 0 W Salt Lake City Planning Division 1/11/2024 Plan Study Area Parks Library (Future) Fire Station Police Substation 0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet Smith's Ballpark Jefferson Circle Park (Private) Jefferson Park Ballpark PlaygroundDR A F T Additional Existing Conditions Review | 143 Parks Needs Assessment In 2019, the City published the Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Needs Assessment report, which was an effort to identify the areas of the city with the most needs for parks and/ or open spaces to help inform future park and open space site selection efforts . The report analyzed the entire City to identify areas with high needs for such spaces, using a combination of population density, household income, density of persons under 18, density of seniors, and areas of potential future growth . Within the study area, the report identified the area between 200 West and West Temple under “Greater Need” and the area between I-15 and 200 West as being one level below that . As noted in the “Public Facilities” section above, the nearest public park to the study area is a small playground a block north of 1700 South . Future development of the Public Utilities property for additional community park or open space could help meet the open space needs in the area . The plan includes a map showing areas of the City that are within one-half mile walking distance to a park . Most of the study area is not within one- half mile walking distance to park . Although those areas generally are not residential, in recent years the area has seen an increase in multi-family residential uses, including following publication of the report, and those uses could support the inclusion of additional park space in the area . 87Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Needs Assessment High Needs Areas HogleZoo TempleSquare UniversityofUtah South Temple St 1700 S 70 0 E 17 0 0 E F o o t h i l l D r Par l e y ' s W a y 2100 S 1700 S North Temple St 12 0 0 W Be c k S t 600 N 2100 S Re d w o o d R d 70 0 W We s t T e m p l e S t 13 0 0 E 11th Ave 500 S Sunnyside Dr 1300 S St a t e S t H i g h l a n d D r 21 0 0 E §¨¦80 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 §¨¦215 Salt LakeRegionalAthleticComplex LibrarySquare LibertyPark Sugar HousePark Jordan Park/Peace Gardens RiversidePark RosewoodPark CottonwoodPark SunnysidePark MemoryGrove Park CityCemetery Glendale Park PioneerPark 11th AvenuePark Donner TrailPark Ensign PeakOpen Space H Rock Parley's HistoricNature Park WestpointePark SherwoodPark Lesser Need Greater Need Jordan River High Needs Areas East Bench Sugar House Central Community West Salt Lake Avenues Capitol HillNorthwest Combining the characteristics of 1) population density, 2) household income, 3) youth, 4) seniors, and 5) areas of potential growth results in a composite map which shows High Needs Areas. The darkest areas of the map represent the areas of the city with the greater need for High Needs Areas Areas of Potential Growth Seniors Ages 65+ Youth & Children Ages 0-17 Household Income Population Density a access to the Parks & Public Lands system. The Central Community shows the greatest concentration of High Needs Areas with several smaller areas occurring within the Northwest and West Salt Lake planning areas. 87Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Needs Assessment High Needs Areas HogleZoo TempleSquare UniversityofUtah South Temple St 1700 S 70 0 E 17 0 0 E F o o t h i l l D r Par l e y ' s W a y 2100 S 1700 S North Temple St 12 0 0 W Be c k S t 600 N 2100 S Re d w o o d R d 70 0 W We s t T e m p l e S t 13 0 0 E 11thAve 500 S Sunnyside Dr 1300 S St a t e S t H i g h l a n d D r 21 0 0 E §¨¦80 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 §¨¦215 Salt LakeRegionalAthleticComplex LibrarySquare LibertyPark Sugar HousePark Jordan Park/Peace Gardens RiversidePark RosewoodPark CottonwoodPark SunnysidePark MemoryGrove Park CityCemetery Glendale Park PioneerPark 11thAvenuePark Donner TrailPark Ensign PeakOpen Space H Rock Parley's HistoricNature Park WestpointePark SherwoodPark Lesser Need Greater Need Jordan River High NeedsAreas East Bench Sugar House Central Community West Salt Lake Avenues Capitol HillNorthwest Combining the characteristics of 1) population density, 2) household income, 3) youth, 4) seniors, and 5) areas of potential growth results in a composite map which shows High Needs Areas. The darkest areas of the map represent the areas of the city with the greater need for High Needs Areas Areas of Potential Growth Seniors Ages 65+ Youth & Children Ages 0-17 Household Income Population Density a access to the Parks & Public Lands system. The Central Community shows the greatest concentration of High Needs Areas with several smaller areas occurring within the Northwest and West Salt Lake planning areas. Figure 20: The needs assessment map from the Parks and Public Lands Needs Assessment shows the area generally having a high need for additional parks and open space . DR A F T 144 | Additional Existing Conditions Review 29Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Needs Assessment 1/2 This map illustrates areas that are within a half-mile walking distance from parks, natural lands and trails using existing roads and trails. A half mile is a common standard for a walkable distance to a park or trail. Even though the majority of residents of the city live within a half mile of a park, natural land Distribution Analysis: 1/2-Mile Walk Distance !A !A !A !A!A !T !T !T !A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A!T !A !A !A !A !T !A !A !T !A!A!A !T!T !T!A !T !T!A !A!A !A !T !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !T HogleZoo TempleSquare UniversityofUtah International Center Salt LakeInternationalAirport City Cree k Canyon Red B u t t e Cany o n South Temple St 1700 S 70 0 E 17 0 0 E F o o t h i l l D r Par l e y ' s W a y 2100 S Ba n g e r t e r H w y 1700 S1700 S 56 0 0 W 72 0 0 W North Temple St 12 0 0 W B e c k S t 600 N 500 S California Ave 2100 S Re d w o o d R d 70 0 W We s t T e m p l e S t 130 0 E 11th Ave 500 S Sunnyside Dr 1300 S St a t e S t H i g h l a n d D r 21 0 0 E §¨¦80 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 §¨¦80 §¨¦80 §¨¦215 Salt LakeRegionalAthleticComplex LibrarySquare LibertyPark Sugar HousePark Jordan Park/Peace Gardens RiversidePark RosewoodPark ConstitutionPark SunnysidePark MemoryGrove Park CityCemetery Glendale Park PioneerPark 11th AvenuePark Donner TrailPark Ensign PeakOpen Space H Rock Parley's HistoricNature Park WestpointePark Modelport SherwoodPark ´0 21Miles Parleys Canyon/Mountain Dell Golf Course Area Map !T Trailhead !A Trail Access Existing Multipurpose Trail Proposed Multipurpose Trail Existing Hiking/Mountain Biking Trail Proposed Hiking/Mountain Biking Trail 1/2 Mile Walk Distance Along Existing Trails & Streets Zoning: Residential Uses AllowedExisting Hiking Only Trail Developed Parks Special Use Parks Natural Lands Cemetery Public Golf Courses County Parks or trail (as seen in the map on page 28), the physical environment can sometimes make walking to those places challenging. This is particularly true in the Central Community, Sugar House and East Bench planning communities, which all have significant gaps when you consider how residents might get to a park or trail by foot. Central Community Avenues Capitol Hill Sugar House West Salt Lake NorthwestNorthwest Quadrant Airport City Creek East Bench 29Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Needs Assessment 1/2 This map illustrates areas that are within a half-mile walking distance from parks, natural lands and trails using existing roads and trails. A half mile is a common standard for a walkable distance to a park or trail. Even though the majority of residents of the city live within a half mile of a park, natural land Distribution Analysis: 1/2-Mile Walk Distance !A !A !A !A!A !T !T !T !A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A!T !A !A !A !A !T !A !A !T !A!A!A !T!T !T!A !T !T!A !A!A !A !T !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !T HogleZoo TempleSquare UniversityofUtah International Center Salt LakeInternationalAirport City Cre e k Canyon Red B u t t e Cany o n South Temple St 1700 S 70 0 E 17 0 0 E F o o t h i l l D r Par l e y ' s W a y 2100 S Ba n g e r t e r H w y 1700 S1700 S 56 0 0 W 72 0 0 W North Temple St 12 0 0 W Be c k S t 600 N 500 S California Ave 2100 S Re d w o o d R d 70 0 W We s t T e m p l e S t 130 0 E 11th Ave 500 S Sunnyside Dr 1300 S St a t e S t H i g h l a n d D r 21 0 0 E §¨¦80 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 §¨¦80 §¨¦80 §¨¦215 Salt LakeRegionalAthleticComplex LibrarySquare LibertyPark Sugar HousePark Jordan Park/Peace Gardens RiversidePark RosewoodPark ConstitutionPark SunnysidePark MemoryGrove Park CityCemetery Glendale Park PioneerPark 11th AvenuePark Donner TrailPark Ensign PeakOpen Space H Rock Parley's HistoricNature Park WestpointePark Modelport SherwoodPark ´0 21Miles Parleys Canyon/Mountain Dell Golf Course Area Map !TTrailhead !ATrail Access Existing Multipurpose Trail Proposed Multipurpose Trail Existing Hiking/Mountain Biking Trail Proposed Hiking/Mountain Biking Trail 1/2 Mile Walk Distance Along Existing Trails & Streets Zoning: Residential Uses AllowedExisting Hiking Only Trail Developed Parks Special Use Parks Natural Lands Cemetery Public Golf Courses County Parks or trail (as seen in the map on page 28), the physical environment can sometimes make walking to those places challenging. This is particularly true in the Central Community, Sugar House and East Bench planning communities, which all have significant gaps when you consider how residents might get to a park or trail by foot. Central Community Avenues Capitol Hill Sugar House West Salt Lake NorthwestNorthwest QuadrantAirport City Creek East Bench 29Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Needs Assessment 1/2 This map illustrates areas that are within a half-mile walking distance from parks, natural lands and trails using existing roads and trails. A half mile is a common standard for a walkable distance to a park or trail. Even though the majority of residents of the city live within a half mile of a park, natural land Distribution Analysis: 1/2-Mile Walk Distance !A !A !A !A !A !T !T !T !A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A!T !A !A !A !A !T !A !A !T !A!A!A !T!T !T!A !T !T!A !A!A !A !T !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !T HogleZoo TempleSquare UniversityofUtah International Center Salt LakeInternationalAirport City Creek Canyon Red B u t t e Cany o n South Temple St 1700 S 70 0 E 17 0 0 E F o o t h i l l D r Par l e y ' s W a y 2100 S Ba n g e r t e r H w y 1700 S1700 S 56 0 0 W 72 0 0 W North Temple St 12 0 0 W B e c k St 600 N 500 S California Ave 2100 S Re d w o o d R d 70 0 W We s t T e m p l e S t 13 0 0 E 11th Ave 500 S Sunnyside Dr 1300 S St a t e S t H i g h l a n d D r 21 0 0 E §¨¦80 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 §¨¦80 §¨¦80 §¨¦215 Salt LakeRegionalAthleticComplex LibrarySquare LibertyPark Sugar HousePark Jordan Park/Peace Gardens RiversidePark RosewoodPark ConstitutionPark SunnysidePark MemoryGrove Park CityCemetery Glendale Park PioneerPark 11th AvenuePark Donner TrailPark Ensign PeakOpen Space H Rock Parley's HistoricNature Park WestpointePark Modelport SherwoodPark ´0 21Miles Parleys Canyon/Mountain Dell Golf Course Area Map !TTrailhead !ATrail Access Existing Multipurpose Trail Proposed Multipurpose Trail Existing Hiking/Mountain Biking Trail Proposed Hiking/Mountain Biking Trail 1/2 Mile Walk Distance Along Existing Trails & Streets Zoning: Residential Uses AllowedExisting Hiking Only Trail Developed Parks Special Use Parks Natural Lands Cemetery Public Golf Courses County Parks or trail (as seen in the map on page 28), the physical environment can sometimes make walking to those places challenging. This is particularly true in the Central Community, Sugar House and East Bench planning communities, which all have significant gaps when you consider how residents might get to a park or trail by foot. Central Community Avenues Capitol Hill Sugar House West Salt Lake NorthwestNorthwestQuadrantAirport City Creek East Bench Study Area Figure 21: he report identifies areas within 1/2 walking distance to a park, showing much of the study area not being within 1/2 mile walking distance of a park . DR A F T Additional Existing Conditions Review | 145 Public Street Trees The City has an inventory of existing public street trees . The inventory does not reflect the most recent tree planting efforts along 300 West . However, in general there is a lack of street trees in the study area, excepting the more residential areas on West Temple Street . Streets such as 2100 S 1700 S 30 0 W We s t T e m p l e S t 1830 S Hartwell Ave ¯ Salt Lake City Planning Division 10/26/2023 Plan Study Area Street Tree Inventory - 2019 Street Tree 0 710 1,420 2,130355 Feet 1700 South and 2100 South have little or no park strip and the addition of street trees would require modifications to the curb line in some cases . Figure 22: Map of street trees in the study area . The map does not reflect recent tree planting done by the City along 300 West . DR A F T 146 | Additional Existing Conditions Review Geological Hazards Faults: There are no fault lines that run through or immediately adjacent to the study area . Flood Hazards: Most of the study area is not within a flood hazard zone based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood hazard maps . A small area toward the north-west corner is shown as being in an area with a 1% annual chance of a flood hazard, with the edges of that showing a 0 .2% annual chance of a flood hazard . There is also a strip shown in the south- west corner showing a 1% flood hazard, but the strip may reflect an older topographic condition prior to the developments that currently exist on the property . City Neighborhood Business Improvement Program (NBIP) Façade Grants The Neighborhood Business Improvement Program (NBIP) is a resource offered by Salt Lake City’s Housing Stability Division to help strengthen the City’s neighborhoods . Housing Stability utilizes federal funding to support local for-profit businesses by offering up to $50,000 in grants to improve their façades . The program boundary currently includes buildings and properties in the study area, but there have been no recipients within the study area since being expanded to cover the area in 2021 . ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 30 0 W 2100 S 1700 S I- 1 5 S B F w y I- 1 5 N B F w y We s t T e m p l e S t I- 1 5 S B C o l l e c t o r R a m p 1830 S 45 0 W Hartwell Ave Je f f e r s o n S t Hansen Ave Westwood Ave Jefferson Cir ¯ Salt Lake City Planning Division 10/19/2023 Plan Study Area Flood Hazard Zones 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard 0 670 1,340 2,010335 Feet Figure 23: Flood hazard map from FEMA showing limited flood hazards in the study area . DR A F T DW LEGACY DESIGN® Legacy Design is the defining element of our practice. It is our commitment to an elevated level of design inquiry to arrive at the optimal solutions for clients. The process ensures that our projects reflect the critical issues facing the built environment and that they deliver measurable benefit to clients and communities. It is the foundation of the firm’s workshop culture and guides all projects. www.designworkshop.com DR A F T Exhibit 2: 1st Phase Engagement Report – General Ideas and Concerns Map Activity SOCIAL PINPOINT ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY Social Pinpoint Project: Social Pinpoint-SLC300West Project Timeframe: 27 May 2023 MST to 14 Sept 2023 MST Social Pinpoint Project Description: The 300 West Corridor & SLC Central Pointe Station Area Plan Mapping Activity Welcome to the 300 West Mapping Activity! Use the online commenting on the map to tell us your ideas for opportunities or improvements along the 300 West corridor from 1000 South to 2100 South. Leer en español Cambie de idioma haciendo clic en el icono de la barra superior derecha. Google Translate is enabled on the map at the top right, so users can switch languages. Instructions •STEP 1: Review the Comment Icons from the left side bar—New public open spaces, new stores/dining options, add or keep parking, new housing, more trees, and pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern. •STEP 2: Click on the "Add a Comment" button at the top of the screen. A pop-up with a markers/icons will appear based on the Core Category you clicked on. •STEP 3: Once you've added your comments, go to the "Activity Tab" in the sidebar to see what others in the community have said. Feel free to "like" or "dislike" the comments you review in addition to your own. •STEP 4: Share with your friends! Your input will help guide Salt Lake City’s new plan and zoning for the area. For more information about those planning efforts please go to the main project webpage. Engagement Summary*: *(Some information is provided by Google Analytics and as such may be inaccurate due to end user ad blockers, disabled access to Google or data sampling.) There were 1886 Total Visits (The number of times this project was loaded or reloaded in a browser*.) 765 Unique Users (The total number of uniquely identified visitors*.) With Users spending and Avg Time (min) of 2:34 (Average amount of time that visitors spend on a page in the project*.) Of those, 65 have provided 163 Comments. Social Pinpoint Map Views as of January 2, 2024: The images below show overall Comment Type Percentages and Category Totals: For overall Comment Types users were able to input comments regarding a desire or need for new stores/dining options, new public open spaces, new housing, more trees, pedestrian or bicyclist safety concerns, new pedestrian connections, input something they “like” or “dislike” about existing conditions, as well as add suggestions/other comments within the 300W Social Pinpoint study area boundary between I-15, 900 S*, 1400 S, 1700 S, West Temple St, and 2100 S. Most users had comments or added markers regarding Pedestrian and/or Bicyclist Concerns and had Additional/ Other Suggestions (which can be found in a separate spreadsheet.) Little to no comments were found regarding Adding or Keeping Parking. 44 additions to the map were Suggestions/Other comments, 44 were Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concerns, 21 additions were areas that users found Something they disliked, 17 additions were areas where users requested New pedestrian connections, 15 additions were from users that found places that needed More trees, 11 additions were areas users wanted New housing, 10 additions from were Something they liked, 5 additions were regarding the need for New public open spaces, 4 additions were a request for New store/dining options. No (0) users placed a marker on the map to Add or keep parking. The top two comment types were Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concerns and Suggestions/other, both with 25.7% each. New pedestrian connections had 9.9% of votes, a request for More trees throughout the site area had 8.8%, and New housing had 6.4%. New stores / dining options and New public open spaces were both the lowest at 2.3% and 2.9% respectively. Something I dislike received 12.3% of votes while Something I like received 5.8%, suggesting that users overall would like to see improvement on the site. All additional comments are included as an attachment to this summary. Word Cloud: The word cloud was created from Users’ most commonly used words expressed in the comments. Parking and traffic were some of the most commonly used word in the comments, with one of the most “liked” or “upvoted” comments stating that “Suggestion/other: The whole corridor is extremely car-centric. Any public spaces that can be offered will be a vast improvement.” Pedestrian was another commonly used word, with the top or most-liked comment (33 likes) being “Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern: Getting a safer/more consistent bike and ped connection at this intersection would be a game changer. Central Pointe has some of the best transit service in the City, and it would be great to have a safer/ more comfortable connection to all of the businesses on the northwest side of the intersection” referring to the intersection at 300 W and 2100 S. Another top comment with 28 “likes” or “up votes” refers to the intersection between 1700 S and 300W stating “Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern: 17[00] South is a defacto bicycle byway. It would be nice to have an improved connection from the 3rd West trail to the east-west route here.” The second top comment with 29 “up votes” in regards to the intersection of the rail line and 2100 S was “New pedestrian connections: It would be great to have a north/south pedestrian and bicycle crossing right here.” The final comment in the top 5 most “liked” or “up voted” comments was “New pedestrian connections: Pedestrian crossing is desperately needed. People cross here now and they always will” at the same intersection as the previous “New pedestrian connections” comment, 2100 S and the rail line. Additionally, a comment that received 25 likes in regards to parking the lot next to Lowe’s stated “This parking lot is rarely full. Surely there is a better use than a heat island?” Most comments in relation to parking were geared towards there being too much. Sentiment Totals: The overall “Sentiment Totals”, or how Users felt by ratings on comment markers about the corridor as it exists today, was mostly Negative or Neutral with a total of 171 votes; 63 of those votes were Negative, 50 were Neutral, 35 were Positive, and 23 were Mixed. Social Pinpoint Map Overview – 1000 South to 2100 South The three below maps were exported from the Social Pinpoint webpage to provide a geographic overview of the types of comments received, indicated by their respective icons on the legend, and their locations. A live version of this map can be found at the below webpage: https://designworkshop.mysocialpinpoint.com/slc300west#/ ~1000 South to 1300 South 1300 South to 1700 South 1700 South to 2100 South Social Pinpoint Comments The following pages are an export of all the comments provided on the Social Pinpoint webpage, ranked by voting, with the most liked comments at the top of the list. All comments provided on the webpage could be liked or disliked by other participants. The category selected by the commenter (options listed below), and the number of likes and dislikes received by the comment, are displayed next to each comment. Comment Type Category Options: • New stores/dining options • New public open spaces • New housing • More trees • Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern • New pedestrian connections • Something I like • Something I dislike • Suggestions/Other Social Pinpoint ‐ Comments Typ e Comme nt Up Vo te s Down Vo tes Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern Getting a safer/more consistent bike and ped connection at this intersection would be a game changer. Central Pointe has some of the best transit service in the City, and it would be great to have a safer/more comfortable connection to all of the businesses on the northwest side of the intersection.33 1 New pedestrian connections It would be great to have a north/south pedestrian and bicycle crossing right here.29 0 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern 17th South is a defacto bicycle byway. It would be nice to have an improved connection from the 3rd West trail to the east‐west route here.28 1 Suggestions/Other This whole corridor is extremely car centric. Any public spaces that can be offered will be a vast improvement.28 4 New pedestrian connections Pedestrian crossing is desperately needed. People cross here now and they always will.26 0 Something I dislike It should be illegal to build this much surface parking in Salt Lake City 26 0 New stores/dining options This parking lot is rarely full. Surely there is a better use than a heat island?25 1 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern This street was built for industry but is now home to a super popular climbing gym plus new apartments going up. Street needs to be redesigned for safety for all modes. Cars parked at corners/intersections and driveways reduce visibility and make it less safe.24 1 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern The 300 W bike corridor ends several blocks short of the Parleys trail as well! This is a really unfortunate oversight and makes for a dangerous few blocks of sidewalk riding!21 1 Something I dislike This freeway ramp is not necessary and it divides this area. Re‐purpose it as park/trail space.21 4 Suggestions/Other Put a TRAX station here 21 0 New public open spaces Break up this ocean of asphalt. Anything is better than surface parking.19 0 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern Access into the train station off of 2100 South is too limited. It should be as easy as possible to roll your bike (or walk) off of the platform and toward whatever direction you're choosing to go.19 0 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern Not sure how the city and state failed to connect the 300 West bike lane to the S‐Line, but this was a huge missed opportunity that should be rectified to unlock the power of the 300 West cycle track.19 1 Something I like The rock climbing gym is a great destination for the area. However, there are too many cars going in and out searching for parking. It would be nice to connect it better to the 300 West Trail.19 0 More trees Trees please!18 0 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern Huge pedestrian crossing area with incredibly dangerous conditions.18 1 Something I dislike These large open parking lots are a waste of space and cause temperatures to increase during summer. Why can't parking lots in this area be required to be underground and/or stacked?18 2 Page 1 of 12 Social Pinpoint ‐ Comments More trees Need more trees along 300 W here (and everywhere). The home depot parking lot is a serious heat island.17 0 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern So many people cross here illegally because there is no safe north/south pedestrian and bicycle crossing. It seems like people are going to/from the Ballpark Trax stop to businesses to the south, like Lowes.17 0 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern The city needs to stop ignoring 1700 South as a pedestrian and bicycle priority corridor. There are no safe routes on 1300 South or 2100 South. 1700 South fills this need, but it is not safe infrastructure. The city knows this, yet neglects prioritizing the work to make improvements. Now is the time.17 0 Something I like Excellent bike path! Keep this up.17 1 Suggestions/Other Please build another train station at 1700 South! This is a critical east‐west corridor and we need to lay the groundwork now for what it will become.17 0 New pedestrian connections Improving the pedestrian and bicycle connections to/from Central Pointe is essential. They could be improved in so many ways, even if it will be difficult.16 0 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern this street is so dangerous for pedestrians— can we add cross walks along 13th at the trax 16 0 Suggestions/Other At the June Central 9th Community Council meeting, the representative from UDOT expressed interest in working with the community to enhance this underpass space and make it a safer, more walkable space. Let's aggressively pursue this!16 0 More trees The 1700 S corridor between I15 and the TRAX line should have less lanes of traffic and more trees 15 1 New public open spaces A rare opportunity for a community space??15 0 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern This has the potential to be a much better cyclist‐friendly intersection, maybe with bike boxes, bicycle crossing signals, etc.15 0 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern The 300 West Cycle Track is a great connection to Central Point, but the trail stops one block short. If we can't extend the trail then turning lanes should be reduced to create room on the road for cyclists heading to Trax 15 0 Something I dislike The sudden right turn here for vehicles into the Home Depot parking lot is intense and somewhat unsafe.15 0 More trees Need more trees to lower heat throughout the area. Feels like a concrete jungle that is hotter than the rest of the city.14 1 New pedestrian connections Mid‐block crossing needed to calm traffic and access Trax 14 0 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern This entire intersection should be made much more pedestrian and cyclist friendly. Raised crosswalks, maybe even a fully raised intersection or traffic circles. Huge convergence point that is much too favorable to cars, even with the trail addition 14 4 New housing We need as much mixed‐use density around the train station as possible. Shops, houses, everything. Upzone the snot out of it.13 0 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern Pedestrian cross needed here. Why was a center median placed here? People cross here from the Walmart and it should be safely accommodated rather than making them cross live traffic. It’s a clear desire line that needs to be addressed instead of making people walk to these absurdly spaced out intersections.13 3 Page 2 of 12 Social Pinpoint ‐ Comments Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern Traffic calming needed at driveways. Drivers are flying through stop signs and not yielding to people on the sidewalk and cycle path.13 2 Something I like Some great businesses in this area. Worth making sure they can continue functioning and offering their services to the City.13 0 Suggestions/Other Building Salt Lake wrote a story about how there is enough density in this area to support an urban transit stop here. The city should engage UTA to add a station.13 0 New housing Every property within 1/2 mile of all trax stops should allow a significant amount of housing. There is way too much strip commercial on the north side of 2100 South 12 3 Suggestions/Other Are you coordinating this plan with South Salt Lake? It seems like they have big plans for this area. Nothing should be proposed without conversations with SSL.12 0 Suggestions/Other Could this become an S‐line‐like multi‐modal corridor?12 0 New pedestrian connections It would be really cool to have a pedestrian bridge somewhere in this area.11 1 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern The exit/entrance into Walmart is not great for bike and pedestrians. This entrance should be closed.11 1 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern While it's great that there are bike signals, they currently don't add information the walk signal does not. They should stay lit until a bike cannot feasibly cross (like when cars get a yellow). These also should activate automatically along the entire corridor. Why should we have to stop at a green light, push a button, and wait an entire cycle? We should be encouraging walking and biking to reduce traffic and pollution.11 0 Something I dislike I've never seen this parking lot full. Cars drive through the parking lot at high speeds to avoid the speed bumps on the west side.11 0 Suggestions/Other We need a TRAX station here!11 0 More trees The residential apartments here should open onto a tree‐lined street.10 0 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern Crosswalks badly needed in this area.10 0 Something I dislike It seems like there shouldn't be so much parking so close to a trax station. You don’t need a car to get here, so we shouldn't need so much parking. Surely we can use this space better 10 4 Something I like I’m actually really happy with the new bike lane and side walks, it really make walking much nicer and improved the whole area.10 0 Something I like I am super happy with the new protected bike lane. I hope the city continues to build lanes just like this throughout the city. If our roads are wide enough to turn and oxcart they are wide enough to add protected bike lanes. For future designs, I would like to see raised dive ways out of business to slow traffic coming in and out of business to increase safety, instead of the bike lane dipping down.10 0 More trees Anywhere people live ‐ apartment buildings, spaces zoned residential ‐ should have tree cover and shade. Otherwise this becomes a highly unpleasant heat island.90 New housing This lot seems like a great opportunity for affordable housing?90 New pedestrian connections Create a cut through here so residents on Lucy Ave don't have to go out and around on 1300 S to access the Trax station.90 Page 3 of 12 Social Pinpoint ‐ Comments New public open spaces contrary to other comments, this bottom right corner of sams club parking is ALWAYS empty, even during the busiest hours and holidays. i think more trees, grass, or even a small dog park would be great here because the people living in the apartments next door have only a tiny strip of grass to take their dogs out to.90 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern The bike lanes on 300W are great but they need to connect with the ones on 1300S. Right now there is a gap between State St and 300W in bicycle connectivity on 1300S that really limits the usefulness of the bike lanes on both 300W and those on 1300S 90 Something I dislike No easy access to apartments, restaurants, businesses and gas station from southbound traffic causing more congestion at various other points.90 Something I dislike This parking lot suffocates the train station. Needs to be dramatically reconfigured.90 More trees More trees near high‐density housing.80 New pedestrian connections Mid‐block crossing needed for Grid City and other retail destinations and transit connections.80 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern Many pedestrians and bikes cross here. Currently it's difficult to press the push button, especially by bike. Needs traffic calming and leading pedestrian interval.80 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern so you build a nice new bike lane and then just give it up as it hits one of the most dangerous intersections around at 21st S and 300 W.? I understand it transitions to SSL after 21st and the City of South Salt Lake is almost completely devoid of bike planning but you could at least create some sort of system on the SLC side to get us through the intersection of death.80 Something I like More pubs near housing!80 New housing As much mixed‐use density around the train station as possible. Upzone!70 Something I dislike This area belongs to “The Treasure Bin” but is totally neglected, it’s full of garbage, homless and workers go there, they drink and they leave their beer cans and garbage, it’s now a landfill full of random garbage.70 Something I like The new bicycle signals at the intersections here are great!70 Suggestions/Other Build a multi‐use trail from here into the Granary and jumpstart the 4th west rail extension 70 Suggestions/Other Make this a multi‐use trail crossing, similar to the S‐Line, in anticipation of future Trax extensions to 400 west.70 Suggestions/Other A bike path here would be awesome. connect 200w with 300w 70 More trees more trees 60 More trees more trees 60 New housing if housing is built along 1300 s it needs more set back. the new apartment building doesn’t have enough sidewalk and no green space. and the grass between it and the trax station is a new danger zone w rodents in the unmoved grass!60 Page 4 of 12 Social Pinpoint ‐ Comments New housing CostCo appears to be land‐banking this section of land. Is there a way the city could work with the company that would lead to market‐rate housing being added here?60 New housing No need to have these large parking lots here. These could be repurposed as great townhomes/row houses. We need more housing in SLC not apartments. This area should not just be for retail box stores with massive parking lots.60 New pedestrian connections Good location for a people‐only modal filter crossing.60 New stores/dining options Can we encourage a grocery store in this area? Walmart is not a grocery!60 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern Great modal filter and pedestrian cut through but currently designed with an invisible curb that presents a hazard to cyclists 60 Something I dislike Generally not in favor of isolating higher‐density housing by itself in commercial areas, and so close to a major freeway.62 Suggestions/Other A pedestrian/bike bridge or tunnel would be great in this high traffic area.61 Suggestions/Other Remove a lane on each side and create a protected bike lane. Streets are meant for all, not just cars!61 New pedestrian connections A pedestrian‐only crossing here would create more vibrancy between the different residential pockets while enhancing access.51 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern Lucy Ave could be a great cycling street into and out of Ballpark station but this crossing is hostile and it dead ends at the tracks.50 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern A pedestrian/bike pathway here would be nice so that you can get from The Marq Townhomes without walking all the way to 300 W first or climbing through a gap in the fence.50 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern Please paint the bicycle lane here. Residents of the new apartments are using it as a parking strip.50 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern there should be a mid block crossing here. this block is incredibly uncomfortable to walk 50 Suggestions/Other Connect 400 West and Paxton Avenue as a Byway Route to the back side of the big box stores and new housing.50 Suggestions/Other A bike path here would be awesome. connect 300w with 400w 50 More trees More trees needed generally in this area. Like others have said, it's absurdly hot in the summers due minimal buildings and tons of concrete 40 More trees this station has no shade at any time of day more trees or more shade structure would go a long way. being in a best buy parking lot is not doing the station any favors 40 New housing Same comment as over at best buy There is absolutly no need to have these large parking lots here. These could be repurposed as great townhomes/row houses. We need more housing in SLC not apartments. This area should not just be for retail box stores with massive parking lots.40 New housing This massive parking lot is overkill! Same comment as over at best buy, there is no need to have these large parking lots here. These could be repurposed as great townhomes/row houses. We need more housing in SLC not apartments. This area should not just be for retail box stores with massive parking lots.40 Page 5 of 12 Social Pinpoint ‐ Comments New housing This massive parking lot is overkill! Same comment as over at best buy, there is no need to have these large parking lots here. These could be repurposed as great townhomes/row houses. We need more housing in SLC not apartments. This area should not just be for retail box stores with massive parking lots.40 New pedestrian connections It appears (let me know if I'm wrong) that the city is just making the West side of 300 East travel friendly. I'm unsure as to why that was the chosen side ‐ does it have more foot traffic? It seems like that wouldn't be the case with the train/housing being on the East side of 300 West. This area of sidewalk is absolute trash & so dangerous. Turning here is SUPER dangerous. Please urge the city to focus on this portion.40 New pedestrian connections This area of amazing retail businesses on 1700S all the way from W Temple over to State are terrific and could/should absolutely have a more accessible and protected pedestrian/bike thoroughfare, similar to the Central 9th neighborhood.40 New pedestrian connections 1700 south is an important bike ped connection between east and west side. This can and should be safer and more comfortable to bike along.40 New stores/dining options This row of buildings with no side setbacks would make a perfect dining, bar, and entertainment option 40 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern With the volume of traffic on 2100 South, Bicycles should be banned from using this street. SLC seems to be creating more bottlenecks by narrowing heavily traffic streets with Bicycles. Somehow enforcement needs to teach cyclists how to obey traffic rules. There are hundreds on near misses between bicycles and motor vehicles each day. SLC should designate bicycle routes and free some streets from bicycle traffic altogether.434 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern I HAVE NOT SEEN A SINGLE PERSON USE THE BIKE YET.422 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern Many cyclists and pedestrians cross under the freeway here, but it is dangerous, and the sidewalk is the only safe option for cyclists. A multi‐ use trail north of Wal‐Mart would be a great investment.41 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern You ask how you could make the area more pedestrian and family friendly? How could you incentivize people using public transportation? Well you would need to make people feel safe and how do you do that you may ask ? Well first and foremost you take care of the homeless, the people tripping, screaming and yelling, that sure does not make me feel safe. I don't have a car, I use TRAX often and it can be quite disturbing at times.42 Something I dislike THE CONES ON 300 WEST IS OUT OF CONTROL. ITS LIKE A MAZE. PLEASE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS. THE CONTRACTOR IS MILKING THIS PROJECT AND WE ARE PAYING FOR IT.44 Something I dislike hate target, hate costco, hate samsclub, like me trees, like me housing, like me rail lines 40 Page 6 of 12 Social Pinpoint ‐ Comments Something I like We need another train/trax station at 1700 S. The two stations north and south are four blocks away and 1700 is closer to much more populated areas.41 Suggestions/Other 300 West is an important thoroughfare for cars and for access to businesses. Restrictions on cars could cause major access problems for residents, consumers, and businesses and would not be an improvement.426 Suggestions/Other While public input is always useful, I hope Salt Lake City officials understand that this is not a scientific (i.e., random‐sample) survey and that the results are not necessarily representative of city residents. On this survey, responses are coming from a self‐selecting sample, and therefore the validity of the survey is dubious.41 Suggestions/Other Please 🙏 station more trash cans throughout all of 300 west. The place looks like a landfill.40 New pedestrian connections The S‐Line path/Parley's trail MUST connect to the Central Pointe platform. We shouldn't have to walk all the way around up to 2100 S to get from the path to the trax station.30 New pedestrian connections making the Sline to bus connection easier would be so nice 30 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern I've seen multiple drivers blow through the pedestrian crossing signal here when I was trying to cross. Not sure if they were confused by construction, but maybe there is a a different option that would make it more clear that they have to stop?30 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern This back entrance to Costco crossed the new bikeway and could use better signage for drivers to watch for cyclists coming from both directions. I worry there will be a collision here bas d on the speed that drivers turn right when traveling south.30 Something I dislike There should be more patrolling, and law enforcement in all TRAX stations but specifically at Ballpark, I’ve seen people smoking crack at the station, Heck I’ve seen people sucking smoke out of heating a piece of aluminum paper inside the Train, who knows what that was, I got off the train right away. This station is full of homeless tripping on drugs quite uncomfortable and unsafe.33 Something I dislike It is time this highway overpass be rerouted onto 300w! Or at the very least rerouted!32 Something I like Sam's Club may do less business than Costco, but parking is needed especially during the Holiday Season. I can't imagine going to Sam's Club via Trax and purchasing a bale of Toilet Paper and Paper Towels and transporting them home via Trax. Leave this area alone 311 Suggestions/Other While it's outside of the study area, South Salt Lake needs guidance to help complete a better route for the Parleys Trail through this area.30 Suggestions/Other Look for ways to add more north/south connections or walkways to reduce all types of traffic on 300 W.30 Suggestions/Other A GreenBike station at or near the climbing gym would be very helpful as a last mile solution for commuting from Downton. A station at Ballpark and Central pointe would increase the usefulness.30 Page 7 of 12 Social Pinpoint ‐ Comments Suggestions/Other While outside the study area this right of way marks a very important piece of our past and future. This is the old Rio Grande Westers line meant to serve the Rio Grande Depot. This right of way is CENTRAL to the Rio Grande Plan which will establish a good central station in downtown. This plan MUST be done!30 More trees there are little to no trees in this area. more would be great!20 More trees More trees 20 New housing The south end of this HD lot is seldom used for anything legitimate and it attracts criminal activity. A proposal should be made to the land owner to spilt this lot and add apts with first floor businesses; ideally a grocery to support all the new housing in this food desert part of town.20 New pedestrian connections blinking crosswalk here would be great ‐ there is a lot of traffic coming in and out of the gas station but occasionally people cross between the shopping centers and it would be nice to have a safe place to cross 20 New public open spaces It would be great to add more public or green spaces to the area.20 New public open spaces Dog park and trees 20 New stores/dining options New bars, restaurants and entertainment options would make the climbing gym a central part of a larger new district similar to RiNo in Denver 20 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern THE HOMELESSNESS IS AN REAL ISSUE IN THIS AREA. NOT GOOD FOR STARTING FAMILIES KIDS, WELL LETS BE HONEST 300 WEST IS A CESSPOOL, AND LETS GET THIS STRIAGHT IT IS ALL CAUSE BY THE CITY, THEY ARE 100% TO BLAME.215 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern 1700s needs a remodel, this street would benefits from improved pedestrians and bicyclists access. Creating a connection from 17th South River Parkway to Wasatch Hollows would be ideal.20 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern There is a BEAUTIFUL bike lane all the way to Home Depot, then it disappears and anyone not in a car has to risk their life crossing 21st South. Then they need to navigate a block south and two blocks west to connect to the Parleys trail. This zone of improvement should be expanded south to the Parleys trail to add a connection. The lack of connection greatly impeeds bike access from the Parley's trail along third south. A fluid connection MUST be built.20 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern It would be good if the plan could envision a better pedestrian/cyclist connection between Central Pointe and the Parley's Trail/S‐Line greenway. It's quite confusing right now. Personally, I know this is a SSL issue, but they should be involved with this. A 12' path on West Temple from the train to Parley's would be ideal. Even better if it cuts through the commonwealth room straight to the platform.20 Page 8 of 12 Social Pinpoint ‐ Comments Something I dislike Please don't put more bike lanes along this area on Third West. There are so many places around the city where bike lanes have been installed and are never used. These unused bike lanes simply impede the flow of traffic. Third West is a major route to businesses. Please don't make it difficult for customers to access these businesses.214 Something I dislike HAS ANYONE ACTUALLY BEEN TO CALIFORNIA IN THIS CHAT. APARTMENT COMPLEX UPON APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH HOMELESS EVERYWHERE. I FEEL LIKE I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT SEES WHATS GOING ON HERE. THE CITY HAS SEEN TEAMED UP WITH DEVELOPERS AND FORCED ALL THE LOCAL BUISNESSES OUT.212 Suggestions/Other SO CLEARLY THIS HAS ALL BEEN PLANNED OUT BY THE CITY AND WITH INVESTMENT GROUPS TO BUY UP ALL THE LAND AND PUSH OUT ALL THE OLD BUSINESSES EITHER BY MOVING OUT OR PUTTING OUT OF BUSINESS, WE WOULD ALL GLADLY LEAVE IF YOU WOULD ALL HELP US RELOCATE.211 Suggestions/Other Why can't these large warehouse buildings and parking lots have some sort of solar powered panels or possibly private/public greenspace?21 Suggestions/Other Currently this area is automobile‐oriented, which makes sense as it is close to four freeway exits. Perhaps the investment in pedestrian amenities should be directed elsewhere.25 Suggestions/Other We frequent Home Depot, Costco and PetSmart. Currently, there is no reason to walk since there is nothing to see between one parking lot and the next. The items we purchase are usually large and heavy, so we need our car. We also have our car serviced at Kia. If shade trees and interesting shops lined the sidewalk, we could be enticed to walk along 300 West while we wait.20 Suggestions/Other Bike path right next to the freeway 20 More trees more trees in all parking lots please 10 New pedestrian connections Rail trail that completes the connection between central pointe and 300 w bike lane 10 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern Why is the crossing median placed directly in front of Paramount? First responders and delivery vehicles can't access GMRC or neighboring businesses. This is a safety concern.11 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern Please continue the 300 West separated bike path all the way to the TRAX station. (If that's not already in the works)10 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern As a resident of this neighborhood, I believe that the primary concern is ensuring our safety. Presently, the homelessness issue in the area has escalated, and a significant portion of the homeless population here struggles with mental health issues or addiction, which can make their behavior unpredictable and unsettling for us. Our building has experienced multiple break‐ins by homeless individuals seeking shelter from the cold. Don't get me wrong, I empathize with their struggles, but when it 10 Something I dislike HAS EVERY ONE ON THE THIS CHAT LOST THEIR MINDS ON THE PARKING GARAGE. HAS ANYONE BEEN IN THE WALMART GARAGE ON 1300 IT'S LIKE THE WALKING DEAD IN THERE 14 Page 9 of 12 Social Pinpoint ‐ Comments Something I dislike The new median here allows only cars to turn west into Home Depot if headed north bound. i.e. there is only one turn lane coming from the north bound lanes. I often see cars ignoring the right turn only signage here including UTA police vehicles. Additionally this has become a hassle getting to the apartments safely on the east side while traveling south on 300w.11 Suggestions/Other How bout f**king finishing the road first?10 Suggestions/Other 300 West would be a great spot for a new Trax line. Let's lay the groundwork now.11 Suggestions/Other A bike path right next to the freeway. Add entrances to The Front Climbing Gym, The Marq Townhomes , and other businesses. Connect 400 W with 1300 S 10 Suggestions/Other There needs to be a city street placed at the end of Hansen Avenue connecting it to 1700 south. There is a large apartment complex planned to be built between Hansen Ave. and 1700 south. The traffic from Hansen Ave. to 300 West will be highly increased causing problems there. It would greatly help to alleviate traffic congestion along 300 W and allow more housing to be built at the same time.10 Suggestions/Other This intersection is difficult to enter/exit. There is a large housing complex being planned to be built between 1700 south and Hansen Ave. Please purchase land at the west end of Hansen Ave. to allow for a second inlet/outlet to this street off 1700 south. It will greatly reduce the traffic problems at this intersection.10 Suggestions/Other Fix this intersection. Widen the road in the Northbound direction so as to add a dedicated Left Turn Lane into Target. Please add a cue when striping. People turning left into Target cause back ups on the Northbound Through Lanes.13 Suggestions/Other There is a big missed opportunity to create a bicycle network, instead of another bicycle path. The fantastic Kensington byway hopefully coming next year will only go to West Temple. If it were to be extended just two blocks west the city would move closer to a complete bicycle network. I know there is the Trax line and businesses, so maybe adding better lanes and crossing at 17th South and 13th South for pedestrians and bicyclists.10 Suggestions/Other Unpopular opinion, but there really needs to be more East‐West corridors on Trax and Frontrunner. Why not make another S‐line type train that runs up 1300E to 700E and out toward the west to serve our underserved west side of I‐15. With the Bees leaving the area this gives great opportunities 10 Suggestions/Other West Temple is being used to circumvent 300 W. The speeds are very fast. Around 40. Speed bulbs to slow traffic on this residential street would be preferred.10 More trees Trees beautify this rough housing 00 New pedestrian connections I love the bike and pedestrian path on the West side of the street, but the pedestrian access is dangerous on the East side. Equal human treatment on both sides of the street will also improve business access on the East side. I love the bike lanes, but please mirror them in future designs.00 Page 10 of 12 Social Pinpoint ‐ Comments Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern Why did the city put flat curbs at all four legs of this intersection? Someone waiting to cross the street will almost certainly be killed by a truck.00 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern UTA Transit Police officers should ticket people who J‐Walk. I have often had to slam on my brakes to avoid hitting homeless and TRAX users who unlawfully J‐Walk. I recommend (Yes, I know how much a Pedestrian Bridge costs) installing a Pedestrian bridge right by the TRAX line to stop people from J‐Walking. Much safer if a Pedestrian Bridge is installed.017 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern Serious problem with jay walking!!!! Increased potential of vehicle/pedestrian accidents. Suggest installing barriers to prevent illegal crossing. SLC has constructed more cross walks across 300 West but that DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM!! Jay walkers live outside of the law without any fear of any consequence, and so far SLC has chosen to ignore the serious problem.05 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern Current design does not emphasize that you cannot turn right onto 9th after getting off the freeway. Many drivers turn right through the pedestrian / bike path in a dangerous manor.00 Pedestrian or bicyclist safety concern Our building has experienced multiple break‐ins by homeless individuals seeking shelter from the cold. Don't get me wrong, I empathize with their struggles, but when it comes to our property, I want to have the assurance that my family, including my kids and wife, will be secure.00 Something I dislike YEAH THAT'S GOOD LETS PUT IN AS MANY TREES AS WE CAN, SINCE WE DON'T LIVE IN A DESERT OR ANYTHING 019 Something I dislike the fencing around the trax entrance/boarding zone makes it difficult to get to the train, it’s a lot of walking inefficiently to make the train. very easy to miss the train because of the fencing blocking the way 00 Something I dislike I acknowledge your efforts to enhance the neighborhood, and while the project appears promising, as a resident in the area, I would suggest focusing on addressing smaller issues initially, such as improving cleanliness and addressing the safety concerns related to the homeless population. The vicinity around the "Treasure Bin" has become quite unsightly, with a persistent garbage problem, giving it the appearance of a landfill.00 Something I like Great to have more EV charging options like the ones here!01 Suggestions/Other Who is receiving this survey? I question the validity of these public input opportunities because I suspect the audience is narrowly defined. You're probably not getting a wide enough sample of comments.01 Suggestions/Other A bike path right next to the freeway. Add entrances to The Front Climbing Gym, Walmart, and other businesses. Connect 1300 S with 1700 S 01 Suggestions/Other Why are none of the new medians/cutouts safety striped with reflective paint? The cement disappears at dark. Does the city only care about bikes? HUGE safety issue for all people using 300 W 05 Page 11 of 12 Social Pinpoint ‐ Comments Suggestions/Other Remove some of the grass by the utility pole and pour a concrete pad so the homeless people begging for money can have a safe place to stand. They are always there and I don't see them going away.06 Suggestions/Other No need to do anything about the traffic here. Yes, cars will exit this street rapidly because they NARROWED the road by one lane. Therefore, when you see an opportunity to turn right, you have to go like a bat out of hell. REMEMBER, it is the PEDESTRIAN'S responsibility to watch for traffic.08 Suggestions/Other It is a ROAD for cars! Of course it is favorable to cars. The problem isn't the road. The problem is pedestrians.08 Suggestions/Other This area here becomes a traffic concern. There are people trying to turn into the Colony B apartments while people are trying to turn into Lowes. Unfortunately this is so close to a traffic light that putting a stop sign here might back up traffic.00 Suggestions/Other walk signs should automatically turn when the light turns for cars, i should not have to race while walking to touch a button in time for the light 00 Page 12 of 12 Exhibit 3: 1st Phase Engagement – Community Interviews Page 1 MEMORANDUM To: Daniel Echeverria, Wayne Mills, Nick Norris From: Design Workshop Date: Sept 19, 2023 Project Name: SLC 300 W Corridor & Station Area Plan Project #: 7078 Subject: Existing Conditions – Community Interviews Table of Contents Introduction and Process ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Interview Participants ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Emerging Community Values ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Bridging Conflicting Community Concerns ..................................................................................................................... 3 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Findings by Stakeholder Group ................................................................................................................ 6 Appendix: Selected Interview Quotes ............................................................................................................................ 8 Landscape Architecture Planning Urban Design Strategic Services Environmental Graphic Design 22860 Two Rivers Road #1 Basalt, Colorado 81621 970.925.8354 designworkshop.com Page 2 Introduction and Process The purpose of this report is to provide firsthand perspectives of the community around the 300 West corridor between 1700 South and 2100 South. Twenty-four residents, business owners, and landowners were selected in or adjacent to the project area for one-on-one interviews (over the phone and in-person). Questions were selected to understand the interviewee's perception of the area, challenges living or operating a business in the area, vision and priorities for public improvements, and future plans for l iving or doing business in the area. The first seven questions were consistent across interviews, with three additional questions varying by stakeholder group. While interviews were guided by a set list of questions, participants were encouraged to engage in open dialogue to allow participants to share their candid thoughts. The goal of this report is to start the process of cultivating community consensus by establishing a foundation of shared values that can inform decision -making for the 300 West Corridor and Station Area Plan. Interview Participants Land Holders and Developers Steve Price, Price Reality Chris Zarek, Cowboy Partners Whit Hamlin, Market Place at 18th Mark Isaac, Pinyon8 Consulting (with BVD) Jeff Vitek, Boulder Ventures Development John Fleming, Boulder Ventures Development Alec Taylor, Boulder Ventures Development Joni Linton, Boulder Ventures Development Marty Biljanic, Boulder Ventures Development Business and Landowners Paul Pasquali, Accordions International Bill Davis, GBR Enterprise and former Ballpark Community Council Chair John Krueger, Krueger Automotive John Margetts, DynaPac Rotating Company Business Operators Melanie, Thompson, The Front Climbing Gym Matty Coles, The Front Climbing Gym Kate Lubing, HK Brewing Hannah Hendrickson, HK Brewing Residents Kevin Claunch, Resident Page 3 Emerging Community Values Through the analysis of the interview responses, common threads emerged that transcended specific issues or political leanings and pointed towards overarching themes and values shared by the community. These communal aspirations and shared goals can serve as the underpinning for future initiatives. • Enhance the perception of safety • Increase cleanliness of sidewalks, streets, and public spaces • Maintain high-quality connectivity for vehicular and bicycle access • Build additional green space and public space • Establish a neighborhood identity • Improve side street streetscape with complete sidewalks, lighting, and creating connections between dead ends • Preserve commercial identity and small business incubator environment • Promote service and entertainment-oriented businesses to support incoming residents and attract visitors • Transition or adapt outdated buildings • Encourage quality development design, materiality, amenities, and orientation to the public realm • Enhance pedestrian comfort and create new connections for walkability Bridging Conflicting Community Concerns Navigating the development and growth of a community often involves balancing a multitude of interests and concerns. The following highlights the critical zones where these diverging opinions are most evident. By understanding these tension points decision makers can better strategize on how to build consensus and create a more cohesive, inclusive neighborhood. • Maintaining vehicular access and ease vs. improving road safety and increasing multi-modal use • Preservation of single-family home community vs. increasing high-density housing developments • Creating a community of homeowners vs. increasing the number of renter households • Sustain existing neighborhood character vs. celebrating bold changes and creating a new neighborhood identity • Balancing housing affordability and economic diversity vs. desirable market-rate housing options and increasing neighborhood value • Improving the quality of new development vs. creating flexible zoning favorable to new development • Increase new commercial development vs. the preservation of affordable commercial space • Street parking availability vs. reducing parking minimums Page 4 Summary of Findings The overall vision by the residents, landowners, and business owners of the future of the 300 West Corridor is of a green, vibrant, and economically diverse neighborhood. The community desires parks and open spaces and the idea of a mixed-use neighborhood that integrates residential, commercial, and even light industrial elements resonates. The area's robust transportation links are seen as a unique strength a nd as catalysts for future growth. There's a call for beautifying the community, addressing safety, and elevating the quality of future developments. Business owners and landowners are keen to contribute positively to the neighborhood and are generally open to thoughtful redevelopment. While the community broadly agrees on the need for development many interviewees see the area as the last vestige of affordable commercial and warehouse spaces for budding local businesses. Some see a need for heavy redevelopment with higher-density housing and new commercial spaces. Many interviewees believe the area has a unique character worth preserving, while others see it as outdated or generic and see an opportunity to establish a new identity for the area. How the neighborhood evolves will depend on its ability to balance these varied interests and concerns. Creative solutions can build community consensus by understanding the shared community values and bridging the conflicting community concerns. The following is a narrative summary of the community interviews: How do you envision the future of the area in terms of growth, development, and planning? There's a shared appetite for green spaces and aesthetic improvement — people want parks and open space that enrich community life. Another strong point of agreement is the need for mixed - use spaces, incorporating both residential and commercial elements, and some light industrial to keep the area vibrant and economically diverse. There's also a collective acknow ledgment that the area has significant growth potential, thanks in part to its large streets and established transportation links. Community members seem to agree that well-planned change is not only inevitable but could also be beneficial. Contradictions do exist, particularly when it comes to the type and scale of development. Additionally, opinions diverge on the role of commercial spaces, ranging from a desire to maintain a commercial character to others who would like to see residential development prioritized. In your opinion, what are the biggest challenges the area faces in terms of managing growth, development, and planning? A recurring concern for all community members interviewed is the problem of homelessness and the perception of safety. Additionally, frustrations around trash, camping, and cleanliness near freeways, bike lanes, and transit stations create a strain on the neighborhood. In terms of development, there's a dissatisfaction with the quality and design of recent constructions. Many express that these perceived low-quality builds not only degrade the community aesthetically but may also have long-term repercussions for neighborhood stability. Page 5 Many expressed the desire for a more diverse housing strategy that encompasse s various income levels. While there's general enthusiasm for walkability, biking, and public transit, these amenities are viewed through the lens of perceived existing challenges such as homelessness, traffic congestion, poor maintenance of side streets, and limited parking spaces. Contradictions surface mainly around the issue of development and its effects. While some view new constructions and businesses as catalysts for improvement and beautification, others express concern that this development is haphazard and lacks thoughtful planning. Some see the influx of new development as a solution to crime, safety and the creation of a vibrant neighborhood, while others argue it exacerbates these issues. Which existing qualities or strengths of the area do you believe should be emphasized or leveraged in future growth, development, and planning efforts? The community views the 300 West Corridor as having a unique strength in terms of strong transportation infrastructure. Its proximity to transit options and major roadways is one of its greatest assets. Many see value in preserving the commercial and industrial identity of the area, viewing it as essential to its unique, funky character. The community believes that the existing retail landscape not only supports the current residential makeup but could also encourage further housing developments. Some community members believe that the industrial aspects will naturally fade, making room for a more commercial or mixed-use identity. Others see an opportunity for high-end manufacturing that would coexist with other forms of commercial and residential development in an eclectic neighborhood. How do you envision a successful balance between new development and preserving the area ’s existing character and strengths? Many community members are concerned with the increase of high -density housing its impact on the neighborhood. Some expressed unease about the future of local businesses—from small retail shops to unique warehouse and manufacturing businesses. Seeing the corridor as a place for affordable commercial and warehouse spaces for start-ups and niche businesses, with few alternative locations in the city. There's an appetite for creative solutions like mixed -use zoning and the adaptive reuse of old buildings, particularly warehouses. Flexibility in land use is also seen as a compromise that could provide room for future adaptability. Not everyone agrees on the value or even the existence of a "neighborhood character" worth preserving. While some see the current buildings and businesses as integral to the community's identity, others regard them as outdated or too generic to warrant preservation. What specific types of amenities do you believe are needed to support the neighborhood? Page 6 One of the most prominent themes is the interest in more public spaces, including pocket parks, children's playgrounds, green spaces, and plazas that offer places to rest, socialize, and stay in the area. The idea of creating linear green space along the TRAX line is a frequent comment. The addition of a TRAX station at 1700 South is thought to be a pivotal addition that could catalyze community growth. Most see an opportunity for improvements in the public right of way for more pleasant and safe pedestrian and bike connections, particularly to the TRAX Stations as well as across the TRAX corridor, creating new connections through the neighborhood. The neighborhood's identity is also on the community members' minds. There's a shared feeling that the area lacks a sense of place and must develop its own unique character. Many feel that there is a need for more entertainment uses, such as theaters, bars, and essential retail spaces including grocery stores and coffee shops, to draw people into the neighborhood and create a place where residents want to stay. While there's a strong call for amenities and services that support a higher -density population, the existing lack of such amenities raises questions about how to strike a balance between development and livability. What barriers or challenges do you perceive when it comes to engaging the community in discussions about neighborhood growth and planning? | How can communication, transparency, and trust between the city and community be improved, and ensure that the community concerns and feedback are genuinely heard and addressed in decision-making processes? What strategies or approaches would you recommend? A consistent recommendation is that localized leadership—such as a business improvement district—should take an active role in both strategy and communication. Many believe that there needs to be a bigger, more compelling vision for the community's future that is communicated effectively and often. This would involve not just telling, but "selling" the benefits of projects and plans to the community. Some highlight the inadequacy of current communication channels, stressing the importance of direct outreach. Some also note that existing networks, e.g., neighborhood councils, are good platforms that are underutilized and could be better promoted for effective engagement. Perceptions of effectiveness vary among community members, possibly pointing to a lack of awareness or understanding about the platforms currently in place. Summary by Stakeholder Group Landowners Most property owners interviewed are looking to expand or upgrade their facilities, aiming to contribute positively to the neighborhood's aesthetic and function. Landowners who also operate businesses on their properties intend to stay in the neighborhood for the foreseeable future. They are open to the possibility of redevelopment, particularly multi-family development in the right circumstances and timing. Page 7 Landowners who are developers have more immediate plans. They are acti vely looking to build multifamily residential units. Challenges in implementing these plans include outdated utility infrastructure, incomplete side streets, road connectivity, and limiting zoning. Many expressed a desire for zoning regulations to be more flexible, enabling creative and efficient use of space. Parking and vehicular accessibility also emerged as common concerns, especially as the area becomes more dense. There is some tension between the desire for residential mixed -use development and maintaining established light industrial businesses, but there is a shared enthusiasm for improvements to the neighborhood. Business Owners Business owners discussed the general need to beautify the neighborhood, increase overall cleanliness, and the addition of green space and trees in the neighborhood. Many noted issues with pedestrian access, particularly for those coming from the local TRAX station. Currently, pedestrians find it challenging to navigate across busy roads, often resorting to jaywal king. Safe and pleasing road and rail pathways were discussed as essential for attracting more foot traffic to local businesses. Vehicular access is seen as a strength of the neighborhood for existing businesses and they stated a desire to maintain ease of access. Despite some challenges, a willingness exists among the business owners to not only continue their operations but to consider expanding operations. Residents Few residents within the project area responded to interview requests. Please see the selected interview quotes below. Page 8 APPENDIX Selected Interview Quotes Part 1: General How do you envision the future of the area in terms of growth, development, and planning? “For the time being I hope this little corner stays where it is… kind of commercial” “I'd like to see more green. I mean, it's nice having those little green strips next to the bike lane. Yeah. It's not like usable green space like gardens or parks” “A general transition to more residential. Making use of access to interstate provides great access to jobs” “Older warehouse and wholesale uses might not have a long life. Finding users right for the scale of existing buildings is a challenge. The corridor has a strong big box retail character. How do you transition from the car-centric commercial zone near the instate to a more multimodal, multifamily and light mixed use on the east” It all developed organically… it was close to downtown and had access… how about reinvesting into this area, and it’ll actually have a multiplier effect. ” “I think it's going to be more of the same, more commercial development, hopefully better design. They are going to see a bunch of residential. You can’t have a vibrant neighborhood without residential.” “If this turns into this vibrant urban neighborhood with a big warehouse in the middle of it. What do people do with… but then you start like talking to people and it's amazing the ideas that small business people come up with.” “The city has a plan, and they obviously want a lot of apartments here. I don't know that I love that, but I see it, I think that's what they're gonna do no matter what.” “Salt Lake City just dumped a ton of money into redoing the street here along 300 West, which we appreciate. And it does have the potential for growth...it seems like residences … primarily is where the growth is gonna be in this area… but I don't think manufacturing is a main thrust of area of the city anymore.” “We felt like this neighborhood was in the path of progress… The area is so primed for growth with huge streets, rail, and a bike corridor. It just needs the right zoning.” “I anticipate that we are going to over-densify. If I had a say in the matter, I would want it to stay a single family area… I'd love for it to remain a place where families could raise their kids… It's a major housing area for our area for our part of the city probably need to stay that way, and probably need to have single-family homes as much as we also need higher-density options. We need services, it would be great to see some services coming into our area.” Page 9 “There's a lot of advantages to our area. There's a lot of room, a lot of people, a lot of room for services to bring people into the area. But that doesn't work if we continue to attack the roads.” “I can see this area getting more dense with restaurants. I could see this area becoming a vibrant spot." “Thriving, lively, active, desirable, and car-free. Bars for socializing, restaurants, etc." “More permanent home solutions with street-side business. Islands of green spaces between to tie the residents together. Those little oases to bring people together make the space feel accessible and desirable.” “We believe densification near and around stations is good for the community, for people. TOD zoning makes a tremendous amount of sense. And if we're bonused, by doing more accouterments the city determines is mutually beneficial, we would entertain that. We would like to do more and be good stewards and partners with the city's vision.” “Having creative license within the area to do what the market will bear is probably the best circumstance for the city, rather than them arbitrarily deciding what we can and can't do in an area. This is one area that maybe fosters that creative license.” In your opinion, what are the biggest challenges the area faces in terms of managing growth, development, and planning? “Homelessness is a problem during summer months. A lot of times, those are the frustration I have with our neighbor, UDOT… Homeless people will live on the side of the freeway, and it's like a landfill behind us.” “I feel like we have a pretty significant problem with the unsheltered.” Han Hendrickson “Homelessness and crime. Some of that is a function of the location, the community is mostly dark and has a lot of vacant places for people who need a place to be. There are no eyes on the street. That’s a real challenge for developers and residents to pioneer when that is something they will have to face.” “There are a lot of environmental challenges that require expensive treatment or may exclude residential on the ground level. It’s challenging to find uses that activate the street level.” “Rezoning it properly, let’s be proactive about zoning, there is transit and everything else. Let’s look at the commercial zoning and try to do some big rezoning like Transit Oriented Zoning and RMU” “If you do nothing, you just gonna get this hodgepodge of development…. you have developers coming in saying, let's just do a big rectangular building, with poor design, no activation... So to me, the worst thing that can happen, do nothing. Just let things happen.” Page 10 “The TRAX station right around 2100 South, that is going to be a challenge because it’s such a busy street. You are starting to see that development around the Trax Station, but how do you connect?” “The city feels less safe. It’s more walkable and bikeable but it’s less safe” “We are building all this housing, inexpensive, poorly built, not even a brick façade” “These are functionally obsolete buildings for what you need today [for warehouse and manufacturing]. They … need lots of things for these businesses to work.” “There are these are short blocks and long blocks with tons of orphan alleys. The number of orphan alleys down there with and without easements is staggering. Also, this whole area is polluted.” “You've got to have someone like us willing to invest. But you've got to remove every barrier, every single barrier that you have to get through the city digestive track you've got to remove, it's not a zoning issue, you have to make sure you have a speed for businesses to want to relocate.” “We need the business ombudsman. You need someone in the city and economic development that can get shit done. You've got to get the businesses open and quick and you want them here.” “I have to run guys with tents off the new bike lane, and I've always got more transients, now that it's [300 West bike lane] done. That’s been frustrating…There's all kinds of stuff that I pick up. I always just come in Monday and clean up from the weekend and then get to work… The homeless is the biggest problem for sure. No question. No question.” “The street flows really well. Some of the side streets are awful, they need to come in and like fix them just in maintenance, but I don't think there's like traffic congestion… But I would love to not have that happen here.” “All that stucco and stick garbage stuff that they are building… Everything is cheap as you can build it… That's just not it's not going to be a long-term thing for a neighborhood that's going to make it better… there needs to be a standard… brick or something that's more visually appealing… maybe side yards and things like that.” “[Hanson Ave] is not equipped to handle any more traffic going in and out of it. Making sure that traffic can be routed and can get in and out of those areas.” “I know there's talk of people wanting to put in a TRAX station at 1700. South, if at all possibility I would be in favor of that as well, it would just make it easier for employees for people to take transit to work currently.” “I support the idea that of encouraging, biking, transit, walking, I actually hi ghly support that. And I'm in favor of it.” Page 11 “I am worried about the ongoing issues with crime and homelessness in the immediate area surrounding the homeless center, and how it's going to affect business owners… I think that there are people on both sides of that fence who are ready to sell and get out. And some that are wanting a better solution. So I am in the I want a better solution camp. I'm not ready to sell and get out yet.” “My belief is that bringing in new construction and new housing and new developments is only going to help the cause of increasing the standards and the beautification of the neighborhood.” “What could make it even better is nighttime activity. This is a daytime market because there aren't any rooftops around.” “I don't see any [challenges]. There was a homeless issue but it’s not as bad. There has been some crime. Honestly the more new development, the less there is going to be.” “People are coming in and we need to have places for them to live. And arguing against it, it's kind of a losing argument. But there has to be a balance in terms of the services available to them. Otherwise, we have these huge residential sectors filled with people and nothing for them to do.” "It is very contained by vehicular barriers, creating a micro-ecosystem within that space." “The biggest roadblock is a fair amount of crime. We have a lot of care break -ins in our parking lot.” “Parking is a pretty big issue. We are looking to expand parking across the street.” “An issue is the amount of low-income housing and its effect on the space. It is important to have a mixture of incomes for housing.” “You’ve got a focus area that's bifurcated by a rail with no East-West cross access between 1700 South and 2100 South.” Which existing qualities or strengths of the area do you believe should be emphasized or leveraged in future growth, development, and planning efforts? “It’s got some of the best bike infrastructure in the city right now” “I think the areas that got to remain sort of commercial. And that's how I would envision it staying.” “I actually love the area here. We're a specialty business. So, it’s not like we need to be high profile, but certainly because of Costco, lots of people see us here. [I] Feel safe here for the most part.” “I think that it stays easy to access by cars. That's very important. I don't know if you know how much an accordion weighs, but they are like 30-35 pounds. This is not something that you go on a bicycle with or on TRAX” Page 12 “I think the ballpark District is so funky and fun and we should capitalize on it… keeping the industrial history of the place while keeping it chic and fun and people wanting to come “The Ballpark has a definitive identity. There is a lot there to tap into. If it develops in the right w ay, people will attach to it and give it life. The drivers are there, great access to transit, interstate, and emerging multimodal. People can get there and the big box retail generates activity.” “The fact that there is a commitment to the infrastructu re pieces… I appreciate that people will be able to cross safely to get to a multimodal path. I wish they had gone a little further and separated the bike lane. The transportation department needs to be a bit bolder” “The reason people want to be there is jobs. These smaller buildings and smaller lots are going to be harder to redevelop. Opportunity is there for higher-end manufacturing, some way to support that in city policy and create jobs that pay well and are stable. Creating a live -work neighborhood.” “The big thing, they've already done it, they redid third west, you know, bike lanes… managing the traffic flow” “Maintaining the history of the area in terms of its commercial and industrial history, I think is important” “I would say the next 10 years or so, it's going to be, I'll call it mixed use. I think the manufacturing … pure industrial was probably going to go away. But I think that the commercials gotta stay” “We can’t have those big box stores leave” “The accessibility of the off ramps on 13th and 21st” “I do think that probably is a good place for housing… I like the CG zone, it's good that you can have somebody come in and do kind of whatever they want with the land… It leaves options for auto shops, or manufacturing… there's a lot of dead-end side streets that butt up against I15. And it's like those are great side streets to have a little manufacturing plant or something down at the end.” “I liked that it has kind of a unique makeup meaning like you've got everything from an insu lation company to now there's some new housing developments.” “The dedicated bike lane is great infrastructure that should have residential everywhere you can.” “We welcome as much residential in the neighborhood. There is plenty of retail in the neigh borhood to support it.” “We were a working-class community. People come into our community, they work, they grow their socio-economic status. We're very close to a major tax base. We are very close to major corridors… We are a great location. A great location to live and to leave.” Page 13 “The central point station is the busiest station on the Wasatch Front. So there's a strategic opportunity for us with our real estate investment in that location. Pedestrian connectivity from the north side to the South Side [of 2100 South] is pretty critical to us.” “If you can build a residential setting where people can come home and park and walk to the grocery store I think that's a big part of why Sugar House is so attractive. We have lots of grocery stores and lots of amenities, for people to come home, park, stay out of their car and have a big life. This area has the ability to have the same kind of intensity.” “I think it's convenience of circulation. Anybody on the Wasatch Front, can get here quickly via the freeway system, and now rail. You got to preserve the functionality of circulation. Because I think that's what makes this most appealing… The adjacency of services with rail and mass transit will continue to become more and more important. We shouldn't be trying to develop the city w ith more vehicular circulation, but also there are areas that their economic engines are 100% reliant on vehicular circulation.” How do you envision a successful balance between new development and preserving the area existing character and strengths? “I hope we don't see a lot more high-density housing here” “There is not enough parking for them (on site), so then they end up demanding that they have part of the streets to park on” “Don't just flood it all with houses. Maybe there's some like incenti ves to not ripping things down.” “If warehouse and small manufacturers, and retail don't own their space, it might be difficult to protect specialty shops. It would be great to fill in businesses moving out with high-end manufacturers and start-ups…We want to encourage those retailers and servicers within Salt Lake City. They provide a unique opportunity, and this is the right place for that. Not everything needs to be pushed to the northwest quadrant. “ “The incubators [space] it’s going away. I don't know of any available and it's going away quick” “I don't know how much character the neighborhood has” “I would argue for the preservation of a manufacturing space in that area, and could it continue as mixed use. That's what I would propose that we do… I think that'll be a disservice overall to the community [to zone out manufacturing]. Because there are a lot of businesses in that area “You've got businesses who have been in our area for 40 plus years, most of them are small businesses, so they don't necessarily have anywhere to go… I would argue for a continued mixed- use zoning in our in our area.” “Maybe the answer is to allow a backyard cottage. I think allowing the [single -family residential] neighborhoods to sit out on change is not realistic.” Page 14 “All these neighborhoods have mandated ground -floor retail with not a lot of flexibility. You end up with a lot of empty retail. Structured parking kills the neighborhood feel and pedestrian environment. So, there should be a required occupied uses on the ground floor but there should be flexibility. The ground floor should be required to be 15' to structure regardless of use to be adapted in the future, including parking structures.” “People are coming in and we need to have places for them to live. And arguing against it, it's kind of a losing argument. But there has to be a balance in terms of the services available to them. Otherwise, we have these huge residential sectors filled with people and nothing for them to do.” “There is a lot of opportunities for those buildings [warehouses] to be repurposed. There does seem to be an opportunity for these old buildings to take on entrepreneurial risk. To repurpose for local or new businesses" “I don't see much character or identity in the area. I see it a s unnamed old buildings that are sometimes vacant, the Walmart/Target area. I don’t see a lot of Identity to preserve.” What specific types of amenities do you believe are needed to support the neighborhood? “If there could be maybe a little small park and more greenery” “I do like wider sidewalks… It makes no sense to me the narrow sidewalk right up to the units... And I just hope we see no more of that.” “Put in a little park…like there's a tiny kids playground, there's a place to fill up your water , and a couple of seats…having those little pockets would be awesome.” “There's not really any public space, it would be great to have more of those spaces… It's something you have to do. Long-term there are not a whole lot of public spaces to do community building. It is a place to drive in and drive out… Whatever zoning is settled on it needs to focus on the public realm, on the edges. Pocket parks would be great. Right now, it is a scenario where the public way is completely devoted to getting people in and out.” “I think that to develop a neighborhood it has to have an identity. It has to have a sense of place” “A transit amenity that would be really good… is a TRAX station on 1700 South, for sure” What are we doing with the public utilities land… let’s make it a park. How many opportunities in the downtown core to make a major urban park, not very many of them, but this is one” “If you do an S-Line type train here [to delta center] it changes things” “We've got to have arts districts arts, we've got to have a reason to bring people” “There's a whole TRAX line. Why did they not put the bike lane right there? It would have been perfect… It's totally safe. It's totally already laid out, you know where you're going… especially from 33rd down to 9th south or something.” Page 15 “What’s a little bit lacking in the neighborhood is entertainment. If you're going to put a high density of people in the area, you don't have movie theaters, there aren't any bars, or joints where people can hang out in the evening.” “I am personally very concerned about climate change. I am for anything you can do to require developers to build more sustainable buildings.” “Making sure there is a mix of incomes. Housing prices are currently reasonable. Trying to get ahead of housing affordability.” “If you are going to put in a bunch o f housing people need places to congregate. Kids need grass to run on. The market can fix a lot of that.” “There is no way to get from single-family homes to the west. It is walled off from all this great retail. [A pedestrian crossing] would be a benefit for those neighbors.” “We need places to eat, we need things that will draw people into our neighborhood.” “For members [of the Front] , there isn't a reason for people to stay in the neighborhood. We have a few thousand members from across the valley. We've created a microsystem within the gym. A grocery store or a coffee shop might convince people to stay in the area. There is limited desirability in the area.” “Since it’s an Industrial area, our courtyard is a little oasis that brings a lot of life and character. The more green space with public access would bring a lot. A dog park would be cool.” What barriers or challenges do you perceive when it comes to engaging the community in discussions about neighborhood growth and planning? “We'd like to probably see more follow through and have everybody on the same page. It feels like everybody has these great ideas, but are we executing it collaboratively?” “It would have been cool to have some sort of committee or liaisons like actually physically going into the businesses that are around 300 West and being like, how are things going?” “It almost needs a business improvement district and to have Ballpark leadership is engaged.” “I think have a bigger overall vision and just start talking about it in a positive way. More often and frequently. They need to sell the idea, you need to talk about the benefits” “The city has a good network set up that I wasn't really aware of until recently, with the Neighborhood Council and the homeless center council, I think those are good ways to communicate… That's the only thing I'd suggest just promoting neighborhood council meetings.” “I don't see a lot of effort put out to engage the community. And when it is, it's through channels that are just insufficient” Page 16 “It's been hard to get involvement or engagement in these projects. The lack of engagement is due to a lack of ownership or understanding of their potential impact.” How can communication, transparency, and trust between the city and community be improved, and ensure that the community concerns and feedback are genuinely heard and addressed in decision -making processes? What strategies or approaches would you recommend? “I think as long as we're all notified and have a voice” “Transparency requires an intention to be transparent. And I don't quite see that a lot of things are kind of held back… It would be great if there's an effort to publicize those things.” Part 2: By Stakeholder Group Landowner What is your vision for the future of your property? “I want to remain as a commercial industry property… that it’s an asset to the neighborhood” “I just purchased a building on 300 West. I want to get it up to the standard of what 300 West has, I want it to look nice on the outside, and I want it to be nice on the inside.” “We're planning to continue to operate in the neighborhood. We are planning to expa nd which we are in the process of expanding right now. We actually purchased another company, and we're going to be moving that company from Pennsylvania to Salt Lake City.” “We are currently expanding our location to the north of us, nearly doubling our capacity. We are currently at capacity membership-wise. With that expansion, we look to improve our facilities and expand our offerings.” “It's likely residential, perhaps, with some mild variants of mixed-use. Densification would be helpful given the massive amount of really well-planned infrastructure at the station. We think that's a wonderful opportunity. That's why we bought it. So we'd like to be able to be sensitive to our neighbors, but be able to go much higher than 45 feet.” Do you have any plans for changes or redevelopment of your land in the near or distant future? “Increase Security” “We are building 200 family-focused units. On our ground level, we will have amenity space, a significant daycare, and a playground to serve those resid ents. We anticipate it to be long-term residents with large multigenerational families.” “We are really trying to set a tone. It's the gateway to the ballpark. We are hoping to do something that creates a center of gravity. We want it to be distinguished. The neighborhood right now is a little gritty.” Page 17 “I like what I do. So, I don't plan on making any changes. I keep my property up pretty good… I don't think I'm going to do anything for at least a few years. I did look at possibly doing some apartments here… I just didn't feel like it was time… I may redevelop it at some point, but not for a while, and I'd probably do housing” “If a land developer came in and offered enough money, I would consider selling and setting up shop somewhere else. But that would not be for at least five years…I want to stay if I can” “The buildings [Marketplace at 18th] are 15 years old and have a lo t of economic life. I don’t think I am a candidate for redevelopment for decades.” “Flexibility around ground-floor retail is something that should be considered. There are times and places where it's really suitable. And there are other types of places where, frankly, it just is gonna fail. It's gonna be empty, and it's gonna cost more. You can activate the streetscape without having being required to have blanket retail.” “If we have flexibility with regards to layout and design and site circumstances, we can be far more creative, and far more efficient in space planning. When developing [new zoning], offering some subjective, well-thought-out alternatives, would be very, very helpful. And achieve a wonderful result.” What challenges do you anticipate in managing your land or implementing your plans? “We will see how the utilities go since there isn't a lot of updated infrastructure in place and may need to upgrade capacity.” “This is a difficult market to be developing in. In the short term, it will be a difficult neighborhood to develop as it cost as much as downtown without the same market rents.” “How do you keep this area from becoming North Temple? The infrastructure was invested in, and people came and built the shittiest product. And it will be there for decades. That's the face of the neighborhood right now. It may benefit the city to retain zoning that requires some design review to control quality development... That’s a reasonable check to make sure that things that are getting put in are making the most of the city investment.” “Investing in it…it's gonna appeal to tenants that want to be there because it's a vibrant neighborhood” “The only challenge I see as the neighborhood gets denser and there is more traffic it may get harder to get to my property.” “Parking and accessibility. In order to bring in more members we will need more parking.” Small Business Owner Page 18 What aspects of the neighborhood, if enhanced or changed, could create a positive difference for your operations? Could you also share any obstacles you've encountered in running your business here and how they might influence your plans moving forward? “A little bit cleaner, a little greener. That's all.” “Some more lights along the way… making this place walkable in the evening would be a game changer” “A clean and beautiful way to walk from the TRAX station. You kind of have to jaywalk right now. The traffic only stops when the train is going. Until you get to the [300 west] intersection.” If applicable, would you consider renewing your lease or continuing to operate in this location? What factors contribute to your decision? “We definitely consider it. Yeah, I mean, signage is a big thing… Nobody knows we're here” Do you have any plans for expanding your business or altering your business model in response to changes in the neighborhood? “We’d like to expand” Residents How comfortable do you feel living in the area? Are there any concerns that affect your comfort and the livability of the area? “My lady is trying to walk our twins around our neighborhood, and constantly running into people that are concerning, and to circumstances that are concerning. Finding yourself being followed.” How long have you lived in this neighborhood and what are your plans for staying in the future? “My lady would like us to leave within two years. She wants us to find a better option, specifically because of the changes that have occurred in our neighborhood.” Would you consider renewing your lease in the future? If no, what factors contribute to y our decision? (No renters were interviewed for this report) Exhibit 4: 2nd Phase – Open House “Draft Scenario” Boards 300 West Corridor and Central Pointe Station Area Plan September 2023 PROJECT AREA AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT TIMELINE THE PROJECT: 300 W CORRIDOR AND CENTRAL POINTE PLAN PROJECT SUMMARY The 300 W Corridor and Central Pointe Plan is a part of Salt Lake City’s larger mission to create a more connected, thriving city through improved transportation and thoughtful development. The plan will identify land use policies that support a multi-modal streetscape and citywide goals of strategic growth and development, connecting neighborhoods, and improving the public realm. The project team is collecting community input which will ultimately influence the final plan. The team conducted interviews and focus groups with key government agencies working in Salt Lake City to better understand the current context, issues, and opportunities within the project area. Community input was gathered through an interactive map where community members share comments and place pins on areas for possible interventions. Two scenarios are presented today with recommendations around land use (what type of building is allowed and where), mobility and transportation (streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, etc.), and character. Each scenario includes the recommendation for affordable housing, and mixed-uses, with creative and light industrial uses adjacent to I-15. Both scenarios emphasize improved east-west connectivity, traffic calming, and improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Ballpark Character Areas 300 West Character Area •New multi-family developments •Unused railroad spur proposed for light rail extension into Granary District •Addition of open space, public amenities and neighborhood-serving commercial Medium Density Transitional Area •New medium density housing and commercial buildings with reduced height along West Temple frontage Neighborhood Area •Targeted redevelopment of vacant or abandoned structures with new/ rehabilitated structures at comparable scale/character to existing housing Central Ninth Character Area •New development should maintain current scale and massing along 900 S corridor “Heart” of the Neighborhood •Highest densities allowable to encourage mixed-use development State Street Character Area •Defined by small businesses along the length of the station area West Template Character Area •New development should maintain current character and scale and consider enhancing biking/walking environment and expand public spaces Main Street Character Area •Defined by small local businesses, pleasant ped/bike environment, and medium-density residential 30 0 W E S T 0 500’ 1000’2000’ WINDOW 1 MAY - JUN 2023 •Technical Focus Groups •1-on-1 Interviews •Social Pinpoint Mapping WINDOW 2 JUL - SEP 2023 •Project team work session •Public open house (2) •Online survey WINDOW 3 OCT-NOV 2023 •Project team work session •Small group meetings •Planning Commission meetings •City Council meeting WINDOW 4 JAN-APR 2024 •Project team work session •Planning Commission meetings •Virtual public office hours •City Council meeting WE ARE HERE! Ballpark Plan Ballpark Transition Area 330000 WWEESSTT 0 500’1000’2000’ 330000 WW 2100 South TR A X Li n e TR A X Li n e 30 0 W es t Study Area: 300 West Corridor and Station Area Plan Central Pointe TRAX station WtWt Tl T l We s t Te m p l e We s t Te m p l e We s t Te m p l e 00 SouthSout17001700S thS th000South170170StSout00 South00 South00 South170170170SoutSoutSout 300 West Corridor and Central Pointe Station Area Plan September 2023 YOUR VISION: WHAT WE HEARD FROM YOU ANYTHING WE MISSED? SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS BELOW • Preserve existing single-family inventory while providing new medium and high-density multi-family units • Encourage quality development • Support light industrial and manufacturing, retail, food and dining • Preserve commercial identity with increased infill around big box stores • Prioritize and retain local, small businesses • Improve multimodal safety and comfort, east-west connectivity between Ballpark District and People’s Freeway, and improve access to TRAX station • Increase cleanliness and repair infrastructure • Enhance pedestrian and biker comfort with increased amenities • Establish safe crossings with crosswalks and signage • Establish a mixed-use, walkable neighborhood with industrial/adaptive re-use aesthetic • Improve side street streetscapes and provide additional green space and public space • Enhance the perception of safety • Transition from commercial/industrial to transit- oriented development TRANSPORTATION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HOUSING CHARACTER September 2023 TRANSIT STOPS BIKE LANES NEW STREETS SAFE CROSSING / CROSSWALKS WHERE WOULD YOU PUT THE DESIRED AMENITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA? INSTRUCTIONS 0 200’ 400’ 800’ Central Pointe TRAX station SAM’S CLUB HOME DEPOT COSTCO ASHLEY OPEN SPACE / PARKS ELEVATED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE BALLBALLBALLALLPARKPARKPARKPARK TRATRATRATRAANSITNSITNSITNSITNIONIOONION ZONEZONEZONEZONE Place a colored sticker at every location you think an amenity should be built 30 0 W 1700 S 1830 S HARTWELL AVE 2100 S 30 0 W w T E M P L E w T E M P L E TR A X L I N E TR A X L I N E ANYTHING WE MISSED? SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS BELOW BALLPARK TRANSITION ZONE 300 West Corridor and Central Pointe Station Area Plan September 2023 SCENARIO 1: REPURPOSE WHAT DO YOU LIKE?WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE? W e s t T e m p l e 2100 S o u t h HOUSING Retain existing housing Townhomes and duplexes in and adjacent to existing single- family neighborhoods Condos and apartments proximate to TRAX station and 1700 South Minimum 10% affordable housing CHARACTER Ecclectic mix of uses Network of small pocket parks TRANSPORTATION East-west connections with bike lanes and new side roads On-street crossing with HAWK signal to TRAX Bus stop amenities on 300 West ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Infill and retention of big box stores Adaptive reuse of big box and industrial buildings Scenario 1 prioritizes re-purposing existing buildings and encourages new development within already developed sites, like the parking lots around buildings. This scenario would accommodate fewer new residential units than scenario 2 and overall would allow for only slightly more intensive development than what could be built today. This scenario proposes to create a new east-west connection at approximately 1940 South. 300 West Corridor and Central Pointe Station Area Plan September 2023 Scenario 2 would accommodate more housing than scenario 1. This scenario would allow for redevelopment that is fairly more intensive than could be built today. In addition to the new east-west connection proposed in scenario 1, this scenario proposes to create several new streets near Costco to break up the large block into several smaller blocks. This scenario would allow the area to become a Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone, which would allow the City to use all new property tax generated by new development for improvements within the project area that would benefit the entire community. SCENARIO 2: RECONNECT HOUSING Gentle infill in existing neighborhoods Mixed use developments with activated ground floor Multi-family housing developments with amenities Minimum 20% affordable housing CHARACTER Walkable district with shopping and dining options Linear park spaces / “green streets” ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Redevelopment to mixed-use buildings Office space TRANSPORTATION Multi-use path adjacent to TRAX line on 200 West Structured pedestrian crossing across 2100 South East-west and north-south street connectivity WHAT DO YOU LIKE?WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE? 300 West Corridor and Central Pointe Station Area Plan September 2023 WHICH DO YOU PREFER? Place a sticker in the gray box for the option you prefer within each section ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CHARACTER HOUSING SCENARIO 1: REPURPOSE SCENARIO 2: RECONNECT TRANSPORTATION Minimum 10% affordable housing Minimum 20% affordable housing PLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTE PLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTE PLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTE PLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTE PLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTE PLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTE PLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTE PLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTE PLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTE PLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTE PLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTE PLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTEPLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTE PLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTE PLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTE PLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTE PLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTE PLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTE PLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTE PLACE YOUR STICKER HERE TO VOTE 300 West Corridor and Central Pointe Station Area Plan September 2023 STREET SECTIONS Let us know how you feel about the below options SCENARIO 1: REPURPOSE SCENARIO 2: RECONNECT turn lane 56' drive lane drive lane 11'11' multiuse path 7'11'10'15' drive lane green buffer setback amenity zone 11'11' drive lane sidewalk 7' setback/ green space green buffer 8'10' 300W (Proposed Low Density) turn lane 56' drive lane drive lane 11'11' multiuse path 7'11'10'7' drive lane green buffer/ amenity zone active sidewalk 11'11' drive lane sidewalk 7' green buffer 10' 300W (Proposed High Density)COMMENTSCOMMENTS 300 West Corridor and Central Pointe Station Area Plan September 2023 TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF WHERE DO YOU LIVE/STAY?WHERE DO YOU WORK/ATTEND SCHOOL? WHO DO YOU LIVE WITH? WHAT IS YOUR AGE RANGE? Under 18 18-24 25-44 45-64 65+ I live alone I live with roommates I live with my family I live in senior housing I am currently unsheltered Other Exhibit 5: 2nd Phase Engagement Report – September Open Houses 300 West Corridor and Station Area Plan Community Open House Summary Page 1 of 8 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY To: Daniel Echeverria From: Jessica Garrow, Marianne Stuck, Carolyn Levine Date: November 29, 2023 Project Name: 300 West Corridor and Station Area Plan Project: 7078 Subject: Engagement Summary Meeting Date: September 26th and 27th, 2023 Copy To: DW File Event Summary Two public events were held on September 26th and 27th. Both events were advertised via mailed flyers and on the project website. Both were held outdoors with interactive exhibit boards that allowed people to come and go as they pleased. Staff were on-hand to facilitate and answer questions. The first event was held on September 26 from 5-7 p.m. at the Ballpark Playground. Twenty-eight people attended, and most were residents who lived nearby and were visiting the park with their family or walking through the neighborhood and happened upon the event. The location was ideal for interacting with residents who otherwise may not attend a public meeting, including parents of small children. Attendees spent anywhere from a few minutes to an hour or more reviewing the exhibit boards and interacting with the staff. Of the 28 attendees, 12 live with their families, 2 live alone, and 2 are currently experiencing homelessness. The image below shows where residents live (in green) and work (in blue). Figure 1. Attendees placed a green sticker on a map of Salt Lake City to indicate where they live and a green dot to indicate where they work. Landscape Architecture Planning Urban Design Strategic Services Environmental Graphic Design 22860 Two Rivers Road Suite 102 Basalt, Colorado 81621 970.925.8354 970.920.1387 fax designworkshop.com Meeting Telephone Conference Call 300 West Corridor and Station Area Plan Community Open House Summary Page 2 of 8 The second event was held at Central Pointe TRAX station on September 27 from 7-9 am. It was intended to reach people who might not otherwise attend a public event by meeting them during their morning commute. The same information was presented at both events, though the morning event included fewer in-depth conversations as folks were often rushing during their morning commute. Seventeen people participated in the engagement and postcards with a project summary and link to the project website were handed out to dozens of commuters who did not have time to stop and chat. Many participants live just northeast of the project site, near the intersection of 1700 S and West Temple St and work near the intersection of 400 S and State Street and at least one participant was currently experiencing homelessness. Summary of Results A visual preference board was provided to seek feedback on different approaches to housing choices, economic development, transportation investments, and neighborhood character. Participants were asked to place stickers on the choices that they felt were most appropriate or needed in the area. Participants were not limited in the number of stickers they could place on the board. The below summary combines comments from both (morning and evening) engagement sessions into common themes and highlights any outlier comments. Scenario 1: Repurpose Preference Voting Scenario 1 received 34 preference votes (Figure 2) and more comments compared to Scenario 2. Preferences related to housing choices in Scenario 1 included: • Retaining existing housing - 4 stickers • Condos and apartments that are proximate to the TRAX station and 1700 S. – 4 stickers • Townhomes and duplexes in and adjacent to existing single-family homes – 3 stickers Preferences related to economic development in Scenario 1 included: • Adaptive reuse of the big box stores and industrial buildings – 6 • Retain and infill the big box stores – 2 Preferences related to transportation in Scenario 1 included: • On-street crossing with HAWK signal to the TRAX line – 4 • East-west bike lanes and new side roads – 4 • Bust stop amenities on 300 West – 1 Preferences related to character in Scenario 1 included: • Network of small pocket parks – 5 • Eclectic mixed uses – 1 300 West Corridor and Station Area Plan Community Open House Summary Page 3 of 8 Figure 2. Scenario 1 Preference Survey Results Streetscape Feedback Participants commented on the street sections with positive comments such as approving of more trees, approving of the 15-foot setback amenity zone with a 10-foot multi-use path and 7-foot green buffer. One participant raised concerns about parking areas abutting sidewalks without a curb due to previous instances of vehicles parking and driving on the 300 W bike path. 300 West Corridor and Station Area Plan Community Open House Summary Page 4 of 8 Figure 3. Street Section boards with participant comments after evening event on 9/26/23. General Comments and Concerns Some participants voiced concern about adding housing density. Concerns included the challenge of keeping the character of the area while adding density, and some participants suggested limiting apartments to two and a half stories or less while retaining single-family homes, while others advocated for allowing ADU’s with fewer restrictions. However, with more density, many participants noted that zoning regulations need to include more parking such as off-street parking and parking stalls that match the number of bedrooms in new housing developments. Conversely, one participant suggested the creation of a “park once” district, which implies creating flexibility for shared parking standards. For commercial spaces, participants were concerned about losing a hardware store if Home Depot left. Participants generally liked adaptive reuse as some are frustrated with the new high-rises and were concerned about keeping the character and history of the area. When it came to green spaces, participants echoed that local children and pets need more green space. Concerns about green space include the consideration of water use in the design. Participants suggested the neighborhood should be walkable like Sugarhouse, and that pedestrian and cyclist amenities should be added. Scenario 2 Feedback Summary Preference Voting Scenario 2 received 27 preference votes and fewer comments compared to Scenario 1. Preferences related to housing choices in Scenario 2 included: • Preference for mixed use development with an activated ground floor 300 West Corridor and Station Area Plan Community Open House Summary Page 5 of 8 • Gentle infill in existing neighborhoods – 1 sticker • Multi-family housing developments with amenities – 0 stickers Preferences related to economic development in Scenario 2 included: • Redevelopment to mixed-use buildings – 8 stickers • New office space – 0 stickers Preferences related to transportation in Scenario 2 included: • Multi-use path adjacent to the TRAX line on 200 West – 5 stickers • Structured pedestrian crossing across 2100 S. – 4 stickers • East-west and north-south street connectivity – 2 stickers Preferences related to character in Scenario 2 included: • Walkable district with shopping and dining options – 2 stickers • Linear park spaces/“green streets” – 1 sticker Figure 4. Scenario 2 with stickers and comments. 300 West Corridor and Station Area Plan Community Open House Summary Page 6 of 8 Streetscape Feedback Comments on the Scenario 2 streetscape were positive. Four participants stated that streetside dining is desirable. Other comments noted a preference for an activated sidewalk and streetscape, the green buffer in both scenarios, and separation between pedestrians and cyclists and vehicles. Some participants raised questions such as how the streetside dining would be maintained and cleaned, how the buildings would step back (similar to Sugarhouse), and how streetside dining might be combined with the setback amenity zone in Scenario 1. Participants also suggested adding parks and trees between the streetside dining areas, as well as a bike lane that is separate from vehicular traffic. General Comments and Concerns Several participants were in favor of increasing housing density and commercial development of the area. Participants advocated for ADUs and increasing the percentage of affordable housing, more apartments, focusing multifamily development on 2100 S. One participant would like to limit multi-family development in the heart of West Temple and would prefer single-family homes and duplexes. Participants noted that an increase in housing, commercial development, and more amenities is necessary. More specifically, participants noted that an increase in the height limit in existing commercial zones as well as the density of retail would increase walkability. One participant noted disbelief that retail could survive on the ground level of mixed-use buildings due to costs for business owners and not enough consumer activity. When it comes to transportation, many participants were interested in a TRAX station at 1700 S, a FrontRunner stop at Central Pointe station (between Murray and Salt Lake Central), and focusing 300 W and 2100 S on pedestrian and cyclist use including bike lanes and a multiuse path that connects to Parleys Trail. There were also concerns about the lack of trees at station platforms to mitigate heat. Other comments included checking the flooding potential of new east-west connections, concerns about homelessness, and preferring green streets over pocket parks in relation to water consideration. Which Scenario do you Prefer: Participants were asked to select their preference between the two proposed scenarios. Some participants mentioned that townhomes are preferred in existing residential areas, while a mix of medium and higher density housing is preferred for commercial areas / economic developments. Figure 5. Participant comments on the scenario comparison board. 300 West Corridor and Station Area Plan Community Open House Summary Page 7 of 8 Location of Desired Amenities Feedback: Participants were asked to vote using a dot sticker on which amenities they would prefer to see and where in six categories: transit stops, safe crossing/crosswalks, bike lanes, elevated pedestrian bridge, news streets, and open space/parks. The results are below. Preference Voting • For new transit stops, nine participants located a new TRAX station at 1700 S. One participant located a bus stop at 2100 S and 300 W. • Safe crossings and crosswalks were located at the intersection of 2100 S and the TRAX line (5 stickers), ~1830 S and the TRAX line, 2100 S and 300 W (2 stickers), and 2100 S and West Temple (1 sticker). • Bike lane locations were located along 2100 S, 1700 S, and West Temple St (1 sticker each). • Elevated pedestrian bridges were located at the intersection of 300 West and 1830 South, 200 West (TRAX line) and 1830 South, 200 West (TRAX line) and 2100 South, and one on the TRAX Line between 2100 South and 1830 South. • Two new streets were identified, one that is a north-south connection between the west end of Hartwell Ave through 1830 S and the west end of 1700 S parallel to Interstate 15. The other new street would connect 1830 S across the TRAX line to Venture Way. • The southern parking lot at the west end of 1830 S was identified for new parks and/or open space. General Comments and Concerns Participants noted concerns about existing development patterns, such as parking lots that are typically only 25 percent full and could be repurposed as green spaces, or the vacant northwest corner of 1300 S and 300 W (outside 300 West Corridor and Station Area Plan Community Open House Summary Page 8 of 8 the study area) that could be made more attractive in the long term. Other comments indicated that more bike lanes should be added and that the Ballpark area should be focused on people / smart growth and maintaining the charm of the area along with transit. There were varying opinions regarding additional transit service within the project area. Some stated that there should be a TRAX station at 1700 S while others stated that there should be no new TRAX stations and no new transit. One participant suggested turning the 1700 S TRAX land into a shopping retail area with stores like GNC or Baskin Robbins. Anything We Missed? Participants were asked to provide feedback on items they want to see included in the planning process and plan documents. Many participants suggested creating connections via multiple travel modes. For example, comments noted a potential connection between the bike path along 300 W to Parley’s Trail in South Salt Lake, the need for pedestrian crossings across the TRAX line between 1700 South and 2100 South, a new TRAX station at 1700 S, increasing general bike safety and creating a designated space for scooters, improving north-south bicycle and pedestrian connections across 2100 S, and bus connections along 2100 S and 300 W that have stops at essential services. One resident noted that people who need to access different types of related services (a parole office and regular drug testing) take this route often and could benefit from bus service. Some participants commented negatively on the current conditions of major streets, such as 1700 S and 2100 S being too dangerous to bike down with children and West Temple being too narrow for drivers. More comments focused on parking and development density, such as the lack of parking stalls for medium-high density housing, the need for increased parking on the street, wanting more economic development while preferring less high-density units, and concerns about increasing crime rates with new high-density units. Other participants want to create more services for people who are currently unsheltered, suggesting police presence is more threatening than helpful, the creation of a program to help integrate people into housing, and focusing efforts on creating housing and services rather than public green spaces. General comments included wanting more local character and green spaces, more trees, appreciation for the new 300 W improvements, utilizing parking lots for other uses like green space, concerns over UTA’s expansion in the valley, specifically when it comes to acquiring properties, and how the Public Utilities campus will be integrated into future development. Participants suggested additional amenities that the current scenarios do not specify such as skate parks, dog parks, an indoor pool, vending machines with snacks and water near Central Pointe Station, and more retail stores on the east side. Exhibit 6: 2nd Phase Engagement Report – Online Survey MEMORANDUM To: Project Team From: Design Workshop Date: December 21, 2023 Project Name: SLC 300 West Corridor Project #: 7078 Subject: Survey Results This memorandum provides an overview of the results from the survey administered SLC 300 West Corridor area plan. Around 320 people participated in the survey. Demographics • Majority of respondents were in the 25-34 age group (30% of respondents) • Majority of respondents were male (56.6% of respondents) • Majority of respondents were white (82.6% of respondents) • Majority of respondents shop/visit in the project area (60.3%) • Majority of respondents have only been involved in the project by visiting the project’s webpage (60.7%) 1. What is your age? Landscape Architecture Planning Urban Design Strategic Services 120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 2. What is your gender? 3. What is your race/ethnicity? 4. What is your relationship with the project area? 5. How have you participated in the following events related to the 300 West Corridor and Station Area Plan? Scenarios • When asked on a sliding scale how they liked each scenario, participants preferred Scenario 2: Reconnect. • In the results shown below, the mean was higher at 7.12 score for Scenario 2: Reconnect over Scenario 1: Repurpose (6.39). • Scenarios 1 and 2 translated into density on the streetscapes. Scenario 1 proposed low density streetscapes while Scenario 2 proposed high density. When asked which streetscape they preferred: o Scenario 1 (119 responses/40.1%) o Scenario 2 (178 responses/59.9%) • In relationship to the project area, majority of respondents shop/visit the project area and prefer Scenario 2. Concepts • With all the ideas shared in both concepts, when asked to rate how important each one is for the project area, walkable district with dining and shopping option had the highest average rating. • In an extended response asking what concepts were missing the survey, respondents gave a variety of answers. Answers were grouped into the following categories, with the number of responses for each. Answers could fall into multiple categories: o More housing/density = 47 responses/11.7% o Less housing/density = 9 responses/2.2% o Homelessness = 6 responses/1.5% o Safety = 52 responses/12.9% o More green space = 39 responses/9.7% o More trees = 15 responses/3.7% o More sidewalks = 41 responses/10.2% o East-west connections = 7 responses/1.7% o North-south connections = 5 responses/1.2% o More bikeability and a bike/ped connection over 2100 S = 45 responses/11.2% o Walkability = 50 responses/12.4% o Mixed use = 43 responses/10.7% o Redevelopment = 22 responses/5.5% o Outdoor Space = 6 responses/1.5% o Do not change = 15 responses/3.7% What did you see in the concepts that is most appealing, and what we may have missed as an opportunity for the station Need road designs to slow down vehicles and create more space/use for active/pedestrian/bike modes. Higher density and mixed land uses should be occurring throughout all of Salt Lake City. I love the idea for an active sidewalk with a multi purpose path. It’s a great opportunity to develop 300 W more with the new and improved sidewalk/bike path. There is a great need for outdoor dining patio areas, shopping and hangout spots along 300W. With several breweries around, it would be nice to see more restaurants and amenities for the residents to walk to and use. I believe scenario two would work. If there are pocket parks developed, then you would not need the extra green space from scenario one just the green buffers. The 200 West multi-use paths would be fantastic and would see far more traffic than the 300 W path. The most appealing thing about these two options is increasing the livable spaces and reducing the drive-through nature of big box stores. I think this is a great start but I would like to emphasize that pedestrian and biking infrastructure needs to have heavy-duty physical barriers from cars for busier streets. 300 W looks like a glorified freeway, where speeds can exceed 50 mph. If 300 W is not going to have any traffic calming measures to prevent vehicles from traveling above 30 mph please include other physical barriers in line with the city's Vision Zero goal. Raise the new 300 W bike path to make it safer for use of this path. Right now, cars fly in and out of the store entrances/exits without even realizing it is a bike path. Concept 2 really promotes the opportunity to slow cars down which reduces noise, crashes, and deaths caused by vehicles. Also, there are more opportunities to move around the city by foot, bike, and public transit and not have to be so car dependent. The idea of being able to do the vast majority of my errands within walking and biking distance of my house is really appealing! Can there be active sidewalks with a mix of green space-- meaning-- can the green buffer ebb and flow dependent upon the size and scale of the development that it's in front of? I don't think a giant setback is needed for smaller, walkable storefronts, but, for Costco, if it gets repurposed, yes-- their setback should be larger and involve more public amenities. I fear an effort to repurpose existing plans will retain the industrial feel of the area that makes it unappealing for street traffic. Currently the big box stores and large warehouses make it necessary to drive--one doesn't really go to Home Depot and Costco on a bike after a quick lunch with a friend. I like better street engagement and landscaping. I wish there was more bicycle specific infrastructure. y g , , , varied activities, diversity in housing age and type, and green spaces distributed throughout. Prefer the consistency of active sidewalks along the length of the road that is presented in option 2. The whole of 300 West should be walkable and provide varied services rather than designating one development as a walkable area. I think that this speaks to the idea that walkable areas aren't successful if you have to drive to them. Would like to see office integrated into mixed-use buildings rather than large, stand-alone buildings. Would like to see the big box retained but the parking lots reduced and infilled. The big-box businesses are able to provide resources that can't be found in other areas of the city. Would prefer that these are located along the freeway rather than in mixed use, fine-grained neighborhoods. Adaptive reuse of these large buildings doesn't necessarily reduce issues of over-parking, large massing, inactive street fronts, etc. Would like to see non-noxious light industrial integrated along the freeway or within mixed-use buildings. Wondering if there are ways to retain some older structures to provide for lower-cost commercial properties. Maybe just within certain areas. Like increased street connectivity so that walking and biking are not impractical. Also would like neighborhoods located east of the TRAX line to be able to access resources west of the line without using a car. I like the multiuse path along the TRAX line, particularly if it can encourage this addition along the rest of the lines, where it doesn't currently exist. Would very much like to see a 1700 South TRAX station. This would increase the feasibility of infill and transit use. This would also help to reduce train speeds and increase the safety of east-west connections. More housing and mixed use. We need a more walkable environment Walkable neighborhoods and increased access to green spaces - both majorly improve mental well-being and social connectivity in communities. A missed opportunity would be exploring expanded biking and walking infrastructure that incentivizes these forms of transportation, such as bike racks/lockers, benches/picnic tables, and potentially doing a bike lane, pedestrian sidewalk and narrow roadway. Make sure to prevent any new driver throughs Multi-use paths are a poor man's sidewalk. Pedestrians and cyclists deserve to have dedicated space on both sides of the street, and should not be forced to compete with each other in order to maximize convenience for drivers. Take away driving lanes before cramming bikes and pedestrians together. I don't think the different 300 W street cross sections should be billed as "low density" vs "high density." Both options have same number of lanes and road width, but more pedestrian/bike space is always a plus, and if anything, should allow for taller buildings than a narrower street, as there would ideally be more people out and about, with more destinations closeby. The sense of enclosure for drivers would come from the trees, not the buildings. What is proposed to bridge the gap between the end of the new cycle-track just north of the Home Depot to get across 2100 S? Or are people going to be directed to go east one block to a new facility along the TRAX? Scenario 1 is more forward thinking; Scenario 2 is more of the same disappointment I've seen elsewhere in Salt Lake City. While commercial displacement is an issue, I do like to see larger strip malls replaced with housing. I am also excited about the path parallel to the Trax line, The one in Sandy is great to ride. i am very worried about putting housing right on the highway -- it is a health risk! I like the idea of the multiple green space buffers, but with the ability to add in seating and outdoor patios, dog stations, etc to the green space closest to the building. Recently, in Sugar House there have popped up multiple buildings along 2100 S that are right up against the sidewalk/road and although I like the idea of that (feels more welcoming than a pushed back building and parking lot), it seems to create a visual issue when getting out onto 2100 S from the north/south roads without lights (400 East is an example). The extra green buffer in scenario 1 would give more of an opening for pedestrians, bikers, and cars to come onto the street safely, without having a building as a visual block. Although the drawings don't depict this happening, the "buildings closer to the street" description makes me prefer option 1, as 300 w is pretty bustling and will be even more so with even better amenities, but still has plenty of side street car traffic. Plus, more greenery and activation spaces are always good! Blending them together - even better. A general mixed-use neighborhood with mixed densities and amenities would be great. A pedestrian overpass would be a game changer, in addition to upzoning the whole area, allowing midrise or even Highrise buildings. So many proposed developments are being built right up to their maximum height limit. SLC is ready for buildings taller than 8 stories. Maybe allow special height limits for mass timber construction? Much much more sustainable and they act as a carbon sink when being built Love pedestrian overpasses. We desperately need more of these, particularly across 700E and State St. You are designing your dream city without any thought at to when the snows come. Wider sidewalks in a city that does not pick up the snow only means unusable sidewalks in the winter. What's the point? We own the Marketplace at 18th shopping center. It is 100% occupied with thriving tenants. Both of your concepts show the site being completely redeveloped. Tearing down this thriving neighborhood retail property will not make economic sense for decades, FYI I don't see any type of scenario that is, water conscious--having all of these plants and green space is not going to help conserve water. This is why cities like Las Vegas are ripping up lawn strips. 600 South now wastes tons of water...I've filmed all the water waste all over the road and sidewalks. We need to conserve and protect our water sheds! I do not believe reducing setbacks on a wide street such as 300 west will make the road feel more narrow. It will make the pedestrian feel less welcome. The effect you desire is not accomplished when you have a five lane road. We are losing our classic neighborhoods to huge developments - our city will be nothing but apartment buildings if we keep letting the large companies to develop our specs for their profit Continuing the 300 West bike path to and beyond 2100 s. Making it easier to get to central pointe station from 300 West Bike path. This area is in terrible need of parks/green space. Especially dog parks. I know it's likely bc it's outside of salt lake city, but you have to coordinate with SSL to get pedestrian/bike access to West Temple from Central Pointe Station. It is so hard to get to that trax stop on foot and bike. Also that best buy should be housing. It’s a big box retail, industrial area of our City. Bike lanes and greenways are useless. Put them in higher residential use areas. I prefer scenario two because it builds more housing and contributes more to building a community that is less car- dependent and is more livable. The city should prioritize dense infill development, pedestrian and bike infrastructure, and transit-oriented development. more trees More pedestrian friendly everywhere in the area 50% affordable housing should be the goal. This general district ought to prioritize tax revenue generation alongside beautification. Its transit connection to larger valley make it ideal for infill and multifamily. Though I am a strong supporter of neighborhood growth and preservation principles, I just don't see this as a 'neighborhood' and don't think we should dilute its primary function as a commercial/industrial district that generates funds needed to invest in other areas with higher likelihood of neighborhood improvement from investment (think central city, ballpark, downtown, liberty, etc.). Thanks! Nothing but if it has to be one or the other, Scenario 1 works best for me. My only concern is when are you planning to come for my property? Scenario 2 is good because this is a great location for DENSITY. How do possibly propose any of the concepts are realistic with commercial entities like Homedepot and Costco occupying the space?? Totally irresponsible to even suggest the possibilities! Newer, better use of space! Is there any way we could get the 300 West bike path to continue south past home depot and then east along the north side of 2100 South to the rail crossing and then call for a pedestrian crossing right there to get to the station? It seems like that's probably the most obvious way to connect to the station without relying on SSL to figure anything out. Same goes for 1700 South - I don't see any protected bike path to the proposed future TRAX station on either this plan or the Ballpark plan. It would be good to get that idea added here. The most appealing aspect in the concepts is creating an area where it is everything, all together - living, shopping, working, entertainment, etc. With this aspect in mind, the need for personal transportation should be greatly diminished and public transportation increased which would lower the need for automobile space. Scenario 2 in the Streetscape with high density is more ideal for this planning because it limits automobile use and would force other people that don't live in the area to find another thoroughfare route. Also, I am for reducing or limiting the green space in this area. The idea is a good one for those that live in the area; however, due to the amount of unhoused that congregate there, the green space would become their hovel living area and make it unsafe to those who live and work in the area...i.e. it won't be used for the positive purpose you intended it to be. Help to slow traffic and supports a safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists. Any scenario that entails getting rid of Costco seems like a waste of time to even consider. Are they contemplating closing one of the most successful stores in the country? I love the idea of creating more connection opportunities for pedestrians and cyclists. More parks/shared greenspace would be a nice addition. I also think retaining existing housing is important to protect from displacement. Push for more density The biggest issue for this area is the lack of east-west transportation to the Westside; this plan needs to address the major barriers created by Interstate 15 and the railroad tracks. Having nothing in the plan to address the biggest issue is a missed opportunity. Concept 2 feels like more of a transformation, and this area needs it. There's much better walkability and bikeability, more connectedness. Better use of the land that's there which would create a better neighborhood feel. However, I don't think multi-use paths will provide enough space for people walking and biking and the bike lane should remain separated and off street. Also sad to see the dozens of comments on completing the bike lane on 300 W to 2100 S ignored. I do like the Trax pedestrian connection across 2100 S and path alongside Trax. Things I liked most: 1. A mix of retaining existing housing and townhomes/duplexes. I'd also love to see tiny home neighborhoods. I like the streets with smaller lots like Harvard and Yale by SLCC. They have so much character compared to the condos/apartments being built. 2. Multi-use path adjacent to TRAX line on 200 West. I ride my bike a lot and love Sugarhouse Parley's Trail. 3. Linear park spaces / "green spaces" - think Parley's Trail but with restaurants, bars, and shopping along the green street corridors. 4. Pedestrian crossing structures and east-west and north-south street connectivity. Because this is important for a connected downtown. Also keeping it safe for walkers and bikers. 5. Any redevelopment or repurposing of existing buildings as well as infill of existing spaces. Walkable district with shopping and dining options is the most appealing component. I'm not sure how exactly the big box stores will be removed in Scenario 2. Seems like it would involve a lot of waiting around or cumbersome partnerships with several businesses that would only delay any meaningful development in the area. I like the photo of the mixed use attached to Costco. Let's not wait around for these businesses to leave. Let's build up next to them and integrate them into a walkable urban community. The most appealing part to me is the focus on safety of people other than just drivers. After that, I appreciate the commitment to mixed use development. I am opposed to removing Costco or Home Depot, or reducing their parking lot sizes. Not having access (including parking) to these stores will reduce the livability of the city for me and my family. We will have to drive farther from the Avenues to get to these stores (already a 20 minute drive). I do not like either scenario, but I prefer the one where Costco remains. I don't know how I'll park there if parking is reduced. I can't bike my groceries home from Costco. Please prioritize the livability and functionality of the city for current residents over accommodating new residents. All I saw in both scenarios is the city getting more money from taxes. AND STILL NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Instead of a 1 to 10 or 2 to 10 ratio, it should be 80% to 90% affordable housing. Small local streets, but those are needed north of1700 South too. Enhancing density and walkability are the most important considerations in redesigning this area, and they are best served by option 2. There needs to be another grocery store option. I live in the other side of West Temple of Main Street. So not in the immediate area but it impacts my family and I. I would also like to see some options for some smaller lot single family homes. I realize this is not always attainable. But the city is losing families. You need them. Just having apartments or condos that cater to single folks and roommates is not sustainable. They will just move away once they do start a family. Amenities in buildings are nice but a city rec center and Libby along with parks could become a central gathering space. The lack of easy access to get from the Central Pointe Station to really anywhere is else needs to be considered more. Greening of the area is the most appealing. Tree equity is fantastic. You have completely forgotten existing smaller, independent businesses. Is the goal for all small business to move out of Salt Lake proper? There seems to be little concern about adding dense human populations to areas where businesses are needed. Is there additional planning to offset the west side food deserts? Stop approving ugly, characterless buildings right on the street, especially massive apartment buildings that take up the whole block and have zero green space. STOP allowing developers to bypass city ordinances!!! STOP allowing taller buildings and taller fences and less grass and more apartments. And START ENFORCING YOUR OWN RULES AND ORDINANCES! Scenario 1 Repurpose is much better because it retains the big box stores which generates sales tax revenue for the city and brings traffic to the area for smaller businesses. It appears the intent of scenario 2 reconnect is to push out the big box stores like Costco, Home Depot, and Sam's Club? I can't image that Salt Lake City will want to give up all that sales tax revenue? The big box stores bring the traffic to 300 west. without them, will commercial or retail be viable along 300 west or will it all transform into multi family housing? Where are people going to park in scenario 2? I think there should be a dedicated bike lane instead of a multiuse path - it would be a safer option. Comfort Trax stop at 1700 S is critical. The area has good density and it is a long way to walk to existing stations. Also no connection to the streetcar as part of this seems like a major missed opportunity. Consider redirecting big box traffic to a new frontage road to take cars away from corridors like 300 W where you want to see more people. Redesign 2100 S to be safer for people- pedestrian bridges are a huge indicator that your street network is only for cars, not people. While pocket parks are nice, if you want this to be a real neighborhood, build a real park. There is not enough green space in the area already. Pocket parks won't satisfy the need for proper greenspace. I want to see more housing in this area. there is such an absurd amount of commercial space surrounded by parking lots. bringing in some housing allows the same people who would be coming here anyways to walk, bike, or take public transit instead of drive because they can live closer. The 300 W corridor is a hellscape of cars and parking lots, but despite that, there is still a large amount of pedestrians that TRY to use the space without getting vehicular manslaughtered. Breaking up the large blocks, bringing in mixed use development with walking shopping and dining area. Adding infill housing of various sizes (apartments, townhouses, multifamily, etc). Enclosed streets with wide side walks and narrowed street and lanes making it safer for pedestrians and bike riders. In any considerations for redevelopment of areas adjacent to existing or planned public transit, it's critical to prioritize walkability and safe bicycle routes. The new bike lane on 300 W is a disaster. As a vehicle driver, when turning left or right to cross the path at a driveway or intersection, I have to watch for relatively fast moving bicycles that are effectively riding on the sidewalk in both directions; this is in addition to timing interactions with other vehicles on the streets. Whether turning left or right to cross the path in a vehicle, a driver has to look behind them to see if a fast moving bicycle is coming and time that interaction with other vehicle and pedestrian traffic. As a cyclist, the problem is far worse. Cyclists are already very vulnerable, so creating a dedicated path that gives a false sense of security where we are intentionally positioned in the blind spots of generally inattentive/distracted drivers is an unreasonable safety risk. There are far too many driveways and street crossings, and having cyclists, effectively on the sidewalk, travelling in a direction that is against vehicular traffic is well-documented as one of the most common causes of bicycle/vehicle collisions. Anywhere that bike and pedestrian routes are planned must be configured to keep these users as far away as possible from vehicle traffic/driveways/parking areas and with preferred access for these users to shops, restaurants, and residences. As a cyclist, I feel very strongly that it is better to have no bicycle-specific accommodations than to have poorly implemented ones that make the situation far worse than just riding in the street with vehicle traffic. Anywhere that bicycle infrastructure is planned must be configured to prioritize access for pedestrian/cycle use over vehicle use, minimize any vehicle crossings. With all that said, any new construction should be planned for vehicle access via side streets only, no direct driveway access from 300 W or 2100 S. And new/reconfigured businesses/multifamily residences should be required to provide preferred access from 300 W for peds/cycles. The higher density housing and business variety just makes sense anywhere near rail stations. I love the idea of repurposing big box stores into useable land. It's not that I don't like the stores themselves, but I despise the parking minimums that created parking lots twice the size of the stores wasting land. Seeing SLC repurpose parking lots gives me hope for this city. I like the addition of pedestrian and bike access as well! I've been loving the new 300W bike lane, but fine it surprising unsafe because cars are frequently parked in it waiting to turn. Sometimes I've had to slam on my breaks because cars drive into the bike lane. Adding more signage or slowing to prevent cars from parking in the 300w bike lane would be great! An additional bike addition is to connect the parleys trail to 300w. Navigating from West Haven Ave to the 300w bike trail is frightening. There is only a thin bicycle gutter with cars zipping by at 40mph. This single small stretch nearly ruins the two beautiful bike paths. Please extend the zone of this project by half a block and fix the connection of these two trails. Love the plans! Both are great, but two is better. Keep creating good designs SLC! I'm a little surprised to see that neither streetscape concept would retain the recently completed cycle track. My preference is for scenario 2 and it would be a shame to see dedicated space for bikes go away while also moving toward a more urban landscape. Also... 1700 South is probably very close to being ready for a TRAX station. I'd love to see that included in the long term plan for the area. Were the active sidewalk of scenario 2 included in scenario 1, I would have preferred Scenario 1. I think all of the plants along the buildings are problematic. I don't think they are well managed in the Gateway area. Offering more opportunity for patio-type commerce might reduce the pressure to maintain the plants and trees during changing weather cycles. As a life long salt lake city native, having our city become the model for pedestrian/bike/greenspace areas, would be a God-SEND. Please and thank you. Our city is a one of a kind globally. I hope my taxdollars go towards the correct future in terms of effeciency, ie, less cars, more people infrastructure. :) Added streets and trails to break up the area and encourage walking and biking instead of just driving to big box stores. A safe crossing over 21st would be much better than a Hawk. Revitalizing the area with mixed use and residential would be great. Prioritize long-term livability over short-term profit. Space-efficient townhomes and mixed-use buildings. Less yards and parking lots, more parks and walkability. More housing is more appealing Traffic calming and safer pedestrian crossings are most important. Without this the project is essentially pointless Active sidewalk In general, I am supportive of both scenarios as they are major improvements to the area. I love the idea of keeping some of the big box stores but building on top of (like the Costco rendering you all did). But I could also be in support of moving them out of the area entirely if that became the choice. I do think that connecting Central Point to the northern end of 21st South (and therefore 300 W north of 21st) is REALLY important. The over street pedestrian (and bike?) bridge as part of Scenario 2 seems massively needed. And in general, the more "aggressive" take on scenario 2 when it comes to walkability/bikeability/traffic easing seems majorly needed. I regularly bike and drive this area and see so many issues with the wonderful 300 W bike lane and how it connects to Central Point station. Some of this is on South Salt Lake to solve, but I greatly hope the city can work with Natalie Pinkney (if still in office post- election) and other actual SSL advocates for a more livable community. In general, I am excited the city has recognized as this as a bit of a weak spot in the current plans for 21st south and 300W and I look forward to seeing what we can do. Not just housing but make it deeply affordable housing. Add to and support current businesses not putting them out.Take out big, mostly unused parking lots. Driving/turn lanes and are excessively wide and could be reduced to 10’ and 8’ respectively to support reduced speeds and enable construction of dedicated on-street bike infrastructure I LOVE the emphasis on green space and connection to Trax stations. Public amenities like that are only useful if they are clean and people feel safe using them, though. Consideration must be made of how to keep crime and homeless camps out of this area, otherwise this is all a waste of time. Can we have a plan that retains housing and promotes green space and multi use pathways? More greenspace is incredible; however best we can encourage walkable + bikable cities I really like the idea of in-filling with mixed types of residential in the existing neighborhoods. Although I like the concept of being able to completely change the layout of the project area to create a new purpose, I think reimaginging existing structures and in-filling where possible is more eco friendly. I wish there were a way to make the bike lane protected. I do not want to bike around pedestrians and I want a solid barrier or curb between me and cars. Currently the new bike lanes on 300 W are fine, but the sidewalk is so narrow people walk in it all the time. It's not safe for anyone. Pedestrian infrastructure is the most important and appealing part of any redesign that goes forward. 300W has the opportunity to serve many nearby homes that can access the amenities by foot or bike, but only if it's safe from cars to do so. The raised bridge across 21st would meet this goal, as would the traffic calming techniques, described in the second street design proposal. I don't think we should encourage more car traffic in existing neighborhoods by adding any east/west connections. We do enough for cars, as is. More reusable energy and greenery! I think the most important thing is making the area people first and easy to connect on foot or by bike. I recently visited the corner of 1300 E and 3300 S and had to drive from the other side thrift store to home depot and then to harmons where I nearly died trying to walk to millcreek commons from the harmons parking lot. I felt insane driving those short distances but it was the safest route! In the redevelopment of this part of salt lake I would really love to see people first designs that make sense for pedestrians. The spaces need to be designed for people to walk or bike between the new developments, not pretty side walks in some sections. Large multi use path but protected and seperated from pedestrian buke lanes are also a must. We want to commute quickly in okaces like this The biggest appeal is walkability and green spaces. I like the incorporation of more green spaces. As a resident who lives on MacArthur Ave I think this area is lacking green spaces. It's a pretty industrial area. I'm all for getting rid of some of the industrial space that isn't really used by regular people, especially on 300 W, but think it's important to keep the big box stores. I think the traffic that the big box stores bring in supports a lot of the surrounding businesses in the area. I also don't see removing the big box stores as a realistic option. Traversing 2100S to the central point station can be a J walking adventure. It's possible now but will probably be more hectic as more people move into the area. I'm also all for building townhomes and housing next to adjacent single family homes but don't think anyone should be relocated. I'm also curious what will happen to the wood company behind our house if the bike lane goes in. It would significantly change the dynamic of our currently quiet backyard. Overall I think it's a great proposal but I think scenario 2 seems a little unrealistic. I don't want to see the currently successful businesses forced out to be replaced by empty businesses with high rent. Green space as much as possible. Ensure S line connects smoothly to get to airport More restaurants, library branch, doctor offices Protected bike infrastructure and trees As a resident in the current single family home area in these plans—I don’t find it necessary to create so many through streets to 300 W, I don’t see a need and I travel from west temple to 300 W multiple times a day. I like the idea of making the area more walking friendly with more shops/restaurants/breweries etc. in addition to improving the ability to move NS/EW and increasing density by adding in eclectic use/more affordable housing. My top preference was the easily accessible district with various dining and shopping choices. As a resident of this neighborhood, I believe that the primary concern is ensuring our safety. Presently, the homelessness issue in the area has escalated, and a significant portion of the homeless population here struggles with mental health issues or addiction, which can make their behavior unpredictable and unsettling for us. Our building has experienced multiple break-ins by homeless individuals seeking shelter from the cold. Don't get me wrong, I empathize with their struggles, but when it comes to our property, I want to have the assurance that my family, including my kids and wife, will be secure. Additionally, it's disheartening to note that my wife has encountered harassment on several occasions at Central Pointe Station, further highlighting the importance of addressing these safety concerns. The good news is that addressing these issues does not require a significant financial investment and could be implemented right away, providing relief and security to the residents of this neighborhood. I like the active sidewalk but i would also like to see some green space intermittently in there, that might already be the plan idk. I also really like the idea of giving a feeling of a narrow road for vehicle users. If there are any other design measures that are proven to work in other places even outside the USA, please also do that. I would rather see safe design fostering safer environments rather than a (losing) game of enforcement. added green spaces to make sidewalks and pedestrian paths / home areas more appealing and feel less urban. added dining / shopping. WALKABILITY, RESTAURANTS, AND LESS CARS Green spaces and pedalist/pedestrian friendly. Preserve the single family home areas that are thriving. No new single houses, townhomes/apts and walkability to restaurants/businesses. Minimize big box/parking lot sprawl and minimize standalone things with parking lots like fast food buildings. Green space, green streets, and ample setbacks from buildings. For sale housing rather than stacked rentals. I love the idea of additional east west connections as well as the green spaces and added walkable dining and other amenities. It would be nice to feel like this area has more of a central hub and that it is more of a community space. Activation at street level The pedestrian bridge over 2100 S is most appealing to me (I would prefer to never be on the same plane as cars, but I'll take what I can get), followed by anything that slows down cars. The more inconvenient it is to drive, the better our city becomes. Thank you for working on this. I like the walkable shopping and eating and mixed use spaces. I live nearby and enjoy the current stores so close. I don't feel excited about high density housing in that area, but it would be better with some more shopping and dining. The green space is kind of an after thought because right now it's just big huge stores, but green spaces always add to the ambience of the neighborhood. Just hope they don't make them ugly lawn everywhere that will waste water. Reluctant on green spaces if they mean just some lawn and a few trees. There needs to be a way to move people. 300 West is a major road that gets a lot of use so keeping traffic moving is a must. Please leave the area ALONE & focus on more important things that need funding!! STOP GENTRIFYING THE AREA! more multifamily affordable options. The bikepath extension from the end of the 300 W trail is sorely needed. It is almost impossible to go from Parleys trail to the 300 W and it is a crying shame. More density, less cars, less parking lots. Let's build a city where bikes, pedestrians, and transit users are prioritized. Cars should take a backseat for once. Reduce speed limits, make the space accessible for all road users. Create a place where people want to go, versus just pass by. I appreciate the greater ambition in Scenario 2 for creating a safe environment for walking and cycling, as well as the larger share of affordable housing units. A multi-use path along TRAX would make a huge difference for intermodal connectivity, as is already evident when one looks at the Porter-Rockwell trail that runs along the Blue Line between Sandy and Draper, or the Parleys Trail greenway along the S Line. Mixed-use development is one of the most effective strategies for creating walkable neighborhoods, and it is something I would like to see on a citywide level. R-1 zoning is an antiquated, midcentury idea and frankly should not exist in Utah's largest city. If we are going to meet the ever- growing demand for housing, we need to turn toward more space-efficient (and thus more eco-friendly) solutions. Overall, Scenario 2 does a better job at addressing this need. That said, there are some elements from Scenario 1 which I prefer. A HAWK signal, itself not a perfect solution, is still preferable to a bridge that requires pedestrians to go up a level and back down again. Pedestrian bridges make more sense when they cross over something at a lower level, such as a river or below-grade freeway, or when crossing over train tracks. In this case, the only benefit of a pedestrian bridge is that it is more convenient for drivers, while creating a more hostile experience for pedestrians. Thus, I would pick the HAWK signal and add traffic-calming measures for a safe, easy crossing experience. Furthermore, I like Scenario 1's emphasis on creative repurposing of historically industrial buildings. A neighborhood replete with eclectic local businesses is a far more desirable destination than a district of office buildings. Given the abundance of empty office space downtown, it makes little sense to dedicate more of our city to that purpose. I think the multiuse path along 200 West is a great idea, it could connect with the S-Line trail and perhaps extend north until it reaches downtown, integrating with the proposed Green Loop. Another multiuse trail perhaps on 1500 East, which could go to Sunnyside Avenue and then run back west towards Downtown. Would help make the 15th & 15th neighborhood a more walkable destination, the trail would also go within 1/8 mile of 9th & 9th (if it followed Sunnyside onto 800 South as it continued west), and would connect a total SLC loop that serves more residents. Future west side trails could connect easily, for instance Indiana Avenue could become an extension of the 800S/Sunnyside Avenue trail, and then could even connect with the Jordan River trail and other important west side connections. More car traffic lanes and less bike lanes There needs to be space between the streets and living quarters. Many new projects are built so close to the street that there are accidents just waiting to happen. You cannot force existing commercial buildings to repurpose or sell. Many are owned by small owners that are the heartbeat of the local economy. If not respected, you will begin a lost battle and waste millions of tax payer dollars. Politically you will lose faith to your indiscriminate agenda. A higher focus on small businesses utilizing existing structures is ideal. Especially the brick buildings already in tact. I feel it’s important to differentiate from Sugarhouse, which has demolished most of its previous character and nearly all of its history in favor of chains and apartments The less apartment complexes the better. Especially behind existing homes on those dead end streets. They create noise and reduce privacy and most the city is already overrun with apartments. They are ugly and typically are placed where buildings are that could have been repurposed for small businesses I liked seeing more atmosphere abs energy being brought to the area, with a safer ability to access 300W from West Temple. The narrow roadway would reduce the amount of accidents that happen on 2100 S. I chose reconnect to ensure that townhouses ARE NOT being built behind the existing homes on West Westwood, that would significantly reduce privacy for those homeowners and increase noise pollution. Increased green spaces and availability for small business. No to more apartments. Make this portion of the city different than the same ol same ol that is going on all over Salt Lake of tear down historic buildings, build bland apartments and low income housing. Rinse and repeat It looks like Costco and Home Depot are not present in Scenario 2--baffling since they're high revenue-generating and convenient since there is only one grocery store currently in the neighborhood (Winco). Scenario 2 seems dizzying, closed in, and chaotic that does little to add to the existing neighborhood. Scenario 1 gives me a "less is more" impression, providing more green space. Certainly not opposed to adding townhomes and duplexes to existing housing, if their size doesn't eclipse those existing homes. Hopefully changes could help slow and reduce traffic on West Temple, an oasis of trees and homes to be treasured and protected. The pedestrian bridge is the most appealing. Ease of access to trax is a must. Multiuse path along the trac line! East-west bike lanes! More trees and green space along roads. Retain existing housing and repurpose old buildings Love the ideas of retaining tree-lined areas and adding more connected green-spaces, paths, mini-parks. Absolutely pro bicycles and public transit, plus increased housing density while maintaining the existing single family housing. Would love for Costco to stay in the area, but ultimately would prefer Scenario 2 over 1 if it came down to an all-or-nothing type decision. the scenerios are crowding the area I really like the idea of more walkability between w temple and 300. Right now, with the trax there is a large barrier to get over there. I would also love to see more green spaces, restaurants/3rd spaces and shops in the area. I like the idea of repurposing the structures that are already there. This saves money and overall impacts the environment less. It will also impact the existing businesses and homes in the area less as well, as it probably requires less construction, overall. We already have a lot of walking outdoor malls as well as parks and green spaces in Salt Lake, so I don't think we need more of those. I would also strongly vote for the less expensive scenario. Adding green space and low income housing needs to be a priority as SLC faces climate change, increased pollution from cars and geographic conditions, and the increasing costs of living in our city. The existing buildings are old, unsightly, of no historical or architectural significance, and likely not worth rehabilitating. We just need all the greenspace we can possibly get Green spaces should include areas for pets and community gardens. Pedestrian traffic needs to remain safe from car traffic. Landlords cannot not raise rent with this new development (we are already paying high prices for apartments that are surrounded by air pollution, light pollution, noise pollution, and litter). I like the green space because it makes our city look a lot nicer but I also understand the need for bike lanes and wider lanes for traffic. One concern I have is the lack of street parking. I live on jefferson street and ever since the affordable housing complex popped up, our street parking in front of my house significantly decreased. The apartment complex visitors are now constantly parked right in front of my own house where I used to normally park. Make sure there is sufficient street parking Force the high density along 17th South, keep the other areas as commercial and single family. Stop letting multifamily/high density everywhere. 17th South is perfect place for it, as its already has a bunch! Still shows cars as the majority users of the Public ROW. More space for people not cars is most important in our shared public spaces. Path along Trax line. High density, walkability (connected paths), multi-use areas, trees for pedestrian shade Leaving it pretty much the way it is!! I like both concepts. The 300 W corridor between 1300S and 2100S need to be repurposed and reconnected. This part of Salt Lake City is "city" and cities are meant for people, not pollution and noise belching personal use vehicles. Our city would be a lot more livable with less cars on the streets and more people walking and biking through our beautiful city. Keep Costco! Create sustainable green spaces and reconsider large parking lots and rock park strips that contribute to higher heat. More trees with irrigation for sustainability. Thank you. I am both a business and property owner, several times over. I have always felt that the area had/has a very significant potential to redevelop and help the City meet many of its overall goals Scenario 2 allows for patios with the active sidewalk. I do still like scenario 1 to have more green space but scenario 2 is my favorite. Affordability requirements kill development potential unless the city is planning massive subsidies. I like any improvements that reduce the amount of space devoted to parking lots, reduce driving speeds and increase the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians if the residential uses are to be successful. I like the idea of mixed use with active ground floor, but don't see that being very successful elsewhere in the city. The area needs some kind of community space that is not private property, like a library or community recreation center. This could be adjacent to one of the pocket parks. Be bold in the intensity of development that is allowed. How are we going to fix the homeless problem in this area? There is a lot of theft, open drug use, drug transactions, human trafficking, deification, etc that happens right here in this neighborhood. If you build all these nice amenities like parks, benches / seating, etc. it will just attract more homeless people to hang out in the area. What is being done to prevent that? That is the MOST important issue in this area and it's what keeps this area from being a "nice" area. You will have to have a permanent and comprehensive solution to the homeless situation before building any new public space. Otherwise, you’re not going to get the usage and impact you want. No one will move in and walk around small parks and wider streets if there are homeless camps and vagabonds tucked in everywhere. Look at 200-300 East/South Temple -400 South and State St/600 South to 2100 South. No one will walk there because it is dangerous and gross. Fix those areas first before building new stuff. Trees What does this mean for existing businesses Appealing: - Light industrial. It's a use that is being demolished to make way for housing and is greatly needed. - Breaking up large blocks for street connectivity - Keeping big box stores and adding parking lot infill. The stores provide important goods and services for residents in SLC and the surrounding area. Missed Opportunity: - More creative and light industrial! There is huge demand and increasingly less supply in SLC! There are too many options and too much nuance. If the big box stores stay, green space, linear parks, and bike/ped access are important. If big box stay and have housing on or close to them, it starts to build a city-effect and setbacks should be reduced and bike/ped should have well defined and safe paths, not just access. High density development along TRAX line. Pedestrian crossing over 2100 South. As long as there are 4 lanes of fast traffic with a center turn lane, I can't imagine wanting to spend time near it. I love the idea of retaining the existing big box commercial buildings alongside new housing and mixed-use buildings. This reminds me of what is successful about the recent redevelopment in Sugar House. I'm less convinced that residential on top of existing big boxes would be very appealing, as is shown on top of the current Home Depot in Scenario 2. Continuing the new protected bike lanes along 300W should be a priority, which seems to be here. I'm not sure if a green corridor on 200 W would dilute traffic on these bike lanes or if it would supplement them. I would appreciate more detail on that, as visibly underutilized bike lanes could sap public support for infrastructure improvements. Demand for office space in this part of the city (as suggested by Scenario 2) currently seems quite low, but perhaps with additional street life and amenities that would change. Very important to have the street trees and pedestrial separation from vehicle traffic, but the high density will also help since demand for housing is still high. There are far greater needs in the city. This is just a solution looking for a problem. Don't waste the money. I like the more urban feel of 2 I like both street designs, although I would prefer to see both implemented depending on the adjacent structure/uses. I doesn't necessarily have to be a one size fits all. This area in particular is short on greenspace and tree inventory (being a former commercial/industri There is no need for 15 feet for an amenity zone. (Scenario 1) I do love the Multi Use Path. One thing I did notice that exists is the island next to Home Depot. That needs to go because we have people that are wanting to go North and they pull into the left turn lane to go INTO Home Depot in an attempt to turn LEFT to go North on 300 W. This prevents Northbound drivers from actually being able to turn into Home Depot as well as it blocks traffic in the Northbound direction AND Southbound until the car trying to turn North actually jams their ass into the Northbound lane. Also, we should not be using the Home Depot parking lot for other businesses. It is hard as hell to find a parking space at Home Depot as it is. Especially on weekends. No need to stick more businesses in there and making a bad parking situation worse. Please carefully consider driveways and car crossings at multi use paths. They create a situation where the cars have to pull into the ped path to get visibility for a safe turn. A squiggle in the path that leaves room for cars to pull ahead and ppl to cross behind might work? I live on MacArthur, which is one of the cul de sac streets along west temple. While I like the idea of connecting more east-west access, I worry about people wandering around more at night and the increase in theft/crimes in the area. One of the reasons I like the cul de sac is that people who don’t belong on the street generally don’t wander down it because there is no thru access. As for pedestrian crossing bridge on 2100 S, I’m not sure it would benefit much. I took the trax to school for the past 2 years and I found it was easy to cross 2100 S because the crossing guard comes down around every 4 minutes, which stops traffic and provides an opportunity to cross the street. I would rather see an over or underpass for the trax as this would alleviate much of the traffic congestion on 2100 s Mixed use infill around TRAX stations are essential for future growth. Focus on walkability and bikeablity. 300 W bike lane needs to be extended all the way through the project site I love the idea of pocket parks and a linear park Skeptical of park spaces if city is unwilling to address the homeless and drug addicted people. I like the idea of repurposing the older buildings and would prefer some increase in condo and townhomes but not too much apartment This area of the city is a good desert we need a grocery store! More green space NEEDED THAT WONT BE AN OBVIOUS ATTRACTION TO THE HOMELESS CAMPS! DO NOT WANT BUS STOPS ON 300 W!!!! NO MORE HIGH RISE HOUSING AND ADDED TRAFFIC IN AREA ! MORE POLICE PRESENCE IS NEEDED,HOMELESS PEOPLE IN AREA IS A HUGE PROBLEM, NEED MORE RETAIL,SHOPS, MOM AND POP NOT BIG BOX. MORE MIXED USE IS NEEDED. MORE ATTENTION TO DERELICT BUILDINGS For this district to flourish, there needs to be a focus on jobs/employment with higher paying jobs the AMI. For jobs close to where people live, economic clusters like Life Science, tech start-up culture and advanced light manufacturing need to be targeted and included in either scenario. A thriving area needs three essential legs on the community stool: work (jobs), live and play. Otherwise, this area becomes an urban suburb. More walkable cities, make UTA free, more affordable housing, more locally owned restaurants, safer walking neighborhoods You stupid fucks need to stop killing small businesses with construction. Fuck off I believe #2 in both cases is more realistic to the needs of growth. Sugarhouse and Downtown have taken the brunt of growth. Spread it out more. Most important is affordable housing so I support that aspect of Scenario 2 but, overall, feel better about Scenario 1 Leave the big-box corridor on 300 West but create connectivity for bikes and pedestrians. Allow high-density housing around TRAX station. As much green space as possible. Moving the area from car dominated big box shopping to bike and ped friendly fully activated neighborhood with housing and restaurants etc. This is a commercial and industrial area, not a place for walking the "neighborhood," going out to eat, or taking kids to a park. No one rides their bike or walks to Costco and Home Depot. Our access to these retailers has already been reduced by unnecessary bike lanes. The traffic on 2100 South from the freeway to Main Street is already super heavy. This area is BUSY!!! Let's be practical and not create a fantasy land with bike paths, sidewalks, and parks in an area ill- suited for this type of stuff. The only thing I like about this plan is the sky bridge over 2100 South to help keep pedestrians safe from the traffic. Building condos/apartments that do not have room for a business underneath is going to have negative consequences over time. We should only allow new multi-family housing structures to be made with room for stores/restaurants/etc underneath them, as that feeds into walkability being a useful or desirable thing for residents vs walking past many blocks of nothing but housing. make it easier to get from trax station to bike lanes The more green plants that can be included in the landscape, the better for all scenarios. Our air quality in the Salt Lake Valley is questionable, at best. Plants will help clear the air and keep summer temperatures a tad cooler. Higher percentage of affordable housing, more density and mixed use to accommodate our predictable birth rate and population growth Trees, pocket parks and setbacks. The item that wasn't discussed is pedestrian level lighting which I believe is extremely important for the entire area and City Wider sidewalks We need housing for the shelterless. Not more development to keep the pockets fat of the wealthy. This city sucks at being community driven. IKt would be nice to see you reuse the existing, Building new, taller, more dense apartments is already the norm. Take a break from more bigger, denser, buildings. We favor the most density possible I prefer a walkable eclectic mix of uses with green streets. The retention of the big box stores provides multiple benefits to the neighborhood including retaining sales taxes, employment opportunities, an access to fresh and healthy food. They attract other SLC residents to the area for shopping, dining, and entertainment as well. You can not get rid of Costco. It is the closest and best grocery store for many of us in 84104 other than the worlds worst smiths store (at 800 s 900 w) otherwise we have to go to downtown slc to shop. This is the main area people living downtown and in the avenues go for their big box store needs. Yes, housing is needed in the city but if you remove those big stores entirely, you'll force buying dollars online or out of the city. Create a large indoor Trax train station as a hub, especially in the winter months. Go big or go home! There is no reason to be "gentle" with density at UTA's highest-ridership station. This is the most connected location for public transit and land use should be maximized. We need to protect existing residents and businesses without sacrificing our neighborhood to giant scale development We need MUCH more affordable housing with home ownership (or townhouse, condo, etc) as an ultimate goal Owner occupied housing should be a priority. Are we no longer welcoming families with children? What is being done for those with limited mobility? The elderly? Not all SLC residents are able to rely on bikes, particularly in this area with our asthma rates