City Council - workshop

. you so Oh. you So, . . Bye. Thank you. so you so you you

WELCOME, EVERYONE, TO THE WELCOME, EVERYONE, TO THE WELCOME, EVERYONE, TO THE SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2026 CITY SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2026 CITY SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2026 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING. COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING. COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING. OUR MEETINGS ARE PUBLIC AND OUR MEETINGS ARE PUBLIC AND OUR MEETINGS ARE PUBLIC AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO JOIN US IN YOU'RE WELCOME TO JOIN US IN YOU'RE WELCOME TO JOIN US IN PERSON OR BY WATCHING FROM THE PERSON OR BY WATCHING FROM THE PERSON OR BY WATCHING FROM THE COUNCIL AGENDA PAGE, ZOOM, OR COUNCIL AGENDA PAGE, ZOOM, OR COUNCIL But, of course, we welcome feedback at any time. You can send us mail at P.O. Box 145476, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84114. You can also email us at council.comments at slc.gov. You can also call our 24 phone comment line, and that number is 801-535-7654. Comments we receive on agenda topics are shared with council members and posted on our website, and that website is slc.gov slash council. This brings us to item A1, which is an informational update that has been pulled from the agenda, and we're going to hear in a future meeting. The next item is item number two, and it's a resolution for zoning amendment at approximately 247 North 800 West Extension. Nick Tarvet, Council Deputy Director, and Aaron Barlow, CAN Senior Planner, are joining us at the table, among others.

Okay, I'll let Aaron introduce this. This was, as the Council probably knows, it was a late addition last week, so thank you for doing that. If the Council is comfortable with what Aaron will go over today, there is a limited formal meeting scheduled where the Council could continue or extend this ordinance if you so choose. PROPERTY ON 800 WEST FROM R17 AND R15 TO SR3 AND R15.

We received a request to extend this ordinance to provide additional time for the applicant to meet the conditions of that ordinance. And there's a few reasons why. Specifically, they are working through an appeals process on a fire decision. There are a number of other administrative things that are a little bit time consuming working with a property this tight. And the applicant has indicated they are actively working towards that. We received an email this morning with that packet. And so to meet those conditions in the condition was for a development agreement to put that together and get those things right, they need to get through this process first.

Any questions?

The applicant is here if you have a question for him, but it's not necessary.

Sorry, there was a lot of noise.

I lost your... The applicant is here if you have a question for him, but it's not necessary if you don't need to.

I don't know if there is any questions. I think that since there is no questions, unless there is something specifically the applicant wants to bring to the conversation,

You talk to the microphone make sure that the light is green and so on yeah the issue here like Aaron had said there's a number of fire related items and The landowner and a few of the other landowners had made some appeal requests to the fire appeal board There wasn't currently a fire appeal board seated YOU FOLKS ACTUALLY SEATED THE FIVE MEMBERS ABOUT A MONTH, MONTH AND A HALF AGO. AND SO NOW THAT THAT IS IN PLACE, WE'RE ABLE TO GET IN FRONT OF THE FIRE BOARD, THE APPEAL BOARD. AND WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU FOLKS TO SOLVE ANY OF THE QUESTIONS HERE. IT'S DEFINITELY SPECIFICS IN THE FIRE CODE. AND SO THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH. WE APPRECIATE YOU GUYS SEATING THE BOARD. AND WE THINK THAT WE CAN GET THESE THINGS RESOLVED QUITE

you know hopefully kind of painlessly good thank you thank you and we you know we decided to you know add this agenda item to accommodate the situation so uh you know it was uh came it came very late in the week so you know right now so we appreciate it thank you um so uh no no further questions on this thank you for the for the uh update on that we're moving on to AND THIS IS GOING TO BE ON THE LIMITED FORMAL AGENDA TODAY FOR THIS ONE ITEM. ITEM NUMBER THREE IS THE RESOLUTION FOR WETLAND MITIGATION PUBLIC BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND DISPOSITION OF SIGNIFICANT PARCEL. WE'RE GOING TO KEEP NICK TARVET AT THE TABLE, WHICH IS OUR CONSUL DEPUTY DIRECTOR. WE'RE GOING TO WELCOME PEOPLE FROM THE AIRPORT. Anderson, Director of Real Estate and Commercial Development. Brandy Ferguson, Director of Airport Planning and Capital Programming, and our airport director as well.

I will I will just give just give a quick heads up that there are two main process of the Council will have to be considering through this there are two separate processes we are going to brief them as one today but there will be two different public hearings coming up in October on that so we just want to make sure you understand that these gentlemen will go through what those differences are but there's the two processes that you will have to go through both will be briefed right now bill

Great. Thank you. Council chair members of the Council. This is a kind of an interesting subject matter. But back in the 90's the mid 90's which was really the last period of major airport expansion. The airport built the west runway and in mitigation for lost wetlands agreed to develop this mitigation site which is in question today and has since that time basically been responsible for maintaining the wetland mitigation. Over the course of time, as Utah DNR has expanded their activities related to mitigation around the Great Salt Lake, they bought the Black Hawk Duck Club some years ago. Then Director Joel Ferry approached me about the possibility of acquiring this wetland mitigation site, which would fit nicely with what they're doing. And we'd never really thought about the idea of selling it because airports basically don't sell land. We acquire land. And in conversation with the mayor's office and others, kind of all came to the conclusion that this would be a really good marriage because this is what they do for a living. It is not our core business. competency i would say although i give my maintenance group a really good and high mark for the job they've done it is obviously at the center of dnr's mission and purpose and so we began this process literally two years ago and it's taken this long to get through all of the hoops and steps that are required so let me turn it over to brady frederickson now our planning director to I'm talking greater detail and then later Shane and recent to talk about the financial aspects of this transfer proposed transfer.

Thank you and we're going to need to advance the slides these if you'll continue through the slide deck there it is. Thank you very much. Basically, this slide shows exactly what Bill Wyatt was talking about. If you look to the left-hand side of the slide, there is an area that is outlined. That's about 900 acres, and then there's also a little bit of a yellow zone in that area. This area that we're talking about lies about two miles west of the airport. What this does, and the first thing that we're talking about right now is simply, just like Bill was talking about, there's two processes here. We're talking about the public benefits waiver for the cost of a conservation easement. Now, as Bill was talking about, this site was purchased in 1995 for the mitigation of about 500 acres of wetlands that were lost during the construction of our west runway. This mitigation site is covered by a 404 permit, but when we bought the land, the parcels, we bought 900 acres. acres approximately 900 a little over 900 acres this this conservation easement will cover the entirety of those parcels all right all 900 when you really start looking at the public benefits it's it's one the conservation and the preservation of critical habitat and wetlands on the shoreline of the great salt lake this is a critical area the 404 permit area is in perpetuity but the rest of the the area is subject to regular zoning what a conservation easement does is it basically takes the the zoning component out and it preserves the land in perpetuity So it preserves critical wetlands. It also enhances air quality and then prevents those big boxes from being creeping closer to the shoreline of the Great Salt Lake. So if we'll go to the next slide. The next slide basically shows the area in better detail. I took off the wetland mitigation site, although you can see it. And this shows the 900 acres. And you can see that it's right there, right on the shoreline of the Great Salt Lake. And then it also borders some state of Utah property. So this action that we're looking at right now is we're asking to waive the fee, and Shane will go over that in a second, for the conservation easement, basically do a public benefits waiver. And this fits, I think, nicely in that definition of what it does and the public benefit from it. So with that, we can advance the slide. And I'll turn it to Shane.

So consistent with FAA regulations, the airport's required to get two appraisals since the value of the property is over $1 million. So we've received both appraisals. We're actually in the process of getting a third right now to review them, which is also an . Sorry, the microphone is going in and out, I think. But you can see there the value of the two appraisals we received so far, not only for the property sale, but then for the easement. So this is requesting to set a public hearing and sign a resolution to waive the easement fee for the remaining wetland mitigation property. We will be at the process of negotiating the final sell price with DNR following council action. I guess a couple other things that I'd mention, just in addition to what Brady mentioned. The airport spends about $70,000 a year maintaining the property, taking care of phragmites, which are high-producing, and they use a lot of water, so that'll help preserve the wetlands and the Great Salt Lake as well. And then Utah Open Lands will also establish a baseline maintenance plan for the property for the total of the 900 acres. So a couple other public benefits that the airport will receive. Next slide. So a little bit about the process here. We're holding the briefing today. We'll be asking to set the public hearing on October 6 and sign the resolution and then grant the easement to Utah Open Lands.

Which is action number 12. I would like to acknowledge our partners in this who are here with us. Chelsea Duke with DNR. Kate Richardson and Wendy Fisher with Utah Open Lands who will receive the conservation easement. So I appreciate their partnership, their wonderful partners in this project. So that's the first item would be the public waiver. There's the second item is the actual sale or disposition of the parcel. So you want to go back one one slide because again when we talk about the sale of the property and thank you for doing that when we talk about the sale of the property again it is all 951 approximate acres of the parcel so. Sometimes we get confused about what it's what's what's happening here conservation easement over 900 acres and then the sale of the property would be all 900 acres as well.

OK, could you advance two more slides there? Talk a little bit about the actual sale of the property here, the process. So back in July, we declared the property surplus, which is required under ordinance. Like I mentioned, we've received the appraisals. Those were done in August. We still have to obtain final consent from the FAA and the Army Corps of Engineers for the sale following the council action. We're here today briefing council on this disposition and requesting a public hearing on October 6th. We'll hold the hearing not only for the value of the easement waiver, but the disposition of the property on that date. And then we will sell, close on the property following that. So probably expecting November timeframe for the actual sale.

I think that's the That concludes our remarks Council members Good yes, go ahead I understand the the sale The revenue from the sale of the property will need to remain within the airport. Where do you anticipate those proceeds? being allocated within the department I

Well, first of all, whatever it is, it would be approved by the council. But I think our generals, it has to be spent within the general context of the airport improvement program guidelines of the FAA, because that's where the purchase price came from in the first place. But probably for the center runway extension, which is very expensive project which we're still in the planning stages but we would probably use it for that or propose using it for that that's what we're doing

On the open space side of the House. So that we have to do in order so it stays in open space in for a duty. Are any buildings allowed on open space or any development as far as sidewalks boardwalks outhouses buildings got. Anything else of that nature. A lot of them put in spaces or they just

There is a provision that says a small maintenance facility, I think, is approved on the site, but no major structures. So if the state of Utah needed to put a little maintenance type shed for some equipment, that would be acceptable, but that is it.

That's it. Okay. That's it. And then we can just do just keeping in so that we don't have a firm out using anything else out there that's sucking up water, but it's just it. Exactly clearly natural.

And it's going to be the the wetland site will will maintain its in perpetuity. So there will be some some of the like frag mighty seal they'll go out and get rid of the frag mighty than that and and make sure the habitat is is up.

And would the state have the ability to rezone that area at all? Because it's open space?

Yeah, the easement would cover anything. That's the beauty of the easement is the terms of the easement will be on there. So if the state went in and rezoned, you still have the terms of the easement that will maintain that site. To keep it from development. Exactly right.

Okay, I appreciate that very much. Okay, thank you.

Okay. No more? Thank you. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. And now we have the number four. And this is an informational item that relates to the airport, the public-facing electric vehicle charging station fees. And we welcome Kate Werritt, Council Policy Analyst, and we are keeping our airport friends at the table. Kate.

Great. Thank you. In 2020, the City Council and the Mayor issued a joint resolution establishing electrified transportation goals for Salt Lake City. These goals included electrified municipal fleet, support for electric vehicle public transportation options, and higher than national average increase in the use of electric vehicles. electrified personal vehicles by residents. This includes the development of EV charging infrastructure for both public and municipal use. On the city side, there's been several steps taken to help this happen. You may remember last year we had the two studies that were presented to us by Sustainability and Public Services. Additionally, there's been fleet purchases and EV infrastructure installed. Also, as part of the fiscal year 27 budget, a fee was approved by you of up to 25 cents per kilowatt hour on public-facing EV chargers. And that's part of the reason we're here today. On the airport side, they currently do not have a fee, and due to their infrastructure, they propose to continue without one. The airport is here for your input and direction regarding this, and I'll turn it over to them.

Great. Thank you so much. And this is not entirely completely related, but I thought I'd just mention it anyway since we're up and running. The council in place at the time when the project, the airport redevelopment program was authorized also included a requirement that all of the ground service equipment for which electric versions were available be electric. And so the infrastructure was built into the project and so next time you're out at the airport and you're in security, go to that end wall And you can look down the concourse on the outside and see all those little yellow things sticking up. And they're EV charging stations for the electric ground service equipment. And at the time, so this is, you know, 19 or rather 2012, I think it was, or 13, there were... You know the tugs the basic tugs that carry the bag carts and so forth there were a lot of electric Opportunities for that but for some of the bigger equipment there wasn't push backs for aircraft and so forth now everything is electric And it's a pretty amazing thing to see and it just goes to show What you can do when you think down the road a little ways and and the airlines are actually quite happy with it We've had some issues, but really nothing that's a showstopper. It's been a really good addition. And now I'll let Brady talk about the public-facing side. Okay.

We advance to the next slide. One more. Thank you. I really did want to, as Bill has transitioned this slide really nicely, I want to really talk a little bit just briefly about the overall EV plan for the airport because I don't think a lot of people know how significant it is. When Bill talks about the ground service equipment, all the things that service the aircraft, we're talking about 349 chargers we have or about 600 parking stalls. That's over 500 pieces of equipment is now electrified at the airport, so there's no more diesel fumes spewing out of engines as they push back aircraft and service them. That's a significant... a significant improvement. Right now, the airport has we have a fleet of about 101 electric vehicles. This is kind of hot off the press news, but the FAA is offered us another $3 million to buy more electric vehicles. Right now we have four buses that will get us another one and then some additional vehicles to put in service anything anytime we can get gas powered and go into electric. and we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going to continue to do that. And we're going have about 496 ev charging stations that's a combination of the gse ones the some dc fast chargers those are for our buses and then the parking facilities and employee lots we also have those and coming up in mid-october you will actually see one for an electric aircraft as well which we're excited to to see will be leading One of the airports, large hub airports actually leading the nation in that charge as well. So we're pretty proud of what we're doing. Next slide. Next slide, this is just an example of what Bill has talked about. The one thing that I really do want to look at here is the level one charger versus a level two charger. I'm going to use that term throughout this presentation and I'm an airport guy, so like I get acronyms all the time. So like Bill usually taps me and says, Brady, you need to define what that is because nobody else knows what you're talking about. When I say a level one charger, level one chargers are simply plugs, okay? It's an outlet. It's a regular outlet that is behind you and these microphones are in. That's basically a level one charger. Our level two chargers are a little bit, they're more powerful. They charge your cars quicker. That's what we started with was level 2 chargers. They're about I think 7.6 kilowatts versus 120 volts. So we'll go to the next one. Let's just kind of describe where we're at. Next slide, please. So this is really all the chargers that are public facing that we're talking about. We have 27 level 2 chargers in the garage. Lot E, which is a really popular, one of the most popular lots. It's actually a walking lot that's just on the east side of the airport's ground lot. 10 level two chargers and five level ones and i'm going to explain the difference there or what we're what the airport is thinking and then in the economy lot which is that bulk lot which 10 000 over 10 000 stalls we have about 58 total chargers or 116 stalls available overall we have about 100 chargers or 200 parking spaces for the public to use as they are they use the airport next slide is really the the slide that we want to talk about thing in red says average passenger charging session is 3.97 days that's significantly different than probably in the city and the chargers you guys are seeing um we started with those level two chargers right because that's what We were kind of on the leading edge of installing chargers. We wanted to see, we started with some chargers, we started with level two, we wanted to put a premium level of service. Level two is a premium level of service, but as we started getting the data from charging stations, we started seeing the charging times. So what we've done is instead of replacing level two chargers or adding more level two, so we've gone simply to level ones. The nicest part about going from, well there's several parts that is really nice about going from a level two to a level one. The maintenance is virtually none. On a level two, you have service fees for credit card, credit card in, the cables. People drop the cables, they run over the cables, we have to replace them all the time. On a level one, just bring your own plug, bring your own outlet, bring your own plug in, right? So on a level one charger, we're seeing those utilized a lot. We basically, the EV owner of the car would bring their own charger, plug in, plug into the adapter just like they do at their house and then leave for their average of 3.97 days. Come back, they're probably charged all the way, right? One of the things we will do though is if you look at some of the premium, the garage and lot E, we will keep some level two chargers there because those are the business travelers. We see those turn a little bit quicker. But with that, we are just doing what we're talking about. We're recommending that we continue the course of when the level twos go out, we're going to replace those in most of our long-term lots. We'll replace them with level one chargers. And then in some of our premiums, we'll keep with level twos. But we'll just continue charging just for the parking like we do.

Council Member Young.

Thank you. I just have a couple of curious questions. So when it comes to the chargers, do you ever see us reaching max capacity where there are folks who are looking for a charger to be had, but they're not available?

Yeah. Yeah, I would say for the level two chargers that are in the premium, for example, we're kind of there now. So the basic pattern at the airport is Mondays and Tuesdays are pretty light. Wednesday starts picking up a little. And by Friday, you're all full. And we're in conversation about expanding those. But in the surface lots, our idea is to never come to that day so that people don't have to think when they're at home, God, can I drive my car to the airport? We'll be dead when I get back. And going to this strategy really makes a big difference because it is very inexpensive to install these, the 110 volt chargers. And another issue that we haven't really raised, but I'll just go ahead and do it. that, you know, at $10,000 a pop for the Level 2 chargers and for the amperage that it produces, one of these days the FAA is going to knock on our door and say, why are you giving this away? You're supposed to be collecting fees for that. At $120, it would cost us more to collect than it costs us to actually provide the power directly, probably. So I think that works really well, and I think for 95% of travelers, this is a really great thing where you can just pull into a stall, get the charger that came with your vehicle, which has a 110 plug-in, plug it in, come back in three days, and hey, you're full.

Thank you. I fully support the efforts to move towards the level one charge in terms of what that looks like. I will say I do know that, you know, having a family member who has an electric vehicle, that there are more and more of these charging stations that are coming online that do charge overages, like if you're just hanging out there. AND I GUESS IT'S NOT A NEED FOR HERE NOW AND TODAY BUT ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF SOME OF THOSE HIGH USE AREAS THAT MAY BE SOMETHING WORTH LOOKING INTO IN THE FUTURE JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO HAVE AVAILABILITY AS OPPOSED TO THE 3.97 DAYS BECAUSE THAT NUMBER SURPRISED ME WHEN I SAW IT. THANK YOU.

IT DID ME TOO. THIS NUMBER?

YEAH.

I mean, for me, for an airport, it makes a lot of sense to have a lot of level one chargers. I rarely use them because they don't serve me a purpose because I charge at home. But for a charger, when you live in town, it makes a lot of sense. So I'm hoping that we can build a lot more level one chargers and we have availability for people traveling and they can plug. I do want to explore fees for chargers. you know, much like there are fees for the parking, they increase over time, that there are fees also for leaving it, you know, let's say you have a trip, because this is an average. I'm sure that there is people that are leaving the car, you know, I don't know how big this sample is, but a week or two, and, you know, they should be paying a little extra for bugging up the, you know, the spot. And that might give you more ability to have more chargers, more funds for more chargers.

Especially in structured parking, because One issue that we're all going to be facing is that parking decks that were built You know more than three years ago four years ago. We're not built with the understanding that the weight of the vehicles would be three times larger than the average ICE vehicle and And so we're actually exploring that now. What does that mean for our garage? It may mean that we end up having to restrict where electric vehicles can be and go. And so, you know, the adoption rate isn't quite high enough yet for kind of full on, but it's coming. And those are costs that are going to have to be paid at some point.

Yeah, maybe this is a good way of you know for those who you know to carry a revenue source for for paying for that Any other questions can swim or are there more presentation? Is there more presentation to this?

Any other questions questions?

I Induced it you said that there are some level three chargers at the airport We do we have one for the airport vehicles itself.

We have a lot of Ford Lightnings on the airfield excuse me, which I'll just say our maintenance team, when we started talking about this, was not all that excited because it sounded so new and complicated. And it's been a huge winner for us because maintenance costs on the electric vehicles that we have are practically zero. Tires, and we go through more tires because of the striations in the airfield, but otherwise It's window washer fluid, basically. And so we put in a level three charger because these vehicles are operating 24 hours a day. And it's been great. And next to that, we're installing an even more elaborate charger for electric aircraft. a few of which have been kind of doing tryouts at SLC, and we want to have something available, and it's, you know, it's not permanent. It'll probably move over time, but, you know, this age is beginning, and we want to be part of it.

But for the public, there is no level three chargers, right? Right. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. This is fantastic. Thank you. Great. Thank you. ANOTHER INFORMATIONAL ITEM IS AN ANOTHER INFORMATIONAL ITEM IS AN ANOTHER INFORMATIONAL ITEM IS AN UPDATE ON EXPANDING HOUSING UPDATE ON EXPANDING HOUSING UPDATE ON EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS, ZONING TEXT OPTIONS, ZONING TEXT OPTIONS, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT. AMENDMENT. AMENDMENT. WE'RE GOING TO WELCOME MICHAEL WE'RE GOING TO WELCOME MICHAEL WE'RE GOING TO WELCOME MICHAEL SANDERS, COUNCIL POLICY SANDERS, COUNCIL POLICY SANDERS, COUNCIL POLICY ANALYST. ANALYST. ANALYST. AND THE HULKA CAN SENIOR AND THE HULKA CAN SENIOR AND THE HULKA CAN SENIOR PLANNER. PLANNER. PLANNER. BEN B

Thank you, Council. So the Council was last briefed on this proposal in February of this year. Since then, the Planning Department has completed their public engagement process and held several additional informational work sessions with the Planning Commission. The purpose of this briefing today is to update the City Council on the process to date and does not require any Council action at this time. The city council consideration process will occur after the planning commission recommendation is transmitted to the council. And with that, I'll pass it on to the planning department.

OK, thank you for that introduction. Again, my name is Andy Holka, senior planner. I'm excited to introduce to you expanding housing options. Most of the council, you've been briefed on this before, but we wanted to provide an update on what's happened since you last heard from us and the public engagement, what we've been hearing from the public, certain topics and items that we'd like you to further consider and discuss. Next slide, please. So overview of the proposal expanding housing options is city council initiated change to the residential zoning rules to ease the housing shortage. The primary goal is to enable small infill housing that's compatible with existing neighborhoods and attainable to buy or rent. The districts that are affected by this proposal are all three of the R1 zones as well as the R2, SR1 and SR1A zone. Next slide please. And here is a map on your screen of the affected areas. So as I mentioned, there are six different zoning districts affected. This change would impact properties in all of the council districts. Of all of the city land, about 36%, but it's about 77% of all the residentially zoned land. So wide ranging impacts, citywide changes that affect virtually every neighborhood in the city. Next slide, please.

So, EHO includes a couple key aspects. One is the new small lot dwelling land use, which would allow small lot dwellings, including single-family dwellings, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes on smaller lots. It modifies the base zoning districts, including their lot dimensions, heights, setbacks, and lot coverages, amongst other things. It also modifies the flag lot standards, most notably making them a permitted by right use. Right now they are a conditional use and require a public process. Next slide, please. We want to be clear what EHO does not do. It does not eliminate single family zoning or the base zoning districts. Those remain intact. It does not prohibit the construction of new larger single family homes. You're still able to do that if you meet the underlying base zoning district standards. Small lot dwelling standards are not required to be followed unless you opt in to utilizing those. All historic overlay protections will remain in place. Any new construction in local historic districts will require a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Landmark Commission. All design guidelines and standards apply there. And no zoning map modifications are being made in any way. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. So small lot dwellings, like I said, is a new land use. It would be subject to specific regulations, including 2,000 square feet per unit is required of land area. Those dwellings would be limited in size, both internal size and the space that they take up on the ground. They would have similar setbacks to the base zoning district, and they would have similar height allowances as well. And then they would require one parking space per dwelling unit, similar, identical to the affordable housing incentives, actually. Next slide, please. Here is some diagrams that show footprint and gross floor area. So the footprint would be limited to 850 to 1,000 square feet, depending on unit type. And then floor area would be 1,200 to 1,700, depending on building height. Next slide, please. This is just the table of standards for the small lot dwellings. As you can see, we have five different building types that would be permitted, and they all have very similar regulations to each other. Next slide, please. This table highlights the differences and similarities between the existing policy tools that we have at our disposal, including the affordable housing incentives and accessory dwelling units. As we know, accessory dwelling units cannot be sold. Affordable housing incentive units can be sold, but they do come with a restrictive covenant that limits the price. Next slide, please.

All right, so that was an overview of the small lot dwelling proposal. As Ben mentioned, those are a separate land use similar to ADUs where they have kind of their own chapter in the code and their own separate rules. For new construction that is not a small lot dwelling, any expansion to an existing home that's over that minimum size or new construction of a larger home, Those projects would be subject to the base zoning district standards. So we want to review those as well. We are proposing some changes in the base zoning districts. So what we have on the screen is a comparison chart showing the current and proposed standards in the three different R1 districts. We've highlighted a couple that we want to draw attention to. So this proposal would increase the maximum building height From 28 feet to 30 feet for pitched roof buildings and from 20 feet to 24 feet for flat roof buildings. Then under that you can see the front yard minimums. One thing we want to point out, which we've discussed before, is that currently front yard is a block face average that is being proposed for removal with just a straight 20 feet or equal to an abutting front yard. And then we wanted to point out the maximum building coverage would be increasing, and that affects all three of the zones, going up from either 35% or 40% to 50% in all three R1 zones. Another thing to note is that across all of the base zoning districts, this proposal would remove the lot width requirement. Next slide, please. The R2 zone is our duplex or two-family zone. The proposed changes or modifications to this zoning district are very similar to the R1. Same increases to height and same setbacks on lot coverage. um one thing to note about the r2 zone is that the current code limits how many duplexes can be on a block face and so this proposal would also remove that limit to allow more duplexes in the r2 zone next slide please and then the last of the base zoning districts impacted by this are sr1 and sr1a One thing we want to point out is that SR1A is the special residential zone most common in the Capitol Hill and Avenues areas. That zone is notable for having a lower maximum building height than the other residential zones. So you'll notice in SR1A, the proposal raises the height for pitched roof from 23 to 25 feet. and then for flat roofs from 16 feet to 20 feet. Otherwise, these proposed changes are similar to what's being proposed in the other zones. Next slide, please. And then the last major component of this proposal is changes to the flag lot requirements. For those who may not be aware, a flag lot is a lot that's subdivided behind an existing lot that doesn't have frontage on a public street but is accessed by a private driveway or some sort of private access. As Ben mentioned earlier, the main change here is that they're currently a conditional use, which means in order to have one of these approved, you need the planning commission to hold a public hearing and make a vote. So changing that to be a permitted use would just require a standard subdivision process and avoid the lengthy public hearing. We're also proposing some changes to other standards that can pose unnecessary barriers. Things like driveway width and the minimum flag lot area are being changed as well. Next slide, please. And so we are going to provide, just as I mentioned, a summary of the engagement. Pretty much all year, our team has been going to events promoting this project online and in person. So we want to give you an overview of some of what we've done and then highlight some of the themes from what we've heard from the public. Next slide, please. So as mentioned, we had online engagement. There was a project website set up on Shape SLC, the city's engagement platform. That got over 2,000 visitors. There was a survey there. We got 152 survey responses. This project was also promoted by email to planning department email as well as I think several council members have promoted this and then some posting on the SLCgov social media platforms as well. And then beyond the online engagement, we had a pretty extensive in-person events and meetings. There were 13 public events with various groups and stakeholders across the city. Those events included things like open houses that were coordinated with the community councils, as well as town hall meetings, and then other events like the farmer's market. We went to the Olympics watch party and a few others. Next slide, please. And then beyond that, this project has also been featured in different media coverage. As you can see, it was featured in Building Salt Lake, KSL.com, the Salt Lake Tribune, Citycast Salt Lake Newsletter, and Homes.com ran an article on this. We've had multiple articles as well in the Tribune. You may be aware another one recently came out over the Labor Day weekend. Next slide, please.

So some common themes that we've received throughout the hundreds of comments that we've received include size limits, the footprint and gross floor area that we just talked about, yard spaces, the setbacks, increase to building heights and impacts on privacy, parking and ownership opportunities, Some commenters believe that this will irreversibly change the fabric of Salt Lake neighborhoods, while others think that this project does not go far enough in various different aspects. So we've kind of ran the whole gamut of potential comments. Next slide, please. In June, we took a public engagement report to Planning Commission and requested direction from them whether staff should make changes based on the themes that we've identified. Again, those are listed in front of you. Planning Commission did not direct staff to make any changes, so the proposal that they saw then, no changes have been made. Next slide, please.

Great, and let's move on to the next slide as well. So we wanted to do just a quick highlight of each of those themes that we discussed with the Planning Commission recently. As this is only a briefing for today, I think it's intended mostly to be informational, but we do expect to have lots of in-depth conversations with the Council about your opinions on these topics as well. So one theme that we noticed was floor area and family-sized housing. So as was discussed previously, For the new small lot dwelling types of buildings, in most cases, those are limited to a maximum gross floor area of 1,200 square feet. That, as we discussed, gross floor area means all of the internal space, so including if there's multiple floors or a basement. All of that combined could not exceed 1,200 square feet in most cases, or 1,700 square feet for buildings that are only one story high. What we heard from the public on that is that some people felt 1,200 was appropriate, that that was an adequate starter home size, maybe a little bit on the small side as indicated by the name, small lot dwellings, but still appropriate for families. We've got on your screen an example floor plan of a typical 1,200 square foot unit that's got enough room for three bedrooms. So our analysis of some of these comments, while some people felt this was an appropriate size, others felt it was not big enough, that it would not provide space for families. And family-sized housing is one of the goals of this proposal. So our response is that 1,200 square feet is at least adequate to accommodate up to three bedrooms. It does reflect shifting demographics and household sizes and preferences. People commonly we heard are not that interested in maintaining large yards and they would be happy to have a smaller unit on a smaller lot. And then also, just again to reiterate, nothing is forcing property owners from building these smaller units. If someone wants to build a bigger house with more bedrooms, that's still completely allowed under the base zoning districts. Next slide, please.

The next topic is the front yard setbacks. As Andy mentioned earlier, the base zoning districts, their front yard is currently required to be the average of the block face, which is pretty cumbersome for property owners. So that's been removed and been replaced with 20 feet or equal to the abutting front yard. Small lot dwellings are set at 10 feet of a front yard. Some people are concerned that these smaller setbacks for small lot dwellings could disrupt the existing street facades. Staff's response is that larger setbacks, especially when you apply them to smaller lots, disproportionately affect those smaller lots and takes up more space that could either be used for housing or for personal outdoor space. instead of paving over it, it could be used for housing. Next slide, please.

The next big topic that we heard a lot about from people is building heights, side yards, and kind of how those two standards interact and impact people's views and privacy. So this proposal does increase building heights, as mentioned, slightly, just by two feet for pitched roofs, by four feet for flat roofs. But along with that there is also a proposed decrease in side yards for certain zones for r1 12,000 and r1 7,000 zoning district there's One of the interior side yards would be reduced from either six or eight feet down to four so in either case relatively small two or four feet adjustments on those standards, but there is an increase in height and decrease in side yard setbacks. And so we heard from people with concerns that that would be a negative impact to their privacy and potential to a negative impact to the views from their homes. A few things to consider as you're reviewing these comments and public feedback. Again, as mentioned, the proposed increases are intended to be modest. It was not our goal to do a significant increase in height, but just mostly to respond to comments that we've received from people who've had difficulty in the past building two-story structures to the existing standards. It's also a way to ensure that all of the standards are consistent across the zones and simplify the review process. And then, as mentioned, while we do acknowledge that there are those changes, we expect the impacts to be minor and difficult thing to balance that with the city's housing goals. And so our intent was to do minor tweaks to help allow more property rights and more buildings, but nothing too significant that would have a major impact on things like privacy. Next slide, please.

As you can imagine, off street parking was a hot topic. There are no changes to the base zoning district requirements. However, the small lot dwellings, as I mentioned earlier, would require one off street parking space per dwelling unit. That is identical to the affordable housing incentives. So, excuse me, some residents advocate for no parking minimums at all, while others feel that one space per unit is inadequate to meet demands and needs. Staff thinks that each parking space does add to the final cost of the house, whether that's rental price or the sales price. Parking spaces also take up approximately 200 square feet that could therefore be used in other ways that are not paved over. And then, like I just mentioned, parking requirements of one stall per dwelling unit is identical to affordable housing incentives. This was a major concern during that process, but there have not been any significant issues despite those concerns since then. Next slide, please.

Great. Okay. And then so one of the other topics that came up quite frequently was ownership and occupancy. As currently proposed, there are no restrictions in the proposal that would restrict who could own or occupy property, whether in the base zone or in a small lot dwelling. We heard from the public a lot of comments about this. People were really concerned about investor ownership, that investors might come in and buy up a lot of properties and use them for rentals or corporate ownership as well. And we also heard from quite a few people that owner occupancy was important to them. and so again a few just considerations as you're weighing these comments when we talked about this with the planning commission in june they were interested in exploring maybe innovative approaches to restricting say corporate ownership and as we did additional research um just ran into issues with legality, enforcement, administrative complexities and difficulties. So while restricting corporate ownership is not something that may be legally, administratively feasible, owner occupancy is something that we do require for accessory dwelling units. So that is a strategy that is available for you to consider. We did not recommend owner occupancy requirements for small lot dwellings for a couple reasons. Right now, there's no owner occupancy requirement for normal single family property. So if you own a single family home in one of these zones right now, The city doesn't limit you or restrict you from being able to rent out your home. So one way of thinking is that these smaller dwellings should have same property rights as the larger homes in the same district. There's also some people feel that adding more barriers, more paperwork and more requirements that turn up on the title report for any property adds more restrictions and becomes a barrier to the development of new housing. And then Housing SLC, the city's housing plan, does emphasize a need to increase housing opportunities for both homeowners and renters. And so those were our considerations when we put together this proposal. But again, this was a very hot topic that came up frequently. We'd be interested in your thoughts as well. Next slide, please.

Sorry next steps following a public hearing with Planning Commission. They will forward a recommendation to you the City Council You will then hold additional public hearings and briefings And then you will make the final decision Next slide, please That is all we have for you

Thank you for the presentation. Can anybody wants to start? I want to single you out, Councilmember Petrie.

Is there a reason why we're so worried about square footage when we already have limitations on setback and height, which by virtue of that, we're limiting where people, either it fits in their space or it doesn't. Is there a reason why we would go that extra mile and limit the square? I don't care if it meets all those other criteria.

So the square footage limitation is, I would say, a pretty key strategy to this proposal to promote the relative affordability of the units. The square footage translates directly to the final price. And so what we heard from people quite regularly throughout the process was that There was a desire to support more housing. People definitely agree we need more starter homes, things like that. But there was, I would say, a lot of negative response to a feeling that if we're just allowing any type of housing, large luxury housing, or like McMansion-style housing, there was some negative perception around that. And so the limit on square footage is intended for a couple reasons, as mentioned, to ensure that while it's not deed-restricted affordable housing, it would be a more natural-occurring affordability by restricting the size. And then also to ensure that what gets built is smaller and fits in better with the neighborhood context. and then also it acts as somewhat of a a demolition deterrent or it minimizes the amount of profit that could be realized on any new unit and so it would be less profitable to just tear down housing and build new. So there were a couple of those considerations that were important to us as we were drafting it. But I'm not sure if I'm missing anything, but I think those were generally what we were thinking of when we put that in.

It seems to me we can't control things like finishes. Can't say you have to have a laminate countertop in instead of granite. The ground's already paid for in this scenario. So what we're putting in really is in what we're building. So I understand it, but Councilmember Wharton and I have had KIND OF DEEP THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS. I DON'T SEE THIS AS THE VEHICLE TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I SEE THIS AS CREATING THE CONDITIONS RIGHT FOR PEOPLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND CREATE AFFORDABILITY WITHIN THE CITY. THERE IS A LOT OF NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. THERE'S A LOT OF WORK WITHIN OUR DEVELOPER COMMUNITY THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. IT'S ASKING WAY TOO MUCH OF A ZONING ORDINANCE TO FORCE AFFORDABILITY. And the fact that we can't, and I would not support an ordinance, because I like choosing my own stuff, that would say what finishes I can and can't have in a house. So I appreciate that, but I do think we're asking a lot out of an ordinance. And I was discussing the definition of what a single family zone now does may have to evolve with persistent economic realities that our generation is going to face that the generation before didn't face. And maybe the single family-ness of it means that a single family decides what happens there, and it's not someone else renting out or leasing out. But I have three kids, and I'm trying my darndest to launch them and make sure that they can launch. But if one of them chooses to have a public service addiction in a nonprofit career like their mom, It's going to become less and less likely that they can own their own house. I like the idea that I could split my house into a quad so that I could make room for all of my family. I like the idea that I could put an ADU in the backyard that could fit not just my child, but maybe a partner or a grandchild. I keep going back to the fact that we down zoned this entire city out of fear of developers when we hadn't an Olympics coming in front of us in the 90s because we were afraid of what developers would do. And now we have a dearth of naturally occurring affordable housing as a result. And I would really hate if we don't proactively take the chance to use a zoning ordinance like this to set the right conditions and then work on the other things around it that would make sure that while we're setting the table for affordability, that's what we're gonna get served by those who would come and take advantage of the ordinances.

Council Member Wharton.

Thank you. I think I have concerns, but I would say one of the main ones is that it, and I think one of your slides kind of illustrates this, it seems like this is kind of going against or undermining things that we've already done, like affordable housing options or incentives. If I don't have to build an affordable unit and I don't have to, and I think it undermines the ADU changes that we did too, if I don't have to build an affordable unit and I don't have to occupy, why would I not just go with these options where I can... Turn both units, the principal and the small, into two rental streams and then use that money later to take down both of those and build a fourplex and then make even more money. I worry that this, on top of the changes that we made, takes us backwards because you're actually incentivizing residents to pay for their own displacement, which I think is a perversion of what we're all trying to do. So I also, I have some examples if people are interested. I took some council members on a tour of some, hold on, let me give you a cue, of some of the things that I've seen in my district since the changes have come. These are just ADU examples. And when I look at these, I think, okay, these, so each page is one, unit that's from different angles. So it's only three examples. But I think you have two ADUs that are pretty big and pretty maxed out. And I guess one of the concerns I have too, so setting aside the affordability issue, setting aside the owner occupancy, is with some of the setbacks in the example of, if you can go to the next one. So in that one, the one on the top is a neighbor that's on the, I don't know what, perpendicular street. So the lower one is the one, the ADU from the view of the principal dwelling. So you can see that the ADU is kind of behind it and is at the end of the driveway there. Fine. on the other like go around the corner and several houses up that's where the second picture that picture on top is it's actually the adu is closer to the back of that person's house than it is to the principal So that person's backyard is about 10 feet. So what happens in places like Capitol Hill and the avenues where some of the houses are built right up to the lot line, And I feel like a lot of our discussions have been, well, if we reduce it from the lot line to four feet or five feet, they've got the other buffer on the other side. But that's not always the case in my districts because they built right up to the lot line. My neighbor's house is right on the lot line. So I feel like it doesn't quite account for those situations. In terms of like the privacy concerns and all that now some of these residents, you know are mad that they could see the mountains and they can't and I think that's You know one Piece of feedback. I think it's another one to say how fundamentally this changes this person's yard And that they basically don't have a much of a yard anymore. Like it definitely doesn't have any light. It's going to be shaded all year round because this house is west facing. So this structure, the way this works, like They can't grow anything. They can't lay out in the sun. Not that I ever do that. And then in the first one, to me, the first picture, I should reorder these. Can you go back to the first one? Slide. That, to me, looks like a whole other house. It's pretty big. It's got, I think, two car garage underneath. or room for two. And you can see the impact that it has on this yard. This is one of the very, very few lower avenues houses that has a pool. But the house is kind of like right there in the yard. It's about 15 feet back. And so to me, I'm like, these are things we already voted for and are allowing. And I don't see what... adding my concern is I don't want to be like too heavy-handed because I do want to hear what the feedback is in front of the Commission but my question is like how does that not kind of undo the progress of what we're trying to achieve with these things and add more to the concern as opposed to. And is it doing more to help or doing more to harm? Is my question.

I think that we'll probably consider specific direction from the Council after the Planning Commission makes their recommendation. But I think maybe one thought is that something that we've kind of stressed throughout our public engagement process is that in a way, this is trying to kind of re-legalize what was historically allowed. And so, as you mentioned, it's very common to build housing with maybe smaller setbacks closer up to the line. to be tighter in and have different building types. And that is what was allowed, and that's why your neighborhood is the way it is today, but similar development pattern is no longer allowed. And so maybe one point to consider, but as I mentioned, I think we'll get into more specific recommendations at a future meeting.

I think it's also important to note that not every property is going to be eligible for all three of these things. It may be that properties only can do an ADU or only use the affordable housing. So the idea behind this is that if we have more tools that give people more options, it's increasing the likelihood of us as a city getting more housing that PROVIDES PEOPLE MORE CHOICES PROVIDES PEOPLE MORE CHOICES BASED ON THEIR OWN NEEDS. BASED ON THEIR OWN NEEDS. IT MAY NOT BE GREAT FOR EVERYONE IT MAY NOT BE GREAT FOR EVERYONE WITH A HOUSEHOLD OF FIVE. WITH A HOUSEHOLD OF FIVE. MAY NOT BE GREAT FOR PEOPLE WITH MAY NOT BE GREAT FOR PEOPLE WITH A SINGLE OR TWO PEOPLE IN A SINGLE OR TWO PEOPLE IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD. THEIR HOUSEHOLD. BUT THIS OPTION MIGHT BE GREAT all different kinds. But the one thing we do know is that even with those other tools, it's a very small percentage of properties that are utilizing either of those existing tools. And that is pretty consistent throughout the country with properties that allow or cities or even state overrides that address ADUs that do things like having affordable housing incentives and things like that. They're really small numbers. And so part of this is expanding that toolbox so that collectively those small numbers start adding up to be more meaningful.

Is there a way, though, then to say that expanded housing opportunities applies if you can't meet the requirements for the affordable housing incentives or for the ADU and make it so that those tools are preferred? Because I do feel like those are better aimed at the affordability issue. THEN THIS ONE WHICH IS KIND OF I THINK MORE BROAD THAN JUST AFFORDABILITY.

WELL, THIS IS ALSO ABOUT ATTAINABILITY AND CREATING MORE HOUSING OPTIONS FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN. OKAY.

The other thing I wanted to address is just that, as you said in the presentation, that this is pretty wide variety of choices and that it applies to all of the zoning districts. So that's about 2 thirds of the city. I would like to build upon the work that you have already done. And I think I'm looking for support or interest today to do a mailer about this with a QR code that will have the results of what the planning commission says, whatever that may be, and where residents can go and look at what would it be in my zone or whatever, and be able to give us that feedback. So this is more to my peers than it is to you guys. But I'm just looking at you because you're right there. That I think that we've been really transparent and gone above and beyond before when we did affordable housing incentives and the ADU changes and the RMF changes that we did. I think this is in keeping with that tradition of transparency and that core value of being over communicating with residents about what the plans are and would note that when we did those we still decided to go forward with all of those changes so um i think that it's important that we have that i think it also um avoids the um possibility of residents going to like the state property rights ombudsman and saying that that this house impacts their property and that they weren't given appropriate notice that that could delay WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IF WE DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD.

YOU MADE A CASE FOR THE STRAPPLE. I WILL ENTERTAIN THAT. THERE'S A FEW MEMBERS THAT WANT TO SPEAK TO IT. YES. TO DIFFERENT THINGS. I WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT. OKAY. I WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT PIECE uh some thoughts about about the lack of transparency uh and i put that in air quotes uh because i don't believe that that's the case but i would love to entertain that um but if you finish with that i think okay just that i want i don't think it's a lack of i just want to build on what you have done okay

Well, I'm happy to go in so Thank You councilmember Wharton What I'm hearing in what you're sharing about a desire for a mailer and more public engagement That it's important. We take the time to get this, right?

Yes, and that residents know

and that residents know. And so I support continuing public engagement on this and understanding that residents understand that this affects 77% of all residentially zoned land in our city. And I will say that even as a new council member, understanding zoning restrictions is not the most exciting topic for most folks and most residents. And so I think it is incumbent upon us to educate as many of our neighbors about these proposed changes as possible. So I think it's important we get this right. If we are going to... go a different direction than our peers went in the 90s, we have time to make this right, to make this decision thoughtfully and with a good amount of public feedback and insight into what will help us meet the goals that we're seeking to meet. And I have other thoughts on some of the other pieces that Councilmember Wharton shared, but I'll give my time to Councilmember Young. Councilmember Young.

Thank you. I concur on the mailer piece. I was just running some quick numbers based on what's in the presentation. So if we do conservative estimates around that there's 200,000 residents, 77% is 154,000 individuals if we go one per that could be impacted. And so based on the 152 responses we've seen in the survey, that's less than 0.1%. And again, I think that in terms of scale, for me, I'd just like to see an opportunity for us to get the word out. I think, and I say this with all sincerity, you guys set the bar really high with mixed use zone. And I think that the department and all of the staff did an incredible job of really you know giving us lots of opportunities to be able to get the word out and to be able to engage different individuals and really that engagement is not just the getting feedback but it's also that education component i will personally state that i've seen presentations from members of the community both on the side of support and not support who are getting the information wrong where they're showing things where you're like, that's not what's being proposed in this space. And to me, that's what gives me pause, is when we're seeing misinformation out there. It just, to me, says that there's more opportunity to... clarify like what is the actual intent here um so that we're getting feedback that's based on the the truth um and not sometimes maybe a misperception of that um that's been more accessible i guess than some of the information coming from the city

And I think this is the point that I want to make, because to me it's about timing. This ordinance is still evolving and changing. We're still waiting for the planning commission, and I think it was way too premature to send mailers and fearmonger, to be sincere, to many neighbors, they're just fearful about any sort of changes in the neighborhood. And while the ordinance is still evolving and changing from planning and from ourselves, we haven't yet had the chance to do that. So I think it's about timing to me. And definitely, I think this certainly is going to bring up a lot of public to this, a lot of press. And we have seen some of that brewing in the last few days with some emails and some petitions and some and not so many of those sometimes in there that are confusing and trying to scare away people about any changes, but it's about timing. So how do we sort out the pieces that we're debating and how could this ordinance change to make sure that we are not bringing only the homeowners to this city because this is what is gonna happen and that's my fear is that we're gonna bring homeowners only to give us feedback which unfortunately, and this is a thing that is personal to me, unfortunately they're mostly older and they're also, which is, you know, they have a right to speak their mind too, but only, you know, older and white. And we want to hear from everybody. And I think that this is the fear that many neighbors have is that they don't want renters to move into the neighborhoods, they don't want people of color to move into the neighborhoods, and they don't want other economics to move into the neighborhoods. I think I want to be able to balance all of it. So I'm definitely a yes on doing a mailer. My caveat is what piece of information we share and when.

And I want to amplify. I spoke with Councilmember Wharton. I am always fine with involving more, but these two gentlemen came to a Valentine's Day event for my district at Señor Pollo. Like, they were in the most... like, nascent experience in my neighborhood. So if we just do the things that we've always done, we're going to get the feedback that we've always gotten. And it's going to be from a predictable demographic that cares about this, that understands the importance about this. So I would like something forward-looking. I would like an easy response QR code, like if we're going to do a mailer, I want a QR code that sends you to an easy response survey with like radio buttons hyperlinking to things that explain what it is. I don't want people to have to go to another page. I don't want them to have to formulate an opinion and worry about if they sound professional enough to be heated. I want it to be simple fifth grade level understanding. This is what could happen. This is what is intended to happen. What are your priorities? Kind of feedback. We are asking a lot out of people who are figuring out how to keep $5 a gallon going and have to worry about this too. And our inaction is an action that could hurt people. So yes to the collection, but also, and this is not on you gentlemen, I think your outreach has been Every time I've asked you, you've shown up in my neighborhood. So I want to amplify what you're saying. I don't want feedback just to capture the same feedback, just in a larger number. I want feedback that goes deeper than we've been able to.

You know, some of the concerns brought up, and I was in that tour, by the way. You know, thank you for doing that. And I actually have similar concerns to what you highlighted. And I think the avenue is a very unique spot that I wish we can explore some changes to that. You will probably have support there from me to figure out a middle-of-the-road thing. So, sorry, Councilmember Young, you have the word.

Yeah, so I'm just going to build on those statements to say I think one of the things that I found to be like the most useful is even in the times that you've come to present when we have visuals. The visuals, I think, make a huge difference in terms of the accessibility. And I think the team does a really great job of presenting it that way. I think sometimes when you put like, well, here's the actual text. you know like most people are like i have no idea what that means um and so you know that there's already a lot of great materials around that and i think it's just around being able to use that to to be able to help solicit the feedback and like i said i i really believe in that it's a two-way street it's also that education component about what is being proposed um so that it is that you know city message that's out there

um in terms of being able to clarify some of the misinformation that that appears to be coming you know from across the spectrum thank you um do you want to propose the that and close that chapter and and then will you be okay or do you want to add something We had my little 2 cents.

I appreciate a race discussions. I think I agree with everybody that we need to get the Miller back on the you know all of our lots are mailers are perfect rectangles maybe throw in some odd shapes so people understand we're not shape, you know a bigger piece of pie looks like if they can do this 2000 square foot. But anyways, those are those are in the into the weeds of this I agree with the Miller. MY QUESTIONS ARE SEPARATE FROM THE MAILER SIDE OF THE HOUSE SO WE CAN DO THE STRAW POLL MAIL AND THEN I CAN COME BACK WITH MY POINTS.

So to me, the caveat to support this is what else we're going to be doing to reach out to other constituencies that we have in the city beyond landowners. I think the caveats of our information, accurate information, easy to understand information, I think we share that, all of us. So I will support that, Miller, if you encourage in the language as well, Councilman Wharton, reaching out to other constituencies, maybe in other creative ways to do that.

What I envisioned was just sending it to every address within the affected zones, so that would hit renters and property owners. And so I definitely want to hear from renters, too, because that's, as you heard from my concern, that's one of my big concerns. AND SO I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO SPECIFY THAT. I ALSO WOULD BE OPEN TO LIKE IF WE WANTED TO DO LIKE SOME TARGETED DIGITAL OR SOMETHING. I KNOW COST IS ALSO A CONCERN, ESPECIALLY THIS YEAR. SO I WAS TRYING TO SO MY PROPOSAL WAS TO DO THE MAILER BUT FOR IT TO GO TO ALL UNITS OR ALL ADDRESSES.

WITHIN THE AFFECTED ZONES.

YEAH. so That would be my proposal, but I'm open to the other things too. It's just a question of how much money we want to put towards that

Well, I mean, I think to me, you know, we're talking about, you know, probably 30, 40 grand just in mailers, right? That's a significant amount of money. But, you know, if we're going to invest in getting feedback from homeowners, I feel like we're putting some money aside and maybe we should leave that. THAT NUMBER FOR COUNCIL STAFF AND THE ADMINISTRATION TO GIVE US SOME BOUNDARIES. BUT ALLOWING FOR THAT PIECE TO BE ALLOWED AND THE OTHER PIECE TO, THE DIGITAL MAYBE TO BUILD ON IT LATER.

JUST AS AN FYI, IT'S ABOUT 70 GRAND POSTAGE.

AND THIS IS FOR ONLY THE AFFECTED AREAS? YES.

We'll double check with you guys on that.

Yes. And I guess the question that we're going to have, ultimately, should we take it from fund balance? So if you're okay with that.

Yeah.

But would you be okay to explore, to pay for the mailer, but also put strong words into, like, coming up with some other... Yes. Okay.

So I propose that we do a mailer to all... addresses within the affected zones uh that would go out after the planning commission i meant to specify this too it'll come out after the planning commission's um makes their recommendations and it would be based on what is actually going to be transmitted to the council so if there are any changes after planning commission it sounds like there probably won't be because they didn't direct you to make changes but if they do you could incorporate them And then that there would also be an amount to use for either digital advertisements or other targeted advertising pending staff's recommendations. Is that good?

Yeah.

Okay.

Show your feelings. Okay. We have unanimous support from the President. Yes, go ahead.

Back on the specific side of the house, you know, Peter was talking about the 1,200 square foot. So we came up 1,200 square feet for the house size and 2,000 square foot for the lot size. Where did those numbers come from? Did you look at larger, smaller? How did you come up with 12 and 2,000? Just curious because I know other people are probably asking that same question.

Sure. So Durham, North Carolina, they had a project called Expanding Housing Choices where they introduced small lot dwellings with those exact standards. They've seen significant decreases in the sales price on those houses. So staff believes that it is shown to work. Those numbers on that lot size, those house sizes, I believe they saw a decrease of almost $250,000 in price. And so we said, why reinvent the wheel? It's been shown to work there and elsewhere. Smaller lots, smaller homes, decreased prices.

Yeah. One of the reasons why we keep using the North Carolina example and the Portland example is they have produced the most comprehensive data on the results. But other communities have done this too. For example, not that we necessarily look at everything in Houston, but Houston's done a remarkable job of keeping housing affordable. And so they also have quite a bit of and they've been doing it for decades. So they've got a long term data set that demonstrates that. But there's other cities that have done it as well. And if you I mean we're happy to provide more information on these because they're constantly evolving. But if you look at the cities that have taken similar types of housing reform to their zoning code and put them in place and have had them in place for several years now. WHETHER IT'S MINNEAPOLIS, AUSTIN, TEXAS, THEY ARE ALL SHOWING REDUCED HOUSING COSTS IN THOSE SITUATIONS.

DID THEY ALL GO TO 1200 OR 1500? THEY VARY. THEY ARE ALSO SERVING DIFFERENT PURPOSES, RIGHT?

SO NOT ALL OF THEM ARE NECESSARILY TRYING TO ACHIEVE that we're facing in Salt Lake City. We've tried to find the examples and find the data that does

So I just kind of look forward to what the Planning Commission comes up and then what our results of our marketing so we can further have this conversation. And so I don't want to really have a debate on all this before the Planning Commission. So I'll just leave it right there.

I have a Council Member. Pietro first and then Council Member Carlson.

In speaking earlier with Council Member Wharton, we had identified that the two primary examples that we keep using, Portland and Durham, they each had supplemental policies around them that bolstered them. In Portland, it was their aggressive ability to do rent controls and use policy for that kind of thing. And then in Durham, it was a $95 million bond for affordable housing. have we been able to control for the variable do we have reasonable confidence that should we step into this and take this risk that this policy in and of itself will be enough to set the table or do you have other recommendations for things that might not be a zone that might be other ordinances

SO, COMMENTING ON THOSE TWO SO, COMMENTING ON THOSE TWO SO, COMMENTING ON THOSE TWO CITIES, YES, THEY DO HAVE CITIES, YES, THEY DO HAVE CITIES, YES, THEY DO HAVE SPRINT CONTROL. SPRINT CONTROL. SPRINT CONTROL. THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT WHAT THEY'RE PRODUCING IN WHAT THEY'RE PRODUCING IN WHAT THEY'RE PRODUCING IN THEIR SMALL LOT VERSION IS THEIR SMALL LOT VERSION IS THEIR SMALL LOT VERSION IS ACTUALLY SUBJECT TO THAT. ACTUALLY SUBJECT TO THAT. ACTUALLY SUBJECT TO THAT. THEY ALSO HAVE INCLUSIONARY THEY ALSO HAVE INCLUSIONARY THEY ALSO HAVE INCLUSIONARY ZONING, So that there's property tax abatements, there's cash, there's other things available to those to make those things work. Because most data and research on inclusionary zoning is showing it actually isn't working widely, same with rent control. And so there's all of these other pieces in there. We obviously can't do those things. And so we're trying, like I said, we're trying to pull the pieces out that do closely align. Because we know every city has their own externalities that come into play.

Council Member Carlson and then Council Member Young.

In thinking about these other cities, I have a couple questions and apologies if you shared this in the earlier briefing, but did they include an owner occupancy requirement in any of those other examples?

Durham did not, no.

Yeah, I didn't notice. It does get complex looking at all these different, because we looked at state level changes, some county level changes, and cities of different sizes. Some cities chose to make their change through the subdivision ordinance, allowing what can be subdivided. Others, their zoning is not very similar to how ours is set up. It was really a challenge putting this together, trying to take the larger ideas of allowing more different building types, allowing smaller land and building sizes, taking just the general ideas and then trying to draft it in a way that's consistent with what our zone allows. taking our one zones, allowing more than what some of our RMF multifamily zones allow. We're not going beyond what we've already done with affordable housing, but trying to fit it all together. And so that was a challenge, absolutely. And we definitely want feedback on that, but that was one of the things that we considered was taking those big ideas and then kind of translating it in a way that fits in with how we do things here.

Of the cities I've studied, I have yet to find one that requires an owner occupancy requirement outside of ADUs.

Okay. And then a follow-up question is, you know, for a property owner to, say, take advantage of this ordinance, there's a certain level of both technical knowledge and access to capital in order to really build that additional unit on their land or, you know, have a place for their kids to live. I'm curious in the other examples, were there any examples of, or the other cities, were there any examples of technical assistance or capital assistance to really ensure that those who took advantage of these changes were the mom and pops rather than large institutional investors?

Other cities have... TAKEN VARIOUS INCENTIVES. YOU KNOW, SOUTH BEND INDIANA CAME UP WITH ACTUAL APPROVED PLANS THAT COULD BE USED ON THEIR LOTS FOR THEIR VERSION OF THE SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT. I THINK MOST OF IT'S IN THE CAPITAL TYPE OF THING. AND THEN SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH OUR ADU HANDBOOK, THEY'LL PRODUCE THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE GUIDES TO HELP PEOPLE WALK THROUGH THINGS AND HELP THEM NAVIGATE NOT JUST THE ZONING IS ONLY ONE PIECE OF CREATING THIS. there's so many other regulations like if you have a mortgage on your property how do you work with that and all of those kinds of things that are completely outside of our ability to really control and so you know this is focused on what the city can do to help that because that's just one you know none of those other barriers matter if you can't even do it to begin with

Yes, you just set it up perfectly, Director Norris. So since we have our fearless legislative director here in the room as well, I do think that that's the other piece of this conversation. I continually see a lot of interest at the state level in terms of affordability. And oftentimes what I've seen as the proposed legislation tends to look like kind of shifting that land use authority from the municipality to the state level. For me, there appears to be a lot of opportunity to be able to kind of flesh out that landscape of these are all the other restrictions that we're battling against to be able to move into this space that Salt Lake City doesn't have the legislative authority to be able to address. to be able to have those conversations with state leaders to see action within that space that does benefit not just Salt Lake City, but also the entire state of Utah. And so I know as a part of this that that's been part of the conversation is This is what salt lake city can do, and these are kind of the spaces that we just don't have that authority, for me, I would love to see us kind of use that list and compile it as part of our considerations for legislative priorities moving into the next cycle. So that we're not just saying we don't like your solutions. that are sometimes coming from the state, but are instead trying to lead out in that conversation about these are needs and issues and barriers that we're confronting that you guys have the authority to help us fix. So let's come to the table and figure out what that looks like.

Of course, thank you. ANY OTHER? HI. CERTAINLY I, YOU KNOW, WHEN I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, I WAS INTERESTED IN SOME EVEN MORE REDUCTIONS THAN PROPOSED. SO I'M PROBABLY ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS. THINK THAT MAYBE THAT DISCUSSION MAYBE I SHOULD LIKE JUST TEASE THEM JUST BECAUSE I WANT FEEDBACK OF HOW APPROPRIATE SOME OF THOSE MAY BE FOR OUR CITY BECAUSE SOME OF THESE CHANGES YOU KNOW NEED TO BE IN CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE CITY AND TRUTHFULLY THE POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT I MEAN THAT'S REALLY A PIECE OF THE EQUATION THAT IT'S is the big elephant or whatever you want to call the big donkey in the room, is that the political pushback that we might get from our neighbors. But certainly I've been following this encroachment that Austin allowed into their ordinance in their front yard for porches only. So that space that you are saying you cannot build You know closer than the sidewalk than this 20 feet that you are proposing. I think that's 20, right? Is that allow an encroachment only for porches? And the idea is to bring people to the front of the house and to build more neighborhoods the old-school neighborhoods right like that some people And many of us are like wish we had more instead of this, you know boxes, you know that have a door and you know, you get snow and RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR STEP AS SOON AS YOU GET INTO THE HOUSE. I REALLY LIKE THAT PROPOSAL THAT PUSHED THE INTERACTION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CLOSER. SO I'M INTERESTED IN A LITTLE BIT OF THAT AND DISCUSSING THAT IN PUBLIC CERTAINLY POST PLANNING COMMISSION UNLESS CERTAINLY SOMEONE WANTS TO DISCUSS NOW. And I also – the backyard minimum to me is an interesting place to talk. I do understand – I feel like to me some of the examples of the avenues are – I sort of want to put them in a different box because it's so odd. But the majority of – maybe it's not fair because there's almost no – ordinance that solves a problem for every single neighborhood. There is always an oddity somewhere that is going to be probably the worst case scenario. But putting the avenues aside, I do want to explore some of that spacing to be probably allowing smaller spaces in there. I also the back alleys maybe allowing that to happen when there is a back alley present because it sort of creates a space that is there is a driveway basically many of those neighborhoods and Also the reduction of the rear the rear yard requirement for internal conversions if Existing home is retained So to me, it's almost like in a way of allowing some changes to happen to the main house, but not being limited because of that space in the back of your house. So allowing for maybe a leg extension to happen, growing some of this, naturally this house is only if the house, the main house is made up, is kept. The last one I've been working on, I mean working is a strong word, is move up the log coverage to a little further than what it is right now, which is 50%. To me, the premise is maximizing the land. Granted, the fear out there will be every single house is going to turn into this. The truth is that's not going to happen. The truth is that some houses are going to slowly, with years and years and years, will start adapting. But I'm looking into potentially moving that 50% lot coverage to 60% or something in between. So certainly I'm a little more in a different spot, and I know that that's going to bring up some thoughts and concerns, and they're legitimate to discuss. My premise is there's not going to be an ordinance that is going to solve all the problems. Granted, and I think that I don't want perfect to be the enemy of good, and I think everybody in this table is willing to discuss this. We're excited to hear what the Commission produces, and let's have a good, healthy debate in the future. But in the meantime, I will encourage the administration to really understand, and I know that you have done that, but just to put it a little more forward to those that are paying attention, to listen to the individual council members and the individual constituencies and how they're going to push us to adapt this ordinance and try to propose some caveats or some middle of the ground solutions to try to move the needle in the right direction. I worry that we may get too strong on what we wish we could accomplish and we don't get anything done. To me, this last piece of ordinance is the last piece that is missing and the whole equation here in Salt Lake. And I wanted to see it happen now, whatever that version is of ultimately. But so in any case, I appreciate everybody bringing up some concerns. If you have any other one, this is the time. No, no, no. We have a mailer to produce apparently and some other digital communication or otherwise. And thank you for your feedback.

Thank you.

Okay, so I will now, council members, I'll ask for a, this was a longer conversation, which maybe in the future we should plan it for an hour every time. I will now ask for a motion to recess from the work session and enter into a limited formal meeting. At the end, and it's a very short limited formal meeting, as you know. At the end of the limited formal meeting, we will enter into a closed meeting for the purpose of discussing attorney-client matters. So I need that motion.

Mr. Chair, I move that we enter into a closed portion of the meeting. Closed what?

Limited form of meeting first.

Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Chair, are we going to meet in here then?

We're going to stay here. We're going to have a limited formal meeting that has basically an item very short, and then we're going to close.

Mister chair, I move that we adjourn our work session and convene our formal meeting of the Salt Lake City Council. Limited formal meeting.

We're missing the clothes.

Yeah, can we add just and then go and then okay and Motion for the closed meeting immediately following for the purpose of XYZ.

Okay I thought I just make it at the end of the limited formal meeting.

We could probably do that I didn't think of that.

We could do that. You're doing it, right? Okay, I have a motion by customer Warren and a second by I'M GOING TO CALL THE QUESTION. I GUESS THAT'S NOT CLOSE. YEAH, ALL OF US IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NO OPPOSED. THIS MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY WITH ONE MEMBER ABSENT. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER WARREN.