Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm going to go ahead and call to order our planning commission meeting on January 28. And we will open up by taking roll.

Amy Barry. Here. Lila Rosenfield.

Here. Brian Scott.

Here.

Michael Vaila.

Mike, here.

And Richard Levert will be late. Commissioners Barrett and Burrows will not be in attendance tonight. We have a quorum.

Right. Thank you. Next, we'll move on to the report of the chair and the vice chair. I don't have anything to report, and our vice chair is not here this evening. So we will move on to the report from the director.

Thank you. I would just like to remind the members of the commission and those in the audience of the rules of decorum in the Planning Commission's policies and procedures. The rules apply to everyone participating, commissioners and the public. Please keep statements, comments, and questions respectful. Thank you. That's all I have.

Thank you. Next, we will move into the open forum. So we have a ten minute section for commissioners to bring up or address anything that's not tied to a specific project or application. So anyone have anything for that?

I do, if I May. So last week I talked a little bit about immigration and made a request that the staff investigate something. And I was advised that the most appropriate way to request that investigation would be to make a motion. So if I may, I would like to make a motion.

Okay.

I move that the Planning Commission directs planning staff to provide to the commission for consideration a zoning amendment which, to the extent permitted by applicable law, prohibits both public and private construction or use of facilities for immigration detention and enforcement, as well as a series of alternatives should such an investigation find that amendment not be feasible.

Can I ask you to repeat that? It was a little long and I was trying

to Sorry.

Take it for breath.

I move that the Planning Commission directs planning staff to provide to the commission for consideration set of alternatives which,

to the extent permitted by applicable law, prohibit both public and private construction or use of facilities for immigration detention and enforcement. So basically, I'm

asking the staff to investigate this to see if there are opportunities.

Okay. So you're asking staff to investigate alternatives to that or to not allow it?

To provide us a series of options to basically investigate what it would look like.

I guess I'm unclear as to what you're the scope of what you're trying to get at.

I mean, think I'm hoping to see what we can do in terms of land use law, the area over which we have authority, at least to recommend things to the city council, to reduce the scope of the potential harm of immigration enforcement in our community. And obviously, I am not necessarily an expert. I mean, have some expertise on land use law. That's part of why I'm on this commission. But I am not staff.

Staff is going to be best able to investigate the legal options and ensure that anything that they propose to us does actually comply with any policies that we and the city may have, as well as state and federal law. But really, the goal is to have the staff bring before us something in terms of a policy or a recommendation for the city council that would allow us to potentially, to the extent we can, ameliorate the harms to our immigrant communities.

And just one point of clarification. The motion is to consider putting the petition initiation on an agenda. And then the merits of if the commission were to vote for that, the merits of the petition initiation would be discussed at that future meeting.

Got it. Yes.

I appreciate it.

So yeah, she's motioning to initiate a petition for you to come back with a proposal to say, Here's what we would study, right?

And for it to be advertised on an agenda.

Correct. Okay. I mean I'll second it. I think there's some the staff can figure out the things that are a little nebulous in that. But I'll leave them to you.

For my clarity, so is the motion to have staff do this and come back to us? Or is the motion for us to have a discussion and then ask staff? No? It's to okay.

It's it's to come back. So the motion is to request that staff research the request. We'd place it on an agenda at a future meeting to discuss the outcome of the research and potential tax amendment Okay. Applicable.

So it's a three step process. Right? This motion would put something on the agenda, which would have research, and then the potential action would be another item after that second agenda item.

Okay. Okay. So we have a motion and a second. So do, I guess we'll just move to voting.

Amy Barry. Yes.

Michael Vaila.

No.

Lila Rosenfield. Yes. Brian Scott.

No.

The motion did not pass.

Thank you. I was gonna say if anyone else had anything for open forum.

If

not, then we will move to our consent agenda, which alright, one second. Has the approval of minutes from doesn't say on here. From what last meeting? Yeah.

From January 14?

Yep. Approval of Jan of the minutes from January 14, as well as the preliminary subdivision and plan development at approximately 344 West 400 North. So public hearing? Yep. Alright. So I will open any public hearing for that. If there's anyone who would like to speak on that item, you can step up to the microphone. You have two minutes. Alright. Then I will go ahead and close the public hearing and wait and see if we have a motion.

I will move to, approve the consent agenda.

I'll second.

Alright. We'll go ahead and vote.

Commissioner Barry? Yes. Commissioner Rosenfield?

Yes.

Commissioner Vela?

Yes.

Commissioner Scott?

Yes.

The motion passed unanimously.

Alright. Then we will move to item number three on the agenda, which is the rezone for the Mansell Manor at approximately 1726 Jefferson Street, 1750 Jefferson Circle, and 1790 Southwest Temple. Go ahead and hear our staff report.

That's okay. I thought I already had that selected. And then you can go just to put it here. Okay.

Perfect. Thanks. Alright. Good evening, everyone. Okay. Alright. My name is Cassie Younger, and I'm here to present the zoning map amend sorry. And I will be presenting the zoning map amendment submitting by the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City. The request is to rezone the following properties to the mixed use five zone, 1726 Jefferson Street, which is currently MU 11, a portion of 1750 Jefferson Circle, which

is

currently RMF 35, and a portion of 1790 West Temple, which is currently MU 8. There are currently 20 existing townhomes on the property, an office and storage building for the housing authority, and some vacant land. The area is surrounded by a tracks line on the west side of the property and large scale commercial that lines 300 West with businesses like Sam's Club and Ashley Furniture nearby. The housing authority also owns the land to the east of the subject property along West Temple and may redevelop these properties at a future time, but they are not a part of this rezone request. East Of West Temple transitions to single and two family zoning before transitioning again to MU 5 along Main Street.

A mix of MU 3 and MU 5 are along 1700 South, which have a number of small scale retail and restaurant. The applicants are requesting the MU 5 zone, which allows a variety of building forms and land uses, uses, generally five stories or less. I've put some development standards for urban house, row house, and multifamily building forms. All building forms are required to have 10% open space design standards, and all of the parking is dictated by the neighborhood context neighborhood center context. The existing zones on the property are RMF 35, MU 8, and MU 11.

So two of which are more intense and allow for a greater height than the proposed zone MU 5. Due to the varying standards across the property line suited for development, a cohesive plan for redevelopment was challenging. So a consistent zone that is also in moderate density will create a better and uniform product when redeveloped. The central community general plan identifies this area as the Peoples Freeway neighborhood. The the future land use map calls for a mix of medium residential residential mixed use and residential office, which general aligns with the applicant's request.

Their proposed community benefit states that 15% of the future units will be rented or sold at 80% AMI. This exact details of their development plans are not known at this time, but an estimated they will build an estimated a 160 to 200 units. Due to the flux of funding sources, more concrete development plans were not submitted with the application and are not required as a part of map amendments. The applicant will be required to replace the existing housing on-site if it is demolished. It would have to have the same number of bedrooms per unit and rented at the same rate.

The applicant is also required to provide tenant relocation assistance to move to those moving from their site due to the demolition of these homes. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the city council with the following conditions. The 15% of the future units would be at 80% AMI or below, that those units would not include the replacement the 20 replacement units, that tenant relocation assistance, shall be provided per code, and that the affordable housing proposed as the community benefit would not be eligible for the affordable housing incentives. Any questions or comments?

No? Alright. Then oh, yeah. Yeah.

I I'm just just curious. The second note that you had was at least 20 units with two bedrooms minimum. Mhmm. Why note three bedrooms? If indeed we're we're looking at at having families. Families with one or two kids, if they're not, you know, both boys or both girls, a two bedroom, you know, wouldn't work, you know, past, you know, eleven, twelve, thirteen years I'm I'm wondering why with with everything that we're looking at, three bedrooms are are never mentioned.

Yeah. So, that condition is for the housing replacement unit. So the 20 units on-site now all have two bedrooms. So they're just required to replace, those housing units with the same number of bedrooms that exist now. So because the housing units have two bedrooms, they would replace them with a similar size and rent.

And the applicant is here and has a presentation.

Yeah. If the applicant could come up to the front, and if you have an app or have a presentation, you have ten minutes. If not, we'll just move on. But in case we have any questions for you.

Would say in this case no I wouldn't

do Sir, can you please select the button on the microphone

I'm sorry.

And speak directly into it? Thank you. And state your name for Bring the on

close.

Can you guys hear me?

Yeah. There you go.

There you go. My name is Sia Syavi. I'm with the Housing Authority. Thanks for having me here to speak, commissioners. I do not believe we will give a presentation at this time.

I think Cassie did a very thorough job, and we would just reiterate what she was saying. I think some of the main points would just be that we're really trying to unify the zoning throughout. Maybe the first time someone's asking for a down zone on a property, but all the setbacks really make that piece of land undevelopable. And we just are really looking to even that out, get rid of the setbacks. And we're really excited for the possibilities of what it might go on that property.

With the ME five, we're asking for that because we believe anything higher would change the construction type, and it wouldn't be feasible. So we're just asking for exactly what we think can go on the

property. Okay. Thank you. I'll go ahead and open for public comment. If is there anyone who would like to speak to this item? You can step right up to the mic. Please state your name and you'll have two minutes. Oh, you a for which?

All Park Community Council.

Okay, cool. Great.

Please speak into the microphone.

Hello. Yes. Great. My name is Amy j Hawkins, and I have the pleasure of serving as chair of the Ballpark Community Council. In full transparency, I've also served as a board member of the housing authority of Salt Lake City from about 2021 to 2023.

I had to step away from that role due to work obligations, but I'm still very supportive of their mission and have positive relationships with other board members and staff. And additionally, our community council historically has a very good relationship with the housing authority because prior to the pandemic, the community council met there monthly in housing authority space before we switched to our current meeting space, which is at Salt Lake Community College. So just wanna make sure everybody knows we're pretty friendly. So on January 8, earlier this month, we held a hybrid community meeting. It was focused on one issue alone, this proposed rezone, for housing authority owned properties near Jefferson Street and West Temple.

The goal of the meeting was to help neighbors understand what a rezone would allow to be built on the site in the future, what decisions are being made now, and how to participate ahead of this meeting. We emphasized in our messaging about the meeting that no proposed site plans had been submitted yet. So the meeting was really, I think, focused on idea exploration. People took a lot of time. We really are grateful to the housing authority staff who sat with us after hours and explored ideas about what could happen on the site.

What does it mean to have that kind of zoning that is or isn't street facing? And how this lot consolidation has a relationship with the other housing authority owned parcels, what what that future might look like. We had less than a week to schedule and promote the meeting. We had 24 people attend the meeting in person and online. The meeting recording has been viewed 10 times.

Anyway, we're very grateful for your participation on relatively short notice. The majority of this lot cons consolidation is currently RMF 35. So this rezone represents an increase in density. And admittedly, there are some neighbors who are concerned about the neighborhood context. And I think some of that anxiety is also rooted in what we've been hearing about the 300 plan, which hasn't really moved forward.

But we've been hearing and hosting meetings about it for a couple of years now. The conversation about that plan and the conversation about the ballpark rezone keep focusing on a need for green space in our neighborhood while everything is being up zoned. And it it feels like in a way people keep passing around the opportunity to inject more green space into our neighborhood. You know, every every plan, every statement that comes out says we should look for opportunities to create more green space in this neighborhood. That's another place where the housing authority has heard us.

We know this is separate from this rezone. Sorry, was gesturing like you could see the parcels. But we anticipate that in our further conversations with another lot consolidation with the housing authority, we may get a small, green parcel in the neighborhood, and we're we're really grateful that you've heard that.

Thank

you for granting me the opportunity to point that out. It's we're really hungry for green space, especially as we keep hearing about projects to inject hundreds or, you know, when it comes to the 300 West reimagining thousands of more residents. We appreciate that as these seven individual parcels that are host that are owned by the housing authority, not much can be built on it. A lot consolidation makes sense. We're also very appreciative that we spent time addressing questions about the existing affordable units on the property.

The 20 affordable townhomes located on Jefferson Circle. Those are currently occupied by families. And we also appreciate staff, thank you Cassie, for noting that those would not be part of the agreement for at least 15% affordable units. And that's really all I have for you today. We're all oh, finally, I'd like to note that we're grateful that Dan Nackerman has assured us repeatedly, although this is not part of the agreement.

He said that he's heard people loud and clear that they want to see more ownership in this neighborhood. And we understand that the housing authority is looking at creative ways to possibly make that happen on some of these parcels. That's wonderful. We're an 80% renter occupied neighborhood, and we'd really like to make some opportunities for people to put down more permanent roots in Salt Lake City. Thank you for your time. We appreciate your attention.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? Okay. Then I will go ahead and close the public comment and open up for discussion.

Just to clarify, if this were instead of being down zoned, down zone question mark, if it were instead zoned up to match the MU 8 or the MU MU11, the same set of facilities could be constructed. Or are there restrictions are there height minimums on MU8 and MU11 that would prohibit the construction of what could be made on MU5?

In terms of typologies or

Typologies and also heights.

Yeah. So the MU 8 and the MU 11 zones do not allow for single family detached in some of those smaller intensity, like cottage style homes and those kind of things. And so the ME 5 allows all housing types. Okay. So those lower like, from the lower intensity single family detached and cottage style, all the and multifamily. And there is no minimum height for any of those zones.

Okay. But in terms of the number of units that are being talked about in the application materials, right, with two thirty, correct? That presumably would not occur with detached homes. So that facility could be constructed in either way. I've got to be honest, I'm a little concerned about down zoning and also creating this hodgepodge in a mixed zone on one of the parcels. Because this would not be a parcel consolidation, correct? This would just be a rezone.

Yeah. A lot cons they do wish to consolidate those lots that are all a part of the rezone right now.

Is that part of this motion? Is that

Yeah.

That doesn't require a planning commission approval. Gotcha.

Makes sense. Does anybody else have any thoughts or comments?

I just have a question. The third item that was listed by staff was that a tenant relocation assistance would be provided. How does that physically work? Is that new units would be built and when they were built and then tenants from older portions that are in the area then move in and then is it a phasing timing kind of thing? How does that system work?

So for the tenant relocation assistance, the housing authority would be required to provide things like pay for the tenants that are currently on their property right now since they would be forced to move if they demolish those buildings. The housing authority would then provide a stipend for a moving fee and pay the new application fees for their new housing, things like that.

K. Fair enough.

So I share the concern about creating a myriad of different zones. And I I appreciate the different housing types that are allowed in MU 5 that wouldn't be allowed in MU 8. But without a proposal, I don't even know if that's if they would be attempting to build those types of housing that are not permitted in MU 8. And I think the very least, I would support an MU 8 because we have a contiguous zone to the south for that to create some continuity. I don't as we look at these like especially inner block type rezones when they just keep, you know, promoting discontiguous zoning.

I don't think we yield the best results. So without a proposal to know they wanted to develop with the housing types that are only allowed in MU 5. I don't see that that's the proper zone for this area.

Just just a comment. If, I mean, each one of the the small smaller portions are MU 11, RMF 35, MU 8. I'm presuming that each one of those parcels are too small to do anything with unless there's a bigger parcel that starts making sense to be developed. So if the if the rezoning doesn't happen, then perhaps nothing happens because they're the parcels are are too small.

I'm I'm actually in favor of rezoning. I think it's just never adding in this isn't an evacuation, is it? Okay. I am just concerned when we start putting in a variety of different zones, especially I've said this before in the middle of a block in this case, kind of at this dead end circle, that we should be looking at continuity if we want to yield, I think, what will ultimately be better developments for this particular street or any particular street. So I'm not against consolidating the parcels or rezoning it.

I just would like them to have some continuity with adjacent zones. And if MU 11 was too high for them, MU 8, you know, I would be fine with that. But to insert a different zone MU 5 that doesn't match the adjacent parcels. I don't I just don't think that yields us with the best results, especially given that we don't have a proposal to evaluate if MU 5 was the zone that really let them do what they wanted to do with a variety of housing types. And so without that, that just philosophically, I don't feel like we get the best results when we take that approach.

Did you have?

Yeah. Just wanted to clarify why ME5. Initial studies with architect showed that a certain range of units would yield a certain percentage of parking spaces. And we could really, with the fire lane access, with the building massing, fit a single level of parking that would meet the requirements of that site. So actually up zoning and going more than that would require two levels of parking. And there's a water table at about eight feet. So any lower would go into that water table

and it would just be extremely expensive. We'd need to pump it constantly.

So So we really looked at how would if we use the ME5 or I guess the maximum density across the site yield one level of parking. I mean that's what really drove that.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, Jesse. But if they went to emulate hypothetically, that doesn't mean they have to build up to. Because we don't have a minimum height in that. That's correct. So it's, it, so it can yield you still your same, the same constraints that you just specified.

But it gives more continuity of zoning so that if at some point somebody else wanted to do that it had made more sense if they consolidated with other areas. And it doesn't mean you have to build up to an emulate and have two levels of parking. I think you could still do the things that you said and not encounter those issues within that zone.

I think also one thing to note is that before the rezone went in, I believe it was supposed to be ME5. So at the time of application these were completely different zones.

I don't think that we looked at putting any RMF into the ME zones. Those were very separate.

It was previously a R 0, the Taylor Gardens.

Yeah. The the recent zone consolidation did not tackle residential zones.

Are you talking about the R 0?

Yeah.

Yeah. So the what's M U 8 now was previously R 0, residential office. And I'm not sure if

that was something That would have been a while

ago. Right?

So in an initial kinda outlay of what the zones were supposed to be was showing that RO would go MU 5 and then we put the application in in order to match the MU 5 to the slot to use fire lane access. But when the new zoning change went into effect, it actually became MU 8 instead. And at that point, we were a little bit too far down the process to just, I guess, change to emulate on that.

Okay. Just for my clarity, I think that we can't decide to have their application be for hire. We would then have to reject this application. So

you can actually recommend a different zone. The agenda language does say that the Planning Commission may consider an alternate zone. So if the Planning Commission determined that MU eight was more appropriate in this context, you could absolutely do that.

Okay. Thanks.

Before we get anywhere, any motions I wanna say, I think looking at the looking at the map and looking at hearing the purpose and going back to looking at the map, it is piecemeal and a lot of things in different places. But MU five seems to be the predominant, I don't know, color on the map from what I'm looking at. It's unless I'm missing something.

It's the colors are kinda confusing. It's only m u five on that top corner.

I mean, I'm I'm saying in this entire Oh.

Area.

Yeah. M U 5 on the top corner. Yes. But this particular block was one thing. But for the area, I don't I don't see anything standing out there. So it's pretty consistent. I don't see any inconsistencies, I should I guess I should say. So I don't have a problem with M U 5, but if we need to go in another direction. I don't know. Sorry. I said I don't I don't see a reason to go in another direction, but if that's the what the board is doing, I'll I don't know. Probably support it. Are

there any comments other than looking at up zoning to MU 8 from MU 5? If not, then I'll go ahead and hear a motion if someone has one.

I have a motion, potentially. Let's see if I can get this right. Okay. Based on the information and present oh, in the matter of PLNM PCM twenty twenty five-six 90, based on the information presented and discussion, I move that the commission recommends that the city council adopt this request with the conditions listed in the staff report, except instead of recommending MU5, we recommend MU8, an MU8 zone for the requested area.

I'll second.

Okay. Go ahead and vote.

Commissioner Barry. Yes. Commissioner Leverett.

Yes.

Commissioner Rosenfield. Yes. Commissioner Vaila.

No.

Commissioner Scott.

No.

That passed three to two.

Cool. Alright. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioners.

Mhmm.

Next up, we will hear the update on the Northwest Area Plan. Sorry. Northwest community plan update. I get the names.

So sorry.

Okay.

Alright. Can everybody hear me? Wonderful. Always want to check. All right. So we're excited to be here to share an update on the Northwest Community Plan. It's been a little while since we've been in front of you. Next slide. So before diving into the specifics of the community plan, I'd like to provide a brief overview of the role of, community plans. Plan Salt Lake is the citywide vision guiding Salt Lake City over the next fifteen years.

It reflects where we are today, where we want to be in the future, and establishes a framework for decision making to help us get there. Each community plan advances that citywide vision while responding to the unique needs of its area. Using the guiding principles of Plan Salt Lake, this plan includes targeted initiatives, policies, and a future land use map that will serve as a road map for land use decisions and community redevelopment over the next fifteen years. For context, the Northwest community is generally bound by I-eighty to the South, I-fifteen to the East, and the area just West of I-two 15 and East of the airport. It includes the neighborhoods of Rose Park, a portion of Fair Park, Jordan Meadows, Poplar Grove, and West Point.

Even though the Northwest Community Plan includes the boundaries of the West Point neighborhood, the North Point Small Area Plan adopted in 2024 will guide the distinct vision and future development of that specific area. Community plans are intended to support the vision established in Plan Salt Lake while tailoring policies to the unique characteristics of each community. The draft Northwest Community Plan is structured around the 13 guiding principles in Plan Salt Lake. And once adopted, it will become an official plan of the city. It is intended to guide policymakers, residents, property owners, planners, business owners, and community leaders.

It is not land use code or regulation. It does provide a shared vision for how the community should look, feel, and function in the future. This slide summarizes some of the key existing demographic conditions. We went over the existing conditions with you in the summer. One particularly unique characteristic of this community compared to the rest of the city is its high percentage of residents who identify as part of a minority population.

Community outreach was conducted in two phases. Phase one included an existing condition report and presentation. And a community wide survey with the goal of gathering input on the community's visions and priorities. Phase two focus on the draft plan itself, asking whether adequately address the desires and concerns raised by the community. This slide highlights a sample of the feedback we received.

Common themes included safety concerns, housing accessibility, and the need for a local economy that supports residents' day daily needs. A full community engagement report is on Shape SLC and included in the com the packet that Planning Commission received. As mentioned earlier, the draft plan is organized around the 13 guiding principles. In addition, this plan also serves as an update to the North Temple Station Area Plan. And at this point, I'll turn it over to Cassie to discuss the specifics of each chapter.

Okay. Thank you. All right. So I'll be going over targets and initiatives for each guiding principle. Targets are the measurable goal for each chapter.

And then the proposed initiatives outline the steps we can take in order to achieve those targets. And then for just purposes of time, I'll just be outlining the targets, but I'm happy to revisit any of these slides at the end if you wanna dive deep into the initiatives. So for neighborhoods, our our main target was to increase public safety, which was our number one concern from the community. We also want to increase the number of households living within a half mile walk of essential essential services, balance per capita investment of public infrastructure and services compared to citywide averages, and then increase the amount of third spaces and community gathering areas. For growth, we want to increase the number of dwelling units that provide three plus bedrooms in order to accommodate growing families in this area and to increase the total land area of mixed use outside of the power district, so we can capitalize on that investment.

Our housing target is to increase the diversity of housing types for all income levels throughout the city. Our transportation mobility targets are to increase the percentage of dwelling units within a half mile of a oh, sorry, a quarter mile of a bus transit stop or high comfort bike lane, to increase the percentage of funding to improve neighborhood connections and general maintenance, to decrease number of bike, pet, and auto accidents, and to support the transportation division's efforts related to curbside management for both parking and other evolving demands of curb space. Our air quality targets are simply to reduce emissions and to increase the number of actions to address the harmful impact of existing polluters. For natural environment, the twenty forty targets are to increase the urban tree canopy of which this area has one of the lowest compared to citywide averages, to increase linear feet of river restoration, and to promote community investment in the Jordan River and Folsom Trail. Parks and recreation targets are that every household within the Northwest community has access to a park, trail, or green space within a half mile walk to increase public safety and comfort for all users within these park spaces and to expand the Jordan River Trail to the North Point area, specifically North Of Center Street.

For Beautiful City, our targets include to increase efforts to activate the Jordan River and Folsom Trails to establish visually attractive and distinct gateways into the Northwest community and to utilize placemaking art and signage to acknowledge the diverse identity and history of the Northwest community. Regarding historic preservation, our targets are to increase the number of properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places and to ensure city owned historic resources are actively maintained and preserved. Arts and culture targets are to increase the total number of community cultural community events celebrating the diversity of the Northwest neighborhood and to increase the overall public art within the Northwest community. Equity targets are to improve access to healthy, fresh, and affordable food within the community, to ensure that zoning supports new medical facilities, and to continue to support the implementation of thriving in place. For economy, our targets are to adopt zoning policies that promote the growth of small scale neighborhood, to provide financial subsidies for businesses that can fill gaps in the existing retail offerings, and to continue to support economic developments efforts in the North Temple Economic Action Plan.

And finally, for government, to ensure our local government is collaborative, responsive, and equitable. And for Water Smart Utah, this was added to the plan just a few weeks ago at your commission. So the 2,040 targets mimic those in Plant Salt Lake, and they are to update the water supply and demands every five years, to update zoning regulations, to reduce the amount of water demand and per capita water use, and to promote sustainable landscaping practices to reduce outdoor water use and storm water runoff.

Alright. So the North Temple Station Area Plan has been fully incorporated into this update. It will guide future growth around the four track stations along North Temple. The plan emphasizes mixed use development, enhanced pedestrian safety, and connectivity, enabling residents to walk, bike, and access transit safely while meeting their daily needs. Next slide.

The future land use map associated with the stationary plan designates a significant portion of North Temple as an MU district with some higher density allowances north of North Temple. The noted objectives which are displayed on this slide include first being create opportunities for mixed use development within the station areas. Allow for higher densities on land closest to the transit stations with decreasing densities further from the stations. Support the development of the Rocky Mountain Power Site as indicated in the DA between the city and the property owner. Analyze zoning to identify and remove outdated and ineffective regulations.

And promote homeownership within the station areas by allowing a variety of housing types. One of the significant constraints within the boundary is the lack of connectivity along and from North Temple. The station areas between 1000 West and Redwood Road lack a street network that connects with the neighborhoods to the north and south and throughout the station area. The only existing public street on the South Side Of North Temple between 1000 West and Redwood Road that connects to the other public streets is second South. I 80 blocks most connections to the neighborhoods to the South.

On the North Side Of North Temple in this area, there are a total of three public streets. 1460 West Cornell Street and North Star Drive. These three streets converge North of North Temple. There are no streets that cross the Jordan River to connect to the neighborhoods to the north. And there are two access points to the Jordan River through this area.

One where the Jordan River crosses under North Temple and another at Cottonwood Park. The plan identifies several objectives to adjust the connectivity issues. First being to work with partners to implement the transportation improvements associated with the development at the power state at the power site and the Utah State Fair Park. Work towards improving connectivity between the station areas and surrounding neighborhoods, including overcoming barriers created by the interstates and the freight rail lines. Improve access for pedestrians and cyclists to the transit stations on North Temple and the bus stops within the area.

And finally, mitigate public safety concerns along sidewalks, trails, and bicycle paths. The Future Land Use Map outlines a long term vision for growth and identifies properties with catalytic development potential, expands opportunities for small scale businesses, and supports increased residential density. Existing zoning is reflected with the future land use map designations on the left. And the proposed future land use map is on the right. Key highlights include the identification of major corridors for mixed use development, additional higher designations, higher density designations North of North Temple as mentioned earlier, mixed use and moderate density areas along the Jordan River Parkway to encourage activation, and modest increases in our lower density designation to support incremental growth.

Through evaluating public comments, city goals, and anticipated growth, the team developed developed six guiding principles for the future land use map. These are enhance and activate identified corridors as vibrant areas, encourage new infill housing development, activate the Jordan River Parkway and Folsom Trail, protect the Jordan River's riparian corridor, use moderate density to buffer regional mixed use areas, and to encourage appropriately secured commercial development throughout the community. Together, these principles will guide future land use decisions and community development. A few significant changes that are being made in the future land use map include the mixed use designations along these identified corridors. These designations address the desire of the community to grow their local economy.

The corridors were adding mixed use zoning to include 300 North, 600 North, 1000 North, 900 West, 1200 West, and Redwood Road. In terms of next steps, this is our first public hearing with the commission, and we hope to gather feedback and public comments this evening and hope to return in either February or March for a recommendation to the city council. With that, we're happy to answer any questions you have. And for those in the room or at home, we've offered QR codes that would take you directly to our website to view the draft plan.

Thanks. Great. Thank you. Do we have any clarifying questions before we open up public comment? Okay. Then I will go ahead and open public comment. If you would like to speak on this, you can step up to the mic, and you'll have two minutes or five if you're from a community organization. You can just go ahead.

Good evening. It's good to be back with you. I was here just a couple of weeks ago. My name is Soren Simonson. I'm the executive director of the jordanrivercom here in my official capacity with the commission.

Salt Lake City is a really important partner of ours in, working to implement, a thriving Jordan River, and there are many wonderful goals that are established in this plan. I do wanna, encourage you to, address what I think are some really important oversights, and we've shared these previously with staff. We believe that the North Point area should be included in the Northwest Community Plan. It was adopted just a couple of years ago, but it does not have the full comprehensive goals that a community neighbor, a community master plan does. And, significantly, there are many missing elements, of the Jordan River, especially in that area.

Important elements that should be guiding the development that's happening in the North Point area. But as we know from just a couple of weeks ago, the city is already undermining many of the goals of the North Point area by rezoning property or recommending rezoning of property that is really significant. Mayor Mendenhall has stated several times over the last couple of years that additional preservation of the really sensitive lands around the Jordan River and the Great Salt Lake Shorelands are high priorities. The Jordan River Commission, working with the Department of Public Utilities, has already secured millions of dollars to assist with preservation, which is not reflected either in the North Point community, small area plan. And we believe that the community master plan is the appropriate place for those big goals to be addressed.

Furthermore, there are properties that have been rezoned already, like the Crossy Ranch that were identified for preservation in the in the North Point Community Master Plan that are now at risk. And the implementation tools to preserve and protect areas around the Jordan River and really sensitive lands of the Great Salt Shoreland Great Salt Lake Shorelands, are also at risk. The last thing that I'll mention just briefly, we know that Salt Lake City residents have invested millions and millions of dollars through the bond initiative to improve the areas up to the northern boundary of the proposed plan. That doesn't include all of the areas up into the North Point, which is several miles of additional riverfront. There's no plan guidance in the small area plan for how the buffer of the Jordan River is to be developed and and utilized.

I think those are important policy considerations that ought to be in a master plan, and we believe that the community master plan is an appropriate way to talk about trails and connectivity and the use of buffers. We are receiving frequent comments ourselves from developers in the area. Should that area remain private? Should it be become public? Should there be trails developed?

And you're talking about numerous property owners, and a community master plan would provide the policy goals and recommendations for the long term enhancement and, vitality of the Jordan River for several new miles of river that were recently annexed into Salt Lake City. So we would encourage you to move forward with the great elements that are in this plan, but strongly encourage you to include and and address things that are not in the North Point small area plan, including, a new homeless campus that's been proposed, that's being developed in that area. That potentially will have very large impacts on the Jordan River as well, that need policy considerations so that those can be adequately addressed because they're not in the North Point Small Area Plan presently. Thank you for your time and consideration. We encourage you to perhaps give direction to staff to include the North Point and update really important policy goals that have changed since 2023 when the Small Area Plan was adopted to ensure the full vision of Plan Salt Lake is really respected and incorporated into this area.

Thank you.

Thank you. So, yeah, go ahead. Please state your name and then you'll have two minutes.

Yep. I'll send my comments in writing later. My name is Kurt Fisher. I'm a Fair Park resident. I have question, couple questions for staff on the anticipated build out.

What are the total number of high density existing units in the area? What are the total number of zoning acres that are under the existing zoning for high density housing. And third, under the proposed land use, what will be the total number of acres devoted to high density housing. My interest or inquiry goes to the build out population. You know, planners often use reasonable estimate ratios.

I think it's a 100 dwelling 100 dwellings per apartment units per or condominium units per acre in high density zones. And I'm curious what the total number of the build out is for assuming you adopt the proposed plan and amend zoning to build out the entire area. There are some published numbers like 4,000 for the power district. But, obviously, the map is expands high density use areas quite a bit. Thank you.

Thank you.

That makes sense. Somebody gonna answer the question or you're just

gonna We don't sorry. We don't directly answer your questions.

I'll Staff members right there.

Well, we'll we'll deal with it. Thank you.

They don't they don't return their calls. That's fine.

Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Nope? Alright. Then I will go ahead and close the public comment. And if there are things you would like to address or not, we can move move on.

Yeah. I can attempt to answer some of those questions. We published an existing conditions report back in the summer that categorizes all of the existing zoning within the Northwest community. And then provides a percentage within that community boundary and compared to citywide zoning. It starts at the lowest density and works all the way up to the most intense. I can provide mister Fisher with that URL URL after this meeting.

Could you please not respond? Just let her speak. Okay.

And then we can run some analysis as far as the comparison between existing zoning with the MU eight and then what we're proposing with the FLEM.

Okay. Yep. Thank you. I will open it up to us for discussion.

Do you care to respond to the comment about the Northpoint plan as to why it would be infeasible or unwise to or or maybe it's not. Maybe like, I I don't think it's just an oversight, obviously. Is there a sort of a a reason that the staff has?

Yeah. A couple of things with the North Point plan. So we do acknowledge that there is some lack of a trail network called out in the newly annexed areas of the city and trying to manage what happens with that land, which is why we have incorporated the extension of the Jordan River Trail into the northern boundary of the city with this draft. As far as including the the North Point plan, staff had has not found that it's an appropriate appropriate to include it in this update since it is quite a unique area in the city, and that small area plan addresses that future growth for that that specific community. What we can look at doing is taking a look at some of the the buffer language around the Jordan River and seeing if we can incorporate more policies around the Jordan River and throughout the entire community plan.

Regards to the homeless resource center that the state is proposing, our current draft and the adopted North Temple or not North Temple, but North Pointe plan does not support the proposed homeless resource center. We have not been given guidance to adjust this document to support such a center. So currently, it is left out of the document, and it is technically in the boundaries of North Point.

Okay. Thank you.

So I'm just wondering if you could flesh out a little bit better where the community plan and the North Point area plan interact. So that they're not, there's not like a hard division. That they're working together a little bit better on those trail extensions or preservation and whatnot. And that there may be some goals in the community plan that are not present in this malaria plan that are appropriate. That were just not part of that process because they weren't, they hadn't surfaced at the time that we did this.

So I would just ask that you look at those areas of interaction to ensure that there's some continuity and that we're not leaving one behind and we're not having a disconnect. And to also perhaps also do a review of some of the goals that are stated in the community plan if they are, if they're appropriate to be, they've been left out of the small area plan. Great. So I mean the commenter brought up, Soren brought up preservation. Whether it be historic preservation of buildings or environmental preservation.

Like are, you know, without remembering all of the details of the small area plan, it's hard for me to really think that, that one took care of it and the community plan isn't. So I would just ask that we look at those interactions to make sure that we get that right. Because the city won't come back to this area for a while for another master planning visioning. I think this is the time to kind of do that. I think it's fine to have the, this malaria plan be the superseding plan for that area because it is so unique.

But it also is unique in the way that it interacts with that whole community. And, and we should be making sure that those integrate appropriately with the big ideas and the big visions because they are going to be related.

We can absolutely do that and come back.

I oh, go ahead.

Well, I was gonna say on on a similar theory but different area, Wonder if you have any any comments or could you add anything later on around the Southeast area of the map. In particular, the border is naturally the highway, but living on that border and moving back and forth between those areas, it's not a natural border. You're trying to get back and forth. There are different reason different things over there. There's a lot of development.

There's a lot of density along from North Temple right up in that area. A lot of a lot of new density as well where people come into areas that didn't have housing at all before. And so how are they gonna navigate those different spaces and what what what does the plan look like to connect the 300 West Corridor with you know, to 900 West. I've I've walked it 300 West to 900 West a lot, and it gets very different in there and not very walkable in certain things. There are there are new bike lanes in different places.

Commissioner Leverett, can you please speak closer to your microphone? I'm having a hard time hearing you back here.

I was

talking with my hands and didn't wanna hit the mic. Sorry about that. But, yeah, thinking about those corridors and what that connectivity is like between those neighborhoods right along that border because with the with the rail and with the highway there and with a lot more density there, there's gonna be a lot more people navigating those two neighborhoods and spaces in that area that, you know, maybe ten years ago didn't have any walkers at all, any residential places.

Yeah. That's a great suggestion. So the this is the community boundary plan, and they're they're so these boundaries are funny. We have been trying to make the most sense out of them as possible. So we did clean up this this plan area, and we picked up what we considered kind of no man's land that wasn't in any plan boundary down to the Southwest. As far as 3rd West, it is in another community plan boundary. But we can definitely kind of, like, bolster some of the connectivity policies into other neighborhoods and communities.

Couple questions. First of all, is there a Spanish language version of this document? Is is that is it in line with city policies to produce a Spanish language version of this document? Not currently. Okay.

Mean, just worry because section 13 speaks repeatedly about good governance and the fact that nearly a majority of the residents of this community speak a second language in their household. And that part of building inclusive governance is making sure that we approach people where they're at in terms of language. I think that it seems like there's a disconnect there if we don't have some way of communicating this version, this document in Spanish language, and potentially if there are other languages that make up a substantial proportion of this neighborhood?

I can speak to that. I am the language access liaison for the planning division. Yeah. And any document that is on our website in possession of by the planning division can be translated as long as somebody requests that I can provide that.

Okay.

Perhaps it would be useful then for us to just make sure that that is known and clarified to anybody who might want to access this document in Spanish so it's not because sometimes it's scary to reach out to a government body. And if we need a request first, that makes sense. But making sure that people are able to make that request and aware that that request can be made very clearly. At the same time, so speaking on the same topic of language, section 10, there's discussion of culture. This also relates to section 13 with governance.

I'm wondering if there's any possibility for consideration or evaluation of multilingual signage in the Northwest community. Again, just given the level of linguistic diversity we have in this region, I would love to see an approach to our policy because that's like something the government or the city has pretty direct control over and might help make our communities more welcoming to everybody. Oh, and then a last question. So little there's bit of discussion about the industrial district to the far north. I looked at this, but can you just double check my log, there's almost none of the oil and gas refineries within Salt Lake City boundaries.

Is that correct?

Oh, they're in the city boundaries, but they're not in our community plan.

Okay.

Yeah. They're in typically Capitol Hill's community plan, and then some of them are outside of the city boundary.

Gotcha.

That makes sense. So most of the industrial uses up here are the automotive stuff along Redwood Road. Is that correct?

Yeah. There are some heavy industrial uses, some large polluters, yeah. Redwood Road near the airport. The airport's a huge polluter. Surrounded by interstates. I'm aware.

And maybe this is more for Plant Salt Lake, but I would love to see at least a pointing in the direction of trying to wind down fossil fuel related industry. Obviously there are limitations to what we can do in terms of state regulatory policy, in terms of a variety of issues. But if the plan is the time to set a visionary marker, a flag in the ground, I think that it's essential that we say, as Salt Lake, we don't want to be seeing the kind of industrial uses that are related to fossil fuel extraction, because we need to be keeping those fossil fuels in the ground to protect ourselves from runaway climate change. And so if there is a way of incorporating that in this plan and potentially setting future plans that, hey, this is how we're going be talking about this. We're going to be talking about reducing or moving towards the elimination of fossil fuel oriented heavy industry, including those automotive dealers when they are doing diesel work.

SPEAKER For sure.

Thank you. Yeah, we do have a number of air quality initiatives that speak to that. And maybe we of framed it in terms of just polluters or manufacturing. But we can definitely insert and modify that language. I think that language needs to be kept, but this

is like a, I suppose, a more specific, in addition to all of the like, how do we think about polluters? Because even if they're not necessarily polluting the air in this district particularly, although most fossil related heavy industries do that, any fossil related heavy industry, anything that's part of that supply chain is ultimately contributing to the global emissions of greenhouse gas. And therefore, it is perhaps wise for us to say we are doing our part as a community.

I think that is probably more a Plant Salt Lake thing, since it is kind of a larger overarching. Sorry, But go ahead. Were you gonna

Yeah. I think Plant Salt Lake would be the appropriate document. I know that the city, as far as our land use code is concerned, we are we are pretty restrictive on those types of extraction uses. A lot of those oil refineries along, like, Beck Street are they kind of fall under c code. So we do have some limitations as far as what we can do with reducing those uses, but we are happy to look into that.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

And, commissioner, on your first point, while this document, the draft doc document itself has not been translated to Spanish yet, the web page was translated into Spanish, and a lot of our engagement materials were posted both in English and in Spanish.

Excellent. Thank you so much. Yeah.

Made sure to have, several Spanish speakers on the team at every engagement event.

One thing I noticed and thought was interesting, but hadn't considered until I read it in there was about the idea of getting rid of billboards along North Temple. I think that that would be a great step. So just calling that out.

It's really interesting to look at the map and how it reduces any sort of development potential. Yep.

Yeah. There's that. And then there's also just like, it doesn't feel like a place you can walk then if there's a billboard.

Right? Lacks place making. Anyways.

There are pretty significant limitations on what we can do with billboards based on state code. Correct?

Yeah. Yeah. We're at kind of the whims of the billboard company, but we can dream that one day, you know, maybe a couple would be removed from North Temple or relocated elsewhere. We would want a motion this evening just to continue the Yeah. Public

I like it. So for PLNPCM twenty twenty five dash zero zero seven seven three, Based on the information presented in discussion I move that the Planning Commission table the item and continue the public hearing to a later date.

Alright. We have a motion and a second. Go ahead and vote.

Commissioner Barry. Yes. Commissioner Leverett.

Yes.

Commissioner Rosenfield.

Yes.

Commissioner Baylor?

Yes.

Commissioner Scott?

Yes.

Motion to table passed. Alright.

Thank you, guys. And we will move on. I think just anyone need a break? We good? Let's just roll on through the last one. We will move on to our final item, which is looking at the a work session on looking at the Capitol Hill community plan.

I can't remember how to get this to full screen mode. Menu.

And then view.

There we go.

Great. Mhmm. Thank you. What happened? Do you have a presenter mode?

I don't know.

Well, both

of us have

our notes on our

typed out right. Do you have notes in this at all? No. Oh, okay. Then I won't worry about it. Oh, you're in a PDF. That's fine. You're not in PowerPoint. Yes.

Okay.

Now I can't figure out exactly.

I think we can click this at the top here. This.

Alright. Brooke and I are here to talk about another community plan, which is the Capitol Hill Community Plan, which we are in the process of updating. The purpose of this meeting is to inform the commission of the process and share some highlights from the existing conditions report. And we'll also, go over some opportunities for the community to get involved in the process. So the current community plan was adopted in 2001.

This will create a vision through 2040. The intent is essentially to develop a plan that focuses on land use, links the land use policies with other plans such as Plan Salt Lake and Housing SLC, and identifies action items to implement the land use plan. We envision a plan that's easy to use, direct, and can be implemented and is set up to be updated more frequently than, taking decades. So this slide highlights, the role of community plans in relation to our citywide, plans. Community plans basically build on city policies and initiatives established in our city general plan, Plan Salt Lake.

Because each neighborhood and community within Salt Lake City is unique, each one is going to implement the citywide vision in its own unique way. This is the general process for updating plans. We are currently in the thick of the public engagement process. We've divided the public engagement into really three distinct phases. And right now we are in the opportunities and issues phase.

We kicked off this first phase in fall of last year. As part of the initial engagement, we published an existing conditions report that provides a comprehensive overview of the Capitol Hill community to establish a foundational understanding of the community's present state. So now we're just going to get into a few of the highlights from the existing conditions report. The existing conditions report is also linked in the staff report for your reference. So the plan area is located just east of the plan you just heard about, which is the Northwest plan.

It's bounded by I 15 on the West, North Temple on the South, the city limits to the North, and City Creek kind of open space areas on the East, and it sits just north of downtown. The plan area is approximately 7.25 square miles in size. It's home to several distinct neighborhoods, including Marmalade, Ensign Downs, and Guadalupe, as well as the industrial area of the city that you see there in the gray. This is a quick snapshot of the demographics. The Capitol Hill plan area includes four different census tracts.

This map shows the boundaries of those census tracts and the ID number of each. Several demographic characteristics in the existing conditions report are broken down in these tracts to show how the population differs depending on the location. So in terms of overall demographics, Capitol Hill has a population of 10,533 people, which is roughly 5% of the city's population. One interesting thing is over a twenty three year period, Capitol Hill grew by 29% while the rest of the city grew by 12%. And 82% of that growth happened in the Guadalupe neighborhood alone.

The Guadalupe neighborhood, for reference in this map is the tract on the west, the 1001. There's a high population of the a high percentage of the population 25 has a college degree. Median income is fairly similar to the citywide median income with the exception of the one census tract, which is the northern most census tract 1002, which is generally the Ensign Downs neighborhood. There are 5,779 households, which accounts for 6% of the households in the city. 25% of those are owner occupied compared to the city average of 47% of owner occupancy.

Capitol Hill has some of the oldest structures in the city with portions of the plan area being part of the original Platte A of Salt Lake City. The oldest residential structure dates back to 1852. This map helps helps visualize the development periods within Capitol Hill. Over half of the residential buildings in Capitol Hill were constructed by 1920, which is reflecting a historic residential development pattern that predates adoption of Salt Lake City's first zoning ordinance in 1927. In contrast, only 4% of the nonresidential buildings were built before 1920.

The nonresidential building stock in this area was built much later with about 60% of it being constructed between 1960 and 1980. And now Brooke is going to talk about the other existing conditions.

Yeah. So as far as land use and zoning, Capitol Hill has the broadest range of zoning and land use types in the city. A large portion of the area is zoned open space and manufacturing and extractive. 12% of the land is zoned residential, 3.5% is residential mixed use, and 2.5% is institutional and public lands. In terms of housing type, the majority housing type in Capitol Hill is apartments at 65% of the total housing, occupying 17% of the residential land area.

In contrast, single family homes consist of 17% of the total housing and occupies 72.5% of the residential land area. While the remaining 18% is other housing types including 9% condos, 5% duplexes, and 4% townhomes. The median home price in Capitol Hill between 2023 to 2024 was slightly higher than Salt Lake City as a whole at 582,500. The number of cost burdened households, which refers to those that spend more than 30% or more of their income on housing was lower overall in comparison to the city as a whole. 15% cost burden owners and 33% cost burden renters.

There are a total of 691 deed restricted housing units across nine projects in the planned area, including seven rental projects and two ownership projects. This map shows the park's open space trails and recreation land uses, which occupy 22% of the plan area. Some of the popular parks include Memory Grove and Ensign Peak, which is the main access point for the Northern Foothills. And a 100% of households within Capitol Hill are within fifteen minutes of a walk, of a park, or a trail. As far as transportation's concerned, the daily traffic volumes are highest along I 15, Beck Street, North Temple, 300 West, Victory Road, 600 North, State Street, and Main Street.

There's a range of transit options in Capitol Hill, including bus, light rail, and Front Runner, the front runner commuter rail North Temple Guadalupe Station. Bus routes mainly run along North Temple, 300 West, near West High, and around the capital. In terms of frequency, the South Temple State Street North and 500 East bout bus routes are every fifteen minutes. And several routes including UV Davis County and Ogden Salt Lake inner city are every thirty minutes. And UTA generally operates on a fifteen minute frequency for tracks and thirty minutes for front runner service.

The plan area includes three national historic districts including Capitol Hill, the Western portion of the City Creek Canyon, which are also local historic districts, and then the East portion of the Northwest Historic District. There are 35 individually listed historic structures, including national and local structures. So we just wanted to wrap this up with touching on the community engagement and next steps. So in the first phase of engagement, we're currently in the first phase of engagement to inform the public about the update, the survey, and then identify opportunities and issues. And as Amy mentioned, we've held four in person events at Jamfest, Ensign Peak Trailhead, Lee's Marketplace, as well as the Capitol Hill Community Council.

We've conducted two stakeholder interviews. And then in September, we published the project web page, an existing conditions report. And then in early November, published the online survey and have received 34 responses. So we've extended the first wave of engagement into the earlier months of this year due to the holidays. And we have scheduled several events throughout the month of February at various locations throughout the community, including Marmalade Library, Mountain West Cider, eight zero one Coffee Roasters, and Lee's at Fourth West.

So as far as timeline and next steps, we're currently working on identifying opportunities and issues. In spring twenty twenty six, we plan to work on the big ideas phase, which involves sharing initial engagement results, getting feedback on common themes, and drafting the initiatives. And then in summer twenty twenty six, we'll work on the final vision phase. And that concludes our presentation. We're happy to take any questions.

I just wanted to add one comment in relation to something that Commissioner Leverett brought up at the last hearing, which is related to connections between the two areas, Northwest and Capitol Hill. There is also a subsequent side study that transportation is involved with, called the West East Connection Study, I think. I think it's called WE Connect. And so they are holding a number of events throughout both the Northwest plan area and includes portions of Capitol Hill, is the West Marmalade area. But we can certainly also take a look at ways that we can incorporate better connection with our plan boundary, is the I 15 boundary that borders the eastern portion of their plan.

So.

This is a work session. There is is no public comment. So I'll just go ahead and open it up to us for discussion.

Yeah. I First off, the the data that's been collected is is very, very good. You know, going back to the first one or two slides where this hasn't been done over the last fifteen years and so there's the purposes that there's a new vision for the next fifteen years. The amount of engagement so far has really been minimal from the slides, you know, two comments or 34 for that entire area. It just seems like almost nothing.

And so, I'm just wondering, is there, how do I couch this? Are there perceived issues that this new vision is trying to address? Or is this public engagement trying to figure out what the issues are? Because I'm not seeing, you know I'm saying? I'm not seeing what the it is at the end of all of this work session in the spring and summer of this year, what the ultimate new vision is is to be. That you see what I'm saying? Okay.

Yeah. We haven't had much engagement so far because of the time period that we started, which is why we've somewhat expanded this phase into the earlier months of this year. Christmas time and the holidays isn't a great time to do public engagement. So we did attend Jamfest, which is a big community festival that they have. Just to get the word out like, hey, this is coming.

And we're really starting to ramp up engagement now again starting in February. In terms of necessarily an issue that we're solving, that is the point of this phase of engagement is to learn what the issues are and what the opportunities are. It may be that the plan just needs to be aligned with Planned Salt Lake and be simplified a little bit. It's not necessarily that something's wrong that we need to address. But just updating our plans periodically, typically ten, fifteen years as opposed to twenty or thirty or fifty years in the case of some of our other plans, is just a a general best practice.

So we're going through the process of identifying, our older plans, which includes Northwest Avenues and Capitol Hill, and just starting to update those.

Fair enough. And then then just a comment. It almost seems like this entire area is almost like the tale of two or three or more cities because within that district, if you go from low to high, east to west, they're very, very different populations. And so, to say it's all one area and it's really composed of very distinct different elements within those boundaries.

Yes. Yeah,

to echo that, there's two things. I do think you probably, I don't have the answer for you, but I'm great at pointing out problems. You do need to do more targeted outreach to the Guadalupe neighborhood. Some way engage that because they're vastly different Mhmm. Meeting economic statuses, meeting home prices, all that.

So it's almost you have to do two different sets. I also wonder with the extremely high rental percentage in this area, how renters tend to not be engaged in these things. They don't feel like they can. I think they are just as invested in where they live. They just don't see that they should have a voice in these.

And I don't know how to try and capture those perspectives. Because again, don't have the answer for that. But I think that's problem for this area with such a high rental population. And how we might try and encourage that participation to get those views. Because I don't necessarily think you know, a rental population is something we want to never have.

That's great. But they just tend to not be as engaged for whatever their reason is of like they don't feel like they can comment because they don't own property. And I think we need to do more breakdown of that stigma of like, you have a voice that's so important, whether you're a owner or a renter. Somehow try to capture or try to spur on that participation as well for this area.

Those are great comments. We're hoping that by having events at some of the locations that people are just going to on their own, you know, coffee shops, Mountain West ciders having trivia night the night that we are setting up there, that will capture the community members that don't typically get involved. Brooke and I also went flyering in the community. And we got Crown Burger to hang up a bunch of flyers for us with the survey QR code. We got seven Eleven to hang up flyers.

So we're trying to get the word out there in other ways than just our typical go to the community council or set up at the library. But we'll continue to try and find some unique ways to get those populations that don't normally participate in this kind of process involved.

So is it appropriate if maybe you like go to the Northwest Community Center, which is outside of this, but this population is going there to try and do some engagement in those areas as well that, you know, may be adjacent, but are not going to be part of the plan. But people are, that live here are going to those areas. That might be one thought. Don't know that you've done that all. Think when you do these public engagements, do a really good job of targeting within that. But this might be an opportunity to branch out of it. But to still try to get those people. I don't know.

Yeah. No, those are good comments. We'll try and think of some ways that we can get some involvement for sure. Yeah. Because we can't we we wouldn't be able to move forward with 25 survey responses and pull themes from that.

Cool. One, thanks for bringing up the the walkability and the Wee Connect,

I think it was called.

I think I flagged it somewhere. And the connection study. I'll definitely look into that. One other thing I wanted to bring up just about this area. I think between North Temple and 600 North, there may be within the last, what, five to six years, a few thousand apartment units that come online.

Mhmm.

And similarly, Grand Erie District has some things going on. But because I frequent those two areas and spend a lot of time there, I know that sometimes the route, if you just GPS it, it's gonna take you up 600 North, which is not a street built for arterial travel at all. But if you're coming in this area, this southern I guess the Southwest Tip of Capitol Hill, based on the study in the map. It sends you up through the neighborhood and up around around the old train station and other things in that direction, which is not necessarily built for that kind of travel. And it goes industrial or residential or a bunch of different other things, but that's often a route that you get redirected.

And I've had people call who've been lost back there before and those sort of things. And I'm not sure if that's a that's a traffic study or seeing where people come from or how they get there and how they utilize an area. But part of it is we're adding a lot of housing units in area that didn't have housing before. Mhmm. And how people get there, how people traverse that area is gonna change.

It's gonna be naturally set up. And the route you take to get from West High School to Culture Coffee might be different depending on where you are and where you come from and what you feel comfortable doing. So that changes the patterns and traffic patterns and walking patterns of how people move around the neighborhood. So I'll let some emphasis on sort of that and how you get around and some of the large lots that people do use short cuts for, some things that are fenced off. Because we don't use alleys and, you know, shortcuts very well here, but there could be some potential for that and increase some safety and walk walk open spaces for walking and different ways of travel other than just sidewalks.

Yeah. I think that's a great suggestion for something that we can focus on with our engagement as well. So

Couple comments. First of all, I would I would encourage you to recheck some of those transit frequency numbers. There's some weird edge cases that you're going to want to double check. I remember what exactly they are off the top of my head, but I know that there's a couple that are hourly ish. And the system map is a little bit confusing.

Other thing, again, just the same thing I was saying in my previous comment, which is I would really hope that when this comes back, it will set a marker for how do we begin to wind down our fossil fuel facilities, even if it's not actually viable for the city to do it on its own. A plan as a marker. And if we are saying, we're marking this out as not something that we want our city to be participating in anymore, I think that's valuable.

I'm just gonna make just kind of a personal comment. You know, having grown up, you know, with very little elevation change in the South and moving here some twenty seven years ago, whenever whenever family visits from other states, I always take them up to above the capital so they can see the beauty of the Salt Lake Valley, especially at nighttime. And, I think that's something that might be highlighted because this is what I found that a lot of people that grow up here kinda know it but don't go go there. Don't don't enjoy it. And I think that's that's something that that maybe would be highlighted because I think there's there's parks where there that are pretty much neighborhood.

But then there's other parks where other people from from all Salt Lake Valley go on up to. And, I think that's that's that's perhaps maybe a part of the vision that that those kinds of natural beauty spots are are really highlighted.

Yeah. That's a great suggestion. Thank you.

Yeah. I think the other thing just it's important, like, to do this as we do a normal plan where it's all about the area. But because the capital is there, there's also huge influxes of people from other areas. And so it's, I think, perhaps even more important to deal with connection and how people get up there. So I lived in an apartment that was right behind the Capitol, and it is a little land unto itself.

And so when there are protests and things, it's very important that we focus heavily on accessibility and on how people can park nearby and get up there and things like that.

Mhmm. Yeah. Yeah.

Alright. We don't do a motion or anything on this. Right?

No. We don't have a motion or anything. But thanks very much for the feedback, and we will work on incorporating that as we move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. And with that, I will close the meeting. And our next meeting is on the February 11. Thank you everybody.