Midvale City Council Meeting Agenda April 6, 2021

7505 South Holden Street Midvale, UT 84047 (801) 567-7200 www.midvalecity.org

MIDVALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA APRIL 6, 2021

PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Midvale City Council will hold a meeting on the 6th day of April 2021 as follows:

Electronic & In-Person City Council Meeting This meeting will be held electronically and in-person. Those choosing to attend the meeting in person will be required to wear a face mask (covering their mouth and nose) and practice social distancing. The City seeks to provide safe options for the public to participate in-person and electronically that comply with state and local regulations, as well as common sense.

The meeting will be broadcast on the following:

You Tube: www.MidvaleCity.org/YouTube

If you would like to provide public comments electronically, please email your comments to [email protected] prior to the completion of the public comments portion of the meeting. You may also submit comments if the Mayor and City Council open a specific agenda item to public comment. These comments will be read aloud in the meeting and will be part of the public record. When commenting, please: • Limit your comments to 400 words (the equivalent of 3 minutes) • Include your first and last name • Include your city of residence (optional) • Include the name of the Agenda item

6:00 PM – WORKSHOP • Discuss Residential Planned Unit Developments [Alex Murphy, Planning Director] • Discuss FY 2022 Budget [Kyle Maurer, Administrative Services Director]

7:00 PM - REGULAR MEETING

I. GENERAL BUSINESS A. WELCOME AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL C. Unified Police and Fire Reports D. Proclamation – Child Abuse Prevention Month [Robert Hale, Mayor] E. Proclamation – Do Something Good for Your Neighbor Day [Robert Hale, Mayor]

II. PUBLIC COMMENTS Any person wishing to comment on any item not otherwise scheduled for public hearing on the Agenda may comment in-person or submit their comment via email to [email protected] prior to the completion of this portion of the meeting. Items brought forward to the attention of City Council Meeting Agenda Page 2 the City Council will be turned over to staff to provide a response outside of the City Council Meeting.

III. COUNCIL REPORTS A. Councilmember Dustin Gettel B. Councilmember Quinn Sperry C. Councilmember Bryant Brown D. Councilmember Heidi Robinson E. Councilmember Paul Glover

IV. MAYOR ROBERT M. HALE REPORT

V. CITY MANAGER REPORT

VI. DEPARTMENT REPORTS A. Public Works Report [Glen Kennedy, Public Works Director]

VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Consider Ordinance No. 2021-O-07 a Rezone from Regional Commercial (RC) to Multifamily Residential – Medium to High Density (RM-25 for the property located at 7488 South Casa Blanca Dr [Jana Ward, Planner I]

ACTION: Consider Ordinance No. 2021-O-07 a Rezone from Regional Commercial (RC) to Multifamily Residential – Medium to High Density (RM- 25) for the property located at 7488 South Casa Blanca Dr

B. Consider Ordinance No. 2021-O-09 Adopting a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Modify Open Space Standards for Master Planned Developments in the Residential Multifamily-Medium Density Zone (RM-12) [Alex Murphy, Planning Director]

ACTION: Consider Ordinance No. 2021-O-09 Adopting a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Modify Open Space Standards for Master Planned Developments in the Residential Multifamily-Medium Density Zone (RM-12)

C. Consider Request for a Rezone approximately 10.12 Acres of Property located at approximately 300 East 8000 South from Single Family Residential Zone with Agricultural Overlay (SF-1/AO) to Multifamily Residential Medium Density (RM-12) and a 72-Unit Large Scale Master Plan Development Agreement for the Midvale Mills Project [Alex Murphy, Planning Director]

ACTION: Consider Ordinance No. 2021-O-10 Rezoning approximately 10.12 Acres of Property Located at approximately 300 East 8000 South from Single Family Residential Zone with Agricultural Overlay (SF-1/AO) to Multifamily Residential Medium Density (RM-12) Zone

ACTION: Consider Large Scale Master Plan for 72-Unit Midvale Mills Project Located at approximately 300 East 8000 South

ACTION: Consider Resolution No. 2021-R-11 Approving a Development Agreement for the Midvale Mills Project City Council Meeting Agenda Page 3

D. Consider 10-Unit Preliminary Condo Plat for Phase 1C of the Jordan Heights at View 78 Project located at 8373 South Iris Lumi Ln [Alex Murphy, Planning Director]

ACTION: Consider Approval of 10-Unit Preliminary Condo Plat for Phase 1C of the Jordan Heights at View 78 Project located at 8373 South Iris Lumi Ln

E. Consider 10-Unit Preliminary Condo Plat for Phase 1D of the Jordan Heights at View 78 Project located at 8358 South Sky Mirror Ln [Alex Murphy, Planning Director]

ACTION: Consider 10-Unit Preliminary Condo Plat for Phase 1D of the Jordan Heights at View 78 Project located at 8358 South Sky Mirror Ln

F. Consider Amended Condominium Plat for Gables Phase 3 Project located at approximately 7035 South 700 East [Alex Murphy, Planning Director]

ACTION: Consider Amended Condominium Plat for Gables Phase 3 Project located at approximately 7035 South 700 East

G. Consider Ordinance No. 2021-O-08 Adopting a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Modify Development Standards in the Main Street Form-Based Code Zone (MS-FBC) [Alex Murphy, Planning Director]

ACTION: Consider Ordinance No. 2021-O-08 Adopting a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Modify Development Standards in the Main Street Form-Based Code Zone (MS-FBC)

VIII. CONSENT AGENDA A. Consider Approval of March 16, 2021 Minutes [Rori Andreason, H.R. Director/City Recorder]

IX. ACTION ITEM A. Consider 4-Lot Final Subdivision Plat Located at 287 & 293 East 6790 South [Jason Binks, Senior Planner]

X. DISCUSSION ITEM A. Discuss UFA Station #125 Project [Alex Murphy, Planning Director] B. Discuss proposed ordinance regarding E-Scooters [Nate Rockwood, Community Development Director]

CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS THE CHARACTER, PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE OR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH OF AN INDIVIDUAL.

XI. ADJOURN

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Midvale City will make reasonable accommodations for participation in the meeting. Request assistance by contacting the City Recorder at 801-567-7207, providing at least three working day notice of the meeting. TTY 711

A copy of the foregoing agenda was provided to the news media by email and/or fax. The agenda was also posted at the following locations on the date and time as posted above: City Hall Lobby, on the City’s website at www.midvalecity.org and the State Public Notice Website at http://pmn.utah.gov. Council Members may participate in the meeting via electronic City Council Meeting Agenda Page 4

communications. Council Members’ participation via electronic communication will be broadcast and amplified so other Council Members and all other persons present in the Council Chambers will be able to hear or see the communication.

DATE POSTED: APRIL 1, 2021 RORI L. ANDREASON, MMC H.R. DIRECTOR/CITY RECORDER

7505 South Holden Street Midvale, Utah 84047 Phone (801) 567-7200

Memorandum

Date: April 6, 2021 To: Midvale City Council From: Alex Murphy, Planning Director Subject: Discussion regarding Residential Planned Unit Developments

Councilmembers,

For many years, the City has had standards for master planned developments in the residential (SF and RM) zones. This language predates the current version of the ordinance adopted in 2001. It has seen minor updates over time but has remained largely unchanged for many years.

Recently, the City has started receiving more complaints regarding the impacts of master planned developments on existing neighborhoods. These complaints have included topics such as parking, open space, density, building heights, setbacks, and others. In response to these complaints, the City Council directed Staff to propose changes to master planned development standards. The City Council also adopted a moratorium temporarily prohibiting multifamily master planned developments in the SF zones in July 2020, was made permanent in March 2021.

Staff spent several months meeting with Councilmembers to obtain input on what issues they see around master planned developments and researching best practices for allowing this style of development. The attached language is a first draft of standards for a new development type, a “residential planned unit development” or “RPUD,” that could replace the existing master planned development language. This new language includes the following:

• New density standards, with density increasing as project size and unit mix increase. • Allowed and prohibited uses within RPUDs. All projects may use single family detached or two-family dwellings. As project size increases, additional unit types are allowed: single-family attached (townhomes, up to 4 units per building) can only be constructed in projects at least 2 acres in size and multifamily projects (between 4-8 units per building) are not allowed until a project reaches 5 acres. • Nondiscretionary density bonuses for preserving existing housing stock, providing affordable units, and providing for-sale products. • Minimum lot size and setback requirements. Side setbacks are increased above underlying zone requirements, providing a better buffer along the edges of the project, and a maximum number of units per building is established, prohibiting overly large buildings. • Housing mix requirements. To receive the highest allowed density in any project, an RPUD must provide a variety of housing types based on overall project size. Projects

Page 1 of 11

under 5 acres must provide at least 2 housing types, with each housing type constituting at least 25% of the total unit count. Projects over 5 acres must provide at least 3 housing types, with each type constituting at least 15% of the total unit count and not exceeding a limit based on unit type (ranging from 30-60%). Projects could choose to provide fewer unit types but would not be eligible for the highest density numbers as a result. • Building design standards, including requirements for porches on certain units, minimum roof pitch, garage design, window coverage, and other standards. Existing units that are preserved for RPUDs are encouraged, but not required, to meet these standards. The State Legislature adopted a bill that prohibits cities from implementing building design standards unless some other incentive is applied to the project. As this language is refined, additional incentives may need to be provided. • Minimum parking ratios. Per unit calculations are based on bedroom count with a reduction provided for projects providing affordable housing at or below 30% AMI. Guest parking is based on project size and unit count. Overflow parking is required for stalls located in a private garage; this is intended to provide additional parking opportunities when garages are converted to storage areas. On-street parking may be used for a portion of the guest and overflow requirements and must be evenly distributed throughout the project. • Design standards for parking areas, including minimum stall size and aisle width, garage location and orientation, and screening requirements. • Open space and primary park space requirements. A primary park must be provided centrally located in the project and include a variety and type of amenities that increases based on project size. The park may not be used as an above-ground stormwater management facility unless it includes a permanent wet pond. At least 40% of the project must be open space. • General landscape standards, including maximum turf coverage, minimum plant coverage, minimum tree count, and other standards meant to bring landscape design up to par with existing requirements. • Ownership and maintenance of common facilities, with options to create an HOA, dedicate property to the City (following Public Works and City Council approval), or transfer to another organization for long-term conservation. • A deed restriction on common open space, prohibiting future development of commonly owned areas.

These standards are a first pass at addressing the concerns raised by the Council. Staff would like to discuss this language with the City Council and obtain feedback on what provisions should be pursued or removed. This language is intended as a starting point for the discussion and Staff expects it will be revised significant to respond to City Council and Planning feedback, public comment, and recent legislative changes to State code before adoption is considered.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Residential Planned Unit Development Draft Language

Page 2 of 11

Attachment A Residential Planned Unit Development Draft Language

Purpose:

The primary purpose of a residential planned unit development (“RPUD”) is to permit a range of housing types in a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood with a sense of community and place. Specifically, RPUDs are intended to:

1. Provide a high-quality living environment that complements existing neighborhoods. 2. Incorporate natural features in land development design. 3. Provide a more efficient use of land. 4. Provide recreational opportunities in open and recreation spaces that function as a community focal point. 5. Alleviate the perceived impact of higher-density developments, such as apartments and townhouses, by requiring them to be designed to a pedestrian scale, bulk, and orientation. 6. Prioritize pedestrian access to buildings, open spaces, and streets and discourage design that prioritizes vehicular convenience only.

Permitted Uses and Maximum Density:

The following uses and densities are permitted in RPUDs. Where calculations result in a fractional number of units, the calculation shall be rounded to the nearest whole number.

A. On tracts between 1-2 acres in size:

1. Single-family detached dwellings at a maximum density of 6 dwelling units per acre. 2. Two-family dwellings at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. 3. Mixed residential developments that comply with the mixing requirements in subsection 4 at a maximum density of 10 units per acre. 4. Park and open space uses, including community-oriented structures.

B. On tracts between 2-5 acres in size:

1. Single-family detached dwellings at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. 2. Two-family dwellings at a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre. 3. Single-family attached dwellings at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. 4. Mixed residential developments that comply with the mixing requirements in subsection 4 at a maximum density of 12 units per acre. 5. Park and open space uses including community-oriented structures.

C. On tracts over 5 acres in size:

Attachment A Page 3 of 11

1. Single-family detached dwellings at a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre. 2. Two-family dwellings at a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre. 3. Single-family attached dwellings at a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre. 4. Multifamily residential buildings at a maximum density of 12 units per acre. 5. Mixed residential developments that comply with the mixing requirements in subsection 4 at a maximum density of 14 units per acre. 6. Park and open space uses including community-oriented structures.

D. The following uses are prohibited in all RPUDs:

1. Accessory apartments. 2. Accessory structures, occupied. 3. Accessory structures, unoccupied. 4. Apiary. 5. Assisted Living Facility; Group Home. 6. Chickens. 7. Child Care Facility. 8. Kennel, Private. 9. Quasi-Public Facilities. 10. Radio Station. 11. Telecommunications Facility.

E. The Community Development Director shall grant a density bonus to RPUDs, not to exceed a total maximum density increase of 33%, according to the following criteria:

1. For projects preserving existing housing stock legally occupied prior to January 1, 2021: 2 additional units per unit preserved. Preserved units may not be modified from their original configuration except as needed to satisfy building code and zoning ordinance requirements, must be included in the overall project, and must be subject to the Homeowner or Condominium Association created for the project. 2. For projects providing affordable housing between 30-60% AMI: 1 additional unit per 4 affordable units. 3. For projects providing affordable housing at or below 30% AMI: 1 additional unit per each unit. 4. For projects providing a for-sale product: 1 additional unit per 10 individually sellable units.

Dimensional Requirements:

Single-Family Two-Family Single-Family Multifamily Detached Attached Min. Lot Area Footprint of Footprint of unit Footprint of unit None structure Front Setback Per zone

Attachment A Page 4 of 11

Rear Setback Per zone Side Setback 1.5x zone minimum Min. Landscape 65% 55% 45% 60% Coverage in Front Yard along Public Streets Max. Building Per zone Height Max. Units per 1 2 4 8 Building

General Requirements:

A. All mixed residential developments shall meet the following mixing requirements:

1. On tracts less than 5 acres in size, the development shall include at least two of the permitted housing types based on tract size. To qualify as one of the required housing types, a housing type must comprise at least 25% of the total housing units in a mixed residential development.

2. On tracts greater than 5 acres in size, the following requirements shall be met:

a. The development shall include at least three of the permitted housing types based on tract size. To quality as one of the required housing types, a housing type must comprise at least 15% of the total housing units in a mixed residential development. b. No housing type shall exceed the following maximum percentage of the total number of housing units:

Housing Type Maximum Percentage of Mix Single-Family Detached 30% Two-Family 45% Single-Family Attached 50% Multifamily 60%

B. Ownership. Any land area proposed for development shall be in one ownership or shall be subject to a joint application filed by every owner of the land area proposed for development, under single direction, using one overall plan and complying with all requirements of the applicable zone.

C. Large Scale Master Plan. Every proposal for new development or redevelopment of an RPUD exceeding five acres in size must obtain approval of a large scale master plan. The large scale master plan commits the owner to a general development plan.

D. Small Scale Master Plan. All applicants for new development or redevelopment of an RPUD exceeding one acre in size and all permit holders for large scale master plans must

Attachment A Page 5 of 11

obtain approval of a small scale master plan. The small scale master plan commits the owner to a specific, detailed development plan.

Design Standards:

All RPUDs shall comply with the following design standards.

A. General Layout.

1. Mixed residential neighborhoods should be designed so that the different housing types are well integrated, similar to patterns found in traditional neighborhoods. In general, single-family attached and apartment units are to be located closer to a nearby commercial center (where one exists), other single-family attached or apartment projects on abutting tracts, major roads, intersections, transit nodes, or the required primary park.

2. At least 50% of units shall have a front facade facing the required primary park space.

3. To create variety along the streetscape, housing types shall be mixed along public streets. The following chart lists the maximum number of dwelling units that may be located in a row on the same side of a street without a break. Breaks may be created by an intersection with a perpendicular street, at least 4 dwelling units of a different housing type, or by open space with at least 150’ of frontage on the street.

Housing Type Maximum Number of Dwelling Units in a Row on One Side of a Street Single-Family Detached 4 Two-Family 6 Single-Family Attached 8 Multifamily 12

4. Trash collection and recycling areas, utility equipment, and mechanical equipment shall be screened on all sides so that no portion of such areas is visible from public streets and adjacent properties. Required screening may include new and existing plantings, walls, fences, screen panels, doors, topographic changes, buildings, or any combination thereof. No dumpster or dumpster enclosure shall be located closer than fifteen feet to any perimeter property line. Enclosure structures must have a minimum of three sides that reflect or emulate the materials, design, and quality of the overall development. All RPUDs shall provide privately contracted trash removal and recycling services.

B. Pedestrian Design Standards.

1. Sidewalks are required along all road frontages.

Attachment A Page 6 of 11

2. Sidewalks are required to connect the road frontage sidewalks to all front building entrances, parking areas, primary park, and other destinations that generate pedestrian traffic.

3. Sidewalks are required to connect to existing sidewalks on abutting tracts, other nearby pedestrian destination points, and transit stops.

4. At least 1 bench and 1 commonly-maintained garbage can shall be provided for every 200’ of sidewalk within or immediately adjacent to the project. Sidewalk furniture shall be commonly maintained, shall follow a consistent theme designed for the project, and shall not be used for advertisement.

C. Building Design Standards.

1. All dwelling units must designate a front façade that includes at least one entrance. Units located along a public street or the primary park must orient the front façade towards the public street or primary park.

2. All residential buildings shall have pitched roofs covering at least 80% of the building with a pitch of at least 6 vertical inches to every 12 horizontal inches (6:12).

3. All dwelling units located along a public street or primary park must contain a roofed porch facing the public street or primary park, open on at least 2 sides, extending across at least 50% of the width of the unit, and at least 7’ in depth.

4. All garages must be located at least 20’ behind the building’s front façade. All other off-street parking spaces must be located behind the building’s front façade.

5. At least 40% of the ground floor and 30% of upper floors on a residential building facing a required sidewalk shall be composed of openings, such as windows, doors, porches, or balconies.

6. Single-family attached buildings shall provide a 2’ offset in façade and roof plane for every 2 units along elevations facing streets or the primary park. Multifamily buildings shall provide a 2’ offset in façade and roof plane at least every 40’ along facades facing streets or the primary park. Each offset must be accompanied by a shift in exterior material or color.

7. When garage doors face a street, the garage shall comprise no more than 30% of the total area of a street-facing façade elevation of a dwelling unit, measured from finished grade to the lower edge of the roof. A garage door facing a public street shall not exceed a width of 10’. No more than 2 garage doors facing a public street may be located in a row and such rows of garage doors must be separated from any other garage door facing a street by at least 15’. Alley-loaded garages do not face a street and are exempt from these requirements.

Attachment A Page 7 of 11

8. Existing housing units preserved for new RPUDs are encouraged, but not required, to comply with building design standards in this section.

D. Parking Design Standards.

1. The minimum number of parking stalls required for a RPUDs shall be calculated as follows:

a. 1-bedroom units: 1.5 stalls per unit b. 2-bedroom units: 1.75 stalls per unit c. 3-bedroom units: 2 stalls per unit d. Guest parking: 2 stalls per acre plus 1 stall per 4 units e. Overflow parking: 1 additional stall for every 8 stalls located in a private garage. f. On-street parking within or immediately adjacent to the project may be used to provide up to 50% of required guest and overflow parking.

2. Guest parking shall be evenly distributed throughout the project.

3. Parking stalls located in garages shall be at least 10’ by 20’ deep. If garage space is used to store garbage and recycling cans, garages shall be an additional 5’ wide or 5’ deep. All other parking stalls shall be at least 9’ wide by 18’ deep.

4. Single-Family Detached and Two-Family Units. Garages for single-family detached and two-family units shall meet one of the following design options:

a. The garage is side entry, so garage doors are perpendicular or radial to the street which the front façade faces. b. The garage is front entry and set back at least 20’ behind the front façade of the house. c. The garage is located behind the rear façade of the house. This garage may be detached from or attached to the house and the garage doors may face any direction. d. The garage is rear entry, so garage doors are on the opposite of the house from the front façade.

5. Single-Family Attached Units.

a. Interior Units. Parking for single-family attached units located in the interior or middle of single-family attached buildings shall meet the following requirements:

i. Garages may not be accessed directly from a public street. ii. Garages may be attached to or detached from the dwelling unit.

Attachment A Page 8 of 11

iii. All unenclosed off-street parking spaces must be located to the rear of the unit or in common parking in the side or rear yards of the building.

b. End Units. Parking for single-family attached units located at the end of single-family attached buildings shall meet the following requirements:

i. Garages may be located on or behind the rear facade of the dwelling unit or may be side entry so the garage doors are perpendicular or radial to the street which the front facade faces. ii. Off-street unenclosed parking spaces may be located in the side or rear yards of the building. They may not be located in front yard areas.

6. Multifamily Units. Parking areas and/or garages for all multifamily buildings may not be located between the front facade of the building and the street. Parking areas and/or garages shall meet one of the following requirements:

a. The parking, whether consisting of surface spaces or garages, is located behind the rear facade of the building or buildings. b. The parking is in garages located to the side of multifamily buildings and the garage doors are side entry, so garage doors are perpendicular or radial to the street which the front facade faces. c. Surface parking may be located in the side yard of multifamily buildings provided the side of the parking lot facing the street frontage(s) is screened by a low architectural wall between 3-4’ in height made of brick or stone and planting consisting of 1 large shade tree, 2 evergreen trees, and 5 shrubs per 100 linear feet of road frontage.

7. Street Design Standards. All streets, alleys, and drive aisles within RPUDs shall meet the following requirements:

a. Street within RPUDs shall be interconnected with each other and with streets on abutting properties in a grid or modified grid pattern. b. Streets shall be designed according to the specifications in Title 16 of this code. c. Alleys, including driveway aprons accessing garages, shall be no wider than 24’. d. Surface parking lots shall provide a minimum 24’ wide drive aisle for two- way travel or 15’ wide drive aisle for one-way travel. e. No lot or dwelling unit shall take driveway access from an existing collector or higher classification street.

Open Space Standards:

A. Open space shall be provided according to the following calculations:

Attachment A Page 9 of 11

1. Total open space: 40% of net tract area 2. Primary park: 15% of net tract area

B. Total Open Space Requirements.

1. Total open space areas may include the primary park, active recreation facilities, passive landscape areas, and other similar types of open space as defined in this Title. 2. No portion of any building footprint, road-right-of-way, or parking area may be used to meet the minimum required amount of total open space.

C. Primary Park Requirements.

1. A primary park shall be centrally located in the development. 2. The primary park shall be accessible by sidewalk or paved trail from every unit in the development. 3. The primary park shall be improved with one or more gazebos, pavilions, ponds, or paved patio areas, along with appropriate seating, to help identify this park as the central gathering place for the development. These improvements shall be a minimum of 400 square feet in size. 4. The primary park shall be improved with at least 1 active recreation facility per 2 acres of total project size, rounded up the nearest whole number. 5. Detention basins and other stormwater impounding areas, except for permanent wet ponds, may not be located in areas used to meet the minimum amount of required primary park space unless all portions of such facilities are located entirely underground.

D. Landscaping.

1. All commonly owned open spaces area shall be landscaped prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a project. All privately owned open space areas shall be landscaped prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the associated unit. If seasonal conditions make installation unfeasible, an applicant may provide a cash security or its approved alternative for all uninstalled landscaping. Any landscaping so guaranteed shall be installed by the following May 31st. 2. Areas requiring landscaping shall be planted with substantial live plant material, such as plants, shrubs, trees, sod, etc., for the purpose of buffering, screening, and improving the visual quality of the site. Planting areas shall be planted such that a minimum of fifty percent their area is covered by live plant material at plant maturity. Tree canopies are not included in coverage calculations. 3. Street trees shall be provided at a rate of 1 tree per 30’ feet of frontage along public and private streets. Street trees must be selected from the city’s “Street Tree Selection Guide” available in the community development department. Street trees are not required along alleys. 4. Trees in other landscape areas shall be provided at a rate of 1 tree per 1000 SF of landscaped area.

Attachment A Page 10 of 11

5. When planted, deciduous trees shall be at least 2” in caliper size, evergreen trees shall be at least 6’ tall, and shrubs shall come in a 1-gallon pot. 6. At least 25% of landscape materials must be evergreen. 7. Plan shall delineate turfgrass areas and include a calculation (percentage) of irrigated turfgrass. Except for the primary park, turfgrass shall not cover more than 30% of landscaped areas. Turf areas shall be on a separate irrigation zone from other landscape zones. 8. No landscaping may be removed without replacement of equal or better quality. 9. The applicant must submit a landscape plan documentation package.

Ownership and Maintenance of Common Open Space Facilities:

A. The following methods of ownership may be used for common open land and facilities, either individually or in combination:

1. Fee simple dedication to the City, subject to City Council acceptance of the dedicated property. A developer must include a maintenance schedule and anticipated annual maintenance cost, to be reviewed and approved by the City’s Public Works Department, with any request to dedicate open space to the City. Only primary park areas are eligible for dedication to the City. Dedicated park areas will be open to the public and must include an easement or other right to access the property. 2. Homeowners or Condominium Association. Open space and associated facilities may be held by a homeowners or condominium association. 3. Transfer of Title to a Private Conservation Organization. With the permission of the City Council, an owner may transfer title to a private, nonprofit organization whose purpose is to conserve open space and/or natural resources, provided access to and use of the open space for all homeowners in the development and ongoing maintenance of the open space is guaranteed.

B. Conservation of Open Land. All common open land shall be permanently deed restricted from further subdivision and development. The deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved as part of the subdivision and land development process.

Attachment A Page 11 of 11

MIDVALE CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY REPORT

Meeting Date: April 6, 2021

ITEM TYPE: Workshop (Discussion)

SUBJECT: Discussion of the fiscal year 2022 budget – Unified Police Department

SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Maurer, Administrative Services Director

SUMMARY: The Unified Police Department presented their draft budget for review on March 9, 2021, during the Unified Police Department Finance Committee meeting. A copy of this budget, along with the shared services formula used in the member assessment calculation, was sent to the City Council on March 9, 2021.

Since the budget was presented to Midvale City, staff has reviewed and discussed the proposed budget with Chief Randy Thomas, Precinct Chief for Midvale City. He expressed concern with personnel being budgeted at 97% of wages and benefits, given Taylorsville’s departure from UPD and the possibility of less turnover due to this. After staff discussed this issue with Chief Thomas, staff is recommending increasing budgeted personnel to 98% of wages and benefits.

While Public Safety is an agenda item at the City’s Budget Retreat on April 15, 2021, Unified Police Department has indicated the need for direction on the budget prior to this date. During this workshop item, staff will be discussing the following with the Mayor and City Council:

1) UPD’s proposed budget. 2) Use of precinct fund balance (this is new for the fiscal year 2022 budget). 3) Increasing budgeted salaries to 98% of wages and benefits, and the effect on the overall member assessment. 4) Effect different scenarios have on the fiscal year 2022 member assessment.

Public Safety will continue to be an agenda item at the Budget Retreat, and can be used to discuss other topics related to Unified Police Department. However, Unified Police Department does need direction on the draft budget presented to the City prior to their next board meeting.

PLAN COMPLIANCE: N/A

FISCAL IMPACT: Depending on the options selected, $310,761 (3.5% increase) to $392,162 (4.42%).

STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION AND MOTION: This is for information and discussion only.

Attachments: Budget presented to UPD Board, 2 additional scenarios. Slide deck to be presented at City Council meeting. Unified Police Department Draft Budget As Presented‐97% Personnel Budget, $0 Fund Balance Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Service Area

Strategic Sworn Plan (4.5% Sgt, 3.5% All others) 2.75 % Merit, 2% Civilian Market Kearns Magna SE Islands White City Copperton Emigration SW Islands Town of Total Millcreek Holladay Midvale Total Total UPD 97% Officer Wages & Benefits Township Township District Township Township Township District Brighton SLCo Fund 22 Fund 26* Fund 28+ SLVLESA Budget 63% Benefit Load Sworn ‐ 55% Benefit Load Civilian Fund 20 Fund 21 Fund 23* Fund 24* Fund 25* Fund 29* Fund 30* Fund 31 Fully‐Funded

Precinct Direct SWORN Wages 3,934,500 2,052,000 3,139,750 2,739,000 2,658,000 390,000 429,000 70,750 92,000 357,000 498,750 7,234,500 3,716,250 20,077,000 Precinct Direct Civilian Wages (including Advocates) 145,000 73,500 121,000 100,250 85,250 16,250 24,250 4,000 1,500 11,000 8,750 251,250 1,466,750 2,057,500 Part Time Employees ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 47,250 Precinct Direct Crossing Guard Wages 311,500 119,500 81,650 266,500 255,350 47,500 35,500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 604,850 ‐ 1,117,500 Overtime 216,750 60,000 224,000 135,000 50,000 5,000 10,000 2,000 2,000 5,000 42,750 251,750 332,100 1,084,600 Employee Benefits (98% Officers) 2,604,000 1,348,250 2,073,250 1,814,500 1,746,000 258,750 287,500 47,000 59,000 231,500 323,250 4,767,500 3,186,500 13,979,500 FY 2021‐22 Precinct / District Wages & Benefits Budget 7,211,750 3,653,250 5,639,650 5,055,250 4,794,600 717,500 786,250 123,750 154,500 604,500 873,500 13,109,850 8,748,850 38,316,100 FY 2021‐22 Precinct Direct Operating Costs 1,018,100 424,800 757,550 778,550 670,100 81,600 90,000 19,900 29,850 76,100 134,600 1,880,700 1,529,850 5,611,000 Budgets School District contributions to SRO (18,000) (24,000) (90,000) (24,000) (18,000) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (42,000) ‐ (174,000) Brighton Prop Tax Revenue from SLVLESA to Countywide ‐ ‐ ‐ Records & Civil Processing Fees ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (98,600) (98,600) Direct Gang Conference Registration Fees ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (120,000) (120,000) Choose Gang Free ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (570,500) (570,500) Grants and Other Revenue (42,000) ‐ ‐ (20,000) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (20,000) (426,500) (488,500) FY 2021‐22 Precinct Revenue Totals (60,000) (24,000) (90,000) (44,000) (18,000) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (62,000) (1,215,600) (1,451,600) Precinct FY 2021‐22 Total Precinct / District Direct Budgets 8,169,850 4,054,050 6,307,200 5,789,800 5,446,700 799,100 876,250 143,650 184,350 680,600 1,008,100 14,928,550 9,063,100 42,475,500 FY 2020‐21 Total Precinct / District Direct Budgets 7,750,530 3,868,800 5,979,675 5,509,400 5,224,835 775,300 858,375 135,590 180,250 639,130 825,000 14,147,880 9,509,426 41,256,311 Difference 419,320 185,250 327,525 280,400 221,865 23,800 17,875 8,060 4,100 41,470 183,100 780,670 (446,326) 1,219,189 % Increase 5.41% 4.79% 5.48% 5.09% 4.25% 3.07% 2.08% 5.94% 2.27% 6.49% 22.19% 5.52% ‐4.69% 2.96%

Shared Services SWORN Wages 830,807 290,435 620,363 380,950 347,717 95,268 44,187 8,097 19,769 16,082 45,176 957,245 658,650 3,357,500 Shared Services Civilian Wages 709,181 247,916 529,544 325,180 296,813 81,321 37,718 6,912 16,875 13,728 38,562 817,109 462,500 2,766,251 Shared Services Part Time Wages 32,569 11,386 24,319 14,934 13,631 3,735 1,732 317 630 775 1,771 37,526 26,450 132,250 Shared Services Overtime 122,325 42,763 91,340 56,090 51,197 14,027 6,506 1,192 2,911 2,368 6,652 140,942 98,780 496,150 Shared Services Employee Benefits 932,021 325,817 695,939 427,359 390,078 106,874 49,570 9,083 22,177 18,041 50,679 1,073,863 684,410 3,712,050 FY 2021‐22 Shared Servies Wages & Benefits Budget 2,626,904 918,316 1,961,505 1,204,513 1,099,437 301,224 139,714 25,602 62,362 50,994 142,839 3,026,685 1,930,790 10,464,200 FY 2021‐22 Shared Services Operating Cost 2,210,300 772,679 1,650,427 1,013,487 925,076 253,452 117,557 21,541 52,593 42,785 120,186 2,546,678 1,782,509 8,962,593 FY 2021‐22 Shared Service Revenues (152,293) (53,239) (113,717) (69,831) (63,739) (17,463) (8,100) (1,484) (3,624) (2,948) (8,281) (175,470) (113,180) (607,900) Services FY 2021‐22 Shared Services Allocation to Members 4,684,910 1,637,757 3,498,215 2,148,169 1,960,774 537,213 249,171 45,659 111,332 90,831 254,744 5,397,893 3,600,119 18,818,893 FY 2021‐22 Budgetary Use of General Fund Balance (775,187) (270,991) (578,831) (355,446) (324,439) (88,890) (41,229) (7,555) (18,445) (15,005) (42,151) (893,160) (629,542) (3,147,711) FY 2021‐22 Adj Shared Svcs Allocation to Members 3,909,723 1,366,766 2,919,384 1,792,723 1,636,335 448,323 207,942 38,104 92,886 75,826 212,593 4,504,732 2,970,577 15,671,182

Shared FY 2020‐21 Shared Services Allocation to Members 4,310,261 1,544,163 3,352,627 2,099,917 1,804,843 707,817 238,956 45,257 108,616 90,514 ‐ 5,095,920 4,309,614 18,612,585 FY 2020‐21 Budgetary Use of General Fund Balance (584,838) (209,369) (454,979) (284,896) (244,671) (96,094) (32,547) (6,140) (14,736) (12,280) ‐ (691,364) (614,000) (3,070,001) FY 2020‐21 Adj. Shared Svcs Allocation to Members 3,725,423 1,334,794 2,897,648 1,815,021 1,560,172 611,723 206,409 39,117 93,880 78,234 ‐ 4,404,556 3,695,614 16,058,035 Difference 184,300 31,972 21,736 (22,298) 76,163 (163,400) 1,533 (1,013) (994) (2,408) 212,593 100,176 (725,037) (386,853) % Increase 4.95% 2.40% 0.75% ‐1.23% 4.88% ‐26.71% 0.74% ‐2.59% ‐1.06% ‐3.08% #DIV/0! 2.27% ‐19.62% ‐2.41%

Total FY2021‐22 Estimated Member Assessment 12,079,573 5,420,816 9,226,584 7,582,523 7,083,035 1,247,423 1,084,192 181,754 277,236 756,426 1,220,693 19,433,282 12,033,677 58,146,683 FY2020‐21 Member Assesment 11,475,954 5,203,595 8,877,323 7,324,421 6,785,007 1,387,023 1,064,784 174,707 274,130 717,363 825,000 18,552,435 13,205,040 57,314,347 Difference 603,619 217,221 349,261 258,102 298,028 (139,600) 19,408 7,047 3,106 39,063 395,693 880,847 (1,171,363) 832,336 % Increase 5.26% 4.17% 3.93% 3.52% 4.39% ‐10.06% 1.82% 4.03% 1.13% 5.45% 47.96% 4.75% ‐8.87% 1.45%

3/31/20212:08 PM Unified Police Department Draft Budget Scenario 2‐97% Personnel Budget, $38.5K Fund Balance Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Service Area Strategic Sworn Plan (4.5% Sgt, 3.5% All others) 2.75 % Merit, 2% Civilian Market Kearns Magna SE Islands White City Copperton Emigration SW Islands Town of Total Millcreek Holladay Midvale Total Total UPD 97% Officer Wages & Benefits Township Township District Township Township Township District Brighton SLCo Fund 22 Fund 26* Fund 28+ SLVLESA Budget 63% Benefit Load Sworn ‐ 55% Benefit Load Civilian Fund 20 Fund 21 Fund 23* Fund 24* Fund 25* Fund 29* Fund 30* Fund 31 Fully‐Funded

School District contributions to SRO (18,000) (24,000) (90,000) (24,000) (18,000) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (42,000) ‐ (174,000) Brighton Prop Tax Revenue from SLVLESA to Countywide ‐ ‐ ‐ Records & Civil Processing Fees ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (98,600) (98,600) Direct

Gang Conference Registration Fees ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (120,000) (120,000) Choose Gang Free ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (570,500) (570,500) Grants and Other Revenue (42,000) ‐ ‐ (20,000) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (20,000) (426,500) (488,500) Budgetary Use of Fund Balance ‐ Precinct (38,500) ‐ ‐ (38,500) FY 2021‐22 Precinct Revenue Totals (60,000) (24,000) (128,500) (44,000) (18,000) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (62,000) (1,215,600) (1,451,600) Precinct FY 2021‐22 Total Precinct / District Direct Budgets 8,169,850 4,054,050 6,268,700 5,789,800 5,446,700 799,100 876,250 143,650 184,350 680,600 1,008,100 14,928,550 9,063,100 42,475,500 FY 2020‐21 Total Precinct / District Direct Budgets 7,750,530 3,868,800 5,979,675 5,509,400 5,224,835 775,300 858,375 135,590 180,250 639,130 825,000 14,147,880 9,509,426 41,256,311 Difference 419,320 185,250 289,025 280,400 221,865 23,800 17,875 8,060 4,100 41,470 183,100 780,670 (446,326) 1,219,189 % Increase 5.41% 4.79% 4.83% 5.09% 4.25% 3.07% 2.08% 5.94% 2.27% 6.49% 22.19% 5.52% ‐4.69% 2.96%

Total FY2021‐22 Estimated Member Assessment 12,079,573 5,420,816 9,188,084 7,582,523 7,083,035 1,247,423 1,084,192 181,754 277,236 756,426 1,220,693 19,433,282 12,033,677 58,146,683 FY2020‐21 Member Assesment 11,475,954 5,203,595 8,877,323 7,324,421 6,785,007 1,387,023 1,064,784 174,707 274,130 717,363 825,000 18,552,435 13,205,040 57,314,347 Difference 603,619 217,221 310,761 258,102 298,028 (139,600) 19,408 7,047 3,106 39,063 395,693 880,847 (1,171,363) 832,336 % Increase 5.26% 4.17% 3.50% 3.52% 4.39% ‐10.06% 1.82% 4.03% 1.13% 5.45% 47.96% 4.75% ‐8.87% 1.45%

3/31/20212:06 PM Unified Police Department Draft Budget Scenario 3‐98% Personnel Budget, $38.5K Fund Balance Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Service Area Strategic Sworn Plan (4.5% Sgt, 3.5% All others) 2.75 % Merit, 2% Civilian Market Midvale Kearns Magna SE Islands White City Copperton Emigration SW Islands Town of Total Millcreek Holladay Total Total UPD 98% Officer Wages & Benefits Fund 28 Township Township District Township Township Township District Brighton SLCo Fund 22 Fund 26* SLVLESA Budget 63% Benefit Load Sworn ‐ 55% Benefit Load Civilian (98%) Fund 20 Fund 21 Fund 23* Fund 24* Fund 25* Fund 29* Fund 30* Fund 31 Fully‐Funded

Precinct Direct SWORN Wages 3,934,500 2,052,000 3,166,069 2,739,000 2,658,000 390,000 429,000 70,750 92,000 357,000 498,750 7,234,500 3,716,250 20,103,319 Precinct Direct Civilian Wages (including Advocates) 145,000 73,500 121,000 100,250 85,250 16,250 24,250 4,000 1,500 11,000 8,750 251,250 1,466,750 2,057,500 Part Time Employees ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 47,250 Precinct Direct Crossing Guard Wages 311,500 119,500 81,650 266,500 255,350 47,500 35,500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 604,850 ‐ 1,117,500 Overtime 216,750 60,000 224,000 135,000 50,000 5,000 10,000 2,000 2,000 5,000 42,750 251,750 332,100 1,084,600 Employee Benefits (98% Officers) 2,604,000 1,348,250 2,089,831 1,814,500 1,746,000 258,750 287,500 47,000 59,000 231,500 323,250 4,767,500 3,186,500 13,996,081 FY 2021‐22 Precinct / District Wages & Benefits Budget 7,211,750 3,653,250 5,682,550 5,055,250 4,794,600 717,500 786,250 123,750 154,500 604,500 873,500 13,109,850 8,748,850 38,359,001 FY 2021‐22 Precinct Direct Operating Costs 1,018,100 424,800 757,550 778,550 670,100 81,600 90,000 19,900 29,850 76,100 134,600 1,880,700 1,529,850 5,611,000 Budgets

Gang Conference Registration Fees ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (120,000) (120,000) Choose Gang Free ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (570,500) (570,500) Grants and Other Revenue (42,000) ‐ ‐ (20,000) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (20,000) (426,500) (488,500) Budgetary Use of Fund Balance ‐ Precinct (38,500) ‐ ‐ (38,500) FY 2021‐22 Precinct Revenue Totals (60,000) (24,000) (128,500) (44,000) (18,000) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (62,000) (1,215,600) (1,451,600) Precinct FY 2021‐22 Total Precinct / District Direct Budgets 8,169,850 4,054,050 6,311,600 5,789,800 5,446,700 799,100 876,250 143,650 184,350 680,600 1,008,100 14,928,550 9,063,100 42,518,401 FY 2020‐21 Total Precinct / District Direct Budgets 7,750,530 3,868,800 5,979,675 5,509,400 5,224,835 775,300 858,375 135,590 180,250 639,130 825,000 14,147,880 9,509,426 41,256,311 Difference 419,320 185,250 331,925 280,400 221,865 23,800 17,875 8,060 4,100 41,470 183,100 780,670 (446,326) 1,262,090 % Increase 5.41% 4.79% 5.55% 5.09% 4.25% 3.07% 2.08% 5.94% 2.27% 6.49% 22.19% 5.52% ‐4.69% 3.06%

FY 2021‐22 Shared Services Allocation to Members 4,684,910 1,637,757 3,498,215 2,148,169 1,960,774 537,213 249,171 45,659 111,332 90,831 254,744 5,397,893 3,600,119 18,818,893 FY 2021‐22 Budgetary Use of General Fund Balance (775,187) (270,991) (578,831) (355,446) (324,439) (88,890) (41,229) (7,555) (18,445) (15,005) (42,151) (893,160) (629,542) (3,147,711) FY 2021‐22 Adj Shared Svcs Allocation to Members 3,909,723 1,366,766 2,919,384 1,792,723 1,636,335 448,323 207,942 38,104 92,886 75,826 212,593 4,504,732 2,970,577 15,671,182

Total FY2021‐22 Estimated Member Assessment 12,079,573 5,420,816 9,230,985 7,582,523 7,083,035 1,247,423 1,084,192 181,754 277,236 756,426 1,220,693 19,433,282 12,033,677 58,189,583 FY2020‐21 Member Assesment 11,475,954 5,203,595 8,877,323 7,324,421 6,785,007 1,387,023 1,064,784 174,707 274,130 717,363 825,000 18,552,435 13,205,040 57,314,347 Difference 603,619 217,221 353,662 258,102 298,028 (139,600) 19,408 7,047 3,106 39,063 395,693 880,847 (1,171,363) 875,236 % Increase 5.26% 4.17% 3.98% 3.52% 4.39% ‐10.06% 1.82% 4.03% 1.13% 5.45% 47.96% 4.75% ‐8.87% 1.53%

3/31/20212:10 PM Fiscal Year 2022 Unified Police Department Draft Budget Overview

• Unified Police Department (UPD) presented their draft budget on March 9, 2021 (Finance Committee meeting). • Overall increase to Midvale City – 3.93% ($349K). • Increase to shared services budget – 0.75% ($22K). • UPD asked City for direction on use of precinct fund balance.

• Budget Highlights • Personnel salary increases: • 2.75% merit increases • (40% officers, 20% sergeants, civilians eligible) • 2% market increase – Civilian employees • 2.5% market increase – Lieutenants, Deputy Chiefs (Precinct Chiefs), and Chief of Police • 3.5% market increase – Officers • 4.5% market increase – Sergeants • $4.1M reduction to shared services, 16.7 positions eliminated (most eliminated through attrition). • Dispatch – Over 3 years from $4.2M to $2.2M. Original Budget – No Use of Fund Balance

• Budget as presented to UPD board. • No use of precinct fund balance. • Beginning last year, precinct costs were separated into individual funds. • Salaries and wages budgeted at 97%

OVERALL INCREASE - $349,261 (3.93%) Budget With Use of Fund Balance

• Amount of available precinct fund balance available - $65,872. • Proposal – Use of fund balance - $38,500. • Salaries and wages budgeted at 97%.

OVERALL INCREASE - $310,761 (3.50%) Midvale City Staff Proposal

• Amount of available precinct fund balance available - $65,872. • Proposal – Use of fund balance - $38,500. • Salaries and wages budgeted at 98%.

OVERALL INCREASE - $353,662 (3.98%)

**NUMBERS PENDING CONFIRMATION FROM UPD** Effect on Midvale City FY2022 Budget

Ongoing Revenue Calculation: Projected FY2022 General Fund revenue increase $253,594 Use of one-time funds for homeless shelter mitigation funding drop 265,035 Amount of “new” money available: $518,629

Less: Proposed UPD Increase (Staff Proposal): ($353,662)

Remainder of increased revenues available: $164,967

One Time Funds Available: One time revenue available (18% minimum) $983,089 Less: Homeless shelter mitigation funding drop (265,035) Amount of One Time Funds Available for Allocation: $718,054 Questions/Comments?

MIDVALE CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY REPORT

April 6, 2021

SUBJECT:

Request to Rezone Approximately .66 Acres Located at 7488 S Casa Blanca Dr. from Regional Commercial (RC) to Multifamily Residential Medium to High Density (RM-25). (Proposed Ordinance No. 2021-O-07)

SUBMITTED BY:

Jana Ward, Planner I

SUMMARY:

A.J. Shaffer on behalf of Ward Engineering Group is requesting approval of a rezone of .66 acres of property located at 7488 S Casa Blanca Dr. from the Regional Commercial Zone (RC) to the Multifamily Residential Medium to High Density Zone (RM-25) to allow for the construction of a twelve-unit housing development. The property currently contains one single family home. The proposed redevelopment would demolish the existing home and accessory structures and construct a twelve-unit housing structure in a single building with podium parking.

Rezones are legislative decisions required whenever a change in designation on the City’s Zoning Map is requested. The Zoning Ordinance includes requirements for findings and procedures necessary to consider and adopt a rezone. The General Plan provides direction on the City’s future land use goals and must be considered whenever a rezone request is made.

ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:

Section 17-3-1 of the Midvale City Municipal Code requires the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and adopt a written recommendation to the City Council, advising the Council to approve, disapprove, or modify a request on all zoning map amendments. The City Council may only approve a rezone request if it determines, in written findings, that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the policies and goals of the general plan and that the applicant has demonstrated the following:

1. The proposed rezoning is necessary either to comply with the general plan proposed land use map or to provide land for a community need that was not anticipated at the time of adoption of the general plan; 2. The existing zoning was either the result of a clerical error or a mistake of fact, or that it failed to take into account the constraints on development created by the natural characteristics of the land including, but not limited to, steep slopes, floodplain, unstable soils, and inadequate drainage; or 3. The land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changed character of the area.

This property is currently a nonconforming single-family home and has been under continual residential use. The City has no record of business license being issued for a commercial use at this property. Historical zoning maps show the multifamily residential developments surrounding the project were originally under a commercial zone and were rezoned to multi-family residential between 1983 and 1992, leaving this parcel as the only commercially zoned property in the area. The history of the area supports a claim that the surrounding environs have changed to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area and to recognize the changed character of the area.

GENERAL PLAN CONSIDERATIONS:

The 2016 Midvale City General Plan locates the subject property in a stability area. Regarding Stability Areas, the General Plan states that:

“In Stability Areas the current overall land-use mix is desirable, and preservation of these areas’ character and function is the desired future condition. These areas are nearly fully developed and have little foreseeable change in the types or intensity of land uses in the future.” (p.46)

Additionally, the General Plan identifies the following future land use goals for stability areas:

1. Support property maintenance and neighborhood stability 2. Buffer uses in Stability Areas from more intensive land uses nearby, including adjacent Opportunity Areas 3. Provide for better pedestrian/bicycle connections through and between neighborhoods 4. Provide for access to parks, trails and recreation facilities 5. Provide for appropriate transit opportunities 6. Provide mechanisms for appropriate home remodeling to occur to accommodate today’s lifestyles and needs

The proposed rezone furthers goals number 1, and 6 by allowing the property to continue as a residential use. As discussed above, the surrounding area transitioned away from commercial zoning to multifamily zoning when the Royal Ridge Apartments and the Chad’s Ford Apartments were built in 1986 (according to County records). This property is currently a nonconforming single-family home and has been under continual residential use. Rezoning the property to allow the residential use to continue supports neighborhood stability, as well as provides mechanisms to accommodate today’s lifestyles and needs.

The proposed rezone is also consistent with the City’s Housing Plan, adopted in 2019 as an addendum to the General Plan. Goal three is to expand the variety of housing opportunities to allow for more choices in types and locations of residences, including providing for a mixture of housing sizes, densities, types and affordability in each area of the City. The project aligns with

2 that goal by providing a variety of housing sizes within the project and adding to the mixture of housing types in the surrounding area.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

Section 17-3-1 of the Midvale City Municipal Code requires the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and adopt a written recommendation to the City Council, advising the City Council to approval, disapprove, or modify a request on all zoning map amendments.

The Planning Commission reviewed this rezone request and conducted a public hearing on March 10, 2021. The Planning Commission reviewed the submitted information and public comment before deciding to recommend approval of the rezone request with the following motion:

“Based on the following findings, I move that we forward a recommendation to the Midvale City Council to approve the rezoning of 7488 S Casa Blanca Dr. from Regional Commercial (RC) to Multifamily Residential – Medium to High Density Zone (RM-25).

1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Midvale City 2016 General Plan and 2019 Housing Plan and 2. The land and its surrounding environs have changed to such a degree that it is in the public interest to recognize the changed character or the area and encourage redevelopment of the area by adopting the proposed rezone.”

A copy of the public comments received in the Planning Commission meeting has been attached to this Report.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff agrees with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and recommends the requested rezone be approved through adoption of Ordinance No. 2021-O-07.

RECOMMENDED MOTION – APPROVAL:

“I move that we adopt Ordinance No. 2021-O-07, rezoning the property located at 7488 S Casa Blanca Dr. from Regional Commercial to the Multifamily Residential – Medium to High Density Zone, based on the following findings:

1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals of the 2016 Midvale City General Plan, including the 2019 Housing Plan, and 2. The land and its surrounding environs have changed to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area and recognize the changed character of the area.”

3 ALTERNATE MOTION – TABLE DECISION:

“I move that we table decision on the proposed rezone to address the following questions/comments:

1. … 2. … ”

ATTACHMENTS:

• Vicinity Map • Zoning Map • Concept Plan • March 10, 2021 Planning Commission Comments • Draft Ordinance No. 2021-O-07

4 VICINITY MAP

ZONING MAP

1983 Zoning Map

1992 Zoning Map

CASA BLANCA Comments Regarding 2. REZ-22-29-303-001; 7488 S CASA BLANCA DR; REZONE FROM REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM TO HIGH DENSITY (RM-25); RC ZONE; AJ SHAFFER, WARD ENGINEERING (APPLICANT); JANA WARD, PLANNER I (STAFF). My name is Linda Wills, and I live on the property just south of the property being considered for rezoning. I have looked over the new plans for the development of 7488 South Casa Blanca Drive, and I am in favor of the rezoning. Last year the neighbors were against the rezoning because of concerns of increased traffic and the fear that the new residents would park on the streets. However, the new plan has access to the townhomes from 9th East. This should alleviate their concerns. For the past year we have dealt with the people who have lived on this property. We have had our garden inundated with mice and garbage stacked against our fence. We have been awakened in the middle of the night by the sounds of tow trucks repossessing cars and people using power saws. We have had to pick up syringes on our property before we can allow our grandchildren to play in our yard. We have seen police cars over there several times a week. We have watched cars going in and out of this property. One morning while eating breakfast I wrote down what I observed: Green truck leaves pulling a white truck Green truck returns White car pulls up Green truck leaves again pulling a white car Blue car leaves Green truck returns Red car leaves Somehow, I don’t think townhomes would have more traffic than that, and now that the entrance is off of 9th East, that shouldn’t even be a concern. As far as cars parking on the neighborhood streets, everyone else has their visitors park on the street. And with the entrance off of 9th, I believe this is another nonissue. This has been ourview of that property from our yard.

The other day I drove over to the townhomes built on the south side of the neighborhood. Here are some pictures that I took.

This is a much better view than I have from my yard. Which property would you rather live by? I am highly in favor of the rezoning. It makes much more sense than having one parcel of commercial property surrounded by residential properties.

Sincerely, Linda Wills

March 7, 2021 Re: SIDWELL NUMBER: 22-29-303-001, 22-29-303-002 Attention Midvale City Planning Commission, I would like to comment and pose a few questions about the proposal for 7488 Casa Blanca Dr. When I got the notice that there was another rezone request for the this property, I was concerned about what was going to be proposed this time. So when I first got a copy of the plans (from Jana Ward), I was relieved to see that one of our many concerns was actually resolved, that being how the units would be accessed. I would like to offer a personal thank you to AJ Shaffer and Ward Engineering for listening to our voices that we did not want an access point into townhomes/apartments from the neighborhood for an RM-25 development. I do have some questions and concerns that I would like to be addressed and answered: The 10 page pdf states on page 5 that there are 12 units and 29 parking spaces but page 10 shows a 4 story building w/pages 6, 7, & 8 showing plans for 20 units with 42 total parking spaces required. How does the developer plan to meet the additional parking required if there are in fact 20 residences? I noticed that while there are 2 disabled parking spaces, there isn’t elevator access to any of the floors with living residences. How will this be addressed? I am concerned with overflow parking. As the plan is currently presented, it does not meet city code but even if the developer were to eliminate 8 of the units to meet city code, I am concerned with the access from the neighborhood into the apartments. No other apartment complex is this way in our area. I could easily see that Casa Blanca Dr & Casa Negra Drive would become overflow parking, something we were extremely concerned about with this developer’s last proposal. I would like the plan to require a barrier wall to not allow access from the neighborhood into the apartments. Is the Planning Commission willing to stop this proposal from passing for now while these concerns/questions are addressed in more detail by the developer? My last concern is regarding this question: If this Rezone request is approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Council, does the developer have to stay with this plan or can he revert back to his original plan of 8 townhomes (with access to Casa Blanca Drive) from May/June of last year? Thank you for your time in answering my questions and concerns. Sincerely, Michael Densley, 7438 Casa Blanca Dr.

March 8, 2021

To: The Midvale City Planning Commission Rezone Request: SIDWELL NUMBER: 22-29-303-001, 22-29-303-002

Comments regarding the Sidwell rezoning request.

We’re grateful the proposed main entrance/exit to these Midvale apartments is Ninth East instead of Casa Blanca to Casa Negra Ave. We don’t want to see traffic enter/exit into our neighborhood. We oppose the traffic since the vehicles would pass by 29 houses to get to Tenth East. That would jeopardize the integrity of our quiet neighborhood where many children live and play. We also oppose any consideration to reopen Casa Negra Avenue. We processed that closure with the county over 25 years ago because it was a clear path from I-15 to Tenth East. We are concerned about the sidewalk and trash pickup entrance into our neighborhood. We don’t put our trash cans next to our neighbor’s yard and then expect pick-up through their property. That’s what this proposal does! The apartments put trash on the property line and then the dumpster pickup goes through our neighborhood from Casa Blanca. We propose that the dumpster is accessed through the apartments’ main entrance from Ninth East only—and not Casa Blanca. We oppose the sidewalk connecting to the existing Casa Blanca sidewalk. If the twenty-nine parking stalls aren’t adequate for these units, the overflow would NOT be onto 900 East. There is NOT room for extra parking there. Overflow parking would come to Casa Blanca and Casa Negra and allow residents and visitors to walk directly to their apartment. There is NO need to access these apartments from our neighborhood. They must be independent of nearby properties. We propose a retaining wall to block off Casa Blanca and Casa Negra Ave. No sidewalk access, no trash collection, and no fire lane allowed. Walking traffic, trash collection and fire hydrants need to be contained on their property. Royal Ridge and Union Village apartments have trash collection, walking access, and fire hydrants within their own property and not through our neighborhood. We disapprove the RM25 zoning for this property. We’re sandwiched with Chadd’s Ford, Royal Ridge, Union Village, Creekview, Hillcreek, Pinehurst, the Hillcrest High School main entrance, and the new large 4-story development of over 200 apartments flowing onto 900 East and South Union Ave. The congestion on 900 East is unconscionable now! Please consider rezoning RM12 instead of RM25. Thanks for listening to our concerns. George and Susan Mathis

My name is Jeannie O’Hara and I live at 818 Casa Negra Ave. I OPPOSE rezoning 7488 Casa Blanca Drive to an RM-25 zone. My reasons are as follows:

Parking: Tentative plans show the primary entrance from 900 East but pedestrian access to the property from Casa Blanca still exists. I am thankful that our concerns about the primary access point were integrated. However, parking remains an issue. There are only 29 parking spaces but potentially 64+ individuals/cars. Overflow parking will be forced to nearby streets causing traffic congestion and safety concerns. In addition, Midvale ordinance 10.16.120 prohibits parking on city streets where one inch of snow or more has accumulated and for 24 hours after. As it snows frequently here, this is an issue. A reasonable solution is to completely close off access to Casa Blanca Dr. (except for garbage removal), thereby making it less appealing to park on Casa Blanca/Casa Negra.

Increased load: There are multiple developments within 1 mile of this property, including the large apartment complex being built on S. Union Ave/900 East. We have hundreds more people and cars already added to our infrastructure. Continuing to add to this strain is unwise. Our concern before was the number of people and cars added to this small area. This new plan shows even more people occupying the same space.

Trust: the owner/developer has shown disregard for the neighborhood. He previously didn’t follow the city council’s guidance multiple times, including to speak with us. I do not trust him. I fear that once the plot of land is rezoned, he will modify these initial plans in order to add more units or change the entry point back to Casa Blanca. I respectfully request that approval from UDOT for 900 East access be confirmed prior to any rezone approvals.

This location is far better suited to single family homes as it was obviously intended to be given the single home there for decades. Although this means less money for the developer, it is a far better fit for this community. At the very least, consider an RM-12.

I realize the Planning and Zoning commission is tasked with making decisions for the appropriate growth of our community. I ask you to reflect on the extreme amount of growth already happening and deny this rezone request.

Thank you for your time.

Jeannie O’Hara Hello, We are still opposed to the rezone. Dense housing is STILL not a fit for this neighborhood. The current plans are incomplete and raise many questions. The access from the back of the complex still opens opportunities to be used as overflow parking and the current plans seem to not have enough as is. The plans are incomplete, maybe the builder has no intention of using them. Nothing stops them from getting the re-zone with this and reverting back to the old plans. In our last meeting it was shown that the builder has no concerns for the residents that live here. All of my concerns from the last re-zone attempt still stand and should be pulled from record if needed. Some of my new concerns are how the property is currently being managed. Residents there have made it into a mechanic shop that works through the night. It’s hard to say if they have the proper permits or not. Is it a reflection of how it will continue with even more people living there? The best fit for the neighborhood is to zone it to what it has been used for for many years or, as stated by the builder at the end of the last meeting, “build a small business there.” I am hoping many concerns and missing information can be presented at the meeting to help us understand everything that is going on.

Kindly,

Justun & Teran McCormick

842 E Casa Negra Ave

801-668-9938

ORDINANCE NO. 2021-O-07

AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 0.66 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7488 SOUTH CASA BLANCA DR. FROM THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONE (RC) TO THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM TO HIGH DENSITY ZONE (RM-25).

WHEREAS, pursuant to Utah Code Annotated Sections 10-9a-501 through 10-9a-503, Midvale City (“the City”) has authority to make and amend a zoning plan which divides the City into zoning districts and within those districts to regulate the erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, and uses of buildings and structures and the uses of land; and

WHEREAS, a request has been made for a change of zoning on the property described in Exhibit A; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 10, 2021, which meeting was preceded by notice of publication in the Salt Lake Tribune, on February 21, 2021, to review the request for rezone, and, after considering all of the information received, made a recommendation to approve the rezone request thereon to the City Council; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of Midvale City, Utah held a public hearing on April 6, 2021 which meeting was preceded by notice by publication in the Salt Lake Tribune, on March 21, 2021; and

WHEREAS, after taking into consideration citizen testimony, planning and demographic data, the desires of the owners of the property, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation as part of its deliberations, the City Council determined the rezoning of said property is appropriate, is consistent with the Midvale City General Plan and the land and its surrounding environs have changed to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage redevelopment and recognize the changed character of the area.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of Midvale City, Utah as follows:

Section 1. The zoning ordinance which sets forth the zone districts within Midvale City which portion of the said zoning ordinance is established by a zoning map, is hereby amended as follows:

The properties (Parcel No’s. 22-29-303-001and 22-29-303-002) described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, which properties are located at 7488 South Casa Blanca Dr., Midvale, Utah, and are currently zoned Regional Commercial (RC), shall be zoned Multifamily Residential - Medium to High Density Zone (RM-25).

Ordinance 2021-O-07 Page 1 of 4

ZONING PRIOR TO EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE:

Regional Commercial (RC)

ZONING AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE:

Multifamily Residential - Medium to High Density Zone (RM-25)

Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective upon publication of a summary thereof.

PASSED AND APPROVED this ______day of ______, 2021

______Robert Hale, Mayor

ATTEST: Voting by City Council “Aye” “Nay” Quinn Sperry Heidi Robinson ______Paul Glover Rori Andreason, MMC Bryant Brown City Recorder Dustin Gettel

Date of first publication: ______

Ordinance 2021-O-07 Page 2 of 4

“EXHIBIT A” (Ordinance No. 2021-O-07)

REZONE APPROXIMATELY 0.66 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7488 SOUTH CASA BLANCA DR. FROM THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONE TO THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM TO HIGH DENSITY ZONE;

Legal Descriptions:

Parcel 1: (22-29-303-002 / 7488 S Casa Blanca Dr. / 0.61 ac.)

COMMENCING 2003.38 FEET NORTH AND 1330.51 FEET EAST FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, SALT LAKE MERIDIAN; THENCE SOUTH 89°56'30" WEST 233.71 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43°48'14" EAST 235.08 FEET THENCE NORTH 89°56'30" EAST 69.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 171.65 FEET TO BEGINNING.

Parcel 2: (22-29-303-001 / 7488 S Casa Blanca Dr. / 0.05 ac.)

BEGINNING 2175.03 FEET NORTH AND 1330.51 FEET EAST FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, SALT LAKE MERIDIAN; THENCE NORTH 72.45 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 43°40'40" WEST 100.27 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°56'30" EAST 69.24 FEET TO BEGINNING.

Ordinance 2021-O-07 Page 3 of 4

Ordinance 2021-O-07 Page 4 of 4