2021 General Plan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
2021 GENERAL PLAN White City Metro Township Acknowledgements Table of Contents General Plan Steering Committee Planning Commission 4 Executive Summary Tyler Huish (Chair) Weston Millen (Chair) 6 Key Recommendations and Goals Greg Shelton (Vice Chair) Christy Seiger-Webster (Vice Chair) 8 Chapter 1 - All About Planning Josiah Halverson Antoinette Blair 12 Chapter 2 - Community Engagement John Hoggan Robert Frailey 14 General Plan Engagement Major Events Timeline James Lucas Chris Spagnuolo 28 Chapter 3 - Community Background Caitlyn Miller Gene Wilson 30 White City At a Glance Infographic Dave Quinney 32 Chapter 4 - Land Use Renee Sutton Council 40 Zoning Steve Wrigley Paulina Flint (Mayor) 46 Character Areas Zachary Zundel Kay Dickerson 68 Future Land Use Map D. Scott Little 72 Chapter 5 - Transportation Greater Salt Lake Municipal Services District Allan Perry 94 Future Transportation Bart Barker (General Manager) Linda Price 98 Chapter 6 - Lifelong Communities Brian Hartsell (Associate G. Manager) 104 Governance Lupita McClenning (Director of Planning Others 106 Aging in Community and Development Services) Madeline Franciso-Galang (White City Engineer) 109 Economic Opportunities Mikala Jordan (Project Lead, Long Range Planner) Thomas McMurty (Avenue Consultant) 114 Resilience and Sustainability Wendy Gurr (Planning Coordinator) Todd Andersen (Economic Development Specialist) 120 Chapter 7 - Work Program Maridene Alexander (Communications Manager) Jay Springer (Land Use Attorney) 136 Chapter 8 - References and Resources Jim McNulty (Planning Manager) Paul Ashton (White City Attorney) Kate Davies (Senior Long Range Planner) All Participating Members of the Public Appendix A: Glossary and Frequently Asked Questions Kayla Mauldin (Long Range Planner) Appendix B: Survey Results and Public Comments Alex Rudowski (GIS Analyst/Planner) Appendix C: Moderate Income Housing Plan Travis Hair (Planner II) Appendix D: General Plan Steering Committee Meeting Reports *Cover photo from Greg Shelton White City General Plan - Page 2 Table of Contents - Page 3 Executive Summary CONTEXT - This 2021 General Plan is a first EXISTING CONDITIONS - Home to 5,810 people, KEY STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES - Key for White City, Utah. In this Plan, readers find White City consists of 432.7 acres in the south- strengths include White City’s strong culture of information about the planning process and eastern part of Salt Lake County, Utah. Uniquely, public participation; its groundwater source; the community context, methods of data collection, White City is an island community completely small-town feel; affordable housing; the fami- the public engagement process, three topical surrounded by Sandy, a city of 96,385 people. ly-friendly environment; its relative location elements—land use, transportation, and lifelong Additionally, White City is bisected by a coun- to major transportation corridors, recreation communities—and a work program tailored to ty-run park, Dimple Dell Regional Park, that opportunities, and job hubs; and its retention of each element. residents utilize for recreation. While White agricultural land. Key challenges include being City’s surroundings feel more urban, White City completely built out, few sales-tax generating This Plan addresses the current conditions and has retained its close-knit, small-town feel. commercial properties, gaps in pedestrian infra- future aspirations of the community and is structure that support walkability, limited places intended to guide community decision-making. White City is more affordable than nearby places for community gatherings and interactions, This Plan should be used by elected and in the Salt Lake Valley. For example, home worn infrastructure, and fear of government and appointed officials, staff, and the public to values remain under $250,000 in White City, planning efforts. understand on-the-ground conditions, the while in Salt Lake County as a whole, that value community’s collective vision, and how to take has exceeded $300,000. White City’s median KEY OUTCOMES - Among diverse and sometimes appropriate actions to realize that vision. household income is $63,446, which is signifi- conflicting viewpoints, this Plan sought to cantly lower than the county-wide median nurture a collective vision that all residents This Plan is heavily driven by public feedback household income of $74,865. Residents value could stand behind. As such, this Plan focuses on and by data collection and analysis. In fact, their more affordable lifestyle and often cite it preservation of White City’s existing character public participation is one of White City’s as a means of attracting young families and first- and suggests small, gradual, and targeted greatest strengths as a community. While a small time homeowners. changes aimed to increase White City’s access community of 5,810 people, over 744 written to opportunities and bolster residents’ quality of comments were collected from surveys, emails, In White City, land is used primarily for residential life. The next pages (6-7) outline the Plan’s five virtual comment boxes, and paper comment purposes: 94.7 percent of land is zoned single- key recommendations and nineteen goals. The boxes throughout the two-year process. Four family residential, and 5.2 percent is zoned specific actions to accomplish these recommen- in-person workshops and over thirty public agricultural. Only one property is zoned for dations and goals can be found at the end of the meetings were held to discuss the Plan. The commercial uses; however, 34 business licenses document in the Work Program starting on page public’s knowledge of the community is supple- were issued in 2020, indicating the presence of 120. mented with credible, comprehensive resources home-based occupations. Other land uses and such as the US Census Bureau’s American resources of particular community value are Photo credits, from top to bottom: Mikala Jordan, GSL-MSD; Community Survey and ESRI’s Community the 14.6-acre Big Bear Park, the White Towers Maridene Alexander, GSL-MSD; Maridene Alexander, GSL-MSD; Analyst Program, which provided much of the Swimming Pool, and the White City Water Google Street View; Maridene Alexander, GSL-MSD; Google Street View. statistics. Improvement District. Additionally, White City enjoys amenities offered in nearby Sandy City. White City General Plan - Page 4 Executive Summary - Page 5 families and the housing needs of the Lifelong Communities (LC) Salt Lake valley. Key Recommendations and Goals LC1: Foster transparency, collaboration, LU3: Promote a sense of pride and and clear communication among officials, identity in the community through staff, the public, and other agencies. Five key recommendations emerged maintaining and enhancing place- from this Plan. These areas guide the making infrastructure. LC2: Enhance and expand digital infra- focus of implementation moving structure to support home-based work, forward. LU4: Establish landscaping and mainte- entertainment, and education opportu- nance standards that make White City nities. 1) Focus on area-specific, small-scale a distinctly scenic, fun and appealing infrastructure improvements that place to live and visit. LC3: Support small-scale local and incorporate place-making; these will home-based businesses with access to enhance the day-to-day experiences LU5: Enhance recreational amenities resources for financial assistance and/ of residents on their land and in public and access to public parks and open or business training and education. spaces. spaces. Goals: LC4: Ensure that the built environ- LU6: All land use decisions include 2) Update land use codes to be tailored The following goals were developed ment supports people of all ages and efforts toward mitigating or improving to White City’s specific wants and in the public Steering Committee abilities, allowing safe and easy navi- the air and water quality. needs. meetings for each element of the Plan. gation within the community as well as access to important places outside 3) Work toward implementing street- These goals provide a broad direction the community. scape improvements that increase toward how White City moves forward the safety of all modes of travel, the with land use, transportation, and Transportation (T) LC5: Strengthen resilience through asethetics of the public right-of-ways, lifelong communities decisions. T1: Provide smooth safe transitions and emergency preparedness and and the walkability of White City. good access between key locations response. 4) Work toward infrastructure imple- within and outside of White City. LC6: Improve the quality of the natural mentation that supports successful Land Use (LU) T2: Make transportation areas more environment and mitigate negative aging in community, community LU1: Ensure that effective land use aesthetically pleasing, environmen- environmental impacts in built envi- resilience to natural hazards, and envi- planning is kept in balance with tally friendly, culturally interesting, ronment decisions. ronmental sustainability. preserving the freedom and rights of and health-conscious. LC7: Maintain and make needs-appro- 5) Increase sales tax revenue to support individual landowners. T3: Achieve well-maintained transpor- priate improvements to infrastructure desired projects by a) supporting LU2: Maintain and promote White tation infrastructure. to support the resilience of the built at-home businesses through resources environment. City’s neighborhood-scale housing T4: Provide adequate and safe parking. like