·--- :-;.· .·.· .-·-. ·.·

-- .... ·· .·-· ...... _-._. ..· . Bear West Company Executive Summary

Goal 1 Policy 1 of the General Plan recommended an update every three years. Due to cost constraints and the minor amount of change that occurs within a municipality during three years time an administrative decision was made which involves a staff update every three years with respect to demographics, economics and goals met. An additional implementation measure was added recommending completion of a full update of the General Plan with public involvement and revisiting the goals every six years. The changes to updating policies were adopted by the City Council as a part of this update.

This update, dated Fall2003, made use of the 2000 Census numbers, updates to the Zoning Ordinance of January 02, 2002, and information gathered regarding the two Superfund Sites since the adoption of the General Plan in May 2000. This document is scheduled to be updated Fall2009, however, with new Census counts taking place in 2010, it is recommended that the update be delayed to take advantage ofthat information. Acknowledgements

Management Committee Ruth Allen, Midvale Chamber of Commerce Judy Arrington, City Council Bryan Baird, Business Owner Del Ballard, Business Owner Rick Battison, Planning Commission Michael Baum, Business Owner Fran Costanzi, Environmental Protection Agency Colleen Costello, City Council David Dawes, Union Community Council Bill Drossos, Planning and Zoning Robert Hale, Union Community Council Diana Hammer, Environmental Protection Agency Clyde Hettrick, Midvale Rotary Hal Johnson, Utah Transit Authroity Wayne Jones, Union Community Council Glade Justesen, Midvale Community Council Lee King, Midvale City Administrator Kane Loader, Director, Public Works David May, Planning Commission Mark McGrath, Midvale City Planner Melissa Mollner, Youth City Council Alice Neff, Union Community Council Christine Richman, Director, Community and Economic Development Jim Roberts, Board of Adjustment JoAnn Seghini, Midvale City Mayor Bob Soehnlen, Business Owner Verdon Walker, Citizens for Safe Future for Midvale Kevin Wright, Midvale Community Council

Midvale City Elected Officials Jo Ann Seghini, Mayor

Judy S. Arrington, City Council Colleen Costello, City Council R. Kent King, City Council Wayne L. Sharp, City Council Gary Y engich, City Council

Midvale City Planning & Zoning Commission Derald Smith, Planning Commission Richard Battison, Planning Commission Bill Drossos, Planning Commission Gus Katis, Planning Commission David May, Planning Commission Kenneth Vance, Planning Commission Consultant Team Jan Striefel, Landmark Design Inc.- Project Manager Katia Pace, Landmark Design Inc. Wendy Vaughn, Landmark Design Inc. Emilie Charles, Bear West Company Ralph Becker, Bear West Company Karen Wikstrom, Wikstrom Economic and Planning Consultants Diane Chiang, Wikstrom Economic and Planning Consultants Matt Rifkin, Fehr and Peers Associates Robin Cohn, Fehr and Peers Associates Midvale City General Plan

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 - Introduction Midvale City History ...... 1-1 Midvale City in the 21st Century ...... 1-2 Community Profile ...... 1-2 Demographics ...... 1-3 Population ...... 1-3 Age ...... 1-3 Household Composition...... 1-5 Households with Children...... 1-6 Ethnic Background ...... 1-6 Income ...... 1-7 Employment ...... 1-8 Public Involvement in the Planning Process ...... 1-8 Informal Meetings ...... 1-8 Management Committee ...... 1-8 Public Seeping Meeting ...... 1-9 Draft Plan Public Meeting and Open House ...... 1-9 Organization of the Plan Document...... 1-9 General Goals and Policies ...... 1-1 0

Chapter 2- Urban Design Element Introduction ...... 2-1 Existing Urban Design Conditions Analysis ...... 2-1 Major Thoroughfares ...... 2-2 Neighborhood Boundaries and Barriers ...... 2-3 Residential Neighborhoods ...... 2-4 Gateways ...... 2-4 Sharon Steel and Bingham Junction Properties ...... 2-4 Old Town ...... 2-5 TRAX Stations ...... 2-5 Jordan River Parkway ...... 2-5 Summary ...... 2-6 Recommendations ...... 2-6 Streetscape Improvements ...... 2-6 Neighborhoods ...... 2-9 Gateway Improvements ...... 2-11 Jordan River Parkway ...... 2-11 Goals and Policies ...... 2-11

Chapter 3 -Transportation Element Introduction ...... 3-1 Existing Transportation Conditions ...... 3-2

Table of Contents May 2000 1 Midvale City General Plan

Transportation Analysis ...... 3-6 Traffic Congestion ...... 3-6 Neighborhood Traffic ...... 3-1 0 Non-Motorized Transportation ...... 3-13 Mass Transit ...... 3-14 Transportation Related Recommendations ...... 3-15 Major Streets ...... 3-15 Local Streets ...... 3-20 Mass Transit ...... 3-22 Goals and Policies ...... 3-23

Chapter 4- Land Use Element Introduction ...... 4-1 Existing Zoning ...... 4-1 Existing Land Use ...... 4-4 Land Use Analysis and Recommendations ...... 4-5 New Development Opportunities ...... 4-5 Sharon Steel Site ...... 4-5 Bingham Junction Site ...... A-5 Sharon Steel and Bingham Junction Development Altematives ...... 4-8 Summary ...... 4-9 Redevelopment Opportunities ...... 4-12 State Street ...... 4-12 7200 South Street ...... 4-12 Threatened or Deteriorating Residential Neighborhoods ...... 4-13 Bingham Junction and Sharon Steel Sites ...... 4-13 Utah Transit Authority Properties ...... 4-13 Transit Oriented Development Opportunities ...... A-14 In-Fill Development Opportunities ...... 4-15 Interior Lots Development ...... 4-15 Mixed-Use Development ...... 4-15 Old Town ...... 4-16 Midvale City Land Use Map ...... A-16 Specific and Desired Land Uses ...... 4-18 Annexation ...... 4-18 Goals and Policies ...... 4-18

Chapter 5 -Economic Development Element Existing Conditions ...... 5-1 Revenue Sources ...... 5-1 Property Tax Base ...... 5-1 Commercial Activity ...... 5-2 Leakage ...... 5-4 Employment Activity ...... 5-5 Midvale's Competitive Position and Future Development...... 5-6 Recommendations ...... 5-6 Table of Contents May 2000 2 Midvale City General Plan

Targeted Economic Development...... 5-6 Industrial Development ...... ,5-6 Increased Employment Base and Office Development...... 5-6 Recommendations for Specific Commercial Areas ...... 5-7 State Street Corridor ...... 5-7 Historic Downtown ...... 5-7 7200 South Corridor ...... 5-7 Union Fort Area ...... 5-8 Forging Partnership with UTA to Increase Tax Base of Community ...... 5-8 Redevelopment Opportunities ...... ,...... 5-8 Goals and Policies ...... ,...... 5-9

Chapter 6- Housing Element Introduction ...... 6-1 Purpose ...... 6-1 Methodology ...... 6-2 Data ...... 6-2 Layout of the Housing Element...... 6-3 Affordability Targets ...... 6-3 Household Income ...... 6-3 Housing ...... 6-4 Analysis of Affordability Targets for Rental and Ownership Options ...... 6-4 Midvale Demographic Data ...... 6-5 Population ...... 6-6 Income ...... 6-6 Supply of Housing in Midvale ...... 6-1 0 Housing Units and Occupancy ...... 6-1 0 Age of Housing Units ...... 6-13 Recent Trends in Constuction ...... 6-13 Single and Multifamily Construction ...... 6-13 Costs of Housing in Midvale ...... 6-15 Property Values ...... 6-15 Assessed Property Values ...... 6-15 Current Market Values ...... 6-17 Analysis ...... 6-21 Meeting the H.B. 295 Requirements ...... 6-21 Comparisons of Affordability ...... 6-22 Housing Affordability in the Future ...... 6-23 Single Family Home Affordability ...... 6-23 Multifamily Home Affordability ...... 6-24 Special Needs Housing ...... 6-26 Homelessness Prevention ...... 6-26 Specialized Housing for Homeless Families and Families Transitioning out of Homelessness ...... 6-26 Elderly Housing ...... 6-27 Table of Contents May 2000 3 Midvale City General Plan

Filling the Gaps of Affordability ...... 6-27 Zoning ...... 6-27 Does Midvale's Zoning Encourage Affordable Housing? ...... 6-27 Lot and Home Size Requirements ...... 6-30 Zoning Recommendations to Increase Support for Affordable Housing ...... 6-31 Available Housing Programs ...... 6-32 State Agency Responsibilities to Maintain the Affordability Mandate ...... 6-32 Preserving the Existing Stock ...... 6-32 Assisted ...... 6-33 Special Needs ...... 6-33 Home Ownership ...... 6-34 Summary ofPrograms ...... 6-34 Financial Resources for Affordable Housing Development ...... 6-34 Recommendations ...... 6-34 Goals and Policies ...... 6-36

Chapter 7- Historic Preservation Element Introduction ...... 7-1 Existing Historic Resources ...... 7-1 Old Town Historic District ...... 7-1 Utah State Historic Society Inventory ofProperties ...... 7-2 Old Town Area Properties ...... 7-2 Locust Street Area Properties ...... 7-2 Union Fort Area Properties ...... 7-2 Other Potential Historic Properties ...... 7-4 Lincoln and Jefferson Neighborhood ...... 7-4 Midvale Historic Preservation Commission ...... 7-4 Analysis ...... 7-4 National Historic District Designations ...... 7-5 State Historic Property Listing ...... 7-5 Local Historic Property Designation ...... 7-5 Architectural Design Standards or Controls ...... 7-5 Recommendations ...... 7-6 Reactivation of the Historic Preservation Committee ...... 7-6 Midvale City Old Town District Expansion ...... 7-6 Proposed New Historic Districts ...... 7-6 Goals and Policies ...... 7-7

Chapter 8- Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Introduction ...... 8-1 Parks ...... 8-1 Recreation ...... 8-1 Trails ...... 8-1 Existing Park and Recreation Resources ...... 8-2 Existing Parks ...... 8-2 Table of Contents May2000 4 Midvale City General Plan

Existing School Open Spaces oooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooo oooo8-4 Existing Church Open Spacesoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo8-4 Summary oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo8-5 Existing Recreation Facilities oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo8-6 Existing Trails oooooooo ooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooo ooo ooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooo8-7 Analysis Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo8-8 Park Needs Analysis OOOOOOOOoOOoOOoOOO oOOOoooooOOoooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo ooo8-8 Park Land Distribution and Service Area Analysis ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo8-9 Recreation Facilities Needs Analysis OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoOOOOooooOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo8-1 0 Recreation Centerooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo8-1 0 Outdoor Swimming Poolooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo8-10 Golf Course 000 00 0 000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 Oo 0000 000 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Ooo 00 00 00 00 00 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 8-11 Recreation Programs oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo8-11 PartnershipsooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOoooooooOOooooooooooooooooooo8-11 Urban Trails Analysisoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo8-12 Recommendations ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo8-15 Midvale City Parks, Recreation, and Leisure Activity Survey 000000000000 00000000008-15 Jordan River Parkway Recreational Development 000000000 00000000000000000000000000000008- 15 Neighborhood Park In-Fill Development oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo8-16 Intra-Neighborhood Trails ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo8-17 Regional Bicycle Facilities oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo8-17 Trails Funding oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo8-19 Goals and Policies- Parks and Recreation 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000008-19 Goals and Policies- Trails oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo•o•ooo8-21

Chapter 9- Public and Quasi-Public Facilities Element Introduction ooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo ooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooo oooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo•oo9-1 Existing Public Facilities and Services ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo9-1 Midvale City Facilities and Services ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo9-1 Other Public ServicesooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOoooooooooooooooOOoooooooooo•ooooo9-5 Existing Quasi-Public Facilities and ServicesooooooooooooooOOooooooooooOOOoOOOOOOOOOOOOoOOOOoooooooooooooo9-5 Schools oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO oooooo ooooooooooOOOOoO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO oooooooo9-5 Midvale Senior Center ooo oo oooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo•o•ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo9-5 Midvale City Shopsoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo•ooooooooooooooooooo9-6 Health Care oooooooooooo•o•ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooOO OOOOOooo ooooOOoooooooooo oooooo9-6 Analysis and Recommendations ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo9-6 A Civic Center ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo9-6 Multi-Cultural Centerooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo9-6 Recreation/Community Center oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo9-7 Goals and Policies OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoOOooOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo9-7

APPENDIX

Table of Contents May 2000 5 Midvale Citv General Plan

Introduction 1

Midvale City History

Long before Utah's pioneers arrived and settled Salt Lake Valley, ancestors of the Fremont and Ute Indian tribes wandered the landscape they called home, and gathered and hunted from its bounty. Later, fur traders, trappers, and explorers "discovered" Great Salt Lake Valley, surveyors began mapping the area, and enterprising Ute bands entered into trading relationships with those other wanderers into the valley. But, soon the 1 "people who stayed ....the people who wanted the land of the Utes for themselves" , settled and claimed Great Salt Lake Valley.

Just like the wandering Ute bands before them, Utah's pioneer settlers began with a dependence on the land and the landscape. Early pioneers were quick to recognize the richness inherent in the Salt Lake Valley. They saw the abundant creeks and the grassy valley and envisioned farm lands and fields. They discovered the minerals and ores and envisioned thriving communities of commerce and industry. They came to stay, and their mark was soon upon the landscape.

Such was the beginning of Midvale City - eastern agricultural neighborhoods and a western mining settlement, each relying on the other for sustenance, protection, social interaction, and commerce.

The Union Fort area of Midvale City began as a center of agriculture. Jehu Cox, Elijah Elmer, and others sent out by Brigham Young, settled new areas along Little Cottonwood Creek and made substantial improvements to the land. From this beginning in the spring of 1849, the settlement grew and flourished. By 1853 and the beginning of the Walker War, Brigham Young ordered Utah communities to build fortifications for defense against hostile Indians. Jehu Cox donated 10 acres of his property for construction of Union Fort with its twelve-foot-high and six-foot-wide walls. The enclosed settlement included 23 homes, a school (also the church), an amusement hall, and a population of 273. Union Fort was never attacked, and eventually the settlers moved back to their farms. Portions of the wall remain today.

The Old Town area of Midvale City began as a center of mining and industry. Pioneer families arrived in 1851to start the settlement, which blossomed in the 1870s as a result of mining in Bingham Canyon and the coming of the railroad. The area was then known as Bingham Junction, and was an important midpoint along the rail between mining in Little Cottonwood Canyon to the east and Bingham Canyon to the west. With the discovery of silver in Little Cottonwood Canyon and gold in Bingham Canyon, new people rushed to be a part of the growing business and industry located in the middle of the valley -- in Midvale City. Along with industry came the hotels, boarding houses,

1 Conetah, Northern Ute People, in Stillitoe, Linda, A History o[Salt Lake Co unty, 1996. Introduction Fall2003 I - 1 Midvale Citv General Plan

saloons, schools, amusements, and the people who made Midvale City's Old Town a center of the community.

Both the Old Town and Union Fort areas of Midvale City retain reminders of a shared history that is valued today. As the City moves into the 21 '1 Century, the early settlers, the structures they built, and the patterns they left on the landscape are a heritage with traditions that can serve the community well into the future.

Midvale City in the 21st Century

When the Union Fort area, the Old Town area, and everything in between merged in 1998, Midvale City essentially doubled its size to almost six square miles. The merger blended several strong neighborhoods, a vital commercial district in the Union Family Center development, other strong commercial and industrial areas, and a historic town center. It also brought planning issues and concerns new to City planners and administrators, and a resultant commitment to revisit the Comprehensive Plan with a goal of blending the community's inherent diversity into one Midvale City. As a consequence of this foresight and commitment, Midvale City will start the new century with a fresh, comprehensive plan to guide its future.

The purpose of a General Plan is to provide policy direction and guidance to decision­ makers as the City addresses community development and planning issues. It outlines the broad community-wide perspective of its citizens, their values, vision and expectations for the community. The plan creates the framework in which planning decisions fit into the community' s future.

This General Plan replaces the Midvale Master Plan, Focus 2000, which was adopted on October 2, 1979. To maintain the dynamic aspect of a General Plan, it should be updated about every three years.

Community Profile

Midvale City has one of the most diverse populations in the Salt Lake Valley. The cultural and ethnic richness of its residents is an acknowledged asset to the community, and one that City planners and administrators wish to support and enhance. It is a community with many young people who need services and support, and a community of young families that do not always fit the traditional definition of family. Single mothers with children and non-family households are not uncommon, and incomes are lower than in some other parts of the County. Yet, neighborhoods are, for the most part, intact and strong, with well-defined boundaries and established characters. A detailed analysis of community demographics follows.

Introduction Fa112003 I - 2 Midvale Citv General Plan

Demographics

Population According to the 2000 Census, Midvale City has a population of27,029 persons (Table 1-1). This is an increase of 1,459 persons since the 1990 census, when Midvale City's 1990 population (including Union) was 25 ,570. The average annual rate of growth since the 1990 census is approximately .56 percent. The rate of growth for Midvale City is occurring at a slower rate than for Salt Lake County. Population estimates for Salt Lake County show that the County has been growing at an average annual rate of2.0 percent since 1990.

Table 1-1 Total Population Midvale City, 1990- 1998 Year Midvale City Population 1990 25,570 2000 27,029 Source: U. S. Census, Utah GOPB

The slow growth can be attributed to the fairly built-out nature of the community, whereas the Salt Lake County figure includes areas of new development such as the southwest and southeast portions of the valley.

Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) estimates that Midvale's 2020 population will be 55 ,986. This number reflects a large increase in population that is not consistent with a review of residential development capacity. Such a review indicates that roughly 1,747 additional units could be added to the housing stock on existing vacant residential land. This is derived from a calculation of the total existing population (27,029) divided by the total existing residential acres (1 ,432), resulting in an average persons per acre of18.875. Using the 2000 Midvale City average household size of2.66, an additional4,647 persons would be added for a total build-out population of approximately 31 ,676. This calculation assumes that some residential development may take place on approximately 110 acres of the Midvale Slag site, and on approximately 130 acres of the Sharon Steel site.

Growth of the magnitude projected by Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) would be possible only with a dramatic increase in overall residential density. Some of the remaining undeveloped land could be developed at higher than average densities, which would result in a higher population, but it would probably never reach the original projection by WFRC. Thus, the 2020 population for Midvale City will be somewhere between 31 ,676 and 55,986.

Age Throughout the nation, the median age of the population is increasing. This trend is also occurring in Midvale City and Salt Lake County. According to the 2000 census, the median age in Midvale City is roughly 28 years of age. The population of Midvale City Introduction Fa112003 1 - 3 Midvale Citv General Plan

is similar to the County, which has a median age of28.9 years. Note that both the City's (Table 1-2) and the County's (Table 1-3) median age is younger than the national median age of 32.8 years. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2000 the estimated national median age had increased by 2.5 years since the 1990 census. However, the estimated median age for the state of Utah has increased by only 0.9 years during the same time period.

Table 1-2 Population by Age Midvale City Age Group 2000 Under 18 years 6,966 18 to 19 1,005 20 to 24 3,522 25 to 29 3,089 30 to 44 5,519 45 to 54 2,551 55 to 59 1,039 60 to 64 899 65 years and over 2,439 otal 27,029 Median Age 28 Source: U.S. Census;

Table 1-3 Population by Age Salt Lake County 1980 - 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980- 1990 1990-2000

Under 18 years 219,694 253,139 273,583 15.2'X 7.4% 18 to 19 22,231 21,165 31,539 -4.8'X 32.8% ~0 to 24 62,402 52,979 83 ,947 -15. l'X 36.9% ~5 to 29 62,988 61,841 77,844 -1.8% 20.5% 30 to 44 114,041 169,822 197,220 48.9% 13.8% f45 to 54 48,103 61,671 103,486 28.2% 40.4% 55 to 59 23,355 22,932 33 ,355 -1.8% 31.2% 60 to 64 19,795 21,328 24,733 7.7% 13.7% 65 years and 46,457 61,079 72,680 31.5% 15 .9% over lfotal 619,066 725,956 898,387 17.3'X 19.1% Median Age 25.9 27.9 28.9 na na Source: U.S. Census; Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc.

Approximately 26 percent of Midvale City's residents are persons under the age of 18 years. The second largest age group includes persons between 30 to 44 years of age. Midvale's elderly, defined as persons 65 years or older, is equal to 9.0 percent of the population. Again, this is similar to Salt Lake County where 8.0 percent of the population is represented by persons 65 years or older (Table 1-4 ).

Introduction Fall2003 I -4 Midvale City General Plan

Table 1-4 Age Groups as Percentage Total Population Midvale City and Salt Lake County, 2000 Midvale City 2000 Under 18 years 25.7'X 18 to 19 3.7'X 20 to 24 13'X 25 to 29 11.4% 30 to 44 20.4% 45 to 54 9.4% 55 to 59 3.8'X 60 to 64 3.3'X 65 years and over 9.0'X

Salt Lake County 2000 Under 18 years 30.4% 18 to 19 3.5% 20 to 24 9.3'X 25 to 29 8.7'X 30 to 44 21.9'X 45 to 54 11.5% 55 to 59 3.7% 60 to 64 2.8% 65 years and over 8.1'X Source: U.S. Census,

Household Composition According to the 2000 census, Midvale City had 10 ,089 households. The average household size is 2.66 persons. Since 1990, the number of households in Midvale City increased by326, a net change of 3.2 percent for the period. Midvale City households have been growing at an average annual rate of less than one percent from 1990 to 2000. While Midvale City has been experiencing minimal growth, Salt Lake County has seen its number of households increase by 81 percent during this same period.

The composition of households is moving away from the traditional family household. A family household is defined as a household with one or more related persons living with the householder. The trend is towards non-family households where the householder is either living alone or with non-relatives. Midvale City has a large proportion of non­ family households. According to the 2000 census, 34.2 percent of all Midvale City households were non-family households. In comparison, only 27.5 percent of Salt Lake County households were non-families. Households with Children Family households headed by either single men or single women represent 16.1 percent of all households. In 2000, single-female-headed households with children under 18 years of age made up 6.2 percent of all households (Table 1-5).

Introduction Fall2003 I- 5 Midvale City General Plan

Table 1-5 Households With Children, 2000 Midvale City and Salt Lake Coun y SLCo Midvale City SLCo% Midvale City% Total Households 295, 141 10,089 100.0% 100.0% Family Households Married Couple with Children 93 ,526 2,184 31.6% 21.6% Married Couple No Children 77,140 2,639 26.1% 26.2% Single Male with Children 4,168 112 1.4% 1.1% Single Male No Children 12,792 377 4.3% 3.7% Single Female with Children 18,324 758 6.2% 7.5% Sino_le Female No Children 12.324 521 4.1% 5.2% Total Family Households 214,102 6,591 72.5% 65.3%

Total Nonfamily Households 81 ,039 3,454 27.5% 34.2%

Households with Children J 18,234 3,556 40.1% 35.2% Households without Children 176,907 6,533 59.9% 64.8% Source: U.S. Census;

Ethnic Background According to the 2000 Census, the predominant race in Midvale is white, which is characteristic of Salt Lake County. The proportion of non-whites in Midvale (17.5 percent) is slightly greater than in the County as a whole (13.6 percent). The largest non­ white population is classified as "other race." These are persons that do not consider themselves, White, Black, American Indian, Eskimo or Aleut, Asian or Pacific Islander. The second largest non-white race is the Asian/Pacific Islander population, which compromises 1.8 percent of the total Midvale population.

Ethnic diversity in Midvale also extends to the Hispanic population. The term Hispanic refers not to a race but rather to an ethnicity (defined as persons that share distinctive ancestral, cultural, religious or linguistic characteristics). This group as a whole represents 20.7 percent of the total Midvale population. The non-white Hispanic population represents approximately 11.4 percent of the City's residents (Table 1-6).

Introduction Fall2003 1-6 Midvale Citv General Plan

Table 1-6 Midvale Population by Race, 2000 Number of Percentage of Salt Lake Percentage of Persons City Total County As County Total Percentage of (by Race County Total Classifications) Total 27,029 100.0% 100.0% 3.1% White 22,283 82.4% 86.3% 2.8% Non-white 4,746 17.5% 13.6% 2.7% Black 319 1.1% 1.1% 4.0% American lndian, 348 1.3% 0.9% 4.4% Eskimo or Aleut Asian or Pacific 500 1.8% 2.6% 1.9% Islander Other Race 3,579 13.2% 11.4% 4.8% Hispanic Origin 5,613 20.7% 13.6% 5.2% Hispanic Origin- 2,523 9.3% 5.2% 5.3% White Hispanic Origin- 3,090 11.4% 6.5% 5.2% Non-White Source: 2000 U.S. Census;

Income ln 2000, Midvale City median household income was roughly equal to $40,130. This is equal to 82.9 percent of the county median household income figure of$48,373 (Table 1- 7). This disparity causes concern, as the median income of Midvale was 96.2 percent of that of Salt Lake County in 1990. A review of age groups now and in 1990 shows no significant increase in retired population or of those under the age of eighteen. The only reasonable assumption would be a reduction in the number of wage earners per household.

Table 1-7 Household and Family Income 2000 Midvale City Salt Lake County Median Household Income $40,130 $48,373 Persons per Family 3.194 3.53 Persons per Household 2.66 3.00 Median Household Income per $15,086 $16,124 Person Source: 2000 U.S. Census.

Introduction Fall2003 I - 7 Midvale Citv General Plan

Employment Employment in Midvale2 increased during the 1990s from 12,368 in 1990 to 20,925 in 2000. Most of the growth has been in the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate ("FIRE"), Trade (retail and wholesale), services, and construction industries. It is likely that much of the growth can also be attributable to the expansion of employment-based commercial uses in the Union Fort area. Trade (retail and wholesale) and services offer the largest employment base (Table 1-8).

Table 1-8 Midvale City Emplo ment, I 990 and 2000 Industry 1990 1990 2000 2000Industr %Change Employment Industry Employment y as% Total 1990-2000 as% Total Min ina 34 0.3% 22 0.1% -45.4% Construction 753 6.1% 2,004 8.7% 166.1% Manufacturing 1,503 12.2% 1,755 7.6% 16.7% TCPU 578 4.7% 459 2.0% -20.5% Trade 4,484 36.3% 6,985 30.3% 55.7% FIRE 1,312 10.6% 3,156 13.7% 140.5% Services 2,479 20.0% 7,382 32.0% 197.7% Government 1,225 9.9% 1,270 5.5% 3.6% Total 12,368 100.0% 23 ,033 100.0% 86.2% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

Public Involvement in the Planning Process

Midvale City residents were actively involved in the General Plan process in a number of ways- through an active and involved Management Committee, informal meetings with groups and individuals, a community-wide public scoping meeting, briefings before the Planning Commission and City Council, and a public open meeting for review of the Draft General Plan.

Informal Meetings Several informal meetings were held with residents, and business and community leaders to identify preliminary issues to be addressed in the plan, and to identify individuals who could represent the broad interests of the community as members of the Management Committee. These initial meetings helped to direct the Public Scoping Meeting to address as many issues as possible.

Management Committee The Management Committee was made up of City officials, residents and business interests, and government agencies. It included approximately 35 individuals who met

2Defined for both 1990 and 2000 as bounded by 1-215 on the north, 1300 East to 7800 South, State Street to 9000 South and the Jordan River on the west.

Introduction Fall2003 I -8 Midvale Citv General Plan regularly through the plan development process. A complete listing of Management Committee members is included in the acknowledgements. Public Scoping Meeting A Public Scoping Meeting was held on January 28, 1999 at 7:00p.m. in the Midvale City Hall. Notice of the public meeting was printed in both English and Spanish, and mailed to 14,000 addresses in Midvale City. Additional information and post-meeting information was provided in the Midvale City Newsletter, which is published quarterly.

After an introduction and explanation of the General Plan process, the group of approximately 65 individuals broke into three groups, each facilitated by members of the Planning Consultant team. A Spanish speaking interpreter was available to assist during the small group discussions, and written meeting notices and agendas were available in both English and Spanish.

The groups identified a broad range of issues including annexation, City services and communications with residents, community identity, economic development, historic preservation, housing, land use, neighborhoods, public and quasi-public facilities, parks and recreation, schools, the Sharon Steel and Bingham Junction (previously called The Midvale Slag) sites, and transportation and trails. A summary of issues identified during the group discussions is included in the Appendix of this document.

Draft Plan Public Meeting and Open House A Draft Plan Public Presentation and Open House was held on May 20, 1999 at 6:30 PM in the Midvale City Hall. Notices for the meeting were sent to 14,000 addresses in both Spanish and English. Additional information was provided in the Midvale City Newsletter.

After the Consultant Team presented the Draft Plan Elements, questions were answered, and the group reviewed the elements in an open house format. Fifty four individuals attended the presentation and open house, and 21 individuals provided written comments on the Draft Plan.

Organization of the Plan Document

The General Plan addresses the important community issues in a series of Elements. Although each Element is specific in its focus, there is an integral and essential relationship between them that is the essence of Community. The eight Elements are Urban Design, Transportation, Land Use, Economic Development, Housing, Historic Preservation, Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Public and Quasi-Public Facilities. Each Element includes:

• a brief introduction which includes the pertinent issues identified during the Public Scoping meetings, • a description of the existing conditions relevant to the Element, • an analysis that describes what is important to understand about existing conditions,

Introduction Fa112003 I -9 Midvale City General Plan

• recommendations that describe what the plan element proposes, and finally, • goals and policies giving direction to implementation of the recommendations. General Goals and Policies

Goal: To make sure the general plan is updated frequently to address and reflect changing circumstances, goals and values of Midvale City.

Policy #1: Update the general plan every 3 years.

Implementation Measures: 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall oversee implementation of the General • ------Formatted: Numbered + Level : 1 + Plan, monitor ongoing changes and priorities, and recommend changes to the General Numbering Style: 1• 2• 3• ··· + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: Plan for updates about every 3 years. 0.3" I 2. The Department of Community ahd Economic Development shall oversee a complete '------' rewrite of the General Plan every 6 years to include a public input process to review the goals and policies in relation to current issues.

Policy #2: Update the zoning ordinances and zoning map to address any amendments to the general plan.

Implementation Measures: 1. Periodically review zoning ordinances, as necessary, to address any amendments to Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.3", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, the general plan. 3, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned 2. Update the zoning map, as necessary, to address any amendments to the general at: 0" + Indent at: 0.31" plan.

Introduction Fa112003 1 - 10 Midvale City General Plan

Urban Design Element 2

Introduction

The Urban Design Element of the General Plan addresses the image and character of the City. To a large extent, it is made up of the patterns of development already established, not just within the boundary ofMidvale City, but far beyond and throughout the Salt Lake Valley. Looking at the urban design context of a community defines what has already happened, evaluates positive or negative impacts to the community, and determines how the current course can be altered to affect a change, if desired.

Urban design is the process of giving physical design direction to community development patterns. When urban design decisions are successful, they are often described as having created a "sense of place". "Sense of place" is what people remember and cherish about their community -- its distinguishing characteristics. When a community has a sense of place, it is said to have a "there". When "There is no there, there" -there is nothing unique, memorable, or distinctive, and nothing that sets a place apart from anywhere else in a positive way. Understanding what makes and sustains "place" is the essence of urban design.

Residents expressed several issues that can generally be assigned to the Urban Design Element.

• The State Street corridor and other major thoroughfares have a poor visual image and are in need of streetscape improvements. • Midvale City should be a pedestrian-friendly City, i.e. good sidewalks with trees, lighting, street furnishings, and other elements to create a pleasant walking environment. • Gateways to the City are not acknowledged. They are opportunities to make a positive statement about Midvale City. • Some neighborhoods have a poor image visually, and that contributes to some of the negative social perception associated with illegal activity. • Midvale City has some great opportunities to create a positive identity, i.e. its neighborhoods, Old Town Historic District, friendly people, small-town atmosphere, and cultural diversity.

Existing Urban Design Conditions Analysis

Several important elements contribute to establishing the quality or character of an urban environment. These are graphically displayed in Figure 2-1 , Urban Design Concept Map. Of the many, streets are perhaps the most important because they are the connections and a vital part of the framework of community. Others are the distinct districts that are defined by circulation systems and other physical features such as rivers, creeks, and railroad tracks. All of these and others play into an understanding of the pattern of

Urban Design Element May 2000 2-1 Midvale City General Plan development in Midvale City and how that affects community perceptions. It goes without saying that much of the discussion here will be repeated and enhanced in other General Plan Elements that follow; but they are introduced here so that they can be understood in context and considered for the role that each plays as part of the whole.

Major Thoroughfares

Several major thoroughfares transect Midvale City- State Street, 7200 South/Fort Union Boulevard, 7500 South, Center Street, and 900 East Street. The section of7200 South between State Street and 700 East is being widened, and 700 West Street may also be improved and upgraded in the future.

State Street This major corridor through Midvale City is perhaps the most challenging. It is a commercial/retail strip corridor that extends beyond City boundaries both north and south into adjacent communities. The streetscape image along the street is non-distinct and inconsistent, there are few street trees and virtually no street furnishings, sidewalks are often narrow and unfriendly to pedestrians, and the overall appearance of the street is generally cluttered and unattractive.

State Street is a major vehicular corridor, where attention to the pedestrian experience may be limited. It will always be a heavily traveled street providing important valley­ wide north/south circulation; however, there are opportunities to improve the quality of the pedestrian environment (even though it is not necessarily the best pedestrian street) and to improve the image of the street through Midvale City. Such opportunities may include consistent street lighting fixtures, street trees and other landscape features, raised and planted center medians, wider and more appealing sidewalks and pedestrian environments, better identified pedestrian crossings, and other design elements and features.

7200 South Street- Fort Union Boulevard/Jordan River Boulevard 7200 South is the strongest opportunity to physically and visually connect Midvale City east and west. Since it was extended across the Bingham Junction site to connect with West Jordan, it has become increasingly important. It is also a primary access to the Union Fort Family Center retail/commercial area. While the image of this street is not as disappointing as that of State Street, there is still room for improvement, especially considering the importance of the street to Midvale City residents.

The section of 7200 South between State Street and 700 East is being widened. Widening the street through this area will remove 59 trees and move traffic lanes closer to residential dwellings. Both of these effects adversely impact the residential quality of the street. It is very likely that properties adjacent to the new roadway will no longer be desirable for residential use, and will begin to receive pressure to transition to other land uses such as high-density housing, commercial, office, etc.

Urban Design Element May 2000 2-2 Midvale City General Plan

Except for the Bingham Junction site, the edges of the street are developed, so improvements along the street must likely take place within the existing right-of-way. Street trees, lighting, and other image-enhancing improvements are appropriate here.

Through the Bingham Junction site, there is an opportunity to create another image that will become part of a gateway experience from the west. Such opportunities may include a parkway, with increased landscaping and setback from the roadway, or other special treatments that visually and aesthetically establish a positive image for new development in the area.

7500, 7800 and 8000 South Streets 7500, 7800 and 8000 South Streets are also important connectors to the east and west. They are attractive, residential-quality streets that must be protected. Presently, they are perceived to end at State Street, but connections across State Street are critical and should be enhanced and strengthened as linkages between neighborhoods

Center Street (7720 South) This street is a strong connection to the west and a collector street to State Street on the east. At the intersection of State Street and Center Street, the image is similar to that of State Street and could benefit from improvements like those suggested for State Street. Past the LRT track and to the west, Center Street is a broad, residential street with a much-improved visual image. As it passes under I-15 and moves into the Old Town area, a new streetscape image has been established which enhances the character of the HistoricDistrict. From 700 West to the western border, there is an opportunity to establish a parkway as described for 7200 South Street.

Center Street is important as a "Main Street" for the Historic District. Its character within the Historic District is and should be different from what takes place to the east and west. The residential character to the east should be maintained and enhanced; and the new opportunity to the west should be seized.

900 East Street This street is fully-improved along its length in Midvale City, and has a relatively positive image, although it is not especially pedestrian-friendly. Opportunities to improve the pedestrian environment should be identified and evaluated where possible, and may include street tree plantings and special lighting.

Neighborhood Boundaries and Barriers

Aside from these major streets, there are several other physical features that define the boundaries of neighborhoods. Some, like Interstate 15, are strong barriers both physically and psychologically. Others are less foreboding, but just the same, they are critical, defining edges of the most important unit of community- neighborhoods.

Interstate 15 functions as a major barrier and allows only three places to link the west side of the freeway to the east side of the freeway, e.g. 7200 South, Center Street, and

Urban Design Element May 2000 2-3 Midvale City General Plan

Wasatch Street (8000 South). These are vital connections and should accommodate both pedestrians and vehicles. TRAX- the light rail transit tracks, the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal, and Little Cottonwood Creek are the other neighborhood edges.

Residential Neighborhoods

Midvale City is fortunate to have many strong, viable, intact residential neighborhoods. They are primarily defined by the edges and streets mentioned previously and are shown on the Urban Design Concept Map. They vary in size and character, but almost without exception, they are easily identified and perceived as coherent, predominantly single­ family residential areas.

For purposes of discussion, each neighborhood has been labeled on the Map. In other Elements of the General Plan, neighborhood designations are referenced when it is important to planning decisions and recommendations, such as in the Parks, Recreation and Trails Element.

It is not necessary to describe each neighborhood; however, it is important to remember that their stability rests solely on the effectiveness of their edges. Where the edges are strong, the future of the neighborhood is more secure. Where the edges are weak, such as between residential and incompatible commercial uses along State Street, along 7200 South where the "front line" of residential uses will be compromised, or in the smaller residential areas along Birch and Maple Streets, the integrity, stability, and life of the neighborhood is threatened.

Gateways

Where major streets cross the boundary into Midvale City, there is an opportunity to acknowledge entry through the creation of gateways that are a positive statement about the community. Several such opportunities occur in Midvale City. Each should be considered and treated appropriately.

• The I-15 / 7200 South interchange, • I-215 and Union Park Avenue interchange, • north and south ends of State Street, • east and west ends of 7200 South Street/Fort Union Boulevard/Jordan River Boulevard, • east and west ends of Center Street (7720 South), • north and south ends of 900 East Street, • 700 West Street at its north and south ends, and • 7800 South.

Sharon Steel and Bingham Junction Properties

The site characteristics of the Sharon Steel and Bingham Junction properties provide several opportunities, particularly as gateways from the west. Views from the western

Urban Design Element May 2000 2-4 Midvale City General Plan edge above the Jordan River and back toward Midvale City are broad, with a backdrop of the Wasatch Mountains that is impressive. Arrival to Midvale City from this vantage­ point is a tremendous opportunity to create an impression that is not possible at any other gateway to the City, and one that can be further enhanced by a great streetscape along both 7200 South and Center Street.

These properties also provide access to the Jordan River Parkway and any public open space development or recreation opportunities provided nearby. As the properties develop, it is critical that access to the Parkway be provided, readily identified and comfortable, and maintained. With careful planning, the open space along the river can become an integral design feature for the new development area.

Old Town

Old Town is several different things- the historic downtown, the civic center of the community, and a struggling retail/commercial node. Its value to the community is acknowledged and there are strong desires to preserve it, but there is also substantial confusion about how to integrate it into the community and the new development areas nearby.

Positive steps have already been made with streetscape improvements, facade renovations, beautification efforts, and other means to upgrade the visual appeal of the area and attract business and people. But, even with these improvements, the vitality of the area is still threatened. A positive future for Old Town lies in linkage to neighborhoods and to new development areas, and in the right mix of uses.

TRAX Stations

TRAX stations and the areas surrounding them are discussed in more detail in the Land Use Element, but they are important urban design opportunities and considerations. They should be easily accessed by pedestrians to support ridership, and provide some of the urban amenities that people enjoy such as opportunities to get a cup of coffee, pick up a newspaper, relax before boarding, or make a phone call. In addition to the conveniences, significant opportunities are inherent in transit oriented development (TOD) which unites large numbers of people with community services and commerce.

Jordan River Parkway

The Jordan River Parkway project is part of a long-term goal to complete a linear green space corridor adjacent to the river throughout its entire length from Utah Lake to the Great Salt Lake. Many communities along its route have completed or are completing their sections. This is Midvale City's opportunity to be a part of this regional planning effort.

From an urban design perspective, the Jordan River Parkway is a tremendous open space and urban trail resource. Its value to the community is enhanced through simple urban

Urban Design Element May 2000 2-5 Midvale Citv General Plan

design considerations such as good access in multiple locations; trailheads that include bike racks, restrooms, and other amenities; and the juxtaposition to other complementary and compatible uses and activity areas.

Summary

Midvale City has many existing, wonderful places, and many opportunities for "place making" and establishing a "there". Building upon what is good and identifying opportunities for new ideas and visions is part of the dynamic nature of community, where change is inevitable, and guiding change is part of securing the best of the future.

Recommendations

Streetscape Improvements

Existing Developed Thoroughfares The existing developed thoroughfares such as State Street, 7200 South between 700 West and the eastern boundary of the City, and the others mentioned in the analysis should have specific streetscape design treatment developed for each. Sketches shown in Figure 2-2 have been provided to illustrate the intent. The highest priority streets are State Street and 7200 South.

Specific streetscape treatments should include some of all of the following: • Sidewalk improvements that incorporate paving patterns and materials, and design features that are comfortable for pedestrians, i.e. wider walks, wider boulevards to separate pedestrians from vehicles. • Pedestrian lighting that is smaller in scale than typical street lighting. • Street furnishings such as benches, drinking fountains, sculpture, and trash receptacles located at special nodes and stopping places, perhaps in conjunction with bus stops. • Large street trees (not small flowering trees) that will provide canopy and shade, and reduce the broad scale of the street width. • Landscaped center medians with pedestrian stopping places at crossings and intersections, where possible. • Improved bus transit stops that provide shelter, lighting, and other amenities.

Existing Undeveloped Thoroughfares Undeveloped thoroughfares are the extensions of 7200 South and Center Street through the Sharon Steel and Bingham Junction sites, and to the extent possible, 700 West Street. In developing a plan or development guidelines for these streets, several design treatments should be included. Again, sketches (Figure 2-2) are included to illustrate the intent or vision.

Urban Design Element May 2000 2-6 FIGURE2-l

""'-MIDVALE CITY MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN

urt.tlf\.1"1 ut~IGN

NORTHEAST r~Yh.r~DPT MAP MIDVALE NEIGHBORHOOD LEGEND * D THREATENED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ~ COMMERCIAL AREAS - D SCHOOLS D RECREATION AND COMMUNITY CENTER D PARKS AND OPEN SPACE - INDUSTRY/BUSINESS EJ333HISTORIC DISTRICT

* GATEWAY * TRAILHEAD

II VIEWS ' 1 SOUTH UNION 7 EAST/WEST CONNECTION FORT NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ~ OPPORTUNITY (l/4 MILE RADIUS) • • • • • • JORDAN RIVER PARKWAY TRAIL ----- RIVERS AND CANALS ----- RAILROAD - ---- LIGHT RAIL (NORTH/SOUTH TRACK) • • • • • STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITY COPPER VIEW NEIGHBORHOOD ----• PARKWAY OPPORTUNITIES SBAI.ON STEEL - SENSITIVE INTERFACE CONCERNS ROPBJ.TY TO BB ANNl!XIID INTO MIDVALBCITY ,_ f - ·- ~ NOa.TB APRIL2000 LANDIIARK - - ~ qDESIGN I.III.IIIYII -~.!1· --- FIGURE2-2

MAJOR STREET CROSS :~,. SECTION OPTIONS -. f.~ MIDVALE CITY MIDVALE CITY ~=+e~~~~+:~- - .... ~~ .... GENERAL PLAN ...... ~Vf\UWAY

il t ..iiL ~ __jl_jil t ~ SECTIONS & PLANS t·.tt~...,.+·tr+l2'+~-~12'+12'--:fl..,.*~"!

LO-W. ornoNI·51AlGI

U!'f-+•-t-t2+u--f-w-+u-+-u+•+-+'1 " - " - - "- :f'-lf' ~ r-1r t}------~~~------< 7200 SOUTH H-t~.t=+=~=+=t-~f-f----f "'"'-it.... ~~ ......

...... @t~···f-12'+·,.+·:.~l2'+1:r+,,·--t;t"t - ft ILO,W. OP'nON2-1LAN!I

--.;·· -- ·4 =+=..tr::r·~--.·-~=::.:::,; -·· ..ro=+= j_ l TI - ,_ ......

..ii~l.-~=+:~- ...... 4'::'+:~ - ..... r--.~.- ......

.. .._.. -, _a _, PARKWAY t*.;t•U'+-»+»# »+»-<•u-<;t•t LO-W. OPTIOMJ. 4 0.. 6 LAXI

~...... c-.w...... ,~ -~~~o-.-.w .,_ ~ ~=:-~n --- 0rt~~ I!L 2. - -- ..,._, ...... , ....,... H':-f':..f-':}':::"-f":'.':'+':<--':~':H .t± ,_l .__ __ - - ... - I ~ ICALB: 1"""40' ~ - NOI.TB ~ g·-3jrl APRIL2000 i _ Lil . il __il _ il _ . il ~ LANDMARK t·+-···+ll'+ll'-.f'-12'-:12'+11'-.f'-lt'+••·-:t•t o~ ~~;j?, LO-W. ._ ------8~- -- Of'TION4 · 1LAN!I -- - - DESIGN PROPOSED- BUFFERS BETWEEN COMMERCIAL- - ·) & '/v '0; , ...... , .. -· --- RESIDENTIAL USES -~'- Midvale City General Plan

Generous setbacks so that the street has a strong "green edge" and a park-like quality. • Buildings that present a positive image to the street. Parking lots, loading docks, trash dumpsters, and other less attractive visual images should not face the street. • Buildings that are sited to protect views to the mountain backdrop. • Large street trees that will provide canopy and shade, and reduce the broad scale of the street width. Large trees should dominate, but a mixture of smaller trees and evergreen trees should be used in the parkway landscape treatment, along with masses of shrubs. • Parkway landscape design that minimizes the use of water. • Separate pedestrian sidewalks (already in place) and bicycle paths that connect to the Jordan River Parkway, and special nodes and stopping places along the way. • Pedestrian lighting that is smaller in scale than typical street lighting.

Neighborhoods

Most Midvale City residential neighborhoods are stable and intact. Only small, isolated remnants of residential neighborhoods are threatened because they are surrounded by commercial or industrial development that is having an adverse impact on the quality of the neighborhood. Recommendations regarding neighborhoods are intended to sustain them as stable and intact.

Stable and Intact Neighborhoods Most residential neighborhoods fall into this category, especially those that do not directly abut commercial or industrial land uses. Neighborhoods that are one­ development-parcel-away from commercial development, like many of those along State Street, are likely to be impacted by commercial uses unless there is adequate separation or buffer between the two uses. In order to sustain these neighborhoods and protect them from encroachment of incompatible land uses, separations, buffers, or screens are needed.

Separations, buffers and screens can vary depending on the amount of space available. In most cases, fencing and landscaping are likely all that is possible in limited amounts of space. Wherever the Proposed Land Use Map of the Land Use Element shows residential uses immediately adjacent to commercial or industrial land uses, a buffer or screen is needed to firmly define the edge. Sketches (Figure 2-2) are provided to again, illustrate concepts.

Additionally, other considerations are important which essentially require that the adjacent commercial or industrial use be a "good neighbor". Glaring lights, 24-hour operations and noisy delivery trucks at all hours are difficult to "live with", and should be controlled as much as possible. In approving and regulating business adjacent to residential neighborhoods, these operational and management issues must also be addressed and may require ordinance change.

Urban Design Element May 2000 2-9 Midvale City General Plan

Threatened Neighborhoods These isolated residential neighborhoods are a very small portion of the total amount of residentially developed properties. Each threatened neighborhood must be assessed and a determination made regarding their viability in the future. If it is to remain, the kinds of separations, buffers, and screens mentioned previously, must also be applied. If the threatened neighborhood is to transition into other uses, it should be allowed to do so gracefully and with as much protection as possible, for as long as possible.

It is very likely that properties in these areas will be highly valued for commercial development potential and that property owners will ultimately sell-out. To speed up the process and reduce the amount of long-term disruption to property owners, the City may wish to explore options like redevelopment areas, special districts, or out-right purchase of property for future planned development.

Neighborhood Image Residents are proud of their neighborhoods, but sometimes conditions are present that reflect poorly on a neighborhood and cause concern among residents. Poorly maintained yards, run-down conditions, noisy and frightening pets, noxious odors, loud music or machinery, speeding motorists, and other nuisance conditions are unwelcome in neighborhoods. For the most part, there are existing ordinances that prohibit such conditions; however, enforcement is not always effective.

Existing ordinances should be reviewed for adequacy in dealing with these issues and concerns. Where ordinances are found to be lacking or ineffective, they should be rewritten and adopted. Enforcement should be consistent, and fairly routinely administered.

Neighborhoods may wish to upgrade or make improvements such as spread street lighting (i.e., the Jefferson/Lincoln Street neighborhood. Cooperative agreements between the neighbors and Midvale City should be encouraged and facilitated as excellent examples of neighborhood image enhancements.)

Neighborhood Safety and Security Safety and security in neighborhoods is essential to a community. While most residents feel safe, others are still concerned about illegal activity and unsafe conditions. Increased police patrols are only one of many possible solutions, others include:

• Neighborhood Watch programs, • Increased lighting in neighborhoods, either with pedestrian scale street lighting or "porch light" programs where residents voluntarily leave their porch light on overnight, • Neighborhood clean-up programs, • Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) programs where developments are reviewed for their inherent propensity to create conditions conducive to crime, • Bicycle patrols in residential neighborhoods,

Urban Design Element May 2000 2- 10 Midvale City General Plan

• Identification of safe corridors, where pedestrians are afforded the facilities they require to feel safe and secure, • Sidewalk repair programs, and • Traffic calming.

Gateway Improvements

Several are shown on the Urban Design Concept Map, and each may be different. In places where there is little space, a simple sign may be all that is possible. In other areas, the gateway treatment may be subtle by letting the streetscape improvements make the transition from adjacent communities to Midvale City, or rather dramatic, as is possible along the extensions of 7200 South and Center Street to the west. It should be noted that as part of the Bingham Junction cleanup, the old railroad trestle will be removed. A specific treatment should be identified for each gateway area, and each should be treated not necessarily as a line on the ground, but as a change in quality and experience.

The major interchange ofl-15 and 7200 South is a unique opportunity. While the structure is already complete, it may be possible to negotiate with UDOT to make special improvements, such as murals, to the large concrete walls.

Jordan River Parkway

A Jordan River Parkway Concept Plan should be developed as soon as possible. This Plan is discussed in more detail in the Parks, Recreation and Trails Element of the General Plan and in the Land Use Element. To optimize linkages, the Concept Plan should identify how trails and pedestrian systems are connected, and how adjacent uses interface with the Parkway.

Depending on how development adjacent to the Parkway takes place, a more urban expression may be appropriate. In community discussions the San Antonio Riverwalk was frequently mentioned as a great example. The presence of hotels, office buildings and plazas at the river's edge would be an attractive and different treatment.

Goals and Policies

Goal #1: To establish streets and thoroughfares throughout Midvale City that sustain a positive image for the community.

Policy #1: Establish a hierarchy ofstreet-s capes for all City streets.

Implementation Measures: 1. Define street image requirements for each category of streets within the city. 2. Define, design and implement a streetscape image for all major thoroughfares in the City.

Urban Design Element May 2000 2-11 Midvale City General Plan

3. Allocate funds, when available, to implement the streetscape designs, and work with adjacent property owners in partnership for streetscape improvements. 4. Investigate and evaluate various options for funding streetscape improvements, such as special improvement districts (SIDs) and redevelopment areas.

Policy #2: Establish a positive "gateway" image for Midvale City.

Implementation Measures: 1. Establish a theme and a design standard that sustains a "gateway" image. 2. Look for opportunities to joint venture gateway improvements with development projects and roadway improvement projects. 3. Coordinate with UDOT regarding "gateway" improvements at the 7200 South Interchange and other locations where UDOT must be consulted.

Goal #2: Improve the design quality of structures within Midvale City.

Policy #1: Promote continuity of design and heightened aesthetic character and visual compatibility ofstructures within the city.

Implementation Measures: 1. Establish design districts. 2. Establish ordinances and standards. 3. Establish a design review committee. 4. Establish implementation measures.

Goal #3: To protect and sustain existing quality of life in residential neighborhoods.

Policy #1: Separate residential neighborhoods and incompatible development with adequate buffers, transitional uses, and screens.

Implementation Measures: 1. Require new development and redevelopment projects to protect residential neighborhoods with adequate separations, screens and buffers through ordinances, policies, and increased scrutiny of both public and private projects. 2. Develop a palette of techniques for a variety of conditions to implement for existing neighborhood-edge threatening conditions. 3. Plan for the smooth transition of residential neighborhoods that are identified for a different land use in the future, and work with residents to accommodate relocation needs and desires. 4. If trees are removed for development, street widening or other reasons, a like number of new trees should be planted in appropriate locations in Midvale City.

Policy #2: Sustain a positive image or improve the image, of existing residential neighborhoods.

Urban Design Element May 2000 2-12 Midvale City General Plan

Implementation Measures: 1. Review existing requirements for yard maintenance, removal of junk cars and garbage, noisy pets, and other nuisances. Draft new ordinances or increase enforcement, as needed. 2. Work with neighborhood groups on neighborhood improvement programs such as street tree plantings, special lighting, traffic calming and other programs. 3. Create a sidewalk replacement program which may include the development of a shared funding policy.

Urban Design Element May 2000 2-13 Midvale General Plan

Transportation Element 3

Introduction

Midvale City's position in roughly the center of the growing Salt Lake valley imposes many transportation concerns and a few potential opportunities. The city is divided by a variety of transportation corridors including regional highways and a new light rail line. While Midvale's location and extensive network of transportation corridors offers good regional access, these transportation corridors are largely filled with travelers going through the city which often impedes short distance trips within the city.

Transportation issues in any area are a function of land use in that area. Midvale City is somewhat unique in that despite its nature of being largely developed with limited opportunities for large scale new growth, traffic volumes on many of its streets are expected to grow significantly, in some cases by more than 100 percent over the next twenty years. This growth in traffic is largely due to the continued dominance of the Salt Lake City central business district as the largest single concentration of jobs (although by a lower share in the future) and the expansion of housing opportunities in the southern Salt Lake County cities of Riverton, Draper, and Bluffdale as well as northern Utah County. For this reason, transportation issues in Midvale City are shaped by regional land use issues to a much greater degree than by the local land use decisions within the city limits.

Opportunities and constraints surrounding the transportation system were discussed during several opportunities for community involvement. These discussions focused on a limited number of transportation related areas including:

• neighborhood transportation and circulation, • non-motorized transportation, • mass transit, • major highway issues, and • impacts and opportunities of transportation on development.

The issues surrounding each of the transportation related areas that are addressed within the General Plan include a prediction or forecast of what external factors and influences will be placed upon Midvale due to growth in surrounding areas, and what proactive policies can be implemented by Midvale City to enhance, compliment, or alter these external factors.

Existing Transportation Conditions

A system of major streets, the light rail transit line and a proposed future light rail line traverse Midvale both north-south and east-west. These major transportation corridors are shown in Figure 3-1 . Transportation Element Fall2003 3-1 Midvale General Plan

Many of these corridors form the boundaries for certain identifiable neighborhoods within the city. The neighborhoods are strengthened by the clear definition of a boundary, but, at the same time, are threatened by the image and potential land use changes which often accompany the regional transportation system. In addition, these boundaries impinge on the opportunity for using alternative modes of transportation by making crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians difficult.

The segmentation of the city is further compounded by the differing jurisdictions which own and operate these transportation corridors. The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) owns and operates the light rail line and also operates the regional bus system. The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) owns many of the major highways in the city including State Street, 700 I 900 East, part of7200 South and I-15. Although Midvale City has jurisdiction over adjacent land uses on these routes, UDOT can approve or disapprove curb cuts which provide access to these land uses. The jurisdictional responsibility of transportation routes is shown on Figure 3-2. All streets not highlighted are the responsibility of the City, but regional traffic patterns often make it difficult for Midvale City to fund improvements on the regional highway system without federal, or other regional, transportation funding assistance.

The automobile provides the dominant mode of transportation in the region and in Midvale. According to the 2000 Census, 89 percent of the residents of Midvale who worked used the automobile as their primary mode to get to work. In fact, almost 71 percent of Midvale workers traveled to work via a single occupant automobile. Just over 5 percent of the Midvale workers used mass transit to get to work, less than 3 percent walked or bicycled to work, and just over 2 percent worked at home. On the surface these numbers may not seem encouraging, but those who drove alone to work was down 6 percent, those who carpooled was up 4 percent and those who took mass transit was up nearly 2 percent. This represents a positive change in the behaviors and environmental responsibility of the population. This information is shown in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 2000 Midvale Journey to Work

Mode to Work 2000 Number 2000 Percent Salt Lake City Comparison(%) Drive Alone 10,142 70.7% 69.3% CarPool 2,590 18.4% 13.9% Mass Transit 729 5.1% 6.3 % Walk 399 2.8% 4.9% Bicycle 85 0.6% 1.5% Work at Home 323 2.3% 3.2% Other 67 0.5% 0.7% Based on 2000 Census of Midvale Des1gnated Place.

Transportation Element Fall2003 3-2 Midvale General Plan

The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the region which is responsible for regional transportation forecasts and planning. According to the WFRC, automobiles will continue as the dominant mode of travel in the region for the projected future. Mass transit and telecommuting, the growing trend of working from the home, will continue to grow but are not projected to significantly alter the existing transportation mode split, given current development and land use patterns. The WFRC maintains a travel demand model which predicts travel patterns in the region based on agreed land use and socio-economic forecasts. Figure 3-3 displays the existing traffic counts as developed by UDOT (1995 Traffic on Utah Highways) prior to the reconstruction of I -15, forecasts of future year 2020 traffic as developed by the WFRC, and estimates of future traffic capacity as made by Fehr & Peers Associates using the existing and planned roadway cross sections.

Midvale City's Transportation Element of the General Plan must also be considered as part of the overall transportation system of the region. While many regional transportation corridors go through Midvale and serve travel not directly associated with Midvale City, the travel patterns of Midvale residents support the inter-connection of Midvale City with the region at large. Table 3-2 summarizes the work trip travel time of Midvale residents which indicates that the vast majority of Midvale residents commute to areas beyond the city boundaries on a daily basis.

Table 3-2 Midvale City Resident Work Trip Destination

Work Trip Travel Time Percent of Work Trips Less than 10 minutes 10.6 1 1-14 14.8 15-19 20.3 20-24 18.3 25-29 7.1 30-34 16.0 35-44 4.4 45-59 5.2 60-89 1.7 90+ 1.7 Based on 2000 Census of M1dvale City Des1gnated Place.

There are several transportation projects currently being planned for Midvale. Projects include:

Light Rail Mid Jordan Spur- The Utah Transit Authority in conjunction with Midvale City, West Jordan City and South Jordan City has recently funded an Environmental Impact Study for an east/west light rail line connecting Midvale, West Jordan and South Jordan.

Transportation Element Fall2003 3-3 Midvale General Plan

• State Street Improvements - The Utah Department of Transportation has conceptual plans to uniformly widen State Street to a consistent 106' foot pavement width.

• Bingham Junction Boulevard- This would be a new road extending from 6960 South 700 West to Sandy Parkway and 700 West through the Bingham Junction and Sharon Steel sites.

Transportation Analysis

Traffic Congestion

Traffic congestion is a growing concern along the Wasatch Front. Traffic congestion affects the residents of Midvale both directly and indirectly. Direct affects include increased travel times for roadway users, poor access on clogged arterial streets, and the impacts of cut through traffic within neighborhoods. Indirect impacts include increased noise and air pollution from motor vehicles, political concerns related to who should pay for improving regional transportation on Midvale City streets, and real or perceived limitations created by traffic on new development opportunities.

Level of service is often a convenient way for traffic engineers to rate the degree of traffic congestion. Similar to school grades, a level of service A represents no traffic congestion and free flowing travel conditions. Conversely, a level of service F represents the failure of the street system to serve all the road users so that significant delays, driver frustration, cut through traffic, "road rage," and the related affects of traffic congestion occur. Transportation planners attempt to design to a level of service C or D which represents the point where road use is high and localized peak period delays may occur, but below the point where congestion is a chronic problem and the ill effects of congestion occur.

Figures 3-4 and 3-5 display the existing and projected year 2020 level of service on the major streets in Midvale. Most arterial streets are operating at or just below the severe congestion level (level of service F). This congestion is manifested in delays of one or more traffic signal cycles on the major streets, the spill over of traffic onto collector streets, and in some cases cut through traffic on local (residential) streets. While planned projects on 7200 South will alleviate some congestion, it will not keep pace with the level of traffic growth projected through Midvale. In the year 2020, traffic congestion will not only increase on most arterial streets, it is also expected to become a larger concern on collector streets as well.

Traffic capacity on major streets is generally limited to the ability of intersections to handle traffic. Intersections with traffic lights create the greatest traffic constraints. Traffic signals are implemented in locations based on national "warrants" identified in the "Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices" published by the Federal Highway

Transportation Element Fall2003 3-4 ~MIDVALE CITY MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN

~. I I I • ., MURRAY • ~ • i """Ill· • ~"' • • FIGURE 3-1 I I- I :: IIi .. • t ill I I ...• • = .I ., . ~ 1-15. i 1 1 6790 s-th • !' ( 8• MIDVALE CITY I • 5! 11 "' TWin P.-sDt' . • • ', :~ !, - a (6850 S.) 6875 s-th llli & F~unlo§ 1 MAJOR I • .: ...I I • •-· ...... , ~* \ "• . I 7200 South - I • ~ - .£.~ ~{'),•. 1 • c•lsonAve . • ~~ TRANSPORTA TIC •i,._ IJ 1 .··.(7020 ' ~#: ~~- ·' ! !! ~· 1I !-.• 8 _,,__,,\~ u..., ~ '' lrt ;lt !'t 8 II "' SYSTEM / , I; ... '"• I . ~ . _; Iii ii "' ...... 'lUI , u•H•~~•~~v~~~~~~,~~ ··~~~~~·~~·'''''l''.'''''•~~·~~~!l•'' 1:. 1 "' : .. ., LEGEND z ~ I • ~ ; w. ~

< ~ - ~ ii .. ,:, g• .~ ~ __..... ; ' ii 7SSO South g •• '" ...... 1:1 • ... -~ • "' 1-..,. , . ~\ : 7500South ,#, i FREEWAY (/) ~ :; . &... ~~ ~ ! c ' ·- ~.. ~ --- LIGHT RAIL -8 , ~ ~.. ~... ! ..-7 West Center St If r . 111111111 ·11 ,lf ,l lll l .a£77zo s-a. - \ ~Ill~ STATION

~~~~~~ ~~ 1 .,,.~~·~~·~~··~·'· ~~~~· . 7800s-th """ - r · i ::f ~!!!lifti,WJ.,•. I •• I •• I .... I •• I •• I •• l - • 1ft c l l!l lll lll lll lll i!l lil ARTERIAL STRE ~ il ' SANOY : • • I • • I • COLLECTOR :; 1- i \aooos-u. ~: i .:..:.•; • I . ' I il.i ' I I I ~ I 1·15 • ~~ I • .!! I • ! • LANDMARK . ...s • \ DESIGN --· .A...Fehr & Pftrs Associates, Inc. I I' Tr-tolion Conoullonto ••c••••• • tct --·· ,t May,2000 - --~ SR-7 I ~MIDVALE CITY I MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN I ...i I MURRAY FIGURE 3-2 !I ~ailway ,... 1-215 JURISDICTIONA ...~ . I I \ RESPONSIBILIT"~ I F0rt._~lon SR-48 \ I I 7ZOOS- C•lsonAw . I I (70ZO S. l $.,.c.., ~ i/Ill ! o., .. I .I. ttF" "'•"+ 8... ~ I Ill LEGEND .. ~ 7SSOs-h UDOT ~~--~-" 7500~ I­ VI ~ •••••• UTA Welt Cent .. St. ~ • • ~ Proposed Lite-R 7800 South i ~ Route ..Ill .. i SANOY :; E I t ooo~ I ' I . 1 Railway 0' ' I ~ 1·15 V') I I ! LANDMARK "' I I _... ! DESIGN - • fPFe!Y & Pe«s Associates, Inc. l ft- 1011011COftlullontt -·.. t •••• - •• • ••• - I ~t -· May, 2000 ,.-· ~MIDVALE CITY MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN

MURMY FIGURE 3-3

..! TRAFFIC VOLUM 1-15 §6790 South 13,230 ., liNin l'ellks Dr. ( I AND CAPACITIE~ (14,000) , .. sos.) 6875 South F""\ .Uftlon 33,7ZO 28,565 (26,500:1"'-- .; I 46,675 ~,7ZO"' (48,000)­ 7ZOO South (54,000)..._ Carlson Aw. [39,500) / J!63,000) (27Z,OOO) (37,500) (70ZO S.J I l~ j .:J'yt:' (,"~of.[39,500] g Ill il .... I ,.. .. ::o g it~" .I. oo "+ I u~ ... (57,000)I \ t; 37,755 .:1 LEGEND [39,500) 27,515 31,25 21,\95 z (ZS,100) (62,000) (49,000) ~ (36,000) j ! < [37,500), 7350 South g 0 (26,500) (37,500) [39,500] ,.. i ~..., 7500 South t­ ~ ~325 XX.XXX 1995 Average Daily Traffic Ill :;! (57,000) CXX.XXX) 2020 Projected Average Weekd. ~ (39,500) [XX,XXXJ Capacity ::l!t- 77ZO South *Includes Programmed Improve WestCe / S'.:.. 7800 South i ~ \ 15,050I 7aoo South I 31,380 = c 16,210 11,015 1c2a,ooo, (28,000) SANOY 146,000)! :. [33,200) (21,000) [37,500) ;i fi [31,200] [17,500) ! 8ooo South j ~7,725 \43,000) [37,500)

149,9/ (230,000) 1·15 ..! j LANDMARK DESIGN ---

f1:>Feht ' P.-s ~tes.Inc. -- Tr-lot..., Cofttullonlt ,t , ...... , .. ---· May,2000 ---· ------]

~MIDVALE CITY MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN

1 MURRAY FIGURE 3-4 ..; 1995 LEVEL 1-15 16790 South ( \ • TWin Peaks Dr • \ • -(68505.) 6175 South ~. OF SERVICE • F'"'tunion :;; • : \ noo South 1 ... certsonAve I i.ii • J ~ (7020 S. ) . (,1)~ • J .;.,P ~ • igLJ L I to<- .'lf. .. •! '"' g '· • •••••••• U- ••• '\ ••· • • • • .2 ······· LEGEND z : ~ < .• .. 7SSOSoutit 0 I • ~ I I • 7500 South .... 1 •• • • • 1 LOS F-Very Poor Conditions en • • .::i • - . ~ . LOS DIE-Congested Condition! ~ • jt : west Center st . II i 11..& I 1- i I • ni II . II • j I .c 7720 South .. • 11• 11• LOS C or Better-Acceptable Cor .., /!. • "' JJI!!J.,•I - I! . IOOSouth . 11. 11. 11· 11- "'~ .. .. :1:: .• .• SANDY ~ !tl • • !::: • • 1000 South I - • ~ • • i .• .• • • • • • I • • • 1·15 •w ....b • a LANDMARK · ! DESIGN --- 'P,lFehr & "-s Assocmes Inc ft-IOiiort Consullonis • ...... , .. -- ,t --_,. May, 2000 -· --~ ~MIDVALE CITY MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN

i MURRAY FIGURE 3-5 "' s • (..; 2020LEVEL 1·15 !6790 S-h : • \ 8 • 1\NinPHI<• Dr. 6175 s-h • OF SERVICE • . (6850 S.l • F~~lon ... . ~ .· ) . . I • ] • earls- Ave. • ~ • l"":' . (70ZO S.t J • c/""' (,'>~ P- iJ • • t ~.. • :i: :::g • g ..... •• •1 ....

""' • T JP" • ....,··· ···········!.i !: LEGEND z · · - ~ < •usos-h !o 8._• 0 ~ ~ ~ . • 1 • • • • 1 LOS F-Very Poor Conditions ~ • 8 .7500s-th .. t­ ' !!!. • • • Vl ..::::; :: = • c .• • LOS DIE-Congested Conditio ~ . i ]i • • = ::~: • l ll . JI. II I LOS Cor Better-Acceptable 0 West Center S IlL •eoo South • .:··-~i.~~-1~------·77ZO s-th • i :;;i .. . .::_ lf'l,fooiU .."'- s• • SANOY .,; --- • • IOOOs-th ! ~~ •::.. • ! • • • • • • • 1-15 :! ... .as LANDMARK DESIGN --- Fehr & l'eers Ass«tates. Inc. _..,. fP,,.,_,Oiion Conlllltorttl ~t• • f" t I • t l' t I t -- May,2000 -·-/I - ~~~------

Midvale General Plan

FIGURE 3-5

Transportation Element Fall2003 3-9 Midvale General Plan

Administration (FHW A). Signal warrants based on traffic volume are set to the level where delay in traffic flow in one direction can benefit traffic flow in the other direction.

Other signal warrants are based on accident information, vehicle progression, and related measures of intersection performance. It is important to note that traffic signal warrants represent minimum levels for implementing traffic signals. Actual implementation of traffic signals must be based on a case-by-case analysis ofthe trade-offs of increased traffic congestion against these minimum warrants. On many arterial streets, the City or UDOT could choose to seek alternative actions other than traffic signal installation (such as restriction specific traffic movements) as a means of maximizing the capacity on that street by channelizing traffic. Figure 3-7 displays the location of existing traffic signals in Midvale and possible future signals.

Neighborhood Traffic

Traffic congestion on major streets is a direct cause of cut-through traffic throughout neighborhoods. Providing adequate capacity on regional arterial and collector streets is one way of minimizing neighborhood traffic impacts. Associated with a good hierarchy of regional streets, specific neighborhood provisions for supporting the transportation system involve the following:

• connectivity of sidewalks along residential streets, • adequate and appropriate street lighting to improve safety for vehicles and pedestrians, • design features such as sight distance and curb radii to encourage the appropriate speeds, and • street width appropriate to the desired speed and needs of the individual neighborhood.

While these provisions are all important, their full benefit is limited by the ability of the arterial and collector streets to provide adequate capacity to discourage spill-over traffic into the neighborhoods. Based on existing conditions and future forecasts, it appears that capacity constraints on many ofthe major streets will only worsen the impact of cut­ through traffic within Midvale City neighborhoods.

To combat cut-through traffic, there is an emerging traffic engineering science in managing traffic on local and residential streets. Unlike arterial and (to a lesser extent) collector streets where the concerns of increased traffic are typically met by attempting to increase capacity, local street traffic management attempts to control travel speeds. There are generally three main methods of managing traffic on local streets which include the following:

• general laws and ordinances, • traffic control devices, and

Transportation Element Fall2003 3-10 Midvale General Plan

• traffic calming devices.

General Laws and Ordinances Traffic rules and ordinances typically apply to the entire town and are limited to safe road practices and the ability of the Midvale Police force to enforce those rules for the general welfare of the community. Such rules include the rules of right-of-way at intersections, general parking regulations, speed limits, truck routes, and related rules.

Traffic Control Devices Traffic control devices are generally spelled out in the Manual ofUniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). On major streets, these include traffic signals ,while on lower volume local streets these include two-way and multi-way stop signs, yield signs, speed limit signs, one way streets, and other controls such as roadway warning signs, access regulations, and turn prohibitions. The application of these controls are limited by standards in the MUTCD which promotes the national application of these controls such that they can be commonly implemented and enforced.

Traffic Calming Devices Of the three local street management methods, traffic calming is the least common and the least standardized method of managing local street traffic. Beginning primarily in Europe, traffic calming measures are growing in popularity as a targeted method of slowing traffic on neighborhood streets. Many of these measures have gained Speed Bump acceptance in recent years by the traffic engineering community (primarily the Institute of Traffic Engineers) as a means of standardizing the application of traffic calming. On the other hand, many of the concepts associated with traffic calming such as narrowing the street width or implementing pavement undulations Speed Hump (speed humps) run counter to long term practices of the traffic engineering profession. Figure 3-6: Speed Hump Through the evolving standards, at least 7 traffic calming measures have become accepted by most traffic engineers. Of these 7 traffic calming measures, speed humps (not speed bumps, as commonly seen in parking lots) are the most common and typically the most commonly requested by the community. Generally accepted traffic calming techniques include the following: Transportation Element Fall2003 3-11 ~MIDVALE CITY MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN

J MURRAY FIGURE 3-7 ,.. EXISTING AND 1· 15 I . 6790SOUth Twin h!IIIU Dr. \ 6875 POSSIBLE FUTUJ • (6850 S.J SOUth. F~~lon ....J TRAFFIC SIGNAl 7Z00South .A, carlson Ave. . ) I~ 1: J r:;t ~70ZOS.J ~ Qi .:1 o<".:I' .,,0 Ill • '>"' LOCATIONS 8... !go.,. • ...... '¥ . • LEGEND ~ '- • • ! • • •... z ! < • .ISO_; 0 a:: ! ! ~ I . 7500 South ...... (f) =i . ~ i ' § e Existing Traffic Signals . 7ZOSouth West Cent« s. A 7800SOUth • ; ~• • BOO South A Possible Future Signals ..Ill c: .. 'I SANOY ...: • i I • 8000SOUth ~ :s:

1·15 •I "'!I LANDMARK fi I DESIGN --- fPFetv lo Peen Associates, Inc. Tton-lo 11otl Conoull..,lo -- ~ ·····~······-- May,2000 ------·- -- - .------~-~ -·------· Midvale General Plan

• traffic circles; • chokers or curb extensions; • median barriers; • full, semi, and diagonal diverters (street and intersection closures); • pavement undulations (speed humps), shown in Figure 3-6; • raised intersections; and • rumble strips.

Non-Motorized Transportation

While automobiles are the predominant mode oftravel both now and projected in the future, there is a growing sense that the failure to accommodate and promote alternative travel modes will self-fulfill the forecasts for automobile domination and erode the overall quality of life. In Midvale, the issues associated with non-motorized travel are limited to issues involving transportation within each neighborhood and transportation between each neighborhood.

Intra-Neighborhood Non-Motorized Travel Non-motorized travel within each neighborhood is primarily a function of accessing schools, parks, recreational centers, and other gathering places such as transit centers or government buildings. The issues associated with providing intra-neighborhood travel opportunities which do not involve the automobile are primarily related to providing the necessary schools, parks, and recreation centers within each neighborhood. For this reason, there is an extensive discussion of trails located in Chapter 8, Parks Recreation and Trails.

Yet, the issue of urban trails cannot be divorced from the transportation system. Ideally, neighborhood traffic issues can be mitigated with a well defined and usable system of on-street bicycle routes and a connected system of sidewalks to fully accommodate and encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel for the full range of residents in Midvale City.

Inter-Neighborhood Non-Motorized Travel Travel between neighborhoods using modes other than the automobile is also inter­ related with planning for parks and recreational facilities. The WFRC, in recent years, has taken an active role in coordinating the efforts of most jurisdictions in the region to identify a system of on-street and off-street urban trails which can link cities and link neighborhoods within cities without dependence on the private automobile. Trails are discussed further in Chapter 8.

Transportation Element Fall2003 3-13 Midvale General Plan

Mass Transit

The location of the light rail line through Midvale provides an opportunity to change the use of mass transit in the city. Longer term, a second east-west light rail line is in the planning stages which would connect the north-south line to an extension in West Jordan and South Jordan along the existing UP railroad spur. Presently UTA runs fixed route transit service throughout the region. Although 75% of all transit users have access to a vehicle, UTA service provides the most significant benefit to under-served transportation groups such as the mobility impaired, poverty level households, and individuals or groups with limited automobile availability. This group comprises the remaining 25% ofUTA riders and are generally called "transit captives", since mass transit allows their only opportunity for transit.

Present bus service is oriented towards providing minimum service in all areas. The extension ofbus service to outlying areas limits the ability ofUTA to provide premium service, characterized by express service which can travel as fast or faster than the single occupant automobile. Currently, approximately half of all routes are express routes, with 5 of those routes serving Midvale. The implementation of light rail allows transit service to be dramatically improved. The use of an exclusive rail line allows light rail trains to travel faster than cars or buses limited to the congested highways, as well as lower operating costs for train service so that more extensive bus service can be offered. The location of two, and possibly three, stations in Midvale City offers greater transit accessibility to the residents of Midvale. Further, the reduction of rail operating costs (compared to comparable bus operating costs) will allow existing or expanded bus service to operate at greater frequency in Midvale and throughout the valley.

It is worth mentioning the potential housing and business opportunities associated with existing or future light rail stations. According to the 2000 Census, 8.1 percent of Midvale households did not own automobiles compared to 12.7 percent ofhouseholds in the Salt Lake City urbanized area. The presence of light rail allows families to dedicate a lower portion of their total income to automobiles and automobile transportation and consequently a higher percentage of income to housing. Midvale can also explore business participation in the UTA ECO-Pass program, which provides reduced cost or subsidized transit to business with the cost of each ride dependent on the size and commitment level of the business. Further information can be obtained from the UTA Rideshare program.

Table 3-3 summarizes the existing levels of automobile ownership by households in Midvale. High transit ridership groups typically include those households without automobiles and also those households with limited automobiles (such as multiple person households with only one automobile). While Midvale City is not too different from Salt Lake County as a whole, there are pockets of limited automobile availability for which transit service may be a vital component of overall mobility and quality of life.

Transportation Element Fall2003 3-14 Midvale General Plan

Table 3-3 Midvale City Household Automobile Ownership

Car Midvale City Midvale S.L. County Ownership Households Percent 0 Cars 816 8.1% 6.3% 1 Car 3,899 38.5% 29.4% 2 Cars 3,762 37.2% 41.3% 3 Cars 1' 111 11.0% 15.4% 4+ Cars 537 5.3% 7.6% Data From 2000 Census

Transportation Related Recommendations

Major Streets

Even though many of the major streets within Midvale are the responsibility of the Utah Department of Transportation, it is still important that these streets represent the values and identity of Midvale. It is important to acknowledge that funding issues, and general transportation funding shortfalls, have an impact on the ability to develop transportation corridors which balance transportation capacity needs and community needs.

Gateways One issue stressed by the public has been the outside view of Midvale through the major roadway corridors. State Street was given as an example of presenting a poor image of the City. Other corridors such as 7200 South and 7800 South across the Jordan River and, to a lesser extent, 700/900 East were identified as areas where a "gateway" to the City could be identified through various landscape features.

Figure 3-8 displays the typical cross sections of several existing or proposed (since 7200 South has design plans pending) streets in Midvale. Generally, these cross sections attempt to maximize traffic safety and capacity. Alternative cross sections are shown in Figure 3-9. These cross sections are not proposed, but provide some ideas for the types of landscaping and "gateway" related amenities which could be implemented within the existing highway rights-of-way.

Traffic Flow There is a trade-off to these alternative cross sections. In addition to the pure dollar costs of landscaping, traffic capacity and safety issues should be considered. The width of travel lanes is one issue affecting traffic. According to the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, 1994), the capacity of a standard 12 foot travel lane is reduced by 3 percent when the lane width is reduced to 11 feet and 7 percent when the lane width decreases to 10 feet. Further reductions in traffic capacity are also evident with lateral clearance of obstructions adjacent to the road. Trees, for

Transportation Element Fall2003 3-15 Approximate Cross Section of State Street South of 7200 South 100'+/- c 50' I 50'

..... ,a· 10' 12' 12' 11' 12' 12' 10' "'1 0' Varies I I I Varies = = Shoulder Travel Travel Median Travel Travel Shoulder Lane Lane Tum Lane Lane Lane

State Street

TYPICAL 106' SECTION 106' 53' 4f 53'

12.5' 9.5' 12' 12' 1 ~· 12' 12' 9.5' 12.5' ~, I I I I = ~ Shoulder Travel Travel Median Travel Travel Shoulder Lane Lane Turn Lane Lane Lane

TYPICAL 88' SECTION 88' 44' 44' 35" 35 9' 4' 12' 12' 1 ' 12' J2' 4' 9'

- Shoulder Travel Travel Painted Travel Travel Shoulder Lane Lane Median Lane Lane

7200 South

Fchr & Peers Associates, Inc. •SOurce: UOOT; 'Plans of Proposed Local Road." 7200 South; State Street to 700 East Improvement Project

Figure 3-8 Existing and Planned Arterial Street Cross-Sections 100'-106' t

6'-11' 10' 11' 11' 11 ' 11' 6'-11' I I Travel Travel Travel Travel Walk 1-:.:!-l Shoulder Lane Lane Lane Lane Shoulderl-:.:!-t Walk Planter Planter Strip Strip

100'-106' t

6' 12'1 12'1 14' 12' 12' 8' 6' I I I Travel Travel Two-Way Travel Travel Shouldctj5' -1 0 J Walk Lane Lane Left Tum Lane Lane Walk or Planter Median Strip

Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. *Source: UDOT; "Plans of Proposed Local Road." 7200 South; State Street to 700 East Improvement Project

Figure 3-9 Alternative Arterial Street Cross Sections Midvale General Plan

example, can affect capacity by serving as a fixed obstruction on the side of the road. In addition to possible safety impacts with these obstructions, there is also a capacity impact (which varies by lane width). The City should develop corridor specific plans which include landscaping, gateway themes, and traffic impacts on key corridors which can serve to guide private development as well as City or UDOT roadway design decisions.

Although street width and cross section has an impact on traffic safety and capacity, signalized intersections represent the typical constraints for the operation of most arterial streets. The City should work within the traffic signal warrants of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices to implement signals where warrants are met and where traffic capacity will not be altered. Local traffic movements should be carefully considered in signal and intersection design such that added turn lanes, for example, may provide for reduced green time needed for turns and subsequent higher green time and traffic capacity for the critical through movements. In some cases, additional right-of-way at critical intersections can dramatically improve traffic capacity with relatively modest cost implications.

Access Control Finally, major street capacity is also impacted by the design and magnitude of driveway access. Proper access management can improve street safety and capacity without major modification of roadways. Good access management incorporates the following:

• Separation of conflict areas - adequate spacing between streets and driveways allows drivers to react to one area at a time and reduces the potential for conflict. • Reduction of the interference of through traffic - providing turning lanes, designing driveways with large turning radii, and restricting turning movements in and out of driveways allows turning traffic to get out of the way of through traffic. • Provides sufficient spacing at signalized intersections - good spacing reduces conflict areas and increases the potential for smooth traffic progression. • Provides adequate on-site circulation and storage- reduces the number of driveways that properties need for access to the major roadway.

Table 3-4 shows basic guidelines for the separation of driveways.

Table 3-4 Driveway Separation

Street Type Separation Minor Collector 85 feet Major Collector 85- 150 feet Minor Arterial 185 feet Major Arterial 230-300 feet

On State Street, for example, the consolidation of driveways could dramatically improve the gateway quality of the road and provide for improved safety and capacity. Transportation Element Fall2003 3-18 Midvale General Plan

Although access control is often provided by local development as opposed to public works projects, driveway consolidation of existing parcels is often best accomplished through City impetus. The City should actively consider shared access points and driveway consolidation, conflict point separation and elimination, visual cues, and related access management issues in development and redevelopment review and related activities.

Specific Recommendations On certain major streets in Midvale the future demand for use of the roadway will outweigh the maximum capacity. Midvale should attempt to maximize street capacity while maintaining community identity. The following streets will likely experience demand above capacity for the road by the year 2020 (as shown in Figure 3-3). Based on the discussion above, recommendations for each street have been made.

• State Street The growth of the south valley will inevitably increase the use of State Street through Midvale. An obvious solution is to widen the road to accommodate additional travel lanes. Despite UDOT plans to widen the road to 106 feet, the railroad bridge at the south border of Midvale poses a substantial barrier to widening.

• 7200 South from I-15 to State Street The commercial area of 7200 South between the interchange and State Street will eventually exceed the current capacity. Possible solutions might include the realignment and adjustment oftiming of signals to improve traffic flow, and the improvement of access control and spacing.

• 900 East 900 East through Midvale will experience capacity problems. A possible solution would be to maximize the pavement width of the road by eliminating shoulders or turn lanes and increasing the number of travel lanes.

7800 South Widening the intersection of 7800 South and State Street would likely help traffic flow on 7800 South and increase the capacity of the road.

Local Streets

An important element in providing adequate capacity on major streets is to minimize cut­ through traffic and high traffic speeds on local streets. Where major streets provide for long-distance and high-speed travel, local streets should be primarily designed to serve as immediate access to the neighboring properties. The width of travel lanes, the length of streets, design speed of site distance, and even the proximity of trees and related visual distractions can have an impact on the speeds traveled on local streets and the subsequent number of drivers who may choose to use local streets as an alternative to a major street.

Transportation Element Fall2003 3-19 Midvale General Plan

Local Street Preservation In Midvale, local street rights-of-way appear to vary between very small alleys (as small as 9 feet) to more typical widths of 50 feet to 66 feet. These varying widths and standards affect the strength of the local neighborhoods served by those streets. For example, the character of Jefferson Street, which is a 50 foot right-of-way with mature trees, is different than that of 300 East, which is a 66 foot right-of-way. Some of these streets are used as short-cuts to avoid more congested arterial routes. Midvale should strive to identify vital neighborhood streets that serve as short-cuts with, and take measures to discourage cut-through traffic at high traffic speeds.

Another issue related to local street preservation is truck routing. The community has identified the use of local streets as truck routes as a problem, citing specifically Locust Street as a major problem. Issues include increased noise, safety issues for children and pets, damage to property, and general decrease in neighborhood feel. For this reason, the truck routing plan for the city should be reviewed and updated. Truck routes should be exclusive of local residential streets.

For many years, traffic engineers encouraged larger streets. The advantages of larger streets included ease of access for emergency vehicles and garbage pick-up, allowance of parking on both sides, extra width for utilities and utility maintenance (beyond the minimum travel width), and other reasons. Pavement width was typically greater than 32 feet and often approached 40 feet under this paradigm. Recent research has suggested that wider pavements encourage higher speeds, cost more to maintain, and generally are not necessary for limited emergency services. Narrower pavement widths are becoming more acceptable (up to 28 feet), and sometimes even narrower to reflect these more recent concerns. The width of existing local street rights-of-way in Midvale vary, the City should develop pavement and landscaping standards which can be implemented either as development occurs, or in key locations by the City. The goal of the standard is to minimize travel speeds and volumes on local streets.

Traffic Calming I -15 reconstruction has allowed the City to experience the complaints and neighborhood impacts of higher traffic sooner than expected. Short term problems with the construction of I -15 allow the City to experiment with varying levels of traffic management and develop possible actions to assist in calming traffic on local or neighborhood streets. Figure 3-10 displays local streets which have either had speed complaints from local residents or appear to be threatened due to other conditions. These streets should be monitored, and when appropriate, traffic calming measures should be implemented.

Mass Transit

Mass transit is an important element in the Midvale transportation system and should not be neglected. Increasing mass transit opportunties will have several effects on the transportation system and the Midvale community. First, congestion on major roadways will be alleviated as more convenient transit service will encourage people to leave cars

Transportation Element Fall2003 3-20 ~MIDVALE CITY MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN

MURRAY ! FIGURE 3-10 .. _j 1-15 J 6790s-h ( TRAFFIC CALMn ~ "' Twin Peaks Dr. \ il 6875s-h ' 81 161505.) F"" ,Unton CORRIDORS ~. \ .. 1 nooSouth Cllf'lsonAve. "'I (,.,f 170ZO S.l ..,.,!" ., I Ill . 0 0 .. I I .o<- ....~ ... si d i ! LEGEND z 8 0 <( ... ..0 • 0 a:: I ~ I .... • I (/) I • •• • ••••••• City Identified Spe ~ I I Complaints I 77ZO South I li-ci I West Center St. • :1111 • • • • Consultant Additic i ..ol • ,.ooz 7800South • Ill c .. 'I I SANOY liE ..ol 6 I j l aooo South ! I I~ I I '-. II 1·15 I j LANDMARK DESIGN --- fPFehr & Peers Associates, Inc. ft-101 .... c...... t • • l • • I f' I t -- t' a -- ~ May, 2000 ------· ---- ~------Midvale General Plan at home. Second, transit will benefit the community by encouraging cycling and walking instead of driving, bringing people out of their cars and more directly into the community. Third, convenient transit may also encourage community development around Light Rail stations and bring a network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities to the streets that serve mass transit stations.

Near term plans for the operation of the north-south light rail line, TRAX, allow the City to provide positive guidance towards bus routing and circulation needs in the City. Planned TRAX stations should be integrated into development opportunities surrounding the station, including strong pedestrian linkages and mixed land uses. A future TRAX station may be located at the south end of the City along the border with Sandy. The City should continue to work with UTA to determine right-of-way needs and related issues to ensure that TRAX stations best serve the local community, and are integrated into development.

For TRAX to be a viable option and a successful mass transit alternative for Midvale residents, it must be accessible by the community. The two (possibly three) light rail stations should be interconnected by UTA buses with consistent and frequent bus service to ensure that residents are able to access light rail from their homes with a minimum walk distance. Additionally, TRAX stations should be treated as 'intermodal' facilities, meaning that they should integrate walkers, cyclists, as well as other forms of transit, such as UTA buses or local shuttles.

Timing is also advantageous for the City to work with UTA on possible future extensions of the TRAX line through western Midvale and into West Jordan and South Jordan. Although UTA's ownership of a linear corridor through the City and budget constraints associated with operating the local transit service occasionally strain their relationship with local communities, Midvale is in a position to continue to work with UTA towards mutually beneficial transit and community development solutions. Transit stations and development opportunities are also discussed in Chapter 4 - Land Use.

Goals and Policies

Goal #1: To improve the function and capacity of major streets in Midvale.

Policy #1: Define and establish a classification ofstreets.

Implementation Measures: 1. Create a hierarchy of street classifications from private lanes to major arterials. 2. Create a Transportation Master Plan, including city streets for undeveloped areas.

Transportation Element Fall2003 3-22 Midvale General Plan

Policy #2: To maximize the capacity of signalized intersections in Midvale.

Implementation Measures: 1. Incorporate Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) such as dynamic vehicle detection, signal coordination, incident management, priority vehicle signal preemption, and other emerging technologies. 2. Consider the purchase of additional right-of-way at intersections to provide for added turns which maximize traffic flow. 3. Install new signals only after minimum traffic signal warrants are met and only after other traffic control devices are considered.

Policy #3: To maximize the through traffic capacity of major streets in Midvale.

Implementation Measures: 1. Incorporate access management policies in new development and redevelopment for each classification of street. 2. Minimize or eliminate sign clutter to provide improved positive guidance for motorists. 3. Consider the needs of alternative travel modes in roadway design.

Goal #2: Preserve the character of local and neighborhood streets.

Policy #1: To reduce speed on local and neighborhood streets.

Implementation Measures: 1. Explore the full range of traffic management measures and plan for appropriate funding to implement selected measures. 2. Develop a traffic calming policy and implementation plan with appropriate standards and management measures based on measurable criteria which solicits public input regarding problem streets. 3. Develop a traffic calming pilot program on selected local streets. Policy #2: To improve the function of local streets for serving access to individual properties.

Implementation Measures: 1. Develop pavement width standards and retrofit standards for local streets. 2. Incorporate sight distance, curb radii and other design features appropriate for low speed travel. 3. Discourage cui-de-sacs and other dead-end streets.

Goal #3: Improve alternate transportation systems.

Policy #1: Promote pedestrian and non-motorized uses to provide intra- neighborhood and short distance transportation needs.

Transportation Element Fall2003 3-23 Midvale General Plan

Implementation Measures: 1. Inventory existing sidewalks and strive to connect sidewalks within neighborhoods. 2. Create a sidewalk replacement program which may include the development of a shared funding policy. 3. Improve street lighting to provide for a safe pedestrian environment where possible. 4. Pursue a system of trails and bicycle routes which access schools, parks, and other destinations where possible.

Policy #2: To encourage the use of mass transit.

Implementation Measures: 1. Encourage transit friendly developments which mix land uses and allow for greater pedestrian and bicycle activity near transit terminals. 2. Work with UTA to locate future bus, park-and-ride, and TRAX stations so they best serve Midvale City. 3. Work with UTA to optimize bus routing in Midvale City. 4. Support public private partnerships for development around express bus routes, TRAX stations, and other transit lines. 5. Review emerging technologies for future use in Midvale.

Policy #3: Encourage other alternative forms of transportation.

Implementation Measures: 1. Consider the joint use of private parking lots for public park-and-ride lots. 2. Work with the WFRC, UDOT, and neighboring cities to develop a system of bicycle routes. 3. Minimize physical barriers associated with major roads by maximizing the opportunity to place trails on linear corridors such as canals, the TRAX line, and other corridors. 4. Consider a wide variety of funding sources for improving the alternative mode transportation system including federal sources such as Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation I Air Quality (CM/AQ) Enhancement Program, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), as well as state and local funding.

Transportation Element Fall2003 3-24 Midvale City General Plan

Land Use Element 4

Introduction

When the Union Fort area of Salt Lake County was annexed, Midvale City inherited the zoning and land use designations assigned by Salt Lake County for that area. The area within the pre-annexation boundary of Midvale City also had zoning and land use designations applied through the then current General Plan dated 1979. In May 2000, Midvale City updated its General Plan to include all areas of the City. The General Plan identified a number of land use goals and policies. Since being adopted, a number of these goals have been achieved.

With the exception of the Sharon Steel and Bingham Junction sites located all along the western border of the City, Midvale City is essentially built-out. Some in-fill opportunities still exist; however, the pattern of development is determined in many areas of the City, particularly in the residential neighborhoods. These existing conditions and established land use patterns must be taken into consideration in the determination of future land uses or the confirmation of current uses.

During a public process that identified resident issues and concerns, several land use issues were raised for consideration in this plan.

• Land use designations for the two Superfund sites on the western edge of the City. • Compatibility of land uses on the Sharon Steel and Bingham Junction sites to those in Old Town. • Land use designations for the lands surrounding the light rail transit stations. • Location of additional commercial development, particularly neighborhood service commercial uses.

Existing Zoning

A goal of the May 2000 General Plan was to consolidate, simplify and update the numerous zoning districts which were the result of combining Midvale City's zoning ordinance with Salt Lake County's zoning ordinance after the annexation of the Union Fort area. The Existing Zoning Map (Figure 4-1) is the result ofMidvale City's yearlong process to rewrite the zoning ordinance in 2001. It was effective on January 2, 2002. In addition, a number of zones were created to address future land uses, i.e. Transit Oriented Development, Sharon Steel, Bingham Junction. The following zones are shown on the Existing Zoning Map and are briefly described in Table 4-1 that follows.

It is important to note that zoning designations are not necessarily an accurate representation of existing land use. Over time, it will be important to zone areas appropriately so that they reflect the intent of the General Plan. Although recently updated, there may be zoning categories that do not currently exist in Midvale City that

Land Use Element Fall2003 4-1 Midvale City General Plan

will also be needed to appropriately address desired future land uses and to secure the future of existing land uses.

Table 4-1 Existing Midvale City Zoning Designations

Zone Use Minimum Lot Size Comments

Residential Zones

SF-1 Single family detached residence 7,000 s.f. SF-2 Single family detached residence 5,000 s.f. RM-12 Single family detached residence 5,000 s.f. Duplex 6,000 s.f. Multi family Up to 12 DU/acre 21,780 s.f. min.; 4,000 s.f. for first DU & 3,500 s.f. for each add'l DU RM-25 Single family detached 5,000 s.f. Duplex 6,000 s.f. Multi family Up to 25 DU/acre 21,780 s.f. min.; 3,000 s.f. for first DU & 1,690 s.f. for each add'l DU Overlays

Duplex Overlay Duplex/Twin Home 7,000 s.f. Used in conjunction with SF-1 zone Agricultural Overlay Agricultural & farm related uses 1 acre Used in conjunction with SF-1 zone 7200 South Overlay Mixed Use No minimum Supplements MU zone

Commercial/Jndustrial Zones

RC Regional Commercial No minimum Office, retail, service CI Clean Industrial No minimum Light manufacturing, warehousing, commercial Mixed Use Zones

MU Mixed Use No minimum Residential, limited commercial sse State Street Commercial No minimum Office, retail, service, residential along StateStreet corridor TOD Transit Oriented Development No minimum Commercial, higher density residential near TRAX and transit stations HC Historic Commercial No minimum Commercial, residential contributing to historic character of Midvale ss Sharon Steel No minimum Commercial, limited resid­ ential preserving environ­ mental remediation of site BJ Bingham Junction No minimum Mixed use, master plan following Bingham Junction Reuse Master Plan Land Use Element Fall2003 4-2 FIGURE4-l

MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN

.c "" .::) ll'IU ONING

1.-N

.., .... ---··

~~ =i ~ : ~ ~&.2.-t~ Gil ..~w l ll~F LEGEND C-1 •• • EJ A-1 0 R-1-8 • '1.-2:-1 11 C-1 0 R-1-8a ' C-2 i:J R-2-6.5 0 C-2/zc 0 R-2-8 0 C-3 0 R-2-10 C-.1lloJ- 1.-1-a. 1!\l HISTORIC IIII!J D R-2-10a · _ .... 1·1 ~ I lr I =_.._.-11~.~ I ~ .-;;...... 1 '-- . • 1-1 II R-M ·~~{ ·- 0 I-2 11 R-M/zc · !:] R-1-S Ill R·M-12 II R-1-6 0 R-M-20 ...~ II R-1-7 II R-M-30

1·1

IIIIAI.ONITIII!L PK.OPU.TY TO BB ANNBXBD IIITO MIDVALE CITY .... ·- 32011 SCALB: 1._1600' ~ NORTH APRIL2000 LANDIIARK -- ~tDESIGN ~f'~~ ...... --- Midvale City General Plan

Existing Land Use

The Existing Land Use Map (Figure 4-2) is also a blending of information from Midvale City regarding the pre-annexation boundary, and information from Salt Lake County for the Union Fort area. Annexation of the Union Fort area essentially doubled the size of Midvale City to approximately six square miles.

Several land use categories have been identified and are shown on the Existing Land Use Map. The dominant land use is low density residential which occupies approximately 28 percent of land area. These are single family residential neighborhoods, most of which appear cared-for and stable. Approximately 23 percent ofland is vacant or undeveloped. The majority of this land occurs on the Sharon Steel site (approximately 262 acres, this includes the 180 acres annexed into Midvale City from Salt Lake County in 2001) and the Midvale Slag site (approximately 367 acres). The remaining vacant land is made up of small parcels (approximately 224 acres) interspersed throughout the developed areas ofthe City.

The approximate quantity of land devoted to each land use category is summarized in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2 Midvale City Existing Land Use Categories

Approximate Land Use Category Area in Acre(s) Percent of Total

Residential - Low Density 1,054 28.0 Residential - Medium Density 148 4.0 Residential - High Density 225 6.0 Residential - Mobile Home 20 0.5 Office 47 1.0 Mixed Use 6 0.0 Commercial 325 8.5 Public Facilities 72 2.0 Health Facilities 15 0.5 Church 45 1.0 School 130 3.5 Parks and Open Space 40 1.0 Industrial 128 3.0 Utility 0.5 0.0 Vacant 874 23.0 Roadways and Rights-of-way 675 18.0

TOTAL 3,804 100%

Land Use Element Fall2003 4-4 Midvale City General Plan

Land Use Analysis and Recommendations

An analysis of existing land use unveils several opportunities for new development, redevelopment, transit-oriented development, and in-fill development, as well as opportunities to create stronger neighborhoods and community services.

New Development Opportunities

In terms of future land use potential, the Sharon Steel and Midvale Slag sites are the most obvious opportunities for new development, though they do have limitations due to environmental conditions. Of the two sites, Sharon Steel has the most restrictions on development. The Site Development Analysis diagram (Figure 4-3) illustrates some of the considerations regarding development on these two sites.

Sharon Steel Site The Sharon Steel site, located along the southwest boundary of Midvale City, is comprised of approximately 262 acres of which approximately 175 acres are capped, 14 acres are wetlands, and the remaining 73 acres along the eastern edge are considered clean. In discussions with the EPA and UDEQ it has been found that development restrictions are not as limiting as previously thought. With proper design and coordination with the regulating agencies all of the developable acreage could be open to even residential uses.

Landform on the site slopes from the Jordan River delta, east and upward, toward Midvale City Old Town residential areas, and north and upward, toward West Center Street. The shape of the landform and its steepness adjacent to West Center Street causes some restrictions to access. Access to the property from West Center Street is achievable from the lower delta area and the upper bench areas near Old Town. Other access options occur at the eastern edge of the property from Main Street and smaller residential streets serving an adjacent neighborhood.

Bingham Junction Site The Bingham Junction site (previously referred to as the Midvale Slag) is located north of West Center Street and is bisected by the westward extension of 7200 South that connects with West Jordan City. The parcel north of7200 South (approximately 140 acres) is suitable for commercial or industrial development. A higher level of cleanup may be required to accommodate residential uses on this parcel. At some point, and depending on the residential type planned, the cost of additional cleanup may be justified to achieve a highly amenity-oriented housing development with direct access to a major open space and trail system like the Jordan River Parkway.

Land Use Element Fall2003 4-5 ,_.. FIGURE4-2

~ w ~ 0 MIDVALE CITY ~ 0 ;;: ;i ,. ~ 0 ~ MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN ~w~JbC:: --:J \J MURRA ~~ ·-- DAl~ 1'1' \..I ,:,.~ ~ LAND USE MAP

LEGEND

[::::=J Reoidential (Low) C=:JReoidential (Medium)

- Reoidential (High) C=:JReoidential (Mobil Home Pull:)

- Office

- Mixed Uoe (Commen:iai/Reoidential)

- Commercial

- Government and Public Agencies

- Hnalth Facilitieo - Schoolo

- Chureh.,

- Padl:o and Open Space

- Induatrial - Utility

- Vacant SANDY ~ Existing TRAX Stationo ond ~ 1/4 mile Tr&IUiitOriented Development Ale& 8BAil.ONSTEBL PJ.OPBI.TY TO BB ANNBX11DINTO lGDVAIJICli'Y .... 1100' ,,... ~ NOaTB APRIL2000 ~~ LANDMARK -- ~tDESIGN -~ --1)--- 'I ~~-.;~ ...... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------

FIGURE 4-3

MIDVALE CITY MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN S E DEVELOPMENT N YSIS LEGEND c=J SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SUITABLE FOR COMMERCIAL AND .. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT .. SUITABLE FOR OPEN SPACE JORDAN RIVER PARKWAY AND .. RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SITE ACCESS POINTS

c=J RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS PARKS AND OPEN SPACE EEEB HISTORIC DISTRICT

* GATEWAY *TRAILHEAD ~ VIEWS • • • • • • JORDAN RIVER PARKWAY TRAIL ----- RIVERS AND CANALS ~------RAILROAD c==-==== PARKWAY OPPORTUNITIES SHARON STEEL PROPOSED TRAX STATION AND 114 PROPERTY TO BE MILE TRANSIT ORIENTED ANNEXED INTO DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL MIDVALE CITY ®

SCALE: 1"•1200' NORTH

LANDMARK

DESIGN BAJ.f' J.UI C11'Y UTAH IUJfHI

I'HONI (601) 414-:IMIO ,,u (MJJ)

The parcels to the south of 7200 South (approximately 227 acres) has more limitations due to a plateau composed of mixed-smelter waste and slag that remains on-site. Ground water is also an issue. The limitations resulting from these conditions are primarily related to increased costs of building, and training requirements required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for construction on the site, but may be mitigated somewhat by consolidating the materials in places where they will be capped, such as under roads, etc. EPA issued a final decision on remediation on October 29, 2002 (Record of Decision). Clean up on the site is forth coming. It is anticipated that as development pressures mount, the increased cost of development will be less important.

Portions of this property are suitable for residential development, as well as commercial or industrial uses. The locations where residential uses can occur are clearly shown in the Midvale Slag Reuse Plan "Bingham Junction", which will become the guide document when considering development proposals. It is important that potential development interests become fully aware of site conditions and possible institutional controls on both this property and the Sharon Steel site.

The landform on the property slopes from the Jordan River on the west, gently to the east across the delta, and then abruptly up toward 700 West. Access to the property is planned from 7200 South where two curb-cuts have been provided on each side of the roadway.

Sharon Steel Development Alternatives The intent of the alternatives is to illustrate the potential and a vision for the area. The alternatives acknowledge the special qualities of the sites and the development limitations resulting from previous uses.

Common elements to both alternatives are perhaps the most important from an urban design and community building perspective. Both alternatives propose: • A "park-like" quality along 7200 South, Center Street, and 700 West, • Pedestrian connections between uses and the Jordan River Parkway, and between new development and Old Town, • Jordan River Parkway development that is integrated into a future site development master plan for the area, and which is implemented as part of the development of the area, • A major public open space on the capped Sharon Steel property, • A future TRAX station at approximately 700 West and the railroad track, • Identified access points to the Jordan River Parkway corridor, • Site development guidelines and controls to assure consistency and quality of design, and • An emphasis on mixed-use. Major land use categories are shown in the alternatives, however, the intent is that the major categories establish the character of the area while numerous and diverse other uses compliment the "host" use.

Land Use Element Fall2003 4-8 Midvale City General Plan

Bingham Junction Reuse Assessment and Master Plan

A master plan for the Bingham Junction property, funded by a grant from the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency, was adopted by the City as an element of the General Plan in August 2000. This document addresses potential development ofthe site, including proposed F .A.R. 's, densities, and development patterns. This plan was not meant to be the final development plan, merely a guide based on the consensus of the stakeholders.

Sharon Steel and Bingham Junction Zone Districts

The Sharon Steel Zone District and the Bingham Junction Zone District were created as part of the January 2, 2002 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. These zones specifically address the Sharon Steel and Bingham Junction sites respectively. The zones require master planning of the sites, and allow a mix of land uses while addressing the environmental constraints of the sites.

Summary It is unlikely that either ofthese two land use alternatives will be fully implemented as shown. As development proposals are brought forward, it is essential that they be master planned so that the important open space and pedestrian linkages shown in the Midvale Slag Reuse Plan are integrated into the plan, and so that expectations for quality, pedestrian-oriented and linked development are fully realized. Again, the emphasis in this area is mixed-use, offering a broad variety of complementary, compatible, and supporting uses. The two zone districts will help ensure this happens.

Redevelopment Opportunities

Several Midvale City areas are suitable and prime for redevelopment. Redevelopment may become a project for the Midvale City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) or may be a partnership with local development interests, under the guidance of the RDA and the City. The RDA (City Council) has the ability to define redevelopment areas and make available special financing and development tools that would not otherwise be available to property owners. Working in conjunction with the RDA is an opportunity to benefit individual property owners, development entrepreneurs, and the community at-large. One of the important roles that an RDA can play is in the development of infrastructure improvements such as roads, sidewalks, lighting and landscaping that sets the tone for the redevelopment area and signals City commitment to positive change and good development quality.

Redevelopment does not necessarily have to involve public investment, as with a Redevelopment Area. It can also take place through entrepreneurs and private developers who assemble property, prepare a master plan, and through opportunities presented in the local market and economy, identify opportunities for development and redevelopment.

Land Use Element Fall2003 4-9 FIGURE 4-4

MIDVALE CITY MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN LA DUS VEA SHARON STEEL AND MIDVALE SLAG SITES

LEGEND C:::J MEDIUM/HIGH DENSITY HOUSING COMMERCIAL/OFFICE PARK

BUSINESS PARK, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, .. AND OFFICE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE/PARK

----- RIVERS AND CANALS ----- RAILROAD __...... --. JORDAN RIVER ACCESS PROPOSED TRAX STATION AND 114 MILE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

MEDIUM/HIGH DENSITY HOUSING

SHARON STEEL PROPERTY TO BE ANNEXED INTO MIDVALE CITY SCALE: 1"-1200' NORTH

LANDMARK AND UKD PUlfNINO

68$1. H/OHLUID DJUFI DESIGN 8AJ,f' IA/CI CIJ'Y urm B-IJOIJ PHON6 (BDJ) 4 '14- 3300 ,AX (601) 4 '!4 - 3303 FIGURE 4-5

MIDVALE CITY MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN LA P l\.T VEB SHARON STEEL AND MIDVALE SLAG SITES

LEGEND c=J LOW /MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING CJ MEDIUM/HIGH DENSITY HOUSING COMMERCIAL/OFFICE PARK

BUSINESS PARK, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, .. AND OFFICE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE/PARK

----- RIVERS AND CANALS ----- RAILROAD JORDAN RIVER ACCESS PROPOSED TRAX STATION AND 114 MILE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

RECREATION CENTER

LOW/MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING

SHARON STEEL PROPERTY TO BE ANNEXED INTO MIDVALE CITY SCALE: 1"•1200' NORTH

LANDMARK AND lAND P/.,jNN/NO

IIJ34 HIG~D DR~ DESIGN BJ.J.r uu crrr urm a4t01 PHON& (801) 41'4-3300 'AX (1101) 41'4- 3.JO:I Midvale City General Plan

In this case, the City's role is one of guidance, review and approval, and oversight to assure that the development is compatible with adjacent land uses, and complements other planning and design goals.

Regardless of how the redevelopment takes place, site development and architectural guidelines would be an important mechanism to assure quality development projects occur.

State Street Much of the area along State Street is underutilized with respect to the size, volume, and importance of the street as a transportation corridor. Many of the existing uses are relatively small businesses in single story buildings, located in suburban-style strip mall development patterns. In locations like those described, there are opportunities to consolidate small parcels and put together higher density, multi-story buildings with mixed-use developments of retail, service, commercial, and office uses. At the same time, streetscape improvements should be a part of the redevelopment.

State Street should be a high priority for redevelopment and streetscape improvements. A first step is the completion of a State Street Urban Design Plan which defines the "look" of the street and addresses issues such as access points, consolidation of parcels, landscaping and urban street treatments, building setbacks and scale, and image. A start to this first step has been taken with the creation of a State Street Commercial zone district in the January 2, 2002 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. This zone district includes mixed use and pedestrian elements in the form of architectural, landscaping, building orientation, lighting and signage standards.

7200 South Street The portion of the street widened (State Street to 700 East) will receive pressure to develop into uses that are not necessarily residential, yet it is important to sustain the viability and integrity of the adjacent residential neighborhoods. A Redevelopment Area between State and 700 East would provide the City with an opportunity to assemble parcels, remove residential structures where they are no longer viable, and redevelop the area with uses that will protect the edges of the existing neighborhoods and stop encroachment. Such uses may include multi-family residential development that replaces existing residential structures, or small professional offices that can occupy existing residential structures, serve as a transition to the neighborhoods, and act as a buffer to the traffic and congestion along 7200 South. A Residential-Business land use designation and/or zoning district would allow the existing residential structures to transition into other uses while still maintaining the residential quality of the street and nearby neighborhoods. In 2000, an overlay zone for the area along 7200 South between State Street and 700 East was created. Within this overlay, property may be rezoned from residential to a mixed-use zone, allowing some limited commercial uses. The overlay also defines development guidelines that emphasizes access control for maximum efficiency of the roadway and neighborhood preservation.

Land Use Element Fa112003 4-12 Midvale City General Plan

Threatened or Deteriorating Residential Neighborhoods Along similar lines, there are a couple residential neighborhoods that are threatened and surrounded by commercial and industrial development. Their quality and integrity as residential neighborhoods is marginal and pressures will mount to transition to other uses. These are again, areas where the City may wish to take a lead in facilitating the transition by working with residents, discussing relocation options, and assisting development interests in a change of land use.

The predominantly multi-family neighborhood on the eastern edge of the Sharon Steel Site is a potential redevelopment opportunity that would complement new residential development on the adjacent Sharon Steel site. Other opportunities occur along 7065 South Street (Glover Lane).

The Plan specifically recommends that the Sharon Steel site be redeveloped along with new housing; that the 7065 South Street (Glover Lane) residential be transitioned in an orderly manner from either end to commercial development; that the housing along 7200 South be allowed to transition to other, compatible and complementary uses as discussed above, and that the Maple and Birch Streets neighborhood be protected from future encroachment.

Bingham Junction and Sharon Steel Sites As discussed in other areas of the General Plan, these two sites are very important opportunities for land use change in Midvale City. The Midvale City Redevelopment Agency could be a major player in working with property owners, development interests, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the State Department ofEnvironmental Quality (DEQ) in facilitating development of the area and bringing together the parties necessary to achieve the General Plan goals and objectives. A Redevelopment Area on these two sites is highly recommended, and depending on how it is approached, may require application for an exemption on the 100 acre limit on Redevelopment Areas imposed by Utah code.

Utah Transit Authority Properties The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) owns property adjacent to the light rail corridor at the two station locations in Midvale City, and one future location where the station can potentially become an essential part of a future mixed-use development.

The two current TRAX stations at 7200 South and 7720 South are limited in size; however there are adjacent properties that have opportunities for redevelopment/Transit Oriented Development (TOD). The 7720 South station location is adjacent to property facing onto State Street that is owned by UTA, and which could become a joint­ development TOD opportunity.

A much larger site between State Street and the LRT track at approximately 8000 South will not be a TRAX station initially; however, it is owned by UTA and straddles the border between Midvale City and Sandy City. The site is recognized by both municipalities as a TOD opportunity in partnership with UTA. A station is not currently

Land Use Element Fall2003 4-13 Midvale City General Plan proposed on this site; however, an integrated TRAX station and mixed-use TOD development is envisioned on the site. Specific elements ofTOD projects are discussed in the following section.

Approaching redevelopment on these sites with an orientation toward TOD development is an opportunity to take advantage of the many people riding light rail, and to support ridership by increasing density at the station locations either through housing or employment.

Transit Oriented Development Opportunities

Properties in the vicinity of light rail stations are likely candidates for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) which maximizes the strong relationship between land use and transportation systems. TOD is a strategy that supports public transit and intermodal transportation (automobiles, light rail, walking, bicycling, and ridesharing), by locating land uses nearby that are complimentary to transit. The essential elements of TOD are:

• Density: a strong concentration of homes and/or jobs within walking distance of transit services. • Land Use Patterns: a mixture of land uses that provides a variety of services within walking distance, and a concentration of jobs that are linked to other employment centers along the transit route. • Design: pedestrian-friendly streets that encourage walking, bicycling and transit use in addition to automobile use.

Transit Oriented Development projects are often joint ventures between the transit provider and a private developer, or municipality acting as a developer. Others, are purely private development interests that understand the synergistic relationship between land use and transit, and wish to maximize development opportunities. From a planning perspective, it is important for the community to recognize these opportunities and to become an active participant in the development process either directly, or through the regulatory and approval process.

An overlay district, special district, or special zone is recommended in these areas so that development and/or redevelopment will be encouraged to development with a strong orientation toward public transit, and wherever possible, to integrate public transit into the projects master plan and design. The January 2, 2002 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance includes a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) zone district. This zone district is located in the areas within an approximate 114 mile radius ofthe existing TRAX stations and allows a mix of uses with standards that encourage a pedestrian­ oriented environment. These provisions will need to be monitored and possibly refined as Midvale City and developers gain experience with this type of development.

Land Use Element Fall2003 4-14 Midvale City General Plan

In-Fill Development Opportunities

The remaining undeveloped land in Midvale City is primarily small parcels and lots located within existing developed areas. These in-fill development opportunities must be compatible with adjacent land uses, i.e. new residential in-fill in residential areas, new commercial in-fill in commercial areas. As parcels are developed, it is the responsibility of Midvale City to ensure compatibility and good design.

Interior Lot Development In older residential areas where large lots were the norm because people often kept animals and cultivated large gardens, there is interest in opportunities to subdivide and develop additional residential dwellings on the property. The developable land is often located to the rear of the primary residence, on lots that are typically narrow, but deep. Access to the rear property may be limited to a single drive. Lot development on the interior of the block typically share access (driveway) or provide for a narrow separate driveway that provides the needed access. The residential dwelling does not front onto the street, but has direct access to the street. Interior lots are an appropriate in-fill pattern of development and can provide opportunities for housing within existing neighborhoods by allowing property owners to subdivide property to create additional residential lots The January 2, 2002 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance includes a flag lot provision and private road standards to allow some interior lot development.

Other opportunities occur for inter-block development. Often in residential and other areas, the large ten acre blocks typical of Utah communities illustrate a pattern of development where housing fronts all the neighborhood streets, but the interior of the block remains undeveloped. Neighbors may wish to cooperatively develop, or offer for sale to a developer, a subdivided parcel that reduces the size of their own lots and creates a developable parcel. Compatible residential uses for interior block development may be dwelling groups or small clusters of single family homes or duplexes, or depending on the size of the new parcel, multi-family dwellings. Of critical importance is compatibility with the surrounding residential, and adequate and safe access to neighborhood streets via dedicated streets.

Mixed-Use Development

The redevelopment, in-fill, new development, and transit oriented development opportunities discussed, all use the term mixed-use development. As the term suggests, it is a mix of compatible uses that complement each other. Mixed-use areas are appropriate in a number of places including Old Town, State Street, TRAX station areas, and others. Allowing for the creative development of mixed-use areas will require a change in zoning and the development of a mixed-use zone, or an overlay for specific mixed-use areas. Broad, mixed-use areas are not shown on the Proposed Land Use Map; however, as projects are proposed that could be appropriately developed as mixed-use projects, they should be considered and encouraged.

Land Use Element Fall2003 4-15 Midvale City General Plan

Because of its uniqueness to the community and its status as a Civic Center of the community, Old Town is specifically addressed here; however, other redevelopment, new development areas, and transit oriented development areas are prime candidates for mixed-use zoning and development.

Old Town Mixed use development in Old Town can provide opportunities for residential uses, for instance, on upper floors in commercial buildings. Opportunities for living in downtown areas is a nation-wide trend that is increasing housing opportunities, and establishing neighborhoods with a twenty-four hour presence. Mixed-use development should be encouraged in Old Town, where projects are evaluated primarily on compatibility with adjacent uses, rather than on actual use. The January 2, 2002 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance allows mixed use developments in Old Town.

Midvale City Land Use Map

Figure 4-6, the proposed Midvale City Land Use Map indicates future land use direction for Midvale City. In determining future land uses and changes in land use, compatibility with adjacent uses has been the most important consideration. Generally, the key features of the Proposed Land Use Plan are:

• In-fill areas within residential neighborhoods are generally shown as compatible with adjacent uses. • Along 7200 South between State Street and 700 East, opportunities to transition to other uses have been provided. Single family dwellings that wish to remain should be encouraged to do so. Residential structures may be used for other purposes (small professional office) and retain residential character, or parcels may be assembled for redevelopment as medium/high density housing, professional office, or a mix of uses. • Where opportunities for transit oriented design (TOD) or redevelopment opportunities have been identified, land use recommendations are compatible with a variety of final design solutions. • Redevelopment opportunity areas are outlined on the Proposed Land Use Map. • Neighborhoods that are threatened or deteriorating have been allowed to transition to other uses that are compatible with adjacent uses. • State Street uses generally remain the same (predominantly commercial and office), where isolated single-family residential uses are existing, they have been shown as transitioning to a commercial or office or mixed-use. Redevelopment opportunities along State Street will likely include similar land use designations (commercial, office, and mixed-use), but at a higher density and development standard. • Two alternative land use scenarios are presented for the Midvale Slag and Sharon Steel sites. Both address development constraints associated with the properties, and each takes full advantage of property where residential uses are possible. Remaining properties with commercial/industrial/office opportunities show different land use

Land Use Element Fa112003 4-16 FIGURE4-6

~ ~ ~ 'N>, "' MIDVALE CITY MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN -----.___;:.c.:_~~~::k=~==_J~'=~====::::-"'~= KvP\.JSDu LAND I T T r:• \P LEGEND D RESIDENTIAL (LOW) D RESIDENTIAL (MEDIUM) - RESIDENTIAL (HIGH) D RESIDENTIAL (MOBILE HOME PARK) - OFFICE

- MIXEDUSE - COMMERCIAL - GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AGENCIES - HEALTH FACILITIES - SCHOOLS - CHURCHES - PARKSANDOPENSPACE - INDUSTRIAL - UTILITY - SEE ALTERNATIVES FOR PROPOSED LAND USE APPROXIMATE POSSIBLE REDEVELOPMENT AREAS CMC CENTER/fOWN CENTER SANDY \ EXISTING TRAX STATION \ ~ PROPOSED TRAX STATION AND 1/4 MILE \ ~.:'~.AlOOlXBD 1>110 TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT \::VALI!crrY ~ POTENTIAL .... 1600' ·- ~ ' ' APRIL2000 NOI.TR ' ', I LANDIIARK '-.J -- ~~t DESIGN .~t~~ -(W I) - ~· ·~ ...... Midvale City General Plan

configurations. Both scenarios optimize the Jordan River Parkway and provide for publicly accessed open space and/or recreation facilities.

Specific and Desired Land Uses

Many of the development and redevelopment opportunities identified can provide places for desired uses and facilities. The community has identified several including the following: • More parks and open space, • A recreation center/complex, • A grocery store located west of State Street, and • A multi-cultural center.

Annexation

Midvale City is not currently anticipating future annexations. However, the issue of annexation will continue to arise from time to time, and needs at least a mention in the Plan.

The City should consider rationalizing its borders whenever possible through annexation or interlocal agreement. The annexation, though, should be initiated through petition by property owners wishing to annex into the city and should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Goals and Policies

Goal #1: Master Plan the Sharon Steel site to benefit the entire community.

Policy: Provide a mix of uses that complement Old Town and provide services to Midvale City residents.

Implementation Measures: 1. Master plan the site with the best possible mix of land uses, and reserve land for public open space, trail connections, parkway enhancements, and recreation facilities. 2. Complete a concept plan for the Jordan River Parkway with linkages to new and existing development areas. 3. Develop site and design guidelines for development of the two properties that address setbacks, building heights, landscape and public spaces, urban design features, image and aesthetics, materials and colors, and compatibility with other uses. 4. Create strong connections and linkages between Old Town and new development through compatible uses, elimination of barriers and encouragement of interdependency.

Land Use Element Fall2003 4-18 Midvale City General Plan

Goal #2: To preserve and protect the quality of life for viable residential neighborhoods.

Policy: Establish, enhance and maintain appropriate transitions, buffers, and screens to protect residential neighborhoods from encroachment by inappropriate commercial, industrial, and other uses that have incompatible characteristics.

Implementation Measures: 1. Identify existing residential neighborhood edges that require stabilization. 2. Require buffers, screens, and transitional uses in the zoning and development ordinance and develop a palette of possible treatments as examples for implementation. 3. Enhance the image of residential streets where necessary with street trees, pedestrian­ scale lighting, and other street furnishings. 4. Initiate development of ordinances that encourage minimal impact of interior block and lot development. 5. Require new structures and remodels of existing structures to be architecturally compatible within identified neighborhoods.

Goal #3: Stimulate redevelopment of deteriorating and threatened areas of the city.

Policy: To identify areas where redevelopment will most benefit the city and where market driven redevelopment is most appropriate.

Implementation Measures: 1. Establish site development and design guidelines to ensure quality development that is consistent with the Midvale City General Plan. 2. Develop partnerships for both RDA and market-driven projects to maximize the benefit to the community.

Goal #4: To identify Midvale City Civic Center as a focal point of civic uses for the entire city.

Policy #1: To maintain and sustain the Civic Center as a center of civic, cultural, and community life.

Implementation Measures: 1. Expand the streetscape image and identity within the expanded Civic Center boundary as shown on the Land Use Map. 2. Locate additional civic, cultural, and public/quasi-public uses within the Civic Center boundary. 3. Expand opportunities in the Civic Center with additional entertainment venues and attractions. 4. Maintain City Hall in the Civic Center boundary.

Land Use Element Fall2003 4-19 Midvale City General Plan

Policy #2: Maintain and sustain Old Town as an important element of the civic center.

1. Maintain the existing National Register buildings as public facilities. 2. Support downtown businesses by locating complimentary uses in nearby development areas.

Goal #5: Master Plan around transit oriented development opportunities.

Policy: Continue on-going communications with Utah Transit Authority concerning development at station locations.

Implementation Measures:

1. Coordinate with UTA in the development of a plan for each of the station locations and other UTA-owned properties. 2. Partner in the development of the Sutherland property to include a mixed-use development with direct TRAX access.

Land Use Element Fall2003 4-20 Midvale City General Plan

Economic Development Element 5

The Economic Development Element evaluates the current economic activities in the City and makes recommendations for future economic development initiatives.

Existing Conditions

Revenue Sources

Midvale City' s budget totaled $14,264,100 in FY 2002. Because of a very strong commercial tax base, sales tax revenues are the largest single source of funds for the city, contributing 36 percent of total revenues. As a result, property taxes have remained very low in Midvale and contribute only 17 percent of the overall budget. A detailed breakdown of the General Fund revenues is as shown in Figure 5-1.

Midvale General Fund Revenues

Miscellaneous 1%

6% Charges for Service 2% Licenses and Permits 3% Sales 36% Fines and Forfeitures 6% Property 17% Franchise Intergovernmental 9% 13% Motor Vehicle 2% Transient Room 0%

Figure 5-1

Property Tax Base

It is interesting to note that the commercial property producing so much of Midvale City' s revenues actually makes up a very small portion of the property tax base of the community. Table 5-1 below summarizes the percentage share oftotal property valuation for each type of property (commercial, residential, etc.). As can be seen, nonresidential

Economic Development Element Fall2003 5-l Midvale City General Plan uses comprise only 27 percent of total market value and 39 percent of total taxable value. 1 There is relatively little industrial/warehouse land (as reflected in valuation) in the community.

Table 5-1 Summary of Market and Taxable Value Midvale City, 1998 Market Value %Total Taxable Value %Total Residential $1,041,337,879 67.9% $570,102,425 60.5% Industrial/Warehouse $70,547,190 4.6% $70,557,230 7.5%

Commercial /Retail $276,054,224 18.2% $269,058,240 28.6%

Government $53,677,210 3.5% $53,516,178 3.8% Vacant Land $32,206,326 2.1% $30,104,418 32 .0% Not for Profit $55,210,845 3.6% $940,763 0.1%

Other $1,533,634 0.1% $1 ,533,634 .11% City Total Values: $1,533,634,580 $1 ,395,812,888

Source: Wikstrom Economic & Planing Consultants, Inc., and Salt Lake County Assessor's Office

Commercial Activity

Major Sales Categories, 2000 An economic analysis was prepared for the City as a whole and the four main commercial areas: the Historic Downtown, Union Fort, State Street and 7200 South. This allows a review of the types of sales activity that currently exist and to identify potential opportunities or niches that can be addressed in future planning. 2 The general boundaries of the commercial areas are illustrated in the Appendix.

Figure 5-2

1 The difference between taxable and market value is related to the 45 percent residential property tax exemption.

2 Note that this information is based on sales tax data provided by the Utah State Tax Commission. The Tax Commission maintains a database of all sales by each individual sales outlet in the state. While very informative and useful, the data has some limitations. For example, the Tax Commission generally codes each of the various outlets into a single industry. Because many retail operations could be coded into more than one category, this results in some misleading information for specific industries. Also, some of the geographic coding may be inaccurate. For example, outlets listed as being in Midvale City may in fact be located elsewhere. This occurs infrequently, but can lead to some questions regarding the outcomes of the analysis. We have attempted to correct mistakes whenever possible (primarily when there is a major impact on the analysis).

Economic Development Element Fall2003 5-2 Midvale City General Plan

Five general sales categories shown in Figure 5-2 represent 42 percent of total 2001 sales in Midvale City:

X wholesale activity •II percent of total City sales X automotive sales (including RV and gasoline) •II percent of total X food/grocer/ • 8. 3 percent of total X apparel (not including department stores) •3.4 percent of total, and X restaurants (including fast food) • 8. 7 percent of total

Each of these activities occurs throughout the four commercial areas described above. The Other category (see Figure 5-2) captures all other sales of goods and services in the community. The amount of each sales activity that occurs within a particular geographic area helps define the role that each area plays within the community.

Chart 5-2 Automotive and RV Wholesale Sales Trade 23% 22%

Restaurants and Fast Food Sales Food Apparel 28% 20% Sales 7% It is clear that the four commercial areas capture the bulk of city sales activities. For each of these categories, the four commercial areas represent over 90 percent of total sales within the city.

The relative strengths ofthe four commercial areas is quite pronounced. For example, the Union Fort area represents 69 percent of restaurant sales, 83 percent of apparel sales, 42 percent of food sales and 32 percent ofwholesale trade. The State Street Corridor produces 16 percent of restaurant sales, 42 percent of automotive-related sales and 22 percent of wholesale sales. The 7200 South Corridor captures the bulk of automobile sales and wholesale trade as well as a large proportion of food sales. The Historic Downtown, while it admittedly covers a smaller area than the other three, produces very little of the citywide sales in any of these broad categories.

Sales in each of the commercial areas have been analyzed at a more detailed level. These are included in the Appendix. Generally, the areas can be summarized as follows. The

Economic Development Element Fall2003 5-3 Midvale City General Plan

7200 South Corridor is a wholesale and automotive-based commercial area. The State Street Corridor contains small-to-medium-sized commercial uses that rely on automobile access and also contains a large share of automotive-related uses. The Historic Downtown could almost be characterized as an industrial or quasi-industrial area, based on its current uses, although the physical layout of the area would support more pedestrian-oriented uses. Finally, the Union Fort area is the retail heart ofthe city; it has the most retail activity as well as a strong office market (see office discussion below).

Leakage A leakage analysis determines the amount of Midvale City consumer dollars that are lost to businesses outside of the city limits. Midvale City consumers may be spending their money elsewhere because certain types of establishments are simply not available to serve the residents or the existing commercial establishments in the area are not suitable in quality or quantity. The analysis enables the City to assess which types of commercial establishments are capturing the dollars spent by residents and the ones that are not doing as well. By defining commercial categories where there is leakage, an assessment can be made to see if there is the potential to recapture lost sales by adding new kinds of commercial establishments.

The Utah Tax Commission tracks direct sales4 by gross sales amount and by standard industrial classification (SIC) code. With the use of a per capita sales in each category, the consumption patterns of Midvale City are compared to the consumption of the average Utah consumer. The State-AS per capita expenditure in each commercial classification is calculated by dividing the category's gross sales by the state's population. In theory, Midvale City residents should be spending as much as the average Utahn. The expected (potential) Midvale City gross sales for each commercial classification is calculated by multiplying the category's state per capita sales by the number of Midvale City residents. This amount -- expected sales -- is then compared to the actual gross sales of the City in each category. If actual sales exceeds expected sales, this particular commercial category is capturing more than what could be expected from Midvale City households. Two things can be deduced from this; either Midvale City residents are spending more than their Utah counterparts or non-city residents are spending their consumer dollars in the City. The latter is most likely the case. Conversely, if actual sales are less than expected sales, there is "leakage" in that category. In other words, Midvale City residents are most likely spending their consumer dollars within these commercial categories outside of the City.

Most major retail categories are well represented in Midvale. Areas where Midvale is garnering significant sales from other communities include department stores5 (including Costco ), food stores, retail lumber/hardware, sporting goods, restaurants, computers, music

4 "Direct sales are identified when the sale is associated with an outlet within a particular locality." Utah State Tax Commission.

5 Retailers are classified as department stores if they have their own credit card.

Economic Development Element Fall2003 5-4 Midvale City General Plan and automobiles. The main areas of leakage are wholesale trade, major manufacturing and production, furniture and women's apparel. (See Appendix for detailed leakage results). Employment Activity

Employment has grown rapidly in Midvale throughout the 1980s and 1990s, at an average annual growth rate of over 10 percent per year (see Table 5-3). The two largest employment sectors are trade (including retail and wholesale) and services (which also includes some retail-like businesses). While employment is located throughout all of the commercial areas of the City, most concentrations of employment are found in the Union Fort area.

Table 5-3 Midvale Employment, 1990, 1997 and 2000 2000 1997 1990 Average Annual % Average Annual % Change Change 1990 - 1997 1990-2000 15,419 Total 24,174 12,368 13.6% 8.6% 102 Mining 32 34 -.84% -3.5% 1,340 Construction 1,651 753 17.0% 16.6% 1,501 Manufacturing 2,476 1,503 9.2% 1.7% 607 TCPU 693 578 2.8% -2 .1% 2,504 Trade 6,328 4,484 5.9% 5.6% 1,386 FIRE 4,527 1,312 35 .0% 14.1% 6,425 Services 6,493 2,479 23.1 % 19.8% 1,554 Government 1,974 1,225 8.7% .37%

Source: Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc. and Utah Dept. Of Workforce Services.

Midvale's Competitive Position and Future Development

Midvale serves as a regional retail and services center for the entire Salt Lake Valley. At the intersection oftwo major freeways (I-15 and I-215), the area has good access and visibility. The growth of office and commercial retail development has established the Midvale area as a major employment center as well. Most ofthe community, though, is fully developed and future development opportunities are limited to small, infill development that will most likely take the form of surrounding existing development. However, the entire western corridor is now occupied by the slag dumps that will soon be reclaimed; this will offer the City possibilities for future growth of commercial and industrial activity. The area, however, is restricted from residential use without additional costly clean-up measures.

Economic Development Element Fall2003 5-5 Midvale City General Plan

Recommendations

Targeted Economic Development

An overall goal of any community is to expand the economic activities of the community to provide a full array of services for its residents and businesses. As noted above, Midvale currently has a large retail tax base. Preservation and maintenance of this retail base is important in terms of service availability as well as providing a means of keeping property taxes low.

Industrial Development The analysis of sales and services in Midvale suggests that one major area in which the community does not have its share of activity is in industrial production (light and heavy industrial) in such categories as textiles, electronics, food products, chemicals, lumber, heavy construction, industrial machinery, etc. In addition, even though wholesale activity represents 11 percent of total City sales, this sector could be generating an additional $7 million in sales annually, if it were capturing its "fair share."6 Industrial production is not a major sales tax producer; it is suggested as a focus for economic development because it would help to generate additional good-paying jobs in the City.

Increased Employment Base and Office Development Midvale could expand its employment base to provide additional demand to support its commercial establishments as well as provide more convenient employment opportunities for its residents. Employment should be a priority for any future development of the Midvale Slag Site. It is also important to increase the daytime population of the area near the Historic Downtown to help support and nurture this important area of the community.

The City should target corporate headquarters and other larger employers in its business recruitment efforts and establish development requirements that would promote the construction of buildings with larger floor plates (15,000 to 20,000 SF).

Recommendations for Specific Commercial Areas

State Street Corridor The uses along the State Street Corridor have been fairly well established over many decades. This automobile-oriented strip development is found along the entire length of State Street through a number of communities. Enhanced visual design would help to establish the Midvale section of this street (see Chapter 2- Urban Design).

The parcels along State Street are, for the most part, small, which makes it difficult to attempt to change the land uses. However, wherever possible, parcels should be consolidated to allow for more organized and larger uses, such as office development.

6 . . See leakage discussiOn above.

Economic Development Element Fall2003 5-6 Midvale City General Plan

There are also some redevelopment opportunities created near the TRAX station at Center and State Streets that could be developed as a mixed-use center (see discussion below).

Historic Downtown The Historic Downtown area is in trouble. There has been a great deal of disinvestment in the area, despite public intervention in the form of infrastructure improvements, a Main Street program, etc. The area has not been able to attract retail commercial uses and will likely not be able to do so in the future without a major increase in the amount of nearby employment to support such uses. As noted above the main commercial uses in the area have become industrial in nature. The area has limited visibility and will need to become a destination in order to survive. Therefore, the recommendations for the economic revitalization of this area hinge upon the successful development of employment (office) centers nearby on the southeast end of the Midvale Slag Site. Our interim recommendation is to market the area to small employers that could use low-cost space with good "curb appeal" (the area is very attractive and has a nice pedestrian scale). The area could essentially become a business incubator zone with small start-up or growing businesses.

The downtown area is currently zoned for commercial uses. More flexibility in the zoning to allow for mixtures of uses may make the area more attractive for near-term development. This area is discussed further below (see "Redevelopment Opportunities").

7200 South Corridor The 7200 South area will benefit from the TRAX station located at roughly 300 West as well as a substantial park and ride lot for mass transit. This could present an opportunity for shifting the development focus from larger, warehouse type uses to smaller, pedestrian-scale uses that could be attractive to commuters.

Union Fort Area The Union Fort commercial area is completely built out and the only development opportunity is smaller-scale, infill construction. There is no need to expand the commercial uses in the area and barriers should be created to prevent commercial creep into neighborhoods.

Forging Partnership with UTA to Increase Tax Base of Community

There are a number of parcels in Midvale that were purchased by UTA as it was assembling needed properties for the TRAX system. A number of the parcels are now being held as surplus property by UTA. Because UTA is a quasi-governmental agency, these parcels are tax exempt. UTA has indicated that it may be interested in developing the parcels in the future.

It is in the best interests of Midvale City and its residents to limit the amount of nontaxable parcels, wherever possible. It is in the interests of both UTA and Midvale

Economic Development Element Fall2003 5-7 Midvale City General Plan

City to maximize the development potential of these sites. UTA and Midvale should work closely to assure that both objectives emaximizing development and putting the parcels back on the tax rolls ecan be met.

Redevelopment Opportunities

There are two types of redevelopment opportunities that will be discussed: market-driven redevelopment and city-sponsored redevelopment. Market-driven redevelopment is simply the natural turnover of uses when the current use becomes economically or physically obsolete (meaning the site is more valuable as vacant land than with the existing structures). The market will dictate the future uses and the timing of the change. City-sponsored redevelopment is the active involvement of the city through its redevelopment agency in establishing change in a given area. The city may have specific goals such as provision of affordable housing or the creation of a mixed-use area to take advantage of LRT access.

The State Street area is ripe for market-driven redevelopment. There are a number of existing uses that appear to be approaching obsolescence and will be rebuilt as some new commercial use in the future. To the extent that the City wishes to initiate more rapid change in this area and promote consolidation of parcels for higher, or more intensive uses, it could consider establishing a redevelopment project area. The two areas that may have good potential for future consideration as RDA project areas are: (1) State Street and 7500 South, and (2) State and Center Streets (near the TRAX station to promote transit­ oriented design).

The Historic Downtown is currently part of a redevelopment area that is scheduled to expire in the near future. Once this project area has expired, it is worth considering a formal redevelopment project area that includes the Historic Downtown and the southern half of the Midvale Slag Site (excluding Sharon Steel).7 The new development areas will essentially serve to fund the necessary improvements in the Historic Downtown. The purpose of the redevelopment project would be to attract large employers to the area. This project could also take advantage of the potential TRAX station for the West Jordan extension that would be located at roughly 7500 South and 900 West.

As noted in Section 4, there may be some opportunities to use redevelopment in assisting the orderly transformation of 7200 South Street between 200 East and 700 East as it responds to the current road widening project.

The final area that may witness some redevelopment is the area surrounding the TRAX station at 7200 South. This area could transition from a hodge-podge of uses to a more organized, transit-oriented design. In order to establish this planning direction, the City may want to consider it as an additional redevelopment area.

7 Sharon Steel should be excluded to allow for the maximum development potential within the 100-acre limit established by Utah Code. Sharon Steel has limited development potential on the bulk of the property.

Economic Development Element Fall2003 5-8 Midvale City General Plan

The City will need to develop a coordinated strategy for its formal redevelopment activities. Its total combined RDA project area is limited to 15 percent of the total tax base ofthe City. It is also limited (without Taxing Agency approval) to a 100-acre maximum for any one project area.

In addition, it is worth noting that the EPA offers some liability protection to property developers in the Slag Sites through a "Prospective Purchaser Agreement" ("PP A") which assures developers not responsible for the environmental contamination that they will bear no liability for clean up or remediation. For more information, prospective developers should contact the EPA or the Utah State of Environmental Quality.

Goals and Policies

Goal #1: Diversify the tax base by expanding the types of commercial services and activity available to Midvale residents and businesses.

Policy: Attract desirable businesses and services not currently in Midvale.

Implementation Measures: 1. Recruit specialty retail shops (such as women's apparel). 2. Plan for a diversity of wholesale businesses and manufacturing I production firms. 3. Continue to maintain and monitor existing environmental standards.

Goal #2: Develop and implement an Economic Development Strategic Plan.

Policy: Assume a proactive position in the future development and redevelopment of commercial areas of the City.

Implementation Measures: 1. Develop a comprehensive economic development strategic plan which quantifies the City' s current economic position and projects future economic health based on current policies and practices. 2. Establish any necessary changes in economic policy to accomplish long-term economic health ofthe City. 3. Monitor implementation of economic policies and the economic environment to ensure timely adjustment to changing conditions.

Goal #3: Identify areas for redevelopment.

Policy: Specify priority areas for city-sponsored redevelopment activities.

Implementation Measures:

Economic Development Element Fall2003 5-9 Midvale City General Plan

1. Identify redevelopment areas such as the Midvale/Sandy City Joint Project Area, State and Center Streets, State and 7500 South, 7200 South TRAX area and Civic Center. Prioritize with other city goals. 2. Evaluate sites as required by law, such as the Utah Neighborhood Development Act economic benefits assessment or blight analysis. 3. Determine funding sources for projects. 4. For areas not targeted for city-sponsored redevelopment, create incentives for appropriate development by allowing density bonuses for such things as mixed-use developments, consolidation of uses such as density parking and shared facility bonuses, transformation of economically obsolete uses, etc.

Goal #4: To increase the employment base of the community.

Policy: Promote development of businesses with large employment needs.

Implementation Measures: 1. Assure that adequate land area is designated for office uses. 2. Locate office uses to maximize economic benefits to surrounding areas, in particular the Old Town. 3. Focus on high wage-paying jobs.

Goal #5: To support Old Town.

Policy: Promote economic development supporting Old Town.

Implementation Measures: 1. Plan office uses on southern end ofBingham Junction Site to promote daytime population near Old Town. 2. Assist property owners in marketing area as incubator space for emerging businesses.

Economic Development Element Fall2003 5- 10 Midvale General Plan

Housing Element 6

Introduction

The Housing Element addresses affordable housing needs in Midvale City. It meets statutory requirements and responds to overall community interest in this critical and important issue. There was much discussion and interest in meeting affordable housing needs in the public forums held as part of the General Plan process. Residents were interested in programs that could support home maintenance and repair, help stabilize neighborhoods and help maintain the economic diversity of the community that has long served as one of its strengths.

This element broadly addresses current conditions of the housing stock and the housing market in Midvale and meets specific requirements for moderate-income housing planning included in state law. It deals with the range of housing options that are needed or should be available in the community including price ranges (affordable, moderate and upper-income); product types (apartments, condominiums, single-family, etc.); special needs housing (homeless, housing for the disabled, elderly housing, etc.); and neighborhood issues (such as zoning and associated density).

Purpose

The State of Utah recognizes in House Bill295 (State Statute 10-9-307, 17-27-307, 62A- 9-138, 63-28-11) that the availability of moderate-income housing is a statewide concern, and it requires municipalities and counties to propose a plan for moderate-income housing as part of a general plan. (See Exhibit A for the complete statute.) "Moderate­ income housing" is defined as housing occupied or reserved for occupancy by households with a gross household income equal to or less than 80 percent of the median gross income of the metropolitan statistical area for households of the same size. In Salt Lake County, the median income for a household of four is $48,373. Moderate-income housing, then, will apply to a household of four with an annual income of $38,698.

The spirit of the statute is to ensure that people who desire to live in the City of Midvale should not be unable to do so simply because they earn a moderate level of income. Rather, people should expect the City to offer a reasonable opportunity to a variety of housing that is located throughout the community. With such an opportunity, people with moderate incomes are allowed to benefit from and to fully participate in all aspects of neighborhood and community life.

In this analysis, "reasonable opportunity to a variety of housing" is assessed using three criteria: in comparison to like-sized communities; in comparison to Salt Lake County as a whole; and through an analysis ofthe current demand in the City.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-1 Midvale General Plan

The housing analysis carefully follows the scope laid out by the City of Midvale to fulfill its obligations under the H.B. 295 statute. Specifically, compliance with H.B. 295 requires the City to plan for moderate-income housing with an estimate of current supply and future need for moderate-income housing in the next five years. A survey of total residential zoning has been completed in order to evaluate how current zoning may influence or impede affordable housing. Also, the options for current programs to encourage an appropriate mix of housing are presented with recommendations for future policies needed to meet the requirements of the statute.

The analysis demonstrates with housing and income data that Midvale meets the obligations for affordability under H.B. 295, and meets the requirements set forth in the spirit of the statute. However, given the age of the City's housing stock and the likelihood of escalating land costs in the future, the analysis recommends expanding current rehabilitation programs and single family housing assistance for moderate-income families throughout the community. It also recommends programs to continue the important role of multifamily housing in the mix of alternatives available to residents. Finally, it investigates the factors that influence and impede the construction and development of moderate-income housing.

It is important to keep in mind that H.B. 295 does not define the total scope of housing planning efforts needed by Midvale, or any other city. A community must address the needs of all of its residents. Currently, more than an estimated 26 percent of Midvale's households have an income below $24,078 (60 percent of area median income, or "AMI," for a household of four). Midvale's general plan should take into account the needs of these residents as well. This study also provides information about these residents, what housing stock is available to them, and what their future needs will be.

Methodology

Data The analysis and recommendations are based on both demographic data and current market conditions. The majority of the data used in the analysis comes from public sources. Base data from the 2000 U.S. Census was updated with various sources. The population figures were updated using the Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget population projections. 1 Housing data was updated using building permit information, and current estimates of household incomes were based upon federal household tax information provided by the Utah State Tax Commission

Information for current market conditions is based upon data provided by public and private sources. The assessed property values and computed taxes were provided by the Salt Lake County Assessors office. Wasatch Front Multiple Listing Service provided housing values for residential properties sold in 2000. Information for the rental market

1 The population projections that are provided by the Office of Planning and Budget are based on the Wasatch Front Regional Council.es estimates.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-2 Midvale General Plan is compiled from two sources: EquiMark Properties provided rental information specific to rental units in Midvale, and the Apartment Association of Utah provided historical rental information for the County.

Layout of the Housing Element As noted above, this section addresses the requirements ofH.B. 295 regarding the need for communities to provide moderate-income housing. The section first analyzes income levels for the area, and determines what level of housing costs would be affordable to Midvale residents at various income levels. It then discusses income and population demographics of the City of Midvale, and then summarizes the current housing inventory and market prices.

A comparison of housing options currently available in Midvale with housing options required by the H.B. 295 shows that the City is fulfilling its obligations for affordability under the statute. There is concern, however, that current housing costs could outpace income growth. If this occurs, Midvale may then be in danger of not fulfilling the statute' s requirements; this section therefore examines possible regulatory barriers to affordability, in addition to the available housing programs that may help reach affordability targets.

Although the City is fulfilling its obligations for affordability under the H.B. 295, its housing stock is already at or beyond the limits of affordability for those residents making less than 60 percent of area median income. This section suggests ways that Midvale could increase its ability to meet the needs of these residents through use of available housing programs.

Affordability Targets

Household Income

The H.B. 295 statute sets out an expectation for the establishment of a plan for moderate­ income housing. The income definitions established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have determined moderate-income to mean those incomes falling below the 80 percent mark for median income in the metropolitan statistical area (MSA). HUD also uses other benchmarks in its housing programs: low­ income households are those at 60 percent ofMSA median income (also known as AMI); very-low-income households are those at 50 percent of AMI. We have also included information on households whose income is 30 percent of AMI or less, since a significant number of Midvale' s residents fall into this category.

Table 6-1 shows the incomes of households at moderate income and below, distinguished by household size. The table also exhibits housing payments that would be affordable at the given income levels.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-3 Midvale General Plan

Table 6-1 Income Limits and Affordable Housin~ Payments by Household Size, 2000 Household Affordable Payment at 80%ofAMI 60%ofAMI 50% of AMI 30%ofAMI Size Income Level Income Levels $32,000 $24,000 $20,000 $12,000 I Affordable Payment $668 $468 $368 $168 Income Levels $36,640 $27,480 $22,900 $13,740 2 Affordable Payment $784 $555 $441 $212 Income Levels $41,200 $30,900 $25,750 $I5,450 3 Affordable Payment $898 $641 $512 $254 Income Levels $45,760 $34,320 $28,600 $17.160 4 Affordable Payment $1,012 $726 $583 $297 Income Levels $49.440 $37,080 $30,900 $18,540 5 Affordable Payment $1,104 $795 $641 $332 Income Levels $53,120 $39,840 $33.200 $19.920 6 Affordable Payment $1 ,196 $864 $698 $366 Income Levels $56,720 $42,540 $35.450 $21.270 7 Affordable Payment $1,286 $932 $754 $400 Income Levels $60,400 $45,300 $37,750 $22.650 8 Affordable Payment $1,378 $1,00 l $812 $434 Source: UHF A; Note: Affordable housing costs are calculated as 30 percent of monthly income less $132 for utility expenses.

Household size will affect the income level applicable under the 80 percent of median household income requirement ofH.B. 295. For purposes of analysis, the base figure of $45,760 gross annual income-- the income for a household of four-- is used throughout the housing analysis as moderate income.

Housing

Analysis ofAffordability Targets for Rental and Ownership Options Based on the established figure of $45,760 to define moderate incomes, housing options available are assessed and used for later analysis. Typically, total monthly housing costs should not exceed 30 percent of monthly income. With this basic guideline, the maximum monthly housing cost outlay is $1,144, including utility payments. Based on average utility payments to Questar of $45 per month, and to Utah Power and Light of $87 per month, an expected utility bill of $132 per month is subtracted from the maximum monthly housing payment; thus, the maximum monthly housing payment for a moderate-income household is $1,012.

Home Ownership Options- A maximum mortgage payment of$1,012 will allow, based on a 30-year term at 7.0 percent and including five percent down, the purchase of a lot and house for no more than $159,716.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-4 Midvale General Plan

Rental Options - The affordability guidelines established above provide a commonly used benchmark for determining acceptable rents. HUD and the Utah Housing Finance Agency (UHF A) have established maximum rents for subsidized housing programs. These are summarized below in Table 6-2. The permitted rent levels also include utility costs, except telephones. HUD Fair Market Rents (FMR's) determine the eligibility of rental housing units for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments program. Program participants cannot rent units whose rents exceed the FMR' s. FMR's also serve as payment standards used to calculate subsidies under the Rental Voucher program. UHF A similarly established sliding scale FMR's for their housing assistance programs such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program; these rents vary with income levels. For both the HUD and UHF A programs, apartments should be of an appropriate size for the household; for example, a family of four would not be allowed to rent a studio apartment.

Table 6-2 Maximum Permitted Rent Levels, 2000 including Utility Allowance, by Number of Bedrooms

SL Co.: AMI OBdrm I Bdrms 2 Bdrms 3 Bdrms 4 Bdrms (studio)

HUD Fair Market Rents $490 $568 $721 $1 ,003 $1 ,175

Utah Housing Finance Agency Fair Market Rents

80%AMI $800 $859 $1,030 $1 ,188 $1 ,328

60%AMI $600 $644 $773 $891 $996 Program Maximum

50% AMI $500 $536 $644 $743 $830

30% AMI $300 $322 $386 $446 $498

Source: UHFA; Note: The rents established by UHF A are set for program-qualifying income levels at 50% and 60% of AMI. Rent calculations for 80% and 30% of AMI have been estimated and are proportional to those at 50% and 60% of AMI.

Therefore, in evaluating the existing housing supply that is accessible to moderate­ income four-person households in Midvale, a maximum home price of$159,716 is used along with rental figures as listed above by the Utah Housing Finance Agency. For example, to meet minimum requirements for moderate income households, the rent on a two bedroom apartment should not exceed $1,030 per month, including utilities.

Midvale Demographic Data

The basic population and income demographic data for Midvale reveal that the need for moderate-income housing across the City of Midvale is fairly low; low-income housing, however, is less available.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-5 Midvale General Plan

Population

In 2000, the City of Midvale had a total population of27,029 people. The following table (Table 6-3) summarizes the 2000 population breakdown by the planning areas, or "neighborhoods" as defined in Figure 2.1.

Table 6-3 1990 Population in Midvale By Neighborhoods Neighborhood Percent of Population Number of Persons Avenues 3.2% 856 Old Town 12.5% 3.368 Park 15.8% 4,276 Copperview 14.7% 3.978 East/North Midvale 11.3% 3.050 North Union 11.7% 3,166 East Midvale 10.1% 2,736 Union Park 4.7% 1,286 Midvalley 4.9% 2, 181 South Union Fort 11.1 % 2,991 Total 100.0% 27,029 Source: 2000 U. S. Census

The Wasatch Front Regional Council projects that Midvale will have an additional 2,310 residents by the year 2010. The projected average annual growth rate during this period for Midvale is 1.1 percent, which is less than the growth rate of2.0 percent projected for the County as a whole. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the consultants estimate that the build-out population for Midvale is 32,561--this is only an additional4,674 persons which is less than the projected population growth of 4,896 persons by the year 2010 and 14,615 persons by the year 2020. If growth in Midvale occurs at the projected annual rate of 1.1 percent, the build-out population will be reached between the years 2019 and 2020.

Income

The 2000 median household income in Midvale was $40,130. According to the Utah State Tax Commission the median household income in 2000 is approximately $45,726 -­ an average annual growth rate of3.5 percent. The average income in Midvale, however, has grown slightly faster, from $22,892 in 1990 to $40,130 in 2000, a growth rate of 4.3 percent.2 Thus, for the less well-to-do households in Midvale (the 50 percent below

2 The difference between a median value and mean (average) value is how it is calculated. A median is the value that is at the midpoint in a list of numbers; half of values in the list are greater than that value and half are less. The mean is what is typically called an average. The mean is the value that is equal to the sum of a list of values divided by the numbers of values in the list. The median can be more reflective of what is happening. An average can at times be skewed ifthere is a small percentage of the values that are extreme high or low values.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-6 Midvale General Plan median income), income growth has not kept pace with inflation. Some higher-income households, however, must be seeing a significant growth in income to account for the higher average growth rate.

To more clearly describe the quantity of Midvale citizens specifically affected by the H.B. 295 statute, the table below demonstrates from 10,205 households the general spread of median household incomes. The information in Table 6-4 implies that an estimated 49.8 percent of Midvale's households have incomes below $45,760, the moderate-income level for a four-person household.

Table 6-4 Range Household Incomes, 2000

AMI 30% or less 31% to 50% 51% to 60% 61 % to 80% >80%

Range: $14,170 or $14,171 to $28,601 to $ 34.321 to $45,761 or less $28,600 $34,320 $45.760 Greater Total 1,518 800 1,584 5,126 Number of 1, 177 10,205 Households

Percent of Total 11.5% 14.9% 7.8% 15.5% 50.2% 100.0%

Source: Utah Affordable Housing Model;

State and federal public assistance programs generally target the range of population falling under the 50-60 percent of median household income, representing 34.2 percent of all households. This data would suggest that approximately 15.5 percent ofthe citizens of Midvale fall into the 60-80 percent range of median household income. This group will be the most affected by the City's efforts to provide moderate-income housing, for they are presently without the program assistance now required under the H.B. 295 statute; they are too "well off' to receive state and federal assistance, but continue to struggle to live up to the area's median standards.

As mentioned earlier, 49.8 percent of the Midvale households have incomes below $45,760. According to the 2000 Census, 33.6 percent were paying more than 30 percent of their income towards housing cost. Table 6-4, below, outlines the households in unaffordable housing by tenure. The table shows that there is an implied inverse relationship between income levels and the percentage of income that is used for housing costs; as income levels drop, a greater percentage of the population pay more of their income for housing.

This is especially true for households that earn 30 percent or less of AMI. The households at this income level represent 11.5 percent of all Midvale households. More than three-fourths, or 84.5 percent, of these households live in housing that is not considered affordable. Due to the low income levels for this group and the greater burden of housing expenses, this population is most at risk ofhomelessness.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-7 Midvale General Plan

Housing seems to be less affordable for renters than for owners. A comparison of tenure populations by income levels reflect that a higher percentage of renters spend more of their income for housing costs than their owner counterparts (see Table 6-5). For example, 46.2 percent of the renters earning 50 percent of AMI spent 30 percent or more of their income towards housing costs, whereas, only 29.2 percent of the homeowners in this income level were in housing that is considered unaffordable. Below 30 percent of AMI, over 93 percent of renters and 58.7 percent homeowners lived in unaffordable housing.

The exception to a larger percentage of renters spending more of their income for housing costs than their owner counterparts is for owner-occupied households that earn between 51 percent and 80 percent of AMI. A quarter of the homeowners in this income level paid 30 percent or more of their income for housing. There were only 15.2 percent of the renters in the same income category that spent 30 percent or more of their income for housing. Home owners in this income level may be overextending themselves financially in order to become homeowners.

Table 6-5 Households Paying More Than 30% oflncome for Housing Costs, by Tenure Percentage Paying 2000 %of Total 30% or More of Number of Households Households, Income for Housing Income Level Total Paying 30% or Paying less than 2000 Costs, 2000 by Tenure Households More 30% 80%of AMI Owner Occupied 23.7% 25.9% 758 197 561 Renter Occupied 76.2% 1.3% 2,427 32 2,395 50% of AMI Owner Occupied 31.7% 14.3% 758 342 416 Renter Occupied 68.2% 31.5% 1,626 751 875 30%ofAMI Owner Occupied 33.1% 15.8% 604 289 315 Renter Occupied 66.8% 54.1% 1,219 987 232 Total Households at 80% or below AMI Total Households 100.0% 25 .7% 10,089 2,598 4,794 Owner Occupied 48.1% 31.8% 4,848 828 1,292 Renter Occupied 51.9% 68.1% 5,241 1,770 3,502 Source: 2000 U.S. Census; Utah Affordable Housing Model;

Who are these citizens that have incomes below the moderate-income level? It is easy, when discussing different wage categories, to forget what people those categories include. A recent study conducted by the State of Utah examines wages for different types of jobs. The following table (Table 6-6) shows some sample wages, and also defines housing costs that would be considered to be affordable to the wage earner:

Housing Element Fall2003 6-8 Midvale General Plan

Table 6-6 Affordable Housing Costs for Workers in Selected Jobs, 1998

Job Title Average Annual Wages* Affordable Housing Costs (% of AMI) per Month

Teachers, Elementary School $48,464 $1 ,080 (76.2%)

Police Officers $34,528 $731 (65 .1%)

Carpenters $30.368 $627 (64.6%)

Reservation and Transportation $19,968 $367 Ticket Agents (57.8%)

Licensed Practical Nurse $28,704 $586 (52.2%)

Janitor $17,680 $310 (34.6%)

Source: Utah Department of Employment Security; Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc. *Note: Assumes a 40 hour week and one wage-earner per household.

As Table 6-6 shows, many people with what most people think of as "good jobs" would have a hard time finding appropriate and affordable housing, particularly if they are trying to support a family on one income.

Another way oflooking at need is to evaluate the poverty status of Midvale residents. When the 2000 U.S. Census was conducted, poverty status was determined for both families and individuals, and in this way helps to identify those most vulnerable in the population. In Midvale, just over thirteen percent of individuals and nine percent of families fall below a level of poverty established by family size.3 In 2000, the poverty threshold ranged from $8,794 for a family unit of one to $20,236 for a family unit of four.

In Midvale, of the 638 total families living below poverty, the majority, or eighty percent live in renter occupied housing units. Nearly 84 percent of the poorest families have children under the age of 18, and 27.5 percent under the age of five. Ofthe 3,517 individuals living below poverty, 27.5 percent are children under five and 3.5 percent are 65 years-old or over. Persons 65 years-old or over constitute 12.1 percent of the householders in the city; however, a lower percentage, 3.5 percent, of senior-run households live in poverty.

3 The income cutoffs used by the Census Bureau to determine the poverty status of families and unrelated individuals included a set of 49 thresholds arranged in a two-dimensional matrix consisting of family size cross­ classified by presence and number offarnily under I 8 years-old.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-9 Midvale General Plan

The following sections on housing will seek to understand if the current and projected supply of residential units will keep pace with the population growth and affordability demands ofthe community.

Supply of Housing in Midvale

The supply of residential housing in Midvale is described by structural characteristics, by occupancy, and by age ofhousing stock.

Housing Units and Occupancy

As ofthe 2000 Census, Midvale has a total of 10,089 units ofhousing. A descriptive breakdown of Midvale's housing is provided in Table 6-7, listing units by their structural characteristics and occupancy type. As seen in Figure 6-1 , there is a good mix ofhousing alternatives in Midvale. Fifty-six percent of all housing units are Housing Structural Characteristics, 2000 Midvale Salt Lake County single family units (detached and attached) and 44 percent are multifamily, mobile home units and other units. With such a ratio of single family to multifamily units (56:44), Midvale's ratio is lower than the Salt Lake County ratio as a whole, which has a single- to multifamily unit ratio of Ill Single Family ~ 2 to 4 Units 73:27. ~ 5 1o 9 Units D 10 or more Units D Mobile Home &

Figure 6-1

Housing Element Fall2003 6- 10 Midvale General Plan

Table 6-7 Occupied Housing Units in Midvale, 2000 by Tenure and Number of Units

Type Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Vacant Total

Single Family 4,371 units 1,010 units 81.2% of Type 18.7% ofType (occupied units) (occupied units) 117 units 5.498 units

2 to 4 Units 148 units 819units 15.3% ofType 84.6% of Type (occupied units) (occupied units) 118 units 1,085 units

5 to 9 Units (renter) 175 units 900 units 5 or more (owner) 16.2% ofType 83.7% of Type (occupied units) (occupied units) 158 units 1,233 units

10 or more Units 2,325 units 100% ofType (occupied units) 199 units 2,524 units

Mobile Home & Other 152 units 21 units 87.8% ofType 12.1% of Type (occupied units) (occupied units) 12 units 185 units

All Units 4,846 units 5,075 units 48.8% of All 51.2% of All Occupied Units Occupied Units 604 units I 0,525 units

Source: 2000 U.S. Census.

Percentage of Unit Type by Tenure

Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Vacant Total

Single Family 90.2% 19.9% 19.4% 52.2%

2 to 4 Units 3.1% 16.1% 19.5% 10.3%

5 to 9 Units 3.6% 17.7% 26.2% 11.7%

I 0 or more Units 45.8% 32.9% 23.9%

Mobile Home 3.1% 0.4% 19.8% 1.7%

All Units 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census *Note: These are ONLY occupied housing units.

Table 6-8 below shows the differences among Midvale and its three neighbors, Murray City, West Jordan and Sandy. Midvale has a lower ratio of single- to multifamily housing than the County and its neighbors.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-11 Midvale General Plan

Table 6-8 Type and Occupancy Comparison -- Percentage of All Housing Units, 2000 Midvale, Salt Lake County, Murray, West Jordan, and Sandy

Midvale Salt Lake Murray West Jordan Sandy County

Single Family Units,% of Total 50.7% 69.7% 67.3% 85 .8% 89.8% Multifamily Units,% of Total 47.5% 27.7% 32.7% 14.3% 10.3%

Owner Occupied Units, 48.1% 69.0% 66.7% 81.9% 84.3% % ofTota1 Renter Occupied Units, 51.9% 31.0% 33.3% 18.1% 15.7% o/oofTotal Vacant Units,% of Total 5.9% 5.1% 4.9% 3.6% 3.1%

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Note: I) Percentages will not add up to 100 because ofthe "other" category of structural units.

Similarly, Table 6-8 shows that, the City of Midvale has a lower ratio of owner- to renter­ occupied housing than the County and its neighbors. Note also Midvale's higher vacancy rate in comparison to its neighbors; although it is lower than Salt Lake County's. A higher vacancy rate in the City indicates that housing may not have been in as much demand as in the neighboring communities-- at least in 2000. Conversely, it can also mean that more units were simply available, given the higher percentage of rental units that existed in Midvale than did in surrounding communities.

Table 6-9 below looks at types of housing occupancy by race:

Table 6-9 Occupancy by Race, Midvale, 2000

%of Race %of Occupied Housing Units by Race

Owner Renter %Total Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Occupied Occupied Population

White 93.0% 81.7% 87.1% 51.2% 48.8%

Non-White 6.3% 18.2% 12.5% 24.3% 75.7%

Black 0.0% 1.6% 0.8% 0.0% 100.0%

American Indian/Eskimo 0.0% 1.7% 0.8% 0.0% 100.0%

Asian/Pacific Islander 1.9% 2.5% 2.2% 41.3% 58.7%

Other 4.4% 12.4% 8.5% 24.7% 75.3%

Total Households 4,848 5,241 na 48.1% 51.9%

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Note: 1) Percentages will not total 100 percent because data is by race only, not including peoples of Hispanic "origin''.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-12 Midvale General Plan

The basic examination of occupancy by race reveals in Midvale that whites are slightly more likely to own their own homes than are minorities. Note for example, that the 75.7 percent of the non-white population rent, whereas, a lower percentage (48.8 percent) of the white householders are also in renter-occupied housing units.

Age of Housing Units

There seems to be a good mixture of housing in Midvale in terms of the age Age of Housing Stock of the housing stock. Figure 6-2 reflects the nature of housing in the City. Over half of Midvale's housing was 9% constructed during the 1970s and 1980s. 28% Almost a quarter, or 21 percent of the DPre-'59 total housing stock is more than 3 8 18% u:J'60-'69 years old, while nine percent of the ~'70-79 housing stock was constructed in the 24% 0'80-89 past decade. Older homes often .'90-98 represent a source of affordability. Figure 6-2

Recent Trends in Construction

Single- and Multifamily Construction- The data on permit-authorized construction in Midvale presents a picture of change occurring in the City in the last years. Table 6-10 below shows a 246-unit peak of new residential construction in 1996. Residential construction tapered off significantly in 1997, with only 56 multi-family units constructed at that time, compared to the 183 and 194 multi-family units constructed in the prior two years. Residential construction occurred in Midvale at the average annual pace of 46 single-family units and 59 multifamily units, with multifamily construction representing 56.5 percent of the residential construction that has occurred in Midvale for this decade.

Table 6-10 Building Permits Issued for Housing Units, City of Midvale Totals and Percent Change from Prior Year ( 1990 to 2000) Year Single Family Units Multi-Family Units Mobile/ Total Constructed Units (including Duplexes) Manufactured %Change % Change from from Prior % Change from % Change from Permitted Prior Year Permitted Year Permitted Prior Year Permitted Prior Year 1990 12 12 0 24 1991 21 75.0% 0 -100.0% 0 na 21 -12.5% 1992 35 66.7% 3 na 0 na 38 81.0% 1993 64 82.9% 8 166.7% 0 na 72 89.5% 1994 51 -20.3% 34 325.0% 0 na 85 18.1% 1995 20 -60.8% 183 438.2% 0 na 203 138.8%

Housing Element Fall2003 6-13 Midvale General Plan

Table 6-10 Building Permits Issued for Housing Units, City of Midvale Totals and Percent Change from Prior Year ( 1990 to 2000) Year Single Family Units Multi-Family Units Mobile/ Total Constructed Units (including Duplexes) Manufactured %Change % Change from from Prior % Change from % Change from Permitted Prior Year Permitted Year Permitted Prior Year Permitted Prior Year 1996 52 160.0% 194 6.0% 0 na 246 21.2% 1997 94 80.8% 56 -71.1% 0 na 150 -39.0% 1998 63 -33.0% 44 -21.4% 2 na 109 -27.3% 1999 43 -31.7% 36 -18.2% 5 150% 84 -22.9% 2000 71 65.1% 66 83.3% 3 -40% 140 66.6% Total 412 534 2 948 Source: Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc. ; Salt Lake Development Services; BEBR Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Table 6-11 below summarizes the total for building permits issued in Salt Lake County. The comparison is meant to detect whether Midvale's rates of construction diverge from or are consistent with the rates of the County. Indeed, the County also had an upsurge in construction around the time that Midvale also experienced an increase. This is also the case when residential construction slowed down.

Table 6-11 Building Permits Issued for Housing Units, Salt Lake County Totals and Percent Change from Prior Year ( 1990 to 2000) Year Single Family Units Multi-Family Units Mobile/ Manufactured Total Constructed Units (including Duplexes) %Change % Change from from Prior % Change from % Change from Permitted Prior Year Permitted Year Permitted Prior Year Permitted Prior Year 1990 2,178 246 na 2,424 1991 3,047 39.9% 153 -37.8% 0 na 3,200 32.0% 1992 3,831 25.7% 163 6.5% 174 na 4,168 30.3% 1993 4.510 17.7% 1,626 897.5% 157 -9.8% 6,293 51.0% 1994 4,447 -1.4% 1,375 -15.4% 192 22.3% 6,014 -4.4% 1995 4.909 10.4% 2,556 85.9% 169 -12.0% 7,634 26.9% 1996 5,483 11.7% 2,886 12.9% 110 -34.9% 8,479 11.1 % 1997 4,178 -23.8% 1,3 41 -53 .5% 217 97.3% 5,736 -32.4% 1998 4,312 3.2% 1,936 44.4% 168 -22.6% 6,416 11.9% 1999 3.555 -17.5% 1,595 -17.6% 136 -19.0% 5,286 -17.6% 2000 3.238 -8.9% 1,343 -15 .8% 85 -37.5% 4,666 -11.7% Total 43,688 15,220 3,408 60,316 Source: Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc. ; Bureau of Economic Business Research. Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-14 Midvale General Plan

A combination of data from the above two tables is represented in Table 6-12 below to illustrate the City's new residential construction in proportion to that of Salt Lake County. As the City becomes more built out and other communities continue to grow, Midvale's portion of the County's total new construction slowly diminishes.

Table 6-12 Midvale Building Permits as% of Salt Lake County (1990 to 1998) Year Single Family Multi-Family Mobile/ Manufactured Total Constructed Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Units Units (includina Duplexes) 1990 0.6% 4.9% na 1.0% 1991 0.7% 0.0% na 0.7% 1992 0.9% 1.8% 0.0% 0.9% 1993 1.4% 0.5% 0.0% 1.1% 1994 1.1% 2.5% 0.0% 1.4% 1995 0.4% 7.2% 0.0% 2.7% 1996 0.9% 6.7% 0.0% 2.9% 1997 2.2% 4.2% 0.0% 2.6% 1998 1.5% 2.3% 1.2% 1.7% 1999 1.2% 2.3% 3.7% 1.6% 2000 2.2% 4.9% 3.5% 3.0%

Total 1.1% 4.3% 0.1% 1.9% Source: Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc.; Bureau of Economic Business Research.

To summarize the housing supply, the construction of new residential housing units has been primarily multi-family housing. The construction boom that has enveloped the County as a whole has seemingly slowed down in Midvale. This is most likely due to the limited amount of developable land in the City. As land becomes more scarce, of higher density projects will be required to meet the growing demand for housing.

Costs of Housing in Midvale

Does current supply meet the guidelines for affordability under H.B. 295? The following section can now begin answering this question with an analysis of the costs of housing in Midvale.

Property V aloes

Assessed Property Values- The property base of the City of Midvale is fairly mixed. Of the City's total commercial, industrial, public and residential properties, residential properties form just over 73.4 percent of the total market value, and 60.7 percent of the total taxable value (see Table 6-13).

Housing Element Fall2003 6-15 Midvale General Plan

Table 6-13 Midvale Assessed Property Values, 2003

Property Type Assessed Market % of City's Total Assessed Taxable % of City Total Value Market Value Value Taxable Value Residential $1,078.281,810 67.8% $589,974,877 53.5% Industrial $13.994,620 0.8% $13.906,229 1.3% Warehouse $43.534.790 2.7% $44.456,914 4.0% Commercial $125.180,060 7.9% $125,101.583 11.4% Retail $128,633,430 8.1% $128.320,463 11.7% Office $60.566,960 3.8% $60.387.840 5.5% Vacant Land (Residential) $2.188,900 0.1% $1,488,530 0.1% Vacant Land (Industrial) $3.293,900 0.3% $4,357,200 0.4% Vacant Land (Commercial) $5.507,200 0.3% $5 ,462,919 0.5% Other $127,895,200 8.0% $127,895,200 11.6% City Total $1.590,140,170 $1.101.351.755 Source: Salt Lake County Assessors Office

Table 6-14 below demonstrates the distribution of residential property types. Single­ family residences constitutes 58.5 percent of total residential property value of Midvale.

Table 6-14 Assessed Residential Property Values Midvale, 2003

Property Type Code Market Value %of Taxable Value %of Average Residential City Assessed Total Total Values Single Family Ill, $630,592.290 58.5% $34 7,532,036 31.5% $141.293 511 , 998 Duplex 112 $70,489.880 6.5% $38,852, I 01 3.5% $185,989 3-4 Unit Apartments 113 $20,935.280 1.9% $11.514,404 1.0% $220,371 5-9 Unit Apartments 114 $3,388,450 0.3% $1,863.648 0.2% $376,494 I 0-19 Unit Apts. 115 $3,261,800 0.3% $1 ,793.990 0.2% $191.870 Condomjnium Units 116 $97,888.800 9.1% $53.838.840 4.8% $121,600 Mobile Home Real 118 $1,087,600 0.1% $598.242 0.0% 120,844 Planned Unit Devel. 119,920 $68.999,700 6.4% $3,748.399 0.3% $183.023 20-49 Unit Apts. 120 $8,080,800 0.8% $4,444,603 0.4% $1,154,400 50-98 Unit Apts. 150 $68.525.180 6.4% $37,912.408 3.4% $4,568,345 Trailer Park 160 $2,054,400 0.2% $1,129.919 0.1% $410,880 99+ Unit Apts. 199 $97,300,500 9.0% $53.515.275 4.9% $10,811 ,16 6 Associated Multifamily 913 $1 ,484,800 0.1% $835,576 0.0% 98,986 Land Other 997 $4,192.330 0.4% $2.305.782 0.2% 232.907 Residential Total: $1.078,281.810 100.0% $559.885.223 50.8% City Total Values: $1.590, 140.170 67.8% $1.101.351 ,75 5

Housing Element Fall2003 6-16 Midvale General Plan

Source: Salt Lake County Assessors Office

Current Market Values Single Family Home Market- Of the 364 single family homes and condominiums sold, in Midvale from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002, prices ranged from a low of $50,000 to a high of$300,000. The average home and condo price was $146,535 and $121,308, respectively.4

The graph in Figure 6-3 demonstrates the range of prices for homes sold in the last year. As is apparent from the graph, the bulk of Single-Family and Condo Prices Midvale, 2002 units cost between $100,000 to $170,000. Fifty-eight percent of homes sold, or a total ··········-·········-·--·······-----· ...... , of 214, fall into this range.

Table 6-15 indicates that half of the homes sold last year in Midvale fall within a price range that is affordable to those with household incomes between sixty and eighty percent of AMI. 5

Figure 6-3 ...... I 0 Home Prices I ·- Over 25 percent of the homes sold cost more than $159,716 and therefore would not be affordable to households earning 80 percent or less of AMI. Conversely, 35.5 percent of the households in Midvale had median incomes that could afford these homes.

Table 6-15 Homes on the Market within Income Levels Income Level Home Value %of Homes Sold, 2000 80%of AMI $109.124 to $159,716 38.7% 60%ofAMl $87,629 to $109,123 9.9% 50%ofAMl $43,589 to $87,628 25% 30%ofAMl Less than $43,588 0.6% Below 80% of AMI 674.2% Above 80% of AMI Greater than $131 ,638 25.8% Total 100.0% Source: Wasatch Front MLS

4 This data was collected from Wasatch Front Multiple Listing Service.

5 It is not clear how many of these condominiums and houses are size appropriate for a household of four.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-17 Midvale General Plan

While home prices appear competitive in the current market, it has experienced rapid price increases. The 2000 data show a median home cost of $141,600, as compared to today's average market price of a $133,922.6

Multifamily Rental Market - There are two types of rental markets, the larger complexes (1 0 or more units per project) and smaller projects, ranging from the rental of single­ family homes to eight-plexes. The survey of rental units are for rental projects with ten or more units per project, which are most representative of the rental market.

Table 6-16 Rental Units in Midvale, 2000 - Projects with Ten Units or More Total Units and Average Rents Units by Class as Percentage of by Size Total Units, by Size Overall I Class A I Class B I Class C Class A I Class B I Class C Total in Midvale Number of Units 3,626 I 1,179 I 2,116 I 331 32.5% I 58.4% I 9.1% Studio Rent $545 I $566 I $524 I na I I Number of Units 166 J 72 I 94 I 0 43.3% I 56.7% I 0.0% 1 Bed./1 Bath Rent $607 I $654 I $580 I $400 I I Number of Units 1,323 I 467 I 833 I 23 35.4% I 62.9% I 1.7% 2 Bed./1 Bath Rent $634 I $740 I $608 I $533 I I Number of Units 1,048 I 260 I 547 I 241 24.8% I 52.2% I 23.0% 2 Bed./2 Bath Rent $772 I $812 I $742 I na I I Number of Units 736 I 316 I 420 I 0 42.9% I 57.1% I 0.0% 3 Bed./2 Bath Rent $815 J $1,017 J $783 _I $552 I I Number of Units 353 I 64 I 222 I 67 18.1% I 62.9% I 19.0% I I I I I I I I I I Source: EquiMark Properties Note: The apartment classifications are subjective. The apartments are classified according to the amenities offered, the grade of fixtures and finishes in the complex. Class A projects generally have more amenities, "custom'" interior finishes, etc. On the other hand, Class C units tend to be in fair to poor condition. The location of these units are generally in marginal locations. The disparity in rent is reflective of the classification.

All of the two- and three-bedroom apartments available -- the units that would be most suitable for a family of four-- were affordable to a moderate-income family. For households that earned only sixty percent of AMI, however, only 28.6 percent of the units were affordable; all of these had two bedrooms and one bath, and might not be

6 Note that the home prices from 2000 is based on a median figure, whereas the current market price is reflective of an average price. The average market price includes single-family homes and condominiums.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-18 Midvale General Plan appropriate for all households of four persons. Affordability of rental units worsens with lower incomes. There are only 16.1 percent ofthe rental units in the market that are affordable to 18.3 percent ofthe households earning 50 percent of AMI, or $28,600 (see Table 6-17).

Table 6-17 Rentals on the Market w/in Income Levels* Income Level Monthly Rents %of the Units 80%ofAMI $726 to $1,012 50.2% 60%ofAMI $582 to $725 28.6% 50% of AMI $291 to $581 16.1% 30%ofAMJ Less than $290 0.0% Total Below 80% of AMI 96.7% Above 80% of AMI Greater than $1 , 0 12 3.3% Total 100.0% *Note: Based on Units with at least 2 Bedrooms, I Bath, the minimum suitable for a family of four.

Overall, in comparison with the valley, rental rates in Midvale are reasonable. As Table 6-18 indicates, rental rates are generally lower in Midvale for all apartment types except for studios.

Table 6-18 Comparison of Rental Rates, 2002 Midvale and the Salt Lake Valley

Unit Type Midvale Salt Lake Midvale's Midvale Salt Lake Average Valley* Average Monthly Average Valley, Monthly Rent Average Rent as a Monthly Average Monthly Rent Percentage of Salt Rent Monthly Rent Lake Valley Low&High Low& High

Studio $442 $442 100.0% $400-$543 $408-$560

One Bedroom $563 $569 98.9% $523-$679 $540-$673

Two Bedroom/ $639 $626 102.1% $589-$789 $637-$727 One Bath

Two Bedroom/ $728 $772 94.3% $680-$965 $695-$877 Two Bath

Three Bedroom $829 $848 97.8% $780-$995 $830-$1,063

Source: EquiMark Properties *Note: The Salt Lake Valley rental rates were approximated by taking an average of the average rental rates for ten areas in Salt Lake County. These numbers are used to serve only as an indicator of the approximate rents by unit type.

Across the Salt Lake Valley, the rental market has seen consistent price increases. There has been an average annual rent increase of 6.4 percent since 1990. Table 6-19 below summarizes apartment rental rate trends in the Salt Lake Valley for the period 1990 to

Housing Element Fall2003 6-19 Midvale General Plan

1998. Prior to 1998, vacancy rates have declined from a high of 5.8 percent in 1990 to a low of2.3 percent in 1994. The vacancy rate in 1998 rose to 6.8 percent. These extremely low vacancy rates throughout the 1990's have exerted upward pressure on rental rates.

Table 6-19 Salt Lake Area Apartment Rental Rate Summary, 1995 to 2002

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Average Total% Annual Increase Increase 1990 to >90-'96 1998

Studio $355 $327 $376 $389 $410 $421 $423 $442 7.1% 24.5%

One $427 $419 $495 $512 $536 $556 $565 $569 6.3% 33.2% Bedroom

Two Bdrm $500 $502 $551 $570 $601 $619 $629 $626 4.6% 25.2% One Bath

Two Bdrm $591 $613 $638 $660 $733 $757 $775 $772 4.9% 30.6% Two Bath

Three $650 $670 $738 $764 $818 $837 $858 $848 4.8% 30.5% Bedroom

Source: Apartment Association of Utah; Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Rent increases are highest for two-bedroom units and lowest for studio apartments; one­ bedroom and three-bedroom apartments have seen about the same rate increases over the time period. Interestingly, from 1990 to 1998, the consumer price index increased at an average annual rate of 2.8 percent, indicating that rental rate increases in the Salt Lake Valley are exceeding overall price increases nationally for the same time period.

Analysis

Meeting the H.B. 295 Requirements

With the descriptions of current supply and current costs laid out in the housing element thus far, the analysis is now at a point to discuss how housing that is currently available in Midvale relates with housing that is required under H.B. 295 regulations. The analysis demonstrates that the City is easily meeting H.B. 295 requirements, and draws comparisons of affordability to other cities and to the County. However, the section suggests that such affordability may not last into the next century given the rising costs identified in both the single-family and multifamily markets.

The pricing data indicate that the City of Midvale easily meets the requirements for affordability under H.B. 295. At 80 percent of median family income, the moderate-

Housing Element Fall2003 6-20 Midvale General Plan income household with an annual gross income of$45,760 can afford to live in the City. With a thirty-year mortgage at current interest rates, the same household can afford to live in the City as a whole, and within four of the nine geographic sectors specifically. Table 6-20 below summarizes the current housing cost information alongside the affordability requirements determined at the beginning of the housing element. The most affordable area is the A venues neighborhood with homes prices approximately $60,000 less than what is defined as affordable. 7

Table 6-20 Home Purchase, 2003 Affordable and Current Assessed Market Rates Home Purchase Neighborhoods Home Prices Affordable at 80% AMI: Average Assessed Market Prices Difference Midvale City $159,716 $138,002 $21,714 Avenues $159.716 $93,567 $66.149 Old Towns $159,716 $114,849 $44,867 Park $159,716 $123.595 $36, 121 Copperview $159,716 $124,286 $35,430 East/North Midvale $159,716 $159,485 $231 North Union $159,716 $159,485 $231 East Midvale $159,716 $157,782 $1.934 Union Park $159,716 $158.181 $1,535 Mid valley $159,716 $149,790 $9,926 So. Union Fort $159,716 $139,002 $20,714 Source: Salt Lake County Assessor

Note that rental information was not available at a neighborhood level; the information provided on a neighborhood level is for owner-occupied units only. Overall, the rental information indicates that this same household could also afford to rent in the City. Market rents are approximately $164 to $362 per month lower than the maximum affordable rent of $1,012 for a family of four for three- and two- bedroom apartments in Midvale.

The intention of H.B. 295 is to ensure that a reasonable opportunity exists for people with moderate incomes to live in the community of their choice. This reasonable opportunity clearly exists in Midvale on the basis of the pricing data.

Comparisons ofAffordability- The reasonable opportunity to moderate-income housing also exists in Midvale in comparison to levels of housing affordability in nearby communities and in the County as a whole. Housing affordability can be assessed generally by the ratio of median home price to median income. Table 6-21 on the following page demonstrates the affordability of housing using this ratio.

7 It is not clear how many of these homes are size appropriate for a household offour.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-21 Midvale General Plan

Table 6-21 Housing Affordability Comparisons, 2000 Community Median Home Price Median Income Affordability Ratio Midvale $141,600 $40,130 3.52 Murray $159,200 $45,569 3.49 West Jordan $155,200 $55,794 2.78 Sandy $183,500 $66,458 2.76 Salt Lake City $153,300 $36,944 4.15 Salt Lake County $157,000 $48,373 3.25 United States na na 2.8 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

In comparison to local communities, the county and national affordability ratios, Midvale provides a more than reasonable opportunity for housing choice. An increase in the ratio signals a decrease in affordability.

As was discussed in the section on current housing costs, the average home price on the market in Midvale has increased to $141,600. Using the current median income of $40,130 an updated Midvale affordability ratio increases from 2.44 to 3.52 for 2000. Due to the increase it causes concern for the affordability of future housing in the City, which will be the topic of the next section.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-22 Midvale General Plan

Home Prices & I nco me Housing Affordability in the Future in Midvale

140 The data indicate that although Midvale is 120 .:; 100 c considered affordable presently, it has seen a D! 80 H?rre ::> 1• R-~es I 0 ncorre decrease in affordability over the past decade. .c 60 * f- ~ This is troublesome for the future of affordability 40 20 of single-family homes into the next century. 1990 to 1998

Single Family Home Affordahility Figure 6- 4 The affordability of single-family homes in the City is a critical part of the plan. Figure 6-4 indicates the rates at which home costs have out paced increases in income, during the period of 1990 to 1998. As noted in the discussion of income above, this discrepancy is particularly problematic for those at or below Midvale's actual median income of$40,130 (not the Salt Lake's MSA median income); for these households, income growth was only 1.7 percent annually, compared to housing cost increases of 8.3 percent annually.

The future affordability ofhome ownership can be seen in Table 6-22, below. The affordability projections are based on the average market price of a home sold and the purchase price that is affordable to households with a moderate income of $45,760. Moderate-income households can currently afford to purchase a home in Midvale. However, if home prices continue to escalate at 8.3 percent annually with incomes increasing with the Consumer Price Index, home ownership will not be attainable in the year 2003.8

Table 6-22 Projected Increases in Income and Home Prices Incomes Affordable Home Price Differences Increasing at Home Price for Projections 2.8 Percent Income Increasing at Per Year 8.3 % Per Year

2000 45,760 15 7.438 141 ,600 9,838 2001 47,041 162,051 153,352 8,699 2002 48.358 166,721 166,081 640 2003 49,712 171 ,558 179,856 (8,307) 2004 51 ,103 176.528 194,794 (18,266) 2005 52,534 181 ,639 210,961 (29,322) 2006 54,005 186,894 228,471 (41 ,577) 2007 55,517 192,295 247,434 (55, 139) 2008 57,071 197,848 267,971 (70, 123) 2009 58,669 203 ,557 290.212 (86.655) 2010 60,312 209,425 314,300 (I 04,875)

8 Note that 8.3 percent average growth rate reflects a period of rapid price increases. This growth rate is not likely to continue indefinitely.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-23 Midvale General Plan

Again, the basis of the market price is the average price of a home sold in Midvale for $141,600. The same projections are calculated by the neighborhoods in Midvale. Table 6-23 on the following page summarizes when affordability will cease to exist for moderate-income households within the neighborhoods. Affordability ofhome ownership can be maintained in the City through the year 2005 -- in the A venues neighborhood.

Table 6-23 Projected Affordability by Neighborhood Neighborhood 2000 Average Assessed Home Price* Year Affordability Ends Avenues $93,567 2012 Old Town $114,849 2007 Park $123,595 2005 Copperview $124,286 2005 East/North Midvale $159,485 Currently unaffordable North Union $159,485 Currently unaffordable East Midvale $157,782 Currently unaffordable Union Park $158.181 Currently unaffordable Midvalley $149,790 Currently unaffordable South Union Fort $139,002 2004 Source: Salt Lake County Assessor; Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc. *Note: The average assessed price, by neighborhood, serves as a basis for the pricing projections.

Multifamily Affordability Market rents are between $96 to $245 per month below the maximum affordable rents for a four person household with a gross annual income of $38,560, for a three-bedroom and two-bedroom/one-bathroom unit, respectively.9

The future affordability of multifamily units can be predicted with the following table (Table 6-24). If rents continue to escalate at 6.4 percent per year and income growth parallels the Consumer Price Index (2.8 percent annually) the difference between "affordable" and market rents would be eliminated in roughly four years for three­ bedroom units and in eleven years for two-bedroom units.

9 A review of the affordability for both unit sizes is due to the appropriateness of two bedrooms for some four-person households. Also, three bedroom units are not as affordable as a two bedroom unit. The number of bedrooms for a household offour is in part dependant on the structure of the family/household. For example, a single parent household with two girls and one boy would be best suited in a home with three bedrooms rather than two.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-24 Midvale General Plan

Table 6-24 Projected Increases in Market Rents and Affordable Rents for 80% of AMI Year Maximum Market Rent Projections Difference Affordable Rents Increasing at 6.4 % Per Year Increasing at 2.8 Percent Per Year 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom

2000 1,012 619 837 393 175 2001 1,040 629 858 411 182 2002 1,069 626 848 443 221 2003 1,099 666 902 433 197 2004 1,130 709 960 421 170 2005 1,162 754 1,021 408 141 2006 1,194 802 1,087 392 107 2007 1,228 854 1,156 374 72 2008 1,262 909 1,230 353 32 2009 1,297 967 1,309 330 (12) 2010 1,334 1,029 1,393 305 (59)

As noted above, however, a significant portion-- about 49.8 percent-- of Midvale's households earn less than $34,320 (60 percent or below AMI). These residents could afford to purchase a home that cost no more than $103,811 , and to rent an apartment that cost no more than $726 per month. For these residents, home ownership is becoming more difficult with each passing year. Affordable apartments are increasingly difficult to find. The following table (Table 6-25) shows that in 2000, two-bedroom units were affordable at the average rent price of $619; however a three- bedroom unit at the average rent price of $837 was $111 more than could be afforded. There are affordable units for this population but these units tend to be in Class C or lower grade Class B projects.

Table 6-25 Projected Increases in Market Rents and Affordable Rents for 60% of AMI Year Maximum Market Rent Projections Difference Affordable Rents Increasing at 6.4 % Per Year Increasing at 2.8 Percent Per Year 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom

2000 726 619 837 107 (III) 2001 746 629 858 117 (112)

Housing Element Fall2003 6-25 Midvale General Plan

Table 6-25 Projected Increases in Market Rents and Affordable Rents for 60% of AMI Year Maximum Market Rent Projections Difference Affordable Rents Increasing at 6.4 % Per Year Increasing at 2.8 Percent Per Year 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 2002 767 626 848 141 (81 ) 2003 789 666 902 123 (113) 2004 811 709 960 102 (149) 2005 833 754 1,021 79 (188) 2006 857 802 1,087 55 (230) 2007 881 854 1,156 27 (275) 2008 905 909 1,230 (4) (325) 2009 931 967 1,309 (36) (378) 2010 957 1,029 1,393 (72) (436)

Special Needs Housing

Affordable housing is an issue for special needs groups as well as for the population at large. The lack of affordable housing, and particularly of affordable housing targeted to those at or below 50 percent of AMI, is a major cause ofhomelessness. Affordable housing targeted at very-low-income households must be rental housing; many families trying to survive on $14,171 --or even $28,600 a year simply cannot qualify for homes. There are 41.0 percent ofthe households in Midvale that are below 50 percent of AMI. It is estimated that in 2000, 26.5 percent of all Midvale households-- 2,674 households-­ earned $28,600 or less and also paid 30 percent or more of their income for housing (See Table 6-4).

Homelessness Prevention Additional emergency rental and utility assistance, pre-purchase workshops and foreclosure counseling, and legal advice to those faced with eviction or foreclosure are all essential. In addition, programs which provide assistance in home repair or rehabilitation can ease the financial burdens on homeowners.

Specialized Housing for Homeless Families and Families Transitioning out of Homeless ness There is a lack of affordable housing for people to move into when emerging from homelessness. Midvale, which houses an overflow shelter that provides beds for 240 to 420 persons a night, has already made a commitment to developing eight units of transitional housing for women and their families emerging form domestic violence. This is a part of a trend towards providing decentralized, neighborhood-based transitional

Housing Element Fall2003 6-26 Midvale General Plan housing which gives a more supportive environment to families and individuals. 10 Such housing, which should include supportive services and case management, can be smoothly integrated into neighborhoods with careful planning and coordination among service providers and the City. There are no estimates for Midvale as to the number of additional transitional housing units that are necessary.

Elderly Housing In 2000, 3.0 percent of all Midvale households were headed by persons 65 years of age or older and were paying more than 30 percent of their household income for housing-- this is 303 elderly households. Currently there are no assisted units targeted for the elderly population. Assisted units for the elderly, as well as programs such as the Home Repair Program can help to keep the elderly in affordable housing.

Filling the Gaps of Affordability

The housing analysis thus far has shown that Midvale is fulfilling the requirements for affordability established under H.B. 295. This said, the analysis also presents a cautious optimism in the future. The rising costs of homes will lessen the City's affordability. How can these gaps in affordability be planned for and avoided? The following sections will seek to answer this question. First, a residential zoning analysis is conducted to examine if there are regulatory barriers in place that would limit affordability. Second, the current programs options available are examined to encourage affordability into the next century.

Zoning

The Midvale City zoning ordinance is an amalgam of the original Midvale City ordinance and the Salt Lake County zoning code (in order to cover the recently incorporated Union Fort area). The major functions of the code is to establish densities, building height and (by implication) mass, and in some cases establishes parking requirements. This review has attempted to combine the two codes in the summaries and analysis.

Does Midvale's Zoning Encourage Affordable Housing? The Midvale zoning ordinance allows housing in all of its zones (residential is a conditional use in commercial and industrial zones). The table below (Table 6-26) summarizes the zones and allowable housing types within each.

10 See Crusade for the Homeless• .Information Packet.• 515 East I 00 South, Ste.#2, Salt Lake City, UT.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-27 Midvale General Plan

Table 6-26 Summary ofPennitted (X) and Conditional (C) Housing Uses in Midvale City Zoning Districts Single Single Duplex Multifamily Manufacture Family Family- Housing d Home Housing Attached

SF-I X X SF-2 X X SF-l(DO) X X X X SF-I(AO) X X

R-M (12 units) X X X X X R-M (25 units) X X X X X BJ X X X X X HC X c c sse c c c c X TOD c c c c X RC c c c c X Cl c c c c X ss c c c c X MU X X X c X Source: Midvale Zoning Ordinance and Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc.

In order to create affordable housing, one needs to be able to take advantage of economies of scale. One approach is to reduce the land cost per unit through building more units on a piece of land (increased density) or allowing for smaller lots (smaller minimum lot sizes or reduced yard requirements). Other economies can be achieved through more efficient use of labor, as occurs in manufactured housing, or reduced foundation expenses and unit size (mobile homes). Another way to increase affordability opportunities is to designate a sufficient amount of the city's land area for zones that encourage affordability. An ordinance could provide for affordability in a specific zone, but severely limit the amount of land devoted to this zoning district; this would be contrary to promoting affordability.

The Midvale code generally meets these requirements by providing for a fairly broad range of densities (up to 25 units per acre), allowing for relatively small lot development (5,000 SF lots) and allowing some limited manufactured housing. However, a large portion of the City has been developed with 7,000 square foot minimum lot sizes. This lot minimum size would not be considered affordable for new construction. The relative affordability of the various single family zones are discussed below.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-28 FIGURE6-5

MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN u ;)11" u nNSITY

LEGEND 0 A-1 0 R-1-8 0 C-1 0 R-1-8a 0 C-2 B R-2-6.5 0 C-2/zc 0 R-2-8 0 C-3 0 R-2-10 0 HISTORIC 0 R-2-10a 1-2 I ,.-1 J I \\ I - - .IIIFii'_o l /...J R-2-IOal ---, ; ---l't 0 1-1 • R-M -- 0 1-2 • R-M/zc • R-1-5 • R-M-12 • R-1-6 • R-M-20 0 R-1-7 • R-M-30

1-2

..... ~ NOITB APRIL2000 LANDIIARK - - DESIGN

!o}.~ _,.. 0 __ t , ~~·~ ...... Midvale General Plan

Lot and Home Size Requirements A community's zoning ordinance can impact affordability ofunits if it establishes lot-size or home-size requirements that do not allow housing to be built at affordable levels. This occurs where minimum lot size, as well as side, front and rear yard requirements, result in land and construction costs that exceed the affordability targets. For example, looking solely at minimum lot-size requirements, communities that require 10,000 square foot (SF) lots have established a base lot price for the area of $33,500 (using current lot prices per SF of $3.35). The lot price is typically 20 to 25 percent of the total finished home price. Using this guide, the 10,000 minimum lot-size requirement assumes a total house cost/value of $134,000 to $167,500. Households earning 80 percent of AMI can only afford, with a maximum mortgage payment of $832, the purchase of a lot and house for no more than $131,638.

The analysis of zoning and its influences on affordability is further complicated by side and rear yard requirements that establish a minimum footprint size for the home (see diagram). Midvale has minimum lot-size and minimum yard-size requirements for each of its residential zones.

The analysis completed has assumed that the developer will build the maximum building footprint based on the minimum yard size requirements to take full advantage of any economies of scale afforded by the zoning requirements (by maximizing building size to land cost ratio).

Using the maximum house footprints possible in each zoning type, construction and land costs for new construction are assessed to determine whether new construction could meet the affordability targets established as part of this analysis. The $70 per square foot construction figure estimated by the Home Builders Association, Neighborhood Housing Services, and Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc., is the absolute minimum possible, including site development and financing costs. This information is summarized below:

Table 6-27 Analysis of Affordability Based on Lot Coverages and Minimum Sizes Minimum Lot Price Minimum Minimum One-story One-story Maximum Maximum Lot Size (3.35/sf) Building Cost** Building Cost** Height Height Size* Size Unit Size Cost** R-1-5 5,000 16,750 957 83 ,750 1,864 147,263 4,661 343,032

SF-1 7,000 23 ,450 1,340 117,250 1,882 155,217 4,706 352,867 R-1-8a 8,000 26,800 1,531 134,000 2,461 199,048 6,152 457,419 SF-1 (Duplex) 7,000 23 ,450 1,340 117,250 1,882 155,217 4,706 352,867

*Minimum size is estimated based on lot value equal to 20 percent of total value and a construction cost of $70/SF. **Based on a construction cost of$70/SF Source: Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-29 Midvale General Plan

As can be seen, based on the estimated Minimum Total Home Price column in Table 6- 27, there are opportunities for providing the affordable housing required under H.B. 295 within a limited number of the existing zoning districts (assuming the developer will build to the minimum, and not the maximum which, in some cases is a fair assumption). Affordability is only achieved with the smaller lot sizes allowed in the SF-1 & SF-2 zones. However, H.B. 295 compliance is not achieved in any of the zones using the Maximum Unit Price information; this is important to bear in mind because it would establish what could be done, if the home size were maximized based on current zoning language.

Zoning Recommendations to Increase Support for Affordable Housing

There are some minor changes that could be made to the ordinance to become more supportive of affordable housing development. These are outlined in the remainder of this section.

Density Bonuses The Midvale Zoning Ordinance currently allows density bonuses in the Master Planned Development (MPD) zone for projects that set aside open space (up to 10 percent). There is no current provision for bonuses if the project includes affordable housing. It is recommended that the ordinance be expanded to include the following paragraph.

Affordable Housing. Midvale City encourages affordable housing development within its boundaries. Density bonuses will be allowed up to the maximums defined in the specific chapters as follows:

1 Unit/Acre Increase 2 Units/ Acre Increase 3 Units/Acre Increase

Affordable Housing 20 percent of the units 20 percent of the units 20 percent of the will be affordable to will be affordable to units will be people making 80 people making 60 affordable to percent or less of percent or less of people making 60 median income. Units median income. Units percent or less of will remain affordable will remain affordable median income. for 25 years. for 25 years. Units will remain affordable for 50 years

Flexible Parking Requirements in Transit Oriented Development Areas The zoning ordinance establishes minimum parking requirements of two stalls (or spaces) for each unit of housing. Parking adds to the cost of housing; a surface stall costs generally $3 ,000 and a structured stall can cost as much as $12,000. If these costs can be reduced, the housing can be made more affordable. If the development includes affordable housing and if the development is located near to

Housing Element Fall2003 6-30 Midvale General Plan

public transportation, the City should reduce the parking requirement to one stall per unit. In order to further this objective, the City should attempt to zone land surrounding LRT stations as medium to high-density residential use and also provide for reductions in parking requirements.

Allocation ofMore Land to Smaller-Lot Zones While this may be difficult to achieve because the city is fairly "built-out," more land devoted to SF-2 zoning would expand the opportunities for future affordability in new development.

More Flexibility in Yard Requirements Allowing more flexibility in reducing yard sizes for affordable housing can help achieve some of the land economies discussed above. Flexibility in placement of the structure on a lot can promote more infill development and development of flag lots, etc. that could be affordable. The City should consider allowing the flexibility only with a commitment to develop affordable units, similar to the density bonus discussed above.

Allowing the Development ofInterior Lots Currently, the zoning ordinance does not allow for the development of interior lots. There exists within Midvale many long narrow lots. The development of these lots represents an opportunity for affordable housing since interior lots would most likely be smaller and have public infrastructure in place, thus reducing the development costs.

Available Housing Programs

There are a variety of housing programs available to help maintain the City' s present affordability which will also be important in the future as the City's affordability decreases.

State Agency Responsibilities to Maintain the Affordability Mandate H.B. 295 describes three principal structures that are to assist the communities in establishing and maintaining the requirements set forth for affordable housing. First, the State Planning Coordinator will assist with developing the plan for moderate income housing, with meeting present and prospective needs for moderate income housing, and with technical assistance on the facilitation of moderate income housing. Second, the Office of Family Support will work with the appropriate agencies in the provision of services to enable prospective recipients to qualify for affordable housing. Third, the Community Development Division ofthe State Department of Community and Economic Development has been appropriated $250,000 to implement H.B. 295 provisions.

Preserving the Existing Stock There are neighborhood conservation programs that offer home repair assistance. These programs are targeted at low- and moderate-income homeowners. Residents under 80

Housing Element Fall2003 6-31 Midvale General Plan percent of median family income who can manage to become homeowners often do not have the extra income available to fix it up and to maintain their home's integrity. Home repair programs are generally tailored to the community as a revolving loan fund. These programs receive the support of local banks, meaning that it is likely to continue rehabilitating neighborhoods even in the event that federal funds dry up. Following is a list of such programs.

• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) • HOME Investment Partnership Acts

Assisted Assisted Housing in Midvale - The Housing Authority of Salt Lake County and the Utah Housing Finance Agency are currently supporting 128 units of assisted housing within the City of Midvale. Table 6-28 on the following page indicates the location ofthe assisted housing program, the total units it supports, and the targeted range of median family income. Note that H.B. 295 seeks to provide opportunities for moderate-income families at 80 percent of median -- better off than the families targeted in the housing described below.

Table 6-28 Inventory of Assisted Housing in Midvale

Sponsoring Address Affordability Targeted Number Expiration Agency Rating Income of Units HUD 81 South Main Bldg I AA 31%-50% 32 1999 HUD 8520-27 South Judy Drive AA 31%-50% 8 2000 HUD 59 West Center Street AA 31%-50% 6 2003 HUD 6854 South 700 East AA 31%-50% 24 2008 HASLCO 7233 South 700 East AA 31%-50% 14 NA HASLCO 7233 South 700 East AA 31%-50% 16 NA HASLCO 380 East 7200 South AA 31%-50% 24 NA HASLCO 461-63 East 7670 South AA 31%-50% 2 NA HASLCO 608-10 East Angie Circle AA 31%-50% 2 NA TOTAL 128

Source: Department of Community & Economic Development; Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc.

Available programs include:

• Low Income Housing Tax Credits ("LIHTC") • Section 8 Existing Housing Certificates and Vouchers

Special Needs Several programs are available to provide assistance to persons with special needs including:

• Section 202 Loans for Housing the Elderly or Handicapped Housing Element Fall2003 6-32 Midvale General Plan

• Olene Walker Trust Fund and the McKinney Fund

Home Ownership The Utah Housing Finance Agency provides programs that assist in achieving home ownership. They include:

• FirstHome • CHAMP • CROWN

Summary of Programs

As briefly listed above, there are numerous programs available to encourage the development and preservation of affordable housing at all income levels. Home ownership programs are well-established, and should continue and expand. The Home Repair Program and HOME Investment Partnership Act are important resources for moderate- and low-income homeowners, and CDBG funds can be used to assist these homeowners as well. In addition, the Utah Housing Finance Agency provides Home ownership assistance through below market loans (FirstHome), down payment and closing cost assistance (CHAMP), and lease-to-own housing supported by Low Income Housing Tax Credits (CROWN).

Multifamily housing programs are also available to the city of Midvale. While the assisted housing in Midvale has dropped to only seven units for very-low-income households, there are still Section 8 Certificates and vouchers. In addition, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program can also be used to support construction of rental housing.

Finally, special needs funds programs are available. HUD has special loans for the construction of rental and cooperative housing for the elderly and handicapped. In addition, funds are available under the Olene Walker Trust Fund (with emphasis on housing for the elderly) and the McKinney Fund (with emphasis on transitional housing).

Financial Resources for Affordable Housing Development

The potential sources of funding for housing include the general fund, CDBG (discussed above) and RDA housing monies. When general funds are used, they are essentially drawn against the community's existing resources and reallocated to housing. The CDBG also would require some reallocation of funds from infrastructure needs to housing. RDA housing monies would be a new source of funds that would become available should RDA project areas be approved and adopted. If the RDA projects are undertaken, RDA housing monies equaling up to 20 percent of the total RDA budget can be spent for housing throughout the community.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-33 Midvale General Plan

Steps Taken to Increase/Ensure Affordability

The City has undertaken several steps to increase/ensure affordability since the original adoption of this document in May 2000. This includes: • Adoption of smaller lot zoning through the SF-2 (Single-Family Residential, 5,000 sf. lots) zone; • Adoption of a flag lot provision; • Adoption of an accessory apartment provision; and • Participation in long range planning to increase the number of units County wide. This has resulted in forty-seven new affordable units, including 24 transitional units and the retention of 84 units due to the loss of section 8 status.

Recommendations

The City of Midvale is currently meeting the full requirements for housing affordability as established under House Bill295. Across the City, there are many opportunities for families with moderate-income levels to live in both rented and owned residential units. At current rates of rent and income increases, rental units should remain affordable in the City for the next four to eleven years. There is cause for concern, however, that ownership of single-family homes may become too expensive for moderate-income households in the coming years if housing price increases continue to outpace increases in income levels.

Wherever possible, property should be zoned to accommodate affordable housing and residential zoning should be monitored to ensure that it does not become a regulatory barrier to affordability. There are areas identified in the Land Use recommendations for high-density housing -- particularly near transit stations or currently developed commercial areas. Affordable rental units are critical in providing housing opportunities for moderate and low-income families. The City should maintain a reasonable stock of rental housing and work to assist in the maintenance of existing, affordable housing units. Also, home ownership opportunities for low and moderate-income families should be promoted.

Specifically, home ownership opportunities should be increased and the deterioration of the current housing stock should be prevented. Home ownership is not only good for neighborhoods, it is also the primary wealth building tool for many households. Equity will be accrued from the down payment, the principal payments and from home price appreciation, and for low- and moderate-income homeowners, this equity could represent their largest single asset.

Home ownership programs will target families and individuals whose income is below 80 percent of the median family income, and assistance can come in the form of down

Housing Element Fall2003 6-34 Midvale General Plan payment assistance or short term construction loans. The Salt Lake Community Development Corporation ("CDC") initiated a program with a number of communities to provide $2,000 down payment loan/grants to qualifying families. This organization should be contacted to determine if Midvale CDBG monies could be channeled through the CDC. Alternatively, Midvale could establish its own organization to administer a similar program. The CROWN program administered by the Utah Housing Finance Agency is another program that should be pursued for Midvale residents. While developing programs, attention should be paid to minorities and special needs groups. The analysis of current occupancy by race shows that minorities are far more likely to be renters than their total population distribution would predict.

The preservation and rehabilitation of the current housing stock (rental and owner­ occupied) will also be an important way to help keep housing affordable. Much of Midvale's affordability lies within the existing, older homes. There are various programs available to the City to assist with home rehabilitation efforts. The HOME consortium and the Home Repair Programs will be important to help people under 80 percent of median family income preserve the quality of their home investments.

The Community Development Block Grant funds can be used by Midvale to invest into housing in low- and moderate-income areas. In the past, much of the CDBG housing money flowed to the Salt Lake County Housing Authority. These funds could be directly administered by Midvale City into areas targeted in the master plan.

RDA housing monies could become available to the community with the redevelopment of a few areas throughout the City. The community is encouraged to target the 20 percent of total tax increment for housing affordability programs.

Currently Midvale's subsidized housing is limited to 127 units of assisted housing and an overflow shelter for the homeless. Eight units of transitional housing for women and their families emerging from domestic violence situations is being planned. Additional units of subsidized special needs housing are needed for populations including the elderly, the disabled, the homeless, and others. The City should work with non-profits to evaluate more carefully specific needs and to address these needs with additional units.

Goals and Policies

This section closes the housing analysis and will assist the City and planners in developing housing guidelines, standards, and potential solutions that reflect the unique characteristics ofthe community.

Goal #1: To provide an appropriate mixture of housing options in neighborhoods as determined by zoning analysis.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-35 Midvale General Plan

Policy: Encourage home-ownership that is affordable for all economic levels through land-use planning and zoning.

Implementation Measures: 1. Monitor residential zoning to prevent establishing regulatory barriers to affordability. 2. Formulate an inner-block development policy. 3. Encourage in-fill development. 4. Establish more land areas in zoning designation that allows for smaller lot development and medium density housing. 5. Encourage mixed densities and affordability of housing around proposed transportation hubs stations. 6. Establish density bonuses for affordable housing for larger developments.

Goal #2: To ensure that the City's housing maintains a level of availability while encouraging a long-term community commitment to residents of all income levels.

Policy: Whenever possible, to provide assistance to or incentive for affordable housing.

Implementation Measures: 1. Continue current housing programs that target residents with incomes under 60 percent of the median, and expand new efforts to residents with incomes under 80 percent of the median. 2. Assist with Federal, State and County programs promoting affordable housing.

Housing Element Fall2003 6-36 Midvale City General Plan

Historic Preservation Element 7

Introduction

Historic properties, structures, and elements are a community's connection to the past, and often a vital part of its future development style and pattern. Midvale City has many historic resources already identified, and some which are just being acknowledged. As Midvale City continues its process of growth, development and redevelopment, historic resources will fit into the fabric of the community in positive and sustaining ways.

Midvale City residents highly value historic resources and the important issues they elicit.

• The Old Town historic area is an asset that can be enhanced, and an opportunity tore­ create a fully functioning and vital Town Center that includes shopping, civic uses, and entertainment opportunities. • The loss of historic resources as commercial and office developments increase, particularly in the Union Fort area, is unacceptable. • Development on the Sharon Steel and Bingham Junction sites, and the light rail station should be complementary and compatible with development in the Old Town area. • Historic buildings are valued and should be re-used in ways that attract and serve people.

Existing Historic Resources

Old Town Historic District

The Midvale City Old Town Historic District includes commercial and residential properties located north and south of Center Street. This Historic District was identified and created by Midvale City; it is not a National Register of Historic Places district.

Many ofthe structures within the district are considered Eligible/ Architecturally Significant (A) or Eligible (B) for consideration on the National Register of Historic Places by the Utah State Historical Society. Two properties are currently listed on the National Register- the old Midvale City Hall at 695 West Center, and the old Salt Lake County Library building at 655 West Center that is the present Midvale City Hall. Both structures are representative ofthe Art Modem architectural style ofthe 1940s.

Streetscape improvements and period-style street furnishings have been installed along Center Street and Main Street. These improvements contribute to the character of the Historic District and complement the concept of creating a town center in the Historic District.

Historic Preservation Element Fall2003 7-1 Midvale City General Plan

Utah State Historic Society Inventory of Properties

There are three very distinct clusters of historic structures that have been inventoried by the Utah State Historical Society. The Historical Society evaluates properties and provides evaluation codes that rank their significance relative to eligibility on the National Register. These properties are not listed on the National Register; however, they are considered eligible for designation and may receive such designation upon application and approval.

Properties that are already listed on the National Register, and those that are considered Eligible/Architecturally Significant or Eligible are shown on, Figure 7-1 Historic Resources Map. The map represents reasonably accurate locations of surveyed structures; however, the information was taken from lists of addresses provided by the Historical Society and there is the possibility that some may have been inaccurately located on the map or the conditions may have changed since the survey was conducted. The map does illustrate where important concentrations or clusters of potentially historic structure are located. Other properties that are not shown as eligible may have been constructed in the same era, but are not ranked because they have been altered or are considered out-of-period.

Old Town Area Properties In addition to the properties contained within the Old Town Historic District, there are many more properties considered eligible by the Utah State Historical Society. These properties are all part ofthe original town center, and are exemplified in "The Avenues" properties located north of Center Street. Most of the eligible properties are residential structures representing Venacular, Bungalow, Prairie School, and Victorian architectural styles of the early 1900s. Effectively, the existing Old Town Historic District, created by Midvale City, could be expanded to include more of the historic residential properties north and south of Center Street.

Locust Street Area Properties When Interstate 15 was constructed, it isolated a cluster of historic homes located north and south of Center Street just east ofl-15, from those in the Old Town area. Properties shown on the Map have been surveyed and are considered eligible/architecturally significant by the Utah State Historical Society. They were constructed in the early 1900s and represent Bungalow and Victorian styles.

Union Fort Area Properties A small cluster of eligible/architecturally significant properties remain nearby the site of old Union Fort. They are remnants ofthe first settlement in 1852, many ofwhich were located on ten acres inside the walls of Union Fort. A reconnaissance level survey was conducted in 1992 prior to Salt Lake County approval of the Union Family Center commercial development.

The structures included farmsteads, homes, and out-buildings that were constructed in the mid-late 1800s and early 1900s and represent a variety of architectural styles including

Historic Preservation Element Fall2003 7-2 FIGURE7-1

~ ,.~ ~ ,., MIDVALE CITY '"'MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN

;::) 1 VKIL RESOURCES MAP LEGEND

- ELIGffiLE/ ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT o APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF STRUCTURE D ELIGffiLE - NATIONAL HISTORIC REGISTER LISTING SOUllCB: UTAH STATB IUSTORICAL SOCmTY

D OTHERIMPORTANT PROPERTIES D OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT

~-=--=-J PROPOSED HISTORIC SANDY DISTRICTS

..... ~ ~' NOI.TB ', APRIL2000 ', I ~ 0 LANDIIARK '-.J ~~~ t~ .. DESIGN -~.~'C;~ '/ ~ ...... Midvale City General Plan

Bungalow, Vernacular, and English Tudor Bungalow. The structures indicated on the Historic Resources Map are those that remain. Other eligible properties were removed to accommodate expansion of commercial development. Consequently, this cluster is very small and appears disjointed and disconnected.

The findings ofthe Ft. Union Reconnaissance Level Survey (Cooper-Roberts, 1992), which included many of the structures that were subsequently removed, states that a historic district as defined by the National Register of Historic Places probably is not viable because of the small number of remaining structures. It goes on to state that a local preservation district, such as the one designated for Old Town, may be a viable option to acknowledge the area's importance to the community. Such a designation is an opportunity to define what the area should be and how it can be implemented.

Other Potential Historic Properties

Lincoln and Jefferson Neighborhood An informal windshield survey of the area suggests that there are other properties that may be eligible for local or National Register consideration. One such neighborhood is the area of Lincoln and Jefferson Streets on the north side of Center Street. Most of the residential structures in this neighborhood appear to meet the criteria for consideration and should be surveyed. The period-style lighting along the streets increases the aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood and suggests that the property owners are concerned about the preservation of historic character.

Other properties are scattered throughout Midvale City that may also be eligible for local or National designation; however, they are often isolated and not part of an identifiable cluster of structures with historic character. They should be considered on a case-by-case basis on their own merits when, and if, property owners are interested in pursuing some kind ofhistoric status.

Midvale City Historic Preservation Commission

In the past, a Historic Preservation Commission has been active during special projects such as the establishment of the Midvale Historic District; however, it is currently inactive and no one is officially appointed to the Commission.

Analysis

There is more that can be done to protect and preserve existing historic resources in Midvale City, with or without National Register status. Residents have indicated that these historic resources are important to the community and are valued for their unique character. There are a number of options available for consideration. National Historic District Designation

The National Register of Historic Places is administered by the National Park Service. Nominations to the Historic Register come from the State Historic Preservation Office

Historic Preservation Element Fall2003 7-4 Midvale City General Plan

(SHPO), which means that the State Historical Society must approve a survey of the property to determine eligibility, and make an application for listing.

For consideration, properties must be at least 50 years of age or older, and they must be significant when evaluated in relationship to major trends of history in the community, i.e. historic events, persons, distinctive design, or informational value. In order to be considered as a Historic District, there must be a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures or objects that are united historically or aesthetically.

Getting "listed" is a lengthy process requiring detailed documentation. The benefits of listing may include tax relief, access to special grants or low-interest loans for improvements, and other state, local and federal assistance with a goal toward preservation of historic resources.

State Historic Property Listing

Eligibility for listing on the Utah State Historic Register is essentially the same as listing on the National Register. It too opens up local opportunities for special consideration for loans, facade improvements, tax relief, and other benefits. The applying individual, group or agency must work with the State Historic Preservation Office and meet all of the requirements for documentation mentioned above.

Local Historic Property Designation

At its discretion, Midvale City may choose to designate other areas as Historic Districts. The process should include involvement of the property owners so that they understand how such a designation would affect the use and value of their property. For example, architectural design standards or controls may be needed in order to assure the integrity of the Historic District into the future.

Architectural Design Standards or Controls

Whether the Historic District or building is a local or national designation, it should be supported with some sort of architectural and development control that is adopted and an integral part of the review process. Such controls need to be carefully determined and documented so that they are understood by developers and property owners, as well as the reviewing agency or board.

Architectural and development controls in the form of design guidelines or standards help ensure the integrity of historic buildings or districts. Design guidelines can serve as a working document for City staff and the Historic Preservation Commission, as well as the general public regarding appropriate ways to restore, rehabilitate, or renovate historic structures. Guidelines can also indicate appropriateness of new construction in existing historic areas or districts. Architectural design guidelines may address materials, scale (height and mass), roof treatments, facade proportions, porch and entry design, window

Historic Preservation Element Fall2003 7-5 Midvale City General Plan treatments, colors, and many other details that are critical to the goal of preserving historic resources. Design guidelines may be conceptual and simply require compatibility with existing character, or they may be prescriptive and provide detailed information and requirements. Once adopted, design guidelines may become a part of the community's development or zoning ordinance.

Recommendations

Reactivation of the Historic Preservation Committee

Midvale City should reactivate the Historic Preservation Committee and begin the process of determining what historic resources should be preserved. They should take the lead in identifying historic resources, completing the required survey and documentation, and determining how best to preserve historic resources, i.e. local, state, or national listing.

Midvale City Old Town Historic District Expansion

The large number of eligible and architecturally significant structures surrounding the existing Midvale City Historic District makes expansion of the Old Town area historic district an obvious place to start. The survey has been completed, and the structures are already on local and state lists. The Historic Preservation Committee, working with City residents and property owners, should determine whether to pursue a National Register listing. But, regardless of whether or not a National Register listing is pursued, designation as a Historic District with design and development standards is critical to preserving those historic resources that remain, and maintaining the historic character of the area.

Proposed New Historic Districts

Other areas of Midvale City have been identified as possible Historic Districts. They include the areas identified as the Locust Street Area, the Jefferson and Lincoln Streets Area, and the Fort Union Area. Structures in the Locust Street Area and the Union Fort Area have already been surveyed and are listed on the State Register. Much of the information needed to apply for a State Historic District designation, or to justify a Midvale City Historic District is complete.

The Jefferson and Lincoln Streets Area has not been surveyed. The Midvale City Historic Preservation Commission should make a determination, working with property owners and city residents, about consideration of some kind of Historic District status. At a minimum, the area should be designated as a Midvale City Historic District.

Historic Preservation Element Fall2003 7-6 Midvale Citv General Plan

Goals and Policies

Goal #1: To preserve and protect existing Midvale City historic resources.

Policy #1: Support the creation and preservation of historic districts and structures.

Implementation Measures: 1. Reactivate the Midvale City Historic Preservation. 2. The Committee shall review and recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission exterior modifications to historic structures, demolitions, new construction and land use within the historic district of Midvale. 3. Complete a historic survey and, if appropriate, recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council creation of a Midvale City Historic District in the Jefferson/Lincoln Streets neighborhood, the Locust Street neighborhood, and the Old Union Fort area and complete a detailed plan for preservation and enhancement for each designated area. 4. Expand the Old Town Historic District boundary as recommended by the Midvale Historic Committee to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council. 5. Adopt Historic District boundaries and Design Guidelines for each district as part of the Midvale City Zoning Ordinance. 6. Identify a list of all historic resources that will become the official Midvale City Historic Register. 7. Initiate the process of applying for National Register of Historic Places designation for the Old Town Historic District by the Historic Preservation Committee.

Historic Preservation Element Fall2003 7-7 Midvale City General Plan

Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element 8

Introduction

As growth and development pressures mount, publicly accessible open spaces are becoming increasingly important to communities. In developed and essentially "built­ out" communities like Midvale City, they are particularly important because new park and open space opportunities are often limited.

Trails are just as important, especially as links between recreation opportunities and neighborhoods. Trails are enjoyed for walking/jogging, cycling and many other recreational uses.

Public comments confirm that Midvale City residents would like more parks, recreation opportunities, and trails in the City. These issues were identified.

Parks • More neighborhood parks are needed. They should be within walking distance of residential neighborhoods, and not require crossing busy streets. Neighborhood parks should provide playground equipment, amenities for parents and children, and informal sports fields. • The Jordan River Parkway opportunity at the Sharon Steel and Bingham Junction properties should include park and recreation facilities (golf course, trails, open spaces, pavilions, playgrounds, etc.)

Recreation • Recreation Centers are needed where residents can gather. • An outdoor swimming pool is particularly desirable. • More programs and activities for youth, in particular, but for all age groups, are needed. • Cooperative programs with the Jordan School District and Salt Lake County, such as sharing schools for community events and activities, getting schools involved in solving community problems, and increasing relationships between students and City Government should be enhanced.

Trails • The Jordan River Parkway is a tremendous opportunity to continue the north/south recreational trail system. • A series of urban trails that link parks, schools, and other neighborhood amenities is important to the character of each neighborhood and should provide facilities for both bicyclists and pedestrians. • Major streets pose a significant barrier and safety concern to non-motorized travel between neighborhoods.

Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Fall2003 8-1 Midvale Citv General Plan

Existing Park and Recreation Resources

In analyzing existing park and recreation resources, the National Recreation and Park Association (NRP A) guidelines are used for purposes of comparison. The guidelines are amended to suit specific conditions in Midvale City. For example, the calculation of park land acres includes not just designated parks, but also open spaces associated with schools and churches that are serving some neighborhood recreation and open space need. Existing parks and their service areas, recreation resources, and schools and churches with useable open spaces are shown on Figure 8-1 Park and Recreation Resource Map.

Existing Parks The City's existing park system includes two categories of parks- Mini-parks which are under one acre in size, and Neighborhood Parks which are over one acre and less than 20 acres in size. Midvale City has no Community Parks (larger than 20 acres in size.)

Union Park Union Park is a neighborhood park, owned and managed by Salt Lake County. It includes approximately 16.56 acres and is located at 7360 South 700 East. Facilities include three baseball diamonds, one softball diamond, four horseshoe pits, a sand volleyball court, large playground structure, covered picnic pavilion, restrooms and storage, and seating and concession stand associated with the ball diamonds. The remainder of the area is landscaped and available for passive recreation opportunities.

Midvale City Park Midvale City park is a neighborhood park, owned and managed by Midvale City. It includes approximately 8.5 acres and is located at 455 West 6th Avenue. Facilities include four tennis courts, one softball diamond, playground equipment, pavilion, restrooms and an amphitheater.

Alexander Dahl Ball Park Alexander Dahl Ball Park is owned by Midvale City and is approximately 2.8 acres in size. It is exclusively a baseball facility with a lighted diamond and parking. It is located at 7510 South Main Street.

Constitution Park Constitution Park is a Mini-Park located at 7571 South Main Street and is approximately one­ half acre in size.

Old Town Park Old Town Park is a Mini-Park located at 7688 South Main Street, in the center of the Old Town commercial area on Main Street. It is approximately one-tenth of an acre in size, and is essentially a pedestrian corridor providing access to rear parking.

Fire Station Park A new park located just north of the Fire Station on 7200 South will include approximately 1 acre.

Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Fall2003 8-2 FIGURE 8-1

,~

M"

MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN

r .t\. K 1\.. ;::') .t\.1'I 1 RECREATION

R F~C)TTRCE MAP LEGEND

- Bxioting Parb

- Schooll (with Open Space)

- Bxilting Recreation FO<:ilitieo

- VO<:ant/Undeveloped

- Churcheo (with Open Space)

0 1/4 MUelUdiua

C) 112Mile Radius

- Exilting Jordan River Parkway in W eat Jordan

S AND Y

BlLU.ON BTBBL PllOP'D.TYTOBB ANKl!XIID INTO IIIDVALB CITY ...... ~ NO&TB ...... APRIL2000 "- .~ LANDIIARK

.~ 1::...D ES IG N

~··~ ...... ' / Midvale City General Plan

Existing School Open Spaces

East Midvale School Located at 6990 South 300 East, this elementary school includes just over nine acres of open grass with two baseball fields, a soccer field, and playground equipment.

Midvalley School Located at 217 East 7800 South, this elementary school includes approximately seven acres available for recreational use. It includes three soccer fields and playground equipment.

Midvale Elementary School Midvale Elementary School is located at 332 West Center Street and includes approximately six acres, of which approximately three acres can be considered open space. In addition to open grass area and playground equipment, this school includes two basketball courts. It is located adjacent to Midvale City Park.

Copperview Elementary School This school is located at 8449 South 150 West and includes approximately seven acres of open space devoted to play fields.

Midvale Middle School Approximately eight acres of Midvale Middle School can be considered open space. It is located at 7852 South Pioneer Street. Facilities include two baseball diamonds, two soccer/football fields, one gymnasium, and one indoor swimming pool.

Hillcrest High School Hillcrest High School has approximately twenty-two and one-half (22.5) acres of open space and is located at 7350 south Husky Highway (900 East). It has two informal baseball fields, one baseball diamond, one soccer/football field, six tennis courts, two gymnasiums, and a one-quarter mile running track.

Jordan Valley Alternative School Jordan Valley School is located at 7501 south 1000 East. This school serves students with disabilities or special needs, and includes a large open space with a softball field and playground equipment.

Existing Church Open Spaces

Saint James Episcopal Church The church includes approximately 2.5 acres of open space and is located at 7486 Union Park Road. There is a large field on the northwest, another on the northeast, a small playground on the south and an amphitheater.

LDS Union Fort Stake (First and Tenth Wards) Approximately 1.5 acres of open space is available at 1150 East Chapel Hill Drive. Developed facilities include a ball field with bleachers.

Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Fall2003 8-4 Midvale City General Plan

LDS Midvale East Stake (Second and Sixth Wards) A small pavilion (25-50 persons) and a basketball standard on the parking lot are included in this one-half acre open space, located at 7250 south 300 East.

LDS Midvale East Stake (First and Fifth Wards) Approximately one-half acre of open field and a small pavilion (25-50 persons) are located at 240 East Forbush Avenue.

LDS Midvale East Stake (Third and Fourth Wards) This one-third acre (approximately) open space includes a small pavilion and playfield. It is located at 87 East 7100 South.

LDS Midvale North Stake (Second and Eleventh Wards) A large pavilion with tables for 75-100 persons and a ball field with backstop and bleachers is located at 97 West 7500 South. Open space includes approximately three acres.

LDS Midvale Stake (Fifth, Sixth, and Twelfth-Korean Wards) About one-half acres of open space with a pavilion for approximately 50 people. It is located at 8171 South Jackson Street.

Summary

Combined parks, and school and church open spaces total approximately 108 acres. This information is shown in Table 1, and is valuable in comparing Midvale City with other communities across the country. The National Recreation and Park Association (NRP A) makes it possible to make such comparisons.

In addition to parks, and school and church open spaces, Midvale City has approximately 700 acres of vacant/undeveloped land. Much of this land is located on the Sharon Steel and Bingham Junction sites, the remainder is found on small parcels interspersed throughout developed areas of the City. Some of this inventory should be available for future park needs.

Table 8-1 Park and Open Space Acreage in Midvale City

Parks Acre(s) Mini-Parks Constitution Park 0.5 Old Town Park 0.1 Neighborhood Parks Fire Station Park 1.0 Union Park 16.6 Midvale City Park 8.5 Alexander Dahl Ball Park 2.8 Copperview Community Center Park 7.0 (estimated) Total Park Acreage 36.5

Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Fall2003 8-5 Midvale City General Plan

Table 8-1 (Cont.) School Open Space (estimated) East Midvale Elementary 9.0 Midvalley Elementary 7.0 Midvalle Elementary 3.0 Copperview Elementary 7.0 Midvale Middle School 8.0 Hillcrest High 22.5 Jordan Valley Alternative School 8.0 Total School Open Space Acreage 64.5

Church Open Space (estimated) St. James Episcopal 2.5 Union Fort Stake (First and Tenth Wards) 1.5 Midvale East Stake (Second and Sixth Wards) .5 Midvale East Stake (First and Fifth Wards) .5 Midvale East Stake (Third and Fourth Wards) .3 Midvale North Stake (Second and Eleventh Wards) 3.0 Midvale Stake (Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth-Korean) _____2 Total Church Open space Acreage 7.8

Total Midvale City Park, School, and Church Open Space 109.8

Existing Recreation Facilities

Copperview Community Center This Salt Lake County owned and managed facility provides a variety of recreation and education services to the community. Recreation facilities and programs include indoor and outdoor basketball courts, weight room, multipurpose room that is used for gymnastics and aerobics as well as other activities; adult and youth baseball, basketball (Jr. Jazz), soccer, and volleyball; and additional youth activities such as gymnastics, T-ball, karate, and hunter safety programs. Many of the sports activities are programmed and managed by Salt Lake County, and take place at local schools through agreement with the Jordan School District.

After-school programs are offered each day between 4:00 and 6:00p.m. A day care center is located on-site, which provides transportation to and from school for children attending elementary school. Recreation programs for persons with disabilities are also provided. Outdoor programs include basketball, flag football, baseball; there is also a small playground.

A variety of community services occur at Copperview Community Center, such as Food Bank, HEAT (a utility assistance program), and a health clinic which are operated by the South County Community Action Program. Educational classes include English as a second language, and consumer and family education programs.

Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Fall2003 8-6 Midvale City General Plan

Midvale City Senior Center Salt Lake County Aging Services operates the Midvale Senior Center located at 350 West Park Street, adjacent to Midvale City Park. Midvale City owns the facility. The Senior Center offers several health and educational programs including midday meals served at the Center, Meals-on-Wheels for home-bound Seniors, blood pressure clinics, tax preparation assistance, cooking classes, and others. Recreation programs include ceramics, exercise, billiards, quilting, bingo, cards, evening dancing, and special parties. Midvale Elementary School students visit the Center weekly for scheduled activity with Seniors.

The Senior Center serves primarily those who live close to the facility. However, they have begun an out-reach program to attract Seniors who are still working to evening activities, and to interest more Seniors in programs and activities. Transportation to and from the Center is provided for those who need it.

Midvale Middle School Swimming Pool The Midvale Middle School opens its swimming pool to the public evenings and weekends to serve the community. The pool is indoors.

Main Street Basketball Courts Two basketball courts across from the Alexander Dahl Ball Park are open for public use at all times. They are extensively used whenever weather permits.

Boys and Girls Club The Boys and Girls Club of Midvale has been open since 1994 and is currently operating out of Midvale Elementary School. A new Club building will be open and operating fall of 2000.

The Boys and Girls Club offers several programs and collaborates with several other groups and agencies to provide services to children 5-18 years of age. Programs and services include one-half day kindergarten, drug prevention, pregnancy prevention, school lunch programs, health care, and school success programs among others. The Club will provide space for partnering organizations and groups such as Midvale City, Midvale City Police Department, Jordan School District, courts, and others who provide services to children and youth.

Existing Trails

Jordan River Trail The Midvale section of the Jordan River Trail runs parallel to the Jordan River for approximately 1.5 miles from the trail head located at 950 West 7800 South to the southeast City boundary at approximately 8530 South 700 West. Trail amenities consist of mile markers, point of interest signs, benches, tables, and turn-out areas allowing users closer access to the river.

Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Fall2003 8-7 Midvale City General Plan

Analysis

Park Needs Analysis

The Park Needs Analysis looks at park land and population, not facilities, activities and programs. But in order to provide for facilities, activities and programs, a variety of park types are needed. To determine how much park land is needed in a community, it is useful to have some standard on which to evaluate. The National Recreation and Parks Association (NRP A) categorizes parks by size and character, and establishes guidelines for use in general park planning.

The guidelines represent an ideal based on information gathered from many communities and generalized. In real fact, communities vary in location, size, climate, configuration, geography, culture, socio-economics, demographics and in many other ways that will affect park needs and demands. For that reason, specific community generated information like that which was gathered during the public involvement process, is very important. It permits the analysis of need to more accurately reflect community values and desires.

The National Recreation and Park Association (NRP A) recommends the population ratio method (acres of park land per 1,000 persons), modified to accommodate local preferences. NRPA further recommends that a total park system should represent a minimum of 6.25 to 10.5 acres of developed open space per 1000 population. For purposes of calculating the total park and open space acres, Midvale City includes park acres, as well as approximate open space acres at schools and churches. These open spaces are included because they contribute significantly to neighborhood access to public space.

Table 8-2 below compares 1998 and projected 2020 Midvale City population, and the total amount of existing park and open space acres ( 110 acres), to the NRP A low and high guideline. Two 2020 population projections are analyzed: 42,492 which is based on information provided by the Utah Office of Planning and Budget (generally considered to be an over-estimate), and 32,561 which is calculated based on existing average population density and the amount of vacant land available for residential development. (See the population discussion in Chapter 1.)

Based on this information, Midvale City has an existing deficit of between 64 and 183 acres, and a projected 2020 deficit of 156-336 acres using OPB estimates, and 95-232 acres using build-out calculations. Both 2020 projected deficits assume that no new park land has been added to the inventory. This analysis confirms what Midvale City residents already know, that there are not enough parks and open spaces to serve the population adequately.

Table 8-2 Comparison of NRPA Guidelines and Midvale City Park and Open Space Acreage

Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Fall2003 8-8 Midvale City General Plan

NRPA NRPA Midvale Year Population Park Acres*** 6.25ac/1000 lO.Sac/1000 Park Deficit

1998 27,887 110 174 293 64 - 183 acres 2020 42,492* 110 266 446 156 -336 acres 2020 32,561 ** 110 204 342 94 - 232 acres

*Based on information from Utah Office ofPlanning and Budget, April16, 1999. **Based on residential build-out calculations. ***Includes 36.5 acres of park land, 64.5 acres of school open space, and 7.8 acres of church open space.

Park Land Distribution and Service Area Analysis

Having enough park acreage to serve the population is important, but it is also important that parks and open spaces are located conveniently and close to where people live. NRPA provides guidance in determining the distribution and service area of parks: Mini-Parks have a service area of one-quarter mile, and Neighborhood Parks have a service area of one­ half mile. The circles on the Park and Recreation Resources Map indicates the service area for each kind of park, and reveals where there are gaps in service.

The gaps show that most of the residential neighborhoods in the Union Fort area are not served by parks. The only park between State Street and Union Park Road that is in Midvale City is Union Park. The western residential neighborhoods are better served by existing parks, but there are still gaps, particularly between State Street and I-15, south of Center Street (7720 South.)

After analyzing this distribution information, Midvale City has determined that the NRPA guideline must be modified to better meet the needs of its residents. Because of the many boundaries and barriers separating neighborhoods as originally discussed in the Urban Design Element, Midvale City believes that it is necessary to be sure that each neighborhood has the best access to parks and other open spaces as possible. Therefore, in looking at neighborhood access to parks and open space, the geographic boundary of each neighborhood takes precedence over a general distribution of parks because, very often, geographic boundaries represent physical barriers that are difficult, impossible, or unsafe to breach.

Additionally, Salt Lake County Parks and Recreation has identified three proposed parks in Midvale City, a regional park in the general vicinity of the Sharon Steel site, a community park along the Jordan River Parkway, and a neighborhood park east of State Street and north of 7200 South Street. Salt Lake County collected park impact fees for the Union Fort area of Midvale City prior to annexation. These funds have been transferred to Midvale and should be allocated for parks in Midvale City.

To facilitate the regional park proposed by Salt Lake County, Midvale City should begin a dialog with Salt Lake County to remove the ball fields from Union Park and relocate them in new facilities on Sharon Steel or Bingham Junction properties. This will free-up

Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Fall2003 8-9 Midvale City General Plan additional open recreation space needed for the community and provide needed facilities in Midvale that serve Midvale and County residents.

Recreation Facilities Needs Analysis

The Copperview Community Center, Midvale Senior Center, Midvale Boys and Girl Club, and the recreation programs administered by Salt Lake County provide many services to the residents of Midvale, however, they do not appear to meet all of the need. More recreation programs and facilities, particularly ones that are close to residential neighborhoods, were identified as needed during the public process. In the future, a recreation survey of Midvale residents would be helpful in determining more accurately the kinds of facilities, activities and programs desired by residents.

Recreation Center

Access to recreation center(s) with a diversity of recreation programs and facilities are desired by Midvale residents. The recreation center should be centrally located, easily accessed (even considering the barriers), and should provide for a variety of recreation and leisure opportunities. Ideally, there should be a Recreation Center located west of Interstate 15 and another east of State Street and central to the area. The Copperview Community Center serves the southern edge of the community.

There are several options for funding such a center such as bonding, special recreation districts, partnerships between city and county or between public and private entities, and general fund sources. Each should be explored at the time a commitment is made to develop a facility.

Outdoor Swimming Pool

Whether a swimming pool is located as part of a Recreation Center or separate from it, an outdoor swimming pool is much desired in Midvale City. Again, a central location is preferred. The National Recreation and Park Association (NRP A) recommends one swimming pool for each 20,000 residents in a community.

Golf Course

There has been some discussion about a golf course located on the Sharon Steel site. Such a facility will require a minimum of approximately 150 acres for an 18-hole course. A golf course is certainly one of the many land use options available to this major piece of undeveloped land and requires careful consideration of environmental, economic and management considerations. Recreation Programs

Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Fall2003 8-10 Midvale City General Plan

Recreation programs and activity opportunities for all age groups are desired by Midvale residents. The target-groups most often mentioned for programs and activities were youth (teenagers), children, and the elderly. Activities mentioned include after-school activities, dancing and hang-out places for youth, skate parks, sports programs and facilities, and in general, a variety of things available within Midvale so that people do not need to leave the City to find entertainment, leisure and recreation opportunities.

Recreation programs can take place in existing school and/or church facilities, new facilities such as a recreation center, and other public buildings where space allows. Many of these programs are and should continue to be partnership with organizations like Salt Lake County Parks and Recreation, Boys and Girls Club, and Midvale Senior Citizen Center. Other partnerships are possible with local schools, churches, service organizations, and business and interests groups. Where Salt Lake County and other recreation activity and program providers are unable to fill the gap, Midvale City should step in to provide additional programs and services - possibly utilizing facilities owned and operated by others.

Partnerships

Cooperative programs with schools are on-going. Salt Lake County schedules many sports activities on Jordan School District school play fields. Residents hope for more interaction and cooperation such as using school facilities for evening, weekend and summer activities and events, and for programs that can involve schools in community problem-solving and better relationships with City government. Additionally, there are opportunities (though limited) for cooperative relationships with local churches, especially those that have open space and facilities, as identified in the analysis, that can be shared with nearby residential neighborhoods. Other enhanced partnership opportunities occur with Salt Lake County, particularly at existing facilities like the Midvale Senior Center and Copperview Community Center.

Urban Trails Analysis

Though Midvale City does not currently have a trails plan residents indicate that they are important and should be implemented. There are a number of trail configuration and functions available.

Urban trails must be designed to fit into the urban environment of Midvale City and still allow for safe non-motorized travel within the City and to locations beyond. An urban trails system is designed to accommodate both bicycle and pedestrian travel, and can be accomplished through on-street and off-street facilities.

Although emphasis is placed on bicycle facilities, it should be noted that the facility standards discussed below are not exclusive of pedestrian uses. Many bicycle facilities, the Jordan River Parkway for example, are multi-use, and are used equally by bicycle and

Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Fall2003 8-11 Midvale City General Plan pedestrians. These shared use facilities are most commonly found off-street and are designated as Multi-Use paths.

While safety is often a relative term that cannot be fully addressed in a comprehensive plan, there are a variety of national standards that can be followed. Bicycle facilities should be designed to meet one of three standards based on available transportation infrastructure and the level of users expected on the facility. These three standards are Class I, Class II, or Class III Bikeways shown in the attached Figure 8-2.

Class I Bike Paths should be designed as Multi-Use paths to accommodate bicycles, pedestrians, in-line skating, and where appropriate, equestrians. Class I Bikeways are also called Bike Paths since they represent a dedicated right-of-way physically separated from other motorized transportation routes. These provide the safest bicycle facility since they are physically separated from automobile traffic. Paths should be designed as 8 feet minimum if they are dedicated for bicycles but 12 feet is typically desirable if pedestrian uses are also planned. Conflicts between cyclist and pedestrians should be addressed with proper signage and education. Crossings of arterial streets should also be considered in the design of Class I Bikeways and can include a wide range of options such as at grade crossings at pedestrian crossing locations grade separated bicycle structures.

Although Class I Bike Paths provide the most bicycle/pedestrian friendly environment, obtaining enough right of way for their implementation is often difficult.

Class II Bikeways are also called Bike Lanes and represent a striped dedicated lane for bicyclists on the existing roadways. While Bike Lanes can be a minimum of 4 feet, 5 feet is often a functional minimum given other obstacles such as parking, drainage gutters and grates, stones and debris, and related street hazards to bicycles. Bike Lanes can be developed on low volume streets where they are appropriate for children and recreational bicycle users. Bike Lanes are also a low cost solution on major roadways with high volumes of bicycle traffic. On major roads, additional issues such as bus stops, driveways, snow storage, and others should also be considered.

Finally, Class III Bikeways, or Bike Routes, offer a low cost solution where bicyclists share the roadway travel lanes with other vehicles. General guidelines for the design of Bike Routes has similar considerations as Bike Lanes and can be found in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). At a minimum, Bike Routes only require a posted sign, but other practical recommendations regarding lane width, traffic volume, access points, and other issues are all important. The application and implementation of these types of corridors is heavily dependent on the expected users of commuter bicyclists versus recreation bicyclist that the bicycle system is intended to serve.

Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Fall2003 8-12 Class I Bikeway (Bike Path)

Provides a completely separated right of way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow minimized.

Parl

Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.

lltb Route Sign ~ - • eE.iiii C::~-~- - -r.~------·. =-~..... -- ' tr~ .. · - ~ 1 ! - ···· --·- Class!! ·· Ill-··· Bikeway· • (Bike Route) Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehiCle traffic.

GENERAL BIKEWAY & Peers Associltes,. Inc. FIGURE 8-2 fP Traneportation~ Consoltancs I I CLASSIFICATIONS FIGURE8-3

"' ~N\ ~, "' MIDVALE CITY MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN

-~- t"'l ch.JnnuKclOOD ~ PARKS AND OPEN SPArF~ LEGEND

- Parka - Schools (with Open Space)

- Recreation Facilities

- VIUIIIIUndevoloped

- Churchoa (with Open Space)

- Propcled Jordan River Putway in Midvale City

- Emling Jordan River Putway in West Jordan

SANDY

&ILUON STEEL PllOPBI.TYTOBJI ANN11XBDINTO UIDVALB CITY ...... - ~ NORTH ...... I ~ I APRIL2000 =- LA N D II ARK -- ~tD E SIGN ·~~~§'- ~ .,. ".; ...... -- -- Midvale City General Plan

Recommendations

Midvale City Parks, Recreation, and Leisure Activity Survey

It is important for a community to understand the recreation and leisure needs of its residents. The best way to obtain the needed information is to survey residents. Midvale City should conduct a Midvale City Parks, Recreation, and Leisure Activity survey. The information may be obtained through a mail-back survey form, a telephone survey, or other mechanism that obtains a random sample of resident opinions. It should include some general demographic information, as well as information about activity preferences, park use, desired activities and facilities, existing facility use, desired programs such as arts, cultural activities, etc. It should give people options to select so that a full range of opportunities are explored. This kind of detailed information will permit Midvale City to lobby Salt Lake County for specific kinds of activities and services, and identify areas where the City can fill-in as a provider of recreation opportunities and facilities.

Jordan River Parkway Recreational Development

In order to meet some of the needs of the community, the Jordan River Parkway and adjacent recreational development opportunities are obvious recommendations. The undeveloped Sharon Steel and Bingham Junction sites are opportunities that cannot and should not be overlooked when searching for locations for parks, recreation facilities, community center facilities, a golf course, or other community-identified needs.

Recreation Facilities New development along the Jordan River should include a community park (20 to 80 acres in size) that will provide facilities not found in most neighborhood parks of smaller size. Facilities might include an outdoor swimming pool, a recreation center with programmed activities and a diverse range of recreation opportunities, canoe launching facilities, skate board facilities, and any number of many other activities and facilities desired by the community. Development of the park should also include trailheads and parking areas for access to the Jordan River Parkway and Trail. Information obtained in the survey will provide guidance regarding other kinds of desired activities and facilities.

A conceptual development plan for the Midvale City Jordan River Park is needed so that as development occurs on the adjacent properties, accommodation can be made for both pedestrian and vehicular access, so that joint development opportunities can be identified, and so that funding sources can be identified and secured. The conceptual development plan should show locations for all access points, parking lots, trails, recreation facilities, landscape buffers, plantings, and any other development or activity area that is to take place on the site.

West Jordan City is developing a trail on its side of the river, with bridge connections to Midvale City. A continuation of this cooperative relationship is encouraged.

Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Fall2003 8-15 Midvale City General Plan

Recreation Programs Recreation programs associated with the Jordan River Park and, perhaps a recreation center, can open-up opportunities for specific kinds of programs that would not be available at other locations. Such programs may include bird watching classes, native plant identification classes, canoeing and kayaking training, environmental education, fly-casting and fishing, and many other opportunities that are inherent in the unique Jordan River Parkway environment. Again, the recommended survey could help to identify needed and desired programs.

Neighborhood Park In-Fill Development

There is little available land in Midvale for park and recreation facility development; however, there are small parcels that could alleviate some of the need if acquired and developed. Within each residential neighborhood, potential neighborhood park parcels should be identified and secured. At this stage, because there are so few, any undeveloped parcel with reasonable access to neighborhoods should be considered. Additionally, where other community services are proposed, additional open space property should be acquired, if possible, to better serve residential neighborhoods that may be isolated from other facilities.

As a general rule, there should be a neighborhood park or comparable, useable open space in each identified geographic residential neighborhood. If the open space is on school or church property, public access should be secured.

For purposes of identification, each residential neighborhood has been assigned a name. In the following Table 8-3, a priority action is identified for each neighborhood.

Table 8-3 Park and Open Space Neighborhood Action Priorities Neif:hborhood Priority Action Comments Avenues Access to new Community Park at Alexander Dahl Field has limited Jordan River Parkway. use for public open space. Old Town Locate new Neighborhood Park. Possible park land available. Access to Community Park at Jordan River Parkway. Park None Neighborhood is well-served. Copperview Locate new Neighborhood Park, if Very limited opportunity for new possible. Maximize opportunities parks. on school and church properties. Northeast Locate new Neighborhood Park, if Very limited opportunity for new Midvale possible. Maximize opportunities parks. on school and church properties. Central Midvale Maximize opportunities for school Very limited opportunity for new properties. parks.

Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Fall2003 8-16 Midvale City General Plan

Table 8-3 (cont.) Park and Open Space Neighborhood Action Priorities Neiglhbhd or oo P rzorzty A ction Comments East Midvale Locate new Neighborhood Park, if Very limited opportunity for new possible. Maximize opportunities parks. Fire station park addresses on school and church properties. some of the need in this area. Mid valley Locate new Neighborhood Park. Undeveloped land available. North Union Fort Locate new Neighborhood Park, if High density housing may provide possible. many recreation amenities. Union Park None Neighborhood is well-served. South Union Fort Locate new Neighborhood Park, if Very limited opportunity for new possible. Maximize opportunities parks. on school and church properties.

Cost ofPark Development The cost of park development can range dramatically depending on the level of development and the kinds of facilities provided. As a rule of thumb, park development costs approximately $50,000 to $100,000 acre. The lower end of the scale represents a minimum development level that would include lawn and trees, sprinkler irrigation equipment, picnic tables, playground equipment, and some other small facilities. At the higher end of the scale, park development would include additional facilities such as tennis courts, restrooms, and pavilions.

Intra-Neighborhood Trails

Access to park and recreation facilities through modes other than private automobiles should be fostered within neighborhoods. Due to the varying sizes and standards of local streets in Midvale, no single standard can be developed at this time. However, individual neighborhood plans, as well as traffic management plans, should develop detailed urban trails recommendations within neighborhoods. Other issues such as sidewalk connectivity and street lighting improvements should also be incorporated into neighborhood plans to address pedestrian concerns. In many cases, it is anticipated the intra-neighborhood trail needs will be met with informal, shared-use of roadways and/or sidewalks.

Regional Bicycle Facilities

The WFRC (Wasatch Front Regional Council) has been actively trying to organize the smaller bicycle plans of its participating cities and counties. Midvale City's neighbors in Sandy and Murray have already developed detailed trails plans. Salt Lake County has a less formal trails plan through County Parks and Recreation and a variety of citizen groups. Midvale should develop a detailed trails plan and continue to work with its neighbors to coordinate planning and develop partnerships. A proposed trails plan is shown in the attached Figure 8-4.

Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Fall2003 8-17 ~MIDVALE CITY MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN

FIGURE 8-4 REGIONAL BICYC

__ l'I'T."! •• SYSTEM

LEGEND

- Class l Existing I ••• Class l Proposed - Class2 Existing I • • I Class 2 Proposed - Class 3 Existing I • • • Class 3 Proposed

LAIIDIIARK • • DESIGN -..... fPFehr " Peets AssodateJ, Inc. Tron~toUortec..,tlortll I ~t....., ... , .. -·-.. May, 2000 -,..,.-·· Midvale City General Plan

Trails Master Plan

In the spring of 2004, the City adopted a trails master plan, identifying future trails opportunities throughout the City. Midvale will use this document to direct future administrations and as support when pursuing funding opportunities. The adopted Trails Master Plan Map is shown in the attached Figure 8-5.

Trails Funding

Due to the nature of volunteer participation typical oftrail planning, it is important to continue to stay abreast of possible funding opportunities and funding sources which may be available for trails. Federal transportation funds such as Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds, Congestion Mitigation I Air Quality (CM/ AQ) funds, and Enhancement funds are programmed to each state or urbanized area and can be available on a sub-national basis. Other federal programs such as Transportation and Community System Preservation (TCSP) funds are only available at a competitive national level. State highway funds can also be used for non-motorized transportation facilities, with restrictions for state highways only. The State also administers a Safe Sidewalk Program which provides funding for sidewalk connectivity, also with various restrictions. Finally, non-traditional funding such as County flood control funding, Central Utah Project (CUP) funding, or Community Development Block Grants (CDGB) have also been used in the past to fund trail improvements.

Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Fall2003 8-19 Midvale Citv General Plan

Goals and Policies- Parks and Recreation

Goal #1: To increase park acreage and improve neighborhood access to parks.

Policy #1: To provide parks, and park facilities for Midvale City residents now and in thefuture.

Implementation Measures: 1. Conduct a Parks and Recreation survey of Midvale Residents to determine existing and desired activities, desired facilities and programs, kinds and characteristics of parks desired, condition of existing parks, problems/opportunities in existing parks, future park locations, etc. 2. Develop a policy for the acquisition of park lands and open spaces that includes purchased land, and donated or dedicated land. 3. Begin implementation of Park and Open Space Neighborhood Action Priorities. 4. Provide for a diversity of parks and recreation programs and facilities that reflect the needs identified in the survey. 5. Periodically Re-stiTVey residents.

Policy #2: To provide additional park acreage within under-served residential neighborhoods shown on the Park and Recreation Resources Map.

Implementation Measures: 1. Identify vacant/undeveloped parcels within each neighborhood that are suitable for parks. 2. Designate a percentage of the budget annually for land acquisition and park development. 3. Explore impact fees and land trusts and other funding mechanisms to develop parks. 4. Obtain options or agreements for the short and long-term acquisition of identified properties.

Policy #3: Enter into cooperative agreements with other providers ofpark and open space facilities.

Implementation Measures: 1. Work with Salt Lake County to acquire a regional park of 100 acres or more. 2. Be a partner in determining additional facilities in County-owned parks and recreation facilities that will better serve Midvale City. 3. Begin communications with area churches to work out agreements and/or procedures for use of large fields and facilities for community use. 4. Maintain relationships with the Jordan School District to increase access to school facilities at off-school times.

Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Fall2003 8-21 Midvale City General Plan

Goal #2: To provide safe, well-maintained parks and recreation facilities.

Policy #1: Coordinate City resources or contracted services to provide for maintenance and safety.

Implementation Measures: 1. Budget and acquire staff, to adequately maintain existing and future parks. 2. Develop park development standards to ensure high-quality recreation experiences and public safety. 3. Initiate programs with Midvale City Police such as COP Shops, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) review, special patrols, and other means to reduce the potential for crime in parks.

Goal #3: To provide and maintain recreation programs for Midvale City Residents, now and in the future.

Policy #1: Maximize access to recreation programs for all residents.

Implementation Measures: 1. Evaluate the feasibility of extending the hours of operation of the existing facilities to their maximum in order to accommodate as many residents and interests as possible. 2. Identify and work with partners, such as Copperview Community Center, Midvale Senior Center, Old City Hall, the Library, the Boys & Girls Club ofMidvale and other existing schools and churches, as locations for additional recreation programs.

Policy #2: To provide a diversity of recreation and community facilities and programs desired by residents.

Implementation Measures: 1. Complete the survey seeking to identify desired programs and activities. 2. Identify partners and interest groups, including Salt Lake County Recreation Services, who can participate in the delivery of recreation activities and programs for people of all ages and interests. 3. Adopt a budget and implementation plan to provide for needed recreation activities and programs, especially those with the highest priority. 4. Explore the diversity of programs possible that may include the needs identified in surveys, such as arts and music programs, concerts, performing arts, festivals and events, parades, community gatherings, multi-cultural celebrations, and other opportunities to acknowledge and cultivate the many interests of residents. 5. Initiate programs that will encourage cooperative and complementary relationships between schools and Midvale City, and to encourage children to become involved in community issues. 6. Provide community wide information on available programs and facilities such as recreation programs, day care programs, health care and senior programs, and others.

Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Fall2003 8-22 Midvale City General Plan

Goals and Policies - Trails

Goal #1: Improve Intra-Neighborhood Non-Motorized Travel.

Policy #1: Encourage and facilitate pedestrian and non-motorized transportation.

Implementation Measures: 1. Identify and correct sidewalk and street-lighting deficiencies through a formal survey process. 2. Coordinate work of the local PTAs, UDOT, and UTA to develop safe routing plans to schools, particularly elementary schools. 3. Link parks, schools, and other pedestrian generators within neighborhoods via designated urban trails. 4. Coordinate urban trails planning with traffic management plans. 5. Provide community wide information on available programs and educate users on proper use of urban trails.

Goal #2: Improve non-motorized travel between neighborhoods and to locations beyond Midvale City.

Policy # 1: Construct a network of transportation facilities for bicyclists.

Implementation Measures: 1. Implement the Midvale City bicycle and trails. 2. Follow AASHTO, MUTCD, and other appropriate guidelines and standards.

Policy #2: Cooperate with neighboring entities.

Implementation Measures: 1. Work with the WFRC, UDOT, UTA, Salt Lake County, Murray, and Sandy to coordinate existing plans. 2. Develop funding partnerships with above mentioned jurisdictions as well as Utah Department of Parks, school districts, and others. 3. Work with UTA, Sandy, Murray, and possibly adjacent property owners to establish a separated trail along the UTA TRAX. Work with Canal Companies, Salt Lake County Flood Control, Sandy, Murray, and adjacent property owners to establish a separated trail along existing canals. Policy# 3: Construct a network oftrails throughout the Bingham Junction and Sharon Steel sites providing links to the Jordan River Trail and other city-wide trails identified on the trails master plan.

Implementation Measures: 1. Work with the property owners and developers of both sites to ensure coordination of a trails system. 2. Budget for ongoing maintenance oftrails facilities.

Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element Fall2003 8-23 Midvale City General Plan

Public and Quasi-Public Facilities Element 9

Introduction

Public facilities and quasi-public facilities are important elements of the public realm and a framework for community. They provide a focus to the community when they occur in the form of public buildings and gathering places, and civic functions and events. They provide essential services that have traditionally been the role of the private sector -- to cost effectively and efficiently manage services like police and fire protection, shared services that enhance the community like libraries and schools, and assistance to residents who have special needs. Public and quasi-public facilities and services are shared by people within the community, and often shared with people of other communities.

Midvale residents have identified several public and quasi-public facility needs. Specific public facility needs related to parks and recreation (parks, recreation centers, recreation program providers) and transportation (TRAX stations) are addressed in the Parks, Recreation, and Trails Element, Transportation Element, or Land Use Element of the General Plan.

• A multi-cultural center with food and shops that celebrates the diverse cultural heritage in Midvale City. • A strong City Center that includes a broad mix of uses, and community services, such as day care. • A place for museums and arts. • Facilities and services that are conveniently located and accessible to everyone.

Existing Public Facilities and Services

Midvale City Facilities and Services

Midvale City Hall Midvale City Hall at 655 West Center Street (7720 South) has a strong architectural identity and tradition in the community, and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is the administrative and legislative center of the City, and houses the Mayor's office, meeting rooms for the City Council and Planning Commission, the Midvale City Development Services Department, and several other departments and offices that serve the residents of Midvale City.

City Hall' s location in Old Town, as well as the co-location of other existing and proposed civic and governmental facilities and services, are critical to creating a strong civic center and historic downtown. Midvale City has committed to keeping City Hall functions in the existing City Hall building.

Public and Quasi-Public Element Fall2003 9-1 Midvale City General Plan

Fire Protection Midvale City Fire Department provides service to residents in the City. Fire Station No. 21 is permanently located at 7657 South Holden and serves the western portion of the City. According to Midvale City Facilities Master Plan (1999), it will require some renovation in the future, and may ultimately house the Paramedic Unit which is now located in a temporary Fire Station located on Utah Transit Authority property.

Fire Station No. 22 is located at 611 East 7200 South. The station serves the community by providing a service area radii of approximately 1.5 miles. Between the two fire stations, Midvale City is well served with fire protection.

The Midvale City Fire Department provides First Response Service (emergency service) to the Union Fort area of Midvale City, and emergency and ambulance service to the pre­ annexation area. They provide CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) training at Fire Station facilities, and are involved in public education to schools and community groups.

Public Safety/Law Enforcement Midvale City Police Department serves the residents of Midvale. The main station is located at 7912 South 700 West, and there is a sub-station at 3 8 East 7800 South and two work stations (one at 700 East and 7200 South and another at Kinko's in Union Fort Family Center). There is an active Community Oriented Policing (COP) program serving seven districts, with officers assigned to each district. COP manages Neighborhood Watch programs in each of the districts. During summer months, Midvale City Police Department maintains bike patrols in parks and problem areas.

Water Service Water service is provided by Sandy City, Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District, Midvale City, and Salt Lake City Metro Water District. See Figure 9-2 for boundaries.

Sewer Service Sewer service is provided by Midvale City, Sandy Suburban District, Cottonwood Improvement District, and Salt Lake Sanitation Service District #2. See Figure 9-2 for boundaries.

Solid Waste Collection Service Midvale City is part owner in the Trans-Jordan Landfill. The City provides solid waste collection services for the entire community through a contractor on a weekly basis. Midvale City also provides monthly bulk waste pickup, which is separated so that green waste (tree limbs and timber products only) can be recycled. Curbside recycling is not currently available; however, Midvale City Public Works Department is actively investigating options for a fully-automated recycling system at curb-side.

Public and Quasi-Public Element Fall2003 9-2 FIGURE 9-1

~MIDVALE CITY MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN UDLlL QUASI-PUBLIC ACTLJTIES MAP LEGEND

- CityHall

- PoatOffice - Libraly - Fire Station (ExUting) Fire Station (Propooed)

...... Recreation Center - Trllllit Station - Other Oovemmont Oflicea/Shopo CJ Police Station (Propoaed)

- Health FICilitieo - Schools C:Jchun:hea - Pub ~ Elementary School Bonndariea c:::J Middle School Boundaries

.... ,...... ~ NOI.'IB APRIL2000 LAND II ARK ~1+"1(q -- DESIGN ~ ~.. t '"\ ...... -•u-- FIOURE9-2

MIDVALE CITY GENERAL PLAN

1. u u L n __, ~-.Jl.,~.{v' IC E S

LEGEND 1 ,I SEWER SYSTEM .. BULKY WASTE ,I l1 !_:.1 MIDV ALB SEWER DISTRICT COLLECTION AREAS ~ I, .I II I -. SALT LAKE CITY SUBURBAN E::J FIRST MONDAY l1 ._ - SEWER DISTRICT #2 E::J SECOND MONDAY I, WATER SYSTEM = 11 E::J FIRST TUESDAY I E::J MIDVALE WATER DISTRICT E::J SECOND TUBSDA Y = E::J SANDYWATBRDISTRICT \ E::J FIRST WEDNESDAY I,', E::J CONSBRVANCYWATBRDISTRICT ,, E::J SECOND WEDNESDAY

~\ \ \ \ ,\ , ,,,

o IOO'tacr ,_.

~IIC.AU: 1"-1600' ~ .... TB APRIL2000

~ ll,jLANDK!RI • ~,,,r/'

_I'~ D E S I G N _,,_,_ ~ ~-...... Midvale City General Plan

Other Public Services

Ruth Vine Tyler County Library The community is served by one Salt Lake County Library branch located in Midvale City - the Ruth Vine Tyler County Library at 8041 South Wood Street. Other nearby libraries also serve the community: Whitmore Branch (Salt Lake County), Sandy City Library, and Murray City Library. No additional library branches are planned at this time.

Federal Post Office The Midvale Post Office located near the intersection of State Street and 7720 South (Center Street) serves most of the Midvale City area. Some residents are served by the Cottonwood Branch of the Salt Lake City Post Office and the Sandy Post Office. Additional post office facilities are not planned at this time.

Existing Quasi-Public Facilities and Services

Schools

Schools are important elements of the community because they help to identify neighborhoods, provide recreation and open space opportunities, attract families, and help to increase and maintain housing. Midvale City is within the jurisdiction of the Jordan School District with four elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and an alternative school serving children with special needs all located within City boundaries. Additional schools serve residents bordering Sandy City and unincorporated areas ofthe County.

Midvale City schools still have additional capacity. Enrollments fluctuate somewhat in the elementary schools, and are somewhat more stable at middle and high school levels. None of the elementary schools are year-round indicating that if there were a need for additional capacity, it would be accommodated with year-round schedules before consideration of additional buildings. Consequently, there are no plans for new schools in the Midvale City area.

Midvale Senior Center

The Senior Center provides many services to the elderly in Midvale City. They are currently involved in an outreach program to attract seniors from other areas of the city and those that may still be employed. For detailed information on programs and services see Chapter 8 - Park, Recreation and Trail Element.

Midvale City Shops

These service and maintenance facilities are located at 8196 South Main Street.

Public and Quasi-Public Element Fall2003 9-5 Midvale City General Plan

Health Care

Several health care facilities are located in Midvale City and serve its residents, as well as others in the valley. These include a Valley Mental Health Satellite Residence Facility, Valley Mental Health Clinic, Oquirrh Ridge East Facility, University ofUtah Health Network Clinic, St. Marks Hospital Outpatient Clinic, and several others. There are no major hospitals located in Midvale City.

Analysis and Recommendations

A Civic Center

Old Town is an obvious location for Midvale City's Civic Center. It has an existing character and commitment that is recognized and valued by the community. Whenever new public facilities are needed or desired, it is in the best interests of the community to look first at a location in Old Town, understanding that there will be times and situations when it may be more beneficial to the community to disperse some public facilities and services.

Midvale City is actively pursuing new facilities for police and fire protection, and once these improvements are completed, the space needs of both of these essential services will be satisfied. Midvale City's response to improving facilities for both the Police and Fire Departments shows a commitment to keeping essential services in the Old Town as a means of strengthening it as the Civic Center of the Community.

Multi-Cultural Center

Other public and quasi-public services such as a Multi-Cultural Center, especially if it has a retail component, are also best located in the Civic Center. They have the potential of attracting people to Old Town and increasing opportunities for existing and new business activity.

The Multi-Cultural Center suggested during the public process could take many forms and serve multiple functions for the community, including cultural and arts programs, meeting places, museums, special-market retail services that cater to and maximize the "theme" of cultural diversity, community services, and many others. A programming and feasibility study to assess the economic viability and program needs of such a center is needed prior to committing community resources.

Recreation/Community Center

Recreation centers are discussed in the Parks, Recreation and Trails Element of the Plan; however, such centers can also occur in combination with other public facilities, i.e. a Multi-Cultural Center. A Community Center such as the Copperview Community Center should be located on the east side of State Street to better service residents who cannot Public and Quasi-Public Element Fall2003 9-6 Midvale City General Plan readily access the existing facility; however, a combined center is better located where it can complement other development in Old Town. These are opportunities to combine public and private interests and funds. Again, a programming and feasibility study is needed prior to determining a location and/or program for such use.

Goals and Policies

Goal #1: To provide the residents of Midvale City with cost effective and efficient public services.

Policy #1: Provide necessary and desired public services to Midvale City residents and businesses.

Implementation Measure: 1. Complete a Midvale City Public Services Survey to collect information on existing and desired services.

Policy #2: Implement the Midvale City Public Facilities Master Plan.

Implementation Measures: 1. Implement the recommendations ofthe Midvale City Public Facilities Master Plan which supports City Hall functions in the Civic Center, Police Department Headquarters in the Civic Center, adaptive reuse of Old City Hall for community gathering and civic functions.

Policy #3: Complete a city-wide street lighting policy and program.

Implementation Measures: 1. Conduct an inventory of city streets and public spaces to identify gaps in lighting. 2. Develop street light standards for street classifications from private lanes to major arterials that are appropriate in scale and design. 3. Coordinate with Utah Power and Light on acceptable lighting standards and designs. 4. Investigate funding opportunities such as grants, cooperative agreements, special improvement districts, etc. 5. Initiate where appropriate, voluntary "porch light" programs where residents agree to leave porch lights on at night.

Policy #4: Maintain a state-of-the art solid waste collection service.

Implementation Measures: 1. Implement a fully-automated curb-side collection system for recycled materials throughout the community as technology improvements allow and as it become economically feasible.

Public and Quasi-Public Element Fall2003 9-7 Midvale City General Plan

Goal #2: Promote civic programs that enhance a positive community image.

Policy #1: Support Midvale City schools.

Implementation Measures: 1. Keep existing schools open as positive elements of neighborhoods and the community at-large.

Policy #2: Improve the Midvale City urban forest.

Implementation Measures: 1. Implement new street tree and park plantings, and develop a procedure for replacing trees that have been removed. 2. Midvale City should strive to become a "Tree City USA" city. 3. Create an Urban Forestry Committee to promote ordinances and activities aimed at encouraging the planting of trees and other flora in the community. 4. Explore programs and ordinances that reduce urban heat.

Policy #3: Promote maintenance of residential and business properties.

Implementation Measures: 1. Support beautification Committee issuing awards to residential and business properties.

Goal #3: Enhance public and quasi-public cultural and civic facilities in Midvale Civic Center.

Policy #1: Enhance cultural diversity in Midvale City through the use and development ofpublic facilities.

Implementation Measures: 1. Complete a programming and feasibility study for a multi-cultural center in the civic center that includes retail, recreation, cultural and arts programs that celebrate the cultural diversity of Midvale City residents.

Policy #2: Establish Old Town as an integral part of the Civic Center of the Community.

Implementation Measures: 1. Continue to locate important civic and cultural services in the civic center. 2. Establish an Old Town Civic Center mixed-use development area with special incentives and support to new and existing business, and attractions for a variety of land uses to complement the public uses in Old Town

Public and Quasi-Public Element Fall2003 9-8 Midvale City General Plan

Policy #3: Support cultural and civic community events within Midvale.

Implementation Measures: 1. Encourage streetlight banners promoting events and holidays. 2. Establish awards for seasonal decorations for businesses and residences. 3. Create a citizens group to promote Midvale activities on public service calendars, coordinate activities of the Arts Council and the Beautification Committee.

Public and Quasi-Public Element Fall2003 9-9 APPENDIX Midvale City General Plan Update Report of Public Involvement Activities

On January 7, 1999 an issues identification discussion was held with the Management Committee. Twenty-four people attended the meeting and participated in the discussion.

On January 28, 1999, a City-wide public meeting was held to identify issues, concerns, ideas, hopes and opportunities to be addressed in the General Plan Update. Fourteen thousand invitations were mailed two weeks prior to the date of the public meeting. Eighty-two people registered at the meeting. Attendees were divided into three groups and each group met in a separate room. Each group had a facilitator and notes of the discussion were transcribed onto newspaper sheets taped to the wall of the room. One small group was conducted in Spanish and English.

In addition, two letters providing public comment were submitted during the meeting and have been included in this summary.

Issues, Concerns and Desires The following is a summary of the issues raised by those attending issue identification meetings.

City Services and Communications Sorting out the types and level of services provided by Midvale City and services by the County are issues.

There is a desire for increased communication between residents of Midvale and City government. Staying informed about issues affecting the City is a concern. There is a need to provide long-term means for people to get involved. There is a desire to reach out to everyone in the community.

Community Identity The recent annexations have resulted in almost doubling the size of Midvale City from a little over three square miles to nearly six square miles. There is a desire that residents and businesses in the new annexation areas perceive themselves as part of Midvale City.

Midvale City General Plan Update Page 1 February 18, 1999 Deciding if Midvale would like to continue to grow geographically and in population, and how Midvale would handle that growth are issues. A bigger Midvale City would affect the size of the city council and the level of city services. Many commented that there needs to be an understanding of the pros and cons of a big city versus a small city before new growth is considered. It was stated that Midvale used to have a sense of community because of its small size. the smaller size strengthened the community identity.

Midvale should be .the best place to live, work, and go to school.. Those attending the meetings want Midvale to be desirable enough for people and businesses to come and stay. Currently there is high mobility, especially in families with school age children.

There is a concern that the external perception of Midvale is negative and there is a desire to improve the image. There is a desire to increase community activities to promote Midvale•s unique venues and activities.

It was stated that vehicle, bike, and pedestrian access to the downtown historic area is important for community identity.

Economic Development Participants commented that more commercial development is needed, the business district needs to be revitalized, opportunities for both small and large scale commercial uses need to be pursued. Concern was expressed about the effects increased commercial development would have on neighborhoods.

There are questions on how to coordinate new development areas, such as along the Jordan River and the superfund sites, while paying attention to rehabilitating what already exists, such as Old Town Midvale.

There is a need for Midvale to have a business-friendly development approval process so that businesses are attracted to the area. It was noted that businesses that generate taxes should be promoted. Keeping taxes low to ensure that housing is affordable and businesses are attracted is a concern.

There is a desire for destination businesses, such as mixed use and convention facilities like the E-Center. It was stated that these types of commercial activities

Midvale City General Plan Update Page 2 February 18, 1999 spur additional development. It was noted that theaters need to be located with mixed use development near high density residential and close to high density traffic corridors. Blending destination businesses with residential is a concern.

Taking advantage of the Jordan River Parkway, superfund areas, and all of the area north and south along the west edge of Midvale for a future development opportunity are issues. Many people recommended that a .River Walk., such as in San Antonio, Texas, should be developed in the area.

Historic Preservation There is a desire that the historic city center aspects of Midvale need to be preserved. There is concern that the Union Fort historic area is being threatened by commercial development. What should happen with Union Fort is a question.

There is a desire to redevelop the historic areas of Midvale. There are questions about how that development should occur to protect the historic nature of the areas.

Housing There is a concern that landlords, home owners, and renters maintain their property. Providing new affordable housing near schools to encourage kids who grow up in Midvale to stay in Midvale are issues. Determining the type, amount and location of new housing is a question.

There is concern that the minimum square footage lot in Midvale may need to be revised.

Land Use Where commercial development, open space and other uses should occur are issues. How will development on the western edge of the City blend with existing development in Old Town? One suggestion was that Main Street become a pedestrian-only mall. There are questions regarding the types of land uses that will occur around the light rail stations. There is a desire for more green space.

Alternative approaches for land use and development of the superfund sites are desired. Many ideas for the area were discussed such as creating a new city center, using it for open space, promoting mixed use development, developing a public golf course, hotel, large employer, and industrial uses. However there is a

Midvale City General Plan Update Page 3 February 18, 1999 concern that design constraints imposed by remediation methods may inhibit architectural and civic development.

Whether to pursue a .village land use option. or .major centers. is a question. Should Midvale be a pedestrian city or vehicle oriented city? There is a question about what effect would changing transportation corridors such as 7th West and 7200 South have on land use adjacent to these areas.

If future annexations were to occur there is a desire that the boundary be evened out especially to the south.

Neighborhoods and Urban Design For both business and residential areas, the overall upkeep, landscaping and design of the city are issues. In neighborhoods, there is a desire for increased enforcement of city ordinances that require yards to be cleaned, cars kept off lawns, limited number of pets, and regulation of other nuisance issues. In the business districts, such as along State Street, there is a concern that there be streetscape improvements such as street lighting, trees, and landscaping. There is also a concern that -;Jateways. be maintained to present an inviting impression as people come into the City. There is a need to keep properties, both residential and business landscaped, clean, and neat.

Keeping traffic out of neighborhoods and on main arterials is an issue. Providing sidewalks, neighborhood parks, and connecting neighborhoods and blending communities are desired.

Parks and Recreation and Trails Developing the parkway along the Jordan River, providing programs and activities for youth, such as sports, and after-school programs, developing more parks. particularly smaller neighborhood parks, mini-parks- playing fields and open space are desired. Also, community celebrations, with public dances, are seen as being important. Maintenance and funding for increased parks is an ISSUe.

Public and Quasi Public Facilities A multi-cultural center with food and shops, a conveniently located city center with mixed uses, community facilities, a new home for the Boys and Girls club, a

Midvale City General Plan Update Page 4 February 18, 1999 recreation center, an outdoor pool, as well as a museum, public golf course, and more daycare facilities are desired. Accessibility to community facilities is an issue.

Public Safety Public safety for Midvale~ residents is a concern. There is a desire to make Midvale neighborhoods safe with more police and more street lighting. Involving neighbors more and not relying solely on the police is a desire. However, increasing police presence in recognized problem areas is an issue. There is an asset in the historical downtown area but there is a concern about feeling safe.

Schools Concern was expressed about the quality and utilization of the schools in Midvale. There is a desire for the Youth Council from both Midvale and Union Middle Schools to become more involved.

Transportation There were several comments addressing traffic in neighborhoods. High speed traffic and taking short-cuts through neighborhoods affects neighborhood character, endangers children and is a concern to residents. Traffic calming measures were suggested as a means to resolve speeding problems and make neighborhood more pedestrian friendly. There is a desire for sidewalks throughout Midvale.

Many comments centered around bicycle and pedestrian issues. Residents would like to promote alternative transportation by providing more facilities and connecting attractions. Examples were cited of South Salt Lake, having an organized system of bicycle routes and San Antonio, TX, having a good pedestrian system.

There is a concern over the impact of light rail and how it can be integrated into the community. Other comments focused on how light rail will be accessible to non-motorized forms of transportation. In addition to light rail, residents are concerned about the timing of UTA service and its integration into the bigger transportation picture. There was discussion that the city should pursue an inter­ city shuttle between shopping areas and neighborhoods.

Midvale City General Plan Update Page 5 February 18, 1999 Several intersections and streets were discussed in the meetings as problematic for traffic flow. There are road improvements (7200 South) currently planned that are of concern to affected residents. There is a desire that while streets are improved that the streetscape be improved as well with sidewalks and trees. There was much discussion about developing ~ateways. into the City along the main roadways.

Currently Midvale has more infrastructure projects than funding. There is concern about where the funding will come from and a question whether there is public interest in pursuing funding mechanisms such as a 50/50 shared funding program or special lighting districts.

General Plan Process The public expressed a desire that the planning process be driven by local involvement and that the process should be inclusive of all groups in our community.

Midvale City General Plan Update Page 6 February 18, 1999 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS

~ b 0 z :z; <( (I)

7

) Midvale Leakage Analysis, 1998 By SIC Codes

Total Midvale Standard Industrial Classification Leakage, 1998 AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND FISHING AG. PRODUCTION-CROPS $ (68,053) AG. PRODUCTION-LIVESTOCK $ (21 ,515) AG . SERVICES $ 95,987 FORESTRY $ {7,044) FISHING ,HUNTING & TRAPPING $ {4 ,721) METAL MINING $ (888,436) COAL MINING $ (683,418) OIL & GAS EXTRACTION $ {1,133,340) NONMETALLIC MINRLS., EXC FUELS $ (651 ,768) CONSTRUCTION GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS $ (327,874) HEAVY CONSTRUCTION $ (1,484,755) SPECIAL TRADE CONTRACTORS $ (327,599) MANUFACTURING FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS $ (759,824) TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS $ (675,260) APPAREL & OTHER TEXTILE PROD. $ 136,420 LUMBER & WOOD PRODUCTS $ (953,392) FURNITURE AND FIXTURES $ (122,120) PAPER & ALLIED PRODUCTS $ (201 ,891) PRINTING & PUBLISHING $ 529,441 CHEMICALS & ALLIED PRODUCTS $ (870,433) PETROLEUM & COAL PRODUCTS $ (283,010) RUBBER & MISC. PLASTICS $ 7,263 LEATHER & LEATHER PRODUCTS $ (10,314) STONE, CLAY & GLASS PRODUCTS $ (3, 732,364) PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES $ (1 ,588,996) FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS $ 4,865,531 INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY & EQUIP. $ (1,759,519) ELECTRONIC & OTHER EK. EQUIP. $ (2,148,122) TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT $ (436,491) INSTRUMENTS & RELATED PROD. $ 798,792 MISC. MANUFACTURING INDSTRS. $ 75 ,391 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION $ (506,740) LOCAL & INTERURBAN TRANSIT $ (67,007) TRUCKING & WAREHOUSING $ (246,983) U.S. POSTAL SERVICE $ (10,874) WATER TRANSPORTATION $ (92,354) AIR TRANSPORTATION $ (357,994) PIPELINES,EXCEPT NATURAL GAS $ {4 ,861) TRANSPORTATION SERVICES $ (16,115) TELEGRAPH & OTHER COMMUNICATIONS $ (1 ,396) RADIO & TELEVISION BRDCSTNG. $ (158,340) CABLE & OTHER PAY TV SERVCS. $ (135,416) RADIOTELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS $ (1,741,844) TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS $ {1,104,111) ELECTRIC SERVICES $ {8,978,881) GAS PRODUCTION $ (5,416,432) WATER,SANITARY & IRRIGATION $ (143,697)

Page 1 of 4 Midvale Leakage Analysis, 1998 By SIC Codes

Total Midvale Standard Industrial Classification Leakage, 1998 WHOLESALE TRADE WHLSL.-MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT $ (4 ,169,717) WHLSL.-LUMBER & CONST.MATRLS. $ (2,314,944) WHLSL.-GROCERIES& RL TO . PROD. $ (1.487,824) WHLSL.-METALS & MINERALS $ (1,398,287) WHLSL.-FURNITURE & HOME FURN. $ ( 1,141 '815) WHLSL.-MISC. DURABLE GOODS $ (459,128) WHLSL.-DRUGS,PROPRTR. & SUNDRIES $ (382,222) WHLSL.-APPAREL, PIECE GOODS $ (234,522) WHLSL.-BEER,WINE & DIST. BEV. $ (125,819) WHLSL.-MOTOR VEHICLES & PARTS $ (44,716) WHLSL.-FARM PROD. RAW MATRLS. $ (12,973) WHLSL.-MISC. NONDURABLE GOODS $ 96,008 WHLSL.-HARDWARE,PLUMB.& HEAT. $ 2,047,157 WHLSL.-ELECTRICAL GOODS $ 3,948,023 WHLSL.-NONDURABLE GOODS $ 4,937,362 WHLSL.-CHEMICALS&ALLIED PROD. $ 4,964,647 WHLSL.-PETROLEUM & PRODUCTS $ 5,399,213 WHLSL.-PROFSSNL.&COMMRCL.EQP. $ 10,864,275 RETAIL TRADE RETAIL-LUMBER &OTHER BLDG. MATRLS. $ 11,895,896 RETAIL-PAINT,GLASS & WALLPAPER $ 835,716 RETAIL-HARDWARE STORES $ (528 ,316) RETAIL-NURSERIES & GARDEN STORES $ 215,769 RETAIL-MOBILE HOME DEALERS $ (547,550) RETAIL-DEPARTMENT STORES $ 93,521,063 RETAIL-VARIETY STORES $ (1 ,045,876) RETAIL-MISC. GEN. MERCH. STORES $ (907,335) RETAIL-GROCERY STORES $ 11 ,303,551 RETAIL-OTHER FOOD STORES $ 3,114,333 RETAIL-CONVENIENCE STORES $ 1,268,543 NEW & USED CAR DEALERS $ 9,727,376 USED CAR DEALERS ONLY $ 3,186,330 AUTO & HOME SUPPLY $ (1 ,323,347) GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS $ (189,285) BOAT DEALERS $ 3,351,922 RECREATION & UTILITY TRAILER $ 1,815,710 MOTORCYCLE DEALER $ {1,105,934) AUTOMOTIVE DEALERS, NEC $ (717,657) RETAIL-MEN'S & BOYS CLOTHING $ 540,002 RETAIL-WOMEN'S CLOTHING STORES $ (967,616) RETAIL-WOMEN'S ACCESSORY & SPEC. $ (367.460) RETAIL-CHI LDRENS'&I NF ANTS'WEAR $ 1,094,288 RETAIL-FAMILY CLOTHING STORES $ 2,898,078 RETAIL-SHOE STORES $ 1,019,686 RETAIL-MISC. APPAREL & ACCESSORY $ (389,819) RETAIL-FURNITURE &HOME FURN. $ (5.495, 103) RETAIL-HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES $ (402,579) RETAIL-RADIO,TV & ELECTRONIC $ 7,339,909 RETAIL-COMPUTER & SOFTWARE STORES $ 23,766,565 RETAIL-RECORD & PRERECORDED TAPES $ 9,722,843

Page 2 of 4 Midvale Leakage Analysis, 1998 By SIC Codes

Total Midvale Standard Industrial Classification Leakage, 1998 RETAIL-MUSICAL INSTRUMENT STORES $ 1,024,402 FAST FOOD EATING PLACES $ 4,454,695 1977 CODE- EATING PLACES $ (393,873) 1977 CODE- DRINKING PLACES $ (7,113) FAMILY REST. ,W/0 LIQUOR LICENSE $ 10,889,922 ALL OTHER EATING PLACES W/0 LICNS. $ (118,772) THEME REST. , WITH LIQUOR LICENSE $ 7,754,018 WHITE TABLE CLOTH W/LIQUOR LICENSE $ (111 ,385) PRIVATE CLUBS $ 31,469 BEER RETAILER/TAVERN $ 796,791 RETAIL-DRUG & PROPRIETARY $ - RETAIL-LIQUOR STORES $ (823,707) RETAIL-USED MERCHANDISE $ 2,049,799 NONSTORE RETAILERS $ (2,345,838) FUEL DEALERS $ (206,641) RETAIL-SPORTING GOODS & BICYCLES $ 18,471 ,841 RETAIL-BOOK STORES $ 1,521,502 RETAIL-STATIONARY STORES $ 875,882 RETAIL-JEWELRY STORES $ 5,269,164 RETAIL-HOBBY,TOY AND GAME SHOPS $ 4,517,863 RETAIL-CAMERA & PHOTOGRAPHIC $ (121,284) RETAIL-GIFT,NOVELTY & SOUVENIRS $ 654,579 RETAIL-LUGGAGE & LEATHER WORKS $ (217,018) RETAIL-SEWING, NEEDLEWORK $ 1,640,058 RETAIL-FLORISTS $ (301 ,259) RETAIL-TOBACCO STORES $ (104,962) RETAIL-NEWS DEALERS & NEWSTANDS $ (5,420) RETAIL-OPTICAL GOODS STORES $ 1,694,814 MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL STORES $ 15,641,850 BANKING $ - CREDIT AGENCIES $ - SECURITY & COMMODITY BROKERS $ - INSURANCE AGENTS,BROKERS $ - REAL ESTATE SERVICES $ - HOLDING & OTHER INVESTMENTS $ - HOTELS & OTHER LODGING $ 356,121 LAUNDRY CLEANING & GARMENT $ (135,166) PHOTOGRAPHIC STUDIOS $ (400,847) BEAUTY SHOPS $ (21 ,538) BARBER SHOPS $ (1 ,818) SHOE REPAIR & SHOESHINE PARLORS $ 40,961 FUNERAL SERVICE & CREMATORIES $ 72,438 MISC. PERSONAL SERVICES $ 1,794,606 ADVERTISING $ (242,448) CREDIT REPORTING $ (15,859) MAILING,REPRODUCTION,STENO. $ 2,727,236 SERVICE TO BUILDINGS $ (50,439) MISC. EQUIP. RENTAL & LEASING $ (2,201 ,446) PERSONNEL SUPPLY SERVICES $ (15,414) COMPUTER & DATA PROCESSING $ 1,686,862 MISC. BUSINESS SERVICES $ 1 ,250,418

Page 3 of 4 Midvale Leakage Analysis , 1998 By SIC Codes

Total Midvale Standard Industrial Classification Leakage, 1998 AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS $ (720,254) AUTOMOTIVE PARKING $ (4,232) AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOPS $ 4,614,465 AUTOMOTIVE SERV. EXC. REPAIR $ (396,693) ELECTRICAL REPAIR SHOPS $ (583,841) WATCH,CLOCK & JEWELRY REPAIR $ (13,096) REUPHOLSTERY & FURNITURE REPAIR $ 4,097 MISC. REPAIR SHOPS $ (299,441) MOTION PICTURE PROD. & DIST. $ (172,353) MOTION PICTURE THEATERS $ (1 ,100,936) VIDEO TAPE RENTAL $ 1,272,604 DANCE STUDIOS,SCHOOLS,&HALLS $ 30,014 PRODUCERS, ORCHESTRAS,ENTERTAINERS $ (134,664) BOWLING CENTERS $ (58,378) COMMERCIAL SPORTS $ 22,960 SKI RESORTS $ (1 ,576,827) MISC. AMUSEMENT,RECRTN . SERV. $ (1 ,274,638) HEALTH SERVICES $ (95,046) LEGAL SERVICES $ (22 ,384) EDUCATION SERVICES $ (1 ,124,889) SOCIAL SERVICES $ (17,044) MUSEUMS, BOTANICAL & ZOOS $ (122,661) MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATIONS $ (40,569) ENGINEERS & MANAGEMENT SERV. $ 1,309,953 SERVICES, NEC $ 48,348

Page 4 of 4 Retail Areas' Share of Total Midvale Sales By Retail Category, 1998 State Street Historic 7200 South Union Fort Area as% of Downtown as Area as %of Area as% of Total Sales %of Total Total Sales Total Sales Sales Lumber & Wood Products 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Stone, Clay & Glass Products 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Boat Dealers 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Retail -- Misc. Apparel & Accessory 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Private Clubs 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Funeral Service & Crematories 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% BowlinQ Centers 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Used 98.9% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% Retail -- Stationary Stores 97.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% Whlsl. -- Misc. Nondurable Goods 96.7% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% Retail-- Musical Instrument Stores 93.5% 0.0% 5.3% 1.2% Auto & Home Supply 92.8% 0.0% 6.9% 0.0% Retail -- Other Food Stores 92 .5% 7.5% 0.0% 0.0% Retail-- Paint,Giass & Wallpaper 91.4% 0.0% 0.0% 8.6% Automotive Rentals 89.4% 0.0% 6.5% 1.1% Whlsl. -- Petroleum & Products 77.9% 22.1% 0.0% 0.0% Electrical Repair Shops 76.9% 0.0% 17.1% 4.4% Automotive Repair Shops 70.3% 7.3% 6.1% 2.9% Whlsl. -Chemicals & Allied Prod. 68.1% 0.0% 31.9% 0.0% Misc. Repair Shops 63.0% 0.0% 27.3% 0.0% Retail -- Jewelry Stores 62.7% 0.0% 0.0% 36 .2% Whlsl. -- Motor Vehicles & Parts 61 .9% 0.0% 38.1% 0.0% Automotive Serv. Exc. Repair 53.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Retail -- Florists 48.9% 0.0% 25.4% 25.3% Special Trade Contractors 47.0% 0.0% 23.1% 0.0% Gasoline Service Stations 46.3% 0.0% 16.5% 37.0% Beer Retailer/Tavern 43.7% 32.3% 0.0% 0.0% Retail -- Convenience Stores 36.4% 1.2% 5.9% 41 .0% Radiotelephone Communications 35.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Printing & Publishing 32.9% 5.1% 44.1% 0.3% Family Rest. ,W/0 Liquor License 30.2% 0.1% 13.8% 49.4% Cable & Other Pay Tv Serves. 29.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Misc. Equip. Rental & Leasing 27.7% 9.7% 2.5% 6.3% Beauty Shops 25.5% 1.1% 0.0% 72.6% Health Services 25.4% 0.0% 14.2% 35.4% Retail-- Grocery Stores 25.1% 0.7% 0.0% 73.6% Recreation & Utility Trailer 22.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Whlsl. --Electrical Goods 17.7% 0.0% 64.0% 0.0% Retail -- Used Merchandise 17.4% 0.2% 63.7% 18.7% Misc. Business Services 15.9% 0.0% 32.2% 2.6% Miscellaneous Retail Stores 14.8% 0.1% 19.8% 34.3% Fast Food Eating Places 14.3% 0.6% 17.9% 65.0% Retail -- Sporting Goods & Bicycles 13.7% 0.0% 80 .2% 5.8% Theme Rest. , With Liquor License 12.7% 0.0% 4.8% 82.5% Laundry CleaninQ & Garment 9.9% 0.0% 1.0% 18.5% All Other Eating Places W/0 Liens. 8.6% 0.0% 21 .1% 70.3% Whlsl. -- Machinery & Equipment 8.5% 10.3% 58 .9% 20.0% Engineers & Management Serv. 8.5% 4.1% 84.4% 0.5% Computer & Data Processing 7.7% 0.0% 12.7% 1.6% Retail Areas' Share of Total Midvale Sales By Retail Category, 1998 State Street Historic 7200 South Union Fort Area as% of Downtown as Area as %of Area as% of Total Sales %of Total Total Sales Total Sales Sales Retail -- Furniture &Home Furn. 4.0% 5.6% 28.2% 58.0% Misc. Amusement, Recrtn. Serv. 3.8% 1.8% 3.3% 67.6% Mailinq, Reproduction, Steno. 3.6% 3.0% 0.0% 93.1% Fabricated Metal Products 2.1% 97.3% 0.3% 0.1% Retail -- Radio, TV & Electronic 1.2% 0.0% 0.3% 98.4% New & Used Car Dealers 1.1% 0.0% 98.9% 0.0% Retail -- Family Clothing Stores 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 91 .3% Hotels & Other Lodging 0.5% 0.0% 73.7% 0.0% General Building Contractors 0.5% 0.0% 63.3% 36.2% Nonstore Retailers 0.5% 0.0% 0.3% 66.9% Reupholstery & Furniture Repair 0.3% 89.9% 0.0% 1.4% Retail -- Computer & Software Stores 0.2% 0.2% 90.5% 5.6% Furniture And Fixtures 0.0% 0.0% 98 .7% 0.0% Chemicals & Allied Products 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Primary Metal Industries 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transportation Equipment 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Instruments & Related Prod. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Misc. Manufacturing lndstrs. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Trucking & Warehousinq 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Telephone Communications 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Electric Services 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Whlsl. -- Furniture & Home Furn. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Whlsl. -- Druqs,Proprtr. & Sundries 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Whlsl. --Apparel, Piece Goods 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Barber Shops 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Credit Reporting 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Service To Buildings 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Watch, Clock & Jewelry Repair 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Motion Picture Prod. & Dist. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Commercial Sports 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Whlsl. -- Lumber & Canst. Matrls. 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% Retail -- Liquor Stores 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% Industrial Machinery & Equip. 0.0% 0.0% 15.6% 0.0% Services, Nee 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.4% Whlsl. -- Misc. Durable Goods 0.0% 0.0% 21.4% 0.0% Retail-- Gift, Novelty & Souvenirs 0.0% 4.5% 20.8% 0.1% Retail -- Department Stores 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 34.7% Education Services 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 43.5% Whlsl. -Groceries & Rltd . Prod. 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 48.0% Ag . Services 0.0% 0.0% 42.2% 12.5% Retail -- Household Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 52 .9% Petroleum & Coal Products 0.0% 58 .5% 0.0% 0.0% Heavy Construction 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 63.8% Whlsl. -- Hardware, Plumb. & Heat. 0.0% 0.0% 65.4% 0.0% Shoe Repair & Shoeshine Parlors 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 70.6% Retail -- Luqqaqe & Leather Works 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.4% Advertisinq 0.0% 0.0% 86.4% 0.0% Retail-- Hardware Stores 0.0% 1.4% 1.2% 90.7% Whlsl. -- Profssnl. & Commrcl. Eqp. 0.0% 0.7% 20.8% 73.7% Retail Areas' Share of Total Midvale Sales By Retail Category, 1998 State Street Historic 7200 South Union Fort Area as% of Downtown as Area as %of Area as% of Total Sales %of Total Total Sales Total Sales Sales Photographic Studios 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 96.9% Retail -- Nurseries & Garden Stores 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 79.3% Retail-- Hobby, Toy And Game Shops 0.0% 0.0% 88 .2% 11 .2% Electronic & Other Ek. Equip. 0.0% 0.0% 99.8% 0.0% Misc. Personal Services 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% 96.3% 1977 Code -- Eating Places 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 99.9% Retail-- Sewing, Needlework 0.0% 0.0% 45.5% 54.5% Retail -- Book Stores 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 98.7% Retail-- Record & Prerecorded Tapes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Food And Kindred Products 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Apparel & Other Textile Prod. 0.0% 92.4% 7.1% 0.5% Rubber & Misc. Plastics 0.0% 87.7% 12.3% 0.0% Air Transportation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Transportation Services 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Whlsl. -- Paper & Paper Products 0.0% 0.0% 16.0% 84.0% Retail -- Lumber &Other Bldg. Matrls. 0.0% 95.1% 1.3% 3.6% Retail -- Misc. Gen. Merch. Stores 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Retail -- Men's & Boy_s Clothing 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Retail --Women's Clothing Stores 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Retail -- Women's Accessory & Spec. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Retail-- Childrens'&lnfants'wear 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Retail -- Shoe Stores 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Retail -- Optical Goods Stores 0.0% 0.0% 89 .3% 10.7% Video Tape Rental 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 99.7% Dance Studios,Schools,&Halls 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Membership Organizations 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Forestry No Sales in Midvale in This Category Fishing,Hunting & Trapping No Sales in Midvale in This Category Metal Mining No Sales in Midvale in This Category Coal Mining No Sales in Midvale in This Category Oil & Gas Extraction No Sales in Midvale in This Category Nonmetallic Minrls.,Exc Fuels No Sales in Midvale in This Category Textile Mill Products No Sales in Midvale in This Category Paper & Allied Products No Sales in Midvale in This Category Leather & Leather Products No Sales in Midvale in This Category Railroad Transportation No Sales in Midvale in This Category Local & Interurban Transit No Sales in Midvale in This Category U.S. Postal Service No Sales in Midvale in This Category Water Transportation No Sales in Midvale in This Category Pipelines,Except Natural Gas No Sales in Midvale in This Category Telegraph & Other Communications No Sales in Midvale in This Category Radio & Television BrdcstnR No Sales in Midvale in This Category Gas Production No Sales in Midvale in This Category Water,Sanitary & Irrigation No Sales in Midvale in This Category Whlsl. -- Metals & Minerals No Sales in Midvale in This Category Whlsl. -- Farm Prod . Raw Matrls. No Sales in Midvale in This Category Whlsl. -- Beer,Wine & Dist. Bev. No Sales in Midvale in This Category Retail -- Mobile Home Dealers No Sales in Midvale in This Category Retail -- Variety Stores No Sales in Midvale in This Category Retail Areas' Share of Total Midvale Sales By Retail Category, 1998 State Street Historic 7200 South Union Fort Area as% of Downtown as Area as %of Area as% of Total Sales %of Total Total Sales Total Sales Sales Motorcycle Dealer No Sales in Midvale in This Category Automotive Dealers, Nee No Sales in Midvale in This Category 1977 Code -- Drinking Places No Sales in Midvale in This Category White Table Cloth W/Liquor License No Sales in Midvale in This Category Retail -- Drug & Proprietary No Sales in Midvale in This Category Retail -- Camera & Photographic No Sales in Midvale in This Category Fuel Dealers No Sales in Midvale in This Category Retail-- Tobacco Stores No Sales in Midvale in This Category Retail -- News Dealers & Newstands No Sales in Midvale in This Category Personnel Supply Services No Sales in Midvale in This Category Automotive Parking No Sales in Midvale in This Category Motion Picture Theaters No Sales in Midvale in This Category Producers,Orchestras , Entertainers No Sales in Midvale in This Category Ski Resorts No Sales in Midvale in This Category Legal Services No Sales in Midvale in This Category Social Services No Sales in Midvale in This Category Museums,Botanical & Zoos No Sales in Midvale in This Category A9. Production -- Crops No Sales in Midvale in This Category Ag. Production -- Livestock No Sales in Midvale in This Category