The URL can be used to link to this page

04/04/2006 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, April 4, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Soren Simonsen. Also in Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Sam Guevara, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Maged Senbel, Karen Shepherd, Terry Becker, Father John Norman and Rick Reese, Open Space Lands Advisory Board; Bob Steiner, Julie Barrett, Kerry Jones, Bill Adams, Roland Hall St. Marks School; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Director/Community Planning; Sarah Carroll, Preservation and Urban Design Planner; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst and Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 : 32 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1 . 5 :32 :27 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM THE OPEN SPACE LANDS PROGRAM 2006 REGARDING FUNDING APPLICATION PROCESS AND PROCEDURE . Rick Graham, Janice Jardine, Maged Senbel and Rick Reese briefed the Council with the attached handout. Mr. Reese introduced Open Space Lands Advisory Board Members Maged Senbel, Karen Shepherd, Terry Becker and Father John Norman. See Attachments Mr. Reese said a staff facilitator was needed to help with packaging land transactions and working with neighborhoods . He said of the $5 million for projects the Board wanted to see at least 18 projects . Councilmember Jergensen asked that perpetual funding for future generations be discussed. He suggested the Board add Master Plan Considerations to the Community Support and Geographic Connection of evaluation. Councilmember Love said a tool that had been mentioned to leverage funds was choosing high profile areas . Mr. Reese said the board wanted funding to be distributed geographically to neighborhoods which were not typically involved in this type of program. #2 . 6: 18 : 01 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING ROWLAND HALL - ST. MARK' S SCHOOL REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1443 EAST SUNNYSIDE AVENUE FROM OPEN SPACE (OS) TO 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 4 , 2006 INSTITUTIONAL (I) AND TO AMEND THE EAST BENCH MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP. (MT. OLIVET CEMETERY) (PETITION NOS . 400-05-08 AND 400-05-09) Bob Steiner, Julie Barrett, Kerry Jones, Bill Adams and Janice Jardine briefed the Council with the attached handouts . See Attachments Councilmember Buhler said when Council Members were not united in an answer the practice was to take action at another time . #3 . 8 : 33 : 40 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST FROM ROMNEY LUMBER COMPANY AND ROBERT AND HONORA CARSON TO ANNEX APPROXIMATELY 405 . 59 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF 2982 EAST BENCHMARK DRIVE (APPROXIMATELY 3000 EAST FROM 2100 SOUTH TO 2600 SOUTH) , ESTABLISH ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS ON THE PROPERTIES AND AMEND THE EAST BENCH COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN AND THE ARCADIA HEIGHTS/BENCHMARK/H ROCK SMALL AREA PLAN PURSUANT TO PETITION NO 400- 05-41 . (ROMNEY ANNEXATION) See Attachments Doug Wheelwright, Sara Carroll, Janice Jardine and Lynn Pace briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Mr. Pace said the annexation request was the result of litigation. He said Salt Lake County had not given final consent at this time . Councilmember Buhler asked staff for more information. #4 . 6 : 45 : 34 PM (TENTATIVE) CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE, TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 52-4-4 , 52-4-5 (1) (A) (iii) . Councilmember Love moved and Councilmember Simonsen seconded to enter into executive session, which motion carried, all members voted aye . #5 . 8 : 48 : 08 PM(TENTATIVE) CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRATEGY SESSIONS TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE PUBLIC BODY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, AND TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 52-4-4 , 52-4-5 (1) (a) (iii) AND 52-4-5 (1) (a) (iv) , AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § 78-24-8 . Councilmember Christensen moved and Councilmember Saxton seconded to enter into executive session, which motion carried, all members voted aye . 06 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2006 #6 . REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. See File M 06-5 for announcements . No report was given. The meeting adjourned at 9 : 20 p .m. Council Chair Chief Deputy City Recorder This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes for the City Council Work Session held April 4, 2006. Cm 06 - 3 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: March 31,2006 SUBJECT: Petitions 400-05-08 &400-05-09—Rowland Hall—St.Mark's School request to: • Rezone property located at approximately 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue from Open Space OS to Institutional I • Amend the East Bench Community Master Plan AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted the rezoning and master plan amendment will affect Council District 6 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Everett Joyce, Senior Planner NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Newspaper advertisement and written notification to surrounding property owners 14 days prior to the Public Hearing WORK SESSION SUMMARY AND NEW INFORMATION WORK SESSION SUMMARY: The Council received a briefing on the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment on March 7,2003. Issues discussed included: A. Clarification of the findings of fact and recommendation stated in the Planning staff report and the intent of the Planning Commission motion to deny the request based on the findings of fact. (Please see pgs.13-18 in the Planning staff report and pgs. 5-7 of this staff report for the specific findings and Planning staff recommendation.) B. The history of zoning,master plan recommendations,past development proposals for the property and historic use of the property for agricultural purposes. C. Potential options that could be considered such as rezoning a portion of the property and/or use of restrictive covenants, a conservation easement held by the City or a third party non-profit organization, or a development agreement.. D. The history and value of adopted master plans as guiding documents for future development. E. The reversionary clause and restrictions established on the property by the federal government in deeding the property to the Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association. F. Other potential purchasers of the property. G. Whether uses that may be appropriate for the property have been identified or evaluated. H. Future use of the Rowland Hall-St.Mark's property and school at the 800 South and Lincoln Street location. I. The current percentage/amount of subsidy from the General Fund used for operation/maintenance for the City cemetery. J. Whether long-range planning and analysis(50 to 100 years)has been done to address City cemetery space and long-term needs. 1 K. The need for open space and protection of open space and a comprehensive citywide open space policy direction. City open space policies historically addressed general foothill preservation and parks and recreation. L. Planning staff noted that a Critical Open Lands Inventory and Preservation Priority Assessment project is currently underway in the Planning Division. Planning staff is working with a consultant to provide a critical lands inventory and map and a refinement of open space categories and zoni:jg districts. M. Whether the City has an inventory or analysis of natural open space areas within the developed area of the City.Types of uses in non-programmed open space include non-developed trails. N. Whether potential impacts to wildlife habitat in the area has been analyzed. O. Mechanisms available to address City parks and recreation needs such as funding allocation from the Capital Improvement Program and the recent bond election for Open Space and the Salt Lake Regional Sports Complex. POTENTIAL OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: OPTIONS: 1. Close the public hearing and continue action to a future Council meeting. 2. Adopt an ordinance rezoning the property and amending the East Bench Community Master Plan. 3. Do not adopt an ordinance rezoning the property and amending the East Bench Community Master Plan. 4. Other options that may be identified by Council Members POTENTIAL MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council"] Close the public hearing and continue action to a future Council meeting. 2. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance rezoning property located at approximately 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue from Open Space OS to Institutional I and amending the East Bench Community Master Plan. 3. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt an ordinance rezoning property located at approximately 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue from Open Space OS to Institutional I and amending the East Bench Community Master Plan. The following information was provided previously for the Council Work Session on March 7, 2006. It is provided again for your reference. KEY ELEMENTS: A. An ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration to: 1. Rezone approximately 13 acres of property at approximately 1443 E. Sunnyside Avenue (currently owned by Mt. Olivet Cemetery) from Open Space OS to Institutional I. (Note: The property is within the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District. The overlay district requirements and standards would still apply with the proposed rezoning.) 2. Amend the East Bench Community Master Plan. 2 B. Prior to adoption of the 1995 city-wide Zoning Rewrite,the East Bench Master Plan identified this property for institutional land uses and the property was zoned Residential R-2. The R-2 zoning es— ram, accommodated a variety of institutional and open space uses such as schools(public&private), churches,public parks,libraries,recreational areas and cemeteries. The City did not have a specific zoning classification for institutional and open space uses. C. Between 1874 and 1909 through acts of Congress the Mt. Olivet Cemetery was established. Land was conveyed to the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association and rules and regulations for the cemetery were established specifically noting that the subject property is to be used permanently as a cemetery. The written documentation from this time period indicates that if the land ceases to be used as a cemetery the property will revert to the United States. In actuality this can be changed through an act of Congress. (Please see Attachment A for additional information.) D. The ordinance adopted in 1995 that enacted the city-wide Zoning Rewrite project rezoned property throughout the City and amended the adopted community master plans to maintain consistency with the new zoning. The zoning on this property was changed to Open Space and the East Bench Plan was considered updated consistent with the zoning. (The Institutional Zoning District does not allow cemeteries as a permitted or conditional use. The Open Space Zoning District does allow cemeteries as a permitted use.) E. The requested rezoning and master plan amendment would facilitate development of a future private middle and upper school for Rowland Hall-St.Mark's with a soccer field and open space area on the southern two-thirds of the 13-acre parcel and school buildings and parking areas on the northern one- third of the property. The property is currently undeveloped. The Planning staff report notes that the property,if developed as proposed,would have access from Sunnyside Avenue and Guardsman Way through the adjacent property. The adjacent property immediately east of the Mt. Olivet property is the Rowland Hall-St.Mark's McCarthey Lower/Beginning School campus. Surrounding land uses include the Mt. Olivet Cemetery to the north, single-family residences to the south,the East High football field (on property leased from Mt. Olivet to the west),the McCarthey Lower/Beginning School campus and the Carmen Pingree School. (Please see attached maps for details.) F. Information submitted by Rowland Hall-St.Mark's notes: 1. On April 10,2003,Rowland Hall-St. Mark's entered into a contract with the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association to purchase approximately 13 acres of cemetery property fronting on Sunnyside Avenue. 2. The Mt. Olivet Association needs to sell the property to have sufficient funds to make needed capital improvements and perpetually maintain the cemetery. 3. The contract between Rowland Hall-St.Mark's and the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association is subject to a number of conditions including rezoning the property from Open Space OS to Institutional I zoning classification and removal of the reversionary clause established by the Federal government in the deed held by the Association. 4. Release of reversionary interest includes Congressional consideration of the following: a. The property is not used for the purpose specified in the reversionary clause. b. The owner of the property no longer needs the property. c. The property is inconvenient or inappropriate for the owner's use. d. The property is needed by another entity that provides some public benefit. e. The U.S. Government does not need the property. f. There would be no significant costs to Federal, State or local governments from a release of the reversionary interest 5. As part of Rowland Hall-St.Mark's efforts to secure the removal of the reversionary interest and to ensure the support of Utah's congressional representatives and senators,Rowland Hall-St.Mark's needs the support of the City and,if at all possible,the surrounding community. 3 6. Rowland Hall-St. Mark's needs to obtain the release of the reversionary interest by early 2007 in order to complete the purchase of the property within the terms of the contract. 7. Rowland Hall-St. Mark's believes that its ownership of the property will deliver a net benefit to the City and the surrounding community,both in the immediate neighborhood and more broadly. 8. It may be many years before Rowland Hall-St. Mark's could raise the money needed to build a new campus on the property,, 9. It is possible that Rowland Hall-St. Mark's could take the interim step of developing the playing fields in the near term, in a way not to interfere with construction at the north end of the property (proposed school site). G. The public process included: 1. Presentation to the Yalecrest Community Council and written notification of the Planning Commission hearing to surrounding property owners. The Administration's transmittal notes the Yalecrest Community Council opposed the proposed master plan and zone change. In addition, other Community Councils-East Central, Bonneville Hills, and Wasatch Hollow-submitted letters regarding the proposal. None of the Community Councils supported the request. (Please see the Planning staff report pgs 6-9 for details.) 2. The proposal was also presented to and discussed by the Open Space Lands Advisory Board on November 2, 8, and 16, 2005. The Open Space Lands Advisory Board recommended against the request to rezone the Mt. Olivet property from Open Space to Institutional. H. The City's Fire,Police,Public Services and Public Utilities Departments and Transportation and Engineering Divisions have reviewed the request. (Please see the Planning staff report pgs. 3-5 for specific comments and detailed discussion.) The development proposal will be required to comply with City standards and regulations and demonstrate that there are adequate services to meet the needs of the project such as,but not limited to, a detailed traffic and parking impact study, adequate infrastructure (water/sewer)capacity, geotechnical report relating to inferred fault line location is at the northwest corner of the property. In addition,the petitioner will be required to apply for subdivision approval from the City. I. On November 30, 2005,based on the Planning staff report findings and public hearing input,the Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation to the City Council to deny the request to rezone the property and amend the East Bench Community Master Plan. (Please see the Planning staff report and Planning Commission minutes for details.) J. Issues discussed at the Planning Commission hearing included the following. The Planning Commission minutes note that due to amount of public interest regarding the proposed petition, the general public comments were summarized. 1. Information provided from the Community Councils and the Open Space Lands Advisory Board. 2. Whether the rezoning and master plan amendment should be considered before the reversionary clause on the property is removed by Congress. 3. Specific uses and requirements in the Open Space and Institutional zones. 4. Discussion of specific details of the development plan proposed by Rowland Hall-St. Mark's. 5. Potential inconsistencies of the City's open space policies, specifically the City's position on the North Salt Lake property and preservation of the Mt. Olivet property. 6. Those in support of the petition stated the following reasons: • Open Space should be defined as a livable area,rather than a field with trash and a barbed wire fence. • Care of the land would be maintained in a manner to make the City proud, as Rowland Hall has previously proved itself in the Avenues area. • The desire of Rowland Hall for the proposed petition is not to ask for an increase in school population,but rather a request for more space. 4 • Many other options could be considered by the Mt.Olivet Association to sell the property for financial gain,including federal or state government who are exempt from specific zoning requirements; while Rowland Hall is proposing a petition to enhance the City within the guidelines. • An assurance for the land to be maintained as a mechanism for public use will be considered in a deed restriction. • Only four of thirteen acres will be used for buildings,lending the remainder to the community. • Open Space is a rhetorical term in Utah; given the many options for a specific definition and should consider the terms of being a usable and livable place for the public. • The present lease on Mt. Olivet has more impervious area than the proposed petition. • Traffic will be decreased as the proposed plan will create a unified school area. (Families with students attending schools on this campus can make single trips to this site,rather than trips to various sites.) 7. Those in opposition of the petition stated the following reasons: • Open Space is a natural area of land and should be preserved as a legacy. • Traffic in the area will increase—reducing the safety of the surrounding area. • Mt. Olivet Association has not found enough resources to financially sustain itself,and more time should be allowed for tools to be provided to the association and for the preservation of Open Space. • The value of an area of land for the earth to recharge itself is immeasurable and should be considered a premium space for the community. • Open Space is found less often as city growth continues. • Tools for rating the degree of importance of Open Space are being researched, and given time, will be considered as possible trading options. (This was taken directly from the Planning Commission minutes. Council staff does not have additional information that would clarify the intent of this statement.) `' • The land is irreplaceable. K. Planning Staff Findings and Recommendation 1. The Planning staff report provides the following findings for the Zoning Ordinance Section 21A.50.050-Standards for General Amendments. The standards were evaluated in the Planning staff report and considered by the Planning Commission. (Please see pgs. 13-17 in the Planning staff report for additional details.) a. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals,objectives,and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Findings: Land use designations in the adopted master plans identify the City's policy for future land uses. Properties that do not conform to the master plan objectives are either, developed with a nonconforming use or undeveloped. Undeveloped properties do not conflict with the Future Land Use Plan. A zoning amendment to an Institutional zoning classification does not ensure continued open space use of the property. The proposed amendment is not consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Modification of the Open Space zoning boundaries for a portion of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery property would set precedent for removal of additional properties within the Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association boundaries not actively used for burial purposes from the Open Space designation. b. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Findings:The proposed development plan presented by Rowland Hall St.Mark's is harmonious with the overall character of existing development. However,the Institutional 5 zoning classification allows development intensification that would not be harmonious with the character of existing development. c. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Findings: Rezoning the Mt Olivet parcel to Institutional would permit more intensive development than allowed within the existing Open Space Zoning District. The increased level of potential development could increase traffic generation levels and impact adjacent properties. The traffic generated by the proposed uses of an upper and middle school, soccer field and open space would not adversely affect adjacent properties. d. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional,standards. Findings: The proposed development concept plans through implementation of any necessary site design modifications and operational controls can be consistent with applicable zoning overlay districts. e. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways,parks and recreational facilities,police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems,water supplies,and waste water and refuse collection. Findings: The public facility services and utilities are in place to serve the subject 13-acre parcel. The final intensity of development and needs that the future development would place on services and utilities is unknown. If a specific developments demand exceeds service capacity,then the developer would be required to make system improvements as part of obtaining a building permit. The adjacent arterial streets can absorb the traffic generated by the proposed uses. 2. The Planning staff report provides the following findings for the requested master plan amendment. a. Land use designations in master plans identify the City's policy for future land uses. Developed properties that do not conform to the master plan objectives and existing zoning are nonconforming. Properties that lie in an undeveloped state do not conflict with the Future Land Use Plans. The amended East Bench Community Master Plan land use designation for the Mt. Olivet property is for open space uses. b. Operational financing difficulties could be alleviated by lease or sale of property to land uses that are consistent with the East Bench Master Plan Future Land Use designation and existing Open Space Zoning classification. 3. Recommendation: a. The findings of fact show that the requested master plan amendment and rezoning of the Mt. Olivet property is not consistent with the East Bench Community Master Plan. Rezoning the property from open space to institutional land uses is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the Open Space Zoning District. This purpose is to preserve and protect areas of public and private open space and exert a greater level of control over any potential redevelopment of existing open space areas. b. Potential development intensities of the Institutional Zoning District are greater than permitted uses within the Open Space Zoning District and have potential conflicts with the overall character of development in the immediate vicinity. Minimizing potential intensities and conflicts could occur through restrictive covenants or modification of the zoning request to ensure that the proposed open space areas would remain open in the future. c. Based on the findings of fact, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to deny the requests of Petition 400-05-08 and Petition 400- 05-09, to amend the East Bench Master Plan and rezone the 13 acres portion of Mt. Olivet Cemetery property from Open Space to Institutional land use and zoning classifications. 6 L. Zoning Information C1. The purpose of the Open Space Zoning District is to preserve and protect areas of public and private open space and exert a greater level of control over any potential redevelopment of existing open space areas. a. Area requirements: ,, • Minimum lot size: 10,000 sq. ft. • Maximum building height: 35 ft.provided that for each foot of height over 20 ft. each yard and landscaped yard requirement shall be increased 1 ft. • Minimum yard requirements: front—30 ft., side—20 ft.,rear—30 ft. • Landscaped yard requirements: front—20 ft.,side(interior)— 10 ft.,rear— 10 ft. • Landscape buffer required when abutting a residential district b. Special conditional use controls over communications towers are required. c. Permitted and conditional uses: cemeteries and accessory crematoriums,community/recreation centers,pet cemetery,country clubs, golf courses,natural open space,conservation areas,public/private nature preserves/conservation areas,public parks,private recreational facilities,zoological park, accessory uses,public/private utility buildings/transmission wires/poles/pipes,transportation terminals—bus/rail/trucking 2. The purpose of the Institutional Zoning District is to regulate the development of larger public and semi- public uses in a manner harmonious with surrounding uses.The uses regulated by this district are generally those having multiple buildings on a campus-like site. a. Area requirements: • Minimum lot size: 2 acres for places of worship and 20,000 sq. ft. for other uses • Maximum building height: 35 ft.and 75 ft.through conditional use provided that for each foot of Cf height over 35 ft. each yard requirement shall be increased 1 ft. • Minimum yard requirements: front—20 ft., side 20 ft.,rear—25 ft. • Landscaped yard requirements: front—20 ft., side(interior)—8 ft.,rear—8 ft. • Landscape buffer required when abutting a residential district b. Traffic and parking study required. New or expansion of institutional uses shall not be permitted unless the traffic and parking study provides clear and convincing evidence that no significant impacts will occur. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement c. Lighting—all uses shall provide adequate lighting to assure safety and security. Lighting installations shall not have an adverse impact on traffic safety or surrounding properties and uses and shall be shielded to minimize light spillover onto adjacent properties. d. Permitted and conditional uses: congregate care facility,caretaker/security guard living quarters, government offices,accessory retail sales/services within the principal building operated for employees,adult/child daycare centers, community/recreation centers,conference centers,dental/medical laboratories/research facilities/clinics/offices,medical/nursing schools,emergency response/medical service facilities, nursing care/sanitarium facilities,exhibition hall,hospitals, libraries,meeting halls for membership organizations,philanthropic uses,places or worship,religious assembly with exhibit hall,convents/monasteries,reuse of schools/churches, seminaries/religious institutes, colleges/universities,private schools K-12,professional/vocational schools,arenas,stadiums, fairgrounds,museums,private recreational facilities,heliport, accessory uses,bed and breakfast facilities,communication towers,off-site parking,park and ride parking with existing use, parking structure,public/private utility buildings/transmission wires/poles/pipes,transportation terminals—bus/rail/trucking C 7 MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: A. Issues relating to this request have been raised in many different ways and in many different forums throughout the process. The core issues that the Council must weigh include: 1. Whether to amend the zoning and the master plan to allow this project to move forward and seek Congressional action to remove the reversionary clause from the deed and allow Mt. Olivet to sell the property. 2. Whether to continue the current policy to require the property be maintained as open space consistent with the current zoning and master plan and past legal action taken by the City. 3. Whether to take in to consideration the potential risk that, should the Council not approve the master plan amendment and rezoning,the University of Utah(not subject to City zoning regulations)could purchase and develop the property at a greater intensity than proposed by Rowland Hall-St. Mark's. The Council may wish to evaluate whether that potential risk is significant enough that it justifies the rezoning for a lower intensity to preclude potential higher intensity use. (Please see Attachments B and C for additional information.) 4. If the Council does approve the request, the Council could consider the use of a development agreement,restrictive covenant and/or conservation easement to provide assurance to the community that the proposed development would occur as presented at the time of the rezoning request and provide an additional level of control on the property. a. The Planning staff report notes that minimizing potential intensities and conflicts could occur through restrictive covenants or modification of the zoning request to ensure that the proposed open space areas would remain open in the future. b. The petitioner's information notes : • It may be many years before Rowland Hall-St. Mark's could raise the money needed to build a new campus on the property. • It is possible that Rowland Hall-St. Mark's could take the interim step of developing the playing fields in the near term, in a way not to interfere with construction at the north end of the property(proposed school site). B. The Planning staff report notes that a narrow parcel along the northwest corner of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery property is presently zoned RMF-75. Planning staff recommended that the Planning Commission initiate action to have the RMF-75 zoned portion of the Mt. Olivet property for a map amendment as part of a zoning map fine-tuning petition. The Planning Commission minutes do not indicate that this action was initiated by the Commission. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration if this issue requires action by the Council or Planning Commission. C. Council Members may wish to consider a future discussion to establish a clear policy direction relating to cemeteries and open space. The Planning staff report includes the following information provided by the City Public Services Department. 1. Presently the City has no plans to either expand the(Salt Lake City)cemetery space(the only potential expansion would be into Lindsay Gardens Park)or start a second cemetery in a new location in the City. Any decision to move in this direction would result from a policy discussion and agreement between the Mayor and City Council. If the City fills the cemetery without further expansion or new development, other public or private cemeteries will need to fill the public demand. 8 2. Development of the Salt Lake City Cemetery started in 1847. The cemetery is approximately 250 acres in size and plotted for 140,823 graves. The entire cemetery space is plotted out and developed. There is no additional space for expansion. To date,approximately 119,000 plots are used. Of the ,21,800 remaining, 17,300 have been pre-sold. Only 4,500 burial sites remain for sale. Historically, on an annual basis approximately 600 burials occur each year. If the historical numbers hold,use of all available cemetery sites will occur within 36 years. The historical cemetery sales rate is 350 graves sites each year. Based on the 4,500 available burial sites for sale and historical sale rates,in 13 years there will be no sites available. 3. The present day data suggests that the cemetery will use up its available burial space in 13 years. Within another 23 years,all burial sites will be filled. Beyond that point in time,the City will continue to fulfill its obligation to care for and maintain the cemetery in perpetuity without the offsetting annual revenue generated by property sales and burials. 4. Salt Lake City has one public cemetery,the Salt Lake City Cemetery. Four(4)additional active cemeteries are located within the boundaries of the City:Mt. Olivet, a private cemetery owned by a consortium of local churches;Mt. Calvary,a private cemetery owned by the Catholic Diocese;B'nai Israel Cemetery,a private cemetery owned by the Temple Kol Ami Synagogue; and Larkin Sunset Lawn, a private cemetery owned by the Larkin family. It is my understanding that the public has access to each of these cemeteries regardless of affiliation except B'nai. I also understand that with the exception of Mt. Olivet and Larkin cemeteries,the others face the same capacity challenges as the City's cemetery. 5. Though the City has a municipal cemetery that it must maintain and operate in perpetuity,the City has no legal obligation to maintain an"active"cemetery. 6. The following actions may extend the Cemetery's"active"period: a. The historical consumption numbers may change over time; b. Resale burial plots that have been sold,but have not been used in a 60 year period(this could add a few hundred graves to the inventory over time); c. Develop double deep burials,which means that one burial plot may be used for two burials; and d. The construction of mausoleums,which allow burials to occur above ground in structures. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report note: 1. The East Bench Community Master Plan and the Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan documents address the land use policy related to the Mt. Olivet Cemetery property. (Note: Amending the Open Space Plan is not required and is not part of Rowland Hall-St.Mark's request.) 2. Most master plans do not contain specific land use policy regarding cemeteries. The Plans do address a variety of general land use categories such as residential,commercial, open space and institutional land uses. 3. The East Bench Community Master Plan(April 1987)is the adopted land-use policy document that guides new development in the area surrounding the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment. 4. Prior to the 1995 Zoning Rewrite project,the Plan designated the Mount Olivet Cemetery property and Sunset Lawns Memorial Cemetery located at 2352 East 1300 South Street for Institutional uses. 5. In 1995,the Citywide Zoning Rewrite Project amended the land use designation of both these properties from Institutional to Open Space. 6. The Salt Lake City Open Space Plan(October 1992)defined a comprehensive corridor approach to connecting the City's open space resources to provide a safe,enjoyable experience of the natural features of Salt Lake City. The Open Space Master Plan defines policy for connecting open space amenities and does not provide land use policy. The land use policy of open space for the Mt. Olivet property is defined in the amended East Bench Master Plan. 9 B. The Open Space Master Plan identifies a system of non-motorized transportation corridors that would re- establish connections between urban and natural land forms of the City. The Plan discusses the value of open space including recreational opportunities and preservation of wildlife habitat,wetlands,riparian and stream corridors, and the foothills. 1. The Plan identifies the following goals: a. Conservation of the natural environment. b. Enhancement of open space amenities. c. Connecting various parts of the City to natural environments. d. Educating citizens on proper use of open space. 2. The Open Space Plan identifies Sunnyside Avenue and 800 South as part of the Transvalley Corridor (Foothill Section). A future trail corridor is shown along the north side of Sunnyside/800 South on the sidewalk/right-of-way. Specific reference to Mt. Olivet states"The north side of Sunnyside Avenue is lined with both private and public open space. The south half of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery parcel is vacant and could generate development pressure in the future. This should be monitored to assure the corridor is kept wide enough for adequate walkways and open space. A crosswalk could be developed to connect at the baseball area on the east side of 1300 East to the adjacent trail corridor and residential area." C. Several adopted community master plans and small area plans contain policies and recommendations that emphasize the need for preservation, acquisition,protection,maintenance and management of watershed, foothills,wetlands,wildlife habitat,riparian/stream corridors,and natural open spaces. Implementation strategies include a range of options such as refining zoning regulations relating to open lands. D. The City's recently adopted Open Lands Ordinance notes: 1. The need to protect diminishing open lands within Salt Lake City or its environs. 2. The City has adopted an Open Space Master Plan to identify,protect and manage open lands. 3. The City's general plan, zoning ordinance and site development ordinance recognize the need to protect the unique values offered by wetlands, foothills and urban trails. E. The Transportation Master Plan contains policy statements that include support of alternative forms of transportation,considering impacts on neighborhoods on at least an equal basis with impacts on transportation systems and giving all neighborhoods equal consideration in transportation decisions. F. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city, ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly, convenient, and inviting,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. G. The Council's growth policy notes that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served; and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. H. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image, neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. 10 CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. • April 21,2005 Applicant presentation to the Yalecrest Community Council • April 25,2005 Petitions delivered to Planning office • June 1,2005 Petitions reassigned to planner • June 29,2005 Additional information received(requested by Planning Division) • November 2, 8, & 16,2005 Open Space Lands Advisory Board meetings • November 30,2005 Planning Commission hearing • December 13,2005 Ordinance requested from City Attorney's office cc: Sam Guevara,Rocky Fluhart,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Rick Graham, Lisa Romney,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde,Alex Ikefuna,Doug Wheelwright,Cheri Coffey,Everett Joyce, Jennifer Bruno,Jan Aramaki,Marge Harvey, Sylvia Jones, Lehua Weaver,Annette Daley,Barry Esham, Gwen Springmeyer File Location: Community Development Dept.,Planning Division,Rezoning and Master Plan Amendment, Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School/Mt. Olivet,approximately 1443 E. Sunnyside Avenue C C 11 co w 0 J Z E W 6 E .o c co L la-) L L L L L L L L c a) 0)I N cola) N a) a)� a) a) a)I 0 0 a) W Z In N CO0 CO CO Y- _ ' ti'� a co to co U) C') M t -cco .c w L , 4 .0 .0 .0 .CD co _ moo'' •0 CO MOca D D D D coo Y - a) U 0 a) 0 0 0 f" g J V o N Co o O Y Y - U)co = H Cu a)It = co O co= = J J 0000 W 0 D U) ca ca do ca = = 5 re J J us U) L (C o G CO J C (=0 N U) >+ N 0 co m N o > >O O C a) a) 0 co u) Q ., > N •> > 0 a) 'C 00 C 0 0 oy y 0 Q c v 0 C > < 0 0 > L c a) E N O 0 0 E •E Cu O co < 0 ob E V " > 2 co v co O 0) 'C N U) N E .- 0 LL C .0 a) V •L:C C w J CO N U) a 2 Q U) W0 � 0 0Y- 0 �- O � O) Otn0Co0t 1.� NW OW N. O N � I� �- 0) � N %- O 01 - N m- N '- N. '- N- - U) M '0 CO (D V 01 It 00 et d• N 10 Tr T- Tr Ul V' O It M 'O to N C COT... Tr CO CO - N 00 N.- T- CO - CO .- CO N. N. CO nt T- 0 0 w 0 L O .0 .0 O a) C ZL W• 'C co 2 p_ O O V . O 0 , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , cxN O O v-O O O r-O O O O O O O O O O O v- w 41 4.. w 4.. O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z 'W a. a. a. a. a a 0. a 0. a a a a a. ae Cl) a. a a a a a a a. 0. a. a a a. a a 0 C 00coU0) Cl)0 co U) a) 0N 00 000 .0 C O a) �' N a) 2 7 o "' m2 a) = (/) :� C 03 W N N N p N CO a) 2 O O m C �0 0 E . L •o Z C� E = Q. C � C fn -0 C - (_Va >, m V N . m L in >. m 3 E N C cp t O um m L O u w (CO C7 O C 8 N co C a) N C 'o cp It. C a .0 0 Z co Q m C0 co C pc2OY ( as °; = (�n0mLm 0 u) U) O 0 u) (n to to u) lt) to 0 to 0 u) g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0) y- y- 0 U) co N- N O O O O CO CA e- � e- In (n � co t` � • 0 M r- �- N N N N N N N N N - � L Tr 'V VV• IT I- in V E v E Eo `o J o p o U N W0, 0 c L 'c o © o L co v.) o ° n E C.) '� m o a) O Cl) Cl) Cl) a) io co c c 0 a) a) N co c a) a) a) a) 2 m a) O to N fo .n W Z n_ O 0) O N a Irn c?o co co a to to to N a) o L C) v a) g as aS W to 0 o o ai it) co ce o c C7 ►n 0 o CI > o o cc e- a) •V `_ i-- tn Q Q E 0 0 00 0 O w C) (13> 03 a) E co a) O U > w Q C = O CO 4-7 C 0 o Cn W U `- E - » c 0 . Ts C) c' N r- N O >> V U) -p d' CO Tr; C — a) j M e- c ..- .- co 00 0 M Z rn CO m m -0 �o+ o L a) P c a) to c .o C o 0 - o >, .ct c o c E �� U > ,c 0. o 0 ) c 3 N E 'ac .°). c � v . a cLo co O o _' p c ._ a 7 a co m t o 0 E E ++ rn (� 'V C N «�. j c c L >, a) U) 0 CO o c .. c a) Cn 9- C O > s = C a) Y o . m rn co w • p o C a 0 Cl) O c 3 NO OV 4) 'n � aL •E o o ac) awi Y • a) . .>.0v a) E o L o L C +-• (Q L 'C '0 .c :.+ CO N :3 C O_ u! C O a W X o o a) 0 to cEo2 > a) c • > coa0i 2 o .r To fl v) b• oomaEi � .'� � a) oo a) 0 u' �• a ° o o c° 2 c a) V > � UcCO f03 co � � a) m NO• Nc al � V = 2 2 Et rn 3 ca ca a) 0 d w a) > a) Y o m ua) 5 am °o m ,Y c c S L L N . N O r-. C a) o N N "0 p o a to — •Z'N co rn a) .. C -2 L 7U al 3 C •Q L .. O a) (a N UL V C C fo >+ ) CZ._ 't L 0 0 o p .O coo 0 o w aa)) •o m to rn0 *- 2 2 a� o n'� .co) E a - o a a s c 3 E c a to c N c O:C amp a) -0 � N .- n > O c °� cna n = = O Eli o s N = O c m y U p 0 u_) 0 o zzx 0 0 8 - .: c 0 w-S ' C) cn v) -0 -a CO .. .. co E 'cn 3 -0 ._ n L -0 .. _Ne c' CY L u) u) O E S S co u) C) 0 o`o c 0 u j a a)co) Cl) o va)) a? c 3 c o O (n N c o 0 a) Q c co ., U o nL CO Z co N c p U al E as 2 co a c In a) .-. >,V Z Q cti.yC a) a) CO 2 t CO q .0 c .0 co Q) cd .0 > .0 c O. N � 2 � J m ¢ Q tiw (/) a NQ U) Q o N W tO tO U) U) to to to to toU) U) inM O O O 0 0 CD O O O O elI. O 0 O C0 M d' m' 0 0 CD CD N- N- C)) Q N N +-- .- - N N N N N • 0 to U) h- —. tn CO CD N- o 0 0 cc 0 cc co E a) o C ./�0�, EC ` E COo a) 8 0 J c v v m 8 C 3.:C" wo 13 8 .a 'a '5 .5 .os @� 8 'a vo, a Y 'c _ EEEEE � 92E .- NE gE `�._ , c� o o o o o a al 'o a) as g 'o .3) � .°c » » > m L > N coca .o > 0 a a W Z U) cr) CO Cr) e- N 0 N o N co h 0 N N C v Cr) 1.0 N c� N a I' M tp M N cn ti M t0 N N 0) V CoNt M co 0) W N d C) in U) in O O e- e- c O U) CO nt W Li) o ai ai N . 0 co0 0 0c0 N CO ay > > W Q Q 0 g a . c) •- a) a) c ai -oU ao 6 ;2 a) C .c CO co E () t ' 5 C C > y rn 5 o V > o co Z _to NU)N CO Cl)t0 cnN V• d N ‘- -o V) N - '- N N ee- O '- Cl) — L m cr a) > � C a) O 7 L — = 3 a) Y --8p �O 0 t+ N N C 7 O O as N rU ram.+ � 03 ` 0 C �co _ N = 0 O 'O a) -c N O w a) =C 0 N 'D 30 C co c 45. 3 y s o u) 0 8E 0so- co — 3 >�6 m 0 c o cM Z m fI � g — ZO 0 -C N O f03 Es13 cs N a) Nt — .+ n N 3 > a Lo. �.•�= W o > g R cmo >,V ai voi a)• o o .c c `a .c E rn o o s c CO if co t 'a a° o .. .. a) c co a) c a) > •-' c a) a) a) a) s 0 .4: O = v 0 CO m Cl) COrn� tcuo) No E0,) moawn m a3i9rnov260 >+ O11v � YO = Cfl. aVa) c > _ cca rp +? C8E -' a0 .CC . ,m ° `a E0 CO = O c C CF , O O co Q o 3 v n= a) ca a) -C - E o _ vim o C C 'n >, 8 ti 'C'N 2 2 N m cco a) ° V N 'C t m rn d c ro o g t .t 'C t 0 0 a 0 0 0 O .0 = Q. 0 > m N C. 8. a V C O a a aaaa a 0- 0- a0- o To a) i6ac00 �, im o •- cw. am a a= 'c a) -5 aao o aaaa > > > > > 3 I.D. 38 aI' 2 a o 5 yr d � c = s = O Si, o N y N co co Y — O co 'O O. O '� 3 — O .0 h .0 a a) m I— m co >- N 1 co) Q co c c cO N N a) i E t1 $ o it 88Ig a) Ig - g .1 W Y cOa m '�° O c m m r o o y '� W o N > c E o ) E > Cc Q = = a) a c .0 �j 0 O m • c a3 8 Gd Z c m 2 '0 C c r a) a) _ a) c u rn a) c c c a ii ii E E y•0 O O L n C CI L Z o E WYZZcnfn 4 xo � (n I- 22 ) � � 8 C co >. c c -c ..- lo N O O O N W o00000 �0 `c 'n % CfltV co Qrna) rnrna) a) ao c v 4- `, ww • O QNQNN MM O) � � � COQvCO000000003 CO 0 0 N c alw a o J Vrt 0) 0c v ++ ..; 2 >, E LV C /C.�)1 �D E q�q V 0 Q oo - - - U U 03 p N a, @) E E E7 E a) 1 = c`a - o cYi ° c�) rn N NNEEa) a 000 .=_ o W M N M 0 N Lf) I u) N CA •- M a. L t C') CO' M 4 N N CO CO 14) VV N CO0) LC) 1+ 0 ,0 ri O 0 LO 0 0 cpE-t co O CO co Ce W V _JU) In > W V 0 v N CI c -I > o � O N 4 co co Q Uw 'a N ''' W o .E = 0N toO .� 0 `n4- E a)E UO M f.Q O 2 uiv 0 N v 2 co 0) N op U) ,co cr ' N -c I� O O N t j CO 1 N co c 'T No0 � I— CV Ln .- a0 m "o 0 3 2° c E O0 U y �� co CO O co a U 0 N CU I-- a = o a - 0 Z a) V _ a CO (13 C C2 v N 3 0 I- .? ccdd a)C c ton a ton t t- G N ..-• c O A. Q. f0 c0 CO CO L. C) C) S 3 a O O > > > C 0)7 >, t,,,, O > C oa a a N .0'N • c -0 O 8 • 1 _0 0 0 _0 as c _ L a) (I) U O Ct 0 0 0 () = -C -C -C -C -C .C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C -c -c = -C -C t 'C -.- co > Q cd 2 a) 4-* -C NUJ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c = N ' t 't r aaaaa as as aama aaa aaco cN) 0 :5 N a' QacLo. c 3 7 = 7 3 = 7 > > = = 7 7 > > 3 = 7 oa L cd N N 7 7 9 c O_ O co U) V) U) U) N U) co V) U) co UJ U) V) U) U) U) U) cU .a 3 E a Y -0 co ti to N O co ih +4 a) 'd W Y 'O co E c O E E ° O c U G O " 4 .r p N U o U U t C N ti U) $. �-' _ ,U U V - V C@ H Hi ca p p V) m O c ° c L L �n E p c U ,—' C p 8 N Y N c W 4[ to a -co O c Z t c XM @ EE Gd3 o �c co � F" W ,cn c >, 0 c N > 0 0ZD .p rn < � t E @J U 0 0.0 C 2 NO = Q.� m ?, c w c d ccc o o m I c 'm m °' N 1`! v HU n �, c0 .N Eo E o s' sE E � cnaEo �� E N E E U2 NY O L) n- c) 1— • WUOO -) Q n _i0L5NCL 0 JtD N LO 0 coIII I-. O a) 00 00000 M QQ N C � Q) O) O) O) O) N Mr) CM Cr) M M M e- E co a�i $ c -1 .. EE o - 8 'm 8 J • o N u) U CI O E E �• c o a) • o N I -e$ t >• �c mEU VJ C L 0 Z CO N CO N CO C W p o_ CO O Q g o c Q co E a) N E u, a) Z CO c ti CNI a) 3 O C 0 as C ct c — a) .0 o C a) N = y 0 0 C .. - y 0 O > O N -0 O C .r_ C .a co a N c C A co V U w a'oi o v 3 M rn E -N co m ° vai c U) 5 o N P2 O '- -c-- 3 C fo N p N .. co �' C 7 F- F- c ° c m .. ce c i a) co 2 O V co fl.0 d Li. Id Z •E u) y I a) 0 •x 0 CO• g v) N 'v co N a cy :) LLJ N• Ill aa)) a) ,a o as U co a) a c c o fo 'v o ac) = v N uN) 2 a, C co O N 2. co 2. .L+ . N 3 u) m O - a ✓ o o ,� i_ � a) w .y >. ` i a) ce t4 O 0 M ° a) .c O O 0 >; O 0.N C -c 28a) ocyocECO .0 P= 3N 3 = Eco0.zra)CC ° a 2 N co 'C U co p ° c = c .0 _ R' O • •v a) a•• O as cEo • � W N ; ° ° ma p o � � 82v, — �.2 men o 0.0 O an c = c 0.0 O a a) 'p C N E ° Q U V >+ ° o Q a a a m c O �v c E c c > incO a) t a. a a) E a v- a) Y a) U .c .b c' - > > a) : c O co O O co a) c 0 t p O O .c co of O p o m en co u) c ;E n c) c) c) 3 a) r co a) o cn H U cn U o d } U a ur o o aa)) a ° L .°c 0 42 t = U W N2 2 N y E coa .V O y 1- p C a) m co 2 C CO 0 Z Y l Y a � s � N OO` c m c Q Z a) C a) N _a ._ a m V N co (co C a C ':43 co Op N C) O C x .0• O - O N D' c� l0 a) V N E c9 a) O t�, a � zcn F- Y -) o ixm -i >- zU co Q �p o o 0 0 0 0 0 " ia.. co OO 0 a M ! Lo Q co a� ao M M co M M M M M M M M Z. y 0 J_ Q 2 W J IN V) 0 4) 0) 0 03 C0 W 0 E E I CD CD 0 0 c _ o 'o 'O s > > a w CO = W E W 0 c o Q 2 CD 'O c C a) c0 E J E O C) (6 N I N c m co 0 .Q N A - f0 N O a) v+ C f0 > O N - 0 N j CI > >+ C f0 •5 0 3 ao yY 0)i a N as in o z a) cn v) ca N > W m E c n co C — 0 tu — -o a c E C m w- ».. CO — o Q' 0 p E v mu) E w s o -0 a 0 as U 0 o 03 s- 2 cn N NL aai . > N 0 L a) w `+ m •0 .0 -C a) 0 0 0 a a O L c O O 3 0 c 'p a) oco a t0/) O O "~ O O O 0 'ttcn � 0 0 = � -o aa. E as L N L y c 'O 7 7 0 I_ o I U -C O < i cn cn E a c 2 a L W a-= 8 i 0 O a) c a) Q 2 u Z 0 N —v, N E 0 0 Z = cc0 N N 0 ` m 2 a) 3 = m U 'N c c co CDV .L N 0Q2 CV � � � U cnnU 0 N ILI 0 0 0 0 0 CC) Q CO COCON. CO Cl M C) M 01 M ORGINIAL PAPER WORK FOR ITEM A2 WAS IN THE MARCH 7, 2006 PACKET SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: March 31,2006 SUBJECT: Petition 400-05-41 —Romney/Carson—Parley's Pointe Annexation- request to annex property at approximately 2982 East Benchmark Drive and 2100 South to 2600 South (This action includes establishing zoning classifications on the property and amending applicable Master Plans.) AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted the annexation,zoning and master plan amendments will affect Council District 7 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Sarah Carroll,Principal Planner KEY ELEMENTS: A. An ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration. Action required by the Council includes: 1. Annexation of approximately 406 acres of property at approximately 2982 East Benchmark Drive and 2100 South to 2600 South. • State law does not allow islands or peninsulas of unincorporated land to be created when an annexation occurs. Seven other parcels of land will also be annexed with this proposal. The exclusion of the properties would result in and island or peninsula.(Please see the Administration's transmittal letter for a list of the properties and owners and Annexation Plat,Exhibit 2 in the Planning staff report.) • The Romney/Carson property is being annexed as a result of a settlement agreement relating to a longstanding lawsuit between the property owners and Salt Lake City.The settlement agreement outlines specific terms under which the Romney/Carson property should be annexed into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City. (Please see item C below and the settlement agreement,Exhibit 1 in the Planning staff report for details.) 2. Amending the East Bench Community Master Plan and the Arcadia Heights,Benchmark and H Rock Small Area Plan. • The ordinance states"The East Bench Community Master Plan,the Arcadia Heights,Benchmark and H Rock Small Area Plan,which were previously adopted by the City Council, shall be and hereby are amended to allow limited,very low density, single family residential development in the area consisting of not more than 15 new lots all but one of which shall be located on a private street extending off the current terminus of Benchmark Drive, and not more than 4 new lots located on a public cul-de-sac extending from the current terminus of Scenic Drive." 3. Zoning the properties Foothill Residential(FR-2),Open Space(OS)and Natural Open Space(NOS). • The Planning staff report notes: "Approximately 31.48-acres of the Romney/Carson property will be used for the development of 17 single-family home sites,with lot sizes ranging from approximately 0.43 to 1.51 acres in size. Planning staff recommends that the area proposed for subdivisions be zoned Foothill Residential(FR-2)zoning which is compatible with the abutting FR-3 zoned 1 Benchmark Subdivision.The remainder of the Romney/Carson property is to be conveyed to an acceptable open space preservation entity for perpetual open space protection and planning staff is recommending Natural Open Space(NOS)zoning for this area.There are other privately owned properties that are included in this request for annexation and planning staff is recommending Open Space(OS)zoning for those properties." 4. The City Recorder is instructed not to record or publish the ordinance until the terms and conditions in the ordinance and the settlement agreement have been satisfied and certified by the Directors of the Community Development and Public Utilities Departments. The ordinance shall become null and void if the conditions have not been satisfied with two years of the date of the ordinance. B. The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report note that there are many positive gains for the community that will be realized following the completion of the requested annexation and zoning of this property including: 1. Final resolution to the legal dispute without cost damage to Salt Lake City. 2. Limited development. 3. The use of septic tanks will be eliminated because the City will provide sewer services. Septic tanks would jeopardize Salt Lake City drinking water and be damaging to down slope lot owners. 4. Trail access will be maintained through public easements. 5. Approximately 260 acres of land will be dedicated to perpetual open space and preserved through public ownership. 6. Increased protection against future development provided by the one foot holding strip and open space easements. 7. Salt Lake City's zoning,which includes special foothill regulations,will apply to all building permits and to all dwellings and will help reduce the off site visibility of additional development. C. The Planning staff report notes the following key elements from the settlement agreement: 1. Petition for Annexation: Romney/Carson shall file a renewed petition for annexation. 2. Annexation Ordinance: The City shall annex the Romney/Carson property, subject to the terms of the Agreement,within 120 days of receipt of a renewed annexation petition. 3. Costs: Romney/Carson have previously paid substantial planning and processing fees.Therefore,the City shall annex the property without additional charges. 4. Subdivision Approvals: Final plat approval of the Phase I subdivision(Extension off Benchmark Drive) shall be obtained from the County. The City sewer and storm water services shall not be available until the subdivision is annexed into the City. If the County refuses to grant approval of Phase I the litigation will continue. 5. Phase II Subdivision Approval and Annexation: Final plat approval of the Phase II subdivision (extension off Scenic Drive)approval may be obtained from the County or the City. 6. Roadways and Trails: A public cul-de-sac will be constructed at the end of Benchmark Drive and at the end of Scenic Drive. Lots 2-15 of Phase I will be accessed by a private road.A twenty foot public trail easement will be recorded with the final plat to allow pedestrian traffic access to the trails delineated in the settlement agreement. 7. Waterline Easement—Relocation: A waterline was constructed by the City in 1979. A portion of the waterline will be relocated to lie within the waterline easement. 8. Utilities: The City commits to provide water, sewer and storm drain services upon the completion of all applicable conditions of the Agreement. 9. Romney/Carson Open Space Donation: As a condition of annexation, Romney/Carson will sell or donate lots 14a, 14b, and 15 as well as Perpetual Open Space parcels A,B and C for preservation as undeveloped open space. 10. Protection against Further Foothills Development: As a condition of annexation,Romney/Carson agrees to donate a one-foot strip of property around the perimeter of the property to Salt Lake City. 2 11. Common Area Open Space Parcels: There are common area open space parcels throughout the Phase I and Phase II subdivisions that will be part of the Home Owners Association. When the final plat is recorded Romney/Carson will grant a conservation easement to the City which requires the common areas to be maintained as perpetual open space. 12. Dismissal of the Litigation:Within 30 days following the recording of the subdivision plats and the City Council vote to annex,Romney/Carson shall file a stipulation for Dismissal of the Litigation.If the County does not grant final approval of the Phase I subdivision within 4 months of the execution of the Settlement Agreement,the Litigation shall continue and the Romney/Carson property will not be annexed. 13. Joint Cooperation: The City shall support the subdivision applications before the County and shall cooperate with the County in securing the required approvals. 14. Notice Recorded: The parties have executed a Notice of Settlement and Annexation Agreement which has been recorded against the Subject Property. 15. Agreement not to be used as Evidence: If this Agreement is not completed,it shall not be used for evidence for any other purposes in the Litigation. 16. Remedies: If the City fails to adopt an ordinance approving the annexation or the County fails to approve the Phase I subdivision and roadway,the Litigation shall continue. D. The public process included an open house and presentation to a joint meeting of the Arcadia Heights, Benchmark and H Rock Community Councils. 1. The Administration notes the Arcadia Heights/Benchmark Community Council did not take a position on the proposed annexation. 2. The Planning staff report notes: "Andrea and Louis Barrows own property that is included in the annexation area and have requested that their property be zoned FR-3,rather than OS,in order to combine parcels and create a rear addition to their home(Exhibit 8). Staff believes that the slopes on the one acre parcel that is owned by the Barrows mostly exceed 30%which would prohibit development. ,, Staff recommends that the Barrows apply for a subdivision amendment and FR-3 zoning at a future date and that they submit slope analysis data at that time." E. The City's Fire,Police,and Public Utilities Departments and Transportation,Engineering,Building Services and Zoning Divisions have reviewed the proposed annexation and expressed support or no objections to the proposal. F. On November 9,2005,the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed annexation and master plan and zoning map amendments. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: BUDGET RELATED FACTS The proposed annexation may have a budget impact. The Council may wish to request information from the Administration regarding revenues and costs associated with this area and the net fiscal impact to the City if this property is to be annexed. This would maintain consistency with past practices and policy direction established by the Council in considering annexation requests. (The Council could request that the Administration provide the information by the Council's public hearing tentatively scheduled for Tuesday,May 2,2006.) MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Administration's transmittal notes that there are several City master plans that apply to the proposed annexation area—the East Bench Community Master Plan,the Arcadia Heights,Benchmark and H Rock Small Area Plan,the Open Space Master Plan and the City's Master Annexation Policy Declaration. (As 3 previously noted, amending the East Bench Community Master Plan and the Arcadia Heights, Benchmark and H Rock Small Area Plan is part of this petition.) B. Key references in the plans are noted below. 1. Arcadia Heights/Benchmark/H Rock Small Area Plan a. The boundaries of the Arcadia Heights,Benchmark&H Rock Small Area Plan(the"Arcadia Plan")are I-80 on the south,Foothill Drive on the west, 1700 South on the north, and the Wasatch National Forest on the east. b. Pages 3-4 New Foothill Development • Development restrictions on slopes equal to or greater than 30% -Recommendations include strict application of the City's Site Development Ordinance relating to interpretation of 30% slopes as well as all other foothill development standards. • Undevelopable land—Recommendations include acquisition,donation to a land trust, establishment of conservation or access easements,and not permitting undevelopable land to be included in calculating density or incorporated into individual building lots. c. Pages 5-6 Residential Density/Zoning Classification for Annexed Land • If additional development is considered,it should be very low density that does not impair the natural qualities of the area and preserves the maximum amount of open space. • Restrictions on development affecting slopes equal to or greater than 30%should be strictly enforced and interpreted according to written administrative policies established by the City. • Gated developments should be strongly discouraged. • The following policies should be taken into consideration when determining the zoning classification for properties which may be annexed in the future: 1. Lots should be a minimum of one half acre in size. 2. Not more than four additional lots should be permitted at the south end of Scenic Drive and not more than four additional lots should be permitted at the north end of Lakeline Drive. 3. New lots should be oriented to a new cul-de-sac or other terminus at the south end of Scenic Drive and to the existing cul-de-sac at the north end of Lakeline Drive. 4. All new lots should conform to the dimensional and height standards of the FR-2 Zone and to all established Foothill Development Standards. d. Pages 6-7 Utility Service—water, sewer and storm drainage • The developer should pay costs relating to increased impacts created by new development. • Water Service—Romney Property—This subdivision is located on the upper edge of the distribution zone. Water service can be provided to the second floor of a dwelling to a maximum elevation of 5190(USGS datum). Each lot will need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. New distribution eater lines will need to be installed as part of the subdivision development. Any habitable areas above elevation 5190 will require new pumping and reservoir facilities. (For planning and mapping purposes a ground or main floor elevation of 5175 (USGS datum) should be assumed.) • Sewer Service—Romney Property—Sewer lines from this development would be connected to existing sewer lines in Benchmark Subdivision. Downstream facilities appear to be adequate to handle this additional flow. • Storm Drainage—Drainage system design for proposed subdivisions will need to comply with the City's Restricted Discharge Policy. This policy restricts discharge from a site to .2 cubic feet per second per acre for the 24-hour 100-year storm. e. Pages 7-8 Annexation • It should continue to be the City's policy that municipal water and sewer service will not be provided to new developments unless they are located with the City. f. Pages 11-12 Open Space&Recreation • Bonneville Shoreline Trail—continuation of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail from the top of Benchmark Drive south along the Lake Bonneville Bench to connect other foothill trail access points and the Parley's Crossing Project North Bridge. 4 • Other trails—Recommendations include additional trail developments in this area from Benchmark Drive and Scenic Drive to provide foothill access points. • Open Space Preservation Strategies emphasize designating undevelopable land as open space, acquisition and preservation of critical areas,establishing conservation easements, donations or sales to a land trust or other public or non-profit organizations. g. Page 16 Public versus Private Streets • Require dedicated public streets in order to better integrate new developments into existing neighborhoods and preserve public access to public lands. • Streets should be designed recognizing specific soil and geologic conditions and constructed to mitigate any potential adverse conditions. 2. Open Space Master Plan—The Open Space Master Plan established four goals: conserve the natural environment; enhance open space amenities for all citizens; connect the various parts of the City to natural environments,and educate the citizens on proper use of open space. A section of the master plan relates to the Foothill Transitional Area,which it identifies as"the steeper slopes generally below the 5200 ft.elevation at the eastern and northern edges of the urbanized area." The master plan states that,"A major issue is the conservation of the natural environment for animal habitat,watershed and views." An implementation action identified by the master plan is that Salt Lake City,"establish the Open Space trust to receive and manage real property within the foothill transitional area." 3. East Bench Master Plan—The approximate boundaries of the East Bench Master Plan are the northern City limits on the north, 1700 South and Parleys Way on the south,the eastern City limits on the east and 1300 East on the west.The East Bench Master Plan section on Annexation and Foothill development states the planning goal to preserve the present unique beauty,environmental habitat, recreational use,and accessibility of the Wasatch foothills,and ensure city control over foothill development in the East Bench Community.Additional statements note: 1. Most undeveloped foothill property east of the City is under the jurisdiction of Salt Lake County. Development under County jurisdiction is possible but not likely. 2. Salt Lake City is the only government jurisdiction with the ability to provide urban services,and annexation is a vital first step in the development process. 3. The City should refuse to provide water or sewer services to accommodate development of property outside of City boundaries. 4. Areas that are undevelopable, from a geological standpoint, should be preserved as natural foothill open space.The City should work with the State and Federal governments to acquire privately- owned property for public open space and recreation purposes. 5. Slope is one of the most important factors in determining development potential. 6. The three areas that have development potential should be limited to a maximum density of 4 units per gross acre or less as physical conditions indicate. Single-family homes or planned-unit developments are recommended. 7. The City should plan to eventually accommodate development,expand regulations to encompass aesthetic considerations as the means of precluding development, or acquire the properties for public open space. 8. If property owners can document compliance with the site development and other applicable City ordinances,the community and City should expect to accommodate development proposals. C. State Code 10-2-403 regarding annexation requires that boundaries for annexation be drawn in the following manner: 1. To eliminate islands and peninsulas of territory that is not receiving municipal-type services; 2. To facilitate the consolidation of overlapping functions of local government; 3. To promote the efficient delivery of services; and 4. To encourage the equitable distribution of community resources and obligations. 5 D. The Council's adopted growth policy states: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served; and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. E. In the past,the Administration has provided the following information relating to the City's annexation policies: 1. The City does not have a citywide annexation policy. 2. Annexation policies have been developed based primarily on geographic locations and existing land uses. 3. Annexation policies are identified in the applicable master plans prepared for affected planning communities(i.e. East Bench, Sugar House,Northwest Community,Jordan River/Airport area,City Creek, etc.). 4. Annexation policies in the Sugar House Master Plan are significantly different from policies identified in the East Bench Master Plan. The Sugar House area is part of the older, fully developed portion of the City. The East Bench area contains underdeveloped areas of the foothills that are limited in development potential due to slope restriction and the cost of providing municipal services. F. Council staff has attached a synopsis of City annexation policies prepared for the Council's Annexation Subcommittee.The Synopsis includes a summary of: 1. The City's 1979 Annexation Policy Declaration 2. City Resolution No. 34 of 2000—Reaffirmation of 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration, and Declaration of Intent to annex areas served by the City's water system in the unincorporated Salt Lake County 3. Resolution 20 of 1982—Water Service provided outside the City limits 4. Existing Community Master Plans Annexation Policies 5. The 1999 Salt Lake County Feasibility Scenarios Reports 6. 1999 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Study 7. 2000 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Annexation Study G. The City's Comprehensive Housing Plan policy statements address a variety of housing issues including quality design, architectural designs compatible with neighborhoods,public and neighborhood participation and interaction, accommodating different types and intensities of residential developments,transit-oriented development, encouraging mixed-use developments,housing preservation,rehabilitation and replacement, zoning policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities. H. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly, convenient, and inviting,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The documents emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive, friendly, safe environments. I. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image, neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. 6 CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed annexation. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. • December 15, 2005 Planning Open House • January 12,2006 Joint Arcadia Heights,Benchmark and H Rock Community Council meeting • January 17,2006 Annexation petition accepted by City Council • February 22,2006 Planning Commission hearing • March 7,2006 Ordinance requested from City Attorney's office • March 21, 2006 Ordinance received from City Attorney's office cc: Sam Guevara,Rocky Fluhart,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde,Alex Ilcefuna,Doug Wheelwright,Cheri Coffey,Everett Joyce, Sarah Carroll,Jan Aramaki,Marge Harvey,, Jennifer Bruno,Barry Esham,Annette Daley, Gwen Springmeyer File Location: Community Development Dept.,Planning Division,Annexation,Romney/Carson, approximately 2982 East Benchmark Drive and 2100 South to 2600 South Clime "AP 982006 A. LOUTS ZUNGUZE ".,.AMt 1" OMITC..�0., P L,LJ�1,1 ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DA . 21,2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Directo RE: Petition No. 400-05-41 by Romney Lumber Company and Robert and Honora Carson is a request to annex approximately 405.59 acres of land into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City. This annexation is referred to as the Parley's Pointe Annexation and will require an amendment to the East Bench Community Master Plan and Zoning Map and the Arcadia Heights, Benchmark and H Rock Small Area Plan. STAFF CONTACTS: Sarah Carroll, Principal Planner, at 535-6260 or sarah.carroll@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Petition 400-05-41, by Romney/Carson, is a request to annex approximately 405.59 acres of land into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City. The annexation area is located in the vicinity of 2982 East Benchmark Drive(east of approximately 3000 East and from approximately 2100 to 2600 South) and includes the following parcels: 1) 16-23-226-004-4001 and 16-23-226-004-4002, owned by Romney/Carson 2) 16-23-201-013, owned by Alan & Orlene Cohen 3) 16-23-201-014, owned by Alan& Orlene Cohen 4) 16-23-201-016, owned by Andrea& Louis Barrows 5) 16-23-201-017, owned by Benjamin Buehner 6) 16-23-201-018 (partial), owned by Lynn Mabey 7) 16-23-201-019, owned by Axxon Investment Company 8) 16-23-400-001, owned by Jack Jensen and Intermountain Holding Company 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535.71 05 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCOO V.COM The Romney/Carson property is being annexed as a result of the settlement agreement relating to a longstanding lawsuit between the property owners and Salt Lake City. The Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 1 of Attachment 5B) states that the Romney/Carson property will be annexed into Salt Lake City within 120 days of receiving an application for annexation. The complete annexation application was received by the Planning Division on January 9, 2006. State law does not allow islands or peninsulas of unincorporated land to be created when an annexation occurs. Therefore, seven other parcels of land will also be annexed with this proposal (the exclusion of which would otherwise result in an island or peninsula). These seven parcels are listed on page 1 of this transmittal, as numbers 2 through 8. A Resolution to review the requested annexation was accepted by the City Council on January 17, 2006. Analysis: The following zoning designations are being recommended: Foothill Residential (FR-2) zoning for the Subdivisions proposed by Romney/Carson as specified in the Settlement Agreement,Natural Open Space (NOS) for the land that will be conveyed as open space by Romney/Carson as specified in the Settlement Agreement, and Open Space (OS) zoning for the other properties included in the annexation. Planning staff requested comments from pertinent City Departments/Divisions including: Transportation, Engineering, Fire, Public Utilities, Police, Building Services, Zoning, Airport, Public Services, Special Assessments, and Property Management. None expressed any objections to the proposed annexation or the proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map amendments. Master Plan Considerations: The proposed annexation will require an amendment to the East Bench Community Master Plan and Zoning Map, and an amendment to the Arcadia Heights, Benchmark, and H Rock Small Area Plans to reflect the land use recommendations for the Phase I subdivision. PUBLIC PROCESS: The request for annexation and the recommended zoning were presented to the public at an Open House on December 15, 2005, and at the Arcadia Heights, Benchmark and H Rock combined Community Council meeting on January 12, 2006. One member of the public provided written comment relating to this request. The Community Council did not provide a follow-up statement. The Planning Commission heard this petition on February 22, 2006, and passed a motion to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the annexation and the proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map amendments. Prior to the public Open House, the Community Council meeting, and the Planning Commission meeting, 134 notices were mailed to each property owner within 450 feet of the area proposed for annexation. Petition 400-05-41 —Parley's Pointe Annexation Page 2 of 3 RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Salt Lake City Ordinance: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 21A.50.050: "A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does, however, list five standards which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property (Section 21A.50.050 A-E). The five standards are discussed in detail starting on page 6 of the Planning Commission Staff Report(see Attachment 5B). Utah State Code:Utah State Code Section 10-2 regulates requirements for annexations. Section 10-9a-204 and -205 regulates the requirements for noticing a general plan amendment and land use ordinance amendment. Notice of the requested Zoning Map and Master Plan amendments were published in the newspaper on February 8, 2006, meeting State Code noticing requirements. Section 10-9a-404, states that the Planning Commission must hold a Public Hearing to consider general plan amendments and that the legislative body may adopt or reject the proposed amendment either as proposed by the Planning Commission or after making any revision that the legislative body considers appropriate. Section 10-9a-503 states that the legislative body may not make any amendment unless the amendment was first submitted to the Planning Commission for its recommendation. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on February 22, 2006, to consider the Zoning Map and Master Plan amendments related to this petition and recommended approval of this petition as proposed. Petition 400-05-41 —Parley's Pointe Annexation Page 3 of 3 Contents 1. Chronology 2. Proposed Ordinance 3. City Council Hearing Notice 4. Mailing Labels 5. Planning Commission A. Public Hearing Notice and Postmark B. Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments Settlement Agreement Annexation Plat Recommended Zoning Trails, Public Easement Department/Division Comments Newspaper Notice City Council Resolution Cover Letter Public Comment C. Planning Commission agenda and minutes for February 22, 2006 6. Original Petition 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY November 18, 2005 Incomplete application received from the applicant. December 15, 2005 Petition presented at a public open house. January 9, 2006 Complete application including annexation plat received from the applicant. January 12, 2006 Petition presented at the Arcadia Heights, Benchmark and H Rock combined community council meeting. January 17, 2006 Resolution to receive the petition for review was accepted by the City Council. January 20, 2006 Requested appropriate City Departments review and comment on the proposed amendments; routed to Building Services, Engineering, the Fire Department, Public Utilities, Police, Transportation, Zoning, Airport, Public Services, Special Assessments and Property Management. February 7, 2006 Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed. February 8, 2006 Legal notices published in the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News. February 8, 2005 Posted properties with a notice of the upcoming meeting. February 22, 2006 Planning Commission public hearing held. A motion for a positive recommendation was passed. March 7, 2006 Ordinance request sent to City Attorney. March 8, 2006 Planning Commission ratified minutes of February 22, 2006 meeting. March 21, 2006 Received ordinance from the City attorney. 2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Annexing the Property Included within the Parley's Pointe Annexation Petition, Amending the Applicable Master Plans, and Rezoning the Area upon its Annexation into the City) AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF SALT LAKE CITY TO INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 405.59 ACRES OF UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY INCLUDED WITHIN THE PARLEY'S POINTE ANNEXATION PETITION, LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF 2982 EAST BENCHMARK DRIVE (EAST OF APPROXIMATELY 3000 EAST AND FROM APPROXIMATELY 2100 SOUTH TO 2600 SOUTH), PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-05-41, AMENDING THE EAST BENCH COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN, THE ARCADIA HEIGHTS, BENCHMARK AND H-ROCK SMALL AREA MASTER PLAN, AND AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING MAP TO ZONE AND DESIGNATE THIS AREA AS FOOTHILL RESIDENTIAL(FR-2), OPEN SPACE (OS) AND NATURAL OPEN SPACE (NOS) UPON ITS ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has received Petition No. 400-05-41 (the "Petition"), Parley's Pointe Annexation, filed by the Romney Lumber Company and Robert and Honora Carson requesting the annexation of approximately 405.59 acres of unincorporated territory in Salt Lake County,which would extend the existing corporate limits of Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, the Petition is signed by the owners of a majority of the real property and the owners of more than one-third in value of all real property within the territory to be annexed as shown by the last assessment roles of Salt Lake County; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner has submitted to the City a plat for the territory proposed for the annexation; and WHEREAS, the territory described in the Petition lies contiguous to the corporate limits of Salt Lake City and within an area projected for Salt Lake's municipal expansion, and otherwise satisfies the standards and the criteria applicable to annexations; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City and the Petitioner have executed a Settlement and Annexation Agreement, dated October 24, 2005, which addresses the annexation and future development of this property; and WHEREAS, no objection or protest to such annexation has been filed with the Salt Lake County Boundary Commission; and WHEREAS, after properly advertised and noticed public hearings before the Salt Lake City Planning Commission and the Salt Lake City Council, the City Council has determined that this annexation is in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Annexation. The Salt Lake City limits are hereby enlarged and extended so as to include the properties identified within the Parley's Pointe Annexation Petition, containing approximately 405.59 acres of unincorporated territory in Salt Lake County, State of Utah. Said properties are more particularly described as set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto. SECTION 2. Amendment of Applicable Master Plans. The East Bench Community Master Plan and the Arcadia Heights, Benchmark and H-Rock Small Area Master Plan, which were previously adopted by the City Council, shall be and hereby are amended to allow limited, very low density, single family residential development in the area consisting of not more than 15 new lots all but one of which shall be located on a private street extending off the current 2 terminus of Benchmark Drive, and not more than 4 new lots located on a public cul-de-sac extending from the current terminus of Scenic Drive. SECTION 3. Zoning. Portions of the property annexed, as more particularly described on Exhibit B(1), B(2) and B(3) attached hereto, shall be and hereby are designated and zoned as Natural Open Space (NOS). Portions of the property annexed, as more particularly described on Exhibit B(4), B(5), and B(6) attached hereto, shall be and hereby are designated and zoned Foothill Residential (FR-2). Portions of the property annexed, more particularly described on Exhibit C attached hereto, shall be and hereby are designated and zoned Open Space(OS). The Salt Lake City Zoning Map, as previously adopted by the Salt Lake City Council, shall be and hereby is amended consistent with this Ordinance. SECTION 4. General Jurisdiction. All ordinances,jurisdictions, rules and obligations of, or pertaining to, Salt Lake City are hereby extended over, and made applicable and pertinent to the above annexed property; and the property shall hereafter be controlled and governed by the ordinances, rules, and regulations of Salt Lake City. SECTION 5. Filings and Notices. Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, the City Recorder of Salt Lake City is hereby directed to file with the Salt Lake County Recorder, after approval by the City Engineer, a copy of the annexation plat duly certified and acknowledged together with a copy of this ordinance. The City Recorder is further directed to provide notice to the State Tax Commission under the provisions of Utah Code Annotated section 11-12-1, as amended. SECTION 6. Compliance with Settlement and Annexation Agreement. The effectiveness of this Ordinance shall be and hereby is expressly conditioned upon fulfillment of 3 all of the applicable procedures, terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement and Annexation Agreement, dated October 24, 2005, a copy of which is on file with the Salt Lake City Recorder, including, but not limited to, the following items: (a) Approval by Salt Lake County of the Phase I Subdivision, consisting of not more than 15 lots located off Benchmark Drive; and (b) Construction of the public and private portions of the Phase I roadway and corresponding utility lines, or obtaining and filing a bond with Salt Lake City, in an amount and form reasonably acceptable to the City, for the roadway and corresponding utility lines. Upon satisfaction of all of the applicable procedures, terms, and conditions set forth in the Settlement and Annexation Agreement, this Ordinance shall become effective without the need for any further approval from the Salt Lake City Council. SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall not become effective until the terms and conditions set forth herein, as well as those terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement and Annexation Agreement, have been satisfied, as certified by the Director of the Salt Lake City Community Development Department and the Director of the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department. The City Recorder is instructed not to record or publish this Ordinance until the above-mentioned certifications have been received. SECTION 8. TIME. If the conditions set forth above have not been satisfied within two years following the date of this Ordinance, this Ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may, by resolution, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions set forth herein. 4 Passed and adopted by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date 3- z!- mG 8Y i :I'`••••• - (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: I:\Ordinance 06\Amending Parley's Pointe Annexation Petition.doc 5 Exhibit"A" Annexation Boundary Annexation Boundary Description: Beginning at a point S89°41'10"E 130.00 along the North Section Line from the North Quarter Corner of Section 23, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; and running thence S89°41'10"E 597.28 feet along said North Section Line; thence S89°41'00"E 1918.94 feet to the Northwest Corner of Section 24, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; thence S00°03'00"W 1316.37 feet along the West Line to the Northwest Corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 24; thence East 1326.43 feet to the Northeast Corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 24; thence S00°02'12"W 392.81 feet along the East Line of the West Half of said Section 24 to the Northwesterly Line of the Gwennie Lode Mining No. 5048 Claim;thence S50°14'00"W 318.10 feet along said claim; thence S39°46'00"E 382.30 feet along said claim to said East Line; thence S00°02'12"W 2736.20 feet to the Northerly Right-of-Way Line of Interstate 80; thence the following eleven courses along said Northerly Right-of-Way Line: S85°53'00"W 446.28 feet; thence S86°31'00"W 108.50 feet; thence S85°44'00"W 109.02 feet; thence S76°18'00"W 176.62 feet; thence S72°59'00"W 146.72 feet; thence 67°44'00"W 403.96 feet; thence Westerly 687. 13 feet along the arc a 824.93 feet radius curve to the right, cord bears N88°24'15"W 687.13 feet; thence N64°32'30"W 1300.21 feet; thence N63°45'00"W 291.05 feet; thence N58°38'00"W 200.00 feet; thence N53°49'00"W 432.00 feet to the East Line of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 3483.18 feet along said East Line to Northeast Corner of Lot 609 of Arcadia Heights Plat F Subdivision, recorded as Entry No. 1840440 in Book Y at Page 39 in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder; thence the following three courses along the Easterly Boundary Line of said Arcadia Heights Plat F: N34°00'00"E 286.49 feet; thence N07°30'00'E 110.17 feet; thence N07°20'40"W 348.76 feet to the point of beginning, Contains 405.598 Acres. Excepting therefrom: Any part of the above described property lying within the Right-of-Way Limits of the Interstate 80. S 312d°C Exhibit"B" Romney/Carson Property Parcels 16-23-226-004-4001 and 16-23-226-004-4002 owned by Romney/Carson: The Romney/Carson property will be divided into separate parcels when the final plat of the proposed subdivision is recorded by the County. The legal descriptions for each of the recommended zones for the Romney/Carson property are identified below: 1) Perpetual Open Space, Parcel "A" as identified in the Settlement Agreement: Zoning: NOS Parcel Description: Beginning at a point which is S89°41'00"E 727.28 feet along the North Section Line from the North Quarter Corner of Section 23, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian and running thence S89°41'00"E 1918.93 feet along said North Line to the Northwester Corner of Section 24, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; thence S00°03'00"W 1316.24 feet along the West Line to the Northwest Corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 24; thence East 1326.43 feet to the Northeast Corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 24; thence SOO°02'12"W 392.81 feet along the East Line of the West Half of said Section 24 to the Northwesterly Line of the Gwennie Lode Mining No. 5048 Claim; thence S50°14'00"W 318.10 feet along said claim; thence S39°46'00"E 382.30 feet along said claim to said East Line; thence S00°02'12"W 2736.20 feet along said East Line to the Northerly Right-of-Way Line of Interstate Highway 80; thence the following six courses along said Northerly Right-of-Way Line: S85°53'00"W 446.28 feet; thence S86°31'00"W 108.50 feet; thence S85°44'00"W 109.02 feet; thence S76°18'00"W 176.62 feet; thence S72°59'00"W 146.72 feet; thence S67°44'00"W 381.82 feet to the East Line of said Section 23; thence N00°03'00"E 2593.48 feet along said East Line to the East Quarter Corner of said Section 23; thence West 1322.12 feet to the West Line of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 23; thence SOO°01'30"W 995.43 feet; thence N45°28'41"W 258.83 feet; thence N57°08'44"W 256.20 feet; thence N89°17'51"W 363.54 feet; thence N48°37'21"W 102.28 feet; thence N24°52'02"W 191.04 feet; thence North 231.04 feet; thence N09°04'08"W 256.87 feet; thence N11°59'24"E 398.95 feet; thence N52°25'01"W 153.19 feet; thence N53°41'29"W 113.67 feet; thence N36°18'31"E 85.64 feet; thence N52°58'57"W 352.64 feet to the Easterly Boundary Line of Benchmark Subdivision, recorded as Entry No. 3379920 in Book 79- 12 at Page 365 in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder; thence North 969.96 feet along said Easterly Boundary Line and the Easterly Boundary Line of Arcadia Heights Plat F Subdivision, recorded as Entry No. 1840440 in Book Y at Page 39 in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder to the Northeast Corner of Lot 610 of said Arcadia Heights Plat F Subdivision; thence East 193.35 feet; thence N12°30'00"W 220.80 feet; thence N07°30'00"E 222.34 feet; thence S89°41'10"E 421.15 feet; thence NOO°18'50"E 101.59 feet; thence S89°41'10"E 70.16 feet; thence NOO°18'50"E 85.23 feet; thence N89°41'l0"W 11.46 feet; thence NOO°18'50"E 85.23 feet; thence S89°41'10"E 70.97 feet; thence NOO°18'50"E 73.46 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 273.63 Acres 2) Perpetual Open Space, Parcel "B" as identified in the Settlement Agreement: Zoning: NOS Boundary Description: Beginning at a point which is South 3797.25 feet along Section Line and East 642.46 feet from the North Quarter Corner of Section 23, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; and running thence N54°37'14"E 343.39 feet; thence Southeasterly 46.26 feet along the arc a 368.00 foot radius curve to the right, chord bears S49°16'30"E 46.23 feet; thence S46°13'51"W 106.10 feet; thence S08°36'36"E 164.32 feet; thence N57°49'39"E 118.56 feet; thence South 288.71 feet; thence S89°58'30"E 315.81 feet to the West Line of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 23; thence S00°01'30"W 18.91 feet; thence N89°58'30"W 382.62 feet; thence N43°34'31"W 430.20 feet; to the point of beginning. Contains 93959 square feet or 2.157 acres. 3) Perpetual Open Space, Parcel "C" as identified in the Settlement Agreement: Zoning: NOS Boundary Description: Beginning at a point which is South 3757.84 feet along Section Line and East 591.69 feet from the North Quarter Corner of Section 23, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; and running thence S52°10'55"E 64.27 feet; thence S43°34'31"E 430.20 feet; thence S89°58'30"E 382.62 feet to the West Line of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 23; thence S00°01130"W 812.66 feet to the Northerly Right-of-Way Line of Interstate 80; thence the following four courses along said Northerly Right-of-Way Line: (1) N64°32'30"W 598.93 feet; (2) thence N63°45'00"W 291.05 feet; (3) thence N58°38'00"W 200.00 feet; (4) thence N53°49'00"W 268.20 feet; thence N41°43'24"E 690.39 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 16.55 Acres 4) Proposed Subdivision,Phase I, lots 1-13 as identified in the Settlement Agreement: Zoning: FR-2 Boundary Description: Beginning at a point which is South 1752.48 feet along Section Line from the North Quarter Corner of Section 23, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; and running thence S52°58'57"E 352.64 feet; thence S36°18'31"W 85.64 feet; thence S53°41'29"E 113.67 feet; thence S52°25'01"E 153.19 feet; thence S11°59'24"W 398.95 feet; thence S09°04'08"E 256.87 feet; thence South 231.04 feet; thence S24°52'02"E 191.04 feet; thence S48°37'21"E 102.28 feet; thence S89°17'51"E 363.54 feet; thence S57°08'44"E 256.20 feet; thence S49°50'12"W 252.23 feet; thence Northwesterly 28.58 feet along the arc a 368.00 foot radius curve to the left, chord bears N50°39'06"W 28.57 feet; thence S54°37'14"W 343.39 feet; thence N52°10'55"W 64.27 feet; thence N52°10'55"W 130.67 feet; thence N53°00'55"W 611.50 feet to the Easterly Boundary Line of Benchmark Subdivision, recorded as Entry No. 3379920 in Book 79- 12 at Page 365 in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder; thence North 1557.37 feet along said Easterly Boundary Line to the point of beginning. Contains 19.68 Acres 5) Proposed Subdivision, Phase I, lots 14a, 14b and 15 as identified in the Settlement Agreement: Zoning: FR-2 Boundary Description: Beginning at a point which is South 3453.86 feet along Section Line and East 1137.28 feet from the North Quarter Corner of Section 23, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; and running thence S45°28'41"E 258.83 feet to the West Line of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 23; thence S00°01'30"W 454.83 feet; thence N89°58'30"W 315.81 feet; thence North 288.71 feet; thence S57°49'39"W 118.56 feet; thence N08°36'36"W 164.32 feet; thence N46°13'51"E 106.10 feet; thence Northwesterly 17.69 feet along the arc a 368.00 foot radius curve to the left, chord bears N47°03'02"W 17.68 feet; thence N49°50'12"E 252.23 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 4.61 Acres 6) Proposed Subdivision,Phase II, lots 1-4, as identified in the Settlement Agreement: Zoning: FR-2 Boundary Description: Beginning at a point which is South 3309.84 feet along Section Line from the North Quarter Corner of Section 23, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; and running thence S53°00'55"E 611.50 feet; thence S52°10'55"E 130.67 feet; thence S41°43'24"W 690.39 feet; thence N53°49'00"W 163.80 feet to the Section Line and the extension of the Easterly Boundary Line of Benchmark Subdivision, recorded as Entry No. 3379920 in Book 79-12 at Page 365 in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder; thence North 866.58 feet along Section Line to the point of beginning. Contains 7.19 Acres sc Exhibit "C" Seven Other Properties The following parcels will be incorporated into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City: 1) 16-23-201-013, owned by Alan & Orlene Cohen 2) 16-23-201-014, owned by Alan & Orlene Cohen 3) 16-23-201-016, owned by Andrea& Louis Barrows 4) 16-23-201-017, owned by Benjamin Buehner 5) 16-23-201-018 (partial), owned by Lynn Mabey 6) 16-23-201-019, owned by Axxon Investment Company 7) 16-23-400-001, owned by Jack Jensen and Intermountain Holding Company All 7 parcels: Zoning: OS Legal Descriptions for each parcel: 16-23-201-013, owned by Alan & Orlene Cohen: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST COR OF LOT 603, ARCADIA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, PLAT F, SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; S 89°41'10" EAST 516.82 FEET; SOUTH 00°8'50" WEST 85.23 FEET NORTH 89°41'10" WEST 505.36 FEET; NORTH 07°20'40" WEST 86 FEET TO BEGINNING. 1 ACRE. 16-23-201-014, owned by Alan & Orlene Cohen BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 604, ARCADIA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, PLAT F, SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; SOUTH 89°41'10" EAST 435.20 FEET; S 00°EST8'50" W 101.69 FEET; NORTH 89°41'10" WEST 421.53 FEET; NORTH 07°20'40" WEST 102.61 FEET TO BEGINNING. 1 ACRE. 16-23-201-016, owned by Andrea& Louis Barrows BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 602, ARCADIA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PLAT F, SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; SOUTH 89°41'10" EAST 516.82 FEET; SOUTH 00°18'50" WEST 85.23 FEET;NORTH 89°41'10" WEST 505.36 FEET; NORTH 07°20'40" WEST 86 FEET TO BEGINNING. 1 ACRE. 16-23-201-017, owned by Benjamin Buehner BEGINNING AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 601, ARCADIA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PLAT F SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; SOUTH 89°41'10" EAST 597.67 FEET; SOUTH 00°18'50" WEST 73.49 FEET;NORTH 89°41'10" WEST 587.79 FEET; NORTH 07°20'40" WEST 74.148 FEET TO BEGINNING. 1 ACRE. 16-23-201-018 (partial), owned by Lynn Mabey LOT 607, ARCADIA HEIGHTS PLAT F. ALSO BEGINNING AT MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 607; SOUTH 62° EAST 15.08 FEET; SOUTH 34° WEST 98.76 FEET; NORTH 54°45' WEST 15 FEET; NORTH 34° EAST 96.86 FEET TO BEGINNING. 16-23-201-019, owned by Axxon Investment Company BEGINNING SOUTH 89°41'10" EAST 130 FEET& SOUTH 7°20'40" EAST 348.755 FEET & SOUTH 7°30'WEST 110.172 FEET FROM NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH RANGE 1 EAST SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN; SOUTH 7°30' WEST 112.166 FEET; SOUTH 12°30' EAST 220.793 FEET; WEST 193.348 FEET TO WEST LINE OF EAST 1/2 OF SD SECTION 23; NORTH 89.26 FEET;NORTH 34° EAST 79.794 FEET; SOUTH 54°45' EAST 15 FEET; NORTH 34° EAST 98.76 FEET;NORTH 62° WEST 15.08 FEET; NORTH 34° EAST 109.831 FEET TO BEGINNING. 0.71 ACRES 16-23-400-001, owned by Jack Jensen and Intermountain Holding Company EAST 1/2 OF SOUTHEAST 1/4 SECTION 23 TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH RANGE 1 EAST SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN MER LESS STATE ROAD COMMISSION TRACT. 73 ACRES. 6c DATE: February 16, 2006 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Sarah Carroll Associate Planner RE: Staff Report for the February 22, 2006 Meeting: Petition No. 400-05- 41, Parley's Pointe Annexation by Romney/Carson, a request to annex approximately 405.59 acres of land into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City. The annexation area is located in the vicinity of 2982 East Benchmark Drive (east of approximately 3000 East and from approximately 2100 to 2600 South). If the annexation is approved the master plan and zoning map will need to be amended to include this area and reflect the proposed lots. CASE NUMBER: 400-05-41: Parley's Pointe Annexation by Romney/Carson. A request for annexation and , a review of the related ; > ' zoning map and master plan amendments APPLICANTS: Romney Lumber Company and Dr. Robert and Honora Carson STATUS OF APPLICANT: Ati Property Owners of a << majority of the property 1` PROJECT LOCATION: » The annexation area is located in the vicinity of "~-� • 2982 East Benchmark eo - Drive(east of i approximately 3000 East ,�s and from approximately 2100 to 2600 South). t A Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-41 February 22,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 1 PROJECT/PROPERTY SIZE: Approximately 405.59 acres COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7 - Council Member Soren Simonsen SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS: North — Open Space (OS) South— I-80 and County Zoning (FR-5) East—United States Forest Service and County Zoning (FR-20) West— Foothills Residential (FR-3) SURROUNDING LAND USES: North— Open Space South —Unincorporated County—vacant foothills and Freeway East—United States Forest Service—vacant foothills open space West— Single-Family Residential REQUESTED ACTION: This is a request to annex approximately 405.59 acres of land into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City. If the land is annexed the master plan and zoning map will need to be amended to include this area and reflect the appropriate land use, the number of proposed subdivision lots and the proposed zoning. The approval body for annexations is the City Council. However, State Law requires that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council on master plan land use designations and zoning of property which is proposed for annexation. APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: The Annexation is subject to Utah State Code Title 10, Chapter 2. The Master Plan amendment is subject to Utah State Code 10-9a-204, which identifies procedures for adopting and amending general plans. The Zoning Map amendment is subject to Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 21A.50.50, Standards for general amendments. MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: The current East Bench Zoning map and East Bench Master Plan do not include this area and will need to be amended to incorporate the annexation area. The Arcadia Heights, Benchmark and H Rock Small Area Plan identifies the potential zoning for the area proposed for annexation as open space without allowance for development at the end of Benchmark Drive and with allowance for a four lot subdivision and FR-2 zoning at the end of Scenic Drive. The Small Area Plan will need to be amended to incorporate the proposed number of subdivision lots and zoning off of the end of Benchmark Drive. PROPOSED USE(S)AND PROPOSED ZONING: Approximately 31.48 acres of the Romney/Carson property will be used for the development of 17 single-family home sites, with lot sizes ranging from approximately Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-41 February 22,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 2 0.43 to 1.51 acres in size. Planning staff recommends that the area proposed for subdivisions be zoned Foothill Residential (FR-2) zoning which is compatible with the abutting FR-3 zoned Benchmark Subdivision. The remainder of the Romney/Carson property is to be conveyed to an acceptable open space preservation entity for perpetual open space protection and planning staff is recommending Natural Open Space (NOS) zoning for this area. There are other privately owned properties that are included in this request for annexation and planning staff is recommending Open Space (OS) zoning for those properties. (Exhibit 3) ACCESS: The property will be accessed from the currently stub-ended Scenic Drive and Benchmark Drive. These are existing dedicated public streets located within Salt Lake City's Corporate boundary. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Development: The property proposed for annexation is in the vicinity of 2982 East Benchmark Drive (east of approximately 3000 East and from approximately 2100 to 2600 South). A public cul-de-sac will be constructed at the east end of Benchmark Drive to provide street frontage for one new lot in the proposed subdivision and to provide access tO the gated,private road proposed for Parley's Pointe Subdivision Phase I, lots 2 through 15. Phase I will be approved and recorded by the County and consists of 16 lots, of which three will be conveyed for natural open space within one year. Another public cul-de-sac will be constructed at the east end of Scenic Drive for the purposes of creating a four lot subdivision, Parley's Pointe Subdivision Phase II. Phase II will be approved by either the City or the County at a future date. Open Space: According to the settlement agreement, "Romney/Carson confirms that they will donate or sell at a discount from fair market value for use as perpetual open space lots 14a, 14b, and 15 of the Parley's Pointe Subdivision Phase I together with approximately 260 acres of land located adjacent to and running from the proposed Phase I and Phase II Subdivisions to the border of adjacent United States Forest Service property, including all of the remainder of the Subject Property beyond what is designated as building lots, common areas, roadway and related roadway improvements in the Phase I and Phase II subdivision plats. The donation or conveyance of these open space properties shall occur within twelve(12) months after final approval of each subdivision plat, unless the time for doing so is mutually extended by the parties." Trails: The public will have access to the trails shown on Exhibit 4 since the City will obtain public easements across these trails. The trails may be accessed from either of the proposed public cul-de-sacs. HISTORY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: Romney/Carson and Salt Lake City Corporation have entered into a Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 1) which outlines specific terms under which the Romney/Carson property should be annexed into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-41 February 22,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 3 The settlement agreement specifies that the Romney/Carson property should be annexed into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City within 120 days following the filing of a renewed annexation petition. The completed application was received by the Salt Lake City Planning office on January 9, 2006. In order to avoid the creation of unincorporated islands or peninsula's of land, which are prohibited by state law, this petition also includes seven (7) other parcels of land that are owned by property owners other than Romney/Carson. (See Annexation Plat, Exhibit 2). An outline of the Settlement Agreement is below: 1) Petition for Annexation: Romney/Carson shall file a renewed petition for annexation. 2) Annexation Ordinance: The City shall annex the Romney/Carson property, subject to the terms of the Agreement, within 120 days of receipt of a renewed annexation petition. 3) Costs: Romney/Carson have previously paid substantial planning and processing fees. Therefore, the City shall annex the property without additional charges. 4) Subdivision Approvals: Final plat approval of the Phase I subdivision (Extension off Benchmark Drive) shall be obtained from the County. The City sewer and storm water services shall not be available until the subdivision is annexed into the City. If the County refuses to grant approval of Phase I the litigation will continue. 5) Phase II Subdivision Approval and Annexation: Final plat approval of the Phase II subdivision (extension off Scenic Drive) approval may be obtained from the County or the City. 6) Roadways and Trails: A public cul-de-sac will be constructed at the end of Benchmark Drive and at the end of Scenic Drive. Lots 2-15 of Phase I will be accessed by a private road. A twenty foot public trail easement will be recorded with the final plat to allow pedestrian traffic access to the trails delineated in the settlement agreement. 7) Waterline Easement—Relocation: A waterline was constructed by the City in 1979. A portion of the waterline will be relocated to lie within the waterline easement. 8) Utilities: The City commits to provide water, sewer and storm drain services upon the completion of all applicable conditions of the Agreement. 9) Romney/Carson Open Space Donation: As a condition of annexation, Romney/Carson will sell or donate lots 14a, 14b, and 15 as well as Perpetual Open Space parcels A, B and C for preservation as undeveloped open space. 10) Protection against Further Foothills Development: As a condition of annexation, Romney/Carson agrees to donate a one-foot strip of property around the perimeter of the property to Salt Lake City. 11) Common Area Open Space Parcels: There are common area open space parcels throughout the Phase I and Phase II subdivisions that will be part of the Home Owners Association. When the final plat is recorded Romney/Carson will grant a Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-41 February 22,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 4 conservation easement to the City which requires the common areas to be maintained as perpetual open space. 12) Dismissal of the Litigation: Within 30 days following the recording of the subdivision plats and the City Council vote to annex, Romney/Carson shall file a stipulation for Dismissal of the Litigation. If the County does not grant final approval of the Phase I subdivision within 4 months of the execution of the Settlement Agreement, the Litigation shall continue and the Romney/Carson property will not be annexed. 13) Joint Cooperation: The City shall support the subdivision applications before the County and shall cooperate with the County in securing the required approvals. 14) Notice Recorded: The parties have executed a Notice of Settlement and Annexation Agreement which has been recorded against the Subject Property. 15) Agreement Not to be Used as Evidence: If this Agreement is not completed, it shall not be used for evidence for any other purposes in the Litigation. 16) Remedies: If the City fails to adopt an ordinance approving the annexation or the County fails to approve the Phase I subdivision and roadway, the Litigation shall continue. COMMENTS,ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS COMMENTS Comments from pertinent City departments/divisions and the Community Council have been attached and are summarized below(Exhibits 5). • Permits Office (Building Services and Licensing): Building Services has no concerns at this time. • Property Management: Property management has no comment on the annexation, the rezoning and the master plan amendment. However, in reviewing the settlement agreement they are requesting that property management be involved in the conveyance of open space when that occurs. • Police Department: The Police Department does not have any concerns. • Public Services: Public Services has no comments. • Airport Planning: The annexation area is not located in an established airport influence zone and will not require avigation easements. However, future residents can expect regular flights in this vicinity from general aviation aircraft. Smaller aircraft use the Parley's Canyon east-west flight corridor en route to and from the Salt Lake area. • Transportation: The proposed subdivisions will not create undue impact on the existing transportation corridor system. The development of the public road extensions of Benchmark and Scenic Drive must comply with current city roadway design standards. The private roadway geometries are not required to comply with current city design standards but must meet requirements for emergency fire access standards for grades, curves, turning radii, etc. The public trail alignment and development will need to be reviewed for compliance with national public safety standards. (See Exhibit 5 for full comments) Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-41 February 22,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 5 • Public Utilities: Public Utilities' concurs with the annexation proposal. • Engineering: If the City is involved in the approval of the Phase II subdivision the developer must enter into a subdivision improvement construction agreement which requires the payment of a 5% fee based on the estimated cost of roadway improvements. See the attached exhibit for additional comments pertaining to Phase II if it is annexed before it is platted. • Fire Department: The private roadway drawings that were reviewed by the Fire Department do not meet the International Fire Code. This road will need to comply with the International Fire Code, 2003 Edition, as adopted by the State of Utah. If the roadway is only 20 feet, there must be an emergency vehicle turnout every 500 feet. Grades may not exceed 10%. The end of the roadway needs to extend to the last fire hydrant. The residential structures should be fire sprinkled as needed and the roofing material should be restricted to Class A or B fire- resistant material. The attached comments from the Fire Department refer to specific chapters of the International Fire Code. • Community Council: An open house was held on December 15, 2005. The Planning Division presented the annexation and discussed the potential zoning recommendations. On January 12, 2006 the petition for annexation, the proposed zoning designations and the terms of the settlement agreement were presented by planning staff at the Arcadia Heights/Benchmark and H Rock combined community council meeting. The open house and community council meeting allowed the public an opportunity to view the petition, to view the future subdivisions and to ask questions about the annexation. The Community Council did not have a statement. • Public Comment: Andrea and Louis Barrows own property that is included in the annexation area and have requested that their property be zoned FR-3, rather than OS, in order to combine parcels and create a rear addition to their home (Exhibit 8). Staff believes that the slopes on the one acre parcel that is owned by the Barrows mostly exceed 30% which would prohibit development. Staff recommends that the Barrows apply for a subdivision amendment and FR-3 zoning at a future date and that they submit slope analysis data at that time. GENERAL ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Planning Commission must make a determination on whether or not they will transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to zone the subject properties as requested (thereby creating a zoning map and master plan amendment) based on the Analysis and Findings as related to the standards for general amendments. The Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 21A.50.050, Standards for general amendments, states: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the City Council should consider the following factors: y tk 1 otr 0,4044>r x, sty li l thezp �ts4 a Q l , objectives;and o1iciei thi acl(.: cnei a1 j Ia stta Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-41 February 22,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 6 Discussion: There are several sources to consider in reviewing the purposes, goals objectives, and policies for this area: • The City's Declaration of Intent to Annex (1979) • The East Bench Community Master Plan (1987) • The Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan (1992) • The East Bench Community Zoning Map (1995) • The Arcadia Heights, Benchmark and H Rock Small Area Plan (1998) • The Salt Lake City Council Growth Policy (1999) City's Declaration of Intent to Annex: In 2000, the Salt Lake City Council adopted Resolution No.34, which reaffirms the City's 1979 declaration of intent to annex portions of unincorporated Salt Lake County. On January 6, 2004, the Salt Lake City Council adopted Resolution No. 1, which documented the City's intent to consider annexation of this portion of unincorporated Salt Lake County. On January 17, 2006 the City Council accepted a resolution to receive the proposed annexation for purposes of City Council review which requires that the Planning Commission review the annexation and make a recommendation on the proposed master plan amendments and zoning amendments relating to the area proposed for annexation. The Council Transmittal cover letter is attached, see Exhibit 7. East Bench Community Master Plan: The East Bench Master Plan addresses annexation, residential density, and foothill development as follows: Planning Goal: Preserve the present unique scenic beauty, environmental habitat, recreational use, and accessibility of the Wasatch foothills, and ensure City control over foothill development in the East Bench Community. Annexation Policy: Most undeveloped foothill property east of the city is under the jurisdiction of Salt Lake County. Development under county jurisdiction is possible but not likely. Salt Lake City is the only government jurisdiction with the ability to provide urban services, and annexation is a vital first step in the development process. The City should refuse to provide water or sewer services to accommodate development of property outside of City boundaries. Areas for potential development: The area east of the Benchmark Subdivision, subject to slope and geological analysis. Recommended densities for Foothill Development: The three areas that have development potential should be limited to a maximum density of 4 units per gross acre or less as physical conditions indicate. Single-family homes or Planned-unit developments are recommended. Recommendations for Areas Considered Undevelopable: Areas that are undevelopable, from a geological standpoint, should be preserved as natural Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-41 February 22,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 7 foothill open space. The City should work with the State and Federal governments to acquire privately-owned property for public open space and recreation purposes. Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan: The Open Space Master Plan contains recommendations for trails and trail corridors throughout the City. Recommendations that relate most directly to the Romney/Carson Property address the Emigration Canyon to Parley's Canyon segment of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. At the time the Plan was adopted, it was recommended that the trail alignment be determined, that support of adjacent property owners be obtained, and that easements across private property be negotiated if necessary. East Bench Community Zoning Map: This request involves amending the zoning map in order to add the area proposed for annexation and designate Salt Lake City zoning for the properties to be annexed. The suggested zoning for each respective property and the proposed subdivisions are identified on the attached map (Exhibit 3). A summary of the suggested zoning is outlined below: • That the proposed subdivisions be zoned FR-2, Foothills Residential zoning which is similar to the FR-3 zoning of the abutting Benchmark Subdivision, but reflects larger lot sizes. (FR-3 minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet and FR-2 minimum lot size is 21,780 square feet). • That the remaining Romney/Carson property which is to be conveyed as open space per the terms of the settlement agreement be zoned Natural Open Space (NOS). • And that the remaining privately owned properties that are included in the annexation be zoned Open Space (OS). Arcadia Heights, Benchmark and H Rock Small Area Plan: The City Council adopted this plan on October 6, 1998 as an amendment to the East Bench Master Plan. This plan identifies the recommended zoning for the area proposed for annexation as open space zoning and FR-2 zoning for a four-lot subdivision at the end of Scenic Drive. The Arcadia Heights, Benchmark and H Rock Small Area Plan will need to be amended with this petition to reflect the land use designations and proposed level of residential development and zoning as recommended in this report. Salt Lake City Council Growth Policy: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: a) is aesthetically pleasing; b) contributes to a livable community environment; c) yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served; and d) forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. Finding: The proposed annexation, and additions to the Master Plan and Zoning Map are consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted plans listed above, Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-41 February 22,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 8 eth >l+ en� is n� # p existintde*elopment`tn the°Ini ediate viclnrt °.ot the subjeettpro*erty, Discussion: The adjacent Benchmark Subdivision is zoned FR-3, Foothill Residential, and directly abuts the area proposed for future subdivision development. The land that will be conveyed for open space preservation abuts Forest Service property to the East, Open Space zoning to the North and Interstate 80 to the South. Finding: Foothill Residential (FR-2) zoning is recommended for the proposed Parley's Pointe Subdivision, Phase I and Phase II. This zoning is harmonious with the abutting Benchmark Subdivision which is zoned FR-3. Natural Open Space (NOS) zoning is recommended for the remainder of the Romney/Carson property and Open Space (OS) zoning is recommended for the remaining, privately owned properties. NOS and OS zoning are harmonious with the Open Space Master plan, the undeveloped nature of the Forest Service property to the East and the Open Space zoning to the North. C The-extent td=which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent 'properties.' , Discussion: The area east of the proposed annexation is undeveloped Forest Service land. The area West of the proposed annexation and subdivision is developed with single- family homes and is zoned FR-3, Foothills Residential. The area to the North is open space and to the south is Interstate 80. Finding: The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties. The Transportation Division has stated that the proposed subdivisions will not noticeably impact the public transportation corridors. 1) hetl er the prIpttsed***iO coi iSiStel *.it 4 the r yYsivn o >l 1,.:.'a It al�►le, Yetl0 zonF> l Ir�r:et i> h ma n nse tile. � .. � � d� Discussion: The property is located within the Primary Recharge Area of the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District. Finding: Staff finds that Salt Lake City Public Utilities concurs with the annexation. Salt Lake City will provide water, storm drainage and sewer services for the proposed development, thereby limiting impact to the recharge zone. •�� q�"e t� s �ee �4t� o silt 4 f !tpk401.04,t ttitid; Discussion: Staff requested comments from City Departments/Divisions, including: Transportation, Engineering, the Fire Department, Public Utilities, Police, and Building Services. These departments/divisions did not have any objections to the proposed Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-41 February 22,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 9 annexation, the recommended zoning and the master plan amendment as long as the private roadway will comply with the International Fire Code 2003 Edition, fire sprinkling is installed as need and class A or B fire-resistant roofing is used. Findings: Staff finds that public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property must meet all City regulations. MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT: The East Bench Community Master Plan, adopted in 1987 and the Arcadia Heights, Benchmark and H Rock Small Area Plan, adopted in 1998 will need to be amended with this proposal. The 1992 Open Space Master Plan will not need to be amended since the proposed trails accomplish the intent of this plan. State Law, Section 10-9a-204, Notice of public hearings and public meetings to consider general plan or modifications, outlines the criteria for noticing an amendment: (1) Each municipality shall provide: (a) notice of the date, time, and place of the first public hearing to consider the original adoption or any modification of all or any portion of a general plan; and (b) notice of each public meeting on the subject. (2) Each notice of a public hearing under Subsection (1)(a) shall be at least ten calendar days before the public hearing and shall be: (a) published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area; (b) mailed to each affected entity; and (c) posted: (i) in at least three public locations within the municipality; or (ii) on the municipality's official website. (3) Each notice of a public meeting under Subsection(1)(b) shall be at least 24 hours before the meeting and shall be: (a) submitted to a newspaper of general circulation in the area; and (b) posted: (i) in at least three public locations within the municipality; or (ii) on the municipality's official website. A notice for the Master Plan amendment was published in the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News on February 8, 2005 (Exhibit 6). A notice was also mailed to affected property owners and posted, meeting State Law requirements for Master Plan amendments. SUMMARY: The Settlement Agreement is the result of a long standing dispute between Salt Lake City and Romney/Carson. There are many positive gains for the community that will be realized following the completion of the requested annexation and zoning of this property: Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-41 February 22,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 10 • There will be a final resolution to the dispute, without cost damage to Salt Lake City. • There will be limited development. • The use of septic tanks will be eliminated because the City will provide sewer services. Septic tanks would jeopardize Salt Lake City drinking water and be damaging to down slope lot owners. • Trail access will be maintained through public easements. • Approximately 260 acres of land will be dedicated to perpetual open space and preserved through public ownership. • There will be increased protection against future development provided by the one foot holding strip and open space easements. • Salt Lake City's zoning, which includes special foothill regulations, will apply to all building permits and to all dwellings and will help reduce the off site visibility of additional development. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Findings of Fact identified in this report, staff recommends approval of the annexation as outlined in the attached Settlement Agreement, subject to the private roadway complying with the 2003 edition of the International Fire Code, the future residences being fire sprinkled as needed and Class A or B fire-resistant roofing materials. Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the East Bench Community Master Plan to incorporate this area of land into the plan. It is recommended that Perpetual Open Space parcels A, B and C as identified in the Settlement Agreement and as specifically delineated on Exhibit 3, be categorized as Natural Open Space, that the other privately owned land be preserved as Open Space and that the future land use recommendation for the proposed subdivisions as outlined in the Settlement Agreement be "Very low density, 2-4 units per gross acres,"which is consistent with the abutting neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the Arcadia Heights, Benchmark and H Rock Small Area Plan to include the proposed zoning and level of residential development. The current plan outlines the potential development of four lots under very low residential density land use at the end of Scenic Drive and no development at the end of Benchmark Drive. Staff recommends that the plan be amended to include the proposed Phase I subdivision, as outlined in the Settlement Agreement. Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the East Bench Community Zoning Map to include the area proposed for annexation, the proposed land use, the proposed zoning and the level of residential development which includes 13 single family lots and 3 single-single family lots that will be donated for perpetual open space in the Phase I subdivision along with four single-family lots in the Phase II subdivision. Staff recommends FR-2 zoning for the proposed subdivisions,NOS zoning for the remainder of the Romney/Carson property as outlined in the Settlement Agreement and OS zoning for the other privately owned properties that are included in the Annexation Plat (see exhibit 3 for proposed zoning). Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-41 February 22,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 11 Sarah Carroll, Associate Planner 535-6260 or sarah.carroll@slcgov.com Exhibits: 1. Settlement Agreement 2. Annexation Plat 3. Recommended Zoning 4. Trails, Public Easement 5. Department/Division Comments 6. Newspaper Notice 7. City Council Resolution Cover Letter Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-41 February 22,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 12 1 . Settlement Agreement 5 - 7 / w`A11 , ^)-41 qj Yj eem.° e l yr ROSS C.ANoDERSON MAY NN H.PACE LAW DEPARTMENT EDWIN P.RUTAN,II DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY October 20, 2005 Mayor Ross C. Anderson Salt Lake City Corp. 451 South State St., Room 306 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Re: Romney Lumber Company Settlement Agreement Dear Mayor: As you aware, the City has been conducting.,on-going settlement discussions with the plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Romney Lumber Company,Inc.,Robert W. Carson and Honora M. Carson v. Salt Lake City Corp., which involved disputes concerning the City's decisions and actions with respect to approximately 350 acres of real property located in the foothills east of Salt LakeCity at the mouth of Parley's Canyon. I am pleased to report that the parties have now finalized a settlement agreement which resolves all matters in dispute in this case. You have previously reviewed this Settlement Agreement, as has the`City Council. This Settlement Agreement,which will be maintained in` the City Recorder's files, will also be accompanied by a Notice of Settlement and Annexation Agreement,which will be recorded against the property in the office of the Salt Lake City Recorder. Attached please find two copies of the"Settlement and Annexation Agreement" and two copies of the"Notice of Settlement and Annexation Agreement" for your signature Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely yours, ,......,1/4/ H. Pace LHP:ss Encl. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 505,SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7788 FAX 801-535-7640 7 Cb RECYCLED PAPER '1-7< —73/ RECORDED OCT 21 2005 TTLEMENT AND ANNEXATION AGREEMENT CITY RE CORDEH THIS SETTLEMENT AND ANNEXATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is between Salt Lake City Corporation ("City"), a Utah municipality, whose principal business address is 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, the Romney Lumber Company, a Utah corporation with its principal place of business at 555 East 200 South, #250, Salt Lake City,Utah 84102, and Mr. Robert W. Carson and Mrs. Honora M. Carson, husband and wife, of 558 Eleanor Drive, Woodside, California 94062. The Romney Lumber Company and Mr. and Mrs. Carson are hereinafter jointly referred to as "Romney/Carson". RECITALS WHEREAS,Romney/Carson are the owners of approximately 324 acres of undeveloped real property located in the foothills adjacent to Salt Lake City ("the Subject Property"); WHEREAS, Romney/Carson, as Plaintiffs, filed an amended petition for judicial review and complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, concerning the Subject Property, styled "ROMNEY LUMBER CO., Inc., a Utah corporation, ROBERT W. CARSON, an individual; and HONORA M. CARSON, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION and William T. Wright", Defendants, Case No. 2:00 CV 695 PGC, alleging 14 claims for relief(the "Litigation"); WHEREAS, the Defendants Salt Lake City Corporation and William T. Wright subsequently filed an answer to the amended petition for judicial review and complaint denying liability and alleging six affirmative defenses; 1 WHEREAS, subsequently on or about October 31, 2002, the Court entered its Memorandum Decision and Order dismissing Mr. Wright from the lawsuit with prejudice and granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on their fourth claim for relief; WHEREAS, on April 20, 2004, the City and Romney/Carson participated in mediation presided over by Federal Magistrate Judge David Nuffer; and WHEREAS, the parties reached an agreement which they mutually agreed to memorialize in a written settlement agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, and the mutual covenants and undertakings of the parties hereto, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Petition for Annexation. Within 30 days following the execution of this Agreement, Romney/Carson shall file a renewed petition for annexation requesting the annexation of the Subject Property into the corporate limits of the City, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. The annexation petition shall comply with all the State and City Requirements for such petition except that no filing or processing fees shall be charged to Romney/Carson. 2. Annexation Ordinance. Within 120 days following the filing of the renewed annexation petition, the City shall adopt an ordinance approving the annexation of the Subject Property into the corporate limits of the City, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. The City ordinance annexing the Subject Property shall state that the annexation of the Subject Property shall become effective in accordance with the procedures, terms, and conditions in the Agreement without the need for any further approval from the City Council. 2 3. Costs. The parties acknowledge that Romney/Carson has paid $10,000.00 in planning and processing fees. Consequently, the City shall annex the Subject Property without additional charges to Romney/Carson. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may charge its customary impact and utility connection fees to those who build on subdivision lots within the Subject Property. 4. Subdivision Approvals. As a condition of annexation, Romney/Carson shall file an application for and shall obtain final plat approval from Salt Lake County for a 15 lot subdivision generally described as the Parley's Pointe Subdivision Phase I ("Phase I") substantially in the foliii shown on Exhibit 1 attached hereto. The Phase I Plat shall contain a "Notice to Lot Purchasers" explaining that lot purchasers will be responsible for paying any lawfully required impact fees and utility connection fees. The notice shall also explain that City sewer and stoiin water services will not be available until the subdivision is annexed into the City. Romney/Carson shall also file an application for and shall obtain final plat approval from Salt Lake County for a 4-lot subdivision generally described as Parley's Pointe Subdivision Phase II ("Phase II") substantially in the form shown on Exhibit 2 attached hereto. If the County refuses to grant approval for the Phase I subdivision and the private roadway substantially in the form proposed on Exhibit 1, the Litigation shall continue. 5. Alternative Phase II Subdivision Approval and Annexation. In the event that the County denies approval of the Phase II subdivision as proposed, Romney/Carson may apply to the City for approval and annexation of the Phase II subdivision. In such event, the City shall approve and annex the Phase II subdivision substantially in the foini as shown on Exhibit 2 without additional charges or changes not approved by Romney/Carson. 3 6. Roadways and Trails. The road accessing Phase I lots 2-15 of the Parley's Pointe Subdivision shall be a private road with a gated access. However, pedestrian and bicycle access and access to trail heads shall be provided for as shown on Exhibits 1, 2 and 5. A public 80-foot- diameter cul-de-sac will be constructed at the end of Benchmark Drive. A gated private road stemming from the cul-de-sac will provide access to Parley's Pointe Subdivision Phase I lots 2- 15. Bicycle access shall be limited to trails located on and below the public and private portions of Benchmark Drive as shown on Exhibits 1 and 2. The access shall also be shown on the applicable recorded subdivision plat(s). Romney/Carson shall not be required to grant any other access through the Phase I or Phase II subdivisions to the open space parcels, described in Paragraph 9. 7. Waterline Easement-Relocation. The parties knowledge that in 1979 Romney/Carson and/or their predecessors granted the City a waterline easement ("Easement") for a 16 inch diameter water pipeline. However, as shown on Exhibit 3,portions of the City's subsequently constructed waterline lie outside of the Easement. Consequently, the parties agree that following the execution of this agreement: A. A portion of the City's 16" waterline will be relocated by Romney/Carson from the back of lots 5 and 6 and the front of lot 9 into the proposed private roadway within Phase I, as shown on Exhibit 4. B. Prior to construction, Romney/Carson shall consult with the City to review the proposed construction drawings and specifications to assure that the relocation construction will be in accordance with mutually agreed to design standards and shall obtain the written approval of the City as to the proposed waterline. 4 C. Upon completion of the consultation and review, and after Romney/Carson has obtained all necessary approvals or permits, and upon receipt of written request from Romney/Carson, the City shall pay to Romney/Carson fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) as its fair share of the relocation costs. However, if the replacement waterline has not been constructed and connected within one year following the date of payment from the City, Romney/Carson shall repay to the City the $50,000 paid. D. During relocation construction, the existing waterline as presently located shall continue in service until Romney/Carson's contractor is ready to connect the waterline to the relocated portion. The connection to the relocated portion of the waterline, shall only occur between October 1 and April 30, and at a specific time and date reasonably and mutually acceptable to the parties. E. After the City's waterline is relocated, Romney/Carson shall promptly convey to the City an easement, for the full width of the private roadway, for the new waterline, and the City shall reconvey back to Romney/Carson those portions of the existing Easement not used by the City for its new waterline. 8. Utilities. As part of Romney/Carson's subdivision application, the City has submitted a letter, attached hereto as Exhibit 6, addressed to the Salt Lake County Board of Health and County Council committing the City to provide water, sewer and storm drain services in accordance with plans approved by the City's Department of Public Utilities to the Phase I and Phase II subdivisions upon final approval of the subdivision plats and annexation into the City. Annexation of the Subject Property is conditioned upon: (a)receiving final County approval of the Phase I subdivision; and either (b) construction of the public and private portions of the Phase 5 I Roadway and corresponding utility lines, or(c) obtaining and filing a bond with the City, in an amount and form reasonably acceptable to the City, for the roadway and corresponding utility lines. The parties acknowledge that City sewer and storm water facilities will not be made available to service the Subject Property until all applicable conditions of this Agreement have been satisfied and the annexation of the Subject Property has become effective. 9. Romney/Carson Open Space Donation. The parties acknowledge that Romney/Carson has always intended to donate or convey a substantial portion of their property for committed use as undeveloped open space. As a condition of annexation, Romney/Carson confirms that they will donate or sell at a discount from fair market value for use as perpetual open space lots 14a, 14b and 15 of the Parley's Point Subdivision Phase I together with approximately 260 acres of land located adjacent to and running from the proposed Phase I and Phase II Subdivisions to the border of adjacent United States Forest Service property, including all of the remainder of the Subject Property beyond what is designated as building lots, common areas, roadway and related roadway improvements in the Phase I and Phase II subdivision plats shown on Exhibits 1 and 2. The properties to be donated and dedicated as perpetual open space are identified on Exhibits 1 and 2 as lots 14a, 14b, and 15 and as Perpetual Open Space Parcels A,B and C. The donation or conveyance of these open space properties shall occur within twelve(12) months after final approval of each subdivision plat, unless the time for doing so is mutually extended by the parties. The contemplated conveyances will be made subject to a restrictive covenant requiring the preservation of the properties as perpetual open space to either the City, Salt Lake County, or a non-profit organization formed for the charitable purpose of promoting the environment and conserving undeveloped open space and which has been 6 organized as a public charity pursuant to the provisions of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the regulations promulgated thereunder. All parties further acknowledge that development of a substantial portion of the property to be donated or conveyed as described above may be problematic, that the City or Salt Lake County possesses the power to obtain such land by purchase or eminent domain in any event, and that the Agreement herein by Romney/Carson to make such a donation or bargain purchase for the purposes of preserving open space does not represent a concession or modification from their pre-existing intent and commitment to make such a conveyance for the benefit of the public. Under no condition may the conveyed open space be used for any type of residential, commercial or manufacturing uses by the City, County or other designated entity. The conveying document shall contain a reversionary clause providing that title to the property shall revert back to Romney/Carson, in accordance with their interest in the property prior to the conveyance for open space, if the land is ever used for a prohibited purpose. 10. Protection Against Further Foothills Development. In addition to the foregoing donation of open space, and as a condition of annexation and as a protection against further foothill development, Romney/Carson agrees to designate and donate to the City on the subdivision plats, a one-foot strip of property as shown on Exhibit 5. 11. Common Area Open Space Parcels. In addition to the Open Space Parcels described above, certain additional properties shall be designated as common area parcels to be owned by the Homeowners' Association and maintained as common area open space. Upon recordation of each of the subdivision plats, Romney/Carson shall grant to the City a conservation easement over the common area open space parcels, requiring that those common 7 area open space parcels be maintained as perpetual open space. 12. Dismissal of the Litigation. Within 30 days following the recording of the Phase I and Phase II subdivision plats and the City Council vote to annex the Subject Property, Romney/Carson shall file a Stipulation for Dismissal of the Litigation, with prejudice, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 7. In the event that Salt Lake County does not grant final approval of the Phase I subdivision as set forth above in paragraph 4 within 4 months following the execution of this Agreement, (unless this deadline is mutually extended by a written amendment to this Agreement) the Litigation shall continue and the Romney/Carson property will not be annexed under the petition for annexation called for in paragraph 1 of this Agreement. 13. Joint Cooperation. Romney/Carson agrees to diligently pursue and use its best efforts to obtain the required approvals. The City agrees to cooperate and reasonably assist Romney/Carson in obtaining the required approvals. The City shall support Romney/Carson's Parley's Pointe Phase I and Phase II subdivision applications before Salt Lake County described in this Agreement and shall reasonably cooperate with Romney/Carson in securing the required County subdivision approvals. 14. Notice to Be Recorded. Contemporaneous with the execution of this Agreement, the parties shall also execute a Notice of Settlement and Annexation Agreement, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 8. That notice shall be recorded against the Subject Property in the office of the Salt Lake County Recorder. 15. Agreement Not to Be Used as Evidence. In the event the settlement is not completed, this Settlement Agreement shall not be used as evidence in the Litigation or for any other purpose in the Litigation. 8 16. Remedies. In the event that the City fails to adopt an ordinance approving the annexation of the Subject Property as set forth herein, or if the County fails to approve the Phase I subdivision and roadway, the Litigation shall continue. Following the dismissal of the Litigation, the remedy for failure to perform as required in the terms of this Agreement shall be an action to enforce the terms of this Agreement including the right to specific performance. The parties agree that damages can only be awarded if a court of competent jurisdiction determines that remedy of specific performance is not feasible. 17. General Provisions. The following provisions are also integral parts of this Settlement Agreement: A. Binding Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. B. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in any number of counterparts with the same effect as if the signatures upon any counterpart were upon the same instrument. All signed counterparts shall be deemed to be one original. A facsimile transmittal bearing a photocopied signature shall be deemed an original. C. Amendment. This Agreement may not be modified except by an instrument in writing signed by the parties hereto. D. Time of Essence. Time is the essence of this Agreement and every provision hereof. E. Interpretation. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and enforced according to the substantive laws of the state of Utah. F. Attorneys'Fees. If any action or proceeding is brought by any party to 9 enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party(s) shall be entitled to recover its related costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, whether such sums are expended with or without suit, at trial, on appeal or in any bankruptcy proceeding. G. Notice. Any notice or other communication required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be deemed to have been received (a) upon personal delivery or actual receipt thereof or(b) within three (3) days after such notice is deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid and certified and addressed to the parties at their respective addresses set forth above. H. Additional Acts. The parties shall do such further acts and things and shall execute and deliver such additional documents and instruments as may be necessary or reasonably requested by a party or its counsel to obtain the subdivision approvals, annexations, donation of open space, and dismissal of the Litigation described in this Agreement. I. Assignment. Any party may assign or delegate its rights and obligations hereunder with the prior written consent of the other party,which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. J. Authorization. Each individual executing this Agreement does thereby represent and warrant to the other signers that the individual has been duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement in the capacity and for the entity specified. K. Mutual Participation in Document Preparation. Each party has participated materially in the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement and any related items; in the event of a dispute concerning the interpretation of any provision of this Agreement or any related item, the rule of construction to the effect that certain ambiguities are to be 10 construed against the party drafting a document will not apply. L. No Third-Party Beneficiary Interests. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to benefit any person or entity other than the parties to this Agreement; and no representation or warranty is intended for the benefit of, or to be relied upon by, any person or entity which is not a party to this Agreement. M. Exhibits Incorporated by Reference. Each exhibit identified in this Agreement is incorporated hereby by reference. N. Representation regarding ethical standards for City officers and employees and former City officers and employees. Romney/Carson represent that they have not; (1)provided an illegal gift of payoff to the City officer or employee or former City officer or employee, or his or her relative or business entity; (2) retained any person to solicit or secure this Agreement upon an agreement of understanding for a commission,percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, other than bonafide employees or bonafide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; (3) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in City conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code; or (4) knowingly influenced, and hereby promise that they will not knowingly influence, a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in City conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code. Romney/Carson discloses that at one time it hired a former City employee, Alan Johnson as a consultant. At the time of the consultation Mr. Johnson was not a City employee. 11 O. Effective date. This Agreement shall become binding and effective upon execution by all parties. ROMNEY LUMBER CO. 4 By: Date: ` i 2`'` /o President Mrs-s,o Ramy :r Date: Mr. Robert W. Carson Date: Mrs. Honora M. Carson SALT LAKE CITY By: Date: Mayor ATTEST: Date: Salt Lake City Recorder RECORDED . I:\LITIGATI\Romney Lumber Company,Inc\Settlement Agreement 2005-10-07 Final OCT 2 1 2005 CITYRECOR® ER 12 0. Effective date. This Agreement shall become binding and effective upon execution by all parties. ROMNEY LUMBER CO. By: Date: _. Pr si t Date: Mr.Robert . Carson aki'\5,-5-----. Date: tc) t/ Mrs.Honora M. Carson SALT LAKE CITY By: Date: Mayor ATTEST: , Date: Salt Lake City Recorder RECORDED t:\1.TrtOAThRtmwey Lumber Company,lnc\Sctttcmcnt Agrccment 2005-10-07 Final OCT 2 1 2005 CITY RECORDER 12 O. Effective date. This Agreement shall become binding and effective upon execution by all parties. ROMNEY LUMBER CO. By: Date: President Date: Mr. Robert W. Carson Date: Mrs. Honora M. Carson SALT LAKE CITY By: Date: /0 ` .L ./-- 0 ayor ATTEST: �w• ....... .. '�G "+. ,' ,,,��,. $ RECORDED a ,, n� ``$\�'o 44 ' OCT 2 1 2005 go: 1 ,! Li I . ,„ .- Date: Salt Lake City R• or4er ( fleet.14.Y) CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM I:\LITIGATI\Romney Lumber Company,Inc\Settlement Agreement 2005-10-07 Final Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date lO- 20--03- By il.�..., 12 !ZII 000�� -� *� GD aaaryia?ria i�n•gomm�wV':y°a vs 3 0o s ; NOISIAIGIMS ° s T dSVHd — aLNIOd S«IdI2IVd a � �� E '�� .E `85vaa Ea°�--�j .. 8I \�\ \��\ \ �� o \-\\i` `��\ )\4_A.. you E`a 5 ° a<9sv.. ;F $� � \ia\"— _ \��r!1 �j �t',['[) -�. � �.,`\ \A o`s o afrb ^sue ,irg _ ea _v. \ dr -- ii / �l \ �` l yE5 Eefrsi Ba' _ "-" E�zz=�� i ti �, r4 i� v VAA��v. w� \ � yp ? sEoase �E.a oe e8d �..� � s'\\ � a ' «« a -N . ::o6E, -7 \..� VA,.* ,r A ' '„ �\ a? :i v V\\ v v� „ t A \,, ,,,.0,, I,4v im �� t P �ra , ,.0,,,,w,,,,,,,,x,\( ,,,‘,t;,,,,k‘k. Ik / i " .,,„,,,., ,�� A N ," , � NG' � � _______\:„__„__ ,-..,„„.„.,: ,,,,A \: ,,,s..,,,,. .)p,.„,,,,, t, :,..44,:\,,,7, ; ,,,,,,,.‘ " ,: ,;; ;,,,, ,,,,_ , ,T___ _ ____,,_L .-1,:„:______::„.„.„,v,,,,,„ ,, :,....,,,„,,,.,,,::„., t\s„, ‘,‘,,,,,,,,),\,,k--si—.44,,,k.,,,,, ‘.1v., \ .. .-\;'. N. _ .\ � i t 1\• \ \ 1 1\4;'ir � t-rl �i4 r h\�� - v , `d 1� I �i \��a` '4`7 _ 1 .,W s '`--4 �� t y/ I\ < �y zy' I/// i ( rii,,, ��? i�s°*�,r�"�?;, i��JNl�9�,'M } -.1 /��'' / r /fr I M1'j.�� .r'.'i 1 r� /cat �,fir� i' Y yi / Any - 1 Pad r fi ��/l am • -' _-- -- � � .-� �l�lV lil' I ,/'4'4'',i3OU 11::,,,,t;* \ )' %' � �' r' �$ ` \\` v. G w1 \ /� a ,� tl,,44e, t. (i.,''r !Iiii %'q a 's 'R 3fr p .A ��w V 1 ��il,1 ill ii# �` a Sa $ F I B v� o /8/,� plr w,: / �tg ��, �� , � y, ,,j7b�a'$bb 9 `s § 's t // ,' '°.'„ •r.. V,//,� 4 r_t 1 ,V AV „� ,o �ti ae�a� € apep Ip fI 4 $S� a^. udl$ � i i� �� 1 VA r r S. f/ � I 6pIIge�� € €A fg € Y a fr' o } \ a 3sep °p $ q gg gr fiN1. ` � ': - R 5@ pB§�b E `$ `a `s `s e $1. '. , ., �' rrfi 5 6'' s e►x=�;Ia_e @ ga A� A� 9e z p' �� v r F .. - w��3¢M3e Z� 7 7x b 3 p; J7v u Ya q�ii - vV _ eAB bg $3�g@ 5 B g$6H � 'l � <(f A ys@ 3Ap�c6 � Q II¢ #a b�p6�s� �' � v� vA�� N.i 4 - `i pa➢E��6;AHg r n�"d#� \\ Y1 �'ccs3fe�a8�i FFF r� ��Z�w�� `;� ��_ 1 Abe-�a8"3b 9@ 9e 9e 5� g�b @!(a u \� �� r \\\�\\ /- 1 • 'c �� gI.�g b� b, b# ae stiff VvC y J4. va 1; &gg3�EpI9�zgn8� ¢ Ag § 8 ee% A_ Eioo v �� b 'Wo _ og 6 C Sgb P as � AV w�� Z: Il z' �\ jz��g�tb�aIa3:F�� a@ ��@ g # 6' a � \� �y� vv\ Loi /, 53 tl$4 €t j a Pa= '+�(�gin�€Lad € Ian g' '< \� \\\\ .- . d\ , 93 a cF e F s qio @9i'g 9Jp 11 6 �R ` i' 1 is i1 9!;�i:Il l;1/s41F II �I I ., ai'S Aga a ii, 4= .l,ag 1 P- x og :�Hihige $ § $ R43Fai398y9E R� \ �\\� a'a\*� i ' °p :aE ag c I. § § °a :i1 i s i� rr el t , \ i:=as a' r I \'� ry��v \\\\� �:\ \ 3g �F ie�' $ . S S3 ' i:fig $�E;: i 11 � �ga� �4r°3� , rl,, , \\\\�` '„\\, � 8 §�€:• F� 9 4 9 s 1B3�F,x;ai=� a \\ \ ga a; 4 E4 a 6 1 0\�; ;Icy x-.9Ci� i,' j err` \ � i,i- A i, ,, ai F {131,50111 d 1. \/ �� ► = I yy r, is g �' .t .:;' �i a r"' 1'1B 1 °i q 1 ii a'ai Ili �� r, r /�Ji ��r ,�.. II i g g § 4 aaF1v� i� .p ;ill; p� ; i-4 a 3 sl �� i/- /, r -- I /n�a §¢F 4 1 di 1 ¢a o f%B i diti 1aI i r �i r r r r i- S a $ Q: 4 a /1 r 1 i 1 rea,� r r 0 F. 1 � 1 ,R Fi,i, - � Irl II Ir �' r w�w� "/s .� , ii i $ i § �iai-a aa9gII ° �\�� t ,),(A':.,"." e� /�/' a04 i s; is 'i '' yg 4IF 'F� € I ,, =A� 'I'II 'I tl�I l. it �{Vv v V • r l I J> Iit IIMA 1 v -% V A' � i. 44 'cl ImoV �AV A\ 0 ��7 ,/-+pi,A ,r a ' " �.��. �� I �jlk�l N "I II I�A�1 it'Q.,�v ` � `` e'�Av.A e ,'', \ •ki,��I w� v ,31'1,ll�l�ill�1 lv\ III i \ �� n y rh J/rrl " Tom, -. , I�� II�I�I�it �4, I11,10.� °'� ' ---fi": � , fir' �.a v � R , I I , A•�.�VA��1e P, l it ill � �n'�'V �� i r 1' l ��. �ti�'�" ' , r °,0, r' ��"�y�*yam �� ;-- ,.III`i i i ` 1�, �� i1�� ; �11!5 �,, a� .l`4,4 �,fit, /-_/ \ �II� I III �� '� � � l ll ,/l4 r ,� � ( -r �� - , �,, D11 1► , 11� 1 ,o I(/q ors) v ti V- .� \ ��!, I II I �� lI n k�IF� I �' I�i 41l 4"'N�� - y 1, Irl 11,e ! IN B r. • 1 4 O r 1 �;i; ,iI, y�nr ar i v �,\`, a� ' l i r4 `'V `I \� ii it I„C . k\V i . -- v, 11v I1I tl V z� ti\�` \ �1 C \\�� 11'\�Il�e �1��11 41'11 11�I PI\ � - ' �_ Vvv• , IllIv1 v i1 � U yV A s' �� s $ , r A, ,„IS'p, , lko,,,,, :;.„4; !,,,,„, A„..;..,,,q, ;,.‘„A\--.*w.„ .„,-....,,,-,:-..., ,,,,,, ... ---- - ----• .-._,„,..,„---i. ... .-_,,,Ak:.\.....,:,.. ,:a.,---....):::-;:ell � t � � ��\ � �,�� Sri, e ''''N'''',.. '':.\\'''..\\,,'‘IV.t..zt,jt.'$,'Ilib'Vi,-.\\IS\k\\\\\-'.4N-',;-'''''''-‘-' '''''-'-'it---.:-_--'-':.," :;?-'51/H-%."'"1044*-'''''''i\\*,-4.— '''''',Iic''.1/;1'.(1'1, ''‘,:,,t':-.,, \k AN,\.,,,N,kl:.4.1tok_ \,, \ ,a o `�\ \`k, y,\,'��I�? � \ \ ••• \ \.\ r'.,1,�ti\ `f.t��`i1� �' \ rk" �: \\**,:,. ,-8' ,.;,,t, -..., _ - •Ng• \—,% ..-,—,------------ , .., ,,,,,._,....--ks, :::,,,,,,,,f.,::: ,,, _. , -_:-.,..---_—, - eVirgD r I \\ _ a \Z -ate%f i// \ s \ \ ° � I �\\ �a. � �ti\ as �>1��\_�.v I�� i` \\ \`\\\�� \ �1 � l , �Iv1v�''^ � I' v VA��\ �� tea\ \ ��1 )�('!' ��-�' \ ��_, - � v . n,rnwr sr°nncCor.mrq lM. �,� ,� wwm PARLEY'S POINTS — PHASE 2 S�Eg. � 7,7 r1. �ownmcwo�s..nnuvdwv* S!......Vf �� S ESC �y ,M°y°F°,^,b R'1®mW�1.Wi s,¢tors�ti w/Iak Santee SUBDIVISION ea,m-ssw ity �� ww wm an'.aRm. wv�=nv� iv z SALT LAKE COUNTY, UT °01 " +� � 3 .......... �O,IA S°gEm. om°�ir r.°5 °°a 0'bM PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - EXHIBIT 2a ,,,y Fxr m �c c •s xmw mMF° w rt..idm° t �a A. '°" �.� p .,�, „4.,q £ ZIHIHI{3 —ZN�I3SV IIL'd QNV wwo�: y .• g r.iw 3NI'I NOISSIiYST 9NI,LS u ME wwm°,ac°w"' �� oeavuriro x NVBZ 2I3ZVdi ,L,L[0 �IF''I ZTVS ■ as-ml�a Zn 1CZNR0� �IVT ZTVS F _ " �� ooc•u a�ouc�s NOISIAIOHRS o " �\� ro N� -dMe. ..L � x0 I ESBHd — dLNIOd S A�I2IJd �wAv a •�� V � � � �� aif a w 5 a o" V —\�� AAV vV 11\ o eH'o „„,_,, - ,\,,'2,,,,,.,\Ai,,;, , .,:,, ,:._-:------,-T ‘\,,,,,,,r-;=. -,---;-: -.--T-f-.,___--,_-=--=, ,,_...:- . ,',Q,,q,AN,. .'1,,,,•:,,': , ' ,. �, I ' : ‘,,: -..\`1,-,1i,,,-, ‘,\ ,,,,,,,„,..x.,,,,,;*,,,:\„ , v s \ f ;I I�ggo _ ' \\\\\\'\skAt \\\ !t Wf �`r_ --'_ - � V V• ��A vV�V�� "\�vA ��i 1+ I ,�ill�.4 P« I v ----- _ ��Av\ A v A43,AO f r v � _�� ,; \ \�A 1 �I phi�pi le�b v 1�p �1_l �v bip I V 1 is _�\\\\\\✓I 11N 1,0411�ll' � ,� 1 II SIP �{ l ��f ��. ',',i,Ni.,,v‘, ,',,' �� . v v 6 a ��o � � , A �v al., ,del �� I � � � ll��k �, 4 v,'� Fos /i i✓�/�h,/4, /J �� I x �C ( v i a r goo //%/ /jy�j�j �i ( r f il� \\ ' \ t J � ��%r ii%'; I� i•�1, a Pi I� III 1 II'�i 1� �v ��/��✓l �� '� � �� Ill I� Y ��I �� Ir �I�y � ��/ ��R � r p i3k a§ £F i Ci \ \�� '+,'�` "� Ji a ( `V 1 A°""v , a a r I I $$FHB§sr° A ny S° $ g � ,, A� J lug l�+ i II II �h I i�/� III'- i - -VI 3:�-��e3 �. � � j B �v V�� V �j I £ lu iI� .i I Iit A� v. v _ �y!Fa3£�s � F t § �3e� �VA i /%� 'V; Ir its � (/ 17/,_ �(��F[3. p p p �� / . Id�n Y rll 11 I�g F3 3 li € a �-� � � r- itililil!Iii g qpy g3 S� 3 SpC [ @s.£6 £A £� A2e�gg € s € 4 g - \ l( I it r?-// �� 11�1 it1111 i� §`§ag zF €3 e a ± i I , e A3§a§ �'� J pf J n gi ,y gasp@° 4x 5s 9s a /// % i i a x Sip°9 z 2i[A£^3 S� 3R dR 5a 2 "£ I.�� >� '2 %/�� - / '� \ a ey€�§ §ape€B.� _� .@ _@ _@ °gg£ §p33 ro v�'r� i/ „ /,6f`s 1. j g3YsF�F•3§£3� �_ i3 3 �' 9 FY9 ✓ ,, w, _ �\ 9R_vgr y3 g 3 } §3;5c3 ms6 $i � ° ° pc�96Fk� 5!' r^ v �� \\ � . � ,� §ggz 3�y„Ntlip §§fig; 3 d3x \�\ -- vw 1 �� ' a b qR`§� 3° y� §� §� y@ €°@ pp[ ,� ��\ �\� v A �� cur �� -- S��F� z3'F °3 a� °� " 3g?QYa �"\� ��V\VvA �� V / (� �) ° ¢spptq�H g p g ¢ g V v��V A, , .��j aagi�8'£F §0 59i g4 96 s§Hd V., � � I .I; <:�,A £aqa§F��F'a 8` §: n °9e A,v -,�v w��A v �.' � i� ^l I , �: _@g�-a � Fp@� SF� F� 3qF� F F Pg_pg lie '\ ' \\\ v'"'ti�„ v Y � s 'ep� p lii3-1"4 F n glg,F i,F F's-Fi 'high f3 1 6 im\-�v\��\��i v_; " • �\\� �-c gg €( E .?�� e3.§n6a3:@E@�@�6�8@3��6 €3es ooxl d Soy Ell � j g�t3aw gg3 MI 3 �6i ull ull zmz��{!3� gfiB�4 'RE! ` 4 gR€ MI Rg v rill tE. 11: 1 iR.igor§g5 •e \ �\ \ '!� I alai Ri it R 1111 gQ g �Q ii3s1g 9��gaR@ `v\ .-� -� '� ..,-,;,"::,rip!' e Ili'n a `2 �g lig : lip $ ,`[� i- � ir� - .� Fr° 9 m''�yGE�i�l!gg- R gg gf € 151 x E�� .� . ��j t I//,d1/1 �u�/ ' /7 y.. gi fi € j EE $E gi5 66FI F i p @ . A Eaq AF 1 EQ FEs e x 5. rl A Ili ��-'g a' 1 .-„, �� .� f // y:.✓�T / �/ A i g RR i R ,v�y� �a ��/�� %��1514.#, �',¢�k� /� A� y gag € g 8gg�F�g�+z .' Y f J V ,' Vww vv` ig s €� Ii i6RR g �6 .'I"\ �u,w h 11 h\1 ti,/(/, ! '' i Ai , ` - -'`ti I ',,- t. I � tali lllil ��as r ,,,, II ,v•i,A,,i f 1 *v., IA fiL.,(674:.,,,,,, , /141.007.-4-.4,...0,7-,,4,f'..w.,-;-"X T7".,3 -.-' ,\'''))''' Attitii )'' k ‘ •,. k * p '" )1.0,t04071",*0; --',,,.., /, ,z,/.-- -;',,, /' '=.r5,1 � ',.c'k,, , , iilo,,,, -i, tw,7,1,1, Ilk-, „1441,64/1414$4,'?" --, ..- --,-_,,:_,-ii.,,if:, ,,..,.\\ \i, ,k-'--'''). .1i \\'' 1 V 1 li, '!?4, 0 ),',) //ii,;///,,,,,,,,IN,,,,/,,,*". ,Lc,,(;k,,, ,:-.:-:•:-_,7—,,,,:-;-=.-r:..--,--,-- „,,,,-,,?, ;,,,,,,;$' , -,, ,iil :, \t1 �T�� A\S (1 - If 1 I ,✓pia'IC �L,, ii4, ''I�II f�'pr�d I� ,�'� � - �,�--� " m '," `', '-‘-'4.: ' ',f, ', ',Vk • ' ' ,' i Iy1 '. :'Iii I,',,'''' 4.44,,, .',rf,.:,-, .- _, __'-,::::=7,-:::=-_,-..7---F.1...-t_-_- h �\� \ "A �'' - A a = � — .V\ k 'A ' i °h A�''\ v \ '� 4r" A '4 1 _ r:•\ S k \\ m' �\\`I \ \; \ \ '' �1 \t � .,_,„.,„_,,„.NY;*,?. . ",.,4 _,\ \' k ,,,.,.- ‘, ,,,:i •,k':..N,,,t,t s.,:=1,---,- ---,,,,,,,,, - ,1,- ;-,-t, .Y --',:'---tvir,r,-,,i 1., i L 1,i' \h \ N-__ lik 'WfXt ‘,2\'‘., '\ ,,, -_____ _S----,----,-,-.,-„ ,-..," Wifr-,7-0/2q, i'' AL\t\;*. ::, rJ\\41‘. . � �v� \ V 1 � Y�g��' A ! aE ! � � ‘� v � � l� 7 o \ , �. \ \ \�. ti €.. b � \ stri �\� �� i� ' _: \^amt yR]� fill R \b �\ ` Pim 5 � S��\ \\ \�\ 5. rira PARLEY'S POINTE — PHASE 1 ,Lokm:Eaam Si ^""" '..n Sdt lW a9'.Uf �� m�� u�'�, p mra��srY Ims ./RA SUBDIVISION 04+^1-�" „�,, ,, , + '^^ . z x m,.7s,mw , ...� wm e, or. dtr.mrt..amoR sr.r. .x m/nR SALT LAKE COUNTY, UT w+ '^�' 3 ...r�.� •b .FFZ4r ,.. cont. °m SALT LAKE CITY WATER TRANSMISSION LINE S Ore a `/'" PROPOSED REALIGNMENT EI=IItIT 4 �� M0 D 0 3 aria w °a '''" dam--',— iO' Om ba.s ...ea..�srg A"" _ `.' ll�$ S imam SdI2LLS NOIZ03LOtId aNY '"" boo f ff _ lur�+w „sue AMAINII0H AIHad01d 7TVZIRA0 m "" 2 k !ii aWOW"i5Z-L-uur LOB 'e' �.. ,LII .[.LNf100 EI�'T ,LTdS E ir,, °oc"6 3 pOM 5 VW e vs '/'^,� NOISIAIQffIIS "' • I IISVIld — II,LNIOd S,A. IZIdd * \ aow e ayuex 7 NwE �\i�t H'€ hì o g?, r. - " a \-tea\ o ! K T., U „ l if. o $ e , $e. Sa ` •ar; yi•• C ^ s \U qa 1 � I y CNA _\ OF.'��{ 1:N:11 e . m i .\i''‘.k7 11 -:: \i c \ .e @o w gc„ _pry li 1 �'c-1 g e ho.o ? --,11 N e. Pyt i 1 k,, , ^Y\1I �yo r7 €off •'•i ,l l Yp: -- LJ r l^ °\; > , , Etg ?2 / i '', 8v ggy, eo 6p�Etl�s};! E :� �R �E €!s a § i-le3gg".1g e� 8 'g of t� V a aka 11/101;gi; of !'e dg d! y €�i a =ee a 3eY pa I. e� B �El fir Fl I- : q °I -g !„ r o ��..ot�... m „ s fii9E}�F3s3@ 5! a� 2! d a B p�4 / $ r'wu. „ :olii 3 h (6 EE5 b i y.: ga Bill:!!@aii@ E !«} 1. el !3@Y 4F: 9s�35g lifil Ie II $p 4I 1 9 ii @ 8 �I+i�o3�;R��l�€ ik �t �q {6 s NI ea I!aleS 1f i ll Qe li g!} it 3 `iYg@! Ili:. di 10-1 1404 1g Ieig i, z-� N i ff lfH°!i}sag°1 IIL ((if A 1:it i a ". 1. .ial qqt l Exhibit 6 Salt Lake County Council 2001 South State Street Salt Lake City,Utah 84190 Salt Lake County Board of Health 2001 South State Street Salt Lake City,Utah 84190 Re: Parley's Pointe Subdivision To Whom It May Concern: As you may be aware,Salt Lake City and the owners of certain undeveloped foothill property located at the mouth of Parley's Canyon have been involved in ongoing litigation concerning the availability of water,sewer and storm water services to the proposed Parley's Pointe Subdivision. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the parties have negotiated a settlement of this dispute. By this letter, Salt Lake City Public Utilities commits that it will provide water,sewer and storm services to the proposed Parley's Pointe Subdivision on the following terms: 1. The subdivision will consist of two phases,consisting of 16 lots located off Benchmark Drive, and four lots located off Scenic Drive,in a form substantially as set forth on Exhibits 1 and 2 attached hereto. 2. The property owners shall pay all customary costs and fees of extending water, sewer and storm water services to the property, and all the customary connection fees. 3. Sewer and storm water services shall only be made available to the property upon the approval of subdivision plats by Salt Lake County,and after annexation of these properties into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City. If you have any questions concerning this matter,please let us know. Sincerely yours, LeRoy Hooton Public Utilities Director Exhibit 7 DALE F. GARDINER(#1147) PARRY ANDERSON& GARDINER 1200 Eagle Gate Tower 60 East South Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801)521-3434 Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH,CENTRAL DIVISION } } ROMNEY LUMBER COMPANY,INC.,a Utah } Corporation; ROBERT W. CARSON,an } individual; and HONORA M. CARSON,an } individual, ) STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL } Plaintiffs, } } Case No. 2:00CV 695PGC v. } } SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION,a } Judge Cassell municipality;and John Does 1-X, } } Defendants. } } } Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,the parties jointly stipulate and move the Court for an Order of Dismissal,dismissing the Plaintiff's Complaint,with prejudice and on the merits,with each party to bear their own costs and attorney's fees. The grounds for this Stipulation and Motion are that the parties have amicably reached a settlement of all claims in this litigation. DATED this day of , 2005. PARRY ANDERSON & GARDINER by: Dale F. Gardiner Attorney for Plaintiffs DATED this day of ,2005. SALT LAKE CITY by: Lynn Pace Attorney for Defendant Salt Lake City 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL via first-class mail,postage prepaid,this day of ,2005,to the following: Lynn H. Pace Salt Lake City Corp. 451 South State Street, Suite 505A Salt Lake City,UT 84111 • Exhibit 8 When recorded return to: Salt Lake City Corporation c/o Doug Wheelwright 451 South State Stret, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND ANNEXATION AGREEMENT Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipality, and Romney Lumber Company, Mr. Robert W. Carson and Mrs. Honora M. Carson, as property owners, hereby give notice that they have entered into a Settlement and Annexation Agreement with respect to certain real property located in Salt Lake County, Utah, more particularly described as set forth on Exhibit°`A" attached hereto. The Settlement and Annexation Agreement executed between the parties governs the annexation, development and future use of the subject property, and is binding upon heirs, successors and assigns. Copies of the Settlement and Annexation Agreement may be obtained from the Office of the Salt Lake City Recorder, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84111. DATED this day of October, 2005. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Ross C. Anderson, Mayor ATTEST: Salt Lake City Recorder STATE OF UTAH ) : ss, County of Salt Lake ) On the day of October, 2005, before me personally appeared Mayor Ross C. Anderson, and said person acknowledged to me that he voluntarily executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC Residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires: STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. County of Salt Lake ) On the day of October, 2005, before me personally appeared Christine Meeker, Deputy Salt Lake City Recorder, and said person acknowledged to me that she voluntarily executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC Residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires: ROMNEY LUivIBER CO. Date: By: Its President STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. County of Salt Lake ) On the day of October, 2005, before me personally appeared , President of Romney Lumber Company, and said person acknowledged to me that he/she voluntarily executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC Residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires: Date: Mr. Robert W. Carson Date: Mrs. Honora M. Carson STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. County of Salt Lake ) On the day of October, 2005, before me personally appeared Mr. Robert W. Carson and Mrs. Honora M. Carson, and said persons acknowledged to me that they voluntarily executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC Residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires: 111.1'fIGA I I Romney Lumner('umpunv,hnc,NO FICE OF ti ETr(LMENT doc V if < W)c Y w 4 _ I. - - C) >-' �, N�'l v 'Jl w n N - _ -^ - _ _ wiW 74_ VI < - < C_. - < = w - Li'= W = < _- w _ C L.- - - in _ _ Z cn W 0 R -G _ C - 0 w L w Z '.aa - 3 3 a v1 c -r T w , w E < - W 5 3 O il rn .: a T _- O- ua = - OO W - - _ - 0 Z COZ 0w _ Ji^- ti = z � T Ul C w W - _ - � J_ ,n 0.< < 0 L'- w � a . 0'D G a r= O" W -- - WO v) �w�•n O 0 u 0 v O O <__ �_ �Mtn, -- Q En � c U `° U L C OO = 0z0 r C.)r- WP ,: v W < 3rL.F, w ' r Zp O w w� J, - V VI W c' 1- w0 , N wp wO uJ � wJ iy -i wwZ.7 ZoI z 1- . QWO - w WaZ n 4.. Comic _mow c - - GC r=C GC O � c N '-- < - (-4 - W r w Z C7 c: < U < C:v1 O w<O cn z o CQ ; � Ocrtr z � Z � Z� Z Cr) N v w _ O WZ ONwNmO0 - Wj0 Z t 2 '* Z� ZO O r-C7ZQ �i.� O G C 0 O U _) co r I- ri • Z wUw W 1--cc�.- t~71 Cr �-' w C W C W < <- L. N rn to LLI W ' Op � cn WONy nZ CZ CZ Cr C wZ < ,-- O ¢ 'n < O Z -Iv) W CZ ` v av av av T N � Wwa Vmyn < ¢ j r7 cn Q u O _a cn En _ _i WI c.6 = J O W iz- N- 4.1 =a n i- r= cW` z w CZ O 0 MZZ O �O ' r Cv)¢ 1- � 0 )- j � /p CO 0 v) G � cY O< < W < w ; < W 3 V ° V 0 U8 a Fe <- WI C W WwWO WI Z p W C.,) w W m 4.1 Y CO W u - W O N- ~MoW Y W Y W Y � -F < r W ~CCp ^Z - W - 0 Owwwa � .1 U '-Cvi � N tiO -- o � M = W +~ O _ 11 <w< p_ ,-� � p� F � F- J N )- ,;] N F<- • z v) W U N O N r vl 1- v)r In W d -to j O O N r to `° :u Q Q to � (n Z etvl '�o prot�otrn w �� L. li O c.nmOC Q Z a 0 W < ~N= 3^ T H- r r r-n Q WwZ M _JO OJ W r Zw In OOJ-f- t= Q < r�j ¢� < . v1 v) YU< W Z U 0 W - W n Z O)cr a 0 d r` W 'n W ri W e'1 ~ v) O J w QJ 2 W W w n In w 0 f� W M p W )- CO O O M W r') O Op� c.'_ OOWNV z_ __.,n Z'n Z'n Z o n JICO - X Z Oa W • v) a m w a W 0 W v) 0 to v) v)!n N W Q C '--cn W J LL1 - 1L1v., = O 3n 01= WFih S t > > 53 3 1"-w - 0 w r� - 0 b O a O C p, w Q O��Ii m �Ow ¢ O WNWN$-0 � mo mo �p 00 O (n "<0" O O_ 2 F- 0 W w N V- _ m 0CI) to v)_ v) F- cn 1-7 WI`p�Z w cj a M cc C' Z O O O O w v) (n cn.'r v)Q, -. = law.W "H-- _ w O W r- a) �_- ",cn T O) V W Wes' - -' O >.- .p 0 � - w CO CO r°° z ,PcOr0U w r- cjU >- -- OZ to 5 T o CI - o_ 5 - W OZ wd -- 4. �Q `0r c JZ W vF mcc�< W W R.. - )= Z. =~- Lit itic 3< 0 O a w 'n to rW w G 't Z '`'0,c c' 3 = z cc cc _ �= 0 n cn 0 wv~i a - vriZ ~2h o < Z QO aZ az Z o PF�Z�ut ,- W C Q Q W W W Z r r 0 Q W O W <W <0 ~ ~ �ZC�i rr-'1 11.1 0 F- O O V) I-- Z W J. J cn W CC Z X Z CC Z C w w a O O [V N W o 0 O r- co < W a W < W < T C.., O r.- .-r V U W < 0/4 O r CO m - 'r-- C r 0 z w w 0= Q > w � ^ r, < 42 a0C _ -� N'- M a' r 7- Lai Z 2 Z - C5 T � 'nW a WUa 1- 0 O O O J• w WT�nZ i - W r= Q ui Z cn cc m H (D H cc)1- ,O W _V O 4.V) - r o 7c p < p - m� �-w,- O - w - w -w -W �w o UwCZ O Tw i-- = -r-toGOZ Ow Ow Ow O C c1- NOZ Y ✓) 0 - to H p J J J J Q) w < O F-W la_ O Q1 w Z �7- W 0_' a x' V Z N w T l� N w N W if) a < :p O U aUwO W O O 'N� O . O ri Ouj Op ¢ r '-- W Z� W (.t-WZ W Z Z m CO w Z_W '* w Z_ `..:- = W W W W 00 U J Z y- C' C CC R' '- 5. ~'' W ~ O ,CI Z ' < CW. LUcJ CZ .,~�.I z w w C w m cn J w O w � 0, - ZN7- GZw [n 3 03 C ; •� 3 d - nr)V� a ZW G ,-`. N - r\ r wtoW i_J U ,%` . w -W ` n cr, _ a -cn W ._`' r Q _ ._-- < _'_' < cn r9 (n � cn(n �u J u' 77-.w O O W $ w'n " ~ 7. � w C °N w - O - ".I m - . w - $ W T 'rn ,`-D t<.' y - , - j `p < -- O - = 0 CC -CO �O i- w�W --Q- ',+' ^ < < :j `< :J - O _ �O - =m - - -� -" y - _r „( LT,� .y < Z 4 < t� U C 2 - n- '�'< W -- 0 -O o - �� 0 _ _ 0 „ --i %r�,n1 ^ y .1 - '.,: Li-) w J 7,9 = -W J - in- �Wwu0) - ,s-=cny yw a <, 0o w =3 -:n - w - 1r -'W wQ - r� - W V)ry _ 0 w- rJ (3 w 0 0 O w- :0 w N L2 1--. =- J <i w mow, - w Cr_ _ _ T J n 0 -- - ''n -,-= LJ - r- ',-1 - I- w = J^y-'- y^ .0- - J .J • .-,IJ„�", n =' �� ,D ip < ^� w C W w < , L U c ..J w W .� w WI� :<w w' , . 2)= J p = w it o O w ,:, v, ,r, :// 7^. clO ul 7 Ul r- w Er) w ..J W L y ;J 0 w - w©l_ li 2. Annexation Plat aga .b�W� ,iiftl: ,`cl `F 8•- J s -az° a oas eke.€'....„0,,,,,, - V - i "' e-,▪` as ae Ve S, w U ass a e�N� xo2" € 8„aeie. O <, c a z U :oo s0 z 5s= e' 15_ ujry e_v�q;c _ N o 2 i € <F� - a c m '��:.oe;�:o^ °' .ice a 8 8� F DQ_. a aN�r� „"�, cJos�°.- -�33 e.°W._ .! - a stiff aooOig�W o55n� W ¢ �S S o W ,n tW,• op -ViW^,. ,2 Q ", 5 114g a� � o �$� Q �S� or qz°a' `pef�af5.4 veb -� N Zal c z moo;eDe„`a"4..,e a°,aa..-Ze^ 08 '� 144 e o- m€Eti_ m ^-sg OQ. z 33-. W O Era a �ilf..�;N,,n;43$$g=$o 'Sa^� Y !N. N b� s t m. € W tea 'NY h W �� 80 7'sp m 3 R!! ' FNx ors„,StA Ak3v, a €` inWj 8 8 m 8 n� ydw z N y 3 y S SeTad Og ift, o�W Ik ` h~ W Y aN 88 g o [� o ob 5 �zh 3 0 g.,1,N 1114 t et 8 to E. ;x\ 0 6„z W V CE W U o c, gBg a a P 18 F k 5 SY'BLfI IS 3• • 3<3 I .. f m n it 0 -7> i sa .n• ,,m, w.ao.uaaz antes m.o.,.... - — • ' a aMas a I €- y PW, Fa eo d 6y Leo Road 3 a x^i688 U 3 . Recommended Zoning ag ® .Ndq^ sF : ag 1.P:g.l'e',$' . 3 ' I_ -Eif!t€a< g $8i c zg 1� Ise qa ""y c €,eS F oajw,FmaE;a . 4ii -Fsm g g 8 ag; 0 g . !I g_,1 f i 4. I a8N ' hh11-1812.4 2t g , &_ g fi -r, +or^ 18 ;ga6 b Ni F _ k = i - :ac$ ypo yy° „8 FAs s_axs4 �, _� E` `II .y S$� :p7@•`BTU II;igah i gittagaMgiNitaiM i1 N 2 ig YY ` ygyg r J ggi a� Bo 66 a j RST ^ o ��a ,„N676.,.. Y � i blSb �zw �Ni I 6.101 Ph 0 _N ePa s, CT I1 s e f ; I $1 N $ �Y I '` aP aP a 44 !4 a " y 1.4011116. } a s k na g$ ,r Jl a a ,.i. d a ° �` 1p y 55zI ! a -tea §g 1 i • LI A q �`. I 1 S di Ego :�,��vi e -„ t 4 yfr. lig .1 , ,,, -4. - tc,.. t,, 8, „q.. , .. t...,.,..1 . , Q :l� > Illis Pam- o� 1' � 7 X� 10 �{ b e , _, . .. : e`o . , Z a �� , }! 6 • -`` k 4c-, x 4,014, ,,. 0. , 4 • l E : al !n s� s �1 ! € j gg1a I � �f(, j ta I I � , ` 11111111 119a g i . 4 i 1 . I L'/i 8 , i�€ a w_ 1s2Ill.'.., IN OL a `_ '' 9 u_ a 2 ..00... _ ` SF.x - IIith I0! m sa 4. Trails, Public Easement /4w0 4 •wl•N.a w/iUm waro' .n.mn.'o xo ro/a/ry an "'�` a� mv... `°°iw°.sA) � �� s ,C0r9" 2 ZIH[F�Q — Ntl'Id 37,I5 JC2itlNIIQ1'I32Id v° `0°' ..'"'> .�+ oonru�'o.. • 44 m 4a,a7 ! oem�s Ian. �i 7.(I 'd.LNRO3 S3IV'I J1VS f n+w.ds.a..o..otl aw • `,�. .- al. awe.noI°� AIOISIAIQHRS nt tmfem =�� a°�,°�s z HSVHd — aLRIIOd S.Catxva. a 7\ o.; 2 `'•, tom.." o € w 1II — F Q' v AblYi 0.{mr II Oh _ w \ \ \ N\ IIftI ''''--r.1-•--..-:-.•---:-'''.-..i.--"" , N 4''' r. p , ,,,,„„ ,t y !1v5 No, 446,, : A ,,,,,,„._,......„---,:....--_,-,.. ...,,,A-Fvv-----..-.,-:,t.,...,1/4.,x„, _ , .\,,._,\ . P. ss v IN a f ff a _ ,+� r , yf .. 7 = F J ,{,.'., ill .J � 's Ih /� •, U ^� �G ✓-� y Jr r If,i a !• , I �� /% '•try(''.: is-,c Pet' i FENS J/y t I.: i,I:.F��. ' e �\ % u. N r tii'�� C' {\ \` *\, ,q„h• �� Er,^ D,T'_ Ids+� \ \� . d r, +�^ fir/ 1 t 1 3aEF�4I1;;� =s •s 9h a V. d + .4,C r `i y" \ 4 iAd gge y aFq s ^@ @ 9@ $� ��;>� .� r e -�. ate/ ` ; ' 1 ' \' �i iai39eg8!6Raz 3t 3t it §t , m d ? .S'd� y i;,K .. i7�/--, �Jv�4 ~�r \ ':'W. -I,g°Igl; " it g 1 tr �i r- >JI�l ��e �� i'-I`iae �'pps8 IY§ ga4 �I ; I g1`.-F 3✓ ,1 / F� ' .r 4 o'��" /// / r�4' a�§e�X3enega xii 1a a !° in $ @F3: '.�/ / _ „r � ) +� 4lr �� &� \ �. r 4 d 12 i 11 i°9 I \ ,as- t \Iiik�Ie'FQ c� o ad € B i i 9aFBp @• s I Y 5F 9 � • ..\- -‘‘,, -",..>i-\\`',.\\\.• \ \., �4:4:\•-,,,,,,,c,,,,,,,,,,,,s,', N;:st-' F. • ii ii 3 a >' '3 .. 3� ,a a ',;,, �\ ate. l-J 5 . Department/Division Comments Page 1 of 1 ?LR)L\C., Sr � ` Carroll, Sarah From: Graham, Rick Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 4:45 PM To: Carroll, Sarah Subject: RE: Petition No. 400-05-41, Parley's Pointe Annexation (request for department/division comments) Categories: Program/Policy Thank you. I have no comments to make. From: Carroll, Sarah Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:36 PM To: Boskoff, Nancy; Campbell, Tim; Clark, Luann; Dinse, Rick; Fluhart, Rocky; Graham, Rick; Harpst, Tim; Hooton, Leroy; McFarlane, Alison; Oka, Dave; Querry, Chuck; Rutan, Ed; Zunguze, Louis Cc: Wheelwright, Doug; LoPiccolo, Kevin; Ikefuna, Alexander Subject: Petition No. 400-05-41, Parley's Pointe'Annexation (request for department/division comments) Please find attached a memo relating to the Parley's Pointe Annexation by Romney Lumber Company. I have also attached a copy of the resolution that Planning office submitted to the City Council, which was accepted by the City Council on January 17, 2006. Sarah Carroll associate Planner 801-535-6260 sarah.carroll@slcgov.com 1/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 A\\< 73--- Carroll, Sarah From: McCandless, Allen Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:10 AM To: Carroll, Sarah Cc: Domino, Steve; Pack, Russ Subject: Petition #400-05-41 Parley's Pointe Annexation Sarah, From the maps sent and from our phone conversation on January 26, 2006, I understand the Parley's Pointe Annexation proposal is located at the mouth of Parley's canyon (3000 East and 2500 South). I reviewed this location to assess if there are any airport or aviation related issues associated with the annexation. Please note future residents can expect regular flights in this vicinity from general aviation aircraft. Because of the mountainous terrain, smaller aircraft use the Parley's Canyon east-west flight corridor en route to and from the Salt Lake area. This annexation area is not located in an established airport influence zone and will not require avigation easements. I have no objection to the proposed annexation. 1/27/2006 Memo Page 1 of 1 4C?)v\�vt" SE v \CJz S Carroll, Sarah From: Brown, Ken Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:39 AM To: Carroll, Sarah Cc: Butcher, Larry Subject: Memo: Petition No. 400-05-41 Parley's Point Annexation Categories: Program/Policy Memo Date: January 27, 2006 To: Sarah Carroll, Associate Planner From: Ken Brown Senior Development Review Planner 535-6179 Re: Petition No. 400-05-41 Parley's Point Annexation CC: Larry Butcher The Building Services Department has no concerns at this time regarding the proposed annexation, recommended zoning or master plan amendment. 1/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 �a C � Carroll, Sarah From: Smith, JR Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:57 PM To: Carroll, Sarah Subject: Petition #400-05-41 Parley's Pointe Annexation Sarah, From a CPTED perspective I do not see any concerns based upon the supplied information and drawings. J.R. Smith SLCPD Community Action Team 1/31/2006 Page 1 of 1 ? cPE2T1 ZC3A( Et1ENT Carroll, Sarah From: Williams, Matthew Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 4:26 PM To: Carroll, Sarah Subject: Petition Number 400-05-41, Parley's Pointe Annexation Categories: Confidential In reviewing the attached information, Property Management has no comment on the requested annexation, the rezoning and the master plan amendment. In reviewing the provisions of the Settlement and Annexation Agreement, I would request that Property Management be involved in the conveyance through purchase/donation of the Open Space land so identified by the agreement. There are future years' property tax consequences which can be avoided through the proper notification of and interaction with Salt Lake County at the time of initial conveyance. Just a note of minor correction, the orientation of the Annexation Plat appears to be incorrect-the arrow intending to indicate north appears to be pointing east. Matt Williams Acting Property Manager 1/31/2006 Page 1 of 2 ¶ ZM3 ° g-ikno�1 Carroll, Sarah From: Walsh, Barry Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:38 AM To: Carroll, Sarah Cc: Young, Kevin; Bergenthal, Dan; Weiler, Scott; Leydsman, Wayne; Stewart, Brad; Butcher, Larry; Williams, Matthew Subject: Pet 400-05-41 Categories: Program/Policy January 31, 2006 Sarah Carroll Planning Division 451 South State St, Rm. 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Petition#400-05-41- Annexation for Proposed Parley's Pointe Subdivision by Romney/Carson. Dear Sarah: The Division of Transportation review recommendation and comments are for approval as follows: • In reviewing a 1994 traffic impact report for a former proposal in this same location for 60+ units, we saw no undue impact on the existing transportation corridor system. Using the information from this same report, we see no undue impact as a result of this proposal for 16 residential lots on Benchmark Drive or the 4 lots on Scenic Drive. • Unlike for public roadways, we do not review "private" community roadway geometrics or require them to comply to current city design standards. Private roadways must only comply to minimal requirements for emergency fire access standards for grades, curves, turning radii, etc. However, the entry/exit areas which are open to the public are subject to city design standards and must pass through the standard city process for review and approval. The development of the public roadway extension of both Benchmark and Scenic Dr will be required to comply to current city roadway design standards. We will need to review the public trail alignment and development to comply with national standards for public safety and how that trail blends with the private transportation corridors, trail head designation, etc. • We cannot comment further on the submitted plan at his time due to the limited information shown in its reduced scale. Please feel free to call me at 535-6630 if you have any questions about these comments. Sincerely, Barry Walsh i/4 /9006 Page 1 of 1 ?UUC Carroll, Sarah From: Stewart, Brad Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:37 AM To: Carroll, Sarah; Leydsman, Wayne; Weiler, Scott; Smith, Craig Cc: Niermeyer, Jeff; Garcia, Peggy; Greenleaf, Karryn Subject: RE: URGENT: Annexation, zoning and master plan amendment, petition no. 400-05-41 Categories: Program/Policy Sarah, Salt Lake Public Utilities concurs with the annexation proposal. We have been working closely with representatives of Romney Lumber and Lynn Pace to resolve water, sewer, and storm drainage issues associated with this proposal. The resolution reflects the outcome of these discussions. Engineers working for Romney Lumber are preparing detailed design drawings for the water transmission line relocation, sewer, storm drainage and mountain drainage aspects of this project. Upon approval of these drawings Public Utilities can enter into a subdivision agreement that will allow construction of the subdivision. Brad From: Carroll, Sarah sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 2:53 PM To: Stewart, Brad; Leydsman, Wayne; Weiler, Scott; Smith, Craig Subject: URGENT: Annexation, zoning and master plan amendment, petition no. 400-05-41 Importance: High I have not yet received written comments from Engineering, Public Utilities and the Fire Department regarding this request for annexation, zoning map amendment and master plan amendment. (I routed this to everyone on 1/20/06). Please e-mail your comments by tomorrow so that I may state your comments in the final draft of my staff report. I've attached the memo that I routed and the resolution that planning staff submitted to the City Council. Thanks Everyone! Sarah Carroll Associate Planner 801-535-6260 sarah.carroll@slcgov.com 2/7/2006 p.Z Sarah Carroll Parley's Pointe Subdivision February 6, 2006 5. A geotechnical report is required addressing maximum cut and fill slopes and the prevalence of rock that will be encountered. The report should include a pavement section design for the new streets with backup data and calculations. 6. Revegetation of cut and fill slopes for roadway construction is required as part of the subdivision agreement. 7. Sewer, Water& Drainage must conform to the requirements of the Public Utility Department. The developer must enter into agreements required by the SLC Public Utilities Department and pay the required fees. 8. The subdivision plat must conform to the requirements on the attached plat checklist. A plat should be submitted as soon as possible to allow the SLC Surveyor to begin his review. 9. Alice Montoya will assign addresses to the proposed lots when a plat is submitted. 10. The construction contractor must file a Notice of Intent with the State of Utah to comply with the NPDES permitting process. The Contractor must also submit a pollution prevention plan to the State. 11. At least one member of the concrete finishing crew must be ACI Certified. The name of the ACI certified finisher must be provided at the pre-construction meeting for the subdivision. cc: Brad Stewart Barry Walsh Vault ERlEU'k (f c).\ TO: SARAH CARROLL, PLANNING FROM: SCOTT WEILER, P.E., ENGINEERING DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2006 SUBJECT: Romney/Carson Annexation for Parley's Pointe Subdivision 2982 Benchmark Drive City Engineering review comments, dated March 24, 2000 are updated as follows: 1. It is our understanding that the annexation of the proposed Phase 1 Subdivision will occur after Salt Lake County approves the plat and improvement plans but before construction. If so, SLC Engineering will be involved in the inspection of the construction but not the plan review and approval. If the annexation of Phase 2 occurs before the plat and improvement plan approval of Phase 2, SLC Engineering will be involved in the plan review as well as the construction inspection of Phase 2. If this is the case, the developer must enter into a subdivision improvement construction agreement for Phase 2. This agreement requires the payment of a 5% fee based on the estimated cost of roadway improvements. 2. Curb, gutter and sidewalk exist in Benchmark Drive and Scenic Drive, the two public streets that would provide access to Phase 1 and Phase 2, respectively. Items 3. through 11. apply to the proposed Phase 2 Subdivision if it is annexed before it is platted and given SLC approval. 3. Plan& Profile Drawings for the proposed new street must comply with the Salt Lake City Engineering design regulations. Some of the significant requirements are as follows: Minimum street design grade is 0.50% along the gutter flowline. Maximum street design grade is 12% along the centerline of the street. The engineering drawings must show the profile view for both top back of curb grades, as well as the centerline grade. The horizontal scale for the drawings shall be 1"=20', 1"=30' or 1"=40. The vertical scale shall be one-tenth the horizontal scale. Cut and fill sections must be shown every 50' of new roadway. 4. SLC Transportation must approve all street geometrics. Page 1 of 1 F \ K PEPT. Carroll, Sarah From: Leydsman, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 3:06 PM To: Carroll, Sarah Subject: Petition 400-05-41 Parley's Pointe Annexation Plat Categories: Confidential I have reviewed the material given to me regarding this request. Phase 1 indicate a road to future property sites. The drawings I have received area basic and do not have many details that I requested. I have concerns that the basic fire code requirements are met for the road. The road shall be paved and a minimum of 26 feet in width with no parking permitted on either side. Once over 28 feet then parking would be permitted on one side. Over 32 feet then parking is permitted on both sides. In addition the grade of the road shall be less than 10 percent at any point. I had requested the grade information and not yet received it. An adequte water system and supply shall be provided along this road to provide fire hydrants at a maximum of 500 foot spacing. Absolute minimum water supply shall be 1500 GPM at 20 psi at the most remote hydrant. Water main shall be at least 8" diameter along the road. Another comment is the turn around at the end of the phase 1. It is asked that a cul-de-sac of 120 feet be provided to handle large fire apparatus. (The code does permit a 96' diameter for up to 750 feet from the main point of entry road. However, due to the great distance from the main access point the larger diameter has been utilized on other projects in the city.) If this property is to be gated, then a clear width 20 feet shall be provided at that point, along with keys or other means for FD entry. These are general comments and concerns by the Salt Lake City Fire Department, so that we may best provide services to this area as it becomes annexed into the city. My phone number is 799-4164 if additional question occur. Wayne Leydsman Inspector/Plans Examiner SLCFD 7/7/2006 02/16/2006 13:50 FAX 7994156 SLC FIRE PREVENTION fli0o2/002 rage r or a Leydsman, Wayne From: Leydsman,Wayne Sent: Thursday,February 16,2006 11:14 To: Carroll, Sarah Subject: Petition 400-05-41 Parley's Pointe Annexation Plat Subdivision Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Categories: Prograrn/PoIcy February 15,2006 Sarah Carroll Planning Division 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City,Utah,84111 Re:Petition#400-05-41:Parley's Pointe Annexation, Revision to E-mail dated February 7,2006, The Salt Lake City Fire Department has received more detailed plans for the Phase I portion of this project which indicated residential parcels which are accessed from and a private road. The State of Utah has adopted the international Fire Code(IFC)2003 Edition and the city has specifically adopted Appendices B,C,and D,which is adopted as a minimum code and standard of regulations affecting the safety and well being to Rfe and property from fire and related hazards,and relates to this annexation request A portion of these regulations are related to fire service features to new construction and providing guidelines to new developments,as related in Chapter 5 of the IFC. Copies of these code sections are attached for information and review. A basic site review was completed with the additional drawings regarding this project as provided, on the 13th of February.These plans indicated steep topography and a roadway of twenty feet in width,which does appear to meet our 10% maximum grade requirements,however the width is inadequate.Fire access roads more than 750 feet from the main access route, or main access cross street are required to be a minimum of 26 feet in width as outlined in Appendix D of the IFC.In addition,where fire hydrants are located,the minimum road width shall be 26 feet.These fire access roads shall be posted as NO PARKING,FIRE LANE on both sides of the road.Any gates Installed at the site shall meet the requirements of Appendix 0103.5 of the IFC, and shall be a minimum of twenty feet In width when opened. Rapid access means,such as fire department key boxes,or other approved means shall be provided to rapidly open any gate on the fire access route. The main water line which feed the fire hydrants should be immediately adjacent to,and follow the road.This is to be coordinated with Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. It was noted that the fire hydrant at the end of the road shall be accessible from the road or have pavement extended to, and slightly beyond it. It also appears that the homes on these lots are large and may require residential fire sprinkler systems.This will be determined on a case by case basis,based on type of construction, building area,distance and water flow from the nearest fire hydrants. We highly recommend that all the homes in this subdivision be provide with residential fire sprinklers and to consult with their insurance carriers for additional advice and recommendations. Sincerely, Wayn 3r •sman Assistant PlansExaminer 02/16/2006 02/16/2006 13: 18 FAX 7994156 SLC FIRE PREVENTION RI003/012 xh1i1n► = A 14-1Nel.AO0 OC-4 L Stake. Rdt i ed IFe.:2.ot)3Ed- CHAPTER 5 - - INDicM E FIRE SERVICE FEATURES esntteAsuE RFC,u LAT(ot.) SECTION 501 SECTION 503 GENERAL I FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS 501.1 Scope.Fire service features for buildings,structures and 503.1 Where required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be premises shall comply with this chapter_ provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 503.1.1 501.2 Permits.A permit shall'be required as set forth in Sec- through 503.1.3. bons 105.6 and 105.7. 503.1.1 Buildings and facilities.Approved fire apparatus 5013 Conatroetlon documents.Construction documents for access roads shall be provided for every facility,building or proposed fire apparatus access,location of fire lanes and COD- portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or strut Lion documents and hydraulic calculations for fire hydrant within the jurisdiction_The fire apparatus access road shall systems shall be submitted to the tire department for review and comply with the requirements of this section and shall ex- approval prior to consnruction_ tend to within 150 feet(45 720 mm)of all portions of the fa- cility and all portions of the exterior walls ofthe first story of 501.4 Timing of installation. When fire apparatus access the building as measured by an approved route around the roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to be in- exterior of the building or facility. stalled,such protection shall be installed and made serviceable Exception: The fire code official is authorized to in prior to and during the time of construction except when ap- crease the dimension of 150 feet(45 720 mm)where: proved alternative methods of protection are provided.Tbmpo- rary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection 1. The building is equipped throughout with an ap- when construction ofnew roadways allows passage by vehicles proved automatic sprinkler system installed in ac- in accordance with Section 5052. cordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3, 2. Fire apparatus access roads cannot be installed be- SECTIONDE NS 502 cause of location on property,topography,water- ways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar 502.1 Definitions.The following words and terms shall,for the conditions,and an approved alternative means of purposes of this chapter and as used elsewhere in this code, fire protection is provided. have the meanings shown herein. 3_ Them are notmore than two Group R-3 or Group U FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD,A road that provides occupancies. fire apparatus access from a fire station to a facility,building or 503.1.2 Additionid access.The fire code official is autho- portion thereof. This is a general term inclusive of all other rized to require mare than one fire apparatus access road terms such as fire lane,public street,private street,parking lot based on the potential for impairment of a single road by ve- and access roadway_ hicle congestion,condition oftenain,climatic conditions or FIRE COMMAND CENTER The principal attended or un- other factors that could limit access. attended location where the status of tho detection,alarm corn- . 503.1.3 High-piled storage.Fire department vehicle access munications and control systems is displayed,and from which to buildings used for high-piled combustible storage shall the system(s)can be manually controlled. comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 23. FIRE DEPARTMENT MASTER KEY.A limited issue key,.2 5012 Specifications.Fire apparatus access roads shall be in- of special or controlled design to be carried by fire department stalled and arranged in accordance with Sections 503.2.1 officials in command which will open key boxes on specified through 5032.7. gee IN . °D I properties - -4503.2,1 Dimensions.Fire apparatus ac roads have FIRE LANE.A road or other passageway developed to allow an unobstructed width of not less than 20 fact(ti096 mm), --> the passage of fire apparatus.A fire lane is not necessarily in- except for approved security gates in accordance with Sec- tended for vehicular traffic other than fire apparatus. tion 503.6,and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less KEY BOX.A secure,tamperproof device with a lock operable than 13 feet 6 inches(4115 mm). only by a fire department master key,and containing building 503.22 Authority.The fire code official shall have the au- entry keys and other keys that may be required for access in an —)thor ty t Lmuire an incerese in the mintmuin aces bs emergency- oieetei.f.n Vro lYl where they are inadequate for fire or rescue operations. S LC-F D 503.2.3 Surface.Fire apparatus access roads shall be de- F ixt,p re-vu"'}I"n,0 signed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire, q 799"4 j j rj 0apparatus and sbalTbe surfaced so as to provide all-weather i driving capabilities. ~--. 2003 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE® a9 02/16/2006 13: 19 FAX 7994156 SLC FIRE PREVENTION fa004/012 FIRE SSRVICE FEATURES 503.2.4 Turning radius.The required turning radius of a twined readily accessible for emergency access by the fire de- fire apparatus access road shell be determined by the fire partment.An approved access walkway leading from fire appa- ..q►_code officiaL rates access roads to exterior openings shall be provided when 503.2.5 Dead ends;Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in required by the fire code official. excess of 150 fiat(45 720 nun)in length shall be provided 504.2 Maintenance of exterior doors and openings.Exterior with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. doors and their function shall not be eliminated without prior 503.2.6 Bridges and elevated surfaces.Where a bridge or approval.Exterior doors thathave been rendered nonfunctional an elevated surface is part of a fire apparatus access road,the and that retain a functional door exterior appearance shall have bridge shall be constructed and maintained in accordance a sign affixed to the exterior side of the door with the words with AASHTO Standard Specification for Highway THIS DOOR BLOCKED.The sign shall consist of letters hay- Bridges.Bridges and elevated surfaces shall be designed for inga principal stroke of not less than 0.75 inch(19.1 ram)wide a live load sufficient to cant'the imposed loads of fire appa- and at least 6 inches(152 nun)high on a contrasting back- ratus.Vehicle load limits shall be posted at both entrances to ground.Required fire department access doors shall not be oh- bridges when required by the fire code official.Where ele- mated or eliminated.Exit and exit access doors shall comply vated surfaces designed for emergency vehicle use are adja- with Chapter 10.Access doors for high-piled combustible star- cent to surfaces which are not designed for such use, age shall comply with Section 2306.6.1. approved barriers,approved signs or both shall be installed 504.3 Stairway access to roof. New buildings four or more and maintained when required by the fire code officiaL stories in height,except those with a roof slope greater than -->,, 03.2.7 Grade.The grade of the fire apparatus access road four units vertical in 12 units horizontal(33.3 percent slope), shall be within the limits established by the fire code official shall be provided with a stairway to the roof.Stairway access to based on the fire department's apparatus. 10% gt a the roof shall be in accordance with Section 1009.12. Such I — 35033 Marltiae.Where required the fire code official. O stairway shall be!narked at street and floor levels with a sign in- Where dicating that the stairway continues to the roof.When roofs are proved signs or other approved notices shall be provided for used for roof gardens or for other purposes,stairways shall be fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the provided as required for such occupancy classification. obstruction thereof.Signs or notices shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times and be replaced or re- paired when necessary to provide adequate visibility. SECTION 505 503.4 Obstruction of fire apparatus access roads.Fire appa- PREMISES IDENTIFICATION ratus access roads shall not be obstructed in any manner,in- cludingnumbers. existing the parking of vehicles. The rah:�mumi wirithg and, g buildings shall clearances established in Section 503.2.1 shall be a,ggintained have approved address numbers,building numbers or approved at all times. building identification placed in a position that is plainly legi- ble and visible from the street or road fronting the property. 503.5 Required gates or barricades.The fire code official is These numbers shall contrast with their backgrounid.Address authorized to require the installation and maintenance of gates numbers shoal be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters.Numbers or other approved barricades across fire apparatus access roads, shall be a minimum of 4 inches(102 ram)highwith a minimumtrails or other accessways,not including public streets,alleys or highways. stroke width of 0.5 inch(12.7 min). 505.2 Street or road signs.Streets and roads shall be identified "---Pi 503.5.1 Secured gates and barricades` When required, with a signsshall be installed at each gates and Ianricadcs shall be secured"in an approved man- approved T�l ffiY nee. Roads, trails and other accessways that have been Street intersection when construction of new roadways allows closed and obstructed in the manner prescribed by Section pa88�bydbemei Signs untilti replaced f an bypeed size,esigns.d 503.5 shall notbe trespassed on or used unless authorized by resistant and be maintained permanent the owner and the fire code official. Exception:The restriction on use shall not apply to pub- SECTION 506 lie officers acting within the scope of duty. KEY BOXES 503.6 Secnrtty gates. The installation of security gates across 506.1 Where required. Where access to or within a structure a ire apparatus access road shall be approved by the fire chief. or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where Where security gates are installed,they shall have are approved immediate access is necessaryfor life-s — means of emergency on. The security gates and the avang fire-fighting emergency operation �be maintained operational at all p�°s�'the fire code official is authorized to require a key times. box to be installed in an ap ved location. The key box shall be ofan approved-type aid s1iall contain keys to gain necessary access as-required-by the fire code olaial. SECTION 504 504.1.1 Locks.An approved lock shall be installed on gates ACCESS TO BUILDING OPENINGS AND ROOFS or similar barriers when required by the fire code official. 504.1 Required access.Exterior doors and openings required 506.2 Key box maintenance. The operator of the building by this code or the International Building Code shall be main- shall immediately notify the Fire code official and provide the 40 2003 INTERNATIONAL ARE CODES 02/16/2008 13'20 FAX 7994156 SLC FIRE PREVENTION Cj005/012 FIRE SERVICE FEATURES new key when a lock is changed or rekeyed.The key to such-4508.3 Fire flow.Fire flow requirements for buildings or por- lock shall be secured in the key box. Lions of buildings and facilities shall be determined by an ap- provedmethod. sae APK'(3` SECTION 507 508.4 Water supply test.The fire code official shall be notified prior to the water supply test Water supply tests shall be wit- HAZARDS TO FIRE FIGHTERS nessed by the fire code official or approved documentation of 507.1 Trapdoors to be closed.Trapdoors and scuttle covers, the test shall be provided to the fire code official prior to final other than those that are within a dwelling unit or automatically approval of the water supply system. operated,shall be kept closed at all times except when in user ?5 $,5 Fire hydrant systems.Fire hydrant systems shall com- 507.2 Shefhvay markings.Vertical shafts shall be identified ply with Sections 508.5.1 through 508.5.6_ as required by this section. 508.5.1 Where required.Where a portion of the facility or 5071.1 Ntiztetior access to sha ^ays. Outside openings building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the accessible to the fire department and which open directly on jurisdiction is more than 400 feet(122 m)from a hydrant an a hoistway or sbaftway communicating between two or a apparatus access road,as measured by an approved more floors in a building shall be plainly rrsatked with the route around the exterior of the facility or building,on site word SHAFTWAY in red letters at least 6 inches(152 mm) hydrants mains shall be provided where required by high on a white background.Such warning signs shall be the code official. placed so as to be readily discernible from the outside of the Exceptions: building. 1. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies,the dis- 507.2.2 Interior access to sbaftways. Door or window tance requirement shall be 600 feet(183 m). openings to a hoistway or shaftway from the interior of the 2. For buildingsequipped ap- buildingchap be eq 'piled throughout with an plainly marked with the word proved automatic sprinkler system installed in ac- SHAFTWAY in red letters at least 6 inches(152 mm)high cordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.12,the on a white background.Such warning signs shall be placed distance requirement shall be 600 feet(183 m). so as to be readily discernible. 508.5.2 Inspection, testing and maintenance. Fire hy- Exception:Marking shall not be required on shaftway dram systems shall be subject to periodic tests as required openings which arc readily discernible as openings onto by the fire code official.Fire hydrant systems shall be main- a shaftway by the construction or arrangement rained in an operative condition at all times and shall be re- aired507.3 Pitfalls.The intentional design or alteration of buildings Pwhere defective.Additions,repairs,alterations and to disable,injure,maim or kill intruders is prohibited.No per- servicing shall comply with approved standards. son shall install and use firearms,sharp or pointed objects,ra- 5085.3 Private lire service mains and water tanks.Pri- xor wire, explosives, flammable or combustible liquid vate fire service mains and water tanks shall be periodically containers,or dispensers containing highly toxic,toxic,irritant inspected,tested and maintained in accordance with NFPA or other hazardous materials in a manner which may passively 25 at the following intervals: or actively disable,injure,maim or kill a the fighter who fore- I. Private fire hydrants(all types):Inspection annually ibly enters a building for the purpose of controlling or eatm- guisbing a fire,rescuing trapped occupants or rendering other and after each operation;flow test and maintenance annually. emergency assistance. 2. Fire service main piping:Inspection of exposed,an- nually;flow test every 5 years. SECTION SOB 3. Fire service main piping strainers: Inspection and FIRE PROTECTION WATER SUPPLIES maintenance after each use. 508.1 Required water supply.An approved water supply ca- 508.5.4 Obstruction.Posts,fences,vehicles,growth,trash, pable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection storage and other materials or objects shall not be placed or shall be provided to premises upon which facilities,buildings kept near fire hydrants,fire department inlet connections or or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into protection system control valves in a manner that would or within the jurisdiction. prevent such equipment or fire hydrants from being imme- diately discernible.The fire department shall not be deterred 508.21ype of water supply.A water supply shall consist of or hindered from gaining immediate access to fire protec- reservoirs,pressure tanks,elevated tanks,water mains or other tine equipment or fife hydrants. fixed systems capable of providing the required fire flow. 508.5.5 Clear space around hydrants.A 3-foot(914 ram) 508.2.1 Private fire service mains. Private fire service clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of mains and appurtenances shall be installed in accordance fire hydrants except as otherwise required or approved. with NFPA 24. 508.5.6 Physical protection.Where fire hydrants are sub- 508.2.2 Water tanks.Water ranks for private fire protection jest to impact by a motor vehicle,guard posts or other ap- shall be installed in accordance with NFFA 22. proved means shall comply with Section 312. 2003 INTERNATIONAL FIRE COOS® 41 02/16/2008 13:20 FAX 7994158 SLC FIRE PREVENTION Z 008/012 APPENDIX B FIRE-FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS The provisions contained in this appendix are not mandatory unless speelfically referenced in the adupting ordinance. SECTION B101 6104.3 Type lA and Type lB coustrpetion.The fire-flow cal- 0 EN ERAL culation arca of buildings constructed of Type IA and Type IB B101.1 Scope. The procedure for determining fire-flow re- construction shall be the area of the three largest successive quirements for buildings or portions ofbuildings hereafter con- fly. structcd shall be in accordance with this appendix. This Exception:Fire-flow calculation area for open parking ga- 8 appendix does not apply to structures other than buildings. rages shall be determined by the area of the largest floor. SECTION B102 SECTION B105 DEFINITIONS FIRE- OW REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS B102-1 Definitions.For the purpose of this appendix,certain B105.1 One- and two-family dwellings. The minimum terms are defined as follows: fire-flow requirements for one-and two-family dwellings hay- FIRE FLOW The flow rate of a water supply,measured at 20 ing a fire-flow calculation area which does not exceed 3,600 I pounds per square inch(psi)(138 kPa)residual pressure,that is sly feet (344.5 mr) shall be 1,000 gallons per minute available for fire fighting. (3785.4 Llnun).Fire flow and flow duration for dwellings hav- ing a fire-flow calculation area in excess of 3,600 square feet 1 FIRE-FLOW CALCULATION AREA.The floor area, in , square feet(m2),used to determine the required fire flow. (344.5 m�shall not be less than that spoxifrcd in Table H 105.1. Exception: A reduction in required fire flow of 50 percent as approved,is allowed when the building is provided with SECTION B103 an approved automatic sprinkler system. MODIFICATIONS 11105.2 Buildings other than one-and two-family dwellings. B103.1 Decreases.The fife chief is authorized to reduce the The minimum fire flow and flow duration for buildings other fire-flow requirements for isolated buildings or a group of than one-and two-family dwellings shall be as specified in Ta- buildings in rural areas or small communities where the Bevel- blc B105.1. opulent of full fire-flow requirements is impractical. Exception: A reduction in required fire flow of up to 50 B103.2 Increases.The fire chief is authorized to increase the percent,as approved,is allowed when the building is pro- fire-flow requirements where conditions indicate an unusual vidcd with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed susceptibility to group fires or conflagrations.An increase shall in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 of the In- not be more than twice that required for the building under con- ternational Fie Code.Where buildings are also ofType I or sideration. II construction and are a light-hazard occupancy as defined B1033 Areas without water supply systems.For informs- by NFPA 13,the reduction may be up to 75 percent.The so- lion regardingwaterfire-fighting purposes in rural suiting fire flow shall notbe less than 1,500 gallons per min- ansupplies for ute(5678 I/min)for the prescribed duration as specified in and suburban areas in which adequate and reliable water supply Table B 105.1. systems do not exist,the lire code official is authorized to uti- lize NFPA 1142 or the International Urban Midland Interface Code SECTION B106 REFERENCED STANDARDS SECTION B104 ICC WC International Building Code B1042, FIRE AREATable B105.1 1 B104.1 General.The fire-flow calculation area shall be the to- ICC IFC International Fire Code 81052 tat floor area of all floor levels within the exterior walls,and Ian_ International Urban- der the horizontal projections of the roof of a building,except ICC 1UW1C Wildland Interlace Code B1033 as modified in Section B104.3. DI 04.2 Area separation,Portions ofbuildings which are sepa- Standard on Water Supplies rated byfire walls without NFPA 1142 for Suburban and Rural Fire B 103.3 openings,constructed in accordance Fighting with the International Building Code,are allowed to be consid- ered as separate fire-flow calculation areas. 2003 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE® 371 02/16/2006 13:20 FAX 7994156 SLC FIRE PREVENTION Z 007/012 FIRE-FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS TABLE B105.1 MINIMUM REQUIRED FIRE FLOW AND FLOW DURATION FOR BUILDINGS' FIRE-FLOW CALCULATION AREA(squar.l:.0 FIRE FLOW FLOW Type IA and II° Type uA end IUA° Type Iv end IAA° Type PO and IIB° type Ke° (gallon.per minuler DuRA11ON(hors) 0-22,700 0-12,700 _ 0-8,200 0-5,900 0-3,600 1,500 , 22,701-30,200 12,701-17,000 8,201-10,900 5,901-7,900 3,601-4,800 1,750 30,201-38,700 17,001-21,800 10,901-12,900 7,901-9,800 4,801.6,200 2,000 2 38,701-48,300 21,801-24,200 12,901-17,400 9,801-12,600 , 6,201-7,700 2,250 48,301-59,000 24,20I-33,200 , 17,401-21,300 12,601-15,400 7,701-9,400 2,500 59,001-70,900 33,201-39,700 21,301-25,500 15,401-18,400 9,401-11,300 2,750 70,901-83,700 39,701-47,100 25,501-30,100 18,401-21,800 11,301-13,400 3,000 83,701-97,700 47,101-54,900 30,101-35,200 21,801-25,900 13,401-15,600 3,250 3 97,701-112,700 54,901-63,400 35,201-40,600 25,901-29,300 15,601-18,000 3,500 112,701-128,700 63,401-72,400 40,601-46,400 29,301.33,500 18,001-20,600 3,750 128,701-145,900 72,401-82,100 46,401-52,500 33,501-37,900 20,601-23,300 4,000 145,901-164,200 82,101-92,400 52,501-59,100 37,901-42,700 23,301-26,300 4,250 164,201-183,400 92,401-103,100 59,101-66,000 42,701-47 700 26,301-29,300 4,500 183,401-203,700 103,101-114,600 66,001-73,300 47,701-53,000 29,301-32,600 , 4,750 203,701-225,200 114,601-126,700 73,301-81,100 53,001-58,600 32,601.36,000 5,000 225,201-247,700 126,701-139,400 81,101-89,200 58,601-65,400 36,001-39,600 5,250 247,701-271,200 139,401-152,600 89,201-97,700 65,401-70,600 39,601-43,400 5,500 271,201-295,900 152,601-166,500 97,701-106,500 70,601-77,000 43,401-47,400 5,750 295,901-Greater 166,501-Greater 106,501-115,800 77,001-83,700 47,401-51,500 6,000 4 - 115,801-125 500 83,701-90,600 51,501-55,700 6,250 125,501-135,500 90,601-97,900 55,701-60,200 6,500 - 135,501-145.800 97,901-106,800 60,20I.64,800 6,750 - 145,801-156,700 106,801-113,200 64,801-69,600 7,000 156,701-167,900 113,201-121,300 69,601-74,600 7,250 - - 167.901-179,400 121,301.129,600 , 74,601-79,800 7,500 179,401-191,400 129,601-138,300 79,801-852100 7,750 191,4.01-Greater 138001-Greater 85,101-Cheater 8,000 For ST. 1 squaro foot=0.0929 m2,18ellon per minute=3.785 Um,1 pound per square inch=6.895 kPe, E e.The minunum required lice Dow&ball be peanitted to be reduced by 25 percent for Use Group R b.Typcs of constru4sion ire based ea the International Building Code. c.Measured at 20 psi 372 2003 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODES 02/18/2008 13:21 FAX 7994158 SLC FIRE PREVENTION IJ008/012 APPENDIX C FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION The provisions contained in this appendix are not mandatory unless specifically referenced in the adopting ordinance. SECTION C101 SECTION C104 GENERAL CONSIDERATION OF EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS C101.1 Scope.Fire hydrants shall be provided in accordance C104.1 Existing fire hydrants.Existing fire hydrants on pub- with this appendix forthe protection ofbuldings,orportionsof lie streets are allowed to be considered as available.Existing buildings,hereafter constructed. fire hydrants on adjacent properties shall not be considered available unless fire apparatus access roads extend between properties and easements are established to prevent obstruction SECTION C102 of such roads. LOCATION C102.I 1F1re hydrant locations. Fire hydrants shall be pro- vided along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent SECTION C105 public streets. DISTRIBUTION OF FIRE HYDRANTS CI05.1 Hydrant spacing.The average spacing between fire hydrants shall not exceed that listed in Table C105.1. SECTION C103 Exception: 'fie fire chief is authorized to accent a defi- NUMBER OF FIRE HYDRANTS C1ency of up to 10 percent where existing fire hydrants pto- --- 103.1 fFlre hydrants available The minimum number of fire vide all or a portion ofthe required fire hydrant service. hydrants available to a building shall not bo less than that 11sbcd Regardless of the average spacing,fire hydrants shall be lo- in Table C105.1.The number of hydrants available to a ��such that all points on streets and access roads adjacentto comp ex or se. vision shall not be less thannthat determined a building are within the distances listed in Table C105.1. by spacing requirements listed in Table C105.1 when applied to fire apparatus access roads and perimeter public streets from which fire operations could be conducted. TABLE C105.1 NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF FIRE HYDRANTS AVERAGE SPACING MAIIMUM DISTANCE FROM FIRE-FLOW REQUIREMENT AHNONUII NUMBER BETWEEN HYDRAmrS"' ANY POINT ON STREET OR ROAD (gem) OF HYDRANTS FRONTAGE TO A HYDRANT1 1,750 or less 1 500 250 2,000-2,250 2 450 225 2,500 3 450 225_ 3,000 3 400 225 3,500-4,000 4 350 210 _ 4,500-5,000 5 300 180 5,500 6 300 180 6,000 6 250 ISO 6,500-7,000 7 250 150 7,500 or more 8 or more' 200 120 For SI: I foot-304.s mm,1 gallon per minute-3.785 Urn. a.Reduce by 100 feet far dead-end streets or roads. b.Where strews are provided with median dividers which can be mussed by fire fighters pulling hose lines,or where arterial sheets are provided with four tr more traffic lanes and have a traffic count of more than 30,000 vehicles per day,hydrant spacing shall average StOO flan an each side of the street and be saangedon an al- ternating basis up to a fur-flow requirement of 7.000 gallons pa minute and 400 fed for higher fire-flow requirements. c.%ere new water human are extended along streets where hydrants are not needed for protection of atruetures or similar fire problems.Ore hydrants than be pro- vided a spacing nut In screed 1,000 feet to provide for transporation hazards. d.Reduce by 50 feet for dead-cad sweets or roads. e.One hydrant for each 1,000 gallons per minute or fraction thereof 2003 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODED 373 02/1B/2006 13:21 FAX 799415B SLC FIRE PREVENTION Z 009/012 APPENDIX D FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS The provisions contained in this appendix are not mandatory unless specifically referenced in the adopting ordinance. SECTION D101 I D103.3 Turning radios.The minimum turning radius shall be GENERAL determined by the fire code official. D101,1 Scope.Fire apparatus access roads shall be in actor- D103.4 Dead ends.Dead-cod fire apparatus access roads in dance with ibis appendix and all other applicable requirements excess of 150 feet(45 720 mm)shall be provided with width of the International Fire Code, and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D103.4. TABLE D103.4 SECTION D102 REQUIREMENTS FOR DEAD-END FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS REQUIRED ACCESS ,ratcn, WIDTH D102.1 Access and loading.Facilities,buildings or portions of (t..s1 (revel TURNAROUNDS REQUatE0 buildings hereafter constructed'boll be accessible to fire de- 0-150 20 None required partment apparatus by way of an approved fie apparatus access road with an asphalt,concrete or other approved driving sit- 120-foot Hammerhead,60-foot"Y"or face capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus 151-500 20 96-foot-diameter cul-de-sac in weighing at least 75,000 pounds(34 050 kg). accordance with Figure 0103.1 120-foot Hammerhead,60-foot"Y"or "-- 501-750 26 96-foot-diameter cal-do-aae in SECTION D103 accordance with Figure D103.1 MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS ""'+Y Over 750 Special approval required ) D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant. Where a fire hy- drantSi: "butma- , is located on a fire apparatus access road,tfie minimum road id dth shall be 26 feet(7925 mm).See Figure D103.1. D103,2 Grade.Fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 D103.5 Fire apparatus access mad.g g.Gates securing the ,,percent in rd.. r7A1 I p% Gpow ti.d- fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all of the follow- Exception:Grades steeper than 10 percent as approved by mg criteria. the fire chief 1. The minimum gate width shall be 20 feet(6096 mm). ,� ."--"...N.'-\\ 70' 2 LJ - .v 28 R 29'R TYP' - %`\5J�26'—, TYP.' —", mr-0' 20' 20'� I �-20' v� t 96'DIAMETER 70'DIAMETER ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM CLEARANCE 0 CUL-DE-SAC CUL-DE-SAC TO 120'HAMMERHEAD AROUND A FIRE '' HYDRANT )s 3e-1 I [ fl 28'2 Q[ 1, 20's Vj�i' -• 20' 1.1 r 2tY 60'HAMMERHEAD 120'HAMMERHEAD ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE TO 120'HAMMERHEAD For SI! 1 foot-304.8 Mite. FIGURE 0103.1 DEAD-END FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD TURNAROUND 2003 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE® 375 02/18/2006 13:21 FAX 7994156 SLC FIRE PREVENTION 20 10/012 APPENDIX D 2. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type. 62,000 square feet(5760 m2)shall be provided with two sepa- 3. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow rate and approved fire apparatus access roads. manual operation by one person Exception:Projects having a gross building area of up to 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operative 124,000 square feet(11 520 m2)that have a single approved condition at all times and replaced or repaired when de- fiTe apparatus access road when all buildings are equipped festive throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening 0104.3 Remoteness. Where two access roads are required, the gate by fire department personnel for emergency ac- they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one cess.Emergency opening devices shall be approved by half ofthe length of thc maximum overall diagonal dimension the fire code official, of the property or area to be served,measured in a straight line 6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with a padlock between accesses. or chain and padlock unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools. SECTION D105 7. Locking device specifications shall be submitted for ap- AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS proval by the fire code official. D105J Where required,Buildings or portions ofbuildings or D103.6 Signs.Where required by the fire code official,fire ap- facilities exceeding 30 feet(9144 rum)in height above the low- paratus access roads shall be marked with permanent NO est level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided PARKING—FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of eccom- D103.6.Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches modating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility (305 mm)wide by 18 inches(457 ram)high and have red letters and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire appa- on a white reflective background.Signs shall be posted on one rates access roadway. or both sides of the fire apparatus road as required by Section D105.Z Width.Fire apparatus access roads shall have amini- D103.6.1 or D103.6.2. mini- mum unobstructed width of 26 feet(7925 mm)in the immedi- ate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet(9144 teem)in height. SIGN TYPE"A" SIGN TYPE IC" SIGN TYPED' D105.3 Proximity to budding.At least one ofthe required ac- NO NO NO J ccss routes meeting this condition shall be located within a PARKING PARKING PARKING minimum of 15 feet(4572 ram)and a maximum of 30 feet 18. (9144 mm)from the building,and shall be positioned parallel FRE LANE FIRE LANE ARE LANE to one entire side of the building. SECTION D106 -.— 12•� �-- +2' ----+a MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS D106.1 Projects Laving more than 100 dwelling units.Mul- tiple-family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling FIGURE D103.0 units shall be equipped throughout with two separate and ap- FIRE LANE SIGNS proved fee apparatus access roads. Exception:Projects having up to 200 dwelling units may D103.6.1 Roads 20 to 26 feet la width.Fire apparatus as have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all caw roads 20 to 26 feet wide(6096 to 7925 ram)shall be buildings, including nonresidential occupancies, are posted on both sides as a fire lane. equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler —1 D103.6.2 Roads more titan 26 feet in width.Fire appara- systems installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or tus access goads more than 26 feet wide(7925 ram)to 32 903.3.12 of the jnternational Fire Code. feet wide(9754 mm)shall be posted on one side ofthe road D106.2 Projects loving more than 200 dwelling units.Mul- as a fire lane. tiple-family residential projects having morethan 200 dwelling units shall be provided with two separate and approved fire ap- paratus access roads regardless of whether they are equipped SECTION 0104 with an approved automatic sprinkler system. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS D104.1 Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in SECTION D107 height.Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet(9144 ram)or ONE-OR TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL three stories in height shall have at least three means of fire ap- DEVELOPMENTS paratus access for each structure. D107.1 One- or two-family dwelling residential develop- D104.2 Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet In area. meats.Developments of one-or two-family dwellings where Buildings ar facilities having a gross building area ofmore than the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with 376 2003 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE® 02/18/2006 13:22 FAX 7994156 SLC FIRE PREVENTION Z 011/012 APPENDIX D separate and approved fire apparatus access roads,and shall meet the requirements of Section D104.3. Exceptions: 1. Where there are 30 or fewer dwelling units on a single _ public or private access way and alydwe1ling units arc protected 6y approved residential spruilder systems,o aceeas fromt tw directions a IIh of t be required'. 2. The number of dwelling units on a single fire appara- tus access road shall not be increased unless fire appa- ratus access roads will connect with future development,as determined by the fire code official. 377 2003 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODES 02/18/2006 13:22 FAX 7994156 SLC FIRE PREVENTION Ca012/012 •••••- • ...•• ri,,'. r,'�S.k n'ltir. •t" . .... �''• :•.r[1111111 •• • ... :. 114 ,ranFl Mii Orr Z'e srti „t� .. !k hr sPI � . , �3 P•:••aa l "wi1t4 • s� '.fi N $D3j e $ �i! -Ali y.,' 4. 0,11:1.-1 ii -:72.'1. - • z II' • „;22111.. E , • - a• ••'.• q -' ...:;-.NIM Ei . I I-4 -. S'. AI 1,,E N zi -4-42 4,-t4 2-f spirt-, VilIf.X 11 "P:-'.A'):....: • l4$2a ,� 5;:I!III: 3. HI § A • . Pii' . , • Ri! ii ' ' . - ; E 1 : , 2 . ..2 8 N • PI -fil Di Cel s 0 - nl CID Ma 1�1 z • RR i . . N� o r G . N 4 s o , .-.. r-00 - • . 1 ,ZI.A..1 0 o • s a • • 1 sp-_ 2? - . I -7-, - e -.- . -X jj,',4" II L: .- • ' ' - • • wi g • • vI`O<re , I . g~ 2 4 ! ° _ tiallic. .. . ... _�'gwo-•$o .'nll'=1II r•. e • 2 ppt.v.-•-'.. 'i' •.,` . '!..t4.1.. 1ff• . :.'.•- .: • •`% ..o5lz v wI1 1"_`i II=m l 111 M: 4'� �' z XIy., K. ''�i fin ri.:r O W T n'�7� � .5._a'• loll:i�%S•+3J�4. 1/4 F} •�•j' 1 _ •.� •'„ _ .:.;, ;• •', :.'a.=•.:'+ `.1�. ', %.w-�•�! .�. �'•i4�i:' •, ' '^,- 1-'Z�M." C,.. ..._r. .i'i'i:.::i4 :;.i: ;1,411-- Y -. . �'. `��l:la,;.• ?ir•�fraSrSef �'• 030 PI,.•. •r1r =r:_:x°�: 5�'�a=+'C-s",• '7� :••i.'''S, y% `~Lii•�• • ;r' :2.. G= P1in •:•• ,T+!G� Sgt's0, •/t le = .ra.,.• -1,,�:��r1-T••-i. ::. r. •., _ •:4 i0 of ••r-;..=c.,. Kamm AREA �i 4-. ' '• - ..A � 7 y.. ^i;��f_ W �. sip Pi 7ij ��' .i ir' i .• , +a 7 r. •.,: �:,; .$',a�x;�L� :f •,§•'. -ri,�j3'yb;.''1C':a•,J" .fir �' � •ar '•. ..I,..' .. •r.Cs;:�] '-,--% ew.'?;.4., - c:. , _-25�J'•rjat�. ," - •.,...• • ,L°�1.g...��l•;.e.i l:! •C:' -• "-1'.'t•ll _ -t'.'- •:- r,, :•. ... wj }� `•°•4 , a:;rak;�-•' b.i.. '� ,�,,, 44: Writ„ •.,,. L ;L� .''�,�• '..:•.a.�i.7::•-4,,; "• -`a;,p,IL�ajC.0 ._ *'ly? s� „i• \??.. r rr3 •Y�' , .y «. ,v , :fV;:f,.;•• . r., .a.".»„s. ,hJ i . • � :1 ?'.jLa ram.; ;�k • ram.:. ..,,er..-, _r, -, r; 1•-`C?=,.—+L-�,:- `•wt • '•,.; • 'L'�r'��••:3.�.astl�lh . t y' -'�� '*.,: �'�? fa "' `"�''' :•',� •ti C, �l•\;_i , tom'" '' ter*'"••-F. .'4 i�".: •��,.4•-':, . '•ilk%Ti ' r r .s... ef, •�'r ...VO4': Z,Z-\. ;y,:•:q; _.T.Ttl• f ..?, i^\n �"• •••=*-''t. - N.:, ��r.' vS -li V.:I1J 1•W- •[�� .•"•'`- -'+s" cGl �.' �r _.t1. 1. T•i• -• •Ny A.^�1'•��"rC ��. `.`�: •' \ nVi -i'i,-r� •< • - . , R: , ��.: , _ .r •..44s SALT y .�y� �q .-,,.:: _ . u.: • _ - �.:'. .i_� ' STANDARD .PLAN ' �; r • • :. s;._ • .CITY: . ;t:' . . .ram':... • � Eo • YADE • CORPORATION::' = aW—.1 1 ' ND BY -- IA DAB — :. {, Re: Romney Annexation Page 1 of 1 CO1MUN1 CcuN1CL Carroll, Sarah From: Dave Mortensen [mortensen@biology.utah.edu] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 1:56 PM To: Carroll, Sarah Subject: Re: Romney Annexation On 1/18/06 9:43 AM, "Carroll, Sarah" <Sarah.Carroll@slcgov.com> wrote: Dave Mortensen: Will the Community Council be providing a statement regarding the Annexation request? I have to schedule this for the Planning Commission as soon as possible in order to meet the deadline set by the annexation agreement(120 days). Thank you, Sarah Carroll Associate Planner 801-535-6260 sarah.carroll@slcgov.com Sarah, As of now our community council does not have a statement regarding the Romney annexation. Dave 2/10/2006 6. Newspaper Notice The Salt take Tribune BUSINESS Wednesday,February 8,2006 t fa _ N ' ti aS fa . . rocleool@noce..co • • re 070--Legal 070—Legal 070--Legal 070—Legal 070—Legal 070—Legal 070—Legal four Notices Now Notices Notices Notices Notices Notices • Or SALT LAKE ar PIANNING__COMMISSION NOTICE OF TRUSTEE'S SALE APN: 20-24-256-005 Trust NOTICE Of TRUSTEE'S SALE APN: 28-07-202-013 Trust PUBUC HEARING No. 1077307-07 Ref:Courtin M.Watts TRA:Loan No. No.1078997-07 Ref:Charles Paul Corlett TRA Loan No. Pursuant to 64-13a-14 0600536397. IMPORTANT NOTICE TO PROPERTY 0000549808. IMPORTANT NOTICE TO PROPERTY h- Pam,, a 64-1n will On Wednesday 22 February, 2006 at 5:45 P.M., the OWNER:YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST OWNER:.YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED Of TRUST be held public Mondayy. Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a lk DATED December 05 2002. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION DATED November 15 2002. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION PUB- cal'held 2006 ny.Febam hearing to take comment and consider recommending TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUB- TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUB- at 20 at0 0 am approval of a request for annexation as well as the op- UC SALE.IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION Of THIS PRO- UC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THIS PRO- [je$, ties Utah Cor c lnsS.- propriate zoning and a master plan amendment relating CEEDING, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER.On March CEEDING, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER.On March Pony t at 14072 to the area proposed for annexation. The area pro- 01,2006 at 1 1:30om,James H.Woodall,as duly ap- 01,2006,at 11:30am,James IL Woodall,as duly ap- t- 84 Express This Draper, posed for annexation consists of approximately 405.59 pointed Trustee under a Deed of Trust recorded Decem- Pointed Trustee under a Deed of Trust recorded Decent- UTUll be toprovide hearing acres of land and is located in the vianily of 2982 East ber 06 2002 as Instrument No. 8449150, in Book ber 20 2002 as Instrument No. 8468082• in Book opportu- Benchmark Drive(east of approximately 1000 East and 8698,Page 3769,of the Official Records in tiro office 8707,Page 0299,of the Official Records in the office ily nittsy for persons or organ,- from approximately 2100 to 2600 South).The recom- at th CountyRecorder of Salt Lake County State of at the County Recorder of Salt Lake County State of zatioss to express cons- d mesh,concerns, mended zoning for the proposed annexation consists of Utah, executed by Courtnie M. Watts An st ried Utah,executed by Charles Paul Corlett,will sell at public recommendations support, three zones: Natural Open Space (NOS Open Space Woman, will sell at public auction to highest bidder, auction to highest bidder,payable in lawful money of 9 (OS)and Foothills Residential developed If area is an- payable in lawful money of the United States at the time the United States at the tune of sale.Successful bidders ing a proposed work pro- flexed a subdivision will be deve gram for Utah Correctional ing at a future date.The subdivision w will include the de- of- sale. Successfulcertiebidders must tender tee ta deposit of must tender a time of ,with the in balance l ned funds to the )r Industries. This program velopment of new cul-de-sacs at the east end of Bends- sae with the•bal due by noon d funds to the the following business of tthettfollowi at ng tbu�siness day,at the office of the T ewe. will provide work oppotu- mark Drive and Scenic Drive.Phase I will be a 13-tot day,at the office of the Trustee.Inside the rotunda at Inside the rotunda at the east main entrance of the Scott nines for state inmates in a single-family residential site at the end of Bendmark the east main entrance of the Scott M.Matheson Court- M.Matheson Courthouse,450 S.State Street Salt Lake service related industry. Drive.Phase II will be a four-lot single-family residen. house,450 S.State Street Salt Lake City Utah all right, City Utah all right, title and interest conveyed to and ir 8202YLP7 tial site at the end of Scenic Drive. title and interest conveyed to and now held by it under now held by it under said Deed of Trust in the property said Deed of Trust in the property situated in said situated in said County and State described as:Lot 33, If the annexation is approved the East Bench Community County and State described as:Lot 65,Oquirrh Shadows American Villa no. I, according to the official plgf Zoning Map,the East Bends Master Plan and the Arcadia oo.8,according to the official plat thereof on file and thereof on file and record in Salt Lake county recorder s Heights Bendark and H Rock Small Area Plan will be of record in the Salt lake county recorders office. The office. 'Loan modification recorded on 7/28/2005 amendedm to include this area and reflect the proposed street address and other common designation of the real doc#: 9444080 book: 9165 page 2317. The street ng cCOS subdivision lots. property described above is purported to be: 5019 address and other common designation of the real prop- Cl West 6515 South West Jordan UT 84084.Estimated To- erty described above is purported to be: 9475 South The hearing will be held in Room 326 of the Salt Lake tal Debt as of March 01,2006 is$1 19,764.10.The un- David Street Sandy UT 84070.Estimated Total Debt as ' EXIIA City and County Building,451 South State Street. All dersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incor- of March 01, 2006 is I48,374.52. The undersigned persons interested and present will be given an opportu- redness of the street address and other common desig. Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of utitfltapf nay to be heard in this matter. Accessible parking and nation, if any, shown herein_ Said sale will be made the street address and other common designation,if any �,xltSd* entrance are located on the east side of the building. without covenant or warranty, express or implied, re- shown herein. Said sale will be made without covenant Fkaring impaired individuals who wish to attend this garding title,possession,condition or encumbrances, in- or warranty,express or implied,regarding title,posses Nan/tiontr(Gat meeting should contact our TDD service number 535- eluding fees,charges and expenses of the Trustee and of sloe condition or encumbrances induding fees,charges i 6021,four days in advance so that an interpreter can the trusts created by said Deed of Trust,to pay the re- and expenses of the Trustee and of the trusts created by F6 be provided. For further information regarding this maiming principal sums of the note(s) secured by said said Deed of Trust,to pay the remaining principal sums I FREE hearing,call Sarah Carroll at 535-6260. Deed of Trust. The current beneficiary of the Trust Deed of the note(s)secured by said Deed of Trust. The current YNZW as of the date of this notice is:Mortgage Electronic Reg- beneficiary of the Trust Deed as of the date of this no- n in In as istration Systems,Inc The record owner of the property tice is:Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,Inc The throughout RACfY01R as of the recording of the Notice of Default is/are: record owner of the propel as of the recording of the Le the CIASSIFIEDAD TO PLACE YOUR Courtnie M.Watts.Dated:December 29,2005.James H. Notice of Default is/are: Clarles Paul Corlett. Dated: Woodall 10653 River front Parkway, Suite 290 South January 29 2006.James H.Woodall 10653 River Front 1- WAtp IABAMlo Jordan UT 84095 (801) 254-9450(800)245-1886 Parkway Suite 290 South Jordan lit 84095 801) Fiwir B3AM i (Hotline) Hours: 9:00 A.M. —5:00 P.M. Signature/by. 254-9450(800 245-1886 Hotline Hours 900 M— 1eC MOFOAYIHRUBIJIMAY CLASSIFIED AD James H. Woodall, Trustee R-124587 02/01/06, 5:00 P.M. Signature/by:nature/b James H. Woodall,Trustee R- 700AMb 02[O8/06,02/15/06 gg YY 5:00 PM vyJ�,yVyl 82 2YAUF 1 02YA 02/vl/06,OZ/OB/06,02/15/06 :00P LJ/[WV 8202YAUE .......,., I s l BUSINESS/FINANCE DESERET MORNING NEWS,WEDNESDAY,FEB.8,2006 � � La INotJce . • • • , • • 070-Legal 070-Legal 070-Legal 070-Legal o70-Legal 070-Legal 070-Legal Notices Notices Notices Notices Notices Notices Notices NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS NOTICE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS PUBLIC HEARING Sealed proposals will be received at the office of Sealed proposals will be received at the office of Saltliea that n hereby 17,7s CityCity/CountyCityCity/County 451 notice on Januarye i Salt Lake 22 Planning,Commission will hold aMpubl c South State Street,Roomunti 2:00 PM.local evtail ng time Sout State Street,Runt l 2:0d PM.local prevailing time Jf 2006unthe SalttLake February 22, 2006, or in Room 315 on Wednesday, February 22, 2006, or in Room 315 Council accepted an an- approval p hearingv to take comment and consider r recommendingthe a - on y Council Chambers, 5City 5 1 South 11 Parlei's Pointe known as p zoning for andmaster plan amendmen as t relating P.M.for Two Tank Projects SRecantiInterior of the SouthPM. for the installation of approximatelyte e3,1t 2511 neal n Parley's Pointe 400-05-41Anne4for t propriate ( 3390 e wa- 0 Petition Na. for posed the area proposed consists of approximately ma area pro- South),Soth Fro'ect No.51344461 and the East Mount Olym- ter imai of nreplaementsalocated at Lakel nend 16-inch ductile rDrivpep 2950 acresa of landay 405.59 acresfor ndnandtis located of a vicinity 2982 82 East a 1rut- South) to p 985 South of located982in Eastst ench of marlk Drive(east of in the approximatelyEast and t raj Repairs)located hat4500 South 3800 EastdProject Project No!a51 3 5047 1 3; B oadmoorStreet1(2640 E stj vicinitycm of 2982 5 -Wasatch Drive (1920 South to 2100 South, Projectct Benchmark Drive (east Eastt mended approximatelythe 2100proposed toe annexation t The rots of No.513a41 5. No.51 35047 1 4;and Beloire Drive 2910 East -Scenic approximately ly ro i meeeed zoning for epa consists of d and from approximate) three zones: Natural Open Space (NOS), Open Space Bids will be publicly opened in Room 315, Drive (2278 South) to Glen Oaks !)rive (218 South), St 2100 South to 2600 South) (OS)and Foothills Residential(FR-2).If the area is an- City/County Building, 451 South State Street at or Project No.513504888. in the southeastern foothills nexed,a subdivision will be developed under FR-2 zoo- about 2:00 P.M. local prevailing time on Wednesday City/Count Building, 451 South State Street at or ,d adjacent to Salt Lake City- ing at a future date.The subdivision will include the de- February 22,2006,by the Salt Lake City Recorder. Bids will be publicly opened in Room 315, The petition was filed Of in velopment Drive of new chic Dracs at the east end of Banco- 0y r- the y 1 I,e2 Recorder's 6 and mark and residential site at the Iend will obeBenchmarrk On the outside of the nature of the bide and include the the bidders returnFebruary 22,2006,by t P.M. local he Salt prevailing City Recorder.me on Wednesday, on Januaryfied 1 J uory and e 2006.ed on ty mayy a 31, h al Drive. Phase II will t a Driot single-family residen- mailing address. On the outside of the envelope,the bidder shall indi- the petition The Cify may grant teal site at the end of Scenic Drive. A 5 percent bid bond will be accepted in lieu of a cafe the nature of the bid and include the bidders return tfe wrttof annexation If the annexation is approved the East Bench Community certified check. Bid bonds/checks will be returned to un- mailing address. ifi no written the are p i iln with the County Hexing Map,the EastkBench Sr l and Arcadiall successfulontrac bidders after tabulation and award ofthe A 5 percent bid bond will be accepted in lieu of a ir Boundary(ContyCommissionic Heights,Benchmark and H Rock Smallda Area Plan willed contract. certified check. Bid bonds/checks will be returned to fin- Ceu Clerk's by whiche). amendedsito include this area and reflect the proposed Instructions to Bidders: Specifications and plans may successful bidders after tabulation and award of the ,3, protestso specificmust datefiled which subdivision lots. be obtained at the Department of Public Utilities Engi- contract. be filed is The hearingwill be held in Room 326 of the Salt Lake neering Office, 1530 South West Temple,Room 101,on g- ownerse 2, 2006.ro Property be obtained at the Department of Public Utilities Engi- the Ir- may protest if their City and County Building, 451 South State Street. All February 10, 2006. A b 10.00 non-refundable deposit Instructions to Bidders: Specifications andplans may property is 1) located in persons interested and present will be given an opportu- will be required for each complete set. neeringot Office, the pa Temple,Room 10E i- the unincorporated area, nity to be heard in this matter. Accessible parking and Febru- February fic 2006. A 510.00West non-refundable 01de on it within Yh mile of the area entrance are located on the east side of the building. ATTENTION TO CONTRACTORS: On Tuesday, at proposed for annexation- Hearing impaired individuals who wish to attend this ary 14,2006,at 10:00 A.M.,at the Department of Pub- will be required for each complete set. Febru- )includes at least 25%of meeting should contact our TDD service number 535- lit Utilities, 1530 South West Temple Salt Lake City, lit •private land,and 3)is b02provided.days For further so informaatin regard ng this ireter can nvited to attend to meeting tainwill rele anti information concern- ary ATTENTION 2 TO CONTRACTORS: 00 A.M., at the Deportment of Of % in valuell real r least hearing,call Sarah Carroll at 535-6260. ing the project. Guidelines for bidding will be ex- Public Utilities 1530 South West Temple,Salt Lake City, of itl propertyN plained and questions pertinent to the contract, bonds, Utah a prebid meeting will be held.All contractors ore 1 6 theaad within proposed mile n- 8202YNZW plans,specifications will be discussed. invited to attend to obtain relevant information cncern- ihe area he areforwian- ing the project. Guidelines for bidding will be ex- withdrawn nexatron. The area Salt L ke NON-DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT: Bidders qn plained and questions pertinent to the contract, bonds, a from kLake this work will be required to comply with the Presidents plans,specifications will be discussed. will County and Salt Lake City Executive Order No. 1 1246, and the provisions of Ex- will provide edie Sinter- ecutive Order no. 11375,Section 3 of theHousing and NON-DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT: Bidders op lot clan, paramedic, and Public hearings schedule for Popular Proportional Selec- Urban Development Act of 1968 and 24 CRF Part 135 this work will be required to comply with the President s Let emergency services. lion of Presidential Electors initiative. as as included therein. The requirements for bidders Executive Order No. 11246, and the provisions of Ex- Protests must be filed withand contractors under these regulations are explained in ecutive Urban Development Act order no. f 19668 and 24hCRFaPart 135 ed the County Clerk's Office For Box Elder Cache,and Rich Counties,the publicphear- n and the specifications.Council as as included therein. The requirements for bidders ne at t, Suite SouthState Cha will mber,255) NorthgMa n,iLog n,Building, 84321,Febru- The right is reserved to reject anyor all bids. and contractors under these regulations are explained in Street, S2200,8SaltI the specifications. an10 Lake andy Utah, 8o the cry 16,2006 @ 7:00 PM. First Publication:February 4,2006 rote i copy of the For Beaver,Garfield,Iron,Kane and Washin ton Coon- Last Publication:February8,2006 The right is reserved to reject any or all bids. protest delivered ed to the ties the public hearing will be held at Southern Utah Uni- 8202YL39 Salt Lake City Recorder at First Publication:February 8 2006 ins 451 South15, StatetLake Street, Cedar 227 Utah Building February W.University Y Blvd. Last Publication:February 1 2,2006 Room 415 Salt City, Cedar City, Utah 84720, February 15, 2006 C� B:Od 8202YMOL ng Utah 84111. The petition PM. ar, ' is available for inspection For Summit,Utah and Wasatch Counties,the obits hear- NOTICE PUBLIC OF PUBLIC HEARING AND and copying from 7:a ins will be held at Summit County Court House Confer- NOTICE OTICEA TO THE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT a a.m. to 5:id p.m. Monday ings Friday at the City once Room 164(Eat End) 60 N.Main Street,House, `2. Recorder's Office, 451 Utah 84017,February 8,v1006 @ 7:00 PM. A notice of intent for the following project submitted in On the proposed improvements to the State Street South State Street, Salt And accordance hbeen3 ece v07-40ed for cnsidera Utah tionsbyiive he (SR UISOTailroad ProjectBNo.STP 0089(76)300Ege in Pleasant e,UT Lake City,Utah 841 1 1. Code(UAC),has Publish: February 8, 15 & Provo City Council Chambers, 351 West Center Street, Executive Secretary,Utah Air Quality Board: The Utah Department of Transportation herewith advises 22 2006 Provo,Utah 84601,February 17,2006 @ 12:00PM. Company Name: Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation all interested persons or groups that an official Public 82b2YMM9 (KUCC) Hearing will be held for this project. The proposed pro- For ties Millard Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, and Wayne Location: 11500 West 2100 South Magna act involves replacing the Railroad Bridge over US-89 NOTICE CIOF Counties the public Room, hearing willN be i M Sanpete Project Description: KUCC has requested approval to (State Street) and roadway related improvements NOTICE TI County642)February 5,20 1 0 North Main, Monti, Utah I p A be- PUBLIC MEETING 84642,February 15,2066 @ 2:00PM. add 4 emergency teneFebr ache refinery O DAQE-e twee 200 South and Geneva Road(SR-114)in Pleasant AN0346026-05, dated February 23 2005. The gem- Grove,Utah. The public is invited to at- For Carbon Emery,Grand San Juan Counties,the public erator will be a Liquid Propane (LP) fired emergency tend a public hearing be- hearing will be held at Carbon County Building,Court generator. KUCC has also requested that the small heat- The public hearing will be held: fore the Midvale City Plan- Room, 120 East Main,Price,Utah 84501,February 14, for equipmentinfoti that is less sethanT5e MMBTU/hr be e included Wednesday,February 15,2006 .m ping Commission on 2006 @ 7:00 PM. generator will provide backup power to critical commu- Jacobs Senior Citizen Center (242 Went 200 South, wednesday, Februarynication systems during times when the primary power Pleasant Grove,Utah) 22 the (i2006al at 7:00 min For Daggett, euhne, and erne CountyCounties,Building, the public supply is ylost. Support communication systems include the bidsalo City Council hearing will be held, at N. Centeree tre Building, ,UT le Y Chambers located at 655 mission Chambers, 734 N. Street, Duchesne, UT telephones, computer networks, badge readers, fire The hearing will be in an open house format. Members public are invited to attend at an time during West Center Street Mid- 84021,February 14,2006 @ 2:00 PM. alarms, pump station telemetry and miscellaneous data of thisthe eriod and are encouraged to provide comments on telemetry circuits at the Refinery. the project. vale,om Utah. The Planning Commission will be conster For Davis,Morgan,Salt Lake,held a,and Weber Coun- Salt lake Countyis a Non-attainment area of the.ant ering a Preliminary Master ties the public hearing will be held at University of Utah, Planned Develop- Hinkley Institute of Politics, 260 S.Central Campus Dr. Na- tional Ambient Air Quality Standards iNAAQS)for PM10 Information to be presented at the hearing will include: ment/Subdivision request Room 255, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112,February 16, and SO2 and is a Maintenance area for Ozone. Title V a discussion of the project location,the design olterna- by Welles Cannon to de- 2006 1 10:00 AM. of the 1990 Clean Air Act a plies to this source. The Ti- fives considered, other information gathered during the tie V operating permit for this source shall be amended environmental study, and the preferred transportation {ill velop the property at 377 8202Y FX prior to operation of the emergencyp generator. The solution. Appropriate illustrative materials will be 3 Of 'olti72 0f Sou units. 22-24 emissions00 will8 COreale in l2,tand Verayea0r(01�?Y)as follows:The changes available Itestim ivy will During received fromallb nlierese and/or lblein emissions will result in the followingg in tons per year persons or groups regarding the features of the pi All interested parties are potential to emit totals NOx=42.82,'CO=27.74,and posed project or its social,economic,and environmen. In invitedr to attend the Tucker VOC=5.28. effects. ing or and Zoning Brian part- nue in the Midvale City Plan- The completed engineering evaluation and air quality A Draft Environmental Document has also been prepared Plan- ning Depart- impact analysis showed that the proposed project meets for this project defining the scope of the project,alter- and ment at (801) 567-7229 n Accelerate the requirements of federal air quality regulations and natives, any potential for environmental impact, and )any for more information. the State air quality rules. The Executive Secretary in- mitigation measures which might reduce adverse envi- tends to issue an Approval Order pending a 30-day ronmental impacts. Copies of thisdocument ore avail- lore Published: February 8th, our car sales. public comment period. The project proposal,estimate able for review at the following locations: 2006 of the effect on local air quality and draft Approval ales 8202Y001 Order are available for public inspection and comment • Pleasant Grove City Offices (70 South 100 East, at the Utah Division of Air Quality 150 North 1950 Pleasant Grove,UT 84062) giro.,h e n 5n written Corn- • Pleasant Grove Public library(30 East Center Street, A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE .;. � � /t{ VeRal.a ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL TRANSMI AL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DA E• 13,2006 lx -FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director RE: Petition#400-05-41: Parley's Pointe Annexation by Romney P urn,-r C pany, REVISED STAFF CONTACT: Sarah Carroll,Associate Planner,at 535-6260 or sarah.carroll@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept the resolution receiving the Parley's Pointe Annexation petition for purposes of City Council review DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin:The Romney property is being annexed as the result of a settlement agreement relating to a longstanding lawsuit. The settlement agreement states that the Romney property will be annexed into Salt Lake City within 120 days of receiving an application for annexation. The petition is that the City receive the proposed Parley's Pointe Annexation petition for purposes of City Council review as Petition#400-05-41 to consider annexing approximately 405.59 acres of unincorporated land into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City. The annexation area is located in the vicinity of 2982 East Benchmark Drive(east of approximately 3000 East and from approximately 2100 to 2600 South)in the southeastern foothills adjacent to Salt Lake City. The petition was filed by Romney Lumber Company and Robert and Honora Carson,the property owners of a majority of property in the proposed annexation area. State law does not allow islands or peninsulas of unincorporated land to be created when an annexation occurs.Therefore,six other parcels of land will also be annexed with this proposal. Analysis:The petition meets all of the State's criteria for annexation in that it is contiguous to the current City boundary,the petition has been signed by property owners representing a majority of real property and representing over one-third of the assessed valuation as listed in the current County Assessment rolls,and the area is included in the City's annexation policy 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH B411 1 TELEPHONE:B01-535.7105 FAX: B11-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM :. .ccrcw.wca declaration. The revised annexation petition and annexation plat eliminate potentially isolated islands of un-incorporated territory and do not create any peninsulas of un-incorporated territory, both of which are prohibited by State Code. Master Plan Considerations:This annexation petition will require an amendment to the Arcadia Heights Small Area Master Plan. Subject Parcels: 16-23-226-004-4001, 16-23-226-004-4002, 16-23-201-013, 16-23-201-014, 16- 23-201-016, 16-23-201-017,part of 16-23-201-018, 16-23-201-019 and 16-23-400-001 PUBLIC PROCESS: The first step in the annexation process is for the City Council to either accept or deny a resolution to receive the proposed annexation for purposes of City Council review. If accepted, the City Recorder will certify the petition and a notice will be published describing the petition and indicating that the City may annex the subject property if no protest is filed within the statutory protest period of 30 days.The Planning Commission will also hold a Public Hearing to evaluate the annexation area and make recommendations to the City Council on the appropriate zoning for the property and to consider recommending amendments to the adopted land use Master Plan, if the area is annexed.Review and approval of the zoning recommendation and Master Plan amendment will follow the standard process. RELEVANT ORDINANCE(S): Section 10-2 Part 4 of the Utah Code outlines the process for annexation. State Law, Section 10-9a-24,Notice of public hearings and public meetings to consider general plan or modifications,outlines the criteria for noticing an amendment. Salt Lake City Ordinance 21A.50, Standards for general amendments,outlines the criteria for zoning map amendments. Included in this transmittal are the following attachments: 1. Annexation Petition 2. Annexation Plat 3. Settlement and Annexation Agreement(without exhibits) 4. Vicinity Map 5. Resolution Accepting the Annexation with Exhibit of Legal Description of Annexation Area Petition 400-05-41:Parley's Pointe Annexation by Romney Lumber Company Page 2 of 2 8. Public Comment Dear Commissioners and Planning Staff, This letter is written on behalf of myself and my husband Louis R. Barrows, residing at 2119 South Lakeline Dr, in support of Petition No. 400-05-41. Our backyard is one of the acre lots identified in this petition, so we are particularly concerned as to the zoning designation placed on our backyard. We request that the FR-3 zone be placed on our parcel as it is our eventual intent to combine the parcels. The Lakeline parcel is in the FR- 3 zone and in order to join these parcels the zoning should be the same. We do not feel that the open space zones should be used as a "holding zone". Since the purchase of our home in 1988 it has been our intent to eventually annex the back parcel and combine our property into a single lot. In the past we were discouraged by SLC planning staff from attempting a single parcel annexation, and we were assured that all the adjoining land was going to be annexed. Evidently the time is now. Having served on the Arcadia Heights Neighborhood Council and as a Planning Commissioner during the adoption of the East Bench Small Area Master Plan, I am familiar with the history of this hillside. Several items to consider regarding the FR-3 designation: • Homeowner's desire to combine parcels previously in two different jurisdictions. • The County parcel has buildable area, <30% grade, on a portion of the parcel • FR-3 allows homeowners to expand the rear portion of their home o geologically constrained (the back half of our home has no basement due to rock sub ground) o current height restriction does not allow vertical expansion o existing FR-3 zone requires a 30 foot rear yard; our home is now—35 ft from the boundary between the county and city parcel Unfortunately, we are unable to attend your meeting due to my school obligations. We ask that you carefully consider our request. Sincerely, Andrea and Louis Barrows 5C. PLANNING COMMISSION Agendas/Minutes February 22, 2006 NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City &County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, February 22, 2006, at 5:45 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, February 8, 2006. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR a) Dave Oka—2006 Strategic Goals with the Planning Commission. b) Kevin LoPiccolo—Ordinance review of the definition of solid fencing/screening. 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters a) Mr. Richard Shiemberg and the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-Mr. Shiemberg is requesting to relocate a portion of a 12"water main that bisects the property located at approximately 400 East Capitol Park Avenue. A new easement will be dedicated to the City in place of the old easement which is an equal value property trade. This proposal is to facilitate a remodel/ new building on the site. This transaction is being submitted to the Planning Commission for appropriate public review pursuant to Section 10-8-2(4)of the Utah Code. The Public Utilities Department intends to approve the request. (Staff—Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178 or doug.wheelwright@slcgov.com). 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Petition No.400-05-41, by Romney/Carson to annex approximately 405.59 acres of land into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City. The area proposed for annexation is located in the vicinity of 2982 East Benchmark Drive(east of approximately 3000 East and from approximately 2100 to 2600 South). The Planning Commission will consider an amendment to the East Bench Master Plan to incorporate the property into the East Bench Planning Community and amend the Arcadia Heights, Benchmark&H Rock Small Area Plan relating to the future land use map as well as make a recommendation on the appropriate zoning for this land. (Staff-Sarah Carroll at 535-6260 or sarah.carrolk slcgov.com). b) Petition 410-739 The Boyer Company requests a planned development approval to construct an office building (approximately five stories in height), located between Rio Grande and 500 West Streets along the north side of 200 South Street, in a GMU zoning district. The site is presently vacant. This petition was previously heard on August 10, 2005. The petition is being reopened with a revised design. (Staff—Doug Dansie at 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov. com). 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS next scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be March 8,2006. This information can be accessed at w vvw.slcgov.com/CED/planning. SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City &County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, February 22, 2006 Present for the Planning Commission were Laurie Noda (Chairperson), Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Robert Forbis Jr., Peggy McDonough (Vice Chairperson), Kathy Scott, Craig Galli, and Prescott Muir. Jennifer Seelig was excused from the meeting. Present from the Planning Division were Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director; Kevin LoPiccolo, Zoning Administrator; Doug Dansie, Principal Planner; Sarah Carroll, Associate Planner; and Cindy Rockwood, Senior Planning Secretary. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Noda called the meeting to order at 5:46 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Audio recordings of Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were Tim Chambless, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott and Robert Forbis Jr. Planning Division Staff present were Doug Wheelwright, Doug Dansie and Sarah Carroll. PUBLIC HEARINGS Petition #400-05-41 —A request by Romney/Carson to annex approximately 405.59 acres of land into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City. The area proposed for annexation is located in the vicinity of 2982 East Benchmark Drive (east of approximately 3000 East and from approximately 2100 to 2600 South). The Planning Commission considered an amendment to the East Bench Master Plan to incorporate the property into the East Bench Community and amend the Arcadia Heights, Benchmark&H Rock Small Area Plan relating to the future land use map as well as make a recommendation on the appropriate zoning and amend the East Bench Community zoning map. (This item was heard at 6:52 p.m.) Commissioner Chambless disclosed that he has been a long time resident of the area adjacent to the proposed annexation property and a neighbor for a period of time to one of the applicants. He did not feel that either relationship would hinder his ability to be objective in this matter. The Commission concurred. Chairperson Noda recognized Doug Wheelwright and Sarah Carroll as representatives of the Planning Staff. At 5:48 p.m., Lynn Pace, City Attorney, made comments to this petition. The comments are included in the Public Hearing portion of these minutes. Mr. Pace stated that the property proposed for annexation has a legal history and a recent settlement agreement was reached. This agreement was reached by the property owners and the City to address the approval of some aspects of the plan, in particular the roads and subdivision design. Also, with the annexation into the City the development would comply with the City Zoning Ordinance. Another result of the annexation is that the development of the lots would be on the City water and sewer lines, rather than using septic tanks. Planning Staff is requesting a recommendation on the annexation of the property, the amendments to the Master Plan and the Zoning Maps. Several aspects of the proposal have been addressed in the settlement agreement, including: size and number of lots and the roadway configuration. Mr. Pace stated that if concern is raised regarding the proposed design, the Commission may voice the concern, but changes may result in more litigation. 1 Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 22, 2006 Commissioner McDonough asked Mr. Pace if the Planning Commission should have concern regarding the subject property. Mr. Pace stated that the Commission has the right to a recommendation, but given a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, the proposal will be submitted to the City Council because of the long litigation history. Mr. Pace stated that the two conditions required in the agreement are 1) the County will approve the subdivision and the roadway; and 2)the City will provide water and sewer lines. Prior to the agreement, and the proposed annexation, the County would be held accountable for the determination of density and lot size. By annexing the property into the City, fewer homes are permitted. Lots 14a, 14b, and 15 will be notably larger than the others, but will not be built upon. The lots will be platted by the County, but the agreement provides that upon approval of the subdivision the land will be donated. Public trails will also be dedicated to complete the Shoreline Trail through that corridor. There will also be a donation of approximately 260 acres of Open Space. The area will be gated with free pedestrian and bicycle access. Mr. Pace stated that some areas will be zoned as Open Space. The City will not be held accountable for the maintenance of those properties, but a conservation easement would be in place to prevent any development on the properties. The properties will be the responsibility of the Home Owners Association. Mr.Wheelwright noted that no planting or augmentation of plant materials would be allowed on locations where the easement is applicable. Open Space parcels intended to be donated for Open Space Preservation are perpetual Open Space parcels A, B, and C (totaling 260 acres). The Open space parcels within the subdivisions will be included in the FR-2 zoning area. The public access easement will be granted through the plat. Mr. Pace noted that a buildable area will be designated on each lot once the property is platted. The remainder of the lot will be Open Space. Commissioner Chambless asked if any of the dwellings would be visible from Interstate 80. Mr. Pace stated the possibility of seven of the seventeen properties being visible was very probable. Mr. Pace noted that the first ten lots were divided in half to cluster the homes and will force smaller homes to be developed. Just beyond the ridgeline three larger lots will most likely accommodate larger homes. Commissioner Diamond requested information about the slope requirement of the subject properties. Mr. Wheelwright confirmed that the plat will be approved through the County regulations, leaving the decision of slope requirements to the County. The City Planning Division will be responsible for the Zoning distinctions. The City Permits Division will be responsible for approval of building material, height, and the amount of development accomplished within the buildable area. The buildable area will be fixed by the County's process of plat approval. Mr. Pace added that the lots would be considered"grandfathered" into the City as buildable areas as delineated in the County plat approval. The contour maps have illustrated that the 30 percent slope requirement has been met. Mr. Wheelwright noted that seven additional properties would be included in the annexation, including some along Lakeline Drive. These owners have acquired approximately one acre parcels adjacent to the rear of their lots and because the state law prohibits the creation of islands, the properties will be"forced into annexation". The properties not owned by Romney Lumber Company will be zoned as Open Space instead of Natural Open Space. Open Space zoning does not allow for residential development. At 6:52 p.m., Ms. Carroll presented a brief synopsis of the proposal referring to exhibit three of the staff report. The exhibit included a color-coded map of the proposed zoning for the annexation area. The proposed subdivisions will be platted at the County prior to the annexation. FR-2 zoning would be 2 Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 22, 2006 consistent with the abutting neighborhood and consistent with the proposed lots, which range in size from .42 acres to larger than one acre. The property that will be conveyed for Open Space protection will be zoned Natural Open Space to prohibit any further development. Ms. Carroll stated that the Master Plan and the Zoning Map would be required to be amended to include this area. She also confirmed that the Jack Jensen property would be annexed into the proposed annexation boundary. Chairperson Noda noted that there were no members of the public or community councils who desired to speak. The Planning Commission went into Executive Session. Commissioner Chambless noted that being a resident of the area, he would appreciate the improvement proposed by the annexation. Commissioner Diamond asked Commissioner Chambless if there was much public input in the area in relation to this property. Commissioner Chambless stated that the H Rock Community is an active, concerned community, while the Arcadia Heights community struggles to obtain a quorum for their meeting. Ms. Carroll stated that Staff attended the combined H Rock and Arcadia Heights & Benchmark Community Council meetings and held an open house, at which Planning Staff presented the proposed annexation, the proposed subdivisions and zoning, and the terms of the settlement agreement. The meetings were well attended and the presentation helped to describe the impact of less development and provided many attendees with consolation regarding the proposed annexation. Being included in the City water and sewer systems were very important and noted factors at the meetings. Motion for Petition 400-05-41 Based on the analysis and findings in the Staff Report and the recommended conditions, Commissioner Galli made a motion to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Forbis.All voted "Aye".The motion passed. 3 6. ORIGINAL PETITION PETITION NO. 46-as-9 PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required #(0-C oaf Petition delivered to Planning 2-3l°e2 Petition assigned to: Sara h CaMil 2f22/C)() c Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date L2010G Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover 51946 C Chronology • 2o(3(4) 5 C- Property Description (marked with a post it note) ,'2'/off C— Affected Sidwell Numbers Included I2o/o(0 5( Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate I Community Councils 3/ ,o(o6 SC- Mailing Postmark Date Verification 12°lbcco S C- Planning Commission Minutes ` 12o/e)b c-- Planning Staff Report 3/2o(o6 S C Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. 5 2_11G( SC Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office 2o1(3 b 'C , Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. oarQ.)A Cairo Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office O O `- O N co A o +. (II S. C E .r. p 7( • . fB O D N a 7 C cv E Q N : (C 5 D c ° ow w. - u — o ' = -CC9 'v ' Q N w y L 44� t a w 1 . - ............."....• ............ A--. 'I 1' " ..II . • -iglial II 4 4 .4 Mk IMP illi agiarh.ibaa AP r 44 MI 411. 4 r , 1 k I* e L i • ?WA 4 ... isiar dia*ill A fr.. i , oh. ih. IL 11/111 4 i II* Aft, 114 0 111 , kJ , A a .90:1 the, II )440. a 11, 114 1, is oismi.si s . 40kiwi , I ir adr I 4 IIII «or 4 1 1 , 4ss 4 , Om - 0 Igi- Parking II ...„- , „ , • ...,.•,..A as 0.•It 4.- ', 0t, P....‘• .0 4.1: .•...,.,,', ..t'4',. ,,'?;:,.., ',, -,'..C:'t'..' ‘A , -,..,:,,, ,•;‘,,,,t, ,,,,,,A,••0,-, .,,,,•,-§„:\, ', * .g. I e a - a 6 r.';*?' a ','. 4 .' ,« • . $ ,,,„4,,.., ... ...... to .71./ .... • ,,, ...,-, Nt. ., , $ (0. Ell 0. E ..,:,:-.0....• ' v. 6'.V ASV• :' , 2 1 o . -',V,••.4. 3' ef/ O0. ‘,N* $.• 4.*/‘ 0 Ii• c. r, ,‘ 0.40" * 3 .., 0 i . e ,, 'V.,* "•:.,;.:. ' ,A ... 4' ,. \ . ....,..... 6,!„..ed . ... . . ... . .... •‘ .. .. ..., ,...,..> ...: .WAN()11AI°I toed ain4eN w g Er s- g : 1 ci...... N: lir ..icomoilionamoopp g le • VW 0 ' DUD P. C)(1 to 0 CO) -.... 0.c.80 ....„;LD. =, or)r--co e, cri cri ai ori r-: ci in, -- NS r--- , 0)0) r•-•0) ft i I ilf - 0 M) 8 0 2 8 co co eL i 1 tO 1 a) __ U 0_ci 013 asimer c,_0 441 Cf)U) LIJ 618 (1) C CO a) a) C 0 To. c 8 eL el. :0 a) eL LIJ to a3 0 0 — - Ta 0 _ 3 '4 a -6 0 u)-8 a) 41 W 0 ° I% fa-9 1:2) '1111111- u. 2 -.E.5 LIJ 0 0 a") 0 m 4 2 I o a) w c c ,CC ct 1 cr)ci) c c gg -• 2-§ -713:g .5 as .0•0111i M (A a5-0 , C a) C L5 LE .1.• 0.1 MAR 3 0 2006 SALE` .' URI CORPORA IO' RICHARD GRAHAM �� - - -� - ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart DA TE: March 29, 2006 Chief Administration Officer FROM:' Rick Graham, Director Public Services Department SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Open Space Lands Program 2006 Funding Application, Process and Procedure STAFF CONTACT: Rick Graham,Director 535-7774 Public Services Department Rick Reese, Chair 583-7056 Open Space Lands Advisory Board DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Open Space Lands Program 2006 Funding Application process and procedure that has been developed by the Salt Lake City Open Space Lands Advisory Board in accordance with Chapter 2.88 of the Salt Lake City Code. It is further recommended that the City Council approve the sale of $5.4 million in bond funds approved by Salt Lake City residents for the purpose of acquiring and preserving open space lands within the Salt Lake City or its environs, and direct the City Treasurer to prepare the Bond Parameters Resolution. BUDGET IMPACT: $5.4 million in bond proceeds will need to be appropriated in the 2006/2007 fiscal budget. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On November 4, 2003, Salt Lake City residents voted to approve the allocation of$5.4 million in bond funds for the purpose of acquiring and preserving open space,parks, and recreation lands and amenities within Salt Lake City or its environs. In November, 2004, the Salt Lake City Council created a Salt Lake City ordinance enacting Chapter 2.88 of the Salt Lake City Code creating the Salt Lake City Open Space Lands Program(Program), and the Salt Lake City Open Space Lands Fund(Fund). The purpose of the Program is to provide an administrative structure for the protection, acquisition, management and compatible development of open space lands in Salt Lake City, and to implement the bond measure passed on November 4, 2003. The 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 148, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7775 FAX: B01-535-7789 WWW.SLCGOV.COM L.• RECYCLED P*PER Fund is created as a designated account within the accounting fund structure of the City that shall be used exclusively to acquire, preserve, protect and maintain open space lands. No expenditure can be made from the Fund without prior approval of the City Council. Section 2.88.060 of the Code allows for the creation of the Salt Lake City Open Space Lands Advisory Board (Board), which is given the power to conduct business and administer certain functions of the Program including; making recommendations to the Administration and City Council on specific criteria and an objective evaluation process to establish priorities and evaluate projects and proposals for expenditure of Open Space Lands Funds, and recommend to the City Council the expenditure of funds for the protection, acquisition, management and development of Open Space Lands. During the spring of 2005, Mayor Anderson, with the advice and consent of the City Council, created the Board. The Board held its first meeting on May 12, 2005. Since that date the Board has worked with a single focus to develop a process and procedure for soliciting, evaluating, prioritizing and recommending projects that will result in the acquisition and preservation of open space lands in Salt Lake City. As prescribed in the attached document (see attached 2006 Fund Application Packet) the process and procedure for soliciting, evaluating and recommending funding for open space lands projects will be conducted by the Board and managed by the Public Services Department. Applications will be reviewed by the Board, which subsequently makes recommendations for project funding to the Salt Lake City Council. A proposed project must meet four(4) conditions before an application will be accepted by the Board: The project provides a public benefit which complies with the definition of Open Space Lands as defined in Chapter 2.88 of the Salt Lake City Code. The project is feasible and appropriate to its intended use. The landowner or representative is prepared to enter into negotiations with the City. At least 50% of the project shall be funded from sources other than the Open Space Lands Fund. A project will be considered and evaluated on the basis of its benefit to the citizens of Salt Lake City. Projects will be rated and ranked using the following criteria and weighting: Quality of Life 30% Ecological Benefits 20% Community Support and Geographic Connection 20% Cost and Funding 30% Project applicants will be required to participate in a Pre-Application and Final Application process. The Board recommends that the process to solicit projects to be funded by the $5.4 million in bond funds start May 1, 2006. The evaluation process will run five (5) months, concluding with a funding recommendation submitted to the City Council on September 15, 2006. In preparation of spending the bond proceeds, the City Council must adopt a Bond Parameters Resolution, and authorize the sale of the bond. Additionally, an appropriation of$5.4 million must be included in the 2006/2007 budget. Since the Council has previously decided to issue a bond for the Leonardo project early this summer, it makes sense to issue the Open Space bond at the same time. PUBLIC PROCESS: No formal Public process is required. Salt Lake City Open Space Lands Program 2006 Fund Application Packet If you have questions or need assistance with this application, please contact Salt Lake City Department of Public Services, 535-7774. This Application Packet describes the process and procedures for granting funds for the acquisition of land, easements, development rights, and other means of preserving open space lands under the Open Space Lands Program. (The term"acquisition" in the following materials includes purchase of fee title, purchase of easements or development rights, and donations of land, easements or development rights.) Applications for projects are reviewed by the Salt Lake City Open Space Lands Advisory Board. The Board subsequently makes recommendations for project funding to the Salt Lake City Council. This program is voluntary and works with willing landowners. All land purchases must be at or below fair market value, as determined by an appraisal by a Salt Lake City-approved appraiser. This application process is used for all open space land acquisition projects under this program. Proposals will be considered and funded annually subject to the allocation of funds. MISSION STATEMENT Salt Lake City Open Space Lands Program seeks to preserve the quality of life in all areas of Salt Lake City. The Mission of the Salt Lake City Open Space Advisory Board is to facilitate the City's acquisition, management, promotion, preservation, protection and enhancement of open space land. Open Space Land is defined by ordinance as a parcel of land in a predominantly open and undeveloped condition that is suitable for 1) natural.areas, 2) wildlife habitat, 3) important wetland or watershed lands, 4) greenway or stream corridors, 5) small neighborhood parks designed primarily for non- organized, non-supervised activities, and 6) trails and paths for non-motorized recreational activities. Powers and duties of the Board are established in Section 2.88.110 of the Salt Lake City Code, effective November 11, 2004. Important Dates in the 2006 Application Process Pre-Application Period Opens May 1st Pre-Application Period Closes June 15th Pre-Application Acceptance Decision and Notification June 30th Final Application Period Opens June 30th Final Application Period Closes August 1st Board Decision and Recommendation to City Council September 15th 1 Eligibility mhe following four conditions must be met before applications will be accepted: 1. The project provides a public benefit which complies with the definition of Open Space Lands as defined in Chapter 2.88 Salt Lake City Code—Open Space Lands Program, as follows: "Open Space Lands"means a parcel of land in a predominantly open and undeveloped condition that is suitable for any of the following; (The term "undeveloped" does not include man-made structures of historical significance.) a. natural areas; b. wildlife habitat; c. important wetlands or watershed lands; d. greenway or stream corridors; e. small neighborhood parks designed primarily for non-organized,non-supervised activities such as: • a small single purpose play lot, • a children's playground • seating areas • natural vegetation, and/or • a small open grass area f. trails and paths for non-motorized recreational activities Open Space Lands may be preserved, enhanced and restored in order to maintain the natural, scenic, ecological, cultural, hydrological or geological values of the property. Open Space Lands may be located within Salt Lake City or outside Salt Lake City if the Board determines it furthers the objectives of the ordinance. 2. It is feasible and appropriate to its intended use. 3. The landowner or representative is prepared to enter into negotiations with Salt Lake City. 4. At least 50% of the project shall be funded from sources other than the Open Space Lands Program. Evaluation Projects will be considered and evaluated on the basis of their benefit to the citizens of Salt Lake City. Projects will be rated and ranked using the following criteria and weighting: Quality of Life 30% Ecological Benefits 20% Community Support and Geographic Connection 20% Cost and Funding 30% 2 Salt Lake City Open Space Lands Program Fund Application Process 1. Applicants must complete a pre-application form (see attached). The pre-application requires basic infoiivation, including the characteristics, location and ownership of the property. The Board must receive completed pre-application forms by 12 noon on June 15th. Completed pre-application forms may be submitted at any time prior to the deadline. If the applicant is not the owner of the subject property, the applicant is responsible for identifying and contacting the property owner. The applicant should determine the owner's interest in negotiating, and obtain permission for this application. The Board encourages landowners and applicants to work with other partners, such as land trusts, businesses, and conservation organizations, to identify other sources of funding,including other public entities,private donors, or grants. 2. Department of Public Services staff(hereinafter "the Department")will review and evaluate the completed pre-application form and respond in accordance with the schedule noted on page one of this application. The pre-application must be properly completed and submitted to the Department. The Department will make a recommendation to the Board to either accept or deny the pre-application. Upon notification of Board approval of pre-application, successful applicants will be invited to submit a final application to the Board. Applicants shall indicate intent to proceed with final application within 7 days of receiving the notice. 3. Projects recommended by the Department for final application will be reviewed by the Board. This review period will be completed in accordance with the schedule noted on page one of this application. The review process may include the following: • Site visit by staff and Board, and must include applicant and/or landowner. • The Department may contact applicant for additional clarification and information. • The Board will review the final application materials. • The Board will make its funding recommendations to the City Council. 4. The Board may recommend full funding requests, partial funding requests or no funding for the project. The Board reserves the right to place conditions on the project. The City Council is the final decision- making authority. If funding for the project is recommended by the Board and approved by the City Council,the City is authorized to take steps necessary to complete the project. The applicant is responsible for providing all information requested by the City. Acquisition negotiations will be conducted between the City and the land owner or their agent. 3 Salt Lake City OPEN SPACE LANDS PROGRAM All Applicants must submit a completed pre-application form including, supporting documentation. Pre- applications are accepted from May 1, 2006 through June 15, 2006 at 12:00 noon. Submit twelve duplicate copies to: Department of Public Services, Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street, Room 148 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 (801) 535-7774 rick.graham@slcgov.com Pre-Application Cover Sheet 1. Common Name of Property or Project: - -ti 2. Name and Address of Property Owner(s): 3. Property Parcel ID number: ------ 4. Name of Applicant: -------- ----._-- --_--- —_-- .__.. 5. Applicant's Address: (Street or P.O. box, City, State, Zip) 6. Phone (home):7. Phone (work): 8. Phone (mobile): 9. Email: T ' 10. Date Submitted: 11. Signature of Property Owner: 12. For Site Visit Arrangements Please Contact: 13. Signature of Applicant 14. Estimated Cost of Project: --- 15. Funding Requested from Salt Lake Open Space Lands Fund: 16. Total Amount of Anticipated Match: 4 17. Funding Partners and Anticipated Contributions: 18. Is this a land acquisition in fee title, or another means of open space lands preservation such as purchased or donated • easements, development rights, a donation of land or other • means? Please explain if other • than fee title. • 19. Who will take title to land? 20. If applicable,who will monitor conservation easements on the land? 21. On a separate page describe how the project benefits the public. Limit • description to one page. • 22. On a separate page provide a simple map or diagram of the proposed project. Please show adjacent properties and streets. Limit graphics to one 8 % X 11 page. j • SALT LAKE CITY OPEN SPACE LANDS PROGRAM All Applicants must submit a completed Final Application form including supporting documentation. The Final Application and supporting materials will be combined with the applicant's pre-application packet. Final applications are accepted through August 1, 2006 at 12 noon. Submit twelve duplicate copies to: Department of Public Services, Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street, Room 148 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 (801) 535-7774 rick.graham@slcgov.com Final Application Cover Sheet 1. Common Name of Property or Project: 2. Name and Address of Property Owner(s) 3. Property Parcel ID number: 4. Name of Applicant :) 5. Applicant's Address: (Street or P.O. box, City, State, Zip) 6. Phone (home): 7. Phone (work): 8. Phone (mobile): 9. Email: — — 10. Date Submitted: 11. For site visit arrangements contact: 12. Signature of Applicant 1 SALT LAKE CITY OPEN SPACE LANDS PROGRAM Final Application Please attach descriptions for each of the categories listed below. Provide documentation to support claims in all categories. Applications are limited to a total of five pages of double spaced text and five pages of explanatory maps, surveys, and drawings. Please number your answers to correspond with the following categories. Note: Salt Lake City will not participate in a purchase over fair market value, as determined by a qualified appraisal. A qualified appraisal will be done at City expense if the project is recommended by the Board and approved by the Salt Lake City Council 1. Please present a summary of your Open Space proposal describing the most convincing reason why the City should fund it. 2. Type of acquisition Is this a land acquisition in fee title, or another means of open space lands preservation such as purchased or donated easements or development rights, a donation of land, or other means?Please explain if other than fee title. 3. Negotiation Status Provide name of property owner or representative and a letter stating the owner or representative is willing to negotiate an agreement with Salt Lake City.Describe if Power of Attorney has been given to anyone other than the landowner. If applicable,provide a copy of or describe the terms of a purchase contract affecting the property. 4. Site Map Provide a map or diagram of the proposed project site. Show property boundary and, if applicable, any public land boundaries. Show all current and proposed developments (roads, streets, easements, etc.), improvements,natural features(streams, ponds, lakes,wetlands, etc.) and mode of access to the property(public road,right of way, easement, etc.). Provide boundary survey of property, if available. 5. Area Map Provide a map of the surrounding area displaying current land uses(agricultural,residential commercial, institutional, industrial, etc.) and any proposed developments. Include any important land use features which may influence the project site. Please identify other protected lands in the area and their ownership (e.g. public lands, areas under conservation easements, etc.). 6. Land Uses Describe the current land uses on the site. 7. Environmental Hazards Describe all known previous and current uses of the site. Is there a possibility of hazardous material or environmental problems on the site? Has a hazardous material or environmental assessment been done? If so, what were the results? 8. Title Commitment Attach a title commitment for the property. Of special interest will be encumbrances or liens on the property, contracts affecting the property, adverse possession claims, easements, legal access,and status of mineral and water rights, if applicable. 2 SALT LAKE CITY— OPEN SPACE LANDS FUND PROGRAM Final Application Please address the following categories in the space provided. Each category must be addressed or your application will be deemed incomplete. If a category does not apply,please explain why. Applicants may be asked to provide documentation for all categories to support responses. A Quality of Life 30% of Total Points 1 Provides Recreational Opportunities ' �.� � �� Describe how this project provides recreationalx � � opportunities. List specific activities, along with � ,� � their space and/or design requirements and how this t �� project will meet those requirements. Projects that offer recreational opportunities other w �x than trails are considered here. Projects offering multiple opportunities to a broad range of people will ems score higher than those with fewer opportunities. s • 3 2 Provides Trail Opportunities .Fleas do not write a this pa c� - Describe how this project contributes to Salt Lake z r� 1 _ 0 ;t' 4 � City's network of trails and how it implements trails � � � r planned or identified in the City's Open Space " �' ; -� . .. �.` Master Plan or current City area Master Plans. li �- 7 1- ��y eTA Projects that connect existing trails score higher than � ;,� k projects that create trails limited to one site. , °�' . :' ` ,:A , Y aka a b,.: 14,,E 3 Usable by Diverse Groups d t t c , "",F Explain how this project will be accessible to, and 0 ° � ,,,w, *„ x :xF1 Y, used by diverse populations such as people with4..445106 "�' '" `� tiOVAt physical disabilities,low-income users and rp £,� "� , geographically and culturally diverse groups. .- � �,. ..�yw Cc � � h k m# � -e Projects that promote use by diverse populations will <a �. l '�RPeltf*: ms � score higher. .14A r v ' _li � V7-::. 4 Proximity to Public Transit Please1dl$ of .+ this space List bus and TRAX stops that are close to the project �. , --,,:levsft,..,L',-.rg;A-Npfie:,, ,,g A 4 Y x� �� and provide approximate distances to the proposed , lct.,jt , site and bus route numbers. . . A in proximity to public transit operating at x, 4 h Projectsp ry different times with a high frequency of service will � x �,S , ��_' t i; score higher than those with no access or limited i fi .,t ilii access to transit. ttF ice;� e., .53 w o...f ,"� �4�' ,* 4 5 Provides Scenic and Aesthetic Benefits '� .�', � -� + r r �, a> 4 3 List the different locations from which this open space will be visible. Describe the anticipated visual �: quality of the project and list the locations from which this quality will be visible. ° r Projects that provide the greatest aesthetic benefit to , the greatest number ofpeople will score higher. Projects that are visible from roads and other public :y spaces will also score higher. z � r_„ 6 Holds Historical and Cultural Value >'- t a',f, , sW 1c *-r Describe the historic and cultural value this site „e holds. List any designations by historical societies r , Projects that protect or enhance historic and culturalc. �'- amenities will score higher. ,,,:` zti � y= ` 5 B Ecological Benefits 20% of Total Points 1 Preserves Land From Development Please,do t w to in tl s space-�� :4V-:-;i ' Yam-' m �-„ f Describe the degree of protection from development = �.,„�'n ,AE � that this site will have through the form of tenure, , �� 4 � such as conservation easements or restricted , development rights. 2 � y 2 5 , a - T A�" Atere.i Proposals that provide greater permanence of h � � o.- ` protection score higher. : �` -i,�k=.A. m R o` ., m4 2 Preserves or Enhances Water Quality,Air ?l�dorn+4 ;tem, space" Quality and/or Soil Quality 3L� ,01 V 1� V .� „ ` 1{ d � �,k y $V18,,,,-r>b Zk Tisi.' ,„ .0 fit% ie,,,„ g Provide an evaluation of the anticipated protection of �� „� 4 ,-� _ y o water, air, and/or soil quality by a qualified 0 '�_� i� independent source. Summarize the findings of the 71 i � � .1vg04.4.No.ir,tA AI 9 ,, report and attach the full document with your 1 �,atolat-- IN. torle. ' tt xi 5 proposal. (Qualified sources include Natural 4r ��, , Resource Conservation Service, Utah Association of �a gig e p y gr `� . 6, 0 �� , Conservation Districts, Utah Dept. of Environmental F"u04 p 4 _ 's Quality, Utah Department of Natural Resources) I. �pii` i ` N r `` 4. -�` s i t ,�� r i� i9;ash So-9P Proposals that provide specific measures for �fi ,� . E„., „ ;: protecting or enhancing water quality, air quality � � 4, ; , ,t -4 �t w and/or soil quality will score higher. M,;_.._,...., u _,.._... 6 3 Preserves or Enhances Biodiversity or Rare i � < � « n � ;,rt ,'' i,,--- Natural Features s Describe how this project would protect or enhance , biodiversity or rare natural features. Assertions must be supported by reports from qualified third parry ` experts. (See qualified sources above.) Projects that offer protection or enhance Utah's plants, animals and natural communities, or rare and unique natural features will score higher. 7 C Support and Geographical Benefit 20% of Total Points to {$ 4 i t - �1 Local Public Support Pleaset o 1 a � gym, a a z t 7E z E Summarize the local support this project has elicited? g ;�, , k-= i3 ; ::s ' A project that can demonstrate it has the support of 1 ,-i its neighboring property owners and the Community ��E1, Council or association in which the project is r :� i &Z �° �° tom located, will score higher. ,'_ -, 2 Regional Public Support e `4 e g 'e a V. sm r How does this project meet regional goals of open �, , uSil h space, and/or park and trail systems? Does the region �� , include areas adjacent to Salt Lake City. Please a attach proof of support and/or copies of official plans . a1 to which this project contributes. /' A project that can demonstrate it has regional ,, A':�= support by organized jurisdictions or established rt ° a F-4 4 plans will score higher. t , .I, m , � . — ,z; 8 3 Support by other Stakeholders ase t not ate in this`sp 4.1 Is this project supported by other stakeholder groups `Y �`4' '�; -0 included in the above two questions? A stakeholder 4 : . z ' .'' { is an individual,organization or entity who has an _ ,� ` a interest in the project. - . t� mac`-; ° � �4 Please submit support in written form with the % , i - q application. � = VW . o -., _` � , 4 Serves Underserved Area '' �4q�e{�Y �� .f , y[:(F ➢r.. �#a - ' s Does the proposed open space serve an underserved ,94 "ve t �� ' area as defined by the National Parks and Recreation 4: Y� � ` � Association park standards? w4 Neighborhood park-2.5 acres/1000 people within .25 �r x � to .5 miles l Community park-2.5 acres/1000 people within .5 to �: 3.0 miles 4 Metropolitanpark 5 acres/1000 people within 30 m p p P k, minutes drive 4 Proposals that introduce open space into areas ofthe . x *t" 0 f a P P PK City that have fewer per capita open space areas will 4� ' , . score higher. r4;i _ y, ..: , T ..ei 9 5 Forms Connections with Other Open S ace Wine th s s a � How does this project connect to other open space 'A ,` �y,�`.� . i - and contribute to an existing network of open space? �S,; i � `t , x Proposals that provide links between two or more e A� y . , existingareas ofopen space and thus create a � ,' ° �� continuous connected area will be given more points. f,�,. Show how the space could provide an environment - V� 4�q 9 for plants, water and wildlife and/or how it could be r �� 1� c accessible to walkers, hikers, or bikers. : _ '_7 .X_. 41 x c C , t a.4 w n14 4F.a �� r,t, k. 6 Buffers Adjacent Uses °1� a. d6'no t . @IV 1 ," How does this project buffer between incompatible Pr1,.�� , uses? .x , E c -+ s5 i .�.�+g,{1 Proposals that use open space to serve as natural �"a , ',I separations to offer protection from sound and/or :.' n r `„`, .p light, roadway views, or other aesthetically � a� 3 z �, , incompatible land uses will score higher. The ft� �3,t ,rp greater the benefit to the greatest number of people ' ' �:, ' i . �Q � H �,ua k e y � � the higher the score. fi � � � - 10 D Costs and Funding 30% of Total Points 1 Matching Funds Secured las d f c P� 80%or it € pACCTee L r What is the total amount of matching funds you have --� . t __ACT,. 4 , already secured? What percentage of the overall q q q�`'t=i ',AA-:.,` � , acquisition costs does this total represent? Please -:' �- -� �, - „� t � note that favorable purchasing terms by current s - . III owner qualify as matching funding. Favorable terms � ,, will be assessed against assessed values. 0� % � � flaililWi The greater the percentage of already secured • 0,° ' - E matchingfunds, the higher the score. Bar ain sales 3 � 71 O g ism °t. n (f Y 1 uali as matchingfunds. Please attach proofo 4 0) f 1 �, matching funds. � ;� � � �Eisw. ,._.._. 2 Other Funds Pending SLCOSP Funding ,i•i ,ds not.wit ... - �,. a ®^or,�o ' � � � Please list the amount and sources of funding secured NI�` ;-, ;;, r ; that are contingent on approval of Salt Lake Cityswc, funding. g- a Proposals are given points for having secured .,, C .t O r } � Y ® Y � � I funding from other sources pending the approval of AI the Salt Lake City Open Space funding. Please �� s `, �; xl `g i attach proof offunding. .hr efi R, ,; 11 3 Submittal of Other Grant Applications ased-- t .- 'Tai ,':6� '. �7' � e List the other grants you will be applying for. Please ;it �¢� provide the dates of the anticipated awards as well as -� R F� - --i E 1 the amounts requested from each grant ` k�' 4Vit ie 7r s 4 - T a ems= Proposals are given points for having submitted ��a ' �,� ,i a other grant applications (must be included). The � t:� � 7 } higher the percentage of the project cost, the higher � i ,gam: ,� , ,, % , 3. .,,r,y :xis,' a,3a the score. Salt Lake City funding may be held for up �a ,q r�o _ 4 t to 12 months pending success of other applications. L -;.�. r il ar.i-" .,111 4 Restoration ® S 14 gg Describe the restoration work this project would z' � 5,, i require for it to function as open space. What is the i g�_ 1 li� *,.° ,-,l anticipated total cost of restoration? o p ' d :; ' Aw Proposals requiring work to restore natural habitat 4" ,r, 1 '1 , Dt a£8 $k 4 @ and 4 � ''! 4 to demolish buildings or construct amenities for .' f. 1 x ' public use will score lower (unless separate funding ��.�-te�� ,, I has been secured). .4-_ k .4, :.� - " . , • 12 5 Land Acquisition Funds Requested What is the exact dollar amount requested from Salt , Lake City? "3� a i""4,3R lea #A'ktFdx Proposals requesting lower absolute dollar amounts rate higher to enable greater distribution offunds. , L i34,Ty r Leis :* 0 .� _ 13