Loading...
08/08/2006 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 8 , 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, August 8, 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, and Jill Remington Love. Absent: Council Members Dave Buhler and Soren Simonsen. Also in Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Cheri Coffey, Deputy Director/Zoning Administration/Preservation and Urban Design/Housing and Zoning Enforcement Planning Division; Alex Ikefuna, Planning Director; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Director/Community Planning/Land Use Transportation/Support Staff; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Diana Karrenberg, Community Affairs Manager; Doug Dansie, Community Planning/Land Use and Transportation Planner; Ray McCandless, Community Planning/Land Use and Transportation Planner; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Dave Oka, Redevelopment Agency Director; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Joel Paterson, Senior Planner, Preservation and Urban Design; Sarah Carroll, Preservation and Urban Design Planner; Elizabeth Giraud; Senior Planner, Preservation and Urban Design; Sam Guevara, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Jan Aramaki, Constituent Liaison/Research and Policy Analyst; Orion Goff, Building Official; Romney Stewart, Executive Director, Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility; Dan Bower, Assistant Director, Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility; Richard Haughey, P.E . , Shaw EMCON/OWT, Inc. ; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Turner presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 : 35 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1 . 5 : 36 : 01 PM INTERVIEW FRANK ALGARIN AND SUSIE MCHUGH PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF THEIR APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Councilmember Turner said Mr. Algarin and Ms . McHugh' s names would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda for approval . #2 . 5 : 49 : 12 PM RECEIVE AN UPDATE REGARDING THE SALT LAKE VALLEY LANDFILL MASTER PLAN FROM THE LANDFILL CONSULTANT. View Attachments Rick Graham, Romney Stewart, Richard Haughey and Dan Bower briefed the Council from the attached handouts and a power point presentation. 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 8 , 2006 #3 . 6 : 22 : 07 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 857 EAST 100 SOUTH, 70 SOUTH 900 EAST AND 58 SOUTH 900 EAST FROM RESIDENTIAL RMF-35 TO RESIDENTIAL RMF- 45 AND AMENDING THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP. (PETITION NO. 400-05-43 HENDERSON) View Attachments Alex Ikefuna, Cheri Coffey, Doug Dansie and Janice Jardine briefed the Council from the attached handouts . #4 . 6 : 30 : 24 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE CAPITOL HILL ZONING MAP FOR PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF 300 WEST BETWEEN 500 AND 600 NORTH FROM A VARIETY OF ZONING DESIGNATIONS TO RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE (R-MU) ZONING AND AMENDING THE CAPITOL HILL COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP. (PETITION NO. 400-05-40 HOWA) View Attachments Janice Jardine, Cheri Coffey, Alex Ikefuna, Doug Wheelwright and Sarah Carroll briefed the Council from the attached handouts . #5 . 8 : 31 : 41 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON A REQUEST TO MODIFY AND ADD LANGUAGE TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE DEFINITIONS AND REGULATIONS OF FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES. (PETITION NOS . 400-04-20 AND 400-04-26) View Attachments Joel Paterson, Jan Aramaki and Orion Goff briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Councilmember Turner said this item would be moved forward. #6 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE TO CHAPTER 8 . 04 ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE RELATING TO FERAL CAT COLONY REGISTRATION PERMIT REQUIREMENTS . This item was not discussed. #7 . 8 : 41 : 01 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO ALLOW OPEN-AIR SHOPPING MALLS AND STADIUMS TO VARY FROM THE CITY SIGN ORDINANCE ON THE INTERIORS OF THE MALLS AND STADIUMS . (BOYER COMPANY/PETITION NO. 400-04-25) View Attachments Russ Weeks , Alex Ikefuna and Doug Dansie briefed the Council from the attached handouts . #8 . 8 : 47 : 13 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE REQUESTED BY FLYING J, INC. (MIKE MILLER) TO CLOSE A PORTION OF 800 WEST, CLOSE AN ALLEY BETWEEN 800/900 WEST AND 2100 SOUTH, AND VACATE PORTIONS OF THE KLENKE' S ADDITION AND RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 06 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 8 , 2006 APPROXIMATELY 850 WEST 2100 SOUTH IN A GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) ZONING DISTRICT. (PETITION NOS . 400-05-46, 400-05-47 AND 400-06-15) View Attachments Ray McCandless, Doug Wheelwright and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Councilmember Turner said this issue would be moved forward. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND 8 : 49 : 48 PM ANNOUNCEMENTS . No report was given. See File M 06-5 for announcements . The meeting adjourned at 9 : 06 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 August 8, 2006 . bj 06 - 3 Planning Commission — Board Appointment — Susie McHugh INTRODUCTION: Mayor Anderson is recommending that Susie McHugh, a resident of District 7 to be appointed to serve on the Planning Commission, for a term through July 1, 2007. Ms. McHugh will be replacing Bip Daniels who has resigned. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Ms. McHugh is a retired educator and became very active in development issues to preserve the open space when she moved to Saratoga Springs. Ms. McHugh has attended many planning and town council meetings and was on the Planning Commission in Utah County. RESPONSE DEADLINE: If you have any objection to this appointment, please let Vicki know by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, July 21, 2006. CURRENT COMPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission consists of eleven voting members who are appointed to four-year terms, and must reside in Salt Lake City. Current members include: Tim Chambless, District 6; Babs Delay, District 3; John D. Diamond, District 3; Robert Forbis, Jr., District 4; Peggy McDonough, District 7; Robert Prescott Muir, District 5; Laurie Noda, District 6; Kathleen Scott, District 4 and Matthew Wirthlin, District 7. BOARD STRUCTURE: The Planning Commission's mission is to initiate and propose amendments to the zoning ordinance and zoning maps; prepare general plan relating to the growth and development of City lands; prepare surveys and studies of existing conditions and trends of growth and probable future requirements of the City; hear and decide appeals of administrative decisions; and hear and decide application for conditional uses, planned developments and subdivision,amendments. According to City Ordinance, combined expertise of the Planning Commission members should include experience in banking, development, contracting, engineering, geology and seismology, law, ecology, the behavioral sciences, historical preservation, architecture and landscape architecture, should not be limited to professionals only, but represent a cross-section of the community. Planning Commission — Board Appointment — Frank Algarin INTRODUCTION: Mayor Anderson is recommending that Frank Algarin, a resident of District 6 to be appointed to serve on the Planning Commission, for a term extending through July 1, 2010. Mr. Algarin will be replacing Laurie Noda whose term has expired. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Mr. Algarin is the Vice President for InteliSum, Inc. a software and hardware company that has a technology for surveying land and is currently serving on the Salt Lake Transportation Board. He has been involved as a business developer in a variety of markets for over 30 years and for the past 20 years he has focused on technology for Civil Engineering. Before moving to Salt Lake City he lived through Orange County, California's growth from 1 million to over 10 million in population; having witnessed wins as well as mistakes made during this time; he was also a member of the Neighborhood Improvement Program of Anaheim. Mr. Algarin believes in using creative and innovative thoughts in controlling growth that benefits all residents as well as addressing city concerns. RESPONSE DEADLINE: If you have any objection to this appointment, please let Vicki know by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, July 31, 2006. CURRENT COMPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission consists of eleven voting members who are appointed to four-year terms, and must reside in Salt Lake City. Current members include: Tim Chambless, District 6; Babs Delay, District 3; John D. Diamond, District 3; Robert Forbis, Jr., District 4; Peggy McDonough, District 7; Robert Prescott Muir, District 5; Laurie Noda, District 6; Kathleen Scott, District 4 and Matthew Wirthlin, District 7; Mary Woodhead, District 2. BOARD STRUCTURE: The Planning Commission's mission is to initiate and propose amendments to the zoning ordinance and zoning maps; prepare general plan relating to the growth and development of City lands; prepare surveys and studies of existing conditions and trends of growth and probable future requirements of the City; hear and decide appeals of administrative decisions; and hear and decide application for conditional uses, planned developments and subdivision amendments. According to City Ordinance, combined expertise of the Planning Commission members should include experience in banking, development, contracting, engineering, geology and seismology, law, ecology, the behavioral sciences, historical preservation, architecture and landscape architecture, should not be limited to professionals only, but represent a cross-section of the community. 4 l 4 4 n (I) CD C r n a) r- o_el' -0 — a) 0.) r-- —El X �(Ds CDCD 0.. 2 CD (I) 4.) r-, C Cl) 00 % ica K N k< _ ci, s =� CD Cl) t S 0o �+ * 11> 0 CD nco n r --1 — =-'" = . a ED -a m a 0.) . .i. = o i — a F 9 E > X A - • • • • / v v 0)i = I I I LI I I I I LI I I I I I I a Ei ( c°nc°nC� � i) Q �. G7 � � Z �i � �. 0 _ fcp A (3 (D 0 3 3 _ m N �° �° 0 G7 D N Cn = Fa D- o as o -oG)gJo = = 0 KU) hE h �. � U � — — 3 -. T2wa- (fa 3 cD 0n o UN �F73 0g D v o a) v m0- O3 A) CD (D O h CD Cl) SDo' co al o c m 0. cn Fa O < tu E U 3 a ° CD V) CD = rn L CD CD M Cl) S ID d, 4 f X 4 p, •i • • • • ' • • 0_ �' V)' n CD oa CD CD CD cD Q Q Q = cyr CD I— Q N -P, -., 3. Q Q c cDD — O = 0 o O _a Co < Q CAD ~': CD Q = � CD �, nCD �' O CD 0 CD = CD c0 O (O CD Ca_ °, .-4- o 0 O' CD Q 73 D = 3 CD su -0 CD 0- CD M 0 = CD n' ^ CC x. + CD 0_ _- 5. S CO co ,_+ O 4 O Q -6 5 _— ' Cl) _• 0 CD co O S I§ >i = Q c) CD > iltil n mol .14 71 o 0 - o N N N N N N N -< O■ O O O O O O O CD CD m o o. 3 C.) N N -k CU m 0 3 m O Cn O 01 C) C031 N Q o m �► = CD cn an K O N 0 3 = ' 3 co o = El) N N) N) N . CD :li-4 U1 - N co co 11 = m Q 3 5 O U1 O —k CO O O O CD C Q - N 3 C31 C� N N -4 C� W N c o Cl) W -Is. CY) -4 N) -• -- Cl) m Cl) can o IV - L -4 -Is. N -x a) �.► 0 CD ImF Q.cr °' S a -I , ) CA C31 CO CD C31 = \V N 0. ,- o cn ; ce � o 0 cQo _. o CO COoo1, -4a01 0 - o = Cn CD -A CO O cam) CO -. y 0 13 CA -P CO N) C) co ) O � o- WHNNy . 0 - C ) O O N C v .-0.. W N N O a) C31 CD CA) CO O NCD Immo cc) o > 0c 6 3 n) N `n 10V O0o 01 CD C CJ1 01 �31 - Co v o — -4 N) CO Co U1 �I 0 _ cs CS) CO O - CD O -J = O Cn N CY) O 01 CA) W CA O � �"� SD CA CD rF o _ ... O W 0, 0., 0, 0, NJ Nirt ■ CD (111) C5 , ,,,,7_ 1 K 4 it Cn { CD 0 c T A CO N r ' T 1 m m 7C1 CD v v v ai D m = X 3 o m 0 aaa13 000 Q. v < v D v OCO N -I C) o• —I r r m D R- 5 W o LU _3 N (D m o C = 0 C) 5' 5 CV CC] rev v m " co (n N `< .� v ZJ CD v ,G' i D �. O n c v N v 0' a n N C m m C) N �' -0 CO (n O < CD •< (D CD o (D CD Cr. v O v oIIIIIC (Q 5. N O a N lD 2) G al _ .+ a CD � o � � Q � 0 g N 0 m c Q 1— 0- m CV n o m SD° ° No • v CD a)) o O 3 0 D Ul _O (D (D N Q C)D L n N *- ,-.- LU p 7 7 w CD: 0O O O< O O -0 (D _Q n (n 1S O N r o n n C0 cn G N Sv N O Q O m -(n m v o � s 3. m u v cT Q CD Cn N) CA - 01 j CID 00 CA) p CD .-« ? . 00) C3) O) 0) N -J O v N N CO C,J Cfl -J (r - U1 . -x 00 A O) 01 N U1 - 0) N O O O O O O O O O �. O 0 0 1. CD Cl) '- -. S a) IN 4 I tio n O CL C INI Cn A co N -+ K o o o o v o CO 03 v O O CD 0 O N O O O cn O O O 0 (D N (D Cl) (D `< N 4. 3 w —' 3 c m o 13 a w v _O N n) — fD Q Q. Q Q N. Q) nCD Sr' (Q (Q Q co O 'CI; j C0 Q ,� Ul v n v v (A) N Q O O O �. v Co U7 -0 —. -a -a En• < , ,) CO CO Ut 00 -a 0) �h Cl) Cl) Cl) -O O O N On N N W W 0 0 =, O W 0) N N 0 _ O O O 0 O O O j O O O O O O CI) v O 0 ... 2- Q D N N N ca CD CL 7 7 O SD O O O Q- Cn a � 4 o I— CD O O O = �O W CM CA) . 0— (D •< N w 0 CD r CD Cn ID , / K r x 0 c 0 0 0 CD 0 0 am c n• c c c =, a 0- a Q. a_ n a c CD (D g CD C CD CD CD SD m CT CID = — — CO CD m m v o 0 -1 m �° Q CD v 3 o cam. �0 0 CD CD 0 CD = 3 a) = — O v 0 rn 0 73 0_ - 33 o m a CD c m cr, M v 0 Ni Ni Ni Ni Ni Ni "< e} a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD a' -• 0 ( ) C'.) Ni -L 0 CD, Cn 0 0 CD CID --I 11 Cfl �I N , (D Q CD 3 a a Q _ c cD v CD (n - -0 p b9 -64 fi9 -CR ffl c = CDry 0 01 -P. m m o a) rn C) 4 41 o 3 cn o 0 00 o c ED 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD Cl) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 ■_ ID r[i" H iti4 I X A .< o • • * = r mm [ 1101111 ° a) o � a - o �CO CD � K ©co � N M 3 a) 3 cn 0co 0Q3' o5. . . c 0) Qco ooc oc� � -� � % CD o o tv O � � A p < = CD D ' = 0� C • ° = CD o CD-s -1 ' 3 Qo o -• a) ED= CD o < 0 co `• Cl)CD ° �' —• CO CD o w = co u) _. u) (in 7 1 1 X LFG (scfm) _ _, N W ? (n O) { ..41 9,9 o o 0 0 0 0 9 09j NDO 00 O�, NDO 06, 2 00,9 Cl) -,Oj2 �O7s CD 7c9 a) c'Oc-), v10 y c,0 0. �, Ou'O r QOOO 0 C) �006, 3 CD `�009 A) .0 D 0.C �OVS = 176, CD O. cDb 0 c CD ' O Q ,Os,., a) Np06, Cl) O C111) I I 71 V K 0 1 • X 4 tio. r { 0 m K co < c) ic * I 0m o O a) 0 fD 0 0 —■ csaN CD (CD D N 0 in CD 3 �I S?o 2 v 0 = o m v CD �D (Q CD CD Q 0 n -D CD CO cc) 5• 7 n co —. o Cl) c co 73 0 co 0 C 0 c rolK —1 cs o_ mg v `� 0 4114 Cn < N oCD 00 0o CD O rn o -0 N Ca CO 01 N CO CD CDB 3 O O O O O O O O 0 CD O CD CD O CDO CDrt 0 0 en A Et n — N Ma) N oo Ui co co N 1 O N N v O -.1 Ca (a CD 0 O O O O O O O O rF mim■ 2 CD 1II1,004)) is r 4 - i > X ¥ 1 0 C - 0 o § // / 9 / - E ƒ 7 7 = a 9 2 k < (U 3 f / \ \ / / roc • 5 ° 0• } / E0 , ` k / CO\ \ o \ / k 3 \ \ � / /• CD 2 [ / ) e ` / 2 R @ 7 /_ ¥ m \ k a / ® m \ a n / 3 & _ 0. & m - = co o CD o- o § a¥ £ ] 1-co / n ¥t. E\ R $ § G m\ % \\ _ CD 0 \ E i 3 ® 0 / j - mCmos a # , \ 0 CD R ) E e E / \ - E Cl) q 7 a a 7 30 Cl)cn cn § \ cn 3 Eft 1=IK J § _ - CD \ 7 37/% of � ® o 0 - \ 00 & 0 kk \ 0 0 0 \ soo. - 03 $ 0 _. c --PIP s C 3 } t 0000211/ o00co) / 0 7 f k ral # # / // ¥ CD k - - 7 k kCO0. ° 0 6 o o o a o 0 0 0 o o (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ci) :re su 1--x �� < J 1 X 13 0 0 IMF 0 m C) m K — r r m co 0 m c c m c mo co 5' a c) < 3 CD co 3 3 CD m CD 3 ° n' m m 0 =' p CD r r s r r-o op mai 3 N O•d c 0 = j' j O +n 0 ca n n 0 cc) o.c 7 c 3 °: CDO� N n 'O V N D N 3 ..< co @ 7 N N N N K 47 _a o c m g m 3 Q c° w o m CD CD 7 m G)* v N m m 3 m cn 13 Cu ID o a m a m m B. c Q c c c 0 rn N S. 3 N a _ N O a a) 7 CD g° s o ° a o m o m o m D K ZI O„ o (n N ° y N O w 7 v m m S o if •v v N 5'� upsu 3 a N N n O o O (O _■ o' m z » m x, T N rn N N N 01 m o- D 0 3 n 0 ° o'z m - m CD og c.m '< m cn a MK O NCDN CrN D N a N W N O 2- a N 3° 3 3 5' a N a N O�t° N a- 41 us 41 N us y(7) n ._ n -.. so N > ry _ W CD W a 3 of P. O 0 Q N EA U7 VI NJ N NJ C)) EA C)c - y W co y O O A (T O (77 V(Jt NJ O - g O O O 0 -0 0 O O O A .N. Nl y S N -i 1 O O O O O O 0 00 0 O N O a O O O O O 0 0 0 0 OCD O m m y 0 m w .� A 7 gi- `Z 3 EA 0 co 4,4 EA W a) EA to,' A EA NJ EA EA EA EA EA EA EA p 1 W j V ,I NJ VI cn is.) N —,O W 0) 7 0 0 CP U) 0 A CT 0 CT V CD A n -co O -a O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O C) CI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 O O O 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 2 Cl) - CD... su 7 * , K I 1 z nc O W 0 ANN W WA W N N A A A A O W G) N N O N 0 (6 ) o g-o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S. E-o 0 0 0 E o c- _ c m Km KKK KKK KK KK KK K m K K K K fD K F O O O O O O O O 00 00 00 0 (T O 0 0 0 N O mom 5 w a a a a a a a a Cl a s a Cl a a a on a a 0 C CCC CCC_ CC C_ C CC C C_ C C C C o d (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (On m - ) C) " "O v "CO CO v v W O A A W W -. O. -` o_ F N Op_ coFli d MIll N CDco 0 n N Cl) C N N N N N N N N N) N) N N O 0(xi A A CD O O IO O O O O O 4) to o W O (T coco N V N) CO O COO CD 0- - EA EA EA A W to W EA c� EA m rn rn n CD CO CDO (OCO A N OA NJ o W CO 3 O OKO CD CD CD CJ 0 CDO ccN CD C) O O O O O O O O 0. Cill) >, 1 r j n S lr4 Z CD a). CD CD -0 = DJ CD 5 CD <cr, - CD Q n 8Z � > . mo mm 0CD n- N 0 ; Cll 0 < ED 0 -a n N O Cn — _ 2 C CD CD 0 cQ(Q s•p • N COD Q m y CD 3 `< z (n O N v p 0 Q a CD 3 0 = (D O (D g v =~ 0 CD N fD C) CD .=t �, O 0 — CD n -% O r+ p 0 0 0 - = __ c N (D V) O a 4-(n n 5• < CD C 3 a. 0 g a 79 5 c O CQ Q c g CD O CD = to CD 0 3 71 -O N CD -Of, fl) < w Ccp w G cn —■ f D c D G = CD rnCD ° 0 0 a 0) CD aSD X 2) =� O CW CA DC cva) o < n = oc ,• n rt .`a Q 0 C) O 0 CD CD �. N,<< O O 5 CD C (D z u) z Cp O C T CD j `< Q p N a v O (/)• a -C. 5 D 0 =' /—� p CC? Q. C/) CD -•CQ 13 iv C a 13 m o � rn n o c� = c - = v 0 rn C) =' r-. 0 c c0 c cn a C) N ccnn O C -0 CD -, 0 v CD CDs 0 I) X •�+ 0 5 - -a 0) n co ° CD 0 to 3 = (D Cn n O Q M N O C Z `G CD N a) Cn CI) r kr i 5, K X - ti n { CD (in 0 (in SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 4,2006 SUBJECT: Petition 400-05-43—Mr.Blake Henderson—request to: • Rezone property generally located at 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from Residential Multi- Family RMF-35 to Residential Multi-Family RMF-45 • Amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted the rezoning and master plan amendment will affect Council District 4 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine, Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Doug Dansie,Principal Planner NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Newspaper advertisement and written notification to surrounding property owners 14 days prior to the Public Hearing WORK SESSION SUMMARY/NEW INFORMATION: A. On July 11,2006,the Council received a briefing from the Administration regarding the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment. B. Issues discussed included: 1. The importance of the Planning Commission identify findings that support their recommendation and substantiate their decisions when they differ from that recommended by Planning staff 2. The importance of having developers work with the community to find solutions to issues and to ensure compatible development. 3. The status of Legislative Actions recently initiated by the Council requesting that the Administration reevaluate the Residential Multi-family zoning districts relating to height,density and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and identify options that would include, but not be limited to, modification of the Planned Development regulations,density bonus and affordable housing incentives,and neighborhood compatibility standards. • The Planning Director noted that this is a priority and that the Administration's proposal would be transmitted to the Council in early fall. 4. Options that the developer could consider such as stepping back the top floor of the building penthouse on the top floor. 5. If rezoning the property would set precedence or if rezoning the property at this location but not elsewhere could be considered arbitrary and capricious. The City Attorney's office provided the following information. a. As a general rule, all decision making bodies(Planning Commission, City Council, etc.) should make findings on the record explaining the basis for their decision. b. Under Utah law, any land use decision can be reversed by the court if it is found to be arbitrary, capricious or illegal. In a legislative context(which would include zoning 1 decisions), the City Council is granted broad discretion in making those policy decisions. arbitrary to be Utah courts have held that a legislative land use decision will not be or capricious if it is reasonably debatable that the decision could result in a public benefit. Thus, as long as the City Council has legitimate reasons for making its decision, it is extremely unlikely that a court would reverse that decision as being arbitrary or capricious. c. As to the risk of setting a precedent, that risk is also extremely low. As a matter of law, every piece of real property is deemed to be unique. While I think we would all want to treat similarly situated properties (or property owners)similarly, there are so many individual factors to consider in every zoning decision, that it is very unlikely that we would find two properties that are so "identical "that we would be legally obligated to treat them both the same. As a practical matter, if there are any legitimate reasons why the Council thinks that what we did on property A should be different than what we should do on property B, we are justified in treating the two properties differently. When you combine that with the broad latitude that the Council has in making legislative land use decisions, if is extremely unlikely that the City Council will ever be successfully challenged on a zoning decision based upon the concept of a prior binding precedent. In other words, the Council should feel free to make whatever they think is the right policy decision as to this property without worrying about setting a precedent. C. The applicant has agreed to enter into a development agreement with the City that would: 1. Reduce the total number of units proposed from 46 to 43. 2. Step back the 4th floor of the proposed building from the street a distance of between 6 and 12 feet to reduce the visual presence of the building on the street frontage. 3. Provide approximately 15 additional guest parking stalls in the proposed underground parking structure in addition to the 78 parking stalls required parking standards to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. POTENTIAL 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. Adopt an ordinance rezoning the property(subject to a development agreement)and amending the East Bench Community Master Plan. 4. Do not adopt an ordinance rezoning the property and amending the East Bench Community Master Plan. 5. Other options that may be identified by Council Members. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance: • Rezoning property generally located at 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from Residential Multi-Family RMF-35 to Residential Multi-Family RMF-45. • Amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. • {Subject to entering into a development agreement with the City.} 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt the proposed ordinance: • Rezoning property generally located at 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from Residential Multi-Family RMF-35 to Residential Multi-Family RMF-45. • Amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. 2 C. 2. ["I move that the Council"J Close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. The following information was provided for the Council Work Session on July 10,2006. It is provided again for your reference. A. Due to the Council's summer meeting schedule and a request from the petitioner for a hearing as quickly as possible due to the length of time they have been in the process,Council staff has identified the following schedule should the Council choose to move this item forward to a public hearing after the briefing from the Administration. (The Administration's transmittal was received in the Council office on July 3,2006.) • July 11 Council briefing • July 11 Set hearing date • August 8 Council hearing B. The Planning Commission has recommended denial of this petition,but did not specifically address the five standards/factors for zoning map and text amendments as is required by City Ordinance. The Planning staff recommended approval to the Commission and did make specific findings,which are included in the Administration's staff report and on pages 3 and 4 of this report. C. For ease of reference,the following items have been brought forward from the Administration's paperwork and attached at the end of this staff report. • Attachment 1 -the March 8th Planning Commission minutes for the public hearing have been brought forward and attached at the end of this staff report. • Attachment 3—Letters and minutes relating to accusations irregularities in the process • Attachment 2 is a memo from the Planning Director that was provided early in May to Council Members relating to the appropriateness of amending master plans. KEY ELEMENTS: A. An ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration to: 1. Rezone property at 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from Moderate Density Residential Multi-Family RMF-35 to Moderate/High Density Residential Multi-Family RMF-45. 2. Amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map designation for the properties from medium density residential to medium-high density residential land uses. B. The rezoning and master plan amendment would facilitate demolition of a non-conforming medical office and two low-density,single-family residential structures and construction of a 46-unit condominium residential development in a single building with underground parking. (Please see the Planning staff report and Planning Commission minutes for details)The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report note: 1. The applicant is requesting a higher density zoning classification based on: a. Adjacent development that is similar in scale. b. The replacement of an existing non-conforming medical building(demolition costs) increases the cost of the land. c. The cost of underground parking must be absorbed by the project. 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use map from Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units/acre)to Medium/High Density Residential(30-50 dwelling units/acre) is necessary to accommodate the proposed development's density of 43 units/acre. 3 3. The proposed development will comply with the requirements of the RMF-45 zoning district and will be an over-the-counter permitted use. C. The Planning staff report notes surrounding land uses include the following zoning classifications and existing land uses. (Please see attached map for details). 1. North—High Density Residential RMF-75 and Moderate Density Multi-Family RMF-35—non- conforming medical clinic and 14-story(approximate)high density apartment building 2. South—Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential RMF-35 (across 100 South)—3-story medium- density apartment building 3. West—Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential RMF-45—4-story residential condominium building 4. East—Low Density Multi-Family RMF-30(across 900 East)—Single-family and multi-family residential,retail and institutional uses D. The purpose of the Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential RMF-35 district is to provide an environment suitable for a variety of moderate density housing types, including multi-family dwellings. Commercial and office types of uses are not permitted in this zone. Maximum height in the zone is 35 feet. Maximum density in the RMF-35 zone is: • 14.5 units/acre for single-family attached dwellings • 21.8 units/acre for multi-family developments with less than 15 units • 29.6 units/acre for multi-family developments over 15 units with 1 acre • 29.0 units/acre for multi-family developments over 15 units and above 1 acre E. The purpose of the Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential RMF-45 district is to provide for an environment suitable for multi-family dwellings of a moderate/high density. Commercial and office types of uses are not permitted in this zone. Maximum height in the zone is 45 feet. Maximum density in the RMF-45 zone is: • 14.5 units/acre for single-family attached dwellings • 30.5 units/acre for multi-family developments with less than 15 units • 43.2 units/acre for multi-family developments over 15 units with 1 acre • 43.0 units/acre for multi-family developments over 15 units and above 1 acre F. The public process included a presentation to the East Central Community Council and written notification of the Planning Commission hearing to surrounding property owners. 1. The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report note the petitioner attended Community Council meetings on October 19,2005 and February 15, 2006. There was general support for the project but also a concern that the rezone would set a precedent for increased zoning density which would encourage other demolitions in the area.The Community Council discussed design concepts to insure neighborhood compatibility.(A copy of the October Community Council minutes is included in the Planning staff report—Exhibit 4.) 2. At the March 8,2006 Planning Commission hearing,Ms. Chris Johnson, Chair of the East Central Community Council noted the following information.(Please see the Planning Commission minutes, Attachment 1, and item J,pg.4,of this staff report-Issues discussed at the Planning Commission hearing-for additional details.) a. She represented a 10 of 11 vote in opposition to the proposed development. b. The petitioner had been respectful and cooperative to the requests and concerns of the community. c. The Community Council would be supportive of the development if it was feasible in the RMF- 11. 35 zone. 4 G. The City's Fire,Police,and Public Utilities Departments and Transportation and Engineering Divisions have reviewed the request. 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. H. 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. (Discussion and findings for these standards are found on pages 5-7 of the Planning staff report.) 1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes,goals,objectives,and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Findings: The zoning amendment is generally consistent with master plan policies of eliminating non-conforming uses and accommodating a variety of housing types. However,to accommodate this specific development,it will require amendment of the Central Community Master Plan to change the map for this site from medium density residential to medium/high density residential. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Findings:The proposed amendments would allow for multi-family dwellings that are similar in scale to adjacent land uses and the amendments are harmonious with existing development. 3. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Findings: The zone change will not adversely affect adjacent property. Adjacent zoning has allowed structures of similar or greater scale and intensity. The zone change will allow the • replacement of a non-conforming medical office building with condominium uses that are more in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood and potential for future elimination of another non-conforming medical office for future housing development. 4. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Findings: The location is within the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay district. The proposed condominium project must satisfy all requirements of the Overlay district. (Please note,the property is located within the Bryant National Historic District but has not been designated as a City Historic District. The Historic Preservation Overlay zoning classification is not applicable.) 5. 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 proposed condominium project will not negatively affect the existing public services in the area. The project must meet all City Codes and regulations prior to the issuance of a building permit. • RECOMMENDATION(Planning staff): In light of the comments,analysis and findings noted above,Planning staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation the City Council to approve an ordinance to: o Amend the Central Community Master Plan regarding the properties located at 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from a land use classification of medium density housing to medium-high density housing. 5 FA o Amend the zoning map to rezone the properties located at 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from the zoning classification RMF-35 to RMF-45. I. On March 8,2006,the Planning Commission voted,based on the comments,analysis and findings,to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council to rezone the property and amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The Administration's transmittal letter notes that the Planning Commission decision was based upon the fact that the Central Community Master Plan had just recently been adopted identifying the specific site to be medium density on the Future Land Use Map and that there is other RMF-45 land available in the area to develop.(Please see Attachment 1 -Planning Commission minutes for additional details.) J. Issues discussed at the Planning Commission hearing(summarized below)included: 1. The proposed rezoning would be considered spot zoning. 2. The proposed rezoning could potentially set precedence for additional rezoning of other properties with higher density zoning classifications and encourage other demolitions in the area. 3. Other properties near the proposed location are currently zoned RMF-45 and those properties should be considered for the proposed development. 4. Inconsistency with the recently adopted Central Community Master Plan. 5. Design issues relating to the proposed development including elevation, grade change,height, mass, scale and neighborhood character compatibility. 6. Potential traffic,parking,entrance/exit location and noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. 7. The potential for crime in the underground parking area. 8. The proposed demolition of 2 historic homes. 9. The length of time the petitioner has owned the property,the age of the medical building,the proposed square footage and pricing of the project. 10. Financial viability should not be considered as an appropriate reason for a zone change. 11. Concern regarding the lack of tools or options available to develop the project and address compatibility, in lieu of rezoning the property,such as use of a density bonus,development agreement or the planned development conditional use process. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: A. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration the following items that have emerged during the process for this petition. 1. If it may be appropriate to request that the Planning Commission identify specific findings as part of the motion when they differ from those provided in the Planning staff report,given changes to the Utah Code Land Use Development Management Act that were considered this year and adopted last year by the State Legislature. a. The motion provided in the Planning Commission minutes states,"Based on the comments, analysis and findings,Commissioner Scott made a motion to deny the request to amend the Central City Master Plan to City Council and to also forward a recommendation to City Council to deny the rezoning at the subject property". b. The Administration's transmittal letter notes that the Planning Commission decision was based upon the fact that the Central Community Master Plan had just recently been adopted identifying the specific site to be medium density on the Future Land Use Map and that there is other•RMF-45 land available in the area to develop. c. The Planning Commission minutes reflect additional items summarized below. (Please see Attachment 1 -Planning Commission minutes-for specific statements and additional details.) 6 • Additional comments made by Commissioners after closing the public hearing including those noted in the transmittal letter. For example: o RMF-45 should be located along the 700 East corridor. o The proposed rezone is a spot zone request. o The area surrounding the subject property includes various zones. o The entire area is in a unique situation and should be considered individually. • A list of opposition points made by the East Central Community Council Chair and members of the public. • Several statements made by the petitioner and the project architect responding to concerns and issues,benefits of the proposed project to the community,steps taken and time invested in working with Community Council members to respond to their issues. 2. When is it appropriate to consider amending adopted master plans? In a memo to Council Member Jergensen,dated May 10,2006,the Planning Director provided information relating to the Planning Division's opinion on the appropriateness of amending a master plan. (Please see the attached memo for reference-Attachment 2 This memo was also provided to all Council Members. Planning staff indicated to Council staff that the memo was shared with the Planning Commission.) The memo notes: a. The appropriateness of amending a master plan is affected by various factors such as time, map inconsistencies,specific policy analysis,new development patterns and new city-wide policies. b. The need to amend a master plan is usually discovered during the analysis of a specific proposal. c. Through specific analysis of a project and after reviewing all of the applicable adopted policies,the decision makers can determine whether it is appropriate to amend policies of a master plan. d. Because the policy is usually not the matter of conflict,rather where the policies are applied geographically is the point of conflict;the Future Land Use Map is usually the portion of the master plan that is proposed for amendments. 3. The Council may wish to request more information from the Planning Division on the issues considered at the Planning Commission in relation to this petition,and whether the Administration provides information to the Commission to assure that they are fully aware of the policy issues relating to the projects,and that the scope of the Planning Commission's role is clear for each project considered. For example: a. "The proposed rezoning would be considered spot zoning." Does the Planning staff agree that this proposed rezoning could be considered spot zoning? Was information or clarification provided to the Planning Commission? Could a lack of response on this assertion for the record leave the City open to legal questions? b. "The length of time the petitioner has owned the property,the age of the medical building, the proposed square footage and pricing of the project." When issues of this nature are raised is the role of the Planning Commission clarified,or does the Planning Commission consider these issues as part of their deliberations? c. "The potential for crime in the underground parking area." The City's master plans have encouraged underground parking whenever possible,while also recognizing the need to address crime prevention through environmental design. Since specific findings were not made, it is not clear whether the inclusion of an underground parking garage(in keeping with the concepts of the master plan)was a factor in the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of this petition. 7 _... .. ... . 4. The Administration's transmittal notes: a. Due to various written correspondence relating to this request,the Planning Commission addressed the issue three times after their decision on March 8,2006. The issues outlined in the correspondence included concerns regarding process,which were raised by the applicant, and a formal request to re-hear the petition in a public forum in response to those concerns. (Please see Attachment 3—Letters and minutes relating to accusations of irregularities in the process—and the Administration's transmittal letter pg. 4 for details.) b. The correspondence is summarized as follows: • Applicant's letter,dated March 15,2006, raising claims of irregularities in the process and possible ex parte communications between a Commissioner and members of the East Central Community Council. • Planning Director's letter,dated March 23,2006,to applicant responding to the applicant's claims. • At the March 22,2006 Planning Commission meeting,Commissioner Scott also responded to the allegations. • At the April 12,2006 Planning Commission meeting, in response to a request from the Community Development Department for the Planning Commission to rehear the matter,the Commission voted to reaffirm their decision to recommend denial of the rezoning and master plan amendment. • At the April 26,2006 Planning Commission meeting,in response to a letter from the applicant requesting the Planning Commission rehear the matter,the Commission voted again to reaffirm their decision to recommend denial of the rezoning and master plan amendment. • At the June 14,2006 Planning Commission meeting,the Commissioners specifically addressed allegations made by the applicant. o The Commission found that no evidence supports the applicant's accusations put forth in letters to the Community Development and Planning Directors regarding comments made during the Planning Commission meeting and between Planning Staff. o They further stated that the basis for allegations relating to conversations held between Commissioner Scott and members of the East Central Community Council and/or any other member of the Planning Commission were unfounded and without merit. o Chairperson Noda stated that Commissioner Scott had already stated in the record that she did not have any conversations with outside parties regarding the petition, nor attended any field trips other than the Planning Commission field trip that is regularly scheduled. o When the applicant requested time to address the Commission,the Commission voted to not take testimony from the applicant. 5. The timeframe identified by the Planning Division for processing amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to provide options or tools for facilitating new development or redevelopment projects in lieu of rezoning properties. a. At the Planning Commission hearing,Commissioners expressed concern regarding the lack of tools or options available to develop the project and address compatibility, in lieu of rezoning the property, such as use of a density bonus,development agreement or the planned development conditional use process. 8 b. Planning staff indicated that in October of 2005 a petition was initiated by the Commission to review the requirements of density for Planned Developments. Planning staff also noted that on March 7,2006,the Council imitated a Legislative Action requesting the Planning staff review the same item of concern. Planning staff stated that the petition will be given new priority by the Planning staff. c. On March 7,2006,as part of the Council action adopting the non-conforming uses and non- complying structures Zoning Ordinance text amendment,the Council adopted a motion initiating a Legislative Action requesting that the Administration(Planning Commission and Planning staff)address additional design considerations regarding expansion,enlargement or voluntary demolition for such uses and structures.Key elements the Council requested the Administration to review within the next six months include: • Additional design considerations including,but not limited to: o Height o Historic preservation o Density o Neighborhood compatibility • Ensure that the standards are consistent for voluntary demolition,the conditional site design review process and the conditional use process. d. On March 7,2006,as part of the Council action rezoning property located at 500 South, 500 East and Denver Street(Richard Astle and Thaes Webb,petitioners),the Council adopted a motion initiating a Legislative Action requesting that the Administration reevaluate the Residential Multi-Family RMF zoning districts relating to height,density and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and identify options that would include,but not be limited to,modification of the Planned Development regulations,density bonus and affordable housing incentives,and neighborhood compatibility standards. (This was in response to the Council's discussion of the need in this situation to use a development agreement restricting height in order to allow for the desired density in addition to rezoning the property.) MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Central Community Master Plan(November 2005)is the adopted land-use policy document that guides new development in the area surrounding the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment. The Future Land Use Map identifies this area for Medium Density residential uses. (As previously noted, amending the Future Land Use Map in the Central Community Master Plan is part of this petition.) The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report note: 1. The Central Community Master Plan identifies the subject properties as medium density residential. 2. The adjacent properties are identified as medium-high and high density residential. 3. The Central Community Master Plan encourages the elimination of non-conforming uses in residential zones if they are replaced by residential uses.(page 32) B. 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-income and mixed-use developments,housing preservation,rehabilitation and replacement,zoning policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities. C 9 C. 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. The Plan recognizes the benefits of locating high density housing along major transit systems and reducing dependency on the automobile as a primary mode of transportation. D. 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 Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive, friendly, safe environments. E. 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. F. 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. 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. • Oct. 19,2005 &Feb. 15,2006 East Central City Community Council meetings • December 13, 2005 Petition submitted to Planning Division • March 8,2006 Planning Commission hearing • March 14,2006 Ordinance requested from City Attorney's office • March 24,2006 Ordinance received from City Attorney's office • March 22,April 12,April 26 and June 14,2006 Planning Commission review and response to claims of process irregularities and ex parte communication cc: Sam Guevara,Rocky Fluhart,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Melanie Reif,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde,Alex Ikefuna, Doug Wheelwright,Cheri Coffey,Doug Dansie,Jennifer Bruno, Sylvia Richards,Gwen Springmeyer File Location: Community Development Dept., Planning Division,Rezoning and Master Plan Amendment, Blake Henderson, 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East 10 • �1 'T, r A r. 1 i • , d ,L 'r (I t�� r1 = '' k�. . i r�• __ _ M Imo \ illir 1. 11 111 1 1 ' 1/ 1 L�\\_' \ 111 .-, 1. • \ . 1 L. - i , , '',,1:;:\, -'- * � 4 r la lam,I IIl''.4!:,74.—',1.11./.,i',-..1.1t1:1x 14a \aIia: I '1 / _ : \II;\ISIS\It: IIlal1 \1 \1 \\, ii.„1,glii, ,1 ,. 1 , 'r � � ■ I� '. I� 1� 1� 1,I � 1� . t„ , 1 . _ if ..,.. 1.,,_ ._ , . ..,,:,.„.:-...4,-..:_...,.... , -1--- 1 1 \ ii \....:,..4 _ ...,... . . _ .. , ._. . , _ .._ .._. . , I I I \- - -- .. . . ...- . "• - .. . • - L. \ -:, •: -: . . ...„ • ... . . 51 14 I I ,.....11 , . •..._. \....1 r.,......., , , : 1 I I \ . , - I 1 \ .r.. . .. I ‘ _, ' ,• I „ . . : ,,. P.. ., • . .. . . . ; •-; '44:-..- .,F,':.:,.., , .. -••,„a _, , iii. i • • .:'::-..4.3...:•.,-.-;.. :,-,.......,.... ,, f .11 1 .i 1 , , , . , , . lb al _ . • \ .• ' -4.• , , I 1 \ .' -,. 11 ' '- '":.,t;.., ,t, - . I l:' . ., ' I ► ,..+* .. i . • i i k\i, A 1 . i -1,1 I lit . if: i ij . 1III12 I 1 I® f .17 ' .•2 k 1 14 : : II I iff = a Ilk, :i ''' y I: WadiL1t 4 i. D z a -I Cl 0 z CI 0 3 z to Ci 0-4 s �°Ti 1'ieem� . iii o ■ _ tin o c ? ,z)inhn E. 70 iiii • NM f ■ N p .. S et 1 ii ii 900 EAST "" tAg 8i 1 ■ y S ES y Cww plod a x 6 tle Y R R Y i fig • ,iliz[ UlIx n b O O m D b n` I I �' 6 0 0 o m _ u� ,m0 fI-- 4,, , fM N % /�\\\\\\\\\� -g o 1 23-5' ;aa o 0 1"1 p 6 O 0 -10 ICI z ell I III 8 1 1 I ei C23' { . . . . y 53' I 1 r til _• 1 c ... . mCl.- (s) 1ay Ada % - V i I , d' `TT°m r-- T 1 o m o m _ .�5 —11 .w T A V r p m N p � a} n ='1a Xi N>!b to w / 3C-C' >-Gi 2v-7 )61. 47$' 30.p -14 -10 ro P a u Y 1: ztp li? A . 1p _ t\n (] Fr 1 \ u w wt ,u-: W u D :TA _ o a W O1 ¢g�aP N W�tn . V`i UjW� Nt= D Y E<3' I ‘ } z } e» } ea 9� lAl rli\ (\\ / G. m k . F- Q . , ./ § &( RI §$,» � es); \/ ? ) §\0 \ ,to, 0 , �7 /3 2 , :- \ 2 73 z /� � - 13 &§4 /§ z •5.> lf, ri \ . §§) / / mar «7« §(\ �� %%7 . \ £ & { / / j / e } 1 I 1 ` I r 1 U3 j."---1 fn NM lxl' 00. umm ee ug.2m c D Nmw D mn x il r (o a1. ti — In AL In T SI r u - -� W2a ru qu(al I:mD 6 Al u qW 6i 3.'17 3'.7-0' lQ u LO 1.., r ` T T N ( I ,„ __ ..„,„ 1.3 w u iq c tt A) lu N W�() kJ 7 Tyr § ,i'P . 2 I I n L 1 , b L I__. J. I z- k w 63-7 8 y 65-a I m I to 6 < V _ tfi m - I- _ - -11 1 m 0 0 el O 6 53sS r'-lc 7r p- SC-1 yr 7_� s Th a' 1�1� , Z =_ ►� — ir� i 415 wRto a g ti I 1 , re , r— V I [�/1`\ JUit031006 ^ LOUIS ZUNGUZE 1 41 ��� C�O ,y'�, I)W la ( ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL /e76orif TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer 1 '9,2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director '1 rt RE: Petition 400-05-43 by Blake Henderson requesting an amendment to the Central Community Zoning Map to change the zoning of the parcels of land located at approximately 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East, and 58 South 900 East from Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential (RMF-35)to Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential (RMF-45). This requires an amendment to the Central Community Master Plan to change the future land use map designation of the site from medium density residential to medium-high density residential. STAFF CONTACTS: Doug Dansie,Principal Planner,at 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council schedule a briefing and a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Petition 400-05-43 was initiated by Blake Henderson, land owner, requesting an amendment to the Central Community Zoning Map to change the zoning of the parcels of land located at approximately 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from RMF-35 to RMF-45. This also requires an amendment to the Central Community Master Plan to change the Future Land Use Map designation of the site from medium density residential to medium-high density residential. Analysis: The request is to rezone the property to RMF-45 to allow higher density and building height than the current RMF-35 zoning. The proposed project includes the demolition of a non-conforming medical office and two low-density residential structures to enable the construction of a single building with 46 residential condominium units. All parking is proposed to be underground. The developer has asked for the higher density designation for several reasons: adjacent development is similar in scale, the replacement(demolition costs) of an existing medical 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7105 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM �= RECYCLED P.PCR building with a residential building increases the cost of the land, r 'at of The proposed development meets all the requirements of the RMF-45 Zoning District and will be: an over-the-counter permitted use. Therefore, if the zoning change is approved, no separate conditional use or planned development approval is required. The RMF-45 Zoning District allows buildings of up to 45 feet(45')in height. The density allowed for a one acre parcel is one unit per 1,000 square feet of lot area. There are 46,609 square feet of lot area. Most portions of the building are below 45 feet(45'); no portion exceeds 45 feet(45'). Staff recommended approval of the project based upon the fact that the project replaced a non-conforming land use with new housing and would provide underground parking, consistent with the master plan,and adjacent land uses are generally medium/high or high density housing or non-conforming uses. Master Plan Considerations: The Central Community Master Plan identifies the subject properties as medium density residential. The adjacent properties are identified as medium- high and high density residential. In addition,the Central Community Master Plan encourages the elimination of non-conforming uses in residential zones if they are replaced by residential uses (page 32). The 2000 Community Housing Plan encourages higher residential density when amenities, such as underground parking, are included. PUBLIC PROCESS: The petitioner attended the East Central Community Council meeting on October 19, 2005, and also on February 15, 2006. There was general support for the project but also a concern that the rezone would set a precedent for increased zoning density which would encourage other demolitions in the area. The Community Council discussed design concepts to insure neighborhood compatibility. A copy of the October minutes is included in the staff report (Exhibit 4). Property owners were notified(notices mailed on 2/21/05) and a notice in a newspaper of general circulation(Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune)was published at least 14 days in advance of the public hearing(published on 2/22/06). On March 8,2006,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and voted to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council regarding the amendment of the Central Community Master Plan and zoning map based upon the fact that the Central Community Master Plan had just recently been adopted identifying the specific site to be medium density on the Future Land Use Map and that there is other RMF-45 land available in the area to develop. Due to various written correspondence relating to this request, the Planning Commission addressed the issue three times after their decision on March 8,2006. The issues outlined in the correspondence included concerns regarding process,which were raised by the applicant, Petition 400-05-43: Petition by B.Henderson for Amendment to the Central City Master Plan&Zoning Map Page 2 of 4 and a formal request to re-hear the petition in a public forum in response to those concerns; The correspondence and Planning Commission actions are summarized as follows: 1. The applicant,Blake Henderson, sent a letter raising claims of irregularities of the process to Mr. Louis Zunguze. In a letter dated March 23, 2006, Planning Director Alex Ikefuna responded to the accusations and at the March 22, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Scott also responded to the accusations. (Please see attachment 4d.) 2. At its April 12,2006 Planning Commission meeting, in response to a letter from Mr. Brent Wilde, Deputy Community Development Director requesting the Planning Commission rehear the matter,the Commission voted to reaffirm their decision to recommend denial of the rezoning and master plan amendments(Please see attachment 4e). 3. At its April 26,2006 Planning Commission meeting, in response to a letter from the applicant Blake Henderson requesting the Planning Commission rehear the matter, the Commission voted again to reaffirm their decision to recommend denial of the rezoning and master plan amendments(Please see attachment 4f) 4. At its June 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, in response to a request by the Planning Director, the Commission formally reviewed the claims made by Mr. Henderson that were set forth in his letter of April 25,2006. The Planning Commission specifically addressed the allegations made by the applicant. The Commission found that no evidence supports the applicant's accusations put forth in letters to Mr. Louis Zunguze and Mr. Alex Ikefuna regarding comments made during the Planning Commission meeting and between Planning Staff. They further stated that the basis for the allegations relating to conversations held between Commissioner Scott and members of the East Central Community Council and/or any other member of the Planning Commission were unfounded and without merit. Chairperson Noda stated that Commissioner Scott had already stated in the record that she did not have any conversations with outside parties regarding the petition, nor attended any field trips other than the Planning Commission field trip that is regularly scheduled(Please see attachment 4g). The Planning Director also investigated the applicant's concerns and claims of ex parte communication and thoughtfully considered the discussion points of the Planning Commission meeting held on March 8,2006,relating to the specific activity of the commissioner in question, and found that the claims were without merit. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: 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, Petition 400-05-43:Petition by B.Henderson for Amendment to the Central City Master Plan&Zoning Map Page 3 of 4 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 5 of the Planning Commission Staff Report(see Attachment 4b). The Utah Code Annotated(10-9-302) identifies the procedures for adopting and amending general plans. The Code identifies an adoption process that mandates a 14-day notification requirement including a notice in a newspaper of general circulation. As noted above, this requirement was met. Petition 400-05-43:Petition by B.Henderson for Amendment to the Central City Master Plan&Zoning Map Page 4 of 4 CONTENTS 1. Chronology 2. Proposed Ordinance 3. City Council Public Hearing a. Notice b. Mailing List 4. Planning Commission Hearing a. Original Notice and Postmark b. Staff Report: March 8, 2006 c. Minutes: March 8, 2006 d. Letters and minutes relating to accusations of irregularities in the process e. Letter and minutes relating to a request to rehear the case at the April 12, 2006 meeting f. Letter and minutes relating to a request to rehear the case at the April 26, 2006 meeting g. Minutes of Planning Commission review of the allegations at the June 14, 2006 meeting 5. Original Petition 1. Chronology Chronology December 13, 2005 Petition 400-05-43 submitted by property owner. October 19, 2005 The petitioner attended the East Central Community Council. Jan.13 — Feb. 4, 2006 Requested department input. February 15, 2006 The petitioner attended the East Central Community Council. February 21, 2006 Notices mailed. February 22, 2006 Notice printed in both major daily newspapers. March 8, 2006 The Planning Commission voted to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council regarding the amendments to the Central Community Master Plan and the Central Community Zoning Map. March 14, 2006 An ordinance was requested from the City Attorney. March 22, 2006 The Planning Commission discussed accusations or irregularities of the process raised by the applicant. March 24, 2006 An ordinance was received from the City Attorney. April 12, 2006 The Planning Commission reaffirmed its March 8, 2006 decision to recommend denial of the project. April 26, 2006 The Planning Commission again reaffirmed its March 8, 2006 decision to recommend denial of the project. June 14, 2006 Planning Commission formally discussed the allegation by Blake Henderson and found there was no merit to the claims. 2. Proposed Ordinance SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Rezoning Property Generally Located at 100 South 900 East and Amending the Central Community Master Plan) REZONING PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1'60 SOUTH 900 EAST FROM MODERATE DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT(RMF-35) TO MODERATE/HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RMF-45), AND AMENDING THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-05-43. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed amendments to the Master Plan and change of zoning for the property generally located at 100 South 900 East is appropriate for the development of the community in that area and in the best interest of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. REZONING OF PROPERTY. The property generally located at 100 South 900 East, which is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and hereby are rezoned from moderate density multi-family district (RMF-35) to moderate/high density multi-family district (RMF-45). SECTION 2. AMENDMENT TO ZONING MAP. The Salt Lake City Zoning Map, adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning of property identified above. SECTION 3. AMENDMENT OF MASTER PLAN. The Central Community Master Plan, as previously adopted by the Salt Lake City Council, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning set forth herein. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed 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 C ttor eys Offk Date By (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. 2 Published: l:\Ordinance 06\Rezoning 100 South 900 East-03-21-06 draft.doc .) 3 Attachment A PARCEL A(58 SOUTH 900 EAST): PARCEL 1: BEGINNING 4 FEET NORTH FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 8, BLOCK 58,PLAT"B", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY;AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 37.25 FEET THENCE WEST 330 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 37.25 FEET; THENCE EAST 330 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 2: BEGINNING 119.75 FEET SOUTH FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 8, BLOCK 58, PLAT "B", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY;AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 4 FEET;THENCE WEST 330 FEET;THENCE NORTH 4 FEET;THENCE EAST 330 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPTING FROM PARCEL 1 AND 2 THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION: PART OF LOT 8, BLOCK 58, PLAT"B", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND BEING LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5,TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT 169.00 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, SAID BLOCK 58, PLAT"B" AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 41.25 FEET;THENCE EAST 107.25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41.25 FEET;THENCE WEST 107.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL B(70 SOUTH 900 EAST): BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 58, PLAT"B", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING SOUTH 89°58'22" WEST 64.35 FEET AND NORTH 00°01'05" WEST 63.58 FEET FROM THE MONUMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF 900 EAST AND 100 SOUTH STREETS; RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 89°58'28" WEST 165.0 FEET;THENCE NORTH 00°01'02" WEST 169.0 FEET;THENCE NORTH 89°58'28" EAST 165.0 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 00°01'02" EAST 169.0 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL C (857 EAST 100 SOUTH): COMMENCING 10 RODS(165 FEET)WEST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 58, PLAT"B", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 10 RODS (165 FEET); THENCE WEST 3 1/2 RODS (57.75 FEET);THENCE SOUTH 10 RODS (165 FEET);THENCE EAST 3 1/2 RODS(57.75)TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT OVER PARCEL C(S.L.COUNTY ENTRY NO.2563412, BK. 3400,PG. 129; RECORDED AUGUST 22, 1973,IN FAVOR OF MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A COLORADO CORPORATION): A SIX FOOT(6')EASEMENT, 3 FEET EITHER SIDE OF A BURIED TELEPHONE CABLE ACROSS THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: COMMENCING 6 1/2 RODS(107.25 FEET)EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1,BLOCK 58, PLAT"B", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; THENCE EAST 1RODS RODS (165 FEET)TO THE BEGINNIONG� (165 FEET); WEST 3 1/2 RODS(57.75 FEET); SOUTH 10 PARCEL D(865 EAST 100 SOUTH): BEGINNING 169 FEET NORTH AND 165 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, CE BLOCK 58, PLAT"B", SALT LAKE CITY FEET;THENCE NORTH 4 FEET;THENCE EAST 5SURVEY; 71 5 FEOUTH 4 FEET;ET TO THE O NT OF WEST 57.75 BEGINNING. Sidwell Numbers: 16-05-126-051, 16-05-126-040, 16-05-126-045, 16-05- 126-063 Approximately 1.07 Acres 4. Planning Commission a. Original Notice and Postmark b. Staff Report: March 8, 2006 c. Minutes: March 8, 2006 d. Letters and minutes relating to accusations of irregularities in the process e. Letter and minutes relating to a request to rehear the case at the April 12, 2006 meeting f. Letter and minutes relating to a request to rehear the case at the April 26, 2006 meeting. g. Minutes of Planning Commission review of the allegations at the June 14, 2006 meeting a. Original Notice and Postmark AVI FGJf L'V VV i la F PI 1.Vp r H1.1a>t idt�aew 000oEZ00.t6909I 'i • • 9NINVAH V AO 13I1ON t t t n Ill 'AID a4e1 tleS � ._�. �.. , ,. 90b w21 'Iaa�ls aletS 4100 V.a.rn'V'ai Y.. 46b9 worapapeoi :. • S t5b 9ooznzizo N . • :111 '�eta»as uo!ss!lUU1o0 6uruuetd • uols!nlQ 6uiuueld Atip a4el IIeS 1"'rat" 4rrr '.1 • 1 • i ao,-TIN:1■15-.191 1. F rl �tr + } � "td p if you wish to speak and which agenda item you will address. £L960996H r the .n. P er ,� _ t fc attor� ,,ta3arings will be opened for public comment. Community r will pre3e'r5 err Comments al the beginning of the hearing. "6"%ltv'Mtmnm0 mror+e'r 3. in order to be considerate of everyone attending the meeting,public comments are limited to 3 minutes per person per item. A..s.poiresversori who has been asked by a group to summarize their concerns wilt be allowed 5 minutes to speak. Written comments are welcome and will be provided to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting if they are submitted to the Planning Division prior to noon the day before the meeting. Written comments should be sent to: Sall Lake City Planning Director 451 South Slate Street,Room 406 Salt lake City, UT 84111 4. Speakers will be called by the Chair- s. Please state your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you represent at the beginning of your comments. 6. Speakers should address their comments to the Chair. Planning Commission members may have questions for the speaker. Speakers may not debate with other meeting attendees. 7. Speakers should focus their comments on the agenda item. Extraneous and repeorive comments should be avoided. 8. Atter those registered have spoken,the Chair will invite other comments. Prior speakers may be allowed to supplement their previous comments at this time. 9. After the hearing is closed,the discussion will be limited among Planning Commissioners and Stall. Under unique circumstances,the Planning Commission may choose to reopen the hearing to obtain additional information. 10. Salt lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. 11 you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the Planning Office 48 hours in advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535.7757 for assistance. ttrrtttrr,tttrtt"`ttit:tt`I{ ,tlrtfftltttttittlltt71l77tltlf[ 00q..1 t /.,fay. • 2k roe,Salt Lake_I,fib'he and I he Deseret Morning News w@dnesday;Fi;bttilary 2'L;1tli�b I y s 5 .' • k,� ..•r' • , k, t `I t,i K a'a , -,- 4 s. ,, •. >_h s � • .^ �. �:! ..r i, I" {. ."_ s,• I;;;:?..;.' t,f 4, n�a• r - .e>-C R�YQ r r .. •' �";•-itt,e a i.Y m >' EI � r• • I si ;' i. _ • • 15 y p u e. l,,r[ i 4 t `..,,;,h ',XX -4 f;fi i.,,,,,,) i' J If JI i Lai Yr..w iiS =,.tia..0 " '"^ ?J SJxi ttiI' fTMTM'P�... V I Jr i s'�e I T.r I.t,¢?r t ,,,,if �a r , 4,)- + i �' � �( ,N{�„ V d{/ � r;t i r f9 il" 7 r ��• I �, ;. r° C`r},) � � i$�� t ,, '4, I' �; f: ,.i.r t ,�' eta ,i t . ,e ,k iii± J a 1- y 11 C _r., -i-- ..su , ( q : a, p 1.11.1�.. `Jn1 {.�k SS t�r{j' L ly��l4t r'-' fix G•f1, t o , AS STA '(7 V I..d"i"�Ip' Y 't i E'(V0.o;li[,,4ra�;4,t.� 5, r t 1-, w. y�o{ y S . .�., ..t. 1 FAA d r �f� �9 J C •Y'i ,I � i / 1 ii),, ., ',nO s,14 J • • a ,p r{. .y .t?''J _ i r 7�� P5 $: y?fi t a'jt'rt r 4Y I' •v ��a r� Jtl�ill ttt �!I r �'� r gnat+ ,, r , .IY,,l° ,,i } 7 r+�a iJ, t.,1:4. s ; I )Itly Ju ^C'r rpom,,,,,,:., r - {Y�r .:,:',,, .:t..l r1 1 i R. i I l ,J ip.. F,oil 4. I-,I 1 , 3 ( 1 iki A } . r, J1 s ,., =' .. t,It ,rrl Via)V, - ,.1614. �l; T i(�11: �i;Li t i 51 i ' I{r e ,°ifl .)tali; t .,�,,,,. Yr.�aY .' — - 1 n ?a.. es'�'r{r�l;t};;{.�n<,�I,.��,a �l� l-L�j�o-{ � r$ :4i fali���Y �`' ,'iy'L 'e TeS�i.:^ t q'} 1 ' I'• 1Jfla',1 ,}� r i Mk-a p.'sP '�i,F n . t. ' a�YXlfs trP `� CF. j'.{Y}!�'n.�,e�� .��-< { r� �4�� a ;�3tv[ h;�fr or}tiq�'.�� .Y i e i 1 .__Ist 11Q,ALt ,.L�4 r1� ,fz :-, F P v''x. Lf a` =r - g� r I 1 l i l i 1 E.l l' i ! N f' ,> •` L and J1i.' •. .ro) lc dR{e F, f +i• • 4 r,! Ali .1f 1 , • ,t,,L'A,� c( ,.> 1 0, y +` Z jt,! U.kit. :.e--F4 •,,41 I`�{• 44: fA d,` � i{ ,. ' �tf i'r,v.r£, 116f� c�.��y i�-r H•,, old,.n kit./n„'Fi-t x}ili'u ii�. `+� ��Th � �'.'}t,'k�:r tr a� i • 6� 3� y ,,i ' re.j1:44 • Lgtt1 I 1 rr t,.t ry � tiiir1 �ta'n ttl 1t `t Irr,Irt ti rtas ,:t?.! sC]a?'Fr, l ad I 13 ed "• .--,w.l u,oP k ya e to ,. :1 r -5 i r � ec� , r�tt i r.p»=,F e `: rr ca15�,J�, ',1 �3 'c Y(i r(Ca I} (1 { x.V4y�, T I, : 1+. �,- �� PR r.`-•- I1Q- '�. j3 i ''Y`f•r t 1 "a r 1 ''3 r':b rt:, I- I .. }' -J r t� rot. YL .;1,13,i f:,jl-„r>K . * rRk 'd g, 't ' Y+ -f(� Y..I.P-t .tty_Jl'.�,1?,'{E' jr '"�"��✓.•..„ Ir%�yMb, J,r1 1^ I. "'f','r` t9'-7;�`s :.fi�f ";�1 Yc�„3 E1UI h . , :y, #4,.„,uil.i. _ , X". ,r, ' i..g.: i. 1.:� i tr 1.1 2 Y�1!'.::46,.t,'rYi' .;..,.:. t t. ,r r5�,.yy .. .. ..d "r2tr{Y�. ; -. :ire,.', ,S°I`u.. _ Fir I,Fl, °5.. r :� t1. :�:it:`ksi�';;( v.^i �rl It `P',V�r � ? 1.¢'''�'S!!ir.�= dE� kn'.3.c � " 7,�Y�I+nr (tT=it:a I '.1,ri- ",=ili';;1X��C *'(Ilt,{:a . _ `-1 'i °'w.L.`; wqr,,i III '! f,'i,li {1,;A,,a, {..�.t 1 E g[£`' 7,..T a .{tJ .5 q 1 f :,l•?•� 'I 1 4- .., rl Il,c, ,JI I , . l-I Tri.rt V r,r � 'v �1 yd:¢li lJ; °.rie Lt 3 d` r�-lei'`1}I}! t '11iJ1;,}5)Si;�K,' t T `.. r r i T 1, z c _'s .j'41 Y fio Ilia,` ' �,; w, ?,t,. , _ = f ,� t�: ".0 II( fa •Y'.�• ..._ �t =1 yt ,. t r � r. �"-� hij..lrG7,,C tnr}r� fit.;.- • -. . • • 1'` .r r ' t7 y yz - ¢j�-,£,h7ei_; n g `,f' r v.: r :o,, 2� , 7 r.= s •4 ,4: i3i',,,f,',c`1 ,f 1 -y b,- PY is.. � ,��- i`�tis J, ,'�it(..L.t .1 ft t;l]ii it}F. ��or,X;,��,��r Y,ea r�.'E.*'s� - , 4 '44it�>=v`) Y'li?I � � WS ,-nr-: '-11'. t7 ,, irtr Yr .� itii5`tY 1i ! c iw R°' !ta KS� rCl: r } t in `r 1- d �i tr.r,•i ,I'fill,a,„,.r.,,I,-IisK 4,li.,.... '„�-dvr ::t. : �6 °04'S ''.., ;4,. :�. ,a.,t of h C ( S'. e,/ a • SS,.„.4,„.,„-.,t. :�' 'spy; Y ter.. Yy n?�`i g �tl,-�2-".i1-1,3yf- 9 c,fit ��!c_,s�'74`{ ,4 C a f i I, Y r E i ,-.�t '-''f'6i;ii'.'6 I'' �l"n.;ft..-Kfa}r_-f �1 : 1.' . lelit ea F• XP d l' ' Ay }t IZY , r' it 's ii ik I ft 1y J 2 fe3U9 C a u J1 �. 2. }`!§' uJirili s 11 r �rN 1 r� N,,.• s _rr i � � Y4��28d '� .;.....la._ .' '!-i 73- '' �,.j`� q• "'`' 4�,'�'iY 1 r I, .i i u n e • o • = wn� fs r i`,R' _:' Q 11 F p as . � � '- ijt rr '�I��� �� -J= F ��qq}} A,�� t'`� dra m� ��C i :�'E a �3�.�'Sl 1I� .. ' : 3� +,i o i. ,i ' Yo t I''�' 'CL'F i c o .T:0•44- r 3I t`"``z`"�r,,Ufr l ibr.- . ,, ,.� o z .-t yo a. �abtg .. r a a - I ' , k�w I. 'oF"a�Fif,cTf°.�1�'i��b � t�s P t� ,� � `�rtrl ;o- ?i ll:l,rt<a }� :� °tl e + v �q° J i f E'l 4721 ov11fq�: P,4 t I itc r <„"r''yY' - At E°a`• e•a fB �� 5d r'T,i /� d 4 x�C. r r �.� ��� a y°u. S.� � � '�'" � ��Qss��e -Kdmirtis-dot � ri o .��� � .x �� •' � .. s�4 To our i �. -r. , - - 4 e u a �BES'RIAZIAN, - {._r i i;i -ei- �J � , , riu�°, ?.:¢• ; .. ° , d, itf g oiiTAsz b(q;?n"%04440f$f1Eg_wand F`ifee,,,, F/T P#bjitt n t Fa I 7BY.�r ,-�J� i{ -AI� t; .i . a'b •°,1 •-. _a 2. ''•>"'e t lit '4gi;1, 2t318'4v#1?r,,2QBil7Q1 :meosf Y ,c7 ri1 'Tait I, �{4rra ke,,R'+'%°I,1�- ,f. 'C f b i?, i, : t 3 •.4` p$., Dot,, r miss ours. 2 �'Z© .� svitl it ° • }�r.� . ,�v.� �.�'^ y PF.-�R� a.,S, C�b 1rr .tiil•�Ms. 4b�ilen ... 1Lt$ D9N%--W I �A¢ ,rOlSj F1.6.11 S' ttl^1. •=72#13[S . efi @ l-.7u#• em--•• QEl:: ¢ tq ,3° m-,;1� ,, 0l 4t 1 ,x YAa1 r`'y>''� .. . l ke.Ct . . fn�drr�ation�ot foa�s�E�fa Jo�ar g�� - -it:''�YYQ}(A��U�BLE�' -�3 '-Makat�25b1`�{{��,t'r•A'W p�E. y�wlior�'PI t�4�oiY p y` � j9jr'a3 titi $��st __,. ._ dT �ytc, c0,;fl lyoL .A PT'Ag�§rfn FTI. it 'd`. �s Doili Gbit.tod' 2 3ei7 g `rf~easslgia d a�9�, , t r-' "'° i 1 i-1 s _ . q 17 pcy .o�;� dl,_`1 cigll S¢�ui2 �PV �d a'Al. 91'ass s tos"filafif riC�#1 �1, hE'F a. q T �I Y. bl n�to i K. 9r, .:edettn R Ado a . 1�®EQ a E`V $ V '1�^ 21. , l� �i ( s . 3 `. e t�, t r+' st ° a 2A 1 % fai up ab .: �. a h l , t .�?., ��- x v # `it i,. s m a '. ` `v,'�, '&x r- ' b�'" y�S,j�=( lr�^j i• J .,I, $ . I E s k a-A 'a3., i_.t4 z e¢y- a • d'-eUi'. .a. :-4,: (c _.itt t irl. i'1-t 1T- 't '-y"R' ,_ ' r r P . it `-'-_ ' r--= `'', ' `'' ''+~ it's'r •gC= r h.-i:-u —>h 'T, r'� � Wit,<b 1`.�ss; � i`_= • -.,y, Jii ) } i i ...�i'.{ ., i ' w, `i g, ..v^.v... : g,`,�' 5-. a. .*-. r� F { •tv �-�'.r cY .a 0: A,{ - l f.tr 'Y f� F'i i 3 r - .i�) ,rJ� •,l -2t�iF {( ^R'I rf-� . t 1 1 I I �i-�'T I �Y idl '�.�'9, ill .r if, ��r� 4_, 4 ; �- _ y ��� �` � 'r-_ } F ¢iu J���!_L j{� �tf I C `�! S �11.L b,�ll.1 11 i� � ��x �• r'' _ _,_.. t. s N.c, `3( r Its: Stir r)r; YG i a a _ D At vl ,.9 4.i-. r J l ,• i h , i qr-.t rr,,, YI`b -S!u ,i Jtt-s ,T!',1 • . �F. •k. r £�C`" to s.� -�''I ? `{'P � t .4a4 ',Wm' 'a?iil KILS Iut!it ij a v t 1i�al i'.^t .i}i t:lC..,I.,�tii v � 2S E♦ e , Fes) ltes. 1i YI x 1 _ - r:.l Yr a , art�r l t t iii'r" - - t e r Iri• L'k, .' SI,t_Ir LLY�•Y+ 1Vil=�' n .tl 'si,t A E F i -F IFz iII °If i i I IJI 7 a`q."`17yt^ J s 17-' �( i� a ti a r w e a 15 a Q ra 1 , �r q.5;+ ,. r. t- r��,-3,, , t1itt .r:I i e r i ? 1,Ci¢?T,1 I Yal,a � I I .7 - �,r - i'tr r • x ? a r.,u it�1 ''if 1.r� 7 t r 1� I i;' s }} �.P1 �� :yz #�f� � a i 'xx 4 --a.. Y Sa �,:,, I� �t9 ^' r a rJ l,I ,�, t ut'tl r} t dd ' I tl' ` - ;� •i .F.;Nr 4 ,, °,r: •,N ,•,r {t,<k+�':•:,'`z•.„' ..AS ro f t� il ,!� I...' 1 • 1 i"v ... T it , -- t ' • . .. JCfenne'{�.yau li.. ..a 1,*, , t III `!=I,) t ' ''.11 .i :•, ` 1 �d nti•y t"t; t: . .- .-fi .n , 1 ..:-i.,A time yy,'' .i.'. k i~� s St,;. � ''hg lN(tf�L ;r Jt { Ir r{t 1_, i - t 1't h°:.t,"' 4 t I r'i I a r......................................... ,I,II :r I ' r .,1. r . , �,t 0,:4i?,zs�i:: ..i.* - '-,r ,.h.. r :t •r Gam. c +.-4,1 It .i t. t1 � •,(;: ,- ' "+. . > t S. ? , >,y S s is- r t-. ##,, kl. "Y'ftnV,;?C.0 Ae 1-4,-7„�. _ }eta, -xi' i e ;44,, f r.-' ` '•l s3 Y 9 �`-3yJJl7!>rl '�f l�ilrv; la,�`-4r v�, ? i �{� t ' fi.': 1 d, 6y', 1r"i - :i'! AJ Jjttr J i` trz ‹. �., . t �� i E.'..:,, a..i r .4,,A44 ;1 r,�$ ,,'y�'K y .,F4. c, 4: s•.i ' / A),i.G :M m It, 4,! : •':al n{tl I1�51 i, 9, L ,J 5 s rl tl' I, x a. d �`� n r i•W`„v. ' -��'f,_#33� - s .z.;� 3 i ht�- ti--pled tis QS s I� } .i ,. I.r, c � is ',7, tt+. F �,x+ 5 2�k - i yr , n 1 t{1I&I �,� Fg d,>,in ;j t J i"t, r , ,/,`. _ c e,i; 7f r T 5 . t�'b•. ' �}1 - t'. r r Q >., • 9.,-,Er i• -,,r- � �.,:. 3��. v - r� 1` � 2Y'r � e'. a, � 3rtrli t r t ��r^ „'�.�, J �" a t- l 1_i y p] t� ` •,� � 0-y,T�'�! r r.i,�i 7 e y It � A rr � 4 _ °"' t II 1 ` 1 t J I �i Y 9, 1I t Ir v` I CA'J i i 11'i{`f rfa I , `i' u M i' 1.-'�-.- -_! I t'': i F } jj I I I E 3, J ! r '—:1 " 1 /' i . I l nr ,c.lCWl. P A i L. , iJ 11 •/ r i I, ! : i t'} r 1 } o t 'i t,'i.; +.'�•`-Jz-i;,-,-4 t>r �- � ,- 1 1 h .H �- ie Ttxr� �. r 1 , _�ia it -. - C iI If- i- 5,+111ILt 4 tir 11 t' c4i- C9 ; -i -.l,�» 'i• , c •tlk ,y,r 1 I t- 'r 1 I !'i[ t tYa5 ' 4 ' P '� ' ". � :: 1 _I` i H t f4 4i u t ? Yx J{-'t,-.'1_I-t I _ 7-.�•wi k s • ..-•+ :y.1. _t j'i� r,r j,mid e list rl cilr!,,,,it rft,l �t°y -k' a: 3,.,&a x:,: .-,sr ,r. ? x`3 �..I N., -- -- 1Y�7 ' 1 to la L LI II lr �c11,y.Y iF 1 4x` -'�z : �J-r p • ]: .. ,,,,, „:�' Alter �'t1161f,11- 1kolliK��� ,„{ * .4 lJ � Cr-{� (r I Y AJ �k5 C� f -� } y r 1.�1 J'._:J �� �'.JA AlI - 1,i_-- 1 11 fr( J- - 1 'lt 1 1 ir�tbl, 1�i -t1-!i��tA d'..i- y . r „ `' �1'1 _.I i. .r� - .t • , 1-71 1 , y. }G>Y' 1:.1riti t=t -1.)fRl�� }''l� x�ttl eP Q'r''U1 `.rj CJ t�l _ .-: p<. �x -- {i _ l IIl'ik. "io(,,} iJ',a F:` Y `. ,, 1 1 ,•• ,� Y-.,. s-:6,� , t\G:.C�;Jltlii�, , --� '402 ..4 • Business f�anac�ement 3 -)i.'„. 0 i{. .. .. - 'irlint4$e e 'e1 `t rJ e _, .,3 r - ,t .t 4t.�, 1 . tA-- $;,� ` , „ r ��z'_- ..tq v t. 3 Computer Net:�orking _ ?M:a„w"r�'"iini#afiiEf,te�:"s � . .•. b. Staff Report: March 8, 2006 DATE: March 2, 2006 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Doug Dansie Principal Planner Telephone: (801) 535-6182 Email: doug.dansie@slcgov.com RE: STAFF REPORT FOR THE MARCH 8, 2005 MEETING CASE#: 400-05-43 APPLICANT: Blake Henderson STATUS OF APPLICANT: Land Owner PROJECT LOCATION: 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East. . �� RMF-Z5 , , ., ill -, � RMF35 ,.. `1 d. • i RMFu30 R , 'RMF45 w .r r, ;-4 R-2.. r ' :i r ., i , ,_ .A. , , i i .1 Subject ' , I. r Property r — - ------------ 4 RMF®30 _ .E�. j a �� lv s,E ! / ! h♦ i S � 33 73_.,, Wit - _ :. Jii. ... Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-43 1 March 8,2006 by Salt Lake City Planning Division PROJECT/PROPERTY SIZE: 1.07 acres COUNCIL DISTRICT: District 4—Councilmember Nancy Saxton REQUESTED ACTION: An amendment to the Zoning Map to change the zoning of the parcels of land located at 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from RMF-35 to RMF-45. This also requires an amendment to the Central Community Master Plan to change the future land use map designation of the site from medium density residential to medium- high density residential. PROPOSED USE(S): A 46 residential unit condominium (Henderson Project) Continuation of vacant common land for existing condominiums and continuation of an existing medical clinic. APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Salt Lake City Code Chapter 21A.50.050 and the Future Land Use map of the Central Community Master Plan. SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS: North—RMF-75 and RMF-35 South—RMF-35 (across the street) West—RMF-45 East—RMF-30 (across the street) SURROUNDING LAND USES: North—non-conforming medical clinic and an approximately 14 story high-rise apartment South—medium-density three story multi-family apartment West—four-story residential condominium East—single family residential, multi-family residential, retail, and institutional (across the street) Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-43 2 March 8,2006 by Salt Lake City Planning Division MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: The Central Community Master Plan identifies the subject properties as medium density residential. The adjacent properties are identified as medium- high and high density housing. The Central Community Master plan encourages the elimination of non-conforming uses in residential zones if they are replaced by residential uses (page 32). The 2000 Community Housing Plan encourages higher density when amenities, such as underground parking, are included. The site is on a mass transit/bus line. SUBJECT PROPERTY HISTORY: The majority of the Henderson site is presently occupied by a non-conforming medical office building. There are also two homes located at the north and west edges of the site. The home to the north is still listed as single family, according to Salt Lake County tax records;however the home to the west has been subdivided into smaller apartments. ACCESS: The site has access from both 100 South and 900 East. The petitioners are proposing automobile access from 100 South for the Henderson project. PROJECT DISCRIPTION: The request by Blake Henderson is to rezone the property to RIM-45 to allow higher density and building height than the current RMF- 35 zoning. The proposed project includes the demolition of a non-conforming medical office and two low-density residential structures and the construction of a building with 46 residential condominium units that would have more density and height than what is presently allowed in the RMF-35 zoning district. All parking is proposed to be underground. The developer has asked for the higher density designation for several reasons: adjacent development is similar in scale, the replacement(demolition costs) of an existing medical building with a residential building increases the cost of the land, and the cost of underground parking must be absorbed by the project. The proposed development meets all the requirements of the RMF-45 zoning district and will be an over-the-counter permitted use, therefore if the zoning change is approved, there will be no separate conditional use or planned development application. The RMF-45 allows buildings up to 45 feet in height. The density allowed for a 1 acre parcel Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-43 3 March 8.2006 by Salt Lake City Planning Division is one unit per 1,000 square feet of lot area. There are 46,609 square feet of lot area. Most portions of the building are below 45 feet, no portion exceeds 45 feet. There are 46 units proposed. COMMENTS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: Comments from City Departments and Community Council(s): Staff notified all City Departments/Divisions of the request and routed the petition information specifically to the Engineering Division, Public Utilities Department, Transportation Division, Building Services and Licensing Division, Fire Department (via DRT) and the Police Department. The petition was reviewed by the East Central Community Councils. A summary of their comments are below: a) Transportation Division: Indicated that the adjacent roadway system is capable of handling any increase in traffic generated by the rezone. They wish to review the specific project in more detail prior to the issuance of a building permit. b) Building Services and Licensing Division: No objection. c) Engineering Division: No comment d) Police Department: No objections to the rezone although they wish to further review the details of the actual project prior to the issuance of a building permit. e) Public Utilities Department: No objections. f) Fire Department: Would like to see a fire access area on the west side of the building. g) Community Councils: The petitioner attended the East Central Community Council meeting on October 19, 2005, and also on February 15, 2006. There was general support for the project but also a concern that the rezone would set precedent for increased zoning density which would encourage other demolitions in the area. The Community Council discussed design concepts to insure neighborhood compatibility. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Issues that are being generated by this proposal. There has been both support and opposition expressed for the project. The primary concern originally expressed by the public has been the potential to set precedence for rezoning of other parcels in the neighborhood by existing land owners who are waiting for the opportunity to increase the potential development intensity on their properties. There is also concern with the demolition of the two residential structures that are located within the Bryant National Historic District. At their February Community Council meeting, the primary issues raised by the Community Council were design issues such as window type and building materials. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-43 4 March 8,2006 by Salt Lake City Planning Division STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE Since the request is a modification of the existing Zoning Map, the Planning Commission must review the proposal and forward a recommendation to the City Council. In making a decision concerning the proposed amendment, the Fmnning Commission must consider the following standards: Section 21A.50.50 includes criteria for review in zoning amendment cases: A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City; Discussion:The Central Community Master Plan identifies all of the subject properties as medium density residential housing: Medium density is considered 15- 30 units per acre, medium-high is considered 30-50 units per acre and high density is considered 50 units per acre and above. The existing RMF-35 is a variation of medium density zoning because it allows approximately 29 dwelling units per acre. The proposed RMF-45 would be considered medium-high density,because it allows approximately 43 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is approximately 43 units per acre(the site is slightly larger than one acre). The adjacent property to the west is identified as medium-high density. The adjacent property to the north is identified as high-density. The site across the street to the south is identified as medium density. The site to the east is identified as low-medium density and medium density. The Central Community Master Plan encourages the elimination of non-conforming land uses in the area (page 32). The Henderson site is presently occupied by a non- conforming medical clinic. The 2000 Community Housing plan encourages a broad mix of residential types. Higher densities are encouraged when properly buffered or when providing amenities such as underground parking. Finding: The zoning amendment is generally consistent with master plan policies of eliminating non-conforming uses and accommodating a variety of housing types. However, to accommodate this specific development, it will require amendment of the Central Community Master Plan to change the map for this site from medium- density residential to medium high density residential. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; Discussion: The proposed building is below the 45 foot height limit allowed in the RMF-45 zoning. It is designed to step down the slope, with the four story portion being to the north (adjacent to the high-rise), with a three story portion to the south Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-43 5 March 8,2006 by Salt Lake City Planning Division west. All of the parking is proposed to be below grade (because the site slopes, it will be exposed on the west side). The building is proposed to be of brick and stucco construction. Several of the ground level units will have front doors facing the street. The site is bordered by a four story condominium to the west and a high rise apartment to the north located within the RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning respectively. There is a large three-story historic mid-rise apartment building across the street to the south. To the east is a mix of single family, multi-family, nursing home and retail uses. There are also two homes (one on each side) that are included in the project. The structures are typical of the historic type of construction of the area; however, each home has lost its context (they are no longer surrounded by other home typical of the era). The northern home is between two medical buildings, the western home is between a medical building and an architecturally non-descript condominium building. Finding: The proposed amendment would allow for multi-family dwelling that are similar in scale to adjacent land uses and the amendments are harmonious with existing development. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties; Discussion: The property to the west is a medium-density condominium building. This project will not materially affect the condominium. The property to the north is a high-density-high rise apartment building. The development to the south is an apartment building of similar scale. There is a mix of development to the east. This proposed complex will be compatible with the surrounding development. Finding: The zone change will not adversely affect adjacent property. Adjacent zoning has allowed structures of similar or greater scale and intensity. The zone change will allow the replacement of a non-conforming medical office building with condominium uses that are more in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood and potential for future elimination of another non-conforming medical office for future housing development. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The area is not within an H Historic Preservation Overlay Zone. However, it is within the Bryant National Register District. The National Register District designation is only honorific, is not administered by the City and does not affect this case. However, the Survey for the National Historic District indicates: the medical office building is ineligible for the historic register, 58 South 900 East is eligible, and 857 East 100 South is also eligible but altered. However, as noted previously, the two residential structures to be demolished as part of this project have Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-43 6 March 8,2006 by Salt Lake City Planning Division lost their context in this setting because they are sandwiched between other structures of larger scale or differing land use. • The property is within the Primary Recharge Area of the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay. The development will be reviewed for compliance upon the application for a building permit. Findings: The location is within the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District. The proposed condominium project must satisfy all requirements of the Overlay district. 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. Discussion:The proposed development is within a built neighborhood and public facilities and services exist. Responses by City Departments and Divisions indicate the proposal will not adversely affect any public services or facilities and the representatives of these Departments have no objections to the proposed rezoning. Findings: The proposed zoning map amendment and proposed condominium project will not negatively affect the existing public services in the area. The project must meet all City Codes and regulations prior to the issuance of a building permit. MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS The Utah Code Annotated (10-9-302) identifies the procedures for adopting and amending general plans. The Code identifies an adoption process that mandates a fourteen day notification requirement including a notice in a newspaper of general circulation. Property owners were notified (notices mailed on February 21, 2006) and a notice in a newspaper of general circulation (Salt Lake Tribune) was published at least fourteen days in advance of the public hearing (published on February 22, 2006). RECOMMENDATION: In light of the comments, analysis and findings noted above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve an ordinance to: • Amend the Central Community Master Plan regarding the properties located at 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from land use classification of medium density housing to medium-high density housing. • Amend the zoning map to rezone the properties located at 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from the zoning classification from RMF- 35 to RMF-45. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-43 7 March 8,2006 by Salt Lake City Planning Division Exhibit 1 Other Division Recommendations ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Planning Staff mistakenly raised the issue of rezoning two adjacent properties that are ''currently zoned RMF-35, and these properties were erroneously included in the Planning Commission notice. These adjacent properties are not included in this petition. This portion of the notice has been retracted. Attachments: Exhibit 1—Other Division Recommendations. Exhibit 2-Proposed Development Site Plan and Elevations. Exhibit 3—Photographs. Exhibit 4-Community Council Comments Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-43 8 March 8,2006 by Salt Lake City Planning Division Doug, • I do not have any CPTED concerns presently with proposed rezoning request. I do have concerns with where driveways would be located and visual corridors to traffic flow due to proximity of project to the intersection of 9'h East and ls' South. Obviously these concerns can be better addressed when the specific site plan etc. is developed. Thanks, J.R. Smith SLCPD Community Action Team Doug: I have no comments on this zone change. Larry ,Permit td: 5009847 Issue Date: 02/02/2006 'ROJ DESC: BLDG 46 RES CONDO & ZONE MAP AMENDMENT TO RMF-45, DEMOING 3 BLGDS ON 3 LOTS AND COMBINING THE LOTS; \T" -'VDEES: BLAKE HENDERSON, GULLAUME BELIQIQUE & DOG )ANSIE. - - - - FEB 1, 06 - - KEN BROWN, ZONING, SEPERATE )EMO PERMITS REQD FOR EACH PROPERTY. NEW CERTIFIED ADDRESS -O BE OBTAINED FROM THE ENG DEPT. 46,833 SQFT LOT AREA REQD FOR 46 UNITS, 45FT MAX. BLDG HEIGHT. FRONT & CORNER SIDE 'ARD TO BE LANDSCAPED 60% MAX COVERAGE. WILL NEED TO ADDRESS TRASH REMOVAL & DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE. SITE PLAN TO ;HOW PARK WAY STRIP & PUBLIC WAY IMPROVEMENTS. URBAN ORESTER APPROVAL REQD FOR PARK WAY TREE REMOVAL OR LANTING. CONDOS MAY EACH REQ A SEPERATE PERMIT(46 TOTAL). - BRAD STEWART, PUBL UTILIT; NEED SEWER DEMAND, WILL NEED O CHECK FIRE CAPACITY, MAY NEED DETN REQD. SWPPP, GARAGE O SS THROUGH SAND/OIL SEPARATOR. --BARRY WALSH, TRANS; OMBINE LOTS, RE-ZONE, PET#400-05-43. 86 PARKING STALLS EQD, 46/47 UNITS; 5% BIKE, 8 ADA(VAN); NEED RAMPS DET TO Elr"'TS, 8FT 21N; ADA, DRAINAGE, PKG STRUCTURE COLUMNS PAING, ETC; PUBLIC WAY; D/W'S; ST LIGHTS;'TREES; DAVE ALES; -- KEN TAYLOR, ENG; COMBINE LOTS, 1 ADDRESS; FULL IVIL DRAWINGS FOR PUBLIC WAY IMPROVEMENTS; POSSIBLE JBDIVISION AGREEMENT, BUILT AS CONDOS, STAGING DURING DNSTRUCTION; --WAYNE L, FIRE; 3 &4 STORY CONDOS '/PARKING BELOW. ACCESSIBLE FROM 100 SOUTH AND 900 EST; 2 DES; 45FT HIGH, BACKYARD 30FT WIDE, NO ACCESS; FULLY DRINKLERED, REQ IBC CH 9; BLDG WILL HAVE 3 STANDPIPES, 1 )R EACH STAIRWAY; FD OUTLETS ARE NOW TO BE PLACED AT TERMEDIATE LANDINGS, WORK WITH FIRE PROT CONTRACTOR, AT EAST ONE TO ROOF, CENTERMOST, WITH ROOF ACCESS; FIRE Exhibit 2 Proposed Development Site Plan and Elevations 1 jt X .l • i 1 IV _G.1 ---II `I -1 a . , . :,.,ter, i rIC , ' ' r ;I -I '( I. _1 gam:._ I 1 1 'WI .f 1 Ass 1 , 'if ./f.,:;fi.-..41.,4, 9 _ :.1r. a ,t -1 1;�1 i n l L y* l4 1 . , I 11I 1 11 1 IlvAmenifi _111111111 AMIE' 1 Eli ri NMI 1, I 1.1101 111111.111ra''* 1 • I.1,1. '- L. - im111:1-11.1 ilith gil_ !, _W , i. li I ' -INC IIIMI IN1111 II II Iiiiimes moor ow -Env 1 ZIII- Ellial- ismilliml millimil II ,. 1111111101); MiEl Emil_ _Noir I. -10111)1 • -.IIII). II li - imm.- =am, I , H ". = -• 14.1 I emini-rall ji lilair,- ,Il.±-it-IIIM I ! M.1,,, ,1 1111 =1i 1=11 IMIll 11161.) Ili Is III I 51 i=11 1=1 1 nig 1 . 1121 11.1.Ili :Milli alij 111 2 'Emil imi 11,1111MIR , .1 , ji 11211. nil PIZ III 1111/4 1H 1111,11111:_ aillIMP-1-1111 111 ,‘ lir, ' ---------imill-±E.=•Mil....2'Mt il _F- - -- _-- I. monsilia. 1 1111 IL. i 1E111 1111.1 11=1 I I! i talk 11111111j MM.! 1111111111j NM] MEI II 11-1.1—11 IMI 1111• 11..] .....,,, ...0' I 1111.11 pill rill rill I .— Mil, 11 4VIII llIM b ..... -1 i 1111E11 i III•i-.,',..!' 1 1 1 I -I .,....., I, II igniA11111111101 illillimmillimMillISIIII I . li biome !Emil iiiih., 1 (limo ii limo Ili ,1111011,!ci 111 -E 11Nrioll wool o smi4 Int ill limmill imon ilmrq Mil 1 i! i IF ringw• I—I 2 ----is, ii 1 --, Imo I I md Imiti _ in t-, onommi:11 I/ 1 r-f-------=,:m) _MINI' Milli II ..MINIru.-----_---mir INIIIIF IIIIIIT il II i i -I= MN- 11011:,—,i, i i i III• II :Mil -111111 11111111 I Ii I. 11111110.i lin _Numi Amu. it k I I :—I•Bomf1174--- -1—li- :111.111111.1-:. _• 1111111: ';.M11111F - -_-11111111F =I r INN r- III • itt I IV"' IIMMIIIIIIW 1M1 II I ',!--- NMI 1114"-11. Willilj 1E111 Illri.I 1 1 I II- "641 1 ihimil lam! ;EL I 'ERN 1 (NI moniiim 1 'gm i -c - i 11 II I I 1 I 11 1 i giP ' 1 • r. ,ul*:on;6log:.:n;nly,aN WGun"ic•C mitrl 4PS z om t; P O E Q� +SDI 006 Pup'0 Oa s o �— ti Q SN(1ININOQN00 I—I16 aNV 1Sl a II � .'i1.,� ■- —I `1 I IiI., P Y�I 'I- mu. -? a, 1.- "il61' 1E - ill Fes 1=I =I 1=1 iiiiiiiiiu.1§ „''I=1 1=1 I_I 11R I uj i [=1 1=1 01 11.'1 r 8 `�I I� II_ II..11-. E : ii I�1I—II_I1 _ I—I I— I= ..1=1 IYYYII e I_ (_I 1CI I • _ a -I pp II 11 , II` W.I. I ' ;I � � k 6 55 I _ '� '= ilt�i I I I I OZ4a 7 • ll mma Eno I�mil I�mi 5 I F —� r. -1��I— IIIaaaa f Q� Y� Y,1 1yj'F i !!"--1• + £ in ' 3 Z 3 S End I w '1 I $ € ! t g I 1 i 9 53 ,1 a O o I B o f. 1 1 I 3 II ' ' t 1. 006 . I el s 3 :A Z r N 0 Q p v 'miM z i n, i m,F 1, 1i11 5.6. a Y � - 9 I B — .r! - I D ill j�qQ al II I - a °� o I- 171 of a� IIj 6 .a.. J ! i n e l. M i, 4 O I ! InIr aornU)O • a, ' Cdin .A, ! , e e e g.g o, fbi G 1 E ; 900 EAST 63-7 9A• 650 ,R � Tit o .' V m 8 T I u r--- 3'Q__ JCy 28'7 PC 47.e , 3047 JCS 300 U • 11 rig t,2 4 t I -3' .EZ' ....TMa 1ST AND 9TH CONDOMINIUMS W� W ��r� � w a n 100 so.and 900 East r 1 @@ r P W Architecture Belgique,Inc. 9 Salt Lake Cty,Utah _ royl.ranuai 11 rennin Ers7 i Hain'40 a'I d�S Qq 1 5_V R •�u!'onM6�cq an�ol!4�aV � " �� 7 C� 1I N 5Wf11NIWOCIN00 H16 aNd 15l 1 ':—_1 1 1 I 1 I ` ,i �bth L ,,4, 1 liTal ....... , -/ t? ,, _ 1 " I* ki to 8DE 01 .PAE .9 a 1 @L 7r 6DE F IS g ,,lh g g§ r 2 LL crl bt4 g Ill§ k g g g g g t r,, l ink 1 I j C) l a s --� — i 3 C ms.-_-_ ._ —, E I 141 I LIKE _ I lam 20, 1 egg I DOE_. 7�_.._.. DOE .e-es a•PL y4-..-..__ aoE Q i k O59.... .9-.E5 .. 1.-Z9 1 .1 i . 65-0 I 1 1 , §,- IR 9 t)t1 rrl 2 , ....., -g l.) I 0 1 70 II'_i i . gh 116 ,3 I eqg 53-3 -i '30.42 if 1...g , et'g i!.2 i..,... , 4M 1 1 — ,{,,v ,, i_7 ,.,..,..si ........, B1111111• litila , ,F5li , I __ '42 Ri T T Y 3 3 —I I L I .t I f ,k 1 182-3 1 1 j ! 1 1 1 1 1 •11.41p,.........q.v.-WM cr 01%.10101..../Meope now 11.pirywc-ILLY....9,0,..61,1•07,0,111140.0....Ar.O....IMIGnic,T9 r.04,...0,:rvogy Aoa,ono.mammy....r....K.O.Off nVi L•VIVIII ern luff,-....+NEW..,••••001230 4 uill01.0....,••0••wri,cur Mt uomIN cpaPir CP 0.104MKT.M.00.11.PC . .1t. ts- 1ST AND 9TH CONDOMINIUMS 1 , - ,,,, Arch i,t,r,,,,ct ure 881g tci,u,%.1:10 . I v.: i la)so and 900 East b r.` ittz c ii (0 I R r. ‘g w Satt lzke Chy,Utah g . f..,,.,,ii7,1-:z' -. • : . .:....-...,-.:.,,...,,,'"...':-'43':'.J..-1--'.....-7',';•.:.'''::...--..'f'...'.'''''.7..''''''',...''-14''..-'''':*".''......'•P'''''''...-'.'.'.:'-':''''''''';':'T'-''':-..-..'''-':.'',:'.,i-...,;:'-;.-...---';'---:':..'-'''''''''''.....:'''''''''......‘..'::.''.-''' .. • - a - 1 • • • '' 1 I- • t ,'.xe$a k�c R'#�, uti$' Y € , - f a y. yw • ;.. tw '�, '"aI x 1 '^ c ' . ti IN El_ ... •Of ----— ' -it it � �E lit _wow ion, l tw $�,1,t- •d f 'M,, i•., - f 7 f 3}£4 a 4 ss 7e xt` ` wi S S Y 4. Y +4 - wSa. 7 �4 :,y..F K` �° s wx :r r. i, r- <{s. 4 ,, ;`1 :... 1 t Z S ir4, -1 • -_{ £ y ' €ems { • g _ .� ,, r. j y • .- ski r giffri40':"I-i'•:. '"-'' 41N P---.. g-,VP,--,-• -. --•- - '',' •'.'xisi-,-. -..'.-. -• ' "--..' -,';'..-•-.-----,-..-. . • ,.,'I--••-:_..,,.-,-.'..':':,-;--,------, •: . . - ' '1s ', ,t rO i.t0:1;19. i itc111 ?Ifitc,'i r sC r. iii` �`i moi.y.;<{fi1c err+ilN'i i'•j.i 1 c f f cit i{ { t'i'Isrg +� • "�. t j(F i �1t t r 1Ji d fl a + f/ 40 ''t i */ itiil flE �i 'fi!Pf9i it7 O S_ "'t ' s ' f Yefd}}i1 " r{ an-{ i J a �01 i6i t 11 J,i„ri c 0 ti i t s y : p r�Fj a y//�`�(77F F ? i?/_`.f'! �'� :�1 i t Y. l{i'1r�f1-➢' i it i ii 3 tN l�i.i(r ��f - -• j1 �11?f4(T t,(l t;t f i 44,1 i 0i Ft Of. oi 3 i0.1 c �C7 - i s - --J lT It + 'i 11 r f i'1.itf 0 0-01 FF iti i s 1,t ill I.i4(/ pp #/ f</i fi )11 0 ti.iitttl ,'{F -1ltP . i.isf;t ii s 1 i'r' ,� - -. ! rff�t�S.ii /S! t 1p {{,, {4y (ffOlr9t{#xirtkt it i $�AJtt1 it7{'1 f1{1/ f�l� �11l ! r t f t F c{si s [ ' .! X f'i.#fi }a�.y j S!, ttF�S�ti��{t{tif if f t! y F•c-n- F .... 1,, -/. 1s+ir.• iflj�1 it-r'f tti•it!li`i-fil uiYfliti i,-r.0.,•;,,-'s j i�to •� ' r : .".,.- .._ � ..,_,. t as f ' ' ' '' '' '' .. ',".''._"."..i::.':...',T1',.:-,..'.':.''''.'':.1.'..',..'.'''...-H-7.-',.•'--'.711.,11117:,•.:..-.".'"!.i.1:1:-:ifitirAOW,—,,,.:-:-.'''.-:.,••„.•''.'-.,-•-,",,. , - —• ' , -six • . - "n.> 1,f-4,• '': ,:1':-;''''' ''..‘i4i'ilr. ' 3:4''''"'' '' '4 '1'''''''''''''''' *'7'''''::- :;' ' ;. ;;;";;;:kl.,'•::'''''':1;41:til;';..:11:-T7';4.7:C4igAit:!;;:.:-;;;F.'7.t:::1';';;:;;')':;:;;;4.:'::;-"It;''''';;I. - A'' •ttit.';-,1*" .,i',..'".''•!!'"::::: .; -_ •,:;:c: : • T.!...,0.:,7 .-.,-,) - 4� •.. 4 { - y _ r `Sic< YE ,,,.. .:_:• .,40,,,,i -t.,__. . ., :::..._._,.,i:,,,:„.„;7:,_ ..,;_z_...,vg..:I..1_,:;:r„.4,..„,„7:4..-*.i_,AiNt_.•,.gi.t„, • .. ,... ,, i : . t ` oIrs �°'9tr � s "''[c z. . eta �ryt �, ¢ f i4 y r :L 3 ma u �` _ • ' . ` ,i. .F.t „.r�6.,•', cyf1.4 , F F t * , • Kam, -. ;+ a �� ; �'� d, t , 3 'Y H a .r t. ._ k• ttzar. . k.,,� � 'a T -'� e: r t gip., `. .i ig Y' r ! L:_ •a"'vii,a '�i_, } _ 5p r 4_�r '' 3 Xt a s s w y . • 3 ; A. is � x g t � , • C 'ems -, CzF " d 4 E 4��'.~�. •4 i' 41IYt I ter „ k- SIC ,� R . ,. rµ a Exhibit 4 Community Council and Public Comments ragctui1. • Blake Henderson From: marian[marian@nflorencefineart.comj Sent: Friday, December 02,2005 5:49 PM To: blake.henderson@comcast.net Subject: FW: October Board minutes for the ECCC From: marian [mailto:marian@nflorencefineart.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 3:22 PM To: 'Blake.henderson@concast.net' Cc: 'sarah.carroll@slcgov.com'; Dennis Guy-Sell (dadufo@aol.com) Subject: October Board minutes for the ECCC Dennis Guy-Sell asked me to send these along to you_ The issue was discussed again in November at the Board level. Thanks, Marian Florence Secretary,ECCC East Central Community Council • Board Meeting October 19,2005 ttending: Dennis Guy-Sell,Chris Johnson,Esther Hunter,Marian Florence,Cathey Dunn,Penny Archibald- Stone,Dawn Levingston,Cindy Cromer. Mobile Watch: Penny announced a successful capture of a burglar during Neighborhood Watch and requested a camera. Board of Adjustment tabled an application for unit legalization at a triplex at 465 S 1200 E. The owner has avoided paying fees for a business license and the case is under review. Condominium plan for 100 S 900 E Blake and Neil Henderson presented their plans to build a 45-unit condominium building on the NW corner of 100 S 900 E. Currently the site holds a concrete medical office building,two parking lots and two historic homes,one of which is owned by Blake Henderson. Henderson's plans fit current building codes but would require a rezone of the property to RMF 45. He hopes to design the building to fit the neighborhood aesthetic and believes his building will"soften"the corner by replacing the existing concrete medical office. The ECCC Board raised several objections to the Hendersons'plans. Cindy Cromer detailed some of the history of the two homes,noting that the foundation of one was severely damaged by water draining off the parking structure. She argued that RMF 45 is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and that such rezoning would only serve to move the area further from single-family residential. Esther Hunter agreed with Cindy's points,and asked if the facade could be preserved (no)or if a floor could be removed(no). Dawn Levingston expressed concerns for pedestrians and landscaping. Penny likes the idea of replacing the medical office and wants to see more residents living in the area. Dennis concluded the meeting by proposing a subcommittee to work with the Hendersons,expressing the support he ECCC board for the removal of the medical office building but the concerns of the ECCC Board for the .,:moval of the historic homes. He asked Esther to organize and head the subcommittee,which will meet with the 12/7/2005 Hendersons within the next month. Bob Gore presented the neighborhood matching grants,which assist neighborhoods in improving public _roperty. Most grants are used for decorative street lighting. The application process is ongoing, and matches funds up to$5000. CDBG—Greg Johnson presented the Community Development Block Grants which are distributed annually (application deadline in September followed by reviews by the CDBG staff,Mayor,and City Council). Some eligible projects may be cracked sidewalks,access ramps, and bathrooms at Reservoir Park. The Bennion Crosswalk project recently submitted has a good chance of being granted the requested$14K. Smiths Parking Lot—Herm Franks and Bob Moore,commercial real estate developers,presented plans to construct small shops and a fuel station at 800 S 900 E. The ECCC Board rejected the proposal for a fuel station but approved with caution a plan for local shops and a walkable area tied to the shops of 9th and 91h. The developers will return to the ECCC with further plans. A motion to pay the$300 debt incurred by the Children's Garden at the 9th and 9th Festival was made by Chris Johnson and seconded by Dawn Levingston and passed. The November Agenda will include John Hamlin,VP of East High,a truancy officer,school council groups, Heather Bennett from the School Board and businesses from the 9th and 9th area as we discuss East's relationship with neighbors. Meeting adjourned at 9:20pm 'vw w.nflorencefineart.corn 12/7/2005 To Members of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission From Cindy Cromer.. ^ Members of the Planning Staff y March 1. 2006 Crr` Councilmember Nancy Saxton 0/• �. I am writing as an individual regarding Petition 400-05-43 which is on your agenda for March 8. The agenda states. "The City may also consider rezoning properties at approximately 50 South 900 East and 845 East 100 South (rear) from RMF-35 to RMF-45 to better conform with the existing land uses and be consistent with the proposed changes by the applicant." Again. I want to state that I am challenging this notice as an individual, although I do have information obtained from the community council (East Central). The concerns I am raising have to do with the adequacy of the process, and not with Mr. Henderson's proposal. I will address Mr. Henderson's proposal at your hearing Executive on March 8. Order requiring notification to the community council Since the administration of Palmer DePaulis. the Planning Department has been required to notify the community council regarding two types of petitions: conditional uses and rezones. As the attached message from East Central Chairman in 2005, Dennis Guy-Sell, indicates, the community council was contacted by Mr. Henderson who only owns 3 properties at the intersection of 900 East and 100 South at this point. The community council has never been informed by anyone regarding 845 E 100 S (rear). The community council knew that Mr. Henderson was interested in acquiring the property at 50 S 900 E but had not been able to do so. He was not therefor entitled to file a petition. The proposal that the community council reviewed at its recent Board meeting only included the 3 properties that Mr. Henderson owns, not 50 S 900 E. Ordinance stating who can file a petition The ordinance clearly states who can file a petition: the Mayor, a member of the City Council, a member of the Planning Commission, or the property owner. In the case of Petition 400-05-43. it appears that the planning staff has initiated portions of the petition regarding the properties at 50 S 900 E and 845 E 100 S. The Planning staff could have asked any member of the Commission to do this. but I would argue that the staff does not have the authority to initiate a petition or a portion of a petition in the name of handling a rezoning comprehensively. The failure to initiate a petition properly is especially serious in this case because an amendment to the recently adopted Central Community Master Plan is involved. Filing fee By initiating the petition on 50 S 900 E, the staff avoided the need for the current property owner to pay a filing fee. The proposed rezoning is worth many times more than the filing fee. Again, it is not appropriate for the Planning staff to initiate a petition for one property owner when Mr. Henderson (and other property owners) have to pay the filing fee. It appears to me that the issue with 845 E 100 S could be a mapping error. If that is the case, Planning should have brought the problem to the Commission to initiate a petition so that the owner would not have to pay a filing fee for the City's error. The message indicating notice to the community council is attached. 1 • , „ • Cindy Cromer „ .„. " - From: Dadufoqaoi corn Sent: Friday February 24, 2006 9:56 PM To: Cindy Cromer; cajohnsons1c@yahoo,com Subject: Henderson Project Cindy asked if I had received any notice last year about the additional properties that The Hendersons now wan: develop. I've never received anything from the City Randy Henderson contacted me and I invited him to an Exec Bo : meeting. recall at that time he indicated that he was trying to obtain additional properties adjacent to his corner property In early January 2006, he contacted me again, asking for contact information for Esther That was the last I have heard from him. Dennis c. Minutes SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City& County Building 451 South State Street,Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, March 8, 2006 Present for the Planning Commission were Laurie Noda (Chairperson), Tim''Chambless, John Diamond, Robert Forbis Jr., Peggy McDonough (Vice Chairperson), Kathy Scott, Jennifer Seelig and Prescott Muir. Craig Galli and Babs De Lay were excused from the meeting. Present from the Planning Division were Alexander lkefuna, Planning Director; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director; Doug Dansie, Principal Planner;Wayne Mills, Senior 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, Kathy Scott, Prescott Muir, and Robert Forbis Jr. Planning Division Staff present was Doug Dansie. PUBLIC HEARINGS Petition 400-05-43 —A request by Blake Henderson to amend the zoning map to change the parcels of land located at approximately 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from RMF- 35 to RMF-45 to build a new multi-family housing development. This proposal will require an amendment to the Central Community Master Plan to identify the properties as medium-high density residential rather than medium density residential. (This item was heard at 6:02 p.m.) Chairperson Noda recognized Staff member Doug Dansie presenting the petition. Mr. Dansie introduced the petition as a rezone of the area generally located on the northwest corner of 900 East and 100 South. The property is south of the Sunset Tower Apartments and east of the Market Street Condominiums. The site is presently zoned RMF-35 and is presently occupied by a non- conforming medical office building. The property slopes to the south. Two homes are located on each side of the medical building. The applicant is proposing to demolish all three structures and build a condominium complex. The complex would be three-and four-stories tall. The taller portions will be located towards the northeastern portion of the site, with the three-story on the southwestern portion. The new building meets all criteria of the RMF-45 zoning requirements. Mr. Dansie stated that the Planning Commission is considering the request for a zoning change. If the zoning is approved, a permit would be issued for the building as there are no conditional or planned development requirements for the proposed building. All parking for the development will be underground. If RMF-45 zoning is approved, the site plan found in the Staff Report meets all ordinance requirements. It was noted that the proposed development would be lower than the existing Market Street Condominiums. The ground units in the proposed development would have street access and are responsive to the street. The subject property is located in a National Historic District, but not the City Historic District. At present, the medical office building is not eligible for the register; although the homes are. The proposal has been routed to all applicable City departments and no objections were raised regarding the zoning change. Mr. Dansie mentioned that the site plan has been recently altered due to request from the fire department and its requirement for accessibility to all areas of the building; therefore, the driveway has been realigned to enter on the side of the proposed development. The zoning change proposed would require an amendment to the Central Community Master Plan. The Land Use and the Zoning Map coincide with another, but carry some varying characteristics. There is not always a direct correlation between the exact zone and the land use; therefore, more than one Zoning classification can fit into a Land Use category. The Land Use surrounding the proposed property is a mixture of high, medium-high, medium, and low-medium density. Mr. Dansie noted that previous Land Use maps for other master plans had been completed with a broad-brush, generalized style, not defining exact parcels of Land Use. The Central City Master Plan was completed with a computer and is parcel based, therefore providing distinction. The subject property is identified as medium-density housing. Staff recommends the Planning Commission amend the Central Community Master Plan regarding the properties at 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East, and 58 South 900 East from a Land Use classification of medium density to medium-high density housing classification and change the zoning from RMF-35 to RMF-45. Commissioner McDonough requested information regarding the elevation of the properties and the variation presented on the maps. Commissioner McDonough noted a significant grade change on the 900 East elevation map illustrating a retaining effect on the north of the property, resulting in a lower sidewalk and landscape. Mr. Dansie stated that the elevation maps are the same, but due to the superimposition of the photographs, the trees are actually concealing the design. Mr. Dansie agreed that there is a grade change in the northern area of the property resulting in a flattened sidewalk and landscape. Commissioner Scott noted two corrections in the Staff Report on page 5 with regards to the specific location of the subject property to the neighboring properties. Mr. Dansie agreed and stated that the subject property is not immediately adjacent to a high-density property. At 6:18 p.m., Chairperson Noda recognized the applicant, Mr. Blake Henderson. Mr. Blake Henderson introduced himself and Mr. Neil Henderson (senior)as a partner in the project. The applicant distributed a handout to the Commissioners reflecting the proposed project and the necessity of a rezone. Mr. Henderson stated that the project is not financially viable within an RMF-35 zone and the renovation of the existing buildings is also not financially viable, resulting in a rezone as the only option. Mr. Henderson stated that the subject property is bordered by an RMF-45, and is one lot removed from an RMF-75. The building presently on the subject property is a non-conforming medical office building. The proposed project is a full residential condominium project for purchase and would provide a more pleasing view to the area. Mr. Henderson stated that he has met with the East Central Community Council numerous times and has felt support and cooperation in working with the community to provide a feasible structure for the area. The Community Council has expressed concern regarding the size of the building; although, the design and concept of the building has been supported. One of the major concerns of the Community Council is the possibility of a precedent being set by the proposed rezone, but it is required to place the structure on the site and to provide a benefit to the community. In response to Commissioner McDonough's questions regarding the elevation and the grade change, Mr. Henderson stated that the building has been lowered in order to maintain a lower height. The building will remain a forty-four foot high building on the 900 East side, but the existing grade will be altered. Commissioner McDonough requested clarification on the actual grade change creating a steeper slope to the building. Commissioner McDonough noted concern for the difference between the sidewalk and the first level of the building in the northeast area of the building. Commissioner McDonough noted that the first-level site plan does not detail the entry doors from below grade and the connection to the sidewalk. Guillaune Belgique, Project Architect, stated that the grade change would be approximately five to six feet given the proposed site plan, but that alterations may occur once the project has reached the finalizing stages. He noted that the property will have twenty-five feet from the property line for the landscaping to slope to the appropriate level. Mr. Henderson noted that the reasoning in lowering the building height was to create a greater visual aspect from the 900 East view and was in response to a request from the community council. It was also rioted that parking is below grade with accessible entry above the parking level as well as from the interior. Commissioner Diamond requested the limitations of"cut and fill" on the site. Mr. Wheelwright stated that there are implications, but a grade change may be conducted for up to two feet on the property. If it is outside of the two-foot range, the proposal must appear before the Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Chambless asked a few questions regarding the period of time the Hendersons have owned the property, the age of the medical building, and the proposed plan of the square footage and pricing of the property. Commissioner Chambless also noted that the units would not likely be used by students of the university or the elderly commuting to the downtown area. Mr. Henderson stated that the property had been obtained in December 2005 and the medical office building was built approximately in the 1940s or 1950s. He stated that the square footage of the units will range between 1500-1800 sq. ft., with a penthouse on the fourth level with approximately 3700 sq. ft. The price projected is in the high $300,000 to$500,000 range and would be owned, not rented. Commissioner Diamond requested further information relating to the financial inability to provide 46 units in a duplex manner. He noted that the applicant is given the right to appear before the Planning Commission and present a plan that will bring a greater return to a property, but consideration should be given to engage the ground-level units. Commissioner Diamond asked if the applicant had been given the option to complete this project as a Planned Unit Development(PUD) and if they had reached the requirements. Mr. Henderson stated that the Salt Lake City code would not allow the density requested in an RMF-35 zone. In an RMF-35 zone the density could have reached 32 units, but would not be allowed more than 33 units because of the size and height requirements. Mr. Dansie responded to the question regarding the PUD option, by stating that the site does not contain multiple buildings. By definition, a Planned Development process cannot be used to increase the density above the base zone. Commissioner Muir clarified that the petition placed before the Commission is for a rezone. Mr. lkefuna agreed and stated that the Planning Commission can recommend conditions wherein the property could comply in building the proposed design. At 6:44 p.m., Chairperson Noda opened the Public Hearing and requested any comments from Community Council Chairs or public. Chris Johnson, Chair of the East Central Community Council Chair spoke. Ms. Johnson noted her concerns about the project(as listed below). She was representing a 10 of 11 vote in opposition to the proposed development. Ms. Johnson also stated that the Hendersons have been respectful and cooperative to the requests and concerns of the community. The Community Council would be supportive of the development if it was feasible in an RMF-35 zone. Ms. Johnson also requested a possible form of better communication between the Planning Division and the Community Councils. The following members of the public spoke in opposition to the petition: Arla Funk, Cindy Cromer, Ester Hunter; Chair of the University Neighborhood Council, Michael Molten', and Wendell Duncan. (Handouts were distributed to the Commissioners by some of the representatives.) The opposition points made by the East Central Community Council Chair and members of the public are listed as follows: • Zoning the property an RMF-45 is a spot zoning technique and could result in further upzoning • Setting a precedent for allowable zone changes • Inconsistency with the recently adopted Central Community Master Plan • Financial viability is perceived differently by each individual and should not be considered as an appropriate reason for a zone change • Inconsistency in the City's Master Plan • RMF-45 zoning can be found in the 400 South area and should be considered by the developer • A home zoned R-2 is located % block to the east of the subject property • One-to three and one-half story buildings are in the vicinity; not larger buildings that do not fit. • The continuous mass of the proposed property will change the character of a key intersection • Demolishing of two historic homes • After-hour noise becoming amplified • Placement of HVAC and AC units • Amplification of crime in the underground parking area • Location of entrance/exit • Insufficient number of parking spaces for owners and visitors Ms. Cromer noted that density is not as great of concern as character compatibility. She also noted that the neighborhood is anticipating the addition of two group homes within the former Bryner Clinic building (RMF-45) and has not had any complaints regarding the change of use. Ms. Cromer also stated that the City Ordinance Code should be reviewed because of the considerable changes in the recent history and the density. A suggestion was to consider density bonuses be included within the City code. At a point during the comments from the public, Mr. Ikefuna clarified that the Central Community Master Plan encouraged the elimination of non-conforming buildings if the area is replaced with a residential use. At 7:28 p.m., Mr. Henderson was given the opportunity to respond to some of the concerns that were stated. Some of the concerns noted were building code concerns and will be addressed as progression is made with the project. Density is not the strongest concern among the opposition, but rather the precedent this rezone could establish in the area. Developers will continue to come and request for a rezone but this project is a benefit to the community and will reduce crime. The project is an upscale addition to the community, but an addition of this type cannot be completed in a RMF-35. Perhaps another type of building could be developed, but it will not be as complimentary to the community. The base is to rezone the property to an RMF-45 in order to complement the property. Mr. Henderson Sr., stated that excellent dialogue has been conducted between community council and the developers. In his view, the community councils are highly concerned with the possibility of setting a precedent, when in fact the planning staff is not trusted to make decisions when considering the best interest of the City. Mr. Dansie was given some time to respond to any further questions of the Commissioners. Commissioner McDonough requested the height of the RMF-35 apartment building on 100 South and 900 East on the south side of the street. Mr. Dansie stated that the first floor was slightly elevated and could be 33-35 feet, but he was unable to give the exact height. Commissioner Muir requested information on the advisement an applicant receives in relation to the presentation given to the Community Councils. Commissioner Muir noted that the proposed project either carried an approval or disapproval for the Planning Commission'unless a development agreement was to be developed. He was also concerned that the possibility of a Planned Unit Development(PUD) should have been considered for this applicant, rather than a complete rezone request. Mr. Dansie stated that the City Ordinance requires the applicant to present the petition to the Community Council. Legally, the applicants are only required to present the proposed project to the council and utilize the time spent with the community council as an information gathering situation. The attorney's have discouraged the use of development agreements with the issue of a rezone because of the possible bias for specific projects. The attorney's have requested that the Land Use be considered as the main guideline. Mr. Dansie also noted that this specific project could not be a PUD because of the requirements of a PUD. Commissioner Muir stated concern about the lack of ability the Division has to allow a mechanism to find greater compatibility between the 29-and 46-unit development, rather than the option of a rezone. Mr. Wheelwright stated that in October of 2005 a petition was initiated by the Planning Commission to review the requirements of density for a Planned Unit Development. The City Council seconded the petition initiation and passed a Legislative Initiative on March 7, 2006, requesting the Planning Staff review the same item of concern. The petition will be given new priority by the Planning Staff. Mr. Ikefuna stated that comments and concerns have been noted that the decision regarding this proposed development might set a precedent in the area. He stated that this thought was not entirely supported because of the location of the subject property located near to an RMF-45 and an RMF-75. At 7:44 p.m., Chairperson Noda closed the Public Hearing and the Commission went into Executive Session. Commissioner Scott stated in response to Mr. Ikefuna's comment that the area surrounding the subject property includes various zones; although there is an RMF-45, it was an existing zone when the master plan was created. She noted the Land Use for the area is medium density and would not recommend the alteration of a recently adopted master plan. Commissioner Scott also stated that the proposed rezone is a spot zone request, and other properties near to the proposed location are zoned RMF-45 and that those properties should be considered for the development requested. Chairperson Noda stated that the surrounding area of the subject property is a various point of zoning, but RMF-45 should be located along the 700 East corridor. She agreed with the statement of spot zoning and expressed concern with the surrounding vicinity of two-story buildings. Chairperson Noda stated that the option of demolishing the medical building would be beneficial to the surrounding neighborhoods, and noted appreciation to the developer and the cooperation exhibited with the community council. Commissioner McDonough stated that a relevant point of opposition was that RMF-45 zoning is available further west on 700 East. She stated that her points made regarding the slope were in relation to the awkward site of the property and not the massing and scale, rather the massing and scale provide a compatible building for the area. The overall question lies in spot zoning and future opportunities. Commissioner Muir noted that the entire area is in a unique situation and should be considered individually. He stated that the demolition of the medical office building could be a problem for developers. Commissioner Muir continued to state that the RMF-45, if issued, should be shifted to the corner area of the block. He also noted that his participation in the development of the East Central Community Master Plan will lead to his vote against the proposed development. Motion for Petition 400-05-43—Based on the comments, analysis and findings, Commissioner Scott made a motion to deny the request to amend the Central City Master Plan to City Council and to also forward a recommendation to City Council to deny the rezoning at the subject property.The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chambless. All voted "Aye".The motion passed. Commissioner Seelig requested information on how the public receives information when it is requested at a Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Ikefuna responded that.Staff will ensure to send the appropriate material to the member of the public. Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. Cindy Rockwood, Senior Planning Secretary d. Letters and minutes relating to accusations of irregularities in the process 1 Date:March 15, 2006 To: Louis Zuuze, Planning Director From: Blake Henderson Applicant!Land Owner Case#: 400-05043 CC: Alex Ikefuna, Planning Administration Director Doug Dansie, Principle Planner Subject: Rezoning application for 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East, from RMF35 to RMF45 reviewed at the March 8, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting. Dear Sir, On March 8th our application for a rezoning of our property on the northwest corner of 100 South and 900 East was heard by the Planning Commission. The application was submitted by the Planning Department with a strong positive recommendation. Our application will be forwarded to the City Council with a negative recommendation by the Planning Commission. This letter is sent to request a review of the above matter because there appears to have been some irregularities in the review process, before the meeting took place, and as a result during the meeting itself. The Irregularities: During preparation for this meeting we asked the Planning Department staff if it was appropriate to ask for pre-meetings with some of the Planning Commissioners to thoroughly explain our rezoning request and its importance to our project. We were advised against this by staff. They said it was politically incorrect and that it put the said Commissioners in a difficult position in judging the application on its merits. We happily took staff's recommendation. We later(just prior to the meeting) heard from the Community Council;1 4 00 that Cindy Chromer and or Aria Funk had met with certain Commissioners before the meeting and had successfully lobbied to have our application rejected or at the very least recommended to a subcommittee. It is our belief that at least Commissioner Kathy Scott met with the Community Council and road around the neighborhood in their car while being lobbied to support their case. This commissioner during the meeting single handedly directed the arguments in favor of the Communities Councils position and formed and proposed the motion for the"negative recommendation". I do not know the degree of inappropriateness of the above Commissioners actions but I am absolutely certain that we did not have equal access to the Commissioners and it appears the outcome of the meeting supports the boast of the four Community Council members present that the out come was a 'done deal' before the meeting started. We do not believe that we should argue the merits or our project and our application in this letter but we strongly request to have our application reheard by the Commissioners, (with Commissioner Kathy Scott excusing herself from the proceedings). Respectfully 17enderson P.S. below are additional comments that may be of interest to you with respect to the above. • The Community Council advised us to take a path that they would orchestrate that would allow us to go around the current zones, code and process by negotiating with certain planning staff, building department, inspectors and politicians to sign off on our project as designed for RMF45 but to be built in a RMF35. Our position to the Community Council is that we would follow the standard protocol and advise of planning staff and go to a hearing by the planning commission for a formal re-zone. • When we told the Community Council we were not willing to postpone our scheduled hearing, they requested a meeting with Planning Commissioners and were very vocal in an attempt to lobby against our re-zone. I became aware of this meeting through a phone call with Esther Hunter on March 8a'. She told me that she was concerned because they were going to oppose our re-zone because of the precedent it might set when in fact they liked the project and that it was not a matter of this projects height or density. She further stated that the Community Council were not too concerned because Cindy Chromer and or Arla Funk had an agreement with one or more of the planning commission that the re-zone request would be recommended to go to a sub-committee if not denied all together. • This "deal" became even more apparent when during the hearing Planning Commissioner Kathy Scott brought up that while riding around 7th East with Community Council members that they pointed out many building opportunities for a RMF45 projects. As the hearing proceeded to comments from the Planning Commission Kathy Scott was the second Commissioner to speak and then tried to move directly to a denial for the rezone well before other Commissioners had expressed their thoughts. Commissioner Scott's motion was delayed until all Commissioners had their turn. • • We are confident that this deal was made between Arla Funk, Cindy Chromer and Kathy Scott and possibly one other Commission member. I was told by Esther Hunter that they were not to concerned going into the hearing because this deal was struck • Community Council urged us to postpone the hearing so they could work with un- named people in the Planning Dept. and Building Dept.to get this project approved and built, `essentially as is' but still called a RMF35 zone. • We told the Community Council we were not comfortable with this because we do not understand the process and did not want to take the risk of building a project so far out of code and zone that it could get shut down at any moment. The Community Council has repeatedly expressed that we need to trust them that they have ways of getting this done by"just going over the counter and involving only the right people. • I asked for more detail but Esther was not willing to share more but commented "that this is a process you stay very quiet about" • The Community Council have said many times that they likes and want this particular project including its height and density but they do not trust the Planning Dept. staff to give bad projects a negative recommendation if they allow this project to set a precedent. They just do not want to set a precedent for a RMF35 to RMF45 re-zone even though this project is surrounded by building greater than 35 feet high. • The Community Council was very successful in leading everyone to believe that the block we are on is primarily RMF35 and R-2. This is not necessarily accurate much of our block is Zoned RMF 35, 45, 75 and R 2 and the great majority of the buildings are built larger than RMF 35 or our non-conforming. (I consider our block to run between S. Temple and 100S&900E and 800E) Our proposed project adds to the residential community's character. March 23,2006 Mr. Blake Henderson Blake Henderson 417 Centennial Circle Park City UT 84060 Re: Letter dated March 15,2006 Dear Mr.Henderson: I have received your letter regarding the action and discussion of the Planning Commission with relation to Petition#400-05-043 on March 8,2006. I have reviewed your claims and concerns, and thoughtfully considered the discussion points relating to the specific activity of Commissioner Scott. In reviewing the minutes and discussion that occurred during the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Kathy Scott stated her opinion in relation to the specific project and was not swayed by a specific agenda. During the meeting both Cindy Cromer and Ester Hunter discussed driving up and down the surrounding area to compile a study about zoning concerns. Commissioner Scott also stated her presence in a vehicle driving up and down 700 East in reference to the Planning Commission Field Trip. This routine field trip occurs prior to every Planning Commission meeting to allow the Commissioners time with Planners to openly discuss and visually grasp the effects of their decision. It is my opinion the ride around the neighborhood you were referring to was actually the routine field trip by the Commissioners. I appreciate your respect for the advice of the Planning Staff;however, after reviewing your letter and concerns, and after investigation and thoughtful consideration of the facts and discussion points relating to the specific activity of Commissioner Scott, it is my opinion that Commissioner Scott was not reacting to a lobbied conversation or agreement. It is also my opinion that Commissioner Scott did not act inappropriately regarding your petition. Therefore, I find your claims unfounded and, granted that fact, would not recommend your request for a rehearing be granted. Thank you for your interest in residential development in Salt Lake City. Sincerely, Alex Ikefuna Planning Division Director cc: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director Doug Dansie,Principal Planner e. Letters and Minutes relating to a request to rehear the case at the April 12, 2006 meeting. t' Lori Noda Planning Commission Chair Office of the Attorney General 160 East 300 South Salt Lake City, UT 84114 March 30, 2006 Re: Petition#400-05-24 by Harrison Apartments LLC, to rezone the property at 713 East Harrison Avenue from R-1 5000 to RMF-35 to facilitate the construction of six town homes Dear Lori, During the course of preparing the City Council transmittal for the above referenced petition, it become apparent from reading the minutes that the Planning Commission was supportive of the proposed development but preferred using the planned development process for approving the project rather than a rezoning. A paragraph on page 3 of the minutes seems to summarize the Planning Commission sentiment. This paragraph states: Commissioner McDonough addressed the concern that in the future this same scenario might be presented as a Planned Unit Development and possibly be approved. (This would occur only if the Planned Unit Development process was amended.) She raised concern in relation to the manner in which the project is being approved. Given future development, her concern was that approval of this petition could set an unwanted precedent for spot rezoning, rather than using the more effective tool of the Planned Development Process for unique sites within larger overall zones. City ordinances do not allow the use of the planned development regulations to address this issue or approve a project of this type in this zoning district. Furthermore, there is no indication in the minutes that the Planning Commission understood this or that Planning Staff clearly explained to the Commission that the planned development process is not an option for this type of request. The resulting record sends a mixed and confusing message to the City Council. As the means of avoiding further confusion or risking that the City Council might refer the petition back to the Planning Commission for clarification, I recommend that the Planning Commission consider scheduling a second hearing to consider this petition. If you have any concerns about rehearing this petition or any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached at 535-7105 or via e-mail at brent.wilde@slcgov.com. Sincerely, Brent Wilde Community Development Deputy Director cc: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director Alex Ikefuna, Planning Director Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director Salt Lake City Planning Commission March 22, 2006 required surrounding the signs;clarification of the attended sign standards to allow portable signs to be placed within 25 feet of the front door or a window. Mr. Paterson stated that the Public Utilities Division requested a modification to allow the City to request the removal or relocation of the portable sign to accommodate construction in the right-of-way. • Mr. Paterson stated the Business Advisory Committee had reviewed the proposals and recommended approval. He also noted that an Open House had been held where business owners from the Downtown area attended to request the continued use of portable signs. Mr. Paterson stated that Staff is recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Chairperson Noda requested comments from the public. No comments were received. The Planning Commission entered Executive Session. Commissioner McDonough requested further information regarding the use of portable signs in the Research Park area, and the terms of block face and intersections in relation to the area. Mr. Paterson stated that the standards in the Ordinance do allow portable signs in Research Park which is zoned Research Park(RP)Zoning District. He noted that the definition for block face found in the Ordinance is applicable for the Research Park area. Commissioner Chambless requested further information regarding the liability of the City in relation to the temporary signs. Mr. Paterson stated that to the best of his knowledge there had not been any liability issues with portable signs. He also noted that with the exception of portable signs, signs in the public right-of-way are generally prohibited. Other types of signs that encroach into the right-of-way, such as marquee signs, require insurance. Based on the analysis and findings presented in the Staff Report and discussion, Commissioner McDonough made a motion for the Planning Commission to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the amendments portrayed in the Portable Signs Provisions, Section 21A.46.055 of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Forbis seconded the motion. All voted "Aye".The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (This item was heard at 7:38 p.m.) Commissioner Scott referenced the prior Planning Commission meeting and a motion she made, to inform the Planning Commission that the petitioner, in the form of a letter, made specific allegations that she had made a deal with Community Councils and participated in illicit van rides. She stated that the allegations were unfounded and questioned her integrity and that of the Planning Commission's decision. Commissioner Scott was outraged and disappointed in relation to the situation and felt it appropriate to share this information with the Planning Commission. Mr.Wheelwright noted that Cindy Rockwood has been appointed to the Planning Commission Secretary and Sarah Carroll has been promoted to the Principal Planner position. He also noted that two Associate Planner positions remain open. Mr. Ikefuna stated that the Division is working towards obtaining an additional Principal Planner position in the new bu9fget. Meeting was adjourned at 7:40,9.m., l i • dy Rockwo d, dnn g ;i6fo ,e si Kon Secretary • 10 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, April 12, 2006 Present for the Planning Commission were Laurie Noda (Chairperson), Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Robrr' Forbis Jr., Peggy McDonough (Vice Chairperson), Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Craig Galli 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; Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor; Kevin LoPiccolo, Zoning Administrator; Sarah Carroll, Principal Planner; Marilynn Lewis, Principal Planner; Ray McCandless, Principal Planner; and Cindy Rockwood, Planning Commission Secretary. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Noda called the meeting to order at 5:49 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, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Planning Division Staff present were Doug Wheelwright, Sarah Carroll, and Marilynn Lewis. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, March 22, 2006. (This item was heard at 5:49 p.m.) Commissioner Scott moved to approve the March 22, 2006 minutes. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Forbis, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir and Commissioner Scott voted "Aye". Commissioner Seelig abstained. The motion passed. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR (This item was heard at 5:50 p.m.) Chairperson Noda raised the attention of the Commissioners to a letter received from Brent Wilde, Community Development Deputy Director regarding the Harrison Apartment Rezone Petition No. 400-05- 24. Discussion commenced regarding the previous decision of the Commission, and the determination was that the minutes clearly stated the desired result of the Planning Commission; a Planned Unit Development proposal would have been supported by the Planning Commission had it been an option for the applicant, rather than a rezone request. As a result of this finding, the Planning Commission initiated a petition to review the requirements of Planned Unit Development proposals. Commissioner De Lay noted that clarity was the strongest concern and suggested a recall and re- evaluation of the Petition. At 5:54 p.m., Commissioner McDonough made a motion to reaffirm the decision of the Planning Commission in relation to Petition#400-05-24 to state that the unfavorable recommendation was based on the rezoning and master plan amendment standards. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Forbis, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted "Aye". Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Chambless were opposed. Commissioner Muir abstained. 1 f. Letter and minutes relating to a request to rehear the case at the April 26, 2006 meeting. 145 To: Alex Ikefuna, Plt'iining Director April 25, 2006 'r!C Cc: Louis Zunguze, Brent Wilde Attachment: Letter to Louis Zunguze, dated March 15, 2006 Subj: March 8 Planning Commission mtg. —Henderson Project, Case 400-05043 Dear Alex, We are writing to you at the suggestion of Brent Wilde. You were present at the above meeting and have probably heard about our complaints concerning the outcome of that meeting. The problem is outlined in the attached letter to Mr. Louis Zunguze. After a meeting with Louis and Brent,they suggested that the issue was best handled internally within the Planning Commission. The outcome of that meeting, according to Mr. Wilde, is that the Planning Commission is"not inclined to reconsider" hearing our case again or to re-evaluate the initial recommendation on our petition for rezoning. We were not given any reasoning behind the current position, which leads us to the following assumptions about the thought process: • Who are we(the Henderson's) to challenge the authority of, or the correctness of, the Planning Commission's initial decision on this matter? • The implications of our contention of irregularities, in the conduct of particular Planning Commission members, is something that the Planning Commission does not want to deal with, and in the absence of absolute proof, they would like it to just go away. • The words"not inclined to reconsider" imply closing the door three quarters of way and waiting to see what our response is while hoping we simply accept the current position and move on The current position, in our opinion, is not in the best interest of the Planning Commission, the Planning Department, or the City for the following reasons. When this project goes before the City Council, we have to make a strong argument to overcome the negative recommendation by the Planning Commission. Our extensive lobbying efforts, personal contacts with council members and strong advocacy from local neighbor property owners will put a dark cloud over the Planning Commission's recommendation by: • Thoroughly exposing the considerable circumstantial evidence (recorded phone conversations, notes on personal conversations, actual comments during the Planning Commission meeting, and Planning Dept. staff comments) regarding the behavior of the East Central Community Council (Chris Johnson, Cindy Cromer, Arla Funk, Ester Hunter) prior to the March 8th meeting that showed they used their personal influence with certain Planning Commission members to further their position. We do not have absolute proof but any reasonable person would be concerned based on the evidence we do have. • Pointing out that, the primary reason for rejecting our petition, was the Planning Commission reluctance to make any change of the zoning map, regardless of the merits of the project, because that would set a precedent that the Planning Commission would have to live with in the future. It is our understanding that the Planning Commission is suppose to review each project individually and make decisions based on merit and support of the City's Master Plan, not based on their fear of setting a precedence. • Little note was made that by so deciding, in fact, the Planning Commission has set a much worse precedent; namely, that the Planning Commission would not consider changes to the City Zoning Map, regardless of merit, and the best interest of the City Master Plan. • Because we could not anticipate the reason for the Planning Commission's position on our project, prior to the meeting March 8th, we were not prepared to demonstrate that the City Master Plan is significantly reinforced by our request for a rezone to RMF-45 (removal of non-conforming building, home ownership, density increase and underground parking,). The other financially viable RMF-35 alternatives are far less desirable and would entail us leaving the existing ugly façade of the medical office building and its parking in place; and building on top of and around it a for rental product with lower density and surface parking. • The East Central Community Council (by their self proclaimed declaration) has essentially taken over all land use strategy and planning decision making for their area. Their influence and contacts have superseded Planning Department staff planning efforts and others' interpretation of the City Master Plan. Our point is that if we go to the next step, (the city council hearing)without a more thorough review of the present situation, the grey cloud over the Planning Commission recommendation will only grow much darker, it will not blow away. We recognize that if the Planning Commission does offer us a chance for a rehearing of our petition we will be walking into a meeting with a potential hostile attitude toward us. We can only hope that the professionalism of the majority of the commissioners will prevail and a thorough review of the proposal based on its merits strongly supporting the City Master Plan will carry the day, and that alternative current zoning(RMF-35) project results in a major sub optimization of a one-time opportunity. Please give our appeal serious consideration. We stand ready to meet with you and discuss any of the above at your convenience. Sincr`y, „ Berson 435 65 3544 office 435 901 2321 cell 417 Centennial Circle Park City, UT 84060 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 26, 2006 Mr. Ikefuna clarified that the Planning Commission is a recommending body for the City Council. He noted that a development agreement was created between Rowland Hall, the City, and Mt. Olivet, to further encourage the approval. He also stated that the Federal Government, in this instance, will still have to decide the reversionary clause issue. • Letter from Blake Henderson The Commission discussed the letter from applicant, Blake Henderson, formerly requesting the Commissioner rehear his request for a rezoning of the property at approximately 900 East 100 South. Vice Chairperson McDc.,,ugl: e ested a decision from the Planning Commission for a possible rehearing. Commissioner De Lay noted the number of fetters received in the recent past from applicants who have received an unfavorable recommendation from the Commission to the City Council. She requested clarification of the formal process. Mr. Ikefuna confirmed that when a petition receives an unfavorable recommendation, an applicant can request a rehearing or the applicant can file an appeal. The Commission can either reopen the case, or reaffirm their position. Based on that decision, the Commission either rehears the case or the case is forwarded to the City Council. If the petitioner disagrees with the decision made by the City Council the petitioner may choose to progress to court action. Commissioner Scott addressed the concerns of the letter, as she had been noted by name in the letter. She also cited the minutes from the March 22, 2006 meeting relating to her brief statement regarding the first letter from the applicant. She proposed to make a motion regarding the status of a rehearing for Petition 400-05-043. Commissioner Scott made a motion regarding the Henderson Project Case, 400-05-043, heard at the March 8 Planning Commission meeting, that the Planning Commission reaffirm the recommendation made at that meeting; a recommendation to deny a rezone request from RMF-35 to RMF-45. The previous motion was withdrawn, due to the request of the applicant for the Commission to "rehear" the petition. Commissioner Scott made a motion to deny rehearing Petition No.400-05-043. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Forbis, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Seelig, and Commissioner Wirthlin voted "Aye".The motion to deny passed. Handicapped Parking—Paul Roily Article Commissioner Seelig raised the attention of the Commissioners regarding a recent article by Paul Roily of the Salt Lake Tribune stating that the Planning Commission had"passed a rule" relating to the handicapped parking accessibility to the Downtown area. She noted that Mr. Ikefuna had been informed and related the correct information to Mr. Roily, wherein he corrected the mistake. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR (This item was heard at 6:05 p.m.) Utah League of Cities &Towns: Summary of 2006 Legislation on Land Use Mr. Ikefuna referenced the 2006 Summary of Legislation on Land Use and proposed the Commission schedule time to listen to the Deputy City Attorney, Lynn Pace, present the changes that may have implication on the Commission. It was noted that the presentation will be brief and contained, as best as possible, to fifteen minutes. The Commission agreed to have Lynn Pace review the 2006 Legislation at a future date. Mr. Ikefuna stated that a member of the Attorney's office will appear on an "as needed basis" upon the request of the Commission or Planning Staff to the Planning Commission meetings. 2 g. Minutes of Planning Commission review of the allegations at the June 14, 2006 meeting SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, June 14, 2006 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR ' (This item was heard at 9:23 p.m.) Petition 400-05-043— Blake Henderson Chairperson Noda introduced a memorandum with attached letters to the Commissioners regarding Petition 400-05-043, which was originally heard by the Com ' sion on March 8, 2006. The information was presented before the Commission to complete t kprocess for the petition due to the multiple requests for a re-hearing made by the cant. The Commissioners reviewed the letters and discussed the al """ation t were set forth in the letters, particularly the letter dated April 25 directed to Ale ke a, Plan Director with copies sent to Louis Zunguze, Community Development Direct. B nt Wilde, uty Community Development Director. Chairperson Noda requested Commissioners ad he specific allegations addressed in the letter. Commissioner McDonough requested clarification reg. J3; . t er in which t e Commission was addressing the issue in the past meetin rv, en the item has been raised. Mr. Ikefuna stated that the response of th . ning Commissw qt •revious meetings was the consideration of re-hearing the petition or - . the decisio 4 . J°Commission, rather than addressing the allegations and ensuring du .ro ` " `- stated th-°1x e transmittal to City Council did not contain any indication that th om a 6essed the allegations and therefore, the Commission i •-.ng asked to a•tar a;. the a ns at this time. Mr. Ikefuna also stated that he had atter hims conducte• '-n interview with Commissioner Scott, and reviewed t .udio wing of the m -ting discussions and concluded that there was no merit to the alle. He ratsi4 the attention if th- Commission to a letter that was sent in response to the allegation ti„•m WIC, but unfortuna 2'a copy was not sent to the COmmISSl0nerS � �°- Fx Chairper on Noda at b , pon the allegations that the Hendersons have made, no evide supports their k(. ent ;01/ e.,,rding comments made during the Planning Corn � � meeting and �� 1i,een P P . iv g Staff. The basis for allegations relating to converse held between mmis-'•ner Scott and members of the East Central Community Council an. •;""-,y other me r of the Planning Commission were unfounded and without merit. Chairperson ® cluded t ti Commissioner Scott had already stated in the record that she did not have any con -tions11,if outside parties regarding the petition, nor attend any field trips other than the Plan ; >6 ission field trip that is regularly scheduled. Commissioner Scott a® itionally stated her support in the findings that the allegations were without basis and noted that the allegations were false and insulting, and compromised the integrity of the Planning Commission. She noted that this was the fourth time in which the petition has been brought before the Commission. (March 8—Original presentation, March 22, April 12, and April 26, and June 14, 2006, Discussion regarding re-hearing and allegations.) Commissioner Scott stated that an apology from Mr. Henderson would be accepted at any time. She also addressed the allegation that she had steamrolled a decision on the petition and noted that the Commissioners rarely allow that to happen. Chairperson Noda stated that the Planning Commission finds no merit to the allegations made in the letter sent on April 25, 2006, by the applicant. d . , Mr. Henderson requested a moment to comment to the Commission. He noted that he had been called to attend the meeting at a late notice and had not requested it. Mr. Ikefuna asked if the Commission wanted to entertain a comment from the applicant. A vote was taken by the Commission as to whether or not they wanted to hear from the applicant. It was determined that they did not want to hear from the applicant. " Mr. Henderson expressed frustration to the Commission, due to the fact that he waited to be heard for four hours and was requested to attend the meeting, but was not given the opportunity to address the Commission. Chairperson Noda again stated that the position of the Planning Comp. in terms of the letter is that there was no basis, based upon the evidence that was in thy` cord at the time, for the allegations that were made by Mr. Henderson. T.. , Mr. Henderson left the meeting. ' . Chairperson De Lay raised the question on the invitat, of Mr. Henderson to'4(.;, eeting. Mr. Ikefuna stated that Mr. Henderson had been re"" led to attend in order to wi s the discussion of the issue by the Planning Commission a 3: ns retfs at it was revio,ed fully and fairly. Commissioner Forbis requested that the ® o; ents and transt ,be submitted to the City Attorney, due to the seriousness of the all 't' �� ; due process:' guested that they be r�� submitted to protect Commissioner Scott a ! Commis e . Mr. Ikefuna clarified that thest uments had b [ewe. ➢b uis Zunguze, Community Development Director, amend tt e =uld be subm �' d to Lynn :ce, Deputy City Attorney. zolfr P ny � . 5. Original Petition .i PETITION NO. Ø 45=fie PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required /9416c.5- A Petition delivered to Planning VO Petition assigned to: NI Da h S)c T20Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date 3/3/ b lb Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover ,5 .'�? - Chronology 34110 Property Description (marked with a post it note) 3/3// Affected Sidwell Numbers Included 3Z1/6 -P"D Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils 3 3/ 6 1 Mailing Postmark Date Verification 44(4 Planning Commission Minutes 4.1 Planning Staff Report ,/ . — Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is,recommending. il43/± �-X Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office t(* Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. 4ti g Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office t4likq '' ',., Zoning Amendment l F. 40 , jht C 3 _ 1 ALr L/1 NE CITY 1.*.61:0;'4,; :i1;;-:',:lt, '6 �C , _ ,Li!! q tits AV± . r 1 Address of Subject Property: E5..1 s Z/x>Sr �� % 7o,S' ,fie S �jz 6 !�r Name of Applicant: Phonee ;�� t'r � t r-.�� �''`- _ y3S 7A/.93d I y35"- GAB iftiyt Address of Applicant: y�� �/�� cGf /i, ` J � / .r L—/r '11 : laid / 14- i,if E-mail Address of Applicant: IG/L e, f r e CeSU ax 2" Applicant's Interest in Subject Property: `1 e iftwr , -*Ash ifry /4 5�te ron rfrii iiiii4.5 A__ zl�u "YID- , s_ r`n /1?t- i1 S- , Name of Property Owner:CI) 0 Phone: Address of Property Owner: ,SG,v✓1 r _4 Email Address of Property Owner: c,r Cell/Fax: CA::: Existing Use of Property: el/kJZoning: '' 4 County Tax ("Sidwell#"): t O Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance by amending Section:(attach map or legal description). meµ ; O Amend the Zoning Map by reclassifying the above property from an {I�1nF3f } zone to a {�jy�ry5 }zone. d;rxr • Please include with the application: h . A statement of the text amendment or map amendment describing the purpose for the amendment and the exact .); language,boundaries and zoning district. `, . ✓`2. A complete description of the proposed use of the property where appropriate. /3. Reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. 4. The names and addresses of all property owners within four-hundred fifty(450) feet of the subject parcel.The .4 name, address and Sidwell number of each property owner must be typed or clearly printed on gummed mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair. The cost of first class postage for each address is due at time of application. Please do not provide postage stamps/51 , 20 5. Legal description of the property. , 6. Six (6) copies of site plans drawn to scale. 7.Related materials or data supporting the application as may be determined by the Zoning Administrator. i '. If applicable,a signed,notarized statement of consent from property owner authorizing applicant to act as an b. agent. '',r 4,r 9. Filing fee of$800.00 plus $100 for each acre over one acre is due at the time of application. �'„ '. If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of the Salt E r4� , , Lake City Planning staff(535-7757)prior to submitting the petition a h• ; ;' Sidwell maps & names of property owners are File the complete application at: L. :- , available at: „qv Salt Lake County Recorder Salt Lake City Planning 2001 South State Street,Room N1600 451 South State Street,Room 406 fa, Salt Lake City,UT 84190-1051 -7 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 A mom Telephone: (801) 468-3391 Telephone: (801) 535-7757 4 1 Signature of Property Owner t Or authorized agent Please describe your project and explain why a zoning amendment is necessary: What are the land uses adjacent to the property(abutting and across the street)? Have you discussed the project with nearby property owners?If so,what responses have you received? Salt Lake City Planning Commission Zoning Amendment 1. Re-zone from RW35 to RMF45 which would allow development of residential condominiums and the removal of a medical office building. The property is 1.1 acres zoned RMF35 with RMF 45 West and North of the property. 2. The condominium project would consist of 46 two and one bedroom condominiums of roughly 1,200sqft— 1,800sgft .with underground parking for 90 spots. The elevations would be a Brown Stone facade with porches and roof lines that are similar to the existing neighborhood 3. Properties to the west and North and other properties on the block are zoned and built at RMF45. Also a Medical office building exists and would be taken down and replaced with residential. Most importantly,we cannot get enough units with RMF 35 to make the project financially viable 4. 'Pete�ir�frl-,c 5. This project consists of 3 properties being combined 857E, 100S Non conforming residential 6-plex house 900E, 70S 25,000sqft cement medical office building 900E, 58S Residential Tri-plex house 6. To be provided at a later date .7. Elevations and Floor plans are included 8. N/A 9. $800 paid on submission Project Description and why a zoning amendment is necessary Please read sections 1 & 2. Also we feel that a properly designed and massed building would soften the viewing landscape from what is currently there. The view consists of a cement medical office building, a brick box condo complex (market Street Condos)to the West and a towering box apartment complex(Sunset Towers)to the North. Land uses adjacent, abutting and across the street Adjacent to the West is residential condominiums Adjacent to the North is a medical office building and residential apartments Abutting to the North and West is parking for residential condominiums and apartments Across the street to the East is a gas station Across the street to the South are residential apartments and condominiums Discussion with nearby property owner's response We met with the East Central Community Council. Dennis Guy-Sell was the Chair Person. The minutes from our meeting are included in this application. A sub committee was established to work on the project further. The sub-committee was made up of 3 people who opposed the project. We are continuing to meet with the sub-committee. The response from the Communit7 Council Meeting was mixed. 1/3rd of the group was in favor, a 1/3rd neutral and a 1/3r opposed. All were in favor of removing the medical office building and putting in residential. Many were in favor of condominiums as long as they were architecturally in keeping of the surrounding buildings. Many were supportive of a brownstone elevation with porches off the front and a roof line in keeping with existing buildings. Those opposed were opposed to the demolition of two older homes but most agree that the homes are of very basic character and in need of significant renovation (not financially viable). The greater concern was the precedent that would be set if a rezoning were to occur and a larger condo complex were to be built. "This would set off a chain reaction of many smaller building being demolished and new large buildings being built. Our position to this concern is that we have a very unique situation that does not commonly exist. We have a significant amount of land that has three non-descript structures with no character that sits between a condominium complex 45 feet high and an apartment complex that is 145 feet high. The current view shed is not appealing but could be very appealing with a properly designed building on the site. 0 c o ti I E c+a n 3 -vu. a) m � 2 car 1 Qoc � rnaa) � c g ) o o o CC . I- No ca . caa 1hr o ca • c= w o 0 a) U N U ` = w . In u v 'tl IN Qq A N SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 4,2006 SUBJECT: Petition 400-05-40—HOWA Capital,LLC—request to: • Rezone properties generally located on the east and west sides of 300 West between 500 and 600 North from a variety of zoning classifications to Residential/Mixed Use RMU • Amend the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted the rezoning and master plan amendment will affect Council District 3 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Sara Carroll,Principal Planner NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Newspaper advertisement and written notification to surrounding property owners 14 days prior to the Public Hearing WORK SESSION SUMMARY/NEW INFORMATION: A. On July 11,2006,the Council received a briefing from the Administration regarding the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment. Issues discussed included: 1. The rationale for applying the Residential/Mixed Use RMU zoning classification on the properties rather the Mixed Use MU zoning classification. 2. Language in the Zoning Ordinance, Sec.21A.24.17 Residential/Mixed Use District RMU,that refers specifically to the adopted East Downtown Master Plan, specifically the Purpose Statement and the Maximum Building Height sections. a. Planning staff noted that reference to the East Downtown Master Plan had been removed from the purpose statement but not the maximum building height section. They indicated that the Planning Division would reexamine this section to determine if it may be appropriate to update the language in the RMU zoning district and remove reference the East Downtown Master Plan. (As previously noted,this would allow the RMU zoning classification to be used citywide and eliminate any confusion that may be caused by reference to the East Downtown Master Plan.) b. The City Attorneys office indicated to Council staff that based on the existing language in the Zoning Ordinance, (see below) the conditional use option to allow additional height would only apply to properties within the boundaries of the height map in the,East Downtown Master Plan. • Sec. 21A.24.17.E. Maximum Building Height. The maximum building height shall not exceed 75 ft.,except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections El and E2 of this section. Buildings taller than 75 ft.,up to a maximum of 125 ft.,may be authorized as a conditional use, subject to the requirements of part V, Chapter 21A.54,of this title; and provided that the proposed conditional use is 1 located within the 125 ft. height zone of the height map of the East Downtown Master Plan. B. In response to a follow-up request from Council Member Jergensen,the Planning Director provided additional information regarding the rationale g g na a for applying the Residential/Mixed Use RMU zoning classification on the properties rather the Mixed Use MU zoning classification. Please refer to the attached memorandum from the Planning Director for details. The memo notes: 1. After careful review of what the existing zoning would allow, it was clear that the subject property required rezoning to a designation that would accommodate the appropriate height,setback and parking flexibility. 2. Planning staff concluded that RMU,as opposed to MU or CS,would be the most appropriate zoning for the property. C. Council Member Jergensen has asked Council staff a number of follow-up questions relating to this issue, and may raise the question at the Council meeting. Shifting from the RMU zoning to the MU zoning would necessitate modification to the conditional use but Council staff understands that the MU zone would still allow for the development as proposed using that same conditional use tool. The argument in favor of using the MU zone is that it was established in order to help implement the West Capitol Hill Redevelopment Plan,The MU approach would serve to protect the neighborhood in to the future,to assure that heights, parking and other issues on subsequent developments are in keeping with the intent of the Capitol Hill Redevelopment Plan and the character of the area 1. The RMU zone is more liberal than the MU zone with regard to parking(1/2 stall for each dwelling unit is required in RMU and 2 parking spaces for each dwelling unit containing 2 or more bedrooms, and 1 parking space for 1 bedroom and efficiency dwelling units is required in MU). 2. In general,the maximum height in the MU zone is 45 feet, or 60 feet with a conditional use; the maximum height in the RMU is 75 feet(maximum height for non-residential is 45 feet). The zones distinguish between buildings that include housing and buildings that do not include housing. If the Council is interested in investigating the MU approach further, Council staff will look with the Planning and RDA staffs and the developers to double check to assure that there isn't a conflict with the use of the RMU zone. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: OPTIONS: 1. Close the public hearing, defer action to a future Council meeting and request that the Council staff work with the Planning Division and the City Attorney's Office to provide options to ensure development of the project as approved by the Planning and Landmark Commissions. Such options could include use of a refined site plan review process, a development agreement or a condition that specifies the rezoning would not take place until development plans have been approved and a building permit issued. 2. Adopt an ordinance rezoning the property and amending the Capitol Hill Master Plan. 3. Do not adopt an ordinance rezoning the property and amending the Capitol Hill Master Plan. 4. Consider amending the Capitol Hill Master Plan and applying the MU zone,rather than the RMU zone. 5. Other options that may be identified by Council Members POTENTIAL MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance: • Rezoning properties generally located on the east and west sides of 300 West between 500 and 600 North from a variety of zoning classifications to Residential/Mixed Use RMU. • Amending the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. 2 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt the proposed ordinance: • Rezoning properties generally located on the east and west sides of 300 West between 500 and 600 North from a variety of zoning classifications to Residential/Mixed Use RMU. • Amending the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. 3. ["I move that the Council"] Close the public hearing,defer action to a future Council meeting in September and request that the Council staff work with the Planning Division and the City Attorney's Office to provide options to ensure development of the project as approved by the Planning and Landmark Commissions. Such options could include use of a refined site plan review process, a development agreement or a condition that specifies the rezoning would not take place until development plans have been approved and a building permit issued. 4. [I move that the Council"] Request that the Council staff work with the Planning and RDA staffs and the developer to determine whether the MU zone would be feasible. The following information was provided for the Council Work Session on July 10,2006. It is provided again for your reference. Due to the Council's summer meeting schedule and the approaching expiration of a 6-month extension of the exclusive negotiation period with the Redevelopment Agency approved in January 2006, Council staff has identified the following schedule should the Council choose to move this item forward to a public hearing after the briefing from the Administration. RDA staff indicated to Council staff that they anticipate a development agreement,purchase and sale term documents or another extension to be presented at the August RDA Board meeting. (The Administration's transmittal was received in the Council office on June 26, 2006.) • July 11 Council briefing • July 11 Set hearing date • August 8 Council hearing KEY ELEMENTS: A. An ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration to: 1. Rezone properties generally located on the east and west sides of 300 West between 500 and 600 North from Special Development Pattern Residential SR-I,Community Shopping CS, Moderate/High Density Multi-family Residential RMF-45,Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential RMF-35, and Mixed Use MU to Residential/Mixed Use RMU. (Please see the attached map for reference.) 2. Amend the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map designation for the properties on the east side of 300 West from general commercial to high density mixed use land uses. B. The rezoning and master plan amendment would facilitate a mixed-use planned development that includes residential,retail and office uses. The Administration's transmittal notes: 1. On May 30, 2006,following additional due diligence work on the site,representatives of the developer contacted Planning staff to discuss proposed changes to the approved Planned Development site plan. The changes were driven by a geotechnical report which identified high ground water levels.The high ground water levels result in poor soil quality for foundation loading and would be cost prohibitive for site and structure de-watering,as well as require a change in the foundation design. De-watering and foundation design changes to address the poor soil quality would result in construction costs potentially exceeding$45,000 per stall in the underground parking structures. 3 2. The revised plan includes: 9 town homes, 85 residential condominiums, 11,000 sq. ft., for a grocery store, 39,315 sq. ft. of retail space,and 14,820 sq. ft. of office space. The changes also include the ,, addition of a pedestrian walkway through the town homes 3. Because the proposed project is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District,the plan requires a review by the Historic Landmark Commission. The Landmark Commission review was completed on June 7,2006. 4. Given the magnitude of the changes,the revised plan will also require another review by the Planning Commission.The Planning Commission review is tentatively scheduled for July 12, 2006. 5. The Planning Division has determined that the revisions to the Planned Development site plan have enhanced features, such as the addition of pedestrian walkway,which will add to the quality of life in the West Capitol Hill Community. 6. The Planning Division sees no reason to delay the transmittal relative to the rezone request because the proposed development will still occur under the approved Residential/Mixed Use RMU zoning. 7. Amending the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan Future Land Use map designating the properties on the east side of 300 West from General Commercial to High Density Mixed Use land uses is necessary to provide consistency with the proposed Residential/Mixed Use zoning designation and the proposed mixed-use planned development. C. The Planning staff report notes surrounding land uses include the following zoning classifications and existing land uses. (Please see attached map for details). Surrounding Zoning Classification Surrounding existing land uses North Mixed Use "MU",Moderate Density Multi-Family Service garage, convenience store, single "RMF-35", and Special Development Pattern family homes Residential "SR-1" South Family"RMF-35" and,Community Special Convenience store, service garage, single Development Pattern Residential "SR-1",Moderate family homes, church Density Multi Shopping "CS" East Special Development Pattern Residential "SR-1" Apartment complex, single family homes and Moderate/High Density Multi-family Residential "RMF-45" West Special Development Pattern Residential "SR-1" Single family homes and Moderate Density Multi-Family "RMF-35" D. The purpose of the Residential/Mixed Use RMU zoning district is to implement the objectives of the adopted East Downtown Master Plan through district regulations that reinforce the residential character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high density residential urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail, service commercial and small scale office uses. Maximum height for mixed-use buildings in the zone is 75 feet or 125 ft.through the conditional use process. Maximum height for non-residential buildings is 3-stories or 45 ft. whichever is less. Maximum floor area for nonresidential uses in mixed-use buildings is limited to 3 floors. Minimum open space required is not less than 20%of the lot area. E. The public process included a presentation of the rezoning request and development proposal to the Capitol Hill Community Council and written notification of the Planning Commission hearing to surrounding property owners.The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report note there was general support for the project by members of the Community Council but also a concern relating to the proposed height for some of the buildings. F. On December 16, 2005,January 18 and March 29, 2006,the rezoning request and development proposal was evaluated by the Planning Commission Planned Development Subcommittee. The meetings were 4 attended by the developer and representatives of the Planning Commission,Historic Landmark Commission, RDA and Planning staff. G. The City's Fire, Police,and Public Utilities.Departments and Transportation and Engineering Divisions have reviewed the request. 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. H. On April 26, 2006,the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to rezone the properties and amend the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map.Issues discussed at the Planning Commission hearing focused primarily on the design elements of the proposed development.In addition,the Planning Commission approved: 1. A planned development conditional use subject to several conditions and waivers to the Zoning Ordinance with the direction to staff to modify other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance if necessary to implement the development plans approved by the Planning Commission. 2. Preliminary condominium and subdivision plats subject to specific conditions. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: A. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration the rationale for applying the Residential/Mixed Use RMU zoning classification on the properties rather the Mixed Use MU zoning classification. (Due to time constraints in preparing this staff report,Council staff is unable to provide a detailed analysis of the differences and similarities of these two zoning classifications.) 1. The Residential/Mixed Use RMU zoning classification was created during the 1995 Zoning Rewrite project for application to properties in the East Downtown planning area. 2. Creation of the Residential/Mixed Use RMU zoning classification and application to properties in the East Downtown planning area is identified as a specific implementation action item in the adopted East Downtown Master Plan. 3. Language in the Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 21A.24.17 Residential/Mixed Use District RMU,refers specifically to the adopted East Downtown Master Plan. For example: a. Sec. 21A.24.17.A.Purpose Statement. The purpose of the Residential/Mixed Use RMU zoning district is to implement the objectives of the adopted East Downtown Master Plan through district regulations that reinforce the residential character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high density residential urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail, service commercial and small scale office uses. b. Sec. 21A.24.17.E. Maximum Building Height. The maximum building height shall not exceed 75 ft.,except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections El and E2 of this section. Buildings taller than 75 ft.,up to a maximum of 125 ft.,may be authorized as a conditional use, subject to the requirements of part V,Chapter 21A.54,of this title; and provided that the proposed conditional use is located within the 125 ft. height zone of the height map of the East Downtown Master Plan. 4. The Mixed Use MU zoning classification was created and applied to properties in the West Capitol Hill area shortly after the Council adopted the updated Capitol Hill Master Plan in 1999. 5. Creation of the Mixed Use MU zoning classification and application to properties in the West Capitol Hill planning area is identified as a specific implementation action item in the adopted Capitol Hill Master Plan. 6. The Capitol Hill Master Plan is not specifically mentioned in the text of the Mixed Use MU zoning district regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. 7. One option the Council may wish to consider is to request that the Administration process a petition to update the language in the RMU zoning district and remove reference the East Downtown Master Plan. This would allow the RMU zoning classification to be used citywide and eliminate any confusion that may be caused by reference to the East Downtown Master Plan. 5 MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Capitol Hill Community Master Plan(1999) is the adopted land-use policy document that,guides new development in the area surrounding the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment. The Future Land Use Map identifies this area for High Density Mixed Use and General Com,rnercial land uses. (As previously noted, amending the Future Land Use Map in the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan is part of this petition.) B. The Planning staff report notes a section of the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan focuses specifically on commercial development and implementation of a neighborhood shopping node in the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood, on 300 West, and states the following: 1. Commercial: a. The lack of neighborhood oriented retail services is a major concern voiced by citizens of the community during the public input process of the development of this master plan. b. As identified in the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood Plan(1996),the best location for commercial retail venture to service the residents of the community is 300 West. With commercial and mixed use zoning districts in place,a neighborhood scale commercial nucleus should be developed along the 300 West corridor. Steps should be taken to entice new retail services to this area as well as providing incentives for existing businesses to upgrade their properties.In addition,the mixed use zoning districts will provide opportunities for additional commercial or commercial/residential land uses to develop.A primary goal is to encourage community oriented businesses that will provide a high level of visual quality and proper maintenance. 2. Neighborhood Shopping Node: a. The West Capitol Hill Neighborhood Plan encourages neighborhood shops to locate on the east side of 300 West Street between 500-600 North Streets to provide a nucleus of neighborhood oriented commercial uses for the Capitol Hill Community. The neighborhood shopping node should be developed with sensitivity to the historic architecture of the neighborhood. Retail uses built to front the property line are typical. Height of one or two stories is compatible. Uses which are appropriate in the shopping node include a small grocery or drug store, neighborhood oriented retail,restaurants,and services and/or mixed use development with commercial uses on the ground floor and residential uses above or below the ground floor. b. The shopping node should be designed in a way to minimize impacts to the existing historic neighborhood to the east including orienting the commercial development to 300 West, limiting delivery and principal accesses to 300 West,prohibiting access,for the commercial uses, from Arctic Court, strongly encouraging the reuse of existing historic structures, and providing adequate buffering between the commercial and residential land uses. The feasibility of creating a mixed use development with residential on the top floor should also be analyzed. The shopping center will hopefully become a catalyst for to encourage more neighborhood retail oriented commercial reinvestment. 3. Policies: a. If an appropriate commercial or mixed use development is proposed for the commercial node at 500 North and 1300 West,which requires additional property,the western properties along Arctic Court may be rezoned to commercial shopping. b. Development of the commercial node mixed use area should include the following design features to ensure compatibility with the residential development to the east: o Orientation of the commercial development to 300 West o Deliveries and principal access to the commercial development from 300 West o Prohibiting access for commercial uses from Arctic Court 6 o Strongly encouraging the reuse of existing historic structures within the new commercial development o Providing adequate buffering of residential properties to the east o Prohibiting access to the commercial use within 150 feet of Arctic Court. c. Ensure new commercial development along 300 West is sensitive to pedestrian oriented access and is sensitive to the historic character of the neighborhood. d. Encourage community oriented businesses that will provide a high level of visual quality and property maintenance. 4. Action Items: a. Encourage nonconforming retail commercial uses to relocate to the neighborhood shopping node where appropriate. b. Provide a commercial retail nucleus and/or mixed use area for the Capitol Hill Community on the east side of 300 West between 500 and 600 North. c. Take proactive steps to entice new retail services into appropriate segments of this area. C. The Administration's transmittal notes the City Redevelopment Agency designated the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood a redevelopment target area in 1996. Since that time,the focus of the RDA has been to revitalize the West Capitol Hill area and particularly to facilitate a new neighborhood commercial development on the east side of 300 West between 500 and 600 North.The RDA focused on this area with the intent of creating a mixed use,commercial/residential node that would revitalize and stabilize the area, allow for private reinvestment and provide a comprehensive approach to achieve the goals outlined in the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan. D. 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-income and mixed-use developments,housing preservation,rehabilitation and replacement,zoning policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities. 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. The Plan recognizes the benefits of locating high density housing along major transit systems and reducing dependency on the automobile as a primary mode of transportation. 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. The Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive, friendly, safe environments. 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. 7 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. • November 18,2005 Rezoning and development requests initiated • November 21, 2005 Petition received in Planning Division • January 18, 2006 Capitol Hill Community Council presentation • December 16,2005,January 18 &March 29,2006 Planning Commission Planned Development Subcommittee meetings • April 26, 2006 Planning Commission hearing • April 28,2006 Ordinance requested from City Attorney's office • May 19, 2006 Ordinance received from City Attorney's office cc: Sam Guevara,Rocky Fluhart,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Melanie Reif,Dave Oka,Valda Tarbet, Mack McDonald,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde,Alex Ikefuna, Doug Wheelwright, Cheri Coffey, Sarah Carroll,Jennifer Bruno,Marge Harvey,Gwen Springmeyer File Location: Community Development Dept.,Planning Division, Rezoning and Master Plan Amendment, HOWA Capital LLC, properties located on the east and west sides of 300 West between 500 and 600 North 8 MEMORANDUM SALT LAKE FY 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Planning and Zoning Division (801) 55-7757 Department of Community Development TO: City Council FROM: Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director CC: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Community Development Director Cindy Gust-Jenson, City Council Executive Director Janice Jardine, Land Use Policy Analyst Dave Oka, Redevelopment Agency Director DATE: July 20, 2006 SUBJECT: Response to Council Member Jergensen's letter regarding the recommendation of R-MU rather than MU zoning for Petition No. 400-05-40; HOWA Rezone This memo is a follow up to the briefing regarding Petition Number 400-05-40, HOWA proposed mixed use project on 300 West. First, I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for the lack of timeliness in responding to the inquiry from the City Council Staff regarding the purpose statement of the R-MU Ordinance. After further review I can confirm that reference regarding the R-MU being exclusive to the East Downtown Master Plan is no longer part of the purpose statement of the ordinance. That change occurred in the summer of 2005. I would also like to clarify the difference between the MU and R-MU zoning classifications and how we determined that the R-MU is the most appropriate classification for the HOWA project. PROJECT HISTORY The Planning Division Staff met several times during the summer of 2005 to discuss the current proposal with representatives of the Redevelopment Agency, HOWA, and HOWA's architectural team. The RDA presented to Planning Staff that the property in question requires a zone that would provide development flexibility to accommodate a 1 mixed use project. After careful review of what the existing zoning would allow, it was clear that the subject property required rezoning to a designation that would accommodate the appropriate height, setback, and parking flexibility. Staff concluded that R-MU, as opposed to MU or CS, would be the most appropriate zoning for the property in question. It was Planning Staffs understanding that we needed to work with the RDA and the applicant to facilitate a quality project. GOAL FOR THE PROPERTY The goal of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency in the development of this property is to create a mixed use commercial node that includes the development of office, retail, and residential uses for the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood, consistent with the goals of the West Capitolulls Hill Master Plan. The proposed development is located on the east and west sides of 300 West Street, between 500 and 600 North Streets. The property currently has several zoning classifications as shown below: • Special Development Pattern Residential (SR-1) ■ Community Shopping(CS) • Moderate/High Density Multi-family Residential (RMF-45) • Moderate Density Multi-Family (RMF-35) • Mixed Use (MU) M W%,r,2,� ARMF 35- , x RMF 3 F � r q i, kid xi I 01. N r Y MU s a � ' 'f v �RMF 45 N Ct! � �,,..' , mad: 4 .-,- , x4 ,."g , 01 114414r .; � ,£ F 0 MF3 `4g��y, r:: 4 § ¢ �� Fyn �` ', `�° & YS n a .11 ,'":",j SR fii NIA it.dlif#441:71 3 ir� 6 +?f�3�:� r� 9 / /gyp ittitE44-74 -��7 ' ,tkiiri s '4 aa't� .ct.i ,;'!''7,.:',.',,,,73.: ::'1:, . :r✓b ��," .. . RMF.35 /fix The goal of developing a mixed use commercial node as proposed by the RDA cannot be attained with the current mix of zoning classifications on the property. PROJECT PARAMETERS The following is an outline of the key parameters of the project as presented by RDA and the applicant: 2 • • Parking: The total number of parking spaces required for the project is 344. • Height: The project has a total of 12 buildings with the height ranging from 22 to 60 feet. • Setback: Majority of the buildings are at or near the property lines. In reviewing the proposal, it was clear to Planning Staff that parking, height, and setback would be key determinants in deciding the appropriate zoning for the project. ZONING DESIGNATION EVALUATION Given the project parameters, Planning was concerned about proposing a zone that would be too restrictive for the project,thus frustrating the applicant and complicating the process. Therefore, various zoning designations were evaluated for applicability. The residential zones (SR-I, RMF-45 and RMF-35) are not appropriate as they do not allow mixed- use. The CS zone restricts the height for any type of building to a maximum of 30 feet and up to 45 feet through a conditional use process. This would not allow for the proposed project development. Staff then shifted analysis to the MU and R-MU zoning designations. The following table provides a comparison of MU and R-MU zoning requirements. MU R-MU Parking Allows one parking space per room Requires 1/2 space per dwelling unit and and no credit for on-street parking allows credit for on-street parking Height Allows 45 foot mixed use buildings Allows 75 feet as a permitted use for mixed as a permitted use and 60 foot as a use buildings conditional use Setback Requires front and side yard No setback requirements setbacks of 10 feet ADVANTAGES OF R-MU VERSUS MU ZONING Planning Staff analysis determined that the R-MU zoning designation is more appropriate for this property than MU zoning. Parking The project as currently proposed allows for 344 parking stalls. The amount of proposed parking is reasonable for this project and will meet the requirements of R- MU District. Parking will be deficit by 35 stalls if the zoning is changed to MU. The MU District requires larger parking lots. 3 Height Mixed Use Buildings: Another advantage of the R-MU zone is that the mixed use buildings that incorporate both commercial and residential uses can be constructed to the requested height without going through a Conditional Use process. Although the applicant is proposing a height of 60 feet, variables such as a high water table may require an elevation adjustment that will result in additional height. The R-MU zone allows 75 feet in height for mixed use buildings that incorporate commercial and residential uses. The MU zone restricts buildings to 45 feet as a permitted use and 60 feet buildings as a conditional use for structures that combine nonresidential and residential uses. Thus the MU zone removes the flexibility need to accommodate property variables and creates uncertainty for the applicant. Commercial Buildings: The MU zone allows a maximum height of 30 feet for commercial buildings, while the R-MU zone allows a maximum height of 45 feet for commercial buildings. The HOWA proposal includes nonresidential buildings that exceed 30 feet in height,which is not allowed under the MU zoning. Setbacks The MU zone requires front and side yard setbacks of 10 feet; the R-MU zone has no front or side yard setback requirements. The building locations for this project add to the "walkable community" concept by providing pedestrian access from the sidewalk, which MU setbacks would not allow. Planning Staff recommended the R-MU zone which allows for the buildings to be constructed to the front and side lot lines. Based on the above analysis, Planning concluded that R-MU is the most appropriate zone for this project and the best zone to accomplish the Master Plan goals of the area. The R- MU designation also compliments the development direction of the neighborhood. MASTER PLAN AND ZONING CONSIDERATIONS CONCLUSION The Capitol Hill Community Future Land Use Map currently designates the west side of the subject property for Mixed Use (MU) and designates the east side of the subject property for Community Shopping (CS) use. However, in the light of this project, Planning Staff recommends that the City Council revisit the land use classifications in the Master Plan to assure that this property develops appropriately. The Master Plan should be amended to reflect zoning change to R-MU. Additionally, the permitted uses in the MU District should be evaluated in the future as this area continues to evolve into a mixed use area with residential uses. To that end, Planning Staff recommends eliminating uses such as warehousing and wholesaling because they are not compatible with the direction that is currently envisioned for this neighborhood. Rezoning this property to R- MU provides the greatest degree of flexibility, does not allow inappropriate land uses, and is suited to the type of project proposed. 4 JUN 2 6 2006 A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE ~.�`` ' ('_t a_,„, "' ���C�O. 0'' 1+©, E ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR ç•7f(7 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: June 1 , 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director RE: Petition#400-05-40 by HOWA Capital is a request to amend e Capitol Hill Master Plan and Zoning Map for properties generally located on the east and west sides of 300 West Street between 500 and 600 North Streets from a variety of zoning designations to Residential/Mixed Use (R-MU) zoning 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 400-05-40, initiated by HOWA Capital, is a request to rezone the properties generally located on the east and west sides of 300 West Street between 500 and 600 North Streets from a variety of zoning designations to Residential Mixed Use(R-MU)zoning in order to facilitate the construction of a mixed use development that will include residential,retail and office uses for the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood. The current zoning on the subject property includes: Special Development Pattern Residential (SR-1), Community Shopping(CS), Moderate/High Density Multi-family Residential (RMF-45), Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential (RMF-35), and Mixed Use (MU)zoning. The applicant is requesting to rezone the entire property to Residential Mixed Use (R-MU). Applications for the requested rezone,planned development, subdivision,and preliminary condominium were heard by the Planning Commission during a Public Hearing on April 26, 2006. At that time, the Planning Commission approved all of the above noted requests. The major highlights of the Planned Development Site Plan that was approved by the Planning Commission included two levels of underground parking under the north and south mixed use buildings, 11 town homes, 77 residential condominiums, 15, 000 sq. ft. for a grocery store, 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-71 05 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM If t0 aEc.aEo P.PEa 39,075 square feet of additional retail space, and 14,820 sq. ft. of office space to be completed in three phases. However,on May 30, 2006, following additional due diligence work on the site,representatives of the developer contacted City Planning Staff to discuss proposed changes to the approved Planned Development Site Plan. These changes were driven by a geotechnical report which identified high ground water levels. The high ground water levels result in poor soil quality for foundation loading and would be cost prohibitive for site and structure de-watering, as well as require a change in the foundation design. De-watering and foundation design changes to address the poor soil quality would result in parking stall construction costs potentially exceeding $45,000 per stall in the underground parking structures. The revised plan includes: 9 town homes, 85 residential condominiums, 11,000 sq.ft, for a grocery store, 39,315 sq.ft of retail space, and 14,820 sq.ft of office space. The changes also include the addition of a pedestrian walkway through the town homes (refer to attached letter and revised site plan, Exhibit 6). Because the proposed project is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District, the plan requires a review by the Historic Landmark Commission(HLC). The review by HLC was completed on June 7, 2006. Given the magnitude of the changes, the revised plan will also require another review by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission review is tentatively set for July 12, 2006. The Planning Division has determined that the revisions to the Planned Development Site Plan have enhanced features, such as the addition of pedestrian walkway, which will add to the quality of life in the West Capitol Hill Community. As such, the Planning Division sees no reason to delay the transmittal relative to the rezone request; as all of the proposed development will still occur under the approved Residential Mixed Use (R-MU)zoning. Analysis:The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) designated the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood as a redevelopment target area in 1996. Since that time, the focus of the RDA has been to revitalize the West Capitol Hill area and particularly to facilitate a new neighborhood commercial development on the east side of 300 West Street between 500 and 600 North Streets. The RDA focused on this area with the intent of creating a mixed use, commercial/residential node that would revitalize and stabilize the area and allow for private reinvestment. The RDA selected HOWA Capital to develop the subject property due to HOWA Capital's comprehensive approach to the goals for this area, as outlined in the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan. Master Plan Considerations: The Capitol Hill Community Future Land Use Map designates the west side of the subject property for"High Density Mixed Use" and designates the east side of the subject property for"General Commercial"use. The Master Plan will need to be amended so that both the east and west sides of the subject property reflect"High Density Mixed Use" designations. Notice of the requested zoning and Master Plan amendments were published in the newspaper on April 12, 2006, meeting State Code noticing requirements. Petition 400-05-40—Howa Capital Rezone Page 2 of 3 PUBLIC PROCESS: The request for rezone, along with the development proposal,was evaluated at the Planning Commission Planned Development Subcommittee Meeting on December 16, 2005; January 18, 2006; and March 29, 2006 (see Exhibit 5D for meeting notes). The meetings were attended by representatives of the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, RDA Staff, and Planning Division Staff. The rezone request and the development proposal were presented to the Capitol Hill Community Council on January 18, 2006. Members of the Community Council were generally in support of the project. At the April 26, 2006,meeting following a Public Hearing the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the requested Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (Petition No. 400-05-40) by the City Council. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Section 21A.50- Amendments 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 4 of the Planning Commission Staff Report(see Attachment 5B). Utah Code Title 10, Chapter 9a- Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Sections 10-9a-204 and-205 regulate the requirements for noticing a general plan amendment and land use ordinance amendment. Petition 400-05-40—Howa Capital Rezone Page 3 of 3 Table of Contents 1. Chronology 2. Proposed Ordinance 3. City Council Hearing Notice 4. Mailing Labels 5. Planning Commission A. Public Hearing Notice and Postmark for the April 26, 2006 Planning Commission meeting B. Planning Commissions Staff Report with Attachments Site Plan, Elevations and Floor Plans Department/Division Comments Community Council Comments Newspaper Legal Notices, Published on April 12, 2006 C. Planning Commission agenda and minutes for April 26, 2006 D. Planned Development Subcommittee Notes for December 16, 2005, January 18, 2006 and March 29, 2006 6. Letter and Revised Site Plan from Howa Capitol, dated June 2, 2006 7. Original Petition r 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY November 18, 2005 The applicant initiated a request for a zoning amendment. November 21, 2005 The Planning Division received the petition request. December 16, 2006 Project reviewed by the Planned Development Subcommittee. The meeting was attended by representatives of the Planning Commission, Historic Landmarks Commission, Redevelopment Agency Staff and Planning Division Staff January 18, 2006 Project reviewed again, by the Planned Development Subcommittee, to address comments made on December 16, 2006. The meeting was attended by representatives of the Planning Commission, Historic Landmarks Commission, Redevelopment Agency Staff and Planning Division Staff January 18, 2006 Rezone and development proposal presented to the Capitol Hill Community Council. March 29, 2006 Project reviewed again, by the Planned Development Subcommittee, due to changes to the project. The meeting was attended by representatives of the Planning Commission, Historic Landmarks Commission, Redevelopment Agency Staff and Planning Division Staff April 11, 2006 Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed. April 12, 2006 Legal notice regarding Zoning Map and Master Plan amendment published in the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News. April 26, 2006 Planning Commission public hearing held. The Planning Commission approved the Planned Development, Subdivision and Preliminary Phase 1 Condo requests. They also forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezone request. April 28, 2006 Ordinance request sent to City Attorney. May 10, 2006 Planning Commission ratified minutes of April 26, 2006 meeting. May 19, 2006 Received ordinance from the City attorney. May 24, 2006 Submitted transmittal to the Community Development office for review. June 2, 2006 Received notice of revisions to the site plan from Howa Capital. June 14, 2006 Submitted revised transmittal to the Community Development office. 1 2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Rezoning Properties on the East and West Sides of 300 West Street, Between 500 North Street and 600 North Street, and Amending the Capitol Hill Master Plan) REZONING PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF 300 WEST STREET, BETWEEN 500 NORTH STREET AND 600 NORTH STREET, FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ZONING DESIGNATIONS, INCLUDING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (SR-1), COMMUNITY SHOPPING DISTRICT (CS), MODERATE/HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RMF-45), MODERATE DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RMF-35), AND MIXED USE DISTRICT (MU), TO RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE DISTRICT (R-MU), AND AMENDING THE CAPITOL HILL MASTER PLAN, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-05-40. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed amendments to the Master Plan and change of zoning for the properties generally located on the East and West sides of 300 West Street, between 500 North Street and 600 North Street, is appropriate for the development of the community in that area and in the best interest of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. REZONING OF PROPERTIES. The properties generally located on the East and West sides of 300 West Street, between 500 North Street and 600 North Street, which are more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and identified therein as the "East Parcel"and "West Parcel," shall be and hereby are rezoned from their respective zoning designations, including: 1) Special Development Pattern Residential District (SR-1), 2) Community Shopping District (CS), 3) Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District (RMF-45), 4) Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District (RMF-35), and 5) Mixed Use District (MU), to Residential/Mixed Use District (R-MU). SECTION 2. AMENDMENT TO ZONING MAP. The Salt Lake City Zoning Map, adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning of properties identified above. SECTION 3. AMENDMENT OF MASTER PLAN. The Capitol Hill Master Plan, as previously adopted by the Salt Lake City Council, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning set forth herein and shall be further amended to reflect"high density mixed use" rather than "general commercial" for the properties located on the East side of 300 West Street, between 500 North Street and 600 North Street, which are more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and identified therein as the "East Parcel." SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: 2 CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Salt City Attorncs s orf'cc; Date UL By (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: 1:AOrdinance 06\Rezoning East and West Sides of 300 West,Between 500 North Street and 600 North Street-05-12-06 clean.doc 3 3. CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is currently reviewing Petition No. 400-05-40, initiated by Howa Capital and the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, requesting a Zoning Map and Master Plan amendment in order to rezone the property generally located along the east and west sides of 300 West Street, between 500 and 600 North Streets from a variety of zoning designations to Residential Mixed Use (R-MU) zoning in order to facilitate the construction of a mixed use development that will include town homes, condominiums, retail and office space. Current zoning of the subject property includes: Special Development Pattern Residential (SR-1), Community Shopping (CS), Moderate/High Density Multi-family Residential (RMF-45), Moderate Density Multi-Family(RMF-35) and Mixed Use (MU) zoning. This request involves amending the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the east side of.the project area. The Master Plan currently designates the east side of the project area for"General Commercial" use and will need to be amended to reflect"High Density Mixed Use."The west side of the project area is already designated for"High Density Mixed Use." As part of the Zoning Map and Master Plan amendment process the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding this petition request. During this hearing, the Planning staff may present information on the petition and anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers City and County Building 451 South State Street, Room 315 Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal, please attend the meeting or call Sarah Carroll at 535-6260 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Salt Lake City complies with ADA guidelines. Assistive listening devices and interpretive services will be provided upon a 24-hour advance request. Exhibit"A" Boundary Descriptions Approximate Location: Both Sides of 300 West Street, between 500 and 600 North Streets Affected Sidwell Numbers: East side: 08-36-205-001, -005, -006, -007, -008, -010, -012, -019, -020, -021, -022, -026, -027, -028, -031, -033, -035 West side: 08-36-204-019, -020, -022, -027, -028, -029, -030, -032 EAST PARCEL BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK 132, PLAT A, SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 00°01'28" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 132, 660.24 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5 OF SAID BLOCK 132; THENCE NORTH 89°59'33" EAST ALONG THE NORTHERIY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 132, 201.92 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°01'15" WEST 177.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°59'33" WEST 37.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE SOUTH 00°01'15" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE 70.14 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°59'33" EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°01'15" WEST 82.50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 3 OF SAID BLOCK 132; THENCE NORTH 89°59'59" EAST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE 144.94 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 00°01'02" WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, 330.16 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTH 89°59'35" WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 132, 329.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS: 171,579 SQ.FT. OR 3.939 ACRES WEST PARCEL BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER BLOCK 133, PLAT A, SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 00°02'52" WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 133, 521.82 FEET TO A POINT SOUTH 00°02'52" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE 26.64 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 8 OF SAID BLOCK 133; THENCE NORTH 89°54'03" WEST 131.66; THENCE NORTH 00°02'45" EAST 155.06 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°53'28" WEST 16.83 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°02'45" EAST 73.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°53'28" EAST 16.83 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°02'45" EAST 146.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°53'11" WEST 16.52 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°02'45" EAST 40.35 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°53'l 1" EAST 16.32 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°02'45" EAST 106.33 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 133; THENCE SOUTH 89°52'54" EAST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE 131.68 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS: 70,604 SQ.FT. OR 1.621 ACRES 5C- 511110Cc, 4. MAILING LABELS use Avery TEMPLATE 5160W — ' 1-800-GO-AVERY r.— 08361270020000 08362040150000 08362040280000 HAMMOND LEASING LLC COVEY, ALICE N REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT 11199 N 5730 W 518 N PUGSLEY ST 451 S STATE ST#418 HIGHLAND UT 84403 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 08361270030000 08362040160000 08362040290000 HAMMOND LEASING LLC BAKER, WILLIAM R & LILIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT 11199 N 5730 W 336 W 500 N 451 S STATE ST#418 ' HIGHLAND UT 84403 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 08362040060000 08362040170000 s 08362040300000 LLR MANAGEMENT CORP BEGLARIAN, ROBIN L & ANN MARIE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF PO BOX 540757 332 W 500 N 451 S STATE ST#418 NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 08362040070000 08362040180000 08362040310000 BINGHAM, ANNIE & PARTINGTON, JACK K & SHAARAY PROPERTIES LLC 552 N PUGSLEY ST 480 N 300 W PO BOX 711 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 DALLAD TX 75221 J8362040080000 08362040190000 08362040320000 HILL, MIMI E JUNIPER HOLDINGS LLC REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF 348 N PUGSLEY ST 663 W 100 S 451 S STATE ST#418 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 )F 10090000 08362040200000 08362040330000 \L1,,, NIATTHEW L JUNIPER HOLDINGS LLC MCCORMICK, RONALD G 542 N PUGSLEY ST 663 W 100 S 534 N PUGSLEY ST -SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 )8362040100000 08362040210000 08362040340000 IORDAN, KRISTIN A& JUNIPER HOLDINGS LLC JOHNSON, ERIC & i40 N PUGSLEY ST 663 W 100 S 526 N PUGSLEY ST -SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 18362040120000 08362040220000 08362040350000 1CCORMICK, RONALD G JUNIPER HOLDINGS, LLC COCA, JOSE C & 34 N PUGSLEY ST 663 W 100 S 584 N PUGSLEY ST ;ALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 8362040140000 • 08362040270000 08362040360000 N ,'YYR, MATTHEW L & REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT BUS.'', C0S,' 20 N PUGSLEY ST 451 S STATE ST#418 574 N PUGSLEY ST ALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 is il�t of ownership was compiled by the Salt Lake County Recorder's office, with a copy being sent to the city it pertains to. Any ration or deletion will be tracked and appropriate action taken . Feb2006Page 1 of 8 1-1 ,,o. 1 wj b oA213At>/ Q A83AV-O9-008-. _e ®o91.s;taege6r at zas►!f1 0 a 0915 a wontuanewvv nn NMI= apldea a6etpps?1a 96eaanogl;ue uolssaadwt use Avery I EMPLATE 5160" 1-800-GO-AVERY ��G��T`,2' 1°ev 08362050010000 08362050200000 08362050350000 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF 451 S STATE ST#418 451 S STATE ST#418 451 S STATE ST#418 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 08362050050000 08362050210000 08362060100000 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SLC REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT SELIN, HENRY D & 451 S STATE ST#418 451 S STATE ST#418 2329 S LAKE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 08362050060000 08362050220000 08362060110000 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SELIN, PHYLLIS R & HENRY D; 451 S STATE ST#418 451 S STATE ST#418 2329 S LAKE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 08362050070000 08362050260000 08362060120000 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SLC REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT MILLER, LORRAINE 451 S STATE ST#418 451 S STATE ST#418 520 N ARCTIC CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 08362050080000 08362050270000 08362060130000 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SLC REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SLC WERNER, NANCY 451 S STATE ST#418 451 S STATE ST#418 236 W 500 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 )8: 50100000 08362050280000 08362060140000 EL. ✓ELOPMENT AGENCY OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SLC MURPHY, PAUL C & 151 S STATE ST#418 451 S STATE ST#418 1498 MAPLE HILLS DR 'ALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 )8362050120000 08362050310000 08362060160000 IUNIPER HOLDINGS LLC REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF MILLER, LORRAINE 333 W 100 S 451 S STATE ST#418 520 N ARCTIC CT ;ALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 18362050130000 08362050330000 08362060170000 ;ARRILLO, BEN &ANGIE; REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF MURPHY, PAUL C & 53 W 600 N 451 S STATE ST#418 1498 MAPLE HILLS DR ;ALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 8362050190000 08362050340000 08362060180000 :`:DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF COMMUNITY HOUSING SERVICES - 51 S STATE ST#418 451 S STATE ST#418 1059E 900 S# 100 ALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 is lis,or ownership was compiled by the Salt Lake County Recorder's office, with a copy being sent to the city it pertains to. Any ?ration or deletion will be tracked and appropriate action taken . Feb2006Page 2 of 8 CAA I]AV OD 008 c J.. ®09LS iuege6at zes!IRR oA2J�/��/ ®09L5 a wol�ClanennnnnnMEM apldea a6etpas a;a a6eaanogn.ue uolssaadwI Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY U F�vC�CT 516U`6' ALL. uwlcs -upctc..E 08362070010000 / 08362070210000 08362090280000 COMOLLO, ADRIANO F & POWELSON,ARTHUR T MARMALADE SQUARE CONDOMINIUM 217 W 600 N 515 N 200 W PO BOX 510006 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84151 08362070020000 08362070230000 08362090290000 JOHNSON, TREVOR ALLMAN, QUINN S MARMALADE S NDOMINIUM 213 W 600 N 501 N 200 W ,, PO BC) 6 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 S AKE CITY UT 84151 08362070030000 08362070240000 08362090300000 DHINDSA, HARINDAR K SUMNER, GREG & MARMALADE SQUAB -CONDOMINIUM 211 W 600 N 507 N 200 W PO BOX 51 gg� SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SA E CITY UT 84151 38362070070000 08362070250000 08362090310000 :,HUNG, BENJAMIN B & STEEP AND DEEP CONSULTING MARMALADE SQU NDOMINIUM 560 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST#401 2782 S LAKEVIEW DR PO BOX SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 SAL AKE CITY UT 84151 )8362070080000 08362070260000 08362090320000 JAN TUSSENBROOK, KARA BYBEE, LYNN D & MARMALADE SQUARE C DOMINIUM 375N200W 523N200W PO BOX 51 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SA E CITY UT 84151 )E 0120000 . 08362070270000 08362090330000 3I1_��, RUSSELL S & ZAMORA, ROBERT & MARMALADE SQUARE CONDOMINIUM )18E100S 214W500N POBOX5100 >ALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT CITY UT 84151 8362070130000 08362070280000 08362090340000 IEYWOOD, ROXIE J LATTER, JOHN R MARMALADE SQUARE CO IUM 41 N 200 W 571 N 200 W PO BOX 51000 ;ALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT CITY UT 84151 8362070190000 08362070300000 • 08362090350000 RUNER, JAMES A & MICHELSEN, ALAN R MARMALADE SQU CONDOMINIUM 27N200W 565N200W PO BOX 51 ALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT CITY UT 84151 3362070200000 08362070310000 08362090360000 YBEE, LYNN D & MICHELSEN, ALAN R MARMALADE SQUA NDOMINIUM 23 N 200 W 565 N 200 W PO BOX 510 ALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT CITY UT 84151 s list us ownership was compiled by the Salt Lake County Recorder's office, with a copy being sent to the city it pertains to. Any ration or deletion will be tracked and appropriate action taken . Feb2006Page 3 of 8 HetAA 3 ,1 9 oA213Alf Aa3AV-O9-oos-� ®091S ilaecte6 a1 ZetSM2R ®091S a tuOnrtiaAe'MAAM apldei a6etp s a 2a a6e.unogl2ue uolssaidwl Vi use Aver TEMPLATE 5160 1-800-GO-AVERY V MAMMYv-v S7bo`ti' y " ��08362090830000 08362510030000 08362540040000 MARMALADE S ONDOMINIUM HEDEGAARD, VERN & BRISCOE, NORMA S & PO BO 6 464 N PUGSLEY ST 2681 E CASTO LN SA LAKE CITY UT 84151 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 HOLLADAY UT 84117 08362090840000 08362510060000 08362540050000 MARMALL DARE CONDOMINIUM STEWART, JAMES A BRISCOE, NORMA S & PO-B8X510006 1006 S OAK HILLS WY 2681 E CASTO LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84151 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 HOLLADAY UT 84117 08362090970000 08362510070000 08362540070000 MARMALADE SQ ONDOMINIUM SWANER PROPERTIES LLC; ET AL FURGIS, GEORGE C & ELLEN V PO BOX e 6 3459 S FLEETWOOD DR 31 N 'M' ST# 304 SAL LAKE CITY UT 84151 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 )8362090980000 08362510080000 08362540140000 MARMALADE SQUAB DOMINIUM HEATH, JOHN E MEAHAN, DONNA P DO BOX 5100 457 N 300 W 12358 S RELATION ST 3ALT CITY UT 84151 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 DRAPER UT 84020 )8362090990000 08362510090000 08362540150000 JIARMALADE SQUARE C DOMINIUM MILLS, CATHERINE K& KURZ, DAVID M '0 BOX 510006 2014 S 865 W 257 W 500 N >ALT L TY UT 84151 WOODS CROSS UT 84087 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 83 1000000 08362510100000 08362540160000 1AR,.,,ALADE SQUARE ' DOMINIUM ZUZO, DZEMAL; ET AL CORP OF PRES BISHOP OF CH OF 'G BOX 5100 443 N 300 W 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST .ALT CITY UT 84151 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 8362091010000 08362540010000 08362540280000 IARMALADE S ONDOMINIUM PARTINGTON, MILDRED V. MARTY, JOSEPH E O BO 06 480 N 300 W PO BOX 11822 LAKE CITY UT 84151 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84147 3362510010000 z 08362540020000 08362540290000 OGRE, JAYDA & PARTINGTON, JACK K & BOWES, JASEN A 29 W 500 N 480 N 300 W 1030 NW 12TH AVE#414 qLT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 PORTLAND OR 97209 3362510020000 08362540030000 08362540300000 REEMAN, ANGELA J & BRISCOE, ROSCOE PRATT, ANDREW L i8 N PUGSLEY ST 244 W 400 N 469 N 200 W \LT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 list ownership was compiled by the Salt Lake County Recorder's office, with a copy being sent to the city it pertains to. Any ration or deletion will be tracked and appropriate action taken . Feb2006Page 5 of 8 ®09Ls ®J1213Atf A83AV OD ooa ®09LS 3laege6 at zasq►;� wontuane'nnnnM MINIM eptdea a6etpos a;a a6eaanogilue uoissaadwi Use Avery"'TEMPLATE 5160° 1-800-GO-AVERY U ���•` v Vim_ 08362540310000 08361270110000 08361290080000 REMAL, LISA J NIELSEN, J LESLIE & JONES, WHITNEY& KAREN; JT 465N200W 358W600N 540N400W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 08362540320000 08361270120000 08361290090000 GARZARELLI, GEORGE SCHOLLE, BRIAN C MUNGUIA, ADRIAN & 461 N 200 W PO BOX 8113 534 N 400 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 MIDVALE UT 84047 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 08362540330000 08361290010000 08361290100000 BAUM, DAVID L. & MARY M. MARTINEZ, JOHN M; TR ET AL HALSTEAD, EMMA& 453 N 200 W 3859 W SUGAR BEET DR 524 N 400 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 WEST VALLEY UT 84120 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 08362540340000 08361290020000 08361290110000 NOD ASSOCIATES LLC & POWELL, HELEN M CARD, JAMES R & PO BOX 510507 5373 S RIDGECREST DR 1035 ARLINGTON WAY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84151 TAYLORSVILLE UT 84118 BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 08362540350000 08361290030000 08361290120000 SORENSEN, BETTY JO MARTINEZ, JOHN M; TR ET AL DAVIS, STEPHEN L& 449 N 200 W 3859 W SUGAR BEET DR 376 W 500 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 WEST VALLEY UT 84120 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 )I 10570000 08361290040000 08361290130000 VIL,.. UWN, TERRY AGRICOLA, CHRISTINA DAVIS, DUANE R & 452 N 300 W 562 N 400 W 364 W 500 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 )8362540580000 08361290050000 08361290140000 =URGIS, GEORGE C & ELLEN V VALDEZ, CELIA TAN, RAY NINO 31 N 'M' ST# 304 558 N 400 W 358 W 500 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 )8361270090000 08361290060000 08361290150000 REX INDUSTRIES INC HEINTZ, NICHOLAS G TAN, RAY NINO 530 N 400 W 554 N 400 W 356 W 500 N >ALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 )8361270100000 08361290070000 08361290160000 )EVENPORT, JEFFREY W& OVERSON, DAR` JOAB, ROSE E 58 W 600 N 1366 E MURRAY HOLLADAY RD 371 W 600 N >ALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 HOLLADAY UT 84117 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 is list of ownership was compiled by the Salt Lake County Recorder's office, with a copy being sent to the city it pertains to. Any eration or deletion will be tracked and appropriate action taken . Feb2006Page 6 of 8 A83AV-0D-008-I. ®09lS;taege6 al zaslll;n ®09LS ®ALI3Ad 0 wori(aane•Mmm apldea a6eypas a la a6eaanogl;ue uolssaadwl Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5160® mi. 0 AVERYQ9 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY 08361290170000 08361290340000 08361770260000 EVANS, ROMA MIJANGOS, KENT D MATTS, RUTH A 365 W 600 N 545 N PUGSLEY ST 467 N PUGSLEY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 08361290180000 08361290350000 08362010040000 LAMBROSE, JOYCE BINGHAM, SHERRIE & CARMAN, RICHARD E; ET AL 359 W 600 N 4055 W 3830 S 637 N 300 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 WEST VALLEY UT 84120 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 08361290210000 08361290360000 08362010050000 OLVERA, VALENTIN OBRADOVIC, ILIJA & CARMAN, RICHARD E & 575 N PUGSLEY ST 539 N PUGSLEY ST 614 S EMERY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 08361290220000 08361290370000 08362010060000 COWDRICK, TIMOTHY L PELL, ANTHONY A & LISKA, MICHAEL 571 N PUGSLEY ST 535 N PUGSLEY ST 6861 S VIRGINIA HILLS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 )8361290230000 08361290380000 08362010070000 VIAESTAS, MICHAEL MAJSTOROVIC, BRANISLAV& CHAINE, M R BEAU 'O BOX 734 529 N PUGSLEY ST 620 N PUGSLEY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 )8� )0240000 08361770220000 08362010080000 _AML,,<OSE, JOYCE DILLMAN, DAVID; TR GUSTASON, CARL W & 283 E 970 N 753 E NORTHCREST DR 334 W 600 N -OOELE UT 84074 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 • SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 8361290250000 08361770230000 08362010090000 VADDELL, JEFFERY B & BUSH, DANIEL W & KEMMETHMUELLER, NEPHI & 63 N PUGSLEY ST 7740 S KESWICK RD 328 W 600 N ,ALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84093 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 8361290300000 08361770240000 08362010100000 UVAK, MIRKO & THOMAS, LYONA A KEMMETHMUELLER, NEPHI & 21 N PUGSLEY ST 347 W 500 N 328 W 600 N ALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 3361290310000 08361770250000 08362010110000 RMASO, EMMANUEL SALT LAKE CITY CORP RACKHAM, GARY R 11 N PUGSLEY ST 451 S STATE ST#225 318 W 600 N ALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 list or ownership was compiled by the Salt Lake County Recorder's office, with a copy being sent to the city it pertains to. Any ration or deletion will be tracked and appropriate action taken . Feb2006Page 7 of 8 KGCA (rq � ®0965 ®A21�/\H A83AV o0 oo8IIMIIMIIIMMI ®OgiS ilaege6 al zas!Ilifl wog iGanew►nr►nn Min apldea a6eipas e is a6eaanoanue uoissaiduu Use Avery TEMPLATE 51600 ' 1-800-GO-AVERY Mr MIX T rovesN...., 08362010160000 08362020030000 08362020240000 CARMAN, RICHARD E & M S C INC BROOKS, JASON L & 614 S EMERY ST PO BOX 65644 214 W 600 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84165 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 08362010170000 08362020040000 08362020250000 NOD ASSOCIATES LC SUDHAN TRADING INC JOHNSON, DAVID M PO BOX 510507 4123 W CHESTNUT VIEW DR 208 W 600 l9, SALT LAKE CITY UT 84151 SOUTH JORDAN UT 84095 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 08362010180000 08362020140000 08362020260000 PETERSEN, MICHAEL P & MONGER, VANESSA C LINDSAY, RHONDA W 629 N 300 W 613 N 200 W 204 W 600 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 08362010190000 08362020150000 " 08362020280000 ERB, JEFFREY SUDHAN TRADING INC DESERT REGIONAL INC 313 N 300 W 4123 W CHESTNUT VIEW DR 238 W 600 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SOUTH JORDAN UT 84095 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 )8362010200000 08362020160000 08362020290000 ,LEX CONLAN LLC SUDHAN TRADING INC H BOYD AND ASSOCIATES, LLC 305 N 300 W 4123 W CHESTNUT VIEW DR 667 N CORTEZ ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SOUTH JORDAN UT 84095 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 )8 0220000 08362020170000 08362040040000 :ArvviAN, RICHARD E & EGE, JUDITH G PICKETT, TIM M & ;14 S EMERY ST 264 W 600 N 225 W 700 N ;ALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 8362010240000 08362020180000 08362040050000 4ULLANEY, MATTHEW E EVANS, PEARL H WILSON, CHERYL J 40 N PUGSLEY ST 2635 STRINGHAM AVE#217C 562 N PUGSLEY ST ;ALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 8362010250000 08362020190000 1)d0.4 TAo s :ARMAN, KATHERINE G; ET AL MASTER PLATINUME INVESTMENTS 37 N 300 W 524 E FOURTH AVE 44 7 nr. Z`r" ter, ALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 /� SRCT LAKE a r(, t-tswe4 3362020020000 08362020200000 I S C INC RUESCH, BRENT W ST�� F�SCKFIQ 375 S VALLEY VIEW 250 W 600 N 14 y 3 kr_ 2,sv w. qS VEGAS NV 89118 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 S Ac_r LAK{ Ccr7, Cctv.L act`°3 s lisi LA-ownership was compiled by the Salt Lake County Recorder's office, with a copy being sent to the city it pertains to. Any !ration or deletion will be tracked and appropriate action taken . Feb2006Page 8 of 8 (.OLs14 71 Aa3AV-09-008-1 ,�� 0091S p.aege6 al zeslll;n OA2l3Ab0®09LS a wonruene-MnnM ap►dea a6eypas a;a a6eaanogl;ue uolssaadwl Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide www.averycom Utilisez le gabarit 5960""` 1-800-GO-AVERY Q AVERY® 5960m( E. q µww«.en ION s v� �� 08362020290000 08362010170000 H BOYD AND ASSOCIATES, LLC ENGEL, TIMOTHY L & I1 114 U. $-7 30 4r, 667 N CORTEZ ST 631 N 300 W N<GH(Avo, (i.rwf( SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 i?s`1 C(0 3 08362040340000 T`w Pt c Kc tr NIELSON, MARY ANN; TR 22 s L.,. - a . 526 N PUGSLEY ST Sn-r LAKE cry c ir4 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 21(03 C�es71 08362510040000 WHITEMAN, STEVE & Sf,Z tit• �S(t7 SY_ 450 N PUGSLEY ST L_C_r tic, SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 8Y(d3 �AJk Tint; t✓ 08362510050000 SCORESBY, TRAVIS J & 26 4 S E. 06 C S- 446 N PUGSLEY ST tlotco-r c• Clfg`i, SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 S(6 V F�:t e U u ti 08361770210000 ANTIQUE HOUSE LLP 56u i'.J3tIcy Sf. 358 S 700 E#430 (.-«(‹c 41 tHµr` SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 8Uco) eJ vow S, 08361770220000 ROSS, K RICHARD, ET AL CucL 9085 S TREASURE WY Z 2 3 W ems+ lad ktos+c, COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84093 S�.c+ Lc C.t LtFur. 9.I(03 rIJu Cq p,rcc(/114r(,s Alirelsf,o 08361770400000 SCHNELLER, MARK G; ET AL 3 ylc,yt /VC) SdwK. 451 N PUGSLEY ST Sic f L1,Ec C,Ty afwt^ SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BV oci Skr{ Lc�kc Cr PIaKNa� 08361770410000 BOLINDER, DAVID Pr'kt ?Ay 0'4`Cu kss PO BOX 391 s _ 'R.36, , 406 MIDVALE UT 84047 �. L. C. L(4a4 aYif( c-c1 P(a�,,,;,,) 08361770420000 BOUNDER, DAVID V �TT^r. troo (Atte.a 1..a.1 r;)wt 2045E 6060 S 4Sl S . S-Iz.�c Too., 406 HOLLADAY UT 84121 CAI �(� N;,, 08361770300000 47. SK�.ti C�,..�tr j FOCANTI, LUIGI & 447 N PUGSLEY ST SI S. St-c,1-t. cu G SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 Lri-«4 by/r( w10965 ralA?I=AH 1\III /.113AV-09-008-I. � wi0965 31V1dW31 asn 5A. PLANNING COMMISSION Public Hearing Notice and Postmark for the April 26, 2006 meeting NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. 1 AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday,April 26,2006, at 5:45 p.m. )inner 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,April 12,2006. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR a. University of Utah Student Presentation—Downtown Land Use Analysis 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Petition 490-05-64—The Northeast Avenues Subdivision,a request by Pinnacle Building Group for a minor subdivision to create a new five-lot residential subdivision located at approximately 465 North"K"Street in an SR-1 (Special Development Residential)Zoning District in Council District Three.(Staff—Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354 or jackie.gasparik{oislcgov.corn) $ 3 rip r i 4 " t f :yl ii t.. 7� �p -: j,d `. �. . ` r " t u ,., '1 ' 6 'fi 1 1 t r , .. �e g 1 ( 1 LLi; � � #-,.46.4.:1-...,:47,,,t,t UiJ*4 ilit.:;K.,:;,,gsJi44 .. �t g- " ` .r, - F` F14"—C.,gN' :.i .,, 41 i J 1D0 fr`Jig r2 , fKD4 , i. gbk u Ai=�to€ :- kz .x �� %7#{..:i? -::ta r Ef�:r-py, b. A request by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency/Howa Capital for approval to develop a residential mixed-use project with approximately 88 dwelling units and approximately 67,295 square feet of retail office.The property is approximately located on the east and west sides of 300 West Street between 500 and 600 North Streets. a. Petition No.400-05-40—A request by Howa Capital to amend the Capitol Hill Community Zoning Map to rezone the property currently zoned SR-1,CS,RMF-45,RMF-35 and MU to Residential Mixed Use(R-MU).The project also requires amending the future land use map of the Capitol Hill Community Mater Plan to identify the properties as high-density,mixed-use rather than general commercial.(Staff—Sarah Carroll at 535-6260 or sarah.carroll(aislcgov.com.) b. Petition 410-06-09—Conditional Use,Planned Development c. Petition 480-06-04—Preliminary Condominium Approval d. Petition 490-06-19—Preliminary Subdivision Approval (Staff—Ray McCandless at 535-6282 or ray.mccandless(a)slcgov.com.) ifli,3 y i. Ir+:. � atm Fr .3.i r w RI4AF-35 p. 41 L i °-' 13:416351'. F ;r • '•:1 t i' ? t y �. MU 1 ''--',nr a N r 1 7 • r CS /RMF 4'S A rt i jst e_ SR1 ° c i . !' i . M 35 . t {. R x ? f t i 1{k f :r 33SR-1, 1 1 f'ZI i r • f Cif .1:_.. t -. I ys $i 'i • #..� ;.,.' >"7 ., `RMF 35:' z '.elf,I ''...:� .,:J 6. OTHER BUSINESS a. Downtown Master Plan Update The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be May 10,2006. This Information can be accessed at www.slcgov.comfCED/planning. Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this meeting.Accommodations may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests,or additional information,please contact the Planning Office at(801)535-7757 or TOD(801)535-6021. SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building 451 South State Street,Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday,April 26,2006 Present for the Planning Commission were Peggy McDonough(Vice Chairperson), Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, Robert Forbis Jr., Kathy Scott, Jennifer Seelig, and Matthew Wirthlin. Commissioner Diamond arrived at 6:09 p.m. Present from the Planning Division were Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor; Sarah Carroll, Principal Planner; Jackie Gasparik, Principal Planner; Clark Labrum, Associate Planner; Ray McCandless, Principal Planner; and Cindy Rockwood, Planning Commission Secretary. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Vice Chairperson McDonough 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, Robert Forbis Jr., Peggy McDonough, Kathy Scott, Jennifer Seelig, and Matthew Wirthlin. Planning Division Staff present were Doug Wheelwright, Cheri Coffey, Sarah Carroll, Jackie Gasparik, Ray McCandless, and Clark Labrum. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA • Vice Chairperson McDonough noted that there were no items to be discussed. PUBLIC HEARINGS A request by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency/Howa Capital for approval to develop a residential mixed-use protect with approximately 88 dwellings and approximately 67,295 square feet of retail office.The property is approximately located on the east and west sides of 300 West Street between 500 and 600 North Streets. a. Petition No.400-05-40—A request by Howa Capital to amend the Capitol Hill Community Zoning Map to rezone the property currently zoned SR-1,CS, RMF-45, RMF-35 and MU to Residential Mixed Use(R-MU).The project also requires amending the future land use map of the Capitol Hill Community Mater Plan to identify the properties as high-density,mixed-use rather than general commercial. b. Petition 410-06-09—Conditional Use,Planned Development c. Petition 480-06-04—Preliminary Condominium Approval d. Petition 490-06-19—Preliminary Subdivision Approval (This item was heard at 7:03 p.m.) Commissioner De Lay disclosed that she had met with the applicants regarding the comparable sales in the neighborhoods, and stated that she felt capable to discuss the request without bias. The Commissioners agreed that Commissioner De Lay could hear the case fairly. Mr. Ikefuna also noted that Commissioner Muir would not be representing the Commission due to his relationship with the development. Vice Chairperson McDonough recognized Sarah Carroll; Principal Planner and Ray McCandless; Principal Planner as Staff representatives. Vice Chairperson McDonough also noted that the petitions would be heard and voted upon as an all-inclusive matter. 1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City &County Building 451 South State Street,Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday,April 26, 2006 Present for the Planning Commission were Peggy McDonough (Vice Chairperson), Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, Robert Forbis Jr., Kathy Scott, Jennifer Seelig, and Matthew Wirthlin. Commissioner Diamond arrived at 6:09 p.m. Present from the Planning Division were Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor; Sarah Carroll, Principal Planner; Jackie Gasparik, Principal Planner; Clark Labrum, Associate Planner; Ray McCandless, Principal Planner; and Cindy Rockwood, Planning Commission Secretary. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Vice Chairperson McDonough 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, Robert Forbis Jr., Peggy McDonough, Kathy Scott, Jennifer Seelig, and Matthew Wirthlin. Planning Division Staff present were Doug Wheelwright, Cheri Coffey, Sarah Carroll, Jackie Gasparik, Ray McCandless, and Clark Labrum. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Vice Chairperson McDonough noted that there were no items to be discussed. PUBLIC HEARINGS A request by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency/Howa Capital for approval to develop a residential mixed-use project with approximately 88 dwellings and approximately 67,295 square feet of retail office.The property is approximately located on the east and west sides of 300 West Street between 500 and 600 North Streets. a. Petition No.400-05-40—A request by Howa Capital to amend the Capitol Hill Community Zoning Map to rezone the property currently zoned SR-1, CS, RMF-45, RMF-35 and MU to Residential Mixed Use(R-MU).The project also requires amending the future land use map of the Capitol Hill Community Mater Plan to identify the properties as high-density, mixed-use rather than general commercial. b. Petition 410-06-09—Conditional Use, Planned Development c. Petition 480-06-04—Preliminary Condominium Approval d. Petition 490-06-19-Preliminary Subdivision Approval (This item was heard at 7:03 p.m.) Commissioner De Lay disclosed that she had met with the applicants regarding the comparable sales in the neighborhoods, and stated that she felt capable to discuss the request without bias. The Commissioners agreed that Commissioner De Lay could hear the case fairly. Mr. Ikefuna also noted that Commissioner Muir would not be representing the Commission due to his relationship with the development. Vice Chairperson McDonough recognized Sarah Carroll; Principal Planner and Ray McCandless; Principal Planner as Staff representatives. Vice Chairperson McDonough also noted that the petitions would be heard and voted upon as an all-inclusive matter. 1 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 26, 2006 C. Reduction in the required 1st floor glass requirement from 40%to approximately 28%on the 600 North building elevation. iii) Proposed Lot 3 -Grocery Store I Retail Space A. No modifications are required. iv) Proposed Lot 4—Building D A. Reducing the required setback for a parking structure in a corner side yard from 45 feet to approximately 20 feet. B. Reducing the 20% open space requirement to approximately 17%. v) Proposed Lot 5—Townhouses(7 units) A. Reducing the required rear yard setback from 30 feet to approximately 22 feet. B. Reducing the required 10 foot yard buffer on the east property line to 0 feet. C. Reducing the required 40% 1st floor glass requirement to approximately 23%. vi) Proposed Lot 6—Townhouses (4 units) A. Increasing the maximum front yard setback from 15 feet to approximately 19 feet. B. Reducing the required rear yard setback from 30 feet to approximately 12 feet. C. Reducing the required 10 foot yard buffer on the east property line to 0 feet. D. Reducing the required 40% 1st floor glass requirement to approximately 5%. E. Waiver of the lot frontage on a public street requirement(Section 21A.36.010C. Frontage of Lot On Public Street). b. Conditional use approval of the proposed off-site parking and office space. c. Deferral of the architectural review of buildings on the east side of 300 West Street to Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission. d. All outdoor lighting should be directed downward and designed to not adversely affect any adjoining property. e. Limiting the delivery hours of all commercial businesses from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., limiting the grocery store hours from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and allowing the restaurants and coffee shop will be open until midnight or as approved by the Planning Director. f. The proposed development must meet all applicable City, County, State and Federal requirements. g. Providing significant landscaping including trees along in the 15' 0"wide area on east side of Building A where it abuts the SR-1 zoned property as approved by the Planning Director. h. Park strip landscaping as required by the Zoning Ordinance should be installed instead of 100% pavers as shown on the site plan. i. Any encroachments into the public way will need to be approved by the Salt Lake City Property Management Division. j. Conditional use approval of the second floor office space on the north building on Lot 1 k. Providing a screening fence along the property zoned SR-1 as approved by the Planning Director. I. Approval of the tree selection and planting plans in the public way by the City Urban Forester. m. Planning Director approval of the final landscaping plans and number of parking spaces. n. Approval of the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment(Petition 400-05-40). 3 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 26, 2006 2) Preliminary Condominium approval of Building D on Lot two and the townhouses on lots five and six subject to: a. Recordation of the necessary condominium plats and supporting documentation. b. Meeting all applicable City Departmental and State Code requirements specific to condominium approval. 3) Preliminary Subdivision approval of the proposed six-lot minor subdivision as modified by the Planning Commission subject to: a. Recordation of a final subdivision plat including necessary cross-access easements and utility easement dedications. b. Meeting all City Departmental requirements including resolving any sewer, water and storm drainage issues with the Public Utilities Department. c. Implementation of an Owners Association that addresses the maintenance of driveways, sidewalks, entry features, utilities etc. Commissioner Scott requested further background information relating to condition 1) a) i) B)which states, reduction of the required 10 foot landscaped buffer from 10 feet to approximately 4 feet along the west property line. Mr. McCandless noted that the four feet request is only along a portion of the west property line, and overall the 10 foot buffer is being met. Commissioner Scott also requested further information regarding the underground parking. Mr. McCandless stated that there will be two access points with two areas of underground parking for resident access. Commissioner Scott also requested the reasoning behind condition 1)a) ii) C)which states, a reduction in the required first floor glass requirement from 40 percent to approximately 28 percent on the 600 North building elevation. Mr. McCandless noted that the requirement is requested to be waived because of the design of the building; as it is affected by the slope of the property. Discussion commenced between the Commissioners regarding some of the design concepts of the proposed development, but it was determined that much of the design could change. It was noted that the design changed several times during subcommittee meeting as a result of the requests of the Commissioners and the community. Commissioner Scott requested clarification regarding the access to the townhomes. She stated that it seems Arctic Court will be an option, but asked whether or not it would be an option for the retail space. She also noted concern regarding the amount of public usage on Arctic Court, considering it is a private street. Mr. McCandless clarified that an exit/entry way on 300 West is the location the public is anticipated to use for retail access. He stated that a ramp will be accessible between the residential and commercial areas, but will not be the main access area. Ms. Carroll stated also that the access from Arctic Court is particularly for fire access. Mr.Wheelwright stated that there will be a certain level of upgrade for the west side of Arctic Court, and it is not considered the main access to the townhomes. Discussion commenced regarding the parking options on 300 West. It was determined that 300 West is a State road, but Kevin Young, Transportation Division, stated that meters may be placed along the road for parking purposes. Mr.Wheelwright requested further information from Staff regarding the hours of retail and grocery shops. Commissioners and Staff discussed the limitations of the hours and concluded to eliminate the condition listed 1) e., and allow existing regulation determine the hours of the businesses. 4 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 26, 2006 Dru Damico, Director of Development for Howe Capital, provided a brief summary of the project, pictures of the subject property, and a previous rendering of the proposed development. He noted that the rendering is considerably different than the proposal presented to the Commission at this time. Mr. Damico stated that maintaining the historical context, providing a shop/live location, creating an anchor, and the creation of a civic identity were key points in the design of the market-driven development. He noted that members of the community were active participants in the development process. .) Mr. Damico stated that the request for continuous hardscape along 300 West is to increase the ease of pedestrian access and outside dining usage. Aaron Hansen, architect for the project, requested that the building heights for Building A& D be modified to 60 feet, or five stories high, which is different than the height shown in the submitted site plans. Mr. Damico requested that the road between the townhomes, become a City street with Public Utilities running through it. He anticipates that the road will become a City street, but the details have not been finalized at this time. Prescott Muir, architect for the project, stated that the plan does state that the road is presently a private road, but research will be conducted with the City to identify cost benefit to the City of transferring it to the City at a later date. Ms. Coffey clarified that if the intent of the applicant is to deed the privately developed street to the City, at a later date, specific requirements would have to be met. Mr. Muir stated, in response to a question from Commissioner Chambless, that security and lighting is a concern for the development because of the concerns of the community. He stated that the lighting will be shielded, but well lit. Mr. Damico added that the underground parking would be secure and well lit. Commissioner Seelig expressed appreciation to the petitioner for their recognition of the surrounding area, by creating an appropriate and appealing design. Discussion commenced between the Commissioners regarding the exterior design and the surrounding area. Mr. Muir noted that the subject property exists at a lower slope when compared to the surrounding area, and as a result, facilitates the development to reach the desired capacity for residential and retail development. Vice Chairperson McDonough commented regarding Building A and the setback when compared to the neighborhood. She requested the applicant consider staggering the eastern side of the building to create a graceful transition from the neighborhood to the commercial development. She stated that the north end of the proposed project does not seem to transition well into the neighborhood. Vice Chairperson McDonough stated that her concern was in regards to the urban pattern of the neighborhood, and a sympathetic transition to the project. Mr. Damico stated that the request would be considered, but would require a complete redesign of the building. He stated that the neighboring single-family dwelling is a two-story home, and it is almost equal in height to the apartment complex. He stated that because of the slope of the area, an increase of 15'is in height elevation is provided. Commissioner Diamond requested further elevation drawings regarding the west side of Buildings H, J, and K. Mr. McCandless provided copies of the elevations to the Commissioners. Commissioner Diamond stated that he disagreed with Commissioner Seelig regarding the west transition to Pugsley Street, and requested additional setback for some of the buildings. Discussion commenced regarding the maximum height for proposed Lot 1, Buildings H, J, and K. Mr. Muir commented that the height requested is two-stories; approximately 30 feet. Commissioner De Lay noted that the setback of the buildings is 30 feet from the rear yard of the homes on Pugsley Street, with an additional buffer from the rear yard of the homes. Mr. Damico stated that the residents of Pugsley Street have contacted him asking if the development will further increase their property values. 5 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 26, 2006 Commissioner Scott requested clarification for the west side of the buildings with the 30 foot setback requirement for Lot 1, Buildings H, J, and K will consist of 6 feet of landscape and 24 feet of pavement. Commissioner Scott referenced the Staff Report and the waivers requested. Ms. Carroll and Mr. McCandless clarified the information that referenced the 30 foot setback as one that is from the front property line for surface parking lots located in the interior side yard. It was stated that the rear setback is 30 feet, or 25 percent of the lot depth, and that the project complies with the requirement. (Staff provided the following information for clarification regarding the setback concerns: For parking lots between Buildings H, J, and K in proposed Lot 1: A reduction in the required landscape setback for surface parking lots located in the interior side yards from 30 feet to 6 feet from the front property line.) Commissioner Chambless requested greenery on the rooftops of the taller buildings to help create a cooler, aesthetically pleasing view. Mr. Damico stated that the development will be addressing the rooftop, as all of the buildings will be U.S. Green Building certified. He stated that the rooftops will be"white roofs". At 8:07 p.m., Vice Chairperson McDonough opened the hearing to Community Council members. Nephi Kemmethmueller, 328 West 600 North, a Trustee member of the Capitol Hill Community Council stated support for the proposed development. He stated that 98 percent of the neighborhood has been supportive. He also noted that the single-family dwelling neighboring the apartment complex is a two- story home, with a roof pitch of about 8:12 and a height of 30-33'feet to the ridge. Peter Von Sivers, Capitol Hill Community Council Chair, stated that the Community Council is supportive of the proposed development for two reasons: 1. Recognition and adaptation to the fragility of the neighborhood by the developers; and 2. Provision of an anchor to the growing community. He provided a brief background of the area and the proposed developments. Mr. Von Sivers also noted that the diversity of the neighborhood has been increasing, and appreciated the new residential opportunities. He also stated that the request of the neighborhood is to have a grocery store of a medium- small scale responding to the needs of young, diverse professionals. Vice Chairperson McDonough requested comments from the public. Erlinda Davis, 270 Quince Street, was a former resident of the immediate neighborhood and stated her support for the proposed development. She stated that revitalization of the neighborhood has been a long-term goal. She stated that trees might be a good buffer between the Pugsley Street homes and the rear of the buildings. Polly Hart, Vice Chair Capitol Hill Community Council, expressed appreciation to Howa Development for investing in the neighborhood, and to Mr. Damico for the effort he has taken to develop the project along with the community. She stated that the community is eager for the project to proceed. Mack McDonald, Project Manager for the Redevelopment Agency (RDA), presented a brief background of the project area. He stated that numerous developers had approached the agency with proposed developments, but the proposals have not been conducive to the neighborhood and the goals of the RDA. He complimented Howa for their recognition of the proposed commercial and residential development and for meeting the goals of the RDA. Commissioner Diamond requested additional information regarding any development agreements. Mr. McDonald stated that Howa would be the main developer, but fine lines have not been drawn regarding the possibility of other developers. He noted that it would be his request to have Howa be the exclusive developer. 6 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 26, 2006 Mr. Damico concluded his presentation and made three final comments. 1. The height variation between the homes on Pugsley Street and Buildings H, J, and K is approximately 10 feet. 2. The setback concern from Vice Chairperson McDonough will be considered; if economically feasible. 3. The elevations of the buildings proposed for the property on the west side of 300 West were presented to the Commissioners. At 8:33 p.m., Vice Chairperson McDonough closed the Public Hearing and the Planning Commission entered Executive Session. Commissioner De Lay stated her appreciation for the immense community effort exerted in relation to the subject property. She noted that the RDA has been striving to build something to benefit the community, and the project proposed seems to work for the community. Commissioner Diamond requested further information from Staff regarding the planned development, and the fact that the project is located on both sides of a State highway. Mr. Wheelwright stated that there were not any special considerations required because of this fact. Commissioner Scott desired to clarify some of the conditions, namely the condition regarding the 100 percent landscape for the park strip requirement and the condition relating to the hours of the stores. Discussion commenced between the Commissioners and Staff regarding the hour requirements. It was determined that the hours should be regulated by existing ordinances; therefore, striking condition 1)e. entirely. At 8:39 p.m., Vice Chairperson McDonough recognized Council member Nancy Saxton in attendance. Vice Chairperson McDonough stated that condition 1) h. relating to the 100 percent park strip landscaping be withdrawn. She stated that the project is an urban project, with retail facing the edge of the street. She stated that if a parking strip edge was required, less dining space will be provided. Mr. Damico was asked to clarify the desire of the developer relating to the landscape proposal. He stated that the desire is to have a South Temple, 300 West sense of a neighborhood. He stated that requiring continuous grass eliminates the option for a hardscape surface for outside dining and pedestrian walking paths. Commissioner Chambless stated support for the development and mentioned that with this development further growth is bound to occur. Commissioner Diamond stated that he agreed with the 100 percent requirement for park strip landscaping because of the vehicular traffic and the cooling effect landscaping can provide. Commissioner Wirthlin requested comments from Staff regarding their reasoning for the condition. Mr. McCandless stated that the requirement was added for consistency with the existing park strip ordinance. A straw vote was taken for the option of striking condition 1) h.,with only two votes to withdraw; the option failed. Commissioner Scott requested that a condition be added to the four foot wide area on the west side of building K on proposed Lot 1 to require trees. She noted that the condition denotes landscaping, but is not detailed enough to include trees. Mr. Damico stated that trees will be located between Pugsley and the buildings on proposed lot 1. Ms. Coffey stated that the zoning ordinance requires a certain number of trees as a buffer to the area. Regarding Petition No.400-05-40 concerning the zoning for the east and west side of 300 West Street between 500 and 600 North,based on the findings of fact identified in the Staff Report,the 7 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 26, 2006 testimony and conversation during the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Seelig made a motion to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments to identify the subject property as Residential Mixed Use(R-MU)Zoning.Commissioner Wirthlin seconded the motion.All voted "Aye".The motion passed. Regarding Petitions No.410-06-09(Planned Development),480-06-04(Preliminary Condominium Approval), and 490-06-19 (Preliminary Subdivision Approval), Commissioner Scott made a motion that the Planning Commission approve the petitions in view of the findings,staff analysis, and testimony presented at the meeting,and in accordance with the conditions listed below, withdrawing condition 1)e. Commissioner Scott also included in the motion that the maximum height for Buildings A& D be approved at 60 feet or five stories.Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.All voted "Aye".The motion passed with the following conditions: 1) Conditional Use/Planned Development approval subject to: a. Granting the following waivers to the Zoning Ordinance with the direction to Staff to modify other provisions of the zoning ordinance if necessary to implement the development plans as approved by the Planning Commission: i) Proposed Lot 1 -Buildings H,J and K A. Reduction in the required landscaped setback for the interior side yard setback from 30 feet to approximately 6 feet on the east side of the lots between the buildings. B. Reduction of the required 10 foot landscaped buffer from 10 feet to approximately 4 feet along the west property line. C. Reduction of the required perimeter landscaping from 7 feet to approximately 1 foot along the south property line. ii) Proposed Lot 2-Building A and parking lot for the grocery store A. Modifying the rear yard buffer from 10 feet to the varying dimensions as shown on the east property line. B. Reducing the perimeter landscaping requirement around the parking lot to the varying dimensions shown on the proposed site plan. C. Reduction in the required 1st floor glass requirement from 40%to approximately 28%on the 600 North building elevation. iii) Proposed Lot 3 -Grocery Store/Retail Space A. No modifications are required. iv) Proposed Lot 4—Building D A. Reducing the required setback for a parking structure in a corner side yard from 45 feet to approximately 20 feet. B. Reducing the 20% open space requirement to approximately 17%. v) Proposed Lot 5—Townhouses (7 units) A. Reducing the required rear yard setback from 30 feet to approximately 22 feet. B. Reducing the required 10 foot yard buffer on the east property line to 0 feet. C. Reducing the required 40% 1st floor glass requirement to approximately 23%. vi) Proposed Lot 6—Townhouses(4 units) A. Increasing the maximum front yard setback from 15 feet to approximately 19 feet. B. Reducing the required rear yard setback from 30 feet to approximately 12 feet. 8 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 26, 2006 C. Reducing the required 10 foot yard buffer on the east property line to 0 feet. D. Reducing the required 40% 1st floor glass requirement to approximately 5%. E. Waiver of the lot frontage on a public street requirement(Section 21A.36.010C. Frontage of Lot On Public Street). b. Conditional use approval of the proposed off-site parking and office space. c. Deferral of the architectural review of buildings on the east side of 300 West Street to Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission. d. All outdoor lighting should be directed downward and designed to not adversely affect any adjoining property. c. Limiting the deliv Bm ti ng the groce n+ag 9+reste f. The proposed development must meet all applicable City, County, State and Federal requirements. g. Providing significant landscaping including trees along in the 15'0"wide area on east side of Building A where it abuts the SR-1 zoned property as approved by the Planning Director. h. Park strip landscaping as required by the Zoning Ordinance should be installed instead of 100% pavers as shown on the site plan. i. Any encroachments into the public way will need to be approved by the Salt Lake City Property Management Division. j. Conditional use approval of the second floor office space on the north building on Lot 1 k. Providing a screening fence along the property zoned SR-1 as approved by the Planning Director. I. Approval of the tree selection and planting plans in the public way by the City Urban Forester. m. Planning Director approval of the final landscaping plans and number of parking spaces. n. Approval of the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment(Petition 400-05-40). 2) Preliminary Condominium approval of Building D on Lot two and the townhouses on lots five and six subject to: a. Recordation of the necessary condominium plats and supporting documentation. b. Meeting all applicable City Departmental and State Code requirements specific to condominium approval. 3) Preliminary Subdivision approval of the proposed six-lot minor subdivision as modified by the Planning Commission subject to: a. Recordation of a final subdivision plat including necessary cross-access easements and utility easement dedications. b. Meeting all City Departmental requirements including resolving any sewer, water and storm drainage issues with the Public Utilities Department. c. Implementation of an Owners Association that addresses the maintenance of driveways, sidewalks, entry features, utilities etc. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There were no items of unfinished business to be heard. The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m. 9 OMRIVaIJ IO 3JI.L//OM JOVISod sn •TT • p'?g' 14.678 WajPei!edu - 900Z/6l/PO ..-.fi • o6E•00 $ 4:7 T1 ::q 3:11cL960991.H960 , �' 11162 i fl`x)!D axe'I lies PoAS oielS trims 156 uotstAtU 2utuueid kin a'ie-i 11eS 1. Fill out registration card and indicate if you wish to speak and which agenda Item you will address. 2. After the staff and petitioner presentations,hearings will be opened for public comment. Community Councils will present their comments at the beginning of the hearing. 3. in order to be considerate of everyone attending the meeting,public comments are limited to 3 minutes per person per item. A spokesperson who has been asked by a group to summarize their concerns will be allowed 5 minutes to speak. Written comments are welcome and will be provided to the Planning Commission in advance of themeeting they are submitted to the.Planning Givisignprior to noon the day before the meeting. Written comments should be sent to: Salt Lake City Planning Director 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 - 4: Speakers will be called by the Chair. • 5. Please state your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you represent at the beginning of your comments. 6. Speakers should address their comments to the Chair. Planning Commission members may have questions for the speaker. Speakers may not debate with otheameeting attendees. 7. Speakers should focus their comments on the agenda item. Extraneous and repetitive comments should.be avoided. 8. After those registered have spoken,the Chair will Invite other comments. Prior speakers may be allowed to supplement their previous comments at this time. 9. After the hearing is dosed,the discussion will be limited among Planning Commissioners and Staff. Under unique circumstances,the Planning Commission may choose to reopen the hearing to obtain additional information. 10. Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability need assistance in understanding or participating In the meeting, please notify the City 48 hours In advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. lfibl, vlza}..f ' 9.,5 5B. PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments DATE: April 5, 2006 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Sarah Carroll, Principal Planner RE: Staff Report for the April 26, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting: Petition No. 400-05-40, by Howa Capital, a request to amend the Zoning Map and Master Plan for property located along both sides of 300 West between 500 North and 600 North (approximate). CASE NUMBER: 400-05-40: Request to amend the zoning map and master plan APPLICANT: Property Owner: Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Applicant: Howa Capital STATUS OF APPLICANT': Developer PROJECT LOCATION: The East and West Sides of 300 West Street Between 500 and 600 North (approximate) ,_ . ....r,-.4.47 • -317,47,,1N ' 4%1'.,'..— ..1.%,0 f� ' a 9 4 r 4 �fF M i ,e1. wfiz o IN RMF 35 �,„ � '''''':-I' '''," - �.7.4:"sa,,'e�g .1 % _if+, "� uMe.w' y , ,i•t.. 01, , RMF 55 ab �f $ 9 ;- v.p k i � _'"'/ s M� gIII ' Qp `- ri h` E 3 RF-45 ir , , S • t. fi d ,�" q'' ill t. r g � raj RMF 35 ' iiIrla ; a .' i: VP Nek Eti, " Ids d P '' A . , ". bsr SR1 ',.,,,/s‘:,,, '-'Y' r6 ,, ; "4: fil yitAk,'„ wiki 1. ,z,, w, ' " a, a„,„,.`4a 11,67 0 r ig` ;a'e. t � ''4, �' a°Y _ $ �� Rik $ - r b `Fd' m f,44 , RMF=35._ Staff Report, Petition Number 400-05-40 April 26, 2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 1 PROJECT/PROPERTY SIZE: Approximately 5.98 acres , COUNCIL DISTRICT: District 3, Councilmember Eric Jergensen REQUESTED ACTION: Howa Capital is requesting to rezone the property located on the east and west side of 300 West, between 500 North and 600 North from a variety of zoning designations to Residential/Mixed Use (R-MU)zoning in order to facilitate the construction of a mixed use development that will include office, retail and residential uses. The current zoning on the subject property includes: Special Development Pattern Residential (SR-1), Community Shopping(CS), Moderate/High Density Multi-family Residential (RMF-45), Moderate Density Multi-Family (RMF-35) and Mixed Use (MU) zoning. The Capitol Hill Master Plan designates the West side of the project area for "High Density Mixed Use" and designates the East side of the project area for"General Commercial."The Master Plan will need to be amended to reflect"High Density Mixed Use" rather than "General Commercial" for the east side of the project area. PROPOSED USE(S): Mixed Use - Retail /Office/Residential APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: The proposed zone change is subject to the Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 21A.50, Amendments and Special Approvals. The proposed master plan amendment is subject to the Utah Code Annotated (10-9a-204) which identifies procedures for adopting and amending general plans. The following will also be considered in evaluating this request: • The Capitol Hill Zoning Map (1995) • The Capitol Hill Community Master Plan (1999) • The Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan(2000) • The Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission, Creating Tomorrow Together, (1998) • The City Vision and Strategic Plan for Salt Lake City, (1993) SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS: North - Mixed Use "MU", Moderate Density Multi-Family "RMF-35", and Special Development Pattern Residential "SR-1" South - Special Development Pattern Residential "SR-1", Moderate Density Multi-Family "RMF-35" and, Community Shopping "CS" East- Special Development Pattern Residential "SR-1" and Moderate/High Density Multi- family Residential "RMF-45" Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-40 April 26,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 2 West - Special Development Pattern Residential "SR-1" and Moderate Density Multi-Family "RMF-35" SURROUNDING LAND USES: North- Service garage, convenience store, single family homes South-Convenience store, service garage, single family homes, church East-Apartment complex, single family homes West-Single family homes MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: The Capitol Hill Master Plan was adopted November 9, 1999. The Capitol Hill Community Future Land Use Map designates the west side of the subject property for "High Density Mixed Use" and designates the east side of the subject property for "General Commercial" use. The Master Plan will need to be amended so that both the east and west sides of the subject property reflect"High Density Mixed Use." HISTORY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency designated the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood as a redevelopment target area in 1996. Since that time, the focus of the Redevelopment Agency has been to revitalize the area specifically located on the east side of 300 West Street between 500-600 North using urban design methods to create an attractive commercial node that would eliminate the 300 West Street barrier of residential and commercial land uses in a controlled approach. The Redevelopment Agency focused on this area with the intent of creating a mixed use, commercial/residential node that would revitalize and stabilize the area and allow for private reinvestment. The development proposal is being evaluated through the Planned Development, Subdivision and Condominium processes and was reviewed at the Planning Commission Planned Development Subcommittee Meeting on December 16, 2005, January 18, 2006 and March 29, 2006. The meetings were attended by representatives of the Planning Commission, Historic Landmarks Commission, Redevelopment Agency Staff and Planning Division Staff. ACCESS: Access to the property is provided from 500 North Street, Arctic Court (Private Street) 600 North and 300 West Streets. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject property consists of eight parcels on the west side of 300 West Street and 17 parcels on the east side of 300 West Street. (West side: 08-36-204-019, -020, -022, -027, -028, -029, -030, -032, East side: 08-36-205-001, -005, -006, -007, -008, -010, -012, - 019, -020, -021, -022, -026, -027, -028, -031, -033, -035). The project area currently contains several different zoning designations, including SR-1, CS, RMF-45, RMF-35 Staff Report, Petition Number 400-05-40 April 26,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 3 and MU zoning. The applicant would like to unify the zoning and is requesting R-MU zoning to accommodate the proposed development which is a mixed use project that will incorporate office, retail and residential uses. For residential and mixed use developments the R-MU zone allows a maximum building height of 75 feet as a permitted use or up to 125 feet as a conditional use. For nonresidential uses, 45 feet or 3 stpries (whichever is less) is a permitted use. The proposed buildings range in height from approximately 22 feet tall to approximately 57.5 feet tall. COMMENTS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS COMMENTS Comments from pertinent City departments/divisions and the Community Council have been attached and are summarized below(Exhibits 2 and 3). • Public Utilities: Public Utilities has no objections to the proposed rezoning. • Permits Office (Building Services and Licensing): Building Services had no objections to the proposed rezoning. Landscape buffers will be required between the R-MU and single or two family residential districts. New office buildings are subject to the conditional use process, per 21A.24.190 footnote #9. • Transportation: The Division of Transportation recommends approval of the rezone and notes the following: Any revisions to access circulation or road side elements on 300 West and 600 North (west of 300 West) will require UDOT approval and any revisions to 500 North and 600 North (east of 300 West) will require Salt Lake City Transportation Division approval. • Police Department: The Police Department does not see any problems with the requested rezone and notes that the Capitol Hill community is anxious to have something in place on those vacant lots. • Engineering: Salt Lake City Engineering has no objections to the proposed rezone. • Fire Department: The Fire Department has no objections to the proposed rezone. • Community Council: The request for rezone and the proposed development were presented at the Capitol Hill Community Council meeting on January 18, 2006. Those in attendance generally expressed acceptance of the proposal and excitement about the revitalization of this area (see exhibit 3). Those few who were opposed were concerned with the height of the proposed structures. 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 rezone the subject property as requested (thereby creating zoning map and master plan amendments) 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 Staff Report, Petition Number 400-05-40 April 26,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 4 controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the city council should consider the following factors: A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes,goals, objectives,and poll is of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City: Discussion: There are several sources to consider in reviewing the purposes, goals objectives, and policies for this area: • The Capitol Hill Zoning Map (1995) • The Capitol Hill Community Master Plan (1999) • The Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan (2000) • The Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission, Creating Tomorrow Together, (1998) • The City Vision and Strategic Plan for Salt Lake City, (1993) Capitol Hill Zoning Map: This request involves amending the zoning map to unify the zoning for the project area. The existing zoning consists of several different zones including: Special Development Pattern Residential (SR-1), Community Shopping (CS), Moderate/High Density Multi-family Residential (RMF-45), Moderate Density Multi- Family (RMF-35) and Mixed Use (MU) zoning. The requested Residential/Mixed Use (R-MU) zoning would allow the entire project to be developed under one zoning classification and will allow for a variety of uses including office, commercial and residential. Capitol Hill Community Master Plan: A section of this Master Plan focuses specifically on commercial development and implementation of a neighborhood shopping node in the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood, on 300 West, and states the following: Commercial: The lack of neighborhood oriented retail services is a major concern voiced by citizens of the community during the public input process of the development of this master plan. As identified in the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood Plan (1996), the best location for commercial retail venture to service the residents of the community is 300 West. With commercial and mixed use zoning districts in place, a neighborhood scale commercial nucleus should be developed along the 300 West corridor. Steps should be taken to entice new retail services to this area as well as providing incentives for existing businesses to upgrade their properties. In addition, the mixed use zoning districts will provide opportunities for additional commercial or commercial/residential land uses to develop. A primary goal is to encourage community oriented businesses that will provide a high level of visual quality and proper maintenance. Staff Report, Petition Number 400-05-40 April 26,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 5 Neighborhood Shopping Node: The West Capitol Hill Neighborhood Plan encourages neighborhood shops to locate on the east side of 300 West Street between 500-600 North Streets to provide a nucleus of neighborhood oriented commercial uses for the Capitol Hill Community. The neighborhood shopping node should be developed with sensitivity to the historic architecture of the neighborhood. Retail uses built to front the property line are typical. Height of one or two stories is compatible. Uses which are appropriate in the shopping node include a small grocery or drug store, neighborhood oriented retail, restaurants, and services and/or mixed use development with commercial uses on the ground floor and residential uses above or below the ground floor. The shopping node should be designed in a way to minimize impacts to the existing historic neighborhood to the east including orienting the commercial development to 300 West, limiting delivery and principal accesses to 300 West, prohibiting access, for the commercial uses, from Arctic Court, strongly encouraging the reuse of existing historic structures, and providing adequate buffering between the commercial and residential land uses. The feasibility of creating a mixed use development with residential on the top floor should also be analyzed. The shopping center will hopefully become a catalyst for to encourage more neighborhood retail oriented commercial reinvestment. Policies. • If an appropriate commercial or mixed use development is proposed for the commercial node at 500 North and 1300 West, which requires additional property, the western properties along Arctic Court may be rezoned to commercial shopping. • Development of the commercial node mixed use area should include the following design features to ensure compatibility with the residential development to the east: o Orientation of the commercial development to 300 West o Deliveries and principal access to the commercial development from 300 West o Prohibiting access for commercial uses from Arctic Court o Strongly encouraging the reuse of existing historic structures within the new commercial development o Providing adequate buffering of residential properties to the east o Prohibiting access to the commercial use within 150 feet of Arctic Court. • Ensure new commercial development along 300 West is sensitive to pedestrian oriented access and is sensitive to the historic character of the neighborhood. • Encourage community oriented businesses that will provide a high level of visual quality and property maintenance. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-40 April 26,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 6 Action Items: • Encourage nonconforming retail commercial uses to relocate to the neighborhood shopping node where appropriate. • Provide a commercial retail nucleus and/or mixed use area for the Capitol Hill Community on the east side of 300 West between 500 and 600 North. • Take proactive steps to entice new retail services into appropriate segments of this area. Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan: The goal of this Plan is to enhance, maintain and sustain a livable community that includes a vibrant downtown integrated with surrounding neighborhoods that offer a wide range of housing choices, mixed uses, and transit oriented design. This Plan focuses on concepts for creating a wide variety of housing types across the City and encouraging mixed use and mixed income housing. In regards to mixed use development this plan states that the City Council supports mixed use projects that achieve vibrant, safe, integrated, walkable neighborhoods through a diverse mix of uses. Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission: In its Executive summary this report states that "Salt Lake City Neighborhoods are diverse, exciting, safe, well maintained, and supportive of families and young people. Vibrant neighborhoods are fundamental to the health and vitality of the city and citizens, business owners, and local government each have a role to play in creating and sustaining ideal neighborhoods." City Vision and Strategic Plan: Three objectives of this plan are outlined below: • The City will include a wide variety of affordable housing opportunities in attractive, friendly neighborhoods that provide a safe environment for families. • The City will sustain world class businesses that capitalize on its geographic and labor market competitive advantages and offer a wide variety of career path choices for its residents. • The City will recognize and protect neighborhood identity through neighborhood involvement in plans and public and private investment. Finding: The Capital Hill Master Plan specifically addresses the development of a neighborhood shopping node on 300 West, between 500 North and 600 North. In reviewing the goals of the Master Plan and the project that is being proposed for this location it is evident that the goals of the Master Plan are coming to fruition. Rezoning the project area will result in an encompassing recognition of the Master Plan goals. Staff finds that the requested rezone is appropriate for this location and would enhance the goals of the Plans and Reports discussed above. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of, existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property Discussion: The subject property is surrounded by a variety of uses such as service stations, convenience stores, and single family residences. The subject property was Staff Report, Petition Number 400-05-40 April 26,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 7 identified by the Master Plan as an area that should be revitalized with community oriented businesses that will provide a high level of visual quality and proper maintenance. The proposed development is not yet typical of the surrounding area but will become the catalyst for development of similar projects along 300 West. Finding: Staff finds that the Capitol Hill Master Plan identifies this area for a neighborhood commercial node that will provide retail services, as requested by the community, which have been lacking in this area. Community members have reviewed the proposed development and many have stated that the surrounding neighborhoods will greatly benefit from the proposed mixed use node. C . The eattentt to which sthe proposed amen dment will�adversely affect adjacent r Discussion: At the Community Council meeting there was overwhelming support for the project. However, those few who did not support the project were concerned about the height of the proposed structures. In order to address concerns about height,the project architect has provided building elevations along with elevations of existing surrounding buildings so that the proposed structures could be reviewed in context. The subcommittee members reviewed the proposed structures in relation to surrounding properties and the width of 300 West and discussed the effect of the proposed height on the surrounding properties. The majority of the subcommittee members agreed that the height was appropriate for the location. Finding: Staff finds that the proposed amendment will positively affect adjacent properties as it will allow for a mixed use neighborhood shopping node, as outlined in the Master Plan. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistentWith the provisions of any .a` plicable overlay zoning d stricts,which may; mpc se ad'd tional standards Discussion: The east side of the subject project area is located within the Capital Hill Historic District. All new construction in the Capital Hill Historic District is subject to design review by the Historic Landmark Commission. Finding: Staff finds that all new construction in the Capital Hill Historic District is subject to design review by the Historic Landmark Commission. E. 'The adegtuacy of public facilities and ser ices int a ded to serve the subjehct P roperty, including liOt not limited to roadways,parks and recreational f c ties,police and fire protection schools,s of m water drainage cyst s,gs' F..water,supples,'and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: Staff requested comments from City Departments/Divisions; including Transportation, Engineering, the Fire Department, Public Utilities, Police, and Building Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-40 April 26,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 8 Services. These departments/divisions did not have any objections to the proposed zoning amendment. The proposed development must comply with City regulations. Findings: Staff finds that public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property must meet all City regulations upon further development. MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT: The Capitol Hill Community Future Land Use Map designates the west side of the subject property for "High Density Mixed Use" and designates the east side of the subject property for "General Commercial" use. The Master Plan specifically discusses a neighborhood shopping node on the east side of 300 West, between 500 North and 600 North and encourages a mixed use development with retail on the ground level and residential units above. The proposed development will comply with the goals outlined in the Master Plan. The Capitol Hill Community Future Land Use Map will need to be amended to reflect"High Density Mixed Use," rather than "General Commercial," for the east side of the project area. 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. A notice for the Master Plan amendment was published in the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News on April 12, 2006 (Exhibit 4). A notice was also mailed to affected property owners and posted, meeting State Law requirements for Master Plan amendments. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Findings of Fact identified in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council, to approve the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments, to identify the subject property as Residential/Mixed Use (R-MU) zoning. Sarah Carroll, Associate Planner 535-6260 or sarah.carroll@slcgov.com Exhibits: 1. Site Plan, Elevations and Floor Plans 2. Department/Division Comments 3. Community Council Comments 4. Newspaper Legal Notices, Published on April 12, 2006 Staff Report, Petition Number 400-05-40 April 26,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 9 Exhibit 1 Site Plan, Elevations and Floor Plans . : : f> c., • Tr,.„2..A ,... 500fiIL T L,i)-: • . " , 1:'', 6: , N 00'0245' 'E 455.00 ' if 00.0245'E 1.6 80 / r , N 00.61.45 E 106 39 1 ' II Ill Ill 111 III , I , i•_../ 1.4.4 t f,I I . ! , I ./N,--, -----`g,---- g _ _ 4,•• 1 v 1 ,, : \,.`"; i I : • !'" .!" !!'!:' 1'2 !1 .; 4. • ' , . , \ 1 4,..,..:____..,,, , , 1 iL b• s i! - — I • E *il- 300 WEST STREET o o!R . ° , 1o41111,moor !,7ro!ow•44444mi..,„;:. ...mmommemmormammor.!.. ..„„,„•.er, ---0,--- 1. !!'1 41 ' L_J HI I __ ,. ,„„5 9 cz, i •A ! • - ' fl 1 P- 1 ; III :7" 0, ' c•N,i,i ii ti ,:,:g1 FEE,1 . ,,,. , :,-4, ,[1 ... "....• • a , 0 1 i LI: / ,, „_•„, .., ,. .....6, 161. i ., 6'\\\N-1,4\16, i .2 `:, 11 fig! 1., -, i,, 4 , .....,„..,,_ , I i IF" 1 i ,---' I li , ! ' 0411111:9!1 r-roFerirrli..57N) .! li _1 1 } . .- (L 5'000115'1 177.50' ei 4 4 4 . 11 Ci--".;1—1r _— 14- '—._..... 'Zi — ! !' )------ ---r(71 . —.--i .: 1 — 71 r -------,--r-:i7 _ ......--‘:—,..=,-.....,-. ::.L7.-- ---- --- i , , . 11 _,L- -1.'- 0•• 0 ooseeeoeoe iiri 1: 1; ; 4- ;N. l' -t-4 I I ; i 15111 i 18! . * 1 1 5 1,1P ,6 F t i ; ! a 1 igiliN I Egg A ii i a 1 A U g . .. X A I .. U 3 „.- I Z ; U •M il Pa z III 15 fi 3 ���r 'qqa'111 I l f 11':i `0 III e: • *I . �_ 1-1_I it i i ig IIe t # I liii u IINiIfill yy ■i gi•1 II k � ` is 4.—,'�i,� , iiit it (i.H ,yamH. ' '' , 1 :3 i !-"' @ I _�1 II mii .i— '''f'.'*7-' ,_.,]i.:,-, n.: T+ram :' ,- r _ - d-i , �� 1�;I ew y r5 �_ ' II- ,- ;:yR M z �IIai - I P-•11 iI 1 lel w _ •i rIlI— 11 .^ .- I 7 II_ Ji II. • i4 ✓ e 0 3 3 �o 11 �F • 1d I > L ... ....., (...) 3 1 tVi ' i 1 ,. , 3 1 • :- ' ° i i. . i ii; 1 ' ' i il t i 2 ! .--.0 i 110.,,,i Wiwi 1 lig g 1 Ili, t!!!, d!1! - i , il 1 ill I 1 1 i i !'' 1 ' """ '1- r'A -1 Ili 1 I I"i Nit !iit i 1 A 61 . .1 Iga I2H i : M Mk, IA Itt 11, 1 .1, ..iN _ .153M 00Z /— - -- — — - — i i . ! T— -------1-'' . , , , -'."_.. , 1 I I 16—_,_ _._ .•,-,1.1.::•-.'. ' IF II QI,1 , 1 l';1 ---- -- -- igl -- ---'-- I I•--I L 2 1771 F.:.,,I.—1—f. 171::1 --- Mir - . gjjtiilH i L 1.1 - ..:. . 1 ' i 1•L ...., . _Ad., ri..... • — 1 ..,,...,.,. .-:.,...- c"—: ' ' ..qk 9 ''-'-- . 6 1 „ , J 1 r'.- /47 ' • ". (JAI, .,ir- ,, ,k .. --- 1 . I1 11- , 'ftgiiii4' , 1 I 9 9 ,, f . I _ .'' ' .,-; '' - 'J n .;.-- , . ...'"-. ..- , 1 .',..,7,-,--, K:,•, -1 ''. . .7 i , AwrFilis,, :•,. --. (4)._.(T., ;-,i, .,•24- , tl, __, ,'.G__ , ;-)s !'n-Ii. „1-1L r",.--- ,, L‘.., ,!_-,.. 4. 1 - 1,,' . • ' .. .. --o—L -—4 -.7--= . t - ________------______ _____ 1S3M 00C I/33 c I, ri . ,--k'Or, i'.)-- ,,,,),-t,,iii-i ' 2__ - ,-a.,,, is.1,-,,i „ . • ,4 --- 1 ._‘..•-•,. ,,.1 ---', r - -- . A 1., -- --- -------r--11 "-1 .1 - - - 4'.-"•12.,P-1. ''''' ."--`--- `-- — 1- - • C 0 0 / � / �_-� ' �_----- - - _ - _ r---- -- -- - _� u =� r---- � / =========, _'_-__ -_-___- _------_ WL / . � ! |� ' � / TF� ~�.~� � _ °=�C-1 / |------------- | ! L+ ' � | � � / � � / / � / / � --_--_- --_-�-'_----__ __- '-_--_ nmWEn 4111W lid l 1!1 g F 6` € 4 S < T Y 1S3M OOZ 1 S 1 i E 1 El n." v. 1> I M,, a 4111I I sst � G .z u u.tl �I' -11 1 tgi uc1 III - P ;II ,. ' _ P^ ' •a.Q M1I. a.ctr C$7 $9 Cl, I 1r 1 --.__ _ — _I ', - .I -AiIv G. M�U I 5 rI II .I E z ° ;i -- .:-„ ,- 11 IC I Z� t� I. _ _. ....__._-,--_L 1 , ��r t n 1S3M 00£ I 1= I - I i © 3 I 4 I° p n 1 f 4;., II -7 i_II I t — .,L� o- .3 0000d - 300 WEST 1 a 1 ®, " v ti `sY f re,. w 4__ 7t !-% t i Z.. -*-- ', f , -_J 1 4 S S l Le�3 �� z L;I/ e o °s Y�d�a� m _ _I 1 I i'z: 1 I1 it YF i ri oo _I z I mid �/ —� I iIGIF 11 in = i9 ir F HI e� I I 1 1 144e,_ `I 1111111 I .1 1 'n 4 ra I I I I r I J r �a�. .lE'i1. l," ' i' 1I ice_=e,.l z .?' _c -yam-',-,`1 '; 1- ,- 'ce "7i"8)eyr 111 ' '® I'd1 ' I 1 A aEg ® ~ l' ® - - / I ® ;I ® I t Y:' 4 I i .__I�I,c couxr� �. ,T - -- .. 1 ..a v.a ,:a I .,a ,ea I a I f i 200 WEST m a m a Pc, - ,m n a o_c N (-- C.m D`m ono - P J❑ co 3 0 o 1 Q HOWA June 2. 2006 Alex Ikefuna. Planning Director Salt Lake City 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City. Utah 84111 VIA FACSIMILE 801 535.6174 Re: Marmalade project. 300 West between 500— 600 North Dear Mr Ikefuna. I am writing this letter in response to changes that HOWA has been forced to make to the design of Marmalade since we went before the Planning Commission on April 26. 2006. We are scheduled to go to the Landmarks Commission for design review on June 7. 2006, and understand that we may have to return to the Planning Commission due to the changes Although we previously ordered a soils report. we were unable to retain someone who could complete the job for us until April 13. 2006. On that date we received the results of a geotechnical study completed by Bill Gorden of Gordon Spiker Huber Geotechnical Consultants. The following quotes are a couple significant items that required us to change the design_ "conventional spread and continuous wall foundations underlain by granular structural fill are unsuitable to support these higher loaded footings because of excessive settlement,"it is GSI-H's recommendation that "the five to six level structures be established upon a continuous mat or the underlying soils improved with Geopiers40 In addition to the enhanced footings_ an area drain would need to be installed along the west property perimeter, and footing and chimney drains would need to be installed along building perimeters Our original estimate anticipated some de-watering(footing drains) of the site and some non- engineered fill (2 feet). However, our estimate did not anticipate the quantity of water on-site. the poor quality of the soil_ and the settlement potential Even the Geotech was amazed, and found that calculating the settlement with 4 feet of engineered fill we were pulling an unacceptable settlement level of 1 inch HOWA did not anticipate that we would need to wrap the entire site in a blanket of free draining gravel, both under and around foundations, in place of engineered fill Up until the report was issued we intended to use soldier piles and ling. But due to the results of the report Staker recommended a sheet pile because the soils on site —a clay layer existing on top of a sand layer— could cause the lagging to fail F N F r.. <\ 1 C; ') N ? PAC T o R _ - (;. fi N 5 T c Li r T r) N !.5 A N 4 r. v n j • q i' •. .� P K t? !. tlZ-d ZO/IO.d SII-1 Z697-ZZE-l0B ONI NOI13f1il1SNO VMUH-WOJj wdZZ:IO 90-ZO-90 From the date the report was issued IHOWA. McNeil Erguineering. Dunn and Associates_ and Prescott Muir worked around the clock to design a project that took into consideration the results of the soils report During that time we were able determine that the cost of underground parking for the residential buildings made the project unfeasible. At that point, the design team went back to the drawing board to explore alternative designs that would make an economically feasible project In order to have an economically viable project HOWA raised the parking structures a half-level above ground because it eliminates the shoring, mitigates the de-watering and creates a more efficient parking structure The above-ground parking structures force a change to the Development Plan submitted on March 20, 2006 to Salt Lake City Planning & Zoning The following changes have been made (Please see attached Site Plan (06 01.06) and Development Summary for specific details of the changes) • Reorientation of Building A with structured parking with a roof top plaza for residents on the parking structure • Reoriented commercial surface parking. • Moved and aligned 600 North access approximately 75 feet east • Created an additional buffer between neighboring residential on 600 North and Building A • Changed the potential grocery site from i to 2 stories because we want to retain the height if a grocer does not locate here and chooses the West side of the street. If there is a grocer in that site the building will remain 1 story • Added an additional landscaped plaza • Building D parking structure raised above grade two levels with residential roof top plaza. • Moved 500 North access road 39.5 feet east HOWA's expectation is to be under construction in early September. whatever the City can do to help us meet that goal will be appreciated. it is my understanding that these are the next steps 1 Landmarks review and approval of the Design on June 7. 2006 2 PUD Changes submitted to the Planning Commission either for special session, or during the scheduled meeting the end of June. a. Included in this is a potential Master plan amendment for Arctic Court 3. The Re-Zone will continue to move forward to the City Council Please contact me with any questions or concerns We appreciate all of your continued support and work on mating Marmalade a reality Si cere Dru Damico • till-d ZO/ZO d 911-1 Z89P-ZZE-108 JNI NO11J1181SNOD VMOH-word wdEZ: to 90-Z0-90 5D. PLANNING COMMISSION Planned Development Subcommittee Notes for December 16, 2005, January 18, 2006 and March 29, 2006 Planned Development Subcommittee Meeting December 16, 2005 Attendees: Planning Commission: Laurie Noda, Jennifer Seelig, Babs De Lay, and Peggy McDonough Redevelopment Agency: Mack McDonald and Valda Tarbet Historic Landmark Commission: Pete Ashdown and David Fitzsimmons HOWA: Dru Domico, Rick Howa, Zack Howa, and J.R. Howa Internet Properties: Vasilios Priskos Prescott Muir Architects: Prescott Muir and Lisa Arnett Planning Division Staff: Cheri Coffey, Kevin LoPiccolo, Elizabeth Giraud, and Sarah Carroll Background and Project Location: The project is located on both sides of 300 West between 500 and 600 North. The east side of 300 West is located in the historic district, and the west side is not. The Project is within the Capitol Hill Redevelopment Agency (RDA) target area. The RDA purchased the property to implement the goals of the adopted master plan that identify the area for a commercial node. The RDA received approval from the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) to demolish several buildings on the East side of 300 West to better market the site. One building remains, "The Store" at 242 West 500 North. An economic hardship must be proved to demolish the structure. Seven buildings will be constructed on the proposed site. Building A will be a retail grocery store with residential condos above. Building B & C will be live/work units. The project in summary: • 15' retaining wall to the east edge of parking lot. • Project should comply with historical guidelines and be sensitive to theme of the neighborhood. Color scheme of the brick and architecture was created with West High School specifically in mind. Additional colors have been selected to reflect the color of the Marmalade District, using a contemporary color palate. • Roof of the building on the east side of the development will be slightly taller thanothe east neighboring apartment building. • West side of the street setbacks were dictated by property line. • Property density has been selected to justify the expense of underground parking. • Townhouse and condo/apartment parking will be accommodated by a courtyard paved with asphalt in the center of the development and underground parking beneath parts of the development. Access to townhouse parking will be from Arctic Court. Parking • A total of 404 stalls will be developed, broken down as follows: • 188 stalls provided for the Commercial West Side: on site 134 stalls and off site 54 stalls • 80 stalls provided off site for the Commercial East Side • 27 residential units/35 stalls for building A • 39 residential units/73 stalls for building D • 17 residential units/34 stalls Square footage • Total property area 226,794. • Project consists of 227,030 s.f. of developed construction broken down as follows: • Commercial 65,510 s.f. • Residential: 155,416.s.f. • Plaza and Landscaped area: 58,764 s.f. Building usage • Project consists of 7 buildings, used as follows: • 83 residential units (buildings A, D, and F) • 2 commercial sites • 7 residential dwellings 2 story in height (condos). • 2 main buildings of 3 to-3.1/2 stories oriented to 300 West. Concerns expressed by Planning Commission, Landmarks, and others: Overall, the group was favorable to the project, but did express four concerns: • Too much asphalt • Future wall on the west side of development. Did not want the neighbors west of the development adjacent to a blank wall or building. • Height incompatible with the neighborhood. • The setbacks on the west side of the street are too shallow next to a busy street, although the development scheme encourages pedestrian activity. Ms. Coffey explained the process that would proceed: The building known as "The Store" on 500 North would go through an economic hardship process with the HLC. She confirmed with the developer that they would be bringing in the economic hardship application soon. She also explained that the application for the rezoning would go through the Planning Commission. Follow up: • Planning Staff requested a visual representation of the streetscape showing existing buildings with the proposed new buildings to help commissioners to determine the compatibility of the neighborhood including Arctic Court, 200 West, and the corners of 500 and 600 North reflecting the height of buildings. • A decision was made by Planning Division to hold another subcommittee meeting at the first of the year(2006). Planned Development Subcommittee Meeting January 18, 2006 451 South State Street Room 126 Attendees: Planning Commission: Laurie Noda, Peggy McDonough, Babs De Lay, and Tim Chambless. Redevelopment Agency: Mack McDonald Historic Landmark Commission: Paula Carl HOWA: Dru Domico Prescott Muir Architects: Prescott Muir and Lisa Arnett Planning Division Staff: Alex Ikefuna, Cheri Coffey, Doug Wheelwright, and Sarah Carroll. Background and Project Location: The project was presented before the Subcommittee on December 16, 2006. At the previous meeting four concerns were stated by the Subcommittee: 1) Too much asphalt 2) A blank building wall on the west side of the development, causing the neighbors to be adjacent to it. 3) Incompatible height with the neighborhood. 4) Although the development encourages pedestrian activity, the setbacks on the west side of the street are too shallow next to a busy street. Planning Staff had requested a visual representation of the streetscape showing existing buildings with the proposed new buildings to help commissioners determine the compatibility of the neighborhood including Arctic Court, 200 West, and the corners of 500 and 600 North reflecting the height of buildings. Presentation in summary: Mr. Muir displayed renderings of the streetscapes. The developer addressed the four concerns as follows: Issue#1 : Asphalt was reduced by additional landscaping in the parking lot for the grocery store. Issue#2 & 3) The neighbors to the west of the development will not see a blank building wall. The building has been reduced from four stories to two stories, bringing the building within the ordinance height. The building wall will be constructed with brick relieved by windows and other architectural elements. All rooftops will be LEED certified. Issue #4) Setbacks have been increased to accommodate safe pedestrian traffic. Ms. Coffey explained that the Historic Landmark Commission would deal with the economic hardship issue and the Planning Commission would deal with the planned development and the rezoning. Mr. Ikefuna asked if further information was needed to complete the economic hardship application. Responding, Mr. McDonald stated that he believed there was nothing further to delay pursuing an economic hardship permit and that his department would file the application for economic hardship. He hoped that the project could go through the process at the same time as the project was presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Ikefuna encouraged Mr. McDonald to get started on the application for the economic hardship so that the project would have no further delays. Mr. McDonald agreed to do so. Follow up: Mr. Wheelwright agreed to send a written description of the economic hardship application process to Ms. De Lay. Planned Development Subcommittee Meeting March 29, 2006 451 South State Street Room 126 Attendees: Planning Commission: Laurie Noda, Peggy McDonough, Babs De Lay, and Tim Chambless. Redevelopment Agency: Mack McDonald Historic Landmark Commission: Paula Carl, Peter Ashdown HOWA: Dru Domico, Dallis Nordstrom Prescott Muir Architects: Prescott Muir, Aaron Hansen Planning Division Staff: Cheri Coffey, Doug Wheelwright, Ray McCandless, Kevin LoPiccolo, Sarah Carroll. Background and Project Location: The project was presented before the Subcommittee on December 16, 2005 and on January 18, 2006. The developer has made several modifications to the plans after consulting with an urban developer who recommended that the store be located in the center of the block and that the town homes off of arctic court be reduced to two levels rather than three levels. Presentation in summary including changes to project: Grocery store site has been moved from the North end of the block to the center of the block. Surface parking will be provided for the grocery store. Underground parking will be provided for the residential condominiums at the north and south ends of the project. Surface parking will be provided for all retail spaces. There will still be a Plaza near the Phase 1 retail and condominiums. The grocery store will be approximately 15,000 sq. ft(this is small for a grocery store). Underground parking will be provided for the condominiums: Parking for the residential condos on the corner of 300 West and 600 North will be underground and will be accessed from 600 North. Parking for the residential condos on the corner of 300 West and 500 North will be accessed from 500 North. Entrance to residential will be from 600 North, 500 North and Arctic Court. Entrance to retail/commercial will be from 300 West and 500 North. There may be a commercial gym on the main floor Building D, phase 1. The number of town homes has been reduced from 21 to 11 and they will be two stories rather than three stories. Access to the town homes will be from Arctic Court and they can enter the commercial project area from the new street that is being proposed. The west side of the project does not need to be included in the Planned Development if it does not vary from the zoning ordinance requirements. The buildings on the west side of the project will be the last phase and will be approximately two stories or 30 feet in height. Comments: Ms. De Lay requested status on the Economic Hardship process. Ms. Coffey explained the economic hardship application process for the building called "The Store". The Economic Hardship Application will be presented to HLC on April 5, 2006 to select an ECONOMIC HARDSHIP PANEL representative. Demolition of the store will be decided upon at a later meeting. If the Historic Landmarks Commission approves demolition of the store, the design of the entire project will be reviewed. The Economic Hardship panel will actually review it sometime in April and then go back to Landmark Commission in May. The project is scheduled to go before the Planning Commission to consider the following applications: rezone, planned development, subdivision, and preliminary condominium (for phase 1) on April 26, 2006. The elevations are well within the height limits. The rezone request is to rezone the property from RMF-35, RMF-45, CS, MU and SR-1 zoning to R-MU zoning so that the entire project can be developed under one zoning classification. The developer will create several different lots that will delineate phases of the development. Concerns stated: • Limited parking for retail space. • Neighbor to the East, along 600 North, has been boxed in and will lose view. Mr. Ashdown asked if the neighbor had been consulted regarding the impact of this project on their property. Ms. Coffey explained that the homeowner would be notified along with the public when the public hearing agenda is sent out. Mr. Ashdown asked the developer to make contact with the property owner and explain the impact on their property. • Developer expressed concern with the RDA proposal which requires naming tenants. He states that the size of retail space is difficult to determine at this point, because it is based on the approval of the future tenant and the RDA. The tenants who would commit want to know what the square footage they are leasing is before making a commitment. • Mr. Ashdown expressed a concern that the development might have elevations incompatible with the neighborhood. Follow up: A suggestion was made by Mr. Ashdown that the development on the northeast side could be setback an additional 20 feet to reduce the proximity to the single family home. He acknowledged that the suggested setback is not required by the ordinance. Ms. Coffey stated that the setbacks are within ordinance and if the project was required to have a greater setback, it would no longer be compatible with goals for this project. He further suggested that the developer could approach the homeowner and propose that HOWA cover the cost of updating the façade of the house to the east of the development to match the proposed development. Mr. Ashdown requested a height evaluation of other homes/buildings in the area so that he could compare elevations. He wanted to know if there are other buildings that are similar in height, and where there are located. 6. LETTER AND REVISED SITE PLAN FROM HOWA CAPITOL, DATED JUNE 2, 2006 7. ORIGINAL PETITION PETITION NO. 44 14 PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required 0/AcPetition delivered to Planning 11 (2*S 5 C - Petition assigned to: 3 Q'rct (Ain 1 1 '4 2.(40(0 5 Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date S C- Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover S C Chronology 5(idoa S C- Property Description (marked with a post it note) 5 f it/o(0 S C Affected Sidwell Numbers Included Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils Mailing Postmark Date Verification t IC* Cr Planning Commission Minutes 51/1 f 0C%' 5C- Planning Staff Report 5 jtt/o b S C- Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. lek) S c Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office ��2ZI�o 5 C_ Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. 5 aV0-VA Ca-r ro�� Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 4,2006 SUBJECT: Petition Nos.400-04-20 and 400-04-26 Modify and add language to Zoning ordinance 21A.62"definitions" and 21A.40.120 regulations of fences,walls and hedges AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: City-wide STAFF REPORT BY: Jan Aramaki ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Joel Patterson NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Newspaper advertisement and written notification 14 days prior to the Public Hearing. KEY ELEMENTS: (Ordinances) A) On October 12, 2004,the City Council held a public hearing to consider adopting Petition No.400-04-26 a Legislative Action initiated by Council Member Buhler for proposed changes pertaining to regulations for fences in front yard areas in residential zoning districts. (Section 21A.40.120.D) The Council voted to defer the issue to a future Council meeting and referred the petition back to the Planning Division to analyze the option to limit fence height to 4 feet between the front property line and the front facade of the principal structure. B) Two issues of concern were identified at the Council's public hearing: 1. The current zoning regulation allowing a 6-foot fence in the front yard setback: a. Is inconsistent with the City's goal supporting preservation of neighborhood character and urban design concepts that contribute to a livable community environment, b. Impacts visual view of the streetscape, c. Creates a barrier for positive,friendly interaction between neighbors, d. Hinders light-flow into homes,and e. Does not fit well with the overall character of a neighborhood when comprised of an unfinished appearance. 2. A 6-foot fence provides safety and security for residents. A 4-foot fence can easily be maneuvered or jumped,creates a lack of security for residents. B) On April 14, 2004,Petition No. 400-04-20 was initiated by the Planning Commission"to create definitions of an'open fence' and'solid/opaque' fence and to establish regulations for construction and materials for fences." The transmittal notes: Page 1 1. Problems have been reported associated with the level of screening that fences provide and the lack of fence maintenance,specifically in industrial areas;where solid/opaque fences are required for screening such as for outdoor storage,parking lots that abut residential zones,etc. 2. The intent is to ensure fences installed for screening purposes are comprised of quality materials and are adequately maintained and constructed. 3. Current zoning regulations do not specify the types of materials and construction standards for fences that provide screening,as a result,inadequate fencing commonly occurs. 4. Current sections of the Zoning ordinance refer to"the requirement of solid,opaque,sight- proof,sight-obscuring,light-proof,tight board,and privacy fences," but lacks definitions for these types of fences. C) The Administration's transmittal note that Planning staff determined it was appropriate to combine Petition Nos. 400-04-26 and 400-04-20 into one item of discussion to provide a more comprehensive approach to addressing the issues. D) On October 26,2005,the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed amendments with a modification that would allow a 6- foot fence to extend between the front of the house and the required minimum front yard setback rather than limiting fence height to 4 feet between the front property line and the front facade of the principal structure as requested by the City Council. The Administration's transmittal notes: 1. The Planning Commission did not agree with restricting fence height to 4-feet due to the fact that a property owner could build an addition onto the front of the house or construct a court yard in the "buildable area" that would be taller than 4 feet;and 2. the proposed Compatible Residential Infill Development standards contain a provision that calculates front yard setbacks by averaging the setbacks of existing residents on a block face. The Commission concluded that by replacing the existing 20 foot front yard setback standard with the averaging provision will mitigate negative impacts of fences in excess of 4 feet in front of a house. E) Two ordinances have been prepared for Council consideration. 1) the Planning Commission recommendation that allows a 6-foot side yard fence to extend forward to the required front yard setback, and 2) the Council's preference to allow a 6-foot fence only to the front façade of the principal building. (Please refer to Exhibits 2a and 2b in the Administrations transmittal for both ordinances.) The proposed amendments are summarized below: a. DEFINITIONS: A solid or opaque fence is defined as an"artificially constructed solid or opaque barrier that blocks the transmission of a maximum of 95percent of light and visibility through the fence, and is erected to separate private property from public rights of way and abutting properties." Open fence is defined as an"artificially constructed barrier that blocks the transmission of at least 50 percent of light and visibility through the fence, and is erected to separate private property from public rights of way and abutting properties. b. BUILDING PERMITS: No fee building permit: will be required_prior to construction for any fence less than six feet in height or any fence that does not require structural review under the International Building Code regulations excluding concrete or masonry. Page 2 Building permit fee: will be required for fences and walls exceeding six feet in height and for all fences and walls of any height constructed according to International Building Code. Permit must identify plans pertaining to location and height. If materials consist of masonry or concrete for a fence to exceed six feet,construction details relating to horizontal and vertical reinforcement and foundation details must be provided in the plans. Building permit fee will be based on construction costs or valuation of the work. Fence construction regulations must also comply with additional fencing regulations found in the Foothills Protection FP district(21A.32.040.I);Historic Preservation Overlay H district (21A.34.020.E);and Foothill Residential FR-1, FR-2 and FR-3 districts (21A.24.010.0). c. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS: Residential Districts: Allowable materials: must be made of high quality, durable materials that require minimum maintenance. Acceptable materials: chain link,wood,brick,masonry block,stone,tubular steel,wrought iron,vinyl,composite/recycled materials or other manufactured material or combination of materials commonly used for fencing. Prohibited materials: scrap materials such as scrap lumber and scrap metal; and materials not typically used or designated/manufactured for fencing such as metal roofing panels, corrugated or sheet metal,tarps, or plywood. Non-Residential Districts: Commercial Districts,Manufacturing Districts,Downtown Districts, Gateway Districts,Special Purpose Districts,and Overlay Districts: Allowable materials: must be made of high quality, durable materials that require minimum maintenance. Acceptable materials: include but not limited to chain link,pre-woven chain link with slats,wood,brick,tilt-up concrete,masonry block,stone,metal,composite/recycled materials or other manufactured materials or combination of materials commonly used for fencing. Prohibited materials: Scrap materials such as scrap lumber and scrap metal; or material not typically used or designated/manufactured for fencing such as metal roofing panels, corrugated or sheet metal, tarps,or plywood. d. HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS: Residential Zoning Districts: Fence,wall or hedge erected in any front yard may not exceed 4 feet. Standards for all Zoning Districts: Page 3 > A solid fence,wall,or hedge shall not exceed 3 feet in height when located within the sight distance triangle extending 30 feet of the intersection of the right of way line on any corner; > Fences,walls or hedges may be erected in any required corner side yard extending to a point in line with the front facade of the principal structure,side yard or rear yard to a height not to exceed 6 feet; > Solid fences,walls or hedges located near the intersection of a driveway or an alley within the public way shall not exceed 30 inches in height within a 10 foot wide by ten foot deep sight distance triangle; > See-through fences within the defined area of sight distance triangle that are at least 50 percent open can be built to a height of 4 feet; > In consultation with the Development Review Team,the Zoning Administrator may require alternative design solutions to provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys,including but not restricted to increased fence setback and/or lower fence height to mitigate safety concerns; > Fence height shall be measured from the established grade of the site; > Under a Special Exception Standard,the Board of Adjustment may approve additional fence height if the Board finds that extra height is necessary for the security of the property in question. e. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: > All fences or walls shall periodically be treated with paint or chemicals unless materials have been designed or manufactured to remain untreated; > Fences or walls shall be constructed with good workmanship and shall be adequately secured to the ground or supporting area and constructed to withstand wind loads; > All fences or walls (Including entrance and exit gates)shall be maintained in good repair, free of graffiti,structurally sound so as to not pose a threat to public health,safety and welfare. f. EXCEPTION: Since the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) regulates security fencing around the Airport's property,the Airport District is exempt from these regulations. C) The public process included two open houses held on March 15,2005 and July 7,2005. The Administration notes comments,concerns,or questions were made relating to: 1. The cost of installing a required solid fence around large industrial lots of one acre or more; 2. An inquiry as to whether fences should allow enough setback to allow for planting on the public side; 3. A question asking if existing fences have to meet the new standards; and a concern that property owners may raise property grade outside the buildable area two feet and install a six foot fence. E) The City's Engineering,Fire,Police Property Management,Public Utilities,Transportation, Permits, and Zoning Enforcement divisions have reviewed the proposed amendments and expressed support or no objections to the proposal. 1. The Department of Airports expressed concern about the proposed fence regulations because the Airport is required to follow the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) requirements for Page 4 security fencing around the Airport. As part of the proposed amendment, an exception is made for the Airport"A" District. 2. Permits Division: In the past, permits staff has been faced with challenges regarding the definition for solid gates. Applicants have argued that solid gates are difficult to construct and maintain. The proposed amendment defines"solid" as: "blocks the transmission of at least 95 percent of light and visibility through the fence,and is erected to screen areas from public streets and abutting properties." The proposed amendment also identifies acceptable and prohibited materials. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: A) The City Council may wish to discuss the Planning Commission's recommendation that the 4 foot height restriction for fences in the front yard is applied in the area of a residential front yard 20 foot setback rather than the area between the front property line and the principal structure as requested in Council Member Buhler's initial legislative action. The Planning Commission's recommendation was based upon: 1. The Planning Commission did not agree with restricting fence height to 4-feet due to the fact that a property owner could build an addition onto the front of the house or construct a court yard in the "buildable area" that would be taller than 4 feet; and 2. the proposed Compatible Residential Infill Development standards contain a provision that calculates front yard setbacks by averaging the setbacks of existing residents on a block face. The Commission concluded that by replacing the existing 20 foot front yard setback standard with the averaging provision will mitigate negative impacts of fences in excess of 4 feet in front of a house. B) For the Councils discussion and consideration,the Administration has provided two ordinances that apply to fence height regulations. Which version of the ordinance does the Council wish to consider? 1. Ordinance as approved by Planning Commission (as explained above). Language states: "Standard for residential zoning districts: No fence,wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of four feet(4')." 2. Version B--Ordinance that includes language meeting the request as noted in Council Member Buhler's legislative action. Language states: "Standard for residential zoning districts: No fence,wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of four feet(4') between the front property line and the front façade of the principal structure. C) The Planning staff report notes the"proposed standards would require a building permit for fences to assure fences are structurally sound and constructed in such a manner as to not pose a threat to public health or safety." The proposed standards shall support zoning enforcement efforts when a property is out of compliance regarding a fence condition or fence height restriction." A building permit requirement pertains to fence height in the sight distance triangle or for fences and walls exceeding six feet in height and for all fences and walls of any height Page 5 • constructed according to International Building Code. The Council may wish to inquire with the Administration if other cities require a building permit for fences and how effective have other cities been in property owners meeting compliance. D) The Council may wish to inquire with the Administration regarding their plans on education efforts to notify community members about the"no fee building permit" requirement which pertains to construction of any fence less than six feet in height,or material does not consist of concrete or masonry,or does not require structural review under the International Building Code regulations. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to explain more specifically how the permit process will ensure compliance with adopted regulations. E) Budget Related Facts: The Administration states that a building permit fee will be based on construction costs or valuation of the work. The Council may wish to request information from the Administration regarding revenues and costs associated with issuing building permits for fences and walls,projected costs associated with enforcement,and the net fiscal impact to the City's budget. (The Council could request that the Administration provide the information prior to when the Council schedules a public hearing.) 1. What steps are proposed to implement the program? 2. Can the program be implemented with existing resources and funding levels? 3. If not,what is the estimated cost in additional resources and funding? F) Previous Matters at Issue noted in 2004: As part of Council Member Buhler's legislative action,he asked that the Administration propose "standards to better distinguish and identify the right of way line and the edge of a driveway,alley,sidewalk,pedestrian walkway,roadway and curb." The Administration's response is that it is the property owner's responsibility to determine private property lines. The Council may wish to discuss this issue in further detail with the Administration. For example,if the City receives a constituent complaint about a neighbor's fence height,the City would make an evaluation to determine if it is properly installed within the sight distance requirements. If findings show that the fence is out of compliance,the property owner is asked to comply. However,there is the potential for instances to occur when there is uncertainty as to the location of the right of way line. 1. Under a circumstance of this nature,is it the City's intent to place the burden on a property owner to bear financial costs to identify the right of way line,specifically when the Administration's evaluation finds that a fence is in compliance within a sight distance triangle? 2. Should the property owner be required to bear the financial costs when findings indicate the fence is in compliance? 3. If the City were to accept the responsibility for situations of this nature, what would the potential administrative cost be and what other areas might the City be asked to survey once the City steps in to the arena of resolving property line questions? Lastly, one other Matters at Issue raised by a District Six constituent in 2004 is that the proposed ordinance lacks language addressing obstructions from any potential visual obstruction. For example, a large evergreen tree with branches hanging down to the ground may provide a complete visual impairment within the sight distance triangle but since it is not a"fence, wall or Page hedge" it is not addressed anywhere in the zoning regulations. MASTER PLAN & POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: According to the Administration,general policies relating to buffers and fences are identified in the Salt Lake City Urban Design Element and the Futures Commission Report and proposed amendments to the fence regulations of the Zoning ordinance are consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies. Refer to Item C under"Key Elements" above for more specific policy sections. The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff states that the proposed amendments are consistent with Master Plan policies relating to buffers and fences as noted in the Salt Lake City Urban Design Element and the Futures Commission Report. Key references in the plans are noted below: 1. Salt Lake City Urban Design Element: 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. Page 20: "View Corridors and Vistas: A view is a visual image having aesthetic beauty worth preserving. A'view corridor' frames a view of a building or natural feature from either a short or a long distance. View corridors are often associated with streets or pedestrian walkways." Page 80: "Use street spaces,patterns, and rhythms to unify the image of the district." Page 81: "Continue to use landscaped parking strips and front yards as the major landscaped, open space element of the street in residential and commercial fringe areas." Page 83: "Neighborhood continuity . . . created by a continuous front yard and landscaped parking strip." 2. Futures Commission Report: Page viii Urban Design: "coordinate the design and implementation of public improvements to minimize the disruption to neighborhood residents." Page vi: Neighborhoods: "maintain and improve infrastructure in all City neighborhoods." Page 38: "Vision Statement: . . .where property is well maintained;where landlords, tenants,homeowners,and businesses take responsibility for their properties." Page 40: Neighborhood Subcommittee: "Civic Responsibility-property owners should keep their property free of debris and their lawns,walks, and structures well maintained." Page 7 Page 44: Neighborhood Subcommittee/Goal D The ideal neighborhood will be maintained-"Code enforcement: continue to support code enforcement as a means of maintaining and upgrading properties." In addition,Council staff would like to reiterate the following master plan and policy considerations were noted back in 2004 relating to Petition No.400-04-26(Council Member Buhler's Legislative Action): 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals,objectives and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City, addresses safety and urban design issues, supports City policies relating to compatibility and preservation of neighborhood character,is consistent with the adopted overlay zoning districts, and will not affect the delivery of public services or impact public facilities. 4. The City's Comprehensive Housing Plan policy statements address a variety of housing issues including limiting impacts and protecting neighborhood character,quality design, public and neighborhood participation and interaction,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. 5. The Council's growth policy notes 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. 6. 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 Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive,friendly,safe environments and creating attractive conditions for business expansion including retention and attraction of large and small businesses. LEGISLATIVE ACTION ITEMS: The proposed changes to amend Section 21A.40.120.D of Salt Lake City Code pertaining to regulations for fences in front yard areas in residential zoning district were in response to Council Member Dave Buhler's Legislative Action. Page 8 CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed amendments. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. ➢ July 31, 2002: Zoning ordinance fine-tuning open house (included revisions to the fence regulations). ➢ October 12,2002: Planning Commission Public Hearing for Zoning Ordinance fine-tuning revisions. ➢ June 3,2003 : Legislative Action initiated by Council Member Dave Buhler adopted by the City Council and forwarded to the Administration for re-evaluation. ➢ June 23,2004: Planning Commission discussion of proposed amendments to the fence regulations related to Petition No.400-04-26 (response to Council Member Buhler's Legislative Action). Planning Commission recommended that the issue be referred to the City Council without an additional hearing. ➢ April 14, 2004: Planning Commission initiated Petition No. 400-04-20 to create definitions of "open" and"solid/opaque" fences and to establish regulations for construction and materials of fences. ➢ October 12,2004: City Council public hearing regarding Petition 400-04-26 in response to Council Member Buhler's Legislative Action. Council made a motion to defer this petition to a future Council meeting to allow further consideration by the City Council. • May 2005: Both petitions were combined as one item for the purpose of a comprehensive approach. ➢ March 15, 2005 and July 7,2005: public open houses were held on both petitions as one item. ➢ On October 26,2005,a Planning Commission hearing held on Petition Nos.400-04-20 and 400- 04-26. Cc: Sam Guevara, Rocky Fluhart,DJ Baxter, Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace, Louis Zunguze; Roy Williams; Chief Chuck Querry;Brent Wilde;Craig Spangenberg;JR Smith; Brad Stewart; Melanie Reif;Craig Smith;Alex Ikefuna; Orion Goff;Craig Spangenberg, Allen McCandless;Steve Domino;Tim Harpst, Kevin Young;Alan Michelsen;Larry Butcher;Alan Hardman;Ken Brown;Larry Bradley;Barry Walsh;Kevin LoPiccolo;Jackie Gasparik;Joel Patterson;Janice Jardine;Sylvia Jones;Marge Harvey; Lehua Weaver,Diana Karrenberg;Annette Daley;Gwen Springmeyer; and Barry Esham Page 9 ATTACHMENT 1 The following information was provided to the Council for the October 12,2004 Public Hearing relating to Petition No.400-04-26 only. It is being provided again for reference. On September 14,2004, the City Council received a briefing from the Administration and held a discussion regarding proposed changes to amend Section 21A.40.120.D of Salt Lake City Code pertaining to regulations for fences in front yard areas in residential zoning districts. The proposed changes were in response to Council Member Dave Buhler's Legislative Action following the receipt of a constituent's letter expressing concern regarding the fence regulations. Planning staff briefed the City Council on the proposed changes. Key points from the Work Session briefing are summarized below (shown in italicized BOLD). Council Members may wish to request that the City Attorney's office prepare a revised ordinance. 1. Allowing a six foot fence to extend along the entire length of the interior side yard to the front yard setback line will inhibit abutting property owner's view of the streetscape and adequate light and sight of the neighborhood. The Zoning Ordinance currently allows additional fence height through the Board of Adjustment Special Exception process. (Consideration must be given to the established character of the affected neighborhood and streetscape,maintenance of public and private views and matters of public safety.) At the Work Session briefing,Planning staff reiterated that the location of residential structures on properties throughout the City vary from the front property setback line. Therefore, they perceive it is an equity issue to allow residents to have their six foot fencing in place from the front setback line rather than the front façade of the residential structure. 2. The proposed ordinance lacks language relating to fence materials and finishing;therefore a fence can be left unfinished and seam side out. (Some communities require that property owners put the finished side toward the public or their neighbors. The Salt Lake City code is silent on this. Some property owners argue that if they are paying for the fence they should have the option of having the"finished" side of the fence face their property rather than that of their neighbors.) At the Work Session briefing, Council Member Nancy Saxton stated at one time when she conducted research on fences, she recalls there was a section of State Code that addresses the unfinished side of fences and the property owner who is responsible for maintenance. Council staff conducted a research of State Code, and found Title 4, Chapter 26, Section 5 that is part of Utah Agricultural Code. This section of Utah Code pertains to fences in agricultural areas and addresses property owner's responsibilities consistent with those noted by Council Member Saxton. (See the attached copy of the code for details.) Council staff also inquired via telephone with the State Legislature, and was informed that this is the only section of Utah State Code that pertains to fences that addresses the unfinished side and maintenance responsibility. Page 10 way line. o Define height clearance areas between 2.5-feet and 7-feet for passenger vehicles and 2.5-feet and 8- feet for commercial trucks. According to Planning Staffs transmittal, Section 21A.40.120.D.2, 3 and 5 of the Zoning Ordinance includes an illustration for sight distance triangle (see page 3 of the Administration's transmittal). The proposed ordinance amendment includes language that defines the clearance area setting a maximum fence height within defined sight triangles: a) 3-feet for solid fences when located within the sight distance triangle extending 30 feet from the intersection of the right of way lines on any corner lot; b) Thirty (30") inches for solid fences located near the intersection of a driveway or an alley with the public way; c) 4-feet for see-through fences that are at least 50% open. o Provide City Traffic Engineers discretion to evaluate projects on a case-by-case basis including defined parameters and criteria for analysis. Proposed amendment language states: "To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys, the Zoning Administrator, in consultation with the Development Review Team, may require alternative design solutions including but not restricted to requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by the location of buildings, grade changes or other pre-existing conditions." E) As part of the Zoning Ordinance Fine-tuning Petition 400-02-20, the public process included a Public Open House held on July 31, 2002. At that time, all community council chairs received a copy of the fine-tuning proposed amendment which included proposed changes to section of City Code 21A.40.120D Height Restrictions for Fences, Wall and Hedges. F) The City's Planning, Permits, and Transportation Divisions have reviewed and provided input to the proposed amendment. G) On October 17, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance Fine-tuning Petition 400-02-20 which included proposed changes to section of City Code 21A.40.120D Height Restrictions for Fences, Wall and Hedges. According to Planning staff, the Planning Commission voted unanimously recommending that the City Council make numerous amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance. On June 23, 2004, under the "Report of the Director" section of the Planning Commission's agenda, Mr. Zunguze referred to the Zoning Ordinance Fine-tuning a petition earlier approved by the Planning Commission as noted above. Issues discussed on June 23' by the Planning Commission hearing included: 1. Fence heights should be limited to four(4') feet in height in the front of a residential structural facade. Page 13 • 2. Add language to clarify that along the property line one could build a six foot high fence up to the front setback line. 3. Eliminate the average grade provision. 4. The need to provide a public education process by the City regarding fence regulations , such as including information in residents' public utilities bills and mail information to fence contractors. 5. Another public hearing before the Planning Commission is not necessary, but publishing material and distributing it accordingly would suffice. 6. The Planning Commission adopted a motion to approve the proposed fence height regulations as presented in response to Council Member Buhler's Legislative Action. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: A) As part of Council Member Buhler's legislative action, he asked that the Administration propose "standards to better distinguish and identify the right of way line and the edge of a driveway, alley, sidewalk, pedestrian walkway, roadway and curb." The Administration's response is that it is the property owner's responsibility to determine private property lines. The Council may wish to discuss this issue in further detail with the Administration. For example, if the City receives a constituent complaint about a neighbor's fence height, the City would make an evaluation to determine if it is properly installed within the sight distance requirements. If findings show that the fence is out of compliance, the property owner is asked to comply. However, there is the potential for instances to occur when there is uncertainty as to the location of the right of way line. 1. Under a circumstance of this nature, is it the City's intent to place the burden on a property owner to bear financial costs to identify the right of way line, specifically when the Administration's evaluation finds that a fence is in compliance within a sight distance triangle? 2. Should the property owner be required to bear the financial costs when findings indicate the fence is in compliance? 3. If the City were to accept the responsibility for situations of this nature, what would the potential administrative cost be and what other areas might the City be asked to survey once the City steps in to the arena of resolving property line questions? B) The Planning staff noted that although the International Building Code(IBC) does not require a permit to erect a fence, Salt Lake City requires a building permit be obtained prior to erecting fences and walls in the Foothill and Historic Preservation Overlay zoning districts. The Planning Commission is recommending that an educational outreach program be implemented to provide the information to residents and fencing contractors if the proposed amendment is adopted. They foresee that there could be potential enforcement issues that may arise since certain areas of the City are not required to obtain a building permit to erect a fence. Council Members may wish to discuss this issue in further detail with the Administration including: 1. What steps are proposed to implement the program? 2. Can the program be implemented with existing resources and funding levels? Page 14 3. If not, what is the estimated cost in additional resources and funding? C) Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration whether there has been adequate public notification. As noted earlier in this report, the proposed amendments were not listed/advertised as an agenda item on the Planning Commission's agenda on June 23, 2004. According to the Planning Commission minutes, the proposed amendments were discussed as part of the "Report of the Director" section of the Commission's agenda. In addition, the Administration's transmittal notes: 1. Amendments to the fencing provisions were distributed to all Community Council Chairs as part of the Zoning Ordinance fine-tuning petition in June 2002. 2. In response to the Legislative Action request, the Planning staff revised the amendments reviewed by the Planning Commission as part of the Zoning Ordinance fine-tuning petition. 3. Planning staff presented the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission on June 23, 2004. 4. The Planning Commission recommended that the proposed amendments to the fence provision be transmitted directly to the Council without an additional public hearing before the Commission. The proposed amendment includes additional information since the amendment was presented to the public in 2002 -- issues 1 and 3 raised in Council Member Buhler's Legislative Action were not included in the amendment at that time. D) Council staff contacted the District Six constituent who expressed concern regarding the fence regulations to provide an opportunity to submit in writing to the City Council Office any concerns or questions relating to the proposed Zoning ordinance changes. Key points are summarized below. (Please refer to the attached letter for details.) Council Members may wish to discuss the issues with the Administration and determine whether it would be appropriate to request that the City Attorney's office prepare a revised ordinance. 1. Allowing a six foot fence to extend along the entire length of the interior side yard to the front yard setback line will inhibit abutting property owner's view of the streetscape and adequate light and sight of the neighborhood. The Zoning Ordinance currently allows additional fence height through the Board of Adjustment Special Exception process. (Consideration must be given to the established character of the affected neighborhood and streetscape, maintenance of public and private views and matters of public safety.) a) According to Planning staff, the location of residential structures on properties throughout the City vary from the front property setback line. Therefore, they perceive it is an equity issue to allow residents to have their six foot fencing in place from the front setback line rather than based upon the front façade of the residential structure. 2. The proposed ordinance lacks language relating to fence materials and finishing; therefore a fence can be left unfinished and seam side out. (Some communities require that property owners put the finished side toward the public or their neighbors. The Salt Lake City code is silent on this. Some property owners argue that if they are paying for the fence they should have the option of having the "finished" side of the fence face their property rather than that of their neighbors.) Page 15 3. The proposed ordinance lacks language addressing obstructions from any potential visual obstruction. For example, a large evergreen tree with branches down to the ground may provide a complete visual impairment within the sight distance triangle but since it is not a "fence, wall or hedge" it is not addressed anywhere in the zoning regulations. MASTER PLAN & POLICY CONSIDERATIONS A) According to Planning staff's transmittal, the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt lake City, addresses safety and urban design issues, supports City policies relating to compatibility and preservation of neighborhood character, is consistent with the adopted overlay zoning districts, and will not affect the delivery of public services or impact public facilities. B) The City's Comprehensive Housing Plan policy statements address a variety of housing issues including limiting impacts and protecting neighborhood character, quality design,public and neighborhood participation and interaction, 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. C) 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 Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive, friendly, safe environments and creating attractive conditions for business expansion including retention and attraction of large and small businesses. D) 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. E. 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. KEY DATES: ➢ July 31, 2002—Zoning ordinance fine-tuning open house(included revisions to the fence regulations) ➢ October 17, 2002—Planning Commission Public Hearing for Zoning Ordinance fine-tuning revisions. ➢ June 3, 2003 —City Council approves Council Member Buhler's legislative action. Page 16 ➢ June 16, 2003 —Administration determined six sections need further discussion and development. This included a revision to the fence regulations. ➢ June 23, 2004—Planning Commission discussion of proposed amendments to the fence regulations. Planning Commission recommended that the issue be referred to the City Council without an additional hearing. cc: Sam Guevara, Rocky Fluhart, DJ Baxter, Ed Rutan, Lynn Pace,Lee Martinez, David Dobbins, Louis Zunguze, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Cheri Coffey, Joel Paterson, Orion Goff, Larry Butcher, Alan Hardman, Tim Harpst, Kevin Young,Barry Walsh, Laura Howat, Barry Esham, Diana Karrenberg, Janice Jardine, Annette Daley, Gwen Springmeyer, Sylvia Jones,Marge Harvey, and Lehua Weaver File location: CD/Planning Division/Zoning Ordinance Text change/Fence Height Regulations Page 17 AUG 0 1 ZOOS A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE ,ila 1 ll��efi MIii.A�ie ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANS Tp17 TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer E: March 9, 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Directo RE: Petitions #400-04-20&400-04-26: A Request to Modify and Add Language to the Zoning Ordinance 21A.62 Definitions and 21A.40.120 Regulations of Fences, Walls and Hedges STAFF CONTACT: Jackie O. Gasparik, Principal Planner, at 535-6354 or • jackie.gasparik@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council schedule a briefing and hold a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: This transmittal deals with two petitions related to the regulation of fences in the City. On June 3, 2003, Councilman Buhler initiated a Legislative Action to better define fence standards such as fence height. Consequently, Petition#400-04-26 was originated and was initially reviewed by the City Council on October 12,2004. The City Council voted to defer the issue to a future meeting after Councilmember Buhler stated that the proposal needed additional consideration by the Council. The petition was sent back to the Planning Division to analyze a proposed provision limiting the height of a fence to four feet(4')between the front property line and the front façade of the principal structure as suggested during the City Council Public Hearing. The City Council was of the opinion that the language in the existing ordinance that allows a six foot(6')tall fence located in front of a house be reviewed because of the potential that such fences would detract from the residential character of a neighborhood. The original transmittal for Petition 400-04-26 is attached as Exhibit 6. On April 14, 2004, the Planning Commission initiated Petition#400-04-20 to create definitions of an"open fence" and"solid/opaque"fence and to establish regulations for construction and materials of fences. The impetus of this petition by the Planning Commission was the ongoing problem of screening and fence maintenance,particularly in industrial areas. Solid/opaque fences are required for screening outdoor storage, parking lots that abut residential zones, and in 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801.535.7105 FAX: 1301-535.6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM various other circumstances. The main issue is to ensure that fencing for screening, especially in industrial areas, is of good quality and adequately maintained. Due to the amendments requested by the City Council regarding Petition#400-04-26, the Planning Staff determined it was appropriate to combine that petition with Petition#400-04-20 for the purposes of providing a more comprehensive approach to addressing these fencing issues. Analysis: Petition#400-04-26 was established to restrict the height of fences in the front yard. The proposed language limited fence height to four feet(4') in the front yard(the area between the front property line and the principal structure). Following the Public Hearing on October 12, 2004, the Council requested that the ordinance language be amended to exclude the exception that would allow a six foot(6')tall fence to be constructed on the interior property line up to the required front yard setback. The result of this requested amendment would be that any fence constructed between the front façade of a house and the front property line would be limited to four feet(4') in height. The City Council was concerned that a six foot(6')tall fence located anywhere between the front of a house and the front property line may detract from the residential character of the neighborhood. Petition 400-04-20 was established to clarify references in the City's Zoning Ordinance to solid fencing. The existing fence regulations lack specificity with regard to materials and construction types for screening fences. This leads to inadequate screening, especially in industrial areas. There are several provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that refer to the requirement of solid, opaque, sight proof, sight obscuring, light proof, tight board,and privacy fence, but there are no definitions of these types of fences. The proposed changes resulting from the merger of these two petitions include defining an open fence and a solid fence, requirements for a building permit, design requirements, new height regulations, and an exemption for the Airport District. The Airport is required to follow the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)regulations for security fencing around their property. The fencing that the Department of Airports requires of its clients is subject to review and approval by the Airport. Master Plan Considerations: The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element and the Futures Commission Report both identify general policies relating to buffers and fences. The proposed amendments are consistent with these policies. PUBLIC PROCESS Two public Open Houses regarding these petitions were held on March 15, 2005, and on July 7, 2005. Six citizens in total attended the Open Houses. Two concerns were raised during the citizen input process,namely: 1. Petition 400-04-26—That the City allows property owners to make grade changes of up to two feet(2') along a property line. Therefore, a six foot(6')fence on top of a grade change could result in an overall height of up to 8 feet(8'). Petitions 400-04-20&400-04-26:A Request to Modify the Definition&Regulation of Fences,Walls,and Hedges Page 2 of 4 2. Petition 400-04-20—That the cost of installing the required solid fence around large industrial lots of one acre or larger would be prohibitive. A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on October 26,2005. The only issue the Planning Commission raised was regarding the height of fences in the front yard. The Planning Commission did not agree with the proposed restriction which allows a maximum four foot(4') high fence in the front yard (between the front property line and the house) as requested by Councilmember Buhler due to the fact that a property owner could build an addition onto the front of their house that could extend to the required minimum setback line. The Planning Commission also noted that the proposed Compatible Residential Infill Development standards include a provision to calculate front yard setbacks by averaging the setbacks of existing residences on a block face. The Commission was of the opinion that replacing the existing twenty foot(20') front yard setback standard with the averaging provision will help mitigate negative impacts of constructing fences taller than four feet(4')in front of a house. The Planning Commission voted to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments with a modification that would allow a six foot(6') fence to extend between the front of the house and the required minimum front yard setback, which could be several feet in front of the house. Exhibit 2a is the ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission, which allows the six foot(6')side yard fence to extend forward to the required front yard setback, and Exhibit 2b is an alternative ordinance that reflects the City Council's preference to have the six foot(6') side yard fence extend forward only to the front facade of the principal building. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Salt Lake City Code Chapter 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments. A decision to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance or the zoning map 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 Planning Commission and the City Council must consider the following factors: 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives,and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will 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. Petitions 400-04-20&400-04-26:A Request to Modify the Definition&Regulation of Fences,Walls,and Hedges Page 3 of 4 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. These standards were evaluated in the Planning Commission staff report and considered by the Planning Commission. Discussion and findings for these standards are found on pages 3-5 of the Staff report in Exhibit 5B: Staff Report(attached). Petitions 400-04-20&400-04-26:A Request to Modify the Definition&Regulation of Fences,Walls,and Hedges Page 4 of 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Chronology 2. Ordinance(s) 2a. Ordinance as approved by Planning Commission 2b. Ordinance with added language from City Council 3. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 4. Mailing Labels and List 5. Planning Commission Hearing, October 26, 2005 5a. Agenda, copy of postmark from original notice 5b. Staff report and attachments 5c. Minutes 6. Transmittal of Petition 400-04-26, July 28, 2004 7. Original Petition Packet 1. CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY Petition 400-0426 • July 31, 2002: Zoning Ordinance Fine-tuning Open House. • October 17, 2002: Planning Commission Public Hearing. PC voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. • June 3, 2003: Transmittal sent to David Dobbins for CED approval. City Council adopts Legislative Action request to fencing provisions. • June 16, 2003: Meeting with Alison Weyher, Louis Zunguze, Rodger Evans, Brent Wild, Ken Brown, Craig Spangenberg regarding the transmittal of this petition. Alison Weyher asked for several proposed amendments(including those relating to fencing provisions)to be removed from the ordinance. • June 4, 2004: Petition 400-04-26 assigned to Joel Paterson, Senior Planner. • June 23, 2004: Staff briefed the Planning Commission on the proposed ' fencing provision amendments. Planning Commission recommended that the proposed amendments be transmitted to the City Council without further Planning Commission public hearings. • July 9, 2004: Ordinance prepared by the City Attorney's Office. • September 14, 2004: Council Briefing. • October 12, 2004: Council Hearing. Petition 400-04-20 • May 26, 2004: Petition 400-04-20 assigned to Jackie Gasparik, Principal Planner. • June, 2004: Researched current zoning regulations and Building Code regulations. • July, 2004: Researched other local municipality's fence regulations. • August 2, 2004: Received research from Planning Advisory Services fence regulations from around the Country. • September, 2004: Drafted proposed language and requested responses from other City Departments and Divisions. • November, 2004: Redrafted language with City Department/Division input. • January, 2005: Rerouted proposed language for Department/Division review. • March 15, 2005: Public Open House was held to gather input. Petitions 400-04-20 & 400-04-26 (combined) • April 2005: Petition 400 04-20 & 400-04-26 assigned to Jackie Gasparik. • May 2005: Incorporated second petition into proposed language. • June 2005: Routed proposed language for Department/Division review. • July 7, 2005: A second Public Open House was held to gather input on both petitions. • August 2005: Redrafted language, routed for Department/Division review. • September 2005: Prepared Planning Commission Staff report. • October 11, 2005: Notices sent. • October 26, 2005: Planning Commission Public Hearing. • October 27, 2005: Requested Ordinance from Attorneys Office. 2. ORDINANCE(S) 2a. ORDINANCE AS APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION Version A SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending Section 21A.62.040 Definitions and Section 21A.40.120 Fencing Regulations) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21A.62.040, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, AND SECTION 21A.40.120, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO REGULATIONS OF FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NOS. 400-04-20 AND 400-04-26. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments are in the best interest of the City. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 21A.62.040, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to definitions be, and the same hereby is, amended to include the following definitions: "Fence/opaque or solid" means an artificially constructed solid or opaque barrier that blocks the transmission of at least ninety-five percent(95%) of light and visibility through the fence, and is erected to screen areas from public streets and abutting properties. "Fence/open" means an artificially constructed barrier that blocks the transmission of a maximum of fifty percent (50%) of light and visibility through the fence, and is erected to separate private property from public rights of way and abutting properties. SECTION 2. That Section 21A.40.120, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to regulations of fences, walls and hedges be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.40.120 Regulation Of Fences, Walls And Hedges: A. Purpose: Fences, walls and hedges serve properties by providing privacy and security, defining private space and enhancing the design of individual sites. Fences also affect the public by impacting the visual image of the streetscape and the overall character of neighborhoods. The purpose of these regulations is to achieve a balance between the private concerns for privacy, site design, and the public concern for enhancement of the community appearance, and to ensure the provision of adequate light, air and public safety. B. Location: All fences, walls or hedges shall be erected entirely within the property lines of the property they are intended to serve. C. Building Permit Required: A building permit shall be obtained prior to overlay district or in the foothill residential FR 1, FR 2, and FR 3 districts. 1. A no fee building permit shall be obtained prior to construction of any fence that does not exceed six feet (6') in height and is not made of concrete or masonry or does not require structural review under the International Building Code regulations. The permit is to ensure compliance with adopted regulations. 2. A building permit and fee are required for fences and walls which exceed six feet (6') in height and all fences or walls of any height that are constructed under the International Building Code. The permit is to ensure compliance with all Zoning Ordinance 2 standards and requirements (location, height, types of materials) as well as to ensure that the structural integrity of the pilasters and foundation system which will be verified by plan review and site inspection. 3. The application for a permit must include plans identifying the location and height of the proposed fence or wall. If the fence or wall is constructed of masonry or concrete of any height or exceeds six feet(6') in height, construction details showing horizontal and vertical reinforcement and foundation details shall be shown on the plans. 4. The building permit fee for a fence will be a general permit fee based on construction costs or valuation of the work. 5. Construction of any fence in the following districts shall also comply with the additional fencing regulations found in the following sections of this title. a. FP foothills protection district(21A.32.040.1). b. H historic preservation overlay district (21A.34.020.E), and c. Foothill residential FR-1, FR-2 and FR-3 districts (21A.24.010.0). D. Design Requirements: 1. Residential Districts (21A.24 Residential Districts): a. Allowed Materials. Fences and walls shall be made of high quality, durable materials that require low maintenance. Acceptable materials for a fence include: chain link, wood, brick, masonry block, stone, tubular steel, wrought iron, vinyl, composite/recycled materials (hardy board) or other manufactured material or combination of materials commonly used for fencing. b. Prohibited Materials. Fences and walls shall not be made of or contain: 3 i. Scrap materials such as scrap lumber and scrap metal. ii. Materials not typically used or designated/manufactured for fencing such as metal roofing panels, corrugated or sheet metal, tarps or plywood. 2. Non-residential districts (21A.26.34 Commercial Districts, Manufacturing Districts, Downtown Districts, Gateway Districts, Special Purpose Districts and Overlay Districts: a. Allowed Materials. Fences and walls shall be made of high quality, durable materials that require minimal maintenance. Acceptable materials for fencing in non- residential districts include, but are not limited to chain link, pre-woven chain link with slats, wood, brick, tilt-up concrete, masonry block, stone, metal, composite/recycled materials or other manufactured materials or combination of materials commonly used for fencing. b. Prohibited Materials. Fences or walls in non-residential districts shall not be constructed of or contain: i. Scrap materials such as scrap lumber and scrap metal. ii. Materials not typically used or designated/manufactured for fencing such as metal roofing panels, corrugated or sheet metal, tarps or plywood. DE. Height Restrictions: 1. Standard for residential zoning districts: No fence, wall or hedge shall be erected in any front yard to a height in excess of four feet (4'). 2. Standards for all zoning districts: However, n a. No suehsolid fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of three feet (3') if the fence, wall or hedge is located within the sight distance triangle extending 4 thirty feet(30') of the intersection of the right-of-way front property lines on any corner lot as noted in figure 21A.62.050.I of this title. b. Fences, walls or hedges may be erected in any required corner side yard (extending to apoint in line with the front façade of the principal structure), side yard or rear yard to a height not to exceed six feet (6'). The zoning administrator may require either increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. c. Solid fences, walls and hedges located near the intersection of a driveway or an alley within the public way shall not exceed thirty inches (30") in height within a ten foot(10') wide by ten foot(10') deep sight distance triangle as defined in figure 21A.62.050.I of this title. d. Within the area defined as a sight distance triangle, see-through fences that are at least fifty percent(50%) open shall be allowed to a height of four feet (4'). e. To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys, the Zoning Administrator, in consulting with the Development Review Team, may require alternative design solutions, including but not restricted to requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by the location of buildings,grade change or other pre- existing conditions. f. Measuring the height of a fence shall be from the established grade of the site as defined in part VI chapter 21A.62.040 of this title. g. Special Exception Approval Standards: The Board of Adjustment may approve taller fencing if the board finds that the extra height is necessary for the security of the 5 property in question as defined in part VI, chapter 21A.52.100 of this title. Where there is a fence, wall or hedge shall €' f' the ^ rade ofthe ad'_pining properties; provided, that in such instance a minimum four foot (4')high fence, wall or hedge shall be allowed. F. General Requirements: 1. Except when constructed of materials that have been designed or manufactured to remain untreated, all fences or walls shall periodically be treated with paint or chemicals so as to retard deterioration. 2. Fences or walls shall be constructed with good workmanship and shall be secured to the ground or supporting area in a substantial manner and engineered so that the structure of columns or posts and the material used for the intervening panels are adequately constructed to support the materials and withstand wind loads. 3. All fences or walls (including entrance and exit gates) shall be maintained in good repair, free of graffiti, structurally sound, so as to not pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare. EG. Exceptions: Pillars shall be allowed to extend up to eighteen inches (18") above the allowable height of a fence or wall; provided, that the pillars shall have a maximum diameter or width of no more than eighteen inches (18"); and provided, that the pillars shall have a minimum spacing of no less than six feet(6'), measured face to face. 6 -FH. Encroachments: Encroachments into the site distance triangle for driveways as defined and illustrated in part VI, chapter 21A.62 of this title, may be approved by the zoning administrator. This regulation shall also apply to site distance triangles for alleys. GI. Barbed Wire Fences: 1. Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1, M-2 and D-2 districts. 2. Special Exception: Barbed wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to part V, chapter 21A.52 of this title, in all zoning districts except for those listed above as permitted uses. The board of adjustment may approve as special exceptions, the placement of barbed wire fences, for security reasons, or for the keeping of animals around nonresidential properties, transformer stations, microwave stations, construction sites or other similar publicly necessary or dangerous sites,provided the requested fence is not in any residential district and is not on or near the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. 3. Location Requirements: Barbed wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front yard setbacks nor along frontages on streets defined as gateway streets in Salt Lake City's adopted urban design element master plan. 4. Special Design Regulations: No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than six feet (6') high. No more than three (3) strands of barbed wire are permitted. The barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than sixty degrees (60°) from a vertical line. No barbed wire strand shall project over public property. If the barbed wire proposed slants 7 outward over adjoining private property the applicant must submit written consent from adjoining property owner agreeing to such a projection over the property line. 5. Special Exception Approval Standards: The board of adjustment may approve, as a special exception, the building permit for a barbed wire fence if the zoning administrator finds that the applicant has shown that the fence is reasonably necessary for security in that it protects people from dangerous sites and conditions such as transformer stations, microwave station or construction sites. 1MJ. Razor Wire Fences: 1. Special Exception: Razor wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to part V, chapter 21A.52 of this title, in the A, CG, D-2, M-1 and M-2 zoning districts. The board of adjustment may approve as a special exception the placement of razor wire fences, for security reasons, around commercial or industrial uses, transformer stations, microwave stations, or other similar public necessity or dangerous sites; provided, that the requested fence is not on the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. 2. Location Requirements: Razor wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front or corner side yard setback. 3. Special Design Regulations: No strand of razor wire shall be permitted on a fence that is less than seven feet (7') high. Razor wire coils shall not exceed eighteen inches (18") in diameter and must slant inward from the fence to which the razor wire is being attached. 4. Special Exception Approved Standards: The board of adjustment may approve razor wire fencing if the board finds that the applicant has shown that razor wire is necessary for the security of the property in question. 8 K. Exemption: The Airport District"A" is exempt from all Zoning Ordinance fence regulations. The Department of Airports has administrative authority to regulate and approve fencing within the "A" Airport District. All fencing that the Department of Airports requires of its clients within the "A" District is subject to review and approval by the Airport. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed 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 ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 9 (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: I:\Ordinance 06\Amending 21A.62.040 Definitions and 21 A.40.120 Fencing Regulations-07-20-06 draft.doc 10 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending Section 21A.62.040 Definitions and Section 21A.40.120 Fencing Regulations) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21A.62.040, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, AND SECTION 21A.40.120, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO REGULATIONS OF FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NOS. 400-04-20 AND 400-04-26. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments are in the best interest of the City. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 21 A.62.040, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to definitions be, and the same hereby is, amended to include the following definitions: "Fence/opaque or solid" means an artificially constructed solid or opaque barrier that blocks the transmission of at least ninety-five percent(95%) of light and visibility through the fence, and is erected to screen areas from public streets and abutting properties. "Fence/open" means an artificially constructed barrier that blocks the transmission of a maximum of fifty percent (50%) of light and visibility through the fence, and is erected to separate private property from public rights of way and abutting properties. SECTION 2. That Section 21A.40.120, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to regulations of fences, walls and hedges be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.40.120 Regulation Of Fences, Walls And Hedges: A. Purpose: Fences, walls and hedges serve properties by providing privacy and security, defining private space and enhancing the design of individual sites. Fences also affect the public by impacting the visual image of the streetscape and the overall character of neighborhoods. The purpose of these regulations is to achieve a balance between the private concerns for privacy, site design, and the public concern for enhancement of the community appearance, and to ensure the provision of adequate light, air and public safety. B. Location: All fences, walls or hedges shall be erected entirely within the property lines of the property they are intended to serve. C. Building Permit Required: 1. A no fee building permit shall be obtained prior to construction of any fence that does not exceed six feet (6') in height and is not made of concrete or masonry or does not require structural review under the International Building Code regulations. The permit is to ensure compliance with adopted regulations. 2. A building permit and fee are required for fences and walls which exceed six feet(6') in height and all fences or walls of any height that are constructed under the International Building Code. The permit is to ensure compliance with all Zoning Ordinance standards and requirements (location, height, types of materials) as well as to ensure that the 2 structural integrity of the pilasters and foundation system which will be verified by plan review and site inspection. 3. The application for a permit must include plans identifying the location and height of the proposed fence or wall. If the fence or wall is constructed of masonry or concrete of any height or exceeds six feet (6') in height, construction details showing horizontal and vertical reinforcement and foundation details shall be shown on the plans. 4. The building permit fee for a fence will be a general permit fee based on construction costs or valuation of the work. 5. Construction of any fence in the following districts shall also comply with the additional fencing regulations found in the following sections of this title. a. FP foothills protection district (21A.32.040.I). b. H historic preservation overlay district (21A.34.020.E), and c. Foothill residential FR-1, FR-2 and FR-3 districts (21A.24.010.0). D. Design Requirements: 1. Residential Districts (21A.24 Residential Districts): a. Allowed Materials. Fences and walls shall be made of high quality, durable materials that require low maintenance. Acceptable materials for a fence include: chain link, wood, brick, masonry block, stone, tubular steel, wrought iron, vinyl, composite/recycled materials (hardy board) or other manufactured material or combination of materials commonly used for fencing. b. Prohibited Materials. Fences and walls shall not be made of or contain: i. Scrap materials such as scrap lumber and scrap metal. 3 ii. Materials not typically used or designated/manufactured for fencing such as metal roofing panels, corrugated or sheet metal, tarps or plywood. 2. Non-residential districts (21A.26.34 Commercial Districts, Manufacturing Districts, Downtown Districts, Gateway Districts, Special Purpose Districts and Overlay Districts: a. Allowed Materials. Fences and walls shall be made of high quality, durable materials that require minimal maintenance. Acceptable materials for fencing in non- residential districts include, but are not limited to chain link, pre-woven chain link with slats, wood, brick, tilt-up concrete, masonry block, stone, metal, composite/recycled materials or other manufactured materials or combination of materials commonly used for fencing. b. Prohibited Materials. Fences or walls in non-residential districts shall not be constructed of or contain: i. Scrap materials such as scrap lumber and scrap metal. ii. Materials not typically used or designated/manufactured for fencing such as metal roofing panels, corrugated or sheet metal, tarps or plywood. E. Height Restrictions: 1. Standard for residential zoning districts: No fence, wall or hedge shall be erected in any front yard to a height in excess of four feet (4'). 2. Standards for all zoning districts: a. No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of three feet(3') if the fence, wall or hedge is located within the sight distance triangle extending 4 thirty feet (30') of the intersection of the right-of-way lines on any corner lot as noted in figure 21A.62.050.I of this title. b. Fences, walls or hedges may be erected in any required corner side yard (extending to a point in line with the front facade of the principal structure), side yard or rear yard to a height not to exceed six feet (6'). The zoning administrator may require either increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. c. Solid fences, walls and hedges located near the intersection of a driveway or an alley within the public way shall not exceed thirty inches (30") in height within a ten foot(10') wide by ten foot (10') deep sight distance triangle as defined in figure 21A.62.050.I of this title. d. Within the area defined as a sight distance triangle, see-through fences that are at least fifty percent (50%) open shall be allowed to a height of four feet (4'). e. To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys, the Zoning Administrator, in consulting with the Development Review Team, may require alternative design solutions, including but not restricted to requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by the location of buildings, grade change or other pre- existing conditions. f. Measuring the height of a fence shall be from the established grade of the site as defined in part VI chapter 21A.62.040 of this title. 5 g. Special Exception Approval Standards: The Board of Adjustment may approve taller fencing if the board finds that the extra height is necessary for the security of the property in question as defined in part VI, chapter 21A.52.100 of this title. F. General Requirements: 1. Except when constructed of materials that have been designed or manufactured to remain untreated, all fences or walls shall periodically be treated with paint or chemicals so as to retard deterioration. 2. Fences or walls shall be constructed with good workmanship and shall be secured to the ground or supporting area in a substantial manner and engineered so that the structure of columns or posts and the material used for the intervening panels are adequately constructed to support the materials and withstand wind loads. 3. All fences or walls (including entrance and exit gates) shall be maintained in good repair, free of graffiti, structurally sound, so as to not pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare. G. Exceptions: Pillars shall be allowed to extend up to eighteen inches (18") above the allowable height of a fence or wall; provided, that the pillars shall have a maximum diameter or width of no more than eighteen inches (18"); and provided, that the pillars shall have a minimum spacing of no less than six feet (6'), measured face to face. H. Encroachments: Encroachments into the site distance triangle for driveways as defined and illustrated in part VI, chapter 21A.62 of this title, may be approved by the zoning administrator. This regulation shall also apply to site distance triangles for alleys. I. Barbed Wire Fences: 6 1. Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1, M-2 and D-2 districts. 2. Special Exception: Barbed wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to part V, chapter 21A.52 of this title, in all zoning districts except for those listed above as permitted uses. The board of adjustment may approve as special exceptions, the placement of barbed wire fences, for security reasons, or for the keeping of animals around nonresidential properties, transformer stations,microwave stations, construction sites or other similar publicly necessary or dangerous sites, provided the requested fence is not in any residential district and is not on or near the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. 3. Location Requirements: Barbed wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front yard setbacks nor along frontages on streets defined as gateway streets in Salt Lake City's adopted urban design element master plan. 4. Special Design Regulations: No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than six feet (6') high. No more than three (3) strands of barbed wire are permitted. The barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than sixty degrees (60°) from a vertical line. No barbed wire strand shall project over public property. If the barbed wire proposed slants outward over adjoining private property the applicant must submit written consent from adjoining property owner agreeing to such a projection over the property line. 5. Special Exception Approval Standards: The board of adjustment may approve, as a special exception, the building permit for a barbed wire fence if the zoning administrator finds that the applicant has shown that the fence is reasonably necessary for security in that it 7 protects people from dangerous sites and conditions such as transformer stations, microwave station or construction sites. J. Razor Wire Fences: 1. Special Exception: Razor wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to part V, chapter 21A.52 of this title, in the A, CG, D-2, M-1 and M-2 zoning districts. The board of adjustment may approve as a special exception the placement of razor wire fences, for security reasons, around commercial or industrial uses, transformer stations, microwave stations, or other similar public necessity or dangerous sites; provided, that the requested fence is not on the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. 2. Location Requirements: Razor wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front or corner side yard setback. 3. Special Design Regulations: No strand of razor wire shall be permitted on a fence that is less than seven feet (7') high. Razor wire coils shall not exceed eighteen inches (18") in diameter and must slant inward from the fence to which the razor wire is being attached. 4. Special Exception Approved Standards: The board of adjustment may approve razor wire fencing if the board finds that the applicant has shown that razor wire is necessary for the security of the property in question. K. Exemption: The Airport District "A" is exempt from all Zoning Ordinance fence regulations. The Department of Airports has administrative authority to regulate and approve fencing within the "A" Airport District. All fencing that the Department of Airports requires of its clients within the "A" District is subject to review and approval by the Airport. 8 SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed 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 ATTEST: salt CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorneys Office Date By (SEAL) to.O/^ Bill No. of 2006. Published: 1:\Ordinance 05\Amending 21A.62.040 Definitions and 21A.40.120 Fencing Regulations-11-28-05 clean.doc 9 Version B SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending Section 21A.62.040 Definitions and Section 21A.40.120 Fencing Regulations) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21A.62.040, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, AND SECTION 21A.40.120, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO REGULATIONS OF FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NOS. 400-04-20 AND 400-04-26. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments are in the best interest of the City. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 21A.62.040, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to definitions be, and the same hereby is, amended to include the following definitions: "Fence/opaque or solid" means an artificially constructed solid or opaque barrier that blocks the transmission of at least ninety-five percent (95%) of light and visibility through the fence, and is erected to screen areas from public streets and abutting properties. "Fence/open" means an artificially constructed barrier that blocks the transmission of a maximum of fifty percent (50%) of light and visibility through the fence, and is erected to separate private property from public rights of way and abutting properties. SECTION 2. That Section 21A.40.120, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to regulations of fences, walls and hedges be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.40.120 Regulation Of Fences, Walls And Hedges: A. Purpose: Fences, walls and hedges serve properties by providing privacy and security, defining private space and enhancing the design of individual sites. Fences also affect the public by impacting the visual image of the streetscape and the overall character of neighborhoods. The purpose of these regulations is to achieve a balance between the private concerns for privacy, site design, and the public concern for enhancement of the community appearance, and to ensure the provision of adequate light, air and public safety. B. Location: All fences, walls or hedges shall be erected entirely within the property lines of the property they are intended to serve. C. Building Permit Required: A building permit shall be obtained prior to overlay district or in the foothill residential FR 1, FR 2, and FR 3 districts. 1. A no fee building permit shall be obtained prior to construction of any fence that does not exceed six feet (6') in height and is not made of concrete or masonry or does not require structural review under the International Building Code regulations. The permit is to ensure compliance with adopted regulations. 2. A building permit and fee are required for fences and walls which exceed six feet (6') in height and all fences or walls of any height that are constructed under the International Building Code. The permit is to ensure compliance with all Zoning Ordinance 2 standards and requirements (location, height, types of materials) as well as to ensure that the structural integrity of the pilasters and foundation system which will be verified by plan review and site inspection. 3. The application for a permit must include plans identifying the location and height of the proposed fence or wall. If the fence or wall is constructed of masonry or concrete of any height or exceeds six feet (6') in height, construction details showing horizontal and vertical reinforcement and foundation details shall be shown on the plans. 4. The building permit fee for a fence will be a general permit fee based on construction costs or valuation of the work. 5. Construction of any fence in the following districts shall also comply with the additional fencing regulations found in the following sections of this title. a. FP foothills protection district(21A.32.040.I). b. H historic preservation overlay district (21A.34.020.E), and c. Foothill residential FR-1, FR-2 and FR-3 districts (21A.24.010.0). D. Design Requirements: 1. Residential Districts (21A.24 Residential Districts): a. Allowed Materials. Fences and walls shall be made of high quality, durable materials that require low maintenance. Acceptable materials for a fence include: chain link, wood, brick, masonry block, stone, tubular steel, wrought iron, vinyl, composite/recycled materials (hardy board) or other manufactured material or combination of materials commonly used for fencing. b. Prohibited Materials. Fences and walls shall not be made of or contain: 3 i. Scrap materials such as scrap lumber and scrap metal. ii. Materials not typically used or designated/manufactured for fencing such as metal roofing panels, corrugated or sheet metal, tarps or plywood. 2. Non-residential districts (21A.26.34 Commercial Districts, Manufacturing Districts, Downtown Districts, Gateway Districts, Special Purpose Districts and Overlay Districts: a. Allowed Materials. Fences and walls shall be made of high quality, durable materials that require minimal maintenance. Acceptable materials for fencing in non- residential districts include, but are not limited to chain link, pre-woven chain link with slats, wood, brick, tilt-up concrete, masonry block, stone, metal, composite/recycled materials or other manufactured materials or combination of materials commonly used for fencing, b. Prohibited Materials. Fences or walls in non-residential districts shall not be constructed of or contain: i. Scrap materials such as scrap lumber and scrap metal. ii. Materials not typically used or designated/manufactured for fencing such as metal roofing panels, corrugated or sheet metal, tarps or plywood. DE. Height Restrictions: 1. Standard for residential zoning districts: No fence, wall or hedge shall be erected in any front yard to a height in excess of four feet (4') between the front property line and the front facade of the principal structure. 2. Standards for all zoning districts: However, n 4 a. No s slhsolid fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of three feet (3') if the fence, wall or hedge is located within the sight distance triangle extending thirty feet (30') of the intersection of the right-of-way fient-property-lines on any corner lot as noted in figure 21A.62.050.I of this title. b. Fences, walls or hedges may be erected in any required corner side yard (extending to a point in line with the front facade of the principal structure), side yard or rear yard to a height not to exceed six feet (6'). The zoning administrator may require either increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. c. Solid fences, walls and hedges located near the intersection of a driveway or an alley within the public way shall not exceed thirty inches (30") in height within a ten foot (10') wide by ten foot (10')deep sight distance triangle as defined in figure 21A.62.050.I of this title. d. Within the area defined as a sight distance triangle, see-through fences that are at least fifty percent(50%) open shall be allowed to a height of four feet (4'). e. To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys, the Zoning Administrator, in consulting with the Development Review Team, may require alternative design solutions, including but not restricted to requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by the location of buildings, grade change or other pre- existing conditions. f. Measuring the height of a fence shall be from the established grade of the site as defined in part VI chapter 21A.62.040 of this title. 5 g. Special Exception Approval Standards: The Board of Adjustment may approve taller fencing if the board finds that the extra height is necessary for the security of the property in question as defined in part VI, chapter 21A.52.100 of this title. Where there is a allowed. F. General Requirements: 1. Except when constructed of materials that have been designed or manufactured to remain untreated, all fences or walls shall periodically be treated with paint or chemicals so as to retard deterioration. 2. Fences or walls shall be constructed with good workmanship and shall be secured to the ground or supporting area in a substantial manner and engineered so that the structure of columns or posts and the material used for the intervening panels are adequately constructed to support the materials and withstand wind loads. 3. All fences or walls (including entrance and exit gates) shall be maintained in good repair, free of graffiti, structurally sound, so as to not pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare. EG. Exceptions: Pillars shall be allowed to extend up to eighteen inches (18") above the allowable height of a fence or wall; provided, that the pillars shall have a maximum diameter or width of no more than eighteen inches (18"); and provided, that the pillars shall have a minimum spacing of no less than six feet (6'), measured face to face. 6 EH. Encroachments: Encroachments into the site distance triangle for driveways as defined and illustrated in part VI, chapter 21 A.62 of this title,may be approved by the zoning administrator. This regulation shall also apply to site distance triangles for alleys. GI. Barbed Wire Fences: 1. Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1, M-2 and D-2 districts. 2. Special Exception: Barbed wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to part V, chapter 21A.52 of this title, in all zoning districts except for those listed above as permitted uses. The board of adjustment may approve as special exceptions, the placement of barbed wire fences, for security reasons, or for the keeping of animals around nonresidential properties, transformer stations, microwave stations, construction sites or other similar publicly necessary or dangerous sites,provided the requested fence is not in any residential district and is not on or near the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. 3. Location Requirements: Barbed wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front yard setbacks nor along frontages on streets defined as gateway streets in Salt Lake City's adopted urban design element master plan. 4. Special Design Regulations: No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than six feet (6') high. No more than three(3) strands of barbed wire are permitted. The barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than sixty degrees (60°) from a vertical line. No barbed wire strand shall project over public property. If the barbed wire proposed slants 7 outward over adjoining private property the applicant must submit written consent from adjoining property owner agreeing to such a projection over the property line. 5. Special Exception Approval Standards: The board of adjustment may approve, as a special exception, the building permit for a barbed wire fence if the zoning administrator finds that the applicant has shown that the fence is reasonably necessary for security in that it protects people from dangerous sites and conditions such as transformer stations, microwave station or construction sites. 1J. Razor Wire Fences: 1. Special Exception: Razor wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to part V, chapter 21A.52 of this title, in the A, CG, D-2, M-1 and M-2 zoning districts. The board of adjustment may approve as a special exception the placement of razor wire fences, for security reasons, around commercial or industrial uses, transformer stations, microwave stations, or other similar public necessity or dangerous sites; provided, that the requested fence is not on the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. 2. Location Requirements: Razor wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front or corner side yard setback. 3. Special Design Regulations: No strand of razor wire shall be permitted on a fence that is less than seven feet (7') high. Razor wire coils shall not exceed eighteen inches (18") in diameter and must slant inward from the fence to which the razor wire is being attached. 4. Special Exception Approved Standards: The board of adjustment may approve razor wire fencing if the board finds that the applicant has shown that razor wire is necessary for the security of the property in question. 8 K. Exemption: The Airport District "A" is exempt from all Zoning Ordinance fence regulations. The Department of Airports has administrative authority to regulate and approve fencing within the "A" Airport District. All fencing that the Department of Airports requires of its clients within the "A" District is subject to review and approval by the Airport. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed 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 ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 9 (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: . I:\Ordinance 06\Amending 21A.62.040 Definitions and 21 A.40.120 Fencing Regulations-07-20-06 draft-version B.doc 10 (VERSION B) SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending Section 21A.62.040 Definitions and Section 21A.40.120 Fencing Regulations) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21A.62.040, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, AND SECTION 21A.40.120, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO REGULATIONS OF FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NOS. 400-04-20 AND 400-04-26. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments are in the best interest of the City. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 21A.62.040, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to definitions be, and the same hereby is, amended to include the following definitions: "Fence/opaque or solid" means an artificially constructed solid or opaque barrier that blocks the transmission of at least ninety-five percent (95%) of light and visibility through the fence, and is erected to screen areas from public streets and abutting properties. "Fence/open" means an artificially constructed barrier that blocks the transmission of a maximum of fifty percent(50%) of light and visibility through the fence, and is erected to separate private property from public rights of way and abutting properties. SECTION 2. That Section 21A.40.120, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to regulations of fences, walls and hedges be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.40.120 Regulation Of Fences, Walls And Hedges: A. Purpose: Fences, walls and hedges serve properties by providing privacy and security, defining private space and enhancing the design of individual sites. Fences also affect the public by impacting the visual image of the streetscape and the overall character of neighborhoods. The purpose of these regulations is to achieve a balance between the private concerns for privacy, site design, and the public concern for enhancement of the community appearance, and to ensure the provision of adequate light, air and public safety. B. Location: All fences, walls or hedges shall be erected entirely within the property lines of the property they are intended to serve. C. Building Permit Required: 1. A no fee building permit shall be obtained prior to construction of any fence that does not exceed six feet (6') in height and is not made of concrete or masonry or does not require structural review under the International Building Code regulations. The permit is to ensure compliance with adopted regulations. 2. A building permit and fee are required for fences and walls which exceed six feet (6') in height and all fences or walls of any height that are constructed under the International Building Code. The permit is to ensure compliance with all Zoning Ordinance standards and requirements (location, height, types of materials) as well as to ensure that the 2 structural integrity of the pilasters and foundation system which will be verified by plan review and site inspection. 3. The application for a permit must include plans identifying the location and height of the proposed fence or wall. If the fence or wall is constructed of masonry or concrete of any height or exceeds six feet (6') in height, construction details showing horizontal and vertical reinforcement and foundation details shall be shown on the plans. 4. The building permit fee for a fence will be a general permit fee based on construction costs or valuation of the work. 5. Construction of any fence in the following districts shall also comply with the additional fencing regulations found in the following sections of this title. a. FP foothills protection district (21A.32.040.I). b. H historic preservation overlay district (21A.34.020.E), and c. Foothill residential FR-1, FR-2 and FR-3 districts (21 A.24.010.0). D. Design Requirements: 1. Residential Districts (21A.24 Residential Districts): a. Allowed Materials. Fences and walls shall be made of high quality, durable materials that require low maintenance. Acceptable materials for a fence include: chain link, wood, brick, masonry block, stone, tubular steel, wrought iron, vinyl, composite/recycled materials (hardy board) or other manufactured material or combination of materials commonly used for fencing. b. Prohibited Materials. Fences and walls shall not be made of or contain: i. Scrap materials such as scrap lumber and scrap metal. 3 ii. Materials not typically used or designated/manufactured for fencing such as metal roofing panels, corrugated or sheet metal, tarps or plywood. 2. Non-residential districts (21A.26.34 Commercial Districts, Manufacturing Districts, Downtown Districts, Gateway Districts, Special Purpose Districts and Overlay Districts: a. Allowed Materials. Fences and walls shall be made of high quality, durable materials that require minimal maintenance. Acceptable materials for fencing in non- residential districts include, but are not limited to chain link, pre-woven chain link with slats, wood, brick, tilt-up concrete, masonry block, stone, metal, composite/recycled materials or other manufactured materials or combination of materials commonly used for fencing. b. Prohibited Materials. Fences or walls in non-residential districts shall not be constructed of or contain: i. Scrap materials such as scrap lumber and scrap metal. ii. Materials not typically used or designated/manufactured for fencing such as metal roofing panels, corrugated or sheet metal, tarps or plywood. E. Height Restrictions: 1. Standard for residential zoning districts: No fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of four feet (4') between the front property line and the front facade of the principal structure. 2. Standards for all zoning districts: a. No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of three feet(3') if the fence, wall or hedge is located within the sight distance triangle extending 4 thirty feet (30') of the intersection of the right-of-way lines on any corner lot as noted in figure 21A.62.050.I of this title. b. Fences, walls or hedges may be erected in any required corner side yard (extending to a point in line with the front façade of the principal structure), side yard or rear yard to a height not to exceed six feet (6'). The zoning administrator may require either increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. c. Solid fences, walls and hedges located near the intersection of a driveway or an alley within the public way shall not exceed thirty inches (30") in height within a ten foot (10') wide by ten foot (10') deep sight distance triangle as defined in figure 21 A.62.050.I of this title. d. Within the area defined as a sight distance triangle, see-through fences that are at least fifty percent (50%) open shall be allowed to a height of four feet (4'). e. To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys, the Zoning Administrator, in consulting with the Development Review Team, may require alternative design solutions, including but not restricted to requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by the location of buildings, grade change or other pre- existing conditions. f. Measuring the height of a fence shall be from the established grade of the site as defined in part VI chapter 21A.62.040 of this title. 5 g. Special Exception Approval Standards: The Board of Adjustment may approve taller fencing if the board finds that the extra height is necessary for the security of the property in question as defined in part VI, chapter 21A.52.100 of this title. F. General Requirements: 1. Except when constructed of materials that have been designed or manufactured to remain untreated, all fences or walls shall periodically be treated with paint or chemicals so as to retard deterioration. 2. Fences or walls shall be constructed with good workmanship and shall be secured to the ground or supporting area in a substantial manner and engineered so that the structure of columns or posts and the material used for the intervening panels are adequately constructed to support the materials and withstand wind loads. 3. All fences or walls (including entrance and exit gates) shall be maintained in good repair, free of graffiti, structurally sound, so as to not pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare. G. Exceptions: Pillars shall be allowed to extend up to eighteen inches (18") above the allowable height of a fence or wall; provided, that the pillars shall have a maximum diameter or width of no more than eighteen inches (18"); and provided, that the pillars shall have a minimum spacing of no less than six feet (6'), measured face to face. H. Encroachments: Encroachments into the site distance triangle for driveways as defined and illustrated in part VI, chapter 21A.62 of this title, may be approved by the zoning administrator. This regulation shall also apply to site distance triangles for alleys. I. Barbed Wire Fences: 6 1. Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1, M-2 and D-2 districts. 2. Special Exception: Barbed wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to part V, chapter 21A.52 of this title, in all zoning districts except for those listed above as permitted uses. The board of adjustment may approve as special exceptions, the placement of barbed wire fences, for security reasons, or for the keeping of animals around nonresidential properties, transformer stations, microwave stations, construction sites or other similar publicly necessary or dangerous sites, provided the requested fence is not in any residential district and is not on or near the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. 3. Location Requirements: Barbed wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front yard setbacks nor along frontages on streets defined as gateway streets in Salt Lake City's adopted urban design element master plan. 4. Special Design Regulations: No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than six feet (6') high. No more than three (3) strands of barbed wire are permitted. The barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than sixty degrees (60°) from a vertical line. No barbed wire strand shall project over public property. If the barbed wire proposed slants outward over adjoining private property the applicant must submit written consent from adjoining property owner agreeing to such a projection over the property line. 5. Special Exception Approval Standards: The board of adjustment may approve, as a special exception, the building permit for a barbed wire fence if the zoning administrator finds that the applicant has shown that the fence is reasonably necessary for security in that it 7 protects people from dangerous sites and conditions such as transformer stations, microwave station or construction sites. J. Razor Wire Fences: 1. Special Exception: Razor wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to part V, chapter 21A.52 of this title, in the A, CG, D-2, M-1 and M-2 zoning districts. The board of adjustment may approve as a special exception the placement of razor wire fences, for security reasons, around commercial or industrial uses, transformer stations, microwave stations, or other similar public necessity or dangerous sites; provided, that the requested fence is not on the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. 2. Location Requirements: Razor wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front or corner side yard setback. 3. Special Design Regulations: No strand of razor wire shall be permitted on a fence that is less than seven feet (7') high. Razor wire coils shall not exceed eighteen inches (18") in diameter and must slant inward from the fence to which the razor wire is being attached. 4. Special Exception Approved Standards: The board of adjustment may approve razor wire fencing if the board finds that the applicant has shown that razor wire is necessary for the security of the property in question. K. Exemption: The Airport District "A" is exempt from all Zoning Ordinance fence regulations. The Department of Airports has administrative authority to regulate and approve fencing within the "A" Airport District. All fencing that the Department of Airports requires of its clients within the "A" District is subject to review and approval by the Airport. 8 SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed 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 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM ben Lake City Attorneys Office CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Date e20 2006 By (SEAL) I �� --Oro Bill No. of 2006. Published: I:\Ordinance 05\Amending 21A.62.040 Definitions and 21A.40.120 Fencing Regulations Version B-01-20-06 clean.doc 9 5b. STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATE: October 18, 2005 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Jackie O. Gasparik, Principal Planner RE: Staff Report for October 26,2005 Planning Commission Hearing CASE#: 400-04-20&400-04-26 APPLICANT: Planning Commission STATUS OF APPLICANT: Zoning Ordinance 21A.50.030 authorizes the Planning Commission to initiate petitions. PROJECT LOCATION: City wide COUNCIL DISTRICT: City wide REQUESTED ACTION: A request to modify and add language to the zoning ordinance 21A.62 Definitions and 21A.40.120 Regulations of Fences,Walls and Hedges. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT: The purpose of this petition is to create a definition of an open fence and a solid/opaque fence and to establish regulations on construction and materials of the fence. Solid/opaque fences are required for screening outdoor storage,parking lots that abut residential zones and various other circumstances. The existing regulations do not adequately specify materials or construction type of fences for screening which led to inadequate fencing in mainly the industrial areas. There are several provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that refer to the requirement of solid,opaque,sight proof, sight obscuring, light proof, tight board and privacy fence,but there are no definitions of these types of fences. The proposed petition was created to establish a definition for all these references of solid fencing. The petition also was created to define standards including height in general and in the sight distance triangle for all fences. These proposed standards would require a building permit for fences to assure fences are structurally sound and constructed in such a manner as to not pose a threat to public health or safety. The proposed standards would also help the Zoning Enforcement Division to require a property owner to remove,replace or repair fences found to be out of compliance with materials, location,height requirements or not in good repair. The creation of the proposed definitions, standards for fencing and requirement of a permit will improve the implementation of these regulations. Staff Report,Petition#400-04-20 1 October 26,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Division RATIONALE FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The proposed standards are proposed to help the Zoning Enforcement Division to require a property owner to remove, replace or repair fences found to be out of compliance with materials, location,height requirements or not in good repair. The creation of the proposed definitions, standards for fencing and requirement of a permit will improve the implementation of these regulations. APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: • Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 21A.62 Definitions • Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 21A.40.120 Regulations of Fences, Walls and Hedges MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element and The Futures Commission Report both identify general policies relating to buffers and fences. COMMENTS: Comments from City departments and divisions(Exhibit 2) and citizens are as follows: 1. Department of Airports: The Department of Airports is concerned about the new fence regulations. The Airport is required to follow the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)requirements for security fencing around their property. • Planning Staff response: The proposed new fence regulations do not apply to the Department of Airports"A"zone. The FAA regulations require an 8' high fence topped with three strands of barbed wire(see attached letter). All airport property is located within the Airport zoning district"A". This "A"district allows installation of the required three strands of razor/barbed wire fencing as a permitted use. The"A"district does not require minimum yard areas. Therefore, the proposed height limitations do not apply. The fencing that the Department of Airports requires of its clients is subject to review and approval by the Airport. 2. Engineering: No comment. 3. Fire: No comment. 4. Police: Crime Prevention through Environmental Design(CPTED)principals generally encourage open type fencing where possible. As long as this draft is for clarification of the definition of a solid fence,the Police Depaituient does not perceive any objections or concerns. 5. Property Management: No comment. 6. Public Utilities: Salt Lake City Public Utilities has no issues with the proposed changes and definitions. 7. Transportation: The Transportation Division has no problem defining solid/opaque fence but also suggests that all types of fences be defined. Consider requiring a permit for all fences to ensure proper placement. • Planning staff response: The proposed text requires a permit for all fences and defines both a solid and an open fence. Staff Report,Petition#400-04-20 2 October 26,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Division 8. Permits: Defining what solid gates are has been a source of controversy. Applicants argue that solid gates are difficult to construct and maintain. Perhaps some language that will allow a chain link gate that is fully screened would give the applicant a viable choice. These standards should also be applied to section 21A.48.120 screening of refuse disposal dumpsters. In the ordinance you may want to make it clear that a chain link fence with slats is not accepted as a solid/opaque fence. • Staff response: Chain link fencing with slats,depending on the slat material may be considered a solid/opaque fence or gate. The proposed standards create definitions that can then be used to interpret other section of the ordinance such as 21A.48.120 screening of refuse disposable dumpsters. 9. Zoning Enforcement: Recommends approval. 10. Community Councils and Citizens: Two public open houses regarding these petitions were held on March 15,2005 and on July 7, 2005. Comments included; • Cost of installing the required solid fence around large industrial lots of 1 acre or larger. • That fences should be setback far enough to allow planting(on the public side). • Whether existing fences would have to meet the new standards. • How the proposed ordinance address how to measure the fence height. Concern that the City allows property owners to change the grade of their property to gain a taller fence. Often times property owners are doing landscaping and other site work at the time they install the new fence,thus a property owner may raise the grade of their property outside the buildable area two feet and then install a six foot fence. Staff Comment: The proposed ordinance includes language that fences will be measured from established grade of the site as defined in part VI chapter 21A.62.040. The definition of established grade means the natural topographic grade of undisturbed area on a site or grade that exists after approved subdivision site development activity has been completed prior to approval for building permit construction activity. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Since this petition is a modification of the Zoning Ordinance,the Planning Commission must review the proposal and forward a recommendation to the City Council. In undertaking the task, • the Planning Commission must establish findings of fact based on the following standards contained in Section 21A.50.050 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element discusses the need for land use buffers. These buffers are used to separate one use from the negative affects of another use or activity. They may be created through landscaping, distance,berms, fences and building orientation. Buffers improve the environment and create a transition between dissimilar land uses and their nuisances, such as dirt, litter,noise, light glare,signs and unsightly buildings. This is accomplished through the following policy concepts: Staff Report,Petition#400-04-20 3 October 26,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Division 1. Establish performance criteria for landscape yards or buffer rather than prescriptive regulations,particularly where an industrial or retail/commercial district abuts a residential use. 2. Require a buffer when a commercial or industrial use is adjacent to a residential use. The Futures Commission Report in general discusses urban design, design standards, and safety. This report states: "All neighborhoods are unique and important,supporting those who live and work in them." The proposed language helps implement buffers that will make neighborhoods better places to live and work by providing necessary buffers between different land uses. Findings: Amending the fence regulations of the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City's plans in clarifying regulations which relate to creating buffers to protect different land uses especially when commercial or industrial districts abut residential districts. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The proposed amendment is not site specific. However,the general purpose of the proposed text is to define adequate fences and walls to be installed to visually screen uses and activities from the public right of way and adjacent properties. Findings: The proposed amendment will enhance the overall character of the City by requiring standards for fencing to visually screen outdoor uses and activities where required. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The proposed amendment is not site specific.The purpose of the proposed • text is to make sure that no property will be adversely affected and will better protect adjacent properties from visual impacts of outdoor uses and activities. Findings: The proposed amendment is intended to protect adjacent properties. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The provisions are not site specific. The proposed fence regulations do not affect any additional fencing provisions which may be required by an overlay district. Findings: The proposed amendment is not site specific. Any future development or erection of a fence must comply with applicable overlay regulations. Staff Report,Petition#400-04-20 4 October 26,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Division • 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. Discussion: The proposal is not site specific. Applicable departments have reviewed the proposed amendments and are in support of them. As per the Transportation Divisions comments,the proposed amendment would require a no fee building permit for the fence to assure structural integrity of the fence. All requests for fencing will be required to get a building permit to ensure compliance with City codes and policies. Findings: All pertinent City departments and divisions will review requests for fencing through the permit process to ensure adequacy of public facilities and services. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the comments, analysis and findings, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council,to adopt the proposed amendments. Jackie O. Gasparik Principal Planner Attachments: Exhibit I —Proposed language Exhibit 2—Comments from City Departments/Citizens Exhibit 3—Citizen Comments Staff Report,Petition#400-04-20 5 October 26,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Division • Exhibit 1 Proposed Ordinance Language Staff Report,Petition#400-04-20 6 October 26,2005 Ca1t T Ake City Planning Division 21A.62 Definitions Fence solid/opaque—An artificially constructed solid/opaque barrier that blocks the transmission of at least ninety-five percent(95%) of light and visibility through the fence, and erected to screen areas from public streets and abutting properties. Fence open—An artificially constructed barrier that blocks the transmission of at least fifty percent(50%) of light and visibility through the fence, and erected to separate private property from public rights of way and abutting properties. 21A.40.120 Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: A. Purpose: Fences, walls and hedges serve properties by providing privacy and security, defining private space and enhancing the design of individual sites. Fences also affect the public by impacting the visual image of the streetscape and the overall character of neighborhoods. The purpose of these regulations is to achieve a balance between the private concerns for privacy, site design, and the public concern for enhancement of the community appearance, and to ensure the provision of adequate light, air and public safety. B. Location: All fences,walls or hedges shall be erected entirely within the property lines of the property they are intended to serve. C. Building Permit Required: i th F thill imil t' 1 F F 7 a Lam.. 2 districts 1. A no fee building permit shall be obtained prior to construction of any fence. To ensure compliance with zoning standards(location, height, type of materials and structural integrity). 2. A building permit and fee is required for fences and walls which exceed 6'in height or a fence/wall constructed of masonry or concrete of any height because they are considered structures under the International Building Code. The permit is to ensure compliance with all zoning ordinance standards and requirements[location, height, types of materials) as well as to ensure the structural integrity of the pilasters and foundation system can be verified by plan review and site inspection. 3. The application for a permit must include a site plan indicating the location and height of the proposed fence. If the fence/wall is constructed of masonry or concrete of any height or exceeds six feet (6') in height construction details showing horizontal and vertical reinforcement, and foundation details needs to be shown on the plan submitted. 4. After completing the permit application, the information provided will be checked for compliance with all zoning ordinance regulations and the International Uniform Building Code. A permit will be issued at the time of application if it complies with City requirements. tilt-up concrete, masonry block, stone, metal, composite/recycled materials or other manufactured material or combination of materials commonly used for fencing. b. Prohibited Materials. Fences or walls in non-residential districts shall not be made of or contain: i. Scrap materials;such as scrap lumber, scrap metal. ii. Materials, not typically used or designed/manufactured for fencing such as metal roofing panels, corrugated or sheet metal, or plywood. E. D. Height Restrictions: 1. Standard for residential zoning districts a. No fence wall or hedge shall be erected it any f ont yard to a height in excess of four feet(4') between the front property line and the front facade of the principal structure. 2. Standards for all zoning districts 3. However,No su-eh-solid fence,wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of three feet(3') if the fence,wall or hedge is located within the sight distance triangle extending thirty feet(30')of the intersection of the right-of-way lines on any corner lot as noted in figure 21A.62.050.I of this title. 4. Fences, walls or hedges may be erected in any required corner side yard(extending to a point in line with the front facade of the principal structure), side yard or rear yard to a height not to exceed six feet(6'). The zoning administrator may require either increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. 5. Solid fences, walls and hedges located near the intersection of a driveway or an alley with the public way shall not exceed(30") in height within a ten foot(10') wide by ten foot(10') deep sight distance triangle as defined in figure 21A.62.050.I of this title. 6. Within the area defined as a sight distance triangle, see-through fences that are at least fifty percent(50%) open shall be allowed to a height of four feet(4'). 7. To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys, the Zoning Administrator, in consultation with the Development Review Team, may require alternative design solutions, including but not restricted to requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by the location of buildings,grade changes or other pre-existing conditions. 8. Measuring the height of afence will be from the established grade of the site as defined in part VI chapter 21A.62.040 of this title. L C.,Barbed Wire Fences: 1. Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1,M-2 and D-2 districts. 2. Special Exception: Barbed wire fencing maybe approved for nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to part V, chapter 21A.52 of this title, in all zoning districts except for those listed above as permitted uses. The Board of Adjustment may approve as special exception, the placement of barbed wire fences for security reasons, or for the keeping of animals around nonresidential propertied, transformer stations, microwave stations,construction sites, or other similar public necessary or dangerous sites, provided the requested fence is not in any residential district and is not on or near the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. 3. Location Requirements: Barbed wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front yard setbacks or along frontages on street defined as gateway streets in Salt Lake City's adopted Urban Design Master Plan. 4. Special Design Regulations: No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than six feet (6')high. No more than three (3) strands of barbed wire are permitted. The barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than sixty degrees (60°) from a vertical line. No barbed wire strand shall project over public property. If the barbed wire proposed slants outward over adjoining private property, the applicant must submit written consent from adjoining property owner agreeing to such projection over the property line. 5. Special Exception Approval Standards: The Board of Adjustment may approve, as a special exception, the building permit for a barbed wire fence if the Zoning Administrator finds that the applicant has show that the fence is reasonable necessary for security in that it protects people form dangerous sites and conditions such as, transformer stations, microwave station or construction sites. J. IC Razor Wire Fences: 1 Exhibit 2 Comments for City Departments Staff Report,Petition#400-04-20 7 October 26,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Division SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF ' -�►.I PORTS August 23, 2005 Jackie Gasparik Salt Lake City Planning, Room 406 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Jackie, I am responding to petition 400-04-20 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission regarding proposed zoning code 21A.40.120 titled, "Regulation of Fences, Walls, and Hedges." I attended the open house held in the City and County building and forwarded comments from various airport divisions to you previously. I have attached these comments for your reference. As a matter of information, the airport is required to follow Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements for security fencing. These requirements are referenced in AC 107-1, Aviation Security—Airports, May, 1972, Paragraph 7 d (1). Federal requirements may change at any time in order to meet security issues. The airport is required to fence, maintain, and daily inspect the airport's fencing around the airport's secure areas. The federal guidelines require that the airport fencing be 8-feet high and topped with three strands of barbed wire. The airport security fencing is installed around the perimeter and around the secure areas. In contrast, the city's fencing regulations are intended for typical residential, commercial, and industrial areas and should not apply to the special circumstances at the airport. The fencing requirements established by the FAA are inconsistent with the city's proposed fence ordinance, specifically as they relate to the height restrictions section, and the barbed wire fences section. Since the airport's fencing requirements are established by federal guidelines, the airport currently does not comply with the existing ordinance, nor could we comply with the proposed ordinance. It is therefore requested that the Airport(including all properties in the A-Airport zoned district) be exempt from the city's regulation of fences, walls, and hedges. Furthermore, we request that the city's ordinance acknowledge the existing federal fencing guidelines that the airport must comply with. Sincerely, Allen Mc endless, Planning Manager c.c. Tim Campbell Steve Domino Mayor Ross C."Rocky"Anderson Executive Director Timothy L.Campbell,A.A.E. SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS AMF Box 22084 Salt Lake City,Utah 84122 Page 2 of 2 • I have a problem with the requirement to obstruct the view, as we conduct visual inspections of our areas, and being able to see thru is part of our safety. • We need an exemption for the Airport as the initial installation costs could be extremely high, as well as on going maintenance. • We will potentially create huge areas where graffiti will become a problem. • How far are coverage and required minimum distances? For example: if I am driving on North Temple and I can see the south electrical vault and the south chemical storage building, and I consider them to be unsightly, will we need to put"slats" in the fence? • We may have to deal with radar shadow issues,jet blast problems, etc. !16/2005 Butcher, Larry From: Michelsen, Alan Sent: Thursday, March 03,2005 9:27 AM To: Butcher, Larry; Brown, Ken; Hardman, Alan Cc: Goff, Orion Subject: RE: Ordinance text change to the fence requirements Categories: Program/Policy Should we should include a reference to 21A.48.120"Screening of Refuse Disposal Dumpsters" in the definition or in H.1 or H.2? From: Butcher, Larry Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 7:53 AM To: Brown, Ken; Hardman,Alan; Michelsen, Alan Cc: Goff, Orion Subject: FW: Ordinance text change to the fence requirements Gentlemen: Please look this amendment over and give me your comments by March 11. Thanks, LB From: Gasparik, Jackie Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:00 AM To: Boskoff, Nancy; Campbell,Tim; Clark, Luann; Dinse, Rick; Fluhart, Rocky; Graham, Rick; Harpst, Tim; Hooton, Leroy; Martinez, Lee; McFarlane,Alison; Oka, pave; Querry, Chuck; Rutan, Ed Cc: Smith, Craig; Reif, Melanie; Larson, Bradley; Stewart, Brad; Spangenberg, Craig; Isbell, Randy; Butcher, Larry Subject: Ordinance text change to the fence requirements MEMORANDUM TO: Melanie Reif, City Attorney Craig Smith, Engineering Brad.Larson, Fire Larry Wiley, Permits Brad Stewart,Public Utilities Barry Walsh, Transportation Craig Spangenberg, Zoning Enforcement Larry Butcher,Zoning Administrator Page 2 of 2 FROM: Jackie Gasparik,Planning Division DATE: February 25, 2005 RE: Petition 400-04-20, 21A.62.040 Definition: "Solid Visual Barrier Fence". The Salt Lake City Planning Commission has initiated the above referenced petition to provide clarification for the definition of a"Solid Visual Barrier Fence".The proposed text amendment will relate to Section 21.A40.120H Definitions. A solid visual barrier fence is required when outdoor storage and operations are conducted as a permitted or conditional use in the A, CG, CC, BP, EI, GMU, M-1, M-2 and D-2 zoning districts. A draft of the definition is attached. Solid Visual Barrier Fence—An artificially constructed opaque barrier made of materials that are new and of high quality, durable and require low maintenance erected to screen open storage areas, materials storage areas and operations from view from public streets and adjoining properties. The Planning Staff must make a finding relating to the adequacy of this definition. Please let me know whether you believe the proposed text will be a positive step,regarding your specific expertise, in ensuring adequate services are provided or there will be no new negative impacts. I would appreciate receiving your written comments by March 15, 2005. If you have any questions,please call me (x6354) or send e-mail. Thank you. ' 4-6. 6 4 4-0 y et-t_ 9--(uutif 1/41-0 of -v'4-� N.1`OL w 17 aoz--„As,,,,- a a-A-L, ahL" +/-4&- Z/A/7MG Page 1 of 2 Gasparik, Jackie From: Spangenberg, Craig Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 3:40 PM To: Gasparik, Jackie Subject: RE: Ordinance text change to the fence requirements Categories: Program/Policy Jackie: The fencing definition looks fine to me. Thanks, Craig • From: Gasparik, Jackie Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 2:42 PM To: Reif, Melanie; Smith, Craig; Larson, Bradley; Butcher, Larry; Stewart, Brad; Walsh, Barry; Spangenberg, Craig; LoPiccolo, Kevin; Smith, JR; McCandless, Allen Cc: Gasparik, Jackie Subject: FW: Ordinance text change to the fence requirements Importance: High From: Gasparik, Jackie Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:00 AM To: Boskoff,Nancy; Campbell, Tim; Clark, Luann; Dinse, Rick; Fluhart, Rocky; Graham, Rick; Harpst, Tim; Hooton, Leroy; Martinez, Lee; McFarlane, Alison; Oka, Dave; Querry, Chuck; Rutan, Ed Cc: Smith, Craig; Reif,Melanie; Larson, Bradley; Stewart, Brad; Spangenberg, Craig; Isbell, Randy; Butcher, Larry Subject: Ordinance text change to the fence requirements Everyone Lets try this again, please respond if you haven't already. Thank you MEMORANDUM TO: Melanie Reif, City Attorney Craig Smith, Engineering Brad Larson, Fire Larry Butcher , Permits Page 1 of 3 Gasparik, Jackie From: Smith, JR Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 4:06 PM To: Gasparik, Jackie Subject: RE: Ordinance text change to the fence requirements Categories: Program/Policy Jackie, Our CPTED position is to generally encourage open type of fencing where possible. As long as this draft is for the clarification of the definition of a solid fence I do not see any objections or concerns. Thanks, J.R. Original Message From: Gasparik, Jackie Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 3:40 PM To: Smith, JR Subject: RE: Ordinance text change to the fence requirements J.R. This is only proposed draft language. Jackie From: Smith, JR Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 3:17 PM To: Gasparik, Jackie Subject: RE: Ordinance text change to the fence requirements Jackie, Is this proposed or a final ordinance version? Thanks, J.R. Original Message From: Gasparik, Jackie Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 2:42 PM To: Reif, Melanie; Smith, Craig; Larson, Bradley; Butcher, Larry; Stewart, Brad; Walsh, Barry; Spangenberg, Craig; LoPiccolo, Kevin; Smith, JR; McCandless, Allen Cc: Gasparik, Jackie Subject: FW: Ordinance text change to the fence requirements Importance: High 1i,1r nn5 Page 1 of 2 Gasparik, Jackie From: Stewart, Brad Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 10:40 AM To: Gasparik, Jackie Cc: Garcia, Peggy Subject: RE: Ordinance text change to the fence requirements Categories: Program/Policy Jackie, Salt Lake City Public Utilities has no objection to the proposed ordinance. There are several water transmission pipes in the foothill areas. Public Utilities should be included in the review/approval to determine if our access is effected. We will also want to review post locations or heavy footings to protect our systems against damage. "Blue staking" is required prior to digging. This isn't an official PU statement but it seems that foothill aesthetics is part of the purpose of this proposed language. You may want to include color as a reviewable item. As seen in the SLCo. East bench areas,white vinyl is very jarring when ribbons of it run up and down hillsides. Brad From: Gasparik, Jackie Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 2:42 PM To: Reif, Melanie; Smith, Craig; Larson, Bradley; Butcher, Larry; Stewart, Brad; Walsh, Barry; Spangenberg, Craig; LoPiccolo, Kevin; Smith, JR; McCandless, Allen Cc: Gasparik,Jackie Subject: FW: Ordinance text change to the fence requirements Importance: High From: Gasparik, Jackie Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:00 AM To: Boskoff,Nancy; Campbell, Tim; Clark, Luann; Dinse,Rick; Fluhart, Rocky; Graham, Rick; Harpst, Tim; Hooton, Leroy; Martinez, Lee; McFarlane, Alison; Oka, Dave; Querry, Chuck; Rutan, Ed Cc: Smith, Craig; Reif, Melanie; Larson, Bradley; Stewart, Brad; Spangenberg, Craig; Isbell, Randy; Butcher, Larry Subject: Ordinance text change to the fence requirements Everyone Lets try this again,please respond if you haven't already. Thank you Exhibit 3 Citizen Comments Staff Report,Petition#400-04-20 8 October 26,2005 Salt Lake City Planning Division rage i of Z Gasparik, Jackie From: Knight, Ella Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 4:44 PM To: Gasparik, Jackie Subject: RE: Thanks for the info. I'll try to get to the open house on the 15th. I always like it when good ordinances pass. I'll put in my 10cents worth, Have a good evening. From: Gasparik,Jackie Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 4:29 PM To: Knight, Ella Subject: RE: Ella, I think the new definition will help enforcement get better looking fences that are structurally sound installed when new business are doing outdoor operations or storage, if the ordinance passes. Jackie From: Knight, Ella Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 4:14 PM To: Gasparik, Jackie Subject: RE: I'll just take some and if Tom Mudder doesn't have them to distribute, I'll put them out. Since we live in or around those districts people might be interested. Do you like this new material? From: Gasparik,Jackie Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 4:02 PM To: Knight, Ella Subject: RE: Ella, Sure, I sent them a copy too. Thanks Jackie From: Knight, Ella Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 3:57 PM To: Gasparik, Jackie Subject: I have a copy of the Notice of Open House that you sent out today. Tonight is my neighborhood community council meeting. Would you like me to take a few copies of this to that meeting? Thanks OPEN HOUSE Petition # 400-04-20 Fence solid/opaque Definition & Standards March 15, 2005 PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY PRINT NAME D4y Fer--)/61. PRINT NAME ADDRESS 4154 W . Z.1 GO 1. ADDRESS ZIP CODE '4/ ZIP CODE Ck e@DAVE-2vt'x -)AP-ciAl7 -r . PRINT NAME PRINT NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS ZIP CODE ZIP CODE PRINT NAME PRINT NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS ZIP CODE ZIP CODE PRINT NAME PRINT NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS ZIP CODE ZIP CODE PRINT NAME PRINT NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS ZIP CODE ZIP CODE PRINT NAME PRINT NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS ZIP CODE ZIP CODE Ms. Jackie Gasparik March 21, 2005 Page 2 appropriate applications where bordering residential and some commercial / educations environments, such fencing represents a huge waste of materials in an industrial setting. I believe solid visual barriers should be permitted within Manufacturing Districts when Owners elect to install this type of fencing, but it should not be required when it negatively impacts the development of properties and places an undue burden on the occupant. The above summarizes my rationale for opposing the application of solid visual barrier fencing in Manufacturing environments. Please feel free to call with any questions. Thanks again for your time and interest in this subject. Sincerely, Dave Robinson - Architect - AIA Cc: Ninigret Technology Park, L.C. OPEN HOUSE Petition # 400-04-20 Amend zoning text chapter 21A.40.120 Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY PRINT NAME 4-, S. Pr''c PRINT NAME ADDRESS Sa 6 O� ' t 70 "- /4' ADDRESS ZIP CODE FJ W O c ZIP CODE PRINT NAME tJ%c.(r_ (1 V.,.L PRINT NAME ADDRESS � J C ( :r,�,- ( ADDRESS ZIP CODE ZIP CODE PRINT NAME ( i/IY)YY}►C, dart-C 1 PRINT NAME ADDRESS q,5� S . I,5-QO 1 ADDRESS ZIP CODE S L C W`7 /(1 z77 ZIP CODE PRINT NAMEc- / ' t PRINT NAME 1 / ADDRESS //r? t''>-c �>�;{'; < ��` ADDRESS ZIP CODE {' (. 7 ZIP CODE PRINT NAM ti i,!. ! h a 0 PRINT NAME • ADDRESS ;;;,, �^ C�r" =, ` ADDRESS ZIP CODE r,i i r _•l, ZIP CODE PRINT NAME PRINT NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS ZIP CODE ZIP CODE i' ZY V - -.----- --• --' OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS Petition 400-04-20 Petition to amend Chapter 21A.40.120 Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges Please provide us with the following information, so that we may contact you for further comment. Please print clearly, as this information will be used in the analysis of and attached to the subsequent staff report. Thank you. (--- ----7-- / / Name ,__)\oy ,/_._i,(,)7/‘) i,)7, Address //i/Sz 4,e_r,‘,06 vat; ,,,.:7,,,e)z,„/i.--" Phone ,..,.., (roc • .,-.) email Your Comments: . 7. ( , .1 (-/ I fi / '7/ "-::4";-' '',:---":114 6-/,%: 47//i t t:1 5.: 0 14. , , r.--/P 0 1/ .. , /I),,----,d 4 ,-.• -, 7 - i (12 a /24-' i/i/L, a_ 8-/e-,/,/ ,„---/-.5 /".. "/te.,: r / „i ,,..-e',,,;, ..4,,At•-1,,....„-, 1,1(1 / -' '/ ' . ‘3 ,, `•-.4 ' ,' ' •y ‘ , , }') f" r'? 3 1.,-„,. (2 / / "12 (7 L,..:/ 634;1! St/ ,.r ,. /1-- / , ,4 ,,,-,„ ) . _ ' i •. it,' ,,.‘ ,: ,, „,• /T._ .,,...) ,-.) ,,t.;f: •„4, , : -)-- -' 1 — c. 4:,, , / i / 7'1 7 /7 ' • /7/, 1 ,-/ f cv 7 -c__ ' 1 , 7 / 7 /4,,) ai.),,i)z) Ai,2 e.L. 4./ ,,,:i ,--,,i ,„„i ,f,,,,,,?-'-„,„? ,„1,,,,, ,,,, >,./ //44/ ci-r"-X7 (9 ' ) 11 9 a-12,- ___ Open House fo4r r page 1 Petition 44:03-6+46 h/oo-ay—20 change the grade 2 feet and then place a six foot high fence upon such new grade. Such an action is clearly against the intent of the changes and would not be consistent with allowing adequate sight, light and views to abutting neighbors. Please incorporate a reference that fence height should be measured from "established grade" so that the situation I described can be avoided. Thank you for your efforts in enhancing Salt Lake City's neighborhoods. Sincerely, Laura Howat Cc: Jackie Gasparik >>> "Gasparik, Jackie" <jackie.gasparik@slcgov.com> 7/7/2005 4 :00:05 PM >>> An amended notice was sent out the open house is today, Please comment on the attached ordinance. Original Message From: Laura Howat [mailto:Laura.Howat@admin.utah.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3 :00 PM To: Gasparik, Jackie Subject: Fence Walls and Hedges v Ms . Gasparik: I am interested in proposals to the regulation of fences, walls and hedges. Unfortunately I was out of town and not able to attend the open house on July 5th. Can you please email me the text of Petition 400-04-20? Thank you. Laura Howat 5c. MINUTES Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting zoning map. As pa alt Lake City application, the City must demonstrate approval of and commitment by the Plan mission, City Council and the Mayor for the overall ro ram. Onl busines west of I-215 cad e considered for inclusion in the ro ram. At 8:28 p.m.,fellairperson Noda announced that Petition No. 450-05-01 had been cancelled- id would not be heard. Petition No. 400-04-20 and Petition No. 400-04-26 - by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting approval to amend the text of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance as it relates to regulations of fences, walls and hedges. Specifically, the request is to amend Sections 21A.40.120 Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges and Section 21A.62 Definitions. At 8:30 p.m., Chairperson Noda introduced Petition No. 400-04-20, Petition No. 400-04-26 and Jackie Gasparik, Principal Planner. Ms. Gasparik stated that the purpose of this petition was to create a definition of an open fence and a solid/opaque fence and to establish regulations on construction and materials of the fence. Solid/opaque fences are required for screening outdoor storage, parking lots that abut residential zones and various other circumstances. The existing regulations do not adequately specify materials or construction type of fences for screening which led to inadequate fencing in mainly the industrial areas. There are several provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that refer to the requirement of solid, opaque, sight proof, sight obscuring, light proof, tight board and privacy fence, but there are no definitions of these types of fences. The proposed petition was created to establish a definition for all these references of solid fencing. The petition also was created to define standards including height in general and in the sight distance triangle for all fences. These proposed standards would require a building permit for fences to assure fences are structurally sound and constructed in such a manner as to not pose a threat to public health or safety. The proposed standards would also help the Zoning Enforcement Division to require a property owner to remove, replace or repair fences found to be out of compliance with materials, location, height requirements or not in good repair. The creation of the proposed definitions, standards for fencing and requirement of a permit will improve the implementation of these regulations. Ms. Gasparik stated that Exhibit 1, Proposed Ordinance Language, 21A.62 Definitions states "Fence open —An artificially constructed barrier that blocks the transmission of at least fifty percent (50%) of light and visibility through the fence, and erected to separate private property from public rights of way and abutting properties." Ms. Gasparik requested that it be modified to read "Fence open —An artificially constructed barrier that blocks the transmission of a maximum of fifty percent (50%) of light and visibility through the fence, and erected to separate private property from public rights of way and abutting properties." Chairperson Noda asked for questions for Staff. Planning Commissioners requested clarification on front yard setback requirements and the type of fence that had been installed as discussed earlier. Mr. Paterson stated that some proposals had been before the Planning Commission for changes to height requirements and the sight distance triangle issues. Those proposals went to the City Council. At the City Council level the 12 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting City Council asked for some of those changes and it was decided at that time to combine two different petitions. He clarified that the provision to change where that would start going to a six foot fence was decided in the public hearing process with the City. It was a specific request by the City Council. He stated that currently the front yard setback in a residential zone was twenty (20) feet, so a property owner could put an addition onto their house out to that twenty (20) foot line. Mr. Paterson further stated that the fence questioned by the Commissioners had been a solid six foot cedar fence across the front of the house. Mr. Ikefuna stated that he had received a letter from Steve Domino, Director of Airport Planning and Capital Programming and would like to have it entered into the record that the Salt Lake City Airport Authority had requested that they be exempted from requirements regarding this proposed change of language to the zoning ordinance. He stated that the Airport follows regulations issued by the Federal Government. Chairperson Noda also noted that a letter from Garr Campbell, a landscape architect, had been received and he was opposed to any regulation of planting on a private residence. Chairperson Noda opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present from the Community Council or the public that wished to speak. No response was heard. Chairperson Noda noted that no one was present to speak to the issue and closed the hearing to public comment. She asked for discussion and/or a motion. Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council based on Staff's recommendations, comments, analysis and findings of fact listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. The Planning Commissioners again discussed the height restrictions as stated in the proposed zoning ordinance and it was decided to retain the language and height of fences as stated. Mr. Paterson added that part of the City Council's concern with adding six foot tall fences across the front of houses was an urban design issue in the neighborhoods and the impact that it could have on the streetscape. At this time Commissioner Scott withdrew her motion on petitions 400-04-20 and 400-04-26, stating she needed further clarification. Commissioner Chambless withdrew his second. Planning Commissioners and Staff again discussed various scenarios, including courtyards, heights, and setbacks. Motion for Petition No. 400-04-20 and 400-04-26: Commissioner Muir moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 400- 04-20 and 400-04-25 based on Staff's recommendations, comments, analysis, and findings of fact and forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed amendment with one modification to section E1A, Height Restrictions. The original language of the ordinance would be retained. The proposed new language would be struck. Any original ordinance language referencing "front yard" would be retained. Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, 13 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Muir, and Commissioner Seelig voted "Aye". Commissioner Scott abstained. Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Galli were not present. There were none opposed. The motion passed. • -tition 410-773, a request by Chabad Lubavitch of Utah, for conditional use approv. for a • ace of worship in an existing commercial building at approximately 1760 South 1 00 Eas At 8:5 p.m., Chairperson Noda introduced Petition No. 410-773 and Joel Pa -rson, Plannini. Programs Supervisor. Mr. Paterson stated that the adopted land :se policy docume t that guides new development in the area surrounding the proposed place of worship a. 1760 South 1100 East is the Sugar House Master Plan ado. ed in 2001. The Sugar Hou e Master Plan Future Land Use Map recommends low in • nsity mixed use for the propertie. in the vicinity of Vintage Square fronting on 1100 Ea . Properties to the east and west If the low intensity mixed use strip are identified a ow density residential. The Vintage Squa - retail building is an existing two-story ret. I and office structure built in 1983. Retail and offs.- use tenants occupy both floors of the structure. The Chabad Lubavitch Synagogue ' I occupy approximately 11,500 s• are feet of the building. The worship hall will seat 25 p- 'pie. The use includes office :nd administrative functions, class rooms and meeting/ga iering space. He stated t'at the petitioner would be willing to make any needed changes an. corrections. This proposal was reviewed by bot' the Sugar H. se Community Council and the East Central Community Council. Both in.' ated the' support for the proposed project. Staff recommended approval subject to the s► een' g of the dumpster and correction of the draining issues. Chairperson Noda asked the applicant t. spe:k. Rabbi Zippel, the Executive Director of Chabad Lubavitch of Utah stated he h. been Salt Lake City since 1992. In 1994 he purchased the building at 1443 Sout 1100 East .nd 1435 South 1100 East. Originally his plan was to demolish those prope '-s and build a ,ew structure and permits were obtained from the Planning Corn ' ission. He said hr. ran into very high building costs; approximately $200.00 per sq :re foot. Since 1997 h: has been trying to purchase the Vintage Square Building. He tated that the building w-. now available and he was purchasing the property a . renaming the building Chab.• Square. Rabbi Zippel stated he had made a presenta 'on to the Sugar House Communi Council and East Central Community Council. - said there were 62 parking stalls an. no problem with parking. Chairperson Nod. asked for questions for Rabbi Zippel or Mr. Pa -rson. No response was heard. Chairp- son Noda opened the public hearing and asked if t -re was anyone from the commun. that wished to speak. Hele 'eters of the Sugar House Community Council stated they are delig 'ted to have Ra••i Zippel and Chabad Lubavitch of Utah in the neighborhood. 14 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, April 14, 2004, 5:45 pm Present from the Planning Commission were Chair, Prescott Muir, Vice-Chair, Tim Chambless, Bip Daniels, Babs De Lay, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott and Jennifer Seelig. John Diamond and Craig Galli were excused. Present from the City Staff were Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Zoning Administrator Larry Butcher; Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey; Principal Planner Doug Dansie; Principal Planner Wayne Mills and Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Muir called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased. Initiated Petitions Mr. Wheelwright requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition dealing with a more definitive definition of what a solid fence is. He said that some of the zoning ordinance requirements include a sight proof or visual screening fence. He said that there have been many variations of that theme applied over the years and most are problematic. Staff is suggesting defining what constitutes meeting that visual barrier requirement. Mr. Wheelwright said that Staff would like to study the various ways that one could accomplish that requirement in the ordinance and present that information to the Planning Commission. Chair Muir so initiated the petition. 6. TRANSMITTAL OF PETITION 400-04-26, JULY 28, 2004 ' P/5' 194`: ALISON WEYHER .+vtA ' 1 rS� ' t '.F.L��.i `.aM►'I� ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR AUG - 5 2004 COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL RockyFluhart, Chief Administrative Officer t ate: July 28, 2004 TO: 1 FROM: Lee Martinez, Community Development Directo :(,):5L RE: Petition 400-04-26: A petition by the City Council requesting that the Administration re-evaluate sections of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to regulations for fences in front yard areas in residential zoning districts. STAFF CONTACTS: Joel Paterson, Senior Planner(535-6141) e-mail: joel.paterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Petition 400-04-26 is a request by the City Council for the Administration re-evaluate sections of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to regulations for fences in front yard areas in residential zoning districts. This petition proposes amendments to section 21A.40.120.D which regulates the allowable heights and location of fences. ISSUE ORIGIN: The proposed text amendment was originally addressed as part of the Zoning Ordinance fine-tuning petition(Petition 400-02-20). The Planning Commission recommended amendments to the fencing provisions but the fencing amendments were pulled from the transmittal to the City Council on the recommendation of the Community Development Director in anticipation of a pending legislative action request to review certain aspects of the fencing regulations. Subsequently, on June 3, 2003,the City Council voted to approve a legislative action request proposed by Councilmember Buhler to review certain provisions of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to fencing. The ordinance attached as Exhibit 2 was prepared in response to the legislative action request. PUBLIC PROCESS: The proposed amendments to the fencing provisions were distributed to all community council chairs as part of the Zoning Ordinance Fine-tuning petition in June 2002. A public open house was held on July 31, 2002. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 17, 2002 and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to make numerous amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance. In response to the legislative action request,the Planning Staff revised the amendments that were reviewed by the Planning Commission as part of the Zoning Ordinance fine-tuning petition. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01.535.6230 FAX: B01-535.6005 1 Staff presented the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission on June 23, 2004. The Planning Commission recommended that the proposed amendments to the fence provisions be transmitted directly to the Council without an additional public hearing before the Commission. CITY COUNCIL POLICY AND MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed amendments will not conflict with Salt Lake City master plan policies. CITY COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE ACTION: The City Council adopted a legislative action request proposed by Council member Buhler on June 3, 2003. The legislative action request included the following issues: 1. The Zoning Ordinance does not address whether or not a fence higher than 4-feet can be constructed in the front yard behind the required setback. The Administration reported that they interpret the area that exists between the designated setback line and the face of a residential structure as "buildable area"and has allowed six-foot fences in the past. Comment: The proposed amendments address this issue by clearly stating that a fence constructed between the front property line and the front façade of the principal structure, is limited to four feet in height. However, a six foot fence will be allowed along the property line to the front setback line. The proposed language clarifies the regulation and addresses a significant urban design issue. The proposed ordinance includes the following language in section 21 A.40.120.D.1: 1. No new fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess offour feet (4') between the front property line and the front facade of the principal structure, except that a six foot (6)fence, wall or hedge on the property line may extend along the entire length of the interior side yard to the front yard setback line. 2. The fence regulations note that where there is a difference in grade of the properties on either side of a fence, wall or hedge, the height of the fence shall be measured from the average grade of the adjoining properties. The administration has noted that, in the case of fences, staff measures grade change at the mid-point thus allowing a property owner to increase the fence height by 1-foot. The building Code requires grade be measured 6-feet away from any wall or fence. Comment: The proposed amendment eliminates this provision from the ordinance. The public found this provision very confusing and it was a difficult provision for the Permits Office to implement and enforce. The International Building Code (IBC), as adopted by Salt Lake City, does not require building permits for fences up to six feet in height. Staff from the Building Services and Licensing Division has informed the Planning staff that the IBC does not require the grade to be measured six feet from any wall or fence when calculating fence height. The proposed amendments do not conflict with IBC regulations. Although the IBC does not require permits to erect a fence, Salt Lake City requires a building permit for fences and walls erected in the Foothill and Historic Preservation Overlay zoning districts. No permits are required to erect a fence in other areas of the City. The Planning Commission recognized that not requiring building permits to erect a fence in most areas in N the City could create problems with zoning enforcement. The Planning Commission recommends that if the proposed fencing amendments are adopted that the City begin an educational promotion to inform residents and fencing contractors about the new fencing regulations. 3. The Zoning Ordinance currently includes regulations intended to ensure adequate line of sight for corner lots, driveways and alleys for traffic and pedestrian safety. The Administration noted the need to amend the zoning regulations to provide consistency with current transportation engineering standards. o Standards to better distinguish and identify the right of way line and the edge of a driveway, alley, sidewalk, pedestrian walkway,roadway and curb. Comment: The existing fencing regulations require that all fences be erected entirely within the property lines of the property they are intended to serve (21A.40.120.B). It is the responsibility of the property owner to locate property lines. o Define height clearance areas between 2.5-feet and 7-feet for passenger vehicles and 2.5- feet and 8-feet for commercial trucks. Comment: The proposed ordinance defines the clearance area setting a maximum fence height within defined sight triangles; 3-feet for solid fences and 4-feet for see-through fences that are at least 50%open. The proposed ordinance includes the following language in sections 21A.40.120.D.2, 3 and 5. The Zoning Ordinance already includes an illustration in 21A.62.050.I to define"sight distance triangle": 2. No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of three SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE feet (3) if the fence, wall or hedge is located within the sight distance 30'.� ; �.-� 10.5 ,aO. triangle extending thirty feet (30) kEk. ,,,' from the intersection of the right of '` way lines on any corner lot as noted kp6,NIC. NnUEi in figure 21A.62.050.I of this title. 4. Solid fences, walls and hedges located $ � near the intersection of a driveway or an alley with the public way shall not exceed thirty inches (30") in height within a ten foot(10) wide by ten foot (10) deep sight distance triangle as defined in figure 21A.62.050.I of this title. 5. Within the area defined as a sight-distance triangle, see-through fences that are at least fifty percent(50%) open shall be allowed to a height of four feet (4). o Provide City Traffic Engineers discretion to evaluate projects on a case-by case basis including defined parameters and criteria for analysis. Comment: The proposed amendments clarify the ability of the Zoning Administrator, in consultation with the Development Review Team (DRT), to require alternative design solutions to mitigate safety concerns. The DRT includes members representing the Transportation and Engineering divisions. 21 A.40.120.D.b To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys, the Zoning Administrator, in consultation with the Development Review Team, may require alternative design solutions, including but not restricted to requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by the location of buildings, grade changes or other pre-existing conditions. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Salt Lake City Code section 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments A decision to amend the text of the zoning ordinance or the zoning map 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 Planning Commission and the City Council must consider the following factors: 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Comment: In Salt Lake City, the Zoning Ordinance has been the main tool used to implement the goals and objectives of the adopted land use planning documents. The proposed text amendment is intended to clarify and eliminate inconsistencies in the application of fencing regulations. The proposed amendments will not conflict with City policy or adopted master plans. Finding: The proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Comment: This text amendment affects the City's fencing regulations and is not specific to any one site. The proposed amendments address safety and urban design issues and will promote fencing that is harmonious with the overall character of the City. Finding: The proposed amendments are not site specific. Therefore, they will not interfere with the character of specific properties. However, the proposed amendments will support policies regarding compatibility and preservation of neighborhood character. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Finding: This standard is site specific and does not relate to the general amendments proposed for the text of the zoning ordinance. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Finding: The proposed amendments are consistent with the adopted overlay zoning 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. Finding: This standard is site specific and does not relate to the amendments proposed for the text of the zoning ordinance. The proposed text amendments will not affect the delivery of public services or impact public facilities. Please Note: The Planning Commission originally transmitted the Zoning Ordinance Fine- tuning recommendation, which included a proposal to amend the fencing regulations, to the City Council on October 7, 2003. That transmittal included the original Planning Commission staff report, minutes, agenda, hearing notice and postmark. If you would like to review any of the information included in the October 7, 2003 transmittal, it will be delivered upon request. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 3. CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a. Agendas/Minutes—June 23, 2004 b. Presentation Materials —June 23, 2004 6. RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION 7. PUBLIC COMMENT 8. ORIGINAL PETITION Transmittal of Petition 400-04-26 Fencing Provisions Text Amendments Exhibit 1 CHRONOLOGY Transmittal of Petition 400-04-26 Fencing Provisions Text Amendments CHRONOLOGY PETITION 400-04-26 By the Salt Lake City Council July 31, 2002 Zoning Ordinance Fine-tuning Open House. October 17, 2002 Planning Commission public hearing. PC voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. June 3, 2003 Transmittal sent to David Dobbins for CED approval. City Council adopts Legislative Action request related to fencing provisions. June 16, 2003 Meeting with Alison Weyher, Louis Zunguze, Roger Evans, Brent Wilde, Ken Brown, Craig Spangenberg regarding the transmittal of this petition. Alison Weyher asked for several proposed amendments (including those relating to fencing provisions) to be removed from the ordinance. June 4, 2004 Petition assigned to Joel Paterson, Senior Planner. June 23, 2004 Staff briefed the Planning Commission on the proposed fencing provision amendments. Planning Commission recommended that the proposed amendments be transmitted to the City Council without further Planning Commission public hearings. July 9, 2004 Ordinance prepared by the City Attorney's Office. Transmittal of Petition 400-04-26 Fencing Provisions Text Amendments • Exhibit 2 PROPOSED ORDINANCE Transmittal of Petition 400-04-26 Fencing Provisions Text Amendments SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2004 • (Amending City Regulations Regarding Fences) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE REGARDING FENCES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-04-26. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Code contains regulations concerning the height of fences; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed modification of those regulations would be in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Section 21A.40.120.D of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: D. Height Restrictions: 1. No new fence, wall or hedge shall be erected in-any-front-yard to a height in excess of four feet (4')between the front property line and the front facade of the principal structure, except that a six foot(6') fence,wall or hedge on the property line may extend along the entire length of the interior side yard to the front yard setback line. 2. No seek solid fence,wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of three feet(3') if the fence,wall or hedge is located within the sight distance triangle extending thirty feet(30') from the intersection of the right of way front property lines on any corner lot as noted in figure 21A.62.050.I of this title. 3 Fences,walls or hedges may be erected in any required corner side yard (extending to a point in line with the front facade of the principal structure), side yard or rear yard to a height not to exceed six feet(6'). 4. Solid fences,walls and hedges located near the intersection of a driveway or an alley with the public way shall not exceed thirty inches (30") in height within a ten foot(10')wide by ten foot(10') deep sight distance triangle as defined in figure 21A.62.050.I of this title. 5. Within the area defined as a sight-distance triangle,see-through fences that are at least fifty percent(50%) open shall be allowed to a height of four feet(4'). 6. To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys, the Zoning Administrator, in consultation with the Development Review Team, may require alternative design solutionsiincluding but not restricted to requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by the location of buildings, grade changes or other pre-existing conditions. fe► ce all or hedge _the height_of the fence wall hedge shall b d __..«��11..».. ... ..�...b�--, •.... .. .11b..� .•.� �..� .�....��� ,.».. ... ..�...b�� ........ ivy ua�wv w.�u from the average grade of the adloining properties, r vided th t h SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2004. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR 2 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2004. Published: G:\Ordinance 04\Amending Regulations Regarding Fences-July 9,2004.doc 3 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2004 (Amending City Regulations Regarding Fences) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE REGARDING FENCES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-04-26. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Code contains regulations concerningthe height of fences; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed modification of those regulations would be in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Section 21A.40.120.D of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: D. Height Restrictions: 1. No new fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of four feet (4')between the front property line and the front facade of the principal structure, except that a six foot (6') fence,wall or hedge on the property line may extend along the entire length of the interior side yard to the front yard setback line. 2. No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of three feet (3') if the fence, wall or hedge is located within the sight distance triangle extending thirty feet(30') from the intersection of the right of way lines on any corner lot as noted in figure 21 A.62.050.I of this title. 3. Fences,walls or hedges may be erected in any required corner side yard (extending to a point in line with the front facade of the principal structure), side yard or rear yard to a height not to exceed six feet(6'). 4. Solid fences, walls and hedges located near the intersection of a driveway or an alley with the public way shall not exceed thirty inches (30") in height within a ten foot (10')wide by ten foot(10') deep sight distance triangle as defined in figure 21 A.62.050.I of this title. 5. Within the area defined as a sight-distance triangle, see-through fences that are at least fifty percent (50%) open shall be allowed to a height of four feet (4'). 6. To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys,the Zoning Administrator, in consultation with the Development Review Team, may require alternative design solutions, including but not restricted to requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by the location of buildings, grade changes or other pre-existing conditions. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2004. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR APPROVED AS To FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date — $y ^^-' 7.01-77/4(et( 2 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2004. Published: G:\Ordinance 04\Amending Regulations Regarding Fences-Clean-July 9,2004.doc 3 Exhibit 3 CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE Transmittal of Petition 400-04-26 Fencing Provisions Text Amendments • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is currently reviewing Petition 400-04-26, initiated by the Salt Lake City Council, requesting to amend Section 21A.40.12 regarding the regulation of fences, walls and hedges. As part of their review, the City Council is holding a public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The City Council will hold a public hearing: Date: Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: Room 315 (City Council Chambers) Salt Lake City and County Building 451 S. State Street Salt Lake City, UT *Please enter the building from the east side* You are invited to attend this hearing, ask questions or provide input concerning the topic listed above. If you have any questions, contact Joel Paterson at 535-6141 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., or send e-mail to joel.paterson@ci.slc.ut.us We comply with all ADA guidelines. Assitive listening devices and interpretive services provided upon 24 hour advanced request. Transmittal of Petition 400-04-26 Fencing Provisions Text Amendments • Exhibit 4 MAILING LABELS Transmittal of Petition 400-04-26 Fencing Provisions Text Amendments Peter Corroon Peter Von Sivers Thomas Mutter GREATER AVENUES CAPITOL HILL CENTRAL CITY 445 East 200 South, Suite 306 223 West 400 North P.O. Box 2073 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Brian Watkins Jeff Davis Bill Davis LIBERTY WELLS PEOPLES FREEWAY RIO GRAND 744 So. 600 East 1407 South Richards Street 329 Harrison Avenue Salt Lake City,UT 84105 Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Dave Mortensen Ellen Reddick ARCADIA HEIGHTSBENCHMARK BONNEVILLE HILLS FOOTHILLISUNNYSIDE 2278 Signal Point Circle 2177 Roosevelt Ave Vacant Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Shawn McMillen Mike Zuhl Paul Tayler H ROCK INDIAN HILLS OAK HILLS 1855 South 2600 East 2676 Comanche Dr. 1165 Oakhills Way Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Doug Foxley Larry Spendlove Tim Dee ST. MARY'S SUNNYSIDE EAST ASSOC. SUNSET OAKS 1449 Devonshire Dr. 2114 E. Hubbard Avenue 1575 Devonshire Dr. Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Salt Lake City, UT 84108 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Beth Bowman Kenneth L.Neal Tom Bonacci WASATCH HOLLOW ROSE PARK YALECREST 1445 E.Harrison Ave. 1071 North Topaz Dr. 1024 South 1500 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Penny Archibald-Stone Boris Kurz Angie Vorher EAST CENTRAL EAST LIBERTY PARK JORDAN MEADOWS 1169 Sunnyside Avenue 1203 South 900 East. 1988 Sir James Dr. Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Mike Harman Jilene Whitby Kadee Nielson POPLAR GROVE STATE FAIRPARK WESTPOINTE 1044 W.300 S 846 W 400 N. 1410 N.Baroness Place. Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Helen Peters Randy Sorenson Joel Paterson SUGAR HOUSE GLENDALE 2450 E. Lambourne Ave 2803 Beverly Street 1184 S Redwood Drive SLC, UT 84109 Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Updated July 2, 2004 Joel Paterson L&u.va ! oi.... KDC 451 S. State St. Rm 406 185E7 E 1-043 G-+^ - SLC, UT 84111 SLe-, (4,-r Sit,Off Exhibit 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Transmittal of Petition 400-04-26 Fencing Provisions Text Amendments Exhibit 5a AGENDAS/MINUTES JUNE 23, 2004 Transmittal of Petition 400-04-26 Fencing Provisions Text Amendments NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AMENDED AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, June 23, 2004, at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner 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 will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, June 9, 2004 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 4. CONSENT AGENDA— Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters: a. Home Depot USA and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department — Home Depot USA is requesting that Public Utilities grant a standard utility permit to allow excess storm water to enter the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal on an emergency over flow basis. This request is being considered as part of the proposed site development plans for the new Home Depot retail store which is being constructed at 3304 South Highland Drive, in Un-incorporated Salt Lake County. (Staff— Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769 or Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Hearings will generally begin at 5:45) THIS ITEM HAS BEEN POSTPONED a. PUBLIC HEARING — Petition No. 400-04-12, by Jack Plumb, requesting to rezone the property located at 518 East Third Avenue from Multi-Family Residential "RMF-35" to Neighborhood Commercial "CN" as part of a two parcel commercial enterprise at 502 and 518 East Third Avenue. (Staff— Everett Joyce at 535-7930) 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Discussion Item: Euclid Small Area Plan. The Planning Commission will identify and discuss issues to be addressed through the planning process. The Euclid Neighborhood is located between North Temple to 1-80 from 1-15 and the Jordan River. (Staff—Cheri Coffey at 535-6188) Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the City 48 hours in advance of the neeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. AT YOUR REQUEST A SECURITY ESCORT WILL BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMPANY YOU TO YOUR CAR AFTER THE MEETING. THANK YOU. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•PLANNING DIVISION•451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406•SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, June 23, 2004, 5:45 p.m. Present from the Planning Commission were Chair, Prescott Muir, Tim Chambless, Bip Daniels, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Babs De Lay, John Diamond, and Craig Galli were excused. Present from the City Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde; Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey; Principal Planner Joel Paterson; and Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Muir called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased. Approval of minutes from Wednesday, June 9, 2004 The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as noted are reflected in the June 9, 2004 ratified minutes. Commissioner Daniels made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted"Aye". Commissioner McDonough and Commissioner Seelig abstained. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Four Commissioners voted in favor, and two Commissioners abstained, and therefore the motion passed. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR This item was heard at 5:45 p.m. Chair Muir noted that the Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair have not recently met with the City Council Chair and Vice Chair. He stated that it is frustrating that the City Council has rescheduled the meeting several times. Commissioner Chambless noted that the next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 29"'. Commissioner Daniels suggested that the City Council Chair and Vice Chair assign alternates to attend those meetings if they are not able. Chair Muir stated that the current challenge for the City Council has been the budget, which is now behind them. Chair Muir said that he expects that the City Council will be more available in the near future. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR SLC Planning Commission 1 June 23, 2004 This item was heard at 5:46 p.m. Mr. Zunguze referred to the information that was included in the Planning Commission packets regarding the North Salt Lake Boundary Adjustment Request. He indicated that the North Salt Lake City Mayor and his Staff have been cooperative and available to explain their proposal with the City and various Community Councils. Mr. Zunguze noted that the Salt Lake City Mayor and Deputy Mayor are leading fairly intensive discussions with respect to this matter. The hope is that the two municipalities will find a middle ground and reduce the potential impacts of the proposal. Mr. Zunguze stated that the discussions involve monetary issues and there are a number of organizations that are included. Mr. Zunguze stated he anticipates at some point that the matter will return to the Planning Commission for some action. He stated that he will provide them with updates on the issue as they arise. He indicated that the Planning Commission will be given fair notice and enough time to deal with the issue. Commissioner Scott indicated a great interest in the proposed 80 acres. She also noted that when the Planning Commission reviewed the issue they imposed a timeline. Commissioner Scott asked if it would be appropriate for the Commission to respectfully request an update from the Mayor's Office as well as a time frame as to when the Commission may see the issue again. Mr. Zunguze inquired in what form the Commission would like that response. Chair Muir said that he feels that the current assumption among the Commission is that a deal is being negotiated, and that both Administrations would come to the Commission in support of the resolution, in which case the issue would be easy for the Commission to deal with. If the Administrations end up at odds with each other, Chair Muir felt that the Planning Commission's commitment was to proceed proactively in a more deliberative process with the Mayor of North Salt Lake City. Mr. Zunguze felt that that is correct and he restated that the matter is being negotiated. He said that he did not have a sense of a timeline to give the Commission. Commissioner Scott stated that her concern is if negotiations break down at some point then the Commission will need time to react. She noted that some of the Commissioners have not taken a field trip up to the proposed site. She thought that it would take a few weeks to orchestrate a fieldtrip up there. Commissioner Scott suggested that the Commission ask the Mayor to keep them abreast of what is happening to allow time to respond if the proposal comes back before the Commission and when the Planning Commission might expect that to happen. Mr. Zunguze replied that with respect to visiting the site, Staff will organize a fieldtrip any time the Commission requests. It does not have to wait for directive from the Mayor. Mr. Zunguze asked the Commission to be mindful that the Mayor may not have a timeline to give the Commission. He stated that he is not aware of a timeline on either side of the negotiations. Mr. Zunguze stated that he has indicated that the Planning Commission has a fervent interest in the matter and the Mayor is aware of that. SLC Planning Commission 2 June 23, 2004 Commissioner Chambless stated that the proposed area is a sight that the Commission should see before making any decisions. Commissioner Daniels said that he is pleased that Mr. Zunguze has brought back updates from time to time and he did not want to push the matter or rush a situation that may already be under control. Chair Muir asked Mr. Zunguze to verbally convey the opinions expressed this evening to the Mayor. Commissioner Seelig stated that she would prefer that a site visit be arranged sooner rather than later. She wanted to avoid getting into a position where that site visit may not occur. Mr. Zunguze stated that Staff will organize a site visit. Mr. Zunguze referred to a petition which proposed modifications to the fence height regulations in the zoning ordinance and was reviewed by the Planning Commission in October 2002. The petition has since been forwarded to the City Council for review. City Council has brought up several questions regarding the proposed amendments to the fence regulations. Planning Staff, in responding to the questions has deviated from the direction that the Planning Commission had provided in forwarding the petition to City Council. Mr. Zunguze stated that rather than reopening the entire matter for discussion, Staff would like to present the modifications to the Commission to find if they are comfortable with those changes. Joel Paterson addressed the Commission regarding additional clarifications of the proposed amendments to the fence height regulations. He stated that this is in response to a legislative action taken by City Council Member Buhler. Mr. Paterson presented the modifications as noted below. 21A.40.120 Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: D. Height Restrictions: No fence, wall or hedge shall be erected in--any-froward to a height in excess of four feet (4') between the front property line and the front facade of the principal structure, except that a six foot (6') fence, wall or hedge on the property line may extend along the entire length of the interior side yard to the front yard setback line. However, no such solid fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of three feet (3') if the fence, wall or hedge is within thirty feet (30') of the intersection of front property lines on any corner lot. Within this sight triangle, see-through fences that are at least 80% open shall be allowed to a height of four feet (4'). The Zoning Administrator, in consultation with the Development Review Team, may require either increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. Fences, walls or hedges may be erected in any required corner side yard (extending to a point in line with the front facade of the principal structure), side yard or rear yard to a height not to exceed six feet (6'). The-Zoning • SAC Planning Commission 3 June 23, 2004 allowed, Amendments recommended by the Planning Commission during the Zoning Ordinance Fine-tuning process (10/17/02) Amendments proposed in response to Council member Dave Buhler's requested legislative action (Petition 400-04-26) Mr. Paterson referred to the issue of possibly requiring a no-fee permit for all fences within the City or Staff could provide an extensive public education process regarding the fence regulations. He stated that currently one is not required to obtain a building permit for a fence unless it is located within the Historic District. Mr. Paterson said that the fence standards are difficult to enforce if the public is not required to obtain a building permit and if they are not aware of the standards that are required. Mr. Paterson clarified that Staff plans to ask the City Council if they would prefer that a no-fee permit be required for all fences within the City or if they would prefer that Staff provide an extensive public education process regarding the fence regulations. Commissioner Scott asked for clarification regarding where a six foot fence may be constructed. She asked if a six foot fence would not be allowed forward of the front facade of a house. Mr. Paterson replied that currently the ordinance is unclear about the maximum height of fences located within the buildable area in front of the primary structures. Currently fences that are located behind the front setback but in front of a house may be up to six feet high. The proposed language would limit such a fence to four feet in height. Commissioner Chambless asked how a porch is interpreted with the current proposal with regard to the setback line. Mr. Paterson replied that if the porch is covered then the front posts which hold up the roof would be considered the front wall. If the porch is on grade and uncovered, then the front wall would be the house. Commissioner McDonough referred to the diagram noting that the side yard fence zone overlaps the front yard setback area. Mr. Paterson stated that he will add a sentence to clarify that along the property line one could build a six foot high fence up to the front setback line. Chair Muir noted the difficulty in measuring the grade change in a fence and asked how the grade changes will be interpreted without specific language to that effect. Mr. Paterson replied that the zoning ordinance currently requires measuring the height of a fence from the average elevation of the established grade on either side of the fence. The proposed amendment eliminates the average grade provision. As a result fence height would be measured from the actual grade where the fence is located. SLC Planning Commission 4 June 23,2004 Commissioner McDonough felt that a public education effort would be the better alternative as opposed to the no-fee permit. She added that with that education effort, neighborhood self policing should be encouraged. Chair Muir asked Commissioner McDonough if she is suggesting that the public education effort proceed and then the issue would come back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Commissioner McDonough said that she did not feel that a public hearing is necessary, that publishing material and distributing it accordingly would suffice. Mr. Zunguze stated that education materials could be included in the water bills sent to the public. Staff would also mail the information to fence contractors. Mr. Zunguze noted that the current item before the Commission is part of a number of items that are pending at City Council. Staff wanted to come before the Commission with the clarifications and then proceed with the City Council to conclude the business before them. Motion Commissioner McDonough made a motion regarding the proposed amendments to the fence height regulations 21A.40.120 be approved as proposed in response to Councilmember Dave Buhler's request with the addition of language which clarifies fence height in side yards, and a recommendation that this be publicized through a public education effort and not require a no-fee permit to construct a fence. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted "Aye". Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed. Mr. Zunguze noted that the Planning Commission retreat is scheduled for Wednesday, June 30, 2004. Chair Muir stated that he received a letter from Mr. Peter Hoodes in reference to the Planning Commission's decision on May 26, 2004 on the Westminster lot consolidation issue. Mr. Hoodes indicted in the letter that he felt that the Staff findings on page 7 of the staff report were in error. The finding 7 indicated that"the Creek Corridor has shifted to the north rather significantly. In effect, this shift has made Westminster College's property physically smaller." Mr. Hoodes argues that this is false and the creek has in fact shifted south. Chair Muir stated that he felt that it was made clear to Mr. Hoodes and Westminster that the location and the determination of the location of that property line was not germane to the Planning Commission's decision on May 26, 2004. Chair Muir directed Staff to respond to Mr. Hoodes' letter in confirmation of the Planning Commission's original decision. Mr. Zunguze stated that he did share the same information with Mr. Hoodes that the disputed property area was not part of the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Zunguze stated that Staff will write a letter on behalf of the Planning Commission indicating that. SLC Planning Commission 5 June 23, 2004 • Exhibit 5b PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENTATION MATERIALS JUNE 23, 2004 Transmittal of Petition 400-04-26 Fencing Provisions Text Amendments PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS SALT LAKE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE 21A.40.120 21A.40.120 Regulation of Fences,Walls and Hedges: D. Height Restrictions: No fence,wall or hedge shall be erected ' to a height in excess of four feet(4') between the front property line and the front facade of the principal structure. However,no such solid fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of three feet(3') if the fence, wall or hedge is within thirty feet (30') of the intersection of front property lines on any corner lot. Within this sight triangle, see-through fences that are at least 80% open shall be allowed to a height of four feet(4'). Fences,walls or hedges may be erected in any required corner side yard (extending to a point in line with the front facade of the principal structure), side yard or rear yard to a height not to exceed six feet(6'). The Zoning Administrator, in consultation with the Development Review Team,may require either increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to provide adequate line of sight for • driveways and alleys. p.reA OPis 1au.'oD \. o,9 w c L N o.F a U \ L N 1) \ iH \\ -T-, \ 3 a X n \ zwo P-IVA aPi S \ MA °PIS 0 Ng x C 14, \\ O C ll\1 \ \ O /< : \\- • \ °°" C \ O d� F N {+T * 3 c O \ i E rC \ 4O i 1 V�'1 P AaPS \ zwo \\�\ Exhibit 6 RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION Transmittal of Petition 400-04-26 Fencing Provisions Text Amendments Page lot 2 Paterson, Joel From: Walsh, Barry Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 2:25 PM To: Paterson, Joel Subject: RE: Fence height amendments Categories: Program/Policy July 1, 2004 Joel Re: 21A.40.120 Alleys are the same as driveways in that the pedestrian has a continuous sidewalk and there fore the primary right of way. A vehicle must yield to pedestrians before crossing a sidewalk and entering the roadway. At driveways and alleys we want the 10x10 CSZ where available. In areas where there are zero setbacks, grade transitions, and pre-existing elements we would like some Administrative review and mitigation. (mirrors, accident or intensity wavers etc.) At the intersections there are many variables, speed of both roadways, type of traffic, traffic regulatory devices (stop, yield, signal, open,) grades, etc. that are not addressed with a 30 foot corner triangle. There fore we are not to concerned with that issue. I have proposed some changes to your attachment, added two words and relocated a sentence so the 10x10 is included in the side yard. fhe overall change is great!! Let me know how it turns out. Barry. From: Paterson,Joel Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 3:59 PM To: Walsh, Barry Subject: Fence height amendments Barry, Please review and comment on the attached fence height standards. As you will note,we have added language concerning fence height within the sight distance triangle adjacent to driveways and on corner lots. On the telephone you mentioned that you were considering allowing a 4 foot fence within the sight triangle if the fence was 50%open(as opposed to 80 percent). I added this to the proposed language—are you ok with that? When referring to sight distance triangles, the zoning ordinance does not mention alleys. Should alleys be treated like driveways, as I am proposing in the attached draft? I appreciate you help and look forward to your comments. Tf you have any questions, give me a call. Joel G. Paterson, AICP Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division Exhibit 7 PUBLIC COMMENTS Transmittal of Petition 400-04-26 Fencing Provisions Text Amendments Paterson, Joel 'rom: Paterson, Joel sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 2:07 PM To: 'laura.howat@admin.utah.edu' Subject: FW: Salt Lake City Fencing Provisions Categories: Program/Policy Fencing agulations Final drat Ms. Howat: The proposed fencing regulation amendments are in the process of being forwarded to the City Council. The proposed language is attached. Please send me your mailing address so that you will be notified when the City Council schedules a public hearing on this issue. Joel G. Paterson, AICP Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division Tel.: (801) 535-6141 Fax: (801) 535-6174 E-mail: joel.paterson@slcgov.com ----Original Message From: Paterson, Joel Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 2:58 PM To: 'Laura Howat' Subject: RE: Salt Lake City Fencing Provisions Ms. Howat: Thank you for the e-mail regarding proposed amendments to the Salt Lake City fencing provisions. I am working with the Transportation Division,Permits office and the Zoning Enforcement division to rectify the issue you mention regarding the sight triangle for driveways. When available, I will forward revised language to you. Thanks for your input on this subject. If you have any questions,please contact me by replying to this e-mail or by telephoning 535-6141. Joel G. Paterson, AICP Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division Tel. (801) 535-6141 Fax (801)535-6174 E-mail: joel.paterson@slcgov.com Original Message From: Laura Howat [mailto:Laura.Howat@admin.utah.edu] Sent: Thursday,June 24,2004 9:38 AM 1 To:joel.paterson@slcgov.com Cc: brent.wilde@slcgov.com Subject: Re: Salt Lake City Fencing Provisions Mr. Paterson: Thank you for sending me a copy of the proposed amendments to the fence height standards from the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Unless there is another proposed amendment to fence height standards, the proposal is missing a primary point I brought to Councilman Buhler's attention last year regarding fencing along a driveway. A four foot high fence along a driveway provides unsafe conditions for children passing along the sidewalk as drivers backing out of the driveway cannot adequately see small children. A driveway sight distance triangle is illustrated in SLC zoning regulations showing requirements of unobstructed sight. In addition, SLC Transportation Engineer guidelines also show an illustration of requirements of a sight distance triangle. Both illustrations show that measurements should be taken along the edge of the driveway and the edge of the sidewalk and sight should not be obstructed within a ten foot triangle and that no obstruction should exist beyond a height of 30 inches measured from the ground. However, the zoning definition of"sight distance triangle" says that "the points shall be determined through the site plan review process by the development review team." The reference to the sight distance triangle in the Foothills district zoning regulations state that fence height should generally not exceed 30 inches for a ten foot by ten foot wide triangle along driveways. Why is the safety of the children in our older neighbors not adequately protected as in the Foothills district? An amendment incorporating the language of the Foothills district zoning with respect to fencing along driveways will provide safe passage for our small children as well as take away the ambiguity of involving the development review team on any driveway fencing. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to front yard fencing. If there is anything I can do as a citizen to help with this process, I would be happy to do so. If you have any questions regarding the above, I can be reached at 581-6699 during the day. Laura Howat >>> "Paterson, Joel" <joel.paterson@slcgov.com>6/23/2004 12:26:26 PM >>>>>> Ms. Howat: Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director, asked that I send you a copy of the proposed amendments to the fence height standards from the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Please see the attached document. In October 2002, the Planning Commission recommended some amendments to the fence height provisions. The Community Development Director requested that these amendments not be transmitted to the City Council in anticipation of a request by the Council to further review the fence height provisions. Subsequently, the City Council did adopt a legislative action requesting the Planning Commission to make further amendments to the fencing provisions. In response to this request, the Planning Staff is recommending some refinement of the Planning Commission's proposal from 2002. The proposed amendments will be reviewed by the Planning Commission tonight (6/23/04) during the Planning Directors Report(see attached Planning Commission Agenda). This discussion is intended as a briefing and the Planning Commission will not accept public comment. I will ask the Planning Commission if they would like to forward the proposal to the City Council at this time or schedule a public hearing. 2 ' If you have any questions, please call me at 535-6141 or send e-mail to joel.paterson@slcgov.com. Joel G. Paterson, AICP senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division Tel. (801) 535-6141 Fax (801) 535-6174 E-mail: joel.paterson@slcgov.com 3 21A.40.120 Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: D. Height Restrictions: 1_No new fence, wall or hedge shall be erected in-any-frentyard to a height in excess of four feet (4') between the front property line and the front facade of the principal structure, except that a six foot (6') fence, wall or hedge on the property line may extend along the entire length of the interior side yard to the front yard setback line. 2_No sneh solid fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of three feet (3') if the fence, wall or hedge is located within the sight distance triangle extending thirty feet (30') from the intersection of the right of way front property lines on any corner lot as noted in figure 21A.62.050.I of this title. 3 Fences, walls or hedges may be erected in any required corner side yard (extending to a point in line with the front facade of the principal structure), side yard or rear yard to a height not to exceed six feet(6'). 4. Solid fences,walls and hedges located near the intersection of a driveway or an alley with the public way shall not exceed thirty inches (30") in height within a ten foot(10') wide by ten foot(10') deep sight distance triangle as defined in figure 21A.62.050.I of this title. 5. Within the area defined as a sight-distance triangle, see-through fences that are at least fifty percent(50%) open shall be allowed to a height of four feet(4'). 6. To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys,the Zoning Administrator, in consultation with the Development Review Team, may require alternative design solutions,including but not restricted to requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by the location of buildings, grade changes or other pre-existing conditions. 7/21/2004 Page 1ot ! Paterson, Joel From: Paterson, Joel Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 12:26 PM To: 'laura.howat a@admin.utah.edu' Subject: Salt Lake City Fencing Provisions Categories: Program/Policy Ms. Howat: Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director, asked that I send you a copy of the proposed amendments to the fence height standards from the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Please see the attached document. In October 2002, the Planning Commission recommended some amendments to the fence height provisions. The Community Development Director requested that these amendments not be transmitted to the City Council in anticipation of a request by the Council to further review the fence height provisions. Subsequently, the City Council did adopt a legislative action requesting the Planning Commission to make further amendments to the fencing provisions. In response to this request, the Planning Staff is recommending some refinement of the Planning Commission's proposal from 2002. The proposed amendments will be reviewed by the Planning Commission tonight (6/23/04) during the Planning Directors Report(see attached Planning Commission Agenda). This discussion is intended as a briefing and the Planning Commission will not accept public comment. I will ask the Planning Commission if they would like to forward the proposal to the City Council at this time or schedule a public earing. If you have any questions, please call me at 535-6141 or send e-mail to joel.paterson@slcgov.com. Joel G. Paterson, AICP Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division Tel. (801) 535-6141 Fax (801) 535-6174 E-mail: joel.paterson@slcgov.com FACSIMILE COVER SHEET Laura Howat Phone: (801) 581-6699 FAX: (801) 587-9855 0 11>41‘.1 \91(ril" DATE: June 22, 2004 TO: Louis Zunguze Salt Lake City Planning Director FAX NO: 535-6174 FROM: Laura Howat Number of pages including cover sheet: 2 RE: Zoning Ordinance Action Item Mr. Zunguze, attached is a copy of an email I sent to SLC Planning requesting the status of a reevaluation of zoning ordinance relating to front yard fences. I have not received a reply. Please respond. Confidentiality Notice The document(s) accompanying this FAX may contain confidential information which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the recipient named above. 11 auia Howa -,Zoning.ordinance action Item - ."� "�°"�� �" ^°�° a°'� �- - .,. ,, . wage 1� From: Laura Howat To: planning@slcgov,com Date: Wed, Jun 2, 2004 4:42 PM Subject: Zoning ordinance action item • SLC Planning: On June 3,2003, the SLC Council adopted an action item requesting administration to re-evaluate sections of the zoning ordinance relating to fences in front yard areas in residential zoning districts. Please let me know the status of the re-evaluation. The SLC Council pertinent minutes are below. Thank you. Laura Howat (G 03-13) • #2. RE:Adopting a legislative action item requesting the Administration to re-evaluate sections of the zoning ordinance relating to fences In front yard areas in residential zoning districts. ACTION: Councilmember Buhler moved and Councilmember Saxton seconded to adopt the Legislative Action, which motion carried, all members voted aye. DISCUSSION: Councilmember Buhler said this issue was brought to his attention by a constituent in his district. He said the regulations were confusing. He said planning staff agreed and wanted to work on clarification. He said this action made his request official. Councilmember Turner said the constituents in his district felt the same and he supported the request. CC: dave.buhler@slcgov,com Memorandum Date: August 3, 2006 To: City Council Members CC: Rocky Fluhart, Ed Rutan, Steve Fawcett,Kay Christensen,Ken Miles, Shon Hardy, Peggy Raddon,Gwen Springmeyer,Annette Daley, Barry Esham,and Holly Sizemore From: Jan Aramaki RE: Ordinance to amend Sections of Salt Lake City Code to Chapter 8.04, Animal Control Ordinance, relating to feral cat colony registration permit requirements As part of the fiscal year 2006-07 annual budget,the City Council adopted a resolution accepting the study performed in compliance with Utah Code Section 10-8-2 and authorizing a $10,000 contribution to No More Homeless Pets in Utah to support its Feral Fix Program within Salt Lake City. A copy of the resolution and a memorandum dated April 18,2006 prepared by Kay Christensen is being provided once again for background information purposes. The benefit of the$10,000 contribution to No More Homeless Pets in Utah is"the program includes workshops to train members of the public in how to perform Trap-Neuter-Return(TNR), support services such as trap loans and vouchers for free or low cost spay/neuter services." In conjunction with the $10,000 allocation to No More Homeless Pets in Utah,the Council may wish to consider adopting proposed amendments to sections of Chapter 8,Animal Control ordinance,that pertain to feral cat colony registration permit requirements. Before Salt Lake County Animal Control is able to work with residents who wish to be caretakers of feral cats, an ordinance must be adopted for Salt Lake City. A person who wishes to maintain a feral cat colony and participate in the TNR process will be required to find a veterinarian or work with No More Homeless Pets in Utah to obtain vaccinations,sterilization,traps, and ear-tipping for feral cats. Salt Lake County Animal Services' does not provide services for vaccinations, sterilization,traps, or ear-tipping for feral cats. They will be the provider of enforcement services for feral cat colonies that take place within Salt Lake City. The following proposed amendments are for the City Council's consideration: 1. Section 8.04.010: Definitions for"feral cat"and"feral cat colony"have been included. 2. Section 8.04.135: Feral cat colony registration permit-- any person over eighteen(18) years of age,who wishes to maintain a feral cat colony may obtain a feral cat colony registration permit unless prohibited by zoning or other ordinances or laws. The resident will be required to: a. present proof that the cats in the feral cat colony have been sterilized, vaccinated, and ear-tipped or are being actively trapped so as to perform sterilization, vaccination and ear-tipping; b. present a detailed description of each cat in the colony including vaccination history; c. present proof of property owner and/or landlord permission at the site where the colony is being maintained; and d. provide contact information in the event that complaints are received by the Office of Animal Services concerning management of the colony. 3. Section 8.04.136: Additional requirements in maintaining a registered feral cat colony— A feral cat colony permit holders shall take responsibility to: a. feed the cat colony on a regular basis throughout the year; ensure that the food storage area(s)are secure from insect,rodent,and other vermin attraction and harborage; set feeding times; and remove remaining food immediately after feeding. b. sterilize,vaccinate, and ear-tip all adult cats that can be captured—a microchip implant is recommended; c. remove droppings,spoiled food,and other waste from the premises as often as necessary,at least every seven days,to prevent odor,insect or rodent attraction, or breeding, or other nuisance. 4. Section 8.04.150: Commercial and Pet Rescue Permits—Fee Schedule-includes feral cat colony registration permits to the fee schedule. 5 Section 8.04.210: Commercial establishments-Emergency Suspension of Permit-- includes feral cat colonies to the list of commercial establishments to be inspected by an Animal Services officer—under conditions of unsanitary or other conditions in the operation that constitute a substantial hazard to the animal(s) and/or public health, a written notice may be issued to the permit holder or operator which immediately suspends the establishment's permit. 6. Appendix A: A feral cat colony registration permit fee of$25 is proposed. On March 30,2006,the City Council received a briefing regarding the Administration's proposed revisions to Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 8,Animal Control ordinance. At that time,the Council made the decision to form a subcommittee who would make recommendations for the Council's review and consideration. On April 11,2006,the City Council Animal Control subcommittee presented recommendations to their Council colleagues relating to revisions to sections of Chapter 8,Animal Control ordinance. At that time,the Council discussed the proposed amendments to Chapter 8 relating to feral cat colonization permit and fee. In response to the Administration's proposed $25 fee for a feral cat colony registration permit, Council Member Jergensen, subcommittee member, suggested that the City Council consider reducing the Administration's recommended fee of$25 to a lower fee which will serve as an incentive for residents who wish to take care of feral cat colonies. Council Member Jergensen pointed out residents who are interested in feeding feral cats will bear the costs 2 for vaccinations, sterilization,recommended microchip implant, and ear-tipping. The City Council expressed support at that time to lower the proposed$25 fee to either$10 or $5 and made a request of Council staff to prepare a fiscal impact on the contract with Salt Lake County Animal Services based upon a lower fee. Salt Lake County Animal Services would like to emphasize to the City Council that the proposed$25 feral cat colony registration permit fee will basically cover their costs for feral cat colonies that occur in Salt Lake City. According to Animal Services, a$25 permit fee will involve costs associated with: 1)an initial visit to the site where a feral cat colony registration permit has been applied for to maintain a colony and educate the applicant about the process involved; 2)a follow-up visit will be required by Animal Services to inspect the property to ensure compliance has been made by the applicant according to requirements in Salt Lake City code prior to issuing permit; and 3) administrative costs associated to input information into their system for tracking purposes. Animal Services states that if the proposed permit fee of$25 is reduced,they will be providing a service below their costs. The proposed$25 fee offsets the cost of their services. Animal Services states feral cats are non-adoptable. The following process takes place at the County's shelter when a feral cat(identified by a tipped-ear)is received: > If a caretaker has taken the step to microchip a feral cat,Animal Services is able to contact the caretaker to have the feral cat returned to the established colony. > When a feral cat does not possess a microchip implant,Animal Services is unable to find the caretaker. Therefore, according to state code,Animal Services is required to shelter the cat for 3 days before euthanization takes place. Ken Miles,Director of Animal Services, stated when a feral cat is received into the County's shelter,they make a concerted effort to contact No More Homeless Pets in Utah with the hope that they may assist in locating the caretaker to avoid euthanizing feral cats when possible. Salt Lake City will be the first local municipality contracted with Salt Lake County Animal Services to implement a feral cat colony registration permit fee into city code. For example,West Valley City residents are allowed by West Valley City to participate in TNR but are not required to obtain a permit;however,the caregivers register with No More Homeless Pets in Utah. Therefore, it is difficult to forecast how many feral cat permits will be issued for Salt Lake City. However,No More Homeless Pets in Utah reported there were 40 Salt Lake City participants(caregivers)in 2004 who chose to participate in TNR. Using 40 caregivers as an expected number and based upon the Council's suggested fee of$10 or$5 for a feral cat colony registration permit(rather than$25 as proposed by the Administration),the following fiscal impact table represents impacts to Salt Lake County Animal Services. 3 Proposed Animal Feral Cat Colony Registration Permit Fee Fiscal Impact to Salt Lake County Animal Services 40 $25 $1,000 40 $10 $ 400 Fiscal Impact $ 600 40 $25 $1,000 40 $5 $ 200 Financial Impact $ 800 Which fee does the Council wish to implement for an annual feral cat colony registration permit? 1. $25 fee as proposed by the Administration; 2. $10 fee -- a reduction in the annual feral cat colony registration permit fee from$25 to $10 will result in a fiscal impact loss to Salt Lake County Animal Services of$600 per year. 3. $5 fee --a reduction in the annual feral cat colony registration permit from$25 to$5 will result in a fiscal impact loss to Salt Lake County Animal Services of$800 per year. A public hearing will be scheduled due to a proposed fee associated with the feral cat colony registration permit. d SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Feral Cats) AN ORDNANCE AMENDING SECTION 8.04.010, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO DEFINITIONS; ENACTING SECTION 8.04.135, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO FERAL CAT COLONY REGISTRATION PERMIT REQUIREMENTS; ENACTING SECTION 8.04.136, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO MAINTAINING A REGISTERED FERAL CAT COLONY—ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING SECTION 8.04.150, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO COMMERCIAL AND PET RESCUE PERMITS —FEE SCHEDULE; AMENDING SECTION 8.04.210, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS —EMERGENCY SUSPENSION OF PERMIT; AND AMENDING SUBSECTION A OF APPENDIX A TO TITLE 8, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO PERMIT FEES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 8.04.010, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to definitions be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 8.04.010 Definitions: As used in this Title: A. "Abandonment" means: 1) placing an animal in an unsafe or dangerous environment where the animal is separated from basic needs such as food, water, shelter or necessary medical attention, for a period of longer than twenty four (24) hours; or 2) failure to reclaim an animal 1 seventy two (72) hours beyond the time agreed upon with a kennel, grooming service, veterinary hospital, or animal shelter. B. "Allow", for the purposes of this ordinance, shall include human conduct that is intentional, deliberate, careless, inadvertent or negligent in relation to the actions of an animal. C. "Animal at large" means any domesticated animal, whether or not licensed, not under restraint as defined below. D. "Animal boarding establishment" means any establishment that takes in animals for board for profit. E. "Animal groomer" means any establishment maintained for the purpose of offering cosmetological services for animals for profit. F. "Animals" means any and all types of livestock, dogs and other nonhuman creatures, both domestic and wild, male and female, singular and plural. G. "Animal services" means the office referred to in section 8.04.020 of this chapter, or its successor. H. "Animal shelter" means a facility owned and/or operated by a governmental entity or any animal welfare organization that is incorporated within the state, used for the care and custody of seized, stray, homeless, quarantined, abandoned or unwanted dogs, cats, or other small domestic animals; or for the purpose of protective custody under the authority of this ordinance or state law. I. "Animal under restraint" means any animal under the control of its owner or person over the age of twelve (12) years having charge, care, custody or control of the animal, by means of: 2 1) a leash or lead not to exceed six feet (6') in length, 2) other physical enclosure, or 3) within the real property limits of the owner. J. "Bite" means an actual puncture, tear or abrasion of the skin inflicted by the teeth of an animal. K. "Carriage" or "horse drawn carriage" means any device in, upon, or by which any person is or may be transported or drawn upon a public way and which is designed to be drawn by horses. L. "Carriage business" means any person offering to transport another person for any valuable consideration and by means of a horse drawn carriage. M. "Cat" means any age feline of the domesticated types four(4) months of age or older. N. "Cattery" means an establishment for boarding, breeding, buying, grooming or selling cats for profit. O. "Commercial animal establishment" means any pet shop, grooming shop, animal training establishment, guard dog auction or exhibition, riding school or stable, zoological park, circus, rodeo, animal exhibition, or boarding or breeding kennel. P. "Confinement" means that the animal is kept in an escape-proof enclosure or walked on a leash of not more than six feet (6') in length by a person eighteen (18) years of age or older. Confinement does not restrict contact with other animals or humans. Q. "Custody" means ownership, possession of, harboring, or exercising control over any animal. R. "Dangerous animal" means any animal that is a hazard to the public health and safety. S. "Dog" means any Canis familiaris four (4) months of age or older. 3 T. "Domesticated animals" means animals accustomed to live in or about the habitation of people, including, but not limited to, cats, dogs, fowl, horses, swine and goats. U. "Driver" means any person operating or in actual physical control of a horse-drawn carriage, or any person sitting in the driver's seat of such carriage with the intention of causing it to be moved by a horse. V. "Enclosure" means any structure that prevents an animal from escaping its confines. W. "Estray" or "stray" means any "animal at large", as defined herein. X. "Euthanasia" means the humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method approved by the most recent Report of the American Veterinary Medication Association Panel on Euthanasia. Y. "Feral cat" means any homeless, wild or untamed cat. Z. "Feral cat colony" means a group of homeless, wild or untamed cats living or growing together. YAA. "Guard dog" means a working dog which must be kept in a fenced run or other suitable enclosure during business hours, or on a leash or under absolute control while working, so it cannot come into contact with the public. ZBB. "Holding facility" means any pet shop, kennel, cattery, groomery, riding school, stable, animal shelter, veterinary hospital, humane establishment, or any other such facility used for holding animals. AACC. "Impoundment" means taken into the custody of an animal services agency, police department, or an agent thereof. 4 ADD. "Kennel" means an establishment having dogs for the purpose of boarding, breeding, buying, grooming, letting for hire, training for fee, or selling. CCEE. "Leash" or "lead" means any chain, rope or device used to restrain an animal, being no longer than six feet (6') in length. DDFF. "Owner" means any person having title to, or custody of, or keeping, or harboring one or more animals. An animal shall be deemed to be harbored if it is fed or sheltered during a period of twenty four (24) consecutive hours or more. EEGG."Person" means a natural person or any legal entity, including, but not limited to, a corporation, firm, partnership or trust. FFHH. "Pet" or "companion animal" means any animal of a species that has been developed to live in or about the habitation of humans, is dependent on humans for food and shelter, and is kept for pleasure rather than utility or commercial purposes. GGII. "Pet shop" means any establishment containing cages or exhibition pens, not part of a kennel or cattery, wherein dogs, cats, birds or other pets are kept, displayed or sold. I4I4JJ. "Provoked" means any deliberate act by a person towards a dog or any other animal done with the intent to tease, torment, abuse, assault or otherwise cause a reaction by the dog or other animal; provided, however, that any act by a person done with the intent to discourage or prevent a dog or other animal from attacking shall not be considered to be a provocation. TIKK. "Quarantine" means the isolation of an animal in a substantial enclosure so that the animal is not subject to contact with other animals or persons not authorized by the Office of Animal Services. 5 33LL. "Riding school or stable" means an establishment which offers boarding and/or riding instruction for any horse, pony, donkey, mule or burro, or which offers such animals for hire. I MM. "Service animal" means any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability. LLNN. "Set" means: I. To cock, open or put a trap in such a condition that it would clamp closed when an object or person touches a triggering device; and/or 2. To place a spring-loaded trap which has been opened or fixed so that it would close upon the triggering device being touched upon the ground, or in a position where a person or animal could become caught therein. MMOO. "Specialized equipment" is that equipment, other than the usual patrol vehicles of animal services, which is designed for specific purposes such as, but not limited to, livestock trailers and carcass trailers. NNPP. "Species subject to rabies" means any species that has been reported to the Center for Disease Control to have contracted the rabies virus and become a host for that virus. 000Q. "Spring-loaded trap" means any clamp-like apparatus which is utilized to catch animals, objects or persons when, after being set and the triggering device being activated, clamp-like jaws are designed to come together with force so as to clamp or close upon an animal, person or object activating the spring or triggering device. PPRR. "Stable" means any place or facility where one or more horses, ponies, donkeys, mules or burros are housed or maintained, and are offered for hire. 6 QQSS. "Veterinarian" means any person legally licensed to practice veterinary medicine under the laws of the State of Utah. RRTT. "Vicious animal" means: 1. Any animal which, in a threatening or terrorizing manner, approaches any person in apparent attitude of attack upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds or places; 2. Any animal with a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack, to cause injury or to otherwise endanger the safety of human beings or animals; or 3. Any animal which bites, inflicts injury, assaults or otherwise attacks a human being or domestic animal on public or private property. SSW. "Wild, exotic or dangerous animal" means any animal which is not commonly domesticated, or which is not native to North America, or which, irrespective of geographic origin, is of a wild or predatory nature, or any other animal which, because of its size, growth propensity, vicious nature or other characteristics, would constitute an unreasonable danger to human life, health or property if not kept, maintained or confined in a safe and secure manner, including hybrids, and animals which, as a result of their natural or wild condition, cannot be vaccinated effectively for rabies. Those animals, however domesticated, shall include,but are not limited to: 1. Alligators And Crocodiles: Alligators and crocodiles; 2. Bears (Ursidae): All bears, including grizzly bears, brown bears, and black bears; 3. Cat Family(Felidae): All except the commonly accepted domesticated cats, and including cheetahs, cougars, leopards, lions, lynx, panthers, mountain lions, tigers and wildcats; 7 4. Dog Family (Canidae): All except domesticated dogs, and including wolf, part wolf, fox, part fox, coyote, part coyote, dingo and part dingo; 5. Porcupines: Porcupine (erethizontidae); 6. Primate (Hominidae): All subhuman primates; 7. Raccoon (Prosymlidae): All raccoons, including eastern raccoons, desert raccoons and ring- tailed cats; 8. Skunks: Skunks; 9. Fish: Venomous fish and piranha; 10. Snakes Or Lizards: Venomous snakes or lizards; 11. Weasels (Mustelidae): All, including weasels, martins, wolverines, ferrets, badgers, otters, ermine, mink and mongoose, except that the possession of such animals shall not be prohibited when raised commercially for their pelts. TTVV."Work", with reference to a horse, means that the horse is out of the stable and presented as being available for pulling carriages; in harness; or pulling a carriage. SECTION 2. That Section 8.04.135, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to feral cat colony registration permit requirements be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 8.04.135 Feral Cat Colony Registration Permit—Requirements It is unlawful for any person to maintain a feral cat colony without a permit. Unless prohibited by zoning or other ordinances or laws, any person over eighteen (18) years of age, may obtain a feral cat colony permit from Animal Services or its designee upon: 8 A. Presenting proof that the cats in the maintained colony have been sterilized, given their vaccinations as required and ear-tipped, or are being actively trapped so as to perform sterilization, vaccination and ear-tipping; B Presenting a detailed description of each cat in the colony including vaccination history; C. Presenting proof of property owner and/or landlord permission at the site that the colony is being maintained; and D. Providing contact information, in the event that complaints are received by the Office of Animal Services concerning management of the colony. SECTION 3. That Section 8.04.136, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to maintaining a registered feral cat colony— additional requirements be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 8.04.136 Maintaining a Registered Feral Cat Colony—Additional Requirements Feral cat colony permit holders shall: A. Take responsibility for feeding the cat colony regularly throughout the year, while ensuring that the food storage area(s) are secure from insect, rodent, and other vermin attraction and harborage. Feeding times shall be set, and any remaining food shall be immediately removed after feedings B. Sterilize, vaccinate and ear-tip all adult cats that can be captured. Implanting a microchip is recommended; and 9 C. Remove droppings, spoiled food, and other waste from the premises as often as necessary, and at least every seven (7) days, to prevent odor, insect or rodent attraction or breeding, or any other nuisance. SECTION 4. That Section 8.04.150, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to commercial and pet rescue peunits— fee schedule be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 8.04.150 Commercial And Pet Rescue Permits-Fee Schedule: Fees for commercial operations (kennels, catteries, groomeries, pet shops, veterinary clinics or hospitals) and-pet rescue permits and feral cat colony registration permits shall be as indicated in Appendix A of this Chapter. SECTION 5. That Section 8.04.210, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to commercial establishments — emergency suspension of perurit be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 8.04.210 Commercial Establishments-Emergency Suspension Of Permit: Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Title, when the inspecting officer finds unsanitary or other conditions in the operation of feral cat colonies, kennels, catteries, groomeries, veterinary clinics or hospitals, riding stables, pet shops, or any similar establishments, which, in such officer's judgment,constitute a substantial hazard to the animal(s) and/or the public health, such officer may, without warning or hearing, issue a written notice to the permit holder or operator citing such condition and specifying the corrective action to be taken. Such order shall state that the permit is immediately suspended, and all operations are to be immediately discontinued. Any person to whom such an order is issued shall comply immediately therewith. Any animals at such 10 facility may be confiscated by the Animal Services Office and impounded or otherwise provided for according to the provisions of this Title. SECTION 6. That Subsection A of Appendix A to Title 8, Salt Lake City Code, relating to permit fees be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: APPENDIX A SALT LAKE CITY ANIMAL SERVICES PERMITS AND FEES A. Permit Fees: Commercial operations up to 30 animals $ 75.00 Commercial operations over 30 animals 150.00 Riding stables 40.00 Business selling only tropical or freshwater fish 50.00 Pet rescue permit 25.00 If issued at shelter's request 0.00 Feral cat colony registration permit 25.00 Late fee (in addition to regular fee) 25.00 SECTION 7. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2006. 11 CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: 1 Ordinance 06AAnimal Services Amending 8.04.010 et scq re Feral Cats 6-20-06 draft#2 12 MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Fawcett FROM: Kay Christensen DATE: April 18, 2006 SUBJECT: Non-Departmental Budget—Contribution to No More Homeless Pets in Utah: Study to Comply with Utah Code Annotated Section 10-8-2 * The Administration proposes contributing $10,000 to No More Homeless Pets of Utah to be used to support their"feral fix program" within Salt Lake City. The purpose of this program is to help resolve the problem of stray cat (recently abandoned) and feral cat (un-owned, "wild") overpopulations in the City through the use of a Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) strategy. The program includes workshops to train members of the public in how to perform TNR, support services such as trap loans and vouchers for free or low cost spay/neuter services. To insure that this transaction is in compliance with UCA 10-8-2, the following study has been performed. UCA 10-8-2 states the purposes for which a municipal body may appropriate funds and the factors that must be considered in determining the propriety of such an appropriation. This study will consider the following factors: (1) The specific benefits to be received by the City; (2) The City's purpose in making the appropriation, including an analysis of how the safety, health,prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort or convenience of the residents of Salt Lake City will be enhanced; and (3)Whether the appropriation is "necessary and appropriate" to accomplish the City's goals. Benefits and Costs to Salt Lake City: Feral and stray cats can be found throughout our community. Their unchecked reproduction has created a significant burden in terms of quality of life. As catalogued by Dr. Margaret Slater, DVM, of Texas A&M, a leading veterinarian in the field, complaints include such behaviors as, "spraying, fouling yards and gardens with feces, yowling and fighting; sick, injured, or dead cats; and dirty footprints on cars."6 The cats have commonly been accused of driving people from their gardens and backyards with the noxious odor of unaltered males spraying, and waking residents up night after night from the noise of fighting and mating. The feral and stray cat population also heavily impacts the cost and effectiveness of Salt Lake City' animal control system. The un-neutered street cat population serves as a constant source of new cats and kittens. Many of these animals find their way into local shelters, taking up badly needed space, making it more difficult to adopt out cats already rescued and contributing to a financial burden of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from the cost of euthanizing cats. In sum, the present situation in Salt Lake City is characterized by a city overrun with feral and stray cats, an animal control agency flooded with complaints that cannot be properly addressed, and a shelter system overburdened with the cats and their offspring. To date, the policy for dealing with such animals has been "trap and kill" or do nothing. Studies have shown that a "trap and kill" strategy has little impact on the overall number of cats and is particularly ineffective when used sporadically and in random locations as has been the practice in Salt Lake City and County. An alternative that has proven effective at controlling the feral and stray cat populations in many communities is Trap- Neuter-Return (TNR).TNR involves three steps: (1) trapping the cats in a colony, (2) veterinary intervention in the form of neutering, eartipping7 and rabies vaccination, and (3) return of the cats to their home territory where they are then fed, sheltered and monitored on an ongoing basis by a designated caretaker. Whenever possible, kittens and friendly, adoptable adults are removed from the colony and offered for placement in homes. 6 Slater, Margaret R., DVM, Community Approaches to Feral Cats,p. 39 (Humane Society of US Press, 2002) [hereinafter referred to as "Slater"]. 7 "Eartipping"is the universal sign of a neutered feral cat and involves removing the tip of the left ear in a straight line cut. 2 No effective animal control policy for feral cats can be implemented on a large scale without the cooperation of the people who feed and watch over the cats on a daily basis. Trapping cats is generally accomplished by baiting humane box traps that close behind a cat when he enters to eat the bait. If food is not withheld the day prior to trapping, many cats will not enter the traps. Caretaker cooperation in withholding food is thus essential. Caretakers also possess unique knowledge regarding the cats, including their numbers, habits and whereabouts. As a result, a caretaker can either greatly assist or effectively thwart animal control efforts. A survey of cat caretakers who presented cats for sterilization in a TNR program revealed that they are intensely bonded to the cats they feed and will not participate in animal control programs that threaten their felines' welfare.8 At the same time, caretakers are easily recruited to perform much of the labor involved in getting the cats controlled through sterilization, representing, as mentioned, a substantial cost savings compared to traditional animal control programs using paid staff.9 Thus, TNR is an effective tool for enlisting public support to solve a difficult community problem while at the same time mitigating public anger resulting from either the "trap-and-kill" or"do nothing" strategies. TNR reduces the number of feral cats because cats can't reproduce, a system of monitoring long-term colonies is put in place, and attrition over time leads to lower numbers. This results in a reduction of nuisance complaints because there is much less noise and smell (no mating, fighting spraying), and less roaming. West Valley City has embraced the TNR program, and in one year their cat intake decreased by 26 percent and their cat euthanasia decreased by 34%. The additional decrease in euthanasia was attributed to West Valley City being able to hold their adoptable cats longer since the feral cats were sCentonze LA,Levy JK,"Characteristics of feral cat colonies and their caretakers,"Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 2002;220:1627-1633. 9 See caretaker participation in sterilization clinics described in:Williams LS,Levy JK,Robertson SA, Cistola AM,Centonze LA,"Use of the anesthetic combination of tiletamine,zolazepam,ketamine,and xylazine for neutering feral cats,"Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 2002; 220:1491-1495. 3 not taking up the cage space (West Valley City holds their animals longer than the minimum impound whenever room permits). This translates into at least $30,000 in savings for West Valley City (based on a low handling fee of$65 per animal). TNR has worked successfully in various communities where it has been tried. In San Diego County, from 1988 through 1991, stray cat intake rates for municipal shelters were rising at a rate of approximately 10% a year, peaking in fiscal year 1991-1992 at a total of 19,077 cats, of whom 15,525 were euthanized.12 In 1992, the Feral Cat Coalition of San Diego was founded and began implementing TNR on a county-wide basis. Two years and 3100 neutered feral cats later, stray intake rates had dropped by 35% and euthanasia by 40% with no other change in circumstance other than the TNR efforts.io,,1 TNR provides substantial cost savings to animal control in two ways. First, there is the volunteer manpower generated to get the cats fixed and stop them from reproducing. Secondly, substantial cost savings are also realized when TNR is implemented on a large enough scale to realize lower euthanasia rates in municipal shelters. In San Diego, during the period of 1992 through 1994, the average cost of interning and then euthanizing a cat was $121. The 40% drop in euthanasia over those two years from the privately funded county-wide TNR program saved the county approximately $796,000. Studies have found there is a significant cost savings even when the municipality itself funds TNR efforts and does not rely on private organizations to bear the costs. For example, Orange County, Florida, implemented a TNR program for two and a half years from 1995 through 1998. Previously, when they received a feral cat complaint, they sent out an officer to trap the cat, held the animal for the mandatory waiting period and 10 Chappell, Michelle, DVM, "A Model for Humane Reduction of Feral Cat Populations," California Veterinarian(Sept/Oct 1999). i i Cat Fanciers Association Almanac (1995), www.cfainc.org/articles/trap-alter- release.html 4 then euthanized the cat. This cost $105 per cat. By contrast, having volunteers trap the cats followed by spay/neuter and vaccination services cost the county $56 per cat, a savings of$109,172 over the length of the study (2228 cats).12 Meeting Salt Lake City's Purpose and Enhancing the Quality of Life for Residents: The TNR program will reduce cat shelter intake and euthanasia, therefore saving taxpayer dollars. The program will ultimately reduce the number of feral cats and, as a result, the frequency of nuisance behaviors associated with free-roaming, unfixed cats. Salt Lake City contracts with Salt Lake County Animal Services SLCAS)to handle all animal control issues in the City for a set contract price. It is estimated that the City's contribution of$10,000 could result in at least 330 cats being spayed or neutered. This result would not change the contract fee, but would free up animal control officers, to that extent, to do community patrolling and enforcement work that is greatly needed in the community. The modest contribution of$10,000 would provide an opportunity to test the feral fix/TNR strategy and determine if the City would benefit from greater financial support of the program. Accomplishing Salt Lake City's Goals: The feral fix/TNR program can be considered necessary and appropriate to accomplish Salt Lake City's goals in the area of improvement of quality of life for City residents and the efficient delivery of municipal services. The feral fix/TNR program requires community support from those who care for the feral animals and thus embraces the City's goal to promote community-based problem solving. 12 Appendix 15 ("Orange County,Florida,"Alley Cat Allies fact sheet). *The information in this study was taken largely from a paper deliver by Holly Sizemore of No More Homeless Pets in Utah, entitled "Why Trap/Neuter/Return in Salt Lake City." 5 RESOLUTION NO. OF 2006 (ACCEPTING THE STUDY PERFORMED IN COMPLIANCE WITH UTAH CODE SECTION 10-8-2 AND AUTHORIZING A$10,000.00 CONTRIBUTION TO NO MORE HOMELESS PETS IN UTAH TO SUPPORT ITS "FERAL FIX PROGRAM" WITHIN SALT LAKE CITY WHEREAS, the City Administration has recommended a contribution of$10,000.00 from the City's Non-Departmental Budget to No More Homeless Pets in Utah to be used to support its "feral fix program"within Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received and reviewed a Study regarding said proposed contribution prepared by the City's Department of Management Services in compliance with the requirements of Utah Code Section 10-8-2, and public notice has been given at least 14 days prior hereto in a newspaper of general circulation within the City; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Study, and has fully considered the analysis and conclusions set forth therein, and all comments made during the public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Study, and hereby finds and determines that, for all the reasons set forth in the Study,the net value to be received by the City by making this grant will constitute adequate consideration, or equivalent value, both tangible and intangible, for the benefit being provided by the proposed contribution; 2. In the judgment of the City Council, this appropriation will provide for the safety, health,prosperity,moral well-being,peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of Salt Lake City; 3. That $10,000.00 be and is hereby appropriated from the City's Non-Departmental Budget to No More Homeless Pets in Utah to be used to support its"feral fix program"within Salt Lake City as described in the aforementioned Study. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, this day of June, 2006. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM O CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Salt Lake Atprmyta ee Data ', 06 G.\Resoluti\Doug Short matters\2006-2007Wuthorizing comfit)to The Road Home for Emerg.Winter Overflow Shelter 4-20-06 clean By 4 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 4,2006 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Sign-Master Plans for Open-Air Malls and Stadiums CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,Louis Zunguze,Alexander Ikefuna,Gary Mumford,Doug Dansie,Janice Jardine This memorandum pertains to a proposed ordinance that would allow developers of open- air malls and stadiums to substitute a sign-master-plan agreement for following sign regulations in the Salt Lake City Code's zoning ordinance.The proposed ordinance is based on land use Petition No.400-04-25. The ordinance's intent is to provide more flexibility for signs on the interior faces of an open-air mall or a stadium.The City Council is scheduled on Tuesday to set a September 5 date for a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. OPTIONS • Adopt the proposed ordinance. • Do not adopt the proposed ordinance. • Do not adopt the proposed ordinance and return the issue to the Planning Division for further exploration of reducing the scope of the ordinance to the area designated as Gateway Mixed Use zoning. MOTIONS PUBLIC HEARING • I move that the City Council close the public hearing. • I move that the City Council continue the public hearing until(date selected by City Council)to study issues pertaining to this matter. PETITION • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance pursuant to Petition No.400-04-25. • I move that the City Council consider the next item on the agenda. • I move that the City Council return Petition No.400-04-25 to the Planning Division for further study, including whether to reduce the scope of the proposed ordinance's effect to the area designated as Gateway Mixed Use zoning. 1 KEY POINTS • According to the Administration transmittal,the proposed ordinance as written is designed"to clarify and codify historical interpretation regarding indoor signage"for open-air malls and stadiums. • According to officials of The Boyer Company,the proposed ordinance would allow the company and its tenants to have a broader variety of creative options for signage on the Gateway Mall's interior street and walkways. • The proposed ordinance would not affect existing signage requirements for signs "oriented to a public street"or to a surface parking lot. • The proposed ordinance would appear to give developers two options: • Follow the current sign ordinance regulations, or • Develop a sign master plan agreement that would be vetted by the Planning Commission. ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION • Would the proposed ordinance be better if limited to the area designated as Gateway Mixed Use zoning,or is there the potential for other open-air malls to be developed in Salt Lake City?It should be noted that the Planning Division contends that the ordinance should be applied city-wide because the Planning Staff and Planning Commission sought to avoid writing a new,location-specific sign ordinance if another open-air mall is built in Salt Lake City. • How does one define the interior of an open air mall,if one can see well into the interior of it from a public street or pathway? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION It should be noted that City Council staff has included an option to return the proposed petition to the Planning Division for further study, including whether to limit the effect of the proposed ordinance to areas designated as Gateway Mixed Use zoning. Staff raised the item as an option because, according to the Administration transmittal letter,Planning Division staff explored creating a specialized signage overlay district or amending the Gateway Mixed Use zoning district sign ordinance.However,Planning Division staff discarded those options in favor of the proposed option that would apply city-wide. The option proposed in the ordinance would be to exempt signs in open-air malls from sign ordinance regulations—if"a sign master plan agreement" is considered as part of a planned development under the conditional use process or as part of a site design review process.The proposed ordinance describes a"sign master plan agreement"as"an agreement outlining sign criteria to be used on private property but not oriented to a public street.The criteria should include,but is not limited to the discussion of types, sizes and materials of construction of signs." The proposed ordinance would apply to"open-air malls,"and defines those malls as"a building or buildings that are designed to function like a traditional shopping mall but to not have a ceiling or roof."The proposed ordinance also would apply to stadiums. According to the Planning Division and the transmittal letter, the City traditionally"has not regulated signage indoors, such as within the ZCMI Center or Crossroads Mall."The 2 transmittal letter also said that the City had extended the non-regulation policy"to enclosed but otherwise roofless areas,such as within Franklin Covey Field." The proposed ordinance still would require that open-air malls and stadiums would have to follow current signage regulations on buildings and surfaces that faced public streets. In addition,buildings in malls that surrounded surface parking lots—similar to the Sugar House Commons—would have to follow current sign regulations. The City Council in late 2001 adopted an ordinance that allowed more flexibility and opportunities for additional signage in areas designated as Gateway Mixed Use zoning,according to an October 2001 City Council staff report.The report said the amendments adopted then: 1. Permitted perpendicular,projecting(blade)signs,canopy signs and official and corporate flags across the property lines in the Gateway Mixed Use Zone. 2. Permitted projecting building signs on the following uses: • Theaters with frontage and direct access to the street. • Anchor retail(large retailers with over 35,000 sq.ft.of usable floor area)or shopping centers or malls(containing multiple stores with a combined commercial/retail floor area of over 100,000 sq. ft.) • Historic buildings 3. Established the number and location of signs and area size,height and setback measurement criteria. Despite the amendments,the operators of the Gateway Mall,tenants,and City officials had differences of opinion over compliance with signage regulations.The mall's owner,The Boyer Company,then filed a petition in June 2004 to amend signage ordinances affecting the mall. According to The Boyer Company's Jacob Boyer,the company sought the same signage rights as those held by covered malls to give tenants potentially more creative opportunities to advertise themselves with signs. The Planning Division saw the issue as a way"to clarify and codify historical interpretation regarding indoor signage,"according to the transmittal letter.It might be noted that codifying an issue ideally closes off subjective interpretation of ordinances. It also might be noted that despite rapidly changing retail and retail development markets, open-air malls are still identified as a recent and growing trend in retail development. (Please see attachment.)That may mean that Salt Lake City might see other open-air developments in the future. 3 Print Page 1 of 2 culturebox The Mall Goes Undercover It now looks like a city street. By Andrew Blum Posted Wednesday, April 6, 2005, at 6:24 AM ET Like insecure teenagers, malls keep changing their style. They are ripping away their roofs and drywalled corridors; adding open-air plazas, sidewalks, and street-side parking; and rechristening themselves "lifestyle centers." This new look may remind you of something: a vibrant urban street. Yet, while these new malls may appear to be public space, they're not public at all—at least if you want to do anything but shop. They represent a bait-and-switch routine on the part of developers, one that exchanges the public realm for the commercial one. They're also enormously successful—by the most recent count,there are about 130 lifestyle centers scattered around the country. In 2006,New York City will get its very first. On a recent Saturday, in search of the future, I visited a lifestyle center on the edge of Phoenix called the Desert Ridge Marketplace. Parking my rented Chevy in front of a big-box emporium called Barbeques Galore, I walked through the arched portals that decorate the marketplace entrance. Inside,there were restaurants and stores lining a winding and narrow outdoor pedestrian street that opened up onto a series of little plazas. Padded wicker chairs were strewn about in a studied, casual way, and a huge fieldstone fireplace had benches built into it for those cool desert nights. This was a delightful place for a Frappuccino. Next, I drove only a dozen miles down the road to another lifestyle center, Kierland Commons, that has a more residential feel. It immediately felt like a real, bustling neighborhood. The sidewalks were shaded from the sun by flowered trellises, and the streets narrowed at the corners to give pedestrians an implied right of way. An urban plaza with a good café and a band shell provided a central gathering place. The promotional material for Kierland Commons boasts of a "unique urban village," and a "pleasing, vibrant place where community takes shape and public life happens." Indeed, as I stand around watching, a jazz singer draws an audience, stooping to serenade a passing bichon frise. The crowd coos. And, wait, the Phoenix Suns girls are here! This is civic life in America, circa 2005, and it's spreading. The International Council of Shopping Centers estimates that 17 more lifestyle centers are set to open this year. The Memphis-based developer Poag & McEwen coined the term in the late 1980s, but most centers have been built in the last two years, typically near affluent suburbs. They are upscale outdoor shopping areas designed to look like city streets, with an emphasis on restaurants and spaces for people-watching. They also have what planners call "a mix of uses"—a bit of housing, some offices, and, occasionally, actual people living in apartments above the stores. Some—like Santana Rowin San Jose, Calif—are so well-detailed, thoroughly conceived, and populated on a weekend evening that you'd swear you were in Barcelona, Florence, or even upper Broadway. Shopping-mall developers believe that lifestyle centers will improve the fortunes of medium-sized malls, which have been losing customers to the megamalls. Ever since Victor Gruen constructed the first indoor shopping center in a Minneapolis suburb in 1956, the mall has been supersizing itself Over the years, they have become behemoths that serve entire regions, such as the King of Prussia Mall in Pennsylvania and the Mall of America in Minnesota. All of these malls turn their backs to their surroundings and concentrate activity in and on themselves. By contrast, lifestyle centers gesture toward their environments. With their street grids and sidewalks, they convey a sense of being out and about in the world. Developers hope that, by emphasizing convenience and entertainment,people will visit lifestyle centers more often and stay there longer. http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2116246 8/3/2006 Print Page 2 of 2 Unlike the previous reinvention of the mall as a "festival marketplace," lifestyle centers do not attempt to evoke some idyllic past. Faneuil Hall in Boston, which opened in 1976, and the South Street Seaport in New York, which opened in 1983, grafted a mall onto a historic market, hoping to make shopping feel like tourism. At lifestyle centers, the most discernible theme is urbanism itself Their developers recognize that "shopping" is only one urban entertainment among many, like eating at restaurants, people-watching, open-air concerts, or looking at art. More incredibly, lifestyle centers do all the things that urban planners have promoted for years as ways of counteracting sprawl: squeeze more into less space, combine a mix of activities, and employ a fine-grained street grid to create a public realm a "sidewalk ballet," in Jane Jacobs' alluring phrase. The irony is almost too perfect: Malls are now being designed to resemble the downtown commercial districts they replaced. What sweet vindication for urban sophisticates! Not quite. Lifestyle centers are privately owned space, carefully insulated from the messiness of public life. Desert Ridge, for example, has a rigorous code of conduct, posted beneath its store directory. The list of forbidden activities includes "non-commercial expressive activity"—not to mention "excessive staring" and "taking photos, video or audio recording of any store,product, employee, customer or officer." "Photos of shopping party with shopping center decor, as a backdrop," however, are permitted. This is our public realm? Lifestyle centers aren't any worse than malls as gathering places; in fact, they're a lot better-designed, successfully capturing most of the pleasures of walking down a city street. And yet, if it's crossed your mind that, as a society, we're getting a little confused about our right to freedom of expression, then lifestyle centers are a fair target. There's something a bit unhealthy about faux public places designed to attract rich people and make them feel comfortable. (At least the traditional mall didn't try to hide the fact that it was a shopping center.) The lifestyle center is a bizarre outgrowth of the suburban mentality: People want public space, even if making that space private is the only way to get it. In 2006, the Ridge I lillVVillage Ater, an "enhanced lifestyle center" designed by the esteemed architect Hugh Hardy, will open in Yonkers,N.Y. In addition to retail stores and a movie theater, there will be office space, a hotel and conference center, and 800 units of rental housing-10 percent of which will even comply with Yonkers' affordable housing ordinance. At the center will be Town Square, a "public" space modeled after Gramercy Park. It should be beautiful just don't try to say otherwise. Andrew Blum is a freelance writer and a contributing editor at Metropolis. Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2116246/ Copyright 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2116246 8/3/2006 O_C 0 7 1005 A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE 5142 �� '4 "MOMIR.lr ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart. Management Services Director C.-1AT": ove 16, 2005 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director RE: Petition 400-04-25,Request by the Gateway Mall (Boyer C ss%'pany)to alter the sign ordinance STAFF CONTACT: Doug Dansie, Principal Planner, at 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council schedule a briefing and a public hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Petition 400-04-25 was initiated by the Gateway Mall (Boyer Company) requesting that Salt Lake City alter the sign ordinance to respond to signage issues within the Gateway Mall. The petition has been expanded to address open-air malls and roofless spaces throughout the City. These issues include advertising on private sidewalks, signs overhanging private property, and other signage not visible from the public street. Analysis: Staff analyzed several alternatives to addressing signage for open-air malls, including the concept of creating a specialized signage overlay district or altering the Gateway Mixed Use (GMU)zoning district sign ordinance. Ultimately a decision was made to not modify the sign ordinance as it related to frontage on public streets but to clarify and codify historical interpretation regarding indoor signage. Traditionally the City has not regulated signage indoors, such as within the ZCMI Center or Crossroads Mall. The policy has been extended to enclosed but otherwise roofless areas, such as within Franklin Covey Field. The new proposal would allow open-air malls to vary from the sign ordinance on the interior of the mall (not facing a public street) but would still require permits and regulation through planned development or the conditional building and site design review process. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7105 FAX: 1301-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM Master Plan: The Urban Design Element calls for signage that is appropriate to the area,which allows retailers to advertise their businesses without creating visual clutter. This proposal applies to signage interior to a building(but open to the sky) and will theoretically not affect signage visible from a public street. Public Process: An open house was held Sept 27, 2005. Two people attended. No comments were received. At their October 5, 2005 meeting,the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the amendment of the sign ordinance. RELEVANT ORDINACES: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance 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 factors which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property(Section 21A.50.050 A-E). Therefore, Staff analyzed master plan considerations, existing and potential future development in the immediate vicinity, impacts to adjacent properties, applicable overlay zones, and the adequacy of existing services and facilities, as detailed in the attached Staff report. The Planning Commission based its decision on these criteria, fording that the amendment meets the criteria. Petition 400-04-25 to Alter the Sign Ordinance in Open Air Malls Page 2 of 2 CONTENTS 1. Chronology 2. Proposed Ordinance 3. City Council Public Hearing a. Notice b. Mailing list 4. Planning Commission Hearing a. Original Notice and Postmark b. Staff report c. Minutes October 5, 2005 5. Original Petition 1 . Chronology Chronology June 4, 2004 The Boyer Company requested to alter the sign ordinance to accommodate signage within the Gateway Mall. June 2004-May 2005 Staff considered several methods of accommodating the proposal. Decision was made to formalize policy for indoor signage. May—July 2005 Requested department input. September 16, 2005 Notices for open house sent to Community Council Chairs and interested parties. September 20, 2005 Notices for Planning Commission sent to Community Council Chairs and interested parties. September 27, 2005 An Open House was held to solicit community input. October 5, 2005 The Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to forward a positive recommendation to amend the sign ordinance. October 26, 2005 The Planning Commission ratified the minutes of the October 5, 2005 meeting. October 27, 2005 Staff requested an ordinance from the City Attorney's Office. November 10, 2005 Received ordinance from Attorney's Office 2. Proposed Ordinance SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2005 (Open Air Malls Signage Ordinance) • AN ORDNANCE ADOPTING SECTION 21 A.4ii.052, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO SIGNS EXEMPT FROM SPECIFIC CRITERIA OTHER THAN FEES AND PERMITS, AND AMENDING SECTION 21A.62.040, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO DEFINITIONS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-04-25. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments are in the best interest of the City. NOW, THERERORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 21A.46.052, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to signs exempt from specific criteria other than fees and permits, shall be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 21A.46.052 Signs Exempt From Specific Criteria But Not Fees And Permits: Signs within open air malls, stadiums or other enclosed spaces that do not have a roof, but are otherwise physically confined and separated from the public street right-of-way are required to obtain sign permits and pay fees to insure public safety and compliance with the City's building code. Such signs are subject to sign ordinance regulations unless a sign master plan agreement was specifically considered as part of a planned development as outlined in Chapter 21A.54 or was specifically authorized through the conditional building and site design review process as outlined in Chapter 21A.59. The sign master plan agreement shall only be authorized for signage within the open air mall or stadium that is not oriented to the public street. Signage oriented to a public street or to a surface parking lot is specifically not exempt from ordinance requirements and not subject to modification through a sign master plan agreement. SECTION 2. That Section 21A.62.040, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to definitions, shall be, and the same hereby is, amended, in part, to include the following definitions: "Open air mall" means a building or buildings that are designed to function like a traditional shopping mall, but do not have a ceiling or roof. "Sign master plan agreement" means an agreement outlining sign criteria to be used on private property but not oriented to a public street. The criteria should include, but is not limited to the discussion of types, sizes and materials of construction of signs. "Stadium" means a confined but open air facility designed to accommodate athletic events or other large gatherings. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2004. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 2 Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Id La f City orneys Offc (SEAL) Bill No. of 2004. Published: I:\Ordinance 05\Open Air Malls Signage Ordinance- I 1-10-05 clean.doc 3 3. City Council Public Hearing 3a. Notice 4. Planning Commission Hearing a. Original Notice and Postmark b. Staff report c. Minutes a. Original Notice and Postmark • NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. I AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, October 12, 2005, at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner 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 will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, September 28, 2005 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Petition No 400-05-23 - by Greggory Savage, representing Mr. Chris Drakos/Montana Brand Trucking requesting that Salt Lake City close and declare as surplus property, 1500 North Street between Beck Street and Hot Springs Street (745 West), in a Light Manufacturing (M-1) zoning district. (Star- Ray McCandless at 535-7282 or ' ray.mccandless@slcgov.corn). b) Petition Number 400-05-20 - by Salt Lake City Council, requesting that properties located at approximately 405 West 2300 North on the high Lake Bonneville Bench Area east of Beck Street be rezoned from an Open Space (OS) zoning district to a Natur Open Space (NOS) zoning district. (Staff- Ray McCandless at 535-7282 or ray.mccandless@slcgov.corn). . c) Petition 400-04-25 - by Boyer Company/Gateway Association requesting a modification to the sign ordinance portion of the zoning ordinance regarding open air malls. (Staff- Doug Dansie at 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.corn). 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS M 009 S 9 N 1100S 'N3000 r ONIdV]H V AO AMIMON • cs 3O ISQd sn • { 77D t t l h8 1(1 'Alpo a)le] 1 es wwj mew S soozicz Aso a '� .:a:�;t '; 96b •wd 'laa�ls ale1S U1�oS t S� —rr• tiela�aas uoIsslwwo3 6uIuueld uols!A►Q 6uiuueld Apo aiei 11es CLS40994H910 * i ti 1. Fill out registration card and indicate it you wish to speak and which agenda item you will address. 2. After the stall and petitioner presentations,hearings will be opened for public comment- Community Councils will present their comments al the beginning of the hearing. 1_ In order to be considelate of raveryone attending the meeting,public comments are limited to 3 minutes per person per item. A spokesperson who has been asked by a group to summarize their concerns will be allowed 5 minutes to speak. Written comments are welcome and will be provided to the Planning Commission in advance of the'meeting if they are submitted to the Planning Division prior to noon the day before the meeting. Written comments should be sent to: Sall lake City Planning Director • 4SLS:outh Slate Street,Room 406 Sall lake City,UT 84111 4. Speakers wilt be called by the Chair. S. Pleasefstate your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you represent al the beginning of your C omme nts, 6. Speakers should address their comments to the Chair. Planning Commission members may have questions for the speaker. Speakers may not debate with other meeting attendees. 7. Speakers should locus their comments on the agenda item. E lraneous and repetitive comments should be avoided. 8. After those registered have spoken,the Chair will invite other comments. Prior speakers may be allowed to supplement their previous comments at this time. 9. After the hearing is closed,the discussion will be limited among Planning Commissioners and Stall. Under unique circumstances.the Planning Commission may choose to reopen the hearing to obtain additional information. 10. Sall Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. II you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability, need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the Planning Office 48 hours in advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance,may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. 60ca t"r ,:-ITT C =testy IJACINSS 01 N1=1111A1:t al:fHM 0A 01 S'161b`Nfl SBSIlaao' ON 1.S1 1100,LLOD S r NS0°J'O tdA0NSS 01 Ndnlaa IIbR t tr9 SOOSa:?O O 'A.LI0 SO/TO/OT AO 509T bOOTTOT 3�t>'11�dS b. Staff report DATE: Oct 5, 2005 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission RE: STAFF REPORT FOR THE OCTOBER 12,2005 MEETING CASE#: 400-04-25 APPLICANT: The Boyer Company/Gateway Associates STATUS OF APPLICANT: Property Owner PROJECT LOCATION: This is a zoning ordinance text change that will affect the sign ordinance. PROJECT/PROPERTY SIZE: NA COUNCIL DISTRICT: City wide REQUESTED ACTION: An amendment to the sign ordinance portion of the zoning ordinance to clarify treatment of signage within open air malls and other confined, but roofless, spaces. PROPOSED USE(S): A sign ordinance modification affecting open air malls stadiums and other confined, but roofless spaces. APPLICABLE LAND Petition 400-04-25 10 October 12,2005 USE REGULATIONS: The proposed change modifies 21A.46.052 and 21A.62.040 of the zoning ordinance. MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: The Urban Design Element of the Salt Lake City Master Plan recommends that signage allow ample opportunities for advertising while enhancing the quality of life of the City. SUBJECT PROPERTY HISTORY: The petition was initially driven by signage issues within the Gateway Mall but has other application. Signage within enclosed malls has historically been administered as being exempt from the sign ordinance. Signage within fully enclosed and gated roofless spaces (such as Franklin Covey Field)has historically been considered interior signs. Signage within open air malls,that are not entry restricted, remains within an ambiguous area of ordinance interpretation. ACCESS: Not Applicable PROJECT DISCRIPTION: The issue of signage in enclosed, but unregulated (no admission) or partially open spaces has remained an ambiguous area of interpretation. This ordinance attempts to clarify and define those regulations. COMMENTS,ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: COMMENTS Comments from City Departments and Community Council(s): The petition was routed to Engineering, Public Utilities, Transportation, Permits, Fire and the Police Department. The petition was also routed to all Community Councils and Business organizations. a) Transportation: No objections. b) Building Services/Permits: Prefers the ordinance be clear enough that they are not making judgment calls regarding what is or is not visible from the street and/or subject to the ordinance. Petition 400-04-25 11 October 12,2005 c) Engineering: No comment. d) Police: No objections. e) Public Utilities: No objections. f) Fire: No comment. g) Community Councils: An open house was held Sept 27, 2005. Two people attended. No comments were received. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The petition is being primarily driven by signage issues within the Gateway Mall, however there are other applicable situations within Salt Lake City. Signage within enclosed malls has historically been administered as being exempt from the sign ordinance. Signage within fully enclosed and gated roofless spaces (such as Franklin Covey Field)has historically been considered interior signs. Signage within open air malls remains within an ambiguous area of ordinance interpretation. Issues that are being generated by this proposal. No issues have been generated by the public. The primary concern expressed during interdepartment review of the proposal was the ability to clearly interpret the ordinance. Zoning enforcement officers did not wish to make judgment calls as to whether signage is or is not visible from the street; therefore the proposed ordinance relies on the adoption of a sign master plan agreement to clarify exactly what signage is allowed that may otherwise differ from ordinance restrictions. An ongoing concern has been whether the addition of new sign types would create clutter on the building or if the number and/or square footage of signage would be greater than the signage allowed in general. STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE Since the request is a modification of the existing sign ordinance, the Planning Commission must review the proposal and forward a recommendation to the City Council. In undertaking the task, the Planning Commission must use the following standards: The following standards are listed in the Zoning Ordinance [21A.50.050] and must be considered for all proposed zoning amendments: A) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City; Discussion: Most community master plans do not have specific language regarding signage, other than it be designed to be appropriate to the level of need. The Urban Design Element is the overall City Master Plan affecting general design issues. The Urban Design Element of the Salt Lake City Master Plan recommends that signage allow ample opportunities for advertising while enhancing the quality of life of the City. Petition 400-04-25 12 October 12,2005 The Sign Ordinance is designed to encourage consistency for signage and not allow one use to have"advantage"over another. However, enclosed or confined spaces have historically not been subject to the sign ordinance because they are not visible from the public street. This ordinance attempts to treat open air malls similar to enclosed malls in terms of signage, without creating clutter or ail increase of signage that may be visible from the street. The verbiage of the ordinance specifically requires the mall to meet the sign ordinance in all aspects, unless a Sign Master Plan Agreement is specifically approved to regulate the signage not visible from the street. This agreement is required to assist enforcement officers in distinguishing general signage from that which is interior to the open air mall. Finding: The zoning amendment clarifying signage allowed in enclosed, but roofless, spaces is consistent with the Urban Design Element of the Salt Lake City Master Plan. B) Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; Discussion: A typical enclosed mall or stadium is exempt from the sign ordinance if the signs are interior to the building. By allowing the requested additional sign ordinance modification, it clarifies that roofless malls and stadiums are not considered exempt from building permits and regulations (because of outdoor health safety building code concerns) or fees, but they are allowed some variation from the same sign standard as signs facing the public street, if they are not oriented to the street or have presented a Sign Master Plan Agreement as part of the development application. Because the proposed ordinance only affects signage oriented to the interior of an open air mall, the effect on adjacent development is minimal. The signage should not be seen from outside the development. Finding: The proposed amendment is harmonious with existing development. C) The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties; Discussion: Because the ordinance change will only affect signage oriented to the interior of the development, it will have no general effect on adjacent properties. Finding: The proposed signage will not affect adjacent properties. D) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The proposed changes will still be subject to Historic Landmark Commission review, or other zoning overlays,when applicable. Petition 400-04-25 13 October 12,2005 Findings: Any potential impact on overlay districts is minimal or non-existent. 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. Discussion: The proposal relates to signage. Responses by City Departments/Divisions indicate the proposal will not affect any public services Findings: The proposed sign ordinance text amendment does not affect public services. RECOMMENDATION: In light of the comments, analysis and findings noted above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve an ordinance to clarify the requirements for signage within enclosed but roofless spaces. Attachments: Exhibit 1 — Draft Ordinance. Exhibit 2—Other Division Recommendations. Petition 400-04-25 14 October 12,2005 Exhibit 1 Draft Ordinance. 21A.46.052 Signs Exempt from specific criteria but not fees and permits: Signs within open air malls, stadiums or other enclosed spaces that do not have a roof, but are otherwise physically confined and separated from the public street right-of-way are required to obtain sign permits and pay fees to insure public safety and compliance with building code. Such signs are subject to sign ordinance regulations unless a sign master plan agreement was specifically considered as part of a planned development as outlined in 21A.54 or was specifically authorized through the conditional building and site design review process as outline in 21A.59. The sign master plan agreement shall only be authorized for signage within the open air mall or stadium that is not oriented to the public street. Signage oriented to a public street or to a surface parking lot is specifically not exempt from ordinance requirements and not subject to modification through a sign master plan agreement. 21A.62.040 Definitions: "Open air mall"means a building or buildings that are designed to function like a traditional shopping mall, but do not have a ceiling or roof. "Stadium"means a confined but open air facility designed to accommodate athletic events or other lame gatherings. "Sign Master Plan Agreement": An agreement outlining sign criteria to be used on private property not oriented to a public street. The criteria should include, but is not limited to discussion of types, sizes, and materials of construction of signs. Exhibit 2 Other Division Recommendations. June 15, 2005 Doug Dansie Planning Division 451 So. State Street, Room. 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Petition 400-04-25. Zoning Text Amendment to modify the sign ordinance regarding open air malls. Dear Doug: The Division of Transportation review comments and recommendations for the proposal for a text amendment to modify the requirements of the sign ordinance for open air malls is for approval as follows: The Transportation Division sees no impact to the existing public right of way corridors per the proposed change in that the revision is restricted to interior areas with no exposure to the public transportation corridor roadway. Please feel free to call me at 535-6630 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Barry D. Walsh Transportation Engineer Assoc. Doug, No concerns with this signage petition. Thanks, J.R. Smith SLCPD Community Action Team Doug, Salt Lake City Public Utilities has no objections to the proposed zoning language changes • for signage. Brad c. Minutes SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah' Wednesday, October 12,2005 Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Chambless, Vice Chairperson Laurie Noda, and Commissioners Babs De Lay,John Diamond, Craig Galli, Peggy McDonough, Kathy Scott, Jennifer Seelig, and Prescott Muir. Present from the Staff were Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Ray McCandless, Principal Planner, Doug Dansie, Principal Planner, and Maggie Tow, Planning Commission Secretary. PUBLIC HEARINGS Petition No. 400-04-25, by Boyer Company/Gateway Association requesting a modification to the sign ordinance portion of the zoning ordinance regarding open air malls. At 7:16 P.M. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition No. 400-04-25 and Doug Dansie, Principal Planner. Mr. Dansie stated that the petition was primarily driven by signage issues within the Gateway Mall, but other applicable situations were found within Salt Lake City. He stated that Gateway was basically like all malls except it did not have a roof on it. Mr. Dansie gave a brief history of the sign ordinance, saying that signage within enclosed malls had historically been administered as being exempt from the sign ordinance. Signage within fully enclosed and gated roofless spaces (such as Franklin Covey Field) had historically been considered interior signs. Signage within open air malls remained within an ambiguous area of ordinance interpretation. Mr. Dansie stated that the Sign Ordinance was designed to encourage consistency for signage and not allow one use to have "advantage" over another. However, enclosed or confined spaces had historically not been subject to the sign ordinance because they were not visible from the public street. He stated that this ordinance would attempt to treat open air malls similar to enclosed malls in terms of signage,without creating clutter or an increase of signage that could be visible from the street. The verbiage of the ordinance specifically required the mall to meet the sign ordinance in all aspects, unless a Sign Master Plan Agreement was specifically approved administratively or by the Planning Commission to regulate the signage not visible from the street. This agreement was required to assist enforcement officers in distinguishing general signage from that which was interior to the open air mall. Chairperson Chambless opened the public hearing. Kim Fletcher, with the Boyer Company, stated that with the current signage criteria they did not have the latitude they needed on the inside of their shopping center with regards to placing signs outside of the shops. Ms. Fletcher requested that the Gateway Mall be considered the same as an enclosed mall with the same signage requirements. Tracey James, with Inland Southwest Management, stated that the shops at Gateway are currently not meeting the ordinance criteria when signs are placed on the sidewalk outside of their shops. Mr. James requested that the Planning Commission review the Gateway Association Master Plan, which he said is well defined and conforms to the design the Planning Commission wants to see. Chairperson asked if anyone had questions for Ms. Fletcher or Mr. James. No response was heard. Mr. Dansie answered the Planning Commissioner's questions regarding signage set-backs, which business would or would not have to meet the requirements in relation to public streets, and portable signs. He gave examples of different situations pertaining to signage. Chairperson Chambless asked if there was anyone from the Community Council or community that wished to talk about this matter. No response was heard. Chairperson Chambless closed the public hearing and asked for discussion and/or a motion. Motion for Petition No. 400-04-25: Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition No. 400-04-25, based on the comments, findings and analysis in the staff report to clarify the requirements for signage with the enclosed but roofless spaces. Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted "Aye". There was none opposed. The motion passed. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:48 P.M. by Chairperson Chambless. Margaret Tow, Secretary 5. Original Petition PETITION NO. 10- 91 -c PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required al. Petition delivered to PI ing VG� Petition assigned to: A.) 4® 1 ) Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date `1( tteb Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover i //tyrr Chronology Property Description (marked with a post it note) Affected Sidwell Numbers Included /r/(/////> Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils /j/ 5 Mailing Postmark Date Verification rTP/141 Planning Commission Minutes ' (ll�/c PP Planning Staff Report V/3l Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. o"Si Q Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 8, 2006 SUBJECT: Petition Nos. 400-05-46,400-05-47,and 490-06-15-A request ., by Mike Miller,representing Flying J Inc.,requesting the closure of a portion of 800 West Street,vacating an alley, and vacating portions of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision and Riverside Subdivision located at 850 West 2100 South. STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno, Policy Analyst AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District 2 ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: Community Development AND CONTACT PERSON: Ray McCandless,Principle Planner NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Newspaper advertisement once a week for 4 weeks prior to the Public Hearing KEY ELEMENTS: A. Key points in the Administration's transmittal are the following: 1. The petitioner is requesting: i. that Salt Lake City close and declare as surplus a portion of the 800 West Street right of way (Petition 400-05-46) • size:33 ft wide by 191.3 ft long(6,307.95 sq. ft.) • Just over half of the above square footage is right-of-way that had been deeded to the City(by the previous subdivision,see#3) for future right of way on 800 West,but never developed (33 ft wide by 105 ft long-3,465 sq.ft.) • Flying J,Inc.intends to purchase the western half of the street. The abutting property owner intends to purchase the eastern half(see letter in Transmittal dated March 1,2006,from Mr.Jerry Seiner). ii. vacate the alley on the north size of Klenke's Addition Subdivision(Petition 400-05-47) • size: 11.95 ft wide by 782 ft long(9,344.9 sq.ft.) iii. Vacate portions of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision and Riverside subdivision which are affected by the petitioner's property (Petition 490-06- 15) 2. The petitioner would incorporate it into his adjacent development located in the C-G (General Commercial) zoning district. 3. Flying J,Inc,is redeveloping a property located at approximately 850 West 2100 South Street into the"Flying J Travel Plaza." Upon completing initial surveying for this development,the petitioner discovered that there is an alley and a part of a street right-of-way that were dedicated to the City as part of a subdivision plat created in 1890 (Klenke's Addition Subdivision). Although these rights of way were recorded,they were never built as platted-they only exist on paper. 1 4. The intent of Flying J, Inc is to consolidate and then re-subdivide the property into two lots,one for the main Travel Plaza, and the second for a future commercial pad site. • Proposed Lot 1 -Travel Plaza- 12.170 acres • Proposed Lot 2 (pad site) -1.034 acres 5. The„Planning staff report made the following findings: i. The proposed street closure is consistent with the applicable City Master Plans. ii. The proposed street closures and alley vacations will not deny access to adjacent properties,and the property will be sold at fair market value. iii. Allowing the consolidation of this property will allow development that will enhance the streetscape along 2100 South, as well as improve traffic conditions on the site,without affecting traffic circulation in the immediate area. iv. The street closure will not have a negative effect on the City's ability to deliver emergency services. 6. The Planning Commission staff report notes that the proposed alley vacation meets 3 of the 4 possible policy considerations (one being required per City Code),detailed as follows: i. The alley does not physically exist, though it is legally recorded on an applicable plat; ii. The continued function of the property as an alley does not serve as a positive urban design element. iii. The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in order to better facilitate development of their business,which will in turn,provide services to the community. B. The petitioner's property is zoned CG (General Commercial). The properties immediately to the North,South, East and West of the petitioner's property are also zoned CG. The surrounding land uses in all directions are commercial,with 2100 South and Hwy 201 to the South of the site. C. The Engineering and Transportation Divisions, Fire and Police Departments,Property Management,and Public Utilities reviewed the proposal and recommended approval of the street closure subject to City standards and specific requirements. D. The Glendale Community Council discussed the petition on February 15,2006, and did not have any concerns with the proposed requests. E. On April 12, 2006,the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed alley vacation, street closure,and subdivision plat vacation, and approve the 2-lot subdivision,contingent upon City Council approval of the street and alley closures. F. Three ordinances have been prepared by the City Attorney's office subject to conditions of approval identified by the Planning Commission. The City Recorder is instructed not to record the ordinances until the conditions have been met and certified by the Planning Director and the City Property Manager. G. As noted by the Administration,both the Utah Code and local ordinances regulate review and approval of street closure applications and the disposition of surplus property. The 2 Planning Commission must consider and make a recommendation to the Mayor regarding the disposition of the surplus property. According to Salt Lake City Code,the City shall retain title to the surplus property until the land is sold at fair market value or other acceptable compensation is provided. In addition,this section of the Code requires that the City Council be offered an opportunity to request a public hearing prior to the final disposition of the surplus property by the Mayor. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: 1. Council Members may wish to consider adjusting the Council's street closure policy to ensure a consistent policy direction with streets and alleys. (Please refer to the next section for the Council's street closure policy.) Planning staff has indicated to Council staff that the current street closure procedure does not require Community Council notification and review. In this case,though,the Community Council did review the issue. (Currently,the Planning Commission agenda is mailed to Community Council Chairs. A Planning Commission hearing notice is mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius of a proposed street closure.) During the Council's alley policy discussions,Council Members adopted the following modifications for alley closures or vacations: a. Shift the focus to consideration of a proposed request with demonstrated public benefit rather than supporting closure/vacation whenever possible. b. Require an evaluation and documented demonstration of public interest versus private interest. The standard should be to demonstrate an over-riding public purpose,rather than an over-riding private interest. c. Include neighborhood and community council review and comment as part of the public process prior to the Administration formalizing their recommendation to the City Council. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Council's street closure policy includes the following: 1. It is Council policy to close public streets and sell the underlying property. The Council does not close streets when that action would deny all access to other property. 2. The general policy when closing a street is to obtain fair market value for the land, whether the abutting property is residential or commercial. 3. There are instances where the City has negotiated with private parties to allow the parties to make public improvements in lieu of a cash payment. The Council and the Administration consider these issues on a case-by-case basis. 4. There should be sufficient public policy reasons that justify the sale and/or closure of a public street,and it should be sufficiently demonstrated by the petitioner that the sale and/or closure of the street would accomplish the stated public policy reasons. 5. The City Council should determine whether the stated public policy reasons outweigh alternatives to the sale or closure of the street. B. The West Salt Lake Master Plan (1995) identifies the subject property as General Commercial"CG." The current land uses and zoning are consistent with the future land use designation. 3 C. The Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan does not identify 800 West Street as a major street in the future,nor does it identify the alley as such. D. The purpose of the General Commercial District(CG) is to provide an environment for a variety of commercial uses, some of which involve the outdoor display/storage of merchandise or materials. E. 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. BUDGET RELATED FACTS: A. The Administration's transmittal notes that the applicant has stated an intent to purchase the property at fair market value in order to secure the property. It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain an appraisal report and work with Property Management. The adjacent property owner has also stated an intent to purchase a portion of the property. CHRONOLOGY: Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for a complete chronology of events relating to the proposed street closure: • December 22, 2005 Petitions 400-05-46,and 400-05-47 received • March 2,2006 Petitions 490-06-15, and 490-06-16 received • April 12, 2006 Planning Commission Hearing • May 24,2006 Transmittal received from Administration cc: Rocky Fluhart,Sam Guevara,DJ Baxter,Rick Graham,LeRoy Hooton,Tim Harpst, Max Peterson, Louis Zunguze, Alexander Ikefuna, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright,Cheri Coffey, Ray McCandless,Barry Esham, Marge Harvey,Janice Jardine File Location: Community Development Dept.,Planning Division,Street Closures, Flying J Inc, 800 West Street 4 _ [ :LLi A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE `�1�\a� t lS 4.11t 00:=: IM1 ROSS C. ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR CV/1 CITY COUNC IL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: May 9, 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Direc • Ai;z RE: Petitions 400-05-46, 400-05-47,and 490-06-15 by Mike Pill-r,representing Flying J Inc.,requesting to close a portion of 800 West Street, vacate an alley, and vacate portions of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision and Riverside Subdivision located at approximately 850 West 2100 South in a General Commercial "CG" Zoning District STAFF CONTACT: Ray McCandless, Principal Planner, at 535-7282 or ray.mccandless@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Flying J, Inc., is redeveloping a property located at approximately 850 West 2100 South Street as a new Flying J Travel Plaza. Upon completing a survey of the property, the applicant discovered that there is an alley and part of a street right-of-way that were dedicated to the City as part of a subdivision plat that was created in 1890 called the Klenke's Addition Subdivision. Although the subdivision plat was recorded, the alley and the street were never built as platted. The subdivision lots, street, and alley exist only on paper. The Flying J property also includes a part of the Riverside Subdivision which is an old"fanning tract survey reference plat". The applicant wishes to consolidate the various Flying J owned parcels and eliminate any City ownership in the property being re-developed as the Travel Plaza. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that the City: 1. Close and declare as surplus property the portion of the 800 West Street right-of-way which was created by the Klenke's Addition Subdivision, including parcel of City-owned property which was not platted by the subdivision but was subsequently deeded to the City for future extension of 800 West Street(Petition 400-05-46); 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 641 1 1 TELEPHONE: 601-535.7105 FAX: B01-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM �' aecrc Leo v..vew 2. Vacate the alley on the north side of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision(Petition 400-05- 47); and 3. Vacate portions of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision and Riverside Subdivision which are affected by the Flying J property(Petition 490-06-15). The Planning Commission subsequently approved on April 12, 2006, Flying J's request to re- subdivide the total property into two lots; one for the main Travel Plaza and a second lot for a future commercial pad site. This re-subdivision will be finalized only if the Council grants the above stated street closure, and the alley and the partial subdivision vacation requests. Analysis: The analysis of the petitions being considered by the City Council is as follows: 1. Petition 400-05-46: Street Closure and Declaration of Surplus Property The applicant is requesting that Salt Lake City close and declare as surplus property the portion of 800 West Street that was dedicated as part of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision. The proposed closure also includes a 33 foot(33')wide by 104.95 foot(104.95') long parcel of land that was deeded to the City for future right-of-way on 800 West. However, neither the street nor the City-owned parcels were ever improved. They exist only on paper and have been used as a maneuvering area for the Flying J Company for many years. The proposed street closure, including the City-owned parcel measures 33 feet(33')wide by 191.31 feet(191.31') long, and consists of approximately 6,307.95 square feet.Neither piece of property is required to provide required access to any other properties. 2. Petition 400-05-47: Alley Vacation The applicant is requesting that Salt Lake City vacate an alley on the north side of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision that was dedicated to the City when the subdivision plat was originally recorded in 1890. The alley measures 11.95 feet(11.95') wide by 782 feet(782')long and consists of approximately 9,344.9 square feet. The applicant is requesting that all of the alley and west half of the street, (including the City- owned parcel on 800 West Street), be incorporated into the Flying J property. The applicant has requested that the east side of the closed street be sold to the abutting property owner to the east. The abutting property owner, Jerry Seiner, has submitted a letter indicating that they are willing to purchase the east half of the street and City-owned parcel, a copy of which is included with the Planning Commission Staff Report(Attachment 5). 3.Petition 490-06-15: Partial Subdivision Plat Vacation The applicant is requesting that the portions of the Riverside and Klenke's Addition Subdivision plats affected by the Flying J property be vacated. The Flying J site is located on several pieces of property that are comprised of portions of the Riverside Subdivision,which is an old farming tract survey, and the Klenke's Addition Subdivision. The existing property lines do not follow the subdivision lot lines as originally platted. As this action affects a dedicated street and alley, City Council approval is required as discussed in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 5). Master Plan Considerations: The applicable Master Plans for this property include the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan and the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan. The West Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,&490-06-15—Flying J Page 2 of 4 Salt Lake Generalized Future Land Use map identifies this property as General Commercial (CG). The current land use and zoning are consistent with the future land use designation as shown in the Master Plan. The Transportation Master Plan's Major Street Plan does not anticipate the need to utilize 800 West Street at this location nor the alley in the future. 2100 South Street and 900 West Street at this location are improved City streets and serve as the main collectors for the area. PUBLIC PROCESS: The request was reviewed by the Glendale Community Council on February 15, 2006, as indicated in the attached letter in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission. The Community Council did not have any concerns with the proposed requests (Attachment 5). The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on this item on Wednesday, April 12, 2006, and recommended approval of the alley vacation, street closure, and subdivision plat vacation and approved the 2-lot subdivision. Approval of the 2-lot subdivision was granted subject to approval of the petitions to close the street and vacate the alley and subdivision plats located on the Flying J property. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: • Utah Code Section 10-8-8 Streets,parks, airports,parking facilities,public grounds, and pedestrian malls Utah Code Section 10-8-8 authorizes the legislative body to vacate public streets. • Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.58- City-Owned Real Property The disposition of surplus property is authorized under Chapter 2.58 of the Salt Lake City Code. The Salt Lake City Council Policy Guidelines for Street Closures and Findings lists five policies to be considered when closing a public street. These policies should be analyzed prior to closing a City-owned street. The five policies are discussed in detail starting on page 6 of the Planning Commission Staff Report(see Attachment 5). • Salt Lake City Code Chapter 14.52-Disposition of City Owned Alleys The disposition of City owned alleys is authorized under Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code. When evaluating requests to close or vacate public alleys,the City considers whether or not the continued use of the property as a public alley is in the City's best interest. The policy considerations for alley vacations are listed in Section 14.52.02 of the Salt Lake City Code. In considering whether an alley should be vacated,the disposition must satisfy at least one of the four policy considerations discussed on page 8 of the Planning Commission Staff Report(see Attachment 5). Section 14.52.030(B) of the Salt Lake City Code states that in making a recommendation to the City Council concerning a City owned alley, a positive recommendation should include an analysis of 8 factors. These factors are discussed and detailed in the Planning Commission Staff Report beginning on page 10 (Attachment 5). Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,&490-06-15—Flying J Page 3 of 4 • Utah Code Section 10-9a-608- Vacating or changing a subdivision plat and Salt Lake City Code Title 20.31.090-Standards For Approval of Amendment Petition Utah Code, Section 10-9a-608 and Salt Lake City Code Title 20.31.090-Standards For Approval of Amendment Petition outline the requirements to vacate a subdivision plat involving streets. Utah Code requires Planning Commission review and City Council approval to vacate the portions of the subdivision plats being considered. The standards for an amendment petition are contained in the Salt Lake City Code, Section 20.31.090. There are six standards that must be met in order for an amendment petition to be approved. These standards, including an analysis and findings for each, are in the Planning Commission Staff Report beginning on page 12 (Attachment 5). Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,&490-06-15—Flying J Page 4 of 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Chronology 2. Ordinance 3. Notice of City Council Public Hearing. A. Notice of City Council Hearing - Posting and Mailing Draft B. Notice of Public Hearing Newspaper Publication Transmittal C. Mailing List and Labels 4. Planning Commission Agenda for the April 12, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting. 5. Staff Report for the April 12, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting. 6. Planning Commission Minutes for April 12, 2006. 7. Notices for the April 12, 2006 Planning Commission Public Hearing. 8. Original Petitions 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • December 22,2005 Petitions 400-05-46 and 400-05-47 received. March 2, 2006 Petitions 490-06-15 and 490-06-16 received • January 6 & 9, 2006 Petitions 400-05-46 and 400-05-47 assigned. March 6, 2006 Petitions 490-06-15 and 490-06-16 assigned • January 10, 2006 Petitions 400-05-46 and 400-05-47 - request for City departmental comments sent. March 7, 2006 Petitions 490-06-15 and 490-06-16- request for City departmental comments sent. • March 28, 2006 Notices for the April 12, 2006 Planning Commission hearing mailed. • April 12, 2006 Planning Commission Hearing. • April 18, 2006 Ordinances requested from the City Attorney. • April 26, 2006 Draft ordinances returned from the City Attorney. • May 4, 2006 City Council Transmittal packet completed by the Project Planner. 2. ORDINANCES SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Closing and abandoning the alley generally located between 850 West and 900 West on 2100 South (on the North Side of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision)) AN ORDINANCE CLOSING AND ABANDONING THE ALLEY GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN 800 WEST AND 900 WEST ON 2100 SOUTH (ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE KLENKE'S ADDITION SUBDIVISION), PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-05-47. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearings that the City's interest in the portion of the alley described below is not necessary for use by the public as an alley and that closure and abandonment of the portion of the alley will not be adverse to the general public's interest. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Closing and Abandoning Alley. A portion of alley generally located between 800 West and 900 West and 2100 South (on the North side of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision), which is the subject of Petition No. 400-05-47, and which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, be, and the same hereby is, closed and abandoned and declared no longer needed or available for use as an alley. SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The above closure and abandonment is expressly made subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of this property, and also subject to the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the City's water and sewer facilities. Said closure and abandonment is also subject to any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3. Conditions. This alley closure and abandonment is conditioned upon payment by petitioner, to the City, of fair market value of that portion of the alley, or its equivalent, and title to the alley shall remain with the City until sale for fair market value, or the receipt of the equivalent value, in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.58. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the condition identified above has been met, as certified by the Salt Lake City property manager. Passed 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 APPROVED AS TO FORM 2 belt e City Attorneys Office Date By CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: I:\Ordinance 06\Closing the alley on the North side of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision between 800 West and 900 West on 2100 South-05- 08-06 clean.doc 3 - • ExHIBnr A ALLEY VACATION PARCEL FLYING J 9/1/05 NORTH ALLEY WAY OF KLENKE'S ADDITION SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY RECORDER, SAID ALLEY BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 24 OF SAID KLENKE'S ADDITION SUBDIVISION, AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 89°55'05" WEST ALONG "LIE '; :2.RLY LINE OF SAID LOT 24 AND SAID SUBDIVISION 694.71 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF 900 EAST STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING (2) COURSES: (1) NORTH 42°10'06" WEST 4.36 FEET_(2) NORTH 00°32'32" EAST 8.72 FEET; THENCE SOUTH .) 89°55'05" EAST 697.55 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°01'27" EAST 11.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS: 8,331 SQ.FT. OR 0.191 ACRES SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Closing and abandoning a portion of 800 West between 2050 South and 2100 South) AN ORDINANCE CLOSING AND ABANDONING A PORTION OF 800 WEST FROM APPROXIMATELY 2050 SOUTH TO 2100 SOUTH, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-05-46. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearings that the City's interest in the portion of the street described below is not necessary for use by the public as a street and that closure and abandonment of the portion of the street will not be adverse to the general public's interest; and WHEREAS, the title to the closed portion of the street shall remain with the City until sale for fair market value. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Closing and Abandoning Street. A portion of 800 West from approximately 2050 South to 2100 South, which is the subject of Petition No. 400-05-46, and which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and the same hereby is, closed and abandoned and declared no longer needed or available for use as a street. SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The above closure and abandonment is expressly made subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of this property, and also subject to the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the City's water and sewer facilities. Said closure and abandonment is also subject to any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3. Conditions. This street closure and abandonment is conditioned upon payment by petitioner, to the City, of fair market value of that portion of the alley, or its equivalent, and title to the alley shall remain with the City until sale for fair market value, or the receipt of the equivalent value, in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.58. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions identified above have been met, as certified by the Salt Lake City property manager. Passed 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 APPROVED AS TO FORM Bak City A orne OfflkQ CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Date BY (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: I:\Ordinance 06\Closing a portion of street at 800 West between 2050 South and 2100 South-04-25-06 draft.doc 3 E%HcaSr A OVERALL AS-SURVEYED DESC. FOR STREET CLOSURE (5/01/2006) BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 10 RIVERSIDE PLAT, AS RECORDED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY RECORDER, SAID POINT BEING NORTH 00°00'59" WEST 104.95 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10 RIVERSIDE PLAT, SAID POINT ALSO BEING SOUTH 89°59'15" WEST ALONG THE SECTION LINE 1005.47 FEET AND NORTH 00°00'59" WEST 117.39 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN, AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 89°55'05" WEST 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE EXTENSION OF LOT 24 KLENKE'S ADDITION, AS �5lcw RECORDED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY RECORDER; T �� THENCE SOUTH 00°00'59" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE EXTENSION AND EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 24 KLENKE'S ADDITION 191.31 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF 2100 SOUTH STREET, AS CONVEYED BY QUIT CLAIM DEED, RECORDED JANUARY 28, 1999, IN BOOK 8241 ON PAGE 982 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS AS PROJECT NO. SP-15-7(116)304 AS ON FILE WITH THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; THENCE NORTH 89°48'33" EAST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE EXTENSION OF SAID LOT 10, THENCE NORTH 00°00'59" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE EXTENSION AND SAID EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 10, 191.16 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS: 6,311 SQ. FT. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Vacating a portion of the Riverside and Klenke's Addition Subdivisions) AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE RIVERSIDE AND KLENKE'S ADDITION SUBDIVISIONS, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10-9a-608, UTAH CODE ANNOTATED, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 490-06-15. WHEREAS, Petition No. 490-06-15 was filed with the City, requesting the City to allow the vacation of a portion of the Riverside and Klenke's Addition Subdivisions; and WHEREAS, one hundred percent of the owners of the property within and adjacent to the subdivisions have not consented to the vacation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing after giving the required notices and has reviewed the vacation which has been previously preliminarily approved by the Planning Commission on April 12, 2006; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Approval of Proposed Subdivision Vacation. The City hereby approves the proposed vacation of a portion of the Riverside and Klenke's Addition Subdivisions as conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on April 12, 2006. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed 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 Dutate APF�RpV 0:S. TO' CI0 • rif4{0 tt rn tf ce • (SEAL) 8Y Ulfr1d INF Bill No. of 2006. Published: l:\Ordinance 06\Vacating portions of Riverside and Klenke's Addition Subdivisions-05-08-06 clean.doc 2 4. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR APRIL 12, 2006 Planning Commission Agenda; April 12, 2006 Page 1 of 2 AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City &County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday,April 12, 2006, at 5:45 p.m. er will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share general information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, March 22, 2006. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters a) Utah Department of Transportation(UDOT)and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department—UDOT is requesting the purchase of real property owned by Salt Lake City,consisting of six parcels totaling approximately seven acres and used as a drainage canal,for use as part of the Davis County Legacy Highway project. The property in question is located just north of the existing 1-215 West highway corridor and on both the east and west sides of Redwood Road.All of the property is located within Davis County. This property was part of a previous condemnation action which has now lapsed, and is now being purchased at fair market value,under terms acceptable to Public Utilities. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the sale,with the City receiving replacement easements for the Drainage Canal use. (Staff—Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178 or doug.wheelwrightt ?slcgov.com and Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769 or karryn.greenleaf( slcgov.com) b) Utah Transit Authority(UTA)and Salt Lake City Property Management—UTA and the City are negotiating an Interlocal Agreement that would provide for the transfer of the fee title property ownership of the City to UTA for the property used for the Intermodal Hub operation. The property transfer involves two parcels totaling approximately 16.57 acres located on the west side of 600 West Street,between 200 South and approximately 700 South Streets. Under the terms of the agreement, the City will receive compensation for the property equal to fair market value,which involves non-monetary considerations including the agreement by UTA to finance a large portion of the cost of extending light rail service from the Delta Center Station to the Intermodal Hub and the assumption by UTA of all the City's current obligations relating to the Intermodal Hub. The City-owned property is addressed as 300 South and 600 West, and zoned General Commercial(CG). The Interlocal Agreement including the property transfer requires approval by the City Council.The City Administration intends to recommend the proposed property transfer to the Planning Commission and City Council. (Staff—Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178 or doug.wheelwright@slcgov.com and Matthew Williams at 535-6447 or matthew.williams@slcgov.com) PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Petition 410-06-03—A Conditional Use Request for a Landfill Gas to Renewable Energy Facility by Landfill Energy Systems(in conjunction with the Salt Lake Valley Landfill).The request is for the development and operation of an electric generator facility located at approximately 5950 West California Avenue,directly adjacent to the existing Landfill Facility in the M-1 (Light Manufacturing)Zoning District.This project site is also located within the T Transitional Overlay District. (Staff—Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409 or marilynn.lewis@slcgov.com) b) Petition#400-06-07—Salt Lake City Corporation is requesting a text amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow ambulance services in the Commercial, Manufacturing and Special Purpose Districts. (Staff—Kevin LoPiccolo at 535-6003 or kevin.lopiccolo@slcgov.com) c) Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16— A request by Mike Miller, representing Flying J Inc.,that Salt Lake City close and declare as surplus property, a portion of 800 West Street at approximately 2100 South Street (Petition No.400-05-46),vacate an alley on the north side of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision (Petition No.400-05-47), vacate a portion of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision and Riverside Subdivision(Petition No. 490-06-15), and grant preliminary subdivision approval of a two-lot minor subdivision (Petition No.490-06-16) located at approximately 850 West 2100 South in a General Commercial(CG)zoning district. (Staff—Ray McCandless at 535-7282 or ray.mccandlessaslcgov.com) d) Petition 400-06-08—Salt Lake City Council initiated a request to amend existing provisions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance relating to single-and two-family land uses in City Council District Three that may contribute to incompatible residential infill development within the Special Pattern Residential 1 (SR-1)Zoning District. The proposed amendments include creating a subcategory of the SR-1 Zoning District for those properties currently zoned SR-1 in City Council District Three to address general lot and bulk issues including building height,yard requirements, and accessory building standards.This petition would also amend the zoning maps to implement the above referenced amendments to the SR-1 Zoning District for all properties within the Capitol Hill and Avenues Planning Communities currently zoned SR-1. The Capitol Hill and Avenues Planning Communities are generally located between 1-15 and North Campus Drive from South Temple to the north City limits. (Staff:Joel Paterson at 535-6141 or joel.paterson@slcgov.com) e) Petition No.490-06-03—A request by Aaron Olsen for a Subdivision Amendment, at the property located at 1932 and 1934 South Broadmoor Street, in order to subdivide Lot Three of the Indian Terrace Subdivision(amended Lots 24 and 26) into two lots in order to facilitate the construction of a twin home in the Special Development Pattern Residential(SR- 1)zoning district. (Staff—Sarah Carroll at 535-6260 or sarah.carroll@slcgov.com) file://I:\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Agendas\Agendas 06\PC Agenda 04-12-200... 4/24/2006 Planning Commission Agenda; April 12,.2006 Page 2 of 2 4< E 1 Y f, �,, �t , F , 1 El N NORTH ,,, V if icy&Y Z 4'i3'^r ) k`� 1 .� � S�_ 3 € , .wi.-. � v � rn�iv.[w> A 3 � f _A , 'a'has 5 i ! ,y l -, � c (�qµ` j11 1 Ip '91f�sf' { �.,: Afl / , , �0H 5' l \,.. A Y ., "�.g3§3 1 \ a T t '� 7 5 y 2f 4 "e, ,�yram A p .aJ ",,t,'1 ,S.'� j - 8 it ,l z aq 5 gm'3` a g y j�n$ :'• 2:1 - '4 ? 3 r ' '' ,' . b4 °S ti g { 'ua y yy£ :alf 8 1 f ;9 ff 2 'J ��.gq ,, i.'t,�:,`-«.d:. u','..n,,.oc,,,).'.,,.. ,< ,..a,,.J... i n -vu a'Y'A : �„ 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be April 26,2006. This information can be accessed at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning. Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this Planning Commission Meeting.Accommodations may include alternate Hats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information,please act Planning at(801)535 7757 or TDD(801) 535-6021. file://I:\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Agendas\Agendas 06\PC Agenda 04-12-200... 4/24/2006 5. STAFF REPORT FOR THE APRIL 12, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PETITION NUMBERS: 400-05-46 Street Closure 400-05-47 Alley Vacation 490-06-15 Partial Subdivision Vacation 490-06-16 Preliminary Subdivision APPLICANT: Mike Miller, PDG Inc. STATUS OF APPLICANT: Flying J Representative PROJECT LOCATION: Approximately 850 West 2100 South COUNCIL DISTRICT: District 2, Councilmember Van Turner COMMUNITY COUNCIL: Glendale Community Council SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS: North - CG South - CG East- CG West- CG SURROUNDING LAND USES: North- Commercial South - 2100 South and Hwy. 201 West- Commercial East- Commercial REQUESTED ACTION/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval of four petitions: A street closure, alley vacation, subdivision vacation and new minor subdivision approval.The Planning Commission's recommendation concerning the proposed street closure, alley vacation and subdivision vacation will be forwarded to the City Council for final approval. The Planning Commission is the approval body for the minor subdivision request. A description of each petition is as follows: 1. Petition 400-05-46, Street Closure and Declaration of Surplus Property The applicant is requesting that Salt Lake City close and declare as surplus property, a portion of 800 West Street at approximately 2100 South. The proposed street closure is located in this area of commercial uses. The street has never been improved. It exists only on paper and has been used as a maneuvering area for the Flying J company for many years. It is not required to provide required access to any other properties. The proposed street closure measures 33 feet wide by 191.15 feet long(approximately 6,307.95 square feet). Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 2 2. Petition 400-05-47,Alley Vacation The applicant is also requesting that Salt Lake City vacate an alley on the north side of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision that was dedicated to the City when the subdivision plat was originally recorded. The alley measures 11.95 feet wide by 782 feet long and consists of approximately 9,344.9 square feet. The applicant is requesting that all of the alley and west half of the street be incorporated into the Flying J property. The applicant has requested that the east side of the closed street be sold to the abutting property owner to the east. The abutting property owner, Jerry Seiner, has submitted a letter indicating that they are willing to purchase the east half of the street(See attachment 5). 3. Petition 490-06-15, Partial Subdivision Nat Vacation The flying J site is located on three adjoining pieces of property that are comprised of portions of the Riverside Subdivision and the Klenke's Addition Subdivision. The existing property lines do not follow the subdivision lot lines as originally platted and a number of site improvements such as gas pump islands and parking areas have been installed over several lots and do not comply with current zoning requirements. Given this,the applicant is requesting that the portions of the Riverside and Klenke's Addition Subdivision plats affected by the Flying J property be vacated and re- platted as a new minor subdivision. As this action affects a dedicated street and alley, Planning Commission recommendation and City Council approval are required. 4 Petition 490-06-16,Minor Subdivision Flying J is also requesting preliminary subdivision approval of a 2-lot minor subdivision. Lot 1 consists of 12.170 acres. Lot 2 is a pad site consisting of 1.034 acres. Planning Commission approval of the preliminary subdivision plat is required as noted above. APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Salt Lake City Code: Chapter 2.58 of the Salt Lake City Code regulates the disposition of surplus City- owned real property. Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code regulates the disposition of City-owned alleys. Title 20, Subdivision Ordinance outlines the subdivision approval process and standards. Utah Code: Section 10-8-8 regulates a request for action to vacate, narrow, or change name of street or alley. Section 10-9a-608 outlines the requirements to vacate a subdivision plat involving streets. Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 3 MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: West Salt Lake Community Master Plan: The subject property is located within the West Salt Lake Master Plan area. The West Salt Lake Generalized Future Land Use map identifies this property as General Commercial "CG". The current land use and zoning are consistent with the future land use designation as shown in the Master Plan. Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan: The Transportation Master Plan's Major Street Plan does not anticipate the need to utilize 800 West Street at this location nor the Alley in the future. 2100 South Street and 900 West at this location are improved City streets and serve as the main collectors for the area. Neither 800 West Street or the alley is necessary to the City as a public right-of-way. This position is supported by the Major Street Plan and departmental comments. COMMENTS: The following applicable City agencies were contacted regarding the proposed street closure and alley vacation: Engineering, Fire, Police, Property Management, Public Utilities, Transportation, Building Permits, Airport and the Glendale Community Council. The following is a summary of the comments/concerns received: A. Engineering: The Engineering Division does not have any concerns with the street or alley closure but is working with the Building Permits and Licensing Division addressing a proposed drive approach on 900 West. The Engineering Division is currently reviewing the proposed subdivision vacation and subdivision plat. B. Fire: The Fire Department has no objection to the proposed street closure or alley vacation. C. Police: The Police Department does not anticipate that the proposals will have a negative impact on the delivery of police services or public safety. D. Property Management: The Property Management Division is currently working with Flying J to develop a lease agreement for the temporary usage of the alley and street until a formal decision on the alley and street closure is made by the Planning Commission and City Council. Update: The City Council approved the lease agreement on April 4, 2006. E. Public Utilities: The Public Utilities Department has checked water, sewer and storm drainage maps and there are no public utilities in the street or alley proposed to be vacated. The Public Utilities Department has no objection to the proposed street closure or alley vacation. Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 4 F. Transportation: The alley has not functioned as a public transportation corridor. The roadway section on 800 West services only one parcel and is not contributory to public service. The 800 West Street abutting this parcel to the east has no history of access and is presently serviced by the 2100 South public roadway. The Transportation Division recommends approval of the street closure and alley vacation. Concerning the proposed subdivision and subdivision vacation, the Transportation Division requires the cross access easement to be shown between lot 1 and lot 2 along with the closure of the 800 West access to match the approved site functions and circulation permit plans dated 12/16/2005. The approved plan indicates only one shared driveway access to 2100 South aligning with the west property line of lot 2. G. Permits and Zoning: 1. Public Utilities approval is required. Three sets of civil drawings will need to be submitted to the Public Utilities Department. Two approved sets of drawings must be returned to the Building Permits Office to obtain building permits. 2. Provide a `Subdivision Screening Sheet' from the Planning Division showing that all subdivision issues have been approved and recorded. This is for existing lots to be combined, any lot line adjustments, the new reserve parcel to be created, and the cross-access easement to be created between the new main parcel and the new reserve parcel. 3. Engineering Division approval is required for new curbs, gutters,public sidewalks, and driveway approaches, and for closing old driveway approaches. 4 Transportation Division approval is required for parking lot layout, circulation, handicapped ramps, handicapped parking stalls,bicycle racks,pedestrian access from the public sidewalk, etc. 5. Street lighting approval by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division is required. H. Airport: The Department of Airports has no concerns with the proposed requests. Community Council: The Glendale Community Council supports the proposed street closure and alley vacation as indicated in the attached letter dated February 15, 2006 (Attachment 3). A request for Community Council review on the proposed subdivision vacation and new subdivision was forwarded to the Community Council on March 11, 2006. The Community Council contacted Staff via telephone on March 13, 2006 and does not have any concerns with either the proposed subdivision vacation or new subdivision request. Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 5 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: The area of the street closure and alley vacation is to be incorporated into the Flying J property to facilitate the redevelopment of the site. Currently, the alley and street function as part of the Flying J site. The street and alley exist only on paper and have never been developed. In reviewing this request, the Planning Commission will need to consider whether the street should be closed and the alley should be vacated as requested. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final review and decision action. A. Petition 400-05-46, Street Closure and Declaration of Surplus Property The Planning Commission will need to review the street closure request as it relates to the following Salt Lake City Council Policy Guidelines for Street Closures and Findings. Salt Lake City Council Policy Guidelines for Street Closures and Findings: 1. It is the policy of the City Council to close public streets and sell the underlying property. The Council does not close streets when the action would deny all access to other property. Discussion: Closing the subject street will not deny access to any adjacent property. Access to adjacent properties will still be available from 2100 South. The property will be sold at fair market value. Finding: The proposed street closure will not deny access to adjacent properties and the property will be sold at fair market value. 2. The general policy when closing a street is to obtain fair market value for the land,whether the abutting property is residential, commercial or industrial. Discussion: The property must be sold at a fair market value. This was mentioned to the applicant in an e-mail message dated February 15, 2006. The applicants will need to contact the Salt Lake City Property Management Division which will determine the fair market value of the alley and street. One half of the street, the western half, will be sold to Flying J. The eastern half will be sold to the abutting property owner, Jerry Seiner. Mr. Seiner has indicated that he is willing to purchase the east half of the street as indicated in the attached letter dated March 1, 2006 (Attachment 5). Finding: The property must be sold at a fair market value. 3. There should be sufficient public policy reasons that justify the sale and/or closure of a public street, and it should be sufficiently demonstrated by the Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 6 applicant that the sale and/or closure of the street will accomplish the stated public policy reasons. Discussion: Closing the street will allow more maneuvering room for the new building and improve on site vehicular circulation. In addition, development of the site will require that site improvements be installed which will contribute towards upgrading the property and the streetscape along 2100 South. Vacating the street will help to upgrade the site and bring it into compliance with current zoning standards which justifies the closure of the public street. Finding: In addition to improving on-site traffic circulation, future development of the site will improve the appearance of the streetscape along 2100 South. 4. The City Council should determine whether the stated public policy reasons outweigh alternatives to the closure of the street. Discussion: The public policy reasons supporting closure of the street are discussed in section 3 above. In addition to improving the appearance of 2100 South Street frontage by redeveloping the site, the street has never been improved since the Klenke's Addition Subdivision plat was recorded in 1890 and there are no plans to improve it at this time. The street does not serve as access to this or any adjoining property. The alternative to closing the street is to keep it in public ownership and improving it. However, given the discussion above, the reasons supporting closure of the street outweigh the need to retain it in public ownership. Finding: Given that the street was never needed in the past nor is it anticipated that the street will be needed in the future, the best alternative is closing the street. This request complies with this standard. Summary of Planning Staff Findings for the Street Closure: A. The street closure is consistent with the applicable City Master Plans. B. All owners of property that abut the proposed street closure have been notified about the street closure petition. C. The street closure will not have a negative effect on traffic circulation in the immediate area as proposed. D. The street closure will not have a negative effect on the City's ability to deliver emergency services. E. The street closure will help to improve the area given that the site will be redeveloped. Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 7 B. Petition 400-05-47,Alley Vacation Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code regulates the disposition of City-owned alleys. When evaluating requests to close or vacate public alleys, the City considers whether or not the continued use of the property as a public alley is in the City's best interest. Noticed public hearings are held before both the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the potential adverse impacts created by a proposal. Once the Planning Commission has reviewed the request, their recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The Planning Commission must also make a recommendation to the Mayor regarding the disposition of the property. If the Commission recommends that an alley property be declared surplus, the property should be disposed of according to Section 2.58 City- Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Code. Identification and Analysis of Issues The existing alley was created as part of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision that was recorded in 1890. It runs east and west and has been used as part of the Flying J site for many years as the southernmost gas pump island, driveway and parking area is directly on the alley(see Attachment 2, Site Plans ). According to the Salt Lake City depai tiiiental comments, there are no public utilities located within the alley. The alley does not serve to access any other adjoining property. Code Criteria/Discussion The City Council has final decision authority with respect to alley vacations and closures. A positive recommendation from the Planning Commission requires an analysis and positive determination of the following factors: Section 14.52.02 of Salt Lake City Code: Salt Lake City Council policy considerations for closure, vacation or abandonment of City owned alleys. The City will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack of Use. The City's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however,it is evident from an on-site inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way. Discussion: As mentioned previously, the City's legal interest in the alley appears as a result of recordation of the Klenke's Subdivision plat. The alley does Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 8 not physically exist nor has it materially been blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way. Finding: The subject alley meets this policy consideration. B. Public Safety. The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity or unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area. Discussion: The existence of the alley does not contribute to crime, unlawful activity or unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area as it functions as part of the existing Flying J site. Findin : The existence of the alley does not contribute to crime, unlawful activity or unsafe conditions,public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area. C. Urban Design. The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element. Discussion: The applicants propose to redevelop the site. Incorporating the alley into the proposed site design will create a positive urban design element. Finding: A continued function of the property as an alley does not serve as a positive urban design element. D. Community Purpose. The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. Discussion: The purpose of vacating the alley to incorporate it into the proposed redevelopment of the Flying J property. The alley will become private property for a business,which is a type of community use; for which access will be restricted accordingly. However, since it is on a commercial property, and will generally be used by the public and because vacating the alley will facilitate the redevelopment of the site,the community purpose is served. Finding: As the alley will be incorporated into the proposed redevelopment of the Flying J facility the community purpose is served as the business will provide services for the general community. Overall Summary Pertaining to Section 14.52.02: The petition meets Policy Considerations A, C and D as outlined above, and thus satisfies at least one of the policy considerations, as required by Section 14.52.02 of the City Code. Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 9 Section 14.52.030 (B) of Salt Lake City Code: Public Hearing and Recommendation from the Planning Commission. Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed disposition of the City owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a report and recommendation to the City Council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: 1. The City police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant City departments and divisions have no objection to the proposed disposition of the property; Discussion: Staff requested input from pertinent City departments and/or divisions. These comments are attached to this staff report as Attachment 4, Comments Received From City Departments/Divisions. Finding: The applicable City departments and divisions have reviewed this request and have no objections to vacating the alley property. 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; Finding: The petition meets Consideration A, C and D as required in Section 14.52.020 of the Code and as outlined above. 3. The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property; Discussion: The petition does not deny any access or access to any off-street parking to any adjacent property. Finding: Sole access to any adjacent property will not be denied. 4. The petition will not result in any property being landlocked; Finding: No landlocked parcels will be created. 5. The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; Discussion: The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans. Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 10 The property is zoned General Commercial which allows commercial businesses. The General Commercial zoning is also consistent with the future land use map of the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan which identifies this property as commercial. There are no mid block walkways,pedestrian paths, trails affected by the alley nor does the alley vacation affect alternative transportation uses. The West Salt Lake Community Master Plan encourages closure of unused alleys. The Master Plan states that "The petition is evaluated in terms of the alley's present and future use. If a need for the alley is determined to exist, the petition is usually denied" (page 8 of the Master Plan). At this location, Flying J owns both sides of the alley and the both the alley and street have been used as part of the Flying J site for many years. Findin : The proposal will not result in a use that is inconsistent with pertinent or applicable policies of the City. 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit; Finding: This is not an issue since Flying J owns both sides of the alley. 7. The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and Discussion: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider vacating the entire segment of the east-west alley thereby meeting this policy. Finding: The petition request involves disposing of an entire alley and is therefore consistent with this policy. 8. The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Finding: The alley is not necessary for rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Section 14.52.040(B) of Salt Lake City Code: High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the alley will be closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the city of the fair market value of that alley property, based upon the value added to the abutting properties. Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 11 Discussion: Staff is recommending that the property be sold at fair market value as determined by the Salt Lake City Property Management Division. Finding: The property must be sold at fair market value. C. Petition 490-06-15, Subdivision Plat Vacation The flying J site consists of several parcels of land which have been assembled over time from portions of various other parcels in the Riverside Subdivision and Klenke's Addition Subdivision. The applicant proposes to consolidate all of the Flying J property into two parcels of land. This requires that the portions of old subdivision plats in Flying J's ownership be amended by vacating the old plats and recording a new subdivision plat. Because a street is involved,Planning Commission review and City Council approval is required to vacate the portions of the plats being considered (Utah Code, Section 10-9a-608). Chapter 20.31.090 of the Salt Lake City Subdivision Ordinance outlines the requirements for amendment petitions. 20.31.090 Standards For Approval Of Amendment Petition: An amendment petition shall be approved only if it meets all of the following requirements: A. The amendment will be in the best interests of the City. Analysis: The proposed subdivision vacation and minor subdivision will be in the best interests of the City because an unused alley and part of a street that has historically not been used by the public or adjoining property owners will be vacated and incorporated into the flying J property. In addition, the proposed subdivision vacation will eliminate old lot lines in the Klenke's Addition Subdivision and Riverside Subdivision that do not relate to how the property will function when the site is redeveloped. Finding: Staff finds that the proposed amendment will be in the best interests of the City. B. All lots comply with all applicable zoning standards. Analysis: The property is located in a General Commercial "CG" Zoning District. The proposed lots comply with zoning regulations for the General Commercial "CG" Zoning District. Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 12 Finding: Staff finds that the proposed lots comply with all applicable zoning standards. C. All necessary and required dedications are made. Analysis: All necessary and required utility easements and dedications will be made with the recording of the final plat. Finding: Staff finds that all necessary and required utility dedications will be made upon recordation of the final subdivision plat. D. Provisions for the construction of any required public improvements are included. Analysis: All plans for required public improvements including water supply and sewage disposal must be submitted and approved prior to approval of the final plat. Finding: Staff finds that the requirements for the construction of any required public improvements must be met as part of the final plat process. E. The amendment complies with all applicable laws and regulations. Analysis: The proposed subdivision vacation and new minor subdivision complies with all applicable laws and regulations. Finding: The proposed amendment complies with all applicable laws and regulations. F. The amendment does not materially injure the public or any person and there is good cause for the amendment. (Ord. 7-99 §23, 1999) Analysis: The proposed street closure, alley vacation, subdivision plat vacation and minor subdivision will not materially injure the public or any persons and there is good cause for the amendment as approval of these requests will facilitate the redevelopment of the property. Finding: Staff finds that the proposed amendment does not materially injure the public or any person and there is good cause for the amendment. Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 13 D. Petition 490-06-16, Preliminary Minor Subdivision (Requires Planning Commission Approval Only) Chapter 20.20 of the Salt Lake City Subdivision Ordinance outlines the requirements for minor subdivision approval. According to Section 20.20.020 Required Conditions And Improvements of the Salt Lake City Subdivision Ordinance, a minor subdivision shall conform to the following standards: A. The general character of the surrounding area shall be well defined, and the minor subdivision shall conform to this general character. Analysis: The area surrounding the property is a well established commercial area which is characterized by large commercial lots. The proposed subdivision is in keeping with the established development pattern in the area. Finding: Staff finds that the character of the surrounding area is well defined and that the proposed minor subdivision conforms to this general character. B. Lots created shall conform to the applicable requirements of the zoning ordinances of the city. Analysis: The proposed lots comply with zoning regulations for the General Commercial "CG" Zoning District. Finding: Staff finds that the proposed lots comply with all applicable zoning standards. C. Utility easements shall be offered for dedication as necessary. Analysis: All necessary and required utility easements and dedications will be made with the recording of the final plat. Finding: Staff finds that all necessary and required utility dedications will be made upon recordation of the final subdivision plat. D. Water supply and sewage disposal shall be satisfactory to the city engineer. Analysis: All plans for required public improvements including water supply and sewage disposal must be submitted and approved prior to approval of the final plat. Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 14 Finding: Staff finds that the requirements for the construction of any required public improvements must be met as part of the final plat process. E. Public improvements shall be satisfactory to the planning director and city engineer. Analysis: The proposed subdivision has been forwarded to the pertinent City Departments for comment. All public improvements must comply with all applicable City Departmental standards. Finding: Staff finds that the subdivision must comply with all applicable laws and regulations. RECOMMENDATION: Petitions requiring Planning Commission Recommendation and City Council Approval: Based on the analysis and findings presented in this Report, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve Petitions 400-05-46, 400-05-47 and 490-06-15 subject to the following conditions: 1. That all applicable City Codes and Salt Lake City departmental requirements be met including providing the necessary easements for any existing or future utility infrastructure. 2. That the street closure be sold to the abutting property owners and that the ordinance be conditioned upon payment to the City of fair market value of the street property, consistent with Salt Lake City Code 2.58. Petition requiring Planning Commission Approval Only: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant preliminary minor subdivision approval of the proposed 2-lot minor subdivision,petition 490-06-16 subject to recordation of a final subdivision plat. Attachments: 1. Application forms 2. Site plans 3. Community Council letter 4. Comments received from City Departments/Divisions 5. Letter from the abutting property owner 6. Preliminary subdivision plat Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 15 • ATTACHMENT 1 APPLICATION FORMS Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 16 ,10 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY i >; n .f% Petition No. . 4112— - .5 pp Street C I os u re .Receipt No. $ �, s,t ::s f Date iteceived • 1 LI „1 4y f' c,r zx•' .a Reviewed by '- L.-i.... rNk.taw . Date Location of the subject street �t5 U Lv / cw_1 • _,LC. 1 l/•r b lit Name of Applicant 1 IKb Miu_.i` ' Phone(crc l) ( 2`— I zscr Address of Applicant I I04 C0�1,j v f-i I u S i ^= '-i f-N / c f i c(>` 0 E »>..;>: E-mail address of Applicant lt'f I i&E •till�t.r ('))LYINL-�J : L4,71/ Cell/Fax 00 i)42.2ft—/Zk t .. ............ Please include with the application: ........... . . . i 1.A letter explaining why you are requesting this street closure. Please include a statement explaining why the street closure is consistent with proposed public policy. If applicant is not a property owner adjacent to the 01.1.1.Z street, please include the applicant's interest in the request. 0 2.The names and addresses of all property owners within four-hundred fifty(450)feet—exclusive of streets and ':' alleys in any direction—from the border of the subject street. The name,address and Sidwell number of each property owner must be typed or clearly printed on gummed mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair. Additional names and addresses may be required. The cost of first !....riLi; class postage for each address is due at time of application. Please do not provide postage stamps. I 4 6L.;,J.)rti--Lt 3.The name, address and signatures of all abutting property owners who support the petition. You may use '` your own. Please note that the property the sample petition accompanying this application or provide owners must sign and not occupants who rent. ` >�.:.:;>::;.. �G-� i�1C lull CS- ,.1.ti:...O 4. A property ownership map(known as a Sidwell map)showing the area of the proposed street closure. On a the map please: a. Highlight the subject section of street b.Indicate with a list of the property owners and write their name on the sidwell map identifying the property they own. III `'' 1 5. Filing fee of$300.00,due at time of application. :iiii!!.,t4 If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of i the Salt Lake City Planning staff(535-7757)prior to submitting the petition. .iiliga Sidwell maps and names of property owners are available at: Salt Lake County Recorder ,:;..Fli........... 2001 South State Street, Room N1600 Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1051 Telephone:(801)468-3391 Ilia - File the complete application at. , , Salt Lake City Planning .. '..Ci),._........ 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone:(801)535-7757 s' Signature of Applicant ' 4 �.Ce� f'' ''"i i.:"'' ' or authorized agent Title of agent 04/17/03 K�/V I ,r Tfr 4 (u i%H l'�M/o, . .iVZa a_u.÷ >?I-27—2 — 156 -7700 �xr 1_36 OFFICE USE ONLY Petition No. ���-PS" 7 Alley Vacation or Closure Receipt No. Amount:)C-)6 Date Received: '. )-\t.)t ALT LAKE CITY Reviewed By: ; I Q,N ,,, Project Planner: Address of Subject Property:^ )w. 2(GO �. is -,G �- 1 + 1 Name of Applicant: IVI, W AAtLi4, Phone: 1,,,.4 � (� / culi Address of Applicant: i 1o4- --v,g,, . �'� 1 E-mail Address of Applicant:MI A4iGz �ir211 r Cell/Fax: A���, ' 2 ,I`!2„e' Applicant's Interest in Subject Property 6w� Spy v, .6.144 t/v-e - r Z Name of Property Owner: (! G _ Phone: �� ��1f �/d�p -- � � � 1� !mot' Zr4 Address of Property Owner: l 1 o-. G, c7 -I i�,d' ‘fir E.,tr. 8. 40 W'Yl/ `�"t"` l Email Address of Property Owner: Cell/Fax: Are there any multi-family residential uses(three or more dwelling units)or non residential uses that abut the alley? Yes Cl Noy, If yes,have the property owners been notified about the City's"close and sell" method of disposition(As defined in the at- g:::* tached process information sheet)? Yes Cl No El Please include with the application: 1. A response to the questions on the back of this form. If the applicant does not own property adjacent to the al- ley, please include the applicant's interest in the request. The name, address and Sidwell number of all property owners on the block must be typed or clearly printed on 0 gummed mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair. Payment in the amount to cover first class postage for each address for two mailings is due at time of application. Li) 3. The name, address and signatures of all owners of property abutting the subject alley who support the petition. 4W, You may use the sample petition accompanying this application or provide your own. Please note that the W property owners must sign (not occupants who rent)and the petition must include the signatures of no less than 80 percent of the abutting property owners. �4. A property ownership map(known as a Sidwell map) showing the area of the subject alley. On the map, please: /a. Highlight the subject alley. trip b. Indicate with a colored circle or dot the property owners who support the petition. 15. A legal description of the subject alley may be required. /6. If applicable,a signed, notarized statement of consent from property owner authorizing applicant to act as an agent. /7. Filing fee of$200.00,due at time of application. If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition, please contact a member of the Salt En* Lake City Planning staff(535-7757) prior to submitting the petition 1.4Sidwell maps & names of property owners are File the complete application at: available at: Salt Lake County Recorder Salt Lake City Planning 2001 South State Street, Room N 1600 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1051 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 1 Telephone: (801) 468-3391 ' Telephone: (801) 535-7757 Jul 2005 Signature of Property Owner ezi:,-/— ,e.."-� Or authorized agent OFFICE USE ONLY Petition No. 'f 9D-Q/o-/5 Subdivision Vacation ReceiptNo.�'i (AS�l Amount: se c Date Received:3.2...0c,, 14'41. Reviewed By: k.,.l c VI-(y-Ter .1 LT 1_.-� E C 1 T 1 Project Planner: Subdivision Name: Authorized Contact Person: i tl ic,m,q EL T l„i j i.0 , Phone: (&-c; ) v_ 1 2.2zci h Address of Contact Person: /1C�y Lo�1N 1\/ rll�� i7;�1V� (�C �ti'.t i,i I ¢N c't 61`/O3 v E-mail Address of Contact Person: l�r, ire -�Q rL /kJ6 t 4` 1 CelVFax: ez 4�l 1 i�r� y �� 370 ) 72,3„ -2_Z2,3 I z. Name of Property Owner: p'jC ? iNc Lprwri D.vilrLeivlicivr612c:.I'Phone: ( __..,) G2y - l Z,sY 4 Property Address: .2.i00 Sc 4.7.14tie.) ,t1 E-S T I C di/�i; CI i 4// SAC;i �/�.ic" Petitioner's Engineer: Phone: ; l�CniEiC 6iv�,r,v�r—�:.vG� g a i) ZSS -77c 0 Z Address of Engineer: e.,_ q°O D` 7 �c��5 SocrrN >� i=��.1 r d�lilJ✓-1C:c` ; �4T fi� �' 1 ile, E-mail Address of EngineerM/KEC ic1G V NG� c v.r� Cell/Fax: og,�•,i '1 Z -7 7`; A.T 437 1..4 County Tax ("Sidwell#"): jc _j y - cj 7Cy. •-L.( S Zoning: Acreage: Owl Please include with the application: 1. A letter addressed to the Mayor which includes a request to vacate a subdivision,or a portion thereof,and the reason for mill O'tr the request. 2. The names and addresses of all property owners located within the subject subdivision and those within four-hundred Mmi fifty(450) feet of the subject property. The name,address and Sidwell number of each property owner must be typed or clearly printed on gummed mailing labels.Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair(s). If cap) you are within 600 feet of a neighboring Community Council's boundary,then the neighboring Community Council Chair must be notified as well.The cost of first class postage for each address is due at the time of application. Please do not provide postage stamps. 3. The signature of each of those owners who consent to the petition. d'4. Ten(10)copies of a drawing illustrating the area to be vacated. 5. A legal boundary description of area to be vacated,certified as accurate by a Registered Land Surveyor,Professional En- OA- gineer,or Title Abstractor. 6. A current Sidwell Map(with aerial photograph and ownership lines)showing the entire subject area. «'y' 7. Filing fee of$300.00 plus$100.00 per lot is required at the time of application. If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of the Salt Lake City mil Planning staff(535-7757)prior to submitting the petition Eillinil 001 County tax parcel("Sidwell") maps and names of File the complete application at: property owners are available at: Salt Lake County Recorder Salt Lake City Planning 2001 South State Street, Room N1600 451 South State Street, Room 406 Tip Salt Lake City, UT 84 1 90-1 05 1 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801)468-3391 Telephone: (801) 535-7757 Signature of Authorized Contact Person: Signature of Property Owner 09'19,05 Or authorized agent OFFICE USE ONLY PetdYonNo. y96_ D6-�A PreliminarySubdivision R a eceiptNa�i��S � Atitotmt�'arj'„„. i . Minor Process ;>3a�l d 44 db (1 Revtewedsy cp _St�1Pt lb - ❑ Non Residential 0 Residential .projectP{anper. Name of Subdivision: No.of Lots: Name of Applicant: I+ Phone/(��,. 1 c l��_ Address of Applicant: it6, cut .� i L' 7 i .E J -i '4,;(7,47 . 4E-mail Address of Applicant•01/ ,,y11L(.t_I2(;L�=t:yln/CaL 42 Cell/Fax. e yLL iS2c1) 72 - Z2_-z3 Name of Property Owner: Phone: ^yam i 62 .- 126 . 1Y�,inic� �12ue)c� 1�Fce rmEi�lTCiiks�r 4 Address of Subject Property': Z(Gc, C1 j-j [., u.• SI T -c4L% L,4111.-:- Ui rt/ . e-i/74/7/ 4 Subdivision Engineer: ( cyr m Phone: � � Z-:SS —7 a 7 Address of Engineer:( %ai 6 fi'.fS _S SIz it- yC.', /�- -ST linit•lir4C. , tiff .fi CV • • E-mail Address of Engineer: y �� G%yL 7 Cell/Fax ��Z'i/l ZSS 77Gc ' /�X T (K�C; 66 n1&i<� �' County Tax Sidwell fl"): /s U f Zoning: Acreage: 01.4 Please include with the application: 1. The names and addresses of all property owners located within four-hundred fifty feet(450 )of the subject parcel(s). 0-V The name,address and Sidwell number of each property owner must be typed or clearly printed on gummed mailing L� labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair.The cost of first class postage for each address is due at time of application.Please do not provide postage stamps. 2. A legal description of the boundaries of the subject property together with a legal description of each of the proposed cio) N9- lots. 3. Ten(10)copies of a preliminary plat drawing showing the land to be subdivided,properly and accurately drawn to C''s- scale,certified as accurate by a Registered Land Surveyor or Professional Engineer. 0- One(1) 11 x 17 (reduced)copy of the plans. ;; 5. A current Sidwell Map(with aerial photography and ownership lines)showing the entire area of the proposed subdi- vision. tai- Filing fee of$300.00 plus$100.00 per lot is required at time of application. . If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of the Salt Lake : City Planning staff (535-7757)prior to submitting the petition. il4 ..................... El.11::. ........... ..... .................. .......... ...... ........ ... . ... ................. .......... ..... . ......... ....... ............. ...... ............ ... .................. ..... ........... ... ......... ...... County tax parcel("Sidwell") maps and names of File the complete application at: property owners are available at: Salt Lake City Planning P Y Salt Lake County Recorder 451 South State Street, Room 406 2001 South State Street, Room N 1600 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 V Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1051 Telephone: (801) 535-7757 ... ................ Telephone: (801) 468-3391 •2IX Signature of Property Owner Or authorized agent ATTACHMENT 2 SITE PLANS Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 17 1 a W F- VI r Z 90 W v Y O III AP .01 8 II • I I I I 1 g W S \ I sk I ; I 4 I I I , I - ( I I �L \ 1 11 as 11 \ . (I o I I \ co s : Is • NI i ', If �p.i: . I n I / ii . , � o I r II ii:ai i:i2lulyi�i� a ti .' ‘ _ ....„, • , :. i. , , I■ FFE84231 _Y'�aiEI q laI OI STORY 11" -ST : iRESTUR4NT ,,-i \ j 1-10 r:u: ■ ._ � ala __ • /•� •�'` �1. it \,i71� �® e. , 1, I' vi ♦ / i it 44-4-1--1-14 • •'''.. o , .: N\ J 1�1y�i1i ��: ..�/1ss , !!'iiIMII ��si 'z2111 a \ I;' _.S3ii1 pQb wr St lei M,,ec0000 s...:.:; s g : I 11 '':::1;::::."':'''''•'"4:' . 1,1 w w • ® \ I II a _� I !i 2 � J N V x \ I I ,_ I i. . I, n II u II id I II (1 w ij )- II _I --Irg' II u 14 i lee . L 1- _ _ z ; I II o GI A I > I y' 1 11 j� w ` I ;I 1"` ; C: ram � m m 4 II I t r. 10 : P \ • If i h b 1, is 4 -—ls'1 N .:' ( 'I g g r. fl_ .__ _ v,,_ ,.._/ : it, 1 I NI, . ]:1 • Lam;; ,,� i . ii / I/ '%% j' N. rI I, W • u E•4231 II Or Ii11 I. 4 J JE STORY -_ (! ', RE/RESTURANT -- \ , rI g J ; i ,� ,; % ;i INN r I I 1.1 ��. -- 1 Hiig ,-,-//////,. /,-,/./7/// ti, ,, 1' II 1kl 15 y%4i ft II I14 i � � � ti Ii ■ I I \ I1 „ milikki, II itII 11111111 ill \ /4"" ,, •-... is I II II ----) i I ,I. (11 II " 1 1i I) w 1 w 1 ,IN 0 i . 8°3 r. NJ ,-yr .00 i. . , , c% 1 . : -.- I. . , I , .. . _ . . , I . - . I 1 ,I , n ' . .,, . ; 61-0 • • --: 1 • .710 , . I • -1f6 r • ,o r L il . , • . _ ,.L432 I.L,-Z ,,, a- \ :-4-• A4%." I 3, n til tii.- .• ! ,... A • .1. lik Iff ;,I 0.) .* . 0 • \ 'Jz\ n V .. • 0 ei •• , .,.... I (4 • - • 2.. • t ". . ...... 1 , • , ,-, 1 ., \ -41.• •, la;':.,- '-' \)- g C . or .• • . i s ,:- 1,' -, 0 a ,,,„. - ifi ...51 .4 0 .\i:-.• • \ Z r: ‘1,1 ill --,,;:). ••4s;\ ri! -1: - _.1, ti \ ..t"p‘\ 4 ‘,._ I.. 5..lic •0, ''--,‘•• I •., i-t-i.' -. I ,..t A a e 6't, : •, \i r- .-:-.- t.) AL- 1. - ct 10 In :•-, QUJ 2, • . v• 2 • . .1 3 .4" -o'c. •\ .1 .1.: cr._j r".1i IU . Yos•:„o.,i';:j..o. .\, CC -f . ktirli'...". \ 0 NZ i....3 •04\)' • it,\ \I,j'i, 00 /rq trl . it. . I 1 ,a, ..t. • . \ 4 ... . •e —..• • \ .71 • • 4 I, sc cD. .-- x • '... m i 1 •- \ ill , • I I I i 1100 6 .SS 00.0.N . ---.•.- •-• - -$ Pi i'cr'4 -CL 1.,:f • x - - ---.a Niir --------._ 3..t2.Z000•q • . • . - ‘0SILL'o<.' • " •‘--<<..firr5". C 1'LIT ZZ.'I 1 2.1 . 1 \ 1 I 7 . 1 . , I \' % • Ot- I fr": r__ \ . , 1 Z '(il \t, . I ''"' •\ o x 1 N i I \1..L z i . • I • , •I . <--" .• 2. 1 I .. 1 , Z i I • k) a <I .;41D • \,:81) z. r0,u-yE , ot • ",-. ,-:'--- .4"-•"-' Ho nt 21 . L ,-'-' -'•----•-' -•ii-:,"- IllitikaiVii ATTACHMENT 3 COMMUNITY COUNCIL LETTER Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 18 P. 02 FEB-U8-2006 WED 06: 14 All 34648047 FAX N0. 2777614• Consultation with Neighborhood Organizations Salt Lake City has established a policy of encouraging public participation in the planning • process at all levels. In keeping with this policy, Section 5-1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance recognizes the importance of notification to neighborhood organizations by requiring that the applicant provide "a signed statement from the appropriate neighborhood organization that the applicant has met with that organization and explained the development proposal for which approval is being sought". The following form is provided for this purpose. STATEMENT At its regularly schedule meeting held on W619j.55,0 e Community Council heard a presentation by 1 L� � —` 06 concerning a petition requesting Lps D uL "9 which affects property located within this neighborhood. c jtJ9 COMMUNITY COUNCIL v: Its: Comments/Concerns: 124 COrl1iOlt//1/t7' COC/ C/� ATTACHMENT 4 COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS/DIVISIONS Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12, 2006 19 Page 1 of McCandless, Ray From: Smith, Craig Wednesday, March 08, 2006 2:16 PM To: McCandless, Ray Subject: RE: Flying J Street/Alley Closures Categories: Program/Policy don't have any concerns with the street and alley closure, however, I do have additional comments addressing the drive approach )r trucks on 900 west, which I will take up with Alan Hardman. 'rom: McCandless, Ray ;ent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 1:24 PM 'o: Smith, Craig subject: FW: Flying J Street/ Alley Closures ;raig, )o you have any departmental concerns with this street and alley closure? "hanks tay ,rom: McCandless, Ray ier aesday, January 10, 2006 4:35 PM ro: L... off, Nancy; Clark, Luann; Dinse, Rick; Fluhart, Rocky; Graham, Rick; Harpst, Tim; Hooton, Leroy; McFarlane, Alison; 0, )ave; Querry, Chuck; Rutan, Ed; Zunguze, Louis; Pack, Russ :c: Wheelwright, Doug; LoPiccolo, Kevin ;object: Flying J Street/ Alley Closures lying J is requesting that the City close and declare as surplus property an alley and part of a street located at approximately 850 West 2100 South. The street and alley were dedicated to the City in the late 1800's when the :lenke's Addition Subdivision plat was recorded. The street and alley only exist on paper and currently appear and unction as part of the existing Flying J business. Flying J plans to redevelop the property sometime in the near future. -Iowever, in order to redevelop the site, the street and alley need to be closed as proposed. site drawing was sent to the departments identified in the attached document. Please let me know if you need additional information. I would appreciate any departmental comments by January 27, 2005. ['hank You. 3/22/2006 Page 1 of F.;2.F McCandless, Ray From: Larson, Bradley Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:53 PM To: McCandless, Ray Subject: Petitions 400-05-47 and 400-05-46/Flying J Street and Alley closures lay, 'he Fire Department has no objections to the above named petitions. hank you. Irad Larson >eputy Fire Marshal ;alt Lake City Fire Department *ire Prevention Bureau 'hone 801-799-4162 :ell 801-550-0147 3/22/2006 Po(4:-cc McCandless, Ray From: Guess, Kim nt: Friday, January 20, 2006 12:25 PM ,: McCandless, Ray Subject: Petition 400-05-47 I do not anticipate that this proposed for a street and alley closure will° have a negative impact on the delivery of police services or public safety - KIM 1 1)c(:cC McCandless, Ray From: Guess, Kim t: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:02 PM McCandless, Ray Subject: Flying J Subdivision It does not appear that this planning proposal will have a significant impact on police services at this time - KIM 1 Page 1 of l.,►,bK . U 4{(:F-eS McCandless, Ray From: Stewart, Brad Thursday, January 19, 2006 11:42 AM To: McCandless, Ray Cc: Garcia, Peggy Subject: Petitions 400-05-07 and 400-05046 Flying J street and alley closure. Categories: Program/Policy gay, 'ublic Utilities has checked water, sewer and storm drainage maps and there appear to be no public utilities the street / alley proposed to be vacated. Public Utilities has no objection to the closure. ;rad 3/22/2006 P1/4/61:c Ctfti(Z4 cS Page 1 of McCandless, Ray From: Garcia, Peggy Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:04 PM To: McCandless, Ray Subject: Petition#400-06-15 and Petition#400-06-15 Categories: Program/Policy tay, >alt Lake City Public Utilities has reviewed the above-mentioned plans and finds no conflicts with the water, sewer or storm Irainage. you need any further assistance please contact me. hanks, 'eggy Garcia 'ontracts Supervisor aft Lake City Public Utilities 801) 483-6727 3/22/2006 Page 1 of Tai.arseoan►1n43\! McCandless, Ray From: Walsh, Barry Thursday, January 12, 2006 2:46 PM To: McCandless, Ray Cc: Young, Kevin; Smith, Craig; Larson, Bradley; Garcia, Peggy; Williams, Matthew Subject: Pet 400-05-46 &47 Categories: Program/Policy anuary 12, 2006 :ay McCandless, Planning te: Petition 400-05-46 and 400-05-47 by Flying "J" to close and declare surplus an alley and part of a street at 850 West 100 So. 'he transportation division comments and recommendations are for approval or the proposal as follows: 'he alley shown has not functioned as a public transportation corridor and the roadway section, proposed 800 West, ervices only one parcel and is not contributory to public service. The 800 west abutting parcel to the east has no history ,f access and is presently serviced by the 2100 South public roadway. sincerely, 3arry Walsh i c Kevin Young, P.E. Craig Smith, Engineering Brad Larson, Fire Peggy Garcia, Utilities Matt Williams, Property Management File 3/22/2006 Page 1 of TiApespoRrvm+rl McCandless, Ray From: Walsh, Barry Monday, March 13, 2006 1:18 PM To: McCandless, Ray Cc: Young, Kevin; Weiler, Scott; Smith, Craig; Garcia, Peggy; Leydsman, Wayne; Williams, Matthew; Butcher, Larry Subject: Flying J Sub Categories: Program/Policy 4arch 13, 2006 :ay McCandless, Planning :e: Flying "J", Subdivision Vacation (petition 490-06-15) and Preliminary Minor Subdivision review(Petition 400-06- 6) 'he division of transportation review comments and recommendations are as follows: 'er out last review of petition 400-05-47 and 400-05-46, letter dated 12/12/2006 enclosed, we recommended approval of le closure and vacation of the 800 West location and the east west alley to comply with the current Flying "J" site plan evelopment revisions. 'he plat enclosed requires the cross easement to be shown between lot 1 and lot 2 along with the closure of the 800 Wesi ccess to match the approved site functions and circulation permit plans dated 12/16/2005. The approved plan indicates my one shared driveway access to 2100 South aligning with the west property line of lot 2. 3arry Walsh i c Kevin Young, P.E. Scott Weiler, P.E. Craig Smith, Engineering Peggy Garcia, Utilities Wayne Leydsman, Fire Matt Williams, Property Management Larry Butcher, Permits File anuary 12, 2006 Zay McCandless, Planning Ze: Petition 400-05-46 and 400-05-47 by Flying "J" to close and declare surplus an alley and part of a street at 850 West 100 So. [he transportation division comments and recommendations are for approval or the proposal as follows: [he - shown has not functioned as a public transportation corridor and the roadway section,proposed 800 West, inly one parcel and is not contributory to public service. The 800 west abutting parcel to the east has no history >f access and is presently serviced by the 2100 South public roadway. 3/22/2006 Page 2 of lincerely, 3arry Walsh :c Kevin Young, P.E. Craig Smith, Engineering Brad Larson, Fire Peggy Garcia, Utilities Matt Williams, Property Management File 3/22/2006 Bus i.o DJ Cr SCRatc.45. SALT LAKE CITY BUILDING SERVICES Zoning Review Log Number: 200119 Date: February 15, 2005 Project Name: Flying J Travel Plaza Project Address: 2025 South 900 West Contact Person: Mike Miller Fax Number: (801) 624-1299 Phone Number: (801) 624-1290 E-mail Address: mike.miller@flyingj.com Zoning District: CG Reviewer: Alan Hardman Phone: 535-7742 Comments Please respond in writing to each of the items below. Revise the plans where appropriate. 1. Public Utilities approval required. Submit three sets of civil drawings to Peggy Garcia at 1530 South West Temple. Phone 483-6727. Two approved sets must be returned to this office to obtain building permit. 2. Provide `screening sheet' from the Planning Division showing that all subdivision issues have been approved and recorded. This is for existing lots to be combined, any lot line adjustments, the new reserve parcel to be created, and the cross-access easement to be created between the new main parcel and the new reserve parcel. Contact a subdivision planner. Phone 535-7757. 3. Engineering Division approval required for new curbs, gutters, public sidewalks, and driveway approaches, and for closing old driveway approaches. Contact Craig Smith at 535-7995. 4. Transportation Division approval required for parking lot layout, circulation, handicapped ramps, handicapped parking stalls, bicycle racks, pedestrian access from the public sidewalk, etc. Contact Barry Walsh at 535-7102. 5. Street lighting approval required. Contact Gordon Haight at 535-7147. Page 1 of lelihy Suvugs McCandless, Ray From: Butcher, Larry Monday, March 13, 2006 3:47 PM To: McCandless, Ray Cc: Goff, Orion Subject: Flying J Subdivision/ Petition 400-06-16 Categories: Program/Policy ;ay: have no zoning comments. any 3/22/2006 Page 1 of McCandless, Ray "aeo4A— From: McCandless, Allen Tuesday, March 14, 2006 10:28 AM To: McCandless, Ray Cc: Pack, Russ; Domino, Steve Subject: RE: Flying J - Request for Departmental Comments fay, be proposed Flying J site, located on the Northeast corner of 900 West and 2100 South, is not within any established Salt .ake City airport influence zone. No avigation is required. Regarding the proposal, there are no known conflicts with iirport operations. Thank you for providing this airport review request. -Allen McCandless, Planning Manager ,rom: Pack, Russ ►ent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 4:28 PM "o: Domino, Steve; McCandless, Allen ;ubject: FW: Flying J - Request for Departmental Comments "hanks for your help. fuss :rum: McCandless, Ray ;en 'esday, March 07, 2006 3:16 PM "o: . .off, Nancy; Clark, Luann; Dinse, Rick; Fluhart, Rocky; Graham, Rick; Harpst, Tim; Hooton, Leroy; McFarlane, Alison; Oka, )ave; Pack, Russ; Querry, Chuck; Rutan, Ed; Zunguze, Louis ;c: LoPiccolo, Kevin; Wheelwright, Doug subject: Flying J - Request for Departmental Comments \II: 'lease see the attached request for departmental comment letter and attachments concerning the Flying J site at approximately l50 West 2100 South. Your departmental comments by March 17, 2006 would be appreciated. "hank you. fay McCandless 'tanning Division i35-7282 3/22/2006 Page 1 of (Re•px.r McCandless, Ray From: Pack, Russ Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:37 PM To: McCandless, Ray Subject: RE: Flying J Street/Alley Closures to comments from the Airport Department. ;uss 'rom: McCandless, Ray ;ent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:35 PM '0: Boskoff, Nancy; Clark, Luann; Dinse, Rick; Fluhart, Rocky; Graham, Rick; Harpst, Tim; Hooton, Leroy; McFarlane, Alison; Oka, )ave; Querry, Chuck; Rutan, Ed; Zunguze, Louis; Pack, Russ :c: Wheelwright, Doug; LoPiccolo, Kevin subject: Flying J Street/ Alley Closures Ill: lying J is requesting that the City close and declare as surplus property an alley and part of a street located at pproximately 850 West 2100 South. The street and alley were dedicated to the City in the late 1800's when the lenke's Addition Subdivision plat was recorded. The street and alley only exist on paper and currently appear and unction as part of the existing Flying J business. Flying J plans to redevelop the property sometime in the near future. -lowever, in order to redevelop the site, the street and alley need to be closed as proposed. s. sawing was sent to the departments identified in the attached document. Please let me know if you need additional information. I would appreciate any departmental comments by January 27, 2005. [hank You. 3/22/2006 ATTACHMENT 5 LETTER FROM ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 20 i Making friends to last a lifetime. ':. ' 1 C TERRYSEINER DEA LERSHIPS Gerald J. Seiner President March 1, 2006 Ray McCandless Community Planning/Land Use Transportation Salt Lake City Planning & Zoning 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 841 1 1 Re: Vacation of Road at approximately 800 West 2100 South, SLC Flyinii J and Jeny Seiner Chevrolet, Inc. Dear Mr. McCandless: Jerry Seiner Chevrolet, Inc. is willing to purchase the one-half of the roadway proposed to be vacated which buts the Seiner property at approximately 800 West 2100 South. We understand that Flying J has a pending proposal for the vacation of that roadway, which we support. Please contact Dorothy C. Pleshe at 952-5890 if you need any further information. Sincerely, JERRY SEINE' • ALERSHIPS era %���""— Pre i•+�, Cc: Mike Miller Russ Workman Dorothy Pleshe I530 South 500 West• Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 •(80I) 952-5700 Fax:956-3234 • www.gmguy.com CHEVROLET OLDSMOBILE CADILLAC HUMMER BUICK PONTIAC GMC Isuzu CoNLVIERCIAL TRUCK ADCRAFTER COMMUNICATIONS ATTACHMENT 6 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 21 1 C) DATE: April 12, 2006 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Ray McCandless, Principal Planner at 535-7282 or P y t ray.mccandless@ci.sl.ut.us RE: A REQUEST BY MIKE MILLER,REPRESENTING FLYING J ' INC., THAT SALT LAKE CITY CLOSE AND DECLARE AS SURPLUS PROPERTY A PORTION OF 800 WEST STREET AT APPROXIMATELY 2100 SOUTH STREET (PETITION NO. 400- 05-46),VACATE AN ALLEY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE KLENKE'S ADDITION SUBDIVISION (PETITION NO. 400-05- 47),VACATE A PORTION OF THE KLENKE'S ADDITION SUBDIVISION AND RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION (PETITION NO. 490-06-15)AND, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF A 2- LOT MINOR SUBDIVSION (PETITION NO. 490-06-16) LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 850 WEST 2100 SOUTH IN A GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) ZONING DISTRICT ,_... _ g - _.--- . v,. .. to a • + PROPOSED w - �� /,. SUBDIVISION f 3 Jr -&---., VACATION AND o NEW MINOR o S r lit ' SUBDIVISION _ LOT#1 ` 41M _ t, -'11 r-' W ' STREET VACATION - {, • . - LO'T#2 "` F ALLEY VACATION .11 ,r. z ._rY 6 . �#�� ii uiir�r uiii�i ii�.a/psvwvduiiiiiii - ♦.1 ' aM•Y r... . .4=' t • Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16 April 12,2006 1 = 2 g.. r s !. f! a m a c es 1 r I I e � E � G m = Mom I I 4Z .. 0 a e e El c E 0 m /^\ a 5��$ga+y A 1 r I I Y... a (/t (7 R R 1 g Gl cr'f� 55ti._ "'i 1 : p E 4 E Z -. Yu45 L I ,x. a..,,m $._ . 1 F 4 I . 1 o >s g r c € xa L ; _ -. 0 as1 z i E IA 1 SEER ME a x111 i, Yx.a WI g Ata 1 ! ! Iiii��ff. i _ _sox yr smeras� Ag sii•W i$cius)Y e'; . ..Me* \\ nv l i r II 1 apg i Y. 9:\ :r y �ai►aKrted, II �I�rtaa—T 4R ,g RR" I ip! Y - R I ,, ''�t g E 9 +4R aI Ri( I i gill, . ter ma_ oaercus . $ mpg__�sesraccom: 4u1 q�M el y s mmefs un,,,,,,}.Q ay i it a I x "� I " .. I Lxb x_ x x III! i R Ill! Ill: IA inp Ili" p a 1 al w l i YA w> I `$_I: li R I ty' pi, xa ii R. I se. xis i A r s 1lit f flm II 1 PI r$ \i ; I I p i a Ij i aWNW a tourt I R I I Fidl s w+ra • G✓ p R �s�4 �G^5 @pq E I ke i iT, §� _ �+- rpq� Z. Y� -1 § 1tit!tit 1. -ERR. .. .._15�.- V F -MIX. -- .,� x. R sEgx a 199JEESL�k t,' I " �di3't•iASn'fs¢nn so-so u¢crt ws iui7smm inaisr, ---------'-------'--�--- R $ c R 8 4 8 8 4 6 Y a i� p� yic' l l • giii F !a E!a • 1. Rtlaallaa Rq12 _ x I. i 1I 8 C^.'qq gR91 Qa- $a Elge41 Q}1 x n x ' a X ti c; 11 8 }IRIS IWI.$IIX i1 ISwl°9 a b'V Ln o i . o o o RR =gE 4�x $x k Q I K t � f r.: -re aa D tl o i i rc 8 °Ni F • i IR RI� Rq5 § 1 fw-li 51 F RR ; S € S gi I fg 1 i o ExR� llym ill-0A F� as a E!!,i. R I I e3 liii of ag ��� ,, jEa:(1MO111E N S 11 S 3' a° l�I-Ii■ R aE! SC s F' !r4i8$A, g < E 3i m a F o E o II ag21gE �'g'� @l 3 i 5 ='iEa m L• c Q r r z F x� s „ 4� E = S=►{ f 4�'� / + x? $x3gR : 1Ea9E1T at 1 WV in g n -AR R 4 . E 1l a i g1 iE R$ 40 1 -Exa I _ - - ..r. ,. . , 1-, ... --, ' :,,,,, •- '- , ...... . 1, ‘• i. t. . ,.,' ,. . •—i:.'"- ' .,. ..: ...z.. ,, . , .,....„. . . . , ..: . . .. , . 44. ..., j -,-- '.. ' lir , ,k - ,.. , sail —r-•- , -•,-,, 11,---.' ',-__' 4,: • -r,:• - .t.„.4 •_=gfr,:-•,-'- , - - -- •_ _.•-,.,,..t ,:,F:' •-- . -'• ' . ._ !.:..•-...1.4 ,..? !... _ - '— 00 ..• - - . -------1 . - ,600111, lik .....' 1 . ..,. i - i % . .. Fi,. .:. '• 4 c --;74 . . ,_-_11;-1, OSONWIAI,Offig*** 11 4- - •., ,, , , -• .. ';111;;111,14,• :'---Z,..lk.:Li' * .,; -.,-; -1-' '''- M.-. \*-*P'''' MINK‘411111111.11.141MENIIIIIIIIIIIi 4 -; .. -----Ats1, ,-,- ';' r: ,,. LC)_ .. - . . ill .,,,. iii .RIR - - ,..... - 1 • .:.. .,- • • . . . _ 41- . ,,,,,, _ i ,.• . . _ .•.• . . ._.,, •,i,. ,_. c, c) -rt — i s , cv . ; 11 _ .- . ., .. . .. , . -.. : • di. •--7_:.:.„-.,, :--7..-A.i.,,i..,:,-,‘: 1 -,.... — L: - ,•;!',•• • ; -:-, •',.,-.,__'• '-' - '- •_--.._ - -- :---, ,,o„. ta. ,•, -',.,.'; ,,, ,_ ah,' -:-.-I4 t• -,-,--=-- -, '''*,:l N • '' . ...--",-,-„,... ,-,.-,-,•,•' • A. : w .• , :, ,.,* . . ...•••' . c.":'1', ' -4F , - , ;:".-",.•,f; .--,.• • . ',.. ,•.: , . , i'.,.n.:...,, ,..- -51.,. _ ;_ • --,. „ , ...._ -.- ; .1 l' t.',''''1.,-..,;,...:,".-;•iP',2„..",', : ' . '.4,...e-v'.54',5.-'---'• - ,....,..••",,,..,;;-,. •,•'-:''.• ,.....-,,, - • -..1.-A---. -•':i1::, • , 1 t- , ., :. • ,..7, -:',;-_-.' :t.-- C•:'. \ oc-,_ , . ,,_ .,• 1 ' . - , „ , : • It• If .11, „ -,:., —:::,-•„N*-4 - I , • : ;r- .--__. • -7 :,...7„. ..,.+-2. : --- • 'Kt --: I ,- ,,,,_ „ -,1.•,.A , ,s, ',Ic..-;,..''•,::: . ':•• ••': ::: • ,,„ --1,.,,. ;:• .4 - -: , -,,, yi_',,-;e,1 ;-,.,.44.-..,;., ----._ • ' .,-,, ,.. , ,::,, ' ..„--,-,----': •: ',-.,,- ,....._.„1z ._ , ...''A. ' 1 A -4 - -:':::::•'",..-'s'' 4 ',. -,.z ,-,'„4..1--,..-•-;:- -.i. ge.. - . ' to . :* '.1P.' • -.,014• ; ' r - .. 1...-. • '- 4 : r . •• ., . , ,,. • : -- ---- ----. •'. .__ .. -ir . , 1 ' : P • 'P't•"'&'7, , •......•• . ... . • ' I p- . . . . . • . " 1,-- • - %...-.• • - r . ... .• ..... .,.; , - I - , • ..- .1 .4,... , i , f — _ a.lit:Lrir , . , . _ .... ,r - 3 , II .40,- ,•• tiiii.. • 'r ..r . - ,-• , 1 . - - : • . ',.‘", . "' . •,1, 'cliF- '. ,. . . :.-.-, • :., ..-.•• ... .. pt . - -.. • . . -.,,---- ;,' ,,, • .. . ''r .. r . . ....., 1 •. ....... ., ,._. 1. • r... ., ' -... , _'•,-.. , .-,„..,,, .-"....' . . •-. 7.. •' ..,. .I ' -'" -4 ' '''• •- - . •-....-- -' •'' ;• i!I 1 - :•• ' ..' ', . • , . ." '.• 1 1 • . 'r4 r". ' • :'--.:`"". ,.. ...,. i • -" • • • '' • i 011111 • • • " . ..t. • .,, :_. - ': ,:.:: ......, , ., -• ...... -- -• • ., .. , 11:' ... 'r' • ' •--... .. (-NJ' ' t--'-• .-h . ; `1 - "' . -: ' . : :,‘ , '.,.• ,.,.... . •,..• --,--;..--.=t; . " -.1; ' ',.; -- „ . ,_, iji, • , --.:'7:-:J.. ., it'. '-',.• 7N.,1 t ';',',11 . i ' , . .k*....-,'• di' - . ,' . ' -4• ' ,... ,'°Ait:,' j —•,.. ......, „ . . , '-r ' '',;'..', Y.,. ', . .'- - -' '' s '' ''''' ....,,,-- -,- vi •. -i i': •. 1 • •, . '- • 7 •ti. *•.'4., 4,. ..„7,....- -1, • 7 - '.,-- • - . *-' - . ri• ''It. , •••••,.,_,„•-t---,-,-.,,.4..-' ,.' .,.. ....--::,..,4,!.. -•f.-.. . , ,....t.,..., ,..„. ... t 4.4•601•.' -.,, •••,:.„ .,. . . ., ..._.. .., .,.,. :. 4 0 •• -• . . , • ,.. ....- , i ' 'rr . , '..-.;••••".=e•c„...--i..,-.-:,..-„,..i.".."-' „...._ , , L.. .,' ‘. ., - .r-r.,..'.--,.....,..rzr, -•;,/,•7-...r.-..-,. r , '_ ,..., .:.„....,-. hit: F. \ i lir. , - .• • l' ;..'F'.-i'r.:&.,;.: -;r'rr.','' 0 if•1=-.1 A ',1-i. 1 ,'..47Z.A4,:.,,., ,,,•,4,...:. t ..:1 ...t, t,Iv ' • ' 'aitl :. \I. i ,‘.' ?..0 ':tr• .3.,5,,!..1 . i i, •:.,.. ; .. -- .. .. .. .. . . • . ,..,. .,,,,-_,.... ,.: ..,!. .,,,..•:- ..,,..,.-4., ---,,,,-.;...,„......... . _.._ , , t 4,:r,,I.V.tir J.,•;.,'Al. ""• • . F ' ,.. • : ', 1 . - -,-,'-'... . . . , • „. . ... .1 ..„.-i, ,./ •- • .. ....• .. . c-... ,- ...- . i •- .• ‘,#-\ , .• ,T,. 6. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 12, 2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 12, 2006 Based upon the findings of fact and discussion, Commissioner Seelig made a motion that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed text amendment as presented in Exhibit One of the Staff Report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Diamond.All voted "Ave".The motion passed. Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16— A request by Mike Miller, representing Flying J Inc., that Salt Lake City close and declare as surplus property, a portion of 800 West Street at approximately 2100 South Street(Petition No. 400-05-46), vacate an alley on the north side of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision (Petition No. 400-05-47), vacate a portion of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision and Riverside Subdivision (Petition No. 490-06-15), and grant preliminary subdivision approval of a two-lot minor subdivision (Petition No. 490-06-16) located at approximately 850 West 2100 South in a General Commercial (CG) Zoning District. (This item was heard at 6:35 p.m.) Chairperson Noda clarified that the discussion and motion will be all encompassing in relation to the four petitions. Chairperson Noda recognized Ray McCandless, Principal Planner, as Staff representative. Mr. McCandless stated that the request submitted by Flying J includes numerous property ownership issues. He noted that the property owner had an A.L.T.A. survey done and discovered an 1890 subdivision plat, entitled the Klenke's Addition Subdivision. An alley was recorded along the north side of the 24 platted lots. In reference to an aerial photograph, Mr. McCandless stated that Flying J has cleared the site and proposes to develop a new Travel Plaza on the property. He stated that the alley is still in existence and has been used as part of the site. A portion of 800 West is also being requested to be vacated as part of the proposal. Mr. McCandless stated that, as part of Flying J's request, they would also like to subdivide the property into two lots. The second lot, to be located on 2100 South will be a future pad site (no future development is proposed at this time for the second lot). Staff is requesting approval of the above petitions, (alley vacation, street closure and subdivision plat vacation) subject to: 1) All applicable City Codes and Salt Lake City departmental requirements are met including providing the necessary easements for any existing or future utility infrastructure. 2) The street closure be sold to the abutting property owners and that the ordinance be conditioned upon payment to the City of fair market value of the street property, consistent with Salt Lake City Code 2.58. Staff is also recommending minor subdivision approval with the condition of recordation of final subdivision plat and that the other petitions are approved. Mr. Mike Miller, Flying J, gave a short background of the history and success of Flying J and their development of travel plazas. Originally, the company wanted to complete the new construction in phases, but came across difficulty and time constraints and chose to vacate the site to begin new again. The travel plaza will be a medium-sized facility to include a section for cars and trucks. Mr. Miller also stated that clean, well-maintained and well-lit facilities are the pride of Flying J. He also provided some site elevations of other existing facilities and clarified that the lighting will be downlighting. Chairperson Noda requested comments from Community Council Chairs and the public. There was no response to the request for comments. Chairperson Noda then read a written comment from Dorothy Pleshe, "In support of#400-04-46, 47, 490- 06-15 and 490-06-16 on behalf of Jerry Seiner Chevrolet, Inc." Commissioner Diamond requested clarification regarding the Jerry Seiner purchase of the road. He also requested to know the landscape requirement around the property. 6 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 12, 2006 Mr. McCandless stated that the street will be sold to both Jerry Seiner and Flying J. Commissioner De Lay noted that the approval of the Commission relating to these requests do not include consideration of the landscape requirements. At 6:48 p.m., Chairperson Noda closed the Public Hearing and the Commission began the Executive Session. Based on the analysis and findings, Commissioner De Lay made a motion for the Planning Commission to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council with regards to Petitions 400-05-46, 400-05-47, and 490-06-15 subject to the following conditions: 1) That all applicable City Codes and Salt Lake City departmental requirements be met including providing the necessary easements for any existing or future utility infrastructure. 2) That the street closure be sold to the abutting property owners and that the ordinance be conditioned upon payment to the City of fair market value of the street property, consistent with Salt Lake City Code 2.58. Commissioner Forbis seconded the motion. All voted "Aye".The motion passed. Commissioner De Lay also made a motion that the Planning Commission grant preliminary minor subdivision approval of the proposed two-lot minor subdivision, Petition No.490-06-16 subject to recordation of a final subdivision plat. Commissioner Forbis seconded the motion. All voted "Ave". The motion passed. (Petition 400-06-03 was heard prior to 400-06-08 due to the amount of public input anticipated.) At 7:30 p.m., Mr. Wheelwright mentioned to the Commissioners that Craig Galli had contacted him prior to the meeting to be excused due to work conflicts. Petition 400-06-08—Salt Lake City Council initiated a request to amend existing provisions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance relating to single-and two-family land uses in City Council District Three that may contribute to incompatible residential infill development within the Special Pattern Residential 1 (SR-1) Zoning District. The proposed amendments include creating a subcategory of the SR-1 Zoning District for those properties currently zoned SR-1 in City Council District Three to address general lot and bulk issues including building height, yard requirements, and accessory building standards. This petition would also amend the zoning maps to implement the above referenced amendments to the SR-1 Zoning District for all properties within the Capitol Hill and Avenues Planning Communities currently zoned SR-1. The Capitol Hill and Avenues Planning Communities are generally located between 1-15 and North Campus Drive from South Temple to the north City limits. (This item was heard at 7:31 p.m.) Chairperson Noda recognized Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor, as Staff representative. Mr. Paterson presented a short background relating to the Compatible Infill Ordinance Standards adopted in December 2005. He noted that Ordinance 90 was permanent, while Ordinance 91 was established to temporarily allow additional time for the Wasatch Hollow Community Council area and the Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill areas to continue work developing neighborhood based zoning standards that the community councils were working on. Mr. Paterson added that Wasatch Hollow has not submitted their proposal, but is anticipated for submission in the upcoming summer months. Mr. Paterson acknowledged the submission of the Avenues and Capitol Hill's joint proposal to create new standards for the SR-1 areas. Mr. Paterson clarified that an overlay zone was not being proposed, rather a text amendment to create a subsection of the SR-1 zone (SR-1A). A zoning map amendment is also being proposed to place the SR-1A zoning classification on the areas currently zoned SR-1 in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Council areas. Mr. Paterson added that a text and map amendment create ease of use for the individuals involved with future development in the SR-1 zoning of the respective areas. 7 7. NOTICES FOR THE APRIL 12, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 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, April 12, 2006, at 5:45 p.m. nner 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, March 22,2006. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters a) Utah Department of Transportation(UDOT)and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department—UDOT is requesting the purchase of real property owned by Salt Lake City,consisting of six parcels totaling approximately seven acres and used as a drainage canal,for use as part of the Davis County Legacy Highway project. The property in question is located just north of the existing 1-215 West highway corridor and on both the east and west sides of Redwood Road.All of the property is located within Davis County. This property was part of a previous condemnation action which has now lapsed,and is now being purchased at fair market value, under terms acceptable to Public Utilities. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the sale,with the City receiving replacement easements for the Drainage Canal use.(Staff—Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178 or doug.wheelwrightAslcgov.com and Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769 or kanyn.oreenleafaslcgov.com) b) Utah Transit Authority(UTA)and Salt Lake City Property Management—UTA and the City are negotiating an Interlocal Agreement that would provide for the transfer of the fee title property ownership of the City to UTA for the property used for the Intermodal Hub operation. The property transfer involves two parcels totaling approximately 16.57 acres located on the west side of 600 West Street,between 200 South and approximately 700 South Streets. Under the terms of the agreement,the City will receive compensation for the property equal to fair market value,which involves non-monetary considerations including the agreement by UTA to finance a large portion of the cost of extending fight rail service from the Delta Center Station to the Intermodal Hub and the assumption by UTA of all the City's current obligations relating to the Intermodal Hub. The City-owned property is addressed as 300 South and 600 West,and zoned General Commercial(CG). The Interlocal Agreement including the property transfer requires approval by the City Council.The City Administration intends to recommend the proposed property transfer to the Planning Commission and City Council.(Staff—Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178 or douq.wheelwright(aslcaov.com and Matthew Williams at 535-6447 or matthew.williams@slcgov.com) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Petition 410-06-03—A Conditional Use Request for a Landfill Gas to Renewable Energy Facility by Landfill Energy Systems(in conjunction with the Salt Lake Valley Landfill).The request is for the development and operation of an electric generator facility located at approximately 5950 West California Avenue,directly adjacent to the existing Landfill Facility in the M-1 (Light Manufacturing)Zoning District.This project site is also located within the T Transitional Overlay District.(Staff—Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409 or marilvnn.lewis( slcaov.com) b) Petition#400-06-07—Salt Lake City Corporation is requesting a text amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow ambulance services in the Commercial, Manufacturing and Special Purpose Districts. (Staff—Kevin LoPiccolo at 535-6003 or kevin.lopiccoloAslcoov.com) c) Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16— A request by Mike Miller, representing Flying J Inc.,that Salt Lake City close and declare as surplus property,a portion of 800 West Street at approximately 2100 South Street(Petition No.400-05-46),vacate an alley on the north side of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision (Petition No.400-05-47),vacate a portion of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision and Riverside Subdivision(Petition No.490-06-15),and grant preliminary subdivision approval of a two-lot minor subdivision(Petition No.490-06-16)located at approximately 850 West 2100 South in a General Commercial (CG)zoning district. (Staff—Ray McCandless at 535-7282 or ray.mccandlessCc�slcgov.com) d) Petition 400-06-08—Salt Lake City Council initiated a request to amend existing provisions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance relating to single-and two-family land uses in City Council District Three that may contribute to incompatible residential infill development within the Special Pattern Residential 1 (SR-1)Zoning District. The proposed amendments include creating a subcategory of the SR-1 Zoning District for those properties currently zoned SR-1 in City Council District Three to address general lot and bulk issues including building height,yard requirements,and accessory building standards.This petition would also amend the zoning maps to implement the above referenced amendments to the SR-1 Zoning District for all properties within the Capitol Hill and Avenues Planning Communities currently zoned SR-1.The Capitol Hill and Avenues Planning Communities are generally located between 1-15 and North Campus Drive from South Temple to the north City limits.(Staff:Joel Paterson at 535-6141 or joel.paterson(c slcgov.com) ONkJV3H 3O 30IION 3OV1S©d Sn . l l l b 8 Ovoid paigew _sooziszieo = # ' • W C I•�I.ti8 lfl 4AU13 (Mel ;IBS �� toR, ••: 90ti .w21 ';aaa�S a;e3S 4;noS &SP '� - !• �� + )(manes uolsslufwo3 Buluueld £LSLOS9lH910 , :! '� UOISIAI BU /� a !UUe Id 4I3 vial ;IBS 1. Fill out registration card and indicate if you wish to speak and which agenda item you will address. 2. After the staff and petitioner presentations,hearings will be opened for public comment. Community Councils will present their comments at the beginning of the hearing. 3. In order to be considerate of everyone attending the meeting,public comments are limited to 3 minutes per person per item. A spokesperson who has been asked by a group to summarize their concerns will be allowed 5 minutes to speak. Written comments are welcome and will be provided to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting if they are submitted to the Planning Division prior to noon the day before the meeting. Written comments should be sent to: Salt Lake City Planning Director 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 4. Speakers will be called by the Chair. 5. Please state your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you represent at the beginning of your comments. 6. Speakers should address their comments to the Chair. Planning Commission members may have questions for the speaker. Speakers may not debate with other meeting attendees. 7. Speakers should focus their comments on the agenda item. Extraneous and repetitive comments should be avoided. 8. After those registered have spoken,the Chair will invite other comments. Prior speakers may be allowed to supplement their previous comments at this time. 9. After the hearing is closed,the discussion will be limited among Planning Commissioners and Staff. Under unique circumstances,the Planning Commission may choose to reopen the hearing to obtain additional information. 10. Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the City 48 hours in advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-775T for assistance. eu" [0 bo cUS INI!el� ' e co ueMMedl IS "-. ''"• "'^ • stvc uc w+en Z[• EB-C9 O9- spyapy�tit;-1* [96t srwVyjl II. It6 myeetg IS mijoil R. 6L01 xlyamalw Z9` C('BLll' aunyyl p' BS'sl0[' IoIlNrdsI9LI• VI', spam7y Ob- 9f8 VOUed 90• 6CSf Bbl ggneN SS 1.09 CB ZLI KIM 56' 96 ZC HOe01 [I• EZ so Lf 4ogu8wiS�. ![98 woY1W,y 10• OF'6Z Lf' 0060 8E• 6C'[I yOaaeN fb` OBE[ 31'OHn41 LO` E9 SZ ET S6Z!004 WaNM EF• 9Z'L asxywl bE l" 1SOE s481i7w�s 186 MwIWI bL L• SB SZ pied pE. 8066 6epseR 90 cal"06' IiaDuofl EISL aa9uwllr6• t490 9L. [1S IeaSaaM 6L"Z 08'11 uwsuelr Zi'• Ulf ZO' l 1,), if9E 06'T e!Intl Z0"1. 5991 wopypd of.01 010 91 i1001fiseN 06 B9 CZ. jlgi:f �� OL i»yiu�j 09'E OZ` !1I I Or M 10 IE• El PI ule19aW1 ill. 9C ZB OC B �OW OS i B[` 6•'B IOL'I iudle8ay ff•_ 0061 0 pallid 60` 1011 DIH001e9 SI• P6 94 09 a400 0l 1 "(bf OS I aue9Oul'°I.11.Lg t'LE'• Pt 9L` bSEE 6C I oJWYas• 90'Z' bB'E9 Ot 60• II 11 9B �16'L El PI 01 d S-011 I[11 69EL z 9L• (LOL ki we 9 Mk 6E. 908 686 ua I o I E'• 1 6 b[' S : A I' NU CP [Z c >sw811 tenor 06' 66'1L 06' s,,,,,s l il• ce61 t300P89I ZF'• 6Z'OF bb' 47BW BL` ZCBZ 99 0d l lW 6o r 9686 09 r i aol E[" IE 9 !sspRM�uNj i[0' a7 BZ 10'• 66'OL 00'[ 60. 6['A supua pi C9 66S900 41pwM19I L" NU 00[ mp01 so., 5,11001, yamosl tS ast upotlpay oz. 1Bt aaeJuled SB` 'fSb ,g[�N 81• EI9!UZ'[ YiDMM00l SC` IL6 �:eo70W,t0- 101 LO'• 0019 99Z o8r Ll• 1(9 .w10, LE'' ILCL 'J419°9 6I• OW IeHpay 01' 6C 0[ ialpu�ey pp.. B9'B Z 016 uefo7 8L'• BS'EB OB Wftl fiRM Al�., 666 n PE Sb OL! usy0ay L['• [Lbl aped w4d BdN IL'. OS6E EC 9901019°. Co dY'Pwl'r9 1 SF• !C6( s1WrMiNM [6• 619 i0byue!'1 !I• OC DWwluuos bl'• Sb'6 *mem [0• ZZZI 4ay� OL!• UN op MIN 1p 006 dlpsuoq LBl• 966Z >7auulW� .9- 6[9'E [B ZS Ib neJ L0• 560 w4dueul °S [E fb` piu ww 69' SS LS sMN IIN LF' COSE p9 opeauq 90 SE SZ 3SpN4g1f or IRM ZD• 6C bt yalal, W. CM L6' Moos BE'co uOaMVtB 6L` [,'C RI UN SL 60 100S BC W°IfM 90• SE OL' weMawq [0', UP 185899u06 18. O,S�L B0 smgw 10 006!001 �99860 f6'• mu lea8)3N Oh` IZBE LS[ POUR BO'• L9"6T Or' uq�plull PI 9994 sasvaeMMM 90` 60'6E ZE McWl bf• 661 4DA!�6 - 9wey 030.Yd pg• bBEL llBN q Mull f Ob` OEZE gWM ZSI BOOS 09 iH'pl !0` HE wwlos�• 666 wyl!ed E6'l• Z89L OE e980 96'b 090060 PI 0605 09 mug 80` E9BI •OB1WISt- 0!61 93 01 I9Ib swBlOeaM 60• [8B yso�ml 00[•E6ft wrnl;05 1BBI SL M4S01Detl OC• E9 Iluag 96d L9'• 016L 09[ Hogq Z0•V110 Er 50i ieudOsul 16Z• I9t! IL• WS!r6I (I 1601 autquyus r0• [6Z paupy BS` B90EOfi se�ldd----�.—_ ISZ` 9 Of' 95 s1Sd^eM vJ WEI - 9L• lfl9 B0 ue!a CO 6ZE9 88l Odd ECL19 YW4Mn,ED., IC 96000 il, EO` [CS wM0f�65• OC9L i18'L• E696 usi �tl Of• 500!qOZ JNd 9L• LOW WAR CO:• fNY[ uDeo19gq 60' 1far*00 ylpNyW bl I• EB 6•'.' CL• SEE 89'08M 90` 6'66I neuoyl;e,., SE s xtruim LE•S6OS WIwI IIN ff• SOLI e�S 9Wd 19LI- 666E ua8o(w [0` ES sy9o19M!1IS0'• LOfC V9 ;D9u lirZ 95, . - rc. croc oni noes;69 El CZ' MetuePyy lSL• 609C wewial�SB` bBYI awieyq [ Zo9Ss DESERET MORNING NEWS,TUESDAY, MARCH 21,2006 .manor BUSINESS FINANCE Cedar City business ar ' di • e p k set .o s E I? S r e r Deseret Morning News area. called Port 15 Utah, R N.. A new economic develop Port 15 is a partnership effort 110 �-ORNM ment area in Cedar Ci of ua ---•— �' OWNI vides for the development of Quantum and the°pment adminisf Cedar City ~'� 700 acres of land, which is tration, planned as an intermodal The '"""'"' business project is planned park connecting over the next 17 years. It is railroad, trucking and air expected to bring7,on your lily pad for a bet new V 4414) " ° ereb given 8202 Ilq that the undersigned-will ing regular business ter interest rate? Mountain sell, to satisfy lien of the hours. Mountain SALT LAKE CITY owner,atcompeti public le b PLANNING COMMISSIONKEITY April 5 by This resolution shall fake America announces the return of PUBLIC NEARING o m. of the°Exton SSpace effect on the date of;15 11:30 first publication. our OneOn Wednesday April 12, asap. facility located (P 06-6) Jump Term2006, at 5:45'P.M. the Deposit. Salt Lake City w Planning 8308 South 700 East Published: March 21 I Jump up to a higher rate one time• will hold a Sandy,Ui-840708844 2006 public hearing to consider S66- 8202Z IV7 • • should the following petitions for 8644 rates Increase. the Flying 1 property lo- The personal MIDVALE Cl. I sated of approximately stored therein bygoods NOTICE TI PUBUt ' 850 West 2100 South: low;n the fol- MEETING I public hear'ng • Gives eS Petition No. 400-05-46, 6I SS� you peace of mind and the ih Salt lake City close 10481 Andy Ware, The public is invited to most leap and declare as surplus WSSage Vista attend a property, a Y South Jordan UT before that 700lem in for your frog 800 West Streetr at tionaof 2869A(ie1ers �273 Council on Tuesday, April proximately 2100 South W 4700 So. 21 Salt the Midvale City St05reet- Petition No.400- Lake Jepson, 190� 4 2006 at 7:00 pm in q Stre t to vacate an alley Lake old. 476 Council h. Call toll Free 1 Y UT 841 18 Chambers located id. 800 748 4302 foron the north side of the Brown 0oSo West Center Street, M;ty 2: more infor- Sion;Klenke s Addition Subdivi_ Sandy, 880 E 94Ho So ale, Utah. W Klen Petition No.4por y,UT 84094;House- Council will be The City or visit our Web15 to vacate a 06- hold. 516 Steve Marti- consider- So mation, site today. - of the Klenke; Addition netion z, 910 Can Rid a byga Holmessul ° request No Canyon a p Its�ust subdivision and y Midvale, UT 8404g John subd subdivide the too e Riverside Household. 547 7• lion to subdivide the in y. Subdivision• and Petition Allred, Olivet property at 7071 S.300 Inh No. 490-Q6-16, 6735 So Olivet E. into four residential unc quest fora re- Dr. Salt Loke City, UT lots for subdivision approval o preliminary 84121;Furniture. two :win home 2-lot minor subdivision in Purchase must be made Allre interestedential parties part es are ant a general subdivision "G with Lion G' zoning district. at the timonly and for paid invited to 0ttend the for of sale. All meeting or contact Lesle tine The public hearing of the must be removed at the PlanningY 820 goods are sold as;s and Burns in the Midvale City o Planning Commission will time of ppn and Zoning167- M the be thheld int Room 326, of Space Storacgeaseeserves 72jtj for mare0nforma- H Countyalt Lake City and the right to bid. Sale is lion. s Sou Building, 451 subject to adjournment. CI Lake City, Street Salt . with Utah. People Extra Space Storage 20060 Published: March 21, make req eststl for fear 8202ZGIU make a 7UBlICIDADCLA51FICgDA 8202ZK51 1 accommodation HALE MAS COSASPgRA FUBLICIDAD CLASIFICADA PI • Ail no later than 48 hours ;n ANNUAL PERCENTAGE advance in order to at- MASJIERSONAS PA HACEMASCag3SPARp tend this public hearing• CUALOUIER OTRA FORMA MAS IERSOAUS QUE Accommodations mayOE Fue_._..D. CUALOUIER OTRA FORMA dude alternate formats, DE Pue Iciogo. the YIELD BASED interpreters, PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR herew ON 4.60% auxiliary aids and other call P. • This is an THE EMERY COUNTY LANDFILL Mardi • INTEREST accessible facility, For Emery Count is requesting permiteir RATE questions, requests, or y g Calvin additional information t°operate of the Class I Landfill to aired near Casl Salt La • please contact Mr. Ro Dale Utah approximately 2.4 miles north of the in- Terence McCandless at 535-7282y tersection of Slate Highway 29 and Danish Bench i 21. Road. The landfill may accent non-hazardous solid Point c • /� 8202ZJEG waste including municipal solid w lsed tc g �` �w waste,industrial waste construction/demolition mwaste similarnr l ��,iiill A �t•W>_ADS237-2000 and special waste as stipulated bythe used ro p psimilar c permit. The Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste has Kr PT Accelerate viewed the permit renewal application and a dra permit has been issued. Before taking action on tic 1 p renewal application,the Division is providing a 7 comment period to receive input on the application �2ZHS your car and draft permit. The public comment period on Mel draft permit begins March 21, 2006 and ends April 20 06 A public hearing may be held if, within sales. days of publication of the this notice,a request is made to the Executive Secretary in opting and meets the requirements of Utah Administrative Code R315- 311-3. F //411#friffil A 6 o,,% of adults ICopies of tee a are available For Pp hcahon and the draft permit are welcome plan to bu !hours at rho r public review dur;na norm I ti„ ; das e ui. � 6- ' 'b� •Fg a*(16$4 A ub 03s • au pigs• u., ,• ` � r, 1 .. `. pi t a i; �r `b s 01 p i�� Buitn tio�tua uio 4a f '. • ..f a. ° a :� ]!�Q # 'x taj III,', 8 uL•Ak iTa}�dC{ do .� ''. .. �.'r 7 :r . �y "4 iir an t tits' s io a2ut; 0 c°i�i : ... . A,.• . y r ttu ! $4 pl tt T • . .l u t u) .t x sib 1 0 3, i.ilt°.'a$.aq� 01 s ° 1 ` 7,:' �y '` ;tF 4x t r ° a u Ke u fd . 'vSi 1N r s iy i t', d ah �lj� Tupiyp $.I s 0" 3'� 9 o T . r ,.9, I'"fit ,A ,{ 5 i i Go D� �;. a�t 4.; 'l�t. . R ` i't J S �Arytjbi •S t; it a i k i 4 9 P 'dbR• 0 b� , ' �, ¢„ t.,! B 5 ° ;j\I f t'Y ref.:: 91 ,.! '� ,. • It 9 ' 4$ f,1St�t F:J�3�l'A-.".`,1. . "''y : `` 0.1t ' i ui aX� Fr .3t EM 64 3i6�11 v Y r.f �E, Q1,1ay '-0• z r a r • r `l , b t l '' ,paxp tu(1riBo, ti1:d'1fi7e60 ei, Q: �iti# a .1. t� 9u1.'.. :, g0.�° : 83 �`i:h" , °: rfsy... ',�;�:g�t z i � a 1 t e Y , r is nR�,�y n ,� ,A 7� i q 'r��`S` �� "� tyi. f r itiit i¢,(t, ti°'•'I1�s4 0 F 1 z*) b t ':i�*��*y� 1p.. 4. OM, t C..'A..90.U;, '" e r�F1 V ,,` i 4. { .1'�,• ;� p �r i�� ,'�+0.n � ., e ti�. �tL°f le�4 � i 9�'t .a� �� s r; BF°d 0. � i E�r-'�%"e 'c �g � c";'•• r.t , ';. • • r ,-v y 4.,:. „ xt fit' 5Y s } 1 a r *'{at U / i, � �� 9'�, ;N4�l� {� t ,} , J t • f 'st8tlByt'��r{!° f '•�7o` n, } BUt "�lt ��SAn� �f• a' S st`^ 1Y t 4�U1`D 5,�a 7 . B �1 B. Y b"i9 g/ vi 'o" , P. tT. `l d ;t ,I.3a r, .',,'.�`. • • .; {rlt 4.- a>� a �c teat:11 i a t j i � i ,(.� i r�,+ �3r �r: t1 t r ri.� rl� '�- w ,Y�+lk � t ,t7r ��, Ci�5y5`�) 1 � �i �'^' ' ;( l z 1 ,1>t # ifl o d' ju0U tt `o§� °l.d a 9 r 94'"t w ° t� ,` { ' .�o tfr Ytctut " 7 ,s� { y *.t. Try sy ,.Wr�C 7 'c., I 6 a• {.r. 4 N, .°ils?tt�i l4,kit1 UP11 9A :01° ''��1�1i1V`a0'pry ; y at gr �Yo- ` t��)}l I�?.,, ° ' 9kr,(, I.:. • 11 h • �t{; t rr �' �� r x `l, r ttV >' S' -(' ,, nd,i, .. ' I, Y{f� .�" 7l' 1 , .,#1 5a iii� 1611s,01q t kK,,t3 r jElkk -r�9� .--• N1 I✓ ,. 'li �:� 1 Y y s,'T°I r ''tZrF t;,i L Q �. 6 g s:} t 1 f f�?°CI •fold 3a a 1°_(.,r' `),l ir. xt - ..�CCCB 1,:r '?,;i0: •-;:** r y� , r �p 'v,��� �..w� wit 11L� i �.�" F,! � �Lty �.+� r �'�. fE� 'S,. •t+. ,r ?, :lan �r• 1 f .r J�. :0 trv,B 6' ,- n m q•y0 9B ev jJ ling;pr, 04.1 ray{ °r U tCCB S d4 !.! / 4 ,,•„ t., "'`3" 'r„' ,„ {x :,7 �I1 h11 1S� ,• hsk, 4� • $r. 4 , YGI,pf,...� R r,' f /, . .ef //j y t I f q(� 5 I t � } J �f A� i•i 6 1 ki�� i!�' n"�°s '�,V �d 9 Q:. j;°i #1.tl ,0*.y2. ^.r', :.•v 3hv;#r''�,�rv� , 'x% ''.� • Y,.,..'. B•V S�B({x`OIL 1Q9 9f, P7r1•{dnl are N +(h I„fi'4" �i.017 : ° }1 r Fr. isw A_ i,, T a ' t F 4 r • .. - '11 l. s '',ti t.r t�v, ,, Y 9� 9 89.a .•i st eI'r�Ytr ® tto so .,r'i�t+' 2w ti ;' • "i .„# ,;:' r?+ ',tr, v�. . Iwzammx t .r. o • �n 1-F�� 1 S� k N:��' �� • .% nt x: 7 P+ s� F .l . � 7 t.'•,i i1, r� -• .3 • a+t ;, ., .€ < E'. Y"t t , 'tf' 4a''_ +.t : t'/ • '�„ $t� — \ I ti iyh z : .3 hj t +.k .. 4^, 4 6 f.: + ` , f X_7 t .� '- I/ �S r 'pr {'. -• r1 I ": . -� Q c-fi yr y 4• r{ 1, J .. is e:: Is .s • �. rj../ :- w 4 n'f55 :,ua s @ ;, }'K 3.:_ -. , I, • 'ter a4r ' l F a i��i 9fttC9C[�iill�ll a Q p i.UC,ll dl/ d R III' I �, A 4 { a, a. .;,�" r.::l ��li ,r j r -R ' .... 3 •'1.7-. t J.�fi r ,{�a -:2 S' k• t. J¢1 _` Sr _`. ..M . ... _ . .,,... .._ : w. .,., - �.-. o iees: I,ter :: s' ; 1 ��33 pp;�; - � :, r �i[I��6 N`5 % s�l , ,',(F'i r e7 J SS��� ��i��i r� li C1{t[�c ,�, d ", 1 pT! 1 <- L,,,. , ., , .r.a< P IQN 5�ikTOFtsts�n "NA��,4 5 "It o Q#�Ne n L 12 0 DI ' 4 �, ��� � 204t6, dt r the•. 1 OF NO"TICEb h i i( 't t ' . S L. q r'to din•g.The all lake Ct7,Counc`k het IL:: Ttl'?.,,,'II yf Viz' ' r .. •• ..f i s ,• vt sect•':9t t Mtlrdi 7 2'M' C IL:: O - 1 . .4 -)4 r kr' e) a adoptedp an or it Ttsyl =+ �s • It� l rezoning prppars yd d, Taylot t t• ., alai t „meeratty oe to d .w dnes�ld1, A her 85(� bst•' y t •`Eq1 5.q0 f yy dt 31. , „ 1 FI.t ' ', Petltt 46; ntial pfFlce Qi3•r fo Tdla th�, t :, that,: e' of g 'ppa High Dpnsl C f' t5 •�� 8 drtdl Re•sident) d ndih•4114`T: 1+, tt ,... + Hentat ihanx apnrpdp��'f�yy a dos •I . Dts?ii:- (R iF-75), 5i ok 13 en ,t. 1 600.ewdsfrsdtd `83 WO Denier �trq f of thetfy oP T� r raUr t proximate': SWIh otrda/High Rbh Ordfnancb as fo .{ • u 1 Multi:.din QS den Street Pe 4y+?. �' 0$- tti al ey la mind (MF=.5) to The. PldfA{{q9 C j,tll ,{{ , �s 1' Defisity ult (bmif hp8 reeomJiTmiD • i ,#' 'T (fl"n s/i IdenHbf.Dlyglfri SouMF a I.,; 1 :; iso %f a and,51 G 2 1 Yat to f• si of i b ¢, Coynd •e a• °�" 1 .�_'. /-rr • •nD T � A • r 01f Igh Dens}}rti MIt , J . ti�� v" Qv ANNUAL eK iroeil - y4 j So Hf t Dnhs ty t 37 0-r '' :4 rfC. N , s': s ', sto vas on and '.PefiH"oh iittk a�d�o gg pp pa.6 ai '.. No...;49 to-lk; a ra, �Iy RbsadEtitlaf S`` Dtrsig t M The { ® t� ub t for pl mina q sht RMF•75) an fb•[b i ttt t r ail' r C fALE EVEN' {� r� p g_ Is si 2�Iot��ml wr 1 i of inirydstar ent�dn tits rt, t aY ti. u�` a 3feraf 0li`1 C- pd 1t nt to Pbfltton No {, G�z, l►tiidtsf iA 400 Q50a: t t st dt { a u,It fi $ss ` a he r of,,filed Copietae the ordinance 'I t, '. z.it, ., fates'as low Tie tt:erfr are a9dtte rt� a r t 8S Pip 1i11191t e�{ 11 �r rby! to fhe C1 f2h 1g1 � be b. a ,.•••• de . f5f :r1 fir f C , 451 iiiPt 1 , .Co Batidin } • ( 1 d'2( 9/o APR ` ai;'.�� L I 1e 1(j•La71or e t -.t f.. X rk. _ ..get 1 rJ 0 1 ^ ':- +r T; i , t} 1 { dstir Igo bi ' J {,. • N 40 )I„ 1fa44rr�; ,r 3 dafon r2Qlf f. *� ' • ` • • A. i I 11 I d+k 1 Nfl rt , • ` S ,l 6= r),,F 11 . s(y : arh .t ti Q,tjU . s t.° Y 0 tTEv • W j et 1f Q}I t I , d . Zr t � v s } u;`"4 F 'i } 5•x '"" 1( yx{' • - ., . •aI t91' + S -. - ( � : ' 8aJ I 1J1 ) r 1 r s. .; .... • ii k rF � > d `ip J <} s Yx � trg ?` - :' ti1 s • sa � " � ^•'44 4:r A� .. :> i ._> .' • • i " p t, ' a' JIVi` r ..' +.S 1 . j -4' ;} r7,a ( t'�C'4ln 1.41a�Q.I i I, T 0 '. E10bNoW ; e;� ,,,,•Y iM fr `. {s 1,'!g -1'g Y., refP;s y • ,, EVT 0 0 0 0 0'6 AAu_meN' K:.-2.w "-L.-' - -.!f ,, ..s. ..-' ' -:;---.*--,-- --,.'I-''';''- -...-'''. .. T-.,�� . ,.y..,f,,,-,,,,.Yf'�-ter- rww� �1 1 • Al' . r S /I tgPt y:- ,:. . 17"••1 �,;,' iP`',lL� i sg ®n Y>.t> � s ,!.f®/a. .. 4 .,,.,,,. , ,s.:r ,.._._� � � .: -_;r. �' t ?y r n l n 41 '.t`4 - t- f `� r �.:. f r d .�I rt "rL !P -t R• t k •. t>Yn. 'r tL /t ft + t ✓a 0'.✓` a • • • .,i4" ✓:' t 'A' L'�� . • r. �f) : V ,�� � ," 4L, A A�(l•`A lUbllE kY 'tat,. . G `40.,.. •-. fti �- .�' '� 's 2q 8 8 `e9 ..1 t c r� a rl �1 e4"r l' r„a-�.�. �pqi pIL: 1,& d ! >, r J 4�'�@-.-, r :' . j ' '>( `Q 41 yr d .1.' ! 5, p 'L t C L`4f£ ,1 .. 7� � !0g•-• 9 ,,i' -F r' '<<w y , .1.'- i.Q. D i (J C-. lj0 *,OMiD r' >,, ' 6Jr 7 A fil z r rt c `-t r. ,�. J .r. i g r C .�.t "'��. � tq. �'.� �2 71�s��r 'gory 4 �� { � � ' f• I (.. ' rdi��l� ) i ;ease a a orll Ay a..n:' ° �.' }u 4 +.. t; S `j \ � s(� v I� h + � r 7- ry i P (J ,� cy.- 1 L ?n, ,ys'� t r ' ,t n' „e$x I e e u. A d U YO' J td eA '�1 ' ba3 gq t r '�'_ d(�}� i,., t , t . ,t e '`' tr ,. , , .� r i -7'!a A s. •.�y 1' #�,,.I1I ;�-1 Y .'- ({:rJ��'r' ?$�.� J IY "' JI s(J t s' 9 „U" y2 YL'13 - �I,/�. Ut 'i+ in wl!( 6N1�yy11yy , r4 L 'V Y�k4t 4 ii '�'A • ! :II' a- �. t}; Lr l 5�t;:,' at1,. r —.,Ar,•}L,=; d JUV�I ld+iU�i , � ..1 P' .'e� 'r�;. 9'196"C°a al ro-ntaat,�f,� ' � ' T `.�.,.' J>�t} t�`u +f r�sl�t•�, re1�"t�s14, 111s ra a �iyyr•P(�A �L��D yS�4o yi i,b r'� .�s :�. t,. t. 7 ' E � i ,,4 F :vt 8 I,, 4' .. cA r lit f.r i.i .kx4•a•„c0� -- yt ,t:v'v11Ld�rifi'i..S:? LL�,r lur lii3tl't+ a��iy€,g 1t'`f-Joy-Yrlky ,i.41 f (eL .t�i l, ,1,l '1I? ! ai ',.ry}q(ts YaY•.'rr cr,i # -)- .. � 9 En !t �A,11 U.�r 9a . 1 A ,f;2 �l,ib iI\.a� t °')a�h, ,;',,A r •.,, i'a 41f i A',4i?-4rJ. - j;,•?,4t'y; ;{ 'OOP tF t'•it,,s .;,,, - • P'. ; �y a..�A, t A A Ox;' "',•,v. I . T J, 1,_ : s - Y' l �i" f )i3 tl,-611yQ C A .a Y r t >. -: t: a; r / �1"k I.I' :i ,l-r-..,} s..f^ � a f S {,�,�'.I ,f� I" . IY- 'L. ::�'l', a9 r,"I r Yl'trk S,2s 7.a �a'if�a, �� „I,tJ �i?,5�6; ay `I x'g'iir�'. t !i .q�r �^ f� 1 .. 1 I c `�'i1 ( ( ..i .,I• ktt s `�ta1.1' I I' +.' t I�-` 1, .r ' "ff�ea 1° 1 '5f ,a -i _ Sr .I'r- r11 . 11 kn 7� I�'� IJ Sf�uL. isljl T{t ] \rs3 s 'l: " _ - '`"'� � t. ',ram, r, L 1rrn 1)t`7:t: t:� "44.,',. t I- I' of - I - i, 'r .. • 1 'dr'iil.1 ' IdJrA . �. '�� r } p . 1 1 4 .. 1 t ',(! r i- t 54 21 R 5.3 �� Ir : Ill a S .`° . \ ; Ml N i it iF e .I i tF. I I r r i _ sdr( b r! II .. r '��'���C' .�: `�N Ljr?A(r 11 Y IjsJ trL '�'i �1 r�r ,y .I�.F'f 4 n{� }}s3 ,I L1 �.r �.I ,--,, xr� -,t • Cain n r& .x. Yu U'P.1� i'i{� � ,� .�L I )i,gi£a�t '.�' �-a t'¢�¢Elr I l'F f• -.. - / ''t,. r� .c-4 • ...,... :a 1'. 'J L-• 3 .,,:,•'� P :f',`r T, ; ' �' I • r { 'f �' 11 1 II II IJ I ? ;a `r {tl r L ,i � � vy;7ll i1;:4it Ir S'II I`' (' 1�i1 Ofll( It s i5 ` ' tzvs Y d ik , i -/a 7(4 1j )-#1 rr� _ ;i't, Uy��.�,i, s 111#1 t . lttK1 1 'r Ei' f f 4�,, .. 111 (i Il1i-I .i .k111 t1rii,P l� rl%' I t� +3-Ii i, w rn is .` I s 41'L'!r`11 {G}it b Iri...i}y:.h .t{f,P: ii,1 I�` , t 1 �� .. I' ,` i. ICI '�,in } t ,s,' �c 11 11 L£ �t ! I s �4j ' - L 1NF• �.§ 111` c t .'1 .t� 1 i�IySt•�^.{�)l.. y - T ,1.;€ i "�`i { .I . ... v ,��� 1r4�'v .ads .•� dl u 2 "` � L LYa� 'ti .,.trg 4t� ,. 11r ..5 I I - ,} .r . r .:� s '< ' fb '1 t , , ,, 1s 4'At4(p '7 it4; z r , Y + °. +S v +. ,i t ,r a',' i( I r . '1'1( ,-.- it a l E:(r a¢ �' -( t 1 k Y{ 41.4 4 t' 4' I-' _• � ,(r.?=+ T'x.1i ^`f•'� FI! $6r _a,71I4Mr+.- .,�"h.'�s(}; `'1�9 a 5."Uj� d•.1 'r . :{ 1 Ill / ? o Iti'r g r it ' 1 -- • :P r tl ,', ! t •t c, 1!f C i:V 'i:; f ' t .) }) r. - `Iury�1 L "?• t •j�'.t2 • ' 4 VaC� f • • •s 7 I � IXi1 ly'sLr eS,�'- r,j rr _ - '; t` '' • ;''- '.J'. '..- ' •'. ;'--lq• g . N1at - ,r.U f0 lr t, 11 .' yyr f a d (1 {1� 1 �K�, + IC-. V ,' ffia � 1. 1i i ,•... x ��. ' x'--a s .1 e }, ,..I.',..,',:".." t + t.,nt- • 34,L t, •4 , dIitt o risP Ytn ..} .):s ) LIf,t 9t ul:, , I .: • . t• r,f [i t,�. t :t w ,. 4:.r l.s4'I l:I u. @ lt ' S n E � .� 4i{i++-7a" 1,1�'� l f `m x,; _ • � L �:�.J �e{S�rdTia Ilr t, sa• ': r r t. L Y ra• ,i 1' �" F,7+yl � [at f c t � �,-' Y 1>,ti,. I -- x y. 0If.�,�t}t4 s • yV e,,F I,�,'', ;C.y ' ..-- 1 t a' a Y ''''''''.;'—'-"if' :e'-,. - al I6i,l t' C *).=ii--'-' - i.- 1, 1 [4 1�4°��'F' r>dj i S' !1r f w ; E 1 rt r Y y- cr -,q .t, J.. iE � il4 f�rl�. r st J, 1!r � a CM! [S ib tP'i,; I ,9 1,, t ( `I • a i!I r. � It 7'} t-1 i .1'i t r gar �t - ,,J , I ( �I Ir di�itr L. gur t a•a° -11L I, ryi t t S �` t'. %tl ll i s r I r rrl L .3 i L t v 3.y�'ro r i�,µ y I 'lfl l�I44( t5"i.rl� .j: I I{F'`;"( ' j ." '' 1 I,t 5, r l ✓ r (r �t ,�J c'r Z gr.ur.1 I,t i{i{,, !`;S), , 1. i Jj' ':}�IJ: A!�, it t - + r:-a '�* ' r, ' - .. . .Sr e;_., . r i 11'.1 1°' U�f lllt.r? y qJ 1'fly,'ltrs{..,,ki it,Slt: ..'aPL4,i.) S:.:. ;( :ilaf 1. .�U t+ ,{ y zs 3.' ;'j .,.a, x. ,,�`.. 1 .J I I' iltivl I (i`,. , li,t�i i .l ',,;i , fiVir.I.[kx, `•a(°i(c a-` ,s 4: �,i III��f� 2,$- t' t �d .. .1 .;� a y.. ', :� kp s "1s•-,d. , I,,, t '�,�! ('l F,,, t;-. c•;:;SE.t4r 11c�! -i,t e n .e1- <t: s,r r .'k`£ t`$� r ��;, a ti +5; <II ,I 4Sf ! ' +� ° fr If y F'2 , z k'�I -;w ; I y G LL v� v :,YL .. ' Ll IMl i -S I In i{ I I I,f-I I �.3 .�. 4er 4 'it�i tr s .1 Jt f,.}? eta K r. s L r;',,,rrI'. Y i f ''i' '!r uI I II r t .I rf 11 r i �" l �.'I i ' --d. T' Ud_ v.: �1'��'Gs �-^�I '',� !a, e a s:s4 g'Yr C r�� ' �I'•' I r _ t r<�� ' .n l �'��rl tl'� I.� i�t �-.-.. s�l g° i ='b� '[ � 'iL.I-G,({ ij,I�. , 1 � � !L Ae k rt'4 -, e.' i 1�°f jYtl6t� j (+Ok-��y'J� ,9 A' r�, 74' .ld QR` `� 9 pI I].rl. l��txr ,.irl rir r rIIfII IfYI(T i3f,!_ci °�f vll� It:', I c+t{�.•�; 1r�'u C',-�mg ',r}' • �„ tt.,� „,,•W 7t .p+ ! 'I,'.#L1 .•f - �k illfl7G it l... Il .-I.E' I i J,,ef r -.,I--.2 ?,•,A '' 1 11,-' + III +�1 7 k .I S •'''';'''''''''''It';.IL . .,,3p ' t&+R .�•- f z Ft111II! r.tl'. It' ll}l r 4a .1 .i. r (;� . a ' ,.t r 1. iSh.f bS i :� ^-� g 'tr 't^vr i .� IJ' FCI - ';3 `k¢ip ' ' { �, ' �I � � - S' ! � J73 � a�b.. � I !, .,$ i � '}f t1, i L � .-e _ �, I r zA't r { r� �}. I T"IL w .F - ji.E, 1' 3 j'r 1 y,: ! e" k','"V 30)c .S. I�1 0. 'ef:.� ' Cr-11)�)iJ !,, III' I •.j. r l(I t, .. .; il! - t (. 4 .+s. ° '...%, f � I:i L'. ' II A Ir 'I t l , . I I .�i rr• y } j: } r I ' IIi ; ' 1 .! I I. :lii, '- t/. ' 'C !^d I g tPA. 9 ti .'- .' / r"'R^ Lrir' y? +a• �J p. t } �. ,.�. ,'11Il1(1(;)li F.(llrl lii(.t i�117•'!1! ll r II }} "7, . i:((]yy;1_ r 'J ;u[ _ r! 1(I IOfll I, ( iili.'. .• I•1. t-�.I ,!'I,f-JJ}r :� '?n r ' .. ;i J['I. '� I11w 1 i 1 t`Illl(°� �1C1 '.'� y 1,41b ( I ,, I " I°�II f:. t( jrl u j 1l-1 T7 r }�:� i ,.., "� - :;t l ^ 1y,;•�rrU _ t. u4 f.' y I I I II- i;l I{ I{{ IiI : ]I L '.•'I l.f.,:� r I ' , tI , i li 11t N �.i� 1 I I `i +,ICI I Ilni + I , -,':F 1 If _ IIS I ,, . i ,4.,*,(j i.„. .,:., I'I'lt( 1 I` !'l'i 1+f I•. s Y \r h (:1i I:,. I 1 1 at` ityy�� � 1ii t}� �l. �R Y-. t'r',l g -.,dlt „ 11 1 .'r / 1' {i''l Ili ! ' • h'. I,I 4 r i ,ry T? ' (' : ;�..�,i, t 'T'. k 1.'1 rW 1�, F. r I '(•. - { t I'111 •Ill I - �/ fit9 zt ' I :JII ����1 �'I�q-�,C .. -�� ., � ��'r'f' ,�f��+`.�'�e'ik+°�'!j�,;fi '1I3•�.�li 1Y'£I I-� I la,�L I' +I I, I 4D1i + � �,(II •I i :� 1t_� �i,`r f - 1 • I Fz1.' I ! I I I e t i z r 9 '1 n rf / _ F y° .rag'' � . 11 .t r' v :? tu, �'. - f�1r{ t r ' • � ._' -a `- :. _ .i11 F x I 'll li1111 y k"''!r •I'?i,, ',_ ti.} ar. , ' . �++ - `, 1r;tv 1` ,. , .:.I.: '1 rir r f y i y(�,.y�� IJI ?;,1� t �li#4r d�. � i.i F� l'A�°�.. �``!4 Z Y('I I1Z(�I,.1 714.: 7 1UJ1 ( f L` L : WO.S0,40 ..1 - III f 11 V t' f f .. "T' e +#� r r1 r - ., t ! �" r,,• S£ 7 I11,.111 1 .I t[l r-F � 'R.},• i w5 ,..„,- r�t I(5`1 ,.-la i.t �' .I: , " i:iJ •-4 - o ,.:�fptl .t 1 tt : }k ,__+ &.. i' _'3 � ?,y'�§ ". ' I '4iL �i 11 y51 • �� 113 ! IIf � • f -. 1 'I L1 I', I is a . Mt. ` lCI' e L i 1(; .1 I r rl IIs -d .� rt• }' J t;•",,'.1 :k i< Iz Iti�+ I' / ( x t> *: 1 .i ,: hF' ',r . l.:a',''^9 Irr ?,s'i' r . 'i I .?. ,-.c t .,- M r !'' rKgt''.�tf, 1ri,1� ;luj �,I. .0-!i. .' ,. PETITION NO.floe -O 5— PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required /;/ 05- a Petition delivered to Planning Jac& An. Petition assigned to: gA`i - -496 - 4/1106 t?.. . Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date did(dt tZiA"- Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover slid IrW, 1244, Chronology • thja er, Property Description (marked with a post it note) Affected Sidwell Numbers Included Std(oc. Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils Allot �A,. Mailing Postmark Date Verification t te-0A, Planning Commission Minutes ' rite fcc 4 Planning Staff Report sit»(A Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. dchi, Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office s�co hfc ,,,. Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. (ILIA Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office FOR OFFICE USE ONLY F i a i P Nb � + ��f4', pStreet Closure i? A % .:: :< ,Ao Date ; . 4,': : /=:"::••:. Location of the subject street Ff.So co 2,1�..7 • PLC ,tir81 IN `;•,`••",?:.; Phone OI) &a1- 1ic f Name of Applicant Ik t�11 LC,1=-l� A.R.' Address of Applicant I�lol CoUAWMV PILL S DP_' OG1t' c(T85 03 '' ';" E-mail address of Applicant MIKE ,MI LLE )FLYi�v 3'� cool Cell/Fax ( o )q--<2'-9 """" Please include with the application: ___ 1.A letter explaining why you are requesting this street closure. Please include a statement explaining why the f !', street closure is consistent with proposed public policy. If applicant is not a property owner adjacent to the %__ street, please include the applicant's interest in the request. 2.The names and addresses of all propertyowners within four-hundred (450)feet—exclusive of streets and _�?�� f; f.•.i alleys in any direction—from the border of the subject street. The name,address and Sidwell number of each fir.' = property owner must be typed or dearly printed on gummed mailing labels. Please include yourself and the *ell appropriate Community Council Chair. Additional names and addresses may be required. The cost of first class postage for each address is due at time of application. Please do not provide postage ,, `: RM stam �. • ,•if- Ps- �6u rwi.- / .:.; 3.The name, address and signatures of all abutting property owners who support the petition. You may use >'!% the sample petition accompanying this application or provide your own. Please note that the property :;:- .: tilautileri owners must sign and not occupants who rent. "" .. 4.A propertyownershipmap(known as a Sidwell map)showingthe area of the proposed�>,-;:;;; P P�street closure. On ::"'>'•. the map please: a.Highlight the subject section of street le%%%% b.Indicate with a list of the property owners and write their name on the sidwell map ''.'" identifying the property they own. if. 5. Filing fee of$300.00,due at time of application. .i;rd��; If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of .- the Salt Lake City Planning staff(535-7757)prior to submitting the petition. Sidwell maps and names of property owners are available at: '1:A Salt Lake County Recorder 2002001 South State Street, Room N1600 ` ; . Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1051' i- .' �' `. • Telephone:(801)468-3391 '%'!.•% Sys-• • �if 1:'t•! "-" : File the complete application at: • `14 r' Salt Lake City Planning ' .! ; 451 South State Street,Room 406 '" Salt Lake City, UT 84111 .� ;;,: `��f•-f�''- Telephone:(801)535-7757 Mali f`:q'' `a Signature of Applicant t of authorized agent Title of agent 04/17/03" KENT- If/I Tye-, w l714 /L1,vVE/L ,v6. �[L--> 1-2737_— 256-7700 F__-x r I,i U O Ii'• N o � low r - a n o� w w L. PETITION NO. d5.17 PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required 7 Petition delivered to Planning ;Hoc Petition assigned I'/14 2w" Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date J i d _P„.. Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover slid% Chronology s'do6 1. Property Description (marked with a post it note) ti14 Affected Sidwell Numbers Included oic6 t'Z Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils stefo6 Rek. Mailing Postmark Date Verification (b.& Planning Commission Minutes ' ((cat,;, Planning Staff Report s(•o(r c q___ Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. cit ( 1. Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office 51036 Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office " r OFFICE USE ONLY Petition No. Z -D.S'iir Alley Vacation or Closure Receipt No. Amount:9U) 41 Date Received: 04.12 \b'5 AL: LAt:r CITY Reviewed By: J,1 Q Project Planner: Address of Subject Property: .o to. -2.(a d .S7. cl�.; lirm. 1 1 1 Name of Applicant: iv,*-- M1L I G Phone:�t�.4 _ (s7 Address of Applicant: .�us' YM?7t. 'f 4E-mail Address of Applicant:M l t ,ss.t tvvtCiAlg�ry l i 1 C : cpese, 4,2 �I_1r, - Applicant's Interest in Subject Property ` tiet ` �!qq Zri Name of Property Owner: (� 1.4A Phone: ar(, .,4 ,rente5p Address of Property Owner: 1 t , . �f,�_• 4tiax pig_ i z` ! , �y � ,x�,�)� r Email Address of Property Owner: T f- �'Y(/ CeIUFax: v((/ 7 P rty Are there any multi-family residential uses(three or more dwelling units)or non residential uses that abut the alley? 014 Yes O No po If yes,have the property owners been notified about the City's"close and sell"method of disposition(As defined in the at- tached process information sheet)? Yes 0 No 0 ' lii Please include with the application: ' /1.A response to the questions on the back of this form. If the applicant does not own property adjacent to the al- rill ley,please include the applicant's interest in the request. ()The name,address and Sidwell number of all property owners on the block must be typed or clearly printed on to gummed mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair. Payment in the amount to cover first class postage for each address for two mailings is due at time of application. 3. The name,address and signatures of all owners of property abutting the subject alley who support the petition. car) AP, You may use the sample petition accompanying this application or provide your own. Please note that the V. 44 property owners must sign (not occupants who rent)and the petition must include the signatures of no less than 80 percent of the abutting property owners. /4.A property ownership map(known as a Sidwell map)showing the area of the subject alley. On the map,please: 'a. Highlight the subject alley. rr f p b. Indicate with a colored circle or dot the property owners who support the petition. 15. A legal description of the subject alley may be required. .441 /6. If applicable,a signed,notarized statement of consent from property owner authorizing applicant to act as an agent. a' /7. Filing fee of$200.00,due at time of application. If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of the Salt FiliLake City Planning staff(535-7757) prior to submitting the petition • a Sidwell maps & names of property owners are File the complete application at: available at: Salt Lake County Recorder Salt Lake City Planning ' 2001 South State Street,Room N I600 451 South State Street, Room 406 ( J Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1051 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone:(801)468-3391 1 Telephone: (801) 535-7757 Jul005 Signature of Property Owner Or authorized agent 0 O � cO f) O N D D U a)) D 7 > O r�• a) Q ri O N co w + U O 3 � 1.1 I. CT O L N O O _m O O m ~ V c w w Wes' A N !P 410 Subdivision Vacation 9 . , r . o Iv- rEE 1Ptae t 4-, #'3 Subdivision Name: ti Authorized Contact Person: 1'11 CHA EL T M 1 l- Ee Phone: CRo l J " Address of Contact Person: Ito y CoM N TR'! HILLS D P-k Vc OG, E p4 U TA-t--1 c��J L/03 - E-mail Address of Contact Person: 1V1IKE, mi getz_yvnCell/Fax: ez� 1 7z-_�-z ss a -A Name of Property Owner: `a'pC7 i NC P12apER Tl uEco p'� atax,'"Phone: ( ,i) 62 y- /2- Property Address: 2100 sC7ctTH Cv ES 7"1 5AC T 4.4-fCE airy, (j r_z 4• 1 Petitioner's Engineer. MCNEIG ENG1NgEE/A/C� Phone: t 60i) zs5_770° aE 1 Address of Engineer: 9°O cr0er �S`15 Svrrr-N *go fT lNI�D'✓�41c� !�!T 7 E-mail Address of EngineerMG btc a x1C,yE/4 c?o:.k? Cell/Fax: o f� � ?�"—77a, �xT 137 ' E County Tax ("Sidwell#"): (!) _1 c.f— 4476/ —p( , Zoning: Acreage: �'z t Please include with the application: ' 1. A letter addressed to the Mayor which includes a request to vacate a subdivision,or a portion thereof,and the reason for the request. } "' ,v 2. The names and addresses of all property owners located within the subject subdivision and those within four-hundred fifty(450)feet of the subject property.The name,address and Sidwell number of each property owner must be typed or s0Q clearly printed on gummed mailing labels.Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair(s). If you are within 600 feet of a neighboring Community Council's boundary,then the neighboring Community Council Chair must be notified as well.The cost of first class postage for each address is due at the time of application. ' Please do not provide postage stamps. 3. The signature of each of those owners who consent to the petition. • .`1'4. Ten(10)copies of a drawing illustrating the area-to be vacated. ' 5. A legal boundary description of area to be vacated,certified as accurate by a Registered Land Surveyor,Professional En- 0 4- gineer,or Title Abstractor. 6. A current Sidwell Map(with aerial photograph and ownership lines)showing the entire subject area. 7. Filing fee of$300.00 plus$100.00 per lot is required at the time of application. ; If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of the Salt Lake City Planning staff(535-7757)prior to submitting the petition It; County tax parcel("Sidwell") maps and names of File the complete application at: property owners are available at: " �� pro p Salt Lake County Recorder Salt Lake City Planning 2001 South State Street,Room N1600 451 South State Street,Room 406 ' Salt Lake City,UT 84190-1051 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Telephone: (801)468-3391 Telephone: (801)535-7757 _ Signature of Authorized Contact Person: ( �.! Signature of Property Owner "091`9%0f3 Or authorized agent