Loading...
12/12/2006 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12 , 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session meeting Tuesday, December 12, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Soren Simonsen. Also in Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Ed Rutan, City Attorney; Larry Spendlove, Senior City Attorney; Sam Guevara, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; D. J. Baxter, Mayor' s Senior Advisor; Gary Mumford, Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Janice Jardine, Land Use Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Jan Aramaki, Constituent Liaison/Research & Policy Analyst; Sylvia Richards, Council Research and Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Vicki Pacheco, Council Staff Assistant; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Gina Chamness, Senior Administrative Analyst; John Spencer, Real Property Manager; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; David Terry, Golf Manager; John Naser, Deputy City Engineer; Nick Britton, Associate Planner; Joel Paterson, Planning Program Supervisor; Doug Wheelwright, Planning Deputy Director; Lex Traughber, Principal Planner; Alison McFarlane, Mayor' s Senior Advisor for Economic Development; Ed Butterfield, Economic Development Manager; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; Shon Hardy, Salt Lake County Animal Control; Len Simon, Simon and Company Incorporated and Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 : 34 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1 . 5 : 35 : 01 PM INTERVIEW KIRK SIDDENS PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND ADVISORY BOARD . Councilmember Buhler said Mr. Siddens' s name would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda for approval . #2 . 5 : 41 : 11 PM INTERVIEW MARK VLASIC PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING CONSERVANCY AND USE COMMITTEE. Councilmember Buhler said Mr. Vlasic' s name would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda for approval . #3 . 5 : 43 : 18 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM LEN SIMON REGARDING THE CITY' S NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES. See Attachments 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12 , 2006 D. J. Baxter and Len Simon briefed the Council with the attached handout . #4 . 6 : 13 : 45 PM HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 8 . 04 , ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE RELATING TO A TRAP, NEUTER, AND RETURN (TNR) PROGRAM FOR FERAL CATS . See Attachments Shon Hardy, Jan Aramaki and Larry Spendlove briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Mr. Hardy said the enforcement staff liked the permit process because it was already in place . He said a registration process would need to worked out . Most Council Members were interested in version "C" of the ordinance. #5 . 6 : 43 : 03 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A STREET CLOSURE AT 100 SOUTH AND APPROXIMATELY 700 WEST FROM THE EAST LINE OF THE FUTURE UTA COMMUTER RAIL RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE WEST LINE OF THE UNION PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. (PETITION 400-06-15) See Attachments D. J. Baxter, Russ Weeks, Doug Wheelwright and Nick Britten briefed the Council with the attached handouts . #6. 6 : 44 : 33 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REZONE REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 99 EAST 700 NORTH FROM FOOTHILLS RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (FR-2) TO SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-2) (PETITION NO. 400-06-09) See Attachments Lex Traughber, Doug Wheelwright, Joel Paterson and Janice Jardine briefed the Council with the attached handouts . #7 . 6 : 50 : 40 PM and 8 : 23 : 55 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO GENERAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, PARKING RESTRICTIONS WITHIN YARDS AND DEFINITION - TANDEM PARKING. (PETITION NO. 400-06-01) See Attachments Lex Traughber, Doug Wheelwright, Joel Paterson and Janice Jardine briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Ms . Jardine said a public hearing would be scheduled. Mr. Traughber said currently parking was not allowed in the front or corner side of the yard. He said the proposal was for one vehicle to be parked in a tandem configuration. Councilmember Jergensen suggested looking at all options before setting a date for a public hearing. #8 . 9 : 06 : 27 PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER 06 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12 , 2006 CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE PUBLIC BODY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS AND TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § 52-4-204 , 52-4-205 (1) (d) , AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, PURSUANT TOUTAH CODE ANN. § 78-24-8 . Councilmember Saxton moved and Councilmember Turner seconded to enter into Executive Session for the purpose as noted on the agenda as well as potential litigation, which motion carried, Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Soren Simonsen voted aye. #9 . 8 : 58 : 06 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS . See File M 06-5 for announcements . The meeting adjourned at 9 : 54 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 December 12, 2006. cm 06 - 3 . V047 12 1 LZ1Oc-- BOARD APPOINTMENT: Kirk Siddens - Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board INTRODUCTION: Mayor Anderson is recommending Kirk Siddens, resident of District 1, to be appointed to the Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board. If appointed Mr. Siddens will serve a term extending through July 19, 2010. He will replace Elaine McDonald whose term has expired. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Mr. Siddens is a business owner of Cleanville Carpet Care, Inc. He has played golf for 32 years at every level of competition and has worked eight years on ground crews. Mr. Siddens would like to be appointed to this board to help improve conditioning the City courses which he has discussed with Mr. David Terry, Salt Lake City Golf Manager. RESPONSE DEADLINE: If you have any objection to this appointment, please let Vicki know by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday November 21, 2006. CURRENT COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD: The Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board is comprised of seven members. As required by ordinance, six members are Salt Lake City residents and one member is a Salt Lake County resident. Current members include: Darian Abegglen, District 6; Cheri Ause, District 7; Michael Martinez, County Resident; Stanley Parrish, District 3; and Thomas E. Wright, District 6. BOARD STRUCTURE: The Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board was created to provide business oversight and insights into the operation and maintenance of the City's golf course system. All actions voted on by the Board constitute recommendations to the Golf Director. The Board has the following powers and duties: recommend the adoption and alteration of all rules, regulations, procedures and ordinances for the use and operation of golf facilities within the City; recommend the planning, establishment and approval of all construction and expansion projects for City golf programs and facilities; recommend broad policy regarding the operation and management of City golf programs and facilities which may include establishing rate structures for golf fees, leasing of space or facilities and determining the number or type of concessionaires or services at City golf facilities; review and make recommendations on the annual golf budget; and assist the Golf Director in the continuing orderly development and promotion of City golf facilities in order to best serve the residents of Salt Lake City. SIMON AND COMPANY INCORPORATED Intergovernmental Relations and Federal Affairs t66o L Street,NW! Suite sot !Washington,D.C. 20036 (202)659-2229 !Fax(202)659-5234!e-mail:len.simon(.?simoncompany.com A Guide to the New Congress for Salt Lake City 040k SALT LAKE CITY Issues, Opportunities and the Salt Lake City Congressional Delegation December 2006 INTRODUCTION With the dramatic changes brought about by the 2006 elections and with Congress finishing its final legislative week before adjourning for the year we wanted to provide Salt Lake City with this guide to the new Congress including a breakdown of the elections, an outlook for the 110t" Congress, and an in-depth analysis of the City's Congressional delegation enhanced position. In addition, we have outlined the next steps for planning for the FY2008 appropriations cycle including a list of key appropriations accounts and projects along with a basic outline which we hope will be helpful when developing project descriptions. We have also included a calendar of key events beginning in 2007. OVERVIEW 2006 Elections Most political observers were predicting that Democrats would take back the House, but in taking back the Senate as well President Bush referred to election day as a "thumping". House Republicans lost at least 20 of 38 "toss up" races. The latest House numbers are 231 seats for Democrats, 197 for Republicans and 7 races still undecided. Heading into the elections, Republicans had 232 House seats and Democrats had 203. In the Senate, Democrats now control 51 seats compared to 49 for Republicans (Independents Bernard Sanders and Joe Lieberman will caucus with Democrats) and before the elections Republicans controlled 55 Senate seats and Democrats 45. Democrats continued to struggle in the south but made large gains in the Northeast and Midwest in places like New York, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Iowa, by defeating incumbents and winning open seats. It was all but certain that Republican held Senate seats in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Rhode Island would go Democratic, but losses in Virginia, Montana and Missouri were the tipping point in creating a 2006 Democratic "wave." Exit polling strongly indicates that many races became a referendum on President Bush and the Iraq War. The Lame-Duck The Congress came back to work the week after the November elections but was unsuccessful in moving forward in a significant way with the remaining FY07 appropriations bills. Hopes for quick passage of the remaining measures was soon eliminated when Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN) announced that their completion will be pushed into January when the new Congress convenes. Democratic staff will likely be working behind closed doors over the next several months to negotiate as many provisions as possible to try and speed completion of these bills as soon as possible in January. In addition to appropriations a number of key legislative issues remained unfinished during the lame-duck. Unfinished legislative issues include: (1) immigration reform and border security, (2) Water Resources Development Act reauthorization, (3) eminent domain/property rights legislation, (4) cable franchising and telecommunications taxes, and (5) tax cut extensions. Initial reports were that among these perhaps the bill with the best chance of completion is the Water Resources Development Act. However, even an agreement on WRDA was unreachable during the lame-duck. THE NEW CONGRESS First 100 hours Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (CA) has announced an aggressive agenda for the "First 100 Hours" including increasing the minimum wage, allowing the government to negotiate for lower prices under the 2003 Medicare drug law, lowering college tuition costs, expanding embryonic stem- cell research and implementing the remaining recommendations of the Sept. 11 Commission. The Democrats also plan to pass an overhaul of ethics guidelines and implement pay-as-you-go budgeting through changes to House rules. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) has not issued a similar "100 Hours" agenda, but he campaigned on "Six of'06" issues, similar to those of Pelosi's "100 Hours." Both Representative Pelosi and Senator Reid are eager to proceed with a unified front and will work closely together to ensure that their respective chambers put forth mutual priorities with high likelihoods of passage. While Democrats enjoy majority status in both chambers, the party must still deal directly with a president who for the first time in his tenure may feel more compelled to use his veto power. FY2008 Budget With federal funding for many key domestic programs in short supply in recent years there is a great deal of demand for increases in the coming appropriations cycle. However, with so many items demanding funding and attention it will mean difficult choices for the incoming Democratic majority. One of the priorities for the new Congress will be to reinstate the pay-as-you-go budgeting rules which require that any spending increases or revenue reductions be offset by revenue increases or spending reductions, respectively. Republicans tried unsuccessfully during the 109`h Congress to push a pay-go budgeting rule that would have only applied to spending increases. With a razor thin majority in the Senate, a modest majority in the House, and a President with a ready veto, Democrats are not likely to attempt significant changes to increase revenue. The budget deficit for FY07 is projected to reach $250 billion and the FY08 budget will face many of the same difficult trade-offs between programs as the current budget. Ethics Reform Democrats campaigned hard on the need for broad ethics reform in Congress and now that both the House and Senate will be controlled by Democrats it will be interesting to see what final form the ethics overhaul will take. One of the most prominent proposals is to require each appropriations earmark to be identified with the sponsoring member. Appropriators have been very reluctant to implement this provision and have pushed back charging that earmarking is not a practice that is limited to appropriations and that any such proposal should also require projects in authorization bills to have a sponsor as well. SALT LAKE CITY CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION The November elections not only brought Democratic majorities to both the House and Senate but also new roles for the City's Congressional delegation members. Furthermore, negotiations for a fourth Representative for the State of Utah have progressed this year however a last-minute deal was not reached to enact this legislation this year. All indications are that this legislation will be reintroduced again next year with a fresh push for early enactment. Leaving aside the possibility of a new Congressional member with leadership elections having been completed before the Thanksgiving recess we have a more complete picture of the delegation's committee responsibilities in the 110`h Congress. Congressman Jim Matheson will likely continue to serve on the House Financial Services, Science and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees in the next Congress. As a member of the T&I Committee Representative Matheson will play a central role in the authorization of the Army Corps through the Water Resources Development Act, along with next surface transportation 2 reauthorization measure following SAFETEA-LU. Congressman Matheson sits on the powerful Highways, Transit and Pipelines Subcommittee which has primary jurisdiction over railroads, highways, transit and other infrastructure such as dams and pipelines. This Subcommittee will continue to exercise oversight of the implementation of SAFETEA-LU and will begin to hold hearings on the next reauthorization bill in 2007. Furthermore, with Democrats in the Majority and with these important committee assignments Congressman Matheson will be able to work more effectively on behalf of Salt Lake City and its priorities. Congressman Rob Bishop is currently on the Houser Rules Committee which structures the rules of debate and the amendment process for every piece of legislation which comes before the full House. However, this Committee is proportioned to provide a super-majority to the majority party and with Democrats taking control next year Representative Bishop may have to move to another Committee. The Republican caucus will likely make its final committee assignments known soon. Congressman Chris Cannon will likely continue to serve on the Judiciary, Resources and Government Reform Committees next year. As a member of the Judiciary Committee Representative Cannon will continue to play a role in the ongoing battle over property rights and eminent domain in the next Congress. With strong bipartisan support for an eminent domain bill in the House the Judiciary Committee is likely to take up the issue again next year and the City should continue to work with Representative Cannon to ensure a bill that is not detrimental to cities. Senator Robert Bennett will continue to serve on the Senate Appropriations, Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, and Homeland Security Committees in the 110th Congress. Currently Senator Bennett sits on a number of Appropriations Subcommittees including Transportation-HUD, Homeland Security, Interior (which controls funding for the EPA), Energy and Water (which controls funding for the U.S. Army Corps), Agriculture, and State-Foreign Operations. These assignments provide Senator Bennett with a strong ability to advocate on behalf of the City's priorities especially transportation. Furthermore, Senator Bennett sits on the Housing and Transpiration Subcommittee of the Banking-Housing-Urban Affairs Committee which provides the City will a good opportunity to advocate on behalf of sustainable development and urban policies that accommodate transit oriented development amd livability. Senator Orin Hatch will remain on the Senate Judiciary, Select Intelligence, Finance, and Health-Education-Labor-Pensions Committees next year. Just as in the House Senator Hatch will continue to play a role in the ongoing debate over eminent domain and takings legislation. While it is less likely that a takings bill will make serious progress in the next Congress the City has an opportunity to advocate on behalf of cities and the benefits of eminent domain in many local issues including low-income housing, neighborhood and economic revitalization and others. Furthermore, Senator Hatch's position on the Finance Committee will be important if legislation advances to address the shortfall in federal support for water and wastewater infrastructure funding. Given these the many changes set to take effect beginning next year the City should look to take full advantage of the delegation's responsibilities both on individual appropriations and authorization measures important to Salt Lake City. PLANNING FOR THE FY08 APPROPRIATIONS CYCLE After the Congress wraps-up the remaining FY07 appropriations work at the beginning of next year we expect work to begin immediately on the FY08 budget and appropriations cycle. The additional appropriations work in January may push back individual office deadlines for FY08 submissions; however, we still anticipate projects will be due between March 1st and March 15th. We have included a chart of various funding categories within several of the most widely earmarked annual appropriations bills to help with project selection. Specifically the chart includes descriptions 3 of the types of projects usually included in each of the categories of funding and the average funding received by each project within the account. In addition, once projects have been selected it will also be important to develop project descriptions and background materials based on the core questions detailed in the submission form which we have included for your review. New Majorities The November elections brought dramatic change to the House and Senate. However, with tight margins in each chamber mean that the FY08 appropriations cycle will have to contend with many of the difficult choices as in past years. With the war in Iraq still demanding substantial regular appropriations as well as emergency funding it is not likely that Democrats will be able to find many savings in the Defense appropriations bill that they could apply to other domestic accounts. Speaker-elect Pelosi (CA) has outlined a number of issues which she hopes to address in the first 100 hours but it is not clear how far the new Democratic majority will be able to go in reversing the budget pain of recent years. We will have a much more complete picture of how the Democrats intend to deal with spending and budgetary matters during the drafting and debate over the FY08 budget resolution. President's Budget The President will release his FY2008 budget February 6, 2007 and Congress will begin scheduling appropriations hearings for each of the appropriations bills with the hope of completing their work before the end of the fiscal year September 30th, 2007. Selecting Projects and Presentations to the Delegation A targeted appropriations package that is developed early and directly supported by the City will result in another successful year for Salt Lake City. As with other years it will be beneficial to choose projects from across a number of appropriations bills and accounts to avoid projects competing against one another and to give the delegation flexibility to adjust to changes throughout the year. Upon completion of those summaries the projects will be ready for presentations to delegation staff, underscoring for them that each of the projects has merit, is locally supported, fits well within the category of funding we have chosen, and is part of a broader vision with specific goals for what it will accomplish, along with some specific budgetary information. Meetings in Washington For the majority of Members of Congress the appropriations process begins toward the end of January or early February. This is the time when we will submit the initial proposals and begin working closely with Member's staff on moving forward with the City's federal legislative priorities. Following this initial stage is a window of about a month and a half during which a visit to Washington will be most effective. This window may be pushed back somewhat due to the remaining FY07 appropriations work. We will be following the new Congress closely and will provide updates and suggested dates for a trip to Washington. This has proven to be an effective approach and we recommend that we follow this model again next year. It will allow for detailed discussions with the staffs of Representatives Matheson, Bishop and Senators Hatch and Bennett regarding each project and furthering the work begun in the previous weeks. At that point, we would be prepared to submit materials on these projects, including 4 specific forms required by the appropriations committees, to the delegation. Separately, we will be working with them to ensure that our submission of materials is consistent with their internal deadlines. As has been the case over the years the presence of elected officials and City staff here in Washington will again be very helpful in ensuring a positive outcome. Community Support Finally, after proposals are formally presented to the congressional delegation it is beneficial to generate community and organizational support letters for each project. These letters can come from business, labor, environmental groups, colleges, community groups, and others. These letters of support generate positive reaction both with the congressional delegation and with appropriations committee members. There is no deadline for these letters of support, they can come from the community throughout the appropriations process. HOUSE AND SENATE LEADERSHIP AND COMMITTEE ASIGNMENTS Salt Lake City Congressional Delegation * da;,-; c% �-_�_ v.�-�>v„v`"`�;�. � ��- �m���.�.,.w:+ <-, > Congressman Matheson Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets/Insurance/GSE Subcommittee on Financial Institutions/Consumer Credit Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation Subcommittee on Highways/Transit/Pipelines Science Subcommittee on Energy Subcommittee on Environment/Technology/Standards Congressman Bishop Rules Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process Congressman Cannon Judiciary Subcommittee on Subcommittee on Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice/Drug Policy/Human Rec. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health Senator Bennett Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture (Ranking Member) Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Subcommittee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Interior Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee on Transportation-HUD 5 Banking-Housing-Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Institutions Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation Subcommittee on Securities and Investment Homeland Security Subcommittee on Fed. Financial Management/Int. Security Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee on Investigations Rules and Administration Joint Economic Senator Hatch Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property(Ranking Member) Subcommittee on Antitrust/Competition/Consumer Rights Subcommittee on Terrorism/Technology/Homeland Security Select Intelligence Finance Subcommittee on Health Care (Ranking Member) Subcommittee on International Trade Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight Health-Education-Labor-Pensions Subcommittee on Bioterrorism/Public Health Preparedness Subcommittee on Education/Early Childhood Development Subcommittee on Retirement Security and Aging Joint Taxation *Delegation Committee Assignments could change once Congress formally convenes and Democrats formally announce their assignments House Leadership Nancy Pelosi(CA) Speaker of the House John Boehner(OH)Minority Leader Steny H.Hoyer(MD)Majority Leader Roy Blunt(MS)Minority Whip James Clyburn(SC)Majority Whip Adam Putnam(FL)Conference Chairman Rahm Emanuel(IL)Democratic Caucus Chairman Thaddeus McCotter(MI)Policy Committee Chairman John Larson(CT)Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman Kay Granger(TX)Conference Vice-Chair Senate Leadership Har Reid(NV)Ma'ority Leader Mitch McConnell(KY)Minority Leader Richard Durbin(Illinois)Ma'orit Whip Trent Lott(Miss.)Minority Whi. 6 Patty Murray (WA) Conference Secretary John Kyle(AZ) Conference Chairman Charles Schumer(NY)Conference Vice Chair John Cornyn(TX)Conference Vice Chair Committee Chairmanships . Appropriations: Appropriations: David Obey(Wis.) Robert Byrd(WV) Energy and Commerce: Commerce, Science and Transportation: Daniel John Dingell(MI) Inouye(HI) Transportation and Infrastructure: Environment and Public Works: James Oberstar(MN) Barbara Boxer(CA) Ways and Means: Finance: Charlie Rangel (NY) Max Baucus (MT) Budget: Budget: John M. Spratt(SC) Kent Conrad(ND) Judiciary: Judiciary: John Conyers (MI) Patrick Leahy(VT) Resources: Energy and Natural Resources: Nick Rahall II(WV) Jeff Bingaman(NM) Rules: Rules and Administration: Louise Slaughter(NY) Dianne Feinstein(CA) Education and Workforce: Health, Education, Labor,Pensions: George Miller(CA) Edward Kennedy(MA) Agriculture: Agriculture: Collin Peterson(MN) Tom Harkin(IA) Armed Services: Armed Services: Ike Skelton(MO) Carl Levin(MI) Financial Services: Banking, Housing,Urban Affairs: Barney Frank(MA) Christopher Dodd(CT) Government Reform: (Homeland Security and Government Reform) Henry Waxman(CA) Homeland Security: Homeland Security and Government Reform: Bennie Thompson(MS) Joe Lieberman(CT) International Relations: Foreign Relations: Tom Lantos (CA) Joe Biden(DE) Science: (Commerce, Science, and Transportation) Bart Gordon(TN) Small Business: Small Business: Nydia Velazquez(NY) John F.Kerry(MA) Veterans Affairs: Veterans Affairs: Bob Filner(CA) Daniel K.Akaka(HI) Select Committee on Intelligence: Select Committee on Intelligence: Silvestre Reyes (TX) John D.Rockefeller(WV) CALENDAR OF EVENTS The Senate is scheduled to convene January 3, 2007 for the start of the 110th Congress and the House is scheduled to convene January 4th. At this time the House will formally adopt its rules changes for the new Congress. As we have discussed this may include reinstatement of the pay-go budgeting requirements. The President will deliver the annual State of the Union address toward the end of January and then submit his budget February 5th. This will begin the debate about overall 7 budget priorities and will provide some preliminary insight into how Democrats intend to shape the FY08 budget and what items and issues will become funding priorities. CONCLUSION We hope this is a useful guide to the incoming 110`h Congress and will allow the City to move forward with its planning and development of appropriations and authorization priorities beginning in 2007. Please contact us if you have any questions or we can provide any additional information. We look forward to talking with you soon. 8 . _ • .._. • p;t Ii. ..dIJ _ �,�� ,. • ,.. FY08 Project Development Questions • Total project cost? • What Congressional district is the project located in? • Prior year(s) federal funding history? (What other federal funds has this project received?) • If this project has received previous federal funds how have they been spend? • Sources and amounts of state, local or private matching funds (if any)? • County or Counties affected by the requested project? • Current status of project described in this application? • Background/justification of requested amount (project need and federal role) • What other state and local, or nonprofit organizations support this application? • Provide a budget breakdown of how the requested funds will be used. • What is the priority order of this request? (Example 2 of 9) • How quickly will these funds be expended- What is the expected work schedule? • Is this a one-time request- does the City anticipate requesting funding for this project again in future years? 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o R. o 0 0 er o IA 0 ire0cz 0 tr, 69 M 6R bI z Oi O O O O O O O O R. 0 R. R. O M N M VD O- 6A E!9 N9 6R s E!9 s. 37,1 ° ° - 71 m GO gI 0 a°i o 0 •^, ( • O N v) CaI) ct cd Lu ° 130 ? ; ° 0-o a •; o ° ' o -o . = > 01 c �UU Uv) U8 .0 E y c -0 En gO " p O O . a. •^^LyBI� t 0, U U ..o 2 w U H 4� 0 F tall) y Cd s. • �.r" p a cd b aC w O O o ci) 5 3 i71 =4 5 cE et cd � 0 a ' et al O En O U > U O cal . id -6 6 'O O a) 0 a O O p O 0 v, O '� �" aa > U t r, cd p Cd 0 a ›, a) v3 °>, a. :b eX0) 0 oCC cdoala. ' aa)) a) = o1) . , do E a,) . b 3 .,0 v� �d o o a) '� O k. c, Q 0 CC, 0 C i 0 ° tiro • Cs '•d Q" U , 0 y a) C) 00) o v) '" 'C bA v, O O �, ° cd �+, is q s. �,. 0 C ) 0bc ; Ems `° arnda) ° ; "C ' E0 = 0 > 4. -o cd ti al Cs. U a) a) a) •u, ;- . O cetet 0 `,) ° = ai y r 0 S. ice, 0 a) 00 " a) 6 ° 4 al 0. w a) O 0 • a �s Z ' c E is a 6 3 a) O a) 4 -o -d .-❑ = = '� V cE, = 6 Q., g ,� ti •y ,0 cd E O p . cd up - '� t . cd 5 c„ p v, •° 4, O a " p p ... O U a) a] cd cd O c 'o .0 al `�" a) O U 0 -o -0 v, '0 0 d " I. OM 0 t .o `d 40 a/ o bao as •° = a) an o. E; .c _' O -0 a}) o . = 4 �' o o a „,- RI a.•ti t .E 6 e0' ° A.' 0 a'0 a' �5 Q o -0 2 a) 7v 0 o jarP3)++ 0 '�1 •+?.i • cn^ = -0••-,En 4) ^d � '= (I) EVj6n rm., ) oat •4 '0 •- CIO • CI a) -o a) a) a) = a) cc! I CA -0 U> ?, C/� i.0 Oi. W z z ad i. ° G in 'o 0 W O O " Ezt a ce� � Ua) .. + +'" i, CCO ) 6. a) 6 t a) C4 a) ) U x cd i, • by e W 7) . O a 0 E . al 1- tll "0 ck I ° 0 e. Ids O H ■0 0 14 W • o 0 0 CZ 0 0 S. c o v' 0 0 o - rel am," 0 S 0 a) o 0 0 0 •` 0 kr) CI tn o 0 A o o t5Nti .52 ,-• V) 0 o "0 fa. pa4oa -0H -* a q°q A o g w 0 o o = `� 1 , o = c "" p C 4. s bp' L. 4. U v 0 H " "C3 c) U 00. '''' �, a) ,. �, oc� ass, � � � �Ta >,w-' $ = oo cl EE-( 44 wN IHIil 0 sm. E bo �-+ w° Z •4 °w • r E� 3WQ cA .-. -o w VI ;- o .a o -o V o y o a th oo a a= (1) = 0 ° o>, 00 ; tcg43c° o ��j v' o ep-o �n o x� a) ° ayi a� " — 0 — 0 ,•- •° 4Z '7 - ' ° Nter. o .:. ..? 0 '° o oA '0 0 o ct 0 a) 0 .5 v �� 4. b9 c >, y = � cd To -0WOaa)) o � o� y °}) .o � � 0c) 0 °) 1voa) . o y cn 0 .a •E ¢'l o. b-ti .= o 0 0 .o . es W ^p g to `*� E '2'0 4° ' 2 0 2 U L 0., ,, 0 4- 0 ...+ td ° �S s3 .0 o 5 H v 0 cd c l+' ct 0 ca +- a) o t ° ' cd ,f,, N ed . > €3, 0 S' ca. s4.. y cd >> 0 N ,p 4" w a. 3 0 0 5 - •0 0., = o > ° VD .n 0 3 0 = 0 a) 5' ") 0 x ;cs 0 is •0 3 P., I; H = ccl :a o 0 ,.. E-, e H E c1 w v, .O .-... V a 5 E a) o N 0 't 0 k Q. w o g A ct 0 0 . Et _ PQ E5 .V '-•' ill "A tnQ W CA HUw '� Q 0 , . Q O .. O O 1 O = .. o a o 4) a.) ai o C. o 0 7 0.) o o i y a) cd cd . y Q -a o-a `4.) z o on = ' = 0 :eA on to 47 , s cc O 0 -4, 03C y O -O G 'TS o 3 o ° E°, c c . '. . - C 4. 4., ram.+ 0 'Cy y cd o V c. y '0 a� O y O a... aa) O O 5 y h rn o O 'O ' p n 3 y cd ;� c ;x ,.' ., on b +-' o c`di U o °' *- •7 3 '� H 3 y cd O O .� 'sue p a) . >as p, 0 v .$ • vO L '° y Oy ^° op •y ' ''O .0 x c o a y ^t7 b oA . id 3 "�, i�i' O O .- O 'cz v. o y .� :6, w c. c. cd v; O a) y o .., 'B 4A cd �; .D = t. • ate) oA c ° 3 > o o ;� �' y "y w r O• cd U O * O cd a) O y '� f 4.., y O O y ti ,1 ,-, O •° `CJ "cy e) # aa- 4 i .,,.44 .-E ,...- o' g .,s° 4 0. =,, .,..,1) u „,o) e 0 '8"-' L.8 H °: . E ¢,� ¢, y � cdge, 3Ha.� ^ g > a, wy0 4 cdcd �. gfli !; • b w 'w z — rn Q y a t .. b o a o a) °' 8 O > ,) cd o c N =Q 0 -" vC7 con.ram Zxwh 4 U t7 3~ 40 ea E txt O L r C.. .. W W • O O O O 4:..' O O R. O O gM O 669 669 614 vl O O © O O . O O AZO i CC ,-o :? -o a) O v bA 0 sO b0 bq 4—' by i.. •" to - 4, '•� s v O c. v C) to U by r.. v 4' s.. O ,..' t Cr sU.. O a >a .o v v �' C w �. -0 4? z . y bA O yv t~ i C N = 4 ' g aSd 4. •> O G' C N s1, RS O cCi .O ✓ O .O s Cl) s~ c '-4 ^O 'O n U) -4-4 Cl) bA N CA E 4,, tt N U O D U cu = ej� z Z O'a; 00 \ 'UO w) O • N y •C 0 O O O ° N O t~" O s = 0 s0. N , O y=O t..' s., Z Sa.-O cd cd H c0 H s LL > cd U H 4P H c O v E ' v 4� O ba N . v v h 5 v c 0 yj 4 '5 t O w 5 'bA > rn Q 'z .g v O O U O 0 > v, ✓ s= ^O O w O U a t1 O O v N 4.0 v •O O �- o Q Q,fi v ±., t� N +'' yam" o 44 c 0 c Q E U G sV. O > c ... >, CA ;c �.•V °' �'" ` . `0 ° E+ "C) .M c •° C� • 0 > j a0i - by v N U bA ¢ O ,0., 0 C C ct = �botov +vVie° c8v o = s "dy .-ba 5 � bb•r, = $. if" > O •� i)s. O U r!i O O v s•' U U O aQ ° � o vb• A) g cA o ^ °.' > WpE. c -o °: b 0 •SIS s. o ,� o y U 4 E-+ 4+ O cac�t 'T3 bA +❑' 4 E E O '�tii E E4 ia,.2 O 4•oo. tit) v U G4 O O O 0 2 p"j, tlj s� yam„tO y ,9 ,- 3 'd 0 _ .p • N O Q 4] d Z7 ci, h 'Cj ice+ �C ( ,cil O O O ; Os.. •S." > U ,,7. jr) y^ > 0.�A 4., C� i.. U as as tv.. w +v+ • el a., H a.. s: p. v O. E'4 'sz «t v ...a ,=. H 'G N ra R CD O O H = x O U .0 'b G. c. O O g 8 >, , 0 v =. m aoi ti o ,.. . cI 0.1 to a3 V bA .0 ed O C0) h 0 O 0 O "0 o O v = 0 Q W Uv) U Wtia W ti .. 1 CI) C a> v (4 v 4 hi PROPOSED FERAL CAT COLONY ADDITIONAL CHANGES 1. The majority of the agenda language used for Item F2, relating to feral cat colonies: Trap, Neuter and Return Program, is correct; except there are two typographical errors in the referencing of sections of City code. If the Council wishes to adopt the ordinance relating to feral cat colonies at tonight's formal meeting, correct language would need to be ratified in January. 2. Corrections have been made to Attachment A— comparison chart for Versions A, B and C (as per attachment). 3. Council policy has been to hold a public hearing when a fee is established; however, since the proposed fee mentioned in Versions B and C is lower ($5 rather than $25 as originally proposed by the Administration), a public hearing may not be as pressing if either of these versions are adopted by the City Council. A public hearing is not legally required. 4. Version B lacks a definition for "caregiver" therefore the City Attorney's Office gave this version a stamp of approval as to form but made a note below the stamp" with the exception that a definition is needed for caregiver." 5. Council staff would like to raise the issue that there seems to be a concern about people moving a colony from one area to another, such as upon the death of a custodian of a feral cat colony. Concern seems to be that if the cats exist in a neighborhood and are cared for, that is one issue, but relocating a colony into a neighborhood is another issue — positive and negative impacts could result. Additionally, there has been concern that cats from the shelter could be added to colonies. Does the Council wish to discuss whether they support the relocation of colonies and the addition of cats? Potential Additional Motion: ["I move that the Council"] Include language to sections of City Code relating to feral cat colonies to prohibit custodians from relocating colonies or adding cats to existing colonies. _ .." ,.. .b '� E rn c; U u `o., 1 'cd c- w vn �O ,• o ,. .> ,A > ° y - U a•A. a C cC O 4 �+ U U O "O 'O U 04 es 0 v) ,U.., >. v. bA 3 O • .5 CA = • .C C C� n. G O FA -C U g v.+ .5 .b4A 0 3 > t e = 0 cb cb v, " 0 0 • 1 O c°04.4 N i. CO tl > C "0 bA'O •0ct , U 0 3 Hi.I 'ct : •4iQ o o W U � � � W o i oCO a , P4 Z o fez � ,� p ai 0 U to V H > a. '" -0 bA cct O cb li S., 0 ,L O ° O ' N U 0 O 0 O H v 4-. 0. bq _ cb C U O II "0 20 ai �bA•° A4ca.0o �a �. � ° o � • n � � a. o (� U Ste. ++ >> ° N cd .. H C E ° Q. a O O o -c~ E O Oa a .O O . . •E g V Q V a0 bA N b0A Ual 0 0 U Z C) 0 O , *ZY ono �+ U U •0 N 3-4 V O • O O c0. ° O a. —, Rl 4b 4¢• cC 0 Z) 0 .-0 U al OU Q...., Z O e - 0" CSC aO � � � bow ° � ° :N 03 ° oo ° ; °. o '+ • oU d o oo ce:ct oo - c o a o • ° ° ia. 0 > Q.ai i °4, c a, ar Q"y° 0a 0 >' N • U 0p > c rzt 0 • 0 o*� a oo c -o�s ° O .bA O > '. ° ° 0.E cb5, ta' U7 N >, c - o 'b . te o co. oa, e . .° U ct ct Uct0 GNQO = o . °> bA 4a ° N . ^. O -p° C O Cl.) • CI6 UCZO �o o 'er �a .° - .� • . 0> C� � 'U 0 a-0O Q E U' U Q v) , s 7 ,-, it .. •— N o CD v- VD d •> ;., a -coo O �c cs +; r. ccs 3-1 2% OU O ,0 .CCL) W y ,�, ^n cn d d U U` a> cC . +- O O O U❑ ,., 0 ccd • aa>> ^C3 = g A ^a U >, cd O C%1 a ° . g a O = p U 4� ›, cC O y •p +•' 'O z c� ,, O .� V •C U M cad V Q O C •�^, TS N . .. F. too c� cci Z FUID° h a' O 3 > bA bA bA.. U N cC ctct =m z U • O. ° o o � O W W � rAN AoZ °: � w Z ¢ �0 d O o ;4 o ce O �O ,o W •� • t G 4. W a) cc; 4., bA Z W Z N �' y q p al y O O 2 o ; • s. • O Q O ^ 4-r 0 o •bt 0 C c� c� = al y .� a) ° bOA bOA d - 0 i -° hz Q al 0 ct c U • to, ' . `ti W V ° U bA o a> d d o -o o d O N 00 bA N —" cC pO O .fl O Cl. p -cs >, a> ,. '•' bA 4-, = v; O v, EE1 .� 'N p y a> ,., v, •. cC C a� cC o ,. u, 11 .1 v ,� il1 •U a> a> s. o a> d "0U >, U sU, bbb U ,, .N ,-0 c. U > U O ii CN 4 -o m >,. . cC et O a) " _ •O O p•. UEU C H = ..0 p G4 UC4 , cc: ,.." O ' To d .,' G. d U U 4. cC cC s.. co 4, U 3 cC O cC e cn ct E 0 ct ct b � ° U OO "C z, = ?w a �, o a to• .., ° U - oo ,� aten U °• p. o -0 eW '3a. c 0 � C7 �; 3 Y• 70 - •a' t bnrz4 0 N U N• •- O U U ;x c «3 = a 4, o 3 �, s.. ct o U b ct oo o -o �, 0 = ^p "O +' C 0 off' o 5a) a. 0 = cn 0 O v ., U U , O O Z E O 'er U O o 74 U CO U 0 W • = 0 o,Q �' �, �, 0 Po ci) tin tz U 0 .� ° CI 4° °_' 0 Z u O ° cin -o o c d -o Cl) CD s.= y = 5 , g U ° rcl • '°' ° Q W CA P4 O 6 O > o = oU ° a. -0 -0 O S Z C cn G - , v = •� CA O oM1 o B - 0 cz = a' " •(I'Z „ - o o W Q o ,� =. ow o,• Z -> 01a a0 a 0i ' kL ' � R, 0 V � a o - bn o • on Cl.) o b U - bb o • O u1' sa Ct 0 . is = o oo I . -Q o0-. E a � c o d bO 0 . kn Li.I— o0 ° ' ' o ' , , ' a's 4- ._' E °O U ,., U U � = ' =s. O y O a C cn G O U 0 = = .- •UQ ' ct V U V • E V � a' ' o O oOaw ` i v c % w Z v U Z . C cttcC 0 >, o oa0' a. ' a' .c . •a C -s. cn t+: 0 74 cn ° ° a' 5, X) U ov C.) a 0. EU a. Um o11) �o o P = ..°' c . . a, a' ° ,c 0 E oa a = k = v;o c • v a' zs a' 4. •..J .C C a' (CI S. • -O •° c� -= a' O � E 0 E � o .� Q 4 E EO o .4 -o Q- 0 -0 .t_ o O to-0 0 .0 U 5- a. Li, 3 o �° � • a'0 4 • U v 70 0.) N O C.) C.) 4.CA ;.T. 0 0 4. .C ¢ a. E '0 c 4.. o c a •° ¢'w, 3 4� - O 0 c = .E ; o ° 'l -0 C rn M C a) o -0 2 •o Q 'bn C C ,4; a C �. = :. a) O ca a)• a,• E 0 a `" ct 0 6" O 0 0 "0 4, n cn •4C.'c°1- 2 -a t C7 a°i ° > o CA0 0 • tanr C '9. E O C t U cC U '� cd• O CA U • U v) 0 0 ^o •bA cam, cat 'O 3 U C W = sU. V C C •3 O V a O O cA N > " O C U cn 4. ° zU a) O C U CO U o 4 -6° °ct U Ea T. 0 Cl) .. U v) a,U o o w Z c Z o Wae 40 u4 a ' W o - -a ir, > a0 00 0E ex ca 0 � ia o a o ° o ° Zi- Z o °U .4= C o ' ict U * Zi 6 o -o E y o I a)• tp•. : ;.., C.) GC ° , W 0 a tin.) ,, Qp o y .� on2• C • ° Q,' .- it o I— ° Q "' ESP. C2 c. o UAt +c4 Q E N o V } .4, = U• • U U c , • 0 • E ° o oo C.) C4 Q. U w Z O C yCA ° 6. ..4 8 Q 4-▪ 5-1 4] U U .� x O y S� n = C a) O 74 En ow ..a -°- ¢ � 41 a. 3 y - 0 E 8. � o Q •o ,•> " 0 C " > U U v) • C o o °3-1 ,..Z . .2 �, 0 a. 0 0 rn .r, o .� a U b z 0 >, C o 6) 0 3 a i o v) d 0 0 U E to o O sm. E o " ° :� 0 -0 cn ' y E - Q. � bad ct •L ° ° • ct o � ' 3 = -o �o O -c 0 , a � `� o 0 `' a, `� v, C az U • 3 c L cA •o 'b . do10 � ,4• ' 0 �0 .0 `� •o , , 8 -a 0 3 ai m C •c v U 6 -- •,. ^a o 5 E o f > > 0Cii ZH o o . 7 et o ,= ^c ..z ,= °"Cn .- 0 3 .ow, v) o.H w l VERSION A REVISIONS INITIALLY PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, 1 Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Feral Cats) AN ORDINANCE 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 8.04.200,SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS—INSPECTIONS; 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 PERMITS AND 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: 1 VERSION A REVISIONS INITIALLY PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal J 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 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 2 VERSION A REVISIONS INITIALLY PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal j 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: 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. 3 VERSION A REVISIONS INITIALLY PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal 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. O. "Custodian"means a person having custody. Deleted:Q I� "Custody"means ownership,possession of,harboring,or exercising control over any animal. Deleted:R $. "Dangerous animal"means any animal that is a hazard to the public health and safety. I Deleted:S T, "Dog"means any Canis familiaris four(4)months of age or older. Deleted: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. rDeleted: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. Deleted:v "Enclosure"means any structure that prevents an animal from escaping its confines. Deleted:W 1 "Estray"or"stray"means any "animal at large",as defined herein. Deleted: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. Z. "Feral cat."means any homeless. wild or untamed cat. 4 VERSION A REVISIONS INITIALLY BY THE ADMINISTRATION ,'(p�muueu:mn (Default)Anall _ AA. "Feral cat udony' meonao group of homeless,wild nr untamed cats living o,growing together. ~138. "Guard dog"means u working dog which must be kept iou fenced run or other suitable enclosure during business hours,oroou leash or under absolute control while working,eoit cannot come into contact with the public. [Deleted:z -----------� 1%C. "Holding facility"means any pet shop,kennel,outtog',guoomery,riding school,stable, animal shelter,veterinary hospital,humane establishment,or any other such facility used for holding animals. Deleted:AA ` PD. "bnpouudmcut"means taken into the custody ofuu animal services agency,police . department,oruo agent thereof Deleted:BB ------| ,V£. "Kenool"means uo establishment having dogs for the purpose u[boarding,breeding, --' buying,grooming,letting for hire,training for fee,o,selling. ---------| jFF. "Leash"or"lead"means any chain,rope or device used to restrain an animal,being no , .........���.......... ----- longer than six feet(6)in length. Deleted:Do ��i. "0woor"means any person having title to,u«un ownership interest in,or custody of,oror harboring keeping,Juuintuioiugor possessing one nr more animals.]U�. "Pomon"means unatural � Deleted:/°animal shall be deemed ml ' be harbored m'/"fed°sheltered during | "period of twenty four(m)consecutive ' person or any legal entity,including,but not limited to,a corporation,firm,partnership or trust. hours",m°re.1 / or � l[. "Pet"or"companion animal"means any animal of a species that has been developed to ,'| oelet=u'rr _ live iuorabout the habitation of humans,ia dependent on humans for food and shelter,and is kept for pleasure rather than utility u«commercial purposes. 5 VERSION A REVISIONS INITIALLY PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, {Formatted:Font:(Default)Arial_ J "Pet shop"means any establishment containing cages or exhibition pens,not part of a -{Deleted:Gc kennel or cattery,wherein dogs,cats,birds or other pets are kept,displayed or sold. {-Deleted:HH K. "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. Deleted:11 ,LL. "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. 1 Deleted:JJ rMM. "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. f Deleted:KK ,NN. "Service animal"means any guide dog,signal dog,or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability. {Deleted:LL J 00. "Set"means: 1.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. 6 VERSION A REVISIONS INITIALLY PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, ' Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal „PP. "Specialized equipment"is that equipment,other than the usual patrol vehicles of animal {Deleted:MM services,which is designed for specific purposes such as,but not limited to,livestock trailers and carcass trailers. Deleted:NN ,QQ. "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. {Deleted:00 AR. "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. i Deleted:PP 1SS. "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. Deleted:QQ._..................._._......_.._......_........_.. a TT. "Veterinarian"means any person legally licensed to practice veterinary medicine under the laws of the State of Utah. a Deleted:RR UU. "Vicious animal"means: I.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. 7 VERSION A REVISIONS INITIALLY PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal 'I • V V. "Wild,exotic or dangerous animal"means any animal which is not commonly 1 Deleted:ss 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; 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(Prosynnidae): All raccoons, including eastern raccoons,desert raccoons and ring- tailed cats; 8. Skunks: Skunks; 9. Fish: Venomous fish and piranha; 8 VERSION A REVISIONS INITIALLY PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, {Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal 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. fDeleted:TT 1 ,WW. "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: Formatted:Font:Bold j ,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. shall obtain a feral cat colony permit from Animal Services or its designee upon: 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 9 VERSION A REVISIONS INITIALLY PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, '`Formatted:Font:(Default)Arial 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: Formatted:Font:Bold ,8.04.I36 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 he immediately removed after feeding; B. Sterilize, vaccinate and ear-tip all adult cats that can be captured. Implanting a microchip is recommended; and 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 permits—fee schedule be,and the same hereby is,amended to read as follows: Deleted:Commercial And Pet Rescue 8.04.150 ,Permits-Fee Schedule: 10 VERSION A REVISIONS INITIALLY PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION 1,Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal Fees for commercial operations(kennels,catteries,groomeries,pet shops,veterinary l Deleted:and clinics or hospitals),pet rescue permits and feral cat colony registration permits shall be as indicated in Appendix A of this Chapter. SECTION 5.That Section 8.04.200,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to commercial establishments- inspections be,and the same hereby is,amended to read as follows: ` Deleted:Commercial Establishments 8.04.200 ,Permits-Inspections: All establishments and residences required to be permitted under this Title shall be subject to periodic inspections,and the inspector shall make a report of such inspection with a copy to be delivered to the establishment or residence and filed with the Animal Services Office. SECTION 6.That Section 8.04.210,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to commercial establishments—emergency suspension of permit be,and the same hereby is,amended to read as follows: Deleted:Commercial Establishments 8.04.210 ,Permits-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,pet rescue residences,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 11 VERSION A REVISIONS INITIALLY PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal be immediately discontinued. Any person to whom such an order is issued shall comply immediately therewith. Any animals at such facility may be confiscated by the Animal Services Office and impounded or otherwise provided for according to the provisions of this Title. SECTION 7.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 8. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. 12 VERSION A REVISIONS INITIALLY PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal 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 A HEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: I.\Ordinance 06\Animal Sen ceslAmenimg 8.04.010 et seq re Feral Cats(Version A-Adnunis[tation).12-11-06 draft 13 VERSION B COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED REVISIONS4 Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Feral Cats) AN ORDINANCE 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 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;AND AMENDING SUBSECTION A OF APPENDIX A TO TITLE 8,SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO PERMITS AND 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 VERSION B COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED REVISIONS, Formatted.Font:(Default)Anal 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. 2 VERSION B COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED REVISIONS, Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal J 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: 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. 3 VERSION B COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED REVISIONS, Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal 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. 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. ZZ. "Feral cat colony"means a group of homeless. wild or untamed cats living or growing together. AA. "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. 4 VERSION B COMMUNITY WORKING GROUPS PROPOSED REVISIONS,TO ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED REVISIONS, `Formatted:Font:(Default)Arial BB. "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. CC. "Impoundment"means taken into the custody of an animal services agency,police department, or an agent thereof. DD. "Kennel"means an establishment having dogs for the purpose of boarding,breeding, buying,grooming,letting for hire,training for fee,or selling. EE. "Leash"or"lead"means any chain,rope or device used to restrain an animal,being no longer than six feet(6') in length. FF. "Owner"means any person having title to,or an ownership interest in,or custody of,or fDeleted:or harboring j keeping,Jnaintaining or possessing one or more animals. Owner"does not include a feral cat Deleted:An animal shall be deemed to be harbored if it is fed or sheltered during a period of twenty four(24)consecutive caretaker participatlniz in a trap,spay/neuter,return or release proeram. hours or more. GG. "Person"means a natural person or any legal entity,including,but not limited to,a corporation,firm,partnership or trust. HH. "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. II. "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. 5 VERSION B COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED REVISIONS, Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal JJ. "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. KK. "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. LL. "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. MM. "Service animal"means any guide dog,signal dog,or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability. NN. "Set"means: 1.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. 00. "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. 6 VERSION B COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED REVISIONS Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal PP. "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. QQ. "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. RR. "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. SS. "Veterinarian"means any person legally licensed to practice veterinary medicine under the laws of the State of Utah. TT. "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. UU. "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 7 VERSION B COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED REVISIONS, Formatted.Font (Default)Anal 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: I.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; 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(Prosynnidae): 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; 8 VERSION B COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED REVISIONS._ I Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal 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. VV. "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: Formatted:Font:Bold ,8.04.135 Feral Cat Colony Registration—Requirements It is unlawful for any person to maintain a feral cat colony without a registration. Unless prohibited by zoning or other ordinances or laws,any person over eighteen(18)years of age,may register a feral cat colony with Salt Lake City or its designee provided: A. Cats 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 The Registrant retains a detailed description of each cat in the colony including vaccination history:, C. The Registrant obtains proof of property owner and/or landlord permission at the site that the colony is being maintained; and provides property owner,landlord with cat caregiver contact information. D. The Registrant fee is paid for initial registration and in the event of Deleted:¶ transfer of responsibility to a new care giver.,SECTION 3.That Section 8.04.136,Salt Lake City 9 VERSION B COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED REVISIONS, Formatted:Font:(Default)Arial Code,pertaining to maintaining a registered feral cat colony—additional requirements be,and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: Formatted Font Bold j ,8.04.136 Maintaining a Registered Feral Cat Colony—Additional Requirements Feral cat colony caregivers shall: A. Take responsibility for feeding the cat colony regularly throughout the year.while ensuring that the feeding area(s)are secure from insect,rodent,and other vermin attraction and harborage; B. Sterilize, vaccinate and ear-tip all adult cats that can be captured. Implanting a microchip is recommended;and 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 permits—fee schedule be, and the same hereby is,amended to read as follows: IDeleted:And Pet Rescue 8.04.150 Commercial,Permits/Registrations-Fee Schedule: Fees for commercial operations(kennels,catteries,groomeries,pet shops,veterinary clinics or hospitals),pet rescue permits and feral cat colony registrations shall be as indicated in Appendix A of this Chapter. 10 r VERSION''B COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED REVISIONS, Formatted:Font:(Default)An& SECTION 5.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 regj tration 5.00 Late fee(in addition to regular fee) 25.00 SECTION 6. 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 11 VERSION B COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO • ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED REVISIONS, `Formatted.Font:(Default)Anal 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: I A O dw¢c rMVAnimal ServcesVAmerding 8.04 010 el seq n:Feral Cars(Version B—Conm urury Input)-12-I 1-06 draft 12 VERSION C COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS IN ADDITION TO COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING SUNSET CLAUSE Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Feral Cats) AN ORDINANCE 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 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 PERMITS AND FEES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION I.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 1 VERSION C COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS IN ADDITION TO COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING SUNSET CLAUSE, I Formatted:Font.(Default)Anal attention, for a period of longer than twenty four(24)hours;or 2)failure to reclaim an animal 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. 2 VERSION C COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS IN ADDITION TO COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING SUNSET CLAUSE, Formatted:Font:(Default)Mat 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: 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. 3 VERSION C COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS IN ADDITION TO COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING SUNSET CLAUSE, Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal Q. "Custodian"means a person having custody. Deleted: eleted Q "Custody"means ownership,possession of, harboring,or exercising control over any animal. Deleted:R "Dangerous animal"means any animal that is a hazard to the public health and safety. ...._.._..... I Deleted:S 1 "Dog"means any Canis familiaris four(4)months of age or older. I Deleted: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. Deleted:U V "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. {Deleted:V W "Enclosure"means any structure that prevents an animal from escaping its confines. (Deleted:W "Estray"or"stray"means any "animal at large", as defined herein. 1 Deleted: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. L. "Feral cat" means any homeless, wild or untamed cat. AA. "Feral cat colony"means a group ot'homeless. wild or untamed cats living or crowing together. 4 VERSION C COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS IN ADDITION TO COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING SUNSET CLAUSE Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal ,13I3. "Guard dog"means a working dog which must be kept in a fenced run or other suitable LDeleted:Y enclosure during business hours,or on a leash or under absolute control while working,so it cannot come into contact with the public. ,.{Deleted:Z CC. "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. i Deleted:AA 1 pp. "Impoundment"means taken into the custody of an animal services agency,police department, or an agent thereof. Deleted:BB ,EE. "Kennel"means an establishment having dogs for the purpose of boarding, breeding, buying,grooming, letting for hire,training for fee,or selling. {Deleted:CC ,FF. "Leash"or"lead"means any chain,rope or device used to restrain an animal, being no longer than six feet(6')in length. I Deleted:DD CC. "Owner"means any person having title to,or an ownership interest in,or custody of,or Deleted:or harboring keeping,maintaining or possessing one or more animals, "Owner"does not include a feral cat I Deleted: An animal shall be deemed to be harbored if it is fed or sheltered during a period of twenty four(24)consecutive custodian participating in a trap,spay/neuter,return or release proeram. hours or more. j Deleted:EE pH. "Person"means a natural person or any legal entity,including,but not limited to,a corporation, firm,partnership or trust. rDeleted:FF II. "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. 5 VERSION C COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS IN ADDITION TO COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING SUNSET CLAUSE, 1,Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal "Pet shop"means any establishment containing cages or exhibition pens, not part of a I Deleted:cc kennel or cattery,wherein dogs,cats, birds or other pets are kept,displayed or sold. Deleted HH JKK. "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. r Deleted:II ,L,L. "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. I Deleted:JJ MM. "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. Deleted:KK NN. "Service animal"means any guide dog,signal dog,or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability. Deleted:LL QQ. "Set"means: 1.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. 6 VERSION:C COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS IN ADDITION TO COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING SUNSET CLAUSE., I Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal PP. "Specialized equipment"is that equipment,other than the usual patrol vehicles of animal {Deleted:MM J services,which is designed for specific purposes such as,but not limited to,livestock trailers and carcass trailers. Deleted:NN ,QQ. "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. Deleted:00 ,RR. "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. Deleted:PP .S S. "Stable"means anyplace or facility where one or more horses,ponies,donkeys,mules or burros are housed or maintained,and are offered for hire. {Deleted:QQ j �1 '. "Veterinarian"means any person legally licensed to practice veterinary medicine under the laws of the State of Utah. Deleted:RR Cam. "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. 7 VERSION C COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS IN ADDITION TO COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING SUNSET CLAUSE Formatted:Font (Default)Anal lV V. "Wild,exotic or dangerous animal"means any animal which is not commonly Deleted SS 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; 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(Prosynnidae): All raccoons, including eastern raccoons,desert raccoons and ring- tailed cats; 8. Skunks: Skunks; 9. Fish: Venomous fish and piranha; 8 VERSION C COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS IN ADDITION TO COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING SUNSET CLAUSE ;Formatted:Font:(Default)Anal 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. Deleted:TT RW W. "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: LFormatted:Font:Bold J ,8.04.135 Feral Cat Colony Registration—Requirements It is unlawful for any person to maintain a feral cat colony without a registration. Unless prohibited by zoning or other ordinances or laws,any person over eighteen(18)years of age, shall register a feral cat colony with Salt Lake City or its designee provided: A. Cats 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 The Registrant retains a detailed description of each cat in the colony including vaccination history; C. The Registrant obtains proof of property owner and/or landlord permission at the site that the colony is being maintained;and provides property owner/landlord with cat custodian contact information. 9 VERSION C COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS IN ADDITION TO COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING SUNSET CLAUSE, Formatted:Font:(Default)Arial D. The Registrant fee is paid annually and in the event of transfer of Deleted ¶ „ responsibility to a new custodian, 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: I Formatted:Font:Bold J ,8.04.136 Maintaining a Registered Feral Cat Colony—Additional Requirements Feral cat colony custodians shall: A. Take responsibility for feeding the cat colony regularly throughout the year.while ensuring that the feeding area(s)are secure from insect, rodent, and other vermin attraction and harborage; B. Sterilize, vaccinate and ear-tip all adult cats that can be captured. Implanting a microchip is recommended;and 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 permits—fee schedule be,and the same hereby is,amended to read as follows: Deleted:Commercial And Pet Rescue 8.04.150 Permits/Registrations-Fee Schedule: Fees for commercial operations(kennels,catteries,groomeries,pet shops,veterinary clinics or hospitals),pet rescue permits and feral cat colony registrations shall be as indicated in Appendix A of this Chapter. 10 VERSION C COMMUNITY WORKING GROUPS PROPOSED REVISIONS IN ADDITION TO COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING SUNSET CLAUSE, Formatted Font:(Default)Anal SECTION 5. That Section 8.04.210,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to commercial establishments—emergency suspension of permit be;and the same hereby is,amended to read as follows: Deleted:Commercial Establishments I 8.04.210 ,Emergency Suspension Of Permit/Registration: I_'......_................._....___._..__._................_.._..._.__.........._.._........) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Title,when the inspecting officer finds unsanitary or other conditions in the operation of feral cat colonies,pet rescue residence,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 or registration holder or operator citing such condition and specifying the corrective action to be taken. Such order shall state that the permit or registration 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 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 ANNUAL PERMITS AND FEES 11 VERSION C COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS IN ADDITION TO COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING SUNSET CLAUSE, Formatted:Font:(Maul')Anal 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 5.00 Late fee(in addition to regular fee) 25.00 SECTION 7. This ordinance shall expire one calendar year from the date hereof unless extended by ordinance enacted by the city council. SECTION 8. 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 12 VERSION C COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP'S PROPOSED REVISIONS IN ADDITION TO COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING SUNSET CLAUSE, ,Formatted:Font(Default)Anal Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) • Bill No. of 2006. Published: h Onlinarce 06lAnimal Sen ices Ame`dmg 8.04.010 el scq re Feral Cats(Version C—Community Input wth Sunset Clause)-12-I 1-06 draft#2 13 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Date: December 8, 2006 To: City Council Members CC: Rocky Fluhart,Ed Rutan, Steve Fawcett,Kay Christensen, Linda Hamilton, Ken Miles, Shon Hardy,Gina Chamness,Peggy Raddon, Gwen Springmeyer, Michael Stott, Barry Esham, Community Working Group,and Holly Sizemore From: Jan Aramaki RE: Ordinance proposal for Section 8.04.010 relating to feral cat colony registration vs permit requirements POTENTIAL MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance referred to as"Version A— Administration's proposal"that implements a feral cat colony permit process (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 8.04.200, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to commercial establishments-inspections; amending Section 8.04.210, Salt Lake City Code, relating to emergency suspension of approval; and amending subsection A of Appendix A to Title 8, Salt Lake City Code,relating to permits and fees). 2. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance referred to as"Version B—Community Working Group's Proposal"that implements a feral cat colony registration process (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 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; and amending subsection A of Appendix A to Title 8, Salt Lake City Code,relating to permits and fees). 3. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance referred to as"Version C—Community Working Group's Proposal with modifications suggested by Council Staff'that includes an added sunset clause, an annual fee, and subject to inspection based on a complaint basis, and authority for Animal Control to revoke permission for registered colony under certain circumstances (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 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 chedule; 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 permits and fees). 4. ["I move that the Council"] Oppose the proposed ordinances. 5. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt(Version A,Version B or Version C)with the following amendments. Please let Council staff know if you would like any motions drafted. KEY ELEMENTS: (ordinance) For City Council's reference, a copy of the Administration's January 26, 2006 transmittal which was previously provided to the Council provides information from their research relating to feral cat colonies. There are three proposed ordinances for the City Council's consideration: 1. Version A-- ordinance that implements a permit process for feral cat colonies as proposed by the Administration. A summary of Council's staff rationale relating to Version C follows attachment A. or 2. Version B—ordinance that implements a registration process for feral cat colonies as proposed by the community working group or 3. Version C—ordinance that implements a registration process for feral cat colonies largely as proposed by the community working group with modifications suggested by Council staff: an added sunset clause, an annual fee,and subject to inspection based on a complaint basis,and authority for Animal Control to revoke permission for registered colony under certain circumstances. As part of the fiscal year 2006-07 annual budget,the City Council adopted a resolution accepting the"public benefit"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(adopted by the City Council on June 6, 2006)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." The$10,000 contribution has yet to be released officially by the Administration to No More Homeless Pets in Utah until the City Council adopts an ordinance permitting residents to perform TNR. 2 For several weeks, Council Member Simonsen met weekly with a community working group that provided additional revisions to the Administration's proposed amendments to Chapter 8.04, Animal Control ordinance. As part of the community working group's proposed revisions, they are interested in having the City Council adopt sections of Salt Lake City Code that propose a feral cat colony"registration"process rather than a feral cat colony"permit"process as proposed by the Administration. On August 8, 2006,the City Council scheduled a briefing for the Council to discuss proposed additions to Chapter 8.04, Animal Control ordinance relating to feral cat colony registration permit requirements. No More Homeless Pets in Utah requested that the City Council defer the issue in order to provide the community working group an opportunity to finalize their proposed ordinance revisions. The community working group has since finalized their proposed revisions to the Administration's proposal, and the City Council Subcommittee has been meeting to review the changes prior to the full Council's consideration(proposed section of City code relating to feral cat colonies of Chapter 8.04,Animal Control ordinance, is the only issue before the Council at this time—the Council will discuss and consider other proposed Administrative amendments to Chapter 8.04 at future Council meetings). Recently, Council staff was notified by No More Homeless Pets in Utah that they are determining their budget within the next two weeks, and they hope to allocate funding for TNR in addition to the City's$10,000 contribution towards the program, but are reluctant to proceed without a City ordinance being in effect relating to feral cat colonies. In addition, before Salt Lake County Animal Control is able to work with residents who wish to maintain a feral cat colony, an ordinance must be adopted for Salt Lake City. A person who wishes to participate in the TNR process finds a veterinarian or works with No More Homeless Pets in Utah to obtain vaccinations, sterilization,traps, and ear-tipping for feral cats. Salt Lake County Animal Services will maintain registration records of feral cat colonies. If a complaint is received by Animal Services regarding a feral cat colony, enforcement efforts will be conducted. CHRONOLOGY: ➢ On March 9, 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 for vaccinations, sterilization, recommended microchip implant, and ear-tipping. The City Council expressed support 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 City's general fund and contract with Salt Lake County Animal Services based upon a lower fee. 3 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. Th refore, a 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. Salt Lake County Animal Services would like to emphasize for the City Council that the $25 feral cat colony registration permit fee proposed by the Administration will basically cover their costs for feral cat colonies that occur in Salt Lake City. According to Animal Services, a$25 permit fee involves costs associated with: 1)once a person applies for a feral cat colony registration permit to maintain a colony,Animal Services will make an initial visit to the site and to educate the applicant about the process involved;2)another visit will be required by Animal Services to inspect the property to ensure compliance has been made by the applicant according requirements listed 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 permit fee of$25 is reduced,they will be providing a service that does not cover their costs since a recent renewal of the contract between Salt Lake City and Animal Services has already recently taken place. Should the Council elect to approve Option Version B,the site visits would be done on a complaint basis. ➢ On April 18,2006,the City Council held a public hear regarding proposed amendments to Chapter 8.04, Salt Lake City Code,relating to Animal Control. The public hearing was closed and referred to a future Council meeting. 4 Attachment A (attached) is a comparison chart to show the distinction in the language between the three proposed ordinances: Ordinance Version C contains provisions largely proposed by the Community Working Group but Council staff has added a number of items based upon conversations with Council Members, Animal Control and others: 1. An annual fee of$5.00 rather than a one-time registration fee of$5.00 as proposed by the community working group or an annual fee of$25.00 as recommended by the Administration and supported by Salt Lake County Animal Control. 2. A one-year sunset clause which will give the Council an opportunity to discuss and re-evaluate the registration process. If at that time the process is proven to be successful,the City Council may wish to adopt an ordinance to permanently implement the registration process or consider options. Should the Council determine that there have been significant problems during the test period, additional regulations could be implemented. 3. A provision to allow for inspection, based upon complaint. 4. Authority for Animal Control to revoke the permission for the registered colony based upon certain circumstances. Staff has made the suggestions to modify the community working group's proposal in an effort to recognize both the issues raised by the advocacy group and by Animal Control. The reasoning includes: 1. Cats 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. Version B or Version C may encourage more participation, according to comments made by advocates. 2. The feral cat colonies exist and will continue to exist with or without either registration or permit and inspection. Registration is preferred over a permit process by those currently participating in the program. 3. It is in the public's interest to minimize barriers to having these cats spayed, neutered and vaccinated. 4. There are volunteers willing to invest in paying the cost to spay,neuter, and vaccinate at least some of the feral cat population—results in a benefit to the community the more feral cats that are spayed and neutered. 5. Animal Services has stated that the purpose of permit and inspection is largely educational. This education could also be accomplished through registration and would save limited staff resources. The funding from Salt Lake City that will be available for No More Homeless Pets will enhance educational efforts. 6. Most of the City's animal control issues are handled on a complaint basis. If there is a colony that is being handled improperly, the issue will more than likely come to the attention of the County or City staff and can be handled in the same way whether we have a registration or a permit program resulting in an"emergency suspension of the registration." _ O I- 2 O C v, E !~ a) O, MIbA J, ) O b LZ g no +' 0 cad 0,0 C O = 4" to ^a ccS p U a• • a) , V .° C o c Q t6. +, •d in •cC s. U •al et ct c� O cii a; Az .0 cn N U O 0 0 0 cn ct 0 o O° a o 0 0 0 o - ° 8 x • 0 CI �, a) o 0a) co o •• o t, = •,., Rs o COv o o a) o W W oo C o = o o —f N � Z U Ct ° 4 444. to 0 o 4 v) 0 Z . Q Z CO 1:1 Z © N 4-1 y U 0 �. Oat yet cn ° si •�^ O O O p p N 4-1 47' yU t,Q O O uS bA o •: 'ON ,. 6., sa cn a) c ° I—WZ C, 0 pO bq O 0 ON Y UOy tn. c0 4 cn 0 a) = S b 45 cd CV: a) oOa)r. cn RI . +, +-Q 6. = ;" U) U cC ' O Ri • = Cr Ca.,. O 5 ' IIfl p ~ 0 04E 44•• N0 •F4v) •0 cn cC • • �. O •• by I. .� 4. -O O . ". •4: f . •ti iff-''' , .,° -FQ,o 1 •:'-7"—; Q E ,-•i 0 U cd 141 Q ca o .,4 '. a) c0i ' a) 6.. E Z >; = o v; E U '0— ato. .. rx o tx a �, �. cn o Z U 00: = 4. a.- at<4 Q > .0 Aa a`)) ; U ° s, Z i-1 aa) aa) ta O 5 b p co �_ a. ,U U s- E a) a) .� O a) 4-1 4� .n CI E •> a) "\O O 0 O O <a. = �O , y '4.� to 1 by N O C O U U 4. N rn U A s OcoG O . - .O N u p `r U N O U N .0 O ell o O�'in •O bl) 4] '{,o U a) �' a) Rt U t 1, p by 4. 0 N aS s., ) U v� �, U d O .O O O v, 'd 4o -°O �bA til •p O.O O G o cd 0, vi cd U v 4) OQ 3 ° • ,0 b° ° a ' > �, O a bAc •� cC = c 3 to 0 4 'o = •U t4),... .� a) a) tel iZ C a) cc3v, 0 m b bA O a G C.)N cn i > . , r � = ) c U ..r O. O V) Q E -2 cd n a .F U .4 Q y Q ^ N Z Ct id O V) c. "d c0 U C ) ' aI cd co co —zo •000 a'a . o > a d n z a U o 0 0 ca oVDU El $ o > > > "O U it v cd cd ct cd Z E = y Q! p A b> bbA bA b ^.., 0 i.4. c, Q RI 03 , Ll Z � m U c o U o W W W .r � N Cl) Z O o CO CA o G VI o Ce W o 4. > •> -_, V — s~ y QW paw o 0 , `° � � '-'- U = a L� v) v mt '� .� ZZ 0 a ° .., z .� bA Q Q 2z > C7 o °' o 0 = 0 N bn•° W tz G P. C p �p N N UO o ° tip > > QCC:t VD Ct V • o • �, .. _ QO 03 •t 'woo c o - ct ct Q U •-, O �, °' F �' U t w Zcip z - ... CO 0 o a N U _cC ^ "C O Vs C b! ,10 O U� N a cd cd U ci a C ,.0 L;^ .- 0y c3 y . 0 C _. 2 O � Nv O by ,,z, E0ai O , ,Q p OC ir s, t O 40 • p. •"" O U s� cC y c cd O ✓ i+ N N U Ncct O 'b p Es. o O •y ^" 0 E z C U O o c'i v, m cC vi > C• .0 C 4� N 'O O 'U !3 e 'OO y O E o i" O 6 bq > cd � >-o fl. cd , ,.. bqCU U ^ a) to p . OV U� . cC " = N N N U •-• a b1D- U ^ C N > C cn .- ^ O o N 4 b (A _0 "Q . U ^ n y c� w Q U U 4-, ca cG sr = U 3 a4 o cC cat = M ad En O i-', O .) O v O 3 'O p chi 0 = at - -0 at ►. = cat C as O 5 a s~ $. LI-4 p — N •v, U C4 a) a] cd bA.> ,v) = a) .� 3 y V N ,. O N 4t O A 4 > U U a3 et = 'O p 3 2 et OC] U 'C = 44-, 00 O 3 = O sue. o U = a) a s a vi CI 0 U a) bA A = O o 'C Cd Z oC C U O O O 3 i '�' 0 0 . CO U >~ W CZ 5 > N aO, Q v^CS ... O O 0 $' b0 p y, U U ,= 4O C/l t0. U Z ^C O Z a) Q 'b �' IX O cC a a) 'O V O ca O W ,N 0- 's: �,.. ,5 ..0 N m N cis) 4_ oO Z o a ° F - a , 4. .0 0 • v) 4- 0 0 0 11-1 a ' _ 0 V bbA p ¢• Q 0 bA b U at .0 C) 0 < 0 c s •C a �• Q, .a, -a 5 o N, .0 1,1 I— ceO ' c 0 2 a = a' - 4.. -0 0 ,r a-o 3u. o 'QO Q0 ° v~ Q Q 5 p �° i o 8 •o 7 _o ° 0 •� °0' ri 0 i _ „ „ _ o 0 .V U o , 0 E Z a: U U c� Z 4a: Ov =1 p Pi .0 U VO Op OcLe Cl) zors ° 2 w O � o 0 � , �' .fl � 3o i. o (� > ° U • a1i O " = O a) V a 4 = O ' •� a o • O p, a a) a) . a t~ c •� , ? m �' a a, N ° '0 ° oo 0 o Q- a Q QCod 0 ct - -d.n o . a ° • 7ao ° - • a; -oo 0 a) O o • o 5 s•, o o ^°o - ch ° rn ca C a .n a) .° ¢ •cpo a U el N 0 O a) s. ,A a) 0 0 o o ro ° 64 o O 2 O 'd Eno ,� C7 0 CZ o U CI'o a) a) b0�r ) O .LA o 5 G 4, pi) 0 _ al a) - 3 .0 9 o W f: ' con VD N ,� > Q U ct UJ clFi • N • o N Z E ..0 o c) - - ° o0 0 - Q O 3 '�'" n o0 3 = •- ° at CO U o v O O >„� o U Q v a o u N o 0 0 N ° 5 CO Q U an a.U c) o w Z cC Z : ^ O •° ,4 .o P o con . o an Q o a = •C s9 C o C.) git, -v om 0 °4a.i Q W Ga ao _ 0a �U x •o 0a,a C '^ a) oo0 °)ZZo CI, C z o °0. cg o O ai WQ ° btbcn o = C * Zi ra o ' ct ( a) �'E o, 0 a.' o O�a, +d20 0aC0Po, O cd +' o .1... 0 bq N Q Q 0 s., , 3 •> so, b0D N O ." LL '� ,-' .fir Li- ,'b 0 o s~ o = ° I-; U Ce s ° o (L) a) o a) Z oo H ..' ova 0, c) Gi, O o :~ ° _ rA •- v; a, ° •^ c o >, cam) ' cEA U '7, s ) y vi..o = a) = o s, t a) O o = Z > ,.= y'CD .° s .�"C ' 7 - >; ^ tea) , o •- ¢ cta, ° c L ,..Z n" rw `) E s~ _ 'o a) c 0 -o 3 0 'O t •a) ;.o .c a 0 _ o � Fs .- 0 3 0 oo __ 0.?''° 1-• ocat O °- a o .C) ca 4; o ate) o 0 0 >, O Q ^ O Oo O a) O p > a +0 cd O r a) > i U ccz = i•-' U En O b4 N a) a) o aj cC O 4. O o v; o — 'C' o o •c -o •ca g u, •c— C cu N v' N -o _^, L- 4''' o -O .., ^ -o ,, U :•a o v U = s. s. Z H = 0 x cc o = � 0 0 3 .., L va n..E— w PREVIOUS BACKGROUND INFORMATION FROM THE ADMINISTRATION'S JANUARY 26, 2006 TRANSMITTAL Feral Cat Colony Registration—8.04.135 and 8.04.136 Feral cat colonies following a Trap-Neuter-Return policy have been established in some areas of the country with a large degree of success (e.g.Maricopa County,Arizona). Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR)is a non-lethal policy that advocates spaying and neutering for feral cats and then allowing them to live out their lives in managed feral cat colonies. The intent behind establishing these colonies is the long term control and health of the feral cat population. Cats are trapped, neutered, and returned to the same area,where they can help control the rodent population, but do not continue to reproduce. The cats are also vaccinated at this time. The ASPCA(American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) endorses TNR as the only proven humane and effective method to manage feral cat colonies. Allowing people to get a permit for a feral cat colony was discussed with the Community, Council chairs and in several Community Council meetings. One community council opposed the registration of feral cat colonies, but in the others there was no strong opposition to the idea, although many residents had questions about allowing them. The Rio Grande Community Council discussed a positive experience some residents had with a TNR program for feral cats in that area. Twelve citizens expressed their support of TNR programs through e-mail. The Salt Lake Valley Health Department expressed three main concerns about allowing feral cat colonies. They were: 1) the food set out for feral cats attracts (and supports) the rodent, raccoon and skunk population, and can act as a place for the spread of disease; 2) the initial rabies vaccine is good for only one year; and 3) it may be difficult to assign responsibility if someone is bitten by a feral cat. These issues were discussed in a meeting on January 17u', 2006 with representatives from the Salt Lake Valley Health Department, the President-Elect of the Utah Veterinary Medical Association, the US Department of Agriculture—Wildlife Services,No More Homeless Pets in Utah, West Valley City Animal Services, the Humane Society of Utah, Salt Lake County Animal Services, and Salt Lake City. Agreement on all the issues by all the parties was not reached, but the ordinance changes propose that set feeding times be scheduled, after which the food is « removed. This will minimize the feeding of animals other than cats. Also, the proposed ordinance changes include giving the feral cats vaccinations "as required" to encourage colony caretakers to get more than the initial rabies vaccine for the cats. Even an initial rabies vaccine is beneficial, though, according to a 2005 report by Alley Cat Allies, "Rabies Control and Feral Cats in the U.S." This report is attached. The Humane Society of Utah provided a letter and statement regarding their recommendations for dealing with feral cats, which is attached. The letter(on page 2) recommends a comprehensive approach which includes mandatory licensing and microchipping for cats, mandatory rabies vaccines, mandatory sterilization of all cats adopted from community animal shelters, limiting the number of cats per household, promoting low-cost sterilization, consideration of TNR programs for feral cat populations, public education about the problems caused by abandoning cats or allowing them to run loose, and encouraging residents to keep their cats inside. The proposed changes to the ordinance support all of these recommendations. West Valley City has implemented a feral cat TNR program through a partnership with No More Homeless Pets of Utah. West Valley City does not register the colonies, but refers interested parties and complaints to a third party who coordinates with WVC Animal Services and No More Homeless Pets. West Valley City provided a grant of$50,000 to fund the coordinator position and to provide funds for the trapping, neutering, vaccinating and dealing with other cat- related problems, such as motion-activated sprinklers to repel cats from certain areas. In a year, West Valley City has seen a 26% decrease in the numbers of cats taken in and a 34%reduction in the number of cats euthanized. A chart showing the actual numbers is attached. While TNR programs have been successful in many areas, they are not without criticism. No More Homeless Pets has provided a comprehensive summary of TNR programs. This document is attached to provide more information. A recent article which points out that TNR programs • may provide only short term reductions in the feral cat population is also attached ("Analysis of the Impact of Trap-Neuter-Return Programs on Populations of Feral Cats"). In spite of the questions about the long-term effectiveness of TNR programs, they do provide some relief in terms of limiting the feral cat population and having at least some of the cats get vaccinations. For these reasons the program it)recommended for Salt Lake City. Residents may register a feral cat colony if they meet specific requirements,including,providing proof of sterilization, vaccination, and ear-tipping of the cats or the progress being made in doing that; providing a detailed description of each cat in the colony; presenting proof that the property owner is willing to have the colony on the property; and providing contact information to Animal Services in case of complaints. Animal Services will recommend but not require affiliation with a local animal rescue organization. Permit holders are also responsible to feed the colony only at specific times, to ensure that food storage areas are free from rodents and to keep the area clean (free of droppings, spoiled food, and other waste). • • • Alley Cat RABIES CONTROL AND FERAL CATS IN' THE U.S. Allime ��a„ , es Rabies is an acute viral infection of the central nervous system. If a person has been exposed to the rabies virus and does not receive treatment while the virus is incubating, i.e., before onset of symptoms, the result will virtually always be fatal. This is why rabies continues to be the most feared of all zoonotic diseases (diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans). In fact, fear of rabies far outweighs the actual threat from this disease. The danger of humans contracting rabies in the United States is extremely slight, although in many other countries rabies continues to be a danger to the human population. Much unnecessary fear can be alleviated by educating people that rabies in the U.S. is overwhelmingly a disease of wildlife that is in most areas contained, that treatment is fully effective if begun within a known time frame, and that the threat to humans and companion animals is minimal and can be even further reduced. FACTS ABOUT RABIES IN THE U.S. 1. Massive immunization and education programs Compare these statistics from the Centers for begun in the 1940s have virtually eliminated Disease Control (CDC): rabies in domestic animals. Cases in humans 2. Oral rabies vaccine (ORV) has been highly effec- Period Disease in the U.S. tive in halting the spread and eliminating rabies 1990-2002 Rabies" 36* in several wildlife species where adequate pro- (12 years) grams are carried out.1,2,I1,13 2002 West Nile virus' 4,161 resulting 3. Treatment for humans who have been exposed (1 year) in 277 deaths to the rabies virus, called post-exposure prophy- laxis (PEP), is fully effective in destroying the virus when it is administered before the onset of *Of 36 laboratory-confirmed rabies cases, at least symptoms. "In the United States, human fatali- seven were known to originate outside the U.S. ties associated with rabies occur in people who None was acquired from a cat. fail to seek medical assistance, usually because they were unaware of their exposure."3 BACKGROUND OF RABIES CONTROL While no one underestimates the lethal nature Rabies is an ancient disease which appears in record- of this disease when it is left untreated, the ed human history as early as 2,300 B.C. Rabies is fact is that ongoing immunization, prevention, found throughout much of the world today and, in and awareness campaigns currently exceeding many countries-other than the U.S., still presents a $300 million annually (most for dog vaccina- serious threat to humans. tions)3 have contained the danger of rabies to humans. Rabies is not a public health crisis in In the United States, rabies was found primarily the United States. in dogs through the middle of the last century, but r. • Alley Cat Allies • 7920 NORFOLICAVENUE,SUITE GOO • BETHESDA, MD 208.4-2525 ALLEYCAT@ALLEYCAT.ORG •WWW.ALLEYCAT.ORG 02005.Allay Cal Allow starting as early as the 1940s, widespread immuniza- rabies through the Midwestern and western tion and education programs brought canine rabies United States.11 under control. Today, more than 90 percent of rabies cases occur in wildlife.) The primary carriers, in ■ In 1988, canine rabies was discovered in coyote descending order, are raccoons, skunks, bats, and populations in South Texas. The same year, gray foxes. Infection is extremely rare, although not fox rabies appeared in West Central Texas. The unheard of, in rodent populations. state experienced human deaths from these out- breaks, as well as significant costs for extensive With the effective end of the canine rabies epi- PEP treatments which were necessary because zootic, cats became the domestic animal with the canine rabies spread easily from coyotes to pet highest incidence of rabies, possibly because while dogs and then to humans.12 laws requiring vaccination of dogs are standard, many jurisdictions still do not require vaccination of Beginning in 1995, intensive ORV baiting pro- cats. Although cats are now the domestic animal grams were conducted in South and West with the highest rabies rate, it should be noted that Central Texas that have resulted in a 100 percent the rate is consistently very low, ranging between decline in reported canine (coyote) rabies cases three and four percent of reported cases.6.78 and a 91 percent decline in gray fox rabies.13 Raccoon rabies is the most prevalent variant of BASIC FACTS ABOUT FERAL CATS the disease today. Raccoon rabies appeared in 1. Feral cat populations are prevalent throughout the Florida in the 1950s and spread very slowly through Florida and neighboring states until 1976, when United States.They are the result of decades of some 3,500 raccoons were transported to West human irresponsibility in failing to neuter pet cats. Virginia as hunting stock.9.10 How many of the 2. Feral cats breed prolifically—far faster than they translocated raccoons were infected with the rabies can be effectively trapped and removed. Decades virus is unknown, but the disease became estab- of trap-and-remove campaigns have failed to lished in the Mid-Atlantic States and rapidly spread • either stabilize or reduce the numbers of feral northward, reaching Maine and into Canada by the cats. There is no realistic expectation that ongoing century's end. trap-and-remove programs will succeed in elimi- CONTROLLING RABIES iN WILDLIFE nating feral cat populations in the long term. • 3. The public is becoming increasingly intolerant of Development of an oral rabies vaccine (ORV)for rac- the massive killing of healthy animals.14,15 No coon-strain rabies began in the 1970s, with the first jurisdiction has enough money to exterminate all field evaluation conducted in 1990. ORV is a liquid feral cats if the public won't cooperate. vaccine embedded in baits that are distributed either manually or by air throughout target areas and has VALUE OF TRAP-NEUTER-RETURN (TN R) IN been found to be effective for species other than rac- RABIES CONTROL coons. ORV has been or is being utilized in at least eleven rabies control efforts in Pennsylvania, New The best way to eliminate the threat of rabies to Jersey, Massachusetts, Florida, New York, Vermont, feral cats (and thereby protect humans who may Ohio, Maryland, Virginia, and Texas) For example: come into contact with them) is to vaccinate feral cats for rabies. Feral cats that undergo TNR in any • Using ORV, in five years(1996-2000) the state of jurisdiction where rabies is enzootic or vaccination Ohio was able to establish an effective buffer for rabies is required by law, and in many other juris- zone of immunity along its border with dictions as well, are vaccinated for rabies. The multi- Pennsylvania and West Virginia, thereby halting tudes of feral cats that escape trap-and-remove the westward progress of raccoon-strain rabies. efforts are not vaccinated. This buffer zone and the natural barrier formed by the Appalachian mountains have prevented If exposed to a rabid raccoon or other rabid ani- the possibly uncontrollable spread of raccoon mal, a vaccinated cat will not acquire the rabies virus Alley Cat Allies • 7920 NORFOLK AVENUE,SUITE 600 • BETHESDA, MD 20814-2525 ALLEYCAT@ALLEYCAT.ORG •WWW.ALLEYCAT.ORG 02005.Nley Cal NUS • • and therefore cannot transmit it to other animals or after exposure. Current vaccinations are given in the humans. Sterilized feral cats also are less likely to arm, like a tetanus vaccine, and are painless. - encounter infected wildlife because of behavioral changes that result from neutering, such as reduced People who work with wild animals often receive roaming. In the very unlikely event of a feral cat corn- pre-exposure rabies vaccinations. If a person heeds ing into contact with a human other than a caretaker',' established safety precautions for working with feral a vaccinated (TNR-ed) cat presents no rabies threat. cats, it is unlikely that he or she will ever get close enough to be bitten and, therefore, would not need Is revaccination necessary? This question arises a pre-exposure rabies vaccination. However, persons because pet cats are traditionally boostered at regu- working with feral cats should be aware that pre- lar intervals and many local ordinances require it. exposure rabies vaccinations are available to them. However, virtually no feral cat TNR programs in place around the country require a second rabies vaccina- If a person with a current pre-exposure rabies tion for cats in managed colonies. vaccination is subsequently bitten by an animal sus- pected to have rabies, that person will still have to One reason for this is that rabies immunity far undergo treatment for rabies, but to a lesser degree outlasts the expiration date indicated on the vaccine than someone who was not vaccinated. Pre-expo- label. According to "Experimental Rabies in Cats: sure vaccination eliminates the need for HRIG and Immune Response and Persistence of Immunity,"16 a decreases the number of vaccine doses needed. This study conducted in 1981, "Complete protection was can be significant in areas where treatment products observed after more than 3 years following a single are not readily available or where post-exposure vaccination." In other words, a one-year rabies vac- therapy could be delayed. It also lowers the risk of cine maintained immunity for a full three years, and adverse reactions to multiple doses of vaccine. possibly for much longer. The study was concluded Finally, pre-exposure vaccination may provide protec- after three years, however, so the actual period of tion when a person's exposure to rabies is not obvi- immunity could not be determined. ous, e.g., a bat's teeth are very small and a bat's bite Further, a Wall Street Journal article published may not be recognized as such.t8 July 31, 2002 reported: "No one truly knows how RECOMMENDATIONS long protection from vaccines lasts. Vaccine makers say that proving their duration would be expensive Alley Cat Allies advocates comprehensive rabies con- and would require large numbers of animals to be trol based on three initiatives: isolated for years. One company, Pfizer Inc., ...sells the identical (rabies)formula simply packaged under 1. Further implement widespread oral vaccine (ORV) different labels— Defensor 1 and Defensor 3 —to immunization barriers for key wildlife species sus- satisfy different vaccination requirements."17 ceptible to rabies. RABIES CONTROL AND PEOPLE 2. Educate the public on steps to minimize human risk from wildlife rabies, including vaccinating Humans are most commonly exposed to rabies outdoor cats and dogs, reporting sick or suspi- when bitten by a rabid animal. This exposure does cious-acting animals to appropriate agencies, ani- not constitute "getting rabies." A person is only mal-proofing homes and outbuildings, and edu- classified as having rabies at the onset of symptoms, cating children on safety precautions. at which point there is no cure. However, the incu- bation period in humans is generally from three to 3. Support and promote the vaccination and eight weeks, during which treatment is completely nonlethal management of feral cat colonies as an effective in eliminating the virus. effective part of a comprehensive control program. Treatmen4 for exposure to the rabies virus con- sists of one dose of human rabies immune globulin TNR is the only widely available, effective, and (HMG) and five doses of rabies vaccine over a 28-day cost-effective method to exclude rabies infec- period, with the regimen begun as soon as possible tion from feral cat populations. Alley Cat Allies • 7920 NORFOLK AVENUE,SUITE 600 • BETHESDA, MD 20814-2525 ALLEYCAT@ALLEYCAT.ORG •WWW.ALLEYCAT.ORG 02006,Alley Cal ales • NOTES 1 Controlling Wildlife Vectors of Bovine Tuberculosis and Rabies: Rabies, National Wildlife Research Center, USDA. Available at www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/nwrdresearch/mammal diseases/rabies.html. Accessed April 14, 2003. z Details of the Fairfax County, Virginia, oral rabies vaccination program: ww.co.fairfax.va.us/service/hd/rabpilot0l.htm. 3 www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/rabies/introduction/intro.htm 4 Cases of rabies in human beings in the United States, by circumstances of exposure and rabies virus variant, 1990-2001. Available at www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/rabies/Professional/publications/Surveillance/Surveillance01/Table2-01.htm. Accessed April 14, 2003. 5 West Nile Virus Update Current Case Count. Data currently listed shows case counts for 2002 only. Available at www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/wncount.htm.Accessed April 14, 2003. 6 "Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2001,"Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA), Vol. 221, No. 12, Dec 15, 2002. 7 "Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2000,"Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA), Vol. 219, No. 12, Dec 15, 2001. 8 "Rabies surveillance in the United States during 1999," Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA), Vol. 217, No. 12, Dec 15, 2000. 9 "Trappers and rabies return to rampage,"Animal People, June 1997. 10 "Rabies Risk," Amy Shojai. Cat Fancy, June 1994. 11 Ohio Oral Rabies Vaccination Program.Ohio Department of.Health, Division of Prevention, Bureau of Infectious Disease Control,Zoonotic Diseases—Rabies Program. Available at: www.odh.state.oh.us/odhorograms/zoodis/rabies/pubs/orvslide files/frame.htm. Accessed April 14, 2003. 12 www.tdh.state.tx.us/zoonosis/EDUCATIO/PAMPHLET/711broc,pdf. Accessed April 14, 2003. 13 Texas Department of Health Zoonosis Control Division's Oral Rabies Vaccination Programs(ORVP).Background and details by year are available at: www.tdh.state.tx.us/zoonosis/orvp/, Accessed April 14, 2003. 14 "Evaluation of the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-return and adoption program on a free-roaming cat population," Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association(JAVMA), Vol 222, No. 1, January 1, 2003. 15 "Urgent! Feral Cats on Navy Bases Need Your Help!" Feral Cat Activist, Spring 2002. 16 "Experimental rabies in cats: immune response and persistence of immunity," Cornell Vet. 1981, 71: 311-325. 77 "Are Annual Shots Overkill? For Some Pet Diseases, Yearly Boosters Are Based On Tradition, Not Science," .by Rhonda L. Rundle. The Wall Street Journal, July 31,2002. • 18 vvww.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/rabies/bats & rabies/bats&.htm.Accessed April 14,2003. Alley Cat Allies • 7920 NORFOLK AVENUE,SUITE 600 • BETHESDA, MD 20814-2525 ALLEYCAT@ALLEYCAT.ORG •WWW.ALLEYCAT.ORG 4:2045,Ailey Cal AIN.c 0 py October 25, 2004 Mayor Richard Owen Garland City Offices PO Box 129 Garland, Utah 84312 Dear Mayor Owen, I recently had my attention called to an Ogden Standard-Examiner article dated October 22, 2004, "Kitties Litter Garland Streets," which describes several complaints from area residents concerning stray and/or feral cats in your community. Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon problem throughout Utah. Traditionally, the most common method for control of stray cats has been to use live traps to capture the cat and then euthanize them - following the prescribed three-working day holding period mandated by state law, Title 77, Chapter 24, Part 1.5 (2) (a). Unfortunately, this simply removes one animal from the environment, reducing the population pressure and as a consequence, usually resulting in larger litters of kittens and more available food for the remaining cats in the community, thereby HUMANE exacerbating the problem. SOCIETY o:UTAH The usual source of "stray cats in our communities is from human caretakers' neglect of their unsterilized domestic house cats, allowing 4242$wh311,.,asl them to roam and reproduce. "Feral" cats are the offspring of stray or PC Etyx!,736.59 abandoned domestic cats who revert to a wild state. Feral cats are e4,',7 elusive, often nocturnal, and usually fearful of humans. This population 00"2°0-29"9 problem is further heightened when sympathetic neighbors place food out for these stray and/or feral cats, allowing their population to expand far ,rn:wu:ar,nurnaneCry beyond the normal carrying capacity of the area. • The first step in developing a realistic plan to control the number of stray and feral cats in a community is to develop a long-term, comprehensive plan which addresses the concerns of the city, cat- owners, and non-cat owning residents. West Valley City has recently begun a program of trap, sterilize, and release throughout the city. You may want to contact their shelter manager, Ms. Karen Bird (801-250- 4102)for information on their program. October 25, 2004 Mayor Richard Owen Page 2 The lifespan of a companion cat kept indoors can be as long as twenty years. The lifespan of an outside or feral cat, taking into consideration the hazards with which they must contend may be much shorter than that of the indoor cat. Many estimates place the average lifespan of outdoor cats at about three years! Free-roaming cats are often hit by cars, fall victim to disease, starvation, poisons, death in vehicle fan belts/engines, attacks by other animals, or mistreatment by humans. Free-roaming bats also prey on small mammals, songbirds, and other wildlife; spread zoonotic diseases such as rabies; defecate and urinate on people's property; fight with other pets or strays, aggravate confined dogs, walk on freshly-washed cars or freshly-poured cement, and cause vehicular accidents; among other problems. The Humane Society of Utah recommends a combination of the following options to help limit the number of stray and feral cats in our communities: (1) mandatory registration and licensing / microchip implanting of cats (2) mandatory rabies vaccinations of all cats more than three months of age (3) mandatory sterilization of all cats adopted / purchased from community animal shelters (4) limiting the number of adult cats which can be possessed by any one household (5) promoting low-cost sterilization (6) consideration of live-trapping, sterilization, rabies vaccination, and re- release of appropriate stray and feral cats to stabilize the area cat population (7) public education programs designed to inform residents about the problems caused by abandoning cat or allowing cats to run loose, and (8) encouraging residents to keep their cats inside to promote a longer, healthier life for their animals. I suggest that you visit http://www.utahpets.orq to apply for the No More Homeless Pets In Utah's Feral Fix program. This program offers feral cat surgeries for a much reduced rate for caregivers who could not afford the surgery. Some restrictions do apply, so call for more information (1-866-738-7349). They can also be reached via e-mail at feraffixautahr ets.org. If live-trapping is instituted in an area, signs should be placed in the area and informational leaflets should be distributed to residents to give owners of outdoor cats a reasonable time to safely confine their cats. Ensure that traps are checked frequently (ideally every two to three hours), at a minimum every eight hours so that captured animals can be transported quickly. Captured, unclaimed animals should be evaluated to determine which cats, if any, are appropriate candidates for sterilization, rabies vaccination, and return into the community. Any released cats.should be permanently marked using either a microchip, ear-tipping, or tattoo. O m O cn O w _ to n 0 co S a o c - 1 ' w CAD X -I CD 0 ;77" cx Q. o „0 o o c CI 3 o c sp 5: o m < NCO 0 CIS. 0 c CDzz. c rp • 0 CD o O o c ao o 0 ,e-t- 4 o Cl ,r, M � �1 'S +�te r- U ` �, > +n'"•• M ".. 14 ',=, V •) 0 v 4 r 0.. ey ,(�-+ t!1 tf3 . .s f 1. ,•� .J aJ V . V V r s. .-.... ;_. - •.-. --•. .�.+ w .. 0 .t. .'ram. 0.1 5 -c: ru 0 - > tU/} ti. r+•+ . = ,; f %_ . rza. ':4 0)alto < O •.,., tip ii 1~ tt r Ct'' 4 ct w 0-' A i 1.P V1 r g C 4-4 •>,. ) ram.. S: ,. 52 tl 0! .--r 43 " r yy �} 0 = «1.. .,* ) J L., to � cr. ..a. 0 •.••. rd. r► r� r. M ...y "r-+ .�-, . ,� ..-r i!} :1) 1�"'. `y Q w .r. 3•i V Q n tn C' ',� ocu `c a .-' s14 .� r tin .444 v � ~• r „.c • W M•M{� M •• I •+ �Vr, r . �... .� eu VI CI) < � ,..L '--.., - V 'tr.+ �, 1,r - ','F.' f — CY ..1) g -* 4 )•••• ,,,,..4 4..., , ..../ ..(2-6, ....d ,„..„ ...., ,...., •4 •..-... ;_. ,...* .,, = E ,_.H '-r J J n�-•, .".'"i. J rr.. :J'i ��. 1J. r 1. , .. . HSUS Statement on Free-Roaming Cats he Humane Society of the United States preferred pet. Few communities, for example, a legal(HSUS) believes that every community has register or license cats or require that they be Ion- legal and ethical responsibility to address fined or supervised when outdoors. Fewer still reg- problems associated with free-roaming domestic ulate feral cats. cats_ Comprehensive Cat Control Programs Free-roaming cats—owned cats allowed to go outside as well as stray and feral cats—often are Historically,communities have responded to cat- hit by cars or fall victim to disease,starvation, poi- related conflicts by using methods that rarely pro- sons,attacks by other animals,or mistreatment by vide long-term solutions.For example,traditional humans.Free-roaming cats also prey on small mam- programs to reduce feral cat populations include mals,songbirds,and other wildlife;spread zoonot- either live-trapping and euthanizing cats or live- ic diseases such as rabies; defecate on other peo- trapping,sterilizing,and releasing cats so that they pies property;and cause car accidents,among oth- cannot reproduce.Neither approach,however,pro- er problems. vides a long-term solution unless carried out in con- When developing approaches to address prob- junction with a comprehensive cat control pro- lems associated with free-roaming cats,animal care gram. Moreover, these approaches are labor- and and control agencies,policy makers,public health cost-intensive and may alienate feral cat caregivers officials,veterinarians,eat owners, and the public or residents not willing to tolerate free-roaming should recognize the following: cats in their neighborhoods. ■ CATS BELONG IN HOMES.All cats deserve lov- The HSUS believes that communities must ing,permanent homes with responsible caregivers develop, implement, regularly evaluate, and who keep cats safely confined and meet their spe- update comprehensive laws, policies, and cial needs. Long-term solutions developed to education programs about cats and cat care. respond to cat-related conflicts should foster the These must be pragmatic approaches designed responsible caretaking of cats: to reduce cats' suffering and also respond ■ CATS ELUDE SIMPLE CATEGORIZATIONS. Free- to cat-related conflicts, yet remain acceptable people in the community. roaming cats are often referred to as either stray or to Local governments must adequately fund ani- feral,but these designations do not reflect the many mal care and control programs and enforce cat con- types of outdoor cats. Free-roaming cats can be trol ordinances,using general revenues as well as. owned cats who are allowed to roam;owned cats monies collected through licensing and user fees. who have become lost;previously owned cats who Sufficient funds must be allocated to implement have been abandoned and no longer have a home; ' quasi-owned cats who roam freely and are fed> y prevention programs; hire and train staff,construct or renovate animal-holding facilities;and purchase several residents in an area but"owned'by none ofand maintain equipment to handle,house,and care them; and so-called working cats who serve as for cats. "mousers."Almost every community also has feral The HSUS believes that community cat care and cats, unsocialized cats who may be one or more control programs should include the following: generations removed from a home environment I Mandatory registration or licensing of cats. If a and who may subsist in a colony of similar cats liv- fee is charged,it should be higher For unsterilized ing on the fringes of human existence.Becau.se cars cats than sterilized cats(a concept termed"differ- exhibit varying degrees of sociability, even an ential licensing"). animal care and control professional may not im- at Mandatory identification of cats. En addition to mediately be able to tell the difference between a requiring that cats wear collars and tags,commu- feral cat and a frightened indoor-only cat who has nities should consider implementing a back-up per- escaped and become lost. manent idkntification system such as microchips. ■ CATS ARE NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECTED BY I Mandatory rabies vaccinations for all cats more LAWS.Domestic cats have been the nation's most than three months of age. popular pet since the mid-19t3(ls, and more than - * Mandatory sterilization of all cats adopted from 60 million now live in U.S. households. But laws public and private animal shelters and rescue and policies developed to protect and control cats groups. have not kept pace with their status as America's • Mandatory sterilization of all free-roaming cats. Animal Sheltering/September-October 1998 Egi • A mandatory minimum shelter holding period t Register caregivers who are willing to devote the for stray cats consistent with that established for time and resources necessary to fulfill program stray dogs_This policy should allow for euthanasia goals. In cooperation with caregivers, develop uni- of suffering animals prior to completion of the hold- form guidelines covering colony care and maim- ing period. nance, spaying and neutering, health monitoring, • Adequate and appropriate shelter holding space, census-taking, and related topics. staffing, and other resources necessary to hold • Assess each area to determine whether a colony stray felines for the mandatory minimum'"holding can be safely maintained. For example, colonies period. should not be maintained near roads with heavy A An ongoing public-education program that pro- traffic or in areas with extreme weather conditions motes responsible cat care. and insufficient shelter. • Subsidized sterilization services to encourage cat ■ Assess the impact of feral cats on local wildlife owners to sterilize their animals. populations before deciding whether to return the Trap-Remove-Evaluate Programs animals to an area. Cat colonies should never be maintained on lands managed for wildlife (such as The HSLIS recognizes that,in many instances,free- wildlife sanctuaries). roaming cats must be live-trapped and, after cons- R Secure the permission of landowners and resi- pletion of the mandatory holding period, evaluat- dents to maintain feral cat populations on their ed for adoption or euthanasia.The HSLIS believes property. that any individual or group that initiates a trap-re- ■ Assess the carrying capacity of each area to move-evaluate program should: determine how many cats can be released. • Before trapping,place trapping-notification signs Carrying capacity should be based on the num- in the area and distribute informational leaflets to ber of colony members, the number of caregivers, residents to give owners of outdoor cats a reason- the size and nature of the area, and the available able amount of time to safely confine their cats. resources. Signs and leaflets should also educate readers about • Before trapping,place trapping-notification signs abandonment laws and restrictions on feeding un- in the area and distribute informational leaflets to owned cats, residents to give owners of outdoor cats a reason- s Schedule several days for live-trapping and fol- able amount of time to safely confine their cats. low humane trapping guidelines.Ensure that traps Signs and leaflets should also educate readers about are checked frequently(ideally every two to three abandonment laws and restrictions on feeding un- hours,at a minumum every eight hours)so that cap- owned cats. tured animals may be transported quickly. R Schedule several days for live-trapping and lot- ' III Carefully evaluate captured cats to ascertain low humane trapping guidelines.Ensure that traps whether they are owned or possible candidates for are checked frequently(ideally every two to three adoption.Give them a"calm-down"period to help hours,at a minimum every eight hours)so that cap- distinguish between cats who are simply frightened tured animals can be transported quickly. or stressed and those who are truly unsocialized. ■ Carefully evaluate captured cats to determine A Survey the area regularly to ensure that all cats whether they are appropriate candidates for re- have been captured. Retrap if necessary admission into the colony. Socialized cats should • TTVARM Programs be removed from the colony and, if possible, placed for adoption. In recent years, traditional trap, sterilize, and re- • Test trapped cats for fatal infectious diseases such lease programs have been supplanted by more re- as feline leukemia (FeLV) and feline immunodefi- sponsibly managed programs that trap,test,vacci- ciency virus (FlV). Remove from the colony any nate, alter, release, and monitor(TTVARM) free- cats who test positive for FeLV, Fly, or any other roaming cats.The goal of any TTVARM program chronic or debilitating disease. should be to stabilize and eventually eliminate the R Prior to release,vaccinate cars against rabies and colony through attrition. [f a community's animal other common diseases or viruses for which vacci- care and control agency or other group chooses to nations are available. participate in TTVARM programs in cooperation ■ Sterilize cats prior to release. with feral car caregivers, it should: it Permanently identify animals prior to release us- ■ Make sure that feral car colony maintenance pro- ing a microchip and/or a visible means of identifi- grams are consistent witl1"cat-related laws such as cation such as ear-tipping or tattooing. mandatory shelter holding periods for stray animals I Immediately trap any new cats who enter a colony and ordinances prohibiting cats from roaming at large. and assess them for placement or release. ii%,,.v aAnimal Sheltering/September-October 1998 • 0 0 N N cd 0 0 a.) o 0 N N ciii z� r ,, ,...1.,,,..,,,,,,,:•i 0 ` M 5N W ij-• o V T ?z. r h+h �i F r 4-1 Ct czt E d- `� E F._{ r 0 O 0 .E...� $.� M F-+ U `� o Cli W o o _ r i b \ , +' fl., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -� c 00 �O 'd' N O 00 `D d' N C/D �.) r-i r-i r--1 r--i r-1 NOMOKE HOMELESS PETS IN UTAH p g ms� iry eeMordMa: Trap , Neuter, Return (TNR) In Salt Lake City • • Trap-Neuter-Return: Developing an Effective Strategy for the Permanent Reduction of Feral and Stray Cat Populations in Salt Lake City Contents Foreword 2 Introduction 2 The Advantages of TNR 4 • Feral and Stray Cat Population Reduction 4 • Cost Savings 5 • Reduced Nuisance Behavior and Fewer Complaints 6 • Caretaker Cooperation 6 The Lack of Effective Alternatives for Feral Cat Control 7 • Trap-and-kill 7 The Vacuum Effect 7 Over breeding 8 Abandonment 8 Lack of animal control resources 8 Waukegan, Illinois: a case study in the failure of trap-and-kill 9 • Eradication 9 • Trap-and-remove 11 • Do nothing 11 Issues Surrounding Trap-Neuter-Return 11 • Wildlife Predation 11 Available research does not support the conclusion feral cats have a species level impact on bird or wildlife populations 11 TNR reduces rather than encourages predation 164 • Public Health 15 Rabies 15 Other zoonotic diseases 16 Rat abatement 17 TNR has the Growing Support of Public Health Officials, Academics, Animal Control Officers and Animal Welfare Organizations 18 Salt Lake City- Problems with Permit Process 20 Conclusion 20 Appendices 21 Foreword 1 • "The ASPCA supports Trap-Neuter-Return(TNR) as the most humane and effective strategy for managing the feral cat population....."1 American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Policy Statement "...I, Dave Sakrison, Mayor of the City of Moab, do hereby endorse nonlethal Trap- Neuter-Return(TNR),when accompanied by ongoing feral cat management...and encourage all citizens to support Trap-Neuter-Return for feral cats throughout the Moab area."2 " I was skeptical when first presented with TNR....(but) now when other animal control agencies come to me, I can say 'yes, it works. We are giving the public the tools to resolve problems."3 Karen Bird, Supervisor, West Valley City Animal Control "...The problem,is there are a lot of wild cats without owners,.Ferre(Utah County • Sheriff's Lt. and former director of Utah County Animal Shelter) said, and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to rehabilitate a feral cat and turn it into a family cat....euthanization helps to manage the problem, but a more effective approach would be to stop the animals from reproducing..."4 Introduction No More Homeless Pets in Utah's Feral Fix is an animal control program designed To help resolve our community's severe feral and stray cat overpopulation crisis through the use of Trap-Neuter-Return, popularly known as TNR.s The program includes workshops to train members of the public in how to perform TNR, support services such as trap loans and free or low cost spay/neuter, referrals by animal control of feral and stray cat complaints to the program, and shelter policies/training designed to encourage the use of TNR by the public. The question now before city leaders is whether to make Trap-Neuter-Return an official option for dealing with feral and stray cats in Salt Lake City and how to best incorporate such policy into our animal control ordinances. 'See Appendix 1 for full ASPCA Statement on Trap-Neuter-Return. 2See Appendix 2 for full Moab City proclamation on TNR. 3 See Appendix 3 for full article on WVC TNR program. 4"Cat problem,"Daily Herald, November 15, 2004 5"Feral"refers to cats who are living outside human homes and have reverted to a wild state,while"stray" refers to cats that have been recently abandoned and are still domesticated.Most street cats are feral and tend to live in family groups referred to as colonies. • • 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, another 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 impact of the feral and stray cat population goes beyond quality of life issues and reaches far into the cost and effectiveness of our community's 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. To date, the official policy for dealing with feral cats has been a mixture of"trap-and- kill"- so named because ferals are unadoptable,and invariably end up being euthanized when captured- and doing nothing. Both approaches have failed and will continue to fail if further pursued. As will be explained fully, because of feral population dynamics, trap- and-kill has little impact on the overall number of cats, creating no more than short-lived dips in their levels. The method is particularly ineffective when practiced sporadically and in random locations as has been the case for many years in our community. Doing nothing happens when limited resources demand that animal control rely on the citizenry to trap the cats for impound. Many people will either resent having to spend the time, or feel an aversion to trapping cats they know will be killed. So, they do nothing. 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, a shelter system overburdened with the cats and their offspring, and the employment of methodologies that have completely failed in the past and have no reasonable chance of success in the future. Clearly the time has come to take a new approach. An alternative that has proven effective at controlling the cats' population in many communities does exist: 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, Comnuuuty 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. 3 As described in this report, TNR is growing increasingly popular and being utilized in more and more communities across the nation. This movement can be attributed to its many proven advantages over more traditional methods of animal control, including permanent reduction of feral and stray cat populations, cost savings to animal control and the elimination of nuisance behaviors like spraying and fighting. In addition,by returning the ferals to their territory, TNR allows the neutered and vaccinated cats to provide the public health benefits of rat abatement and protection against rabies transmission from wildlife species. The lower feral population also helps to lower any predation on birds and wildlife by the cats. Unlike any other method known, Trap-Neuter-Return holds out the realistic possibility of a permanent, long-term solution to feral and stray cat overpopulation and all its associated ills. That is what the Feral Fix is all about. The Advantages of TNR • Feral and Stray Cat Population Reduction TNR reduces free-roaming cat populations through two means"�first, by the removal of adoptable cats,8 and, second, through attrition outpacing births over time. An excellent example of both means is provided by the twelve-year-old TNR program practiced with municipal approval and cooperation in Newburyport, a popular coastal town in Massachusetts. In 1992, after attempts to eradicate the approximately 300 cats living on the town's waterfront had failed, the municipality agreed to allow a TNR project. In 1992 through 1993, a private organization, Merrimack River Feline Rescue Society,9 trapped all of the cats and kittens. 200 were removed for adoption, resulting in an immediate population decline of over 66 percent.toTheother 100 cats were returned and then closely monitored over subsequent years. Some died or disappeared, while others became adoptable and were removed. Presently in 2004,there are 17 cats left, representing a decline of 83 percent from the original number returned, and a drop of 94 percent from the 300 cats present prior to the initiation of TNR. it 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 plausible explanation for the declines other than the TNR efforts.13 t4 $Slater,Margaret R., DVM, Community Approaches to Feral Cats,p.39(Humane Society of US Press, 2002). 9 www.mrfrs.org 1°Correspondence of Stacey LeBaron,President,Merrimack River Feline Rescue Society,to Bryan Kortis, Executive Director,Neighborhood Cats,July 15,2004. 11Ibid 12 Chappell, Michelle,DVM,"A Model for Humane Reduction of Feral Cat Populations,"California Veterinarian(Sept/Oct 1999). 13Ibid. 14 Cat Fanciers Association Almanac(1995), www.cfainc.org/articles/trap-alter-release.html 4 • • • In San Francisco, beginning in 1993, the San Francisco SPCA combined with San Francisco Animal Control to introduce a comprehensive city-wide TNR program, one that combined no cost spay/neuter with educational initiatives and incentives for getting feral cats altered. From 1993 through 1999, cat impounds dropped by 28%;,euthana.sia rates for feral cats dropped by 73%, and euthanasia rates for all cats fell by 71%.is Maricopa County, Arizona, is one of the most heavily populated and rapidly growing Maricopa County Animal Care & Control introduced a TNR program (entitled Operation FELIX) as part of a comprehensive spay/neuter and adoption program. As a result of the overall program, there was a drop in the euthanasia rate from 25 cats per 1000 county residents to only 9 cats per 1000.16FELIX was considered so successful that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has passed a resolution declaring TNR the official county policy for feral cat control. In southern Florida, where local TNR programs were introduced in the early 1990's, euthanasia by animal control has dropped by half with most of the decline attributed to fewer cats being killed. For example, in 2001, all shelters combined in the Fort Lauderdale/Miami corridor euthanized 14.1 cats and dogs per 1000 residents, compared to 33.0 per 1000 in 1997.17 In Tampa, where TNR has not been implemented, the euthanasia rate in 2001 was 32.4 cats and dogs per 1000 residents, while across the bay in St. Petersburg where TNR has been widely practiced, the rate is only 13.7.18 Proof that TNR effectively reduces feral populations in the long term also comes from the academic community. Dr. Levy conducted an eleven-year TNR project at her campus at the University of Florida, Gainesville.19 The program resulted in a 66% decline in the feral population over the course of the study. Dr. Levy concluded that, "A comprehensive long-term program of neutering followed by adoption or return to the resident colony can result in reduction of free-roaming cat populations in urban areas." • Cost Savings 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. Even now, at its early stages in Salt Lake County TNR has brought countless hours of volunteer labor to bear on getting the feral cat situation under control, none of which has cost the community a cent. Given the magnitude of the problem, there is no realistic possibility the municipality could ever itself fund a large enough animal control work force to resolve the overpopulation crisis. The volunteers and the cost savings they represent are crucial to move beyond the current state of affairs. 15 Reducing the feral population lowers euthanasia rates in primarily two ways.First,fewer feral cats are brought into shelters and euthanized,Second,fewer feral kittens means friendly cats already in the system face less competition for shelter space and homes and are spared euthanasia. - 16 Leonard,Christina,"Animal Control sets records with more adoptions,less euthanasia,"The Arizona Republic,July 15,2002. 17 Clifton,Merritt,"Where cats belong--and where they don't,"ANIMAL PEOPLE,June 2003. 18 Ibid. 19 Levy,J.,"Evaluation of the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-return and adoption program on a free-roaming cat population," Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association,Vol.222,No. 1, January 1,2003. 5 • • 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 progi'am saved the county approximately$796,000.20 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. 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, then euthanized. This cost$105 per cat. By contrast, having volunteers trap the cats and then providing spay/neuter and vaccination services cost the county$56 per cat, a savings of$109,172 over the length of the study(2228 cats).21 • Reduced Nuisance Behavior and Fewer Complaints Neutering the cats resolves most quality of life issues. The noxious odor associated with the spraying of unaltered males is caused by testosterone in theurine. Once the cat is fixed, this is no longer a problem. The cessation of reproductive activity also brings an end to mating behavior and the noise associated with it—both the yowling of females in heat and the fighting among male cats. In addition, neutered feral colonies tend to roam much less and so become much less visible. According to Dr. Slater's research, "Managed colonies of feral cats can be part of the solution to nuisance complaints."22 Dr. Slater cites one animal control agency in Florida that found complaints in a six-square block area dropped by half after implementation of a TNR program.23 In the city of Cape May,New Jersey, complaints to animal control about cats dropped by 50 percent after four years of sanctioned TNR.24 After funding and running its own TNR program, the Animal Services Department of Orange County, Florida, also reported decreased complaints about cats.25 • • Caretaker Cooperation 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. 20 Chappell,Michelle,DVM,"A Model for Humane Reduction of Feral Cat Populations,"California Veterinarian(Sept/Oct 1999). 21 Appendix 15("Orange County,Florida,"Alley Cat Allies fact sheet). 22 Slater,p.39. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Levy,p.381. 6 • 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.26 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.27 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"methodologies. The Lack of Effective Alternatives for Feral Cat Control One of the most powerful arguments for Trap-Neuter-Return as a method of feral and stray cat control is also one of the most basic—nothing else works. Whatever its imperfections in practice and theory, TNR is the only animal control methodology that has shown a reasonable chance of controlling feral cat populations in an urban environment like Salt Lake County. Whatever ills one may rightly or wrongly associate with feral cats—whether it's public health concerns, wildlife predation or anything else-- those problems will not be reduced without a reduction in the level of the feral cat population. To achieve this, TNR is the only approach with hope of success, as an examination of the available alternatives makes clear. • Trap-and-kill Trap-and-kill has been the traditional approach of animal control in the United States towards free-roaming cats for decades. It should be enough to conclusively establish the complete failure of this method by pointing out that current estimates of the number of feral cats in this country now run into the tens of millions.28 Trying to remove the cats doesn't work to lower their numbers. It's a clumsy, simplistic technique that completely fails to take into account critical environmental factors and feral cat population dynamics. Trap-and-kill results in nothing but turnover—new feline faces, but not fewer. There are a number of reasons for this, including (a) the "vacuum effect," (b) over breeding by untrapped cats, (c) abandonment of domestic cats and, (d) lack of animal control resources. The Vacuum Effect Wildlife biologist Roger Tabor first chronicled the "vacuum effect" during his studies of London street cats. He observed that when a colony of feral cats was suddenly removed from its territory, cats from neighboring colonies soon moved in and began the unchecked cycle of reproduction anew until the population was back up to its former level. 38 As explained in another study, "the presence of feral cats in a place indicates an ecologic niche for approximately that number of cats; the permanent removal 26 Centonze LA, Levy JK, "Characteristics of feral cat colonies and their caretakers,"Journal of the American Veterinaiy Medical Association 2002;220:1627-1633. 27 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,ketarnine, and xylazine for neutering feral cats,"Journal of the American Veterinaiy Medical Association 2002; 220:1491-1495. 28 Slater,p. xi. 7 of cats from a niche will create a vacuum that then will be filled through migration from outside or through reproduction within the colony, by an influx of a similar number of feral cats that are usually sexually intact; and removal of cats from an established feral colony increases the population turnover, but does not decrease the number of cats in the colony."29 Migration of new cats into recently vacated territory can be traced to two factors: first, feral cats are present at a particular location for a reason - the habitat provides adequate food and shelter. Second, no feral colony is an island, but is part of an extensive ecosystem containing similar colonies, one adjoining the next. As a result, if a colony is removed from its territory,but the habitat is left unchanged, neighboring cats will move right in to take advantage of the food source and shelter that remains. Reproduction and population growth ensue until the natural ceiling is again reached, that being the number of cats the habitat can support.3o Eliminating all food sources is virtually impossible.3t Once a cat is spotted by a kind soul who starts to leave food, a food source is created. People are going to feed outdoor cats no matter what, as the ineffectiveness of feeding bans with serious civil and criminal consequences has demonstrated.32 It is also difficult in institutional settings,whether it's jails,,restaurants or apartment complexes, to adequately seatdumpsters and other garbage containers to keep out feral cats. Over breeding The trapping and removal of every member of a feral colony is a difficult and time- consuming task. Even TNR activists have great difficulty in capturing 100 percent of a colony and must allow at least several days of trapping efforts to accomplish this. When busy animal control personnel attempt to trap a feral colony, inevitably some cats are left behind. With less competition for the food and shelter that remains, these cats reproduce faster and more of their offspring survive until the carrying capacity of the habitat is again reached.33 Abandonment Unaltered domestic cats are constantly being abandoned into our streets, often by uneducated owners who do not realize problem behaviors by sexually intact cats could be readily resolved by neutering. Without monitors and caretakers in place to quickly capture and either fix or adopt out these former domestics, they too, are available to repopulate any suitable habitat made vacant by trap-and-kill efforts. Lack of animal control resources Few communities, including Salt Lake County have the resources to devote to routinely trying to trap and remove a significant percentage of the feral cats in the municipality. 29 Tabor,Roger,"The Wild Life of the Domestic Cat,"p. 183(1983)[hereinafter referred to as"Tabor"]. 30 Zaunbrecher,Karl I.,DVM,&Smith,Richard E.,DVM,MPH,"Neutering of Feral Cats as an Alternative to Eradication Programs,"Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association,Volume 203,Number 3,August 1, 1993. 31 Clifton,Merritt,"Seeking the truth about feral cats and the people who help them,"ANIMAL PEOPLE, Nov. 1992. 32 Hartwell,Sarah,"Why Feral Eradication Won't Work,"(1994,2003),E.g.,a court in Fort Lee,NJ,where feeding any animal outdoors is banned,recently fined a stray cat feeder$300 and threatened her with a 30 day jail term if she continued.Nonetheless,Neighborhood Cats has documented the ongoing feeding and care of scores of feral cats in the township. www.messybeast.com/eradicat.htm. 33 Clifton,Merritt,"Street Dog&Feral Cat Sterilization and Vaccination Efforts Must Get 70%or Flunk," ANIMAL PEOPLE,October 2002. 8 Waukegan, Illinois: a case study in the failure of trap-and-kill Waukegan, Illinois is a township of 88,000 located on the shore of Lake Michigan. Waukegan's long-standing method for controlling their feral cat population has been the traditional trap-and-ki11.34 Recently, the town has made news by trying to effectively bar, TNR. The town's council enacted an ordinance that forbids the release of any cat except into an outdoor enclosure. To build and operate such an enclosure, a kennel license must be sought and paid for. In addition, a prior ban against feeding stray cats is in effect. Stiff fines enforce these provisions.35 According to Tina Fragassi, the local animal control warden, her agency has trapped and removed approximately 500 feral cats each of the past eleven years.36 In Ms. Fragassi's view, this steady number reflects the success of Waukegan's policies in controlling the cats.37 The truth is just the opposite and points to the futility of trap- andkill. That every year 500 cats need to be trapped indicates the feral population is remaining at the same level. The feline faces may be changing, but the total number of cats is staying the same. As a result, every year in Waukegan the same amount of time and wages is invested in animal control seizing 500 cats, the same cost is incurred by the township in adhering to mandatory waiting period and euthanasia requirements, and the same number of complaints are made. By contrast, a successful animal control approach would mean fewer and fewer feral cats in the community as reflected by continually falling seizures, costs and complaints. This is the goal of TNR. As explained by Dr. Slater, TNR"should be considered an interim solution to the problem of feral, freero aming cats— the first step towards reducing the size of the colony through attrition."38 • Eradication Eradication of feral cats, defined as the one hundred percent removal of all ferals from an area, has been advocated since at least 1916.39 The method has proven successful, however, only on small, uninhabited islands after decades of intensive control measures including poisoning, hunting, trapping and introduction of infectious feline diseases.ao One of the best-known examples of the difficulty of eradication is Marion Island, a small uninhabited island. (12 miles x 8 miles) located southeast of South Africa between South Africa and Antarctica.41 In 1949, a group of scientists left the island, leaving behind 5 unneutered cats. By 1977, there were an estimated 3,400 cats preying on ground-nesting seabirds.42 Deliberate infection of the feral cat population with Feline Panleukopenia Virus (feline enteritis) followed and killed around 65% of the cat population by the early 1980's.43 Many of the remaining 35% developed immunity to the disease and continued to breed.44 35 Ibid. 36 Hamill,Sean,Chicago Tribune reporter,interview of Tina Fragassi. 37 Ibid. 38 Slater,p. 14. 39 Berkeley,Ellen Perry,Maverick Cats,p. 121 (New England Press, 1982,2001). 40 Levy,Julie,DVM,"Feral Cat Management,"Chap:23,p.378,in Shelter Medicine for Veterinarians and Staff(Blackwell Publishers,2004)[hereinafter referred to as"Levy"l.p.380. 41 Hartwell,Sarah,"Why Feral Cat Eradication Won't Work,"(1994,2003), www.messybeast.co m/erad icat.htm. 42 Ibid.53 Id.;Berkeley,pp. 123-124. 43 Hartwell(see fn. 71,supra). "Ibid 9 Between 1986 and 1989, 897 cats were further exterminated by hunting. Traps with poison baits were then used to kill the cats who eluded the guns.No cats have been seen since 1991. In 1993, sixteen years after it was begun, the eradication program was declared a success.45 The methods used on Marion Island—introduction of infectious disease, shooting and poisoning—would be unfeasible in a populated area such as Salt Lake County for safety, cost and aesthetic reasons.46 Even assuming such techniques could be employed, the vacuum effect discussed earlier, which was not present in a geographically isolated situation like Marion Island, would likely outpace eradication efforts. Despite these considerations, Akron, Ohio recently undertook an attempt to eradicate all free-roaming cats within its city limits. On June 25, 2002,the City Council passed a cat confinement law that authorized the animal control warden to seize and euthanize any cat at large if left unclaimed.47 Animal control reportedly requested an additional annual budget of$410,385 to trap-and-kill what they estimated would be a total of 3500 cats.48 Over the next two years following the law's enactment, a total of 2750 cats were picked up and killed.49 It is too soon to say whether the law will eventually have its desired effect of eliminating free-roaming cats or whether, as in Waukegan, animal control will continue to seize a consistent number of cats on an annual basis. But it is already abundantly clear that the trap-and-kill program has had serious negative side effects. The killing has spawned extreme divisiveness within the community between animal advocates and municipal officials,5o has given rise to at least one lawsuit,5i has created negative publicity for Akron on a national scale,52 has cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars between the trapping efforts and litigation, and has ship-wrecked the county animal shelter because of the sudden deluge of cats53 Akron represents the antithesis of what is needed to successfully control feral cat populations on a large scale.According to Dr. Levy, "Clearly, any realistic plan to control feral cats must recognize the magnitude of the feral cat population, the need to 45 Ibid. 46 Levy,p.381. 47 Akron OH Municipal Code,Title 9, sec. 92.15;see also,Sangiacomo,Michael,"Akron law to trap,kill cats is OK,judge rules,"Cleveland Plain Dealer,May 6,2004. 48 Pet FBI(2002),www.petfbi.comlissuetravel.htm 49 Sangiacomo,Michael,"Akron law to trap,kill cats is OK,judge rules,"Cleveland Plain Dealer,May 6, 2004. 50 Protest held in front of City Hall(Wallace,Julie,"Akron may help cats get to homes,"Akron Beacon Journal,Feb. 11,2004);City Council received 1200 letters protesting the ordinance, 10 in favor(Cat Fanciers' Association Legislative Group,"Trends in Animal Legislation:The Year 2002 in Review," www.cfainc.org/articles/legislative/legislation-review02.html);nonprofit organization called Citizens for Humane Animal Practices formed to fight the Akron law(USA Today.com,"Ohio city council considers electronic tracking of cats,"Feb. 10,2004). 51 Lawsuit filed by Animal Legal Defense Fund and six Akron residents with cats(Animal Legal Defense Fund[Akron,Ohio],pub. 10/27/03,www.aldf.org/article.asp?cid=249). 52 Akron referred to by Florida resident as having"a national reputation for using the most ineffective, expensive and morally reprehensible means of dealing with feral cats,"(Letter to the Editor,Miami Herald, December 21,2003);Akron website's message board closed down due to deluge of angry emails from around the world(Sangiacomo,supra,Cleveland Plain Dealer). 53 Summit County Executive Director James McCarthy"has blamed Akron's cat law for worsening shelter problems,"(Abraham,Lisa,"Animal Shelter Review Approved—Summit County will bring in national experts to evaluate the troubled program,"Akron Beacon Journal,Jan.23,2004) 10 engage in continuous control efforts, and the significance of the public's affection for feral cats. The most successful examples of enduring community-wide animal control have incorporated high-profile non-lethal feral cat control programs into integrated plans to reduce animal ovf rpopuladon."54 • Trap-and-remove Compassionate callers reporting feral cats often initially seek the adoptive placement of the cats or their relocation to a safer place. This "trap-and-remove" approach is impractical on a large scale. Socialization of feral cats is an uncertain process, and even if the time and resources existed to implement socialization on a widespread basis, there are not enough available homes for them. As it is, completely tame cats already in city shelters and up for adoption are regularly euthanized for lack of space. Regarding relocating the cats, Dr. Slater writes, "Transfer to a new location is rarely recommended because finding a suitable site can be difficult, time consuming, and stressful for the cats and often has low survival rates at the new site."ss Furthermore, trap-and-remove creates the same vacuums in the original territory as trap-and-kill and so will likewise have no long-term impact on feral population levels. • Do nothing The growth of an uncontrolled feral cat population, as with any wild species, will • level off when the cats exceed the capacity of the habitat. Beyond capacity, population control comes in the form of starvation and disease.s6 The problems associated with ulmeutered feral cats remain.Usually, doing nothing, "results in continued breeding, increased cat mortality, continuing complaints by those near the colony,public health concerns, animal welfare concerns (often generated by high kitten mortality rates), and eventual financial costs in personnel, transportation, and euthanasia to animal care and control agencies and local governments."57 Issues Surrounding Trap-Neuter-Return • Wildlife Predation Despite its proven track record for reducing feral cat populations and animal control costs, and despite the lack of any effective alternatives, TNR is still controversial. Much of this controversy can be traced to concerns that feral cats are responsible for a disproportionate amount of predation on birds and other forms of small wildlife. The American Bird Conservancy, sponsor of the "Cats Indoors!" campaign,claims feral cats, "are efficient predators estimated to kill hundreds of millions of native birds representing 20-30% of the prey of free-roaming cats, and countless small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians each year...."ss The argument goes that by returning feral cats to their territory, TNR encourages this predation to continue and so should be outlawed for the protection of wildlife.s9 The American Bird Conservancy's position suffers from two key defects. First, no 54 Levy,p.381. 55 Slater,p. 12. , 56 Clifton,Merritt,"Street Dog&Feral Cat Sterilization and Vaccination Efforts Must Get 70%or Flunk," ANIMAL PEOPLE, Oct.2002. 57 Slater,p. 15. 58 American Bird Conservancy's Resolution on Free-Roaming Cats,www.abcbirds.org/cats/resolution.pdf 59 Ibid.; see also Wildlife Society's Policy Statement on Feral and Free-Ranging Domestic Cats, ww`v.wi Idlife.cre/pol icy/index.cfm?tname=policystatements&statement=ps28 11 • reliable studies support the predation levels being claimed and none identify feral cats as a contributing factor to the decline of any bird or wildlife species. Second, TNR does not encourage but actually discourages predation— in the long run, by reducing the feral cat population in a given area, it reduces whatever level of predation already existed Available research does not support the conclusion feral cats have a species level • impact on bird or wildlife populations Studies that claim feral cats are responsible for substantial numbers of bird deaths over wide geographical areas, like a state or an entire country, are based on insufficient data and highly questionable extrapolations, and have been repeatedly discredited.6o One example is the oft-cited study of predation by cats conducted in a village in the English countryside.61 The researchers counted the number of prey brought home by 77 cats. Based on this one small sample, they projected a total of 70 million prey by Britain's entire free-roaming cat population, with birds accounting for 30 to 50 percent of the catch.62 Extrapolating from one non-randomly selected village to the whole of Great Britain lacks all scientific validity.63 Yet this and similar small-scale studies have been repeatedly subjected to extrapolation and have been sensationalized.64 Dr. Gary J. Patronek, DVM,Ph.D., commented on the use of unreliable extrapolations to quantify cat predation as follows: If the real objection to managed colonies is that it is unethical to put cats in a situation where they could potentially kill any wild creature, then the ethical issue should be debated on its own merits without burdening the discussion with highly speculative numerical estimates for either wildlife mortality or cat predation. Whittling down guesses or extrapolations from limited observations by a factor of 10 or even 100 does not make these estimates any more credible, and the fact that they are the best available data is not sufficient to justify their use when the consequences may be extermination for cats.65 The use of small-scale, non- random studies by the American Bird Conservancy and other organizations to make the case that feral cats are killing hundreds of millions of birds annually in the United States and negatively impacting entire species amounts to no more than sheer propaganda. "In mainland ecosystems, no published data have shown that cats have a detrimental impact on wildlife populations of particular species."66 The American Bird Conservancy's claim that birds make up 20 to 30 percent of a free-roaming cat's diet is also based on misinterpretation of several studies.e7 The assertion is "misleading, inflammatory, • 60"Many studies indicate that claims about wildlife mortality due to cat predation are overblown,not based on data or scientific study,or are extrapolated to dissimilar populations or environments."The Animal Policy Report,p. 1,Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine,March 2000. 61 Churcher PB,Lawton JH,"Predation by domestic cats in an English village,"JZool(London) 1987; 212:439-455;Churcher PB,Lawton JH,"Beware of Well-Fed Felines,"Natural History(July 1989)98(7): 40-46. 62 Ibid. 63 Slater,p.34;see also Elliot,J.,"The Accused," The Sonoma County Independent(March 3-16, 1994) [criticizing extrapolations made by Churcher and Lawton],article excerpted at: wvvw.stanford.edu/group/CATNET/articles/understd_pred.html; 64 Slater,p.34. 65 Letter to Editor,Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association,Vol.209,No. 10(November • 15, 1996). 66 Ibid. 67 Berkeley,pp. 137-138. • 12 • self-serving, and undeserving of the repetition it has received in the media."68.To the contrary, reputable studies have repeatedly demonstrated that birds are a relatively small percentage of a feral cat's diet, which relies much more on ground mammals when they're available.69 Further pointing to the complexity of the issue is a recent study by Britain's Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The study was designed to determine the causes of the decline of Britain's most common garden birds. It was found that cats and magpies preyed on robins, chaffinches, collared doves and wood pigeons, but these bird species were actually rising in number.7o This study, as well as others, demonstrates that predation alone does not necessarily have a negative impact on the total prey population.71 Factors that have been reliably demonstrated to significantly contribute to the decline of bird and wildlife species include, foremost, habitat destruction, then also pollution, competition from other bird species, and predators such as raccoons and opossum.72 Effectively exonerating cats is an exhaustive study of the causes of migratory bird decline in the United States published in the spring of 2003 by David I. King of the USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station and John H. Rappole, a research scientist with the Smithsonian Conservation and Research Center.73 The study was commissioned by the Defenders of Wildlife,74 a prominent national organization whose mission is the protection of native wild animals and plants in their natural environments. The researchers, after reviewing annual bird census data and 36 earlier studies, reached three important conclusions: (1) the migrant bird populations have declined in numerous species, (2) the most threatened group of species are long distance migrants, and (3) the most important threat to migrants is the destruction of breeding, stopover and, especially, winter tropical habitat.7s Specifically, they identified 106 different types of migrant birds and listed the proposed or documented causes for the decline of each. Loss of habitat was by far the cause listed most often. Other causes included human disturbance of breeding sites, pesticides, poisons, and hunting. "Cats" was not listed once.76 At least one wildlife author has concluded this study indicates that, "[W]indows, cats, West Nile virus, wind turbines—all those specific causes of death that are apparent in people's backyards -- are not, at present, having any known effect on the population size of any continental bird species."77 68 Berkeley,p. 137. 69 Coman,Brian J. and Brunner,Hans, "Food Habits of the Feral House Cat in Victoria,"Journal of Wildlife Management 36:3 (1972)848-853;Fitzgerald BM.Chapter 10:"Diet of domestic cats and their impact on prey populations,"in:Tuner DC,Bateson P, eds.The domestic cat.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1988;123-147. 70 "Cats in Clear re:Birds,"Best Friends,July/Aug.2004. 71 See"Predation by house cats,Felis catus,in Canberra,Australia. I.Prey composition and preference," Wildlife Research 1997,24:263-277&H. "Factors affecting the amount of prey caught and estimates of the impact on wildlife,"Wildlife Research 1998,25:475-487. 72 Slater,p. 34. • 73 King,D.,Rappole,J.,F3pulation 1`i-ends for Migrant Birds in North America:A Summary and Critique, www.defenders.org/wildlife/new/birds.html(2003) 74 www.defenders.or /wildlife/new/birds.html. 75 Ibid. 76 Id. (contained in appendix 3 of the King&Rappole report). 77 Yakutchit,Maryalice,"Plight of the Vanishing Songbirds,"Defenders of Wildlife Magazine,Spring 2003; www.defenders.oredefendersmae/issues/sprine03/pliehtsongbird.html. 13 • • Further support for the position that feral cats do not have a significant impact on bird species comes from the most recent issue of Audubon, the magazine published by the National Audubon Society. The Sept./Oct. issue contains a report entitled, "State of the Birds 2004." According to the magazine, "Audubon's science team has pooled the best data available since Silent Spring to report on [the nation's birds'] overall health." The report opens with an article by Greg Butcher, Audubon's director of bird conservation. He writes that, "Threats to avian life in the United States are many, but the most serious is the outright loss of habitat due to expanding agriculture, the clear-cutting of forests, the draining of wetlands, and sprawl."ss Mr. Butcher also states that, "...birds here face other perils, as well. Climate change, air and water pollution, pesticides, and collisions with buildings, towers, and wind turbines also take a toll."89 Notably, Mr. Butcher does not cite cats as posing a risk to bird species. The only specific mention of cats in the entire State of the Birds 2004 report is in an article entitled "What You Can Do," in which the common sense advice of keeping pet cats indoors is given. The National Audubon Society's conclusions are consistent with all available research that is regarded as reliable and credible and which concludes feral cats do not have a species-wide impact on any birds or wildlife. The Audubon's director ofbird conservation would not fail to mention feral cats as a risk to bird species if he agreed with the American Bird Conservancy's claim that these cats are killing hundreds of millions of birds.annually. The Audubon report points to the limited scope of the predation issue, which in truth involves select, isolated sanctuaries and wildlife habitat and not the vast majority of cities, towns and rural settings where feral cats live. TNR reduces rather than encourages predation Rather than encouraging predation, TNR can actually aid in the protection of wildlife and bird interests. It must be kept in mind that before any TNR work is done at a given site, the cats are already there, preying upon other species to whatever extent they do. If the cats are then neutered, returned and monitored by a caretaker,reproduction ceases and the population goes down over time, with the fewer cats leading to less predation. The American Bird Conservancy argues wildlife would be best protected if the first step of trapping is taken, but not the second of return. Euthanasia, they believe, is a more acceptable solution.90 This amounts to no more than advocacy of the trap-and-kill method and suffers from all its flaws—the vacuum effect of cats migrating into newly vacant habitat to take advantage of food sources, the over breeding of any cats in the colony left behind, the lack of adequate animal control resources, and the opposition of caretakers to trapping efforts. What many bird and wildlife advocates fail to come to grips with is the impossibility of quickly ridding the environment of feral cats in order to protect other species—it simply cannot be done. The only known way to eliminate feral cat colonies, as has been accomplished in Newburyport, is gradually through the TNR process. In Newburyport, where 300 feral cats resided twelve years ago, there are now 17. Plainly, whatever predation existed in 1992 is far lower now. The return of the neutered ferals was not an encouragement for more predation—it was part of the method for permanently lowering 88 Butcher,G., "The Big Picture," Audubon State of the Birds 2004,Audubon,Vol. 106,No.4(Sept.-Oct. 2004). 89 Ibid. 90 American Bird Conservancy's Resolution on Free-Roaming Cats,www.abcbirds.org/cats/resolution.pdf 14 • the cats' numbers. Ironically, and sadly, groups like the American Bird Conservancy are actually harming their own interests by opposing the only known method of feral cat control with any reasonable chance of success. By advocating what amounts to either "trap-and-kill" or "trap-and-remove" instead of TNR, they help perpetuate the failed methods of the past—the methods which have led to a national overpopulation of feral cats in the tens of millions. To protect the birds, new approaches and open minds are needed. It's also important in considering the predation issue to draw a distinction between two very different situations that the current debate tends to muddle together. It's one thing if the particular site in question serves as a unique and critical habitat for wildlife, especially endangered species or migrating birds who might be vulnerable to a cat attack because of factors like their ground-nesting behavior. In those situations, humane alternatives to TNR such as relocation must be considered. It's another thing if the geographical area in question is an entire city or town. Simply because TNR might not be appropriate in a bird sanctuary doesn't mean it should be rejected for all of Salt Lake County • Public Health From the perspective.of public health, feral cats and TNR touch upon three major issues: (1) rabies, (2) other zoonotic diseases, and (3) rat abatement. An examination of these issues demonstrates that on balance, the public health benefits of maintaining neutered, rabies-vaccinated feral cats in their environment through TNR far outweigh any possible public health threats. Rabies In 2001, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), wild animals accounted for 93% of reported cases of rabies in the United States. Among wild animals, the leading species were raccoons (37.2% of all animal cases in 2001), followed by skunks (30.7%),bats (17.2%), foxes (5.9%) and other wild animals, including rodents (0.7%). Only 6.8% of reported rabies cases were domestic animals.si The total number of cases attributed to cats in 2001 was 270. Since 1975, there have been no reported cases of a cat transmitting rabies to a human in this country.92 Three large-scale exposures of humans to rabid or potentially rabid cats were reported from 1990 through 1996.93 The risk that feral cats, who tend to be shy by nature and fearful of people, could transmit rabies to humans while at large is thus minimal judging by past experience.94 The risk does exist to a greater degree in regions where rabies is prevalent among the local raccoon population. Raccoons often inhabit the same territory as feral cats. Most raccoon rabies occurs in the northeast/mid-Atlantic region(69.1% in 2001).95 Most cat rabies occurs (214 of the 270 reported cases in 2001) in states where the raccoon-variant of rabies is present.96 In 1999, it was discovered that, "Nearly all [rabid domestic] animals (229 cats and 78 dogs) were infected via spillover with the predicted terrestrial 81 Krebs,J.,Noll, H.,Rupprecht,C.,Childs,J.,"Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2001," Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Associaiio:221(12):1690-1701 (2002):see www.cdc.aov. 82 Levy,p. 379. 83 Slater,p. 32. 84 Ibid. • 85 Krebs,J.,Noll,H.,Rupprecht,C.,Childs,J.,"Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2001," Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221(12):1690-1701 (2002):see www.cdc.aov. 86 Ibid. 15 • variant of the rabies virus, i.e., the variant maintained by and circulated in the dominant terrestrial reservoir species in the geographic location where the infection occurred."87 Consequently, "...feral cats may form an interface between wildlife reservoirs and humans."ss TNR can remove much of the opportunity for rabies to be transmitted from raccoons to feral cats and then to humans by having the cats vaccinated against the virus at the time of neutering. Vaccination of a large percentage of the feral cats in a given location may then create a barrier species for transmission of the vines from raccoons to humans: "By keeping a critical mass (usually 80 percent) of feral cats vaccinated against rabies in managed colonies, a herd immunity effect may be produced, potentially providing a barrier between wildlife and humans and preventing one of the major public health threats caused by feral cats."89 Using TNR to rabies-vaccinate the feral population also makes sense when the lack of suitable alternatives to remove the public health threat is considered.As discussed earlier, eradication of the feral population is not feasible. Trapping and removing a portion of the population results only in turnover, not diminishing numbers, and leaves the feral cat population unvaccinated and susceptible to rabies infection from raccoons. Doing nothing also leaves the ferals unvaccinated and fails to lessen the risk of rabies transmission from wildlife to cats to humans. A managed colony approach, where the cats are vaccinated, monitored on a regular basis and gradually diminish in number, is far more effective in removing the rabies threat. Supporting the view that vaccinating the feral population can create a barrier against rabies for humans is past experience with domestic dogs. "[A]nimal control and vaccination programs begun in the 1940's have practically eliminated domestic dogs as reservoirs of rabies in the United States."90 While feral cats may not be a reservoir for rabies to the same magnitude that domestic dogs once were, widespread implementation of TNR could eliminate even the possibility of that happening. This is a matter of great significance as, "A single incident involving a case of rabies in a companion species can result in large expenditures in dollars and public health efforts to ensure that human disease does not occur."91 The hands-on practice of TNR entails close interaction between feral cats and humans during the initial phase of trapping and neutering,potentially creating opportunities for bites and rabies transmission. Access to TNR services should, as a result,be conditioned upon training in safe handling techniques. Other zoonotic diseases A common misconception is that feral cats pose a health hazard through risk of transmission of other zoonotic diseases besides rabies. Available evidence indicates this is not true. For example, the 8000 acre campus of Stanford University is home to one of the oldest TNR programs in the country. The university-approved, but privately funded and operated program began operation in 1989.to2 Subsequently, when a graduate 87 Id. 88 Levy,p.385. �< 89 Slater,p. 32, 90 Krebs,J.,Noll,H.,Rupprecht,C.,Childs,J.,"Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2001," Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221(12):f690-1701 (2002):see www.cdc.Rov. 91 Ibid. 92 http://www.stanford.edu/group/CATNET/about.html 16 • student complained that the cats presented a health risk, campus administration took up the issue.93 The Environmental Health &Safety Department of the university, in consultation with the Santa Clara County Health Department, "determined that there is a general consensus that feral cats pose little health and safety risk to individuals on campus."94 The Stanford TNR program continues to the present date, claiming reduction of the feral population from a total of 1500 cats at inception to 200 currently.95 A transmissible disease often associated with cats is toxoplasmosis which is caused by a common parasite (toxoplasma) probably already found in more than 60 million people in the United States.96 Very few people display symptoms, but infection can be serious in pregnant women and those with compromised immune systems.97 The parasite can be transmitted through the accidental ingestion of contaminated cat feces, but infection is more commonly the result of eating or handling raw meat, or gardening.98 A study conducted in Norway found that living in a neighborhood with cats is not by itself a risk factor for contracting toxoplasmosis.99 Plague can be transmitted by feral cats who catch the disease from infected fleas, but this concern appears to be geographically limited to the southwestern United States.iooIn these regions, flea control and care in handling feral cats with symptoms of pneumonia is'=recommended.tot Fleas in Utah are uncommon, due to lack of humidity. "Cat scratch fever," caused by the bartonella bacteria, is relatively common, although it is not clear the risk factor is any higher with the feral cat population as compared to the domestic cat.102 Given ferals' wariness towards humans and their tendency to keep a distance,presumably the risk factor is lower for them. Ringworm transmission requires physical contact with the cat and is most likely to be a problem only for caretakers fostering injured or ill feral adults, or fostering kittens.103 Transmission of roundworms to humans is another health risk mentioned in the literature, but is not unique to feral as opposed to domestic cats.to4 When TNR succeeds in lowering free-roaming cat populations—which no other method has been shown to accomplish—then whatever risk exists of transmission of these diseases is lowered as well. Rat abatement The rat problem in most urban areas is chronic and growing. For example, according 93 Correspondence from Carole Miller, co-founder of Stanford Cat Network,April 29,2002. 94 Letter from Gary W.Morrow,Biosafety Officer and General Safety Manager,Environmental Health and Safety Dept., Stanford University,Nov.24, 1992. 95 http://www.stanford.edu/group/CATNET/about.html 96 www.cdc.gov/healthypets/animals/cats.htm 9)Ibid. 98 Id. 99 Slater,p. 33, citing Kapperud, G., et.al., "Risk factors for Toxoplasma gondii infection in pregnancy; Results of a prospective case-control study in Norway,"American Journal of Epidemiology 144: 405-412, (1996). io=Slater,p. 33. IN Ibid. io2ld.; www.cdc.gov/healthypets/animals/cats.htm 103 Slater, p. 33. 104 Ibid. • 17 to recent statistics from the New York City Department of Health, complaints in that city about rats have risen 40% in the past two years.115 Complaints continued to rise in the past year despite significantly increased efforts at inspections and ext'rminations.106 The usefulness of feral cats in controlling rat populations is well documented. Roger Tabor, in his studies of London street cats, noted that one particularly adept tabby female was recorded as having caught 12,480 rats over a six year span (an average of 5 to 6 per day.)107 Farmers and stable owners have long employed feral cats for rodent controi.los Thomas Gecewicz,while serving as Director of Health for the city of Fall River, Massachusetts, found that a TNR'ed colony of feral cats at a local landfill resulted in a cost savings for rodent control.to9In Pennsylvania's Longwood Gardens, feral cats"are part of the integrated pest management control program_to protect certain plant life from damage by small rodents."'to One researcher, Paul Leyhausen, suggests that in urban environments where food sources such as garbage and rats cannot be permanently removed, "the feral cat population serves a very useful purpose and should rather be encouraged than fought."i 11 Some researchers believe the Black Death during the Middle Ages in Europe was exacerbated when the disease was blamed on witches and their feline companions, causing cats to be exterminated and thereby reducing a significant control on the transmission of the disease from flea-infested rats.112 TNR allows the cats to remain in the environment and continue to provide no-cost rat control, while at the same time stemming future population growth and curbing nuisance behavior such as noise and odor. TNR has the Growing Support of Public Health Officials, Academics, Animal Control Officers and Animal Welfare Organizations Thomas Gecewicz, who in addition to his service in Fall River also served as the Director of Public Health in Bridgeport, Connecticut from 2000 through 2004, writes: "I can unequivocally state that I, as a public health official, do openly endorse any and all trap, spay, and neuter programs as a public health benefit and cost savings to any community to which it is offered."113 Dr.Jonathan Weisbuch, M.D., the Chief Medical Officer for Maricopa County, states,"The effectiveness of TNR has been demonstrated by the Maricopa County Animal Care and Control Agency in resolving a complex problem of feral cats overpopulating the streets and alleys of 24 of the most populated cities and towns in Arizona. The program has reduced the number of strays,diminished the number of kittens and resulted in a managed community of felines that no longer • 105"City's scurry worry:Rat complaints up despite crackdown,"Daily News,August 16,2004. 106'bid. 107 Tabor,pp. 112-113. 108 Slater,pp.38-39. 1;19 Correspondence,Thomas Gecewicz,July 16,2004. 110 Slater,p.39. 111 Berkeley,p. 122. 112 Clifton,Merritt,"Where cats belong—and where they don't,"ANIMAL PEOPLE, June 2003. 113 Correspondence,Thomas Gecewicz,July 16,2004.Mr.Gecewicz also served as Director of Health in Braintree,Mass.,from 1977 through 1990,and as Executive Health Officer in Braintree from 1996 through 1999. • 18 stimulate the number of community complaints that were common prior to our initiating the program."i 14 Ron Cash, Health Officer for Atlantic City, New Jersey, has also found TNR to be a useful public health tool: "We serve a population of approximately 35 million people who visit this community every year:'I need to operate a safe city for the tourists of Atlantic City. When we went shopping for a solution to the feral cat concerns in our community, we found TNR. TNR works."i 1s Dr. Slater concludes, "In communities where basic services are already available, support for feral cat caretakers (including education) and evaluation of options besides 'wait and see' or trap and euthanize should be seriously considered as long-term investments."'16 Likewise, Dr. Levy states, "TNR has emerged as one viable alternative for non-lethal cat control capable of reducing cat populations over the long term."117 Dr. James Ross, DVM, a Distinguished Professor at Tufts University, concurs: "My experience with feral cat control using the trap, neuter, release (TNR) method in the British Virgin Islands has been very positive. It is a humane way to control the feral cat population. I endorse it in most of the ecosystems I've experienced.... I trust you will find it as useful as I and others haven's Ed Boks, current executive director of Animal Care& Control of New York City and former head of Maricopa County Animal Care & Control, is an enthusiastic supporter of TNR. Mr. Boks has stated that TNR is, "the only viable,non-lethal, humane and cost - effective solution to our communities' feral cat problem...."119In Dallas, Texas, Kent Robertson, manager of Dallas Animal Services, fully endorses TNR and works with local feral cat groups to implement the method: "TNR is much better than killing cats! I hate doing that, but I didn't know what else to do."12o In Seattle, Don Jordan, executive director of the Seattle Animal Shelter, has also turned his animal control agency towards • TNR. "Based on the studies out there, we have to take a more active role in helping to manage feral cats. Communities must recognize that there is value in getting populations fixed and stable. This problem is not going to go away unless we all become involved."121 The ASPCA, a powerful force for animal welfare and one of the nation's oldest and most respected animal organizations, promoted TNR in a cover story for the Fall 2003 edition of its magazine, Animal Watch'22 and runs its own thriving TNR program in New York City.123 114 Correspondence,Jonathan Weisbuch,July 16,2004. 115"The Humane Solution:Reducing Feral Cat Populations with Trap Neuter Return"[video],Alley Cat Allies,2001. 116 Slater,p. 76. . 117 Levy,p.387. 118 Correspondence,James Ross,July 16,2004. 119A C&C Newsletter, April 2004,Vol. 1, Issue 2,p.5. I20AI1ey Cat Action,Summer 2004,p.5. 121 Id. at p. 6. 122 Commings,Karen, "TNR:The Humane Alternative,"ASPCA Animal Watch (FaIl 2003). 133 See www.aspca.org/tnr 19 Salt Lake City-Problems with proposed TNR permit. Considering limited animal control resources, a permit/inspection process is neither recommended nor necessary for the implementation of a successful TNR program. Targeting enforcement resources toward those cases in which a complaint has been made is recommended. Feral cat caregivers already use their own private resources to help ' solve a community problem, and should not be further taxed for acting on their conscience. Feral cat caregivers have traditionally, due to a lack of ordinances effectively addressing the issue, been forced to conduct their activities underground. This results in little trust between traditional animal control and feral cat caregivers. Caregivers will likely be reticent to apply for a permit if they feel their cat's lives are at stake. Educating caregivers and promoting TNR is a much more effective use of animal control resources to achieve the highest rate of success and build trust between the two groups. Conclusion A feral and stray cat overpopulation crisis is now underway in our community, resulting in overcrowded shelters, high euthanasia rates, quality of life complaints a nd financial burdens. The methods of the past—a mixture of trap-and-kill and doing nothing —have had no impact. Even if the resources were available for animal control to attempt a wholesale removal of the cats, which they're not, the effort would fail due to feral population dynamics and public opposition. Trap-Neuter-Return alone holds out the possibility of turning the crisis around, stemming the flood of homeless cats into shelters, lowering costs and resolving complaints. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that Trap-Neuter-Return be endorsed as official policy for Salt Lake County. 20 • G Appendix 1 ASPCA STATEMENT ON TRAP-NEUTER-RETURN The ASPCA supports Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) as the most humane and effective strategy for managing the feral cat population. The ASPCA Cares program, launched in 2001, operates mobile spay/neuter vans that serve pet owners, shelters and rescuers in New York City's five boroughs. In 2003, over 1,600 feral cats were spayed/neutered as part of the ASPCA Cares TNR initiatives. In addition to providing free surgeries for feral cats, ASPCA Cares ensures that all cats are vaccinated against rabies at the time of surgery, and ear-tipped to clearly identify their status as sterile, healthy cats. The program also maintains a bank of humane traps, which are loaned to rescuers at no charge. Hundreds of local feral cat caretakers have been trained to practice TNR in feral cat workshops taught by Neighborhood Cats Inc. at the ASPCA headquarters. In addition, ASPCA Cares has augmented this training with on-going workshops in feral kitten socialization to help rescuers socialize and re-home the offspring of feral cats. This facilitates the reduction in size of feral colonies. TNR is an integral part of the ASPCA's long-term strategy to end the euthanasia of adoptable animals in New York City. It is our goal to increase the number of cats spayed/neutered via our mobile clinics by the end of 2004 and to continue promotion of TNR with hands-on assistance. This will include on-going participation in large-scale collaborative projects such as the successful spay/neuter of 250 cats living at the city's correctional facility on Rikers Island in 2002, among others. August 12, 2004 • 21 I r1LIL - .1D/ 2t.),U4 1 :4. 4.35_5 141d 1...JA IYI'4L,-11YUm l+ur Y I..IV i IC ` l --41 .,.•.`::.•^4.4.-.'-.7•lceLf'r,tm+, ,-. ` 'r"fu...7:t-.,m•gtf=i-�_:za.t.7.r !:1 tz R'.--r:ra-.ti aMa„-x1 T^.r.:LL�:SiEKL':s,.4.-5a1,iu,j!.1+.-v.:. !`7:{ttXtti_ _;'xj, ..v 1'Y \- 1- 1�, `i It IV‘ 4 4 VP L, k >Y r+ 1-' .. n ACi 1� NI 1 h' lVv .► IJ L-11 t• '-'1, ti 7,1 4%4 -. N 4� of b � r. ci o a �� eti C...., • C1 Q) O W •ci.l .i.-, ci -li,::"*.. ),, " ••••-:_,-; :_.,, L *.. . '.. (1. .'2 - ...-1/4-: k). :-....:Fl:n . . r:. .;: r-: • " . : . • li ti. - 'Ct. 4.4• ' - •• '• IN '. 1 p 1-4., i ..1-1 .,.....? - .i E •• • . .,§, . .1 ::+ . . t,..! .-... ',,,'45, . .. . .. ..s. T:.,", ..,- i. ,. ... . , ., „..., ......., .. - . , , .._. '-.) •.z • , . - •,.,t — v . • • .) E. _ . tl ei r,: ‘.&'... U 5 , .,.., ..,t; O a`l 4J v ? �.I, . , , i. ez. c4 S,1 ci a . ai . 4 p • I II , 4 L ' 1 b+ t v A 'o o Wi , V` y `;, C , 1 e c,,, wt' `i' • .j1 ,1. !. 111.1" Olio �] N G `� c, ,•� ir�l.-. -,. "t'I�i'�' !., j Mt_ . T _ A a•y1": Cd -..!-, 1''r""4-' 'j r."", ,r %1`�°1 -,-iik'''�,`„ Z•�",-.'Sihds3 - A�t9a-,-,6: Aria d& L .. Tb ,,,R r '`tea gig ' ,rie, . f ii luifi.,:::1...,_,:.... ..-..: .. A Publication of Alley Cat Allies ,"_ The Nam;!,r .l Feral Cat Resource /Spring 2005 WEST VALLEY CITY FERAL FIX In Partnership with Animal Control to Save Feral Cats , EST VALLEY CITY, cooperation of her staff. Utah, is a community "It was a hard sell[to the staff] of 32,250 households at first,"says Sizemore, "because where a pilot trap Neuter Return a a shelter workers had the impres- (TNR)program is making life bet ,, ,, - ., sion that no one would want TNR ter for both cats and people. As 40 s 1• , -Y"` as an option.Their mindset didn't a result of a partnership between • allow them to see the possibili- No More Homeless Pets in Utah , ;' '` ',� ,k, ties." But results soon proved the (NMHPU) and local animal con- , benefits of sharing information trol officials, the cat intake at the „ .` -A`-� -' and resources to help the cats. West Valley City Animal Services -4� ,. "`� �a',-' Before TNR, when citizens shelter dropped 26 percent this . ` ' }. r. *N called about outdoor cats, the year, compared with a 3 percent `.• _ e '4o j ' shelter's only course of action was drop statewide. r r .. 1; to send an animal control officer The Feral Fix pilot, alongwith `•' ti i adoption •program for kit t•r 1. "°' { i'! to bring the cats in to be eutha (-� p r nized. Shelter workers now offer tens and stray (tame) cats, has f'' k �'= G + ,, i r callers problem mediation, and alreadyreduced euthanasia rates . 5 ` y, [r TNR assistance through the Feral by 34 percent.This groundbreak- r*: ' "' 0,1 fp "'• )I' P . Fx program. Bird says, "Most ing program has saved cats'lives, a callers I've spoken with embrace• cut back on the demoralizing this option. They don't want to euthanasia work faced by shelter taxpayer dollars. Sizemore says. She took to heart eliminate the cats,just the prod- workers, and saved considerable NMHPU is a program of Best one of ACA's most important lems cats sometimes cause." The Friends Animal Society. Project di- goals: working with animal con- shelter staff and management Tif44r ti £ , rector Holly Sizemore has 15 years trot agencies. have felt the benefits. f of experience demonstrating that "Without animal control on "We've had springs where all TNR is the practical, effective way board, nonlethal control can't 56 cat cages are filled, many with tsi�e �c ' o to control and reduce feral cat become a widespread reality," several cats, and lots of moms • .4�-17 populations. In 1994, Sizemore says ACA National Director Becky with litters," recalls Bird.This year r-- ATGE 2 � co-founded the CommunityAni- Robinson. "Involvement byy ani- with Feral Fix, she says, "we've %On Rolling Boulders mal Welfare Society(CAWS), one ma! control officers is vital to maintained four solid months of `Uphill of the first organizations in Utah to stopping the killing." no euthanasia for healthy, adopt- ' support TNR. She joined NMHPU Karen Bird, Supervisor of West able cats. Feral cats? We don't GE 3 . x in 2000 as Partner Development Valley City Animal Services, was see many come in, because we One Caregivers Story ' Director. When NMHPU began skeptical when Sizemore first pre- refer them to Holly." wa>y� ising A Difference ... ' focusing on feral cats. Sizemore rented TNR to her, "I had seen da- Prior to Feral Fix, as many as fo eraL Cats r 1 undertook implementation of a to about how trap-and-kill does 20 feral cats were brought in and qE 4 statewide TNR program, as well not reduce outdoor cat popula- euthanized every day. In the first f FOme.Fe'n ( as the West Valley City pilot. tions,while TNR does],but I like to two months of 2005, ferar cat ry ay/Neutr,C lmtc "Alley Cat Allies has been see results for myself," says Bird. intakes dropped 95 percent. Bird fakes History In a terrific resource and mentor "I thought, 'What do we have and Sizemore estimate that before ashmgton DC for me throughout the years," to lose?'" She committed the full Continued on page 3 f . NATIONAL FERAL CAT DAY One Caregiver's Story: Making A Difference For Feral Cats sHREE YEARS AGO, the plight of a cat caregiver took the kittens home—and was in --. ri named Biggy compelled aril Jeanine • for some excitement. I t .T;its Owen of northeast Florida to apply her "It was like a wild cat party," she says. "I talent to help out. This talented,artist creates made the mistake of being soft-hearted, and NEUTER! colored glass beads by hand,many in the shape let them out of the cage in my room." But Altf of beautiful cat heads inspired by the animals the kittens had lived outdoors their whole life 41(01/1 '. '' she loves, Biggy, with a damaged eye and and had never been handled by humans, and .: ' I abandoned by people who decided they had they went a little crazy in the confines of a *'- i..• too many cats, had taken up residence in the house. Owen carefully coaxed them back in y .y outside stairwell of a nursing home. Owen de- the cage, with an important lesson learned .,,---t. r j r r cided to raise money for Biggy's neuter surgery about the wild nature of feral cats. . „ .,, , v jb.rir ' 4g with charitable auctions of her beads on Ebay. With the cats safely contained, Owen Owen held her auctions drove them,two at a time,to National Feral Cat Day in October because National . a spay/neuter clinic 50 miles Feral Cat Day (NFCD) fallsOctober 16 .�,, away. "There are no kind-on October 16th. NFCD is y: +: . •,.'' hearted, feral cat-loving vets one day each year when i', 1." , " in my town," she laments. Meanwhile, Biggy,neutered and no longer people who care about feral F :;, .1 N, Once the young cats could contributing to the feral cat population, lives cats conduct events, train- .;+ no longer reproduce, recalls comfortably in his outdoor home.The nursing ings, and workshops to raise •• ' 1 Owen, "I had every intention home's grateful staff consider him "theirs." . awareness and educate their 'y .' '' '. >< of releasing them back at the Owen thinks he's "treated special" for two communities about Trap- - lot, but I just couldn't do it. I reasons: "because he's blind in one eye, and Neuter-Return(TNR). Biggy, neutered and cared releasedthem inyard." becausehe likes people." .. for, loves his outdoor home, my Owen was first drawn to Owen built weather shelters Jeanine Owen is one of tens of thousands . helping feral cats in 2001 when she started for her little colony—Maggie, Socks, Lilly, of people who promote the cause of feral cats eding half a dozen feral kittens trying to Buff, Archie, and Daisy. on National Feral Cat Day—and every day of Jrv'ive on their own in a storm drain on a va- The cats love to hang out around her their lives.Thanks to her,one colony of special cant lot. "I contacted Alley Cat Allies for help workshop, keeping the rodents at bay. And, cats is living the life they were meant to live: on how to do TNR," she says, "and now all of after four years of getting used to their guard- healthy,sterile,outside,and free. • the cats have become my dependents!" ian, Socks and Lilly sometimes come into her xp f•r ;nis F irxu<, ' Owen fed the six orphans regularly to gain house to visit. "They are loving the luxury of _€ ��#Tororder ou 20 ,YS their trust, and eventually was able to trap a house!" she says. "Socks has become the 4,44k6ACtlon ack4 o n, them. Then, because she couldn't get them most territorial, and watches my bedroom 4wuv+Jn,� ati`(on lferahcatila}�ti to a veterinarian right away, this fledgling door like a hawk." y y � w� �A , . ;`q,. ;,,5,:7 ;i r T �r Continued from page 1 '` . , R ,.i ,�.,'� the pilot program, the cost to taxpayers for In Partnership with animal d 1trof to Save Feral Cats trapping, holding, euthanizing, and disposing r ; 1;Nr r_ < T 1, of cats was$40,000—$50,000 each year. ti :;: , •', " • "The shelter staffs willingness to educate ' "`$.` the community and put TNR information out �..3 � ;, t" there,to make changes and advocate for TNR, {" ) ;.' , has been critical," says Sizemore. "Most of our referrals come directly from the shelter." ,tr y^Rt; •c.° Field officer Ricardo Rosado has seen the { t m�' �, changes firsthand. As an example, he says, �, '.4,, ,�i1,r ,'' :-'� "people kept calling about an area where• " people were feeding a huge colony, and 'r' `' the cats kept procreating. We implemented i the TNR program, and there were no more problems, no more calls." He is relieved to be This shy feral cat lives with three others in Karen Bird's barn—another TNR success. Continued on page 8 SPRING 2005 AtleyCatAction 3 • rs� a jp0.g.J3.7 a.d M wy< 5• # to s .r[` „41 r 3-- Ara r.. { .� -y .6M :.r r • - :.'.Wr }?.e7. x !*,}:Z Fr' � .J i ' ..$. £ •f s Ye:,rC�-^t i .,t...s , ''t . q� y:l.i..ig. r f + ; . f J, .Ss ,l I� , J v s r' 3 • ° - - J a i ;; • 1 ,k'r" 5x-0,f T. k4 i , tit„ Y { t I Show You r� s _ L�•��cy`„,, .s f 't o wp ..' •ti 3� ,y :411, , �51t r,;! N d • . ... C ireN¢ttOrta[ , r - k- 8} r4 'a` - '.-' •:. .:} �� i, Love Cats Y , Y r- .j n -. , it 5, 7 ..,}.Y x „L -k yl. �'f - r ��• -i�'�X - M 4 r ' k ro' ['-\ '> J i + ftf „ lv',, j.�c1 �:.i, f•R •_� ]C{af 1� ,r �� 7VC NOTfolk AVen ,4011A �i r `''J' a`'i4 i L �-$�' �"i.{�11 �} - rorh�� nY' »yx.+t� }�Ti �.�� "it � .`ri Y i .� t ,{ SulteQO e,; =:->. ' [v G -t� y-1 One1...:\.,4„ -1 Bet cl D0 _ 3tc1, t� ;,� t \Vith hes a "ivi 2 8:1" 2'B3 - K • rPleas� dr i �ht }n• }a x� j r �t n f�' X'4 J.S, : ta. , F� � r ,�Y Rik +Y ,�. ..F �. , Stroke M fii, • .he el! r ! ' -Y ''' •": ., Y4 .}rx ....ii. d•^ t .. Y 1 1 + .... b} i. .- �, ,., �._ '° ,,,,,, . d �r..Y ; l O L L�� Pen. .. . ,, • .*S'` ; fiL 5 ;P W`t, ''+ '; 5'i ti.� s q'i to P v5„1` -wi' Of i., ti .# t ,f 'S i r5 , :+"t` , ` Make a simple change in your will i y .. iR'-i x+cril-�.:r.•,W41 1:.. ;sab**d-44ii_..,.I .� ..;..• ..' ''''Y '''''''.Ir ii� b y tit ^,; a,.-u. •#�. R r. and leave a leaac for the care of feral cats. Even a small gift can help to save thousands of lives. *WIContact our Planned Alley " `- ' Giving Department Cat .'`;'._ at 240-482-1980, or alleycat@alleycat.org Allies All information is strictly confidential. Cats outdoors. It's a fact of life. It doesn't have.to be a sad fact. In Partnership with Animal Control to Save Feral Cats Continued from page 3 boxes:" Face-to-face mediation works. bringing far fewer feral cats into the shelter. "I met one person who really hated cats," , To launch Feral Fix, Sizemore reached out says Annis. The woman complained that her r to the community with a mailer written in neighbor fed cats that were defecating in her �:;: i ' English and Spanish, and hired trapping co- yard. "I went over to till the caregivers yard l,aw q`' ordinator Jamie Annis to embody Feral Fix in three or four times, to encourage the cats to • ,iy="1. r'',;t'' • the community While most citizens are open use the bathroom there," says Annis. "A year i �"n ''r; r w ,..w,',, to the concept of TNR, many are not ready later, this person called again. She had a ma- -..,"t4' ' ' V to take on trapping. Annis traps the cats and ma and two kittens that she'd been feeding - 9'° 4' •:' i r;: h• kii, o ' takes them to Orchard Animal Clinic, where in her yard, and she liked them being there. .,, �, 7 , Dr. Shannon Hines provides low-cost spay and She wanted us to help with TNRI" •t '' t`: neuter surgery. Spay & Neuter of Salt Lake West Valley City's success is a role model .'' r: City also provides low-cost surgery and care for other communities. "I wanted to prove for cats in the program. to myself that TNR worked," says Bird. > Feral Fix also fixes common cat-related "Now when other animal control agencies ° '�y., ,�.,...- , . b ,,i problems, like repelling cats from certain come to me, I can say 'yes, it works.' We "' . } J . "'?'y`l areas with motion-activated sprinklers and are giving the public the tools to resolve / ,, ,�� ultrasound devices. When Annis goes door problems." Meanwhile, the West Valley City '�-? to door with "all the information from Alley government has acknowledged the value of ':,. Cat Allies showing that trap-and-kill doesn't Feral Fix with a $50,000 grant to continue Groundbreaking Animal Control Officer work and TNR does," she finds that "people this program and other spay/neuter projects Karen Bird, Supervisor of West Valley City -1't want the cats killed,they just want us to in their community. That's the best vote of Animal Services, with the shelters solve issues like cats using flower beds as litter confidence we could hope for. • resident cat Phoebe. 8 AlleyCatAc tic)n SPRING 2005 Analysis of the impact of trap-neuter-return programs on populations of feral cats Patrick Foley, PhD; Janet E. Foley, DVM, PhD; Julie K. Levy, DVM, PhD, DACVIM; Terry Paik, DVM * Abstract Objective- To evaluate 2 county trap-neuter-return (TNR)programs for feral cat population management via mathematical modeling: • Design—Theoretical population model. Animals—Feral cats assessed from 1992 to 2003 in San Diego County, California (n ,14;452), and from 1998 to 2004 in Alachua County, Florida(11,822): Procedure-Data were analyzed with a mathematical Ricker model to:describe population dynamics of the feral cats and modifications to the dynamics that occurred :as a result of the TNR programs Results-ln both counties,results of analyses did not indicate a consistent reduction �n per capita growth,.the population multiplier,or fihepropoition of femae cats that were pregnanfi: Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Success of:feral cat management programs. that use TNR can be monitored with an easily collected set of data and statistical• analyses facilitated by population modeling techniques Results may be used to suggest possible future monitoring and modification of TNR programs,which could • result in greater success controlling and reducing feral cat populations :(JAm Vet Med Assoc 2005;227:1775-1781) Populations of feral cats are large, have high intrinsic rates of growth, and are highly adaptable to different and sometimes harsh habitats. Feral cats often are regarded as pests on the basis of their predatory habits and the negative effect they may have on wildlife populations.1-4 They may function as hosts for diseases and vectors that can infect humans, domestic animals, or wildlife55=7; yet, colonies of feral cats often are maintained through feeding and care by people who have strong affection for these cats.8 There have been many attempts to eradicate populations of feral cats or to regulate their population sizes at low numbers. Such projects have included intentional release of panleukopenia virus, poisoning, predator introduction, euthanasia, and neutering.9-13 Often, despite intense effort, attempted control programs fail because growth rates within the population do not decline or because of additional recruitment of cats into the population, although some programs have reported14-16 successful reduction in feral populations with humane trapping programs. The general public often finds extermination programs for feral cats • unacceptable, yet also often is intolerant of cat predation on wildlife. It Table of has proven difficult to assess program success; theoretical models Contents would be helpful to guide interpretation of data from control programs Top and to provide motivation for changes that could increase success. Materials and Feral cats are territorial animals, and their highest potential for "i Methods population increase occurs when populations are low. The maximum Results per capita rate of increase is the maximum mean number of female cats produced annually from each female cat, including the cat and its Discussion female kittens. A cat population size tends to increase until a carrying References capacity is reached. This carrying capacity depends mainly on food and appropriate area for territories. After the carrying capacity has been reached, density dependence forces the per capita growth rate to drop to 0. Matrix methods are used to study the sensitivity of long-term population growth rates to perturbations in survivorship and fecundity and have been used to evaluate feral cat population dynamics.17 By use of a logistic (Ricker) model to lower feral cat populations, 2 general approaches are possible: the carrying capacity can be decreased (eg, by discouraging public feeding of feral cats), or the maximum per capita rate of increase can be lowered (eg, by increasing mortality ratel8 or by neutering female cats). For feral cat populations to decline, the maximum per capita rate of increase needs to decrease to < 0. Temporarily lowering the population size below the carrying capacity yields no long-term population reduction if this is not accomplished. The cat population will simply increase back to carrying capacity. The objective of the study reported here was to use data from 2 trap-neuter- return (TNR) programs to evaluate development and implementation of models that could determine program success and calculate the rate of neutering needed to decrease the feral cat population. Materials and Methods Modeling—Statistical analyses and modeling were performed with computer software.a,b For all statistical tests, a value of P < 0.05 was considered significant. Cat population regulation was modeled on the basis of a Ricker model: ran( Rt = e k where Rt is an annual population multiplier or net fundamental reproductive rate, rm is the maximum per capita rate of increase, Ni is the population size at time 1, and K is the carrying capacity. If Rt = 1, the net annual growth of the population rt is 0 (ie, the population size is multiplied by 1.0). To apply the model to TNR data, results from trapping were inserted into the model as index values (linear multipliers of the actual values) and interpreted with the assumption that trapped cats represented some fraction of all cats in the county; this fraction was divided into an index value (eg, the index carrying capacity) to yield an estimated county-wide value. The county-wide feral cat population size was approximated; there were 1,040,149 households in San Diego County in 2000, of which 8.9% of those interviewed reported that they fed a mean of 2.6 feral cats/household.19 Thus, a minimum county-wide estimate of feral cat population size for 2000 was 240,690 feral cats. In Alachua County, 12% of interviewed households reported that they fed a mean of 3.6 feral cats each. There were 84,963 households in 1999 and approximately 36,398 feral cats.20 Estimates of feline population growth rate (Re) were obtained from the trapped cat data. The Re was calculated as follows: RE = Nt +iINL and rt = mnR1 where Nt and Nt+ 1 are indices of the actual population size, equal to the total number of cats neutered at clinics for that year. It was not necessary to estimate either K or Nt directly because the growth rates describe population trajectories independent of absolute or index values of population size and carrying capacity. The regression of per capita growth rate on population size provided the estimate of maximum per capita rate of increase (y-intercept) and, for convenience, an index of carrying capacity (x-intercept).21 The actual carrying capacity was obtained by multiplying the index carrying capacity by the estimated total feral cat population in that county and dividing by the total cats trapped. Program success was evaluated with several methods. Evidence for density- dependent population regulation was sought by plotting per capita growth rate as a function of year to determine a significant reduction in per capita growth rate as detected by a significant negative linear regression of per capita growth rate on time. Similarly, evidence of reduced fecundity was sought by use of linear regression for the proportion of female cats pregnant when neutered over time. The Malthusian parameter rrt, (maximum per capita rate of increase) calculated for each county was used to obtain a Malthusian multiplier, Rm = Ctm Management of feral cat Rm means getting a new value, Rm". Population decline occurs when Rm" is < 1.0; Rm can be written as the sum of survivorship (p) and offspring production (Rm - p). The critical fraction (s) of cats that would need to be neutered in a population to induce a decline can be obtained by solving the following equation: = Rm' = p + (R,n -p)(1 -s) to get = Rm - 1 - p One can also approximate the proportion of cats that must be neutered each year (M) to gradually reach M = 's • N neutered cats. Neutered cats accumulate in the population because they survive at rate p from year to year. If the number of cats individuals are counted right after neutering but before death, l M = m g`= m1 — i_o F To achieve the neutering level s = M/N, the annual neutering rate sa must satisfy the following equation: sa = = s(1 — g) When survivorship (p) is close to 1.0, this is a much lower burden for the neutering program. The calculation is only approximate because N is not constant over the lifetime of the neutering program, survivorship may differ between neutered and non-neutered cats, and cats do not live indefinitely. In the absence of field data, the annual survival rate (&pcirc;) can be estimated from the mean cat life span as follows: P = 1—mean life span and if such data were available, the life span and annual survival rate should be estimated at low population sizes. Data—Data from the Feral Cat Coalition were acquired during a Table of.. trapping program involving volunteers from across San Diego County, Cpntents California, from 1992 to 2003 and from a similar program from 1998 Tap to 2004 run by Operation Catnip Inc in Alachua County, Florida. Cats Materials were live-trapped, transferred approximately once per month to and participating veterinary clinics, examined, vaccinated, surgically Methods neutered, and returned to their colonies after a short postoperative Results recovery period. For each day that clinics were held, data compiled included clinic number and date, location of the clinic, number of males Discussion neutered, number of females neutered, number of cats already References neutered when trapped, and total females subdivided into the categories pregnant and not pregnant. Data regarding San Diego County demographics were obtained from the California Department of Finance22 and included number of humans in the county and number of households. For Alachua County, demographic data were obtained from the US Census Bureau. Data regarding cat ownership, feeding of feral cats, approximate county-wide cat numbers, and number of feral cats were obtained or calculated from published surveys of San Diego and Alachua County households.19,20 Results Feral cat demographics—From 1992 to 2003, 14,452 cats were submitted as • feral cats to veterinary clinics in San Diego County for neutering ( Figure 1; data for 1992 represent only part of the year, when the program began). Of these cats, 565 (4%) had already been neutered; 14,129 surgeries were performed on 6,494 (46%) male and 7,635 (54%) female cats. The number of cats neutered over the months of the year did not vary significantly (P = 0.13), but the presence of pregnant cats was strongly seasonal, with numbers increasing in spring, compared with winter and fall ( Figure 2 and Figure 3). Overall, 17.2% of trapped female cats were pregnant. In Alachua County, 11,822 cats were submitted for neutering from 1998 to 2004 Figure 1). Of these, 258 (2%) cats had previously been neutered; 11,564 surgeries were performed on 4,928 (43%) male and 6,636 (57%) female cats. Evaluation of pregnant cats revealed a double peak, with increases in March and August ( Figure 2 and Figure 3). Sixteen percent of trapped female cats were preg na nt. Model results—Per capita growth rate in San Diego County ranged from —0.58 to 0.30, with a value of 0.25 for 2002 ( Figure 4). Values for Alachua County were similar. Regressing per capita growth rate on population size yielded estimates of the index carrying capacity (x-intercept) and maximum per capita rate of increase (y- intercept) of 1,323 and 0.45 (P = 0.09), respectively, for San Diego County and 1,855 and 1.41, respectively, for Alachua County (P = 0.1; Figure 5). In the last year of data for each county, the total numbers of trapped cats were 1,514 (0.63% of the total estimated feral cats) in San Diego County and 2,213 (9.6%) for Alachua County. Thus, the county-wide carrying capacities were estimated as 210,325 and 19,323 feral cats, respectively. The calculated values for Rm for each county were 1.57 for San Diego County and 4.1 for Alachua County. Critical neutering rates depend on Rm and survivorship ( Table 1 and Table 2). Reported9,23 mean life spans in feral cats range from Table of 2 to 8 years. By use of a median life span of 5 years for San Diego , Contents County, the critical neutering fraction (s) would be approximately 71% Top (94% for Alachua County). The needed annual neutering fraction (sa) Materials was 14% for San Diego County and 19% for Alachua County. and Hypothetical feral cat populations would decrease between these Methods values. Results To assess the success of the TNR program, data were evaluated for Discussion density-dependent population regulation and a significant reduction in ? References the proportion of female cats that were fertile When per capita growth rate was regressed on year, there were no':mdicat►ons7of a significant.reduction in per capita growth.rate (ie, evidence for density dependence) in either of the counties (P 0.24 and 0.1 for San Diego and Alachua counties, resPectively; Figure 4). The proportion of pregnant females cycled annually, but an overall reduction in either of the,:countiies was not:detected ( Figure 6). Discussion • Feral and stray cats represent more than 40% of all cats in the United States, are fed by an estimated 10% to 20% or more of households, and are rarely neutered.20,24,25 It is desirable to reduce feral cat populations because of welfare concerns for the cats, concern about the effects of feral cats on vulnerable wildlife, and public health considerations The American Association_of Feline Practitioners supports appropriately managed feral cat colonies, but that group's position statement indicates that the goal of colony managementshould be the eventual reduction of the colony.24 Additionally, feral cat colonies should not be located near at-risk wildlife. Although several control methods including TNR have been proposed and implemented, assessment of their efficacy has typically been missing or at most anecdotal. This is unfortunate given the substantial investment of resources required to run an effective program and the skepticism with which TNR is regarded by many people. Feral cat populations are extraordinarily capable of reaching local carrying capacities as a function of reproductive mechanisms that emphasize breeding efficiency. These include induced ovulation, weaning of kittens as young as 50 days old, an age of first reproduction as early as 8 months, and many (approx 130) days pregnant per year.9,26 Consequently, cats have some of the highest maximum per capita rates of increase among carnivores, estimated in 1 study27 at 23.3%. Population sizes, home range size, and local carrying capacity of feral cats all vary extensively, depending on habitat type and availability of food and safe den sites. Intrinsic control of feral cat populations may occur by density-dependent mechanisms including_starvationc.predationi control of reproductive success and disease Although oats,:particularly s,.a malere�territoria.28,79 ferabcat colon.ies' receivin abundant food su lementatlo rnavear" uc"tian >rz r : 9 Pp 7,� ;� � Pp territoriality:as cats co occupy territories or�attemp ibTrii t[%talmiltaWeiRras _(sometimes accompanied by,sti_res and fght[nga'30 The purpose of TNR program is rarely articulated in the language of population ecology but often is motivated by an attempt to reduce population size (Nt) and per capita growth rate (rt) by reducing reproduction. Addtional goals of TNR may include provision of veterinary care and vaccines to reduce the threat of feline and Zoonotic diseases, improve the quality of life of homeless cats, avoid euthanasia as a control method, and, in some programs, reduce the population size.14,21 In many TNR programs, including those described here, direct assessment of possible changes in population size is not possible because date collection and population structure do meet assumption of capture-recapture or other similar methods of estimating population size. Although index values were necessarily used for parameters because actual population counts were not available or practical, the trajectories of populations (whether or not population were declining) could be determined from calculation of maximum per capita rate of increase without accurately detecting population size or carrying capacity. The models reported here also have the flexibility of providing statistics that could be used to evaluate success of control programs, methods for calculating the fraction of cats that must be neutered to force population decline, and the annual neutering rate required to eventually achieve the required neutered fraction. The assessment statistics are Rom, (multiplier for the maximum per capita rate of increase), which can be calculated from the time series and, as a multiplier, must be < 1.0 for the population to be in decline; the proportion of cats that are pregnant,'which should be declining significantly in a successful program; and the proportion of trapped cats that already are neutered, which should increase. This last statistic was not evaluated in the data given here because the TNR programs specifically avoided retrapping cats, which was unfortunate because keeping account of previously ear- tipped cats would have made the calculation of the proportion neutered more accurate. The present study yielded mixed results regarding the success of large TNR programs in San Diego and Alachua counties. Results of the programs had previously been summarizedl6 regarding the number of cats neutered, but the effect of neutering on the free-roaming cat population had not been analyzed. Our indicated that;any population level effects were minimal, with Rm (the multiplier) ranging from 1.5 to 4, which indicated'°ongoing population growth (similar to values in previous studies), and critical needed values of neutered cats (ie, the proportion of all cats that needed to be neutered to reduce Rm to < 1.0) of 71% to 94%, which was far greater than what was actually achieved. There are several potential limitations to the data; the net reproductive rate was estimated under the assumption that trapping effort and efficiency were unbiased across sites and trapping periods. Retrapping success for feral cats probably was underestimated because cats were marked after neutering by removal of a small distal portion of the pinna and ear-tipped cats usually were released from cages without counting. The estimate of total numbers of feral cats was somewhat inaccurate because it was calculated from general surveys of how many people feed how many feral cats. However, this statistic was not used in the model itself but rather provided an estimate of the calculated proportion of all available feral cats that were being . neutered, to allow for interpretation of model successes. The regression of per capita growth rate on population size was not significant for either San Diego or Alachua counties, possibly reducing confidence in the estimate of population growth rates. However, this was not surprising given that a time series of at least 20 years is typically required before such a regression is found to be significant.32 Nevertheless, the coefficient of regression. (y-intercept) still represented the maximum likelihood estimator for maximum per capita rate of increase. In some ways, results were similar to those obtained in an earlier, stage- structured matrix model of feral cat demographic features.17 The matrix model forced A. < 1, analogously with the Ricker model forcing Rm < 1, for the population Jo ecline Implementation of the stage-structured model suggested that:no plausible combinations of life history'variables would likely allow forTNR to succeed in reducing population size, although neutering,approximately'.75%;of the cats couhd achieve control_(which".is unrealistic), a value quite similar to results in the present study. An important distinction between the 2 models was the incorporation of density-dependent reduction of fecundity and possible saturation of the population with neutered cats in the present model. Feral cat control programs are notoriously difficult, and in many cases, short-term control has been followed by a long-term return to precontrol conditions. Attempted control of a feral cat population on Marion Island in the Indian Ocean had poor success for many years.9 The population size on the island was estimated by use of a line transect at approximately 2,200 cats, and in 1979, virulent panleukopenia virus was released on the island. Although in 1 studv9 it was; concluded that the population density of cats had declined, this conclusion was based on questionable statistical analyses. Within 5 years, intrinsic popOation growth rates were reported to have increased 4 times, and although population sizes had supposedly declined, predation on seabirds continued. Hunting was instituted, and ongoing population estimates were assessed by use of the highly biased index of cat sightings.10 The authors acknowledged that control (ie, suppression) would only succeed with ongoing intensive hunting. Feral cats have been eliminated from at least 48 islands, including Marion Island, primarily through hunting (sometimes with dogs), trapping, poisoning, and disease and typically on fairly small islands with low cat density.33 In contrast with hunting, disease, or other methods of feral cat control that increase mortality rates, TNR has the:potential advantage•of allowing niches to become saturated with neutered individual cats Tf, concurrently with the reduction to maximum per capita rate,of increase,carrying capacity is reduced (typically by reduction of food oversupplementation) and immigration is controlled, there may be a.humane,..gradual reduction in_;overalicat,numbers_ Future feral cat management programs could potentially achieve better success with a few modifications of the TNR paradigm. Despite the substantial expenditure of resources to operate the 2 TNR programs described here, they probably were performed on too large a scale; many cats were neutered, but this constituted a very small overall proportion of the cats. Moreover, feral cats within a county surely do not constitute a single population, further diluting the enormous overall effort into numerous smaller efforts with less impact Trap neuterreturn programs should,be focused on well-defined, preferably geograph;ically__restricted, cat:populations;, rather than diluting effort across multiple populations. In future TNR studies, it would be helpful if trapping efforts were standardized to allow for the least biased index estimates of population size from trapping efficiency (catch per unit effort34), although with such an intelligent species, cats may modify behavior after experience with the traps. If population growth actually is declining, then per capita growth rate should decline consistently. Also, retrapping statistics, which were not obtained in these programs, are particularly valuable because they allow for comparison of observed retrapped (neutered) proportions with the critical proportions needed to reduce R„, to < 1.0. Focused TNR programs have had some success. A survey-based assessment8 of TNR for small colonies (mean, 7 cats) revealed moderate success, with reduction of mean colony size by as much as half. A two-thirds reduction in population size was obtained in a feral cat colony on a university campus where every cat was specifically included in the census.16 Although causes of loss from the population included euthanasia of sick cats, adoption, and deaths (often vehicular trauma), increases in population were attributable to immigration but not births because virtually all resident cats were neutered. For these programs, managers were able to evaluate success because every cat could be counted. In larger programs, such enumeration is impossible and index-level assessment, such as that described here, becomes necessary. Statistical assessment of the impact of TNR programs on population size is critical to help gain credibility for such programs. Because of the increasing will to address humane, conservation, and public health concerns associated with free-roaming cats, tools to evaluate program success will increasingly contribute to achieving management goals. a. Excel, Microsoft Corp, Redmond, Wash. b. "R,"The R Core Development Team. Available at: lib.stat.cmu.edu/R/CRAN/. Accessed May 1, 2002. References Table of Contents 1. Churcher P, Lawton J. Predation by domestic cats in an English village.J Zoo!Lond Top 1987;212:439-455. Materials and 2. Dickmann C. Impact of exotic generalist predators on the native fauna of Methods Australia. Wild!Biol 1996;2:185-195. Results 3. Brothers N. Breeding, distribution and'status of burrownesting petrels at Discussion Macquarie Island. Aust Wild!Res 1984;11:113-131. References 4. Fitzgerald B. Diet of domestic cats and their impact on prey populations. In: Turner DC, Bateson P, eds. The domestic cat: the biology of its behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988;123-147. 5. Stanek J, Stich R, Dubey J, et at. Epidemiology of Sarcocystis neurona infections in domestic cats (Fells domesticus) and its association with equine protozoal myeloencephalitis (EPM) case farms and feral cats from a mobile spay and neuter clinic. Vet Parasitol 2003;117:239-249. 6. Engeman R, Christensen K, Pipas M, et al..Population monitoring in support of a rabies vaccination program for skunks in Arizona.J Wild!Dis 2003;39:746-750. • 7. Dubey JP.Toxoplasmosis.J Am Vet Med Assoc 1994;205:1593-1598. 8. Centonze LA, Levy JK. Characteristics of free-roaming cats and their caretakers.J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002;220:1627-1633. 9. Van Aarde R. Population biology and the control of feral cats on Marion Island.Acta Zool Fenn 1984;172:107-110. 10. Van Rensburg P, Bester M. Experiments in feral cat population reduction by hunting on Marion Island.SAfrJ Wild!Res 1988;18:47-50. 11. Neville P, Remfry J. Effect of neutering on two groups of feral cats. Vet Rec 1984;114:447-450. 12. Olson PN, Johnston SD. Animal welfare forum: overpopulation of unwanted dogs and cats. New developments in small animal population control.J Am Vet Med Assoc 1993;202:904-909. 13. Zaunbrecher KI, Smith RE. Neutering of feral cats as an alternative to eradication programs.J Am Vet Med Assoc 1993;203:449-452. 14. Stoskopf MK, Nutter FB.Analyzing approaches to feral cat management-one size does not fit all.J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004;225:1361-1364. 15. Levy 3K, Crawford PC. Humane strategies for controlling feral cat populations. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004;225:1354-1360. 16. Levy JK, Gale DW, Gale LA. Evaluation of the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-return and adoption program on a free-roaming cat population.J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;222:42-46. 17. Andersen MC, Martin BJ, Roemer GW. Use of matrix population models to estimate the efficacy of euthanasia versus trap-neuter-return for rnanagerr nt of free-roaming cats.J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004;225:1871-1876. • • 18. Courchamp F, Sugihara G. Modeling the biological control of an alien predator to protect island species from extinction. Ecol App!1999;9:112-123. 19. National Pet Alliance survey report. Santa Clara County's pet population 1993. Available at: www.fanciers.com/npa/santaclara.html. Accessed Nov 1, 2002. 20. Levy JK, Woods JE, Turick SL,et al. Number of unowned free-roaming cats in a college community in the southern United States and characteristics of community residents who feed them.J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;223:202-205. 21. Foley P. Problems in extinction model selection and parameter estimation. Environ Manage 2000;26(suppl 1):S55-S74. 22. California Department of Finance. Census 2000 products. Available at: www.dof.ca.gov. Accessed Nov 1, 2002. 23. Warner R. Demography and movements of free-ranging domestic cats in rural Illinois.J Wildl Manage 1985;49:340-346. 24. Richards J. The 2004 American Association of Feline Practitioners position statement on free- roaming abandoned and feral cats.J Feline Med Surg 2004;6:vii-ix. 25. Haspel C.The interdependence of humans and free-ranging cats in Brooklyn, New York. Anthrozoos 1990;3:155-161. 26. Van Aarde R. The diet and feeding behaviour of feral cats, Felis catus, at Marion Island.S AfrJ Wild'Res 1980;10:123-128. 27. Van Aarde R. Reproduction and population ecology in the feral house cat Fells catus on Marion Isla nd. Carnivore Genetics Newsletter 1978;3:288-316. 28. Edwards GP, de Preu N, Shakeshaft BJ, et al. Home range and movements of male feral cats (Fells catus) in a semiarid woodland environment in central Australia. Aust Ecol 2001;26:93-101. 29. Hall LS, Kasparian MA, Van Vuren D,et al. Spatial organization and habitat use of feral cats (Fells catus L.) in Mediterranean California. Mammalia 2000;64:19-28. 30. Kerby G, Macdonald D. Cat society and the consequences of colony size. In: Turner DC, Bateson P, eds. The domestic cat: the biology of Its behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988;67-81. 31. Scott K, Levy J, Gorman S, et al. Body condition of feral cats, and the effect of neutering.JAppl Anim Welf Sci 2002;5:209-219. 32. Turchin P. Complex population dynamics:a theoretical/empirical synthesis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003. • 33. Nogales M, Martin A,Tershy B,et al. A review of feral cat eradication on islands.Consery Biol 2004;18:310-319. 34. Caughley G.Analysis of vertebrate populations. New York: John Wiley&Sons, 1977. From the Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Sacramento,CA 95819 (P. Foley); the Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 (J. Foley); the Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610-0126 (Levy); and 420 Dewane Dr, El Cajon, CA 92020 (Palk). The authors thank Linda Louise Steenson and Dr. Karen Scott for coordination of trapping. Address correspondence to Dr. J. Foley. MEMORANDUM DATE: December 8, 2006 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Briefing/Set Date for Public Hearing: Proposed Street Closure of 100 South Street at 700 West Street pursuant to Petition No. 400-06-15 CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Steve Fawcett, Louis Zunguze, Sam Guevara, Tim Harpst, DJ Baxter, Ed Rutan, Gary Mumford,Nick Britton, Jennifer Bruno, Janice Jardine, Melanie Reif This memorandum pertains to Petition No. 400-06-15, a proposal to close a portion of 100 South Street at 700 West Street. The proposed closure would involve about 120 feet of 100 South Street from the east line of UTA's right of way for its commuter rail line to the west line of Union Pacific Railroad's right of way for its freight lines. The petition is part of the Grant Tower rail realignment project in the west Gateway area. The petition is scheduled for a briefing before the City Council at its December 12 work session. The Council also is scheduled the same night to set a date for a January 9 public hearing at the Council's formal session. OPTIONS • Set a January 9 date for a public hearing. (Public hearings for street closures are required by Utah law.) • Set a later date for a public hearing. (It should be noted that the Administration has said it would like to have the City Council consider the petition formally before the end of January.) POTENTIAL MOTIONS • I move we set a date of January 9 for a public hearing on Petition 400-06-15, a proposal to close a portion of 100 South Street at 700 West Street. • I move we set a date of(Council Members may choose a date they wish) for a public hearing on Petition 400-06-15, a proposal to close a portion of 100 South Street at 700 West Street. KEY POINTS • The petition is a component of the project to realign railroad tracks at the Grant Tower curve to allow trains to travel at greater speeds. 1 • The petition was filed by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division and seeks to close a portion of 100 South Street at 700 West Street from the east line of UTA's right of way for its commuter rail line to the west line of Union Pacific Railroad's right of way for its freight lines. • Salt Lake City would retain ownership of the closed portion of the street, and retain rights of entry to maintain public utilities including water and sewer facilities. • 100 South Street already dead-ends slightly west of its intersection with 700 West Street. According to one estimate, about 100 motorized vehicles a day go through the intersection. • To allow traffic to continue to flow through the area, the City contemplates building a mid-block street between South Temple and 100 South Street that would allow westbound vehicles to circle back to 600 West Street. Northbound vehicles would be allowed to make a U-turn on 700 West Street to return southbound. (Please see Administration transmittal, Page 2.) • Funding for the new street would come from the Utah Transit Authority as payment in lieu of improvements to the existing railroad crossing that would be needed if the crossing remained open, according to the Administration. ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION • The petition's proposal appears to hinge on a final settlement agreement between the City and Union Pacific Railroad that would resolve a lawsuit the City filed over the railroad's activation of the 900 South line in 2002. A preliminary agreement was reached earlier this year between the two parties. At what point will the settlement agreement with Union Pacific Railroad be final? • Should the City Council make the proposed closure contingent upon a final settlement agreement? • Would the proposed closure have any effect on the Utah Department of Transportation's plans to build a high occupancy vehicle ramp at 100 South Street to serve southbound traffic from Interstate 15? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Transportation Division initiated Petition No. 400-06-15 to close a portion of 100 South Street near the point where the street intersects 700 West Street. According to the Administration transmittal, the proposed street closure would permanently close an unprotected at-grade railroad crossing, eliminating the need to install protective gates and signals where the rail lines intersect 100 South Street. Union Pacific Railroad would like to straighten railroad tracks at the Grant Tower curve in the west portion of what is known as the Gateway area to increase the speed of its freight trains through Salt Lake City to eliminate a bottleneck within its track system. Simultaneously, the Utah Transit Authority is building the northern portion of its commuter rail line between Ogden and Salt Lake City on right of way purchased from Union Pacific. In addition, Salt Lake City has sought to implement a quiet zone within the City so trains do not have to blow horns as they cross intersections with streets. 2 According to the Administration, closing the section of 100 South Street to vehicular traffic would be cheaper than installing protective gates and signals where the tracks intersect 100 South Street. If the crossing were kept open, the gates and signals would be required to account for the faster and more frequent commuter rail trains, as well as for the creation of a quiet zone. It should be noted that 700 West Street already dead-ends a little west of that street's intersection with 100 South Street. According to the Administration transmittal, building a barrier to implement the closure and laying new pavement would cost about$10,000, and the sum has been budgeted into the Grant Tower realignment project. (Please see Page 1 of the transmittal.) However, the transmittal also includes discussion of building a street between South Temple and 100 South streets to handle westbound traffic flow. The new street would allow westbound traffic to flow north of the 100 South 700 West intersection and then circle back to 600 West Street. (Northbound traffic on 700 West Street also would be allowed to make a U-turn near the barrier and travel southbound.) Building the new street apparently would not be immediate. It also appears contingent on preliminary agreements among the Utah Transit Authority, Union Pacific Railroad, and the City. Earlier this year, the City and Union Pacific reached a tentative agreement on a lawsuit filed by the City pertaining to Union Pacific's re-activation of what is known as the 900 South line. The City has based some of its actions on the tentative agreement, including a City Council resolution in March that preserved the City's right to bond for its share of the Grant Tower realignment project. According to the Administration, the petition to close the portion of 100 South Street is a critical component of the agreement that the Administration is negotiating with Union Pacific. According to one estimate, building protective gates and signals at 100 South and 700 West to help qualify the area as a federally sanctioned quiet zone would cost about $750,000. The Utah Transit Authority apparently has agreed to allocate that amount to Union Pacific and the City to build the mid-block road described in the Administration transmittal. Part of the money would be used to purchase land for the road, and part would be used to build it. The City Council may wish to gauge how firm UTA's commitment is to allocate the funds for the potential new street.It also may wish to determine when the City will reach a final settlement agreement with Union Pacific. The Council also may wish to consider whether to make approving the petition contingent on a signed final settlement agreement. In addition, the City Council may wish to inquire whether the proposed street closure and new street would have any effect on the Utah Department of Transportation's plans to build a high-occupancy vehicle ramp on 100 South Street to serve southbound traffic from Interstate 15. UDOT included building a high-occupancy vehicle ramp at 100 South Street in its plans after the City Council adopted a motion in 1994 that addressed where the City Council wanted I-15 exit ramps placed. (Please see attachment.) According to the Administration transmittal, the Planning Commission recommended approving the proposed closure and that the City present the proposal to 3 the Poplar Grove Community Council. The Planning Division contacted the Community Council on October 12,but as of November 20 had not received a response from Community Council representatives. No one spoke for or against the proposed closure at the Planning Commission's public hearing on the petition on October 11. 4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 1994 PUBLIC HEARINGS #1. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting a motion or resolution expressing the Council's position relating to the 1-15 off-ramp options and related issues. ACTION: Councilmember Reid moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing,which motion carried, all members voted aye. Councilmember Reid moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to recommend to the Administration Option K,which was 400 South general purpose off ramp,no off ramp at North Temple; 300 West and 400 West would be two way traffic, and there would be an off-ramp from 600 North to 400 West. The Council would accept Option K with the understanding that the following conditions must be met: 1. a light rail transit system was fully operational before improvement on 1-15 commenced in Salt Lake City 2. immediately following the opening of the light rail first phase,the second phase of light rail connecting the CBD (Central Business District)would begin 3. if consolidation of the West downtown railroad lines take place,then planned freeway viaducts should be shortened to allow for enhanced urban design gateway option 4. in the event that light rail transit proposals were removed from the 1-15 corridor study,the City shall withdraw its support for all other options and transportation improvements. Councilmember Hardman moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to amend the proposed motion by adding two additional conditions: 1. as part of the Citywide transportation master plan, and the downtown circulation study, the City will plan and implement any and all traffic restrictions and urban design elements necessary to mitigate the impact of commuter traffic on the City's residential neighborhoods 2. that future high occupancy vehicle(HOV) ramps to and from the north not be located at 200 South nor at 400 South, which amended motion carried(Italics: City Council staff) All members voted aye, except Councilmember Hutchison who voted nay. DISCUSSION: Councilmember Hardman asked Council Vice-Chair Hutchison to conduct this particular hearing as he wished to participate in the discussion. Councilmember Hutchison said the Council would only be discussing two options; 1)Option E, which pertained to North Temple; and 2)Option K,which pertained to 400 South. Randall Dixon, 726 Wall Street, said he was in favor of Option E, with the exception of the one way couplets on 300 West and 400 West. Robyn Webb, 339 West 400 North, said she was opposed to Option E. The following people spoke in favor of Option K,David Letta, 1380 Chancellor Way, said he was opposed to any access which would cause further degradation in the traffic and pedestrian patterns around West High School.He said all of the proposals would benefit the non-residents of Salt Lake City. He supported Option K, with two conditions; 1)no work would commence on the construction of the access until a light rail system had been implemented; and 2) some action be taken to control the traffic pattern which would cause additional traffic flow around West High. Rex Black, State Senator, 826 North 1300 West;Pete Suazo, State Representative, 1307 Garnette Street; Frank Pignanelli, State Representative, 598 North West Capitol Street; Tom Rogan, 1073 2nd Avenue; Carol Lewis, 1155 West 400 North; Hermoine Jex,272 Wall Street, Said she was in favor of Option K, minus the North Temple half diamond. Greg Gardner, 2027 Leonard Circle, Sandy, Utah,representing EIMCO Processing Equipment Company, 669 West 200 South, said he supported Option K but was opposed to high-occupancy vehicle lanes being placed on 200 South. Mr. Camden,435 South 900 West, said he supported option K and asked the Council to insure that the area on the west side of 1-15 was better maintained by Utah Depai tuient of Transportation. Russ Jacobsen, 851 Ouray Avenue, State Fair Park Community Council Chair, said the Community Council supported Option K with the addition that no North Temple interchange of any kind be constructed. The following people spoke against Option K. Eldon Marshall, 624 Camarilla Circle, Chair of the Poplar Grove Community Council, said he was against Option K. He said his recommendation was for the Council to not make a decision until the Community Council had an opportunity to discuss the issue. Barbara Durant, 374 South 1000 West, said she was opposed to option K. Edie Trimmer, 246 South 1300 West, said she was opposed to Option K. Fred Fife, 842 West 900 South,Vice Chair of Popular Grove Community Council, said he was opposed to Option K. Lois Brown, 756 South Roberta Street, said a decision should be made about mass transit before a decision was made about where to place off ramps. Her recommendation was not to make a decision. Councilmember Reid spoke to his motion. He said this had been a never ending process, and it was unfortunate from his perspective that the Council and all of the citizenry had to continually go through the same discussions, express the same views,have anxieties raised, year after year over the issue. He said as it had been mentioned by people in the audience this was not an easy thing. He said essentially what was heard were parts of the westside and parts of the eastside pitted against each other, when in fact those on the westside were trying to band together to have stronger representation and access to resources and support and raise the pride of their communities and advance them in every way. He said the things which had been said and done, the things which he considered manipulations and strategies behind closed doors to force the City into a decision which had been made on at least two other occasions was very disappointing to him. He said he was saddened by those who would be impacted in a negative way by the choice which may be supported.He said he was also disappointed in the traffic which continually came from the north and the south into the City which negatively impacted the neighborhoods. Councilmember Reid said the Council wanted to make this a fair process, so a coalition of legislatores,representing the entire City decided on Option K. He said this was accomplished after obtaining public comments from constituents. He said a good faith effort was made to address all of the issues presented to the coalition. He said he hoped if the motion was approved by the Council, the City,UDOT, the Legislature, and anyone else who was involved would do everything they could to mitigate the impacts on the neighborhoods. He said there would never be less traffic coming into the City from the north and south,but there would be more traffic. He said the problem must be mitigated. Councilmember Hardman said the Council had voted on at least two previous occasions against an interchange at North Temple. He said Council Members opposed an interchange there because of concerns for those neighborhoods which would be impacted.He said he was not happy to see this issue raised again before the City. He said he thought the tragedy of this was having to accommodate commuter traffic into the City.He said all of the arguments which could be used not to put an interchange at North Temple could also be used as to why an interchange should not be located at 400 South.He said he was not in favor of Option E or Option K. He said both options had merits and both had downsides. He said nearly all of the major interchanges in the City brought traffic into his district.He said he was not in favor of another interchange in his district,but all of the districts were negatively impacted by major transportation problems. He said if the City would mitigate the potential negative impacts on the neighborhoods, and if the City would insure him there would be no future high-occupancy vehicles(HOV)lanes from the north at 200 South and 400 South then he could live with the option. Councilmember Christensen said Salt Lake City was impacted by people living outside the area. He said the Council wanted a healthy and vital downtown as the Capitol City and with that came a lot of responsibility, some of it negative. He said he wanted to compliment those who had worked out what he considered a compromise with respect to neighborhoods. He said the transportation issue expands across the entire City. He said Foothill Boulevard and 1300 East were severely impacted by commuter traffic. He said he applauded the motion as it had the vision within it to demand and tie this issue to some light rail issues. Councilmember Souvall said about two months ago the Council held a retreat and one topic of discussion was what was viewed as the pressing issues of the coming decade.He said the overwhelming consensus was to be pro-neighborhood,recognizing the commercial nature of the Capitol City. He said he was convinced the Council would make decisions with this in mind. NOV 2 2 2006 ( SA'►' r�� a G' TU?BOO r�R LON A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE ,..,� 1 _ .� ,rs_, �s,yp. ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR T R AN S M I T T E DEPUTY DIRECTOR NOV 222006 TO CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL TRANSMI 5CE TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: November 21, 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director RE: Petition 400-06-15: Street Closure by Salt Lake City Transport tion ivision, 100 South at 700 West from the east line of the future UTA commuter rail right-of-way to the west line of the Union Pacific right-of-way STAFF CONTACTS: Nick Britton, Principal Planner, at 535-7932 or nick.britton@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: The approximate cost of the closure, including the physical barrier and new pavement, would be$10,000. The cost has been budgeted in the Grant Tower realignment project budget. There is no additional budget impact for the City. DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: The Salt Lake City Transportation Division is requesting the City Council approve the closure of a portion of 100 South beginning at approximately 700 West and going east for 120 feet (120'). Specifically, the portion requested for closure extends west from the east line of the future UTA commuter rail right-of-way to the west line of the Union Pacific right-of- way. The proposed street closure would permanently close an unprotected at-grade railroad crossing, and curb and gutter would be installed on both sides of the closed portion of 100 South. (See Exhibit 6 for the letter from the Transportation Division requesting the closure.) The Salt Lake City Transportation Division has recommended that the City retain the street property. Analysis: No vehicular or pedestrian traffic would be permitted to cross the tracks at 100 South. All traffic heading westbound on 100 South will be redirected to the north and ultimately back to 600 West on a new mid-block road which will intersect 600 West at approximately 30 South, facilitating future development of the area. The portion of 100 South between 700 West and the 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7105 FAX: 801-535.6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM I-15/I-80 embankment, west of the proposed closure, will remain open. Since this segment of 700 West ends at 100 South, traffic will be allowed to head north on 700 West,make a U-turn, and continue south on 700 West(this segment of 700 West ends at 100 South). (See Figure 1 for the general traffic flow that would result from the proposed closure.) l I l SOUTH TEMPLE ST = PROPOSED TRAFFIC FLOW o � - cr STREET CLOSURE 100 S Figure 1: Proposed general traffic flow. There are several positive results of the proposed closure, as follows: • Creates a safer intersection for automobile traffic; • Precludes the need for an expensive rail crossing upgrade; • Facilitates development of the area by funneling traffic onto the new mid-block road; • Enables the creation of a"Quiet Zone," in which trains are not required to blow their horns when passing through the area; and • Allows trains to travel at a higher speed through the intersection. The City Council has adopted the following policy considerations to guide the decision-making process for requests to close and vacate City-owned street rights-of-way(Section E.2 of the Salt Lake City Council Policy Guidelines): 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. 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. 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 applicant that the sale and/or closure of the street will accomplish the stated public policy reasons. Petition 400-06-15: Proposed Street Closure of 100 South at 700 West Page 2 of 4 4. The City Council should determine whether the stated public policy reasons outweigh alternatives to the closure of the street. The Planning Commission staff report includes discussion and findings relating to each of these policies (see Exhibit 5b, page 5). A majority of the comments received by Planning Staff from other City Departments were supportive of the proposed closure. The Public Utilities Department was supportive of the closure as long as they retained access to the sewer, water, and storm drain within the closed portion of the road for maintenance. No other issues were raised. Master Plan Considerations: There are three Master Plan documents that are applicable to this area. The land use policy document that guides development in this area is the Central Community Master Plan, adopted in 2005. For the area in which the closure is proposed, the Central Community Master Plan refers to the recommendations set forth in the Gateway Specific Plan, adopted in 1998. The proposed street closure is located in the I-15/Railroad Sub-district, an area targeted for the development of the Gateway Commons Park and the Amtrak station. The Gateway Specific Plan also indicates that this intersection is the northern edge of the proposed development of an 80-acre tract of open space, between 1-15 and the Union Pacific Railroad from 100 South to 900 South. A major element of the Gateway Specific Plan is the desire to establish more residential uses in the entire Gateway District. According to Federal law, all trains must blow their horns at unprotected rail crossings. Closing the unprotected railroad crossing at 100 South and 700 West to east/west vehicular traffic would facilitate the creation of a Quiet Zone which would, in turn, create a better environment for residential uses. The Transportation Master Plan's Major Street Plan identifies 100 South as a local street and does not anticipate the need to extend 100 South or 700 West because of barriers presented by I- 15 and the railroad tracks, respectively. PUBLIC PROCESS: This petition was presented to the Downtown Community Council on August 23, 2006, and those in attendance were in support of the proposal. No issues were identified at that time. A representative for HOWA Construction, whose headquarters are located at 663 West 100 South, southeast of the proposed closure, requested additional information so that they could be prepared for the hearing. Staff forwarded the representative a map and a copy of the final staff report. Abutting property owners were notified of the closure and invited to attend a public hearing on the matter at the October 11, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. No issues were raised at the hearing. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the closure of a portion of 100 South beginning at approximately 700 West and going east for 120 feet (120') over the railroad crossing to pedestrian and general vehicle access. The Planning Commission requested that Planning Staff contact the Poplar Grove Petition 400-06-15: Proposed Street Closure of 100 South at 700 West Page 3 of 4 Community Council as a courtesy to ask if they wished to hear the details of the proposed street closure at their November meeting. Staff contacted the Popular Grove Community Council on October 12, 2006; as of November 20, 2006, Staff had not received a response from the community council representatives. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Utah State Code, Title 10-8-8 to 10-8-8.5 includes regulations regarding Street Vacations. Petition 400-06-15:Proposed Street Closure of 100 South at 700 West Page 4 of 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Chronology 2. Proposed Ordinance 3. City Council Public Hearing Notice 4. Mailing List 5. Planning Commission Hearing a. Original Notice and Postmark b. Staff Report: October 11, 2006 c. Minutes: October 11, 2006 6. Original Petition Transmittal of Petition#400-06-15 Exhibit 1 Chronology Transmittal of Petition#400-06-15 Petition #400-06-15 Chronology June 14, 2006: Petition received by Planning Division. July 5, 2006: Petition assigned to Nick Britton. July 7, 2006: Information routed to applicable city staff. July 10, 2006: Meeting concerning petition with Alex Ikefuna, Doug Wheelwright, Doug Dansie, Tim Harpst, and DJ Baxter. July 28,2006: Notice was sent to Downtown Community Council Chair. August 23, 2006: Planning staff presented the petition to the Downtown Community Council. September 26, 2006: Notice of Planning Commission public hearing mailed to abutting property owners. September 29, 2006: Intersection posted with notice of Planning Commission public hearing. October 11, 2006: Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to City Council regarding the closure of 100 South at 700 West. October 13, 2006: The ordinance was requested from the City Attorney's Office. October 24, 2006: The final stamped ordinance was received from the City Attorney's Office. Transmittal of Petition#400-06-15 Exhibit 2 Proposed Ordinance Transmittal of Petition#400-06-15 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Closing a portion of 100 South at approximately 700 West as a public street) AN ORDINANCE CLOSING A PORTION OF 100 SOUTH AT APPROXIMATELY 700 WEST AS A PUBLIC STREET, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-06-15. 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 of the portion of the street will not be adverse to the general public's interest; WHEREAS, the closed portion of the street will no longer be dedicated to public use or for use as a public thoroughfare either by vehicles or pedestrians; and WHEREAS, the closed portion of the street will not be sold and title thereto will remain with the City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Closing Street. A portion of 100 South at approximately 700 West, which is the subject of Petition No. 400-06-15, and which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and the same hereby is, closed and declared no longer needed or available for use as a street. The closed portion of street will no longer be dedicated to public use or for use as a public thoroughfare either by vehicles or pedestrians. 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. Title to Remain with City. The closed portion of street shall not be sold and title thereto shall remain with the City. 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. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on 2 Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: I:\Ordinance 06\Closing a portion of street at 100 South and 700 West- 10-17-06 draft.doc APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake C' ttorney's Office Date By 3 EXHIBIT A Beginning at the Southeast corner of Block 50, Plat C, Salt Lake City Survey, a subdivision within Section 2, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; thence N89°58'59"E 131.95 feet to the Southwest corner of Block 49, Plat C; thence N89°59'08"E 8.74 feet; thence S06°17'59"W 132.78 feet; thence S89°59'15"W 110.76 feet; thence N13°35'19"W 135.79 feet; thence S89°53'10"E 16.54 feet to the point of beginning, contains 0.406 acres more of less. Exhibit 5-b Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report: October 11 , 2006 Transmittal of Petition#400-06-15 DATE: October 11, 2006 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Nick Britton, Principal Planner RE: Staff Report for the October 11, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting CASE#: 400-06-15 APPLICANT: Salt Lake City Transportation Division STATUS OF APPLICANT: City Staff PROJECT LOCATION: 100 South at 700 West ta.',,,:_-:‘_- -• ,-,„, .: l''..li.,_ .7/4/ • :, I . , - _ . :,i q 3 çit • ..at S i �i:► �. k _ Pr S ASS to, t ,,, it Allui ., STREET v, - CLOSURE - , '71. 3'..,I' ,.:-.1' '''',,' .ii:''''.4"4;° V F� l, ' -:$ '-,: i _ t r ,.,, '''L -\ '' i'. '''' 4 ..4. ' 7-_'''' .::- '' ,4„;---:—'.'"*"."7 t, itt . , „r .4; Staff Report,Petition Number 400-06-15 1 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division COUNCIL DISTRICT: District 4, Council Member Nancy Saxton COMMUNITY COUNCIL: Downtown Community Council SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS: Northwest G-MU Gateway Mixed Use District Northeast G-MU Gateway Mixed Use District Southeast G-MU Gateway Mixed Use District Southwest G-MU Gateway Mixed Use District SURROUNDING LAND USES AND OWNERS: Northwest Government Building/Land Utah Department of Transportation Northeast Exempt The Denver & Rio Grande Company Southeast Office Howa Construction Southwest Industrial Manufacturing ATEN, Inc. REQUESTED ACTION/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Salt Lake City Transportation Division is requesting that the City close a portion of 100 South at approximately 700 West. The portion of road requested for closure is approximately 120 feet in length, extending from the east line of the future UTA commuter rail right-of-way in the east to the west line of the Union Pacific right-of-way in the west (Exhibits A and B). The requested street closure would close an unprotected at-grade railroad crossing, thereby creating a safer intersection and precluding an expensive rail crossing upgrade. The proposed closure would also facilitate development of the area and create a Quiet Zone that does not require trains to blow their horns when passing through the area. The road would be closed with a locked gate. Currently, 100 South comes to a dead end at I-15/I-80 just west of the 100 South and 700 West intersection. The 700 West improvements end at the north end of the intersection. • Under the proposed closure, a new outlet for 100 South would be created which would route traffic around the block and back to 600 West. Northbound traffic on 700 West will be permitted to make a u-turn on the remaining stub of 100 South, west of the proposed closure (see Exhibit B). Staff Report,Petition Number 400-06-15 2 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Salt Lake City Code: Chapter 2.58 regulates the disposition of surplus City-owned real property. Utah Code: Section 10-8-8 regulates a request for action to vacate, narrow, or change the name of street or alley. MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: There are three master plan documents that are applicable to this area. The land use policy document that guides development in this area is the Central Community Master Plan, adopted in 2005. For the area in which the closure is proposed, the Central Community Master Plan refers to the recommendations set forth in the Gateway Specific Plan, adopted in 1998. The intersection for this proposal is located in the I-15/Railroad Sub-district, which is home to the proposed Gateway Commons Park and the Amtrak station. The Gateway Specific Plan also indicates that this intersection is the northern edge of a proposed 80-acre tract of open space,between I-15 and the Union Pacific Railroad from 100 South to 900 South. The desire to establish more residential uses in the entire Gateway district makes a Quiet Zone all the more desirable. According to federal law, all trains must blow their horns at unprotected rail crossings. Closing the unprotected crossing at 100 South and 700 West would facilitate the creation of that Quiet Zone which would, in turn, create a better environment for residential uses. The Transportation Master Plan's Major Street Plan identifies 100 South as a local street and does not anticipate the need to extend 100 South to the west because of I-15 or 700 West to the north because of the railroad tracks. COMMENTS: The comments received from pertinent City Departments/Divisions and the Community Council are attached to this staff report for review. The following is a summary of the comments/concerns received: City Department/Division Comments A. Transportation Division (Barry Walsh) The Transportation Division is the petitioner, and fully support the proposed street closure. B. Building Services (Larry Butcher) Building Services had no comments on this petition. C. Police Department(Melina Nagai) The Police Department had no significant concerns about this proposal. D. Engineering No comments were received from engineering. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-06-15 3 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division E. Property Management No comments were received from Property Management. F. Fire Department No comments were received from the Fire Department. G. Public Utilities Department (Jason Brown) Public Utilities had no objection to the proposal as long as the department has access to the sewer, water, and/or storm drain within the closed portion of the road for maintenance. H. Department of Airports No comments were received from the Department of Airports. I. Planning Division Local streets can be dedicated or closed as needed to service adjacent private property, as determined to be necessary by the various City Departments and Divisions. Community Council Comments A. Downtown Community Council The plan was presented by Staff to the August 23, 2006 meeting of the Downtown Community Council. No objections were raised and those in attendance were generally supportive of the proposal. There were questions about the timeline of this project and other closures. No other comments were received by Staff. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 100 South is identified as a local street in the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan. It dead-ends to the west at I-15 just past 700 West. The partial street closure as requested would not take away any adjoining properties' access or frontage. The proposed closure would create two "L"-shaped intersections. Traffic heading north on 700 West would be allowed to make a u-turn on the segment of 100 South west of the closure. After turning around, traffic would then head south on 700 West toward 200 South. Traffic heading west on 100 South would be forced to make a right turn onto a new road at approximately 700 West which would wrap back around to 600 West (See Exhibit B for a map of the proposed street closure and location of the proposed new road). The primary purpose of the rail crossing closure is for safety and noise mitigation reasons. The present crossing is unprotected there are no gates and no signals—and therefore would need to be upgraded unless the street closure is granted. The closure would increase safety at this site by eliminating an unprotected at-grade rail crossing and would establish a Quiet Zone that would aid in development of the area. The internal Staff Report,Petition Number 400-06-15 4 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division departments that have endorsed the closure are Public Utilities, Police, and Transportation(who initiated the proposal). No comments were received from Fire, Building Services, Engineering, or Property Management. 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 this portion of 100 South will not deny access to any adjacent property. Access to adjacent properties will still be available from other portions of 100 South, 600 West, and 700 West. The property would be retained as City-owned property. Finding: The proposed street closure will not deny access to adjacent properties and the property will not be sold. 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 in question will not be sold because this proposal originated from within the City. Finding: The property will be retained by Salt Lake City. 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 applicant that the sale and/or closure of the street will accomplish the stated public policy reasons. Discussion: The proposed closure will eliminate an unprotected railroad crossing and increase the safety of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The closure will also facilitate future development of the area by creating a Quiet Zone. Finding: In addition to increasing the safety of the intersection, the closure will encourage future development in the area due to the presence of a Quiet Zone. Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-15 5 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division 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. The alternative to closing the street is to keep it open and upgrade the intersection with a gate and flashing lights. This upgrade may also increase safety in the area, but closure of the intersection will provide for greater safety. The upgrade will not address the desire to create a Quiet Zone in the area for development reasons. Finding: Given the increase in safety and the impact this closure would have on the potential redevelopment of the area, the best alternative is to close the road as proposed. This request complies with this standard. Staff finds the following regarding petition 400-06-15, requesting 100 South be closed at the rail crossing at 700 West: 1. The Central Community Master Plan and the Gateway Specific Plan supports the development of the area as open space with parks and residential uses. A "quiet zone", which would be created by this rail closure, would help facilitate that development. 2. The Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan supports the closure. 3. The reduction in noise from train whistles helps the financing and livability of residential uses in the area. 4. Staff believes that there are few reasons vehicular or pedestrian traffic would need to cross at this intersection since no businesses or residents use the 100 South crossing at 700 West for access. Any vehicular traffic will be adequately routed back to through roads. 5. The long-term interests of the Gateway neighborhood and surrounding area are enhanced by this closure. It increases safety by eliminating an unprotected at- grade crossing and promotes development with the creation of a quiet zone. 6. The necessity for an engineer to blow a train whistle will be greatly reduced in the area through adoption of a Quiet Zone ordinance and upgrade of rail crossings. 7. The benefit to implementing Master Plan policies, including residential development, outweighs the potential traffic inconvenience. 8. There is sufficient public policy to support the closure of the 100 South rail crossing. Staff Report, Petition Number 400-06-15 6 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the closure of 100 South at the 700 West rail crossing to pedestrian and general vehicle access Attachments: Exhibit A—Letter Requesting Road Closure Exhibit B—Maps of Proposed Closure Exhibit C—Departmental/Division Comments Exhibit D—Photographs Staff Report,Petition Number 400-06-15 7 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division Exhibit A Letter Requesting Road Closure • T. .HY P. HARPST, P.E., PTOE 4 1 (\aJ i "•rI" :r,�.,L:L�� ROSE C. "ROCKY" ANDER6t]N TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Mayor Ross C. Anderson City and County Building 451 South State Street, Room 306 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 June 2, 2006 Re: Request to close 100 South Street at the Railroad Tracks at 700 West Dear Mayor Anderson: This letter is written to request that the city close a portion of 100 South Street at the railroad tracks at approximately 700 West. The closure would extend westerly from the east line of the future UTA commuter rail line right-of-way approximately 120 feet to the west line of the Union Pacific right-of-way. This request is made in order to increase safety in the area by closing an unprotected railroad crossing, facilitate future development of the area and create a Quiet Zone to allow trains to pass through the area without blowing their horns. Presently there are no flashing lights, gates, etc. at this mainline railroad crossing. Without a closure, this crossing would be required to be upgraded with gates and flashing lights. This closure will create an "L" intersection on the west side of the railroad tracks, with the existing 700 West street(west side of tracks) connecting 200 South to 100 South. On the east side of the railroad tracks the closure will create an "L" intersection with a future railroad frontage road from 100 South street(east side of tracks) making a connection from 100 South to 60.0 West. On the east side of the tracks there are businesses, with most of their access coming from and going to 600 West. The west side of the tracks is mostly businesses in the area of 700 West. 100 South does not serve as an east/west connection for the area because it dead ends into 1-15 at approximately 750 West. While this closure will have some affect on the ability of motorists to cross the railroad tracks, there are still protected at-grade crossings available at 200 South and 600 West/South Temple as well as the grade separated crossing at North Temple. In summary, closing 100 South at the railroad tracks will increase safety by eliminating an unprotected at-grade rail crossing. It will facilitate future development in the area and the creation of a Quiet Zone. It will also preclude an expensive rail crossing upgrade. 349 SOUTH ZOO EAST, SUITE 450, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 641 1 1 TELEPHONE: 80 1•535-6630 FAX: 8O 1•535.60 1 9 WWW.SLCGOV.COM If you concur, please sign below and forward this request to the City Planning Division to process. r 11-7 Timothy r Harpst, P.E., PTOE City Transportation Director cc: Rocky Fluhart Louis Zunguze Alexander Ikefuna Doug Dansie Kurt Larson DJ Baxter Stephanie Toombs John Naser Concurrence to process closure of 100 South at 700 West: Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson • Exhibit B Maps of Proposed Closure .„,,.L•., ..' ,;.,.. , , •.;,'..-,':•;!-':•:! • ' ; •••- • ' • •' e‘.--..-...;.,. ',,:-.'",'.'."..:•!...;;4.';'...!?1; '''',..i'''''., ' '.,.7-q; ',.' ''''' '• - ..:.'"'.;' ' '..,., . - :'.•''''':''''....'?.. :fii.. i ,. ' '-. .'.';:' • '''',) '' '':,'Y'.'....•.. .'':''.;.',.......,.,.....,.., ,..,,-: 1,...,k ,,.- ''f,4416'64. . ..;',' _ ',,,,'..,: ::fi.ki ,,,,,1,4,4.,,...'.;;',...; ..,.4'','.;.'.`W'l?,3,10'.',..4.4r.,1,,,Stvt-..-',,,•..p.., .,...,, ,, .,• ...',„„,,,,Yoix,k,ei,.,,t..,, .,1,,,f,•,,..le:,-, ',A.'.,.. .•,':-. •;..,. .„ .. . , ,,... . . . . .... .. . • • ... •• ...•... . , ,•.. ... .. ,.. •,, - • , ,• ,,,' '','•,;,1,,,.‘,,i'',,,: l', 4,4','''''n11 ',, ,'.''''..4 1.14,-ttNi.•::,:.''".''"'''14.:'''.: i,, '• ,. '''''••:;V:.:'":'''''':-::;,';:-,1•+,4','.i', ''''''';:' , '•"'.., '''''''•''•:: :, :. : l!':.*•'','•, :•••"!4f'-'4..:'i,. ;:04.,1',':•7:',..Alf:,';',../ALZWA.:;kiii;;;P,'.'w,:,. ..,:', ' •',.„;';'''',,U,!'i:.'1...!';T;:ir,'2;f:.'••••,, ."11-.' •1'..‘,:•.;1;i',;`1.• l''.' •:•.r,',...• : '',2''''''(•!!';'4,0f.. ',•,:•,'• It6 ' ..:'?;-,:'''''''.:: '''.::::,),'''',::/i.'.1'4.,k,:;';''.41:''''.7';'' ''' ',:••::: Z,•7411';#4-474.:;', . , : : •'''."'"':.:::.!:•;;.'44•:.,C1''''•;:'''. .'‘;''':',...,./ .: *IL1,,,':‘', :,,',;::::.'''',•;.--•': - -':', .:'•1".'''},•,:,•i';','"L•••••,::••,!•;.'C,,:i•;3,•:"6,..t‘:....;',11',Y,f,;;AORA:,,,'''' '''4:4:42 '''•'':;!%;; :.,••J';:•%0,:•.t#4**i''4:;';;:';:rin'i 'il4f, :-'1.17#044:0;t:'-•' '.: : '• ' r:,'•',-,;, ,',..,::,:„.••••••:"i';'„::,:.:;.:,:;.:': " •••'''.,:f.:4,0:!:''''fi7Sil,''''. ' ' '': 6.(!k''',1',';'''',?:.i:., :'''','::..:.•''',1 '.fil,F41%,•':''';:4,r,:*'•; •,,,:'',?',11,4,1!;?'',.j., '-: ''''' ::'' .. . ' .': '''''':''''''' '''Si:.:;,',','•:: ••-• ' ::•::::•'"'..;;i'. "-r'''4 , A"..;",ii. t;';,.'" 16t.'',14'.'.‘.-1** ';''''':'. .C'-..':,1'.4'''''''.;...';'.'.,''.,'".N.':',1. ' . .''''','.,..... ''...':'r•'''''',:',';',1,7 r'2'','..'';,:'''"..;S.':',.,.......','',..,,....,., ,,,,,...,,,..iy..,..:'041,i;":‘,;.`,/';:.:' 4 .1';:':':','''' .. .r. . „ ,. , .. . „...;:„..,,. ,,.:. . ,#•,•,,,,,,,„,, . ,.,• :. ' --• -:...-..:.,......,.,,,,,... ,:i..,•,.,,..*.. „,i.,,,,,-,,:•.„,.-.-...,, 4• . 0,4,-,......•,•,., ,..,,,, :L ,...,. ,,-.— -'----,---- - - --f: ...,,t-e. ::•.,..„„:-..:—..__. .. ..,,,. ... ...„, .„,, .r... . . ...,. ,. . .... . .... . -'. k. .. . „.„..... .... ,,,... ,. . .,...,.. ,Ii...1,..0-: ••••---y-----,..,,,,, _.,. ... ... .. . .. ......., . . •,.....,.... - ,,,,••. . . . •_ 1.,,...• i . :,..••••••T.,,I.e'tj.f..fi .•,‘i....,..K.: : !!.;,.,e-,.. ,.......-_ . '...;;;'•'•:'•' ::,.--e:.:-' ' -.i.---" ,: -:-''''', '.•::. .„ .. .-'' :%t,.., -,.. .4-... ..T,...!,,i:•.:: te''•'.,-•,y.,,,.., , .,•,:4 411,-,44:,:'..C.?.':':i'; : • ..,„:„. , ,•-...., • • •4-.• •::',•-:,..1-• 11 . ,. ,,_:;:.-.:41],•:. ..'-iiv,"•,;:i..i.::„.„,.. ...._... -;,--.,...',..,,,,l'i,•-.-,„, ;%§'',,f,'.r,',•':-.:.':.: '.• • . ..-'i.,,.-. .:•,...', ,4t . ..' ., •-:,:i:i:''t., .:• -•:--:-.r-: . ..'r- ; W 44 ,.;:!•. .1- •:.,:::44;-4,, .4V?-,-.:, ,:,4i:;,"44:2:,..;'-.1.1:01::::-.1r.---,1,,,-t'S'--X,";,,:`: ..:!;•';''. k. -24:4147:'-: ,:',---'..;' '...:- '•,.V, ,':::•'''.f.-Z-1,%:',41 .:Mgli;.7-tk!•01 : -li.7-7.;;.,1-;;K.'-- tli•43.-:..'9--1,:,;;i.f.,.,iiO 44- V-:-‘',..7. '. '7.4$'J:::... , .• - • ••''',-; i:',;',•',:g4i*-44ii...tc*,',"Eih,kti-W-4-: , f;?f-4101*...'Yf,,'...:-'-4; 'f.;::-..111',..,,..-;R:'-',;:,,:-,q,e.-.•-:,:;-.3.:.?-4 -;-,..;,,,'.:-.!:4i-:•: .,.:,:-..,,,.,..,.......•....,.....:.•',... ,,,,74.1,,,;....;,..„..,.:,,,,,,,....„..„4,..,...:L.„1.0••: . ....„...-..i,,,-,_.,,.„..t.::::•,•..„...-,;,..,..,_,;•::::: :.,:-..•;_:..7,.,,:,,;;•,..,„.,,,_....,.40,311:4,:,44-..,..;.:•_.,;•,,,-;::..,,-,,,,,..4.;,,,,;..:±„......-.., ,'..,•:,:.73.. .:•,-,,„:...,-:-.1.,'.....=.;;Fv4i4 .,-;;,:ifi., :;7,-,•,-.--•,-4',.-F,f.,,,q,:-.i,,,f...zizEk :i,,,,..,,,.•••':-.:.---- .- - ',.'7''''.'.--.':1'''''- ;;-'••;-l'i'i-',.'tl !'j-',-,!,?,.-.'.f- , -,-':.. :7!'•:• .;'•,-;' ,,.,•:-',...;,,.441. 1:2,<. ..r!..,,,4,-;:y .y:i....-..--2 ,,i,.:::.:!..,,-,',04-:•;,_.-$.;1,-,7'..-•:-.;:::-,•., •-.._2•:'....,•-: ,,-•:.-.. , :,) •,.;-J.:.i.2..2.;.:,.,-,•;:,:..;:-.:.-:::_•-.F,-.4.•."-.-*,.:::,.-- ::-:, ::!..,•,' ...-1:-.A•. "i' ..g-,V.,-;-,11'.!,,,'. '.:1'i'',::,41';:."-';;' '',7':;''.:',...`::/-::N-:'i::''•- '2:17.,.....::-.;.;,;•::;-.'i!.•-..,,,,_ f'.r.1.1.;•'. '.-'11;i:`•.'.,-.•;,-i.‘-ii:',-,, .•'-,A,-,,'-:::...';',',':.::1-;':::,;:i., '.;:„•.:.,.,e...;:.;,ff.-ej.2-il.'i..,"4.:;',1,i',':.,""0..:. '..:.'-',:t...'•:i.,;'-',:.. ....'t;1,4--",,iliii4.'iilt.kY,-iil`.:"..:•F-°7' ': " . '!,e`ti.I.I.t'N461.5--..".:-,;:•':• ''•-••:::'40;,--gct:;k•-..i'',i--‘•:i-; •''Z''''. ..,',:."--,,543.CUtiAlei,f,-;,•,ii,;•'..•,•-'-:,;;-;:;::--•-• ,..•.;-•, .,L.,•T;MIY.-',,.. 1,:,;•...f•-1: :.T.ti:ii iVk:i. .1 .I' '.1i';'; ''.•: .T.'iclr-iia-i.:At•i,..;,•=:•-,":1,;„ :- •. •..:.;:„.--,': •-•.•?•-••,'.:,-..;.,,-?;i::•‘4';-..-,;.!4k:4: .•''''''':f::-•:,•,-'2'..i.iii'ifr-.;,-:'.:),-:iijk;,,,...'•, -•:, ,. •#- 'd•';. . 111'..::;::5--,:1i:::::?:::::-..tZ;I:::;"-:;;;. .-',--:.•_.•:,-..::::',.1.......'-: i :'.e-i4f..;...-1-'_.,,f,' -,',.,.-''''-•••.-- i::t.'N'..''.44,+'-'-fs.: -.'e-1:',J" ,..i,''.:" .-T.i.::':.-':.---:::.-' •.-s'-'*;::--;4'!..,„`.', ': •.•i;f1--$4.2i..i..,-!.'•-**:_fi:1" ?-_.;•-• :;•:•:.-Irr-P-"ki_fAl''.f.:M'ttii-. ...-,J.--::-',::.--:.',.- ..i..,-::-:::-,:',.,..:. .c.,...•-:--:_•'.-'.-: ;:k5 ':,:'•4.:.,g,t.'i ,,---Zii4-%,:$4:&3''ife!-:,''';' iit.i ,4V,V. ,:ii•:!::::. ::.-:='-:(,:•:::•::',..':..-.•..1,-1..'1:-..;::::'..- :-rti;_tat41:f•kff:IZP.I.1,t'-',:i4 -41,9 r...."-:!-:•4;iff:.-.•';4::,.41::':- :-'.,:i''• V. ..::'......:7-.:".1''''Ii.,{.0::;,';';" 4 P q :- '-':',=',—;--4''-'.-. ..'f--.'_.,-'''..-.'::-•:::;:-"-'i. .•..-1-i,;-"::,;,‘',itk*':eillil"?*ttr'.,;:.T-...-iril-$.:; sy;,..4'A.....imsi..,•-••...;4,f„-.-jf,. -.:".-:_,y.-.y•-•••,,,,,.. -.7F1:-;,,;,-.,14-i•, .,;..,..-..-... ,,f.; t!z ;;=::.:,,,..:,•-4„ ..: -,; ,...-.4.',.'-.!-:.'!',iii, -,-4.4,.-..-,-,'-'.:..,:;,:..:;:!::''•vq,,/,_-.7,,,,A.,..1,4., .i,..;•,..ii,. .0.4..-,f..!,7: :-;:l.,...-Vi,;:.... .-;.: _-... :,,.i,..•,:v.,::,,.-.;,...,,,iL:...J.,)i,,,,,-..;f2;v...•,,;:-...:. ...,, e.;k4i;t.,:,e.iy,1:?,:;VE, Azt!Ati.ko i'-•;?4;A•4k,,,,,,j.toi:;_okli ,,..'-.,••',•-rf,!'-....„1..--•:;!,',..• ;',, .,..s.:;,,:t0.••,;ti :•'•'-'•-,-;•:--;-••NI.._.•,.,04.;=,,,r4f.t':•4 P.:!,,-4 .;;;',..•••••.•.:.....-...:„:!...- ';*•..'"Ii:_iii;-4•Ift%,„-Ii!:.4-Bz'i..4.. ••••!:-.,-..;;•;4::::„•;',::•4‘ ..•:•'. ;•ki..•:,:,..,'.'!.9_,,i..... ;-: ,•,:i.-F1.-. i.-•"5.,-..‘:;tt,-;',,i,..-,..'q3:1,..r1.404:4 4 •t. . .i:;•,,x,r41:,•:;:,... . ::,7..!''- ,..:•.= ••..':,.'11,7k-cizvi, . -'..''',.'.,,,A.:.,,i,.•,.- . :,,..4!, : •••;,,•.••fii.,i,..t.,.,...,.,.,...!F.,,! i ,1..,,,,,,! •,:r.-3-,-.74,7;.;--f.%!.i,-,, •,...-(,.-...-....-,,...••:.:.„:......:;.:.:.:..!.:.f„,.;:ii,l• ,:f.,„....,,J.. -L.,..:, . ::, :1.,•VA'-7:',-,•:,4-'..;;41.-.,-.-''',7-:,,-.;J:.•;.,..: 1,-,-;;•11'i,-'..ri',-7,!•41..-2':6,-,4;:•,:•_;.,:::.:--„;:,:--;.'.,::: :.•,:LI -:,;,, ,,•,•,,,,,,,,;.;•-;,,,i,;,•,';',.,•-.,.:1'.1•;.„ .-:.'-:','.'•'...?'"- -.-•:$14 .- •'-,:.':A4g:-'4•••,.;'....(:::**'.'11,2:,' -i'--t•AiA.•:1...,: Ar i.iiia '..-.;..,..4.;':''.: .: 1.7...:-...ii'• ,K.'s'..:,.i.:'...•:i ..Aieg:',.4.i ,, , , ,114.;,•, :.. ..:.:,., ..,„..,,,,,;,,,,,,,w,..,,,,,. -, f•-••-:::;,,,X.:..T.'.:.-.4k1.ifi5::,7it:;7:,5-*M4§4,;-9,,A --- '•:'-4iiK,10:ki.---1);:i1_14-f'ts,..,_.--ti,;-!trp:'-',': ••••• ''.':?",;••$i:::—.'---!.-"I•I'r••',;',4";Y::.';Z:':',1:1.'3::t.'%-_,,,,,lar'-';f:.;,4 ..-r.11:::::.'',:.,-,,_'; '4,-'..'.:,'-74:0:iirleAriKtc.-.t...., -.,,:',-,:.4.::',.4S, -:. 15J '''.-,4•::'.4*•:f;;VII:Z-,.. -.'re-2'''.V.W44kriik:Aci: -.. •,41.-e...:4-4•N-7....:4iil•',.:.-:7-c-;',..S-Vt1.04-,i111;1 :.*::;:n i-';_fA-V —,-•e•,..-.:'-.e.,.,.,- ..e:... .,e. :i.-:::•-4 4 1.'; ',.-rYN:.-iiir--- '.--`'-: 't.---t.,.titi' .1:!.-41_7•4';', . ..',% --;,, 7.-el'''''-'-'-.4'7.:t:''74......,;-. ' '•••i•'.4.ii.ea,n-,44434,41 tr,t ••.A..'"2.':- '1.:.Zi •-'-'`.4,---U .,i•-='1-,,,.- 4-0004-,r, .... 'N+' :---,::Ti4f-i l''',,,,::...1i1:2 . I..:cif,":":•:„,...,I‘.-A,u'VD;r :-';'.:ri '-.--. -,---' -;.-----eNA'1Z,7 ;O: '- -',,,,:,i -''-,,,,':'.'.,.....1:i::-.:•••:',J-S4r'r'1.i;,,ry.i:4,K.4..no,tiee,,,":.:,-1.t.:::,..k;:;:_4::--:;-:,..j;i5-7e,".,:,,,,,,..-;.i.r.-.:.,i,.N..r..e:..--;,;,.'i,,:.,,,,,4:0-apx...g 1;.,::-,,-,,.,;,.::4??..,:,,A-:,:. Ai=?'•1.4;; -",-,,.;.4.ek...;:7.:..4.• 1.., i'','..1i.-':::m... .,:, ...'„z. :,.z.z1:_,,y,,,;.'.-..t,--A•imi.1-14;•.7,Z1- .-•,;,,,•“?4,•ir,r514J;rr.,.7:: 4tr!zk-....,,,•;- ;- - --,-,.),--J,, ‘,..-,•,,,,;--•,,,,.•„•,....,,,,,,-.-:...,,,,,;;„.,,•„„,„P-,0!:.;.,,g6,:;,•••:; i--, ,•••" ,•',4-1347.-•••,44.-,i4,-P.,441:02,-,,,,,,,,,.,,,:---_ ••- .,„,.,,f., .,,,,,„, ,.. •,,.•„.„.„.,-,,,,,, ,_-„,,,,,,..,-,. ..•.;,,,,,;',-.',.,:,`,...,,,,,,4..,,,..,.,,,,. .:..,--,..., -,-.: ,... .,',.;,.'...i ,,q'',t.,-....1i.;•_,4-. ,;.,,',-,,,,Y,'''.'-fl';1-.'"'.-'7"-'' ''''','''''''''' f- 6::,;•-,•,:.;,:p•;;;.;•:.,..:::::,.;-:i.•.,,,. .,,,• :::,:•,•,,,'„,,.,-..,..„•••:: 4-,--:;;.;,,..:._-•.-,:„.4...,.-,'.-..,••,,,,,x,-;-(.::::..-4,,,-;f.-..,-,'":„:g.r.,..1.,',....,:e-,•-_ - .•A--.• .-. -..,,,,.:_i•:..i',,,:.,. •.,...".:..-.: ,:''':,;E:i;,t-j',,,,,,,:-i-J.,:!:-.k•e:„4'?.;::-';%,-,q'." '.,...",-,;;,..--.:;:•:# - -1%,',:-;n::.:-Ik.)::4,:liliq--e.:,,,•': ' ;0;,:-.);7'i•zi:'-'"' .•::r F-- • '.:','-,:-..--?.'.;'‘ ..i'-'.,;.'5.,;;'-':'-'-'`'.t.:;;-.•;'•••,-;,,Irls:t,P4-ML$.'j,':.::::-.rs .,'•. rkt..V:••••.''..4.63...fite,t`•.1:,c0Aigy4,1.',,,,,-52.t.1- '11V.:45:!.... ..4-.13,i,1„.:•:.,AVI .-.,•:'"-::-.'.',:-';'''...: ...iili. 4,i,;•V'T!:::•,,,--:.."';k,t?..1.;:'-?-V4'.4,V:74;.... :;-::•',-1...','••,:'",;.'.;,,F..L-- - . ' :.'1 L.L.:i:-...1::`‘'.''.1:.L..,. i.VATEgi ..... ..... L';1".g.'..'e..OL.ikt.''',.,Qii0L),,,:i;::L'.''.''',eit, :,:,-;'::'.4"-_,•.-,.1-;.'r-.,.7::•;;:t_ ;.. ;.; ::,:':-.c';;:;:;:.:ii.:..,' I"t 11,:i i• i i i ik;:, ,,4.1,,,,-i•..--•,•-,•::„.•,••••;•,-,;....:•:,;„:-.T,..--....,4,44.y,i-4,,t,..-•if,•;•.3',54,'..liiig-rix, Fi":'.--, ;--.,;•';•.•;--" 111.,4,:,•'. '." ' ' -.-..., ;_•:,.:,,.:-.-•_:•;: "'!, :iil,, .:,;,.__1,z;• 0, ,-i.;-17 ,.-'it '. .. ';', •;'. ••'•-•-',-.':',.(•,;"?; 7 ''7-- ..'- ''-- ---t,':-.".:.7- . '..;•.F.: :•'''-- --1'.:',N, Iii .t,:;,..: -,-=.i ,--.,, ••:_ ;',..I. •?•71,:i 1. • , - ---,;,-,..4:,5•,,,,..,,,,,r,...--r:5,-.,,,,-,,,in,-. •., • 1,•v,:,:•-• ' : • -. ••. ''' E ' . °'''•*-iy,= •.4-•.--ik,' •..,y,,, f:•;:•• '7:•1. ','-,-: ,.. •.:: A ,..i'.,.' . •..;•. • .:,•.,..t.,4K„4,„., r.-.,..••.,c„....,..k.A.,,..,.:-..,.., , . ' ... *,'.3.,,--.-'-;',..,....--:S'.. .-;,-.011 ''.•`-.;' ,'',...;..,, . .-:''.fi,1°:,'7.-...,fM', 4".::',.:',.-L' t,',:' ':. . 'Y%- i'.4.NA'- ,,At-,.,,,_,-;,'''• ;.'„.,...,---. . ,,,2%-,:,.-44*.:,:k,,:e4F.e,i4.•,'.,-.;,,r,;:'::',.,-,-.',#.z.. i *-:,e,".--:,;'',...1,: ': 1..'.'''.:1''••• .-.-.,'e-':',-l',.,',•.:. '''. -:::'---,e..': ,' ''---.`,...'''. 2!,;,-',',. .4••,,,k.;-,....;,',,,,;:.:,,,..:;',/,:;.,., -;W:.-.:,;:--oik-:„ ,'..:--.:-..e.:,ist,.-r:;'..,!..!;....1:,:::-V.i.:;..,,.... '-'4•,,,-,:i7.%• ,-:':.-'.. ---;:i....e,:::-,','.::...",..'e."--:'.:e--__.'.'-•. -•. '•..: .]:-._-',.;';':,-;',;II :::' '-.'t-e:,:::i.l?.'-q-•.,V.,',..`:e..-,-.;-.1::,:.:::,,,7!.':.';.'',;.‘.-..:;;;;F:':',l'''.,;;3:::.."-,f;".:.:".',i''.., ".?,,..',":.;'....";;,;','";,--.;:::;-Vt_i;,-,-=,'S,,:','•;'.','-„--.!,:.1.',,; .‘,:'....:..;:,,..;:, ....... ..:...1.,,.,,,,.',.;,,,,c,.,',....4- ,1 ,.m,,.--:!:,.-,':'-.:.')',.::.-.-2..,;:-:....,,,:z ....-:-. :.,.‘:',-;,..•:,-.,?r,-.:f..:,.,,,.;;:',,i'.,,:!,,,,--. .: ;;:.4.4._44,,,A.4`-'444;:01, ,,t4,.;•-•-.,_,:-,.-- ,'',7'-':"7-''',"...'"'''._-T-..'.. .'"".:,''..:.'.....,•.-e,',7,: ;Zi-i,:,M,':.4?:._:,-:•'`,e'Y."':-.!.'.!.r,.:''.-,.• ..''--'!-•e-,''':s.',...-......: 7';',' ': --.-'':-..;:,'..:.•i-....,_-.e'::::;_.•.:,:.:'.., ,-..:',.;g,:..:ti ..,;;--1.,..„,----.-*Ii,.'.-,;',4!:..,:,,,4,,.',4,,e.'- c,,,-,- ;-',...:•-•';-;::--:.--',','.;..,,.e.,'...:•:.•..••'...-:- ,---.,-..--;.,-0. 4;e:-.er;4:,.:A*Via.W-P:.,',i,,"F-i;',c-T ..••'..,!,'''.'' ',"::. . _..1', :/.''-: ?'••i.=,?`•igi:?:',...'!:''',.'6.../-',.'.•.'V2 ,,i''': : ': ' 'M' ' 'AY; 'A:j.C'VIA;' .-'r' r7-: ; . ' . -,.. I.. -',--.•‘.,-:,,-.,-'1,-:, •.,r.-''.-..-,'';--:'.':-.-•-•''-': ,'•: :--•:-.':-.•.'..-,- f-;•:;.;.•-;.:,.-:<i._'''';.;-:- :% .,:-.-:-..''''''',':::'-'-v'-ji'•4,-4,'.--.4:4,` .,1•,,,qf,;,•,::•,,ItIvk,_.4,„,,,.§::,..:!„-,,....,.,,,,,.,, ..„-. _.•:.,,-.„..:.,.,:.,,,, •.,-,:,-.4,,:;,;,,,,.,4,,,„„..„,--,,,,,,,,,,,,xtc.1, 41...volt-f4.4A.,,o4:41:.„,:i.,,.•.s,44.- %.,.-5;; ,,4 "-•-.--••.--.•:--.-, ,,,,;,,M,,z. •.••,..,.---- -.2,-••-'-'..:• trk-• ,-:----4.,,71.' .-''..71gAtif,-,i:-.',:r•..' ':-.:";1..,..' ..; ..'-7iFr. ;:::'...:' :..:•;•,.4.1,.-!-.TTili..;,;,',.,',..,..:!..,'.1.:,:','..--: 1•.•-!::,:: :':=..;.0:1•ri:!. •:'::',,'•,:::..1p,..i.::: .. '''''..'''':-',....',:::`.41-iti#4.1:‘,:..:1.q.',.4.$0t,-tfifi: all • , :'-'•'''V''''''':':.:.:I:: '•Iiiii:;?.i.,2•::1- '3'14'''-.',.:'''-',;'::c.Q] • .•',:.-..,,:,.....,... •• :.!......`..,:•.::=J'Au-.-.::1,f::•-n'4, .'4-..Crck-filf4".,,...A., 44.....•.....,..• ••:'.,='..':-'•...•'..i •'7,".4-'' '''.'''',.:'.'..'1.:•.A 4',.'..-::-;',:.•;)`‘' ,..,,•'',,•,,,„,,,...-..•-_-..•:,....,..... '-•.i:". ..-,':,,...,.,,,,..:f,,:q,,::•,Ctf7,••:,* - .:‘:-....'--?•'•:-'-': '.-:.:.'... .i....:':-.';'-.M$14'-',:-.4' i':-:...-..-.,1:•._.,1:T4'4-5, • •:: :,,,:;.. •.,..• .•.;-E:, ,r,,i',.;.• .ik_•tifr.=•,..'.1.'.(4.4....ii-e'''.'-. ':',1.',.'•....4 Ar • '''-'''''.. '. ..;'L'''..4., ,ii., '''''.,:.''.''''..'4,`''.'', -4..1A4'''''.•••• ..'.'...:':;:. • .i..... .' .1 .;4'''.,.!,;' 'f,.',0! ..-.,,,,';';',4';:i2;.':.. I .T, . ., N,,.... 'i; ' • -. W.. a I r 4V1.11 . , • ' ' ' - •, , II4 :•,,,, , , ..„ . P•, . ••' '•' MI MP 'I.I.." .. t••il' :. It • "....„,..... 3.1 IIIIA , 1104 qi, 4 14.14,; ...,, i,,,,,-..,: , . .-- ...,,,,-.; i • • k ,,,i.'tjft„. , Mil . '": ''J'•,: ',',".:'- '''"", -5" t '... •ef. 1• ' ''''',,,, -''-'"‹."._:,OP.'-.-;.','„ ":1',,: '-',-‘; ,,,s*,.., ,,"-t%g,/,'; ...._ , crl .,, ,• . .,I."IIII.'!I* 'I'' ' ' ICf-'.3. I• •.„ ' "N.I.I.I'.re ..:I I' *I' . 'It P 4,4,1 .• 4,'iik.„, , ), , • .,. ,,,. .• ,. , m.,.,.,'` • .,,,,.ke'....: II"III, 4,.,''I, • ,. • / Ila (I) ••,PIIIIA.,,,.,,•...:43,, ,„, -s•- -------.. ,-II•V334",.., A 'No?. -,..y... ',-, ... 0 wirail — .. ' . . •,,, • .,,,,,,,„,,,,-, . . . , • ., .... ,, , ; ..„ ZI -ft." . • ...,. . . t: • , ,,. ..,......:.1,,‘ .--- ,,, ,, nil ,. . ,R:.lit.,-, ,— - -ins... "Ilrl 0 , k r I., 3' -, ,. i i,. I ,. ....... ._ • -',qv 3 - — •, . ... . , -.'•,I,i,I',,i,1'.-,I,IIIIIIi , '-44)4,-,',••I'l . ..,,. . ....• , '',.__ •• I I I ' I. 1.7- ,1?!. .I.;‘,$III, 'I,,• . . , 11 C4 I I .--'';',I."•-''..--` q ;IIII:I,' IIi;iI•I'•'%.111411 .. - - 1- - • _. .-.... ...,. . . I _-, • - ... ri *4 •; i a i .--, , *..;',-..':,f, -' ' . ' ' 0 0 I ,... . t„ s,6, • 0. . . 4 'i -.:.1. ' ,,,,. ' ,'-.0.....,t-.• ,:- ---:31t,• • i. ...... . _ . .. , 4.. . ..r, - ..4 , . , . .. .,A 1 , , , ,- .. ... , , ,..,.• .... -, .i• .', -•1„....t ,, . .. . .. , .. . _ _......... _ .... . . . . , • • . . ,, ,...-. . .- .. , . \ • -'"-, -;_,.,••:"'-,,.-. -- , .kt,'y';. ,. .. , , - •. '''.4';••,*3I.:a.-2.".I..I=.!..•',t6',,'d,''.4.,,,e'i',q..;',-',',.-'....,`7;''.:,",.•.•,,;":..*W.•'.,--._:,"7:.•I,I:,.4 S,.'";I fP;F..,I•I's7.-...t •, .„-.-... -, ", • . ,, .. -, .aI 1 1 • . ,I'',''. . .. :-',"1*1--•:. • • . , ' : stc a • •,.,.. f ....,,, -,-- . , ' ,l'- ".1.1,,k:''' , " '',' •- .' ' , . ' .-- -.. 41:.44::1. : • :I t,, ' . 4 4 I 4 4 4 . , . .,. ,.. - 1 i ... .• Lc,1 W. . ,, lipt ti .„ .1.1 4, . . ,,.. , -t.i.t.,.,: ti - 1'1:, . .4,--, -• i • tinitilMerf: ,..1.1t, ":1;11"' • ... . 1. 1 ., ..' ' 1' li !!" I h M 1.. ' ..•1 1 Exhibit C Department/Division Comments BUILDING PERMITS Nick, I have no comments. Larry TRANSPORTATION July 17, 2006 Nick Britton, Planning Re: Petition 400-06-15, Partial closure of 100 South at 700 West. The division of transportation review comments and recommendations are as follows: We are the representatives for the city in this request to close the railroad crossing at 100 South 700 West in conjunction with the Rail Road track realignment and the Commuter Rail alignment impact to an at grade unprotected crossing, expanding the Quiet Zone program, and too preclude the cost of up grading this crossing. Sincerely, Barry Walsh Cc Kevin Young, P.E. Kurt Larson, P.E. Brad Stewart, Utilities Brad Larson, Fire Larry Butcher, Permits Craig Smith, Engineering John Spencer, Property Management. File POLICE Thank you for the memo on this project proposal. There are no significant police concerns with regard to this proposal. Melinda Nagai Community Mobilization Specialist Community Action Team Salt Lake City Police (801) 799-4638 office (801) 799-4651 fax melinda.nagai@u,slcgov.com PUBLIC UTILITIES Dear Nick, Public Utilities has review the above mentioned petition and takes no exception to the closure as long as there is access to the sewer, water and/or storm drain located within the closed portion of the road for maintenance. Jason Brown, PE Exhibit D Photographs N r L ........______ ..,_ _.,_ 100 South looking east 100 South looking west Pgigki 6 v �s L x�3 Looking northeast at the proposed location 700 West looking south of the road back to 600 West Exhibit 5-c Planning Commission Hearing Minutes: October 11 , 2006 Transmittal of Petition#400-06-15 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, October 11, 2006 Present for the Planning Commission meeting were Frank Algarin, Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, Robert Forbis, Peggy McDonough (Chairperson), Susie McHugh, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, Matthew Wirthlin (Vice Chairperson) and Mary Woodhead. Present from the Planning Division were Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director; Nick Britton, Principal Planner; and Cecily Zuck, Senior Secretary. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson McDonough called the meeting to order at 5:44 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 Frank Algarin, Tim Chambless, Peggy McDonough, Susie McHugh, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, Matthew Wirthlin and Mary Woodhead. Salt Lake City Staff present were Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director and Kevin Young, Transportation Division Assistant Director. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, September 13, 2006. (This item was heard at 5:44 p.m.) Commissioner Robert Forbis made a motion to approve the minutes with one change noted by Commissioner McHugh. Commissioner Delay Seconded the motion. All voted "Aye".The motion passed. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR (This item was heard at 5:45 p.m.) Chairperson McDonough reminded the Commission that during the Planning Retreat last week, Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director, informed the Commission of a planned meeting on October 19 with City Council concerning the upcoming Downtown projects. Chairperson McDonough then inquired if there was any confirmation concerning the proposed meeting between the Council and the Planning Commission and the Transportation Advisory Board. Mr. Ikefuna noted that this meeting has been set for 5:30 on Thursday, October 19, 2006 in Room 326 of the City and County Building. Mr. Ikefuna raised another concern addressed during the Planning Commission Retreat on October 4, 2006. He stated that he was aware that the Planning Commission wished to have more involvement from City Counsel, particularly City Attorney Lynn Pace. Mr. Ikefuna did discuss this with Lynn Pace, and it was agreed that he will be available to meet during dinner with the Commissioners to brief them on legal issues which may warrant the opinion of Counsel. Mr. Ikefuna noted that minutes from the retreat on October 4, 2006, will be available next week. Chairperson McDonough next acknowledged a letter from the Mayor requesting that the Planning Commission initiate a petition for Transit Shelter Advertising in Salt Lake City. Commissioner Delay made a motion to initiate a petition to allow Transit Shelter Advertising in Salt Lake City. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. All voted "Aye". The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson McDonough brought attention to the Memorandum submitted by Deputy Panning Director, Cheri Coffey, a request to expand petition 400-05-16 relating to Amendments to the Conditional Use Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Coffey noted that in light of new state law, the Planning Department is requesting an expansion of this petition to look at the issues in a comprehensive manner. Commissioner Scott made a motion to expand petition 400-05-16 relating to Amendments to the Conditional Use Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.The motion was seconded by Commissioner Forbis. All voted "Aye". The motion passed. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA (There were no items to be reviewed.) PUBLIC HEARINGS Petition No.410-06-15—A request by Salt Lake City Transportation Division to close a portion of 100 South at the railroad tracks at approximately 700 West to eliminate an unprotected railroad crossing, increase safety and create a "Quiet Zone". (This item was heard at 5:52 p.m.) Chairperson McDonough recognized Nick Britton as staff representative. DJ Baxter from the Mayor's Office was also present. Mr. Britton gave a brief overview of the project noting that the closure has been requested in order to establish safer conditions at this intersection, which is currently an unprotected at- grade railroad crossing. Another goal is to promote and facilitate economic development in this area through the creation of a "Quiet Zone". Mr. Britton noted the proposed changes to traffic including the diversion of traffic heading west on 100 South to a new mid-block road returning to 600 West. Mr. Britton then noted that north-bound traffic on 700 West would be allowed to make a U-turn at an open portion of 100 South to head south again on 700 West. Commissioner Woodhead inquired if in addition to the curb and gutter proposed, Union Pacific or another party would put a gate or alternative barrier across this closure. In response to Commissioner Woodhead's question, Mr. Baxter stated that there would not be a gate but that this closing would be similar to the crossing closed at 500 North and that a strong visual indicator at the end of the street would be included. Commissioner Woodhead wondered if pedestrians trapped on 200 South by a stopped train might still be able to get through to 100 South. DJ Baxter indicated that this option for pedestrians would eliminate a Quiet Zone, or the benefits of such a zone, as trains would not be allowed any audible warnings for pedestrians. Commissioner Chambless inquired if there would be any opportunity for bicyclists, motorcycles or other alternative modes of transportation to cross at the intersection. Mr. Baxter stated that there would be no opportunity for crossing of any kind, but that trains would be allowed to travel through much more quickly, which hopefully would expedite the surrounding traffic. Commissioner Scott inquired if the surrounding properties would be affected by the traffic redirection. DJ Baxter acknowledged that the tracks would have to come somewhat east and a warehouse property would be affected. Mr. Baxter also noted that in addition to the existing freight rail tracks, there will be two UTA commuter rail tracks constructed to the east. Mr. Baxter stated that due to the widening of this area to accommodate the additional rail lines, the new road will need to move somewhat east. Commissioner Woodhead voiced her concern that this proposal was only presented to the Downtown Community Council and did not go before the West Side Community Councils, and wondered if there was any way to present the proposal before the Poplar Grove Community Council to give some notice to them. Nick Britton noted that Planning Staff could contact the Poplar Grove Community Council Chair and see if this item could be added to that Council's November agenda. Chairperson McDonough opened the hearing to public comment at 6:00 p.m. As there were no questions or comments, the public hearing portion was closed. Regarding Petition 410-06-15, Commissioner Delay made a motion to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the closure at 100 South at the 700 West rail crossing to pedestrian and general vehicle access including the following amendment: 1. The City will make an effort to present this proposal to the Poplar Grove Community Council. Commissioner Algarin seconded the motion. All voted "Aye". The motion passed unanimously. N _ r. jrl1ii1rriirllili_ a field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:O p nj 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 11, 2006, at 5:45 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, September 27, 2006. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Petition No. 410-06-15 — A request by Salt Lake City Transportation Division to close a portion of 100 South at the railroad tracks at approximately 700 West to eliminate an unprotected railroad crossing, increase safety and create a "Quiet Zone". (Staff— Nick Britton at 535-7932 or nickbritton@slcgov.com) 5. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR a. Downtown Transportation Master Plan Update. b. Discussion of master plan development status and priorities. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, STAFF REPORT DATE: Decembers,2006 SUBJECT: Petition 400-06-09—Chris Robinson/Arimco Corp—request to rezone property at 99 East 700 North from Foothills Residential FR-2/21,780 to Single and Two-Family Residential R-2 AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted the rezoning will affect Council District 3 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Lex Traughber,Principal Planner NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Newspaper advertisement and written notification to surrounding property owners 14 days prior to the Public Hearing KEY ELEMENTS: A. An ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration to rezone property at 99 East 700 North from Foothills Residential FR-2/21,780 to Single and Two-Family Residential R-2 zoning classification. The Administration notes this action would correct a mapping error that occurred during the 1995 Zoning Rewrite Project. (Please see the attached map for reference.) B. The Administration's transmittal notes: 1. Prior to 1995,the property was zoned Residential R-2. (Please note:A majority of the City's residential areas were zoned Residential R-2 prior to 1995. This zoning classification allowed single-family and two-family residential dwellings). 2. This property is part of the Ensign Downs Plat"G"Subdivision,a 3-lot subdivision approved and recorded in May 1982. 3. It appears that there was mapping error that resulted in the 3 lots of the Ensign Downs Plat"G" Subdivision being zoned FR-2 instead of R-2 during the 1995 Zoning Rewrite Project. 4. Lots 1 and 2 of this subdivision have been developed with two-family dwellings and are considered legal non-conforming uses. (Two-family dwellings are not a permitted use in the FR- 2 zoning district.) 5. Lot 3 (the subject property)is currently vacant and the requested rezoning would allow the applicant to construct a duplex on the property. 6. The property is approximately 12,197 sq. ft.which is less than the minimum lot size of 21,780 sq. ft. specified in the Foothills Residential FR-2/21,780 zoning district. (Please note: The property would be considered a legal non-complying lot in regard to lot size in the FR-2 zoning district.) 7. Surrounding land uses include a mix of single-family and two-family residential dwellings and vacant land. 1 C. The purpose of the Foothills Residential FR-2/21,780 district is to promote environmentally sensitive and visually compatible development of lots not less than 21,780 sq. ft. in size, suitable for foothill locations. The District is intended to: 1. Minimize flooding, erosion and other environmental hazards; 2. Protect the natural scenic character of foothill areas not suitable for development; 3: Promote the safety and well-being of present and future residents of foothill areas; and 4. Ensure the efficient expenditure of public funds. D. The purpose of the Single and Two-Family Residential R-2 district is to preserve and protect, for single-family dwellings,the character of existing neighborhoods which exhibit a mix of single-and two-family dwellings by controlling the concentration of two-family dwelling units. E. The R-2 zoning district requires a minimum lot width of 50 ft and a minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. for single-family dwellings and 8,000 sq. ft. for two-family dwellings. F. The citywide Compatible Residential Infill zoning text changes adopted by the Council on December 13, 2005 are applicable in both the FR-2 and R-2 zoning districts. The standards address building and exterior wall height,front and side yard setback, location,size and height for accessory structures. The standards do not regulate demolition of homes. The standards apply to new construction and remodels. Exceptions to the standards are allowed through the Routine and Uncontested Special Exception,Administrative Hearing or Board of Adjustment tiered processes. The standards are intended to allow for flexibility of design while providing compatibility with existing development patterns. G. The public process included a presentation to the Capitol Hill Community Council and written notification of the Planning Commission hearing to surrounding property owners. The Administration's transmittal notes the Community Council was supportive of the petition. H. The City's Fire,Police, and Public Utilities Departments and Transportation and Engineering Divisions have reviewed the request. Any new development proposal will be required to comply with applicable overlay zoning classifications(Groundwater Source Protection),City standards and demonstrate that there are adequate services to meet the needs of the project. I. On June 14,2006,the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to rezone the property as requested. Issues discussed at the Planning Commission hearing are summarized below: 1. That the current slope restriction regulations do not apply to this property due to the date the subdivision was approved and recorded. 2. A comparison of the required yard area and setback standards for both zoning districts. 3. Public comment related to potential impacts on surrounding properties in relation to compatibility with other developed properties,height,setbacks,view protection,and protection of environmentally sensitive property to the west. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report note the following: A. Because the subdivision was established in 1982,the current zoning standard that prohibits development on lots that exceed 30%slope is not applicable. In addition,the current zoning 2 standards in the R-2 zoning district restricting the number of two-family dwellings units that may be located adjacent to one another and on a block face are not applicable. 1. Language in the Zoning Ordinance relating to slope restrictions in the FR-2 zoning district exempts properties subdivided prior to November 4, 1994.(Sec. 21A.24.030.G—Slope Restrictions) 2. Language in the Zoning Ordinance restricting the number of two-family dwellings units that may be located adjacent to one another and on a block face exempts properties subdivided prior to April 12, 1995. (Sec. 21 A.24.010. C—Minimum Lot Area and Lot Width-Qualifying Provisions) 3. Should this rezone request be approved and a duplex constructed on the subject lot,there would be 2 two-family dwellings located on the 700 North block face,which would still be consistent with current Code requirements. B. Should this rezone request be approved,this property would have a different zoning designation that the other lots(adjacent to the property, east and northeast) in the Ensign Downs Plat"G"Subdivision. Because this petition was generated at the request of the property owner of Lot 3,Lots 1 and 2 are not being rezoned at this time. (Please note: Lots 1 and 2 are currently developed with 1-two-family dwelling each and owned separately by other individuals) Future rezoning of Lots 1 and 2 should be considered to correct the mapping error and render the zoning on the lots consistent with the adopted Capitol Hill Master Plan. C. On July 14,2006,Arimco Corp. sold the property to Ms.Kathryn Wilson. On August 31,2006,Ms. Wilson indicated to Planning staff that she wanted to pursue the rezoning request. The Administration notes that the change in ownership has no bearing of the rezoning request as proposed. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Capitol Hill Master Plan(2001)is the adopted land-use policy document that guides new development in the area of the proposed rezoning. 1. The Future Land Use Map identifies this area for low density residential uses(5-15 dwelling units per acre). a. The FR-2 zoning district allows only single-family dwelling at a density of 2 units per acre. b. The R-2 zoning district allows single-family and two family dwellings at a density of 8.7 per acre for single-family and 10.9 per acre for 2-family dwelling. 2. The property is located on the fringe of the Ensign Downs Neighborhood and adjacent to the DeSoto/Cortez Neighborhood. Relevant policies include: a. Ensure the established very-low and low density residential character of the neighborhood is preserved. b. Ensure infill development is compatible with the existing character of the immediate neighborhood by maintaining restrictive zoning. B. The City's Comprehensive Housing Plan policy statements address a variety of housing issues including 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 3 • 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. 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. 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. • March 29, 2006 Petition delivered to Planning Division • April 6, 2006 Petition assigned to planner • May 17,2006 Capitol Hill Community Council meeting • June 14,2006 Planning Commission hearing • June 15,2006 Ordinance requested from City Attorney • June 20,2006 Ordinance received from City Attorney cc: Sam Guevara,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Louis Zunguze,Chris Shoop, Doug Wheelwright,Cheri Coffey,Lex Traughber,Marge Harvey,Gwen Springmeyer File Location: Community Development Dept.,Planning Division,Rezoning,Chris Robinson/Arimco Corp./Kathryn Wilson, 99 East 700 North 4 (�1 �Q( NOV 13 20D6 (�1 LOUIS ZUNGUZE ...;` ' s.`aJ �aJ y( 'ri© 0.�.+�.►©m ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR TRANSMITTED DEPUTY DIRECTOR NOV 13 ?MS CITY COUNCIL TRANSMIT AL TO CITY C D 1f i C 11- TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: Oct ber 26, 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Direc r , RE: Petition 400-06-09 by Chris Robinson/Arimco Corporation rezone the property located at 99 East 700 North from FR-2 (Foothills Residential District)to R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential District) STAFF CONTACTS: Lex Traughber, Principal Planner, at 535-6184 or lex.traughber@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 400-06-09 is a request to rezone the property located at 99 East 700 North from FR-2 (Foothills Residential District)to R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential District). The applicant's purpose in proposing to rezone the subject property is to correct a mapping error which occurred during the 1995 Zoning Rewrite Project. The correction would allow the applicant to construct a duplex on the subject property. The property is currently zoned FR-2. As stated in Chapter 21A.24.030 of the Zoning Ordinance,the purpose of this zone is: To promote environmentally sensitive and visually compatible development of lots not less than twenty one thousand seven hundred eighty(21,780) square feet in size suitable for foothills locations. The District is intended to minimize flooding, erosion, and other environmental hazards; to protect the natural scenic character of foothill areas not suitable for development;to promote the safety and well being of present and future residents of the foothill areas; and to ensure the efficient expenditure of public funds. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7105 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM wccrccP pnaea The FR-2 Zoning District does not allow two-family dwellings, and the subject parcel does not meet the minimum lot size requirement of the FR-2 District. The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property to R-2. As indicated in Chapter 21A.24.110, the purpose of the R-2 District is: To preserve and protect for single-family dwellings the character of existing neighborhoods which exhibit a mix of single and two-family dwelling by controlling the concentration of two-family dwelling units. Analysis: The subject parcel was created as Lot 3, one of three lots, of the Ensign Downs Plat "G" Subdivision recorded with Salt Lake County on May 24, 1982. Prior to 1995, these three lots were zoned R-2. A mapping error resulted in the three being zoned FR-2 instead of R-2 during the 1995 Zoning Rewrite Project. The zoning map prior to the Zoning Rewrite Project in 1995 indicated that the lots were zoned R-2. Lots 1 and 2 of this subdivision are each developed with a two-family dwelling. These duplexes are considered legal conforming uses as identified in Section 21 A.38.120 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for alterations, additions, and replacement of the duplex units on the lots. Should this rezone request be granted, Lot 3 would have a different zoning designation than Lots 1 and 2. Because this petition was generated at the request of the Lot 3 property owner, Lots 1 and 2 are not being rezoned at this time. Future rezoning of Lots 1 and 2 to R-2 should be considered to correct the mapping error and render the zoning on the lots consistent with the adopted Capitol Hill Master Plan. Because Lot 3 was created prior to November 4, 1994, it is not subject to the slope restrictions imposed at that time. In addition, the current regulation in the R-2 District, which states that no more than two lots may be used for two-family dwellings located adjacent to one another and no more than three such dwellings may be located on the same block face, is also not applicable since the subdivision was approved prior to 1995. Should this rezone request be approved and a duplex constructed on the subject lot, there would be two two-family dwellings located on the 700 North block face, which would still be consistent with current Code requirements. Master Plan Considerations: The Capitol Hill Community Future Land Use Map identifies the subject parcel as Low Density Residential (5-15 dwelling units per acre), which is the same designation as all of the DeSoto/Cortez neighborhood located directly to the south. Lots 1 and 2 of the Ensign Downs Plat"G" Subdivision are designated the same. Given this development density, residential lot sizes under this future land use designation range in size from 2,904 to 8,712 square feet. The subject parcel is approximately 12,197 square feet. Two dwelling units on the parcel would result in lot sizes of approximately 6,098 square feet per unit. In addition, the 12,197 square foot lot size is well below the required lot size of 21,780 square feet of the FR- 2 District, as noted previously. This proposed lot size and associated density are consistent with the future land use designation and therefore do not constitute "spot zoning". Petitigp 400-06-09: Rezone of 99 East 700 North from FR-2 to R-2 Page 2 of 3 PUBLIC PROCESS: On May 17, 2006,the applicant presented the proposal to the Capitol Hill Community Council. There were no issues raised at this meeting. The Community Council was generally supportive of the proposed rezone. On June 14, 2006, a Public Hearing was held by the Planning Commission and public comment solicited. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to rezone the subject property as requested, noting that the request would rectify the mapping error that occurred during the 1995 Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project. Following the Planning Commission decision, Arimco Corporation sold the subject lot to Katherine Wilson(on July 14, 2006). Ms. Wilson indicated on August 31, 2006,that she wants to pursue the requested rezone. The change in ownership has no bearing on the rezone request as proposed. 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, 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 five of the Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 14, 2006 (see Section 5B entitled "Planning Commission Staff Report"). Petition 400-06-09:Rezone of 99 East 700 North from FR-2 to R-2 Page 3 of 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION A) ORIGINAL NOTICE POSTMARK May 30, 2006 B) STAFF REPORT June 14, 2006 C) AGENDA AND MINUTES June 14, 2006 6. ORIGINAL PETITION 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY March 29, 2006 Petition delivered to Planning Division. April 6, 2006 Petition assigned to Lex Traughber. May 17, 2006 Petition presented to Capitol Hill Community Council. No correspondence received from the Council regarding the proposal. May 30, 2006 Planning Commission hearing notices sent via U.S. Mail and email. June 14, 2006 Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezone request. June 15, 2006 Planning Staff requested ordinance from the City Attorney's Office. June 20, 2006 Ordinance received from City Attorney's Office. 2. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Rezoning Property Generally Located at 99 East 700 North) REZONING PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 99 EAST 700 NORTH FROM FOOTHILLS RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (FR-2) TO SINGLE- AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-2), PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-06-09. 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 change of zoning for the property generally located at 99 East 700 North 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 99 East 700 North, which is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from Foothills Residential District (FR-2) to Single- And Two-Family Residential (R-2). 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. 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 (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: 1:AOrdinance 06\Rezoning 99 East 700 North-06-19-06 draft °an 1148 0 itY A ornFOR( �i Data 'E'Llp"m., �c f prflG 6 (�f 11:3 2 Exhibit A ► c� Lot 3 of the Ensign Downs Plat "G" Subdivision (Sidwell number 09-30-351-021) as recorded with the Salt Lake County Clerk & Recorder's Office on May 24, 1982, reception number 3677890, Book 82-5, Page 43. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION B. Staff Report June 14, 2006 DATE: June 14, 2006 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Lex Traughber Principal Planner Telephone: (801) 535-6184 Email: lex.traughber@slcgov.com RE: STAFF REPORT FOR THE JUNE 14,2006 MEETING CASE NUMBER: 400-06-09 APPLICANT: Chris Robinson Arimco Corporation STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner PROJECTIt LOCATION: 99 East 700 North E 'al y3 a ;t rF�` : �� leo vir ..-'fit J a1 'Y t ':. 2 3 4 e �� ,, if 1 ... * it 9P@4 ,1 ', Y ........... ;,: 1, i , r ' r.o‘l iik AI ' ' IT e'Vj*4^.‘"sliZ ';' i x &„ �..:.....: ....i G.a¢4aw. 1..,,. .:.�e .<tt.a...< ..<_....: � ,:,..+.�19 ;,.�:.:e ,..:dx TH ^'.�:w - fs.:._.ti9A' . Staff Report,Petition 400-06-09 1 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division PROJECT/PROPERTY SIZE: 0.28 acres (12,197 square feet) according to County tax records. COUNCIL DISTRICT: District 3, Councilmember Eric Jergensen REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a zoning change on the subject parcel from FR-2 (Foothills Residential District) to R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential District). PROPOSED USE(S): The applicant intends to build a two-family dwelling (duplex) on the site. SURROUNDING ZONING: North— FR-2 (Foothills Residential District), FP (Foothills Protection District) South— R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential District) East— R-1-7000 (Single-Family Residential District) West— FP (Foothills Protection District) SURROUNDING LAND USE: North— Residential South— Residential East— Residential West— Vacant (Foothill Protection) FUTURE LAND USE: _ North— Low Density Residential South— Low Density Residential East— Very Low Density Residential West— Foothill Preservation Residential APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: The proposed zone change is subject to the Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 21 A.50— Amendments and Special Approvals. MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: The property is located in the area subject to the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan. In addition, the Salt Lake City Housing Plan has applicable planning policies. SUBJECT PROPERTY HISTORY: The subject lot is currently vacant. Staff Report, Petition 400-06-09 2 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division ACCESS: The subject property has access from 700 North. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property to build a duplex. The property is currently zoned FR-2 (Foothills Residential District). The purpose of this zone is, "to promote environmentally sensitive and visually compatible development of lots not less than twenty one thousand seven hundred eighty (21,780) square feet in size suitable for foothills locations. The District is intended to minimize flooding, erosion, and other environmental hazards; to protect the natural scenic character offoothill areas not suitable for development; to promote the safety and well being of present and future residents offoothill areas; and to ensure the efficient expenditure of public funds. " This zoning district does not allow two-family residential development(duplex), and the subject parcel does not meet the minimum lot size requirement of the FR-2 District. The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property to R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential District). The purpose of the R-2 District is, "to preserve and protect for single-family dwellings the character of existing neighborhoods which exhibit a mix of single and two-family dwelling by controlling the concentration of two-family dwelling units. " Planning Staff notes that the subject parcel was created as Lot 3 of the Ensign Downs Plat "G" Subdivision recorded with the Salt Lake County Clerk and Recorder's Office on May 24, 1982. Prior to 1995, these lots were all zoned R-2, which at the time allowed for two-family residential development as it does currently. It appears that there was a mapping error that resulted in the three lots of the Ensign Downs Plat"G" Subdivision being zoned FR-2 instead of R-2 during the 1995 Zoning Rewrite Project. Lots 1 and 2 of this Subdivision are presently developed and are zoned FR-2; each Lot with one two- family dwelling unit (duplex). Presently, these duplexes would be considered legal conforming uses as identified in Section 21A.38.120 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for alterations, additions, and replacement of the duplex units on the lots. Should this rezone request be granted, Lot 3 would have a different zoning than Lots 1 and 2, however the final land use (duplex) would be identical. The FR-2 Zoning District currently has a provision to restrict development on lots that exceed thirty percent (30%) slopes. Section 21A.24.030G of the Code reads, "For lots subdivided after November 4, 1994, no building shall be constructed on any portion of the site that exceeds a thirty percent (30%) slope. All faces of buildings and structure shall be set back from any non-buildable area line, as shown on the plat if any, a minimum of ten feet (10) and an average of twenty feet (20). " Because the three Lots of the Ensign Downs Plat "G" Subdivision were created prior to November 4, 1994, the subject Lot 3 is not subject to this Section of the Code. In addition, the regulation in the R-2 District which states that no more than two lots may be used for two-family dwellings located adjacent to one another and no more than three such dwellings may be Staff Report,Petition 400-06-09 3 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division located on the same block face, is also not applicable since the subdivision was approved prior to 1995. The Capitol Hill Community Future Land Use Map identifies the subject parcel as " Low Density Residential (5-15 dwelling units per acre), which is the same designation as all of the DeSoto/Cortez neighborhood located directly to the south. Lots 1 and 2 of the Ensign Downs Plat "G" Subdivision are designated the same. Given this development density, residential lot sizes under this particular future land use designation range in size from 2,904 to 8,712 square feet. The subject lot is approximately 12,197 square feet. Two dwelling units on the parcel would result in lot sizes of approximately 6,098 square feet per unit. In addition, the 12,197 square foot lot size is well below the required lot size of 21,780 square feet of the FR-2 District as noted previously. This proposed lot size and associated density are consistent with the future land use designation and would therefore not constitute "spot zoning". Instead, Planning Staff is of the opinion that the current zoning on the subject property is a mapping error. DEPARTMENT/DIVISION COMMENTS: Engineering Engineering does not have any comments or concerns with this rezone. Public Utilities Public Utilities has no objection to the proposed rezone of the property. There is a 12 inch water main and an 8 inch sanitary sewer main at the east edge of the property in 700 North that this property can connect to for services. A site utility plan is required for review before approval to check for compliance with appropriate codes and standards. Permits and Zoning No comments. Transportation The 700 North roadway is a residential local classification with curb and gutter and paved surface improvements. Future site development will require compliance with City standards for vehicular access with a new driveway approach and on-site parking. Property Management Did not respond. Fire The Fire Department has no objections overall to the request. Additional fire hydrants may be required prior to approval for future development. Police No significant impact on police services resulting from the requested rezone. Staff Report,Petition 400-06-09 4 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division Airport No observed impact to airport operations. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The applicant presented the proposal to the Capitol Hill Community Council on May 17, 2006. No significant comments or concerns were received at this meeting concerning the rezone request. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: Chapter 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Code Chapter 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Code, entitled "Amendments and Special Approvals" addresses changes to the text of the zoning code and the associated maps. Section 21A.50.050 outlines standards for general amendments that the City Council should consider when making a decision regarding a rezone. There are 5 specific criteria to evaluate; they are as follows: A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan The following City Council policy regarding housing is outlined in this Plan and is relevant to the proposed rezone: The City Council supports a citywide variety of residential housing units, including affordable housing and supports accommodating different types of developments and intensities of residential development. Capitol Hill Community Master Plan The Capitol Hill Community Master Plan addresses residential development in the various neighborhoods throughout the District. According to this Plan, the subject property is located on the fringe of the Ensign Downs Neighborhood, across 700 North from the DeSoto/Cortez Neighborhood. Both of these designated "Neighborhoods" list policies related to residential development. These policies are as follows: 1. Ensure the established very-low and low density residential character of the area is preserved. 2. Ensure that infill development is compatible with the existing character of the immediate neighborhood. The Future Land Use Map of the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan identifies the subject property as "Low Density Residential". The R-2 Zoning District is a low density residential zone. Staff Report,Petition 400-06-09 5 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division Discussion: The proposed rezone is consistent with policy outlined in the Salt Lake City Housing Plan concerning the need for a variety of housing options. In addition, two policies outlined in the Capitol Hill Community Land Use Plan are relevant. Finding: The proposed zoning map amendment is supported by policies found in both the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan and the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan, and is consistent with the Future Land Use Map of the Capitol Hill Community 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: As previously noted, Lots 1 and 2 of the Ensign Downs Plat "G" Subdivision are already developed with duplexes. These two Lots are adjacent and to the east of Lot 3. With the proposed rezone, Lot 3 could develop as a duplex as well. There are several properties located to the south of 700 North that are also developed as duplexes. All of the property in the neighborhood to the south is zoned R-2. Finding: The proposed rezone would result in development that is harmonious with the existing development in the immediate vicinity. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: Should the proposed rezone be approved, a duplex could be built on the subject lot in conformance with the development standards of the R-2 Zoning District. This type of residential development would be consistent with the development of adjacent lots to the east and several of those to the south. Otherwise, if the rezone request fails, a single-family residence could be built on the subject lot. The net result of an approval of the rezone request would be one additional dwelling unit. Finding: In general, the proposed rezone request will result in development that has little or no impact on adjacent properties. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provision of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Finding: The subject property is within the Primary Recharge Area of the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay Zone. Any future development must meet the standards of this overlay and will be addressed at the time of issuance of a building permit in conformance with Section 21A.34.060 of the Zoning Ordinance. 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 wastewater and refuse collection. Staff Report, Petition 400-06-09 6 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division Finding: City Engineering, Public Utilities, Transportation, Fire and Police all responded with comments as noted above. No comments were received indicating that public facilities and services are inadequate to serve the subject property. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in this staff report, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the property located at 99 East 700 North from FR-2 (Foothills Residential District)to R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential District). Attachments: Exhibit 1 —Aerial Photo of the Subject Property Exhibit 2—Subdivision Plat Map Exhibit 3 - Department/Division Comments Staff Report,Petition 400-06-09 7 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division Exhibit 1 — Aerial Photo < > 1 :A, `•, a° i t ,w m • F�7 a� Y i "�. •t a y i — ..0 d Q2 - t �a� r 4 fn: i . Y , (f M�� .t .i�r.l 5,:.. .. • 'r f Af ,3 Ii �y .0 N �• -....;a`,� -�:-tt. 'i " i 'k, .t t i'.r. a r 'j i I�iiv �3�\� rtf cat a..�� w a ie.' tF F.- — U N ��fy�r- . r �o 'S ` _ T — 3ye 24 ri LO I 1‘: . t'-'""11e;e:-', ';'•-•••:': _:-''',1 '. "''1111---- 1 e ,,_!.4_ rs] ; ' -a:,, s P+ # �y r 5 1� -Z a "•y"if 1 , aye -,' 'l- �.3 i. t t "h,.�Y K'fin°w% ,' a i � • z�s Nil Ili . r1 a Gk tr rYs' ""bX y i�F� Sa.3!?y,¢�k-yp .6 lYa ( ��(,. t: if 1°yYY� r ,S m h �. • 9,v 1 ASS ��+• sw ' ' f "VV .: 'C '4` . ,,,,, �_y1 d 'fit S f' - 4 Yh S 4,4 t tt •• �r . af. . t a St � ' - ','".0.k..,::"•:'. .„,''',.... , —-.g,..-J,i •-% t , -, • ,„. a— r rt4 25 >; a �".' a mot, +,si iN'r vz• . f�>nd "a`z ems Tg x a* v t ` 'Q a ; •rr ,4 - I;.4K _ - -;1',, 4' • if • I Li �, t" at - -- •3- .,, ,- -•-m am,emta, 1 -,,,, . ..' y F y V�. I 3 ?v.:S � a r r t;h 41 Exhibit 2 - Subdivision Plat Map $2-5-4a At flui _r,..Ill'ir! '. ^I d ,, :11 ., Y I zlii I '1. 15:1i( 11 64187-"4!:.:: ;" : ':::41/1'..1 ': .: ., i a la 02 Ili : 1 1 ;ri. "ii. A!! :1 iC 11 i / :1 ;i:21-4' ' a 811 ��, n ltn �7�4� j 3 ; 3 <iIfl sill _ ^ a -i4t:r^1a ¢ 6 o 111 _ of Rq� h f kk g w yyE Y o 1 is, xill 4 AZ ts: gi zgj—,,,, Pk Q Jh - ii �r•fcatioh , :I14,-r * ` b' 4 II: IIN t d -6l z a k ale Itl 21 tt'4 11Z I t il ? ,_, dli!liffilillili E 1!L;I1IIo1IL �m w FQ �rt ���'�� + 62 o 662206 N1006 `< } tg r r • ti d YUU /Ir.! i.Q • j1N n.ltew�W�-- g � a • k A _ `i4' wtoi R 1 PEA 14, g9011W$ 1 NXy2180 BL PPItO >�EST G a ~10 t' 3�' — E Q~ X!WI-2 \ ''' p r -0 I 532 p6 �� rr 8.961 . I � 6 ' ^I . ?mg R I < opo i m r O N _ —Ip W W i 1 1nI IT- 1 S a � .; ooeL JJJ t r Z I 1- M.LrAO.ON 2 . O U g 4 ,j. fl OW Z rI_ I O M,L b00eON h h g O W b 0 Z z I J K:a- F ° rn< $ J R, �1. W Ha ro om 4. .o b. 00'9SI M,L4000N I ✓� zs e� 12i I{ f uir, i n� 2 1 W � r %< a l\f !dg fi \Z1 3 4 ,.,1,8:V-42%., 'i,,I Jo j W YyN�hjit tiS.e.�,1 ` p FZUJL�4 Etati f -t,'ter 1..I �`'. Exhibit 3 - Dept/Division Comments Page 1 of 2 Traughber, Lex From: McCandless, Allen Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 2:13 PM To: Traughber, Lex Cc: Pack, Russ; Domino, Steve Subject: FW: Petition 400-06-09, Rezone of property located at 99 East 700 North Attachments: Referral Memo.doc Lex, Thank you for sending the review request for the rezoning petition at 99 East 700 North. This address is not in an established Salt Lake City airport influence zone. There are no observed impacts to airport operations. --Allen McCandless, Planning Manager From: Pack, Russ Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:39 PM To: McCandless, Allen Subject: FW: Petition 400-06-09, Rezone of property located at 99 East 700 North From: Traughber, Lex Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:35 PM To: Boskoff, Nancy; Clark, Luann; Fluhart, Rocky; Graham, Rick; Harpst, Tim; Hooton, Leroy; McFarlane, Alison; Oka, Dave; Querry, Chuck; Rutan, Ed; Goff, Orion; Zunguze, Louis; Pack, Russ; Burbank, Chris Cc: Ikefuna, Alexander; Wheelwright, Doug; Coffey, Cheri; Paterson, Joel Subject: Petition 400-06-09, Rezone of property located at 99 East 700 North Directors: The Planning Division is currently reviewing the above referenced rezone request. This request has been sent to appropriate City staff members who have been asked to review the technical details of the proposal and respond in writing with any pertinent comments. The following City staff members received the attached memorandum and other documentation via interoffice mail for review: Peggy Garcia — Public Utilities Craig Smith — Engineering Barry Walsh — Transportation Brad Larson — Fire Larry Butcher— Permits Linda Johnson — Police Matt Williams — Property Management If you would like more information regarding this proposal, please respond by Tuesday, April 18, 2006. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to email or phone me at 535- 6184. 5/10/2006 Page 1 of 1 Traughber, Lex From: Johnson, Linda Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 10:07 AM To: Traughber, Lex Subject: RE: Petition 400-06-09, Rezone of 99 East 700 North Categories: Program/Policy Hi Lex, I apologize for not getting back to you before the April 25 deadline. After reviewing the plan that you sent for this rezone proposal, I can't see that there would be any kind of a significant impact on police services if this property becomes an R-2. If there are any other questions, please let me know. Thanks, Linda Johnson From: Traughber, Lex Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 10:05 AM To: Smith, Craig; Johnson, Linda; Williams, Matthew Cc: Paterson, Joel; Coffey, Cheri Subject: Petition 400-06-09, Rezone of 99 East 700 North Hi, On April 11, 2006, I sent information regarding the above referenced rezone request and asked for any comments that you may have had by April 25, 2006. If for some reason you did not receive this correspondence let's talk over the phone immediately (535-6184). I am in the process of preparing a staff report to move this request to public hearing. If you have comments I need them as soon as possible. If I do not hear from you by Wednesday, May 3, 2006, I will make the assumption that you have no concerns and will proceed to move forward. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Lex Traughber Principal Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division c/2/7nn6 Page 1 of 2 Traughber, Lex From: Smith, Craig Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 11:21 AM To: Traughber, Lex Subject: RE: Petition 400-06-09, Rezone of property located at 99 East 700 North Categories: Program/Policy Thanks Lex, Engineering does not have any comments or concerns with this rezone. Sincerely, Craig From: Traughber, Lex Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 11:13 AM To: Smith, Craig Subject: FW: Petition 400-06-09, Rezone of property located at 99 East 700 North Craig, I sent you hard copy through interoffice mail. Attached is the memo. Thanks! Lex From: Traughber, Lex Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:35 PM To: Boskoff, Nancy; Clark, Luann; Fluhart, Rocky; Graham, Rick; Harpst, Tim; Hooton, Leroy; McFarlane, Alison; Oka, Dave; Querry, Chuck; Rutan, Ed; Goff, Orion; Zunguze, Louis; Pack, Russ; Burbank, Chris Cc: Ikefuna, Alexander; Wheelwright, Doug; Coffey, Cheri; Paterson, Joel Subject: Petition 400-06-09, Rezone of property located at 99 East 700 North Directors: The Planning Division is currently reviewing the above referenced rezone request. This request has been sent to appropriate City staff members who have been asked to review the technical details of the proposal and respond in writing with any pertinent comments. The following City staff members received the attached memorandum and other documentation via interoffice mail for review: Peggy Garcia — Public Utilities Craig Smith — Engineering Barry Walsh —Transportation Brad Larson — Fire Larry Butcher— Permits Linda Johnson — Police Matt Williams - Property Management If you would like more information regarding this proposal, please respond by Tuesday, April 18, 2006. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to email or phone me at 535- 6184. 5/1/2006 Page 1 of 1 Traughber, Lex From: Paterson, Joel Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:19 AM To: Traughber, Lex Subject: FW: Rezone of property located at 99 E 700 N / Petition#400-06-09 Categories: Program/Policy Lex, Brad Larson sent this response to me. Joel From: Larson, Bradley Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 2:13 PM To: Paterson, Joel Subject: Rezone of property located at 99 E 700 N / Petition #400-06-09 Joel, The Fire Department has no objections overall to the above named petition. If this property is not yet built upon, note to the applicant that additional fire hydrants may be required prior to approval for development. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Thank you. Brad Larson Deputy Fire Marshal Salt Lake City Fire Deptartment 801-799-4162 office 801-550-0147 bradley.larson@slcgov.com Page 1 of 1 Traughber, Lex From: Stewart, Brad Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 10:12 AM To: Traughber, Lex Cc: Garcia, Peggy; Cowles, Vicki Subject: Rezone, 99 E 700 N, Petition 400-06-09 Categories: Program/Policy Lex, Salt Lake City Public Utilities has no objection to the proposed re-zone of the property at the above-mentioned address. There is a 12 inch water main and an 8 inch sanitary sewer main at the east edge of the property in 700 North that this property can connect for services. A site utility plan is required for review before approval to check for compliance with appropriate codes and standards. Brad 4/17/7OO6 Page 1 of 1 Traughber, Lex From: Butcher, Larry Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 8:21 AM To: Traughber, Lex Cc: Goff, Orion Subject: Rezone 99 E. 700 N. /Pet. #400-06-09 Categories: Program/Policy Lex: I have no comments. Larry A/1'7/'lnnc Page 1 of 1 Traughber, Lex From: Walsh, Barry Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 8:28 AM To: Traughber, Lex Cc: Young, Kevin; Smith, Craig; Butcher, Larry Subject: Pet 400-06-09 Categories: Program/Policy April 12, 2006 Lex Traughber, Planning Re: Rezone of property at 99 East 700 North, a single lot. The division of transportation review comments and recommendations are for approval as follows: The 700 North roadway is a residential local classification with curb & gutter and paved surface improvements. Future site development will require compliance to city standards for vehicular assess with new driveway approach and on site parking. Sincerely, Barry Walsh Cc Kevin Young, P.E. Craig Smith, Engineering Larry Butcher, Permits File _ 4/12/2006 5. PLANNING COMMISSION C. Agenda & Minutes June 14, 2006 NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. • AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, June 14, 2006,at 5:45 p.m. fr,,,per 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, May 24, 2006. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Salt Lake City Properly Conveyance Matters(Staff—Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178 or doug.wheetwright(a�slcgov.com or John Spencer at 535-6938 or john.spencer(a�slcgov.com) a. Schoolhouse Downtown, LLC and Salt Lake City Property Management Division—Schoolhouse Downtown, LLC is requesting that Salt Lake City approve a lease agreement for continued under-sidewalk vault space and for surface encroachment into the sidewalk area of the street right-of-way on Pierpont Avenue, for outdoor dining purposes. The subject properly adjacent to the encroachments is located at 122 West and 134 West Pierpont Avenue, and currently contains the Café Pierpont and the Baci's restaurants. It is zoned Central Business District (D-1). Property Management staff intends to approve the lease agreements as proposed. b. Roman Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City, Inc.and Salt Lake City Property Management Division—The Roman Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City is requesting that Salt Lake City approve a lease agreement to allow the installation of two sports field lighting poles within the right-of-way for 1000 East Street at approximately 650 South, for athletic field illumination of the new Football Stadium at Judge Memorial Catholic High School.The adjacent property zoning is Institutional(I). Property Management staff intends to approve the lease agreement as proposed. c. Emigration Market and Salt Lake City Property Management Division—Emigration Market is requesting that Salt Lake City approve a lease agreement to allow the installation of a planter box encroachment within the public way of 1700 East Street for fencing purposes to separate the outdoor dining area from the sidewalk.The adjacent property is located at 1706 South 1300 East in the Neighborhood Commercial(CN)Zoning District. Property Management staff intends to approve the lease agreement as requested. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Petition 410-06-08—A request by Ken Menlove for a Planned Development for the construction of additional mini-warehouse space to an existing warehouse/storage building located at 510 West 100 South in the Gateway Mixed-Use(G-MU)Zoning District. All new construction is a Planned Development in the G-MU District. Also a Conditional Use approval to modify the exterior building materials and for mini-warehouse use. (Staff—Doug Dansie at 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) b. Petition 490-06-18—A request by Ken Menlove for Preliminary Subdivision for a storage facility at 510 West 100 South. (Staff —Doug Dansie at 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Petition 400-06-06—A request by 639 W North Temple, LLC to amend the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential and Commercial to Medium Density Residential Land Use and to rezone the property located at approximately 644 West North Temple Street from Commercial Corridor(CC)and Special Residential(SR-3)Zoning to Residential Multifamily(RMF-45).The rezone and plan amendment is to allow for the development of a 74-unit condominium project.(Staff—Everett Joyce 535-7930 or everett.ioyce(a)slcgov.com) b. Petition 410-777—A request by RTTA, LLC for planned development approval for new construction within the Community Shopping (CS)Zoning District at approximately 137 N Redwood Road.The applicant proposes to construct a retail service establishment/financial institution;a permitted use. (Staff—Everett Joyce 535-7930 or everett.ioyce a(�slcgov.com) c. Petition Number 400-02-41 —A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to modify the existing Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay District text to restrict height limits and to amend the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan and Zoning Map to expand the western boundary of the Overlay Zone to approximately 200 West and the southeast boundary to"A"Street. The Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay District lies within the Capitol Hill and Avenues Planning Communities.The general boundaries proposed are from Girard Avenue(550 North)to North Temple Street and from 200 West Street to"A"Street. The Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay District restricts building heights and does not affect the types of land uses permitted within the base zoning districts. (Staff—Everett Joyce 535-7930 or everett.ioyce(a�slcgov.com) d. Petition 400-06-09—A rezone request located at approximately 99 East 700 North from FR-2(Foothills Residential)to R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential)Zoning District to build a two-family dwelling(duplex)on the site. (Staff—Lex Traughber at 535-6184 or lex.traughber(a,slcgov.com) e. Petition 410-06-05—A planned development request by Bruce Manka to modify minimum yard requirements to allow encroachments for proposed second-story balcony structures and the roofs of lower-level patios at 650 North 300 West Street. The property is located in a RMF-35(Residential Multi-Family)and a R-MU(Residential Mixed Use)Zoning District. (Staff— Janice Lew at 535-7625 or janice.lew(W,stcgov.com) f. Petition 410-06-14—A request by Wayne Belka of Prosperity Enterprises for planned development approval at 479 South 600 East for a retail bakery building in a Community Shopping (CS)Zoning District, in the Central City Historic District. Staff— Elizabeth Giraud at 535-7128 or elizabeth.giraud(Wslcgov.com) g. Petition 410-768—A request by Jerome Gourley of T-Mobile USA, Inc. for conditional use approval to replace a 33-foot high utility pole at the rear of the property located at approximately 1596 East Stratford Avenue with a 43-foot high pole for a wireless telecommunications antennae. (Staff—Elizabeth Giraud at 535-7128 or elizabeth.giraud(a�slcgov.corn) 6. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be June 28,2006. This information can be accessed at www slconv Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 14, 2006 r:view determines where the higher density development should occur. In Capitol Hill, for example, hi. er density is identified on North Temple and 300 West. She noted that the goal of the Overlay Pro ctive District is to protect the view corridor of the Capitol, not necessarily regulating the density of the area. Commissi.'er De Lay, Commissioner Muir, and Chairperson Noda agreed that the view corridors are not clearly state., or physically determined. Mr. Joyce confirm-• that 35 feet is a policy decision made in the adoption of the master plan and was determined as an ap• opriate height for a view corridor. Ms. Coffey included that . en the Capitol Hill Master Plan was developed, the community was very specific about modification the Capitol Hill Protective Overlay District; and the City Council adopted the plan. This petition implements he plan. Chairperson Noda requested any .omments from Community Council Chairs or public. No comments were heard and Chairp son Noda closed the public hearing. Based on the finding of facts,staff rec. mendation,staff report, and discussion held at the public hearing,Commissioner McDonou I made a motion that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Co.ncil to take the following actions: 1. Amend the Capitol Hill Protective Area 'verlay District text to: a. restrict building height limits to 3 feet in residential zoning districts with exceptions for RMF-45 and RMF-7 •roperties with existing buildings that exceed 35 feet which may be rebuilt to 45 fee_through the Conditional Building and Site Design Review process; b. Allow special exceptions in the SR-1 an. --2 zoning districts to meet compatible residential infill and/or H Preservation Ove ay standards up to the 35 feet; c. Limit UI Zoning District building height to 7- eet unless adiacent to a residential zoning district,then the building height limit i 50 feet. 2. Modify the Zoning Map to expand the boundaries of the apitol Hill Protective Area Overlay District west to 200 West Street and east to A Str•et; and 3. Amend the Capitol Hill Master Plan text to support building 'eight exceptions when found consistent with the regulations of the residential compatible 'fill ordinance and or the H Historic Preservation regulations of the City. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless,Co I issioner Forbis, Commissioner McDonough,Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Wirthli oted "Aye". Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Muir were opposed. The motion pass=I. Petition 400-06-09—A rezone request located at approximately 99 East 700 North from FR-2 (Foothills Residential)to R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential)Zoning District to build a two-family dwelling (duplex)on the site. (This item was heard at 8:04 p.m.) Chairperson Noda recognized Lex Traughber as staff representative. Mr. Traughber presented a brief background of the subject area and overview of the proposed project. He stated that prior to the 1995 zoning rewrite, the subject property was zoned R-2 with a low-density residential land use designation; however, a mapping error occurred causing the properties to be zoned FR-2. Mr. Traughber stated that the applicant is proposing the zoning be returned to R-2, which is consistent with the Master Plan and the neighborhood to the south. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the property from FR-2 to R-2 Zoning. 10 Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 14, 2006 Commissioner McDonough requested if notable information regarding the grade of the property would be applicable, and what the existing slope is. Mr. Traughber referenced the Zoning Ordinance and Staff Report, which states that development on lots subdivided before November 4, 1994, are not applicable to the current standard of development restriction on slopes greater than 30%. He stated that since the lot was subdivided in 1982, the slope requirements do not apply and that he had not verified any slope on the property. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the slope on the subject property is extreme, but the slope requirements were not applied to the property due to the timing of the approval and the zoning. He noted that if slope restrictions were required, the lot would be un-buildable, as it is virtually over 30—40% slope grade. Commissioner Scott requested more information regarding the difference between FR-2 zoning and R-2 zoning, requesting particularly the setbacks and the frontage of the lot. Mr.Traughber provided the following information: ro 'o�?� S r a` s ... ,� 20 feet 20%of the lot depth, but not to exceed 20 feet Ae °arf 3 20 feet Twin home dwelling requires no side yard along one side lot line,with a 10 foot side yard along the other TOWNOVA, 40 feet 25% of the lot depth, but not less than 15 feet and '., 41 4w lkt T need not exceed 25 feet Mr.Traughber also included that the access on the subject property would be on 700 North, with the side yard abutting on the developed parcels. Chairperson Noda recognized the applicant, Chris Robinson. Mr. Robinson provided a brief background of the property, and included that the slope within the lot is not over 20—30% due to the filling activities that have occurred. He stated that he was unaware of the side yard requirements for the twin home dwelling being zero on one side and agreed that the zero lot line would not be the one abutting the existing developments. Mr. Robinson requested the rezone in order to provide flexibility for someone to build a single-family residence or duplex on the property. Chairperson Noda requested comments from Community Council Chairs and the public. Mr. Jeff Rosenbloom, 5689 Oakgrove, Oakland CA, stated that he is currently the owner of the property to the east, and is in the process of converting the properties into condominiums. He stated that the concern is the impact any future building would have on his property, and appreciates the comments regarding the zero lot line. Mr. Rosenbloom also expressed concern regarding the height of any structure on the property, as R-2 allows 30 feet or two-and-one-half stories and that it might be worked out between property owners. Mr. Scott Dwire, 1920 East Laird Drive, is the contractor and co-owner on the condominium project. He stated that his concerns are not necessarily if the property is zoned for a single-family or duplex, rather that the property owner remains distant from the existing developments and to maintain existing view corridors. Mr. Dwire also noted that the existing developments will be reconstructed with"green" construction. Mr. Steve Brush stated that the zoning of FR-2 is established because the area to the west of the subject property is a natural preserved property zoned FP. He stated that the purpose of the FR-2 Zoning District is to"promote environmental sensitivity and visually compatible development of lots....the district is intended to minimize flooding, erosion, and other environmental hazards." He noted that when the 11 Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 14, 2006 property was"down zoned" it seemed to have been for good reason, as the applicable surrounding area is zoned FR-2 and FP. Commissioner Wirthlin raised the attention of the public to the point that Mr. Robinson had included that he would be willing to move the zero lot line, and asked if that changed Mr. Brush's thoughts on the matter. Mr. Brush stated appreciation for Mr. Robinson's comments, but included that the development to be placed on the property would need scrutiny from the Planning and Zoning Divisions. Ms. Coffey stated that the compatible infill ordinance also governs the R-2 Zone, restricting the height to 28 feet for a pitched roof or 20 feet for a flat roof(unless special exception is granted). She continued that the front yard setback is required to be the average on the block face, which would include the duplex to the east. It was clarified by Ms. Coffey that the FR-2 and R-2 zoning districts are applicable to the Citywide Compatible Infill Ordinance. Chairperson Noda closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner McDonough noted that due to the location of the parcel, it would seem logical to be zoned FR-2, and due to the date of the subdivision the existing FR-2 minimum requirements are not required. Mr. Traughber stated that it was because of the date of the subdivision, that the subject property was not required to meet the existing FR-2 requirements. Mr. Traughber, in response to a question from Commissioner Scott, stated that the applicant had expressed interest in developing a duplex on the subject property; therefore, requesting a rezone. Based on the comments, analysis, and facts noted in the Staff Report,and public hearing, Commissioner De Lay made a motion that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the property located at 99 East 700 North from FR-2 to R-2 regarding Petition 400-06-09.The motion was seconded by Commissioner Muir. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, and Commissioner Wirthlin voted "Aye". Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Forbis were opposed.The motion passed. Clarification was made by Ms. Coffey that the zero lot line is required for twin homes, to allow no space between the units; side yard setbacks are required to be ten feet on one side and four feet on the other for other uses. There was some confusion regarding the vote, requiring a re-vote to be cast. The vote remained the same;four versus three, the motion passed. Petition - 0-06-14—A request by Wayne Belka of Prosperity Enterprises for planned development approval at • South 600 East for a retail bakery building in a Community Shopping (CS) Zoning District, in the Central CI . istoric District. Chairperson Noda reco••.zed Elizabeth Giraud as staff representative. Ms. Giraud provided a brief description of the request, I • uding that the bakery is classified as a retail good establishment, thus differing the parking requireme . She stated that numerous modifications to the lot and bulk standards are being requested with the propo -I. It was noted that the project had received approval from the Historic Landmark Commission, as th- •roperty is located in the Central City Historic District. Ms. Giraud stated that additional modifications being -quested include: 1. Modification to the requirement that prin .•al structures have a front, corner, and rear yard setback of thirty feet with an interior side yar• of fifteen feet; however, the CS zone is intended for 12 SALT. LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE:,, December 8,2006 SUBJECT: Petition 400-06-01 —Planning Commission request to amend the Zoning Ordinance adding regulations to permit tandem parking in residential zones AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted the proposed amendments would affect Council Districts citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Lex Traughber,Principal Planner NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Newspaper advertisement and written notification to surrounding property owners 14 days prior to the Public Hearing KEY ELEMENTS: A. An ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration. Proposed changes include amending the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. (Please refer to the draft ordinance for details.) 1. Sec. 21 A.44.020—General Off—Street Parking Requirements. The proposed amendment would add a new section specifically addressing tandem parking regulations. Key elements include: a. One tandem parking space shall be permitted for: • existing detached residential development; • new single-family attached residential development(regardless of ownership); • new twin home residential development; • new two-family residential development;or • new detached single-family residential development where the tandem parking is approved as part of a Planned Development. b. One parking space in a"tandem"configuration located within the front or corner side yard setback can be included in the required parking calculation for these new residential developments. c. All tandem parking spaces must meet the following criteria: • The tandem parking space shall be at least nine feet(9')wide by twenty feet(20')deep. • The tandem parking space shall be entirely located on private property unless otherwise approved by the City. • The parking stall shall not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. • The tandem parking space shall be located within a driveway that leads to a new or existing properly located,legal parking space. • The tandem parking space shall be located within a driveway that abuts and is assigned or dedicated to the dwelling unit that it serves.The width of the driveway shall be sufficient to accommodate vehicle maneuvering, and use of the tandem parking space shall not block the use of the driveway to access other parking spaces if the driveway is a shared driveway. 1 • Parking on the hard surface tandem space shall be limited to passenger vehicles only. • The right-of-way fronting the new residential development must allow parking on both sides or neither side of the street. • Tandem parking shall not be used to satisfy parking requirements that were previously met through a side-by-side parking configuration. 2. Sec. 21A.44.050—Table—Parking Restrictions within Yard areas in Residential Districts. The proposed amendment would add a footnote to the sections dealing with parking restrictions in front and corner side yard areas. The footnote would refer the user to the Tandem Parking section of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Sec. 21A.62.040—Definitions. The proposed amendment would add definitions for `passenger vehicle' and `tandem parking'. a. Passenger vehicle is defined as"a four-wheel,two-axle,motor vehicle, designed, sold, and licensed to accommodate private passenger transportation on public roads, not to include vehicles such as recreation vehicles, motor homes,boats, box vans or trailers". b. Tandem parking is defined as"a parking space within a group of two or more parking spaces arranged one behind the other such that the space nearest the street serves as the only means of access to the other spaces)". B. Key points from the Administration's transmittal, Planning staff report and Planning staff memo are summarized below. (Please see the Administration's transmittal letter and Planning staff report dated March 16, 2006 and Planning staff memo dated May 10,2006 for details.) 1. Parking is not currently allowed in the front or corner side yard(area between the property line and the front wall of the principal building) in any residential district.The one exception is the R-MU (Residential Mixed-Use)district which does allow some limited front yard parking if the parking is located a minimum distance of 15 feet from the front lot line. 2. It would be beneficial to neighborhoods and to the City as a whole to allow some limited parking in a tandem pattern in required yards to recognize existing and commonly utilized parking configurations and to facilitate residential infill development. 3. Allowing this parking configuration has the potential to decrease the number of automobiles that are parked on the street,decrease car theft and burglary, and facilitate the maintenance of public streets. 4. Due to a lack of off-street parking spaces and a rise in the number of automobiles,the City has been experiencing an increase in complaints from residents who have been cited for illegal concrete parking pads or parking vehicles in the front yard of a residential lot. 5. A positive argument can be made that off-street parking in residential zones is preferable to on-street parking subject to maintaining front yard design standards that promote quality residential appearances. 6. Off-street parking is preferable for streets that are narrow,one-way, or steep because vehicles parked on streets of this nature compound the difficulty of maneuvering a vehicle on the street. This is often seen in the Avenues and Capitol Hill neighborhoods. 7. A tandem parking configuration could eliminate the need for some on-street parking by recognizing this parking pattern for existing single family residences, as well as allowing limited parking for specific types of new residential development. 8. Developers who are involved in new residential infill development are often faced with properties that are small or may have certain physical characteristics or configurations that do not easily lend themselves to contemporary residential development. 9. It is not in the City's best interest to forego new residential infill development due to a lack of parking options,when in many instances tandem parking would be a compatible solution. 10. The proposed standards are designed to limit adverse affects to adjacent properties. Parking in the front or corner side yard will be limited to one additional parking space of specific dimensions(9' x 20'),yet will allow some flexibility for a residential property owner to obtain some additional off- 2 street parking. This parking space in a required yard will also have to be located in a driveway leading to a properly located parking space. C. Planning staff notes that the tandem parking provision is not applicable for the purposes of unit legalization. The unit legalization process does not apply to single-family residential housing units, rather applies to what the City recognizes as duplexes,triplexes and so forth. The unit legalization process is for the purposes of recognizing more that one dwelling unit on a given parcel. This proposed amendment is for new or existing single-family residential development only; one dwelling unit on one parcel. D. The City's Fire,Police,and Public Utilities Departments and Transportation and Engineering Divisions have reviewed the request. 1. After the Planning Commission `Issues Only'hearing on March 22,2006,Planning staff revised and incorporated several of the comments received from the Transportation Division,as well as address other issues that Planning staff has identified through this analysis into the current proposal. 2. The Public Services Department and the Police Department note in their comments that a provision to provide for off-street parking in residential areas is positive. From a Police perspective,cars parked off the street are safer in terms of burglary,theft and vandalism. The Public Services Department notes that fewer cars parked on the streets are beneficial in terms of street maintenance, waste collection, snow removal,and neighborhood cleanup. E. The Planning staff report provides 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 the standards are found on pages 6-8 of the Planning staff report dated March 16,2006. Please refer to item 5C in the transmittal packet.) F. The public process included presentations to the Transportation Advisory Board,a Planning Division sponsored Open House and written notification of the Planning Commission hearing. G. The Transportation Advisory Board discussed this proposal on February 6,and Mach 6,2006. Issues and concerns initially raised by the Board were addressed by Planning Staff in a written memorandum and discussed at the March 6th TAB meeting. The Board passed two motions: 1. That the proposed regulations not be applied on a citywide basis,and 2. That the use of tandem parking not be counted toward required parking in new developments if the street width could not accommodate parking on both sides of the street. 3. The Administration notes that the issue of street width raised by the TAB Board was addressed by limiting tandem parking to streets that have parking on both sides of the street or to streets that do not allow parking on either side of the street. H. On May 10,2006,the Planning Commission voted,based on comments,analysis and fmdings of fact,to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text relating to tandem parking. I. Issues discussed at the Planning Commission hearing(summarized from the Planning Commission minutes)included: 1. Providing a definition for passenger vehicle. 2. The Planning Director noted that statistics are not currently available to determine the number of streets that meet the proposed requirements. He indicated that overall many streets would(meet the proposed regulations). 3. Tandem parking is a common occurrence in the City,but is not part of the Zoning Ordinance. 3 4. Enforcement is not strong unless the vehicle is blocking a fire hydrant or encroaching into the right- of-way. 5. Public comments related to: a. The cost to provide required off-street parking and land costs impact the affordability and the amount of new housing that can be provided to meet market demand. b. The parking requirements need to be altered in order to create vitality in the City. c. Tandem parking can cause difficulty for property owners due to the frustration of having to switch the placement of vehicles. This can result in loss of on-street parking for guests and public use due to residents parking on the street rather than having to continually switch the vehicles positions in the driveway. d. The tandem parking regulations should be linked to the width of the street. On-street parking on narrow streets can impede traffic movement. e. The relation of the width of the street to the demand for parking is important. There is the potential for a development to utilize the tandem parking option would reduce the amount of off- street parking area which would be available for the new development. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: A. The key matter at issue is whether tandem parking is likely to relieve on-street parking and congestion, or increase the potential for on-street parking and congestion. The Planning Commission recommendation is based upon the idea that the tandem parking program would relieve on-street parking and congestion,while citizens who have contacted the Council Office have expressed concern that allowing for the reduced parking requirement could actually increase the on-street congestion due to the difficulty of shuffling cars. It should be noted that the housing developers who have contacted the Council Office share the view of the Planning Commission. B. The Transportation Advisory Board recommended that the tandem parking program not be applied citywide,and the Planning Commission's recommendation is for citywide implementation. To address the recommendation of the Transportation Advisory Board,the Council may wish to discuss other options that could be considered to address issues that have been raised relating to the proposed tandem parking regulations. For example: 1. Apply the proposed regulations to areas of the City that are not currently experiencing substantial parking impacts and implement a process similar to the Compatible Residential Infill process allowing constituent groups to initially address the use of tandem parking in areas that are currently experiencing significant parking impacts such as Capitol Hill,the Avenues,Central City,the Westminster and Sugar House areas. a. This would recognize the diverse development patterns that exist throughout the City and allow constituent groups familiar with their neighborhoods to prepare the initial information and collect relevant data. b. Further,this approach would be less of a staffing burden than a process that relied totally on City staff to identify initial neighborhood information. 2. Use the Administrative Hearing process to consider the approval of tandem parking for residential uses that are part of the proposed changes in the various residential zoning districts. (Please refer to pg. 1 Item A for specific uses.) This would provide notification to surrounding property owners and allow a case by case consideration of issues such as parking impacts on surrounding properties and the immediate neighborhood, evaluation of street width,current on and off street parking availability and vehicle movement. 3. Add criteria to the proposal that would require analysis and evaluation of existing parking in the surrounding area to determine if adequate parking exists and require review,verification and approval by the City's Transportation and Parking Enforcement Divisions. 4 4. Add criteria that would specify a minimum street width in addition to the proposed criteria that would allow tandem parking on streets with parking on both sides or one side of the street. • This would more fully address issues discussed by the Planning Commission and community representatives at the Planning Commission meeting and issues discussed by the Transportation Advisory Board. 5. Consider requiring tandem parking to be located at a greater distance from the street in areas that have existing or proposed integral curb,gutter and sidewalk. a. The intent would be to address safety considerations for pedestrians provide vehicle adequate sight lines and also maintain the front yard design standards that promote quality residential appearances as noted by Planning staff. b. This option was discussed in a recent meeting with Council Member Jergensen and Planning staff. C. The Administration's transmittal indicates that master plans are generally silent on parking issues,but notes a portion of the Capitol Hill Master Plan"does address several issues relating to parking in the District that support the proposal to allow limited tandem parking." The Administration's reference is included in the Master Plan and Policy Considerations section of this report. In order to be complete Given this information,the Council should also be made aware of a number of other items contained in that same plan that could be interpreted to relate to this issue: 1. Policy • Prohibit a reduction in the parking requirements for new developments in the Marmalade, Kimball and West Capitol Hill Neighborhoods or in neighborhoods where inadequate amounts of off-street parking already exist. 2. Action items: a. Create a Resident Permit parking Program which addresses the specific issues relating to the Marmalade,Kimball and West Capitol Hill Neighborhoods. b. Increase on-street parking enforcement efforts in the Marmalade,Kimball and West Capitol Hill Neighborhoods. c. Study the feasibility of developing additional off-street neighborhood parking lots in proximity to residential areas to alleviate the need for on-street parking, including interior block parking lots to serve residents on the block. d. Encourage private property owners to work with institutional and other non-residential property owners to provide shared parking. e. Analyze the feasibility,appropriateness and/or desirability of providing cut-back parking in park strips in selected areas. f. Create a Capitol Hill Parking Overlay Zone that would increase parking requirements for new development as a means of alleviating additional pressure on the inadequate parking supply especially in the Kimball,West Capitol Hill and Marmalade Neighborhoods. g. Request the Transportation Division restrict on-street parking to one side of the street on steep and/or narrow streets where appropriate. h. Develop and implement an overall transportation management plan(including parking)by creating a task force including Salt Lake City,LDS Church,UDOT and representatives from the Capitol Hill and Avenues Communities. D. The Council may wish to consider soliciting broader public input and comment regarding the proposed tandem parking regulations. 1. The Administration's transmittal notes that 3 members of the public attended the Planning Division sponsored Open House and all were in support of the proposal. 2. The Planning Commission minutes indicated that 2 members of the public attended the Planning Commission meeting and provided comment. 3. The Transportation Advisory Board minutes do not reflect any public comment. 5 MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Administration's paperwork notes: I. The'City's Master Plans are generally silent on parking issues as they relate to residential zones and residential development, with the exception of the Capitol Hill Master Plan. 2. The Capitol Hill Master Plan does not address tandem parking per se; however, it does address several issues relating to parking in the District that support the proposal to allow limited tandem parking. The Plan reads on pg 7, "Because they were developed prior to the advent of the automobile, many properties in the Marmalade, Kimball and West Capitol Hill neighborhoods do not have adequate off-street parking. Therefore, residents are relegated to limited amounts of on- street parking. In addition, steep narrow streets make on-street parking inconvenient and in some instances unsafe. In winter months, when streets become icy, on-street parking on steep streets, such as North Main, Apricot and 300 North, can be a problem for drivers who lose control of their cars. In other instances, on-street parking on narrow streets creates difficulties for traffic circulation, garbage pick-up and street maintenance." B. The Capitol Hill Master Plan also includes the following policy statements and action items that relate directly to parking. 1. Policy • Prohibit a reduction in the parking requirements for new developments in the Marmalade, Kimball and West Capitol Hill Neighborhoods or in neighborhoods where inadequate amounts of off-street parking already exist. 2. Action items: a. Create a Resident Permit parking Program which addresses the specific issues relating to the Marmalade,Kimball and West Capitol Hill Neighborhoods. b. Increase on-street parking enforcement efforts in the Marmalade,Kimball and West Capitol Hill Neighborhoods. c. Study the feasibility of developing additional off-street neighborhood parking lots in proximity to residential areas to alleviate the need for on-street parking, including interior block parking lots to serve residents on the block. d. Encourage private property owners to work with institutional and other non-residential property owners to provide shared parking. e. Analyze the feasibility, appropriateness and/or desirability of providing cut-back parking in park strips in selected areas. f. Create a Capitol Hill Parking Overlay Zone that would increase parking requirements for new development as a means of alleviating additional pressure on the inadequate parking supply especially in the Kimball,West Capitol Hill and Marmalade Neighborhoods. g. Request the Transportation Division restrict on-street parking to one side of the street on steep and/or narrow streets where appropriate. h. Develop and implement an overall transportation management plan(including parking)by creating a task force including Salt Lake City, LDS Church,UDOT and representatives from the Capitol Hill and Avenues Communities. C. Relevant policy statements contained in the City's Transportation Master Plan include: 1. Consider neighborhoods,residential and commercial,as the building blocks of the community. 2. Encourage the preservation and enhancement of living environments. 3. Support transportation decisions that increase the quality of life in the City, not necessarily the quantity of development. 4. Support considering impacts on neighborhoods on an equal basis with impacts on transportation systems. 6 5. Support giving all neighborhoods equal consideration in transportation decisions. D. The City's Comprehensive Housing Plan policy statements address a variety of housing issues including 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. E. 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. The Administration's paperwork notes: 1. The Salt Lake City Futures Commission lists as a goal that,"The ideal neighborhood will have good traffic management that provides an adequate system for all modes of travel. Appropriate and adequate parking will be available to meet the needs of residents and be designed to fit the characteristics of the neighborhood(pg. 46)." 2. The Salt Lake City Strategic Plan states that the City should develop policies and programs that create strong economic incentives to stop the deterioration of housing units by encouraging vacant lot housing infill (pg. 16). 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. Policy concepts include: 1. Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall urban design scheme for the City. 2. Preserve prominent buildings for their contribution to district character. 3. Strive to make building restoration and new construction enhance district character,not detract from it. 4. Maintain public maintenance and service programs in neighborhoods where physical decline is present. Public maintenance and service programs are an important defense against deterioration and blight. 5. Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvement and stability. 6. Encourage a close working relationship between City officials and the private sector in decisions relating to neighborhood stability. 7. Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the City regardless of whether City financial assistance is provided. 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. 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. 7 • January 11, 2006 Planning Commission initiates petition • January 11, 2006 Petition delivered to Planning Office and assigned to Planner • February 6, 2006 Transportation Advisory Board meetings March 6, 2006 • February 23, 2006 Planning Division sponsored Open House • March 22,2006 Planning Commission Issues Only hearing • May 10, 2006 Planning Commission hearing • May 11, 2006 Ordinance requested from City Attorney's office • May 30, 2006 Ordinance received from City Attorney's office cc: Sam Guevara,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Melanie Reif,Louis Zunguze, Chris Shoop, Tim Harpst,Kevin Young,Barry Walsh,LuAnn Clark,Valda Tarbet,Orion Goff,Larry Butcher,Craig Spangenberg,Randy Isbell,Doug Wheelwright, Cheri Coffey,Joel Paterson,Lex Traughber, Jennifer Bruno,Jan Aramaki,Marge Harvey, Sylvia Jones,Lehua Weaver,Janne Nielson, Barry Esham,Gwen Springmeyer,Michael Stott File Location: Community Development Dept.,Planning Division,Zoning Text Amendments,Tandem Parking 8 Petition 400-06-01 —Planning Commission request to amend the Zoning Ordinance adding regulations to permit tandem parking in residential zones Written comments received in the Council Office as of noon Friday, December 8, 2006 12.8.06 Re: Tandem Parking Nov. 30, 2006 Dear City Council Members, The driving force behind the policy which we established for the Capitol Hill Master Plan that prohibits "a reduction in the parking requirements for new development..."is, as stated in the policy,the already inadequate amount of off-street parking throughout most of the CH Historic District. Many old homes have no off-street parking, that combined with narrow and/or steep streets which may have no public parking or parking only on one side, has created a significant problem. Add to this higher density projects developed in the past, which went in without adequate parking for the area, and problems were increased (Center Street and the Shadows apartments come to mind). Then with the addition of LDS Church campus expansions the problems began to feel insurmountable for those of us who live in the area. This combination, unique in the City to the Capitol Hill Historic District, results in tremendous competition by residents for what little on-street parking may exist. This situation must not be exacerbated, and cannot be, without significant harm occurring to the Historic District. Hence the policy in the Master Plan designed to ensure that new construction would have adequate parking as specified by Ordinance and would not worsen conditions for the neighborhoods. Example of existing situation: 300 North block of Almond Street (a half block only) 32 living units 16 units with no off-street parking 16 units with off-street parking, either tandem style or a single stall, except for 4 which are double width A no-parking 12 foot wide street A small City owned public parking lot on the block which legally accommodates 7 cars (10 illegally, but subject to occasional ticketing) The math makes clear the situation. This immutable situation leaves many residents searching for parking elsewhere- in the case of Almond Street residents either on 300 North between Center and Quince Streets, or on Center Street, or quite commonly parked illegally on Almond Street up on the sidewalk and too frequently blocking driveway access or large vehicles. Enforcement when it happens causes people to pay fines, but does nothing to solve the problem as to where to park. It deters no one. Residents who have this old, tandem style parking may be too lazy or hurried to possibly have to switch cars (a common human quality) and thus will not park the second car behind the first, but will typically park on the street, competing for the limited public parking, or will park illegally. Another reason this existing tandem parking often puts the second car on the street is due to the safety issue of trying to switch cars on a steep and/or narrow street with in many cases poor sight lines, such as 300 North between Quince and Center Streets. This can be quite a hazardous task. Hence residents on 300 North, for one example, usually put one car on the street (along with the Almond Street cars, guest cars, etc.) The end result is that cars are often parked too close to intersecting streets and driveways, with the consequent blocked visibility making for dangerous turns out onto 300 North. This is not an enforcement issue. There are no good alternatives for residents but to park where they park. Similar situations exist for residents on streets like Quince Street, Wall Street,North Main, etc. I use my area as an example as I know it well. Also this is where we did a count of parking spaces- both off and on-street in 1995 - in order to document the situation. (Please examine the included map.) If new development such as the Watts project(on the south side and steepest part of 300 North) does not provide adequate parking for its residents (i.e. the required non-tandem two spaces with de facto tandem space behind for guest parking) then not only will the last car home likely end up on the street, but any guest cars will be scouring the neighborhood looking for parking. In the case of the Watts project the streets fronting the townhouses are only 14 feet wide, with the upper street being no-parking and the lower having parking on one side only, (though legally it may be restricted on both sides - signs disappeared over the years), so there would inevitably be illegal parking to contend with if tandem parking were substituted for the current requirement. The key issue is that tandem parking should not count toward meeting the parking requirement in areas such as the CH Historic District, as spelled out in the Master Plan policy. Legalizing parking behind another car(which provides for guest parking) or within the setbacks are different issues and should be handled separately. Whether the intent with this proposed change of requirements is to maximize density of a project or to maximize the size house which can be built on a parcel, either way these are not agendas appropriate to the historic Capitol Hill areas or to much of the lower Avenues. Such agendas do not further the well-being of our neighborhoods which already are dealing with the consequences of too great a density and too great a new-home size for the existing infrastructure and historic building patterns. The proposed change to the ordinance, of counting tandem parking in new development towards the parking requirement, simply and patently circumvents our Master Plan policy designed to protect the historic neighborhoods. Legalizing tandem parking where it already exists makes sense. Applying both aspects elsewhere in the City, where conditions are radically different,may make sense. (Does a responsible doctor give every patient the same drug and dosage?As we know, elderly patients can not tolerate the same dosages as younger patients.) This key aspect of the proposed changes is detrimental to the Capitol Hill Historic District: to its continued viability and to the quality of life for current residents. Of great value to our historic district residents is the close-knit quality fostered by the very infrastructure that also guarantees parking problems. We do not want this community quality destroyed by additional antagonism and upset over competition for scarce parking. It is a great disappointment to spend years working on a master plan designed to address the existing problems and create a healthy district, have it adopted, and then to be forced as citizens to address these same issues over and over again! I expect better from my City. I expect some sensitivity on the part of Planning to the unique nature and problems of the Capitol Hill District. 'One size fits all' is not an approach worthy of this City. We can and must do better. Please modify the proposal accordingly. Bonnie Mangold Capitol Hill Neighborhood Trustee p % N.____ . aoo N.r4h . AREA MAP ; i, \ \ 440 N.r FA 1 ♦ 1 1 1'.h 1 I.♦ ;' i I • % r 1�C . I, t J « I • j t i \ , a 0 t E - ii . I i r.K • M 3ev North °� " +r-- vas. t..o.. 5f-='s VE.------ ---~ '� I I �LA CA1 7 1 R 1 - i i .1- s 1 i ' to 1 i . 'r i ' • F • „ K+ 1 .Mt i arm. } Ai. PrW. Plc. n.# •$ 1 Avq. Pub•?k._.9 il - I b I. . I 1 n I AREA 3 t AREA I AREA 2 1 , .00 N.rth -to'u:Jc w . h hust Av I. Priv.Pk. • Avc'` privt'lc pArki„1 y.pit. Mw drawn by Bay* saes width:by err,Ten 4idl I"" dtrtui A9 taNl} Stale to minim ten a 10 p.eetti 10 paces.2T December 1993 Avi. pub. Pk. _ Avertfc tu`bc Parking/ 4i1 per Otettli F Kr1t4. �' # I 17 A PTTOT , HT! ,T . HTSTo R TC -DISTRICT I PNVTR nNC Watts ENTERPRISES 5200 South Highland Drive Salt Lake City, UT 84117 (801)272-7111 Fax(801)272-4658 Memorandum To: Salt Lake City Council From: Russ Watts, Watts Enterprises Cc: Boyd Anderson, Janice Jardine, Eric Jorgensen, Cindy Gust-Jensen Date: December 8, 2006 Re: Petition 400-0601 Tandem Parking and Zoning Text Amendment We have been working with the Salt lake City Planning Department and Planning Commission for the last 18 months in trying to provide effective, appropriate and correct ways for parking cars so that the city can provide parking options for housing components that will allow a variety of housing types within the city. The Development Community has been working together along with the planning staff to help establish parking variations to encourage a variety of housing types within the city boundaries as many other cities have accomplished. With mass transit becoming a major transportation tool for the city, we should deemphasize the requirement for parking stalls to encourage more housing units in the city. It is important as a community of citizens that we find appropriate ways to create vitality and keep people moving back to the city. There are many buildings in residential and commercial areas which stand vacant because of the present parking ordinances which prohibit renovation or rejuvenation of communities and revitalization of those communities because of some of these parking ordinances. We are strongly hopeful that the City Council will see the importance of the work that has been done by the Planning Commission and Planning Staff to help revitalize housing that is so desperately needed to create vitality in the city and help the city accomplish its goals. • 1.4 C..o M A�xT' ' December 1, 2006 Cindy Gust-Jensen Executive Council Director Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street, Room 304 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 RE: Tandem Parking Dear Cindy, As owners of property in the downtown area, the development of which is seriously impacted by the current Salt Lake City parking requirements, we are extremely interested in seeing a tandem parking text amendment approved. In the fall of 2003 we raised the issue of tandem parking with the Planning Department. We first met with the staff concerning this issue in January 2004. Three years later we have yet to see significant progress. We would greatly appreciate some insight on how to move this process along in a more reasonable pace. Salt Lake City has a stated objective to increase the number of people living downtown through increased affordability. The change in parking requirement alone would allow a much larger pool of potential owners to live in projects similar to ours by paying the median price for a home in this neighborhood. Without the change, the size and price of these homes is double. We hope that Salt Lake City will follow the lead of other intermountain cities such as Denver, where one parking stall per residential unit is required in certain areas. Please continue working to make it easier for successful infill residential development to take place in Salt Lake City. Sincerely, Boyd W. Anderson Manager The Staker Company, LLC rage i or I Jardine, Janice From: Elliott B. Smith [elliott@pangeadevco.coml Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 12:13 PM To: Jardine, Janice Subject: Salt Lake City Parking Dear Ms.Jardine: I am a developer that is interested in developing multi-family housing in the Salt Lake City area. However, in reviewing the parking ordinances,it is difficult to develop and product and a plan that is conducive to the ordinances yet marketable and economically feasible.Your attention to this matter to promote quality,viable multi-family projects in Salt Lake City is appreciated. Best regards, Elliott oioff B.Smith Pangea Development Company 2231 E.Murray Holladay Rd.,Suite 210 Salt Lake City,UT 84117 801-272-3820 office 801-272-3821 fax 801-573-0444 mobile elliott@pangeadevco.com Value-added systems and solutions that bring a complex real estate world together CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE-This e-mail transmission and any documents,files or previous e-mail messages anaehed to it,may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that you must not read or play this transmission and that any disclosure,copying,printing,distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. 12/8/2006 Jardine, Janice From: pbshupe c@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 9:06 PM To: Jardine, Janice Subject: Salt Lake City's tandem parking rewrite Dear Janice Jardine; I wanted to comment on your new tandem parking ordinance that planning commission has recommended to city council. We are developers of both single family housing and mutifamily housing through out the wasatch front and some areas beyond the front. As developments get closer to business centers, especially Salt Lake City proper, parking becomes a real issue. In fill areas within those limits become a real challenge with regards to parking. The ordinance rewrite would spell relief for alot of parties involved;fire, garbage collection, police, snow removal, code enforcement, planning and zoning, developers and legal situations for the attorney's office. The planning commissions recommendation has alot of merit and i wanted to apaude theirs and staff's foresight in tackling this problem situation. We appreciate the volunteer efforts you provide the city of Salt Lake. Sincerely, Paul Shupe 1 Jardine, Janice From: John Brereton [JBRERETOn@uthc.org] Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 8:09 AM To: Jardine,Janice Subject: Janice Janice As a developer of affordable and special use housing, I support tandem parking. Housing in downtown is very expensive to build and yet this setting is ideal for low to moderate income families. They need to be close to their jobs, shopping and amenties. But, developing in the downtown market is cost prohibitive. In the past 12 months the cost for materials and labor have increased between 15% -20o which is about the same as in 2005. Any reasonable step to reduce costs is welcomed. I feel that tandem parking is a reasonable cost saving step. John Brereton,President Affordable Housing Solutions 1 Jardine, Janice From: Curtis Pons [poncur@wfrmis.com] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 3:17 PM To: Jardine, Janice Subject: Tandem parking Hi Janice, Allowing tandem parkiing jus seems logical to me. The arguments against it just seem punitive and out dated while the arguments for it meet the needs of the way we live in the city today. Please support the tandem parking zoning change. Thank you, Curtis Pons 801-671-7270 1 rage 1 of 1 Jardine, Janice From: Troy Sanders [sandersx2@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, December 07,2006 12:38 PM To: Jardine, Janice Subject: Proposed Tandem Parking Ordinance I am writing this email in support of the proposed tandem parking ordinance. As a landscape architect/planner,I believe that more affordable housing can be accommodated in addition to solving the on-street parking issues outlined in your summary of the ordinance. I urge the city to approve these changes. Sincerely, Troy Sanders Landscape Architect Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. 12/8/2006 StP 2 8 2006 A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE .Aty ��a, I COW?".�lI.fh ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR BRENT B. WILDE DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: September 26, 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director —AA.. RE: Petition 400-06-01 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commiss on to amend the Zoning Ordinance regarding regulations for tandem parking in residential zones STAFF CONTACTS: Lex Traughber, Principal Planner,at 535-6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Parking is not currently allowed in the front or corner side yard(area between the street property line and the front wall of the principal building)in any residential district. The one exception is the R-MU (Residential Mixed-Use)district which does allow some limited front yard parking if the parking is located a minimum distance of fifteen feet(15') from the front lot line. Planning Staff proposes limited tandem parking in the front and corner side yards for existing detached single-family residential development or new single-family attached residential development(regardless of ownership), new twin home residential development, or new two- family residential development. Tandem parking shall also be allowed where new detached single-family residential development is approved as part of a Planned Development in accordance with Chapter 21A.54 of the Code. It is proposed that Tandem Parking be defined as, "A parking space within a group of two or more parking spaces arranged one behind the other such that the space nearest the street serves as the only means of access to the other space(s). It would be beneficial to neighborhoods and to the City as a whole to allow some limited parking in a tandem pattern in required yards,to recognize existing and commonly utilized parking configurations and to facilitate residential infill development. Allowing this parking configuration has the potential to decrease the number of automobiles that are parked on the street, decrease car theft and burglary, and facilitate the maintenance of public streets. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-71 05 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM ®REGYCI ER PAPER Analysis: The majority of Salt Lake City's older single-family neighborhoods were designed at a time when automobile ownership was less prevalent than it is today. These neighborhoods were established when it was not common for individuals and families to own one automobile, much less several. People relied more heavily on public transportation, such as the now defunct street car system, and less on private transportation. These neighborhoods were essentially designed with the pedestrian in mind. If a driveway was originally constructed for homes in the older neighborhoods throughout the City, the width of the driveway was typically one car width in size. Over the years, as the public has become more affluent, automobile ownership has significantly increased. Today, it is the rule rather than the exception for many households to have two or more vehicles. As automobile numbers have increased, parking demands have become problematic for many Salt Lake City Neighborhoods. It is common for residences in some of the City's older neighborhoods to have little or no off-street parking. Due to a lack of off-street parking spaces and a rise in the number of automobiles, the City has been experiencing an increase in complaints from residents who have been cited for illegal concrete parking pads or parking vehicles in the front yard of a residential lot. To compound this problem, the City does not recognize "tandem parking" in a driveway as an appropriate parking configuration, when in fact, many people "tandem park" in their single car width driveways. To further complicate the parking dilemma, developers who are involved in new residential infill development are often faced with properties that are small or may have certain physical characteristics or configurations that do not easily lend themselves to contemporary residential development. It is not in the City's best interest to forego new residential infill development due to a lack of parking options, when in many instances tandem parking would be a compatible solution. Planning Staff proposes that with certain required criteria, a tandem parking option should be incorporated into the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow a degree of flexibility to encourage residential infill development. A positive argument can certainly be made that off-street parking in residential zones is preferable to on-street parking subject to maintaining front yard design standards that promote quality residential appearances. This type of parking arrangement can provide greater security for automobiles because they can be parked closer to a residence, thereby potentially decreasing the incidents of car prowls. Additionally, off-street parking is preferable for streets that are narrow, one-way, or steep because vehicles parked on streets of this nature compound the difficulty. This is often seen in the Avenues and Capitol Hill neighborhoods. Planning Staff contends that a tandem parking configuration could eliminate the need for some on-street parking by recognizing this parking pattern for existing single family residences, as well as allowing limited parking for specific types of new residential development. Master Plan Considerations: The City's Master Plans are generally silent on parking issues as they relate to residential zones and residential development, with the exception of the Capitol Hill Master Plan. The Capitol Hill Master Plan does not address tandem parking per se, however it does address several issues relating to parking in the District that support the proposal to allow limited tandem Petition 400-06-01 —Tandem Parking Page 2 of 6 parking. The Plan reads on page seven, "Because they were developed prior to the advent of the automobile, many properties in the Marmalade, Kimball and West Capitol Hill neighborhoods do not have adequate off-street parking. Therefore, residents are relegated to limited amounts of on-street parking." This section of the Plan goes on to read, "In addition, steep narrow streets make on-street parking inconvenient and in some instances unsafe. In winter months, when streets become icy, on-street parking on steep streets, such as North Main, Apricot and 300 North, can be a problem for drivers who lose control of their cars. In other instances, on-street parking on narrow streets, creates difficulties for traffic circulation, garbage pick-up and street maintenance. " These statements support the idea of tandem parking, as this configuration can reduce the number of cars parked on the street and work to alleviate these types of issues. Further, according to the Salt Lake City Police Department, vehicles parked off the street are less likely to be vandalized or burgled. The Salt Lake City Futures Commission lists as a goal that, "The ideal neighborhood will have good traffic management that provides an adequate system for all modes of travel. Appropriate and adequate parking will be available to meet the needs of residents and be designed to fit the characteristics of the neighborhood(Page 46). " The Salt Lake City Strategic Plan states that the City should develop policies and programs that create strong economic incentives to stop the deterioration of housing units by encouraging vacant lot housing infill (page 16). One of the City Council Policy Statements as outlined in the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan on page eleven, states, "The City Council supports policies and programs that preserve or replace the City's housing stock, including the requirement of at a minimum, a unit-for-unit replacement of a monetary contribution by developers to the City's Housing Trust Fund in lieu of replacement. " Slightly relaxed parking requirements may make it more feasible for a developer to achieve some residential infill development and subsequently increase the City's housing stock. The proposed amendments are consistent and do not conflict with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted Capitol Hill Master Plan, the Salt Lake City Futures Commission, the Salt Lake City Strategic Plan, and the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan. PUBLIC PROCESS: Planning Staff met with the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) on February 6, 2006. Comments were received from the TAB Board and addressed by Planning Staff in a written response. This document is attached as Exhibit 4 to the Staff Report dated March 22, 2006 (See Section 5C of the Transmittal entitled "Planning Commission Staff Report—March 22, 2006"). Planning Staff attended a follow-up meeting with the TAB Board on March 6, 2006, presenting the written responses to issues and concerns initially raised, and presented the details and specifics of the proposed language regarding the text amendment. The TAB Board recommendations, motion, and vote are noted in the draft minutes attached in Exhibit 6 of the Petition 400-06-01 —Tandem Parking Page 3 of 6 Staff Report dated March 22, 2006 (See Section 5BC of the Transmittal entitled "Planning Commission Staff Report—March 22, 2006"). The TAB Board's motion was that tandem parking should not be counted toward the residential parking requirement if a street is not wide enough to allow parking on both sides of the street. The motion passed with five votes "for" and four votes "against". It is noted that the issue of street width raised by the TAB Board was addressed by limiting tandem parking to streets that have parking on both sides of the street or to streets that do not allow parking on either side of the street. This provision is reflected in the language that the Planning Commission voted to forward to the City Council. An Open House was held on February 23, 2006. All Community Council Chairs, business groups, and all those on the City's list serve were contacted regarding the Open House. Three members of the public attended the meeting and all were in support of the proposal. Two of the attendees provided Planning Staff with written comments which are included in Exhibit 5 of the Staff Report dated March 22, 2006 (See Section 5C of the Transmittal entitled "Planning Commission Staff Report—March 22, 2006"). No Community Council Chairpersons attended the meeting. Other comments received from the public are also attached in Exhibit 5 of this same Staff Report. On March 22, 2006, the Planning Commission heard the amendment proposal. A Staff Report was prepared for this meeting, analyzing criteria, making findings, and finally a recommendation. The day that the Staff Report was mailed out, March 16, 2006, Planning Staff received comments from the Salt Lake City Transportation Division that warranted further consideration. The hearing that was held before the Planning Commission on March 22, 2006, therefore became an "Issues Only" hearing. Planning Staff presented the Staff Report and comment was taken from the general public regarding the proposal. In addition, the comments received from the Transportation Division on March 16, 2006, are attached as Exhibit 6 in the Staff Report dated March 22, 2006 (See Section 5C of the Transmittal entitled "Planning Commission Staff Report—March 22, 2006"). After the Planning Commission hearing on March 22, 2006, Planning Staff worked to revise and incorporate several of the comments received from the Transportation Division into the current proposal. The Transportation Division provided comments regarding Planning Staffs revised proposal and their written comments from this review are attached (Attachment 2) to the Supplemental Staff Report dated May 10, 2006 (See Section 5D of the Transmittal entitled "Planning Commission Staff Report— May 10, 2006"). The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 10, 2006, and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance beginning with the following new Section: 21A44.020M—Tandem Parking - One (1) tandem parking space per unit shall be permitted for existing detached single-family residential development or new single-family attached residential development (regardless of ownership), new twin home residential development, or new two-family residential development. Tandem parking may be allowed where the new detached single-family residential development is approved as part of a Planned Development in accordance with Chapter 21A.54 of this Code. Additionally, the one (1) parking space per unit in a"tandem" configuration located Petition 400-06-01 —Tandem Parking Page 4 of 6 within the front or corner side yard setback can be included in the required parking calculation for these new residential developments. All tandem parking spaces must meet the following criteria: 1. The tandem parking space shall be at least nine feet (9') wide by twenty feet(20') deep; 2. The tandem parking space shall be entirely located on private property unless otherwise approved by the City; 3. The parking stall shall not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic; 4. The tandem parking space shall be located within a driveway that leads to a new or existing properly located, legal parking space; 5. The tandem parking space shall be located in a driveway that abuts and is assigned or dedicated to the dwelling unit that it serves. The width of the driveway shall be sufficient to accommodate vehicle maneuvering, and use of the tandem parking space shall not block the use of the driveway to access other parking spaces if the driveway is a shared driveway; 6. Parking on the hard surface tandem space shall be limited to passenger vehicles only; 7. The right-of-way fronting the new residential development must allow parking on both sides or neither side of the street; 8. Tandem parking shall not be used to satisfy parking requirements that were previously met through a side-by-side parking configuration. In addition, the Planning Commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the revised Table 21A.44.050—Parking Restrictions Within Yards which is included as Exhibit 3 in the supplemental staff report dated May 10, 2006 (See Section 5D of the Transmittal entitled "Planning Commission Staff Report—May 10, 2006"). Finally, the Planning Commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the definitions of"Tandem Parking" and "Passenger Vehicle", and add these definitions to Section 21 A.62 —Definitions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance as follows: Tandem Parking—means a parking space within a group of two or more parking spaces arranged one behind the other such that the space nearest the street serves as the only means of access to the other space(s). Passenger Vehicle—means a four-wheel, two-axle, motor vehicle, designed, sold, and licensed to accommodate private passenger transportation on public roads, not to include vehicles such as recreation vehicles, motor homes, boats, box vans or trailers. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Section 21A.44.020—General Off-Street Parking Requirements Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Table 21A.44.020—Parking Restrictions Within Yards Petition 400-06-01 —Tandem Parking Page 5 of 6 Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Section 21A.62.040—Definitions Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps are authorized under Section 21 A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 21A.50.050: "A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does, however, list five standards, which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property (Section 21A.50.050 A-E). The five standards are discussed in detail starting on page 6 of the Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 22, 2006 (See Section 5B of the Transmittal entitled "Planning Commission Staff Reports"). Petition 400-06-01 —Tandem Parking Page 6 of 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION A) ORIGINAL NOTICE POSTMARK March 22, 2006 B) ORIGINAL NOTICE POSTMARK May 10, 2006 C) STAFF REPORT March 22, 2006 D) STAFF REPORT May 10,2006 E) AGENDA AND MINUTES March 22, 2006 F) AGENDA AND MINUTES May 10, 2006 6. ORIGINAL PETITION 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY January 11, 2006 Planning Commission initiates petition. January 17, 2006 Petition delivered to Planning Division. January 17, 2006 Petition assigned to Lex Traughber. February 6, 2006 Petition presented to Transportation Advisory Board. Planning Staff entertained questions from members of the Board and provided clarification regarding the proposal. A motion was approved recommending that tandem parking not be applied city wide. February 13, 2006 Notice mailed for Open House. February 23, 2006 Planning Staff held Open House. Three members of the public attended. March 6, 2006 Planning Staff presented revised proposal to the Transportation Advisory Board. A motion was approved recommending that tandem parking not be counted toward the parking requirement if the street is not wide enough to allow parking on both sides of the street. March 7, 2006 Planning Commission hearing notices sent via U.S. Mail and email. March 22, 2006 Planning Commission holds an "Issues Only" hearing. Public comment is taken. April 25, 2006 Planning Commission hearing notices sent via U.S. Mail and email. May 10, 2006 Planning Commission holds a second public hearing and votes unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the tandem parking proposal. May 11, 2006 Planning Staff requested ordinance from the City Attorney's Office. May 30, 2006 Ordinance received from City Attorney's Office. 2. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending Section 21A.44.020 to Include Tandem Parking Provision, Table 21A.44.050 Parking Restrictions Within Yards, and Section 21A.62.040 Definitions) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21A.44.020, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO GENERAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, TABLE 21A.44.050, PERTAINING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS WITHIN YARDS, AND SECTION 21A.62.040, PERTAINING TO DEFINITIONS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-06-01. 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 the local master plan as part of their deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed amendments are in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending General Off-Street Parking Requirements. That Section 21A.44.020 of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to General Off-Street Parking Requirements be, and hereby is, amended, in part, to read as follows: 21A.44.020M Tandem Parking: 21A44.020M —Tandem Parking - One (1) tandem parking space per unit shall be permitted for existing detached single-family residential development or new single-family attached residential development (regardless of ownership),new twin home residential development, or new two- family residential development. Tandem parking may be allowed where the new detached single-family residential development is approved as part of a Planned Development in accordance with Chapter 21A.54 of this Code. Additionally, the one (1) parking space per unit in a "tandem" configuration located within the front or corner side yard setback can be included in the required parking calculation for these new residential developments. All tandem parking spaces must meet the following criteria: 1. The tandem parking space shall be at least nine feet (9') wide by twenty feet (20') deep; 2. The tandem parking space shall be entirely located on private property unless otherwise approved by the City; 3. The parking stall shall not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic; 4. The tandem parking space shall be located within a driveway that leads to a new or existing properly located, legal parking space; 5. The tandem parking space shall be located in a driveway that abuts and is assigned or dedicated to the dwelling unit that it serves. The width of the driveway shall be sufficient to accommodate vehicle maneuvering, and use of the tandem parking space shall not block the use of the driveway to access other parking spaces if the driveway is a shared driveway; 6. Parking on the hard surface tandem space shall be limited to passenger vehicles only; 7. The right-of-way fronting the new residential development must allow parking on both sides or neither side of the street; 8. Tandem parking shall not be used to satisfy parking requirements that were previously met through a side-by-side parking configuration. 2 SECTION 2. Amending Table. That the table, entitled Parking Restrictions Within Yards, which is located at 21A.44.050 of the Salt Lake City Code, shall be and hereby is, amended as set forth in the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 3. Amending Definitions. That Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code, entitled Definitions, shall be and hereby is, amended, in part, as follows: 21A.62.040 Definitions: "Passenger vehicle" means a four-wheel, two-axle, motor vehicle, designed, sold, and licensed to accommodate private passenger transportation on public roads, not to include vehicles such as recreation vehicles, motor homes, boats, box vans or trailers. "Tandem parking" means a parking space within a group of two or more parking spaces arranged one behind the other such that the space nearest the street serves as the only means to the other space(s). 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 3 Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS lO FORM SEAL Salt La torney's Office, / Date � r�la Bill No. of 2006. Published: I:AOrdinance 06\Amending 21 A.44.020 to include Tandem Parking Provision-08-18-06 draft.doc 4 Exhibit A 21A.44.050 Parking Restrictions Within Yards: A. Regulations, Form Of Restrictions: Within the various chapters of this Title, there are regulations that restrict the use of certain yards for off-street parking. These regulations can take the form of restrictions against parking in required yards, landscape yard restrictions, or landscape buffer restrictions. B. Front Yard Parking: Front yard parking may be allowed as a special exception when the rear or side yards cannot be reasonably accessed and it is impossible to build an attached garage that conforms to yard area and setback requirements, subject to the following conditions: 1. The hard-surfaced parking area be limited to nine feet (9') wide by twenty feet (20') deep; 2. A minimum twenty foot (20') setback from the front of the dwelling to the front property line exists so that vehicles will not project into the public right of way; and 3. Parking on the hard-surfaced area is restricted to passenger vehicles only. C. Parking Restrictions Within Yards: To make the use of this Title more convenient, Table 21A.44.050 of this Section has been compiled to provide a comprehensive listing of those districts where restrictions exist on the location of parking in yards. Table 21 A.44.050 PARKING RESTRICTIONS WITHIN YARDS RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Parking Restrictions Within Yards Zoning Districts Front Yard Corner Side Interior Side Rear Yard Yard Yard Single/two- family Parking not Parking not Parking Parking residential permitted permitted permitted. In the permitted districts: FR-1 to between between FR districts SR-1 front lot line front lot line parking not and the front and the front permitted within wall of the wall of the 6 feet of interior principal principal side lot line building* building* R-2 Parking not Parking not Parking Parking permitted permitted Permitted Permitted between between front lot line front lot line and the front and the front wall of the wall of the principal principal building* building* SR-3 Parking not Parking not Parking Parking permitted* permitted* permitted permitted RMF-30 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district abutting a single- or two-family district RMF-35 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots, except for single-family attached lots RMF-45 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots, except for single-family attached lots RMF-75 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots RB Parking not Parking not Parking Parking permitted* permitted* permitted permitted R-MU-35 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots, except for single-family attached lots R-MU-45 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots, except for single-family attached lots R-MU Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted permitted permitted within permitted within 15 within 15 10 feet of the within 10 feet of the feet of the side lot line feet of the front lot line* corner lot when abutting a rear lot line line* single- or two- when family district abutting a single- or two-family district RO Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots, except for single-family attached lots * Subject to Section 21A.44.020M—Tandem Parking SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending Section 21A.44.020 to Include Tandem Parking Provision, Table 21A.44.050 Parking Restrictions Within Yards, and Section 21A.62.040 Definitions) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21A.44.020, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO GENERAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, TABLE 21A.44.050, PERTAINING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS WITHIN YARDS, AND SECTION 21A.62.040, PERTAINING TO DEFINITIONS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-06-01. 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 the local master plan as part of their deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed amendments are in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Amending General Off-Street Parking Requirements. That Section 21A.44.020 of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to General Off-Street Parking Requirements be, and hereby is, amended, in part, to read as follows: 21A.44.020M Tandem Parking: 21A44.020M—Tandem Parking- One (1) tandem parking space per unit shall be permitted for existing detached single-family residential development or new single-family attached residential development (regardless of ownership), new twin home residential development, or new two-family residential development. Tandem parking may be allowed where the new detached single-family residential development is approved as part of a Planned Development in accordance with Chapter 21A.54 of this Code. Additionally, the one (1) parking space per unit in a "tandem" configuration located within the front or corner side yard setback can be included in the required parking calculation for these new residential developments. All tandem parking spaces must meet the following criteria: 1. The tandem parking space shall be at least nine feet (9') wide by twenty feet (20') deep; 2. The tandem parking space shall be entirely located on private property unless otherwise approved by the City; 3. The parking stall shall not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic; 4. The tandem parking space shall be located within a driveway that leads to a new or existing properly located, legal parking space; 5. The tandem parking space shall be located in a driveway that abuts and is assigned or dedicated to the dwelling unit that it serves. The width of the driveway shall be sufficient to accommodate vehicle maneuvering, and use of the tandem parking space shall not block the use of the driveway to access other parking spaces if the driveway is a shared driveway; 6. Parking on the hard surface tandem space shall be limited to passenger vehicles only; 7. The right-of-way fronting the new residential development must allow parking on both sides or neither side of the street; 8. Tandem parking shall not be used to satisfy parking requirements that were previously met through a side-by-side parking configuration. 2 SECTION 2. Amending Table. That the table, entitled Parking Restrictions Within Yards, which is located at 21A.44.050 of the Salt Lake City Code, shall be and hereby is, amended as set forth in the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 3. Amending Definitions. That Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code, entitled Definitions, shall be and hereby is, amended, in part, as follows: 21A.62.040 Definitions: "Passenger vehicle" means a four-wheel, two-axle, motor vehicle, designed, sold, and licensed to accommodate private passenger transportation on public roads, not to include vehicles such as recreation vehicles, motor homes, boats, box vans or trailers. "Tandem parking" means a parking space within a group of two or more parking spaces arranged one behind the other such that the space nearest the street serves as the only means to the other space(s). 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 3 Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: l:\Ordinance 06\Amending 21 A.44.020 to include Tandem Parking Provision-08-18-06 draftl.doc 4 Exhibit A 21A.44.050 Parking Restrictions Within Yards: A. Regulations, Form Of Restrictions: Within the various chapters of this Title, there are regulations that restrict the use of certain yards for off-street parking. These regulations can take the form of restrictions against parking in required yards, landscape yard restrictions, or landscape buffer restrictions. B. Front Yard Parking: Front yard parking may be allowed as a special exception when the rear or side yards cannot be reasonably accessed and it is impossible to build an attached garage that conforms to yard area and setback requirements, subject to the following conditions: 1. The hard-surfaced parking area be limited to nine feet (9') wide by twenty feet (20') deep; 2. A minimum twenty foot (20') setback from the front of the dwelling to the front property line exists so that vehicles will not project into the public right of way; and 3. Parking on the hard-surfaced area is restricted to passenger vehicles only. C. Parking Restrictions Within Yards: To make the use of this Title more convenient, Table 21A.44.050 of this Section has been compiled to provide a comprehensive listing of those districts where restrictions exist on the location of parking in yards. Table 21 A.44.050 PARKING RESTRICTIONS WITHIN YARDS RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Parking Restrictions Within Yards Zoning Districts Front Yard Corner Side Interior Side Rear Yard Yard Yard Single/two- family Parking not Parking not Parking Parking residential permitted permitted permitted. In the permitted districts: FR-1 to between between FR districts SR-1 front lot line front lot line parking not and the front and the front permitted within wall of the wall of the 6 feet of interior principal principal side lot line building* building* R-2 Parking not Parking not Parking Parking permitted permitted Permitted Permitted between between front lot line front lot line and the front and the front wall of the wall of the principal principal building* building* SR-3 Parking not Parking not Parking Parking permitted* permitted* permitted permitted RMF-30 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district abutting a single- or two-family district RMF-35 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots, except for single-family attached lots RMF-45 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots, except for single-family attached lots RMF-75 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots RB Parking not Parking not Parking Parking permitted* permitted* permitted permitted R-MU-35 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots, except for single-family attached lots R-MU-45 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots, except for single-family attached lots R-MU Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted permitted permitted within permitted within 15 within 15 10 feet of the within 10 feet of the feet of the side lot line feet of the front lot line* corner lot when abutting a rear lot line line* single- or two- when family district abutting a single- or two-family district RO Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line ifeet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots, except for single-family attached lots * Subject to Section 21A.44.020M—Tandem Parking 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition 400-06-01, a Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance text amendment proposal that will add standards to allow and regulate tandem parking in residential zones throughout the City. The purpose of the amendment is to allow some limited parking in a tandem pattern in required yards, to recognize existing and commonly utilized parking configurations, and to facilitate residential infill development. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, 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: Room 315 City & County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Lex Traughber at 535-6184 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at lex.traughber@slcgov.com People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this hearing. 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 Division at (801) 535-7757; TDD (801) 535- 6021. 4. MAILING LABELS Jam Free Printing www.avery.com Q AVERY® 5160® Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY KEN FULZ KENNETH L NEAL ANGIE VORHER WESTPOINTE CHAIR ROSE PARK CHAIR JORDAN MEADOWS CHAIR 1217 NORTH BRIGADIER CIR 1071 NORTH TOPAZ 1988 SIR JAMES DRIVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 VICKY ORME MIKE HARMAN RANDY SORENSON FAIRPARK CHAIR POPLAR GROVE CHAIR GLENDALE CHAIR 159 NORTH 1320 WEST 1044 WEST 300 SOUTH 1184 SOUTH REDWOOD DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SLAT LAKE CITY UT 84104 PETER VON SIVERS STEVE MECHAM BILL DAVIS CAPITOL HILL CHAIR GREATER AVENUES CHAIR DOWNTOWN CHAIR 223 WEST 400 NORTH 1180 FIRST AVENUE 329 HARRISON AVENUE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 THOMAS MUTTER CHRIS JOHNSON CENTRAL CITY CHAIR EAST CENTRAL CHAIR 228 EAST 500 SOUTH #100 PO BOX 520743 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 JIM FISHER JIM WEBSTER DANIEL JENSEN LIBERTY WELLS CHAIR YALECREST CHAIR WASATCH HOLLOW CHAIR 428 CLEVELAND AVE 938 MILITARY DRIVE 1670 EAST EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ELIOT BRINTON ELLEN REDDICK MICHAEL AKERLOW SUNNYSIDE EAST CHAIR BONNEVILLE HILLS CHAIR FOOTHILL/SUNNYSIDE CHAIR 849 SOUTH CONNOR STREET 2177 ROOSEVELT AVENUE 1940 HUBBARD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SHAWN MCMILLEN DAVE MORTENSEN MARK HOLLAND H. ROCK CHAIR ARCADIA HEIGHTS/BENCHMARK SUGAR HOUSE CHAIR 1855 SOUTH 2600 EAST CHAIR 1942 BERKELEY STREET SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 2278 SIGNAL POINT CIRCLE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 PAUL TAYLOR BRUCE COHNE OAK HILLS CHAIR EAST BENCH CHAIR 1165 OAKHILLS WAY 2384 SOUTH SUMMIT CIRCLE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SLAT LAKE CITY, UT 84109 TIM fFF INDIAN HILLS CHAIR ST. MARY'S CHAIR Vacant Vacant r�l AHgAV-On-0m8-L 66091S 31111dW3l®tiany ash Downtown Alliance S.L. Chamber of Commerce Downtown Merchants Association Bob Farrington, Director 175 East 400 South, #100 Attn: Carol Dibblee 175 East 400 South, #100 SLC, UT 84111 10 W. Broadway, Suite 420 SLC, UT 84111 SLC, UT 84101 Sugar House Merchants Association Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Vest Pocket Business Coalition Barbara Green P.O. Box 1805 P.O. Box 521357 Smith-Crown SLC, UT 84110 SLC, UT 84152-1357 2000 South 1100 East SLC, UT 84106 Westside Alliance c/o Neighborhood Housing Services Lex Traughber Boyd Anderson Maria Garcia 451 S. State St., Rm 406 6914 South 3000 East 622 West 500 North SLC, UT 84111 SLC, UT 84121 SLC, UT 84116 Mike Nelson Catherine Dunn Russ Watts 5200 S. Highland Dr. 1120 East 600 South Watts Enterprises SLC, UT 84117 SLC, UT 84102 5200 South Highland Dr. SLC, UT 84117 Tim Dee Sunset Oaks Chair 1575 Devonshire Drive SLC, UT 84108 Jam rree rnntm9 www.avery.com r� Use Avery®TEMPLATE mooMINIIIIMINIE V1 AVERY® 5160® KEN FULZ KENNETH L NEAL ANGIE VORHER WESTPOINTE CHAIR ROSE PARK CHAIR JORDAN MEADOWS CHAIR 1217 NORTH BRIGADIER CIR 1071 NORTH TOPAZ 1988 SIR JAMES DRIVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 VICKY ORME MIKE HARMAN RANDY SORENSON FAIRPARK CHAIR POPLAR GROVE CHAIR GLENDALE CHAIR 159 NORTH 1320 WEST 1044 WEST 300 SOUTH 1184 SOUTH REDWOOD DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SLAT LAKE CITY UT 84104 PETER VON SIVERS STEVE MECHAM BILL DAVIS CAPITOL HILL CHAIR GREATER AVENUES CHAIR DOWNTOWN CHAIR 223 WEST 400 NORTH 1180 FIRST AVENUE 329 HARRISON AVENUE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 THOMAS MUTTER CHRIS JOHNSON CENTRAL CITY CHAIR EAST CENTRAL CHAIR 228 EAST 500 SOUTH #100 PO BOX 520743 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 JIM FISHER JIM WEBSTER DANIEL JENSEN LIBERTY WELLS CHAIR YALECREST CHAIR WASATCH HOLLOW CHAIR 428 CLEVELAND AVE 938 MILITARY DRIVE 1670 EAST EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ELIOT BRINTON ELLEN REDDICK MICHAEL AKERLOW SUNNYSIDE EAST CHAIR BONNEVILLE HILLS CHAIR FOOTHILL/SUNNYSIDE CHAIR 849 SOUTH CONNOR STREET 2177 ROOSEVELT AVENUE 1940 HUBBARD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SHAWN MCMILLEN DAVE MORTENSEN ARCADIA HEIGHTS/BENCHMARK MARK HOLLAND H. ROCK CHAIR CHAIR SUGAR HOUSE CHAIR 1855 SOUTH 2600 EAST 2278 SIGNAL POINT CIRCLE 1942 BERKELEY STREET SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 PAUL TAYLOR BRUCE COHNE OAK HILLS CHAIR EAST BENCH CHAIR 1165 OAKHILLS WAY 2384 SOUTH SUMMIT CIRCLE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SLAT LAKE CITY, UT 84109 TIM f)FF INDIAN HILLS CHAIR ST. MARY'S CHAIR Vacant Vacant } ' ?,,'S F fcKIAM v - Aa3AV-09-008-L 1VdIN®09LS 3l31®AGaAV asn xalCILC imAIMAIrl Dill Downtown Alliance S.L. Chamber of Commerce Downtown Merchants Association Bob Farrington, Director Attn: Carol Dibblee 175 East 400 South, #100 175 East 400 South, #100 SLC, UT 84111 10 W. Broadway, Suite 420 SLC, UT 84111 SLC, UT 84101 Sugar House Merchants Association Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Vest Pocket Business Coalition Barbara Green P.O. Box 1805 P.O. Box 521357 Smith-Crown SLC, UT 84110 SLC, UT 84152-1357 2000 South 1100 East SLC, UT 84106 Westside Alliance c/o Neighborhood Housing Services Lex Traughber Boyd Anderson Maria Garcia 451 S. State St., Rm 406 6914 South 3000 East 622 West 500 North SLC, UT 84111 SLC, UT 84121 SLC, UT 84116 Russ Watts Mike Nelson Catherine Dunn Watts Enterprises 5200 S. Highland Dr. 1120 East 600 South 5200 South Highland Dr. SLC, UT 84117 SLC, UT 84102 SLC, UT 84117 Tim Dee Sunset Oaks Chair 1575 Devonshire Drive SLC, UT 84108 5. PLANNING COMMISSION A. Original Notice Postmark March 22, 2006 1441- 5 nIDS 104.7 w �3 s -3 -v_Ls s 5 3�IlON 9H 2c JNII3V3H 1O .r 11,LbS 1(1 'ci!O aNel ileS 90b 'wa 'aaaa)S eieis uinoS 1.9b tieiajoaS uoiSSiwwo3 6u!uueld uolsiAIO 6uluueId Apo amlel ileS 30V1SOd Sfi ,,',f,,b � 141.t79 woid pallew :e 900ZiL0i£0 ust ,row, 06C•66 ., - - CLS.0S91.1-i910 r. •7 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 535-7757 for assistance. For information on public or written comments and ADA accommodations, please see the reverse side of the agenda. 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 TELEPHONE:801-535-7757•FAX 801-535-6174 5. PLANNING COMMISSION B. Original Notice Postmark May 10, 2006 19 _3 3--S 'S 9Ny � 2( �1�II2I��H IO JDI,LON 30V1SOd sn • ilre—It • , 44b8 w013pall5W �y4P 900Z/Sc1170 �c�:1•`l—r1 o6C 00$ 67, 'l :� ' t 1178 J8 n �1�3 a�1u7 CIEs '•'� 4> 90b woo) pa.ilS owls tpnoS I Sb £L540994H940 •.tit•. ••• uotslAtQ 2u!uuuld /CIDD 1IuS . 'sri -12 os _ 1 a 5 s tj (� t Petition 410-26_1-and 490-06-014(Borg Holdings) 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,hearing swill 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 three(3)minutes per person,per item.A spokesperson who has already been asked by a group to summarize their concerns will be allowed five(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 Commission 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 atten- dees. ' 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 dismission 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 will 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 535-7757;TDD 535-6021. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION C. Staff Report March 22, 2006 DATE: March 16, 2006 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Lex Traughber Principal Planner Telephone: (801)535-6184 Email: lex.traughberriD,slcgov.com RE: STAFF REPORT FOR THE MARCH 22, 2006 MEETING CASE NUMBER: 400-06-01 APPLICANT: Salt Lake City Planning Commission STATUS OF APPLICANT: City Board REQUESTED ACTION: The Planning Commission initiated a petition requesting that Planning Staff review the Zoning Ordinance in reference to regulations governing tandem parking in residential zones. PROJECT LOCATION: This is a Zoning Ordinance text amendment that has implications city wide. COUNCIL DISTRICTS: The proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment will affect all Council Districts. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: Parking is not currently allowed in the front or corner side yard (area between the property line and the front wall of the principal building) in any residential district. The one exception is the R-MU (Residential Mixed-Use) district which does allow some limited front yard parking if the parking is located a minimum distance of fifteen feet (15') from the front lot line. Planning Staff proposes limited tandem parking in the front and corner side yaids for existing and new single family residential development, which includes townhomes and twin homes, where the parking will have minimal impacts on adjacent property owners and the localized area in general. Staff Report, Petition 400-06-01 1 Salt Lake City Planning Division RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT: It would be beneficial to local neighborhood communities and to the City as a whole to allow some limited parking in a tandem pattern in required yards, to recognize existing and commonly utilized parking configurations and to facilitate single family residential infill development. Allowing this parking configuration has the potential to decrease the number of automobiles that are parked on the street, decrease car theft and burglary, and facilitate the maintenance of public streets. APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Section and Table 21A.44.050— Parking Restrictions Within Yards APPLICABLE MASTER PLANS: Salt Lake City Strategic Plan 1993 Salt Lake City Futures Commission Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan Capitol Hill Master Plan PROJECT HISTORY: The vast majority of Salt Lake City's single-family neighborhoods were designed at a time when automobile ownership was less prevalent than it is today. These neighborhoods were established when it was not common for individuals and families to own one automobile, much less several. People relied more heavily on public transportation, such as the now defunct street car system, and less on private transportation. These neighborhoods were essentially designed with the pedestrian in mind. If a driveway was originally constructed for homes in the older neighborhoods throughout the City, the width of the driveway was typically one car width in size. Over the years, as the public has become more affluent, automobile ownership has significantly increased. Today, it is the rule rather than the exception for many households to have two or more-vehicles. Further, with the preference of the American public for SUVs, passenger vehicles are often times larger than those of the past. Over time, as automobile ownership has increased, parking demands have become problematic for many Salt Lake City Neighborhoods. It is common for residences in the City's neighborhoods to have little or no off-street parking. Due to a lack of off-street parking spaces and a rise in automobile numbers, the City has been experiencing an increase in complaints from residents who have been cited for illegal concrete parking Staff Report, Petition 400-06-01 2 Salt Lake City Planning Division pads or parking vehicles in the front yard of a residential lot. To compound this problem, the City does not recognize "tandem parking" in a driveway as an appropriate parking configuration, when in fact, many people unknowingly "tandem park". As noted previously, driveway construction, if any, in the older neighborhoods across the City was typically one car length in width, and residents are accustomed to "tandem parking" in this type of driveway design. A positive argument can certainly be made that off-street parking in residential zones is preferable to on-street parking. This type of parking arrangement can provide greater security for automobiles because they can be parked closer to a residence, thereby potentially decreasing the incidents of car prowls. Additionally, off-street parking is preferable for streets that are narrow, one-way, or steep because vehicles parked on streets of this nature compound the difficulty. Planning Staff contends that a tandem parking configuration could eliminate the need for some on-street parking by recognizing this parking pattern for existing single family residences, as well as allowing limited parking for new single-family residential development. To further complicate the parking dilemma, developers who are involved in new residential infill development are often faced with properties that are small or may have certain physical characteristics or configurations that do not easily lend themselves to contemporary residential development. It is not in the City's best interest to forego new residential infill development due to a lack of parking options, when in many instances there is currently no option for tandem parking in a required yard in residential zoning districts in the Salt Lake City Code. Planning Staff proposes that with certain required criteria, a tandem parking option should be incorporated into the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow a degree of flexibility to encourage residential infill development. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: • Table 2l A.44.05 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance indicates that parking is not allowed in any residential district in the front or corner side yard with the one exception of the R-MU zone. In the R-MU zone, parking is allowed in the front or corner side yard if it is located at least fifteen feet from the lot line. Planning Staff proposes to recognize one (1) tandem parking space in the required front or corner side yard for existing or new single-family residential development city wide if the following criteria are met. 1. The tandem parking space is at least nine feet (9') wide by twenty feet (20') deep; 2. The vehicle will not encroach into the public right of way: 3. The tandem parking space is located within a driveway that leads to a properly located new or existing parking space (garage, carport or parking pad); 4. Parking on the hard surface tandem space is limited to passenger vehicles only. Staff Report, Petition 400-06-01 3 Salt Lake City Planning Division In addition, in order to encourage residential infill development, Planning Staff proposes that for new single-family, residential construction, one (1)parking space located within the front or corner side yard setback in a "tandem" configuration will be permitted, and said space can be included in the required parking calculation for the proposed residential use if the same criteria are met. These criteria would appear in the Zoning Ordinance as a footnote to Table 21 A.44.050 - Parking Restrictions Within Yards, Residential Districts (Exhibit 1). Because a definition of"Tandem Parking" is not currently included in the Zoning Ordinance, Planning Staff proposes the attached definition (Exhibit 2), which reads, "A parking space within a group of two or more parking spaces arranged one behind the other such that the space nearest the street serves as the only means of access to the other space(s)." Planning Staff notes that this tandem parking provision is not applicable for the purposes of unit legalization. The unit legalization process does not apply to single-family residential housing units, rather applies to what the City recognizes as duplexes, triplexes and so forth. The unit legalization process is for the purposes of recognizing more that one dwelling unit on a given parcel. This proposed amendment is for new or existing single-family residential development only; one dwelling unit on one parcel. DEPARTMENT/DIVISION COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments received from various City Divisions/Departments. The comments in their entirety are attached (Exhibit 3) to this staff report. 1. Transportation Planning Staff received comments from Transportation Staff on March 16°', 2006, the day Planning Commission packets were mailed out. Attached as Exhibit 6 are the Transportation comments and draft minutes from the TAB Board. The comments received from Transportation conflict with Planning Staff's recommendation. 2. Engineering Could not foresee any possible problems with the proposal. 3. -Code Enforcement Did not respond. 4. Permits Per verbal discussion, Permits has no issue with the proposal. 5. Public Utilities For all cases of this petition where Public Utilities' properties and facilities are not encroached upon, Public Utilities has no issues. In any case of an Staff Report,Petition 400-06-01 4 Salt Lake City Planning Division encroachment all proposed construction must meet Public Utilities' standards, specifications, and requirements. 6. Property Management So long as the parking spaces are not located within the right-of-way, Property Management has no comment on the proposed amendment. 7. Police Did not respond, however verbally via telephone indicated that cars parked adjacent to residences are less likely to be burgled that those parked on the street. 8. Fire Generally, the Fire Department has no objections concerning this tandem parking amendment. 9. Public Services The benefits of allowing the stacking of cars in a driveway or side yard are: - takes more cars off of residential streets - during the snow season the residential roads are more open and easier to plow - during the neighborhood clean up, road surface treatment period, and leaf collection period, roads are more open and accessible. - weekly residential waste collection could see fewer cars interfering with placement of containers. 10. Salt Lake City International Airport The proposed amendment affects vehicle parking in residential zoning districts and does not have impacts on operations at the Salt Lake City International Airport. PUBLIC PROCESS & COMMENT: Planning Staff met with the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) on February 6, 2006. Attached are the comments received from the TAB Board and a response to each from Planning Staff(Exhibit 4). Planning Staff attended a follow-up meeting with the TAB Board on March 6, 2006, presenting written responses to issues and concerns initially raised, and presented the details and specifics of the proposed language regarding the text amendment. The TAB Board recommendations, motion, and vote are noted in the draft minutes attached in Exhibit 6. An Open House was held on February 23, 2006. All Community Council Chairs, business groups, and all those on the City' list serve were contacted regarding the Open House. Three members of the public attended the meeting and all were in support of the proposal. Two of the attendees provided Planning Staff with written comments which are included in Exhibit 5. No Community Council Chairpersons attended the meeting. Other comments received from the public are also attached in Exhibit 5. Staff Report,Petition 400-06-0i 5 Salt Lake City Planning Division ANALYSIS: Because this petition is a modification of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission must review the proposal and forward a recommendation to the City Council based on the following standards for general amendments as noted in Section 21A.50.050 of the Zoning Ordinance. 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 City's Master Plans arc generally silent on parking issues as they relate to residential zones and residential development, with the exception of the Capitol Hill Master Plan. The Capitol Hill Master Plan does not address tandem parking per se, however it does address several issues relating to parking in the District that support the proposal to allow limited tandem parking. The Plan reads on page seven, "Because they were developed prior to the advent of the automobile, many properties in the Marmalade, Kimball and West Capitol Hill neighborhoods do not have adequate off-street parking. Therefore, residents are relegated to limited amounts of on-street parking." This section of the Plan goes on to read, "In addition, steep narrow streets make on-street parking inconvenient and in some instances unsafe. In winter months, when streets become icy, on-street parking on steep streets, such as North Main, Apricot and 300 North, can be a problem for drivers who lose control of their cars. In other instances, on-street parking on narrow streets, creates difficulties for traffic circulation, garbage pick-up and street maintenance. " These statements support the idea of tandem parking. as this configuration can reduce the number of cars parked on the street and work to alleviate these types of issues. Further, according to the Salt Lake City Police Department; vehicles parked off the street are less likely to be vandalized or burgled. The Salt Lake City Futures Commission lists as a goal that, "The ideal neighborhood will have good traffic management that provides an adequate system for all modes of travel. Appropriate and adequate parking will be available to meet the needs of residents and be designed to fit the characteristics of the neighborhood (Page 46). " The Salt Lake City Strategic Plan states that the City should develop policies and programs that crate strong economic incentives to stop the deterioration of housing units by Pncouraging vacant lot housing infill (page 16). One of the City Council Policy Statements as outlined in the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan on page eleven, states, "The City Council supports policies and programs that preserve or replace the City's housing stock, including the requirement of at a minimum, a unit-for-unit replacement of a monetary Staff Report, Petition 400-06-01 6 Salt Lake City Planning Division contribution by developers to the City's Housing Trust Fund in lieu of replacement. " Slightly relaxed parking requirements may make it more feasible for a developer to achieve some residential infill development and subsequently increase the City's housing stock. Finding: The proposed text change is consistent and does not conflict with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted Capitol Hill Master Plan, the Salt Lake City Futures Commission, the Salt Lake City Strategic Plan, and the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan. 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, but would apply to all residential districts across the City. Finding: The proposed amendment will benefit local neighborhoods and the City as a whole by allowing options for some expanded, yet limited, off-street parking in the front or corner side yard area for existing and new single-family residential development. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The proposed standards are designed to limit adverse affects to adjacent properties. Parking in the front or corner side yard will be limited to one (1) additional parking space of specific dimensions (9' x 20'), yet will allow some flexibility for a residential property owner to obtain some additional off-street parking. This parking space in a required yard will also have to be located in a driveway leading to a properly located parking space as noted in the above proposed criteria. Finding: The proposed regulations will substantially limit adverse affects. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: Additional off-street parking in residential zones in the front yard will be subject to the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning district. Finding: The prcposcd amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable ovcilay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational Staff Report, Petition 400-06-01 7 Salt Lake City Planning Division facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies and wastewater and refuse collection. Discussion: This petition is not site specific, however the criteria is valid. The Public Services Division and the Police Department note in their comments that a provision to provide for off-street parking in residential areas is positive. From a Police perspective, cars parked off the street are safer in terms of burglary, theft and vandalism. The Public Services Division notes that fewer cars parked in the streets is beneficial in terms of street maintenance, waste collection, snow removal, and neighborhood cleanup. Finding: This petition is not site specific, however this criteria is applicable. The Police Department and the Public Services Division note that the ability to decrease on-street parking in residential neighborhoods is advantageous. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in this staff report, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt text amending the Salt Lake City Code concerning "tandem parking" in required yards for existing and new single-family residential development. Attachments: Exhibit 1 - Revised Table 2 IA.44.050- Parking Restrictions Within Yards- Residential Districts Exhibit 2 - Definition--Tandem Parking Exhibit 3 - Department/Division Comments Exhibit d - TAB Board Comment and Planning Staff Response Exhibit 5 - Public Comment Exhibit 6- Transportation Comments Staff Report, Petition 400-06-01 8 Salt Lake City Planning Division Exhibit 1 - Revised Table 21A.55.050 - Parking Restrictions Within Yards — Residential Districts 21A.44.050 Parking Restrictions Within Yards: A. Regulations, Form Of Restrictions: Within the various chapters of this Title, there are regulations that restrict the use of certain yards for off-street parking. These regulations can take the form of restrictions against parking in required yards, landscape yard restrictions, or landscape buffer restrictions. B. Front Yard Parking: Front yard parking may be allowed as a special exception when the rear or side yards cannot be reasonably accessed and it is impossible to build an attached garage that conforms to yard area and setback requirements, subject to the following conditions: 1. The hard-surfaced parking area be limited to nine feet (9') wide by twenty feet (20') deep; 2. A minimum twenty foot (20') setback from the front of the dwelling to the front property line exists so that vehicles will not project into the public right of way; and 3. Parking on the hard-surfaced area is restricted to passenger vehicles only. C. Parking Restrictions Within Yards: To make the use of this Title more convenient, Table 21A.44.050 of this Section has been compiled to provide a comprehensive listing of those districts where restrictions exist on the location of parking in yards. Table 21 A.44.050 PARKING RESTRICTIONS WITHIN YARDS RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Parking Restrictions Within Yards Zoning Districts Front Yard Corner Side Interior Side Rear Yard Yard Yard Single/two- family Parking not Parking not Parking 1'Parking residential permitted permitted permitted. In the permitted districts: FR-1 to between between FR districts SR-1 front lot line front lot line parking not and the front and the front permitted within wall of the wall of the 6 feet of interior principal principal side lot line building* building* SR-3 Parking not Parking not Parking Parking permitted* permitted* permitted permitted RMF-30 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district abutting a single- or two-family district RMF-35 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots, except for single-family attached lots RMF-45 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots, except for single-family attached lots RMF-75 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots RB Parking not Parking not Parking Parking permitted* permitted* permitted permitted R-MU-35 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots, except for single-family attached lots R-MU-45 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots. except for single-family attached lots R-MU Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted permitted permitted within permitted within 15 within 15 10 feet of the within 10 feet of the feet of the side lot line feet of the front lot line corner lot when abutting a rear lot line line single- or two- when family district abutting a single- or two-family district RO Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots, except for single-family attached lots * With the exception of one (1)tandem parking space for existing or new single-family residential development that meets the following criteria: 1. The tandem parking space is at least nine feet (9') wide by twenty feet (20') deep; 2. The vehicle will not encroach into the public right of way; 3. The tandem parking space is located within a driveway that leads to a properly located new or existing parking space (garage, carport or parking pad);" 4. Parking on the hard surface tandem space is limited to passenger vehicles only. Exhibit 2 - Definition - Tandem Parking Chapter 21A.62 — Definitions A parking space within a group of two or more parking spaces arranged one behind the other such that the space nearest the street serves as the only means of access to the other space(s). Exhibit 3 - Department/Division Comments Traughber, Lex From: Stewart, Brad Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 11:41 AM To: Traughber, Lex Cc: Garcia, Peggy Subject: Tandem Parking Text Amendment Petition 400-06-01 Categories: Program/Policy Lex, Public Utilities has no issues or objections with the proposed parking change. Brad 3/1/2006 . Traughber, Lex From: Garcia, Peggy Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 1 03 PM To: Traughber, Lex Cc: Niermeyer, Jeff, Brown, Jason, Greenleaf, Karryn Subject: Petition 400-06-01, Tandem Parking Text Amendment Categories: Program/Policy Lex, For all cases of this petition where Public Utilities' properties and facilities are not encroached upon, Public Utilities has no issues_ For cases where Public Utilities' properties and facilities are encroached upon all proposed construction must meet Public Utilities' standards, specification and requirements Please call if you have any questions. Peggy Garcia Contracts Supervisor Salt Lake City Public Utilities (801) 483-6727 2/27/2006 Traughber, Lex From: Larson, Bradley Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 2.14 PM To: Traughber, Lex Cc: Leydsman, Wayne Subject: RE: Petition 400-06-01, Tandem Parking Text Amendment Categories: Program/Policy Lex, I am out of town and will return March 6th I am not aware that this amendment got to Wayne in my absence, so I will comment on this. Generally, the Fire Department has no objections concerning this tandem parking text amendment. The only concerns the Fire Code addresses is if parking is on the street and speaks to fire department emergency vehicle access. If streets are only 20 feet wide, no parking is allowed on either sided of the street. 28 feet, parking allowed on one side only. 36 feet wide, then parking is allowed on both sides of the street. I mention these as a matter of information. Please contact me should you have any questions. Thank you Brad Larson Deputy Fire Marshal Salt Lake City Fire Department From: Traughber, Lex Sent: Thu 2/16/2006 11:51 AM To: Garcia, Peggy; Larson, Bradley; Smith, Craig; Butcher, Larry; Guess, Kim Cc: Paterson, Joel; Coffey, Cheri Subject: Petition 400-06-01, Tandem Parking Text Amendment Good morning, On January 31, 2006, I sent the attached memorandum to you regarding the above referenced petition. I requested that you send any comments that you may have regarding this matter to me by February 15, 2006. The purpose of this email is to again solicit any comments that you may have. I am preparing my staff report and need comments as soon as possible. If I do not hear from you by Wednesday, February 22, 2006, I will make the assumption that you have no concerns with this proposal. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks! Lex Traughber Principal Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division 2/27/2006 Traughber, Lex From: Smith, Craig Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12 55 PM To: Traughber, Lex Subject: RE Petition 400-06-01, Tandem Parking Text Amendment Lex, if the tandem parking space is just for one car, I don't see any possible problems From: Traughber, Lex Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:49 PM To: Smith, Craig Subject: RE: Petition 400-06-01, Tandem Parking Text Amendment Thanks for the comments Craig. The number of allowed vehicles is one. I don't know if junk cars are governed by another ordinance, but I would think that the proposed ordinance would not lend itself to a proliferation of rows of junked cars, especially if the limit is one vehicle Am I missing the point? From: Smith, Craig Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:44 PM To: Traughber, Lex Subject: FW: Petition 400-06-01, Tandem Parking Text Amendment From: Smith, Craig Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:42 PM To: Traughber, Lex Subject: RE: Petition 400-06-01, Tandem Parking Text Amendment Good afternoon Lex- I have reviewed petition 400-06-01, Tandem parking text amendment. I understand the need for off street parking and support relaxing the ordinance with the current text amendment, however, I am concerned whereby the text amendment does not put a restriction on the number of allowed vehicles that can park tandem in the front or corner yard. In addition, could someone theoretically park a "row" of"junk" cars within this proposal, or is that governed by another ordinance? I mention this,for the Engineering inspectors handle many calls involving front yard parking. Sincerely, Craig From: Traughber, Lex Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:51 AM To: Garcia, Peggy; Larson, Bradley; Smith, Craig; Butcher, Lai ,; Guess k\� Cc: Paterson, Joel; Coffey, Cheri Subject: Petition 400-06-01, Tandem Parking Text Amendment Good morning, On January 31, 2006, I sent the attached memorandum to you regarding the above referenced petition. requested that you send any comments that you may have regarding this matter to me by February 15, 2006. 2/1 6/2006 The purpose of this email is to again solicit any comments that you may have. I am preparing my staff report and need comments as soon as possible. If I do not hear from you by Wednesday, February 22, 2006, I will make the assumption that you have no concerns with this proposal. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks! Lex Traughber Principal Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division 2/16/2Q06 Traughber, Lex From: Rokhva, Parviz Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 3 26 PM To: Traughber, Lex Cc: Rokhva, Parviz Subject: RE- Tandem Parking Proposal Categories: Program/Policy Lex , From the Street Division's perspective we do not have an issue with this proposal at this time . Thanks Parviz From: Graham, Rick Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:08 PM To: Bergstrom, Kevin; Griffiths, Gary; Rokhva, Parviz Cc: Traughber, Lex Subject: FW: Tandem Parking Proposal I would like each of you to review that attached memo and document from Planning The Planning staff needs our feedback I have spoken to Lex about this initiative, and it makes good sense to me The benefits of allowing the stacking of cars in a driveway or side yard that I see are- -takes more residential cars off the streets -during the snow season the residential roads are more open and easier to plow -during the neighborhood clean up, road surface treatment period and leaf collection period the roads are more open and accessible -weekly residential waste collection could see fewer cars interfering with the placement of containers Please send your comments directly to Lex by the due date indicated in his memo Gary, the stacking still requires that no vehicle can block the sidewalk, and it limits permission to passenger vehicles only Thank you. From: Traughber, Lex Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 9:47 AM To: Graham, Rick Subject: Tandem Parking Proposal Rick, the attached memo outlines the proposal. Any comments that you have would be welcome. Thanks! Lex 2/13/2006 Traughber, Lex From: Williams, Matthew Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 11:27 AM To: Traughber, Lex Subject: Petition 400-06-01 -- Tandem Parking Text Amendment Categories: Confidential So long as the parking spaces are not located within the right-of-way, Property Management has no comment on the proposed amendment. Matthew W. Williams Acting Property Manager 2/3/2006 yage 1 01 1 Traughber, Lex From: McCandless, Allen Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 2 06 PM To: Traughber, Lex Cc: Pack, Russ, Domino, Steve Subject: Tandem Parking Text Amendment, Petition 400-06-01 Lex, Thank you for sending the review request for the proposed Tandem Parking Text Amendment. The proposed amendment affects vehicle parking in residential zoning districts and does not have impacts on operations at the Salt Lake City International Airport. I have no objections to the proposed amendment. -- Allen McCandless, Planning Manager 2/2/2006 Exhibit 4 - TAB Comments and Planning Staff Responses 10104 MEMORANDUM SALT LAKE CITY 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 841 1 1 Planning and Zoning Division (801) 535 7757 Department of Community Development TO: Transportation Advisory Board Members Tim Harpst — Transportation Director Kevin Young — Transportation Planning Engineer FROM: Lex Traughber — Principal Planner DATE: March I , 2006 CC: Alex Ikefuna — Planning Director Cheri Coffey — Deputy Planning Director Joel Paterson — Planning Programs Supervisor SUBJECT: Petition 400-06-01 , Tandem Parking Text Amendment Response to Issues Raised at the February 2006 TAB Meeting On February 2, 2006. Planning Staff was asked to present the details of the above referenced petition to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) at their regularly scheduled meeting on February 6, 2006. During this meeting several issues were raised by members of the Board, and Planning Staff was asked to formulate a response to these issues and present them at the TAB meeting on March 6, 2006. The following issues were raised and each is followed with a response from Planning Staff: 1. Is the change meant to legalize tandem parking citywide or only to allow tandem parking to be considered for counting toward the required parking on new infill single family homes? Staff response: Initially Planning Staff had proposed that tandem parking would be for new single- family residential development. Upon further consideration, Planning Staff proposes that tandem parking should be allowed for existing single-family residential units as well. Again, this is a proposal to allow for one (1)parking space in the front or corner side yard of a residentially zoned property to be used for new or existing single-family development, that meets minimum parking space size requirements of 9'x20', that does not encroach into the public right-of- way, that is located in a hard- surfaced driveway leading to a properly located parking space for a passenger vehicle only. 2. How is "infill" defined with respect to differentiating from a true infill lot versus development of any vacant lot? Staff response: Planning Staff contends that there is no distinction between an "infill" lot and a "vacant" lot in terms of this proposal, because Salt Lake City is essentially "built out" in terms of residential construction. There are few, if any, larger vacant tracts of land located within the City limits that are available for substantial residential development at this time. The terms "infill" and "vacant" lots can be used interchangeably in this case. 3. Can the applicability of this ordinance be tied to a maximum lot size or some other mechanism to avoid "standard" size lots with seemingly no "hardship" being developed using tandem parking to simply allow a larger house to be built? Staff response: This is an element that could be incorporated, however is not going to be proposed by Planning Staff. There are several reasons for this action. The first is that the magnitude of this tandem parking proposal is relatively insignificant. As stated previously, this is a proposal to allow for one (l) parking space in the front or corner side yard of a residentially zoned property to be used for new or existing single-family development, that meets minimum parking space size requirements of 9'x20', that does not encroach into the public right-of- way, that is located in a hard-surfaced driveway leading to a properly located parking space, and for a passenger vehicle only. Secondly, the issues of"larger" homes being built across the City has been addressed through the adoption of the `Compatible Infill Ordinance''. This ordinance addresses the maximum size of residential unit on a given lot in a residential zone. 4. TAB suggests considering not applying the ordinance citywide, but only consider certain areas or zoning types. Staff response: Again. given the magnitude of this proposal. and given the fact that this proposal is designed, in part, to address parking vehicles on the street as opposed to in a driveway, Planning Staff contends that this amendment should apply City wide. Further. Planning Staff contends that it is especially pertinent that this amendment apply to properties located in the older and more dense residential areas of our City including the Avenues, Capitol Hill, Central Community and Sugar House. It is in these areas that the provision of one additional off-street parking space is most beneficial. 5. TAB suggests not having tandem parking allowed in areas already experiencing on-street parking problems that would be exacerbated by allowing tandem parking, since most people will choose to try to park in the street before parking tandem and gambling they will need to shuttle cars. Some restrictions to consider are to not allow tandem parking in areas that are in the City Permit Parking Program or with narrow streets where parking must be restricted to one side only. Staff response: One of the primary purposes of this petition is to reduce the number of automobiles parked on the street, and open up possibilities for on-site parking. Currently, in residential zoning - districts, parking is not allowed in the front or corner side yards. This proposal will allow limited front or corner side yard parking having the effect of a reduced number of cars parked on the street. Planning Staff contends that tandem parking should be allowed especially in areas that have narrow, steep, heavy traffic, or one-way restrictions to get autos parked in more appropriate areas; namely on-site as opposed to on the street. At this time, the following information is the extent of the text amendment that Planning Staff is proposing: Table 21A.44.05 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance indicates that parking is not allowed in any residential district in the front or corner side yard with the one exception of the R-MU zone. In the R-MU zone, parking is allowed in the front or corner side yard if it is located at least fifteen feet from the lot line. Planning Staff proposes to recognize one (1) tandem parking space in the required front or corner side yard for existing or new single-family residential development city wide if the following criteria are met. 1 . The tandem parking space is at least nine feet (9') wide by twenty feet (20') deep; 2. The vehicle will not encroach into the public right of way; 3. The tandem parking space is located within a driveway that leads to a properly located new or existing parking space (garage, carport or parking pad); 4. Parking on the hard surface tandem space is limited to passenger vehicles only. In addition, in order to encourage residential infill development, Planning Staff proposes that for new single- family, residential construction, one (1) parking space located within the front or corner side yard setback in a "tandem" configuration will be permitted, and said space can be included in the required parking calculation for the proposed residential use if the same criteria are met. These criteria would appear in the Zoning Ordinance as a footnote to Table 21 A.44.050 - Parking Restrictions Within Yards, Residential Districts. Because a definition of"Tandem Parking" is not currently included in the Zoning Ordinance, Planning Staff proposes a definition which reads, "A parking space within a group of two or more parking spaces arranged one behind the other such that the space nearest the street serves as the only means of access to the other space(s)." Planning Staff notes that this tandem parking provision is not applicable for the purposes of unit legalization. The unit legalization process does not apply to single-family residential housing units, rather applies to what the City recognizes as duplexes, triplexes and so forth. The unit legalization process is for the purposes of recognizing more that one dwelling unit on a given parcel. This proposed amendment is for new or existing single-family residential development only; one dwelling unit on one parcel. Exhibit 5 - Public Comment Traughber, Lex From: pv4910@xmission.com Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 11:17 AM To: Traughber, Lex Subject: Tandem Parking Dear Lex, At the last meeting of the Capitol Hill Community Council on February 15, Trustee Bonnie Mangold presented a report on a TAB meeting in which she participated. Apparently the Planning Commission is working on new regulations covering tandem parking in Salt Lake City. After the Council discussed Mangold' s report, a member proposed taking a straw poll on the community' s sense about tandem parking. A majority of 15 : 3 was of the opinion that tandem parking is not suited for the Capitol Hill Council area. This opinion coincides with several earlier votes taken in the Council during the past few years, mostly in conjunction with the Watts housing project on Apricot St. (It is my understanding that Mr. Watts is again pushing for tandem for the completion of his Apricot St . project. ) Furthermore, the Capitol Hill Master Plan, which is part of Salt Lake City's rules and regulations and not an optional document to be consulted by Planning or not, is explicit about not reducing parking requirements in conjunction with new housing developments. I am appealing to you to make the new proposals covering tandem parking in Salt Lake flexible enough so that historic 'areas with their traditionally limited parking spaces, such as Captol Hill, will not suffer reductions as a result of new housing developments. Sincerely yours, Peter von Sivers, Chair Capitol. Hill Community Council 1 Re: '1 andem Parking Page 1 of 2 Traughber, Lex From: Jim Jenkin [jim.jenkin@hsc.utah.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 5:51 PM To: Traughber, Lex Cc: BONSCELLO@aol.com; EricJergensen@cs.com; Paterson, Joel; alex.ikefuna@slcgov.com; Harpst, Tim; Coffey, Cheri; comebackshane@comcast.net; sfmecham@cnmlaw.com; hesmichael@comcast.net Subject: Re: Tandem Parking Dear Lex, I appreciate the work and consideration that you have put in on the Tandem Parking issue as well as Planning Staffs effort to address concerns raised by the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) in our first hearing of this proposal. I discussed the proposed tandem parking change with the Board of the Greater Avenues Community Council (GACC) last night at our regular meeting. Since the Board has no decision making authority outside of the meeting agenda these should be considered my personal comments as Traffic Committee Chair. Please include them in the staff report. 1. Parking in front of the residence is generally consider an ascetic detraction from the neighborhood except where driveways are below grade. 2. Whether or not getting more cars off the street is of benefit to the general Avenues Community is unclear, since the perception of a wider street results in more speeding. It might be of benefit in the higher density lower Avenues where many older apartments contribute to a shortage of street parking. 3. As you stated much of the Avenues was developed when reliance on public transportation was greater and reliance on the auto was less, however, we don't consider this viewpoint to be obsolete in much of the Avenues. 4. This issue is complicated for the Avenues by the transformation of City Parking Enforcement from an enforcement to a revenue generating arm. If the City will be writing every possible ticket in the Avenues for tandem parking many residents will probably support the proposal. However, losing the ability to get enforcement where Tandem Parking is a problem is also undesirable. As I stated at the TAB Meeting, as originally presented (an infill development only proposal) tandem parking had limited relevance in the Avenues and virtually none in the lower Avenues. -When I found out on Monday that it had become a blanket legalization of Tandem parking it took on significance for the Avenues that would have merited discussion at a meeting of the full GACC at an early stage, if we had had the notice to do so. The Capitol Hill Community has serious concerns about this proposal, as you are aware. It has been the established practice of the GACC to support Capitol Hill and I expect to do so in this matter as well. In summary, I find I still support the original recommendation of the Transportation Advisory Board that this proposal is not appropriate on all areas of the City. 3/10/2006 u,,.,,, Page 2 of 2 Sincerely submitted, Jim Jenkin Chair, GACC Traffic Committee Member, Transportation Advisory Board 3/10/2006 Yage 1 of 2 Traughber, Lex From: BONSCELLO@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 10:49 AM To: Traughber, Lex Cc: EricJergensen@cs.com; jim.jenkin@hsc.utah.edu; Paterson, Joel; alex.ikefuna@slcgov.com; Harpst, Tim; Coffey, Cheri; dixonwr@yahoo.com; falgarin@rappidmapper.com; jwilliams@uta.cog.ut.us; kelly@crsa-us.com; Young, Kevin; Zunguze, Louis; mark@pikapackworks.com; perrin@civil.utah.edu; Atkinson, Scott; pv4910@xmission.com; atrans@networld.com; john@catalystmagazine.net; kgjensen@juno.com; a022055@fmr.com; Jardine, Janice Subject: Tandem Parking Dear Lex, Please include this letter in your staff report. Hopefully these comments are more articulate than what I said at the TAB meeting. Also, Mr. Ikefuna mentioned there had been an Open House re Tandem Parking. When was that? Usually I get notices of open houses and pass the word, but I don't recall receiving that one. I'm sorry that those of us in the Capitol Hill neighborhoods missed it. After being a part of a unique neighborhood for 26 years, I see that a neighborhood is a living organism-- not unlike a family. The care and nurturing of that organism needs to be at least as much of a focus for planning efforts as is our societal fascination with materialism. Applying this proposed tandem parking ordinance indiscriminately would add to the existing tensions in fragile neighborhoods such as the Capitol Hill Historic District. These tensions from parking shortages were the concern behind the adopted policy in the Capitol Hill Master Plan: Prohibit a reduction in parking requirements for new developments in the Marmalade, Kimball and West Capitol Hill Neighborhoods or in neighborhoods where inadequate amounts of off-street parking already exist. The parking requirement for new development as it currently reads, is what helps to keep cars off the street. Allowing tandem parking to meet the legal requirement for two stalls in new development is a de facto reduction in these requirements. Its action would be to put more cars on the street competing for available street parking, as tandem parking formats are inconvenient for homeowners_The second car returning home tends to end up parked on the street. If your home has this older"grandfathered-in" tandem parking situation then you know how tempting it is to avoid having to juggle the cars in the driveway by parking one on the street. For neighborhoods such as those mentioned in the Master Plan where a shortage of parking, both on and off street, now exists, it is counterproductive to increase the pressure on what little public parking exists. In some areas as many as half the living units have no off street parking and are on narrow streets with limited public parking. Why exacerbate an already difficult situation, one which is perhaps the major contributor to neighborhood tensions in the Capitol Hill area? The critical question to consider would seem to be: is there already a shortage of street parking in the neighborhood? If so, this proposal is not in the best interests of that neighborhood and should not be applied. It is incumbent upon individuals and development firms to do the appropriate research prior to purchasing property. There is a responsibility to know the piece of property, know what zoning and building regulations apply and to base plans on what exists, rather than speculating on being able to change regulations to make the land fit a preconceived design or profit goal. I am reminded of a case before the Board of Adjustment a number of years ago when a petitioner who had purchased a small piece of property now wanted three variances in order tc build a very large house. Fortunately in that case he was asked to reconsider the neighborhood and his plans. Every new development does not have to maximize home size or profit potential. There is a place, and no doubt a need, for humbler homes such as the ones that make up much of our Capitol Hill Historic District. This proposal, as presented, also seems contrary to the ongoing effort to rein in some of the oversize homes being built in older neighborhoods. Let us look closely at what strengthens neighborhoods and what degrades them. Certainly it will not be the same citywide. I would request of the Planning Commission that you amend this ordinance in such a way as to address these concerns. 3/9/2006 rage zo1L Sincerely, Bonnie Mangled, Trustee Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council, member TAB cc: Eric Jergensen Louis Zunguse Alex Ikefuna Cheri Coffey Joel Paterson Janice Jardine Peter von Sivers Tim Harpst Kevin Young Members TAB 3/9/2006 Dear Planning Commission Member, Last night, January 11th, you voted to initiate an ordinance relative to tandem parking. The other half of the proposal from Planning Staff, which wasn't mentioned at the meeting, was the aspect of allowing tandem parking to count towards fulfilling the current parking requirements. This latter part of Staffs proposal is what has the potential for negative impacts under certain circumstances - circumstances which I discussed in my previous letter, that is. neighborhoods with streets too narrow to allow for parking on both sides. In many cases tandem parking is granfathered-in. As Mr. lkefuna pointed out, older homes, built before current ordinances, may have a narrow driveway ending in a one car garage or carport. It becomes necessary to park a second car behind the first - in the driveway - which may also mean between the house and the street. Where this exists it is my understanding that it is protected by the principal of"grandfathering" and that no citation would be issued for lack of compliance with the ordinance- unless a car were actually blocking the sidewalk. XI would agree that there needs to be an ordinance to protect such homeowners should the home be destroyed and need to be rebuilt. Perhaps an ordinance should exist exempting such a rebuild from having to meet the current requirement if doing so would cause the footprint of the house to be reduced from the prior footprint. To exempt new development from meeting the current standards does not make sense when an area has an insufficiency of street parking to meet the needs in that neighborhood, especially considering that the second car and guest vehicles will often be on the street, addingto that demand for streetparking. rty.• 4hc case of -1-71..Ndet,.-. Park;.1 There are two parts to what was requested - not just the one aspect mentioned last night. I am disappointed that this wasn't pointed out. Sincerely, Bonnie Mangold c=P.a(r j Ply C ,. - -,-/, ( Gt,n C 2 , coo G . -t 4�.�� l�M _ , , e,,)„, 1 ---/-72 cu,at_e___J--, -/--A,„_. Csn-to2.--,.. d, 0_, ,,z, cr2_6-e LA., a/1;rd 0 t,v„ a1 t� in)?v -01 n. . V�1 Saturday,February 04,2006 America Online:BONSCELLO Page: 1 rage 1 or Wheelwright, Doug From: BONSCELLO©aol corn Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 5 18 PM To: Wheelwright, Doug Cc: EricJergensen@cs.com; Zunguze, Louis, pv4910@xmission corn; Harpst, Tim, alex.ikefuna@slcgov.corn Subject: Letter for Planning Commission Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Dear Doug, Would you please include the letter copied below in the staff report for the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 2006. I am also sending it as an attachment in case it didn't format correctly as an e-mail. Thank you Bonnie Mangold December 4, 2006 Dear Planning Commission Members, Planning Staff is requesting that you initiate a petition to allow tandem parking in required residential yards and to allow such tandem parking to count towards fulfilling the parking requirement, which currently it does not While there may be residential areas where this would be appropriate and would not contribute to a worsening of parking problems in the neighborhood, there are also neighborhoods where it would be harmful The Capitol Hill Historic District is an example of an area where the impacts of allowing this or a reduction in parking requirements would be decidedly negative. For this reason, our Capitol Hill Master Plan, approved in 1999, as many of you may remember, included the following policies and action items Policy (page 7) Prohibit a reduction in the parking requirements for new developments in the Marmalade, Kimball and West Capitol Hill Neighborhoods or in neighborhoods where inadequate amounts of off-street parking already exist. Action Item (page 7) Create a Capitol Hill Parking Overlay Zone that would increase parking requirements for new development as a means of alleviating additional pressure on the inadequate parking supply especially in the Kimball, West Capitol Hill and Marmalade neighborhoods. Parking and commuter traffic issues were, and still are, the dominant issues when our master plan was being developed, and we endeavored to address this with various policies and action items, including the above. These serious issues exist in part because of the steep and narrow streets which are intrinsic to the historic streetscape, yet either do not allow for parking or parking on one side only. There are the additional problems of: many historic homes have no off-street parking at all, many homes were converted to multiple units without additional parking being required (and now this is "grandfathered-in"), and, the parking ,A,hich does exist may be grandfathered-in tandem parking or shared driveways - neither of which is adequately functional. The problem with the tandem parking and shared driveways is that people tend to be lazy about doing the necessary switch of cars, (which can be difficult on narrow and/or steep streets), and often opt to park one car on the street. This solution of one car on the street exacerbates the problems for the entire block as then the residents with no off-street parking may not be able to find parking. The 300 block of Quince Street is an example where this has been a big issue. 1/6/2006 Almond Street is another street with major issues. On the half block from 300 North to Apricot Street there are 33 living units - some tucked behind those fronting on the street. Sixteen have no off-street parking, some have either one space or tandem parking, and several have adequate parking It is a 12 foot wide no-parking street There is a city owned parking lot that accommodates 7 cars legally, (though 11 have been stuffed in at times and are also sometimes ticketed) Because of this shortage people often park illegally up on the sidewalk, partially blocking the narrow street Those who have tandem parking frequently contribute to this problem Solutions other than illegal street parking are to look for parking on 300 North - which has its own problems, or on Center Street which is generally parked to capacity and also has issues with tandem parking The other block of Almond Street, where the Russ Watts'Almond Street development project is located, is also narrow (14 feet wide) and is a no-parking street. The units that he has built so far have adequate parking - something that came about due to much effort on the part of our neighborhood. The townhouses across the street also have double garages. Nevertheless there are still residents or guests who will frequently be illegally parked on the street, and of course all delivery trucks, utility trucks, moving vans, etc park on the street - often blocking it for emergency sized vehicles. The same situation exists on the block of West Temple between 200 North and 300 North, where more units are planned by Mr. Watts. The street here is also 14 feet wide and is posted no parking on the west side. It used to be posted on the east side as well, but I notice all the signs have disappeared. Currently commuters who work downtown park off the side of the pavement, on the dirt right of way (or private property) on the southern half of the block. Due to the proximity of the Conference Center and Temple Square this area is always filled with parked cars whenever there are events in these venues. (This unfortunate problem extends much further north and to the east and west as well, but that is another issue.) When cars are parked on even one side, access by the larger fire trucks is probably blocked, particularly at the "dog-leg"curves in the middle of the block If adequate off street parking is not provided for new development on streets such as this, the increased parking impacts will never go away. Owners of such units, if standard parking requirements are not met, will quickly be petitioning the city to solve the problem. As we in the area have discovered, there are few solutions, and a steadily increased impact from parking for the venues to the south. Parking and traffic impacts directly affect quality of life, which is why so much attention and effort went into trying to solve them in our Capitol Hill Master Plan. This is a fragile area - not so long removed from being a slum neighborhood. I am sorry to say that I believe we are now trending back towards slum conditions, with responsible home owners selling in part because of frustration with these issues. As absentee owners take over, drug problems increase, as well as crime and a lack of pride and responsibility for the neighborhood. The 300 North block of Almond Street (where I live) is an example of the reversing trend. The Capitol Hill Historic District is too unique-and valuable to the City to allow this to happen. Ideally residents throughout the City would abandon their cars and take to mass transit and walking or biking; providing parking would cease to be an issue. Unfortunately in our area we have lost our only bus service -on Second West, and the lack of community services in the District plus the combination of steep streets, missing sidewalks and inclement winter weather ensures that people will continue to need their cars. (We hope to eventually get some services in the RDA project area on Third West and Fifth North, but most people will still need to drive.) If we didn't have the parking impacts from LDS Church Campus and Downtown destinations to contend with, perhaps we could cope, and this Action Item in the CH Master Plan might not have been needed. However the process of changing people's behavior is a long one, and in the meantime our Historic District needs to be protected. I would ask That you consider very carefully this request and where it might be appropriate and where it isn't appropriate. As is always the case with anything regarding real estate, it is a question of location, location, location. There might for example be qualifiers such as a minimum street width-probably at least 40 feet-and a requirement that public parking be feasible on both sides of the street. However 13m net sure that this change is actually needed in any circumstance. It would be important to know how many properties, in what locations are in true need of such changes in order for development to occur. If the goal for this proposed change is to maximize construction size on a lot, or maximize development profits, it probably would not be a worthy City goal, particularly if it comes at the overall expense of the surrounding neighborhood. Sincerely, Bonnie Mangold (Trustee Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council) 326 Almond Street 1/6/2006 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 1/6/2006 OPEN HOUSE SIGN IN SHEET MEETING FOR: Petition 400-06-01, Tandem Parking Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment DATE: February 23, 2006 Position on Th. I Plrlse add me to FULL NAME MAILING ADDRESS, PHONE # Proposal the mailing list for CITY & ZIP (for,against,none) this project tm LIT 17t Do 77 # 5'i ' so .-ll m'L p c/Z t1 E t( .'0\w 0 Q t- ' . 4-Gr `� <1. QUESTIONNAIRE Petition 400-06-01, Tandem Parking Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Date: February 23, 2006 Your comments are critical to the outcome of this process. Please take some time to fill out this series of questions. Use the back of this page if additional space is needed. Thank you for your participation. Name MLE,IE- Address z2T-__2.._Do Phone For what location(s) do you have specific interest regarding the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment'? ff ,11 AIL_. =r Do you have specific comments regarding the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment? I)o you support or oppose this proposal? Please state why_ 22 c f f If you need additional time to complete this questionnaire,please feel free to do so. however please return as soon as possible to: Sall Lake City Planning Division Attention: Lex Traughber 451 S State Street- Room 406 Salt Lake City. UT 84 I 1 1 Or email: lex.trauehberirslceo%.com Fax: (801)535-6174 QUESTIONNAIRE Petition 400-06-01, Tandem Parking Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Date: February 23, 2006 Your comments are critical to the outcome of this process. Please take some time to fill out this series of questions. Use the back of this page if additional space is needed. Thank you for your participation. Name Zore,/ A0rrcn Address ifort�- / 75'2 Y/ Rvs!�tS Phone 5'3315y5.-__-- S1 vT /128 SLG t/r ;‘-/lZ( For what location(s) do you have specific interest regarding the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment? s ! t' Do you have specific comments regarding the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment? �rz 7)"1� _ �� sa vv-i g71/ /N 1)Gu./N7b l-,lN Do you support or oppose this proposal? Please state why. o v 7j,r(-1/ i o4✓ / , iN T If G�15� cry /0/-r-ro r-r A Y If you need additional time to complete this questionnaire,please feel free to do so. however please return as soon as possible to: Salt Lake City Planning Division Attention: Lex Traughber 451 S. State Street. Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84 111 Or email: lex.traughber'n,;stceoi com Fax: (801)535-6174 ALEXANDER C. IKEFUNA SAL it AN a3 Gi1TY_r O�R1PO D�='�'l,O+ NA ROSS C. ANDERSON PLANNwG mRr cTOR DEPARTMENT Or COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP PLANN,Nc; AND ZONING DIVISION A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE DEPUTY PLANNo G DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CHERI COFFEY, AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM To: Interested Members of the Public From: Lex Traughber— Principal Planner ___C Salt Lake City Planning Division Date: February 23, 2006 Re: Petition 400-06-01, Tandem Parking Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment The Planning Commission initiated a petition requesting that Planning Staff review the Zoning Ordinance in reference to regulations governing tandem parking in residential zones. Parking is not currently allowed in the front or corner side yard (area between the property line and the front wall of the principal building) in any residential district. The one exception is the R-MU (Residential Mixed-Use) district which does allow some limited front yard parking. Planning Staff proposes limited tandem parking in the front and corner side yards for existing and new single family residential construction, including townhomes, condominiums and twin homes, where the parking will have minimal impacts on adjacent property owners and the localized area in general. It would be beneficial to local neighborhood communities and to the City as a whole to allow some limited parking in a tandem pattern in required yards, to recognize existing and commonly utilized parking configurations and to facilitate single family residential infill development. Allowing this parking configuration has the potential to decrease the number of automobiles that are parked on the street, decrease car theft and burglary, and facilitate the maintenance of public streets. Table 21A.44.05 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance indicates that parking is not allowed in any residential district in the front or corner side yard with the one exception of the R-MU zone. In the R-MU zone, parking is allowed in the front or corner side yard if it is to-ated le. 1P9st fifteen feet from the lot line. Planning Staff proposes to recognize one (1) tandem parking space in the required front or corner side yard for existing or new single-family residential development city wide if the following criteria are met: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: S01-535-7902 FAX: 801-535-6174 TOO: 801-535-6021 WWW.SLCGOV.COM % o[cTctto var[n l. The tandem parking space is at least nine feet (9') wide by twenty feet (20') deep 2. The vehicle will not encroach into the public right of way 3. The tandem parking space is located within a driveway that leads to a properly located new or existing parking space (garage, carport or parking pad). 4. Parking on the hard surface tandem space is limited to passenger vehicles only. In addition, in order to encourage residential infill development. Planning Staff proposes that for new single-family, residential construction, one (I) parking space located within the front or corner side yard setback in a "tandem' configuration will be permitted, and said space can be included in the required parking calculation for the proposed residential use if the same criteria are met. Attached to this memorandum are examples of tandem parking configurations that would be allowed by the proposed amendment. Petition 400-06-01, Tandem Parking Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Example Parking Configurations: 1 . Parking in the front yard — Detached Garage r � r,l 2. Parking in a Front Yard - Attached Garage u 2 L1 t�t�t7J ' (Ar-?7 3. Parking in a Corner Side Yard — Detached Garage V H Y' .h 11 v (Al N of G \(it) 4. Parking in a Corner Side Yard — Attached Garage E V! ovs6 ST E- Exhibit 6 - Transportation Comments SALT` .� >`GIa it GORP© ., _ !I, I r TIMOTHY P. HARPST, P.E. '�'R +@ ''"��A� "� a�9�`s'^'�"a ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT r-IAvoR DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION MEMORANDUM TO: Lex Traughber Principal Planner FROM: Kevin J. Young, P.E. Transportation Planning ngineer DATE: March 15, 2006 SUBJECT: Tandem Parking Text Amendment Petition 400-06-01 The Transportation Division provides the following comments about the proposed text amendment regarding tandem parking. The proposed text change as it applies to new single-family residential development could create a situation where more cars are parked on-street. Tandem parking can become a frustration for residents who must move vehicles in and out of their driveway. With tandem parking, vehicles can end up parked on the street more often than in the driveway when residents tire of moving one vehicle to gain access to another vehicle. Applying the proposed text change to existing single-family residential units will either legalize what is already occurring or provide additional off-street parking options for residents. While on-street parking problems could exist in some areas and the frustrations of shuffling vehicles occur, no increase in on-street parking should occur if this proposed change is applied to existing single-family residential units. The Transportation Division recommends that this proposed text change not be applied to new in-fill or vacant lot single-family residential development that occur on streets that have parking only on one side of the street. On streets where parking is allowed on both sides there is more available parking for use by residents and any additional on- street parking that occurs would have less of an impact. In situations where there are streets with no parking allowed on either side, tandem parking will not cause any added parking problems. We also recommend that this proposed text change not be allowed in the development of new single-family residential subdivisions. There should be no hardships in the creation or development of new single-family residential subdivisions that would justify needing to count tandem parking as part of the required off-street parking. 349 SOUTH 20D EAST, SUITE 450, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: BD1-535.6630 FAX: B01-535-6019 The Transportation Division supports the proposed text change for existing single-family residential units to legalize the tandem parking that exists and occurs. For single-family home remodel or rebuild proposals, where the house meets the off-street parking requirement, we don not recommend allowing the remodel or rebuild using tandem parking to meet the off-street parking requirement. Included with our response is a copy of a letter to the Planning Commission from the Transportation Advisory Board regarding actions taken by the board at their February 6, 2006 and March 6, 2006 meetings about the proposed text amendment. Copies of the minutes from those meetings are also included. SALT f GCTfi? G�OR�P©. ��. 111oi�j ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON TIMOTHY P. HARPST, P.E. -ae ®+A TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT '+ATOR DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION March 9, 2006 Ms. Laurie Noda, Chair Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Transportation Advisory Board recommendations on the request to amend provisions of the zoning ordinance to allow tandem parking. Dear Ms. Noda: This letter is written to inform you of actions taken by the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). At the February 6, 2006 and March 6, 2006 TAB meetings, the board heard presentations on the proposed text amendment changes regarding tandem parking. After hearing the presentation at the February 6, 2006 meeting and discussing the issue, a motion that the proposed text amendment regarding tandem parking not be applied to all areas of the city was approved. After the presentation at the March 6, 2006 meeting and further discussing the issue, a motion was approved recommending that tandem parking not be counted towards the parking requirement in new development if the street is not wide enough to allow parking on both sides of the street. I have enclosed a copy of the minutes from the February 6, 2006 TAB meeting, which include the first motion approved by the board. These minutes were approved at the March 6, 2006 TAB meeting. I have also enclosed a copy of the draft minutes from the March 6, 2006 TAB meeting, which include the second motion approved by the board. Sincerely, Kevin J. Y g, Transportation P ning jgineer cc: Alex Ikefuna file 349 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 450, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 11 TELEPHO.NE: BO1.535-6630 FAX: BO1.535-6019 Approved on: Chair SALT LAKE CITY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD Minutes of the March 6, 2006 Meeting Present from the Transportation Advisory Board were Kelly Gillman, Joe Perrin, Steve Sturzenegger, Randy Dixon, Jeanetta Williams, Bonnie Mangold, Frank Algarin, Keith Jensen, Jim Jenkin, and Milton Braselton. Also present were Kevin Young, Scott Vaterlaus, Alex Ikefuna, Lex Traughber, Joel Paterson, Sherry Repscher, Teri Newell, and Matt Sibal. The meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by Chair Kelly Gillman. Kelly asked the board for approval of the minutes of the February 6, 2006 meeting. Motion: Jeanetta Williams moved to approve the minutes of the February 6, 2006 meeting. Frank Algarin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Teri Newell gave the board a presentation on toll roads. It has been projected that by the year 2030 there will be a $16.5 billion shortfall in transportation funding. Toll roads and HOT lanes have been suggested as possible funding methods to ease this shortfall. The spectrum of toll facilities ranges from the traditional model, where the government controls and operates the facility, to the full concession model, where the government has oversight, but the toll facility is privately built and operated. In Utah they are looking at all electronic collection facilities, with no collection of coin or currency. There would be no toll booths. Transponders placed in vehicles would be read as the vehicles pass by readers. The reading system would be able to detect those who travel on the facility without paying. Typical nationwide use rates for toll facilities is $0.10 - $0.20 per Teri said UDOT is still in the beginning stages of looking at the Mountain View Corridor as a toll facility and that it would be approximately six to eight months before a decision is made. Bonnie Mangold asked if the new legislation allows for tolling of existing facilities and if UDOT has considered changing the exiting HOV lanes so they are only in effect during rush hours. Terri said the general lanes of existing freeways can't be tolled, but that HOT lanes can be tolled. - Joe Perrin said he had been involved in a study of the HOV lanes where the hours of usage where looked at and that the decision had been made to keep the HOV lanes in effect 24 hours a day. Alex Ikefuna explained that the Planning Division had gone through the tandem parking issues raised by the board at the February meeting. Lex Traughber handed out a memo which addressed the five main issues raised by the board regarding tandem parking. 1 of 3 N:\TAB\MINUTES\2006min\3-6-06min.wpd Lex said that Planning had initially proposed that tandem parking would only apply to new single family residential development, but upon further consideration was now proposing that it be allowed for existing single family residential units as well. Planning contends that this proposed change should be applied citywide and not just in certain areas. Bonnie Mangold said there appears to be a lack of knowledge by Planning about the problems with parking, especially in areas where there are narrow streets or where parking is allowed only on one side of the street. Bonnie said this proposal is going in the wrong direction and will exacerbate parking problems. Lex said Planning felt this proposed change would give the opportunity of providing additional parking and getting more vehicles off the street, especially in older neighborhoods where there are problems with meeting the two side by side parking space requirement. Bonnie asked if there were specific situations where development wasn't occurring because of the inability to meet the parking requirement. Alex said there have been inquiries about development and the inability to meet the parking requirements. Alex explained that Planning held an open house and less than six people attended, but those who attended provided favorable comments regarding the proposed change. Lex said this issue will be on the March 22 Planning Commission agenda. Motion: Bonnie Mangold moved that the board recommend that tandem parking not be counted towards the parking requirement in new development if the street is not wide enough to allow parking on both sides of the street. Jim Jenkin seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of five for and four against. Bonnie Mangold updated the board on her efforts towards transportation education. Bonnie said education materials could be submitted to commercial driving schools and to high schools. Another opportunity may be the National Energy Foundation, which has grants available to develop programs for school children on a variety of topics. Bonnie also told the board of an upcoming Utah Driver & Traffic Safety Education Association Conference, which will be held on April 24. The board could apply to have a table where education materials could be distributed. Bonnie volunteered to attend this conference on behalf of the board. Scott Vaterlaus passed out a handout which outlined some other possible education efforts, with topics such as driving courteously, not speeding, and pedestrian and bicycle safety. The City does have available funding with thoughts of using it to hire a PR agency to develop an education campaign. Motion: Frank Algarin moved that available funding be used to send Bonnie Mangold to the Utah Traffic Education Conference. Joe Perrin seconded the motion. The motion - passed unanimously. Under general updates and other business, Kevin Young updated the board on the status of the Downtown Trnsportation/Transit Study. Contract negotiations are being finalized and the consultant team should be starting soon. It is expected this will be a year long effort. Frank Algarin asked about the recent pedestrian accident at 1300 East 700 South where a boy was hit and died. Scott Vaterlaus explained that 1300 East 2 of 3 N:\TAB\MINUTES\2006min\3-6-06min.wpd where the accident occurred is a State controlled road, but the City is working with UDOT on some possible enhancements to the crossing. Scott did say that UTA is looking at moving the bus stop from a near side stop to a far side stop, which will help with the visibility of the crosswalk. Kelly Gillman asked about the different crosswalk types and when they are used. Kevin explained where lined and double ladder type crosswalks are used. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:47 p.m. 3 of 3 N:\TAB\MINUTES\2006min\3-6-06min.wpd Approved on: Chair SALT LAKE CITY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD Minutes of the February 6, 2006 Meeting Present from the Transportation Advisory Board were Kelly Gillman, Joe Perrin, Steve Sturzenegger, Randy Dixon, Scott Atkinson, Tim Harpst, Jeanetta Williams, Bonnie Mangold, Mark Smedley, Frank Algarin, Keith Jensen, Jim Jenkin, and Milton Braselton. Also present were Kevin Young, Kurt Larson, Tom Stetich, Lex Traughber, Cheri Coffey, Sherry Repscher, and Jay Nelson. The meeting was called to order at 4:01 p.m. by Chair Kelly Gillman. Kelly asked the board for approval of the minutes of the January 9, 2006 meeting. Motion: Steve Sturzenegger moved to approve the minutes of the January 9, 2006 meeting. Bonnie Mangold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Lex Traughber explained to the board the proposed text amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding tandem parking in residential zones. Current zoning doesn't allow for front or side yard parking, except in the R-MU zone, where it is allowed if it is located at least 15 feet from the lot line. In order to encourage residential infill development, Planning staff is proposing that for new, single-family residential construction, one parking space located within the front or corner side yard in a tandem parking configuration be allowed. Certain criteria must be met, which include the vehicle can't encroach into the public right-of-way, the driveway must lead to a legal parking space, and the parking is for passenger vehicles only. Planning thinks this proposed text amendment will help get some vehicles off the street by allowing tandem parking. Lex emphasized that this proposal is only for new, infill, residential development. Tim Harpst asked if this change would be city-wide or if it was only for certain areas. Lex said it would be city-wide. Bonnie Mangold said she felt this change would not help keep vehicles from parking on-street and that it would cause more vehicles to be parked on- - street. Tandem parking shouldn't be allowed on narrow streets where parking is restricted to one side or on streets with permit parking. Lex said many residential neighborhoods were developed when having vehicles was not common, so parking is limited. Cheri Crtfey said new homes require two parking spaces and that this proposed text amendment would allow for infill development where it is difficult to meet the parking requirement. The board discussed various conditions where this proposed change would apply. Tim suggested looking at the ratio of lot size to parking or some other mechanism to avoid someone using tandem parking as a means to build a bigger 1 of 3 N:\TAB\MINUTES\2006min\2-6-06min wpd house on a smaller lot at the expense of parking. Mark Smedley said that conditions such as street width, whether there was or was not on-street parking, etc. should be considered as part of where tandem parking is allowed. Cheri said Planning will take this issue back to the Planning Director and discuss the issues that were brought up by the board. Motion: Jim Jenkin moved that the proposed text amendment regarding tandem parking not be applied to all areas of the city. Bonnie Mangold seconded the motion. The motion passed with Keith Jensen and Mark Smedley in opposition. Jim Jenkin started a discussion regarding pedestrian traffic signals by stating that there is a large priority of time given to vehicles at intersections, which may not be best for the safety of pedestrians. Jim gave a couple of examples where he felt pedestrians crossing intersections were at a disadvantage compared to the vehicles. Kurt Larson handed out to the board a pamphlet on "How Pedestrian Signals Work". Kurt said that sometimes both drivers and pedestrians don't understand what pedestrian signals mean and how they are to respond to them. Kelly Gillman said there are intersections where a pedestrian has to push the pedestrian button to cross in one direction, such as north/south, but don't have to push the pedestrian button to cross in the other direction, east/west. This is confusing for pedestrians. There needs to be some standard. Things need to be consistent. Tom Stetich gave a history of traffic signal operation and explained how traffic signal operation has changed over the years and has gotten more complicated. It is hard to have every intersection operate the same because intersections may be different in how the signal phasing works, number of phases, etc. Kurt explained that in Salt Lake City we trying to make it so that if there are pedestrian push buttons a pedestrian must push the button in order to get the pedestrian walk symbol to be displayed. Tim said that part of the confusion is the result of trying to be too accommodating in trying to serve those who use intersections, both pedestrians and vehicles. This has created the problem that in some ways intersections are more confusing. The City is working with UDOT to try and agree to one common philosophy of how pedestrian push buttons will operate. The City and UDOT are also experimenting with different types of push buttons. One type of push button that is being considered has a confirmation light so that pedestrians know the pedestrian cycle has been activated. Mark Smedley asked why the pedestrian walk symbol can't be displayed each time without the use of a pedestrian push button. This type of operation would seem to be the most pedestrian friendly. Joe Perrin said the pedestrian walk symbol can only come up when there is enough time within the cycle for the slowest pedestrian to cross. Having the pedestrian walk symbol come up every time would not allow for the best cooiJinatiorl of t.,t, traffic signals. Jim Jenkin said he is not sure technology is adding to the safety of pedestrians. There is still a need to address the social and education issues of pedestrian safety. Tim Harpst said a lot of good things are going on in terms of pedestrian safety. Salt Lake City is the only city in the world that allows pedestrians 2 of 3 N:\TAB\MINUTES\2006min\2-6-06min wpd to cross after the walk symbol has ended. Tim also said that people need to recognize that things do break and that some of the problems encountered are related to equipment problems. Tim encouraged the board to let him know if they see anything that is not working. Tim Harpst handed out a copy of a draft letter regarding Amtrak service. Tim said the letter had been reviewed by D.J. Baxter of the Mayor's Office. Board members suggested some additional wording to the letter that will be included before the letter is sent out. It was decided that the letter should be sent to some other people in addition to those listed on the draft letter. Milton Braselton talked about the information he had given to each board member regarding Amtrak service. Milton thanked the board for their input on the Amtrak service issue. Under other business, Jeanetta Williams handed out information on UTA's work on the Mid-Jordan transit corridor. Bonnie Mangold said she has been researching places where educational information on transportation can be passed along and will have more information ready by the March board meeting. Tim Harpst updated the board on the progress of the extension of the TRAX line from the Delta Center station to the Intermodal Hub. A briefing of the City Council is scheduled for February 14. The City and UTA have agreed on most issues regarding the TRAX extension project, but there still remains the issue of the number of stations and station locations. UTA wants only one station and the City wants two stations. A compromise is being worked on where one station would be built now and one built in the future. Criteria for when the second station would be built needs to be developed and agreed upon by the City and UTA. Tim also said the City and UTA will be interviewing consultant teams for final selection for the Downtown Transportation and Transit study. The next meeting of the board was set for Monday, March 6, 2006. Tentative agenda items for this meeting include an education update by Bonnie Mangold, an update on the tandem parking issue, and a presentation on toll roads. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:38 p.m. 3 of 3 N:\TAB\MINUTES\2006min12-6-06min.Wpd 5. PLANNING COMMISSION D. Staff Report May 10, 2006 MEMORANDUM SALT LAKE CITY 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Planning and Zoning Division (801) 535-7757 Department of Community Development TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Lex Traughber — Principal Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division DATE: May 10, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting SUBJECT: Petition 400-06-01, Tandem Parking Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Supplemental Staff Report On March 22, 2006, the Planning Commission heard the above referenced proposal to consider allowing limited tandem parking in the front and corner side yards for existing and new single family residential development in the City. A Staff Report was prepared for this meeting, analyzing criteria, making findings, and finally a recommendation. The day that the Staff Report was mailed out, March 16, 2006, Planning Staff received comments from the Salt Lake City Transportation Division that warranted further consideration. The hearing that was held before the Planning Commission on March 22, 2006, therefore became an "Issues Only" hearing. Planning Staff presented the Staff Report and comment was taken from the general public regarding the proposal. A copy of the original Staff Report is included with this memorandum for review (Exhibit 1). In addition, the comments received from the Transportation Division on March 16, 2006, are attached (Exhibit 2). Since the Planning Commission hearing on March 22, 2006, Planning Staff has worked to revise and incorporate several of the comments received from the Transportation Division into the current proposal. The Transportation Division provided comments regarding Planning Staffs revised proposal and their written comments from this review are attached and dated April 24, 2006 (Exhibit 2). Planning Staff is proposing several changes to the original proposal based on the comments received from the Transportation Division, as well as addressing other issues that Planning Staff has identified through this analysis. The types of"residential development"that would be eligible for tandem parking is further clarified and limited. Originally, Planning Staff had proposed that the tandem parking provision would be allowed for all new or existing single-family residential development. In retrospect, the inclusion of all single-family residential development is too broad and problematic. Planning Staff now proposes that new single-family detached dwellings would only be eligible for tandem parking if said dwellings were part of a Planned Development proposal. The Planned Development process would give the Planning Commission the discretion to analyze and decide whether or not tandem parking would be appropriate for a specific new detached single- family residential development in a specific location. This proposed provision could eliminate the possibility of a substantial detached single-family residential subdivision being developed with inappropriate or inadequate parking. This provision would also address the concern that Planning Staff has heard whereby a new detached single-family dwelling unit could utilize the tandem parking configuration in order to realize a larger home. While this scenario would most likely be addressed by the recently adopted Compatible Residential Infill Ordinance, this proposed provision would further ensure appropriate and compatible development from a required parking perspective. At this time, the types of residential dwellings that Planning Staff proposes to be eligible for tandem parking would include only the following; Existing residential development, Single-family Attached Dwellings (which includes condominiums), Twin Home Dwellings, Two-family Dwellings, and Single-Family Detached Dwellings that are part of a Planned Development. Transportation Comments The issues raised by the Transportation Division are noted below and are followed by a response from Planning Staff: 1. Applying the proposed text change to existing single-family residential units will either legalize what is already occurring or provide additional off-street parking options for residents. While on-street parking problems could exist in some areas and the frustrations of shuffling vehicles occur, no increase in on- street parking should occur if this proposed change is applied to existing single-family residential units. Planning Staff response: As originally proposed, the text amendment would still apply to existing residential development including detached single-family residential units if tandem parking criteria are satisfied. 2. The Transportation Division recommends that this proposed text change not be applied to new in-fill or vacant lot single-family residential development that occurs on streets that have parking only on one side of the street. On streets where parking is allowed on both sides there is more available parking for use by residents and any additional on-street parking that occurs would have less of an impact. In situations where there are streets with no parking allowed on either side, tandem parking will not cause any added parking problems. Planning Staff response: Planning Staff concurs with these comments and has added criteria that would allow tandem parking only on those streets that either have parking on both sides of the street or no parking at all. Streets that have parking exclusively on one side of the street would be excluded from eligibility for tandem parking. 3. The proposed text change as it applies to new single-family residential development could create a situation where more cars are parked on-street. Tandem parking can become a frustration for residents who must move vehicles in and out of their driveway. With tandem parking, vehicles can end up parked on the street more often than in the driveway when residents tire of moving one vehicle to gain access to another vehicle. Planning Staff response: By limiting the possibility of tandem rwrkirig streets that have parking on both sides of the street or streets where no parking is allowed at all addresses this issue. For streets that have parking on both sides, there is more parking available. The streets where no parking is allowed, parking would be required to be off-street. 2 4. We also recommend that this proposed text change not be allowed in the development of new single- family residential subdivisions. There should be no hardships in the creation or development of new single-family residential subdivisions that would justify needing to count tandem parking as part of the required off-street parking. Planning Staff response: The concern here is that new subdivisions and the detached single-family homes that would be built in these subdivisions should be required to meet existing parking standards. Planning Staff concurs with this comment and as a result proposes that the tandem parking configuration be an option only for new single-family detached dwelling units if proposed as a Planned Development and able to meet the Planned Development criteria in addition to any criteria adopted for tandem parking. Tandem parking should not be allowed for all subdivisions for new detached single-family residential development across the board as the Transportation Division notes. Planning Staff does however recognize that in some instances tandem parking could be appropriate for this type of residential configuration and therefore proposes the Planned Development option. It is most likely that large subdivisions, for the purpose of new single-family detached residential development, would not constitute "infill" development or development of properties in older established areas of the City, but would develop where there are large vacant tracts of land such as the Northwest Quadrant. Subdivisions of this nature and magnitude should be required to meet traditional off-street parking configurations for the proposed use. 5. The Transportation Division supports the proposed text change for existing single-family residential units to legalize the tandem parking that exists and occurs. For single-family home remodel or rebuild proposals, where the house meets the off-street parking requirement, we do not recommend allowing the remodel or rebuild of the single-family dwelling to use tandem parking to meet the off-street parking requirement. Planning Staff response: The Permits Office and Planning Staff concur with this concern and propose a criteria be added addressing this issue. This criteria is outlined below. Proposed Ordinance Language • Planning Staff notes that the above revisions to the original proposal are reflected in the attached Table 21A.44.050—Parking Restrictions Within Yards (Exhibit 3). Planning Staff draws attention to the highlighted footnote at the end of this table which directs the reader to a proposed new section of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 21A44.020M —Tandem Parking. This Section would read as follows: 21A44.020M — Tandem Parking- One (1) tandem parking space shall be permitted for existing residential development or new single-family attached residential development (including condominiums), new twin home residential development, new two-family residential development, or new detached single- family residential development where the tandem parking is approved as part of a Planned Development in accordance with Chapter 21A.54 of this Code. Additionally,the one (1)parking space in a"tandem" configuration located within the front or corner side yard setback can be included in the required parking calculation for these new residential developments. All tandem parking spaces must meet the following criteria: 1. The tandem parking space shall be at least nine feet (9') wide by twenty feet (20') deep; 2. The tandem parking space shall be entirely located on private property unless otherwise approved by the City; 3. The parking stall shall not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic; 3 4. The tandem parking space shall be located within a driveway that leads to a new or existing properly located, legal parking space; 5. The tandem parking space shall be located in a driveway that abuts and is assigned/dedicated to the dwelling unit that it serves, and use of the tandem parking space shall not block the use of the driveway to access other parking spaces if the driveway is a shared driveway; 6. Parking on the hard surface tandem space shall be limited to passenger vehicles only; 7. The right-of-way fronting the new residential development must allow parking on both sides or neither side of the street; 8. Tandem parking shall not be allowed where the tandem parking is being requested as a result of a remodel or rehabilitation project that includes the elimination of legally configured off-street parking; Proposed Definition The Planning Commission requested a definition of"passenger vehicle" to better define the criteria for tandem parking. Planning Staff proposes the following definition: Passenger Vehicle—means a four-wheel, two-axle, motor vehicle, designed, sold, and licensed to accommodate private passenger transportation on public roads, not to include vehicles such as recreation vehicles, motor homes, boats, box vans or trailers. Recommendation Based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report dated March 15, 2006, and the revisions noted in the supplemental staff report dated May 10, 2006, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the following language adding Section 21 A44.020M — Tandem Parking to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. This Section would read as follows: 21A44.020M —Tandem Parking - One (1) tandem parking space shall be pei niitted for existing residential development or new single-family attached residential development (including condominiums), new twin home residential development, new two-family residential development, or new detached single- family residential development where the tandem parking is approved as part of a Planned Development in accordance with Chapter 21A.54 of this Code. Additionally, the one (l) parking space in a "tandem" configuration located within the front or corner side yard setback can be included in the required parking calculation for these new residential developments. All tandem parking spaces must meet the following criteria: 1. The tandem parking space shall be at least nine feet (9') wide by twenty feet (20') deep; 2. The tandem parking space shall be entirely located on private property unless otherwise approved by the City; 3. The parking stall shall not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic; 4. The tandem parking space shall be located within a driveway that leads to a new or existing properly located, legal parking space; 5. The tandem parking space shall be located in a driveway that abuts and is assigned/dedicated to the dwelling unit that it serves, and use of the tandem park;rg spac? "hall not block the use of the driveway to access other parking spaces if the driveway is a shared driveway; 6. Parking on the hard surface tandem space shall be limited to passenger vehicles only; 7. The right-of-way fronting the new residential development must allow parking on both sides or neither side of the street; 4 8. Tandem parking shall not be allowed where the tandem parking is being requested as a result of a remodel or rehabilitation project that includes the elimination of legally configured off-street parking; In addition, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the revised Table 21 A.44.050—Parking Restrictions Within Yards which is included as Exhibit 3 in the supplemental staff report dated May 10, 2006. Finally, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the definition of"Passenger Vehicle", and add this definition to Section 21A.62 — Definitions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance as follows: Passenger Vehicle— means a four-wheel, two-axle, motor vehicle, designed, sold, and licensed to accommodate private passenger transportation on public roads, not to include vehicles such as recreation vehicles, motor homes, boats, box vans or trailers. Attachments: Attachment l —Staff Report for the March 22, 2006 Planning Commission Hearing Attachment 2—Transportation Division Comments Attachment 3 —Proposed revised Table 21A.44.050—Parking Restrictions Within Yards 5 Attachment I_ — Staff Report for the March 22, 2006 Planning Commission Hearing Attachment 2 — Transportation Division Comments M !j{t A\ > CITiY(CORPO ►I014 ' ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON TIMOTHY P. HARPST, P.E. }-�•�g se��.�' -� , of .xs.va4.,� - _e TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION MEMORANDUM TO: Lex Traughber Principal Planner FROM: Kevin J. Young, P.E. Transportation Planning ngineer DATE: April 24, 2006 SUBJECT: Petition 400-06-01, Tandem Parking Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment The Transportation Division appreciates the time and effort given to address our issues pertaining to tandem parking. The following are my comments on the proposed text amendment regarding tandem parking and on Planning's response to Transportation's previous comments. General Comment: The Transportation Division does not believe it is necessary to be restrictive to the point of not allowing any new single-family detached dwellings to take advantage of tandem parking. New single-family detached dwellings that are ten or less units in number in a proposed development, which would include reasonable infill situations, could be allowed to incorporate tandem parking as long as there is either parking allowed on both sides of the street or no parking on the street. A developer could use the tandem parking configuration to minimize properly located parking area on the site in order to realize larger dwelling units with both attached and detached units. Our concern is with the on-street parking problems that can occur if more than ten units in one development are allowed to utilize tandem parking. Issue #1: Our same comment applies. - Issue #2: Our same comment applies. Issue #3: We still contend that allowing tandem parking could create a situation where more vehicles are parked on-street. But if tandem parking is only allowed in developments, infill or not, detached or attached, of ten units or less, any on-street parking impacts 349 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 450, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: SO1-535-6630 FAX: B01-535-6019 should be minimal. Issue #4: Our same comment applies, but is clarified to indicate developments of more than ten units. Issue #5: Our same comment applies. Section 21A44.020M, Item #4: The wording of this item needs to be modified to make it clear that the tandem parking space cannot be located such that it blocks the use of shared driveways. Perhaps the following wording could be added to the proposed sentence so that is reads: "The tandem parking space is located in a driveway that abuts and is assigned/dedicated to the dwelling unit that it serves and use of the tandem parking space does not block the use of the driveway to access other parking spaces if the driveway is a shared driveway." Page 1 of 1 Traughber, Lex From: Young, Kevin Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 10:34 AM To: Traughber, Lex Cc: Paterson, Joel; Coffey, Cheri; Ikefuna, Alexander Subject: RE: Tandem parking Lex, I have no specific data or evidence to support capping the number of units for allowing tandem parking at ten. It just seemed like a reasonable upper limit number, given that every location, every situation, etc. will be different. should have been clearer in what I said, so that it was evident that we feel there should be some reasonable limit to the number of units when tandem parking is allowed and that using the number ten was our best attempt. Kevin From: Traughber, Lex Sent: Wednesday, April 26; 2006 9:23 AM To: Young, Kevin Cc: Paterson, Joel; Coffey, Cheri; Ikefuna, Alexander Subject: RE: Tandem parking Kevin, Thanks for you comments. I have one follow-up question, why the number 10? Is there data or evidence, that suggest that this should be the cutoff number? It would be helpful to have a rationale so that when we hit public hearing with this number I will be able to defend it. Lex From: Young, Kevin Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 8:07 AM To: Traughber, Lex; Ikefuna, Alexander Subject: Tandem parking Lex, Attached are Transportation's comments regarding tandem parking. A hard copy will follow. Kevin Kevin J. Young, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer Salt Lake City Transportation Divis"^r 349 South 200 East, Suite 450 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (801) 535-7108 (801) 535-6019 Fax Attachment 3 — Proposed revised Table 21A.44.050 — Parking Restrictions Within Yards 21A.44.050 Parking Restrictions Within Yards: A. Regulations, Form Of Restrictions: Within the various chapters of this Title, there are regulations that restrict the use of certain yards for off-street parking. These regulations can take the form of restrictions against parking in required yards, landscape yard restrictions, or landscape buffer restrictions. B. Front Yard Parking: Front yard parking may be allowed as a special exception when the rear or side yards cannot be reasonably accessed and it is impossible to build an attached garage that conforms to yard area and setback requirements, subject to the following conditions: 1. The hard-surfaced parking area be limited to nine feet (9') wide by twenty feet (20') deep; 2. A minimum twenty foot (20') setback from the front of the dwelling to the front property line exists so that vehicles will not project into the public right of way; and 3. Parking on the hard-surfaced area is restricted to passenger vehicles only. C. Parking Restrictions Within Yards: To make the use of this Title more convenient, Table 21A.44.050 of this Section has been compiled to provide a comprehensive listing of those districts where restrictions exist on the location of parking in yards. Table 21A.44.050 PARKING RESTRICTIONS WITHIN YARDS RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Parking Restrictions Within Yards Zoning Districts Front Yard Corner Side Interior Side -Rear Yard Yard Yard Single/two- family Parking not Parking not Parking Parking residential permitted permitted permitted. In the permitted districts: FR-1 to between between FR districts SR-1 front lot line front lot line parking not and the front and the front permitted within wall of the wall of the 6 feet of interior principal principal side lot line building* building* R-2 Parking not Parking not Parking Parking permitted permitted Permitted Permitted between between front lot line front lot line and the front and the front wall of the wall of the principal principal building* building* SR-3 Parking not Parking not Parking Parking permitted* permitted* permitted permitted RMF-30 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district abutting a single- or two-family district RMF-35 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line - single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots, except for single-family attached lots RMF-45 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots, except for single-family attached lots RMF-75 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots RB Parking not Parking not Parking Parking permitted* permitted* permitted permitted R-MU-35 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots, except for single-family attached lots R-MU-45 Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots, except for single-family attached lots R-MU Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted permitted permitted within permitted within 15 within 15 10 feet of the within 10 feet of the feet of the side lot line feet of the front lot line* corner lot when abutting a rear lot line line* single- or two- when family district abutting a single- or two-family district RO Parking not Parking not Parking not Parking not permitted* permitted* permitted within permitted 10 feet of the within 10 side lot line feet of the when abutting a rear lot line single- or two- when family district. abutting a Parking not single- or permitted within two-family 1 of the side district yards of interior lots, except for single-family attached lots * Subject to Section 21A.44.020M—Tandem Parking 5. PLANNING COMMISSION E. Agenda & Minutes March 22, 2006 NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, March 22, 2006, at 5:45 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, March 8, 2006. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters Projects within Salt Lake City: a) Salt Lake City Property Management and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC—Cingular Wireless is requesting that Property Management approve a site lease agreement to allow a portion of the City-owned street right-of- way to be used to install underground power and signal cables connecting a utility pole-mounted cellular telephone antenna installation within the public way to a remote site equipment shelter to be constructed in the rear yard area on an neighboring property at approximately 1314 South 1100 East Street. The property is located within Salt Lake City and the adjacent properties are zoned Neighborhood Commercial(CN)and Residential/Business (RB). Property Management staff intends to approve the site lease request. b) Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department and Freeport West Development—Freeport West is requesting that Public Utilities approve a new standard use permit to allow the re-routing of the Ridgeland Irrigation Canal(not City owned)to cross the City owned easement for the Lee Drain (storm water drain)at a new location located at approximately 4898 West California Avenue. Adjacent property is zoned Light Industrial(M-1). The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the standard use permit as requested. Projects outside of Salt Lake City: c) Salt Lake Public Utilities Division and UTOPIA DBA Murray City—UTOPIA is requesting that Public Utilities issue a standard utility permit to allow installation of overhead telecommunications cables over the Salt Lake and Jordan Canal property located at approximately 700 East and 1-215 within the boundaries of Midvale City. The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the utility permit request. d) Salt Lake City Public Utilities Division and the Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency—Utah Telecommunications Agency is requesting that Public Utilities issue a standard utility permit to allow installation of telecommunications cables to cross Salt Lake City-owned canal property, at approximately 930 East South • Union Avenue, in Midvale City. The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the utility permit request. e) Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department and Mr. Alonzo A. Hinckley—Mr. Hinckley is requesting that Public Utilities issue a standard use permit to allow him to continue gardening and maintaining landscaping on a small portion of Public Utilities owned property adjacent to the rear of 4471 Camille Drive in Holladay City. The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the standard use permit request. f) Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department and Donna and Graham Doxey—The Doxeys are requesting that Public Utilities vacate an existing right-of-way for the Big Cottonwood Conduit which impacts the rear of their property located at 6320 South Canyon Cove Drive in un-incorporated Salt Lake County. The conduit right-of- way is no longer needed because the conduit was relocated during the 1980s into Wasatch Drive. The Public Utilities staff intends to vacate the right-of-way in favor of the Doxeys, subject to compensation at fair market value, as requested. g) Salt Lake Public Utilities Department and Norine Kaurtman and Doug Burnett—Ms. Kaurtman and Mr. Burnett are requesting that Public Utilities approve a renewal permit to a previously granted standard use permit, which grants access rights over a Public Utilities owned access road right-of-way, to benefit the property located at approximately 6456 South Crest Mount Drive, in un-incorporated Salt Lake County. The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the access renewal permit request. h) Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department and Mr. Mary Thomas—Mr. Thomas is requesting that Public Utilities approve a bridge, utility and access permit in favor of the purchasers of her property, located at approximately 2825 North Rose Park Lane, at an existing bridge crossing which was constructed by Salt Lake County over the City Drain (storm water drain) canal, in un-incorporated Salt Lake County. The existing bridge structure provides access to the property owned by Mr. Thomas. The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the bridge, utility and access permit as requested. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Petition 400-06-01 —A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend provisions of the zoning 4 ordinance to allow tandem parking. This petition would allow for limited parking, one(1)space, in a tandem configuration in the front and corner side yards for new and existing single-family residential development and said space can be included in the required parking calculation for the proposed residential use. (Staff—Lex Traughber at 535-6184 or lex.trauohber at?slcgov.com). b) Petition No.400-06-03—A legislative action item initiated by the City Council requesting revisions to the Zoning Ordinance relating to registered home daycare and preschools. Two actions were requested by the City Council; to change the current child home care group size limitation of six(6)to eight(8)children; to correspond with State Licensing standards. The second request is to require an annual business license for this type of home occupation. (Staff—Janice Lew at 535-7625 or ianice.Iew(cr�slcgov.com). c) Petition 410-770—A request initiated by Jeffrey Keller for conditional use approval to operate a used car sales lot at 853 South State Street#3 in a Downtown Support(D-2)zoning district. (Staff—Janice Lew at 535-7625 or ianice.lew0,slcgov.com). d) Petition 400-05-02—A request initiated by the Salt Lake City Council to amend provisions of Chapter 21A.46 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance regarding portable signs which are often referred to as"A-frame" signs. The proposed amendments would limit the distance that portable signs could be located from an advertising business. (Staff—Joel Paterson at 535-6141 or joel.paterson(a�slcoov.com). 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be April 12, 2006. This information can be accessed at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning. Salt Lake City Planning Commission March 22, 2006 which was constructed by Salt Lake County over the City Drain (storm water drain) canal, in un- incorporated Salt Lake County. The existing bridge structure provides access to the property owned by Mr. Thomas. The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the bridge, utility and access permit as requested. Chairperson Noda noted that there were no comments or questions from the public or Commissioners. The matters were approved. PUBLIC HEARINGS Petition 400-06-01 —A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend provisions of the zoning ordinance to allow tandem parking. This petition would allow for limited parking, one (1)space, in a tandem configuration in the front and corner side yards for new and existing single- family residential development and said space can be included in the required parking calculation for the proposed residential use. (This item was heard at 6:18 p.m.) Chairperson Noda stated that the hearing of this petition during this meeting consists of"issues only"; namely, the Staff Report and public comment. A discussion and vote will not occur at this time. Mr. Lex Traughber was the staff representative for this petition. He stated the reasoning behind the "issues only" decision at the Public Hearing was due to comments received from the City Transportation Division that require thoughtful consideration. Mr. Traughber gave a brief synopsis of the background and creation of this request. One of the reasons for the request is that by allowing tandem parking, on-street parking will be lessened. Mr. Traughber noted that developers of new residential developments must meet parking requirements in small areas. Planning Staff contends that it is not in the City's best interest to forgo new residential development due to a lack of parking. Mr. Traughber stated that flexibility in residential parking requirements could increase the City's housing stock. The proposal states that one tandem parking space could be placed in a front or corner side yard. Mr. Traughber noted that this is presently not allowed within the City. The following four criteria must be met to utilize the tandem parking in a single, residential district: 1. The tandem parking space is at least nine feet(9')wide by twenty feet(20') deep; 2. The vehicle will not encroach into the public right-of-way; 3. The tandem parking space is located within a driveway that leads to a properly located new or existing parking space (garage, carport or parking pad); 4. Parking on the hard surface tandem space is limited to passenger vehicles only. Mr. Traughber also noted that existing tandem parking options should be recognized by the Planning Division. For new residential, an additional tandem parking spot could be presented as a parking stall allotted to the new home. Commissioner De Lay requested more information regarding stacked parking; as found in larger cities. She questioned its relevance and relation to the possibility of this adoption. Mr. Traughber stated that the main focus on the petition for tandem parking maintains a strict focus on residential. He stated that tandem parking is a common occurrence found in the City, but is not part of the ordinance. He also stated that enforcement of tandem parking is not strong unless the vehicle is blocking a fire hydrant or encroaching into the right-of-way. 5 Salt Lake City Planning Commission March 22, 2006 Commissioner Forbis stated that people he knew have been ticketed for tandem parking on 900 South. Commissioner Scott clarified that only one passenger vehicle would be allowed in the designated tandem parking stall. She requested the definition of a passenger vehicle. Mr. Traughber stated that Staff would need to research the passenger vehicle definition and determine if it is presently in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Traughber stated that the issue would be researched by Staff prior to the next hearing in relation to this petition. Mr. Ikefuna stated that one of the concerns addressed by the Transportation Advisory Board was that tandem parking be disallowed in an area where"no parking" signs are placed on the street. Also, Staff will be reviewing the option of duplex and residential development to utilize tandem parking as a fulfillment of parking requirements. Chairperson Noda requested comments from the public. Russ Watts, Watts Enterprises, is a representative to the many developers of housing in the City. He stated that a decision relating to tandem parking is a critical point to further develop City housing. Mr. Watts stated that a simple way to approach the idea is land cost and parking cost. The two costs impact the affordability and the level of housing created. He stated that affordable, purchasable units are difficult to create considering the cost of land and the standard parking requirements. In order to create vitality in the City, the parking requirements need to be altered. Mr. Watts suggested locating parking one to two blocks away from the Main street area to place more people in the Downtown area. He suggested shared use/share leasing with parking lots, to better utilize the space. Commissioner McDonough requested clarification for the on-street parking limitation in areas where"no parking" signs are posted proposed by the Transportation Division. Mr. Kevin Young, Salt Lake City Transportation, stated that the tandem parking option can cause difficulty to some individuals because of the possibility of moving one car before the other. An example was cited in the lower Avenues by Chairperson Noda. Mr. Young stated that most of the concern presented by the Advisory Board was from the representatives of the Capitol Hill and Avenues area, and a "park by permit" option had not been considered. No motion was made. Chairperson Noda closed the "issues only" Public Hearing. Petition No.400-06-03—A legislative action item initiated by the City Council requesting revisions to the Zoning Ordinance relating to registered home daycare and preschools. Two actions were requested by the City Council; to change the current child home care group size limitation of six(6)to eight(8) children to correspond with State Licensing standards. The second request is to require an annual business license for this type of home occupation. (This item was heard at 6:39 p.m.) Chairperson Noda recognized Janice Lew, Principal Planner, on behalf of Planning Staff. Ms. Lew provided a background and synopsis of the petition. She stated that the proposed text amendments would change the group size limitation from six to eight, to coincide with State Licensing, and would require a current business license. Ms. Lew stated that, in review of the request, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. 6 5. PLANNING COMMISSION F. Agenda & Minutes May 10, 2006 L 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, May 10, 2006, at 5:45 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share general planning information with'the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, April 26, 2006. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR a) Acknowledgement of Commissioner Galli's service 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters—(Staff- Doug Wheelwright at 535-6171 or doug.wheelwright(c�slcgov.com,•Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769 or karryn.greenleaf anslcgov.com,or Matt Williams at 535-6447 or matthew.williams(c slcgov.com) a) Cricket Utah Property Company and Salt Lake City Property Management Division—A request for Property Management to grant a lease agreement to allow the installation of a utility pole mounted cellular telephone antenna and connecting underground telecommunications conduits within a portion of the public street right-of-way for: i. 1300 West Street which adjoins the property located at 530 North 1300 West Street and ii. 1100 East Street which adjoins the property located at 1336 South 1100 East Street A separate, administratively approved Conditional Use application is required for both utility pole installations. The Property Management staff intends to approve the requested lease agreements. b) Board of Realtors/ASWN and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department—A request for Public Utilities to exchange a right-of-way interest in a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal for a fee title interest in a similar portion of the Canal involving the property located at 9661 South Monroe Street in Sandy City. The proposal will better align the actual canal facilities with the easement or property interest. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the transaction as proposed. c) Chapman Richards, Layton Construction,and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department—Two requests for Public Utilities to approve a temporary lease agreement in a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal involving the property located at 9661 South Monroe Street in Sandy City. i. A proposed lease term will be for an 18-month period to allow Chapman Richards to install an advertising sign for the leasing of an adjacent business/office complex project. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the temporary lease as proposed. ii. A proposed lease term will be for an 18-month period to allow Layton Construction to place a temporary, construction office trailer during the construction of an adjacent business/office complex project. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the temporary lease as proposed. . 5. OTHER BUSINESS a) Salt Lake City Critical Open Lands Inventory and Preservation Priority Assessment presentation by Jan Striefel; Principal and President Landmark Design Incorporated. Salt Lake City applied for and received a Lee Ray McAllister Fund grant to develop a classification system of nearly 27,000 acres of land zoned Open Space, Foothill Preservation or Agricultural Use. The classification system will provide a framework for defining critical open lands and making informed planning decisions. (Staff-Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354 or jackie.gasparik(a)slcgov.com) 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Petition 410-06-02—A request by Maurine Bachman representing Sprint Spectrum for conditional use approval to locate a wireless telecommunications antenna on an existing wooden pole located at approximately 1388 South 1900 East in an I (Institutional)Zoning District.This project is being forwarded to the Planning Commission by the Administrative Hearing Officer. (Staff-Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409 or marilynn.lewis@slcgov.com) b) Petition 400-06-01 —A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend provisions of the zoning ordinance to allow tandem parking. This petition would allow for limited parking,one(1)space, in a tandem configuration in the front and corner side yards for existing single-family residential development and new single- family attached dwellings (which includes condominiums),twin home dwellings,and two-family dwellings. For new attached single-family dwellings,twin home dwellings and two-family dwelling said tandem parking space can be included in the required parking calculation for the proposed residential use. (Staff-Lex Traughber at 535-6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com) c) Petition 410-761 and 490-06-04—A request by Borg Holdings L.L.C., represented by Alan Borg, for a conditional use/planned development and preliminary subdivision approval of a proposed six-lot, single-family residential subdivision located at approximately 1566 West 500 North in a Single Family Residential (R-1/7000)Zoning District. (Staff-Ray McCandless at 535-7282 or ray.mccandlessc slcgov.com) (Please view map on reverse.) The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be May 26,2006. This information can be accessed at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning. PLEASE TURN OFF At 'ELL PHONES AND PAGERS BEFORE THE Mr TING BEGINS Salt Lake City Planning Commission May 10, 2006 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Diamond. All voted "Aye".The motion passed. Petition 400-06-01 —A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend provisions of the zoning ordinance to allow tandem parking. This petition would allow for limited parking, one (1)space, in a tandem configuration in the front and corner side yards for existing single-family residential development and new single-family attached dwellings (which includes condominiums),twin home dwellings, and two-family dwellings. For new attached single-family dwellings, twin home dwellings and two-family dwelling said tandem parking space can be included in the required parking calculation for the proposed residential use. (This item was heard at 7:19 p.m.) Chairperson Noda recognized Lex Traughber as Staff representative. Mr. Traughber noted that the original petition had been heard at the March 22, 2006 Planning Commission meeting as an Issues Only hearing due to additional comment received from the Transportation Division. He stated that the previous presentation had heard public comment and did present the Staff Report. The issues of the Transportation Division have been addressed in the Supplemental Staff Report, along with other changes suggested by the Commission. Mr. Traughber stated that based on the comments, analysis, and findings of fact noted in the staff report dated March 15, 2006, and the revisions noted in the supplemental staff report dated May 10, 2006, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the following language adding Section 21A44.020M—Tandem Parking to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. This Section would read as follows: 21A44.020M—Tandem Parking -One (1) tandem parking space shall be permitted for existing residential development or new single-family attached residential development(including condominiums), new twin home residential development, new two-family residential development, or new detached single-family residential development where the tandem parking is approved as part of a Planned Development in accordance with Chapter 21A.54 of this Code. Additionally, the one (1) parking space in a "tandem"configuration located within the front or corner side yard setback can be included in the required parking calculation for these new residential developments. All tandem parking spaces must meet the following criteria: 1. The tandem parking space shall be at least nine feet (9')wide by twenty feet(20') deep. 2. The tandem parking space shall be entirely located on private property unless otherwise approved by the City. 3. The parking stall shall not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. 4. The tandem parking space shall be located within a driveway that leads to a new or existing properly located, legal parking space. 5. The tandem parking space shall be located in a driveway that abuts and is assigned/dedicated to the dwelling unit that it serves, and use of the tandem parking space shall not block the use of the driveway to access other parking spaces if the driveway is a shared driveway. 6. Parking on the hard surface tandem space shall be limited to passenger vehicles only. 7. The right-of-way fronting the new residential development must allow parking on both sides or neither side of the street. 8. Tandem parking shall not be allowed where the tandem parking is being requested as a result of a remodel or rehabilitation project that includes the elimination of legally configured off-street parking. In addition, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to revise Table 21A.44.050— Parking Restrictions Within Yards. 8 Salt Lake City Planning Commission May 10, 2006 Planning Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the definition of"Passenger Vehicle", and add this definition to Section 21A.62— Definitions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance as follows: Passenger Vehicle—a four-wheel, two-axle, motor vehicle, designed, sold, and licensed to accommodate private passenger transportation on public roads, not to include vehicles such as recreation vehicles, motor homes, boats, box vans or trailers. Commissioner De Lay requested a potential timeframe for the City Council to adopt the ordinance and definitions if favorably transmitted by the Commission. Mr. Traughber responded that the City Council timeframe is not a decision made by the Planning Division, but is left to the discretion of the City Council. Chairperson Noda requested comments from the Community Council Chairs and the public. Peter Von Sivers, Capitol Hill Community Council Chair, addressed the Commission regarding two concerns held by the Community in relation to the proposed tandem parking ordinance. 1) Tandem parking can require maneuvering between the two vehicles, possibly eliminating on-street parking once the switching of the placement of the vehicles is completed. The on-street parking is a concern because of the narrowness of the streets located in the Capitol Hill area. 2) Developers may pursue the option of buying property and allowing tandem parking to be utilized as a required parking space. Mr. Von Sivers stated that the City Council had conducted a recent tour of Council District Three with a stop at the Watts Project on Apricot Street to illustrate the difficulties that could arise from tandem parking and requested that the allowance of tandem parking be linked to the width of the streets. Mr. Sivers was not sure of the exact width to help determine the appropriate request, but suggested Apricot and Quince Street be considered as appropriate widths to disallow tandem parking. Commissioner McDonough requested further clarification regarding the relation of the width of the street to the demand of the parking. Mr. Von Sivers stated that the relation of the width of the street to the demand of the parking is important because of the potential for development, and the possibility the developer may have to allow the tandem parking be utilized as a parking requirement fulfilled. He stated that he would rather have the developer maintain the parking requirements on their own property, rather than use on-street parking. Commissioner Diamond requested information regarding the number of residents or new developments that meet the required setback, eliminating the need for tandem parking. Mr. Traughber stated that if the proposed criteria are not met, the tandem parking is not a legal solution. He clarified that tandem parking would not apply on streets wherein parking is available on one side, as stated in the criteria: "The right-of-way fronting the new residential development must allow parking on both sides or neither side of the street"; therefore, excluding the possibility of allowing tandem parking on streets that only allow parking on one side of the street. Mr. lkefuna stated that statistics are not available at this time to determine the number of streets that meet the requirements, but overall many do meet the requirements. He added that the Transportation Advisory Board had the same concerns as Mr. Von Sivers, and the Planning Staff has addressed the concerns. Discussion commenced between the Commissioners, Planning Staff, and Mr. Von Sivers regarding the language of the condition. It was concluded that the language was appropriate and clear in statutory language. 9 Salt Lake City Planning Commission May 10, 2006 Mr. Russ Watts, Watts Enterprise, addressed the Commission regarding the parking situation of Downtown. Early in the year, he had attended a symposium with members of the City Council discussing the revitalization of the Downtown area, with parking as a concern. He stated that many opportunities exist in the City for revitalization to bring vitality to the certain areas of the City. Mr. Watts stated that numerous cities and various residents are already utilizing the tandem parking option to incorporate more room for parking. He mentioned that the City is in a growing stage in determining how to meet the requirement, while allowing the option (and perhaps encouraging)of mass transit and light rail. Mr. Watts concluded by suggesting that tandem parking is a step in the process of encouraging vitality growth. Based on the comments, analysis,findings of fact,testimony heard,and the information noted in the supplemental Staff Report dated May 10,2006, Commissioner De Lay made a motion that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the language adding Section 21A.44.020M—Tandem Parking to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance and would read as follows: Tandem Parking -One (1)tandem parking space shall be permitted for existing residential development or new single-family attached residential development(including condominiums), new twin home residential development, new two-family residential development, or new detached single-family residential development where the tandem parking is approved as part of a Planned Development in accordance with Chapter 21A.54 of this Code. Additionally,the one (1) parking space in a"tandem"configuration located within the front or corner side yard setback can be included in the required parking calculation for these new residential developments. All tandem parking spaces must meet the following criteria: 1. The tandem parking space shall be at least nine feet(9')wide by twenty feet (20') deep. 2. The tandem parking space shall be entirely located on private property unless otherwise approved by the City. 3. The parking stall shall not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. 4. The tandem parking space shall be located within a driveway that leads to a new or existing properly located, legal parking space. 5. The tandem parking space shall be located in a driveway that abuts and is assigned/dedicated to the dwelling unit that it serves,and use of the tandem parking space shall not block the use of the driveway to access other parking spaces if the driveway is a shared driveway. 6. Parking on the hard surface tandem space shall be limited to passenger vehicles only. 7. The right-of-way fronting the new residential development must allow parking on both sides or neither side of the street. 8. Tandem parking shall not be allowed where the tandem parking is being requested as a result of a remodel or rehabilitation project that includes the elimination of legally configured off-street parking. The motion included a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the revised Table 21A.44.050—Parking Restrictions Within Yards and the definition of"Passenger Vehicles" be included in Chapter 21A.62 as stated below: Passenger Vehicle—a four-wheel,two-axle, motor vehicle, designed, sold, and licensed to accommodate private passenger transportation on public roads, not to include vehicles such as recreation vehicles, motor homes, boats, box vans or trailers. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Forbis. All voted "Aye".The motion passed. 10 6. ORIGINAL PETITION PETITION NO.-0P4 -Gf -o/ PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required ////0� ILL Petition delivered to Planning J •0150 14K Petition assigned to: <X rl � 5,4°•0l01 Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date Ao.06 1 Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover 5.3°-a.. ?A7- Chronology • P t4 t Property Description (marked with a post it note) Affected Sidwell Numbers Included S,3o�dco14tir Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils �3oA� Mailing Postmark Date Verification 5.�. - Planning Commission Minutes Planning Staff Report p t°t— Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. oc.. P' ' Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office MO Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. 1/4 i 61►1-6 -. Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office buildable areas of each lot, and it would be costly to redesign the homes. Mr. Larsen asked the Planning Commission to determine that the yard may be 12 feet, consistent with the recorded plat that was presented and approved by them. It was noted that Planning Staff found no substantial difference should the Planning Commission approve this modification. Mr. Wheelwright then explained that the building official interpreted a side elevation on one of the two house plans as technically having two stories. The proposed elevation is not a problem under building or zoning regulations in that elevations are limited to 30 feet measured to the mid-point or 2 '/z stories. The highest ridge of the originally proposed design is 29 feet and does not change under either interpretation; however, the building official's interpretation conflicts with the limitation of 1 '/2 story buildings placed on the project by the Planning Commission. The City required the developer to modify the design of the home on lot 4 to meet the technical definition of 1 '/z stories. Mr. Larsen does not wish to modify the elevations on the other three homes on lots 5, 6, and 7 with the same elevation modifications. Mr. Larsen reiterated that the plans submitted and approved by the Planning Commission have not changed. The changes in elevations are caused by the interpretation of Building Permit Staff. He explained that he was required to modify the home on lot 4 because construction was underway at the framing stage and was red tagged. The roof ridge was brought down to the eave line in order to meet the definition so that construction could continue. Mr. Larsen said that he does not wish to change the design of the other homes. The proposed building design is more architecturally interesting and pleasing with exposed rafter tails and the original roof line as a whole. He further wanted a mix by having specific designs for the different lots. The four lots on the west portion of the development are narrow and deep. Lots 2 and 3 on the east portion are wider and shallower, and the homes on those lots were designed with elongated gables. Mr. Larsen requested that the Planning Commission reaffirm their approval. Commission Muir noted that the original elevation designs allow a certain amount of light and air into the tight side yards, and more evenly distributes drainage from snow and ice melt. He believed that the originally proposed elevations are better from a technical perspective. The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the elevation and setback issues were inadvertent mistakes, but the expansion of the rear yards should be a separate petition. The expansion would change the pattern of the block behind the project, and should be reviewed under the formal subdivision review process. Commissioner De Lay moved for the Planning Commission to approve modifications 1, 3 and 4 as requested. The request to expand the rear yards of lots 2 and 3 to the east must be reviewed and determined through the formal subdivision review process. Commissioner Muir seconded the motion. All voted "Aye"; the motion passed. Addressing Commissioner Scott's concerns regarding the conflict in building story interpretations, Mr. lkefuna explained that it is an issue to be discussed between Building Services and Permits and Planning Staff. Staff will discuss the issue with the Permit Office and report back to the Planning Commission. Tandem Parking in Required Yards in Residential Zones (Item a.ii.) 5 Mr. Ikefuna requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow tandem parking in required yards in residential zones. Currently the Zoning Ordinance does not allow tandem parking in residential areas. He explained that tandem parking should be allowed in order to accommodate future infill and or residential development. Mr. Ikefuna noted that Bonnie Mangold, Avenues Neighborhood Advocate, opposed the initiation of such a petition in an email of which copies were presented to Planning Commission Members. Commissioner McDonough moved for the Planning Commission to initiate the petition. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion, all voted aye; the motion passed. Responding to questions from Commissioner Seelig regarding the retreat and briefings with Redevelopment Agency, Mr. Ikefuna explained that briefings will be scheduled. The retreat scheduled for December 13, 2005, has been postponed until further notice. Professor Kelly was unable to make the engagement, and Planning Staff is seeking another facilitator. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA—Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters a) Gabriel Noelle Rosa, LLC and Salt Lake City Property Management Division —The existing apartments located at approximately 201-211 East 3rd Avenue are being converted into the White Lane Condominiums. As part of the conversion approval process, it was noted that there are three stairway and stair rail encroachments into the public right-of-way. The applicants are requesting that the encroachments be allowed to remain as is and have submitted a lease agreement to cover these encroachments. This property is located in Salt Lake City. The Property Management Division intends to approve the requested lease agreement for the encroachment. b) 2148 Enterprises, LLC and Salt Lake City Property Management Division— 2148 Enterprises, LLC is in the process of selling their property which is located at 2148 South 900 East. During a due diligence survey, it was discovered that a brick facade along 900 East encroaches into the public right-of-way. The buyer is requiring the current property owner to enter a lease agreement with the City to deal with the encroachment issue. It is contemplated that the encroachment will be removed in a future remodeling process in 2006. The initial term of the lease agreement is 5 years with terms of renewal. Issuing a lease for this purpose is consistent with City policy regarding public-way encroachments. The Property Management Division intends to approve the requested lease agreement for the encroachment. (These items were heard at 6:37 p.m.) Chairperson Noda noted that there were no public comments or questions from the Commissioners. PUBLIC HEARING 6 4. b Ill A ; 1 m oN cn . � � � � ..e � cfl (° C O N [D 0_, . D p .a (Q = 0_ w 0 `G O • a) . N N J o O a 5 fl) m (D