The URL can be used to link to this page

01/08/2002 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, January 8, 2002, 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 Dale Lambert. Also in Attendance: Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Jay Magure, Chief of Staff; D. J. Baxter, Mayor's Senior Advisor; Diana Karrenberg, Community Affairs Manager; Roger Cutler, City Attorney; Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; David Dobbins, Community and Economic Development Acting Director; Stephen Goldsmith, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Northwest/Long Range Planner; Nelson Knight, Capitol Hill/Historic Preservation Planner; Joel Paterson, Special Projects Planner; Everett Joyce, Environmental Planning & Urban Design/Ordinances; Doug Dansie, Downtown/Special Projects Planner; Doug Wheelwright, Land Use & Transportation/Subdivisions; Ray McCandless, Northwest Quadrant/Subdivisions Planner; Greg Mikolash, Board of Adjustments; John Sittner, Director of Olympic Planning; Jeff Niermeyer, Public Utilities Deputy Director; Chuck Call, Public Utilities Chief Engineer; Linda Cordova, Property Manager; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; Max G. Peterson, City Engineer; Susi Kontgis, Budget Analyst; Janice Jardine, Council Planning & Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Michael Sears, Council Budget & Policy Analyst; Scott Turville, Property Developer; Lehua Weaver, Council Staff Assistant; and Pam Johnson, Deputy City Recorder were present. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. See File M 02-5 for Council announcements. #2. INTERVIEW NANCY FILLART PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD. Ms. Fillart said growing up in New York City, other than mass transit, her mode of transportation was a bicycle. She said while living in Salt Lake City, she has seen how growth has changed the dynamics of transportation. She said she worked at Salt Lake Community College and saw first hand how alternative transportation was affected. Councilmember Lambert asked for clarification on how many people served on the Transportation Advisory Board, and how board members were appointed. Tim Harspt said the board consisted of approximately 15 people. He said the appointees were selected on criteria such as background, education and community involvement. He said the purpose of the board was to provide in put to the Mayor, City Council and himself. He said examples of issues addressed by the board were light rail and the pedestrian/bicycle master plan. #3. INTERVIEW SANDRA HATCH PRIOR TO HER APPOINTMENT TO THE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING CONSERVATORY COMMITTEE. This interview was rescheduled for a later date. #4. DISCUSS THE SELECTION OF COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON AND COUNCIL VICE CHAIRPERSON. Cindy Gust-Jensen passed preprinted ballots to each Council Member. She gathered the ballots and read them out loud. Seven votes were cast for Dave Buhler as Council 02 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, JANUARY 8 , 2002 Chairperson. Five votes were cast for Carlton Christensen, and two votes were cast for Nancy Saxton as Council Vice Chair. #5. RECEIVE AN OLYMPIC BRIEFING REGARDING FIREWORKS DISPLAY, AND RESTRICTIONS ON SIDEWALK VENDING. View Attachment John Sittner briefed the Council from the attached handout. He said the Bonneville location had been with drawn because it was felt fireworks would disrupt the animals at Hogle Zoo. He said the Lindsay Gardens and Popperton locations had received unanimous support from the Avenues Community Council for the displays. Mr. Sittner said Peak Experience would be printed and ready for distribution by January 25th. He said a copy would be sent to event ticket purchasers and sponsors. He said a poster of the artwork for the Olympics had been created and would be for sale. Councilmember Turner asked which City streets would display Olympic banners. Mr. Sittner said most of the City banners would be in Council Districts One and Two. He said other districts had more SLOC and Olympic signs. He said the festive emphasis would be on the streets of the torch relay route. Mr. Sittner said Salt Lake City was sponsoring a Downtown Festival. He said the purpose was to encourage crowds to come early and stay late for scheduled Olympic events. He said not only would this highlight the City, but it would help with transit and traffic congestion. Councilmember Jergensen asked what Council could do to help ensure the success of both the Games and the Festival. Mr. Sittner said the economic benefits would far outlast the Olympics. He encouraged Council to be accommodating hosts and help market the City. #6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE PARKING LOT REQUEST ASSOCIATED WITH THE OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES OF 2002. Stephen Goldsmith and Joel Patterson briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Saxton asked if current zoning allowed parking this close to a residential area. Mr. Goldsmith said a lengthy discussion was held addressing items such as lot lighting, noise, and overnight parking. He said these issues were resolved between the neighbors and the leaseholder. #7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A PETITION REQUESTING 2,240 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 657 SOUTH AND 800 EAST BE REZONED PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-50 (Nathan Anderson Willow Heights LLC) . View Attachment Doug Wheelwright, Ray McCandless and Janice Jardine briefed the Council from the attached handout. Council had no additional questions and no discussion was held. #8. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A PETITION REQUESTING TO CLOSE A PORTION OF UTAH STREET, BETWEEN CALIFORNIA AVENUE AND HIGH AVENUE PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-53 (DeWayne Iverson) View Attachment Greg Mikolash, Doug Wheelwright, Stephen Goldsmith and Janice Jardine briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Christensen said he was concerned about the construction of a car wash and the open canal surrounding the residential subdivision. Mr. Wheelwright said a levy would be placed over the canal. Councilmember Lambert asked if the developer had addressed an open space area. Mr. Mikolash said approximately 4200 square feet would be used as a small park to meet the open area requirement. He said the Homeowners Association would maintain the park. #9. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE, TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION. An Executive Session was held. See file M 02-2 for confidential tape and sworn statement. #10. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A PETITION TO ANNEX APPROXIMATELY .66 ACRES LOCATED 02 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002 AT 3027 SOUTH 1100 EAST PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-16 (Peter Carroon - Red Gate Properties) View Attachment Everett Joyce, Stephen Goldsmith, Doug Wheelwright and Janice Jardine briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Buhler asked who could initiate annexation. He asked if the City could request annexation of an area to "square up" boundaries. Mr. Joyce said per State law the property owner needed to request and initiate the annexation process. Councilmember Lambert asked why the annexation request had been made. Mr. Wheelwright said Salt Lake County approved the project upon the owner obtaining water. He said because of the location of the property, annexation would be required to get water. #11. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A PETITION TO ANNEX AND REZONE 60.56 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1977 SOUTH 2800 EAST, TO AMEND THE EAST BENCH MASTER PLAN AND ARCADIA HEIGHTS/BENCHMARK/H-ROCK SMALL AREA MASTER PLAN PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400- 00-29 (Turville/Heugly/Sorenson) . View Attachment Ray McCandless, Stephen Goldsmith, Doug Wheelwright, Janice Jardine and Scott Turville briefed the Council from the attached handout and a large-scale model. Councilmember Saxton said a Master Plan approval was given for the area. She said the developer had asked to amend the plan with gated streets and additional buildings. Mr. Wheelwright said the same amount of land would be developed. Councilmember Jergensen said he was concerned about due process. He said the Master Plan clearly outlined the development of four homes. He said the proposal before the Council showed six or seven new homes in a gated community. Mr. Turville said the purpose of the gated road was to keep 4-wheelers from trespassing in the area. Councilmember Lambert said he did canvassing of residents and Community Councils in the area. He said that most felt the compromises were fair and wanted to see this issue resolved. Councilmember Saxton said the Planning Commission minutes showed that most everyone spoke in opposition to the project. Ms. Gust-Jensen said a special mailing could be done to notify residents and Community Councils of the scheduled public hearing. She said a 24-hour telephone number could be given for those concerned to call in with comments. #12. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST TO AMEND CHAPTER 68 OF TITLE 18 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO FLOOD PLAIN HAZARD PREVENTION. View Attachment Jeff Niermeyer and Chuck Call briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Lambert asked for clarification on the proposed amendments. Mr. Niermeyer said the original ordinance was put in place in 1983. He said the proposed ordinance would bring the floodplain up to date. He said at one time the city used a different map, now a national map was used covering both the City and County uniformly. He said the changes did not affect the floodplains, only the language referring to the new maps. Councilmember Turner said several of his constituents had insurance problems living on the floodplain next to the Jordan River. Mr. Niermeyer said the amendment would put the City in compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program, which would allow individuals to secure flood insurance at reasonable rates. #13. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AMENDMENT NO.3 TO THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SEWER CANAL AND NORTHWEST OIL DRAIN. View Attachment Councilmember Love recused herself during this discussion. Jeff Niermeyer and Chuck Call briefed the Council from the attached handout. Mr. Niermeyer said an initial analysis report had been completed. He said several options were available to resolve the problem. He said meetings would begin the first part of March to discuss allocation. Councilmember Christensen asked if any type of reprieve had been given to the farmers affected. Mr. Niermeyer said a product was used, within the guidelines of the 02 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002 Environmental Protection Agency and Wildlife Services to control the pond reed in the canal. He said the property owners were satisfied with the solution. #14. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF FREMONT AVENUE BRIDGE AT THE JORDAN RIVER. View Attachment Max Peterson and Michael Sears briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Turner asked how long the project would take. Mr. Peterson said it would take approximately four months. He said the bridge would remain a single lane in each direction, but would be raised about two feet. Councilmember Saxton asked where funds for this project came from. Mr. Peterson said the bridge replacement fund was a Federal program. He said monies were allocated to the State, and then the City would need to compete for the funds. He said if the project went over the estimated budget, the City could lobby for additional funds. He said if additional funds were not granted, the City would be responsible. Councilmember Jergensen said he felt uncomfortable that the City would be the bottom line on bridge funding. Councilmember Buhler said a contingency fund was set aside for such issues. He asked for clarification on requesting Federal monies. Mr. Peterson said if bids on a project were higher than the Federal grant would cover, the City could cancel the request. He said the bridge needed to be replaced. He said with Federal monies, the City would not need to fund the Project. The meeting adjourned at 9:11 p.m. pj 02 - 4 SAL{ ' €. ij CITY G�RPQ 'ION -�� _ � �� - ROSS C. {°ROCKY" ANDERSON COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR c 7 TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: 6 December or FROM: John Sittner, Olympic Planning Director SUBJECT: Olympic Fireworks Displays STAFF CONTACT: Mary Guy-Sell (535-62,44) RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receives a briefing on SLOC's proposed fireworks displays for the Closing Ceremonies DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: SLOC has approached the City for fireworks display permits for the evening of 24 February zooz for the Olympic Closing Ceremonies. Permitting of the fireworks displays does not require action by the Council, but due to the wide-ranging locations of the displays, the Administration would like to inform the Council of SLOC's proposal. The locations of the proposed displays are listed on the attached chart. The fireworks will be simultaneous and last approximately io minutes. The Salt Lake City Fire Marshal has responsibility for approval of three displays — • Site #i — Lindsey Gardens: In the City's initial review, SLOC was asked to consider nth Ave. Park in lieu of Lindsey Gardens because of concerns with the sensitive nature of the cemetery. • Site #3 — Popperton Park • Site #iz - Bonneville Golf Course: A permitted test event was held in October at the same location. Olympic Planning will amend the Large-scale Special Events of National or International Significance Permit to include the fireworks displays. Several of the sites are located within the Avenues Community Council boundaries. Olympic Planning has requested those fireworks displays be added to the January Avenues Council agenda to inform them of the proposal. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 041 1 1 TELEPHONE: BO1-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 ®RECYCLED PAPER _— i SI()C.Pyrotechnic(/iv 1..k itle Properts.1)ultervhip Min .71:1\ Plot Need Owner Acquired°wile' 1 mention f.--.' Site Site 1)eNcription info? Elevation Numhut info? . 1 1..inti'-cv‘. ens 13ttseba::;Icid next to Si.("Cemetery 32 . no _,. , . ts'. .pi s<.,.i3 N-Ill <.I 43',V :4N01' . . . ..„ . .. ,- !.‘,.• :•-•..,:.. .:', : • '.,:.-" I-...-„ ,,.; _ . _ 2 \Vatcr lank On 1 he rood to the Olympic Ring,' '3•."" ,....:• 4" 1(‘', 40 A.' 11 N• 111 ;I)57%V 33.58' 3 ,01)vorion Park %3 :',' -,"- 4i.)46,IS.^4.-I 1 I 'in OW .150' _ . , . .. . . . . ,... Ft!,inky ilm•nun trat mon atijaccnt house:3! . . : . •.1 3" i'''' t niversity of t.1,111 t'io1PC purse North 5 ' 3'' . n' .('nivklrity of L'uth(3o11-(‘011rso South . :i. . . . ... 6 ii" 1:::" NkliiiL'al('unt,:t-Shoreline:_nail thank in canyon on toad) , _ ., . 3" 6'" llospiullShorulinc"Irttil 1...ow Road __ .• yrs . u.n :,',..'•1",;,:c9 - i."1 .1,-.;7‘,P".. ,4 . . . .... , .. _ II 1" , S' 1:1•rt j)otT his Shoreline'luau i Norlit , y ve: . ev , . „ „ 39 ' 'P' e.' Fort 1.)otrthe:Slut -clue-1 rail south ,.. , ...„.. 111 3" 11,- ibis If;fIte Plac,::-Pic,nt.erMoiluint:tIt ii:Ist . :1 11 " 3" o" This collo Plzu:c.,-Pt rot Monument Wot . . ....... .... . . .. „ . . . 12 l'' 12" lit Cottr.,,c no .9';1..,,." ,3., • - ..- ... .... . „- .• - .- . . . - ... _ . ... . _ 13 3.' ti""" %II (lit in in r't?uctcrx yes yes -m.,:'•.'•-,' - ::'.-. •-• C,-.,c:i..,- . . . . ....... 12/6/01 Olympic Fireworks Briefing 2/2 .7 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: January 4,2002 SUBJECT: Petition No. 400-01-50-Nathan Anderson, Willow Heights, LLC request to rezone property located at 657 South 800 East from Special Residential SR-3 to Residential Multi-Family RMF-35 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine, Land Use and Policy Analyst Document Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts Ordinance The proposal has no The proposal is The Administration has budget impact. presented to revise an clearly stated the existing ordinance. positive aspects of the proposal. OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance rezoning property at 657 South 800 East from Special Residential SR-3 to Residential Multi-Family-RMF-35. 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt an ordinance rezoning property at 657 South 800 East from Special Residential SR-3 to Residential Multi-Family-RMF-35. KEY ELEMENTS A. The Administration's transmittal provides a detailed background relating to the proposed rezoning and findings of fact that support the criteria established in the City's Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 21 A.50.050-Standards for General Zoning Amendments. Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for details. Key points are summarized below: 1. The proposed rezoning would facilitate development of parking for a proposed 4-unit apartment building. 2. The front or western portion of the property is zoned RMF-35. The rear or eastern portion of the property is zoned SR-3 and cannot be used to provide parking for a use in a different zoning classification. Please refer to the attached map for clarification. 3. Surrounding land uses include a mix of single-family, duplexes and apartment buildings. 4. Final site development,transportation and utility service requirements and landscaping plans will be evaluated through the development review and building permit processes. B. The purpose of the RMF-35 zone is to provide an environment suitable for a variety of moderate density housing types including multi-family dwellings. 1 I. C. The purpose of the SR-3 zone is to provide lot, bulk and use regulations in scale with the character of development located within the interior portion of City blocks. Off-site parking facilities in this district to supply required parking for new development may be approved as part of the conditional use process. D. The Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed rezoning subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide low height, motion sensitive,directional parking lot lighting acceptable to the Police Department. 2. Install a sight proof fence around the parking lot area. 3. Enhance the landscape portion of the area subject to Planning Director approval. E. Issues discussed at the Planning Commission hearing included: 1. Required parking,building scale and design,exterior lighting and landscaping. 2. Neighborhood impacts and compatibility relating to noise,lighting,traffic,density and building scale. 3. Rental versus owner occupied property maintenance. F. The East Central Community Council Executive Board Members voted to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The 1974 Central Community Development Plan Future Land Use Map identifies this area for low- medium density residential uses. The Master Plan includes the following statements: 1. Principles: a. The need to revitalize and stabilize inner-city neighborhoods. b. Greater recognition of mixed-use areas and their relative permanence. c. Neighborhood revitalization as a remedy for obsolescence and decline. 2. Policies and Proposals: a. Population: Central Community program to reverse trend of families leaving for suburbs. b. Urban Design: ...improve the architectural character of neighborhoods. 3. Land Use: Designates the properties and surrounding areas as low-medium density(11.5 units per acre)and medium density(below 20 units per acre). 4. Citizens' Policies and Recommendations: a. Provide an effective means of notifying residents of proposed zoning changes and city activities within their community. b. Organize the City into four block areas each with a citizen representative who will work with City staff in monitoring and reviewing new construction and changes in use of properties within their respective areas. c. Give more consideration to those factors, including residential densities, which give the community a ghetto appearance. d. Establish and enforce architectural controls to preserve the scale and mood of the neighborhoods. B. The Council supports using its zoning power to maintain the residential population base within the City, and to encourage population expansion. 2 I C. The City's recently adopted Community Housing Plan contains policies and implementation strategies that address: 1. Creating a wide variety of housing types across the City. 2. Encouraging innovation in housing design compatible with neighborhoods that are creative, aesthetically pleasing and provide attractive public spaces. 3. Creating affordable and transitional housing. 4. Supporting home ownership for a variety of income levels. 5. Including public and neighborhood participation and interaction in the design process. D. During the Council's recent discussions relating to growth, annexations and housing policy,Council Members have expressed support for developments that promote livable community concepts such as: 1. pedestrian and bicycle friendly environments 2. compact,transit and pedestrian oriented developments 3. neighborhood anchor areas or commercial and/or business uses that are necessary to the function of residential neighborhoods or are compatible with residential activity 4. local services that are conveniently available or can be provided and are accessible on foot E. The Council's adopted growth policy states: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. is aesthetically pleasing; 2. contributes to a livable community environment; 3. yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;and 4. forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. F. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining -411 a prominent sustainable city, ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly, convenient,and inviting, but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive, friendly, safe environments. G. The 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. Applicable 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. Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvement and stability. 3. Ensure that building restoration and new construction enhance district character. 4. Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the city regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided. 5. Treat building height, scale and character as significant features of a district's image. 6. Ensure that features of building design such as color, detail, materials and scale are responsive to district character, neighboring buildings,and the pedestrian. 3 CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed rezoning. Key meeting dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for full details. • June 20, 2001 East Central Community Council meeting • September 6,2001 Planning Commission Hearing cc: Rocky Fluhart,Jay Magure,Roger Cutler,Lynn Pace,David Dobbins,Stephen Goldsmith,Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright,Ray McCandless,Sylvia Jones,Scott Barraclough File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Rezoning—Nathan Anderson 657 South 800 East 4 STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH Sl ` ' �' a �UTj_j C�v 0�e'��30.,*;�f ROSS C. ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL 0 TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: ///7/0) FROM: Stephen A. Goldsmith,Planning Director RE: Petition 400-01-50: By Mr.Nathan Anderson/Willow Heights, LLC requesting a 2,240 sq. ft. piece of property located at 657 South 800 East be rezoned from an SR-3 to a RMF-35 zoning district to accommodate parking for a proposed four-unit apartment building. STAFF CONTACT: Ray McCandless,Principal Planner 535-7282 Lynn Pace,Deputy City Attorney 535-6613 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Mr. Nathan Anderson/Willow Heights, LLC is requesting that the City rezone a 2,240 sq. ft. piece of property from a Special Development Pattern Residential "SR-3" zoning district to a Moderate Density Multi-family Residential "RMF-35" zoning district to accommodate parking for a proposed 4-unit apartment building located at 657 South, 800 East. The applicant proposes to construct a 4-unit apartment building on a 56' x 206' (11,536 sq. ft.) vacant lot which fronts onto 800 East. The front or western 166' of the property is zoned "RMF- 35". The rear,or eastern 40 feet,however,is zoned "SR-3"and cannot be used to provide parking for a use in the "RMF-35" zoning district unless it is rezoned. Findings of Fact: The Planning Commission reviewed this item at its September 6, 2001 Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of the rezoning. The Planning Commission determined the proposed rezoning is appropriate based on the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. 2. The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 3.The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of all applicable overlay zoning districts. 5.Public facilities are adequate to serve the subject property. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7757 FAX: 801-535-6174 RECYcLED PAPER is Public Process: The East Central Community Council reviewed this proposal on June 20, 2001. Their recommendation is for approval of the request as indicated in the letter dated August 21, 2001. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal on September 6, 2001. Comments at the meeting centered on fencing, lighting, renter vs. owner occupancy and whether town-homes are an option. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the rezoning subject to: 1. Providing low height, motion sensitive, directional parking lot lighting acceptable to the Police Depa,tinent review. 2. Installing a sight-proof fence around the parking lot area. 3. Enhancing the landscape portion of the area being rezoned, subject to the Planning Director's approval. Section 21A.10 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance requires that the legislative body hold advertised public hearings prior to rezoning property. Newspaper advertised notice is required prior to consideration by the City Council. A draft notice has been provided in the transmittal packet. Relevant Ordinances: Title 21A. Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance • Section 21A.02.040 Effect of Adopted Master Plans • Section 21A.10 General Application and Public Hearing Procedures • Section 21A.10.020 Public Hearing Notice Requirements • Section 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments Utah Code Annotated • Sections 10-9-402, 10-9-403 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Chronology 2. Ordinance 3. Agenda of Planning Commission Hearing for September 6, 2001 4. Staff Report for Planning Commission Hearing for September 6, 2001 5. Planning Commission Minutes for September 6, 2001 6. Notice of City Council Public Hearing A. Notice of City Council Hearing Newspaper Publication Draft B. Notice of Public Hearing Mailing Draft C. Mailing List and Labels 7. Planning Commission Public Hearing Notices CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • July 10, 2001 Petition assigned to Planning. • June 20, 2001 The rezoning was discussed at the East Central Community Council Meeting. • September 6, 2001 Planning Commission Hearing. • September 10, 2001 City Council Transmittal Initiated. • September 17,2001 Ordinance Requested from Attorney's Office • October 22, 2001 Ordinance Received from Attorney's Office • October 23, 2001 Transmittal forwarded for Department Management Review ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2001 (Rezoning property located at approximately 657 South 800 East) AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 657 SOUTH 800 EAST FROM SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN RESIDENTIAL(SR-3)TO MODERATE DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(RMF-35), PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-38. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken in to 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 its deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property located at approximately 657 South 800 East is appropriate for the development of the community in that area. NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That the property located at approximately 657 South 800 East which is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from Special Development Pattern Residential (SR-3)to Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential (RMF-35). SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City Zoning Map, as 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 identified above. SECTION 3. Conditions. The rezoning identified herein shall be subject to the applicant submitting acceptable plans, and obtaining a permit for each of the following: (1) Low height,motion sensitive, directional parking lot lights, acceptable to the Salt Lake City Police Department. (2) A site proof fence around the parking lot area. (3) Enhanced landscaping of the property being rezoned, which landscaping shall be subject to the approval of the Salt Lake City Planning Director. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions identified above have been met, as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. SECTION 5. Time. If the conditions identified above have not been met within one year from the date that this ordinance is signed, this ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of ,2001. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 2 Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Salt Dats /0— Z_Z --0 (SEAL) By - Bill No. of 2001. Published: G:\OrdinaOl\Rezoning 657 South 800 East-Oct 22,2001.doc 3 Exhibit A 16-08-126-002-0000 BEG 10 RDS E FR SW COR LOT 3 BLK 16 PLAT B SLC SUR E 2.5 RDS N 56 FT; W 2.5 RDS; S 56 FT TO BEG. 4914-0880 6388-0492 STAFF REPORT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Rezoning Petition for the Nathan Anderson Property to Accommodate Parking for a Four-Unit Apartment Building at 657 South 800 East Petition: 400-01-50 September 6, 2001 REQUEST Petition Number 400-01-50 by Mr. Nathan Anderson / Willow Heights, LLC requesting a 2,240 sq. ft. piece of property located at 657 South 800 East be rezoned from an SR-3 to a RMF-35 zoning district to accommodate parking for a proposed four-unit apartment building. COMMUNITY/NEIGHBOROOD COUNCIL REVIEW The East Central Community Council reviewed this proposal on June 20, 2001. Their recommendation is for approval of the request as mentioned in the accompanying letter dated August 21,2001. a . O PROPSED L , I • , REZONE 1 RMF 35 SR-3 � SITE' RMF 3fl RM F 35 700'SOUTH. . l a t Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-50 1 September 6,2001 by Salt Lake City Planning Division GENERAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Applicant: Nathan Anderson Purpose of proposal and proposed amendment: To accommodate parking for a proposed four-unit apartment building. Previous Case Files: N/A Existing Zoning and Overlay Districts: RMF-35, Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District/ Secondary Recharge District. Existing Master Plan Policies: Central Community Development Plan of 1974. Low/ Medium Density Residential. Affected areas and parcel numbers: 16-08-126-002 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES Mr. Nathan Anderson/Willow Heights, LLC is requesting the City rezone a 2,240 sq. ft. piece of property from a Special Development Pattern Residential "SR-3" zoning district to a Moderate Density Multifamily Residential "RMF-35" zoning district to accommodate parking for a proposed 4-unit apartment building located at 657 South, 800 East. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final consideration. The applicant proposes to construct a 4-unit apartment building on a 56' x 206' (11,536 sq. IL) vacant lot which fronts onto 800 East as shown on the accompanying site plan. The front or western 166' of the property is zoned "RMF-35". The rear, or eastern 40 feet is zoned "SR-3". Property in an "SR-3" zoning district cannot be used to provide parking for a use in the "RMF-35" zoning district and must therefore be rezoned. The apartment building and parking can be located on the area zoned "RMF-35", however, the preference is to use the "SR-3" area for improved vehicle maneuvering space and circulation. The western 40' of the lot originally was part of the lot to the north, however, on June 11, 1962 it was split off and sold to the adjoining property owner to the west. It remained a separate land-locked parcel with no street frontage until it was combined into a single lot by the applicant earlier this year. Prior to the consolidation, the western lot measured 166' Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-50 2 September 6,2001 by Salt Lake City Planning Division x 56' (9,296 sq. ft.) and fronted onto 800 East. The eastern lot measured 40' x 56' (2,240 sq. ft.). The zoning boundary follows the pre-consolidation property line. The proposed building is a two-story structure located on the north west side of the lot. The parking area, behind the building, is accessed by a 12 foot wide driveway on the south side of the building. Each unit is approximately 1,000 square feet and has two bedrooms. Site plans, elevation drawings and a photograph of a façade of a similar building are attached. CODE CRITERIA / DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: The Central Community Development Plan of 1974 identifies this block as "low-medium density" (residential) The proposed 4-plex is consistent with both the adopted 1974 master plan and "RMF-35" zoning. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: Existing development in the area is an even mix of single family and multi-family dwellings. To the north, on 800 East Street, are large homes that have been converted to 3 to 5 unit apartments. To the south are single-family dwellings. To the west across 800 East, are duplexes and apartment buildings. To the east is a single-family dwelling that is behind another dwelling. Given the mix of uses in the area, the amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the area. Findings: The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The proposed amendment applies only to the rear of the lot and will be used for parking. This should not be an issue, provided the parking area is screened from the adjoining property and landscaped. A 4-unit apartment building is a permitted use in the "RMF-35" zoning district. The parking area will be fenced with a vinyl fence that will reduce impacts to neighbors. Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-50 3 September 6,2001 by Salt Lake City Planning Division Findings: The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The property is located in the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay district. As sewer and storm drainage connections will be made to the existing utility infrastructure, no concerns are anticipated by the proposed development. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the applicable overlay zoning districts. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: City department review comments are as follows: Public Utilities: The Public Utilities department is requiring construction plans showing how water and sewer connections will be made. Also required is a site grading and drainage plan. The Public Utilities Department will approve the development if all conditions outlined in their review letter are met. Transportation: The Transportation division is requiring an ADA parking stall and an off-loading area and a sidewalk ramp. Engineering: The Engineering Division has no objection to the proposed rezone. Public way permits will be required for construction of improvements. Management Services: No environmental issues are identified. Police Department: The police department is concerned about visibility of the tenant parking area from the street, however, placing parking in front of the building would be inconsistent with existing development on the block as parking is located at the rear of most of the buildings in the area. In discussing this further with the Police Department on August 27, 2001, the concern is not so much where the parking is located but how safe it is. It was suggested adequate lighting be provided and that the number of potential hiding places be minimized. As a condition of approval, the parking area, driveway and sidewalk on the east side of the building should be adequately illuminated and potential 'hiding places' minimized. Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-50 4 September 6,2001 by Salt Lake City Planning Division Fire Department: The fire department has no concerns with the proposed request. Public Facilities are adequate to service the proposed facility provided departmental conditions can be met. These will be reviewed prior to building permit issuance. Findings: Public facilities and services are adequate to serve the subject property provided departmental requirements are met including minimizing potential hiding places and providing adequate illumination for the parking area and sidewalk. Departmental comments will be addressed through the building permit process. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council subject to meeting all departmental requirements, providing adequate illumination of the parking area and sidewalk and minimizing potential hiding places. Respectfully submitted, Ray McCandless Principal Planner Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-50 5 September 6,2001 by Salt Lake City Planning Division Site Drawings Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-50 6 September 6,2001 by Salt Lake City Planning Division i # zW H 31 Tii x i; e o .1.03w014.03Aon,,.DHINIV a ,,L 1!ilt�t• 3 i J J • 1 mo„ 1mow„.a.mr!1 i v3av SSra9 0 ill' l S^ 9NIMM o tM II — II ' !!:il1 9NMav Id N.r mar o 3 Ni- r- k a 91JIIaYd 2 1Fll_ • r In i. .€ m>ravd Mall 2e § -O 9rmlavd o !'s �i�_ 80 3 03a3A0J s i10 o :i ni g 9NIRIVd _l m; 3 03a3A07 Z g1 9NI7aYd a3113A07 It 9NIMtivd .. v3113A07 : ' -' a v3av SSv119 g P. 7 o / 9 IIIIII III = g.! 'v -aIII @ ! =i f-11-- 1i�.i = 3 i w =1i1- gal n/1 a g ial 1- 13 Y !'iI � , 4 ® M1 1 as g a ll r I 1 a a l 1131Iv ssv219 I Z- L I mo.n I1 j IM MAlIJ 9Nll5IX3 1 l H u vI ttc .-J J - c 4 r al 'It -in ii a-11 >it1 E I ! , �- ia --IL_---_14t-I-_- H 9 ii -�uinv.3Ls aiawsix3 +--- 'il=!II S 1 L_ 17 i i ;a —3,uiia.M.v a3IIT3.7 0 1 i----- 1383 008 r' Fp -.,s,Z-Z g nv sou.aoo 0007 WAL050W000 772.....11.4.10 585-•Se -31e , „ rwm,a E8 _1 0 0 'flU JIM 17:III" "[ - ran 1.. .'1i 1131111-2- I i I I — — ;) :LI WOJ000W000 WEST ELEVATION(VIEW FROM BOO EAST) EAST ELEVATION(VIEW FROM PARKING) Yole 10 r LEFT+%OM aLWATION5 • 4/c NOTE'S 4.PLEX • .,.. VAI'I r., ' .- 0. , li 121 0 a R i -C2 LI n —7 11,111111t1;'lli,II 14'7'4' 1: h H I .,......3,....,..: Ill'illi ,,,, a 51 MI: A gi 1.440A,3,,, 4[14111 --i 'F1:hi f': III 1-111111611 tiii4119111; IPOgithil i7:711111111111 ' ,, 111111111 li,:vity!Si- II 54 Ilh g! ppiii11.1 115410111P6 t 111111111 'P 11111141110 0 01111 Ill ,111;ih+iiii mi717 014PONO PIII la P roolope P-w_ , - 1 . 1111 ON OM II 2.114 1. ,Tmr7 I VA% omolgoil ;1111114 11101111111 Mill ,i4 la 11111111151 a h 4111k 1111 'IMMO t 11 , . i Vali illmilheb5 :,.. !IMMO'? olimily4z .todt.aiggli HIPP-4-1149 R.--- ----- --=- -1 WI illipli1111111 "=---- ->. R 1, ..,. 1,...440. . 11„,111.0 i . .,. . ... L. . ! ! 1 ii 1 `<>- . „.. 1,N411,11 11. O': § - ' 2 ' Ig1:1511111 I l'% 1. i '' I 11 x viro,, 1,...".,,..,0 -''&' 11 1,:itilluill 1 ' 1 g i x' i,7 .1130 3.14.030.W/.1h1.0 gml,,,,,d. '. 3 g E 115hr =•-• F------ 'IlLi' .1 •-= M•. , liPPilmii0 liPgliall 1011111 1111111 Oil i gliii a 0: 1 1 1111111 .7-71" Rii,ft-.. .i_tkt oil RN Ail- ,;_- MU Mili -1 It hilniihl , AR Nii.I PIIIIIMINI fdrOpii_11, ililij* it a Ar-I':',. t.:4 V 0,q1,1 1 , ii al; -.J ior -.I lill 4-' !oil Pg,11.11. f , I, .t .. .. 110-14---AM • -am la 1 „----, "' 1 'Iwili,I. 2 . It:ante:1i I 11011 11 •A• ii ..., •-•-+Itil.,11--,•• ---=-- =.-.. 1 r 1- -.1.14-1--, • —=---":- —. § . +1.'10..- ...... .;...-.—., . ..... .1.-.—. ___L a .1 * EEL 1.E 1r i CI Li, Hg x }Fi� r'—'�to d g m a 4 1 g 1 Z 3 i 1 o c N3NM0 3WON AS U3AO&Idtl'VOW/JO g it di/ o Q t N f 8 Y i N ' ; 6 .9.ZZ tr.1i .9 t .o 9 1 g .9 9 A,1 21 i %3 O L .9.6 AI,1 A-.6 § .I.E .S/-.F�A\.[ J-.2 pi i LI C.9 aim[I § A‘- A .„_______4_,/----------it 44 —____ — r *It:a vs 3rm 1; �t 1 R9 —• 1 ' I"�VI �Z of N)Ip4 MI "tt p lb 5 It, 1 Rim( • ♦ r E-1 ! "fi b a ,.2. H1Y8 I I It tn2 i b. ram.. 9ID 11•� 3 C. l �m � © z Y4a ' .00a{ = tt i � , ¢t r „-J'.... a o s.a A t`� o C�]� vatsb �.,Io 1-'o11 1L'JI Cr; /_ _ o .os`39 01S .,t.yam rt al ._k_a_ `Vv'-ljl oS U. 43 9. • " os; I' l6 671 l� 4� .,, .� 4s aEo1 m I • _ :. y, Soy - • 11 r e .,, r.a f .1I .'?,6 [� VI $ 1"2 t - i I Q►� - HlYB A x 'a - , a s• o P.m.' Roy 0reJ R. MI2 17y !. 71 - mil/'T I, .1-. • .9-. ,.t .12 •-,i 11-.9 `• 1n 0-2 o • o- IL-11.--------/ a O 1 F. .9.t A.e3g A-.1 .o.9 .E ss. .tr.12 s'R It E z L. I: __ Ia8 657130111,11100 FAST WALIDENWOOD -a to 1.1 d • 004 Saul•4.33 Ran W.30 MD 836-3904 F. 4 31 a r t t Ur ••to, 1 ie El, I P i III .3 0' 5 at1 3•ar A. __ ¢1 ' .1 l ,___ I e rose no I 1 i * .. .. Is.: . i 6!,,‘c,, ,--77-, :27 1 gEA oCM /I CM ii . 4 #2 71°54 •t• ••t tr,_ KDR#10 0 BE're:...moo - - 1# 1 11V-r• t; 't4•• 1.1 1sie x.... 1 4'4. . 4 : '° °- • . . 1.' : 111.111747 9i'' - ,i - WI....Si ;m1. . j--- .,,t,„.i;;Nral•••1:. --, 2_____L_LNIZiri IL-- z...--az,-x----,--. ,.._-• ..:12.---.1,--j, , . . 4.1gyzi . ,._.-__-_-......,....,-: •iiii,-... XI TCHEN ' ' -1211. ..,f0 - t ROOM 1.73 e,i, . : Alt i ,-,I0, ..-:sr :3 . . ..:1 diliW . 2 : . .4 . IF= -,lrytig,Ai ' ' '-'-{-''1,‘''-- '' II . , , 4 ikrt,',-'0• 31 1 ,• 1 7,7 I ;C: 8 1 ,-„,,, / I It.r 1 ••1 I WM DENWOOD Ha taro #43 t MAIN FLOOR PLAN ,..r^. 3111111#14- Wai FLCOR PLA A..., o...... . ••• 4.•a arn 2 NATE'S 4-PLEA i Letter From Community Council Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-50 7 September 6,2001 by Salt Lake City Planning Division Mr. Ray McCandless Planning Department Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake City, Utah August 21, 2001 Dear Mr. McCandless, On June 20, 2001, Nathan Anderson presented to the East Central Community Council requesting a zone change on his property located at 657 South 800 East. Mr. Anderson requested that a small parcel on the rear of the property, presently zoned SR3, be changed to be consistent with the entire parcel, zoned RMF35. East Central Community Council Executive Board Members voted, unanimously, agreeing that this zone change is necessary and should be approved by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission. If more information is needed, do not hesitate to contact any of the board members listed below. Sincerely, hair, Julia Robertson, 583-5663 Vice Chair, Penny Archibald-Stone, 583-2439 Secretary, Kathy Scott, 322-5288 Past Chair, Mark Bunce, 531-8584 Treasurer, Fran Schwab, 581-9643 Ve t Pocket Coalition Liaison, Steven Rosenberg, 467-2434 Land Use Advisor, Cindy Cromer, 355-4115 Central Community Master Plan Manager, Don Brooke, 466-7708 Neighborhood Representatives: Bennion, John Anderson, 364-6086 Bryant, Maha Barrani, 364-2114 Douglas, Cathey Dunn, 582-6804 East Liberty, Margaret Brady, 521-8377 Emerson, Christine Driscoll, 483-1504 Gilmer Park, Terri Winkler, 581-9192 University, Dennis Guy-Sell, 582-0383 Committees: Community Growth and Maintenance Committee, Debora Wrathall, 363-3317 Herman Franks Park Committee— Boris Kurz, 485-4585 Moving People Committee, Creed Haymond, 583-8510 S nior Citizen Issues Committee, Jennifer Robinson, 538-2084 Other Division Recommendations Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-50 8 September 6,2001 by Salt Lake City Planning Division -71 i_ 27 2 1 1 OO1 {{ MEMORANDUM To: Scott Weiler,Engineering Brad Larson,Fire Brad Stewart, Public Utilities Barry Walsh,Transportation Alicia Orgill,Police Vicki Bennett,Management Se vices nn-- From: Ray McCandles ,Planning 1 ` Re: Rezoning for parking for future 4-plex at 657 South 800 East Date: July 23, 2001 Mr.Nathan Anderson is requesting the City rezone the eastern portion of a lot located at 657 South 800 East from an SR-3 zoning district to an RMF-35 zoning district as shown on the accompanying drawing.The rezoning is being requested to accommodate parking for a future 4- plex and to put the front and back portions of the lot in the same zoning district. The applicant will be seeking a building permit for the 4 plex sometime this week. His plans for the building permit will show all required parking on the property currently zoned RMF-35.His ultimate goal, however, is to develop the property as shown on the accompany drawing with additional parking on the SR-3 piece provided the rezoning is approved. Would you please review the accompanying drawing and forward me your depai tinental comments.My Phone number is 535-7282 if you have any questions or need additional information. Thanks. J ova6 11�'� - u _ CO- Do rukKru0w- 6-wv)--1 McCandless, Ray From: Orgill, Alicia Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 2:03 PM To: McCandless, Ray Cc: Smith, JR; Orgill, Dana Subject: Rezoning for Parking for future 4-plex at 657 South 800 East During 2000 and 2001 there were 42 calls for police Services for two Multi-unit on the block. The calls for police services included Simple Assault, Drug Possession, stolen automobiles and domestic disputes. Total calls dating back to 1995 are 140. Multi-housing if not designed and managed well can create more calls for Police Services then traditional owner occupied single family housing. The location of the proposed 4-plex will have limited space for tenant parking, which will have an effect on the sight line to and from apartments which will put the tenants walking to and from the parking area at risk. The housing that surrounds this proposed unit will have a limited view of the parking area due to the proposed location of the parking.The design for the apartments and the parking will need to be designed to mitigate the space and sight line limitations. For more information please feel free call at 799-3445 or my e-mail address MEMORANDUM To: Scott Weiler, Engineering Brad Larson,Fire Brad Stewart,Public Utilities Barry Walsh,Transportation Alicia Orgill,Police Vicki Bennett,Management Services From: Ray McCandless,Planning Re: Rezoning for parking for future 4-plex at 657 South 800 East Date: July 23,2001 Mr.Nathan Anderson is requesting the City rezone the eastern portion of a lot located at 657 South 800 East from an SR-3 zoning district to an RMF-35 zoning district as shown on the accompanying drawing.The rezoning is being requested to accommodate parking for a future 4- plex and to put the front and back portions of the lot in the same zoning district.The applicant • will be seeking a building permit for the 4 plex sometime this week.His plans for the building permit will show all required parking on the property currently zoned RMF-35.His ultimate goal, however, is to develop the property as shown on the accompany drawing with additional parking on the SR-3 piece provided the rezoning is approved. Would you please review the accompanying drawing and forward me your departmental comments. My Phone number is 535-7282 if you have any questions or need additional information. Thanks. 4LL. i �� 71R EP ,,,,NT ��" i DATE �z t K DDEF 1ENcIEs --___... . . , Ail' RICHARD GRAHAM SA La_a�%y ORR:03 1Il\/ ( ROSS C."ROCKY"ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PU LIC SERVICES MAYOR TO: RAY McCANDLESPLANNING t" FROM: SCOTT WEILER,P.E.,ENGINEERINGAUG DATE: AUGUST 6,2001 CITY PLANNING DIVISION SUBJECT: Rezoning for 4-plex parking at 657 South 800-L�a,t City Engineering review comments are as follows: 1. SLC Engineering has no objection to the proposed rezone. 2. It is our understanding that this project will be apartments and that no plat will be required. 3. Curb,gutter and sidewalk exist in 800 East Street along the frontage of the proposed project in satisfactory condition. When construction for the project takes place,the new drive approach must be installed in conformance with APWA Std.Plan 225. The existing sidewalk adjacent to a new drive approach must be replaced with 8" thick concrete. 4. Prior to installing public way improvements a permit to work in the public way must be obtained from SLC Engineering. cc: Joel Hanson Craig Smith Bill Brown Brad Stewart Barry Walsh Vault SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING 324 SOUTH STATE STREET,SMITE 310,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 69111 TELEPHONE:SOI 535-7961 FAX:SO1-535-6093 ot yg t ®L �I li. e Km� '. CiS 'QUO YgA � rRSON ALISON GREGERSEN WEYHER rw o .,i ��A' i�"" DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT a MAvoR I in JUl 7 2001 �= July 25,2001itioF-s = Ray McCandless Planning Division 451 South State Street,Room.406 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Re: Rezoning for parking for future 4-Plex at 657 South 800 East. Dear Ray: The Division of Transportation review comments and recommendations are for approval of the proposed zoning change subject to the following: Final plan approval is to comply to the"One Stop"review comments per city standards.The ADA parking stall shown on the site grading plan submitted needs to have an off loading area and a sidewalk ramp. Please feel free to call 535-6630 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Barry D. Walsh Transportation Engineer Assoc. cc: Kevin J.Young,P.E. Scott Weiler,Engineering Ken Brown,Permits file 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: 601-535-6230 FAX: B01-535-6005 �� wcc.cco P.Pcw LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. SALT •r a rkt tY( iVO " . II,O141 .. ..+�a�,g ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES MAYOR WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER I August 6, 2001 t I , a ,fJ j AUG 9 G Ray McCandless Salt Lake City Planning i f r : PlA N,\ N=3 DIVISIONJ 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 RE: Rezoning for Parking for Future 4-plex at 657 South 800 East 657 South 800 East Dear Ray, Salt Lake City Public Utilities has reviewed the above referenced project and offer the following comments: • All design and construction must conform to State, County, City and Public Utilities standards and ordinances. Design and construction must conform to Salt Lake City Public Utilities General Notes. Construction plans must be submitted showing how water and sewer utility connections will be made. Meters and hydrants must be located outside of drive approaches. A ten-foot horizontal and 1.5-foot vertical minimum separation with water on top must be maintained between all sewer and water lines. Pipe sizes, types,minimum cover and slope must meet Public Utilities' requirements. All utility plans must be reviewed and approved by Public Utilities. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted for review and approval for this development. Site grading may not adversely impact neighboring property's drainage. Any development must comply with UPDES Construction Storm Water Permits. At a minimum, silt fence must be provided along open drainage ways, hay bales must protect any existing grates or inlets and the City's clean-wheel ordinance must be followed. • Fire Department approval will be required prior to Public Utilities approval. Fire flow requirements,hydrant spacing and access issues will need to be resolved with the fire department. • If re-platting, all existing and new easements must be clearly shown and described on the plat prior to final plat recordation. If a sewer lateral or water service crosses through an adjacent property, an easement for that utility must be provided. If power 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 TELEPHONE: 801-483-6900 FAX: 801-483-6E1 1 8 �� E .aco o.PCR lines, gas lines, communication conduits, etc. exist within this the property, any relocation of these utilities and related easements must be approved by Public Utilities. • Use of existing sewer laterals and water services are subject to the condition and capacity of each. If they are not used, it is the responsibility of the developer to insure that a licensed plumbing contractor disconnect each water service at the main line and cap each sewer lateral at the property line. All removed meters must be returned to Public Utilities. All of the above mentioned work must be inspected and approved by Public Utilities. • New sewer and water connections or kills will need to be coordinated with Peggy Garcia at Public Utilities(483-6727). All applicable water, sewer and drainage utility fees must be paid prior to Public Utilities construction plan or plat approval. A drainage impact fee of$343 per quarter acre will be assessed for any new impervious surface introduced by this development. Public Utilities has no issues with the proposed rezoning of this property and will approve this development if all of the above-mentioned conditions are met. If you should need further assistance with this matter,please contact Jeff Snelling at 483-6889. Sincerely, L oy W. Hoo n, Jr. Director pg\jn\LWH Cc:file Site Photographs Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-50 9 September 6,2001 by Salt Lake City Planning Division yctsr X. rw t. - 1'i�r9A 6P 4' i 'y', �1.i'{ Y • N 01 Nkrt. elk ` ' 1 it • � " f + ' t • s e• t-e if • ; `�_+• yam'' _ • +r' • O'Gat « j «. : F,. . _ r t J�' L ' - {i . `• t r.e+. , . i4 s. �;JIt .•`r yL _ • � c. t: � tel, CL .v. CL J` .'. gc tICIll a '6 * •r i,J. d Z.3 -tea - . .s-� }< �'TS may . • • z ¢ vat s 1 i i .,•f� tom. - t a • t, - I. f .y.* :'-- f 5 } q'+ •tf•a°T4 ` r {[ , , . .4+ .ta ,= �C y, , '�dr 1 `°' ,. - S" s •'' •i raj,i ,*',jr • y-Y• .7`�t 4„..J 7' :�.. ', 1 ,,. L.<--„__ :,t,-.....:„. . . i,. •i.'' = tit , .y' , s '<"v , .f ,- ` 'fit • �r,b?;- i € _ .. r. • k --th�a� �r • H tiff• ••<r jjq`;. .r y�� ``.fig.i}."t - - --7 it S j .s .a 9t.. y',t ism 1 a ,+ f. 1 . k • 4,6 +v a41sV'*-y-. c. 73%4, ''.e ,. . .t k ,.n A+► -e • G *a ,...x it 4w1r�` E,' _.Y&t 3 F t, 4$+ 'L Y i : a ry%?' L--,,« • ' . .. l' 4r J t y _ � • • 0., .;. ,.--r. , '•1. e '1 _ ., i'• ' r1 " is..- J)� 1- � . Y ' (f4 /.14# _p "1 {= +' ' ,k ; _< • + i- Am + x +is 7 4 . r 3.r-t . r ': .../- fi . tt1-• • * } : s#. rt• a�,- a •S iiir ` • . A • � E" � ; r -` � � sr Sart • • .. t'i •� .. 1 _ fii .•r r -• ' " .f � •-,• � •�� 'o = =+' t. e • -3.jig 1 - j S• a �- y .d om. ,.i. . f t ? • + • 7 • Aiiri, des �+ • ,i 7 • - 4 i' b rt _ 11ii_ ! �; VI f. e i ., w i^ . c vitir 2 + i� + s:1TW uF to i 5:� �" z s• a '� 4 ♦,`i'f ;a� { V 3 Mgt Z l ;5 of •' - tTr fix ' t•. .1 i ' s �j''s :{ y`,# = - ..i.., •,-;, :it ,..... .- .4,1F :4: ' * s 1di ter, •. e .'. 71r` iali X Y f ,`7 �. ' 4'k � _ 3 s 4 ,r •: - I F.{1fix i ; : "4I.Y' t ;. <x; ice.`r ;- i k� 0 -{'. { t •..� 4 wad a�•► _ a7` - '.Z,�. • � r �# I � a '�,�( •f x S' yt �yl .?{., -'.� J `• r f3�Y 'k�#� s "• 'it RS i , ° ',d i!F-#,' ^s• w w rt. �;,, i 4 � al f� • { R • x� -i + s .§:e'"+ ;s. ram,; . _ .. * • • {ply.' f ryA- CI „ S z • si ' - ..pia. .- •w- h •i_ f R Y Poo.01160,fit 5 f t : r 4. t t t 'st, yi ,fc�n.yn,,,.,; -f o y C + • t '`��,��j�} - `i iy{ {_ { poi h."`- •�,r «Y#1. t�fi� ,. 'e t `, c!;:' Zl 1 .• „go _ 4' • i T • t��, vii/, I ,7-%., rt� •.'+ _r( ti R i� !`i /{1— u�'•� �R � t . u V .at. CC .,i- -.. - - t, 1. 1,__4. , � 1 a h',:l R ,R a. :, t ilk p • b t 1 r ,{ tire- `` f •'!' ' : ' ,j ' 1. ;: l t; R 4 S i�,�, f"l �(�Pi� Fs-w `��. � S, '. iiiii • gggEFF' tt -'y S 'a 4a.. .s y � �.� ,t � }4 Fv1 �^1,� 'k T �Y ae-► 1R -R fy{e: Lli l'1 ■ .� f P,� ' C IF h t # - - 4 'ij t r tiv _ F` r ` ` tt -,,::-I-:,# `ty.iYz c �'Sr. 4,4„3a P r :. .�. ##�}--- �tA �f` �, . —rt z j 1� e p i ''a s' '�'�# - g y��' to it t, t 'z. f$'.st • r, S : d ;�.' { 'Erb ' 1 • i # s rk • ss ,( - �iL. . Ri `��a ri_i •k ,� �.�D fi 1}'}t 9 i. ` , S t, • ! 44. `" {4 yam' . Y } 3C 4Rr� r-_tk ,h 1 -,' ' t 4 s bra` + '' .''t.� 1 p t is5 #,, � 7 �t .uy i' toms`#i y k" h ` • r ,k _ J t4 ' a . Fr 4 a. - '" t lhf �. .7 3 a , • 3L• 'q3 . • _y ... ,, r �" • / +j ax' $s 3 c k �.^ E F+.>* �..'•r. Sri+ r 2 Y` is „g ' ' i ` f�'vc3 • t= t I i b� ; P'. • i • = i. ? -4 k. i --.1 • F i1� L Lees `t' • f• �' T 1 r i F 4 xs-Ls+. .i• 4 {\'♦ t II�R II'—'if Y �,• t- ' . .y, .anti r 1 �'t .�• a,,.: r 8 - 3 _ a3� , :��.j; u) � S- Paz ♦" 'si _'z4x a,.r +"a''.T• ,/*". <" tt''' t' - - ••' s i..'d'wL saw • w -- _�' x• y ,* .f • t,".t i„4 4 , .n r 3~ i� � 1 • t '- 1 `. '' "'' a - . 4: !-gi-`: i+. y�rix '-'21 rwl, ">-,i.�.,i{ a`E r''..A. W '�� _ °+ -, ` 'E + 1;`' Z4 'N,;,-, •14 •—, ,-;,'n.gz *1`-'" a -a .' • rti L; l° •=,M" 03 `•�.. -�.�. v'e } R'4r � •.}14 .,a ,r� ay ."t1 8 .'� 3:'}!"'* `-`,,w, 03 • •fit / iti ST.�- i . .p -`2 Y ._r F-, ..„.„„:'+-,.., +fie .`s .N' ;�"`� n I: ,.' e'n..i 1f ji 'f r,.X,,.t' ,`.-�i:- t { . '•.r • 2. �;! • V .-t 1- -a . ,,. , .SYY' r It.y3'r` 1 i- 1�. t 4,W.,: �;„3� i :, , ;* ..s:'•*t t,fi;., „-,,,t „,9 •�+ t. • 7y a! j�i4 # •t ; 3. fi F y a� � ' ' '?!r � �# �� t.. .:'� � } ` , • a ; �* `�,.6y�� y -• . � a..-�� ` '- 'ell ,. . } /y{ jj,-.."S. � - '� J. `� i'. t'•r { �sa ` ,( :. t , -▪ - „: --,.4.2%.n ),- .44,,...,-_ cn, -.‘,,,, _ '‘),...1:--.'%.,,z,--, ,...„,,,,, ii.,-; t ,...,-' -,-''.....-1;,- -„,-' --- ' ,tly - -. 3•- f• ✓ �a-r' - - ,xn - -i# a `c`-. -- -{• E"� *vim`' �r.: �. s n yttr " :X x< ' �i_� i- '! "; rtf� T�� aq t`.}a `4'•, ',a5a s3 `5y' •..;a Y a.+f Ni.-;-...- �'4•` s i ! 1 ra `t` l 1.t t" '4 �'! %:. ,-` n '^S+T �-t. `��,` 's f- 4-• - y< u fkT': r. R"� , i r" • -'aFi S_ t_ - w r y' T {:< _ - 3 '� xis ~` p a � , •-:,v., 't, T ?' 1 -4g �` s ,► -• -r '-z :4:t: ,_ 1s a .-: --ii i JY;i4i f ,,Y,i`7 .64 .,. aM S ' _ - — -'Ci' .o▪hs .E ;S, _ , i yi1'�'F',t _t •K=� �1,,,fig^ _-M+t c =' •`s.�: + .. '1. 'sR 4'"1Y#'�2�-s1+s ,�, ••yr. a ,»,i"1 Y •#�,a , ;s+rw. Aiik • t's ,; 'x li: �}}�ii ,°** - ,,` ' i"�e` "iwr.. r s �k�• F� '.ja" ' `3',n••. "'.'[ - .t, j ,t -_ t' x• - fir✓. • "-� in}, 'ait. , - -ri.'-- `9,:. J' r $ 'k'_i*i 'c» �=s( $., dr'" .e 't„�yi;`,'}¢�°''$• .�• w `.+.'w.«,'b +t`f }� eve�'"fS,-, - +yam Lq� ! t'9y* �)rt ' ~"' ° t Y d l �i<iF, a. '••6�y,Q ^•f � � .i , •v "'+ ..z # �'Y'• ti,. k f - A ;ID• .. '1;.,-. @Y.1.-..i . +' td• t dy •�Q � .--•- * t . ,+- • "Ali i j•ems ♦ A +y ,2e, ;1 -1 1 ja + -<i' ` c} ;'�.• s"� §,G1• • tnt , Lr rt x R' Y' _" "�,;. .., ` .s !4 d `�i y=.; t a ,r_ r.. `.%i t., {..t ;,-' —. s:,: t � �'',M..,eg it x;'a. i'#''a• ' , ji ..,(mot {.. • a y� {r yam la-` '_ t r. gSsta.XT. • .„,,,. ..::,; , ,:. ... . . _. ,i4 .,,,, . .„.7.:....sii.,:;„,..,. „ ,,,, . ,, r1 x .... < k; ?` ` c - .y,._4>. .fay ,. . ., ,gc w --r .1.,v7, �.-`. , ' r a y, � -44 tV. <`r�'.f< e ',; � •# :S � a `�+s * 7i�{_t,t� ��ro_��1<A di�e,�,"1r ''y� 4'`'`i t'��b�°: -i s,y< i. . .•sy°+;�` _ ,. _ ' ,' '3';t%' "'�• s ,,,; ;it- t.' t e' ..'.V '..f'dtl:' . ,e. Q-1.- • $ h } x.^ :�}� ix �' i 11.'4, ak} .r hq�. >i -ram i AY ,.., t �• ' y. ,�;-" f'n,° x a ,, h, A_ a a `t Y 4 b3$ '�+�'� ' , 1f"=3- y,t`m a '•* iit# er .„"4 4 <� 1- w" „s h a F' . 'Sr €J �t • 'n •t_-'i -. .'- aa�a��ssa.. `a�$ yL. `'�y, ..1-•• - 1.4-, �„• J.J- ti.: �hn` t '" `" `+fv k -, _' -i :s $: i J t _.r . fly • -i s„ !i a ,,<t` _ R w\ .,1�`"'y.y.I '- S `� !j r£. tea ' t - tt-i' ';, 4. y"''- o `t.9 t 'E --j l.-„!i-! �7t.4+'"714 A, Y;:e**, i _� � .. t ` Sa ..3 ry "'4 1 . .- �•R• '+#.� _g. . .-PiY�S 't'^•" 4 :Jilt':ta '�kR3S r,Ns;s :tl� ',.�. "{s tau xyfy"3 ,•• 4 J''- }y _ .. e 4 <y t` "' s ns�,{ �.; e f• l. 7 ; t,4,',"'tr i :t t';5 r ` q ''` ,,.-r * j€ - - ti r:_ 'yFy, �,4 .'4A, y t'r`1��a• ' ' V ct%- '.y�am� !,n E ) ( +` .� t11- �f l - i 1 �N ^+i. R r' r� ti...cat a !7 i.t.tt.f {Fs. •,r • vi, t; - �t a , R i 5 ,:i x`i� .y .41 t{>,ttri; .u4 rr .t -�rrt� 53 e a "&' { c =s' letl. tgg c '' ,� 7 . fa 3, i� 3 !• t 2 :. , i,':_t'S "} ' 3t ri 1s Y+Y F 44.. c rA4t. 4 (�r 14! ,_ a r{ 4 a` t �5 1 i t t v � t �.� �f `�a,y t � � tf , is t 1 ��ci� t • �;� s�s� ';�1t ?..._" 't Ak ,.-4 '� y„f."j `} {,,t F '*;, 1-` ' 4 t It.. ' t.. � `1 �� '• 'ys Zti�. ,ri•; .� s -- LV. I ,1. 2` r 1 Yh-i ! `-41 s j'��4 7 3t "•'Y• -,� �'� � .., t ,e.T. � [i . .� -�� . � > ,Si }�f��l�i ft (!`¢t j`ni.��4' i �;K, �•'��' �}`•,,•R� R�3�.};'tX.s► .a 4.i s ? `` 1 ` t ;r ., 4 IFS .. 1 f3,c •• '4 '. , -%.s t-t. - t.e,. v.f. 's €-1. t ,,a t `•q..v. �,°S `a. f Y�'s -fig` • = 4_ 4: 't. . • +•. ` ;,` 4•h -- r"v;•,•+• 1 `,} i•',. ; .t` f , lh -.~ t 1 4 4. tx .-Yat ;` ' t, ,r: ..,_ __ .,.-:-.--„,,,_kThnhy 'PlacQ ._ ._ _. , - -. .- ,.: ___ - __ _ .,---_ -, ., _ :, $.1. ...,---.-_,,..„...„, -..„ „--_,-..,__......._, _.____ , ..„_, .._ _ ___.....,,,..„:„......_„.„...„, . , : __. _„ ,. . ____,, ,, __, _.„...-___ ,.,._ _ _ _._. „...... _ ,,, _,,__ ___,_,„...„.„.„___.„,.. ._,....,n-tif .--t--., 1 4. a1 jF� u k r M . *-csue R. r- L__ .. , ,- ,, 1,t t: •....:,.. .„,.. ...,., ...,..i..... ........ . ..,. , ..„,r... lx....., _ ., ff :I il ' - ------ Ca IMININ i a= ", rz rH ii It _ is ,a �� . , :: ______,iliiii ,r,,.: -...1-:.,':.;:l ,. ...,4 A -F I. • 7 j t Y,T ,,t�: ..+;+.-s'-`� i=t _ t Y �..,: ,:-..:,,.. -,- 1 a, S- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-01-50, by Nathan Anderson/Willow Heights, LLC, requesting that the rear portion of the property at approximately 657 South 800 East be rezoned from Special Development Pattern Residential SR-3 to a Moderate Density Multifamily Residential RMF-35 zoning district to accommodate parking for a proposed four-unit apartment building. Mr. McCandless presented the staff report. This was a request to rezone a 2,240 sq. ft. piece of property from a Special Development Pattern Residential SR-3 zoning district to a Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential RMF-35 zoning district to accommodate parking for a proposed 4-unit apartment building located at 657 South 800 East. The front or eastern 166 feet of the property is zoned RMF-35. The rear or western 40 feet is zoned SR-3. Property in an SR-3 zoning district cannot be used to provide parking for a use in the RMF-35 zoning district and must therefore be rezoned. Mr. Nelson asked if there was any landscaped area. Mr. McCandless showed the landscaped areas using a map. Mr. Chambless asked Mr. McCandless to explain the proposed lighting. Mr. McCandless explained there would be parking lot illumination, lights attached to the rear of the building to light the exterior stairs and lights on the front of the building. The lighting would be reviewed before a building permit is approved. Mr. Nelson asked what the required parking was. Mr. McCandless explained the requirement is for 2 parking stalls per unit or a total of 8 parking stalls. Mr. Jonas asked if a 12-foot driveway was sufficient for two-way traffic. Mr. McCandless explained that the Fire Department has approved this 12-foot driveway. Ms. Funk invited the petitioner to speak to the Planning Commission. Nathan Anderson, petitioner, agreed with the staff report. Mr. Jonas asked if the petitioner had considered building designs that would accommodate the current zoning. Mr. Anderson explained that he has considered many other designs. This design meets all of the zoning criteria for the property. He designed a town home for the property with single car garages, but it didn't meet all the zoning requirements. Mr. Daniels asked if Mr. Anderson had considered a pair of duplexes. Mr. Anderson explained that he did design a pair of duplexes. There is a zoning law that requires a substantial connection between the buildings. The design did not meet the definition for a substantial connection. Ms. Funk opened the public hearing. Julia Robertson, East Central Community Council, stated the petitioner presented the zoning issue to the Community Council. Their recommendation is included in the packet. Julie Swaner, resident, was in opposition to this petition. She believed the debris left in the neighborhood was caused by renters. She would rather have town homes on the property. David Sucec, resident, stated he doesn't want any more renters in the neighborhood. He was concerned with the possible noise and light pollution caused by renters. He also wanted an opaque fence put on the property. Ms. McDonald stated not all renters are bad people. David Wood, resident, was concerned about noise and extra traffic. Dave Thompson, resident, was concerned that too many apartments and town homes were being built in the neighborhood. He was concerned about the lighting, garbage and the possible white vinyl fence being built. He would prefer town homes being built rather than apartments. Cindy Cromer, resident, stated the size of the parcel, the zoning ordinance and possibly the UBC made it difficult for Mr. Anderson to build a satisfactory building on this property. Rolayne Mattsson, resident, is concerned about the fencing, lighting and noise that could be caused by the approval of this petition. Ms. Funk closed the public hearing. Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Anderson what kind of fence would be built on the property. Mr. Anderson explained it would be a 6-foot high solid cedar fence. Mr. Daniels asked the petitioner to address the proposed lighting of the property. Mr. Anderson explained the proposed lighting of the property using a drawing. The lighting would be solar powered, with a low wattage light bulb, motion detection device and would face down. Ms. Short asked if the petitioner would consider three condominiums that would have their own entrance, instead of stairs to the second floor, and would be owner occupied. Mr. Anderson stated he has. In order to meet the zoning regulations, this plan was the best he could come up with. Mr. Daniels asked why individual units wouldn't work on this parcel. Mr. Wheelwright explained that many site plans have been considered for this property in the past year. The issues included front yard location, buffer requirements in the parking area, and the lack of open space around the rear unit. There was no provision in.the current ordinance to approve Mr. Anderson's previous proposals on this property. If there was not a zoning issue, he would be allowed an over the counter building permit. Ms. McDonald felt this parking lot was incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood, would adversely affect adjacent properties, and that the scale of the project was not compatible with the existing scale of the neighborhood. Motion for Case #400-01-38: Mr. Jonas made a motion based on the findings of fact to approve Petition No. 400-01-38, by Nathan Anderson/Willow Heights, LLC, requesting that the rear portion of the property at approximately 657 South 800 East be rezoned from Special Development Pattern Residential SR-3 to a Moderate Density Multifamily Residential RMF-35 zoning district to accommodate parking for a proposed four-unit apartment building. Conditions of Approval: 1. Provide low height, motion sensitive, directional parking lot lighting, acceptable to the Police Department. 2. Install a sight proof fence around the parking lot area. 3. Enhance the landscape portion of the area being rezoned, subject to the Planning Director's approval. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Robert "Bip" Daniels, Jeff Jonas, Judi Short, Stephen Boyden, Tim Chambless, and Kent Nelson voted "Aye". Ms. McDonald opposed the motion. Ms. Funk, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: January 4,2001 SUBJECT: Petition No.400-01-53- Mr. DeWayne Iverson representative for Iverson Home L.C.- request to close a portion of Utah Street(1605 West)between California Avenue(1330 South)and High Avenue(1450 South) STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use and Policy Analyst Document Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts Ordinance The Administration's The proposal is The Administration has transmittal notes that the presented as a new clearly stated the petitioner will be ordinance. positive aspects of the required to purchase the proposal. property at fair market value. OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance closing a portion of Utah Street(1650 West)between California Avenue(1330 South)and High Avenue(1450 South). 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt an ordinance closing a portion of Utah Street(1650 West)between California Avenue(1330 South)and High Avenue(1450 South). 3. ["I move that the Council"] Refer this item to an additional briefing session for further review. KEY ELEMENTS A. For the past several years,residents and property owners in the West Salt Lake area have consistently contacted the Administration,Council Members and the Council office expressing the need to provide new, affordable housing to encourage homeownership and increase a stable population base to support new retail services in the community. The Community Councils and residents in the West Salt Lake Planning Community have worked continuously over the past several years in order to achieve stability and maintain the single-family character of their neighborhoods. B. The Council approved two rezoning requests from Mr. Iverson for property located immediately to the north across California Avenue in June and October of 2000. The rezoning facilitated development of a similar residential planned development with a reduced street width and provided approximately 81 new single-family homes(Madison Estates Phases#1 and#2). C. The Administration's transmittal provides a detailed discussion of the proposed partial street closure request. Major points are summarized below. Please refer to the Administration's transmittal, Planning Commission minutes and Planning staff report for details. 1. This action would facilitate development of a residential scale streetscape, utilizing a reduced width public street and provide additional property for a proposed 27-unit residential planned development, Madison Estates Phase#3. Please see the attached maps for details. 2. The partial street closure area consists of a tapering parcel,that is 30 feet wide at the intersection of Utah Street and California Avenue,tapering to approximately 10 feet wide at the south end of the property. Total property area is 13,174 sq. ft.or 0.302 acres. 3. The Property Management Division recommended that the property be declared surplus and sold at fair market value.Consistent with City policy,the petitioner has agreed to purchase the property at fair market value. 4. The City's Transportation Division,Engineering Division,Fire Department,Police Department, Public Utilities Department and Property Management Division have reviewed the request. All departments involved in the review have recommended approval of the partial street closure request subject to City standards and specific requirements. City Departments will continue to be involved as development plans are finalized and approved. 5. The street closure and proposed development are consistent with applicable master plans. 6. The street closure will not have a negative effect on traffic circulation in the immediate area and the City's ability to deliver emergency services. D. The Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed partial street closure request. Please refer to the Planning Commission minutes for details.The Planning Commission's motion notes that"the purpose is to close up to 30 feet of the existing 80-foot right-of- way to provide for a more residential scale streetscape for a residential subdivision planned development and to declare the area of the partial street closure as surplus property to be sold to the Petitioner for inclusion in the subdivision lots." In addition,the Planning Commission approved a conditional use for a reduced width public street and a planned development for a residential subdivision. Please refer to the Planning Commission minutes for details and conditions for the planned development. E. Discussion at the Planning Commission meeting focused on: 1. Density of the proposed development,reduced lot size, building scale and design,useable open space, parking, lighting and fencing. 2. Traffic access, impacts and safety concerns relating to the immediate neighborhood and the potential for future impacts to the neighboring streets. 3. Neighborhood impacts and compatibility. 4. Safety and transient issues relating to the vacant property and the surplus canal. 5. Zero lot line development concepts and design options to provide additional useable open space, reduce the amount of hard surfaced areas and create more architecturally varied structures. F. The Administration's transmittal notes that the project was reviewed and approved the West Salt Lake Community Council on April 19, 2000 passing by a 26 to 5 margin. The Planning staff report includes a letter from the West Salt Lake Community Council dated October 25,2001. The letter notes: 1. On April 29, 2000,the Community Council reviewed Mr. Iverson's proposal for building homes on both sides of California Avenue. 2. Construction of three bedroom homes would increase the population and encourage developers to build retail stores for convenient community shopping. 3. The development on the north side of California Avenue has turned vacant fields into a beautiful residential area. 4. The Community Council has been anxiously awaiting City approval for Mr. Iverson's project on the south side of California Avenue for over a year and would like to see the project begin as soon as possible. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: ➢ In a related matter,the Planning Commission approved a conditional use request from Mr. Iverson for a reduced width public street and a planned development of a residential subdivision. Conditions of approval included connection of Utah Street with High Avenue. (Please refer to the Planning Commission minutes for details.) Mr. Iverson's proposed development that was reviewed by the community council and area residents included a cul-de-sac at the end of Utah Street with no connection to Utah Avenue. Council Member Van Turner met with Mr.Iverson and Planning staff on December 12,2001 to discuss the Planning Commission's action. Council Member Turner was concerned that the Community Council and property owners on Utah Street and High Avenue may not be aware of the changes recommended by the Planning Commission specifically the connection of Utah Street with High Avenue. Planning staff indicated that they would notify the Community Council Chair and residents on Utah Street and High Avenue regarding the Planning Commission action. In addition,Planning staff identified the option to schedule an additional discussion with the Planning Commission. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration in further detail steps taken to address these issues and to notify the Community Council and residents on Utah Street and High Avenue. ➢ In the past,Planning staff has indicated that the current street closure procedure does not require Community Council notification and review. Currently,the Planning Commission agenda is mailed to Community Council Chairs. A Planning Commission hearing notice is mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius of a proposed street closure. In this case,the Community Council review was required as part of the planned development conditional use process. During the Council's recent alley policy discussions, Council Members expressed support for including neighborhood and community council review and comment as part of the public process prior to the Administration formalizing their recommendation to the City Council. In addition, the Council has recently received some street closures requests in which the Administration has provided a recommendation from the City's Transportation Advisory Board. In other cases,the Transportation Advisory Board has not reviewed street closure requests. Council Members may wish to consider adjusting the Council's street closure policy to ensure a consistent policy direction. (Please refer to the next section for the Council's street closure policy.) MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. This section of Utah Street is not designated in the City's master plans as a potential component of the bicycle or trail system or as a mid-block walkway. 2. The 1995 West Salt Lake Community Master Plan notes that the Community offers a full range of residential uses including low, medium and high density. The plan contains statements, goals and policies for maintaining and preserving the existing residential land use patterns, improve the quality of existing housing and prevent further residential decline. The land use goals in the master plan include: a. Promote compatible land uses—whether residential,commercial or industrial—while maintaining the integrity of the Community. b. Preserve the existing predominantly low-density character and related land use patterns in the residential part of the West Salt Lake Community. c. Encourage properly regulated new growth in areas of anticipated development, especially in the West Salt Lake Industrial District. (The area west of Redwood Road.) d. Propose a future land use plan that will minimize and eventually eliminate land use conflicts in developed areas. 3. The Council's street closure policy includes the following: a. It is Council policy to close public streets and sell the underlying property. The Council does not close streets when that action would deny all access to other property. b. The general policy when closing a street is to obtain fair market value for the land,whether the abutting property is residential or commercial. c. There are instances where the City has negotiated with private parties to allow the parties to make public improvements in lieu of cash payment. The Council and the Administration consider these issues on a case-by-case basis. d. There should be sufficient public policy reasons that justify the sale and/or closure of a public street, and it should be sufficiently demonstrated by the petitioner that the sale and/or closure of the street would accomplish the stated public policy reasons. e. The City Council should determine whether the stated public policy reasons outweigh alternatives to the sale or closure of the street. 4. Related Council policy statements contained in the City's Transportation Master Plan are summarized below: a. Focus on ways to transport people, not on moving vehicles at the expense of neighborhoods. b. Support transportation decisions that increase the quality of life,not necessarily the quantity of development. c. Support the creation of linkages(provisions and incentives)to foster appropriate growth in currently defined growth centers. d. Support considering impacts on neighborhoods on an equal basis with impacts on transportation systems. e. Support giving all neighborhoods equal consideration in transportation decisions. 5. The City's recently adopted Community Housing Plan contains policies and implementation strategies that address: a. Creating a wide variety of housing types across the City. b. Encouraging innovation in housing design compatible with neighborhoods that are creative, aesthetically pleasing and provide attractive public spaces. c. Creating affordable and transitional housing. d. Supporting home ownership for a variety of income levels. 6. The Council's policy relating to maintaining a residential population base notes, "It is the policy of the City Council to use its zoning power to maintain the residential population base within the City and to encourage population expansion." 7. During the Council's recent discussions relating to growth, annexations and housing policy, Council Members have expressed s%lpport for developments that promote livable community concepts such as: a. Pedestrian and bicycle friendly environments b. Compact,transit and pedestrian oriented developments c. Neighborhood anchor areas or commercial and/or business uses that are necessary to the function of residential neighborhoods or are compatible with residential activity d. Local services that are conveniently available or can be provided and are accessible on foot. 8. The Council's adopted growth policy states: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: a. is aesthetically pleasing; b. contributes to a livable community environment; c. yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;and d. forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. 9. 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 documents contain statements that support policies in the Transportation Master Plan that focus on an integrated transportation system and urban design concepts that focus on people rather than the automobile. CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed street closure. Key meeting dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's transmittal letter and chronology for details. ➢ April 19, 2000—West Salt Lake Community Council meeting ➢ December 6,2001 —Planning Commission public hearing cc: Rocky Fluhart,Jay Magure,Roger Cutler,Lynn Pace,David Dobbins,Linda Cordorva,Tim Harpst,Stephen Goldsmith,Brent Wilde,Doug Wheelwright,Gregg Mikolash,Marge Harvey,Annette Daley File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division, Street Closures—Utah Street (1605West)between California Avenue(1330 South)and High Avenue(1450 South)—DeWayne Iverson Existing extent Of Utah St. �� tMid9..1K _ Cailfp mla Awe. Proposed Utah 'e, `-;-_ �� St.Alignment L° iol�.——— - C T� ,,- ' I '� . M.ea: _._w. _. •e.. .T. 1 9 F yg >r — .� WT,SLDT IS 1�— _ -1L I __L_-_1-__1-_-1__-1___ \ -\ ran? 3� r 1 1 �a.a ower I,.•i Lalzz s� ,8 i \ = 5..95 5T `-I • 61-2 556' p I 9..9 .,. at I ,r--\ kf Apr SFa A.may_ Lor,x — _ a Ili V yjii 1A. \it VP,3 1 1.17.51 ,/ I 0 _ .5, IS wary r �-� 3M9 Sr i�- - LOT i, % o ys 'pT9 .v .1 7222 5i L 0 1 p 1� A4m.Y g t_ I ki o M. r— ———�� o, —— A. II L ° o \ " % 4i.99 S II , %\1\� t II Wasatch Commons ;. Condominiums m __ II UT 9 GRAPHIC SCALR k i' t- II'. 4 II \ \ I II ii \,,.� r r\} �Te.9. ..�.:. 9..r:...,9" 1 � 1 I \ i\,\, \.`\\ ' I North \ \9 \` \\ L 1 L °T'3 ,\I\ ®E L `, tt i 4� -1- -- --------. — 1 ... i•• re e.• •-+cf �- �, . \ - rc 9. Mall t :� �\ i ,...-0 9; 'No Fie-dv. t� i 9 j r-. d 1� 1 \ \ it \ // = i' _, «s W t- .,=r.6 ,• = t/ I b - 1 1 \\ rwf 000- p :Ts„ ---g *- , 1 g i b 1: , I ou• \. OW* 3M' �...�1 I"�, t 12 si -1 �, I f, 1. 1 M • t_ �f im N "t/o.IW/f 9 • •-S� L/ II!17 ' 1 1 ' /v µ` .4% ,\ , �i -- /Nt�' �+ci 9 i'r S + 1u h 51 . 4 t01, it* ��'r �.�. s►/ ' i • _ / aN Z at / I t`S t ..,...—roT„..... .,, 71i1 11� s 1 "'�..yf' s"Z t ;E. I. aN�iJ i �'�\ ` , ••, �'`�"' --- I ` a -` `«t ill, �. :,.Q..b 7;N �}•�w1.111 • of - � '�k0 \ \ Z5Z '�A / Z w t- ee. z �yfGi ` iao- �b°lit k+` 7 1- 4 4-7 SP\ „:. \ \g x \ \ Iriau N.. , , boa t ,."Jr'? R. "" as 'cooly \\ \ k - at co ' i oo sow `"sb - s y,r !.�a \ 1\' \ r'a• S/O- ' l�Ju° f_? ars, Z /r,. ---r -1-- . g Otis. SW `.. M w� it I OZ I b•. L \ \\ \ �.-� 1 66 . t, o iya kg H9/N a \ I Pre 9 H » ax, ` 1 4 -\\ Y t 'E —J� '�a Y) Nand 1 +HHyI \. �,_ \ '' z l 6sio-/r OS 1 . : 3n� , boo- w a 1 a 8 �Ir �. T7• •I. \ \ A N. S WO- Or E£O• Lio./� 0 Bair�\ .-+ �\� \\ - mot:-T-9.a•- - 1 Cl ^ gee. \\\ \ �� C_ i sue_ oi0-��\ OC ` \4$LQl `\\ l \\ 1 \\ =r � ' $ >,� tom- 6/ '. �\ 9 \\\ .a - v'� L-12 I w 1 ' ten/ \ Y Y >k Stc i 44tUt1-9--1 IT- 46 g i 1 1-h : 9/ -, goo- I, . z 09.. e.o-L— * . IOZ 1 ►:` -------1 W 9ro_ �\ 0/ t Lro- WO- ��- ` t1% 1 91--- --- oaf r� I pro- •1‘ ' II O/ \ \ �l 4 f-- a � --- - - - _ a zra. i E/O•1 \ \ 1 OS/ .- 1 T� .1--r�_ - I. Ail, Y TT�� O.O- ,n`.�\ .) .,j. 1 fa! M i /g j 4 1 g l� 1 t$i� 1 ASA ugi 1 1 $ y * ,\•• \ ,'S 1 • Ei 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 a9 i 1 t $. •*a •a I - t .. r es as t - I - 1 - 1 - + >)r \£11 /ao . _ e \ J i tsw a�n` /b-O/-S/ SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: January 4, 2002 SUBJECT: Petition No. 400-01-16—Peter Carroon with Red Gate Properties Annexation request at 3027 South 1100 East(approximately) STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine, Land Use and Policy Analyst Document Type Budget-Related Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts Facts Ordinance The Administration's The proposal is The Administration has transmittal notes a net presented in compliance clearly stated the negative budget impact. with State Code. positive aspects of the Please see the Property is contiguous proposal. Administration's to the current City Annexation Impact boundary. Petition has Analysis for details. been signed by 100%of the property owners(one • Total Service Cost owner)representing is$845 per unit 100%of the assessed • Total Revenue is valuation listed on $669 per unit current County Tax • Impact fees are Assessment rolls. $890 per unit OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: Additional Options and Motions may be identified at the Council Work Session on January 8,2002 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance extending the corporate limits of Salt Lake City to include property located at 3027 South 1100 East and to zone the property Special Development Residential SR-1. 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt an ordinance extending the corporate limits of Salt Lake City to include property located at 3027 South 1100 East and to zone the property Special Development Residential SR-1. 3. ["I move that the Council"] Refer this item to an additional briefing session for further review. S 1 KEY ELEMENTS A. The Administration's transmittal, Planning Commission minutes and Planning staff report provide a detailed discussion of the annexation request. Major points are summarized below: 1. The property is adjacent to and north of the Brickyard Plaza(please refer to the map in Planning staff report for clarification). 2. The property is within the boundaries of the area identified in the City's Future Annexation Policy Declaration area and reaffirmed by formal Council action in 2000 and 2001. 3. This action would facilitate development of the property for residential use. 4. The property is currently vacant. Surrounding land uses include a mix of single-family and multi- family dwellings. 5. The Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use map identifies this area for medium density residential uses, 8 to 20 units per acre. The proposed development for the site will result in a density of approximately 9 units per acre. 6. The petitioner has received approval from Salt Lake County for a planned development consisting of three duplexes subject to obtaining water from Salt Lake City. 7. The petitioner has applied to the City for approval of a similar planned development. The petitioner's application will be processed with the Planning Commission after a final decision is made by the City Council regarding annexation. 8. Final site development,transportation and utility service requirements,and development plans including landscaping will be evaluated through the development review and building permit processes. B. The Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that the property be zoned Special Residential SR-1. The purpose of the Special Residential SR-1 zone is to maintain the unique character of older predominantly low-density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes and bulk characteristics. The Special Residential SR-1 zoning classification allows a maximum density of 8.7 units per acre for single-family dwellings and 10.9 units per acre for duplexes. C. Discussion at the Planning Commission meeting focused on: 1. The existing types of land uses and density in the surrounding area. 2. Zoning classifications with a density range that would be compatible with the existing character of the area. 3. Recommendations that, in the future,the Council consider: a. Comprehensive annexation in this area rather than"piece meal"or individual annexation requests. b. The Special Residential SR-1 zoning classification is used for future annexations in this area. D. The Administration's transmittal notes that Community Council review of annexation petitions is not required. The Sugar House Community Council Chair was notified of the petition. As of this date, no comments have been received from the Community Council. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: ➢ Council Members may wish to discuss the Council's intent relating to future annexation requests to ensure a consistent policy direction. 2 A. During the 2001 State Legislative General Session, the Legislature approved HB 155S1 -Annexation Amendments. The bill modified provisions of the Utah Municipal Code relating to municipal annexations. In part, the bill restricts annexations from taking place in first class counties from April 30, to November 15, 2001 with certain exceptions. The bill also requires that first class counties and cities within first class counties prepare a plan for annexations within the county and to submit the plan to the Legislative Management Committee at its first meeting after November 15, 2001. 1. The Council formally adopted a resolution on December 5, 2000 that reaffirmed the City's 1979 declaration of intent to annex the remaining portion of unincorporated Salt Lake County served by Salt Lake City's water system, excluding the newly incorporated City of Holladay. 2. The Salt Lake City Council has fulfilled the 2001 Legislature's mandate that cities in Salt Lake County prepare a master plan by November 15,2001,to show"how the remainder of unincorporated areas within Salt Lake County are to be included within municipalities through annexation or incorporation."The Salt Lake Council of Governments submitted a series of maps to the Legislative Management Committee on behalf of Salt Lake County and the cities within the County. 3. The City Council supports the concept of annexing areas outside the City's boundaries.Its reasons are listed in the attached document titled Salt Lake City Council and Annexation. B. In the past,the Administration has provided the following information relating to the City's annexation policies: 1. The City does not have a citywide annexation policy. 2. Annexation policies have been developed based primarily on geographic locations and existing land uses. 3. Annexation policies are identified in the applicable master plans prepared for affected planning communities(i.e. East Bench, Sugar House,Northwest Community,Jordan River/Airport area,City Creek, etc.). 4. Annexation policies in the Sugar House Master Plan are significantly different from policies identified in the East Bench Master Plan. The Sugar House area is part of the older, fully developed portion of the City. The East Bench area contains underdeveloped areas of the foothills that are limited in development potential due to slope restriction and the cost of providing municipal services. C. In July 2001, when the Council formally adopted a resolution accepting Mr.Carroon's annexation petition for further analysis and Planning Commission recommendation,the Administration's transmittal noted that in May of 1998 the City Council denied a similar annexation request in the same general area. The Council's motion to deny the resolution noted: 1. The Council is interested in annexing the area south of Sugar House, 2. The petition represents a piecemeal approach to annexation that contradicts existing policy in the Sugar House Master Plan, and 3. Providing City services to an isolated parcel is an unsound policy decision. D. In response to questions raised by Council Members during discussions relating to accepting Mr. Carroon's annexation petition,the City Attorney provided a legal perspective relating to individual annexation requests versus annexation of designated areas as a whole. Information from the City Attorney is summarized below. 1. Many years ago the City decided not to sell water to areas for development that was capable of being annexed into the City in order to alleviate inconsistent land development and to 3 provide efficient and equitable delivery of services. (Resolution 20 of 1982—Water Service provided outside the City limits) 2. State annexation laws were also amended to ban development within a half-mile perimeter of cities unless property owners tried and failed to be annexed. The law has subsequently been amended removing this requirement. 3. These actions served to prevent urban sprawl, substandard development and double-taxation issues. 4. The Utah Supreme Court has affirmed the City's power to use City water resources in this way. 5. Previous City Councils and Mayors have thought the policy appropriate. 6. It seems inconsistent with the City's long-range goals not to have the development occur inside the City boundaries when the property abuts the City boundary and would further the City's annexation policy. 7. The City needs to be consistent and uniform in the application of City water policy or the City will lose the ability to use this asset under Equal Protection principles. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The recently adopted Sugar House Community Master Plan Update provides the following information: 1. In 2000,the Salt Lake City Council adopted Resolution No. 34,which reaffirms the City's 1979 declaration of intent to annex the remaining portion of unincorporated Salt Lake County served by Salt Lake City's water system,excluding the newly incorporated City of Holladay.This would produce long-term benefits for County residents annexed into the City,through improved levels of water service and a net reduction in the cost of water service,while avoiding a significant increase in water rates paid by City residents. These areas, south of Sugar House,constitute a significant land area. If annexed,the newly annexed areas would be best served by creating new community planning areas. 2. Policy statements: a. Encourage the annexation of designated areas as a whole rather than in small pieces,to provide coordinated land use development policies and comprehensive municipal services. b. Establish new community planning districts for areas annexed into the City south of the existing Sugar House community planning boundary. 3. The Future Land Use map identifies this area for medium density residential uses, 8 to 20 units per acre. The proposed development for the site will result in a density of approximately 9 units per acre. B. The City's recently adopted Community Housing Plan contains policies and implementation strategies that address: 1. Creating a wide variety of housing types across the City. 2. Encouraging innovation in housing design compatible with neighborhoods that are creative, aesthetically pleasing and provide attractive public spaces. 3. Creating affordable and transitional housing. 4. Supporting home ownership for a variety of income levels. 5. Including public and neighborhood participation and interaction in the design process. C. The Council's adopted growth policy states: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 4 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. D. Council staff has attached a synopsis of City annexation policies prepared for the Council's Annexation subcommittee. The synopsis summarizes the following documents: 1. The City's 1979 Annexation Policy Declaration 2. City Resolution No. 34 of 2000-Reaffirmation of 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration,and Declaration of Intent to annex areas served by the City's water system in the unincorporated Salt Lake County 3. Resolution 20 of 1982- Water Service provided outside the City limits 4. Existing Community Master Plans Annexation Policies 5. The 1999 Salt Lake County Feasibility Scenarios Report 6. 1999 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Study 7. 2000 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Annexation Study E. State Code 10-2-403 regarding annexation requires that boundaries for annexation be drawn in the following manner: 1. To eliminate islands and peninsulas of territory that is not receiving municipal-type services; 2. To facilitate the consolidation of overlapping functions of local government; 3. To promote the efficient delivery of services;and 4. To encourage the equitable distribution of community resources and obligations. CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed annexation. Key meeting dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. • July 10, 2001 City Council action formally accepting the annexation petition and referred to the Administration and Planning Commission for further analysis and recommendation. • September 18, 2001 End of annexation protest period • September 20, 2001 Planning Commission hearing cc: Jay Magure, Rocky Fluhart, D.J. Baxter, Roger Cutler, LeRoy Hooton, David Dobbins, Lynn Pace, Max Peterson, Tim Harpst, Stephen Goldsmith, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright,Cheri Coffey, Michael Sears, Janne Nielsen, Barry Esham File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept., Planning Division, Annexation, Red Gate Properties/Peter Carroon S 5 Synopsis- 1979 Salt Lake City Master Ann xation Policy D claration • 1979 State Legislature House Bill No. 61 required municipalities anticipating annexation to adopt an annexation policy declaration • Master Annexation Policy Declaration o Citywide master annexation policy declaration and proposed future boundaries map o Study areas: • West Airport • North Redwood Road • Magna • Emigration Canyon • Brickyard Area • Parley's • East Millcreek • Holladay—Olympus • Holladay—Cottonwood • West Valley • o Individual study area sections include: • Geographical boundary description for each study area • Land use and socio-economic characteristics • Estimate of assessed property values • Comparison of costs of government services • Water, sewer, fire, and police • Planning and zoning • Refuse and garbage collection and disposal • Streets and highways Synopsis- City Resolution No. 34 of 2000 • Reaffirmation of 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration, and • Declaration of Intent to annex the areas served by the City's water system in the unincorporated Salt Lake County • City's Public Utilities Department since the 1920's has provided culinary water service to the eastern unincorporated portion of Salt Lake County • Service is provided to approximately 30,500 water accounts • Salt Lake County's tax base has been reduced through annexations and incorporations, including Taylorsville and Holladay, requiring an increase in County taxes • In 1979, Salt Lake City prepared a Master Annexation Policy Declaration that included the intent to annex the portion of Salt Lake County served by the City's water system • In 2000, the Salt Lake City Council commissioned an independent study that concluded: o Annexation would produce long-term benefits for County residents if annexed into the City through: • Improved levels of water service • A net reduction in the cost of water service 1 o Annexation would not significantly increase water rates currently paid by City residents • Annexation would provide Salt Lake City with benefits including: o Relieve of potential conflicts between jurisdictions relating to: • Service levels • Water rates • Watershed protection • Planning and zoning issues • Expressed the City's interest and willingness to: o Enter into discussions with Salt Lake County and State of Utah representatives, residents, property owners, and other elected representatives o Explore the feasibility, desirability and potential for annexation implementation Water Service provide outside the City limits • Resolution 20 of 1982 (adopted February 2, 1982) o Formalized policy for providing water service to development outside the City limits • Requires annexation in order to receive City water services or • Provide an agreement to annex when annexation becomes possible Annexation Policy—Existing Community Master Plans • Sugar House o Salt Lake City encourages the annexation of areas between its boundary and 3900 South Street as a whole rather than in small pieces, to provide coordinated land use development policies and comprehensive municipal services. • East Bench o Preserve the present unique beauty, environmental habitat, recreational use, and accessibility of the Wasatch foothills, and ensure city control over foothill development in the East Bench Community. o To maintain control over foothill development, the city should: • Amend its Annexation Policy Declaration to encompass the privately owned East Bench foothills as the means to having control over future development proposals. • Restrict urban development beyond the one-half-mile area, to encompass all of the privately owned foothill property. This could be accomplished through an interlocal agreement, under the State Interlocal Cooperation Act. • Seek an official agreement of resolution with the county to ensure that smaller residential developments will also be referred to the city for annexation and development approval. Annexation should even be required for a single-family home. The city should refuse to provide water or sewer services to accommodate development outside city boundaries. • Arcadia Heights, Benchmark, & H Rock Small Area Plan o It should continue to be the City's policy that municipal water and sewer service will not be provided to new developments unless they are located within the City limits. 2 • Jordan River—Airport Area Small Area Plan (short range) o Facilitate Salt Lake City's Annexation of County land area west and north to the Great Salt Lake. o Annex lands west of and north toward the Great Salt Lake from Salt Lake County, and zone appropriately according to land uses identified in the Plan Synopsis- 1999 Salt Lake County Feasibility Scenarios Report • Nesbitt Planning and Management, Inc. presented to the Salt Lake County Council of Governments on December 8, 1999 "A Reconnaissance of Potential Annexations and Incorporations Facing Salt Lake County, Salt Lake County Feasibility Scenarios". This study attempted to define the cumulative impact on revenues and service delivery across Salt Lake County. • The study considered 28 scenarios for 10 unincorporated communities. The study presents the information gathered in three main areas; Base Fiscal Parameters, Revenues and Costs, and Remainders Analysis. • For whatever reason, when the study projected the cumulative impacts upon the tax bas s and revenues of the County and the annexing Cities and discussed the challenges of potential overhead increases for the County with declining service delivery demand, it failed to address the impact to Salt Lake City. • It was for this reason that the Administration of Salt Lake City at the time of the study, asked City staff to review the study and using the same methodology present to the Administration the impact of the various annexation and incorporation scenarios that are outlined in the Council of Governments commissioned study. • The resulting study was titled "Wall to Wall Cities" Synopsis- 1999 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Study • Salt Lake City Budget and Policy staff prepared a "Wall to Wall Cities" study at the same time the City was supplying information for Council of Governments commissioned Feasibility Scenario or Wall-to-Wall Annexation Study. The City staff reviewed the history of annexation issues within the City and provided the following information in the Original Study section of the report. "Holladay, Salt Lake Commissioner Callaghan's efforts to have the State implement legislation to facilitate wall to wall cities], some of the cities surrounding the unincorporated area are beginning to propose extending their boundaries, potentially, into Salt Lake City's annexation declaration boundaries. In 1979, Salt Lake City created its' Master Annexation Policy Declaration which states that Salt Lake City would annex the area containing its water distribution system. The attached map highlights in yellow Salt Lake City's water distribution area. As you can s from the map, the proposed ann xation area for Salt Lake 3 City would xtend Salt Lake City's current southern boundary out to Creek Road and would go as far west as 1300 East. In 1982, the City Council passed a resolution reaffirming the City's Master Annexation Policy Declaration. The wall-to-wall city initiative will have a significant impact on Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City has several concerns regarding this initiative. One major concern revolves around Salt Lake City's water, and its'water distribution network." • The report goes on to state what the different components of the study are and what will be the impact of any annexation plans on the City. The staff chose 4 logical boundaries to divide the potential annexation areas. The only areas discussed in this plan are along the east bench of the Salt Lake Valley. The western potential annexation areas were not d alt with in this report. • City staff used Property Tax, Sales Tax, Sales Tax Distribution, and Franchise Tax, to figure Revenue in this area. Services that are contained in Enterprise Funds were not included into the calculation of revenue as it is expected that the services would pay for themselves. The staff then attempted to quantify costs in each of the four service areas as best possible. • The Administration presented to the City Council in 1999 the results of their study. At that time the Council thought it best to bring in an outside consultant to review the work of the staff and help guide them as they reviewed what course the City should take. City staff lent their expertise to the consultant and assisted in gathering and reviewing information as needed. The resulting consultant study presented essentially the same findings as that of the City staff. Synopsis-2000 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Annexation Study • The consulting firm of Rick Giardina &Associates, Inc. in association with BBC Research & Consulting submitted a final report to the Salt Lake City Council in June of 2000. The study incorporated the efforts and expertise of many City staff. The study kept the same annexation study areas as the City staff report. The consultant did not review those areas on the west side of the Salt Lake Valley. • 4 • The study review d all potential sources of revenue and xp nses. The study took into • account what would b needed within th diff rent areas to conform to curr nt service levels, both public safety and physical infrastructure. The consultant reviewed what capital needs each of the areas had and what the cost of each area would be if the City were to purchase existing County assets, purchase new assets, or rely on current equipment in the City to provide services. • The end result of the study indicated that even with the massive capital needs of the area the City would be economically ahead if Salt Lake City were to annex all or part of the area to City Creek Road. • As follow-up to this study the Council adopted a resolution in year 2000 that reaffirmed the City's intent to annex those communities served by the City's water and water distribution area. Additional Information • Other Cities such as Murray, Midvale, West Valley City and Holladay have completed consultant and in house studies that identify potential areas of annexation. Some encroach on the boundaries listed in the 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration. Of particular note is the annexation studies of Murray and Sandy which advocated annexation to the east of their present boundaries, and the incorporation of Holladay that incorporated a significant portion of the unincorporated area along the east bench of the Salt Lake Vall y. Of particular note is that the boundaries of Holladay City do not correspond with their water district boundaries. a 5 WI cc TEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH -.rs (� a� expo_v*w.r1C ROSS C. ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart,Management Services DATE: FROM: Stephen Goldsmith, Planning Director RE: Petition #400-01-16: A petition by Red Gate Properties, LLC, requesting annexation of approximately .66 acres of property located at 3027 South 1100 East. STAFF CONTACT: Cheri Coffey, Planning Division 535-6188 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance pertaining to the Red Gate Properties annexation, and zoning the property described in the annexation petition. DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: Net negative impact. See "Annexation Impact Analysis" in the supporting documentation section of this transmittal. DISCUSSION: This petition was received by the City Recorder on March 23, 2001. On July 10, 2001, the City Council formally accepted the petition and referred it to the Planning Commission for recommendations on zoning. On August 9, 2001, the Salt Lake City Recorder certified to the City Council that the petition satisfied the requirements for annexation as outlined in Section 10-2-403 of the Utah State Code. The site is currently vacant. However, Salt Lake County has approved a planned development for the site which includes three duplexes. One of the conditions of this approval was to obtain approval for water service from Salt Lake City. In Resolution 20 of 1982 (February 2, 1982), the City formalized its policy on providing water service to developments outside the City limits. This Resolution states, in part, that water will only be provided on the condition "that the requesting entity, when it is possible to annex, is officially annexed to the City, or where not immediately possible, agrees to annex when annexation potential exists under State law". If the property is annexed to Salt Lake City, the petitioner will request approval of the same development plan to Salt Lake City that has been approved by Salt Lake County. MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATION. The recently adopted Sugarhouse Master Plan 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8411 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7757 FAX:801-535-6174 :� RECYCLED PAPER Update designates the lots contiguous to the subject property as "medium density residential" (8 to 20 units per acre). The proposed development for the site will result in a density of approximately 9 units per acre and will therefore be consistent with the Master Plan recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION. At its meeting on September 20, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing prior to recommending that the subject property be zoned Special Development Pattern Residential District SR-1 if it is annexed to the City. However, in the course of discussion several members of the Commission expressed concern about the size and isolated nature of this annexation citing recommendations the Sugarhouse Master Plan Update which encourages annexation of areas adjacent to Sugar House as a whole rather than in small pieces, in order to provide coordinated land use development and comprehensive municipal services." COMMUNITY/NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL REVIEW. It is not required that annexation petitions be reviewed by Community Councils. However, he Chairperson of the Sugarhouse Community Council, Ray Pugsley, has been notified of the petition. As of this date, no comments have been received from the Community Council. RELEVANT ORDINANCE. Relevant ordinances include Section 10-2 Part 4 of the Utah Code which outlines the process for annexation and Chapter 21A.50 which outlines the process for amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Map. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chronology • Chronology of Events. Proposed Ordinance • An Ordinance extending the corporate limits of Salt Lake City to include property located at 3027 South 1100 East, and amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Map to designate and zone the area upon its annexation to the City. Notice of City Council Public Hearing Mailing Lists Planning Commission Hearing • Original Notice and Postmark. • Staff Report: September 20, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting. • Planning Commission Minutes - September 20, 2001. Support Documentation • Annexation Impact Analysis. Original Petition Chronology Petition#400-01-16 Red Gate Properties Annexation 3/23/2001 Receipt of original annexation petition. 7/10/2001 The City Council formally accepted the petition and referred it to the Planning Commission. 8/9/2001 The Salt Lake City Recorder certified to the City Council that the petition satisfied the requirements for annexation as outlined in Section 10-2-403 of the Utah State Code. 9/18/2001 End of protest period for annexation. 9/20/2001 Planning Commission public hearing. 10/23/2001 Receipt of Ordinance from City Attorney's Office. Proposed Ordinance Affects Sidwell No. 16-29-278-047 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. of 2001 (An ordinance extending the corporate limits of Salt Lake City to include property located at 3027 South 1100 East, and amending the Salt Lake City zoning map to designate and zone the area upon its annexation to the City.) AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF SALT LAKE CITY TO INCLUDE THE RED GATE PROPERTIES ANNEXATION, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY .659 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3027 SOUTH 1100 EAST,PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-16,AND AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING MAP TO DESIGNATE AND ZONE THE AREA AS SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN RESIDENTIAL (SR-1)UPON ITS ANNEXATION TO THE CITY. WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the City Recorder of Salt Lake City by Peter M. Caroon, managing member of Red Gate properties, LLC, as property owner, requesting that the property described in the petition be annexed into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS,the petition is signed by the owners of a majority of the real property and the owners of more than one-third in value of all real property within the territory to be annexed as shown by the last assessment rolls; and WHEREAS,the petitioner has caused an accurate plat to be made and certified by a licensed engineer, or a licensed surveyor,to be approved by the City prior to filing; and WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Council, on July 10,2001,passed Resolution No. 48 of 2001 accepting said petition for the purposes of review and hearings; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council, after examining said petition,having the petition reviewed by the administration staff, and having considered the circumstances thereof at a properly advertised and noticed public hearing, found said proposed annexation to be consistent and in keeping with the City's Master Annexation Policy Declaration projecting municipal expansion; and WHEREAS,no objection or protest to such annexation has been filed with the Salt Lake County Boundary Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, State of Utah: SECTION 1. Annexation. The Salt Lake City limits are hereby enlarged and extended so as to include the property of Petitioner Red Gate Properties,LLC, containing .659 acres of unincorporated territory in Salt Lake County, State of Utah. Said parcel is more particularly described as set forth on Exhibit"A"attached hereto. SECTION 2. Zoning. Be it further ordained and declared that the property described under Section 1 is hereby designated and zoned Special Development Pattern Residential (SR-1) and that the Salt Lake City zoning map is hereby correspondingly amended. SECTION 3. General Jurisdiction. Be it further ordained and declared that the said tract described above in Section 1 shall henceforth be within the Salt Lake City corporate limits and shall be zoned as provided in Section 2. All ordinances, jurisdictions, rules, and obligations of, or pertaining to, Salt Lake City are extended over, 2 and made applicable and pertinent to the above described tract of land; and the streets, blocks, alleys and ways of said tract, shall be controlled and governed by the ordinances, rules and regulations of Salt Lake City. SECTION 4. Filings and Notice. Upon the passage of this ordinance, the City Recorder of Salt Lake City is hereby directed to file with the Salt Lake County Recorder, after approval by the City Engineer, a copy of the annexation plat duly certified and acknowledged together with a certified copy of this ordinance. The City Recorder is further directed to provide notice to the Utah State Tax Commission under the provisions of Section 11-12-1 of the Utah Code, as amended. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon the date of its first publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, State of Utah, on this day of , 2001. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed. 3 • MAYOR ATI'EST: (SEAL) CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Bill No. of 2001. Published: Sa:1 \Ordina01\Ordinance Extending Corp.Limits-Oct 23,2001.doc 4 EXHIBIT 'A' SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION I, Richard P. Sorensen, registered Land Surveyor, Utah Ave. License No. 1798 as prescribed by the taws of the State of Utah, do hereby certify that the tract of land shown on this y map is bounded and described as fottows; din Ave L 'Beginning at a point on the Northerly tine of the Brickyard 'y Plaza Annex, said point being N89'49'E 32.00 feet from _the Southwest corner of Lot 5, Block 27, Ten Acre Ptat 'A', Big Field Survey, and running thence N89°49'E 154.96 feet) thence N0.04'25'E 262.10 feet to the South line of Elgin ITE Avenue; thence S89'49'W along said South tine • • Avenue 35.06 feet; thence SQ'04'25"W 125.00 fe-A0 lot , ;i S89°49'W 151.93 feet) thence S0'O3'26'W : - - - -` SG thence S21°17'15'E 87.89, feet to ,t point • - • -ginning.' i . (Contains 0.659 Acres) = "IC ARD P. �tAF - o. :"=1000 ft. 8 - _ y�� _ t''.: 1 i A►a ,. Date Richard P. Soren:'' '� Registered Land S 4?ofF l • Utah Certificate No. _ i Subscribed and sworn to before me this _ day of A.D. 2001 My Commission Expires' Notary Public Date' Residing in Salt Lakc County, Utah V Notice of City Council Public Hearing SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is currently reviewing Petition No. 400-01-16. The City Council is considering two actions related to this petition: 1. Annexation of .66 acres of land owned by Red Gate Properties, LLC, located at approximately 3027 South 1100 East; and, 2. Zoning the property "Special Development Pattern Residential" (SR-1) as recommended by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission upon its annexation to the City. The City Council has scheduled a public hearing to review this issue and will consider input from all interested parties prior to making a final decision. Details of the public hearing are as follows: Date: Time: Place: City and County Building,Room 315 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,Utah Please call Cheri Coffey at 535-6188 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,if you have any questions or comments regarding this matter. VITT— _1 Site tvenue IILLIII mBU mmmmmom p.RJoo Imo®Salt lake • MOD m Boundary L v �.I Na IIIII Salt Lake City complies with all ADA guidelines. Requests for Assistive listening devices and/or interpretive services should be made at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Mailing List Zhou, Luming Octagone Properties, Clark, Amy 1227 E Brickyard Rd #203 1277 Kubli Rd 1227 E Brickyard Rd #201 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Grant Pass OR 97527 Salt Lake City UT 84106 May, Richard & Marjorie Richards, Lynn Tonnesen, Bud 1217 E Brickyard Rd #106 1217 E Brickyard Rd #105 1217 E Brickyard Rd #104 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Stark, Kristin Emmel, William & Beverly Debirk, Enid 1217 E Brickyard Rd #103 1217 E Brickyard Rd #102 1217 E Brickyard Rd #101 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Lee, Judy Hepple, Benjamin Straten, Torbert & Katherine 1159E Elgin Ave 3501 W 7300 S 1153E Elgin Ave Salt Lake City UT 84106 West Jordan UT 84084 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Monty, Mary Pepper, Rosella _ Aposhian, James & Louise 1139E Elgin Ave 1125E Elgin Ave 1117E Elgin Ave Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 of shian, George Meyer, Roger & Shauna _ Mackey, Martha 8 S Viscounti Dr POB 71573 2985 S 1100 E Sandy UT 84093 Salt Lake City UT 84171 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Brickyard Condo Ph 1&2, Erskine, Robert & Sandra Gogo, Steve &Annastasia 2340 E Fisher Ln POB 521042 1076 E Elgin Ave Salt Lake City UT 84109 Salt Lake City UT 84152 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Hirai, Stanford & Tamara Maughan, Timothy & Camille Brimley, Kathleen 1070E Elgin Ave 2998 S 1100E 2994 S 1100E Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Hart, Scott & Tammy Beck, Paul Gee, Doris & Jordy 1075 E Elgin Ave 1069 E Elgin Ave 1078 E Austin Ave Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Ivory, Fay Flores, Ricardo & Ramiro Blackham, Michael & Melissa *It 2 E Austin Ave 1081 E Austin Ave 1077 E Austin Ave Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 ea Gccf3e.. t-o r—hes /re-i- Cki,-`s-r=enseh. flay P�✓45��y Salt take City Courc► -T6 hi s>✓ 5 i s. S M� ?ooM�c 41)4A2 H4o5 ' CorvivrYrrf- `f 2 ?/ r/�v�r! A - 3rtz�Ef 51-C u 7- Sy{off Sic �,t I g�/(i gAL1 LActt Lf1 VI' bit /O6 Oswald, Braeden &April Guimaraes, Edison Dowland, Paul • 112 E Elgin Ave 4620 S Westview Dr 1126 E E ' ve . Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84124 Sal e City UT 84106 Chapman, Scott & Judy Pearce, Anne Dowland, Paul a 3336 E Oak Hollow Circle 3025 S 1100 E 1122 E ve Sandy UT 84093 Salt Lake City UT 84106 S e City UT 84106 Dowland, Paul & Tina Marshall, Lenard & Irene First Security Bank, 1124E Elgin Ave 1385E 2100 S POB 30007 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Salt Lake City UT 84130 Prince, Deborah Boyle, Robert Jacobson, Douglas & Mae 1385 E 2100 S 1221 E Brickyard Rd #603 1231 E Brickyard Rd #506 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Davis, Marjie & Paul Haywood et al, Robyn McShane, Heather • 1231 E Brickyard Rd #505 1231 E Brickyard Rd #504 1231 E Brickyard Rd #503 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Potter, Nedra Doi et al, Mary Hall, Steven & Donna 1231 E Brickyard Rd#502 1231 E Brickyard Rd #501 1241 E Brickyard Rd #404 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 West One Trust Company, Francom, Fern Green , Roger POB 7928 362 Glen Cir 1241 E Brickyard Rd #403 Boise ID 83707 Kaysville UT 84037 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Michelsen, Dorothy Payne, Robert Dow, Joseph &Willard & 1237 E Brickyard Rd #306 1237 E Brickyard Rd #305 Aileen Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 1237 E Brickyard Rd #304 Salt Lake City UT 84106 McGregor, Douglas & Kristin Waddell, Dix& Mary . Swenson, Vernie & Shirley 2684 Lincoln Ln 1237 E Brickyard Rd #302 1237 E Brickyard Rd #301 Salt Lake City UT 84124 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Meredith, Robert Tate, Vicki Hovik, Christopher & Natalie 124 S 600 E #100 1227 E Brickyard Rd #205 1227 E Brickyard Rd #204 Salt Lake City UT 84102 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Brent Wilde S.L.C. Planning Division 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 0 Planning Commission Proceedings TEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH e'`V` E — mil ��,i��.i�i r+etlaLi��r►d ROSS C.ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B.WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Salt Lake City has received Petition #400-01-16 from Red Gate Properties, LLC, relating to annexation of approximately .66 acres of property located at 3027 South 1100 East. The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission make a recommendation for an appropriate zoning classification for this property if it is annexed into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City. The Planning Commission has scheduled a public hearing to consider this issue and will consider input from all interested parties prior to making its recommendation. Details of the Planning Commission hearing are as follows: Date: September 20,2001 Time: 6:05 p.m. Place: Room 126,City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,Utah Please call Craig Hinckley at 535-6409 if you have any questions regarding this matter. 1►16 ��L n ) 1 III � l 1.` venue 1 I I_I i = F —• mmmoo ®mnocuoo wm salt Lake w, F Bo, 1\ \r II \ E Salt Lake City complies with all ADA guidelines. Requests for Assistive listening devices and/or interpretive services should be made at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE: B01.-535-7757 FAX:801-535-6174 nRECYCLED PAPER • • ? F t}i�iiiF i } s i��i�i [}}Fi"! NOTICE OF MEETING . • • Salt Lake City Planning Division A ` 451 South State Street .� ' to POSTAGE.'*R Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 -c H METER 715665 * 41" GILA lc /1-/ayLgir SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Annexation Petition #400-01-16 September 20, 2001 REQUEST Salt Lake City has received Petition #400-01-16, relating to annexation of approximately .66 acres of property located at 3027 South 1100 East, from Red Gate Properties, LLC. The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission recommend an appropriate zoning classification for this property if it is annexed into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City. Staff has evaluated the neighborhood in which the site is located and recommends that, if the property is annexed,it be zoned RMF-30. T Site 1 _ , T T I 4_4n venue - L _ doom om®m — ioomaotm o®D10 oonomp000 mmmmm oow000o ®®m MO Mm n®Salt Lake Boundary lkN�`�a II WEE s r COMMUNITY/NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL(S) REVIEW: It is not required that annexation petitions be reviewed by Community Councils. The Chairperson of the Sugarhouse Community Council, Ray Pugsley, has been notified of the petition. As of this date, no comments have been received from the Community Council. Staff Report 1 September 20,2001 Petition#400-01-16 BACKGROUND Affected Parcel Number(s): 16-29-278-047 Lot Size/Lot Area: .66 acres Existing Land Use: The site is currently vacant. The property owner has submitted a planned development proposal for the site showing three duplexes. The planned development petition will be processed after a final decision is made by the City Council on annexation. Master Plan Land Use The current Sugar House Community Master Plan (1985) Designation: recommends that low density residential zoning be applied to the area in which this proposed annexation is located. The Future Land Use Map contained in the Draft Sugarhouse Master Plan Update designates the lots contiguous to the subject property as "medium density residential". FINDINGS OF FACT 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: The 1985 Sugar House Master Plan recommends Iow density residential uses (up to 10 dwelling units per acre) in the area where the proposed annexation is located. The Draft Sugarhouse Master Plan Update designates the lots contiguous to the subject property as "medium density residential" (8 to 20 units per acre). The proposed development for the site will result in a density of approximately 9 units per acre and will therefore be consistent with both the current and proposed Master Plan recommendations. B. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. C. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The neighborhood surrounding the subject property includes a mix single-family and multi-family dwellings. The current Salt Lake County zoning for the area is R-2-6.5 which is very similar to the suggested RMF-30 zone in Salt Lake City. Findings: The proposed zoning is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Staff Report 2 September 20,2001 Petition#400-01-16 D. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The proposed development on the subject property is very similar to other projects in the surrounding neighborhood that have been constructed in recent years. Findings: The proposed zoning will not adversely affect adjacent properties. E. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: There are no overlay zones in this part of Salt Lake City. Findings: The standard is not applicable to this petition. F. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies,and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: The proposed development will constitute an infill development in this 40 established neighborhood. All public facilities and services are in place. Compliance with applicable development standards relating public utilities and other services will be evaluated in detail if and when a planned development application is processed by Salt Lake City. Findings: Public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection, are adequate. RECOMMENDATION (BASED ON FINDINGS). It is recommended that the City Council zone the Red Gate property RMF-30 if it is annexed to the City. Craig A. Hinckley Principal Planner Attachment: Resolution of the City Council accepting this Annexation Petition Staff Report 3 September 20,2001 Petition#400-01-16 SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO. OF 2001 (Receiving Red Gate Properties Annexation Petition for Purposes of City Council Review) A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AN ANNEXATION PETITION FOR APPROXIMATELY .66 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3027 SOUTH 1100 EAST, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-16, FOR PURPOSES OF CITY COUNCIL REVIEW. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has received petition #400-01-16 (the "Petition") by Red Gate Properties LLC do Peter M. Coroon, Managing Member (the "Petitioner"), requesting the annexation of approximately .66 acres of unincorporated territory in Salt Lake County, located at approximately 3027 South 1100 East, which would extend the existing corporate limits of Salt Lake - City, and said Petition is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the Petition is signed by a majority of the owners of the real property and the owners of more than one-third in value of all real property within the territory to be annexed as shown by the last assessment rolls of Salt Lake County; and WHEREAS, Petitioner has submitted to the City a plat for the territory proposed for the annexation; and WHEREAS, the territory described in the Petition lies contiguous to the corporate limits of Salt Lake City and within an area projected for Salt Lake's municipal expansion, and otherwise initially appears to satisfy the standards and criteria applicable to annexations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, STATE OF UTAH: 1. Petition Received for Study. The City Council hereby receives the Petition for the purposes of considering said annexation for the expansion of the City municipal limits. 2. Review by Planning Commission. This Petition shall be forwarded to the Salt Lake Planning Commission for review and analysis, taking into consideration Salt Lake City Council growth policies, applicable City master plans, the zoning of comparable areas, the requirements-of the City's existing and proposed site development ordinance, and any additional requirements of the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department and the City Transportation Division. After its review, the Planning Commission shall recommend to the City Council an appropriate zoning classification for the property upon its annexation to the City. 3. No Vested Rights. Nothing in this Resolution or in any other act, omission, or representation of the City shall be construed to vest Petitioner with rights to compel annexation of the said property, to bind the City Council to finally approve the Petitioner's annexation, to vest the Petitioner with rights to develop under particular zoning, subdivision, or development ordinances, or to require Salt Lake City to provide any municipal services or to exercise jurisdiction over the area, until such time as decisions to annex and extend the corporate limits have been made and all annexation formalities and documentation have been completed, including the preparation of the final annexation plat according to the 2 City Engineer's specification, appropriate ordinances, annexation agreements, and documentation verifying the sufficiency of the Petition. Nothing in this Resolution shall imply any approval of, or be deemed to approve, any development plans or projections contained in the Petition. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Salt Lake City Council this day of , 2001. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: Chief Deputy City Recorder By G:\RESOLUTRAnnexation petition 3027 South 1100 East-May 3,2001.doc 3 • "'� ib1II!V !i =1111111111111111111111 E _IIIII IiiM M111110 I ii i =11111111111111111�1111 =1IIII 11 I I \ � I1I! � MilWii �1�� 11 ` I I - - - �,°i �� t ake it7Z I;1•i = == 11111 - _ E =IIIII1a �\Lmii Tl � \ _!IIIIIiIllIII �� II i ' I I i I ,, A'en - =, -, IIII 1- 1 1 ' M I \ . , Iniii 2-7-p iIETESIDg r,:::®m Mr' ---4 I --\ca—WV 1 jl/T` ®®m1 I ®mmm 1tt �o --ca. m®m Gunn Avenue ® _ / villa 4 _ 11 �' .111 ± _i_ If . :to Tn.. � �� •oa A I( �� :,� An" III L____ .....r. .-c__::1 7 Iftillill 0 Ii i T , * Brtck Yard Plaza , II• -„t„' 00 I \ T _) 000 r 000 Ii J 000 — �� I I p" T _ 3300 South i - 3 iIIlI!iii Red Gate Properties Annexation 3027 South 1100 East • N W -7- ',, E S 3. Meet all applicable departmental requirements. Ms. McDonald seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows, Ms. McDonald, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Funk, Mr. Muir, Ms. Arnold, and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye". Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. PETITION 410-552 - REOPEN Ms. Funk asked to have Petition 410-552 reopened so she could restate the motion. She stated the proposed shelter is not to exceed the height of the existing mechanical equipment room. �� PUBLIC HEARING— Petition No. 400-01-16, by Red Gate Properties, LLC, requesting annexation of approximately .66 acres of property located at 3027 South 1100 East. The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission make a recommendation for an appropriate zoning classification,for this property if it is annexed into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City. Mr. Hinckley presented the staff report. The site is currently vacant. The planned development petition will be processed after a final decision is made by the City Council on annexation. The current Sugar House Community Master Plan (1985) recommends that low-density residential zoning be applied to the area in which this proposed annexation is located. The Future Land Use Map contained in the Draft Sugar House Master Plan Update designates the lots contiguous to the subject property as `medium density residential". Ms. McDonald asked what zoning district was on the City side of this property. Mr. Wilde stated the zoning district on the City side of the property is R-1-5000 or R-1-7000. Mr. Hinckley explained the zoning in the area using a map. Staff is suggesting the property be zoned RMF-30. Ms. Barrows suggested it would be better to zone this property the same at the adjoining City property rather than the adjoining County property. Mr. Hinckley stated he based his recommendation on the proposed Sugar House Master Plan. The neighborhood is evolving into a medium density residential neighborhood. The RMF-30 is consistent with this zoning. He feels the R-1- 5000 or the R-1-7000 would be inconsistent with the Master Plan recommendation. Ms. Barrows asked how many units could be built on an acre in a R-1-5000 or R- 1-7000 zone. Planning Commission Meeting 6 September 20,2001 Mr. Hinckley stated this property could have 6 units built if it were zoned R-1- 5000 or R-1-7000. Mr. Daniels asked if the RMF-30 zoning would maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. Mr. Wilde stated it would match the County zoning on the south side of the property. Mr. Hinckley stated there is annexation pending for more annexation in the neighborhood. He explained the area of the pending annexation using a map. An evaluation of the zoning in the proposed annexation shows this property would complement it if zoned RMF-30. Ms. Arnold stated this property does not need to be annexed in order to have the use of the City water supply. Mr. Hinckley stated that if the City Council denied this annexation, the property owner could get water from the County. He explained the Planning Commission is only to make a zoning recommendation to the City Council in the event that they approve the annexation of this property. Ms. Barrows asked if the petitioner has submitted a development proposal to the ' County, and if so, how many units have been proposed. Mr. Hinckley stated the County has approved a development proposal of three duplexes. Mr. Muir asked if staff recommended the RMF-30 zone because of the adjoining County properties or if the recommendation was made because it would be consistent with the Sugar House Master Plan. Mr. Hinckley stated that staff recommended the RMF-30 zone because it would be consistent with the Sugar House Master Plan. Mr. Daniels invited the petitioner to speak to the Planning Commission. Peter Corroon, petitioner, stated the property is an infill site in the Sugar House/ Millcreek area. Plans were originally submitted to the County. They found out they would not be able to get water unless the property was annexed into the City, as based on an ordinance passed in 1985. Mr. Daniels opened the public hearing. There was no public input. Planning Commission Meeting 7 September 20,2001 Ms. McDonald stated the RMF-30 zone is consistent with the Sugar House Master Plan that the Planning Commission approved last month. She is in favor of this petition. Ms. Funk believes the surrounding housing is not compatible with RMF-30. She feels the RMF-30 zone allows too high a density for this area. She feels the Planning Commission made a mistake allowing the medium-density in this area in the Sugar House Master Plan. Ms. Barrows would like a lower density for this property. Ms. Funk asked what was the maximum amount of units allowed to built on this property if it were zoned RMF-30. Mr. Wilde stated the maximum amount of units allowed on this property would be 9. The petitioner is proposing to build 6 units. Mr. Nelson stated there are a lot of duplexes in the area. He felt this proposal would be appropriate for the area. Ms. Funk would prefer an R-2 zone with the same density. Mr. Wilde stated the R-2 zone allows for spacing restrictions of duplexes. The R- • 2 zone would not allow what the petitioner is proposing. Ms. Funk asked what density was approved for this area in the Sugar House Master Plan. Mr. Hinckley stated the Sugar House Master Plan approves medium density housing in this area. Mr. Wilde stated the SR-1 zone is not in this area, but it does accomplish the same purpose. The SR-1 zone is intended for use in the older neighborhoods with narrow side yards. The SR-1 zone has not been used in the infill areas of the City. Mr. Daniels asked if the SR-1 zone is congruent with the Sugar House Master Plan. Mr. Wilde stated the SR-1 is within the density range and would meet the minimum area requirement. Ms. McDonald was concerned about having only one property in the neighborhood zoned SR-1. Planning Commission Meeting 8 September 20,2001 Mr.Hinckley suggested that when the rest of the street is annexed into the City,it could be zoned SR-1 also. Ms.Barrows stated that zoning this property,as SR-1 would open the path to zone the rest of the street SR-1 when it is annexed into the City. Mr.Wilde explained that the SR-1 zone allows a maximum of two units per structure,which would alleviate the possibility of large apartment complexes being built in the neighborhood. Motion for Case#400-01-16: Ms. Funk made a motion based on the findings of fact for Petition No.400-01-16 to recommend to the City County,that the Red Gate property located at 3027 South 1100 East be zoned SR-1,if the property is annexed to the City. Ms.Barrows seconded the motion. Ms.Barrows,Ms.McDonald,Mr. Chambless,Ms.Funk,Ms.Arnold,and Mr.Nelson voted"Aye". Mr.Prescott opposed the motion. Mr.Daniels,as Chairperson,did not vote. The motion carried. Ms. McDonald asked that the Planning Commission recommend that the City 411 Council do a comprehensive annexation proposal. Mr. Daniels felt the message would be appropriate if the reason for recommending this property as SR-1 zone were included. Ms.Funk suggested that the Planning Commission Chair write a letter to the City Council recommending a comprehensive annexation instead of a'piece meal' annexation. Mr.Wilde stated that Ms. Funk's suggestion would be the most effective. Mr.Nelson asked if a motion needed to be made to have the Chair write the letter to the City Council. Mr.Daniels felt a motion was necessary. Ms.McDonald felt forwarding the minutes to the City Council with this recommendation included was all that was necessary. PUBLIC HEARING—Petition No.41-544,by Groupwest Properties Corporation for a planned development approval to construct a five-unit condominium project (including the incorporation of an existing house)at 1027 E.South Temple in an RMF-35 zone in the South Temple Historic District. Planning Commission Meeting 9 September 20,2001 Support Documentation Annexation Impact Analysis Petition#400-01-16 (October 30, 2001) 1. To what extent are utilities available for this location? Water, sewer, natural gas, and electric transmission lines exist in the rights-of-way for Elgin Avenue and 1100 East, both of which are adjacent to the subject property. 2. Will this development pay all costs of extending water and sewer utilities? Yes, it will. 3. Are there police and fire-related issues relating to extending development to this area? No, the subject property is an infill lot in an otherwise developed, residential, neighborhood where police and fire service is currently being provided. 4. Are there issues relating to the delivery of other City services (i.e. snow removal, trash removal)? We don't believe so. Salt Lake County is currently providing these services. If the property is annexed, the City will take over this responsibility. 5. Are there issues relating to the school district (i.e. school bus access)? No. Children in the neighborhoods west of this site currently attend Salt Lake City public schools. If bus service is necessary, Elgin Avenue and 1100 East are improved public streets that are adequate for bus access. 6. Is this proposal in keeping with the Master Plan? Yes, the Sugarhouse Master Plan recommends medium density residential uses in this area. The petitioner's proposed development plan is consistent with this recommendation and with the Planning Commission's recommend zoning of SR-1. 7. How many lots will be developed? If the property is annexed, the petitioner will make application for approval of a planned development containing six residential units. 8. Will the development meet the City's existing and proposed slope ordinance? 1 The slope ordinance does not apply to this neighborhood. The site is essentially flat. 9. Will any special exceptions be necessary in order to allow for development on the property (i.e.planned development)? A formal development application for the subject property has not been submitted to Salt Lake City. However, the petitioners has provided a conceptual development plan for a planned development consisting of six lots. 10. What is the net fiscal impact to the City if this property were to be annexed? Revenue and service costs for each residential unit are outlined below. For the purpose of this analysis, the average assessed value of 11 developed lots adjacent to the subject property has been used ($157,420.00). The property tax calculation is based on the City's general fund share of the property tax based on 2000 tax rates. Other calculations are based on research by the City's Division of Policy and Budget completed in October of 1998 to determine revenues generated, and costs incurred, for an average residence in Salt Lake City. These costs have been adjusted for inflation. Only general fund services were evaluated. Fees for water, sewer, and trash collection cover the cost of providing them and the school district and library receive a separate portion of the property tax revenue. Annual Revenue Annual Service Costs Property Tax $357.67 Police Services $288.00 (includes judgment levy) Franchise Taxes $112.00 City Overhead $239.00 (sewer&water not included) Sales Tax $200.00 Fire Services $151.00 Other Residential Services $ 87.00 (youth&family programs, crossing guards,housing& neighborhood development) Park Maintenance $ 69.00 Street Maintenance $ 0.00 (no new streets are proposed in conjunction with this annexation) Animal Services $ 11.00 Total $669.67 Total $845.00 11. If it yields a net negative fiscal impact, is there an overriding public purpose being served? No, there is no overriding public purpose being served. 2 12. Does this action forestall negative impacts associated with inactivity? No. If the property is not annexed the petitioner will develop the project under Salt Lake County's development regulations. 13. Is it likely that the development will be aesthetically pleasing? We don't know since complete plans have not been evaluated. However, if projected construction cost is any indication of quality, the petitioner has indicated that he plans on spending approximately $100.00 per square foot for construction of six residential units. Also, f the property is annexed, the project will be evaluated by the Planning Commission as a planned development and will have the discretion to either approve or reject it based, among other things, on it's design. 14. Does (will) the development contribute to a livable community environment? The proposed development will be consistent with the character of existing development in the area, help "complete" the neighborhood, help maintain and improve property values, and reinforce the livable community environment. o 3 Original Petition PETITION NO. / -01- PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required 3 �4 X. Petition delivered to Planning '44 Petition assigned to: 2 4 i f /ti/c(efec 94 7(ge Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date /ea Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover by; /le Chronology G fd Property Description (marked with a post it note) rig! Affected Sidwell Numbers Included /°40 49111Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils ,d(r Mailing Postmark Date Verification 1/40 Planning Commission Minutes • ,,00 9/ G•1• Planning Staff Report 1d�0 /61 Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. /a�23 ZiAe,. Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office /P� /"If' Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. /2✓a� Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office • A, :a" :?a' ,,,, FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - S f[` M.; > I,,' ?y \\:1 ://'/-`7% Petition No. lee) d` / , —� 7.-' A n n e x a t o n Receipt No. Amount$ ;mac (Ifi Cdi(ii� Date Received)/;/z41/ To Incorporated Salt Lake City Address or Area 'j 7 go L -( (� a �T Primary Petitioner FQ CQ �c & ri reril 7 j LL C- Phone C °t 3-30 � �•c Address of Primary Petitioner 7E f S t_rE Sc(I t(--4 � CE l�/C' ) E-mail address of PrimaryPetitioner ' c r 'och o �' �`'�� t� � C-�� Cell/ Fax�Bct�;�0 1-�8l`f �y�i�gsi-�� - Second Petitioner Phone 7, Address of Secondary Petitioner E-mail address of Secondary Petitioner Cell / Fax Z.1 Please answer the following questions. Use backside of application or additional sheets, if necessary Is the subject area continuous to the current boundaries of Salt Lake City? Yes)4 No o What is the current use of the land? —6 o t, c Ltr-red1-{ C'Co V1 t_ (cth 4" What services are currently provided by another municipality, county or special district? � Please identify any legal or factual barriers that would negatively effect the probability of annexation of the . subject property? iv 0 h se, r;:} Please include with the application: - • -(s) 1. Completed"Petition for Annexation into the Corporate Limits of Salt Lake City"attached to this application. -: 2. A complete legal description and total acreage of the area proposed for annexation prepared by a licensed -"' land surveyor. �fh Y 3.•A copy of the Annexation Plat. The plat shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor. 4. A current property plat(Sidwell map). :;--,,S,76, 5. The names and addresses of all property owners within three hundred (300)feet of the subject parcel[s]- z exclusive of streets and alleys. The name, address and parcel number of each property owner must be typed or clearly printed on gummed mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community w Council Chair. First class postage for each address is due at time of application. "•= 6.If a development is proposed, please attach a site plan of the proposed development. ...: If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition, please contact a member of :"�,,- .;:.-: the Salt Lake City Planning staff(535-7757) prior to submitting the petition. rim .;- " ' Sidwell maps'1.-: ,,. , property plats,and property File the complete application at: • ` owner's names are available at: Salt Lake City Planning f '4Salt Lake County Recorder 451 South State Street, Room 406 ` 2001 South State Street, Room N1600 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1051 Telephone: (801) 535-7757 Telephone: (801)468-3391 Signature of Applica rvic_4\,?,7,,, get41„beir--- or authorized agent • J Title of agent Petition for Annexation into the Corporate Limits of Salt Lake City I, the undersigned petitioner(s) for annexation to and into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City, pursuant to UCA 10-2, Part 4, hereby certify by the signature(s) below that I am the owner(s) of real property shown on the attached annexation plat, which is located within territory which is contiguous to the corporate boundaries of Salt Lake City. Fur- thermore, by the signature(s) below, I indicate my desire to have the real property I own located within said territory, annexed to and into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City and therefore do hereby submit this petition for annexation with the accompanying plat and legal description to Salt Lake City by the filing of same with the Salt Lake City Recorder. Dated this 27,`4(-day of 1/140-0 , 2Q0 Sidwell/Tax Parcel No. I _ 2 9 2 7 ol-1 7 _00 C C) Printed Name of P ' r P C-c te_ �r c '-e%-S, Signature • �z V��, (- Pc% Title 1.,z1 /11 f-e�` Sidwell/Tax Parcel No. Printed Name of Petitioner Signature Title Sidwell/Tax Parcel No. Printed Name of Petitioner Signature Title Sidwell/Tax Parcel No. Printed Name of Petitioner Signature Title Sidwell/Tax Parcel No. • Printed Name of Petitioner Signature Title RECEIVED MAR 2 3 2001 CITY RECORDER /2E o /41rc /3/aoP R 7Fs ANNEXATION CHECKLIST kPlanning Division preliminary review of the annexation petition for completeness. A complete petition shall include: 1. Annexation Application; 2. Annexation Petition signed by the property owner(s); 3. designation of petitioner(s) as the "contact sponsor(s)"; 4. an Annexation Plat; and 5. mailing labels for all property owners within the proposed annexation area ygand within 300 feet of the boundaries of the proposed annexation area. Planning Division verification that the petition meets the requirements for annexation as outlined in subsections 10-2-403(2), (3), and (4), UCA. The following items will be verified: 1. the plat: a. has been prepared and certified by a licensed land surveyor; b. is accurately drawn to scale; c. includes an accurate boundary description; d. includes signature blocks for the City Engineer / City Surveyor, City Attorney (Approval as to Form), City Recorder, and the Salt Lake County Recorder. 2. the property proposed for annexation lies contiguous to an existing City boundary; 3. the Annexation Petition includes the signatures of a majority of all owners; 4. • the owners signing the petition represent property having at least 1/3 of the assessed valuation of all property included within the boundaries of the proposed annexation, according to Salt Lake County's last assessment roles. • • Petitioner delivers annexation petition to the City Recorder. Information delivered to the Recorder shall include: 1. a transmittal memo indicating, among other things, that the petition meets the requirements of subsections 10-2-403(2), (3), and (4), UCA; 2. a copy of the Annexation Petition; and 3. a copy of the Annexation Plat. . gThe City Recorder will: • 1. date and Stamp the Annexation Petition as being received; 2. verify that the petitioner has delivered or mailed a copy of the annexation petition to the Salt Lake County Clerk; 3. notify the Salt Lake County Clerk in writing that the petition has been received; September 23, 1999 1 City Recorder delivers petition to LZeLle _k who will assign a petition number, enter the petition on the City Council "Pipeline", and return it to the Planning Division for further processing. Planning Division request to City Attorney for preparation of a Resolution for the City Council accepting the annexation petition. xi, The Planning Division prepares a packet for transmittal to the City Council which shall include: I. a copy of the annexation petition; 2. a copy of the annexation plat; 3. a vicinity map showing the location of the proposed annexation; 4. the resolution accepting the annexation petition. [I Planning Division delivers transmittal packets to CED administration. CED administration reviews and then delivers packets to City administration. XCity Administration reviews and delivers packets to City Recorder and City Council office. The City Council office will place the annexation petition as an item of business on the Ni City Council's agenda City Council action: - 1. If the City Council rejects the petition, the City Recorder shall, within 5 days, mail notice of the rejection to the contact sponsor and the Salt Lake doCounty Clerk; If the City Council accepts the annexation petition, proceed with the following steps. Within 30 days after acceptance of the annexation petition by the City Council, the City Recorder shall certify that the petition meets the requirements of subsections 10-2-403(2), (3), and (4), UCA, and deliver the certification to the City Council Office. The City Council Office shall stamp the certification with the date received and return it to the City Recorder. Within 10 days after receipt of the certification by the City Council, the City Recorder shall publish. the first of three notices (published in three consecutive weeks) in a newspaper of general circulation. The notice shall contain the information outlined in subsection 10-2-406(2), UCA. Within 20 days after receipt of the certification by the City Council,'the City Recorder shall mail the notice to: September 23, 1999 2 I. the legislative body of the County; 2. the board of any special district whose boundaries include all or part of the area proposed for annexation; 3. the legislative body of each City within t mile of the area proposed for annexation; and 4. each school district whose boundaries include all or part of the area proposed for annexation. NiProtest period. Protest periods begin from the date the City Council receives the certification by the City Recorder. The periods for individuals or entities identified in 10- 2-407(1) to protest a proposed annexation are: 1. 60 days if the area proposed for annexation is developed; and 40 days if the area proposed for annexation is undeveloped and covers an 611 area equivalent to less than 5% of the total land mass of all real property within the City. Pool- fizkioP t4Y g//g/1-00/ N Following acceptance of the annexation petition by the City Council, the Planning Division shall forward the petition to the Planning Commission for a recommendation regarding the zoning for the territory if it is annexed. An annexation petition shall be treated the same as a petition for zone change; a public hearing shall be scheduled and notice provided as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. ,/,/,/ n Planning Division delivers annexation plat to City Surveyor to verify boundary description and survey and, if description and survey are correct, sign plat. ❑ Planning Division delivers annexation plat to City Attorney for approval-as-to-form along with a request that the City Attorney prepare an ordinance annexing the land described in the annexation petition to the City and designating its zoning classification. Planning Division preparation of transmittal packet to the City Council which shall include: 1. the annexation petition; 2. the annexation plat; 3. a vicinity map showing the location of the proposed annexation; 4. Planning Commission minutes and recommendation for zoning; 5. the Planning Division's Staff Report; 6. an ordinance annexing and zoning the property if the City Council chooses . . to do so; . 7. mailing labels for all those who should be notified of the City Council hearing; and 8. any other information which is pertinent to the annexation. Planning Division delivers transmittal packet to CED administration. A. . CED administration reviews and then delivers packets to City administration. September 23, 1999 3 in_ City Administration reviews and delivers packets to the City Council office. g After expiration of the protest period, the City Council Office shall set a date for public hearing to consider the annexation petition and the Planning Commission's recommended zoning classification. After a hearing date has been set, a copy of the transmittal relating to the proposed annexation should be forwarded to the City Recorder who will provide the required public notice. (Note: The State Code specifies that a notice of hearing be published at least 7 days before the public hearing. However, since the area proposed for annexation will also receive a zoning designation, the notice should be published 14 days prior to the hearing as required for a zone change.) ❑ At completion of the public hearing, the City Council may either grant or reject the annexation. If granted, the area is annexed by ordinance. ❑ Within 30 days after enacting the ordinance, the City Recorder attests to the action of the City Council on the annexation plat and records a certified copy of the annexation ordinance and the annexation plat with the County Recorder. (10-2-425, UCA) ❑ Filing With State Tax Commission: It is also required (UCA, Section 11-12-1) that appropriate written notice be given to the State Tax Commission providing all relevant information concerning the annexation so that the property may be placed upon the City's tax rolls for the next taxable year. September 23, 1999 4 REMARKS Petition No. 400-01-16 By Redgate Properties Redgate Properties, LLC is requestit: Annexation into Salt Lake City, the property located at 3027 South 1100 East. I I i I I I i Date Filed Addret.r -fa-- SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: January 4, 2002 SUBJECT: Petition 400-00-29— Turville/Heugly/Sorenson • Annexation of 60.56 acres located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East • Zoning the property Foothill Residential FR-2 and Open Space • Amending the East Bench Master Plan Arcadia Heights/Benchmark/H-Rock Small Area Master Plan STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine, Land Use and Policy Analyst Document Type Budget-Related Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts Facts Ordinance The Administration's The proposal is The Administration has transmittal notes the presented in compliance clearly stated the project would result in a with State Code. positive aspects of the positive fiscal impact. Property is contiguous proposal. Please see the to the current City Administration's boundary. The property Annexation Impact owners representing Analysis for details. 100%of the assessed valuation listed on • Total Service Cost current County Tax is$914 per unit Assessment rolls have • Total Revenue is agreed to the $1,492 per unit annexation. • Impact fees are $890 per unit OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: Additional Options and Motions may be identified at the Council Work Session on January 8,2002. 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission: • Extending the corporate limits of Salt Lake City to include the Scott Turville, Trent Heugly, James Sorenson and Salt Lake City Corporation properties, consisting of approximately 60.56 acres located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East • Zoning the properties Foothill Residential FR-2 and Open Space OS,and • Amending the East Bench Master Plan Arcadia Heights/Benchmark/H-Rock Small Area Master Plan to allow limited, very low density, residential development in the area west of the current terminus of Lakeline Drive, consisting of not more than six new lots, located on a private street with a privacy gate extending west from Lakeline Drive. 1 2. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance: • Extending the corporate limits of Salt Lake City to include the Scott Turville, Trent Heugly, James Sorenson and Salt Lake City Corporation properties, consisting of approximately 60.56 acres located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East,and • Zoning the properties Foothill Residential FR-2 and Open Space OS. (This motion would maintain the current master plan that has a tighter restriction on the number of housing units possible.) 3. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt an ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission: • Extending the corporate limits of Salt Lake City to include the Scott Turville, Trent Heugly,James Sorenson and Salt Lake City Corporation properties,consisting of approximately 60.56 acres located at approximately 1977 South 2800 Fast • Zoning the properties Foothill Residential FR-2 and Open Space OS,and • Amending the East Bench Master Plan Arcadia Heights/Benchmark/H-Rock Small Area Master Plan to allow limited,very low density,residential development in the area west of the current terminus of Lakeline Drive,consisting of not more than six new lots,located on a private street with a privacy gate extending west from Lakeline Drive. 4. ["I move that the Council"] Refer this item to an additional briefing session for further review. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: ➢ Council Members may wish to discuss in further detail with the Administration the rational and public purpose for amending the Arcadia Heights/Benchmark/H Rock Small Area Master Plan to allow six residential lots rather than four located on a private street with a privacy gate. The small area plan "strongly discourages"gated communities and emphasizes the development of public streets to better integrate new development into existing neighborhoods and preserve public access to public lands. ➢ Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration options to provide improved coordination between Mr.Turville's proposed development and the abutting Kontgis development currently under construction. For example, Council Member Saxton has suggested that the Administration consider that, as a condition for amending the small area master plan to increase in the number of lots permitted at the end of Lakeline Drive, Mr.Turville's development and the Kontgis development be required to share street and sewer access. This option would eliminate the need for a lengthy driveway to be constructed as part of abutting Kontgis development, reduce the amount,costs and maintenance of utility and street improvements and to preserve to the greatest extent possible the aesthetic qualities of the foothills and the City's natural, undeveloped areas. ➢ Council Members may wish to discuss the Council's intent relating to future annexation requests to ensure a consistent policy direction. (A discussion could be scheduled at a later date of the Council desires.) A. During the 2001 State Legislative General Session,the Legislature approved HB 155S1 - Annexation Amendments. The bill modified provisions of the Utah Municipal Code relating to municipal annexations. In part,the bill restricts annexations from taking place in first class counties from April 30,to November 15,2001 with certain exceptions. The bill also requires that first class counties and cities within first class counties prepare a plan for annexations within the county and to submit the plan to the Legislative Management Committee at its first meeting after November 15, 2001. 2 1. The Council formally adopted a resolution on December 5, 2000 that reaffirmed the City's 1979 declaration of intent to annex the remaining portion of unincorporated Salt Lake County served by Salt Lake City's water system, excluding the newly incorporated City of Holladay. 2. The Salt Lake City Council has fulfilled the 2001 Legislature's mandate that cities in Salt Lake County prepare a master plan by November 15, 2001,to show"how the remainder of unincorporated areas within Salt Lake County are to be included within municipalities through annexation or incorporation."The Salt Lake Council of Governments submitted a series of maps to the Legislative Management Committee on behalf of Salt Lake County and the cities within the County. 3. The City Council supports the concept of annexing areas outside the City's boundaries. Its reasons are listed in the attached document titled Salt Lake City Council and Annexation. B. In the past,the Administration has provided the following information relating to the City's annexation policies: 1. The City does not have a citywide annexation policy. 2. Annexation policies have been developed based primarily on geographic locations and existing land uses. 3. Annexation policies are identified in the applicable master plans prepared for affected planning communities(i.e.East Bench, Sugar House,Northwest Community,Jordan River/Airport area,City Creek,etc.). 4. Annexation policies in the Sugar House Master Plan are significantly different from policies identified in the East Bench Master Plan.The Sugar House area is part of the older,fully developed portion of the City.The East Bench area contains underdeveloped areas of the foothills that are limited in development potential due to slope restriction and the cost of providing municipal services. KEY ELEMENTS A. Action requested of the Council includes: 1. Annexation of 60.56 acres located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East. 2. Zoning the property Foothill Residential FR-2 and Open Space. 3. Amending the East Bench Master Plan Arcadia HeightsBenchmark/H-Rock Small Area Master Plan to allow limited, very low density, residential development in the area west of the current terminus of Lakeline Drive, consisting of not more than six new lots, located on a private street with a privacy gate extending west from Lakeline Drive. B. This action would facilitate development of approximately 6.31 acres of property for a proposed 6-lot residential subdivision planned development with a gated, private street. One lot will be located on the existing cul-de-sac on Lakeline Drive. The other five lots would be located inside a privacy gate on a private street. Approximately 30 additional acres will be donated to the City or an approved non-profit organization for preservation as open space. C. The property is within the boundaries of the area identified in the City's Future Annexation Policy Declaration area and reaffirmed by formal Council action in 2000 and 2001. D. The Administration's transmittal, Planning Commission minutes and Planning staff report provide a detailed discussion of the annexation request. Major points are summarized below: 1. Total annexation acreage is 60.56 acres: a. 27.15 acres donated as open space to Salt lake City 3 b. 32.02 acres owned by Scott Turville c. 1.0 acres owned by Trent Heugly d. .39 acres owned by James L. Sorenson 2. Aspects of the development proposal would require modification of the Arcadia Height/Benchmark/H-Rock Small Area Master Plan. Proposed modifications include: a. Allowing development around the cul-de-sac at the north end of Lakeline Drive to include six new residential lots instead of three to four new residential lots. b. Allowing the proposed residential planned development to include a reduced-width private street rather than a reduced-width public street constructed to meet City standards. c. Allowing a privacy gate across the proposed private street to prevent unauthorized vehicle entry rather than strongly discouraging gated developments. 3. Surrounding land uses include a mix of single-family residential uses and foothill open space. 4. The petitioner did apply to Salt Lake County for a residential planned development. The petitioner has withdrawn his application pending outcome of his annexation request to the City. 5. Final site development,transportation and utility service requirements,and development plans including landscaping will be evaluated through the development review and building permit processes. E. The Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that the properties be zoned Foothill Residential FR-2 and Open Space OS. In addition,the Planning Commission granted conditional use approval for the proposed planned development subject to the following conditions: 1. Annexation and zoning approval by the Salt Lake City Council. 2. Donation of the approximately 30 acres of open space,as shown on the site plan,be finalized and deeded to the City or an approved non-profit organization for perpetual preservation as open space. 3. Pedestrian easement for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail users is noted on the subdivision plat. 4. Hand graded improvement of the secondary use trails throughout the open space,providing connections where trails are interrupted. 5. Attractive native landscaped entry feature be developed on the Lakeline Drive cul-de-sac, noting the trailhead. 6. Privacy gate be no more than three feet high,with no signage indicating no trespassing etc. allowed. 7. Encouragement for green building methods and materials, and fire retardant materials is incorporated into the design guidelines of the Covenants,Conditions and Restrictions(CC&Rs). 8. Landscaping restrictions requiring 90%drought tolerant vegetation,with the exception of a maximum of 5000 square feet of lawn be incorporated into the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions(CC&Rs). 9. Final plat approval by the Planning Commission after annexation by the City Council. F. The purpose of the Foothill Residential FR-2 Zone 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 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 foothill areas;and to ensure the efficient expenditure of public funds. The purpose of the Open Space OS zone is to preserve and protect areas of public and private open space and exert a greater level of control over any potential redevelopment of existing open space areas. Please refer to the attached Council staff report for additional details relating to specific zoning requirements. 4 G. Discussion at the Planning Commission issues only meeting and public hearing focused on: 1. Trails and trail head access including the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. 2. The proposed privacy gate, private street and street name. 3. The number, location of lots and the use of the flag lot concept. 4. Sewer improvements including coordination and shared connection with the abutting Kontgis development. 5. The proposed 30 acres of property for open space preservation and the City-owned 26 acre parcel being donated to a non-profit land trust. 6. Protection of the foothills, wildlife,and significant steep slopes, erosion and water run-off control. 7. Access and development potential for the abutting property owned by Ms. Victoria Hanson. 8. How the Commission would justify not following the small area plan. H. The Administration has noted that Community Council review of annexation petitions is not required. In this case,the Community Council review was required as part of the planned development conditional use process. The Administration's transmittal notes,"This annexation and development proposal was discussed at a number of Arcadia Heights/East Bench Community Council meetings. The Planning staff report notes: 1. The Arcadia/Benchmark Community Council has met to review this project in November 1999 and November 2000. 2. At both meetings,there were concerns expressed about the number of lots proposed compared to the number endorsed in the small area master plan. The group could not reach consensus about this topic. 3. The group also voiced concerns about the optional gate shown on the site plan,the large buildable areas identified on each lot and the issue of a public versus private street. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. There are several City master plans that apply to the area proposed for annexation. Applicable master plans are: Arcadia Heights, Benchmark, &H Rock Small Area Plan; East Bench Master.Plan; Open Space Master Plan; and Salt Lake City's Master Annexation Policy Declaration. Please refer to the attached Council staff report,dated August 4,2000(prepared for accepting the petition requesting annexation)and the Administration's transmittal documents for details. Key references in the master plans are noted below. B. Arcadia Heights/Benchmark/H Rock Small Area Plan 1. The boundaries of the Arcadia Heights,Benchmark&H Rock Small Area Plan(the"Arcadia Plan")are I-80 on the south, Foothill Drive on the west, 1700 South on the north,and the Wasatch National Forest on the east. 2. Pages 3-4 New Foothill Development • Development restrictions on slopes equal to or greater than 30%-Recommendations include strict application of the City's Site Development Ordinance relating to interpretation of 30% slopes as well as all other foothill development standards. • Undevelopable land—Recommendations include acquisition, donation to a land trust, establishment of conservation or access easements, and not permitting undevelopable land to be included in calculating density or incorporated into individual building lots. 5 3. Pages 5-6 Residential Density/Zoning Classification for Annexed Land • If additional development is considered, it should be very low density that does not impair the natural qualities of the area and preserves the maximum amount of open space. • Restrictions on development affecting slopes equal to or greater than 30%should be strictly enforced and interpreted according to written administrative policies established by the City. • Gated developments should be strongly discouraged. • The following policies should be taken into consideration when determining the zoning classification for properties which may be annexed in the future: a. Lots should be a minimum of one half acre in size,b.Not more than four additional lots should be permitted ... at the north end of Lakeline Drive,c.New lots should be oriented to ... the existing cul-de-sac at the north end of Lakeline Drive,d. All new lots should conform to the dimensional and height standards of the FR-2 Zone and to all established Foothill Development Standards. 4. Pages 6-7 Utility Service—water, sewer and storm drainage • The developer should pay costs relating to increased impacts created by new development. 5. Pages 7-8 Annexation • It should continue to be the City's policy that municipal water and sewer service will not be provided to new developments unless they are located with the City. 6. Pages 11-12 Open Space&Recreation • Bonneville Shoreline Trail—The Bonneville Shoreline Trail section connecting Devonshire Drive and Lakeline Drive should be established and signed as a pathway separate from the existing and or future travel way of any public or private street. • Other trails—Recommendations include additional trail developments in this area and a trailhead park at the north end of Lakeline Drive. • Open Space Preservation Strategies emphasize designating undevelopable land as open space, acquisition and preservation of critical areas,establishing conservation easements, donations or sales to a land trust or other public or non-profit organizations. 7. Page 16 Public versus Private Streets • Require dedicated public streets in order to better integrate new developments into existing neighborhoods and preserve public access to public lands. • Streets should be designed recognizing specific soil and geologic conditions and constructed to mitigate any potential adverse conditions. C. Open Space Master Plan—The Open Space Master Plan established four goals: conserve the natural environment;enhance open space amenities for all citizens; connect the various parts of the City to natural environments,and educate the citizens on proper use of open space. A section of the master plan relates to the Foothill Transitional Area,which it identifies as"the steeper slopes generally below the 5200 ft.elevation at the eastern and northern edges of the urbanized area." The master plan states that,"A major issue is the conservation of the natural environment for animal habitat,watershed and views." An implementation action identified by the master plan is that Salt Lake City, "establish the Open Space trust to receive and manage real property within the foothill transitional area." D. East Bench Master Plan—The approximate boundaries of the East Bench Master Plan are the northern City limits on the north, 1700 South and Parleys Way on the south,the eastern City limits on the east and 1300 East on the west. The East Bench Master Plan section on annexation and Foothill development states the planning goal to preserve the present unique beauty, environmental habitat,recreational use, and accessibility of the Wasatch foothills, and ensure city control over foothill development in the East Bench Community. Additional statements note: 1. Salt Lake City is the only government jurisdiction with the ability to provide urban services, and annexation is a vital first step in the development process. 2. Slope is one of the most important factors in determining development potential. 6 3. The City should plan to either eventually accommodate development, expand regulations to encompass aesthetic considerations as the means of precluding development, or acquire these properties for public open space. 4. If property owners can document compliance with the site development and other applicable city ordinances,the community and City should expect to accommodate development proposals. E. The City's recently adopted Community Housing Plan contains policies and implementation strategies that address: 1. Creating a wide variety of housing types across the City. 2. Encouraging innovation in housing design compatible with neighborhoods that are creative, aesthetically pleasing and provide attractive public spaces. 3. Creating affordable and transitional housing. 4. Supporting home ownership for a variety of income levels. 5. Including public and neighborhood participation and interaction in the design process. F. The Council's adopted growth policy states: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. G. State Code 10-2-403 regarding annexation requires that boundaries for annexation be drawn in the following manner: 1. To eliminate islands and peninsulas of territory that is not receiving municipal-type services; 2. To facilitate the consolidation of overlapping functions of local government; 3. To promote the efficient delivery of services;and 4. To encourage the equitable distribution of community resources and obligations. H. Council staff has attached a synopsis of City annexation policies prepared for the Council's Annexation subcommittee. The synopsis summarizes the following documents: 1. The City's 1979 Annexation Policy Declaration 2. City Resolution No. 34 of 2000-Reaffirmation of 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration, and Declaration of Intent to annex areas served by the City's water system in the unincorporated Salt Lake County 3. Resolution 20 of 1982- Water Service provided outside the City limits 4. Existing Community Master Plans Annexation Policies 5. The 1999 Salt Lake County Feasibility Scenarios Report 6. 1999 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Study 7. 2000 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Annexation Study CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed annexation. Key meeting dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. • August 8, 2000 City Council action formally accepting the annexation petition and referred to the Administration and Planning Commission for further analysis and recommendation. 7 • November 1999& Community Council meetings November 2000 • November 16, 2000 Planning Commission Issues Only meeting • June 7, 2001 Planning Commission hearing cc: Jay Magure, Rocky Fluhart,D.J. Baxter,Roger Cutler, LeRoy Hooton, David Dobbins, Lynn Pace, Max Peterson, Tim Harpst, Stephen Goldsmith, Brent Wilde,Doug Wheelwright, Ray McCandless, Michael Sears,Janne Nielsen, Barry Esham File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Annexation, Turville/Heugly/Sorenson 8 ATTACHMENT 1 Salt Lake City Council and Annexation The Salt Lake City Council is exploring the feasibility of annexing parts of unincorporated Salt Lake County for several reasons. In exploring the feasibility of potential annexations the Salt Lake City Council wants to preserve options for City residents and those in outlying unincorporated areas to determine their mutual future. Salt Lake City is a member of the Salt Lake County Council of Governments, an organization made up of public officials from Salt Lake County and the 15 cities in the county. The Council of Governments is determined to meet the intent of a Utah law that calls for producing a map of potential future annexations by cities in Salt Lake County. However, discussion is continuing on when the annexations portrayed on the map will be implemented. REASONS FOR EXPLORING ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY: 1. State law passed by the 2001 Legislature directed that cities in Salt Lake County prepare a master plan by November 15,2001,that will show "how the remainder of, unincorporated areas with Salt Lake County are to be included within municipalities, through annexation or incorporation." 2. Although State law bars cities from initiating annexations of areas outside existing city boundaries, another law mandates that cities cannot refuse petitions from areas that want to be annexed if cities have lower property taxes than property taxes in the areas that want to be annexed. 3. As Salt Lake County government continues to raise property taxes to meet increasing operating costs and the loss of property tax revenue from incorporations of areas such as Taylorsville and Holladay,the potential for property taxes in the County's unincorporated areas to exceed Salt Lake City property taxes is growing. 4. Salt Lake City's culinary water delivery system extends far beyond the City's boundaries. Currently,the water system operated directly by the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department extends along Salt Lake County's East Bench to Creek Road(about 7800 South)and is part of a part of an interconnected valley-wide system. However, residents and businesses served by the Public Utilities Department outside Salt Lake City's boundaries pay 1.5 times the amount City residents and businesses pay for their culinary water. • 5. Salt Lake County property tax growth coupled with the potential for paying on Salt Lake City rates for culinary water may make annexation attractive to areas outside the City. 6. Although it has gone though several decades of fitful starts and stops, it has been the long-term policy of Salt Lake City to expand its boundaries. In 1928 the City Water Advisory Board recommended that the City develop its water delivery system to serve a minimum population of 400,000 people, largely within the existing City boundaries and along the east bench. 7. In recent decades the impetus to annex areas outside Salt Lake City has gained strength. In 1979,the Utah Legislature passed a bill requiring all Utah municipalities to adopt a policy about annexing areas outside their respective boundaries. The City's annexation policy in 1979 foresaw the potential for annexing areas stretching in a crescent from Magna through Salt Lake City and along the east bench to Creek Road. 8. On December 5, 2000,the Salt Lake City Council adopted a resolution reaffirming the 1979 policy required by the Legislature. There were three reasons for reaffirming the 1979 policy: • The policy comported with long-term City goals. • The Salt Lake County Commission was pressing the Legislature to encourage "wall-to-wall cities"within Salt Lake County. • The population growth along the Wasatch Front was forcing government at all levels to address issues such as transportation,planning,and economic development regionally instead of piecemeal. Before the City Council reaffirmed the 1979 policy,it hired Rick Giardina Associates Inc.to study the potential impact to Salt Lake City of annexing unincorporated areas that used the City's water delivery system. The Giardina study reviewed all potential sources of revenue and expenses and took into account what would be needed within the different unincorporated areas to conform to current Salt Lake City service levels,including public safety and physical infrastructure.The report assumed that existing infrastructure in the unincorporated areas would remain and that the City would not impose construction of items such as curb,gutter and sidewalk in areas where they were not wanted. The Giardina study indicated that even with massive capital needs of the unincorporated areas,the Salt Lake City would be economically ahead if it were to annex all or part of eastern Salt Lake County to Creek Road. POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF ANNEXATION If annexation occurred, residents and businesses in areas currently unincorporated: • Would pay Salt Lake City property taxes. • Would pay the Salt Lake City Library District property taxes instead of Salt Lake County Library District property taxes. • Would not pay Salt Lake County Municipal Services property taxes—one of the fastest growing categories of property taxes in the County. • Would pay Salt Lake City water rates for culinary water instead of 1.5 times City water rates. • Would remain within their respective existing school districts. • Would continue working within their own community councils. Salt Lake City has a long history of working closely with community councils on issues of mutual concern. • Would elect representatives from their areas to the Salt Lake City Council. 2 • ATTACHMENT 2 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 4, 2000 SUBwEcr: Petition#400-00-29: Turville/Heugly/Sorenson Annexation of 33.3964 acres located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East STAFF REPORT BY: Sally Knighton and Janice Jardine Document Budget-Related Policy-Related Miscellaneous Facts Type Facts Facts Resolution The current proposal The proposal If the Council adopts the resolution and has no immediate represents creation accepts the petition for review,the budget impact of a new resolution Administration will conduct further study. OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt a resolution accepting an annexation petition for approximately 33.4 acres of land located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East and forward the petition to the Administration for review,analysis and recommendations. I further move that the Council request that the Administration include the city owned property located at approximately 1800 South and 2700 East as part of the proposed annexation. 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt a resolution accepting an annexation petition for approximately 33.4 acres of land located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East. 3. ["I move that the Council"] Request additional information from the Administration prior to considering the proposed resolution. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: The resolution before the City Council is requesting that the Council accept a petition for annexation of 33.3964 acres of land located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East. If the Council adopts the resolution and accepts the petition, a public process and analysis by the Planning Division will commence(see Background section for further detail). The area proposed for annexation borders the H Rock Community Council boundary. If annexed, it would be part of the Foothills Protection District, and subject to Foothills Residential District and Special Foothills Regulations zoning requirements. Many properties in the Foothills District have sloping terrain, and the area proposed for annexation is no exception. Amendments to the City's slope ordinance have been drafted and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission following its March 2, 2000 public hearing. The Council may wish to consider requesting a status on the slope ordinance amendments from the Administration prior to accepting this petition. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: The Council's adopted growth policy states that," It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: is aesthetically _ pleasing; contributes to a livable community environment;yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;and forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity." Council Policy E.4,Maintaining a Residential Base, states that,"The Council supports using its zoning power to ... encourage population expansion." Council staff reviewed the"Wall-to-Wall Cities Annexation Study"that was prepared by Rick Giardina&Associates and presented to the Council in June 2000. The focus of the Giardina study is on areas other than the area currently proposed for annexation. As such, it does not appear to have any relevancy to the resolution that is being presented to the Council. While discussing an annexation in the H Rock area in October 1999,the Council identified the following questions to be addressed during that annexation process. The Council may wish to request the Administration review the same questions during its analysis of the proposed annexation. The October 1999 questions are: Location Specific Questions: 1. To what extent are utilities available for this location? 2. Will this development pay all costs of extending water and sewer utilities? 3. Are there police and fire-related issues relating to extending development to this area? 4. Are there issues relating to the delivery of other City services(i.e., snow removal,trash removal)? 5. Are there issues relating to the School District(i.e., school bus access)? 6. Is this proposal in keeping with the master plans? 7. How many lots will be developed? 8. Will the development meet the City's existing and proposed slope ordinance? 9. Will any special exceptions be necessary in order to allow for development on the property (i.e.,planned unit development)? Desirable Growth Policy Questions: 10. What is the net fiscal impact to the City if this property were to be annexed? 11. If it yields a net negative fiscal impact, is there an overriding public purpose being served? 12. Does this action forestall negative impacts associated with inactivity? 13. Is it likely that the development will be aesthetically pleasing? 14. Does the development contribute to a livable community environment? MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS: There are several City master plans that will apply to the area proposed for annexation if the Council accepts the petition. Applicable master plans are: Arcadia Heights, Benchmark, &H Rock Small Area Plan; East Bench Master Plan; Open Space Master Plan;and Salt Lake City's Master Annexation Policy Declaration. Relevant portions of each are included below. Arcadia Heights,Benchmark& H Rock Small Area Plan Adopted by the Ciiy Council on October 6, 1998(amendment to East Bench Master Plan) The boundaries of the Arcadia Heights, Benchmark& H Rock Small Area Plan(the"Arcadia Plan") are I-80 on the south, Foothill Drive on the west, 1700 South on the north, and the Wasatch National Forest on the east. This area contains some of the last parcels of undeveloped foothill property on the East Bench, most of which are not currently within the City's corporate boundaries. The area proposed for annexation in the current petition before the Council is referred to as the"Turville property" in the Arcadia Plan. Pages 5-6 of the Arcadia Plan are entitled, "Residential Density/Zoning Classification for Annexed Land." Portions relevant to the proposed annexation are: Several factors may affect the ultimate development pattern and density of land within the Plan Area that is currently vacant and is not under the City's jurisdiction. These factors include slope, topographic features, orientation,natural hazards,availability of services, and/or the ability to provide services that are not currently available. As the Steering Committee discussed this issue, it soon became clear that the steepness of slope was the most critical of these factors in arriving at an overall density. Recommendations: 1.Residents and public sentiment have expressed opposition to any further foothill development. Properties that are undeveloped should remain as they are in order to maintain the aesthetic qualities of the foothills and the City's natural,undeveloped mountainous backdrop. Public acquisition of these areas is encouraged. 2.If additional development is considered, it should be very low density that does not impair the natural qualities of the area and preserves the maximum amount of open space. Restrictions on development affecting slopes equal to or greater than 30% should be strictly enforced and interpreted according to written administrative policies established by the City. Gated developments should be strongly discouraged. [#3 is not applicable to the Turville property.] 4. Development around the cul-de-sac at the north end of Lakeline Drive should be completed with not more than three to four additional homes. 5.The following policies should be taken into consideration when determining the zoning classification for properties which may be annexed in the future: a.Lots should be a minimum of one half acre in size;b.Not more than four additional lots should be permitted ... at the north end of Lakeline Drive; c.New lots should be oriented to ... the existing cul-de-sac at the north end of Lakeline Drive; d. All new lots should conform to the dimensional and height standards of the FR-2 Zone and to all established Foothill Development Standards. The City's development code prohibits construction on slopes over 30%(a ratio of 3 vertical feet to 10 horizontal feet). "It is the intent of this plan to reaffirm the principles and standards pertaining to foothill development contained in the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. This recommendation applies to interpretation of 30%slopes as well as to all other foothill development standards." The Arcadia Plan further states,"Since it is in the City's best interest to have input in planning for compatible land uses at its borders,the City should continue to require that undevelopable land be annexed prior to development. It should continue to be the City's policy that undevelopable land be preserved through acquisition, donation to a land trust,establishment of conservation or access easements, or other mechanism. Undevelopable land within a proposed development should not be considered in calculating permitted density. In order to better control encroachment and minimize potential enforcement, undevelopable land should not, insofar as possible, be incorporated into individual building lots." Utility service is addressed in the Arcadia Plan and in part it states, "Any costs relating to increased impacts created by new development should be paid for by the developer." The Arcadia Plan specifically addresses water and sewer service at the Turville property. Regarding water, the plan states,"This area can be serviced from existing pumping and reservoir facilities in Carrigan Cove Subdivision. New distribution water lines will need to be installed as part of the subdivision development." As to sewer service at Turville property, the plan states that,"Sewer lines from this development are proposed to be routed through easements and existing rights-of-way to 2100 South Street. All of this flow will be collected in an existing 8- inch line crossing Foothill Drive. This collection line is currently overloaded and will require up-sizing in order to accommodate the projected flow from this proposed subdivision." Council staff contacted S.L.C. Department of Public Utilities for additional clarification and received the following information: Water: A typical east side residential user uses about 0.95 acre-foot per year. If the development of the 33.4 acres yields 3 lots to the acre, then the water use would be approximately 95 acre feet. The developer would need to extend a water line from the upper Carrigan Cove pressure zone. Sewer: The development could generate approximately 85 gpm of sewage. There are some down stream sewer problems that the City recently became aware of as a result of a large rainstorm on May 25,2000. The City will have to evaluate the impact of this development on these problem areas and would ask the developers to participate in the cost of fixing them. Storm Drainage: The storm drain system in this area will need to be improved to handle the potential run off from this development. The developer may need to extend a piped system into the project and participate in downstream improvements. The Arcadia Plan identifies existing zoning for properties surrounding the Turville property as follows: To the north,County property and Foothill Preservation. To the south,FR-2 and R-1-12000. To the east,two R-1-2000 properties;three FR-3 properties;FR-1 properties in Carrigan Canyon and Open Space. To the west,Foothill Preservation. The Arcadia Plan recommends zoning the majority of the Turville property as Open Space,with the remaining portion(a small section of the northeast corner of the Turville property)recommended as FR-2 zoning. The Arcadia Plan indicates that a maximum of four lots can be developed at the northern end of Lakeline Drive. If the developer wishes to increase this amount,the Arcadia Plan would need to be amended. Under Development Constraints,the Arcadia Plan notes that the area proposed for annexation has predominant slopes that exceed 30%. Further,the Arcadia Plan recommends completing the Bonneville Shoreline Trail and creating a small park contiguous to the northeast corner of the Turville property. Open Space Master Plan Adopted by the City Council in 1992 The Open Space Master Plan established four goals: conserve the natural environment;enhance open space amenities for all citizens;connect the various parts of the City to natural environments,and educate the citizens on proper use of open space. A section of the master plan relates to the Foothill Transitional Area, which it identifies as"the steeper slopes generally below the 5200 ft.elevation at the eastern and northern edges of the urbanized area." The master plan states that,"A major issue is the conservation of the natural environment for animal habitat,watershed and views." An implementation action identified by the master plan is that Salt Lake City, "establish the Open Space trust to receive and manage real property within the foothill transitional area." East Bench Master Plan Adopted by the City Council in 1987 The approximate boundaries of the East Bench Master Plan are the northern City limits on the north, 1700 South and Parleys Way on the south,the eastern City limits on the east and 1300 East on the west. The East Bench Master Plan has a section on annexation and Foothill development, which states that its Planning Goal is to, "Preserve the present unique beauty, environmental habitat, recreational use, and accessibility of the Wasatch foothills,and ensure city control over foothill development in the East Bench Community." The master plan states that, "Salt Lake City is the only government jurisdiction with the ability to provide urban services, and annexation is a vital first step in the development process." Further,the master plan states that"slope is one of the most important factors in determining development potential. Even though development potential has not been conclusively determined [at the time of the master plan],the City should plan to either eventually accommodate development,expand regulations to encompass aesthetic considerations as the means of precluding development,or acquire these properties for public open space. If property owners can document compliance with the site development and other applicable city ordinances, the community and City should expect to accommodate development proposals." In a separation area,the Arcadia Plan states, "The three areas [one of which includes the Turville property]that have development potential should be limited to a maximum density of 4 units per gross acre or less as physical conditions dictate. Single-family homes or planned-unit developments with single-family home densities are recommended. This low-density recommendation is based on geologic constraints, limited and narrow access roads,and public interest in protecting against larger structures that may interfere with views of the City's natural mountainous backdrop. Limiting development to areas that are geographically sound,and restricting development to low density is clearly in the best interest of the City and its residents. Consistent with existing city policy,areas that are considered undevelopable from a geologic standpoint should be preserved as natural foothill open space." The Arcadia Plan lists three recommendations for methods in which the City can maintain control over foothill development. The recommendations are: • Amend its Annexation Policy Declaration to encompass the privately owned East Bench foothills as the means to having control over future development proposals. • Restrict urban development beyond the one-half mile area,to encompass all of the privately owned foothill property. This could be accomplished through an interlocal agreement,under the State Interlocal Cooperation Act. • Seek an official agreement of resolution with the county to ensure that smaller residential developments will also be referred to the city for annexation and development approval. Annexation should even be required for a single-family home. The city should refuse to provide water or sewer services to accommodate development outside city boundaries. Master Annexation Policy Declaration 1979 "It is ... the policy of Salt Lake City that areas projected for development which lie in proximity to Salt Lake City limits should annex to the City prior to receipt of municipal services from the City." "It is the City's policy that all new development on areas requiring service must bear the financial burden of providing the necessary facilities. This can be accomplished either by,or a combination of, improved districts, development fees, connection fees, and contribution to aid for construction." ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS: On December 14, 1999,the Council adopted the General Fund Impact Fees ordinance, which went into effect on June 1, 2000. If the area proposed for annexation is annexed into the City, any future development on the annexed property will be subject to impact fees. As noted in the ordinance, impact fees apply to all new development activity and are paid in full prior to issuance of a building permit. Residential development in the Foothill area would be subject to park, fire and police impact fees totaling$890 per single-family dwelling unit. As noted in the Master Plan Considerations section above,the Arcadia Plan recommends zoning the majority of the Turville property as Open Space, with the remaining portion recommended as FR-2 zoning. The City's zoning requirements are included in Section 21 A of the Salt Lake City Code. The zoning ordinance states that the purpose of an open space zoning is to"preserve and protect areas of public and private open space and exert a greater level of control over any potential redevelopment of existing open space areas." The Open Space district allows permitted and conditional uses,as follows: Permitted Uses Conditional Uses Natural open space and conservation areas Public/private utility buildings and structures Public/private nature preserves/conservation areas Cemeteries and accessory crematoriums Community and recreation centers Pet cemetery Country clubs Golf courses Parks(public) Private recreational facilities Zoological park Some accessory uses Public/private utility transmission wires, lines,pipes and poles Requirements for the Open Space zone according to the City's zoning ordinance are: Minimum lot size: 10,000 s.f. Minimum lot width: 50' Minimum front yard: 30' Minimum corner side yard: 30' Minimum interior side yard: 20' Rear yard: 30' Maximum building height: 35' Front Yard landscape/buffer: 30' Corner side yard landscape/buffer: 30' Interior side yard landscape/buffer: 10' Rear yard landscape/buffer: 10' According to Section 21 A.24.010,property zoned FR-2(Foothill Residential)has the following permitted and conditional uses: Permitted Uses Conditional Uses Single family detached dwelling Community and reaction centers, public and Small group home private on lots less than 4 acres in size Accessory uses Bed and breakfast Manufactured home Municipal service uses, including City utility Public/private utility transmission wires, lines uses and police and fire stations pipes and poles Offices and reception centers in landmark sites Natural open space and conservation areas on Park and ride parking, shared with church lots less than 4 acres in size parking lot on arterial street Parks and playgrounds, public and private, Parking,off-site facilities less than 4 acres in size Public/private utility buildings and structures Pedestrian pathways,trails and greenways Accessory uses on accessory lots Reuse of church and school buildings — Places of worship on lots less than 4 acres Section 21 A.24.010 also defines building height requirements for the FR-2 zone. It states that,"the maximum building height shall be twenty eight feet(28'), except that the front and rear vertical building walls shall not exceed twenty five feet(25'). On a corner lot, roof gable ends which face onto either the front or corner side yard, but not both, ... are permitted to a height of twenty eight feet(28')." The ordinance states that"all building heights shall be measured from the established grade." The zoning ordinance further states that buildings in the FR-2 zone are limited to two and one-half stories. The Board of Adjustment may approve a permit to exceed the maximum building height, but does not have the authority to grant additional stories. The zoning ordinance requires that a building permit is obtained prior to construction of any fence or wall in the FR-2 zone and also requires a landscape plan, with proposed revegetation of any disturbed site areas. At present,the only FR-2 zone listed in the zoning ordinance is FR-2/21,780. Requirements for this zone are: Minimum lot area: 21,780 s.f. Minimum lot width: 100' Minimum front yard: 20' Minimum corner side yard: 20' Minimum interior side yard: 20' Maximum building coverage: 25% Minimum rear yard: 40' Required landscape,front and corner side yards BACKGROUND: Annexation requirements are set forth by Utah law. State law requires the area to be considered for annexation to be contiguous to the municipality,and that the annexation does not leave or create an unincorporated island or peninsula. According to 10-2-403,Utah State Code,"the process to annex an unincorporated area to a municipality is initiated by a petition." Section 10-2-405 of the Utah State Code states that a municipal legislative body may deny an annexation petition, or accept the petition for further consideration. The resolution before the City Council is requesting the Council accept the petition for annexation of 33.3964 acres of land located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East. If the Council does not accept the petition, within five days the City Recorder will mail notice of the petition's rejection to the petitioner and the County Clerk. State law allows the petitioner to refile the petition,with the refiled petition being treated as a newly filed petition. If the Council adopts the resolution and accepts the petition, a public process and analysis by the Planning Division will commence. If the Council accepts the annexation petition, within thirty days the City Recorder will certify that the petition meets state law and deliver its certification to the City Council,the petitioner,the Planning Commission of any township in which any part of the annexation is located and Salt Lake County Commissioners. If the City Recorder determines that the petition does not meet state law,the same parties are notified of the rejection. The petitioner may modify the petition to correct any deficiencies and refile the petition with the City Recorder. Upon receipt of the City Recorder's certification, the City Council Office will date stamp the certification and return it to the City Recorder. Within ten days of receiving the certification from the City Council office,the City Recorder will publish notice of the proposed annexation once a week for three consecutive weeks in the newspaper. Within twenty days after the Council receives the certification,the City Recorder will mail written notice of the annexation petition to the Salt Lake County Commissioners,the board of a special district whose boundaries include all or part of the area proposed for annexation,the legislative body of each municipality within one-half mile of the area proposed for annexation, and each school district whose boundaries include part or all of the area proposed for annexation. If the Council accepts the annexation petition,the Planning Division will forward the petition to the Planning Commission for a zoning recommendation on the area proposed for annexation. A public hearing is scheduled before the Planning Commission and notice of the hearing will be sent to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed annexation. The Planning Division performs staff analysis of the proposed annexation and, working in conjunction with the City Attorney, prepares an annexation ordinance for submittal to the Council. Protests to the proposed annexation may be filed in writing with the County Clerk and must state a reason for the protest. On the same day,copies of the protest must be delivered or mailed to the City Recorder. The protest period begins on the date the City Council Office receives the City Recorder's certification. The protest period is sixty days if the area proposed for annexation is developed;or forty days if the area is undeveloped and less than 5%of the City's total land mass. According to state law,protests may be filed by the Salt Lake County Commissioners,the board of a special district whose boundaries include all or part of the area proposed for annexation,the legislative body of a municipality whose boundaries are within one-half mile of the area proposed for annexation,or owners of property that: is within one-half mile of the area proposed for annexation,covers at least 25%of the land located in the unincorporated area within one-half mile of the area proposed for annexation,and is equal in value to at least 15%of all property located in the unincorporated area within one-half mile of the area proposed for annexation. (Utah State Code, 10-2-407) If a protest is filed,at its next regular meeting the City Council may deny the annexation petition or take no further action until receipt of the Boundary Commission's notice of its decision relating to the protest. After the protest period has expired,the City Council will set a date for a public hearing to consider the annexation petition and the Planning Commission's zoning recommendations. The annexation notice of public hearing will advertise at least seven days prior to the hearing and,to be in compliance with state zoning laws, fourteen days prior to the hearing as required for a zone change. Following the public hearing, the Council may grant or reject the annexation. If the ordinance is adopted,within thirty days the City Recorder will attest to the action of the City Council,record a certified copy of the annexation ordinance and annexation plat with the County Recorder, and provide written notice to the State Tax Commission in order to place the annexed property on the City's tax rolls for the next tax year. CHRONOLOGY: 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration 1987 City Council adopts East Bench Master Plan 1992 City Council adopts the Open Space Master Plan 1997 Revisions to Utah law regarding annexations (major revisions in 1995,a series of revisions have taken place since that time) October 6, 1998 City Council adopts Arcadia Heights, Benchmark, &H Rock Small Area Plan . March 3, 1999 Letter to Scott Turville from Planning Division notifying Mr.Turville that the previous owner's annexation petition for the property is no longer valid and the City is prepared to accept development proposals for the Arcadia Heights,Benchmark and H Rock neighborhoods June 21, 2000 Memo from City Recorder to City Council notifying the Council that Petition No. 400-00-29,Turville/Heugly/Sorenson Annexation, was received by the City Recorder on June 21, 2000 June 29, 2000 Council Office receives Administration's paperwork that includes a resolution to accept a petition for annexation cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Deeda Seed,Rocky Fluhart,Alison Gregersen-Weyher,David Dobbins,Stephen Goldsmith,Brent Wilde,Craig Hinckley,Roger Cutler,Lynn Pace,LeRoy Hooton,Jeff Niermeyer File Location: CED/Planning/Annexations • ATTACHMENT 3 Synopsis- 1979 Salt Lak City Master Annexation Policy Declaration • 1979 State Legislature House Bill No. 61 required municipalities anticipating annexation to adopt an annexation policy declaration • Master Annexation Policy Declaration o Citywide master annexation policy declaration and proposed future boundaries map o Study areas: • West Airport • North Redwood Road • Magna • Emigration Canyon • Brickyard Area • Parley's • East Millcreek • Holladay—Olympus • Holladay—Cottonwood • West Valley o Individual study area sections include: • Geographical boundary description for each study area • Land use and socio-economic characteristics • Estimate of assessed property values • Comparison of costs of government services • Water, sewer, fire, and police • Planning and zoning • Refuse and garbage collection and disposal • Streets and highways Synopsis-City Resolution No. 34 of 2000 • Reaffirmation of 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration, and • Declaration of Intent to annex the areas served by the City's water system in the unincorporated Salt Lake County • City's Public Utilities Department since the 1920's has provided culinary water service to the eastern unincorporated portion of Salt Lake County • Service is provided to approximately 30,500 water accounts • Salt Lake County's tax base has been reduced through annexations and incorporations, including Taylorsville and Holladay, requiring an increase in County taxes • In 1979, Salt Lake City prepared a Master Annexation Policy Declaration that included the intent to annex the portion of Salt Lake County served by the City's water system • In 2000, the Salt Lake City Council commissioned an independent study that concluded: o Annexation would produce long-term benefits for County residents if annexed into the City through: • Improved levels of water service • A net reduction in the cost of water service o Annexation would not significantly increase water rates currently paid by City residents • Annexation would provide Salt Lake City with benefits including: o Relieve of potential conflicts between jurisdictions relating to: • Service levels • Water rates • Watershed protection • Planning and zoning issues • Expressed the City's interest and willingness to: o Enter into discussions with Salt Lake County and State of Utah representatives, residents, property owners, and other elected representatives o Explore the feasibility, desirability and potential for annexation implementation Water Service provide outside the City limits • Resolution 20 of 1982 (adopted February 2, 1982) o Formalized policy for providing water service to development outside the City limits • Requires annexation in order to receive City water services or • Provide an agreement to annex when annexation becomes possible Annexation Policy—Existing Community Master Plans • Sugar House o Salt Lake City encourages the annexation of areas between its boundary and 3900 South Street as a whole rather than in small pieces, to provide coordinated land us development policies and comprehensive municipal services. • East Bench o Preserve the present unique beauty, environmental habitat, recreational use, and accessibility of the Wasatch foothills, and ensure city control over foothill development in the East Bench Community. o To maintain control over foothill development, the city should: • Amend its Annexation Policy Declaration to encompass the privately owned East Bench foothills as the means to having control over future developm nt proposals. • Restrict urban development beyond the one-half-mile area, to encompass all of the privately owned foothill property. This could be accomplished through an interlocal agreement, under the State Interlocal Cooperation Act. • Seek an official agreement of resolution with the county to ensure that smaller residential developments will also be referred to the city for annexation and development approval. Annexation should even be required for a single-family home. The city should refuse to provide water or sewer services to accommodate development outside city boundaries. • Arcadia Heights, Benchmark, & H Rock Small Area Plan o It should continue to be the City's policy that municipal water and sewer service will not be provided to new developments unless they are located within the City limits. — 2 • Jordan River—Airport Area Small Area Plan (short range) o Facilitat Salt Lake City's Annexation of County land area west and north to the Great Salt Lake. o Annex lands west of and north toward the Great Salt Lake from Salt Lake County, and zone appropriately according to land uses identified in the Plan Synopsis- 1999 Salt Lake County Feasibility Scenarios Report • Nesbitt Planning and Management, Inc. presented to the Salt Lake County Council of Governments on December 8, 1999 "A Reconnaissance of Potential Annexations and Incorporations Facing Salt Lake County, Salt Lake County Feasibility Scenarios". This study attempted to define the cumulative impact on revenues and service delivery across Salt Lake County. • The study considered 28 scenarios for 10 unincorporated communities. The study presents the information gathered in three main areas; Base Fiscal Parameters, Revenues and Costs, and Remainders Analysis. • For whatever reason, when the study projected the cumulative impacts upon the tax bases and revenues of the County and the annexing Cities and discussed the challenges of potential overhead increases for the County with declining service delivery demand, it failed to address the impact to Salt Lake City. • Itwas for this reason that the Administration of Salt Lake City at the time of the study, asked City staff to review the study and using the same methodology present to the Administration the impact of the various annexation and incorporation scenarios that are outlined in the Council of Governments commissioned study. • The resulting study was titled "Wall to Wall Cities" Synopsis- 1999 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Study • Salt Lake City Budget and Policy staff prepared a "Wall to Wall Cities" study at the same time the City was supplying information for Council of Governments commissioned Feasibility Scenario or Wall-to-Wall Annexation Study. The City staff reviewed the history of annexation issues within the City and provided the following information in the Original Study section of the report. "Holladay, Salt Lake Commissioner Callaghan's efforts to have the State implement legislation to facilitate wall to wall cities], some of the cities surrounding the unincorporated area are beginning to propose extending their boundaries, potentially, into Salt Lake City's annexation declaration boundaries. In 1979, Salt Lake City created its' Master Annexation Policy Declaration which states that Salt Lake City would annex the area containing its water distribution system. The attached map highlights in yellow Salt Lake City's water distribution area. As you can see from the map, the proposed annexation area for Salt Lake 3 City would extend Salt Lake City's current southern boundary out to Creek Road and would go as far west as 1300 East. In 1982, the City Council passed a resolution reaffirming the City's Master Annexation Policy Declaration. The wall-to-wall city initiative will have a significant impact on Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City has several concerns regarding this initiative. One major concern revolves around Salt Lake City's water, and its' water distribution network." • The report goes on to state what the different components of the study are and what will be the impact of any annexation plans on the City. The staff chose 4 logical boundaries to divide the potential annexation areas. The only areas discussed in this plan are along the east bench of the Salt Lake Valley. The western potential annexation areas were not d alt with in this report. City staff used Property Tax, Sales Tax, Sales Tax Distribution, and Franchise Tax, to figure Revenue in this area. Services that are contained in Enterprise Funds were not included into the calculation of revenue as it is expected that the services would pay for themselves. The staff then attempted to quantify costs in each of the four service areas as best possible. • The Administration presented to the City Council in 1999 the results of their study.At that time the Council thought it best to bring in an outside consultant to review the work of the staff and help guide them as they reviewed what course the City should take. City staff lent their expertise to the consultant and assisted in gathering and reviewing information as needed. The resulting consultant study presented essentially the same findings as that of the City staff. Synopsis-2000 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Annexation Study • The consulting firm of Rick Giardina &Associates, Inc. in association with BBC Research & Consulting submitted a final report to the Salt Lake City Council in June of 2000. The study incorporated the efforts and expertise of many City staff. The study kept the same annexation study areas as the City staff report. The consultant did not review those areas on the west side of the Salt Lake Valley. 4 • The study reviewed all potential sources of revenue and expenses. The study took into account what would be needed within the different areas to conform to current service levels, both public safety and physical infrastructure. The consultant reviewed what capital needs each of the areas had and what the cost of each area would be if the City were to purchase existing County assets, purchase new assets, or rely on current equipment in the City to provide services. • The end result of the study indicated that even with the massive capital needs of the area the City would be economically ahead if Salt Lake City were to annex all or part of the area to City Creek Road. • As follow-up to this study the Council adopted a resolution in year 2000 that reaffirmed th City's intent to annex those communities served by the City's water and water distribution area. Additional Information • Other Cities such as Murray, Midvale, West Valley City and Holladay have completed consultant and in house studies that identify potential areas of annexation. Some encroach on the boundaries listed in the 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration. Of particular note is the annexation studies of Murray and Sandy which advocated annexation to the ast of their present boundaries, and the incorporation of Holladay that incorporated a significant portion of the unincorporated area along the east bench of the Salt Lake Valley. Of particular note is that the boundaries of Holladay City do not correspond with their water district boundaries. 5 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE; January 4,2002. . SUBJECT:, . Amendment to FlOodplain Hazard Prevention Ordinance STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford Document'Type Budget 1telated Facts Policy Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts Ordinance No,additional funding The proposal is presented to A new FEMA floodplain . is requested update an existing ordinance to map became effective in reflect curet floodplain September 2001. management measures required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). On September 2], 2001,a new floodplain map became effective as a result of a flood insurance study conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). The Administration desires to amend''the City's floodplain hazard'ordinance to make reference to the new map and to update the ordinance to reflect current floodplain management measures required by FEMA. • • KEY ELEMENTS ' Areas identified on the floodplain map as flood hazards are those locations that the FEMA study identified as having a one percent or greater chance of flooding in,any.given year. The areas identified as floodplain hazard are primarily lowlands adjoining rivers or streams. Under National Flood Insurance Regulations, a community may permit development within floodplains provided that the community satisfies certain requirements with FEMA including adopting an ordinance that is consistent with federal regulations. • New construction within identified floodplains is allowed if the lowest floor is elevated above the foodlevel determined by the FEMA study. ' The primary changes in the,proposed ordinance are adopting the new map, updating definitions,:andtclarifying floodway procedures. ANALYSIS The floodplain a and.4eas.within Salt Lake City hie been established'and identified by FEMA in a:scientific and`en ii ering repoi titled"The,Flooid;Insurance Study, for the City, of Salt Lake City, Utah. Aite*'inek became effective'ori September 21, 2001. Council staffs und'erstand'ing. is`that the new map.Ei dn't t u n t i ,previously Ide ti0ed�flood hazard areas'but updated the map - to incl`ud sever l a, . r . e ; rneiiinenf arid�coinbined tiea1te> e City map vvith.tll rest o Salk Lake!✓b tit '�s.��°�� • ti�..��.-.. �� '�-:� � � �F _ , �� -' :int ;oa ' Qnii** e ma :.':-� . The revised ordinance prohibits development or encroachments of any kind into floodways. A floodway is defined as the channel of the river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved to discharge floods. No new construction or development is allowed in ' floodway unless engineering analyses concludes that the encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels and unless the City applies for and receives a floodway revision through FEMA. Any development within the floodplain must be constructed so that the lowest floor of a structure (including any basement)is above the identified flood elevation. This is not a change from the existing ordinance. Garages or storage areas for non-perishables can be constructed below the flood elevation if the storage areas are not in the basement area. The Department of Public Utilities worked with FEMA's Denver Office in drafting the proposed revisions to the City's Floodplain Hazard Prevention ordinance. During the Council work session, the Council may wish to ask questions of the Administration or clarify the impact of the proposed ordinance changes. The Council m ay wiSh to forward this ordinance to a future Council Meeting for consideration. cc: Rocky Fluhart,Jay Magure,LeRoy Hooton,Jeff Niemeyer,Chuck Call • �2 4 C� �y(�� ice(/ . l f' '- LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. ►�J_� ''`_S� a j Lli1 CMS D�e ' '1«t' 1 "ROCKY".I •••• .tea ROSS C. 'ROCKY ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES MAYOR WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER December 17, 2001 Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson 451 South State Street, Room 306 Salt Lake City; Utah 84111 Dear Mayor Anderson: Please find attached amendments to Chapter 18.68—Floodplain Hazard Prevention. The purpose of these ordinance amendments is to comply with recent changes made by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and floodplain zone maps (FIRM) for Salt Lake City. I recommend that you forward these ordinance changes to the City Council for their approval. Very truly yours, tt7 HOC LEROY . HOOTON, . Director PU:CCa�� 11:/yy 12/17/2001 Attachments: (1) Amended ordinance with highlighted changes (2) Amended ordinance without highlighted changes cc: Jeff Niermeyer, Brad Stewart, Chris Bramhall, Stephen Goldsmith, Rick Graham, Max Peterson, file/B/Eng. 1 530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 TELEPHONE: 601-483-6900 FAX: 801-483-6818 :: ROEVCLEO PAPE0 LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. S -� 'r Z\1� 1j_(.`I� vA.c r L Q a ROSS C. "ROCKY"ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES MAYOR WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer December 17, 2001 RE: Request to amend Chapter 68 of Title 18 — Floodplain Hazard Prevention Recommendation: Forward ordinance amendments to City Council for approval. Availability of Funds: No budget needed Discussion: On June 21, 2001 a letter was sent from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to Mayor Anderson stating that the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and maps (FIRM) for Salt Lake City were being updated. This new study and the associated floodplain maps became effective September 21, 2001. This also required the City to update the floodplain ordinance to reflect current floodplain management measures required by FEMA (44 CFR 60.3 (d)). These changes-were minor and are shown on the attachment (amended Chapter 68 of Title 18 —Floodplain Hazard Prevention). We have worked with Dan Carlson of the Mitigation Division of the Region VIII Office of FEMA in Denver, Colorado to revise our City ordinance. He indicated that the amended ordinance as attached hereto meets the minimum requirements of FEMA. Contact Person: Charles H. Call, Jr. at 483-6840. Submitted By: 11-itn (A),LEROY HOOTO , JR. Director PU:CCaL':/- 12/17/2001 Attachments: (1) Amended ordinance with highlighted changes (2) Amended ordinance without highlighted changes cc: Jeff Niermeyer, Brad Stewart, Chris Bramhall, Stephen Goldsmith, Rick Graham, Max Peterson, file/B/Eng. 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 15 TELEPHONE: B01-483-6900 FAX: 801-483-681B C. RECYCLED PAPER SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2001 (Floodplain hazard prevention) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 68 OF TITLE 18 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO FLOODPLAIN HAZARD PREVENTION. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Chapter 68 of Title 18 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to floodplain hazard prevention,be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows: Chapter 18.68 FLOODPLAIN HAZARD PROTECTIONPREVENTION 18.68.010 Purpose. * * * 18.68.020 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter the following terms mean: 1. "Area of shallow flooding" means a designated AO,-ef AH or VO Zone on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) with a one percent or greater annual chance of flooding to an average depth of. The base flood depths range from one to three feet; where a clearly defined channel does not exist;, where the path of flooding is unpredictable and where velocity flow may be evidentindctcnninatc;_and, velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow. 2. "Area of Special Flood Hazard" means the land in the floodplain within a community subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. The • area is shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as Zones A, AE, AH, AO, A 1- 99, VO, V1-30, VE or V. 23. "Base flood" means a flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. 44. "Base flood elevation" means the probable water surface elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the base flood as determined by or approved by the city engineer. • 45. "Certify" or "certification" means the specific reports, inspections and tests that are required have been performed in an appropriate manner, and such reports, inspections, tests and results comply with the applicable requirements of this chapter. §6. "Construction" means any manmade change to improved real property including,but not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading,paving, excavation or drilling operations located within the floodplain hazard area, whether or not the same requires building or other permits under this code. 67. "Development" means any manmade change to improved or unimproved real property including, but not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materialslocatcd within the floodplain hazard area, whether or not the same requires building or other'permits under this code. 78. "Drainway" means a natural or artificial land depression, with or without perceptible bed and banks,to which surface runoff gravitates to form a continuous or intermittent flow of water in a definite direction. 2 8-9. "Flood Insurance Rate Map, 'FIRM"'means the official Flood Insurance Rate Map for Salt Lake City, Utah, dated September 21, 2001August 1, 1983, as issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency "FEMA" and any officially approved amendments thereto, on which the floodplain hazard areas and the risk premium zones have been delineated. 910. "Flood Insurance Study" means the official report provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that includes flood profiles, the Flood Boundary- Floodway Map, and the water surface elevation of the base flood. 11. "Flood or Flooding" means a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land area from the overflow of inland or tidal waters or the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source. 4-912. "Floodplain." Generally, floodplain(s) is/are a relatively flat area or lowland(s) adjoining a river, stream, watercourse, ocean or lake which has been or may be covered by floodwater. Specifically, for purposes of this title, "floodplain(s)" shall be that area of the city designated within the boundaries of the official Flood Insurance Rate Map or amendments, which may be subject to periodic inundation in the event of the base flood. 4-1.13. "Floodplain hazard area" means the area containing the floodplain for a base flood in the city, as designated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map and approved amendments. 1214. "Floodproofing" means any combination of structural or non-structural additions, changes or adjustments to structures or property which reduce or eliminate 3 flood damage to improved or unimproved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents. 4-315. "Floodway" means the channel of the river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas thatwhich must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood; without aecumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated heightone foot. 4-416. "Highest adjacent grade" means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction or development next to the proposed wall of a structure. 4-5-17. "Levee system" means a flood protection system which consists of a levee, or levees, and associated structures, such as closure and drainage devices, which are constructed and operated in accordance with sound engineering practices. 4-618. "Licensed architect" means an architect who is registered with the Department of Registration of the State of Utah. 19. "Lowest floor" means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood restraint enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement area is not considered a building's lowest floor; provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of Section 60.3 of the National Flood Insurance Program regulations. 4420. "Manufactured home" means a structure transportable in one or more sections,which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities. For floodplain management purposes the term "manufactured home" also includes park trailers,travel 4 trailers, and other similar vehicles placed on a site for greater than one hundred eighty consecutive days. For insurance purposes the term "manufactured home" does not include park trailers,travel trailers, and other similar vehicles. 4&21. "Manufactured home park" or "manufactured home subdivision" means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale. 4 422. "Mean sea level" means, for purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program,the National Geodetic Vertical Datum(NGVD) of 1929 or other datum to which base flood elevations shown on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map are referenced. 2823. "New construction" means structures or substantial improvement thereto for which the start of construction as defined in this section is commenced on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. 2 -24. "New development" means any development proposal(s) and/or plan(s) submitted for approval, for which the development activities as defined in this section will commence on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. 2225. "Registered land surveyor" means a land surveyor who is registered with the Department of Registration of the State of Utah. 2326. "Registered professional engineer" means a civil engineer who is registered with the Department of Registration of the State of Utah. 2427. "Remedy a violation" means to bring the structure or other development into compliance with state or local floodplain management regulations, or, if this is not possible,to reduce the impacts of its noncompliance. Ways that impacts may be reduced 5 include protecting the structure or other affected development from flood damages, implementing the enforcement provisions of this chapter or otherwise deterring future similar violations, or reducing federal financial exposure with regard to the structure or other development. 2528. "Start of construction" applies to both new construction and substantial improvements and means: a. The date the building permit was issued,provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction,placement or other improvement was within one hundred eighty days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure or on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles,the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings,piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. b. Relocatable Office or Structure. Start of construction for a relocatable office building (defined in Section 18.84.010 of this code, or its successor) or other temporary structure shall be the date on which the relocatable office building is placed upon an approved site. 2629. "Structure" means a walled and roofed building, temporary structure, or manufactured home that is in whole or in part above ground. 6 30. "Substantial improvements" means any development and/or construction of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds either fifty percent of the market value of the structure before the development is started, or, if the development or construction is undertaken for repair of damage caused by accident or acts of God, fifty percent of the same market value of the structure before the damage occurred. 2831. "Violation" means the failure of a structure or other development to fully comply with these floodplain management regulations. A structure or other development without the elevation certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in C.F.R. Sections 60.3(b)(5), (c)(4), (c)(10), (d)(3), (e)(2), (e)(4), or(e)(5) is presumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation is provided. 2932. "Water surface elevation" means the height, in relation to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929;(or other datum, where specified),of floods of various magnitudes and frequencies in the floodplains of coastal or riverine areas. basement). An unfinished or flood restraint enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, in an area other than a basement area, is not eonsidefed-a-building's-lowest-€loo roy'ded-that-such enclosure-i-s not built so as io render the structure i„ vielati,« o f tt.e ,.pplicable . el ,.tieu l wt. f Section 60.3 of the National Flood Insurance Program regulationsthis chapter. (Ord. 31 89 § 1, 1989; Ord. 72-87 § 1 (part), 1987: prior code § 47 8 4) 31. "Flood or Flooding" means a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally-dry land area from the overflow-of iffland or tidal waters or the unusual and rapid accumulation or ruoff of surface waters from any source. 7 32. "Area of Special Flood Hazard" is the land in the floodplain within a community subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. The area is shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map{FIRM) as Zones A,AE, AH, AO, Al 99, VO, V 1 30, VE or V. 18.68.030 Establishment of floodplain hazard areas. The floodplain hazard areas within Salt Lake City have been established and identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study for the City of Salt Lake City, Utah," dated February 1, 1983. The boundaries of the floodplain hazard areas are delineated on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) which accompanies the Flood Insurance Study and became effective on September 21, 2001August 1, 1983. Located within the floodplain hazard areas are areas designated as floodways. The locations of the floodways have been computed in the Flood Insurance Study and are contained therein on Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps. The Flood Insurance Study, accompanying FIRM and Floodway Maps are hereby adopted by reference and made part of this chapter. Said Flood Insurance Study together with the FIRM and Floodway Maps and any amendments approved by FEMA after acceptance by the mayor as provided in Section 18.68.070 or its successor constitute the boundaries of the floodplain hazard areas governed by the supplemental regulations of this chapter. Two copies of said Flood Insurance Study together with the accompanying FIRM and Floodway Maps and accepted amendments shall be filed by the Director of the Department of Public Utilitiescity engineer and be available for public inspection. The original shall be kept for certification purposes by the city recorder. 8 18.68.040 Relationship of floodplain hazard regulations to zoning use districts. * * * 18.68.050 Subdivision development approval procedure. * * * 18.68.060 Applications and permits. * * * 18.68.070 Administrative FIRM amendment. * * * 18.68.080 Certification of actual elevations required. * * * 18.68.090 Development standards and criteria. * * * 18.68.100 Subdivisions, new construction and substantial improvements. * * * 18.68.110 Floodways. Floodways located within areas of special flood hazard established in 18.68.030, are areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles and erosion potential, the following provisions shall apply: A. Encroachments are prohibited,including till, new construction, substantial improvements and other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment would not 9 result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. B. If the requirements of Section 18.68.110 A. above areis satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions. C. Under the provisions of 44 CFR Chapter 1, Section 65.12, of the National Flood Insurance Regulations, a community may permit encroachments within the adopted regulatory floodway that would result in an increase in base flood elevations, provided that the community first applies for a conditional FIRM and floodway revision through FEMA. 18.68.110 120 Manufactured home park standards. * * * 18.68.120 130 Anchoring of manufactured homes and certain other structures. • * * * 18.68.130 140 Permits-Withholding, suspension or revocation. * * * 18.68.140 150 Warning and disclaimer of liability. * * * 18.68.150 160 Mandatory and prohibitionary nature of chapter. * * * SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. 10 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2001. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2001. Published: G\Ordina0l\18-68 Floodplain Ha2ard Protection doc • 11 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2001 (Floodplain hazard prevention) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 68 OF TITLE 18 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO FLOODPLAIN HAZARD PREVENTION. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Chapter 68 of Title.18 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to floodplain hazard prevention, be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows: Chapter 18.68 FLOODPLAIN HAZARD PREVENTION 18.68.010 Purpose. * * * 18.68.020 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter the following terms mean: 1. "Area of shallow flooding" means a designated AO, AH or VO Zone on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)with a one percent or greater annual chance of flooding to an average depth of one to three feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist, where the path of flooding is unpredictable and where velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow. 2. "Area of Special Flood Hazard" means the land in the floodplain within a community subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. The area is shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as Zones A, AE, AH, AO, Al- 99, VO, V1-30, VE or V. 3. "Base flood" means a flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. 4. "Base flood elevation" means the probable water surface elevation(in relation to mean sea level) of the base flood as determined by or approved by the city engineer. 5. "Certify" or "certification" means the specific reports, inspections and tests that are required have been performed in an appropriate manner, and such reports, inspections, tests and results comply with the applicable requirements of this chapter. 6. "Construction" means any manmade change to improved real property including, but not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations located within the floodplain hazard area, whether or not the same requires building or other permits under this code. 7. "Development" means any manmade change to improved or unimproved real property including, but not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or • materials. 8. "Drainway" means a natural or artificial land depression, with or without perceptible bed and banks, to which surface runoff gravitates to form a continuous or intermittent flow of water in a definite direction. 9. "Flood Insurance Rate Map, 'FIRM"' means the official Flood Insurance Rate Map for Salt Lake City, Utah, dated September 21, 2001, as issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency "FEMA" and any officially approved amendments 2 thereto, on which the floodplain hazard areas and the risk premium zones have been delineated. 10. "Flood Insurance Study" means the official report provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that includes flood profiles, the Flood Boundary- Floodway Map, and the water surface elevation of the base flood. 11. "Flood or Flooding" means a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land area from the overflow of inland or tidal waters or the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source. 12. "Floodplain." Generally, floodplain(s) is/are a relatively flat area or lowland(s) adjoining a river, stream, watercourse, ocean or lake which has been or may be covered by floodwater. Specifically, for purposes of this title, "floodplain(s)" shall be that area of the city designated within the boundaries of the official Flood Insurance Rate Map or amendments, which may be subject to periodic inundation in the event of the base flood. 13. "Floodplain hazard area" means the area containing the floodplain for a base flood in the city, as designated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map and approved amendments. 14. "Floodproofing" means any combination of structural or non-structural additions, changes or adjustments to structures or property which reduce or eliminate flood damage to improved or unimproved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents. 3 15. "Floodway" means the channel of the river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. 16. "Highest adjacent grade" means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction or development next to the proposed wall of a structure. 17. "Levee system" means a flood protection system which consists of a levee, or levees, and associated structures, such as closure and drainage devices, which are constructed and operated in accordance with sound engineering practices. 18. "Licensed architect" means an architect who is registered with the Department of Registration of the State of Utah. 19. "Lowest floor" means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood restraint enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement area is not considered a building's lowest floor; provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of Section 60.3 of the National Flood Insurance Program regulations. 20. "Manufactured home" means a structure transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities. For floodplain management purposes the term "manufactured home" also includes park trailers, travel trailers, and other similar vehicles placed on a site for greater than one hundred eighty consecutive days. For insurance purposes the term "manufactured home" does not include park trailers, travel trailers, and other similar vehicles. 4 21. "Manufactured home park" or "manufactured home subdivision" means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale. 22. "Mean sea level" means, for purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program, the National Geodetic Vertical Datum(NGVD) of 1929 or other datum to which base flood elevations shown on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map are referenced. 23. "New construction" means structures or substantial improvement thereto for which the start of construction as defined in this section is commenced on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. 24. "New development" means any development proposal(s) and/or plan(s) submitted for approval, for which the development activities as defined in this section will commence on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. 25. "Registered land surveyor" means a land surveyor who is registered with the Department of Registration of the State of Utah. 26. "Registered professional engineer" means a civil engineer who is registered with the Department of Registration of the State of Utah. 27. "Remedy a violation" means to bring the structure or other development into compliance with state or local floodplain management regulations, or, if this is not possible, to reduce the impacts of its noncompliance. Ways that impacts may be reduced include protecting the structure or other affected development from flood damages, implementing the enforcement provisions of this chapter or otherwise deterring future 5 similar violations, or reducing federal financial exposure with regard to the structure or other development. 28. "Start of construction" applies to both new construction and substantial improvements and means: a. The date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, placement or other improvement was within one hundred eighty days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure or.on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. b. Relocatable Office or Structure. Start of construction for a relocatable office building (defined in Section 18.84.010 of this code, or its successor) or other temporary structure shall be the date on which the relocatable office building is placed upon an approved site. 29. "Structure" means a walled and roofed building, temporary structure, or manufactured home that is in whole or in part above ground. 30. "Substantial improvements" means any development and/or construction of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds either fifty percent of the market value of 6 the structure before the development is started, or, if the development or construction is undertaken for repair of damage caused by accident or acts of God, fifty percent of the same market value of the structure before the damage occurred. 31. "Violation" means the failure of a structure or other development to fully comply with these floodplain management regulations. A structure or other development without the elevation certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in C.F.R. Sections 60.3(b)(5), (c)(4), (c)(10), (d)(3), (e)(2), (e)(4), or(e)(5)is presumed to be in violation until such time.as that documentation is provided. 32. "Water surface elevation" means the height, in relation to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum(NGVD) of 1929 (or other datum, where specified), of floods of various magnitudes and frequencies in the floodplains of coastal or riverine areas. 18.68.030 Establishment of floodplain hazard areas. The floodplain hazard areas within Salt Lake City have been established and identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study for the City of Salt Lake City, Utah," dated February 1, 1983. The boundaries of the floodplain hazard areas are delineated on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) which accompanies the Flood Insurance Study and became effective on September 21, 2001. Located within the floodplain hazard areas are areas designated as floodways. The locations of the floodways have been computed in the Flood Insurance Study and are contained therein on Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps. The Flood Insurance Study, accompanying FIRM and Floodway Maps are hereby adopted by reference and made part of this chapter. Said Flood Insurance Study together with the FIRM and Floodway Maps and 7 any amendments approved by FEMA after acceptance by the mayor as provided in Section 18.68.070 or its successor constitute the boundaries of the floodplain hazard areas governed by the supplemental regulations of this chapter. Two copies of said Flood Insurance Study together with the accompanying FIRM and Floodway Maps and accepted amendments shall be filed by the Director of the Department of Public Utilities and be available for public inspection. The original shall be kept for certification purposes by the city recorder. 18.68.040 Relationship of floodplain hazard regulations to zoning use districts. * * * 18.68.050 Subdivision development approval procedure. * * * 18.68.060 Applications and permits. * * * 18.68.070 Administrative FIRM amendment. * * * 18.68.080 Certification of actual elevations required. * * * 18.68.090 Development standards and criteria. * * * 18.68.100 Subdivisions, new construction and substantial improvements. * * * 18.68.110 Floodways. Floodways located within areas of special flood hazard established in 18.68.030, are areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area 8 due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles and erosion potential, the following provisions shall apply: A. Encroachments are prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. B. If the requirements of Section 18.68.110 A. above are satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions. C. Under the provisions of 44 CFR Chapter 1, Section 65.12, of the National Flood Insurance Regulations, a community may permit encroachments within the adopted regulatory floodway that would result in an increase in base flood elevations, provided that the community first applies for a conditional FIRM and floodway revision through FEMA. 18.68.120 Manufactured home park standards. * * * 18.68.130 Anchoring of manufactured homes and certain other structures. * * * 18.68.140 Permits-Withholding, suspension or revocation. * * * 18.68.150 Warning and disclaimer of liability. 9 * * * 18.68.160 Mandatory and prohibitionary nature of chapter. * * * SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. 10 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2001. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2001. Published: G:\Ordina01\18-68 Floodplain Hazard Protection.doc 11 MEMORANDUM • DATE: January 4,,2002. TO: Council Members FROM: Gary MuMford RE: . Proposed Amendment#4 to Interim'Agreement among Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County,BP Products North America Inc, (formerly Amoco.Oil Company) and Chevron U.S.A.Inc.to increase the scope of services of an environmental study relating to the Sewage Canal and the Northwest Oil Drain Salt Lake City Owns the Northwest Oil Drain and Sewage Canal;which are used for stormwater discharge and to convey treated effluent from the wastewater treatment facility to the Great Salt Lake. In the past, c401*and BP Product or their predecessors may have discharged or released petrOleumtkrojeets or Wakes into the canals, , There is a significant problem With Plant-growth in the Canal. In the past, Salt Lake County has been able to maintain the canals under the County's flood controlresponsibilities. The County is no,longer able to dredge sediment or remove weeds due to environmental concern. As a result some flooding has occurred. On January.2; 2001,- the Council approved an interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County, Amoco Oil Company and Chevron U.S.A.,Inc to hire an environmental consultant, Stantec Consulting, to study the Sewage Canal and Northwest Oil Drain. The,purpose of the study is to determine options for mitigating possible contaminated the canal. The approved , amendments to that agreement in June and November 2001 to provide flinding for expanding the scope of the study to perform additional analysis and engineering services. The Department of Public Utilities is requesting a third amendment to expand the scope to include a cost analysis of two additional alternative mitigation strategies:: (1)transporting all sediment to a private landfill, and i(2)transporting sediment from three of the five canal segments as clean fill: to an offsite location, Based on the consultant's the sediment in three of the canal, , segments contains a low enough level of certain compounds to be considered "clean fill" after it is mixed with sand to dry out the sediment material. It is possible that the sediment from the three segments can than be used to cap a landfill cell or some other useful project, which can result in „ : substantial savings to the City;County and oil cOnipanieS. The proposed amendment to the lnterlocat agreement provides additional finding of$20,000 for the study with each entity's share being $5:,000. The City's $5,000 share is available within the budget fbr the Department of Public = " Utilities. co: Rocky Fluhart,JayMagure,LellOy MOO,TeirNicineyetz 4 , • SAW eW €A.:.: .P4! j F 6Y V• AAP O' 5 r 1 iION[ LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. � ""` ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES MAYOR WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer December 7, 2001 RE: Amendment #3 to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation, Salt Lake County, BP Products North America Inc. (formerly) Amoco Oil Company and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. for engineering and environmental services associated with the Sewage Canal and Northwest Oil Drain. Recommendation: That the Council approve the attached agreement and forward to the Mayor for execution in behalf of the City. Availability of Funds: 2001/2002 budget. Discussion: This amendment expands the scope of services to be performed by Stantec Consulting, Inc. There are three amendment tasks which include: additional meetings due to changes in project schedule; assist with the analysis of additional options, technologies and scenarios determined by the Technical Committee as appropriate alternatives; and assist the Technical and Policy Committees with scientific and cost analysis services based on the alternatives analyzed. Each party's cost will be increased by $5,000.00. Contact Person: Jeff Niermeyer at 483-6785. Submitted By: LEROY W HOOTON, R. Director lka Attachments cc: File 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 94115 TELEPHONE: 801-483-6900 FAX: 801-4E13-6E11B ��aecreeo PnPea . S.L'11 ! l "' Tr�y � ��v1iY 'OR�Po r k, �I, g; s LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES MAYOR WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER December 7, 2001 Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson 451 South State Street, Room 306 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mayor Anderson: Please find attached an amendment#2 to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, BP Products North America Inc. (formerly) Amoco Oil Company, and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. for engineering and environmental services associated with the Sewage Canal and Northwest Oil Drain. The purpose of this amendment is to expand the investigation of the drainage systems to be performed by Stantec Consulting, Inc. and increase the cost for the services. Each party's cost will be increased by $5,000.00. I recommend that this agreement be approved by you and the City Recorder in behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and that the original be returned to this office for further processing. Very truly yours, 'Wi _______ LEROY HOOTON, R. j . Director lka Attachments cc: File 1 530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 34115 TELEPHONE: 801-483.6900 FAX: 801-483.681 8 aecrc�eo PnPea RESOLUTION OF 2001 AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA INC. (FORMERLY) AMOCO OIL COMPANY AND CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A., 1953, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint under- takings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. It does hereby approved the form and substance of the attached agreement as follows: Expand the investigation of the drainage systems to be performed by Stantec Consulting, Inc. and increase the cost of the services. 2. Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to approve said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, subject to any minor changes which do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City thereunder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2001. SALT LAKE CITY COUNTIL BY CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER RLM:rc/lka t • THIRD AMENDMENT to INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT between SALT LAKE COUNTY SALT LAKE CITY BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA INC. (formerly) AMOCO OIL COMPANY and CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. for engineering and environmental services associated with the Sewage Canal and Northwest Oil Drain This Third Amendment, made on the day of , 2001, by and among Salt Lake County, a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah ("COUNTY"); Salt Lake City, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah ("CITY"); BP Products North America Inc., formerly Amoco Oil Company, a Maryland corporation doing business in Salt Lake County, Utah ("AMOCO"); and Chevron U.S.A. Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation doing business in Salt Lake County, Utah ("CHEVRON"). The COUNTY, CITY, AMOCO and CHEVRON are sometimes collectively referred to hereinafter as the Parties. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, on December 27, 2000, the Parties entered into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement to, among other things, retain a consultant to conduct a voluntary investigation of the' drainage systems; and WHEREAS, the Parties amended the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement on July 16, 2001, to expand the Scope of Services to be perfoinied by Stantec described in Exhibit "A" ; and WHEREAS, the Scope of Services to be performed by Stantec Consulting, Inc. ("Stantec") _ was expanded in a Second Amendment to include five additional tasks and to increase the costs for the services to be performed by Stantec; WHEREAS, the Scope of Services to be performed by Stantec has been expanded again to include three additional tasks. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises set forth herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Paragraph 3 of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement is amended to include Addendum #3 - Scope of Services", including Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix C, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The additional services include: Task 14 - "Meetings and Project Management" - additional meetings due to changes in project schedule; Task 15 - "Additional Alternative Analysis" - assist with the analysis of additional options, technologies and scenarios determined by the Technical Committee as appropriate alternatives. Task 16 - "Technical Assistance to Policy and Technical Committees" - assist the Technical and Policy Committees with scientific and cost analysis services based on the alternatives analyzed. 2. Paragraph 4 of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement is amended to increase the costs for the services to be performed by Stantec by an additional $20,000.00 increasing the total amount from$325,300.00 (Second Amendment)to $345,300.00. The proportionate share of each party's cost participation shall be increased by $5,000.00. 3. Paragraph 17 of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement is reiterated as follows: The Parties represent that they have not: (a)provided an illegal gift or payoff to a CITY officer or employee or former CITY officer or employee, or his or her relative or business entity; (b) retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, 2 percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; (c) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the CITY's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code; or (d)knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence a CITY officer or employee or former CITY officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in the CITY's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code. 4. Other than the foregoing amendments expressly agreed upon by the Parties, all other terms and conditions of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement remain the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Third Amendment to be executed as of the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE COUNTY By Mayor Nancy Workman or Designee STATE OF UTAH ) :ss County of Salt Lake ) On this day of , 2001, personally appeared before me , who being duly sworn, did say that he/she is the of Salt Lake County, Office of Mayor, and that the foregoing instrument was signed on behalf of Salt Lake County, by authority of law. NOTARY PUBLIC Residing in Salt Lake County My Commission Expires: C30iv.doc 3 SALT LAKE CITY a municipal corporation By Ross C. Anderson, Mayor ATTEST: Chief City Recorder 4 BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA INC. (formerly) AMOCO OIL COMPANY By Its: STATE OF ILLINOIS ) : ss County of Cook ) On this day of , 2001, personally appeared before me , who being first duly sworn did state that he/she is the for BP Products North America Inc. (formerly) Amoco Oil Company, a Maryland corporation doing business in Salt Lake County, Utah, and that the foregoing Third Amendment to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its bylaws or a resolution and that said corporation executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC Residing at: My Commission Expires: 5 CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. By Its: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) : ss County of San Francisco ) On this day of , 2001,personally appeared before me , who being first duly sworn did state that he/she is the of Chevron U.S.A. Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation doing business in Salt Lake County, Utah, and that the foregoing Third Amendment to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its bylaws or a resolution and that said corporation executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC Residing at: My Commission Expires: 6 APPENDIX A ADDENDUM NO. 3 SCOPE OF SERVICES NORTHWEST OIL DRAIN ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE ENGINEER shall provide COUNTY additional services to conduct engineering and environmental services for the Northwest Oil Drain investigation. Additional services included in this scope are for the following tasks. TASK 14 -MEETINGS AND PROJECT MANAGMENT Engineer will assist with meetings involving the Technical Committee, Policy Committee and regulatory stakeholders. During the project Technical Committee meetings are scheduled monthly, on the 1' and 3rd Wednesdays. Policy committee meetings will be attended on a monthly basis, as scheduled by the Policy committee chair. Stakeholder coordination meeting is scheduled for the month of August. Due to changes in the project schedule, project duration is expected to be 13 months (prior schedule was 10 months, original schedule 7 months). Meetings will be held in November, December and March of 2001. TASK 15-ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS ENGINEER shall assist the technical committee with the analysis for the additional options, technologies and scenarios determined by the committee as appropriate alternatives. The analysis shall focus on the following additional alternatives: all sediment to be transported to a private landfill, offsite (BP Amoco site), and sediment from 3, 4 and 5 to be transported as clean fill to offsite location. Costs will be prepared for each of the canal segments and combinations of alternatives will be evaluated to present the most efficient and effective alternatives for further evaluation utilizing the 9 CERCLA criteria (see task 13). ADDENDUM NO. 3 SCOPE OF SERVICES (cont'd) TASK 16-TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO POLICY AND TECHNICAL COMMITTEES ENGINEER will assist the technical and policy committees with scientific and cost analysis services based on the alternatives analyzed. ENGINEER shall, upon direction, analyze different scenario's for the alternatives. These scenario's may be based on increasing the number of segments of the canal, coordination with the disposal facilities with regard to the nature of the sediment to be disposed and the disposal fee assessed by the facility, investigating potential users of clean fill from the segments 3, 4 and 5. APPENDIX B TASK COST REPORT HEADER INFORMATION Owner: Salt Lake County Engineering Division ESTIMATED PERSONNEL RATES: (Calendar Year 2001) Level&Personnel Category Labor Charge Project: Northwest Oil Drain Principal $137.00 Description: Additional engineering and environmental 2 Sr.Project Engineer $121.00 for Activities Associated with the 3 Sr.Hydrologist $114.00 • Removal of Sediment in the Sewage Canal 4 Project Engineer $85.00 and Northwest Oil Drain 5 Project Engineer $70.00 s Process specialists $100.00 Project Mgr.: Karen Nichols 7 Geologist $77.00 e Lead Surveyor $77.00 Start Date: 10/23/2001 9 Survey Crew $115.00 37187 10 Word Processor $45.00 Other Direct Costs Multiplier: 1.05 Note:Personnel rates are estimates used for cost estimation. Time Period: Weeks Date File Setup: 23-Oct-01 Date(Now): 28-Nov-01 Time(Now): 09:03 AM Filename: add2 APPENDIX C TASK COST REPORT Personnel Categories: Owner. Salt Lake County Engineering Division 1 Principal 6 Process specialists Project: Northwest Oil Drain" 2 Sr.Project Engineer 7 Geologist Description: Additional engineering and environmental 3 Sr.Hydrologist 8 Lead Surveyor 4 Project Engineer 9 Survey Crew Project Mgr: Karen Nichols 5 Project Engineer 10 Word Processor Date: 23-Oct-01 :: :::::::ii.:: :::v;;.....••.1• }�.( :::}:i}:i::::iii}:iii.iiv:ii:i: :ii:vti4:�iiii::i'{:;:.::..�:.•:: .....:...v. ...;M....:..:........ry:: :v::4•::::::k•.ov•::...... :•:::::.w::::::::::::::u.....:.w:n�:fhb 1:. ::x:.v..n•. • ::::::i::::: :::::': :;;..:,}ii:i::•'.::::i::i::i:::isi:{::::^i'::::::;':;{:;:;'::!i>.v:::::::::i::::::. ::::.:iii eQ ap my } No'•;:•;:•;;:.: ; ....................................... ...1:1ii ...::. •::..::::iii. :::':::;;::::::: :::%:i:>:':::i: 1:::4:ti::: ;:'::i:::%"i;::::::;:: ::r:;:i :::::;::..gii> ` ::;:.;, ::ii.i f.. :R::jiai:: :k::%;:::.,..:: :::::<::::::::::::::i!!!.::i:'.::::::::::::':::::>::tililli::::::Y::fi:::::. Task Aat►vi .;:; :•;:•::•;::•:;;:.;:.;>::::;.;:.;:.;:.;;;::.;:..:.::.::::.:>.;::.:::.::::::: ::. ............ ...................... ... .....:....:::::.:.:.....:. ....t?.......:. Coax e ::: :� .. ............ ... 14 Meetings and Project Management(Nov,Dec.2001) Meet with technical team(1st/3rd wednesdays) 0 20 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 45 $50 $4,170 $53 $4,223 Meet with policy(4th Thursdays) 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 $50 $968 $53 $1,021 Meet with stakeholders 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,243 15 Additional alternatives for cost estimate 0 60 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 115 $0 $11,110 $0 $11,110 16 Allocation Assistance 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 $0 $3,630 $0 $3,630 Totals 0 118 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 198 $100 $19,878 $105 $19;983 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: January 4, 2002 SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement with the Utah Department of Transportation for the reconstruction of Fremont Avenue Bridge at the Jordan River. STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget and Policy Analyst Document Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts Type Resolution The proposed Interlocal This resolution The Interlocal Agreement Agreement with the Utah authorizes the Mayor specifies that the City will Department of to approve the pay for any costs incurred Transportation is for the interlocal agreement during this project above reconstruction of the on behalf of the City. the estimated amount. Fremont Avenue Bridge. The City's financial obligations have been budgeted for by the City Council. The City Council will hold a briefing on January 8, 2002 regarding the proposed resolution and consider taking action on January 15, 2002. The following are possible motions that the Council can make regarding this resolution. 1. ri move that the Council"] Adopt a resolution authorizing the approval of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation. 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt a resolution authorizing the approval of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation. MATTERS AT ISSUE The Administration is recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor to approve an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the Utah Department of Transportation. The agreement is for the reconstruction of the Fremont Avenue Bridge at the Jordan River. The City has budgeted $124,440 for this project. The budgeted amount was appropriated in fiscal year 2000-2001. The City's amount is the local authority match that is required. The federal government has approved $660,000 for this project. This project has been reviewed by the City Council before, and several interlocal agreements are already in place concerning the design and construction of this project. This interlocal agreement is for the reimbursement of this project. The design Page 1 work for this project is nearing completion and the actual construction is scheduled to begin in spring of 2002 and be completed by the fall of 2002. Specific projects details are included in the transmittal from the Administration. cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart,Jay Magure, Steve Fawcett,Gordon Hoskins,Roger Cutler,Rick Graham, Max Peterson,Rick Johnston Page 2 SAL' q, 1 A a a Ty `="[1`r CORPORATION' MAX G. PETERS❑N, P.E. 1' � o.*"..k 3°' � ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON CITY ENGINEER COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR ENGINEERING DIVISION TO: Mr. ROCKY FLUHART DATE: DECEMBER 4, 2000 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Nd,7 FROM: RICK GRAHAM—PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR REFERENCE: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign an interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation for the reconstruction of Fremont Avenue Bridge at the Jordan River. STAFF CONTACT:` Rick Johnston, 535-6232 RECOMMENDATION: The City Council schedules this item on its agenda. DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: The funding for the local match requirement for this project ($124,440) has already been approved by the City Council through the 2000/2001 Capital Improvement Program budget process. The cost center is 83-01044-2700. The IFAS # is 83100145 and the activity code is 672. DISCUSSION:. Federal Highway Surface Transportation Program funding has been approved in the amount of$660,000 for reconstruction of this bridge. The project will involve reconstruction of a deteriorated and structurally deficient bridge over the Jordan River at Fremont Avenue (1100 South). This project has been reviewed with the appropriate community council representatives. The required local match of$124,440 has already been budgeted. Design of this project is nearing completion with project bidding by UDOT scheduled for this February/March. Actual construction is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2002 and be completed by the fall of 2002. cc: Vault rn 9Q 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 310, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7961 FAX: SO1-535-6093 efA RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002 AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Ann., 1953, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. It does hereby approve the execution and delivery of the following: A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT MODIFICATION 1, PRECONSTRUCTION & CONSTRUCTION REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM, BETWEEN THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION REGARDING THE FREMONT BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, LOCATED AT 1100 WEST FREMONT AVENUE, PROJECT NO. BRO-LC35(113). 2. Ross C. "Rocky"Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, or his designee, is hereby authorized to approve said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, subject to such minor changes which do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City thereunder and as shall be approved by the Mayor, his execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, this day of , 2002. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIRPERSON P eCO r'�ProjectProject Number: BRO-LC35(113) Project Name: FREMONT BRIDGE REPLACEMENT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT MODIFICATION 1 PRECONSTRUCTION & CONSTRUCTION REIMBURSEMENT Program (FEDERAL PARTICIPATION) THIS Cooperative Agreement No. ,made and entered into this day of 20_, by and between the Utah Department of Transportation hereinafter referred to as "UDOT",and Salt Lake City, State of Utah, acting through its Mayor hereinafter referred to as "LOCAL AUTHORITY", witnesseth that: WHEREAS, the parties to this agreement desire to provide for the project, FREMONT BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, financed in part from Federal-aid highway funds, said project located at 1100 West Fremont Ave (1100 South and 1100 West)and identified as project number BRO-LC35(113); and WHEREAS, the LOCAL AUTHORITY agrees to pay all costs of the project, less the eligible amount reimbursed to UDOT by the Federal Government,and that through their consultant selection process has selected Carter&Burgess INC.,hereinafter referred to as"CONSULTANT",as their Consultant Project Engineer to perform Construction Engineering; and WHEREAS,the LOCAL AUTHORITY agrees to comply with the applicable UDOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Federal-aid Program Procedures and Standards for the project; and WHEREAS,UDOT's Policy for Construction Engineering on Local Government Projects provides that UDOT not perform construction engineering for local government projects,unless a hardship exists and substantial savings can be realized by using UDOT construction engineering, and UDOT construction resources are available; and WHEREAS, by law, UDOT may not expend State Funds on any local government project: NOW,THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Description of Work Involved: The work covered by this agreement shall commence upon advertisement of the project, and shall consist of the following: a. UDOT shall: (1) Award the project,with concurrence from the LOCAL AUTHORITY,using UDOT procedures. (2) Provide a Project Manager for the project. (3) Provide Technical Assistance and Engineering Services to the CONSULTANT only if such Technical Assistance and Engineerins Services are requested in writing from the CONSULTANT and are not available from other private consultants. (4) Charge appropriate costs for all Technical Assistance and Engineering Services to the CONSULTANT. (5) Charge appropriate costs for all project management to the project. 2. Liability: LOCAL AUTHORITY agrees to hold harmless and indemnify UDOT, its officers, employees and agents(Indemnities)from and against all claims,suits and costs,including attorneys' fees for injury or damage of any kind, arising out of the LOCAL AUTHORITY'S negligent acts, errors or omissions in the performance of this project, and from and against all claims, suits and Project Number: BRO-LC35(113) Project Name: FREMONT BRIDGE REPLACEMENT costs, including attorneys' fees for injury or damage of any kind,arising out of Indemnities'failure to inspect,discover,correct,or otherwise address any defect,dangerous condition or other condition created by or resulting from LOCAL AUTHORITY's negligent acts, errors or omissions in the performance of this project. Any periodic plan and specification review or construction inspection performed by UDOT arising out of the performance of the project does not relieve the LOCAL AUTHORITY of its duty in the performance of this project or to ensure compliance with acceptable standards. 3. Financing of Project: The costs shown below are only ESTIMATES. Actual costs exceeding any funds outside the Commission approved STIP amount will be paid by the LOCAL AUTHORITY. The funding percentages match applies to the Commission approved STIP amount only. Any request for additional funding outside of that amount will required the LOCAL AUTHORITY to make an official request to their MPO or the Joint Highway Committee and the Transportation Commission. An amendment may be required to the STIP with advertisement to the public if approved by the Transportation Commission. 2 Project Number: BRO-LC35(113) • Project Name: FREMONT BRIDGE REPLACEMENT FEDERAL FEDERAL NON- PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING Preliminary Engineering: UDOT In-house Design Costs $ $ Consultant Design Costs $164,000.00 $ UDOT Review, Services, and Technical Assist. $15,000.00 $ Acquisitions and Appraisals $ $ Utilities $ $ Construction Contract $565,000.00 $0.00 Construction Engineering: UDOT Construction Monitoring $15,000.00 $ Consultant Construction Engineering $66,000.00 $ ESTIMATED TOTAL PARTICIPATING AND NON- PARTICIPATING COSTS $825,000.00 $0.00 GRAND TOTAL (Participating+Non-participating) $825,000.00 Federal Funds $825,000.00 80.00% $660,000.00 Local Match 20.00% $165,000.00 Local Authority Non-participating Costs $0.00 Local Authority Match and Non-participating Costs $165,000.00 Local Authority Funds Required beyond $0.00 Federal Funding Less Local Match Already on Deposit for $40,560.00 Preconstruction Phase Additional Local Authority Match Required S124,440.00 3 Project Number: BRO-LC35(113) Project Name: FREMONT BRIDGE REPLACEMENT NOTE: The Utah State Transportation Commission has approved $825,000.00 in total funds for this project. Any additional participating project costs above this amount shall be paid by the LOCAL AUTHORITY. a. Payment of LOCAL AUTHORITY Match For Construction: Upon signing this agreement, the LOCAL AUTHORITY will pay their matching share for construction phase estimated at($124.440.00). The LOCAL AUTHORITY shall make a check payable to the Utah Department of Transportation referencing the project number STP-2290(2)10. Payment should be mailed to the UDOT Comptroller's Office, 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119-5998. b. UDOT Technical Assistance and Engineering Services: The CONSULTANT shall pay all costs (both direct and indirect)for any Technical Assistance or Engineering Service performed by UDOT relative to this project. c. Construction: The LOCAL AUTHORITY shall pay all costs of construction and construction engineering, less the eligible amount reimbursed to UDOT by the Federal Government. The Joint Highway Committee limits federal participation in construction engineering costs to 20 percent of the construction contract costs for local government projects,provided that the average statewide cost for construction engineering does not exceed the 15 percent limit required by the Federal Government. Construction engineering includes UDOT Project Management and Consultant Construction Engineering. d. Consultant Construction Engineering: The LOCAL AUTHORITY shall submit four copies of billings with attached supporting data for costs incurred to the UDOT Project Manager. The LOCAL AUTHORITY and the UDOT Project Manager shall certify and approve the billings and forward to the UDOT Consultant Services Accountant within the Comptroller's Office. UDOT shall pay the Consultant for the LOCAL AUTHORITY. by a separate Engineering Services contract for work covered by the billing. e. Under runs: If the deposited amount stated above exceeds the LOCAL AUTHORITY's total share of project costs, UDOT will return the amount of overpayment to the LOCAL AUTHORITY. f. Overruns: If project costs exceed the estimated amount, the LOCAL AUTHORITY shall pay its matching share for the overruns. Should the LOCAL AUTHORITY fail to reimburse UDOT for costs that exceed the federal reimbursement, federal funding for other LOCAL AUTHORITY projects or B&C road funds may be withheld until payment is made. g. Final Inspection and Acceptance: The UDOT Comptroller shall provide the LOCAL AUTHORITY with a final invoice after final inspection and acceptance of the project by the FHWA. If the deposited amount stated above exceeds the LOCAL AUTHORITY's share of the project, UDOT shall return the amount of overpayment to the LOCAL AUTHORITY. If the project overruns in costs, the LOCAL AUTHORITY shall pay its 4 Project Number: BRO-LC35(113) Project Name: FREMONT BRIDGE REPLACEMENT share of the additional amount required for completion of the work within 90 days after receiving the final invoice. Federal funds for future projects may be withheld until payment is made. UDOT shall furnish a quarterly statement to the LOCAL AUTHORITY and UDOT Project Manager showing costs charged to the project. 4. Construction Change Orders: An authorized LOCAL AUTHORITY official shall approve all construction change orders. 5. Certification of Consultant Selection Process: The LOCAL AUTHORITY certifies that the consultant selection process used for obtaining the CONSULTANT for this project is in conformance with UDOT and FHWA requirements. Failure to conform to these requirements may result in loss of Federal funds for the project. 6. Maintenance: The LOCAL AUTHORITY shall properly maintain and restore each type of roadway, structure and facility as nearly as possible in its original condition as constructed or improved in accordance with State and Federal requirements. Future utility installations will be made according to UDOT's "Regulations for the Accommodation of Utilities on Federal-aid and Non Federal-aid Highway Right-of-Way." 7. Parking Regulation and Traffic Control: After the effective date of this agreement, no changes in parking regulations and traffic control will be made on this project without prior approval of the Federal Highway Administration unless the LOCAL AUTHORITY has a functioning traffic engineering unit with the demonstrated ability, as determined by the UDOT,to apply and maintain sound traffic operations and control. Any requests for revisions should be submitted through UDOT's Region Director. 8. Inter-local Co-operation Act Requirements: a. This agreement shall be authorized by resolution of the governing body of each party to Section 11-13-17 of the Inter-local Co-operation Act, Utah Code Title 11, Chapter 13, as amended (the"Act"); b. This agreement shall be approved as to form and legality by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of each party, pursuant to Section 11-13-9 of the Act; c. A duly executed original counterpart of this agreement shall be filed with the keeper of records of each party, pursuant to Section 11-13-10 of the Act; d. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, each party shall be responsible for its own costs of any action done pursuant to this agreement, and for any financing of such costs; and e. No separate legal entity is created by the term of this agreement. To the extent that this agreement requires administration other than as set forth herein, it shall be administered by the mayor of the LOCAL AUTHORITY and the Region Director of UDOT, acting as a joint board. No real or personal property shall be acquired jointly by the parties as a 5 Project Number: BRO-LC35(113) Project Name: FREMONT BRIDGE REPLACEMENT result of this agreement. To the extent that a party acquires, holds, or disposes of any real or personal property for use in the joint or cooperative undertaking contemplated by this agreement, such party shall do so in the same manner that it deals with other property of such party. 9. Representation Rezarding_Ethical Standards for Local Authority Officers and Employees and Former Local Authority Officers and Employees: UDOT represents that it has not: (1) provided an illegal gift or payoff to a LOCAL AUTHORITY officer or employee of former LOCAL AUTHORITY officer or employee,or his or her relative or business entity; (2)retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission,percentage, brokerage or contingent fee,other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; (3) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the LOCAL AUTHORITY's conflict of interest ordinance,Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code; or(4)knowingly influenced,and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, a LOCAL AUTHORITY officer or employee of former LOCAL AUTHORITY officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in the LOCAL AUTHORITY's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44,Salt Lake City Code. 6 Project Number: BRO-LC35(113) Project Name: FREMONT BRIDGE REPLACEMENT IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed by their duly authorized officers as of the day, month, and year first above written. AUTHORIZED LOCAL AUTHORITY OFFICIAL: Salt Lake City By: Title: Date: Printed Name: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attomey's Office Date fz.—(8 ©/ By 41 UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION OFFICE: By: Title: Region Director Date: UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: Project Management Administration signature required when the standard boilerplate agreement has been modified. ❑ Check box if Project Management Administration signature is required. By: Title: Randall K. Lamoreaux, Project Management Director Date: By: Title: Contract Administrator Date: This form agreement has been reviewed and approved by the designated representative of the Attorney General. 7