The URL can be used to link to this page

07/12/2011 - Work Session - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2011 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, July 12, 2011, at 4 : 31 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street . In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Stan Penfold, Luke Garrott and JT Martin Absent : Council Members Jill Remington Love and Soren Simonsen. Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; Karen Halladay, Council Policy Analyst; David Everitt, Chief of Staff; Ed Rutan, City Attorney; Boyd Ferguson, Senior City Attorney; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; John Anderson, Principal Planner; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; John Naser, City Engineer; Kevin Young, Transportation Engineer and Chris Meeker, City Recorder. Councilmember Penfold presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 4 : 31 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1 . CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-204 , FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: (a) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §54-2-205 (1) (B) ; (b) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER SHARES) WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §52-4-205 (1) (C) ; (c) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (c) ; (d) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) IF (1) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION UNDER THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, (2) THE CITY PREVIOUSLY GAVE NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE OFFERED 11 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JULY 12 , 2011 FOR SALE, AND (3) THE TERMS OF THE SALE ARE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE CITY APPROVES THE SALE; (e) FOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 78b-1-137; AND (f) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS SECURITY PERSONNEL, DEVICES OR SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §52-4-205 (1) (F) . This item was not addressed. #2 . 4 :42 : 47 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. View Attachments See File M 11-5 for announcements . #3 . 4 :45 :49 PM RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM DAVID HART, FAIA, VICE PRESIDENT/REGIONAL MANAGER OF MOCA SYSTEMS, REGARDING PLANS FOR THE CITY' S NEW PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES. Mr. Hart said power line issues had been a problem and a month of time had been lost . He said the delay might help with the price of steel by going directly to the mill for purchase. #4 . 5 : 15 : 39 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING REDISTRICTING. THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS ESTABLISHES DISTRICT BOUNDARIES FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AND THE SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL BOARD BASED ON THE 2010 CENSUS. A TEAM OF CITY EMPLOYEES IS WORKING ON A PUBLIC PROCESS THAT WILL INCLUDE INVITING RESIDENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN DRAWING THE BOUNDARY LINES AND PROVIDING INPUT ON THE CITY' S LEGISLATIVE AND SCHOOL BOARD DISTRICT PLANS BEING PROPOSED. THE COUNCIL ANTICIPATES COMPLETING THE CITY' S REDISTRICTING PROCESS BY THE END OF 2011 . View Attachments Karen Halladay, Boyd Ferguson and Brady Wheeler briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Ms . Halladay said the State and County were currently holding public hearings for the redistricting process . Mr. Ferguson said the governing principal in redistricting was a substantially equal population in each district . He said the courts generally held this to mean total population. He said districts should be contiguous and compact . Ms . Halladay asked Council Members what guiding principles they wanted to use. All Council Members present wanted to use 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13 of Table 2 of the handout, incorporating number 1 and number 7 . Ms . Halladay asked Council Members about the selection process and role of the working group. All Council Members 11 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JULY 12 , 2011 present wanted political balance . All Council Members were in favor of the Mayor recommending seven individuals for the commission and having these individuals approved by the City Council . All Council Members present were in favor of having the School Board recommend two individuals for the commission. #5 . 5 : 00 : 15 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM SALT LAKE CITY' S HOUSING TRUST FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $500,000 TO WOODRUFF LANDMARK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR RENOVATION OF THE WOODRUFF APARTMENTS LOCATED AT 235 SOUTH 200 EAST. (APPLICANT - WOODRUFF LANDMARK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. View Attachment LuAnn Clark briefed the Council with the attached handout . #6 . 5 : 09 : 28 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING CHANGES TO THE CITY' S ZONING REGULATIONS TO REMOVE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REAR YARD MAXIMUM 5 FT. SETBACK REQUIREMENT IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. RELATED PROVISIONS OF TITLE 21A - ZONING MAY ALSO BE AMENDED AS PART OF THIS PETITION. (PETITIONER - MAYOR RALPH BECKER, PETITION PLNPCM2010-000782) (Currently accessory structures' like garages, gazebos and covered patios must be placed within 5 feet of the rear property line. The ordinance change would allow these structures to be placed in the center of a backyard under the new ordinance. )View Attachments John Anderson and Nick Norris briefed the Council with the attached handouts . #7 . 5 : 14 : 13 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE CLOSING AND VACATING AN ALLEY AS A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1575 SOUTH STATE STREET PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. PLNSUB2011-00004 . (Salt Lake Community College is requesting the vacation of a north to south alley to allow for the integration of the alley into the existing South City Campus parking lot located at approximately 123 East 1700 South. ) View Attachments John Anderson and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council with the attached handout . #8 . 7 : 31 : 17 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. (An agreement with UDOT for the design and installation of a right turn lane on 300 West at 1300 South. )View Attachments 11 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JULY 12 , 2011 John Naser, Jennifer Bruno and Kevin Young briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Turner asked that the intersections be more pedestrian accessible. Councilmember Penfold asked that right turns be investigated with regard to additional pedestrian friendliness . Councilmember Christensen asked that the design of the intersection be improved for pedestrians and bicycles . #9. 5 : 03 : 09 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE BIDS FOR PURCHASE OF MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION WORK AND TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STREET AND PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS ALONG NORTH TEMPLE FROM 600 WEST TO REDWOOD ROAD. (Special Assessment Area Nos. LC-109017 and M-109018 . ) (Item Fl) . View Attachments John Naser, Jan Aramaki and Ed Rutan briefed the Council with the attached handout. Mr. Naser said conduit was being laid for the electrical and would be finished in the fall of 2012 and assessments would be in the spring of 2013 . #10 . 6 : 18 : 54 PM INTERVIEW ELIZABETH MACGREGOR PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE SUGAR HOUSE PARK AUTHORITY. (Item 1F) Councilmember Penfold said Ms . MacGregor' s name would be • forwarded to the consent agenda for approval . #11 . 6 : 26 : 37 PM INTERVIEW MICHAEL MAMO PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY. (Item H2) Councilmember Penfold said Mr. Mamo' s name would be forwarded to the consent agenda for approval . The meeting adjourned at 7 : 54 p.m. r , Co cil Chair v"v tior t i y co r .p� s�v/� �R This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held July 12, 2011 . 11 - 4 • .4,.. T.,. • Brief Review of Public Safety Building - Progress Update • Construction Photos • Bid Update ,. • Construction Budget . ...., _ .,..,. ..„4 '`.4_'-,14,..! -1,C..•7:" 4,-1,__ r. , ..44 :•'::!,f'%", ..*4 , .w. -':.-3 '',... .... 1'''• ' - . 'IN+. -,./--,..: -- - - --‘ • , - xviro.'izolit, ..._ _ 4 cri=- ,........ . ,_- --.-_-,;-...._ ..._. - -Fi„, - ••• '. - - c„-A.: titir,-. ...,-,,„,,- .,..,.,... — _,.. ..,... • ' mit --, . . V . , '13 "Illia°St' ‘1.* -..„... ., Agenda Salt Lake City Public Safety Buildings 03 MOCA SYSTEMS I w• •• .' PROJECT BOUNDARIES 0 e' ,/ , ['t •,v I .....Current project boundaries established I* Ifwith fencing and pedestrian pathways ♦{ i � ii WORK COMPLETE D� �„ r., i r Building demolition is complete as scheduled _ . f /mic r. ,,,•,o,,,,,,• " ;l Communications re-routing for SLC Roast- t' i' r 4 1 t 4r ` ing,Barnes Bank,and the remainder of the Pc 'r 9�'•'1*' ` T ( [) block was completed on June 9th,2011. WORK IN PROGRESS ..,,,, IItscis . , 1 := tr r. • Mass Excavation Began—June 15,2011 t Shoring and Dewatering Began—June 30, / 2011 IS"),, °... • Excavation and Shoring to be complete— AoI, +p ~4 September 15,2011 �t 1 .t ,� Oi • -,, l ► * Permanent power service for the entire block is scheduled to be completed on July 12,2011. • irrf� a.s,.....•. © MOT (Original deadline was May 10,2011) _ ..•*� UPCOMING WORK ftimsed Tears ._ ";;,ems _ •- 11 • Foundation&Parking Structure Begins— 7I' -_ September 15,2011 . it'x'nA 1 • Structural Steel Begins—November 30,2011 r. • Base Building Begins—November 14-16,2011 •Dates are approximate and subject to change Utility connections are tentative&will • Damper Installation Begins—May 15,2012 be scheduled by the utility companies • Building Dried in(Exterior skin and roofing)- October 16,2012 Construction Update • Site work begins—December 4,2012 • Substantial Completion—April 2013 CI Salt Lake City PuLOSafety Buildings frirNM. Construction Photos Excavation at 15' deep, looking South F '. . MINIMA Salt Lake City Public Safety Buildings ®MQCA. Excavation at 5' on South Wall to be shored • • �` , cur• r LL JJ • a • - �... 'j • • m • • r •. Salt Lake City Pub' Safety Buildings m Mys0 „ . . Existing power poles obstructing excavation -,... . 9 . . , - . - •/ ,• •., ...,,, . . . _ ft , •---,--- - . _ -.... . ....._ - --,,,,,,--r•-•„,,,..v„•-• it i A . _ • ..... ...= .. __ .' - •Jo.',, 4i;,,,.' 4 ''''..' ..."''''' •.' ''.. : '' A *-.',.. '.„., , ',,, ,!N,,r, •,,,„.., , • . t .t „ , N ‘... - . ..., .. • - . ,,.. - 4 • k , - •• ..• • , f -411c- ..... 4‘41‘ ,•1,. - `'...., , ',- - !** .n . . . ' -- ,... • 01 .• ,, , .,..... ..., .. „,„,g. -,„ ,,, • ,,A... , ,. ..., . , .4 -. ,i-,''r'::'' Zr'- • • Act- :,, • , -.... ...y.,..•.:.--- -` ' =La, ='.. f. A. • , . ' -. 4'4' ''4,4t:W."4.4' '0'4'- r 4. ' •',- . , , ; .. . , - ,',4}..a..,,,,,,,z %,ir n:. ..‘..' ,,% +,... .l'' ...., `., 1'",:_, , ...1...„%It* ... ...,,,.: 'A.7.,••NAIIIIN.,, 4`...,.1 V AcA-lerr• t..1 1-, ik , -„„-...-", -, -4k-, ---1.- z, 4‘,,,..:-• ., . t- ••., 4-"'It>-•• ' ' .., ... ' „ N'f • 4 s'a)' A .. • ', ' I. ' t• " di . , — . r, Salt Lake City Public Safety Buildings all SYSTFMT Drilling and placement of shoring system on West wall * r AO' •c•-• r',1, ... •,'. ••••: ''': .. • ••, z..• e...../.',.A.•• -11.' . , ''',AFt, Aii,4.- . .. mt. -.....—.- • - - ,.. ..,. n«.... .. 4, :-.4 • ' '...4 ' -. , .,.. ..., , . .. . . ,. ,• . . ' 1.1,-. ., t ' • 1. .pts• i . re"4- , . . .-\. 4 -rr • •‘• , ; \ • -01,e- AI, .; . r i . • .. . 111111.11*. illik I = . . - ,s .,......,..0.-------7: ' -1 - • Salt Lake City Putigrafety Buildings 41111M . . ONO Excavation at 18' aeep, looking north f ..4• ,, .. 114 - 111111 11.11 I 11111 illi — • •,,,, lin - . .. spot 4046 ,, prr 119,„. r"1r''-e. 1. . i. v ' " " - IN '.7"...-.. -- CI 1 . ----- IRE - ,•' 0/„, er•To " ——--- -,..- ,, M1 ' . ,.. . . . f fic:i, -44 ,,.'4 • • •,'2'4 ... ..,. , . • et - • • '' , , , • . . • • . , , a , . A glar• ' M1. . 0'. . .. • , , . • - -`'''.., '..• '''.."'.4"....M1,V;ItiA. . '4..".... ...„,,,,,„_:'. • " ' ". _a„,.."..1 ' - i"'-' - 4•0 os 4,•0-4.,• -.. "LA" ' ". --,e ".."." .•••••r‘'.,,,,,a11‘,74-..7,,,,e-,,,,„„,„:-/"'••-:'• ,,,,,,..t........."' •••••, ' •••0 7;4'•••••.:."-;•;: ;;;.--'7. vosie--:::_. .......-:: .•••;,-, --!.----,..-:-:. ----71 ,....,,,,,T7t:„.• . - -, ,.. • .-,-„,--, ,„0,10ew 4..• =',. c „,-, _..,- .„..,- •.- . - . , —-,-. ., . , - --- ....- - --'••• . — ,--. • ,-,- • .- ... 0.1.1 -re : ,,• • -,i., .4 n 't . .. .. '' / S4 : ,,..i, ,..'.ae, to . , ••, , ..... „,, 4.../;:: yr1;•-•:.;.„%,,„t.. ' - . - -, Salt Lake City Public Safety Buildings (el NASA, Trenching for new power line on 500 South • it .•• allti .Z.. VI, ••‘:',''44,.... '1 . ,. . olr, • , :' .4 • . 4 1. .44:4111111° •4 r • • q V ,arms 3 . r _pit t 1r ,Lipi i , ,,,,„,,..,.= ,,,. awastica, ,. . ._ T o a -.. JO_ ..: If- } but ,Q,.fi' s .,�, ,.., •ti , Lr Z ,^• + .I , .,q bA Z. 4 M h. Salt Lake City Pub'. ',Safety BuildingsNprpsni.k. , Construction Budget July, 2011 Update • • Actual Bid 1Cost ' Description Numbers Estimate Difference _._.__.__._...._......._._ Numbers ;Construction General Requirements"Okland" _ 2,652,614 2,890,222 (237,608) Bid Package 01 »Demolition,Tree Services and SWPPP .__. 351,93.1.1... 374,250 ` (22,319) Bid Package 02 Elevators 709,800 ; 755,250 1 (45 4501 Bid Package 03 Excavation i 2,411,206T 3,086,203 I (674,997) Bid Package 04 `Dampers,Security and Crane — _ 2 616,942 2,851,270 234,328 Bid Package 05~Building Conrete and Structural Steel,Bids due July 20th I - l 22,211,173 I - Bid Package 06 Base Building&Site Improvements,Bids Due October 12th - i 38,200,000 E. - ;Oversized parking garage.Location TBD. - 500,000 l - • Total Base Number_._........_8,742!493_._.......70,868,368... ..............._._._._.(1,214,702.). . Pre Construction Services/General Conditions/Construction Services i 2,948,000 2,948,000 Construction Contingency(2%)! 1,349 563 Design Contingency (3%)! - ; 2,024,344 '• Total I 11 690 493 1 77 190 273 Total FLCC 1 77,290,000 1 77,290,000 Salt Lake City Public Safety Buildings ill®MOCA SYSTEMS' Current PSB Budget July 2011 • Consulting Fees $ 11,315,385 • Construction Costs $ 77,190,775 • Owner Costs $ 25,085,771 • Contingencies and Fees $ 11,293,157 • Total $124,885,088 Salt Lake City Pub' Safety Buildings mMOC SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT /71 DATE: July 12,2011 SUBJECT: Redistricting Briefing •Legal Aspects of Redistricting-Boyd Ferguson,Senior City Attorney •Guiding Principles •Working Group—Selection Process and Roles •Timeline AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Karen Halladay,Budget and Policy Analyst Brady Wheeler,Redistricting Team Member PUBLIC PROCESS: To be determined by the Council Council Decisions Needed—Administrative and Council Staff have been working with ESRI,the redistricting software provider,over the past couple of months. Currently,plans with ESRI include"going live"or launching the Salt Lake City Redistricting site,with Salt Lake City specific information,to the public on August 1,2011. In order to meet this launch date and other project deadlines discussed later in this report,Staff recommends that the Council make decisions on the (lowing items: 1. Guiding Principles-Determine guiding principles for Salt Lake City's redistricting process. These principles will provide direction in the redrawing process for Salt Lake City Council and Salt Lake City School Board Districts. ►The guiding principles will be included as content on the redistricting software website,Open City Hall,and other publications used to educate and inform the public about the City's redistricting process. 2. Working Group—Review application and selection process for Working Group. Also,determine the roles, responsibilities,and deliverables of the working group. ▪Council Staff suggests that applications for the Working Group be collected through August 15". The Council could finalize their Working Group selections at the September 6th meeting. 3. Timeline—Finalize the initial steps for the timeline and public outreach strategy. ►Council Staff has prepared a timeline with an anticipated completion date of December 13`". The timeline includes opportunities that allow an independent and politically-balanced Working Group and the public to prepare and submit maps in the redistricting process. The schedule also includes attending meetings and conducting two public hearings prior to final adoption of the new City Council and Salt Lake City School Board Districts. Legal Considerations of Redistricting fhe redistricting of City Council and Salt Lake City School Board District boundaries is governed by the United States Constitution,Federal law,State of Utah statutes,and Salt Lake City ordinances. Also,as a result of court cases,including U.S.Supreme Court cases,further guidance on redistricting requirements can be found. During the briefing on July 12`", 11Page Legal Counsel from the City Attorney's Office will brief the Council on the legal aspects of the redistricting process. The Attorney's Office has also provided written information (See Attachment 1), including federal, state, and City legislation and case law that governs and provides guidance on the redistricting process. The written information also addresses questions the Council raised at the May 3`d briefing, including: 1. School Board District Boundaries • Is there legislation or case law (Federal or State) regarding criteria and/or legal restrictions that can be used for establishing school board district boundaries? For example,some constituents have suggested that representation should be based on school-aged population, and not general population. 2. Redistricting Implications • What are the implications to Council/School Board Members, if during the redistricting process,two Members end up in the same district? • What are the implications to the Council/School Board, if during the redistricting process, a District no longer has a representative because the boundaries have shifted? Guiding Policy Statements for Salt Lake City Council Redistricting Process As mentioned above,the redistricting process must comply with federal and state requirements. There are several court cases, including the U.S. Supreme Court,that have provided guidance when the redistricting process and boundaries have been challenged. Table 1—Presents legal requirements established by City, County and State code. 3 Table 1 Guiding Principles Established by Current Code Item Policy Statement 1 "The City shall be divided into seven council districts of substantially equal population." City Code 2.06.010 2 Council Districts be of"substantially" equal populations. Utah Code 10-3-1216 3 The current State statute provides that the City Council will reapportion the City School Board Districts so they"...are substantially equal in population and are as contiguous and compact as practicable." Utah Code 20A-14-201 Additional Information "Upon reapportionment,the Council Districts should,to the extent practical, remain consistent with their original geographical configuration and representation,allowing continuity and ease of contact between residents and district Council Members." Salt Lake County Code Section 2.04 and 2.71 In addition to current legal requirements for redistricting, governmental entities responsible for redistricting may also choose to adopt guiding principles or criteria to provide additional direction to the Policymakers and Public. Table 2- Presents guiding policy statement options that have been adopted for the 2011 redistricting process by: 1) _ State of Utah's Redistricting Committee, 2)Salt Lake County Redistricting Commission, and 3) other U.S. municipalities— Houston, Providence, and Fort Worth. In addition, the 2001 guiding principles adopted by Salt Lake City are also presented here for your information. Note: The challenge of meeting all guiding principles/criteria and the potential of conflict increases as more guiding principles are added. Guiding principles are factors to balance as opposed to a check list to be met. 2IPage Table 2 Guiding Principles Adopted by Salt Lake City(2001)and Other Governmental Entities Utah Governments Other U.S.Cities Salt Lake Salt Lake Salt Lake Utah State Houston, Providence, Ft.Worth, Location City City County Legislature Texas Rhode Island Texas 2011 2001 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 Population 186,440 179,068 1,029,655 2,763,885 2,099,451 178,042 741,206 Form of Government Council/ Council/ Council/ Legislature/ Council/ Council/ Council/ Mayor Mayor Mayor Governor Mayor Mayor City 1-Maintain neighborhood ,.- , _. areas with similar characteristics. ✓ X X X X 2-Consider existing land-use planning areas. X X X 3-Recognize natural boundaries,such as physical separations of areas. X X X X 4-Recognize man-made barriers,such as major streets and freeways. X 5-Maintain compact and I contiguous districts as far as is possible. X X X X 6-Census blocks(and voting precincts?)are used as the base component of Council and School Board Districts. V X X X X - - NOTE:State of Utah specifies that official population enumeration of the 2010 census will be used. 7-Consider communities of common interest-cultural, demographic,economic a d ethnic.7(/,yjil'�ij�,, Ite/ X X X X 3 e�/0/4%C./'-E�` 7 Gv.t/f 1 f • 3IPage Table 2-Continued Utah Governments Other U.S.Cities Salt Lake Salt Lake Salt Lake Utah State Houston, Providence, Ft.Worth, Location City City County Legislature Texas Rhode Island Texas 2011 2001 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 8-The public will be invited to submit written and oral maps and comments during the redistricting process. X X X NOTE: State of Utah does I not list this as a guiding principle,but their process allows the public to submit maps and comments via ESRI software. 9-Define an acceptable level l' S^) of population deviation for new district boundaries. X X X NOTE: The State of Utah specifies the number of FCongressional,Senate, House,and State School Board Districts to be drawn and acceptable population deviations for each. 10-Written information from meetings will be made available to the public. X X Note:Salt Lake City could elect to: •Record the meetings and have them available on the website. •Use Open City Hall(OCH) for the formal record. •Ask the City Recorder's Office whether or not they would have the resources to handle the recording of redistricting meetings. 11-Ensure that districts do not create unruly favor or disfavor for an individual or political political party. Q"i L a.42 a 14.-p l bi i,iX 12—Council Districts shall remain consistent and unchanged if doing so does not violate state or federal law. X 13—In making changes to existing Council boundaries: • Boundary changes will be limited,to the maximum extent possible,so as to remain consistent with the District' 1-d t� configuration. • Boundary changes that 41: Wag remove existing Council Members from the District to which they were elected will be avoided,where possible. •No boundary will be gerrymandered for the N./ purpose of political advantage. X 14—Consider preservation ��lp J of incumbent-constituency aej relations by recognition of the residence of incumbents and their history in representing certain areas. X X ►In order to prepare content for the redistricting software and other communications,such as Open City Hall,and meet project timelines,it is critical that the Council consider and adopt guiding principles for Salt Lake City's redistricting process. ►When considering guiding principles for Redistricting,the Council may want to keep in mind that formally adopting a large number of guiding principles could lead to potential conflict between principles and/or possible legal challenges. Guiding principles are factors to balance as opposed to a check list to be met. Community members have suggested that the number of school age children be considered when redrawing school district boundaries. Given that all property owners,regardless of the whether or not they have children,school-aged or not,contribute to the funding of public education,does the Council wish to more fully understand what the legal 'strictions are with using population age as a guiding principle or as a demographic variable in analyzing and balancing ..chool board district boundaries? ►Does the Council wish to consider school board specific guiding principles? Working Group-Selection Process and Role On May 3rd,the Council decided to form an informal Working Group to serve as advisors to the City Council during the redistricting process. Details regarding the group composition,member selection,and expectations still need to be determined. Council Staff has prepared the following options the Council could consider regarding these decisions. 1. Composition-Independent and politically-balanced Working Group — • Number of Members o Seven Council District Representatives-One representative from each of the seven districts. o Two School Board Representatives-Non-elected and recommended by the School Board. Representatives would be/would not be ratified by the City Council. o One or more Other Representatives-Non-elected residents. Representatives would be selected by the full City Council. ►Does the Council wish to consider including one or more representative(s)from community organizations(Fair Boundaries,Common Cause,League of Women Voters,etc)interested in the redistricting process? • Political Party Affiliation o Working Group shall be politically balanced. For example,the Salt Lake County Redistricting Commission does not allow more than three members from the same political party. Wage • Eligibility �o1 2.Qs are nt /red eligible J ifa y G4 V2g GTii r��py : o Commissio members are not considered eligible if a y of following c {i itions exist: o•, • They are not a registered voter at time of appointment. PUMA s O • If within the past three years they have been: -I- Z • A candidate for elected office. • Appointed or elected to any public office. • An officer of a political party. • A registered lobbyist. • An officer on any candidate's campaign committee. • Categories of Working Group Members o Voting/non-voting members—Should the following representatives be voting or non-voting members? • Seven Council District Representatives • Two School Board Representatives • One or more Other Representatives o Other • Council and Administrative Staff • Salt Lake City School District Staff/Liaison 2. Selection Process-An application(See Attachment 2)is required for anyone interested in being considered for the Redistricting Working Group. o Applications are accepted through August 15,2011. o Applicants meeting eligibility requirements will be forwarded to full Council for their information and consideration. o Each Council Member may recommend one of the applicants to serve as a representative for the Council District they represent. o The full Council is responsible for appointing all members of the Working Group. o Other suggestions? 3. Role and Deliverables—The below suggestions are Modeled after Salt Lake County's Redistricting Commission. Note: The Council could consider expanding the role of the Working Group,however,the final redistricting decisions for the seven Salt Lake City Council and seven Salt Lake City School Board district boundaries are the responsibility of the City Council. o Working Group adopts rules for its governance and operation. The proposed rules would be submitted to the Council for approval. o Working Group is subject to Utah Open and Public Meetings Act and Government Records Access and Management Act. o Working Group shall assist the Council by: • Attending meetings,as needed,to provide information and gather input from the public. • Providing no more than three written redistricting plans for the City's Council and School Board Districts,including accurate maps or plats of the boundary changes,for the Council's consideration. Note: Salt Lake County Redistricting Commission is required to rank order the plans submitted to the Council,if more than one plan is submitted for consideration. • Assisting in the performance of the Council's responsibilities with regard to redistricting the Salt Lake City School Board Districts. • Other ►Council Staff needs the Council's direction regarding the Working Group composition,selection process,and role/responsibilities. Public Outreach-Suggestions and Proposed Timeline Wage During the May 3rd briefing,the Council requested a detailed timeline for the Public Outreach process. The Council also emphasized the importance of giving the public an opportunity to provide input on the redistricting of the City's I is gislative and Salt Lake City School Board district boundaries. The following Table 3 presents the suggested timeline for the redistricting project. Table 3 Suggested Redistricting Project Timeline(Short Version) Date Description Additional Information July 15—August 15,2011 Applications accepted for •Applications will be available in print and online for residents potential Working Group interested in serving on the City's Redistricting Working members. Group. August 1,2011—Anticipated"Go Redistricting software available •ESRI and City Staff will launch software for users to submit Live"Date to the public. detailed map proposals for Salt Lake City Council and Salt Lake City School Board district boundaries. Sept 6,2011 Working Group member •Council members will select members of the Working Group. selection. (City Council Meeting) August—September 30,2011 Approximately four redistricting •Redistricting software will be introduced to the public for software orientation meetings use in drawing City Council and Salt Lake City School Board held throughout the district boundaries. community. December 6,2011—Anticipated Adoption of new Salt Lake City •Salt Lake City Council will formally approve new boundaries Council and Salt Lake City School for Council and School Board districts. (City Council Meeting) Board district boundaries. Note: Six month timeline(After State completes its redistricting process)—April/mid-June 2012) Challenging the Census Results According to information provided on the U.S.Census Bureau website,the 2010 census participation rate for Salt Lake City was 74%,an increase of 3%from 2000. During the last briefing a question was raised about the validity of Salt Lake City's 2010 population count. Council Staff researched the process for challenging or disputing census numbers. This information can be found in Attachment 3 of this staff report. See Attachment 3 for information about the challenging the census results. The information provided in the attachment can also be found at http://2010.census.gov/2010census/about/cgr.php. Other Redistricting Resources • Census Information-http://2010.census.gov/2010census/ • State of Utah Redistricting-http://www.redistrictutah.com • Salt Lake County Redistricting-https://slco-redistricting.esri.com • Salt Lake City Redistricting(Currently under development)—www.slcgov.com/redistricting 71Page Attachment 1 July 6,2011 City Council Staff Memo—Legal Considerations Regarding Redistricting Redistricting of city council and school board district boundaries is governed by the United States Constitution,federal 01 statutes,State of Utah statutes,and Salt Lake City Code provisions. U.S.Constitution Equal Protection of the Laws The"one person,one vote"rule is based on the Equal Protection Clause,and applies to the City Council and school board districts. It requires substantial equality of population among the districts. Reynolds v.Sims 377 U.S.533(1964) Fifteenth Amendment The Fifteen Amendment provides that"the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged. ..on account of race,color,or previous condition of servitude." Federal Statutes Discrimination in voting against racial or language minorities is prohibited by the Voting Rights Act of 1965,Section 2. Utah Statutes City Council Each City Council district must be of substantially equal population as the other districts.In the redistricting process the Council must make any adjustments in the boundaries of the districts as may be required to maintain districts of substantially equal population.UCA§10-3-202. School Board School board districts must be: (1) substantially equal in population, (2) as contiguous as practicable,and 1D (3) as compact as practicable.UCA§20A-14-201. 8(Page )ntiguous "Contiguous"means that no portion of a district is not connected to another portion of the district. Utah Code§10-1-104(2)defines"contiguous"to mean: (a)if used to describe an area,continuous,uninterrupted,and without an island of territory not included as part of the area;and (b)if used to describe an area's relationship to another area,sharing a common boundary. A court probably would consider that statutory definition to be valid. Compact According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary(1981),"compact"means"having parts or units closely packed or joined." Courts in some states define"compact"in terms of physical shape or size,such as having a small perimeter in relation to the area composed,and avoiding bizarre designs,or even in terms of a circle containing the least land area outside the district. 114 ALR Sth 311§3[a]. Courts in other states define compactness as referring to closely-united territory,which is conducive to constituent- ;1 :presentative communication. Id. The following ideas were in a redistricting case in Colorado. The compactness requirement specifies that the boundaries of each district shall be as short as possible.One of the most accurate ways to measure compactness is to determine the smallest circle into which the district can be circumscribed and to compare the ratio of the area of the district inside the circle to the area of the circle itself.The closer these figures come to a 1 to 1 ratio,the more compact the district will be. Although there is no federal constitutional standard requiring compact districts,more than half of the states include compactness as a constitutional or statutory criteria for state legislative districting. A second method of measuring compactness is to compare the aggregate linear distance of the boundaries of each district. In a practical sense,the compactness of a district will be directly affected by the density and distribution of a state's population.Since population requirements have priority,compactness must often be sacrificed in order to achieve an acceptable range of population deviation. See Carstens v.Lamm 543 F.Supp.68,87(D.Colo.1982) City Code he City Council districts must be of substantially equal population. The districts must be reapportioned after each federal census to maintain substantially equal populations.City Code§2.06.010. Wage Guiding Principles As noted above,the"one person,one vote"requires substantial equality of population in districts. Reynolds v.Sims 377 U.S.533(1964) The Supreme Court has developed a measure called the"maximum population deviation"to measure disparities in population per legislator.The maximum population deviation is calculated by the following steps: First,the apportionment base is divided by the number of legislators in the legislative house under consideration,to arrive at the norm if absolute population equality were achieved. Second,if a district has more persons than the ideal district,the ideal district population is subtracted from the actual district population;the resulting number is then divided by the ideal district population to get the percentage of under-representation. Third,if a district has fewer persons than the ideal district,its population is subtracted from the population of the ideal district;the resulting number is then divided by the ideal district population to get the percentage of over- representation. Finally,when the percentages of under-representation or over-representation have been calculated for all districts(or all legislators in multimember districts),the district that is most over-represented is identified and the district that is most under-represented is identified;these two percentages are then added together to obtain the maximum population deviation. See 25 Am Jur 2d Elections§25(2011). For example,suppose that a city's population is 100,000 and it has seven city council districts. 100,000 divided by seven is 14,286. That is the"ideal district"population,in that each district would have exactly equal population. Suppose further that one district is reapportioned to have only 14,000 people,and another is reapportioned to have 15,000 people. The first district's deviation from the ideal is-286,which is a 2.0 percent deviation. The second district's deviation is 714,which is a 5.0 percent deviation. The 2.0 percent and 5.0 percent deviations are added together to get a maximum population deviation,which in this case is 7.0 percent. Though the description above refers to state legislative districts,the principles apply to local government districts. A rule of thumb is that if a maximum population deviation is under ten percent,the redistricting well be presumed to be valid. On the other hand,if the maximum population deviation exceeds ten percent,the governmental entity must bear the burden of establishing that the deviation is not discriminatory. However,local governments may be able to employ slightly higher percentage deviations due to their need for flexibility in municipal arrangements. Abate v.Mundt 403 U.S.182,185(1971). There are many sources that attempt to describe guiding principles or factors that may or may not be taken into account in redistricting. The following are some examples: According to John Fellows at the Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel,Utah's practice has been to have the Redistricting Committee adopt redistricting principles. In 2001 the Committee adopted principles relating to: Equal population Single member districts Number of legislative districts 10IPage Use of the Census Bureau's population figures Contiguity Compactness Mr.Fellows also stated that the Supreme Court has recognized seven"traditional redistricting principles": Compactness(Shaw v.Reno;Bush v.Vera) Contiguity(Shaw) Preservation of political subdivisions(Shaw;Abrams v.Johnson) Preservation of communities of interests(Miller v.Johnson;Abrams) Preservation of the cores of prior districts(Abrams) Protection of incumbents(Abrams) Compliance with the Voting Rights Act(Shaw v.Hunt) However,it is important to remember that equal population is the most important factor. The following factors do not justify disparities from population-based representation: Creating districts with special interest orientations. History alone Economic interests("Citizens,not history or economic interests,cast votes.") Other group interests Area or geographical considerations.("People,not land or trees or pastures,vote.") Reynolds v.Sims 377 U.S.533, 580(1964). Natural borders can be instructive in drawing districts,due to the potential commonality of interests among subpopulations. Moore v.Itawamba County,Mississippi 431 F.3d 257(5`h Cir.2005). The following consistently applied legislative policies(if nondiscriminatory)might justify some minor population deviations: Making districts compact, Respecting municipal boundaries, Preserving the cores of prior districts, 11IPage Avoiding contests between incumbent representatives. Karcher v.Daggett 462 U.S.725,740(1983) sues Meaning of"Population." As a constitutional matter,the federal census is not the required standard by which substantial population equivalency is to be measured.Apportionment plans may use bases other than population,but only when population figures are unavailable and the figures employed substantially approximate those that would have been derived from a census of the entire population.For example,registered voter figures may be used only if the results substantially reflect results obtainable by the use of another permissible basis,such as total population.See OS Constlaw§1273. In an election of general interest,such as a city council or school board election,restrictions on the franchise other than residence,age,and citizenship must promote a compelling state interest in order to survive constitutional attack. Hellebust v.Brownback 42 F.3d 1331,1333(10`h Cir.1994) It has been suggested that the City Council consider measuring"equal population"by the number of parents of children in the public schools,rather than the general population. However,because that is a restriction on voting other than residence,age,or citizenship,courts would apply strict scrutiny in analyzing the restriction. Strict scrutiny is extremely difficult to satisfy. The purpose of the one person,one vote rule is to guarantee that"the vote of any citizen is approximately equal in weight to that of any other citizen." Board of Estimate v.Morris 489 U.S.688,791(1989). Therefore,the rule is intended to protect voters and citizens,not just parents. Courts have struck down attempts to use something other than general population,such as property owners. See City of Herriman v.Bell,590 F.3d 1176,1186(10`h Cir.2010). The court cited examples,including what it described as the "law restricting voting in a school district election to those owning or leasing taxable property or having children enrolled in that school district."(Emphasis added.) The Supreme Court,in Kramer v.Union Free School District No.15 395 U.S.621(1969),ruled that a law that restricted voting in a school district election to people owning or leasing taxable property or having children enrolled in that school district was an unconstitutional violation of equal protection. More recently,the Illinois supreme court struck down a law that denied the vote in school council elections to voters who did not,at the time of the election,have children attending the public schools. Fumarolo v.Chicago Board of Education,566 N.E.2d 1283,1300(III.1990).The court applied strict scrutiny and said that there had been no evidence that voters who do not have children attending the public school have less interest in the candidates to be elected,or that parents with children attending public schools have a special ability to choose school council members. It said that it was unreasonable to deny an equal voice to citizens who do not,at the time,have children in the public schools. Therefore,the City Council,in redistricting,should not interpret"population"to mean only parents of school-aged children. 12)Page Effect of Boundary Changes on Incumbent Officers trCchool Board ,With respect to school boards, statutory guidance exists. Section 20A-14-201(3)(a) provides that"[r]eapportionment does not affect the right of any school board member to complete the term for which the member was elected. Section 20A-14-201(3)(b) contains the following rules regarding school board representation following reapportionment: 011 1. If only one board member whose term extends beyond reapportionment lives within a reapportioned district, that board member shall represent that district. 2. (a) If two or more members whose terms extend beyond reapportionment live within a reapportioned district,the members involved shall select one member by lot to represent the district. (b)The other members shall serve at-large for the remainder of their terms. (c)The at-large board members shall serve in addition to the designated number of board members for the board for the remainder of their terms. 3. If no board member lives within a district whose term extends beyond reapportionment, the seat shall be treated as vacant and shall be filled as provided by law. City Council in contrast to the school district scenario, Utah lacks a statute that expressly addresses the effect of a :districting boundary change on incumbent city council members. However, some Utah Code sections indirectly provide guidance. For example, § 10-3-201(1)states that the officers elected in a city general election shall continue in office for four years except in case of death, resignation, removal, or disqualification from office. Furthermore, § 10-3-202 provides that each elected officer of a city shall hold office for the term for which he or she is elected unless the office becomes vacant under§ 10-3-301. Section 10-3-301(3) says that a city officer must maintain residency within the boundaries of the "municipality." It is silent about maintaining residency within a council district.' In addition, Subsection 10-3-202(b) provides that an elected officer's office becomes automatically vacant if the officer establishes a principal place of residence outside the city during the officer's term of office. This happens only if the officer acts affirmatively to remove himself or herself from a district with an intent to remain in another place. See § 20A-2-105(4)(j)(i). Because a change of district boundaries does not involve the affirmative act of a council member to move from the district, it seems unlikely that his or her residence would change and thus there would be no automatic vacancy. Because no Utah statutes clearly address the issue, it is likely that the common law would apply. Under the common law, the qualifications of candidates for office are determined at the time they begin their term of office. Redistricting that changes the residence of an incumbent member does not affect that member's current It is true that§ 20A-9-203(1)(b)provides that each candidate for a city council position must be a resident of the council district from which elected. However,unlike§ 10-3-301(3),it does not say the officer must maintain such residency.Therefore,the better interpretation of this section is that it describes only a qualification in effect at the time of the election. 13IPage term of office. Candidates carry their residence with them throughout the entire term of office to which they were elected. Kendra Carberry,Redistricting:A Municipal Perspective, Colorado Lawyer, February 2002 49. That view is supported by Olsen v. Merrill, 5 P.2d 226 (Utah 1931). In that case a redistricting affected members of the Provo Board of Education. Mr. Olsen and Mr. Startup were school board members. Before the redistricting, Mr. Olsen resided in municipal ward No. 3, and Mr. Startup resided in ward No. 2. After a redistricting, Mr. Olsen ended up living in ward No. 2 and Mr. Startup resided in ward No. 1. The board of education met to select two new board members to replace Mr. Olsen and Mr. Startup, on the premise that the positions of those men had become vacant. The Supreme Court disagreed, and ruled that the men were entitled to continue to act as members of the board for the remainder of their terms. The redistricting did not render them ineligible to continue as board members.2 Therefore, an incumbent City Council member will not lose his or her office due to redistricting. That necessarily means that, temporarily, more than one Council Member might live in a single district,and that during that time a district might endure with no Council Member residing within it. Boyd Ferguson H B_ATTY-#18640-vl-Redistricting_2011_Cou nci I_staff_m em o_lega I_sectio n.DOC O 2 The court distinguished situations in which the elected officials served only as representatives of the municipal wards from which they were elected. In contrast,the Provo board members did not serve in a municipal ward office. Instead,each board member, 3 though elected from municipal wards,participated in the management and control of the entire school system without regard to municipal wards. 14IPage Attachment 2 This form can be filled out online at: In Return completed applications to the following address by August 15,2011: Salt Lake City Council Re: Redistricting Working Group Application PO Box 145476 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-5476 Salt Lake City Council Redistricting Working Group Application Consult the Salt Lake City Council Citizen's Guide for more information. The Salt Lake City Council will be organizing a Working Group to serve in an advisory role during the City Council redistricting process. Selected members will be expected to 1)meet at least once a month from August until Council adopts new boundaries (Council hopes to conclude process in December), 2)attend meetings to gather concerns, ideas, and input, and 3) present suggestions and/or maps for Council and School Board boundaries. Qualifying Questions: 1) Are you a registered voter in Salt Lake City? Yes_No Answering "yes"to any of the questions below would cause you to be ineligible to be selected for the Salt Lake City Council Working Group. Have you in the last three years been: 2) A candidate for any elected office? Yes_No 3) Appointed or elected to any public office? Yes_No 4) An officer of a political party? Yes_No 5) A registered lobbyist with Salt Lake County or the State of Utah? Yes No 6) An officer of any candidate's campaign committee? Yes No_ If eligible after completing the above questions, please complete and submit your application for the Council's consideration. Name: Application Date: Home Address: City,State,Zip: How long have you resided at your current address? Email address: Primary Phone#: Secondary Phone#: In which Salt Lake City Council District do you reside? To view current Council boundaries,see http://slcimap2.slcqov.com/website/council districts/viewer.htm or call 801-535-7600. Please indicate any political party affiliation- Republican Democrat 'Other Unique qualifications and/or perspectives you would bring to the Working Group: 15IPage • Attachment 3 Challenging the Census Results The following information is provided at http://2010.census.gov/2010census/about/cgr.php "While the Census Bureau's goal was to count everyone once, only once, and in the right place, there are historically a small percentage of cases where a wrong geographic boundary or coding of a housing unit was used to produce the official census population and housing counts for a local area. There may also be cases where due to processing errors, the Census Bureau mistakenly duplicated or deleted living quarters that were identified during the census." "In all these instances, the Census Bureau has established a process by which elected officials may • challenge their jurisdiction's 2010 Census count —it's called Count Question Resolution. The program was created to specifically to address three types of instances where a state, local or tribal government feels an error was made in the 2010 Census results for their area: challenges dealing with Boundaries, Geocoding and Coverage." "Count Question Resolution will accept challenge submissions from governmental units beginning June • 1, 2011.All challenges must be received by the Census Bureau no later than June 1, 2013." "If a challenge results in a change, the Census Bureau will issue official revised counts to the affected governments. These changes can be used by the governments for future programs that require official 2010 Census data. They will also be used to calculate subsequent population estimates for that community." "Following the 2000 Census, potential count problems were identified for 1,180 out of 39,000 jurisdictions — less than 3 percent of all governmental jurisdictions across the nation. The final 2000 CQR corrections resulted in a net gain in population of about 2,700 people. This amounts to about 1/1000th of one percent of the nation's population of 281 million people counted in the 2000 Census." "The 2010 CQR Program is not a mechanism or process to challenge or revise the population counts sent to the President by December 31, 2010, which are used to apportion the U.S. House of Representatives." 16IPage MEMORANDUM DATE: July 12,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Brady Wheeler,Redistricting Team-Council Staff RE: State Redistricting Committee Public Hearings and Proposed Maps Note: Maps will be available at the meeting for your review. The State Redistricting Committee has been conducting public hearings around the state to gather public input on proposals the Committee will submit to the State Legislature later this year. The Committee held a public hearing at the Salt Lake City Public Library in June.Another Salt Lake City hearing is scheduled for 6:00 p.m.on July 20th at Glendale Middle School located at 1430 West Andrew Avenue. This meeting will be one of the last public outreach meetings conducted by the 2011 State of Utah Redistricting Committee. State Redistricting Committee Public Hearings Schedule July 12th West Jordan—6:00 p.m. July 13th Logan—12:00 p.m. July 13th Ogden—6:00 p.m. July 20th Glendale—Rose Park—6:00 p.m. July 26`" Vernal—11:00 a.m. July 26th Park City—6:00 p.m. Guiding Principles-State of Utah Redistricting Committee Before the Committee began visiting different parts of the State to gather public input,they adopted a set of guiding principles. These criteria,along with Federal and State law,will guide the process for designating new Congressional, Legislative,and School Board boundaries. 1. Congressional districts must be as nearly equal as practicable with a deviation not greater than±.1%. 2. State legislative districts and state school board districts must have substantial equality of population among the various districts with a deviation not greater than±3.5%. 3. Districts will In single member districts. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary,a single member district is an electoral district or constituency having a single representative in a legislative body rather than two or more,which is found in proportional representative government. 4. Plans will be drawn to create 4 Congressional Districts,29 State Senate Districts,75 State House Districts,and 15 State School Board Districts. 5. In drawing districts,the official population enumeration of the 2010 decennial Census will be used. 6. Districts will be contiguous and reasonably compact. During public hearings,Committee Members have expressed additional criteria that they feel should be considered when legislative boundaries are redrawn. Those criteria can be found in their maps which Council Staff has included in Tables 2,3,and 4. Public Input-State of Utah Redistricting Committee Residents of Utah have the opportunity to provide input through a new Redistricting software program being provided ,l by ESRI. ESRI,will be the provider for Salt Lake City's redistricting software. The software program allows residents to draw maps and submit them to the Committee. Maps from Committee Members and the Public are posted on the website:http://www.redistrictutah.com/category/maps. Staff has compiled the following information from the website: Note:At the time this research was assembled,Council Staff had reviewed all of the maps available on the State Redistricting website. However,additional maps were posted after the research for this report was completed.Council Staff will review and update the information prior to the July 12t°Council Meeting. Table 1 Map Statistics—State Redistricting Website Number of Proposals by Proposals by the Additional Information Maps Redistricting General Public Submitted Committee Members Congressional 37 8 29 •21 proposals keep Salt Lake City in one district while 16 proposals split it among multiple districts. •25 proposals group Salt Lake City in a district that could be classified as urban. •12 proposals divide Utah's congressional districts into a"pizza slice"model,with Salt Lake City being separated from other urban areas with similar interests. State Senate 6 1 5 •Only one of the plans submitted has Salt Lake O. with the current number of Senate districts. State House 12 8 4 •AII plans that redistrict Salt Lake City reduce its number of representatives from 8 to 7. State Board of 2 1 1 - Education The Council may wish to take particular note of the maps indicated in the tables below. Maps mentioned in Tables 2,3 and 4 will be provided for your reference. Table 2 presents concerns expressed by Council Members regarding potential changes to Congressional District boundaries. Table 2 Proposed Congressional Maps with Potentially Negative Impact to Salt Lake City Map Number Map Title Architect Potential Concern Additional Information 1 Congress Sen.Ralph Okerlund •Splits Salt Lake City •All four congressional districts "Plan F" (Central Utah),Redistricting into 2 pieces(Airport in contain rural areas. "Pizza slice" Committee Co-Chair a different model that dilutes urban and Congressional District). rural interests. •Two other maps proposed by State Legislators affect Salt Lake City in a similar way. 2 Congress Rep.Ken Sumsion(American •Splits Salt Lake City •Designates core of"urban" "Plan A" Fork),Redistricting into 2 pieces. district as Utah County and Committee Co-Chair includes pieces of Salt Lake -Excludes Salt Lake City County to meet population from"urban" requirement. designated district. 3 Congress Sen. Michael Waddoups -Groups Salt Lake City •Creates"Doughnut Hole" using "Plan D— (Taylorsville), Senate with rural areas that do southern Salt Lake County as Doughnut President and Redistricting not share similar center of district and "urban" Hole" Committee member interests. areas to the south to meet population requirement. •Sen. Waddoups proposed additional map with designated "rural" and "urban" mix, SLC was grouped with Davis County. Table 3 presents concerns expressed by Council Members regarding potential changes to State Legislative boundaries. Table 3 Proposed State Legislative Maps with Potentially Negative Impact to Salt lake City 4 State Senate Rep. Fred Cox (West Valley •Senate Districts in Salt •Out of 9 proposed Senate Maps, "Draft 1" City), member of State Lake City would be only 1 has Salt Lake City Legislature. reduced from 4 to 3. maintaining parts of 4 Senate districts as they are currently distributed. The rest of the proposed plans shift Senate District 3 south out of Sugarhouse into the City of South Salt Lake. 5 State House Rep. Fred Cox(West Valley •House Districts within •Districts in Salt Lake City "Plan 1" City), member of the State Salt Lake City would be increase in size to balance Legislature reduced from 8 to 6. population, pushing district boundaries on the perimeter of the city into other municipalities. Table 4 contains information about maps submitted by Redistricting Committee members that create districts with some of the stated preferences by Council Members. Table 4 Proposed Congressional Maps with Minimal Impact to Salt Lake City Map Number Map Title Architect Map Objective Additional Information 6 Congress Sen. Gene Davis(Salt Lake •Keeps"urban" and •Salt Lake City is grouped with "Plan I" County), Redistricting "rural" areas separate other"urban" areas into a Committee member as much as possible. district. 7 Congress Rep. Ken Sumsion (American •Groups urban core of •Keeps Salt Lake City whole. "Plan H" Fork), Redistricting Wasatch Front into 1 Committee Co-Chair district. •Salt Lake City is part of"urban" district. 8 Congress Rep. R. Curt Webb (Cache •Creates 3 "urban" •Keeps Salt Lake City whole. "Plan G" Valley), Redistricting districts and one Committee member "rural" district. ►Does the Council have additional questions or concerns about the information presented above that requires ,rther Council Staff research? Pig 2 ---)-i i, yp ��,��E" , r d o ->,9 N Co_ l Y • State Senate: Cox "Draft 1" 0) W I „ ; i _- ._ or 1 oko o .... .M , i ' 1 .E C m' TE f ST LENTE -•I ).' iW `� IN 111, ;t11:.... II .. . , i Mt* _ , _ I-� 1 I ----.- -. L_. WASATCH-CACHE N.F. j----_ b '� 4 ; iii -w I ,; ; ROSE PARK GOLF •URSE i •\ 1 i 'OSE PARK GOLF CO .E ,1, i ll I IOR. :OR:ER GOLF COURSE G_,„„........._.„7Sa/r LakeCttyIlmatbna/Airport 'Pj_ i 600 PQ j SOON 1 — — ® • l 12 NORTH TEMP S On UTH TEMPLE S �M\O �NCPN�O -DWASATCH- y' I SALT LAKE COUNTY --- >, aoo s Salt Lake City T 2 500 S ��yy 500 S OO i ' 60dS ',, u) < I rr re p m F tu w O ¢ O O to o BONNEVILLE GOLF COURSE jr Z a I--j cow 0 — — w w I �+ 1700S ji i GLENDALE GOLF COURSE OAiers'-' - a j •, E HWY 201 • . !I RD .. ,'o __ _ South S�It Lake -p , — TRY CLUB , e. I . FU RES DALE GOLF COURSE E COUNTRY C : .I �O' LFCLU7 i �— o I Il 7 w LAKE PARK BL �.' PARKWAY=LVD _ 240 S i L ��j^jJ, P. ~�WO N N18LE PA FqC(i¢L�F,COURSE i�-1 S-`-- T 1 �E u,' I ft , 3100 S 3 a wee t a S -j-�-~y--- -_; WASATCH-CACHE N.F. _ _ j '1,II�.L,_ m 25 , 1t-�2 24 3300 S it.] U � ' =�1\� 'bap C 3 o West Valley City o w },,,, � It�`..7 ie LJ_ sa p o HIE( 1 1i� 3 3 3 w I—�— r w �E o F w 5:' ,,w o . z 0. ;:oo So uYlr B 0!ISC3soo s.io_s =.. In •• m I I I In - MEADOW BROOK GOLF COU RS Map 1: Okerlund "Plan F"0 o W• ds Cross MUELLER PARK RD • _9 MORGAN COUNTY ' 1100 N o, p0 0$ IIIli r F Jy O�G OP m ' 1( t�� lv�-LcIU . . - ,44*xi‘l, .a. z /b orth Salt Lake ow 7�} `J • i•� V 41F111 ,� _--- - ;ST CENTCF ST O ` ,i� `41. ♦ _i k, p I, ego. i ' I -----R 1 - < , WASATCH-CACHE N.F. j _� 1-- - `- - - - - - - - i 1. I i S7 j � -! — - i , 1 ROSE PARK GOL' OURSE l •SE PARK GOLF CO ..SE BKL.0 - - i r — — 'Fsr 1 JORD RIVER GOLF COURS: G I-- Salt Lake CM Intemat,onal Airport p - It O N �< GOO l PO I. Y r 1 + NORTH TEMP ST SOUTH TEMPLE ST ! - GRP-110N 0FE . WASA7CFt CAC E N.F. W INGPOINTE GOLF CO E I E� rip ! SALT LAKE COUNTY !--- _ "y 400 s Salt Lake City j ' �y s00 S 1 w G0A i L.- - - - - , I c w SUNNYSIDE AVE 1 w 0 Si Lu F- I w I 0 0 N w p BONNEVII I S GOLF COURSE'. 1 , m p 1"DS o n m o T11 j 1._.. _j L_.. �1 w o w 1 i M 1700 S o — - ! 3 GLENDALE GOLF COURSE - 00 / 1 - \� --- o-- �HWY 201 SOUTH FRQJIGE RE) 2100 S 'S --_I - j South Salt Lake 0 !r �\ _. I • NTRY CLUB 'P• - _ � - o 1 ••- T DALE GOLF COURSE - COUNTRY ,.I• COPPED, ,`CLUB LAKE PARK BLVD 2 PARKWAY 3 s 2700 S it !�' 4i ( t^ PARKWAY BLVD --� m *1� � 0 Ti NI BLEY PARI:J bLi COURSE Z � � 11 ■ v. r, 3 i I1t_� �! 3100 Sco ` ,1r� �-�11 i io 11.. 3 3100 S o O F' "I1�ems`=2 3300 S WASATCH-CACHE N.F. o >- M ,_ West Valley City w 1J o 1 5 HWY 171 3500 S o _ D - C On w = v o 0o 0 00 o f Z •:00 S w 2. 'o o N ma w O in 3900 S o W ESTBROOK GOLF COURSE z 4100 S il MEADOWBROOK GOLF- f Z. ' m Q F COO y i ` -4 . , .,... State House: Cox "Plan 1" —�� ' r:��i Ay e, z �C v \t •cilrel-a-,i--APAili ))- „. • - 7 . -.' se Ab ` {•vim 1 . i j -,I - . P` ;.t I , r At •• •• I f G�� I s. II- LAW 1^ w ! i! ! 1 ROSE PARK GOLF . ' E ` •OSE PARK GOLF CO •E :AC4- - 23 ----"•--", JOR• N RIVER GOLF:OURSE , ny. i ✓ •� 22 Salt Lake City lnte,eational Airport - cTO,p ! + "OO N �" I 600 j I 300 N crul ! _� _,. 1•i r u' _ F• ! • ,l,ypN Rp ,. ATCH-y __ .W.\•.INTE GOLF COU• E ; �,._ ~ j °M\O. i SALT LAkE C•. � I ____-i ,� Salt Lake City • * 500 S ; 600 S j 1: I S SUNNYSIDE AVE I I Lo p NI llik W0 ,m BONNEVILLE GOLF COURSE j p 1300 w I 25 T` ¢' ® w I ! m 1700 S o ___ I w i GLENDAIE GOLF COURSE 26 �j, I� I r H W Y 201.�. , i!i 0,4 RD Z rr N -' - ( "ir H r/ \T- O t Lake i TRY CLUB y e . 1 , Z F •ES•DALE GOLF COURSE E COUNTRY CTt I OryrER GOLF CLu - .-.- ` - -t„ ' , - PARK BL r PARKWAY=LVD-/ I - ¢ 27'-'9 L`WAY BLVD _ 1 P j I NIBLEY PA COURSE Z, w 3100 S 7 3 3100 5, li 7 " WASATCH-CACHE N.F. 0 o West Valley Uty i��=• -S=t o 3300 S 3500 S HWY 97.1E 3 0 4. 3500 S ^ .- i,1� A 34 w , 3 0• o0 3 C a K o 1 L. 1 0o RQ w ;:00 S + > o o" 2 V o L7 • r ., �_ o 30 Ii 35 1100 6 WESTBROOK GOLF COURSE m MEAD• .•OOK GOLF COUR I Map 2: Sumsion "Plan A" 11"4- .� ;/ / , . ' MORGAN COUNTY fil7rlil• QUO o J i OP m J? 1 i a Lake c r - I txt- .... fr. 10.-.7 i.." s', .11"NIC. - 17:] -1,i Tao 17 ,,,,,,, /41:- .. . h l I j 4_. II. , • ' I LY WASATCH-CACHE N.F. — I l {.i — — L s r.. • .-' ` ' I 1 ROSE PARK GOF RSE I :`mo----°'----- � SSE PARK GOLF CO AC 4- 1 JORD RIVER GOLF COURSE,_�� / G •' Off' w Salf Lake CM Infemafional Airport O + /r0 N ,,pA ,� j 600 'Ao _ It„,..., /. NORTH TEMP ST • �l • j GPNy ON RD W/ `• t•• .F. d�••—• ` - S¢1TH TEMPLE ST ,ORpi10N $ WINGPOINTE GOLF COURSE EM •� # SALT LAKE COUNTY j �� N 2 400<. Salt Lake City 500 S W 0 3 y SUNNYSIDE AVE ~ w Frp l W CC 0 inQ ill Z O N ILBONNEVILLE GOLF COURS{ ma 1•rOS o. ._ o h LV CC 1 17005':---- o T _� 3 N l O GLENDALE GOLF COURSE I 0-k h,- �� HWY 201 �S¢UTH FFjQ. wE RD 2100 S S 1 •—� `- { ' 'outh Salt Lake - O j \� � I ^� DALE GOLF COURSE' NT RY COUNTRY , o sr CLUB �I COPPE�I GOIF CLUR � IIIfl _�T�T LAKE PARK BUT o 270D6_ _`� PARKWAY BL J PARKWAY BLVD � •;_\�_ c� �-^` ::„..._COUNTRY �_ NI\EY PAfl fiy�1 COURSE? _ N 3100 S ��_. I 3100 S o z West V011ey City 1 `�<1� �-( `yWASATCH-CACHE N.F. J 3 HWY 171 3 3500 S 3 = H z F-\3,1 ` Ill ,�..��I '° O m o O OO S 30 _ .—o �-', . 0 ry J� Y o voNi a a u, 0 L .i Dn.& y l WESTBROO I,GOLF COURSE z 4100 S Irnsim. � �_ �` `�� I �1 M EA DOW BROOK GOLF[OUR' _ F i�,r,r• I"1,rn�AITrfit 9d m II 1 '-kI 7i - .k,00)'''J �rSl`+ • MO G Congress: Davis "Plan I" z ...` z to r. '� i �� j • .. , �Av . �ouT' i i, Co TE, ST CENTE ',,' II Q- ik j "1 T airy pi. 106 i . ii. -. • i , , ,,, .z_s9 . , a. , i --- 1 .to, I ,.., , / a I. �,� II------- 1-- I j j 'r WASATCH-CACHE N.F. • sl l__I iK' I j v 1 ROSE PARK GOLF •URSE j j` �I ROSE PARK GOLF CO .E ABC j I ¢ • JORL.N RIVER GOLF COURSE I j .: iiiiiio(L... - i 2 Salt Lake City International Airport • p� c j + r0 N P ^s. `� I 600 I 300 NIli j ' j NORTH TEMP ST I ,w1014119 -. ATCH- 1 - w o. •• TB GOLF COURSE , SOUTH TEMPLE ST i eIAIG N.VVON Cr' SALT LAKE Ca. .. -. j -i a� 500S 500S I,.. So I_ r o rn I .. i I y)l ` cn W�� O S w w rl o BONNEVILLE GOLF COURSE j Cr W in1300 S _� w o 2 3 me 0 w I 1700 S T o_ ____________ ,_ r/ GLENOALEGOLFCOURSE N O� '/ •I 0,-- 4 I � HWY 201HWY 201 OUTH F.BP I GE RD _ 1- j ,--I \ 1 •- South Salt Lake • I- I J -- I - TRY CLUB P I F REST DALE GOLF COURSE E COUNTRY CLUB I ;, PER GOLF CLU • I 270 S LAKE PARK BL 0 PARKVV LVD _ - AY BIND "' T`." NIBLEV PAI+yrgL�COURSE S. S T ;'--- Mil 111711111" 6. ..311 DD.SR _. [ 3100 S , aj - _ 4 -�� •�➢--- WASATCH-CACHE N.F. m I tc_)2 o _. 2 F o West VA ley City .-.. a w 3300 S 3500 S A a Q �1C [ jOLI[ 0 � GOS [ L. rno N a z Z O 1DD� ROOK COIL COURSE m co U �� ae 9 �� I II-1I iy .nr- -- OW BROOK GOLF COUR$ ah l'e(f,, I IWO GAN C Congress: Sumsion "Plan H" z = `� -"^ • g c ka 4' v j I o • .. ►AVrS C �l �� • F _ I 1 ` i Et a 1 -. t [ H—-11 ♦ I Inalip 1 r -- i - :iitmaid, , . I _.__ — Li I i Li / WASATCH-CACHE N.F..J 1 41 1 ROSE PARK GOLF •URSE �`, •OSE PARK GOLF CO E B�.0 •- i ' r ' ST , V 1 JOR, N RIVER GOLF COURSE , ' mow r •••• Salt Lake City International Airport O,p , ,O N 9 j j ///��J//� —1 600 O j /' ' t—•I • I -.- NORTH TEMP ST SOUTH TEMPLE ST I i Y I .. A1tON OpNY.._l 6 ASATCH-C6CH ..F i W TE GOLF COURSE eM\GFt SALT LAKE C . —•--• aoo s Salt Lake City � , j j 500 S b 60 500 S -" S 03 of SUNNYSIDE AVE j o o4 i 0 . a r j W O . wo BONNEVILLE GOLF COURSE j CC a 1300 S w _) L. 1--j 2 3 ^ w \\ i co 2 1700 S __ w 0 0 — FPI ? GLENDALE GOLF COURSE I HWY 201 HWY 201 UT OH F$ANLSGE RD 2100 S II__ 5 lir I South S4It Lake O I 3 ! .I TRY CLUB P OF+PER GOLF CLU? i o = ', FEREST DALE GOLF COURSE E COUNTRY CLUB I • • 10,1E. � LAKE PARK BLV m PARKWAY:LVD, 27dt0 S11111111' //-WAYBWD c----._,—�" = S ^'y_ _ Iilllliiiiii M iiiiii rife. PARx �— 7;k\ �NIBLEY PAR�pLi COURSE C ,,.. 3100 S b.. 1•• ., li - _ 3100 S ? _ .. — WASATCH-CACHE N.F. i 1 HWY 171 3 1 350 I m ,,-, __y �` - 2 fay„Z.. - L� 1 z I l Y •11^^'' o P_12 , 3500 S, of Ei, 0 S =lit_ c� O BSt V IE CityU' f�� ,n p' O 3300 S . 0 Ne — o k- . _ S J A - w •I�ij a �.1 . 3 o a W ,r S g1ur�u o �F�R1 T 777{� ��r^I[[pr , 'i A i�llivt rl= �' C _ N : . . Q ,•y �lil-1 2 rl -4_I `,'Atu` _A t . 1. Ln ur 1^r3io-I • :t..1r s. ,-T:.11 AL L. 1 D. ! J Ma i11 ill_I -4•Nam�1� ► _ .Inge.Ei.r1=... `` n,,.%ni511 um uri rimilaxiivatiu IG El Ealw■rlo mu:=Willilir, Klc, ;:..t..F•. `i'�I! Fl=:` !: 411MI C rJ=.r:�siV gp W:.... Jig& Congress: Webb "Plan G" %'= a� ' x,u--'�JIG rs y * 1 ICI_= soli? r 1 P .'g� 'OFFr ,� vy 0 s. + A O. T Y tb;Ail .0(v-1 . JIL �� Lake w J {,... 4o y • ST J CENT:,�; la / �(. I O , • •1/4 fp,. I't • ! ---1 Elfir,.4 go 2" fib r } 4— 1.1 A' 1 ----------••---• I •-- -----------------1 --- I ^--_-- },, _ - - WASATCH-CACHE N.F. I L_� I • j ' i --------"-------------- - I ®' 11 '1 ROSE PARK GOL' OURSE ' r I • 1 'i; /SE PARK GOLF CO 'SE B�. L. j AS 7. JORD RIVER GOLF COURS:1 i Salt Lake Clntemationa/Airport p OT � ity : + P O N ti. 600 p •-"4 I , i j _. . OPNYON ktO AATCH-Cp. �__. SOUTH TEMPLE ST 1 ORp'C1014I i c\QgITE GOLF CO •��_ 2 ' I - EMT I SALT LACE COUNTY a L--•• ti �', 400 S Salt Lake City ' N l ��/ • 60A 500 S I F c.c m SUNNYSIDE AVE I CCw 0 wa I �. I 1 Z 0 m w wo BONNEVILLE GOLF COURSE! I m 1 ,00y 0 w 0 ce_ I ' I I 1— \ I ' . w w i- o HWY 201 F 17005 0 _ IP / -------•- - HWY 20. N 3 figNMGE RD GLEN DALE GOLF COURSE � _- 2100 S _- - • South Salt Lake O �— �'V j - NTRY CLUB j r - COUNTRY CLUE COPPE2•' CLUB o _ I&o a• T DALE GOLF COURSE �� 2700 S BLVD PARKWAY BUD it PARKWAY BLVD LAKE PARK �q Cl NIBLEY PARKfj7:+Lk COURSE 2 V' �3100 S V Fi1I7A�-P�6 3100 S m J L. `�'"'� —' r WASATCH-CACHE N.F. ^ L_ r Fp— West Valley City I �; z a 3300 s 7 HWY 171 0 0 350 S 3 0 h L/ Y I o .. ,-' 0 0 l 1 .17 Ir �o o m a O 00 S I=l - o 0 3900 S Lk"-N - � I • _ o < v w O III�rJ N n L4 m WESTBROOK GOLF COURSE Z 4100 S - j— �� {^7,� Yy"�.. 1� �, m M W BROOK GOLF a• - ,!_I' Pc:.,Al ;'Pa - >,` n• ..a 3 "0 „ „ -.,— ORGAN COUNTY Map 3: Waddoups "Plan D - Doughnut Hole >;_ W ds Cross MUELLER PARK RD 'OF __ _ w J ,_, , 1(. , .._11, 4 4/"-'ifs ,\,,,, idir, 92, 1• IAA Lake ��r j - Mtn �4� l I f a Mi ! r - I 7 �- � '/ WASATCH-CACHE N.F. l j L_ ' j i i j G 1 1 ROSE PARK GOL• OURSE I j 1` JSE PARK GOLF CO 'SE B�4. j o i r I I IORDrI RIVER GOLF COURS: 4 j iMn. Salt lake City lntemational Airport C'O I i . /DON s< �. j 600 �O I J i y ,4O,N�FtD'' WASATCH l 10`---" Ur t•OgITE GOLF CO E - 2 SOUTH TEMPLE ST 'l. �>.\GRp'(\ON GPN / �_, SALT LAKE COUNTY �'- y 100111, i---- _; — 400 S Salt Lake City j y 500 s 1 I c 60at F re 3 w SUNNYSIDE AVE w p0 rn w j a w it Z O N wo BONNEVILLE GOLF COURSE( l 'II m// w 1•rO S .,........aso : w o ', x n w ; _ i c9 1700 S oo — 3 GLEN DALE GOLF COURSE � O U/ I `\ II o HWY 20i UT . gm GE RD 2100 S ti __.._ ,.,,, .. _HWY 20---- ---- , -• ■- L South Salt eke O jr _ Q _ as j J NTRY CLUB • j - , '' o ,u" r DALE GOLF COURSE COUNTR a. �OPP LAB PARK BL� PARKWAY EL D ■• 2700 S .i....11Ls1110 ai I PA KWAY BLVD k ---• - •'111111H111' TT� rir 0 —:� NISI E'+PARk. L COURSE - �� J k. : , IIi11111�1-11p1j `- I 3100 S-1 j•• ,T.. 3100 S o m r�-•-"r---" AAL 11m.F.1" _ 3 _u. 1 0 • jF li WASATCH-CACHE N.F. 7t1 a'� g,i `'Ii o J M O i L ' 1. co 4'1, p 3300 S — o > West ValleyCity � • HWY 171 3500 S 3 3 ] z O w ��ts.: ' 3 3 3 o cc p (� • `-{ v _ 0 0 0 o w Z 00 S J.. 0� • I w w 0 r `D 3 N m o air O - � -i +. I 3900 S _ 4 jI �I o v w O Fes: `r` O MA - a� f FkESTRdbaK dh1F nN1R�F z „_ 4100 S , � �I il t Ml e*. FUR. t _ � _1 _. Map 1: Okerlund "Plan F" a W. ds Cross a /� M E L 'PARK RD 10 - yy OP- JOCOUNTY 1/L/� O 0 ... .. F Jai OQ- OP m / rr. k, �� N -NIIIL 1100 N L ¢ orth Salt Lake w •� �� `� ---- TEE ST CENTci ST O� 1 - ,i 1 06 r� t r— QUO .:>" �' iltlIk -------'—'--1 i roll I_.__ -----1 i i——' WASATCH-CACHE N.F. i "VP t —f—_ t. 1 L I I l 1 1 '� ROSE PARK GOL• OURSE I i` �i o !SE PARK GOLF CO 'SE .90 _ i ,./ JORD RIVER GOLF COURS:1 _ I _ +Y ' Salt Lake CM IntematonalAirport �0 fie. i II + PON A "- ` i 1 600 l 1'p '1 ► � �I-' • + — NORTH TEMP ST SOUTH TEMPLE ST• -{ I r ry P.L10N OpN-L U ACHE N.E. r i ) 7 i 1 VO R0 WASATCH-CACHE .._. I,�•.0111TE GOLF CO • E - -^-I �� I �M1GR I i SALT LAKE COUNTY - a� `_ _ u, SALT =\v —' 7 4DD S Salt Lake City ` . 1 y 500 S i F 3 rn SUNNYSIDE AVE cc o o m w S i O ¢ w rJ Z w o BONNEVILLE GOLF COURSE i mQ w 1 i0g o e, t. i I '' CC il w f 1700 S _ o ,,, OFR 0 6LENDALE GOLF COURSE V N 0, I/ i I Li_�—�_— o-__•_•HWY 201-__••_SOUTH F89.N7@GE RD 2100 S _--I ' -- --.: .� -----South Salt Lake O i _/ �r • _` - t: ;. • NTRY CLUB i I COPP' ! LA-KE PARK BLVD m PARKWAY B D 1 2700 S •' T DALE GOLF COURSE - COUNTRY .. Ammon'AlliiiiI. *(� PpfRl(W/AY BLVD ID > NIBLEY PARk�,y LF COURSE Z t r1 Vr - 1'tiiiili_mill it� 11 I�prcll.. .`I m i c1 I 11111111i1 L!i—LI {e 3100 S up, I 3100 S o -; f `"+--- - WASATCH-CACHE N.F. 11N l=�.rt -1 .30 .. fir- ow z0 y=yZ 3300 S IT`'' o I > ,7 West Valley City co 4 L� o Ca \. HWY 171 3500 S N z O w o = F ¢ p o Ir 1 o N N o o w m ',OD S o 1, wcv 411` m a !OUV5 WESTBROOKGOLF E Z 4100 S _ ` tiVse ,�' �\ m MEADOWBROOK GOLF JL: II II r '' ,12: ;L, 4.04 FRANK B. GRAY ".\ ,_10-•a�� j�j an 0\Wl IIO jRE CEf DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT p.dty.ED OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR JUN 2011 Y DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. Salt Lake Ci DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ty Mayor RECEIVED Date Received: 00(0/2,I ( Zl�ll David eritt, Chie of Staff W SLC COURgte 5010.City Council: ((o ('i.Z1/ Z..e TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: June 7, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Frank Gray, Community & onomic Development Department Dire r SUBJECT: Woodruff Landmark Limited Partnership, requesting a Housing Trust Fund loan for the Woodruff Apartment building located at 235 S. 200 E., consisting of 48 rental units, 45 of which are targeted toward households at 50% of area median income or lower. STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark, Housing &Neighborhood Development Director, at 535-6136 or luann.clark@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the resolution to enter into a loan with Tannach Properties, LLC. DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Woodruff Landmark Limited Partnership, is requesting a Housing Trust Fund loan in the amount of$500,000 at 3%per annum over thirty years for the acquisition and renovation of the Woodruff Apartment Building. Analysis: The loan funds would be used for the acquisition and renovation of the apartment building located at 235 South 200 East. The project consists of 48 apartment units 45 of which are targeted toward households at 50% of area median income or lower. It will also consistof 3 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 SCANNED V NED TO. D p P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4114-54B6 SCANNED BY. TELEPHONE: B01-535-6230 FAX: 801-535.6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CED DATE. V G(o f Z( (`� /( If { v �f RECYCLED PAPER market rate units. Of the affordable units, 15 are studio apartments, 17 are one bedroom/one bath, and 13 are two-bedroom/one bath. As of June 2, 2011, applicant reported that all funding, with the exception of the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund, had been secured for the project. Such funding sources include an equity investment by the owners of$3,679,401, a first mortgage with Washington Federal of $1,035,000, the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund for$833,063, the deferred development fee of $263,350, and other state and historic tax credits. The funds would therefore be leveraged with non government dollars. Recommendation: A. Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board's Recommendation On June 2, 2011, the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board unanimously voted to recommend approval of this loan. B. Mayor's Recommendation Mayor Becker reviewed this issue on June 13, 2011 and recommended approval of the loan as approved by the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board. The City currently has $3,716,000 in the Housing Trust Fund. Funding this project from the Housing Trust Fund account would leave a fund balance of$3,216,000. PUBLIC PROCESS: The Housing Trust Fund Advisory Committee held a public meeting and reviewed this request on June 2, 2011. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: - Chapter 2.80 of the Salt Lake City Code: Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board Resolution #47 of 2005: Housing Trust Fund Appropriations and Loan Criteria RE: Woodruff Apartment Building Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. OF 2011 AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM SALT LAKE CITY'S HOUSING TRUST FUND TO WOODRUFF LANDMARK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR THE WOODRUFF APARTMENT BUILDING WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (the City) has a Housing Trust Fund to encourage affordable and special needs housing development within the City; and WHEREAS, Woodruff Landmark Limited Partnership, has applied to the City for a loan from the City's Housing Trust Fund in order to acquire and renovate the Woodruff Apartment Building located at 235 South 200 East in Salt Lake City that consists of 48 apartment units, 45 of which are affordable rental housing units for residents at 50% of the City's area median income or lower. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. Does hereby approve Salt Lake City to enter into a loan agreement with Woodruff Landmark Limited Partnership, from Salt Lake City's Housing Trust Fund in the amount of $500,000 at 3% simple interest per annum for thirty(30) years. 2. Woodruff Landmark Limited Partnership, will use the loan funds to acquire and renovate the Woodruff Apartment building at 235 South 200 East in Salt Lake City, Utah. 3. Ralph Becker, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, following approval of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute the requisite loan agreement documents on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with their terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2011. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM SALT LAKE ITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE BY: Io // / DAT . ✓ !/- `- CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER r EVALUATION SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND Name of Organization: Woodruff Landmark Limited Partnership Name of Project: Woodruff Apartments Location of Project: 235 South 200 East SLC, UT 84111 Project Description: Renovation of the property to include 48 units. 45 units to be affordable under the LIHTC program. Unit count is as follows: AMI Targets # of Units Unit Type Rents 25% 5 Studio/1 Bath $276 39% 5 Studio/1 Bath $447 39% 1 1 Bed/1 Bath $471 45% 5 Studio/1 Bath $521 45% 13 1 Bed/1 Bath $549 45% 9 2 Bed/1 Bath $649 50% 3 1 Bed/1 Bath $615 50% 4 2 Bed/1 Bath $728 Market Rate 1 1 Bed/1 Bath $725 Market Rate 2 2 Bed/1 Bath $850 Total 48 (45 Affordable Units) Amount and terms requested: $500,000 Housing Trust Fund Loan-30 Years- 3% Interest. Is the entire project eligible for Housing Trust Fund money? No Are the funds leveraged with non-government dollars? Yes SOURCES OF FUNDS - Permanent Financing: Equity— Partnership 3,679,401 1st Mortgage—Washington Federal 1,035,000 2nd Mortgage—Olene Walker Trust Fund 833,063 Other Secured Debts—SLC Housing Trust Fund 500,000 Deferred Developer Fee 263,350 Other—Rebates and Grants 53.000 TOTAL 6,363,814 USES OF FUNDS Land/Building Acquisition Costs 2,490,000 Rehabilitation/Construction Costs 3,284,434 A/E, Permit and Other Fees 589,380 TOTAL 6,363,814 Costs per unit: $132,579 Average Residential Cost/Unit $11,111 City Contribution/Affordable Unit 1 Does the requesting agency have sufficient cash flow to repay the loan? Yes Does the project have demonstrated community support? The project is a renovation and is not required to receive community support. Does the requesting agency have a track record of owning, operating and maintaining this type of housing project? The requesting agency has done similar projects within the Salt Lake Valley. This would be the first loan with Salt Lake City. Does the project meet the requirements of LEED Standards in City Funded Construction (Chapter 18.95 adopted in 2006)? Because the project is not considered a major renovation, it is not required to meet the 2006 LEED Ordinance. However, the project has been designed and will be built to the Green Communities Certification standard. Project Strengths: Project meets the city's Master Plan for the area providing state of the art, high quality housing to low and very-low income families. Project to be built to the Green Communities certification standard. Project currently has 30 residents who will be accommodated during the renovation phase. These tenants will provide cash flow and future repayment. Adak Applicant has two principals who have developed other Low Income Tax Credit properties in the , Salt Lake Valley. Project is a mixed income, affordable housing project in the heart of downtown SLC. Cash flow is strong. High level of repayment. Project Weaknesses: Completion Value is low. Market rate absorption is a potential problem due to City Creek coming on line in 2011-2012. Board Options Approve the request as presented. Approve the request for: Would recommend approval of the loan. Deny the request. Trust Fund Balances: HTF--$3,716,000 2 HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD Meeting of June 2, 2011 The following board members were in attendance: Michael Brough, Kathy Davis, Joe Gallegos, Rick Knuth, Elly Muth, Faina Raik, Frank Stepan, Jr. and Shawn Teigen. Staff members in attendance were LuAnn Clark, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, Michael Akerlow, Deputy Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, Sandi Marler, CD Programs Administrator, Steven Akerlow, Housing Development Programs Specialist, and Jan Davis, Administrative Secretary. Chairperson Shawn Teigen called the meeting to order at 12:07 p.m. The Board unanimously motioned to approve the February 17th, minutes. Consider a request from Woodruff Landmark Limited Partnership for a loan in the amount of $500,000 at 3% over 30 years to renovate the Woodruff Apartment Building located at 235 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah. The project consists of renovating 48 units, 45 of which are affordable under the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program. Mr. Gary Nordhoff and Mr. Greg Hughes of Woodruff Landmark Limited Partnership were present to provide details and answer questions pertaining to the request. Mr. Gary Nordhoff stated that this project has been successful in obtaining funding from the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund and from the federal tax credit program. Mr. Nordhoff said that the requested funding from the HTF is an important part to complete the project. Mr. Greg Hughes provided a brief history of the property. Mr. Hughes said that the Woodruff Apartment Building has been owned by them since 1996. Mr. Hughes described the building structure and said that it would not be financially feasible to construct a new building. Mr. Hughes said that the renovation will consist of a major electrical update, as the last major electrical update was in the1950's. Mr. Hughes said that the building will also be upgraded to improve energy conservation. Mr. Hughes said that the project will target individuals and families of workforce housing at 50% AMI or lower. The Board asked if the tenants had been notified of the renovation. Mr. Nordhoff replied that the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund requires notifying the tenants. Mr. Nordhoff said that they have made a commitment to the tenants that they will be able to move back into a similar apartment at the same rent or lower. Mr. Hughes explained how they will move the residents to the new apartments. The Board asked where the community center would be located. Mr. Nordhoff said that the community center will be in the same building on the lower level and will be adapted to accommodate wheelchairs to provide access for every tenant to the community center. Mr. Nordhoff stated that they are obligated to pay the cost of moving the tenants. Parking was discussed and Mr. Nordhoff said that there is no parking associated with the building but that there are rental lots available around the area. The Board asked if the building upgrades included a fire safety system. Mr. Nordhoff said that a fire safety system exists in the building. The Board discussed affordable housing in Salt Lake City. The Board discussed concerns of low-income housing development in downtown Salt Lake City and how to find a better balance of housing options for the future of Salt Lake City. The current market in downtown Salt Lake City and recent developments are bringing more options for the community for those needing affordable housing and those who have disposable income to afford more on rent for housing. The Board agreed that there needs to be a balance in the renovation of older buildings to maintain their affordability for the downtown community. Mr. Hughes commented that City Creek is establishing Salt Lake City as more of a residential City. The City Creek development will bring more jobs and people who are in the service industries that will be dependent upon affordable housing. Mr. Hughes said that the AMI they are targeting is not at the Section 8 income level, but workforce housing. Mr. Hughes said this project will provide an important need for workforce housing in the City. A short discussion followed regarding the low-income housing tax credit program. Mr. Nordhoff said that as part of the application process, a market study is required that looks specifically at low-income housing tax credit units to make sure they are not being concentrated in any given area. The Board discussed their strategy regarding housing policies to support low-income housing. Ms. LuAnn Clark Msaid that the City's housing policy is to include diversity and that would include the workforce population as well as the high-end population all working toward a balance. The Board inquired about environmental issues pertaining to the project. Mr. Nordhoff stated that there is some asbestos in parts of the building but that will be resolved and is included in the cost of the renovation. Mr. Nordhoff explained the 6% contingency to cover unexpected expenses and that a Capital Needs Assessment was done that provides information on how to bring the project up to current codes. The Board asked about occupancy ratio for the project. Mr. Nordhoff said that with their other low- income tax properties they are 100% occupied. Mr. Nordhoff said that with the recent development in the area and the City Creek development, this type of affordable housing is in demand. Mr. Nordhoff said that three of the units will be market rate in an attempt to create that housing balance. The Board asked about the property being maintained as affordable for 99 years. Mr. Nordhoff said that there is a lien on the property to keep the property affordable and if the property is sold, the new owner would be restricted under that program. Rick Knuth motioned to approve the loan request for $500,000 at 3% interest, with a 30 year amortizati . to be secured by a subordinate real estate lien. Michael Brough seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed. Update by LuAnn Clark LuAnn Clark said that the Board's HOME recommendation was accepted by the Mayor and City Council. Ms. Clark said that less money was received and the Board's recommendation on how to allocate the funding is appreciated. Ms. Clark said that $100,000 of the funding has been set aside for a project that will be presented to the Board in the very near future. Volunteers of America will be presenting an application for a project to house homeless youth. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:46 p.m. 2 FUNDING APPLICATION SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND Cover Sheet Project Name: Woodruff Apartments Applicant/Organization: Woodruff Landmark Limited Partnership Mailing Address: 1475 Sigsbee Avenue Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Contact Person: Gary Nordhoff Phone Number: (801) 860-2426 Fax Number: (801) 531-2166 E-mail: garynordhoff@gmail.com Federal Employee Identification Number: 45-1968650 Project Name: Woodruff Apartments Project Location: 235 South 200 East, SLC, UT 84111 Amount Requested: $ 500,000.00 Terms Requested: 3.00% interest, 30 year amortization Please contact Sandi Marler at 535-7269 if you have questions or need assistance completing this application. The application is typed in Microsoft Word and is available on disc. 1 Project Description Part I 1. Describe the scope of the project (how many total units, how many affordable units, type of project, etc.). Please address how your project will be accessible/visit-able. Please attach site plan, floor plan, and elevation of your project, if available. Total unit count is 48, of which 45 will be affordable under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. There will be 14 2-bedroom units, 19 1-bedroom units and 14 studio units. Additionally, space will be provided to serve as a community center for the residents. The renovation of the building will comply with ADA accessibility laws. New handicapped access will be constructed to allow for wheel chair access to the lower level and two units will be specifically "set-aside"to be rented to persons with physical disabilities. 2. Does the project conform to the City's Master Plans for the area? Please indicate which master plan(s). Briefly restate the master plan objectives the project will meet. The project meets the goal of the Downtown Master Plan adopted by the city in February 1995 by preserving existing housing stock and contributing to a diverse and active 24-hour community. 3. What is the property zoned? The current zoning is D-1. 4. All new construction projects will need to be reviewed by the appropriate Community Council. Please provide a copy of the Community Council's response to the review of your project. N/A. This is not a new construction project. 5. Please include a breakdown of the number of units that will be provided for the various percentages of area median income (i.e., how many units for those at 80%, 50% AMI, etc.), along with a list of the rents that will be charged to each group. The units will be targeted to individuals and families earning various percentages of area median income as follows: 5 units 25% AMI $276 6 units 39% AMI $441 - $471 27 units 45% AMI $521 - $649 7 units 50% AMI $615 - $728 3 units unrestricted $725 - $850 6. How will the project be accomplished if the Salt Lake City Trust Fund is unable to fund this request? The participation of the Salt Lake City Housing Trust fund is critical in the completion of this project. Several sources of funding will be utilized from Low Income Housing Tax Credit equity, Olene Walker Housing Trust Fund and Owner Equity. Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund participated was anticipated in completion of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Application process as per their letter of interested dated September 23, 2010. 7. How do you intend to use funds provided by Salt Lake City Corporation? Funds will be used for acquisition of the property to allow for construction and permanent financing to be obtained. 8. Are there tenants currently living in the project? Will they be able to remain in the project once it has been completed? Please explain how the tenants will be affected by the project and the steps you have taken to deal with their issues. The building is partially occupied by approximately 30 residents. Every effort will be made to accommodate their continued residency in the building. The renovation will be staged which will allow individual tenants to relocate to newly completed units while their apartment is being rehabilitated. Once completed, they will be given the option to return to their original apartment, often at a greatly reduced rent. In no case will a current resident be required to pay a greater rent than what they are currently paying. 9. How many square feet will the project contain? Please describe how the project will meet the requirements of LEED Standards in City Funded Construction (Chapter 18.95 adopted in 2006) if the project is for new construction or major renovation of a multi-family residential building that will contain more than 10,000 square feet. As an alternative to a LEED certification, please describe how the project will meet the standards and design guidelines as outlined by the National Green Building Standard. The gross apartment building area is 41,668 square feet. Several important upgrades will be completed to improve energy conservation including replacing HVAC equipment, windows and lighting. Additionally, the project will meet the standards of the Green Communities Certification program. A checklist detailing the requirements for this certification and our plan to achieve them is attached to this application. Project Funding Part II 1. Please list the sources of all funds as of the date of the application. If this is a tax credit project, please provide one complete copy of the tax credit application. Permanent Sources of Funding/Post Construction: Source Amount Equity Partnership $ 3,679,401 1st Mortgage Washington Federal $ 1,035,000 2nd Mortgage Olene Walker Trust Fund $ 833,063 Other Secured Debts SLC Housing Trust Fund $ 500,000 Unsecured Debt Deferred Developer Fee $ 263,350 Other Rebates and Grants $ 53,000 Total Sources $ 6,363,814 la. Ratio of Salt Lake City Trust Funding to total funding: 1 to 12.76 2. Please list the uses of all funds for the proposed project, being as specific as „__ possible. The total of Uses of Funds should equal the total project cost. Uses: Land/Building Acquisition Cost $ 2,490,000 Rehabilitation/Construction Cost $ 3,284,434 A/E, Permit and other fees $ 589,380 Other, please specify $ 6,363,814 3. What will be the value of the project at the time of completion? $2,800,000. 4. Please attach sales or operating projections for the project for the first five years after completion. Please list below the assumptions made to prepare the operating projection. Please show revenue and expense categories in as much detail as possible. Please see attached proforma in the LIHTC application. 5. What is the source of repayment of the funds? oink Rental and other operating income. 4 6. What type of security is being offered to the City? Trust Deed in 2"d position. 7. Please list all other governmental grants, loans, tax credits, licenses, etc., necessary for this project to proceed. Please include information on the status of all funding required for the completion of this project. Source Status Low Income Housing Tax Credits - credits Approved Olene Walker Housing Trust Fund- loan Approved Washington Federal— loan LOI Grants and Rebates Approved 8. Please describe the purchase terms under which the applicant will/has acquire(d) the property. How much of the purchase price will be paid with equity provided by the applicant? By others? Purchase price of land and existing structure at$2,490,000. Source of funds for acquisition are: 1) Applicant Equity: $ 1,156,937 2) Olene Walker Trust Fund: $ 833,063 3) SLC Housing Trust Fund: $ 500,000 9. If an appraisal of the property has been obtained, please attach a copy. Appraisal is attached. 10. Please state the number of years you will maintain this property as affordable. The property will be maintained as affordable for 99 years. Applicant Information Part III 1. Please check each of the following which is true for the Applicant (a) The Applicant is an individual doing business under his/her own name. _X_(b) The Applicant has the status indicated below and is organized or to be organized under the laws of Utah A corporation A nonprofit or charitable institution or corporation _X_A partnership known as or to be known as: Woodruff Landmark Limited Partnership A business association or joint venture known as or to be known as: A Federal, State or local government or instrumentality thereof Individual known as: Social Security Number of Individual: Other (explain): 2. If the Applicant is not an individual or a government agency, give date of organization: April 14, 2011 3. Please provide a list of the officers, director or trustees, board of trustees or board of directors, or partners of the applicant's organization. Gary Nordhoff Greg Hughes 4. Who will manage the property once it has been acquired? Urban Chase Property Management, LLC 6 5. Please provide a brief description of your organization. Woodruff Landmarks Limited Partnership is a single purpose entity created to rehabilitate the Woodruff Apartments using Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits. 6. Who will be responsible for this project? The Managers and General Partners will be responsible for the project, specifically, Gary Nordhoff and Greg Hughes. 7. Please provide examples of experience your organization has with this type of project. Gary Nordhoff and Greg Hughes have developed five other Low Income Tax Credit properties as well as other market rate properties in the Salt Lake City area. Current Ownership Information Part IV 1. Who is the current owner of the property? G, G & D Woodruff, LLC 2. Who is the current manager of the property? Urban Chase Property Management, LLC 3. Please provide a list of the officers, director or trustees, board of trustees or board of directors, or partners of the organization that currently owns the property. Gary Nordhoff Greg Hughes Certification .4044, We, Gary Nordhoff and Greg Hughes, certify that this Applicant Disclosure of Ownership and Control is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief. c Signature Signature._ Title Title Address and Zip Code Address and Zip Code Date: : ( C- ( Date: l ' s PREPARATION OF LOAN DOCUMENTS Applicant understands and agrees with Salt Lake City Corporation's policy that all loan documents required from Salt Lake City Corporation, necessary for closing of the loan, will be processed and signed two weeks prior to the loan closing date and that no changes to those loan documents and/or requests for additional documents and/or letters requiring the Mayor's signature will be made during the two week period prior to the loan closing. L // ' • Signature Signature - Title Title Date Date ACCESS TO TAX CREDIT APPLICATION INFORMATION Applicant agrees to grant Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development permission to access information contained in their Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Application filed with the Utah Housing Corporation and/or any Private Activity Bond applications. Signature ' Signature,, Title Title Date Date • NOTE: PLEASE PROVIDE FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF YOUR ENTIRE APPLICATION AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED AND ONE (1) COPY OF YOUR TAX CREDIT APPLICATION and APPRAISAL. 9 Woodruff Apartments 235 South 200 East FIVE YEAR OPERATING PROJECTIONS Year Year Year Year Year 1 2 3 4 5 Income Projected Ristricted Rents 293,088 298,950 304,929 311,027 317,248 Vacancy Restricted Rents(7%) (20,516) (20,926) (21,345) (21,772) (22,207) Projected Market Rents 29,100 29,682 30,276 30,881 31,499 Vacancy Market Rents(6%) (1,746) (1,781) (1,817) (1,853) (1,890) Other Income 29,700 30,294 30,900 31,518 32,148 Total Income 329,626 336,218 342,943 349,802 356,798 Operating Expenses Adminstrative Advertising 1,900 1,967 2,035 2,107 2,180 Management 6,000 6,210 6,427 6,652 6,885 Legal 1,000 1,035 1,071 1,109 1,148 Partnership 500 500 500 500 500 Accounting 4,000 4,140 4,285 4,435 4,590 Compliance Fee 900 900 900 900 900 Maintenance Maintenance/Repairs 30,000 31,050 32,137 33,262 34,426 Extermination 1,400 1,449 1,500 1,552 1,607 Landscaping 900 932 964 998 1,033 Operating Electric 5,000 5,175 5,356 5,544 5,738 Gas 11,000 11,385 11,783 12,196 12,623 Water/Sewer 5,000 5,175 5,356 5,544 5,738 Trash Removal 3,000 3,105 3,214 3,326 3,443 Payroll 54,000 55,890 57,846 59,871 61,966 Payroll Taxes 6,000 6,210 6,427 6,652 6,885 Insurance 9,600 9,936 10,284 10,644 11,016 Taxes Real Estate Taxes 13,440 13,910 14,397 14,901 15,423 Total Operating Expenses 153,640 158,968 164,483 170,191 176,099 Net Operting Income 175,986 177,250 178,459 179,610 180,699 Replacement Reserves 16,800 16,800 16,800 16,800 16,800 Cash Flow 159,186 160,450 161,659 162,810 163,899 Debt Service Washington Federal 70,519 70,519 70,519 70,519 70,519 SLC Housing Trust Fund 25,296 25,296 25,296 25,296 25,296 Olene Walker Housing Trust Fund 34,501 34,501 34,501 34,501 34,501 Total Debt Service 130,316 130,316 130,316 130,316 130,316 Net Income 28,870 30,134 31,343 32,494 33,583 Debt Coverage Ratio 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 Assumptions: Income Growth Rate of 2/c Expense Inflation Rate of 3.5% (not applied to Partnership, Compliance Fee and Replacement Reserves) IL I 0 - -= 0� t3 T 1- a • 1 J gpi os LT_ r _ ca L _ / s i o II II t--1 t--1 1-1 r-i ? — I • [ .:. ^ d _ C o ril co I d° g al • h :_,..I T � , amoo=� l t g a g L ° / L a m L c \-..- 2 I ! ', I— —E)— -J\/: P • 5 o N I 1-1 '� Tom -) t- 1 UNI INS n • PROFESSIONAL SEAL WITH SIGNATURE AND DATE IS AFLIALD,THIS DNCNMMNI IS PRELIMINARY AND IS NUT INTENDED FOR i i/a- r o- y ao a i,. y „, a.L,V: EONS TRUE IUN. STUDIONc. , , : BwL„ e ow, 11 I WI,NOW OININO TE ,ANrROB, r,B,rBnoe BONUS op.,,,,, INNING v OWING wrBwe .I,u,I,Ba.Blaa Lt7r� ,ML`_ , ;' ,. r' 1 'rN .,, 11 OPrR I')-I M ' Bronoor o 0 0 0o w 7 ,r,o „n r. N.n „RR mr.o o _o o 7 BIM. II ��,�� B,L �— ...°�I BILL B,LA o ro ttt,,,......,,,�� I uI [°o�-= — oo BAIL `A cost, B L f �O e„ 111 D,M p �� •IIS ,eQ 1', I aaa, DNN: D�: ��LR:,• u Ani • gy 05.7 R NI aost, WIN Bu -1 U °° BALL T �I HALL L� 1 O O BnwnB LIwB aaLaw ,1 r eo eiB J E B El • 11 ,, Bn WOO�RU FF ..fro n• B..B w [ 5r r B LOFTS ~, Nrnfia. CANING.Bca WING r,B,r Bwu rwnrPccu rw.Bow 'AB.ROM oixmc rwnr Bow w L 4: -- - Main Floor Plan Al UNIFSS A PROFESSIONAL SEAL WITH SIGNATURE AND DAIL IS AFFIXED,THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY AND IS NTT INTENDED rl]R CONS I RUC I ION x, f,/]' ,a.•' x�'a,/: Y-o' ]a',,,/I' Y-0' ].f'a,/: �R.e�._ ]f'a,/: I 1 fi - fi- t---t t t t t IgegIlM -I •Y_ r- BOWS F.- DOM. I -1 00Nus 1 STUDIO INC. 0100 II 2A1.11,•o. LI .,.. FAMILY•o01 RL.ROOM rum,ROOM 2h.1210ADON oMNc a911N. r,M1L.A00R el,.,."..,,' .'Ira„•xx.u]2 I a III "," II 'r. I .%. III MR �" II R II fO' O 0 ___ rc m o+nox - - ion Xi,a[. xi,o4N 2' ��F BEDROOM 12 T" 00: 0 00 �� 14.1, L l _ I •,N . Td- -CO)°1 �N. •,,, <o oI—Nilli NAIL — 923 MMl .�Aoo .,,. OS° «o�, :11 •,. �� " ; •.,NI� .oMO. ..~Ua III •„~U ;cloy, •,M �I► �I 004,ate, M n n a.,r, ! �� a0:<, � 0.042 (-71 MI On Q09 ®11 ®1 MD 311 C10 Dr di Dom amC® umD® BAIN IP 11.°C = rf_J G—= of O , 00 00l •room �2 po,�. .,,T,,,Iw [o° •.M 90.001d .,Tao „�. .�od 1 III. ,1� .11111 III l " 1 WOODRUFF I o "J 1F• S� WO. LOFTS 7 -c - L 1 w..ROM/ •.•c ow.c wur noon wLr claw i w,..oa °""° 711101.0 J 0.05 .I.c,r, I; i x © Second Floor Plan Al INLETS A PROCESSIONAL SEAL VIIH SIGNATURE AND DATE IS AFT IXED,TIIIS IIIICUME NI IS PRELIMINARY AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR _ CUNSI RUC IIUN al 5,/a' ia' } al'-o,/: T-O' as'„,/� I o' af'-o,/: ,o a as 5 1/: --� ,--•IMF-lfit---1 _.� l L-I=L-� 1..__1_-_II �_I�._J--� - I�-8 I ,=. STUDIO INC. 7 r.II r mil. v.. Owus n..Nc r.u,Rm.. ewu5 !MIRY Rix. !AWAY R.N. 900.3 ..WIT ROOM oixwc wOs owiNc (WM.NOW (901,11.....IL..... tell uRnaa.. .r C T� 1111 I x1Ta„x M. 0: �J 7 .FDRDw RR,mN of -- - Join R,DRmw Of o PJ Z "ALL MALL1 N. } O - = I Rw I�� V n° IO_oI- - O r. R., CIO', aou, D.R. �� /� �� DA fr .wMs .wD /1 D.H ear .Ja CLOSE, CLOSE, a.SFT n n . aR , I l DATA ( .J CLOSET UM CLOSET aD�T t910 Wm ®9 OM W.I m0 OOP OM I'( \\ D® rum C® OM ODD lox. °'�Jl' —J U _. J uossT ywn �Y aoY, Y� • nl{�, f �— a R. D 10 ..,I III 5TI°w i �� N, I J�Em oo� "" r1 J w, HAIL Nw. I o 00 I xw, 9T10.10., o orr o o . ..BORN L 1 DmRow a��"LL �!I J„�rx I d!x �- 1 ] w�� orM ,,.o.N w000F2uFF LOFTS C' _ - C. r s� `7 !AWRY R°w U °1,axc DINING rm.,'°uw FAMILY RC. FAMILY Row rw Y RC. Il °ix�xc °NINO �l-1 1,M1..ROOM ol.c,R, 1 Y, 1 x © Third Floor Plan Al P 1 Cvxn d o o ww RECEIVED SCANNED TO: lvvice SCANNED BY: FRANK B. GRAY "'..` t `J ��`e� PPICE ( RALPH BECKER CO DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR RE,CRIVE,D DEPUTY DIRECTOR (� ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. JUN I 5 2011 DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Salt Lake City Mayor Date Received: Ot, // Slip/ I David E itt, Chie of Staff Date sent to Council: 06 J 2v/ ?.o/ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: June 14, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Frank G CED Director _ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2010-00782: endmentttto the Zoning Ordinance to remove language that requires a five foot maximum rear setback for accessory buildings. STAFF CONTACT: John Anderson Planning Division 801-535-7214,john.anderson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance COMMISSION MOTION & FINDINGS: Planning Commissioner Matthew Wirthlin made the motion that in the matter of PLNPCM2010-00782 Zoning Text Amendment, 5 Foot Maximum Rear Setback for Accessory Buildings he moved that the Commission submit a favorable recommendation to remove the 5 foot maximum rear setback standard for accessory structures petition to the City Council. Commissioner Charlie Luke seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Emily Drown, Charlie`Luke, Michael Gallegos, Susie McHugh, Matthew Wirthlin and Mary Woodhead all voted"aye" and passed unanimously. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council hold a briefing and schedule a public hearing. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The proposed elimination of this section of the Zoning Code has been proposed because in the actual implementation of this regulation it has been found that the 5 foot maximum setback requirement is in conflict with various other policies and goals that the city is working to achieve, and it can be an unnecessary burden for residents. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 1454136, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114.5486 TELEPHONE: B0 1-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CED tM� accreLED PAPER The existing maximum setback requires that any accessory building in the R-1 districts, R-2 district and SR districts be located no more than 5 feet from the rear property line. There are some existing exceptions that would allow the building to be located more than the required 5 feet: 1. If the Transportation Division requires it to be located further to guarantee safe access in and out of the accessory building. This may be allowed, for example, so that property owners can safely access a garage that is located with access to an alley. 2. The Planning Director may allow it if the property owner can demonstrate that more than 50 percent of the properties on the same block face have accessory structures that exceed the 5 foot maximum rear setback. 3. The Board of Adjustment may approve an alternate location based on hardships created by topography or mature vegetation. Master Plan Considerations None of the existing Salt Lake City master plans specifically address this section of the zoning ordinance or accessory structures in residential neighborhoods. It is commonly found in many of the master plans in the city that it is important to maintain the continuity of neighborhood design and for compatible development. Because the minimum standards will still apply for accessory structures, and because there will be no other changes in the setbacks or other standards for primary structures, staff does not believe that the elimination of this section of the Zoning Ordinance will be in conflict with any of the city's master plans. Public Process: This application was reviewed at the Public Open House on 17 February 2011. There were no written comments received. One verbal comment was received stating concern about removal of the language because of how it may affect historic neighborhoods and a continuation of compatible neighborhood design. To date, no other written or verbal comments have been received. Staff has received no additional public comment regarding this petition. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 13, 2011. The project was generally viewed as a favorable change to the Zoning Ordinance and a positive recommendation was forwarded to the City Council. The vote was unanimous. Because the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance was not properly noticed, the Planning Commission held another public hearing on May 25, 2011. The project was again viewed as a favorable change to the Zoning Ordinance and another positive recommendation was forwarded to the City Council. Relevant Ordinances Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures; Chapter 21A.40.050 General Yard, Bulk and Height Limitations TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a. ORIGINAL HEARING NOTICE AND POSTMARK b. STAFF REPORT c. APRIL 13, 2011 MINUTES d. MAY 25, 2011 MINUTES 6. ORIGINAL PETITION PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition PLNPCM2010-00782 November 16, 2010 Petition received by Planning. January 3, 2011 Petition assigned to John Anderson, Principal Planner for staff analysis and processing. February 17, 2011 Public Open House was held. April 13, 2011 Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. April 31, 2011 Staff requests ordinance from City Attorney's Office. May 11, 2011 Staff received a draft of proposed ordinance from City Attorney's Office. May 13, 2011 Planning Commission hearing notice was published in the paper and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. May 25, 2011 Because at the April 13, 2011 the proper noticing_ was not completed, the Planning Commission held another public hearing and voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. May 31. 2011 Staff requested a new draft of proposed ordinance from City Attorney's Office. May 31. 2011 Staff received a new draft of proposed ordinance from City Attorney's Office. June S, 2011 Planning Commission ratified minutes for May 25, 2011 meeting. June 14. 2011 Petition transmitted to Community and Economic Development. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (An ordinance amending section 21A.40.050.A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to accessory structure setbacks) An ordinance amending section 21A.40.050.A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00782 pertaining to setback requirements for accessory structures. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on May 25, 2011 to consider a request made by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker (petition no. PLNPCM2010-00782) to amend the text of section 21A.40.050.A (Zoning: Accessory Structures: Yard, Bulk and Height Limitations: Location of Accessory Buildings in Required Yards) of the Salt Lake City Code to mitigate conflicts with other City policies and goals; and WHEREAS, at its May 25, 2011 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend the sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code identified herein; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the City's best interests, NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.40.050.A. That section 21A.40.050.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Structures: Yard, Bulk and Height Limitations: Location of Accessory Buildings in Required Yards), shall be, and hereby is, amended to remove subsection 21A.40.050.A.3.d, that such section shall read as follows: A. Location Of Accessory Buildings In Required Yards: 1. Front Yards: Accessory buildings are prohibited in any required front, side or corner side yard. If an addition to residential buildings results in an existing accessory building being located in a side yard, the existing accessory building shall be permitted to remain, subject to maintaining a four foot (4') separation from the side of the accessory building to the side of the residential building, as required in subsection A3b of this section. 2. Corner Lots: No accessory building on a corner lot shall be closer to the street than the distance required for corner side yards. At no time, however, shall an accessory building be closer than twenty feet (20') to a public sidewalk or public pedestrianway and the accessory building shall be set back at least as far as the principal building. 3. Rear Yards: Location of accessory buildings in a rear yard shall be as follows: a. In residential districts, no accessory building shall be closer than one foot (1') to a side or rear lot line except when sharing a common wall with an accessory building on an adjacent lot. In nonresidential districts, buildings may be built to side or rear lot lines in rear yards, provided the building complies with all applicable requirements of the adopted building code. b. No portion of the accessory building shall be built closer than four feet (4') to any portion of the principal building. c. Garages on two (2) or more properties that are intended to provide accessory building use for the primary occupants of the properties, in which the garage is located, may be constructed in the rear yards, as a single structure subject to compliance with adopted building code regulations and the size limits for accessory buildings on each property as indicated herein. c'.. In the R 1 districts, R 2 district s+'is s access^ tnictures shall b 1 a+ 1 f f t (5) fro.,, tl' �e subject vt�c 'r'rTniiuiii vi iiv'�, i�.�,� `✓ � liviiiv1.�'i to the following exceptions: 1)( tb.,c1 f +1, + 1Tl �ci-�rrrtci„ - r , "i.-'i��nii, iiiu j`ve iiierl'i'1SCC to other-maneuvering standards. (2) The planning-director desig„ee „ „thoriz e--the issuance of building permits for an accessory structure with a maximum setback of more than five feet(5') from the rear property line if-the property owner-demonstrates that fifty percent (50%)--or-more of the properties n zl e blec-1 f have structure located more than five feet (5') from the re'ir property line. In this case, the accessory structure mn--be-set-back from the rear property line a distance equal to the t to the provision of chapter U L111111J 11 Ull Val. 13 21A.52 of this title. - ---- ....�_-.- ..._ ..J�✓ ...�a. aa.w, Utl�l1V YV Ull-Llil.C. ---based an en hardships created 4. Accessory Or Principal Lot: No portion of an accessory building on either an accessory or principal lot may be built closer than ten feet (10') to any portion of a principal residential building on an adjacent lot when that adjacent lot is in a residential zoning district. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2011. Published: H[3_ATTY-4 17772-\S-Ordinance_amending_zoning_test_re_accessony_structure setbacks DOC SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (An ordinance amending section 21A.40.050.A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to accessory structure setbacks) An ordinance amending section 21A.40.050.A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00782 pertaining to setback requirements for accessory structures. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on May 25, 2011 to consider a request made by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker (petition no. PLNPCM2010-00782) to amend the text of section 21A.40.050.A (Zoning: Accessory Structures: Yard, Bulk and Height Limitations: Location of Accessory Buildings in Required Yards) of the Salt Lake City Code to mitigate conflicts with other City policies and goals; and WHEREAS, at its May 25, 2011 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend the sections of Title 21 A of the Salt Lake City Code identified herein; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the City's best interests, NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.40.050.A. That section 21A.40.050.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Structures: Yard, Bulk and Height Limitations: Location of Accessory Buildings in Required Yards), shall be, and hereby is, amended to remove subsection 21 A.40.050.A.3.d, that such section shall read as follows: A. Location Of Accessory Buildings In Required Yards: 1. Front Yards: Accessory buildings are prohibited in any required front, side or corner side yard. If an addition to residential buildings results in an existing accessory building being located in a side yard, the existing accessory building shall be permitted to remain, subject to maintaining a four foot (4') separation from the side of the accessory building to the side of the residential building, as required in subsection A3b of this section. 2. Corner Lots: No accessory building on a corner lot shall be closer to the street than the distance required for corner side yards. At no time, however, shall an accessory building be closer than twenty feet (20') to a public sidewalk or public pedestrianway and the accessory building shall be set back at least as far as the principal building. 3. Rear Yards: Location of accessory buildings in a rear yard shall be as follows: a. In residential districts, no accessory building shall be closer than one foot (I') to a side or rear lot line except when sharing a common wall with an accessory building on an adjacent lot. In nonresidential districts, buildings may be built to side or rear lot lines in rear yards, provided the building complies with all applicable requirements of the adopted building code. b. No portion of the accessory building shall be built closer than four feet (4') to any portion of the principal building. c. Garages on two (2) or more properties that are intended to provide accessory building use for the primary occupants of the properties, in which the garage is located, may be constructed in the rear yards, as a single structure subject to compliance with adopted building code regulations and the size limits for accessory buildings on each property as indicated herein. 4. Accessory Or Principal Lot: No portion of an accessory building on either an accessory or principal lot may be built closer than ten feet (10') to any portion of a principal residential building on an adjacent lot when that adjacent lot is in a residential zoning district. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Bill No. of 2011. Date 3i 26( Published: By. / P ul C.Nielson, color Cro•Attorn ne ms 1-IB_ATIV=17 \•4-O;c1n.::ce_anterdi„c_zonincl_tett_re_accessoiv_structuie_setbacks.DOC NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLNPCM2010-00782 - A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to remove the requirement for a five foot maximum rear setback for accessory buildings. The amendment will affect sections 21A.40.050 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A- Zoning,may also be amended as part of this petition. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Room 315 City S County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call John Anderson at S01-535-7214 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.. Monday through Friday or via e-mail at john.anderson@slcgov.com. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 4S hours in advance in order to attend this hearing. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the Planning Division at (801) 535-7757, TDD (801) 535- 6021. Laser/Inx Jet Laoels eicraxig www.avery.com VERY Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY C R ® 48460TM Erin Youngberg Elke Phillips Cabot Nelson 1910 Bridge Crest Circle 839 S.Washington St 984 E Simpson Avenue gait Lake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Brad Bartholomew Thomas Mutter Michael Cohn 871 N Poinsettia Dr 228 East 500 South PO Box 520123 Salt Lake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Salt Lake City, Utah 84125 Angie Vorher East Central Community Council 1988 Sir James Dr 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84102 Gordon Storrs DeWitt Smith Cecily Zuck 223 North 800 West 328 E Hollywood Ave PO BOX 145480 Salt Lake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-5480 Andrew Johnston Esther Hunter Carl Leith 716 Glendale Street 606 Trolley Square PO BOX 145480 Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Salt Lake City UT 84102 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 Randy Sorenson George Kelner 1184 S. Redwood Dr 1000 Military Drive Salt Lake City UT 84104-3325 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Katherine Gardner John Bennion 606 De Soto St 1684 E. Browning Ave Salt Lake City UT 84103 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Dave Van Langeveld Pete Taylor 807 Northcliffe Dr 933 S. 2300 E. Salt Lake City UT 84103 Salt Lake City UT 84108 Gene Fitzgerald Ellen Reddick 1385 Butler Ave 2177 Roosevelt Ave Salt Lake City UT 84102 Salt Lake City UT 84108 Thristian Harrison R. Gene Moffitt Community Council Chairs 336 W. Broadway, #308 1410 Chancellor Way Last update from CC website 5.19.11 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Salt Lake City UT 84108 -1770 S.5600 W. P.O. I30\ 704005 c�h n c Deseret ewsWES VALLEY CH Y. 1_I1All 84170 FED.TAX LD./i 87-0217663 "r = PROOF OF PUBLICATION CUSTOMER'S COPY CUSTOMER NAME AND ADDRESS 1 ACCOUNT NUMBER I DATE PLANNING DIVISION, 9001394298 5!16/2011 PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 ACCOUNT NAME PLANNING DIVISION, TELEPHONE - - ADORDER# / INVOICE NUMBER 8015356184 0000690026 / • - -SCHEDULE - _ - Start 05/13/2011 End 05/13/2011 CUST,REF_NO. PLNPCM2010-00782 Sail Lake City Zoning Mop and Ordinance Amendment CAPTION - • On May 25, 2011, the San Lake City Planning Commis- sion will hold o public hear- ing to consider making rec- Salt Lake City Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendment On May 25, 2011, the Salt Lake City Pi o�;et t the dagarding the al `" ing petitions: • - SIZE - .. PLNPCM2o10-00782 Zonino Text Amendment,5 Foot Mos- i mum Rear Setback for Acre, 44 Lines 1.00 COLUMN spry Building:: A request by Soli Lo%e City Mayor Ralph Becker for o zoning text • TIMES RATE amendment to remove the re- quirement fora 5 font maxi- mum rear setoack for acces- sory buildings. There would 4 be no chcnge to the minimum setback requirements. The text aendment would affect all R-m1 districts, R-2 dill,icr MISC.CHARGES r AD CHARGES 3 and SR district,. (staff con- tact: John Anderson of B01- 535-7214 or juhn.enderso,, (CNlcgov.com) The public hearing Hill begin of 5.45 p m in n 325 of the City County Building,451 TOTAL COST • South State Street,Solt Lake City, UT. For mere infcrma- bon or for special ADA ac- commodations,whid,may in- c1.cde alternate formats, in- 78.92 terprelers, and other auxili- ary cid:or additional infer- --- — maion, please conlod Jo Anderson as 525-7214 �. Al I-1D.\\'11"OF PU13L1CAl ION call TDD 535.622C. 6699002e 11npy,� AS NE\\SP.\P]-iR Acip;;.l.COMPANY.I If c1b,i LIEDIAONE OF LIFA]]LEGAL BOOKER.I Cu )]]R Y•1I lA] "11111 Al 1.`.CI ILD ADVERT ISL\]LN F OF Snit Leh('(its Zonin2)Llli and Ordinance Amendment On\1as 25.2011,the Salt Lake Cits Plannimr Connnicninn will hold a public hearin'_to consider mill.,,, rceminn FOR PLANNING DIVISION.AV AS PUBL]SIILL)BY THE NEWSPAPER AGENCY COMPANY.LLC(b:l NILDIAONE OF UTA]].AGENT FOR TIIE SAL) LAKE TRIBUNE A\D D :SLRFT NEV,S.I)All Y NEWSPAPERS PRINTED IN THE E-NGLISII LANGUAGE WI GLNLR"Ai CIRC]IL-,TION IN U I AI1. AND PUBLISI IED IN SALT LAKE CI1Y.Still LAKE COUNTY IN TILL S FATE.01 U PAIL.NOTICE IS ALSO POSTED ON l-i`rl IL-EG\l_S COO ON TI IL S.A\]L DAY AS T111'FIRST NI.R UP.AP1-R PH_ILIC A.1ION DATE AN])REMAINS ON t'IAl]LEG\I S COO INDF1 INATELY PUB1.1s1IFD ON Star; 05• .3,201 1 End 05/13/2011 No'dr,r- • C, t :ta if Ut l GN.AlURl I•IY C0r 5/16'201 1 \IJAf I TI IIS IS NOT A S7 ATE\IENT BUT A "PROOF OF PUDI .CATION" PLEASE PAY 1-ROM UII LING STA7 CMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 21A.40.050: ,_ 5 Foot Maximum Rear Setback for Accessory Structures = :rS'itt T= Case #PLNPCM2010-00782 '• ` 4 April 2011 Planning and Zoning Division Department of Community and Economic Development Applicant Mayor Ralph Becker REQUEST Staff John Anderson The applicant, Mayor Ralph Becker, is requesting an amendment to Chapter iohn.anderson'ri'slctgo\.com 21A.40.050A3d of the Zoning Ordinance that would remove existing (801)535 7214 language that requires a 5 foot maximum rear yard setback for accessory Applicable Zone structures. R-1 and SR-1 Districts;R-2 District Master Plan Designation STAFF RECOMMENDATION N/A Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed Council District modifications to Chapter 21A.40.050yto remove the existing language that City Wide requires a 5 foot maximum rear yard setback for accessory structures in Lot Size residential districts forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. N/A Current Use N/A Applicable Land Use Regulations 21.40.50—General Yard, Bulk and • Height Limitations Notice • Notice mailed on April 1,2011 • Published in the Newspaper April 1, 2011 • Posted on City Sc State \\'ebsites April 1,2011 Attachments A. Department Comments B. Proposed Ordinance P1_NPC\12O10-C"S: 1 N1:\ir......P.ec. ".... Stn..tu-es 7_0:ir_Ordinance,;:':en;mrrt Background ` The proposed elimination of this section of the Zoning Code has been proposed because staff believes that in the actual implementation of this regulation it has been found that the 5 foot maximum setback requirement is in severe conflict with various other policies and goals that the city is working to achieve and because staff believes it can be an unnecessary burden for residents. The existing maximum setback requires that any accessory building in the R-1 districts, R-2 district and SR districts be located no more than 5 feet from the rear property line. There are some existing exceptions that would allow the building to be located more than the required 5 feet: 1. If the Transportation Division requires it to be located further to guarantee safe access in and out of the accessory building.This may be allowed, for example, so that property owners can safely access a garage that is located with access to an alley 2. The Planning Director may allow it if the property owner can demonstrate that more than 50 percent of the properties on the same block face have accessory structures that exceed the 5 foot maximum rear setback. 3. The Board of Adjustment may approve an alternate location based on hardships created by topography or mature vegetation. Public Participation This application was reviewed at the Public Open House on 17 February 2011. There were no written comments received at that meeting but one verbal comment was received. The commenter was Aloft. concerned about removing the language because of how it may affect historic neighborhoods and a continuation of compatible neighborhood design. To date, no other written or verbal comments have been received. Issue Analysis If adopted, the required 5 foot maximum setback for accessory structures would be removed and there would not be any maximum rear yard setbacks for accessory structures. Any new accessory structure would still be required to be built within the confines of the minimum setbacks and other standards that relate to size, height, bulk or lot coverage that currently exist in the Zoning Ordinance. Below is a summary of the section proposed for removal along with analysis and rationale for the amendment: Affected Code Sections Section 21A.40.050A3d General Yard, Bulk and Height Limitations; and Qualifying Provisions d. In the R-1 districts, R-2 district and SR districts accessory structures shall be located a maximum of five feet (5') from the rear property line subject to the following exceptions: (1)The maximum setback from the rear property line may be increased to meet the transportation division minimum required turning radius and other maneuvering standards. 7 PLNPC\12010-007S2 Ma'sm um Rear Se:bec'k for A.ceessore Structures Zoning Ordinance Amendment (2) The planning director or designee may authorize the issuance of building permits for an accessory structure with a maximum setback of more than five feet (5') from the rear property line if the property owner demonstrates that fifty percent(50%)or more of the properties on the block face have accessory structures located more than five feet(5') from the rear property line. In this case, the accessory structure may be set back from the rear property line a distance equal to the average setback of the other accessory structures on the block face. An appeal of this administrative decision shall be heard by an administrative hearing officer subject to the provision of chapter 21A.52 of this title. (3) The board of adjustment may approve an alternate location for an accessory structure as a special exception based on hardships created by topography or the location of mature vegetation. Analysis The enforcement and implementation of the required maximum rear setback for accessory buildings has been problematic for a number of reasons. By forcing all accessory structures to be located not more than 5 feet from the rear property line, it may cause an unreasonable burden for the owners and residents of large and deep residential lots in the city. It decreases the flexibility for some property owners in the full use of their rear yard. It may also create a maintenance hardship for some especially when snow removal is required. Staff believes that the existing maximum rear setback will not help the city in its endeavors to become a more sustainable community. The maximum setback will require property owners in large or deep lots to install a much longer driveway in order to provide access from the accessory structure to the street. Any increase in the amount of hard surfacing on a lot increases the amount of storm drain runoff that the city must provide an outlet for and may eliminate areas for urban gardening. The installation of more hard-surfacing on a property may contribute to an effect commonly referred to as an "urban heat island". This concept is that because the construction materials used in an urbanized area such as asphalt and concrete tend to retain heat it will continue to keep an urbanized area warmer than a less urbanized area. The effect is generally more noticeable during the night. This warming of an area may require the use of more energy to cool homes and businesses. Maintaining more landscaping on a property will help to lessen the effects of an urban heat island. Mr. Brad Stewart representing the Public Utilities Division has stated that they do support the elimination of the maximum rear yard setback for accessory structures because there are often more utility and riparian conflicts at the rear property lines. Mr. Steward also stated that the additional hard surfacing would increase storm water run-off in residential neighborhoods. Other departments did not have any comments on the proposed amendment. The elimination of the maximum rear setback for accessory structures would not dramatically change the location of most future accessory structures. The average size and depth of parcels in most of the city's neighborhoods creates very few options for the location of accessory structures. The majority of accessory structures in the city are located near the rear lot line. The current requirement for a maximum rear setback is rarely a considerable factor in the review of a submitted site plan for an accessory structure. On the contrary, because of the small lot development pattern of most single-family residential neighborhoods in the city the existing minimum setbacks and standards are the most difficult to comply with. For this reason, the maximum rear yard setback to those lamer lots that do exist in the city can PLNPCM2O10-007S Maximum Rear Se!'nack far Accessory Structures Zoning Ordinance Amendment become an enormous burden to bear in either locating a building in the appropriate location or making application for a Special Exception. This would only apply if the applicant can prove that it meets one of the few standards listed that would allow a structures construction. Staff received only a single comment during the Public Open House held on 17 February 2011. The concern raised at the meeting was directly related to neighborhoods located in the Historic Overlay District and whether this proposed change would allow accessory structures to be built in a manner that is not consistent with existing neighborhood design. The proposal to remove the requirement for a 5 foot maximum rear yard setback would not have a dramatic effect on properties located in the Historic Overlay District. Any new accessory structures located within the boundaries of this overlay district are required to obtain staff approval that the proposed accessory structure fits all of the standards for the historic district. Part of the review will be to ensure that the accessory structure is a continuation of any development pattern that already exists in the neighborhood and is compatible with the applicable standards and design guidelines. This proposed amendment should not have a dramatic effect on neighboring property owners or the development pattern in neighborhoods because the minimum standards and setbacks for accessory structures would not be changed. The existing minimum setbacks will ensure that a proper distance is maintained from the property lines and from any dwellings on adjacent lots. This will also no longer require a Special Exception to have an accessory structure located more than 5 feet from the rear lot line. This removes one barrier and simplifies the approval process for the city and its residents. Amok Ili i. HP-N,,,�c _5� Zi,_ t N- .., a4- -'' Sugar House Example • k ,= A : .;, - 992- 1039 East Hudson Street ' CercalA Nicole -_ ' '""-` t-'aria f . :,.. Parcel A. the rear lot line is 122 feet JI ,t - Pa- C1 arcbb • from the rear of the primal duelling. ! ,,R,: r_ , � f � � `'� Parcel P�: the rear lot line: is 186 feet = 3 ^�� ,4., r N ' fioartherearoftheprinradtitcuing.' `� 7. Parcel C: the rear lot line is 19-1 feet r r • % -'_, r. • I ti+ _,it from the rear of the primar}�dwelling. ` ' ., .+ ` �._ Parcel D: the rear lot line is 185 feet M .0 . MX. • _" 1, s E _rr a5x fi'om the rea,•of the prinimy dwelling. • _ f,`-,. . ,� -_.,,, ; '^ :. Parcel E.• the rear lot line is 186 feet 1,1 k.; ` r . ., '• ` #.1 f-a fi.onr the rear of the prinr0rr}'dwelling. ., r'` : #� '+1 �;Si::' i-'s` ; fir` r1 i 0 "kf, , �', Parcel F: the rear lot line is 189 feet = - I .1 -' - y font the rear of the prima} dwelling. fir'' • i , E fa f' #a t .. t PLNPC\12010-007S2 Maximum Rear Setback for Accesson'Structures Zoning_Ordinance Amendment V:i r K ir{.; -vmiI 7 iummt Pa}teIA , Pmgl } a-'? .; , P&tetD z' 'p e1E Glendale Example \ Lk:• , • , .•. `r �r 1437-1497 West Van n - i - - - :== _ j R Turner Street ( _` t I E f • ' jt Y. j 4,-. Parcel A: the rear lot line i'•• 1- - f(, _ i . tir is 232 feet from the rear Win.- ;t ‘. of ,€ .>� �, ;f the dwelling. , E '' [ i • ': Parcel B: the 1-ear lot line •. t< ,i .• 1.'. t is 258 feet from the rear of iy' - _ - �r ''i. •-, Q.4 i the dwelling. • C t : -. i4;t #r _:c 3�• Parcel C: the rear lot line of '4 t r 7 feet fr•onr the rear of 4.5•110.4 ''- t: 2. j I `` ,, • i' 3 r• the dwelling. l •• Parcel D: the rear lot line ' t is 169 feet from the rear of t F `< I, the dwelling. sI Parcel E: the rear lot line j 4 yt is 223 feet from the rear of v _\_ •t F ..; the dwelling; r - ( t'.1 u1 A•s*>. xti 4' , AreUiii'- . 1, .' ,y , t" r, I� _ 4� Pairela' :, 1 } Avenues Example : 3 ,� • 1 , , ; '; ► 768 East_ A;elute, 71- 77 North 111 " y , ; �E` _ , }�f5. v y, Street, 701\'orll7 L Street .fl' _ = -,-- 1.-•?,' ,;+�.+R' t'1r a-. ),,_ .5' d T ? -y Parcel. : the recn"lo:1i1 � IS 1�IV%�C:fi'(),'. ,r4it �-.� , ��: � hJ`�i,�A�"' �t`�,' ..,_?�It ��^}-^- iY�� t;• 117e rear of the CII�CII;ij`'' .a s( • • :..•-N : '. *a� 't !' y, 1, . ; a3 Parcel B: the rearlot Inc1is 8 4r-_-4 a. i 'i- . .F � � d .�'t.,�•= -...y� ti' + �'-�• G fact f•u�•; ' 4 r v t.-4#-- .r.: _ of the dlreilin �� . .{-, - ..-, '!� � s� the rear , �?'r �; �.�, M y '�� ...I:A �,. --�;'-. 4 - Parcel C'.' the rear lot line 15 105.f�'Cf Pon; --, ---• .G i •.ir ' _ .I� j _ __ �~.-_- ` ,,, ; ,, {ryil the rear of the dwelling tilling. :v + `24•' �• ` a.'+• t f"• r -- 1' -_i ! r� Parcel D: the rear lot I117C' 1 CSQ�'Lt from �rye ►~ Alt • t h } - -4 .�4 i/ic rear of t110 dlt Cl1117g. iLstrae£ '•�`. - ., :.,� ;,1�.1•7•1•. tr Parcel E: the real'lot ling Is 93 t f o• 'VI?' `Ki -' ,��• .. { I rt. f' t ._m `— I �t`tr� 't . rear• -"' r�'c4�z t" =tea { f r 150. ..t z ti ' itt " o 4 & '�+ f" *i,ta rS Sl Tall '=,, t i �►j* T - r s e -�{ n` -r-37. PLNPC\1OO10-c as, \1;yIntim F:,,r Se._...,ffr:tees_ Struck.;.._Zonis_Or l'--TcoA .,nil,gilt • i *-- ,-Vt'Y-.--.•,./. i• -11 t, .V ' {� - ,t "v,,,,,a.:,----, _._ _ l �' -_ • Liberty Wells Example - X `. ice. =: T -- 2006 South 300 East, 2016—2030 • South 300 East x 4 ' � `` ' Parcel A: the rear lot line is 163 . ._. - 1 �' , ; , -•7, -, m t,'' feet from the rear of the dwelling. ,ir- `-- _ , `i - Parcel B: the rear lot line is 163 -,` . `1,. " ''' Lei a s. feet from the rear of the dwelling. RObQ -- ` Parcel C: the rear lot line is 161 .tom 0, ; ' eii. s, , feet from the rear of the dwelling. ■ :, s .-L i�L, � -_ ', �tt Parcel D: the rear lot line is 158 's „-ti. . '' '- _,` feet from the rear of the dwelling. ing. • t i , f yyY .f - 7 it l -:,;. ,=,:.., ill: -,ti N tliV. 4-....7.-.-• • , -,..--,`1, 1 7 .- :II 14. i. r. VI f F ' 4y '.lip , e 1 ..a'. S r ��5 F 1ll - • .4: _�S `:5' _.- •- H 1 �'f ii i„.f • i, - i •.'•X. ,0064, a j� _ r ,:� r`s.7V D-j-i710� ... Lril.a s .�n..a;::.;:1 ' The aerial photographs above are examples of the potential problems that are created by requiring a 5 foot maximum rear setback for accessory buildings. The majority of the shown parcels of property are large and deep. Any accessory structure constructed on these lots would have to be over 100 feet in most cases or near 100 feet in others from the rear of the primary dwelling. This would require a lengthy driveway that covers a large amount of the rear yard with hard surfacing. It is also evident that in the majority of the lots in the shown examples have demonstrated that it is a pattern in the neighborhood design to have accessory structures nearer to the home. This helps to ease the burden of maintenance and provides easier access to residents but also gives them more opportunities to fully utilize their rear yards. Staff is aware that the examples above do not represent the neighborhood design in the majority of the city but it is not completely uncommon. Most of the single-family dwellings in the city are located on much smaller lots but the examples above prove just how burdensome the implementation of the existing code can be. Because of the burdens listed, the relative small number of applicable lots, and its negative relationship with current city endeavors to increase the sustainability of the city; staff believes that the existing maximum rear setback is not necessary to fulfill the purposes of the R-1, R-2 and SR zoning districts or the purpose of chapter 21A.40 "Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures.". STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AMENDMENTS 6 PLNPcy1201c Co752 Maxiimrn Re..r Set'_ic:.tor:..cessoi, Stre.ctures Zon:: e Ordinance ArneniLlerit A decision to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance or the Zoning Map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the City Council should consider the following factors: 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Discussion: None of the existing Salt Lake City master plans specifically address this section of the zoning ordinance or accessory structures in residential neighborhoods. It is commonly found in many of the master plans in the city that it is important to maintain the continuity of neighborhood design and for compatible development. Because the minimum standards will still apply for accessory structures and because there will be no change in the setbacks or other standards for primary structures staff does not believe that the elimination of this section of the Zoning Ordinance will be in conflict with any of the city's master plans. Finding: The proposed text change is consistent with adopted master plans or other adopted planning documents. 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Analysis: The R-1 Single-Family Residential Districts, 21A.24.050-070, differ in their general parcel requirements in each of their individual purpose statements they share a common trait in each of their specific purpose statements that the, "residential district is to provide for conventional single-family residential neighborhoods..." The R-2 Single and Two Family Residential District, 21A.24.110, states in its purpose statement that the purpose of the district, "is to preserve and protect for single-family dwellings the character of the existing neighborhoods which exhibit a mix of single and two-family dwellings by controlling the concentration of two-family dwellings." The SR-1 and SR-IA Special Development Pattern Residential District, 21A.24.080 and 21A.24.100, states in its purpose statement that the purpose, "is to maintain the unique character of older predominately low density Neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes and bulk characteristics." The SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District, 21A.24.100, states in its purpose statement that the purpose of the district"is to provide lot, bulk and use regulations in scale with the character of development located within the interior portions of city blocks." Staff cannot find that removing the required 5 foot maximum rear setback for accessory structures will diminish in any way the existing purpose statements for the R-1 or R-2 districts. Accessory structures are commonplace throughout single-family and two-family residential neighborhoods and do have a role in their development. The minimum setbacks and standards will ensure that accessory buildings continue to be located in the rear yard and that the size requirements will limit the ability to construct a PLNPCM:O10-007S2 7 Nlasimum Rear Se:`oack for Accessory Structures Zomne Ordinance Amendment large accessory structure that may negatively affect the compatibility of the accessory structure within the neighborhood. The SR-1, SR-lA and SR-3 Districts, which are typically found in older existing neighborhoods in and around the Central City Community, the Avenues and Capitol Hill would not generally benefit from this specific amendment though it would certainly apply to the district. The lots in these neighborhoods are generally very small in nature and the only allowable location for accessory structures will be in the rear yard near the rear lot line. Many of these properties are served by alley access. It can be difficult to access garages located with alley access if there is only 5 feet to maneuver your vehicle into the structure. Finding: Staff finds that the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance are consistent with the overall purpose of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Chapters 21A.02.030 and in the specific purpose statements for each district as demonstrated above. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The proposed text amendment is not associated with any specific overlay zoning districts. Any future accessory structures may be located in existing overlay districts and any further requirements that exist due to being located in an overlay district will continue to apply. The proposed text amendment would not diminish any regulations required in any overlay district and may be a benefit for avoiding construction in and around riparian corridors. 40104,, Finding: The proposed text amendment meets this standard. 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Discussion: Staff believes that the existing requirement for a 5 foot maximum rear setback for accessory structures is in conflict with professional practices of urban planning,and design for larger and deeper lots in the city. The requirement does not allow for flexibility in the use of the rear yard and would force property owners to install long driveways which are not only difficult to maintain but create larger amounts of storm drain runoff. The existing minimum setbacks and other standards for accessory structures are sufficient tools in ensuring that these structures are located in the appropriate locations and continuing to allow property owners to fully utilize their rear yards, reduce the amount of required hard surfacing and to remain more sustainable. Finding: The proposed text amendment implements the best current practices in urban planning and design. S PLNPCIv12o10-007S .laximum Rear Se:'cac'.<for Accessory Structures Zoning Ordinance Amendment PLNPCM2010-00782 2 March 2011 Police Review No comments Public Utilities—Brad Stewart(801)483-6783 Public Utilities would be in favor of this zoning change.There are often more utility and riparian conflicts at the rear property lines. And the additional hard surfacing increases storm water run-off. Grouping buildings closer to the street frontage has functional advantages. Zoning Review—Alan Hardman (801)535-7742 No comments. Transportation Review—Barry Walsh(801)535-6630 The transportation division review comments and recommendations are for approval as follows: Section 21A.40.050 A3d notes the five foot setback requirement along with Section 21A.36.020B chart, and is referenced in other locations.We have found that exceptions have been required in order to resolve conflicts with other requirements and reasonably develop or replace an existing development by: Requiring compliance to current "Building Code" setback and buffer requirements.As well as, by basic physical parameters set by the site design to provide:The required geometrics for pedestrian (ADA) and vehicular access to the structures. '" Engineering Review-Scott Weiler(801)535-6159 We have no concerns regarding this proposed text amendment. Fire Review No comments 10 PLNPC\12DiC-CO_S1-' ?s\imnm Rz.: Sc:1`a .:tC. AiCeSSOry Strucuuzs Zo;iing Or,1uia,.,e lmendm nt 21A.40.050: GENERAL YARD, BULK AND HEIGHT LIMITATIONS: All accessory buildings permitted by this chapter shall be subject to the following general requirements: A. Location Of Accessory Buildings In Required Yards: 1. Front Yards: Accessory buildings are prohibited in any required front, side or corner side yard. If an addition to residential buildings results in an existing accessory building being located in a side yard,the existing accessory building shall be permitted to remain, subject to maintaining a four foot (4') separation from the side of the accessory building to the side of the residential building, as required in subsection A3b of this section. 2. Corner Lots: No accessory building on a corner lot shall be closer to the street than the distance required for corner side yards. At no time, however, shall an accessory building be closer than twenty feet (20') to a public sidewalk or public pedestrianway and the accessory building shall be set back at least as far as the principal building. 3. Rear Yards: Location of accessory buildings in a rear yard shall be as follows: a. In residential districts, no accessory building shall be closer than one foot(1') to a side or rear lot line except when sharing a common wall with an accessory building on an adjacent lot. In nonresidential districts, buildings may be built to side or rear lot lines in rear yards, provided the building complies with all applicable requirements of the adopted building code. b. No portion of the accessory building shall be built closer than four feet (4') to any portion of " the principal building. c. Garages on two (2) or more properties that are intended to provide accessory building use for the primary occupants of the properties, in which the garage is located, may be constructed in the rear yards, as a single structure subject to compliance with adopted building code regulations and the size limits for accessory buildings on each property as indicated herein. d. In-the-R 1 distr-iets, R-2-di-striet--a;d-S-R-c"i-stfists-aecesssery-struoti+res-shall--be-located-c: TaxirrmuF- - e--feel-(-5)-from the rear proper-#y-fine subject-to—the—following—exceptions: (1) The-maximum setback from the rcnr property-line may be incr aced to meet the tran-sportation division minim-um-required turning-radius and--other maneuvering standards, (2)-he-planning-d-ireotor-or-des1g-nee--may}-author-zc the-issuance-of-bt fd+ng--pe,=nmits faran-aoce s-ory et- cture wit;a:-mgym sethaekof-m tan-five feet (5') from the rear property line-if the-property-©boner demonstrates tf t-fifty-peree-ot(59--)-a,—more of the-properties on the block face have accessor;stmctures located-RIGC-e-h -this feet(5') fro perty dine. In thiozese fho accessory et-ruotmamma y-be set-hack from the roar pro pe tine-a distance-e-qua-to--t e a rage-sethaok-of the other occesssory-stc-uctures ontfie-bfoolc-feee-An-appeal of this-ad-min+strative-decision shall be hear -by-an administrative-hearn ff c-er-oubjeet-to-the-provision hapter?�A-S9 of this ti:7e (3)-he-board-e-f a-clistme-nt-r ay-ap-Yrove-an-alternate location foran-aeee-ssony structure as a-spec-1-except+on ba,sees--on-htir #ips-oreeted opoggraphy-ort-he-lecat+or of mature vegetation- 12 PLNPCN120I0-0)7S2 Maximum Re:.:Se:_._..r.;r.%cce_s StrucWr _Zonm Ordinal-:e Amealment 4. Accessory Or Principal Lot: No portion of an accessory building on either an accessory or principal lot may be built closer than ten feet (10')to any portion of a principal residential building on an adjacent lot when that adjacent lot is in a residential zoning district. B. Maximum Coverage: 1. Yard Coverage: In residential districts, any portion of an accessory building shall occupy not more than fifty percent(50%) of the total area located between the rear facade of the principal building and the rear lot line. 2. Building Coverage: In the FR, R-1, R-2 and SR residential districts the maximum building coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the building footprint of the principal structure up to a maximum of seven hundred twenty(720) square feet for a single-family dwelling and one thousand (1,000) square feet for a two-family dwelling. The maximum footprint for a primary accessory structure within the SR-1A is limited to four hundred eighty(480) square feet with an additional one hundred twenty(120) square feet allowed for a secondary accessory structure. Notwithstanding the size of the footprint of the principal building, at least four hundred eighty (480) square feet of accessory building coverage shall be allowed subject to the compliance with subsection B1 of this section. C. Maximum Height Of Accessory Buildings/Structures: 1. Accessory To Residential Uses In The FP District, RMF Districts, RB, R-MU Districts, And The RO District: The height of accessory buildings/structures in residential districts shall conform to the following: a. The height of accessory buildings with flat roofs shall not exceed twelve feet (12'); b. The height of accessory buildings with pitched roofs shall not exceed seventeen feet (17') measured to the midpoint of the roof; and c. Accessory buildings with greater building height may be approved as a special exception, pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 2. Accessory To Residential Uses In The FR, R-1 Districts, R-2 District And SR Districts: The height of accessory buildings/structures in the FR districts, R-1 district, R-2 district and SR districts shall conform to the following: a. The height of accessory buildings with flat roofs shall not exceed twelve feet (12'); nine feet(9') in the SR-1A; b. The height of accessory buildings with pitched roofs shall not exceed seventeen feet (17') measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the finished grade at any given point of building coverage. In the SR-1A the height of accessory buildings with pitched roofs shall not exceed fourteen feet (14'); and c. Accessory buildings with greater building height may be approved as a special exception, pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, if the proposed accessory building is in keeping with other accessory PLNPC\12010-007S2 13 Nte\mwm Rear Sc;1-ac;k for.A.c,ressory Structures Zoning Ordinance Amendment PLNPCM2010-00782 Zoning Text Amendment, 5 Foot Maximum Rear Setback for Accessory Buildings: A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning text amendment to remove the requirement for a 5 foot maximum rear setback for accessory buildings. There would be no change to the minimum setback requirements. The text amendment would affect ail R- 1, R-2 and SR districts. Related provisions of Title 21A- Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact: John Anderson at 801-535- 7214 or john.anderson@slcgov.com) Chairperson Fife recognized John Anderson as staff representative. Mr. Anderson stated that this was a request from the Mayor's Office to amend the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal was to eliminate the five foot maximum rear setback for accessory building. He stated that there was also a provision that stated that accessory buildings could not be more than five feet away from a rear property line. He noted that several changes were made to the ordinance. He said that the change had become problematic for some people. Mr. Anderson gave a PowerPoint presentation that illustrated the issue. Mr. Norris added that the suggestion for the change in the ordinance came from lot sizes in the Avenues. He stated that the change worked well for that area because the lots were generally small, but it did not work for homes on larger lots. He said that trying to apply the new standard to all lots just did not work. Mr. Anderson stated that there was an open house and a resident made the comment that they were concerned about the continuity of the neighborhood, that the neighborhood design would stay the same. 6: 13:48 Public Hearing: Chairperson Fife opened the public hearing, seeing that no one chose to speak. He closed the public hearing. 6: 13:53 Motion: Commissioner Wirthlin made the motion in regard to PLNPCM2010-00782 Zoning Text Amendment, 5 Foot Maximum Rear Setback for Accessory Buildings: I move that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed modifications in the . staff report to remove the existing language that requires a five foot maximum rear setback for accessory dwelling structures in chapter 21A.403050. Commissioner McHugh seconded the motion. 6: 14: 16 Vote: Commissioners De Lay, Luke, Hill, Drown, Wirthlin, Gallegos, Woodhead and Dean all voted "aye". The motion passed unanimously. 7:09:01 Public Hearing: PLNPCM2010-00782 Zoning Text Amendment, 5 Foot Maximum Rear Setback for Accessory Buildings: A request by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning text amendment to remove the requirement for a 5 foot maximum rear setback for accessory buildings. There would be no change to the minimum setback requirements. The text amendment would affect all R- 1 districts, R-2 district and SR districts. (Staff contact: John Anderson at 801-535-7214 or john.anderson@slcgov.com) Chairperson Fife recognized John Anderson as staff representative. Mr. Anderson stated that the first public hearing on this issue had not been noticed correctly. Therefore another public hearing before the Planning Commission was required. This hearing had been correctly noticed. The Commission determined a rehearing of the staff report was unnecessary. 7:09:20 Chairperson Fife opened the public hearing. Seeing no one in the audience chose to speak he closed the public hearing 7:09:25 Motion: Commissioner Wirthlin made the motion that in the matter of PLNPCM2010-00782 Zoning Text Amendment, 5 Foot Maximum Rear Setback for Accessory Buildings he moved that the Commission submit a favorable recommendation of approval of this petition to the City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Luke. Remarks: Petition No: PLNPCM20 i 0-00782 By: Salt Lake City Planning Zoning Text Amendment Relating to Location of Accessory Structures in Single- and Two-Family Zoning Districts it Date Filed: November 16, 2010 Address: Citywide /).Z nl NZ inao/D-ooTE, ,,,< Pat �‘'‘_ Petition Initiation Fl-cn = l pi Request , / , Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: Mayor Becker From: Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director Ai/- Date: November 16, 2010 CC: Frank Gray, Community and Economic Development Director; Mary De La Mare-Schaefer, Community & Economic Development Department Deputy Director; Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director; file Re: Regulations relating to the location of accessory structures in single- , family and two-family zoning districts This memo is to request that you initiate a petition requesting the Planning Division to analyze the appropriateness of amending the Zoning Ordinance relating to the location of accessory structures in single-family and two-family zoning districts. The current requirement of a maximum setback of five (5)feet from the rear property line is in conflict with various other policies and goals the City is trying to achieve. As part of the Residential Compatible Infill Ordinance regulations adopted in 2005 the Zoning Ordinance was amended to require that accessory structures be located within five (5) feet of the rear property line. The main purpose of the 5 foot rule was to push accessory structures to the rear of the lot to lessen the visual impact of accessory structures on neighbors. The current ordinance allows modification of this requirement only for the following reasons: Where it would be difficult to maneuver vehicles into the accessory structure, Where the location is in keeping with other accessory structures on the block, To preserve mature landscaping or where the topography is such that it would make it difficult to achieve the structure at that location. k {•-J ry--i € `t^, J _tom ; SCANNED TO: �Al 1��•�r� (- y y 4 SCANNED BY:, C I iy. _C. . NOV 1 8 2010 DATE: /(7.//i © Page i a Salt Lake City Mayor As this regulation has been implemented over the last several years, it has become apparent that this regulation is problematic for many reasons: • It is not environmentally sound (It may hinder the changes of effective urban gardening, requires a lot of hard surfacing, especially for deep lots, which may increase the urban heat island effect and storm drain runoff,) • Is very costly to install long hard surfacing for driveways, especially for deep lots • Decreases the flexibility, in some manner, of the use of the rear yard which can become burdensome to property owners. • Burdensome to maintain long driveways, especially for snow removal. As part of the process, the Planning Division will follow the City adoption process for amending the City Code and zoning text amendments which includes citizen input and public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. //`zzid Ralph Becker, Mayor Date o Page 2 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: July 12,2011 SUBJECT: Petition No.PLNSUB2011-00004-A petition by Salt Lake Community College,to vacate an alley running north-south located at approximately 123 East 1700 South. STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District 5 ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: Community and Economic Development Department AND CONTACT PERSON: John Anderson COUNCIL PROCESS/NOTICE: This item is scheduled for a Council Work Session briefing on July 12, 2011. Alley closures require four weeks of once-per-week newspaper advertising. On the July 19 consent agenda,the Council will consider setting the date for a public hearing on August 23,2011,at which point the Council can consider adopting the ordinance,or defer action to a future meeting. KEY ELEMENTS: 410, A. Key points from the Administration's transmittal are as follows: 1. Salt Lake Community College(SLCC)has requested the City dose the north-south alleyway located at approximately 123 East 1700 South,adjacent to the parking lot at their South City Campus(see attached map). 2. The Council recently approved another nearby alley vacation for SLCC,which was an east-west alleyway located at approximately 1650 South,between State and Edison Streets(see Attachment B). The Council approved this alley vacation in March 2011. 3. The subject alleyway abuts a total of five properties,all owned by SLCC. 4. The alleyway is currently unimproved as a street,but is developed as part of the colleges parking lot. 5. The subject alley runs northward from 1700 South,and is approximately 288 feet long and 15 feet wide(4,320 square feet,0.10 acres). 6. The adjacent property to the northeast of the subject alley is currently under construction and will become the campus'"Center for New Media." The property to the north is zoned Institutional(I). 7. The adjacent properties to the east are currently serving as a surface parking lot, although it is zoned Residential(R-1-5,00(1). The homes that were previously located on these lots were demolished prior to 1995. Prior to 1995,surface parking lots were allowed as conditional uses in the R-1-5,000 district. Surface parking lots are no longer permitted in this district. 8. The Central Community Master Plan(2005)identifies the subject alleyway,as well as adjacent parcels(owned by SLCC)as Institutional. The master plan discusses buffers between Institutional and Residential uses. The proposed alley vacation would not expand institutional uses further into residential areas. 1 9. The current public alleyway does not appear as such. There are no curb and gutter improvements to distinguish it from the surface parking lot to the east(see pictures in Administration's transmittal). 3 10. Property management is in the process of determining the fair market value for the property,which the applicant has agreed to pay should the Council approve the request. 11. The Planning Commission Staff report notes the following findings in relation to this petition: i. The alleyway is not necessary for continued use as a public right-of-way,and does not serve as a positive urban design element in the immediate neighborhood. ii. The subject alley closure does not deny sole access to any adjacent property, nor would it create any landlocked parcels. iii. The alley has not been designated for a future trail in the Open Space Master Plan. iv. The applicant does not intent to build any structures on the subject alley other than add it to the overall parking lot. v. The petition will dispose of the entirety of the alley,which is consistent with the City's preference for alley disposal. B. All necessary City departments and divisions reviewed the proposal and recommended approval of the street and alley closures subject to City standards and specific requirements. C. The subject alley is located in both the Ballpark and Liberty Wells Community Councils. The Ballpark Community Council discussed the proposed alley vacation at their February 3, 2011 meeting,and did not offer any negative comments. The Liberty Wells Community Council discussed the proposed alley vacation at their February 9,2011 meeting. There were some comments pertaining to traffic and other issues relating to SLCC as a whole,but no negative comments about the proposed alley vacation. D. On March 23,2011 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the petition. No comments were received at the hearing. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation for closure of the alley,with the condition that it be subject to all existing utility easements. E. An ordinance will be prepared by the City Attorney's office subject to conditions of approval identified by the Planning Commission. The City Recorder is instructed not to record the ordinance until the conditions have been met and certified by the Planning Director and the City Property Manager. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Central Community Future Land Use map (2005),identifies the subject property as Institutional,with the adjacent property to the west identified as Community Commercial. a. The master plan has the following definition for Educational/Institutional land uses: This use includes public and private colleges,high schools and middles schools, extended adult education,technical schools,elementary schools,and some day care facilities. The community has a public high school,middle school,and several elementary schools,as well as many other religious or private schools. Schools are an important part of the community fabric and an essential component of viable and 2 sustainable neighborhoods. Schools should be kept within neighborhoods as a community anchor and serve as a resource for residents of all ages. b. The master plan states as a policy goal for the neighborhood to address the interface between institutional and residential land uses. c. The master plan also states that the Community College should not be allowed to expand onto surrounding residential properties. It should be noted that this plan was adopted in 2005,after the Community College had already purchased the vacant parcels zoned R-1-5,000. d. Planning Staff indicated that in developing the Central Community Master Plan,the community stakeholders were aware that SLCC owned the R-1-5,000 parcels between State and Edison on 1700 South,and that they expressed a desire that the college should not be allowed to expand any further into the residential neighborhood than these parcels. The future land use map reflects this understanding. B. The purpose of the Institutional(I)district is to regulate the development of larger public and semipublic uses in a manner harmonious with surrounding uses.The uses regulated by this district are generally those having multiple buildings on a campus like site. C. The purpose of the single-family residential(R-1/5,000)district is to provide for conventional single-family residential neighborhoods on lots not less than five thousand (5,000)square feet in size. D. The Council's Alley closure policy indicates that the City will not consider disposing entirely or partially of its interest in an alley unless at least one of the following items can be positively demonstrated: a. Lack of Use-The City's legal interest in the property,for example,appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat,but in fact it is evident from inspection that the alley does not exist. b. Public Safety-The property is contributing to crime,or unlawful activity or unsafe conditions. c. Urban Design-The property does not serve as a positive urban design element. d. Community Purpose-The petitioners are proposing restricting the general public from use in favor of a community use such as a community play area or garden. 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 contain statements that support creating attractive conditions for business expansion including retention and attraction of large and small businesses,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The documents 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. 3 CHRONOLOGY: Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for a complete chronology of events relating to the proposed alley vacation. • January 6,2011 Petition submitted to planning • February 3,2011 Petition reviewed by Ballpark Community Council • February 9,2011 Petition reviewed by Liberty Wells Community Council • March 23,2011 Planning Commission public hearing • April 12,2011 Ordinance requested from Attorney's Office • May 11,2011 Ordinance received from Attomey's Office • June 3,2011 Transmittal received in Council Office cc: David Everitt,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Rick Graham,Jeff Neirmeyer,Tim Harpst,Frank Gray,Mary De La Mare Schaefer,Cheri Coffey,John Anderson,Karen Hale,Quin Card,Nick Tarbet,Janice Jardine File Location:Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Alley Closures,Salt Lake Community College,Alley running north-south at approximately 123 East 1700 South. 4 Attachment A—Proposed Alley Vacation Proposed Alley Vacation I.di iiim.r . i lee. 1 • • !Rani, • utMO[WM~1OtxJ1Mis i r11/rr4�0/NNW Mill trutcnrrtcvatrrr i 141:129:1MVA 1101MI. rounoto State Street l _Jae- I ! At Ib tltOGrC• ' '''''[01 or'_ iriii I O Appnp. d ok.location of udllt Pt`pttd b k tsratti I __ ,._., i __I-' f1UIJt1I1HIr� err ___ _ _ 1 _C.oNerr (_ = 1700 south t I fr i itd• st.t.c crNM TG SH A$CHrr TS $JUTt1 PI% SING Lot • 5 Attachment B—previous alley vacation(approved by the Council in March 2011) • Vicinity Map jii i E -" t I i ! 1♦ ♦ CE1,. .3 x. :r l ti i r I ,',.. i 1 , --.. I Ir . 4 CC Li 'ti i / I mfrtr r , _ Cyr , 7 Q Li {.L R 1��5000Q'_ s f(' R:1 50.0 i:` �l , - .i3Y•t ,'.' ' -•-- r - I -■ mac( — i 1 ' �� ,` TR _'500C '„I Li R 1 5OOi - - �' .I�.,r . 0 20 40 80 120 160 1575 SOUTH STATE STREET licmcmasc=arosix Feet Alley❑Neighboring Parcels 0 6 (' � �em li i SCANNED TQR FRANK B. GRAY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SCANNEDBY: OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DATE• ) MARY DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER DEPUTY DIRECTOR // ROBERT FARR , �R. DEPUTY DIRECTORECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL RECEIVEDoar JUN 3 2011 Date Receiv David veritt, of Staff SLC COUNCIL OFFICE' Date sent to Couna a Ob/03/L0l 1 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 31, 2011 Jill Love, Chair FROM: Frank Gray, D Director SUBJECT: Request to vacate a alley locate approximately 123 East 1700 South at the request of Salt Lake Community College. STAFF CONTACT: John Anderson Planning Division 801-535-7214,john.anderson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Alley Vacation RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a public hearing. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant, Salt Lake Community College, is requesting the vacation of a north to south alley to allow for the integration of the alley into the existing college parking lot located at approximately 150 East 1700 South at their South City Campus. The properties abutting the alley are zoned I (Institutional)to the north and the north east, R-1/5000 (Single Family Residential) to the east and CC (Corridor Commercial) to the west along State Street. The R-1/5000 parcel is currently a vacant lot and part of the overall college parking lot. The alley to be vacated is approximately 288 feet in length, 4,320 square feet in size and runs north to south beginning at 1700 South. Master Plan Considerations The Central City Master Plan labels this area the Liberty neighborhood planning area. Goals of this area within the master plan prohibiting the expansion of the Community College onto surrounding parcels. The proposed vacation of the alley will not facilitate any expansion of the Community College onto surrounding parcels that are not already a part of the campus. With this alley vacation, Salt Lake Community College is proposing to continue to expand their campus within its existing confines. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-54E16 TELEPHONE: B01.535.6230 FAX: B01-535.6005 WWWSLCOOV.COM/CED C.SiZI The Central Community Future Land Use Map outlines the area where the South City Campus of Amok. the Salt Lake Community College should be allowed to expand. The alley that is proposed for vacation is located within those boundaries. Public Process: The project site is located within the Liberty Wells Community Council and it is located 230 feet from the boundary of the Ball Park Community Council. Both Community Councils were contacted and staff and the applicant attended their respective meetings. The Ball Park Community Council held a meeting February 3, 2011 and discussed the alley vacation application. Overall, the Community Council supported the alley vacation and did not offer any negative comments. The Liberty Wells Community Council held a meeting on February 9, 2011 to discuss the proposed alley vacation. Though there were some comments and questions received pertaining to traffic and other problems at the South City Campus as a whole, there were no negative comments or concerns received about the proposed alleyway vacation. Staff has received no public comment regarding this petition. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 23, 2011. The project was generally viewed as a favorable development for the neighborhood, and a positive recommendation was forwarded to the City Council. The vote was unanimous. Relevant Ordinances The 'vacation of city-owned alleys are authorized under Section 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 14.52.020: "The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations," Those policy considerations are lack of use, public safety, urban design or community purpose (Section 14.52.020 A- D). The four policy considerations are discussed in detail starting on page 4 of the Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 5b). TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a. ORIGINAL HEARING NOTICE AND POSTMARK b. STAFF REPORT c. MARCH 23, 2011 MINUTES 6. ORIGINAL PETITION PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition PLNPCM2011-00004 January 6, 2011 Petition received by Planning. January 11, 2011 Petition assigned to John Anderson, Principal Planner for staff analysis and processing. February 3, 2011 Petition reviewed by Ballpark Community Council. February 9, 2011 Petition reviewed by Liberty Wells Community Council. March 11, 2011 Planning Commission hearing notice was published in the paper and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. March 23, 2011 Planning Commission held public hearing and voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. April 12, 2011 Staff requests ordinance from City Attorney's Office. April 13, 2011 Planning Commission ratified minutes for March 23, 2010 meeting. May 11, 2011 Staff received draft of proposed ordinance from City Attorney's Office. May 31, 2011 Petition transmitted to Community and Economic Development. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Closing and vacating an alley adjacent to property located at 1575 S. State Street) An ordinance closing and vacating an alley as a public right-of-way adjacent to property located at 1575 S. State Street, pursuant to Petition No. PLNSUB2011-00004. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on March 23, 2011 to consider a request made by Salt Lake Community College (Petition No. PLNSUB2011-00004) to close and vacate an unnamed City-owned alley adjacent to property located at 1575 S. State Street and to declare same as surplus property; and WHEREAS, at its March 23, 2011 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation on said petition to the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council"); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds after public hearings that the City's interest in the alley described below is not necessary for use by the public as a street and that closing and vacating that City-owned right-of-way will not be adverse to the general public's interest; and NOW. THEREFORE. be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City. Utah: SECTION 1. Closing and Vacating Street. An unnamed City-owned alley adjacent to property located at 1575 S. State Street, which is the subject of Petition No. PLNSUB2011- 00004, and which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, hereby is, closed and vacated and declared no longer needed or available for use as a public right-of-way. SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The above closure and vacation is expressly made subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of this property, and also subject to the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the City's water and sewer facilities. Said closure and vacation ''*"*, is also subject to any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3. Conditions. This alley closure and vacation is conditioned upon the following: 1. Payment to the City of fair market value of those portions of the alley, or its equivalent, and title to those portions of this alley shall remain with the City until sale for fair market value, or the receipt of equivalent value, in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.58; and 2. The alley closure and vacation is subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities now located on, under or over the subject property. 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. SECTION 5. Time. If the conditions identified above have not been met within one year after adoption, this ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may, for good cause shown, by resolution, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2011. 2 CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date: 4'<; a)J/ By: (SEAL) P461 C.Nielso.;'Sel`(or City Attorney Bill No. of 2011. / Published: H13_ATTY-�17771-s 1-O:dinar.ce_Vacating_Alley_at_1575_South_StateSLCC.DOC 3 Exhibit A JOHN W. FRANCOM do ASSOCIATES LAND SURVEYORS 505 SOUTH AWN STREET BOUNTIFUL. UTAH 84010 BUS. (801) 295-7500 FM (501) 295-7524 DECEMBER 8, 2009 SALT LAKE COMMUNITY COLLEGE 15' ALLEY CLOSURE DESCRIPTION A 15.0 FOOT WIDE ALLEY RUNNING NORTH FROM 1700 SOUTH STREET AND LYING WITHIN BLOCK 2, SOUTH CAPITOL AVENUE ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY RECORDER, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6 OF SAID BLOCK 2 AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 00'02'11" WEST 288.40 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 16 OF SAID BLOCK 2; THENCE NORTH 89'59'39" EAST 15.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 17 OF SAID BLOCK 2; THENCE SOUTH 00'02'1 1" EAST 288.40 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5 OF SAID BLOCK 2; THENCE SOUTH 89'59'39" WEST 15.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS: 0.099 ACRES (4326 SQUARE FEET) . .bd'imi.'41Mtit' A 4 CI r P.Iti, ' .-Vi Vw; ,s. }- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing regarding Petition PLNPCM20 1 1-00004 to vacate an alley located at approximately 123 East 1700 South. As part of its review, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Room 315 (City Council Chambers)* City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah *Please enter building from east side If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the petition on file, please contact John Anderson, Principal Planner, at 801-535-7214 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.. Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at john.anderson slcgov.com. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public hearing. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters. and other auxiliary aids. The City and County Building is an accessible facility. For questions, requests or additional information,please contact the City Council Office at 801-535-7600, or TDD 801-535-6021. Laser/Ink et Labels vvvvw.avery.com AVERY®Gg460T"' Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY HUFF, WILLIAM A& BARBARA I;TRS JW& PW LLC BRENNAN,JOHN D &ANNA;JT 327S JULLIARD DR #230 1402 GEORGIA AVE 2713 PLANTATION DR St .-AMENTO, CA 95826 BOULDER CITY, NV 89005 ROUND ROCK,TX 78681-2312 GIROUARD, MAURICE B &SYLVIA J;TRS WASATCH PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT GIBBS, ENNIS J; TR EJGFL TRUST 1315E 1950 N INC 3262E HIGHWAY 35 HEBER CITY, UT 84032-3461 PO BOX 17718 KAMAS, UT 84036 HOLLADAY, UT 84117-0718 FLOYD, MARY G;TR MARK, ANGELO F;TR OLIVER, RICHARD R & MARLENE H;JT 880 W CENTER ST PO BOX 9191 202 EMERAUD NORTH SALT LAKE, UT 84054 OGDEN, UT 84409- SAINT GEORGE, UT 84770-1830 ZAYTSEV, ALEKSANDR A DENSLEY, SOMMER GOMEZ, KATHY 59 E 1700 S 158E 1700 S 160E 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115-1946 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115-1949 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115-1949 WEIGHT, JANETTE & DUWAYNE J; JT TRUONG, LONG QUOC& LIEN VAN;JT YOUNG JIM LLC 163 E 1700 S 1714 S 200 E 675 E 2100 S #150 SA'T LAKE CITY, UT 84115-1948 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115-1915 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106-5606 MANGONE, BENNETT; ET AL BRIDGE, EDWARD K& EDNA S; JT ET AL SHAFFER, BRENDAN &WILCOX, EMILY; 5107 S 4180 W 4635 S BROOKWOOD DR JT SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84118-4228 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84117-4909 1705 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115 RENNEMANN, BRUCE & SUSAN G;JT WHITEAKER, BRETT A REID, ROBIN J 1710 S EDISON ST 1726 S EDISON ST 1740 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115-1930 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115-1930 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115-1930 MANNING, SCOTT G SALT LAKE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DONALDSON, VELVA L 2711 LORAN HEIGHTS DR PO BOX 30808 619 N STAR CREST DR SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84109-3014 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84130-0808 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-1838 SHARE THE LOVE PROPERTIES LLC SALT LAKE COMMUNITY COLLEGE KIM, PAUL J & EUI C; TRS 1600 S STATE ST 1615 S STATE ST 1749 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115-1905 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115-1931 SAL, LAKE COUNTY ECCLES, GARY L & ROBINSON, DOONG, PHOEBE; ET AL 2001 S STATE ST #N4500 CHRISTINE L;JT 2123 E DEBEERS DR SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84190-0002 113 E WILSON AVE SANDY, UT 84093-1684 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115-1933 Laser/ink Jet Labels itaiNtES www.avery.com 0 AVERY()48460Tm Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY FORD, LEON D WEFFER, DINNA C WEBB, ELVEN A & LAURA T; JT 156 E 1700 S 172 E 1700 S 173 E 1700 S Amok SOUTH SALT LAKE, UT 84115-1949 SOUTH SALT LAKE, UT 84115-1949 SOUTH SALT LAKE, UT 84115-194,r w,,,. GAWEL, CHRISTOPHER M KIRK, LINDA A HEGEWALD, ULRIKE 1720 S EDISON ST 1723 S EDISON ST 1731 S EDISON ST SOUTH SALT LAKE, UT 84115-1930 SOUTH SALT LAKE, UT 84115 SOUTH SALT LAKE, UT 84115 ROENNEBECK, DENNIS W& ELAINE; TC ELFRING,JAMI Y U SALT LAKE COMMUNITY COLLEGE 1717 S STATE ST 5143 S 3200 W 4600 S REDWOOD RD SOUTH SALT LAKE, UT 84115-1931 TAYLORSVILLE, UT 84118-3020 TAYLORSVILLE, UT 84123 JOLLEY, KEVIN D & ANGIE;JT GRINDERS 13 INC INTERMOUNTAIN RADIATOR COMPANY 1226 W 400 N 1618 S STATE ST 1612 S STATE ST WOODS CROSS, UT 84087-1909 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 ARBYS ROAST BEEF#1645 MASTERTECH AUTOMOTIVE SRVC CNT PANDA RESTAURANT 1650 S STATE ST 1717 S STATE ST 1701 S STATE ST Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 MOWHAWK HARD CORE TATTOOS ROLLING THUNDER MOTORCYCLES 1708 S STATE ST 1626 S STATE ST 1716 S STATE ST Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 BISON, LLC JASON A GABBITAS PSYCHO SAMURAI ELECTRIC TATTOO 1716 S STATE ST 1626 S STATE ST 1626 S STATE ST Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 S.L. PIERCING HARD CORE TATTOOS AND BODY MAKE A WISH RIDE 1626 S STATE ST PIERCING 1716 S STATE ST Salt Lake City, UT 84115 1626 S STATE ST Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 LESS STRESS AUTO & POWERSPORTS ELECTRIC MANTRA QUALITY BILLIARDS 1630 S STATE ST 1630 S STATE ST #C & D 1630 S STATE ST Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 MOUNTAIN AMERICA FEDERAL CREDIT Residents Residents , ,, UNION 1628 S STATE ST 130E 1700 S 1575 S STATE ST Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1906 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1910 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 r :1 AHGAV-o)-00R-? __ ,.o9tc 1ll1acleb al zos31i n Laser/Ink Jet Labels BEMs www.avery.com ,�n VERY® g8450rra Use Avery® � TEMPLATE 5160® ° 1-800-GO-AVERY �1 Residents Residents Residents 137 E 1700 S 147 E 1700 S 1639 S EDISON ST Sc. .ake City, UT 84115-1910 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1948 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1928 Residents Residents Residents 151 E 1700 S 153 E 1700 S 155 E 1700 S Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1948 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1948 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1948 Residents Residents Residents 157E 1700 5 171E 1700 S 1560 S 200 E Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1948 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1948 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Residents Residents Residents 156 E 1700 S 172 E 1700 S 1720 S STATE ST Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1949 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1949 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1932 Residents Residents Residents 1729 S STATE ST 1731 S STATE ST 1720 S EDISON ST Sal' ' 9ke City, UT 84115-1931 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1931 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1930 Residents Residents Residents 1734 S EDISON ST 1711 S EDISON ST 1717 S EDISON ST Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1930 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1929 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1929 Residents Residents Residents 1723 S EDISON ST 1731 S EDISON ST 1733 S EDISON ST Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1929 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1929 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1929 Residents Residents Residents 17165200E 17185200E 17205200E Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1915 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1915 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1915 Residents 173 E 1700 S Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1948 Salt Lake Planning Division 451 S State Street,Foom 406,PO Box 145480,Sait Lake City,Utah 041 l4-5480 • Planning Commission Wednesday,March 23,2011 'lime: 5:30 pm Place: Room 326 PLNPCM2011-00004 - Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation - A request by Salt Lake Community College for an Al- ley placation at approximately 123 Fast 1700 South that runs north to south from 1700 South to approximately 1650 South. The adjacent properties are zoned I (Institutional), R-1-5000 (Single Family Residential) and C-C (Corridor Commercial). Lo- cated in Council District 5 represented by Jill Remington Love. (Staff Contact John Anderson at 801-535- 7214 or ir;hr?.an.ka-_-ic!ia'sicg,; .coll' ) Salt lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. People with disabilities ntai make requests for reasonable accommodations no later than 48 hours in adsance in order to attend this meeting. Accommodations ens include: alteNnative formats, interim eters, and ether amsiliaty aids. This is an accessible facilit). ler questions requests,or additional info malion,please contact the Planning Office at 535-7757;TOM 535-5220. For additional meeting guidelines please see sssv\s.stcgsl.cnm or call 30 1-535-7757 I- Al I LAKE C'I FY PLANNING DIVISION - I-472:;.-r1 771 451 S S1 E SI KEE1 ROON140fi, z _ 1.r. PO BON 115-180 • f. ' • SALT LAKF.CII DC 81114-54b .-f01A1.-jf: =5 rat/EV LO".N.,:5 RETURN SLR S ICE REQUESTED /--• 0 '41L3f-p1;i:rfl 000,1740G35 fl,',R11 7011 ;7- lELIFrO LLccL: AmeA/A., .0 D Salt Lalce CitY Plarming 001sion 451 S State Street, Room 405 PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5480 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT • Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation .'"' PLNSUB2011 1575 South State Street n r ,,, Planning and Zoning 28 February 2011 Division Department of Community& Economic Development Applicant: Salt Lake Community College REQUEST Staff: John Anderson 535-7214 The applicant, Salt Lake Community College, is requesting to vacate john.andersonnslcgov.com an alley at their South City Campus which is located at 1575 South Tax ID: State Street. The alley runs north to south and abuts a total of five n/a properties at approximately 123 East 1700 South. Current Zone: (abutting properties) I Institutional C-C Corridor Commercial R-1-5000 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Master Plan Designation: Based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report, staff finds that Central Community Master Plan the proposal meets the criteria for alley vacations. Therefore, staff Council District: recommends the Planning Commission approve the case District 5—Jill Remington Love PLNSUB2011-00004 as proposed with the following conditions: Lot size: 4,320 square feet Conditions of Approval Current Use: 1. Compliance with all departmental comments. Alleyway p p Notification Mailed:February 28.2011 Sign posted:Februar'28,201 1 Agenda posted on the Planning Division and Utah Public Meeting Notice\yebsites February 28,2011 Applicable Land Use Regulations: • Section: 14.52.020 Policy Considerations For Closure,Vacation Or Abandonment Of City O\\ned Alleys. • Section: 14.52.040 Method of Disposition. Attachments: A. Maps of Proposed Alley Vacation B.Departmental/Division Comments C.Photographs D.Site Plan of Proposed Changes PLNPCM2011-0000-1 Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation 1 Published February 28,2011 Vicinity Map — s ."S K tp - faRe % fi 'y -.;•. I a' M F` ' ' w �, T^ 4 � �, _. �' �" SLCC South City Campus .a..r, I, 1 I tt . .•y ♦ t'i' J Tt1.. '»M t , 4El. • '{�. ..-4- •—•101?1"—"Mr— I ' Jr' , w.:.- ..:.:78,419111..t'' AJT,‘,,,i, '''''F.," , . t %"Ti.fi$4. 4:;;:'',;*tt'',4 1 1 '1'.'"2.--.: 11''''''' i,,, , _ „; .£.-' � . ate-' . _ _ �3 J s * AtieyPro�tosed tc be Vacated �1 ± :Wr ; '' ,.,1.,,,,,4,,..._i.;,. • - :•,- - ' . -,..). '1'. r-,1 t t././... - - t- __ • ' _ ..-..-� : b,j.;'.. Air...;...,--...._ C ::, ,• • �A.t.'i iz ; -,:, .il ) ,s' ,i, _ ___,___ •77 , g` r ` .. ,:. , ,..: ,:,.. Lia ^F it J Jf, it t 1.�,� _ sEY"l{ • 1 . r ' ; , ' rr i t as 1 x a 11 j. T. C �1 < w Y �` F �� . :� `, 2 e _ • • _ "�rr _ c .Ta `;e+-yr '• V..r.rA3^ t_ ..... _ ,. � d a v K` -f."+-, • Y- ry i ar«� r 1: i '' v r — r r_t'fr-_.,..7.,.,,a_--,7.„—,-, t- .. ."4 . . IAK pr *ate t'e rn $ h5 s to _- ._ , ,...cmin-----wit--, 1., _ _ --.----1;. s '4.-.:-... .,. ...„ s„,..,.--_,,,.- r....,,sibt . -bur 1 , 1.. .....11411 ___ i Iry BACKGROUND The applicant, Salt Lake Community College, is requesting the vacation of a north to south alley to allow for the integration of the alley into the existing college parking lot located at approximately 150 East 1700 South at their South City Campus. The properties abutting the alley are zoned I (Institutional) to the north and the north east, R-1-5000 (Single Family Residential) to the east and C-C (Corridor Commercial) to the west along State Street. The R-1-5000 parcel is currently a vacant lot and part of the overall college parking, lot. The alley to be vacated is approximately 288 feet in length, 4,320 square feet in size and runs north to south beginning at 1700 South. Proposal The applicant is proposing to vacate the City owned alley to provide for a more comprehensive parking lot tha serves the Salt Lake Community College Downtown campus and accommodate a new building under construction nicknamed the "Center for New Media". The subject right-of-way runs north to south beginning at PLNPCN12011-00004 Salt Lake Communm College Alle\ Vacation 2 Published February 2S,201 l 1700 South and ending at approximately 1615 South. The applicant is the property owner of all parcels adjacent to the alleyway. Consistent with City Council "Close and Sell"policy, the surplus property which abuts the low Lensity residential properties shall be vacated and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold for fair market value. Comments The project site is located within the Liberty Wells Community Council and it is located 230 feet from the Ball Park Community Council. Both Community Councils were contacted and staff and the applicant attended their respective meetings. Ball Park Community Council Chair Elke was notified about the proposed alley vacation and the item was placed on the agenda for 3 February 2011. The project was discussed with those in attendance. There were no concerns or questions regarding the vacation of this alleyway. Staff also contacted DeWitt Smith, Chair of the Liberty Wells Community Council and asked if the Community Council wanted to review this request. Mr. Smith requested that both staff and the applicant be present at their meeting held on 9 February 2011. The project was discussed in depth with the Community Council and the public that was in attendance. Though there were some comments and questions received pertaining to traffic and other problems at the South City Campus as a whole there were no negative comments or concerns received about the proposed alleyway vacation. Department Comments The proposal was reviewed by all applicable City departments and divisions. The review comments have been attached to this report as Exhibit B. There were no issues raised by the City that would prevent the proposal from proceeding. The applicant must comply with all City requirements as outlined in those comments. Building Services (Alan Michelson) Building Services had no zoning issues regarding this proposal. Engineering Division (Randy Drummond) Assuming there are no public utilities facilities within said alley, we have no concerns regarding this proposed vacation of this alley. Fire Department No comments were received from the Fire Division. Police Department There were no comments from the Police Division. Public Utilities Department (Justin Stoker) here are no public utilities in the area of the proposed vacation. There doesn't appear to be any conflicts or issues from the proposed vacation with regards to SLCPU. PLNPCM2011-00004 Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation 3 Published February 22S,2011 Transportation Division (Barry Walsh) The proposed alley vacation presents no impact on access to abutting properties (deed indicates only one abutting Owner "SLCC") or the public transportation corridors abutting the alley. Therefore we recommend approval as shown. ANALYSIS Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code regulates the disposition of city owned alleys. When evaluating requests to close or vacate public alleys, the City considers whether or not the continued use of the property as a public alley is in the City's best interest. Noticed public hearings are held before both the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the potential adverse impacts created by a proposal. Once the Planning Commission has reviewed the request, their recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The Planning Commission must also make a recommendation to the Mayor regarding the disposition of the property. If the Commission recommends that the alley property be declared surplus, the property should be disposed of according to Section 2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Code. The City Council has final decision authority with respect to alley vacations and closures. A positive recommendation from the Planning Commission requires an analysis and positive determination of the following, considerations: Salt Lake City Code, Section 14.52.020: Policy Considerations for Closure, Vacation or Abandonment City Owned Alleys The City will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack of Use: The City's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an on-site inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way. B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity or unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area. C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element. D. Community Purpose: The Petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. Discussion: This north to south running alley connects with an adjacent east to west running alley asp well as l 700 South. Salt Lake Community College has already requested that the east to west runnint alley way be vacated. The Planning Commission forwarded the petition with a favorable PLNPCM2011-00004 Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation 4 Published February 28,2011 recommendation on 28 July 2010. The City Council made a motion on 1 February 2011 to accept public comment and to consider adopting an ordinance to vacate the alley on 1 March 2011.The college would have requested the vacation of both alleys simultaneously but were only recently able to procure a property on State Street that was heavily utilizing the north to south running alleyway. However, in terms of lack of use, there is no real purpose to the continuation of the alley because it abuts four vacant parcels and one parcel that is occupied by the southwest corner of the South City Campus. The parcel to the east constitutes a portion of the College's parking lot. Parcels to the west along State Street and 1700 South have been integrated into new and existing landscaped areas. The alley has not recently functioned as an alley in any obvious way, because there does not exist any distinction between it and the existing parking lot, therefore satisfying policy consideration A. Moreover, leaving a stand- alone alley without it being integrated to the overall College's parking lot does not improve the area nor does it serve as a positive urban design element, therefore satisfying policy consideration C. Finding: The alley property is not useful as a public right-of-way nor does it serve as a positive urban design element. The request satisfies at least one of the policy considerations listed above as required by Section 14.52.02 of the Salt Lake City Code. Salt Lake City Code, Section 14.52.030B: Processing Petitions - Public Hearing and Recommendation from the Planning Commission. Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed disposition of the City owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a report and recommendation to the City Council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: 1. The City police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant City departments and divisions have no objection to the proposed disposition of the property; Discussion: Staff requested input from pertinent City departments and divisions. Comments were received from the Transportation Division, the Building Services, Engineering, Public Utilities and the Property Management Division. These comments are attached to this staff report as Exhibit B. Finding: The appropriate City departments and divisions have reviewed this request and have no objections to the proposed disposition of the property. 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; Discussion: The proposed alley vacation satisfies both the `Lack of Use" and the `'Urban Design" policy considerations. Finding: The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated in Section 14.52.020 of the Salt Lake City Code. PLNPCM2011-00004 Salt Lai e Connunity College Alley Vacation 5 Published February 2S,2011 3. The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property; Discussion: It has been the City's policy not to close an alley if it would deny a property owner requi, access to their lot. The subject right of way abuts four vacant lots also owned by the same applicant and used as part of the College's parking lot and for landscaping along State Street. The former Baxter property located at 1615 South State Street was the only owner utilizing the alley but the property was purchased by Salt Lake Community College. Finding: Closing the alley will not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any owner of property adjacent or in close proximity to the alley. 4. The petition will not result in any property being landlocked; Discussion: Should the alley be vacated, it would become part of the overall College's parking lot and no parcel would become landlocked. Finding: The proposed alley closure would not create any landlocked parcels. 5. The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; Discussion: The alley has not been designated for a future trail in the Open Space Master Plan. The land use of adjacent properties is low density residential and is consistent with the Future Land Use Map of the Central Community Master Plan. On page 7 of the Central Community Master Plan, under the heading Liberty neighborhood planning area it states as an issue to prohibit the expansion of the Community College onto surrounding residential properties. The plan has outlined the properties owned by Salt Lake Community College to the east of the alley to be developed as an Institutional use and those properties to the west along State Street as Community Commercial. The disposition of this alley would preclude the use of the alley as a trail and would not be contrary to any other policies of the City or those policies found in the Central Community Master Plan. Finding: The proposed alley vacation meets this standard. 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit; Discussion: All abutting vacant properties are owned by the Salt Lake Community College which has not filed for any building permit. The College's aim is to integrate the alley to the overall parking lot. otook PLNPCM2011-00004 Salt Lake Community Colleee Alley Vacation 6 Published February 28,2011 Finding: The applicant does not intend to build any structures on the subject alley other than add it to the overall parking lot thus it does meet this standard. 7. The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and Discussion: The applicant is proposing that the entire alley be vacated. Finding: This proposal will dispose the entirety of the alley, which is consistent with the City's preference for disposing the entire alley. 8. The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Discussion: The subject right-of-way is not used for access to any property where a single family home exists nor for any accessory uses. Finding: The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses since the properties are currently vacant and are part of the College's parking lot. Section 14.52.040 Method of Disposition of the Salt Lake City Code: (C) Mixed Zoning If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density residential properties or onresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density residential properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold for fair market value. Finding: The adjacent properties are zoned institutional uses (non residential properties), commercial uses, and for single family homes, however the properties are not being used as residences, but as part of the institution's parking lot. The original homes have all been demolished The applicant would receive the entirety of the alley by City Council policy subject to fair market value payment to the City. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the analysis and findings identified in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to vacate and close the subject alley and deed it to the two abutting property owners with the following conditions: 1. The proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with the method of disposition expressed in Section 14.52.020 Method of Disposition and Chapter 2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Ordinance. PLNPCM20 1 1-00004 Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation 7 Published February 2S,2011 A • _ T. ....„. li ....f;-'' l " •0 s �a i• fs `, ># rq. `� >; N n L;t i I.•, -it! m !_ • .t v -'--- � • -~-,f•... r �+�'~'_ t•ice-r" _ _ - c - _ _ '-n .:. This is a view from the northwest of the proposed alley to be vacated. • PLNPC`420I I-0000-1 Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation 9 Published February 28,2011 ��. 1 - rrrrrrt Err rrrrn • • --Ay, „�,. rror rrr=ec ��, rror „ x Fr'Bat ■s12si.s •+ninon! ; rFti + H'sy��g.rY NJsZ. • M1 j This is a south view of the alley proposed to be vacated. The alley cannot be distinguished from the surrounding parking lot. PLNPCM2011-00004 Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation 10 Published February 28.2011 \k!:. .2 . -' .., ' \ + "`1--- � • f - •ti gib. .-1- 1 ■■rit n 7 I . i ' ' ‘In., i 1„-tricilvz,--",... --,,,,_ taci, ____ ______......... ..--iiisiney ..roe,. oe! f s, ' , f may-. rr 1etc ? M , -,, , -.--m „._;: i., i winx.47,1„,„p. I ! TZL ,�O.- '-r a t •. s-� 1r. lfi ~'"r�'�j -' �� y' *t�a efts i; _ , a emu .. i�t r sr r — : y � .1441. 1 •i _ � _ S .L h' T` :7Y! ''' o-1-1 Y t ^�-.7 •U ;1 -di'' - 4. This is a southwest view of the alley proposed to be vacated. 0 PLNPCM2011-00004 Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation 11 Published February 28,2011 • Attachmen Proposed Area Site PIat PLNPCM2011-00004 Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation 12 Published February 28,2011 • 0 .., _ ------',-7--...---7---1 —'.--,--..•••—....--i ' - NW • ... 2,Ci.n M7:CSIC., ... t‘ 7.73 •‘4,1'-''._rt, • ••- i i.,._ ---------,....i ..._. ....-" VD,C.O.CVt I ...4:nt•IS a Nett 'III • , • 0 . I . -:‘,3.+"'"'........d' . • • --. — ‘..—.. I ' I I : . I ..----....--..---,---- ., . .• . . . '1 .. . • • -- .--- . .....--- ., // ‘...., . / V --. I. . ..... ... .' . 1 . P.."... ........... —.... :,:,:.;•,:.r-- $... ; ., i.• • 111 :......;;Ls PLNPCM2011.00004 Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation 13 Published February 28,2011 • • Attachmen4 Departmental/Division Comments PLNPCM2011-00004 Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation 14 Published February 23,2011 Police Review No comments submitted. Public Utilities—Justin Stoker(801)483-6786 • There are no public utilities in the area of the proposed vacation.There doesn't appear to be any conflicts or issues from the proposed vacation with regards to SLCPU. Zoning Review—Alan Michelson (801)535-7142 No zoning issues. Transportation Review—Barry Walsh (801)535-6630 The proposed alley vacation presents no impact on access to abutting properties(deed indicates only one abutting Owner"SLCC") or the public transportation corridors abutting the alley.Therefore we recommend approval as shown. Engineering Review-Randy Drummond (801)535-6204 Assuming there are no public utilities facilities within said alley, we have no concerns regarding this proposed vacation of this alley. Fire Review No comments submitted. • PLNPCM2011-0000-1 Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation 15 Published February 28,2011 PUBLIC HEARINGS LEGISLATIVE PETITIONS PLNPCM2oi1-00004: Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation -A request by Salt Lake Community College for an Alley Vacation at approximately 123 East 1700 South that runs north to south from 1700 South to approximately 1650 South. The adjacent properties are zoned I (Institutional), R-1-5000 (Single Family Residential) and C-C (Corridor Commercial)located in Council District 5 represented by Jill Remington. Mr. Anderson stated this was a request from Salt Lake Community College to vacate a north to south running alley located at approximately 123 West 1700 South. He said it may sound familiar to the Commission because there was another alley vacated on the same property in July of 2010. Mr.Anderson stated the east/west alley vacation was heard by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council in February. He stated the reason Salt Lake Community College put off vacating both alleys at the same time was because the owners of the Baxter Building were still using the alley to access their property. Mr. Anderson explained the Baxter Building as well as the billboard had been removed. He stated the only comment he received was from Qwest. They had some issues with the vacation. Mr. Anderson explained Qwest was working with Salt Lake Community College to figure out how to accommodate the power lines. Mr. Anderson stated Staffs recommendation was for the Planning Commission to forward this petition to the City Council with a positive recommendation. Chairperson Fife asked the Applicant if he would like to speak. The Applicant stated they had nothing to add to Mr.Anderson's comments. 5:40:26 Public Hearing Chairperson Fife opened the public hearing seeing there was no public in attendance that wanted to speak on the issue the public hearing was closed. 9:40:34 PM Mr. Rob Vigil, Right of Way Engineer -Qwest Corporation, stated Qwest was currently working with Salt Lake Community College to relocate the aerial and cross box facilities in the area. Mr. Vigil reviewed the reasons vacations are generally not opposed by Qwest and the issues that would arise if the vacation was granted today before the equipment was moved. He asked that there be some sort of suspension on the vacation until the matter was resolved. Chairperson Fife asked if anyone was being served by the line other than the college. Mr. Vigil stated there are other customers to the North that receive services from the line as wells as customers along 1700 South. Commissioner McHugh said Salt Lake Community College was one of the customers serviced by the line therefore it would be in their interest to be accommodating. Mr. Vigil stated the college was working to accommodate Qwest. He said the issue was not that Salt Lake Community College was unwilling to work with Qwest rather the issue was the access to the equipment for maintenance purposes if the vacation was granted prior to the relocation of the equipment. Commissioner McHugh asked how long the relocation would take. Mr. Vigil stated once Salt Lake Community College paid the bill to relocate the facilities, the job would be drawn up, drafted and issued for construction. He estimated a minimum of go days from the date of payment. Chairperson Fife clarified the Community College was paying to have the lines moved. Mr. Vigil stated that was correct. Chairperson Fife asked why Qwest would anticipate a problem. Mr. Vigil stated Qwest did not anticipate a problem but experiences have taught them this was a better route to take to avoid legal issues. Commissioner McHugh asked what was being moved. Mr. Vigil stated poles, aerial cables and a distribution cabinet would need to be moved. Chairperson Fife asked if Qwest could refuse service to the college if they did not grant Qwest an easement. Mr. Vigil stated no, Qwest could not deny the College services. Commissioner Hill asked who would pay if the vacation was approved at the meeting. Mr. Vigil stated basically Qwest had the right to be on the property so whoever triggered the move would pay for it. He said Qwest's concern was that in the event the College decided they did not want the equipment moved then Qwest would be left with limited ability to access, maintain and replace the equipment. Commissioner Woodhead asked if the College did not want the equipment moved did Qwest need to move it. Mr. Vigil stated no, it would not need to be moved. Commissioner Woodhead stated then the issue was the access to the equipment and right now an easement by necessity of access existed. Mr.Vigil stated Qwest would have an easement by the public way. Mr. Sommerkorn stated the request was premature. He said the best way to take care of the issue was to see if the College had any objection to granting an easement for the utility purposes. Commissioner Woodhead asked if the Planning Commission could make that part of the motion. Mr. Sommerkorn stated yes that was acceptable. Mr. Frank Baker, Salt Lake Community College, stated Salt Lake Community College had entered into contracts with Rocky Mountain Power and Qwest and had paid $23,088 to move the equipment. He explained the issues with the easement to the south of the College and what was being done to solve the issues. Mr. Baker stated the College did not use the subject poles. Chairperson Fife clarified the college does not need the poles. Mr. Baker stated no, Salt Lake Community College planned to have the poles removed by Rocky Mountain Power and had already paid for that as well. Mr. Sommerkorn asked if Mr. Baker would have any objection to granting any kind of utility easement for access to the utility lines. Mr. Baker stated not at all. Chairperson Fife asked if a condition stating an easement would be granted should be added to the potential motion. Mr. Nielson stated yes and advised the Commission to be specific with the language in order to not allow Qwest to have an easement over the entire property only necessary access for Qwest to accomplish the purposes they are pursuing. Chairperson Fife asked for a motion adding the condition. Commissioner Hill stated she would make the motion but she wanted to be clear about the conditions. She said she was inclined to go with staff recommendation for the motion, not allow for any easement and let Salt Lake Community College work it out with Qwest themselves. Commissioner Gallegos stated Salt Lake Community College did not have an objection to an easement. Commissioner Hill stated she understood that but it seemed if Salt Lake City was vacating the alley and giving the property to Salt Lake Community College, Salt Lake City should not be allowed to make the decision. She said she would not want to bind Salt Lake Community College in any way. Mr. Nielson stated whenever the City vacates an alley they always do so subject to existing easements and although this easement was not necessarily expressed in a written document it existed by prescription. He said adding it to the motion would prevent anyone from having to go through any litigation caused by the vacation of the alley. Commissioner Hill stated the condition needed to state subject to the existing easement. Mr. Nielson stated that was correct. 5:49:14 PM Motion Commissioner Hill made a motion in regard to PLNPCM2o11-00004 Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation; the Planning Commission to forward a motion to the City Council recommending approval with the following conditions: • Compliance with all departmental comments • Subject to all existing easements Commissioner Luke seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Hill, Gallegos, Luke, McHugh, and Woodhead all voted "aye". The motion passed unanimously. Remarks: Petition No: PLNPCM2011-00004 By: Carol Bartz for Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation Date Filed: January 6, 2011 Address: 1575 S State Street Yb oi t < ,.�:: Z Alley � l Vacation j ¢ 0FF10E USE ONLY ,, or ✓ Petition No. N P.0 7 mace, f ,` 14-..,,c. Closure i' . . . (P Ot ;---r, eived:. p i/f5 : •� %.fix '� .,'0 r i, .. IZeviesved By: „„. . •}, Address of Subject Property: C _ 1 \.I � ,.` _ Project Name: .. ( _ t :L(kgE: (1 1 " •• ,t '..lit ' : far<t, \,g}-'t \;,,';'ail.ittl a, ••1 �� -` '" �� l: �.•t i _i4 % Name ofApplicant: .,l`. .tea` Address of Applicant://� •) t `.\. -� .t ,; `•Y 0-6C/C,'.c-c; f`L-'r .cL�t<Lc ��. 1-\ f r i� 2 - C., <. f` /i 4".' .;;: E-mad Address of Applicant: •-� i I Cell/}rax:l • • _=.•. Applicant's Interest in Subject Property: r; s t �.1 ` -< f,- ^., Ti Name of _ h Property O�yner _ Phone: • _ . 1 _:,� i-Y1j:!', '1•i)_1't\It.��L�./. (..,""l��?.�J`, .r'=,{""}j•...`;� �'r'/�=i( Cl -, E-mail Address of Property Owner: S i Cell/ axe :-, ((X.(n(c_:, Pt)-A 07 2 -; <-.',XXC ..tl A. c�(,I...c �.•l I_ S'I4 :.F• " a;•x" . County Tax (`Stdwcll;-'). , _ Zoning: • , .. _ fags`;i 1 i,- rst j e, r_ (=,7(-- b: Esistin_PropertyUse Proposed Prope se ECEIVED • ==fix ! 1F- . v4': i Please include with the application: 4 , - J.A response to the questions on the back of this form. If the applicant does not own propeny adjaceni t o alle e include tine applicant's interest in the request. /.? ___. 2. The name, address and Sidwell number of all property owners on the block must be typed or clearly printed on gummed , - ' mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair. Payment in the a mount to corer first class postage for each address for two mailings is due at time of application. c, 3. The name,;ddress and signatures of all owners of property abuttim, t�,,{" i�,< p p the subject alley who supper the petition. You may � -;: use the sample petition accompanying this application or provide your own. Please note that the property 0%5ners trust wit, sign (not occupants who rent)and the petition must include the signatures of no less than 80 percent of the abutting :?, t . property owners. v ,, 4.A property ownership map(known as a Sidwell map)shoeing the area of the subject alley. On the Wrap, please: a. .' 1-lighligh:the subject € "3 alley. - i ID">" _ b. Indicate with a colored circle or dot,the property owners who support the petition. .., 5. A legal description of the subject alley may-he required. ` 6. If applicable, a signed,notarized statement of consent front property on ner authorizing applicant to act as an . ''' `�;, agent. 7. Filing fee of S221.48 due at time of application. y. Notice: Additional information may be teiluired by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. ` All information submitted as part of application plication may he copied and made public including profe.ssional architectural or `� �- 1 fI copied r )5` engineering drawings sshich will be trade available to decision makers,public and any interested party. -i. , I f y o u have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition, please contact a member of the Salt Lake City fille Buzz Center(5 S-7700)prior to submitting the petition. t.r " County tax parcel('Sidwell")maps and natnec File the complete application at: of property cisners are available at: Salt Lake City.Buzz Center Sal:Lake County Recorder 451 South State Street,Room 215 2701 South StateStrut,Room? 1600 Salt Lake City,UT ;:1 1 I Salt Lake City,UT 84190-1051 Telephone:(8t11)46S-391 f - ��.,` Feb 2Q08 Sign,tote of Property Oi.:ner r-, - `, - . w.. _ ._u ---- -. -- i 'i__ !' L _.. Petition to Vacate or Close an Alley Petitioner. _( , `( J (_ y -r-fykYyk.tuiLc.E t L , e / /' Address: 4,co c is eb Date: : Cell."11 6, -,'1 i As an owner of property adjacent to the alley,I agree to the proposed vacation or closure. I understand that if my property is a commercial business or a rental property with more than three(3)dwelling units, I will be required to pay fair market value for my half of the alley. • \ /c �` ! r�� -L., Da efrirr4n:e ( I ddst Ti S;�ratt , Print jVante Address `:L(?r LC( lf-CP) Sign:vire - Date Print Name Address Signature Date Print Name -!rd-c-, S:c• ahue Date Print Name A;d cy Signature Da:e Pnnt s'ms Address Sz nature Date Print]Name .id,:ress Signature Date Erin:Name Address Sianarure D;:te Pr,l7t i'ia,.:c Adarms.r bena.:,re Dais .-. Pr:n.:r1�::rr ,-1a u PM S;gr;.t:4r2 Date P,:nl j :e an1-1,-:rc .C:<'r;.i tse Il-re :n.`'are A a'rfress Stp;na,.:re Date MEMORANDUM DATE: July 12,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director RE: Interlocal Agreement-Salt Lake City and Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)providing for the rehabilitation of the 1300 South Viaduct COUNCIL PROCESS: The Council will hold a briefing on this issue at the July 12th work session. If the Council is comfortable moving forward,the resolution can be scheduled for consideration at a future formal meeting. If the Council adopts the resolution,the Mayor is authorized to sign the interlocal agreement.Because matching funds are already appropriated,no further action beyond adoption of the resolution,is necessary to proceed with construction. The Administration has provided a resolution for Council consideration authorizing the Mayor to sign the attached interlocal agreement with the Utah Department of Transportation(UDOT)to provide for design and construction of a dedicated right turn lane at the intersection of 1300 South and 300 West. The right turn lane would be installed on the south east corner of the intersection(northbound to eastbound traffic movement),and would widen the street at that corner. A. The Wasatch Front Regional Council(WFRC)has approved a total of $250,000 of federal Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Program(CMAQ) funds for this project. The interlocal agreement provides for the use for these funds and required the City provide a local match of$18,154. The City currently has these funds budgeted in a CIP account. B. The environmental assessment is currently underway,and matching funds for design/construction will not be required until the City determines that all environmental issues have been met. C. The Administration's transmittal indicates the following: 1. The project involves widening of 300 West from approximately 300 feet south of the intersection to provide a separate right-turn lane (northbound to eastbound movement). This will impact the Lowes Home Improvement Store sidewalk and parking lot. 2. The Administration indicates that due to increased traffic volumes at this location,the project is warranted to reduce vehicle idling and emissions. 3. Construction will include pavement,curb,gutter,a retaining wall, pedestrian ramps and sidewalks,landscaping,and the relocation of a Rocky Mountain Power pole. 1 4. The Administration reviewed this project with adjacent businesses on March 14 and plans to hold meetings throughout construction. 5. The Administration presented this project to the Ball Park Community Council on April 7,2011 and plans to meet with the Community Council throughout construction. Matters At Issue A. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if widening of an intersection one block from a TRAX Station,and where pedestrian activity is high,furthers the goals of a walkable City. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to detail components of the proposed project that would protect and enhance the pedestrian experience. • The Council adopted an ordinance in 2010 codifying the previous executive order which states that all streets owned by Salt Lake City "shall be designed,constructed,operated and maintained so that users,including people with disabilities,can travel safely and independently". • The Council has had a long-standing policy of supporting the "complete streets"concept of street design,which emphasizes the importance of providing safe and comfortable passage for a variety of user groups,particularly pedestrians. B. The Council conducted a walking tour of this particular intersection with an expert in complete streets,and noted the difficulties that pedestrians have in navigating this intersection,due to the volume of auto traffic. C. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether these funds could be used for a different intersection where traffic volume is an issue(and emissions could be mitigated),where the pedestrian impact would not be as great. Note: Changes to the Interlocal Cooperation Act by the 2003 Legislature allow the Mayor to execute interlocal agreements without approval of the City Council except when the interlocal agreement includes any of the following: • Acquires or transfers real property • Construction of a facility or improvements to real property • Bonding • Sharing taxes or other revenue • Agreements that includes an out-of-state public agency • Agreements that require budget adjustments to the City's current or future budgets 01. • Creation of an interlocal agency 2 RECEIVED SCANNED Tl r n\ (t "`ate/� tLi Vi�,C�•..1 ��7 / q1F1DATEZLPERFRANK B. GRAY �� DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AYO OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR nn MARY DE LA DEPUTY DIRECTOR R ETORHAEFER CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL U T 11 !N7 1 ROBERT FARRINGTO , ii MA 162011 T Date Receive' - _ David ventt, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Counci : , 71i71/ (I TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 4, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Frank Gray, Director of Community & Ec omic Development ) 2Y— SUBJECT: Inter-Local Cooperation Agreement 300 West 1300 South Right Turn Lane Installation UDOT No. F-LC35(175) Salt Lake City Job No. 108046 STAFF CONTACT: John J.Naser, P.E., City Engineer, 801-535-6240, john.naser@slcgov.com Jeff Snelling, S.E., Deputy City Engineer, 801-535-6140 jeff.snellingAslcgov.com Stephanie Toombs, P.E., Project Manager, 801-535-6374, stephanie.toombs@slcgov.com Kevin Young, P.E., Transportation Planning Engineer, 801- 535-7108, kevin.young@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Approve a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign the attached Interlocal Cooperative Agreement with the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) for the design and installation of a right turn lane on 300 West at 1300 South. BUDGET IMPACT: The Wasatch Front Regional Council has approved a total of $250,000.00 of Congestion Mitigation / Air Quality Program (CMAQ) funds for this right turn lane project. The Interlocal Agreement provides for the City's use of these funds and requires the City provide $18,154.00 in matching local funds for the project. Current City funds of $50,000 are budgeted for this project in cost center 83-11047. Of this amount $30,000.00 is currently encumbered for the preparation of the environmental document. Encumber $18,154.00 from 83-11047-2740. The IFAS number is 83100418-695. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 1341 14-5486 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.BLCGOV.COM/CEO .� nc crc co vwrcn The project will be separated into design and construction phases with the City providing the local matching funds for each. The City's obligation to pay its matching share for design shall not arise until the City concurs with UDOT's determination that the environmental document is complete and it is appropriate to proceed with the design phase of the project. The City's obligation to pay its matching share for construction of the improvements shall not arise until the design is acceptable by the City and it is appropriate to proceed with the construction phase of the project. Upon completion of this cooperative agreement and the environmental document, the City will select an engineering consultant through UDOT's "pool" contract to provide design for this project. Following design, a construction engineering consultant will also be selected through the UDOT pool contract to manage construction of the improvements. The remaining portion of the matching local funds will be encumbered prior to the award of the construction agreements and contracts. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The project involves widening the east side of 300 West approximately 300-feet south of the 1300 South intersection and installation of a right turn lane (northbound to eastbound). The widening will occur in the existing 300 West right-of-way and parkstrip frontage adjacent to Lowes Home Improvement store. Construction will include asphalt pavement, curb and gutter, a retaining wall, pedestrian ramps, sidewalks, and landscape restoration. The project Allok requires the relocation of a Rocky Mountain Power transmission pole, several distribution poles, a traffic signal mast arm pole, controller cabinet, and other utility adjustments. The transmission pole will be relocated into an existing Rocky Mountain Power utility easement. The separation of right turn movements from through traffic will reduce delay and congestion, which will also help in reducing emissions. This improvement will create a street section having two northbound through lanes and a separate right turn lane. Construction is anticipated in 2011 to insure WFRC funds are available for this project. Alternates Leave the intersection at the existing configuration. History A dedicated right turn lane on 1300 South was added at the SW corner in 2003 as part of the WalMart development. In 2007, the street was re-striped to add an additional left turn lane for both the northbound and southbound directions thereby creating dual left turn lanes. The 300 West right-of-way needed for this project was secured with the Lowes development in 2006. The addition of the right turn lane on 300 West is consistent with regional and local plans. The 300 West corridor has developed and continues to develop with retail development. 1300 South provides access to the I-15 freeway. Traffic volume continues to grow in this area. PUBLIC PROCESS: The project conceptual scope will be reviewed with the adjacent businesses during the environmental document process. A presentation of the project will be held at the Ball Park Community Council. Information cards will be delivered to the other nearby businesses on 1300 South (400 West to 200 West). The questions and comments from this process will be included in the Environmental Document. Additional public meetings will occur during design and construction, as needed. RESOLUTION NO. OF 2011 Authorizing the approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the 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: Inter-local Cooperation Agreement- Federal Aid Agreement for Local Agency Project, CFDA No. 20.205 —between the Utah Department of Transportation and Salt Lake City Corporation regarding 1300 South and 300 West, Salt Lake City, Project Number F-LC35(175). 2. The effective date of the agreement shall be the date it is signed by all parties to the agreement. 3. Ralph Becker, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, or his designee, is hereby authorized to approve said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, in substantially the same form as now before the City Council and attached hereto, subject to such minor changes as 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 , 2011. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIRPERSON Inter-local Cooperation Agreement J77 ONNECINOCOf/WUNITIES State of Utah fl•� ' � lt.a"Gs:.e�mrreMs. Department of Transportation Federal Aid Agreement Maximum Project for Local Agency Project Salt Lake City-Stephanie Toombs Value Authorized CFDA No.20.205 $268,154 PIN Number Project Number Agreement Number 6605 F-LC35(175) (Assigned By Comptrollers) FINET Number Project Location 52613 1300 SOUTH &300 WEST FMIS Number Date Executed LC35175 The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)will authorize the Local Agency to proceed on the project upon execution of this agreement providing the Local Agency has complied, or hereby agreed to comply, with the terms and conditions set forth in (1) Title 23, U.S. Code Highways, (2) the regulations issued pursuant thereto, (3) Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-102, A-87, and A-133, (4) Utah State Code, (5) Utah Department of Transportation Local Government and State Aid Project Guide, (6)the Federal Aid Project Agreement entered into between UDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), relative to the above project. Federal funds which are to be obligated for the project may not exceed the amount shown herein, without written authority by UDOT, subject to the approval of FHWA. All project costs not reimbursed by FHWA shall be the responsibility of the Local Agency. The Local Agency is responsible for all increased costs to UDOT if the Local Agency decides not to proceed after signing this agreement. No costs are eligible for federal-aid reimbursement until authorized by the FHWA through Form R-709, Request for Federal Aid Project Approval, separate from this Local Agency Agreement. State Wide Transportation Improvement Program STIP 2011 -2014 Fund* Prior 2011 2012 2013 I 2014 Total Fed Aid State Other Pct CMAQ WFRC SO $268,154 S0 S0I SO S268,154 S250,000 SO $18,154 6.77% Total: S01 $268,154 SO $01 SO S268,154 S250,000 SO $18,154 6.77% 'htt_p_://vnm.udot.utah.cov/go/stipfundtable Upon signing this agreement the Local Agency agrees to pay its estimated matching share in phases when requested by UDOT. Phases typically include environmental, design, right-of-way and construction. The local match for this project is represented by the percentages of the Total Project Value shown above. In addition the Local Agency agrees to pay 100% of the overruns that exceed S268,154 and any ineligible costs when requested by UDOT. UDOT will request payment of matching shares and overruns through an email that will be sent to Stephanie Toombs at STEPHANIE.TOOMBS@SLCGOV.COM the Local Agency Contact. The Local Agency shall pay within 30 days after each payment request. The Local Agency shall make the check payable to the Utah Department of Transportation referencing the project number above and mail to UDOT Comptroller's Office, Box 141510, 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119-5998. Salt Lake City Official Utah Department of Transportation By Date By Date Mayor Ralph Becker Region Director PROVED AS TO FORM By Date slit Lake City Attorney's CfCQ Comptrollers Office Date 3p—I Y-11 By 1 of 6 Revised 12-7-09 Provisions d. Upon satisfactory completion of the provisions of I. Roles and Responsibilities: this agreement. In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 106© and 23 CFR e. By UDOT, in the event that construction of the 635.105 the Utah Department of Transportation is project for which this design engineering is responsible for acting on behalf of the Federal undertaken is not started by the close of the fifth Highway Administration in the determination of fiscal year following the fiscal year in which this federal-aid eligibility on all Local Agency Federal-aid agreement is executed. projects as described in Appendix C of the FHWA- UDOT Stewardship Oversight Agreement. VI. Single Audit Act: II. Project Authorization for Federal-aid: The Local Agency, as a sub-recipient of federal funds, The Local Agency, through UDOT, must obtain an shall adhere to the Federal Office of Management and Authorization to proceed from FHWA before Budget(OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local beginning work on any Federal aid project. Federal Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, funds shall not participate in costs incurred prior to the htto://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a133/a133.h date of Authorization except as provided by 23 CFR tml. A sub recipient who expends $500,000 or more 1.9(b). in federal awards from all sources during a given fiscal year shall have a single or program-specific III. Agreement provisions: audit performed for that year in accordance with the provision of OMB Circular A-133. Upon conclusion of The Local Agency accepts and agrees to comply with the A-133 audit, the Local Agency shall be the applicable terms and conditions set forth in title responsible for ensuring that a copy of the report is 23, U.S.C., the regulations issued pursuant thereto, transmitted to the Utah Department of Transportation, the policies and procedures promulgated by FHWA Internal Audit,4501 S 2700 W, Box 148230, Salt Lake relative to the designated project covered by the City, Utah 84114-8230. agreement, and all other applicable Federal laws and regulations. VII. Maintenance: IV. Liability: The Local Agency shall properly maintain and restore Local Agency agrees to hold harmless and indemnify each type of roadway, structure and facility as nearly UDOT, its officers, employees and agents as possible in its original condition as constructed or improved in accordance with State and Federal (Indemnities) from and against all claims, suits and requirements. Future utility installations will be made Amok costs, including attorneys'fees for injury or damage of according to UDOT's "Regulations for the any kind, arising out of the Local Agency's negligent Accommodation of Utilities on Federal-aid and Non acts, errors or omissions in the performance of this Federal-aid Highway Right-of-Way." project, and from and against all claims, suits and costs, including attorneys'fees for injury or damage of VII1. Availability of Records: any kind, arising out of Indemnities' failure to inspect, For a period not less then three (3) years from the discover, correct, or otherwise address any defect, date of final project close out with Federal dangerous condition or other condition created by or Government, the Local Agency accounting records resulting from Local Agency's negligent acts, errors or pertaining to the federal aid project are to be kept omissions in the performance of this project. available for inspection and audit by the State and Any periodic plan and specification review or Federal Government, or furnished upon request. construction inspection performed by UDOT arising IX Payment and Reimbursement to UDOT: out of the performance of the project does not relieve UDOT shall not be ultimately responsible for any of the Local Agency of its duty in the performance of this the cost of the project. The Local Agency shall be project or to ensure compliance with acceptable responsible for all costs associated with the project standards. which are not reimbursed by the Federal Government. V. Termination: For a Joint Highway Committee project, the federal This agreement may be terminated as follows: participation for construction engineering costs is limited to 20 percent of the construction contract a. By mutual agreement of the parties, in writing costs. b. By either UDOT or the Local Agency for failure of Funds requested beyond the amount set forth will require execution of a Supplemental Financial the other party to fulfill their obligations as set Agreement. forth in the provisions of this agreement. Reasonable allowances will be made for If the project overruns in costs,the Local Agency shall circumstances beyond the control of the parties. pay the additional amount required within 30 days of Written notice of intent to terminate is required receiving the invoice. Should the Local Agency fail to and shall specify the reasons for termination. reimburse UDOT for costs that exceed the federal reimbursement, federal funding for other Local c. By UDOT for the convenience of the State upon Agency projects or B&C road funds may be withheld written notice to the Local Agency. until payment is made. 2 of 6 Revised 12-7-09 application,the project will need to be re-evaluated by If the advanced amount exceeds the Local Agency's the responsible agency that programmed the project. share of project cost, UDOT will return the amount of Such a review may result in approval of the scope overpayment to the Local Agency upon financial close change, removal from the program, or adjustment in out of the project. the federal aid funds programmed for the project. UDOT shall provide the Local Agency with a quarterly Local Agency is responsible for the schedule of the statement reflecting a cost summary of project costs. project. If the project cannot progress as programmed, the responsible programming agency X. Reimbursement Claims by Local Agency: may advance other projects and require the project to The Local Agency shall bill UDOT for eligible federal wait for next available funding. aid project cost incurred after FHWA approval for authorization to proceed (form R709) and in Any change orders required to meet the terms and conformity with applicable federal and state laws. conditions of the construction contract will be initiated Authorized Local Agency reimbursement claims by UDOT. UDOT will notify the Local Agency of any should be submitted to UDOT Project Manager. such change orders. Reimbursements to the Local Agency for right of way claims are classified as a pass-through of Federal At the Local Agency's request, UDOT will initiate funds from UDOT to the Local Agency. Expenditures change orders that cover betterments. by the Local Agency for general administration, supervision, and other overhead shall not be eligible The Local Agency agrees they will be responsible for for federal participation unless an indirect cost plan 100% of the costs of all change orders on the project has been approved by the Federal government. not reimbursed by FHWA. Xl. Right of Way: XIII. UDOT Service Costs: The Local Agency shall comply with 23 CFR 710.203 UDOT may provide expertise in project management, for FHWA reimbursement requests of real property contract preparation, design plan reviews, advertising, acquisitions. A Local Agency shall not request construction materials verification/certification, reimbursement for excess acquisitions which are not technical assistance, engineering services or other eligible for FHWA reimbursement under 23 CFR services as needed. Appropriate charges for these 710.203 http://www.aooaccess.gov/cfr/retrieve.html costs will be included in invoices to the Local Agency. (6) Property not incorporated into a project funded under title 23 of the United States Code. XIV. Local Agency Concurrence: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this For real property disposals the Local Agency shall agreement the City's ob;igation to pay its matching comply with 23 CFR 710.409 and 710.403. The Local share shall not arise untii the City concurs in UDOT's Agency should have property management records, determination that it is appropriate to proceed with a which identify inventories of real property considered new phase of the project. Phases typically include excess to project needs. If a Local Agency environmental design, right-of-way and construction. determines that real property initially acquired as part " Reviewed and approved by the UTAH AG's office of the project is declared excess and disposed of the on September 27t;i. 2010. Local Agency must comply with 23 CFR 710.409 and 710.403. This requires that the Federal share of net XV. Content Review: income from the sale cr lease of real property Language content was reviewed and approved by the acquired with Federal assistance be used for Title 23 Utah AG's office on January 12, 2009. eligible projects. Refer to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/retrieve.html for additional information. The Local Agency shall deposit the net proceeds from the sale or lease with UDOT to be applied towards a Title 23 eligible project as authorized by the appropriate Metropolitan Planning Organization or the Joint Highway Committee. For UDOT right-of-way certifications required for advertising access the following: htto://www.cdot.utah.covimain/f?p,--100:oa-:::1:T.V:80 8.34728 XI!. Change in Scope and Schedule: Local Agency recognizes that if a project scope changes from the original intent of the project 3 of 6 Revised 12-7-09 GENERAL (FHWA) PROVISIONS FOR FEDERAL-AID AGREEMENT 400140, 1. General Provisions: The Grantee will comply with all Federal laws and 8. Access to Records: All negotiated contracts (except those of$10,000 ,,,, requirements which are applicable to grant agreements,and imposed by the less)awarded by recipients shall include a provision to the effect that the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)concerning special requirements of recipient, FHWA, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of law,program requirements,and other administrative requirements. their duly authorized representatives, shall have access to any books, documents,papers and records of the contractor which are directly pertinent 2. Modification: This agreement may be amended at any time by a written to a specific program for the purpose of making audits, examinations, modification properly executed by both the FHWA and the Grantee. excerpts,and transcriptions. 3. Retention and Custodial for Records: 9. Civil Rights Act: The recipient shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights (a) Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352), and in accordance with Title VI of that Act, no other records pertinent to this instrument shall be retained for a period of person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color, or national three(3)years,with the following exception: origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied that benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which (1)If any litigation,claim,or audit is started before the expiration of the the recipient received Federal financial assistance and shall immediately year period,the records shall be retained until all litigation claims, or take any measures necessary to effectuate this Agreement. It shall comply audit findings involving the records have been resolved. with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) prohibiting employment discrimination where: (2)Records for non-expendable property, if any, required with Federal funds shall be retained for three years after its final disposition. (a) The primary purpose of and instrument is to provide employment,or (3)When records are transferred to or maintained by FHWA,the 3-year (b) Discriminatory employment practices will result in unequal treatment retention requirement is not applicable to the recipient. of persons who are or should be benefittino from the grant-aided activity. (b) The retention period starts from the date of the submission of the final 10.Nondiscrimination: The applicant/recipient a rees that, as a expenditure report. hereby g condition to receiving any Federal financial assistance from the Department (c) The Secretary of Transportation and the Comptroller General of the of Transportation, it will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 United States,or any of their duly authorized representatives,shall have (78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. 2000d), related nondiscrimination statutes, and access to any pertinent books, documents, papers,and records of the applicable regulatory requirements to the end that no person in the United recipient, and its contractors and subcontractors, to make audits, States shall,on the grounds of race,color,national origin,sex,handicap or examinations,excerpts,and transcripts. age,be excluded from participation in,be denied the benefits of,or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the 4. Equal Employment Opportunity: applicant/recipient receives Federal financial assistance. The specific (a) The application/recipient agrees to incorporate in all contracts having a requirements of the United States Department of Transportation standard Civil Rights assurances with regard to the States'highway safety programs value of over $10,000, the provisions requiring compliance with Executive Order 11246, as amended, and implementing regulations of (required by 49 CFR 21.7 and on file with the U.S.DOT)are incorporated in the United States Department of Labor at 41 CFR 60,the provisions of this grant agreement. which, other than the standard EEO clause and applicable goals for 11.Rehabilitation Act: The recipient shall comply with Section 504 of the employment of minorities and women, may be incorporated by reference. Rehabilitation Act of 1973,as amended(29 U.S.C.794,P.L.93-112),and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the regulations of the Department of (b) The application/recipient agrees to ensure that its contractors and Health,Education,and Welfare(45 CFR,Parts 80,81,and 84),promulgated under the foregoing statute. It agrees that,in accordance with the foregoing subcontractors, regardless of tier, awarding contracts and/or issuing purchase orders for requirements, no otherwise qualified handicapped person, by reason of material, supplies, or equipment over $10,000 in handicap,shall be excluded from participation in,value will incorporate the required EEO provisions in such contracts and be denied the benefit of,or purchase orders, be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federaf financial assistance,and that it shall take any measures necessary (c) The applicant/recipient further agrees that its own employment policies to effectuate this Agreement. and practices will be without discrimination based on race,color,religion, es sex,national origin,handicap or age:and that it has or will develop and 12.Government Rights(Unlimited): FHWA shall have unlimited rights for' submit to FHWA by August 1 an affirmative action plan consistent with benefit of the Government in all other work developed in the performance the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Section Procedures,29 CFR 1607, this Agreement, including the right to use same on any other Govemmei, and the Affirmative Action Guidelines,29 CFR 1608. work without additional cost to FHWA 5 Copeland Act: All contracts in excess of$2,000 for construction or repair 13.Accountability of equipment acquired in prior years will be transferred to the awarded by recipient and its contractors or subcontractors shall include a current year Grant. An updated inventory list will be provided by FHWA. provision for compliance with the Copeland"Anti-Kick Back"Act(18 U.S.C. 14.This Grant is subject to the conditions specified in the enclosed Negotiation This act provides that each contractor or subcontractor shall be prohibited from inducing, by any means, and person employed in the construction, completion,or repair of public work,or give up any part of the compensation 15.Drug.Free Workplace:By signing this agreement,the recipient certifies that to which he is otherwise entitled. The recipient shall report all suspected or it is in compliance with the Drug-Free Workplace Act(41 U.S.C.Sec.701 et reported violations to FHWA. sJ egq And implementing regulations(49 CFR Part 29),which require,in part, trial grantees prohibit drug use in the workplace, notify the FHWA of 6. Davis-Bacon Act: When required by the Federal program legislation, all employee convictions for violations of criminal drug laws occurring in the construction contracts awarded by the recipient and its contractors or workp ace, and take appropriate personnel action against a convicted subcontractors of more than 52,000 shall include a provision for compliance employee or require the employee to participate in a drug abuse assistance with the Davis-Bacon Act(40 U.S.C. 276a to a-7)and as supplemented by program. Department of Labor regulations(29 CFR,Part 5). Under this act,contractors shall be required to pay wages to laborers and mechanics at a rate not less 16.Limitation on Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying for Grants in Excess of than the minimum wages specified in a wage determination made by the $100,000: By signing this agreement the recipient declares that it is in Secretary of Labor. In addition,contractors shall be required to pay wages compliance with 1 U.S.C. Sec. 1352,which prohibits the use of Federally not less than once a week. The recipient shall place a copy of the current appropriated funds to influence a Federal employee, officer, or Member of Congress prevailing wage determination issued by the Department of Labor in each in connection with the making or modification of any Federal grant, solicitation and the award of a contract shall be conditioned upon the accep loan, contract, or cooperative agreement. Unless the payment of funds is tance of the wage determination. The recipient shall report all suspected or otherwise reported to FHWA, signing this agreement constitutes a reported violations to the G/CAO declaration that no funds, including funds not Federally appropriated,were used or agreed to be used to influence this grant. Recipients of subgrants in 7. Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. Where applicable, all excess of$100,000 must make the same declarations to the grant recipient contracts awarded by recipient in excess of $2,500 that involve the With respect to the payment of funds not Federally appropriated by the employment of mechanics or laborers, shall include a provision for recipient and sub recipients,the recipient must report to the FHWA the name compliance with sections 103 and 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety and address of each person paid or performing services for which payment is Standards Act(40 U.S.C.327-330)as supplemented by Department of Labor made,the amount paid,and the activity for which the person was paid regulation (29 CFR, Part 5). Under section 103 of the Act,each contractor shall be required to compute the wages or every mechanic and laborer on the basis of a standard workday of 8 hours and a standard workweek of 40 hours. 50036.2-M-34b Work in excess of the standard workday or workweek is permissible provided that the worker is compensated at a rate of not less than 1-2 times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours in any calendar day or 40 Form FHWA-1273(Rev.3-94) hours in the workweek. Section 107 of the Act if applicable to construction work provides that no laborer or mechanic shall be required to work in surroundings or under working conditions which are unsanitary,hazardous,or dangerous to his health and safety as determined under construction safety and health standards promulgated by the Secretary of Labor. These requirements do not apply to the purchases of supplies or materials or articles ordinarily available on the open market, or contracts for transportation or transmission of intelligence. erl3y6 -aa 4 of 6 Revised 12-7-09 Exhibit A Project Number PIN Number F-LC35(184) 6621 Project Location FINET Number 1300 SOUTH;500 WEST TO 700 WEST 52622 Language added at the request of Salt Lake City. Language derived from old cooperative agreement boilerplate. Inter-local Cooperation Act Requirements: a. This agreement shall be approved by each party pursuant to Section 11-13-202.5 of the Inter-local Co- operation Act,Utah Code Title 11,Chapter 13,as amended(the"Act"). b. This agreement shall be reviewed as to proper form and compliance with applicable law by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of each party,pursuant to Section 11-13-202.5 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 11-13-209 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 terms of this agreement.To the extent that this agreement requires administration other than as set for 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 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. Duration: The term of this agreement shall begin on the date it has been approved by all parties pursuant to this Exhibit A,and shall terminate as provided in Section V,which termination date shall be not more than 50 years after the beginning of the term. 5 of6 Revised 12-7-09 . ca«�crnerFs Consultant Services Federal Aid Agreement Review/Approval Routing Form STATE OF UTAH TODAY'S DATE 1/18/2011 UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PM REQUEST DATE 1/6/2011 ENGINEERING SERVICES FEDERAL AID AGREEMENT NO. Project No.: F-LC35(175) PIN No.: 6605 Project Location: 1300 SOUTH &300 WEST FINET Prog Code No.: 52613 UDOT Project Manager UDOT Contract Administrator Ritchie Taylor Michael R. Butler 2010 South 2760 West PO Box 148490 Salt Lake City, UT 84104 Salt Lake City Utah 84114-8490 (801)887-3631 (801)965-4419 ritchietaylor@utah.gov michaelbutler@utah.gov Local Government Salt Lake City 451 S STATE Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Stephanie Toombs, (801) 535-6374 STEPHANIE.TOOMBS@SLCGOV.COM Project Value $268,154 Federal Match $250,000 Local Government Match S18,154 State Match SO Please prim five single _ cops and route for review/approval to the individuals listed belon,v, using the contact information above Plea: signwhere appropriateonpage 1document before fore rd 1theindividual f � O i=:�.�r`v�fl<? �-I in the @ ir1C to noxt on the list Please routo in the fallowing order: Routing Sequence I Date 1 I Sent to Local Government 1/18/2011 2 Review/Approved Local Government 3 Review/Approved UDOT Region Director(c/o UDOT PM) 4 Consultant Services 5 Sent to UDOT Comptroller 6 Review/Approved UDOT Comptroller 6of6 Revised 12-7-09 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: July 5,2011 SUBJECT: North Temple Blvd Special Assessment Area 600 W to Redwood Rd,street and pedestrian lighting improvements SAA Nos.LC-109017 and M-109018 Resolution to Accept the Bids and Authorize Execution of a Construction Contract AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: 1,2 and 3 STAFF REPORT BY: Jan Aramaki,Council Staff Member ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Department of Community and Economic Development AND CONTACT PERSON: Frank Gray,Director;John Naser,City Engineer; Ed Rutan,City Attorney FILE LOCATIONS: Community and Economic Development North Temple street and pedestrian lighting SAA Nos.LC-109017 and M-109018 POTENTIAL MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt a resolution conditionally accepting bids for purchasing of materials and construction work and,subject to approval of the City Engineer, authorizing execution of a construction contract with the apparent low bidder for construction of improvements within the Salt Lake City,Utah North Temple Boulevard Assessment Area No.LC-109017 and No.M-109018(the"North Temple Boulevard Assessment Area");(providing for the construction of capital lighting improvements in conjunction with the Utah Transit Authority and City downtown to Airport light rail line project,together with all other miscellaneous work necessary to complete said improvements in a proper and workmanlike manner (collectively,the"Improvements")as described in the Notice of Intention and related matters.) 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt a resolution. 1 NEW INFORMATION: On September 7,2010,the City Council adopted a resolution to designate an assessment area known as the North Temple Boulevard Assessment Area Nos.LC-109017 and M-109018. The next step is for the City Council to consider adopting a resolution to accept the bids and authorize the execution of a construction contract to the lowest bidder,Hidden Peak Electrical Company in the amount of$790,000,and to assign the contract to Utah Transit Authority(UTA) as the general contractor for all the improvements within SAA Nos.LC-109017 and M-109018. The Administration reports it is necessary to proceed with the installation of the street and pedestrian lighting improvements;otherwise,these improvements cannot be included in the project. Removal of existing curbs and sidewalks east of Redwood Road has begun. Within the next two months,installation of underground conduits and wire for the lights will begin with the anticipation that the installation of new light fixtures will begin in the spring/summer of 2012. The Administration states the bid of$790,000 for the installation of underground work is less than the original estimates and projects the cost of underground work has the potential to double if this work is done at a future date. North Temple Property Owners Association and two individual property owners have filed suit against the City claiming that the assessment area was invalid. The lawsuit hearing was originally scheduled for June 23,2011,but plaintiff's counsel has asked to have the hearing rescheduled for July 5,2011. Does the Council wish to have the Administration proceed with the work mentioned in the assessment area even though the lawsuit filed by the North Temple Property Owners Association and two individual property owners is pending? If the Council adopts the resolution to accept the bids and authorize the execution of the contract,work will proceed to install the improvements. If the lawsuit succeeds,the property owners will not be assessed as stated in the SAA and the City would be at risk of covering the property owners' share based on original cost estimates(which are known to be lower). Costs would be approximately$800,000 to$1 million. The Administration proposes if the City ends up covering the property owners'share,the existing contingency of approximately$1.2 million for • the North Temple Boulevard,could be used. CHRONOLOGY February 16, Council adopted a resolution for the Notice of Intention,SAA Nos.#LC- 2010 109015,M-109016 April 13,2010 Council protest hearing date was scheduled consisting of two components: 1) assessment area for Capital Assessments that included properties fronting North Temple,from 400 West to 2400 West;and 2)assessment area for operation and maintenance(O&M)that included properties fronting North Temple from 600 West to I-215. In order for the District to be created,the protest rate must be less than 50 percent of the total assessable cost(total lineal front footage)within the District. The City received 61 percent of written protests prior to the protest hearing taking place. Because of the high 2 opposition rate,the Administration revised the SAA and reduced the costs .�: through a redesign-cost savings from$185 to$140 per foot (one-time charge). The Administration restarted the process. April 20,2010 Because the previous effort to create an SAA failed,the Council adopted a resolution to repeal Resolution No. 13 of 2010,adopted on February 16,2010, SAA Nos. #LC-109015,M-109016 June 15,2010 The Administration restarts the process. Council adopted a resolution for the new revised SAA,Nos. LC-109017 and No. M-109018,and adopted a revised/new Notice of Intention- the scope of the "maintenance district" component of the SAA was reduced to only involve the irrigation and maintenance of the landscaping along the boulevard, as well as lighting maintenance (on-going assessment) Note: snow removal and sidewalk maintenance were not included as part of the revised SAA. July 13,2010 Protest hearing took place on the revised SAA proposal,Nos. LC-109017 and M-109018. A large percentage of protests,89 percent,came from property owners between Redwood Road and 2400 West. Forty-one percent of protests came from property owners between 600 West and Redwood Road; therefore,it was recommended to create an assessment area for only this section of North Temple. September 7,2010 A resolution was adopted by the City Council to designate/create the Assessment Area from 600 West to Redwood Road,Nos. LC-019017 and M- 109018. Upcoming action before the Council and the Council decides to proceed with this SAA: • Resolution appointing a Board of Equalization and setting the date for the Board of Equalization hearing. • Ordinance confirming the assessment rolls and levying assessments. • Resolution authorizing the issuance and providing the sale of bonds. Cc: David Everitt,Cindy Gust-Jenson,Frank Gray, Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Boyd Ferguson, John Naser,Jennifer Bruno,Bianca Shreeve, Dan Mule,Marina Scott,Garth Limburg, Susan Finlayson, Russell Weeks,City Council Liaisons, Mayor Liaisons 3