Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05/02/2006 - Minutes (2)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 2 , 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, May 2, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Soren Simonsen. Absent: Eric Jergensen Also in Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Rusty Vetter, Appointed Senior City Attorney; Sam Guevara, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; D. J. Baxter, Mayor' s Senior Advisor; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Sylvia Jones, Council Research & Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Roy Williams, Director of Airports; Jodi Howick, Airport Assistant Attorney; Russell Pack, Airport Administration Director; Gordon Hoskins, Chief Financial Officer; Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director; Brent Wilde, Community Development Deputy Director; Sarah Carroll, Preservation and Urban Design; Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Director/Community Planning; Kevin LoPiccolo, Manager/Zoning Administrator/Planning Programs, Supervisor, Preservation & Urban Design/Zoning Administrator; Jamey Knighton, Human Resource Director; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Susi Kontgis, Budget Analyst; Orion Goff, Building Official; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Policy Analyst; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Leigh von der Esch, Director of the Utah Department of Tourism; Dave Williams, Research Coordinator for the Utah Department of Tourism; and Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 : 32 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1 . 5: 35 : 44 PM (TENTATIVE) RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM LEIGH VOND DE ESCH, DIRECTOR OF THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM. Leigh von der Esch and Dave Williams briefed the Council with a tourism film of Utah. #2 . 6: 14 :56 PM INTERVIEW ROY WILLIAMS PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS . See Attachments , See Attachments 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 2 , 2006 Mr. Williams said security was a big issue for the Airport . He said providing security for an airport facility that had been designed before 911 had challenges . He said existing buildings could always be made better. He said as traffic increased, new plans for the future would be made . #3 . 8 : 08 : 18 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE REFINEMENT OF THE CITY' S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND PERMITTING PROCESS . (ONE-STOP SHOP) Louis Zunguze, Orion Goff and Sylvia Jones briefed the Council with the attached handout. #4 . 6:35: 18 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST TO ANNEX THE PROPERTY INCLUDED WITHIN THE PARLEY' S POINTE ANNEXATION PETITION, LOCATE IN THE VICINITY OF 2982 EAST BENCHMARK DRIVE (APPROXIMATELY 3000 EAST FROM 2100 SOUTH TO 2600 SOUTH) , ESTABLISH ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS ON THE PROPERTIES AND AMEND THE EAST BENCH COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN AND THE ARCADIA HEIGHTS/BENCHMARK/H ROCK SMALL AREA PLAN AND REZONING THE AREA UPON ITS ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-05-41 . (ITEM C-1) (ROMNEY LUMBER COMPANY AND ROBERT AND HONORA CARSON) See Attachments Doug Wheelwright, Alexander Ikefuna, Sarah Carroll, Kevin LoPiccolo, and Janice Jardine briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Buhler asked that Council staff write a motion for the annexation and the zoning of the Romney property. #5 . 7 : 58 : 58 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING TWO ORDINANCES AMENDING THE TENTS AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION SECTIONS OF THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE. (PETITION NO. 400-05-13) See Attachments Kevin LoPiccolo and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Christensen suggested that after a year of administering the ordinance the Council could look at the issue again. All Council Members present were in favor of moving the issue forward. #6 . 9: 11:26 PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE, TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 52-4-4 , 52-4-5 (1) (A) (iii) . Councilmember Love moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to enter into executive session, which motion carried, all members present voted aye . #7 . 9 : 08 : 31 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS . 06 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 2 , 2006 See File M 06-5 for announcements . The meeting adjourned at 9 : 11 p.m. Council Chair Chief Deputy City Recorder This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes for the City Council Work Session held May 2, 2006. cm 06 - 3 4, //z./®G 'OSS C."ROCKY"ANDERSON MT" r our o Rpo DA. a© f MAYOR �r'Ma OFFICE OF THE MAYOR April 24, zoo6 Chair Dave Buhler Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84"m Dear Chair Buhler: I request the City Council's consent to the appointment of Roy Williams to the position of Director of the Department of Airports. Mr. Williams has over twenty years of aviation experience and has held leadership positions with airports, airlines and aviation consulting firms. He most recently served as Director of Aviation at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport since March zoo'. Mr. Williams's experience includes serving as Director of Aviation for the Dayton, Ohio International Airport, directing airport operations in London and Bolivia for Airport Group International, a worldwide airport privatization company, and seven years as Regional Director of Properties for USAir. Before joining USAir, Mr. Williams practiced law in Salt Lake City with Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough, specializing in bankruptcy and commercial litigation. A copy of Mr. Williams's resume is attached for your review. Sincerely, oss rson Mayor 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.sicgov.com eRECYCLED PAPER Resume Roy A. Williams 404 Notre Dame Street,Apartment#5 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 (270)786-5755 (Messages) (270)786-2321 (Fax) rovawilliams(4ahoo.com Aviation • Adept at reaching win-win solutions between conflicting interests Industry • Airport management in both public and private sectors • Skilled at crisis management Experience Work History Airport Management New Orleans Executive Director of Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport Aviation Board (Armstrong). Report to a nine-member, multi jurisdictional Aviation Board appointed by the Mayor of New Orleans. First appointed during the term of Executive Director Mayor Marc Morial and continue to serve during the term of Mayor Ray Nagin. 2001 to date Prior to Hurricane Katrina, Armstrong served 170 passenger flights per day, with nearly 10 million annual passengers. The airport had a staff of 250 employees, an annual operating budget of$65+million and a$30+million capital budget. Armstrong has two air carrier runways and a 40-gate passenger terminal. The airport is not within New Orleans, but in two neighboring jurisdictions, the City of Kenner and Parish of St. Charles. Those jurisdictions play a significant role in providing services to, and in controlling development and land use at, the airport. Achievements to date include: Responding to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina On August 29, 2005 Hurricane Katrina passed over the New Orleans area. The airport experienced approximately$55 million in wind and rain damage, including total destruction of three buildings. The airport lost airfield lighting, most navigational aids, electric power (including many backup systems), water, and most telephone systems. Despite significant roof damage, much of the passenger terminal remained habitable. By August 30, floodwaters were rising in numerous areas of the region as a result of levee breaches and failures, and the absence of operational stormwater pumping systems. Floodwaters of 3-4 feet rose on airport grounds, but did not reach any active runway, taxiway or buildings —primarily as a result of drainage improvements implemented in 2003 and 2005. Despite these challenges, airport staff,Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) cooperated to clear the runway, establish interim security procedures and perimeter, and open the airport under visual flight rules; allowing the first relief plane to land on August 30. The airport built upon this basic capability and continued to reestablish systems and redefine its role to support the evacuation and recovery effort: - Reopened the major east-west runway which had been closed for more than six months for extensive rehabilitation and was not yet complete. - Supported helicopter evacuations -peaking at 3,400 operations per day. Roy A.Williams Page 2 New Orleans i!i - Improvised an emergency hospital in the terminal to facilitate evacuation of Aviation Board I New Orleans hospitals and treatment of rescued citizens. i11 - Provided necessities for up to 8,000 evacuees living in the terminal. Continued - Quickly reestablished utilities including re-activating a long closed water well and working with power crews to bring a hot electrical line 1/4 mile to terminal. - Implemented hand-screening of 30,000 plus outbound evacuees, their possessions and pets. - Hosted up to 5,000 military and civilian relief workers in the terminal and in tent cities on airport property while keeping the airfield operational. - Resumed scheduled air service on September 13,juggling relief efforts and uses of airport with scheduled carriers needs. - Managed transition from relief operation to fully functioning commercial aviation facility, including special cleaning of facilities used as hospital; temporary repairs of damaged concourses; and providing special assistance to airlines, such as interim ticket counters and obtaining crew hotel rooms. - Managed financial impact of Katrina by reducing the operating and capital budgets; laying off nearly 100 employees; defining the Federal aid required; educating bonding agencies and insurers on the true financial situation; and identifying private sources of temporary funding. - Implemented an innovative activity based rates and charges model to encourage the return of air service to pre-Katrina levels. Only landing fees and per passenger fees are assessed, no fixed rentals or other charges are imposed. Supported recovery effort by exempting relief flights and non-revenue (relief) passengers from all charges. Adapting to the post-September 11, 2001 world Pre-9/11 New Orleans passenger traffic was setting new records, and after 9/11 traffic declined less than the national average. In 2002 I determined New Orleans could not meet the December 2002 deadline for installing explosive detection systems utilizing the two standard TSA approaches: placing machines in existing ticket lobbies or in-line with baggage handling systems. Instead we implemented an alternative approach in less than 6 months, for a cost of less than$9M. Highlights included: - Re-balanced traffic loads in three separate ticket lobbies. Worked with the airlines to reconfigure or relocate operations of ten of fifteen passenger carriers, reconfigured all four security checkpoints, and placed TSA Explosive Detection Systems in three locations — standard ticket lobby pods, behind ticket counters, and in office areas adjacent to the curb for skycap-checked bags. - Facilitated the screening of curb-checked bags by reactivating a system of unused baggage conveyor belts and providing rooms for the TSA to screen curb-checked bags. Redesign encouraged passengers to use skycaps to check baggage and kept more than 25% of travelers and their baggage out of our crowded ticket lobbies. Building intergovernmental cooperation Historically Armstrong and its neighbors have had an acrimonious co-existence. I have sought to identify and implement areas of cooperation that would lead to an improved working relationship between the parties: - Enhanced flood control. Much of the airport and surrounding neighborhoods are below sea level. Working with two Levee Districts and the Army Corps of Roy A.Williams Page 3 New Orleans Engineers, an emergency repair was done to the on-airport levee in 2003. The Aviation Board 2005 runway project made this fix permanent and added a new flood control gate to the hurricane protection levee. Continued Hi ' - Implementing a cooperative economic development program with Kenner. Noise related buyouts in the 1990s generated 50+ acres of land suitable for reuse. Land owned by Kenner and land owned by the Airport can be combined to offer attractive parcels for redevelopment. Negotiated a cooperative endeavor agreement to solicit proposals for development. The first projects may be underway in 2006. - Corrected utility deficiencies. Kenner is bisected by Armstrong's East-West runway. Prior airport management would not allow Kenner to extend utilities under the runway. In 2003 a new water main was placed under the runway. The 2005 runway rehabilitation enhanced cross airport storm water systems. it Implementing organizational improvements - Won approval of the City Council to de-link airport staff salary levels from positions in the rest of the City organization. Hampered by pay levels substandard even for the New Orleans area, in 2001 the airport had more than 100 vacancies in permanent staff positions. After a year of effort, the City Council approved a new pay plan in May 2002. The new plan has enhanced retention and recruitment, including the hiring of professional experienced senior leaders; improved morale; and reduced reliance on outside consultants. Ii - Persuaded the City's Civil Service Commission to create more senior management positions. Concerned with creating non-Civil Service protected positions the Commission was initially opposed to adding Deputies for Security, Commercial Management, and Community Relations (in addition to existing Finance, Operations, and Planning Deputies). Each new position was filled with a recognized professional, selected through a nation-wide search. Negotiating a new comprehensive airport-airline Use and Lease Agreement The existing agreement was negotiated "in the newspaper" with much acrimony in the late 1990's. In August, 2005, the airport and airlines reached a new agreement, negotiated at the bargaining table, not in the media. The agreement will significantly reduce air carrier costs, incentify business-like airport development, and encourage new service and carriers. It will be put in place once passenger traffic again approaches the ten million annual passenger mark experienced pre- Hurricane Katrina. Improved public perception of Armstrong The citizens of New Orleans and the surrounding area had many negative impressions of the airport and its management. Worked to improve the perception of the airport as a good neighbor and service provider by: - Utilizing TV, radio and community organizations to get the message out. I host a monthly public television program that covers airport issues. Utilize radio interview shows and speaking engagements at civic organizations to further boost community opinion of the airport. - Routinely attend meetings of the relevant governmental bodies of the City and Parishes adjacent to the airport, even when no airport issues are on the agenda. I' Airport Facilities Enhancement it - $100 million rehabilitation of both runways. The capital plan existing in 2001 proposed to maintain both air carrier runways with continued patching and Roy A.Williams Page 4 filling, despite the 1970's era underlying pavement. I directed staff and IG consultants in the full and complete rehabilitation of both runways, bringing all signage, marking and lighting up to current standards, improving drainage to 1j eliminate existing standing water conditions, and adding/modifying exit ; taxiways to reduce aircraft runway dwell time. FAA supported program with multiple year grants for both runway rehabilitations. - Redirected planning for future terminal configuration. Prior plans assumed all four existing concourses would continue to be used, with minor renovations and expansions; and that most concessions would remain on the unsecured side of security checkpoints. In the aftermath of 9/11, these plans were extensively revised to include moving more concessions behind security and expanding our newest concourse to facilitate closure of the oldest concourse. Airport Group AGI (acquired by TBI plc) was a major worldwide airport privatization company. International,Inc. Directed airport operations on two continents while at AGI. At London Luton Airport I managed the transition from public to private management. Negotiated Director of Airports; leasing terms with low-fare carrier EasyJet, as they developed their hub at Luton. Regional Director- Participated in Luton partnership decisions regarding investment and management U.K.and Europe with AGI, Lockheed,Bechtel, and Lloyd's Bank. 1998 London,England, In Bolivia, I directed the management of the country's three largest airports. U.K.and Santa Cruz, Settled long-running dispute with National government regarding back taxes and Bolivia charges. Negotiated with Country's major airline,Lloyd, to resolve rate dispute. City of Dayton, Director of 140-employee depaitnient, with an annual operating budget of $20+ Ohio million and a $10+ million capital budget, managing two city owned airports. First appointed during the term of Mayor Clay Dixon, and continued to serve Director of Aviation during the term of Mayor Mike Turner. 1991- 1998 Dayton International Airport had approximately 100 passenger flights per day, serving 2.2 million annual passengers. As the primary hub for the Emery Worldwide cargo operation in the mid-1990s, it supported 100 daily cargo flights, ranking Dayton as the 10th busiest cargo airport in the United States. The two airports include land in or adjoining three counties, two metropolitan planning regions, four cities, and four townships. I routinely engaged these political bodies, and numerous related business, planning, and community organizations,to work cooperatively to support the airports. Achievements at Dayton included: Building intergovernmental cooperation - Led a task force of surrounding governments to enhance the road system serving the Emery hub. Emery and the Airport were working on growth initiatives at the airport, but needed the region to improve road access. I brought together a group of agencies to develop and implement enhancements that combined to significantly improve Emery's ground operations. - Implemented a multi jurisdictional compatible land use zoning district. Working with seventeen surrounding jurisdictions and agencies, agreed on a framework to keep residential uses away from current and future airport approach paths. In less noise-impacted areas, the zoning district required better sound insulation and central air conditioning in new residential construction. Roy A. Williams Page 5 ilk City of Dayton, 11 Resolving issues with labor unions Ohio 1 - Resolved a decade-long dispute regarding airport fire fighter pay parity, Continued r creating a supplement for those with paramedic certification. - Negotiated with the blue-collar union a 4, 10-hour day shift scheduling choice to enhance recruiting. 11 Negotiating a new comprehensive airport-airline Use and Lease Agreement Agreement placed the passenger and cargo carriers on an equal footing. Enhancing the capital stock while minimizing air carrier costs jf - Tapped numerous funding sources, including federal entitlement and discretionary aid, state and county economic development funds, PFC-backed bond borrowings, debt refinancings, and synthetic debt service reserves to improve the airport. Notable projects included 30+ acres of additional aircraft pavement and the rehabilitation of 50+acres of existing airfield pavement. - Built 13 acres of ramp in 59 days--at no incremental cost to Emery. Emery's Dayton hub was growing--more than doubling (25 to 60) their number of aircraft on the ground each night. Additional aircraft ramp was needed, but Emery could not do it themselves. Updated a mid-1970's Master Plan it The existing plan was not focused on cargo and in the 1990s cargo was the growing issue. The new master plan incorporated Emery's expansion and location on the north side of the airfield, proposing major runway and taxiway changes to allow aircraft in and out more quickly. Managing the effects of reduction of USAir and USAir Express flights from 133 to 42 per day with a broad array of initiatives, including: - Implemented aggressive marketing campaign to pursue replacement service in key business markets. - Twice obtained agreement from USAir to relinquish exclusive use of space in favor of new entrants (serving traditional USAir markets). - Consolidated facilities by mothballing one concourse and moving carriers to balance traffic demand on remaining concourses. - Creatively compensated for reduced cashflow by reducing staff through attrition, refinancing debt to lower debt service costs and enhancing concessions to increase non-airline revenue. 1998-2001 Airport Consulting Consulted with major U.S. airports on airline relations, development programs, and financial matters working for three leading aviation consulting fiiius: PB I Aviation and the John F. Brown Company both located in Cincinnati, Ohio, and 1 Airport Integrated Systems, Inc. (AIS) of Denver, Colorado. Analyzed, recommended and assisted in the negotiations of both compensatory and residual ! airport/airline agreements. Roy A.Williams Page 6 Airport-Airline Relationship Management US Airways I Represented USAir with airport operators, landlords, air carriers, the press, and (Formerly known as governmental agencies at 35 North American and European stations. Negotiated USAir) 1 initiation and expansion of service, acquisition of gates, terminal space and Regional Director- Properties ! support facilities, and financial relationships, including residual, compensatory, and hybrid rate-making methodologies. 1984 1991 Major accomplishments included: Arlington,Virginia - Responsible for European facilities, negotiating service startups at Frankfurt and Paris. Developed reservation centers in London and Frankfurt. Part of team that implemented code-share with Air France. Participated in London slot coordination meetings. - Developed facilities at Phoenix and Washington D.C. to accommodate USAir's mergers with PSA and Piedmont. Both facilities were critical to route integration plans and were developed on time and within budget. - Chaired airport-airline negotiating committees and developed business arrangements that permitted large capital programs to go forward, including the Washington airports (Reagan National and Dulles). r Practice of Law Jones,Waldo,Holbrook &McDonough Civil practice included bankruptcy and commercial matters. Assisted in the 1983 1981- 1984 bond issue that funded the development of the Western Airlines hub at Salt Lake Associate Attorney City International Airport. Salt Lake City,Utah Education 1977 A.B. (Economics) Harvard University 1981 J.D. Georgetown University Associations International Council 1994 Chair, Economic Committee International-North 1995-1998, 2004 Member, Board of Directors America 2005 Secretary/Treasurer 2006 Second Vice-Chair American Association 2002-2005 Chair, Environmental Services of Airport Executives Committee SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: April 21, 2006 SUBJECT: Refinement of the City's Development Review and Permitting Processes (One-Stop-Shop) STAFF REPORT BY: Sylvia Jones, Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Department of Community Development, Building Services AND CONTACT PERSON: and Licensing Division—Orion Goff, Director CC: KEY ELEMENTS: 1. In response to a recommendation by the Administration and authorization from the City Council,the Department of Community Development hired a consultant to analyze the City's development review and permitting processes. As part of this process, feedback was solicited from local developers, contractors and customers. 2. Based on the consultant's study,the following issues pose a challenge to development customers using the City's system: a. There is no single point of contact City during the review and approval process. b. There are differences between the City's plan review process and the private development community's plan review process. c. Customers must contact multiple divisions/departments at multiple locations, and the status of a project at a given moment in time is uncertain. d. Multiple sets of plans are required for the review process which causes confusion and increases project costs. e. Divisions reviewing the plans do not share information;therefore, comments regarding the project are not shared or coordinated. f. Comments from preliminary plan reviews are often inadequate or incomplete due to lack of basic initial information and lack of shared data. 3. The following goals have been identified to assist in the refinement of the current review process: a. Provide predictable plan review timeframes and results to all customers. b. Meet deadlines and resolve interdepartmental disagreements quickly. c. Create processes which allow flexibility for complex as well as simple projects. d. Coordinate all development review though a single point of contact. e. Review proposed changes with all departments and interested parties prior to adopting changes to regulations and ordinances relating to development. 4. Short term action items identified by the Division focus on making the flow of information and review process more transparent to customers. The Division has created a new plan review process called The Page 1 Coordinated Plans Review Team', to simplify the review process and provide a single point of contact. (Please refer to the flowchart in the Administration's transmittal entitled, `Coordinated Plan Review Process', which outlines the new process. 5. The Division will also develop an employee training program, including efforts to cross-train staff amongst the reviewing agencies. Building Services and Licensing staff indicated that any costs associated with training will be handled within their existing budget. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: 1. In response to recommendations from the consultant,the Division will pursue the creation of a citywide database in order to share information and plan review comments. The creation of the database will necessitate the purchase of computer software which will allow for timely updates, internet access for customers,and multiple report formats for development tracking. Commercial software estimates are being sought. The Division may also consider an in-house cost estimate provided by IMS. It is Council staffs understanding that this item will not appear in the Mayor's Recommended Budget, but may come to the Council during a FY 2006-07 budget opening as a one-time expense. The Council may wish to ask how long it may take to create an in-house program and how soon the program could be implemented, once it is created. The Council may also wish to ask about the time available for City staff to complete the task without negatively impacting other priorities given that the national standards indicate that the City staffing level in IMS is below average. 2. To assist with the implementation of a one-stop-shop for permitting,the Administration's transmittal indicates that the Division will be requesting 1 FTE,Development Project Coordinator and 1 FTE, Office Facilitator. It is Council staffs understanding that the Mayor's Recommended Budget will also include a request for 1 FTE,Fire Inspection Plan Reviewer and 1 FTE, Building Inspector II. 3. The Administration's transmittal indicates that Division will also request funds to reconfigure Room 215 to accommodate a one-stop-shop approach. It is Council staffs understanding that the remodel has been approved by the Building Conservancy Committee. Page 2 '-1•P R 0 4 2006 A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE :AT 21,2a_j % o 14�IMr►iF ROES C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Ross C. "Rocky"Anderson, Mayor D TE: Ap 14, 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Directo RE: Refinement of the City's Development Review and Permitting Processes STAFF CONTACTS: Orion Goff, Building Services & Licensing Director, at 535-6681 or orion.goff@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council schedule a briefing on the proposed revisions to the current plan review and permitting processes DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing BUDGET IMPACT: Funds have been requested as part of the Department of Community Development budget for FY06-07 DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: The City Council and Administration directed the Department of Community Development to analyze the City's development review and permitting processes and recommend reforms. In conjunction with a consultant,the Building Services& Licensing Division (BSL)conducted a thorough analysis of current preliminary and core plan review processes. A flowchart of the current process is provided in Attachment A. Feedback from developers, contractors, and other customers was solicited and incorporated in the Division's analysis. Analysis: Review of the current plan review and permitting processes identified key issues that challenge customers as they progress with development in Salt Lake City. The issues identified are: • No coordinated single point of contact for the development review and permitting of a project • No one person or agency responsible for the overall approval of a project • No way to track a project through the multi-Departmental review and permitting process • Phases of the City's development review processes do not closely align with the phases of the development community's development and design process 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7105 FAX: 001-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM ;% RECYCLED PAPER • Permitting and review processes require customers to contact multiple Divisions/ Departments in several locations; no one group or person seems to know the status of a project at any given. • Multiple sets of plans are required for reviews and to obtain permits, which increases project expense. • Reviewing entities within the City are confused about others' comments and review status. • Comments from preliminary plan reviews are often inadequate or incomplete, in part because Building Plan Review is not part of the Design Review Team (DRT)process. In response to the Division's analysis of the review and permitting processes, five main principles for reform were identified: • Predictability • Accountability • Flexibility • Efficiency • Transparency Specific goals to address these needs have been identified and a strategic action plan formulated. Goals for City development review and permitting reform are as follows: • Provide reasonably predictable timeframes and results to all parties. • Be accountable for meeting established timeframes and resolving interdepartmental disagreements expeditiously. • Create processes with enough flexibility to address the needs of small, simple projects as well as larger,more complex developments. • Coordinate all development-review related work through a single point of contact. • Review all proposed changes to development-review related ordinances and regulations with all involved City Departments and interested stakeholders prior to adoption. Discussion: In order to accomplish the goals outlined above, a plan for both immediate and long-term action has been outlined. Short term actions focus on resolving concerns with the flow of information throughout reviewing Departments/Divisions,making the review and permitting process more transparent to customers, and improving customer satisfaction. A new plan review process, called the Coordinated Plans Review Team, has been developed which will greatly simplify the City's process for customers by providing a single point of contact for review and permitting plan submittals. A flowchart outlining the new process is provided in Attachment B. Equally important is the creation of a Citywide database to share interdepartmental plan review comments; this step, however,will necessarily take a longer period of time to implement since computer software will have to be purchased in order to provide the necessary services of real- time updates, internet access for customers, and multiple report formats for development tracking. Recommendation: The Administration recommends implementing the following to address the immediate needs to improve review and permitting processes: Development Review&Permitting Processes Page 2 of 3 • Streamline current review processes • Compile existing review requirements into a single document available to the public in electronic and hardcopy formats • Develop an employee training program which includes cross-training between reviewing agencies' staffs • Hire a Project Coordinator and Office Facilitator to track and process plan reviews across disciplines • Reconfigure the space in Room 215 to accommodate a One-Stop-Shop approach to review and permitting processes • Begin research into the best solution for the long term goal of a Citywide database for plan review comments Please note that the resources necessary to hire the additional personnel and to reconfigure the space in the BSL office are included in the Community Development Department's requested budget for fiscal year 2006-2007. Development Review&Permitting Processes Page 3 of 3 Attachment A: Current Core Review Process Nm 0 '^ N C NCO € N> a / �� U M tO• - 2?Etia A / L '5 U m L C L Q V 3 8 Y / 03 Q CISc oUa Z p i _ Z to.0. Lil 0. ix U O Q8 c / co N � 12o p. C' N_cQ N'_ _....... C).N \ N O O ) Q ,\ E b d.\'# m N C ` O N c5 O N } al�- /U8 � l 0co V -O N co �' C C O) (a ` Cco a) II .N a) N .57 a) _TA a) U ar) E o 7 / / o N to U c o) a) m .E o 0. nc Z cam A m a / / / M w c u) / / / E o c _ p C c -c N— N O a-' p CO CO To' \ C N — > c@ a) Q. a co a) O za QQ z ; y ova E g 0 o -0V) o_ F— / V U co aCO I- / / 01) o o 7)4 I / U o 0 o m c y N c fa N O O •,-, - c 0_a) o O- cow a a / / / I / / o o cY scam a7 Z m_ ) a E a Ci — u F c a) �n Li Do \ co 0 o � as aci / ) 0N j1 / N c m CO - E o .� v 0 7 7 c.) .+ O o / / a) � 3 Ny a o IH � 00 JII €LL TO ,92 (,L - V a a / i Attachment B : Proposed Coordinated Plan Review Process . Coordinated to. Customer Plan Review Process Application March 20, 2006 y Project Facilitator V Screen Application V No Plans Complete Yes Project Coordinator/ Plans Examiner Permits Plan Review Complex/ Counter Adminstrator No Technical/ Technical Feedback Building Official Policitah Yes V V V Building Plans Planning Plans Fire Plans Public Utilities Engineering Plans Transportation Examiner Examiner Examiner Plans Examiner Examiner Plans Examiner V CPRT Meeting Chaired by Project Coordinator This database will be available on the City website Input into in the future Notes to Customer Shared Internal Database SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: April 28,2006 SUBJECT: Petition 400-05-41 —Romney/Carson—Parley's Pointe Annexation- request to annex property at approximately 2982 East Benchmark Drive and 2100 South to 2600 South (This action includes establishing zoning classifications on the property and amending applicable Master Plans.) AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted the annexation,zoning and master plan amendments will affect Council District 7 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Sarah Carroll,Principal Planner POTENTIAL MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance: a. Annexing approximately 406 acres of property at approximately 2982 Fast Benchmark Drive and 2100 South to 2600 South. `` - b. Amending the East Bench Community Master Plan and the Arcadia Heights,Benchmark and H Rock Small Area Plan. c. Zoning the properties within the annexation area Open Space OS,Natural Open Space NOS, Foothill Residential FR-2(Romney/Carson proposed subdivision),and Foothill Residential FR-3. (This option would address the issue discussed by the Council relating to application of the Open Space zoning classification to individually-owned properties on Lakeline Drive that are not part of the settlement agreement) 2. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance: a. Annexing approximately 406 acres of property at approximately 2982 East Benchmark Drive and 2100 South to 2600 South. b. Amending the East Bench Community Master Plan and the Arcadia Heights,Benchmark and H Rock Small Area Plan. c. Zoning the properties Foothill Residential FR-2, Open Space OS and Natural Open Space NOS. (This option would implement the Planning Commission recommendation.) 3. ["I move that the Council") Not adopt an ordinance: a. Annexing approximately 406 acres of property at approximately 2982 East Benchmark Drive and 2100 South to 2600 South, b. Amending the East Bench Community Master Plan and the Arcadia Heights,Benchmark and H Rock Small Area Plan,and c. Zoning the properties within the annexation area. 1 i WORK SESSION SUMMARY/NEW INFORMATION: New Information The Administration has provided additional information and a new prdinance that addresses application of the Open Space zoning classification to individually-owned properties on Lakeline Drive that are not part of the settlement agreement. This issue was discussed by the Council at the April 4, 2006 Work Session. Key points are noted below. Please see the Work Session summary below and the Administration's supplemental transmittal dated April 24,2006 for details. A. The Council requested that Planning staff contact the property owners to determine which zoning designation they would prefer for their properties. B. A letter was sent to each property owner and Planning staff also telephoned each property owner. a. One property owner requested the Open Space zoning classification. (Alan and Orlene Cohen, 2133 South Lakeline Drive) b. Two property owners requested the Foothill Residential FR-3 zoning classification. (Andrea and Louis Barrow,2119 South Lakeline Drive and Lynn Mabey/Axxon Investment Company, 2155 South Lakeline Drive) c. One property owner indicated that he would research the information further and either contact Planning staff or attend the hearing to state his preference. (Benjamin Buehner,2111 South Lakeline Drive) C. A new ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration that would zone the properties as requested by the property owners(Open Space OS and Foothill Residential FR-3). The Administration's transmittal notes that a decision has not been received from Mr. Buehner regarding his preference. The ordinance has been prepared to apply the Foothill Residential FR-3 zoning classification to his property in order to create amore unified zoning pattern. Work Session Summary At the Council Work Session on April 4, 2006,the Council discussed this issue with the Administration. Key elements are summarized below. A. Certain aspects of the settlement and annexation agreement and conditions in the ordinance relating to completion time frames. 1. Conditions specifically noted in the ordinance include subdivision approval from Salt Lake County and construction or bonding for the public and private portions of the roadway and corresponding utility lines. 2. The ordinance shall not become effective and the City Recorder is instructed not to record or publish the ordinance until the terms and conditions have been satisfied and certified by the Community Development and Public Utilities Directors. 3. The ordinance will become null and void if the conditions have not been satisfies with 2 years. B. Proposed application of the Open Space zoning classification to individually-owned properties on Lakeline Drive that are not part of the settlement agreement. The Council asked Planning staff to provide additional information to assist the Council in determining if it would be more reasonable to apply the Foothill Residential FR-3 zoning classification to the properties rather than the Open Space zoning classification. Issues discussed included: 1. Use of the Open Space zone has the potential to establish the expectation that this property will always be kept as open space. 2. Planning staff believes that the slopes on the properties exceed 30%which would prohibit development. ten. 3. One property owner formally requested the FR-3 zoning rather than OS in order to combine the parcels indicating that the property is currently their backyard. 2 4. Planning staff recommended that the property owner apply for a subdivision amendment and FR 3 zoning at a future date and that they submit slope analysis data at that time. 5. Council staff noted that rezoning the properties Foothill Residential FR-3 as part of the annexation request would eliminate a time consuming and costly process in the future for both the property owners and the City. C. On April 10, 2006,the Planning Division sent a letter to the property owners. Key elements from the letter are listed below. (please see the attached letter for details) 1. Planning staff has recommended the Open Space zoning classification for the properties: a. (based on)consideration of the perceived slopes on the properties,and b. to hinder the possibility of development as it is believed the slope may exceed 30% 2. One property owner has requested the Foothill Residential FR-3 zoning classification be applied to the affected property instead of the Open Space zoning. They anticipate trying to extend the buildable area to create an addition to the rear of the home. 3. Zoning the accessory parcels to FR-3 will likely cause the properties to be re-assessed by the County Assessor and may significantly increase the total property taxes(for the properties). 4. Requests a response from the property owners by April 20th indicating which zoning classification they prefer. (Open Space OS or Foothill Residential FR-3) The following information was provided previously for the Council Work Session on April 4,2006. It is provided again for your reference. KEY ELEMENTS: A. An ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration. Action required by the Council includes: 1. Annexation of approximately 406 acres of property at approximately 2982 Fast Benchmark Drive and 2100 South to 2600 South. • State law does not allow islands or peninsulas of unincorporated land to be created when an annexation occurs. Seven other parcels of land will also be annexed with this proposal. The exclusion of the properties would result in and island or peninsula. (Please see the Administration's transmittal letter for a list of the properties and owners and Annexation Plat,Exhibit 2 in the Planning staff report.) • The Romney/Carson property is being annexed as a result of a settlement agreement relating to a longstanding lawsuit between the property owners and Salt Lake City.The settlement agreement outlines specific terms under which the Romney/Carson property should be annexed into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City.(Please see item C below and the settlement agreement,Exhibit 1 in the Planning staff report for details.) 2. Amending the East Bench Community Master Plan and the Arcadia Heights,Benchmark and H Rock Small Area Plan. • The ordinance states"The East Bench Community Master Plan,the Arcadia Heights,Benchmark and H Rock Small Area Plan,which were previously adopted by the City Council,shall be and hereby are amended to allow limited,very low density, single family residential development in the area consisting of not more than 15 new lots all but one of which shall be located on a private street extending off the current terminus of Benchmark Drive, and not more than 4 new lots located on a public cul-de-sac extending from the current terminus of Scenic Drive." 3. Zoning the properties Foothill Residential(FR-2),Open Space(OS)and Natural Open Space(NOS). 3 • The Planning staff report notes: "Approximately 31.48 acres of the Romney/Carson property will be used for the development of 17 single-family home sites,with lot sizes ranging from approximately 0.43 to 1.51 acres in size. Planning staff recommends that the area proposed for subdivisions be zoned Foothill Residential(FR-2)zoning which is compatible with the abutting FR-3 zoned Benchmark Subdivision.The remainder of the Romney/Carson property is to be conveyed to an acceptable open space preservation entity for perpetual open space protection and planning staff is recommending Natural Open Space(NOS)zoning for this area. There are other privately owned properties that are included in this request for annexation and planning staff is recommending Open Space(OS)zoning for those properties." 4. The City Recorder is instructed not to record or publish the ordinance until the terms and conditions in the ordinance and the settlement agreement have been satisfied and certified by the Directors of the Community Development and Public Utilities Departments. The ordinance shall become null and void if the conditions have not been satisfied with two years of the date of the ordinance. B. The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report note that there are many positive gains for the community that will be realized following the completion of the requested annexation and zoning of this property including: 1. Final resolution to the legal dispute without cost damage to Salt Lake City. 2. Limited development. 3. The use of septic tanks will be eliminated because the City will provide sewer services. Septic tanks would jeopardize Salt Lake City drinking water and be damaging to down slope lot owners. 4. Trail access will be maintained through public easements. 5. Approximately 260 acres of land will be dedicated to perpetual open space and preserved through public ownership. 6. Increased protection against future development provided by the one foot holding strip and open space easements. 7. Salt Lake City's zoning,which includes special foothill regulations,will apply to all building permits and to all dwellings and will help reduce the off site visibility of additional development. C. The Planning staff report notes the following key elements from the settlement agreement: 1. Petition for Annexation: Romney/Carson shall file a renewed petition for annexation. 2. Annexation Ordinance: The City shall annex the Romney/Carson property, subject to the terms of the Agreement,within 120 days of receipt of a renewed annexation petition. 3. Costs: Romney/Carson have previously paid substantial planning and processing fees. Therefore,the City shall annex the property without additional charges. 4. Subdivision Approvals: Final plat approval of the Phase I subdivision(Extension off Benchmark Drive) shall be obtained from the County.The City sewer and storm water services shall not be available until the subdivision is annexed into the City. If the County refuses to grant approval of Phase I the litigation will continue. 5. Phase II Subdivision Approval and Annexation: Final plat approval of the Phase II subdivision (extension off Scenic Drive)approval may be obtained from the County or the City. 6. Roadways and Trails: A public cul-de-sac will be constructed at the end of Benchmark Drive and at the end of Scenic Drive. Lots 2-15 of Phase I will be accessed by a private road.A twenty foot public trail easement will be recorded with the final plat to allow pedestrian traffic access to the trails delineated in the settlement agreement. 7. Waterline Easement—Relocation: A waterline was constructed by the City in 1979. A portion of the waterline will be relocated to lie within the waterline easement. 8. Utilities: The City commits to provide water, sewer and storm drain services upon the completion of all applicable conditions of the Agreement. 4 9. Romney/Carson Open Space Donation: As a condition of annexation,Romney/Carson will sell or donate lots 14a, 14b,and 15 as well as Perpetual Open Space parcels A,B and C for preservation as undeveloped open space. 10. Protection against Further Foothills Development As a condition of annexation,Romney/Carson agrees to donate a one-foot strip of property around the perimeter of the property to Salt Lake City. 11. Common Area Open Space Parcels: There are common area open space parcels throughout the Phase I and Phase II subdivisions that will be part of the Home Owners Association. When the final plat is recorded Romney/Carson will grant a conservation easement to the City which requires the common areas to be maintained as perpetual open space. 12. Dismissal of the Litigation: Within 30 days following the recording of the subdivision plats and the City Council vote to annex,Romney/Carson shall file a stipulation for Dismissal of the Litigation.If the County does not grant final approval of the Phase I subdivision within 4 months of the execution of the Settlement Agreement,the Litigation shall continue and the Romney/Carson property will not be annexed. 13. Joint Cooperation: The City shall support the subdivision applications before the County and shall cooperate with the County in securing the required approvals. 14. Notice Recorded: The parties have executed a Notice of Settlement and Annexation Agreement which has been recorded against the Subject Property. 15. Agreement not to be used as Evidence: If this Agreement is not completed, it shall not be used for evidence for any other purposes in the Litigation. 16. Remedies: If the City fails to adopt an ordinance approving the annexation or the County fails to approve the Phase I subdivision and roadway,the Litigation shall continue. D. The public process included an open house and presentation to a joint meeting of the Arcadia Heights, Benchmark and H Rock Community Councils. 1. The Administration notes the Arcadia Heights/Benchmark Community Council did not take a position on the proposed annexation. 2. The Planning staff report notes: "Andrea and Louis Barrows own property that is included in the annexation area and have requested that their property be zoned FR-3,rather than OS, in order to combine parcels and create a rear addition to their home(Exhibit 8). Staff believes that the slopes on the one acre parcel that is owned by the Barrows mostly exceed 30%which would prohibit development. Staff recommends that the Barrows apply for a subdivision amendment and FR 3 zoning at a future date and that they submit slope analysis data at that time." E. The City's Fire,Police, and Public Utilities Departments and Transportation,Engineering,Building Services and Zoning Divisions have reviewed the proposed annexation and expressed support or no objections to the proposal. F. On November 9,2005,the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed annexation and master plan and zoning map amendments. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: BUDGET RELATED FACTS The proposed annexation may have a budget impact. The Council may wish to request information from the Administration regarding revenues and costs associated with this area and the net fiscal impact to the City if this property is to be annexed. This would maintain consistency with past practices and policy direction established by the Council in considering annexation requests.(The Council could request that the Administration provide cthe information by the Council's public hearing tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, May 2,2006.) MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: 5 A. The Administration's transmittal notes that there are several City master plans that apply to the proposed annexation area—the East Bench Community Master Plan,the Arcadia Heights,Benchmark and H Rock Small Area Plan,the Open Space Master Plan and the City's Master Annexation Policy Declaration. (As previously noted, amending the East Bench Community Master Plan and the Arcadia Heights, Benchmark and H Rock Small Area Plan is part of this petition.) B. Key references in the plans are noted below. 1. Arcadia Heights/Benchmark/H Rock Small Area Plan a. The boundaries of the Arcadia Heights,Benchmark&H Rock Small Area Plan(the"Arcadia Plan")are I-80 on the south,Foothill Drive on the west, 1700 South on the north,and the Wasatch National Forest on the east. b. Pages 3-4 New Foothill Development • Development restrictions on slopes equal to or greater than 30%-Recommendations include strict application of the City's Site Development Ordinance relating to interpretation of 30% slopes as well as all other foothill development standards. • Undevelopable land—Recommendations include acquisition,donation to a land trust, establishment of conservation or access easements,and not permitting undevelopable land to be included in calculating density or incorporated into individual building lots. c. Pages 5-6 Residential Density/Zoning Classification for Annexed Land • If additional development is considered, it should be very low density that does not impair the natural qualities of the area and preserves the maximum amount of open space. • Restrictions on development affecting slopes equal to or greater than 30% should be strictly enforced and interpreted according to written administrative policies established by the City. • Gated developments should be strongly discouraged. • The following policies should be taken into consideration when determining the zoning classification for properties which may be annexed in the future: 1. Lots should be a minimum of one half acre in size. 2. Not more than four additional lots should be permitted at the south end of Scenic Drive and not more than four additional lots should be permitted at the north end of Lakeline Drive. 3. New lots should be oriented to a new cul-de-sac or other terminus at the south end of Scenic Drive and to the existing cul-de-sac at the north end of Lakeline Drive. 4. All new lots should conform to the dimensional and height standards of the FR-2 Zone and to all established Foothill Development Standards. d. Pages 6-7 Utility Service—water, sewer and storm drainage • The developer should pay costs relating to increased impacts created by new development. • Water Service—Romney Property—This subdivision is located on the upper edge of the distribution zone. Water service can be provided to the second floor of a dwelling to a maximum elevation of 5190(USGS datum). Each lot will need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. New distribution eater lines will need to be installed as part of the subdivision development. Any habitable areas above elevation 5190 will require new pumping and reservoir facilities. (For planning and mapping purposes a ground or main floor elevation of 5175 (USGS datum) should be assumed.) • Sewer Service—Romney Property—Sewer lines from this development would be connected to existing sewer lines in Benchmark Subdivision. Downstream facilities appear to be adequate to handle this additional flow.. • Storm Drainage—Drainage system design for proposed subdivisions will need to comply with the City's Restricted Discharge Policy. This policy restricts discharge from a site to .2 cubic feet per second per acre for the 24-hour 100-year storm. e. Pages 7-8 AnnexationP, • It should continue to be the City's policy that municipal water and sewer service will not be provided to new developments unless they are located with the City. 6 f. Pages 11-12 Open Space&Recreation • Bonneville Shoreline Trail—continuation of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail from the top of Benchmark Drive south along the Lake Bonneville Bench to connect other foothill trail access points and the Parley's Crossing Project North Bridge. • Other trails—Recommendations include additional trail developments in this area from Benchmark Drive and Scenic Drive to provide foothill access points. • Open Space Preservation Strategies emphasize designating undevelopable land as open space, acquisition and preservation of critical areas,establishing conservation easements,donations or sales to a land trust or other public or non-profit organizations. g. Page 16 Public versus Private Streets • Require dedicated public streets in order to better integrate new developments into existing neighborhoods and preserve public access to public lands. • Streets should be designed recognizing specific soil and geologic conditions and constructed to mitigate any potential adverse conditions. 2. Open Space Master Plan-The Open Space Master Plan established four goals: conserve the natural environment;enhance open space amenities for all citizens;connect the various parts of the City to natural environments,and educate the citizens on proper use of open space. A section of the master plan relates to the Foothill Transitional Area,which it identifies as"the steeper slopes generally below the 5200 ft. elevation at the eastern and northern edges of the urbanized area." The master plan states that,"A major issue is the conservation of the natural environment for animal habitat,watershed and views." An implementation action identified by the master plan is that Salt Lake City,"establish the Open Space trust to receive and manage real property within the foothill transitional area." 3. East Bench Master Plan—The approximate boundaries of the East Bench Master Plan are the northern City limits on the north, 1700 South and Parleys Way on the south,the eastern City limits on the east and 1300 East on the west. The East Bench Master Plan section on Annexation and Foothill development states the planning goal to preserve the present unique beauty,environmental habitat, recreational use,and accessibility of the Wasatch foothills,and ensure city control over foothill development in the East Bench Community.Additional statements note: 1. Most undeveloped foothill property east of the City is under the jurisdiction of Salt Lake County. Development under County jurisdiction is possible but not likely. 2. Salt Lake City is the only government jurisdiction with the ability to provide urban services,and annexation is a vital first step in the development process. 3. The City should refuse to provide water or sewer services to accommodate development of property outside of City boundaries. 4. Areas that are undevelopable,from a geological standpoint,should be preserved as natural foothill open space. The City should work with the State and Federal governments to acquire privately- owned property for public open space and recreation purposes. 5. Slope is one of the most important factors in determining development potential. 6. The three areas that have development potential should be limited to a maximum density of 4 units per gross acre or less as physical conditions indicate. Single-family homes or planned-unit developments are recommended. 7. The City should plan to eventually accommodate development,expand regulations to encompass aesthetic considerations as the means of precluding development, or acquire the properties for public open space. 8. If property owners can document compliance with the site development and other applicable City ordinances,the community and City should expect to accommodate development proposals. C. State Code 10-2-403 regarding annexation requires that boundaries for annexation be drawn in the following manner: 1. To eliminate islands and peninsulas of territory that is not receiving municipal-type services; 7 2. To facilitate the consolidation of overlapping functions of local government; 3. To promote the efficient delivery of services; and 4. To encourage the equitable distribution of community resources and obligations. D. The Council's adopted growth policy states: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council that growth in Salt rake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. E. In the past,the Administration has provided the following information relating to the City's annexation policies: 1. The City does not have a citywide annexation policy. 2. Annexation policies have been developed based primarily on geographic locations and existing land uses. 3. Annexation policies are identified in the applicable master plans prepared for affected planning communities(i.e. East Bench, Sugar House,Northwest Community,Jordan River/Airport area, City Creek, etc.). 4. Annexation policies in the Sugar House Master Plan are significantly different from policies identified in the East Bench Master Plan. The Sugar House area is part of the older, fully developed portion of the City. The East Bench area contains underdeveloped areas of the foothills that are limited in development potential due to slope restriction and the cost of providing municipal services. F. Council staff has attached a synopsis of City annexation policies prepared for the Council's Annexation Subcommittee.The Synopsis includes a summary of: 1. The City's 1979 Annexation Policy Declaration 2. City Resolution No. 34 of 2000—Reaffirmation of 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration, and Declaration of Intent to annex areas served by the City's water system in the unincorporated Salt Lake County 3. Resolution 20 of 1982—Water Service provided outside the City limits 4. Existing Community Master Plans Annexation Policies 5. The 1999 Salt Lake County Feasibility Scenarios Reports 6. 1999 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Study 7. 2000 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Annexation Study G. The City's Comprehensive Housing Plan policy statements address a variety of housing issues including quality design,architectural designs compatible with neighborhoods,public and neighborhood participation and interaction, accommodating different types and intensities of residential developments,transit-oriented development,encouraging mixed-use developments, housing preservation,rehabilitation and replacement, zoning policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities. H. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly, convenient, and inviting, but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The documents emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive,friendly, safe environments. I. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image, neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. 8 • CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed annexation. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. • December 15,2005 Planning Open House • January 12,2006 Joint Arcadia Heights,Benchmark and H Rock Community Council meeting • January 17,2006 Annexation petition accepted by City Council • February 22, 2006 Planning Commission hearing • March 7,2006 Ordinance requested from City Attorney's office • March 21,2006 Ordinance received from City Attorney's office cc: Sam Guevara,Rocky Fluhart,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde,Alex Ikefuna,Doug Wheelwright,Cheri Coffey,Everett Joyce, Sarah Carroll,Jan Aramaki,Marge Harvey,, Jennifer Bruno,Barry Esham,Annette Daley,Gwen Springmeyer File Location: Community Development Dept.,Planning Division,Annexation,Romney/Carson, approximately 2982 East Benchmark Drive and 2100 South to 2600 South 9 APR 2 5 2006 '�` '�' A\ a O,.ilY(e0 Q.L JI L A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE ..-.. J .,� ��r`„.* ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR SUPPLEMENTAL CITY COUNCIL T N ' ITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer 1 AT : April 24, 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director 9 RE: Supplemental Transmittal for Petition No. 400-05-41 b, e 4t dumber Company and Robert and Honora Carson which is a req est to annex approximately 405.59 acres of land into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City regarding the zoning of properties which abut residential property on Lakeline Drive. STAFF CONTACTS: Sarah Carroll, Principal Planner, at 535-6260 or sarah.carroll@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider individual property owner zoning preferences and amend the ordinance exhibits as appropriate DOCUMENT TYPE: Supplemental Briefing BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: At the City Council briefing held on April 4, 2006, to discuss the annexation of 405.59 acres into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City, Council members requested that Planning staff contact the property owners listed below to determine which zoning designation these property owners would prefer for their individual properties, Open Space (OS) or Foothill Residential (FR-3). ��A z 1) 16-23-201-013, owned by Alan& Orlene Cohen I-Aar;. . 2) 16-23-201-014, owned by Alan& Orlene Cohen 3) 16-23-201-016, owned by Andrea& Louis Barrows 4) 16-23-201-017, owned by } Benjamin Buehner 5) 16-23-201-018 (partial), owned by Lynn Mabey 6) 16-23-201-019, owned by zA Axxon Investment SALT LAKE CITY, Comn4any(Lynn Mabey) a F <^` . =• - - . FAX: B01-535.6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM C) nccrceo Pnven Analysis: Each property owner was sent a letter(copy attached)with a request to respond by April 20, 2006 and each property owner was contacted by phone no later than April 18, 2006. The outcome of the zoning preference survey is as follows: • Alan Cohen requested that the buildable parts of his property(that of less than 30% slope)be zoned FR-3 and that the rest be zoned OS or if this is not possible that it all be zoned OS. • Andrea Barrows requested that her property be zoned FR-3, so that she can create a rear addition to her home. A letter was provided and is attached. • Benjamin Buehner said that he will research the information further and get back to us or will attend the City Council Hearing to state his preference. • Lynn Mabey stated that he would prefer the property to be zoned FR-3 because he owns a vacant parcel that is adjacent to the lot that his house is on and that also abuts the parcel that is being annexed. He would like to increase the buildable area of this parcel so that when the vacant lot is developed,the home can be set back farther from the street. Based upon the zoning preferences of the various owners of the residential lots that front on Lakeline Drive,which are currently in Salt Lake City's corporate limits and zoned Foothill Residential (FR-3), Planning staff has worked with the City Council staff and the City Attorney to prepare an alternate ordinance for City Council consideration, which adds a revised Exhibit"C"and a new Exhibit"D"to the original ordinance. The revised Exhibit"C"limits the zoning to Open Space (OS)to three parcels and the new Exhibit "D"would zone four parcels to Foothill Residential (FR-3), consistent with the zoning preferences of the contacted property owners. Since we have not received a decision from Benjamin Buehner, planning staff has provided exhibits that designate his property for FR-3 zoning in order to create a more unified zoning pattern. PUBLIC PROCESS Not Applicable to this supplemental transmittal. See prior transmittal for public process details. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Salt Lake City Ordinance: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 21A.50.050: "A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard."It does,however, list five standards which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property (Section 21A.50.050 A-E). The five Petition 400-05-41—Parley's Pointe Annexation—SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSMITTAL Page 2 of 3 standards are discussed in detail starting on page 6 of the Planning Commission Staff Report(see Attachment 5B). Utah State Code:Utah State Code Section 10-2 regulates requirements for annexations. Section 10-9a-204 and-205 regulates the requirements for noticing a general plan amendment and land use ordinance amendment. Notice of the requested Zoning Map and Master Plan amendments were published in the newspaper on February 8, 2006, meeting State Code noticing requirements. Section 10-9a-404, states that the Planning Commission must hold a Public Hearing to consider general plan amendments and that the legislative body may adopt or reject the proposed amendment either as proposed by the Planning Commission or after making any revision that the legislative body considers appropriate. Section 10-9a-503 states that the legislative body may not make any amendment unless the amendment was first submitted to the Planning Commission for its recommendation. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on February 22, 2006, to consider the Zoning Map and Master Plan amendments related to this petition and recommended approval of this petition as proposed. Attachments: Attachment 1 —Letter to Property Owners Attachment 2—Letter from Andrea Barrows Attachment 3 —Alternate Ordinance and Exhibits Petition 400-05-41 —Parley's Pointe Annexation—SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSMITTAL Page 3 of 3 Attachment 1 Letter to Property Owners ALEXANDER C. IKEFU NA ",+.,�`\ I tT,�y(C„�0._►_v�lo�e'�a©.Ir�I ROSS C. ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR L. JGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CHERI COFFEY, AICP DEPUTY PLANryI pGCdREL,r R006 Dear Respective Property Owners: Re: Petition No. 400-05-41, Parley's Pointe Annexation - Property that you own is in the process of being annexed into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City. The following list and map identifies which properties and property oN,N hers this letter is directed to: Sig. 1) 16-23-201-017, o\i tied by 1. III *� ` „w ; izi,- s 1;k',1; 1 Benjamin Buehner ii- "`l 2. _•= �' -. ,1 ,'�-1 2) 16 23 201 016, owned by ,r .12P Andrea & Louis Barrows t , d z 3) 16 23 201 013, owned by 1asrbtLl 1 '. AG t' :z' 1 „x„•, 'dEqi, — z_ < • Alan & Orlene Cohen { f> z ~#j _'7 } ,,i- s` ? ,`p 4) 16-23-201-014, owned by , � t$ ' � f Alan & Orlene Cohen t ` • r. `.' :: �... 5) 16-23-201-018 (partial). <` ., .f i �' � owned by Lynn Mabey • z! 4,;;;,,- ',.„,,'€ ': � ` 4':i'. ' 6) 16-23-201-019, owned by sF.•,<N,.4'l;r. li s g .1' w *.r tz'>& Axxon hlvestnlent . ^" t-4 4., - ,1 ,Y Company 4' Planning staff has recommended that your property be zoned Open Space (OS) zoning. At a City Council briefing, held on April 4, 2006, the City Council requested that planning staff contact each of you in order to obtain your comments about the proposed zoning designation that has been recommended for your land. The purpose of the Open Space (OS) zone is to preserve and protect areas of public and private open space and exert a greater level of control over any potential redevelopment of existing open space areas. This zone does not allow residential uses and limits fencing, vegetative planting and grading opportunities. Open Space (OS) zoning has been recommended in consideration of the perceived slopes on your properties and in order to hinder the possibility of development of our properties as it is believed that the slope of the land may exceed 30%. The Open Space (OS) zone allows the uses listed below, when the subject lot has frontage on a public street: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7902 FAX: 801-53S-6174 TDD: B01-535-6021 WWW.SLCGOV.COM ®nccrcco nnrea • Cemeteries and accessory crematoriums • Community and recreation centers • Pet Cemeteries • Country clubs • Golf courses • Natural open space and conservation areas • Nature preserves/conservation areas (public and private) • Public parks • Private recreational facilities • Zoological parks • Public or private utility buildings and structures • Public or private utility transmission wires, lines, pipes and poles The Arcadia Heights Subdivision lots which you own and on which your residences are built are currently within Salt Lake City's corporate limits and are zoned Foothill Residential (FR-3) instead of OS. At least one property owner has expressed an interest in having the abutting parcel zoned FR-3 instead of OS because they anticipate trying to extend the buildable area of the lot where the residence is located in order to create an addition to the rear of the home. Rezoning your accessory parcel to FR-3 will likely cause your property to be re-assessed by the County Assessor, and may significantly increase your total property taxes. Please identify which zoning designation you prefer and submit your comments regarding the proposed zoning, as it relates to your particular property, no later than April 20,2006, attn: Sarah Carroll at 451 South State Street Room 406, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 or via e-mail at sarah.carroll@slcgov.com. If you have any questions please call me at 535-6260. Thank you, C4c4.4-e-Q Sarah Carroll Principal Planner Attachment 2 Letter from Andrea Barrows Dear Salt Lake City Council Members and Staff, We would like to reiterate our position on Petition No. 400-05-41 Parley's Pointe Annexation, which includes our property at 2219 South Lakeline Dr(parcel 16-23-201- 016); we are in support of this proposal. Since our property will be rezoned we request that FR-3 zoning be placed on the parcel. This will allow us to combine our two parcels. Please refer to our letter sent to the Planning Commission in February. Unfortunately, we are unable to attend the City Council meeting due to our University of Utah obligations. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Andrea and Louis Barrows Attachment 3 Alternate Ordinance and Attachments SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Annexing the Property Included within the Parley's Pointe Annexation Petition, Amending the Applicab'), Master Plans, and Rezoning the Area upon its Annexation into the City) AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF SALT LAKE CITY TO INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 405.59 ACRES OF UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY INCLUDED WITHIN THE PARLEY'S POINTE ANNEXATION PETITION, LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF 2982 EAST BENCHMARK DRIVE (EAST OF APPROXIMATELY 3000 EAST AND FROM APPROXIMATELY 2100 SOUTH TO 2600 SOUTH), PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-05-41, AMENDING THE EAST BENCH COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN, THE ARCADIA HEIGHTS, BENCHMARK AND H-ROCK SMALL AREA MASTER PLAN, AND AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING MAP TO ZONE AND DESIGNATE THIS AREA AS FOOTHILL RESIDENTIAL (FR 2), FOOTHILL RESIDENTIAL (FR 3), OPEN SPACE (OS) AND NATURAL OPEN SPACE (NOS) UPON ITS ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has received Petition No. 400-05-41 (the "Petition"), Parley's Pointe Annexation, filed by the Romney Lumber Company and Robert and Honora Carson ("Romney/Carson")requesting the annexation of approximately 405.59 acres of unincorporated territory in Salt Lake County, which would extend the existing corporate limits of Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, the Petition is signed by the owners of a majority of the real property and the owners of more than one-third in value of all real property within the territory to be annexed as shown by the last assessment roles of Salt Lake County; and new lots all but one of which shall be located on a private street extending off the current terminus of Benchmark Drive, and not more than 4 new lots located on a public cul-de-sac extending from the current terminus of Scenic Drive. SECTION 3. Zoning. Portions of the property annexed, as more particularly described on Exhibit B(1), B(2) and B(3) attached hereto, shall be and hereby are designated and zoned as Natural Open Space (NOS). Portions of the property annexed, as more particularly described on Exhibit B(4), B(5), and B(6) attached hereto, shall be and hereby are designated and zoned Foothill Residential (FR-2). Portions of the property annexed, more particularly described on Exhibit C attached hereto, shall be and hereby are designated and zoned Open Space (OS). Portions of the property annexed, more particularly described on Exhibit D attached hereto, shall be and hereby are designated and zoned Foothill Residential (FR-3). The Salt Lake City Zoning Map, as previously adopted by the Salt Lake City Council, shall be and hereby is amended consistent with this Ordinance. SECTION 4. General Jurisdiction. All ordinances,jurisdictions, rules and obligations of, or pertaining to, Salt Lake City are hereby extended over, and made applicable and pertinent to the above annexed property; and the property shall hereafter be controlled and governed by the ordinances, rules, and regulations of Salt Lake City; provided however, that such City regulations shall not be interpreted to conflict with the validity of the approval by Salt Lake County of the Phase I Subdivision and the Phase I roadway as described in the Settlement and Annexation Agreement and as referenced in Section 6 of this ordinance. SECTION 5. Filings and Notices. Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, the City Recorder of Salt Lake City is hereby directed to file with the Salt Lake County Recorder, after 3 Recorder is instructed not to record or publish this Ordinance until the above-mentioned certifications have been received. SECTION 8. TIME. If the conditions set forth above have not been satisfied within two years following the date of this Ordinance, this Ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may, by resolution, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions set forth herein. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: 1:\Ordinance 06\Amending Parleys Pointe Annexation Petition-Apr 27,2006.doc 5 Exhibit "A" Annexation Boundary Annexation Boundary Description: Beginning at a point S89°41'10"E 130.00 along the North Section Line from the North Quarter Corner of Section 23, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; and running thence S89°41'10"E 597.28 feet along said North Section Line; thence S89°41'00"E 1918.94 feet to the Northwest Corner of Section 24, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; thence S00°03'00"W 1316.37 feet along the West Line to the Northwest Corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 24; thence East 1326.43 feet to the Northeast Corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 24; thence S00°02'12"W 392.81 feet along the East Line of the West Half of said Section 24 to the Northwesterly Line of the Gwennie Lode Mining No. 5048 Claim; thence S50°14'00"W 318.10 feet along said claim; thence S39°46'00"E 382.30 feet along said claim to said East Line; thence S00°02'12"W 2736.20 feet to the Northerly Right-of-Way Line of Interstate 80; thence the following eleven courses along said Northerly Right-of-Way Line: S85°53'00"W 446.28 feet; thence S86°31'00"W 108.50 feet; thence S85°44'00"W 109.02 feet; thence S76°18'00"W 176.62 feet; thence S72°59'00"W 146.72 feet; thence 67°44'00"W 403.96 feet; thence Westerly 687. 13 feet along the arc a 824.93 feet radius curve to the right, cord bears N88°24'15"W 687.13 feet; thence N64°32'30"W 1300.21 feet; thence N63°45'00"W 291.05 feet; thence N58°38'00"W 200.00 feet; thence N53°49'00"W 432.00 feet to the East Line of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 3483.18 feet along said East Line to Northeast Corner of Lot 609 of Arcadia Heights Plat F Subdivision, recorded as Entry No. 1840440 in Book Y at Page 39 in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder; thence the following three courses along the Easterly Boundary Line of said Arcadia Heights Plat F: N34°00'00"E 286.49 feet; thence N07°30'00'E 110.17 feet; thence N07°20'40"W 348.76 feet to the point of beginning, Contains 405.598 Acres. Excepting therefrom: Any part of the above described property lying within the Right-of-Way Limits of the Interstate 80. Exhibit "B" Romney/Carson Property Parcels 16-23-226-004-4001 and 16-23-226-004-4002 owned by Romney/Carson: The Romney/Carson property will be divided into separate parcels when the final plat of the proposed subdivision is recorded by the County. The legal descriptions for each of the recommended zones for the Romney/Carson property are identified below: 1) Perpetual Open Space, Parcel "A" as identified in the Settlement Agreement: Zoning: NOS Parcel Description: Beginning at a point which is S89°41'00"E 727.28 feet along the North Section Line from the North Quarter Corner of Section 23, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian and running thence S89°41'00"E 1918.93 feet along said North Line to the Northwester Corner of Section 24, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; thence S00°03'00"W 1316.24 feet along the West Line to the Northwest Corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 24; thence East 1326.43 feet to the Northeast Corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 24; thence S00°02'12"W 392.81 feet along the East Line of the West Half of said Section 24 to the Northwesterly Line of the Gwennie Lode Mining No. 5048 Claim; thence S50°14'00"W 318.10 feet along said claim; thence S39°46'00"E 382.30 feet along said claim to said East Line; thence S00°02'12"W 2736.20 feet along said East Line to the Northerly Right-of-Way Line of Interstate Highway 80; thence the following six courses along said Northerly Right-of-Way Line: S85°53'00"W 446.28 feet; thence S86°31'00"W 108.50 feet; thence S85°44'00"W 109.02 feet; thence S76°18'00"W 176.62 feet; thence S72°59'00"W 146.72 feet; thence S67°44'00"W 381.82 feet to the East Line of said Section 23; thence N00°03'00"E 2593.48 feet along said East Line to the East Quarter Corner of said Section 23; thence West 1322.12 feet to the West Line of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 23; thence SOO°01'30"W 995.43 feet; thence N45°28'41"W 258.83 feet; thence N57°08'44"W 256.20 feet; thence N89°17'51"W 363.54 feet; thence N48°37'21"W 102.28 feet; thence N24°52'02"W 191.04 feet; thence North 231.04 feet; thence N09°04'08"W 256.87 feet; thence N11°59'24"E 398.95 feet; thence N52°25'01"W 153.19 feet; thence N53°41'29"W 113.67 feet; thence N36°18'31"E 85.64 feet; thence N52°58'S7"W 352.64 feet to the Easterly Boundary Line of Benchmark Subdivision, recorded as Entry No. 3379920 in Book 79- 12 at Page 365 in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder; thence North 969.96 feet along said Easterly Boundary Line and the Easterly Boundary Line of Arcadia Heights Plat F Subdivision, recorded as Entry No. 1840440 in Book Y at Page 39 in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder to the Northeast Corner of Lot 610 of said Arcadia Heights Plat F Subdivision; thence East 193.35 feet; thence N12°30'00"W 220.80 feet; thence N07°30'00"E 222.34 feet; thence S89°41'10"E 421.15 feet; thence NOO°18'50"E 101.59 feet; thence S89°41'10"E 70.16 feet; thence NOO°18'50"E 85.23 feet; thence N89°41'10"W 11.46 feet; thence NOO°18'50"E 85.23 feet; thence S89°41'10"E 70.97 feet; thence NOO°18'50"E 73.46 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 273.63 Acres 2) Perpetual Open Space, Parcel "B" as identified in the Settlement Agreement: Zoning: NOS Boundary Description: Beginning at a point which is South 3797.25 feet along Section Line and East 642.46 feet from the North Quarter Corner of Section 23, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; and running thence N54°37'14"E 343.39 feet; thence Southeasterly 46.26 feet along the arc a 368.00 foot radius curve to the right, chord bears S49°16'30"E 46.23 feet; thence S46°13'51"W 106.10 feet; thence S08°36'36"E 164.32 feet; thence N57°49'39"E 118.56 feet; thence South 288.71 feet; thence S89°58'30"E 315.81 feet to the West Line of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 23; thence S00°01'30"W 18.91 feet; thence N89°58'30"W 382.62 feet; thence N43°34'31"W 430.20 feet; to the point of beginning. Contains 93959 square feet or 2.157 acres. 3) Perpetual Open Space, Parcel "C" as identified in the Settlement Agreement: Zoning: NOS Boundary Description: Beginning at a point which is South 3757.84 feet along Section Line and East 591.69 feet from the North Quarter Corner of Section 23, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; and running thence S52°10'55"E 64.27 feet; thence S43°34'31"E 430.20 feet; thence S89°58'30"E 382.62 feet to the West Line of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 23; thence S00°01'30"W 812.66 feet to the Northerly Right-of-Way Line of Interstate 80; thence the following four courses along said Northerly Right-of-Way Line: (1) N64°32'30"W 598.93 feet; (2) thence N63°45'00"W 291.05 feet; (3) thence N58°38'00"W 200.00 feet; (4) thence N53°49'00"W 268.20 feet; thence N41°43'24"E 690.39 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 16.55 Acres 4) Proposed Subdivision, Phase I, lots 1-13 as identified in the Settlement Agreement: Zoning: FR-2 Boundary Description: Beginning at a point which is South 1752.48 feet along Section Line from the North Quarter Corner of Section 23, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; and running thence S52°58'57"E 352.64 feet; thence S36°18'31"W 85.64 feet; thence S53°41'29"E 113.67 feet; thence S52°25'01"E 153.19 feet; thence S 11°59'24"W 398.95 feet; thence S09°04'08"E 256.87 feet; thence South 231.04 feet; thence S24°52'02"E 191.04 feet; thence S48°37'21"E 102.28 feet; thence S89°17'51"E 363.54 feet; thence S57°08'44"E 256.20 feet; thence S49°50'12"W 252.23 feet; thence Northwesterly 28.58 feet along the arc a 368.00 foot radius curve to the left, chord bears N50°39'06"W 28.57 feet; thence S54°37'14"W 343.39 feet; thence N52°10'55"W 64.27 feet; thence N52°10'55"W 130.67 feet; thence N53°00'55"W 611.50 feet to the Easterly Boundary Line of Benchmark Subdivision, recorded as Entry No. 3379920 in Book 79- 12 at Page 365 in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder; thence North 1557.37 feet along said Easterly Boundary Line to the point of beginning. Contains 19.68 Acres 5) Proposed Subdivision,Phase I, lots 14a, 14b and 15 as identified in the Settlement Agreement: Zoning: FR-2 Boundary Description: Beginning at a point which is South 3453.86 feet along Section Line and East 1137.28 feet from the North Quarter Corner of Section 23, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; and running thence S45°28'41"E 258.83 feet to the West Line of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 23; thence S00°01'30"W 454.83 feet; thence N89°58'30"W 315.81 feet; thence North 288.71 feet; thence S57°49'39"W 118.56 feet; thence N08°36'36"W 164.32 feet; thence N46°13'S 1"E 106.10 feet; thence Northwesterly 17.69 feet along the arc a 368.00 foot radius curve to the left, chord bears N47°03'02"W 17.68 feet; thence N49°50'12"E 252.23 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 4.61 Acres 6) Proposed Subdivision, Phase II, lots 1-4, as identified in the Settlement Agreement: Zoning: FR-2 Boundary Description: Beginning at a point which is South 3309.84 feet along Section Line from the North Quarter Corner of Section 23, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; and running thence S53°00'55"E 611.50 feet; thence S52°10'55"E 130.67 feet; thence S41°43'24"W 690.39 feet; thence N53°49'00"W 163.80 feet to the Section Line and the extension of the Easterly Boundary Line of Benchmark Subdivision, recorded as Entry No. 3379920 in Book 79-12 at Page 365 in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder; thence North 866.58 feet along Section Line to the point of beginning. Contains 7.19 Acres Exhibit "C" Three Other Properties, to be zoned OS The following parcels will be incorporated into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City and zoned as follows: 1) 16-23-201-013, owned by Alan & Orlene Cohen, to be zoned OS 2) 16-23-201-014, owned by Alan& Orlene Cohen, to be zoned OS 3) 16-23-400-001, owned by Jack Jensen and Intermountain Holding Company, to be zoned OS All 3 parcels: Zoning: OS Legal Descriptions for each parcel: 16-23-201-013, owned by Alan & Orlene Cohen: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST COR OF LOT 603, ARCADIA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, PLAT F, SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; S 89°41'10" EAST 516.82 FEET; SOUTH 00°8'50" WEST 85.23 FEET NORTH 89°41'l0" WEST 505.36 FEET; NORTH 07°20'40" WEST 86 FEET TO BEGINNING. 1 ACRE. 16-23-201-014, owned by Alan & Orlene Cohen BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 604, ARCADIA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, PLAT F, SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; SOUTH 89°41'10" EAST 435.20 FEET; S 00°EST8'50" W 101.69 FEET; NORTH 89°41'l0" WEST 421.53 FEET; NORTH 07°20'40" WEST 102.61 FEET TO BEGINNING. 1 ACRE. 16-23-400-001, owned by Jack Jensen and Intermountain Holding Company EAST 1/2 OF SOUTHEAST 1/4 SECTION 23 TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH RANGE 1 EAST SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN MER LESS STATE ROAD COMMISSION TRACT. 73 ACRES. Exhibit "D" Four Other Properties, to be zoned FR-3 The following parcels will be incorporated into the corporate limits of Salt Lake City and zoned as follows: 1) 16-23-201-016, owned by Andrea& Louis Barrows, to be zoned FR-3 2) 16-23-201-017, owned by Benjamin Buehner, to be zoned FR-3 3) 16-23-201-018 (partial), owned by Lynn Mabey, to be zoned FR-3 4) 16-23-201-019, owned by Axxon Investment Company, to be zoned FR-3 All 4 parcels: Zoning: FR-3 Legal Descriptions for each parcel: 16-23-201-016, owned by Andrea & Louis Barrows BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 602, ARCADIA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PLAT F, SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; SOUTH 89°41'10" EAST 516.82 FEET; SOUTH 00°18'50" WEST 85.23 FEET; NORTH 89°41'10" WEST 505.36 FEET; NORTH 07°20'40" WEST 86 FEET TO BEGINNING. 1 ACRE. 16-23-201-017, owned by Benjamin Buehner BEGINNING AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 601, ARCADIA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PLAT F SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; SOUTH 89°41'10" EAST 597.67 FEET; SOUTH 00°18'50" WEST 73.49 FEET; NORTH 89°41'10" WEST 587.79 FEET; NORTH 07°20'40" WEST 74.148 FEET TO BEGINNING. 1 ACRE. 16-23-201-018 (partial), owned by Lynn Mabey LOT 607, ARCADIA HEIGHTS PLAT F. ALSO BEGINNING AT MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 607; SOUTH 62° EAST 15.08 FEET; SOUTH 34° WEST 98.76 FEET; NORTH 54°45' WEST 15 FEET; NORTH 34° EAST 96.86 FEET TO BEGINNING. 16-23-201-019, owned by Axxon Investment Company BEGINNING SOUTH 89°41'10" EAST 130 FEET& SOUTH 7°20'40" EAST 348.755 FEET & SOUTH 7°30'WEST 110.172 FEET FROM NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH RANGE 1 EAST SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN; SOUTH 7°30' WEST 112.166 FEET; SOUTH 12°30' EAST 220.793 FEET; WEST 193.348 FEET TO WEST LINE OF EAST 1/2 OF SD SECTION 23; NORTH 89.26 FEET; NORTH 34° EAST 79.794 FEET; SOUTH 54°45' EAST 15 FEET; NORTH 34° EAST 98.76 FEET; NORTH 62° WEST 15.08 FEET; NORTH 34° EAST 109.831 FEET TO BEGINNING. 0.71 ACRES ..ems -it eg bSu"F P- sue., °' E:� 10E .ss` Ham° `-Eoo7s• as -'b°Lb g 4 _ £ o4:1Fu5EE` ® ' 4.. R tr2: :ale a'€$Nor -ti9 6-2 0 m `� V ;;p- FM1 $;CNLfoo� 33 Sn"5, „= rye ,�; Q $$g5°: -, z 2 s;Q-l'E';kr:fig`°= a $7w /y 8 8 ��� CC o .rx-W '▪• .zW Eay,g„ o Q xW, 3 !, J!\ S an Y fr a- Al gRni2i EtO 3 o Z 36 a ° e, m go�8z o9 �3�"-^�-° ' e8�3v€ m e$f h ,' . o 'i 1,49,Ls.€."y _ :-;_n "s F s� IF; W -- a.. & be^ Embbi4'2'_a ' e IL10 a =1m- ryss '°e= II! 1 e g o a L N- i 1 � �az �� _ tin: g IN �N�R 8'c4�� i W a s s S p I 5 w� S� S�'0m n o^ ig NE6i3 8�d1Sb 1� xa� _ a O ^ ' Rye a 4 I 66 g> o N se N flI1.4 C4 II \ --101#4‘,. ,eittt, ,.•• g ri; 1 41141 1111 .A.: ) a - :iii i ge }�s gm ° fiFg s � ` o li N Ii ig F X° 4' a I ig w Z i Sc c �E G 4. � f4\ N ent i fa ea p` a , 40 la ,,,I.y.h. g • Co) SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: May 2, 2006 SUBJECT: Petition No. 400-05-13 -A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend Chapter 21A.42.070(F),', pertaining to permitted temporary tents in the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance. STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno,Policy Analyst AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: City-wide ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: Community Development Department AND CONTACT PERSON: Kevin LoPiccolo,Zoning Administrator NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Newspaper advertisement and written notification to surrounding property owners 14 days prior to the Public Hearing BACKGROUND: On January 17,2006,the Council discussed the Administration's request to amend the zoning ordinance to allow any commercial business to use a tent as a temporary use in any zoning district. According to the Administration's previous transmittal,legal commercial businesses located in residential districts would be allowed to erect a temporary tent for no longer than 5 days if they went through the"special exception" process,requiring abutting property owner's approval. Council Members voiced approval at the proposed changes for allowing all businesses in commercial and special zoning districts to have temporary tents,but raised concern regarding the issue of tents for legal businesses in a residential district.Some voiced concern that the Administration's proposal of the"special exception" process was making it too difficult for legal businesses to obtain temporary tents. The Administration has therefore come back to the Council,with a revised document,aimed at alleviating these concerns and further refining the proposed changes to reflect the demand for temporary tents in the City. KEY ELEMENTS: A. The Administration's transmittal contains an ordinances for Council consideration that would amend section 21A.42.070,pertaining to permitted temporary uses of tents,to allow all businesses and organizations to request a permit to use a temporary tent in any zoning district,including residential,for up to 45 days per calendar year,and allowing all residential properties to use tents for a homeowner hosted function,for up to 15 days per calendar year. B. Currently,only businesses that are associated with outdoor sales can erect a temporary tent, and only in certain commercial districts. In residential districts,only residential homeowners are permitted to erect temporary tents,and are currently allowed only 5 days per calendar year. The following points summarize the proposed changes: 1 1. Businesses located in all commercial,manufacturing, downtown,and special purpose districts: The proposed ordinance would allow any business to erect a tent in any commercial,manufacturing, downtown and special purpose zoning district, for a maximum of 45 days per calendar year. The zoning administrator may approve tents or canopies for a business in these districts for up to 186 days, subject to approval or denial from the Development Review Team, and subject to receiving positive recommendation from the Transportation Division,Public Utilities, Business Licensing, Fire,Police, and Historic Landmark Commission. 2. Legal Business located in a residential district: The proposed ordinance would allow a legal business operating in a residential area to erect a temporary tent for up to 45 days per calendar year, provided that the application for the tent meets the parking requirements for the intended use,and is supported by a positive recommendation from the Transportation Division,Public Utilities,Business Licensing, Fire,and Police. If the business is located in a historic district or is an historic landmark site, the application must also be accompanied by a "Certificate of Appropriateness," issued by historic preservation staff. Tents larger than 200 square feet and canopies larger than 400 square feet must also have a fire department permit(for all zones). This process would not require abutting property owners' signatures. 3. Residential properties for a homeowner hosted function: Tents are permitted for no more than 15 days per calendar year,for personal home use or a homeowner hosted function. Tents larger than 200 square feet and canopies larger than 400 square feet must also have a fire department permit. The number of days permitted has been increased from 5 to 15. C. Key points from the Administration's transmittal include: 1. The amendment would allow any legal business,regardless of"outdoor sales," to request a permit for a temporary tent in any commercial, downtown, manufacturing or special purpose district, subject to the time limits and other regulations outlined in the ordinance. Previously only businesses that had"outdoor sales" could request a permit for a tent, and only in limited zoning districts: Downtown(D-1,D-2, D-3,D- 4), Manufacturing (M-1,M-2),General Commercial (CG), Public Lands (PL, PL 2), Business Park (BP), Research Park (RP),and Open Space (OS). i. The time,height,and area limitations are not proposed to be changed under the ordinance before the Council. 2. This amendment would allow legal businesses located in residential districts obtain a permit for a temporary tent,subject to positive recommendations from various City departments (see item above), and a certificate of appropriateness if applicable. 3. This amendment would allow tents for personal home use in residential districts to be erected up to 15 days per calendar year. Currently, tents are allowed for a period not longer than 5 days. 4. Approval of any tent,in any district and for any use,would be based on findings by the Zoning Administrator that: i. The parcel of land where the temporary use will be located is adequate in size; ii. There is adequate parking and traffic access, and iii. Additional conditions may be required by the City's Development Review Team to ensure that the temporary use will not have any material detrimental impact upon other properties. 5. Events that have previously not been able to use a tent (based on zoning or on the associated businesses not having outdoor sales) have included outdoor graduations, 2 • or temporary tents associated with the Salt Lake City Marathon in the Gateway Mixed Use (GMU) district. These events would be accommodated under the proposed ordinance changes. 6. Planning staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with adopted general plan policies,that it will allow tents to be harmonious with the overall character of existing development(through Development Review Team and Zoning Administrator process),minimizing adverse affects. D. City Departments and Divisions were contacted for their comments. Transportation, Building Services,Police,Fire,and Zoning Enforcement were all supportive of the proposed changes. E. An open house was held on June 16,2005. Community Councils were contacted but did not submit any comment regarding the proposed change. F. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 24,2005. The Commission voted,based on Planning Staff's findings,to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed ordinances. No public comment was heard at the public hearing. 1. Staff note: The Planning Commission hearing and recommendations were based on the Administration's initial proposal,that legal businesses in residential zoning districts be subject to a"special exception" process should they wish to erect a tent for up to 5 days. They have not officially weighed in on the current proposal. 2. One item discussed at the Planning Commission's previous hearing was preserving the balance between allowing a business in a residential district to erect a tent,and preserving the residential integrity of the area. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Salt Lake City Vision and Strategic Plan states the following goal relating to the proposed amendment: "Develop'business friendly' licensing and regulatory practices." B. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image,neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION/MATTERS AT ISSUE: A. The Council may wish to clarify with the Administration why the residential personal use tent time limit was increased from 5 days to 15 days. CHRONOLOGY: Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for a complete chronology of events relating to the proposed text amendment. • June 14,2005 Planning Commission initiates petition. • June 16,2005 Open House. • August 24,2005 Planning Commission public hearing. • September 14,2005 Ordinance received from City Attorney's office. • September 23,2005 Council Transmittal completed by project planner • November 8,2005 Transmittal received in City Council Office. 3 • January 17,2006 Original petition discussed in Council work session. • April 10, 2006 Revised transmittal received in City Council Office. cc: Rocky Fluhart,Sam Guevara,DJ Baxter,Alison McFarlane, Ed Butterfield,Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom,Louis Zunguze,Alexander Ikefuna, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Cheri Coffey, Kevin LoPiccolo,Orion Goff,Larry Butcher,Gwen Springmeyer, Annette Daley, Barry Esham, Marge Harvey,Jan Aramaki, Lehua Weaver,Sylvia Jones,Janice Jardine File Location: Community Development Dept.,Planning Division, Zoning Text Amendment, Tents and Special Exceptions, Planning Commission Request 4 APR 1 0 2006 A. LOUIS ZUNOUZE .�,;\ i!. �_\aJ "v JI!I %" .�►° ej�©.►J11 ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMMIITTAI,X7 TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer 1 DA,T�E: April 7,2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director RE: Petition 400-05-13 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commis 'on requesting an amendment to Chapter 21A.42.070(F)pertaining to permitte temporary tents in Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance STAFF CONTACTS: Kevin LoPiccolo, Zoning Administrator, at 535-6003 or kevin.lopiccolo@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: The Planning Commission initiated this petition in response to ongoing requests to install temporary tents for special events throughout the City. The City Council heard this request on January 17, 2006, and directed Staff to evaluate options that would better accommodate businesses in noncommercial zoning districts. The City Council suggested that Staff explore ways to make the process less burdensome and consider allowing more flexibility in terms of time limitation for tents associated with businesses in noncommercial zones. The proposed text amendment would allow businesses and organizations that are not associated with outdoor sales to hold special events under a tent in zoning districts that currently restrict the use of tents as a temporary use (e.g., a business college holding a graduation ceremony under a tent). Since the current ordinance regarding tents is zone specific and not use specific,the proposed amendment would provide flexibility for businesses and organizations that request a permit to use a tent as a temporary use in any zoning district, subject to time limits and other applicable regulations of the zoning district. Analysis: The proposed text amendment ordinance includes an ordinance amending Section 21A.42.070(F),pertaining to permitted temporary uses of tents. If approved, the proposed text 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 041 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801.535-7105 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM � necrc�eo anvea amendment would allow tents as a temporary use in all zoning districts, upon findings by the Zoning Administrator that: a. The parcel of land where the temporary use will be located is adequate in size; b. There is adequate parking and traffic access; and c. The applicant has agreed to comply with such other conditions as determined by the City's Development Review Team to ensure that the temporary use will not have any material detrimental impact upon other properties. As part of the proposed text amendment, Staff proposes the following changes to the current ordinance: • Allow tents as a temporary use for legally licensed businesses in all commercial, manufacturing, downtown, and special purpose zoning districts, restricted to a time limit of 45 days per calendar year. The Zoning Administrator may approve tents or canopies in these zoning districts for a period not to exceed 180 days per calendar year, subject to the review and approval of the Development Review Team. • Allow tents for legal non-residential uses located in residential zones to be permitted with a restricted time limit not to exceed 45 days per calendar year. • Tents for personal home use or homeowner-hosted functions shall be limited to a period of not more than 15 days per calendar year. • Require an Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness for tents in a historic district. PUBLIC PROCESS: The Planning Division held an Open House on June 16, 2005,to gather public input from citizens, businesses, and Community Councils. There were no public comments at the Open House. At the Public Hearing on August 24, 2005, the Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council to revise Section 21A.42.070, Permitted Temporary Uses. The City Council heard the original petition at a briefing on January 17, 2006, at which time they referred the matter back to the Planning Division for additional evaluation. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Section 21A.42.070(F)—Permitted Temporary Uses Zoning Text Amendment: Section 21A.10—General Application and Public Hearing Procedures Section 21A.50.050—Standards for General Amendments Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 21A.50.050. "A decision to amend the text Petition 400-05-13—Temporary uses of tents Page 2 of 3 of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does, however, list five standards,which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property(Section 21A.50.050 A-E). These standards were evaluated in the Planning Commission staff report and considered by the Planning Commission. Discussion and findings for these standards are found on pages 3-4 of the Planning Staff report in Attachment 5. Petition 400-05-13—Temporary uses of tents Page 3 of 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Chronology 2. Proposed Ordinance 3. City Council Hearing Notice A. Notice of City Council Hearing Newspaper Publication Draft B. Newspaper Publication Transmittal 4. Planning Commission Agenda for August 24, 2005 5. Staff Report for the August 24, 2005 Planning Commission meeting 6. Planning Commission minutes for August 24, 2005 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLGY • June 3, 2005 Notice for the June 16, 2005 Open House mailed • June 14, 2005 Petition Received • June 16, 2005 Petition assigned • June 16, 2005 Open House • June 22, 2005 Request Department Comments • August 9, 2005 Notices for the August 24, 2005 Planning Commission • August 24, 2005 Planning Commission Hearing • September 2, 2005 Ordinance requested from City Attorney • September 14, 2005 Ordinance received from City Attorney • September 23, 2005 City Council Transmittal completed by Project planner • January 17, 2006 City Council reviewed Petition and directed the Planning Staff to revise the proposed ordinance to allow greater flexibility for businesses in residential zoning districts • March 24, 2006 City Council Transmittal completed by project planner 2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending Permitted Temporary Uses of Tents in Section 21A.42.070(F)) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21A.42.070(F), SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO PERMITTED TEMPORARY USES OF TENTS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-05-13. WHEREAS, Section 21A.42.070(F) the Salt Lake City Code contains certain regulations regarding permitted temporary uses of tents; and WHEREAS, the current code does not allow the use of temporary tents in all zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the current code permits the use of temporary tents that are associated only with outdoor sales and restricts all other uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that Section 21A.42.070 should be amended to allow the use of tents in all zoning districts by businesses that are not associated with outdoor sales; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of Salt Lake City's general plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 21A.42.070, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to permitted temporary uses be, and the same hereby is, amended, in part, to read as follows: Section 21A.42.070 Permitted Temporary Uses: F. Tents: Tents smaller than two hundred (200) square feet and canopies smaller than four hundred (400) square feet, associated with a business that is legally licensed as a permanent business or a temporary business as outlined in this chapter, are permitted in all nonresidential districts. No tent shall be allowed to remain for a period of more than two (2) days longer than the period during which the use with which it is associated is allowed to remain, or a maximum of forty five (45) days, per calendar year. Tents larger than two hundred (200) square feet and canopies larger than four hundred(400) square feet, associated with a business that is legally licensed as a permanent business or a temporary business as outlined in this chapter, are permitted in all commercial, manufacturing, downtown and special purpose zoning districts. No tent shall be allowed to remain for a period of more than two (2) days longer than the period during which the use with which it is associated is allowed to remain, or a maximum of forty five (45) days, per calendar year. The zoning administrator may approve tents or canopies in the commercial, manufacturing, downtown and special purpose zoning districts for a period not to exceed one hundred eighty(180) days, per calendar year, subject to the review and approval or denial of the Development Review Team, if the tent or canopy also meets the parking requirements for the intended use and upon receiving a positive recommendation from the Salt Lake City Transportation Division, Public Utilities Department, Business Licensing Division, Fire Department, Police Department and Historic Landmark Commission (when located within a historic district or on a landmark site). 2 Unless waived by the zoning administrator, every tent shall comply with the bulk and yard requirements of the district in which it is located. Tents smaller than two hundred (200) square feet and canopies smaller than four hundred (400) square feet are permitted in all residential districts, without a permit, for personal home use or homeowner hosted function, for a period of not more than fifteen (15) days per calendar year. Tents larger than two hundred (200) square feet and canopies larger than four hundred (400) square feet are permitted in all residential districts, with a fire department permit, for personal home use, for a period of not more than fifteen (15) days. For legal business uses located in a residential district, tents or canopies may be allowed for a period not to exceed forty-five (45) days per calendar year, provided that the application for the tent or canopy also meets the parking requirements for the intended use and is supported by a positive recommendation from the Salt Lake City Transportation Division, Public Utilities Department, Business Licensing Division, Fire Department, and Police Department. In addition, when the tent or canopy is proposed to be located in a historic district or on a landmark site, the application must be accompanied by a certificate of appropriateness. For purposes of this regulation, "canopies" are defined as a tent structure that is open on more than seventy five percent (75%) of its sides. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. 3 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Salt APPROVED AS TO FORM City ttdtn s b ;E:c Date Q By (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: I:\Ordinance 06\Amending 21A.42.070(F)Permitted Temporary Uses of Tents-03-20-06 clean.doc 4 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending Permitted Temporary Uses of Tents in Section 21A.42.070(F)) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21A.42.070(F), SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO PERMITTED TEMPORARY USES OF TENTS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-05-13. WHEREAS, Section 21A.42.070(F) the Salt Lake City Code contains certain regulations regarding permitted temporary uses of tents; and WHEREAS, the current code does not allow the use of temporary tents in all zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the current code permits the use of temporary tents that are associated only with outdoor sales and restricts all other uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that Section 21A.42.070 should be amended to allow the use of tents in all zoning districts by businesses that are not associated with outdoor sales; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of Salt Lake City's general plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 21A.42.070, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to permitted temporary uses be, and the same hereby is, amended, in part, to read as follows: Section 21A.42.070 Permitted Temporary Uses: F. Tents: Tents smaller than two hundred (200) square feet and canopies smaller than four hundred (400) square feet, associated with outdoor sales from a business that is legally licensed as a permanent business or a temporary business as outlined in this chapter, are permitted in all nonresidential districts. No tent shall be allowed to remain for a period of more than two (2) days longer than the period during which the use with which it is associated is allowed to remain, or a maximum of forty five (45) days, per calendar year. Tents larger than two hundred (200) square feet and canopies larger than four hundred (400) square feet, associated with outdoor sales from a business that is legally licensed as a permanent business or a temporary business as outlined in this chapter, are permitted in all commercial, manufacturing, downtown and special purpose4D— D 2, D 3, D 4. M 1, M 2, CG, PL, PL 2, BP, RP and OS zoning districts. No tent shall be allowed to remain for a period of more than two (2) days longer than the period during which the use with which it is associated is allowed to remain, or a maximum of forty five (45) days, per calendar year. The zoning administrator may approve tents or canopies in the commercial, manufacturing, downtown and special purposeD 1, D 2, D 3, D 'l, M 1, M 2, CG, PL, PL 2, BP, RP zoning districts for a period not to exceed one hundred eighty(180) days, per calendar year, subject to the review and approval or denial of the Development Review Team, if the tent or canopy also meets the parking requirements for the intended use and upon receiving a positive recommendation from the Salt Lake City Ttransportation Ddivision, Ppublic Uutilities Ddepartment, Bbusiness Llicensing Ddivision, Ffire Ddepartment, Ppolice Ddepartment and Historic LTandmark Ceommission (when located within a historic district or on a landmark site). 2 Unless waived in writing by the zoning administrator, every tent shall comply with the bulk and yard requirements of the district in which it is located. Tents smaller than two hundred (200) square feet and canopies smaller than four hundred (400) square feet are permitted in all residential districts, without a permit, for personal home use or homeowner hosted function, for a period of not more than five (5)fifteen (15) days per calendar year. Tents larger than two hundred (200) square feet and canopies larger than four hundred (400) square feet are permitted in all residential districts, with a fire department permit, for personal home use, for a period of not more than live (5)fifteen (15) days. For legal business uses located in a residential district, tents or canopies may be allowed for a period not to exceed forty-five (45) days per calendar year, provided that the application for the tent or canopy also meets the parking requirements for the intended use and is supported by a positive recommendation from the Salt Lake City Transportation Division,Public Utilities Department, Business Licensing Division, Fire Department, and Police Department. In addition, when the tent or canopy is proposed to be located in a historic district or on a landmark site, the application must be accompanied by a certificate of appropriateness. For purposes of this regulation, "canopies" are defined as a tent structure that is open on more than seventy five percent (75%) of its sides. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. 3 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: I:\Ordinance 06\Amending 21 A.42.070(F)Permitted Temporary Uses of Tents-03-20-06 draft.doc 4 3. CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE A. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION DRAFT Posted By NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On , the Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing to consider petition number 400-05-13, a request by the Salt Lake City Council to amend the text of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Section 21 A.42.070F, (Tents) Permitted Temporary Uses and Chapter 21A.52.030, Special Exceptions (V). The City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition request. 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 and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal, please attend the meeting or call Mr. Kevin LoPiccolo at 801 535-6003, Monday through Friday. B. NEWPAPER PUBLICATION TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM To: Lynn Valdez Newspaper Corporation From: Salt Lake City Council's Office Re: SPECIAL NOTICES — 010— CLASSIFIED ADS Date: Please run the following ad, one time only, on , in both papers. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On , the Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing to consider petition number 400-05-13, a request by the Salt Lake City Council to amend the text of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Section 21.42.070F, (Tents) Permitted Temporary Uses and Section 21A.52.030, Special Exceptions (V). The public meeting of the City Council begins at , p.m. in Room City and County Building, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, call Mr. Kevin LoPiccolo at 801 525-6003 4. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR AUGUST 24, 2005 NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, August 24, 2005, at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR a. Update Petition 400-03-10 Shaw Homes, Inc. (R — 1/5,000 to CN) at approximately 1545 West 200 South Street and 1551 West 200 South Street. This petition, a rezone and master plan amendment, was originally heard on May 14, 2003. b. Discussion regarding LDS Church wards and parking needs in neighborhoods. c. Request for Planning Commission to create a petition to allow multi-family developments in commercial and downtown districts. d. Request for Planning Commission to create a petition to establish design guidelines for large retail uses. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA—Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters (Staff. Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769 or karryn.greenleaf@slcgov.com, Matt Williams at 535-6447 or matt.williams@slcgov.com, and Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178 or doug.wheelwright@slcgov.com) a. Cephalon, Inc. is expanding their operations within Salt Lake City and is seeking a Telecommunications Right- of-Way Permit at 4710 Wily Post Road to connect the communications between the buildings across the street. Plans call for a perpendicular street crossing with the six 4" ducts installed via trenching (street cut design has already been approved by the Development Review Team). 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Petition No.400-03-34, a request by Salt Lake City Council that the Planning Commission review additional refinement of the nonconforming use ordinance, looking specifically at guidelines and criteria to address neighborhood impacts and concerns relating to the enlargement and/or intensification of nonconforming uses. (Staff. Everett Joyce at 535-7930 or everett.joyce@slcgov.com). b. Petition No.410-584, from Salt Lake Apar' "' ' ' "" - previously approved planned development for the Emigration Court Apa POSTPONED m the block between 500 to 600 East and 300 to 400 South. (Staff. Doug Dan:.._ _. -__ _. c. Petition No.400-05-12, a request initiated by the Planning Commission to review the definition of "automobile" found in Section 21A.62.060 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, specifically considering the removal of the words"motor scooter"and"motorized bicycles" from the existing definition. (Staff- Kevin LoPiccolo at 535-6003 or kevin.lopiccolo@slcgov.com) a Petition No.400-05-13, a request initiated by the Planning Commission to comprehensively review all applicable regulations in the Zoning Ordinance that address the permitting of tents in both residential and commercial districts city wide. (Staff. Kevin LoPiccolo at 535-6003 orkevin.lopiccolo@slcgov.com) 5. STAFF REPORT FOR THE AUGUST 24, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 24, 2005 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Kevin LoPiccolo, Zoning Administrator RE: A request to amend Chapter 21A.42.070(F), Tents and Chapter 21A.52.030, Special Exceptions CASE#: 400-05-13 APPLICANT: Salt Lake City Administration STATUS OF APPLICANT: Salt Lake City Administration PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed text amendment will affect the placement of tents in all zoning districts, subject to the specific regulations and time limits, and to the other applicable regulations of the zoning district in which the use is permitted. The following temporary uses shall be permitted in the zoning districts specified, upon a finding by the Zoning Administrator that the parcel upon which the temporary use will be located is adequate in size, that there are adequate parking provisions and traffic access, and that the applicant has agreed to comply with such other conditions as the Zoning Administrator deems necessary to ensure that the temporary use will not have any material detrimental impact upon other properties: COUNCIL DISTRICT: All Council Districts REQUESTED ACTION: A request to amend Chapter 21A.42.070(F), Tents and Chapter 21A.52.030, Special Exceptions(V) Authorized found in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. PROPOSED USE(S): The proposed text amendment will allow tents in all zoning districts. The current 1 Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-05-13 ordinance restricts tents in which a business is not associated with outdoor sales. The text amendment will also allow business uses a tent within a residential zoning district through a special exception. APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: The proposed change modifies the text associated with Chapter 21A.42.070, Permitted Temporary Uses and Chapter 21A.52.030(V), Special Exceptions Authorized. MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: The Salt Lake City Vision and Strategic Plan apply to this proposed text amendment: 20.0: Develop "business friendly"licensing and regulatory practices. PROJECT DISCRIPTION: The proposed text amendment will allow businesses that are not associated with outdoor sales the use of a temporary tent in all zoning districts. The current ordinance allows temporary tents in the majority of zoning districts,but does not afford all commercial, special districts and business uses within a residential zoning district the use of a temporary tent. COMMENTS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: COMMENTS Comments from City Departments and Community Council(s): a) Transportation does not have any objections to the proposed text amendment. All issues with access and parking shall remain. b) Public Utilities did not respond to the requests for comments. c) Building Services expressed no opposition to the proposed text change. d) Police expressed no opposition to the proposed text change. e) Engineering did not respond to the requests for comments. f) Fire did not respond to the requests for comments. g) Zoning Enforcement does not have any objections to the proposed text amendment. h) Community Council(s): The Planning Division held an Open House for Community Councils and interested parties on June 16, 2005. Only City staff attended. Planning Division Staff did not receive any comments from any of the respective Community Councils on the proposed text change. ANALYSIS 2 Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-05-13 The purpose of the text amendment is to allow tents as temporary uses as defined in Chapter 21A.42.070 in all zoning districts. The current temporary use ordinance does not afford all zoning districts the use of tents as a temporary use. The current ordinance permits temporary tents for businesses that are associated with outdoor sales, but restricts all other businesses the opportunity to apply for a temporary tent to hold a function, such as, outdoor graduation for a business college, or to allow temporary tents within the GMU district to accommodate the Salt Lake City marathon that may be used as a water fueling station. The revised ordinance would permit tents as a temporary use in all zoning districts and would recognize legal non-residential uses that are located in residential zones, through an approval of a special exception. The proposed text amendment is as follows: • Allow temporary tents in all zoning districts that are associated with a legal business. • To allow tents as a temporary use for business use located in residential districts. The proposed time limit is five (5) days per calendar year and would require an approval of a special exception. FINDINGS Issues that are being generated by this proposal. Since the request is a modification of the zoning text, the Planning Commission shall review the proposed text amendment change and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission shall use the following standards: CODE CRITERIA/DISCUSSION/FINDINGS OF FACT 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: The proposed text amendment is consistent with standard in the Salt Lake City Vision and Strategic Plan, stating that the City seeks to "develop `business friendly' licensing and regulatory practices." The revision to the current Permitted Temporary Uses and Special Exceptions Authorization will permit the use of temporary tents in all zoning districts. Findings: The proposed rezone is consistent with Master Plan policies. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The text amendment is intended to allow tents in all zoning districts 3 Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-05-13 that currently do not recognize a tent as a permitted temporary use or special exception. Findings: The proposed text amendment meets this standard. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The proposed text amendment is intended to allow under a permitted temporary use or special exception the use of a tent, subject to approval and specified time limit. Findings: The proposed text amendment is intended to protect adjacent properties and provides a notification process to adjacent property owner's that are located in a residential zoning district through a special exception process. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The proposed text amendment is not site specific, but would be all inclusive to the underlying zoning districts and would be consistent with applicable zoning district, subject to meeting applicable standards. Findings: The proposed text amendment meets this standard. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: The proposal is not site specific. All requests for tents would be reviewed to ensure compliance with City Codes and policies. Findings: All pertinent City Departments will review tent request through the permit process to ensure adequacy of public facilities and a services. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed text amendment. Attachments: Exhibit 1 —Proposed Ordinance(s) Exhibit 2—Memorandum &Open House Notification Exhibit 3 —Department Comments 4 Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-05-13 Exhibit 1 Proposed Ordinance Chapter 21 A.42.070(F) Permitted Temporary Uses F. Tents: Tents smaller than two hundred (200) square feet and canopies smaller than four hundred (400) square feet, associated with outdoor sales a business that is legally licensed as a permanent business or a temporary business as outlined in this chapter, are permitted in all nonresidential districts. No tent shall be allowed to remain for a period of more than two (2) days longer than the period during which the use with which it is associated is allowed to remain, or a maximum of forty five (45) days, per calendar year. Tents larger than two hundred (200) square feet and canopies larger than four hundred (400) square feet, associated with outdoor sales a business that is legally licensed as a permanent business or a temporary business as outlined in this chapter, are permitted in all commercial,manufacturing, downtoown ng and s specialcts. puorpose D1, , � shall be allowed to remain for a period of more than two (2) days longer than the period during which the use with which it is associated is allowed to remain, or a maximum of forty five (45) days, per calendar year. The zoning administrator may approve tents or canopies in the commercial, manufacturing, downtown and special purpose D 1, D 2, D 3, D I, M 1, M 2, CG, PL, PL 2, BP, RP zoning districts for a period not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days, per calendar year, subject to the review and approval or denial of the Development Review Team, if the tent or canopy also meets the parking requirements for the intended use and upon receiving a positive recommendation from the Salt Lake City transportation division, public utilities department,business licensing division, fire department, police department and historic landmark commission (when located within a historic district or on a landmark site). Unless waived in writing by the zoning administrator, every tent shall comply with the bulk and yard requirements of the district in which it is located. Tents smaller than two hundred (200) square feet and canopies smaller than four hundred (400) square feet are permitted in all residential districts, without a permit, for personal home use or homeowner hosted function, for a period of not more than five (5) days per calendar year. Tents larger than two hundred (200) square feet and canopies larger than four hundred (400) square feet are permitted in all residential districts, with a fire department permit, for personal home use, for a period of not more than five (5) days. For legal business uses located in a residential district, tents or canopies may be allowed for a period not to exceed five (5) days,per calendar year, subject to a Special Exception, Section 21A.52.030, Special Exceptions Authorized, provided the tent or canopy also meets the parking requirements for the intended use and upon receiving a positive recommendation from the Salt Lake City transportation division, public utilities department,business licensing division, fire department,police department and historic landmark commission (when located within a historic district or on a landmark site). For purposes of this regulation, "canopies" are defined as a tent structure that is open on more than seventy five percent (75%) of its sides. 21A.52.030 Special Exceptions Authorized: In addition to any other special exceptions authorized elsewhere in this title, the following special exceptions are authorized under the provisions of this title: A. Additional fence height (subsection 21A.52.100A of this chapter); B. Additional height in commercial districts (subsection 21A.52.100G of this chapter); C. Additional building height in foothills districts (subsection 21A.24.01002 of this title); D. Alternative parking (section 21 A.44.030 of this title); E. Amusement devices (section 21 A.40.110 of this title); F. Barbed wire fences (subsection 21 A.40.120G of this title); G. Circular driveways (subsection 21 A.44.020F7d of this title); H. Conditional home occupations (subsection 21A.36.030D of this title); I. Handicapped access (subsection 21A.52.1000 of this chapter); J. Amateur("ham") radio antennas (subsection 21A.40.090D of this title); K. Hobby shops, studios and other noncommercial uses in accessory structures (subsection 21 A.52.l 00D of this chapter); L. Legalization of excess dwelling units (subsection 21A.52.100E of this chapter); M. Modifications to maximum height in commercial districts (subsection 21A.26.010J of this title); N. Operation of registered home daycare or registered home preschool facility in residential districts (subsection 21A.36.130B of this title); O. Outdoor dining in required yard areas (subsection 21A.52.100F of this chapter); P. Razor wire (subsection 21A.40.120H of this title); Q. Signs for nonconforming business in the RMF-35, RMF-45, RMF-75 districts (sections 21A.46.080 and 21A.46.140 of this title); R. Front yard parking (subsection 21A.44.050A of this title); S. Routine and uncontested matters (part II, chapter 21A.14 of this title); T. Window mounted refrigerated air conditioners and evaporative "swamp" coolers located less than two feet (2') from a lot line (table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required Yards", of this title and subsection 21 A.52.100H of this chapter); and U. Ground mounted central air conditioning compressors or systems, heating, ventilating, pool and filtering equipment located less than four feet (4') from a lot line (table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required Yards", of this title and subsection 21 A.52.100I of this chapter). (Ord. 59-02 §§ 2, 3, 2002: Ord. 12-01 § 2, 2001: Ord. 35-99 §§ 91-93, 1999: Ord. 88-95 § 1 (Exh. A), 1995: Ord. 26-95 § 2(26-2), 1995) V. Tents,business uses within a residential district(subsection 21A.42.070, Permitted Temporary Uses of this title). Exhibit 2 Memorandum & Open House Notification MEMORANDUM DATE: May 18, 2005 TO: Mayor's Office FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Temporary Uses "Tents" The Mayor's office is requesting the initiation of a Petition to allow tents as a temporary use in all Commercial, Downtown, Special Districts, Gateway District and the Overlay Districts. Section 21A.42.070 (F) allows tents as temporary uses, but restricts tents to be permitted in defined zoning districts. Staff is requesting that tents be allowed in the districts that are mentioned above which will provide an opportunity for all businesses to have tents as a temporary use. As part of this request, Staff is requesting the elimination of square footage for tents. To that end, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission initiate the requested petition. Should you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. CC: Brent Wilde, Deputy Community Development Director Orion Goff, Building Services Director Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director Larry Butcher, Development Review Supervisor Kevin LoPiccolo, Zoning Administrator June 3, 2005 NOTICE OF OPEN HOUSE The Salt Lake City Planning Commission has initiated two petitions requesting the modification of Chapter 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Zoning ordinance addressing the definition of Automobiles. This request would remove the words motor scooters and motorized bicycles from the existing definition. The second petition would amend the existing language found in Chapter 21A.42.070 (F) under Temporary Uses, to allow tents in all zoning commercial and residential districts. The Planning Staff would like to receive your input regarding this proposal and invites you to a public open house: Thursday, June 16, 2005 Salt Lake City & County Building 451 South State Street Room 126 Conference Room Between the hours of 4:30 and 6:30 p.m. Since it is very difficult for us to inform all interested parties about this request, we would appreciate you discussing this matter with your neighbors and informing them of the open house. If you have any questions on this issue, please call Kevin LoPiccolo at 801 535- 6003 or email kevin.lopiccolo@slcgov.com Sincerely, Kevin LoPiccolo Zoning Administrator We comply with all ADA guidelines. Assistance listening devices and interpreter services provided upon 24-hour advance request. Exhibit 3 Department Comments Page lots LoPiccolo, Kevin From: Walsh, Barry Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 11:43 AM To: LoPiccolo, Kevin Cc: Young, Kevin; Smith, Craig; Butcher, Larry Subject: RE: Petitions Categories: Program/Policy June 22, 2005 Kevin LoPiccolo, Planning Re: Petition No.??? to change the zoning text to address definition of Automobile and Temporary Uses (Tents). The transportation Division review comments and recommendation per our review of the text change (see attached sections) poses no impact to the public transportation. All issues with access and parking remain. Sincerely, Barry Walsh, Cc Kevin Young, P.E. Craig Smith, Engineering Larry Butcher, Permits file MEMORANDUM Date: June 10, 2005 From: Kevin LoPiccolo, Zoning Administrator To: Melanie Reif, City Attorney Office Craig Smith, Engineering Brad Larson, Fire Larry Butcher, Permits Brad Stewart, Public Utilities Barry Walsh, Transportation Craig Spangenberg, Zoning Enforcement J.R. Smith, Police (City Wide) Re: Two Petitions for definition of Automobile and Temporary Uses (Tents) The Salt Lake City Planning Commission has initiated two petitions requesting the modification of Chapter 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Zoning ordinance addressing the definition of 8/14/2005 Page 1 of LOPiccolo, Kevin From: Butcher, Larry Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:03 PM To: LoPiccolo, Kevin Cc: Goff, Orion Subject: RE: Petitions Categories: Program/Policy Kevin: Thoughts: Does the industry make any distinction between motor scooters and motorcycles? If there is one, it might abate future arguments. Tents in commercial districts: The outdoor sales language is specific and does not address all functions under which a tent may be used. Suggest removing the outdoors sales language. Tents approved for 180 days should go to DRT. Suggest tying in the use time frame with the permitted temporary uses A thru D. Then allow for tents or canopies associated with permitted uses in the nonresidential districts (outdoor sales, outdoor dining, etc.) to be approved for up to 180 days with DRT review. Too broad? Tents in residential districts: Of course, we need to include the existing legal non-residential uses in the residential zones. Non-residential uses may need a use time frame greater than 5 days. Maybe a 180 day time frame with Special Exception OK. From: LoPiccolo, Kevin Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 5:02 PM To: Reif, Melanie; Smith, Craig; Larson, Bradley; Butcher, Larry; Stewart, Brad; Walsh, Barry; Spangenberg, Craig; Smith, JR Subject: Petitions Hello: Please see attachment. The Planning Commission has directed the Planning Staff to work on two petitions that will address Temporary Uses for Tents in all zoning districts and redefining the word automobile in Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Please provide any comments to the proposed petitions by June 24, 2005. Thanks, Kevin LoPiccolo Zoning Administrator 6/16/2005 6. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR AUGUST 24, 2005 Petition No. 400-05-13, a request initiated by the Planning Commission to comprehensively review all applicable regulations in the Zoning Ordinance that address the permitting of tents in both residential and commercial districts city wide At 6:15 P.M. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition Number 400-05-13 and Kevin LoPiccolo, Zoning Administrator. Mr. LoPiccolo stated that this was a request generated last May. Staff held an open house June 16, 2004. This petition affects Chapter 42, "Temporary Uses", and Chapter 52, "Special Exceptions" of the zoning ordinance. The changes that have been modified are reflected in the Staff Report. As proposed, this change allows the use of temporary tents to be more inclusive and recognizes all commercial, manufacturing and special purpose districts to allow the use of tents under a temporary use. As part of the requested changes to the Temporary Uses, Mr. LoPiccolo stated that the proposed language change included businesses located in residential districts and that those businesses be afforded the same opportunity for temporary tent use. Mr. LoPiccolo noted that businesses located in residential zones would be required to go through a Special Exception process which would require the abutting property owner's support to erect a tent for a five day period. The Special Exception process could be done at an administrative level. He stated the process of receiving a tent permit had not been changed; all respective departments that typically review tents would continue to do so under the proposed change. Staff requested that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Scott addressed the question of time limits or the period of time a tent could remain up, with Mr. LoPiccolo. Mr. LoPiccolo responded with a history of the current ordinance stating the timelines were essentially established and Staff was not requesting any type of modification to the time limits currently placed on tents. He said that since the proposed change to allow tents for businesses within residential districts was being added, Staff was concerned with preserving the residential character of the residential district. With the requirement of a Special Exception, the residential integrity would be maintained. Chairperson Chambless asked if there were questions for Staff. There were none. Chairperson Chambless then stated that the petitioner is the Planning Commission and asked if there was a representative of the Community Council that wanted to speak to the matter. No one responded. Chairperson Chambless asked if there was someone from the general community that wanted to speak to this matter. No one responded. Chairperson Chambless then closed the public meeting and asked for discussion and/or a motion on the petition. A motion was then heard. Motion for Petition 400-05-13: Commissioner Seelig moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 400-05-13, based on the analysis outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Diamond voted "Aye". Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir and Commissioner McDonough were not present. The motion passed. F. Tents: Tents smaller than two hundred (200) square feet and canopies smaller than four hundred (400) square feet, associated with outdoor sales from a business that is legally licensed as a permanent business or a temporary business as outlined in this chapter, are permitted in all nonresidential districts. No tent shall be allowed to remain for a period of more than two (2) days longer than the period during which the use with which it is associated is allowed to remain, or a maximum of forty five (45)days, per calendar year. Tents larger than two hundred (200) square feet and canopies larger than four hundred (400) square feet, associated with outdoor sales from a business that is legally licensed as a permanent business or a temporary business as outlined in this chapter, are permitted in D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, M-1, M-2, CG, PL, PL-2, BP, RP and OS zoning districts. No tent shall be allowed to remain for a period of more than two (2) days longer than the period during which the use with which it is associated is allowed to remain, or a maximum of forty five (45) days,per calendar year. The zoning administrator may approve tents or canopies in the D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, M-1, M-2, CG, PL, PL-2, BP, RP zoning districts for a period not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days,per calendar year, if the tent or canopy also meets the parking requirements for the intended use and upon receiving a positive recommendation from the Salt Lake City transportation division, public utilities department, business licensing division, fire department,police department and historic landmark commission (when located within a historic district or on a landmark site). Unless waived in writing by the zoning administrator, every tent shall comply with the bulk and yard requirements of the district in which it is located. Tents smaller than two hundred(200) square feet and canopies smaller than four hundred (400) square feet are permitted in all residential districts, without a permit, for personal home use or homeowner hosted function, for a period of not more than five (5) days per calendar year. Tents larger than two hundred (200) square feet and canopies larger than four hundred (400) square feet are permitted in all residential districts, with a fire department permit, for personal home use, for a period of not more than five (5) days. For purposes of this regulation, "canopies" are defined as a tent structure that is open on more than seventy five percent (75%) of its sides. ORIGINAL PAPER WORK FOR ITEM A5 WAS IN YOUR JANUARY 17, 2006 PACKET