Loading...
05/21/2002 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2002 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, May 21, 2002, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler, Dale Lambert and Van Turner. Also in Attendance: Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Jay Magure, Chief of Staff; D J Baxter, Roger Cutler, City Attorney; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Janice Jardine, Council Planning & Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Michael Sears, Council Budget & Policy Analyst; Sylvia Jones, Council Constituent Liaison; Ray McCandless, Northwest Quadrant/Subdivisions Planner; Doug Wheelwright, Land Use & Transportation/Subdivisions Planner; Stephen Goldsmith, Planning Director; Margaret Hunt, Community and Economic Development Director; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; David Dobbins, Community and Economic Deputy Director; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Kevin Bergstrom, Public Services Deputy Director; Greg Davis, Public Services Finance Director; Laurie Dillon, Budget Analyst; Rick Dinse, Chief of Police; Jerry Burton, Police Department Administrative Manager; Simarjit Singh Gill, City Prosecutor; and Pam Johnson, Deputy City Recorder were present. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:32 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. Cindy Gust-Jenson said several non-English speakers were scheduled to address Council at the City Council meeting. She said Council should allow an additional two minutes for these speakers to accommodate translation. See file M 02-5 for Council announcements. #2. INTERVIEW MELISSA BARBANELL PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD. Ms. Barbanell said she was a practicing Environmental Attorney. She said her goal in serving on the board was to assist the community in bringing about positive improvements. #3. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING ALLOWED OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARD AREAS (PETITION NO. 400-01-26) . View Attachment Janice Jardine, Sylvia Jones, Doug Wheelwright and Ray McCandless briefed the Council from the attached handout. Ms. Jones said the change to the amendment text allowed builders and home owners greater flexibility with side-yards. She said the new text addressed window wells, chimneys, air conditioners and other side yard obstructions. Councilmember Saxton said many homes in the City had small lot lines and often the side yard was next to a neighbor's living space. She said often there was barely enough space for a window 02 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 21 , 2002 mounted air conditioner and a fence between the houses. She said strict laws needed to be established and enforced. Councilmember Jergensen said the noise from side yard air conditioners would need to be reviewed in length. He said it should be tabled until more information was available. Councilmember Buhler took a straw poll to see how Council wanted air conditioners addressed in the proposed ordinance. The Council agreed to table this item. #4. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR PUBLIC SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 INCLUDING FLEET, GOLF, URBAN FORESTRY AND REFUSE FUNDS. View Attachment Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom, Greg Davis and Michael Sears briefed the Council on the Budget for fiscal year 2002-2003. Mr. Graham said several changes had been made in the proposed budget since the first draft given to the Council. He said the first draft suggested the elimination of two architectural positions in the Engineer's Office. He said these duties still needed to be done and would be outsourced to private firms at no additional savings. Councilmember Christensen asked why the salaries paid for these City Engineer' s was not passed on to each project. Mr. Graham said project funding came from several different sources. He said charges and billings could vary on each project to comply with funding requirements. Councilmember Christensen said he wanted to see a more standard fee schedule on City projects. Councilmember Saxton asked why the budget changes were to see a breakdown of using City Engineers as opposed to outsourcing. She said the cost of outsourcing was passed along, not absorbed by the City. Mr. Graham said another change was the proposed closing of the City's Impound Lot. He said research showed most cities the size of Salt Lake had outsourced their impound lots. Councilmember Christensen said an interlocal agreement with other municipalities for a joint impound lot could be the answer. Councilmember Saxton asked for figures showing the cost for the City to tow and store vehicles. She said she wanted to see the difference in cost and the revenue obtained from the sale of the cars. Councilmember Turner said he was impressed when he toured the impound lot. He said public feedback on services provided was positive. He said using the impound lot for additional storage of City property should be considered. Councilmember Lambert asked if other City Departments would see additional costs if the impound lot was outsourced. Mr. Graham said any additional costs accrued by other departments would be taken into consideration before a final decision was made. Councilmember Jergensen said the City should offer impound and storage services to other cities and municipalities. He said the impound lot would be able to continue providing services and the City would have additional revenue. Councilmember Turner asked how the Peace Gardens would be maintained with the elimination of the seasonal work force. Mr. Graham said the City would continue to grow flowers and volunteers would be needed to plant and maintain the grounds. Councilmember Buhler asked if the State was going to transfer ownership or management of the Jordan River Parkway to the City. Mr. Graham said the City stipulated they 02 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 21 , 2002 wanted fee ownership. He said in addition the State would transfer fee ownership to the City for State property located between 2100 South and North Temple. Councilmember Saxton said the gift from the State would require additional funds from the City's already short budget to maintain the property. Councilmember Christensen said unless the City maintained trail-ways on the Jordan River Parkway, it would fall into disrepair and become hazardous. Mr. Graham said the City was negotiating with the State for temporary assistance to help with maintenance costs. Councilmember Saxton asked why additional labor was needed at the Forest Dale Golf Course. Mr. Graham said the additional person would be used at all City golf courses. A straw poll was taken and Council approved keeping the additional position in the budget. Councilmember Saxton said the City currently had seven golf courses. She said green fees were raised last year to help balance the Enterprise Fund. She said the City seemed to be struggling with current obligations and adding another golf course was costly and unwise. Mr. Graham said the acquisition of the Jordan River Golf Course was in the City' s interest. He said anytime the City could acquire additional land especially green space, it should not be turned away. He said as maintenance costs increased, green fees would increase accordingly. A straw poll was taken and Council voted in favor of the acquisition. Additional discussions were held concerning garbage pick-up, hazardous waste disposal, graffiti clean-up and the need for a City recycling program. The discussions addressed including these services within the current budget. #5. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003. View Attachment Gary Mumford, Chief Dinse and Jerry Burton briefed the Council on the Police Department budget for fiscal year 2002-2003. Councilmember Saxton asked why Youth and Family Services and Mobile Watch programs were chosen to be cut. Police Chief Dinse said the department's evaluation felt eliminating these programs would hurt the department least. Councilmember Saxton said prevention was less costly than enforcement. Councilmember Lambert said the community was passionate about keeping all services provided by Youth and Family programs. Chief Dinse said the program was funded by a grant. He said once the grant ended, the department would not have the monies to continue the program. Councilmember Love asked if the positions in the Youth and Family program in questions were for counselors or for actual police officers. Chief Dinse said the people were trained in intervention. He said they were not licensed therapists and did not have the enforcement ability of Police Officers. Councilmember Jergensen asked if overtime cuts would prevent the cuts. Chief Dinse said overtime costs were cut as often as possible, but at cost to the community. Councilmember Lambert asked if the Mobile Watch Program would be eliminated entirely. Chief Dinse said the intent was to have the program coordinated by other part-time employees, eliminating the full-time position only. Councilmember Buhler asked Council staff to provide additional information to the Council concerning these programs. #6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE CITY 02 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 21 , 2002 ATTORNEY' S OFFICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 INCLUDING PROSECUTOR' S OFFICE, GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, INSURANCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT FUND. View Attachment Roger Cutler, Simarjit Singh Gill and Gary Mumford briefed the Council on the department budget for fiscal year 2002-2003. Councilmember Lambert asked if it would be better to wait and see how the new Justice Court would affect the Prosecutor's Office. Mr. Gill said the request for an additional City Prosecutor was based on the department's current needs. He said the City had a larger caseload than any other municipality. Councilmember Saxton asked for a follow- up on how the City' s caseload compared to other similar cities in other states. Councilmember Buhler said the amount requested seemed low to hire a prosecutor including benefits. He asked Council staff to research current salary requirements. Councilmember Christensen asked if the success rate of the City Prosecutor' s Office was tracked. Mr. Gill said the City was getting convictions, placing people in alternative programs such as drug rehabilitation, and handling more cases in the last year than ever before. Councilmember Christensen said he wanted a breakdown of all those categories. Councilmember Lambert asked if there had been a savings in processing service. Mr. Gill said there had been savings by mailing most subpoenas. #7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN OVERVIEW OF THE CITY' S HOUSING PROGRAMS. This briefing was not held. The meeting adjourned at 10:19 p.m. pj 02 - 4 1111 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: May 17,2002 SUBJECT: Petition No. 400-01-26-Planning Commission-request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow certain types of encroachments within the side yard setback areas(Sec.21A.36.020.B) STAFF REPORT BY: Sylvia Jones, Constituent Liaison/Policy and Research Analyst Document Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts Ordinance The proposal has no The proposal is The Administration has budget impact. presented to revise an clearly stated the existing ordinance. positive aspects of the proposal. OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: Additional options may be identified at the Council Work Session on May 21, 2002. 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance amending the text of the zoning ordinance regarding allowed obstructions in required yard areas. 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt an ordinance amending the text of the zoning ordinance regarding allowed obstructions in required yard areas. KEY ELEMENTS 1. The proposed zoning text amendment would do the following: A. Clarify the table located in Section 21A.36.020.B(Obstructions in Required Yards)by eliminating the footnote for the four-foot side yard setback requirement for window and central air-conditioners, bay windows, eaves, steps and window wells for residential buildings. B. Add the requirement of a removable grate to the window well provision. C. Add the requirement of a two-foot distance from property line for central air units. D. Add to the section addressing window unit air conditioners the following stipulation: "that those units be at least two-feet from the property line". E. Add the following provision: "Chimneys projecting two feet or less into the sideyard area must maintain at least two feet from the property line". • F. Allow builders and homeowners greater flexibility with side yard setbacks. 1 2. The Administration's transmittal provides a detailed background relating to the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment. The Planning staff report provides findings of fact that support the criteria established in the City's Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 21A.50.050-Standards for General 1111 Zoning Amendments. Please refer to the Planning staff report for specific findings of fact and discussion of compliance with individual standards. Key points are summarized below: A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. B. The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development and will not affect adjacent properties. C. The proposed amendment has no relationship to the overlay district requirements or to public facilities or public services intended to serve the subject property. 3. The current standard was added to the zoning ordinance during the Zoning Ordinance"fine tuning"project in 1998/99. Many topics were addressed during the process;thus, discussion of this particular topic was limited. The provision was intended to address the concern of trespass and practical difficulties such as property maintenance and fencing when encroachments are within one or two feet of the property line. At that time,the Planning Commission approved the requirement of a four-foot clearance from property lines for many of the obstructions allowed in the side yard setback. Since then, builders have consistently had a problem with this requirement. The requirement is generally unanticipated by the building community because it is fairly typical(in other cities)for many of these"obstructions"to be allowed in yard areas. With new construction,most architects assume side yard setback standards apply to the building. They design the home within these parameters,adding a roof that includes an eave overhang. Later,they find out that redesign is required. Using the current standard for basement renovations,there is generally inadequate setback to accommodate the window well within these requirements. 4. The public process included: A. Letter describing the proposed text change sent to Community Council Chairs. B. Planning Commission hearing notices sent to Community Council Chairs. 5. The Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed zoning text amendment. The following issues were discussed at the Planning Commission's public hearing: A. The ordinance change would apply to new development as well as existing properties. B. The possibility of placing all air conditioning condenser units in rear yards as they emit noise and could disturb neighbors,especially in narrow side yards. C. If Community Council Chairs do not attend the Mayor's monthly meetings,they are unable to adequately review ordinance amendments. Perhaps a broader range of the community should be notified of proposed changes. D. Adjoining homes having four-foot side yards could have abutting three-foot window wells, leaving a walkway of only two feet between window wells. Using this scenario, is adequate space provided for emergency services and vehicles to enter the area? The Fire Department indicated that they can work around the two-foot space. E. A constituent mentioned the difficulty in maintaining the side yard areas. 2 r I S MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: A. The text amendment would allow central and window-mounted air conditioner units to be -- placed two feet closer to property lines. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration the potential noise impact and how it may be mitigated. B. The Administration notes that although this item was scheduled for discussion at the Mayor's monthly meetings with Community Council Chairs, the text amendment was not discussed due to time constraints. As a result, letters were mailed to Community Council Chairs asking for their response and feedback. Two Community Council Chairs responded. One asked for the current requirement(four foot minimum clearance)to be maintained, while the other supported the two-foot minimum clearance. Council Members may wish to consider asking the Administration to solicit additional feedback from Community Councils since the original feedback was requested over a year ago in April of 2001. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: In the past, Planning staff has indicated to Council staff that: • Current master plans were not consulted because the proposed text change will be applied on a citywide basis. ID • Master plan issues relating to proposed developments are addressed through the conditional use process. • Site development and utility service requirements are evaluated through conditional use, development review and building permit processes. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image, neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. Applicable policy concepts include: A. Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall urban design scheme for the city. B. Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvement and stability. C. Ensure that building restoration and new construction enhance district character. D. Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the city regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided. E. Treat building height, scale and character as significant features of a district's image. F. Ensure that features of building design such as color, detail, materials and scale are responsive to _ district character, neighboring buildings, and the pedestrian. S 3 A CHRONOLOGY: Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for a complete chronology of events relating to the proposed text amendment. •, April 25, 2001 Letter and Draft Ordinance sent to all Community Council Chairpersons requesting input and comments. • May 17,and June 21, 2001 Planning Commission Hearings cc: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Roger Cutler,Lynn Pace,Margaret Hunt,David Dobbins,Roger Evans,Stephen Goldsmith,Harvey Boyd,Craig Spangenberg,Brent Wilde,Enzo Calfa,Doug Wheelwright,D.J.Baxter,Ray McCandless File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Zoning Text Amendment,Sideyards 4 ecor �% MAR 2 8 2002 SALT` '10'IalY1 GOPO A I,ON ROSS C. "ROCKY"ANDERSON COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL 011 TO: Rocky Fluhart,Chief Administrative Officer DATE: March 21,2002 FROM: Margaret Hunt,CED Director RE: Petition 400-01-26: A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to consider an amendment to Table 21A.36.020B (Obstructions in Required Yards),to allow certain types of encroachments within the side yard setback areas. STAFF CONTACT: Ray McCandless,Principal Planner 535-7282 Lynn Pace,Deputy City Attorney 535-6613 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Planning Commission is requesting that Table 21A.36.020B(Obstructions in Required Yards)of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance be amended to reduce,or eliminate,the four-foot side yard setback requirement for window and central air-conditioners,bay windows, eaves,steps and window wells on residential buildings as shown in the attached draft ordinance. The ordinance amendment is being requested to resolve ongoing problems builders are having with the design and construction of homes,particularly in zoning districts that allow smaller side yard setbacks. A detailed discussion of the issues and background are included with the accompanying Staff Report to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed this item on May 17,2001 and again on June 21,2001 (meeting minutes are attached). The Planning Commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council that Table 21A.36.020B(Obstructions in Required Side Yards)be amended to eliminate the footnote requiring certain obstructions being located four feet from the property line,to add a required removable grate to the window well provision,and to require a two-foot distance from property line for central air units as stated in Option 1 of the Staff Report with the following amendments to the staff recommendation: 1. Under air conditioners that are window units; include "that those units be at least two feet from the property line." 2. On the provision for "Chimneys project 2 feet or less into the yard," add "must be maintained at least 2 feet from the property line". 457 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B47 11 TELEPHONE: 807-535-6230 FAX: B01-535-6005 RECYCLED PAPER Exhibit A of the attached ordinance has been included to reflect the Planning Commission's recommendations. Findings of Fact: The Planning Commission has determined the proposed ordinance is appropriate based on the following fmdings of fact: 1. The proposed revisions are consistent with the purposes, goals,objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of the City. 2.The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties. Public Process: This petition was initiated by the Planning Commission on January 4, 2001. On April 25,2001, a letter was sent to all Community Council Chairpersons requesting their comments or concerns. Two Chairpersons responded. One requested that a two-foot minimum clearance of encroachments to property line be maintained and the other asked that the current requirement be maintained. Efforts were made to present the petition to the Community Council chairs at the Mayors Morning Meeting but no space was available on their agenda. The Planning Commission initially heard this item on May 17,2001 but it was continued until a subsequent meeting to allow additional time to address issues brought up at the May 17th hearing. The Planning Commission heard this item on June 21,2001 and recommended the petition be forwarded to the City Council. Section 21A.10 requires that the legislative body hold advertised public hearings prior to amendments to the zoning ordinance.Newspaper advertised notice is required prior to consideration by the City Council.A draft notice has been provided in this transmittal packet. Relevant Ordinances: Title 21A. Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance • Chapter 10 General Application and Public Hearing Procedures • Table 21A.36.020B Obstructions in Required Yards I TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Chronology 2. Ordinance 3. Strike and Bold Ordinance 4. Notice of City Council Public Hearing A. Notice of City Council Hearing Newspaper Publication Draft B. Newspaper Publication Transmittal C. Mailing List and Labels 5. Agenda of Planning Commission Hearing for May 17, 2001 and June 21, 2001 6. Staff Report for Planning Commission Hearing for May 17, 2001 and June 21,2001 7. Planning Commission Minutes for May 17, 2001 and June 21, 2001 8. Planning Commission Public Hearing Notices CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • January 4, 2001 Petition assigned to Planning. • April 25,2001 Letter and Draft Ordinance sent to all Community Council Chairpersons requesting input and comments. • May 17, and June 21,2001 Planning Commission Hearing. • August 10,2001 Ordinance requested from Attorney. • October 30,2001 Ordinance received from Attorney. • November 2,2001 City Council Transmittal Prepared. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2001 (Amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Code Regarding Allowed Obstructions in Required Yard Areas) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21A.36.020.B OF THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING CODE REGARDING ALLOWED OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARD AREAS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-26. WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City zoning code contains restrictions as to items that are or are not allowed in required front, side and rear yard areas; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, finds after public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission that portions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Code which relate to obstructions allowed in required yard areas should be amended and that such amendments are in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That the table located at Section 21A.36.020.B of the Salt Lake City Code, entitled "Obstructions in Required Yards," shall be and hereby is amended as set forth on Exhibit"A"attached hereto. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah,this day of , 2001. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) - 3n oC__.....r.._.�, Bill No. of 2001 Published: G:\Ordina0l\Amending Code re obstruction in yard areas-Oct 30,2001.doc 2 EXHIBIT A TABLE 21A.36.020B OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS Type Of Structure Or Use Obstruction Front And Side Rear Corner Yard Yard Side Yards Air conditioners which are window units and maintain at least two feet from the X X X property line. Accessory buildings subject to the provisions of Chapter 21A.40 of this Part, and X located at least 1 foot from the side property line except for the FP and FR Districts where no accessory building is permitted in any yard. Accessory buildings shall be at least 10 feet from a principal residential building on an adjacent lot Arbors and trellises not to exceed 12 feet in height or 120 square feet in X X X residential districts. This requirement shall also apply to nonresidential districts unless otherwise authorized Architectural ornament not elsewhere regulated projecting not more than 4 inches X X X Awnings and canopies, extending not more than 2 1/2 feet into front,corner side, X X X or side yards and not more than 5 feet into rear yards allowed in residential districts only Balconies projecting not more than 5 feet X Basketball hoop and backboard on or adjacent to permitted driveways X X X Bay windows which are 1 story high not more than 10 feet long, and project 2 X X X feet or less Breezeways and open porches X Central air-conditioning systems, heating, ventilating, pool and filtering X X equipment, the outside elements of which extend not more than 4 feet into the yard and maintain at least two feet from the property line Chimneys projecting 2 feet or less into the yard must be maintained at least 2 feet X X from the property line Decks(open)2 feet high or less X X X Eaves, not including gutters projecting 2 feet or less into the yard. 4 foot eave X X X may project into a 20 foot yard area Fallout shelters(completely underground),conforming to applicable civil defense X regulations and located not less than 4 feet from a lot line Fences or walls subject to applicable height restrictions of Chapter 21A.40 of this X X X Part Fire escapes projecting 4 feet or less X Flagpoles Residential districts: 1 permanent flagpole per street frontage X X X Nonresidential districts: 3 flagpoles per street frontage X X X Subject to provisions of Table 21A.36.020C of this Section Grade changes of 2 feet or less except for the FP and FR Districts which shall be X X X subject to the provisions of subsection 21A.24.0100 of this Title. (All grade changes located on a property line shall be supported by a retaining wall) Ham radio antennas subject to provisions of subsection 21 A.24.080D of this Title X Type Of Structure Or Use Obstruction Front And Side Rear Corner Yard Yard Side Yards Removable handicapped ramp(when approved as a special exception) X X X Landscaping, including decorative berms 4 feet or less in height with no grade X X X change along any property line, provided that if such landscaping obstructs the visibility of an intersection the City may require its pruning or removal Laundry drying equipment(clothesline and poles) X Parking, carports and covered parking spaces except as otherwise expressly X authorized by Table 21A.44.050 of this Part Patios on grade X X X Porches(attached,covered and unenclosed)projecting 5 feet or less X Recreational(playground)equipment X Refuse dumpster X Satellite dish antennas X X Signs,subject to the provisions of Chapter 21A.46 of this Part X X X Steps 4 feet or less above grade which are necessary for access to a permitted X X X building Swimming pools (measured to the water line), tennis courts, game courts, and X X similar uses shall not be located less than 10 feet from a property line Window wells not over 6 feet in width and projecting not more than 3 feet from X X X structure. If located within two feet from the property line,the window well must include a removable grate,or other cover. Notes: "X"denotes where obstructions are allowed. STRIKE AND BOLD ORDINANCE Strike and Bold Version TABLE 21A.36.020B OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS Type Of Structure Or Use Obstruction Front And Side Rear Corner Yard Yard Side Yards '010- Air conditioners which are window units} and maintain at least two feet from X X X the property line. Accessory buildings subject to the provisions of Chapter 21A.40 of this Part, and X located at least 1 foot from the side property line except for the FP and FR Districts where no accessory building is permitted in any yard. Accessory buildings shall be at least 10 feet from a principal residential building on an adjacent lot Arbors and trellises not to exceed 12 feet in height or 120 square feet in X X X residential districts. This requirement shall also apply to nonresidential districts unless otherwise authorized Architectural ornament not elsewhere regulated projecting not more than 4 inches X X X Awnings and canopies, extending not more than 2 1/2 feet into front, corner side, X X X or side yards and not more than 5 feet into rear yards allowed in residential districts only Balconies projecting not more than 5 feet X Basketball hoop and backboard on or adjacent to permitted driveways X X X * Bay windows which are 1 story high not more than 10 feet long, and project 2 X X X feet or less} Breezeways and open porches X Central air-conditioning systems, heating, ventilating, pool and filtering X X * equipment, the outside elements of which extend not more than 4 feet into the yard} and maintain at least two feet from the property line ,0. Chimneys projecting 2 feet or less into the yard must be maintained at least 2 X X feet from the property line Decks(open)2 feet high or less X X X Eaves, not including gutters projecting 2 feet or less into the yard}. 4 foot eave X X X may project into a 20 foot yard area Fallout shelters(completely underground),conforming to applicable civil defense X regulations and located not less than 4 feet from a lot line Fences or walls subject to applicable height restrictions of Chapter 21A.40 of this X X X Part Fire escapes projecting 4 feet or less X Flagpoles Residential districts: 1 permanent flagpole per street frontage X X X Nonresidential districts: 3 flagpoles per street frontage X X X Subject to provisions of Table 21A.36.020C of this Section Grade changes of 2 feet or less except for the FP and FR Districts which shall be X X X subject to the provisions of subsection 21A.24.0100 of this Title. (All grade changes located on a property line shall be supported by a retaining wall) Ham radio antennas subject to provisions of subsection 21A.24.080D of this Title X Type Of Structure Or Use Obstruction Front And Side Rear Corner Yard Yard Side Yards Removable handicapped ramp(when approved as a special exception) X X X Landscaping, including decorative berms 4 feet or less in height with no grade X X X change along any property line, provided that if such landscaping obstructs the visibility of an intersection the City may require its pruning or removal Laundry drying equipment(clothesline and poles) X Parking, carports and covered parking spaces except as otherwise expressly X authorized by Table 21A.44.050 of this Part Patios on grade X X X Porches(attached,covered and unenclosed)projecting 5 feet or less X Recreational(playground)equipment X Refuse dumpster X Satellite dish antennas X X Signs,subject to the provisions of Chapter 21A.46 of this Part X X X Steps 4 feet or less above grade which are necessary for access to a permitted X X X building Swimming pools (measured to the water line), tennis courts, game courts, and X X similar uses shall not be located less than 10 feet from a property line Window wells not over 6 feet in width and projecting not more than 3 feet from X X X structure. If located within two feet from the property line,the window well must include a removable grate,or other cover. Notes: "X"denotes where obstructions are allowed. 1 A nd T oc,.ted not less than A feet fro ., lot line. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 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 An amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. On ,the Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing to consider proposed amendments to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance,Table 21A.36.020B Obstructions in Required Yards. The proposed amendments would reduce the existing four foot minimum distance for certain allowed encroachments from the property line. 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 or special arrangements,call Mr.Ray McCandless at 535-7282. Posted By NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is currently reviewing petition 400-01-26, submitted by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission,requesting revisions to Table 21A.36.020B Obstructions in Required Yards, that would reduce the existing four foot minimum distance for certain allowed encroachments from the property line. The City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition request. During this hearing, the Planning staff will present information on the petition and anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: PLACE: ROOM 315 City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City If you have any questions relating to this proposal, please attend the meeting or call Ray McCandless at 535-7282.Monday through Friday. LARRY RIGBY, CHAIR KATHERINE GARDNER, CHAIR MATT WOLVERTON, CHAIR GRTR.AVENUES COMM. COUNCIL CAPITOL HILL COMMUNITY COUNCIL CENTRAL CITY COMMUNITY COUNCIL 1428 E. CIRCLE WAY 606 DESOTO STREET 555 EAST 100 SOUTH,#206 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102 illkV1ARA WHARTON, CHAIR SAMANTHA FRANCIS, CHAIR BETSY BRADLEY, CHAIR IFERTY WELLS COMM. COUNCIL PEOPLES FREEWAY COMM.COUNCIL RIO GRANDE COMMUNITY COUNCIL 1487 SO. EDISON ST. 70 W.VAN BUREN AVENUE 48 W. BROADWAY#1705 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101 BRUCE ALDER,CHAIR JIM BYRNE, CHAIR SHAWN McMILLEN,CHAIR ARCADIA HEIGHTS/BENCHMARK FOOTH►LL/SUNNYSIDE H ROCK COMMUNITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY COUNCIL 1855 SOUTH 2600 EAST 1835 SO. LAKELINE DRIVE 1966 EAST 900 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84109 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108-1367 MIKE ZUHL, CHAIR PAUL TAYLER, CHAIR DOUG FOXLEY, CHAIR INDIAN HILLS COMMUNITY COUNCIL OAK HILLS COMMUNITY COUNCIL ST. MARY'S COMMUNITY COUNCIL 2676 E. COMANCHE DRIVE 1165 SO. OAKHILLS WAY 1449 DEVONSHIRE DRIVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 JEFFREY MULLINS,CHAIR TIM DEE,CHAIR SUNNYSIDE EAST ASSOCIATION SUNSET OAKS COMMUNITY COUNCIL 873 SO.WOODRUFF WAY 1575 DEVONSHIRE DRIVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 RICH OSGUTHORPE, CHAIR LISETTE GIBSON, CHAIR JULIA ROBERTSON,CHAIR WEST OF LOWER FOOTHILL(WOLF) YALECREST COMMUNITY COUNCIL EAST CENTRAL COMMUNITY COUNCIL 1942 E. ST. MARYS DRIVE 1764 E. HUBBARD AVE. 1218 EAST 600 SOUTH T LAKE CITY, UT 84109 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102 BORIS KURZ, CHAIR PATRICK TAN, CHAIR WILLIAM COOLEY, CHAIR EAST LIBERTY PARK COMM. JORDAN MEADOWS COMM. COUNCIL ROSE PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL COUNCIL 566 NO. SIR MICHAEL DRIVE 1009 TALLY HO AVENUE 1203 SOUTH 900 EAST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105 < BRUCE NEWMAN, CHAIR KADEE NIELSON,CHAIR RAY PUGSLEY, CHAIR STATE FAIRPARK COMM.COUNCIL WEST POINTE COMM. COUNCIL SUGAR HOUSE COMM. COUNCIL 459 NORTH 600 WEST 1410 NO. BARONESS PLACE 2171 HANNIBAL STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 EDIE TRIMMER, CHAIR RANDY SORENSEN, CHAIR POPLAR GROVE COMM. COUNCIL WEST S.L. COMMUNITY COUNCIL 246 SOUTH 1300 WEST 1184 SO. REDWOOD DRIVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84104 Revised 4/25/01 sj ®V7L5 rvJo I ,u.,y.. u ��.,.rrv -�- LARRY RIGBY,CHAIR KATHERINE GARDNER,CHAIR VALERIE PRICE,CHAIR GRTR.AVENUES COMM. COUNCIL CAPITOL HILL COMMUNITY COUNCIL CENTRAL CITY COMMUNITY COUNCIL 1428 E. CIRCLE WAY 606 DESOTO STREET 553 EAST 600 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102 ORSON WEST,CHAIR SAMANTHA FRANCIS,CHAIR CHRIS VIAVANT,CHAIR LIBERTY WELLS COMM. COUNCIL PEOPLES FREEWAY COMM.COUNCIL RIO GRANDE COMMUNITY COUNCIL 562 E. DOWNINGTON AVE. 70 W.VAN BUREN AVENUE 404 South 400 WEST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101-2201 BRUCE ALDER, CHAIR JIM BYRNE,CHAIR SHAWN McMILLEN, CHAIR ARCADIA HEIGHTS/BENCHMARK FOOTHILUSUNNYSIDE H ROCK COMMUNITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY COUNCIL 1855 SOUTH 2600 EAST 1835 SO. LAKELINE DRIVE 1966 EAST 900 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84109 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108-1367 MIKE ZUHL,CHAIR PAUL TAYLER,CHAIR DOUG FOXLEY,CHAIR INDIAN HILLS COMMUNITY COUNCIL OAK HILLS COMMUNITY COUNCIL ST. MARY'S COMMUNITY COUNCIL 2676 E.COMANCHE DRIVE 1165 SO.OAKHILLS WAY 1449 DEVONSHIRE DRIVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 JEFFREY MULLINS,CHAIR TIM DEE,CHAIR JILL REMINGTON LOVE, CHAIR SUNNYSIDE EAST ASSOCIATION SUNSET OAKS COMMUNITY COUNCIL WASATCH HOLLOW 873 SO.WOODRUFF WAY 1575 DEVONSHIRE DRIVE COMMUNITY COUNCIL SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108 1533 WESTMORELAND SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105 DR.ALAN CONDIE, CHAIR LISETTE GIBSON,CHAIR JULIA ROBERTSON,CHAIR WEST OF LOWER FOOTHILL(WOLF) YALECREST COMMUNITY COUNCIL EAST CENTRAL COMMUNITY COUIP 1375 KRISTIE LANE 1764 E. HUBBARD AVE. 1218 EAST 600 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102 BORIS KURZ,CHAIR PATRICK TAN,CHAIR WILLIAM COOLEY,CHAIR EAST LIBERTY PARK JORDAN MEADOWS COMM.COUNCIL ROSE PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY COUNCIL 566 NO. SIR MICHAEL DRIVE 1009 TALLY HO AVENUE 1203 SOUTH 900 EAST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105 BRUCE NEWMAN,CHAIR KADEE NIELSON,CHAIR RAY PUGSLEY, CHAIR STATE FAIRPARK COMM. COUNCIL WEST POINTE COMM. COUNCIL SUGAR HOUSE COMM.COUNCIL 459 NORTH 600 WEST 1410 NO.BARONESS PLACE 2171 HANNIBAL STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 EDIE TRIMMER, CHAIR RANDY SORENSEN,CHAIR POPLAR GROVE COMM. COUNCIL WEST S.L.COMMUNITY COUNCIL 246 SOUTH 1300 WEST 1184 SO.REDWOOD DRIVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104 Revised 9/19/01 sj ®09T c Jo)aieidwal as fl w jslaays paaJ wows PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126-of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Thursday, May 17, 2001, 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 planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday, May 3, 2001 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:45 p.m. - Petition No.410-533 by Tower Asset Sub. Inc./SpectraSite requesting a conditional use to allow an existing 60 foot high monopole antenna to be increased in height to 80 feet to accommodate a second set of wireless telecommunication antennas for Cricket Communications at 4966 West 2100 South in a Light Manufacturing "M-1"zoning district. (Staff: Ray McCandless at 535-7282) b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:05 p.m. - Petition No. 400-01-19 by Tim Harpst, representing the Salt Lake Transportation Division, requesting Salt Lake City to close the street intersection of 400 South Street and 1000 East Street, to separate vehicle travel between the intersection and State Route 186 (UDOT 400 South), to minimize vehicle conflicts with the East/West Light Rail Project and to assist in neighborhood traffic calming. (Staff: Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178) c. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:25 p.m.— Petition No. 410-526: St. Paul's Episcopal Church, located at 261 South 900 East in an RMF-30 zone, is requesting conditional use approval for an addition to the existing church building which will contain classrooms and a new day care center. (Staff: Craig Hinckley at 535-6409) d. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:45 p.m.- Petition No.410-536: Salt Lake City Corporation is requesting conditional use approval for proposed development of sections of the Jordan River Parkway located between approximately 900 South and California Avenue in an Open Space Zone and Lowland Conservancy Overlay District. Improvements may include trail development, grading, pedestrian bridges, boat docks, picnic facilities, and revegetation. (Staff: Craig Hinckley at 535-6409) e. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:05 p.m. - Petition No.400-01-26 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting revisions to Table 21A.36.020B Obstructions in Required Yards, to allow certain encroachments within the side yard setback. (Staff: Margaret Pahl at 535-6220) f. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:25 p.m.- Petition No. 410-535 by Rowland Hall—St. Mark's School, requesting conditional use approval for excess height for a bell tower on their proposed elementary school facility, located at 720 S. Guardsman Way, in an Institutional zoning district. (Staff: Margaret Pahl at 535-6220) 3. OTHER BUSINESS a. Tenant Mailing Notice Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to _ a disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the City 24 hours in advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. AT YOUR REQUEST A SECURITY ESCORT WILL BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMPANY YOU TO YOUR CAR AFTER THE MEETING. THANK YOU. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•PLANNING DIVISION•451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406•SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7757•FAX:801-535-6174 NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m." REVISED AMENDED AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Thursday,June 21,2001,at 5:30 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share planning information _ with the Planning Commission.This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday,June 7, 2001 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:30 p.m. -Petition No.400-01-22, by Dean Clark Used Cars, requesting that Salt Lake City declare a 4,214 square foot parcel of City-owned land as surplus. The subject parcel abuts the north property line of 1101 South Main Street. (Staff: Wayne Mills at 535-6173) b. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:45 p.m. -Petition No.400-01-26, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission,requesting revisions to Table 21A.36.020B Obstructions in Required Yards,to allow certain encroachments within required side yard setbacks. The potential action may include increasing the minimum side yard setback from 4 feet to 5 feet in some residential districts. (Staff: Margaret Pahl at 535-6220) c. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:05 p.m.—Petition No.410-540,from McNeil Engineering,representing the LDS Church, requesting conditional use approval for expansion of a church parking lot and a related housing loss mitigation plan,for a property located at 934 West Fremont Avenue in a single-family residential R-1-5000 zone. (Staff: Craig Hinckley at 535- . 6409) d. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:20 p.m.-Petition No.400-01-31,from"The Island Connection"requesting that the zoning of property located at 680 South 900 West be changed from RMF-35(medium density residential)to CB (community business). (Staff: Craig Hinckley at 535-6409) • 3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS—The following two petitions'Public Hearings have been closed. They were continued for further Planning Commission discussion only. a. Petition No.410-534,by Utah Repair and Service Corporation requesting planned development approval for property located at 1075 South Redwood Road and 1040 South Dalton Avenue in a Commercial Corridor(CC)Zone. The proposal includes widening Dalton Avenue to 25 feet(of which 20 feet would be travel way), Dalton would remain a private street, and a total of two lots would be created from four existing lots. No specific uses are proposed at this time.(Staff: Craig Hinckley at 535-6409) b. Petition No.400-00-44,Salt Lake City Planning Commission will consider making recommendations to the City Council on the Library Square Plan. Library Square is located between 400 South and 500 South from 200 East to 300 East. (Staff: Joel Paterson at 535-6141) 4. OTHER BUSINESS a. Planning Commission Chair Elections b. Discussion of Zoning Issues Relating to Transitional Housing. (Staff:Cheri Coffey at 535-6188) c. Briefing on the Central Community Master Plan. (Staff: Everett Joyce at 535-7930) d. Tenant mailing notice discussion e. Amendment to the CN zone to provide for Vet Clinics as a Conditional Use Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability, need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the City 24 hours in advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. AT YOUR REQUEST A SECURITY ESCORT WILL BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMPANY YOU TO YOUR CAR AFTER THE MEETING. THANK YOU. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•PLANNING DIVISION•451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406•SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7757•FAX:801-535-6174 STAFF REPORT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Proposal to change provisions regarding obstructions in the side yard setback Petition #400-01-26 May 17, 2001 REQUEST The Planning Commission initiated Petition 400-01-26 to consider an amendment to the Table 21A.36.020B Obstructions in Required Yards, to allow certain types of encroachments within the side yard setback areas. Of particular concern is an existing regulation which establishes a four-foot minimum distance for allowed encroachments from the property line. This provision was inserted in the new zoning ordinance about 1998, as part of the zoning ordinance fine-tuning process. It has caused problems in new construction in zones that allow smaller side yard setbacks. COMMUNITY/NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL(S) REVIEW A letter was sent to all Community Council Chairs describing the current requirement, identifying the issues and asking for their help in determining recommended solutions. Two Chairs have called. One requested that a two-foot minimum clearance of encroachments to property line be maintained and the other asked that the current requirement be maintained. Over the last two months, an effort was made to present the issue to the Community Council chairs when gathered at the monthly Mayor's morning meeting,but no space has been available on their agenda. IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES The current standard was added to the ordinance during the Zoning Ordinance"fine tuning" project in 1998/99. As there were many topics addressed during this project, the discussion on this topic was limited. The provision was however added at that time to address the concern of trespass and the practical difficulties of property maintenance, fencing, etc. when encroachments are within one or two feet of the property line. The discussions were focused around one infill construction project,where the builder was very inconsiderate of the neighboring property. The property owner presented the concern that during the construction and possibly for any future maintenance, the neighbor would necessarily need to be trespassing. The Planning Commission was sympathetic and approved adding a footnote to many of the obstructions allowed in the side yard setback to require that these maintain a four-foot clearance from property line. These include window and central air-conditioners,bay windows, eaves, steps and window wells. Of note are obstructions which were not included. (chart attached) • Staff Report. Petition#400-01-26 --- 1 \7a, 17,2001 by Salt Lake City Planning Division Since that time, builders have consistently had a problem with this requirement. The requirement is generally unanticipated by the building community because it is fairly typical (from city to city) for many of these "obstructions"to be allowed in yard areas. The problems are different for new construction than they are for renovations,but cause obstacles in both. In new construction,most architects assume the side yard setback standards apply to the building, and in most communities that is the case. They design the home within these parameters, adding a roof that includes an eave overhang. Thousands of dollars later, they find out that a redesign is required. In a renovation to add a bedroom in the basement, there frequently is inadequate setback to accommodate the window well within these requirements. The property owners are very frustrated, especially knowing that many of their neighbors have already completed similar improvements, either without permits or before the onset of the regulation. The City's current setbacks were established during the"Zoning Rewrite"project. Staff surveyed neighborhoods and recommended the most typical standard setbacks. In the built communities, side yard setbacks were selected to reflect the existing character of the neighborhood. The four-foot setback was chosen in the older neighborhoods, and the six-foot and eight-foot setbacks were chosen in other areas where lots were larger. When these setbacks were recommended, obstructions were allowed within the area. In addition, a recent building code change has further exacerbated the problem. This Code, adopted in 1997,requires that window wells be three feet wide as opposed to the prior requirement of only two feet. These changes in regulations have since made the City's setbacks obsolete in many cases. In fact,if adding a bedroom in the basement, the smallest setback allowed would be seven-feet if a clear four-foot side yard is required. While this setback may not seem large, it is larger than the minimum in 11 out of 16 of the City's residential districts. Solution Options The Planning Commission may consider several solutions to these issues. • Eliminate the footnote The footnote is hard to notice when reviewing the table. Without the footnote, the ordinance would allow obstructions in the side yard setback without regard to the location of the neighboring property line. Some of these obstructions would encroach too close to the property line. There are additional changes that could mitigate this consequence. Grates could be required over window wells. (These are readily available and pose no life safety threat.) A reduced minimum distance from property line could be added to the individual obstructions, such as the central air units and steps,to ensure that safe and practical distances are maintained. Having this minimum distance included in the main body of the table will help ensure that it is not overlooked. • Reduce the clearance from four to two feet The standard could be reduced from four feet to two feet,providing a space large enough for a pedestrian or a lawn mower,but still allowing most of the typical obstructions within the existing Staff Report.Petition#400-01-26 2 May 17.2001 by Salt Lake City Planning Division side yard setback. This solves the problem for two-foot eaves,bay windows, and window air- conditioners, but leaves the window wells, central air units and steps unresolved. Nevertheless, this minimum standard recognizes the need for space to maintain property without trespass. • Increase the minimum side yard setback from four feet to five feet If obstructions must maintain a two-foot clearance, then the four foot sideyard setback must be increased to five feet to accommodate the three-foot window well. With an increased side yard setback, the typical obstructions would be allowed in the side yard,while leaving enough space to maintain the building and the yard area without trespass. This solution solves the problem for new construction, but does not address the renovation of basements in the existing community. The zones which would require an increased side yard setback include: R-1-5,000; SR-1; SR-3; R-2; RMF-30; RMF-35; and RMF-45. • Routine and Uncontested Matter A possible solution for existing non-conforming structures could create a"special exception" review process which involves neighboring property owner's review and consent. The Board of Adjustment has delegated certain special exceptions to the Zoning Administrator, called Routine and Uncontested Matters. In these situations,property owners are asked to show their proposal to the abutting property owners, requesting their approval. With this type of process, the neighbors would discuss future maintenance concerns and identify any issues before the construction began. If the neighbors could not support the special exception through a signature, the applicant still has the option of asking for approval through a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment. CONCLUSION The recommended solutions to this problem includes several components, some of which were initially unanticipated and not formally noticed for this Planning Commission agenda. Action by the Planning Commission at this hearing would therefore be inappropriate. Instead,the hearing can provide for valuable citizen input and direction. The staff has identified some recommended changes for discussion. One recommended ordinance change would eliminate the footnote. It is difficult to notice and causes confusion and mistakes. In an effort to increase predictability and accuracy, the standard requiring a minimum clearance from allowed obstructions to property line should be incorporated into the body of the Table. The next option to consider is to reduce the clearance from four feet to two feet. This would provide enough room to allow most obstructions,without requiring trespass for routine maintenance. Another optional ordinance change would increase the side yard setback from four to five feet in all residential zones allowing a four foot setback. Finally, a Routine and Uncontested Matter could be created so that owners of existing homes could renovate their basement to add needed bedrooms with the required emergency ingress and egress. The best solution may be a combination of several of these options. Staff Report. Petition#400-01-26 3 May 17,2001 by Salt Lake City Planning Division • RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the options, take public comment, close the public hearing,provide the staff with specific direction and continue the item to a future date for decision. Margaret Pahl,AICP Principal Planner Staff Report.Petition#400-01-26 4 May 17,20(11 by Salt Lake City Planning Division 21 A.36.010 Part IV. Regulations Of General Applicability 1. Lots in the SR-3, RMF-35, RMF-45, RMF-75, R-MU, RO, CB, CS, CC, CSHBD, CG, RP, BP, Chapter 21A.36 M-1, M-2, A, I and UI Districts may have more than one principal building on a lot, subject to all GENERAL PROVISIONS of the principal nonresidential buildings being occu- pied by one use, or all principal residential and Sections: nonresidential buildings having frontage on a public 21A36.010 Use Of Land And Buildings street and subject to site plan review approval, 21A36.020 Conformance With Lot And pursuant to Part V, Chapter 21A.58 of this Title; Bulk Controls and 21A36.030 Home Occupations 2. More than one principal building may be per- 21A36.040 Resident Health Care Facilities mined on a lot in all zoning districts other than 21A36.050 Assisted Living Facilities those identified in subsection B 1 of this Section, or 21A36.060 Nursing Care Facilities when the principal buildings are occupied by more 21A36.070 Group Homes than one use, when authorized in conjunction with 21A36.080 Transitional Victim Homes an approved planned development pursuant to Part 21A.36.090 Transitional Treatment Homes V, Chapter 21A.54 of this Title. All land uses shall 21A36.100 Residential Substance Abuse front a public street unless specifically exempted Treatment Homes from this requirement by other provisions of this 21A36.110 Halfway Homes Title. 21A36.120 Adult Daycare Center C. Frontage Of Lot On Public Street: All lots 21A36.130 Child Daycare shall front on a public street unless specifically 21A36.140 Sexually Oriented Businesses exempted from this requirement by other provisions 21A36.150 Fraternities And Sororities of this Title. 21A36.160 Mobile Businesses D. Hazardous Waste Prohibition: It is unlawful 21A36.170 Reuse Of Church And School to permanently store or dispose of hazardous waste Buildings within Salt Lake City except for incineration of 21A.36.180 Environmental Performance hazardous waste as allowed in the industrial M-2 Standards Zoning District. E. Flag Lots In Nonresidential Districts: In the 21A36.010 Use Of Land And Buildings: CG, BP, RP, M-1 and M-2 Districts, flag lots shall The following rules shall apply to the use of land be permitted, subject to subdivision regulations; and buildings in each zoning district: provided, that: A. Enclosed Business Activity: All business 1. As part of new subdivisions or through the activity, service, storage, merchandise, display, planned development process only when the flag lot repair, processing, assembly and manufacturing is proposed at the rear of an existing parcel; shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed build- 2. The flag lot access strip shall have a minimum ing except where specifically provided otherwise. of twenty four feet (24') of frontage on a public Permitted off-street parking lots, off-street loading street; and facilities, and outdoor sales in zoning districts 3. The City subdivision review process deter- where such outdoor sales are permitted, need not be mines the following: enclosed. a. It is not desirable o- necessary to extend a B. One Principal Building Per Lot: Not more public street to access the parcel, and than one principal building shall be located on any b. The existing lot and site layout is not condu- lot, except that: cive to private street development. (Ord. 35-99 960-137 (Salt Lake City 8-99) 21 A.36.010 § 45, 1999: Ord. 88-95 § 1 (Exh. A), 1995: Ord. the lot, subject to complying with all yard area 26-95 § 2(18-1), 1995) requirements of the R-1/5,000 district. Legal con- forming lots in nonresidential districts shall be 21A36.020 Conformance With Lot And Bulk approved for any permitted use or conditional use Controls: allowed in the zoning district subject to complying A. Conformance With District Requirements: with all yard area requirements of the district in No structure or lot shall be developed, used or which the lot is located. occupied unless it meets the Iot area, lot width, B. Obstructions In Required Yards: Accessory yards, building height, floor area ratio, and other uses and structures, and projections of the principal requirements established in the applicable district structure, may be located in a required yard only as regulations, except where specifically established indicated ("X") in Table 21 A.36.020B of this Sec- otherwise elsewhere in this Title. Lion. No portion of an obstruction authorized in In any residential district, on a lot legally estab- Table 21A.36.020B of this Section shall extend lished prior to April 12, 1995, a single-family beyond the authorized projection. Dimensions shall dwelling may be erected regardless of the size of be measured from the finished surface of the build- ing or structure. Table 21A36.020B OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS Front And Corner Side Side Rear Type Of Structure Or Use Obstruction Yards Yard Yard Air conditioners which are window units' X X X Accessory buildings subject to the provisions of Chapter 21A-40 of this Part,and located at least X 1 foot from the side property line except for the FP and FR Districts where no accessory building is permitted in any yard.Accessory buildings shall be at least 10 feet from a principal residential building on an adjacent lot Arbors and trellises not to exceed 12 feet in height or 120 square feet in residential districts.This X X X requirement shall also apply to nonresidential districts unless otherwise authorized Architectural ornament not elsewhere regulated projecting not more than 4 inches X X X Awnings and canopies,extending not more than 2'/_feet into front,corner side,or side yards and X X X not more than 5 feet into rear yards allowed in residential districts only Balconies projecting not more than 5 feet X Basketball hoop and backboard on or adjacent to permitted driveways X X X Bay windows which are 1 story high not more than 10 feet long,and project 2 feet or less' X X X Breezeways and open porches X Central air-conditioning systems,heating,ventilating,pool and filtering equipment,the outside X X elements of which extend not more than 4 feet into the yard' Chimneys projecting 2 feet or less into the yard X X Decks(open)2 feet high or less X X X Eaves,not including gutters projecting 2 feet or less into the yard'.4 foot eave may project into a 20 X X X • foot yard area (Salt Lake City 8-99) 960-138 21A.36.020 Front And Corner Side Side Rear Type Of Structure Or Use Obstruction Yards Yard Yard Fallout shelters(completely underground),conforming to applicable civil defense regulations and X located not less than 4 feet from a lot line Fences or walls subject to applicable height restrictions of Chapter 21A.40 of this Part X X X Fire escapes projecting 4 feet or less X Flagpoles Residential districts: 1 permanent flagpole per street frontage X X X Nonresidential districts:3 flagpoles per street frontage X X X Subject to provisions of Table 21A.36.020C of this Section Grade changes of 2 feet or less except for the FP and FR Districts which shall be subject to the X X X provisions of subsection 21A.24.0100 of this Title.(All grade changes located on a property line shall be supported by a retaining wall) Ham radio antennas subject to provisions of subsection 21A.24.080D of this Title X Removable handicapped ramp(when approved as a special exception) X X X Landscaping,including decorative berms 4 feet or less in height with no grade change along any X X X property line,provided that if such landscaping obstructs the visibility of an intersection the City may require its pruning or removal Laundry drying equipment(clothesline and poles) X Parking,carports and covered parking spaces except as otherwise expressly authorized by Table X 21A.44.050 of this Part Patios on grade X X X Porches(attached,covered and unenclosed)projecting 5 feet or less X Recreational(playground)equipment X Refuse dumpster X Satellite dish antennas X X Signs,subject to the provisions of Chapter 21A.46 of this Part.. X X X Steps 4 feet or less above grade which are necessary for access to a permitted building' X X X Swimming pools(measured to the water line),tennis courts,game courts,and similar uses shall not X X be located less than 10 feet from a property line Window wells not over 6 feet in width and projecting not more than 3 feet from structure' X X X Notes: "X" denotes where obstructions are allowed. 1.And located not less than 4 feet from a lot line. C. Height Exceptions: Exceptions to the maxi- mum building height in all zoning districts are allowed as indicated in Table 21A.36.020C of this Section. 960-139 (Salt Lake City October 2000) 21 A.36.020 • Table 21A36.020C HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS Extent Above Type Maximum Building Height Applicable Districts Mechanical equipment parapet wall 5 feet MI zoning districts,other than the FP,FR-1,FR-2, FR-3,and Open Space Districts Chimney No limit All zoning districts other than FP,FR-1,FR-2,and FR-3 Districts Church steeples or spires No limit All zoning districts Elevator/stairway tower or bulkhead 16 feet All commercial,manufacturing,downtown,RO,RMU, RMF-45,RMF-75,RP,BP,I,UI,A and PL Districts Flagpole Maximum height of the zoning All zoning districts district in which the flag is located or 60 feet,whichever is less.Conditional use approval is required for additional height D. Front And Corner Side Yard Driveways: A Zoning Administrator pursuant to subsection H of driveway leading to a properly located garage or this Section: parking area shall be permitted in a required front 1. Artists, illustrators, writers, photographers, or corner side yard area. No portion of the front or editors, drafters, and publishers; corner side yard as required in this Title, except for 2. Consultants, private investigators, field repre- these approved driveways, shall be hard-surfaced or sentatives and other similar activities; graveled in a manner that will encourage or make 3. Bookkeeping and other similar computer activ- possible the parking of automobiles. Except for ities; entrance and exit driveways leading to properly 4. Locksmith; located parking areas, no curb cuts or driveways are 5. Distribution of products grown or assembled at permitted. (Ord. 35-99 §§ 46-48, 1999: Ord. 30-98 home for off-premises sales (such as garden § 3, 1998: Ord. 88-95 § 1 (Exh. A), 1995: Ord. produce, crafts,etc.); 26-95 § 2(18-2), 1995) 6. Janitorial services; and 7. Mail order business or sales representative. 21A36.030 Home Occupations: C. Home Occupations Prohibited: The follow- A. Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to ing businesses, regardless of their conformance with permit the establishment of home occupations in all the standards in subsection H of this Section, are residential districts and ensure that the home occu- prohibited as home occupations: pations are compatible with the residential district in 1. Auto repairs; which they are located and have no negative impact 2. Kennels; upon the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Welding shops or machine shops; B. Permitted Home Occupations: Subject to 4. Large appliance/electronics or equipment re- compliance with the standards specified in this pair or service (washers, dryers, refrigerators and Section, the following occupations, that do not have other appliances or equipment that are too large to the client come to the home, shall be permitted as be carried in one individual's arms); home occupations subject only to approval by the 5. Truck hauling; (Salt Lake City October 2000) 960-140 STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH SALT' 3 A e a1 "1TT �'0R+ O r 1a`O•i` RO55 C. ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR Community Council Chairs April 25, 2001 The Salt Lake City Planning Commission has initiated a petition to consider a zoning ordinance text change regarding certain allowed building obstructions in the required side yard setback. The section of the ordinance proposed for revision requires that allowed obstructions into the side yard setback, such as window wells or eave overhangs, maintain at least four feet clearance from the property line. This requirement is identified in Table 21A.36.020B Obstructions In Required Yard Areas as a small footnote. The reasoning when this requirement was adopted was that to do otherwise would require trespass on adjoining properties during construction or maintenance. However,this standard has the effect of mandating a seven-foot minimum side yard setback, a setback larger than the minimum required side yard in most of the City's residential districts. The footnote was added as one of many changes to the Zoning Ordinance during the 1998/99 "fine-tuning"project,where small corrections to the Ordinance were recommended and approved. Since that time,builders have consistently had a problem with this requirement. It is fairly typical for these "obstructions"to be allowed in yard areas. Most house plans are based on fitting into the required setbacks without consideration of this provision. Therefore, after plan check, they find out that the house can have no eave overhang,because the footprint is built to the setback line. In another example, a family wants to finish the basement for additional living space,but is denied because the required window wells cannot protrude into the side yard setback. Most neighbors can cooperate for the infrequent trespass required for maintenance in these situations. If cooperation is impossible, maintenance around a four-foot wide window well can be accomplished with extra effort. The Planning staff is soliciting comments and concerns about this issue. Please forward your comments to Margaret Pahl in room #406 at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions,please call me at 535-6220. Thank you for your help with this issue. Sincerely: Margar ahl,AICP Principal Planner 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7757 FAX:801-535-61 74 :: Pt C.CLED PAGER SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Proposal to change provisions regarding obstructions in the side yard setback Petition #400-01-26 June 21, 2001 REQUEST The Planning Commission initiated Petition 400-01-26 to consider an amendment to the Table 21A.36.020B Obstructions in Required Yards, to allow certain types of encroachments within the side yard setback areas. Of particular concern is an existing regulation which establishes a four-foot minimum distance for allowed encroachments from the property line. This provision was inserted in the new zoning ordinance, as part of the zoning ordinance fine-tuning process. It has caused problems in new construction in zones that allow smaller side yard setbacks. A public hearing before the Salt Lake City Planning Commission was held on May 17, 2001 to discuss possible solutions. COMMUNITY/NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL(S) REVIEW A letter was sent to all Community Council Chairs describing the current requirement, identifying the issues and asking for their help in determining recommended solutions. Two Chairs have called. One requested that a two-foot minimum clearance of encroachments to property line be maintained and the other asked that the current requirement be maintained. Over the last two months, an effort was made to present the issue to the Community Council chairs when gathered at the monthly Mayor's morning meeting,but no space has been available on their agenda. No Community Council representatives spoke at the hearing in May. IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES In the pre 1995 Zoning Ordinance, and with the new ordinance between 1995 and 1999, certain obstructions in the required side yard setbacks were allowed. The current standard was added to the ordinance during the Zoning Ordinance "fine tuning"project in 1998/99. As there were many topics addressed during this project, the discussion on this topic was limited. The provision was however added at that time to address the concern of trespass and the practical difficulties of property maintenance, fencing, etc. when encroachments are within one or two feet of the property line. The discussions were focused around one infill construction project,where the builder was very inconsiderate of the neighboring property. The property owner presented the concern that during the construction and possibly for any future maintenance,the neighbor would necessarily need to be trespassing. The Planning Commission was sympathetic and approved adding a footnote to many of the obstructions allowed in the side yard setback to Staff Report,Petition#400-01-26 1 June 21,2001 by Salt Lake City Planning Division require that these maintain a four-foot clearance from property line. These include window and central air-conditioners, bay windows, eaves, steps and window wells. Since that time, builders have consistently had a problem with this requirement. The requirement is generally unanticipated by the building community because it is fairly typical (from city to city) for many of these "obstructions"to be allowed in yard areas. The problems are different for new construction than they are for renovations, but cause obstacles in both. In new construction, most architects assume the side yard setback standards apply to the building, and in most communities that is the case. They design the home within these parameters, adding a roof that includes an cave overhang. Thousands of dollars later, they find out that a redesign is required. In an existing neighborhood,the problems are slightly different. In a renovation to add a bedroom in the basement, there frequently is inadequate setback to accommodate the window well within these requirements. The property owners are very frustrated, especially knowing that many of their neighbors have already completed similar improvements, either without permits or before the onset of the regulation. The City's current setbacks were established during the 1995 "Zoning Rewrite" project. Staff surveyed neighborhoods and recommended the most typical standard setbacks. In the built communities, side yard setbacks were selected to reflect the existing character of the neighborhood. The four-foot setback was chosen in the older neighborhoods, and the six-foot and eight-foot setbacks were chosen in other areas where lots were larger. When these setbacks were recommended, obstructions were allowed within the area. The current Building Code, adopted in 1995, requires that window wells be three feet wide as opposed to the prior requirement of only two feet. These changes in regulations have since made the City's setbacks obsolete in many cases. In fact, if adding a bedroom in the basement, the smallest setback allowed would be seven-feet if a clear four-foot separation is required. While this setback may not seem large, it is larger than the minimum in 11 out of 16 of the City's residential districts. Solution Options During the May 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission discussed several possible solutions to these issues. Option 1: Eliminate the footnote From a process point of view, the footnote is hard to notice when reviewing the table. The Planning Commission made the distinction between the problems caused by not noticing the requirement and the problems caused by the requirement itself. The Planning Commission supported eliminating the footnote and incorporating any spacing requirements directly into the Table,rather than using a footnote. Cross-referencing was also suggested. The Planning Commission was divided on the need for a minimum spacing requirement. The City's Building Official explained that allowed obstructions located close to the property line had not been a problem during his 25 years with the City. He advocated eliminating the footnote and the minimum spacing requirement altogether, allowing individual property owners to accommodate their unique situations as they see fit. The below grade nature of the window well Staff Report. Petition#400-01-26 2 June 21,2001 by Salt Lake City Planning Division influences his position. If the footnote were eliminated completely, and obstructions allowed within side yards, the provision preventing the renovation of basements with the addition of window wells would no longer be applicable. If this policy direction were approved, a window well could be located in the side yard without regard to the property line. The places in the existing table where the "four foot to property line" footnote has been removed are shaded and marked with an asterisk. Proposed changes to the Table have been identified with bold type. Two additional changes are proposed. Staff has added a two-foot separation requirement to the provision allowing a central air unit located in the side yard. These units are large and bulky and require more separation than other obstructions because they are above grade. Regarding window wells, staff has added a requirement for a removable grate in locations where the window well is closer than two feet from the property line. TABLE 21A.36.020B OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS Type Of Structure Or Use Obstruction Front And Side Rear Corner Yard Yard Side Yards Air conditioners which are window units* X X X Accessory buildings subject to the provisions of Chapter 21A.40 of this Part, and X located at least 1 foot from the side property line except for the FP and FR Districts where no accessory building is permitted in any yard. Accessory buildings shall be at least 10 feet from a principal residential building on an adjacent lot Arbors and trellises not to exceed 12 feet in height or 120 square feet in X X X residential districts. This requirement shall also apply to nonresidential districts unless otherwise authorized Architectural ornament not elsewhere regulated projecting not more than 4 inches X X X Awnings and canopies, extending not more than 2 1/2 feet into front, corner side, X X X or side yards and not more than 5 feet into rear yards allowed in residential districts only Balconies projecting not more than 5 feet X Basketball hoop and backboard on or adjacent to permitted driveways X X X Bay windows which are 1 story high not more than 10 feet long, and project 2-' X X X feet or less* Breezeways and open porches X Central air-conditioning systems, heating, ventilating, pool and filtering X X equipment, the outside eleme.^ts of which extend not more than 4 feet into the yard and maintain at least two feet from the property line.* Chimneys projecting 2 feet or less into the yard X X Decks(open)2 feet high or less X X X Eaves, not including gutters projecting 2 feet or less into the yard 4 foot eave X X X may project into a 20 foot yard area* Fallout shelters(completely underground),conforming to applicable civil defense X regulations and located not less than 4 feet from a lot line Staff Report, Petition#400-01-26 3 June 21,2001 by Salt Lake City Planning Division Type Of Structure Or Use Obstruction Front And Side Rear Corner Yard Yard Side Yards Fences or walls subject to applicable height restrictions of Chapter 21A.40 of this X X X Part Fire escapes projecting 4 feet or less X Flagpoles Residential districts: 1 permanent flagpole per street frontage X X X Nonresidential districts: 3 flagpoles per street frontage X X X Subject to provisions of Table 21A.36.020C of this Section Grade changes of 2 feet or less except for the FP and FR Districts which shall be X X X subject to the provisions of subsection 21A.24.0100 of this Title. (All grade changes located on a property line shall be supported by a retaining wall) Ham radio antennas subject to provisions of subsection 21A.24.080D of this Title X Removable handicapped ramp(when approved as a special exception) X X X Landscaping, including decorative berms 4 feet or less in height with no grade X X X change along any property lii_e, provided that if such landscaping obstructs the visibility of an intersection the City may require its pruning or removal Laundry drying equipment(clothesline and poles) X Parking, carports and covered parking spaces except as otherwise expressly X authorized by Table 21A.44.050 of this Part Patios on grade X X X Porches(attached,covered and unenclosed)projecting 5 feet or less X Recreational(playground)equipment X Refuse dumpster X Satellite dish antennas X X Signs,subject to the provisions of Chapter 21A.46 of this Part X X X Steps 4 feet or less above grade which are necessary for access to a permitted X X X building* Swimming pools (measured to the water line), tennis courts, game courts, and X X similar uses shall not be located less than 10 feet from a property line Window wells not over 6 feet in width and projecting not more than 3 feet from X X X structure. If located within two feet from the property line, the window well must include a removable grate,or other cover* Notes: "X"denotes where obstructions are allowed. *denotes where 4 feet to property line requirement has been removed Option 2: Increase the minimum side yard setback from four feet to five feet A provision to increase the minimum side yard setback was discussed at the initial public hearing. If the Planning Commission decides to add an overall increase in the minimum side yard, it has been advertised and could be incorporated into their recommendation for City Council consideration. If an objective were identified to maintain a two-foot clearance in all situations and from all obstructions,then the four-foot side yard setback must be increased to Staff Report, Petition 4400-01-26 4 June 21,2001 by Salt Lake City Planning Division five feet. With an increased side yard setback, the typical obstructions would be allowed in the side yard, while leaving enough space to maintain the building and the yard area without trespass on neighboring property. This requirement would only affect new construction or additions, where it would be required of all new construction regardless of whether or not a side yard obstruction were being proposed. The zones which would require an increased minimum side yard setback include: R-1-5,000; SR-1; SR-3; R-2; RMF-30; RMF-35; and RMF-45. CODE CRITERIA / DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT Section 21A.50.050 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance states: A decision to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance or the Zoning Map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the City Council should consider the following factors: 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 stated purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is listed in 21A.02.030. It includes consideration of issues regarding adequate light and air, securing safety from fire, and fostering residential development. These objectives can be achieved with the proposed changes regarding obstructions in required side yards. Even in the smallest side yard setback, two feet is maintained at all locations for light, air and safe egress,with four feet clearance in most of the area. Finding: The proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The proposed changes would allow homeowners in established neighborhoods to finish the basement and add bedrooms and the required emergency ingress and egress. There is a legitimate concern that people will renovate their basement without the required access, if the regulations remain the same. Finding: The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties: Discussion: Eliminating the footnote, with provisions for a minimum separation for central air units and grating window wells protects adjacent property. The requirement that all obstructions maintain a four-foot clearance from the property line was added in an effort to provide adequate space for maintenance without requiring trespass. Experience Staff Report. Petition#400-01-26 --- 5 June 21,2001 by Salt Lake City Planning Division has shown that narrow obstructions do not interfere with the ability to maintain property without trespass. Four feet is adequate space for maintenance, even with limited side yard obstructions. Finding: The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Finding: There is no relationship between this provision and the overlay district requirements. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems,water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Finding: There is no relationship between this provision and public facilities. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the findings of fact contained in this staff report, the Planning Staff recommends the approval of Option#1 and that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend Table 21A.36.030 to eliminate the footnote requiring four feet from the property line,to add a required removable grate to the window well provision, and to require a two foot distance from property line for central air units. Margaret Pahl,AICP Principal Planner Staff Report. Petition#400-01-26 6 June 21,2001 by Salt Lake City Planning Division Exhibit 1 Window well grate information Aue-A-Orate Oe 1 of 3 l "t`e.A.-ti"-I` e site mere pn Size Chart � �� Price List Ordering Information Company Information A grate solution that covers the hole problem. Security Kit Instructions Home Page Adjustable Aluminum Window Well Grates A - '1,,.. . '.;;„,ta,....7•1,. .,,‘, .,,,' � +w ' .. YOUR FAMILY'S SAFETY IS SERIOUS BUSINESS! LAST YEAR alone,26 million American children were injured around the home and nearly 2 million of those injuries resulted in trips to the emergency room.Don't put your family at risk for preventable injuries. Open window wells are accidents waiting to happen http://www.grate.com/ 06/14/2001 Adjust-irate Paof 3 and window well grates are the most effective solution. Finding a grate that fits and is reasonable priced, however, has been difficult. Why? Window wells (even on the same home) can be slightly different sizes and shapes as a result of the backfilling process. This prevents the creation of standard size grates and explains why homeowners just can't go anywhere and buy one. Most grates are made of iron and have to be custom built for your particular window well. This customization and required installation, of course increases the cost. The other major drawbacks are that they block out a significant amount of light entering the basement and are unattractive and heavy. The solution for all of these drawbacks is an adjustable aluminum grate that will fit a multitude of sizes and contours. They are engineered from attractive high quality tempered aluminum that will hold up to 500 pounds, yet are light enough to to allow for an easy exit. These grates won't rust or require painting, are quick and easy to install by yourself, and offer a unique design that blocks only 10% of the natural light. They are also backed by both a 30-day money back guarantee and a 10-year warranty against defective materials and workmanship. For homeowners whose interest includes security, there is also an optional quick release security kit available. Finally, you can take them with you if you ever move. Why pay more and wait for a custom grate when there's a better solution available today? http://www.grate.com/ 06/14/2001 Aaiia-( rate I Model L9 size Chart live 1 of 1 .w r� `` ' r 4m. „tit ..i.: v ,.rtiA%..•��S t:'nes' i at" �"` A grate solution that corers the hole p obE m. Model L9 34"to 37" K -45"to 60 > Back 06/14/2001 http://www.grate.com/19.asp Adjust-A-Grate : Price List Pag of 3 site menu CX+v. ,i • 4 4 Size Chart , t . Price List Ordering Information Company Information grate covers thehole problem. Security Kit Instructions Home Page Price List Model L9 $ Model L1 $ 24.00 189.00 9 Loop Adjust-A-Grate: (Expands L6 Grate to: (34"to 37"x 45"to 60") 25 "to 28 "x 45"to 60') Model L8 $ 179.00 8 Loop Adjust-A-Grate: (30"to 33"x 45"to 60') Model PC8 $ Model GE1 $ 29.00 179.00 8 Loop Precast Well Grate Escape Adjust-A-Grate: (29.5"to 33"x 45"to 55') (Security Kit for 22"to 26" wells) Model L6 $ Model GE2 $ 30.00 139.00 6 Loop Adjust-A-Grate: Grate Escape (22"to 25"x 45"to 60') (Security Kit for 29"to 33" wells) Model L5 $ Model GE3 $ 39.00 http://www.grate.com/pl.asp 06/14/2001 �.�. 41,e 2 of 3 129.00 5 Loop Adjust-A-Grate: Grate Escape (18"to 21"x 45"to 60") (Security Kit for 34"to 38" wells) Model L4 $ 119.00 4 Loop Adjust-A-Grate: (15"to 18"x 36"to 52) Model XL6 $ Model WE3 $39.00 149.00 6 Loop Extra-Long Adjust- Ladder A-Grate: (22"to 25"x 60"to 66') ' (Fits Metal Wells 4'to 5' Deep) Model XL8 $ 189.00 8 Loop Extra-Long Adjust- A-G rate: (30"to 33"x 60"to 66') Model XL9 $ 199.00 9 Loop Extra-Long Adjust- A-Grate: (34"to 37"x 60"to 66') Model S4 $ 89.00 4 Loop Half-moon Adjust- All prices are FOB Golden, A-C;ratn• Colorado http://www.grate.com/pl.asp 06/14/2001 MEANS OF EGRESS 1009.2—1009.5.2 1009.2 Minimum size.Emergency escape and rescue open- Ladders or steps required by this section are exempt from ings shall have a minimum net clear opening of 5.7 square the stairway requirements of Section 1003.3.3. feet(0.53 m2). Exception: The minimum net clear opening for emer- gency escape and rescue grade floor openings shall be 5 square feet (0.46 m2). 1009.2.1 Minimum dimensions.The minimum net clear opening height dimension shall be 24 inches (610 mm). The minimum net clear opening width dimension shall be 20 inches (508 mm). The net clear opening dimensions :14 shall be the result of normal operation of the opening. 10093 Maximum height from floor.Emergency escape and n`. rescue openings shall have the bottom of the clear opening not greater than 44 inches (1118 mm) measured from the oor. If_ --"*, '.4 Operational constraints.Emergency escape and res- ue openings shall be operational from the inside of the room without the use of keys or tools.Bars,grilles,grates,or sim- ilar devices are permitted to be placed over emergency escape and rescue openings provided the minimum net clear opening size complies with Section 1009.2 and such devices shall be releasable or removable from the inside without the use of a key,tool,or force greater than that which is required for normal operation of the escape and rescue opening. Where such bars, grilles, grates, or similar devices are installed in existing buildings, smoke alarms shall be installed in accordance with Section 907.2.10 regardless of the valuation of the alteration. 10095 Window wells. An emergency escape and rescue opening with a finished sill height below the adjacent ground level shall be provided with a window well in accordance with Sections 1009.5.1 and 1009.5.2. 10093.1 Minimum size.The clear horizontal dimensions of the window well shall allow the emergency escape and rescue opening to be fully opened and provide a minimum accessible net clear opening of 9 square feet (0.84 m2), with a minimum dimension of 36 inches (914 mm). 1009.5.2 Ladders or steps.Window wells with a vertical depth of more than 44 inches(1118 nun)shall be equipped with an approved permanently affixed ladder or steps. Ladders or rungs shall have an inside width of at least 12 inches (305 mm),shall project at least 3 inches (76 mm) from the wall and shall be spaced not more than 18 inch- es(457 mm)on center vertically for the full height of the window well.The ladder or steps shall not encroach into the required dimensions of the window well by more than 6 inches (152 mm). The ladder or steps shall not be Obstructed by the emergency escape and rescue opening. '' INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE® 247 522 ILLUSTRATED 2000 BUILDING CODE HANDBOOK 1009 Emergency Escape and Rescue 1009.3 Maximum height from floor •Height of emergency escape and rescue openings is limited as follows: o The bottom of the clear opening must be<3'-8"from the floor.. t �C 1009.4 Operational constraints •Emergency escape and rescue openings must be operable as follows: a From inside the room. o Without the use of keys or tools. •The following devices may cover such openings where the conditions indicated apply: e Devices: Bars. Grilles. Grates. !, of Similar devices. o Required conditions: ly The size requirements for the opening may not be reduced. .1 The device must be openable from inside the room as follows: Without keys or tools. Without a force greater than that required for the opening itself. Smoke detectors must be provided in the following case: .; Where devices are installed in existing buildings for all alterations. :�F [ Note: The following are cited as the sources of additional requirements: 1 1009.2, "Minimum size,"governs the size of the opening that must remain available after any covering device is installed. 907.2.10, "Single-and multiple-station smoke alarms,"governs the smoke S detector required where covering devices are installed in existing buildings: , r* 1009.5 Window wells This section addresses emergency escape and rescue openings below grade. •Where the finished sill is below adjacent grade,a window well is required. Note: 1009.5.1, "Minimum size,"is cited as a source of requirements for window wells. .. 1009.5.2,'Ladders or steps,"is cited as a source of requirements for window wel-, 1009.5.1 Minimum size •Window wells serving emergency escape and rescue openings must have the following size, o Window well must allow escape and rescue opening to fully open. l` o All horizontal dimensions of the window well to be>_3'. o Window well must provide a clear opening>_9 sf. '1, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Discussion of a Planntrig staff_proposal to reconfigure the boundaries of all the existing Plannipg Communities located in the western one-half of the City. (Doug Wheelwright Reviewed) Mr.Wheelwright explained that the proposal is to split the Northwest Quadrant Planning Community on I-80 and go north and south. It has become obvious that other changes to Planning Community boundaries need to be made,particularly with the Northwest and West Salt Lake communities. The current boundary for Northwest is 1-15 on the east and extends to the west side of the airport. West Salt Lake extends from 1-15 to Bangerter at 4000 West. Staff would like to propose a new planning community just for the airport that would include the airport,the uses on the 2200 West corridor on the west side of 1-215 and the existing Salt Lake International Center property. The land is all the same general land use west of I-215 on the south of 1-80. Bangerter Highway is a rather arbitrary boundary for that community. 1-215 is a much more logical boundary for West Salt Lake. It does still include the strip commercial and industrial area between Redwood Road and 1-215. It is the feeling this area needs to be kept with the West Salt Lake Community Ms.Barrows asked how many residents will be in airport development on 2200 West area? Mr. Wheelwright explained that the Northpointe Small Area Plan didn't substantially increase the potential for residential population above what is currently there. He explained it is felt that portion should remain part of the airport plan because that is the dominant land use. Ms.McDonald asked if we go further into Lakeside,would there be environmental issues that will limit what can be done in that territory? Mr.Wheelwright responded that there would be tremendous limitations. This area could end up being either a new residential community,or it could become a nature park. There are roughly 6,000 acres in the Lakeside Planning Community that could become a development. The Commission decided the Community Councils should discuss this issue. Ms.Barrows commented how much she appreciates having received the report alerting her to both petition numbers and the date. She did not appreciate the staff report that resulted in her having to go back and search for those items. Staff request that the Planning Commission pass a motion to initiate a petition to amend the zoning ordinance,Title 21 A.36.020B,relating to the projection of basement window wells and other encroachments into minimum side yard setback on residential structures. Principally this concerns the issue of window wells. We have zones that allow a four-foot minimum side yard for residential. If you have a window well,the building code requires it to be three feet out from the wall.An ordinance change was enacted that said if you have a window well in the side yard,you have to have four feet beyond it to the property line. In the ordinance it appears as a footnote and is very difficult to locate. Numerous people that draw their site plans based on four-foot side yard,only to discover they either can't have the basement window well,or they have.to change their site plan,shifting the building to increase the side yard to seven feet. Consequently,there are some substantial building permit problems occurring because of this. Planning Commission Meeting 19 January 4,2001 Ms. Short moved that the staff study zoning ordinance Title 21A.36.020B and bring it back as an amendment to the zoning ordinance. Ms. Funk seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Staff request that the Planning Commission subcommittee on Conditional Use flag lots and residential planned development provisions of the zoning. Calendar a meeting to begin the study of the existing ordinance. Mr. Wheelwright asked that the members of the Planning Commission who volunteered to study this ordinance to please set a date for the first meeting. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Jonas and Ms. Short agreed to meet on Tuesday, January 30, 2001, 4:00 p.m.., Room 126 of City and County Building. Ms. Samantha Francis, Peoples Freeway Chair, came forward to thank the Commission for their time and effort that they expend in service to the citizens of Salt Lake City. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Ma asc , Sec Zetary • • Planning Commission Meeting 20 January 4,2001 PUBLIC HEARING-Petition No.400-01-26 by the Salt Lake City_Planning_Commission, —�+ requesting revisions to Table 21A.36.020B Obstructions in Required Yards,to allow certain encroachments within the side yard setback. Ms. Pahl presented the staff report. The Planning Commission initiated this petition to consider an amendment to the Table 21A.36.020B Obstructions in Required Yards,to allow certain types of encroachments within the side yard setback areas. Of particular concern is an existing regulation which establishes a four-foot minimum distance for allowed encroachments from the property line. This provision was inserted in the new zoning ordinance about 1998,as part of the zoning ordinance fine-tuning process. It has caused problems in new construction in zones that allow smaller side yard setbacks. The recommended solutions to this problem includes several components,some of which were initially unanticipated and not formally noticed for this Planning Commission agenda. Action by the Planning Commission at this hearing would therefore be inappropriate. Instead,the hearing can provide for valuable citizen input and direction. The staff has identified some recommended changes for discussion.One recommended ordinance change would eliminate the footnote. It is difficult to notice and causes confusion and mistakes. In an effort to increase predictability and accuracy,the standard requiring a minimum clearance from allowed obstructions to property line should be incorporated into the body of the Table. The next option to consider is to reduce the clearance from four feet to two feet. This would provide enough room to allow most obstructions,without requiring trespass for routine maintenance. Another optional ordinance change would increase the side yard setback from four to five feet in all residential zones allowing a four foot setback. Finally,a Routine and Uncontested Matter could be created so that owners of existing homes could renovate their basement to add needed bedrooms with the required emergency ingress and egress. The best solution may be a combination of several of these options. There was a general discussion about the requirements for finishing off basements. Roger Evans,Salt Lake City Chief Building Official,explained the ordinance. He stated there has never been a complaint with this ordinance during the 25 years he's worked for the City. Merrill Nelson,Salt Lake City Development Review Administrator,helped to clarify matters. There was a general discussion about the ordinance. Mr.Smith opened the public hearing. Cindy Cromer, resident,gave examples of problems that she has seen with encroachments. She will go out in the field to familiarize herself with problems that have arisen so she can make an informed recommendation. Mr.Jonas made a motion to continue this hearing to a later date. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Mr.Boyden,Mr.Daniels,Mr.Jonas,Ms.McDonald,Mr. Nelson,Ms. Barrows,Mr.Mariger and Ms.Short voted"Aye". Mr.Smith,as Chairperson,did not vote. The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING-Petition No.410-535 by Rowland Hall—St.Mark's School,requesting conditional use approval for excess height for a bell tower on theirproposed elementary school facility, located at 720 S.Guardsman Way,in an Institutional zoning district. Planning Commission Meeting 9 May 17,2001 Ms. Pahl presented the staff report. Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School is requesting a conditional use for excess height for a 58 foot bell tower, situated in the interior of their 9 acre school site located at 720 South Guardsman Way in an Institutional zoning district. Heights in excess of 35 feet are allowed as a conditional use, provided that for every foot of additional height, an additional foot of building setback is also provided. There was a general discussion about the general provision ordinance, the set back of the existing building and the traffic count. Mr. Smith invited the petitioner to speak to the Planning Commission. Alan Sparrow, Headmaster of St. Mark's School, and Andrew Ramsay, architect, offered to answer any questions the Planning Commission have. Mr. Ramsay stated the bell tower is to identify the entrance to the facility. Mr. Sparrow stated the Community Council was in support of this bell tower being built. He stated he wrote a letter for the Community Council to sign. The letter was non-committal because he didn't want to put words in it that the Chairperson wouldn't agree to. Ms. Pahl stated she spoke to the Chairperson and the Chairperson approved this petition. Motion for Case #410-535: Ms. McDonald made a motion based on findings and fact to approve Petition No. 410-535 by Rowland Hall — St. Mark's School, requesting conditional use approval for excess height for a bell tower on their proposed elementary school facility, located at 720 S. Guardsman Way, in an Institutional zoning district. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Mr. Boyden, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonald, Mr. Nelson, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Ms. Short voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. 3. OTHER BUSINESS A memorandum was presented to the Planning Commission requesting to initiate rezoning on the property at 1321 South 500 East Street. Mr. Joyce presented the memorandum. Two of the key objectives in the 1995 citywide zoning were to base zoning changes of existing land use and not to split properties with two zoning districts. Planning staff determined that the zoning map was in error by splitting the subject parcel with two zoning classifications. The correct zoning classification for the subject parcel should be CN Neighborhood Commercial. Development activity on the subject parcel has brought forward concerns by the neighborhood about the zoning on the property. Rather than requiring the neighborhood to appeal the administrative mapping action the staff determined it would be best to rescind the administrative action and request a formal petition and zoning map amendment process. It is requested that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to amend - the zoning map so that all of the parcel at 1321 South 500 East Street is zoned CN Neighborhood Commercial. There was a general discussion on this memorandum. Planning Commission Meeting 10 May 17,2001 Mr. Jonas made a motion to initiate a petition to amend the zoning map so that all of the parcel at 1321 South 500 East Street is zoned CN Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Mr. Boyden, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonald, Mr. Nelson, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger and Ms. Short voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. Tenant Mailing Notice The Planning Commission decided to continue this matter until Ms. Arnold was there to discuss this. Planning Commission Meeting 11 May 17,2001 • Mr.Jonas made a motion based on the findings of fact to approve Petition No.400-01-22,by Dean Clark Used Cars,to declare a 4,214 square foot parcel of City-owned land as surplus property,preparatory to the sale to the petitioner. The subject parcel abuts the north property line of 1101 South Main Street. Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Ms.Arnold,Mr. Daniels,Ms. Funk,Mr.Jonas, Ms.McDonald, Ms.Short, Mr.Manger and Mr.Nelson voted"Aye". Mr.Smith,as Chairperson,did not vote. The motion carried. —� PUBLIC HEARING-Petition No.400-01-26,by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting revisions to Table 21A.36.020B Obstructions in Required Yards,to allow certain encroachments within required side yard setbacks. The potential action may include increasing the minimum side yard setback from 4 feet to 5 feet in some residential districts. Mr.Wheelwright,with the assistance of Merrill Nelson,presented the staff report. The staff is recommending that the 4 foot to property line requirement be eliminated from the ordinance and from the table. It will still preserve the availability of the four-foot side yard, particularly for new construction. You could have a window well within one foot of the property line. A removable, approved grate would be required that wouldn't interfere with the emergency exit use of the window well. Ms.Arnold asked if this ordinance change would apply to new development as well as existing properties. She is concerned if the proposed changes to this ordinance are approved,that many existing properties would no longer be in compliance. Mr.Wheelwright explained that it would effect new development and existing properties. He stated that if the property owner wanted to put something in the side yard and it would not comply with the side yard setback ordinance,it would have to be placed in the rear yard. Mr.Smith stated he would like all air conditioning condenser units to be placed in rear yards as they emit a lot of noise and could disturb neighbors,especially if the units are placed in narrow side yards. Mr.Jonas suggested that large window air conditioning units should not be allowed in narrow side yards. Ms. McDonald stated her concern that the Community Council Chairs don't attend the Mayor's monthly meetings and they don't adequately review these changes. She didn't hear about this at her Community Council meeting. She feels a broader range of the community should be notified of these proposed changes. Mr.Wheelwright stated that each Community Council Chair has been notified of all hearings that are going before the Planning Commission. Community Councils have not shown a lot of interest in this ordinance change. Mr.Smith stated the goal is to inform the whole community about proposed changes. The Community Council Chairs are notified and then they are expected to inform the community. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. The City cannot afford to send notification to each member of the community. The Community Councils are the conduit for notification from the City to the community. It is not a perfect system,but it is the best we have. Planning Commission Meeting 3 June 21,2001 Mr. Wilde stated staff is aware of the problem. They have sometimes held open houses, which all the Community Council Chairs were invited to and only two people showed up. Staff is not sure what the answer is to get the Community Councils more informed or more involved with proposed issues. Ms. Short asked if there was an appeal process. Mr. Smith stated the appeal goes to the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Funk stated her concern of the possibility of two adjoining homes having four-foot side yards, with each home having an abutting three-foot window well. There are only two-feet between the two window wells to walk. She knows that grates are installed on the window wells. She is concerned that this can happen. Mr. Daniels stated his concern in the event of any emergency services that might be need to enter this type of area. Mr. Maringer stated that is a concern, but people also need to have emergency exits from their basements. He asked what was more dangerous to life safety? Mr. Smith opened the public hearing. Cindy Cromer, resident, stated she has addressed the Planning Commission on this issue in the past. She passed photographs to the Planning Commission of the property adjoining hers showing problems with allowing window wells, etc in small side yard setbacks. She stated you'ri not allowed to put a clothesline in the side yard and yet you're allowed to build permanent structures into the side yard. She believes the window wells have created maintenance problems. The photographs show tall grass and weeds growing in the side yard because it is impossible to take mechanical equipment there to keep it maintained. She is pleased the grates have been included in this ordinance for safety. Bruce Newman, Construction Manager for Salt Lake Neighborhood Housing Services, stated they build a lot of in-fill homes in older neighborhoods. He deals with very narrow lots that are a challenge to build homes on. He would like the Planning Commission to approve the proposed changes of this ordinance. He would landscape between the window wells in a narrow side yard with materials that wouldn't need maintenance. Mr. Smith closed the public hearing. Mr. Maringer suggested additional changes to the table, including on the chimney projecting ". . . and maintain at least 2 feet from the property line." , so it would be treated the same as air conditioning units. Motion for Case #400-01-26: Mr. Maringer made a motion based on the findings of fact to approve Option 1 in the Salt Lake City Planning Commission Staff Report on Petition No. 400-01-26, to amend Table 21A.36.020B Obstructions in Required Yards, to eliminate the footnote requiring four-feet from the property line, to add a required removable grate to the window well provision, and to require a two-foot Planning Commission Meeting 4 June 21,2001 distance from property line for central air units with the following amendments to the staff recommendations: 1. Under air conditioners which are window units; include "that those units be at least two- feet from the property line." 2. On the provision for "Chimneys projecting 2 feet or less into the yard" add "must be maintained at least 2 feet from the property line." Mr. Jonas seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonald, Ms. Short, Mr. Mariger and Mr. Nelson voted "Aye". Mr. Smith, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING — Petition No. 410-540, from McNeil Engineering, representing the LDS Church, requesting conditional use approval for expansion of a church parking lot and a related housing loss mitigation plan, for a property located at 934 West Fremont Avenue in a single- family residential R-1-5000 zone. This item has been postponed. PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-01-31, from "The Island Connection" requesting that the zoning of property located at 680 South 900 West be changed from RMF-35 (medium density residential) to CB (community business). Mr. Hinckley presented the staff report. The petitioners intend to operate a family owned and operated florist shop with Hawaiian Island accessories. Staff has been unable to find evidence of a recent business license for this location. Residents of the area have indicated that a corner grocery store and other commercial uses have occupied the site in the past. The two community councils in the west of Salt Lake Community have repeatedly indicated that more neighbor- oriented commercial uses are needed in this part of the City. In addition to providing an opportunity for more neighborhood-oriented commercial uses at this location, this Master Plan amendment would also bring the two south corners into compliance with the Master Plan. Ms. McDonald asked if the billboard on the side of the building is legal under the sign ordinance. Mr. Hinckley stated the billboard has been on the side of the building for a long time. Although there have been complaints about the billboard, a preliminary investigation could not find any indication that it wasn't legal. It would take more research to find out if it was put up with a permit. The lease for the billboard was renewed a year or so ago. BREAK TO FIX TAPE Mr. Smith invited the petitioner, Mary Jane Fakahafua, to speak while the tape was malfunctioning. The petitioner's presentation was not recorded. Mr. Goldsmith explored the possibility of approving this petition subject to the removal of the billboard. Ms. Fakahafua stated she has a copy of the lease for the billboard. The purchase of the building is contingent upon honoring the lease for the billboard. She cannot cover the billboard with a sign for her store. She said there were indications that a browsery and a corner store or market were Planning Commission Meeting 5 June 21,2001 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES STEPHEN A.GOLDSMITH SALT a\a�v�T1'f Ci .RPORA iI,O i ROSS C.AN DER SON rigNRlHv olRLcrva COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAraR PLANNING DIVISION BRENT S.WADE May 2,2001 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Planning Division is currently reviewing petition,submitted by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission,requesting revisions to Table 21 A.36.020B Obstnictions in Required Yards,to allow certain encroachments within the side yard setback areas. In particular,the Commission is reviewing an existing regulation which establishes a four foot minimum distance for allowed encroachments from the property line. They may recommend that this distance be reduced. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission concerning this request will be given the opportunity to speak. This public hearing is scheduled for: DATE: May 17,2001 TIME: 7:05 p.m. PLACE: ROOM 126 SALT LAKE CITY AND COUNTY BI,DG 451 SO.STATE STREET Since it is difficult for us to inform all interested persons about this issue,we would appreciate your discussing this matter with your neighbors and informing them of the hearing. If you have any questions or would like to review the file,contact Margaret Pahl at 535-6220. If you own rental property,please inform your tenants of this hearing. We comply with all ADA guidelines. Assistive listening devices and interpretive services provided upon 24 hour advance. 4S1 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY,DTAH E141 11 TELEPHONE:RO1-S3S-77S7 FAX:HOI-S3S-6174 ONI STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH SAiUI r�` Q v� `IT aO -``-',,,��'�II O; ROSS C. ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR June 6, 2001 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Planning Division is currently reviewing a petition, submitted by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, requesting revisions to Table 21A.36.020B Obstructions in Required Yards, to allow certain encroachments within the side yard setback areas. In particular, the Commission is reviewing an existing regulation which establishes a four foot minimum distance for allowed encroachments from the property line. They may recommend that this distance be reduced, or they may recommend that the minimum side yards be increased. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission concerning this request will be given the opportunity to speak. This public hearing is scheduled for: DATE: June 21, 2001 TIME: 5:45 p.m. PLACE: ROOM 126 SALT LAKE CITY AND COUNTY BLDG 451 S0. STATE STREET Since it is difficult for us to inform all interested persons about this issue, we would appreciate your discussing this matter with your neighbors and informing them of the hearing. If you have any questions or would like to review the file,contact Margaret Pahl at 535-6220. If you own rental property in this area, please inform your tenants of the hearing. We comply with all ADA guidelines. Assistive listening devices and interpretive services provided upon 24 hour advance. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7757 FAX: SO1-535-6174 PETITION NO. q(n) - 01- 3,6 PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required S/Z/i Petition delivered to Planning ri<IA.Cf. 54i,st 12Lk Petition assigned to: HA2lraQr (r�H� 12p-t .5-11-dot Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date 412r(ot f f O?/t 12kA Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover 'ALft:r Chronology Np _ iZ Property Description (marked with a post it note) ktF� 11z4. Affected Sidwell Numbers Included it!o, Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils 1 t At for Mailing Postmark Date Verification 1:1cOrr Planning Commission Minutes ' �o1.(c, Planning Staff Report Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. t.(loIri fl(n.. Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office p (eh— Ordinance property description is checked,dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. ?am Ftif cietti,itcs, Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office REMARKS Petition I, 400-01-26 By SLC Planning Commission Requesting revisions to Table 21A.36.020B Obstructions in Required Yards, to allow certain encroachments within the side yard setback. • i I II Date Filed Address ROGER EVANS S`'� 1', r�\Q� v' T -Gt�,�O.I�P� ��jJi I „ "' ROSS C. ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BUILDING SERVICES AND LICENSING March 29, 2002 Salt Lake City Council The Division of Building Services and Licensing supports the change to zoning ordinance that has been approved by the Planning Commission as it relates to window wells in the required side yards. We have many older residential building buildings where the property owner wants to create a bedroom area in the basement. The building code has specific requirements for the window that is used for emergency escape and rescue that include window wells and the current ordinance does not allow the encroachment when you have a minimum side yard. I have included a copy of the section from the building code along with a sketch of the requirement. Sincerely Roger R. Evans, Director L 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 21 B, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-6644 FAX: B01-535-7750 netgnt: oetow Lne au)ace[u F,Ivu1u1 cirvau./u auuu have a window well. Ladder or steps permitted to Net clear dimensions when encroach maximum of 6" into fully opened to provide 9 required dimensions • Window well sq. ft. of opening j Ladder or steps required =1 i i'_ \; j 1111117=_ \: =I I I I I 36"min. _ • 1 'ill- �' =iill-I •• ' 44 I111 I �— 36"min. ill =11 I I-- •• R iii ! III—=!III =1!11=iI II-1I II III=II II _ Emergency escape or rescue =1 i =_ 1I I I (' =' opening with finished sill height = 11 ._-'I,,III= _!I I i !I I below adjacent grade it ll= =I I I I-1 111=1 I I I=_I I II - Ladders or steps are exempt from the stairway requirements - Ladders shall have an inside width >_12 inches. Rungs shall be spaced not more than 18 inches on center. Ladder shall project at least 3 inches from wall. SECTION R310 EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE OPENINGS R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue required.Basements R310.2 Window wells.Window wells required for emergency with habitable space and every sleeping room shall have at least escape and rescue shall have horizontal dimensions that allow one openable emergency escape and rescue window or exterior the door or window of the emergency escape and rescue open- door opening for emergency escape and rescue.Where open- ; ing to be fully opened.The horizontal dimensions of the win- ings are provided as a means of escape and rescue they shall dow well shall provide a minimum net clear area of 9 square have a sill height of not more than 44 inches(1118 mm)above feet(0.84 m2)with a minimum horizontal projection and width the floor.Where a door opening having a threshold below the of 36 inches(914 mm). adjacent ground elevation serves as an emergency escape and rescue opening and is provided with a bulkhead enclosure,the Exception: The ladder or steps required by Section bulkhead enclosure shall comply with Section R310.3.The net R310.2.1 shall be permitted to encroach a maximum of clear opening dimensions required by this section shall be ob- 6 inches (152 mm) into the required dimensions of the tained by the normal operation of the window or door opening window well. from the inside.Escape and rescue window openings with a fin R310.2.1 Ladder and steps.Window wells with a vertical ished sill height below the adjacent ground elevation shall be depth greater than 44 inches(1118 mm)below the adjacent provided with a window well in accordance with Section ground level shall be equipped with a permanently affixed R310.2. ladder or steps usable with the window in the fully open posi- R310.1.1 Minimum opening area.All emergency escape tion.Ladders or steps required by this section shall not be re- and rescue openings shall have a minimum net clear opening quired to comply with Sections R314 and R315.Ladders or of 5.7 square feet(0.530 m2). rungs shall have an inside width of at least 12 inches Exception: Grade floor openings shall have a minimum (305 mm),shall project at least 3 inches(76 mm)from the net clear opening of 5 square feet(0.465 m2). wall and shall be spaced not more than 18 inches(457 mm) on center vertically for the full height of the window well. R310.1.2 Minimum opening height. The minimum net clear opening height shall be 24 inches(610 mm). R310.1.3 Minimum opening width. The minimum net clear opening width shall be 20 inches(508 mm). R310.1.4 Operational constraints.Emergency escape and rescue openings shall be operational from the inside of the room without the use of keys or tools. ROGER EVANS -� 11� A\ a P Jkj tTiretOR�PO I,� i "^" + "'j +`��+� -+ ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BUILDING SERVICES AND LICENSING March 29, 2002 Salt Lake City Council The Division of Building Services and Licensing supports the change to zoning ordinance that has been approved by the Planning Commission as it relates to window wells in the required side yards. We have many older residential building buildings where the property owner wants to create a bedroom area in the basement. The building code has specific requirements for the window that is used for emergency escape and rescue that include window wells and the current ordinance does not allow the encroachment when you have a minimum side yard. I have included a copy of the section from the building code along with a sketch of the requirement. Sincerely 7,- r 1 Roger R. Evans, Director i 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 21 B, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: 601-535.6644 FAX: B01-535-7750 height. netow me aujacern tr-oultu etrvuuvu auau have a window well. Ladder or steps permitted to Net clear dimensions when encroach maximum of 6" into fully opened to provide 9 required dimensions -. Window well sq. . of opening Ladder or steps required \ =1i II= i 7` - =I I I I 36"min. c„ =1111=I I I . > 44 1111 p'-- 36"min. 11 ;111 =I:II=il ll= III= III=1111 1111 = _ Emergency escape or rescue =1 111=1 i II —I I i I=11 11= opening with finished sill height =_ i 'I below adjacent grade =;Ili-;III it ll= 1111=1 111=1 I I I=1111 - Ladders or steps are exempt from the stairway requirements - Ladders shall have an inside width >_12 inches. Rungs shall be spaced not more than 13 inches on center. Ladder shall project at least 3 inches from wall. SECTION R310 EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE OPENINGS R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue required.Basements R310.2 Window wells.Window wells required for emergency with habitable space and every sleeping room shall have at least I escape and rescue shall have horizontal dimensions that allow one openable emergency escape and rescue window or exterior the door or window of the emergency escape and rescue open- door opening for emergency escape and rescue. Where open- ing to be fully opened.The horizontal dimensions of the win- ings are provided as a means of escape and rescue they shall dow well shall provide a minimum net clear area of 9 square have a sill height of not more than 44 inches(1118 mm)above feet(0.84 m2)with a minimum horizontal projection and width the floor.Where a door opening having a threshold below the of 36 inches(914 mm). adjacent ground elevation serves as an emergency escape and rescue opening and is provided with a bulkhead enclosure,the Exception: The ladder or steps required by Section bulkhead enclosure shall comply with Section R310.3.The net R310.2.I shall be permitted to encroach a maximum of clear opening dimensions required by this section shall be ob- 6 inches (152 mm) into the required dimensions of the tained by the normal operation of the window or door opening window well. from the inside.Escape and rescue window openings with a fin R310.2.1 Ladder and steps.Window wells with a vertical ished sill height below the adjacent ground elevation shall be depth greater than 44 inches(1118 mm)below the adjacent provided with a window well in accordance with Section ground level shall be equipped with a permanently affixed R310.2. ladder or steps usable with the window in the fully open posi- R310.1.1 Minimum opening area. All emergency escape tion.Ladders or steps required by this section shall not be re- and rescue openings shall have a minimum net clear opening quired to comply with Sections R314 and R315.Ladders or of 5.7 square feet(0.530 m2). rungs shall have an inside width of at least 12 inches Exception: Grade floor openings shall have a minimum (305 mm),shall project at least 3 inches(76 mm) from the net clear opening of 5 square feet(0.465 m2). wall and shall be spaced not more than 18 inches(457 mm) on center vertically for the full height of the window well. R310.1.2 Minimum opening height. The minimum net clear opening height shall be 24 inches(610 mm). R310.1.3 Minimum opening width. The minimum net clear opening width shall be 20 inches(508 mm). R310.1.4 Operational constraints.Emergency escape and rescue openings shall be operational from the inside of the room without the use of keys or tools. LAKEJCITY::COUNCIL STAFF REPORT: .. .. ..... .. . BUDGET'AMENDMENT ANALYsi8 Fis AL YEAR:2002-03 :: .: DATE: May 17, 2002 BUDGET FOR: PUBLIC SERVICES (including GOLF, FLEET, REFUSE Funds) STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears c : Rocky Fluhart, Steve Fawcett, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom, Greg Davis, Nancy Sanders, Laurie Dillon and DJ Baxter The General Fund budget that the Council adopted in June 2001 for the Public Services for fiscal year 2002-2003 was $29,777,376. The Mayor is recommending an amendment to decrease the budget by $336,373 to $29,441,003. The following recommended budget amendments include amendments to the Golf and Refuse Funds. Golf and Refuse are enterprise funds, supported by user fees rather than tax dollars. RECOMMENDED BUDGET AMENDMENTS The following budget amendments are recommended by the Administration: • Personal services benefit adjustment - There is a $146,760 increase in the budgeted amount for personal services. Actual pay increases and benefit costs are different than the amount estimated in the biennial budget. (BA03-01) • Eliminate Impound Lot-The recommended budget includes the outsourcing of the impound lot operations. This recommendation will result in a decrease of 7.08 FTE positions. Total expenditure savings is anticipated to be $386,636. Other departments that use the impound lot will need to make appropriate accommodations on behalf of their individual departments. There is a corresponding reduction in revenue of$260,009. (BA03-14 • Eliminate 2 positions from the In-House Architectural program - There is a $139,762 decrease in the budgeted amount for the In-House Architectural program personnel costs. This decrease was a result of a recommended reduction of two FTE positions in the program. The Administration has indicated that they will be forwarding an alternate proposal on for this program, which will not necessitate the elimination of these positions. (BA03-15) • Various Operational Changes - There is a combined reduction of $163,203 in various operational changes. These changes do include personnel reductions. The breakdown of the changes is as follows: Eliminate business graffiti removal ($19, 928) 1 • Eliminate Hazardous Waste Removal ($24,996) (environmental compliance is a function of Management Services) • Eliminate International Peace Gardens Seasonal employees ($54,696) • Transfer General Fund portion of Accountant III to Golf Fund ($14,500) • Eliminate early retirement budget ($230,900) • Eliminate Asphalt Equipment Operator II position (vacant) ($45,132) • Eliminate Engineer III position (vacant) ($56,340) • Water increases $83,000 • Waste Disposal Fees increase in Parks $20,531 • CBI Security price increase of$27,514 Electrical and Natural Gas $90,963 cost increase • Gateway Island Maintenance increase $24,000 • Seasonal employees increase $33,905 • Police Department janitorial shift $45,000. (BA03-16) • Assumption of Jordan River Parkway ownership and operations -The City has the opportunity to assume ownership of the Jordan River Parkway State Park and the State owned Cottonwood Park. The State has tentatively agreed to contribute $25,000 towards the operation of the park. The Administration is currently negotiating for a greater amount. Total expenditures are anticipated to be $128,468 each fiscal year. Three FTE seasonal positions will be added to maintain this new park. (BA03-17) • Additional FTE position in Golf Enterprise Fund - The recommended budget amendment for the Golf Fund includes the addition of a groundskeeper (1 FTE) for the Forest Dale Golf Course. The $34,091 in necessary funding for this position is proposed to come from a reduction in operating supplies and retail merchandise in the Golf Fund. The budget for supplies and merchandise has been more than sufficient in the past. The total overall fiscal affect of this proposal is $0. (BA03- 28) • Assumption of Jordan River Golf Course ownership and operations -The City has the opportunity to assume ownership of the Jordan River Golf Course. Total annual expenditures are anticipated to be $223,990. Green fees, Golf Fund reserves and a $50,000 Grant from the PGA for the operation of the Jordan River Golf Course are the proposed funding sources for this golf course. This course is expected to require more than $93,990 from the Golf Fund reserves in fiscal year 2002-2003 for one-time equipment purchases. The professional and superintendent at the Rose Park Golf Course will manage this golf course. Audited financial statements for the Golf Fund as of June 30, 2001 showed current assets to be about $1.3 million greater than current liabilities. This proposal uses fund reserves for one-time equipment purchases. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to comment on the adequacy of fund reserves and th purposes for which the reserves are being accumulated. The Administrati n xpects to realize economies of scale from the operation and impr v d 2 mark ting of this cours . Th r suiting r v nu is xpected to over op rating xp nditur s. (BA03-29) • Refuse Fund changes to operating expenditures -With the implementation of automated curbside recycling, an increase in recycling activity has occurred, which has resulted reduced non-recyclable trash, for a savings in tonnage (tipping) fees paid to the Landfill. A corresponding reduction in the number of weekly refuse containers has caused a decrease in projected revenue of $180,763. The proposed increases to the operating budget are for maintaining the refuse fleet and for the addition of .50 FTE Ground Arborist and 2.04 FTE Seasonal employees. The total proposed staffing additions are estimated to cost $80,953. Overall adjustments to the Refuse Fund include an increase in the use of fund balance in the amount of $388,367 and a net expenditure increase of $207,604. Audited financial statements for the Refuse Fund as of June 30, 2001 showed current assets to be about $4.8 million greater than current liabilities. (BA03-30) ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED BUDGETS The synopsis below represents full-time equivalent (FTE) positions from the Staffing • Document, and is followed by a synopsis of the Public Service Department's budgets. FTEs FTEs Adopted Proposed 2002-03 2002-03 Office of the Director 14.63 14.48 Compliance 54.49 53.36 Facility Management 51.31 51.31 Gallivan Utah Center/Community Events 17.15 17.15 Streets 85.05 84.80 Parks 120.79 119.38 Engineering 63.00 60.00 Youth & Family Programs 23.37 23.37 Total 429.79 423.85 Golf 90.92 94.50 Refuse 60.88 63.42 Fleet 40.00 40.00 3 PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT EXPENDITURES PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 • 4:., ::.;.;:.:: : :> Recommended . .. ............. :.;:.;:.:�lrnen<'ttaen� :>::::::::><::<::�f3 ::20?3:::<:General Fund _ Office of the Director $1,723,816 $(14,500) $1,709,316 Compliance 2,025,294 (386,636) 1,638,658 Facility Management 4,792,204 163,477 4,955,681 Gallivan Utah Center 1,215,196 0 1,215,196 Community Events 367,755 0 367,755 Streets 7,439,449 (84,756) 7,354,693 Parks 6,286,780 156,379 6,443,159 Engineering 4,886,440 (196,102) 4,690,338 Youth&Family Programs 1,040,442 0 1,040,442 Personal Services(all 146,760 146,760 divisions) • Other adjustments (120,995) (120,995) Total Proposed General Fund $29,777,376 $(336,373) $29,441,003 GOLF FUND $ 8,355,117 238,490 $ 8,593,607 REFUSE COLLECTION FUND $10,156,680 207,604 $10,364,284 FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND $11,173,836 0 $11,173,836 Office of the Director This division provides coordinated direction and support to carry out the Department's goals and policies. It provides fmancial, planning, training, personnel and safety services, as well as overseeing and coordinating the communications, information, and contract management functions of the Department. Compliance Administration This division provides coordinated direction and support to carry out three programs: parking enforcement, crossing guards and the impound lot. Facility Management This division provides maintenance and repairs of City-owned buildings, the Downtown and Sugar House Business Districts and Franklin Covey Stadium. Gallivan Utah Center This division is responsible for operation of the Gallivan Utah Center through contract with the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City. Expenditures not covered by program revenue are covered by the Redevelopment Agency. Community Events The Community Events division is responsible for programming some of the activities — at Gallivan Utah Center, as well as Citywide events such as the Celtic Festival, the Salt Lake City Classic, and 24th of July celebration. Streets 4 The Streets Division provides a variety of services aimed at providing a clean, attractive, safe and healthy environment. General Fund services include the maintenance of streets, sidewalks and signals; snow removal; and signing and marking within the City. Parks The Parks Division ensures the preservation, development and maintenance of parks and open spaces in the City. The division also is responsible for managing the City Cemetery and the Graffiti Removal program. Engineering The Engineering Division provides general engineering services for the City, including the review of private development projects, oversight of work in the public right-of- way, engineering, surveying, mapping, record services and the proper design of City- owned buildings and facilities. Youth & Family Programs This division provides intervention activities and assistance for at-risk youth and families at the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center. Within the Non-Departmental portion of the recommended budget there is $150,000 identified for Youth Services. That program is not related to this Youth and Family services program. LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS The Council has some Legislative Action items outstanding with this Department. A complete list of outstanding Legislative Action items will be provided for Council feedback later in the budget process. POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE ■ The Mayor's recommended budget amendment for fiscal year 2002-2003 does not address the Fleet Management and Performance Review that is currently underway. Part I of the review had some recommendations for the division. It is the understanding of Council staff that the Fleet Review briefing material will be transmitted from the Administration soon. The Council may wish to consider all recommendations associated with the Fleet Division once the review is complete. • The Council has received public comments relating to the Fleet impound lot. The Council may wish to request that the Administration respond to the issues raised, including: • The potential impact on other City Departments, including Fire and Police (vehicles available for training). • Any potential chain of evidence or security concerns with private lots. 5 • The actual amount of revenue that is currently generated and any revenue that is anticipated to be generated through the new approach. • Confirmation of the net projected savings. • The Council has also received comment on the architect positions proposed for elimination. Clarification could be requested from the Administration on: • The extent to which outside contracting will be necessary • The service level impact for departments • The extent to which some of the savings may be offset by loss of reimbursement revenue from other departments (BA03-15) • Confirmation of the net projected savings • It is the understanding of Council staff that briefing material concerning the State Land Transfer and the Golf Marketing Plan will soon be transmitted by the Administration. Both items relate to the budget discussions that the Council will hold on May 21, 2002. The Council may wish to schedule briefmgs on these two items on June 4 or 6 and discuss them before the Council adopts changes to the fiscal year 2002-2003 budget. • The Council established the business graffiti removal program in order to assure quick removal of graffiti because it has been asserted that graffiti left unchecked tends to lead to further graffiti and property destruction. In establishing the program, the Council indicated it didn't want property owners to feel 'victimized twice'- once when the graffiti'was done and a second time due to a proposed City regulation requiring that removal take place within a specified time frame. The Council may wish to clarify whether paint and materials will still be available to property owners including businesses, whether there will be a charge for these items and where the cost for these items is budgeted. Also, the Council may wish to clarify whether there are currently any requirements for the timely removal of graffiti. • Last year the Council expressed concern that one of the City departments had not budgeted for early retirement and came to the Council in a budget opening in the middle of the year to request funding. The elimination of$230,900 from this department's budget could create the same situation. The Council may wish to establish a consistent policy about whether retirements will be funded through budget openings or should be included in the regular budget such as Fire and Police have done. • The Council has a policy indicating it will consider funding maintenance costs as new maintenance responsibilities are added to the Public Services portfolio. Adequate funding is not available to follow this policy for the addition of the State parks properties unless cuts are made in other areas. • In response to a question from Council Member Carlton Christensen the Administration has indicated that parking meter replacement is no longer funded in Management Services. It is anticipated that replacement will be 6 funded to the extent possible through Public Services. This could be very limited given the other demands of this Department's budget. 7 SALT I AKE'CITY COUNC.IL STAFF:13EPORT BUDGET.Am MDMENT'AN1 Yrsw 1 BCALNE ' 00Z03 DATE: May 17, 2002 BUDGET FOR: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford cc: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Roger Cutler, Sim Gill, Lynn Pace, Steve Fawcett, Kay Christensen, DJ Baxter The budget that the Council adopted in June 2001 for the City Attorney's Office for fiscal year 2002-2003 was $2,616,056. The Mayor is recommending an amendment to decrease the budget by $35,716 to $2,580,295. The City Prosecutor's Office is included within the budget for the City Attorney's Office. Proposed Changes to the Budget for the City Attorney's Office Proposed Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget Amendment City Attorney's Office Adopted budget $2,816,056 Additional associate city prosecutor position to assist with workload: The number of new case filings has increased to an average of 1,500 to 57,535 1,600 per prosecutor. The Administration indicates that the prosecutors spend more time with each case than in the past.. The Administration also indicates that the transition to a justice court will require prosecutors to prosecute existing caseload already in place at the District Court as well as beginto prosecute cases in the Justice Court. Reduction in process service costs: Costs associated with process service can be further reduced as a result of switching from using contracted (54,100) constables for delivering documents to mailing the documents. Eliminate a senior attorney position that inadvertently was included in (62,000) the biennial budget: This position has never been filled. Adjustment for employee pay increases and benefit costs is greater than the amount estimated in the biennial budget: Much if this increase 26,239 is due to the City's health insurance rates that are increasing by 11%. Proposed budget $2,583,730 1 Potential Matters at Issu • Additional associate city prosecutor position: The Administration reports that the average caseload of other jurisdictions within the County is approximately 1,270 annual cases per prosecutor (Sandy 1,230 cases per prosecutor; Murray 1,835; South Salt Lake 1,015; West Valley City 1,000 cases per prosecutor). Salt Lake City's average annual caseload is between 1,500 and 1,600 per prosecutor. The City Prosecutor indicates that a change in approach has increased the number of jury trials from less than 14 in 1999 to over 100 in calendar year 2001. Council staff has not verified this data. o In the past several years, the City has `decriminalized' many issues, such as minor traffic matters and a number of land use issues. As such, many of these cases are now being handled outside of the prosecutorial process. o Briefmg papers from the Administration in calendar year 2000 regarding establishing a Justice Court stated that one of the advantages of a justice court is that Salt Lake City would have control of the docket. Sometimes with the District Court, witnesses and police officers are brought in only to have cases continued. The Salt Lake City Prosecutor's Office will be better able to coordinate caseload and prosecutor assignments since there are fewer judges in the Justice Court. There was an indication that the Justice Court would allow the City to use its existing resources (prosecutor and police) more efficiently because scheduling problems will be significantly reduced. Travel time of walking between the Prosecutor's Office and the court will be almost eliminated. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to address the transition need with part-time or temporary resources until the Justice Court is fully operational. • Reduction in process service costs: Prior to January 2001, the City contracted with constables for service of summons, subpoenas and bench warrants. The Prosecutor's Division determined that it could achieve the same service of process results, in a more cost effective manner, by mailing the majority of subpoenas, summons and bench warrants, and by having a City employee effectuate personal service of process rather than paying the higher costs of an outside process server. The fiscal year 2001-2002 budget was reduced to recognize this more efficient means for process. The Prosecutor's Office suggests that the budget can be further reduced by $54,100 as a result of switching from using contracted constables. The Council may wish to confirm that resources are available to effectuate personal service when it is necessary. 2 If the Council determines that the reduction in personal services costs can be made without a significant service level impact, the Council can weigh whether it wishes to fund the additional prosecutor position, as suggested in this budget, or another Council priority. • Scope of Services in Prosecutor's Office: The Prosecutor's Office focuses on a restorative justice model. This approach could be more labor-intensive than a traditional prosecutorial approach, yet has a number of benefits. The Council may wish to request a summary of all services and programs currently funded in the office. There are two grant-funded positions in this office that the Administration may request to have continued in the future. Due to the recommendation to eliminate the Youth and Family Specialist and Community Support positions in the Police Department, the Council may wish to consider whether there are positions in the Prosecutor's Office that also fall outside of the strict interpretation of the City's role. • The Prosecutor's Office is requesting one-half of a position in the last budget opening of this year. It is a grant-funded position to assist victims of domestic violence as they go through the court system. Council staff has requested information on how that position differs from the victim advocate positions in the Police Department who are also involved in domestic violence cases. While this position is funded with grant funds, it does represent a service level increase. It is likely that there would be interest in continuing it using general fund monies once the grant funds expire. Governmental Immunity Fund The City Attorney also oversees the Governmental Immunity Fund and a part of the Insurance and Risk Management Fund. There are not any changes proposed to the budget for the Governmental Immunity Fund. The City's Governmental Immunity Fund provides for protection against unfounded claims of liability and for payment of legitimate claims. The adopted budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 increased the funding from the General Fund by $50,000 to $1,300,000. Past Council policy is to maintain sufficient reserves in the Governmental Immunity Fund. Audited financial statements for the Governmental Immunity Fund as of June 30, 2001 showed reserves to be nearly depleted (i.e., retained earnings of $70,509). Budget amendment #6, which the Council may consider on June 4, proposes an appropriation of most all of the reserves ($70,000) to meet current- year claims. State law allows a separate tax levy for governmental liability claims. Salt Lake City doesn't levy this separate tax. The Council may wish to discuss the adequacy of this fund, and re-confirm whether it supports this approach. 3 Insurance and Risk Management Fund Changes proposed to the Insurance and Risk Management Fund are: • $140,000 for increases in cost of property insurance: The cost for property insurance has significantly increased since September 11, 2001. Costs to the City will be approximately 40% greater than the previous year. Funding is proposed to come from the following funds: $20,000 from the General Fund; $90,000 from the Airport; and $30,000 from Public Utilities. The amount requested by the Risk Manager for the General Fund's portion was $30,000 but because of an oversight, only $20,000 was included in the proposed budget amendment. • $200,000 decrease to correct an error: The proposed biennial budget included $200,000 to create a self-insurance pool to cover liability from off- duty vehicle accidents. The Council chose not to adopt this approach. The transfer from the General Fund was removed from the adopted budget, but the appropriation in the Risk and Insurance Fund unintentionally remained. • $8,000 for employee pay increases and benefit costs: Projected costs are greater than the amount included in the biennial budget for employees working in the Insurance and Risk Management Fund. The General Fund supports most of the costs of employees of this internal service fund. • $33,000 increase in cost of health insurance for City's share of cost for retirees: The City pays approximately 25% of retired employees health insurance costs. The projected costs for the City's share are greater than originally estimated. 4 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET AMENDMENT ANALYSIS— FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 DATE: May 17, 2002 BUDGET FOR: POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford C : Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Chief Dinse,Jerry Burton, Steve Fawcett, Kay Christensen, DJ Baxter The budget that the Council adopted in June 2001 for the Police Department for fiscal year 2002-2003 is $42,604,364. The Mayor is recommending an amendment to decrease the budget by $78,659 to $42,525,705. Proposed Changes to the Police Department Budget Proposed Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget Amendment Police Department Ad pted budget $42,604,364 Eliminate four youth &family specialist positions (layoffs): The Youth and Family program began under a federal grant to help combat (208,000) the potential for at-risk youth to become involved in criminal activity. Although some of the services may be available through other agencies, the Department states that no other state, county or school program provides the same service level. Eliminate one of five civilian community mobilization specialists (layoff): Community Mobilization Specialists work with the Community (49,000) Action Team to identify long-term solutions to neighborhood problems. Eliminate mobile watch coordinator police officer position (vacant): Total cost of this position is $47,000. The remainder was used to meet (12,160) proportional cuts made to the budget at the time the biennial budget was adopted. The coordination of mobile watch will be accomplished by other police officers. Eliminate one of three information specialists (vacant): The records unit will absorb the cut within existing staff. (31,000) Shift janitorial expenses to Public Services: This is a transfer to the Public Services Department since that Department is (45,000) responsible for janitorial services in the Public Safety Building. Employee actual pay increases and benefit costs are greater than the am unt estimated in the biennial budget: 266,501 The budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 included a 3%increase. Actual negotiated costs and increases to health insurance premiums require additional appropriations. Pr posed budget $42,525,705 1 - Pot ntial Matters at Issue Since there is a decrease in estimated General fund revenue, some non-core programs of the Police Department are proposed for service level reduction to help balance the budget. • Youth and Family Specialists - Four of the five Youth and Family Specialist positions are proposed for elimination. The Youth and Family Specialists receive referrals from various agencies including the City's Police Department and from concerned individuals within the community. Once a referral is received, a Specialist meets with the family for a formal assessment. A treatment or referral plan is developed. Case management includes monitoring academic performance at school, weekly meetings in the home to monitor the family's progress, crisis intervention, parenting skills, anger management, and problem solving skills. If the case is referred to other agencies for services, the Specialist monitors compliance with those referrals. Youth and Family Specialists also establish an intervention program with juveniles who have committed a second legal offense in the community. Families who refuse to cooperate are referred to the City Prosecutor's Office for possible prosecution under the City's Parental Accountability Ordinance. The goal of the program is to reduce recidivism, provide resources to families, and protect the community by improving parental skills and supervision. The Youth and Family Specialists serve as members of the Community Action Teams (CAT). The State's Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) investigates cases of abuse and neglect after they occur. The City's Youth and Family Specialists try to intervene and prevent abuse. The Mayor stated that the Administration will ask DCFS to assume its responsibility to be involved in prevention. The Mayor also pointed out that the Salt Lake City School District also assists families with situations that would prevent a child from succeeding in school. The one remaining Youth and Family Specialist will continue to assist innocent victims of meth production, distribution and use. Reducing the Youth and Family Specialist program will place additional responsibilities on the police officers who work with the Community Action Teams. • Community Mobilization Specialists - The budget amendment proposes the elimination of one of five Community Mobilization Specialists. These specialists work with the community/neighborhood councils and Community Action Teams to determine issues, problems and concerns. The specialists investigate and help resolve these concerns. The Community Mobilization Specialists provide training in crime prevention and assist neighborhoods in implementing Neighborhood Watch. Some Council Districts share a Community Mobilization Specialist. This reduction will require the further sharing of Specialists. • Mobile Watch Coordinator - The amendment proposes eliminating the police officer position that coordinates approximately 550 volunteers to assure compliance with department policy and procedures. This police officer provides training and recruitment and is the direct link to the department for these volunteers. It is proposed that the coordination function be accomplished by other police officers. 2 • Speedboards - Four additional speedboards were purchased during fiscal year 2000-2001, for a total of seven speedboards. In a Council briefmg in January 2002, the Police Department reported that the Department doesn't have the resources to set out the boards every day. On many days only two boards are set up. The Council may wish to discuss with representatives of the Police Department options for greater utilization of speedboards. Possibilities including contracting the services or funding part-time civilian positions to be responsible for set up, take down and data input. • Impound Lot - The paperwork from the Administration regarding the proposed outsourcing of the City's impound lot activities states that "other departments involved in the impound process or who are served by the City program, such as Police, would need to evaluate the changes and make appropriate accommodations on their own." The Council may wish to ask representatives from the Police Department to explain how the proposed changes may affect the Police Department and whether there will be additional costs for the Police Department that the Council should consider in evaluating the proposal to outsource impound lot activities. • Proportional Cuts - In June 2001, the Council made proportional cuts to all General Fund departments in order to balance the fiscal year 2002-2003 budget. The Police Department proposes to meet these reductions by: 1. Deleting the community action team (CAT) secretary position (vacant) saving $34,000. This secretary provides support for the community action teams. This function will need to be assumed by a sergeant. 2. Deleting the community media relations coordinator position, which informs the community about the Department and City and works directly with minority community groups to enhance relationships. Eliminating this vacant position will save $45,000. (There is also an officer who fills a public information role. The officer position will not be eliminated.) 3. Deleting the mobile watch coordinator police officer position (vacant) cutting expenditures by $34,840. Total savings for this position was $47,000, but not all of the savings was needed to meet the proportional cuts. The remaining $12,160 is shown above as an additional reduction to the budget. 4. Delaying police officer recruiting/hiring to save $76,000. Balancing the budget with a delay in hiring only defers the challenges for balancing next year's budget. The budget will still be out of balance by this amount in fiscal year 2003-2004. 3 The budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 is proposed to be $42,525,705, which represents a 0.1% decrease over the original adopted budget. PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 -- Original Proposed Proposed Adopted Budget Budget Budget Amendment Administrative Bureau Administration $1,479,860 $ 9,335 $1,489,195 Management Services(eliminate 1 FrE) 473,788 140,333) 433,455 Internal Affairs 324,589 3,334 327,923 Training 710,032 4,667 714,699_ Administrative Services 355,526 3,334 358,860_ Technical Support 297,092 4;001 301,093 Records(eliminate 1 FTE) 1,664,289 (6,996) 1,657,293 Communications 2,926,658 38,673 2,965,331 _ General Services 2,212,934 148,274' 2,361,208 Total Administrative Bureau 10,444,768 164,289 10,609,057 Investigative Bureau Traffic Unit 2,770,416 27,338 2,797,754 Detective 5,679,650 51,676 5,731,326 Community Support 3,980,475 34,673 4,015,148 Police Evidence 253,556 3,334. 256,890_ Crime Lab 747,288 8;668, 755,956 Total Investigative Bureau 13,431,385 125689- 13,557,074 Operations Bureau Pioneer Patrol(eliminate 4 FTEs) 9,905,871 (138,318) 9,767,553 Liberty Patrol(eliminate 3 FTEs) 8,452,447 (114,987) 8,337,460 Airport Liaison (Transfer 1 FTE) 200,463 (117,333) 83,130_ Crime Analysis 169,430 2,001 171,431 Total Operations Bureau 18,728,211 (368,637) 18,359,574 Total Police Department $42,604,364 $ (78,659) $42,525,705 4