Loading...
05/04/2006 - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 5 : 00 p.m. in the East Wing Cafeteria at the State Capitol, Salt Lake City, Utah. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Soren Simonsen. Absent: Councilmember Van Turner. Also in Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Marge Harvey, Council Constituent Liaison; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Jennifer Bruno, Council Policy Analyst; Vicki Pacheco, Council Staff Assistant; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Nancy Tessman, Library Director; Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director, Zoning Administration, Preservation and Urban Design/Housing and Zoning Enforcement; Joel Paterson, Senior Planner, Preservation and Urban Design; Orion Goff, Building Official; Jeffrey Niermeyer, Public Utilities Deputy Director; David Oka, Redevelopment Agency Executive Director; Gwen Springmeyer, Community Affairs Analyst/District 3 and 4; Mary Anne Villarreal, Vice President of the Library System' s Board of Directors; Mikelle Moore, Chief Executive Officer/LDS Hospital; Erika Dahl, LDS Hospital; Vicki Orme, Fairpark Community Council Chair; Peter Von Sivers, Capitol Hill Community Council Chair; Steve Mecham, Greater Avenue Community Council Chair; and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder. A bus tour of Council District 3 was held at 5 : 00 p.m. (See attached itinerary/map/handouts) . View Attachments Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the Work Session meeting which was called to order at 7 : 03 p.m. OPENING CEREMONY: 9 : 12 : 00 AM Boy Scout Troop #914 presented the Pledge of Allegiance . WORK SESSION: #1 . 9 : 13 : 55 AM COMMENTS FROM DISTRICT 3 RESIDENTS . The following spoke or submitted written comments : Jill VanLangeveld, Shane Carlson, Neal Anderson, Edward Aho, Tyrone Medley, Christian Fonnesbeck, Ervin Horrocks, Ellen Horrocks and Luacine Lloyd. Comments included solutions for compatible infill, community proposal, overlay proposals, parking and traffic flow alternatives, crime prevention, information on Grant Tower property acquisitions, historic 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION THURSDAY, MAY 4 , 2006 neighborhood preservation, soccer stadium, Pioneer Park Phase I, limit dog parks, building height restrictions, ambiguous ordinance, administrative process/appeals, and Ottinger Hall improvements . #2 . 9 : 25 : 22 AM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE LIBRARY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 . View Attachments Nancy Tessman, Mary Anne Villarreal and Russell Weeks briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Discussion was held on the proposed 50-cent-per-vehicle license tax proposal and long-term maintenance issues . Mr. Weeks said further clarification was needed from the Administration. #3 . 9 : 44 : 20 AM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING COMPATIBLE INFILL HOUSING ZONING REGULATIONS IN THE AVENUES AND CAPITOL HILL AREAS . View Attachments View Attachments View Attachments Joel Paterson, Alexander Ikefuna, Cheri Coffey, Orion Goff and Janice Jardine briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Buhler said a public hearing needed to be scheduled. Ms . Jardine said the tentative date for the hearing was June 6, 2006 . Councilmember Jergensen said the Council did not want to jeopardize the ordinance with an arduous implementation process . Mr. Ikefuna said Council Members were invited to participate in a follow-up meeting scheduled the following week to discuss the proposal . Discussion was held on the length of time required to get cases/approvals through the administrative process . Councilmember Saxton asked the Administration to keep the Council informed about developing patterns or trends . Councilmember Simonsen said qualitative design aspects regarding this issue needed to be addressed in the future . He said he wanted to see additional analysis on height restrictions for sloping properties . He said he wanted to ensure the City had enough staff to handle implementation so a burden was not created for property owners . Councilmember Buhler suggested moving the issue forward in order to meet the June deadline . He asked if any Council Members objected. All Council Members present were in favor. #4 . 10 : 43 : 40 AM RECEIVE AN EDUCATIONAL BRIEFING REGARDING THE LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN. (LEED) View Attachments Orion Goff briefed the Council with the attached handouts . He said an ordinance approved by the Planning Commission would be presented to the Council for formal consideration. The meeting adjourned at 8 : 50 p.m. 06 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION THURSDAY, MAY 4 , 2006 Council Chair Chief Deputy City Recorder This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held May 4, 2006 . sc 06 - 3 r_i,. ek SALT �.Alif CITY COUNCIL `""� Date Ialc Pusuc Mrs REGISTRATION Fool ty- d//� .. C)U�, ' Rom. ��' I!1..."7"J '?.. " - b �. ' I,*1 1:.:. r--,—,.. Agenda Item J'T T P17(721,, cri_ ,k;ik z. / Name /- iia 11?e, L 2 i Phone 527 35 I' _ ci U r (please print dearly) , , Address ." `J �;;t`/ ., �;� > / C.1/ / e C, % E-Mail Address L/P/J/1 .7 Lj� c-r_-)2) -/ 2 Subject1t ,, , 7lZ i�y�Gt�'i'' 0 I wish to speak (0 in support of) -or- Pin opposition to the subject noted above. 51 I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? \z �� ,�,� 1T, -7 , ?,7-i_agl ,/4-- tt,/i-(//. I would like to receive information about: 0 eu �;6-, my community council 0 serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://www.slc.ut.us. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at council.comments@d sic.utus , 1 , ,•i/-2-'1'. :,-', il i• i ;... ,(e I LC: c-C,(1,,7-• t'--t-- , 1,1 ) 2'''4:)'11y)/ .'"Vk.. 4:'.41) fl / ... ,,,. ; .4 7i 1 ' /, 1., i c,_,(, _ (.' H,jt , ,..,-,4.--(__4(,'''ys ' (.,? / / ,;,..2,„6,,,,,,.. • • , ,, , ., ,., , c,,,6-i 7 !,,,,7 11,,,<, ,,-)1,, 9". ,,:;9(,! '-c, ,;,_(_17 (-• e 1SZ-%'..-i (•(_-)14"''-- t-- ;,,: ,-1,-/I 1 ) '7,7, c/filit, 1-4,_/1 '''f z\- ' " •) 4,--i-, -... ,' _v',,i , ,',..!,(.1 . -. ' .( i i..1, , •,, . ., : , -fV2-'''''L' '12)/?-4.• ,,,''t,"1,`-'7) (-1---;?'-'(1 • --'''-'); Git'- ‘1 ft ILL( d 1 '' ') I/14' / I '' ' V r L„7--7 4,-- 4',:,-;/: ....( L.,YI--' / ' 1 ' ! 'f Y , I '' / 4/ ..,(6; i- 4-6-e z .2— z:,7 6' --2 ) -,,,,,-- / , (.4--ezA--k3- 1/Ge ,.) i / - KC! 12 ( ,,j) (- _,-( ii' :I t 4:- 'Lc't-..:' (:I ) -,,,;(->ril ' 1 - L i -- -- - I' - ' • /11'n ', ' ) I '. • '11-441A Cj .'') lb/L1 , ; trA, Wil ,) ) ''',;> :,-' 'zk.' I 6/'-2` 6 -' L,-• ' ii , '•-Z -1 , I j.2 Li 12-'64- 2 (771,-•,_ f_'''.,'•/,---4/1C ' /L-'Y C,P,--ti,<V,e,•)-' 11 -2 ' ,-l'it..•r2/4% ..e L',` , • - ..7 . 1 1 i , ;•L '-'1(4,4 ‘,4 tt; ,- 'ri-`"'''•iiii/r7(e." .41-71 SALT L UCE CITY COUP PUBLIC MSG REGISTRATION 506,),.!„: Ak r"�'!� �, Item — _, � Name di I ( UaV 1 i-,anic e)/ Phone ( '5' - - -1 (please print dearly) Address 8o7 r0.1r Dr E-Mail Address L.1 A VANL Ce 5 Cb i`vl, r1 e Subject i>1/�&,,-7/ 6 Q ; j M // at_=--4'17-- X I wish to speak 0 in support of) -or- (O in opposition to) the subject noted above. O I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? 6-eve/ ( 5j Ufe'PS I would like to receive information about: 0 my community council D serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://www.slc.ut.us. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at council,comments@dslc.utus SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Date 11-11:1 PUBLIC MEETING REGISTRATION FORM _ �• Ta a _ I tf 7 Agenda Item Name 1•A"e- C.� ls� (please print clearly) Phone ��(-5 q c- 3`I Address E-Mail Address 44 A .e.w Lkes -1-tcr_ K c.ti ��— Subject 1‘°P•u s - t o ).�►.k wish to speak On support of) -or- (O in opposition to) the subject noted above. CI I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? I would like to receive information about: 0 my community council 0 serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://wwwslc.ut.us. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at council.comments@ci.slc.utus 1111.7-L-ch SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING r:, ,, � REGISTRATION FORM S it- 6 Agenda Item Name /roil . (please print clearly) ( Phone �'7 / Address 5 `- 3 q" . A V S L( , U ( $s y ( 72) E-Mail Address Subject N e" r'e s l i'i C t o 1,1_s IY'I wish to speak (O in support of) -or- (Win opposition to) the subject noted above. O I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? I would like to receive information about: O my community council O serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://www.slc.utus. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at coundl.comments@d.slc.utus SALT LAKE CITY CouNca Date �i i Pura= MEETING _„1r RFcisnu►TtoN FORM 5— d v 0 - /,d„41%1 ��, - Agenda Item Name 4/el L 1/-�I7,©2S rJ (please print dearty) Phone 3 2 2-o od' Address 18s N. £,JEST- (L )l4 PL�=" (( so /_ E-mail ress Ile ...e @ et) hoer- o, cove-k t p� Subj I '�� C/J �12 N M1 t/E c CRuL l� ,-lAJ(, A 6 Cx 0 CRtmC (floosie U/2i PoLiCe e,c. I wish to speak (0 in support of) -or- (0 in opposition to) the subject noted above. 0 I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? Al H-jS, C-,2 I would like to receive information about 0 my community council D serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://wwwslc.utus. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at council.comments@d.sic.utus f F, SALT LAKE CITY Counca Date 1141611 I u 1 PUBLIC MEETING REcrsrnA `> pI Ift0„--. ..i 1; I _- Agenda Item Name 1�CC ' ) (Ply print dearly) C, Phone C c: / ��, Address 0L, ,,-) -0 E-Mail Add Subject C 3 t ,(C' /- ] )Y I wish to speak (0 in support of) -or- (0 in opposition to) the sub ject noted above. 0 I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? I would like to receive information about 0 my community council 0 serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://wwwslc.ut.us. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at coundl.comments@d,sic.ut.us i SALT LA E CITY COUNCIL Date x" PUBLIC MEETING REGISTRATION FOOT p a f' 11-- ��" Agenda Item Name r /w �';l %�li� r (please pint dearly) Phone_ _ , ,�- �/ Address /;j / ! j j,--1 , E-Mail Address Subject .J , l 1-- >� C / ( ! 0 I wish to speak (0 in su jport of) -or- (0 in opposition ID) the subject noted above. 0 I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? , I I would like to receive information about 0 my community council 0 serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://wwwslc.ut.us. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at coundl.comments@ci.slc.utus SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Date PUBLIC MEETING REGISTRATION FORM ��••• '� Agenda Item Name / A' ; /7 / ,i Phone ?a (please print dearly) Address . ,it `� <: G L-L/ : " E-Mail Address Subject :7- v i)t t O I wish to speak (0 in support of) -or- (0 in opposition to) the subject noted above. 111( I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? /, . �,,- s i t Y' _--/' I would like to receive information about: 0 my community council 0 serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://www.slc.ut.us. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at council.commentsCalci.slc.ut:.us ' .ate...,,x✓ By Mikelle Moore LDS Hospital Administrator/Chief Executive Officer 801.408.1838 mikelle.moore@intermountainmail.org LDS Hospital in the future will be a full-service community hospital that will offer a complete range of high-quality wellness, diagnostic, and treatment services to people who live in north Salt Lake County and south Davis County. We'll continue to provide our community with high-quality clinical outcomes, technological progress, exceptional efficiency, and extraordinary personal service. Intermountain LDS Hospital Background on LDS Hospital's role. LDS Hospital is one of the leading hospitals in the United States. We were recently named by U.S. News & World Report as one of the best medical centers in the coun- try and rank in the nation's top 50 cen- t' ' ters in a record four i medical specialties. __ _ We're the flagship of `�: . b the 21 hospital ,� Intermountain y Healthcare system, which for five years ,a in a row (and in five ' - '" of the past six _` years) has been ----.!, 411111;r1 1 ''' ' "� '•' named the best _ health care system a in America, based on a study of over t Y 550 U.S. health care ` ola organizations. 7. as a i. i` • What will happen when Intermountain ' Healthcare's new gin. �T flagship— Intermountain Medical Center — opens in Murray late in 2007? Our patient volumes and size will be reduced, but our capability and quality will continue. LDS Hospital's future includes some changes in services as well as some physical changes. Here's an overview of the services we'll build our future around. WHO WILL LDS HOSPITAL SERVE IN THE FUTURE? LDS Hospital's service area will include a diverse population that's expected to grow by 2 percent a year until 2008 and 4 percent until 2012. The 405,000 people who live in north Salt Lake County and south Davis County include a mix of younger people (41 percent under age 25) and older people (10 percent over age 65). The area also includes a wide range of economic and educational diversity. Over 21 percent of the population we serve speaks a language other than English at home. Two groups are expected to be prominent in our service area: Young professionals/ young families and empty-nesters/retirees. LDS Hospital will provide services that meet the needs of everyone we serve in an environment that reflects our community. 2 HOW WILL THE SIZE OF LDS HOSPITAL BE CHANGING? Figures are based on current estimates; changes may occur: 2005 2008 Change Annual admissions 22,015 16,674 — 24% Births 4,166 3,208 — 23% Emergency visits 38,722 28,897 — 25% Emergency admissions 6,852 3,466 —49% Number of beds 467 275 — 41% Hospital operating rooms 20 14 —30% Surgical center operating rooms 4 4 0 Number of employees 4,480 3,000 —33% Helicopter transports per year 700 84 _ 88% WHAT SERVICES WILL WE OFFER IN THE FUTURE? Starting in 2008, LDS Hospital will house 14 major services plus a full range of support services. We'll continue to be active community partners — serving those who need medical care but are unable to pay, serving as a partner to local schools, and in other important community causes. Our 14 major clinical services will include: 1. Inpatient nursing care. Many inpatients will be cared for by teams of nurses,physi- cians, and other care providers. Our inpatient units will include medical telemetry, surgi- cal acute care, orthopedics/total joint care, cancer care/blood and marrow transplant, intensive/intermediate care,labor/delivery,maternity/newborn care, psychiatric care, and chemical dependency. Services will continue to be evidence-based according to the latest medical literature,with bedside computer support in all units. 2. Joint replacement center. LDS Hospital will have a total joint replacement center that will include all components of joint replacement in one location, including surgery, rehabilitation, nursing care, and physical therapy. 3. Women's care will include a birthing service that will handle 3,200 births per year (supported by a high-risk maternal/fetal clinic and a special care nursery) —and an advanced women's surgery center that offers a wide range of services with a focus on minimally invasive techniques. We're also considering an outpatient women's clinic that offers preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services related to breast care, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, urology,gynecology, obesity management, and cosmetic surgery. 4. Obesity management center. We're evaluating the creation of an obesity management center that will offer consultations, nutrition counseling, behavior modification, gastric bypass procedures, and post-procedure management. 5. Cancer clinic and cancer care. Intermountain Cancer Services —including a Huntsman-Intermountain Cancer Clinic—will offer a full range of cancer specialties. Services will include surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy,imaging, blood and mar- row transplant, clinical trials, screening/diagnostic mammography, and inpatient care. 6. Heart services. We'll offer comprehensive screening, diagnostic, and treatment services (including cardiac catheterization) for patients with heart disease. 7. Surgery. LDS Hospital will operate 14 OR suites and a procedure room that will provide both outpatient and inpatient care. The caliber of our surgeons, anesthesi- 3 ologists, nursing team, and OR staff, the efficiency and proficiency of our OR procedures, technology, and outcomes will continue to lead the nation. 8. Minimally invasive center of excellence. Our surgical services will include minimally invasive technology and programs including laparoscopic and endoscopic procedures that offer shorter lengths of stay and reduced recovery times. 9. The Intermountain Surgical Center at 359 8th Avenue will provide efficient, high- quality outpatient surgery in four surgery suites and pre-op and post-op facilities. 10.Endoscopy services. Specialized endoscopic and colonoscopic services will be offered in an integrated imaging and diagnostic center. 11.Imaging and diagnostic center. We'll offer convenient and high-tech in- and outpatient radiology services including X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, angiography, and ultrasound. 12.Emergency services. Our 24/7 ER will serve an estimated 80 patients per day. We'll offer rapid door-to-doctor service and complete integration as needed with Intermountain Healthcare's renowned trauma service, including Life Flight. 13.Behavioral health. We'll provide in- and outpatient psychiatric care, counseling services, and chemical dependency treatment. 14.Senior services. We'll offer clinical services, education for older patients and their care providers, free and low-cost screenings and other support, and care for people who are facing the end of life. HOW WILL WE DELIVER CARE IN THE FUTURE? Patient/visitor services. From the parking lots to post-op care, LDS Hospital's physi- cal environment will be updated to improve the experience each patient has with us. We'll begin upgrading common areas such as waiting areas, hallways, and our education center starting in 2006. Our focus: Simplifying access and processes, increasing conven- ience, emphasizing the personal and family needs of our patients, and providing person- al service that matches the extraordinary quality of our clinical care. Services will include covered parking garages, complimentary valet parking, enhanced wayfinding help, and personal support for patients and visitors. Some au have questions specific programs we're planning Easy access to physician offices in the three medical office buildings on the LDS Hospital campus, an emphasis A k �xr on community art and history (including art provided by students in LDS mor tar;th'iff executive Hospital's community partner schools), spa services, an internet cafe and 'erikelle Moore at * access to common business services such as fax and copy machines, a /83$'ar mikelle•m©nre community health information and resource center, expanded entertain- iauntainrnailn% ment and diversion options for patients and visitors, and pastoral care services that will include a meditation room and a healing garden. Physician services and upgrades. LDS Hospital will continue to be an excellent place to practice medicine. In addition to current services, the hospital will offer dedicated (and covered) patient and physician parking in our medical office buildings. The hospital is also planning a new integrated medical staff support area,which will include medical records, a relocated and remodeled medical staff lounge, and a new physician dining room. 4 C--, ...=. > 0 LA X —I " 0 d 0 x szi . ...., 6 s.i. M r. 2 › ,.., 0 F., t, &D,, t4 0 ._,,i..: ...e. Ln ,-1 ri - • fl g 0 8 ..., .... ..., '04 Z ••• ..., „in r; 9 P 0 -,, r! ./4 8 Z i ? ' 0 • ›. , r.. 'It en "Z Z ., .. Z ,-. ,.... , , ot,r1 § 8 n i z 4.1) om R ct t- x, :b. 4. ..R ..4- z „ 0**.i 'to 8 (3 4 MI ..... c, = = ... n K• /17, > riii e- ..... ..., 74 ;.. i •, . 1 i'" .8''' g. g' g' 1 § '.6;`.'' i i 9g -6.),'-' i ? VT 'tIV .,...., t.,... .... 2 ..4 t°,..1 .1:. ^r.' ;:j :" ,A. •!* ,,.' .0 ki totN8 .'-' go 'gggR I. 8 A 0, VI . .' •`.....H. Z. )4.` `..: " 0 .k. §. /121 8 tie tztl r.1-1 ."2 N 1' 0 r'-' '-` 0) u i. .1t. ..., I.., CKIrr a "'No 0 --- --=--.1 71 g .. ,c, "; r) o zil i 0-1 io CA ui .... @ .., 8 0 9 a IA 8 8 § 8 ii s_ g 1 it ... - 3... § ig. gg § Jgg '8-" Iii- id, i its '64 ra 4 CN1 13 '44 z i...6 , Ii'• ifs Gd N.I O• VI VI CT, ••ft, °' •••,,, ...„. ...... ON ...°‘ ON ••,.„ 0' VI ON CI, 1.. P‘) ....... ha ,,,) ,.., ..., ... .... iya '....• ..... ''',. ''... [ 900Z/17/S "TO t•0'0'0'1'60-0Z-900Z-170-SO'Insoo/2udAojdnnowuonuls/zani.z/no2•mou•ojzgo•nnnnnn//:d1u %Ot-gZ =%c -o9 %OS-QL %gL-06 :(gosf)AllllgggoJd aauspaaax3 Jsauo;sr}{ — S•£P00/4 'Z£.£linIXWe8 •• (Alu►eJaaun fuissanui)>Itoopn0 —(oo:0Z'60/c0)lsaaaloj —pa vasg0 900Z Ap141uoW INS 0Z&0 L4//0 S4ig0 ZLP50 04150 L0150 S0150 Z0150 0£1t+0 1Z/tt) SZIt+O 0 )103I1no anlnA 0 lied • ti•0 r _i-_ -ram ram -I-...--r -----. (111.Z - I) '7,1 d8"WON 9£ ZE£ 11nPlUee •gg E. @WS PcolA 1.OZ t ugo) L 1 .4121Jf1D OcZ yde 6oiPAH aN i }(K 3 31 11VS- )13 AM dt, i0 ue3;seoaaoj iSAMb uiseg opeioio9 SALT_1\ cur isomi OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Salt Lake City Council AGENDA Work Session State Capitol New East Wing- Cafeteria Salt Lake City,Utah Thursday,May 4,2006 7:00 p.m. 5:00—6:15 p.m., some Council Members may tour areas in District 3. (Attached itinerary and map) 6:15—7:00 p.m., some Council Members may dine together in the Olmstead Conference Room. (The room is open to the public.) A. OPENING CEREMONY: 1. Flag Ceremony and Pledge of Allegiance—Boy Scout Troop#914, Steve Christiansen. B. WORK SESSION: 7:00 p.m.,Cafeteria. 1. The Council will devote a maximum of 30 minutes to comments from the residents of District Three in the order in which the cards are collected. (Comments are taken on any item as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes each.) 2. The Council will receive a briefing regarding the Library budget for fiscal year 2006-07. 3. The Council will receive a briefing regarding Compatible Infill Housing zoning regulations in the Avenues and Capitol Hill areas. 4. The Council will receive an educational briefing regarding the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. (LEED®) t. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7600, FAX: 801-535-7651 m r attt 0 : fix , r -,••,•-ts:;.. .'-"—; :-i,,,,,, :. „,..,_ „.. t.,,,,,,,,!--;-;- •,,,; ,,,,„, ,,.054 - •At- t;if? ; ,:.,,,,,4;.; •• i t:cr;a7,7.,-,4471,,L7 4„;11-',,',46;;:;;S;;04:7 A•,,,,;k:;;,,,,4t.;;; ;; ;.4,..,,,:,-,14fiio.„.;-;- --; 7;,;,.,,,,;;; ;<;•it El,;; :,:.:,;:‘,,,t:,,,,,t;:trit :.,4 pi . ,� _ u� t s",..',. ;Q «,# ter t �� yin s 1 - �: i 0 �� f •, `: a t3 s ew" £ ..> q zi 7 ... . + jja' gn j . „ .. zi 140 i ._. , . '', a ° 'y tI :" > '_, ,,,Ri. a tr,� � p '*- ! „1`►t- W t. -�.. 4. it S! 1 � � �* �,� '� �.��„ ,,,� ��, �€ o YD�`=' *� !�� �, yr t§ ; t w:.. jam` co t '. 4 itt N t i i . " ► `.` • Ps . .1 1..'''',- . ' : 'i , ' t: ,:',,,"<,-.".-0+,4E.,,,,,,,4, ,L..w.,,,l,4,,,.: !:fl?,-,9 ttt...,..:....,tiwtrt, „:‘ '"ret,:.. -0- . :..' 1,. !} .�+, SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Date: May 2, 2006 Subject: Proposed Budget: Salt Lake City Library System 2006-2007 Affected Council Districts: All Staff Report By: Russell Weeks Administrative Dept. and Contact Person: Salt Lake City Library System, Nancy Tessman Key Elements: • The Salt Lake City Library System Board of Directors and the System's administration propose that the City Council consider a judgment levy to make up for revenue project to be lost to successful appeals of property taxes. • The proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 is$715,000 more than the adopted budget for the current year—an increase of about 5 percent. The bulk of the proposed increase in the budget is projected to come from fund balance for capital projects. The $715,000 includes a projected$200,000 in unspent operational funds from the current fiscal year. The proposed budget projects that prior year capital fund balances could rise from the current fiscal year's $890,000 to$1.5 million in the next fiscal year. • Public parking in the garage underneath the Library Square Plaza is included in the Administration's proposal to initiate an annual50-cents-per-vehicle license tax "whenever a paid vehicle parks at public facility off-street parking operated by the parking service business within the City." • Total personnel costs are projected to increase by$234,000 from the current fiscal year's personnel budget of$8.3 million. About$98,000 of the $234,000 is eaiuiarked for salary increases. The remaining increases are projected to meet increased health care insurance and retirement costs. Potential Options: • Adopt the proposed budget. • Adopt an amended budget. Potential Motions: I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance ratifying and adopting a final budget for the Library Fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. (This motion is the most 1 likely motion the City Council will use. It assumes that any budget amendments that might occur will have been approved infoinially by the City Council by the time the motion is necessary.) Issues/Questions for Consideration: • As indicated above the Library System Board of Directors and System administrators propose that the City Council schedule a public hearing and consider adopting a judgment levy to offset expected revenue losses due to successful appeals of property taxes. According to System administrators, the System lost about$220,000 in the first six months of the current fiscal year due to property tax judgments favorable to property owners. However, administrators say they have no estimates beyond that. A judgment levy would be the second in two years if adopted.The City Council also increased property taxes for the Library System in 2004 by about$1.54 million. • Potential revenue from a judgment levy is not included in the proposed Library System budget. • The next item does not pertain exclusively to the Library System but may have an effect on Library System patrons.The City Administration has proposed an annual license tax on businesses that operate"public facility off-street parking."The tax would equal 50- cents per automobile. In a summary of the proposal, the Administration noted that Salt Lake City International Airport and the Main library have 30-minute free-parking policies and indicated that the City would maintain those policies.The summary noted that the proposal is the first time the City intended to expand business license taxes to parking services beyond the airport. It would appear that the proposal would affect patrons of the Main Library because they appear to be the largest group using the public parking underneath Library Square. • A related question might be: Does the proposal to expand City license taxes on businesses operating parking lots for public facilities indicate that the City intends to assume responsibility for maintaining the entire parking garage? It should be noted that an agreement between the City and the Library System to clarify land ownership and responsibilities for the Library Square block remains unsigned. Discussion: Review of Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Revenue Adopted Proposed Major Category 2005-2006 2006-2007 Difference Percent Property tax $12,139,000 $12,139,000 $0 0.00% Interest 60,000 155,000 $95,000 158.33% Grants/Donations 185,000 185,000 $0 0.00% Fines/Copy Charges/Intergovernmental 527,000 537,000 $10,000 1.90% Capital Fund Balances 990,000 1,600,000 $610,000 61.62% TOTAL 13,901,000 14,616,000 715,000 5.14% The table indicates that the Library System does not expect much revenue growth in the next fiscal year. Clearly, property tax revenue remains— at 83 percent of total revenue—the major revenue source for the System. According to System administrators, they will not know how much revenue the System might need until about the first week in June when Salt Lake County 7 releases certified tax rates. Administrators contend that appeals of property tax assessments has caused anticipated revenue from property taxes to fluctuate to the point where administrators are uncertain about how much revenue might be necessary to make up any shortfall from the property tax appeals. As a result, the Library Board and administrators are requesting the City Council to consider a judgment levy. System administrators say they will know more about whether to pursue a judgment levy after certified tax rates are released. If a judgment levy is necessary and is adopted, the System would use revenue raised from the levy to restore cuts to its materials, programs and contingency funds. Administrators also indicate that donations may remain static in the next fiscal year because foundations that have been generous in years past have had to direct resources to areas damaged by natural disasters. It should be noted that a$100,000 rebate from the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency is included in the Capital Fund Balances category. The rebate is the second of three $100,000 payments from the RDA. It also should be noted that the Library System's proposed budget makes clear that the projected increase in capital fund balances is an estimate only.Finally, although projected increases in interest earnings show a considerable percentage increase, the impact of revenue from earned income is small. Expenses Proposed 2006- Major Category Adopted 2005-2006 2007 Difference Percent Personnel $8,307,000 $8,541,000 $234,0002.82% Materials 1,945,000 1,882,000 ($63,000) -3.24% Charges/Services 1,156,000 1,136,000 ($20,000) -1.73% Capital Outlay/Buildings&Grounds 2,123,000 2,707,000 $584,000 27.51 Operating Contingency 150,000 130,000 ($20,000) -13.33% Prior Year Capital Contingency 220,000 220,000 $0 0.00% TOTAL 13,901,000 14,616,000 °715,000 5.14/° Personnel—As noted previously, personnel costs are projected to rise in the next fiscal year by a modest amount. The increase largely is accounted for by a projected $98,000 increase in salaries and wages and by a $102,000 increase in health insurance costs. Another item worth noting is that among the Library System's future priorities is one to improve "management training in recognition of pending retirements."Administrators estimate that 11 percent of the System's total work force, including 40 percent of the System's management staff, will be eligible to retire in the next five years. Materials—Despite flat revenue projections and the projected 3 percent cut to the materials budget, the $1.88 million budgeted for materials means the Library System is budgeting roughly 14.6 percent of its operating budget. That percentage has held relatively steady at least since a 1997 management audit initiated by the City Council. The audit said that year that spending on materials was between 13 percent and 15 percent. Circulation remains high and—coupled with the loss of books and audio visual items— may require the Library System to initiate a"provisional" library card that would limit the number of items a new patron could check out until a period of time passes. System administrators indicate that circulation is roughly half books and half audio-visual items. Charges/Services—This category includes a variety of items including cataloging charges, telephone expenses, insurance (including earthquake and terrorism coverage),postage and library 3 and office supplies. None of the items is budgeted to rise or fall significantly, except for copier and printer supplies.The latter item is scheduled to drop from$70,000 in the current fiscal year to $40,000 in the next fiscal year. System administrators indicate that the drop is the result of charging for copier paper after a patron reaches a limit. Capital Outlay/Buildings and Grounds—This category in this report is divided roughly in half. The Library System's budget for buildings and grounds is $1.22 million. The remaining $1.48 million involves budget capital expenditures and capital fund balances. The actual proposed budget for buildings and grounds is $9,000 more than the current year's budget of$l.21 million. Projected costs for heating and fuel ($126,000) and lights and power($320,000) are almost identical to the current year's budget. The proposed budget for building security($140,000) is $5,000 less than the current year's budget.According to the proposed budget book,"Increased security in branch location and additional staff training has had the intended effect on patterns of misbehavior. Security can be reduced at the branches." The figure for capital outlay includes $925,000 for the Branch Building Fund.The figure in the current year's budget is $350,000. All other items remain the same as the current year's budget: $150,000 for capital improvements at the Main Library; $250,000 to replace or improve technology; $10,000 for to replace vehicles; and$150,000 for capital repairs throughout the System. Contingency Funds—Operating and capital contingency funds remain relatively unchanged from the current year's budget. It should be noted that the operating contingency is projected at $20,000 less— 13.3 percent—than the current year's operating contingency of$150,000. Cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Steve Fawcett, Gary Mumford File Location: Salt Lake City Library System — Budgets 4 The City Library THE SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM TO: Salt Lake City Council • David L. Buhler, Chair • Carlton J. Christensen • K. Eric Jergensen • Jill Remington Love • Nancy Saxton • Soren Simonsen • Van Blair Turner FROM: Nancy Tessman, Director Salt Lake City Public Library RE: CITY LIBRARY'S BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR 2006-2007 DATE: April 25, 2006 On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Salt Lake City Public Library,we herewith provide copies of the City Library's budget proposal for the 2006-2007 fiscal year. The Board approved the budget proposal at their regularly scheduled meeting on April 20, 2006. We welcome your questions and comments and look forward to meeting with you on May 4, 2006, for further discussion. Enc. cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson Gary Mumford Russell Weeks Board of Directors Mein Library Anderson-Foothill Chapman Day-Riverside Sprague 210 East 400 South 1135 South 2100 East 577 South 900 West - 1575 West 1000 North 2131 South 1100 East 455"Fe S Jac k Sweet Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake Cit Utah 84111 Utah 84108 Utah 84104 Utah 84116 y Utah City Utah 84106 Uta 1:801-524-8200h 803 T:801-524-8200 1:801-524-8200 T:801-524-8200 T:801-524-8200 1:801-524-8200 Hearing impaired:801-364-4669 F:801-322-8181 F:801-322-8180 F:801-322-8182 F:801-322-8183 F:801-322-8184 F:801-322-8194 The City Library THE SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM Operating and Capital Budget Fiscal Year 2006-2007 The City Library The Salt Lake City Public Library System OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET APPROVED BY LIBRARY BOARD OF DIRECTORS APRIL 20, 2006 FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION TO PLANS AND PRIORITIES 2 INCOME AND REVENUES 3 • Summary of General Property Tax Request 4 • Revenue Sources Operating Fund 4 • Revenue Sources Capital Fund 4 OPERATING BUDGET EXPENDITURES • Summary of Operating Budget Expenditures 7 • Buildings and Grounds 9 • Materials 12 • Personnel 17 • Services 21 CAPITAL BUDGET EXPENDITURES 27 • Summary of Capital Budget Expenditures 28 BUILDING DESCRIPTIONS • Main Library • Anderson-Foothill Branch • Chapman Branch • The Corinne and Jack Sweet Library • Day-Riverside Branch • Sprague Branch APPENDIX • Strategic Plan 2006-2009 A— 1 The City Library THE SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The final settlement of property taxes for 2005 resulted in a 1.95% shortfall of projected revenues. Although the library's tax rate will be set based on the 2005-06 budget, it is unlikely that any growth will be realized for 2006-07. Therefore, the 2006-07 budget proposal is based upon the City Library's last year's budgeted property tax revenues. No increase in the tax rate is requested. Reductions will be necessary in materials, programs, and capital savings to balance the budget. Priorities for 2006-07 include: • Maintaining current staffing levels and supporting health insurance increases and modest wage adjustments. • Maintaining service levels at all locations. • Seeking additional partnerships and cooperative projects to continue excellent programs and events with reduced funding. • Continual efforts to support literacy programs throughout the Library System. • Completing scheduled replacement of cooling systems at branches. BOARD RECOMMENDATION Page I 04/20/06 INTRODUCTION TO PLANS AND PRIORITIES MISSION STATEMENT The Salt Lake City Public Library is a Dynamic Civic Resource That Promotes Free and Open Access to Information, Materials and Services To All Members of the Community to Advance Knowledge Foster Creativity Encourage the Exchange of Ideas Strengthen Community and Enhance the Quality of Life A poll conducted by Dan Jones and Associates in 2005 indicated that the City Library is ranked most highly (6.5 out of 7) among city services by a valid sampling of the opinion of citizens living in Salt Lake City. The Library System continues to be recognized throughout the United States for excellence in services and facilities and was recently named as one of only 80 libraries in the country out of hundreds of nominations to be included in a book called The Heart of the Community: Libraries We Love. Use of libraries continues to increase, and circulation per capita continues to be measured at nearly three times the national average for comparable cities. The challenge is growing as the City Library strives to provide the high level of service the citizens of Salt Lake City have come to need at a time when revenues are reduced or stagnant. Projecting revenues from property taxes is becoming more difficult, and the high and growing percentage of successful appeals to property tax assessments will pose a serious dilemma if the trend persists. Given the final 2005 tax settlement information for the 2005-06 fiscal year, this budget proposal has been developed with the assumption that revenues for next year can only be assumed to be equal to the budget for the prior year since the Library received less than originally projected for 2005-06. Some fixed costs will clearly require additional funding, particularly health insurance and maintaining the current staffing level. To balance the budget, the City Library proposes moderate decreases to materials, programs, and capital fund growth. This budget also reduces the operating contingency by 13.33% to $130,000. While working with these reductions, the City Library will continue to provide the highest quality of service possible. The most recent Strategic Plan calls for improved efficiencies in operations, services and collections, collaborations with outside programming partners, increased efforts in reaching underserved communities, and an emphasis on literacy and youth programs. BOARD RECOMMENDATION 04/20/06 Page 2 INCOME AND REVENUES THE PRESENT The revenue picture for 2006-07 is discouraging for the City Library. We were anticipating some increase in property tax revenues this year due to an improving economic climate, but instead, received a final settlement that brings revenues to $237,046 (1.95%) less than projected for the year. With increases in interest income and fine revenues, the Library will be able to reduce some budget areas and utilize the operating contingency to balance the budget for the year. The City Library is grateful for the rebate from the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency. The 2006-07 budget will be year two of a three-year commitment. This source of revenue has been included as a capital investment to ensure that these funds are recognized as shorter term and not relied upon for ongoing operating expenditures. THE FUTURE Legislation several years ago limited windfall revenues when property tax growth was good and also protected revenues when revenues were less than projected with the result being property tax revenues are based on the prior year's budget. Since it is very possible that no growth will be realized in the coming year, the Library's budget for property tax revenues will probably remain the same as 2005-06. However, the loss of revenues experienced in 2005-06 will not be recouped. BOARD RECOMMENDATION Page 3 04/20/06 SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY SUMMARY OF GENERAL PROPERTY TAX REQUEST 2006-2007 BUDGET 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET Operating $12,074,747 $12,059,000 $12,114,000 Capital 250,000 80,000 25,000 TOTAL GENERAL PROPERTY TAX $12,324,747 $12,139,000 $12,139,000 REVENUE SOURCES OPERATING FUND AND CAPITAL FUND 2006-2007 BUDGET 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET OPERATING REVENUE General Property Tax $12,074,747 $12,059,000 $12,114,000 Accumulated Judgment Levy, prior years 243,920 - - Copier/Printer and Sundry Revenue 58,116 67,000 60,000 Fines and Collections 365,001 360,000 377,000 Interest 96,837 50,000 125,000 Grants 36,100 15,000 25,000 Donations 201,041 120,000 110,000 Leases 56,099 60,000 60,000 Events/Conferences 58,506 40,000 40,000 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE $13,190,367 $12,771,000 $12,911,000 CAPITAL REVENUE General Property Tax $ 250,000 $ 80,000 $ 25,000 RDA Rebate - 100,000 100,000 Interest 17,650 10,000 30,000 Prior Year Capital Fund Balance - 890,000 EST 1,500,000 Donations and Grants 42,691 50,000 50,000 TOTAL CAPITAL REVENUE $ 310,341 $ 1,130,000 $ 1,705,000 TOTAL BUDGET $13,500,708 $13,901,000 $14,616,000 BOARD RECOMMENDATION 4/20/06 Page 4 GENERAL PROPERTY TAX Property tax revenue growth has been somewhat weak over the past few years. This year's final settlement indicates a distressing and confusing set of circumstances. The City Library did not receive the projected property tax revenues, due in part to a high number of appeals and the inability of Delta Airlines to meet their tax obligations to the City of Salt Lake. Therefore, the budget for 2006-07 is being developed with an assumption that the property tax revenues will be equal to those budgeted last year. COPIER/PRINTER AND SUNDRY REVENUE Copy machine revenues continue to decline as the use of the Internet increases. However, the cost recovery on printing has provided an additional revenue source. FINES AND COLLECTIONS The City Library Board of Directors raised fines and fees in 2003-04. After seeing a minor reduction in fine collections in the year following, old habits seem to be recurring and this line item will increase somewhat in 2006-07. INTEREST Interest rates are on the rise (3.2684% 7/05 to 4.5551% 3/06). This is good news from this particular vantage of the budget. GRANTS The City Library continues its efforts to raise private funds to supplement tax and fee revenues. This year, efforts will be made to apply for grants with a particular emphasis upon strengthening our capacity to cooperate with other agencies on literacy services. DONATIONS The City Library has been successful in raising funds for special programs and projects with the continued support of the Friends of the Library and private foundations and individuals. BOARD RECOMMENDATION Page 5 4/20/06 A significant portion of the costs associated with the Dewey lecture series has been underwritten by generous partners. LEASES The City Library receives rent from the shops on Library Square. As of June 2006, all spaces on Library Square will be occupied. EVENTS/CONFERENCES Frequent use of library facilities, both during and after library hours, has resulted in revenue from rental fees. JUDGMENT LEVY, TAX YEAR 2006 Between June 1, 2005, and November 15, 2005, orders were issued by the Salt Lake County Board of Equalization, Utah State Tax Commission, and Third Judicial District Court for the State of Utah to reduce taxes against properties for which taxpayers have paid taxes. The report received November 22, 2005, indicates that the Salt Lake City Public Library can recover its estimated apportionment of tax refunds due to valuation adjustments by imposing a judgment levy tax. The Library Board of Directors requests that the City take the necessary steps to advertise its intent to do so and hold a public hearing as required by law. BOARD RECOMMENDATION 4/20/06 Page 6 SUMMARY OF OPERATING BUDGET EXPENDITURES 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS Buildings-Maintenance $ 182,669 $ 180,000 $ 190,000 Equipment-Maintenance 50,556 55,000 55,000 Buildings and Equipment-Contract Services 237,647 320,000 315,000 Building Security 130,848 145,000 140,000 Equipment Purchases 80,805 25,000 25,000 Heating and Fuel 97,028 126,000 126,000 Lights and Power 325,494 310,000 320,000 Motor Equipment-Service and Maintenance 8,859 6,000 6,000 Rent-Property and Equipment 3,068 6,000 5,000 Water 36,598 40,000 40,000 TOTAL BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS $ 1,153,572 $ 1,213,000 $ 1,222,000 MATERIALS Binding $ 2,440 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Books and Reference Sources 907,350 1,045,500 1,002,500 CD-ROMS 3,228 3,000 3,000 Computer Reference Sources 86,344 105,000 105,000 Downloadable Audio - 32,500 32,500 Maps 672 1,000 1,000 Periodicals 100,396 132,000 132,000 Sound Recordings 295,937 310,000 300,000 Visual Recordings 304,793 310,000 300,000 TOTAL MATERIALS $ 1,701,160 $ 1,945,000 $ 1,882,000 PERSONNEL Salaries and Wages $ 6,110,217 $ 6,520,000 $ 6,618,000 Employees' Insurance 490,684 690,000 792,000 Social Security 452,075 482,000 490,000 Retirement 546,795 593,000 619,000 State Unemployment Compensation 5,374 10,000 6,000 Other-Utah Transit Authority 9,692 12,000 16,000 TOTAL PERSONNEL $ 7,614,837 $ 8,307,000 $ 8,541,000 BOARD RECOMMENDATION Page 7 04/20/06 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET SERVICES Cataloging Charges $ 62,233 $ 75,000 $ 70,000 City Administrative Charge 16,209 27,000 27,000 Copier-Printer Supplies 71,857 70,000 40,000 Insurance 190,698 215,000 215,000 Library Supplies 173,935 145,000 165,000 Office Supplies 18,763 19,000 19,000 Payroll Processing Charge 11,997 15,000 15,000 Postage 93,412 115,000 125,000 Professional and Technical 31,434 61,000 61,000 Professional and Technical-Attorney 5,464 8,000 8,000 Programming 112,468 150,000 135,000 Publicity 47,829 60,000 60,000 Staff Training and Development 10,964 25,000 25,000 Sundry Expense 19,393 25,000 25,000 Telephone 113,715 125,000 125,000 Travel 21,065 21,000 21,000 TOTAL SERVICES $ 1,001,436 $ 1,156,000 $ 1,136,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES $11,471,005 $12,621,000 $12,781,000 CONTINGENCY - 150,000 130,000 TOTAL $11,471,005 $12,771,000 $12,911,000 BOARD RECOMMENDATION 04/20/06 Page 8 BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS HIGHLIGHTS The continued heavy use of both the Main Library and all the branches is placing considerable demands upon both the maintenance staff and physical facilities of the City Library System. Given the high and continuing pressures on the facilities, the overall condition of the facilities remains very good. However, increased attention must be paid to rest rooms, cleaning, painting, and preventative maintenance to ensure responsible, long-term building care. One major outstanding issue from the Main Library project has been resolved in 2006 with the complete replacement of the plaza stone with granite pavers. FUTURE PRIORITIES Priorities for 2006-07 include: • Continual use of efficiencies to save costs and provide safe, comfortable buildings. ■ Replacement of cooling systems at the older branches. BOARD RECOMMENDATION 04/20/06 Page 9 SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS BUDGET 2005-06 2006-07 BUDGET BUDGET Buildings—Maintenance $ 180,000 $ 190,000 Equipment—Maintenance 55,000 55,000 Buildings and Equipment—Contract Services 320,000 315,000 Building Security 145,000 140,000 Equipment Purchases 25,000 25,000 Heating and Fuel 126,000 126,000 Lights and Power 310,000 320,000 Motor Equipment—Service and Maintenance 6,000 6,000 Rent—Property and Equipment 6,000 5,000 Water 40,000 40,000 TOTAL BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS $1,213,000 $1,222,000 BUILDINGS—MAINTENANCE Increased use of all facilities has an impact on building maintenance. The Main Library is now over three years old and requires some repainting and upkeep due to heavy use and traffic. A minor increase is recommended here to maintain current levels of support. EQUIPMENT—MAINTENANCE This budget supports ongoing maintenance costs of all equipment (not currently on maintenance contracts), including computer equipment. BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT—CONTRACT SERVICES The City Library routinely contracts for a variety of services when outsourcing is a more efficient and economical solution. This category includes such things as computer service and maintenance contracts, elevator maintenance, garbage removal, recycling, indoor plant maintenance, copier and alarm service contracts, and window washing. Austerity measures are implemented to reduce the frequency and scope of some contracts where possible. BOARD RECOMMENDATION 04/20/06 Page 10 BUILDING SECURITY Increased security in branch locations and additional staff training has had the intended effect on patterns of misbehavior. Security can now be reduced at the branches. EQUIPMENT PURCHASES Minor equipment purchases unrelated to computers come from this budget center. This level maintains the ability to fund minor equipment requests which are usually prioritized in April. UTILITIES The budget for utilities is always challenging. The City Library continues to monitor usage and looks for ways to reduce costs. MOTOR EQUIPMENT—SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE This account covers operational and maintenance costs related to the City Library's three delivery and maintenance vehicles. RENT—PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT The small decrease is based on current expenditures. WATER The current funding level should be adequate for the water usage this coming year. BOARD RECOMMENDATION Page11 04/20/06 MATERIALS Circulation for the City Library System has topped three million items per year — almost three times the national average per capita for libraries our size. Demand for materials in all formats continues to grow, including growing interest in downloadable formats for music, film, and audible books. With a stagnant budget picture, the materials budget will need to be reduced to a degree to support other fixed cost increases. HIGHLIGHTS In 2005-06, the City Library: • Purchased multiple copies of high-demand items to reduce the waiting time for such materials. The Library was better able to replace dated materials and to maintain the depth and range of its collections. ■ Continued purchasing on-line resources to enrich collections and services for patrons, including the Rosetta Stone, a language learning tool, and Thompson Gale Legal Forms. In May 2006, the Library will begin providing access at the Library and at home to recorded books that can be downloaded to a personal listening device. • Continued providing materials produced in international languages. Demand is increasing exponentially as diverse communities grow and gravitate to the Library for services and resources. FUTURE PRIORITIES Priorities for 2006-07 include: • Continual examination of the City Library's priorities, the way resources are used, and deciding how best to serve the information needs of patrons. The Library will expand its electronic book collection. ■ Continual review of the Library's collection to keep it current and maintain the depth and range of information, formats, and genres that are clearly in patron demand. • Placing increased efforts toward acquiring and promoting materials and computer resources of benefit to the business community. BOARD RECOMMENDATION 04/20/06 Page 12 EFFORTS TO CONTROL COSTS • The City Library has streamlined its acquisition process and taken advantage of on-line ordering tools so that it is able to buy more materials with fewer staff, maximize available discounts, and provide new materials to patrons faster. • The City Library's centralized selection process is paying off. It is eliminating unnecessary duplication of titles and achieving better distribution of titles to branches. The Library is purchasing materials in a more consistent way which has made the workflow for catalogers and other processors more efficient. • By cooperating with the Friends of the Library organization and systematically reviewing those books that are received as donated gifts, the City Library pulled 9,000 items into its collection that did not need to be purchased. Materials not added to the Library's collection are sold by the Friends at its semiannual booksales. BOARD RECOMMENDATION 04/20/06 Page 13 SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY MATERIALS BUDGET 2005-06 2006-07 BUDGET BUDGET Binding $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Books and Reference Sources 1,045,500 1,002,500 CD-ROMS 3,000 3,000 Computer Reference Sources 105,000 105,000 Downloadable Audio 32,500 32,500 Maps 1,000 1,000 Periodicals 132,000 132,000 Sound Recordings 310,000 300,000 Visual Recordings 310,000 300,000 TOTAL MATERIALS $1,945,000 $1,882,000 The primary mission of the City Library is to provide access to information and ideas through materials and services for all members of the community. The Library's ability to fund the materials budget at adequate levels is a continual challenge under the most optimal circumstances due to increased fixed costs, the continually rising cost of materials, and increasing demand for materials in a growing variety of formats. This budget request reduces the materials budget to $1,882,000, a reduction of$63,000 or 3.24%. BINDING This budget reflects a minimal amount required to bind back issues of well used magazines. Binding periodicals is vital for the City Library's ability to organize and protect its in-depth magazine collection. BOOKS AND REFERENCE SOURCES The City Library will be targeting the City business community for enhanced reference service. The Library is expanding and upgrading its business reference resources and training staff to use them more effectively. The Library is putting more emphasis on outreach to the business community to understand its needs and to help individuals and businesses become more BOARD RECOMMENDATION 04/20/06 Page 14 aware of what resources the Library has and how it can be of assistance. The Library will also conduct training for the community, as needed. Reference staff are developing "pathways" to help patrons find available resources in various formats for topics and questions that are frequently pursued — for example, how to start a business — to ensure maximum use of the resources the Library acquires. Use of traditional print resources continues to grow, and the Library strives to sustain book collections while also experiencing exponential demand for other formats. CD-ROMS Demand for this format is felt primarily in children's materials. COMPUTER REFERENCE SOURCES Many reference resources that were once available both in print and on-line are now only available as a computer reference source. Often, the cost of the on-line version is much more expensive. The Library is continually evaluating the best delivery method and seeks to extend availability to home and business users whenever possible. DOWNLOADABLE AUDIO Downloadable audio (also known as eaudiobooks) will allow library patrons to download and listen to a variety of popular and classic fiction, nonfiction, young adult, children's, and foreign language audiobooks. This service will be available from home for patrons with computer and Internet access. The start-up collection is expected to grow each month by approximately 40 new, unabridged titles. MAPS Funds are allocated to keep this ongoing collection current. PERIODICALS Magazines and newspapers remain a timely and popular source of current and historical information for patrons. Use of the magazine collections throughout the City Library System is already heavy. Over the past few years, the number of titles being collected has been reduced, BOARD RECOMMENDATION Page 15 04/20/06 but annual increases in subscription costs require additional funding to maintain current service. However, no increase is projected for 2006-07, in part due to the number of periodicals that are no longer being published. SOUND RECORDINGS Circulation in sound recordings continues to rise at all locations, especially in the area of compact discs and recorded books. Although emphasis is placed on CDs, recorded books on cassette still is a popular format. Increasing demand in the CD format will continue to force the City Library to increase the proportion of the materials budget spent on audiovisual formats. VISUAL RECORDINGS Demand for materials in the videocassette format is declining to the same degree that the DVD format becomes more common and popular. However, both formats are very popular and heavily used. Hold lists for popular items are long; and with such heavy use, standard titles must be replaced on an ongoing basis. Also, growing use by the business community creates demand for more expensive selections for training and development. BOARD RECOMMENDATION 04/20/06 Page 16 PERSONNEL HIGHLIGHTS One of the most valuable and most costly budget categories for the City Library System is personnel. Spiraling health insurance costs continue to be a great concern for the Library as with all organizations, both public and private. The Library continually seeks to control personnel costs while seeking fair and competitive compensation for all employees. Highlights of the year include: • Focused attention on qualitative training, sponsoring a wide variety of programs to improve and expand staff skills. • Implemented a new Internet management technology system which freed volunteers to focus on tasks such as welcoming and directing the public. • Holding several staff-wide communication sessions, or "Town Meetings," to identify cost and time-saving improvements. FUTURE PRIORITIES Priorities for 2006-07 include: • Placing greater emphasis upon recruiting an ethnically diverse work force in all classifications. • Improving management training in recognition of pending retirements. • Creating an on-line employee information system so that library staff can have instant access to their personnel information. EFFORTS TO CONTROL COSTS • The City Library receives patron reimbursement for custodial and technical assistance for convention and after-hour use of the Main Library. • The City Library will maintain the current FTE of employees. • The City Library will add more options for health insurance to allow for lower premiums with higher deductibles. • The City Library will continue its reliance on part-time staff when appropriate. BOARD RECOMMENDATION Page 7 04/20/06 • The City Library will reduce subsidies for those employees covering doubles and families with health insurance. • The City Library will continue use of volunteer help where appropriate. • The City Library will cross-train staff in service areas to allow for greater flexibility — this includes custodians who can provide circulation backup, computer technicians who can work public services desks, and technical services staff who support programs and events. BOARD RECOMMENDATION 04/20/06 Page 18 SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY PERSONNEL BUDGET 2005-06 2006-07 BUDGET BUDGET Salaries and Wages $6,520,000 $6,618,000 Employees' Insurance 690,000 792,000 Social Security 482,000 490,000 Retirement 593,000 619,000 State Unemployment Compensation 10,000 6,000 Other—Utah Transit Authority 12,000 16,000 TOTAL PERSONNEL $8,307,000 $8,541,000 The City Library has reason to be proud of the caliber of its work force. During another demanding year, the staff continue to be willing to work hard while being flexible and committed to the growing mission of the Library. SALARIES AND WAGES No additional positions are proposed for 2006-07. This budget recognizes the increases necessary to maintain salaries and benefits, including the performance-based merit system. It includes a 2% across-the-board wage adjustment in January 2007 to maintain competitive salaries. EMPLOYEES' INSURANCE City Library employees are covered by the PEHP Utah Local Governments Trust. Health care costs for 2006-07 increased by 25%, due in part to some unusual and expensive individual experience over the year. As a cost containment measure, the Library continues to realign the staff portion of health insurance premiums. The Library desires to eventually contribute an equal amount for each salaried staff member to support insurance. Workers Compensation insurance for April 1, 2006, to April 1, 2007, increased 3.9%. BOARD RECOMMENDATION Page 19 04/20/06 SOCIAL SECURITY The rate for Social Security is 7.65%. However, the City Library experiences a lower overall rate in Social Security benefits due to increased staff use of pretax dollars for health care costs (cafeteria plan). RETIREMENT Effective July 1, 2006, the City Library's rate will increase to 11.59% (up 4.51% from the previous rate of 11.09% which was set in 2004) of covered wages with the Utah State Retirement System. The Library continues to pay 2.65% or 1.40% into a 401(k) plan for employees who switched from the contributory to noncontributory retirement plan. STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION The City Library continues to pay direct costs for unemployment rather than a percentage of gross wages. OTHER—UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY The City Library will continue to promote its transit pass program to encourage staff use of alternate transportation. As gasoline prices remain high, library staff will continue to take advantage of this great benefit. Funds are also allocated for flu shots in the late fall to help reduce illness among staff members and thereby reduce use of sick leave. BOARD RECOMMENDATION 04/20/06 Page 20 SERVICES HIGHLIGHTS Major highlights of 2005-06: • The City Library strengthened and enhanced its role as a gathering place for civic dialogue, cultural exploration, community celebration, and life-long learning. Attendance at programs hosted by the Library continues to increase. Many organizations and agencies approach the Library for cosponsored programs which enables the Library to enrich programming opportunities while containing costs. Of particular note in this area: • The Library has developed particularly fruitful relationships with the University of Utah, Utah Symphony and Opera, KUED television, and KCPW radio. • The Library continues to develop strong relationships with ethnic communities throughout the valley. In association with the Salt Lake City Film Center, international films of both popular interest and artistic merit are being shown in the Main Library auditorium. • The Dewey lecture series continues to be very successful. Tickets for most speakers are distributed within a matter of hours of availability. • The opportunities for city residents through the Community Exploration Card, launched in 2005, were expanded to include a Performing Arts Experience Card. Library users can checkout cards which will allow them to have free access to a variety of cultural activities in Salt Lake City, including the Utah Museum of Natural History, Red Butte Gardens, and the Utah Symphony. • Heavy use of Internet computers at all locations continues. The implementation of scheduling and print-cost recovery systems has enabled the City Library to provide more equitable access and significant cost recovery. With the generous help of XMission, the Library extended wireless Internet access at the branches. Training classes in the computer lab continue to be very popular. • Meeting rooms are booked at an unprecedented rate, and many outside organizations are hosting their events at the City Library to reach a larger and more diverse audience. • The City Library implemented an electronic mail notification system to provide improved communication and reduce postage costs, and will follow with BOARD RECOMMENDATION Page 21 04/20/06 electronic mail notification reminding patrons when borrowed materials are about to become due. A set of new guidelines for issuing cards and collecting overdue materials in the summer of 2006 will cut losses and make more materials available to library users. • A Literacy Coordinator position was created to strengthen library participation in local literacy projects and to train staff to help all members of the community succeed in a knowledge-based society. The addition of the Community Writing Center as a tenant on the Library Square Plaza will also empower literacy goals. FUTURE PRIORITIES Priorities for 2006-07 include: • Monitoring use of new scheduling and print-cost recovery system to ensure public services objectives are met. • Completing a staff utilization and compensation study to ensure the best use of human resources and reasonable benefits and compensation. Seek long-term solutions to continual pressures of increasing health insurance costs. • Developing a program series in support of the local business community and their needs and interests. EFFORTS TO CONTROL COSTS • The City Library will create partnerships with more community groups to share programming costs. • The City Library will encourage responsible and accountable borrowing by implementing a Provisional Status Card for new users, by using new means to collect overdue items, and by tightening physical access to high-theft audiovisual materials. BOARD RECOMMENDATION 04/20/06 Page 22 SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICES BUDGET 2005-06 2006-07 BUDGET BUDGET Cataloging Charges $ 75,000 $ 70,000 City Administrative Charge 27,000 27,000 Copier-Printer Supplies 70,000 40,000 Insurance 215,000 215,000 Library Supplies 145,000 165,000 Office Supplies 19,000 19,000 Payroll Processing Charge 15,000 15,000 Postage 115,000 125,000 Professional and Technical 61,000 61,000 Professional and Technical-Attorney 8,000 8,000 Programming 150,000 135,000 Publicity 60,000 60,000 Staff Training and Development 25,000 25,000 Sundry Expense 25,000 25,000 Telephone 125,000 125,000 Travel 21,000 21,000 TOTAL SERVICES $1,156,000 $1,136,000 CATALOGING CHARGES The majority of these expenditures are spent through the City Library's contract with OCLC (On-line Computer Library Center, Inc.), who provides BCR (Bibliographic Center for Research) pricing plans for cataloging library materials. In addition to OCLC charges, the Library uses this fund to pay for outsourcing the acquisition and cataloging of many of the 90 international languages represented in the Library's collection. The decrease in this budget center is based on current expenditures, which are in part a result of more efficient and cost- saving methods of searching OCLC. CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE These charges from Salt Lake City Corporation are administrative fees for the City Library's related costs for cash management, City Council, and budget/policy review. BOARD RECOMMENDATION Page 23 04/20/06 Conversations with the City Administration may lead to a change in this process, but projections for now will remain the same. COPIER—PRINTER SUPPLIES The cost recovery on printing has significantly reduced the paper and toner costs for the public printers. As patrons share in costs related to printing from the Internet, these supplies have reduced. This budget also covers the costs of paper for public copiers throughout the City Library System. INSURANCE The City Library practices careful application of risk management principles and regular competitive bidding to ensure the best coverage for the lowest cost, which resulted in a nominal 3% increase in insurance premiums for the 2006 renewal. The current policy includes earthquake and terrorism coverage. With insurance costs becoming more stable, minimal rate increases for 2007 are probable. However, the current budget level should be adequate. LIBRARY SUPPLIES The change in this budget center mirrors the change in funds allocated to purchase materials. Supplies are purchased in bulk in order to contain costs and to obtain favorable discounts, but packaging and processing materials in the newer, more popular formats (DVDs, CDs, and recorded books) cost more. OFFICE SUPPLIES Every effort is made to contain costs by purchasing through vendors with State of Utah negotiated pricing. PAYROLL PROCESSING CHARGE The City Library uses independent vendors to process payroll checks and administer the Library's Section 125 Cafeteria Plan. BOARD RECOMMENDATION 04/20/06 Page 24 POSTAGE The implementation of electronic mail notification for patrons with computer access held the postage budget level for 2005-06. However, with the general postal increase in January 2006, an increase is necessary. The City Library also mails The City Library News, the Library's quarterly newsletter, to all Salt Lake City residents once each year to keep them informed of the Library and its services. PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL This budget supports funding for the annual financial audit, attorneys' fees, memberships in professional activities and organizations, and the occasional use of an outside consultant for library projects. During this budget year, an outside consultant will be used to perform an evaluation of the City Library's salary and benefits structure. A portion of this budget is also related to attorney consultations for employee-related issues. PROGRAMMING The quality of public programs and the public's enthusiasm has been very high over the past year. Nationally known authors attract audiences that fill the Main Library's auditorium. Cultural celebrations such as Chinese New Year and Diwali Festival draw hundreds of people from diverse backgrounds. The reduced budget still recognizes and supports an adequate level of programming. The City Library will continue to partner with community organizations and seek funding to stretch the programming budget. PUBLICITY The current budget level is adequate to maintain publicity and printing for the coming • year. STAFF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT The City Library continues to build an excellent staff and supports a training program that encourages staff to expand their expertise and knowledge in support of library goals. This budget center also supports the extensive volunteer program. BOARD RECOMMENDATION Page 25 04/20/06 SUNDRY EXPENSE This account includes such expenses as advertising for job openings and procurement bids, staff identification badges, and other miscellaneous expenses. Sundry expense items continue to be monitored in an effort to control costs in this budget center. TELEPHONE In 2001, the telephone system was upgraded and expanded. Steps continue to be taken to make the best use of telephone equipment in an effort to maintain costs, and the City Library consistently seeks the most competitive rates for service available. TRAVEL This account pays the travel-related expenses for library staff and board members to attend conferences, meetings, and workshops. In addition, all mileage allowances are paid out of this budget center at the reimbursement rate of 37.5 cents per mile. BOARD RECOMMENDATION 04/20/06 Page 26 CAPITAL BUDGET EXPENDITURES HIGHLIGHTS During 2005-06, the City Library: • Continued work on final, outstanding projects of the new Main Library. The most serious outstanding issue was replacement of the stone on the entire plaza, a project being completed this calendar year. • Procured a new software system to manage scheduling of high-demand Internet stations and enable cost-recovery for printing. • Began projects to repaint the outside woodwork at the Chapman and Sprague Branch Libraries. • Continued planning discussions for two future branch libraries. • Replaced two aging vans. FUTURE PRIORITIES During 2006-07, the City Library will: • Further develop plans for two new branch libraries. • Replace cooling systems at older branches. • Begin the process to gradually install materials security and self-checkout equipment at all branches. • Replace some outdated computer equipment. • Proceed with a few additional improvements to the new Main Library, such as covering the concrete of the grand staircase with an epoxy finish and adding some lighting to the children's area. • Set aside funds for future capital repairs. BOARD RECOMMENDATION Page 27 04/20/06 SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY SUMMARY OF CAPITAL BUDGET EXPENDITURES 2006-07 BUDGET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Main Library $ 150,000 Branch Building Fund 925,000 TECHNOLOGY ENHANCEMENT Systems Fund 250,000 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND 10,000 BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS Capital Repairs 150,000 PRIOR YEAR/CONTINGENCY 220,000 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $1,705,000 BOARD RECOMMENDATION 04/20/06 Page 28 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM The major initiatives for the City Library's Capital Improvements program were completed with the opening of the new Main Library and expansions at the Anderson-Foothill and Sprague Branch Libraries. Early planning is ongoing for proposed branches in Glendale and West Capitol Hill. TECHNOLOGY ENHANCEMENT Funds are needed on an annual basis to upgrade and expand the computer system. Computer equipment is being so heavily used that some equipment is already wearing out. The Library also needs to install materials security systems and work toward installation of self- service checkout stations at all branches. Self-checkout at the Main Library supports the circulation of over 30,000 items a month, an amount comparable to the monthly circulation at Sprague. VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND Continue to save toward replacement vans. BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS This fund supports ongoing major capital repairs at all locations as needed. PRIOR YEAR/CONTINGENCY This fund is maintained to deal with carryover projects and emergency or unanticipated expenses. BOARD RECOMMENDATION Page 29 04/20/06 NAME MAIN LIBRARY , I LOCATION 210 East 400 South ti s. Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 J- eF Anchoring Salt Lake City's civic core, Library Square provides a connection and transition from the Central Business District to the residential neighborhoods adjacent to downtown. One of the most heavily used main libraries in the United States, the new Main Library has become a major attraction for residents and visitors since its opening on February 8, 2003. A 240,000 square-foot concrete and glass structure with exceptional views of Salt Lake City and surrounding mountains, the Main Library features book, periodical and media collections of over 500,000 items; reading galleries; technology center; 315-seat auditorium and adjoining meeting spaces; small conference rooms; and selected community shops designed to enhance the City Library's mission. The adjoining plaza features a reflecting pool, garden, and granite fountain. Underground parking for approximately 600 vehicles provides parking for city and library employees, as well as library visitors. , NAME ANDERSON-FOOHILL BRANCH LOCATION - 1135 South 2100 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 The Anderson-Foothill Branch has a high profile location on the east bench, oriented to take best advantage of its passive solar design. The pleasing design of the branch has two unique elements as part of its plan. The first is a passive solar energy design that includes earth berming, window placement for solar heating, and zone supplemental heating/cooling. The second element of this 14,900 square-foot community library built in 1985, expanded in 1992 and in 2002, is a modular design. T 4)41 ,. p % a , i +IP'=„' a .. NAM E kr t k CHAPMAN BRANCH LOCATION fl, a fit, i ` 577 South 900 West _ a ' t � s Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 A at- Serving a multiethnic community on the west side of Salt Lake City, the Chapman Branch is located on a major street with a north-south orientation. Considered to be one of the finest Carnegie Libraries in the West, this 8,900 square-foot library has two levels. Since its opening in 1918, it has been an important part of city services to westside residents. The Library was completely renovated, including updated HVAC, following the roof collapse after major winter storms during January 1993. A major remodel of the basement level meeting space in 2002 resulted in a much needed children's area which expanded service and collection space for adults on the ground level. , #; NAME 141, ar , '. r ` THE CORINNE AND JACK ;F,. , SWEET LIBRARY l LOCATION _. . 455 'F' Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Built in 1985, The Corinne and Jack Sweet Library was expanded and remodeled to meet ADA requirement during 1993-94. It serves the Avenues neighborhood and is situated in the heart of the community. The Sweet/Avenues Branch is the sister branch of the Anderson-Foothill Branch using the same modular design. The branch contains over 8,000 square-feet of service space, including a community program and meeting space. NAME tk f } � ,;�; DAY-RIVERSIDE �' ; �� , k. BRANCH y LOCATION " " ' 1575 West 1000 North I Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 This 13,000+ square foot branch library opened in September 1996. This beautiful facility was designed to complement the residential neighborhood with sensitivity to its site on the Jordan River Parkway. An open space plan, with a large community meeting room and outside deck area, will accommodate this growing community for many years. , ' i ` NAME ,�# SPRAGUE BRANCH Ilk • "�' LOCATION d so; 2131 South 1100 East iectlitt Salt Lake City, Utah tAl 84106 The Sprague Branch is situated in the very center of the business area of Sugar House. The high-gabled, English Tudor-style building has served the Sugar House community for three generations. The building was selected by the American Library Association in 1935 as the "Most Beautiful Branch Library in America." The two-level facility was renovated in 1989-90. The Reading Room on the first floor was remodeled in 1993-94. A new slate roof was installed in the fall of 1996. An expansion project to add a new, larger meeting room and remodel the building was completed in April 2001, which increased the square footage to 9,700. APPENDIX A STRATEGIC PLAN 2006-2009 Introduction For more than a century, the Salt Lake City Public Library has served our community. By bringing words, ideas and people together, we have enriched lives and enhanced our understanding of one another. The Library has earned a reputation for excellent public service, and the community has come to expect it. Always eager to raise the bar, library staff have spent the last 18 months in a rigorous process of self-inquiry. This process resulted in a revealing look into our organization, our community, and our future. It provided significant insights that led us to develop a plan that is both inspiring and achievable. The Salt Lake City Public Library is committed to innovative planning and creative action in our organization, our profession, and our community. The City Library will: ■ Sustain a commitment to provide visionary, innovative, and standard-setting library service and resources for the people of Salt Lake City. • Hire and cultivate a diverse work force with exceptional skills, integrity, and professional commitment. • Play a leadership role in the community and in the library profession to address and advance issues of life-long learning and intellectual freedom. • Strengthen and enhance its role as a gathering place for civic dialogue, cultural exploration, and community celebration. To meet these objectives, we will work together and with the community we serve. This document illustrates our vision and goals. However, it does not stand alone. It provides the template and guiding principles for detailed action plans created and carried out by committees and departments throughout the Library System. *** BOARD RECOMMENDATION 4/20/06 Page A-1 The Salt Lake City Public Library will sustain a commitment to provide visionary, innovative, and standard-setting library service and resources for the people of Salt Lake City. We believe the community we serve is entitled to the best library services we can provide. We believe those services must be driven by community need and interest. We believe library services should be easy for patrons to use and should eliminate barriers to access. We believe programs should provide information, encourage life-long learning, and public discourse in our community. Areas of Emphasis: Circulation: The Library acknowledges the community's desire for more efficient and convenient methods of checkout. We will create additional self-services options throughout the System and increase the ease and convenience of various registration and circulation functions. Programs: Quality programs inform and enrich the lives of citizens. We will continue to provide excellent programs similar to the highly popular Dewey lecture series. We will pursue diverse funding to support programs and exhibits which are of local, regional, and national significance. Underserved Populations: We will find new and effective methods to reach underserved populations in the community, including seniors, immigrants, the economically disadvantaged, the unemployed and high-risk readers. Youth: We will strengthen services and programs to children and teens. Business Community: We will strengthen and expand services to the business community and vigorously promote the Library's business resources through the use of media, outreach, and programs. Collections: We will continue to expand and maintain collections that respond to community needs, including burgeoning digital formats. We will remain a responsible steward of public funds by choosing materials and formats wisely and securing materials from damage and theft. Technology: We will continue to upgrade equipment, software, electronic resources, and our website to meet the growing and changing technological BOARD RECOMMENDATION 4/20/06 Page A-2 expectations of patrons. We will meet and anticipate those expectations while balancing the Library's resources effectively. Library Catalog: We will improve the functionality and consistency of the Library's catalog to ensure its accuracy, usability, and effectiveness. *** The Salt Lake City Public Library will hire and cultivate a diverse work force with exceptional skills, integrity, and professional commitment. We believe we have outstanding staff and volunteers that help connect our organization to the communities we serve. We believe it is a privilege to work in the library profession and this dynamic organization. We believe in managing with vision and integrity. We believe the staff have the right to a respectful, ethical, and participative work environment. Areas of Emphasis: Management: We will operate with integrity and manage from an ethical foundation. We will create a document which defines the values, goals, and objectives of the Management Team. It will be highly responsive to the changing needs of the organization. Communication: We will improve the quality of organizational communication and accountability through personal attention and the effective use of internal electronic communication. We will engage and coach staff to share ideas, resolve problems, and participate in events such as staff"Town Meetings." Accountability: We will foster a culture of integrity, professionalism, and accountability at all levels supported by the performance planning process. Training: We will continue to build an organizational culture committed to staff training and development. We will focus on improving instruction skills and the use of library resources. Compensation: We believe our employees are our greatest resource, and we are committed to offer fair and competitive wages and benefits. Leadership Transition: We will increase the leadership capacity within the organization in preparation for future changes. BOARD RECOMMENDATION 4/20/06 Page A-3 Volunteers: We will continue to recruit and utilize excellent volunteers from throughout the community to enhance library services. We will ask our staff to embrace the challenges that realize the visions outlined here. We will ask for innovative thought and dedication to the organizational values. In return, staff can expect support and respect from the organization. *** The Salt Lake City Public Library will play a leadership role in the community and in the library profession to address and advance issues of life-long learning and intellectual freedom. We believe one person or organization can make a difference. We believe we have the knowledge and passion to be that organization. We believe there are challenges ahead for public libraries and the issues we champion. It is our obligation to be a voice in support of the values and principles inherent in our mission. We believe the public library is and always will be the cornerstone of a free and democratic society. Areas of Emphasis: Education: We will work to educate the public on issues regarding free speech, intellectual freedom, and censorship. Library Ethics: We will continue to base decisions and actions on a solid foundation of library ethics and lead others by our example. We will review and implement the recommendations of the Library's Ethics Task Force. Library Legislation: We will take an active role in working with the state legislature on library issues and funding, including an effort to raise the tax rate ceiling for public libraries. Marketing: We will promote our vision, mission, and services more effectively with an emphasis toward current nonlibrary users. Community Literacy: We will become a stronger participant in the literacy efforts of Salt Lake City to ensure that all members of the community can succeed in a knowledge-based society. *** BOARD RECOMMENDATION 4/20/06 Page A-4 The Salt Lake City Public Library will strengthen and enhance its role as a gathering place for civic dialogue, cultural exploration, and community celebration. We believe the City Library is a place of tolerance, understanding, respect, inspiration, and community where civil behavior is practiced by staff and patrons. We believe our city will continue to grow in diversity and complexity, and we have a significant role to play in celebrating that diversity and breaking down barriers between communities. We believe in and embrace our role as an information resource and dynamic cultural institution for the city. We believe we are a sanctuary for ideas where differing viewpoints are encouraged and respected and can be shared and explored in a variety of ways. We believe in our growing role as the town square for our city and its neighborhoods. Areas of Emphasis: Accessibility: We will extend hours and access to the Main Library by exploring additional weekend hours and advocating for inclusion of the library stop in the Trax Free Fare Zone. New Locations: We will continue to explore the need for additional locations as our city grows. We recognize the branch library as a cornerstone of any neighborhood. On-line Presence: We recognize the Web as an important tool which serves as a virtual gathering place for people and ideas. We will enhance our website to ensure ease of use and reflect the electronic needs of the community. Partnerships: We will continue to cultivate and build strong partnerships with individuals, organizations, and cultural institutions in pursuit of quality programming and exhibits of interest and significance to patrons. Special emphasis will be placed on organizations that share Library Square, such as The Leonardo Project. Diversity: We are committed to providing staff, collections, programs, and services that respect and mirror the diversity of the community we serve. Growing Downtown: We will respond to the continued and future development of the downtown area by increasing our marketing efforts to new residents and enterprises. BOARD RECOMMENDATION 4/20/06 Page A-5 Cultural Experience: Through a combination of thoughtful and creative programs, exhibits, displays, collections and guides, we will enhance the library experience and strengthen our role as a major cultural resource for the city. BOARD RECOMMENDATION 4/20/06 Page A-6 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF MEMORANDUM DATE: May 2,2006 SUBJECT: Petition 400-06-08—City Council initiated request to develop compatible infill overlay standards for properties within the Greater Avenues,Capitol Hill and Wasatch Hollows Community Council areas AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted the Zoning Ordinance text and map amendment will affect Council District 3 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Joel Paterson,Planning Programs Supervisor NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Newspaper advertisement and written notification to surrounding property owners 14 days prior,to the Public Hearing A full Council staff report and comprehensive analysis was not prepared for this item due to the limited time available for scheduling Council consideration and action prior to the June 13, 2006 expiration date of the temporary zoning regulations established in December 2005. ATTACHMENTS: For Council Members convenience,these items are brought forward from the Mayor's proposal and the Administration's transmittal: 1. Proposed Zoning District map 2. Comparison of citywide infill regulations,Planning staff proposal and Greater Avenues proposal (pg. 2—April 12,2006 Planning Commission draft minutes) 3. Comparison of Planning Commission Recommendation and Community Councils' Recommendation (pg.2—April 25,2006 letter from Mayor Anderson to the Council) 4. Community Council response to Planning staff proposed modifications(Planning staff report— Attachment 4—Community Council letters—letter from Shane Carlson,Greater Avenues Community Council Housing Compatibility Committee Spokesperson) 5. Summary-Greater Avenues Community Council Proposed Overlay for the SR-1 Zoning District, March 6,2006(Planning staff report—Attachment 6—Greater Avenues Community Council Background Report) 6. Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils recommended modifications for the SR-1 District base zoning standards (pg. 2-3 Planning staff report) 1 KEY ELEMENTS: A. Three ordinances have been prepared for Council consideration. 1. Rezoning properties in the Avenues and Capitol Hill areas. 2. Zoning Ordinance text amendments recommended by the Planning Commission. 3. Zoning Ordinance text changes recommended by Mayor Anderson. The two ordinances dealing with Zoning Ordinance text changes differ in details relating to accessory structures. Please see the summaries below for additional information. 1. Rezoning properties generally located in the Avenues and Capitol Hill areas from Special Development Pattern Residential District(SR-1)to the proposed Special Development Pattern Residential District(SR-1A). Please see Attachment 1 for details. 2. Planning Commission recommendation to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of defining design criteria for the proposed Special Development Pattern Residential District(SR-1A) consistent with the Planning staff recommendation. The Administration's transmittal notes: a. Although the Community Councils and staff agreed on most of the proposed standards, there was some disagreement on the standards relating to accessory structures. b. The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report provide the following information relating to this issue: Accessory Buildings and Structures in Yards:Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions in Yards" of this Title (see below). • Maximum building coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. • Primary Accessory Building—One Accessory building may have up to the following dimensions: i. A footprint of up to fifty percent(50%) of the building footprint of the principal structure up to a maximum of ' six hundred square feet(600 s.f). Notwithstanding the size of the footprint of the principal building, an accessory structure shall be allowed a footprint of four hundred and eighty square feet(480 s.f),subject to compliance with 21A.40.050.B.1 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Staff Comment: The Planning Staff recommended to the Planning Commission that this provision be modified to be more consistent with the maximum footprint standards created by Ordinance 90 of 2005 which limit the size of a garage based on the footprint of the primary structure on the lot. Staff recommended the Planning Commission support a maximum footprint of six hundred square feet(600 sf.) which is consistent with the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) standard for administrative approvals of garages. A larger garage must be reviewed by the HLC. The Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils are opposed to these modifications. It is their opinion that a 480 square foot garage (20'X 24) is large enough to accommodate two cars and will have a lesser impact on the neighborhood. They are not opposed to garages larger than 480 square feet when the larger size is supported by the development pattern on the block face and considered through the routine and uncontested special exception process. 2 ii. Roof Peak/Ridge Height of up to "�% fifteen feet(15')above the existing grade. iii. A flat roofed height limit of ten feet(10')above the existing grade. iv. An exterior wall height of nine feet-F¢1 ten feet(10') above the existing grade. (a) Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may increase by one half foot(0.5')for each one foot(1')difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and the downhill faces of the building. Staff'Comment: The Planning Staff recommended the Planning Commission support the changes to the accessory building height and exterior wall heights as noted above. In other single family and two-family residential zoning districts, the height for an accessory structure is limited to seventeen feet(17)to the ridge(15 feet to the mid point in Yalecrest) and twelve feet(12)for flat roof structures. Because of the smaller lots and typical garages found in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities, the proposal recommends a further reduction in accessory building height and the introduction of a maximum wall height. Staff is of the opinion, with input from the Permits and Licensing Division, that a typical seven foot(7)garage door would be difficult to accommodate with a nine foot(9) high flat roof structure because of the space needs for roof joists and garage door hardware. For this reason, Staff recommended the Planning Commission support the maximum building height for flat roof accessory structures and the maximum wall height be increased to ten feet(10). To compensate for these changes, Staff also recommended that the maximum height for a pitched roof on an accessory structure be increased to fifteen feet (15). The Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils are opposed to these modifications and their response to the Staff proposal is included in the Exhibit 5b (Planning Commission Staff Report,Attachment 4). 3. Mayor Anderson's recommendation to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of defining design criteria for the proposed Special Development Pattern Residential District(SR-IA) consistent with the recommendations of the Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils. a. The Administration's transmittal indicates that on April 13, 2006, Mayor Anderson met with representatives from the Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils to discuss the proposed amendments. Mayor Anderson agreed to support the citizen's proposed standards for accessory structures instead of the Planning Commission recommendation. A letter from Mayor Anderson with his recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. b. Mayor Anderson's letter dated April 26, 2006 notes: • After receiving a briefing by City staff and meeting with representatives of the Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils to discuss the regulations proposed by them,I have concluded that the regulations proposed by the community councils relating to accessory structures are appropriate and should be adopted in order to ensure compatible infill development in these unique historic neighborhoods of the City. • These recommendations are workable and will better achieve the goals of the new ordinance. • After consultation with Orion Goff, Building Official, it appears that, contrary to earlier information, the mechanics of the automatic(garage)door and required joists for a flat roof can be accommodated within the nine foot maximum wall height(for accessory structures). • In addition, the tiered review process for approval of proposals that do not conform to these regulations will allow deviation from the standards, where appropriate, while ensuring compatible development. 3 • Please see Attachment 3—Mayor Anderson's letter dated April 26, 2006 for additional details B. This petition was initiated as a result of Council action in December 2005 establishing temporary compatible residential infill development standards in Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Council areas for properties zoned SR-1 and in the Wasatch Hollow Community Council area. The Administration's transmittal notes: 1. Because the temporary zoning standards will expire on June 13,2006,the communities affected by the temporary zoning standards were given a deadline of March 6,2006,to submit a proposal to the Planning Division. The deadline provided the necessary lead time to have the proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission and considered by the City Council prior to the expiration of the temporary zoning standards. 2. The Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils submitted a joint proposal that is the subject of this petition. 3. The Wasatch Hollow Community Council is still developing a proposal which may be considered at a later date but will not be completed prior to the expiration of the temporary zoning standards. The Wasatch Hollow area will be subject to the city-wide ordinance following the expiration of the special regulations. 4. This petition requests to amend the Zoning Ordinance by creating an SR-lA Zoning District,a subcategory of the existing SR-1 District;and amend the Zoning Maps by replacing the existing SR- 1 designation in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities with the new SR-lA District as shown below. C. The purpose of the Special Development Pattern Residential District SR-1 is to maintain the unique character of older predominantly low density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes and bulk characteristics. The SR-1 District is divided into two sub-areas(SR-1 and SR-1A)for the purpose of defining design criteria. In other portions of the Zoning Ordinance,the SR-1 and SR-lA are jointly referred to as the SR-1 District because all other standards are the same. D. The proposed standards address building and exterior wall height,front and side yard setback,yard,bulk and height for accessory structures. The standards do not regulate demolition of homes. The proposed standards would apply to new construction and remodels. Exceptions to the standards would be allowed through the Routine and Uncontested Special Exception,Administrative Hearing or Board of Adjustment tiered processes. The standards are intended to allow for flexibility of design while providing compatibility with existing development patterns. E. The report submitted by the Greater Avenues Community Council provides a detailed description of the process, methods and public input steps taken by representatives of their Housing Compatibility Committee in order to develop the proposal submitted to the City. They indicate that the proposal would establish a new set of fair and flexible zoning rules specific for the area that will allow for a large range of diverse development patterns and still provide a measure of predictability for everyone in the community. Please see Attachment 5 Summary-Greater Avenues Community Council Proposed Overlay for the SR-1 Zoning District,March 6, 2006 for details. The report notes the following information. 1. The Housing Compatibility Committee made a complete inventory of all 2,394 single and dual family homes in the SR lzoning district recording whether the home 1)was a 1, 1'/2, or 2 story home, 2)had an attached garage, and 3)had a pitched or flat roof. 2. Using maps of the SR-1 area,HCC members also estimated the number of properties in the SR-1 area that did not conform to the minimum lot width and minimum lot square footage requirements of the base SR-1 zoning regulations. 4 3. 1,084 of the 2,394 homes(45.3%)were classified as single story, 676(28.2%)were classified as 1.5 stories,and 634(26.5%)were classified as 2 stories or taller. 4. Results of the inventory clearly indicate the existence of entire block faces comprised of one story homes spread throughout the SR-1 district. It was estimated that the tallest homes on these block faces would be 16 to 18 feet in height. A sample of the vulnerable block faces was submitted to the City Planning Office for survey. Survey result to confirm the building heights are still pending at this time. 5. The inventory maps of flat roofed buildings(85—3.5%)and homes with garages as part of the front façade(one-car 186-7.8%;two-car 155-6.5%)reveled that these structures are uncommon in the SR- 1 areas and a significant number are concentrated north of 11 t'Avenue. 6. It was estimated that 360(15%)of the 2,394 residential SR-1 properties met the SR-1 minimum width and lot size requirements. Stated another way,2.034(85%)of the properties do not meet the minimum lot size requirements upon which the other SR-1 dimensional limits such as height and side setbacks are based. F. The public process included: 1. Discussions at the Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils for several months with formal votes by both Community Councils in March 2006. 2. Written notification of the Planning Commission hearing to affected property owners. G. On April 12,2006,the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve the zoning text and map amendments recommended by Planning staff. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: A. As previously noted,two alternative ordinances have been prepared for Council consideration based on differing recommendations from the Planning Commission and the Mayor. The two ordinances provide different zoning standards relating to accessory structures. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration potential upsides and downsides of each proposal. B. Portions of the Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Council areas proposed to be rezoned to the SR-1A zoning classification are located within existing overlay districts. The Administration's transmittal notes: 1. Effect on Overlay Zoning Districts: Portions of the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities include overlay zones, such as the H Historic Preservation Overlay,the CHPA Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay and the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay(Secondary Recharge Area). All future developments must comply with these regulations where applicable. 2. Conflict with the Capitol Hill Protective Overlay Zoning District: Portions of the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities are located within the Capitol Hill Protective Overlay Zoning District(CHPA). The purpose of this overlay zone is to protect the view of the State Capitol Building by prohibiting exceptions to exceed the maximum height requirements of the base zoning district. If the Compatible Residential Infill Development standards for the proposed SR-1A are adopted,the height of residential structures in this overlay zone would be limited to twenty-three feet (23')(or the average building height on the block face)without the ability to use the special exception process to modify the building height based on the development pattern established on the block face. c, 3. The Planning Division is currently processing Petition 400-02-41 to amend the Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay Zone to implement the policies of the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan. The Planning Staff is proposing to address the issue to allow additional height in this overlay zone, not to exceed thirty-five feet(35'),where it is found that exceeding the twenty-three feet(23')height maximum is consistent with the SR-1A zoning standards and/or the Historic Preservation Overlay District Standards. C. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration in further detail: 1. Issues that have been expressed to several Council Members from property owners, community council representatives and representatives from the development and architectural/design groups regarding the current staff plan review,Routine and Uncontested Special Exception,Administrative Hearing or Board of Adjustment tiered processes. o Council Members Buhler,Jergensen and Love recently met with Administrative staff to discuss the issues. o Council Member Simonsen met with representatives from Renovation Design to discuss their issues. o The Community Development Department has indicated that staff is in the process of identifying steps that may be taken to address the issues that have been raised. 2. Compatibility between the proposed zoning standards and other applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance such as changes to the Non-Conforming use/Non-Complying Structure regulations (recently adopted by the Council)and additional modifications requested by the Council. BUDGET RELATED FACTS The Administration's transmittal notes that adoption of the proposed zoning standards, in conjunction with the existing Compatible Residential Infill Development standards and processes,may increase the workload for the Planning Division because of the number of residential new construction and addition projects that would require review as routine and uncontested matters or special exceptions by the Zoning Administrator,Administrative Public Hearing Officer or Board of Adjustment;cases reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission; and subdivision requests considered by the Administrative Public Hearing Officer or Planning Commission. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Avenues and Capitol Hill Masters Plans are the adopted land-use policy documents that guide new development in the area. The Administration's transmittal notes the following relating to the Plans. 1. Avenues Community Master Plan: includes a goal that encourages private property improvements that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. Capitol Hill Master Plan: includes a goal that encourages development of appropriate housing through renovation of existing structures and construction of compatible residential infill development and redevelopment. B. The City's Comprehensive Housing Plan policy statements address a variety of housing issues including quality design,public and neighborhood participation and interaction,transit-oriented development, encouraging mixed-use developments,housing preservation,rehabilitation and replacement, zoning policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities. 6 C. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly, convenient,and inviting,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive,friendly, safe environments and creating attractive conditions for busyness expansion including retention and attraction of large and small businesses. D. The Council's growth policy notes that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. E. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image, neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed zoning amendment. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details'. • June 21,2005 Council Legislative Action requesting review of City ordinances relating to infill housing • July 12, 2005 Ordinance adopted creating the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District • December 13, 2005 Ordinances adopted establishing: o Citywide compatible residential infill development standards in single- family and two-family zoning districts o Temporary compatible residential infill development standards in Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Council areas for properties zoned SR-1 and in the Wasatch Hollows Community Council area • March 1, 2006 Greater Avenues Community Council meeting—vote to support proposed zoning standards proposed by the Housing Compatibility Committee • March 15, 2006 Capitol Hill Community Council meeting—vote to support zoning standards proposed by the Avenues Housing Compatibility Committee • April 6, 2006 Ordinance requested from City Attorney's office • April 12,2006 Planning Commission hearing • April 21,2006 Ordinance received from City Attorney's office • April 25,2006 Transmittal received in City Council Office • April 26,2006 Letter and alternative ordinance received from Mayor Anderson cc: Sam Guevara,Rocky Fluhart,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Melanie Reif,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde,Alex Ikefuna,Doug Wheelwright, Cheri Coffey,Kevin LoPiccolo,Joel Paterson, Orion Goff, Larry Butcher,Jan Aramaki,Jennifer Bruno,Marge Harvey, Sylvia Jones,Lehua Weaver,Annette Daley, Barry Esham, Gwen Springmeyer 4116,0 File Location: Community Development Dept.,Planning Division,Rezoning and Zoning Text Amendment, Avenues/Capitol Hill(Compatible Residential Infill) Special Development Pattern Residential District(SR- 1 A), properties generally located in the Avenues and Capitol Hill areas • Avenues and Capitol Hill Compatible Residential Infill p• Development Standards { City Council Briefing May 4, 2006 Joel Paterson and Cheri Coffey 1111 • 4 .4 0 0 Applicability • All properties zoned SR-1 in Council District 3 (Avenues, Capitol Hill, Guadalupe) New Proposed Sub classification SR-1 A • — Uses are same as SR-1 — Lot and Bulk Standards are different than SR-1 2 ( Avenues Planning Community Exhibit B Avenues Planning Community SR-1 to SR-1A ..l. ^ `� : 1ir= •.......fir:1k L_ iki • li • a•A f *t••••••1 F"'n1/4011V.1 ritii' i4V at �• errs.:- r�- .►•2.Aime u.A.CZ�ikliii;: a u1:: ma,4,4 ill I I I ii• ...kr ri7L- '1\--7 .4":.1.1f;!{.'" .......4.......:r �.� �,pu,.. ._,....0 11111111 �'�I 1 0._ 11EllARIIIIII• '' J Nall 11.11■■■■E■ la:iIG.Sit= nn- CIIIIII mAli Cdir,riliIi iilLi irk: ii FII_a EI"-u.e__p_ =1. �����■II iln Et�����:1 Illlii:a. Pt'u adl8:■iul I ,� L.Trill: CllCIIJ III "- -IIIII"��"!--�:'ll�_ i -qj- 11 �^�1 MI ��MBi�ii�1allitmi�1,reia■Wtl■®IJ■®IFiN`'`'' �- • 3 o , . _, , ,. .,...,,, ,,,,., _ .,.,,,,., ,,,..,,,.... .._„.,.. ...._,•_..,....„..,.,..„..., % _,_, .„.., _,. , • : * ••_. •.•, .,.. .,,, . , Capitol Hill Community .._ _ ___ • •_,- ________, _ -,_ ____-_-• ___ .... Exhibit A Capitol Hill Planning Community SR-1 to SR-IA HI En \.. N. _lb Or 4.1e ..11/ .741h,",' IIIIII !Jt� ,• ma; 11111111111: - — .. .;1'11 -7---F.; 7 \ liii = _. -` -C�.� ■ � J ' or iii T \ \� _ . �1 7 III rlglik:""N klk‘wv In 1 1 ' ■ ME I'll It �I rn1Th,g■ . GIII IT: i0I��ln7ii; Htin - 111 r B LI1UI U1Ufl 'fiv?'2-!/7 ri H liii! 0 4 4 s. Principal Building Height • Pitched Roof: 23' (Citywide is 28') • Flat Roof: 16' (Citywide is 20') • Wall Height: 16' (Citywide 20') • • Setbacks IP, 11, • Front Yard Average: A calculated figure, excluding smallest and largest setbacks on the block face or 20' • Corner Side Yard: 10' • Interior Side Yard: 4' and 10' — Lots narrower than 47' may reduce the width of the 10' side yard — Combined minimum of 30% of the lot widt h • A setback no closer than 10' from the primary structure located on the adjacent 6 • Setback Illustration .• 30'X0.30=9' Setbacks=4'and 5' 21.25 X 43 sir/faD 913 sr:.rt. 41.25'X 0.30 12.375' 31.25 X 43 Setbacks=4'and 8.3 75'(X'5") 1300 sq.ft. 41.23'X$AS' 7 • Maximum Size • Maximum Lot Coverage: 40% • Maximum Size of New Lot: 150% of zoning minimum • Width of Attached Garage: 50% of front facade 8 • Primary Accessory Structures Maximums for Over-the-Counter Permit Planning Community and City-wide Commission Mayor Standard Recommendation Recommendation Maximum 600 sf 600 sf 50% of Building Principal Coverage Structure Max: 720 sf Min: 480 sf Maximum 50% of footprint of 480 sf with option 50% of Size of Principal Structure; to add 120 sf as a Principal Primary Max: 600 sf Secondary Structure Accessory Min: 480 sf Accessory Max: 720 sf Structure Structure (must be Min: 480 sf lower in height). • • Primary Accessory Structures Maximums for Over-the-Counter Permit Planning Community and City-wide Commission Mayor Standard Recommendation Recommendation Height of 15' 14' 17' ® Pitched Roof at Ridge Height of Flat 10' 9' 12' Roof Wall Height 10' with additional 9' with additional No regulation wall height allowed wall height allowed on sloping lot on sloping lot 111 MID 10 Height Difference Illustration I4 4� �d/S� aY' 11 • , ,, -.- . -. . ,. . , , . . .., ,, „_ _.. ....... , Shadow Illustration Noon - December 21st is' O 31• lye aq. t 1 12 • Secondary Accessory* Structures Maximums for Over-the-Counter Permit Planning Community and City-wide Commission Mayor Standard Recommendation Recommendation Maximum 120 sf 120 sf Size Height of 10' 10' Pitched Roof Height of Flat 8' 8' Roof Wall Height 8' 8' *Secondary Structures may be attached to the primary accessory structure, but must meet the height requirements above 0 13 I • Secondary Accessory Illustration ,4. C - �n All rear yard sceessoly buildings v must meet rear(1'-5')and . . . side(min. 1') - - - setback requirements • 14 • Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay Zone (CHPA) • Purpose: To protect _`' of the Capitol "'' the view 1 O r _ -�.■. . . Building - � ii'' 4 i �� ' ,' Method. Prohibit the { , 1" . •�,.",0 T.T t '-rli., '.; kj. T use of special y�5j, - �- exceptions or other processes to gain additional height for structure. ANL 15 • Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay Zone • Location: Surrounding Capitol Building in Capitol Hill and a small portion of the Avenues • Actions: Planning Staff to process a petition requesting the amendment of the CHPA as recommended in the Master Plan (1999) UMW 16 r... -----------mmmmimml.mmmmmmlimmimilm' . . Capitol H ill Protect iveArea _. OverlayZoe .. . . . .. . . .... .. , n a , . . .. - - NUS 1 2"1 --'1`'-'—'-'",,-M '•it,'7-1. §-,..,-77 dr 111b‘lr. ' thi1 Capitol Hill ` '-`? • ' ow !11i1� 1 Protective Area r— r ••. I Tt Illli�i e District Modifications 1 �H sem ' —_ II (j ' AN ,' ♦nuaaRUk-35� soo 1 L i 1__C (14 4iii RNIF 1I ♦ PL / I E11= • 1 Existing Height Limits T5�♦ UTAH2oning DleMcf HaIgM Llmlt 111 r;.♦ 1 OS 35. ,Iv.? ♦.p SR-I `I�° STATE y : R2' isI A kor= ♦'t. y ,/ pm RMF-35 35♦\ CAPITOL 1 RMU 75 15 75'nz5 condo onal ho \ s1 UI 75/12 Omda onal 1® d ♦ �A \ / 3/ I�(i(!1 7snzsconanonai u.. ♦ _ioou - I �111■ cc 33a1a5 conamonal 11■ R-2 I SR 1.� cs as y i D1 375P375 Conditional II GRAY ; r. ,"'�i PL 75 Government Buildings �1 II' 1 \ _♦ ILwoe AV I: �� Q r f 35 Other Uses 1 11 ►\ • �n'r RMF-35 .7 v(za aria >aa � - - - - - �-- ) ' RI" 3 21. ( _- - CHPA District E><panslon IkMF-d; II_- ifor os e1 �(r ,"1*-, L Current capitolHeProteaionArea 1; 1 ,+ Boundary Expansion Area • �((�"LLI'!�'t9111 1—a— —� OO0000 11. ads," slum 1 Irr�m1 II D-1 a r nn.�. mum miii■ ■ 17 • Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay Zone • Concerns: — Availability of additional height — Historic District limitations Q — Purview of the Historic Landmark Commission • 18 • Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay Zone • Recommended Solution : — Modify the CHPA ordinance to allow additional height • Not to exceed 35 feet (as recommended in the Master Plan) — Only where it is found that the additional height » meets the Avenues / Capitol Hill Compatible Infill Regulations and / or » meets the H Historic Preservation Overlay Zone Regulations. • 19 Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay Zone • Timeframe: — Capitol Hill Community Council Review on May 17, 2006 • — Planning Commission public hearing tentatively scheduled for June 14, 2006 • 20 ATTACHMENT 1 cov — �4a 11111:111l: En �!: Iililiifiiilll: 1 111111111iii1u l i IlI lI —= I I N `1, 4��ttw � IIiilililililiiiiil l I J11111 � !Ii1111 II I ragtying k._ � 1 Pri- 1111111111111111111111 IT11II•f ` U cn vl(��]��j/� a :A`I■jam`•gill .�'"17 •— OP",.A : gt-- <i Ian 111 I n; ',I► 18 NMI 11 I)-' . : ' :.- r - _ . r P11;11;a."7"...: ZI I iji 0 r r� o ' _� E � Rio p ______ i11�111111i 11 M.' r z 1 . A' I c.) QE . ni._ �' r r1 < a �, A. ill; nil it b: ?11111Jis iiu!I, ju :MEN 1111 Ill ri -D�1 i ii.t w •5_ t!) _ III1 II 1 111i1111! �111i1111= mI 1 " w � � o - I _Zr11 Illi� — �o - ,- `if II = wa CU y rgIIr= i „'IMI 8 I 411.111M lam I I I I 1 " i i'''F, ,_ i i ..... co O f \ —1 \ _ _�l 2 — I ''J 111111 a 0 -------..z17F,,„'r-.-_• III!� zIll�IIIIillq� /$ — ��co �i n � ■U . MOOR <..,. ---'-'- ' H4 waz' _ _ . _ .!, , :_: - ■ � � _ IN_ �iinu■ uu ■-- K......,... . 11111 /� o n M00 W z viril • - • --- Imciliai NEMO RP It. N*0 l'- AIWA it - N ifict 414 .C11711 cik' 1E4i ar _ ii Nam y_ all: Ez,Mr. / \ 41 RV an Ele':SW ran IN .4.1.Mat III= III NIP - IIII I !BRE' ME suiiiib. Am ift NO IN- iii mum alli II. SIA--4111111111 - -_-'. 11 '' .- :--'• , N • z • ,;-'.' I.- •I"I_ .:- '.. r u 7.///-._ __ '--- , _. . ,i _ . .. '' 111 r_r_ , • is.1-'. U 4tV'ess7 / M Nisi a #1....74741 ---- '- ..,,strip# „-- - eitlilttt 0 >' ------ -\-- -1 - I I'' te III 081 - 1 ',A SOON ' #. -1: - 7-- .,,,...„ n :.:- -= 1:-':''.7 r'_1-:-=';i:- 1 - L III - 1 E - _: i . 1 ..r, „.. Ea 7--:-.- E - raisel: -- - i .--. ,--- --- '' •,.... 14 .K• .1 .' :sti = 4-0 ism- yy wo41 :---.-. ,!- - ... Es ,_ .j,- ,.,. ,;: - :--:_: -- Lt. ..... uj vzs 7 _ _ NI V' •• imi.... ..„. ,....- _ r. . mil --_-_. = .- r:..-_- . , ..-,_ ,-,-: ., ,-.- _..„.• Ti miii. ii ce T -ui ri irrt7 -,-..- ' . :LT,/811,41Filp ''';: ... .'.: 7--„... -. •., ..:_. T.- ci) : ,-_1 __ 4 1,=::•-: ..-- _,_, = .- ,_- ,.- -:- - .,,,,--:_,- L-,,-.. L= ,:.- rir--i- = \-- --\--( liT ,,,,,ft -,'::: iL:i-L.--_ ,.-: -.L ,. - -,.'- --:- - i.. ,--: ------- -'- :--Li . L'.. r mit mit 4L__J \--::: ":\ nt ''.-- ;,r s-; ` '.,. '- -':'•-•'-. ..',. '11' 1 Will .II„ \\----\-- -1 7'-';,,iL.::-,-- .:.:::. - ,L- ,_..i -., .i.- L'_ ...- :iri::,i: LL: .. -,:i::-_-:Ls ,_ ,. .. _i In. on q \._,\, ,„ , . ... ., .. ‘ ,., _ , ... ,„, , > 1 1 'L'---„---.- T--: no .P.... i p____] t'.'-.; .,-=:,-„±:. kiLi..,. ; 7 1 a am kr .- ,.::-1 , , ,,, ..: ::, : . 2:7: i:,,:1? "2,!:',. I II MI lifiE II UIP ;'-Li-'', r.. .:•-• L.:...... i L'I'L' ..,-" : ',.':'-i-- ni, -'i tli' L.__ Mai r ---. Iii _ f:--_.....-.__ --, 1-- S. , \\ - ,,. ._. 1-- 7 . ,....--. - -t-,;;;-:-: Lwi-.-a-i Mh= IT Er] Li NN tm tlik0 Pt?' kit iiiit kal iiiiir, zi---- I M .-_ f T.- •7::_ z "4 i\N 3_1 ATTACHMENT 2 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 12, 2006 Citywide Greater Avenues Topic (Ordinance 90) Staff Proposal Proposal* (If different than Staff) Building Height 28' 23' or the average height of the block face. Flat Roof Height/Maximum 20' 16' Exterior Wall Height _ To determine the aver, ge To determine the average setback on setback on the bill fade•if, the block face if three or more parcels are three or more located on the blo face. parcels are located Front Yard Setback (The greatest and smallest setbacks may only tie on the block face. eliminated if more than fourr (The greatest and parcels are located on the smallest setbacks block face.) would be eliminated from the calculation.) 1 (Eliminate the language to permit Corner Side Yard 10' over-the-counter inline additions in the side yard.) Interior Side Yard 4'on one side end 10' on the other. TO determine the size of the structure by using the standard thzathe accessory Accessory Structures structure cane up to 50% of 7z square feet 480 square feet Footprint Size _ the size of the home with a q maximum of 600 square feet 4, and minimum of 480 square Vo , .` , feet.** AccessoStructures— - t, Maximum f in aHeight 17' 15' 14' (gr to the ridge) 5 ti;,, .:, ss 10' (A provision is being A� ory Structures 1 considered to adjust the Flat Rooftiei.9ht/Maximum 12 height requirements for 9 Exterior Wall Height sloping lots.) ATTACHMENT 3 COMPARISON-PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION/COMMUNITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION MAYOR ANDERSON'S LETTER DATED APRIL 26, 2006 Regulation Planning Community • Commission Councils' Recommendation recommendation _ Height of Accessory 15 feet 14 feet Structures with Pitched Roof Height of Flat Roof io feet 9 feet Accessory Structures for over th.e counter permit Wall Height of io feet 9 feet accessory Structure for over the counter permit Maximum footprint 50% of the building 48o square feet for of accessory footprint of the accessory structure structure for over principal structure up plus an additional izo the counter permit. to a maximum of 600 square feet for a square feet secondary accessory `. structure P ATTACHMENT 4 Iiiiim rTtIll Greater Avenues Community Council 1180 1st Avenue, Salt Lake City,UT 84103 `l°°Lit Stephen F. Mecham,Chair Phone: 801 359-4165 [11111 1M,• Shane Carlson, Housing Committee, Spokesperson Phone: 801 596-3939 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Commission Members, Council Members and City Planners: First,we would like to express our appreciation of the efforts of the Planning Office,the City Council and the Planning Commission on the recently adopted Infill Ordinance and tiered permit process. Over the last twelve months a significant amount of work and careful thought has gone into addressing what was rapidly becoming a serious problem with incompatible infill, a problem that threatened our sense of community and goodwill among neighbors. We are especially appreciative of the Planning Office and their efforts to implement the new tiered permitting process. We feel strongly that the success of this tiered process is essential to ensuring predictability for communities while allowing for responsible growth and accommodation in situations that are often quite challenging. The Greater Avenues Community Council's Housing Committee has been working on the proposed SR-1 overlay for about ten months. We have made significant efforts to describe and document the character of the Avenues SR-1 area. One of the tools we used in drafting the proposed overlay was a thorough inventory of all residential properties in the SR-1 area. Not only did this inventory provide us with a clear appreciation of the housing stock in the SR-1 area, it also illuminated some of the unique challenges faced by those residing in our community. Out of 2396 residential properties, an estimated 2075(85%)are non- conforming to the present minimum SR-1 standards for the minimum lot width of 50 feet or the minimum lot size of 5000 square feet. For those Avenues SR-1 properties south of 10th Avenue,the figure is closer to 90%non-conforming. Every element of our proposed overlay was carefully crafted to deal with the very real and significant problems recently experienced in our area. We were pleased with the Planning Office's decision to recommend that the Planning Commission and City Council approve most of our proposed overlay. The Planning Office has recommended a few minor modifications to the calculation of front and side setbacks. We support these recommended modifications and appreciate their importance. However,we cannot support,nor do we entirely understand,the Planning Office's recommended modifications to our proposal regarding the counter permit limits for accessory buildings. Primary Building Peak and Wall Height We are pleased with the Planning Office's decision to recommend our proposal's counter permit limits for primary building peak height(23 feet)and sidewall height(16 feet; Section D. Paragraphs 1,2 and 3). We fully appreciate the necessity of a smoothly functioning tiered permit process in order for these counter permit limits to be practical as the development pattern in the SR-1 area is quite diverse. We appreciate the Planning Office's efforts to implement the new tiered process as well as their openness to input from the community. Combined with significant efforts to implement the tiered process,these counter permit limits will provide a measure of predictability for our more vulnerable block faces while allowing reasonable expansion and growth throughout the area. Front Setbacks The Planning Office has recommended that when using the proposed modifications for calculation of front- setback(average calculated dropping the smallest and largest setbacks),the minimum number of properties on the block-face should be increased from three to four(Section E. Paragraph 1). We appreciate the utility of modifying the minimum number of buildings on a"block face"before eliminating the closest and furthest buildings from the calculation of the"block face"average,as the proposed minimum of three properties would leave only one property to be used in the modified calculation. We do not anticipate that increasing this number from the proposed three to the recommended four buildings would pose a problem. We support this recommendation. Corner Lot Side Setbacks The proposed SR-1 overlay requested the elimination of an in-line side setback exception for street side setback for corner lots(Section E,Paragraph 2). The Planning Office has recommended no modifications to the proposal. We appreciate their support of the proposed modified side setback limit for corner lots. Interior Lot Side Setbacks The Planning Office has recommended several minor modifications to the formula proposed by our Housing Committee to help address the challenge of the very narrow and deep lots that exist in a significant majority of the SR-1 area(Section E,Paragraph 3). We appreciate the reasoning behind the Planning Office's recommended modifications and we do not anticipate that these modifications will negatively impact the goal of the proposed formula for calculating modified minimum interior side setbacks. We would also like to express our support of the Planning Office's recommendation to apply the proposed minimum ten foot separation between the proposed construction and the adjacent property's primary building only when the rules for a reduced side setback are applied and only to the side of the project where the reduced side setback(less than 10 feet)is applied. The recommended modification would retain the original intent of our proposal,helping property owners and permit applicants address the challenges of their very narrow lots,while addressing the fire code and public safety issues allowing access to the sides and rear of each property. Accessory Building Recommendations The City Planning Office has recommended counter permit limits for accessory buildings that are higher than what was proposed by the Avenues Housing Committee for the SR-1 area(Section E, Paragraph 5). The Committee has several concerns regarding the recommendation to adopt higher limits. First,as stated above,the SR-1 area is characterized by lots that are very narrow and at times much smaller than the 5000 square foot minimum for new lots in the SR-1 area. In some areas,the standard lot width is 27.5 feet. The most common lot width is approximately forty one feet. On lots with homes that are often only inches apart,every additional foot of wall and peak height brings a much greater likelihood that a structure will negatively impact an adjacent property owner. While out of scale primary structures have been the source of the most egregious incompatible infill,accessory structures have been a very common source of conflict between adjacent property owners. While we appreciate that the Planning Office has recommended a counter permit limit of 600 square feet that is consistent with limits recognized by the Historic Landmarks Commission,we feel that in areas such as the middle Avenues(approximately 5th to 10th Avenues)where very narrow lots are combined with views of the city and the Oquirrh Mountains, a counter permit limit of 480 square feet is a much more defensible standard. The proposed 480 square foot limit for a primary accessory building would provide all property owners with the opportunity for a two car garage that could houseaven the largest passenger vehicles along with some room for tools and storage. Our original proposal to allow an additional 120 square feet of secondary accessory building with lower wall end peak height limits(eight and ten feet respectively)would ensure that all property owners would have the opportunity for additional storage or work space. Our Housing Committee also has significant questions about the recommendation to limit accessory structure square footage to 50%of the primary building's foot print. Not all of the largest primary buildings have been built on the largest lots or in the most sensitive locations. We feel strongly that allowing those properties with the largest homes to build larger garages without further consideration of lot size(beyond the 40%lot coverage limit)or building placement will result in situations where properties that already have a significant impact on adjacent property owners will be allowed to have an even greater impact with a larger accessory structure. Conversely,properties with small primary structures(less than 1200 square feet)that are less likely to have impacted adjacent properties may be unfairly limited to lower accessory structure limits. These recommended limits would be implemented without regard to the size of a lot or the placement of the buildings. We feel that allowing everyone 600 square feet of accessory structure but requiring that those seeking a counter permit build in a manner less likely to impact their neighbors(480 square feet for primary accessory structure,remaining accessory structure built under lower limits) is a more equitable solution to an often challenging situation. We also feel that the higher counter permit limits for accessory buildings that have been recommended are not in keeping with the spirit of the tiered permit process which was adopted to allow for relatively easy exceptions to somewhat stricter counter permit limits. Like the other elements of the proposed overlay,the originally proposed accessory building limits were designed to provide predictability for the most vulnerable areas while allowing the quick approval of well designed projects. We feel these limits are appropriate,especially when viewed alongside the lesser requirements for granting a"Routine and Uncontested"permit for accessory buildings exceeding the counter permit limits. "Routine and Uncontested"applications may be granted based upon the approval of all adjacent property owners but unlike special exceptions for primary buildings,the administrator handling the request need convene a public hearing where concerns expressed by parties not residing next to the proposed project must be considered. This lower standard for accessory structures exceeding counter permit limits is appropriate. We also feel that the lower standard makes our proposed accessory building limits preferable to the Planning Office's recommendation. Finally,we have questions about the Planning Office's recommendation that minimum structural requirements for a flat roofed garage require a ten foot roof in order to accommodate a seven foot door. We have consulted a contractor and architect who suggested the following design in order to allow a nine foot flat roofed garage with a seven foot door. Rather than spanning the entire width of the building (somewhere between twenty and twenty-four feet)with a 14 inch TJI ceiling joist,an alternative design would incorporate a beam at the mid-point of the garage parallel with the side of the garage with the garage door. The beam, at ten to twelve feet from the wall with the door,would be set back far enough to accommodate the door and garage door hardware/opener. The beam would be supported at its mid-point with a vertical column. The addition of the beam would allow much smaller ceiling joists,approximately 10 inches for a 12 foot span. Nearly all garage door manufacturers have low profile door hardware available at no extra charge. Low profile hardware would allow the door to be mounted with approximately six inches of overhead space. Allowing for six inches of slope on a 24 foot wide garage,six inches for door hardware and ten inch joists,a seven foot door could be accommodated within the proposed nine foot flat roofed counter permit limit. On a related note,we see no reason to recommend that the wall height for pitched roof accessory buildings be increased to match that of Planning Office's recommended ten feet for flat-roofed buildings. Given the potential of wall height to impact sunlight on adjacent properties, we are asking that the Planning Commission recommend the originally proposed counter permit limits of nine feet for both wall height and flat roofed buildings. In conclusion,we would like to emphasize our appreciation of the Planning Office,the City Council and the Planning Commission and all of the hard work that has gone into dealing with the difficult issue of compatible infill. We are very pleased with the efforts initiated by the City Council to address this issue and to make it a priority,the creativity and hard work of the City Planning Office to design and implement a unique and promising tiered permit process, and the Planning Commission for their careful consideration of these matters. We would also like to recognize the City Council's support for community specific zoning where appropriate and the efforts of the Planning Office to support the overlay process at the community level. Planning staff have often made themselves available to our Housing Committee and provided guidance on several important issues. The Avenues Housing Compatibility Committee has also made a significant effort to address the key issues of concern in our area. We feel that our direct experience of the challenges posed by the close proximity of the homes and the narrow lots that characterize the area,as well as our experience with sensitive and successful projects has provided our residents with a unique and intimate knowledge of the issues as well as the potential for creative solutions for most property owners. We are asking that you please take this intimate knowledge of the community into account as you weigh the Planning Office recommendations along side the proposed overlay. We would also ask that you take into consideration the strong support of our community for the proposed overlay as it was originally written,specifically in regard to accessory structures. And while the Avenues Housing Compatibility Committee cannot support the recommendations of the Planning Office with regard to counter permit limits for accessory buildings,we strongly support all other modifications to our proposed overlay as recommended by the Planning Office. Sincerely, Shane Carlson Greater Avenues Community Council Housing Compatibility Committee,Spokesperson ATTACHMENT 5 Greater Avenues Community Council Proposed Overlay for the SR-1 Zoning District March 6th, 2006 ,; r , l,,,,,,( Greater Avenues Community Council 1180 1St Avenue, Salt Lake City, UT 84103 �� ++ _= _—" Stephen F. Mecham, Chair Phone: 801 359-4165 r illIli f , ,1 Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Council Members and City Planners: The Greater Avenues Community Council(GACC) is pleased to submit for your review the enclosed SR-1 Overlay overwhelmingly approved by the GACC March 1, 2006. As you know, in July 2005 GACC established the Housing Compatibility Committee to develop the enclosed Overlay. In its March 1, 2006 meeting, GACC also voted to allow representatives of the Housing Compatibility Committee to work with Planning and Zoning if any changes are needed to facilitate City Council approval of the Overlay. During the past seven months, the Housing Compatibility Committee has sought public input and has worked diligently to develop the Overlay to preserve and protect the unique characteristics of SR-1 properties in the eclectic Avenues area. The GACC believes the draft Overlay establishes a new set of fair and flexible zoning rules specific for the Avenues District SR-1 area that will allow for a large range of diverse development patterns and still provide a measure of predictability for everyone in the community. We urge you to approve the Overlay as it is proposed. We look forward to working with you in enacting and implementing the Overlay. You may call me at 359-4165 with any questions. Housing Compatibility Committee spokesperson Shane Carlson may be reached at 596-3939 and Committee Chair Lon Richardson may be reached at 364-4529. Sincerely, Stephen F. Mecham, 2006 Chair Greater Avenues Community Council Summary Over the summer of 2005, the Avenues 'experienced a number of controversial construction projects, involving both primary structures and accessory buildings. At the same time, the City Council was addressing a similar problem in several neighborhoods throughout Salt Lake City. In July, 2005, the City Council approved the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay. In August, the Greater Avenues Community Council formed its Housing Compatibility Committee (HCC) to investigate and address the specific housing issues in the Avenues. The HCC identified the SR-1 district as the area most impacted by recent incompatible • infill. Characteristics of the SR-1 area contributing to the problem included a high percentage of deep and narrow lots, a high percentage of lots not conforming to the minimum width and square foot requirements of the SR-1 code, the liberal nature of the SR-1 code, and the rapidly rising property values in the SR-1 area. The HCC attempted to develop a single set of dimensional restrictions that would provide predictability for.the residents of the more vulnerable SR-1 areas while still allowing flexibility where taller building heights are the existing development pattern. The HCC struggled to come up with a reasonable set of standards under the previously existing system where projects exceeding dimensional limits were sent directly to the Board of Adjustment. As an alternative, the HCC proposed a tiered permit system where projects exceeding the dimensional limits for a counter permit but that were consistent with the character of the neighboring buildings were approved in an expedited manner. At that same time, the City Planning Office proposed its own tiered permit system. The HCC development of an SR-1 overlay was put on hold while the City considered a city- wide compatible infill ordinance. After that ordinance was adopted, along with temporary restrictions for the Avenues SR-1 area, the HCC resumed work on an SR-1 overlay. The efforts of the HCC were focused on conducting a comprehensive inventory of all SR- I residential properties in the Avenues, a thorough review of the existing SR-1 ordinance, and the Avenues Master Plan, as well as soliciting input from a wide range of avenues residents,architects,contractors, and real estate brokers. The HCC concluded that in order to provide predictability, the proposed overlay needed to perpetuate the temporary height restrictions originally proposed by the City Planning Office, that allowances needed to be made for the narrow non-conforming lots, and that the trend towards large multiuse accessory structures needed to be balanced against the often disproportionate impact these structure had on adjacent properties. 1 Issue Origin Over the summer of 2005, several new construction projects were started in the Avenues that concerned a large number of Community members. These projects consisted of primary structure remodels and new garages. Several of these projects became the subjects of articles in the local papers on "Monster Homes"and incompatible in-fill (see Appendix A). At the same time that Avenues community members were recognizing the early stages of an incompatible infill problem in their area, the Salt Lake City Council was beginning to address the same problem city wide. Specifically, in July,2005 the City Council approved the Yalecrest Compatible In-fill Overlay "to encourage compatibility between new construction, additions or alterations and the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood." Also at that time,the City Council was considering a 6- month moratorium on new projects to allow time for communities to develop neighborhood specific guidelines to protect against incompatible in-fill in the more vulnerable city neighborhoods (Ordinance 44 of 2005). That moratorium was approved and then rescinded a week later as some Council members were concerned that a city- • wide moratorium was too broad a measure to address problems not experienced in all neighborhoods. It was also at this time that the Greater Avenues Community Council (GACC) organized the Avenues Housing Compatibility Committee(HCC). The HCC was charged with the task of studying the problem of incompatible infill to determine which significant factors were driving the "Monster House" and"Monster Garage"phenomena both locally and nationally, as well as which areas of the Avenues were experiencing the greatest impact. Process At the August GACC meeting, Yalecrest Overlay Committee members David and Lisette Gibson were invited to discuss their efforts to develop and gain approval for the Yalecrest Overlay. It was also at that meeting that the formation of the HCC was announced and input from all members of the Avenues community was solicited (see Appendix B). The charge of the HCC was to find community consensus regarding structural regulations which give clear standards and allow us to preserve the value of our community. The HCC began meeting weekly. At the HCC meetings,it quickly became apparent that several factors were contributing to the incompatible infill problem. First, nearly all of the most controversial projects• . were occurring in the SR-1 zoning district. Second, a large number of projects involved residents new to the Avenues neighborhood who were.moving to the area in response to high fuel prices and increasingly lengthy commutes from distant areas within the Salt Lake Valley. Many of these new arrivals stated that they were simply trying to replace their smaller homes and garages with something similar to what they had left behind on their much larger lots in the suburbs. And finally, many controversial projects involved the construction of new garages as well as modifications to primary structures. • 2 Over the course of several HCC meetings in August and September, 2005, committee members attempted to identify subsections of the SR-1 district that would be benefit from a new set of zoning regulations. Several conclusions were drawn from those discussions. First, while there are some broad patterns of development within the SR-1 district that appear to have evolved over time(bungalows between 6`h ana'1 1th Avenues, Victorians on 2" and 3rd Avenues), there are no clear lines of demarcation between these areas, homes of all types can be found throughout the SR-1 area(large Victorians on many block corners as high as 11`h Avenue). Coinciding with the difficulty the HCC encountered in defining any significant homogenous areas in the SR-1 district, the committee experienced difficulty coming up with any one set of dimensional counter permit limits (such as building height) that would provide some degree of predictability and protection for areas predominantly comprised of 16 foot tall bungalows while allowing taller remodels and additions in areas where taller two and three story Victorians were predominant. It quickly became apparent to the members of the HCC that the single most consistent and challenging characteristic of the Avenues would be the very diverse nature of the community with mansions and cottages,historic and non-historic areas, families and single adult professionals, couples just starting their lives together and widows and widowers. It was a huge challenge to come up with a single solution to fit each very different situation. Out of this challenge grew the idea of a three tier permit process as a way to protect the most vulnerable blocks while allowing an easier permitprocess for compatible building in areas of larger houses. However, because of the added complexity of a tiered permit process, HCC members were unsure if the City would support such a significant change to the permit process. Apparently,the City Planning Office was thinking along the same lines as they were developing a proposal which was presented to the City Council on September 20, 2006. At that time, the Planning Staff presented the outline of a process to develop compatible residential infill zoning standards that was a combination.of reduced measurement standards and a new three tier building permit process. The City Council requested that the Administration return to the Council with a completed recommendation using the tiered process that could be passed by December, 2005. Because of the similarities between the process under consideration by the City Planning Office and the tiered process being considered by the HCC, the HCC members shifted their attention to the Citywide Compatible Infill Ordinance (eventually known as Ordinance 91 of 2005). Efforts to develop an Avenues SR-1 Overlay were put on hold until the City completed their new ordinance with the idea that after the ordinance was voted upon,HCC members would evaluate what had been passed citywide and develop a an appropriate proposal for the SR-1 area if needed. During October and November, 2005, numerous briefings and public hearings took place before the Planning Commission and the City Council. The HCC members were at every 3 meeting, either writing letters or talking individually to commission and Council members and formally speaking to the new proposals (see Appendix C). The HCC continued to meet by-weekly to find ways to support the Planning Department with the proposed zoning changes and coordinate the HCC member's efforts. On December 13, 2005, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the city-wide Compatible Residential Infill Development Zoning Ordinance amendments (Ordinance 90 of 2005) and Temporary Zoning Standards (Ordinance 91 of 2005). The purpose of the Temporary Zoning Standards was to allow the GACC to submit a proposal for neighborhood based zoning standards regulating compatibility of residential construction within the SR-1 Zoning District. The temporary zoning standards were to be in effect for 6'months and are expected to expire mid-July,2006. On December 28,2005 Joel Paterson met with.members of the HCC to review the essential elements of an overlay proposal to be submitted by a community council. Specifically, Joel requested that the GACC application for an SR-1 overlay include the. following: 1. Documentation and research of area for infill 2. Describe the characteristics of the area 3. Proposed goals The HCC members have worked closely with Joel Paterson and his staff as they began the process of creating the Avenues Overlay just as Yalecrest Community Council did. Throughout January and February, 2006, the HCC met weekly. HCC members made a complete inventory of all 2394 single and dual family homes in the SR-1 zoning district recording whether the home (1)was a 1, 11/2,or 2 story home, (2) had an attached garage, and (3) had a pitched or flat roof(see Appendix D). Using maps of the SR-1 area, HCC members also estimated the number of properties in the SR-1 area that did not conform to the minimum lot width and minimum lot square footage requirements of the base SR-1 zoning regulations. The HCC also reviewed zoning ordinances throughout the city both before and after December 13, 2005, consulted the Avenues Master Plan and met with City Council members, Planning Department officials, architects,realtors,contractors and area residents. In addition, HCC members made every effort to communicate the work and findings of the committee to the entire Avenues community(see Appendix B). In December and early January, with the help of the GACC webmaster, Dave Jonsson and HCC member Lester Apki, a comprehensive web-page was launched detailing, agendas, minutes, proposed overlay elements, area maps and links to outside resources (see Appendix E). 4 Finally, several articles written by HCC members were published in the monthly GACC newsletters and time was allotted during GACC meetings for monthly progress reports and presentations by the HCC (see Appendix B). The broader Avenues community was repeatedly invited to participate in the HCC meetings, share their ideas with committee members and to get involved in any way they could. Anyone who provided an e-mail address was added to the internal HCC e-mail list(AvenuesHCC@Comcast.net). Residents without access to e-mail were kept up to date with phone calls and paper copies of communications and works in progress. In February 2006, the front page article in the GACC newsletter shared more information about the new zoning ordinances, specifically the City's new three-tiered permit approach. Results of the HCC inventory were presented to the GACC community meeting on February ls`,2006. A large color-coded map was used to depict the estimated number of stories in each residential property. Several minutes were devoted to providing definitions such as block face, development pattern, set-back, roof line, lot coverage, infill, overlay, and over-the-counter. The March 2006 GACC newsletter provided an overview of the work and goals of the HCC and included a table on page 3 summarizing the proposed Avenues SR-1 Overlay. At the GACC monthly meeting on March 1st, 2006, the completed Avenues SR-1 Overlay proposal was presented in detail. After the presentation and answering all questions from attendees, a vote was taken: 48 to 5 in favor of the Proposal. Methods As discussed earlier, the expectation of the City Planning Office was that the HCC would provide documentation and research describing the characteristics of the area being considered for the proposed overlay. To this end, the primary efforts of the HCC were a comprehensive inventory of all residential properties in the SR-1 district(see Appendix D), an estimate of the number of residential properties that conformed to the minimum lot width and minimum lot square footage requirements of the SR-1 zone, and identification of vulnerable block faces within the SR-1 area which the City would then survey to obtain maximum building heights for a given block(See Appendix F). In addition, the HCC conducted a thorough review of the current SR-1 zoning ordinance, including the recently adopted citywide Compatible Infill Ordinance and the Temporary Infill Ordinance applied to the SR-1 areas of the Avenues and Capitol Hill neighborhoods and the R-1-5000 and R-1-7000 areas of the Wasatch Hollow district. A walking inventory was conducted by Avenues residents which classified conforming use dwellings in the SR-1 zone by number of stories, the presence or absence of an attached garage on the front façade and whether or not the structure had a flat roof(see coding sheet—appendix D). Over sixty pictures'of homes in the SR-1 area were 5 reviewed as part of a training session for those HCC members conducting the Inventory. Number of stories was used as a rough estimate of building height. Classification of stories was based upon the following criteria: • 1,0 Stories (Do not and could not live within the roof) • 1.5 Stories (Could build within roof, 2nd story knee walls less than 4 feet) • 2.0 Stories (Two stories or 2nd story knee walls taller than 4 feet) Homes were classified based upon their appearance from the front façade as seen from the street. Where homes were located on a slope and the possibility of an additional story such as a walkout basement was not readily apparent, the slope was noted. A flat roofed structure was classified as anything less than a 3/12 pitch based upon a diagram the person doing the inventory could compare to a building's roof pitch(see Appendix D for the inventory coding sheet). Three color coded maps were produced from the SR-1 inventory, one for number of stories, one for flat roofed buildings and one for garages as part of the front primary building's façade. In summary, 1084 of the 2394 homes (45.3%) were classified as single story, 676 (28.2%)were classified as 1.5 stories, and 634(26.5%) were classified as 2 stories or taller. Results of the inventory clearly indicate the existence of entire block faces comprised of one story homes spread throughout the SR-1 district(see Inventory Height map— Appendix D). It was estimated that the tallest homes on these block faces would be 16 to 18 feet in height. • A sample of these vulnerable block faces was submitted to the City Planning Office for Survey(see Survey Map—Appendix F). Survey results to confirm these building heights are still pending at this time. • 6 ,'7,� �a,� s, ,+sx i'ltQ4 l ,It{1 �}, F��1 i i Y. ({� - Flt}{,l� �ys7, S .'11&y� t h ''-'3 N �+ 'F+ i' + !e, r'�1� r .t s rs y , i1 ry F '�"` 9.,< Te( t, y :1,, °l 16 i r..y. .'a etv N .ht. g C ..-�d+ i , a,1Tly1 4. r e {fin ��)3 fy £ 1 >5 {f ;,,'" F\ 3,, 1 t ,i ty.• 'I , % Air 01 41 S 1,46 1@g,i d 4 A 1fir F.+�Uq. ,. )1 i, 1a JVe. '.;a si i', scy 1tt'� `' • l' `,?y"• '� 1'1 ,r, F 2Y' t U d V 0 �+d 3r T �S� r y.� n • 1(t- n 1 � � PSS r a r Ir m 1+ r a� k,t >q� �� 6 , 1-V4",. ;I ( n' e ;: r� �rkf ,` y9 t�„.,, lfh,,,1,{{&,,at('iMii$Sr Ccu'�.rld7 r. L: '+ ''--0`Y� �f'1 4! {; r f ar 4a ao- k4 cl,,,,-(it,i +{i, ltip i. mot t.c , ,; �� .4;; r v `y,{ I t, T f,..,r,, 4"AA ra ,{ v y l tt,,, -o -.. ,. t d 1 i �.Fl S,,� i�il,f A��f,'h "r.4� J - I , A typical block face of one story buildings (East side of K between 7' and 8' Avenues) The inventory maps of flat roofed buildings (85 — 3.5%) and homes with garages as part of the front facade (one-car 186 - 7.8%; two-car 155 - 6.5%) revealed that these structures are uncommon in the SR-1 area and a significant number are concentrated north of 11`s Avenue. HCC members also estimated the number of residential lots that did not conform to the fifty foot minimum lot width requirement or the minimum 5000 square foot lot size requirement of the SR-1 district. Using City zoning maps and creating a template to estimate lot width and size(based upon the 330 feet X 330 feet block size that is predominant in the SR-1 area and that the typical lot size of 1/a width of one quarter of the block results in a property that is 41 feet 3 inches in width), it was estimated that 360 (15%) of the 2394 residential SR-1 properties met the SR-1 minimum width and lot size requirements. Stated another way, 2034 properties (85%) do not meet the minimum lot size requirements upon which the other SR-1 dimensional limits such as height and side setbacks are based. Review of Existing Zoning Regulations In addition to the inventories and surveys, the HCC conducted a thorough review of the SR-1 zoning ordinance that was recently modified by the City Council (21A.24.080 SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District) as well as the temporary restrictions put in place for this area by the City Council (Ordinance 91 of 2005). 7 One very important addition to the permitting process was the tiered nature of the newly adopted Infill Ordinance. As mentioned earlier in this document, the HCC was considering a similarly tiered process to address the wide variety of development in the SR-1 district. Evaluation of the existing zoning regulations was done with the expectation that the Adminstrative Public Hearing process would be significantly easier to navigate for appropriate projects than the Board of Adjustment had been as the previous next step for projects exceeding the counter permit limits. Also, in consultation with the Planning Office officials,the HCC's intent is to propose a set of dimensional limits for the SR-1 area that will not change if city wide modifications to dimensional limits are adopted. The HCC will follow the direction of the City • Planning Office as to whether this is best accomplished via a comprehensive SR-1 overlay or the creation of a special Avenues/Capitol Hill SR-1 zoning district. Modifications to Current SR-1 Zoning Ordinance(see Appendix G) No modifications to section "B: Uses" based upon table 21A.24.190 for the SR-1 zoning district of the City Code are proposed. No modifications to section "C. Minimum Lot Area and Lot Width" are proposed. In reviewing section "D. Maximum Building Height" the HCC took several items into consideration. In October, 2005, when the City Planning Office first proposed new citywide zoning changes, the recommended citywide SR-1 and R-1 district restriction on building height was 23 feet at the peak. According to testimony of Planning Office officials at that time,23 feet was the height restriction they estimated would be necessary to provide predictability and protection to the areas within the city most vulnerable to significant impact of incompatibly larger remodels and new construction. The Planning office at that time estimated that a height restriction of 16 feet for flat roofed buildings and exterior walls was also required to protect these same areas. The HCC feels strongly that if combined with the tiered permitting process to allow taller projects where appropriate, the 23 feet building height limits and the 16 foot exterior wall and flat roofed building height limits are essential to protect and preserve the character of the vulnerable SR-1 areas. After reviewing section"E. Yard Requirements," the HCC has proposed several minor modifications to better address the large percentage of non-conforming lots in the SR-1 area. In section "E: 1. Front Yard," the HCC was concerned about the potential impact of several blocks where buildings originally designed as commercial properties,but now used as residential properties,could impact the calculation of front yard setback. The zoning ordinance as recently modified calculates the required front yard setback as the average on the block face. Commercial properties were often built with no front setback, flush with the front property line. On blocks where commercial buildings have been converted to residential use, such properties could significantly impact the calculation of 8 the average, allowing new construction with a much smaller front setback than the other residential properties on a block. There are also several block faces in the SR-1 area where some homes were built with a significantly larger front setback, which would result in a new project being required to have a larger front setback than the other homes on a block. To minimize the impact of these atypical situations, the HCC has proposed that where there are three or more SR-1 principal buildings with front yards on a block face, the average shall be calculated excluding the one property with the smallest front setback and excluding the one property with the largest front yard setbacks. In item 2 of section E, "Corner Side Yard" setbacks; the HCC has proposed that the language allowing inline front setback exceptions for existing buildings be stricken. Because of the history of abuse in this area of inline side setback exceptions, HCC members felt that these exceptions would best be granted on a case by case basis with the overview of the Administrative Public Hearing Officer. The HCC has proposed a modification to item 3 of section E, "Interior Side Yard" setbacks to address the large number of very narrow non-conforming lots within the SR-1 district. Often, these lots are as narrow as thirty feet (30') in width. The proposed modification is as follows: • b. Other Uses: ii. Interior Lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. a. Where the width of a lot is 46' 8" or narrower, total minimum side setbacks shall be equal to 30% of the lot width with one side being four feet(4') and the other side being 30% of the lot width minus four feet. b. Where a lot is 26' 8" or narrower, required side setbacks shall be a minimum of four feet(4') and four feet(4'). c. In no case where required side setbacks are less than four feet (4') and ten feet (10') shall the addition,remodel or new construction be closer than ten feet(10') to a primary structure on an adjacent property. This language is proposed as a change to the first tier or"counter permit" limits for all additions and new construction. This modification was developed in an attempt to deal proactively with a situation that would otherwise present a frequent challenge to property owners given the non-conforming nature of a majority of the lots in the SR-I area. No modifications to section "E. Yard Requirements; 4. Rear Yard" were proposed. As mentioned above, garages have recently been the subject of many controversial projects. Like many of the other issues unique to the SR-1 area, the problem is exacerbated by the number of very narrow non-conforming properties. In addition, the 9 SR-1 area is characterized by views of the Wasatch Mountains, the Salt Lake Valley and the Oquirrh Mountains from many properties. The HCC considered the trend towards much larger garages and the many uses for which accessory buildings are often built. The.HCC has proposed a set of restrictions that gives priority to those accessory buildings used to house up to two automobiles. At the same time, the HCC did not want to prohibit construction of additional space to be used for storage, a gazebo, a green house, or a small personal workspace. Given the often small narrow lots, the HCC has proposed a counter permit limit of 600 feet lot coverage for all accessary buildings. In addition, the HCC has proposed that 480 square feet of accessory building may have a maximum building height of fourteen feet(14')with a maximum wall height of nine feet(9'). Additional accessory building space up to the total 600 square foot limit may have a peak height up to ten feet(10') with an eight foot(8')wall height limit. No modifications are proposed by the HCC to the remaining SR-1 sections; "F. Maximum Building Coverage," "G.Maximum Lot Size,"or"H. Standards for Attached Garages." Modifications to the SR-1 zoning ordinance to disallow the creation of garages attached to the front facade and the creation of new flat roofed buildings were considered. Given the challenges posed by often narrow lots and the overall limits on flat roofed building height (sixteen feet), it was determined that additional restrictions would be unnecessary at this time. A complete summary of the proposed modifications to the SR-1 zoning ordinance is provided in Appendix G. The summary in Appendix H was created as a modification to the SR-1 text as it existed on March 1,2006. Additions are depicted by underlined text. Deletions are depicted using str•l_ throe h*w*i V µban-c.V]l c. A chart of the proposed SR-1 modifications and the historic SR-1 ordinance is also provided in Appendix.G The HCC has provided renderings of model structures/examples meeting the counter permit requirements of the proposed ordinance. These examples depict a ground floor and within the roof addition to a 1300 Square foot home on a.15 acre lot(41.25 feet by 165 feet), a depiction of the proposed modification to the minimum side setback required for interior lots, and a sketch of the proposed size and height limits for accessory buildings (see Appendix H). As a tool to more clearly depict the proposed limits, the HCC is presently working with an AIA certified Architect to produce drawings with the proposed dimensional limits applied to example structures. These drawings should be available tot the Planning Office by March 15th,2006. • 10 The draft proposal in Appendix H was written and submitted to the full Community Council for a vote on March 1, 2006. Copies of the chart in Appendix H were also provided to all council attendees. Conclusion In recommending that counter permits be restricted to buildings and additions with a maximum peak height of 23 feet, the HCC is not only adopting the height restrictions recommended as necessary to protect the city's most vulnerable properties by the Planning Office in their original proposal, the HCC has arrived at a conclusion similar to the recommendations of the most recent Avenues Master Plan Update(July, 1987)but which were never adopted; "Many of the incompatibility problems created by new construction in residential areas are associated with excessive building height; new dwellings that tower over adjacent homes, second level or rear additions that overwhelm the original structure. A recently adopted ordinance will reduce height potential in areas encompassed by the `F-1' Foothill Development Overlay Zone."The Master Plan goes on the comment that"If these limitations prove to be successful in accomplishing their intended purposes in the""F-1 areas, similar height restrictions may be considered for other R-1 and R-2 areas in the Avenues Community." The Avenues has a substantial history as a community rather than just a neighborhood, with a shared vision of neighborhood interaction; historic preservation and architectural quality. Previous down-zoning has established that single family dwellings were the community standard. Mother-in-law and basement apartments are generally acceptable, along with some duplexes. Large monolithic structures, whether apartment blocks or large homes have been discouraged. The Avenues was mainly developed as a close-to-center residential area where mass transit use was high. Such remains the case today, with three bus routes serving the Avenues Community and many properties within an easy walk of city center. The historic development pattern for the SR-1 district has been a preponderance of smaller homes on long narrow lots. While social factors, particularly the strong sense of neighborhood, had previously been sufficient to limit anti-social building practices, the escalating value of"close-in" residential property in combination with a weak SR-1 zoning ordinance and a large number of nonconforming lots have contributed to a pattern of abusive building practices. A final thought on Increased Zoning Enforcement borrowed from the Avenues Master Plan. "Effective zoning enforcement is essential to maintaining desirable neighborhoods. More restrictive requirements such as reducing height limits and increasing the minimum duplex lot area actually increase temptation for additions and duplex conversions without permits. The city must therefore increase its commitment to enforcement of zoning and building codes in the suggested more restrictive requirements are to be effective." 11 Zoning regulations are important,but only effective if administered consistently and in a reasonable amount of time. Members of the HCC are committed to the successful implementation of the proposed ordinance and.to that end will do everything possible to assist and work with the city in implementing the tier permit system and the proposed SR-1 Overlay. • 12 ATTACHMENT 6 Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils recommended modifications for the SR-1 District base zoning standards 1. Maximum Building Height: Retain the standards included in the temporary zoning standards adopted as Ordinance 91 of 2005. (citywide compatible residential infill zoning standards) • Maximum building height: o Pitched roof: twenty-three feet(23')to the ridge or the average height along the block face o Flat roof height and wall height along an interior side yard: sixteen feet(16') 2. Front Yard Setback: Retain the averaging provision adopted by Ordinance 90 of 2005 (citywide compatible residential infill zoning standards)with a minor modification to allow the average setback calculation to exclude the properties with the smallest and largest setbacks on the block face. 3. Corner Side Yard: Retain existing standard of ten feet(10') and delete language allowing for in-line additions. 4. Interior Side Yard: Retain existing standard of four feet (4') and ten feet(10') with added provisions to reduce the required setback based on the width of the lot. • Lots narrower than forty-seven feet(47') are required to provide a combined side yard setback of thirty percent (30%) of the lot width. One of the required side yard setbacks must maintain a minimum setback of four feet(4'); with the other side yard being 30% of the lot width minus four feet. • Lots less than twenty-seven feet (27') wide must provide a minimum of four feet on both sides. • When the minimum side yard setback is reduced, a ten foot (10') separation between the subject house and the house on the adjacent lot must be retained along the interior side yard which has been reduced from the base standard of ten feet(10'). 5. Accessory Buildings and Structures • Maximum Building Coverage: 600 square feet • Maximum footprint of primary accessory structure: 480 square feet • Maximum height of pitched roof: 14 feet • Maximum height of flat roof: 9 feet • Maximum wall height: 9 feet including a provision to compensate for changes in grade due to sloping topography on the lot. • Secondary Accessory Building: o Maximum height for pitched roof: ten feet (10') o Maximum height for flat roof: eight feet (8') o Maximum wall height: eight feet (8') • The proposed text amendments apply only to the base zoning standards and do not recommend any changes to the tiered review process adopted by the City Council as part of Ordinance 90 of 2005 (citywide compatible residential infill zoning standards)which allows for modification of base zoning standards through the routine and uncontested matter and special exception processes. • s._ APR 2 6 2006 ROSS C."ROCKY"nY ANDERSON �\ '(I��Q 4 V T,�Y,�COl PO ae_iIO f OFFICE OF THE MAYOR April z5, zoo6 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: Petition 400-06-08 Avenues and Capitol Hill Compatible Residential Infill Ordinance I am writing in regard to the proposed Compatible Residential Infill Regulations for City Council District 3, including the properties within the Avenues and Capitol Hill neighborhoods currently zoned Special Residential Pattern-i (SR-i). After receiving a briefing by City staff and meeting with representatives of the Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils to discuss the regulations proposed by them, I have concluded that the regulations proposed by the community councils relating to accessory structures are appropriate and should be adopted in order to ensure compatible infill development in these unique historic neighborhoods of the City. These recommendations are workable and will better achieve the goals of the new ordinance. The Planning Commission's recommendation relating to accessory structures differs from the original proposal from the Community Councils in the following respects: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com .. �� RECYCLED PAPER Regulation Planning Community Commission Councils' Recommendation recommendation Height of Accessory 15 feet 14 feet Structures with Pitched Roof Height of Flat Roof io feet 9 feet Accessory Structures for over the counter permit Wall Height of up feet 9 feet accessory Structure for over the counter permit Maximum footprint 50% of the building 48o square feet for of accessory footprint of the accessory structure structure for over principal structure up plus an additional izo the counter permit. to a maximum of 600 square feet for a square feet secondary accessory structure After consultation with Orion Goff, Building Official, it appears that, contrary to earlier information, the mechanics of the automatic door and required joists for a flat roof can be accommodated within the nine foot maximum wall height. I am also convinced that the other regulations proposed by the Community Councils relating to accessory structures are reasonable and should be adopted. I appreciate the time and efforts of the Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Council members, who have carefully surveyed and analyzed the existing conditions of their neighborhoods and the options for improvements in our ordinances. The information they gathered has allowed them to develop reasonable standards that allow development accommodating the needs of property owners while ensuring compatibility with adjacent properties. In addition, the tiered review process for approval of proposals that do not conform to these regulations will allow deviation from the standards, where appropriate, while ensuring compatible development. I appreciate you considering my recommendations in your deliberations on this important matter. I will have forwarded to you a proposed ordinance that reflects my recommendations. Sincerely os nderson Mayor cc: Alex Ikafuna Brent Wilde Joel Patterson Cheri Coffey Jim Jenkins Peter von Sievers Shane Carlson SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending Sections 21A.24.080 and 21A.40.050 Relating to SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21A.24.080, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO SR-1 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND SECTION 21A.40.050, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO GENERAL YARD, BULK AND HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-06-08. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and the local master plan as part of their deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed amendments are in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 21A.24.080 of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.24.080 SR-1 and SR-IA Special Development Pattern Residential District: In this chapter and the associated Zoning Map, the SR-1 District is divided into two sub- areas for the purpose of defining design criteria. In other portions of this text, the SR-1 and SR-lA are jointly referred to as the SR-1 District because all other standards in the Zoning Ordinance are the same. A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the SR-1 special development pattern residential district is to maintain the unique character of older predominantly low density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes and bulk characteristics. B. Uses: Uses in the SR-1 special development pattern residential district, as specified in section 21A.24.190, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this chapter, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district are as follows: Land Use Minimum Minimum Lot Area Lot Width 1 Single-family detached 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. dwellings 2 Two-family dwellings 8,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 3 Twin home dwellings 4,000 sq. ft. 25 ft. per dwelling unit 4 Natural open space and conservation areas, No minimum No minimum minimum public and private 5 Public pedestrian pathways, trails and No minimum No minimum minimum greenways 6 Utility substations and buildings 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 7 Municipal service uses, including city utility uses No minimum No minimum and police and fire stations 8 Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 sq. ft. 80 ft. 9 Public/private utility transmission wires, minimum No minimum No minimum lines, pipes and poles 10 Other permitted or conditional uses as listed in 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. section 21 A.24.190 of this chapter D. Maximum Building Height: Maximum building height limits vary, depending upon the location. The following regulations apply for each area with the SR-1 District: 1. The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs shall be: 2 a. SR-1: Ttwenty-eight feet (28') measured to the ridge of the roof;, or the average height of other principal buildings on the block face. b. .SR-1A: Twenty three feet (23') measured to the ridge of the roof, or the average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 2. The maximum height of a flat roof building shall be twenty feet (2O')._ a. SR-1: twenty feet (20'). b. SR-1A: sixteen feet (16'). 3. Maximum Exterior Wall Height Adjacent to Interior Side Yards: a. SR-1: t—Twenty feet (20') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. b. SR-IA: sixteen feet (16') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. c. In both the SR-1 and SR-1A Districts, the e Exterior wall height may increase one (1) foot (1') (or fraction thereof) in height for each foot (or fraction thereof) of increased setback beyond the minimum required interior side yard. If an exterior wall is approved with a reduced setback through a special exception, variance or other process, the maximum allowable exterior wall height decreases by one(1) foot(1') (or fraction thereof) for each foot (or fraction thereof) that the wall is located closer to the property line than the required side yard setback.. i. For 3 a. I:.,lots with cross-slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may be increased by one-half foot (0.5') for each one foot (I') difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. Exceptions: (a)4 Gable walls: Walls at the end of a pitched roof may extend to a height necessary to support the roof structure except that the height of the top of the widest portion of the gable wall must conforin to the maximum wall height limitation described in this section. (b)ii, Dormer walls: Dormer walls are exempt from the maximum exterior wall height if: (1) The width of a dormer is ten feet (10') or less; and (2) The total combined width of dormers is less than or equal to fifty percent (50%) of the length of the building facade facing the interior side yard; and (3) Dormers are spaced at least eighteen inches (18") apart. 4. Building height for initial construction of a building shall be measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building coverage. Building height for any subsequent structural modification or addition to a building shall be measured from finished grade existing at the time a building permit is requested. Building height for the R-1 districts, R-2 district and SR districts is defined and illustrated in part VI, chapter 21A.62 of this title. 5. Where buildings are stepped to accommodate the slope of terrain, each step shall have a horizontal dimension of at least twelve feet (12'). 6. Additional Building Height: 4 a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by an Administrative Hearing Officer subject to the special exception standards in 21A.52 and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The Administrative Hearing Officer will approve, approve with conditions, deny or refer the application to the Board of Adjustment to be considered as a special exception pursuant to Chapter 21A.52 of this Title. Any person adversely affected by a decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer may appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in a H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of chapter 21A.34.020. E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard -: a. SR-1: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. b. SR-1A: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards existing buildings within the block face. Where there are four or more SR-1 principal buildings with front yards on a block face, the average shall be 5 calculated excluding one property with the smallest front yard setback and excluding the one property with the largest front yard setback. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front yard depth is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified therein shall prevail. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard depth shall be no greater than established setback line of the existing building. 2. Corner Side Yard: a. SR-1: Ten feet (10'). For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required corner side yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. b. SR-1A: Ten feet (10'). 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Twin Home Dwellings: No side yard is required along one side lot line while a ten foot (10') yard is required on the other. b. Other Uses: i. Corner Lots: Four feet (4'). ii. Interior Lots: (a) SR-1: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. (b) SR-1A: Four feet(4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. (1) Where the width of a lot is forty-seven feet (47') or narrower,the total minimum side yard setbacks shall be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the lot width with one side being four feet (4') and the other side being thirty percent (30%) of the lot width minus four feet (4') rounded to the nearest whole number. 6 (2) Where a lot is twenty-seven feet (27') or narrower, required side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of four feet (4') and four feet (4'). (3) Where required side yard setbacks are less than four feet (4') and ten feet (10') an addition, remodel or new construction shall be no closer than ten (10') to a primary structure on an adjacent property. The ten foot(10') separation standard applies only to the interior side yard that has been reduced from the base standard of ten feet (10'). 4. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than fifteen feet (15') and need not exceed thirty feet (30'). 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Yards", and 21A.40.050 of this title. a. SR-lA: i. Maximum building coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. ii. Primary Accessory Building -- One Accessory building may have up to the following dimensions: (a) A footprint of up to four hundred and eighty(480) square feet, subject to compliance with section 21A.40.050.B.1 of this chapter. (b)Roof peak/ridge height of up to fourteen feet (14') above the existing grade. (c) A flat roof height limit of nine feet(9') above the existing grade. (d) An exterior wall height of nine feet (9') above the existing grade. 7 (1) Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may increase by one half foot (.5') for each one foot (1') difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. iii. Secondary Accessory Buildings—All other accessory buildings shall have the following dimensions: (a) Roof peak/ridge height of up to ten feet (10') above the existing grade. (b) Flat roof height limit of eight feet (8') above the existing grade. (c) An exterior wall height of eight feet (8') above the existing grade. (d) Secondary accessory buildings may be attached to the primary accessory buildings so long as all buildings conform to the required wall and roof ridge height restrictions. F. Maximum Building Coverage: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the lot area. For lots with buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of existing buildings shall be considered legal conforming. G. Maximum Lot Size: With the exception of lots created by a subdivision plat, notice of minor subdivision or minor subdivision amendments recorded in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder, the maximum size of a new lot shall not exceed 150% of the minimum lot size allowed by the base zoning district. Lots in excess of the maximum lot size may be created through the subdivision process subject to the following standards: 1. The size of the new lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; 2. The configuration of the lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; and 8 3. The relationship of the lot width to the lot depth is compatible with other lots on the same block face. H. Standards for Attached Garages: Width of an Attached Garage: The width of an attached garage facing the street may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the width of the front façade of the house. The width of the garage is equal to the width of the garage door, or in the case of multiple garage doors, the sum of the widths of each garage door plus the width of any intervening wall elements between garage doors. SECTION 2. That Section 21A.40.050B of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to general yard, bulk and height limitations be, and hereby is, amended, in part, to read as follows: B. Maximum Coverage: 2. Building Coverage: In the FR, R-1, R-2 and SR residential districts the maximum building coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the building footprint of the principal structure up to a maximum of 720 square feet for a single family dwelling and 1,000 square feet for a two-family dwelling. The maximum footprint for a primary accessory structure within the SR-1A is limited to four hundred and eighty(480) square feet with an additional one hundred and twenty(120) square feet allowed for a secondary accessory structure. Notwithstanding the size of the footprint of the principal building, at least 480 square feet of accessory building coverage shall be allowed subject to the compliance with subsection 21A.40.050.B.1 of this section. SECTION 3. That Section 21A.40.050C of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to general yard, bulk and height limitations be, and hereby is, amended, in part, to read as follows: C. Maximum Height Of Accessory Buildings/Structures: 9 2. Accessory To Residential Uses in the FR, R-1 districts, R-2 district and SR districts: The height of accessory buildings/structures in the FR districts, R-1 district, R-2 district and SR districts shall conform to the following: a. The height of accessory buildings with flat roofs shall not exceed twelve feet (12'); nine feet (9') in the SR-IA. b. The height of accessory buildings with pitched roofs shall not exceed seventeen feet (17') measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the finished grade at any given point of building coverage . In the SR-lA the height of accessory buildings with pitched roofs shall not exceed fourteen feet (14'); and c. Accessory buildings with greater building height may be approved as a special exception,pursuant to part V, chapter 21A.52 of this title if the proposed accessory building is in keeping with other accessory buildings on the block face. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on 10 Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: I:\Ordinance 06\Amending 21A.24.080 and 21A.40.050 SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District VERSION B-04-26-06 draft.doe 11 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending Sections 21A.24.080 and 21A.40.050 Relating to SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21A.24.080, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO SR-1 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND SECTION 21A.40.050, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO GENERAL YARD, BULK AND HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-06-08. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and the local master plan as part of their deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed amendments are in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 21A.24.080 of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.24.080 SR-1 and SR-lA Special Development Pattern Residential District: In this chapter and the associated Zoning Map, the SR-1 District is divided into two sub- areas for the purpose of defining design criteria. In other portions of this text, the SR-1 and SR-lA are jointly referred to as the SR-1 District because all other standards in the Zoning Ordinance are the same. A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the SR-1 special development pattern residential district is to maintain the unique character of older predominantly low density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes and bulk characteristics. B. Uses: Uses in the SR-1 special development pattern residential district, as specified in section 21A.24.190, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this chapter, are peiinitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district are as follows: Land Use Minimum Minimum Lot Area Lot Width 1 Single-family detached 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. dwellings 2 Two-family dwellings 8,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 3 Twin home dwellings 4,000 sq. ft. 25 ft. per dwelling unit 4 Natural open space and conservation areas, No minimum No minimum minimum public and private 5 Public pedestrian pathways, trails and No minimum No minimum minimum greenways 6 Utility substations and buildings 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 7 Municipal service uses, including city utility uses No minimum No minimum and police and fire stations 8 Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 sq. ft. 80 ft. 9 Public/private utility transmission wires, minimum No minimum No minimum lines, pipes and poles 10 Other permitted or conditional uses as listed in 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. section 21A.24.190 of this chapter D. Maximum Building Height: Maximum building height limits vary, depending upon the location. The following regulations apply for each area with the SR-1 District: 1. The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs shall be: 2 a. SR-1: Twenty-eight feet (28') measured to the ridge of the roof, or the average height of other principal buildings on the block face. b. SR-1A: Twenty three feet (23') measured to the ridge of the roof, or the average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 2. The maximum height of a flat roof building shall be: a. SR-1: twenty feet (20'). b. SR-1A: sixteen feet (16'). 3. Maximum Exterior Wall Height Adjacent to Interior Side Yards: a. SR-1: t wenty feet (20') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. b. SR-1A: sixteen feet (16') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. c. In both the SR-1 and SR-1A Districts, the exterior wall height may increase one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) in height for each foot (or fraction thereof) of increased setback beyond the minimum required interior side yard. If an exterior wall is approved with a reduced setback through a special exception, variance or other process, the maximum allowable exterior wall height decreases by one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) for each foot (or fraction thereof) that the wall is located closer to the property line than the required side yard setback.. i. For lots with cross-slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may be increased by one-half foot (0.5') for each one foot (1') difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. ii. Exceptions: 3 (a) Gable walls: Walls at the end of a pitched roof may extend to a height necessary to support the roof structure except that the height of the top of the widest portion of the gable wall must conform to the maximum wall height limitation described in this section. (b) Dormer walls: Dormer walls are exempt from the maximum exterior wall height if: (1) The width of a dormer is ten feet (10') or less; and (2) The total combined width of dormers is less than or equal to fifty percent (50%) of the length of the building facade facing the interior side yard; and (3) Dormers are spaced at least eighteen inches (18") apart. 4. Building height for initial construction of a building shall be measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building coverage. Building height for any subsequent structural modification or addition to a building shall be measured from finished grade existing at the time a building permit is requested. Building height for the R-1 districts, R-2 district and SR districts is defined and illustrated in part VI, chapter 21A.62 of this title. 5. Where buildings are stepped to accommodate the slope of terrain, each step shall have a horizontal dimension of at least twelve feet (12'). 6. Additional Building Height: a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by an Administrative Hearing Officer subject to the special exception standards in 21A.52 and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The Administrative Hearing Officer 4 will approve, approve with conditions, deny or refer the application to the Board of Adjustment to be considered as a special exception pursuant to Chapter 21A.52 of this Title. Any person adversely affected by a decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer may appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in a H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of chapter 21A.34.020. E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: a. SR-1: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. b. SR-1A: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards existing buildings within the block face. Where there are four or more SR-1 principal buildings with front yards on a block face, the average shall be calculated excluding one property with the smallest front yard setback and excluding the one property with the largest front yard setback. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front yard depth is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified therein shall prevail. For 5 buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard depth shall be no greater than established setback line of the existing building. 2. Corner Side Yard: a. SR-1: Ten feet (10'). For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required corner side yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. b. SR-1A: Ten feet (10'). 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Twin Home Dwellings: No side yard is required along one side lot line while a ten foot (10') yard is required on the other. b. Other Uses: i. Corner Lots: Four feet (4'). ii. Interior Lots: (a) SR-1: Four feet(4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. (b) SR-1A: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet(10') on the other. (1) Where the width of a lot is forty-seven feet (47') or narrower, the total minimum side yard setbacks shall be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the lot width with one side being four feet (4') and the other side being thirty percent (30%) of the lot width minus four feet (4') rounded to the nearest whole number. (2) Where a lot is twenty-seven feet (27') or narrower, required side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of four feet (4') and four feet (4'). (3) Where required side yard setbacks are less than four feet (4') and ten feet (10') an addition, remodel or new construction shall be no closer than ten (10') to a primary structure on 6 an adjacent property. The ten foot (10') separation standard applies only to the interior side yard that has been reduced from the base standard of ten feet (10'). 4. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than fifteen feet (15') and need not exceed thirty feet (30'). 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures maybe located in a required yard subject to table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Yards", and 21A.40.050 of this title. a. SR-1A: i. Maximum building coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. ii. Primary Accessory Building -- One Accessory building may have up to the following dimensions: (a) A footprint of up to four hundred and eighty(480) square feet, subject to compliance with section 21A.40.050.B.1 of this chapter. (b) Roof peak/ridge height of up to fourteen feet (14') above the existing grade. (c) A flat roof height limit of nine feet (9') above the existing grade. (d) An exterior wall height of nine feet (9') above the existing grade. (1) Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may increase by one half foot (.5') for each one foot (1') difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. iii. Secondary Accessory Buildings—All other accessory buildings shall have the following dimensions: 7 (a) Roof peak/ridge height of up to ten feet (10') above the existing grade. (b) Flat roof height limit of eight feet (8') above the existing grade. (c) An exterior wall height of eight feet (8') above the existing grade. (d) Secondary accessory buildings may be attached to the primary accessory buildings so long as all buildings conform to the required wall and roof ridge height restrictions. F. Maximum Building Coverage: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the lot area. For lots with buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of existing buildings shall be considered legal conforming. G. Maximum Lot Size: With the exception of lots created by a subdivision plat, notice of minor subdivision or minor subdivision amendments recorded in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder, the maximum size of a new lot shall not exceed 150% of the minimum lot size allowed by the base zoning district. Lots in excess of the maximum lot size may be created through the subdivision process subject to the following standards: 1. The size of the new lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; 2. The configuration of the lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; and 3. The relationship of the lot width to the lot depth is compatible with other lots on the same block face. H. Standards for Attached Garages: Width of an Attached Garage: The width of an attached garage facing the street may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the width of the front facade of the house. The width of the garage is equal to the width of the garage door, or in the 8 case of multiple garage doors, the sum of the widths of each garage door plus the width of any intervening wall elements between garage doors. SECTION 2. That Section 21A.40.050B of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to general yard, bulk and height limitations be, and hereby is, amended, in part, to read as follows: B. Maximum Coverage: 2. Building Coverage: In the FR, R-1, R-2 and SR residential districts the maximum building coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the building footprint of the principal structure up to a maximum of 720 square feet for a single family dwelling and 1,000 square feet for a two-family dwelling. The maximum footprint for a primary accessory structure within the SR-1A is limited to four hundred and eighty(480) square feet with an additional one hundred and twenty(120) square feet allowed for a secondary accessory structure. Notwithstanding the size of the footprint of the principal building, at least 480 square feet of accessory building coverage shall be allowed subject to the compliance with subsection 21A.40.050.B.1 of this section. SECTION 3. That Section 21A.40.050C of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to general yard, bulk and height limitations be, and hereby is, amended, in part, to read as follows: C. Maximum Height Of Accessory Buildings/Structures: 2. Accessory To Residential Uses in the FR, R-1 districts, R-2 district and SR districts: The height of accessory buildings/structures in the FR districts, R-1 district, R-2 district and SR districts shall conform to the following: a. The height of accessory buildings with flat roofs shall not exceed twelve feet (12'); nine feet (9') in the SR-1A. 9 b. The height of accessory buildings with pitched roofs shall not exceed seventeen feet (17') measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the finished grade at any given point of building coverage. In the SR-1A the height of accessory buildings with pitched roofs shall not exceed fourteen feet(14'); and c. Accessory buildings with greater building height may be approved as a special exception, pursuant to part V, chapter 21A.52 of this title if the proposed accessory building is in keeping with other accessory buildings on the block face. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR 10 APPROVED AS TO FORM SaR Lake City A or eystOfflc� Date BY CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: l:\Ordinance 06\Amending 21A.24.080 and 21A.40.050 SR-I Special Development Pattern Residential District VERSION B-04-26-06 clean.doc 11 . P ? Communication to the City Council SALT LAKE CITY ��partment of Community Development To: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer Office of the Director From: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Direct r ' Date: April 12, 2006 CC: Brent Wilde, Community Development Deputy Director Orion Goff, Building Services & Licensing Director Re: LEED® Educational Briefing On July 8, 2005, Mayor Anderson signed an Executive Order requiring that City-owned new buildings and major renovation projects be built using the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) rating system prepared by the United States Green Building) Council (USGBC). The purpose of our presentation to the City Council is to provide background for the Mayor's initiative and to familiarize Councilmembers with the key terminology and issues involved. We will discuss the following topics: • What it means to be "green" • What LEED® is • Why LEED®was created • Who the USGBC is • What the LEED® rating system is • LEED®certification • Economic benefits of building to LEED®certification • Environmental benefits of building to LEED®certification • Social benefits of building to LEED®certification • The natural fit of LEED®certification with the City's Master Plans, policies, and programs • LEED-NC® in the USA • Key challenges to implementation • Key opportunities on implementation • Additional costs of building green • Salt Lake City's High Performance Building Initiative • LEED®certified projects in Utah APR z t Z006 LOUIS ZUNGUZE ..:\ 't`a�� ��-��rl© O�e�lI.,©�� ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMIT AL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer 1 ^^- ; •.124, 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Direct. RE: Petition 400-06-08 by the City Council to develop Neighborhood eased Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the areas of the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities that are presently zoned SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential and to amend the Zoning Maps by creating a Special Development Pattern Residential SR-lA Zoning Designation STAFF CONTACT: Joel Paterson, AICP, Planning Programs Supervisor, at 535-6141 or joel.paterson@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance—This transmittal includes two ordinances; one to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit 2a), and one to amend the applicable Zoning Maps (Exhibit 2b). BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: This petition, initiated by the City Council, includes a Zoning Ordinance text amendment and Zoning Map amendments intended to create neighborhood-based Compatible Residential Infill Development standards for areas of the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities that are currently zoned SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential. The City Council is the final approval authority for Zoning Ordinance text and Zoning Map amendments. Issue Origin: On December 13, 2005,the City Council adopted Ordinance 90 of 2005 creating the Compatible Residential Infill Development standards which have been incorporated into all single and two-family residential zoning districts in the City. The Council also adopted Ordinance 91 of 2005 creating temporary zoning standards for areas zoned SR-1 in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities and in the Wasatch Hollow Community. The purpose of the temporary zoning standards was to allow these communities to develop neighborhood based zoning standards that would better address compatible infill development within the specific communities. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 041 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01.535-7105 FAX: B01-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM 1;;accvcEo pcvcn Because the temporary zoning standards will expire on June 13, 2006, the communities affected by the temporary zoning standards were given a deadline of March 6, 2006, to submit a proposal to the Planning Division. The deadline provided the necessary lead time to have the proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission and considered by the City Council prior to the expiration of the temporary zoning standards. The Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils submitted a joint proposal that is the subject of this petition. The Wasatch Hollow Community Council is still developing a proposal which may be considered at a later date but will not be completed prior to the expiration of the temporary zoning standards. This petition requests to amend the Zoning Ordinance by creating an SR-1A Zoning District, a subcategory of the existing SR-1 District, and to amend the Zoning Maps by replacing the existing SR-1 designation in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities with the new SR-1A District as shown below. Proposed Zoning Map Amendment SR-1 to SR-IA ' \I III' I__ ;-67.14 - ;,ja: �. •�� lilt: II at kli',04:444'?' y AVAALI..... un . III AN p4, ,.... le. Li.fli. ! Khigaita---7:''''''''''''''' I, `=�I 1 I IU �:` ` ( \, 1�','+ I►'..rk� iiiI ..................1� :1.N,►.: I 1 \ : ! E - I I � la. ..-•IL`��.4. �1. — �U , I r1% O� ■ \) J ,1_•=' ■■■■■ 1 ��O ;1 ::: sod 1 1 I I tI.. 1. lb . 1 r IIII Mil • 11 PP I I . \ . ,�1 a;.I■ ■■ ',� %. I E- lr11■■ 11 =� r'- ':1=1"' III 1 BUr1::i____ :>. �7 1 u71ui r Tc CWNCC. +nic/= ■ ■� III uu • v Inc �. a �i■1 II.®■®■ t - �ri �I!.. ,�1 �1� I P1.- '. f�+l I � `. �.I�II lli®i11 ❑ �.•.,i.,.1 1^ ■■ ®T �: Z rip LI1'I■I Qr.1 9� . :' EI:Vii.i.®'II •, ,u.. .i®■® B_ /1 i^Y.. 1 l I(I�'CL�.1�I rea Vila: 1:g I., - - -I•ihrl®NS .I.r■®r . u �.— Jl,'.—, ,II: L. I Ate."��1��.�.�I:�� ��I�fl�a���I ���I �„ 1 . 1 I■ " I ■I r17 L'g Er I:-1■ 1111 .I 1! .:11 I 1 .11.! 1 I,; ri 111 �I III■ . • _ i_ ' _ _illism j �.1-fY 11= .111.1E �r� -I ._r.�I. - --�-■ - _i i_ =I_•• �rl Analysis: The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are summarized below using striketlreugh and underline to indicate the amendments proposed by the Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils to the existing SR-1 standards. Although the Community Councils and Staff agreed on most of the proposed standards, there was some disagreement on the standards relating to accessory structures. Modifications proposed by the Planning Staff to the Planning Commission are indicated with bold strikethrough and underline. Maximum Building Height: 1. The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs shall be: a: Twenty eight feet(28)measured to the ridge of the roof or a. Twenty three feet (23') measured to the ridge of the roof or Petition 400-06-08—Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities Page 2 of 9 b. the average height of other principal buildings on the block face 2. The maximum Height offlat roofed buildings shall be sixteenfeet (16') 3. ex-t-erier---wall-s-pleteed-at-the-bvilding-set-baelf-established-by-the-minimum-required yard, The maximum exterior wall height adjacent to interior side yards, sixteen feet(16)for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. Exterior wall height may increase one foot (1) (or fraction thereof) in height for each foot (or fraction thereof) of increased setback beyond the minimum required interior side yard. If an exterior wall is approved with a reduced setback through a special exception, variance, or other process, the maximum allowable exterior wall height decreases by one (1)foot(or fraction thereof)for each foot(or fraction thereof) that the wall is located closer to the property line than the required side yard setback. Staff Comment: This proposal incorporates the temporary building height standards currently in place in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities created by Ordinance 91 of 2005. The proposed standards are consistent with the Planning Commission's November 9, 2005 recommendation to the City Council for all single and two-family residential zoning districts. The City Council modified this recommendation and included the twenty-eight foot(28')building height and the twenty foot (20') wall height for the City wide Compatible Residential Infill Development standards. The Planning Staff is supportive of this provision lowering the height to twenty-three feet (23')for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities and recommended it to the Planning Commission. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are three four or more SR-I principal buildings with front yards on a block face, the average shall be calculated excluding the one property with the smallest front yard setback and excluding the one property with the largestfront yard setbacks. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20). Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. Staff Comment: The language added in this standard was proposed to limit the effect that anomalies in existing front yard setbacks may have on new construction or additions. There are many examples were a block face will have a primary structure with little or no front yard setback or a lot where the front yard setback of the existing home is much greater than other houses on the street. The Planning Staff recommended this modification to the Planning Commission with one minor change as noted. There are a number of block faces with only three lots, and Staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the largest and smallest setbacks be excluded when there are more than Petition 400-06-08—Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities Page 3 of 9 four lots, rather than three, on the block face to eliminate the possibility of calculating an average based on only one lot. 2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10). For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the existing building. Staff Comment: This change eliminates the possibility of an in-line addition being approved during the building permit process without the opportunity for public notice. As in other zoning districts, in-line additions require approval through the routine and uncontested special exception process which, with the signatures of 100% of the abutting property owners, may be considered administratively by the Zoning Administrator. If the required signatures are not obtained, the in-line addition can be considered by an Administrative Public Hearing Officer or the Board of Adjustment. The Planning Staff recommended this amendment to the Planning Commission. 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Twin Home Dwellings:No side yard is required along one side lot line while a ten foot (10)yard is required on the other. b. Other Uses: i. Corner Lots:Four feet (4). ii. Interior Lots:Four feet(4) on one side and ten feet (10) on the other. (a.)Where the width of a lot is 46'8"forty-seven feet (47') or narrower, total minimum side setbacks shall be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the lot width with one side being four feet(4') and the other side being thirty percent(30%) of the lot width minus four feet(4') (rounded to the nearest whole number). Staff Comment: Staff is supportive of this provision with the noted change to use whole numbers and recommended such to the Planning Commission. This formula allows for a reduction of the ten foot(10') minimum side yard setback as lots become narrower. (b.)Where a lot is 26'8"twenty-seven feet(27') or narrower, required side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of four feet (4) and four feet (4'). Staff Comment: This provision limits the reduction of the required ten foot (10') side yard to four feet(4') on very narrow lots. Staff is supportive of this recommendation using whole numbers and recommended such to the Planning Commission. (c.) Where required side setbacks are less than four feet (4) and ten feet(10')shall the an addition, remodel or new construction shall be no closer than ten feet (10) to a primary structure on an adjacent property. The ten foot(10') separation standard applies only to the interior side yard that has been reduced from the base standard of ten feet(10'). Staff Comment: This provision requires a minimum separation of ten feet (10') between houses if the addition, remodel or new construction is allowed with a reduced setback based on the provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) above. The ten foot (10') separation is Petition 400-06-08—Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities Page 4 of 9 only required on the side yard that has been reduced from the base standard of ten feet (10'). Staff is supportive of this provision because the standard addresses the existing development pattern typically found in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities where the existing houses on narrow lots often do not meet the required four(4') and ten foot(10') side yard setback requirements and recommended such to the Planning Commission. 4. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards:Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Yards" of this Title (see below). a. Maximum building coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. b. Primary Accessory Building— One Accessory building may have up to the following dimensions: i. A footprint of up to fifty percent(50%) of the building footprint of the principal structure up to a maximum of ' six hundred square feet(600 s.f.). Notwithstanding the size of the footprint of the principal building, an accessory structure shall be allowed a footprint of four hundred and eighty square feet(480 s.f.),subject to compliance with 21A.40.050.B.1 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Staff Comment: The Planning Staff recommended to the Planning Commission that this provision be modified to be more consistent with the maximum footprint standards of the Citywide Compatibility Infill regulations, which limit the size of a garage based on the footprint of the primary structure on the lot. Staff recommended the Planning Commission support a maximum footprint of 600 square feet (600 s.£), which is consistent with the Historic Landmark Commission(HLC) standard for administrative approvals of garages. A larger garage must be reviewed by the HLC. If a different garage size standard is established for the SR1-A District, property owners in the same community will have different processes to achieve the same garage size. The Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils are opposed to these modifications. It is their opinion that a 480 square foot garage(20' x 24') is large enough to accommodate two cars and will have a lesser impact on the neighborhood. They are not opposed to garages larger than 480 square feet when the larger size is supported by the development pattern on the block face and considered through the routine and uncontested special exception process. ii. RoofPeak/Ridge Height of up to 14 (14)fifteen feet(15') above the existing grade. iii. A flat roofed height limit of nine-fee ten feet(10') above the existing grade. iv. An exterior wall height off ten feet(10') above the existing grade. (a) Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may increase by one halffoot(0.5)for each one foot (1 ) difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and the downhill faces of the building. Petition 400-06-08—Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities Page 5 of 9 Staff Comment: Staff recommended the Planning Commission support the changes to the accessory building height and exterior wall heights as noted above. In other single family and two-family residential zoning districts, the height for an accessory structure is limited to 17 feet(17') to the ridge (15 feet to the mid-point in Yalecrest) and 12 feet(12') for flat roof structures. Because of the smaller lots and typical garages found in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities, the proposal recommends a further reduction in accessory building height and the introduction of a maximum wall height. Staff observed that a garage limited to a maximum nine foot (9') high flat roof structure will be more difficult to frame to accommodate a typical seven foot(7') high door because of the space needs for roof joists and garage door hardware. For this reason, Staff recommended the Planning Commission support the maximum building height for flat roof accessory structures and the maximum wall height be increased to ten feet(10'). To compensate for these changes, Staff also recommended that the maximum height for a pitched roof on an accessory structure be increased to fifteen feet (15'). The Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils are opposed to these modifications, and their response to the Staff proposal is included in the Exhibit 5b (Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment 4). c. Secondary Accessory Buildings—All other accessory buildings shall have the following dimensions: i. Roof Peak/Ridge Height of up to 10 feet(10) above the existing grade. ii. Flat roofed height limit of eight feet(8') above the existing grade. iii. An exterior wall height of eight feet (8) above the existing grade. iv. Secondary accessory buildings may be attached to the primary accessory building so long as all buildings conform to the required wall and roof ridge height restrictions. Staff Comment: This provision provides standards for additional accessory structures that may be placed on a lot for storage or other uses. Secondary accessory structures would be limited in size by the maximum lot coverage provision of the SR-1 District(40%) and by the maximum building coverage provision for accessory structures (600 square feet). Staff recommended the Planning Commission support this provision. The following amendments are required in the Zoning Ordinance under Chapter 21A.40 Accessory Buildings to acknowledge the proposed amendments limiting the building coverage, maximum footprint and height provisions for the SR-I Districts located in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities. 21A.40.050 General Yard, Bulk and Height Limitations(for Accessory Structures) B. Maximum Coverage: 2. Building Coverage:In the FR, R-1, R-2 and SR residential districts the maximum building coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the building footprint of the principal structure up to a maximum of 720 square feet for a single family dwelling and 1,000 square feet for a two-family dwelling. The maximum footprint within the SR-IA Zoning District is limited to six hundred square feet(600 s.f.). Notwithstanding the size of the footprint of the principal building, at least four hundred and eighty square feet (480 s.f) of accessory building Petition 400-06-08—Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities Page 6 of 9 coverage shall be allowed subject to the compliance with subsection 21A.40.050.B.1 of this section. C. Maximum Height of Accessory Buildings/Structures: 2. Accessory To Residential Uses in the FR,R-1 districts,R-2 district and SR districts: The height of accessory buildings/structures in the FR districts, R-1 district, R-2 district and SR districts shall conform to the following: a. The height of accessory buildings with flat roofs shall not exceed twelve feet (122; ten feet(10') in the SR-IA Zoning District; b. The height of accessory buildings with pitched roofs shall not exceed seventeen feet (17) measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the finished grade at any given point of building coverage. In the SR-IA Zoning District the height of accessory buildings with pitched roofs shall not exceed fifteen feet(15'); and c. Accessory buildings with greater building height may be approved as a special exception,pursuant to part V, chapter 21A.52 of this title if the proposed accessory building is in keeping with other accessory buildings on the block face. Staff Comment: These amendments are proposed to clarify that the SR-1 A Zoning District has separate standards for accessory structures. The Staff recommended the Planning Commission support these amendments. Effect on Overlay Zoning Districts: Portions of the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities include overlay zones, such as the Historic Preservation Overlay (H),the Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay (CHPA)and the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay (Secondary Recharge Area). All future developments must comply with these regulations where applicable. Conflict with the Capitol Hill Protective Overlay Zoning District: Portions of the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities are located within the CHPA Zoning District. The purpose of this overlay zone is to protect the view of the State Capitol Building by prohibiting exceptions to exceed the maximum height requirements of the base zoning district. If the Compatible Residential Infill Development standards for the proposed SR-lA are adopted,the height of residential structures in this overlay zone would be limited to 23 feet(23') (or the average building height on the block face)without the ability to use the special exception process to modify the building height based on the development pattern established on the block face. The Planning Division is currently processing Petition 400-02-41 to amend the Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay Zone to implement the policies of the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan. The Planning Staff is proposing to address the issue to allow additional height in this overlay zone, not to exceed 35 feet(35')where it is found that exceeding the 23 feet (23')height maximum is consistent with the SR-lA zoning standards and/or the Historic Preservation Overlay District Standards. Master Plan Considerations: The issues of neighborhood character and compatible infill development are addressed in several Salt Lake City master plans and other policy documents. Petition 400-06-08—Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities Page 7 of 9 • Avenues Community Master Plan: Includes a goal that encourages private property improvements that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood • Capitol Hill Master Plan: Includes a goal that encourages development of appropriate housing through renovation of existing structures and construction of compatible residential infill development and redevelopment • The Salt Lake City Comprehensive Housing Plan: Includes policy statements that address a variety of housing issues including quality design, public and neighborhood participation, housing preservation, rehabilitation and replacement • The 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 • The Salt Lake City Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report: Expresses concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city and ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards • The City Council's Growth Policy: Notes that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it is aesthetically pleasing, contributes to a livable community environment, yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served, and forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity PUBLIC PROCESS: Compatible residential infill development has been the subject of discussion in both the Capitol Hill and Greater Avenues Community Councils for several months. These discussions culminated in formal votes before the Community Councils in March 2006. The Greater Avenues Community Council: On March 1, 2006,the Community Council voted to support the neighborhood based zoning standards proposed by the Greater Avenues Community Council's Housing Compatibility Committee (see letter from Stephen Mecham, Chair of Greater Avenues Community Council in Attachment 4 of the Planning Commission Staff Report). The Capitol Hill Community Council: On March 15, 2006, the Capitol Hill Community Council voted in favor of supporting the neighborhood based zoning standards proposed by the Greater Avenues Community Council for application in areas zoned SR-1 in the Capitol Hill Community(see e-mail from Peter von Sivers, Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council in Attachment 4 of the Planning Commission Staff Report). The Planning Commission: On April 12, 2006, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on Petition 400-06-08 and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt ordinances to amend the Zoning Ordinance and applicable Zoning Maps as Petition 400-06-08—Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities Page 8 of 9 recommended by the Planning Staff. Exhibit 2a is the ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission. Mayor Anderson: On April 13, 2006, Mayor Anderson met with representatives from the Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils to discuss the proposed amendments. Mayor Anderson agreed to support the citizen's proposed standards for accessory structures instead of the Planning Commission recommendation. A letter from Mayor Anderson with his recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Salt Lake City Code Chapter 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 21A.50.050: "A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does, however, list five standards, which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property (Section 21A.50.050 A-E). The five standards are discussed in detail starting on page 12 of the Planning Commission Staff Report (see Attachment 5b). Petition 400-06-08—Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities Page 9 of 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. PROPOSED ORDINANCES a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments b. Zoning Map Amendments 3. CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a. Hearing Notice and Postmark b. Staff Report c. Minutes 6. ORIGINAL PETITION Petition 400-06-08—to develop Neighborhood based Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities • EXHIBIT 1 CHRONOLOGY Petition 400-06-08—to develop Neighborhood based Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities CHRONOLOGY PETITION 400-06-08 June 21, 2005 The City Council adopted a legislative action requesting that the Planning Division review the City's ordinances relating to infill housing. July 12,2005 The City Council adopted Ordinance 44 of 2005 creating the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District. November 9, 2005 The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed Compatible Residential Infill Development standards for single- and two-family zoning districts. December 13, 2005 The City Council adopted Ordinance 90 of 2005 which amended the Zoning Ordinance by creating Compatible Residential Infill Development standards in single- and two-family zoning districts. The Council also adopted Ordinance 91 of 2005 which created temporary zoning standards for areas within the Capitol Hill and the Greater Avenues Community Councils zoned SR-1 and in the Wasatch Hollow Planning Community to allow neighborhood based residential infill development standards to be developed for these areas. March 1, 2006 The Greater Avenues Community Council voted to support the neighborhood based zoning standards proposed by the Greater Avenues Community Council's Housing Compatibility Committee. March 15, 2006 The Capitol Hill Community Council voted in favor of supporting the neighborhood based zoning standards proposed by the Greater Avenues Community Council for application to areas zoned SR-1 in the Capitol Hill Community. March 27, 2006 Request for review of proposed amendments sent to City Departments. March 28, 2006 Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing mailed. March 31, 2006 Planning Staff met with representatives of Capitol Hill and the Avenues Community Councils to discuss the proposed amendments and Staff s recommendations. April 6, 2006 Request for an ordinance sent to the City Attorney's Office April 12, 2006 The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map amendments as recommended by the Planning Staff. April 13, 2006 Representatives of Capitol Hill and the Avenues Community Councils met with Mayor Anderson to discuss the Planning Commission recommendation and their opposition to the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding standards for accessory structures. April 21, 2006 Ordinance received from the Attorney's Office. Petition 400-06-08—to develop Neighborhood based Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities EXHIBIT 2 PROPOSED ORDINANCES Petition 400-06-08—to develop Neighborhood based Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities EXHIBIT 2A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS Petition 400-06-08—to develop Neighborhood based Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending Sections 21A.24.080 and 21A.40.050 Relating to SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21A.24.080, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO SR-1 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND SECTION 21A.40.050, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO GENERAL YARD, BULK AND HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-06-08. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and the local master plan as part of their deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed amendments are in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 21A.24.080 of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.24.080 SR-1 and SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District: In this chapter and the associated Zoning Map, the SR-1 District is divided into two sub- areas for the purpose of defining design criteria. In other portions of this text, the SR-1 and SR-lA are jointly referred to as the SR-1 District because all other standards in the Zoning Ordinance are the same. A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the SR-1 special development pattern residential district is to maintain the unique character of older predominantly low density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes and bulk characteristics. B. Uses: Uses in the SR-1 special development pattern residential district, as specified in section 21A.24.190, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this chapter, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district are as follows: Minimum Minimum Land Use Lot Area Lot Width 1 Single-family detached 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. dwellings 2 Two-family dwellings 8,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 3 Twin home dwellings 4,000 sq. ft. 25 ft. per dwelling unit 4 Natural open space and conservation areas, No minimum No minimum minimum public and private 5 Public pedestrian pathways, trails and No minimum No minimum minimum greenways 6 Utility substations and buildings 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 7 Municipal service uses, including city utility uses No minimum No minimum and police and fire stations 8 Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 sq. ft. 80 ft. 9 Public/private utility transmission wires, minimum No minimum No minimum lines, pipes and poles 10 Other permitted or conditional uses as listed in 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. section 21A.24.190 of this chapter D. Maximum Building Height: Maximum building height limits vary, depending upon the location. The following regulations apply for each area with the SR-1 District: 1. The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs shall be: 2 a. SR-1: Ttwenty-eight feet (28') measured to the ridge of the roof;, or the average height of other principal buildings on the block face. b. th ^ t e• t + f+1, 1 1, l l rt block face.SR-IA: Twenty three feet (23') measured to the ridge of the roof, or the average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 2. The maximum height of a flat roof building shall be twenty-;mot (20')._ a. SR-1: twenty feet (20'). b. SR-1A: sixteen feet (16'). 3. Maximum Exterior Wall Height Adjacent to Interior Side Yards: a. SR-1: t-Twenty feet(20') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. b. SR-1A: sixteen feet (16') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. c. In both the SR-1 and SR-lA Districts, the e Exterior wall height may increase one (1) foot (1') (or fraction thereof) in height for each foot (or fraction thereof) of increased setback beyond the minimum required interior side yard. If an exterior wall is approved with a reduced setback through a special exception, variance or other process, the maximum allowable exterior wall height decreases by one(1) foot (1') (or fraction thereof) for each foot (or fraction thereof) that the wall is located closer to the property line than the required side yard setback., i. For 3 a. Llots with cross-slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height maybe increased by one-half foot (0.5') for each one foot (1') difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. Exceptions: (a)i Gable walls: Walls at the end of a pitched roof may extend to a height necessary to support the roof structure except that the height of the top of the widest portion of the gable wall must conform to the maximum wall height limitation described in this section. (b)}i Donner walls: Dormer walls are exempt from the maximum exterior wall height if: (1) The width of a dormer is ten feet (10') or less; and (2) The total combined width of doliiiers is less than or equal to fifty percent (50%) of the length of the building facade facing the interior side yard; and (3) Dormers are spaced at least eighteen inches (18") apart. 4. Building height for initial construction of a building shall be measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building coverage. Building height for any subsequent structural modification or addition to a building shall be measured from finished grade existing at the time a building permit is requested. Building height for the R-1 districts, R-2 district and SR districts is defined and illustrated in part VI, chapter 21A.62 of this title. 5. Where buildings are stepped to accommodate the slope of terrain, each step shall have a horizontal dimension of at least twelve feet (12'). 6. Additional Building Height: 4 a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by an Administrative Hearing Officer subject to the special exception standards in 21A.52 and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The Administrative Hearing Officer will approve, approve with conditions, deny or refer the application to the Board of Adjustment to be considered as a special exception pursuant to Chapter 21A.52 of this Title. Any person adversely affected by a decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer may appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in a H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of chapter 21A.34.020. E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard:: a. SR-1: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet(20'). Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. b. SR-1A: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards existing buildings within the block face. Where there are four or more SR-1 principal buildings with front yards on a block face, the average shall be 5 calculated excluding one property with the smallest front yard setback and excluding the one property with the largest front yard setback. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front yard depth is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified therein shall prevail. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard depth shall be no greater than established setback line of the existing building, 2. Corner Side Yard: a. SR-1: Ten feet (10'). For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required corner side yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. b. SR-1A: Ten feet(10'). 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Twin Home Dwellings: No side yard is required along one side lot line while a ten foot (10') yard is required on the other. b. Other Uses: i. Corner Lots: Four feet (4'). ii. Interior Lots: (a) SR-1: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. (b) SR-1A: Four feet(4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. (1) Where the width of a lot is forty-seven feet (47') or narrower, the total minimum side yard setbacks shall be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the lot width with one side being four feet (4') and the other side being thirty percent (30%) of the lot width minus four feet (4') rounded to the nearest whole number. 6 (2) Where a lot is twenty-seven feet (27') or narrower, required side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of four feet (4') and four feet (4'). (3) Where required side yard setbacks are less than four feet (4') and ten feet(10') an addition, remodel or new construction shall be no closer than ten (10') to a primary structure on an adjacent property. The ten foot (10') separation standard applies only to the interior side yard that has been reduced from the base standard of ten feet (10'). 4. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than fifteen feet (15') and need not exceed thirty feet (30'). 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Yards", and 21A.40.050 of this title. a. SR-1A: i. Maximum building coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. ii. Primary Accessory Building-- One Accessory building may have up to the following dimensions: (a) A footprint of up to fifty percent (50%) of the building footprint of the principal structure up to a maximum of six hundred (600) square feet. Notwithstanding the size of the footprint of the principal building, an accessory structure shall be allowed a footprint of four hundred and eighty(480) square feet, subject to compliance with section 21A.40.050.B.1 of this chapter. (b) Roof peak/ridge height of up to fifteen feet (15') above the existing grade. 7 (c) A flat roof height limit of ten feet (10') above the existing grade. (d) An exterior wall height of ten feet (10') above the existing grade. (1) Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may increase by one half foot (.5') for each one foot (1') difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. iii. Secondary Accessory Buildings— All other accessory buildings shall have the following dimensions: (a) Roof peak/ridge height of up to ten feet (10') above the existing grade. (b) Flat roof height limit of eight feet (8') above the existing grade. (c) An exterior wall height of eight feet (8') above the existing grade. (d) Secondary accessory buildings may be attached to the primary accessory buildings so long as all buildings conform to the required wall and roof ridge height restrictions. F. Maximum Building Coverage: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the lot area. For lots with buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of existing buildings shall be considered legal confoiining. G. Maximum Lot Size: With the exception of lots created by a subdivision plat, notice of minor subdivision or minor subdivision amendments recorded in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder, the maximum size of a new lot shall not exceed 150% of the minimum lot size allowed by the base zoning district. Lots in excess of the maximum lot size may be created through the subdivision process subject to the following standards: 1. The size of the new lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; 8 2. The configuration of the lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; and 3. The relationship of the lot width to the lot depth is compatible with other lots on the same block face. H. Standards for Attached Garages: Width of an Attached Garage: The width of an attached garage facing the street may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the width of the front façade of the house. The width of the garage is equal to the width of the garage door, or in the case of multiple garage doors, the sum of the widths of each garage door plus the width of any intervening wall elements between garage doors. SECTION 2. That Section 21A.40.050B of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to general yard, bulk and height limitations be, and hereby is, amended, in part, to read as follows: B. Maximum Coverage: 2. Building Coverage: In the FR, R-1, R-2 and SR residential districts the maximum building coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the building footprint of the principal structure up to a maximum of 720 square feet for a single family dwelling and 1,000 square feet for a two-family dwelling. The'maximum footprint within the SR-lA is limited to six hundred (600) square feet. Notwithstanding the size of the footprint of the principal building, at least 480 square feet of accessory building coverage shall be allowed subject to the compliance with subsection 21A.40.050.B.1 of this section. SECTION 3. That Section 21A.40.050C of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to general yard, bulk and height limitations be, and hereby is, amended, in part, to read as follows: C. Maximum Height Of Accessory Buildings/Structures: 9 2. Accessory To Residential Uses in the FR, R-1 districts, R-2 district and SR districts: The height of accessory buildings/structures in the FR districts, R-1 district, R-2 district and SR districts shall conform to the following: a. The height of accessory buildings with flat roofs shall not exceed twelve feet (12'); ten feet (10') in the SR-1A. b. The height of accessory buildings with pitched roofs shall not exceed seventeen feet (17') measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the finished grade at any given point of building coverage;. In the SR-lA the height of accessory buildings with pitched roofs shall not exceed fifteen feet (15'); and c. Accessory buildings with greater building height may be approved as a special exception, pursuant to part V, chapter 21A.52 of this title if the proposed accessory building is in keeping with other accessory buildings on the block face. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on 10 Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: 1:\Ordinance 06\Amending 21A.24.080 and 21A.40.050 SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District-04-21-06 draft.doc • 11 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending Sections 21A.24.080 and 21A.40.050 Relating to SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21A.24.080, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO SR-1 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND SECTION 21A.40.050, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO GENERAL YARD, BULK AND HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-06-08. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and the local master plan as part of their deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed amendments are in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 21A.24.080 of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.24.080 SR-1 and SR-lA Special Development Pattern Residential District: In this chapter and the associated Zoning Map, the SR-1 District is divided into two sub- areas for the purpose of defining design criteria. In other portions of this text, the SR-1 and SR-IA are jointly referred to as the SR-1 District because all other standards in the Zoning Ordinance are the same. A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the SR-1 special development pattern residential district is to maintain the unique character of older predominantly low density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes and bulk characteristics. B. Uses: Uses in the SR-1 special development pattern residential district, as specified in section 21A.24.190, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this chapter, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district are as follows: Land Use Minimum Minimum Lot Area Lot Width 1 Single-family detached 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. dwellings 2 Two-family dwellings 8,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 3 Twin home dwellings 4,000 sq. ft. 25 ft. per dwelling unit 4 Natural open space and conservation areas, No minimum No minimum minimum public and private 5 Public pedestrian pathways, trails and No minimum No minimum minimum greenways 6 Utility substations and buildings 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 7 Municipal service uses, including city utility uses No minimum No minimum and police and fire stations 8 Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 sq. ft. 80 ft. 9 Public/private utility transmission wires, minimum No minimum No minimum lines, pipes and poles 10 Other permitted or conditional uses as listed in 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. section 21A.24.190 of this chapter D. Maximum Building Height: Maximum building height limits vary, depending upon the location. The following regulations apply for each area with the SR-1 District: 1. The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs shall be: 2 a. SR-1: Twenty-eight feet (28') measured to the ridge of the roof, or the average height of other principal buildings on the block face. b. SR-1A: Twenty three feet (23') measured to the ridge of the roof, or the average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 2. The maximum height of a flat roof building shall be: a. SR-1: twenty feet (20'). b. SR-lA: sixteen feet (16'). 3. Maximum Exterior Wall Height Adjacent to Interior Side Yards: a. SR-1: twenty feet (20') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. b. SR-1A: sixteen feet (16') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. c. In both the SR-1 and SR-IA Districts, the exterior wall height may increase one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) in height for each foot (or fraction thereof) of increased setback beyond the minimum required interior side yard. If an exterior wall is approved with a reduced setback through a special exception, variance or other process, the maximum allowable exterior wall height decreases by one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) for each foot (or fraction thereof) that the wall is located closer to the property line than the required side yard setback.. i. For lots with cross-slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may be increased by one-half foot (0.5') for each one foot(1') difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. ii. Exceptions: 3 (a) Gable walls: Walls at the end of a pitched roof may extend to a height necessary to support the roof structure except that the height of the top of the widest portion of the gable wall must conform to the maximum wall height limitation described in this section. (b) Dormer walls: Dormer walls are exempt from the maximum exterior wall height if: (1) The width of a dormer is ten feet(10') or less; and (2) The total combined width of dormers is less than or equal to fifty percent (50%) of the length of the building facade facing the interior side yard; and (3) Dormers are spaced at least eighteen inches (18") apart. 4. Building height for initial construction of a building shall be measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building coverage. Building height for any subsequent structural modification or addition to a building shall be measured from finished grade existing at the time a building permit is requested. Building height for the R-1 districts, R-2 district and SR districts is defined and illustrated in part VI, chapter 21A.62 of this title. 5. Where buildings are stepped to accommodate the slope of terrain, each step shall have a horizontal dimension of at least twelve feet (12'). 6. Additional Building Height: a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by an Administrative Hearing Officer subject to the special exception standards in 21A.52 and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The Administrative Hearing Officer 4 will approve, approve with conditions, deny or refer the application to the Board of Adjustment to be considered as a special exception pursuant to Chapter 21A.52 of this Title. Any person adversely affected by a decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer may appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in a H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of chapter 21A.34.020. E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: a. SR-1: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet(20'). Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. b. SR-1A: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards existing buildings within the block face. Where there are four or more SR-1 principal buildings with front yards on a block face, the average shall be calculated excluding one property with the smallest front yard setback and excluding the one property with the largest front yard setback. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front yard depth is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified therein shall prevail. For 5 buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard depth shall be no greater than established setback line of the existing building.2. Corner Side Yard: a. SR-1: Ten feet (10'). For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required corner side yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. b. SR-IA: Ten feet (10'). 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Twin Home Dwellings: No side yard is required along one side lot line while a ten foot (10') yard is required on the other. b. Other Uses: i. Corner Lots: Four feet (4'). ii. Interior Lots: (a) SR-1: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. (b) SR-IA: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. (1) Where the width of a lot is forty-seven feet (47') or narrower, the total minimum side yard setbacks shall be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the lot width with one side being four feet (4') and the other side being thirty percent(30%) of the lot width minus four feet(4') rounded to the nearest whole number. (2) Where a lot is twenty-seven feet (27') or narrower, required side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of four feet (4') and four feet (4'). (3) Where required side yard setbacks are less than four feet (4') and ten feet (10') an addition, remodel or new construction shall be no closer than ten (10') to a primary structure on 6 an adjacent property. The ten foot (10') separation standard applies only to the interior side yard that has been reduced from the base standard of ten feet (10'). 4. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth,but not less than fifteen feet (15') and need not exceed thirty feet (30'). 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Yards", and 21A.40.050 of this title. a. SR-1A: i. Maximum building coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. ii. Primary Accessory Building -- One Accessory building may have up to the following dimensions: (a) A footprint of up to fifty percent (50%) of the building footprint of the principal structure up to a maximum of six hundred (600) square feet. Notwithstanding the size of the footprint of the principal building, an accessory structure shall be allowed a footprint of four hundred and eighty(480) square feet, subject to compliance with section 21A.40.050.B.1 of this chapter. (b) Roof peak/ridge height of up to fifteen feet(15') above the existing grade. (c) A flat roof height limit of ten feet (10') above the existing grade. (d) An exterior wall height of ten feet(10') above the existing grade. 7 (1) Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may increase by one half foot (.5') for each one foot (1') difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. iii. Secondary Accessory Buildings—All other accessory buildings shall have the following dimensions: (a) Roof peak/ridge height of up to ten feet (10') above the existing grade. (b) Flat roof height limit of eight feet (8') above the existing grade. (c) An exterior wall height of eight feet (8') above the existing grade. (d) Secondary accessory buildings may be attached to the primary accessory buildings so long as all buildings conform to the required wall and roof ridge height restrictions. F. Maximum Building Coverage: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the lot area. For lots with buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of existing buildings shall be considered legal confoinling. G. Maximum Lot Size: With the exception of lots created by a subdivision plat, notice of minor subdivision or minor subdivision amendments recorded in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder, the maximum size of a new lot shall not exceed 150% of the minimum lot size allowed by the base zoning district. Lots in excess of the maximum lot size may be created through the subdivision process subject to the following standards: 1. The size of the new lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; 2. The configuration of the lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; and 8 3. The relationship of the lot width to the lot depth is compatible with other lots on the same block face. H. Standards for Attached Garages: Width of an Attached Garage: The width of an attached garage facing the street may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the width of the front facade of the house. The width of the garage is equal to the width of the garage door, or in the case of multiple garage doors, the sum of the widths of each garage door plus the width of any intervening wall elements between garage doors. SECTION 2. That Section 21A.40.050B of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to general yard, bulk and height limitations be, and hereby is, amended, in part, to read as follows: B. Maximum Coverage: 2. Building Coverage: In the FR, R-1, R-2 and SR residential districts the maximum building coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed fifty percent(50%) of the building footprint of the principal structure up to a maximum of 720 square feet for a single family dwelling and 1,000 square feet for a two-family dwelling. The maximum footprint within the SR-lA is limited to six hundred(600) square feet. Notwithstanding the size of the footprint of the principal building, at least 480 square feet of accessory building coverage shall be allowed subject to the compliance with subsection 21A.40.050.B.1 of this section. SECTION 3. That Section 21A.40.050C of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to general yard, bulk and height limitations be, and hereby is, amended, in part, to read as follows: C. Maximum Height Of Accessory Buildings/Structures: 9 2. Accessory To Residential Uses in the FR, R-1 districts, R-2 district and SR districts: The height of accessory buildings/structures in the FR districts, R-1 district, R-2 district and SR districts shall conform to the following: a. The height of accessory buildings with flat roofs shall not exceed twelve feet (12'); ten feet(10') in the SR-1A. b. The height of accessory buildings with pitched roofs shall not exceed seventeen feet (17') measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the finished grade at any given point of building coverage. In the SR-lA the height of accessory buildings with pitched roofs shall not exceed fifteen feet (15'); and c. Accessory buildings with greater building height may be approved as a special exception, pursuant to part V, chapter 21A.52 of this title if the proposed accessory building is in keeping with other accessory buildings on the block face. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on 10 Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS I rC rCiSM Salt Lak City Attorney's Office Date • By (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. '1(7//p Published: l:\Ordinance 06\Amending 21 A.24.080 and 21 A.40.050 SR-I Special Development Pattern Residential District-04-21-06 clean.doc 11 EXHIBIT 2B PROPOSED ORDINANCE ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS Petition 400-06-08—to develop Neighborhood based Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Rezoning Capitol Hill and Avenues Properties from SR-1 to SR-1A) REZONING CAPITOL HILL AND AVENUES PROPERTIES, IDENTIFIED ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A AND B, FROM SR-I SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (SR-1) TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (SR-1A), PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-06-08. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the change of zoning for the properties identified on the attached exhibits A and B is appropriate for the development of the community in that area and in the best interest of the city. NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. REZONING OF PROPERTIES. The properties generally located in the Capitol Hill area, which are more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and hereby are rezoned from special development pattern residential district (SR-1) to special development pattern residential district (SR-1A). SECTION 2. REZONING OF PROPERTIES. The properties generally located in the Avenues area, which are more particularly described on Exhibit B attached hereto, shall be and hereby are rezoned from special development pattern residential district(SR-1) to special development pattern residential district (SR-1A). SECTION 3. AMENDMENT TO ZONING MAP. The Salt Lake City Zoning Map, adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, • shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning of properties identified above. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER -- APPROVED AS TO FORM SaR a City ttrneys C` Dare (SEAL) A►�5 D(c . Bill No. of 2006. 2 Published: I`\Ordinance 06\Rezoning Capitol Hill and Avenues Properties From SR-1 to SR-1A--4-21-06 draft 3 -i ' y Ti lid z m� . J ='= ■ IP0niliiiiiii ® 1111 -. -\.Th --LL 4 F -I¶r '-gill: 'MI6 '' If Pi = • si 111111= ri II El.-1/ I wit. , , .‘ , li IN III II lijill II , , - • :: \ a ME sr"" l_ P-'•r91111111 MEE RIF _? -1111 Fs., `77' 47/ > Fid ri Ell IIIIII II Ala .Z. iiim gab.1 ltis < CD C 4r1.- all illis MU 1111 i7,41(1 Atit M iir _4- -__ ,_ 0) cn T-T El : I II III Ell II MU - ,. m pil 1 p x -0 iii a ll II! AIII � �ll � � '�_ o a i x, 0, „an ■u U . ® a ! I*4V'.1 IL 2 i ��: ii: flbf •••len ■ --r FT iljii ii ii ii Li= 11 +gm NE El Num ili a okapi vs on• go w'- l''. 0 • A ' 3 11.11 atar.,-1A-.. t 1] -0*-4441A: :. j = I. II ill III ,10/1 7._,:441' \ \,-- ' OVftmilliAlfAVV44 \ 1 • - - - iiii III Rill , I�i I ro r liv ♦ I � • ti li RI EIo� Mli voirKillp it, 11714i \ .11.' MUNI En ....wi - - , Nmill ipko 4# ' \ , , . . ri--.,W_I = • lir 4.0 31111-7.1 - = t • 'AW __= WM :us. writ .1.k. 11 14 . 1 11111111b.i 0 effe•-• ..44; (14 c, 4A._. rn \\ 700 W BRIG a /� _ Ell i i III II4444 __ m111 0 W o ir_ !II#1:1 F i i i o�r� ■ p 9 � `'IIII IIIP_ �' r , _ — _ ^1111..11 S o `J umi�wi�ifi .�li �smmoomiiiiiiii CO IIIII _ w I o C, _. 400 W m ffi flII Pi I■ `— z — - xI . - _ L, I.t s_ o = — 0— n 111 I1I110 —= � _ mini Ali a- �' ,.�; 4110 300W m m IU W0iiIIt ..; Ill 1® 1111E MilliI�: _lli1ii ;MT 11n1 - nulls r ii a>,: thihi 200 W 3 L !Aim li��!CEjT ji '.. I ' �O1- �� Z Winn All Milli -.,�;�a. f' - imp i�0i�; ;50 .. ot ,< ,T„ WEST r �- arc: "- At ,- .411.11', ..'" . ,r --I ___ .-- m:1m11o .•1171.2:l r4;C>0 4-41111 'I a1i.d'A ippll =-_EAE.=—mll1l l4- d ��llIl j it '1Ir 1'r m 1 1 . &--� 11111111111111111111111 ;1%�=_�1111= 11111m \P 71111i ._ m 11 l Iuu!uullllllllllll ,,:� . N - ® 11III1III 6��� r alliV 1l111111 1r010011# GA, G1 EXHIBIT 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Petition 400-06-08—to develop Neighborhood based Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities EXHIBIT 5A PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING NOTICE AND POSTMARK Petition 400-06-08—to develop Neighborhood based Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities NOTE: The field trip Is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. I AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, April 12, 2006,at 5:45 p.m. winner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m.,in Room 126. During the dinner,Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting Is open to the public for observation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday,March 22,2006. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters a) Utah Department of Transportation(UDOT)and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department—UDOT is requesting the purchase of real property owned by Salt Lake City,consisting of six parcels totaling approximately seven acres and used as a drainage canal,for use as part of the Davis County Legacy Highway project. The property in question is located Just north of the existing 1-215 West highway corridor and on both the east and west sides of Redwood Road.All of the property is located within Davis County. This property was part of a previous condemnation action which has now lapsed,and is now being purchased at fair market value,under terms acceptable to Public Utilities. Public Utilities staff intends to approve the sale,with the City receiving replacement easements for the Drainage Canal use.(Staff—Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178 or doug.wheelwrightOslcgov.com and Karlyn Greenleaf at 483-6769 or kanvn.greenleaf( slcgov.com) b) Utah Transit Authority(UTA)and Salt Lake City Property Management—UTA and the City are negotiating an Interlocal Agreement that would provide for the transfer of the fee title property ownership of the City to UTA for the property used for the Intermodal Hub operation. The property transfer involves two parcels totaling approximately 16.57 acres located on the west side of 600 West Street,between 200 South and approximately 700 South Streets. Under the terms of the agreement,the City will receive compensation for the property equal to fair market value,which involves non-monetary considerations including the agreement by UTA to finance a large portion of the cost of extending light rail service from the Delta Center Station to the Intermodal Hub and the assumption by UTA of all the City's current obligations relating to the Intermodal Hub. The City-owned property is addressed as 300 South and 600 West,and zoned General Commercial(CG). The Interlocal Agreement including the property transfer requires approval by the City Council.The City Administration intends to recommend the proposed property transfer to the Planning Commission and City Council.(Staff—Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178 or douq.wheelwright(cD.slcgov.corn and Matthew Williams at 535-6447 or matthew.williams@slcgov.com) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Petition 410-06-03—A Conditional Use Request for a Landfill Gas to Renewable Energy Facility by Landfill Energy Systems(in conjunction with the Salt Lake Valley Landfill).The request is for the development and operation of an electric generator facility located at approximately 5950 West California Avenue,directly adjacent to the existing Landfill Facility in the M-1 (Light Manufacturing)Zoning District.This project site is also located within the T Transitional Overlay District.(Staff—Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409 or marilvnn.lewis( slcgov.com) b) Petition#400-06-07—Salt Lake City Corporation is requesting a text amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow ambulance services in the Commercial, Manufacturing and Special Purpose Districts. (Staff—Kevin LoPiccolo at 535-6003 or kevin.lopiccolo(a�sicgov.com) c) Petitions 400-05-46,400-05-47,490-06-15 and 490-06-16— A request by Mike Miller,representing Flying J Inc.,that Salt Lake City close and declare as surplus property,a portion of 800 West Street at approximately 2100 South Street(Petition No.400-05-46),vacate an alley on the north side of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision (Petition No.400-05-47), vacate a portion of the Klenke's Addition Subdivision and Riverside Subdivision(Petition No.490-06-15),and grant preliminary subdivision approval of a two-lot minor subdivision(Petition No.490-06-16)located at approximately 850 West 2100 South in a General Commercial (CG)zoning district. (Staff—Ray McCandless at 535-7282 or ray.mccandlessftslcgov.com) d) Petition 400-06-08—Salt Lake City Council initiated a request to amend existing provisions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance relating to single-and two-family land uses in City Council District Three that may contribute to incompatible residential infill development within the Special Pattern Residential 1 (SR-1)Zoning District. The proposed amendments include creating a subcategory of the SR-1 Zoning District for those properties currently zoned SR-1 in City Council District Three to address general lot and bulk issues including building height,yard requirements,and accessory building standards.This petition would also amend the zoning maps to implement the above referenced amendments to the SR-1 Zoning District for all properties within the Capitol Hill and Avenues Planning Communities currently zoned SR-1.The Capitol Hill and Avenues Planning Communities are generally located between 1-15 and North Campus Drive from South Temple to the north City limits.(Staff:Joel Paterson at 535-6141 orjoel.paterson@slcgov.com) ivriUl tid1S8JM 800Z0Z9880 ONIH\RH JO 30110N 3Db.Lsad sn LI.Lh9 wo.0 Pau gv "? !.' •_ I.I. 18 in 'AIDamei lies �u�;��; u i 90V 'ua� `3aaa3S °Wa3S N3n0S 1.9V 06C 00 tie3anaS uo!ss!uawoo fiu!uueld f LSL0g4H940 • I uo!s!A!Q 6u!uueld Apo amei lies 1. Fill out registration card and indicate if you wish to speak and which agenda item you will address. 2. After the staff and petitioner presentations,hearings will be opened for public comment. Community Councils will present their comments at the beginning of the hearing. 3. In order to be considerate of everyone attending the meeting,public comments are limited to 3 minutes per person per item. A spokesperson who has been asked by a group to summarize their concerns will be allowed 5 minutes to speak. Written comments are welcome and will be provided to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting if they are submitted to the Planning Division prior to noon the day before the meeting. Written comments should be sent to: Salt Lake City Planning Director 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 4. Speakers will be called by the Chair. 5. Please state your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you represent at the beginning of your comments. 6. Speakers should address their comments to the Chair. Planning Commission members may have questions for the speaker. Speakers may not debate with other meeting attendees. 7. Speakers should focus their comments on the agenda item. Extraneous and repetitive comments should be avoided. 8. After those registered have spoken,the Chair will invite other comments. Prior speakers may be allowed to supplement their previous comments at this time. 9. After the hearing is closed,the discussion will be limited among Planning Commissioners and Staff. Under unique circumstances,the Planning Commission may choose to reopen the hearing to obtain additional information. 10. Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the City 48 hours in advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. • 71Nti EXHIBIT 5B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Petition 400-06-08—to develop Neighborhood based Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities DATE: April 6, 2005 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Joel G. Paterson, AICP Planning Programs Supervisor Telephone: 535-6141 E-mail: joel.paterson@slcgov.com RE: Staff Report for the April 12, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting CASE NUMBER: 400-06-08 APPLICANT: City Council STATUS OF APPLICANT: Zoning Ordinance Section 21A.06.20 authorizes the City Council to initiate petitions to amend the Zoning Ordinance. PROJECT LOCATION: SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential districts in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities (areas subject to the Temporary Zoning Standards adopted by the City Council as Ordinance 91 of 2005) COUNCIL DISTRICT: District 3, Council Member Jergensen PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS: BACKGROUND: On December 13, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance 90 of 2005 creating the Compatible Residential Infill Development standards which have been incorporated into all single and two-family residential zoning districts in the City. The Council also adopted Ordinance 91 of 2005 creating temporary zoning standards for areas zoned SR-1 in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities and in the Wasatch Hollow Community. The purpose of Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities — I — the temporary zoning standards was to allow these communities to develop neighborhood based zoning standards that would better address compatible infill development within the community. Because the temporary zoning standards expire on June 13, 2006,the communities affected by the temporary zoning standards were given a deadline of March 6, 2006, to submit a proposal to the Planning Division. The deadline provides the necessary lead time to have the proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to the expiration of the temporary zoning standards. The Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils submitted the proposal that is currently being considered by the Planning Commission. Wasatch Hollow is still developing a proposal which may be considered by the Planning Commission at a later date but will not be completed prior to the expiration of the temporary zoning standards. Once the temporary zoning standards expire, Wasatch Hollow will have the same zoning standards as other similarly zoned areas rest of the City under Ordinance 90 of 2005. This petition requests to amend the Zoning Ordinance by creating new standards for a SR-1A District, a subcategory of the existing SR-1 District; and the Zoning Map by replacing the existing SR-1 designation in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities with the new SR-1A District as shown below(a larger map is in Attachment 2). Proposed Zoning Map Amendment SR-1 to SR-1A 311111177, TV 1� `rinillirage at,, tin+ ♦ ♦; :::%. ...•...q•� Zt.12; t- P. . 41114:;'•-.6 t„� ��T !'"•r :+�s11••f•11► �.���'�S�.�r -.may• . .:12' . MINI D. IF r ua y �'�" 'll, ;►4. �•f��ii�i�ij!l ir 1 e•iz �• t nor\ i 9 111 1 ( }�1.�• 7 ., .. A I+tip �a .�fu• .r • �1�r i .w ``��;, is / +., ti\ rs8 rrr,.. . ?sat• ....lull i/i 0: - .1 . ......., 6 ht i ..:- 1,..7. `1/ ,1:_ q ■', /_. N i al ®® ,• . is 1 ik 1 �jI.11t ' = �f�.,} .' I�®f--�q®■ ilk ':!Ir` `:�. �1 r. �Irf * 11 .a \-1 `I�.:ul 11 l'.I l' ®®�.1 a®aa�■-s 4 1A (1' "r J 1. IN "HIM MI �;� . ri-Eintinasiiiii .kr-' ill. it 1 r t= 'a ; 11 ,mil `� ®=- a® .741 le Y 14: 9\ 111 h ,,. � ®� N 1 1 ■III■■ p�:.qT SI. ..1 1' d�''I J ,., ® ' :r 1. � vieinstam ®� t � D /1 Ltu N�1� t'4� �1' 1 I M. '1�� �'� ��rl.. .., ••_ � �t.w..J 1.1.1 .111¢� •f.:• 'A! ilk :.: C Pr I t'.-�i+7� r ;iii ii ti��� �I®9 ®!I1_! "���V _ ..._...._..., .. 1114 J. —Ii �� Iff /11�'1' •. 11 ■11. AL!. _,Ii inns [ gg " I1 I1111<I . ..u11 Ir,;.`It■.i .... 77111�i: � r J1� � 6 1=1 . ....""`s� � �r�lY�—T r'�ilt�i � 1 p-1 111.1'• /11p ,, . �� �. -"`�'' 11 1111 r 1' 1�1� 1� @�R��11 1 � . 51h The proposal submitted by the Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils would modify the following SR-1 District base zoning standards (the full text of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments is included in Attachment 1): 1. Maximum Building Height: Retain the standards included in the temporary zoning standards adopted as Ordinance 91 of 2005. Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities —2— • Maximum building height: o Pitched roof: twenty-three feet(23')to the ridge or the average height along the block face o Flat roof height and wall height along an interior side yard: sixteen feet (16') 2. Front Yard Setback: Retain the averaging provision adopted by Ordinance 90 of 2005 with a minor modification to allow the average setback calculation to exclude the properties with the smallest and largest setbacks on the block face. 3. Corner Side Yard: Retain existing standard of ten feet (10') and delete language allowing for in-line additions. 4. Interior Side Yard: Retain existing standard of four feet(4') and ten feet (10') with added provisions to reduce the required setback based on the width of the lot. • Lots narrower than forty-seven feet (47') are required to provide a combined side yard setback of thirty percent(30%) of the lot width. One of the required side yard setbacks must maintain a minimum setback of four feet (4'); with the other side yard being 30% of the lot width minus four feet. • Lots less than twenty-seven feet (27') wide must provide a minimum of four feet on both sides. • When the minimum side yard setback is reduced, a ten foot (10') separation between the subject house and the house on the adjacent lot must be retained along the interior side yard which has been reduced from the base standard of ten feet(10'). 5. Accessory Buildings and Structures • Maximum Building Coverage: 600 square feet • Maximum footprint of primary accessory structure: 480 square feet • Maximum height of pitched roof: 14 feet • Maximum height of flat roof: 9 feet • Maximum wall height: 9 feet including a provision to compensate for changes in grade due to sloping topography on the lot. • Secondary Accessory Building: o Maximum height for pitched roof: ten feet(10') o Maximum height for flat roof: eight feet(8') o Maximum wall height: eight feet(8') The proposed text amendments apply only to the base zoning standards and do not recommend any changes to the tiered review process adopted by the City Council as part of Ordinance 90 of 2005, which allows for modification of base zoning standards through the routine and uncontested matter and special exception processes. RATIONAL FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: The purpose of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are to create new zoning standards for areas of the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities zoned SR-1 which are fair and flexible and to better reflect the existing character of these communities. The proposal creates base zoning standards which, would if met, allow for over-the-counter building permits to be issued. If a property owner wishes to exceed the Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities —3— standards, the public processes (routine and uncontested matters and special exceptions) created by Ordinance 90 of 2005 are available and may allow modifications to the base standards when the proposal is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. Generally, the areas affected by this petition were developed in the late 1800s and early 1900s on lots which may not conform to existing zoning standards. Over time, the City has amended the zoning in these areas to better reflect the existing development. The proposed building height standards represent a further refinement of the zoning standards and are intended to reflect general development patterns in this area and respond to the high percentage of single story and one and one-half story homes. The modified interior side yard setbacks are proposed in response to the high percentage of lots which do not meet the Zoning Ordinance standard of fifty feet (50') for new lots and the narrow setbacks typically found in both Capitol Hill and the Avenues. The accessory structure standards also are intended to reflect the existing development pattern of smaller detached garages. APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: City Code section 21A.50 Standards for General Amendments (see the discussion and findings relative to these standards beginning on page 12 of this report). MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: The issues of neighborhood character and compatible infill development are addressed in several Salt Lake City master plans and other policy documents. • Avenues Community Master Plan: includes a goal that encourages private property improvements that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. • Capitol Hill Master Plan: includes a goal that encourages development of appropriate housing through renovation of existing structures and construction of compatible residential infill development and redevelopment. • The Salt Lake City Comprehensive Housing Plan: includes policy statements that address a variety of housing issues including quality design, public and neighborhood participation, housing preservation, rehabilitation and replacement. • The 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. • The Salt Lake City Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report: expresses concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city and ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards. Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities —4— • The City Council's Growth Policy: notes that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it is aesthetically pleasing; contributes to a livable community environment; yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served; and forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. PROJECT HISTORY: • June 21,2005-The City Council adopted a legislative action requesting that the Planning Division review the City's ordinances relating to infill housing. • July 12, 2005—The City Council adopted Ordinance 44 of 2005 creating the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District. • November 9,2005—The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed Compatible Residential Infill Development standards for single-and two-family zoning districts. • December 13,2005—The City Council adopted Ordinance 90 of 2005 which amended the Zoning Ordinance by creating Compatible Residential Infill Development standards in single- and two-family zoning districts. The Council also adopted Ordinance 91 of 2005 which created temporary zoning standards for areas within the Capitol Hill and the Greater Avenues Community Councils zoned SR-1 (area subject to this petition) and the Wasatch Hollow Community located between 1300 South and 1700 South from 1300 East to 1900 East. The City Council also adopted a Legislative Action directing the Planning Division to work with the Capitol Hill, Greater Avenues and Wasatch Hollow Community Councils to prepare neighborhood based residential infill development standards for consideration by the Council prior to June 13, 2006. • February 13,2006—Wasatch Hollow Community Council determines that a neighborhood based compatible residential infill proposal would not be submitted to the Planning Division prior to March 6, 2006 deadline. Because of this, the City Council will not be able to adopt neighborhood based compatible residential infill development standards for Wasatch Hollow prior to the expiration of the Temporary Zoning standards adopted as Ordinance j91 of 2005. • March 1,2006—The Greater Avenues Community Council voted to support the neighborhood based zoning standards proposed by the Greater Avenues Community Council's Housing Compatibility Committee(see letter from Stephen Mecham, Chair of Greater Avenues Community Council in Attachment 4). • March 15, 2006—The Capitol Hill Community Council voted in favor of supporting the neighborhood based zoning standards proposed by the Greater Avenues Community Council for application to areas zoned SR-1 in the Capitol Hill Community (see e-mail from Peter von Sivers, Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council in Attachment 4). Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities —5— COMMENTS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 1. COMMENTS: Staff requested comments from applicable City Departments and Divisions, and the Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils. Staff received comments from the following (City Department and Division comments are in Attachment 3, Community Council comments are in Attachment 4): • Permits and Licensing Division: The Permits and Licensing Division offered the following comments: 1. A new zoning district is preferable to creating a new overlay district (such as the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay). 2. Front Yard Setback: Consider using "4" instead of"3" as the minimum number of lots required prior to eliminating the largest and smallest setbacks when calculating the average setback. 3. Side Yard Setbacks: consider using whole numbers such as 47 feet instead of 46' 8". 4. Side Yard Setbacks (separation requirement): This section seems to indicate that if the lot allows for reduced setbacks because of a narrow lot width then one cannot build within ten feet (10') of a neighbor's home even if the 4' and 10' side yards are maintained. It seems unfair to require a ten foot (10') separation on the four foot(4') side when compliant properties can build to within 4' without worrying about their neighbor's location. Consider specifically noting that properties that provide 4' and 10' side yards, regardless of the side yard requirement, are exempt from the 10' separation and that the 10' separation requirement does not apply to the 4' side. 5. Maximum accessory building coverage and building height standards differ from the standards established in 21A.40.050. This section of the Zoning Ordinance must be amended to accommodate the current proposal. Staff Comment: The comments provided by the Permits and Licensing Division have been incorporated in the proposed text amendments. • Transportation Division: The Transportation Division indicated that none of the proposed changes affect public transportation corridors or pedestrian and/or vehicular access or parking requirements. • Public Utilities Department: The Public Utilities Department has no objection to the proposed ordinance. • Engineering Division: The Engineering Division has not responded to this request. • Police Department: The Police Department has not responded to this request. • Fire Department: The Fire Department has not responded to this request. • Department of Airports: The Department of Airports indicated that the request has no impact on operations at the Salt Lake City International Airport. • Community Councils: The Greater Avenues and the Capitol Hill Community Councils have voted to support the proposed text amendments as prepared by the Greater Avenues Community Council Housing Compatibility Committee(HCC). As Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities —6— described below in the Analysis section of this staff report, the Planning Division is proposing some modifications to the proposal. Representatives from both community councils met with the Planning Staff on March 31, 2006, to discuss the Staff position. Letters of response have been submitted by the Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils which are included in Attachment 4. 2. ANALYSIS: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are summarized below using strikethrou h and underline to indicate the amendments proposed by the Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils to the existing SR-1 standards. Modifications proposed by the Planning Staff are indicated with bold strilcthrough and underline: Maximum Building Height: 1. The maximum height of b uildings with pitched roofs shall be: a: Twenty eight feet (28) measu a. Twenty three feet (23') measured to the.ridge of the roof or b. the average h eight of other principal buildings on the block face 2. The maximum Height of flat roofed buildings shall be twenty feet (20) 2. The maximum Height off lat roofed buildings shall be sixteen feet (16) 3• cent to interior side yards, twenty feet(20') yard The maximum exterior wall height adjacent to interior side yards, sixteen feet (16)for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. Exterior wall height may increase one foot (1 ) (or fraction thereof) in height for each foot(or fraction thereof) of increased setback beyond the minimum required interior side yard. If an exterior wall is approved with a reduced setback through a special exception, variance, or other process, the maximum allowable exterior wall height decreases by one (1)foot(or fraction thereof)for each foot (or fraction thereof) that the wall is located closer to the property line than the required side yard setback. Staff Comment: This proposal incorporates the temporary building height standards currently in place in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities created by Ordinance 91 of 2005. The proposed standards are consistent with the Planning Commission's November 9, 2005 recommendation to the City Council for all single and two- family residential zoning districts. The City Council modified this recommendation and included the twenty-eight foot(28') building height and the twenty foot (20') wall height for the City wide Compatible Residential Infill Development standards. The Planning Staff is supportive of this provision lowering the height to twenty-three feet (23') for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities. Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities —7— Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are three four or more SR-1 principal buildings with front yards on a block face, the average shall be calculated excluding the one property with the smallest front yard setback and excluding the one property with the largest front yard setbacks. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20). Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. Staff Comment: The language added in this standard was proposed to limit the effect that anomalies in existing front yard setbacks may have on new construction or additions. There are many examples were a block face will have a primary structure with little or no front yard setback or a lot where the front yard setback of the existing home is much greater than other houses on the street. Staff is supportive of this modification with one minor change as noted. There are a number of block faces with only three lots and staff recommends that the largest and smallest setbacks be excluded when there are more than four lots, rather than three, on the block face to eliminate the possibility of calculating an average based on only one lot. 2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10). legally existing • required corner existing building. Staff Comment: This change eliminates the possibility of an in-line addition being approved during the building permit process without the opportunity for public notice. As in other zoning districts, in-line additions require approval through the routine and uncontested special exception process, which with the signatures of 100% of the abutting property owners, may be considered administratively by the Zoning Administrator. If the required signatures are not obtained, the in-line addition can be considered by an Administrative Public Hearing Officer or the Board of Adjustment. Staff is supportive of this amendment. 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Twin Ho me Dwellings:No side yard is required along one side lot line while a ten foot (10)yard is required on the other. b. Other Uses: i. Corner Lots: Four feet (4). ii. Interior Lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10) on the other. (a.)Where the width of a lot is 46'8"forty-seven feet (97') or narrower, total minimum side setbacks shall be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the lot width Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities —8— with one side being four feet (4) and the other side being thirty percent (30%) of the lot width minus four feet(4') (rounded to the nearest whole number). Staff Comment: Staff is supportive of this provision with the noted change to use whole numbers. This formula allows for a reduction of the ten foot minimum side yard setback as lots become narrower. (b.)Where a lot is 26'8"twenty-seven feet(27') or narrower, required side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of four feet (4) and four feet (4). Staff Comment: This provision limits the reduction of the required ten foot side yard to four feet on very narrow lots. Staff is supportive of this recommendation using whole numbers. (c.)In-no se-Where required side setbacks are less than four feet (4') and ten feet(10')shall-the an addition, remodel or new construction shall be no closer than ten feet (10) to a primary structure on an adjacent property. The ten foot(10') separation standard applies only to the interior side yard that has been reduced from the base standard of ten feet(10'). Staff Comment: This provision requires a minimum separation of ten feet between houses if the addition, remodel or new construction is allowed with a reduced setback based on the provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b). The ten foot separation is only required on the side yard that has been reduced from the base standard of ten feet. Staff is supportive of this provision because the standard addresses the existing development pattern typically found in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities where the existing houses on narrow lots often do not meet the required four and ten foot side yard setback requirements. 4. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards:Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Yards", of this Title (see below). a. Maximum building coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. b. Primary Accessory Building—One Accessory building may have up to the following dimensions: i. A footprint of up to fifty percent(50%) of the building footprint of the principal structure up to a maximum of ' six hundred square feet(600 s.f.). Notwithstanding the size of the footprint of the principal building, an accessory structure shall be allowed a footprint of four hundred and eighty square feet(480 s.f),subject to compliance with 21A.40.050.B.1 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Staff Comment: The Planning Staff is recommending that this provision be modified to be more consistent with the maximum footprint standards created by Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities —9— Ordinance 90 of 2005 which limit the size of a garage based on the footprint of the primary structure on the lot. Staff is recommending a maximum footprint of six hundred square feet (600 s.f.) which is consistent with the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) standard for administrative approvals of garages. A larger garage must be reviewed by the HLC. The Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils are opposed to these modifications proposed by the Planning Staff. It is their opinion that a 480 square foot garage (20' X 24') is large enough to accommodate two cars and will have a lesser impact on the neighborhood. They are not opposed to garages larger than 480 square feet when the larger size is supported by the development pattern on the block face and considered through the routine and uncontested special exception process. ii. Roof Peak/Ridge Height of up to 14 feel- fifteen feet(15') above the existing grade. iii. A flat roofed height limit of nine-feet-(9 ten feet(10') above the existing grade. iv. An exterior wall height of 'ne F et 19-'') ten feet (10') above the existing grade. (a) Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may increase by one halffoot (0.5) for each one foot a1 ') difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and the downhill faces of the building. Staff Comment: The Planning Staff is recommending the changes noted to the accessory building height and exterior wall heights as noted above. In other single family and two-family residential zoning districts, the height for an accessory structure is limited to seventeen feet (17') to the ridge (15 feet to the mid-point in Yalecrest) and twelve feet(12') for flat roof structures. Because of the smaller lots and typical garages found in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities, the proposal recommends a further reduction in accessory building height and the introduction of a maximum wall height. Staff is of the opinion, with input from the Permits and Licensing Division, that a typical seven foot(7') garage door would be difficult to accommodate with a nine foot (9')high flat roof structure because of the space needs for roof joists and garage door hardware. For this reason, Staff recommends the maximum building height for flat roof accessory structures and the maximum wall height be increased to ten feet (10'). To compensate for these changes, Staff also recommends that the maximum height for a pitched roof on an accessory structure be increased to fifteen feet(15'). The Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils are opposed to these modifications proposed by Staff and their response to the Staff proposal is included in Attachment 4. c. Secondary Accessory Buildings—All other accessory buildings shall have the following dimensions: i. Roof Peak/Ridge Height of up to 10 feet (10) above the existing grade. Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities — 10— ii. Flat roofed height limit of eight feet(8') above the existing grade. iii. An exterior wall height of eight feet(8') above the existing grade. iv. Secondary accessory buildings may be attached to the primary accessory building so long as all buildings conform to the required wall and roof ridge height restrictions. Staff Comment: This provision provides standards for additional accessory structures that may be placed on a lot for storage or other uses. Secondary accessory structures would be limited in size by the maximum lot coverage provision of the SR-1 District (40%) and by the maximum building coverage provision for accessory structures (600 square feet). Staff is supportive of this provision. The following amendments are required in the Zoning Ordinance under Chapter 21A.40 Accessory Buildings to acknowledge the proposed amendments limiting the building coverage, maximum footprint and height provisions for the SR-1 Districts located in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities. 21A.40.050 B. Maximum Coverage: 2. Buildi ng Coverage:In the FR, R-1, R-2 and SR residential districts the maximum building coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the building footprint of the principal structure up to a maximum of 720 square feet for a single family dwelling and 1,000 square feet for a two-family dwelling. The maximum footprint within the SR-IA Zoning District is limited to six hundred square feet(600 s.f.)., Notwithstanding the size of the footprint of the principal building, at least four hundred and eighty square feet (480 s.f) of accessory building coverage shall be allowed subject to the compliance with subsection 21A.40.050.B.1 of this section. C. Maximum Height Of Accessory Buildings/Structures: 2. Accessory To Residential Uses in the FR,R-1 districts, R-2 district and SR districts: The height of accessory buildings/structures in the FR districts, R-1 district, R-2 district and SR districts shall conform to the following: a. The height of accessory b uildings with flat roofs shall not exceed twelve feet (12); ten feet(10') in the SR-IA Zoning District; b. The height of accessory b uildings with pitched roofs shall not exceed seventeen feet (17) measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the finished grade at any given point of building coverage. In the SR-IA Zoning District the height of accessory buildings with pitched roofs shall not exceedfifteen feet(15'); and c. Accessory buildings with greater building height may be approved as a special exception,pursuant to part V, chapter 21A.52 of this title if the proposed accessory building is in keeping with other accessory buildings on the block face. 21A.34.080 Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay District CHPA: Staff has identified a conflict with the proposed amendments to the SR-1 District, the existing Compatible Residential Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities — 11— Infill Development standards (Ordinance 90 of 2005) and the existing Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay District (CHPA). The CHPA District prohibits the use of special provisions, special exceptions, conditional uses or incentives to exceed the maximum height allowed in the underlying zoning district. Therefore, under the existing temporary zoning regulations in place for the SR-1 Districts within Capitol Hill and the proposed standards subject to this petition, new construction and additions are limited to the twenty-three foot building height(or the average building height on the block face) without the ability to use the special exception process to modify the building height based on the development pattern established on the block face. The Planning Division is currently processing an amendment to the Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay District which would allow a modification of the base building height standards. 3. FINDINGS A decision to amend the text of the zoning ordinance or the zoning map 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 Planning Commission and the City Council must consider the following factors: 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: Several Salt Lake City master plans and other policy documents discuss the importance of compatible residential infill development and its effect on maintaining the character of existing neighborhoods (see the "Master Plan Specifications" section of this report beginning on page 4 of this report). Findings: The proposed amendments are consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City's various community master plans, City Council policies and other planning documents. 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 amendments are designed specifically to promote single and two-family residential infill development that is compatible with surrounding development by creating regulations that relate to compatibility of setbacks, building height and accessory structure standards. Findings: The proposed amendments were created to ensure that new construction and additions in SR-1 Districts within the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities are compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities — 12— C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The proposed text amendments are designed to encourage infill development that is compatible with the surrounding development. The purpose is to establish standards that encourage compatibility between new construction, additions or alterations and the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. Findings: The proposed zoning standards are intended to minimize adverse impacts of new residential construction and additions on adjacent properties. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The proposed amendments affect base zoning district standards and will not impact the administration of existing overlay zoning districts. If there is a conflict between the base zoning standards and an overlay zoning district, the overlay zoning district standards prevail. In both the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities, many of the areas affected by this petition are located in historic districts. Under Ordinance 90 of 2005, the Historic Landmark Commission may modify the base zoning standards of the SR-1 District if the proposal is consistent with HLC design guidelines and the development pattern in the vicinity of the property under consideration. Findings: The proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of existing overlay zoning district which may impose additional standards on new development. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems,water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: The proposed amendments will not change allowed residential densities or types of land uses allowed within the SR-1 District. Consequently, the proposed amendments will have no impact on the adequacy of public facilities and services. Findings: The adequacy of public facilities and services criteria does not directly relate to the proposed amendments. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis and the findings presented in this report, the Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition 400-06-08 to amend the Zoning Ordinance as presented and amend the Zoning Map by applying the SR-lA designation to all areas presently zoned SR-1 within the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities. Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities — 13— Attachments: 1. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 2. Map of Proposed SR-lA Districts 3. Departmental Comments 4. Community Council Letters 5. Public Comments 6. Greater Avenues Community Council Background Report Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities — 14— ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities Proposed Amended Text for the 21A24.080 SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District 21A.24.080 SR-1 and SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District: In this chapter and the associated Zoning Map, the SR-1 District is divided into two sub-areas for the purpose of defining design criteria. In other portions of this text, the SR-1 and SR-1A are jointly referred to as the SR-1 District because all other standards in the Zoning Ordinance are the same. A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the SR-1 special development pattern residential district is to maintain the unique character of older predominantly low density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes and bulk characteristics. B. Uses: Uses in the SR-1 special development pattern residential district, as specified in section 21 A.24.190, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this chapter, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Minimum Lot Area and Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district are as follows: Land Use Minimum Minimum Lot Area Lot Width 1 Single-family detached 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. dwellings 2 Two-family dwellings 8,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 3 Twin home dwellings per dwelling 4,000 sq. ft. 25 ft. unit 4 Natural open space and conservation areas, No minimum No minimum minimum public and private 5 Public pedestrian pathways, trails and No minimum No minimum minimum greenways 6 Utility substations and buildings 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 7 Municipal service uses, including city utility uses No minimum No minimum and police and fire stations 8 Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 sq. ft. 80 ft. 9 Public/private utility transmission wires, minimum No minimum No minimum lines, pipes and poles 10 Other permitted or conditional uses as listed in 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. section 21A.24.190 of this chapter D. Maximum Building Height: Maximum building height limits vary, depending upon the location. The following regulations apply for each area within the SR-1 District: 1. The maximum height of buildings with pitched ro ofs shall be Twenty eight feet (28') measured to the ridge of the roof, or: a. SR-1: Twenty eight feet (28') measured to the ridge of the roof, or the average height of other principal buildings on the block face b. SR-1A: Twenty three feet (23') measured to the ridge of the roof, or the average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 2. The maximum Height of flat roofed buildings shall be twentyfeet (20'): a. SR-1: twenty feet (20') b. SR-1A: sixteen feet (16') 3. The maximum e xterior wall height adjacent to interior side yards: a.—SR-1: twenty feet (20') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. b. SR-1A: sixteen feet (16') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. c. In both the SR-1 and SR-1A Districts, the exterior wall height may increase one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) in height for each foot (or fraction thereof) of increased setback beyond the minimum required interior side yard. If an exterior wall is approved with a reduced setback through a special exception, variance, or other process,the maximum allowable exterior wall height decreases by one (1) foot (or fraction thereof) for each foot (or fraction thereof)that the wall is located closer to the property line than the required side yard setback. a-i. For lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes , the downhill exterior wall height may increase by one half foot (0.5') for each one foot (1') difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and the downhill faces of the building. hii.Exceptions: ii_a_IGable walls: Walls at the end of a pitched roof may extend to a height necessary to support the roof structure except that the height of the top of the widest portion of the gable wall must conform to the maximum wall height limitation described in this section. iifhDormer walls. Dormer walls are exempt from the maximum exterior wall height if: (al) The width of the dormer is ten feet (10') or less, and (32) The total combined width of dormers is less than or equal to fifty percent (50%) of the length of the building façade facing the interior side yard, and (e3) Dormers are spaced at least eighteen inches (18") apart. 45. Building height for initial construction of a building shall be measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building coverage. Building height for any subsequent structural modification or addition to a building shall be measured from the finished grade existing at the time a building permit is requested. Building height for the SR districts is defined and illustrated in part VI, chapter 21A.62 of this Title. 66. Where buildings are stepped to accommodate the slope of terrain, each step shall have a horizontal dimension of at least twelve feet (12'). 67. Additional Building height: a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by an Administrative Hearing Officer subject to the special exception standards in 21A.52 and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The administrative hearing officer will approve, approve with conditions, deny, or refer the application to the board of adjustment to be considered as a special exception pursuant to Chapter 21A.52 of this Title. Any person adversely affected by a decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer may appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment. b. Requests for additional b uilding height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of chapter 21A.34.020. E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: a. SR-1: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet(20'). Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. b. SR-1A: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are four or more SR-1 principal buildings with front yards on a block face, the average shall be calculated excluding the one property with the smallest front yard setback and excluding the one property with the largest front yard setback. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. 2. Corner Side Yard: a. SR-1: Ten feet (10'). For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required corner side yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. b. SR-1A: Ten feet (10'). F-er-Lvaildifigs-legaityr-existing-011-A-1+61-1-23-1995rthe 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Twin Home Dwellings: No side yard is required along one side lotline while a ten foot (10') yard is required on the other. b. Other Uses: i. Corner Lots: Four feet (4'). ii. Interior Lots: (a) SR-1: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. (b) SR-1A Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. (1) Where the width of a lot is forty-seven feet (47') or narrower, the total minimum side yard setbacks shall be equal to 30% of the lot width with one side being four feet (4') and the other side being 30% of the lot width minus four feet (rounded to the nearest whole number). (2) Where a lot is twenty-seven feet(27') or narrower, required side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of four feet(4') and four feet(4'). (3) Where required side yard setbacks are less than four feet (4') and ten feet(10') an addition, remodel or new construction shall be no closer than ten feet (10') to a primary structure on an adjacent property. The ten foot (10') separation standard applies only to the interior side yard that has been reduced from the base standard of ten feet (10'). 4. Rear Ya rd: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than fifteen feet (15') and need not exceed thirty feet (30'). 5. Accesso ry Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Yards", and 21A.40.050of this Title. a. SR-lA i. Maximum building coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. ii. Primary Accessory Building—One Accessory building may have up to the following dimensions: (a) A footprint of up to fifty percent(50%) of the building footprint of the principal structure up to a maximum of six hundred square feet(600 s.f.). Notwithstanding the size of the footprint of the principal building, an accessory structure shall be allowed a footprint of four hundred and eighty square feet (480 s.f.), subject to compliance with 21A.40.050.B.1 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. (b) Roof Peak/Ridge Height of up to 141-; fifteen feet (15') above the existing grade. (c) A flat roofed height limit of c feet f°4 ten feet (10') above the existing grade. (d) An exterior wall height ofnine feet (91 ten feet (10') above the existing grade. (1) Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may increase by one half foot (0.5') for each one foot(1') difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and the downhill faces of the building. iii. Secondary Accessory Buildings—All other accessory buildings shall have the following dimensions: (a) Roof Peak/Ridge Height of up to 10 feet(10'I above the existing grade. (b) Flat roofed height limit of eight feet (8') above the existing grade. (c) An exterior wall height of eight feet(8') above the existing grade. (d) Secondary accessory buildings may be attached to the primary accessory building so long as all buildings conform to the required wall and roof ridge height restrictions. 21A.40.050 B. Maximum Coverage: 2. Build ing Coverage: In the FR, R-1, R-2 and SR residential districts the maximum building coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the building footprint of the principal structure up to a maximum of 720 square feet for a single family dwelling and 1,000 square feet for a two- family dwelling. The maximum footprint within the SR-lA is limited to six hundred square feet(600 s.f.). Notwithstanding the size of the footprint of the principal building, at least 480 square feet of accessory building coverage shall be allowed subject to the compliance with subsection 21A.40.050.B.1 of this section. C. Maximum Height Of Accessory Buildings/Structures: 2. Accesso ry To Residential Uses in the FR,R-1 districts, R-2 district and SR districts: The height of accessory buildings/structures in the FR districts, R-1 district, R-2 district and SR districts shall conform to the following: a. The height of accessory buildings with flat roofs shall not exceed twelve feet (12'); ten feet(10')in the SR-1A; b. The hei ght of accessory buildings with pitched roofs shall not exceed seventeen feet (17') measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the finished grade at any given point of building coverage: In the SR-lA the height of accessory buildings with pitched roofs shall not exceed fifteen feet(15'); and c. Accessory buildings with greater building height may be approved as a special exception, pursuant to part V, chapter 21A.52 of this title if the proposed accessory building is in keeping with other accessory buildings on the block face. ATTACHMENT 2 MAP OF PROPOSED SR-1A DISTRICTS Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities 11 Il lAT 1 w .• I I II •'I' I LI�iIlUIIL u ,, ■ _I ■ J■ i ° _ Miiiiiiii�000❑ IM _ I Oaoo - _ ' ° ° `II■ 111■ ■1■1■ W g�� O 111 ''. .111111 IIMEli L-9riiird riM ■ 1711111111g _III1111■ ■Illlrlll 111111,11■0 rim Ms rn 300 W I, 11 -J — J IL i1 IIJ 'CHI;I! •�IIIIIIIII �IIIIL 1E12-'11°1I '` l n mi }T— _ II IInF l I T I • o'' k ■IIIIII11l!g J /g ®f - I_ 1• 1 WEST TEMPLE ST �l I�ii l Intl 11 1111� I gA = �4 d" 13 mama TAM-,== SM � >�D Ir „ I ji' ■■ I �iauu 4 5 ��. •�A O ` n �kl�. , , 11IIIIIIIIt111111I III :��.:: N i— ��i ; ''��•1 ._III _®IIIUI�IIIIIIImmi .4...:� ^ STATE ST Inei gil.alll■ E III I Illlllllllll mum ,'��.■le CI. I L _■��I I■1 11'i JIl =III I IIIIIIIt1111111■ 200E,ill! _ .--- O J .\l�}I., /„I■, •'•,�:,�� —II on 1 ! 1_ - o ..4inj wllllllll�'�— �1I�;���;.: U -.'49 11-i.-Tr1=-1=[0 F !hTi ailli ills: ( r,E,lnIIII .-in'1,p X Q T- —1 M 'III 1�I^I I i �Itt J'l0IMlII gMOoliiinm —E -. soh 3 E /■M:. 3 ell imiln ~�11r= sin �IpJERR• ;Ault i O. ,�� ailll BIIII !III g;a i s a ' n S a $30E •all 111_ II II IF gild ii I I hit Lill ingisji �����:� CD I I II TC-r _TOO 1T IIM �I !I al a E On•.iff -+ stair/MN■ . 4I 11- Ili '1$•:•4 ��,tilii �t � I�'j�1���1ii1111 iiii �111 BODE s n II ,a\1,40 e;+•41• 1•1"1 Eilli Ili II r. II I Ili • It tifetteeir4 BIM ■I "IF = i■ f• 3ooE .I Nis■■■ ■.ow Err ,) Illlliw •P S �� 1000E •3 ••►Pr,n Re Agib4 Is �„A i • • 1100E �;'..,�3 /46 ,�����•+*4'47•• • Ill�, 41111� �•... p... f 1200E 3 ���. 1111111 1�■�IIIIIIII �� ■ in ,Illlll ■ z 1300E 1 , 110 ►��1 4 I / —�,�rvE =.. •' Muni'....tom-•._,.. ' ' V 1 11:� ° U 11 `fl I. 1 1 •o r ATTACHMENT 3 DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities From: Joyce, Everett Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 8:00 PM To: Harpst, Tim; Hooton, Leroy; Graham, Rick; Querry, Chuck; Dinse, Rick; Boskoff, Nancy; Campbell, Tim; Clark, Luann; Fluhart, Rocky; McFarlane, Alison; Oka, Dave; Rutan, Ed; Zunguze, Louis; Pack, Russ Cc: Ikefuna, Alexander; Coffey, Cheri; Paterson, Joel Subject: Petition Number 400-06-08 ❑ Compatible Infill Overlay for Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Council - modify the SR-1 zoning district regulations Attachments: Proposed SR-1 Text Change.doc The Planning Division is currently reviewing Petition 400-06-08, regarding compatible infill development standards for the SR-1 zoning district within the Avenues and Capitol Hill Community boundaries. An e-mail has been sent to appropriate City staff and they have been asked to review the petition request and respond with any comments they have. Specific details of the proposed text changes are highlighted in yellow on the attache d document. Currently the SR-1 zoning district compatible infill regulations are provided through temporary zoning regulations. To process the Community Councils compatible infill regulations prior to expiration of the temporary regulations any responses need to be into the Planning Division by April 4, 2006. If you have any questions, please contact me at 535-7930. Thank you. From: Joyce, Everett Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 11:26 AM To: Butcher, Larry; Walsh, Barry; Smith, Craig; Larson, Bradley; Stewart, Brad; Johnson, Linda Cc: Paterson, Joel; Coffey, Cheri Subject: Department review for Petition 400-06-08 Compatible Infill Overlay Text for SR-1 Zone in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities Importance: High Attached please find the proposed text changes to the SR-1 zoning district standards related to compatible infill development within the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities. The proposed text changes were submitted by the Avenues Community Council with support from the Capitol Hill Community Council to apply the proposed text changes to the SR-1 zoning district in Capitol Hill as well as the Avenues. The proposed text changes are highlighted in yellow on the attached document. Please review and comment on the proposed text changes by April 4, 2006. The current compatible infill ordinance regulations for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities are established through a temporary ordinance. In order to process and adopt the proposed text changes prior to expiration of the temporary regulations the review comments need to be provided to the Planning Office by April 4, 2006. If you do not contact me or reply by April 4, 2006 I will assume that you do not have any comments. Thank you for your assistance in this matter, especially with the short response period. FROM: MCCANDLESS,ALLEN SENT: WEDNESDAY,MARCH 29,2006 8:47 AM To: JOYCE,EVERETT CC: PACK,RUSS;DOMINO,STEVE SUBJECT:FW: PETITION NUMBER 400-06-08-COMPATIBLE INFILL OVERLAY FOR AVENUES AND CAPITOL HILL COMMUNITY COUNCIL-MODIFY THE SR-1 ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS EVERETT, • Thank you for sending the review request for the above referenced zoning text change. The proposed amendment affects zoning in the Avenues and Capitol Hill area and does not present any known impacts on operations at the Salt Lake City International Airport. -Allen McCandless, Planning Manager Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities From: Butcher, Larry Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 4:45 PM To: Joyce, Everett Cc: Goff, Orion Subject: RE: Department review for Petition 400-06-08 Compatible Infill Overlay Text for SR-1 Zone in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities Everett: A question before I list my comments. Will this amendment come with a map overlay? If so, will the remaining SR-1 districts have differing regulations? If this is the case, from an implementation standpoint I would prefer a separate zoning district rather than an overlay. • Under E: Consider using 4 as the number for averaging. When I thought about using 3 principal buildings we would be left with one building when we excluded the smallest and largest setbacks. With 4 structures we would have two sites to average. • E3biia&b side yards: Not a major issue but consider removing the 8" from the lot width. If we round up to 49' and 27' it will be easier for folks to remember and the difference is about an inch. • E3biic side yards: This section seems to indicate that if the lot allows for reduced setbacks under a & b above (narrow lots)then you can not build within 10' of your neighbors home even if you maintain 4' and 10' side yards. It seems this section was intended to address the side yard of a property that takes advantage of the narrow lot reduced side yard allowance. Since we must have a 4' side yard the reduced side would always be the 10' side. It also seems a bit unfair to require a 10' separation on the 4' side when lot width compliant properties can build to within 4' without worrying about their neighbor's location. Consider specifically noting that properties that provide 4' and 10' side yards, regardless of the side yard requirement, are exempt from the 10' separation and that the 10' separation requirement does not apply to the 4' side. • E35a, maximum accessory building coverage of 600 sq. ft., is a new requirement. Requires amendment to Ord. 90 • E35b&c also require Ord. 90 amendment. The dimensions are very conservative and I would anticipate requests for taller or larger structures. Admin hearing? Larry Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities From: Stewart, Brad Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:33 PM To: Joyce, Everett Cc: Garcia, Peggy Subject: RE: Department review for Petition 400-06-08 Compatible Infill Overlay Text for SR-1 Zone in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities Everett, SLC Public Utilities has reviewed the proposed language changes. We have no objections. As always, development proposals will be reviewed and approved according to the codes and standards applicable to water, sewer , and storm drainage at the time of submittal. Thank you, Brad Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities From: Walsh, Barry Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 3:56 PM To: Joyce, Everett Cc: Young, Kevin; Smith, Craig; Butcher, Larry;Brown, Ken Subject: RE: Department review for Petition 400-06-08 Compatible Infill Overlay Text for SR-1 Zone in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities March 29, 2006 Everett Joyce, Planning Re: Petition 400-06-08 Proposed Compatible Infill Overlay Text Change for SR-1 Zone in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities. The transportation division review comments and recommendations are as follows: None of the proposed changes or text indicates any issue with required public transportation corridors or pedestrian and/or vehicular access or parking requirements. Therefore we have no comment. Sincerely, Barry Walsh Cc Kevin Young, P.E. Craig Smith, P.E. Larry Butcher, Permits Ken Brown, Permits File • Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infi11 Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities ATTACHMENT 4 COMMUNITY COUNCIL LETTERS Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities Greater Avenues Community Council Mint 1180 1st Avenue, Salt Lake City,UT 84103 IMI� - € Stephen F. Mecham,Chair Phone: 801 359-4165 ■ Shane Carlson,Housing Committee, Spokesperson Phone: 801 596-3939 61111 =I ,,! 4 `mosor Salt Lake City Planning Commission Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Dear Commission Members, Council Members and City Planners: First,we would like to express our appreciation of the efforts of the Planning Office,the City Council and the Planning Commission on the recently adopted Infill Ordinance and tiered permit process. Over the last twelve months a significant amount of work and careful thought has gone into addressing what was rapidly becoming a serious problem with incompatible infll,a problem that threatened our sense of community and goodwill among neighbors. We are especially appreciative of the Planning Office and their efforts to implement the new tiered permitting process. We feel strongly that the success of this tiered process is essential to ensuring predictability for communities while allowing for responsible growth and accommodation in situations that are often quite challenging. The Greater Avenues Community Council's Housing Committee has been working on the proposed SR-1 overlay for about ten months. We have made significant efforts to describe and document the character of the Avenues SR-1 area. One of the tools we used in drafting the proposed overlay was a thorough inventory of all residential properties in the SR-1 area. Not only did this inventory provide us with a clear appreciation of the housing stock in the SR-1 area,it also illuminated some of the unique challenges faced by those residing in our community. Out of 2396 residential properties,an estimated 2075(85%)are non- conforming to the present minimum SR-1 standards for the minimum lot width of 50 feet or the minimum lot size of 5000 square feet. For those Avenues SR-1 properties south of 106 Avenue,the figure is closer to 90%non-conforming. Every element of our proposed overlay was carefully crafted to deal with the very real and significant problems recently experienced in our area. We were pleased with the Planning Office's decision to recommend that the Planning Commission and City Council approve most of our proposed overlay. The Planning Office has recommended a few minor modifications to the calculation of front and side setbacks. We support these recommended modifications and appreciate their importance. However,we cannot support,nor do we entirely understand,the Planning Office's recommended modifications to our proposal regarding the counter permit limits for accessory buildings. Primary Building Peak and Wall Height We are pleased with the Planning Office's decision to recommend our proposal's counter permit limits for primary building peak height(23 feet)and sidewall height(16 feet; Section D. Paragraphs 1,2 and 3). We fully appreciate the necessity of a smoothly functioning tiered permit process in order for these counter permit limits to be practical as the development pattern in the SR-1 area is quite diverse. We appreciate the Planning Office's efforts to implement the new tiered process as well as their openness to input from the community. Combined with significant efforts to implement the tiered process,these counter permit limits will provide a measure of predictability for our more vulnerable block faces while allowing reasonable expansion and growth throughout the area. Front Setbacks The Planning Office has recommended that when using the proposed modifications for calculation of front- setback(average calculated dropping the smallest and largest setbacks),the minimum number of properties on the block-face should be increased from three to four(Section E. Paragraph 1). We appreciate the utility of modifying the minimum number of buildings on a"block face"before eliminating the closest and furthest buildings from the calculation of the"block face"average, as the proposed minimum of three properties would leave only one property to be used in the modified calculation. We do not anticipate that increasing this number from the proposed three to the recommended four buildings would pose a problem. We support this recommendation. Corner Lot Side Setbacks The proposed SR-1 overlay requested the elimination of an in-line side setback exception for street side setback for corner lots(Section E, Paragraph 2). The Planning Office has recommended no modifications to the proposal. We appreciate their support of the proposed modified side setback limit for corner lots. Interior Lot Side Setbacks The Planning Office has recommended several minor modifications to the formula proposed by our Housing Committee to help address the challenge of the very narrow and deep lots that exist in a significant majority of the SR-1 area(Section E,Paragraph 3). We appreciate the reasoning behind the Planning Office's recommended modifications and we do not anticipate that these modifications will negatively impact the goal of the proposed formula for calculating modified minimum interior side setbacks. We would also like to express our support of the Planning Office's recommendation to apply the proposed minimum ten foot separation between the proposed construction and the adjacent property's primary building only when the rules for a reduced side setback are applied and only to the side of the project where the reduced side setback(less than 10 feet)is applied. The recommended modification would retain the original intent of our proposal,helping property owners and permit applicants address the challenges of their very narrow lots, while addressing the fire code and public safety issues allowing access to the sides and rear of each property. Accessory Building Recommendations The City Planning Office has recommended counter permit limits for accessory buildings that are higher than what was proposed by the Avenues Housing Committee for the SR-1 area(Section E, Paragraph 5). The Committee has several concerns regarding the recommendation to adopt higher limits. First,as stated above,the SR-1 area is characterized by lots that are very narrow and at times much smaller than the 5000 square foot minimum for new lots in the SR-1 area. In some areas,the standard lot width is 27.5 feet. The most common lot width is approximately forty one feet. On lots with homes that are often only inches apart,every additional foot of wall and peak height brings a much greater likelihood that a structure will negatively impact an adjacent property owner. While out of scale primary structures have been the source of the most egregious incompatible infill,accessory structures have been a very common source of conflict between adjacent property owners. While we appreciate that the Planning Office has recommended a counter permit limit of 600 square feet that is consistent with limits recognized by the Historic Landmarks Commission,we feel that in areas such as the middle Avenues(approximately 5th to 10th Avenues)where very narrow lots are combined with views of the city and the Oquirrh Mountains, a counter permit limit of 480 square feet is a much more defensible standard. The proposed 480 square foot limit for a primary accessory building would provide all property owners with the opportunity for a two car garage that could house even the largest passenger vehicles along with some room for tools and storage. Our original proposal to allow an additional 120 square feet of secondary accessory building with lower wall and peak height limits(eight and ten feet respectively)would ensure that all property owners would have the opportunity for additional storage or work space. Our Housing Committee also has significant questions about the recommendation to limit accessory structure square footage to 50%of the primary building's foot print. Not all of the largest primary buildings have been built on the largest lots or in the most sensitive locations. We feel strongly that allowing those properties with the largest homes to build larger garages without further consideration of lot size(beyond the 40%lot coverage limit)or building placement will result in situations where properties that already have a significant impact on adjacent property owners will be allowed to have an even greater impact with a larger accessory structure. Conversely,properties with small primary structures(less than 1200 square feet)that are less likely to have impacted adjacent properties may be unfairly limited to lower accessory structure limits. These recommended limits would be implemented without regard to the size of a lot or the placement of the buildings. We feel that allowing everyone 600 square feet of accessory structure but requiring that those seeking a counter permit build in a manner less likely to impact their neighbors(480 square feet for primary accessory structure,remaining accessory structure built under lower limits)is a more equitable solution to an often challenging situation. We also feel that the higher counter permit limits for accessory buildings that have been recommended are not in keeping with the spirit of the tiered permit process which was adopted to allow for relatively easy exceptions to somewhat stricter counter permit limits. Like the other elements of the proposed overlay,the originally proposed accessory building limits were designed to provide predictability for the most vulnerable areas while allowing the quick approval of well designed projects. We feel these limits are appropriate,especially when viewed alongside the lesser requirements for granting a"Routine and Uncontested"permit for accessory buildings exceeding the counter permit limits. "Routine and Uncontested"applications may be granted based upon the approval of all adjacent property owners but unlike special exceptions for primary buildings,the administrator handling the request need convene a public hearing where concerns expressed by parties not residing next to the proposed project must be considered. This lower standard for accessory structures exceeding counter permit limits is appropriate. We also feel that the lower standard makes our proposed accessory building limits preferable to the Planning Office's recommendation. Finally,we have questions about the Planning Office's recommendation that minimum structural requirements for a flat roofed garage require a ten foot roof in order to accommodate a seven foot door. We have consulted a contractor and architect who suggested the following design in order to allow a nine foot flat roofed garage with a seven foot door. Rather than spanning the entire width of the building (somewhere between twenty and twenty-four feet)with a 14 inch TJI ceiling joist,an alternative design would incorporate a beam at the mid-point of the garage parallel with the side of the garage with the garage door. The beam,at ten to twelve feet from the wall with the door,would be set back far enough to accommodate the door and garage door hardware/opener. The beam would be supported at its mid-point with a vertical column. The addition of the beam would allow much smaller ceiling joists,approximately 10 inches for a 12 foot span. Nearly all garage door manufacturers have low profile door hardware available at no extra charge. Low profile hardware would allow the door to be mounted with approximately six inches of overhead space. Allowing for six inches of slope on a 24 foot wide garage,six inches for door hardware and ten inch joists, a seven foot door could be accommodated within the proposed nine foot flat roofed counter permit limit. On a related note,we see no reason to recommend that the wall height for pitched roof accessory buildings be increased to match that of Planning Office's recommended ten feet for flat-roofed buildings. Given the potential of wall height to impact sunlight on adjacent properties,we are asking that the Planning Commission recommend the originally proposed counter permit limits of nine feet for both wall height and flat roofed buildings. In conclusion,we would like to emphasize our appreciation of the Planning Office,the City Council and the Planning Commission and all of the hard work that has gone into dealing with the difficult issue of compatible infill. We are very pleased with the efforts initiated by the City Council to address this issue and to make it a priority,the creativity and hard work of the City Planning Office to design and implement a unique and promising tiered permit process, and the Planning Commission for their careful consideration of these matters. We would also like to recognize the City Council's support for community specific zoning where appropriate and the efforts of the Planning Office to support the overlay process at the community level. Planning staff have often made themselves available to our Housing Committee and provided guidance on several important issues. The Avenues Housing Compatibility Committee has also made a significant effort to address the key issues of concern in our area. We feel that our direct experience of the challenges posed by the close proximity of the homes and the narrow lots that characterize the area,as well as our experience with sensitive and successful projects has provided our residents with a unique and intimate knowledge of the issues as well as the potential for creative solutions for most property owners. We are asking that you please take this intimate knowledge of the community into account as you weigh the Planning Office recommendations along side the proposed overlay. We would also ask that you take into consideration the strong support of our community for the proposed overlay as it was originally written,specifically in regard to accessory structures. And while the Avenues Housing Compatibility Committee cannot support the recommendations of the Planning Office with regard to counter permit limits for accessory buildings,we strongly support all other modifications to our proposed overlay as recommended by the Planning Office. Sincerely, Shane Carlson Greater Avenues Community Council Housing Compatibility Committee, Spokesperson Greater Avenues Community Council " 1 180 I"Avenue,Salt Lake City,UT 84103 Stephen F.Mecham,Chair Phone: 801 359-4165 I uau l:l Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Dear Council Members and City Planners: The Greater Avenues Community Council(GACC)is pleased to submit for your review the enclosed SR-1 Overlay overwhelmingly approved by the GACC March 1,2006. As you know, in July 2005 GACC established the Housing Compatibility Committee to develop the enclosed Overlay. In its March 1,2006 meeting,GACC also voted to allow representatives of the housing Compatibility Committee to work with Planning and Zoning if any changes are needed to facilitate City Council approval of the Overlay. During the past seven months,the Housing Compatibility Committee has sought public input and has worked diligently to develop the Overlay to preserve and protect the unique characteristics of SR-I properties in the eclectic Avenues area. The GACC believes the draft Overlay establishes a new set of fair and flexible zoning rules specific for the Avenues District SR-1 area that will allow for a large range of diverse development patterns and still provide a measure of predictability for everyone in the community. We urge you to approve the Overlay as it is proposed. We look forward to working with you in enacting and implementing the Overlay. You may call me at 359-4165 with any questions. Housing Compatibility Committee spokesperson Shane Carlson may be reached at 596-3939 and Committee Chair 1,on Richardson may be reached at 364-4529. Sincerely, _ Stephen F.Meehan],2006 Chair Greater Avenues Community Council Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities Paterson, Joel From: pv4910@xmission.com Sent: Friday, March 17,2006 2:38 PM To: Paterson,Joel Cc: Jergensen,Eric;ComeBackShane@Comcast.net Subject: Capitol Hill SR-1 Mr, Paterson, This is to inform you of two votes taken by the Capitol Hill Community Council (CHHC) during its meeting on March 15, 2006. First, the CHCC approved the inventory of all SR-1 housing made by volunteers in the CHCC and recorded on a map by Shane Carlson, by a vote of 21:1, Second, the. CHCC endorsed the SR-1 infill overlay regulations and procedures proposed to you by the Greater Avenues Community Council, with a vote of 22:1. May I also ask you to include me in all future exchanges and meetings concerning the SR-1 infill overlay of the Planning Division. Sincerely yours, Peter von Sivers, Chair Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities ATTACHMENT 5 PUBLIC COMMENTS Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities Page 1 of 1 Paterson, Joel From: Ann George [annmgeorge@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 3:30 PM To: Paterson, Joel Subject: Petition 400-06-08 Dear Mr. Paterson, I am a resident of 9th Avenue, a few houses west of"I" Street, and as such, received an invitation to an open house at the house located on the northeast corner of 8th Avenue and "H" Street, in which plans for a very substantial addition/remodel of said house were discussed. I went there, and would like to voice my fear that if the house were raised to the level needed to make a second story, it would be a looming block, and would not really be in the character of the Avenues, in spite of the fact that it is located across the street from just such an enlarged home. I am convinced that amending existing provisions of the City Zoning Ordinance to facilitate raising rooflines of existing structures by owners would seriously undermine the very character for which most of its residents treasure the Avenues. I would like to suggest that owners in need of really big homes might like to consider building in a location where such homes are commonly found and where they would not destroy the flavor of an already very established neighborhood. Neither my husband, David, nor I, is unable to attend the City Planning Commission meeting scheduled for tonight, but we would like to cast two votes to deny this petition: David B. and Ann M. George, 585 9th Avenue, SLC. Thank you for including our input in any decisions taken. Sincerely, Ann George 4/12/2006 Avenues Overlay Page 1 of 1 Paterson, Joel From: Miller, Margaret A. [MMiller@FDIC.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 11:03 AM To: Paterson, Joel Cc: earl.miller@theradoc.com; ComeBackShane@Comcast.net Subject: Avenues Overlay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Green I have been working on the Avenues Housing Committee since last June and feel that we put a lot of research into our overlay before we submitted it. We had numerous discussions about the limits we described in the proposal. I am concerned that you want to change the wording on the accessory buildings. • A large number of properties do not conform to the SR-1 lot width standard. Because of this, the 480 primary accessory building limit (at the counter permit level) gives some protection to adjacent properties while giving everyone a chance to have a garage. People could always take their request to the next tier if they had reason for requesting a larger structure. While we are concerned about the large houses that have been springing up in the Avenues, it is also a real problem with people building garages that are out of scale. It is very sad to see such a historically important neighborhood be overrun with people wanting houses that are out of proportion. Big houses and big garages have their place, but not in most neighborhoods in the Avenues. Please reconsider keeping the recommendations for accessory buildings as presented by the Avenues Housing Committee. Thank you for all the work you and your department have devoted to this emergency in our neighborhoods. Page 1 of 1 Paterson, Joel From: S.D. Williams [sdwilli©gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 10:43 AM To: Paterson, Joel Subject: Avenues and Capitol Hill SR-1 Overlay Dear Planning Commission, I'm writing in support of the Avenues Community Council Housing Compatibility Committee's recommendations regarding the SR-1 Overlay proposal. As a lifetime Avenues resident, I have lived with the consequences of the loose regulation during the 1960s that allowed apartment buildings to be constructed on residential Avenue blocks. In the name of"property rights" many of these incompatible structures were permitted and permanently degraded the character of several neighborhoods resulting in the lowering of surrounding property values. Now excessively-sized home additions and garages are causing the same problem. I live on L Street between 6th and 7th Avenues and in the past 2 years, within 2 blocks of my house, there are several recent examples of this kind of construction that individually and collectively are severely deteriorating the streetscape and desirability of my neighborhood. Garage- SE Corner 7th and M Garage-NE Corner 5th and L House- 6th Ave between K and L southside- mid block On my street most of the houses sit just inches from the property lines and so even a small increase in height or square footage allowances can have a significant impact on the adjacent properties. Please listen to the people who have made a long term committment to live in and maintain this historic neighborhood and do not make the same mistake that was made before in allowing poorly conceived additions and replacements to leave permanent and incompatible scars on one of Salt Lake's treasures. Scott D. Williams 319 L Street Salt Lake City, Utah 4/13/2006 April 5, 2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission City and County Building Room 406 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT Dear Commissioners, Petition 400-06-08 — The Avenues Overlay You will have lots to read so I have written this letter so that you can either read the whole thing or just the bolded words and still get the main ideas . Let me introduce myself. I am Jill Van Langeveld. I grew up in Cottonwood Heights among big spaces. I moved on the Avenues in August 1966, 40 years ago this summer, into the downstairs unit at 259 6th Avenue—a duplex which my husband's father bought in the 1920's after immigrating from the Netherlands. My husband grew up in the upstairs unit. We eventually bought it from his Mother, moved upstairs and rented the downstairs. We tried to buy the historic home next door at 253 6`h Avenue, which we rented for two years, but some members the family didn't want to sell when we were in the position to buy. We had to look for another house. My husband teaches in Davis county so we also looked in that area. We finally narrowed our search to two homes—one on the Avenues and one in North Salt Lake. The home in North Salt Lake was better designed and better built but when it came right down to the final decision, we bought "The Neighborhood" at 807 Northcliffe Drive. We also own a 6-plex at 225 6`h Avenue. I have been active in the Greater Avenues Community Council since the 80's and have been Entertainment Chair for the Avenues Street Fair since 1997. Working with wonderful neighbors keeps me coming back year after year. It is also gratifying to hear from the musicians who have told me that the word in the music community is "the Avenues Street Fair has become THE place to play." In 2003 I was elected to a three-year leadership commitment to the GACC: Chair-Elect, then Chair and finally Past Chair. While GACC Chair-2005, I organized our Housing Compatibility Committee. They were charged to find a solution to our"Big House/Over Build Problem." What is happening here on the Avenues is just a microcosm of what is going on all over. People across the country are trying to find ways to help save their neighborhoods. The trend is toward larger homes going from 1,900 sft in 1985 to 2,400 sft in 2005. BIG isn't necessarily good or bad but in the Avenues SR-1 neighborhood where the lots are sometimes long and usually very arrow and where view and sunlight are important values, BIG can cause a great deal of friction. I have talked with many people over the last 12 months and the trend most people on the Avenues would like to see is that additions to homes or garages are sensitive to their neighbors. Let's make it a Win-Win situation for everyone. I have read the recommended changes to our Avenues Overlay Proposal and two I call minor and won't fight. But the suggested changes to 5B. Primary Accessory Buildings are not acceptable. Our goal was to give the homeowner the opportunity to build/remodel adding needed square footage and height while creating as little negative impact on neighboring property owners as possible. A garage is a wonderful thing to have. Off-street parking on the Avenues is a premium. Neighbors understand this and can deal with a"garage." A "garage with a tall roof full of storage" is much harder to accept when it impacts you negatively. We had proposed a 480 sft accessory building(a double car garage)with a 14 ft peak and a 9 ft wall height. I understand that a few contractors who were asked about these height restrictions said that the restrictions would cause problems. They needed at least a 10 ft wall with 15 ft peak to install an automatic garage door opener. I contacted Martin Garage Doors Company and they said that for a 7 ft high door(the most common height although mine is only 6'7") the minimum wall height was 7 feet plus 15 inches for clearance which includes a place for the door to go as well as the automatic opening/closing mechanism. That totals only 8'3". According to Martin Doors, 9 foot side walls would exceed the minimum required for installation. Some contractors may have a phobia of working in enclosed spaces so the 9 foot flat roof garage may bring on that phobia. The reason for the Overlay is to protect the most vulnerable of our citizens so we have looked at minimum standards for counter permits. If someone needs a larger garage,then let him/her go to Tier II. That is why the Tier Process is extremely important. Tier I (counter permits) protects the vulnerable while allowing those larger projects that won't cause negative impact to their neighbors to get their permit easily on Tier II (Administrative Hearing). The controversial projects are sent to Tier III (Board of Adjustment) to work out problems. Please don't take that protection away. We need it. Property rights are important to everyone—new residents, old residents and potential residents. If former zoning/permit policies and building practices had worked, then we would not be here today struggling with these problems. Sincerely, Jill Van Langeveld GACC Chair-2005 Past Chair-2006 Paterson, Joel From: Jim Jenkin [Jim.Jenkin@hsc.utah.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 2:03 PM To: Paterson, Joel Cc: AvenuesHCC@Comcast.net Subject: Re:Planning Office response to proposed SR-1A Zoning Dear Planning Staff and Commission Members, I wish to respond to the proposal of Planning Staff regarding changes to the SR-lA zoning proposal made by the Housing Compatibility Committee (HCC) of the Greater Avenues Community Council (GACC) . I apologize for brevity and errors as I am traveling and pressed for time. In a meeting with Planning Staff community members includung myself were informed of Plannings intent to recommend standards for accessory structures based more on existing policy and convenience than on the Communities assesment of it' s needs. I urge the Commision members to support the proposal of the HCC (and as adopted by The Capital Hill Community Council and GACC) as originally submitted. Specifically: 5 B. Primary Accessory Buildings: HCC Proposed a 480 sf accessory building with a 14 foot peak height limit and a 9ft wall height limit as the maximum acceptable under Tier One. Planning Staff recommend a 600 s.f. accessory building with a peak height of 15 feet and wall height limit of 10 feet. Their reasoning was as follows: 1. Some builders were consulted who felt it would be more difficult to accomodate a 7ft garage door with a 9 foot flat roofed building. 2. The 50%, 600 sf standard has been in place for sometime, and is the standard accepted by Landmarks. "Some builders" consider a seven foot door to be standard. A 6'8 " door is also a standard residential size and probably much more commom in the Avenues. A Volkswagen Eurovan Camper fits in a 6' 8" door. "Some builders" said it would be "difficult" to acomodate a 7 ft door; no architectural or structural evidence was presented. If the older standards such as construction convenience and historic compatibility were working we wouldn't need an overlay. The new standard is the evaluation of negative impact on the neighborhood and the neighbors property. The Housing Compatility Committee, as ratified by vote of the Community Councils, has determined thru investigation of existing properties that ten foot high outbuilding walls have a significantly greater potential for negative impact on neighboring property owners and should,therefore, be subject to further review and neighbor imput in Tier Two. The Landmarks Commission's standards of practice have been developed with a priority of historic continuity and street-face compatibility, where our proposal was developed by accessing impact on neighbors, therefore I do not consider the precedence of Landmarks acceptance as a suffuciently relavant reason for Planning Staff to advance a recommendation over HCC's. The existing outbuilding standard was not changed in the City-wide infill ordinance, nor in the temporary ordinance, despite evidence of clear damage done to neighbors in the Avenues by accessory buildings. Keeping the old standard flys in the face of the spirit of the Overlay. Further, since the Overlay must protect the areas most vunerable properties, the place to err is clearly on the side of caution and more protection, since an error in under- protection is virtually premanent and an error in overprotection is appealable. 1 Sincerely, Tim Jenkin 2 5th Ave 2 �eG�vr� 3/,fir/o Franz Amussen Office address 275 East South Temple Suatc 204 Salt Lake City UT 84111 801 575 6409 March 30 2006 Salt Lake City Planning Director 451 South State Street Room 406 Salt Lake City Utah 8411 1 Gentlemen and Ladies I received notice of this meeting by mail Unfortunately because of a previous commitment I will be unable to attend this meeting I therefore would like you to know my concerns and request that this letter is read out loud at the meeting scheduled for Wednesday April 12 2006 at 5 45 This letter is in response to Item(d)petition 400 06 08 I think this petition is a result of one or two houses that were improved or built in the avenues in very poor taste Unfortunately because of the actions of a couple bad apples the avenues community council now wants to restrict the freedom of all the avenues resident to have full use enjoyment and the ability to upgrade and improve their homes I do not think good taste can be legislated or zoned I am alarmed and concerned about the seeming attempt by a few people in the Greater Avenues Community Council to restrict the freedom to enjoy and improve the living conditions of the majority of the Avenues residents I have been an avenue resident at for over 25 years I enjoy living in the avenues because of the tolerance and diversity of the residents and the diverse architecture Now it appears that the tolerance aspect is diminishing The Greater Avenues Community Council(GACC)sent out a newsletter dated October 2005 where they claimed 94%of avenues residents want to regulate building volume relative to size I sent a letter to the GACC questioning the methodology and validity of this statistic and they never gave me the courtesy of a response 1 was never asked my opinion and the few people that can get into the Avenues Sweet Branch Library for the GACC meetings do not constitute a majority of the Avenues Residents I would like the GACC to explain its methodology used to amve at these percentages I seriously doubt tf it had any resemblance to a scientific survey Lets face facts The avenues area is an older area and many many houses are in need of significant additional investment to bring them back to an attractive and sound condition Additionally often older retired people on fixed incomes occupy these homes and they Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities cannot afford to upgrade their homes for example look at the house on the northwest corner of 8th.Ave. and I street this house has been deteriorating for the past 15 years. These homes are not improved until these older residents die or move out. Some houses do not justify an improvement because the high investment needed would not be recovered by the market value of the house. Often the only way to justify this needed investment is to add additional square feet and make it suitable for a family, This was the situation I was faced with when I ended up building my house. The previous house I lived in the Avenues had become too small for my family,its floor plan was not efficient, the plumbing and wiring were not what I would like etc. I looked at fixing these problems but the high investment needed did not justify the market value. My choice was to build a larger more useable house next door on a small lot that I owned.. Effectively building the maximum size house I could for the lot, lithe new rules are passed it appears that I would not be able to do this in the future! I am in favor of high-density neighborhoods the Salt Lake valley now appears to be almost entirely developed;high density is exactly what Salt Lake needs and the avenues are. The avenues population is older,and slowly new families are moving in. These older homes often are not suitable to a growing family and a very few people that have the time to attend GACC meetings and can get a seat at the small room at the Sweet library co not constitute any significant overall representation of the broad, large and diverse population of the Avenues and this small grou should not stop the improvement of these homes. I think the GACC would be much better advised to see that proper sidewalks are put in place. Somehow there are many houses and several streets that have no sidewalks. As I walk around a neighborhood suddenly a sidewalk ends and I am forced to walk into the street. Areas I am referring to specifically are on 10th Ave. between F and G Street and G Street between 10th and 11` Ave. and the homes above 11th Ave. I would like the zoning department to require that any house in the avenues that does not have a sidewalk in front of the house to install one to encourage safe pedestrian traffic. I am strongly against any change in the current zoning rules for the Avenues area that would restrictLLt1 the Avenues. of the neighborhood or change the current allowed size for houses in the A Tenues. Sincerely, Franz Ainussen Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities March 14,2006 Salt Lake City Council C/o Planning Division 451 S State#406 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Joel Patterson: In reference to our discussions pertaining to the Council's consideration in adopting the Avenues Overlay for SR-1 Zoning Ordinance I wish to convey two concerns and two possible solutions. Problem#1:Primary Building-The restriction of 23'from the ground to the peak of the roof at any point(or the average height of the ridge of houses on the same side of the block). For a property such as mine,single story rambler on the north side of 9'h Ave(569),the lot slopes north to south. This would be very difficult for anyone who wishes to add a second story, The foundation is at ground level at the back of the house,it is approximately 30"high in the front. This would mean the ridge of the roof would have to slope down 30"from back to front(I have a hip roof and the ridge runs north and south). Problem#2:Primary Building—The restriction of 16'maximum exterior wall height. Many of the avenues homes have 9'-10' high ceilings on the main floor.Any 2' floor addition including up to 6"for floor joists and subflooring would reduce the ceiling height on the 2id floor to 5.5'-6'. Standard ceiling heights for new construction are 8'. Many of the homes on 1 2"d and 3`d Avenues are 2 story whose walls well exceed 16'. If you include the 23'restriction of the peak of the roof at the front of my house that would mean the floor to ceiling on the 2"d floor would be 4' and 6.5'on the back. I know that there are options to apply for variances or by other means but many of the lots in the avenues are sloped so I don't know how efficient it would be to adopt these standards as is. Suggestion#1:Primary Building—The height of the ridge of the roof is 24'at the highest point of the original foundation(or the average height of the ridge of houses on the same side of the block). This would prevent someone wishing to expand back to higher ground unless they removed dirt to do so in order to maintain the same site line. The extra foot of height would also allow for- Suggestion#2:Primary Building-The maximum height of any exterior wall is not to exceed 8.5'above the ceiling of the main floor. Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Teton 569 9th Ave. Salt Lake City, UT 84103-3128 Phone: 801-297-3682 (w) Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities ATTACHMENT 6 GREATER AVENUES COMMUNITY COUNCIL BACKGROUND REPORT Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-06-08: Compatible Infill Standards for Capitol Hill and the Avenues Communities Greater Avenues Community Council Proposed Overlay for the SR-1 Zoning District March 6th, 2006 • ['ii� Greater Avenues Community Council 1180 1s`Avenue, Salt Lake City, UT 84103 I I Stephen F. Mecham, Chair Phone: 801 359-4165 Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Council Members and City Planners: The Greater Avenues Community Council(GACC) is pleased to submit for your review the enclosed SR-1 Overlay overwhelmingly approved by the GACC March 1, 2006. As you know, in July 2005 GACC established the Housing Compatibility Committee to develop the enclosed Overlay. In its March 1, 2006 meeting, GACC also voted to allow representatives of the Housing Compatibility Committee to work with Planning and Zoning if any changes are needed to facilitate City Council approval of the Overlay. During the past seven months, the Housing Compatibility Committee has sought public input and has worked diligently to develop the Overlay to preserve and protect the unique characteristics of SR-1 properties in the eclectic Avenues area. The GACC believes the draft Overlay establishes a new set of fair and flexible zoning rules specific for the Avenues District SR-1 area that will allow for a large range of diverse development patterns and still provide a measure of predictability for everyone in the community. We urge you to approve the Overlay as it is proposed. We look forward to working with you in enacting and implementing the Overlay. You may call me at 359-4165 with any questions. Housing Compatibility Committee spokesperson Shane Carlson may be reached at 596-3939 and Committee Chair Lon Richardson may be reached at 364-4529. Sincerely, Stephen F. Mecham, 2006 Chair Greater Avenues Community Council { Summary Over the summer of 2005, the Avenues 'experienced a number of controversial construction projects, involving both primary structures and accessory buildings. At the same time, the City Council was addressing a similar problem in several neighborhoods throughout Salt Lake City. In July, 2005, the City Council approved the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay. In August, the Greater Avenues Community Council formed its Housing Compatibility Committee (HCC) to investigate and address the specific housing issues in the Avenues. The HCC identified the SR-1 district as the area most impacted by recent incompatible infill. Characteristics of the SR-1 area contributing to the problem included a high percentage of deep and narrow lots, a high percentage of lots not conforming to the minimum width and square foot requirements of the SR-1 code, the liberal nature of the SR-1 code, and the rapidly rising property values in the SR-1 area. The HCC attempted to develop a single set of dimensional restrictions that would provide predictability for the residents of the more vulnerable SR-1 areas while still allowing flexibility where taller building heights are the existing development pattern. The HCC struggled to come up with a reasonable set of standards under the previously existing system where projects exceeding dimensional limits were sent directly to the Board of Adjustment. As an alternative, the HCC proposed a tiered permit system where projects exceeding the dimensional limits for a counter permit but that were consistent with the character of the neighboring buildings were approved in an expedited manner. At that same time, the.City Planning Office proposed its own tiered permit system. The HCC development of an SR-1 overlay was put on hold while the City considered a city- wide compatible infill ordinance. After that ordinance was adopted, along with temporary restrictions for the Avenues SR-1 area, the HCC resumed work on an SR-1 overlay. The efforts of the HCC were focused on conducting a comprehensive inventory of all SR- 1 residential properties in the Avenues, a thorough review of the existing SR-1 ordinance, and the Avenues Master Plan, as well as soliciting input from a wide range of avenues residents, architects, contractors, and real estate brokers. The HCC concluded that in order to provide predictability, the proposed overlay needed to perpetuate the temporary height restrictions originally proposed by the City Planning Office, that allowances needed to be made for the narrow non-conforming lots, and that the trend towards large multiuse accessory structures needed to be balanced against the often disproportionate impact these structure had on adjacent properties. 1 Issue Origin Over the summer of 2005, several new construction projects were started in the Avenues that concerned a large number of Community members. These projects consisted of primary structure remodels and new garages. Several of these projects became the subjects of articles in the local papers on "Monster Homes" and incompatible in-fill (see Appendix A). At the same time that Avenues community members were recognizing the early stages of an incompatible infill problem in their area, the Salt Lake City Council was beginning to address the same problem city wide. Specifically, in July, 2005 the City Council approved the Yalecrest Compatible In-fill Overlay "to encourage compatibility between new construction, additions or alterations and the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood." Also at that time,the City Council was considering a 6- month moratorium on new projects to allow time for communities to develop neighborhood specific guidelines to protect against incompatible in-fill in the more vulnerable city neighborhoods (Ordinance 44 of 2005). That moratorium was approved and then rescinded a week later as some Council members were concerned that a city- wide moratorium was too broad a measure to address problems not experienced in all neighborhoods. It was also at this time that the Greater Avenues Community Council (GACC) organized the Avenues Housing Compatibility Committee(HCC). The HCC was charged with the task of studying the problem of incompatible infill to determine which significant factors were driving the "Monster House" and"Monster Garage"phenomena both locally and nationally, as well as which areas of the Avenues were experiencing the greatest impact. Process At the August GACC meeting, Yalecrest Overlay Committee members David and Lisette Gibson were invited to discuss their efforts to develop and gain approval for the Yalecrest Overlay. It was also at that meeting that the formation of the HCC was announced and input from all members of the Avenues community was solicited(see Appendix B). The charge of the HCC was to find community consensus regarding structural regulations which give clear standards and allow us to preserve the value of our community. The HCC began meeting weekly. • At the HCC meetings, it quickly became apparent that several factors were contributing to the incompatible infill problem. First, nearly all of the most controversial projects were occurring in the SR-1 zoning district. Second, a large number of projects involved residents new to the Avenues neighborhood who were moving to the area in response to high fuel prices and increasingly lengthy commutes from distant areas within the Salt Lake Valley. Many of these new arrivals stated that they were simply trying to replace their smaller homes and garages with something similar to what they had left behind on their much larger lots in the suburbs. And finally, many controversial projects involved the construction of new garages as well as modifications to primary structures.. 2 Over the course of several HCC meetings in August and September, 2005, committee members attempted to identify subsections of the SR-1 district that would be benefit from a new set of zoning regulations. Several conclusions were drawn from those discussions. First, while there are some broad patterns of development within the SR-1 district that appear to have evolved over time(bungalows between 6th and 1 lch Avenues, Victorians on 2°d and 3`d Avenues), there are no clear lines of demarcation between these areas, homes of all types can be found throughout the SR-1 area(large Victorians on many block corners as high as 11th Avenue). Coinciding with the difficulty the HCC encountered in defining any significant homogenous areas in the SR-1 district, the committee experienced difficulty coming up with any one set of dimensional counter permit limits (such as building height) that would provide some degree of predictability and protection for areas predominantly comprised of 16 foot tall bungalows while allowing taller remodels and additions in areas where taller two and three story Victorians were predominant. It quickly became apparent to the members of the HCC that the single most consistent and challenging characteristic of the Avenues would be the very diverse nature of the community with mansions and cottages, historic and non-historic areas, families and single adult professionals, couples just starting their lives together and widows and widowers. It was a huge challenge to come up with a single solution to fit each very different situation. Out of this challenge grew the idea of a three tier permit process as a way to protect the most vulnerable blocks while allowing an easier permit process for compatible building in areas of larger houses. However, because of the added complexity of a tiered permit process, HCC members were unsure if the City would support such a significant change to the permit process. Apparently, the City Planning Office was thinking along the same lines as they were developing a proposal which was presented to the City Council on September 20, 2006. At that time, the Planning Staff presented the outline of a process to develop compatible residential infill zoning standards that was a combination'of reduced measurement standards and a new three tier building permit process. The City Council requested that the Administration return to the Council with a completed recommendation using the tiered process that could be passed by December, 2005. Because of the similarities between the process under consideration by the City Planning Office and the tiered process being considered by the HCC, the HCC members shifted their attention to the Citywide Compatible Infill Ordinance (eventually known as Ordinance 91 of 2005). Efforts to develop an Avenues SR-1 Overlay were put on hold until.the City completed their new ordinance with the idea that after the ordinance was voted upon, HCC members would evaluate what had been passed citywide and develop a an appropriate proposal for the SR-1 area if needed. During October and November, 2005, numerous briefings and public hearings took place before the Planning Commission and the City Council. The HCC members were at every 3 meeting, either writing letters or talking individually to commission and Council members and formally speaking to the new proposals (see Appendix C). The HCC continued to meet by-weekly to find ways to support the Planning Department with the proposed zoning changes and coordinate the HCC member's efforts. On December 13, 2005, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the city-wide Compatible Residential Infill Development Zoning Ordinance amendments (Ordinance 90 of 2005) and Temporary Zoning Standards (Ordinance 91 of 2005). The purpose of the Temporary Zoning Standards was to allow the GACC to submit a proposal for neighborhood based zoning standards regulating compatibility of residential construction within the SR-1 Zoning District. The temporary zoning standards were to be in effect for 6 months and are expected to expire mid-July, 2006. On December 28, 2005 Joel Paterson met with members of the HCC to review the essential elements of an overlay proposal to be submitted by a community council. Specifically, Joel requested that the GACC application for an SR-1 overlay include the. following: 1. Documentation and research of area for infill 2. Describe the characteristics of the area 3. Proposed goals The HCC members have worked closely with Joel Paterson and his staff as they began the process of creating the Avenues Overlay just as Yalecrest Community Council did. Throughout January and February, 2006, the HCC met weekly. HCC members made a complete inventory of all 2394 single and dual family homes in the SR-1 zoning district recording whether the home (1) was a 1, 11/2,or 2 story home, (2) had an attached garage, and (3)had a pitched or flat roof(see Appendix D). Using maps of the SR-1 area, HCC members also estimated the number of properties in the SR-1 area that did not conform to the minimum lot width and minimum lot square footage requirements of the base SR-1 zoning regulations. The HCC also reviewed zoning ordinances throughout the city both before and after December 13, 2005, consulted the Avenues Master Plan and met with City Council members, Planning Department officials, architects, realtors,contractors and area residents. In addition, HCC members made every effort to communicate the work and findings of the committee to the entire Avenues community(see Appendix B). In December and early January, with the help of the GACC webmaster, Dave Jonsson and HCC member Lester Aoki, a comprehensive web-page was launched detailing, agendas, minutes, proposed overlay elements, area maps and links to outside resources (see Appendix E). 4 Finally, several articles written by HCC members were published in the monthly GACC newsletters and time was allotted during GACC meetings for monthly progress reports and presentations by the HCC (see Appendix B). The broader Avenues community was repeatedly invited to participate in the HCC meetings, share their ideas with committee members and to get involved in any way they could. Anyone who provided an e-mail address was added to the internal HCC e-mail list (AvenuesHCC@Comcast.net). Residents without access to e-mail were kept up to date with phone calls and paper copies of communications and works in progress. In February 2006, the front page article in the GACC newsletter shared more information about the new zoning ordinances, specifically the City's new three-tiered permit approach. Results of the HCC inventory were presented to the GACC community meeting on February 1s`'2006. A large color-coded map was used to depict the estimated number of stories in each residential property. Several minutes were devoted to providing definitions such as block face, development pattern, set-back, roof line, lot coverage, infill, overlay, and over-the-counter. The March 2006 GACC newsletter provided an overview of the work and goals of the HCC and included a table on page 3 summarizing the proposed Avenues SR-1 Overlay. At the GACC monthly meeting on March 1st, 2006, the completed Avenues SR-1 Overlay proposal was presented in detail. After the presentation and answering all questions from attendees, a vote was taken: 48 to 5 in favor of the Proposal. Methods As discussed earlier, the expectation of the City Planning Office was that the HCC would provide documentation and research describing the characteristics of the area being considered for the proposed overlay. To this end, the primary efforts of the HCC were a comprehensive inventory of all residential properties in the SR-1 district(see Appendix D), an estimate of the number of residential properties that conformed to the minimum lot width and minimum lot square footage requirements of the SR-1 zone, and identification of vulnerable block faces within the SR-1 area which the City would then survey to obtain maximum building heights for a given block(See Appendix F). In addition, the HCC conducted a thorough review of the current SR-1 zoning ordinance, including the recently adopted citywide Compatible Infill Ordinance and the Temporary Infill Ordinance applied to the SR-1 areas of the Avenues and Capitol Hill neighborhoods and the R-1-5000 and R-1-7000 areas of the Wasatch Hollow district. A walking inventory was conducted by Avenues residents which classified conforming use dwellings in the SR-1 zone by number of stories, the presence or absence of an attached garage on the front façade and whether or not the structure had a flat roof(see coding sheet—appendix D). Over sixty pictures of homes in the SR-1 area were 5 reviewed as part of a training session for those HCC members conducting the Inventory. Number of stories was used as a rough estimate of building height. Classification of stories was based upon the following criteria: • 1.0 Stories (Do not and could not live within the roof) • 1.5 Stories (Could build within roof, 2nd story knee walls less than 4 feet) • 2.0 Stories (Two stories or 2nd story knee walls taller than 4 feet) Homes were classified based upon their appearance from the front façade as seen from the street. Where homes were located on a slope and the possibility of an additional story such as a walkout basement was not readily apparent, the slope was noted. A flat roofed structure was classified as anything less than a 3/12 pitch based upon a diagram the person doing the inventory could compare to a building's roof pitch(see Appendix D for the inventory coding sheet). Three color coded maps were produced from the SR-1 inventory, one for number of stories, one for flat roofed buildings and one for garages as part of the front primary building's façade. In summary, 1084 of the 2394 homes (45.3%) were classified as single story, 676 (28.2%)were classified as 1.5 stories, and 634 (26.5%) were classified as 2 stories or taller. Results of the inventory clearly indicate the existence of entire block faces comprised of one story homes spread throughout the SR-1 district(see Inventory Height map— Appendix D). It was estimated that the tallest homes on these block faces would be 16 to 18 feet in height. A sample of these vulnerable block faces was submitted to the City Planning Office for Survey (see Survey Map—Appendix F). Survey results to confirm these building heights are still pending at this time. 6 '4k i ti Sf 1 ". € h;t 1 W`, 4 � ti} . +r r �x� k � s � a yr i r 1 (( t ,'"' Ctt q$Q fki tfs'',, r* t i a �' Y t !"f �X�t k r. a -it r , ( 4 y<•� ! glA�, 'la Aa ��d i fir;, ie, r0 , r e, k },',$if,r d , Y F J.�,i. alp 1 �" kA.F i V• ., 4'.'y(fi,li 4 a ro. .f.��c1 1. s, fl�®"" ay 's t, cpi.b ra F'/"�4/, wl':2 r E :. 1' s i',i t S T € A +`:Fq,E\k fFA ti S r tt o tit{j,.2 = t fi'�?F"4y§ e� ,1�7' +° c u { `�y. r 1��1c 3 }2 F .�Vgr 7fa j � }pF' Yj�F1� pi � 1t "j I I YP 5� oe, f t 41. , 0i�N'A \7 ei'1l 1 Q•�i� �fk'�ist V�4 Y W ;. .�tt ttr z Ar yY'j rht s r9 q € a r ',a n �t , e t tit �a� d � r �u�',��o ��'n��yy s ((���r,�''1�kt€��, ��ip, �`� �h�f�'�Ys��i ��+� gr , ---,...*:,-,la (7�/ rir ;fie! a,,.f'€k 1.,.�' , 1''.wP w '',I Yb4of 3�ER •„. • j .,r,.... ____ 1 f'/i,io �d 4;; o sa ,,lyaI)Etr/°� ' f,€1MiA`!, i,.,-,:r ti __:, z ,i r _ 1 ;R; " A typical block face of one story buildings (East side of K between 7` and 8t Avenues) The inventory maps of flat roofed buildings (85— 3.5%) and homes with garages as part of the front facade (one-car 186 - 7.8%; two-car 155 - 6.5%)revealed that these structures are uncommon in the SR-1 area and a significant number are concentrated north of 1 lit, Avenue. HCC members also estimated the number of residential lots that did not conform to the fifty foot minimum lot width requirement or the minimum 5000 square foot lot size requirement of the SR-1 district. Using City zoning maps and creating a template to estimate lot width and size (based upon the 330 feet X 330 feet block size that is predominant in the SR-1 area and that the typical lot size of 1 width of one quarter of the block results in a property that is 41 feet 3 inches in width), it was estimated that 360 (15%) of the 2394 residential SR-1 properties met the SR-1 minimum width and lot size requirements. Stated another way, 2034 properties (85%) do not meet the minimum lot' size requirements upon which the other SR-1 dimensional limits such as height and side setbacks are based. Review of Existing Zoning Regulations - In addition to the inventories and surveys, the HCC conducted a thorough review of the SR-1 zoning ordinance that was recently modified by the City Council (21A.24.080 SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District) as well as the temporary restrictions put in place for this area by the City Council (Ordinance 91 of 2005). 7 One very important addition to the permitting process was the tiered nature of the newly adopted Infill Ordinance. As mentioned earlier in this document, the HCC was considering a similarly tiered process to address the wide variety of development in the SR-1 district. Evaluation of the existing zoning regulations was done with the expectation that the Administrative Public Hearing process would be significantly easier to navigate for appropriate projects than the Board of Adjustment had been as the previous next step for projects exceeding the counter permit limits. Also, in consultation with the Planning Office officials, the HCC's intent is to propose a set of dimensional limits for the SR-1 area that will not change if city wide modifications to dimensional limits are adopted. The HCC will follow the direction of the City • Planning Office as to whether this is best accomplished via a comprehensive SR-1 overlay or the creation of a special Avenues/Capitol Hill SR-1 zoning district. Modifications to Current SR-1 Zoning Ordinance (see Appendix G) No modifications to section "B: Uses" based upon table 21A.24.190 for the SR-1 zoning district of the City Code are proposed. No modifications to section "C. Minimum Lot Area and Lot Width" are proposed. In reviewing section"D. Maximum Building Height"the HCC took several items into consideration. In October, 2005, when the City Planning Office first proposed new citywide zoning changes, the recommended citywide SR-1 and R-1 district restriction on building height was 23 feet at the peak. According to testimony of Planning Office officials at that time, 23 feet was the height restriction they estimated would be necessary to provide predictability and protection to the areas within the city most vulnerable to significant impact of incompatibly larger remodels and new construction. The Planning office at that time estimated that a height restriction of 16 feet for flat roofed buildings and exterior walls was also required to protect these same areas. The HCC feels strongly that if combined with the tiered permitting process to allow taller projects where appropriate, the 23 feet building height limits and the 16 foot exterior wall and flat roofed building height limits are essential to protect and preserve the character of the vulnerable SR-1 areas. After reviewing section"E. Yard Requirements," the HCC has proposed several minor modifications to better address the large percentage of non-conforming lots in the SR-1 area. In section"E:. 1. Front Yard," the HCC was concerned about the potential impact of several blocks where buildings originally designed as commercial properties,but now used as residential properties, could impact the calculation of front yard setback. The zoning ordinance as recently modified calculates the required front yard setback as the average on the block face. Commercial properties were often built with no front setback, flush with the front property line. On blocks where commercial buildings have been converted to residential use, such properties could significantly impact the calculation of 8 the average, allowing new construction with a much smaller front setback than the other residential properties on a block. There are also several block faces in the SR-1 area where some homes were built with a significantly larger front setback, which would result in a new project being required to have a larger front setback than the other homes on a block. To minimize the impact of these atypical situations, the HCC has proposed that where there are three or more SR-1 principal buildings with front yards on a block face, the average shall be calculated excluding the one property with the smallest front setback and excluding the one property with the largest front yard setbacks. In item 2 of section E, "Corner Side Yard" setbacks; the HCC has proposed that the language allowing inline front setback exceptions for existing buildings be stricken. Because of the history of abuse in this area of inline side setback exceptions, HCC members felt that these exceptions would best be granted on a case by case basis with the overview of the Administrative Public Hearing Officer. The HCC has proposed a modification to item 3 of section E, "Interior Side Yard" setbacks to address the large number of very narrow non-conforming lots within the SR-1 district. Often, these lots are as narrow as thirty feet(30') in width. The proposed modification is as follows: b. Other Uses: ii. Interior Lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. a. Where the width of a lot is 46' 8" or narrower, total minimum side setbacks shall be equal to 30% of the lot width with one side being four feet(4') and the other side being 30% of the lot width minus four feet. b. Where a lot is 26' 8" or narrower, required side setbacks shall be a minimum of four feet (4') and four feet (4'). c. In no case where required side setbacks are less than four feet(4') and ten feet (10') shall the addition, remodel or new construction be closer than ten feet(10') to a primary structure on an adjacent property. This language is proposed as a change to the first tier or"counter permit" limits for all additions and new construction. This modification was developed in an attempt to deal proactively with a situation that would otherwise present a frequent challenge to property owners given the non-conforming nature of a majority of the lots in the SR-1 area. No modifications to section"E. Yard Requirements; 4. Rear Yard" were proposed. As mentioned above, garages have recently been the subject of many controversial projects. Like many of the other issues unique to the SR-1 area, the problem is exacerbated by the number of very narrow non-conforming properties. In addition, the 9 SR-1 area is characterized by views of the Wasatch Mountains, the Salt Lake Valley and the Oquirrh Mountains from many properties. The HCC considered the trend towards much larger garages and the many uses for which accessory buildings are often built. The.HCC has proposed a set of restrictions that gives priority to those accessory buildings used to house up to two automobiles. At the same time, the HCC did not want to prohibit construction of additional space to be used for storage, a gazebo, a green house, or a small personal workspace. Given the often small narrow lots, the HCC has proposed a counter permit limit of 600 feet lot coverage for all accessory buildings. In addition, the HCC has proposed that 480 square feet of accessory building may have a maximum building height of fourteen feet(14') with a maximum wall height of nine feet(9'). Additional accessory building space up to the total 600 square foot limit may have a peak height up to ten feet(10') with an eight foot(8')wall height limit. No modifications are proposed by the HCC to the remaining SR-1 sections; "F. Maximum Building Coverage," "G. Maximum Lot Size,"or"H. Standards for Attached Garages." Modifications to the SR-1 zoning ordinance to disallow the creation of garages attached to the front facade and the creation of new flat roofed buildings were considered. Given the challenges posed by often narrow lots and the overall limits on flat roofed building height(sixteen feet), it was determined that additional restrictions would be unnecessary at this time. A complete summary of the proposed modifications to the SR-1 zoning ordinance is provided in Appendix G. The summary in Appendix H was created as a modification to the SR-1 text as it existed on March 1, 2006. Additions are depicted by underlined text. Deletions are depicted using spike-through-text. A chart of the proposed SR-1 modifications and the historic SR-1 ordinance is also provided in Appendix.G The HCC has provided renderings of model structures/examples meeting the counter permit requirements of the proposed ordinance. These examples depict a ground floor and within the roof addition to a 1300 Square foot home on a .15 acre lot (41.25 feet by 165 feet), a depiction of the proposed modification to the minimum side setback required for interior lots, and a sketch of the proposed size and height limits for accessory buildings (see Appendix H). • As a tool to more clearly depict the proposed limits, the HCC is presently working with an AIA certified Architect to produce drawings with the proposed dimensional limits applied to example structures. These drawings should be available tot the Planning Office by March 15th, 2006. 10 The draft proposal in Appendix H was written and submitted to the full Community Council for a vote on March 1, 2006. Copies of the chart in Appendix H were also provided to all council attendees. Conclusion In recommending that counter permits be restricted to buildings and additions with a maximum peak height of 23 feet, the HCC is not only adopting the height restrictions recommended as necessary to protect the city's most vulnerable properties by the Planning Office in their original proposal, the HCC has arrived at a conclusion similar to the recommendations of the most recent Avenues Master Plan Update (July, 1987)but which were never adopted; "Many of the incompatibility problems created by new construction in residential areas are associated with excessive building height; new dwellings that tower over adjacent homes, second level or rear additions that overwhelm the original structure. A recently adopted ordinance will reduce height potential in areas encompassed by the `F-1' Foothill Development Overlay Zone."The Master Plan goes on the comment that"If these limitations prove to be successful in accomplishing their intended purposes in the ""F-1 areas, similar height restrictions may be considered for other R-1 and R-2 areas in the Avenues Community." The Avenues has a substantial history as a community rather than just a neighborhood, with a shared vision of neighborhood interaction, historic preservation and architectural quality. Previous down-zoning has established that single family dwellings were the community standard. Mother-in-law and basement apartments are generally acceptable, along with some duplexes. Large monolithic structures, whether apartment blocks or large homes have been discouraged. The Avenues was mainly developed as a close-to-center residential area where mass transit use was high. Such remains the case today, with three bus routes serving the Avenues Community and many properties within an easy walk of city center. The historic development pattern for the SR-1 district has been a preponderance of smaller homes on long narrow lots. While social factors, particularly the strong sense of neighborhood,had previously been sufficient to limit anti-social building practices, the escalating value of"close-in" residential property in combination with a weak SR-1 zoning ordinance and a large number of nonconforming lots have contributed to a pattern of abusive building practices. A final thought on Increased Zoning Enforcement borrowed from the Avenues Master Plan. "Effective zoning enforcement is essential to maintaining desirable neighborhoods. More restrictive requirements such as reducing height limits and increasing the minimum duplex lot area actually increase temptation for additions and duplex conversions without permits. The city must therefore increase its commitment to enforcement of zoning and building codes in the suggested more restrictive requirements are to be effective." 11 Zoning regulations are important, but only effective if administered consistently and in a reasonable amount of time. Members of the HCC are committed to the successful implementation of the proposed ordinance and to that end will do everything possible to assist and work with the city in implementing the tier permit system and the proposed SR-1 Overlay. 12 List of Appendices A. Newspaper Articles B. GACC Newsletters/HCC Newsletters and HCC Meeting Minutes C. City Council presentation— 12/1/2005 D. Inventory Maps a, Residential building height(number of stories) b. Flat-roofed buildings c. Attached garages d. Coding Sheet E. HCC Web-site F. Survey Properties a. Map of block faces b. Chart of addresses to be surveyed G. Proposed SR-1 Overlay a. Text b. Chart of SR-1 Zoning Regulations over time H. Proposed Overlay Sketch Scenarios a. Lot coverage and attic addition b. Proposed interior lot side setback allowance c. Accessory building lot coverage and height Appendix: A. Newspaper Articles Big homes, big problems When an Avenues homeowner tore down his tiny house to put up a 'monster home,' neighbors in its shadow were none too happy By Heather May The Salt Lake Tribune Salt Lake Tribune Ellen Horrocks has spent most of her life in the home her parents bought at 423 N. K Street during World War II. And when she married Ervin Horrocks almost four decades ago, he moved in, too. The white house with a red roof has been a source of pride, and so has the view of the valley from the back yard. The elderly couple have watched thunderstorms and planes fly through. Sometimes, they sit outside until midnight, talking. These days, talk is focused squarely on what's impeding that view and,they say,their privacy- a new home taking shape next door at 675 8th Avenue that dwarfs its neighbors. It's changing not only the Horrocks'corner of the Avenues, but could eventually alter the city's regulations on home construction in older neighborhoods. Not only that, it's turned the Horrocks into reluctant activists. They've given up on trying to stop the 8th Avenue project, but they and others hope to change city zoning to ensure future remodels are compatible with the neighborhood. "We've sort of taken up the mantle," Ellen says recently while sitting in her kitchen, where the home in question can be seen. "This has been one of the hardest things,to have it fill the windows. You can't get away from it. "We'd like to have had more protection from the city." Current zoning allowed Ethan Call to tear down a roughly 1,000-square-foot home and build a 6,000-square-foot one in its place. While city officials are quick to say the home is legal, some also privately say the city still shouldn't have allowed it. In a block consisting of mostly one-floor homes, this house will have two floors and it will take up virtually all of the narrow lot; it will be 106 feet long. As the frame has risen, so have the tempers of some of the neighbors and the Avenues Community Council leaders. Earlier this month, the 8th Avenue house, along with some other tear-downs in the city, spurred the City Council to step in. It passed temporary zoning rules that, had they been in place before, would have severely limited the 675 8th Avenue home's height and the size of its backyard addition. The temporary zoning was supposed to last a month while the city decided on permanent changes. But the short-term rules were rescinded less than a week later. Now, Councilman Eric Jergensen, who represents the Avenues, said the community is pursuing Avenues-specific regulations to ensure major remodels and additions fit in-a difficult task considering the Avenues is a mix of home sizes and styles. Jergensen said the city will look at height and lot size. Some homes in the Avenues already go through that process because they are in a historic district, which ends at 6th Avenue. "What we want to avoid is the tearing down and replacement of homes that are so totally out of scale," said Jergensen, who considers the 8th Avenue home just such a house and refers to it as the "poster child of excess." But Jergensen acknowledges the city must also juggle the need to allow neighborhoods to evolve and attract families. Call, the builder of the 8th Avenue house, lives in Afton, Wyo. He said he is trying to turn a run-down home - the original was at least 60 years old and lacked insulation and had structural problems - into a family-friendly one. He is rebuilding it for his brother, Michel, who lives in California and has 10 grown children, Call said. It will have six to eight bedrooms, five bathrooms and a large garage. And the renovation will cost $343,000, according to city records. But even to Call, it is unclear if his brother will move in. Call said his brother bought the home because he liked the neighborhood. And the new home will have great views, Call said, acknowledging it will block his neighbors' vistas. And while he's somewhat sympathetic, Call said property owners have a right to use their property how they want as long as they follow city rules. "I follow what the city has in place. This is within the city codes. A view is a small thing in life," he said, adding that he disagrees that the home doesn't fit in. He pointed to two newer homes further east on 8th Avenue that appear as tall as his will be. The owner of one of those homes said she was pleased with the changes Call is making. When asked if he would want to live behind the 8th Avenue home, Call suggested his neighbors either sell or build a wall to protect their privacy. The controversy has tempted him to "pack up and leave," Call said. But it is now egging him on. "I really feel they [the neighbors] need to mind their own business unless they're prepared to really go after it" and change the zoning, Call said. The Horrocks are taking his advice. henay@sltrib.conii Avenues Should Accommodate Growth By Michel Call This article presents a different view than the one given by Avenues resident Carlson and others in a recent commentary. One has to wonder if the rallying cry of historic preservation is not being used as a smokescreen to cover the real motivation of economic self-interest. Many of those who already have nice homes in the Avenues appear to feel threatened by the prospect of future growth. Some have expressed the fear that the current trend of tearing down old rundown homes in the neighborhood and replacing them with larger family-friendly ones will adversely affect the property values of their own smaller homes. Some Avenues residents have also expressed the view that families,and especially large families, belong:in the suburbs,not in the Avenues. They display little sympathy for the many professionals with families in the greater Salt Lake community who face increasingly long commutes to work in the downtown area. Some residents seem to be asserting that since they were there first,they now have the right to exclude others, that they are somehow entitled not only to their own property but to the right to tell others what they can do with their property as well. The hospital district in the middle of the Avenues took away views for hundreds of homeowners. The many large apartment buildings and condominiums throughout the Avenues that were built under earlier more liberal zoning guidelines put hundreds of additional:homes in,their shadows. It makes no sense at this point to say that future structures now need to be"consistent with the size of the'surrounding homes",as Carlson and others are asserting: A certain class of homeowners is being very active right now in the Avenues and some other areas in petitioning for more restrictive zoning or the expansion of historic districts. There are many other voices in the community that are not being represented or heard in the debate. City leaders need to think long and hard before imposing more restrictions to satisfy one very vocal group that may not serve the long-teen interests of either the city or the larger community. Well-meaning laws or government regulations often produce unintended results. Even in the most desirable neighborhoods, when newer and bigger structures are not allowed to replace older deteriorating ones, the end result is a run-down slum area. Some Avenues residents want to have it both ways: They want high prices for their property, but they also want to further restrict what a buyer can do with the property. People will not pay$300,000 for a lot if they can only build a tiny home on it. Schools serving the Avenues and other older neighborhoods are losing enrollment and face the prospect of closing their doors. At the same time, schools in West Jordan and other areas are bursting at the seams and being forced to adopt-year-round schools. A forward-looking city will take steps to reverse this inequity, not accelerate it. Welcoming the construction of family-friendly homes to replace old deteriorating ones in the Avenues and elsewhere is the right thing for the future of Salt Lake City. Deseret News August 8`h, 2005 We are writing as concerned members of the Avenues community. Many consider the Avenues to be one of the most livable neighborhoods in Utah. The historic character and friendly atmosphere have attracted a diverse population. Another unique characteristic of the Avenues is the often long and very narrow lots. These small narrow lots present many challenges and potential rewards for all Avenues residents. New residents are often surprised at how these narrow lots and the close proximity of their neighbors' houses can affect their privacy. Long time residents, many who have lived here for decades, cherish the close relationships that develop out of the frequent interactions "imposed" by this proximity and the life long commitment many have made to this area. The Avenues is truly a wonderful community. We are very concerned that several of the new homes and garages being built in the Avenues are having a direct and potentially devastating impact on the very characteristics that have drawn so many of us to make such significant commitments to our neighborhood. Recently, rising real estate values and long commutes from areas far from the heart of Salt Lake City have begun to exert new pressures on the Avenues. Residents often struggle when deciding how to best meet the needs of their families in homes that were not built to accommodate large families, homes that were built on lots that often leave few options. Some who have recently purchased property.in the area feel compelled to maximize their"investment"by squeezing every possible square foot of building on to their postage stamp sized lots. Some simply want what they have always had but they are trying to impose their desires on an area with very different characteristics and challenges than the "developments" they left behind. Presently, there is strong and growing support in the Avenues for preservation of the historic value and character of the area. On July 14th, the city council voted unanimously(7-0) to deny a prominent Salt Lake family's request to remove the historic status and protection that was impeding the sale of their home to a buyer wishing to make extensive changes (Salt Lake Tribune—July 15`h, 2005, Avenues Home Stays on Historic Register). The desire to preserve the character of historic communities was also in evidence at the July 12th City Council meeting •where approximately 55 members of the community urged the council to adopt stricter zoning rules in the Yalecrest area. Three members of the community urged the council to vote against the'stricter zoning. Again, the council voted unanimously to adopt the stricter zoning regulations (Salt. Lake Tribune—July 13, 2005, Big Houses Belong on Big Lots). At the conclusion of the vote, residents and community councils were urged to adopt the Yalecrest process and limits as a template for enacting similar restrictions to protect the character of their neighborhoods. You may be aware of the "Hubbard house" at 1788 East Hubbard Avenue in the Yalecrest area. Similar to some of the houses being built in the Avenues, the Hubbard house with is quite large and inconsistent with the character of the surrounding homes. The Hubbard house is now known city wide as the primary example of poor design threatening the character of a neighborhood. It is our understanding that the family that built the Hubbard house never did move in. It has sat vacant for over six years as the owner has been unable to sell it. It is safe to say that some of the homes now being built in the Avenues are rapidly acquiring the same notoriety as a significant threat to this area. • Our concern with many of these projects is not that things are changing. Everyone in the area can appreciate the need to update houses that are often 100 years old. Our concerns can be categorized as: 1) the immediate and significant impact these houses and garages are having on the neighbors who will be forced to live there shadows; 2) how many of these projects exploit the limits and strain the spirit of numerous outdated zoning regulations; and 3)the precedent these houses and garages set for an area where buildings of this size are simply non-existent. In particular, the abuse of the inline side setback rule for"remodels,"combined with projects that approach the maximum height limit,exacerbates the impact of these buildings on the neighbors that surround them. These buildings often completely obscure the views that neighboring properties have enjoyed for eighty years and longer, while the proximity and height of these buildings literally cast the surrounding homes in what feels like an arrogant, indifferent, and unrelenting shadow. We are asking anyone considering "remodeling" or replacing an existing building in the Avenues to think carefully about the design of their project. Six thousand square foot houses do not belong on 30 foot wide lots that are less the 0.10 acres. Three car garages are not consistent with the area and cannot be built without adversely impacting your neighbors. It is piggish to impose projects such as these on the community. Building a monster house or garage may get you lots of attention but you will not be pleased with the message that such a project conveys about you to your new neighbors. The community is very aware of the circumstances regarding all new building in the area. We value our neighborhood and the spirit of community we have cultivated. Building a house that is consistent with the size of the surrounding homes as well as the character of the neighborhood can speak volumes about your desire to be a valued member of this community. Doing so also creates a feeling of significant goodwill with your immediate neighbors as well as the community at large. Please, give us a reason to welcome you to the Avenues as neighbors. Sincerely, Shane Carlson 375 L Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 801-596-3939 Ellen and Ervin Horrocks 423 N. 'K' Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 801-359-1127 Sarah Patrick 1321 E. South Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 801-703-0818 r*It kr httn http:f/win vu.sltrib.coPY1 Article Last Updated: 11/16/2005 11:28 PM Monster Homes: Amendments would protect character of older neighborhoods Salt Lake Tribune If new zoning-ordinance amendments approved last week by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission had been in place before a 6,000-square-foot "monster home" went up on Eighth Avenue, it's unlikely that house would have been built, angering the owners of its 1,000-square-foot neighbors. The out-of-place home is representative of an alarming trend - people buying modest lots in long-established Salt Lake City neighborhoods, then building oversize houses with matching garages that would fit in just fine in South Jordan or Draper but can ruin the character of a street in the Avenues or other urban areas. Acting on city residents'complaints, the planning board has voted to send a list of potential zoning-ordinance amendments to the City Council that would protect residents from finding themselves sharing a street with these leviathans. We believe the amendments are fair. The changes would not outlaw the super-size houses, but if they are adopted by the council, would force builders to jump through hoops small enough and high enough to encourage them to build the larger homes in appropriate neighborhoods. If they are undeterred by the rules, they could ask for a variance from the Board of Adjustment or go through a public-hearing process to explain why they should be granted an exception. The amendments would enforce front-yard setback rules, lower the maximum height of a house to 23 feet from the current 30 feet and put restrictions on the size and placement of auxiliary buildings, including garages. The recommendations also include limits on how much of a building lot could be taken up by the house, making it difficult to build a very large home on one of the small lots common in older parts of the city. Under the recommended changes, a person still could buy two lots and build a large home in the middle, set back appropriately from the street with an unobtrusive garage. Such a home in that setting probably would not compromise the neighborhood in the same way that the irritating supersize houses now can. The amendments would act to keep most extra-large homes out of established neighborhoods of smaller houses. They are not so stringent as to stymie home building, but would maintain a sense of proportion and place. Appendix: B . GACC Newsletters / HCC Newsletters and HCC Meeting Minutes wry !, � ✓o,eAr•tre 1X, J s,'e 7 j,' IY 2005 -- GACC C txraltitity Ntieetiiip4 • Wed nesday,e Daly r5,2005 7:000 ito•Te. Sweet Library,9th Avenue and F Street • Agenda (times approximate) 7:00 Welcome and Announcements Steve PMMecham, 2005 GACC Chair-Elect 7:05 Reports Police ' Legislature Committees School Board City/County Council Mayor's Office 7:35 Open Forum (Time permitting, limit I min per person.) 7:40 Avenues Street 'air—Walter Jones, Street Fair committee chair,will update progress of the September 10 2005 Street Fair. -' 7:45 Neighborhood Lighting—John Sinner,GACC treasurer, will discuss the Salt Lake City matching funds program for street lights. 7:55 CareSouree—Gina Coccimiglio,Chief Clinical Officer, • will introduce the community to this invaluable service. iy, k t_.{? li�'1',-. �- �-+'tflt2.t� 4 - Cr €:20 Building Goals—Joel Paterson, from Salt Lake City Planning Division, will also discuss development in the Avenues. He will outline the pending Yalecrest ordinance to begin the process of achieving constructive goals for neighborhood growth. 9:00 Adjournment • • r1 uui)ot-.a-ll i)tes [ot`,l Lay! . _ ti' it 9i.. . .�iil` �r k°s,c<i . LCectt-onie Recycling. e o00 ooa000 0000o Jul Trolley Square 8am to noon 1 �tld�ysoo.: _ -.. 0 ¢' ti n all( elk!y''4R i. The /��oopa ��m�6 Foirvo|un�a�rs` :ommiban hac | Du yuu I an O|d cnmV�8r. [V 0r [/�L p|aye/ bman mmrking very hard for�m monthu nuwio p|an �nd shdoQ in y0ur boaoment? Don'�cend youroW Jt\ogethero great a�eelfairfor this year. The ��(naen e<eoO-onioo to the |�ndfiU. RECYCLE. 8nd do the right, ,am-will be held on Saturday. Saptmnrbor10, 2_005und "LlhinQ. will be at South Tanizhs Street between ^{J^ and Electronic waste (e+waste) nafesto electronic Virginia streets, Theday'e activities will begin ai. 8�O0 products that have finished their uoaf \ Ufa. ANation8i a m and end at7:0O p.m� Comm�eemembers vvnu|d Recycling CoaUtion sumey �ahaethat by2OO7. 500 —like� address a few questions pertaining to the annual million personal computers will become obsolete. �event �iUions of computers, computer monitors, and One of the most fnaquenUyasked questions recently televisions ending up in landfills are not only a waste oi is, ^Huw do | apply to have a booth at the tair?^ The resources; it car) be a threat to the envimnmer� answer to this question ia� contact Ann TlUeon. Ann's because e^weste contains several hazardous ooU phone number iaO85-7QG1 her business phone is materials. 363'2515 andher maUingadd anfortheatneettairia A major ou)phtinthe hazardous vvas�' arena isthe (�ACC Street`— Fair. c/o Custom Label Beverages, 363 oomputer monitor and television cathode ray tube, VVeetS1— South, Suite A` Salt Lake City, LIT 84107. which contain from live to eight pounds oflead. She will cr videthe necessary information and is Computers may also contain silver, cadmium, mercury, ounent|y,�thbutinAappiimadonformeforfoodUooUha. ma|enium. and ohromium. a known carcinogen. And -- h \ general bootha, chi{dren'a bootha, and informational when en dfiU d e . these toxics could leach into the booths. Please apply aoon, her cut-off date for receiving ground wetec applications is August 10, 2005. VVhe�� July Sth 2005 /\ second frequently asked question is, ~VVhutakes VVhore� Trolley Square, 6D2E.600South app|iootions for performers who wish to entertain atthe yVho: Sponsored by the Recycling information Office fair?" Please contact Ji!| Van LenQeve|d, our and the Salt Lake Valley Health Department entertainment coordinator. Her email address is How Much: There will be no charge for residents of ' She can assist groups or SahLake City proper with proof ofresidency. TV'saod individuals who m/ ` `ish to perform�hrm on one of the o bm Monitors are $5 OO for businesses and non Salt Lake stages that the atreetfair's committee sets up each year City residents. All other electronics are free. 'r)rentertuinment Jill has already received several What: All Electronics -TVs, curnputere, monitom, ood proposals for enterieinment so look forward to a VCRs, eoannara, printere, keyboards, speakera, radioe, nseoinadng slate feot*�ainero again this year. fax, and ue|| phones. Cali the Recycling Hotline for The street fair committee has a good number of more information atS74'US82. experienced, enthusiaotic, and dependable volunteers to do the great amount of work that it takes to make the Have o Great Summer! fair asuccess. VVe can always use more volunteers to assist in sharing 'the committees' various assignments. | Useful Contact Information |fyou wish to become invoiveU, please contact the ( Utah 8tutc[luu:e Representative Ralph Becker. Committee's coordinator. Walter Jones. His email . , 364'1056. address is � ' . We will Utah State Senator Scott McCoy' integrate you into the committee's membership in a way ` ^.� �� , .5]8-|406, cv]59-2544 that will make your experiences meaningful and Salt Lake City Council District III Rep. Eric Jn4geosux: enjoyable, and wo will definitely appreciate having you ~ 1535-7600. donate some of yourhme and be|anto to the street fait-, Njuyur,m office Liaison Ow»u Sp,iuginoyeY: 535-6338. Heather Knmw|ton is in charge of finding volunteers to work duhngthe taicPlease contact her s8258-D23G. SuKLukm�000(y �oon6| D�0ic { �op Joe Hatch: She is presently compiling o list ofnsquinameniduties , 1468-2933. that committee members feel need itobe filled by So|tLake County Council A( Large Rep. Jenny Wilson: volunteers for the day of the fair. `46D-2V34. The next Street Fait- meeting will begin et9�OOam Salt-Lake County Council AJ Large Rep. }im8rud\oy� Saturday, July 8w at Ann TU|son's home on 630 11th .468-2939. Avenue Anyone may attend. Please look for more School Board Representative Doug Nelson: information in the August and September issues ofthe 8ACC nevvs|ettor, and also please consider contributing Police Dispatcher—Non-Emergency only: 709-3000 � the processes that make the street fair so enjoyable Community Action Team Dixkict3Dobctivc: .ndsuccesafu\ Liooc Frederick, SLCPD, 7VV-4635. -VValter Jones 8ACC Street Fair Committee Chair In an emergency,always dial 9ll. y\ouse note: 7hhnnwdrUcr^?ho Agenda" is fr ee ecto all � residences in the Avenues every month, Please call G&CC Chair i �i The GACC6xc�uhvoBum�m�u�� onihou��ond9/cdnc�day dO \/nnLnn��vc\dN35g'85l3wkhnnycummuntyquo onu� o info. 1rTi —,,_ iitiu S t T� c ,IN 11 .. `t, ,..._. ` 1.i -.e AgeL4_da, 1 tIL _t' I7otrftl•,e )( cs.,i.e 6 f ,. 2065 5 GA CC Community Mcetina Wed uestay,Augis;3,20 ES 7: 6 3.1„—,l•. Sweet Library,9th Avenue and F Street Agenca (times approximate) 7:00 Welcome and AnnourneemeoL_s Jill Van Langeveld,2005 GACC Chair , . , 710 Reports Police Legislature • Committees School Board City/County Council ' Mayor's Office 7:40 Open 1ioruim (Time permitting, limit I rain per person.) , 7:45 Triplets Designation—Natalie White, manager of 234 F Street,seeks a triplex designation for the property. 7:50 Avenues Street Fair—Walter Jones, Avenues Street Fair committee chair, will update progress of the Sept)0event. 7:55 UTA aus Route changes—Dave Huber and Steve Swan from UTA will gather input for potential changes to Avenues Bus Route#3. i .:,r, i,1-c 1;- I,.- (•,.::''I: t• u .. _ t e, • Ix,'f. . ig t"� ; is "I: lei "!:i. 9:00 Adjournment ( >• _ ",t (,t''I c civil) VII,'• ',I I., t .- .. - , I- II II.. i, CICs •,•L,i1. .. I t' :(•' • }_tnportatt.s; Jai-,es i?.1 Aug€..S::: ,3A,2 C j vixiding ant JIA D iseL1ss o .., f,. g'-,. Meeting at the Sweet Library,7:00 p.m. Avenues Str-eet, Fair Meeting h o0 00 0 o_l.0 s'`.i'I Jaynie Brown's home at 817 17th Ave, 9:00 a.m. Aveiim s Street Fair Meeting .0.. .000 Aug 271:i, Ruth Morgan's home at 271 C Street, 9:00 a.m. te�uiomontekthaAvenue: Sve8l. Fair wiU A |onQ-��nding |nna| badido». ih*�A«en«�: �heet p� �wo ��g�sthin y*ac pa�i�po�o indude� �air condnueadlia year. }he fair wx oe nmu »o ^'' °' —'`-rday' S*piembx�e r1D. 00SoutbmStl.ec6 `Anke I]ummerh -Bed LuokBlues Band S hom y ,am �o 7 pm -Blue Hea|ens -Stella -Broomsticks oemeen Gand Virginia tre�e' �p� -Crescent Moon HotTin Roof VVUha |argest: «rsyee� weneedyourparb o �o _Rising8ound '8uAarhoum»Vo\oeo make our Fair success! - Wasatch Music Academy Students and Teachers Applications are edU being accepted for bootha� food, general, ohi|dren'a. andinfonnad»n We --- dKA Medicare ' CanoSuurcoan w especially invite anyone in the ''Working A�ist' category O your parents or ~'^^'i~—f�ends know to apply (everyone loves hovvatoh a demonstration). o you. y ". "�.,� illnesses The cu�r�date for receiving app|ioa�onoia August 10. ���� K8edicarevviUp�yforauohdebU���ng nessesas 2005 Contact A|zheime�o and aUend of life care? Are you aware u 8857961 buaineoa3G3'2515' addr*ee� that Medicare may pay for a hospital bed orwalker?BACC Street Fair some home health care agencies offer in-home pro- c/o Custom Label Beverages time monitoring of blood samples providing immedia\e results e|iminadngthe need for visits back and fo�h 3O3VVeet61S0Gouth Suite — ' tothadonto/s ��ceorhospitai Also, Medicare will S�\tLakeCity' UT 841O7 |areddition cover counseling relating to the stress on families The peop|e'eA�Ga||e� »«esa «a� p»Pm last year. |tioa one-day display oram mde by facedvvithlosing a loved one. wu/^ //' Most members of the community You oe�ai»\ydnn't need to oe i| b|etoth�mas �hoyageTheae beaurofeasiona\ toehareyourte|ents — aharethat the resources ava a U th ardedoside ofyou! One item per person may be resources can aUaviate�nancia\ stress, n* eve e submitted to the ga||e/y. Applications include photo or burden placed on canatakers, and provide therapies to description of the piece and are due on August 25. e|iminato pain and impmvethe quakyorlife. a Fonna �re �vei\ab\eonUneat ` - ` � you Gina CoccimigUo. ou�ounderof CareSou/oe. ` ' ' ' Wedio@ re'certifiedhomahealthoanaandhoop/ce may direct any q«*o0onoho Amanda Bamsohot5O1' 8842orbarusoh@comnasLne1 =u='oy serving the Salt Lake region, will attend the | Jill Van Langev*|d current BACC Chair(email Septamber�h GACC meeting to oxpam how un:e �o stages e« up ' h�� o�oom net) i'� our Entertainment Coordinator. residents can access these resources, Ca� reoo Utah es �a re set ' each year for performances, au operates the only freestanding hospice facility in|ugain to fascinating slate of entertainers. era. called The Residence. Members of the CareSounce o« forward =» buying Avenues Street team who specialize in bereavement counseling, mus ic Also anticipate «yng the thenapy, orvvhoo�er social vvorkoutreach vviUalso Fair T-shirt. Everyone »n attend t' e meeting with Gina �o explain their deeiQnforthisya�riaexceptionai .. A great @mountofwork is required for such e great -- ' event A\thoughtheStreetFairCommi�eehasa Useful Contact|nformnation k ="�'"� ~'�`'`~v' i' --�-��thu �iast�c and reliable Utah State Qnuox@uy,wvntutivo Ralph Buc ec nu:nUarcn�xpenen.au. "..enthusiastic, members, vve can always use more vo\unhaemtoassist ` 364'\65h. n many areas. if you wish to become involved in the 0<uh State Senator Scott McCoy: �59 2544 preparations, please contact . behind-the-scenes Pnap ' �^� � ^� — (�.^ -{�ounc°1\538'1406.cx District III Eric Jorgensen! Jones, �omm�eCoo�in��. at :a Lake /9 . |ib tah edu VVommu� dehnite|y B5-760O� «ve|ter]onea@� rury�u ' � ^ ^ ' �}5-6B&. —`abethedonahonofyourdme and ba\e�ntothe Mayor's Office L��uuGwen Spr�gnuyoi appreciate street fair! The next mm\�eemeeUnQevviUUeatQam onSe�°--ay` August~~oo Gai Jayne Brown's home, 817 0ukLake County Council B�"�1 | Rep.JunRa�U: Avenue,— ue and August 27 at Ruth K8nrgan's �ome. .468-293� ' ' 1--leather K ovvlton isin charge �u|� Lake County Council &t Large Rep. ]eu0' VVi\xon: 271 CG�eet� xn , =,,^ scheduling vo|. nh*ershovvork the actual day of the fair. .468-204. Jim Bradley: You can reach her at 259-0236 Volunteers are always Su\< Lake Count),Council At AtLxc&o Rep. need for aet-up monitoring, and o|ean-up. sobe .468-2939. involved in the 'thick of things! The September issue of School Board Representative Doug Nelson: the GACC newsletter will contain more information on the schedule for'the fair, and on LDS Hospital Police Dispatcher—Nnn-0morgcocyoniy: 799'SOUO. Community Action Team D��d3Dobo�o: nnthbu�»ns� GACC ��reetF�irCommi�ee Media bune[r de�ck, SLC9D. 79o4695 Aileen Olsen- . Relations In an emergency,always dial Yll. Please note: This '^Th��8cndu`` is free to uU residences in the Avenues every month. Please call OACC Chu� c»« � ' i The G�CCE«�cubvuBoordm�otxoutho x�;on8 \vuUnusu»y ][|Von �an�ovddot�5V'X5|3vv�6uoy�ummunityquo� ons� o for more info. .f, �` t , li s �f�_�Will = s'� o �.su � 4C - �F `i A-�'Agencia _.. .. I. 7 ! .- S♦. JoFin C ..1 9 YSDF 9 Anything Happening i'o!Me Here Now? ACC COMM Ufa&Irie'er tr>i by Jill l'an Langeveld. 2005 GACC Chair Jeri€tesciay,Sk:, m'I)'d:'7,2055 7e5+.: .:I+°:;N. I was just musing that summer is about over, my husband is • back teaching,the kids are also back in school, so things can start Sweet Library,tcge 9th (times Avenue pprd F matStree) calming down. Right? NOT! In the Avenues things arejustnnounctta (times approximate) starting to really heat lip. 7:00Ieleon�e ant t�anounseersents Jill Van Langeveid,2005 GACC Chair 7:10 deports t rr � Police ' Legislature Committees ' School Board City/County Council Mayor's Office 7:40 Open forum Time permitting, limit 1 Min.per persona 7:""5 Triptex Designation—Natalie White,manager of 234 F Street,seeks a triplex designation for the property. 7:50 Avenues Street?'air—Walter Jones,Avenues Street Fair committee chair,will update progress of the Septl Oevent. :; l ; , t. ,1; `, , 8:00 City Council Dist Candidates—Eric Jergensen,City ;Ile.sc cal, , �,<,-.l c Be rre1.F Councilman,with running mates Janneke House, Derek `I'on Dyer, and Edward James Aho bid for the Oct O Primary Our annual Avenues Street Fair will be September 10 South Temple between Virginia and Q Streets from 9:00 am to Election. 7:00 pm. You'll find much more information about it on page 3. 8`20 LDS Hospital leiipac Renovation — Mikelle Moore, 'aarej®Jsn the fun! IHC Public Relations Administrator,will discuss alternate It is election time for both the GACC as well as the City landing sites for helicopters during the approximate 4 Council District 3. We are forming an election committee with month renovation project. ''"' ,: i istoric District l iz�ti: _i i;a :,. Past Past Chair Wynn Johnson,Chair elect Steve Mecham and three more members to be appointed to finalize a slate of -i`` '"` ,tr ; �i t'f I'it'.c't�O i .,t ti i ', 1' '''i11 candidates for Chair-elect, Secretary, Treasurer and Board •a,on. .,r s:etf s;ect 1, i tli , .i sI:ic:. Members for the election November 2nd. If you would like to run 8`�5 Adjournment(Early adjournment at Librarians'request.) for an office or would lilts to be pelt of the election committee, -- contact iris at 359-5513 orfi'esh(a,soficoin.net. Get invoked? establishing Utah Center For The Arts,a nonprofit corporation establishing arts venues,providing arts education and arts There are four candidates for the City Council District 3. programming in Utah's communities. I am an experienced They will each have 5 minutes to talk to us at our September 7th artist, events producer and a Guinness World Record Holder GACC Meeting. That is not much time so we've asked them to for building the `Diversity Ball' --the world's largest disco share something about themselves for our newsletter. The ball right here in Salt Lake City. For years I have worked to Primary Election is October 4th,the day before our October make this city a more safe, fun, vibrant and accepting place to GACC Meeting. hest,', r istesr'9 then Vote! live. I have worked with community leaders in many projects Ed Alpo (14.N. 600 W. 364-0174 edaho@earthlink.net) to add vibrancy and spur ecanoiriic development to the "The recent Supreme Court ruing concerning the 14th downtown area.My history of community service and my Amendment(eminent domain)gives local government the power proven management and leadership skills help make me an ro take private property not only for public use, but also for effective, accessible,progressive leader. Join me and private use. This ruling worries me and along with several other us should be more involved with together we can make a positive,progressive change in Salt issues convinced me that all of our local government's day-to-day business." Lake City." ,lianrte.re :souse(ph 870.5363)"I have lived on Capital ;Iierek fryer(324 N.200 W.,474-2I22 ,.-` A , ) Hill for almost 1 i years. I received a Master of Urban "I am seeking election to the Salt Lake City Council because want to serve to make our communities in District 3 a better place Planning degree from the University of Utah in May. II have all. The City Council needs more balance and diversity. We for as the interim Zoo,Arts,and Parks Program manager for Salt Lake County for several months until a new manger .,ed a fresh voice and a new perspective with innovative ideas could be hired. I hold a Masters and undergraduate degrees in and a friendly approach to government. i believe I can provide Urban Planning,with a minor in Community and Consumer balance to the City Council and help those whom now feel like their voices are never heard. i have lived in Salt Lake mywhole Studies. I currently work with Salt Lake County's Community Services Department where I am working on the County's life and have been a long time resident of both the Avenues and new Open Space Program. I am very excited to be running Capitol Hill. i am Executive Director of the Utah Arts Alliance for Salt Lake City Council. (article continued on pg 3) The 0G Avert-des zt.f Pt Fair is coming up soon! i .� l rise'. ;53 -76 t r is ier t, ns r alcgov tom;). Saturday, September 11, meet us on South Temple.� between, "Fa ur yeas ago I t� for,City Council on die premise that, as we bring together the unique and diverse resources of our and Virginia Streets,from t o i am to 7 pm. It promises to be fun and exciting day with your friends and neighbors. Avenues, Capitol Hid and Guadalupe neighborhoods, we The large site this year gives us lots of room for over 150 can accomplish anything! During die past tour years the booths. You'll have the chance to get to know about neighborhoods have worked hard together to make our community services and volunteer opportunities, meet current community a better place to live,work and raise our and up-coming politicians, as well as to shop and watch a families. I am proud to have been chosen to represent our demonstration or two at 75 booths featuring arts and crafts. neighborhoods and to work together with so many of you in Kids, if you like,you can dress-up or bring your bikes, and our critical efforts to increase traffic and pedestrian safety,to fight crime(especially car prowls),to curtail out of scale meet for the Children's Parade at the East Stage at 9 alit. The children's activities and Dunking Booth will be located in development,to preserve open space,to improve our public Reservoir Park on the south side of South Temple Street, infrastructure and to enhance economic opportunities for all between U and Virginia Streets. our citizens. We have worked to protect our historic The Street Fair has a full slate of entertainment lined up neighborhoods while at the same time provide decent, this year on both the East and West Stages. Even if you don't affordable housing opportunities. We have worked to recognize the names of the performers,rest assured you'll eliminate discrimination and increase dialogue among the enjoy the mix of rock, blues, a cappella, bluegrass,jazz and wonderfully diverse residents in our community. But, there .,el music! is still much left to do. Our greatest achievements will come gospel as we continue to work together. I ask for your ongoing Plan to have lunch or dinner while you're here. Try a taste as we, united, continue our efforts to improve our of the world from Tibet,Greece,or Thailand,or have pizza, support ribs,plantains, crepes,or chocolate. Italian ices, Snowie neighborhoods for all who have chosen this place as their shaved ice and specialty drinks will be available to cool you home." down. Our own Avenues establishments,Cucina, Cafe Do you have enough information to make an informed Shambala, Two Creek Coffee House,and The Avenues choice? Contacf them,then let your voice be heard Oct 4tn Bakery will be joining us, too. Street Fair Eni]i i`r:Q9irit`t'ant Scheclu.1,2 Make sure to check out the talents of your neighbors at The t Stagehet Stage People's Art Gallery! A new addition last year,this one-day East s Street 'isplay of artwork,contributed by members of the Virginia Strreel i Too Ankc Sum merhill—vocal,guitar 10:00 Jason Riggs—vocal,guitar immunity,proved to be very popular. Plan to drop by the 11:00 SugarHousc Voices-quartet I1:00 Avenues Jazz Trio GACC booth to get the traditional Avenues Street Fair T- 12:00 BOOMsticks—surf rock 12:00 Rising Sound-- gospel shirt. This year's design by local artist Bevan Chipman is I:30 Wasatch Music Academy 1:30 Buyin'Time--bluegrass wonderful. You can also purchase raffle tickets for a variety 3:00 Bad Luck Blues Band—blues 3.00 Hot Tin Roof—funk,rock,blues 4:4-0 Crescent Moon--bluegrass 4:30 Urban Gray—jazz,folk,lain of great prizesn from local merchants,and maybe even get a r;:00 Stella—classic rock 6:00 The Blues Healers—blues rock special drink. �� The First Aid services at the fair will be contributed by � - LDS Hospital. This year, LDS Hospital 1s celebrating its �lein nl CUD naeac r p_V:o c`'tioi i 100th Anniversary in our neighborhood! Watch at the fair for Utah State House Representative Ralph Becker: information on the Health Fair they will soon be hosting for 364-1656. our community. Utah State Senator Scott McCoy: Because of one-way streets in the area,both approaching 538-1406,or 359-2544 . the fair site and parking will be concerns this year. Please Salt Lake City -Toutrcil' District -i_ Rep. Eric.iergensen: obey the traffic signs,which will restrict access on these , -95 1600. streets between Ist Avenue and South Temple(particularly on Mayor's Office Liaison Gwen Springrneyer: 535-6338, S and U Streets). This will cause less inconvenience to our • neighbors hosting the fair. If you can't walls to the Fair from Salt Lade .�oaaarty otrincil rs etc' tape Joe !latch. your Avenues home, it may be helpful to come from the 46II 2933, south side of South Temple,where the,streets arc wider and Seit Lake Lanai y ...,attires', t i. aeto ge Le.,a.Jenny Wilson: can better accommodate parking. 468 2934 You can still volunteer to assist on the actual day of the Salt Laixe`Cotatnt:y Launch Pa Ja.Pge Leo Jim Bradley: fair by calling I-leather Knowlton at 259-0236. We can't wait ,468-2939. 1, School 'i3oarti eipreseotr•dye Doug Nelson: to see everyone on September 10 for a fabulous Fair! Aileen Olsen, GACC StTeet Fair Committee, Media Relations Police Dispatcher Non-Emergency only: 799-3000. Community Action Team District 3 elective: Matthew Evans,SLCPD, 799.-4634. too qta P laflP rr(vPr1'V u1w9e,s sham,r91i I Please note: This newsletter"The Agenda" is mailed free to all residences in the Avenues every month. Please call GACC Chair Jill Van Langeveld at 359-8513 with any community questions. The GACC Executive Board meets on the second Wednesday of each month, 7:30 p.m. at the Sweet Library,9th Avenue and F Street. All are welcome. Visit - __ __- for more info. 1` L rg, 'i J _ t re e �ar4 Agll . 1 jIt6l. 1 illi Fti '< �`` -_ jofts'rrive X,Issue 10 53c?obe o 2005 Being Safe and Prepared on the f:venues GACC Community Meeting In Katrina's wake everyone seems to be talking about safety `,WedLesdn_y,Ci'c'ohyr 5,2005 7:00 ).. ,ryo and preparedness. I'm no exception. The first thing I want to Sweet Jaarary,9th Avenue and F Street talk about is safety on our sidewalks. In December 2004 we Agenda (times approximate) talked about the problem of snow. Now, I want to address bushes 7:00 Wecome anti Announcements and trees. Jill Vann Langeveid,2005 GACC Chair Recently there have been several complaints to me and to the 7:10 Reports City about tree limbs or bushes on private property overhanging Police ' Legislature or obstructing sidewalks. According to City Code 14.20.010, it is Committees School Board unlawful to"obstruct a sidewalk or any part thereof, or the free o City/County Council Mayor's Office use and enjoyment thereof,or the free passage over and upon the 7:40 Open i7orum (Time permitting, limit 1 min.per person) same." Trees limbs above sidewalks must allow for a minimum 7: ,5 GACC Nominating Committee-The committee will of'7 feet clearance. accept nominations for the 2006 Executive Board: the For most people,a blocked sidewalk is an inconvenience Chair-elect,Treasurer, Secretary and Board members. requiring a quick detour. But for many of our neighbors, 7:55 Avenues Street Fair-Walter Jones,Avenues Street Fair especially those who are blind or have'nobility problems, a committee chair, wraps up the annual event. blocked sidewalk can be an insurmountable obstacle and can even ,;.nr lion sin ;_-tmul,a,ihitii\ Cc ,,,.isle - i_i n i,..,.i:r,.,,,, cause injury. Children who encounter an obstructed sidewalk iilce i iv.ir. 1 i I V'tiCUsG c}i:l ,t pl'Incil it` !i Ilic while walking to school maybe forced to walk in the street to get S .�:- iili i,l Dist:nn that S I 1n.iil ti, Anon:. lili.1r hln , around the blocked area. 8:25 Citizen Diplomacy Dinner-Laura Dupuy,director of Please check your property to be sure the adjacent sidewalks the Utah Council for Citizen Diplomacy will introduce clear. Property owners are responsible for obstructing trees residents to their Home Hospitality Program. d bushes. If trees from the City property are the obstruction, 8:35 City Council Dist 3 Candidates-Eric Jergensen, City call the Urban Forestry Office for your options. if bushes are the Councilman,Janneke House, and Derek Dyer,bid for culprits,you are allowed to trim them yourselves. Last year the election. The two Oct 4`i'Primary winners will speak. Urban Forestry people were on the Avenues trimming trees on 8:0?.5 Adjournment City property so hopefully they won't be causing problems for a while. If you notice sidewalks in you neighborhood that are obstructed,please call the City Council Office at 535-7600 or the An emergency relief team from the University Hospital just Urban Forestry Office at 972-7818,to report these addresses. returned from two weeks of work in New Orleans. They got a Next let's discuss Preparedness. Hurricane Katrina has made first-hand tutorial in emergency management and lessons the public more aware of its own vulnerability. A few years ago learned that could help Utah be more prepared. The doctors and nurses said they came back with a new appreciation for while I was getting my C.E.R.T. (Community Emergency Response Team)training,the firemen teaching it told us that she importance of 72-hour kits. often,during a large scale disaster,it may take as long as 72 Now there is something we all can do:assemble and hours(3 days)for official help to get to all the neighbors. As we maintain our own 72 hour kits. Keep it simple, lightweight and saw with Hurricane Katrina, help can take much longer. easy to update according to the season. It should include a Many are now asking, "How do I prepare my family should a flashlight and a battery radio with replacement batteries, essential disaster strike?" At our September GACC meeting someone medications,some cash money(plastic might not asked just how prepared was Utah or Salt Lake City? There was work)and a list of key contact information. You may want to an interesting article in September le Deseret Morning News put in a change of clothes,a lightweight"space blanket", that addressed this question. According to the article,emergency energy or candy bars and bottled water. Your body needs calories and can deal without the proper vitamins and managers say they have learned from previous disasters such as minerals the 1999 tornado,the 2005 Southern Utah Floods,as well as the t0r a few days. Remember to keep it lightweight because 2002 Olympic Games preparation,and now as they watch the you've got to lug it around. Lastly,position you kit(s)with problems of Katrina unfold. Should disaster strike they say,"The quick access in mind. to is mostly prepared." Derek Jensen,spokesman for Utah's One more do. Remember all the families that were split up _oepartment of Public Safety commented that preparedness by after Katrina and didn't know where the others were? Find a both the state and the individual make recovery and response "a person to contact outside the area. For instance, my sister lot smoother." I visited . .ei;; ,L �, "„e ,, Robyn lives in Denver and the family in Salt Lake City knows and found two very good handouts:A 12 Point Program for to contact her to find out who is safe and where each person is. With a little bit of planning and doing, we can all be better Individual, Family and Community Preparedness and Personal and Family Preparedness. prepared when ourdisaster strikes. I challenge you to start the doing now! -Jill Van Langeveld, 2005 GACC Chair @(Ans^rI Tho Cit, ouoci| i�l \nvidng u�10 oe|-Ubnl"S nzm�|edon ofihe Oi8lhdThree Olympic Lega(;y Smburduy, (Jutobm� ��"* mt iO�0O am� -hi p j�o ijahofa citywide efk i-t�o use Olympic Legacy funds, to honor the Olympics and to make much needed \0pmv8mants 'Loinf-,�S�ructunB. After much v�/Orkaod review, the Capitol Hill and Avenues communideachose to improve the eas'L side stairs and paths of Memory Grove. Many people were involved in this project and oqonwe dnn'i hear about what our elected officials have done[or us. Our District Three Councilman, EhoJergenson worked tirelessly with Phil CannU, GACC Chains� Wynn Johnson, Peter Cannon. and Jill Van Langeved. Capitol HiU CC Chair Peter von Sivore. and County Council Utah Counoi|forCitizon Diplomacy Representatives: Joe Hatoh, Jenny Wilson and Jim The Utah Council for Citizen Diplomacy (OCC[) is a Bradley. The cost of the project was twice as much as cnmmuuity-basedvu\untem organization whose mission ism the Olympic Committee had given �o each District s« ««e promWn��ubu} und�x�audin�ondrcxpeothuwveou the people needed to find more money to complete the prcject, not of Utah and other nations through international person to just the first phase. Jenny VVUaun and Jim Bradley were person exchanges. ln addition tu the professional pcogrmns at our GACC meeting in January, heard about our that the DCCD prepares for our delegates, we invite our funding problem and said, ''Loys see what ws can do." coomnuniiymombcxom host our de|eAuws for an evening They were able to get matching funds from Salt Loka "Homc Hospitality". That is,you invite the du\cgamo to your County so the who/e project could be done et one time. hom»for art evening of dinner and conversation. During the We will meet at the Memorial House in K3am«/y Grove comm;of that evening,you get o :�huoc*tn be o citizen and then take o brief tour uf the project that includes new diplomat and help shape O.S. foreign�ru\xti000"one lighting and much needed improvement to many trails in handshake at udmo." Memory Grove. The project also commemorates our AuuOCCDmombnr`you will bo notified about upcoming ^rong spirit of community volunteers that was especially Hmno Hosting opportunities via email. You may select the ident during the 2002 Winter Olympics and the August dates and dnie�u�yth*match Your hmoand in(erosm. [fyou '999 tornado. Come help us celebrate our community would like mmcinformation nn how you can become acitizen and all those who have given their time for »s. diplomat,please contact LuumDupuy, Director, For many years Phil Carroll has organized the Annual or call 5324747. May Memory Bnme Clean-Up mostly by himself- __ = coordinated with the City crews, arranged for ' coo ' ' useful Contact Information advertised, whatever oee0 to be done he was n» top of it l/�uh state House Boukac But, UkeVVatcrJones, vvko needs others to help put the _ 364_\656 Avenues Street Fair hrQether Phil '- _` �` �� . � ' yVe are now organizing the Memory Grove Comm|tt l�ukStx�Senator 8couK8cCuy: Committee whose main responsibility will be to plan the May cean- ` ^ ' � � 518'|4U6'o r35A-2544 up activity. Phil said that he will be glad to chair it, but he Sx\`Lake City Council District^)I Rep. Eric J orl-onse»: needs some helpers because it io just getting too big and 535_7000� D� 6��8 naaUy. thatioe good thing. Besides bisa monafun ��uyoro0��oLhokmoGwooSpnn�o�yo� -" . and easier when tine workload is distributed. If you'd like ' . �� _'' �oon,i! District � Rep. Joe Hatch: to be on the oomm�ee call Jill ��k�u at 359-8513 or talk iu �� "~ "" y either Phil or JU| at the Odnber5m GACC meedng. . '^168­2933 Reuantlythe City Cooncii meiand approved $80K+ to Su)��ukmCouu y Cuun6\ ~\Luc&e Rep. Jenny Wilson: � th* DttingrHaUy/outhQtyrenovation The GACC has 468-2934r�o8�@ adoy� never given the pn�ec eppnme| but ns�erplayed the »u� au^"Coon'zCound|"A��u )im devil's advocate to try to get the City to address logistic ' `46"~'~^ ( problems with the location. While � U v� definitely be nice School Board Rcpro�ntu|�oDoug Mc son: _to see the Hall renovated, many ^^ ^'- �vc000sC�8�Coordinator Carleton Delar: concerning the site for YouChCitvwill be proven wrong. . ^-- I -- `� `_ ___ -:^�. 52!_83i8_ Community Action �mmD�hct3Do�ok, � OUNDo1d1e /\veououSbuetFc�r: }}luckJacket. Matthew Evans, �s. SLCPD.7094634. Call Jill ut 359'8513. Police Dispatcher-Non-Emergency only: 79y'SO0O /" °" °°,,,,"°. "/"""°"x/^/ o1 I --- Please note: This newsletter"The Agenda" is mailed free to all residences io the Avenues cver M every � ousecall GACC Chair i d The DU �ooLan�ov6du/3�A'D5l] withonycommun�yguos ons� for more info. of each month, 7:30 p.m. at the Sweet Library,9th Avenue and F Street. All are welcome. Visit ;,,, �, rcl trea _ If, p r p t[ �- s�1 la, y Commun tCo ck W- 1 rz1 The Agenda � vl,, i.;ve� L es { * M yl -..,, . ,,,.. . — - , . ...... �,.: . _ �- s tom,. , >_-:�;.:...C...,,, : �-� �-�. ,. �_ .. ...; , Volume 1X Issue 12 December2005 Endings and Beginnings GACC Community Meeting As the year 2005 comes to a close,we look forward to projects 2005in 2006 and look back at some of the projects for 2005. Safety Wednesday,December 7,a and 7:00 ep.m. t and improvements were the main goals for most projects. Sweet Library,9th Avenue and F Street Let's look ahead first.The 2006 Special Community Project Agenda (times approximate) that GACC would like to do is apply for a CiP Grant to help: 7°00 Welcome and Announcements (1) fix our sidewalks which the roots of our wonderful big ° Jill Van Langeveld,2005 GACC Chair beautiful trees have made uneven and dangerous, 7:]0 Reports (2)add sidewalks close to Ensign Elementary School so kids do Police " Legislature not need to walk in the street, Committees ® School Board (3)make all street corners ADA accessible(a few still are not), e City/County Council d Mayor's Office (4)get gates to cover the storm drain openings that can swallow 7:40 Open Forum (Time permitting, limit 1 min.per person.) cars,pets and kids besides the runoff water. 7:45 GACC Year-end review—Jill Van Langeveld,2005 We need to get all the specific sites listed for our application. GACC Chair,will recap the year's events. This is where you can help. Look around your street as you walk 8:00 Middle School merge—Doug Nelson, District School the neighborhood. if you see sidewalk or gutter problems,write Board Representative,will speak about the proposal of down the exact'address of each problem and then contact Michael merging Middle Schools into K-8 Schools. Hughes. You may leave a message via phone; 322-3428 or email 8:10 Public-way Sidewalk Options—Lynn Jarman, SLC hesnlichaelt'Jhotmail.com. The application is very detailed and Engineering Division Planning and Programming usually due at the end of the summer so we need to get started Manager,will discuss options for neighborhood sidewalk now. Eric Jergensen says that when the Community Council repairs and additions. applies for a grant,they have more clout than if the City Council 8:20 Earthquake Preparedness—Mike Stever,member of the tubers apply for the exact same thing. We could use some SLC Emergency Management Team,will give a _tra clout. Also Lynn Jarman from SLC Planning will be at the presentation on Emergency preparedness. Dec GACC meeting to explain our options. 8:40 GACC Meet and Greet—Refreshments will be provided As I was walking along 9`h Avenue a few weeks ago, [noticed with an opportunity to meet your neighbors.All welcome. a number of uneven spots including one that caught me off guard 8:45 Adjournment and sent me flying to the ground. it left me with a skinned elbow, They could have been trying to get some extra change for a a bruised hip and a twisted ankle. I'm sure that I'm not the only soda or maybe they were checking the neighborhood to see one this has ever happened to. These are health and safety issues who was home during the day. She wanted to warn neighbors that need to be addressed in a timely manner. The City also has a down the street but didn't have their numbers. She could have, program where the property owner pays half and the City pays if her street had organized a Neighborhood Watch. half for sidewalk and gutter repairs,but it typically costs the Just down the street from me, Lynda told me about her owner thousands of dollars. The Special Community Project CIP mother-in-law's experience when she answered her door in Grant would be a more reasonable option and we could make the October—she's also an Avenues resident. There was a man whole Avenues a safer walking neighborhood. So,as you walk, wearing a jacket that had Police in large print on the front and make notes,and contact Michael. We need your help! the back. He said that they were chasing an intruder and Let's look back at 2005: Neighborhood Watch and Mobile wondered if he had entered her home. He came inside the door Watch—These are two proven programs that help neighbors help and then asked her to check her back door. When she came the police to keep their neighborhoods safe. I had the goal of back he was just starting to leave with her purse and the keys to having every street segment organized into a Neighborhood her car. She screamed at him while grabbing the phone to call Watch group. How effective were we in making our own streets 911. Fortunately he dropped her purse and ran. When Det. safe?Only one street, 15t Avenue between T and U Streets, Matt Evans comes to your first Neighborhood Watch meeting organized. Several other people have expressed interest but I he'd remind you to never let anyone into your house without haven't heard from them. Call me when your street group has proper ID. He has many other ideas to help keep you safe. talked to Det. Matt Evans(contact info pg 3)and decided to Call him now. If December is too busy,pick a date in January- 'atch out for each other. Please call Jill at 359-8513 or email at it's a slow month. (article continued on pg 3) �h(,soficom.net. Also,Mobile Watch Chair Wayne Green is still looking for more drivers. Call him at 521-7917. Important Dates in December: Sara,who lives on 11`h Ave shared this experience to the GACC Meet your Neighbors ........ Dec 7th GACC a few months back. She answered a knock during the.day Refreshments too at the Sweet Library, 7:00 p.m. and found two well dressed young men asking for donations for SLC City Council Public Hearing.... Dec 6th Make a Wish Foundation. She knew that Make a Wish does not 451 S. State St. Room 315,7:00 p.m. solicit door to door so who were they really? VJllai is tM Spun:,: ._,i projects in me r oi y row? The Olympic Legacy Pcc,ect included.planting ground cover and placing wood chips to prevent erosion,replacing the trails with cone.rete on the east side of the park up to A St,and adding new lighting on the switchbacks. The ribbon cutting - ceremony was held on October 22,and Shanon Barhke,the ls` OS Medalist of the 2002 Winter Games, was a guest speaker. However, the 9°i Avenue Trail was not completed due to insufficient funds. Dale Cook, SLC Engineering Dept, said it was next on the list of things to complete. The City didn't have to put out any money for this project($100,000 came from SLOG and $100,000 from SL County)so it is more - . i likely they will finish the funding for the project. Dale hopes the 9t Avenue Stairs project will be completed this summer. Fourth Avenue Stairs are still in much need of repair. In December 2004 I applied fora ClP grant that was rejected. Then in September 2005,I applied for a CDGB (Community Development Block Grant) for the 2006-2007 funding year. The Fourth Avenues Stairs were listed in 2005 as item #224 in the Salt Lake City Parks and Recreation 20 Year Master Plan with no projected completion date. They listed an estimated - 1 cost of$200,000. What needs to be done? (1) Soil stability study(even though the stairs have been there since 1915). (2) • Rebuild the railings and the stairs adding bike grooves to aid - : '.t riders taking their bikes up and down the stairs. (3)Lighting- -: replace existing lighting to ensure safety and(4)Landscaping as needed. Hopefully the grant will be approved. Ottinger Hall/Youth City-The City approved Youth City an after school program to be placed in refurbished Ottinger Hall. A Federal Grant and the Rotary Club were funding the project. Later,it was discovered that they needed another $80,000 due to unforeseen costs so the City Council gave their .- - approval. As of press time,it looks like they are fixing - problems with the foundation and the project continues. - _ - At our GACC meeting in September 2004, Morgan — —_- = Atkinson of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality Useful Contact Information (DEQ)came to discuss plans to remedy the gasoline plume Utah State House Representative Ralph Becker in the soil around the intersection of F Street andls`Avenue. 364-1656. The plan was to install equipment on the southwest corner of Utah State Senator Scott McCoy: the intersection that would remediate the hazardous materials . 538 i406, or 359 %544 . from the soil. We kept watching for the digging and the Salt Lake City Council District III Rep. Eric Jergensen: equipment that never was installed. What was happening? I 535-7600. spoke with Morgan in November, and he said that the project v.ayor's Office Liaison Gwen Springmeyer: 535-6338, was still scheduled but just as they were putting the contract out for bids,the property owners of the southwest corner Salt Lake County Council District Rep,Joe Hatch: changed their minds. The DEQ had to find a new location. 468-2933. The owners of the northeast corner agreed to let the DEQ put Salt take County Council At large Rep. Jenny Wilson: in the equipment behind the Java Joe's building. However, • ,468-2934, that would require Java Joe's to be closed for two weeks while Salt Lake County Council At barge Rep. Jim Bradley: the DEQ had the trenches dug. Java Joe's thought that was ,468-2939. unacceptable and want to fight it, Morgan says they may have School Board Representative Doug Nelson: to get a court injunction but they hope to begin the project in 532-5457. early spring. We will keep watching. Avenues CERT Coordinator Carleton DeTar: If you have any suggestions for future projects or questions _ 521-8318. about past projects please contact me. I have enjoyed being Community Action Team District 3Detective: Chair of the Greater Avenues Community Council this past Matthew Evans, SLCPD,799-4634. year. I'll still be around,just not running the meetings. Thank Police Dispatcher—Non-Emergency only: 799-3000. you for a fun and very busy year..li/l Van Langeveld Chair`05 Please note: The newsletter"The Agenda"is mailed free to all residences in the Avenues every month.This correspondence is to conduct the business of the Greater Avenues Community Council. Please do not use the contact information of addressees for any other purpose.The GACC Executive Board meets on the second Wednesday of each month„7:30 p.m. at the Sweet Library,9th Avenue and F Street.See ,..__<.i,-u\_,_:1._--' [In Tito f 7, � -- � d e ge iic.-.'. 11111 !' Volume X ',cst.te lantialy3 2006 Co[i.intunily Meeting ;:1eu aes_i y,0.5,E Gary 4,2006 7:00 ;1..a. Sweet _,ibrary,9th Avenue and F Street _. oonda (times approximate) 7:00 Welcome anti Announcements Steve Mecham,2006 GACC Chair 7: ) :'_e,iorts Police Legislature • Committees School Board City/Country Council " Mayor's Office 7: -0 Open Forum (Time permitting, limit I min.per person) 7:Y§ GAt C Year anti review—Jill Van Langeveld,2005 GACC Chair,will recap and conclude the past year's events. d.:v 1r ,i3!L +! �l�� C:l;u _.. SI anL ar s_ 1sCUSs 101 ut'. .vent-' C. li?iilC c i h r',ste'. 11 ,;7, ,. 8:20 Slide Presentation—Lt. Tim Doubt, SLC Police Special Investigations Officer,will show residents what to look for concerning gang activity and when and how to report events to the police force. • i• :. <.t ,1 .mil'> 1' :C • • SLC C rl�side ti.ottlr+lcv?rea Recycling a. 2 rd- 27th Place cut live Christmas trees on the curbside for pickup beginning Monday Jan 23, at 7:00 a.m. Note: If there is heavy snowfall, pickup may be delayed. Contact the SLC Sanitation Dept at 535-6970 for additional information. rl t i • 2� Steve HOC crr l i? 2� - C Ic i .J' h S..ut e:aat_t ! Scott h1cCjv: 2006 1.1 l,�! ._I�l,"�: ;�fi! !Ic'.�I 1='i!n�h� �� o �_ 'Secretary Jaynie Brown, r 3« 14-06 E 55v 7544 . Treasurer John Slither Suit fuse ,ify ha;ncil .. os rriic' .ti Leo, Eric Jergensen: , 535-7600. The lull list of GACC Board Members and the Avenues Iv.e'orrN 3L rice Liaison Gwen Sprinc.dneyer: 535-6338, Areas they represent will appear in the February moo Lake. County �ouncilJistr ci _'ell. Joe dutch: newsletter. Contact information will also be listed. ,468-2933. - Salt e�aOe .�oturc�,Council_ �� ''urge ..e,�,- Jenny Wilson: 468-2934. Ski nio.'s Hoe A i,;l;;or CkFlddmen - Hew L nr e.'�.'covine Sal Lake County Council iO Large l`Ce-. Jim Bradley: 'I,lsirlkit g, Gamagie -. . _ 0 468-2939. Construction of a new underground parking garage at School Joa6d. 'fillet-wesente:lye Doug Nelson: Snriners Hospital for Children is expected to begin in 532-5457. February or March. The new$4.5 million structure will Avenues 5 :,7°Coorrdina'.oi'Carleton DeTar: double current parking capacity on hospital propeni:y 521.8318. while relieving congestion and parking on side streets, 7cHnnintaktity Action 'Team Astr,let 3 Detective: especially Virginia St. and Fairfax Road. Matthevv.Evans, SLCPD,799-4643. The project is expected to last 7-9 months and there .3o11ce Ir-ispatcherr—N1on-Smergency only: 799-3000. will be an increase in large vehicle traffic on Virginia St. l ry an emergency,always die i9 during that time. Changes in the architecture, view, and _ - T landscaping, from the street are expected to be minimal. Sups dal—rc . ilt'. 3s,jk'il Questions or comments about the construction process The Sundance Film Festival kicks off Jan. 19th and are welcome. Please contact Mike Babcock, Director of runs through Jan. 29th 2006. To pre-register for tickets Public Relations, at 536-3713 or e-mail Mr. Babcock at call 326-2000 or visit the website Venues and special events are listed on the website. Contact the box office at 32.3-3456 for more info. I I 1 - I \, 1 I I 1 -- I I If- rl .I.Id.._L .._ l t_ I r I t ;II ' 1 't f I L ' m 7.-.1 l gp i lilt E - - : . L _1 uT TIi t ", .: i � � � ' h� � � V . '7 _ �—� � LI l IA: s �� —� _ � Il �I III1 �. Ll , LJ I�_I IZTJIJ � lllI- r 14 i= LTIE i ,u nr� T _�r .34 h 11 �1 L,IFA ill i : i? ' r r I,T — .m,L. - AVENUES SR-1 ZONING MAP Please note: The newsletter"The Agenda' is mailed free to all residences in the Avenues every month. This correspondence is to conduct the business of the Greater Avenues Community Council. Please do not use the contact information of addressees for any other purpose. Please call GACC Chair Steve Mecham at 359-4165 with any community questions. The GACC Executive Board meets on the second Wednesday of each month 7:30 p.m. at the Sweet Library,corner of 9th Avenue and F Street. All are welcome. For more information visit , ffff IN I. "l11144 1I a/ , .` he Agenda : r ,"::� Vol'rureee X,ssuue 2 r�ebr�e±o_ry 2066 GACC Community,Rieefin,a Formatted:Highlight . . Wednesday,February 1,2006 7:00 p.m. Formatted:Highlight Sweet Library,9th Avenue and F Street _ Deleted: Agenda(times approximate) 7:00 Welcome and.Announcements Deleted: annual Steve Mecham,2006 GACC Chair Formatted:Font:Bold,Highlight 7:05 Reports Deleted: Police ° Legislature Committees ° School Board formatted Highlight o City/County Council ° Mayor's Office Formatted:Font:Bold,Highlight 7:35 Open Forum—(Timepermittin„limit]nun.per person.) Formatted:Highlight 7:40 GACC Financial Report—Michael Hughes,GACC Deleted: 1 Chair Elect.will give the report for 2005. r. i ,rr t 't,iit' i. ,,,,t:. I:let 'i:, , :i ,,, Deleted:• ; Deleted: l Deleted: 8:15 Land Use Bill—Lincoln Shurtz.analyst for the Utah Deleted:.;,,:,: League of Cities and Towns.will discuss a potential bill Deleted:,, requiring cities to prove development zoning maintains the"health.safety,and welfare"of their community. &:25 State Legislation—House Minority Leader Ralph Becker and Senator Scott McCoy will inform residents of irogress on current legislation at the Ca.itol. , . Formatted:Highlight t Deleted:; Deleted:•s 11 r-q, , ,, r:„c, Deleted:n • Deleted:., .,... ;,.r t',' ;•,,,. .:\retVi,,:.,:: i•I,.• . .: - ,r,-'i' n p:.H. ;,i' , „r.'„,,r. -, , rn '^l r uc,t , r 'or LI U,je.iohlE, a aa&laic 111r0ae 01.ei-i,c u Kal ph Bcolorr � )�q 1 n 6 ti � tore hAccl�m_3�q �05 i n 1" Avesse- it I111 , . cr:; Michael Ha'i ucs_32 >'hP 704 stir Avenue ,�tali a r Se t_ .artt i-tc oy �-1 c ter:!oho Si[tiler.359 9787 1560 L Tomahawk Di l 140f, or 59-2544 er t s:Jaynie DewsDeo\vn,355-7819,817 17th Avenue Safi i ell::Fir: "o€one..!District iii Rep,Eno Jergensen C oaa[P: lilt Van Langeveld.359 8513.807 Northcliffe Dr -535-7600 GACC 2006 Board Members lv2 5 or`s Office L3.isoa Gwen Spris_meyer.535-6338_ Area.'i Canyon Roa:dtWest Avenues Jim Jenl,.in,363-3750,212 5th Avenue Salt Lake('oust'CouAcif District.1 Rep. Joe Hatch Ruth Morgan,359-8539,271 C Street 468-2933 Shane McCarthy.323-1753, 146 4th Avenue.Apt 8 Salt Lake Courtty Conceit At Large Rep.Jenny Wilson Aileen Olsen.521-3824,22 D Street#2 .468-2934 Dave Jonnson,364-I 1 73_ Salt Lake County Coencil At Large Rep.inn Bradley Area 2 Ension ,468-2939 Wayne Green,521-7917,371 7th Avenue School Board Representative Doug Nelson Walter Jones,363-1331,412 12th Avenue .532.5457 Judith Locke,975-5138 wl:,407 7th Avenue Avenues CERT Coordinator Carleton Del Rat Kivett,323-9877,620 H Street ,521-8318. Area 3 NorthcrQ tt Community Action Team District 3Dctective: Jaynie Brown,355 7819,817 17th Avenue Matthew Evans,SLCPD,799-4643. David Arrington,328-9308,750 17th Avenue Police Dispatcher-Non-Emergency only:799-3000 Wynn Johnson,355-7206,852 Northcliffe Dr in an emergency,always dial 911. Richard Smiley_363-8737,8 1 6 16th Avenue Francisca Blanc.582-2291,526 13th Avenue Shriners Hospital New Underground Parking Garage Jill Van Langeveld,359-8513,807 Northcliffe Dr. Construction of a new underground parking garage at Area 4.Mideast Avenues Shriners Hospital for Children is expected to begin in Brooke Adams,558-3787,287 K Street February or March.The project is expected to last 7-9 Michael Hughes,322-3428.704 5th Avenue months and there will be an increase in large vehicle Angela Nguyen-Dinh,599-4044,206 K Street traffic on Virginia Si.during that time. Changes in the Area 5 Midwest Avenues architecture,view,and landscaping,from the street are Phil Carroll,328-1081 wk,89 G Street expected to be minimal. Questions or comments about Denton Taylor.539-8182.73 I'Street the construction process are welcome. Please contact Trish Orlando.581-1545 wk.733 2nd Avenue Mike Babcock,Director of Public Relations,at 536-3713 Area 6 Lindsetr Gardens or e-mail Mr. Babcock at: - Thella Mae Christensen,359-0466.755 9th Avenue — -- Kelly Quick-Stevens.355-8870,485 K Street Gang Graffiti and Tagging Ann Tillson,363-25 i 5,530 I 1 th Avenue Last Month,SLC Police Officer Lt.Tim Doubt gave a '-sane Carlson.596-3939 375 L Street presentation on Gang Graffiti and Tagging. These terms a 7 Eastern Avenues are two different Things and mean different things in the Richardson.364-4529. 1280 4th Avenue community. I agaers produce"artistic vandalism"and Area 8 Arlinatori Hills are rarely involved in other criminal acts. Taggers use Charles Cowley,355-9147,308 Alta Street big bubble letters,multiple colors and usually sign their Area 9 Federal Heights work. Gana graffiti on the other hand is like a Stan Nelson.521-4351.26 S Wolcott St community message board where different gangs wricO Larry Rigby.521-3535, 1428 Circle Way insults and threaten each other by crossing out previous R _ - - - _=s- -_ - _ messages. The police can interpret these messages tdhnenory Greve Pads C6ean Up ComfinMeo and know who is at war. Phil Carroll,Chair of the l\lernory Grove Clean-Up If you see any Gang Graffiti or Tagging,call to get rid Committee,announces the annual event will take place May of it or it will expand Graffiti Hotline:972-7885. Keep t3th. It you would like to be on the committee or volunteer a pencil and paper with you so when you see it,you can please contact Phil at:323-13131,email • jot down the address and what kind of surface is painted. ___ Police will take pictures of it and remove it immediately. A special thanks to all w'ho put in extra effort to get the If you see gang activity happening call 911 or Gang newsletter completed before the Holidays. Unfortunately,due Hotline:799-4114.The number for all Police Non- to heavy traffic in the delivery system,some residents may emergencies is 799.3000. If you would like to start a have received the newsletter after the Jan meeting and we Neighborhood Watch group in your area and want more apologize for the inconvenience information,please contact Jill Van Langeveld_359-8513. Please nose: The newsletter-The Ageeda s is mailed free to all resro races in the Avenues every month. This correspondence is to conduct the business of the Greater Avenues Community CoesiciI_ Please do not use the contact information of addressees for any other purpose Please call GACC Chair Steve Mecham al 359-4165 with any community questions The GACC Executive Board meets on the second Wednesday of each month. 730 p m at the Sweet Library.corner of 9th Avenue and F Street All are welcome. For more information visit {{ 1 !i: r� itlrrl y o ,I I � • t _ F e .A ge e.- vQlf&tt/7e 9 issue$ ./larch 2006 letee'inrF M/e( tsesciay, ' at' ._ 2006 7:06 Lyarzdo • Sweet ;�iisrary,9th Avenue and F Street Awerg.a (times approximate) 7:00 Welcome and Announcements Steve Mecham,2006 GACC Chair • - r •,. 7:05 Reoaorts • cc., . Police Legislature Committees School Board City/County Council " Mayor's Office 7:35 Town t-talt Meeting—Jaynie Brown,GACC Board Member, announces the SLC Meeting on Preventing Underage Drinking. 7: 0 Open Forum (Time permitting. limit 1 min.per person.) r''rl•: :; 7:4.5 2006 Avenues Street Lair—Walter Jones,Avenues Street Fair Chair.will relay details of this year's first meeting on April i st. ' <il Curnpatihi'lt' , '"iimitte, —tii. nr .. ;• r• ,,, • lit' i, • lht r,:l, .. ` - r a'.-iitli t'I LI nai t'.. „rt'anal 8: 5 Adjournment J.i t 2I, S(, a.' ;0(1 ?r�Lt , I I , „ • ' I r_ , J .., liu' � i it t.11�1';!ti ( a '•;'i:i,.+. ' t i l , t ti,s tt dint rirtatioi (Illobii vvq>iining is the warming of she earth';environment ,Jr cus �C 1•.eE n f 'e Ralph Becker: caused by increased production in the atmosphere. of "heat-t- , 364- 1656. :sorbing', or green house gases,which is produced from the Utah State Senator Scott McCoy: corning ci carhop based fuels such as coal, gasoline, and 5 8 1406, or 359 2544 . natural gas. Kevin Cummins has been appointed by the Salt lualte City Council District ttt Rep" Eric Jergensen: GACC to form a sub-committee to draft a resolution tailing for , 535.7600. state-wide action on global warming.ll his resolution, if adopted Mayor's Dike Liaison Gwen Springmeyer: 535-6338, by Utah Leadership, will help call attention to a global problem, and will place Utah in the position of becoming a recognized Salt Lake County Council District 1 Rep. inc Hatch: leader in developing innovative solutions to global warming. 468 2933. Interested parties may contact him at 363-3622 or email Kevin at: Salt Lake County Council At Large Reps Jenny Wilson: --- — --—J ,468-2934. Another Kind of Problem House Salt Lake County Council At Large Rep. Jim Bradley: The GACC has been working diligently for 8 months with the 468-2939. City on extra-oversized houses in the area—a problem not School Board Representative Doug Nelson: unique to our neighborhood. Neighborhoods all over the , 532-5457. country are facing the same problem and looking for solutions. Avenues CERT Coordinator Carleton DeTar: However, with this strong focus we have been overlooking 521-8318. another housing problem often caused by absentee landlords. Community Action Team District 3Detective: There are Problem Houses scattered throughout our Matthew Evans, SLC PD, 799 46?3. neighborhood. They may be vacant (weeds over 6 inches Police Dispatcher f;mcr ,79 only: 799 3000. become a violation), have loud parties (noise ordinance fromP g' 9pm to 7am), too many animals (City ordinances allow for two - dogs per household), or too many people living in a household Memory Grove Park Clean Up Committee (more than three unrelated adults living together is a violation Phil Carroll, Chair of the Memory Grove Clean - Up and can result in parking violations). If you have a Problem Committee, announces the annual event will take place House close to you, please call me. There are many different May 13th. Join the fun and reward in this family event agencies in the City that can help solve these problems. You that preserves the quality of Memory Grove Park. If you don't have to try to"just ignore it" or"just deal with it." Please would like to be on the committee or volunteer please call me and together we can maize our neighborhood more contact Phil at: 328 1050, or email. neighborly.-Ji!I VanLangeveld 359-8513, •_._ _ itvwicic Telopt r.' c- i'',• -_. ...._. . r. I - - c { i : - Please note: The newsletter"The Agenda"is mailed free to all residences in the Avenues every month. This correspondence is to conduct the business of the Greater Avenues Community Council. Please do not use the contact information of addressees for any other purpose. Please call GACC Chair Steve Mecham at 359-4165 with any community questions. The GACC Executive Board meets on the second Wednesday of each month,7:30 p.m. at the Sweet Library,corner of 9th Avenue and F Street. All are welcome. For more information visit _ --_. Date:January 9th,2006 Time: 7:30 PM Location:Sweet Library Agenda 1. Joel Paterson, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Office of Planning and Permits will discuss the process required of Community Councils applying for zoning overlay districts that would supersede the general zoning ordinances for a given area. 2. The Wasatch Hollow Housing Committee is also currently working to develop an overlay for their area and they have been invited to attend this GACC Housing Compatibility Committee meeting. All attendees are encouraged to come prepared with questions regarding the process of developing an overlay application. HCC Agenda 02/13/06 Reviewing all of the current SR-1 Dimensional Limits, completing the committee' s decisions regarding counter permit limits and finalizing the decisions we made last week. GACC Housing Compatibility Committee Agenda - 2/22/06 1. Review of previous meetings' minutes 2. A review of the overlay dimensions that have been determined to date. 3. Completion of the unfinished overlay items. 4. Discuss the wording of the proposal, including an introduction. 5. Meeting with Joel Paterson that Shane will be reporting on. a. corner lot setback b. interior side setback allowance c. 2nd accessory building 6. CHCC Update 7. March 1, HCC presentation. 8. Other items? Minutes of the Avenues Housing Compatibility Committee February 27, 2006 Sweet Library 7:00-8:15 pm Shane Carlson Conducting Text of the Proposed SR-1 Overlay We carefully read through the text for the Proposed SR-1 Overlay and made minor wording changes to make the meaning clearer. Web Page Michael Hughes was assigned to check the web page to make sure the links worked so the information could be accessed. Lester Aoki will have the web page broken links fixed asap. Shane was assigned to get the final text of the Proposal on the web page by Tuesday morning, February 28, 2006 GA CC Presentation on March 1, 2006 1. 60 black and white copies of the Avenues HCC Overlay Summary for handouts 2. Color transparencies of the Avenues HCC Overlay Summary for use on overhead 3. Jim Jenkin—motion to accept proposal in it's entirety 4. Discussion 5. Vote 6. If it doesn't pass, make necessary changes and vote again. Next Meeting Monday, March 13, 2006 • Miscellaneous 1. The official City building heights survey is 1'/2 weeks behind. The Planning Department is OK with the delay. 2. For our final document we need: a. Title to include Avenues in it b. Purpose statement using the Yalecrest Overlay as a guide c. Resolution—Jim Jenkin wrote one months ago that Kat Kivit kept 1 Minutes of the Avenues Housing Compatibility Committee Meeting February 13, 2006 Sweet Library 6:30 to 8:55 pm Lon Richardson Conducting Dimensional Limits for Avenues SR-1 Overlay Shane Carlson conducted a discussion, review, and preliminary determination of the dimensions to be included in the Avenues SR-1 overlay. The committee completed the process of creating the overlay which the group had begun last week(2/6/06). Shane will be creating a spreadsheet showing all of the dimensional limits that are currently in place for the SR-1 district, what those limits were before the city-wide infill zoning ordinance passed on 12/13/05, what those limits are presently in light of the temporary restrictions provided by the City Council (on 12/13/05) and what the proposed overlay will be seeking as permanent dimensional limits for the SR-1 area. Minutes of the Avenues Housing Compatibility Committee Meeting February 6, 2006 Sweet Library 7:00 to 8:55 pm Shane Carlson Conducting Letters and Field Trip Jim Jenkin is making final drafts for letters to Mayor Andersen and the City Council Members. He will bring them to the next meeting for approval before sending them. We would also like to include invitations to the City Council Members to join the tour of the Avenues to see how individual homes could be remodeled easily with the three tier permit process. Shane's Presentation at the GACC Meeting Feb. 1, 2006 The presentation had four parts. 1. The GACC will vote on the housing proposal on March 1, 2006 2. Stressed that this proposal will insure predictability for all landowners. 3. Definitions of various zoning terms used in the proposal 4. Step by step description of how.Shane could take his own home with 1300 sq. ft. on the main level and 1000 in the basement and create a 6400 sq. ft. home including a detached garage and still receive an over-the-counter permit.. The perception was that the GACC heaved a sigh of relief that this new process would not be as much trouble as was first thought . It would give protection to neighbors but also allow for expansion as families grow and need more room. It would indeed be family friendly. Inventory of Homes Three large maps were made from the inventory data that was collected. They are very descriptive and show at a glance the diverse character of the Avenues. They will be on the website and will be used in the presentations given to the Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council. We are giving the CHCC the tools we used so that they can conduct their own inventory. Once their inventory is completed, Shane will enter the data into the computer to generate maps for the CHCC's SR-1 area for their own overlay proposal. • Original Purpose of SR-1 Zoning In the 1970's as the illegal practice of redlining an area (not giving full value for property when applying for loans) was eliminated, the City wanted to make it easy for property owners to build. The SR-1 Zoning gave options to build up or out. Very few people did both. Now with property costs very high, developers feel that they must use every square inch or they are not using the property to it's full potential, thus changing the neighborhoods. Neighborhoods all over the country are trying to deal with this problem just like we are. Before the GACC March 1, 2006 Meeting and Vote Try to think of as many questions and motions that could come up at the meeting regarding the proposal so that we can be prepared for anything. The full legal text of the proposal will be put on the website as soon as we have it written so our neighbors will have time to read it. At the meeting we will have a handout to help explain all the details. Spokesperson In November the City Council asked each Community Council Chair to pick one person Minutes of the Avenues Housing Compatibility Committee Meeting January 18, 2006 Memorial House 7:00-9:00 pm Shane Carlson conducted the meeting. Letters Letters to City Council thanking them for their help in passing Ordinances 90 and 91 have not been finished. Shane and Jim Jenkin will have them completed soon. Letter to Mayor to show him how the ordinance will help us so that he will want to be very supportive is in rough draft at this time. Official Deadline for submission to the Planning Division Jill Van Langeveld received a letter from Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director, with a copy going to Shane Carlson, giving us the date of March 6, 2006, to submit our neighborhood based zoning proposal. (Same date that Joel gave us.) It also included a list of the items it must include. The letter will be posted on the Housing Compatibility link of the GACC website. February GACC presentation The definition of terms such as SR-1, infill, overlay, block face, set back and others will be in the March newsletter and also on the website. During the presentation Shane will use "normal conversational"words that people already understand so that no extra time will be needed for explanation of terms. For example: The Purpose of this zoning change is to protect the neighbors from out of character homes being dropped onto their street. The 30-minute presentation will include: 1. Ask for a vote on March 1, 2006 2. Purpose for the zoning change 3. Three scenarios—one for each Tier Ask Dave Richardson for help developing the scenarios 4. 10 minutes for questions and the vote Include Capitol Hill Community Council in the SR-1 Overlay? Lon Richardson attended the CHCC meeting which was being held at the same time as this meeting. He returned with the feeling that they wanted to work on their own at their own speed. Block face photos Shane shared a power point presentation of the pictures of the block faces that we emailed to him. We looked for areas that were the most vulnerable and to be able to identify as a group which houses were 1-story, 11/4 story, and 2-story. By January 20 or 21 each member of the committee will pick up a map of an area and identify each home on the block face using numbers and letters of a key showing size, garages, and flat roofs. Survey maps are due January 30th. Future meeting dates January 30 February: 6, 13, 22, 27 All meetings will be at the Sweet Library at 7:00 pm except Feb. 13 will be at 6:30 pm Minutes of the Avenues Housing Compatibility Committee Meeting January 9, 2006 Sweet Library 7:30 - 8:45 pm Shane Carlson chaired the meeting. Joel Paterson, who is a senior planner for the City Planning Depai tuient and has had the responsibility for writing the new City housing ordinance, attended the meeting to help us understand the time line and the documentation required for an Avenues Overlay for the SR-1 Zoning District. Time Line The ordinance stated that we have 6 months from the time of publication to have our Overlay written and approved which makes July 20, 2006 the last possible day. The time line Joel suggested was close to what we had set in our December 28th meeting. February 1, 2006—present proposal to GACC, take input and ask for a vote on March 1, 2006, according to the bylaws. March 1, 2006—Present finished Overlay Proposal to GACC for a vote. March 6, 2006—.Approved Overlay delivered to Planning Office (Planning sends to City departments). April 13, 2006—Planning Office Staff Report starts April 26, 2006—Planning Commission Hearing May 10, 2006—Planning Office Ratifies Minutes May 24, 2006— Overlay Proposal goes to the Planning Director, Louis Zunguze. June 1, 2006—Paperwork goes to the City Council staff for their July 11th meeting June 8, 2006—Briefing for the City Council at their weekly meeting. They may vote that night or maybe the next Tuesday meeting, or the next. July 11, 2006—Last date to present to the City Council Meeting (maybe July 18th) July 20, 2006—Estimated date that the temporary ordinance will expire Joel said that at each level there may be some tweaking of the Overlay Proposal. Supportive Information—Documentation We need to show (1) Diversity examples throughout the Avenues SR-1 zone and (2) What rational we used. During the Yalecrest Overlay process, city surveyors helped. If they have the time, we will try to get their help. We need to get photos of the most vulnerable areas throughout the Avenues. First Tier— Over the Counter Permits require average height. Second Tier—Public Hearing looks as development pattern which looks at any three homes on the block face. An example of"block face"would be all the homes on 8th Avenue between I and J Streets that face North. Format 1. Statement of Purpose 2. Methods used Appendix: C. City Council presentation — 12/1/2005 City Council Fact Finding Hearing: December 1, 2005 Introduction Thanks for allowing me to speak—Shane Carlson I'm here to represent the Avenues I am a GACC board member and more importantly, I am a regular participant on the Avenues Housing Compatibility Committee. We've been meeting for several months on a weekly and bi-weekly basis We have a core group of about 12 people who attend regularly. The Housing Committee consists of • residents who have been affected by controversial projects • committed community members • interested Community Council Board members • at least one real estate agent • a prominent local architect • and residents who want to ensure the protection of their property rights • Many of us have recently completed, are in the middle of, or plan to soon undertake additions and renovations of our own. We strongly support the proposed zoning ordinance As you already know, our neighborhoods have been severely impacted by at least ten controversial projects started just this past summer. We cannot bear another building season like the one we just endured. Why do we support the city's proposed ordinance? We were asked to talk specifically about the proposed ordinance. There are two key elements to the proposed ordinance; • The tiered structure of the ordinance • The specific dimensional limits that move a person from a counter permit to a routine and uncontested exception, an Administrative Public Hearing and then to a BOA hearing. Keep in mind that if the dimensional limits are set at too high a level the inherent properties of the Tiered Structure are rendered useless. In discussing what we see as the goal of a tiered approach to zoning it may be useful to review the process the Housing Committee went through in our attempts to address this issue in our diverse neighborhood. As members of the Housing Committee, we met regularly to try and craft a zoning ordinance that would protect the character of our area, respect all property owners and their investment in the community and allow for the predictable and responsible growth needed in our area. ...... ... . . .. ... ..... Diverse Development Pattern 841 AA owe ,::Bct elm t�.and L Shorts 4.5 r i s. ',F1+ vw, a r ,: ' '0 R7 1 tie& - South side North sick We met numerous times this past summer trying to come up with a plan to address the divergent development patterns that exist side by side in our neighborhoods; patterns which often differed significantly from one side of the street to the other. Our initial efforts were simply to arrive at a new set of dimensional building standards that would accurately reflect the developmental patterns found within each zoning district. After hours of discussion and several occasionally contentious meetings, this goal began to feel as though it were an impossible task. It was at this point that we decided to explore other ways of achieving our objective. Out of those efforts came our Three Tiered Proposal. The three tiered approach to Avenues zoning is intended to encourage responsible growth and expansion while minimizing the impact of that expansion on the neighboring properties and the character of the area Tier One Goal The goal of the first tier is to encourage home owners interested in making exterior modifications to their houses and outbuildings to minimize the impact of those modifications on the neighboring properties and the character of the community. The first tier is also intended to provide a quick and efficient way for the permit office to approve what is hoped would be a majority of permit applications. 2 Tier One Mechanism Tier one would define a relatively restrictive list of limits regarding building height, front, side and back setbacks, building volume, lot coverage, etc. Proposed projects that remain within these limits would be eligible for a "counter permit," simply by showing that the modified buildings would remain within the tier one limits. Tier Two Goal Tier Two provides a mechanism to gain approval for those projects that would exceed the strict limits of tier one but that would remain consistent with the structures already in existence on the street. Tier Two Mechanism Tier two would require property owners to collect a clearly defined set of measurements from surrounding properties to show that the project they are proposing does not differ significantly from the structures already in existence. Tier Three Goal Tier three would provide a thorough review of those projects that are likely to significantly impact neighboring properties and potentially change the character of the community. Tier Three Mechanism By definition, tier three projects exceed the height, volume, setbacks, etc. of the surrounding buildings and community. Because of their potential to significantly impact neighboring properties and permanently change the character of the community, approval of tier three projects would be granted only after thorough review of all specifications and a complete hearing of the community members' comments and concerns. The Housing Committee didn't get past the point of drawing up our draft of the Three Tier principles when the city proposed its' "Tiered"Zoning Ordinance. Before I talk about the specific measures and restrictions of the proposed ordinance, I want to address what we feel are the essential elements and strengths of this tiered approach. First, we never intended the dimensional restrictions associated with counter permits to be absolute limits. As stated earlier, we wanted a mechanism that would allow applicants proposing smaller projects with little potential to negatively impact the community to get their permits quickly and easily. We feel that the counter permit process in the proposed ordinance accomplishes this goal. 3 lip ,,- ;,,„„,,,,..., # { aft S l� a. rib -,oma. max. A lot has been said about predictability. I have heard comments that requiring a permit applicant to demonstrate that their project is consistent with the development pattern on a block face removes the element of predictability from the building process. .. ................ .._..._........_. .. ak '..- a 7p 4 I would counter that allowing inappropriate development has a much greater and longer lasting impact on the ability of the surrounding home owners to anticipate and have a role in the future of their community. £ -,:;4 @ 9 a 'a f a 3v z ,� Projects that exceed the proposed counter permit restrictions have the potential to irreversibly modify the character of an area. t-, R !' 4 Y,- 4, ?Ay. • _ `'$�a .� ,hex ,, i /.. W - 9 y ' Y 5 However, we also realize that many projects exceeding these restrictions will not be out of character. Requiring applicants whose projects exceed the counter permit restrictions to take a close look at how their plans would impact an area is essential. I have also heard the comment that nothing should be implemented until thorough large scale surveys can be conducted in each distinct neighborhood. We feel that there are several problems with this approach: • A comprehensive survey of an eclectic area (such as the SR-1 district) will produce a set of numbers that describes the average dimensions of an entire area well while failing to accurately describe a single street, let alone a given street. • Large scale, chronologically fixed surveys are only capable of describing an area at the time of the survey. These averages start their slide towards obsolescence the moment the first tear down or addition is completed. A survey done just prior to a project reflects the development pattern at the time of the proposed project. • Large scale surveys are time consuming and expensive—Many of the block faces within a given area will not experience any developmental pressure while other areas will experience significant pressure. The modest expense of a small scale survey addressing just those measurements of interest is not an unreasonable obligation when the typical second story addition will cost between $100,000 and $200,000. The members of the Housing Committee feel very strongly that requiring the applicant whose project exceeds the dimensional restrictions for a counter permit to show that their project is appropriate places the burden of proof exactly where it belongs. Neighboring property owners have no say over the proposed design nor do they get to chose when a given project is to commence. Many residents lack the expertise and the financial resources to initiate an investigation into whether or not a given project will detract from or enhance the neighborhood. Conversely, the project applicant has either undertaken the responsibility of designing an appropriate project or they have hired someone with the experience to do so. The balance is already tipped in favor of the permit applicant. And while a permit applicant may have invested a significant amount of time in a community, it is just as likely that the surrounding neighbors have a significantly greater collective commitment to the community and many of them may have moved to or stayed in the community because they liked it just the way it is. It is exactly this situation in which it must be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that a proposed project is both sensitive to, and respectful of, the surrounding community. In order to be effective, a permit applicant's responsibly to demonstrate that their project is appropriate must be combined with counter permit limits that are meaningful. Raising 6 the dimensional limits for a counter permit above what would be appropriate in many areas of the city effectively eliminates consideration of the community within which a project will reside. Finally, the success or failure of the proposed zoning ordinance depends upon the ability of the zoning and permits office to manage those applications requiring an Administrative Public Hearing in an expedient and even handed manner. However, enforcement of the proposed ordinance and the balanced consideration of all parties must not be sacrificed in a rush to move an application through the process. There will be no suitable substitute for adequate personnel and training to administer this ordinance. 7 Comments concerning specific elements of the proposed ordinance Before commenting on the specific elements of the proposed ordinance, I would like to emphasize that the dimensional figures (such as Building height) are not an absolute! They are restrictions on what an applicant can be granted an over the counter permit to build. In-line Additions Counter permits for in-line additions will no longer be granted in SR-1 and SR-3 districts. Zoning Standards • to-ling Additions • Remove Zoning Ordinance SMic provisions f ,. .. allowing over- the-counter the-counter ins . line additions in the SR-1 and SR-3 districts Allowing in-line additions has caused more damage in our area than any other single rule. Front and Corner Side Yard Setback Minimum front yard setbacks - average of buildings on the block face. (R-1-5000, SR-1, and SR-3 corner side yard remains at 10'. Existing minimum front setback established by existing subdivision plats would be respected). This is another rule that we feel very strongly about. We would be opposed to any attempt to modify this such as only including the 50% of the properties with the shortest setbacks on a block face. While we do appreciate that one home with an excessively large setback could negatively impact a proposed project, we also feel that one home with an exceptionally short set back could negatively impact an entire community. We do feel that in these cases it should be left to the discretion of the APH officer to grant the exclusion of an exceptional home from the calculation of the average. 8 Primary Building Height (R-1, R-2, and SR Districts) Counter permits for maximum building height of 23 feet at the crest Counter permits for maximum exterior wall height of 18 feet. Zoning Standards Building Height s i f i rs Keeping in mind that the building height restrictions have only been proposed for a subset of the zoning districts, we feel strongly that the limit set for height in applying for a counter permit must be meaningful. We are an eclectic community and there places where buildings taller than 23 feet would be appropriate. However, we also have numerous block faces were every house is one story above grade and the average height is closer to 16 feet. On a street such as this, even a 23 foot tall house will significantly alter the character of the street. Twenty-three feet would allow for 1 '/ stories on almost all block faces. We feel this is a reasonable counter permit restriction. We would strongly encourage the council to refrain from adjusting the height limit for a counter permit at this time. The impact of this ordinance will be highly dependant upon the performance of the zoning and permits office. We would encourage the City Council to heed the advice of the Planning Commission and reconsider the impact of this rule after 12 months. Attached Garages Counter permits for garages behind or in-line with front of principle building. Width of attached garage not to exceed 50% of front facade of house. 9 Zoning Standards Attached Garages b 1 ➢ iqk ry } 4 fto h(' £ •e S." t ��s+ . E ,.,, .S1.g....W..........e......._..,_.. .i,;� �_._.......... ...,.......ram _...... .,.,.,.._.._ .,w ...__ _ We would make one recommendation. It was suggested at the planning commission hearing that only the area of the garage doors be considered in calculating the 50% limit. If this were to change, we would recommend that when a project has two or more separate garage doors, the area of a garage be calculated from the outer edges of the two outermost doors. Accessory Building Location Counter permits for accessory buildings located at least 20 feet from principle buildings on adjoining lots. Accessory buildings must be one to five feet from the rear property line. We support this ordinance with the Planning Commission recommendation that the developmental pattern of a block face be grounds for a routine and uncontested exception. Maximum Height of Accessory Buildings Counter permits for accessory buildings that: a) Do not exceed 15 feet from the established grade to the peak; b) Have a maximum wall height of ten feet from the top plate to the established grade. 10 . . . ..... . ...... Zoning Standards Accessory Building Max. Height & Footprint We strongly support this proposed change. We would strongly oppose any attempt to modify the 15 foot limit, especially in favor of a measure using roof mid-point due to many recent cases of abuse. Maximum Footprint of Accessory Buildings Counter permits for accessory buildings that do not exceed 50% of the footprint of the principle building to 720 sq. ft. (up to 1000 sq. ft. for two-family; 480 sq. ft. garage allowed). We strongly support the proposed change. Increasingly long commutes into Salt Lake City from the surrounding communities accompanied by rising fuel costs have resulted in rapidly escalating land values. The steep rise in housing costs has attracted some new residents to the area who are more interested in maximizing their building space than responsible development. Almost half of the most controversial projects started this past summer were garages. It is one thing to feel impinged upon by a principle structure. It is quite galling to have the impact of a garage exaggerated because the owner wanted more storage space. This is also the case regarding accessory building wall and roof height limits. Maximum Lot Size Counter permit when a new lot does not exceed 150% of the minimum required lot size in each zoning area (SR-3 limit would be 200%). 11 ...._... ......._.. ..... Zoning Standards Maximum Lot Size 3 E srivextvA C, You just have to go see 14th and 14 Street. Maximum Lot Coverage Counter permits for SR-1 and R-1-5000 projects with max. lot coverage of 40% (reduced from existing 55%). R-2 max. coverage reduced from 45% to 40%. t This is absolutely essential. 12 Fines for Building Permit Violations Building permit fine of 10% of the value of the proposed project or$1000, which ever is greater. Many members of the Housing Committee would like to see these fines made even stronger. More importantly, we feel that in order to have any meaning, they need to be imposed when appropriate. Definition of Demolition/Teardown Complete demolition - any act or process that destroys or removes 75% or more of the exterior walls and/or total floor area of a structure, improvement or object. Many members of the Housing Committee would like to see this made more restrictive. Very little is left of a house when three out of four walls have been removed. There is no requirement that the remaining wall be the front wall. Keeping only a rear or a side wall has served as cover for a complete scrape and new construction in the past. Conclusion We need zoning ordinances that we can live with as a community, not just as permit applicants or realtors and architects who leave once a project is completed. Many aspects of the proposed ordinance will encourage permit applicants to interact with their community. It will also provide them with the opportunity to do what any responsible community member would want to do, step back and take the time to look at the environment in which their proposed project will reside for decades to come. Additions that negatively impact neighboring properties destabilize communities. Neighbors who have been impacted but who don't want to do the same thing to their neighbors often leave. Neighbors who don't care move into replace the ones who did and left. Who will move in north and east of the Calls? Projects done sensitively beget sensitive projects. I have heard several project owners complain (very insincerely)that they would have loved to have accommodated the neighbors but they are just too far long in the process (often after having gone to great lengths to conceal the true nature of their project). This new proposal and the responsibility it places upon the applicant ensures that this will no longer be the case whether inadvertently or as a lame excuse. 13 This proposed ordinance is an attempt to move away from the often heard adage, it is easier to beg forgiveness than to ask for permission. Infringed upon neighbors often don't get over the anger, frustration, and the distance caused by an ever present, ever looming project. Unfortunately there are times when applicants don't ask because they really don't want to know about a problem until they can claim that it is too late to modify their plans. When this happens, they are saying that they care more about their selfish wants than their community. Many of the questions that applicants will be asked to answer under the proposed ordinance will have significant impact on community: • Does my proposed project have the potential to negatively impact my neighbors or the character of the community? Tier One — Counter Permit • Is the project that I am proposing consistent with other projects already completed in the community? Tier Two — Administrative Public Hearing • Does my project, because of the scale or location, have the potential to single- handedly and irreversibly damage the character of a community? Tier Three - BOA. I have heard the argument that large projects increase everyone's property values. Well executed, sensitive, and appropriate maintenance, restoration, additions or remodels increase property values. The economic impact of larger houses for the sake of larger houses is a subject of much debate. What is not debatable is that the benefit of increased property values is negligible until a property owner is ready to sever ties with the community. A community is so much more than a sterile collection of investments. It is relationships with neighbors, it is the security of those relationships, it is having a place where every single person has value and it should be a place where what impacts one person, is of importance to everyone. "The Avenues is a community that knows what it is." Many communities share this same sense of place. Please help us protect what we have come to value so dearly. Pass the proposed city ordinance as it is written! 14 Appendix: D. Inventor3' Maps p a.Primary building height (number of stories) b.Flat-roofed buildings s c.Attached garages d.Coding sheet _ U ILi1J111 li I i'Nil I 1 4 � � ,° 7:1111 1 F- �11 I� . 1 L a.. ill fl ■, 11 _ I= ill riDy a I ..5 i -5- 73 I 1 � .� c o a a a A •-- :IC ini :a .. aA CI: ill Iyrllrlf ft '5. I ■ ITI 4.34.4i1• > E a a a, E 'it Iasi! N i • •Al1� O.Iv A to O 4ii S ri,�� - •4 'ti: f _._ y 004 III�♦ ..� imi-. .7„,„ ,_ . = I ii IN gm IIT III5i _ am MINN N1= I_ Ill_ I'II = !II '-' ° • OUP • ����� 1111;< I-� 11 III '_ i -„---- ,.. `.4‘A t. ( =-I f— � i I ! i_ 1. 1i - F. I im• p ���:��4411 -1 H _ - =Ic11 a --` 1II 'illlll iI - 111I 1 m ♦ *As _ _ E. . .. ,�• • =I. L I - _ '�idr� 9 I11 1-'ill 11 -�t. oft NM MI MI ta ■■lr`' Illt +1= �; l� m II 11111— -I■ '= ail Ay* — i-=:IN mils • -.. _ Fi = I is r- illI ,I w _I. r- _H J- j I(I I 1 4= I ! LIIN own 111 f i-rQ T r IT( sari Q' _ ollli 1-1� Tilt 13 -1 1'- .s'' I �, ri 11 = `Ili WINE !' --1 f--- �"'lr - >= dirt .-II= FT-IL 1 P Min alll:IRA , o III_ �1_ _I = 1■ "' _I�_ nm- u= IIIII■ ]ram+ a _ I III .1 I 1= 1 L Fin II F-,- 1% • • Ill _i _ ■ �� NI It•s� 1_ pi _ �Il■; iiik::: _ x I _S�III I = 11„ = •n■= WE: ' 1 'IIII - II = — * I i71I 6III—1 , _ _ iiir I ;Iu+. 9 III - _ . I _ r wig .1 1k! ER -Tr I a I ! i IIIII !I',11M 1I1 Oa " 111111r. n _____I E RN. : _RI J- ..... .„ oarm ) la k ;" IP , IIIIII1�IIIIIIIII inuoiniude I I�II I I t1��S, I I iin '.%T ' 'i'n" .. 1S31V1S 0 0 0 Vlll./ I 1 , ..BM nn '-p• ®11n Elm 1 @e:� 00 1 i111111 iMI i 1111 r 171 11111 .T.L ■'1111 91 =111 A% 11= au ■III■ -ElII IIIII= -.i "I ! lI 1111 11111: = lii =1111 =1 S_:I�.x Ella �■ �wll _Ilm'_�11 �� 112- � � - • - _III_ l ! ---Ti1111 —1 H -luillsli T -will.. T 1. =11- = 1'1 e11: IIIII - JIJ =1 I11 = ■■1u: GIIIIII 1= � - •1... =_11= ElUMMI l= L !' '■ =HI Illili H 11 --I- }E, 1I'1 = J a • II AN = i =i111 dill 1F- �'11I 111 11 =i1- III. - :IIIII =11! = L. 11 . _BE 'II; - °° nm _ _:_ •I sirmn_ -i' I) ,1lll: .mu =II11�1 =11 =11 I ..11 ii Ills _ ■ 119111 .nal ..1 =11: -II =1- NIiii =1111I IS =II = Milli -4 - 1-rr 1111G 7.1 1 ■11 • - ■ m -1"n-:=1P_1 1 1111111E _ 1i _IIW =°l1:1 =IIIII I 1 1 - un =1111 R = 111 51,1111 Fan %1: - 1 11 1 < II 1 n Imo ■1 in �=■ 1I_ =I pn II111 II o 'I' p11. - 4 'Y !ill -1SI =1 ■ .. :JAM 1III_III' 1': ■ l :'---' .II•_ � - =I LL _II —Ill = „ '11111= —. Ir. =4 =1� = -I■: =-1T1 =111I 41 IIC m !1 III_ pie 'fig wag Mini Till 11 =111 ..v. 511111 ,— — s `' ri--- _PP11• _II111 E11111 s'1= in •-cm - O ° n MNI=mu mum _ _R aa1_ 'illMI,i i1 RaDy•s -xy Ju- ,III 'I E. = I an —■� :III Y _I(111s_I� -r 1 s n n r; EE� d 2 d C Ills_. ao v-c 0. 7 N =III11 =w1u, =1111 _til ._...VSai =11ui .g_ 00 y'•X `III: rsgra —ll v F.a aiIl= -i aIIIII - dF6_ °,o °0 In PI EMI 1El IIItIII `-V RC'1NI C 0 I h ono III — =°G= IIIIIIII III Ira TT r 9 zv 8 v 1I= 111111 ■ -E j= Iin _Ills '1 II P v VIII _11=sue .1. f P M trt IIIIE =ul a IIIII_ I1�- I =It 72 o " �, 111E IIIIIEs I L ro mm= aim ohm '� Q w i' "III_ 1 =s 41pr Hp--) w E - 1111E ■ gill il ItI r--j 4 = 1111�sa - � R C.� — g� c�., lull 1111E 11112 Mil= I I I IIII= ' P 7 - s, =II num - I I.: II NEI I_ . MIN ills 111li1 iI =II I nC liku tom 11:pi 4 LE Aim 411 I '. MiIn II II = - WE n1 IS H 11.- mi . : • 1!■ :IIg :1I1� ■111111 111�`SC - -ml•■' -I 1= kl V =1- i1 all= '11111_ trn T 1 iII I gm 1 1= III r ■ ■ — - = ig: . ::. ;Li- mgi1mmi1 111 yl ' Eno = rill T I I I lliiir' 11 ? Kim I I -�r i { Ili n: ui - != :III3 ul 1= ' NIB _ II IL.-' MI' !!S"■ EL- M1 mi IN =11= 711 -` I.. iiirn MINI 1 - kI iI:'=11= --+ ■. IJ= lr I u�1 �- �_�!II mil_ 11111' 111P_ =11M 112E : I= 7 1.7.7=MI. } `i ■11.' ' ! h l = ■F 11 a111 : 1a_ 11111E i11- IIIII! II_ _ _iiF! J �I1_ -J191E . ,I= M,i .i1M ■1 . =I i�I1:�-T T IF lllin :1: 1 _ 1 — l` n —1,F —i kg loll■ =1M irlli I MM11B i-till 1 1 11u1 IR-I H r - - -mom _ . J F-- �L mu: lour. =_ III 1 r -- _ ® :III H11? CIMI es VI —' =9 11 I 's lQ' 11 1, 11H, NNE •111= L •I 111.rf..u11ii i ` IImr ■ a ■,�I� Ella z.11.=s°II= MIS "•J= Emil IIII = ell= .-■ i Iii _n„ Epp ■: •1i11 11Pi - = JII II= Ill. Ell.I. IIII■,■ • 11r: [ruw nupn'.mom sm. los 1 1 11= min MI6 ia. wuT� 1'= ofekihjiiii- rID r G Avenues Housing Inventory Codes (If you have a digital camera,take'it with you for those buildings you might have difficulty categorizing) Thanks! Building Height(diagrams to show ratios of typical knee wall to ground floor) Primary buildings are rated as they appear from the street. For buildings on hills where the back of the building is not visible from the street append an"S" to the height code to identify the slope (e.g. "1.5-S"= 1.5 story building with possible walk out basement— these building are typically located on the south side of the street between 6th and 14th Avenues). • 1.0 (Do not and could not live within the roof) • 1.5 (Could build within roof, 2nd story knee walls less than 4 feet) • 2.0 (Two stories or 2"d story knee walls taller than 4 feet) • ? (Can not classify) • S (on slope—possible walkout basement) 2.0 STORIES(EXTERIOR WALL-IKNEE WALL 4 FOOT OR GREATER) I.5 STORIES(KNEE WALL/EXTERIOR WALL ABOVEGROUND FLOOR LESS THAN 4 FEET) STORY immimmomme Front Façade Attached Garage G= single attached GG =double attached(one double door or two or more single doors) Flat Roof—Less than 3/12 pitch F = flat roofed Non-Single Family/Duplex Codes (do not classify size, garage or roof pitch) M=Multifamily(3 or more housekeeping units) C = Commercial V = Vacant Appendix: E. HCC Web-site Web-page http://www.sic-avenues.org/housing.htm Uploaded Approx. 1/9/2006 Avenues Housing Compatibility Committee Introduction Thank you for visiting the Avenues Housing Compatibility Committee(HCC)web-page.The Salt Lake City Council recently adopted new residential zoning regulations for the entire city(400-25-05). Since it was generally accepted that the new ordinance did not adequately protect some neighborhoods,temporary measures were enacted by the City Council to provide additional protection to the SR-I district(Single family Residential)of the Avenues and the R-1-5000 Wasatch Hollow area in Sugarhouse for a period of six months. The City Council's expectation was that these neighborhoods would use the six month period to create an "overlay"zone to replace the temporary measures when they expire.According to 'A Collection of Terms: Commonly heard in Local Government and in Land Use Planning'provided by the Utah Local Governments Trust at their planning workshops, an overlay zone is a"set of zoning requirements that are in addition to those of the underlying district. Developments within the overlay zone must conform to the requirements of both zones,or the more restrictive of the two. It usually is employed to deal with special physical characteristics such as flood plains,historical areas, soils,or hillsides." Zoning overlay districts are an established and accepted method of fine-tuning zoning regulations to specific areas.Many areas of the city have zoning overlays that take precedence over the city's general regulations. The Housing Compatibility Committee(HCC)was working on such an overlay for the SR-1 district of the Avenues when the recently adopted city-wide ordinance was proposed. The HCC overlay work was suspended in order to assess how the city ordinance would affect the Avenues. Now that the ordinance is complete the HCC has resumed work on an overlay for the SR-1 district of the Avenues.This webpage has been created to provide information to the community about this process,and to increase input from community members.HCC meeting schedules and contact information are provided as well as other documents and information. For the HCC, Shane Carlson Jim Jenkin Housing Compatibility Committee Meeting Schedule Dale/Day Time Location 12/28/05 7:00 PM Sweet Library Minutes 1/9/06(Monday) 7:30 PM Sweet Library Agenda Minutes 1/18/06(Wednesday) 7:00 PM Memorial House* Agenda Minutes 1/30/06(Monday) 7:00 PM Sweet Library Agenda Minutes 2/1/06(Wednesday) 7:00 PM Monthly GACC Meeting HCC Presentation 2/6/06(Monday) 7:00 PM Sweet Library Agenda Minutes 2/8/06(Wednesday) CHANGED TO 2/6-ABOVE 2/13/06(Monday) 6:30 PM Sweet Library qg nda tMinutes 2/22/06(Wednesday) 7:00 PM Sweet Library Agenda ► IMinutes 2/27/06(Monday) 7:00 PM Sweet Library AN on Minutes Monthly GACC Meeting- 3/1/06(Wednesday) 7:00 PM VOTE on Overlay Proposal Overlay Summary Document Overlay Document Text 3/13/06(Wednesday) 7:00 PM Sweet Library Agenda Minutes 3/15/06(Monday) 7:00 PM CHANGED TO 3/13-ABOVE Agenda Minutes *(Located inside Memory Grove. Drive up Canyon Road to the entrance gate of Memory Grove Park. Stop at gate,gate will open,proceed) HCC Information, Documents, and Zoning Maps Contact Info Housing committee contact information: Questions can be sent to AvenuesHCC@Comcast.net or you can call Shane at 596-3939.To be added to the HCC email list,send a message to AvenuesHCC@Comcast.net requesting to be added to or removed from the email list. Return to Housing main page Maps See HCC Final Overlay Documents below for maps to be submitted with the Overlay request. Doc ID Description 001 Avenues SR-1 Zoning Map(127 kb gif) 002 Avenues All Zones Map(853 kb pdf from the SLC Planning website).Updated Jan 2006. 003 Updated SR-1 Zoning Map(756 kb pdf)including Avenues and Capitol Hill Salt Lake City Planning Documents Doc ID Description Newly Adopted City-Wide Infill Ordinance(1209 kb pdf) 100 Text of new infill document. Includes only those sections of code that were modified, added,or deleted.See Doc 103 for final version of document. Temporary Infill Restrictions for SR-1 and Wasatch Hollow Areas(179 kb pdf) These temporary restrictions will expire in July 2006.They apply to the SR-1 area north of 102 South Temple and east of 1-15 and the R-1/5000 and R-1/7000 districts of Wasatch Hollow (the area from 1300 East to 1900 East and 1300 South to 1900 South).See Doc 104 for final version of document. 103 Newly Adopted City-Wide Infill Ordinance(1350 kb pdf).Final document signed by. the Mayor. 104 Temporary Infill Restrictions for SR-1 and Wasatch Hollow Areas(223 kb pdf).Final document signed by the Mayor. 105 Letter to GACC from the Planning Department(95 kb pdf)-Outlines the requirements for an overlay. 106 Avenues Master Plan(10278 kb pdf from the SLC Planning website), adopted July 1987. HCC Working Documents Doc ID Description 200 HCC time line for an Overlay permit(36 kb pdf) Time line for completing an overlay before the current temporary ordinance expires. 201 Current Temporary Ordinances for the Avenues SR-1 zone(131 kb pdf) HCC Final Overlay Documents Doc ID 'Description Letter to Joel Patterson requesting Planning Department surveys of example 400 properties(24 kb pdf)--Document 401 is a map of the requested properties and 402 is a table with the exact addresses. 401 Map of Planning Department Survey Request Properties(529 kb pdf) 402 'Chart With Addresses of Planning Department Survey Properties(56 kb pdf) 403 Avenues SR-1 Inventory Criteria/Codes used on Maps(62 kb pdf) 404 Avenues SR-1 Inventory by building height(2091 kb pdf) 405 Avenues SR-1 Inventory of Flat Roofs(1056 kb pdf) 406 Avenues SR-1 Inventory of garages attached to front facade(1080 kb pdf) Rekkh407 Avenues SR-1 Overlay Summary--as of 2/23/06(60 kb pdf) NEW1408 Avenues SR-1 Overlay Counter Permit Dimensional Restrictions(141 kb pdf) Infill Scenarios Doc ID Description 500 Lot Coverage 501 Side Setback 502 Accessory Buildings News articles and links Doc ID Description 600 Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission 601 Utah Heritage Foundation 602 Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning 603 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Appendix: F. Survey Properties a.Map of block faces b.Chart of addresses to be surveyed Proposed Survey Properties Representing Vulnerable SR-1 "Block Faces" The following fifteen properties were estimated to be the tallest buildings on sixteen blocks vulnerable to excessively tall in-fill. These"block faces"were chosen from over fifty "block faces" identified by the Housing Committee members as being vulnerable to tall in-fill. This list was selected to represent areas spread across the SR-1 district. It does not represent the 16 most vulnerable blocks. No. Block Face Address 1 West side of U, between 2-3rd Ayes. 1182 2"Ave (corner) 2 North side of 2nd, between R-S 1073 2"Ave 3 South side of 4th, between N-0 874 4th Ave 4 West side J of Street,between 2-3rd 117 J Street 5 South side of 6th, between C-D 310 6th Ave 6 East side of D, between 10-1 1th 354 11th Ave(corner) 7 South side of 7th, between E-F 418 7th Ave 8 North side of 12th, between G-H 604 G Street(comer)* 9 East side of G, between 12-13th 604 G Street * 10 South side of 6th, between I-J 626 6th Ave 11 East side of L, between 5-6th 274 L Street 12 East side of J,between 8-9th 434 J Street 13 East side of G, between 9-10th 486 G Street 14 West side of K, between 7-8th 373 K Street 15 East side of G,between 7-8th 379 G Street 16 South side of 3rd between S-T 1104 3rd Ave 17 North side of 9th between J-K 663 9th Avenue ** * represents two block faces ** Added to list on 2/6/06 I Avenues Community Council Housing Committee Survey Propoerties for "Vulnerable Blockfaces" `c 4 IPA 1 on �Z� C Q _gyp illi'�i� ; �� //- ( i'll"., - , II - 67_-117-L ''- ',?‘4 III\ te� o 11-be*it Ism �/ Noss titi01 a ;ALL L',' � III If 1 ®E w > wA g11 t� iD ) ltc6frii S €a arm masts ��' � _ F> �IFI PIE II Fli}1 {!6 ixe{�1 IIIEI tl�I1f !@!■ (\ �:, ,,,. ;IM {{Ei Ei .** k i EE e ![ERS ism Tirii ant n l-i Ff. ep[lte- seItil ,EII 116EFi 3°� 9 rf(:Sld r!t 1 !1k trill E &� 111®_IT i ��" F e I cl EI 7 itlt{fe �f1IIl ! [l[ �t,tti Ef rBN:fl{hl aii�iE! EiF6e1! €lS,EA k€C � 1111' I I I {EI{ I "1" EE. t EE -tla :€1 se tIP! 1—&IFn L o j I ���' ' I l .� ®lf,� - lam_-:_ c*t^"��-\ .��� ell,. 1.—: FF1 EIIA ii ii IEslz, f€e{li: 16FII.i ��� ri ME a!@`I €ltti o-al i= 7,:11 r , _ LI °LEE" I IltII 111111 lii1 T1 ttrill illltil i ni 74i ii I!!:I® it Uri oiiit 511 cry, 1= t(' IIn 1 w i 6 ar EE° NF i`IPl�c I F �x 1itlal TI „�g6llll dully iim rr ti i 'fEillirire(il 16FIHi Eil tlillti :1 um' {� a .xi lr •1!illu twit z t!..E.: li wr.1 F�61F I, it at rim rlttfii - rE€Ile -,-,.I 1 Nil �;r n _-1ftre Eill1l, „ililot II{_ti -Will - Lli ,Ilte _-i4c_ I !ei v{i{ra E.": l�. B14 12 tl6 i- r � � � .�tlig EC! :1{I tl�iillA , �� !�1{ir, i� „illlti I�IE! LI C st{iil i in c ra,d 16,iiiiv II, L r, ®I�"'_;-Ir' ,rag®a ZIT" ' N kit an 1 I IFIP. ii{Iu 1 4 a ii i(ill., {g t ,ti{ra 11 r t!- , tI{I{t air Qli{t[ 1 � l,'- 1 ,t..121 3 Et OSE1— gf: 9,E EMS ME FrIIIE a a 11 r— .I n u s e■ -VI 7 t - til4 ' I1t1 ; OW BPI ENE l =_ tut"I I IN 5 el{I' , {®, .�i{{„ �iliin kttlt# iiAti, �r ■Etfl ��I{In {Fr1 ,uiTi t 1u 111 tEtllm i61!{ illllil! I111'I, ;�tl:ril ei til I III �I-� al EMI— EP-r tt i reo -t 11 mtg. - Illl1llr II �,F r � — Ti � ® � t� �m117 q(d• ePEIF� [WE; t r�si �v. -I -I I 11Ei n n I 1 ITTI_1 l , )I rail: r1011.11 Ilti {lll lid ®` i llsli rii 1' rim I T r III x u sl n. 1 CI EE! n " a t�L h aL r--I I -1— gig I-, F {m If• �Il.- IFII ICI® e91°1 I ��e ;11- I _I 7Ill OM lush ' '1 n L7_ltr, —iim. L r,.tom n �1 iIt H t'I ail® Eii ri twitt`ti t 1 shill In{=-----, J, r]n 1 7 1 U ❑ [ L P{r U E E IE° I !: a t!!E rr®, e!N! gv.1 Till altl 1 i f I- L-I ruKIli ,,EEO Ii rill Ll I l i L., I 1 _7 MIN Id1{ Etllll II T VIM IM ■l :1 ii p , - SOUTH El T ,���' - 11== __ = - I'' _ w I V ��""I W I_. w w w M_ — w r � � fl I'JJ 1� a 8 fie a 1 11 �SI It in .Indl 1 z I 11S i E L 1 ii—ILI F:1 f 11-- W IF IQ i ,,,..,,,, _ ,,,,,... .4 ,, I LEI F.'I _ -.5,Li f1iI W FLIfl YT i i ' -1 N Appendix: G. Proposed SIB- 1 Overlay a.Text b.Chart of R-1 Zoning Regulations over time S Proposed Greater Avenues Community Council • SR-1 Overlay Counter Permit Dimensional Restrictions 1. Language to be removed from the City-wide Infill Ordinance for the SR-1 Overlay is shown as str-i�t-hr-eugh. 2. Language to be added to the SR-1 Overlay that differs from the City-wide Infill Ordinance is shown as underlined. 3. All other language shall be carried forward to the SR-1 Overlay. 21A.24.080 SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the SR-1 special development pattern residential district is to maintain the unique character of older predominantly low density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes and bulk characteristics. B. Uses: Uses in the SR-1 special development pattern residential district, as specified in section 21A.24.190, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this chapter, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Minimum Lot Area and Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district are as follows: Land Use Minimum Minimum Lot Area Lot Width 1 Single-family detached 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. dwellings _ 2 Two-family dwellings 8,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 3 Twin home dwellings per dwelling 4,000 sq. ft. 25 ft. unit 4 Natural open space and conservation areas, No minimum No minimum minimum public and private 5 Public pedestrian pathways,trails and No minimum No minimum minimum greenways 6 Utility substations and buildings 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 7 Municipal service uses, including city utility uses No minimum No minimum and police and fire stations 8 Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 sq. ft. 80 ft. 9 Public/private utility transmission wires, minimum No minimum No minimum lines, pipes and poles us c:s) p a, C Y 0 C a) a) C ° ,_ 'O ca Z7 r'- � L' U .. .J a) E -a C 'fl co 7a p '_ ,. Q ° x Cil CT a) a) a _ Co n. O a.Q co ° a) ch a) c co co = �_ �" o oacNa) o L = -a0oEEO (tv°,) o cm `� ° E o CO U cn ^.r a) ..a o a) o r ° o a) 0 c°)� t ° .cw coo v) _0 co E o o co 2 c c O = co :a ate) a (aa o 0 L. c E �, Q, o 0 'c- o a) v m •C a)4cL)- c ° co c ° L) O Oz X COro ° co - = o `o 0 c co ° � > oo c a) co= -QCo a) c ' NEa) . E a) — CO EEa) w a as X � � � E � c° o � Eo Co ru °° CO °) L''E E E ?' L —, a) a) °' 'c °)15 o E o m . -,.j E Co a c E o f o a) o E Via= : a) ca ° m a) C N o - 0 o QLEEE - � a ° w � a (oom � o � L o 0 ° tea Sao o ° � 0 o ° a) Co -o o in o a) a o o 0 cm a L o U •E o c a- o Co .� c a) o �c a) '-C° C o � a d) O L E 0 coo a) `n � d' >< 0 U) °o . E o c c -� • co r- 0 cco a L'E- EL E >, E CO m o o :E N o O E E O (p Oo \ o .. o co 4,5 Eg ° ° cAa o ° a oco Lao r � Zaa) ca -ao •c o o 0-5sa LT- V- o COL O U C a' o O u) v) `� - a Lo IC co .0 � s m n � � a) c; o f a) E °a a) oa_ a) O5� o Eo ° co m co L c c Co — c co ,c o E a) o 0 o C- — a EEC)' E E m o sr) coIn o .- to 5cc2 5a0o 0 o a) .� ._ -o 0 E � -o ° C N ' E N- C co .5E _aE a) .—..._ E 'L a) lG u) c o o J v) c) r C a) E -aL1J § Q L' -o O C a) asCo a) ° o E E = -cO (v c a) — i L 0 .� O El...) C 6. cas = a a a a) E E E o N F. E E c a) C a) co (x6 fx6 m = — _ Y o E E E E m c 01 U L ® -O U Q O O U •'L _ N a) U C a. V V V E Lo m a) E °co a O o co -a O v) o co m m N E U E a vE °i v°i U) a a a) E co E E ai a) ow E E c 3 V 'E X U U U N .0 = O ca) a) ti V1 t N to as cc) `° Y co o c • 3 0 o a) N c c o • ar- a) i u) U in O Y " (0 O 2 O O c U C. 8 v) a) c (3a0 ° E 0 Sao W oC . °co ON � 0 (1) a' a) ° �, o x "- c 0v) , 0 `Oa �- a2c ,� Li) co a) 3p `ac) a) cn0M •— -a �O o U C CD C a a O 7 "O C 0 C a _0 O C Z m O 0 0 o a= s to a) acca o .0 0 o 0 o U � c .� o � o a°) ° .c x -_ @ _ o— in � .0 Ln x .0 Z r a $ O W N N -0 _ as a) as (0 a) io a O C fl y a) U > a C ° O N a) a) to C (6 -0 a) — O O a) _ _ .� L _= as — O N Ccts a, 0 0 rn O a) o U O !A (6 CD L c 4- as a) -c; M ,- ' co � a) r and 0 d Oo c..) a) c O tan) a) a) a) O C C 0 a) Ea J Z C ,- � N 0 a0 C a) t 13. vo a) $ C 0 a) O (6 (6 "a O C N a� Q) a) 2 a'r a) U > ` a) C C CZ X C O N y �.� ,� (a O a) C X C C.) D to (0 CD O c w C L N C (.0 Li O Y a) N C 0 :6 'a N a) O O a) (I) 0 0 ) L to 2a C C O m O � Z .0o to D 0 (i6 LC N- ' N -0 00 C. 0 • , � as c -0 0a— v ` � 0r _ a) to O coN a) m a a) cyv) ID o � � 0 O •' O c c c c 0 A �. .aa) a- ° a) a) V m0@ N � o E 0 0 0 a) a) C to O ° .. :a a) C �' N � a) C co cc c c c N a)Ct a) d � � (Om_ � - - -0 ,� t o 3 (n w E o a) c o 0 0 r- °) (0 Or to o C C w Q) O .CC , 7 a) o ° 2 a) O Z y O N - c —'C o m —` a) `• E a_ a O p 0 v' .` -a a c a0s � o a) 8 a)ao .co E r -c al Q o ) 3 CI) c o E E 73 as c0 o •c 2 to c en O f S E o 0 E ° as -a 111 U -2 a '� w a > n: } Ct >- Ct a) 13 a, to to E 0 12 J J I. O O 2 p 1- E C - C ` a I O .r w �i U U cCC a OOOp a) -0' — h 11U _ ! IU •a Oo mo O U y d o 0 0 0 0 75 Y 0 ` ° .0 oz m ° o .0 _0 -C OaO co o o LC) N 42 N = U E 03 c c0 Y O = Q. C 0 v co a'- °' ocaD3 � 0 � � 03 d N ° O c� " � Ep c 4-' -cE � 0) - -0 co .= CO T O cr) - p C c0 E O cC E ," a) ° CD CD � -d c v � o •m_ QOOUvOcp(Q CO c ° CO 0X _c C.) i ° O 0 CD 0) a o to RS p ° j O t O ° j a _ (IDY O Q O O N p O c C `a o 0 In � � N m c --° m c ' � a -c � c • E m =as a"5 cn co- d co ° oca = 3 °' 0c0 03 L Q) a) 1 O - r -0 •C_ RS r -O •C_ U i > •c c E O c E ° c co (13 a) N a) O a) O i f +r o c (0 L � � �O O L O •� 0 _u) C la a7 o O a) c0 .. -p ° OL p 4_ -p N CD Oy p C O p > U p O O p i Q) O C O X C I+ -a M a' a' Q ,� i O ° (0 i o ° 0 0 'c- o • O ` cn N cn f0 p Y O O N `� p a N N 0 0 - U Q c0 a' • - - (0 - 2 .- Q 'aa � o 0 0 InLnN ° mom mcoE � � a� cYE3 � [Y IQ d $ o 1. co- �f oo O. .a=' O co 3 3 .� o c c o 3 = � N m o }' -0 E ° O =' - E 3 Z• Na CD N � 0 .c , ca Cr).0 `a EO c E ° p a O >, CO O >. (Q Q) _ �' >-, � Ero o E o'o Q >, c ca o -p o) c At R � CT CT a m a'� M a' a � � 0 O Uc ° v, � w c s c E • rfin fin o E -0E E -a E CO -a> e- a) a co c o c -:c' E CC 0 T o E E co E o A en C (n a .�' cCCIco Tim _c' a� I 0 w G� 3 E E 0 0 0 E o E J N J 0 E ori) a co E N a coX 6 cX0 /V � 3cn 2 EC 2 V E E a caN N Ca5 N � a °° aN N O - Q) _ m m• N a) E >" a' a> E >' o m co. . o . a• G co (n I co U) I ~ a d L. 10 Other permitted or conditional uses as listed in 5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. section 21A.24.190 of this chapter D. Maximum Building Height: 1. The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs shall be: a: Twenty eight feet (28') measured to the ridge of the roof, or a: Twenty three feet (23') measured to the ridge of the roof, or b: the average height of other principal buildings on the block face 2. The maximum Height of flat roofed buildings shall be twenty feet (20') 2. The maximum Height of flat roofed buildings shall be sixteen feet (16') 3. The maximum exterior wall height adjacent to interior side yards, sixteen feet (16') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. Exterior wall height may increase one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) in height for each foot (or fraction thereof) of increased setback beyond the minimum required interior side yard. If an exterior wall is approved with a reduced setback through a special exception, variance, or other process, the maximum allowable exterior wall height decreases by one (1) foot (or fraction thereof) for each foot (or fraction thereof) that the wall is located closer to the property line than the required side yard setback. a: Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes , the downhill exterior wall height may increase by one half foot (0.5')for each one foot (1') difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and the downhill faces of the building. b: Exceptions: i. Gable walls: Walls at the end of a pitched roof may extend to a height necessary to support the roof structure except that the height of the top of the widest portion of the gable wall must conform to the maximum wall height limitation described in this section. ii. Dormer walls. Dormer walls are exempt from the maximum exterior wall height if: 1) The width of the dormer is ten feet (10') or less, and 2) The total combined width of dormers is less than or equal to fifty percent (50%) of the length of the building façade facing the interior side yard, and 3) Dormers are spaced at least eighteen inches (18") apart. 4. Building height for initial construction of a building shall be measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building coverage. Building height for any subsequent structural modification or addition to a building shall be measured from the finished grade existing at the time a building permit is requested. Building height for the SR districts is defined and illustrated in part VI, chapter 21A.62 of this Title. 5. Where buildings are stepped to accommodate the slope of terrain, each step shall have a horizontal dimension of at least twelve feet (12'). 6. Additional Building height a. For properties outside of the Historic Preservation Overlay District, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by an Administrative Hearing Officer subject to the special exception standards in 21A 52 and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The administrative hearing officer will approve, approve with conditions, deny, or refer the application to the board of adjustment to be considered as a special exception pursuant to Chapter 21A 52 of this Title. Any person adversely affected by a decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer may appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in an Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of chapter 21A 34 020. E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are three or more SR-1 principal buildings with front yards on a block face, the average shall be calculated excluding the one property with the smallest front setback and excluding the one property with the largest front yard setbacks. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. 2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10'). For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required corner side yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Twin Home Dwellings: No side yard is required along one side lot line while a ten foot (10') yard is required on the other. b. Other Uses: i. Corner Lots: Four feet (4'). ii. Interior Lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. a. Where the width of a lot is 46' 8"or narrower, total minimum side setbacks shall be equal to 30% of the lot width with one side being four feet (4') and the other side being 30% of the lot width minus four feet. b. Where a lot is 26' 8" or narrower, required side setbacks shall be a minimum of four feet (4') and four feet (4'). c. In no case where required side setbacks are less than four feet (4') and ten feet (10') shall the addition, remodel or new construction be closer than ten feet (10') to a primary structure on an adjacent property. 4. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than fifteen feet (15') and need not exceed thirty feet (30'). 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to table 21 A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Yards", of this Title (see below). a. Maximum building coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. b. Primary Accessory Building—One Accessory building may have up to the following dimensions: i. A foot print of up to four hundred and eighty square feet (480') ii. Roof Peak/ridge Height of up to 14 feet (14') above the existing grade. iii. A flat roofed height limit of nine feet(9') above the existing grade. iv. An exterior wall height of nine feet (9') above the existing grade. a. Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may increase by one half foot (0.5') for each one foot (1')difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and the downhill faces of the building. c. Secondary Accessory Buildings—All other accessory buildings shall have the following dimensions: i. Roof Peak/ridge Height of up to 10 feet (10') above the existing grade. ii. Flat roofed height limit of eight feet (8') above the existing grade. iii. An exterior wall height of eight feet (8') above the existing grade. iv. Secondary accessory buildings may be attached to the primary accessory building so long as all buildings conform to the required wall and roof ridge height restrictions. F. Maximum Building Coverage: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the lot area. For lots with buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of existing buildings shall be considered legal conforming. (Ord. 88-95 § 1 (Exh. A), 1995: Ord. 26-95 § 2(12-7), 1995) G. Maximum Lot Size: With exception of lots created by a subdivision plat, notice of minor subdivision or minor subdivision amendments recorded in the Office of the Salt Lake City Recorder, the maximum size of a new lot shall not exceed 150% of the minimum lot size allowed by the base zoning district. Lots in excess of the maximum lot size shall be created through the subdivision process subject to the following standards: 1. The size of the new lot is compatible with lots on the same block face, 2. The configuration of the lot is compatible with the other lots on the same block face, and 3. The relationship of the lot width to the lot depth is compatible with other lots on the same block face. H.Standards for Attached Garages: Width of an attached garage. The width of an attached garage facing the street may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the width of the front facade of the house. The width of the garage is equal to the width of the garage door, or in the case of multiple garage doors, the sum of the width of each garage door plus the width of any intervening wall elements between garage doors. 21A.36.020 Conformance with Lot And Bulk Controls: A. Conformance With District Requirements: No structure or lot shall be developed, used or occupied unless it meets the lot area, lot width, yards, building height, floor area ratio, and other requirements established in the applicable district regulations, except where specifically established otherwise elsewhere in this title. In any residential district, on a lot legally established prior to April 12, 1995, a single- family dwelling may be erected regardless of the size of the lot, subject to complying with all yard area requirements of the R-1/5,000 district. Legal conforming lots in nonresidential districts shall be approved for any permitted use or conditional use allowed in the zoning district subject to complying with all yard area requirements of the district in which the lot is located. B. Obstructions In Required Yards: Accessory uses and structures, and projections of the principal structure, may be located in a required yard only as indicated ("X")in table 21A.36.020B of this section. No portion of an obstruction authorized in table 21A.36.020B of this section shall extend beyond the authorized projection. Dimensions shall be measured from the finished surface of the building or structure. Table 21A.36.020B OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS Type Of Structure Or Use Obstruction Front Side Rear And Yard Yard Corner Side Yards Accessory buildings subject to the provisions of chapter 21A.40 of this X part, and 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 1 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 2 districts unless otherwise authorized. Architectural ornament not elsewhere regulated projecting not more than X X X 3 4 inches Awnings and canopies, extending not more than 21/2 feet into front, X X X corner side, or side yards and not more than 5 feet into rear yards 4 allowed in residential districts only 5 Balconies projecting not more than 5 feet X 6 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, project 2 X X X 7 feet or less and are located not less than 4 feet from a lot line 8 Below grade encroachments (see note 2 below) X X X g Breezeways and open porches X Central air conditioning systems, heating, ventilating, pool and filtering X X equipment, the outside elements shall be located not less than 4 feet from a lot line. Structures less than 4 feet from the property line shall be reviewed as a special exception according to the provisions of section 10 21A.52.030 of this title. Chimneys projecting 2 feet or less into the yard must be located not less X X 11 than 2 feet from a lot line. 12 Decks (open) 2 feet high or less X X X Eaves, not including gutters projecting 2 feet or less into the yard. 4 foot X X X 13 eave may project into a 20 foot yard area. Fallout shelters (completely underground), conforming to applicable civil X 14 defense regulations and located not less than 4 feet from a lot line Fences or walls subject to applicable height restrictions of chapter X X X 15 21A.40ofthispart 16 Fire escapes projecting 4 feet or less X 17 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 X X X shall be 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 18 retaining wall.) Type Of Structure Or Use Obstruction Front Side Rear And Yard Yard Corner Side Yards Ham radio antennas subject to provisions of subsection 21A.40.090D of X 19 this part Landscaping, including decorative berms 4 feet or less in height with no X X X grade change along any property line, provided that if such landscaping obstructs the visibility of an intersection the city may require its pruning or 20 removal. 21 Laundry drying equipment (clothesline and poles) X Parking, carports and covered parking spaces except as otherwise X 22 expressly authorized by table 21A.44.050 of this part 23 Patios on grade X X X Patios on grade (attached, covered and unenclosed) maintaining a X 24 minimum 15 foot setback from the rear property line 25 Porches (attached,covered and unenclosed) projecting 5 feet or less X 26 Recreational (playground) equipment X 27 Refuse dumpster X 28 Removable handicapped ramp (when approved as a special exception) X X X 29 Satellite dish antennas X X 30 Signs, subject to the provisions of chapter 21A.46 of this part X X X Steps and required landings 4 feet or less above or below grade which X X X are necessary for access to a permitted building and located not less 31 than 4 feet from a lot line • Swimming pools (measured to the water line), tennis courts, game X X courts, and similar uses shall not be located less than 10 feet from a 32 property line. Window mounted refrigerated air conditioners and evaporative "swamp" X X X coolers located at least 2 feet from the property line. Window mounted refrigerated air conditioner units and "swamp"coolers less than 2 feet from the property line shall be reviewed as a special exception according 33 to the provisions of section 21A.52.030 of this title. Window wells not over 6 feet in width and projecting not more than 3 feet X X X 34 from structure Notes: 1. "X"denotes where obstructions are allowed. 2. Below grade encroachments (encroachments which are completely below grade where the surface grade remains intact and where the below grade encroachment is not visible from the surface) into required yards shall be treated as a routine and uncontested matter in accordance with the procedures set forth in chapter 21A.14 of this title. Appendix: H. Proposed Overlay Sketch Scenarios a.Lot coverage and attic addition b.Proposed interior lot side setback allowance c.Accessory building lot coverage and height a i o o Iwt cr O FD cn • C— J r 0 • Ccv CD 0 r..r) : 0', cl o o /� r.I / E.,..` n 0 O = l✓ C✓ rrl }: ► O_ C TCA °✓ ..d 1 e -1 "" (D GC r N Q # _• . r, fn p o 0- _ 3 I I :•1 , a. D o n E } .r 7 3 Q - CD gg ? 1. LI E • r,, , ...• a) C I 4..= : �' ,,., 5 CL CD CD 8 0 °I ov ~I lv. ~ o • CD I c C i CD Cr t *. ) -, 0 1 .... 3 Ft-, ti o a) . 1) 0 C 02 . . . . .-*•' 2 — ''''U .... r-+ -. 0...e t\ «..) -.) -•,... --i-' _.,„ 2) .-P• c) -t ...-, • 4,) - .n -• 2,) fr,E CA, ry • -: v.' o v, o v) -% • — o 0 ci) V.1 cr co t;0 = -6..... = `,? =cr) = ta- > a. = - 4, C) -• (..) ..., tro ri) CrO Cl) LA CA i O .4. L; 00 Cr-N - = > ...... = ''' n • - — c .0 v) —• -1 0 1 *--4- --+ El 0 ,.. ....... CD co v) DO (D .i.. P 4- 7-,- ,_, all oc 0 0 ........ ,-H- 0 - z.) m — — c A --7 tr 0 -I -I- -..1 m ,-,- -t 0 0 -I., EXHIBIT 5c PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Draft) Petition 400-06-08—to develop Neighborhood based Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City &County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday,April 12, 2006 Excerpt Present for the Planning Commission were Laurie Noda (Chairperson), Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Robert Forbis Jr., Peggy McDonough (Vice Chairperson), Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Craig Galli was excused from the meeting. Present from the Planning Division were Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor; Kevin LoPiccolo, Zoning Administrator; Sarah Carroll, Principal Planner; Marilynn Lewis, Principal Planner; Ray McCandless, Principal Planner; and Cindy Rockwood, Planning Commission Secretary. Petition 400-06-08—Salt Lake City Council initiated a request to amend existing provisions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance relating to single-and two-family land uses in City Council District Three that may contribute to incompatible residential infill development within the Special Pattern Residential 1 (SR-1) Zoning District. The proposed amendments include creating a subcategory of the SR-1 Zoning District for those properties currently zoned SR-1 in City Council District Three to address general lot and bulk issues including building height, yard requirements, and accessory building standards. This petition would also amend the zoning maps to implement the above referenced amendments to the SR-1 Zoning District for all properties within the Capitol Hill and Avenues Planning Communities currently zoned SR-1. The Capitol Hill and Avenues Planning Communities are generally located between 1-15 and North Campus Drive from South Temple to the north City limits. (This item was heard at 7:31 p.m.) Chairperson Noda recognized Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor, as Staff representative. Mr. Paterson presented a short background relating to the Compatible Infill Ordinance Standards adopted in December 2005. He noted that Ordinance 90 was permanent, while Ordinance 91 was established to temporarily allow additional time for the Wasatch Hollow Community Council area and the Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill areas to continue work developing neighborhood based zoning standards that the community councils were working on. Mr. Paterson added that Wasatch Hollow has not submitted their proposal, but is anticipated for submission in the upcoming summer months. Mr. Paterson acknowledged the submission of the Avenues and Capitol Hill's joint proposal to create new standards for the SR-1 areas. Mr. Paterson clarified that an overlay zone was not being proposed, rather a text amendment to create a subsection of the SR-1 zone (SR-1A). A zoning map amendment is also being proposed to place the SR-1A zoning classification on the areas currently zoned SR-1 in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Council areas. Mr. Paterson added that a text and map amendment create ease of use for the individuals involved with future development in the SR-1 zoning of the respective areas. Mr. Paterson stated that the proposal submitted by the Capitol Hill and Avenues Community Councils suggest the following changes to the existing proposal. Mr. Paterson also presented the findings of Staff in relation to Ordinance 90. He also clarified that the requirements, if not met by the applicant, may be altered after consideration by Staff and a public hearing is held. 1 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 12, 2006 Citywide Greater Avenues Topic (Ordinance 90) Staff Proposal Proposal* (If different than Staff) Building Height 28' 23' or the average height of the block face. Flat Roof Height/Maximum 20' 16' Exterior Wall Height To determine the average To determine the setback on the block face if average setback on three or more parcels are the block face if located on the block face. three or more Front Yard Setback (The greatest and smallest parcels are located setbacks may only be on the block face. eliminated if more than four (The greatest and parcels are located on the smallest setbacks block face.) would be eliminated from the.calculation.) 10' (Eliminate the language to permit Corner Side Yard 10' over-the-counter inline additions in the side yard.) Interior Side Yard 4' on one side and 10' on the other. * To determine the size of the structure by using the standard that the accessory Accessory Structures structure can be up to 50% of Footprint Size 720 square feet the size of the home with a 480 square feet maximum of 600 square feet and a minimum of 480 square feet.** Accessory Structures— Maximum Building Height 17' 15' 14' (grade to the ridge) 10' (A provision is being Accessory Structures— considered to adjust the Flat Roof Height/Maximum 12' height requirements for 9 Exterior Wall Height sloping lots.) *Mr. Paterson stated that the determination of the interior side yard can be calculated by taking 30% of the width of the lot. He stated that, with the new ordinance, a minimum 4' setback will be required on one side, and the calculation of the other would be the 30% minus the four feet. Mr. Paterson included that because of the narrowness of the lots in the Avenues and Capitol Hill areas, there could be instances where side yards will be 4' on one side and 8' on another. He stated that although the size of the required side yard may be altered, the City will require 10' between structures in all instances. ** Mr. Paterson included that although the 600 square feet maximum could be greater than the 50% threshold, many of the homes are within the historic districts. He noted that under the current historic district standards Staff can approve administratively, 600 square foot garages. Mr. Paterson stated that Staff is recommending the modifications to the Avenues/Capitol Hill Proposal based on comments received from the Permits and Licensing Division. He stated that the input received 2 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 12, 2006 was that it could be difficult, with a maximum height of 9', to provide a 7' tall garage door because of the requirements for the roof structure and the hardware required for the garage door. Correspondingly, Staff recommends the one foot additional height to the Accessory Structure— Flat Roof Height/Maximum Exterior Wall Height. Mr. Paterson stated that representatives from the Avenues/Capitol Hill Community Council will present their findings with relation to the suggested changes from Staff. He also mentioned that the findings are also available in the Staff Report. The Avenues/Capitol Hill proposal includes secondary accessory building standards for the purpose of building an additional storage shed. Mr. Paterson stated that the standards being proposed include a pitched roof height of 10' and a flat roof/exterior wall height of 8'. He stated that Staff concurs with the suggested standards, including that the secondary accessory structures may be attached to the primary accessory structure or be separate. Mr. Paterson also noted that because the overall development standards relate to accessory structures in a different section of the zoning ordinance, Staff is proposing clarifications in the SR-1 section of the ordinance to include separate standards. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council with the modifications as noted by Staff. Commissioner De Lay requested further information regarding the background of the shorter height requirement. She also requested the smallest width lot that could be built upon given the new side yard requirements. Mr. Paterson stated that the original request was 23' when sent to the City Council, but was altered. Mr. Paterson stated that the minimum lot size would be 25' in width. Commissioner Scott clarified that the height changes have been recommended by the Building Department. Mr. Paterson stated that the maximum roof height for accessory structures is 17' measured to the peak according to Citywide standards. He added that the flat roof requirement for accessory structures is 12' Citywide and is also considered a standard for the maximum exterior wall height. Mr. Paterson stated that caution had been given to staff on adjusting to a height lower than 10' because it could be difficult to accommodate. Commissioner Muir requested further information regarding the growth standards, while recognizing the desirable condition of investment in the neighborhoods. He requested further information on how the City measures for disinvestment occurrences. Mr. Ikefuna clarified that the Division is measuring and maintaining records of the number of requests and the method of the approval. A report will be created within the next few months to illustrate the pattern that has occurred since the adoption of the ordinance. He stated that the two reasons the division is tracking the progress are: 1)to consider the amount of staff time affected; and 2) to determine the number of applications given over-the-counter permits. Mr. Ikefuna stated that on June 28, a report will be prepared and presented to the Commission on the findings of the last six months the Compatible Infill Ordinance has been in effect. Mr. Paterson noted that in areas within the City historic districts, the Historic Landmark Commission has the ability to modify many of the compatible infill standards. By living in the Historic District, the compatible infill standards can be overridden. Commissioner Chambless requested the definition of the standards of a variance when compared to the definition of the State Supreme Court. 3 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 12, 2006 Mr. Ikefuna stated that any additional standards created by the Supreme Court will not affect the City, as told by the legal representative for the City. Mr. Paterson noted that references to Special Exception standards were removed from State Law; however, City's legal counsel has advised that the City does allow for special approvals that would encompass things like special exceptions, etc. The direction given to Staff by legal representatives was that the language and standards are defensible. Special exceptions do not require illustration of hardship although variances do. Commissioner Diamond stated that there are existing structures that are taller than the maximum height, as they are historic buildings. Mr. Paterson stated that in a historic district when alterations are visible, the applicant is required to go through the Historic Landmark Commission. The standards are based upon the Secretary of Interior Guidelines and can approve additional building height to match the existing height. If the applicant is not in the Historic District, they would be required to go through the Special Exception standards. The Council considered adding language to allow additions to extend to the height of the existing ridge line, but concluded not to do so. Chairperson Noda recognized Shane Carlson and Peter Von Sivers (Heard at 8:08 p.m.) Mr. Carlson, Greater Avenues Community Council Chair, presented a brief background regarding the proposal created by the joint efforts of the Community Council. Mr. Carlson stated that some item will be discussed by the Capitol Hill Community Council, as it affects only their properties. Mr. Carlson expressed appreciation for the exceptional contributions from the community. He provided a short background of the reasoning behind the research of the community council, including how the members of the community were trained to locate and determine if properties were conforming to present ordinance requirements. Mr. Carlson stated that the research produced the following findings: 45 percent of the homes in the Avenues area are single-story homes with a roof pitch of 4:12; 23 percent are one- and-one-half story homes with potential for building; the remainder was two-story homes. Mr. Carlson noted that the findings of the research provided helpful information to determine what requirements should be considered to help provide a sense of predictability for the SR-1 Zoning. Mr. Carlson continued to discuss the proposals of the City and stated that the 23' height limit would provide a degree of predictability for homeowners that live on streets that have a varied height of homes. He noted that a priority for the accessory building requirements were that each homeowner should have the opportunity for a two-car garage. Mr. Von Sivers was recognized by the Chair and stated that the Capitol Hill Community Council does carry concern regarding the issue of the size of the garages and the height. He noted that the one foot difference in height requirements for the accessory structures will be a great deal of difference when considering the slope of some lots. Mr. Von Sivers noted that he had discussed the 9' option with numerous contractors who stated that the 7' garage door requirement would not be a problem for construction. Mr. Von Sivers shared concern regarding the Capitol Hill Overlay District extending from Girard to North Temple and the recent Master Plan discussion of the 35' maximum height requirement. Mr. Von Sivers read a portion of the revised Capitol Hill Master Plan as follows: "Structures in the SR-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts that meet the compatible infill development pattern may exceed the base zoning height to the established block face building height or 35', whichever is more restrictive". 4 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 12, 2006 He continued to state that if the Capitol Hill Master Plan was adopted, a 35' maximum height would be imposed if reconstruction ever occurs on a property. Ms. Coffey confirmed that it was a correct statement, and noted that this item would return to the Commission at a later date. Chairperson Noda requested comments from the public and placed a three-minute time limit on their comments. Margaret Miller, 653 9th Avenue, stated her desire to protect the Avenues SR-1 District from further incompatible development and was in support of the proposal as submitted. Tyrone Medley, 553 8th Avenue, stated his opposition to some of the zoning regulations, regarding the remodel of his one and one-half story home. Considering his remodel, Mr. Medley is struggling with the height average determined by the block face requirement, when no consideration is taken by the other surrounding houses; he suggested that the height restrictions and block face requirements better accommodate the characteristics of the Avenues. Jim Jenkin, 212 5th Avenue, complimented the City and the community working together to develop a set of parameters of the community to base standards that would constitute requirements. He stated that he could not agree with the wall height and peak height for accessory structures. Jill Mortensen, 426 J Street, had comments read into the record. They are as follows: "I live and look at the monster house daily. It's awful. Please stop future mishaps". Frederica Nebeker, 532 10th Avenue, stated her support for the Staff amendments, to further allow for flexibility. She stated that she has been trying to sell a home she owns in the Avenues area, but is unable to do so because of the restrictions and confusion. Commissioner Scott requested further information regarding her opinion of the accessory building differences between Staff and Community Council suggestions. Ms. Nebeker stated that she has some concern regarding the restrictions, but will have to conduct further research. Minta Brandon, 113 West Clinton Avenue, stated her support in individuality and uniqueness of the Avenues area. She cited examples of homes in the area that sell quickly because of the character when larger homes do not because of their incompatibility in the area. Kirk Huffaker, Utah Heritage Foundation, stated his support for the proposed ordinance changes. The neighborhood based standards are obvious and represent very hard work by dedicated people. He stated that the standards requested are warranted and justifiable. Cody Kurtis, 482 9th Avenue, stated his support of the Staff recommended changes to the Avenues proposal. Earl Miller, 653 9th Avenue, stated that he is in favor of the proposal and recognizes that flexibility does exist, given the tiered approach. Ann Kelsey, 351 L Street, stated her favorable position regarding the proposal. By building incompatible structures, noise will increase between homes. She noted her appreciation for the hard work and the ironing out of the process required. Ervin & Ellen Horrocks, 423 K Street, had requested their comments be read into the record. They are as follows: "We don't know how many people have said to us, 'That house next to you should never have happened' and that is what we are trying to prevent from happening in other areas. The current home 5 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 12, 2006 owners deserve protection. We need these new zoning laws now. We feel the three-tiered approach is the way to go. It is fair to everyone. Please help us protect our neighborhoods". Lon Richardson, 1280 4th Avenue, had comments read into the record, "Remember the idea of all of this, is to protect what we have, yet allow growth". James Teton, 569 9th Avenue, noted the hardship he is experiencing regarding the new ordinance has presented to the selling of his home. Given the height restriction of the 23', the home is not capable of meeting the requirements if a second story is constructed. Mr. Teton noted that with the slope, the ceiling height can vary from the front to the back and is limited because of the 23' requirement. Lewis Downey, 634 North West Capitol, did not wish to speak. The following comments were read into the record, "I am in support of the proposed amendment to the SR-1 District building guidelines". Nick Reese, Avenues resident, stated a favorable, but concerned position regarding the implementation of the tiered process. He stated that if the three-tiered process can function appropriately, the compatibility process can and should be considered. Kathryn Gardner, stated her support for the proposal. She stated that accessory building heights are not a heightened concern for her. At 9:02 p.m., Chairperson Noda closed the Public Hearing and the Commission began the Executive Session. Commissioner McDonough requested further clarification regarding the process and the three-tiers. She noted that the regulation of good design can be difficult to do through zoning ordinances. She stated concerns regarding the interpretation and review. Mr. Paterson provided a review of the tiered process, by stating that if base standards are met, an over- the-counter permit is issued.Applications are available for those who are unable to obtain an over-the- counter permit. He stated that the applications are considered for Additional Building Height for a Primary Structure, Additional Building Height or Additional Footprint Size for an Accessory Structure, and Alternate Location for an Accessory Structure. Mr. Paterson noted that only one project has been through the Administrative Hearing Process. The home met the height requirement for the front of the home, but due to the slope of the lot did not meet the requirement at the rear of the.home He stated that concern was raised by property owners near to the home„moving the authority of a decision to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Paterson added that the process for:appealing the project has no Standard of criteria. He stated that the Division will be reviewing this item with the clarification noted at the beginning of the meeting. Commissioner Muir noted concern regarding the district applicable to the Capitol Hill affected area. Mr. Paterson stated that the proposed standards for the SR-1A being requested would encompass all of the areas in the Capitol Hill area. Ms. Coffey stated that the neighborhood Commissioner Muir was concerned with was the Guadalupe Neighborhood, and a lot of reinvestment has been made in the neighborhood. It is also a National Historic District and appropriate to include in it the area and the surrounding Pugsley Street. Ms. Coffey made a clarification regarding the issue Mr. Von Sivers had addressed regarding the Capitol Hill Protective Overlay Zone, was in relation to the meeting that occurred between the representatives of the Capitol Hill and Avenues area and Staff. The Planning Division is interested in implementing provisions relating to the Master Plan and the Capitol Protective Area Overlay Zone. She stated that the overlay zone was placed with the idea of protecting the views to the State Capital. Ms. Coffey clarified that the present zoning district for that area have no exceptions to height, and if the new base zoning is 6 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 12, 2006 only 23' then regardless of the compatibility, the height will not be changed. She stated that the proposed amendment will state that chimney or church steeples are exempt from that height, so would a building that meets the compatibility ordinance or historic guidelines; it could go higher, but no higher than 35'. Commissioner De Lay stated that a great deal of community and Staff effort had been exerted to formulate the proposal, and mentioned that the individuals who are opposed to the proposal are generally still trying to understand the process and work out the complexities. Commissioner Forbis requested clarification regarding the purpose of going beyond the requested accessory building standards purposed by the Community Councils. Mr. Paterson stated that the background of the decision was based on the comments received from the City Permits and Licensing Division. Also, Mr. Paterson noted that in the change from 600 square feet to 480 square feet was the determination to keep the standards similar to the overall City standards using the 50 percent standard of the home and remain consistent with the standards for the historic district for administrative approvals. Commissioner Scott requested further information regarding a possible request for those who would like something larger than the 480 square foot. Mr. Paterson noted that the applicant has the opportunity to apply for a Routine and Uncontested approval for something larger. Commissioner Scott stated concern relating to the size of the accessory structure and the height requirement of the garage, because it's an accessory building that could obstruct the view. She noted that the applicant could, if extra storage was required, apply for the additional height. Commissioner Scott stated that she would be inclined to move forward with the lower recommendations. Commissioner Muir requested clarification regarding the side yard alterations that could occur in relation to the suggested changes. He requested further information about the most restrictive condition. Mr. Paterson responded to the question by stating that because of the narrow lot width, one of the two side yards can be reduced. The Avenues recommendation for a 10' separation is required only on one side Based on the analysis and findings presented in the Staff Report and the public statements, Commissioner De Lay made a motion for the Planning Commission to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition No.400-06-08 to amend the zoning ordinance as presented and amend the zoning map by applying SR-1A designation to all areas presently zoned SR-1 within the Avenues and Capitol Hill Planning Communities. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Seelig, and Commissioner Forbis voted "Aye". Commissioner Scott was opposed.The motion passed. Commissioner Scott requested an amendment to the motion to adjust the maximum building coverage for accessory buildings not to exceed 480 square feet. The proposed amendment was denied. 7 EXHIBIT 6 ORIGINAL PETITION Petition 400-06-08—to develop Neighborhood based Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Standards for the Avenues and Capitol Hill Communities PETITION NO. / pp f PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required i 7?/r)�413- 4P Petition delivered to Planning 1Z1t3/ice Petition assigned to: 4.-sa—rt S35-- / lib 04 Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover Y/70L Chronology 112 Property Description (marked with a post it note) /9/-* Affected Sidwell Numbers Included Athd C 7 Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils 340° Mailing Postmark Date Verification tl f Z/DL Planning Commission Minutes Lb 141 Planning Staff Report 11/i/4. , Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief ` description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office 00 Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition 535-G�yl jue,(.pal orsvy. .6/cvqv.Gvh-7 Date Set foYCity Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Councilmember Love moved and Councilmember seconded to adopt Ordinance 90 of 2005 and include the following: a) a definition of development pattern as outlined by the Renovation Design Group, b) definition of block face as outlined by the Planning Division, c) Sketch Plan Review as outlined in the memo from the Renovation Design Group, d) a building height of 28 feet to the crest of the structure or 20 feet for a flat roof, and e) a wall height of 20 feet with the option to increase or decrease height as outlined in the proposed ordinance; and further move that the Council adopt Ordinance 91 of 2005 adopting temporary zoning regulations for six months that applies to the following areas : a) the area north of South Temple and east of the I-15 freeway currently zoned SR-1, and b) the area of 1300 South to 1700 South and 1300 East to 1900 East. Councilmember Love said Salt Lake City was unique because of neighborhoods with historic homes . She said as a result of the construction boom the character, streetscapes, and charm of some neighborhoods were in jeopardy. She said over the last two years loopholes were discovered in the infill ordinance . She said standards that had once worked no longer worked. She said the result of the process would be positive and everyone would be able to build, expand and renovate. She said people who wanted to go beyond reasonable standards would have to go through a process to make sure the reconstruction was compatible . Councilmember Love said she was confident the new ordinance would encourage families to move into the City. She said they had established reasonable boundaries to better protect the neighborhoods . She said she was sympathetic to East Central because they had unique needs . She said she was confident that in two months Wasatch Hollow and the Avenues would bring a plan to the Council that would fit their neighborhoods . Councilmember Buhler said he supported the motion. He said they were trying to protect the rights of those wanting to expand or rebuild a home and the property rights of their neighbors . He said people wanted to invest and live in Salt Lake City. He said the proposed ordinance did a good job balancing those interests . Councilmember Buhler said the proposed ordinance provided a baseline City-wide and corrected issues which caused problems . He said until the ordinance was passed, a person could build a 40-foot high home anywhere in the City. He said that, size home did not fit very many places . He said the new ordinance took PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 40-feet down to 28-feet City-wide which allowed people to have second stories . Councilmember Buhler said he felt it was appropriate to look at overlays where needed and he supported the temporary overlay. He said the overlay would give the two neighborhoods some time to come up with a plan that would work better. Councilmember Saxton said the Douglas Neighborhood had some unique housing and heights. She said the Council took a straw poll and the vote was 2-5 against including Douglas neighborhood into the special zoning district . She said a way was needed for families to be able to stay in their homes as long as they wanted. She said expansion needed to be allowed but parameters needed to be set . She said she would vote in favor of the motion. Councilmember Christensen said adding on to a home was economical . He said the Council could pursue a way to provide people an affordable way to expand in the Housing Policy. He said the ordinance provided reasonable expectations . He said he did not want to be too limiting and make the ordinance too complicated. He said he supported the motion. He said he wanted to review the ordinance after one year to see if it was working. Councilmember Turner said this was a City-wide issue. He said people were investing in homes. He said a neighborhood could go 20 years with no changes . He said the proposed ordinance addressed some of those changes . He said he felt the ordinance would help Westside neighborhoods keep their charm. He said he wanted to see an investment in his area. He said he would support the motion. Councilmember Lambert said he saw the need to protect neighborhoods but he also saw the need to renovate neighborhoods and homes . He said the City needed room for families to stay in the City and people were demanding larger homes. He said if they wanted a vital City, they had to make adjustments . He said the ordinance did accommodate expansion for large families and allowed for two car garages . Councilmember Lambert said the real challenge was a City-wide ordinance because there were special needs in certain neighborhoods . He said for those specialized neighborhoods he encouraged them to continue to work with neighbors . He said if something more restrictive was needed then an overlay district PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH could be developed. He said some neighborhoods might need to be less restrictive . Councilmember Lambert said all citizens in every City neighborhood should not have to go through a long process to build a two story home. He said he did not believe it was a City-wide restriction the Council could live with. He said it would be unfair to many people . Councilmember Lambert said the setback requirements were currently 20-feet . He said many neighborhoods even though they could build to 20-feet have built their homes farther back. He said if someone lived in a neighborhood where most of the homes were set back 35 or 40-feet and someone built a major structure to the 20-foot line, it would hurt a neighborhood. He said he would support the motion. Councilmember Lambert called for the question, which motion carried, all members voted ave . • g Co 7d z Q. b Ni r• Cn H IX n • tic� Hroc') cn9ttteciH C) 0.. Otxt 11:1 110H7OdH H ,V mt Z H H Cn H x 9 -C . HC/ min Zt0-' HHOrd0 0 V• • 0C) ~ zH � a9 c rn � r � t H x zz H t" 0 H Z t' Hi C C' td O H O OH Ht'' CZO riCHEt�'' 9Z t r tzz%' cnZZZbHO 0 CxZtt.1tri 0 Cn 9 Z ttn H to 0 0 • t1 Co Cn 0 b (.9 t Z J m 7-26 w °gym E 0 Z (7) � Q a� � cn 03 Ce ° 0 To W 'Z11 OTC (/) J � W � I- 2 C� SD O (I) 0 = C co 73 c Nui CU U i O � E >, >, u) O co + 0 L si. -0 0 cy) 0 Cam' u)0O ,U = CCU p 2 II" CU 4., a 9_ .t.-.: = L._ W m E_o (7) o a. ,g,1,1 ,- a .a3, t ,,,_.- a) cu "c3 1 a c _c (.0 c cu ril al -4?-iN imC 0 -1-f 0_ ' 0.) E- u) .7.0 ,.... 0) U u) E -g., c -o a) co = cm •— c •E c L •L 0- L.- C O C6 c c13 Z3 45 _ I '-0 elc -5 -cii 8 V') La .> 0- La, ai al � (n .= 5 _o cm o cum -0 (1) 2 ° 5- -Ed >, E 0 ow c O Oco c6 c O x)c3 a) - CI C6 ♦-' Co co (13 a)2 2 Lb- E .o) ,... a) c -(-1-3. 0, 2, a) 8 4.• (7) o to 0 4.-' a) u) 0 C3 O Lt c E S cx, 2 o -0 .c -0 a) -- c w o w U c • • • • .3 O Can m CD -0 0 cD �- � O —� "• � =h O m . iv < n 3R1 C7 CD CD =. CD— CD O 0 0 =1; 09 -0 CD CD -0 0) C� n O CCD 0 n CD < —. O CD a) Cc n CD .0 Eo 0 CD O W O a ri -)� CD O c3 �. : "0 CD C� <, --14 EiT r r r r rn CD (1) CD r. CD CD CD C n $0 ma r.) c“ cl r p �■ -finCn ° n �, Ko R- 92 1,1.) m 0 0 CD M ullN °° 0 -. z 00 S. 0 a) ca l..F CO c n > E. o 0 < C) — NO133 . 7) (Q ■�■ .1� ON � c) 0 0 0 0 0 3 C) (C2 _. - g • . * or- (n ( < o r 0 0 0 c cana) 0 0 o �+ C C2. 0- �- 2 �, Ea 0- n CD (IC 2 5 a) 6 = (1).-1 La 0 - a. , , _, r-t_. CD CT 0 r- _. * D �. 0o ,.., m � CD CC c.Q rn —• = " 0 0- 0 5 = to =ca- CD cn ® ITl _ %,q.f_)CT V � —• (D - o c CD a) (a 0 Cn cal 0 EE 5 3 5" cn k< r- --m - p M ca �v --I m-- w rn cn _. cn cD M m < 0 n v_' RE . -6 = 0 O --3 = CD a) = 1.10 -. 4 -. B �.—F, � 0 0 CD co 6 5 - 3 E = 5-1- = CD 0 CD 0 cn (D � a v (c� oa 0(gyp v I'. CLII CD a, 0 z ,,, , „, , ,*44,-44,- ' (D �, ' (D nammi 4 CD ,i_t_' ,- , _.: 0 0 CA ,. .,...,,, ,, . . ,,y', , ,',.. = 73 5 3 a) CA) .aye s ,t U1 N 0m M 1.1:111 0 SI) M = _, molIN (D - - Cl) 0 -, - moil O O (1111:12 Nolo s Immo is i M (C) D.) N n =1 (D CD u, 4 w a, w C%A. o E V CO Q. CD co O c .N o � O E a) C� • > 0 E ca) F2) O Cl) •- N O O -� t c ), .5 cO o . c° 2) a "a -Eu) ,0) c -� o •- 4 O � � E "A= o CD CL .o O a)0 c� tr, c E L 65 73 0) 0 m(4 0 a) -0 _0 c -4=•' c E h cu Tu of) c a. CO "0 . a� a) E ooc ru E o •E -0 o o UL= < < ooao . . . . . . f (4ii. L O 0.)u c `'-. .- � � 0) 2 2 4) .'1..r -5 E C0 -0 ni c = -0 -o CD a) -1-im 2 L__ 2 Li. o a 0 2 V ' To cf) (I) 0) -- C6 cn o O 500) 75 Co ( -- . . . ........- •— Au-', c 7 1,, " 0)-5 4--.- 5 cm c c W -0 2 ia- i-3 02 c a. (,) (I) _ J c� o > co - 5 (I) . > Z Fs L2 c — CU al to Co o O p o 4) o - >1 a) -i-Ei %.(3) 2 a- -C 2 E o-) -2,. ci) t! a) a)) mc :,..,a) a a) = o6D o0 = p ._ � > � EU U U O (0 0 0 Cl C) t 4) X L L LL 0 0 E O o O o . . i A` Tu U 0 -� > .- - 0 a) +' -16 .1= (/) o c .� o — to mirz .4.?•1 (i) y- L c C Co ELW CD ., o U CT a) L U o — CT3 co E L oo C6 c > .- o ..73 C) 40 co c o L- 4-• O •- o o ° (D u) E a) o 5 g > U N sp a) U O L. C� E E o "E -=°) c c o a) — a) W U CL CY_ • . • • • • C (4 scp CZ vim.Erz 0 U) E CD O a) U) U) -� a) >1 .— (/) a) L C6 O CO T2 o o = o- 2 ,= a) O COCO V U) -1-• c a) cz 0 22 Cy- -'-+ (n w o o co co -1 E -1 5 0_ 2 , C c- 0 c >, .L- — c o E.- 2 0 L O � � ._ a) U a) L c o $CD > 2 (n CO .— 2 m U) C -o c _Ca -0 C w IL ) O T .o a) o . . . . • • • • • • K c 0 m (/),_,_ z 5" 5- �� _ �■ = O � a) O CD C) O v CD 5 -). c ca Cu (73 a a) CT 73 (n al- 5 al a) s ) �,. Q. CZ CD a - < -- cn O -• X- = 0- CD CD CD a-0 (-0 0- %,rZ -0 :0 X c 0 (7) (D 0- c .... co (i) il) "Zi C - - C CD -I, 5 C) C) -- 1 2 %< CD -+; c' Q) CD r'- O CD 01/4 —. c = (n cn -0 5. 3 -0 a * Q. 0 cD 5' .0 3- co e?,. —1 0 CD al CQ - a = Cn C) CD �) C) `< CD " `< O — � 3 su ' `< Q)Da 3 —. �-p- to C!) CD -1 c i--E- O Q) CD 6 el '� ?3"2_ -- R. O R. '-t' O = (D, '-t' C R. CD g Cn w —. 0 0 (- CD 0 5 = -- CD fi) (f2 R. 0- co co co cD7. cn. pit al CD n oh 53 5 Cg 0 U) O CD C p - ) =xcn 0 rit CD m -h m C) cQ- m --, O g ci) --. 0 o' = • 0 5 U) cr 0 f CI @ 33 -5 C. CD CD 0 CD ) CC "00 a -1 _-- - -3 • CQ O CD O CD = , CD a, < cl) CD =-' ap CI) "''' ‘< CD Cn CD o 0 O = O6' 0 c — -, -n -0 flJ 2 0- 73 CD . .� V = 5M -0 E a) 3 -0 0- ET 4 0 j - a:). a CD 5- w= -5 ow 3 = 2 0 5 ...- co ,-i- CO p. Co — o 0 en -- CD — CC D cl 5. — a m a — 0 ^ -& m C) O —• 0) -d3- A"." SD a) = %.,‹..= -- R — 0 CD emlw 71: pC) -- - = ®. �. CD 0. = `� < CD O CD —' M (1) C) O0 C/) _41 """ 0 CD �+ = Cn r-t- • r-f- tn (1) 0 ""u; 3 m 3 = 5 3. C) = o CO CD x • T r O N 0 CD M NxD flj c z —. mi m r Inh:7 r--1. 0H CD 33 O co O- � m z o = Z 73 o X m O a 0 0 z m m C ,/ E\ zx �' q�,a m � cn v 0 CD C C _ � CD c o =11% D r CD 0 O O ...h IvvX0 o 0o O NI z D o D m m z p3 -I z co M ■ O M • ' 1 CD m000C Co ° �. r- 0 0 < a -0 > 1— 1— = CD -' caQ) 0 > m > mmv M al o es 3 0 0 _ 0 M -1 m �• mci, CD CD CD - D o n CD D Fri" = 1.-1- f-1- -1 0 -a a) -.=•----. -s z o0 � rn � r � UB po o -o > CD �'mO CD , ® o � r+mx DC CD . ® 7 cp 3cr'FA 0 ,,‹ cf) (0 S. o 5 m (-1 ----.. -0 ___ pc g 7)• (I) C > -i � � CO = Cc) M v� 5- o ccn n c- = = CD co 0 co 5. CI) C Iv Cn m o TJ o D w . Co) * -uozzKK (,) ,67c�0,) CD -1 CD CD cl) n) Da rn —. cn es rim cn o -< � sv M co < o rn OC x es " CD = CI Fit 3 1 CD Z 0 • i •. M r C CD o cnCnCn -0 r CO 0 �■■F rncav000n- oDc * a) MI. r-i- -n c._ ED > = cv a_ co 5-• 0 CD CD , O D = � CQ CD O - O CAD . CAD — O = —I < * 0 - — ram CD C > m— OCD M n < x CD � � x � COD 3 (1) n 0 3 C) > 0 CD > x • • • • • r- occowoo rn N CDD � ow = C _.1 M . D 0- . no CDC) krZ o -,4h 0,) w 0 0 0 O Ov CD O C') CD 71c �, _• CD F/P al g -- cp ..1 m- = w rim si) i CO —I iii. m = ro I a) —. ccs C1) O. W =- = (0 ;7- n --:— =. (CD CL m . (t) ' ccD � o Wv -1 < C c5 CD �v rella . C C SD CD ( CD CD SCD CO r- 1 C -• =1".i 11113 � rn a, 0) a 1 — a G) 5 CD `. o CD n 1 — a C, • • c) • , • -v sz -DD = Drn > O com. — (5 — > — xi E 1/4< < —1 —I cD sv -- > —. —I _. 1— a X CD 0r k< D "0 0cD C' CT . . 0- . . z _. __. P0_• 6 Q. s� s� Q. —■ rn 5' 5' CD Ci. ma -0 (7) CO CO SU CD g �. 3 3 a. rim_. co cn 0 o CD C CD -0 r Cr) 3 2) o mcD a � rn o a CD o CD CDCD CD cn ® r r m- m m r 0 sv m m in< 0 0 m = CD ® ® 0 ...• sv ® V — o W. o < —' rn < rn I ca. cn CD 06) AT o r rt $1) (gyp f1 0 CD m 03 `< vim CQ Q • • • • • • • • • _ 0 0cn � 0 * zm Z `Q - CD CO -0 CDci) ° CD c _. _ mom o o 4 o = co o = cn = -I 71 0 g. 74- (/) — r- c__ m- 0 ow a) `< m co G)ci) ( Q ) (Dm CD 5R ca can �- -5 o (CD " . . 00 `w `< 1 Cw -p 3 Z7 c. m o ET 3 -v CP E. -=hh. I? = c (-14 ci"- m o-• 13 oi a f), -ID 04) co cis- 07 z " 0 = Z --.7s' -0 0 '-" ER-: o K o (C) (1) �- 0 gn)cn - a) "13 CD o cn 3 —.. g 0 m v 0 Cn 21) I— \ 1 , 131) n , I / ,,- ,: till l' ' \ty CC, C')OMIlik iill< x5 j 4 - , { ''..''' CC, 2 .. . 4 , , . , / ''''''''it , __.i, ''r,';','A,t,'ez , a , s '' '''' ' ' t ‘. 0 op , , .4 /, / 1 / 0.1 ,, , . DI) 1. ,I MIMI 3 r, Ni , CI) • Cn C1) CD 0 ■ C M■ n CD CD