Loading...
11/14/2006 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session meeting Tuesday, November 14, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Soren Simonsen. Also in Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Sam Guevara, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; D. J. Baxter, Mayor' s Senior Advisor; Gary Mumford, Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Janice Jardine, Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney; Rusty Vetter, Appointed Senior City Attorney; Boyd Ferguson, Senior City Attorney Land Use Policy Analyst Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Sylvia Richards, Council Research and Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Dan Mule, City Treasurer; Gordon Hoskins, Chief Financial Officer; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Rick Graham, Public Service Director; John Spencer, Real Property Agent; Cindy Rockwood, Council Senior Secretary; Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director; Doug Wheelwright, Planning Deputy Director; Alison McFarlane, Mayor' s Senior Advisor for Economic Development; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; Bob Farrington, Downtown Alliance; Alice Steiner, Property Development Consultant for Utah Transit Authority; Ralph Jackson, and Steve Meyer Utah Transit Authority and Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 : 31 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1 . 5 : 31 : 22 PM RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON THE DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION PLAN. Tim Harpst and Alice Steiner briefed the Council with a power point presentation. #2 . 6 : 02 : 43 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING: (a) THE APPROVAL OF THE INTERMODAL HUB EXTENSION SCOPE AND BUDGET AND (b) A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND AMEND AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY (UTA) TRAX EXTENSION TO THE INTERMODAL HUB. See Attachments Russ Weeks , D. J. Baxter, Ralph Jackson, and Steve Meyer briefed the Council with the attached handout. 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14 , 2006 #3 . 6 : 12 : 43 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT WOULD PROHIBIT SMOKING TOBACCO PRODUCTS IN CITY-OWNED PARKS, PUBLIC SQUARES, BALL DIAMONDS, GOLF COURSES, SOCCER FIELDS, RECREATIONAL AREAS, LIBRARY SQUARE, CITY-OWNED CEMETERIES, TRAILS AND NEAR MASS GATHERINGS . See Attachments Russ Weeks , Sam Guevara and Boyd Ferguson briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Simonsen proposed removing any mortality impact statements in the preamble . A straw poll was taken to remove paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the first page of the ordinance and paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 of the second page, most Council Members were in favor of the removal . A straw poll was taken regarding smoking at a gathering places, most Council Members were not in favor. A straw poll was taken regarding not smoking within the City limits, all Council Members were not in favor. A straw poll was taken regarding smoking within the proximity of another person most Council Members were not in favor. A straw poll was taken regarding including sidewalks around the perimeter of parks in the ordinance most Council members were not in favor. A straw poll was taken regarding adopting the current draft of the ordinance removing any mortality impact statements in the preamble most Council Members were in favor. #4 . 6 : 52 : 11 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21A. 46. 055 SALT LAKE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO TEMPORARY SIGNS . (Petition 400-05-02) See Attachments Janice Jardine and Joel Paterson briefed the Council with the attached handout. #5 . 7 : 42 : 46 PM CONSIDER A MOTION AND ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE PUBLIC BODY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION OF THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS AND TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § § 52-4-204 , 52-4-205 (1) (c) (d) , AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, PURSUANT UTAH CODE ANN. § 78-24-8 . #6 . CONSIDER A MOTION AND ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE CHARACTER, PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE, OR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH OF NA INDIVIDUAL; PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § § 52-4- 204 , 52-4-205 (1) (a) , AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, PURSUANT UTAH CODE ANN. § 78-24-8 . Councilmember Simonsen moved and Councilmember Love seconded to enter into Executive Session, which motion carried, all members voted aye. 06 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14 , 2006 #7 . 7 : 33 : 28 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS . The meeting adjourned at 7 : 43 p .m. Council Chair Chief Deputy City Recorder This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes for the City Council Work Session held November 14, 2006 . cm 06 - 3 I ►u ; 0 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 9, 2006 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Proposed Amendments to TRAX Extension Interlocal Agreement CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart,DJ Baxter, Dan Mule, Steve Fawcett, Valda Tarbet, Ed Rutan, Gordon Hoskins, Gary Mumford, E. Russell Vetter, John Naser, Jennifer Bruno, Sylvia Richards This memorandum pertains to proposed amendments to an interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City and the Utah Transit Authority relating to a project to extend the Trax line from the Delta Center Station at 400 West South Temple to the Intermodal Hub at 300 South 600 West. An ordinance amending the agreement is scheduled for a briefing during the City Council work session November 7.The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing November 14 on the proposed amendments. The public hearing is in conformance with Utah Code Section 10-8-2. After the hearing the City Council will consider: • A resolution to accept a study on the public benefit of the proposed amendments and authorize the appropriation of funds for the amended interlocal agreement. • An ordinance approving an amended interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City and the Utah Transit Authority relating to the Trax line extension. The amendments mainly involve increasing the amount of money each party to the agreement will contribute to the project. When the City Council originally authorized Mayor Ross C. Anderson in April to sign the agreement the estimated project cost was $32 million.However, bids to build the extension came in significantly higher than the original estimate. The lowest bid for the project was $46.5 million. City and UTA officials then met and pared $4.8 million from the bid so the estimated project cost now is $41.7 million. Salt Lake City originally agreed to fund 26.4 percent of the project. If the City Council adopts the proposed amendments,the City's share would be $11.01 million. Under the original agreement the City's share was $8.45 million. OPTIONS • Adopt the proposed amendments. • Do not adopt the proposed amendments. • Amend the proposed amendments. 1 POTENTIAL MOTIONS This section is divided into two parts.The first part pertains to the public hearing required under Utah Code Section 10-8-2. The second part pertains to proposed amendments to the interlocal agreement. PUBLIC HEARING 1. I move the City Council close the public hearing. 2. I move the City Council continue the public hearing until (Council Members may give future meeting date). ACTION ON RESOLUTION • I move that the City Council adopt the resolution accepting the study performed in compliance with Utah Code Section 10-8-2 and authorizing the appropriation of funds concerning an amended interlocal agreement relating to the Trax extension and other matters. • I move that the City Council consider the next item on the agenda. AMENDED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance relating to the amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for the Trax extension project extending light rail service from the Delta Center Station to the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub. • I move that the City Council consider the next item on the agenda. • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance relating to the amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for the Trax extension project extending light rail service from the Delta Center Station to the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub with the following amendments: (Council Members may wish to propose amendments). KEY POINTS • Adopting the proposed amendments would acknowledge that project construction costs to extend the Trax line from the Delta Center to the Intermodal Hub have risen from an estimated $32 million to an estimated $41.7 million. • Again, the lowest bid for the project was $46.5 million. The City and UTA pared about $4.8 million from the bid through cutting or delaying aspects of the project including: 1. Planned improvements such as curb and gutter, sidewalk, trees and lighting on the east side of 600 West Street. 2. Reduction by half in planned set-aside funds to help mitigate business impacts during construction from $250,000 to $125,000. 3. Change to ballasted track on 600 West Street instead of imbedding the track in concrete. 4. Elimination of UTA's third tail track at the end of the light-rail line. 7 5. Deferral to a later date of public way improvements on the south side of 200 South Street between 600 West and 700 West streets. • Salt Lake City's share of construction costs would rise from$8.45 million to $11.01 million—a $2.56 million increase. • In April when the City Council authorized signing the original agreement, the Council and the Administration acknowledged that funds already in hand for the City's share of the project were $850,000 short of the project estimate.The City acknowledged that it would have to allocate $850,000 for the project by July 2007. The $850,000 plus the $2.56 million projected increase equals $3.41 million—the total amount of funds that have not been allocated for the project. • The Administration has proposed three funding options for the City Council's consideration: • Add to a sales tax revenue bond that would pay for a new City fleet facility, straightening the railroad line at Grant Tower, and controlling erosion on the 900 South and Folsom Street rail corridors. • Issue a motor fuel excise tax bond • Pay cash from fund balance • According to the Administration transmittal, the $600,000 designated in the original interlocal agreement as the City's share to build a second Trax station at 525 West 200 South is not eligible for municipal bonds. That means about$2.81 million would be eligible for bonding, and $600,000 would have to come from other sources. • There is some indication that among the Administration financial managers that adding to the sales tax revenue bond might be preferable to the other two options to retain a strong fund balance. ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION • Before making a decision on financing methods, the City Council may wish to know how much fund balance above 10 percent of general fund revenues is available unencumbered. • The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency has committed $2.4 million to the Trax extension project. Does the Agency have other funds available for the project? • The City Council may wish to seek an indication from the Administration on whether the Utah Legislature might act on changing laws pertaining to sales tax revenue bonds in the next legislative session. (It should be noted that during the last legislative session the City represented to the Legislature that it would issue no more than $37 million in sales tax bonds this year.) • Is $125,000, instead of$250,000, enough money to help mitigate business impacts during construction of the extension? 3 • The original agreement's requirement that the City appropriate $600,000 to the Intermodal Hub enterprise fund to pay the City's share of building a Trax station at 525 West 200 South remains in place. The agreement requires that UTA build the station in 2010 or when the combined average weekday passenger boardings at the 400 West and Delta Center Trax stations reach 4,650 boardings. Is there any sentiment among the City Council to work with UTA to build the station sooner than the requirements? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION As indicated above, the City Council in April authorized Mayor Ross C. Anderson to sign an interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City and the Utah Transit Authority. The agreement outlined financial and other responsibilities of each party for the construction of a light-rail extension between UTA's Delta Center Trax station at 400 West South Temple and the Intermodal Hub at 600 West 200 South. Under the agreement Salt Lake City agreed to pay 26.4 percent of project construction costs. Total construction costs were estimated at$32 million. Salt Lake City's share was $8.45 million. Of the $8.45 million, Salt Lake City had $7.6 million in available revenue to pay for its share. The sum included$2.4 million in Redevelopment Agency funds; $2 million in Utah Transit Authority funds; and$3.2 million in reimbursements from the Federal Transit Administration for the City's expenses in securing land and building the Intermodal Hub.That left about $850,000 the City would have to appropriate from a revenue source by July 2007. After the City Council's action the Transit Authority issued a request for proposals to build the extension. The bids the UTA received were significantly higher than the $32 million estimate. The low bid for the project was $46.5 million.UTA and City officials then met with the low bidder and cut$4.8 million from the project, leaving a construction budget of$41.7 million— roughly$9.71 million above the original $32 million budget. Items cut from the construction budget: • Planned improvements such as curb and gutter, sidewalk, trees and lighting on the east side of 600 West Street. • Reduction by half in planned set-aside funds to help mitigate business impacts during construction from$250,000 to $125,000. • Change to ballasted track on 600 West Street instead of imbedding the track in concrete. • Elimination of UTA's third tail track at the end of the light-rail line. • Deferral to a later date of public way improvements on the south side of 200 South Street between 600 West and 700 West streets. Pursuant to the original agreement, the parties agreed that each would bear the same percentage (26.4 percent) of costs that they had agreed to in the original document. That meant that Salt Lake City's share of the $9.71 million in increased costs was $2.56 million. UTA also would pay$2.56 million, and the Federal Transit Administration would pay $4.58 million. (It should be noted that UTA will advance $4.58 million to the project and seek reimbursement from the Federal Transit Administration.) 4 Again, Salt Lake City's share of the increased estimated cost is $2.56 million. Under the original agreement, City officials also understood that another$850,000 still was needed by July 2007 to meet the City's financial obligations under the original agreement. That means the City's total unfunded obligation under the proposed amendments to the interlocal agreement would be $3.41 million. The Administration has proposed three options to meet the obligation: • Add to the sales tax revenue bond that will be issued for building a new City fleet facility, straightening railroad track at Grant Tower, and controlling erosion on 900 South and Folsom Street rail corridors. • Issue a motor fuel excise tax bond. • Make a cash payment from fund balance. There is some indication from Administration financial officials that the preferable option would be to add to the sales tax bond. There would be some economies of scale achieved by adding to the sales tax bond. A rough estimated amount for the projects is $21.6 million for the new fleet facility; $5.7 million for straightening railroad track at Grant Tower; and $300,000 for controlling erosion on the 900 South and Folsom Street rail corridors. Again, it should be noted that City officials represented to the Legislature in the last session that the City would issue up to $37 million in sales tax revenue bonds this year. One potential downside is that the Utah Legislature earlier this year placed a moratorium on issuing sales tax bonds until it considers the issue further in the next Legislative session. Salt Lake City proceeded with its bond because it had indicated to the Legislature that it already had projects ready to bond before the Legislature met. The unknown is what the Legislature might do in its 2007 session about municipal sales tax bonding. The motor fuel excise tax bond nominally pledges Class C road funds as the revenue source to pay back bonds over a 10-year period. The Administration transmittal notes that bond payments would come from the General Fund's Capital Improvement Fund—not necessarily actual Class C road funds. However, the transmittal says, if the City issues "a bond with Class C funds as security, (it)must maintain adequate Class C revenue to cover debt service." The Council may wish to seek clarification of whether that means Class C revenue must be encumbered to cover debt service. The third option involves taking cash from the General Fund's fund balance to pay the entire$3.41 million.The unknown in that case is how much unencumbered money is available in fund balance above the 10 percent of general fund revenue that makes up fund balance. The City Council appears to be in general agreement that the 10 percent limit at least should be maintained to keep the City's AAA bond rating. The issue is whether there is revenue available above the 10 percent limit for the project. It should be noted that City financial officials say they are concerned about pressure on the fund balance. If the amount in fund balance remains uncertain at the time the City Council votes on the proposed amendments to the interlocal agreement, the Council could approve the amendments but delay a decision on how much, if any, of the costs the Council might want to cover with bonding. Another issue involves the actual amount of bonding necessary.The Administration transmittal notes that even if the City Council pursues bonding, $600,000 of the project probably is not eligible for bonding. Under the original agreement, the City set aside $600,000 in the City's Intermodal Hub budget to pay its share of building a light-rail station in 2010. It should be noted 5 that the agreement also requires that funds for public art at the station also would be placed in the Intel modal Hub budget. Given that, it appears that at least$600,000 from a source other than bonds must be allocated for the project. It also means that$2.81 million would be eligible for issuing bonds. One question the City Council may have is whether the Redevelopment Agency, which already has appropriated $2.4 million for the project,might be another revenue source to reduce the amount of the bond, or whether bonding might be more economical long-term than having the RDA share the expense. 6 RESOLUTION NO. OF 2006 (ACCEPTING THE STUDY PERFORMED IN COMPLIANCE WITH UTAH CODE SECTION 10-8-2 AND AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS CONCERING AN AMENDED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE TRAX EXTENSION PROJECT; AND RELATED MATTERS) WHEREAS, the City Administration has recommended an amendment to increase project budget and modify the project scope related to the Interlocal Agreement dated April 20, 2006, between the Salt Lake City and Utah Transit Authority (UTA) which concerns the (i) the conveyance by Salt Lake City to UTA of the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub situated west of 600 West Street, and south of 200 South Street, consisting of approximately 16.5 acres, and all existing improvements, (ii) the assignment of all City leases and agreements related to the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub, and (iii) the granting by Salt Lake City to UTA of rights to use City streets to construct and operate a light rail extension from the Delta Center station to the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub (the "Amended Interlocal Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the City Council has received and reviewed a Study regarding said Amended Interlocal Agreement prepared by the City's Department of Management Services in compliance with the requirements of Utah Code Section 10-8-2, and public notice has been given at least 14 days prior hereto in a newspaper of general circulation within the City; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Study, and has fully considered the analysis and conclusions set forth therein, and all comments made during the public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Study, and hereby finds and determines that, for all the reasons set forth in the Study,the net value to be received by the City by making this grant will constitute adequate consideration, or equivalent value, both tangible and intangible, for the benefit being provided by entering into the Amended Interlocal Agreement; and 2. In the judgment of the City Council, the appropriation to be made pursuant the Amended Interlocal Agreement will provide for the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of Salt Lake City; and 3. That the appropriation of funds required under the Amended Interlocal Agreement is hereby approved. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of November, 2006. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER �ggArtt APPROVED ASS'L TO r O,-,H! Batt Co.k€ `City,$ orn.-3Y '..Y'.i.. J. Onto pc 2 I:ARESOLUTIVDoug Short matters\Accenting 10-22-06 study authorizing contrib toward TRAY. line extension to HUB.DOC SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Relating to the amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for TRAX extension project, extending light rail service from the Delta Center Station to the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub; the granting by Salt Lake City to Utah Transit Authority of certain City street surface rights for the operation of such light rail extension; the conveyance of the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub to Utah Transit Authority; and related matters) AN ORDINANCE (1) APPROVING AN AMENDED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY THAT (A) RELATES TO THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OWNERSHIP AND FUNDING OF AN EXTENSION OF THE TRAX LIGHT RAIL LINE FROM THE DELTA CENTER STATION TO THE SALT LAKE CITY INTERMODAL HUB, (B) PROVIDES FOR TWO LIGHT RAIL STATIONS BETWEEN THE DELTA CENTER STATION AND THE INTERMODAL HUB, (C) PROVIDES FOR THE CONVEYANCE BY SALT LAKE CITY OF THE INTERMODAL HUB SITE AND THE IMPROVEMENTS THEREON TO UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY,AND (D) PROVIDES FOR OTHER RELATED MATTERS; AND (2) AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO CONSUMMATE THE FOREGOING TRANSACTIONS; AND RELATED MATTERS. * * * WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City") and Utah Transit Authority ("UTA") have previously entered into an Interlocal Agreement dated April 20, 2006 that (a) provides for the design, construction, funding and ownership of facilities extending TRAX light rail line service from the Delta Center Station to the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub (the "Hub"), (b) provides for the granting by the City to UTA of certain City street surface use rights, pursuant to a Public Way Use Agreement, for the operation of such TRAX light rail line, (c) provides for the conveyance by the City to UTA of the Hub, the Hub site and all related improvements, (d) provides for the assignment by the City to UTA of certain contracts relating to the Hub and the TRAX extension project, and (e) makes all other arrangements necessary or desirable in connection with the foregoing; and WHEREAS, the City and UTA desire to amend the Interlocal Agreement to increase the project budget and modify the project scope; and WHEREAS, a proposed amendment to the Interlocal Agreement (such amended interlocal cooperation agreement, including all exhibits attached thereto, being referred to herein as the "Amended Interlocal Agreement"), has been negotiated, and has been presented to and is now before the City Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires at this time to approve such Amended Interlocal Agreement and all transactions contemplated therein, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. That the Amended Interlocal Agreement, in substantially the form presented to the City Council at the public meeting at which this Ordinance is adopted, is hereby approved, and Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of the City, or his designee, is hereby authorized to execute and deliver the Amended Interlocal Agreement on behalf of the City, subject to such minor changes as do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City thereunder and as shall be approved by the Mayor, his execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. 2. The Mayor, or his designee, is hereby authorized to execute and deliver all documents, certificates and showings, and to otherwise take any and all actions, deemed by the Mayor to be reasonably necessary or desirable to consummate the transactions contemplated by the foregoing. 3. Each of the foregoing documents authorized and approved by this Ordinance shall take effect on the date last signed by all necessary signatories. 4. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon publication of notice thereof by the Salt Lake City Recorder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of November, 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date eic-/ 6 c1LJ 6 By e 2e-L.b 3 I AOrdinance 06 MAN Ordinance-Interlocal Amendment 10-25-06.doe SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: November 9,2006 SUBJECT: Petition 400-05-02—City Council request to amend the Zoning Ordinance Temporary Portable(A-frame)Sign regulations AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted the Zoning Ordinance text amendments would affect Council Districts citywide 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 Should the Council choose to move this item forward to a public hearing after the briefing from the Administration,Council staff has identified the following tentative dates. • November 21 Set hearing date • December 5 Council hearing KEY ELEMENTS: A. The proposed text changes are intended to address action by the Council requesting additional standards and location criteria be provided for temporary portable signs that limit the placement of such signs to a certain area around the business using the sign for advertising purposes. In addition,the Administration's transmittal notes that the proposed changes also address issues identified by the City's Public Utilities Department and Zoning Enforcement and Transportation Divisions. B. An ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration that would amend the Zoning Ordinance Sign Chapter relating to location of Temporary Portable(A-frame) Signs. (Sec.21A.46.055) For ease of reference,the Temporary Potable Sign section of the Zoning Ordinance has been provided with the proposed changes shown in revision format. Please see Attachment 1 at the end of this staff report. Proposed changes, summarized below,include: 1. Limits the location of a temporary portable sign attended by a representative designated by the temporary portable sign owner that owns or works in a business on the block face on which the advertising business is located or on the two intersecting block faces. (The Administration's transmittal notes that this language is intended to address concerns noted by Council Members regarding temporary portable signs being located miles from the advfrtising business and signs located with the City's corporate boundaries advertising businesses located outside of Salt Lake City.) 2. A `block face' (for placement of temporary portable signs)in the Downtown and Gateway zoning districts is defined as all of the lots facing one side of a street between 2 intersecting collector and/or arterial streets. 1 3. Additional language to ensure that portable signs are not located within the roadway and that the City may request removal or relocation to accommodated construction activity within the public right of way. 4. Location criteria to provide additional unobstructed sidewalk space. a. 10 feet wide on Main Street between South Temple and 400 South. b. 8 feet wide in the Downtown D-1,D-3,D-4 and Gateway Mixed Use zoning districts. c. 6 feet wide in all other applicable zoning districts. 5. Location criteria that allow the placement of a portable sign within 25 feet of a building with windows that provide a view of the sign from inside the building. 6. The current temporary portable sign(A-frame sign)regulations allow portable signs to be located within the public right-of-way including park strips in certain downtown, commercial,manufacturing and mixed-use residential zoning districts. A sign permit or proof of insurance is not required.The purpose of the sign provisions is to encourage and facilitate additional retail activity. C. The public process included a Planning Division sponsored Open House,presentation to the City's Business Advisory Board and written notification of the Planning Commission hearing. The Administration's transmittal notes: a. Notice of the Open House was sent to Community Council Chairs,Downtown Alliance/Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Merchants Association, Vest Pocket Business coalition,The City business Advisory Board,and interested parties who participated in earlier open houses and public hearings regarding temporary portable signs. b. The City Business Advisory Board provided a letter of support to the Planning Commission for the proposed temporary portable sign amendments. c. Please note: A memorandum from the City Business Advisory Board Chair expressing the Board's support of the proposed text amendments was received in the City Council office on September 26, 2006. The memorandum was provided to Council Members via electronic mail and is provided again for reference at the end of this staff report. Please see Attachment 2. D. The City's Fire,Police, and Public Utilities Departments and Transportation and Engineering Divisions have reviewed the request. The Administrations transmittal and Planning staff report indicated that the proposed text amendments address issues identified by City Departments/Divisions. E. The Planning staff report provides the findings for the Zoning Ordinance Section 21A.50.050-Standards for General Amendments.The standards were evaluated in the Planning staff report and considered by the Planning Commission. (Discussion and findings for the standards are found on pages 6-7 of the Planning staff report.) F. On March 8,2006,the Planning Commission voted,based on the comments, analysis and findings, to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments.No public comments were offered during the Commission's public hearing. G. Issues discussed at the Planning Commission hearing(summarized below) included: 1. Allowing the use of temporary portable signs in Research Park. 2. The definition of block face and intersections. 3. Potential City liability in relation to temporary portable signs. 4. Planning staff noted: a. The Zoning Ordinance currently allows temporary portable signs in the Research Park RP zoning district. b. The definition of block face currently in the Zoning Ordinance is applicable to the Research Park RP zoning district. 2 • c. To the best of staff's knowledge there had not been any liability issues with temporary portable signs and other types of signs that encroach into the public right-of-way,such as marquee signs, require insurance. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether the temporary portable sign regulations should be applied to other zoning districts that permit portable signs such as the Research RP and Mixed Use MU zoning districts. Doing so would provide consistency throughout the various zoning districts and provide consistent administration, interpretation and enforcement of the temporary portable sign provisions. For example,financial institutions,and accessory retail sales and services are permitted uses in the Research RP and Mixed Use MU zoning districts. Retail goods and service establishments,gas stations including convenience retail, restaurants with or without drive-through facilities are permitted in the Mixed Use MU zoning district. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. 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 business expansion including retention and attraction of large and small businesses. B. The 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. The document notes that signs contribute to the character of different areas of the City and are often a major identifying feature. Applicable policy concepts include the following statements: 1. Provide ample opportunities for businesses to advertise products and services without having a detrimental effect on the community. 2. Consider sign design and location as an integral part of all development,not as an afterthought. CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. • Nov. 18,2003 City Council action—adoption of Ordinance 65 of 2003 Amending the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate zoning standards for temporary portable signs • Feb. 15,2005 City Council action—adoption of Ordinance 5 of 2005 Removing the sunset date for temporary portable sign regulations and requesting the Administration provide future amendments to deal with distance and location criteria • March 7,2006 Planning Division sponsored Open House • March 8,2006 Business Advisory Board meeting • March 22, 2006 Planning Commission hearing • March 23,2006 Ordinance requested from City Attorney's office 3 • April 7, 2006 Ordinance received from City Attorney's office cc: Sam Guevara,Rocky Fluhart,DJ Baxter,Alison McFarlane,Ed Butterfield,Ed Rutan, Lynn Pace, Melanie Reif,Louis Zunguze,Orion Goff,Larry Butcher, Craig Spangenberg,Randy Isbell,Doug Wheelwright,Cheri Coffey,Joel Paterson,Russell Weeks, Jennifer Bruno,Jan Aramaki, Marge Harvey, Sylvia Jones,Lehua Weaver,Veronica Wilson,Barry Esham, Gwen Springmeyer File Location: Community Development Dept.,Planning Division,Zoning Text Amendment,Portable signs (A-frame signs) 4 ATTACHMENT 1 C PETITION 400-05-02 TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD DISTANCE REGULATIONS TO ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS REGARDING PORTABLE SIGNS " 21A.46.020 Definitions • B. Defined Terms: For the purposes of this chapter, sign types and related terms shall be defined as follows: "A-frame sign" means a temporary and/or portable sign constructed with two(2)sides attached at the top allowing the sign to stand in an upright position. 21A.46.030 General Sign Permit Requirements I. Permission Required For Signs And Marquees On Or Over Public Right Of Way: Except for portable signs authorized pursuant to section 21A.46.055 of this chapter, signs, marquees and other structures encroaching on or over the public sidewalk or on or over a public right of way shall obtain permission from the city pursuant to the city's rights of way encroachment policy. 21A.46.040 Exempt Signs N. Portable Signs: Portable signs as authorized pursuant to section 21A.46.055 of this chapter. 21A.46.055 Temporary Portable Signs: Pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this section,attended portable signs shall be allowed on public property in residential/business (RB),residential mixed use(R-MU), neighborhood commercial (CN),community business (CB),community shopping(CS),corridor commercial(CC), Sugar House business district (CSHBD), general commercial (CG), light manufacturing(M-1), heavy manufacturing(M- 2), central business district(D-1),downtown support(D-2), downtown warehouse/residential (D-3), downtown secondary central business district(D-4), gateway-mixed use(G-MU)and business park(BP)zoning districts. A. Size: The maximum size of such portable signs shall not exceed three feet(3') in height and two feet(2') in width on a sidewalk. Illumination and other attached decorations or objects on such signs are prohibited. B. Location: Within the zoning districts identified above, any person may display a freestanding portable sign on the city owned right of way (sidewalk or park strip) but not in the roadway. Signs may not be attached to any utility poles, traffic signs, newsracks or any other item or fixture in the public way. The usable sidewalk space must remain unobstructed. Unobstructed sidewalk space must be at least ten feet(10') wide on Main Street between South Temple and 400 South;and where available, ei'ht feet(8') wide in the D-1,D-3,D-4 and G-MU districts. In all other applicable areas a minimum of six feet(6') of unobstructed space is required. In addition, any portable sign may not be placed in any location that would obstruct any ADA accessible feature. C. Construction: All portable signs must be built so as to be reasonably'stable and to withstand expected wind and other weather elements. D. Attended Portable Signs:An "attended portable sign"is a portable sign placed by a person who, either in person or through a representative, at all times while the sign is in the public right of way, remains eider: 1) within twenty five feet(25) of the sign or 2) on the first floor of a building whose front entrance is within twenty five feet (252 of the sign or which has windows providing a view of the portable sign from within the building. Salt Lake City reserves the right to request the removal or relocation of a portable sign to accommodate construction activity within the public right of way. E. Distance from Advertising Business: Portable signs shall be permitted only on the block face (as defined in 21A.62.040 of this Title) on which the business being advertised is located and on up to two (2) block faces intersecting with the block face containing the advertising business,provided that the portable sign is located within a zoning district which permits said signs. Within the Downtown and Gateway zoning districts, a block face shall be defined as all of the lots facing one side of a street between two (2) intersecting collector or arterial streets. 21A.46.060 Signs Specifically Prohibited In All Zoning Districts: The following exterior signs, in addition to all other signs not expressly permitted by this chapter, are prohibited in all zoning districts and shall not be erected: E. Portable signs, except where specifically permitted by district sign regulations; 21A.46.070 General Standards K. Signs On Public Property: Except for portable signs authorized pursuant to section 21A.46.055 of this chapter, no sign shall be located on publicly owned land or inside street rights of way, except signs erected by permission of an authorized public agency. I* C x Business Area an advertising business could place a portable sign C ATTACHMENT 2 SEP 2 6 2006 C MEMORANDUM DATE: September 21, zoo6 TO: City Council FROM: Business Advisory Board Mary Corporon - Chair RE: Text amendment to Portable Signs Zoning Ordinance CC: Mayor Ross C. Anderson, Alison McFarlane, Cindy Gust- Jensen, Sam Guevara, Louis Zunguze, Rocky Fluhart Background On March 8, zoo6,Joel Patterson, Senior Planner, Preservation & Urban Design, presented a draft of the proposed text amendment to the Portable Signs Zoning Ordinance. The amendment places restrictions on the distance of a portable sign from an advertising business based on block faces defined as "lots facing one side of a street between two intersecting collector or arterial streets" with exceptions for businesses in the Downtown Zoning Districts. Additionally, the amendment will allow for windows that provide "a view of the portable sign from within the building" to be included as part of the attended portable sign requirement. Discussion The Board supports the use of A-frames signs (also referred to as sandwich signs) as a means to attract customers to Salt Lake City businesses. It is important to the Board that A-frame signs are allowed within two block faces of the business, as proposed. Additionally, theft expanded definition of attended A-frames to include windows addresses the'legitimate needs of some unique, small local businesses that must C . direct customers down small side streets, behind buildings, to nearby parking, or provide other directions. s In the past, A-frames signs have been described as visual pollution; however, it is important to note that the commercial "clutter" from small businesses gives character to the community. The Board felt it was essential to keep a balance between disorder and sterility. The proposed amendments to the ordinance seem to provide a reasonable solution. Recommendations The Board commends the City for implementing the Temporary Portable Sign Ordinance. The amendments to the original ordinance effectively address most of the reported abuses by businesses outside the City boundaries that use A-frame signs for advertisement purposes within the City. The amendments are fair and allow businesses in Salt Lake City to continue using A-frames with minimal restrictions. We appreciate the continuing support from the City. ,f 2 AUtj 1 g cuU6 A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE :a- \ '('.�._\3_ e`+� o� i10Ni ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR BRENT B. WILDE DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITT TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer A E: Au ust 17, 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Direc r RE: Petition 400-05-02 by the Salt Lake City Council request g a ndments to the Portable Sign regulations found in Chapter 21A.46 of the Zoning Ordinance STAFF CONTACTS: Joel Paterson, 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 BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: In May, 2003, acting on a request by the City Administration,the City Council enacted temporary zoning regulations to allow portable signs on City-owned rights-of-way (sidewalks or park strips) in certain zoning districts to encourage and facilitate additional retail activity in the City. Prior to the adoption of the temporary standards, portable signs were not allowed in Salt Lake City. Since the adoption of the temporary standards for portable signs,the City Council and Mayor Anderson have initiated the following petitions: • Petition 400-03-26—Initiated by Mayor Anderson as a follow-up to the temporary zoning standards. This petition included a request to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate zoning standards for portable signs. The City Council approved this petition on November 18, 2003, with the adoption of Ordinance 65 of 2003. The sunset date for this ordinance was December 4, 2003. • Petition 400-04-47—Initiated by Mayor Anderson to amend the portable sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance by eliminating the sunset date adopted as part of Petition 400- 03-26. The City Council approved this petition on February 15, 2005, with the adoption of Ordinance 5 of 2005. • Petition 400-05-02 (the subject of this transmittal)—Initiated by the City Council to consider modifications to the portable sign provisions to limit the distance a sign may be located from the advertising business. The summary of this petition is as follows: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 8131-535-71 05 FAX: 801•535-60DS WWW.S LCG OV.COM Analysis: During a Public Hearing in December 2004, the City Council requested that an amendment be considered that would limit the distance that a portable sign could be located from the advertising business. The Council discussed instances of portable signs being placed miles from the advertising business and even signs within the Salt Lake City Corporate boundaries advertising businesses in other cities. To avoid these situations, Staff is proposing language in 21A.46.055.D "Attended Portable Signs" which limits the location of a portable sign attended by a representative designated by the portable sign owner that owns or works in a business on the block face on which the advertising business is located or on the two intersecting block faces as indicated on the illustration below: x Business Area advertising business could place a portable sign The proposed approach, however, does necessitate a new definition of block face. For the purposes of administering the portable sign ordinance, currently the Zoning Ordinance definition of"block face"reads: 21 A.64.040 Definitions "Block face"means all of the lots facing one side of a street between two (2) intersecting streets. Corner properties shall be considered part of two (2) block faces, one for each of the two (2) intersecting streets. In no case shall a block face exceed one thousand feet (1,000). Petition 400-05-02-Portable Sign Amendments Page 2 of 4 Because the Downtown and Gateway Zoning Districts include the large number of blocks which are divided by minor streets, such as Regent Street,Pierpont Avenue,Market Street, and Exchange Place,the established block pattern may diminish the effectiveness of the portable sign regulations by limiting the ability of a business to place portable signs at major intersections. For this reason,under the Portable Sign regulations,the definition of"block face" in the Downtown and Gateway Zoning Districts is proposed to be modified, for the purpose of locating portable signs,to read: "all lots facing one side of a street between two(2) intersecting collector and/or arterial streets". This modified definition would allow a block face to include all of the properties on one side of a ten acre block; for example, all the properties between State and Main streets or between 100 South and 200 South streets. During discussions regarding the impact of the proposed amendments to the portable sign regulations, Staff determined that amendments to two other sections of the City Code are also necessary to maintain clarity. The proposed amendments in 21A.46.055.B "Location"are clarifications requested by the Transportation Division to further refine the language of the ordinance to ensure that portable signs are not located within the roadway and to provide additional unobstructed sidewalk space in the Central Business District where the pedestrian traffic is the greatest. The proposed amendments to the provision in 21A.46.055.D"Attended Portable Signs" are intended to solve an issue raised by Zoning Enforcement. At times,enforcement is required because a portable sign is placed in front of a business but, because the front entrance is recessed or actually on the side of the building away from the property frontage,the portable sign could not be placed within the required twenty-five feet(25')of the front entrance. The proposed language resolves this issue by allowing the placement of a portable sign within twenty-five feet (25') of the entrance or a front window that provides a view of the sign from inside the advertising business. Master Plan Considerations: The Urban Design Element encourages signage that provides ample opportunities for businesses to advertise products and services without having a detrimental effect upon the community. The Urban Design Element includes the following guidelines for signs: • Require signs within a view corridor to be low profile and preferably mounted parallel to the building surface; and • Encourage sign design as an integral part of the design of buildings and developments. PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Open House: The Planning Division held a Public Open House on March 7,2006. Notice of the Open House was sent to all the Community Council Chairs, Downtown Alliance/Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Merchants Association,Vest Pocket Business Coalition,the Business Advisory Board, and interested parties who participated in earlier Open Houses and Public Hearings regarding portable signs. Two people attended the Open House and one submitted comments supportive of the proposed portable sign provisions. Public comments received as part of the review of this petition are included in Attachment 3 of the Planning Commission Staff Report, which is presented as Exhibit 5b of this transmittal. Petition 400-05-02—Portable Sign Amendments Page 3 of 4 Business Advisory Board: Staff made a presentation on the proposed amendments to the Business Advisory Board on March 8, 2006. The Board expressed support for the portable sign regulations and voted unanimously in favor of the petition. A letter of support is included in Attachment 3 of the Planning Commission Staff Report, which is presented as Exhibit 5b of this transmittal. Planning Commission: The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on March 22, 2006, and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments. No public comments were offered during the Public Hearing. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Section 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 21A.50.050: "A decision to amend the text 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 amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance or rezoning property (Section 21A.50.050.A-E). The five standards are discussed in detail starting on page 5 of the Planning Commission Staff Report(see Exhibit 5b). Petition 400-05-02—Portable Sign Amendments Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 1 CHRONOLOGY Petition 400-05-02—Portable Sign Amendments CHRONOLOGY PETITION 400-05-02 February 15, 2005 The City Council requested the Planning Division to look at possible amendments to the portable sign regulations to address the distance that a sign could be placed from a business. March 7, 2006 A Public Open House was held. March 8, 2006 A presentation was made to the Business Advisory Board which voted to support the proposed amendments. March 22, 2006 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing and voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. March 23, 2006 Requested the City Attorney's Office to prepare an ordinance April 7, 2006 The City Attorney's Office submitted a signed ordinance for City Council consideration. Petition 400-05-02—Portable Sign Amendments EXHIBIT 2 PROPOSED ORDINANCE Petition 400-05-02—Portable Sign Amendments SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending Section 21A.46.055 of the Sign Code) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21A.46.055, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO TEMPORARY PORTABLE SIGNS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400- 05-02. WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of Salt Lake City's general plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds 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.46.055 of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to temporary portable signs be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.46.055 Temporary Portable Signs: Pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this section, attended portable signs shall be allowed on public property in residential/business (RB), residential/mixed use (R-MU), neighborhood commercial (CN), community business (CB), community shopping (CS), corridor commercial (CC), Sugar House business district (CSHBD), general commercial (CG), light manufacturing (M-1), heavy manufacturing (M-2), central business district (D-1), downtown support (D-2), downtown warehouse/residential (D-3), downtown secondary central business district (D-4), gateway-mixed use (G-MU) and business park (BP) zoning districts. A. Size: The maximum size of such portable signs shall not exceed three feet(3') in height and two feet (2') in width on a sidewalk. Illumination and other attached decorations or objects on such signs are prohibited. B. Location: Within the zoning districts identified above, any person may display a freestanding portable sign on the city owned right of way(sidewalk or park strip) but not in the roadway. Signs may not be attached to any utility poles, traffic signs, newsracks or any other item or fixture in the public way. The usable sidewalk space must remain unobstructed. Unobstructed sidewalk space must be at least ten feet (10') wide on Main Street between South Temple and 400 South; and where available, eight feet (8') wide in the D-1, D-3, D-4 and G-MU districtssix feet (6')_ Iin all other applicable areas a minimum of six feet (6') of unobstructed space is required. In addition, any portable sign may not be placed in any location that would obstruct any ADA accessible feature. C. Construction: All portable signs must be built so as to be reasonably stable and to withstand expected wind and other weather elements. D. Attended Portable Signs: An "attended portable sign" is a portable sign placed by a person who, either in person or through a representative, at all times while the sign is in the public right of way, remains either: 1) within twenty five feet (25') of the sign or 2) on the first floor of a building whose front entrance is within twenty five feet (25') of the sign or which has windows providing a view of the portable sign from within the building. Salt Lake City reserves the right to request the removal or relocation of a portable sign to accommodate construction activity within the public right of way. Portable signs that are attended by a representative shall be peuiiitted only on the block face (as defined in 21A.62.040 of this chapter) on which the business being advertised is located and on up to two (2) block faces intersecting and contiguous with the block face on which such business is located, provided that the portable sign is located within a zoning district which 2 permits said signs. Within the Downtown and Gateway zoning districts, a block face shall be defined as all of the lots facing one side of a street between two (2) intersecting collector and/or arterial streets. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) 3 Bill No. of 2006. Published: l:\Ordinance 06\Amending 2IA.46.055 Sign Code-05-26-06 draft.doc 4 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending Section 21A.46.055 of the Sign Code) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21A.46.055, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO TEMPORARY PORTABLE SIGNS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400- 05-02. WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of Salt Lake City's general plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds 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.46.055 of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to temporary portable signs be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.46.055 Temporary Portable Signs: Pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this section, attended portable signs shall be allowed on public property in residential/business (RB), residential/mixed use (R-MU), neighborhood commercial (CN), community business (CB), community shopping (CS), corridor commercial (CC), Sugar House business district(CSHBD), general commercial (CG), light manufacturing (M-1), heavy manufacturing (M-2), central business district (D-1), downtown support(D-2), downtown warehouse/residential (D-3), downtown secondary central business district (D-4), gateway-mixed use (G-MU) and business park (BP) zoning districts. A. Size: The maximum size of such portable signs shall not exceed three feet (3') in height and two feet (2') in width on a sidewalk. Illumination and other attached decorations or objects on such signs are prohibited. B. Location: Within the zoning districts identified above, any person may display a freestanding portable sign on the city owned right of way(sidewalk or park strip) but not in the roadway. Signs may not be attached to any utility poles, traffic signs, newsracks or any other item or fixture in the public way. The usable sidewalk space must remain unobstructed. Unobstructed sidewalk space must be at least ten feet (10') wide on Main Street between South Temple and 400 South; and where available, eight feet (8') wide in the D-1, D-3, D-4 and G-MU districts. In all other applicable areas a minimum of six feet (6') of unobstructed space is required. In addition, any portable sign may not be placed in any location that would obstruct any ADA accessible feature. C. Construction: All portable signs must be built so as to be reasonably stable and to withstand expected wind and other weather elements. D. Attended Portable Signs: An "attended portable sign" is a portable sign placed by a person who, either in person or through a representative, at all times while the sign is in the public right of way, remains either: 1) within twenty five feet (25') of the sign or 2) on the first floor of a building whose front entrance is within twenty five feet (25') of the sign or which has windows providing a view of the portable sign from within the building. Salt Lake City reserves the right to request the removal or relocation of a portable sign to accommodate construction activity within the public right of way. Portable signs that are attended by a representative shall be permitted only on the block face (as defined in 21A.62.040 of this chapter) on which the business being advertised is located and on up to two (2) block faces intersecting and contiguous with the block face on which such business is located, provided that the portable sign is located within a zoning district which 2 permits said signs. Within the Downtown and Gateway zoning districts, a block face shall be defined as all of the lots facing one side of a street between two (2) intersecting collector and/or arterial streets. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Salt La ; City �ttprn�DOgffiee Date IAA— 0 By 't111'•.• D (SEAL) 3 Bill No. of 2006. Published: L\Ordinance 06\Amending 21A.46.055 Sign Code-05-26-06 clean.doc 4 EXHIBIT 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Petition 400-05-02—Portable Sign Amendments EXHIBIT 5B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Petition 400-05-02—Portable Sign Amendments DATE: March 9, 2006 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 March 22, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting CASE NUMBER: 400-05-02 APPLICANT: Salt Lake City Council STATUS OF APPLICANT: Section 21A.06.020 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance grants the City Council the authority to initiate petitions to amend the Zoning Ordinance PROJECT LOCATION: Portable signs are allowed in the RB Residential Business, R-MU Residential Mixed Use, BP Business Park, and all commercial, downtown, Gateway and manufacturing zoning districts. COUNCIL DISTRICT: The proposed amendments would affect all City Council Districts. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: This petition requests to amend the portable sign regulations found in Chapter 21A.46 of the Zoning Ordinance by limiting the distance that portable signs could be located from an advertising business. The proposed amendment is included below. All zoning ordinance provisions relating to portable signs are presented in Attachment 1 (Zoning Ordinance Provisions Regarding Portable Signs): 21A.46.055 Temporary Portable Signs: B. Location: Within the zoning districts identified above, any person may display a freestanding portable sign on the city owned right of way (sidewalk or park strip) but not in the roadway. Signs may not be attached to any utility poles, traffic signs, newsracks or any other item or fixture in the public way. The usable sidewalk space must remain unobstructed. Unobstructed sidewalk space must be at least ten feet (10') wide on Main Street between South Temple and 400 South; and where available, eight feet (8') wide in the D-1, D-3, D-4 and G-MU districts. In all other applicable areas a minimum of six feet(6') of unobstructed space is required. In addition, any portable sign may not be placed in any location that would obstruct any ADA accessible feature. D. Attended Portable Signs:An "attended portable sign"is a portable sign placed by a person who, either in person or through a representative, at all times while the sign is in the public right of way, remains either: 1) within twenty five feet (25) of the sign or 2) on the first floor of a building whose front entrance is within twenty five feet (25) of the sign or which has windows providing a view of the portable sign from within the building. Salt Lake City reserves the right to request the removal or relocation of a portable sign to accommodate construction activity within the public right of way. E. Distance from Advertising Business: Portable signs shall be permitted only on the block face (as defined in 21A.62.040 of this Title) on which the business being advertised is located and on up to two (2) block faces intersecting with the block face containing the advertising business, provided that the portable sign is located within a zoning district which permits said signs. Within the Downtown and Gateway zoning districts, a block face shall be defined as all of the lots facing one side of a street between two (2) intersecting collector and/or arterial streets. RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The proposed amendments in 21A.46.055.B are clarifications requested by the Transportation Division. These amendments further refine the language of the ordinance to ensure that portable signs are not located within the roadway and provide additional unobstructed sidewalk space in the Central Business District where the pedestrian traffic is the greatest. The proposed amendment to the provision in 21A.46.055.D is proposed to solve an issue that was raised by the Housing and Zoning Enforcement Division. On a number of occasions, enforcement was required because a business owner placed a portable sign in Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-05-02 Portable Sign Amendments 2 front of his business. Because the front entrance was recesses or actually on the side of the building away from the property frontage, the portable sign could not be placed within twenty-five feet of the front entrance. The proposed language would allow a portable sign as long as the advertising business has windows providing a view of the sign. The City Council, during a public hearing in December 2004, requested that an amendment be considered that would limit the distance that a portable sign could be located from the advertising business. The Council discussed some examples of portable signs being placed miles from the advertising business and even signs within the Salt Lake City Corporate boundaries advertising businesses in other cities. To avoid this situation, Staff is proposing the language in 21A.46.055.E which limits the location of a portable sign to the block face on which the advertising business is located and on the two intersecting block faces as indicated on the following illustration. x Business Area subject business could place a portable sign Within the Downtown and Gateway zoning districts, a block face shall be defined as all of the lots facing one side of a street between two (2) intersecting collector and/or arterial streets. In other zoning districts, the following definition of block face will apply: Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-05-02 Portable Sign Amendments 3 21 A.64.040 Definitions: "Block face"means all of the lots facing one side of a street between two (2) intersecting streets. Corner properties shall be considered part of two (2) block faces, one for each of the two (2) intersecting streets. In no case shall a block face exceed one thousand feet (1,000). The use of portable signs has been a critical success for business owners in the Downtown area and the definition of block face was modified for the Downtown and Gateway zoning districts because of the number of blocks which are divided by minor streets, such as Regent Street, Pierpont Avenue, Market Street and Exchange Place, that the effectiveness of the portable sign regulations might be diminished. For this reason, the definition of block face in the Downtown and Gateway zoning districts was modified to be "all lots facing on side of a street between two (2) intersecting collector and/or arterial streets". This modified definition would allow a block face to include all the properties on one side of a ten acre block, for example, all the properties between State and Main streets or between 100 South and 200 South streets. APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Section 21A.46 Sign Regulations Section 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments SUBJECT HISTORY: In May, 2003, acting on a request by the City Administration, the City Council enacted temporary zoning regulations for portable signs on City-owned right-of-way (sidewalk or park strip) in certain zoning district to encourage and facilitate additional retail activity in the City and to promote such activities. Subsequently, in November 2003, the City Council adopted an ordinance pertaining to Petition 400-03-38, to codify the portable sign regulations by amending the sign regulations in Chapter 46 of the Zoning Ordinance and included a sunset date of November 30, 2004. This was done to allow the City one year to monitor the use of portable signs and determine whether the regulations were effective. In December 2004, as part of its review of Petition 400-04- 47, the City Council confirmed the portable sign regulations and made the provisions a permanent part of the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council also initiated a petition to consider modifications to the portable sign provisions to limit the distance a sign may be located from the advertising business. MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: The Urban Design Element encourages signage that provides ample opportunities for business to advertise products and services without having a detrimental effect upon the community. Included in the Urban Design Element are guidelines for signs, which include: Require signs within a view corridor to be low profile and preferably mounted parallel to the building surface. Encourage sign design as an integral part of the design of buildings and developments. Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-05-02 Portable Sign Amendments 4 COMMENTS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 1. COMMENTS: Staff requested comments from applicable City departments and divisions, community councils, business organizations and the Mayor's Business Advisory Board. Staff received comments from the following (City Department and Division comments are in Attachment 2, public comments are in Attachment 3): a) Housing and Zoning Enforcement: The Housing and Zoning Enforcement Division is supportive of the proposed amendment. b) Permits and Licensing Division: The Permits and Licensing Division responded verbally and expressed support for the proposed amendments and indicated that portable signs do not require a permit from Salt Lake City. c) Transportation: The Transportation Division has requested the inclusion of language to clarify that portable signs can not be placed within the roadway and to require additional unobstructed sidewalk space in the Central Business District where there is a greater concentration of pedestrians on the street. The proposed amendment addresses these issues. d) Public Utilities: The Public Utilities Department has no objection to the proposed ordinance and suggests that language be added to the portable sign regulations that would allow such signs to be relocated or taken down to accommodate work being done within the right-of-way. The proposed amendment addresses this issue. e) Engineering: The Engineering Division has identified no concerns regarding this petition. f) Police: The Police Department has identified no concerns regarding this petition. g) Fire: The Fire Department has not responded to this request. h) Airport: The Department of Airports has indicated that the proposed amendments will not affect the Salt Lake International Airport or airport operations. i) Public Open House: The Planning Division held a public Open House on March 7, 2006. Notice of the Open House was sent to all the Community Council chairs, Downtown Alliance/Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Merchants Association, Vest Pocket Business Coalition and the Business Advisory Board. Two people attended the Open House and one submitted comments supportive of the portable sign provisions. j) Business Advisory Board: Staff made a presentation on the proposed amendment to the Business Advisory Board on March 8, 2006. The Board expressed general support for the portable sign regulations and voted unanimously in favor of the petition. A letter of support is presented in Attachment 3. 2. ANALYSIS AND 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 Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-05-02 Portable Sign Amendments 5 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: The Urban Design Element calls for signage policies that allow ample advertising without having a detrimental effect upon the City. Portable signs have been an effective tool for many businesses within the City, especially in the Central Business District. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The use of portable signs has been allowed since 2003 and provided many small businesses with visibility. The portable sign regulations include provisions that limit the size and require adequate unobstructed sidewalk space to accommodate pedestrian traffic. The proposed amendments fine-tune and clarify the existing standards and respond to the request of the City Council to limit the distance that a portable sign may be located from the advertising business. The City has received relatively few complaints regarding portable sign and the business community has been supportive of the regulations. The Business Advisory Board and other business organizations have expressed support for portable signs since the City first considered creating these provisions. Findings: The proposed amendments clarify and fine-tune the existing portable sign regulations. Portable signs have been a benefit to many businesses and appear to be harmonious with the overall character of existing development in commercial areas where the signs are allowed. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The proposed amendments limit the distance that a portable sign may be located from the advertising business. The existing regulations regarding portable signs require that the signs be"attended" and if the sign is located more than twenty-five feet (25') from the advertising business a representative from a business within 25 feet of the sign must agree to monitor the sign. The use of portable signs has been positive for the business community and the proposed amendments will not adversely affect adjacent properties. Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-05-02 Portable Sign Amendments 6 Findings: The portable sign regulations have been well received by the business community and provide tangible benefits for many merchants. The proposed amendments will not create any adverse impacts 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 to the portable sign regulations will have no impact on the administration of overlay zoning districts. Findings: Overlay districts are not affected by the proposed zoning amendment. 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 regulation requires that the portable signs not interfere with pedestrian traffic. A minimum unobstructed sidewalk space must be maintained on all sidewalks. The placement of portable signs does not interfere with police or fire protection or public utility systems. Because the signs are portable,they are easily removable if they are incorrectly placed. Findings: The proposed zoning amendment does not affect public facilities and services. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis and the findings presented in this report, the Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition 400-05-02 to amend the portable sign provisions in Section 21A.46.055 of the Zoning Ordinance. Attachments: 1. Zoning Ordinance Provisions Regarding Portable Signs 2. Department and Division Comments 3. Public Comments 4. Petition Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-05-02 Portable Sign Amendments 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS REGARDING PORTABLE SIGNS Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-05-02 Portable Sign Amendments DRAFT PETITION 400-05-02 TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD DISTANCE REGULATIONS TO ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS REGARDING PORTABLE SIGNS 21A.46.020 Definitions B. Defined Terms: For the purposes of this chapter, sign types and related terms shall be defined as follows: "A-frame sign" means a temporary and/or portable sign constructed with two (2) sides attached at the top allowing the sign to stand in an upright position. 21A.46.030 General Sign Permit Requirements I. Permission Required For Signs And Marquees On Or Over Public Right Of Way: Except for portable signs authorized pursuant to section 21A.46.055 of this chapter, signs, marquees and other structures encroaching on or over the public sidewalk or on or over a public right of way shall obtain permission from the city pursuant to the city's rights of way encroachment policy. 21A.46.040 Exempt Signs N. Portable Signs: Portable signs as authorized pursuant to section 21A.46.055 of this chapter. 21A.46.055 Temporary Portable Signs: Pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this section, attended portable signs shall be allowed on public property in residential/business (RB),residential mixed use (R-MU), neighborhood commercial (CN), community business (CB), community shopping (CS), corridor commercial (CC), Sugar House business district (CSHBD), general commercial (CG), light manufacturing (M-1), heavy manufacturing (M- 2), central business district (D-1), downtown support(D-2), downtown warehouse/residential (D-3), downtown secondary central business district(D-4), gateway-mixed use (G-MU) and business park(BP) zoning districts. A. Size: The maximum size of such portable signs shall not exceed three feet(3') in height and two feet (2') in width on a sidewalk. Illumination and other attached decorations or objects on such signs are prohibited. B. Location: Within the zoning districts identified above, any person may display a freestanding portable sign on the city owned right of way (sidewalk or park strip) but not in the roadway. Signs may not be attached to any utility poles, traffic signs, newsracks or any other item or fixture in the public way. The usable sidewalk space must remain unobstructed. Unobstructed sidewalk space must be at least ten feet(10') wide on Main Street between South Temple and 400 South; and where available, eijiht feet(8') wide in the D-1,D-3,D-4 and G-MU districts. In all other applicable areas a Draft March 15,2006 DRAFT minimum of six feet(6') of unobstructed space is required. In addition, any portable sign may not be placed in any location that would obstruct any ADA accessible feature. C. Construction: All portable signs must be built so as to be reasonably stable and to withstand expected wind and other weather elements. D. Attended Portable Signs:An "attended portable sign"is a portable sign placed by a person who, either in person or through a representative, at all times while the sign is in the public right of way, remains either: 1) within twenty five feet (25) of the sign or 2) on the first floor of a building whose front entrance is within twenty five feet (25) of the sign or which has windows providing a view of the portable sign from within the building. Salt Lake City reserves the right to request the removal or relocation of a portable sign to accommodate construction activity within the public right of way. E. Distance from Advertising Business: Portable signs shall be permitted only on the block face (as defined in 21A.62.040 of this Title) on which the business being advertised is located and on up to two (2) block faces intersecting with the block face containing the advertising business, provided that the portable sign is located within a zoning district which permits said signs. Within the Downtown and Gateway zoning districts, a block face shall be defined as all of the lots facing one side of a street between two (2) intersecting collector or arterial streets. 21A.46.060 Signs Specifically Prohibited In All Zoning Districts: The following exterior signs, in addition to all other signs not expressly permitted by this chapter, are prohibited in all zoning districts and shall not be erected: E. Portable signs, except where specifically permitted by district sign regulations; 21A.46.070 General Standards K. Signs On Public Property: Except for portable signs authorized pursuant to section 21A.46.055 of this chapter, no sign shall be located on publicly owned land or inside street rights of way, except signs erected by permission of an authorized public agency. Draft March 15,2006 ATTACHMENT 2 DEPARTMENT AND DIVISION COMMENTS Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-05-02 Portable Sign Amendments Page 1 of 1 Paterson, Joel From: Spangenberg, Craig Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:02 AM To: Paterson, Joel Cc: Isbell, Randy Subject: RE: Request for Review-Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Portable Sign Regulations Categories: Program/Policy Joel: Both Randy and I agree that the proposal does not present any problems for us from an enforcement standpoint. Thanks, Craig • ..11 A/n/I/1L From: Stewart, Brad Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 9:06 AM To: Paterson, Joel; 'Spangenberg, Craig'; Butcher, Larry; 'Walsh, Barry'; 'Smith, Craig'; Larson, Bradley; Smith, JR Cc: Rokhva, Parviz; Spencer, John; Garcia, Peggy Subject: RE: Request for Review - Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Portable Sign Regulations Categories: Program/Policy Joel, Public Utilities has no objection to the proposed ordinance. It would be helpful to those of us who have facilities or work in the Public ROW if there was some language in this ordinance that reminded the owners of the "A-frame" signs, that if requested, their signs must be taken down or moved to accommodate work in the ROW. Perhaps some language could be lifted from the "Revocable Public Way Encroachment Agreements" that property management uses. I am trying to avoid a situation where a City worker has to win a verbal joust with a business owner to move a sign because a business owner thinks he has a "property right" for the location of his sign. Thanks, Brad Page 1 of 1 Paterson, Joel From: Smith, Craig Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 8:44 AM To: Paterson, Joel Subject: RE: Request for Review-Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Portable Sign Regulations Categories: Program/Policy Joel, I have thoroughly reviewed the proposed petition and have little to offer, except that I feel we are opening a big can of worms should this pass. My question is who will enforce? zii ai')nnI From: Walsh, Barry Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 1:29 PM To: Paterson, Joel Cc: Young, Kevin; Smith, Craig; Spangenberg, Craig Subject: RE: Request for Review - Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Portable Sign Regulations Categories: Program/Policy March 9, 2006 Joel Paterson, Planning Re: "A-Frame" Sign Pet 400-05-02 (Pet 400-03-38? 400-04-47?) The transportation division review comments and recommendations for the Temporary Portable Sign ordnance is as Redlined to restrict any physical impact to pedestrian or vehicle travel ways, etc. Sincerely, Barry Walsh Cc Kevin Young, P.E. Craig Smith, Engineering Craig Spangenberg, Zoning File From: Paterson, Joel Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 8:25 AM To: Spangenberg, Craig; Walsh, Barry; Smith, Craig Subject: Request for Review - Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Portable Sign Regulations Hello, all, I sent this e-mail earlier but for some reason it was not delivered to your in-box. The Salt Lake City Council initiated a petition requesting to amend provisions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance regarding portable signs which are often referred to as "A- frame" signs. The proposed amendments would limit the distance that portable signs could be located from an advertising business. The proposed amendments are indicated below in bold underlined text. Please forward your comments to me by March 15th at the latest. If you have any questions, please contact me at 535-6141. 21A.46.055 Temporary Portable Signs: Pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this section, attended portable signs shall be allowed on public property in residential/business (RB), residential mixed use(R-MU), neighborhood commercial (CN), community business (CB), community shopping (CS), corridor commercial (CC), Sugar House business district (CSHBD), general commercial (CG), light manufacturing (M-1), heavy manufacturing(M-2), central business district (D-1), downtown support (D-2), downtown warehouse/residential (D-3), downtown secondary central business district (D-4), gateway-mixed use (G-MU) and business park (BP) zoning districts. A. Size: The maximum size of such portable signs shall not exceed three feet (3') in height and two feet (2') in width on a sidewalk. Illumination and other attached decorations or objects on such signs are prohibited. B. Location: Within the zoning districts identified above, any person may display a freestanding portable sign on the city owned right of way(sidewalk or park strip), but not in the roadway. Signs may not be attached to any utility poles, traffic signs, newsracks or any other item or fixture in the public way. The usable sidewalk space must remain unobstructed. Unobstructed sidewalk space must be at least six feet(6') wide, 8 feet wide in the central business district(s) and 10 feet wide on Main Street in the CBD area. In addition, any portable sign may not be placed in any location that would obstruct any ADA accessible feature. C. Construction: All portable signs must be built so as to be reasonably stable and to withstand expected wind and other weather elements. D. Attended Portable Signs: An "attended portable sign" is a portable sign placed by a person who, either in person or through a representative, at all times while the sign is in the public right of way, remains either: 1) within twenty five feet (25') of the sign or 2) on the first floor of a building whose front entrance is within twenty five feet (25') of the sign or which has windows providing a view of the portable sign from within the building. E. Distance from Advertising Business: Portable signs shall be permitted only on the block face (as defined in 21A.62.040 of this Title) on which the business being advertised is located and on up to two (2) block faces intersecting with the block face containing the advertising business, provided that the portable sign is located within a zoning district which permits said signs. Within the Downtown Zoning Districts, a block face shall be defined as all of the lots facing one side of a street between two (2) intersecting collector or arterial streets. Signs located in front of another property shall have written approval from that property owner. Joel Paterson, AICP Planning Programs Supervisor Page 1 of I Paterson, Joel From: Smith, JR Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 3:19 PM To: Paterson, Joel Subject: RE: Request for Review-Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Portable Sign Regulations Categories: Program/Policy Joel, Do not have any issues with this zoning ordinance text amendment. J.R. Smith SLCPD Community Action Team Page 1 of 1 Paterson, Joel From: McCandless, Allen Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 8:53 AM To: Paterson, Joel Subject: A-Frame Business Signs Joel, I received a notice for the March 7th 2006 Open House for portable A-Frame signs and their locations from businesses. Regarding this petition, I am not aware of any airport-related issues that affect the airport, or airport operations. --- Allen McCandless 3/14/2006 ATTACHMENT 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 400-05-02 Portable Sign Amendments Page 1 of 1 Paterson, Joel From: Butterfield, Edward Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:32 PM To: Paterson, Joel Subject: Text Amendments to the Portable Sign Ordinance Joel, Thank you for presenting the proposed Temporary Portable Sign text amendments to the Business Advisory Board on Wednesday, March 8. During the meeting, the Board members voted unanimously to support the text amendments. The Board will present a memo, stating their support for the text amendments, at the Planning Commission meeting on March 22. I will send you a copy of the memo for distribution prior to the meeting. Thanks again, Edward Butterfield Small Business/Economic Development Manager Phone: 801.535.7941 3/16/2006 Business Advisory Board AGENDA Room 326 451 S. State Street Wednesday, March 8, 2006 8:00 a.m. Conducting: Mary Corporon Excused: Greg Gruber, Peggy Lander Start: 8:00 a.m. Approval of February 8th meeting minutes New Business: 8:00—8:45 1. Proposed amendments to the Salt Lake City Portable Sign Ordinance Presenting: Joel Patterson, Senior Planner, Preservation&Urban Design 8:45 — 9:00 2. Business response to proposed renovation of Pioneer Park Follow up Items: 9:00-9:15 3. Street Banner Ordinance - memo to City Council stating Board's position 4. Business Retention Program 5. Open discussion, events, agenda items for next month etc. Calendar: Next meeting: Wednesday,April 12th, 2006- 8:00 a.m. Adjournment: 9:15 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PORTABLE (A-FRAME) SIGNS ZONING AMENDMENTS Open House Meeting Roll March 7, 2006 NAME: '1 )C "MAP P Wig ,CFI NAME: PRINT NAME: `� �/ r PRINT h f 1 0 Cr NAME ADDRESS: ADDRESS: (5- k/; ZIP CODE: y 4/©/ ZIP CODE: E-MAIL: E-MAIL: NAME: ,sm NAME: PRINT v�+C PRINT NAME: NAME ADDRESS9,b �Y ADDRESS: ZIP CODE: milt) ZIP CODE: E-MAIL: E-MAIL: NAME: NAME: PRINT PRINT NAME: NAME ADDRESS: ADDRESS: ZIP CODE: ZIP CODE: E-MAIL: E-MAIL: NAME: NAME: PRINT PRINT NAME: NAME ADDRESS: ADDRESS: ZIP CODE: ZIP CODE: E-MAIL: E-MAIL: NAME: NAME: PRINT PRINT NAME: NAME ADDRESS: ADDRESS: ZIP CODE: ZIP CODE: E-MAIL: E-MAIL: Jxthrb bop SHOES FOR MEN 65 West 100 South • Salt Lake City, UT 84101 DISTANCE LIMITATION ON "A" FRAME SIGNS If indeed the 25 foot distance from the business ordinance for "A" frame signs is passed and enforced by the city,we ask you with all our hearts to make an exception for those consolidating for the whole block with one sign to be placed on the adjacent corner. We the businesses on First South between Main and West Temple have united and call ourselves The Shops at Convention Corner. We consist of the Mikado Restaurant, Oxford Shop Men's Shoes, Mynt Martini Bar, UTah Artist Hands and Caffe Molise Restaurant. Rather than displaying separate "A" Frame signs on the corner of Main St. and West Temple as we had done prior, we consolidated at a rather costly expense to make one uniform sigftwith a small picture of each establishment. The two signs have been very successful for our block and if we are not allowed to display them we estimate that it would cost, at the very least, 20% of our business,, which would be especially devastating during the next several years of the L.D.S. Construction period on the block right across the street from us. We ask that the city PLEASE Cooperate with us and Help Us Survive. Most sincerely, 777 iy 6 o Richard Wirick The Oxford Shop The little shoe store with the big selection of famous brands • . d t 4 - • r I / 4Fkii ° a ,, .. i w rI- — w_it �° � ' i ■_ �p� {{�� �: 1mot FAIII . . ,i ... . , it , r ,X+ r titi `1 L `� - gip .., .- ,.., - t.! , . . ' �, • is,:.... _ .,r,G t ': - 1 4 �4 a. . ,Z� 1, i Q tli 4y '1 1 5{.y , q .1y�{ CS �i. dd�- y-4 u i I I 0 1 1: A - ,gt 1[11 .= t Pill - ,. , J °k 1 A iit. 1I : I * r ] 13 L k$y ? tf • f J U 1 '"KP yr; 1 3 } I 1 ` s+ ''' fir `. x',y sa t , '4;.1';':',.'''.;. . .„-, ' -• - '.:.v.' '"--t-ii-'1'11 :.. : - ft � 1 I ... CE a 'i t - ,,i,, I S J 3 'a 1 • 4'4'14 ' ',,,,,,?i'� w , ' / �i¢ -,;pew= 1 'F. ' i ‘•••'-4?,''.,•••••'::';!. ..:•••,,' ,,, •.:.• ., ... ,.- a. . . -_ /, ? /- • -4 47.-.;-,--•:53 .7'...-.-'- '.. ... .-',.-;.':,..:,Wilk' I; .. . I f .,?:::::1:i..',-,.'..',/''''",,I.......r,:.'",:',..!...2::. ,-.,. , •:_ ...,. .,., . . - z•.'' ',-.-.'.',4,:;! I ,' -.,". "--..`" ',..,..'.,:, .... ' ' 'i.1,.??Zi:',e':- `.,•-.,,,- •••','-: . 7. .-,, :.- U.':-.,, '','„ • . • . . , - • .-...: .• s,..., ,..— - .. . - r ' • -- — - . _„,. ...,..:. . — • .. 1 ,-?-,. ..‘ ,,,,- .: :,.,y;,,,:„,. :,,..... , •-. .:. ... .. . ....•-- ,,,•,.. -..• _ -. f 1't". '-.•' -.'-.''.',: ,:: ',' .,.' -- . ..... . • - ' — l•r• _ . '..' 'l''.'','.r, .. , .i.,,... .- ..' '- , .. .__.*::" ' • • I 17,,.? .. . ,...Al:, '..'';.,..." ',,,,...'''''•:".'.. .' . ' '`.. • ; 'a i,--,ri. '. 4 . . . • . .-..' .--- ,•Y' .--,';'. ' ..'.!.' - ,,' •'," ' •''..: .=., ` ,-' ,•,. .-'.,2..',17.•.%.`„,-?"';. - . . . . '....- l' ' ' . • -..7."-''' ",. , . '• . -' •:-."% .!,,e+A!.__Art. .: .,,, • T. -;,--,— ... • -•-riL .. . 4 I/•' 2.•5. . , , . . . . , - - , .• • Cr% . Ili ."'-''.7. .:.:•. r., • I ' ' ',,',.% .,.. ' .-; • • • .4 lost -• •. •.,•,'-• 0. lad N ,:j P.1 ...:: . , 7-. .•• .,... • . . . . • ..• t. ..:., Vol ,1.7,4 _ , _ ,. .„ . . . •. • ,• • ..., . _. . .., •. I ..7--s: -ri r• itt......1 fr' •••• ---.. ...4 .4 •'i' %';';,"-..',::,,'''.:'1`..0 %If ..4°:::: ^. •••• •1'.'.','.;:''.':':If kl ..J.I. _., ' Z.: roma ,-. .. .. • - - —. ----,------- !-- 1„ '.... I--'7-- - . -, • 'I__'ik-, ' ',-.i;,. '. . _ • . -. . '-' ' '''''..4111rwer',4.-.' ..— .._.._-. . •• (.1 p„'1,:',7;i-‘;.:,..7.... :•:;*':•;:-r: I Z .... ' (-I .-- ,''''.''','''-..; -'' -• '- ..:' '7,-l'i f, C). --, , • .. Z ' 41 . .., ., - ...;' - ....•:.P';, - r•,,,'...,,,,,;... • Cr). ' - ••• 1-- ) • .-... . ..,', ,;:',•• 0_ 0 I: - •,.- . <l'. : . ,, . ,,, . _. _ 4 .^.' •,a.:1 . .. .„ , ,. 0 • : , • 0 .. .....,... . z .,, . • _, ,... • ....=-•: _•.••,,,3,.. , , i 1---..,..„,,,- ...„ ,.. •, ,. ,. , ••• . . _ . . .. .....41 •... - ' ..'";.'..-.%.!:.;.i.q.,..,,,,, .., .Z' A • . --_ ___. ' .,_'1.,.41 . • 4-'2.-•"•:::•Iii,i.fg.-4 ---7-.`7.--''---- --' ..:-7:1'.-. .111..' f,n CC , . . . (1) ...,•-,42‘....,...,...:::,,,,e•f; - ...74.1,--.::. ' ..-'.••-i-;..E-r-4:170 , _ _ . . _ . — —••• . '• —7. , • • , • - , N.P:.-...•,?..-Is':I ' 1 •.....-4_...— I 1 mm....2•-...—, .. . ;; ,,,r.'Ait•I ____....-... I .'.., ...- ''''. ^' ',if,..i','''.•'-'. ( L 4p,,,,,,:•;-5..',-g..,;.•,, it .if•-,..•;y1,-„---.. ' ,•=fiGA''•'.....:-.....;1 [-71 1 4.5 II r.- . _ i -.., •-••• ...,., - • . _ . -• • .,.. I '' . ''' • • - 0 luAi- .,.......,. - _ ....- - .,....,„.._.igit.,.. ......... . - • • ., . . • ... ,;-•.;•;'40f.- :-:,•• -- '?"...?g,,`,.., -'•:.-.. . - V ' • • .. 1.I , [ -- • - - ' ' LI,. I j - • .- . .. 1 .,. r. . ' .',. • , , . •.. . . a .f i _....._ •. . . . . . • „ . • . . ' ,,,-).. ,• . ..,, .._ ..,...: . . .: • , ... t : • . , . 1 • . . 6." . i_•,• . ,...,,, , ,I'. '• illtpli'1 ,., -- . . ' • .. i ..., , ai• ' •'111111K.- ..ek- + • [.. . . . : . •: .. . - • - - ,. . . ' . • , . :•-•';'e • . i,.• 1 ,., . i • . • :. F ,... .......•. _vy. Its,__.... , . Ic.,4, . 1 . . . • . f . e • .. 1 1 ' , . .. •. '--' •.•• 4,..,.'...-:,,io' --... ..,..1 • .• . . • .. . . • N, • • . , l '.-3i i ' 1 -' .. . . . —111 '1:i : i .••t• • '-' - i I • - . ,. • Itri......-.' • . • gemilk-• , ..,,,.. . • ...... ,. • ..k.,7.- .. . . -4,.ta . - • . , . i..4.,-•.. ., •, . - • cifi • .: _ ......... ''' • . , - . ---i' I • . .014 ,•_.1 -'''''''', "'"•1 1 : . / . . • • • . . • . . . . . . __._.._..__...._ _ I , 1 . . • . ' . _ .. i . , i n EXHIBIT 5C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Petition 400-05-02—Portable Sign Amendments SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, March 22, 2006 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, and Kathy Scott. Craig Galli and Jennifer Seelig were excused from the meeting. Present from the Planning Division were Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor; Janice Lew, Principal Planner; Lex Traughber, Principal Planner; and Cindy Rockwood, Planning Commission Secretary. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Noda called the meeting to order at 5:46 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Audio recordings of Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were Tim Chambless, Laurie Noda and Kathy Scott. Planning Division Staff present were Doug Wheelwright, Joel Paterson, Janice Lew, and Lex Traughber. Petition 400-05-02—A request initiated by the Salt Lake City Council to amend provisions of Chapter 21A.46 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance regarding portable signs which are often referred to as "A-frame" signs. The proposed amendments would limit the distance that portable signs could be located from an advertising business. (This item was heard at 7:28 p.m.) Chairperson Noda recognized Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor, as the representative from the Planning Division. Mr. Paterson gave a brief history of the background of the petition. Mr. Paterson stated that portable signs have been included in the Ordinance since 2003. In 2004, the City Council requested a modification to the amendment regarding the portable sign standards to require a maximum distance away from the advertising business. As Staff considered the proposal, Staff is recommending that portable signs be permitted only on the-block face on which the advertising business is located and on up to two block faces that intersect with that original block face. Mr. Paterson stated that in the Downtown area, the definition of block face has been modified to include properties that front on one side of the street between intersecting arterial or collector streets. He also noted that outside of the Downtown or Gateway area, the definition of block face is the same as defined in the City Ordinance. Mr. Paterson also noted that Staff is recommending other minor amendments to the Sign Standards, including the clarification that signs are not allowed in the roadway; clarification of the clear space required surrounding the signs; clarification of the attended sign standards to allow portable signs to be placed within 25 feet of the front door or a window. Mr. Paterson stated that the Public Utilities Division requested a modification to allow the City to request the removal or relocation of the portable sign to accommodate construction in the right-of-way. Mr. Paterson stated the Business Advisory Committee had reviewed the proposals and recommended approval. He also noted that an Open House had been held where business owners from the Downtown area attended to request the continued use of portable signs. Mr. Paterson stated that Staff is recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Chairperson Noda requested comments from the public. No comments were received. The Planning Commission entered Executive Session. Commissioner McDonough requested further information regarding the use of portable signs in the Research Park area, and the terms of block face and intersections in relation to the area. Mr. Paterson stated that the standards in the Ordinance do allow portable signs in Research Park which is zoned Research Park (RP) Zoning District. He noted that the definition for block face found in the Ordinance is applicable for the Research Park area. Commissioner Chambless requested further information regarding the liability of the City in relation to the temporary signs. Mr. Paterson stated that to the best of his knowledge there had not been any liability issues with portable signs. He also noted that with the exception of portable signs, signs in the public right-of-way are generally prohibited. Other types of signs that encroach into the right-of-way, such as marquee signs, require insurance. Based on the analysis and findings presented in the Staff Report and discussion, Commissioner McDonough made a motion for the Planning Commission to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the amendments portrayed in the Portable Signs Provisions, Section 21A.46.055 of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Forbis seconded the motion. All voted "Ave". The motion passed. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT FOR ITEM A4 WILL BE AVAILABLE ON MONDAY NOVEMBER 13,2006