Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
10/11/2011 - Work Session - Minutes
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2011 The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, October 11, 2011, at 6 : 00 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Jill Remington Love, JT Martin, Stan Penfold and Luke Garrott . Absent : Councilmember Soren Simonsen. Also In Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Mayor Ralph Becker; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Jaysen Oldroyd, Senior City Attorney; David Everitt, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Bianca Shreeve, Mayor' s Assistant Chief of Staff; Vicki Bennett, Sustainability and Environment Director; Michael Maloy, Principal Planner; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Russell Weeks, Senior Council Policy Analyst; Neil Lindberg, Council Legal Director; Mary Beth Thompson, Revenue Analyst and Auditing Manager; and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Love presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 6 : 09 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. 6:18:03PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE § 52-4-204, FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: a) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (b) ; b) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (d) ; c) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (c) ; d) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) IF (1) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, (2) THE CITY PREVIOUSLY GAVE NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE OFFERED FOR SALE, AND (3) THE TERMS OF THE SALE ARE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE CITY APPROVES THE SALE; 11 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2011 e) FOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 78B-1-137; AND f) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS DEPLOYMENT OF SECURITY PERSONNEL, DEVICES OR SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE SECTION 52-4- 205 (1) (f) . Councilmember Christensen moved and Councilmember Turner seconded to enter into Closed Session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation and attorney-client matters that are privileged. A roll call vote was taken. Council Members Christensen, Turner, Martin, Love, Penfold and Garrott voted aye . Councilmember Simonsen was absent . See file M 11-2 for Sworn Statement and recording. #2 . 7:14:45 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. View Attachments There were no announcements . Ms . Gust-Jenson said the Administration provided a new handout regarding Justice Court recertification (Item A8-G1) which provided answers to previous questions from Council Members . She said the issue could be delayed to the next meeting if the Council was not prepared to vote. She said the Court Administrator would be available at that time to answer additional questions . Ms . Gust-Jenson said the handouts contained a separate potential motion sheet for the idling ordinance. She said in the future, staff would try to provide separate motion sheets in an effort to make the process easier for the Council and ensure the public record was accurate . #3 . 7:19:25 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE ENACTING CHAPTER 12 .58, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PROHIBITING IDLING OF VEHICLES WITHIN CITY LIMITS. View Attachments Mayor Becker, Bianca Shreeve, Russell Weeks and Vicki Bennett briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Discussion was held on time restrictions . Councilmember Love said the issue was scheduled for formal consideration on October 25, 2011 . Mr. Weeks said potential motions would include language for two-minute and three- minute periods . The Council requested that stakeholders including City employees, Utah Transit Authority (UTA) and School Districts be made aware of the proposal along with potential impacts . #4 . 7:54:27PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 5.56 (ROOMING HOUSES AND BOARDING HOUSES) , SALT LAKE CITY CODE, AS PART OF THE LANDLORD TENANT/INITIATIVE (ALSO KNOWN AS THE 11 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2011 GOOD LANDLORD PROGRAM) , CHAPTER 5. 14 (RENTAL DWELLINGS) , SALT LAKE CITY CODE, WAS RECENTLY AMENDED TO INCLUDE ROOMING HOUSES AND BOARDING HOUSES IN THE DEFINITION OF A "RENTAL DWELLING" . CHAPTER 5. 56 IS NO LONGER NEEDED BECAUSE ROOMING HOUSES AND BOARDING HOUSES ARE REGULATED BY CHAPTER 5. 14 . View Attachments Neil Lindberg and Jaysen Oldroyd briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Love said the proposal would be forwarded to a future agenda for formal consideration. #5. 7:55:39PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON THE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTING THE LANDLORD TENANT PROGRAM (ALSO KNOWN AS "GOOD LANDLORD PROGRAM") . THE PURPOSE OF THE BRIEFING WILL BE TO TALK ABOUT HOW THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM HAS BEEN WORKING, REVIEW THE NUMBERS OF LICENSES ISSUED /RENEWED, DISCUSS PARTS OF THE ORDINANCE THAT COULD BE UPDATED, AND DISCUSS CONCERNS AND PROBLEMS THAT CONSTITUENTS HAVE RAISED. View Attachments Mary Beth Thompson, Neil Lindberg, Jaysen Oldroyd, Lehua Weaver, LuAnn Clark and David Everitt briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Council Members comments on the proposal included the need for training/providers, utilizing DVD' s and online training tools, noticing issues, Council participation in writing/updating training manual, allowing flexibility, informing landlords that the City will work with them to meet compliance requirements, updated website information, policy discussion on compliance issues/timeline/potential revisions, life-safety and enforcement issues, evictions/background checks and landlords participation regarding criminal activity. Ms . Gust-Jenson said potential issues that needed to be addressed by the Council and Administration included providing specific examples of unit types that would and would not be covered by the ordinance, providing clarity and simplicity in self-certification process, prioritizing/emphasizing/defining life-safety issues, determine/define areas where the City could be flexible, informing public the City' s main goal was to help them through the compliance/licensing process, ensure that training classes/materials addressed issues relating to criminal activities, background checks and the eviction process and include U-Tube videos to assist tenants . Councilmember Love asked the Council to let staff/Administration know if there were additional questions or concerns that needed to be addressed. Ms . Clark said the City controlled the content of online training and asked Council Members to provide specific issues they wanted to include. Councilmember Love said she was concerned about 11 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2011 overstepping legislative bounds regarding development of the training manual . Council Members requested that emphasis be placed on tenant training and suggested utilizing the Internet and U-Tube videos . Mr. Lindberg said the sub-committee discussed crime prevention through environmental design regarding ways to address safety issues . Councilmember Love said information/requirements could be included as part of the training. Councilmember Love said employees needed to be professional and courteous when assisting the public and needed to have a comprehensive understanding of the program. Councilmember Martin suggested implementing some type of recognition program to reward landlords who did not have infractions . #6. 8:50:22 PM DISCUSS PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CITY' S ZONING REGULATIONS RELATING TO ALLOWING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUs) IN SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS. THIS IS PROPOSED TO PROVIDE A BROAD MIX OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ADDRESS CHANGING FAMILY NEEDS, ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, SMALLER HOUSEHOLD SIZES, AND INCREASE USE OF EXISTING HOUSING, PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSIT. RELATED PROVISIONS OF TITLE 21A - ZONING - MAY ALSO BE AMENDED AS PART OF THIS PETITION. PETITIONER - MAYOR RALPH BECKER, (SUSTAINABLE CITY CODE INITIATIVE) , PETITION NO. PLNPCM2010- 00612 . View Attachments Janice Jardine, Cheri Coffey and Michael Maloy briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Mr. Maloy said Mr. Chris Nelson made a presentation to the Planning Commission which was specific to this issue and thought the Council might benefit from the same presentation. Councilmember Love said if it was legal, she wanted staff/Administration to explore ways to limit the number of accessory dwellings that could be located per block face or in a certain geographic area. Ms . Jardine said that could be done . Councilmember Love said a public hearing would be scheduled in November, 2011 and information would be placed on the web. Ms . Jardine said she would contact Mr. Nelson about making a presentation to the Council . #7 . 7:14:29PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING UPDATED POLICY STATEMENTS FOR THE CITY' S COMMUNITY HOUSING PLAN. THE INTENT IS TO ADDRESS DEVELOPMENT OF NEW HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES, PRESERVE THE CITY' S 11 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2011 EXISTING HOUSING STOCK AND REFLECT CURRENT HOUSING AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS. View Attachments Item was not held. #8. (TENTATIVE) RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE RECERTIFICATION OF THE JUSTICE COURT OF SALT LAKE CITY. JUSTICE COURTS MUST BE RECERTIFIED AT THE END OF EACH FOUR- YEAR TERM BY THE UTAH JUDICIAL COUNCIL. (ITEM G1) View Attachments Item not discussed. #9. (TENTATIVE) 7:13:42 PM CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF CURRENT CAPITAL AND DEBT POLICIES IN RELATION TO THE CITY' S PROPOSED 10-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN (CIP) . View Attachments Item was not held. Councilmember Love said a discussion would be scheduled for October 25, 2011 . She said prior to that time, Council Members could meet with staff/Administration to discuss CIP requests . #10. 6:09:48PM INTERVIEW ROGER D. SANDACK PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD. (ITEM H1) Councilmember Love said Mr. Sandack' s name would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. #11. 6:13:55PM INTERVIEW CHARLOTTE MILLER PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE CITIZEN COMPENSATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE. (ITEM H2) Councilmember Love said Ms . Miller' s name would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. The meeting adjourned at 9 : 16 p.m. 1�5 CIL IR p,'f 3 4, 7 :4°0 5 , ICY RECORDER \ '''9RAT " This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held October 11, 2011 . sc 11 - 5 4W A- ? POTENTIAL MOTIONS October 11, 2011 I move the City Council adopt a motion enacting Chapter 12.58 of the Salt Lake City Code prohibiting the idling of vehicle engines within Salt Lake City limits with the following amendments: 1. That the two-minute limit in Section 12.58.030 be increased to three minutes so the section reads: "No driver, while operating a vehicle within city limits, shall cause or permit a vehicle's engine to idle for more than three minutes ..." 2. That the words "landside and" be omitted in exemption No. 5 in Section 12.58.030 paragraph A so the exemption reads: "for airport airside operations requirements," instead of"for airport landside and airside operations requirements." • It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration continue to refine the synchronization of traffic lights on City streets, including, if necessary, a request for funds to help study ways traffic light synchronization might be improved. • It is the intent of the City Council that future City budgets include grants to small businesses to help those businesses promote idle-free vehicle use. • It is the intent of the City Council that the Council support expanding a public education campaign about the benefits of not idling vehicle engines. Ilmedcen AT R Tra:sizahon Nesearch Institute COMPENDIUM OF IDLING REGULATIONS The information in this table is for reference purposes only and should not be relied upon for regulatory compliance. This information may contain errors and omissions and is subject to change. Actual state, county or city codes should be referenced for specific requirements. On-line users may access these codes by clicking on the individual regulations. State Maximum Idling Time Exemptions Arizona, 5 minutes - Traffic or adverse weather conditions Maricopa County (30 min. for bus passenger - Emergency or law enforcement purposes comfort or 60 min/90 min if - Power takeoff involving cargo or work functions greater than 75° F) - Conform to manufacturer's specifications - Maintenance or diagnostics Fines: $100—1st violation - Hours of service compliance $300—2nd+ violations Maricopa Coui;:y Vehicle ld'inq Rustriction Ordwance. Maricopa County Air Quality Department(602) 506-6010, 'vww.marico :a.qov/aq California 5 minutes - Bus passengers are onboard or 10 minutes prior to boarding Fines: Minimum$300 - Traffic conditions Subsequent penalties can - Queuing beyond 100' of residential range from $1,000 to$10,000 - Adverse weather conditions or mechanical difficulties - Vehicle safety inspection - Service or repair - Power takeoff involving cargo or work functions - Prevent safety or health emergency - Emergency vehicles CA C. de of Re _Ti., 13, Div. 3. Art. 1, Ch. 10, ys‘2485. California Air Resources Board(800)242-4450, www.arb.ca.qov California, 5 minutes - Traffic conditions/control City of (prohibits refrigeration unit operation - Traffic conditions Sacramento within 100' of residential or school - Vehicle safety inspection unless loading/unloading) - Service or repair - Conform to manufacturer's specifications Fines: Not<$100 nor>$25,000 per - Power takeoffs involving cargo or work functions violation - Prevent safety or health emergency (Title 1, Ch. 1.28.010) - Hours of service compliance @ truck/rest stop - To recharge hybrid electric vehicles Sacraim'snto City Coc1, Title 8, Ch. 8.116. City of Sacramento Department of Transportation (916)264-5011, www.cityofsacramento.org/transportation California, 5 minutes - Traffic conditions/control Placer County (prohibits refrigeration unit operation - Traffic conditions within 1000' of residential or school - Vehicle safety inspection unless loading/unloading) - Service or repair - Conform to manufacturer's specifications Fines: $50 Minimum - Power takeoffs involving cargo or work functions - Prevent safety or health emergency - Hours of service compliance @ truck/rest stop - To recharge hybrid electric vehicles - Operate intermittent equipment - Alternatively fueled vehicles - Attainment areas Placer County Code, Article 10.14 Placer County Air Pollution Control District (530)745-2330 www.I..)1zer.ca.qcv/airpollution/Orpplut.htm Updated: June 2009 Transportation • Research * Institute COMPENDIUM OF IDLING REGULATIONS Colorado, 5 minutes within any 1 hour -Safety reasons City of Aspen -To achieve an engine temperature of 120° F and an Fines: $1,000 maximumand/or air pressure of 100 lbs/square inch 1 year imprisonment (§1.04.080) City of Aspen Municipal Code§13.08.110 Aspen Environmental Health Department(970) 920-5039, http://www.aspenpitkin.com/depts/44/ Colorado, 10 minutes in any 1-hour period - Less than 20° F for previous 24-hour period City&County - Less than 10° F of Denver Fines: Not>$999 - Emergency vehicles and/or 1-year imprisonment - Traffic conditions (DMC§1-13 - Being serviced http://www.municode.com/reso - Auxiliary equipment u rces/gateway.asp?pid=10257 &sid=6) Denver Municipal Code '4-43. Denver Department of Environmental Health, Division of Environmental Quality, (720)865-5452,,http://www.denverqpv.orq/DEQ Connecticut 3 minutes - Traffic conditions or mechanical difficulties - Ensure safety or health of driver/passengers Fines: Not>$5,000 per week - Auxiliary equipment (RCSA Title 22a§174-12(c)) - Conform to manufacturer's specifications - Less than 20° F - Maintenance - Queuing to access military installation Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies Title 22a, §174-18(b)(3). State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection; Bureau of Air Management(860)424-3027,www.dep.state.ct.us Delaware 3 minutes -Traffic conditions or mechanical difficulties (15 minutes: 32°to-10° F; -Conform to manufacturers specifications No limit: Less than-10° F) -Repair - Emergency vehicles -Using auxiliary equipment/power take off Fines: $50-$500 per offense -Power during sleeping or resting beyond 25 miles of (Title 7, Ch. 60, §6005& truck stop with available electrified equipment §6013) -Vehicle safety inspections Regulation 45, Excessive ldlinq of Heavy Duty Vehicles. Delaware Division of Air&Waste Management (302)739-9402,www.awm.delaware.gov/ District of 3 minutes - Power takeoff P Columbia (5 minutes if less than 32° F) Fines: $500, doubles for each subsequent violation District of Columbia Municipal Regulations Title 20, S900.1. District of Columbia Department of Health Environmental Health Administration Air Quality Division 5202)535-2257,www.dchealth.dc.gov Florida 5 minutes -Traffic conditions - Emergency or law enforcement purposes <NEW> Fines: TBD -Verify vehicle is safe to operate - Power work-related operations Effective - Prevent safety or health emergency 12/15/2008 -Sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth (exemption expires Sept. 30, 2013) Heavy-Duty Vehicle ldlinq Reduction. Department of Environmental Protection,Air Resource Management(850) 488-0114,www.dep.state.fl.us/Air Updated: June 2009 mow 'American AT K Transportation Research Institute COMPENDIUM OF IDLING REGULATIONS Georgia, 15 minutes -To perform needed work City of (25 minutes if less than 32° F -Traffic conditions Atlanta for passenger comfort/safety) -Natural gas or electric vehicles Fines: $500 minimum Code of Ordinances §150-97(c).City of Atlanta, Office of Transportation (404) 330-6501, www.atlantaqa.qov/Government/PublicWorks Hawaii "No person shall cause, suffer, or -Adjustment or repair allow any engine to be in operation -Auxiliary equipment or power takeoff while the motor vehicle is stationary at -Passenger loading/unloading = 3 min. a loading zone, parking or servicing -At start-up and cool down for more than 3 min. area, route terminal or other off street areas..." (3 minutes for start up/cool down or passenger loading/unloading) Fines: Not<$25 nor>$2,500 per day (106 HRS§3428-47) Hawaii Administrative Rules§11-60.1-34. Hawaii State Department of Health, Clean Air Branch (808) 586-4200, http://www.hawaii.govihealthienvironmental/air/cab/index.html Illinois 10 minutes within any 60 minute -Less than 8,000 lbs. GVWR period -Traffic conditions/controls Cities:Aux (30 minutes within any 60 minute -Prevent a safety or health emergency Sable, Goose period: Waiting to weigh, load or -Emergency or law enforcement purposes Lake, Oswego unload freight; -Service or repair No limit: Less than 32° F or greater -Government inspection Counties: than 80° F) -Power takeoffs involving cargo or work functions Cook, -Resting in a sleeper berth DuPage, Lake, Fines: $50— 1st conviction; -Mechanical difficulties Kane, $150—2nd &subsequent -Queuing McHenry, Will, convictions in 12 month period Madison, St. Claire, Monroe 625 Illinois Combined Statute 5/11-1429 Illinois Department of Transportation (217)782-7820,www.dot.state.il.us Maine 5 minutes in any 1 hour period -Traffic conditions (No limit: <0°F; -Prevent safety or health emergency <NEW> 15 min/hr: 0°-32°F) -Emergency or law enforcement purposes -Maintenance, servicing, repairing, or diagnostic Fines: $25-$500—1st offense; $150 purposes -$500 for each subsequent -State or federal inspections offense -Power work-related operations (MRSA§585-K(5)) -Sleeper berth a/c or heat during rest or sleep periods -A/C or heat while waiting to load/unload -Mechanical difficulties if receipt of repair is submitted w/in 30 days Public Law, Chapter 582. Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles(207)624-9000,www.maine.qov/sos/bmv Maryland 5 minutes -Traffic conditions or mechanical difficulties - Heating, cooling or auxiliary equipment Fines: Not<$500 -Conform to manufacturer's specifications (MC§27-101(b)) -Accomplish intended use Maryland Transportation Code $22-402(c)(3). Maryland Department of the Environment(410) 537-3000, www.mde.state.md.us Updated: June 2009 AT• K I Transportation Pesearoti * Institute COMPENDIUM OF IDLING REGULATIONS Massachusetts 5 minutes - Being serviced -Delivery for which power is needed &alternatives Fines: Not<$100- 1st offense unavailable Not<$500 for each -Associate power needed& alternatives unavailable succeeding offense General Laws of Massachusetts Ch. 90: § 16 A. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (617)292-5500, www.mass.gov/dep Minnesota, 0 minutes in residential areas - Permitted construction equipment Minneapolis between 10 p.m.and 6 a.m. -Compliance with traffic signals or signs (including refrigeration units) -Emergency or law enforcement purposes Fines: $700 maximum and/or 90 days imprisonment (Title 1, Ch. 1) Code of Ordinances, City of Minneapolis, Minnesota, Title 15, Ch. 389.100(7) & (8). Minneapolis Environmental Management(612)673-5897,www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/environment/ Minnesota, 15 minutes each 5 hours in None City of residential areas Owatonna Fines: $1,000 maximum and/or 90 days imprisonment (Chapter Xl, Section 1100:00) Owatonna City Code, Chapter IX, Section 900:10. City of Owatonna (507)444-4300,www.ci.owatonna.mn.us Minnesota, 5 minutes,West St. Germain Street None City of St. from 8th to 10th Avenue Cloud Fines: Not<$200 (SCOO§706:35) St. Cloud City.Ordinance_•700:90. Ci of St. Cloud, Parkin. Violations 320 255-7209, www.ci.stcloud.mn.us Missouri 5 minutes in any hour - Traffic conditions/controls (30 minutes/hour when waiting to - Prevent safety/health emergency <UPDATED> load/unload) - Emergency purposes - Maintenance/repair Counties: Fines: TBD - State or federal inspections Clay, Franklin, - Power work-related operations Jackson, - During government-mandated rest periods Jefferson, - Mechanical difficulties Platte, St. - Auxiliary power units Charles, St. Louis Missouri Code of State Regulations, Division 10, Chapters 2.390 and 5-385. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Quality(573)751-4817, www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/index.html Missouri, 5 minutes in any hour - Emergency vehicles City of St. (10 minutes if> 32° F) - Transporting special needs persons Louis - Power for auxiliary purposes Fines: Up to$100 - Traffic or adverse weather conditions <UPDATED> - Repair or diagnostics - Engaged in the delivery of goods St. Louis City Ordinance 68137. City of St. Louis, Department of Air Pollution Control (314)613-7300, www.stlouis.missouri.orq/citygov/airpollution Missouri, 3 consecutive minutes -Operating a loading, unloading, or processing device St. Louis - Emergency vehicles County Fines: Maximum$1,000 and/or 1 year imprisonment(§612.390) St. Louis County Air Pollution Control Code§612.340. St. Louis County Air Pollution Control (314)615-8924, http://www.co.st-louis.mo.us/doh/environ/airpollut Updated: June 2009 _ifeimmarR I American Transportation Research Inshlule COMPENDIUM OF IDLING REGULATIONS Nevada 15 minutes -Variance has been issued - Emergency vehicles Fines: Not<$100 nor>$500— 1st; -Snow removal equipment Not<$500 nor>$1,000—2nd; -Repair or maintain other vehicles Not<$1,000 nor>$1,500—3rd; -Traffic congestion Not<$1,500 nor>$2,500—4th -Maintenance at repair facility and subsequent; - Emission contained&treated per Commission offense(s)over a 3-year period -To perform specific task (NAC4458.727) NV Administrative Code Ch. 445B.576. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection; Bureau of Air Pollution Control (775)687-9350, www.ndep.nv.gov/bapc Nevada, 15 minutes -Variance has been issued Clark County, -Emergency vehicles (including Las Fines: Not>$10,000 - Repair or maintain other vehicles Vegas) (CCAQR§09) -Traffic congestion -Emission contained &treated per Control Officer -To perform a specific task -Maintenance at repair facility Clark Co. Air Quality Reqs. Clark County Department of Air Quality Management(702)455-5942, http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/depts/daqem/aq/ Nevada, 15 minutes - Emergency vehicles Washoe -Snow removal equipment County Fines: Not>$250—1st offense - Repair or maintain other vehicles (including Not<$250 nor>$500—2nd -Traveling on public right-of-way Reno) and subsequent offenses -To perform specific task (WCDBHR§020.040(E)) -Maintenance at repair facility Washoe Co. District Board of Health Reps. §040.200. Washoe County District Health Department, Air Quality Management(775)784-7200,www.co.washoe.nv.us/health New 5 minutes if greater than 32° F -Traffic conditions Hampshire (15 minutes: 32° F to-10° F) - Emergency vehicles - Power takeoff or heat/cool passengers Fines: TBD -Maintenance or diagnostics - Defrost windshield -Less than-10° F Air Resources Division Admin. Rules Env-A 1101.05. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services,Air Resources Division (603)271-1370,www.des.state.nh.us New Jersey 3 minutes -Traffic conditions (15 min. if stopped for Z 3 hrs. &< 25° -Mechanical operations F) -Waiting or being inspected -Performing emergency services Fines: $100 for 1$`; $200 for 2"d; $500 -Being repaired or serviced for 3`d; $1,500 for 4`h& - Use of sleeper berth in non-residential areas(before subsequent offenses April 30, 2010) (NJAC 7:27A3.10(m)(14)) -Auxiliary power unit/generator set, bunk heaters, etc. Penalties: For commercial vehicle and property owner, $250 for first violation, $500 for second violation, $1000 for third and each subsequent violation. New Jersey Administrative Code Title 7. Ch. 27-14.3. New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection, Air Quality Management, Regulatory Development(609)292-2795, www.state.nj.us/dep/aqm Updated: June 2009 amenccn- AT R Transpmlatian Research I, Insulate COMPENDIUM OF IDLING REGULATIONS New York 5 minutes -Traffic conditions -Comply with passenger comfort laws Fines: Not<$375 nor>$15,000—1st offense; -Auxiliary power or maintenance Not>$22,500—2nd offense & -Emergency vehicles subsequent offenses -Within mines or quarries (NYSCL Ch. 43-8, §71,2103(1)) -Parked for more than 2 hrs&less than 25° F -State Inspections -Recharging hybrid electric vehicles -Farm vehicles -Electric vehicles New York Code of Rules & Regulations Title 6, Ch. 3 Part 217-3.2. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; Division of Air Resources(518)402-8292,www.dec.ny.gov New York 3 minutes -Emergency vehicles City (1-minute if adjacent to a public school) -Operate loading, unloading or processing <UPDATED> Fines: Not<$50 nor>$500 and/or device imprisonment for 20 days— 1st; Not <$100 nor>$1,000 and/or imprisonment for not>30 days—2nd offense; Not<$400 nor>$5,000 and/or imprisonment for not>4 months—3rd &subsequent offenses. (NYCAC 24- 190(g)) New York City Administrative Code Title 24-163. New York City Department of Environmental Protection (212)639-9675,www.nvc.gov/dep New York, 5 minutes -Traffic conditions New Rochelle -Comply with passenger comfort laws Fines: Not more than $50 and/or 15 days -Auxiliary power or maintenance imprisonment—1st offense; -Emergency vehicles Not more than$100 and/or 45 days -Within mines or quarries imprisonment—2nd offense within 18 -Parked for more than 2 hrs&less than 25° F months; Not more than$250 and/or 90 -State Inspections days imprisonment—3rd &subsequent -Recharging hybrid electric vehicles offenses within 18 months -Farm vehicles (CCNR§312-68) -Electric vehicles Code of the City of New Rochelle, Part II, Ch. 312, Art. II, 312-33. City of New Rochelle, Code Enforcement/Abatement(914)654-2051, www.newrochellen .corp New York, 3 consecutive minutes -Traffic conditions Rockland -Comply with passenger comfort laws County Fines: Not>$250 and/or 15 days -Power for auxiliary purposes imprisonment for 1st; not>$1,000 -Maintenance and/or 15 days imprisonment for 2nd& -Performing emergency services subsequent offenses (LL#4, §4) Laws of Rockland Co. Part II, Ch. 377. Rockland County Department of Health(845) 364-2512, www.co.rockland.ny.us/health North To Be Determined To be determined Carolina <PENDING> Heavy-Duty Vehicle Idling Restrictions. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality (919)733-3340, www.daq.state.nc.us Updated: June 2009 R' Research AT Transportation Research Institute COMPENDIUM OF IDLING REGULATIONS Pennsylvania 5 minutes in any 1 hour period - Traffic conditions (15 min/hr if sampling, weighing, or loading or - Prevent safety or health emergencies <NEW> unloading) - Comply with manufacturer's specifications - Emergency or law enforcement purposes Effective Fines: $150-$300 per offense - Maintenance or repair 2/9/2009 (plus civil penalties up to$1000) - Government or security inspections - Power work-related operations - Mechanical difficulties - Sleeper berth a/c or heat during rest or sleep periods when temperatures<40°F or>75°F &parked legally(exemption expires May 1, 2010) -Vehicles with CARB low-NOx idle labels Diesel Idling Reduction Rule. Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality(717) 787-9702, www.dep.state.pa.usidep/deputatetairwaste/act Pennsylvania, 5 minutes - Traffic conditions Allegheny (20 min./hour if less than 40° F or more than - Boarding &discharging passengers County 75° F) - Queuing - Cool down/warm up per manufacturer's Fines: Warning— 1st offense; recommendations $100—2nd offense - Sleeping/resting in truck $500—3rd&subsequent offenses - Safety inspections - Ensure safe operation - Emergency vehicles - Power accessory or service equipment - Repair or diagnostics County of Allegheny Ordinance No. 16782, §2105.92. Allegheny County Health Department,Air Pollution Control (412)687-2243,www.achd.net Pennsylvania, 2 minutes or 0 minutes for layovers None City of (5 minutes if less than 32° F) Philadelphia (20 minutes if less than 20° F) Fine: $300 Air Management Req. IX§3(A). Philadelphia Department of Public Health,Air Management Services (215)685-7578,www.phila.gov/health/ Rhode Island 5 minutes in any 1 hour period -Traffic conditions (No limit: < 0°F; -Ensure health or safety of driver/passengers 15 min./hr between 0°and 32°F) -Power work-related operations -Sleeper cabs during federally mandated rest Fines: Not>$100—1st offense; Not>$500 periods for each succeeding offense (exemption expires July 1,2010) (APCR§45.6) -Maintenance, servicing, repairing, or diagnostic purposes -State or federal inspections -Emergency or law enforcement purposes -Auxiliary power unit/generator set Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 45. Department of Environmental Management, Office of Air Resources(401) 222-6800, www.dem.ri.gov Updated: June 2009 ier } AtRJ ReseachTran artahon Research Institute COMPENDIUM OF IDLING REGULATIONS South Carolina 10 minutes in any 1 hour -Traffic conditions period - Prevent safety or health emergency <NEW> -Emergency or law enforcement purposes Fines: $75 for each offense -Maintenance, servicing, repairing, or diagnostic (effective July 1, 2009) purposes (SCCL§56-35-40) -State or federal inspections - Power work-related operations -Sleeper berth a/c or heat during (a) rest or sleep periods; (b) <40°F or>80° F; or(c) at rest areas, terminals, truck stops, or legal parking locations>500'from homes or schools -While waiting to load/unload South Carolina Code of Laws 56-35-10. State Transport Police (803) 896-5500, www.scstp.org Texas 5 minutes,April— - 14,000 lbs GVW or less October - Traffic conditions <UPDATED> (30 minutes for bus - Emergency or law enforcement passenger comfort - To perform needed work Cities:Arlington,Austin, Bastrop, or transit operations) - Maintenance or diagnostics Benbrook, Celina,Colleyville, Dallas, - Defrost windshield Elgin, Euless,Georgetown, Hurst, Fine: Varies by - Airport ground support Hutto, Keene, Lake Worth, Lancaster, jurisdiction - Rented/leased vehicles Little Elm, Lockhart, Luling, Mabank, McKinney, Mesquite, North Richland - Hours of service compliance Hills, Pecan Hill, Round Rock, San Marcos, University Park,Westlake Counties: Bastrop, Caldwell, Collin, Hays, Kaufman,Tarrant,Travis, Williamson Texas Administrative Code Title 30§ 114.512. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (512)239-1000, www.tceo.state.tx.us Utah "A person operating or in charge None of a motor vehicle may not permit the vehicle to stand unattended without: (a)stopping the engine..." Fines: Not>$750 and/or not>90 days imprisonment (UC 76-3-204;301) Utah Code Title 41-6a-1403. Utah Department of Public Safety(801) 965-4461,www.publicsafety.utah.gov Utah, 15 minutes - Power refrigeration unit if greater than 500 ft Salt Lake Fines: Not>$1,000 and/or not>6 months from any residence County - Heat/cool sleeper berth if greater than 500 ft imprisonment—1st; from any residence Not>$2,500 and/or not>1 year - Emergency vehicles imprisonment—2nd&following; offense(s)within 2 years (UC 76-3-204;301) Salt Lake City-County Health Dept. Regulation#28 4.1.9. Salt Lake Valley Health Department, Environmental Health Services, Air Pollution Control (801) 313-6720,www.slvhealth.orq/eh/air Virginia 10 minutes for diesel vehicles(3 minutes for all other - Auxiliary power vehicles) in commercial or residential urban areas Fines: Not>$25,000 (CV 10.1-1316) Virginia Administrative Code, Title 9, 5-40-5670(B). Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality (804)698-4000,www.deq.state.va.us/air Updated: June 2009 From: Weaver, Lehua Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:57 PM To: City Council Members Cc: Gust-Jenson, Cindy; Bruno,Jennifer Subject: Justice Court Recertification follow-up - Response to questions raised by the City Council Council Members, Kay Christensen has provided some information about the operations of the Justice Court—specifically info that the Council requested during your October 4 briefing.The information about performance evaluations is toward the end. The resolution is on for your vote tonight—this is the necessary Council action to meet the recertification deadline for the State. Tonight's agenda also included a follow-up briefing,but that is going to be postponed to a future meeting. Mr. Schwermer,the assistant State Court Administrator,would be available to attend based on the Council's schedule. If there is any other follow-up you would like to ask,please let me know. Kay would be happy to assist. From: Christensen, Kay Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 12:33 PM To: Gust-Jenson, Cindy Cc: Weaver, Lehua Subject: FW: Response to questions raised by the City Council during the Justice Court Recertification Briefing Cindy, I leave it to you to determine if you want to forward these responses to the Council. If these responses raise further questions I will try my hand at answering them or will get answers for you. Thanks, Kay During the Justice Court Recertification briefing, several Council members had questions that were not fully answered. Curtis Preece asked if the Council would like to invite Richard Schwermer, Assistant State Court Administrator, to address those questions and the response was positive. Mr. Schwermer has responsibility for justice courts throughout the State of Utah. Mr. Schwermer has agreed to visit with the City Council at their invitation. Prior to the appearance of Mr. Schwermer, I can offer some responses to the questions posed by the Council: 1. If we do not recertify the court, what would be the consequences? Would the cases move to Third District Court? The court recertification process is entirely separate from the court dissolution process. Once the City established a justice court,we took on a statutory obligation to maintain the court and provide for the requirements of the court according to the standards set in the Utah State Code. In addition to those requirements directly imposed by statute,U.C.A. 78A-7-1 03 directs the Judicial Council to promulgate minimum requirements for the creation and certification of justice courts. Together all of these requirements set a minimum standard that must be met for a Class 1 court such as ours. The full list of standards and the court's responses are included in the original transmittal. The responses are"yes' or"no" and the primary purpose is to assure the Judicial Council that the City is providing adequate resources in staffing, supplies, etc. and that we are providing an adequate court facility. If we were to fail to submit recertification paperwork or if the paperwork we submitted did not include satisfactory responses, I believe the state could compel us to comply because we have taken on a legal obligation. The statutes related to recertification do not offer an answer on this question,but the obligation is clear. The state would not just send our cases to another court. I believe the state could employ a legal remedy such as a writ of mandamus. Mandamus is a judicial remedy which is in the form of an order from a superior court to any government body to do or forbear from doing some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do or refrain from doing. This is not a legal opinion,but I offer it to make the point that we cannot simply fail to meet the legal requirements to keep our court functioning. If the Council were to decide they no longer wish to continue supporting a justice court, we would have to begin the separate process of dissolution. This process, which would take a minimum of two years,has been described in previous documents sent to the Council and is covered in U.C.A. 78-5-140. The recertification process does not prevent the City from seeking dissolution at some later time during the four-year certification period. 2. I see no performance reviews—no proof we have met any of them. How do we make the decision? I believe this question referred to the answers required by the recertification process. The answers are contained in the transmittal pages 14-19. The"proof'we have is that the presiding judge of the court signed an Affidavit vouching for the truthfulness of the answers. The Administration asks the Council to accept that Affidavit as factual as they make the decision to support the recertification. 3. So they don't really ask how it is functioning—that is not really the point? The recertification does not deal with the judicial functioning of the court, but rather that the City has provided the court with all the tools necessary to do the judicial work of the court. 4. Does the state do an audit annually? So it is just an audit to make sure we are handling money in an appropriate way,not efficiency or performance? Curtis Preece mentioned numerous audits of the court. He was referring to the financial audit of the entire City, in which the court is included. In addition, a State auditor comes to the court annually and asks to see records of reports and reporting processes for deposits forms and surcharges that are required by the State to make certain that the monthly check we send to the State is correct. The Finance Department also does frequent internal control and cash management audits. This internal check was requested by Curtis Preece in February 2011 and there have been three to date involving small purchase checks and the cashiering process. With respect to performance evaluations,the State of Utah has created the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission(JPEC). Under the provisions of this new law,judges will be evaluated by courtroom observers and through interviews with attorneys, court staff and jurors. The Commission will prepare a written report on each judge from the data it gathers and will vote on whether to recommend each judge for retention. Their decision will be made available to the public in a voter information pamphlet prior to retention elections. 5. What type of oversight does the Administration have relative to the functioning of the court? The Administration has oversight with respect to the court staff since they are City employees. The Administration has complete oversight of the court budget. The judges are employees of the City,but any discipline would be under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Conduct Commission if the complaint is of an ethical nature. If the complaint is administrative(for example, if the City required employees to take anti-harassment training and a judge refused),the complaint would be handled by Mr. Schwermer. 6. What if a citizen has a complaint about the court? A citizen or anyone else can file a complaint with the Judicial Conduct Commission. The Commission will investigate the complaint and, if they find it has merit, will refer the complaint to the Supreme Court to determine discipline. 7. Are there records the Council can review? The complaint process described in#6 would be private until such time as the complaint was dealt with by the Supreme Court. Their review and decision would be made public. Kay Christensen Senior Policy Analyst 801-535-7677 From: Tom Brooks [mailto:ranger370@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 4:05 PM To: Weaver, Lehua Cc: Penfold, Stan; City Council Liaisons; 'Joseph Sloat'; 'Randy Faris'; Darci_Sloat@URSCorp.com; john.lunbeck@sbcglobal.net; 'besser brett'; 'Rainer Huck'; 'jallenkimball' Subject: RE: Council briefing on Landlord/Tenant program -tomorrow Hi Lehua, Since the public is not allowed to comment in this meeting, we will most likely wait till the 25 October meeting. Could you please represent our concerns? Mrs. Meghan Brimhall, w/RPAC, tells me SLC is backing off the requirements for licensing 1-3 units. Is this true? We are all in favor of improving the behavior of bad landlords and bad tenants and applaud SLC making some valid efforts to accomplish this task. We feel the SLC Counsel has been manipulated by the UAA to adopt their method of adopting this ordinance to achieve their goals. We feel the UAA method is self serving to the UAA and that they have lobbied this action from you for years. They have a monopoly to provide the class. Taking full advantage of this monopoly, The UAA has doubled their fees from $30 to $59. I have taken the UAA class. It is an infomercial about the UAA where they use several methods to sell membership to their extremely expensive UAA. Two of the UAA's promises to its membership are: To fight this kind of legislation and to fight fees and taxes on Apartment owners. So, because the UAA stands to make millions on this ordinance they are facilitating the implementation (greasing the wheels). They are clearly acting unethically and our SLC council is turning to this unethical organization for guidance. Even their name, UTAH apartment association is misleading to many in the public who feel it is a state run organization. If SLC is truly concerned with reducing the number of SLPD calls and mandatory sharing of good landlording practices, why don't they conduct this program more like the UT Drivers License Division? They reward good drivers and provide a test which is educational and allows self teaching or private tutoring at the applicant's discretion. They require further training and have penalties for bad drivers. It would seem appropriate for SLC to provide an on-line education program of what they think is important criteria for a good landlord. On one hand SLC has the 'NO IDLE' ordinance. In this ordinance they are making thousands of landlords drive to UAA locations to attend UAA infomercials. All the good is negated and then some. Or are you just trying to pretend you care about the environment? What's next? Licenses for having children and mandatory classes from the Utah Parenting Association? Licenses for receiving medication and classes from the Utah Patient Association? We have licenses for our pets. Shouldn't we have to take classes from the Utah Pet owners association? This whole thing has gone too far. What am I thinking? Paul Smith is president of those organizations. We still feel SLC should be rewarding the efforts of landlords who are taking all the .r extra time it takes to be good landlords. It requires quite a bit of time and effort to attract and keep good tenants. We honestly don't feel the SLC council members have much to offer us in this arena, unless they are also good landlords. Instead of rewarding us for keeping our buildings in tip top shape, we are penalized by the county assessor and required to pay higher taxes because the building is worth more. It's easy to see why some landlords don't try. They are rewarded. They don't have to pay higher taxes and now their bad acting has SLC requiring good landlords pay for their indiscretions. Our tenants are either grad students or professionals. A substantial portion of their rent goes to us to pay property taxes but none of them have kids in school. Where's the rebate? We remain unhappy with the SLC Landlord Tenant addendum because of its disrespectful tone and the waste of paper. Instead of SLC trying to encourage this segment of the population to make SLC their home, this ordinance is unwelcoming and punitive. We remain confused about the language requiring immediate eviction for any criminal behavior and the requirement of two meetings a year. We don't see why SLC can't just post their policies on-line and let the tenants initial they will read and abide. Can someone please give us some honest answers? Thank you, Tom Brooks MEMORANDUM DATE: October 5,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Follow-up Discussion: Proposed Ordinance to Limit Vehicle Idling in Salt Lake City CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Ed Rutan,Frank Gray,Rick Graham,Tim Harpst,Bianca Shreeve,Vicki Bennett,Jennifer Bruno,Alden Breinholt,Kay Christensen This memorandum is a follow up to a discussion and public hearing on a proposed ordinance that would limit vehicle idling in Salt Lake City in most cases to two minutes.At present,there is no limit to the time drivers—except for City employees driving City vehicles— may idle vehicles in Salt Lake City.However, improving air quality in the City has been a concern for successive administrations and City Councils. The City Council will hold its discussion at the October 11 work session in Room 326 of the City&County Building,451 South State Street.The work session tentatively is scheduled to begin at 3:30 p.m. or after the end of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors.The City Council meets monthly as the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors. After the briefmg the City Council may forward the proposed ordinance for formal consideration at a later meeting. This memorandum contains new information that did not appear in an August 18 memorandum pertaining to this issue.The new information appears in bold red font and is contained mostly in a section titled New Information. OPTIONS o Adopt the proposed ordinance. o Do not adopt the proposed ordinance. o Amend the proposed ordinance. POTENTIAL MOTIONS • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance prohibiting the idling of vehicles in Salt Lake City for more than two minutes. • I move that the City Council consider the next item on the agenda. • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance prohibiting the idling of vehicles in Salt Lake City for more than two minutes with the following amendments: (Council Members may propose amendments they deem necessary). 1 o What airport landside and airside operations fall under the exemptions to the proposed ordinance?What specific vehicles and equipment at Salt Lake City International Airport need to be exempted? NEW INFORMATION/CLARIFICATONS As mentioned in the August 18 memorandum on this issue,most cities that have adopted vehicle idling ordinances allow vehicles to idle for longer than two minutes.Most of them generally appear to allow five minutes of idling.Exceptions are Philadelphia(2 minutes),Park City; Minneapolis,Minnesota;New York City; St.Louis County,Missouri; and the states of Connecticut, Delaware,the District of Columbia; and New Jersey(all three minutes).ill The Park City and Minneapolis ordinances do not appear to exempt or increase the length of idling at drive through facilities. Here are all the exemptions allowed by the proposed ordinance: ■ Idling while stopped: o for an official traffic control device o for an official traffic control signal at the direction of a police officer at the direction of an air traffic controller o for airport and landside and airside operations requirements. • Idling as needed to operate defrosters,heaters,air conditioners where the temperature is below 32 degrees Fahrenheit or above 90 degrees Fahrenheit...for the health or safety of a driver or passenger,including service animals. • Idling for the minimum amount of time required for the operation of defrosters or other equipment to clear the windshield and windows to provide unobstructed views and ensure visibility while driving. • Idling as needed for emergency vehicles to operate equipment. • Idling as needed to ascertain that a vehicle is in safe operating condition and equipped as required by all provisions of law,and that all equipment is in good working order,either as part of the daily vehicle inspection,or as otherwise needed. • Idling as needed for testing,servicing,repairing,or diagnostic purposes. • Idling for the period recommended by the manufacturer to warm up or cool down a turbo-charged heavy-duty vehicle. • Idling as needed to operate auxiliary equipment for which the vehicle was designed,other than transporting goods,such as: operating a transportation refrigeration unit(TRU),lift,crane,pump, drill,hoist,ready mixed concrete mixer,or other auxiliary equipment,except a heater or air conditioner. • Idling as needed to operate a lift or other piece of equipment designed to ensure safe loading and unloading of goods or people. • Idling to recharge a battery or other energy storage unit of a hybrid electric vehicle. Arosiit Idling as needed for vehicles that house K-9 or other service animals. 3 o Idling for fire apparatus to keep pumps running and water circulating and for police vehicles when necessary for police officers are performing their assignments. The exemptions and others in the executive order make up the bulk of exemptions that would be allowed in the proposed ordinance.It should be noted that the proposed ordinance would allow idling vehicles when the temperature outside is below 32 degrees Fahrenheit or above 90 degrees Fahrenheit where the health or safety of vehicle passengers could be at risk. The proposed two-minute limit appears a little shorter than limits enacted in other cities Council staff looked at during research on this item.In many cities the limit generally was three minutes to five minutes.However,it should be noted that several cities cited a U.S.Environmental Agency statistic that said today's fuel-injected engines"warm up"in less than 30 seconds. A draft of the proposed ordinance was made available for public comment in September 2010. One result of the comment was the proposed ordinance forwarded to the City Council contains lower levels of civil fines.The original proposed fines were: first offense—warning; second offense—$210; and third offense—$410.Fines in the proposed ordinance are: first offense—warning; second offense—$160; and third offense—$210.In addition,fines paid within 10 days of receiving a civil citation would be reduced by$110. Fines paid within 20 days of receiving a civil citation would be reduced by$70,and fines paid within 30 days of receiving a civil citation would be reduced by$40. 'Utah Law 41-6a-1403. "Please see attached public education outline prepared by the Administration. American Transportation Research Institute,Compendium of Idling Regulations,June 2009. '"Please see attached ordinance and information page. www.idlefree.utah.gov/idling facts.htm. "i Electronic Mail,Vicki Bennett,October 4,2011. ""Sustainability Office website front page. ""'Please see attached executive order. 5 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 5,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Follow-up Discussion: Proposed Ordinance to Limit Vehicle Idling in Salt Lake City CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Ed Rutan,Frank Gray,Rick Graham,Tim Harpst, Bianca Shreeve,Vicki Bennett,Jennifer Bruno,Alden Breinholt,Kay Christensen This memorandum is a follow up to a discussion and public hearing on a proposed ordinance that would limit vehicle idling in Salt Lake City in most cases to two minutes.At present,there is no limit to the time drivers—except for City employees driving City vehicles— may idle vehicles in Salt Lake City.However,improving air quality in the City has been a concern for successive administrations and City Councils. The City Council will hold its discussion at the October 11 work session in Room 326 of the City&County Building,451 South State Street.The work session tentatively is scheduled to begin at 3:30 p.m. or after the end of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors. The City Council meets monthly as the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors. After the briefing the City Council may forward the proposed ordinance for formal consideration at a later meeting. This memorandum contains new information that did not appear in an August 18 memorandum pertaining to this issue.The new information appears in bold red font and is contained mostly in a section titled New Information. OPTIONS o Adopt the proposed ordinance. o Do not adopt the proposed ordinance. o Amend the proposed ordinance. POTENTIAL MOTIONS • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance prohibiting the idling of vehicles in Salt Lake City for more than two minutes. • I move that the City Council consider the next item on the agenda. • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance prohibiting the idling of vehicles in Salt Lake City for more than two minutes with the following amendments: (Council Members may propose amendments they deem necessary). 1 o What airport landside and airside operations fall under the exemptions to the proposed ordinance?What specific vehicles and equipment at Salt Lake City International Airport need to be exempted? NEW INFORMATION/CLARIFICATONS As mentioned in the August 18 memorandum on this issue,most cities that have adopted vehicle idling ordinances allow vehicles to idle for longer than two minutes.Most of them generally appear to allow five minutes of idling.Exceptions are Philadelphia(2 minutes),Park City; Minneapolis,Minnesota;New York City; St.Louis County,Missouri; and the states of Connecticut, Delaware,the District of Columbia; and New Jersey(all three minutes). The Park City and Minneapolis ordinances do not appear to exempt or increase the length of idling at drive through facilities." Here are all the exemptions allowed by the proposed ordinance: ■ Idling while stopped: o for an official traffic control device o for an official traffic control signal at the direction of a police officer at the direction of an air traffic controller o for airport and landside and airside operations requirements. ■ Idling as needed to operate defrosters,heaters,air conditioners where the temperature is below 32 degrees Fahrenheit or above 90 degrees Fahrenheit...for the health or safety of a driver or passenger,including service animals. • Idling for the minimum amount of time required for the operation of defrosters or other equipment to clear the windshield and windows to provide unobstructed views and ensure visibility while driving. • Idling as needed for emergency vehicles to operate equipment. • Idling as needed to ascertain that a vehicle is in safe operating condition and equipped as required by all provisions of law,and that all equipment is in good working order,either as part of the daily vehicle inspection,or as otherwise needed. • Idling as needed for testing,servicing,repairing,or diagnostic purposes. • Idling for the period recommended by the manufacturer to warm up or cool down a turbo-charged heavy-duty vehicle. • Idling as needed to operate auxiliary equipment for which the vehicle was designed,other than transporting goods,such as: operating a transportation refrigeration unit(TRU),lift,crane,pump, drill,hoist,ready mixed concrete mixer,or other auxiliary equipment,except a heater or air conditioner. • Idling as needed to operate a lift or other piece of equipment designed to ensure safe loading and unloading of goods or people. • Idling to recharge a battery or other energy storage unit of a hybrid electric vehicle. • Idling as needed for vehicles that house K-9 or other service animals. 3 o Idling for fire apparatus to keep pumps running and water circulating and forAbbk police vehicles when necessary for police officers are performing their assignments. The exemptions and others in the executive order make up the bulk of exemptions that would be allowed in the proposed ordinance.It should be noted that the proposed ordinance would allow idling vehicles when the temperature outside is below 32 degrees Fahrenheit or above 90 degrees Fahrenheit where the health or safety of vehicle passengers could be at risk. The proposed two-minute limit appears a little shorter than limits enacted in other cities Council staff looked at during research on this item.In many cities the limit generally was three minutes to five minutes.However,it should be noted that several cities cited a U.S.Environmental Agency statistic that said today's fuel-injected engines"warm up"in less than 30 seconds. A draft of the proposed ordinance was made available for public comment in September 2010. One result of the comment was the proposed ordinance forwarded to the City Council contains lower levels of civil fmes.The original proposed fines were: first offense—warning; second offense—$210; and third offense—$410.Fines in the proposed ordinance are: first offense—warning; second offense—$160; and third offense—$210.In addition, fines paid within 10 days of receiving a civil citation would be reduced by$110.Fines paid within 20 days of receiving a civil citation would be reduced by$70, and fmes paid within 30 days of receiving a civil citation would be reduced by$40. 'Utah Law 41-6a-1403. Please see attached public education outline prepared by the Administration. '"American Transportation Research Institute, Compendium of Idling Regulations,June 2009. '"Please see attached ordinance and information page. www.idlefree.utah.gov/idling facts.htm. "'Electronic Mail,Vicki Bennett,October 4,2011. ""Sustainability Office website front page. ""'Please see attached executive order. 5 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 5,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Follow-up Discussion: Proposed Ordinance to Limit Vehicle Idling in Salt Lake City CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Ed Rutan,Frank Gray,Rick Graham,Tim Harpst,Bianca Shreeve,Vicki Bennett,Jennifer Bruno,Alden Breinholt,Kay Christensen This memorandum is a follow up to a discussion and public hearing on a proposed ordinance that would limit vehicle idling in Salt Lake City in most cases to two minutes.At present,there is no limit to the time drivers—except for City employees driving City vehicles— may idle vehicles in Salt Lake City.However,improving air quality in the City has been a concern for successive administrations and City Councils. The City Council will hold its discussion at the October 11 work session in Room 326 of the City&County Building,451 South State Street.The work session tentatively is scheduled to begin at 3:30 p.m. or after the end of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors.The City Council meets monthly as the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors. After the briefing the City Council may forward the proposed ordinance for formal consideration at a later meeting. This memorandum contains new information that did not appear in an August 18 memorandum pertaining to this issue.The new information appears in bold red font and is contained mostly in a section titled New Information. OPTIONS o Adopt the proposed ordinance. o Do not adopt the proposed ordinance. o Amend the proposed ordinance. POTENTIAL MOTIONS • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance prohibiting the idling of vehicles in Salt Lake City for more than two minutes. • I move that the City Council consider the next item on the agenda. • I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance prohibiting the idling of vehicles in Salt Lake City for more than two minutes with the following amendments: (Council Members may propose amendments they deem necessary). 1 o What airport landside and airside operations fall under the exemptions to the proposed ordinance?What specific vehicles and equipment at Salt Lake City International Airport need to be exempted? NEW INFORMATION/CLARIFICATONS As mentioned in the August 18 memorandum on this issue,most cities that have adopted vehicle idling ordinances allow vehicles to idle for longer than two minutes.Most of them generally appear to allow five minutes of idling.Exceptions are Philadelphia(2 minutes),Park City; Minneapolis,Minnesota;New York City; St.Louis County,Missouri; and the states of Connecticut, Delaware,the District of Columbia; and New Jersey(all three minutes). The Park City and Minneapolis ordinances do not appear to exempt or increase the length of idling at drive through facilities. . Here are all the exemptions allowed by the proposed ordinance: ■ Idling while stopped: o for an official traffic control device o for an official traffic control signal at the direction of a police officer at the direction of an air traffic controller o for airport and landside and airside operations requirements. • Idling as needed to operate defrosters,heaters,air conditioners where the temperature is below 32 degrees Fahrenheit or above 90 degrees Fahrenheit... for the health or safety of a driver or passenger,including service animals. • Idling for the minimum amount of time required for the operation of defrosters or other equipment to clear the windshield and windows to provide unobstructed views and ensure visibility while driving. • Idling as needed for emergency vehicles to operate equipment. • Idling as needed to ascertain that a vehicle is in safe operating condition and equipped as required by all provisions of law,and that all equipment is in good working order,either as part of the daily vehicle Inspection,or as otherwise needed. • Idling as needed for testing,servicing,repairing,or diagnostic purposes. ■ Idling for the period recommended by the manufacturer to warm up or cool down a turbo-charged heavy-duty vehicle. • Idling as needed to operate auxiliary equipment for which the vehicle was designed,other than transporting goods,such as: operating a transportation refrigeration unit(TRU),lift,crane,pump, drill,hoist,ready mixed concrete mixer,or other auxiliary equipment,except a heater or air conditioner. • Idling as needed to operate a lift or other piece of equipment designed to ensure safe loading and unloading of goods or people. ■ Idling to recharge a battery or other energy storage unit of a hybrid electric vehicle. OPP Idling as needed for vehicles that house K-9 or other service animals. 3 o Idling for fire apparatus to keep pumps running and water circulating and for police vehicles when necessary for police officers are performing their assignments. The exemptions and others in the executive order make up the bulk of exemptions that would be allowed in the proposed ordinance.It should be noted that the proposed ordinance would allow idling vehicles when the temperature outside is below 32 degrees Fahrenheit or above 90 degrees Fahrenheit where the health or safety of vehicle passengers could be at risk. The proposed two-minute limit appears a little shorter than limits enacted in other cities Council staff looked at during research on this item. In many cities the limit generally was three minutes to five minutes.However,it should be noted that several cities cited a U.S. Environmental Agency statistic that said today's fuel-injected engines"warm up"in less than 30 seconds. A draft of the proposed ordinance was made available for public comment in September 2010. One result of the comment was the proposed ordinance forwarded to the City Council contains lower levels of civil fines.The original proposed fines were: first offense—warning; second offense—$210; and third offense—$410.Fines in the proposed ordinance are: first offense—warning; second offense—$160; and third offense—$210. In addition, fines paid within 10 days of receiving a civil citation would be reduced by$110.Fines paid within 20 days of receiving a civil citation would be reduced by$70,and fmes paid within 30 days of receiving a civil citation would be reduced by$40. 'Utah Law 41-6a-1403. "Please see attached public education outline prepared by the Administration. w American Transportation Research Institute,Compendium of Idling Regulations,June 2009. '"Please see attached ordinance and information page. wvvw.idlefree.utah.gov/idlingfacts.htm. "'Electronic Mail,Vicki Bennett,October 4,2011. Sustainability Office website front page. ""'Please see attached executive order. 5 PARK CITY MUNICIPAL CODE-TITLE 9 PARKING CODE 9-20 in the manner and by the means specified on vehicles,and upon payment of the impound the reverse side of the parking or anti-idling and towing fees, and any outstanding citation. parking citations. (Amended by Ord. No. 10-42) (Amended by Ord. No. 99-31) 9-9-6. IMMOBILIZATION OF 9-10. ANTI-IDLING REPEAT VIOLATORS. 9-10-1. NO IDLING. Any vehicle or registered owner(s)with five (5)or more outstanding parking citations or No driver,while operating a vehicle within an aggregate balance of$300 or more due Park City corporate limits, shall cause or for parking citations, including all late fees permit a vehicle's engine to idle for more and penalties,shall be subject to than three minutes,with exceptions for the immobilization. The vehicle does not have following circumstances. to be parked illegally at the time the immobilization device is attached, so long as (A) The vehicle is forced to remain proper notice procedures have been motionless on a roadway because of traffic followed. Immobilization may be removed conditions. upon payment of the immobilization fee as established in the Fee Resolution and the (B) The vehicle is an authorized total balance due to the City for all emergency vehicle used in an emergency outstanding parking citations. If the situation. payment for the removal of the immobilization device has not been received (C) Vehicle idling is necessary for for provided for within twenty-four(24) auxiliary power for law enforcement hours of deployment, the vehicle may be equipment, fire, emergency and water immediately towed and impounded. equipment,refrigeration units, loading and unloading lifts,well drilling, farming, (Amended by Ord. No. 99-31; 03-30) battery charging, or is required for proper functioning of other equipment that is part of 9-9- 7. RELEASE OF the vehicle. IMPOUNDED VEHICLES. (D) Vehicle idling is necessary for repair Impounded vehicles will only be released to or inspection of the vehicle. the owner thereof or the person legally entitled to possession under a rental or lease (E) The health or safety of a driver or agreement. Impounded vehicles shall be passenger, including service animals, released under the regulations established by requires the vehicle to idle, including the Police Department or by ordinance for instances where the temperature is below 32 release and inventory of impounded degrees F or above 90 degrees F. This PARK CITY MUNICIPAL CODE-TITLE 9 PARKING CODE 9-21 exception also includes idling needed to operate window defrosters and other equipment necessary to promote safe driving conditions. (F) Vehicle idling is necessary for efficient operations of a turbo-charged heavy duty vehicle(e.g.,buses)or to operate a vehicle within manufacturer's operating requirements. This includes building air pressure in air brake systems,among other requirements. Vehicles idling under these exceptions should not violate Utah State Code,41-6a- 1403,which prohibits the idling of an unattended vehicle. (Amended by Ord. No. 10-42) IDLING IS ILLEGAL ` YOU CAN RI ISSU1:11 AA TICKET In Minneapolis, it is against the law for any vehicle to idle more than three minutes* except in traffic. Warning drivers:$200 fine for violation *Five minute limit for diesel trucks and buses. Save money. • �, Idling uses more gas every 10 seconds than restarting your car. An average car burns almost a gallon of gas ` 1" ° -N for every hour of idling.: oN`� Today's engines warm up yry¢ k.i P'` in less than 30 seconds. Excessive idling can damage your engine components, including cylinders,spark plugs and exhaust systems. Breathe easier. Exhaust is hazardous Attention: If you want help translating to human health, this information,call 311 Spanish:ntenci6n. especially children's; Si desea recibir asistencia studies have linked air pollution gratutta para traducir to increased rates of cancer, Minneapolis esta informaciOn, Minneapolis aym�.x... Ilame al 612-673-2700 heart and lung disease, Somali:0gow. asthma and allergies. Haddii aad dooneyso in lagaa kaalmeeyo Exhaust is also a major source tarjamadda macluumaadkani so lacag la'aan wac 612-673-3500 of carbon dioxide Hmong:Ceeb loam.Yog koj xav tau ken pab dawb contributing to global warming. txhais cov xov no,hu 612-673-2800 _ If you need this material in an alternative format,please call 311 For more information and a list of exemptions, Mcneoe please visit http://www.ci.minneapolls.mn.us/airquality/antlidling_home.asp 1111. { . �.. © 5 Route and Idle Manage u . 4.c. Route management is another important factor in fuel economy. In trucking, there are different ways to go from Point A to Point B. The goal is to get from Point A to Point B in the most efficient and economical manner while also meeting delivery deadlines. This can be easier said than done because even veteran truck drivers may sometimes have trouble finding a delivery location. Some companies and drivers make many deliveries to new locations— especially on backhauls. Searching for a customer's location can add stress to driving. Out-of-route miles and lost time can result if a driver misses a turn, impacting on-time delivery. Of course, out-of-route miles also result in burning more fuel. It's estimated that out-of-route miles may account for 3% to 10% of a driver's total mileage each year. Let's assume 100,000 miles driven a year at 6 miles per gallon and an average cost of $4.50 per gallon. Out-of-route miles of 3% —or 3,000 miles— requires 500 extra gallons of diesel fuel. Multiply that by $4.50 per gallon and it equals $2,250 in additional fuel costs. Out-of-route miles of 10% —or 10,000 miles—equates to 1,666 extra gallons of diesel fuel. Multiply again by $4.50 per gallon and it equals nearly $7,497 in additional fuel costs. And these figures are just for one truck. Kenworth believes it's essential to help drivers and fleets find ways to reduce their out-of-route miles and boost overall fuel economy and route efficiency, thus increasing truck asset productivity. Kenworth offers the factory installed Kenworth GPS in-dash navigation system to aid in these savings. • Idle management also plays a significant role in overall fuel economy. Unnecessary idling can esult in substantial cost to the owner. Idling should be minimized by spec'ing the truck with he Kenworth Clean Power System. This factory installed system provides heating, cooling and otel load power for up to 10 hours. The system uses stored energy for cooling and hotel load sower rather than running a diesel engine. The Clean Power System fuel savings vs. typical fuel onsumption from idling the truck or running a diesel APU can really add up. The chart below .hows the estimated fuel cost of each solution for a typical line haul operation with 1,800 hours/year sf idle time. Replacing idle or APU time with The Kenworth Clean Power System will reduce your overall fuel consumption significantly. Annual Fuel Cost Example assumes the following: •Fuel consumption for idling truck engine=.75 gal/hr $7,000.00 — —---— — •Fuel consumption for operating Diesel APU=.3 gal/hr $6,000.00 — •Fuel consumption for operating the Kenworth Clean $6,000.00 - Power System=.1 gal/hour for 6 months of the year $4,000.00 - , $3,000.00 and.05 gal/hour for 3 months of the year. $2,000.00 •Idle time of 1,800 hours/year for idling truck engine. $1,000.00 1,800 hours/year of idle time avoided by operating Moo t i diesel APU or Clean Power System. Idle truck engine Diesel APU Clean Power •Fuel cost/gal=$4.50 7 1995. - Kenworth received the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Award for .the Advancement of Motor Vehicle Research and Development. The award was presented to Kenworth for its T600A tractor, originally introduced in 1985, primarily for its contribution in the areas of fuel efficiency and safety. • WHITE PAPER ON FUEL ECONOMY KENWORTH TRUCK COMPANY (t,;:,'.51, Driver Behaviora � While Kenworth engineers and the Kenworth dealer network can work closely with customers to spec a vehicle for fuel economy, driving techniques and habits have a major impact on achieving what the specs set out to do. Kenworth offers these tips for getting the most out of your equipment: • A fuel economy display such as the Kenworth Driver Information Center is essential as the driver must be able to monitor and correct fuel economy performance by the minute. • Excessive speed is the largest single factor in reduced fuel mileage. Reduce speed to a reasonable level of say 60 mph and eliminate all non-essential stops. A general rule of thumb is that every mph increase above 50 mph reduces fuel mileage by 0.1 mpg. • Use restraint when accelerating from stop. Short-shifting at 1,100 to 1,200 rpm in all the low-range gears keeps fuel consumption low and still moves the truck. The step to high range requires a bit more RPM and then use 1,500 rpm as maximum shift point. Lug the engine to 1,150 rpm before downshifting. The upper end of the power curve — 1,500 to 1,800 or 2,100 rpm — has the most severe fuel burn rate—so try to avoid this. Engine boost is another good indicator of engine load. Keep your boost level steady and consistent between acceleration events by watching your boost gauge. Different engine models operate differently, so be sure to read your owner and driver manuals to achieve the best performance from your engine. • Use cruise control as much as possible. A good driver may be able to outperform the cruise control, but cannot do it consistently day in and day out. Set the cruise control as soon as you are up to speed. Look far ahead and choose a lane that avoids merging traffic and other slowdowns that may make you turn off your cruise control and lose momentum. Extra fuel is burned every time you need to regain speed. Constant speeds save fuel. Minimize idling. Five minutes of warm-up is generally adequate and cool-down is accomplished when pulling in for parking. To verify the negative effect of excessive idling, watch the fuel economy display. • Spec the truck with the Kenworth Clean Power®system. Utilize these fuel-economy tips and you'll be well on your way to receiving better fuel economy for your truck or fleet. 1 996- Kenworth introduces the all new T2000 at the International TruckingShow. The T2000 represents nearly20years of work in ` P {'`— aerodynamics by Kenworth engineers and it sets new standards k connlw,t, -•y I ,-- performance, and reliability. ` t ' e : Ar onne' • •* To Idle or Not To Idle: g°°�1OX41r•°°•°°0” That Is the Question GLinda Gaines,Leny Levinson,and Steve McConnell Argonne National Laboratory,Argonne,IL 60439 Abstract ,Measurements Should I idle my car to warm it up before I drive?Should I shut the engine off To answer questions about when it makes sense to idle rather than turn off the engine,and whether to while waiting to pick up a passenger or for a train to go by?Is it better to pick warm up the car by idling before driving,Argonne set out to measure start-up emissions,idling emissions, up food at a drive-through or to park and go into the restaurant?These are and the time for the catalyst to warm up and cool down vs.outside temperature.Preliminary results are common questions that people ask when they want to know more about how presented here. Figure 1.A 20090W Jetta to drive"green."There are conflicting answers in the literature,which has led TDI undergoing testing The first car to be instrumented was a 2009 VW Jetta TDl(Figure 1), to confusion.This poster presents the results of measurements performed on at Argonne's Advanced both diesel and gasoline passenger vehicles at Argonne National Laboratory. Powertrain Research Facility. which is a 50-state compliant,Tier 2 Bin 5 vehicle with a complex aftertreatment system that includes a diesel oxidation catalyst The answers are found to dependtype, _on vehicle ambient temperature, +�a Jr I (DOC),a particulate trap,and a nitrogen oxide(NO)trap.The time,local laws,and what criteria are used to define"green' 1 engine controller was monitored to record engine speed,coolant This poster also introduces elements of a new initiative designed to provide j � temperature,and vehicle speed.In addition,thermocouples were dear Information to those who have not yet gotten the word that idling , - •,�- i placed before and after the aftertreatment devices.Because of the reduction is a win-win proposition. -`e� f- :w ,a; lack of an available temperature chamber,we relied on ambient _. ' -- conditions.A 2010 Ford focus was instrumented in the spring;low- ' temperature measurements will be taken on this vehicle later this Background • year.Measurements on several additional vehicles,including some .."r q i �' light trucks,are also planned. Idling reduction efforts have focused on heavy-duty diesel vehicles because they are the low-hanging fruit of fuel economy and emissions For the measurement of cold-start times,each vehicle was left outdoors ovemight.The following morning, reduction.Long-haul trucks often idle ovemight to keep the driver the vehicle was started,and the time for it to reach operating temperature was recorded.Next,the vehicle mfortable;our previous work has identified and compared lower- was driven until the temperatures stabilized,and then it was shut off.The time until the vehicle became ,mpact alternatives to overnight idling.We have also identified work-day "cold"was recorded. idling by all dasses of vehicles as a significant waste of petroleum and For the measurement of cold-start emissions,the vehicle was`cold soaked"outdoors overnight and then source of excess emissions.And the EPA's large and visible program to started.Emissions were recorded until the vehicle reached operating temperature.The procedure was reduce emissions from school buses includes a component on idling repeated after a hot soak(i.e.,the aftertreatment system had cooled down,but the engine coolant was reduction.But many people ignore passenger car idling—even at still warm). schools—as a source of emissions and wasted fuel.If each car in the United States idles just 6 minutes per day,about 3 billion gallons of In Figure 2,we see that idling fuel consumption is,of course,linear with time,and increases with engine fuel are wasted annually,costing drivers$10 billion.And they haven't sae.Accessory loads also increase fuel use;we plan to take future measurements with the vehicles' gotten anywhere! heating and air-conditioning systems running. Although it is desirable to get into a comfortably toasty or tool car, Figure 2.Idling fuel consumption with respect to time.(For reference,the Honda Civic not overdoing a 10-minute remote Warm-up of cool-down is the goal. engine is a 1,8 liter,the Ford Fusion a 2.5 liter,and the Chevrolet Malibu a 3.6 liter.) Running a car for that period is still idling,and neither the engine nor Idling Fuel Consumption with Respect to Idling Time • the catalyst is at its peak operating temperature.Additionally,in some °^ jurisdictions,idling an unattended vehicle is illegal. Major vehicle manufacturers and suppliers hold the view that idling '° modern engines is not only unnecessary but undesirable.Owner's manuals often advise against idling and encourage`ecodriving'as a way ° —.aror.. to increase fuel economy and reduce emissions.In addition,DOE,DOT, xaa'r".e li E — a' --Waft. and EPA discourage unnecessary idling,and DOD attempts to reduce 30 -- - - •- r idling to limit fuel costs and engine wear. 3 ° We found inconsistent and conflicting recommendations,with no supporting scientific data,in anti-idling literature distributed across c it North America.One fast-food chain claimed that it was°greener"to use 10 - - the drive-through than to park and go into the restaurant.Argonne, • L--- ^refore,decided to measure idling fuel use and emissions for light- a ° . �° .y vehicles,and to compare these to start-up emissions to enable o a 4 Idling Time(min/0) ,t data-based decision-making about idling. Continues on back yr ..1r111ww. _ram rr Measurements(continued) Fgure3 summarizes preliminary intonation onwarm-up and awWown times for Figure 3.Calt1-startandmol-downtlmes. /wk. the catalytic converters on the Jetta and Focus.We see that warm-up times decrease and cool-down times increase as the temperature rises.In temperate weather,the Cold-Start and Cool-Down Times gasoline vehicle's catalyst is ready to work immediately on hot start,but it takes about ... -"----- ------—---------- _-- aminuteatidle.In general,the diesel vehicle's catalyst warms up more slowly than the em•tort time NOD kite • • gasoline vehicle's.Next,we see that the catalysts warns up much faster when the car is j •ueeaa„a„One 20091<„• being driven than when it is idling,thus driving rather than idling at start-up minimizes w.l-— - - •mot ua„mortena Wred Snn 00,lens start-up emissions as well as fuel use and CO,emissions.This is true for both hot and m cold starts.The diesel's catalyst takes about 2 minutes longer to warm up at 32'f;in fact, •rea.,r„lime aoao F.F.aea when the temperature drops neaso"F,the diesel's catalyst may news actually warm up 1..i' a - •caeca.+un time mm Ford Focus •Mot.n 21310 Fat Fat. when idling from a cold start. ., _.-_. whoasr.anum.ea.. a._ 6k Starts Vehicle was cold soaked ovengnl started.and driven Immediately Herold Starr.Vehicle was cold soaked overnight started.and idled th led until -- Ni---- -- ------ - -----I • . .• —i- nhamt temperatuns reached 200e(or equilibrium. • y-7 • Net Starts.Vehiclesenglne was at operating temperature.tumedot sold • a•. soaked fork mimes,and then started and d,nen,mmedlaely. ■ - McIMtStartsVenitle's engine was at opnatiig temperate!,tamed at cold • • •'• •• soaked In l5 minute,and then vaned and idled unto nvaun tempnsmn ae to m ao •so w m mmed200°(or equiianum e...rr.rn Preliminary Recommendations For all cars,the catalytic converter warms up much faster when the car is being driven than period,and no excess emissions on start-up If you have been inside so long that the catalyst when his idling.In other words,idling a car that's been-cold started"means that harmful is cold,there will be stars-up emissions,but emissions and fuel use from idling will have emissions are not being removed from she eohaunt.And the dnver is getting 0mpg!For been avoided.if you idle at the drive-through,you bum fuel and CO,and other emissions diesel vehicles at temperatures near OF,the catalyst may nears he brought up to light-off are produced.If you want to minimize your carbon footprint,park and go in.If your trip is temperature by idling,so use remote-start features sparingly,especially if you drive a brief,the catalyst will still be warm enough to prevent start-up emissions when you restart diesel vehicle. your car. Condusion:You don't need to idle to warm up your car.If you rum off your gasoline- Caution:There are times when you must idle your engine for safety,such as in traffic(unless powered car for as long as 15 minutes while you con an errand,the catalyst will be ready you drive a hybrid).And ifyou must leave a passenger in a car on a hot day,please leave the to work again as soon as you restart your car.There are no emissions or fuel use during that air-conditioning on. A National Idling Reduction Campaign We are developing educational materials to be shared with Clean Cities Coalitions and Idling is more than a matter of emissions and wasted fuel;states,counties,and cities other entities interested in spreading the word about the benefits of idling reduction are passing laws to limit the amount of time vehicles of all types may idle(Figure 5). (Figure 4).The materials are intended to be useful for drivers of light-and heavy-duty Passenger vehicles are increasingly the target of these laws. vehicles,both fleets and individuals. Figure 4.Argonne is developing educational materials Figure 5.States with idling regulations. for an idling reduction campaign. 0111111'. - I ril-77-- Ys,l • / . " / ,-., t.. . : -at7a Argonne Natbneltabontory4a ,! 'ENERGY us.oewnmanternao nheramry Cities m.ne.ed I„UChb.„Argonne,ids. ll,oep•nmem Cl rn., Idle Free Utah: Idling Facts Page 1 of 2 Idling Facts Idling Isn't Good for Our Pocketbooks or Our Lungs Thankfully, it is less of a problem with newer fuel injected vehicles than it was with their predecessors. Today's vehicles emit fewer pollutants while idling than those of older generations. Still, idling wastes money and contributes to increased asthma and other respiratory problems. There are multiple factors to be considered in deciding when to turn your vehicle off. We've listed those we think represent a common sense approach. Facts A major study done on the costs of idling found: • Idling for 10 seconds uses the same amount of gas as restarting your car. • The typical amount of vehicle starts per day is estimated at between 5-10. • Increasing the number of vehicle starts by 6-10 a day probably would not increase operating costs. • In order to balance the cost of starter maintenance with the benefits of idling reduction, the study suggested turning the vehicle off after 30-45 seconds of idling. (Source: Review of the Incidence, Energy Use and Costs of Passenger Vehicle Idling) Recommendations • Use common sense. Don't turn your vehicle off in a situation where you will need to constantly restart it, such as a drive thru. • Park your car and put those legs to work rather than sitting in drive-thrus. Students at the University of Alberta monitored a drive-thru in Edmonton last year for 54 hours, during which time they found that 3,756 cars idled in line for at least five minutes each. At this rate, if you pick up your coffee at a drive-thru five mornings a week, you're spending almost two hours idling a month and unnecessarily increasing your fuel costs. Think of the extra coffee you could be purchasing instead. (Source: Climate Change Central) • Never turn your vehicle off in traffic unless you are experiencing a long delay and it is safe to do so. • Newer vehicles need no more than 30 seconds of idling time in cold temperatures. The best way to warm up your car is to drive it. • For temperatures below 5° Fahrenheit, use an engine block heater to warm the engine. This improves fuel efficiency and reduces emissions. • Use remote starters wisely. Don't turn your vehicle on before you are ready to leave. httn.//www id1PfrpP 17tall trnv/iAlirnn 1 r+c. t,+.Y, ninninn Idle Free Utah: Idling Facts Page 2 of 2 Click on the following links for additional facts. Different sources may list different recommendations. The information is provided to help you make the best choice for your lifestyle. • California Energy Center's Idling Myths Page • Natural Resources Canada Idle Reduction Facts Page Note: idling standards may be adjusted over time as vehicle technology changes and more studies are done. • • httn://www_id1efrPP IAA anir/irlliner fate 1,4m 11/etc%inn -Proposed Idle' Free Ordinance Public Education Outline Key Components: • Idle Free Grace Period—Opportunity to educate the public about the ordinance,and provide time for initial educational efforts without,enforcement taking place. ,ji • Media Outreach 4f o Media Event h Mayor Becker and City Council o Sharedl o'ational ma o '. '0. ie lia,'SLCN x a:, • Educational Materials, 'b"serve as tools for city employees'to educate-Jse puiblic about the facts of the ordinal),. , the importance of everyone doing their`part. o red: br ; nity distribution. o Letter :tf�r residential` ports of vehicle idling on private prob-00. o Fact S,,3 eeX5 commi ' distribution. o Hotfl.e':4=t ;-, ;�.,indivi��inls4idling or areas where idling occurs frequently o Website—tosl,iis a one stop shop for all pertinent idle free documents, FAQs, information and atherrresources�and to'report idling. o Video-to; it %tip} e,of tai ordinance and as an education tool o Additional Slg:_ ;to ';t =cur t`idlefree signs throughout the c stating that an enforceable Ol ioncesi iu Nor .. Existing P ciyramm c Re es ; 1,,y, S fit:, • •1�+ leaFree Utah:htto://idlefree.utah.aov • , Park sidle Free Ordinance: hitti:-,(11 w:.parkcity.ora/indexrasok baae=622 • Salt La �e-City's• idle ree Page:'w ww.sicaov.com/idlefree • Business Outreach.:-Targeted outreach to local businesses,or other organizations that may be affected by the Idle Free Ordinance-l'arlready,tieen contacted for comment on proposed ordinance). , o Stress best business practice stories from UPS, FedEX& Kennecott that emphasize the cost savings associated with a reduction in o Key areas for outreach(customers possibly affected): ■ Airport Park&Wait parking lot. • Fast food park&serve areas(Hires,Sonic,Curbside to go restaurants,etc) • Bank and dry cleaner drive-through windows(likely longer than 2 minute wait) • University of Utah and Salt Lake Community College Student Parking lots • Elementary School Pick Ups and High School Parking Lots • Distribution centers and companies with loading docks o Key business types for outreach(fleets affected): • Businesses with large fleets • Private bus companies(Le Bus,etc.) • Utah Transit Authority • Delivery truck companies • Mobile Businesses • U of U • Food4lelivery companies., ■ Community Partfler Outreach—Enlist key p*tn to spread the word:.to;heir constituents, contact lists, =. o Some examples • Utah-=Clcan Cities • Sa't'lake Chamber • ,Breathe tJtah/Alloms for Clean Air • Salt Lake's Air Quality Partners Team ▪ SKA n Team • Commtrtt,:Councils • Wasatch fro*RegionalOuncil • UofU. • Salt Lake CitySchd 'Distt t:`:. i_: • Prohibition of Idling on all Salt Lake City Vehicles Page 1 of 3 • Executive Orders Prohibition of Idling on all Salt Lake City Vehicles RESPONSIBLE CITY AGENCY: Office of the C.A.O. KEYWORDS: Transportation, Fleet, Anti-Idling Preface Air pollution is a major public health concern in Salt Lake City and motor vehicles are significant sources of air pollution. In Utah over 50% of air pollution is a result of mobile sources. Air pollution can cause or aggravate lung illnesses such as acute respiratory infections, asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancer. In addition to health impacts, air pollution imposes significant economic costs and negative impacts on our quality of life. Exhaust from vehicles is a substantial source of ozone precursors in the Salt Lake Valley. Vehicle exhaust also is a source of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gases (the leading cause of climate change). Salt Lake City can play an important role in improving air quality by limiting the amount of time engines are allowed to idle and thereby lead the effort to improve air quality by adopting a prohibition on unnecessary vehicle idling by all City employees. The purpose of this Executive Order is to protect the public health and improve our environment by reducing emissions while conserving fuel. Therefore I enact this Executive Order: 1. Definitions 1.1 "Driver" means any employee of Salt Lake City Corporation who drives, operates, or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. 1.2 "Idle" means the operation of a vehicle engine while the vehicle is stationary or not in the act of performing work or its normal function. 1.3 "Vehicle" means any self propelled vehicle that is required to be registered and have a license plate by the department of motor vehicles. 2. General 2.1 This Executive Order applies to the Mayor and to City employees in City departments under the direction of the Mayor. 2.2 No driver, while (a) operating a City owned vehicle or(b) operating a privately owned vehicle while on City business, shall cause or permit a vehicle's engine to idle for more than ten (10) consecutive seconds, except for the following kinds of idling: A. Idling while stopped: 1. for an official traffic control device; 2. for an official traffic control signal; 3. at the direction of a police officer; 4. at the direction of an air traffic controller; 5. idling as needed by City employees to operate defrosters, heaters, air conditioners, or other equipment to prevent a safety or health emergency; 6. idling as needed for a fire apparatus that must be kept running when outside to keep the pumps running and circulating water. B. Idling as needed to ascertain that a vehicle is in safe operating condition and equipped as required by all provisions of law, and that all equipment is in good working order, either as part of the daily vehicle inspection, or as otherwise needed; C. Idling as needed for testing, servicing, repairing, or diagnostic purposes; D. Idling for the period recommended by the manufacturer to cool down a turbo-charged heavy-duty vehicle before turning the engine off; http://www.slcinfobase.com/ppareo/WordDocuments/prohibitionofidlingon... 8/1 7/20 1 1 Prohibition of Idling on all Salt Lake City Vehicles Page 2 of 3 • E. Idling as needed to operate auxiliary equipment for which the vehicle was designed, other than transporting goods, such as: operating a transportation refrigeration unit(TRU), lift, crane, pump, drill, hoist, ready mixed concrete mixer, or other auxiliary equipment, except a heater or air conditioner; F. Idling as needed to operate a lift or other piece of equipment designed to ensure safe loading and unloading of goods or people; G. Idling to recharge a battery or other energy storage unit of a hybrid electric vehicle/ equipment; H. Idling as needed for vehicles that house K-9 or other service animals; I. Idling by on-duty police officers as necessary for the performance of their official duties. Background: • On August 7, 2007, Mayor Ross C. Anderson signed an Executive Order prohibiting the idling of Salt Lake City (the "City")vehicles for more than five (5) consecutive minutes, except in certain circumstances. Afterwards, the City began collaborating with the various governmental entities and interests groups, such as the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake County, Utah Transit Authority, Utah Clean Cities, and Utah Moms for Clean Air, that all stress a lower idling time limit. Accordingly, and for the reasons further explained below, the August 7, 2007 Executive Order is amended to require that the idling limit be lowered to ten (10) seconds. Why a Change is Needed: Several reasons support the City's decision to lower its idling time limit to ten (10) seconds. For instance, the Canada Department of Natural Resources reports that the average vehicle will use more gas and cause more emissions if they idle for more than 10 seconds than if they are turned off and restarted. In addition, the Canada Department of Natural Resources also reports that when a vehicle's engine is left idling for excessive periods, many negative effects occur, including engine damage, waste of resources, and environmental pollution. Engine Damage: Research shows that the wear rates of an idling engine are double that of running an engine under load. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an hour of idling is equal to 80 miles of driving. Waste of Resources: The EPA reports that fuel costs alone from engine idling are enormous, as car engines will use over a gallon of fuel for each hour they idle. In addition, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, more than 3 billion gallons of fuel are used every year fueling idling engines. Environmental Pollution: The unnecessary idling of cars and buses contributes to the amount of emissions piped into the air every day. The Utah Department of Air Quality has observed that this affects the quality of air we all breathe both at the point of idling (often in front of schools and homes), and regionally due to pollutants released into the atmosphere. By lowering the City's idling limit on City vehicles, the City limits the negative environmental effects that idling creates and preserves the longevity of City property. Additionally, the City maintains consistency with other governmental agencies and private sector interests groups that already subscribe to a 10 second idling limitation. EFFECTIVE DATE 8 22, 2008 (Date signed by Mayor): August 7, 2008 http://www.slcinfobase.com/ppareo/WordDocuments/prohibitionofidlingon... 8/17/2011 %/. SCANNEDSCANNED BY: TO: RALPH BECKER i t(f� Yr(�!��� `��j�IMj :MAYOR ,..�-. j `'�lii�liill ! j�J/�:, CHAT E: gkg/v it OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL 1 ( { Q U II MAR 28 2011 1.1j ,/ Date Received: B David v 'tt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 28, 2011 Jill Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff (801) 535-7732 SUBJECT: Idle Free Ordinance STAFF CONTACT: Bianca Shreeve,Assistant to the Chief of Staff DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Mayor recommends that the City Council adopt an Idle-Free Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: Minimal,non-material budget impacts to Public Services Department and Salt Lake City Airport. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Due to the harmful effects of unnecessary emissions on local and regional air quality,the Salt Lake City Mayor's Office recommends that the City Council pass a city-wide ordinance that would prohibit vehicle idling over two minutes. This ordinance provides exemptions for certain situations and for certain types of vehicles. Many local and state governments throughout the country(recently including Park City, Utah)have similar laws that limit idling. The Idle-Free Ordinance allows a six-month grace period to educate the public and issue warnings for first violations. The emphasis on education of the ordinance complements the City's ongoing participation in the"Turn the Key Be Idle Free"campaign. The Administration recommends that enforcement responsibility be given to Parking Enforcement officers as they fulfill their primary duties throughout the city. Salt Lake City Airport staff will enforce the Idle-Free Ordinance at the Salt Lake City International Airport. Budgetary impacts of the ordinance are minimal and one-time, for purchase of some hardware upgrades in Parking Enforcement, signage,brochures and development of a webpage to report vehicle idling. Because first violations are warnings,minimal revenues should be expected. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com PUBLIC PROCESS: Public comment regarding the proposed Idle-Free Ordinance officially began on September 9,2010 as part of"September Idle-Free Month."The draft ordinance was made available for public comment on Salt Lake City's website through Open City Hall for a six-week period, from September 9 to October 21,2010; the City also received emails and phone calls during this comment period. Social media and the Mayor's e-newsletter were additional tools used for sharing information about the idle-free proposal and encouraging input from the community. A public comment report is included in this transmittal. During the six-week public comment period,the Administration sought input from various stakeholders. Air quality advocacy groups such as the Utah Chapter of the American Lung Association and Utah Moms for Clean Air were engaged and expressed their support for the City's idle-free proposal. The Utah Transit Authority(UTA) and shipping companies UPS and FedEx, all of which already have self-imposed idling restrictions,were consulted regarding the City's proposed idling limits. Rocky Mountain Power and Qwest also contributed feedback regarding exemptions needed for utilities companies to properly operate maintenance and service vehicles. The Administration also met with or presented to the Mayor's Community Council Chairs meeting, the Salt Lake City Business Advisory Board and various City departments. Community feedback and input from stakeholders demonstrates high public support for the idle-free proposal during the public comment period. Of the comments captured on Open City Hall as well as phone and email, 104 responses expressed support, 16 responses expressed opposition and 18 neutral responses were collected regarding the Idle Free Ordinance. Responses were received from groups and individuals from both inside and outside Salt Lake City. Public comment prompted several significant changes that were implemented in the final draft ordinance: • Reduction of civil fines from$210 to $160 for second offense, and from $410 to $210 for third offense, with reductions if penalty is paid within 10, 20 and 30 days. • Exemption from the ordinance during extreme temperatures (above 90 degrees and below 32 degrees)where health or safety of passengers could be at risk. • Exemption to operate defrosters to ensure visibility. • Added exemptions for emergency vehicles as well as installation and maintenance vehicles to properly operate machinery or equipment. Public feedback also urged the Administration to develop an education plan to assist residents,visitors and businesses in understanding the Idle-Free Ordinance during the six-month grace period. The Administration's education plan outline is included in this transmittal. 2 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Enacting Chapter 12.58 Prohibiting Idling of Vehicles Within City Limits) An ordinance enacting Chapter 12.58, Salt Lake City Code, prohibiting idling of vehicles within city limits. WHEREAS, air pollution is a major public health and environmental concern in Salt Lake City and motor vehicles are significant sources of air pollution; WHEREAS, for 2009 the Utah Department of Air Quality reported eighteen (18) Yellow Air Days and seventeen(17) Red Air Days during"Wood Burning Season" (November- February) and twenty-one (21) Yellow Air Days and four(4) Red Days during "Ozone Season" (May-September) in Salt Lake County; WHEREAS, over 50% of air pollution is a result of mobile sources in Utah; WHEREAS, the unnecessary idling of cars, trucks and buses contributes to the amounts of emissions piped into the air every day. The Utah Department of Air Quality has observed that this affects the quality of air we breathe both at the point of idling (often in front of schools and homes), and regionally due to pollutants released into the atmosphere; WHEREAS, air pollution can cause or aggravate lung illnesses such as acute respiratory infections, asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancer; WHEREAS, in addition to health impacts, air pollution imposes significant economic costs and negative impacts on our quality of life; WHEREAS, vehicle exhaust is a substantial source of ozone precursors in the Salt Lake Valley; WHEREAS, vehicle exhaust is a source of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, toxic air contaminates, and greenhouse gases (the leading cause of climate change); WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has played an important role in improving air quality by limiting the amount of time engines in City-owned vehicles are allowed to idle and thereby has led the effort to improve air quality. The City has accomplished this by executing two prior Executive Orders prohibiting unnecessary vehicle idling by all City employees and now by enacting this ordinance prohibiting unnecessary vehicle idling within city limits; WHEREAS, the prior Executive Orders were signed by Mayor Ross C. Anderson on August 2, 2007 (the"2007 Executive Order"), and by Mayor Ralph Becker on August 13, 2008 (the "2008 Executive Order"); WHEREAS, the 2008 Executive Order amended the idling time from five (5)consecutive minutes, allowed under the 2007 Executive Order, to ten(10) seconds, except under certain circumstances. This amendment was based on input from various governmental entities and interests groups, such as the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake County, Utah Transit Authority, Utah Clean Cities, and Utah Moms for Clean Air; WHEREAS, several reasons supported the ten (10) second maximum established by the 2008 Executive Order. For instance, the Canada Department of Natural Resources reported that the average vehicle would use more gas and cause more emissions if allowed to idle for more than 10 seconds than if shut off and restarted. Additionally, the Canada Department of Natural Resources also reported that when a vehicle's engine is left idling for excessive periods, many negative effects occur, including engine damage, waste of resources, and environmental 2 pollution; WHEREAS, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, fuel costs alone from engine idling are enormous, as car engines use over a gallon of fuel for each hour they idle. In addition, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, more than 3 billion gallons of fuel are used every year fueling idling engines; WHEREAS, the City Council believes that a less strict standard of two minutes for permissible idling time is appropriate for the public at large; and WHEREAS, by prohibiting idling as defined in this ordinance within city limits, the City limits the negative environmental effects that idling creates and thereby preserves the health and promotes the prosperity, good order, comfort and convenience of the city and its inhabitants. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Enacting Chapter 12.58 Prohibiting Motor Vehicle Idling Within City Limits: That Chapter 12.58 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: CHAPTER 12.58 IDLING OF VEHICLES 12.58.010 Purpose: The purpose of this Chapter is to protect the public health and improve the environment by reducing emissions while conserving fuel. 12.58.020 Definitions: y,. 3 i For purposes of this Chapter, these definitions shall apply: A. "Driver" means any driver who drives, operates, or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. B. "Idle"means the operation of a vehicle engine while the vehicle is stationary or not in the act of performing work or its normal function. C. "Vehicle"means any self propelled vehicle that is required to be registered and have a license plate by the Utah Department of Motor Vehicles. 12.58.030 Idling Restriction Within City Limits: No driver, while operating a vehicle within city limits, shall cause or permit a vehicle's engine to idle for more than two minutes, except for the following kinds of idling: A. Idling while stopped: 1. for an official traffic control device; 2. for an official traffic control signal; 3. at the direction of a police officer; 4. at the direction of an air traffic controller; 5. for airport landside and airside operations requirements. B. Idling as needed to operate-heaters or air conditioners where the temperature is below 32 degrees fahrenheit or above 90 degrees fahrenheit, as measured at the Salt Lake City Airport and determined by the National Weather Service, for the health or safety of a driver or passenger, including service animals. C. Idling for the minimum amount of time required for the operation of defrosters or other 4 J equipment to clear the windshield and windows to provide unobstructed views and ensure visibility while driving. D. Idling as needed for emergency vehicles to operate equipment. E. Idling as needed to ascertain that a vehicle is in safe operating condition and equipped as required by all provisions of law, and that all equipment is in good working order, either as part of the daily vehicle inspection, or as otherwise needed. F. Idling as needed for testing, servicing,repairing, installation, maintenance or diagnostic purposes. G. Idling for the period recommended by the manufacturer to warm up or cool down a turbo- charged heavy-duty vehicle. H. Idling as needed to operate auxiliary equipment for which the vehicle was primarily designed or equipped, other than transporting goods, such as: operating a transportation refrigeration unit(TRU), lift, crane,pump, drill, hoist, ready mixed equipment, except a heater or air conditioner. I. Idling as needed to operate a lift or other piece of equipment designed to ensure safe loading and uploading of goods or people. - J. Idling to recharge a battery or other energy storage unit of a hybrid electric vehicle. K. Idling as need for vehicles that house K-9 or other service animals. L. Idling by on-duty police officers as necessary for the performance of their official duties. 12.58.040 Penalties: A. Violation of Section 12.58.030 is a civil offense and shall be penalized as follows: 5 1. First offense: a warning but no fine. 2. Second offense within twenty four months of the first offense: a civil fine of$160. 3. Third and subsequent offenses within twenty four months of the first offense: a civil fine of$210. B. Reduction of Penalties: The civil penalties specified in subsection A of this section shall be subject to the following: 1. Any penalty that is paid within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of notice shall be reduced by the sum of one hundred ten dollars ($110.00). 2. Any penalty that is paid within twenty(20) days from the date of receipt of notice shall be reduced by the sum of seventy dollars ($70.00). 3. Any penalty that is paid within thirty(30) days from the date of receipt of notice shall be reduced by the sum of forty dollars ($40.00). 4. Receipt of Notice: As used in this section, "receipt of notice"means the affixing of a notice to the vehicle alleged to have been employed in a violation of this chapter, or by delivery of such notice to the owner or driver thereof. 5. Other Fees and Assessments: A forty five dollar($45.00) administrative fee shall be assessed for the city's cost of collecting past due debts. C. Strict Liability of Owner: Whenever any vehicle shall have been employed in a violation of this chapter, the person in whose name such vehicle is registered shall be strictly liable for 6 such violation and the penalty therefore. D. Appeal Procedures: A violation of this chapter may be appealed as an unauthorized use of the streets pursuant to Section 12.56.570 and is subject to Section 12.56.570G. E. Outstanding Notices: Notices issued pursuant to this chapter shall be considered notices of unauthorized use of streets within the city for purposes of Section 12.96.020. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS 10 FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date 3 Bill No. of 2011. 8 Published: HB_ATTY-#1 24 8 1-v4-Anti_Idling_Ordinance.DOC 7 Dublin Discussion Draft September 9, 2010 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 20102011 (Enacting Chapter 12.58 Prohibiting ef-Idling of Vehicles Within City Limits) An ordinance enacting Chapter 12.58, Salt Lake City Code, prohibiting efidling of vehicles within city limits. WHEREAS, air pollution is a major public health and environmental concern in Salt Lake City and motor vehicles are significant sources of air pollution; WHEREAS, for 2009 the Utah Department of Air Quality reported eighteen (18) Yellow Air Days and seventeen(17) Red Air Days during"Wood Burning Season" (November- February) and twenty-one (21) Yellow Air Days and four(4) Red Days during "Ozone Season" (May-September) in Salt Lake County; WHEREAS, over 50% of air pollution is a result of mobile sources in Utah; WHEREAS, the unnecessary idling of cars. trucks and buses contributes to the amounts of emissions piped into the air every day. The Utah Department of Air Quality has observed that this affects the quality of air we breathe both at the point of idling (often in front of schools and homes), and regionally due to pollutants released into the atmosphere; WHEREAS, air pollution can cause or aggravate lung illnesses such as acute respiratory infections, asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancer; WHEREAS, in addition to health impacts, air pollution imposes significant economic costs and negative impacts on our quality of life; WHEREAS, vehicle exhaust is a substantial source of ozone precursors in the Salt Lake Valley; i WHEREAS, vehicle exhaust is a source of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, toxic air contaminates, and greenhouse gases (the leading cause of climate change); WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has played an important role in improving air quality by limiting the amount of time engines in City-owned vehicles are allowed to idle and thereby has led the effort to improve air quality. The City has accomplished this by executing two prior Executive Orders prohibiting unnecessary vehicle idling by all City employees and now by enacting this ordinance prohibiting unnecessary vehicle idling within city limits; WHEREAS, the prior Executive Orders were signed by Mayor Ross C. Anderson on August 2, 2007 (the "2007 Executive Order"), and by Mayor Ralph Becker on August 13, 2008 (the"2008 Executive Order"); WHEREAS, the 2008 Executive Order amended the idling time from five (5) consecutive minutes, allowed under the 2007 Executive Order,to ten (10) seconds, except under certain circumstances. This amendment was based on input from various governmental entities and interests groups, such as the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake County, Utah Transit Authority, Utah Clean Cities, and Utah Moms for Clean Air; WHEREAS, several reasons supported the ten (10) second maximum established by the 2008 Executive Order. For instance, the Canada Department of Natural Resources reported that • the average vehicle would use more gas and cause more emissions if allowed to idle for more than 10 seconds than if shut off and restarted. Additionally,the Canada Department of Natural Resources also reported that when a vehicle's engine is left idling for excessive periods, many negative effects occur, including engine damage, waste of resources, and environmental pollution; 2 i WHEREAS, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, fuel costs alone from engine idling are enormous, as car engines use over a gallon of fuel for each hour they idle. In addition, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, more than 3 billion gallons of fuel are used every year fueling idling engines; WHEREAS,the City Council believes that a less strict standard of two minutes for permissible idling time is appropriate for the public at large; and WHEREAS, by prohibiting idling as defined in this ordinance within city limits, the City limits the negative environmental effects that idling creates and thereby preserves the health and promotes the prosperity, good order, comfort and convenience of the city and its inhabitants. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Enacting Chapter 12.58 Prohibiting efMotor Vehicle Idling Within City Limits: That Chapter 12.58 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: CHAPTER 12.58 IDLING OF VEHICLES 12.58.010 Purpose: The purpose of this Chapter is-to protect the public health and improve the environment by reducing emissions while conserving fuel. 12.58.020 Definitions: For purposes of this Chapter, these definitions shall apply: 3 A. "Driver"means any driver who drives, operates, or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. B. "Idle" means the operation of a vehicle engine while the vehicle is stationary or not in the act of performing work or its normal function. C. "Vehicle"means any self propelled vehicle that is required to be registered and have a license plate by the Utah Department of Motor Vehicles. 12.58.030 Idling Restriction Within City Limits: No driver, while operating a vehicle within city limits, shall cause or permit a vehicle's engine to idle for more than two minutes, except for the following kinds of idling: A. Idling while stopped: 1. for an official traffic control device; 2. for an official traffic control signal; 3. at the direction of a police officer; 4. at the direction of an air traffic controller; 5. i-ellifigfor airport landside and airside operations requirements. B. Idling as needed to operate heaters or air conditioners where the temperature is below 32 degrees fahrenheit or above 90 degrees fahrenheit, as measured at the Salt Lake City Airport and determined by the National Weather Service, for the health or safety of a driver or passenger, including service animals. C. Idling as needed to operate defrosters, heaters, air conditioners, or other equipment to prevent a safety or health ensure visibility. 5,D. Idling as needed for emergency;vehicles to operate equipment. 4 6. idling as needed for fire apparatus that must be kept running when outside to keep the ., na . .,l.,ting water Idling as needed to ascertain that a vehicle is in safe operating condition and equipped as required by all provisions of law, and that all equipment is in good working order, either as part of the daily vehicle inspection, or as otherwise needed;. GA'. Idling as needed for testing, servicing, repairing, installation, maintenance or diagnostic purposes;, D.G. Idling for the period recommended by the manufacturer to warm up or cool down a turbo- charged heavy-duty vehicle before turning the engine off;_ 1C�. Idling as needed to operate auxiliary equipment for which the vehicle was designed or equipped, other than transporting goods, such as: operating a transportation refrigeration unit (TRU), lift, crane, pump, drill, hoist, ready mixed equipment, except a heater or air conditioner;. GI. Idling as needed to operate a lift or other piece of equipment designed to ensure safe loading and uploading of goods or people;_ (20. _Idling to recharge a battery or other energy storage unit of a hybrid electric vehicle;_ 1--1-K. _Idling as need for vehicles that house K-9 or other service animals;_ 11,. Idling by on-duty police officers as necessary for the performance of their official duties. 12.58.040 Penalties: A. Violation of Section 12.58.030 is a civil offense and shall be penalized as follows: 1. First Offense. Aoffense: a warning but no fine. 2. Second Offensooffense within twenty four months of the first offenserA: a civil fine of$240160. 5 3. Third and subsequent offenses within twenty four months of the first offense:-A: a civil fine of$1 10210. 14- B. Reduction of Penalties: The civil penalties specified in subsection A of this section shall be subject to the following: 1. Any penalty that is paid within ten(10) days from the date of receipt of notice shall be reduced by the sum of one hundred ten dollars ($110.00). 2. Any penalty that is paid within twenty(20) days from the date of receipt of notice shall be reduced by the sum of seventy dollars ($70.00). 3. Any penalty that is paid within thirty(30) days from the date of receipt of notice shall be reduced by the sum of forty dollars ($40.00). 4. Receipt of Notice: As used in this section, "receipt of notice" means the affixing of a notice to the vehicle alleged to have been employed in a violation of this chapter, or by delivery of such notice to the owner or driver thereof. 5. Other Fees and Assessments: A forty five dollar($45.00) administrative fee shall be assessed for the city's cost of collecting past due debts. C. Strict Liability of Owner: Whenever any vehicle shall have been employed in a violation of this chapter, the person in whose name such vehicle is registered shall be strictly liable for such violation and the penalty therefore. 1=} D. Appeal Procedures: A violation of this chapter may be appealed as an unauthorized use of the streets pursuant to Section 12.56.570 and is subject to Section 12.56.570G. 6 i E. Outstanding Notices: Notices issued pursuant to this chapter shall be considered notices of unauthorized use of streets within the city for purposes of Section 12.96.020. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. 7 r'" Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 201-02011.. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. 004, MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) I Bill No. of 2-04-02011. Published: HB_ATTY-#12481-v2 0-Anti_1dl ing_Ordinance.DOC 8 i • ; , - ''-',. i', •... ,""--,:'!';1' ''.,' :',k . IDLE FREE ORDINANCE ::: Public Comment Report , ,r .:;,;x:4•:.1,-,?,0 , : :.:.;,": "•' '.;,,-M-1 : •,,'',:VP:',.*,,,,t1''',',.-.. This report summarizes the public comments received regarding the ;•.,,,-',..,1, ••• 'P.Ce'' proposed Idle Free Ordinance September October 21, 2010. T,,,,i !1;',,"..... . ;' •!.7.11:14:15;. :5,14: ---- i i •7;';',.-7,1!--r tm,...r, ----_,_,_ A„ your t / J it s- / -. S)S- \\ •!<: .',.: / & \ ;,"....,;'.',:•-'sy,i,",i2r, -''. F:::, .'',,;^'-,--• ., ,L. ',i-i:.,-,-4,••• 0 i ' =&:,.::;-.1,▪4,40 • ..; :,., :..;.t...,, ,,I.E, ---,3,-,,, ,....,-,,,,q, --e ',..,„ ,t."7--"z„. -,,4 ,,)* '''7'-,1';':. '7:„1 „::- \ 1(111/1111* j H'I-il'14,#15,-.40.: 11.--.0=o, • ,5- ' `41 / Y4:.q \ 45 \ „A/ \ e idle kv`f -•Pk.7,:@..,- -:'!: •12!ti,'..,4,i.- ,t -4,-,':;;:r: ',-''';-::Ik.r.:?.:'''.:•44,IC,'!".' ' 4i7,-, Kate Lilja, Sustainability Division '1,17,;' ,:.A:'...4'.-;-'4'.f-fA'.'•:k'. tft:Fi,' -141,Wt;-4,k.:44:19414q(f! November 2010 ,,,.,-7:,.- -;,1.5...k.,,--Xu.,v,ii.ir-,-,40,2.,:i ,,,,,,..., November 2010 Table of Contents Background 2 Findings 2 Location 2 Reasoning 4 Recommendations 4 Summary of Revisions 6 APPENDIX A—Stakeholder Comments i APPENDIX B—Public Comments vi ,410404, to November 2010 IDLE FREE ORDINANCE Public Comment Report Background Poor air quality, especially during temperature inversions, is a serious issue within the Salt Lake Valley and affects all residents regardless of basic demographic indicators. With over 50%of air pollution coming from the tailpipes of motor vehicles, a comprehensive and multi-pronged approach to reducing motor vehicles emissions is vital to addressing this important issue. In an effort to improve air quality along the Wasatch Front, the Salt Lake City Mayor's Office proposed a draft Idle Free Ordinance that would be a city-wide prohibition on idling more than two minutes. The following report contains content analysis of all feedback received through the Office of the Mayor and the Office of Sustainability as of October 21, 2010.Appendix A contains all stakeholder feedback.Appendix B consists of all comments made both online and directly to city contacts. Findings Of the total 138 comments received during the public comment period, the vast majority voiced support (See Table 1.1). 13% of comments received did not make their position known, instead expressing a miscellaneous opinion on the matter. Table 1.1 Oppose Support Undeclared Total 16 104 18,_ 188 12% 75% 13% 100% Location Of those who stated whether they support or oppose the ordinance, a full 97%indicated or provided their location.In the following sample,those who provided their location are classified into two separate categories—resident and non-resident(of Salt Lake City). Represented in the non-resident sample were cities located in Utah including:Riverton, Cottonwood Heights,Bountiful,Murray,Draper,Holladay, Sandy, North Ogden,Orem and Herriman. 2 CO) November 2010 ANkt Table l.2 OPpose Support Total 13 84 97 Resident 13% 87% 100% 3 18 21 Non-Resident 14% 86% 100% Resident Pie Chart—Table l.3 .44 ,aka , ®support ■Oppose ❑Miscellaneous .41.D 30 November 2010 Non Resident Pie Chart—Table 1.4 ®Support ■Oppose 0 Miscellaneous eL {� Reasoning Individuals who voiced support mainly did so based on air quality concerns.Those who voiced opposition generally based their argument on limit of government,waste of government resources,anti-business rationale. Recommendations Non-Stakeholder Summary of non-stakeholder recommendations provided by opponents and supporters: Table 2.1 Support Opposition • Include specific provision for drive- •. Public awareness thru windows. canpaign/voluntary effort instead of regulatory. • Require Idle Free signs at all drive- thru windows : Include info rmation or exemptionlor catalytic conyerters/combustion. a Ban drive-thru windows science: • Lower fines. ■ Lower fines. • Simplify fine structure. 4 November 2010 -"14111 • Decrease idling limit to: o One minute o 30 seconds , = . • , o 15/10 seconds • , Clearly define safety „. • Add traffic signal timers clock). - s - • signal s:ss iAproVd.-trtiffi = -_ tiining/optimization. • Utilize a large public awareliesifii,42*- -;,A4s-4''..-030=-;4-g-ssrrs,= 1,--';4-','zi`.-4-s's3-'z--;`s yrz.. -•: campaign. Those that were undeclared recommended: Table 2.2 • Undeclared • Add traffic signal timers • Improve traffic signal timing/optimization. • Ban drive-thru windows. • Do not exempt police officers. • Require permanent signs at schools. a Get community councils involved. • Make the ordinance apply at rail signals. . • • Public awareness/education program. • - Rotary povvered vehic.lea. 5 0 November 2010 Stakeholder Recommendations Stakeholders,including Rocky Mountain Power, Qwest,Gold Cross Ambulance and the Salt Lake City Airport,provided specific recommendations. Table 23 Stakeholders • Add exemption for"installation& maintenance." • Add exemption for"safety or regulatory authority." • Add exemption for ambulances and emergency vehicles. Summary of Revisions Responding to feedback and incorporating constructive suggestions from public comment resulted in several revisions in the draft ordinance language. To summarize: • "Idling while stopped in accordance with regulatory authority"was added to Exemption 12.58.030 A.5 as requested by the Salt Lake Airport. • "Idling as needed to operate defrosters and other equipment to ensure visibility"was as Exemption 12.58.030 B to clarify safety language. • "Idling as needed for emergency vehicle to operate equipment"was added as Exemption 12.58.030 C as requested by Gold Cross Ambulance. • "Idling as needed for installation and maintenance"was added to Exemption 12.58.030 E as requested by Qwest and Rocky Mountain Power. • "Warm up"language was added to Exemption 12.58.030 F at the request of the Salt Lake Airport. • "Idling as needed for vehicles for hire during active loading and unloading(10 minute maximum)was added as Exemption 12.58.030 L to accommodate buses and other vehicles for hire. • Penalties were decreased to$160($50 if paid within 10 days)for a second offense and $210($100 if paid within 10 days)for a third offense. 6 November 2010 Snit Loke City Department of Airports INTER-OFFICE MEMO Planning d Dee: October 18,2010 Environmental To: Kate Lila Salt Lake City Sus*ainabNltyr Program Manager From: Men McCandiesse Subject Draft Idle-Free Ordinance I am submitting Salt Lake City Department of Airport's comments relating to the proposed Salt Lake City Ice-Free Ot lirrary e. The September 9,2010 Public Discussion Draft ordinance vvas reviewed. It is essential that all airport support vehicles are allowed to con&rue to operate without an idling restriction. Some airport support vehicles are covered under secllon12.58.030 exemptions,and others are not. For example.the airport has numerous types of vehicles that are required to provide necessary services for the airport and aircraft during all times and al days during the year. Examples of soma of these vehicles include: passenger shuttle buses lire and police emergency response vehicles operations vehicles engineering vehicles maintenance vehicles emergency response vehicles deicing trucks vacuum trucks road swooping equipment aircraft refueling trucks ground service vehicles and equipment cater/ford kucks cunslrucdun trucks and equipment paint vehicles airline vehicles commercial vehicles snow removal vehicles and equipment 1 recommend adding exemption J.under section 12.58.030 that would cover all required services at the airport. The following text may be considered. 4J. Idling as required to provide all airport operations.maintenance.emergency response,construction,and other required airport and aircraft support services," Thank you for your ooneideratlon. ii Alone Bentley Rocky Mountain Power I understand you're working to finalize input today on the proposed Idle-free: ordinance. Rocky Mountain Power would like to offer the following: We appreciate your efforts to include exemptions that recognize vehicle engines must be left running for a number of reasons. Utility service vehicles often require auxiliary power to operate hydraulic equipment,communication equipment,power tools,computers,etc.,which may require the truck to be running to operate. Rocky Mountain Power's line crews are trained to make prudent decisions about when to leave company trucks running and to ensure idling is necessary for a work-related purpose. We recommend adding language to ensure that activities directly related to utility operations are explicitly included in the exemptions. Please consider adding"utility equipment installation and maintenance"to Exemption#5. 5. Idling as needed to operate auxiliary equipment for which the vehicle was designed,other than transporting goods,such as:utility equipment installation and maintenance,operating a transportation refrigeration unit(TRU),lift,crane, pump,drill,hoist,ready mixed equipment,except a heater or air conditioner; Eric Isom Qwest: isus °t After d ink,: netwotlt4Attari*y recommended incl rd :installation;anth:file'irate t(nce Ikexe%ripltibn,F3 hisaid:that"servicing" might Inclu e m tr Sri t ; lasar she` r< inmends adding the language ,We Woold:ap iIter f a*dbor.'q estio °m ns youay:.have on these ' Allen McCandless Salt Lake International Airport I am submittingSalt Lake City Department of Airport's comments relating to the proposed Salt Lake City Idle-Free Ordinance.The September 9,2010 Public Discussion Draft ordinance was reviewed. a November 2010 it is essential that all airport support vehicles a allowed to continue to operate without an idling restriction.Some airport s t • rt vehicles are covered under section12.58.030 exemptions,and others are ' .For example,the airport has numerous types of vehicles that are required to provide necessary services for the airport and aircraft during all times and all . . during the year.Examples of some of these vehicles include: passenger shuttle buses operations vehicles maintenance vehicles deicing trucks road sweeping equipment refueling trucks cater/food trucks paint vehicles commercial vehicles fire and police emergency response vehicles engineering vehicles emergency response vehicles vacuum trucks aircraft ground service vehicles and equipment construction trucks and equipment airline vehicles snow removal vehicles and equipment iv© November 2010 • I recommend adding exemption J.under sectio 12.58.030 that would cover all required services at the airport.The following t-xt may be considered. J. Idling as required to provide all airport operat ons,maintenance,emergency response,construction,and other required airp i rt and aircraft support services. Thank you for your consideration. Salt Lake.international Airport Meeting Suggestions Meetin gSugg�stior�� ± Add*warm'Up"to°txemption'0. Add"idling ti'mebt`sattyor eguiafory'fieeds" Proposed Idle Free Ordinance - Salt Lake City • f, �5; ..�7u'y'+v+.L.� ..+�' i'�?"�. S .7 �5rr aw: VS, Fy r a ^i -s� �s�v:!!k+i`ter! ".7�'+�'iT�i r•��g ���:, Y'ra••�.yn �... �,rtr. �.n.,�;��;1r. �sx. r� •• -uW. "fl' ' .F 'n - �akC, # AEi r k r' C� `� }�}.rA !,� �.11 ;� }''�:' S'r�w.p�f u-r ; . „. .. -. - ^,,ub1 C:Cd�rrte t l �F}f� 1 .d r Person Address Comment, Oran Owen 2023 North 800 West,Salt Lake City In agreement with the proposed ordinance,very sympathetic that it will cost a 84116 lot to enforce. Suggestion—pass an ordinance to create a moratorium on drive up windows. For example,six months down the road drive up windows would not no longer be approved.The elimination of drive up windows would encourage business owners to provide 5 minute(short term)parking,which they would then enforce on their own. Other cities have modeled this behavior(example—Portland). Marian Florence Salt Lake.City 84102 I support the.restrittion of idlings^.well as the penalties for those who idle. I think the time limit should tie knit Minute,not two Minutes. Call to Council Office Does not live in Salt Lake City A lady called the Council Office this morning regarding the Anti-idling ordinance. She does not think that this ordinance will benefit Salt Lake City in any way and states that when she comes to Salt take City to buy items for her business she does not have time to take public transit because she is very busy and needs to get in and get out.She also says most of our stop lights are longer than 2 minutes.This ordinance will cause her to find other locations outside of SLC to buy her products. She also stated that her sister refuses to fly into Salt Lake anymore as the City has made it inconvenient and the City is too expensive.She states that her sister lives in Florida and for her to say SLC is unfriendly,inconvenient and costly says a lot. November zU10 She thinks a good idea is to build more p.rking structures to make it more convenient to visit Salt Lake City.She did of want to leave her name or contact information. Call to Mayor's Office Unknown(likely SLC) '+ .. .. , Man thcalled,In to;" res . 'ctt .w rk!r who has,on1:at'least • r.'ee'i itir: �.: t <ttii ' ye t 'area .. , �V o.f� •° s�,4�. .- J ra'�,-M, 4^-.r 1� h--�..i.A k•1+r g.v t"7 ,too i"`!h time LET f': t 1 ,1 $ t�;'1 S. kif w i r k 9 err n.r s ti -i•'•;�ii K+ }.y', •Muo 6 4 ,°• -the k x�;y. � ,AA ti s{ u �A r t� p �K hl {1W � - iry•' side • r� 'rrr i vy 3" ( 4yt �3 t`;. 1 v,,:a� 9i Ih¢. ,+t r.. .Cs -..d�. ;� �'�' yy��`!lys•'Mp' ' , --'b�-� ����Pir,rv`.w.�'..., ; ', '; ✓.+.�,. .t a.77 �1,x'r Hugh Johnson Salt Lake City Mr.Mayor-Absolutely the stupidest idea t hay- ever heard. An unenforceable law and No money or personnel for enforcerne if you want to save the whales or hug some trees do it on your own tim and on your own dime. Now we are FORCED recycle our yard waste wit accompanying threats of fines and citations for putting it in the regular garbs_ can. Garbage Police?Really? Who is going to pay for that? !did not know s. atlon workers were also officers of the law and able to issue citations. Why can't city government fix the potholes in e streets and maintain the infrastructure we have now Instead of creating Grand Boulevards"with trees and flowers built on the backs of struggling pro. owners and business owners. Nice of you to soak the taxpayers for a new Bro. •way theatre so you can give it to your brother in law,you must be so proud. viii OO November 2010 Never in my lifetime(47 years in SLC)have I see a local elected official with such unbridled arrogance and delusions of gran eur. What color is the sky in your new"POLICE STATE"? Do you even know I ie meaning of the word Fascism? It is the regimentation of private lives y government. You are a fascist and the most corrupt and self absorbed i iayor this city has ever had. Harvey Rowley Unknown Harvey Rowley would like to make suggestion regarding the Idle Free reduction.,lie tniikitioittviotits4tietiiivitlfiiiti*itim**Could'reduce Idle thee-ferziehitSitliatif"..:.*P0040r*C04itiand4eilt fOr-154.Mintites to change, ileiSairitriejiiiiiiait$0‘1001.1ililii‘iftirliliktitttO4ithge:with no ogrer cara,gbitiOng*tiittroAtooctokstitsti221.:.-OwliVes downtown. Joe Bussey Unknown For anti idling. Email.:jo33sey.comcast.cnet I The,arttiono 0 titity . 00000046.00 010 . ,,,somotteconycintirt `r • . Tamara Pled Does not live in Salt Lake City aWafe* ..creating It - fur tanivanvoomateti Zoe Perry Unknown Turn the key,be idle freel With waste or mone and our environment.Vote for this! Arianne Prina 5585 Neighbor Lane,salt Lake City I wcnlglivii**paTiiirj#0,f*AhvAh; i*-71:10*.-:*.77714-0870—',4*--iii,'#'17,Cotild4:Wiliin 84117 rifleat the bank or drive thru without smelling I nes 1-**000i**110‘-r haPPleiend-:,liee10:4;:,GraandiattrnOtlitliria444irratior*..' A.N.M. Imroz Choudhury 250 South 900 East#9A,Salt Lake City This is a good idea,both for the immediate pro ction of two public goods(air 84102 quality,public health),as well as raising awaren ss of a simple way to save on fuel costs while simultaneously helping the pub c.It's not too often that the individual and the public have an aligned incent re to act the same way-might be good to act on this one. ix November 2010 . . , . Unda Gregersen 1557 West 2250 South I think this would be.a:great-v/000 itilOrove'airltra:Rtyin our city.I stipport this . . , , proptitition:'EtnaihiuOkiiiaWall.gniaii.-com,• ! . Debbie Millward 688 Crestview Dr. I agree with no idling.Email:debblek_millwardripyahoo.com Carole Macleod 425 South 1300 East,Salt Lake City We thotightii:WaS;iiite***,!1*thiO4*:iiiitit' .. • 84102; , Mary Moody 668 F St.,Salt Lake City I am for an anti-idling ordinance. I .. _ Patty Sturge 1403 West JOrdan Walk way . i,am tatilitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitididlifig'fliii:tilitiii;iii4itiatyt.. . Jennifer Gardner Does not live in Salt Lake City I support the idle free ordinance for SIC.As you Iknow,you have a smog problem.I moved here from the Bay Area,CA atd grew up in LA so I know smog!I don't want the valley smog to creep up he canyon to Park City.Thank you. .. . ._._ . Amy Wurt 1603 Wanton Ave..,Salt Lake City I would lOve'a-law that would prohibit Idling. Terence Duff 544 South 1000 East,Salt Lake City Please make the idle free ordinance happen.I a for the passage of the proposed idle free ordinance. . . . , Charlotte Fuens Does not live in Salt Lake City Yes to no Mb ,,reldlingl Paul Carpenter 48 West 300 South#1105N,Salt Lake Pass the ordinance banning idling of vehicles fa- -more than a minute. City 84101 Diureiniiiiiiiii 37KitTiet;tilt Like City ' ''We.ii-rOiligrTeliiit .'Partf*fF(Stt7tfftriIdlifeiffiiiiiiitliefkiere7.. -.. Iiiiitiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiii,itY 2:.. ,:-.',,:77,-:..-.'., -,-;-, - :-'yi-'::_:::., : '_ - • • , ..,_ ..-.,-_ , • ....,- Robyn Raming 2527 South Imperial St. Please support beingkile free!Save ow lungs! I„.... ,. ...„.„...., Pam Silberrnarti ,- :-.7r1Kiiiiigiboliat Salt taltiatii ' "1th-1W-it. 7aiiti ' ifiellitiffifWiliffitiliiiiiisteiiitiiiiiirliriiiiti ,,.:,, , ,KwAve4t,:;.'‘.- „ :.. ,,,h0,:,,,t-,:,,,,i,e-,t,AsivAtigitytpkifoo,: e6,N.,,yirzikoi*,,,,,"=„:,,,,•tt,.!,-,-5:,..;',--'..'.e.-' Gertrud Carpenter 48 West 300 South#1105N,Salt Lake Please stop the idling for more than 1 minute. City 84101 liiifille Jiirte, • '.' '7filffatTriajlifki,ilifftikV-filiiii7:-.-' ' "'-f'7-fntf. , --viiii' ' ' "' ? ,-,-;".. ..i,S-Xgfiaiiiiiiilf;'Yiiii k-.,.7.---.,,,,,-- :- ',. - •,-:. -..--.-... .;.. ..',...:,- :.. - ' ' • -, ' .--, ", -- ' .• - ; '-'..'''„'-4-A.,.. stiAlt-:,401.4.4 .,,, .z,--J1,,,,,,,,,f, - „„m7-77-7.7r7.7c -,'• -- -•:-.,--:-_- -2 Anne Asman Salt Lake City Do it!Soon!Please support the ordinance! x© November 2010 • Heather Long 1870 Meadow Dr. Please stooldling0t,le.bedpr theAnyininMent arid our health! Email: heatherPiOngtiyalOrip;';'; Jane Nelson 8680 Russel Park Rd. Love the idea for anti-idling Ene , -lintien DOestrtt ye hi slil tke City The efici*Latikklildireorir , .1.5" Juliette Sutherland 5542 Walker Woods Ln. We love this valley and our lungs!This Is great!tlease put this into action! EmaTh jullettesutherland94Pmsn.com 7PaiT ' Cathleen Zick 1331 East 600 South,Salt Lake City Please support the anti-idling ordinance!We nejd to improve SLC's air quality. Thanks tiie - the environment,yeah and the restof . xi(!, ) Idle Free Report - Appendix B Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance, penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? Public Comments as of November 1, 2010, 12:33 PM goo 44, 1 � AfyJ�i ya , F I! y ems. t'' `�' :. -P�'�� '� Z , 7. debt:mac: i7 y.'rl. ++ • 4¢ Igip Ai Al j: tab - ia7171-rtei .•.:;. #1:01,. IT II" itt14* Salt Lake City Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance, penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? Introduction In an effort to improve air quality along the Wasatch Front, the Salt Lake City Mayor's Office has proposed a draft anti-idling ordinance that would be a city-wide prohibition of idling more than two minutes. www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM-from all participants. 1 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? As of November 1, 2010, 12:33 PM, this forum had: Attendees: 382 Participants: 101 Hours of Public Comment: 5.1 As with any public comment process,participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily a representative sample of the whole population,nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM,from all participants. 2 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, - idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements Daniel Salmon in Salt Lake City October 20,2010, 11:50 PM I support this new ordinance,however,I think the fines are a bit high for the offense. I think a fine closer to$100 is sufficient.Also,who will be enforcing this matter and how will violations be identified?Additionally,I would like it to be enforced more stringently toward police/fire personnel. I am regularly aware of significant negligent/unnecessary idling by these entities and feel their adoption of this ordinance will speak volumes to the community as a whole. Thank you. Daunte Rushton in Riverton October 20,2010, 1:03 PM This ordinance will be a service towards improving our air quality and hopefully reduce the january inversion. meghan brumby in Salt Lake City October 19,2010,4:50 PM This seems silly if the city doesn't ban drive-thrus as well... Uta von Schwedler in Salt Lake City October 19,2010,2:13 PM I completely agree with mayor Becker that idling should be forbidden in Salt Lake City. I would like to see steep penalties,and NO exceptions for trucks,construction equipments etc. I would also like to see a city-wide campaign to make the new law known to the average citizen and to """"*. companies employing drivers and operating heavy equipment.And possibly a hotline for reporting offenders against the idling law,as well as polluting offenders,i.e. drivers of vehicles that emit heavy exhaust fumes and operators of construction machinery with heavy exhausts(as recently seen in the LDS parking lot next to Clayton Middle School on 1900 E/ca. 1400 S,thick black smoke as if a whole house was burning). Jason Burch in Salt Lake City October 17,2010, 10:55 PM I strongly support this ordinance. Jessica Steed in Salt Lake City October 13,2010, 12:01 PM I strongly OPPOSE this ordinance. Like most people,I am in favor of cleaner air in the valley, but I detest this method of trying to do so. There has to be a limit to government. There has to be! This ordinance crosses that line. Jessica Steed Craig DeMordaunt in Salt Lake City` October 12,2010, 12:40 PM I do not support this ordinance.However,I agree with the idea of not idling and improving our air quality. We need to positively encourage all citizens to stop idling and improve the air quality. As everyone knows, SLC has consistenly ranked high as a poor air quality city. Nevertheless,I don't believe a city ordinance and fines are the correct approach to getting our citizens to do the right thing. Gee,the next thing we should look at is fining people for eating too many hamburgers because they have high fat content and it contributes to the communities health care problems. Ordinances, regulations, and fmes are not the way to promote citizens behaviors on an action like "idling my car" You will get more buy-in and actual change in peoples behavior with a positive marketing campaign. The city will be wasting resources and time trying to enforce the www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM'from all participants. 3 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements ordinances rather than promote good behavior and cleaner air. George Kelner in Salt Lake City October 11,2010, 12:43 PM George and Cathy Kelner from Salt Lake City We wholeheartedly support the proposed idle free ordinance. We're concerned however with the policy currently in place that city vehicles shouldn't idle. We jog the neighborhood almost every day and frequently see city vehicles,both occupied and empty,with their engines idling. We always ask why they're idling and the answers typically range from"I'm ready to pull away to I have to idle to give my laptop power or to make my rooftop lights work". We have concluded that city employees are either blatantly disregarding the Mayor's directive or the directive can't be followed because work functions can't be maintained on the road without idling engines. To us neither scenario is acceptable and if the city is really serious about prohibiting idling in an effective way then city staff need to set a much better example for city residents. Esther Stokes in Salt Lake City October 8,2010, 12:19 PM I support Idle free ordinance. For clean air and healthier life. R. Gene Moffitt in Salt Lake City October 8,2010, 11:42 AM Emergency Medical Vehicles(Ambulances)will need to be exempted from the Idle Free Ordinance. They need to Idle to keep medications and other supplies safe from heat and cold. Support vehicles and small generators that are used to support Medical or Fire Emergencies should also be exempt. Kimberly Deneris in Salt Lake City October 7,2010, 3:18 PM I strongly support the ordinance. Everyone in Salt Lake City who likes breathing and who doesn't want to get cardiovascular disease, supports the ordinance. Motor Vehicles are not entitled to equal protection under the law, in case anyone was wondering. T Draper in Salt Lake City October 7,2010,2:39 PM Having reviewed the proposed ordinance I have to say that I can not support it. The ordinance is flawed and does little more than provide a new"revenue source"for Salt Lake City. Although I do support laws and efforts to clean out air I do not believe that this one will work,and creates the potential for too many other negative impacts to health safety and welfare of citizens in other areas. For Example: 1. Parents picking up children at school would not be allowed to leave the motor running on hot days or on cold days in order to utilize the climate control systems to provide for the comfort and welfare of younger sibling(s)in the vehicle. How convenient that this proposed ordinance could provide an out for a parent or caregiver that got caught leaving a child in a parked car on a hot day in a parking lot.Used the other way around, someone who got a ticket under this ordinance could sue(costing the city much more in funds)claiming that the ordinance is in www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM,from all participants. 4 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, ."'t""� • idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? a *{ All Statements conflict with child endangerment statutes. 2.Potential lawsuits over the calculation of the "idle time",and lack of available evidence for the court.How do you prove that the car is on and was not shut off and turned on again?Are they video taping the entire time?How do you prove that a specific amount of pollution was emanating from the tail pipe without touching the vehicle or violating other constitutional protections regarding property and unwarranted search of property? 3. Potential lawsuits over discrimination in enforcement.Does not apply equally to all types of motor vehicles,and all other situations. Utah Moms for Clean Air in Salt Lake City October 6,2010, 11:41 PM Yet another reason to ban idling--it has potentially been linked to increased breast cancer risk! See partial article below and/or follow link for the full text: The results,published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives,were"startling,"the researchers said. Even after taking risk factors such as family history into account,they found that the incidence of breast cancer was markedly higher in more polluted zones. "Women living in the areas with the highest levels of pollution were almost twice as likely to develop breast cancer as those living in the least polluted areas,"said Prof. Goldberg,a researcher with the McGill University Health Centre. The researchers examined exposure to smog-causing nitrogen dioxide,and found the risk for breast cancer rose about 25 per cent with every increase of nitrogen dioxide of five parts per billion. Air pollution wasn't only a problem for people living next to busy downtown streets or expressways. It also rose on neighbourhood streets if there was a school nearby and parents left their cars idling while dropping off their children. "These are small pockets of air pollution,"said co-author France Labreche,an epidemiologist at the University of Montreal. The findings add to the weight of evidence linking air pollution to a range of health problems. Research has already established a connection to lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/breast-cancer-linked-to-traffic-related-air- pollution/article 1746484/?cmpid=rss 1 Mark Jemmett in Salt Lake City October 6,2010, 8:55 PM As a chemical engineer and one who understands combustion processes fairly well,I think this law is not only harmful for safety reasons,but may have a negative impact on air quality in the valley. www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM'from all participants. 5 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements An inefficient engine state leads to increased VOC(Volatile Organic Compound)emission due to improperly and insufficiently burned fuel. These VOCs are released in high amounts at startup,and diminish as the engine temperature increases. The byproducts of efficient engine operation are CO2 and water,with minimalized VOC(each component of fuel is a VOC)and other pollutant levels.A cold engine will seem sluggish and slow,but the engine is still receiving a normal amount of fuel(newer car models have improved this aspect,but not everyone has or can afford a new car); as such,the cold engine will not burn a portion of the vaporized fuel,which goes into the exhaust and into the atmosphere. Some of you may have noticed the alkane smell when you walk behind your car just after a cold start; these are the excess VOCs being released. By failing to warm up the engine prior to increased power demands(i.e. driving),a large amount of VOCs will be released. It should be noted that VOCs are significantly more dangerous and harmful to the body than the byprodcuts of a warm, efficient engine,and are a major factor in the brown haze frequently seen in the valley(along with NOx,an unavoidable byproduct that is reduced with efficient operation,particularly in newer vehicles). Of course,the faster one gets the engine warm,the lower the released VOC levels;however,this is where one of the safety aspects come into play.Most mornings when a person warms up the car,it is for a very specific reason: ice on the windshield. Even with scraping, this ice can avoid the blade and severely disrupt vision should one try to drive around the block to warm the engine faster. Furthermore,freezing temperatures affect a person's response time and behavior, and can lead to driving accidents.De-icing washer fluid is a means of getting by this problem, but it isn't the end-all answer,particularly if the fluid ports are iced over. Some vehicles(as mentioned by other respondents)can have adverse reactions to frequent shutdown and startup.Many small motorcycles fall under this dilemma,as well as older and vintage vehicles.Additionally,a very frequent cause of startup failure is a dead battery,and repeated startups will lead to decreased battery life,dangerous situations(particularly in traffic situations,which it appears are subject to the two-minute rule if I read correctly),and increased pollution due to increased battery usage and disposal. As a final note,I personally feel that this proposed law does not seek to do good to the people, but rather is a method to enact further and more invasive laws in the future. It needlessly places restrictions on simple and seemingly innocuous freedoms.I do not support it,and I implore the deciding body to reject this ordinance.Common sense dictates that a better means of warming an engine before driving is to gently press the accelerator while the drive gear is disengaged and the brakes are applied;this may be noisy in the morning hours,but it will speed up the warming process without endangering drivers and avoiding idling time. It has been mentioned that this means "no miles are gained" and gas mileage decreases. While true,the same could be said for driving around the block to warm your car before hitting the busy roads with a fogged-up windshield. This ordinance should be rejected. Susan Fleck in Salt Lake City October 6,2010, 9:01 AM We whole heartedly support this ordinance for an Idle Free SLC!! www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 6 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements Susan and Tim Spier Brad Duncan in Salt Lake City October 5,2010, 9:51 PM I do not support this ordinance. However,I absolutely love the idea of not idling and personally can't remember the last time I idled my car beyond two minutes.From the way the proposal is drafted,I can't think of any time in the past few years where I would have even been breaking this proposed law. But I absolutely do not support it in the way it is proposed to be implemented. I think the fines are way out of line compared to the costs associated with the average person idling a modem vehicle for an average length of time(maybe 5 minutes). The safety exceptions need to be defined more explicitly. I don't believe hybrid vehicles should be exempted from this as they pollute nearly as much when idling to charge batteries as a comparable non-hybrid car. If this law is implemented,and I don't think it should be,why should the city subsidize one car's idling but not another car's idling when they both pollute? It would be much better to put the effort into the idle free campaign and encourage key locations to admonish their patrons to not idle(fast food locations,schools, etc.).I believe that many drivers would turn off their engines if they were simply reminded more often. The few that '""ook. would not turn off their engines without the law would likely still not turn them off with the new law if there were no enforcement officer nearby to punish them.Why are we trying to create a punitive system that does not sit well with the morale of the majority of the populace instead of a positive-reinforcement-type system based on education? For example, elsewhere in the world, small LED signs exist at large intersections notifying the driver when he/she should start the engine because the signal is about to turn green. These are extremely effective and are good,positive reminders which allow the citizens to make a choice and feel some ownership in that choice. Peer pressure is powerful and if one car is the only one idling at an intersection(or school,etc.),they will feel the pressure to also turn off their engine. If the public awareness and education campaign is done right,more overall good will be done and more people will stop idling out of their own free will rather than being forced to do so. When people start to do things by their own choice,they actually begin to believe in them,that's human nature. By making it a punitive law,it simply drives the wedge deeper which already exists between those who legitimately care about the environment and those that feel these types of punishments are just a way of controlling the citizens' lives. One problem with Utah is that there are many of those types of citizens here. This law will do more harm than good in the long term due to reasons not related to idling,but rather,related to dividing Utah politics further and cementing many citizens'currently erroneous and entrenched beliefs that"government is only there to control our lives."This is not the time nor the place for a law of this nature. We must instead implement actions that will truly allow people to learn and modify their fundamental behavior and beliefs rather than simply punishing them for a symptom of their current ANN behavior. www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 7 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements Thank you, Brad Duncan Michael Hardie in Salt Lake City October 5,2010, 6:24 PM As I tell people at the airport all the time: "I would rather have you spit on me than have to breath your exhaust. At least I can wipe off your spit." I don't think I would get a warning for delibrately spitting on someone,so why give a warning for deliberately polluting the air? The ironic part of this ordinance is that some of the greatest idlers are the law enforcement personel who will be in charge of enforcing the law. I was so tired of all the excuses related to cleaning SL Valleys air that I moved to Evanston,WY. Leah Moses in Salt Lake City October 5,2010, 5:17 PM I STRONGLY support an idle free ordinance! Susan Passino in Salt Lake City October 5,2010, 6:54 AM Having moved here from the San Francisco Bay Area,I was spoiled by the air being cleaned by the ocean breezes and the fog. The first time I experienced an inversion,I wanted to jump on a plane and leave.The air here is hideous. I would love to see all drive-through windows go away as well! Perhaps if people had to get out of their cars and walk to get unhealthy fast food,we would all make better choices about the earth and our health. The people and the future generations of Salt Lake deserve breathable air; not what we currently have. I'm grateful for Utah Moms for Clean Air for alerting me to this opinion page.I'm not a Mom but I am someone who appreciates the beauty of the earth and how imperative it is for us to preserve it for the future and future generations.Imagine if we do nothing-it's conceivable we won't even be able to see the mountains shrouded in polluted air! James Guilkey in Salt Lake City October 4,2010,9:57 PM I am in favor of this ordinance. Air quality is probably the worst thing about living in the Salt Lake valley. Implementation of this ordinance will not negatively impact anyone's life,but will help improve everyone's quality of life. Jim Guilkey Anne Holman in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 7:02 PM I strongly support the Idle Free Ordinance for Salt Lake City. T Sofarelli in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 2:08 PM I support the idle free oridnance. Caroline Olson in Cottonwood Heights October 4,2010, 1:39 PM I am in full support of the anti-idling ordinance for Salt Lake City. In fact,I think it should apply to the whole valley, since I am a resident of Cottonwood Heights. I am very concerned about air quality in the SLC area and I am an active voter on this issue. Ultimately,turning off your vehicle is such a small thing for a person to do,but as with so many small actions,when everybody does it,the gains really add up. I'd like to think we live in a society that could police itself on such matters as these,but we don't. Passing this ordinance will send the message to www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM.from all participants. 8 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, - idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? A`%\ All Statements shape up and protect our air quality. Marie Green in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 12:43 PM I fully support the idle free ordinance&would like to encourage those who buy fast-food to bypass the drive-through&park. Rachel Bishop in Bountiful October 4,2010, 12:40 PM I am in total agreement with the"Idle Free Ordinance". This is a great idea and even 15 seconds of going idle free can make a difference in air quality. Thanks for taking a step to cleaner air. Ross Chambless in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 12:24 PM As a resident of Salt Lake City and the Wasatch Front I am absolutely in favor of this proposed ordinance. In fact,it is long overdue. As someone who grew up in Salt Lake City for the last 30 years,I have noticed our air getting worse,especially during the winter months,and occasionally the summer months too with high ozone levels. As a result I have developed asthma and have stopped running outdoors during these times. I also wear a mask now when commuting by bicycle.Last winter the mask accumulated an amazing amount of black and disgusting particle matter on its filter which I was glad I wasn't breathing in. But I was shocked to think that all of us are breathing that stuff in, even when we don't realize it. I believe the proposed ordinance and its penalties for idling is a good start, although ultimately maybe not stringent enough. If this ordinance gets passed,I also hope there would be ways for residents to report idling trucks or cars in our neighborhoods who don't qualify for the exemptions,as I often see cars idling for no reason. Maybe such a reporting method has been considered in the proposed ordinance,but I did not see it. Thank you. Sally Miller in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 12:03 PM I am in full support of this ordinance.As a mom who bike rides and walks my children to school,I am surprised by how many parents leave their cars idling while picking up or dropping off their kids at school. Alice Bain in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 11:38 AM Mayor Becker,please support this ordinance. Our air is so bad and our children are getting sick because of it. thank you, Alice Bain R Martin in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 10:58 AM 046,: I agree with Mayor Becker's Idle Free Ordinance. We need to improve the air quality along the Wasatch Front. I do hope that part of this effort is a vigorous campaign effort, to educate the www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 9 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements citizens along the Front about idling. I don't believe most people understand the severity of the issue,or what to do. For example,my husband still believes that it take more gas to turn a car on and off versus turning the car off after 10 seconds. The Turn Your Key Be Idle Free campaign is great.I think following it up with"When In Doubt 10 Seconds and Out"would help educate when we're supposed to turn the cars off. Of course,we'll always have people who will idle because they feel it's their right to get in a warm car or cold car during the extreme temperatures. For those that do feel right polluting,this ordinance and fines will be the perfect solution. Jesse Millen-Johnson in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 10:32 AM I am in support of the strongest penaltites for idling violations. This is one of the easiest and most effective ways to reduce particulate pollution and CO2 emissions. It's not just an environmental issue, it's a public health issue. C Bills in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 9:53 AM I think this is a great idea-not so much to punish people but to raise awareness about the how detrimental idling can be.Of course there needs to be exceptions for health and safety-on very cold days and very hot days. However,I find most people just aren't aware of the negative impact of idling on our air quality so when it's not necessary,they'll now be armed with the information to make a healthier choice. I fully support the government's role to create and enforce laws that protect the common good (clean air, clean water,etc)from forces that are either stronger(businesses that answer only to the financial bottom line)or are just habitutal bad practices(idling or littering). If that is an encroachment on my liberties, so be it. People don't live in autonomous bubbles but must accept that their actions affect others. Heather Buck in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 9:30 AM I fully support this effort to help reduce pollution in the city. It is a well-known fact that geographically, Salt Lake is not suited to the multitude of emissions from cars and factories. Multiple inversions attest to this fact. I also am more sensitive physically to poor air quality and can tell you the air can be palpably awful. I have made the mistake of walking at night in areas where the poor air seems to accumulate and have come home coughing and feeling a filmy layer on my skin. A very hot bath seems to help with my skin,but the effects on my lungs are longer lasting. I like that this ordinance helps individuals to see what part they play in air quality,however it seems to be a small step in actually curbing the problem. I would also like to see steps taken towards curbing the emissions from factories,oil refineries, trains,busses,etc. Perhaps this would help eliminate some of the concerns that individual freedoms alone are being targeted. Kim C in Murray October 4, 2010, 8:28 AM www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 10 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements I am in favor of an anti-idling ordinance.While I live in Murray,I believe that Salt Lake City can lead the charge so that other communities will be more likely follow suit. If you can educate the public about the benefits of turning off the car,there will be much greater support for and adoption of the ordinance. For example,compare the amount of gas used and pollution cretaed by 2 minutes of idling vs. turning off and then restarting the engine. Another example is how one can scrape the ice off their car windows in just a couple minutes in the morning,while it takes about 15 minutes(and X pollution/gas)to let the car's defroster do the same job. Thanks and I hope this is adopted! -Kim linda burr in Draper October 4,2010, 8:12 AM I strongly agree there should be an anti-idling ordinance, and that it should be enforced! I recently moved from living in a downtown condo where semi-trucks were allowed to idle all night to wait to make a delivery next door. It was loud with noxious fumes just outside my door. I called the police dispatch and I e-mailed the city,but it only worked intermittently to stop them.Maybe a fine would work?! Kelli Bellon in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 7:12 AM I support the idle free ordinance and feel it's the perfect way to raise awareness about the detrimental impact that letting your car idle has. amy albo in Salt Lake City October 4,2010, 6:20 AM I fully support an idle free ordinance,although looks like some people have raised thoughtful ways it might be amended.Most importantly,it will help raise awareness about this important issue.I hope any public awareness campaign that goes along with the ordinance will focus less on the punitive aspect,and more on how we'll all benefit from the cleaner air. By staying positive,I think we'll get more buy-in. Kathleen Wilson in Salt Lake City October 3,2010, 10:05 PM I support this ordinance wholeheartedly. The exceptions to the ordinance seem very reasonable, and the benefit from increasing awareness and enforcing idle-free streets would be significant. Holly Porter in Salt Lake City October 3,2010, 9:44 PM Please make an exemption for idling in your driveway or on the street in front of your home on cold winter mornings.Idling is the only way I can completely defrost my windows before driving in the winter mornings. I would not have good driving visibility if I am restricted to idle for defrosting car windows and I may cause a collision. Thank you for hearing my concern. Jennifer Hamilton in Salt Lake City October 3,2010, 9:35 PM I am in full support of reducing idling in Salt Lake City,and I believe that having designated no- idling zones at schools,parks, libraries,government buildings,and other public spaces would make the ordinance easier to enforce and thus more successful!! Amy Dall in Holladay www.PeakDemocracy.com/5 17 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM-from all participants. 11 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements October 3,2010, 9:22 PM I am 100%behind this ordinance. I encourage Mayor Becker to broaden the Idle Free Ordinance to any idling vehicle anywhere. Drive thrus and school pick ups are a good place to start. Thank you. Alyssa Kay in Salt Lake City October 3,2010, 9:19 PM As a mother of a child with air-quality induced asthma I am so excited about this ordinance! It is time to take on our dirty air problem. I would like this ordinance to go further,I think it should include waiting at trains as that is often a long period of time when people tend to idle (light rail being an exception). That being said, there are obvious concerns with the vagueness of the language regarding letting vehicles idle for safety and health concerns. Citizens should be clear about whether they are breaking the law or not. I realize that there will not be much of a concern with being ticketed in our driveways as our cars are warming up on a cold winter morning...that would just be too difficult to patrol. Still,it seems there are legitimate concerns that should be addressed. A possible way to alleviate concerns might be to have this ordinance apply only to"idle-free zones"such as schools,rr crossings and other areas where idling is most likely and least necessary. I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to address the vagueness issue... would love to see some more comments regarding solutions for rewriting that portion. Julie van der Wekken in Salt Lake City October 3,2010, 9:14 PM I am strongly in support of an anti-idling ordinance. I think this ordinance would help to educate the public about the negative impacts in regards to pollution and health risks associated with the unneccesary idling of vehicles. Filip Chepelak in Salt Lake City October 3,2010, 12:02 PM I think the idle free ordinance is a good idea and I fully support it. Douglas Gibbons in Salt Lake City October 2,2010,9:39 AM As an Avenues resident I have no off-street parking. In the winter I scrape windows every morning;however,if the car is not heated sufficiently when I begin my commute,the inside of the windows fog over due to condensed breath. This creates a dangerous driving situation. If I am not able to idle my car to heat the inside of the vehicle it is no different than driving without scraping at all. Two minutes is not enough time to heat the inside of a vehicle to prevent this problem.Exemption AS attempts to address this issue by stating,"idling as needed to operate defrosters,heaters,air conditioners, or other equipment to prevent a safety or health emergency". However,what constitutes a"safety or health emergency"is overly broad and open to interpretation. This type of language is confusing for the public and those tasked to enforce the ordinance. It does not adequately address the example identified above. Please revise the language in this exemption to something more specific and enforceable, such as"for the safe operation of the vehicle as defined by Utah code".This will eliminate potential citations for citizens who are heating their vehicles in an attempt to be safe during their morning commute. www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 12 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, , - idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements Douglas Gibbons Daniel Horns in Sandy October 1,2010, 5:36 PM Thank you for enacting this ordinance.I am always bothered by the noise and smell from idling vehicles at bus stops,school pick-up zones etc. I understand that some people feel they have the right to waste gasoline and emits fumes if they want to,and they think that this sort of ordinance is an imposition on their lives. To those people,I'd like to point out that it is one of the jobs of government to protect peoples'health. Asking you to reduce the amount of air pollution that you produce is no different than asking Energy Solution to carefully store their waste,or asking your neighbor to not burn trash in his yard. Virginia Gowski in Salt Lake City October 1,2010,3:04 PM I think this is a fantastic idea! I am so tired of seeing maintenance and work trucks with their engines running for hours.I have young children and would love to have the car warmed up for them,but they can be chilly for a few minutes-it doesn't take long for the heat to kick in. Can't we suffer a little discomfort so we can all breathe better? Tim Brown in Salt Lake City September 27,2010, 11:54 AM I fully support the Idle Free ordinance.However,it should be clarified that the high fines listed in the ordinance are actually$100 less if the fine is paid on time. This is a very confusing way to AR% present a fee structure. William Ungerer in Salt Lake City September 23,2010, 12:57 PM I agree with the comments of B.W. Bulloough on 9/11/10 and Bill Cockayne on 9/10/10 and several others that come before them. I am sick and tired of the city shoving things down our throats. Mayor Beckor is very passionate about bicyclists and environmental issues and does not care or know anything about anything else. His passions give no consideration to civil liberties and I hope that if this ordinance/law is pushed down our throats that the ACLU will take it on. The Mayor simply does not get it,it is not really the intention but the way he trying to mandate things and force them on us. I feels like Hitler has been re-born and is running SLC. Gary Kunkel in Salt Lake City September 23,2010, 8:41 AM Anything to help clean up our air is worth doing,this is a reasonable, if small,proposal that should be implemented. Gary Kunkel,MD Susan Dolan in Salt Lake City September 23,2010,4:24 AM I am supportive of the Idle Free Ordinance. We can taste the pollution in our air burning our eyes and making it more difficult to breathe. I live near the University and am wondering if, after a football game, for example or other large event,if there could be a coordination among law enforcement and the University that attendees could be trained to keep their cars turned off while dismissal from each parking area was coordinated? If people"got in line" turned their cars off knowing when their turn comes,20 cars would be dismissed then everyone would move Auk up and turn their cars off again. Instead of idling while each car inches along the perimeters of the University. www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 13 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, . idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements Paul Diegel in Salt Lake City September 22,2010, 1:31 PM I support this proposal-it is a great way to reduce non-essential emissions and raise awareness. There are no downsides. I think special attention needs to be given to minimizing exemptions for city vehicles and law enforcement. Those 2 groups appear to be among the worst offenders and the reasons that I have heard given have no technical merit. Public employees should act as examples rather than hold themselves above the law and common sense. Caralyn Buehner in Draper September 21,2010, 3:38 PM I'm all,ALL for this ordinance. It's such a small thing to do,and it can make such a big difference. I would like the mayor and city council to also consider ways to address idling in drive-thru lines. I can only hope that this spreads to all of the cities in the valley. Kevin Emerson in Salt Lake City September 21,2010, 9:11 AM I support the proposed Idle Free Ordinance for Salt Lake City. As a City resident,I believe that this Ordinance is in the public interest to protect public health and the environment. The Ordinance as drafted is very reasonable and provides numerous,appropriate exemptions. The inclusion of a warning for 1st time offense provides an opportunity for residents to be educated about the Ordinance and the reasoning for it. As a downtown Salt Lake City resident,this Ordinance would directly benefit me and my family by requiring vehicles,which I often hear (and smell!)idling within a few hundred feet from my condo,to turn their engines off,therefore improving air quality around and in my home. I appreciate Salt Lake City's leadership on this smart public policy! Thomas Benhard in North Ogden September 21,2010,9:05 AM I agree with the Governor's ordinance for idling. When people can't voluntarily restrict their consumption habits then unfortunately a mandate must be put in place.I frequently see people idling their vehicles while pumping gas. The worst offenders are the diesel pickups.I think they think that a diesel needs to be running all the time.We saw a lady the other day that started up her SUV after getting groceries and let it run while she was loading the vehicle. Beverly Hanson in Salt Lake City September 20,2010, 10:38 PM This is a great step towards awareness. We've become lazy,and so dependent upon our cars,yet we complain about the inversions and general air quality in the SLC Valley. Turn off your ignition,get out of your car,get some exercise-and help be a part of the solution to clean our air,and make this place healthier for all of us-especially our children. Liz Menell in Bountiful September 20,2010, 2:23 PM I am thrilled to hear that we are thinking about health integrity for ourselves,our families and our community as we go about our daily activities. I favor a recommendation of leaving a vehicle to idle for a few seconds,while I favor actually ticketing and fining a driver only after 2 minutes.I encourage our leadership representatives to conduct a careful review of all the related health and mechanical issues so that the problems mentioned in the other comments are fully addressed. I also feel strongly about protecting vulnerable populations. I would hate to see this policy used for police to ticket immigrants, elderly,teens,and economically disadvantaged without proper margins and attention to education and a grace period. As with all police issues,I www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 14 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, • idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? "' mok All Statements have considerable concern for the treatment of vulnerable populations. As long as it is done respectfully,this policy can be educational as well as mandatory because polluting our public resource is a public issue no mater how private your property of land or vehicle,therefore it is only logical to encourage better use of our publically shared resources that impact our public health services and our productivity as a state. Wise management of our resources is essential in order for our state to remain strong and our citizens healthy. Thoughtfully worded and respectfully implemented,this policy can help to preserve our beauty and get us on the road to clean air. I expect that this is a sign of our pathway toward the goal of clean air and not a band- aid expected to remedy the problem. I definitely support additional clean air measures of improved public transport and subsidies for renewable energy choices. elise lazar in Salt Lake City September 19,2010, 11:58 PM Three suggestions: 1) Schools-Yes,have campaigns with student involvement but,since changing habits are difficult and campaigns are short-lived,have permanent signs,placed prominently,esp at elementary schools.I realize this is being done,but at present it is on a limited basis and only on a request basis.This definitely should be expanded and mandated for all schools throughout the state. 2)Community Councils-Get community Councils involved. Have them identify 10 locations where idling occurs,e.g. banks,drive-in fast food restaurants,etc in their area.Have them write letters to these establishments recommending that they post signs requesting that engines be turned off while waiting. 3)Train Signals-At present,the ordinance does not apply to waiting for a train or trax to pass. I encourage this to be reexamined. I believe it should be mandatory to turn off the car's engine while waiting for the train to pass. This is not a safety issue,since you can easily turn your engine on as the gates go up. Laurie Mecham in Salt Lake City September 19,2010,2:14 PM Thank you for taking this on. I have two nephews who suffer from serious asthma. The 15-year- old has a deformed rib cage as a direct result of struggling to breathe while growing up in the Valley. I feel that the ordinance is right on target.I agree with others that an education component is key. Perhaps talks'(or a video)with pediatricians,geriatric providers,pulmonologists,and asthmatic kids would get the message across. I also strongly support a useful public transportation system and incentives to get people to use transportation alternatives. Some businesses offer discount bus/Trax passes. At Oregon Health& Science University, employees who ride a bike to work are eligible for cash or other incentives:http://www.ohsu.edu/parking/pages/bikeincentive.html We need more public transportation,not more parking lots. Esther Hunter in Salt Lake City September 19,2010, 8:53 AM Adinik I support the concept of this ordinance but would like to see it do more with not only some of the comments/suggestions posted on this site,but also I would like to see it include specific www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 15 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements language that calls out those areas of highest concern/impact. Coming home from Provo last night,I-15 was a sea of stop and go traffic across all 10 lanes as far as I could see for a good 20-25 minutes. Date night? It brought to mind that this ordinance is a good start,but we have a long way to go to help ourselves,not hurt ourselves by focusing on this important topic. I do not know what the top ten specific areas of impact are,that if changed,would really make a difference,but I can guess at a few that impact our air in my neighborhood: -1300 East since the lane reduction -Foothill Drive -The number 2 on 200 South above 900 East -UU shuttle vehicles -Drive throughs(especially when it is a business where 99%of the customers remain in their cars such as teller lines for banks and credit unions,fast food,the favorite neighborhood coffee shop,dry cleaners,etc.). On one hand I am concerned for the air quality and on the other the competitive advantage needed for a small and local business in our rush,rush life style. The airport park and wait is a creative way to solve this and other problems at this location. Maybe there could be an incentive built into the building/permitting code that would begin to address drive throughs for local neighborhoods.I'd like to see how the business community weighs in on this concern. I do believe that because there are a vast amount of law abiding citizens in our City,that just by adopting this ordinance,idling will decrease. Because of this,would calling out the top ten worries add to the all important education piece? Since it seems enforcement will be a problem for the City(other than maybe at concentrated locations such as the airport and schools)the public education component will be very important and needs to be strong. Maybe the level of the fines and the want for more education could be tied by giving a reduction to a ticket if people take an education course(could be a computer course to eliminate the need for an instructor). Regardless,a good beginning step. wvvw.PealcDemocracy.com/5 17 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM.from all participants. 16 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements Cameron Cova in Salt Lake City September 18,2010, 9:29 AM Thank you for this ordinance and for opening it up for public dialog. I am strongly in favor of this ordinance. Idling is almost always unnecessary and contributes to our air quality problem. Often people simply idle out of habit,and hopefully this will cause people to rethink their usual unnecessary idling habits. The penalties seem fine,but this must be accompanied by a community education component. People will only support this if they realize the consequences of air quality degradation and if they realize that idling is unnecessary. Some people genuinely believe it is better/necessary for their vehicles to idle in the winter. That is false,but we need to educate people about that fact. Driveway idling is a big problem and not addressed by this ordinance. All the more reason that the education component is so important. If people are educated about not idling,hopefully it will alter their at-home habits as well. Ellie Brownstein in Salt Lake City September 18,2010, 9:08 AM I fully agree with the ordinance a d support it. I am a pediatrician who cares for many children Amok with asthma. When the air gets bad in the valley we see many children in the office and hospital with breathing problems. Idling cars produce a lot of unnecessary pollution which we can prevent by turning off our cars. I am also a mother who takes her kids to school,pick up and drop off can be done with the engine off or far less than 2 minutes of idling. We have poor air quality in this valley and a geographic set up making cleaning our air hard enough as it is(a valley and air inversions). We need to take whatever steps we can to help, and this one is easy. k. gee in Salt Lake City September 18,2010, 7:06 AM ABSOLUTELY,I support the ordinance. But the real culprits are fast-food and coffee drive up windows. They should all be made illegal in the state which has some of the dirtiest air in the nation. hugo rodier in Draper • September 17,2010, 1:27 PM Hello,this is Hugo Rodier,MD chairman of the Utah Medical Association's environmental committee.The UMA has unanimously endorsed anti idling legislation due to health/air pollution concers and energy conservation. Karin Lee Hughes in Salt Lake City September 17,2010, 12:49 PM I support an anti-idling ordinance. I am a local physician with young children and feel this is one easy action we can take to decrease our air pollution. Richard Kanner in Salt Lake City September 17,2010, 12:49 PM As a former member and Chair of the Air Quality Board and as a physician/lung specialist who www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 17 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements has done research on the health effects of air pollution I strongly endorse the anti-idling proposal. Two minutes may be too long. Thirty seconds may be more appropriate. In some cities in Europe you are required to turn off your engine at a stop light. Idling just 10 seconds produces more air pollution than turning off the engine and then restarting it. Randy& Stephanie Colquitt in Bountiful September 17,2010, 12:40 PM All for this ordinance.Will it really be enforced?It should be.Agree to it all except NO REDUCTION of fines.If you're going to fine someone for a violation, fine them. Also,this should be announced so that the public begins to understand that they should not idle cars either. If it's too cold to sit in a car while waiting for someone,go inside and wait.The public needs to understand the health consequences of toxins in our air. Emina Alibegovic in Salt Lake City September 17,2010,9:28 AM I love the idea, and I hope we can enforce it. The question is how we deal with parking enforcement,police cars,and so forth. They are very quick to give us reasons why they can't shut of their cars,and honestly those are less than convincing. Emina Alibegovic susan stewart in Salt Lake City September 16,2010, 11:15 PM One of my pet peaves are people idling their carsm sitting in them talking on cell phones or just idling their cars for seeming no reason other than they can't find the key. I think a still idle ordinance is important and necessary.Idling busses and trucks as I understand it have a short idle window and then must shut them off. This is nationwide for trucks as I understand it. I see trucks idling as they deliver things all the time incuding SLC official vehicles that I've asked to shut them off. Many people don't understand the 30 second--turn it off--rule. I think that an education program would be helpful.How about a billboard on this issue? Bringing up the health issues of air pollution and that 50%pollution is from cars. Brad Bartholomew in Salt Lake City September 16,2010, 5:37 PM Good intentions,I whole heartedly agree that people should not leave their cars idling. But is an ordinance really necessary? Seems like a waste of city resources to even take it this far. Is this what our cities job is?To set ordinances for every aspect of our lives?Watching too much tv is bad too,is SLC going to limit the amount of tv we can watch?There are more pressing issues to address and while I agree,pollution is one of them this is the wrong way of going about it. Lynne Olson in Salt Lake City September 14,2010, 8:55 AM I wholeheartedly support this initiative. It will be very beneficial,especially in areas where large numbers of cars collect at one time. The DAQ's air monitoring station at Hawthorne Elementary School documents the spikes in air pollution that occur during drop-off and pickup times. I think the ordinance should include cars idling in driveways,with allowance made for the time it takes to warm up a vehicle or cool it down as needed. Leo Chan in Orem September 13,2010, 6:00 PM I think this is a great idea! The smogs created by idling cars are dangerous to people, particularly during the yellow and red air quality alert periods. If nothing else, a stiff fme should www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 18 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements be imposed during yellow and red air quality period. Hong Kong is considering a similar ordinance.http://www.cleartheair.org.hk/idling-engines.php Lori Fitzgerald in Draper September 13,2010,4:56 PM I believe the Ordinance is well meaning but misplaced. One of the largest contributors to our air pollution problem stems from the open gravel pit at the point of the mountain. The loose gravel is regularly being poured into the valley via the wind and what is known as the Jordan Jet Stream. These particulates carry silica and the dust storm is visible. The ordinance should be directed at this business and we as caring citizens should monitor our own emissions. Bob Brister in Salt Lake City September 12,2010, 5:44 PM Good idea! Clean air is a human right. Marion Klaus in Salt Lake City September 11,2010,4:26 PM Thank you Mayor Becker for bringing forward a proposal to curb idling. I am particularly appreciative of the fines associated with it since I believe they are the only way to generate a valley wide behaviorial change in idling. I agree with the 2 minute suggested idling time. It would help to know how long a red light will last so engines can safely be turned off while waiting. I hope roundabouts will eventually replace our stop lights because they keep traffic moving and don't require electricity. Keith Slade in Salt Lake City September 11,2010, 1:39 PM I agree with the ordinance. It's irritating to have a car parked out front of my place with the car idling for long periods. Two minutes is a bit short though.I'd say more like five minutes. Keith Slade, SLC resident B.W. Bullough in Salt Lake City September 11,2010, 1:10 PM I am seeing more laws,more fines,more fees,more taxes,more ordinances... The leadership of this city is steadily turning it into a sort of mini police-state. It makes us all constantly have to look over our shoulders and wonder what law me might be breaking next. The fines for this new law are extremely high,which tells me it is more about gaining a new revenue stream rather than actually affecting air quality. Who is actually going to be targeted with this rule?Mothers picking up their children after school this winter as they try and keep warm? Are such people that much of a threat to quality of life?Are there not actual crimes and violence that we should be focusing on instead? I am realizing that my long-term future cannot be in this city the way it is going. With no future here,I accordingly tend to care less about the city and my local community. Go ahead,pass your laws,and give the hard working producers of this city one more reason to live elsewhere. I want Liberty,not this fortress of draconian rules and regulations. Terry Marasco in Salt Lake City September 11,2010, 11:07 AM www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM.from all participants. 19 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements I fully support the ordinance. SLC needs to have a discussion with UDOT regarding traffic lights.Many times left turn red arrows do not change for a number of green straight changes and the car sits idling for 4-5 minutes. I was just stopped by a policeman today for waiting at a left turn red arrow,the straight went green while the red left remained red. I moved into the straight lane and the policeman pulled me over. The other issue is that red left arrows turning green are too sort for many intersections. The result is you have cars running the red for seconds after,a safety hazard. Liz Sorensen in Salt Lake City September 11,2010,4:52 AM I support this ordinance. I know it's cold in the winter here and I know I'm guilty of idling my car in the winter months to warm it up before I head off to work.I'm sure this will help motivate me to bundle up a little extra and spare myself the extra(albeit small)cost in gas and the(albeit large)cost in air quality. Kevin Shumway in Salt Lake City September 10,2010, 7:12 PM I completely agree with the proposed ordinance. I ride my bike through the Temple Square area several times a week,and for years I have been frustrated by the great number of idling vehicles. Many times there is an open window,which means that there couldn't be a need for heat or air conditioning. Perhaps an open window would be one way of determining whether the ordinance had been violated. At other times,the weather is very pleasant,but the driver has created a solar oven with their windows up and the engine humming away in front of their feet,creating a need for air conditioning,and they just don't think about the consequences of thousands of people burning petroleum so unnecessarily. On occasion,I will try to be helpful and ask drivers if they know that their engine is idling,and they always smile and say"yes,"while taking no action. For this reason,I believe that this bad habit cannot be changed only with feel good public relations campaigns,but by instituting some kind of penalty. The health of our families depends on it. Thank you city government! Shane Carlson in Salt Lake City September 10,2010,2:47 PM While I support the aim of this ordinance(including mitigation of the health impacts on those with respiratory disease)and I turn off my vehicle whenever possible,I am concerned that some of the language surrounding exceptions is vague and that people with health conditions that are exacerbated by even moderately elevated temperatures(severe immune and inflammatory conditions)will be unfairly impacted. Unplanned impacts on the disabled could include unnecessary risks to health,fmancial hardship,arduous appearances before an administrative judge, or increased isolation as patients become less inclined to leave their homes out of fear of additional hardship during warmer weather. How will"idling as needed to operate defrosters,heaters,air conditioners, or other equipment to prevent a safety or health emergency"be defined? Will I simply say to the traffic enforcement officer-"Sure,I look OK right now but I have a health condition that requires I not subject myself to excessive temperatures"-and he'll say OK,no problem? Will I be required to have a note from my doctor? Will I need a handicapped parking permit? And what if I continue to drive home(against my better judgment—say I went out and started feeling ill sooner than expected and before making it back home),when I what I www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 20 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, ANN idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements really needed to do was to pull over for 20 minutes and rest but I was afraid of being ticketed while idling(or having to use several days worth of energy for a hearing before a judge)and I cause an accident and someone gets injured? Please DO NOT leave this important portion of the ordinance as vague as it is now. Do not leave this up to the discretion of the traffic control officer and most importantly,do not leave the details of this section to work themselves out by trial and error at the expense of a portion of the disabled community. Curtis Haring in Salt Lake City September 10,2010,2:27 PM I agree with the proposed ordinance as idle cars contribute a large amount to our yearly inversion. As the largest city in the state,we should take the lead in reducing air pollution in one of the smoggiest places in the nation. I do think the fines are too high,however. I agree that an idle car does create societal problems in the same way running a red light or speeding might,but not to the tune of$210 or$410-It seems as if this ordinance is just a way to pad the cities coffers.Perhaps a maximum of$100 for the first offense(sliding down for early payment)after a warning, $175 after the second,and $250 after the third in a six month time frame. I also suggest the fees collected go directly towards improving non-automobile related transportation infrastructure in the city. Finally, as a policy question,how does the city honestly plan to enforce this ordinance? Robert A Jones in Salt Lake City September 10,2010, 1:06 PM This is a great idea. Do it! Rick Oliver in Salt Lake City September 10,2010, 12:33 PM I think this is a good idea however there should be an exception for natural gas vehicles. David Folland in Sandy September 10,2010, 12:09 PM I completely agree with the anti-idling proposal. It costs us nothing to stop our cars from idling. In fact,it saves us money,as we use less gas.It will improve our air quality.It's a no- brainer! David Folland MD Sandy,Utah Lucy Knorr in Salt Lake City September 10,2010, 11:17 AM I applaud the idea,but take exception the cost of the fines.I think they are extremely out of line with the cost of living in Utah and the state of the economy. They are way too high! Also,the exceptions need to be defined better. If I am in stop and go traffic trying to get out of Red Butte, is that a traffic signal condition?The traffic signal is far away from the congestion. Stop and go traffic getting into a venue is also a problem and to put a timer in the car so you can track how "` many minutes you have been idling is a responsible action,but not very reasonable. Safety needs more defining as well. Do my dogs in the car count as a safety condition? My elderly www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 21 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements mother?Is this my word against the officer's? Why not also encourage drive throughs in the city to post"idle free" signs on their order boards? Many drivers would turn off their engines if they were reminded.Why not create a positive culture instead of a punitive system and way to feed the city budget? Thank you Miriam Harper in Salt Lake City September 10,2010, 10:25 AM I wholeheartedly support this proposed ordinance.I live across the street from an elementary school and this is a real problem. Thank you for initiating such a measure. Miriam Harper SLC Dave Rathofer in Salt Lake City September 10, 2010, 9:46 AM While I understand the goal of this bill,I believe that it is unfair for owners of older vehicles, motorcycles and modern rotary-powered cars. My family owns a Mazda RX-8,a rotary powered vehicle that cannot be turned off until the engine reaches normal operating temperature. The unique properties of a rotary engine mean that if the engine is started and then shut off(such as backing out of the garage),the engine will flood and the vehicle must be towed to the dealership or specialized shop to have the condensed fuel drained out of the combustion chamber. The rotary engine does not have a traditional valve and piston configuration that allows heavier traditional motors to start-stop-start while cold. Another group that will be harmed is motorcyclists. There are still new motorcycles and scooters being produced today that use carburetors rather than fuel injection. In Utah's rarefied air and cold temperatures,small carbureted motors must be warmed up before they can generate enough power to be safely operated on city streets. The Kawasaki Ninja 250, a popular motorcycle with commuters,is a perfect example of this. The Ninja 250 is the best selling small motorcycle in the US(to the point that it is almost the only street legal 4-stroke motorcycle in the segment). If a rider attempts to take small-displacement motorcycles or scooters on the road prior to the engine being warmed up,they can experience a dangerous loss of power or stalling. Since most 250cc scooters produce less than 15 horsepower,the rider may find him/herself in a dangerous situation or involved in a crash due to the lack of adequate power. Even at sea level, larger-displacement motorcycles have trouble running while cold and must be warmed up prior to riding;this problem is exacerbated by altitude. Most motorcycles up to the year 2000 were carbureted,and many of these bikes are still on the road. The operator's manuals for these types of vehicles state explicitly that operating them prior to warming the engine can be dangerous or cause damage to the vehicle. Owners of older carbureted vehicles,rotary-powered vehicles,motorcycles,and scooters will fmd that this proposed ordinance, if passed,may cause damage to their property and potentially www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM,from all participants. 22 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements put owners of scooters and small commuter motorcycles in potentially life-threatening situations. Bill Cockayne in Salt Lake City September 10,2010,9:43 AM Interesting how liberal thinking government always manages to push some "feel good" ordinance down the throats of the citizenry with threats and coercion. Why not go the incentive route instead of the usual heavy handed baloney. Once this ordinance is passed---and you know you will have your way---I want to see an immediate reduction in winter smog ! Assured?? Guaranteed?? Doubt it. This ordinance will just turn out to be another stupid law inflicted on us "earth hating"worms out here that accomplishes nothing but good feelings for a chosen few. Way to go Becker: forcible trash cans,forcible non-idling,forcible bike lanes,more spending, more punishment. Gee,what's the next inane thing on your mind? Alice Rathofer in Salt Lake City September 10,2010,9:41 AM I have a car that CANNOT be turned off prior to the engine reaching operating temperature. If the engine is turned off I have to have a tow truck take the car to the dealer who can then deal with the flooded engine. No thank you. Vehicles with catalytic converters run cleaner and produce fewer emissions when the converter is hot. Heat is what makes the catalytic converters work. The engines of modern cars function ""ok better and with greater fuel efficiency when warm so turning off the engine will make the cars less efficient and produce more pollutants. The only time this makes sense is when parking for longer periods of time. For example all the UTA buses that park and idle for half an hour or more. Shutting off the engines of the buses would make a big difference. I cannot see stopping and starting engines at every stop light as that will wear the starter motor at an unacceptable rate(for me,that is). I don't want to have to replace starter motors every few years. Not well thought out at this point and I oppose this ordinance. Christi Baum in Salt Lake City September 10,2010, 7:43 AM I oppose this ordinance. I feel it is infringing on human rights in a way that will not improve our city. It would be better to spend money on improving public transportation or reducing the cost of alternate energy vehicles even more. To get to my home near Rose Park,to my work on Foothill/2700 South takes me 2.5 hours on UTA,time I won't waste away from my family. Luckily my employer lets me telecommute 2 days a week. Use your resources wisely. Kathleen Clark in Salt Lake City September 10,2010, 7:05 AM I agree with the proposed ordinance. Improving our air quality is a major issue for our city and country as a whole. The proposal is fair and has many exemptions for idling when necessary. William Newkirk in Salt Lake City September 9,2010, 11:59 PM This is the most ridiculous idea ever! Imposing no idling while at a drive through?Am I supposed to turn my car off and on 10 times while I wait for my turn,utter nonsense. And as for www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 23 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements private property,I can and WILL do whatever I like on my property. I'm all for not idling in schools and other such places where parents sit for 5 or more minutes,that makes sense,but to spend my hard earned money to put out more vehicles(which will cause more emissions to be released into the environment)and more employees to pay their ridiculously high salary is unthinkable. what about sitting in traffic on the highway,should i turn off my engine on I-15 or should you improve our roads so I don't have to!! The prices for the proposed fines are outrageous!! More than a speeding ticket?That is disgusting! How about we work with the city employees and vehicles and public transportation and run more fuel efficientlpzev/hybrid vehicles and conserve! Also lets save the tax payers some money by having employees that work,and not waste time at their office,if you don't have work to do,then don't come into the office. I don't know if the city offers this, but others do...offer FREE not discounted,but FREE public transportation pass to the employees to encourage them to utilize this resource and not use their personal vehicles Stephen Roberts in Herriman September 9,2010, 7:58 PM Pass this ordinance and I will never drive into Salt Lake City again. This ordinance proves that you are anti-business. While everyone else is trying to encourage business in the city,it is obvious that your are not.Foolish. Alexandra Parvaz in Salt Lake City September 9,2010, 5:06 PM I fully support the implementation of the Idle Free Ordinance and believe it represetns a good step towards curbing air pollution. In the future,I hope to see more progress made in the realms of reducing vehicular traffic,the increase in bicycling and the desigining of our cities as more walkable Jim Catano in Salt Lake City September 9,2010,4:08 PM What would help is a countdown clock near the red light that shows how many seconds until the light changes. Shutting down on red is something I already do,but sometimes I don't if I'm unsure of the time or don't want to be the cause of a back-up while I get my car restarted. A countdown timer would eliminate those concerns. Jim Catano, Salt Lake City. Bryan Bale in Salt Lake City September 9,2010,3:50 PM As a previous commenter said,the law doesn't go far enough. Or rather, it doesn't target the primary source of idle emissions. One of the exceptions listed in the ordinance is idling at a traffic signal or other official traffic control device. Unfortunately,the vast majority of idling happens while people are waiting for those signals. I'm in favor of an effort to improve the timing of traffic signals,or perhaps investment in a"smarter"traffic signal grid,to help traffic flow more smoothly;that would save commuters time and money as well as helping clear the air. Pax Rasmussen in Salt Lake City September 9,2010, 3:33 PM www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 24 of 25 Idle Free Ordinance What is your opinion regarding the level of support for the ordinance,penalties for violation, idling time limit, and exemptions to the ordinance as well as any other comments? All Statements I support this ordinance strongly. But,I feel it doesn't go far enough.Additionally,I would like to see"Do not idle" signs(or some variation thereof)REQUIRED for all drive-up and drive- through businesses. I'd also like to say that to compare Ralph Becker to Hitler is disagreeable and reprehensible and offensive on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin.We live in a city. Cities make ordinances. Overall,I despise civilization in general—but as long as we accept the idea of cities at all,we should probably get used to the idea of regulation. Especially when it comes to things like pollution,which when it comes to idling a car is something the individual does that directly and eminently affects the group.I can't see how regulation of such behavior can be decried by an denizen of any city. Marcia Dibble in Salt Lake City September 9,2010,3:33 PM I support an idle-free ordinance. Why don't we implement it based on the "10-second rule" supported by the science(and the "rule of thumb"in your own link)?Not only does it seem more rationally determined,but it would be easier to enforce. Many people will think "Two minutes is plenty of time to [get this prescription filled,get my french fries,etc.]"And two-plus- minutes would be harder to observe and cite an offender.Ten seconds is much clearer. Essentially: "If you stop,turn it off." Aftits Thanks, Marcia C.Dibble Salt Lake City American Lung Association in Utah in Salt Lake City September 9,2010, 3:32 PM The American Lung Association is 100%behind the efforts of the City of Salt Lake to curb idling and air polution. Natasha Seegert in Salt Lake City September 9,2010,3:15 PM I am THRILLED that the city is considering an anti-idling ordinance. As an asthma sufferer I support actions which have the potential to clean our city air.We live in an amazingly beautiful place-I would like to both see the mountains surrounding our valley and breathe clean air. This is an act which has the potential to bring people together around the improvement of our air quality and it serves as a public education tool regarding the role automobiles play in air pollution. PLEASE pass this ordinance! Kathy Van Dame in Salt Lake City September 9,2010, 12:36 PM Thank you,everyone involved in bringing this ordinance forward. Idling contributes pollution to our overloaded airshed without any benefit[0 mpg].Past educational efforts have targeted the majority who are willing to voluntarily limit idling,now we need something with teeth to get additional emission reductions. www.PeakDemocracy.com/517 Public comments as of November 1,2010,12:33 PM from all participants. 25 of 25 Proposed Idle Free Ordinance Public Education Outline Key Components: • Idle Free Grace Period—Opportunity to educate the public about the ordinance,and provide time for initial educational efforts without enforcement taking place. • Media Outreach o Media EViiit 4tniVlayor Ikcker and City Council o Sharete.duqational rnaterlia**00,:Social rmedia,SLCTV . - • Educational!Materials—To as tools for city employees to educate:theii4lic about the facts of the ordinaiteAndIhe importance of everyone doing their part. o BrochukeZ4foilOncrOunity distribution. o residential reports of vehicle idling on private proPeity. o Fact;0*, A:4ff community distribution. o Hoiltne4a41ó#individaalsidling or areas where idling occurs frequently o Website—to setwas a one stop shop"for all pertinent idle free documents, FAQs, %.y4:40,4s.ck information and other resources and to report idling. o t9*-41/#0,4:****Rf the ordinance and as an education tool o Additional$!`liii*;iii*it*:Wiiiebnt idle free signs throughout the city stating that an , enforCealte0intipaolsin*O.:,,: Existing Progranimk Res rces 4, idle Free Utah http://idlefree.utah.Q01, • :Pork 064 Idle Free Ordinancehttp : ://WWw.parkcity.oralindexaspx?paae=622 • Salt LaketitYs idiefree Page:www.slcaov.com/idlefree • Business OutreadiT74argetedOutreaCh to local businesses or other organizations that may be affected by the Idle Free OrcIin:a#(4lie0y been contacted for comment on proposed ordinance). o Stress best business practice stories from UPS, FedEX& Kennecott that emphasize the cost savings associated with a reduction in o Key areas for outreach(customers possibly affected): • Airport Park&Wait parking lot. • Fast food park&serve areas(Hires,Sonic,Curbside to go restaurants,etc) • Bank and dry cleaner drive-through windows(likely longer than 2 minute wait) • University of Utah and Salt Lake Community College Student Parking lots • Elementary School Pick Ups and High School Parking Lots ''k! • Distribution centers and companies with loading docks o Key business types for outreach(fleets affected): • Businesses with large fleets • Private bus companies(Le Bus,etc.) • Utah Transit Authority • Delivery truck companies • Mobile Businesses • U of U • Food delivery companies: ■ Community Partner Outreach—Enlist'key,partnet to spread the word to{their constituents, contact lists. o Some"example: • Utah dean Cities • Bait Lake Chamber • Breathe Utah/Moms for Clean Air • Salt Lake's Air Quality Partners Team • SLC:: r en Team • Community Councilsommikk • Wasatch front Regional Council • U of U a . • Salt`'Lake City‘School''_Distriet; + x3 T4s '�' NATIONAL s� RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION A3 �kfi taestaurantssociatio0 _ _ L Waterbury Office Plaza 5645 South Waterbury Way,Suite D-203, Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 �Ps�a �o<�a Phone: (801)274-7309-Fax: (801)274-7310-Website: www.utandineout.com .:. �1-$nts Are ••• .11enrher Bene/ids Sure rrni Time and Money! * Legislative Goals—To protect and promote the restaurant industr.s at the October 10, 2011 local,state and national les els.Our mission is your future. * National Restaurant Association Membership—URA members are MEMORANDUM automatically members of the National Restaurant Association and eligible for discounts on all NRA To: Salt Lake City Council sers ices and products. From: Utah Restaurant Association ▪ Credit Card Processing—We're a Date: Monday, October 10, 2011 "one stop"provider far credit card Subject: Proposed Idling Ordinance processing;payroll;remote check deposit;gift/loyalty cards:check guarantee;internet'web processing: Please be advised of the following information; ACH transfers;s irtual terminal with recurring payments;e-pin.it prepaid cell minutes;School/Campus card The Utah Restaurant Association opposes and would ask you to VOTE solutions and medical insurance real AGAINST the ordinance as proposed. 'ime eligibility payments. Greg Childs,Territory Manager Salt Lake City's proposed"idling ordinance"is the strictest of any city, Heartland Payment Systems county, or state in the county. Most average 5 minutes and many are 10 Cell:(801)755-7695 and 15 minutes. Fax:(801)963-5455 Email:Greg.Childs(a e-hps.com The Restaurant Industry was informed over 2 years ago that we were to ▪ URA Insurance Discounts—Your be exempt from the idling ordinance and no contact has been made with "one stop"shop for insurance. the industry since this initial contact. Package Policies.Workers Compensation,Health.Liability. The Environmental Protection Agency has changed the air quality Quality insurance products and sm.ices all at discounted pricing. standard from 10 PM to 2.5 PM which is a major decrease in the need to Call for all your insurance needs! reduce particulate matter in the air. Reaching this goal is going to take The Presidio Group: everyone working together, not just targeting"idling"vehicles. Idling Derrick Smith or Emily Edmunds vehicles are a very,very minor part of the air pollution problem but a (801)897-8971 or(801)915-0545 very easy target. dsmith(u presidio-group.com eedmunds(u presidio-group.com The Utah Restaurant Association along with other business would like to *Training&Education— be a part of the solution working with government to help create Professional restaurant business awareness of what we all need to be doing to reach"clean air"quality advice and statistics.ScrvSa fe Manager Certification Training& standards. Testing.Resource library for all your training needs. Food Handler Permits Training,Videos,CD's,study guides. Call for a catalog or order on the website at'sstiss.utandincout.com. "he URA your"one stop shop' for all of your training needs. *The URA is here to serse and help restaurant owners,operators,and suppliers.Contact us anytime we can "STRONG VOICE THROUGH JOINT MEMBERSHIP." he of assistance. The URA would offer the following solutions to partner with Salt Lake City and others as we move to meet needed air quality standards! 5 minute idling standard for Salt Lake City (an acceptable standard throughout most of the country. Every city, county and state is working to meet the new national standard) Encourage business to participate in reminding citizens of the need to reduce idling to improve air quality by exempting the business that places signs in their parking lots focusing on areas where idling may be a problem. Many business parking facilities including hospitals, banks, restaurants, pharmacies, dry cleaners have drop off and pick up areas where an idling car could wait more than 5 minutes. Any business that voluntarily places a sign in conspicuous areas at their locations should be exempt from any enforcement. Turn the Key Be Idle Free! should continue to be a voluntary educational program that reminds all citizens to do what we can to improve air quality. Involve the media and business working towards positive results by reminding all citizens to help take responsibility and do what we can individually and collectively to meet needed air quality standards. See the editorial by KSL Radio and Television on this very issue. We all can do a great deal to improve air quality! Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and recommendations regarding the proposed idling ordinance. Sincerely, Melva Sine, President/CEO Utah Restaurant Association 5645 South Waterbury Way Suite D-203 Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 Phone: 801.274.7309 Fax: 801.274.2310 5.2 Energy and Emissions Impacts The"10 second rule"was originally based on test data from Chrysler Canada in 1981 and confirmed in European work undertaken in 1985. More recent testing funded by NRCan's Office of Energy Efficiency on three 1999 model year vehicles [20] shows essentially the same effect. From these tests on modern vehicles, it is concluded that there is little impact on emissions due to the choice between idling or engine shut down when the vehicle is stopped for duration between 10 second and 10 minutes. a Toyota Corolla(1.8L,L4,A4,1304 kg),Dodge Caravan(3.OL,V6,A4,1814 kg),Chevrolet Silverado(5.3L,V8,A4,2154 kg) In the case of idling, there is a perception that vehicles should not idle for more than 10 seconds, but instead they should be turned off and then on again to reduce smog emissions. In fact, engineering research, including studies conducted by the federal government, show that with current technology, a vehicle would have to idle for more than 10 minutes to match the level of emissions generated from turning the engine off and on again. In the case of fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions,the vast majority is caused by driving behavior that is not related to drive-up windows. In fact, ghg emissions from an idling vehicle are one-ninth the amount produced by a vehicle driving 50 km/hr. A study commissioned by Natural Resources Canada estimates that even if all idling was significantly reduced,the most consumers could expect to see in fuel savings would be 0.06%to 1.8%. In addition, idling at drive-up window represents only a small fraction of total idling, the majority of which takes place at traffic intersections and on roadways. The large majority of people using restaurant drive-up window are already on the road and on their way to another destination—in other words, the drive-through visit is a stop-off and not a significant source of additional cars on the road. Drivers have a role to play in reducing vehicle emissions by modifying their driving behavior such as driving at the posted speed limit, accelerating and braking smoothly and keeping tires properly inflated. "Jackrabbit' starts alone can increase fuel consumption by 39% and increase some emissions by up to 500%. Drive up window service provides a safe and convenient alternative for restaurant customers. Drive-up windows are especially valuable for people with mobility issues, the elderly, and those traveling with young children or pets. This service is also important for people who prefer the security of their vehicle when traveling at night, and for those traveling in inclement weather. Unfortunately, the misperceptions about the environmental impacts of drive-up windows falsely blame them as a leading contributor to poor air quality. Idling Engines I ksl.com KSL TV KSL Newsradic TV • Utah Page Two U.S. World Sports Weather Traffic Biz Erstertainment Shows More Today's Happenings Bios TV Schedule Contests Editorials More on Web Video Studio 5 Mormon Times KSL Pulse :* KSL Editorials October 10th, 2011 Idling Engines 'v:. 13th 201. ;a• 12:33air; KSL can accept the fact that motor vehicles that sit idling can contribute at times to U Like unhealthy air quality in places like the Salt Lake Valley. But we struggle to see how the enactment in the capital city of an anti-idling ordinance with hefty fines will Comment Board >' summarily get people to shut down their engines. Give Salt Lake City leaders credit for reminding us that vehicle exhaust makes up 0 Read Comments more than 50-percent of the air pollution in Utah. And it's beneficial for motorists to commerns Post a Comment learn that"unnecessary idling of cars and buses contributes a significant amount of the.emissions released into the air each day."But is a law needed to send that message? Wouldn't an aggressive public awareness campaign have as much, if not broader impact? If adopted, the law would prohibit idling in many public areas for more than two KSL Editorial Policy minutes. The fine for non-compliance could be as much as$410. Beyond the fine structure, the proposed ordinance, in our view, includes a hodge-podge of KSL seeks to encourage an open and exemptions that will confuse motorists and make the measure difficult to enforce. respectful exchange of ideas,opinions and information on topics of legitimate We're all for more healthy air.And KSL agrees fewer idling engines would help. public interest. But an ordinance like the one proposed in Salt Lake City would likely have little impact on the problem. KSL believes that civil discussions of important issues are critical to the understanding of those issues,and will lead to a better informed public. We welcome an open discussion, among all voices in our community.We respect and embrace the depth and • diversity of the audience we serve. KSL seeks to offer perspective,context ' Traffic officials work on synchronization of lights This archived news story is available only for your personal,non-commercial use.information in the story may be outdated or super- seded by additional information.Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a re-publication of the story.JI . 4`1 von • a. ryry • • Marc Giauque and Lori Prichard reporting cst o-reac,cornme^ts Traffic engineers from various agencies are getting together to talk about synchronizing traffic lights in Salt Lake City.Traffic leaders from across the Video valley are trying to get more"green"in our drive. And they're finding plenty of obstacles. Just about any factoid Web site you read says the average person spends about two weeks during the :ourse of a lifetime sitting and waiting on a red light.As population and development here continue to explode,that time spent is only going to get worse. Motorist Mark Anderson said,"It is very frustrating." =rustrating? Maybe.A fact of life?Yes. Timothy Harpst, of Salt Lake City's transportation department,said,"There are a lot of challenges in timing traffic signals.There are a lot of factors that have to be taken into account and balanced." qt today's meeting of traffic officials from UDOT and Salt Lake,they said those factors include fewer lanes downtown, downtown development, and long blocks in Salt Lake City. qnd, Dave Kinnecom, a'UDOT traffic operation engineer, pointed out, "You have trains, pedestrians, some Intersections have left turn phases and others don't." That's a recipe for waiting. But how much waiting?In our unscientific test,we used a stopwatch to time our drive through rush-hour traffic up 600 South, across 700 East. and back down 400 South. We drove a total of 2.8 miles. Total driving time? More than 13 minutes. More than half of that time was spent sitting at a red light. According to the National Transportation Operations Coalition,timing all of those lights would save you a whole lot of money in gas. If you use one tank of gas per week getting to and from work. you'd save about $240, because less stop and more go gives you better gas mileage. For a Safe Commute, visit the > uz iv( ;l:i;l i=l)c \;fit=\' J KSI Traffic Cc rit4r • I SCANNED TO:(;V RALPH BECKER 1 SCANNED BY: MAYOR �L\a�'V�i ��ti/� ���i� f OFFICE OF THE MAYOR D�j,`T&• /V 00ii CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL D I ( I CI L°I I -� RECEIVED Ui OCT 0 4 2011 Date Receive David veritt, Chief of Staff SLC COUNCIL OFFICE Date sent to Council? /t./- Orr TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 4, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Elwin Heilma n o behalf of Gordon Hoskins SUBJECT: kfitilattchdbfinance STAFF CONTACT: Mary Beth Thompson 801-535-6403 Jaysen Oldroyd 801- 535-7788 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The administration recommends the repeal of ordinance 5.56 due to the passing of ordinance 5.14 BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In the presentation of Landlord/Tenant Ordinance the discussion pertaining to rooming and boarding houses between the Administration and Council concluded that these types of rental dwellings needed to be included in the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance. Upon the adoption of the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance, which included rooming and boarding houses, the repeal of ordinance 5.56.needed to be completed to insure there was no conflict between ordinances. PUBLIC PROCESS: None 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com m Ordinance No. of 2011 (An ordinance repealing Chapter 5.56 of the Salt Lake City Code to eliminate potential conflicts between the adopted Landlord Tenant/Initiative Program ordinance and Chapter 5.56 with regard to boarding houses and similar establishments.) WHEREAS,Chapter 5.56 of the Salt Lake City Code sets forth provisions regarding the licensing and regulation of boarding houses and similar establishments; and WHEREAS,on June 14, 2011, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 37 of 2011, which addresses the City's Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program; and WHEREAS,Ordinance No. 37 of 2011, also contains certain provisions regarding the licensing of boarding houses and similar establishments that supersede the provisions set forth in Chapter 5.56 of the Salt Lake City Code; and WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the regulation of boarding houses and similar establishments pursuant to the provisions set forth in Ordinance No. 37 of 2011 furthers the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. NOW THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1.Chapter 5.56 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to the licensing and regulation of boarding houses and similar establishments shall be, and hereby is, repealed in its entirety. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective on September 1, 2011. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, this day of , 2011. CHAIRPERSON MUM: CIIYRECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office + to Date: 1 O/ s/Doe>I Z C IYREC'ORDER By: (SEAL) Bill No. of 2011 Published: HB_ATTY-#19163-v1-Ordinance Repealing_the_Boarding_Room_Provisions_of Chapter_5_56_ SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM DATE: October 11,2011 SUBJECT: Landlord/Tenant Program Implementation—Update from Adminsitration AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver,Neil Lindberg,Janice Jardine,Nick Tarbet ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Business Licensing and Community&Economic Development AND CONTACT PERSON: Mary Beth Thompson and LuAnn Clark The budget that the Council adopted in June included the final steps for the Landlord/Tenant Program. The budget was designed to have the program start on September 1st Based on Council Member requests, the Administration has welcomed an opportunity to provide the Council with a report on the implementation. The briefing will likely include the number of licenses issued or renewed, progress on developing some related matters (like unit legalizations), a discussion of concerns and questions that landlords and residents have raised, and identification of some pieces of the program that the Council and Administration may want to consider changing or fine-tuning. The Administration may have some paperwork to distribute on Tuesday during the briefing. In addition to what Council Members may have heard directly from constituents, staff has provided the following list of potential questions the Council may wish to ask, and some background information: 1. Training a. The Council may wish to ask the Administration about options for multiple training providers. b. The Council may wish to discuss whether developing an online option for training would be possible. Background: During the budget discussions in May and June, the Council and Administration had the intention that there would multiple providers for the Landlord training, however there is currently one provider and other organizations have not yet started offering the trainings. 2. Self Certification & Code Compliance a. The Council may wish to ask whether the form for self-certifications will be amended to include more information about types of exceptions to compliance that may exist given State Code and/or construction year of the building. 1 Background: The form for self-certification(attached)provides the sections of the Salt Lake City Code governing building standards for rental units.However, some sections of the Code may not apply under certain circumstances depending on the year the rental was built. The form could be updated to explain exemptions, and for signatures from landlords based on those exemptions. b. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether to allow more time for landlords to bring their buildings into compliance on certain code requirements. Background:Landlords have been given until March 1,2012 to bring properties into compliance with code requirements.Some constituents have suggested that a longer period of time may be helpful,especially if any construction is required to meet the necessary code.In some cases, it may be possible that the construction would result in tenants being temporarily displaced or evicted 3. Exception/Exemption circumstances—the Council may wish to consider whether there is support for any exceptions to the Landlord/Tenant Program requirements. Exceptions that constituents have mentioned include more substantial ideas,such as a)waivers for fees,or b)in lieu of fees,applying fines to properties based on exceeding a threshold of calls for additional enforcement. Some smaller suggestions have included a)providing an option for testing out of training,b)time extensions for code compliance,c)amending tenant meeting requirements for fewer unit landlords,etc. Background: Some landlords have indicated that the program feels punitive for "good" Landlords and burdensome for Landlords with one or two units. Constituents have voiced a desire or inquiry about whether exemptions would be allowed in the following categories: a. "Good"Landlords/Properties without issues b. Owner-occupied properties with rental units(duplexes,basement apartments, etc.) c. Elderly/financial hardship 4. Paperwork Templates—Lease Addendum a. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether the intent of the lease addendum could be met another way,or whether the template provided by the City may be amended to include different language. Background: Several Landlords have indicated that the language in the lease template is more strict or terse than they would otherwise use.In particular, Landlords with fewer units or who have longstanding tenants have mentioned these concerns. 2 /T� S Landlord/Tenant Program 1. Report on the nature of complaints/ issues received a. Availability of class b. The principle of the City being involved c. People who had one house/condo, bought a new one, but can't sell old on in this market, just renting until market improves. d. Out of state owners would want to participate in the class—would like to see something offered on-line e. Internal procedure for individuals who are unable to attend class—DVD. 2. Based on complaints&implementation—would the Admin propose tweaking certain program requirements or making other adjustments?Timing of any changes? a. More clear guidelines for older homes and the self-inspection. I 0 i. Administrative Hearing Officer - Housing Advisory &Appeals Board b. Create the definition of a Property Owner in Ordinance. c. Create an Administrative hearing process for i. Revocations ii. Suspensions iii. Denials d. Specifics we've encountered: i. Changes or updates to the self-certification process and code compliance issues ii. Changes or updates to the addendum 3. Discuss options for multiple training providers a. At the present time the Utah Apartment Association is the only one that provides this training. Administration has had a few inquires pertaining to wanting to participate in running a training program, but have seen nothing since. tl b. Administration is considering creating an online and DVD course. 4. Staff status a. Business Licensing has hired both of their staff member, at this time business licensing is using all of their resources, plus a temporary to keep up with demand. 5. Status of the process for unit legalization a. Planning Division will brief the Planning Commission on the proposed unit legalization I011114 ordinance this November and will transmit to City Council by January of 2012 © 6. Ordinance changes a. Creating civil penalties b. Create a panel to define a fine matrix to present to council. c. Defining exceptions for family occupied units. 7. Statistical Information on Landlord/Tenant Program a. New applications for 1 and 2 units as of September 1st is 500 b. Non-participating units 10 c. Owner Occupied Units 44 d. Affidavits of non-rental 21 e. Total Renewals sent 798 i. Non-participating owners 13 11111• Memorandum DATE: October 6, 2011 SUBJECT: Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00612—Proposed changes to the City's zoning regulations relating to accessory dwelling units(ADU's) AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinances are adopted the zoning regulation changes would affect Council Districts citywide. FROM: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Michael Maloy,Principal Planner COUNCIL PROCESS: The Council is scheduled to receive a briefing from the Administration on October 11, 2011. Zoning regulation changes require public hearing advertising a minimum of 12 days prior to the hearing. Additional dates for follow-up discussions, a public hearing and Council action will be identified after this initial briefing. The proposed zoning regulations are part of the Mayor's Sustainability Code Initiative to encourage sustainable living practices throughout the City. Allowing accessory dwelling units(ADU's)in a variety of residential zoning districts supports sustainability practices by increasing affordable house choices,promoting more efficient use of public/private infrastructure,and creating opportunities to reduce green house gas emissions and increase energy efficiency. The Administration has provided detailed information and a comprehensive staff report,dated June 22, 2011,regarding this item. This memorandum summarizes key points and identifies potential matters at issue/questions for the Administration. (Please see the June 22,2011 Planning staff report and related attachments for details.) KEY ELEMENTS: A. An accessory dwelling unit(ADU)is a residential unit located on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit and may be either internal to or attached to a single-family dwelling(such as an addition)or a detached structure(such as a garage or separate structure).The accessory dwelling unit must be a complete housekeeping unit with a separate kitchen,sleeping area, closet space,bathroom facilities, and a shared or separate entrance. B. An ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration that would: 1. Allow accessory dwelling units in the following single-family and multi-family residential districts: FR- 1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000,R-1/12,000,R-1/7,000,R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3,R-2, RMF-30,RMF-35, RMF-45,and RMF-75. 2. Limit the number of building permits allowed for accessory dwellings to 25 per calendar year with the following exceptions. a. units located within a Redevelopment Agency(RDA)project area or funded in part by RDA housing funds. b. units that comply with all accessibility standards in the current building code. 1 3. Require owner occupancy of the principal or accessory dwelling including recordation of a deed restriction stating such. 4. Require additional parking and compliance with current building codes. 5. Require the property owner to obtain a business license for the accessory dwelling. 6. Ensure the accessory dwelling is subordinate to the principal dwelling by establishing a maximum building square footage,building height limit,minimum building setbacks,maximum lot coverage in compliance with the underlying zone,and be designed and constructed to be compatible with the principal structure. 7. Require accessory dwelling units located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District comply with applicable regulations and review processes including related guidelines and standards to ensure compatible building and preservation of historic resources. C. The June 22,2011,Planning staff report provides a detailed discussion of the major issues that have been raised during this process. Major issues addressed relate to density,location,privacy,owner occupancy, parking,traffic,accessibility,utilities and enforcement.(Detailed summaries of public comments can be found in the Planning staff report,pgs.3-10 and in the Planning staff report Attachment H.) D. The public process included meetings listed below,Open City Hall online public comment forum (sponsored by the Planning Division—September 2010),written notification of the Planning Commission hearing to Community Council Chairs and the Planning Division electronic list serve. Notice was also posted on the City's website. 1. Four separate open house meetings(held December 17,2009,July 15,2010,October 21,2010,and February 17,2011); 2. Seven different citizen committees or community boards(Accessory Dwelling Units Focus Group, Community Council Chairs Breakfast,Wasatch Hollow Community Council,Utah Housing Coalition, Housing Advisory and Appeals Board,Housing Trust Fund Board,and Accessible Services Advisory Council);and 3. Six meetings with the Salt Lake City Planning Commission(held on November 10,2010,December 9, 2010,February 23,2011,March 23,2011,June 8,2011,and June 22,2011). MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: A. The Council may wish to discuss whether it may be helpful to receive a presentation on accessory dwelling units from Dr.Arthur C.Nelson from the University of Utah. 1. The Planning staff report notes that on June 9,2011,the Planning Commission received a briefing on accessory dwelling units by Presidential Professor of City& Metropolitan Planning, Dr. Arthur C. Nelson,from the University of Utah College of Architecture+Planning. 2. Professor Nelson delivered a PowerPoint presentation that included census data and demographic trends relative to accessory dwelling units.(Please see the June 22,2011 Planning staff report,Attachment G— Dr.Arthur C.Nelson PowerPoint—for details.) B. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration: 1. The rationale for limiting the number of building permits allowed for accessory dwellings to 25 per calendar year. 2. The rationale for not establishing a geographic location or reducing the number of zoning districts in which accessory structures would be allowed as an alternative to introduce this housing concept in the City as suggested through public comments. 3. Steps taken to coordinate the Landlord Tenant Initiative Program,Unit Legalization process and the proposed accessory dwelling unit regulations. 2 C. The Council may wish to consider recommendations from the Accessibility Services Advisory Council (ASAC)and Housing Advisory and Appeals Board that were not included in the recommendation from the Planning Commission.The Administration's transmittal letter notes: • Accessibility Services Advisory Council(presentation/review Feb.22,2011) 1. Add the following size exception for"Accessible ADUs."that are"visitable,"meaning that there is a no-step entry,adequate doorways,a usable bathroom,and have"accessible living quarters",an exception would be granted on the maximum size of the ADU.For example,an additional 150 sq.ft. could be added on top of the 50%or 650 sq.ft.maximum size rule,resulting in a maximum size of 50%plus 150 sq.ft.or 800 sq.ft.,whichever is less.(The additional amount of 150 ft2 seems reasonable to ASAC but the amount is negotiable.) a. Visitability Features: o No-Step Entry:The dwelling unit can be accessed without having to step up or down. o Adequate Doorways:32"clear opening,low threshold of step or'A"ramp. o Usable Bathroom:30"x 48"clear space(outside of the door swing space)within the bathroom. b. Accessible Living Quarters:A bedroom or sleeping area can be accessed without having to step 111 up or down. 2. Modify the permit allocation restrictions to require that 20%of the maximum allowable number of ADU permits per year be"Accessible ADUs"that meet the Accessible ADU requirements.For example,20%of the maximum 25 permits per year would mean that 5 out of 25 permits would be reserved for Accessible ADUs and not more than 20 ADUs that are not accessible would be permitted that year. • Housing Advisory and Appeals Board(presentation/review Feb.9&Mar.9,2011) 1. Limit ADUs to certain zoning districts. 2. Consider allowing ADUs in multi-family zoning districts first. 3. ADU initiative should address area(i.e.community)master plans. D. The Council may wish to request an update on recommendations from the Historic Landmark Commission. (presentation/review Mar.2,2011)The Administration's transmittal letter notes: 1. Because the proposed regulations do not specifically apply to the Historic Preservation Overlay District,a formal recommendation by HLC was not required. 2. In response,the HLC voted to form a subcommittee to study the issue further and draft a position statement for City Council consideration. 3. However,at time of publication of the City Council Transmittal the HLC position statement had not yet been completed. E. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether it may be appropriate to allow accessory dwelling units in other types of zoning districts such as Residential Mixed Use,Mixed Use,Agriculture, Transit Corridor and Transit Station Area Districts. 1. The Administration's paperwork notes that accessory dwelling units will be allowed citywide in all single-family and multi-family zoning districts. 2. The proposed purpose statement notes,in part,support for transit-oriented development,increasing density near transit stops,providing a broader mix of affordable housing options and encouraging more efficient use of existing housing,public infrastructure and energy resources. 3 cc: David Everitt,Bianca Shreeve,Karen Hale,Art Raymond,Holly Hilton,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Paul Nielson,Jeff Nienneyer,Tom Ward,Rick Graham,Frank Gray,Mary De La Mare-Schafer,Orion Goff,Les Koch,Larry Butcher, LuAnn Clark,Craig Spangenberg,Randy Isbell,Wilf Sommerkom,Cheri Coffey,Joel Paterson,Nick Norris,Michael Maloy,City Council Liaisons,Mayors Liaisons File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Zoning Text change—accessory dwelling units(ADU) 4 imililMilionimimmemionms MEMORANDUM 011 DATE: October 6, 2011 TO: Council Members FROM: Janice Jardine, Land Use Policy Analyst SUBJECT: Housing Policy discussion ICOUNCIL PROCESS: On September 27, 2011, the Council received an initial introduction from the Administration regarding proposed revisions to the City's Comprehensive Housing Plan.A follow-up discussion is scheduled for October 11, 2011. I Additional dates for follow-up discussion and Council action will be identified at a future date. A. To assist in the Council's discussion, Council staff has provided the following: 1. The Administrations proposal with previous policies discussed by the Council in 2006 that remain the same or have slight revisions. (highlighted in grey) 2. New sections and policies (highlighted in green) 3. Items/issues the Council may wish to discuss in further detail. (highlighted in yellow) 1..� B. It would be helpful if Council Members would review the following information and be prepared to provide direction to Council and Administrative staff regarding support for the proposal, potential changes/comments and items/issues that may need additional discussion or information from staff. C. Changes include an introduction,purpose and updated housing policies and action items. The Administration notes: 1. The proposal was developed by a Housing Coordination Committee consisting of city staff from the Mayor's office, Housing and Neighborhood Development, Planning, Redevelopment Agency, Building Services and Sustainability and Environment. 2. Consultants reviewed the proposal relative to historic preservation and sustainability issues. Recommended changes were included in the draft policies. 3. Action steps outlining strategies to implement the updated polices will be established after adoption of the proposed policies. (During the Council's discussion on September 27, 2011, the Administration indicated that they would place the proposal on the City's Open City Hall forum to receive public input. The City's housing policy has typically been of significant interest to the public.) D. A resolution will be prepared to adopt the proposed changes based on direction from the Council. 0 A. Salt Lake City's Comprehensive Housina Policy Introduoill As the largest city in Utah and the economic hub of the state,Salt Lake City faces significant housing and population issues. Precipitous increases in land values over the last decade, volatile financial and lending conditions,and escalating construction costs are some of the factors that create barriers to the development of affordable housing.At the same time,a renewed interest in walk-able neighborhood commercial centers,increased residential development downtown,and an emphasis on dense,transit-oriented residential projects throughout Salt Lake City offer opportunities for policymakers to capitalize upon as they seek to provide a range of housing choices to meet the desires and needs of residents. Demographics in the United States are rapidly changing,and Salt Lake City is no exception. Populations are aging, minority communities are growing,and there are more single-parent households and households without children. These seismic shifts require changes in Salt Lake City's housing policies to effectively address today's realities. Purpose By establishing the Salt Lake City Housing Policy,the Mayor and City Council seek to: • Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition; • Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts,including those with historic character and qualities,while also providing opportunities for the provision of local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods; • Promote a diverse and balanced community by ensuring that a wide range of housing types and choices exists for all income levels,age groups,and types of households; • Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City; • Ensure that affordable housing is available in all neighborhoods and not concentrated in a few areas of the City; • Emphasize the value of transit-oriented development,transit accessibility and proximity to services; • Recognize that residents, business owners,and local government all have a role to play in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods; • Create an appropriate balance of rental and ownership opportunities in neighborhoods without jeopardizing an adequate supply of affordable housing;and • Strongly incentivize or require the use of green building techniques and sustainability practices in public and private housing developments. te Mayor and City Council expect this Housing Policy to be considered whenever the City ministration engages in the following activities: • City and Redevelopment Agency funding assistance • Zoning and land use planning • Master planning of neighborhoods • The creation of economic development incentives The Housing Policy is a combination of 13 Policy Statements that are detaifklow. Policy Statements 1.New Development New housing development in Salt Lake City should meet the following criteria: • Be consistent with requirements of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act, Fair Housing Amendments Act(FHAA),Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the International Building Code. • Encourage for sale and rental mixed-use and mixed-income projects in areas with established transportation,public infrastructure,and related public services. Encourage mixed-use projects to include some affordable housing units. • Encourage single-family infill housing, in single-family neighborhoods,to attract middle-income families where appropriate; • Require architectural designs that are contextually compatible with the surrounding structures and overall fabric of the neighborhood.These designs should: a. Preserve and incorporate open space,even minimal amounts. b. Interface well with public spaces. c. Incorporate energy efficient technologies and design. • Provide for realistic parking needs in the least intrusive manner possible in single family neighborhoods;and • Provide aesthetically pleasing and attractive public spaces,such as designated S common areas,community centers,community parks,trail networks,bikeways, resident gathering places,and resident/community gardens. Action items: a. Ensure better compatibility with existing neighborhoods for new infill development. b. Review the residential and mixed-use zones for redundancy and consistency to ensure they accurately reflect this policy. tc. Revise the permitted and conditional use table to reflect a stronger emphasis on mixed-use development and to limit or prohibit uses that are incompatible with the neighborhood. d. Consider developing design standards for buildings in residential and mixed-use zones. 2.Affordable Housing Provide affordable homeowners housing opportunities for residents who make 80%or less of the area median income in Salt Lake City. The City should strive to ensure that affordable housing is available for purchase in Salt Lake City. Provide affordable rental housing in Salt Lake City for residents who make 80%or less of the area median income. The City should strive to ensure that affordable rental housing is available in Salt Lake City. A primary purpose of Salt Lake City's Housing Policy is to foster a verse andenced community with housing that offers a wide range of choices for all income levels.Accordingly, affordable housing should be available in all neighborhoods and not concentrated in a few areas of the City. Encouraging a variety of low,medium and high density housing developments for all income levels will help to enhance,maintain and sustain livable,viable neighborhoods. The Council and Mayor recognize that there is a segment of the City's population whose income level and other circumstances may make it difficult to qualify for established housing programs. The City should address housing for this population. The City,through the RDA, Housing and Neighborhood Development,the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City and successful housing development nonprofit organizations should provide examples of how affordable housing can be built or rehabilitated. Action items: a. Analyze the impacts of fees and current zoning on affordable housing. b. Develop an incentive program for housing developers to provide a percentage of affordable housing as part of their overall development. c. Preserve and expand,as appropriate,the amount of subsidized and Section 8 housing in the City. d. Continue to provide funding for homeownership and rental affordable housing projects with federal funds and housing trust funds. 3.Housing Stock Preservation and Rehabilitation The City should support the preservation,rehabilitation,and adaptive reuse of existing housing stock to the most practical degree possible. Action items: a. Adequately fund the City's apartment inspection program to promote housing safety and quality. b. Adequately funding programs that assist home and apartment owners in rehabilitating and maintaining housing units. c. Support the reinvestment of existing urban and inner suburban areas. 4.Transit-Oriented Development The City should support transit-oriented development as well as adequate,reliable public transportation so that residents may easily access employment,good and services,and housing. The City should support housing densities,mixed-use projects,parking policies,and pedestrian-oriented urban designs that encourage walking and the use of alternative and public transportation. 4 f Action Items: Ca. Review the residential and mixed-use zones for redundancy and consistency to 4 sure they accurately reflect this policy. ntinue to review the permitted and conditional use table to reflect a stronger phasis on mixed-use development on an on-going basis. 5. Zoning The City should evolve its zoning o rdinance to effectively address the City's changing housing needs. While the City supports mixed-use development, it also recognizes that there are some zones that are not conducive to residential development. Action items: a. Allow for higher densities and building height, in the form of density bonuses, in affordable multi-family, mixed-income and mixed-use housing developments if the developer incorporates features to minimize potential negative impacts such as buffer landscaping, usable open space, on-site amenities, support services, preservation of existing structures, and underground vehicle parking. b. Allow accessory housing units in single-family zones, subject to restrictions designed to limit impacts and protect neighborhood character. c. Allow neighborhood anchor areas or commercial uses that enhance the function of residential neighborhoods and/or are compatible with residential activity. d. Allow the flexible application of zoning standards to encourage innovation and creative problem solving in new developments. e. Research and adopt an ordinance to allow the Director of Community and Economic Development or the Planning Director the authority to administratively modify zoning requirements up to 10% when specific criteria have been met. 6. Permitting The City should riiew the permitting process to evaluate the impacts of the building permitting process ort proposed residential development. Action items: a. Provide expedited plan review for projects designed as sustainable, high performance buildings, including design that impacts neighborhoods in a positive manner that meets the Mayor's Executive Order, Expedited Plan Review for New Construction and Major Renovation Projects that Meet Certain Sustainable Building Criteria, dated August 22, 2008. b. Complete One Stop Shop initiative, which will streamline the permitting process for development and provide seamless customer service at the City and County Building C for development related customers. The goal remains co-location of staff responsible for core plan review, thus creating a true One-Stop-Shop for development-related customers. To accomplish this level of customer service, a representative from each of the six groups conducting plan review must be represented in Room 215 at the City 5 and tbunty gufrding. Space issues and staffing levels must be resolved to realize this goal. Electronic plan review and digitized submittals/records will aid us toward this accomplishment. 7.Downtown Housing Permanent residences in downtown Salt Lake City are a critical part of creating a vibrant, safe,and sustainable Capital City.The urban core should be considered a neighborhood for purposes of housing planning,and the City should expect housing to be available to all income levels downtown. Action Items: a. Conduct an inventory and zoning review of land within the Downtown that could be used for housing sites,studying the feasibility of developing the sites for housing uses. b. Explore options for protecting multi-family housing units east of 200 East between South Temple and 400 South and encourage infill development housing east of 200 E c. and encourage retail support services that promote increased residential po ation and support downtown workers. 8.Homeless,Transitional and Special Needs The provision of temporary and permanent housing options for those who have no other option is a fundamental responsibility of government in modern day society. The City will work with Salt Lake County,the State of Utah,and its community partners to assist in providing temporary and permanent housing options to its residents. Action Items: a. Collaborate with the providers of homeless services,neighborhood residents and business owners to create an environment to ensure that a mix of income populations can live,work,flourish together while still providing services to those in need. b. Utilize the efforts of the"Long Range Planning for Sheltering Needs of Homeless Persons Committee"in implementing the County-wide ten-year plan to end chronic homelessness. c. Continue to support the development of scattered site affordable housing projects with appropriate_ se management as needed. 9.Historic Preservation The City should preserve valued historic structures designated as significant to the cultural or arctaitectural heritage of the City based on an up-to-date historic resource survey. Action Items: Complete a city-wide historic resource survey. evelop a preservation plan. eevaluate the infill ordinances and revise them accordingly. 6 10. Funding Mechanisms Housing development is funded through a combination of private and public funds. The City should continue to use best practices to efficiently fund the development of a variety of housing. Action items: a. Increase the housing stock through non-profit and/or for profit partnerships. b. Maintain the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan that outlines annual sources and uses of funds for housing and housing programs. c. Maintain public reviews and input relating to use of City housing monies through the City's Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board,Redevelopment Advisory Committee and the Redevelopment Agency Board. d. Establish a permanent funding source for the Housing Trust Fund. 11.Marketing and Education on Housing in Salt Lake City Residents,developers,government,and social service providers all play a role in educating the public(and each other)about the availability of housing types and the gaps in the housing spectrum. The City can take the lead to ensure that accurate information is conveyed to all stakeholders. l� Action Items: a. Develop educational programs for developers,community councils,and the public to dispel myths and stereotypes about high density and affordable housing.Topics to be covered in these programs include:density,accessibility and visit-ability design concepts;affordable housing;and home buyer issues for developers. b. Develop public/private partnerships to market housing and educate the public on housing issues. c. Invest in marketing programs to highlight Salt Lake City's housing strengths and opportunities. d. Utilize market research for the development of aggressive public marketing campaigns to entice area residents to live in Salt Lake City;and to provide guidance for the City, the Redevelopment Agency and the development community in their efforts to develop housing within the city. e. Prepare educational information to distribute to the public regarding when a building permit is required. f. Continue the development advisory forum to bring together all stakeholders in the development process,including applicants, Housing,Planning, Building, Fire, Engineering, Public Utilities and Transportation Divisions. 1. Review new/proposed programs and processes. 2. Offer presentations from specific divisions that may affect the industry and stakeholders. 3. Provide training in current practices. O 4. Review changes and additions to the processes that regulate and control the development of the built environment. 5. Include question and answer dialogues. 7 12.Growth Targets Salt Lake City's goals for growth are predicated upon the orderly development of additional housing. Accordingly,the City's housing policies must be consistent with overall growth goals. Action items: a. Develop and maintain a citywide plan for attracting population growth in Salt Lake City. b. Set and achieve 5-, 10-,and 20-year growth targets that will help maintain the City's status as Utah's largest city.The City should use all available tools to achieve these growth targets including zoning,permitting,marketing,fees and incentives. c. Recognize the significance of the Northwest quadrant of the City and the need to encourage and accommodate future residential growth in this area;move forward with careful planning and programming for this area. 13.City Funded Projects The preservation and creation of affordable housing are high priorities.The City will continue to provide financial assistance to projects that meet the goals of the Housing Policy. illquests for City funding will be evaluated based on their consistency with this Housing 8 V B. Issues previously discussed retarding the City's housint policy A. Avoiding significant commercial and institutional expansion in to residential areas, such as with the expansion of health care facilities in the Avenues, East Central and the 500 East 2000 South areas. B. Importance of retaining a strong full-time population base. C. Importance of maintaining the fabric of the neighborhood and discouraging demolitions, or discouraging demolitions without authorized re-use plans. D. Boarding issues -- having adequate regulations in place to discourage boarding, or to assure that negative impacts on abutting property owners are minimized. Limiting cost to other taxpayers by moving toward assuring that the disproportionate cost of enforcement and public safety response is covered by the property owners. E. Identify the balance the Council wishes to establish /maintain /refine in terms of commercial development in areas zoned for residential. (This may be particularly timely given that the Council will soon be provided with the small neighborhood business (SNB)zoning project the Administration has in progress.) F. Given the Council's emphasis on Walkability and the long-term goal of reduced reliance on automobile use, the Council may wish to add a statement relating to allowing for viable commercial nodes that are sensitive to neighboring residential properties. G. Identify options (in addition to density bonuses) to encourage affordable housing construction. (This was discussed by Council Members at the September 27, 2011 briefing.) H. Other issues or items identified by Council Members. cc: David Everitt,Bianca Shreeve,Karen Hale,Art Raymond,Holly Hilton,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Paul Nielson,Jeff Niermeyer,Tom Ward,Rick Graham,Frank Gray,Mary De La Mare-Schafer,Orion Goff,Les Koch,Larry Butcher, LuAnn Clark,Michael Akerlow, Steve Akerlow,Sandi Marler,Craig Spangenberg,Randy Isbell,Wilf Sommerkorn,Cheri Coffey,City Council Liaisons,Mayors Liaisons File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Housing&Neighborhood Development Division, Housing Policies 9 eq�/�.��, o S CA N►N F E cl(y/fix FRANK B. GRAY �. ���,�ISJI�J 1�0. le II© � T F nALP DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SCANNER' , @ c�u OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DATE' :Y DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER 02 Ca/ // DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT FARR ECTOR , JR. E�} f\T} j DEPUTY DIRECTORTNSMIT ',,,. , AUG 2 6 2011 Date Received: n$ I (-II,( 2-01 David Everi , hief of Staff Salt Lake Ci ty Mayor Date Sent to City Council: Oq 1 `7,6 i ruDl1 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 15, 2011 Jill Remington-Love, Chair FROM: Frank Gray, Community & onomic Development Department Direc RE: Petition PLNPCM2010-00612 by Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning text amendment to allow accessory dwelling units within the following single-family and multi-family residential districts: FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75. This request is part of the Sustainability City Code Initiative and would affect areas City- wide. STAFF CONTACTS: Michael Maloy AICP, Principal Planner (801) 535-7118 or michael.maloy@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a public hearing. DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Mayor Ralph Becker, in cooperation with the City Council, has initiated a series of administrative policies and legislative petitions, which is generally known as the Sustainability City Code Initiative, to encourage sustainable land use within Salt Lake City. One of the legislative petitions requested, is PLNPCM2010-00612—Accessory Dwelling Units. Petition PLNPCM2010-00612 proposes to permit accessory dwelling units in single-family and multi-family residential districts. An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a residential unit that is established on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit, and may be located within a single- 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH S4114.54B6 Petition PLNPCM2010-00612—A,e.ees y w��ljng r t o FAX: 901-535-6005 Page 1 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CED c. RE .«Eo P.PEa family dwelling, attached to a single-family dwelling (such as in an addition), or in a detached structure (such as in a garage or separate accessory structure). The accessory dwelling unit must be a complete housekeeping unit with a separate kitchen, sleeping area, closet space, bathroom facilities, and a shared or separate entrance. The proposed ordinance requires owner occupancy of the principal or accessory dwelling, one additional parking stall, and compliance with current building codes. To ensure the accessory dwelling is subordinate to the principal dwelling, the draft ordinance establishes a maximum building square footage, a scalable building height limit, and requires that building setbacks and lot coverage comply with the underlying zone. Analysis: Accessory dwelling units are currently not allowed within any residential district in Salt Lake City. However, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have become an important component of the housing stock in many communities, both large and small, in the United States. By providing housing on existing lots in developed neighborhoods, ADUs are a form of land use that makes good use of land and public infrastructure investment. Accessory Dwelling Units, when located near employment and retail centers, help increase the use of circulation alternatives such as walking, cycling, mass transit, leading to a reduction in green house gas emissions and energy (fuel) use. Additionally, the changing face of the American public and its housing needs supports the inclusion of ADUs as a housing alternative. More people are aging, are "empty nesters" and desire to downsize. In addition, the work force continues to be challenged to find affordable housing and ADUs can help address that demand. With respect to observable trends in sustainability, demographics, land use development, and economic conditions, the stated purposes for Petition PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units are: 1. Create new housing units while respecting the look and scale of single-dwelling development; 2. Increase the housing stock of existing neighborhoods in a manner that is less intense than alternatives; 3. Allow more efficient use of existing housing stock, public infrastructure, and the embodied energy contained within existing structures; 4. Provide a mix of housing options that responds to changing family needs and smaller households; 5. Offer a means for residents, particularly seniors, single parents, and families with grown children, to remain in their homes and neighborhoods and obtain extra income, security, companionship and services; 6. Promote a broader range of affordable housing; 7. Provide opportunity for workforce housing in developed and new neighborhoods, close to places of work, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing fossil fuel consumption through less car commuting; 8. Support transit-oriented development and reduce auto usage by increasing density near transit stops; and 9. Support the economic viability of historic properties and the city's historic preservation . goals by allowing accessory residential uses in historic structures. Petition PLNPCM20 1 0-00612—Accessory Dwelling Units Page 2 One of the key concerns expressed by residents has been enforcement of the proposed ordinance. However, staff is confident that Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 74 of 2009 entitled Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program. which was adopted by the City Council on December 8, 2009, will reduce violations, improve compliance, and provide additional resources for code enforcement. Numerous other concerns have been raised by the public, the most prominent of which are discussed in the June 22, 2011 Planning Commission Staff Report beginning on page 3. With respect to Department Comments, all responding Departments recommended approval subject to consideration of several issues, such as zoning enforcement, code clarification, parking impacts, and public utility restrictions. Under the direction of the Planning, Commission, the proposed ADU ordinance has been modified to address these concerns where appropriate. Master Plan Considerations: Within the Salt Lake City Community Housing Play, which was prepared by the Housing and Neighborhood Division of the Community and Economic Development Department and adopted by the Salt Lake City Council in April of 2000. the following policy statements and implementation strategies are applicable: • City Council Policy Statement. The City Council supports a citywide variety of housing units. including affordable housing and supports accommodating different types and intensities of residential development. (p. 8) • City Council Policy Statement. The City Council supports mixed use and mixed income concepts and projects that achieve vibrant, safe, integrated, walkable neighborhoods through a diverse mix of uses and incomes in areas with established services... (p. 19) • Affordable and Transitional Housing Implementation Strategy 1. Review "Best Practices" from other cities and establish new programs or expand existing programs that meet housing needs and maximize housing opportunities for all residents within Salt Lake City. (p. 24) • City Council Policy Statement. On a citywide basis, the City Council endorses accessory housing units in single-family zones, subject to restrictions designed to limit impacts and protect neighborhood character. (p. 32) • Action Step for Implementation Strategy 5. Define accessory housing units. Determine residential zones that could support such changes. Prepare necessary criteria and amendments for future ordinances on accessory units. (p. 33) In another policy document entitled Creating Tomorrow Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission, which was commissioned in February 1996 by former Mayor Ted Wilson and delivered to the City Council in March 1998 the following assertions. goals. and recommendations are applicable: • Assertion NI: There is a mix of housing types, densities, and costs so that people of various economic groups can co-exist. Services for those less fortunate are seen as a positive attribute and are nurtured within our community. a Recommendation 1: Amend zoning laws to encourage mixed use in appropriate areas. Petition PLNPCM2010-00612—Accessory Dwelling Units Page 3 • Proposed Action: Adopt amendments to city zoning ordinances that allow mixed-use development in designated areas of the city. Identify areas to be included in ordinances, define types of mixed uses allowed (p. 13). • Goal B: The ideal neighborhood will be diverse. Neighborhoods will encourage persons of different incomes, ages, cultures, races, religions, genders, lifestyles, and familial statuses to be active community stakeholders. Families of various size and composition can be well served through a variety of programs and services. Service organizations will also be available to special-needs populations (p. 41). • Goal D: The ideal neighborhood will be well maintained. Landlords, tenants, and homeowners will share responsibility for keeping properties in good condition. Home ownership will be encouraged where possible. Neighborhoods should contain a variety of housing types, but more units should be owner occupied than renter occupied. This leads to longer term residents and stabilizes property values. Owners of rental units will be responsible and will maintain their properties. Mechanisms need to be in place to address problems caused by owners/renters who fail to maintain their properties. Landlords must screen tenants to ensure that they will be responsible renters. Landlords must also make repairs to their housing units to keep them as viable assets in the neighborhood. Housing should be designed for the changing needs of our current and future population (p. 43). Based on a review of the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan, and Creating Tomorrow Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission, which documents are applicable citywide, staff finds the proposal is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. PUBLIC PROCESS: Since December of 2009, the Planning Division has discussed the proposal in 21 public meetings. including: • Four separate open house meetings (held December 17. 2009, July 15, 2010, October 21, 2010. and February 17, 2011); • Seven different citizen committees or community boards (Accessory Dwelling Units Focus Group, Community Council Chairs Breakfast. Wasatch Hollow Community Council, Utah Housing Coalition, Housing Advisory and Appeals Board, Housing Trust Fund Board, and Accessible Services Advisory Council); and • Six meetings with the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (held on November 10, 2010, December 9. 2010, February 23, 2011, March 23, 2011, June S. 2011, and June 22, 2011). Starting on September 1, 2010, the Planning Division also posted the draft ordinance and other information on the Internet at Open City Hall for public comment. Through these efforts, the Planning Division received written comments from 66 individuals, of which 32 supported the proposal. 30 were opposed, and 4 were neutral or unclear with respect to their position. Petition PLNPCM20 10-00612—Accessory Dwelling Units Page 4 As mentioned previously, the proposed ordinance was presented for discussion and recommendation to the Accessibility Services Advisory Council (ASAC) on February 22, 2011. ASAC submitted a written request to include incentives and requirements to encourage the development of accessible ADUs. After considering the request, the Planning Commission voted to exempt accessible ADUs from annual permit limitations, but did not include any additional incentives or requirements, which action was inconsistent with the following ASAC recommendations: • Add the following size exception for "Accessible ADUs." For ADUs that are "visitable," meaning that there is a no-step entry, adequate doorways, a usable bathroom, and have "accessible living quarters," an exception would be granted on the maximum size of the ADU. For example, an additional 150 ft2 could be added on top of the 50% or 650 ft2 maximum size rule, resulting in a maximum size of 50% plus 150 ft2 or 800 ft2, whichever is less. (The additional amount of 150 ft2 seems reasonable to ASAC but the amount is ne(_lotiable.) o Visitability Features: • No-Step Entry: The dwelling unit can be accessed without having to step up or down. • Adequate Doorways: 32" clear opening, low threshold of !ia" step or `/" ramp. • Usable Bathroom: 30" x 48" clear space (outside of the door swing space) within the bathroom. o Accessible Living Quarters: A bedroom or sleeping area can be accessed without having to step up or down. • Modify the permit allocation restrictions in the ordinance as follows: require that 20% of the maximum allowable number of ADU permits per year be "Accessible ADUs" that meet the Accessible ADU requirements. For example, 20% of the maximum 25 permits per year would mean that 5 out of 25 permits would be reserved for Accessible ADUs and not more than 20 ADUs that are not accessible would be permitted that year. The proposed ordinance was also reviewed by the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board on February 9 and March 9, 2011. On March 10, 2011, the Planning Division received seven written recommendations that were forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Of the seven recommendations, the following three comments were not included within the proposed ADU ordinance: • Limit ADUs to certain zoning districts. • Consider allowing ADUs in multi-family zoning districts first. • ADU initiative should address area (i.e. community) master plans. The proposed ADU ordinance was also reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission on March 2. 2011. Because the proposed ordinance does not specifically amend Chapter 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District, a formal recommendation by HLC was not required. In response. the I-ILC voted to form a subcommittee to study the issue further and draft a position statement for City Council consideration. However, at time of publication of the City Council Transmittal the HLC position statement had not vet been completed. Petition PLNPCM2010-00612 —Accessory Dwelling, Units Page 5 AMMok The Planning Commission held several meetings to discuss the proposed ADU ordinance, including a public hearing held on March 23, 2011. Issues raised at the public hearing included increasing density, rental housing, insufficient on-site parking, insufficient on-street parking, property values, design compatibility, neighborhood character, insufficient enforcement, and decreased privacy. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission voted to table the petition for additional refinement and review. On June 22, 2011, the Planning Commission accepted additional public comment and passed a motion to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance. The vote was four in favor; one opposed. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: The petition amends the following sections of Salt Lake City Code: • Chapter 21A.40 Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures • Section 21 A.24.190 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts • Section 21A.60.020 List of Defined Terms • Section 21 A.62.050 Definitions of Terms Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps are authorized under Section 21 A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 21A.50.050: "A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does, however, list five standards, which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property (Section 21A.50.050 A-E). The five standards are discussed in detail starting on page 10 of the June 22. 2011 Planning Commission Staff Report (see Attachment 5.B). Other Information: During the public review process, the proposed ordinance has been modified in several key areas: • Definition and standards for owner occupancy has been added (modeled after the Provo City Code, which has been upheld by the State Supreme Court): • Annual permit limitation has been added, except for ADUs funded by the RDA or comply with accessibility standards (25 per calendar year); • Limitation on accessory dwelling unit height when located within a detached structure and outside of the principal building setbacks (must comply with height restrictions for accessory structures); and • Limitation on accessory dwelling unit height in relation to principal building height (must be equal to or less than the height of the principal building). Petition PLNPCM20 10-00612—Accessory Dwelling Units Page 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION A) ORIGINAL NOTICE AND POSTMARK March 10, 2011 B) STAFF REPORT March 17, 2011 (publication date) June 16, 2011 (publication date) C) AGENDA AND MINUTES March 23, 2011 June 22, 2011 6. ORIGINAL PETITION Chronology Sustainable City Code Initiative—Accessory Dwelling Units December 2009 General information about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Urbanus—the monthly Planning Division e-newsletter December 2009 Fact sheet and draft ordinance posted to Planning Division website December 17, 2009 Open House: all people on ListServe notified of open house, including all community council chairs July 1, 2010 Second article about ADUs in Urbanus—the monthly Planning Division e-newsletter July 14, 2010 ADU Focus Group: Clarion met with focus group comprised of community council chairs, citizens, housing builders, and housing advocates July 15, 2010 Open House/Public Forum at Salt Lake City Library conducted by Clarion Associates September 1, 2010 Open City Hall forum began (20 comments as of November 4, 2010) September 2, 2010 Presented information to Community Council Chairs at Mayor's breakfast meeting with Community Council Chairs September 1 6, 2010 Presented information at Salt Lake Network meeting October 21, 2010 Public Forum—City Hall October 27, 20]0 Wasatch Hollow Community Council meeting November 10, 2010 Planning Commission Work Session December 9, 2010 Planning Commission Briefing: Clarion Associates and Mayor Becker attended meeting January 5, 2011 Presented information to the Utah Housing Coalition February 3, 2011 Presented information to Community Council Chairs at Mayor's breakfast meeting with Community Council Chairs February 9. 201 1 Presented information to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board Meeting February 17, 201 1 Presented information to Housing Trust Fund Board Lunch February 17, 2011 Open House: all people on ListServe notified of open house, including all community council chairs February 22. 201 1 Presented information at the Mayor's Accessible Services Advisory Council February 23. 2011 Planning Commission Work Session March 2, 201 1 Historic Landmark Commission Work Session March 9, 2011 Follow-up meeting with Housing Advisory and Appeals Board March 23, 2011 Planning Commission conducted public hearing, and voted 5-0 to table petition June 8, 2011 Planning Commission Briefing by Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, University of Utah June 22. 201 1 Planning Commission concluded public hearing. and voted 4-1 to recommend approval of petition July 13, 2011 Planning Commission ratified meeting minutes for June 22, 2011 July 28. 2011 Submitted draft transmittal to Planning Manager for review August 9, 2011 Received draft ordinance from City Attorney SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to accessory dwelling units) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00612 to allow accessory dwelling units as defined herein. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held public hearings on March 23, 2011 and June 22, 2011 to consider a request made by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker (petition no. PLNPCM2010-00612) to amend the text of sections 21A.24.190 (Zoning: Residential Districts: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts); 21A.60.020 (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms); and 21A.62.040 (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms) of the Salt Lake City Code and adopting a new section 21A.40.180 (Zoning: Accessory Dwelling Units); and WHEREAS, at its June 22, 2011 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend and adopt the sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code identified herein; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the City's best interests, NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.24.190. That section 21A.24.190 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts), shall be, and hereby is, amended to insert the use category of"Accessory dwelling unit" under the residential category listed on said table as depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The codifier is instructed to only insert the "Accessory dwelling unit" use category and designations of such use as a permitted or conditional use (as noted by a "P" or"C") as shown on Exhibit "A" and make no other revisions to that table. SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code chapter 21A.40 to adopt section 21A.40.180. That the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to adopt section 21A.40.180 (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Accessory Dwelling Units), which shall read as follows: 21A.40.180: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS: Accessory dwelling units, as defined in chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be subject to the following: A. Purpose Statement: The purposes of the accessory dwelling unit provisions are to: 1. Create new housing units while respecting the look and scale of single-dwelling development; 2. Increase the housing stock of existing neighborhoods in a manner that is less intense than alternatives; 3. Allow more efficient use of existing housing stock, public infrastructure, and the embodied energy contained within existing structures; 4. Provide a mix of housing options that responds to changing family needs and smaller households; 5. Offer a means for residents, particularly seniors, single parents, and families with grown children, to remain in their homes and neighborhoods, and obtain extra income, security, companionship, and services; 6. Promote a broader range of affordable housing; 7. Provide opportunity for workforce housing in developed and new neighborhoods, close to places of work, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing fossil fuel consumption through less car commuting; 8. Support transit-oriented development and reduce auto usage by increasing density near transit stops; and 9. Support the economic viability of historic properties and the city's historic preservation goals by allowing accessory residential uses in historic structures. B.Applicability: An accessory dwelling unit may be incorporated within or added onto an existing house, garage, or other accessory structure, or may be built as a separate, detached structure on a lot where a single-family dwelling exists. Accessory dwelling units are allowed in the following residential zone districts:FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-I, SR-IA, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35,RMF-45,and RMF-75 subject to the provisions of this section. C. Owner Occupant:For the purposes of this title,owner occupant shall mean the following: 1. An individual who: a. Possesses,as shown by a recorded deed,fifty(50)percent or more ownership in a dwelling unit,and b. Occupies the dwelling unit with a bona fide intent to make it his or her primary residence;or 2. .An individual who: a. Is a trustor of a family trust which: (1)Possesses fee title ownership to a dwelling unit; (2) Was created for estate planning purposes by one (1) or more trustors of the trust;and b. Occupies the dwelling unit owned by the family trust with a bona fide intent to make it his or her primary residence. Each living trustor of the trust shall so occupy the dwelling unit except for a trustor who temporarily resides elsewhere due to a disability or infirmity. In such event,the dwelling unit shall nevertheless be the domicile of the trustor during the trustor's temporary absence. 3. Even if a person meets the requirements of Subsections I or 2 of this definition,such person shall not be deemed an owner occupant if the property on which the dwelling unit is located has more than one (1) owner and all owners of the property do not occupy the dwelling unit with a bona fide intent to make the dwelling unit their primary residence. a. A claim by the City that a person is not an owner occupant may be rebutted only by documentation, submitted to the Community and Economic Development Department,showing such person has a bona fide intent to make the dwelling unit his or her primary residence.Such intent shall be shown by: (1) Documents for any loan presently applicable to the property where the dwelling unit is located which name the person as a borrower; (2) Tax returns which show the person has claimed income, deductions, or tea. depreciation from the property; (3) Rental documents and agreements with any tenant who occupies the dwelling unit, including an accessory apartment; (4) Insurance, utility, appraisal, or other contractual documents related to the property which name the person as the property owner; and (5) Documents which show the person is a full-time resident of Utah for Utah State income tax purposes. b. Any person who fails, upon request of the Community and Economic Development Department, to provide any of the documents set forth in Subsections 3a of this definition or who provides a document showing that ownership of a dwelling unit is shared among persons who do not all occupy the dwelling unit shall mean for the purpose of this Title that such person shall not be deemed an "owner occupant" of the dwelling unit in question. 4. The provisions of Subsection 3 of this definition shall apply to any person who began a period of owner occupancy after July 1, 2011, regardless of when the person purchased the property. D. Pennit Allocation: 1. The city shall limit the establishment of accessory dwelling units, pursuant to this ordinance, to twenty-five (25) units per calendar year, with the following exceptions; a. Accessory dwelling units located within a Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of Salt Lake City project area, or funded in part by RDA housing funds, shall be exempt from annual permit allocation limits; b. Accessory dwelling units that comply with all accessibility standards as contained within the current building code shall be exempt from annual permit allocation limits. 2. Building permit applications for an accessory dwelling unit shall be accepted and processed in order of date and time submitted, however order of approval shall be based solely on compliance with current building code. E. Standards: Accessory dwelling units shall conform to the following purpose statement and requirements: 1. Purpose: These design and development standards are intended to ensure that accessory dwelling units are: a. Compatible with the desired character and livability of the residential zoning districts; b. Compatible with the historic district and landmark resources of the city; c. Compatible with the general building scales and placement of structures to allow sharing of common space on the lot,such as yards and driveways;and d. Smaller in size than the principal dwelling on the site. 2. General Requirements: a. Owner Occupant Requirement:Accessory dwelling units shall only be permitted when an owner occupant lives on the property within either the principal dwelling or accessory dwelling unit.Owner occupancy shall not be required when: (1) The owner has a bona fide, temporary absence of three(3) years or less for activities such as military service, temporary job assignments, sabbaticals, or voluntary set-vice (indefinite periods of absence from the dwelling shall not qualify for this exception),or (2) The owner is placed in a hospital, nursing home, assisted living facility or other similar facility that provides regular medical care, excluding retirement living facilities or communities. b. Deed Restriction: A lot approved for development with an accessory dwelling unit shall have a deed restriction,the form of which shall be approved by the City Attorney, filed with the county recorder's office indicating such owner-occupied requirement of the property prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the accessory dwelling unit by the city.Such deed restriction shall run with the land until the accessory dwelling unit is abandoned or revoked. c. One per Lot:One accessory dwelling unit is permitted per residential lot. d. Underlying Zoning Applies: Unless specifically provided otherwise in this section, accessory dwelling units are subject to the regulations for a principal building of the underlying zoning district with regard to lot and bulk standards, such as building and wall height, setbacks, yard requirements, and building coverage. (1) The requirements of Section 21A.40.050, Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures,which govern all non-residential accessory structures,do not apply to accessory dwelling units. (2)Accessory dwelling units may have the sane building setbacks as that allowed in the zoning district for the principal dwelling on the property. An existing accessory structure whose setbacks do not meet the setback requirements for a dwelling as noted above may be converted into an accessory dwelling unit but any non-complying setbacks may not become more non-complying. e. Existing Development on Lot: A single-family dwelling shall exist on the lot or will be constructed in conjunction with the accessory dwelling unit. f. Internal, Attached, or Detached: While accessory dwelling units are allowed only in conjunction with a principal dwelling on a lot, the unit may be built internal to, attached to, or as a separate unit detached from the principal dwelling. g. Minimum Lot Area: Within permissible zoning districts, the minimum lot area required for an accessory dwelling unit shall be: (1) Internal: For accessory dwelling units located within the principal single- family structure, no minimum lot area is required. (2) Detached: For accessory dwelling units located within a detached structure, a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet is required. (3) Attached: For accessory dwelling units located within an addition to the single-family structure, no minimum lot area is required. Ammits h. Building Code Compliance: Accessory dwelling units are subject to compliance with current building code at time of permit approval. i. Public Utilities: No structure that is not connected to the public water and sanitary sewer systems shall have an accessory dwelling unit. j. Multi-Family Districts with Single Family Dwelling on Lot: A lot located within a multi-family zoning district that is currently built out with a single-family detached dwelling and does not have the required minimum amount of land to add additional units pursuant to the multifamily zoning district requirement, one accessory dwelling unit may be permitted. 1:. Not a Unit of Density: Accessory dwelling units are not considered a unit of density and therefore are not included in the density calculation for residential property. 1. Rooming House: Neither dwelling unit may be used as a rooming house as defined by Section 21 A.62.040 of this title. m. Home Occupations: Home occupations listed in Section 21A36.030 B, Permitted Home Occupations, may be conducted in an accessory dwelling unit. Those home occupations listed in this section under "Conditional Home Occupations" are "" ` explicitly not allowed in accessory dwelling units in order to maintain the residential nature of the dwelling unit. n. Historic Preservation Overlay District: Accessory dwelling units located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District are subject to the applicable regulations and review processes of Section 21A.34.020, including the related guidelines and standards as adopted by Salt Lake City to ensure compatible building and preservation of historic resources. 3. Methods of Creation: An accessory dwelling unit may only be created through one of more of the following methods: a. Converting existing living area within a principal structure, such as a basement or attic space; b. Adding floor area to a principal structure; c. Constructing a new single-family detached dwelling unit structure with an internal or detached accessory dwelling unit; d. Converting or adding onto an existing accessory structure on a lot, such as to a garage or other outbuilding, where no required parking for the principal dwelling is eliminated by the accessory dwelling unit; and e. Constructing a new accessory dwelling unit within a separate detached structure in compliance with applicable lot coverage regulations. 4. Size of Accessory Dwelling Unit: The maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit may be no more than 50% of the gross square footage of the principal dwelling unit or 650 square feet whichever is less. The minimum size of an accessory dwelling unit is that size specified and required by the adopted building code of the city. 5. Ownership: An accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately or subdivided from the principal dwelling unit or lot. 6. Number of Residents: The total number of residents that may reside in an accessory dwelling unit may not exceed the number that is allowed for a family as defined in Section 21A.62.040, Definition of Terns. 7. Parking: a. An accessory' dwelling unit that contains a studio or single bedroom, one additional on-site parking space is required. b. An accessory dwelling unit that contains two or more bedrooms, two additional on-site parking spaces is required. c. The City Transportation Director may approve a request to waive, or modify the dimensions of, the accessory dwelling unit parking space upon finding that the parking requirement for the principal dwelling is met and: (1) Adequate on-street parking in the immediate vicinity is available to serve the accessory dwelling unit and will not cause congestion in the area; or (2) The accessory dwelling unit is located within 1 mile of a fixed transit line or an arterial street with a designated bus route. d. The City Transportation Director may allow tandem parking, within a legal location behind an existing on-site parking space, to meet the accessory dwelling unit parking requirement so long as the parking space requirement is met for the principal dwelling. 8. Location of Entrance to Accessory Dwelling Unit: a. Internal or Attached Units: Accessory dwelling units that are internal to or attached to a principal dwelling may take access from an existing entrance on a street-facing front facade of the principal dwelling. No new entrances may be added to the front facade of a principal dwelling for an accessory dwelling unit unless such access is located at least twenty (20) feet behind the front facade of the principal dwelling unit. b. Detached Units: Accessory dwelling units that are detached from the principal dwelling: (1) May utilize an existing street-facing front facade entrance as long as the entrance is located a minimum of twenty (20) feet behind the front facade of the principal dwelling, or install a new entrance to the existing or new detached structure for the purpose of serving the accessory dwelling unit as long as the entrance is facing the rear or side of lot. (2) Shall be located no closer than thirty (30) feet from the front property line and shall take access from an alley when one is present and accessible. c. Corner Lots: On corner lots, existing entrances on the street-facing sides may be used for an accessory dwelling unit, but any new entrance shall be located facing toward the rear property line or interior side yard, or toward the back of the principal dwelling. d. H Historic Preservation Overlay District: When accessory dwelling units are proposed in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District, the regulations and design guidelines governing these properties in Section 21A.34.020 shall take precedence over the location of entrance provisions above. e. Side Entrance Exemption: Side entrance for an accessory dwelling unit shall not be subject to compliance with code 21A.24.010.H Side Entry Buildings of this title. 9. Exterior Design: a. Within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District: Accessory dwelling units located within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall meet the process, regulations, and applicable design guidelines in Section 21A.34.020 of this title. b. Outside H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Historic Landmark Site: Accessory dwelling units shall be regulated by the following exterior design standards: (1) The maximum height of a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the principal structure. (2) An accessory dwelling unit shall be designed and constructed to be compatible with the principal structure. 10. Registration: Accessory dwelling units shall be registered with the city to evaluate whether the accessory dwelling unit initially meets applicable requirements; to ensure that the accessory dwelling unit meets health and safety requirements; to ensure that the property owner is aware of all city regulations governing accessory dwelling units; to ensure that the distribution and location of accessory dwelling units is known, to assist the City in assessing housing supply and demand; and to fulfill the Accessory Dwelling Units Purpose Statement listed above. To accomplish this, property owners seeking to establish an accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the following: a. Building Permit: Apply for and obtain a building permit for the proposed accessory dwelling unit, regardless of method of creation; b. Inspection: Ensure accessory dwelling unit is constructed, inspected, and approved in compliance with current building code; c. Business License: Apply for and obtain an annual business license for the accessory dwelling unit in accordance with the applicable provisions of the city. 11. Occupancy: No accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied until the property owner obtains a business license for the accessory dwelling unit from the city. SECTION 3. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.60.020. That section 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms), shall be, and hereby is, amended only to insert the following terms into that list in alphabetical order: Accessory dwelling unit Owner occupant SECTION 4. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.62.040. That section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms), shall be, and hereby is, amended only to insert the following definitions into that list in alphabetical order: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT: A residential unit that is located on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit, either internal to or attached to the single family unit or in a detached structure. The accessory dwelling unit shall be a complete housekeeping unit with a shared or separate entrance, and separate kitchen, sleeping area, closet space, and bathroom facilities. OWNER OCCUPANT: See section 21A.40.180 of this title. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Bill No. of 2011. Date: By: Published: ul C.Nielsoi S ro City Attorney HB ATTY-=19149-s2-Ordinance allowing accessory dweilme units.DOC SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to accessory dwelling units) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00612 to allow accessory dwelling units as defined herein. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ("Planning Commission")held public hearings on March 23, 2011 and June 22, 2011 to consider a request made by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker (petition no. PLNPCM2010-00612) to amend the text of sections 21A.24.190 (Zoning: Residential Districts: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts); 21A.60.020 (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms); and 21A.62.040 (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms) of the Salt Lake City Code and adopting a new section 21A.40.180 (Zoning: Accessory Dwelling Units); and WHEREAS, at its June 22, 2011 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend and adopt the sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code identified herein; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting_ this ordinance is in the City's best interests, NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.24.190. That section 21A24.190 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts), shall be, and hereby is, amended to insert the use category of"Accessory dwelling unit" under the residential category listed on said table as depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The codifier is instructed to only insert the "Accessory dwelling unit" use category and designations of such use as a permitted or conditional use (as noted by a "P" ., or"C") as shown on Exhibit"A" and make no other revisions to that table. SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code chapter 21A.40 to adopt section 21A.40.180. That the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to adopt section 21A.40.180 (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Accessory Dwelling Units), which shall read as follows: 21A.40.180: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS: Accessory dwelling units, as defined in chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be subject to the following: A. Purpose Statement: The purposes of the accessory dwelling unit provisions are to: 1. Create new housing units while respecting the look and scale of single-dwelling development: 2. Increase the housing stock of existing neighborhoods in a manner that is less intense than alternatives: 3. Allow more efficient use of existing housing stock. public infrastructure, and the embodied energy contained within existing structures: 4. Provide a mix of housing options that responds to changing family needs and smaller households: 5. Offer a means for residents. particularly seniors, single parents, and families with grown children. to remain in their homes and neighborhoods, and obtain extra income. security. companionship. and services: 6. Promote a broader range of affordable housing: 7. Provide opportunity for workforce housing in developed and new neighborhoods, close to places of work, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing fossil fuel consumption through less car commuting: 8. Support transit-oriented development and reduce auto usage by increasing density near transit stops: and 9. Support the economic viability of historic properties and the city's historic preservation goals by allowing accessory residential uses in historic structures. B. Applicability: An accessory dwelling unit may be incorporated within or added onto an existing house, garage, or other accessory structure, or may be built as a separate. detached structure on a lot where a single-family dwelling exists. Accessory dwelling units are allowed in the following residential zone districts: FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12.000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35. RMF-45, and RMF-75 subject to the provisions of this section. C. Owner Occupant: For the purposes of this title, owner occupant shall mean the following: 1. An individual who: a. Possesses, as shown by a recorded deed. fifty (50) percent or more ownership in a dwelling unit, and b. Occupies the dwelling unit with a bona fide intent to make it his or her primary residence: or 2. An individual who: a. Is a trustor of a family trust which: (1) Possesses fee title ownership to a dwelling unit: (2) Was created for estate planning purposes by one (1) or more trustors of the trust: and b. Occupies the dwelling unit owned by the family trust with a bona fide intent to make it his or her primary residence. Each living trustor of the trust shall so occupy the dwelling unit except for a trustor who temporarily resides elsewhere due to a disability or infirmity. In such event. the dwelling unit shall nevertheless be the domicile of the trustor during the trustor's temporary absence. 3. Even if a person meets the requirements of Subsections 1 or 2 of this definition. such person shall not-be deemed an owner occupant if the property on which the dwelling unit is located has more than one (1) owner and all owners of the property do not occupy the dwelling unit with a bona fide intent to make the dwelling unit their primary residence. a. A claim by the City that a person is not an owner occupant may be rebutted only by documentation, submitted to the Community and Economic Development Department. showing such person has a bona fide intent to make the dwelling unit his or her primary residence. Such intent shall be shown by: (1) Documents for any loan presently applicable to the property where the dwelling unit is located which name the person as a borrower: (2) Tax returns which show the person has claimed income, deductions, or depreciation from the property; (3) Rental documents and agreements with any tenant who occupies the dwelling unit, including an accessory apartment; (4) Insurance, utility, appraisal, or other contractual documents related to the property which name the person as the property owner; and (5) Documents which show the person is a full-time resident of Utah for Utah State income tax purposes. b. Any person who fails, upon request of the Community and Economic Development Department, to provide any of the documents set forth in Subsections 3a of this definition or who provides a document showing that ownership of a dwelling unit is shared among persons who do not all occupy the dwelling unit shall mean for the purpose of this Title that such person shall not be deemed an "owner occupant" of the dwelling unit in question. 4. The provisions of Subsection 3 of this definition shall apply to any person who began a period of owner occupancy after July 1, 2011. regardless of when the person purchased the property. APONIkt D. Permit Allocation: 1. The city shall limit the establishment of accessory dwelling units, pursuant to this ordinance, to twenty-five (25) units per calendar year. with the following exceptions: a. Accessory dwelling units located within a Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of Salt Lake City project area, or funded in part by RDA housing funds, shall be exempt from annual permit allocation limits; b. Accessory dwelling units that comply with all accessibility standards as contained within the current building code shall be exempt from animal permit allocation limits. 2. Building permit applications for an accessory dwelling unit shall be accepted and processed in order of date and time submitted. however order of approval shall be based solely on compliance with current building code. E. Standards: Accessory dwelling units shall conform to the following purpose statement and requirements: 1. Purpose: These design and development standards are intended to ensure that accessory dwelling units are: a. Compatible with the desired character and livability of the residential zoning districts; b. Compatible with the historic district and landmark resources of the city: c. Compatible with the_general building scales and placement of structures to allow sharing of common space on the lot, such as yards and driveways: and d. Smaller in size than the principal dwelling on the site. 2. General Requirements: a. Owner Occupant Requirement: Accessory dwelling units shall only be permitted when an owner occupant lives on the property within either the principal dwelling or accessory dwelling unit. Owner occupancy shall not be required when: (1) The owner has a bona fide, temporary absence of three (3) years or less for activities such as military service, temporary job assignments. sabbaticals, or voluntary service (indefinite periods of absence from the dwelling shall not Qualify for this exception), or (2) The owner is placed in a hospital. nursing home, assisted living facility or other similar facility that provides regular medical care. excluding retirement living facilities or communities. b. Deed Restriction: A lot approved for development with an accessory dwelling unit shall have a deed restriction. the form of which shall be approved by the City Attorney. filed with the county recorder's office indicating such owner-occupied requirement of the property prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the accessory dwelling unit by the city. Such deed restriction shall run with the land until the accessory dwelling unit is abandoned or revoked. c. One per Lot: One accessory dwelling unit is permitted per residential lot. d. Underlying Zoning Applies: Unless specifically provided otherwise in this section. accessory dwelling units are subject to the regulations for a principal building of the underlying zoning district with regard to lot and bulk standards. such as building and wall height. setbacks, yard requirements. and building coverage. (1) The requirements of Section 21A.40.050, Accessory Uses. Buildings. and Structures. which govern all non-residential accessory structures, do not apply to accessory dwelling units. (2) Accessory dwelling units may have the same building setbacks as that allowed in the zoning district for the principal dwelling on the property. An existing accessory structure whose setbacks do not meet the setback requirements for a dwelling as noted above may be converted into an accessory dwelling unit but any non-complying setbacks may not become more non-complying. e. Existing Development on Lot: A single-family dwelling shall exist on the lot or will be constructed in conjunction with the accessory dwelling unit. f. Internal, Attached, or Detached: While accessory dwelling units are allowed only in conjunction with a principal dwelling on a lot, the unit may be built internal to, attached to, or as a separate unit detached from the principal dwelling. g. Minimum Lot Area: Within permissible zoning districts, the minimum lot area required for an accessory dwelling unit shall be: (1) Internal: For accessory dwelling_ units located within the principal single- family structure, no minimum lot area is required. (2) Detached: For accessory dwelling units located within a detached structure, a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet is required. (3) Attached: For accessory dwelling units located within an addition to the single-family structure, no minimum lot area is required. h. Building Code Compliance: Accessory dwellina units are subject to compliance with current building code at time of permit approval. i. Public Utilities: No structure that is not connected to the public water and sanitary sewer systems shall have an accessory dwelling unit. j. Multi-Family Districts with Single Family Dwelling on Lot: A lot located within a multi-family zoning district that is currently built out with a single-family detached dwelling and does not have the required minimum amount of land to add additional units pursuant to the multifamily zoning district requirement, one accessory dwelling unit may be permitted. k. Not a Unit of Density: Accessory dwelling units are not considered a unit of density and therefore are not included in the density calculation for residential property. 1. Rooming House: Neither dwelling unit may be used as a rooming house as defined by Section 21A.62.040 of this title. m. Home Occupations: Home occupations listed in Section 21A36.030 B. Permitted Home Occupations. may be conducted in an accessory dwellina unit. Those home occupations listed in this section under "Conditional Home Occupations" are explicitly not allowed in accessory dwelling units in order to maintain the residential nature of the dwelling unit. n. Historic Preservation Overlay District: Accessory dwelling units located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District are subject to the applicable regulations and review processes of Section 21A.34.020, including the related guidelines and standards as adopted by Salt Lake City to ensure compatible building and preservation of historic resources. 3. Methods of Creation: An accessory dwelling unit may only be created through one of more of the following methods: a. Converting existing living area within a principal structure, such as a basement or attic space; b. Adding floor area to a principal structure; c. Constructing a new single-family detached dwelling unit structure with an internal or detached accessory dwelling unit; d. Converting or adding onto an existing accessory structure on a lot, such as to a garage or other outbuilding, where no required parking for the principal dwelling is eliminated by the accessory dwelling unit; and e. Constructing a new accessory dwelling unit within a separate detached structure in compliance with applicable lot coverage regulations. 4. Size of Accessory Dwelling Unit: The maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit may be no more than 50% of the gross square footage of the principal dwelling unit or 650 square feet whichever is less. The minimum size of an accessory dwelling unit is that size specified and required by the adopted building code of the city. 5. Ownership: An accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately or subdivided from the principal dwelling unit or lot. 6. Number of Residents: The total number of residents that may reside in an accessory dwelling unit may not exceed the number that is allowed for a family as defined in Section 21A.62.040. Definition of Terms. 7. Parking: a. An accessory dwelling unit that contains a studio or single bedroom, one additional on-site parking space is required. b. An accessory dwelling unit that contains two or more bedrooms. two additional on-site parking spaces is required. c. The City Transportation Director may approve a request to waive, or modify the dimensions of, the accessory dwelling unit parking space upon finding that the parking requirement for the principal dwelling is met and: (1) Adequate on-street parking in the immediate vicinity is available to serve the accessory dwelling unit and will not cause congestion in the area; or (2) The accessory dwelling unit is located within 'A mile of a fixed transit line or an arterial street with a designated bus route. d. The City Transportation Director may allow tandem parking, within a legal location behind an existing on-site parking space, to meet the accessory dwelling unit parking requirement so long as the parking space requirement is met for the principal dwelling. 8. Location of Entrance to Accessory Dwelling Unit: a. Internal or Attached Units: Accessory dwelling units that are internal to or attached to a principal dwelling may take access from an existing entrance on a street-facing front facade of the principal dwelling. No new entrances may be added to the front façade of a principal dwelling for an accessory dwelling unit unless such access is located at least twenty (20) feet behind the front façade of #444114, the principal dwelling unit. b. Detached Units: Accessory dwelling units that are detached from the principal dwelling: (1) May utilize an existing street-facing front facade entrance as long as the entrance is located a minimum of twenty (20) feet behind the front facade of the principal dwelling. or install a new entrance to the existing or new detached structure for the purpose of serving the accessory dwelling unit as long as the entrance is facing the rear or side of lot. (2) Shall be located no closer than thirty (30) feet from the front property line and shall take access from an alley when one is present and accessible. c. Corner Lots: On corner lots, existing entrances on the street-facing sides may be used for an accessory dwelling unit, but any new entrance shall be located facing toward the rear property line or interior side yard. or toward the back of the principal dwelling. d. I-I Historic Preservation Overlay District: When accessory dwelling units are proposed in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District, the regulations and design guidelines governing these properties in Section 21A.34.020 shall take precedence over the location of entrance provisions above. e. Side Entrance Exemption: Side entrance for an accessory dwelling unit shall not be subject to compliance with code 21A.24.010.H Side Entry Buildings of this title. 9. Exterior Design: a. Within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District: Accessory dwelling units located within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall meet the process, regulations, and applicable design guidelines in Section 21A.34.020 of this title. b. Outside H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Historic Landmark Site: Accessory dwelling units shall be regulated by the following exterior design standards: (1) The maximum height of a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the principal structure. (2) An accessory dwelling unit shall be designed and constructed to be compatible with the principal structure. 10. Registration: Accessory dwelling units shall be registered with the city to evaluate whether the accessory dwelling unit initially meets applicable requirements: to ensure that the accessory dwelling unit meets health and safety requirements: to ensure that the property owner is aware of all city regulations governing accessory dwelling units: to ensure that the distribution and location of accessory dwelling units is known, to assist the City in assessing housing supply and demand: and to fulfill the Accessory Dwelling Units Purpose Statement listed above. To accomplish this. property owners seeking to establish an accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the following: a. Building Permit: Apply for and obtain •a building permit for the proposed accessory dwelling unit. regardless of method of creation: b. Inspection: Ensure accessory dwelling unit is constructed, inspected, and approved in compliance with current building code: c. Business License: Apply for and obtain an annual business license for the accessory dwelling unit in accordance with the applicable provisions of the city. 11. Occupancy: No accessory dwelling, unit shall be occupied until the property owner obtains a business license for the accessory dwelling unit from the city. SECTION 3. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.60.020. That section 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Teinis: List of Defined Terms), shall be, and hereby is, amended only to insert the following terms into that list in alphabetical order: Accessory dwelling unit Owner occupant SECTION 4. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.62.040. That section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms), shall be, and hereby is, amended only to insert the following definitions into that list in alphabetical order: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT: A residential unit that is located on the same lot as a single-family dwelling, unit. either internal to or attached to the single family unit or in a detached structure. The accessory dwelling unit shall be a complete housekeeping unit with a shared or separate entrance, and separate kitchen. sleeping area. closet space, and bathroom facilities. OWNER OCCUPANT: See section 21A.40.180 of this title. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Text Amendment Language PLN2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units - A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning text amendment to permit accessory dwelling units within the following, single-family and multi- family residential districts: FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R- 1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75. This request is part of the Sustainability City Code Initiative and would affect areas City-wide. The amendment creates chapter 21A.41 and affects sections 21A.24.190 and 21A.62.140 of Title 21A - Zoning. Related provisions of the zoning ordinance may also be amended as part of this petition. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Room 315 City & County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating, to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Michael Maloy at 801-535-7118 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.. Monday through Friday or via e-mail at inicha::l.malov c slceov.com. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this hearing. Accommodations may include alternate formats. interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the Planning, Division at (801) 535-7757; TDD (801) 535- 6021. Erin Youngberg Elke Phillips Cabot Nelson 1910 Bridge Crest Circle 839 S. Washington St 984 E Simpson Avenue It Lake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Brad Bartholomew Thomas Mutter Michael Cohn 871 N Poinsettia Dr 228 East 500 South PO Box 520123 Salt Lake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Salt Lake City, Utah 84125 Angie Vorher East Central Community Council 1988 Sir James Dr 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84102 Gordon Storrs DeWitt Smith 223 North 800 West 328 E Hollywood Ave Salt Lake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Andrew Johnston Esther Hunter 716 Glendale Street 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Salt Lake City UT 84102 Randy Sorenson George Kelner 1184 S. Redwood Dr 1000 Military Drive Salt Lake City UT 84104-3325 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Katherine Gardner John Bennion 606 De Soto St 1684 E. Browning Ave Salt Lake City UT 84103 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Dave Van Langeveld Pete Taylor 807 Northcliffe Dr 933 S. 2300 E. Salt Lake City UT 84103 Salt Lake City UT 84108 Gene Fitzgerald Ellen Reddick 1385 Butler Ave 2177 Roosevelt Ave Salt Lake City UT 84102 Salt Lake City UT 84108 u. Christian Harrison R. Gene Moffitt Community Council Chairs 336 W. Broadway, #308 1410 Chancellor Way Last update from CC website 5.11.11 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Salt Lake City UT 84108 4770 S. 5600 W. P.O. BOX 704005 aht aft gntteZribunt MEDLAR ge, Deseret News WEST VALLEY CITY.UTAH 84170 FED.TAX I.D.#S7-0217663 PROOF OF PUBLICATION CUSTOMER'S COPY r, 4*a C(IST01Gf RAME 1.ND!ADI)RBsa= , @OI7XTTNT]v1B R' `e1 D3A`'` t-"'��,�_`_'l_ i BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, 9001381805 3/10/2011 Salt Lake City Planning Division P. O. Box 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, . . T EP O� • A'D 30 O CE ER 8015357741 0000670659 / =r (tt ti�� '=" 1:-- ;s % - - =u'.:',9,- E -.'xv : Start 03/09/2011 End 03/09/2011 ,•. * 0 � ,�" ADU Ordinance Notice of Public Hearing On March 23, 2011, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold - 23 Lines 2.00 COLUMN Notice of Public Hearing 4 On March 23,2011,the Salt lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider making recommenda- tions to the City Council regarding the following petition: E - - - - -` ,eru"?R('-rE-s_ `-"' - -00612 AccessoryDwelling Unit A request by <•_ : `s'". MISC CHARG S =' `' Mayor R 1ph w�> - ` .4_, l a fAoyor ,Ralph Becker fora coning text amendment to allow accessory dwelling units within the following single-family and multi-family residential districts: FR-1/43,560, FR- 2/21,780, fR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7000, R- 1/5,000,SR-1,SR-1A,SR-3,R-2,RMF-30,RMF-35,RMF-45, sf� and RMF-75.This request is part of the Sustainability City TOT L-O0S1r'gs k a,: Code Inilial a and would offer areas City-wide. the public hearing will begin at 5:45 p.m.in room 326 of the City County Building,451 South State Street,Salt Loke City,UT.For more information or for special ADA occommo- 82.28 dations, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids or additional information, please contact Michael Stott at B01-535-7976 or call TDD 801- 535-6220. UPAYLP AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICAI ION 670659 AS NEWSPAPER AGENCY COMPANY.LLC dba FIEDI-\ONE OF UTAI I LEGAL BOOKER,I CERTIFY THAT THE A l EACH ADVERTISEMENT OF Notice of Public hearing On March 23.2011.the Salt Lola Cit\ Plannim_Commission will hold a public heal-int!to consider 0Yll,ine recommendations to the City Co FOR BOARD OF AI)J1.'ST\11 ENT.WAS PUBLISHED BY THE NEWSPAPER AGENCY COMPANY.LLC db;i MEDIAONE OF IITAFL,AGENT FOR TIIE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE AND DESERE-1 NEWS.D_'UL Y NEWSPAPERS PRINTED IN THE ENGLISI-I LANGUAGE WITH GENERAL CIRCULATION IN UTAI-I.AND PUBLISHED IN SALT LAKE CITY.S:A:.l LAKE COUNTY IN TI-IF STA-1 E OF UTAI-1 NOTICE IS ALSO POSTED ON UTAI 11 1_G\LS.CO\1 ON THE SAME DAY AS TIIF FIRST NEWSPAPER PIURLICA)ION DATE AND REMAINS ON UfAIILEGALS.COM INDEFINATEI_Y. PUBLISIIEDON Start 03%09:2011 End 03.'09/2011 Ani?GWIArRAFT r . ., =?N Notary Public, State of Utah L_L iJ! •:�:; 1'i COmmiSoion h 531'39 \i 1 \•• 4,a.T,rlf ply Com�issi;�G1xl�lfos If 3,10;2011 \WOM/t1 THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT BUT A"PROOF OF PUBLICATION" 111 FACE PAY FROM BILLING STATEMENT 11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT / sy \\\_:10-9 Accessory Dwelling Units Zoning Text Amendment Petition No. PLNPCM20I0-00612 --- March 23 2011 Planning Division Department of Community& Economic Development Applicant: Request Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning text amendment to allow Staff: accessory dwelling units within the following single-family and multi- Michael Maloy AICP at(801)535-7118 or n cha I.n1al i;lc c.�;: family residential districts: FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R- 1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, Tax ID: RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75. This request is part of the Sustainability Citywide City Code Initiative and would affect areas City-wide. The Planning Current Zone: Commission's authority in this matter is advisory to the City Council, Citywide which has the legislative authority to make the final decision. Master Plan Designation: Citywide Staff Recommendation Council District: Based on the analysis and findings contained within the staff report, staff itywide recommends; the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on the _ot Size: proposed ordinance, discuss the proposal, and if needed direct staff to Citywide provide additional information or modification of the ordinance, and Current Use: "table" the petition for consideration during a future public meeting. Single-family dwellings Applicable Land Use Regulations: • Chapter 21A.24 Residential Districts • Chapter 21A.40 Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures • Chapter 21A.62 Definitions Notification: • Notice published in Salt Lake Tribune on March 11,2011 • Notice mailed to Community Councils on March 11,2011 • Agenda posted on the Planning Division and Utah Public Meeting Notice websites on March 11,2011 Attachments: A. Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance B. Residential Districts Map C. Quarter Mile Transit Overlay Map D. Half Mile Transit Overlay Map - Sample Illustrations APA Quick Notes G. Public Input Chronology and Notes H. Public Comments I. Community Council Comments J. Department Comments PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units 1 Published Date:March 17,20l 1 Background Project Description Mayor Ralph Becker, in cooperation with the City Council, has initiated a series of administrative policies and legislative petitions to encourage sustainable land use within Salt Lake City. The petitions address various city codes, including zoning. In support of this effort—which is generally known as the Sustainability City Code Initiative—the City retained the services of Clarion Associates, an experienced and respected land use planning and real estate consulting firm to research and produce draft ordinances. Petition PLNPCM2010-00612 proposes to permit accessory dwelling units in single-family and multi-family residential districts (see Attachment A — Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance). An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a residential unit that is established on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit, and may be located within a single-family dwelling, attached to a single-family dwelling (such as in an addition), or in a detached structure (such as in a garage or separate accessory structure). The accessory dwelling unit must be a complete housekeeping unit with a separate kitchen, sleeping area, closet space, bathroom facilities, and a shared or separate entrance. The proposed ordinance requires owner occupancy of the principal or accessory dwelling, one additional parking stall, and compliance with current building codes. To ensure the accessory dwelling is subordinate to the principal dwelling, the draft ordinance establishes a maximum building square footage, a scalable building height limit, and requires building setbacks and lot coverage be compliant with the underlying zone. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have become an important component of the housing stock in many communities—both large and small—in the United States. By providing housing on existing lots in developed neighborhoods, ADUs are a form of land use that makes good use of land and public infrastructure investmentomos Accessory Dwelling Units, when located near employment and retail centers, help increase the use cam, circulation alternatives—such as walking, cycling, mass transit—leading to a reduction in green house gas emissions and energy (fuel) use. Additionally, the changing face of the American public and its housing needs supports the inclusion of ADUs as a housing alternative. More people are aging, are "empty nesters," and desire to down-size. In addition, the work force continues to be challenged to find affordable housing and ADUs can help address that demand (see Attachment F—APA Quick Notes). With respect to observable trends in sustainability, demographics, land use development, and economic conditions, the stated purposes for Petition PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units are: 1. Create new housing units while respecting the look and scale of single-dwelling development; 2. Increase the housing stock of existing neighborhoods in a manner that is less intense than alternatives; 3. Allow more efficient use of existing housing stock, public infrastructure, and the embodied energy contained within existing structures; 4. Provide a mix of housing options that responds to changing family needs and smaller households; 5. Offer a means for residents, particularly seniors, single parents, and families with grown children, to remain in their homes and neighborhoods, and obtain extra income, security, companionship, and services; 6. Promote a broader range of affordable housing; 7. Provide opportunity for workforce housing in developed and new neighborhoods, close to places of work, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing fossil fuel consumption through less car commuting; 8. Support transit-oriented development and reduce auto usage by increasing density near transit stops; and ,, 9. -Support-the-economic viability- of historic properties and-the city's-historic preservation-goals -b., allowing accessory residential uses in historic structures. PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Duelling Units 2 Published Date.March 17,2011 Comments Public Comments Since December of 2009, the Planning Division has discussed the proposal in more than 20 public meetings (see Attachment G —Public Input Chronology and Notes). All public comments received to date have been included for review and consideration (see Attachment H—Public Comments). Based on a review of public comment, staff has provided the following summary of issues: • Density. In 2010, the Unites States Census Bureau estimated the population of Salt Lake City at 186,440, which is up from 181,743 in 2000. Salt Lake City's population per square mile is 1,688. Because the development pattern of Salt Lake City is unique within Utah—due to extensive commercial development, an international airport, and notable quantities of undeveloped land—it is difficult to compare density with other communities. However, for reference purposes only, the Census Bureau in May of 2001 identified the City of Taylorsville as the most densely populated city in the state with 5,376.2 persons per square mile. Other densely populated Utah cities include Midvale (4,627.4), Orem (4,573.6), Washington Terrace (4,477.4), Roy (4,330.8), Sandy (3,961.5), and South Ogden (3,917.1). If approved, the proposed ordinance will impact all single-family and multi-family districts within the City. The area contained within the impacted residential districts is 8,777 acres, which is approximately 12.42% of the total area of Salt Lake City. A significant element of density is the average household size. The Unites States Census Bureau defines household as: A household includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements. Based on information gleaned from Census reports, the average household size within in Salt Lake City is declining,: Census Year Salt Lake City Average Household Size United States Average Household Size 1950 3.38 persons 3.40 persons 1960 3.29 persons 3.29 persons 1970 2.93 persons 3.10 persons 1980 2.60 persons 2.76 persons 1990 12.33 persons 2.63 persons 2000 2.48 persons 2.59 persons 2010 Data not yet published 2.59 persons During the past 50 Years, the decline in average household size is clear. However, the anomalous increase in the average household size in 2000 is due to the notable population growth among minorities. In 1990. minorities in Salt Lake City were 9.77% of the total population. In 2010, minorities in Salt Lake City form 20.8% of the total population. This issue is further explained in a report entitled Age and Family Structure by Race. Etlmiciti• and Place of Residence published by the United States Department of Agriculture, minority groups have a larger average household size than whites: PLNPCiN12010-00612 Accessory Dv cllin2 Units - Published Date March 17.2011 Both household and family size declined between 1980 and 1990 in urban and rural areas. In 1990 average household size was 2.5 persons for Whites, 2.9 for Blacks, and 3.5 for Hispanics. Averag family size in 1990, regardless of residence, was 3.1 for Whites, 3.5 for Blacks, and 3.9 for Hispanics:: - Both Whites and Blacks experienced declines in household and family size between 1980 and 1990. As declines were larger for the Black population, the racial gap contracted. Much of the decline in household and family size is due to decreased childbearing and a drop in the average number of children and other household members under age 18 (Hernandez, 1993). Large families usually reduce the amount of time and resources parents can devote to each child. Smaller family size implies improved educational, occupational, and economic opportunities for children. Minorities tend to have larger families and households than Whites, with Hispanics having the largest families. About 12 percent of Hispanic households in 1991 had 6 or more members, compared with 3 percent of non-Hispanic households (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991). Opponents of the proposal often cite the comprehensive 1995 zoning update that reduced development density in many Salt Lake City residential neighborhoods (see Attachment I — Community Council Comments). Opponents believe that ADUs represent a reversal of that previous legislative action. In response, some residents have suggested that ADUs should be limited to zoning districts that permit multi- family development. Within multi-family districts, the proposed ordinance will allow development of an accessory dwelling unit—regardless of lot size—if compliant with all other applicable building and zoning regulations. - Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (citywide, limited to 25 permits per calendar year). i Option 2. Modify regulation to restrict accessory dwelling units to zoning districts that currently allow more than one dwelling unit per lot, such as SR-1, SR-IA, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-3 411143.< RMF-45, and RMF-75 (see Attachment B —Residential Districts Map). O Location. As previously described, the proposal is restricted to single-family dwellings within specific residential zoning districts. Some opponents of the proposal have recommended prohibiting ADUs within specific communities, such as the Avenues, or requiring ADUs to locate within a specified distance (4 blocks) from a fixed public transportation line, such as TRAX or the future Sugar House streetcar line (see Attachment D —Half Mile Transit Overlay Map). Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (citywide, limited to 25 permits per calendar year). Option 2. Modify regulation to restrict ADUs to specific neighborhoods or areas. i Option 3. Modify regulation to restrict ADUs to single-family.dwellings within % mile of transit lines. B Design. The proposal recommends compliance with all underlying zoning requirements, including overlays such as the H Historic District. Additional development requirements are included to ensure compatibility with established development patterns, such as limitations on building height and placement of entrances. However, opponents remain concerned that the proposal will alter the character of single-family neighborhoods (see Attachment E— Sample Illustrations). • Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (design subject to overlays, compatible with principal dwelling). • Option 2. Modify regulation to include additional design and material regulations (to be specified). O Privacy. A-common concern when dealing with residential-infill development is privacy.-Although privac is an issue that is addressed within portions of City Code, assurance of privacy—within a rear a rear yard for example is not listed within the Purpose and Intent Statement (21A.020.030) of Title 21A Zoning, and is PLNPCM2010-00612 AccessoryDwwellmg Units 4 Published Date March 17,2011 only identified as a type of fence within the General Provisions (21A.24.010) of Chapter 21A.24 Residential Districts. In a 1961 landmark book on planning, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, famed author and urbanist Jane Jacobs offers the following comment on privacy: Architectural and planning literature deals with privacy in terms of windows, overlooks, sight lines. The idea is that if no one from outside can peek into where you live—behold, privacy. This is simple minded. Window privacy is the easiest commodity in the world to get. You just pull down the shades or adjust the blinds. The privacy of keeping one's personal affairs to those selected to know them, and the privacy of having reasonable control over who shall make inroads on your time and when, are rare commodities in most of this world, however, and they have nothing to do with the orientation of windows (p. 77). Whereas the proposal requires compliance with all applicable yard and bulk regulations when located within the buildable area for a single-family dwelling—identical to limitations on a residential addition permitted under current regulations—staff does not recommend additional restrictions in response to this concern. However, when an ADU is located outside the buildable area for a principal dwelling, the Commission may consider additional regulations for the placement of windows, similar to the following standard for a "hobby shop"when located in a residential district: 21A.52.100: Specific Conditions for Special Exceptions: If the accessory building is located within ten feet (10') of a property line, no windows shall be allowed in the walls adjacent to the property lines. > Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (no additional criteria regulating privacy). i Option 2. Modify regulation to limit the placement of windows if the accessory dwelling is located outside the buildable area for a single-family dwelling and within ten feet (10') of a property line. e Owner Occupancy. Although there has been some support to remove the owner occupancy requirement, most comments recommend that this is an essential component of the proposal. The primary concern regarding owner occupancy is the city's ability to enforce the proposed regulation. The proposed owner occupancy regulation is derived from language used by Provo City for a similar ordinance, which has been successfully upheld by the Supreme Court of Utah (Case No. 20030679). > Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (owner occupancy required). > Option 2. Modify regulation to reduce length of bona fide absence from three years to one year. • Parking. The proposed regulation generally requires only one parking stall for an ADU, in addition to two off-street parking stalls for a single-family dwelling. However, under certain conditions the Transportation Division may modify the requirement if located within '/a mile of a fixed transit line or an arterial street with a designated bus route (see Attachment C — Quarter Mile Transit Overlay Map). The proposal represents a balance between requiring parking and discouraging additional pavement. Additional pavement increases storm water drainage—as well as the "urban heat island"—which impacts are contrary to sustainability. Opponents have expressed concerns that insufficient off-street parking will increase on-street parking— which in some neighborhoods is severely limited—and attracts "car prowlers." However, Police Sergeant Michelle Ross did not identify this issue as a concern (see Attachment J —Department Comments). • Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (one parking stall,which may be tandem). > Option 2. Require one off-street parking stall, without tandem parking. PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessor\ D\\ellu:g Units 5 Published Date.March 17,2011 i Option 3. Require two off-street stalls, may use tandem parking. Option 4. Require two off-street parking stalls, without tandem parking. • Traffic. Whereas Salt Lake City is a significant source of employment and services, proponents of the proposal argue that permitting ADUs within the City—rather than forcing growth into suburban communities—will reduce the total amount of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Although the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) does not publish a report on traffic generation for ADUs, the ITE finds that a rental townhouse will generate (on average) 0.73 trips during the weekday a.m. peak hour, and 0.73 trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour. In comparison, a single-family detached house will generate (on average) 0.77 trips per a.m. peak hours, and 1.02 trips per p.m. peak hour. Although this issue, along with parking, has been a significant concern for opponents, the Transportation Division and Engineering Division did not identify traffic as a notable concern(see Attachment J—Department Comments). Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (no restriction relative to street classification, encourages use of alleys). i Option 2. Modify regulation to restrict location of ADUs to parcels that are accessible from a City arterial or collector street. • Accessibility. On February 22, 2011, staff presented the proposed ADU ordinance to the Mayor's Accessible Services Advisory Council. In response, the committee prepared a statement in support of the proposal, with recommendations to modify the regulation to encourage development of visitable or accessible ADUs (see Attachment G—Public Input Chronology and Notes). i> Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (no requirement for visitable or accessible improvements). :. Option 2. Modify regulation to increase the square foot maximum for an accessible ADU by 15 square feet (specified amount may be modified). Option 3. Modify regulation to require 20 percent of ADU permits to meet accessibility standards. i Option 4. Modify regulation to exempt accessible ADUs from annual permit limit. Option 5. Modify regulation to reduce building permit fee for ADUs (amount to be specified). City Department Comments The comments received from pertinent City Departments / Divisions are attached to this staff report in Attachment J — Department Comments. Although the Planning Division has not received any comments from applicable City Departments /Divisions that cannot be reasonably fulfilled or that warrant denial of the petition, staff recommends discussion of the following issues: • Utilities. One of the arguments in favor of the proposal is its efficient use of existing public infrastructure, which reduces pressure to develop new streets and utility lines. However, opponents of the proposal have expressed concern regarding capacity of existing public utilities. In a 1981 report entitled Accessory Apartments: Using Surplus Space in Single Family Houses published by the American Planning Association (APA)the authors addressed the following question: How Mane Units are Likely to he Built? Civic groups are frequently fearful about the number of units that may be created under an ordinance. A little guidance is provided by the experience of towns that have ordinances. When Portland, Oregon's Add-A-Rental went into effect in January, 1981, after considerable controversy, almost nothing happened. It was five months before Portland had its first three applications, and, by the end of the year, only five had come in. Babylon, Long Island (New York), estimated in 1979 that it had accessory apartments in 10-20 percent of its stock. Lyndenhurst, next tom, Babylon, has had an accessory apartment ordinance since 1955,-and only-10 percent of its single-famil, stock has been converted legally. Weston, Connecticut, has about 10 percent of its housing stock in PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling.Units 6 Published Date March 17,2011 accessory apartments, even though it has had an ordinance since the early 1960s. Renton, Washington, with an ordinance since 1955, has conversions in about eight percent of its house. There is one lesson to be drawn: the presence of an ordinance permitting accessory apartments doesn't necessarily stimulate conversion to accessory apartments, and the absence of one doesn't necessarily discourage them (italics added for emphasis). Locally, Daybreak—a successful planned development community in South Jordan, Utah that is modeled after older Salt Lake City neighborhoods—includes provisions for accessory apartments. George Shaw, Community Development Director for the City of South Jordan, reported that there are approximately 20 detached accessory dwellings, and 6 attached accessory dwellings within Daybreak, which contains approximately 2,500 households and 9,000 residents. Based upon research, and upon receipt of a letter of recommendation from the Department of Public Utilities that did not identify utility capacity as a concern, staff finds that this issue is not a significant concern (see Attachment J—Department Comments). Another issue relative to utilities that has persisted throughout the development of the draft ordinance is whether to require separate utility meters for ADUs. Because an ADU may be attached to or detached from the principal dwelling, and construction of utility infrastructure will vary, the proposed ordinance allows for property owner preference (subject to compliance with City regulations). However, some have argued that prohibiting separate utility meters may encourage compliance with owner occupancy provisions. In response to this issue, Justin Stoker (Engineer V with the Department of Public Utilities) recommended approval of the proposed regulation with the following modification: If sewer or water utility, service will be connected through the primary residence and not connected through a separate connection to the sewer or water main, the deed restriction will also identify any sewer or water connections into or through the primary residence. Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (limit number of permits issued per calendar year, separate utility meters for ADU are not required but may be installed by a licensed contractor upon approval of the City and utility company). Option 2. Modify regulation to include deed restriction regarding utility services when connected through principal (or primary) residence. i Option 2. Modify regulation to require installation of separate utility meters for an ADU. Option 3. Modify regulation to prohibit the installation of additional utility meters for an ADU. Enforcement. As a matter of legislative policy, Salt Lake City desires to preserve housing that "substantially complies with life and safety codes." Currently, Salt Lake City administrates a process to legalize existing dwelling units that were constructed before 1970 and have been continuously used. This process is known as "Legalization of Excess Dwelling Units" and is governed by Section 21A.52.100 of the Zoning Title. However. the unit legalization process is completely separate and independent from the proposed ADU regulation. A common concern is the City's ability to enforce the proposed ADU regulation. To address this issue, the City will require an annual business license for each ADU. In turn, the business license fee will be used to administrate inspection and enforcement of ADUs. Violation of business license regulations are specified in Article I of Chapter 5.04 of Title 5 Business Taxes, Licensing and Regulation. However, violators of the proposed ordinance would also be subject to the following zoning enforcement regulations: 21A.20.040: Fines for Violations: A. Violations of the provisions of this title or failure to comply with any of its requirements shall be punishable as a class B misdemeanor upon conviction (italics added for emphasis). PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessor, D ceIhng Units 7 Published Date March 17,2011 B. This title may also be enforced by injunction, mandamus, abatement, civil fines or any other appropriate action in law or equity. C. Each day that any violation continues after the citation deadline shall be considered a separat re offense for purposes of the fines and remedies available to the city (italics added for emphasis). D. Accumulation of fines for violations, but not the obligation for payment of fines already accrued, shall stop upon correction of the violation. E. Any one or more of the fines and remedies identified herein may be used to enforce this title. 21A.20.050: Civil Fines: If the violations are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at twenty five dollars (S25.00) a day per violation for properties in residential zoning districts and one hundred dollars ($100.00) per day per violation for properties in nonresidential zoning districts (italics added for emphasis). In response to the proposal, Craig Spangenberg, Civil Enforcement Manager, recommended that the "draft ordinance should contain specific, verifiable criteria to be used in order to meet the owner occupied requirement" (see Attachment J—Department Comments). ➢ Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed. Option 2. Modify regulation to improve capability of enforcement (recommendations to be specified). Project Review • Focus Group. On July 14, 2010,the Planning Division conducted a "focus group" to review and discuss the proposed accessory dwelling units regulation. During the meeting, Chris Duerksen and Joyce Allgaier with Clarion Associates presented a comprehensive overview on the proposal, answered questions, and noted concerns for future consideration. The ADU focus group was comprised of than, following individuals: NAME REPRESENTATION ATTENDANCE Cindy Cromer Property Owner Yes George Kelner Yalecrest Community Council No Gordon Storrs Fairpark Community Council Yes DeWitt Smith Liberty Wells Community Council No Jim Jenkin Greater Avenues Community Council No Philip Carlson Sugar House Community Council Yes David Richardson Capitol Hill Construction No Michael Mahaffey Contractor Yes Bryson Garbett Developer Yes Ed Sperry Realtor No Tim Funk Crossroads Urban Center No Maria Garciaz Neighborworks Salt Lake Yes Jon Lear Downey Mansion No Paul Smith Utah Apartment Association Yes Mike Ostermiller Utah Association of Realtors No Justin Allen Salt Lake Board of Realtors Yes Sonya Martinez Community Action Agency Yes Roger Borgenicht ASSIST Yes Philip Carroll Community Housing Services Inc Yes Aria Funk Historic Landmark Commission Yes Claudia O'Grady Utah Housing Corporation No Ash ken Tanielian Housing Advocate No Dan Bethel Architect No Annalisa Steggell Holcombe Westminster College Yes Francisca Blanc Utah Housing Coalition Yes PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory D\‘ellio,t.Units 8 Published Date March 17,2011 • Revisions. The Planning Division and Clarion Associates have revised the proposed regulation numerous times during the past year. Primarily, changes in the draft ordinance addressed owner occupancy requirements, building height regulations, minimum setbacks, building design, and limiting the number of ADU permits issued per calendar year. Analysis and Findings Options Whereas the City Council has final legislative authority over the petition, the Planning Commission may: • Recommend approval of the proposal based on testimony and findings contained within the staff report; • Recommend approval with specific modifications; • Recommend denial of the petition based on testimony and findings; or • Table the proposal for further review. If the Commission votes to table the petition, the Planning Division respectfully requests the Commission provide specific direction to staff. Findings 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. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the city council should consider the following factors: 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Finding: Within the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan, which was prepared by the Housing and Neighborhood Division of Community and Economic Development Department and adopted by the Salt Lake City Council in April of 2000, the following policy statements and implementation strategies are applicable: • City Council Policy Statement. The City Council supports a citywide variety of housing units, including affordable housing and supports accommodating different types and intensities of residential development. (p. 8) • City Council Policy Statement. The City Council supports mixed use and mixed income concepts and projects that achieve vibrant, safe, integrated, walkable neighborhoods through a diverse mix of uses and incomes in areas with established services... (p. l9) • Affordable and Transitional Housing Implementation Strategy 1. Review "Best Practices'. from other cities and establish new programs or expand existing programs that meet housing needs and maximize housing opportunities for all residents within Salt Lake City. (p. 24) • City Council Policy Statement. On a citywide basis, the City Council endorses accessory housing units in single-family zones, subject to restrictions designed to limit impacts and protect neighborhood character. (p. 32) • Action Step for Implementation Strategy 5. Define accessory housing units. Determine residential zones that could support such changes. Prepare necessary criteria and amendments for future ordinances on accessory units. (p. 33) PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units 9 Published Date.March 17,201 I In another policy document entitled Creating Tomorrow Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission, which was commissioned in February 1996 by former Mayor Ted Wilson and delivered to the City Council in March 1998 the following assertions, goals, and recommendations a► applicable: • Assertion M: There is a mix of housing types, densities, and costs so that people of various economic groups can co-exist. Services for those less fortunate are seen as a positive attribute and are nurtured within our community. o Recommendation 1: Amend zoning laws to encourage mixed use in appropriate areas. ■ Proposed Action: Adopt amendments to city zoning ordinances that allow mixed-use development in designated areas of the city. Identify areas to be included in ordinances, define types of mixed uses allowed (p. 13). • Goal B: The ideal neighborhood will be diverse. Neighborhoods will encourage persons of different incomes, ages, cultures, races, religions, genders, lifestyles, and familial statuses to be active community stakeholders. Families of various size and composition can be well served through a variety of programs and services. Service organizations will also be available to special-needs populations (p. 41). • Goal D: The ideal neighborhood will be well maintained. Landlords, tenants, and homeowners will share responsibility for keeping properties in good condition. Home ownership will be encouraged where possible.Neighborhoods should contain a variety of housing types, but more units should be owner occupied than renter occupied. This leads to longer term residents and stabilizes property values. Owners of rental units will be responsible and will maintain their properties. Mechanisms need to be in place to address problems caused by owners/renters who fail to maintain their properties. Landlords must screen tenants to ensure that they will be responsible renters. Landlords must also make repairs to their housing units to keep them as viable assets in the neighborhood. Housing should be designed for the changing needs of our current and futu: population (p. 43). Based on a review of the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan, and the Creating Tomorrow Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission, which documents are applicable citywide, staff finds the proposal is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Sall Lake City. 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; Finding: Chapter 21A.02.030 of the Zoning Ordinance states: Purpose and Intent: The purpose of this title is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the city, and to carry out the purposes of the municipal land use development and management act, title 10, chapter 9, of the Utah Code Annotated or its successor, and other relevant statutes. This title is, in addition, intended to: a. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads; b. Secure safety from fire and other dangers; c. Provide adequate light and air; d. Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization: e. Protect the tax base; f. Secure economy in governmental expenditures; g. Foster the city's industrial, business and residential development; and h. Protect the environment. PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units 10 Published Date March 17,2011 Additionally, Section 21A.24.010 of the Zoning Ordinance provides the following "general provision" for all residential districts: Statement of Intent: The residential districts are intended to provide a range of housing choices to meet the needs of Salt Lake City's citizens, to offer a balance of housing types and densities, to preserve and maintain the city's neighborhoods as safe and convenient places to live, to promote the harmonious development of residential communities, to ensure compatible infill development, and to help implement adopted plans. Although staff agrees with opponents that accessory dwelling units may increase congestion and parking on neighborhood streets, permitting accessory dwelling units will: • Improve viability of public transit; • Improve property values; • Is an economical use of public and private infrastructure; • Protect the environment through reduction of vehicle miles driven within the region; • Provide a range of housing choices; and • Preserve and maintain neighborhoods as safe and convenient places to live. Therefore, staff finds that the proposal furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and Finding: As stated within the .proposed text amendment, accessory dwelling units shall be subject to compliance with the underlying zoning ordinance, which includes any applicable overlay zoning districts, such as the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and the YCI Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District. Therefore, the proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standard. 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Finding: The proposed text amendment was originally crafted after reviewing "best practices" of various cities, such as Portland, OR, Santa Cruz and Chula Vista, CA, Seattle, WA, Lexington, MA, and Aspen, CO. As summarized within Attachment F — APA Quick Notes, the American Planning Association recommends that "...communities would do well to seriously consider adopting an approach that...allows ADUs by right with clear written conditions; does not require owner occupancy; prohibits condominium ownership on the basis that a condo could not be considered accessory; provides a simple procedure for legalizing preexisting or formerly illegal apartments provided the unit is inspected; provides a generous size standard; and provides a water and sewer adequacy standard." Although the proposed text amendment does not strictly achieve all of the recommendations provided by the American Planning Association. the proposal does reflect best practices tempered by local concerns, such as preference for owner occupancy requirements. Therefore, staff finds the proposal is consistent with this factor. PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory D\\elhna lints 11 Puh!ished Date March 17,2011 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS • Background/Commentary: Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have become an important component of the housing stock in many communities—both large and small—in the United States. Noted ADU programs include Portland, OR, Santa Cruz and Chula Vista, CA, Seattle, WA, Lexington, MA, and Aspen, CO. By providing housing on existing lots in developed neighborhoods, ADUs are a form of land use that makes good use of land and public infrastructure investment. AD Us, when located near employment and retail centers, help increase use of mobility alternatives leading to a reduction in green house gas emissions and energy (fuel) use. Additionally, the changing face of the American public and its housing needs supports the inclusion of ADUs as a housing alternative. More people are aging, are "empty nesters", and desire to down-size. The work force continues to be challenged to find affordable housing and ADUs can help address that demand. Clarion's approach to addressing ADUs in the Salt Lake City context, where the zoning code currently does not address ADUs, is straight-forward and relatively simple. ADUs would be allowed in specific residential zones, but only in conjunction with an owner-occupied single-family dwelling and a number of design and use related standards are provided to address neighborhood compatibility. A. PURPOSE STATEMENT The purposes of the accessory dwelling unit provisions are to: 1. Create new housing units while respecting the look and scale of single-dwelling development; 2. Increase the housing stock of existing neighborhoods in a manner that is less intense than alternatives; • 3. Allow more efficient use of existing housing stock, public infrastructure, and the embodied energy contained within existing structures; 4. Provide a mix of housing options that responds to changing family needs and smaller households; 5. Offer a means for residents, particularly seniors, single parents, and families with grown children, to remain in their homes and neighborhoods, and obtain extra income, security, companionship, and services; 6. Promote a broader range of affordable housing; 7. Provide opportunity for workforce housing in developed and new neighborhoods, close to places of work, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing fossil fuel consumption through less car commuting; 8. Support transit-oriented development and reduce auto usage by increasing density near transit stops; and 9. Support the economic viability of historic properties and the city's historic preservation goals by allowing accessory residential uses in historic structures. B. APPLICABILITY Accessory dwelling units may be incorporated within or added onto an existing house, garage, or other accessory structure, or may be built as a separate, detached structure on a lot where a single-family dwelling exists. Accessory dwelling units are allowed in the following residential zone districts: FR- 1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 subject to the provisions of this section. Accessory dwelling units are subject to the applicable adopted building codes of the city. Salt Lake City 2 Accessory Dwelling Units March 2011 C. PERMIT ALLOCATION The city shall limit issuance of accessory dwelling unit permits pursuant to this ordinance to twenty-five (25) permits per calendar year within the corporate limits of the city. After a two (2) year period beginning on the date this ordinance takes effect, the city council may evaluate the appropriateness of the number of permits allocated. D. DEFINITION Accessory Dwelling Unit: A residential unit that is located on the same lot as a single-family detached dwelling, either internal to or attached to the single-family detached dwelling or in a detached structure. The accessory dwelling unit shall be a complete housekeeping unit with a shared or separate entrance, and separate kitchen, sleeping area, closet space, and bathroom facilities.1 Owner Occupant: Except as set forth in subsection 3 of this definition: 1. An individual who: a. possesses, as shown by a recorded deed,fifty (50) percent or more ownership in a dwelling unit, and b. occupies the dwelling unit with a bonafide intent to make it his or her primary residence; or 2. An individual who: a. is a trustor of a family trust which: (1) possesses fee title ownership to a dwelling unit; (2) was created for estate planning purposes by one (1) or more trustors of the trust; and b. occupies the dwelling unit owned by the family trust with a bonafide intent to make it his or her primary residence. Each living trustor of the trust shall so occupy the dwelling unit except for a trustor who temporarily resides elsewhere due to a disability or infirmity. In such event, the dwelling unit shall nevertheless be the domicile of the trustor during the trustor's temporary absence. 3. A person who meets the requirements of subsections 1 and 2 of this definition shall not be deemed an owner occupant if the property on which the dwelling unit is located has more than one (1) owner and all owners of the property do not occupy the dwelling unit with a bona fide intent to make the dwelling unit their primary residence. a. A claim that a person is not an owner occupant may be rebutted only by documentation, submitted to the Community and Economic Development Department, showing that the person who occupies the dwelling unit has a bona fide intent to make the dwelling unit his or her primary residence as indicated by the following documents which show such person: (1) is listed as a primary borrower on documents for any loan presently applicable to the property where the dwelling unit is located; (2) has claimed all income, deductions, and depreciation from the property on his or her tax returns for the previous year; (3) is the owner listed on all rental documents and agreements with tenants who occupy the principal dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit (4) is the owner listed on all insurance, utility, appraisal, or other contractual documents related to the property; and (5) is a full-time resident of Utah for Utah State income tax purposes. 1 This definition will be inserted in Chapter 21 A.62, Definitions, of the current zoning code. The definition of, "dwelling, single- family" is used intentionally in this section to exclude mobile homes, travel homes, and temporary housing to qualify as the principal dwelling for the purposes of accessory unit on the same lot. - - Salt Lake City 3 Accessory Dwelling Units March 2011 b. In a dispute with any person who claims to be an owner of the dwelling unit, but who does not occupy it, such person shall provide documentation to the Community and Economic Development Department which shows such person: (1) has not claimed any income, tax deduction, or depreciation for the property on the person's tax returns for the previous year; (2) is not listed as an owner on any rental document or agreement with any tenant who occupies the principal or accessory dwelling unit; and (3) is not listed as an owner on any insurance, utility, appraisal, or an agreement related to the property. c. Any person, or group of persons, who fails, upon request of the Community and Economic Development Department,to provide any of the documents set forth in subsections 3a or 3b of this definition or who provides a document showing that ownership of a dwelling unit is shared among persons who do not all occupy the dwelling unit shall mean for the purpose of this Title that such person or persons shall not be deemed an "owner occupant" of the dwelling unit in question. 4. The provisions of subsection 3 of this definition shall apply to any person who began a period of owner occupancy after , 20 , regardless of when the person purchased the property where such person resides. E. STANDARDS 1. Purpose These design and development standards are intended to ensure that accessory dwelling units: a. Are compatible with the desired character and livability of the residential zoning districts; b. Compatible with the historic district and landmark resources of the city; C. Compatible with the general building scales and placement of structures to allow sharing of common space on the lot,such as yards and driveways; and d. Are smaller in size than the principal dwelling on the site. 2. General Requirements a. Owner-occupied Property Required. Accessory dwelling units shall only be permitted when the property owner lives on the property within either the principal dwelling or accessory dwelling unit. Owner occupancy shall not be required when: (1) The owner has a bona fide, temporary absence of three (3) years or less for activities such as temporary job assignments, sabbaticals, or voluntary service (indefinite periods of absence from the dwelling shall not qualify for this exception), or (2) The owner is placed in a hospital, nursing home, assisted living facility or other similar facility that provides regular medical care, excluding retirement living facilities or communities. b. Deed Restriction. A lot approved for development with an accessory dwelling unit must have a deed restriction filed with the county recorder's office indicating such owner-occupied requirement of the property prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the accessory dwelling unit by the city. Such deed restriction shall run with the land until the accessory dwelling unit is abandoned or revoked. C. One per Lot. One accessory dwelling unit is permitted per residential lot. d. Underlying Zoning Applies. Unless specifically addressed in this section, accessory dwelling units are subject to the regulations for a_principal building of the underlying zoning district with Salt Lake City 4 Accessory Dwelling Units March 2011 regard to lot and bulk standards (e.g., height, setback/yard requirements, building coverage, etc.). (1) The requirements of Section 21A.40.050, Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures, which govern all non-residential accessory structures,do not apply to accessory dwelling units. (2) Accessory dwelling units may be of the same height and have the same setbacks as that allowed in the zoning district for the principal dwelling on the property. An existing accessory structure whose setbacks do not meet the setback requirements for a dwelling as noted above may be converted into an accessory dwelling unit but any non-complying setbacks may not become more non-complying. e. Multi-Family Districts with Single Family Dwelling on Lot. In multi-family zoning districts that are currently built out with a single-family detached dwelling and do not have the required minimum amount of land to add additional units pursuant to the multifamily zoning district requirement, one accessory dwelling unit is allowed. f. Not a Unit of Density. Accessory dwelling units are not considered a unit of density and therefore are not included in the density calculation for a single-family residential property. g. Home Occupations. Home occupations listed in Section 21A36.030 B, Permitted Home Occupations, may be conducted in an accessory dwelling unit. Those home occupations listed in this section under "Conditional Home Occupations" are explicitly not allowed in accessory dwelling units in order to maintain the residential nature of the dwelling unit. h. Internal, Attached, or Detached. While accessory dwelling units are allowed only in conjunction with a principal dwelling on a lot, the unit may be built internal to, attached to, or as a separate unit detached from the principal dwelling. i. H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Accessory dwelling units located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District are subject to the applicable regulations and review processes of Section 21A.34.020, including the related guidelines and standards as adopted by Salt Lake City to ensure compatible building and preservation of historic resources. 3. Methods of Creation An accessory dwelling unit may only be created through one of more of the following methods: a. Converting existing living area within a principal structure, such as a basement or attic space; b. Adding floor area to a principal structure; G. Constructing a new single-family detached dwelling unit structure with an internal or detached accessory dwelling unit; d. Converting or adding onto an existing accessory structure on a lot, such as to a garage or other outbuilding, where no required parking for the principal dwelling is eliminated by the accessory dwelling unit; and e. Constructing a new accessory dwelling unit within a separate detached structure in compliance with applicable lot coverage regulations. 4. Size The maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit may be no more than 50% of the gross square footage of the principal dwelling unit or 650 square feet whichever is less. The minimum size of an accessory dwelling unit is that size specified and required by the adopted building code of the city. Salt Lake City 5 Accessory Dwelling Units March 2011 oiesk 5. Ownership/Number of Residents The accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately or subdivided from the principal dwelling unit or lot. The total number of residents that may reside in an accessory dwelling unit may not exceed the number that is allowed for a family as defined in Section 21A.62.040, Definition of Terms. 6. Parking One additional on-site parking space is required for an accessory dwelling unit. The City Transportation Director may approve a request to waive or modify the dimensions of the accessory dwelling unit parking space upon finding that the parking requirement for the principal dwelling is met and: a. Adequate on-street parking in the immediate vicinity is available to serve the accessory dwelling unit and will not cause congestion in the area; or b. The accessory dwelling unit is located within 1/4 mile of a fixed transit line or an arterial street with a designated bus route. Additionally, the City Transportation Director may allow a tandem parking space, which is located behind an existing on-site parking space, to meet the accessory dwelling unit parking requirement so long as the parking space requirement is met for the principal dwelling. 7. Location of Entrances/Units a. Internal or Attached Units. Accessory dwelling units that are internal to or attached to a principal dwelling may take access from an existing entrance on a street-facing front facade of the principal dwelling. No new entrances may be added to the front facade of a principal dwelling for an accessory dwelling unit unless such access is located at least twenty (20) feet , behind the front facade of the principal dwelling unit. b. Detached Units. Accessory dwelling units that are detached from the principal dwelling: (1) May utilize an existing street-facing front facade entrance as long as the entrance is located a minimum of twenty (20) feet behind the front facade of the principal dwelling, or install a new entrance to the existing or new detached structure for the purpose of serving the accessory dwelling unit as long as the entrance is facing the rear or side of lot. (2) Shall be located no closer than thirty (30) feet from the front property line and shall take access from an alley when one is present. C. Corner Lots. On corner lots, existing entrances on the street-facing sides may be used for an accessory dwelling unit, but any new entrance shall be located facing toward the rear property line or interior side yard, or toward the back of the principal dwelling. d. H Historic Preservation Overlay District. When accessory dwelling units are proposed in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District, the regulations and design guidelines governing these properties in Section 21A.34.020 shall take precedence over the location of entrance provisions above. Salt Lake City 6 Accessory Dwelling Units March 2011 8. Exterior Design a. Within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Accessory dwelling units located within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall meet the process, regulations, and applicable design guidelines in Section 21A.34.020 of the zoning code. b. Outside H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Historic Landmark Site. Accessory dwelling units shall be regulated by the following exterior design standards: (1) The maximum height of a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the principal structure. (2) An accessory dwelling unit shall be designed and constructed to be compatible with the principal structure. 9. Registration Accessory dwelling units are required to be registered with the city to ensure compliance with applicable regulations, to assist the City in assessing housing supply and demand, and to fulfill the Accessory Dwelling Unit Purpose Statement, above. a. No accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied until the owner obtains a business license for the dwelling unit from the city. The requirement for licensing is intended to ensure that the applicant is aware of all city regulations governing accessory dwelling units; that the city has all information necessary to evaluate whether the accessory dwelling unit initially meets and continues to comply with applicable requirements; that the accessory dwelling unit meets health and safety requirements; and that the distribution and location of accessory dwelling units is known. b. Accessory dwelling units used for rental purposes shall be licensed and certified in accordance with the applicable provisions of the city. Salt Lake City 7 Accessory Dwelling Units March 2011 sidential Zoning Districts a ►,.F _.. i , 11 1,16 I ...: . . !.. 1 �. it I. IF / _ i LL . } _1 A -1IIIL ;1 a _ ....„tr.,_' '' ., ,,,,,... 1Al ioll\w_ 1 ,� �= 1, --- _ _ r 44 _ 1 _.. 1� 1 Ilia , , . • i r 11111110 i i,\. • ' - 1 i . . i • r i _ . _�._._.�. ._. + .� j �. R. _..._.._ i No s Legend �_ t.,._...:City Boundary I' _ ` "�i -FR Single Family Districts ���� .CA "-'"�` 4...! Rim R-1 Single Family Districts tN� ` • ._.._.._.��1 !'; ti J 1 i SR Single Family Districts Il • i =°; R-2 Singly and Two-Family District il ;0, RMF Multi-Family Districts 1 , Max 28' at Roof Ridgeline 20' Rear Setback Up to 650 Sq Ft -- ,0' .,„, • •-i 4' Side Setback , --•,00 ! \\'t ,. -4...,,;!,-;;,,,,,,,,,,,11.„„, •\ k•§ 4 ,•4 4 \ , . . ..- ., . .--- ," - %,.. t •, „---- ,.- ... ... . , Aillil , -'-k" Setback - , .`,-''' 144 4 , -;,' t'. 1 •-•,,:ts r-41,1'^4:(4ipio'k(' * '' ' ,1 ,,,,i,:,-- • -, .. 140' • ' ,,- , • -It..j' 4 0 :ii, ' ,.. ,i. ';4...,....eift,;•q- '''')' •,,),„, ',,, / (,,04,10" .40,- . Building Coverage up to 400/0 ie". 3..wt.': ,,,...', s'a'' :: -,'' Current Example: 24% "h, +, 4." IZ.,)' 1 ..---- Li. 6 o 0 17' Max Height ar Roof Ridgeline - 1'-5' Rear Setback 7 650 Sq Ft Max -- 1' Side Setback .fire e Y r : 1 -1� s �.rw' r,1 q r i,, d 4' Setback from Primary Building - x,„ ,. C3uabl ikle Ara 'e '' ' ,}, f f ''' • de Setback irsolt. , I ill° 1 . r 1 ,y liPrs: F` \ �. I��t'✓Y{J{/ i 61 r M .. . Building Coverage up to 40% k ul / .- Current Example: 27%, � +, 4, 140 6 -Q, .. y ;9 ,i may' .. 650 Sq Ft Max 25% of Lot Depth, '..,... •. >15 but <25' Rear Setback 28' Max Height at Roof Ridgeline . . . . 4' Side Setback .V,.!..', . -,, • i-7,,?,;74.4,,-..,,,,...-J1,:t.:/ 11\. . ':,';.:).4".- 1 ; 1 j \ sv .• ..::;4. ..--=--) 1, i„,•,..0.7,.,;.-,„.. --, _..„;;•.,01-: -:- 4. 1,. .•,".,t;i!..,'1,':,,4*•'-'''' 1 ..., 1 .• 1.•.*I, 1 I ..0., '.., ro , Iluildal)le'. ..• . ',1,3 ;,(,. 1 , ,, ., .-• .•. — . . . . . - , ...-•• . "7E .il t,,s,-.:.,4 „ . • , •'.' - .'>:411.11!.!: ' . . .',.• .•- • , o , , , \lb ---..,.-,,,..4-..„,..-! 1, /".. ''1.,.,..'•.'.P. . etback . . , ,;"";----;,,', ,i• '-'..„,?,.•-•.-- ° .• _,. ,...,.. .. ... . 140' .... ,...-, .. . , ' ' ' 4.**';•>' ''' ....- '''' i • I . . , , :•e•-k- .., : •• ,, .4,411, 4->"-'•:-'.-:*'• ,-- 1 ..'" '. ,,40.14-J;:h.:•-4 .4414.;,. .,;.>-•''' .-,--;.,c4i ....,--. ,.' ....."".'-''' _.i• "'..'N't{;.,-....::..};*•-.1',,=' . ,-',`'': .1:9+4'. , ;.•:'v I -,.''.". ,.. '..,-' "- ,,---- t.0," .•' ,._ ...,-- Building Coverage up to 40% . ...- Current Example 31% ' . ... ..- .-- .. . .,. , .--- , . i , ....-.- Ill 0 III 0 0 650 Sq Ft Max '5%of Lot Depth, 15'but<25'Rear Setback 28'Max Height at Roof Ridgeline 4'Side SetbackUtir-1\ \ • �� �a� ,,11 etback /_,IN Building Coverage up to 40% .r Current Example:310/0 I 650 Sq Ft Max •,..". ej4 ,,.,t•-1 t-,:-c..,.A.-1,-;.....- , ?:-.- 1,`-5' Rear Setback ,,Or 4....,,,,r.--,.,:-....r.----,2•,,, i Max 1.4' at Roof Ridgeline -,-0'.4,,,..,..frt-, "c'',i..,„;;;-•e--;•::-,,,,,..,:lp.1,-,...-7,-s--. , 1 , it Side Setback , 1 .., I , , - • :-. --, ,..- ,---- Buildable Area . e Sback . ... ... 1."...;,... .., . ....,,-........-....,-... .....i.„......,„•,.c. 0„--2-.1„..,..p.,....,c,,-... .. .-5 • ...,%t.,-,-;•.:. .-;•,•••:.,:':....3;,--,.... -1::,,....1--,- -• -:.--.--•• ),.-•. - .------ _•_•:- -•,•.--J -•...- --:-----•::-.-: , - :-.....--, , --•••r,.. - i, ..., .•- , ...k.. ...,.....-=,...,,,,...-1.z..- -.:-,kst Ne''' .;".".:‘,....,,r-',..,' "..- ' ;•;%. '....."-•.:;"n:',. -., - -:-', •ck from Primary Structure - ?.- - .r....-.:-, .-,..,ty -. ;: -, - ,..,-----.•,, :,..-.- - -:,- 1! • 'Zz.,--:'--.. .) *.'i:- -:''::;,..-P4-:,•:,,„.. -\.,5,- ., , ' ,..-,..:. - 7.-''' ...f'z'Z.:',••••.'i?:,•7-,3,?:14N:':.•41:,:,,1",,,,-::,s I '• 1 q 74:z- 7: `'...-1,+-7-f: .5:: '3::2. .- •"" . ' r ir, ,'2P-..- ': .,,;,; .....-:•:,;.-,i,'' ,, I 140 I II ,_. , f -- Building Coverage up to 40% of lot ____----- , --- Current Example: 33% III 460 III 25% of lot depth, >15' but <30' Rear Setback 650 Sq Ft Max Max 23' at Roof Riclgeline � %„ 4 , ,%:. i 5' Side Setback - 0, „ f. s-s F ` ' LY •!r�+ -r1r , f ` "2' q,,� I y 4i- ,• • Z. � ki ` F C � r �•♦ \ -+� '� � , „`,\:\y .r ,. _ I .. — /!. ''1 ryrye SId f, ', il1 l.� � . / l tii „�' v ` it . J � f' 4 fir " , .,„1 < t t�i �: � ,, --f�`" �• , Y4' I t4 +,° — A , AlI 11 ru R + tt ± '•f r i ✓ �4 'v„,,",;, - Building Coverage up to 40% of lot J~~ Current Example: 33% I1 • • Attachment t 415 APA Quick Notes PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units 17 Published Date:March 17,20I I Planning fundamental for public officials and engaged citizens PYSQuickNotes was paepared c, -earch star L ere^a..,e-D.rele.^a�. 1111. Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory dwelling units(ADUs)are small,self-contained living units that typically have their own kitchen,bedroom(s),and bathroom space.Often called granny flats,elder cottage housing opportuni- ties(ECHO),mother-daughter residences,or secondary dwelling units,ADUs are apartments that can "Towns,cities,and be located within the walls of an existing or newly constructed single-family home or can be an addi- tion to an existing home.They can also be freestanding cottages on the same lot as the principal dwelling unit or a conversion of a garage or barn. counties across the The benefits to the home owner and the ADU occupant are many.For the home owner,ADUs provide the opportunity to offer an affordable and independent housing option to the owner's grown son or country have done daughter just starting out or to an elderly parent or two who might need a helping hand nearby.The Y unit could also be leased to unrelated individuals or newly established families,which would provide the dual benefit of providing affordable housing to the ADU occupant and supplemental rental the right thing income to the owner.Supplemental income could offset the high cost of a home mortgage,utilities, g by Qnd real estate taxes.Finally,leasing an ADU to a young person or family can provide an elderly home wner with a sense of security and an opportunity to exchange needed work around the house and proactively yard for a discount on rent. p Y Despite the benefits,some communities resist allowing ADUs,or allow them only after time-consuming amending local and costly review procedures and requirements.Public resistance to ADUs usually takes the form of a perceived concern that they might transform the character of the neighborhood,increase density,add to traffic,make parking on the street more difficult,increase school enrollment,and put additional pres- sure on fire and police service,parks,or water and wastewater.)however.communities that have allowed zoning ordinances ADUs find that these perceived fears are mostly unfounded or overstated when ADIJs are actually built, ADUs are a particularly desirable option for many communities today considering the current econom- to allow ADUs is climate,changes in household size,increasing numbers of aging baby boomers,and the shortage of affordable housing choices.They provide a low-impact way for a community to expand its range of housing choices. LOCALITIES AND STATES GET INTO THE ACT Towns,cities,and counties across the country have done the right thing by proactively amending local zoning ordinances to allow ADUs.This is typically done either as a matter of right or as a special or con- ditional use.In either case,reasonable conditions may be imposed.Some states,including California, have enacted legislation that limits the ability of localities to zone out ADUs. In 2001 HARP retained APA's Research Department to write a guidance report for citizens interested in convincing local and state officials of the benefits of allowing ADUs and showing them how to do it. Entitled Accessory Dwelling Units:Model State Act and Model Local Ordinance,the monograph provides alternative statute and ordinance language useful to implementing all forms of ADUs. The Model Local Ordinance suggests recommendations for communities.Additionally,the intent of the rdinance describes the permitting process for eligibility and approval,and further outlines standards ADUappraea4pexainingtoJet-size,occupancy,building standards,parking and traffic,public - - Health,arld how to deatwith nonconforming ADUs.The Model State Act-provides findings and policies encouraging the approval of ADUs and names local governments as the entities entitled to authorize American Planning Association Making Great Communities Happen A Publication of the American Planning Association I PAS QuickNotes No.19 11/ adoption of an ADU statute.It specifies r- the limits to which local governments -- I e may prohibit ADUs and outlines ®\ f^; default permitting provisions if a locali- I I®I ty does not adopt an ADU ordinance. - -- It details optional approaches for - (1 I adopting ADU ordinances,certifying ®t; il , ,.� ` � ' local ADU ordinances,gathering data - __ x on ADU efforts,preparing reports and j'Q - recommendations,andforminga __— ---- -.,-. I--�' _: F statewide board overseeing ADUs. ;�® !�; I! 0 _- 1. WHAT ISSUES ARISE WHEN A ,_r--.; r�. ' PROPOSED ADU ORDINANCE r ,' IS CONSIDERED? 1 z ADU ordinances offer a variety of ben- ® °` ,for... a efits to local communities but the road _ e to implementation may not be an I ®r •gyp easy process.While ADUs are more • . N widely accepted now than in years P ,'xo • • • past,skeptics still remain and some still i , del w i oppose ADU zoning.The following ; describes some issues or decision , points that communities must address •--------------------------------------—-- in order to successfully navigate the perilous waters of public acceptance. Single story ADU floor plan. f The approach that is right for your city or town will be unique,based on local physical,political,social,and economic conditions. . By-right Permitting.Should permits for ADUs be issued as a matter of right(with clear standards built into the ordinance)or should they be allowed by discretion as a special or conditional use after a public hearing? REFERENCES Occupancy.Should ordinance language allow an ADU only on the condition that the owner of the 1.Published by American property lives in one of the units? Planning Association Form of Ownership.Should the ordinance prohibit converting the ADU unit into a condominium? American•. - ;,:,,.•,,••.,ordac4 Preexisting,nonconforming ADUs.How should the ordinance treat grandfathered ADUs?How '', do you treat illegal apartments that want to apply for an ADU permit? - Unit Size:Should the ordinance limit the square footage of the ADU to assure that the unit is truly • . accessory to the principal dwelling on the property? • Adequacy of Water and Sewer Services.How do you guarantee there is enough capacity in _ sewer lines,pumping stations,and treatment facilities to accommodate ADUs? noing&sodarnfr " planninc.org!pol' u These are not easy issues.However,communities would do well to seriously consider adopting an :.pd. approach that:allows ADUs by right with clear written conditions;does not require owner occupan- cy;prohibits condominium ownership on the basis that a condo could not be considered accessory; =e:t snarcn,Nancy Chapman.and provides a simpleprocedure for legalizing preexistingor formerlyillegal apartmentsprovided the ah Howe.t994.Planning for on P o 9 9 P rg Sneer),Planning Fey:spry Service unit is inspected;provides a generous size standard;and provides a water and sewer adequacy stan- dard. o.-.r Chicago:American ❑ .-.Le•r, `•nning Association. PASQuickNotes is a publication of the American Planning Association's Planning Advisory Service(PAS).Copyright O 2009.Visit , For more information a.this lapin,.isi- _PASIMIkeaLbOMPlannibP102110..findouthrnYPAeanArorkfocknu.AmericaaaanningAssociarioastaELV.PouL • _.._._ - - -- Fortner,Fero,Executive Director and CEO;William R.Klein acv,Director o1Research aryl Advisory Services;ire lerdon, QuickNores Editor;Jim Menne((Senior Editor;Julie Von Bergen,Assistant Editor,Susan Deegan,Senior Graphic Designer. - A Publication of the American Planning Association I PAS QuickNotes No.19 Public Input Chronology Sustainable City Code Initiative—Accessory Dwelling Units December 2009 General Information about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Urbanus— the monthly Planning Division e-newsletter. December 2009 Fact sheet and draft ordinance posted to Planning Division website. December 17, 2009 Open House (all people on ListServe notified of open house, including all community council chairs). July 1, 2010 Second article about ADUs in Urbanus—the monthly Planning Division e- newsletter. July 14, 2010 Focus Group. Clarion met with Focus Group made up of community council chairs, citizens, housing builders and housing advocates. July 15, 2010 Open House / Public Forum at Salt Lake City Library conducted by Clarion Associates. September 1, 2010 Open City Hall forum began (20 comments as of November 4, 2010). September 2, 2010 Presented information to Community Council Chairs at Mayor's breakfast meeting with Community Council Chairs. September 16, 2010 Presented information at Salt Lake Network meeting. October 21, 2010 Public Forum—City Hall. oft* October 27, 2010 Wasatch Hollow Community Council. November 10, 2010 Planning Commission Work Session. December 9, 2010 Planning Commission Briefing. Clarion Associates and Mayor Becker attended meeting. January 5, 2011 Presentation to the Utah Housing Coalition. February 3, 2011 Presented information to Community Council Chairs at Mayor's breakfast meeting with Community Council Chairs. February 9, 2011 Presentation at the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board Meeting. February 17, 2011 Presentation at Housing Trust Fund Board Lunch. February 17, 2011 Open House (all people on ListServe notified of open house, including all community council chairs). February 22, 2011 Presentation at the Mayor's Accessible Services Advisory Council. February 23, 2011 Planning Commission Work Session. March 2, 2011 Historic Landmark Commission Work Session. March 9, 2011 Follow-up meeting with Housing Advisory and Appeals Board March 23, 2011 Planning Commission Public Hearing. ^.3404 - f ADU Focus Group July 14, 2010 Present: Cindy Cromer-Property Owner/Landlord Roger Borgenicht-Assist Phil Carlson- Sugar House Community Council Chair Gordon Storrs- Fairpark Community Council Chair Phil Carroll-Community Housing Services and Avenues Community Council member Bob Lund-NeighborWorks Sonya Martinez-Community Action Program Francisca Blanc- Utah Housing Corporation Justin Allen- Salt Lake Board of Realty Paul Smith- Utah Apartment Association Annalisa Steggell Holcombe- Westminster College Michael Michaffev- Contractor Aria Funk-Landlord and East Central Community Council member Richard Welch-Garbett Homes Staff Cheri Coffey- Planning Staff Joyce Algiers-Clarion Associates Chris Duerkson-Clarion Associates Questions and Comments Richard Welch. The Accessory Structure with Dwelling Unit on Capitol Hill that was built by Bryson Garbett is much bigger than proposal would allow. It is basically a carriage house for the Wolfe Mansion. The regulation should allow the ADU to be larger if lot and structure can handle it. Requirement for a setback of a garage versus a setback for a residential setback is conflicting. The setback for the garage is too much(has to be within 5 feet of rear yard setback). Cheri Coffey- Should we only require a duplex to have a minimum of 6,000 square feet like we used to have,rather than the minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet that was put in place with the 1995 Zoning Rewrite Project? Phil Carlson- SHMP policy supports ADUs. The requirement for owner occupancy is important. Many ADUs already exist. Roger Borgenicht-The owner occupancy regulation is good to help manage problems but what if owner moves.Parking is not an issue. Do not pave more of the lot. Just allow them to park on street. Benefit of ADUs is that it provides more eyes in the neighborhood. Privacy in backyard may be an issue. Require them to be built so they don't overlook the neighbor's. (Regulate where windows can be,etc.) Michael Michaffev-Parking is an issue in Avenues and Sugar House. Should allow parking in front of the front wall of the house. Current regulations require the parking to be located behind the front wall of the house. Analissa Steggell Holcombe. It is good to have more housing options near the college. Young professionals(staff,faculty of college, etc) like to live near the college. An ADU would minimize the price of housing and allow them to reduce their commute times. Owner occupied-The regulation may not work well. Good landlords can result in the same benefit that an owner occupied rental would have (solving problems quickly). Aria Funk-The timing of the proposal is inappropriate. There currently are a lot of vacant apartments. Don't believe that everyone in an R-1 zone should be able to have an ADU. If you want to have two family,just rezone to R-2 and call them duplexes. Allowing a two story garage with ADU for a single- story home is conflicting. Don't allow Conditional Home Occupations where someone can come to the home. That would only increase the disturbance in the neighborhood. Don't allow someone to convert more than 650 square feet to an ADU. You need to specify a minimum size. You need to be very specific because enforcement doesn't work. Being able to address problems will be very difficult. Gordon Storrs-There are many benefits to ADUs: they increase housing options, keep people in the neighborhood, allows elderly to stay in the neighborhood. Allow younger married kids to get help when they are just starting out(help from parents); strengthens families and increases owner occupancy. How do you maintain an ADU if the owner sells the property(what happens to the tenant? Increases permanent housing in the City. Allow ADUs to be built within one foot of rear yards. The size should be geared to the size of the lot. Some lots are really deep. Allowing a use like this would help clean up rear yards that now are so deep,they just are unkempt. Paul Smith- Agrees with the requirement for owner occupancy. Landlords want to be good neighbors. One bedroom u7nits are hard to rent. May have a saturated market of one bedroom units. If they have more than one bedroom, you should require more parking. ADUs should be licensed. Justin Allen-The requirement for owner occupancy will be difficult because the owner may need to sell the property. Encourage them to be located near transit/streetcar. Good landlord program is a good idea. It may help with enforcement. Francisca Blanc. We support ADUs as an affordable housing type in single family neighborhoods. Utah Housing Corporation focuses more on multi-family. ADUs should be licensed to protect tenants. Perhaps you could have a pilot program relating to parking. If they are located near TRAX they aren't required to have parking. If not located near-TRAX, they would need to met a parking-requirement. Sonya Martinez. CAP's focus is on low income population. They support more choices for affordable housing. They support requiring a license for the units. They want to ensure they are inspected. They support allowing the owner to live in the ADU with the rental unit being the primary unit. They believe there needs to be some type of tenant protection. Allow the lease to transfer with the property if it is sold. What happens if the property goes in to foreclosure? Bob Lund-Large lots present a good opportunity for ADUs. Must address issues with how the ADU is placed on the lot to address privacy, egress windows etc. Must ensure they meet some type of health, safety code. Cindy Cromer-ADUs should be allowed where they are served by fixed mass transit. Requiring a license for single family and two family dwellings is being reviewed. The City is bad at enforcement. Allow more units when they are zoned multi-family but are on small lots that wouldn't otherwise allow for an additional unit. How does this relate to the Unit legalization process?How does it relate to compatible infill regulations? How do you enforce on ADUs if the criteria is not met?Need to allow these incrementally. Create a pilot program to see how it works. Try it in areas where the master plan supports it, near transit, and historic districts(as an incentive). ADUs will compete with landlords who are trying to rent small units in multi-family buildings. Phil Carroll-All rental units, including ADUs should be licensed. They should all meet minimum standards for health and safety. All ADUs should be accessible. Allow the person who develops these to determine how big they should be. Some larger units you can't rent. A two bedroom,two bath unit is usually 1 100 square foot minimum. Need to overcome issues/problems with rental houses. Accessory Dwelling Units: Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Community Council Chairs September 1, 2010 Comments: Judi Short-Sugar House Land Use Chair-How are you going to address enforcement of illegal units. It is already an issue and the City's enforcement is not adequate. Christian Harrison-Downtown Chair-The requirement to have off-street parking is not square with the goals of the transportation to encourage walking and other non-private automobile forms of circulation. Christian Harrison-Downtown Chair As a phase II for ADUs,you should allow them as Condos so it addresses Downtown Housing. Sometimes you may buy two units, combine them and then separate them again to allow for a smaller unit (mother-in-law etc.) Phil Carlson-Sugar House Chair(I'm not sure if he said the regulations for parking are ok, or if it is ok if people park on the street. Jim Jenkin-Avenues Chair- in the SR-1A,there is a restriction on height for accessory structures. The reason for this is that you don't have a right to have your accessory structure impact your neighbor from a privacy issue. Therefore, you wouldn't be able to have a unit over a garage. How do you address that? Bill Davis-Ballpark Chair There should be design guidelines for Accessory Dwelling Units. The City needs to move more towards design guidelines. Christian Harrison-Downtown Chair; The City needs design guidelines and review in areas other than just in historic districts. Esther Hunter; East Central Chair-There are a lot of illegal units in East Central. There needs to be criteria for parking. There is a lot of transit in the area but people don't use it. They now address the lack of parking in the area with 45 degree on-street parking. How does the Transportation Division decide if there is enough parking on the whole block. Some uses were built without parking and aren't required to have it but their lack of parking, impacts the whole block and the on-street parking is used for those uses that are under parked. Other East Central Guy? If you allow on-street parking to meet the requirement and you can't park on the street for more than 72 hours at a time,what do you do with your car when you go on vacation? How do smaller lots deal with this? There are many lots in East Central that have back alleys. Ideally, you would put the ADU back there but if the lot is too small, can you still do it? How does this relate to Unit Legalization? DRIDN GOF'F SA ,d ��, f!SYlall lJ+V 7EO +PIi\° NI -� r.� va .J lr.���.r FRAVk O. DRAT nuiLaiao orr,MIAs DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELCPMENT OINCCTOR OLIILDING SERVICES DIVISION MARY OE LA MARE- C'1AEFER DEPUTY OIRCG'or1 ROBERT FARRINO7ON, JR. OCPLTV DU CC*OI7 March 10, 2011 During the monthly Housing Advisory&Appeals Board meeting held on March 9, 2011, the HAAB unanimously voted that the follow ng concerns should be taken into consideration regarding the Accessory Dwelling Unit Initiative. 1. Neighborhood issues are, infrastructu•e's abi ity to handle additicnal density, parking, a lack of market demand and change of neighborhood cha•acter. 2 More Information should be compiled from other cities regarding the success of their ADU programs 3 Parking issues should be addressed in the ordinance to meet the needs of the neighborhoods. 4. t-.mit ADU's to certain zoning districts. Also limit ADU's to a specific number daring the test period. 5 Exactly what constitutes owner occup'ed? This is especially relevant d,ae to the complexities cf owne•ship such as LLC's,trusts, partnerships etc. Criteria should be established that would be used to substantiate the owner occupied status and to assist in any enforcement action that may become necessary. 6 Cons der allowing ADU's in multi-family zonir.g districts first. 7 The ADU initiative should address the area master plan. During the same meeting tree HAAB unanimously voted their support for the Proposed Housing Diversity Sustainability Ordinance, provided there is a mix of housing types in multi-family housing develooments However a specific number of each type of unit should not be mandated. Instead the ordinance should be more market responsive. The ordinance should also address the need for open space and other amenities near more dense housing developments. Sincorel,r, l I • Diana Hansen, Secretary Housing Ad"iso y and Appeals Board -51 SOLITI-I 51/CrE @TUEEI, F C:Cfn1 .:U6. PD BC>. 1.154B I, SALT LAKE :.:ITT. UTA-I 541 14.5.1,S I TELE IICINE; ❑C11.5.35••J225 rAX:DO1-}75-G 1 71 VAY7i,Li LCri OV.L1 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? Public Comments as of March 21, 2011, 7:31 AM %% %t " i �' tit,„, 4 f t lie ..... viola(, Alk•,- ri- . : ' iriv--;: ,• t. .,_ ,...z_, ..... .'. -L IL. 4. - Ai : 1f f B_:t - i MilLi3 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? Introduction As part of the Sustainability Code Amendment Project, the Planning Division is currently working with Clarion Associates to propose regulations which would allow accessory dwelling units in Salt Lake City. The Planning Division is currently working to obtain public feedback on the proposed regulations prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission. The proposed regulations would be a text amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance. www.PeakDemocracy.com/5 12 Public comments as of March 21,2011,7'31 AM from all participants 1 of 14 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? Summary of Statements Users Total: 33 As of March 21, 2011, 7:31 AM, this forum had: Attendees: 381 Participants: 33 Hours of Public Comment: 1.7 As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The tally and statements in this record are not necessarily a representative sample of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. www.PeakDemocracy.com/512 Public comments as of March 21,2011.7:31 AM from all participants 2 of 1-1 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Statements Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City February 24, 2011, 9:32 AM I oppose implementation of ADU in the areas outlined by Mayor Becker and his plan. Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City February 20, 2011, 7:47 AM I am against ADU's. Time and time again, during our local historic district discussions, many of us have been saying we do not want a sea of rentals. Is the City listening? ADU's will increase the number of rentals and end up lowering our property values. It takes away from the style and charm of Yalecrest. Brad Bartholomew inside Salt Lake City February 16, 2011, 2:04 AM I think that this is fantastic and would be beneficial to the Rose Park area. The owner occupancy is a MUST and I'm not sure if I agree with the exceptions. ADU's could be an incentive to bring more home ownership into the westside neighborhoods and fewer absentee rentals. I'm not sure why there is a square foot size limit- it should just be a percentage of the lot, 50%. Set backs shouldn't be any different from conforming principle dwelling. I don't see the need of the entrance requirements, its also a burden on corner lots that already have smaller usable lots. Exterior design should be required to match the existing residence. If you do decide with a test area first, I hope that it is the westside of SLC. Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City February 1, 2011, 12:48 PM Some years ago the home owners of our surrounding neighborhoods worked in conjunction with then Mayor Ted Wilson to change our communities zoning back to single family residential (RI). This change was motivated by the fact that this section of the city was in bad shape and deteriorating. Crime rates were high and low property values lured developers to target our vintage neighborhoods to build apartment units or divide existing homes into duplexes. At that time, the Mayor's office deemed this downward trend unacceptable and believed that the preservation of single family homes and strong neighborhood communities were in the vital interest of Salt Lake City. As a result of this zoning change, our quaint and quiet neighborhoods have flourished. New families have moved in, pride in ownership has soared, homes have been restored, and our property values have appreciated. Our neighborhoods are amongst the most desirable to live in the Salt Lake valley. Unfortunately, Mayor Ralph Becker is proposing an initiative that will circumvent our current zoning laws, posing a direct threat to our neighborhoods as they currently exists. Mayor Becker wants Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADU's, be allowed to be built on existing single family lots. This proposal completely undermines the single family philosophy that was successfully promoted by Mayor Wilson and takes us back to what previously plagued our community. In short, Mayor Becker's proposed change to the zoning laws that have allowed our neighborhood to prosper, will, in effect, promote the subdivision of houses back to the same cheap rental properties that threatened our community in the past. The Mayor's office attempts to mask the monumental impact that this change will have on our neighborhoods by promoting alleged benefits that a very small portion of our community may gain. The Mayor's plan increases population density, but does not provide for increased infrastructure or services; as if these additional people will be without need or will not put additional strain on existing services and dismisses the reality that they will have cars to park and trash to empty. The Mayors plan www.PeakDernocracy.com/512 Public comments as of March 21,201 1,7 31 AM from all participants 3 of 14 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Statements proposes very vague concepts, backs them up with little substance, yet wants to implement this plan faster and more aggressively than any other city that has allowed ADU's. The ADU proposal is not about existing rentals, it is about the encouragement of developing new, additional rentals. I have researched other cities' ADU's.and the Salt Lake City plan is vague and doesn't take neighborhood impact into consideration. These are my specific suggestions: Issues not addressed in this proposal: 1. Minimum lot size 5000sq ft 2. Require formal review for design compatibility with adjacent properties and impact of privacy, light, air, solar access or adjacent property parking 3. Open space and landscaping requirements (would you like a cement covered lot?) 4. Minimize windows that impact privacy - Little or no direct view into neighbor's property 5. Regulate the concentration of ADU's in specific neighborhoods 6. Power, water, sewer connections should be through current house 7.Number of bedrooms tied to number of mandatory parking spaces (no waivers for proximity to bus, rail or business districts) 8. Require review process similar to variance procedures Issues addressed in this proposal and my suggestions: D.2.a. Owner occupied property required • What is the definition of an owner? How far does this reach to extended family? • What defines owner occupied? 6 months occupancy? a year? This should require a yearly certification. • If the owner does not occupy either unit, the ADU should be declared: a. non-habitable space, and b. may not be used as a dwelling ,and c. may not be used as a rented space D.2.c. Underlying Zoning applies. "if there is a conflict...the provisions of this section shall take precedence." • There should be additional restrictions in place in addition to the existing setbacks. • Currently: Max height (pitched) 28' and flat (20') (21A.24.070) Setbacks: -accessory building 10' from residential building on adjacent lot, located at least 1' from side property line (21A.34.020) - primary residence corner lot 4', interior lot 4' on one side and l 0' on the other (24A.24.200) • Create decreased height allowances and increased distances from property line for the ADU • Max height for 1 story- 13'. 1.5 or 2 story—22' at roof peak, • for ADU's higher than 1 story, increase setback additional 2 to 5 feet www.PeakDemocracy.com/512 Public comments as of March 21,2011,7.31 AM from all participants 4 of 1-1 Accessary Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? Amo All Statements • Lot coverage of ADU count toward parcel maximum building coverage (40% of lot—also known as the 60/40 rule)—this should be reduced to 35%on lots with ADU's • Only allowed with existing single family PRIMARY residence D.3. Methods of Creation • Specifically prohibit trailers and mobile homes • Set a minimum size to 220-400 sq ft • • Maximum size 500 sq ft for 5000 to 7500 sq ft lot, 650 sq ft for larger lots • Demolition of existing unit not allowed for ADU construction • Require similar exterior wall materials, window types, door and window trim, roofing materials to existing home D.5 Ownership/Number of residents "the total number of residents...may not [be] exceed[ed]...as defined in the zoning code" • Limit the number of bedrooms to one (1) and define number of residents in ADU by number (2-3 people max), not by definition of family Zoning Ordinance limits occupancy through the definition of a family. Family is defined as blood relatives, a couple or legal guardians living together with their children, or a group of not more than three unrelated individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit. The definition controls occupancy regardless of the size of the unit. For example: 10 individuals could occupy a 650 sq ft ADU (myself, my husband, my parents, his father and 5 children) This ADU proposal is not well thought out and will have a significant impact on our communities as neighborhoods. I oppose this proposal. Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City January 27, 2011, 12:57 PM I DO NOT Support ADU's. I do not support and increased number of rental apartments in my neighborhood. I am opposed to someone legally building an overlooking apartment into my back yard. Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City January 14, 2011, 10:54 PM Great idea, with owner occupancy required no harm done to neighborhoods. Size restrictions should also prevent "Monster ADU's" from becoming a problem. Great way to utilize additional available land while respecting the traditional nature of our neighborhoods. Paige Pitcher inside Salt Lake City_ January_11. 2011, 1:1 3�_PM_ I am in strong support of the ADU ordinance, so long as the application and adoption is sensitive to the valid concerns of residents like those below. ADU's need not be an allowed use www.PeakDemocracy.com/512 Public comments as of March 21,2011,7 31 AM from all participants 5 of 14 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Statements in every zone. There are some communities that they are obviously not compatible with. On this matter, I am sympathetic to the wise observations of Beverly Nelson. So far, only the neighborhoods of Federal Heights and Avenues have cried out in opposition, saying--NO! Not Here! But just because they don't want it in their backyards doesn't mean that ADU's don't have a purpose and place somewhere in SLC. One of the questions the fact sheet posed, that no one has yet answered, was, "Where?" My suggestions are next to transit, business districts, employment centers, educational institutions, and other draws where a mix of housing types makes sense. Locating some appropriate spots for a pilot program would be a great approach and example. May I also entertain some other applications of ADU's for neighborhoods in need. Neighborhoods that want to increase home ownership might be the same neighborhoods to implement ADU's in order to reward people who choose to buy and live in the area. Coupled with home ownership incentives this might be one way to create a diverse, cohesive community while rewarding home owners. ADU's are an important part of housing choices, and the legalization of this legitimate housing option needs to be addressed. As our demographic continues to shift, the demand for centrally located, attainable housing will continue to be raised by our aging boomers,young professionals and families. This flexible option will help us respond to demographic shifts before they become an issue. So long as design and quality standards for ADU's remain high, I believe they can be integrated into our existing amenities, community fabric, and public infrastructure systems to increase our resiliency, sustainability and unity. Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City January 10, 2011, 3:23 PM I live in the Fremont Heights neighborhood of Salt Lake City. Having been raised in a California community with legal and illegal "mother-in-laws" adjacent and included in existing homes I must register my opinion on this proposal as I believe I have adequate experience with the consequences. Allowing carve-out rental units in existing houses and permitting the construction of"stand- alone" apartment-type units on developed lots simply increases population density and facilitates a more transient character in a residential neighborhood. Parking is always a problem, as is noise, street activity, and conflict between neighbors. Additional garbage collection is required, as is additional utilities maintenance, adding a burden to the delivery of city services. Additional people draw additional services. The frequency of delivery vehicles in the neighborhood rises, as does the traffic generated by gardeners, housekeepers, baby sitters, and visiting medical, mechanical maintenance and repair people, and a multitude of"soft" services. In short, the character of the neighborhood radically changes over time and the long-term residents find that they now live in a neighborhood they would never have chosen had the "mother-in-laws" not been permitted in the first place. This leads to an embittered, hostile population that becomes "super-sensitive" to any changes in the neighborhood, even positive ones that benefit everyone. www.PeakDemocracy.com/512 Public comments as of March 21,2011,7:31 AM from all participants 6 of 14 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? Anitik All Statements Legal "mother-in-laws" are not a win-win situation. I have lived in an older neighborhood sandwiched in between two properties with legal mother-in-laws and have personally experienced the helplessness of watching my neighborhood become an indifferent,transient, "I don't care, it doesn't effect me" kind of place. The homeowners on either side were generally embarrassed by their indifferent tenants and avoided others in the neighborhood, ignoring our common concerns and removing themselves from cooperative projects and issues. I hope Salt Lake City does not want this kind of atmosphere to take hold in its greatly-varied, generally well-maintained and pleasant older neighborhoods. Despite all the altruistic arguments in favor of ADUs, my direct experience has been that such an ordinance would allow those who want to squeeze additional revenue from their real property, at the expense of those living around them, to do so without restriction. Permitting sand-alone and carve-out "mother-in-laws" degrades residential property values and the quality of life in R1 residential neighborhoods. Such an ordinance would create an underclass of renters in a residential neighborhood with little political power and likely no interest in the rational development and quality of life in the neighborhood as a whole. I feel that permitting ADUs in RI neighborhoods is a very bad idea. Also, please note that Mike hephart, who has posted a comment here and has promoted ADUs in other discussions on this site, designs stand-alone ADUs and lives in Colorado. He would obviously personally benefit from the passage of this ordinance. I strongly recommend that Salt Lake City reject this proposed ordinance. Michel Weekley inside Salt Lake City January 7, 2011, 10:51 PM I agree with Susan Fisher's November 1 posting completely. I am against ADUs in the already crowded & densely populated Avenues neighborhood. As an Avenues homeowner, I am shocked & saddened that this proposal is even being considered. The proposal would undo all the good that years of work to get the Avenues back to a "single-famliy dwelling" atmosphere have achieved. There are very few aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods in the Salt Lake Valley, and encouraging more development in and around many "historic" and beautiful Avenues homes is an unwise choice. I believe we can work toward "sustainability" in Salt Lake, not by more development & the building of ever more structures....but rather by filling the plethora of empty homes & rentals currently available en manse. A "sustainability" topic that gets very little attention these days is to encourage the creation of smaller families....NOT the continuing accomodation of huge ones! Fewer people in the first place equals less pollution, less development, less crowding....and a better quality of life for everyone. Responsible population growth could alleviate many of our societal challenges, both locally & globally. Matt Johnson inside Salt Lake City December S. 2010, 4:12 PM I like the general idea but I have a few concerns. Why 650 sqft? Is that the difference between a duplex and an ADU? If a lot is big enough www.PeakDemocracy.com/512 Public comments as of March 21,2011,7 31 AM from all participants 7 of 1-1 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Statements could the ADU not be bigger? What about new home construction? Can a new home be built with an ADU included in the plans? Where would the door be? What about end of life scenarios? The plan says that it must be an owner occupied situation, but what if the home is sold, the tenants are kicked out and the new owners now have extra living space that they get taxed extra for? And if the tenants decide to move out, does that mean I now have an above-the-garage shop where I couldn't have one before? I also agree that we should allow businesses similar accommodations as ADUs like an in-home office, but for someone else. Mike Kephart outside Salt Lake City November 28, 2010, 2:59 PM ADUs use resources very efficiently compared to many other types of residential development. They require no additional land for development and use existing infrastructure (such as water, sewer, roads, and other utilities), so they increase the supply of affordable housing without promoting sprawl or requiring the construction of expensive new infrastructure. Clarion, your code consultant, helped us here in Denver as well. As unbelievably contentious as the subject was for us the atmosphere immediately cooled upon passage of the ordinance by our city council. The fear of a rush to build is a red herring that has not proven real in any of the 20 or 30 cities in Colorado that have passed similar ordinances in the last few years. It was over two years before the first ADU was built in Arvada, CO after they passed their ordinance without major public debate. I believe ADUs are a legitimate housing type that over time can do much to diversify our neighborhoods economically. I support your efforts to include provisions for ADUs in your neighborhoods. The excitement will quickly dissipate. Mike Kephart, Denver, CO Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City November 10, 2010, 11:17 AM Owner occupancy, owner occupancy, owner occupancy, strict enforcement of owner occupancy. Otherwise this is a carte blanch for house flippers, and slumlords. Occupancy of one unit must be full time by the actual living person with majority interest listed on the ownership deed. Do not allow ownership by "trusts","corportations" or any other entitiy. Otherwise they will always claim that their family trust allows them to rent to "family" with different last names (aka, someone who isn't family at all, but the true owner is willing, to bet that the city will never check because it is too expensive and time consuming) Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City November 7. 2010, 9:10 AM I support ADU's Susan Fisher inside Salt Lake City November 1, 2010, 3:09 PM As a 41-year resident of the Greater Avenues, I have some perspective on their history. First, let me say that the quality of the Avenues as a place to live_and raise a family is far better now than it was even twenty years ago, and one of the principle reasons is that residents have fought to limit density, often by re-converting apartments back into single-family structures. Furthermore, www.PeakDemocracy.com/512 Public comments as of March 21,2011,7.31 AM from all participants S of 14 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Statements the few apartments that existed in lower Federal Heights from the Depression era have been phased out over the years. One can scarcely argue that residents found an additional apartment in their home a desirable thing. We appreciate R-1 zoning precisely because it disallows multiple-family dwellings. There are two density issues in this proposed ADU ordinance, and they are not clearly and separately addressed: building density and population density. I was astounded to read in the proposed ordinance that an ADU is expressly interpreted as NOT increasing density! Clearly, only structural density is considered here at all, and adding an additional structure would increase even that parameter. Common sense indicates that increased population density means more cars, more traffic, more ambient noise, more school children (in already overcrowded schools), increased use of already overburdened parks, less play area at home per child, etc. The proposed ordinance even stipulated that additional off-street parking space provisions can be waived, thus adding to street congestion. I cannot see that this would improve quality of life in any respect. I saw the dramatic results of decreased population density and noise—and increased resident satisfaction— in my own neighborhood when the Pi Kappa Alpha house burned and the fraternity was relocated. Furthermore, the implied altruism for assisting an aging population is weak. As an older resident, I cannot believe that having a separate apartment in my home would provide me with increased "companionship and services."No renter is legally bound to watch out for the landlord. In addition, it would be a long time before the cost of creating an apartment would be amortized by rental income; even a reverse mortgage would be faster and less demoralizing for both resident and neighborhood. The proposed ordinance does not offer any protection at all for the character of the existing neighborhood. It is inappropriate to force such a far-reaching ordinance change upon us when Historic District designation for Federal Heights is under consideration. The City Council should consider carefully the vested interests of those who propose to change the integral character of a single-family district. I think the respondent who proposed high-rise apartments (with underground parking) on already existing parking lots is on the right track. The truth of the matter is that one of the first things people buy is privacy, and this is usually expressed first in the space they can place between themselves and their neighbors. Federal Heights has larger lots, and the coverage is far less than the city-allowed 40%. Indeed, even the smallest lots in this zone average only 25-30% coverage, while on the larger lots the coverage is even less. This lower density is directly correlated to house prices and the increased taxes they generate. People consistently demonstrate they are willing to pay for privacy and what it brings: less traffic, less noise, more space—and the joy of more big trees. This proposed ordinance would degrade our quality of life. Beverly Nelson inside Salt Lake City October 28, 2010, 12:41 AM An ordinance allowing homeowners to build accessory dwelling units on their property could provide benefits to homeowners, families, the elderly and renters in some Salt Lake communities. But ADUs should not be considered to be a panacea for every neighborhood in Salt Lake. _There are neighborhoods in Salt Lake where accessory dwellings would not be appropriate, particularly those where high density is already an issue, where crime is high, and where schools already suffer from over-population. To allow residents to built accessory www.PeakDemocracy.com/5 12 Public comments as of March 21,2011,7 31 AM from all participants. 9 of 14 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Statements dwelling units on properties in these neighborhoods would only serve to exacerbate the problems they are already dealing with and would be detrimental to the entire community. In regard to my own community, I live in lower Federal Heights in close proximity to University fraternities and sororities. My community already suffers from lack of parking, traffic congestion, excessive noise and crime. We already have problems with duplexes that started out as mother-in-law apartments 20 or 30 years ago, but that now house University students who, unfortunately, think it is cool to disrespect the community in which they live. I would not support an ordinance that allowed my neighbors, or residents in areas of the City that are experiencing the problems I have listed to build accessory dwellings on their properties. Gene Fitzgerald inside Salt Lake City October 27, 2010, 9:32 AM As president of the Federal Heights Neighborhood association and a member of the board of the GACC I think I can say that in general we oppose the move toward allowing accessory dwelling units. In our neighborhoods especially (Butler aye, Federal way etc) over the years we have had many rental units that were merely extensions of Greek housing and the problems that accompany those organizations. In the past 20 years or so, we have been moving toward and achieving more restrictive zoning rather than moving toward rental units in family homes. The ADU would significantly change that dynamic and open up homes in the area to the sort of abuse that we have seen in the past. We feel this way despite the restrictions the ADU has put on renting--people have a way of skirting those restrictions especially when we do not see an adequate oversight by the city to enforce them. So that is my feeling at this point and I sense that many neighbors agree with me Esther Hunter inside Salt Lake City October 26, 2010, 8:24 PM I believe there is a justified need for the ability to legalize accessory dwelling units in the City. This can be useful and helpful to many. I support the owner occupied requirement. Having said that. I also believe that this ordinance is not yet ready for prime time. This is a significant change. While we need to step forward, a blanket approach rather than a carefully planned, appropriately applied approach will further exacerbate many city issues and problems such as our failing and underfunded infrastructure especially evident in many older neighborhoods. The benefit of not being first is that we can learn from and avoid the long term problems this type of change has created in other cities. This ordinance needs to be built on a firm foundation. The foundation should come first. In Salt Lake the very zones/properties that could best absorb additional density due to their size and stature will not likely be utilized in this manner but instead it will be the older already more dense, smaller lots that will be further compromised. This is not socially responsible. This type of significant change should be carefully trialed, have a great deal more thought out criteria (ie design guidelines), correlation with other ordinances (ie the duplex legalization www.PeakDemocracy.com/512 Public comments as of March 21,2011,7 31 AM from all participants 10 of 1a Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Statements process), and have more details developed that give specific criteria for approval. Is it near transit, what does the master plan say, how much density already exists, how much parking is available, is there a lit street lamp, impact to property values, what is the crime rate, roads/water/sewer impacts to name but a few. What exactly tips the balance into the negative for a particular block face, a neighborhood? Instead, we could begin by having the ordinance trialed through a one off review process such as conditional use or Board of Adjustments rather than implemented in a blanket fashion. Maybe where the least negative impact is likely but where a thoughtfully assessed minimum criteria has been met(ie new Sugar House streetcar line). While the manpower to prepare a case for review is staggering, the ability of the City to manage/enforce/police this ordinance city wide as written is not likely feasible at all. If a more restricted/one off trial run proves successful, this gate can always be widened. As Dr. Chris Nelson (UU FAICP Presidential Professor City and Metropolitan Planning) has stated. ALL of the Cities anticipated growth could be absorbed by utilizing the many existing flat surface parking lots which also coincides with one of the goals of the Downtown Community Council. Incentives for this type of development would meet the need for additional tax base, density/growth while at the same time enriching the City without disrupting existing neighborhoods. I sincerely hope the administration will take the additional time to develop this into a win-win approach that does not harm some areas while protecting others. This is doable. quinn mccallum-law inside Salt Lake City October 25, 2010, 6:26 PM I think this plan has great potential to both preserve existing buildings and create new housing opportunities. I currently live in an owner occupied legal triplex and it works well for my wife and I but I think we could take it further as a city. What about "ABU's" or accessory business units as well on owner occupied properties? I am aware of home-occupation permits but within many area's of the city this could contribute to the liveliness of up and coming areas as well as create places for people to actually walk to, something that is still lacking in SLC albeit growing. I see so many of these buildings around the city going to waste because the current owners see no value in commercial space, yet, seemingly, are disinterested in selling them (I've found 1 for sale publicly in the last five years.) So letting others build businesses as well would be as or more beneficial than the ADU's. I am still all for the ADU ordinance in the interim. Kelly Stevens inside Salt Lake City October 25, 2010, 9:37 AM I am a 15 year resident of the Avenues. I have owned two owner-occupied duplexes and have been working with the city to legalize a triplex that was non-conforming. I am absolutely opposed to ADU's. Residents of the Avenues have protected this neighborhood for decades, working hard to make it a safe, live-able community. When rampant development of apartment complexes and creation of non-conforming apartments was the norm for the Avenues, it was a dangerous, drug-ridden neighborhood on the decline. With the hard work of many citizens, regulations have made it difficult to add apartments and break up single-family dwellings. This www.PeakDemocracy.com/512 Public comments as of March 21,2011,7.31 AM from all participants 11 of 14 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Statements trend has protected our neighborhood and created a GREAT place to live. The avenues can be seen as an at-risk neighborhood in SLC. Crime is relatively high within our boundaries. With more apartments and a more transient population, the scale could be tipped. Parking is another complicated issue with negative implications from allowing ADU's especially with an allowance for 'limited' exemptions. The requirement for an owner-occupied house seems very tenuous and difficult to regulate down-the-line. Stephanie Churchill Jackel outside Salt Lake City October 23, 2010, 1:32 PM I'm concerned that the "fact sheet" and the draft ordinance don't agree as to the size of ADU allowed. The fact sheet says 50% of sq. ftg. of primary structure or 650 sq.ft., whichever is GREATER, while the ordinance says 50% or 650 sq.ft., whichever is LESS. This is a serious discrepancy. I also think strict design guidelines should apply wherever the ADU is located, historic district or not. Dana Schaffer inside Salt Lake City October 16, 2010, 4:51 PM I'm an Avenues Homeowner. This is a city and neighborhoods closest to the city should become more dense. Also, I agree with this proposal because it is environmentally friendly to increase density within the city and limit sprawl. The more the merrier. I think this will allow our neighborhood to be diverse and it will keep it so that people providing services within the community and others like teachers, can afford to live in the neighborhood in which they are contributors. Since we are experiencing severe property tax increases, I imagine this move may allow many people (e.g. fixed incomes) who are a valuable part of the neighborhood to keep their homes. Also, if our neighborhood becomes more dense,we might actually be able to support some more small businesses. I for one would like a few more restaurant options within walking distance and perhaps a store other than Smith's. Someone brought up parking. I'm not really worried about that, having lived in San Francisco and Seattle. The more dense it becomes, the more people will take public transit and hopefully those people won't need cars at all, if there are businesses within walking distance and transit to the U and downtown. I do hope they will consider adding traffic lights and enforce the speed limit so that we can be pedestrian friendly, even if we increase density. However, even recent requests for those services/changes have fallen on deaf ears. Jon Parrish inside Salt Lake City October 8, 2010, 12:41 PM Highly in favor of ADU. What a great way to stimulate economy, provide low cost housing to grad students, young couples, and young families; not to mention bringing extra taxes in which will keep my taxes lower! Let's ask the business owner who just shut down due to the lack of business, the school teacher who just got laid off due to the lack of students, or the student who just took the semester off to pay for the gas it takes to drive from out of town if they are in favor of infill. I vote yes. linda burr outside Salt Lake City October 6. 2010, 8:16 AM As a former Avenues resident for over twenty years, 1 think having Accessory Dwellings are not going to detract from the neighborhood. There are many already being used. I know the area had a bad period where many Victorians were split up as apartments. but now that many are single family dwellings again, a_small cottage for_students or for working singles/couple residences would be great infill. Of course there would be zoning still in place for fire safety, noise, parking, etc. We have the countries' worst air pollution partly because people drive to get www.PeakDemocracy.com/512 Public comments as of March 21,2011,7.31 AM from all participants 12 of 14 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Statements downtown for work and school. I'm sure many would like to have a closer, quiet, residential, more affordable place to live. Hilary Verson inside Salt Lake City October 1, 2010, 5:12 PM I support ADU. As long as these rentals are on owner-occupied property,they will be well- maintained. ADU's will increase the population density & increase property tax without causing duress. Additionally, I suggest a small annual rental unit tax for apartment dwellers to help maintain infrastructure and services, perhaps $25/year. I think this would provide about $750,000/year without raising residential property tax. Jim Ferguson inside Salt Lake City October 1, 2010, 3:54 PM This is a terrible idea. It will turn back years of work making the Avenues one of the nicest places in the city to live. We have all worked for years to get rid of Accessory Dwelling Units. There is no rational reason, other than greed,to bring back the blight. James Ferguson. Pax Rasmussen inside Salt Lake City September 24, 2010, 11:58 PM I strongly support this ordinance. I keep hearing about the 'inevitability' of growth in the valley, and it makes me sick. There really is only so much space, not to mention water. And the more we sprawl, the worse the already terrible air gets. Instead of clinking around with ideas like the northwest quadrant, we should focus on INFILL. I find the comment referring to Tokyo offensive: To that commenter, I ask, "Would you prefer Tokyo or L.A.?" Because L.A. is the direction we're headed. If you don't like density, move to the country. Up to a point, the denser the city, the better—the city becomes more walkable, more supportive of independent. locally- owned business, and more community-oriented. Hurrah for the ADU! Mike Kephart outside Salt Lake City September 22, 2010, 7:25 AM Here in the city of Denver we included ADUs in our new zoning ordinance adopted recently. I would suggest letting the maximum size of an ADU increase with the size of the lot. We included this provision in our code. I would also suggest that you ask families to tell their stories rather than trying to appeal to the populace with logic and reason. This is a change and people generally fear change unless they can personalize it. We failed in this respect and it became a divisive issue when it could have been seen as good for families. bruce beck inside Salt Lake City September 20, 2010, 7:51 AM I agree with Alysa K Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City September 15, 2010, 9:0S PM If this can be accomplished without creating mega houses or mega barns then go for it along with the following: I believe a ratio between property size and house foot print needs to be established. There should also be a limit on number of people based on family relation and total number per square foot. Kathryn Fitzgerald inside Salt Lake City _September 10, 2�010, 4:25 PM I am concerned about the parking consequences of this ordinance in the University area, especially near the blocks zoned for Greeks. The Greek houses are already allowed virtually WWW.PeakDemocracy.com/512 Public comments as of March 21,2011,7.31 AM from all participants 13 of 1,1 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Statements unlimited parking permits while single family homes are limited to three permits. This should not be a blanket citywide ordinance. It must examine the differences among neighborhoods and differing consequences of the change. Philip Carlson inside Salt Lake City September 2, 2010, 3:58 PM I hope this moves along! We need more residents in the City. This will not likely increase density dramatically, but even a slight increase will be good for our community. The owner occupation requirement is an important part of the proposal. Really, I would hope that few houses are divided, but that accessory units would be detached keeping the main house intact for larger families. Units above garages or even separate buildings would be best. Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City September 1, 2010, 8:39 PM I am opposed to this proposed ordinance as it will increase population density in already crowded areas. We are already suffering from crime, congestion, transportation problems, lack of privacy and other intrusions to a calm and peaceful life. Is Tokyo really the city we want to morph into? Alyssa Kay inside Salt Lake City September 1, 2010, 6:30 PM This is a positive move for Salt Lake City. Accessory Dwelling_ Units will allow extended families to live closer together, provide rental income and increase the city's density (without significant impact on character) to mitigate urban sprawl. I am in favor of this ordinance. Some of the specifics of the ordinance,however, are unnecessarily restrictive such as the Owner- Occupied Property requirement. There are many renters who would benefit from this kind of living arrangement. This section seems to be prejudiced against renters. Section 7.b.(1) is unclear. If the accessory unit is detached how/why would an existing entrance be used? Why would a new entrance be required to face away from the street? In my opinion that would create a mass that would be unattractive from the streetscape. Overall,this is a good start. Thanks! WWW.PeakDemocracy.com/5 12 Public comments as of March 21,2011,7 31 AM from all participants 14 of 1d Department ofA`Iriculture and Food • l l t\ARI7\i UI.ACI.I I. N! ! a. I:11I It \II PHI\' KAI III.I.I-\CI ARKI. Slate of Utah 7''r>rrr,r„nnn..)un''' February 23,2011 ''Atty R.In.Ius1 RI Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (iul e,NP (.1`I(,III I I supports ADUs and Salt Lake City's Sustainable Code Lie:dem o,'r;. .•,IUl The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food would like to offer its support for the creation of Accessory Dwelling Units(ADUs) in Salt Lake City. With regards to our Utah agricultural food production system,our consumers, and our environment,we view ADUs as a tool that can help benefit these interests. • We support the concept that by adding ADUs to a city's dwelling mix there will be reduced demand to develop suburban farmland into residential subdivisions. • We support the concept that housing units located closer to employment centers will increase participation in public transportation and decrease automobile traffic on our interstate freeways and arterial highways. • We support the concept that during this economic downturn,families may need to reside closer together, and ADUs can meet these families' needs. With regard to the City's Sustainable City Code Initiative; • We fully support code provisions that enable citizens to grow,consume and even sell raw produce from their private or community gardens provided that reasonable qualifying provisions are offered to protect the health of neighbors and children. • We encourage EVERY Utahn to embrace agriculture and become more aware of the food system and the role our 16,000 farmers and ranchers play in their lives. • The energy savings associated with backyard or community gardens can be significant. • We support organized educational efforts that disseminate growing and harvesting techniques that protect food supply and safety interests. A moment to reflect on the historical importance of agriculture. This July 24th will be the 164th anniversary of our pioneer forefathers' entrance into the Salt Lake valley. Even before Brigham Young uttered his famous statement, "This is the Place"the pioneers were already digging up the soil and planting crops just one block north of Salt Lake City Flail. Agriculture came first for them. We would like to work with you to make agriculture first AGAIN for our citizens and leaders. Sincerely _ -- _ = - Leonard M. Blackham, Commissioner Utah Department of Agriculture and Food t>II\'Milt Redound Rom.I't)II,+\ 11(60(I,halt I❑he l'It).III \III I-63(tII Ieiepinme Ni)I-�)5.7IUD•IiIC.H)Illle Soli)S. 12(.•hiIfti I Stilt_,n Maloy, Michael From: Ruthann Povinelli [rpov@comcast.netj Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 12:30 PM To: 'Leeann Sudbury'; Mayor; Maloy, Michael Cc: 'Ann Maloy'; 'CERT Amy Smith'; 'CERT Annette Gillis'; 'CERT Barr Christensen'; 'CERT Ben Anjeweirden'; 'CERT Bob and Judy Jaggi'; 'CERT Brandon Howlett'; 'CERT Eric Hull'; 'CERT Eric Madsen'; 'CERT Jean Robinson'; 'CERT Jeff Yancey'; 'CERT Jeremy Jackson'; 'CERT Jessica Hill'; 'CERT Karen Geertsen'; 'CERT Kari Hull'; 'CERT Kim Gillis'; 'CERT Kim Ventura'; 'CERT Laurie Goodsell'; 'CERT Lisa Marley'; 'CERT Monica Ruegner'; 'CERT Patrick Quinn'; 'CERT Patty Henetz'; 'CERT Penny Catanzaro'; 'CERT Rhonda Parker'; 'CERT Stacey Denison'; 'CERT Stan Heaton'; 'CERT Susan Helier'; 'CERT Suzanne Hennefer'; 'CERT Tara Daniels'; 'CERT Tim Geertsen'; 'CERT W.D. Robinson'; 'Southers'; stapey.denison@hotmail.com; tom.denison@hotmail.com; annlschmidt@gmail.com; 'Dianne Fuller'; Douvilles@comcast.net; 'Julie S Steele'; 'Julie Personal Email'; 'Gillian Tufts'; 'Leissa Roberts'; 'Michael Povinelli' Subject: RE: It is URGENT that you protect our neighborhood from allowing Accessory dwellings on our properties!! Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Other Some 15 years ago the home owners of our surrounding neighborhoods worked in conjunction with then Mayor Ted Wilson to change our communities zoning back to single family residential (R1). This change was motivated by the fact that this section of the city was in bad shape and deteriorating. Crime rates were high and low property values lured developers to target our vintage neighborhoods to build apartment units or divide existing homes into duplexes. At that time, the Mayor's office deemed this downward trend unacceptable and believed that the preservation of single family homes and strong neighborhood communities were in the vital interest of Salt Lake City. As a result of this zoning change, our quaint and quiet neighborhoods have flourished. New families have moved in, pride in ownership has soared, homes have been restored, and our property values have appreciated. Our neighborhoods are amongst the most desirable to live in the Salt Lake valley. Unfortunately, Salt Lake City's current Mayor does not apparently value strong neighborhood communities based on single family homes. To the contrary, Ralph Becker is proposing an initiative that will circumvent our current zoning laws,posing a direct threat to our neighborhood as it currently exists. Mayor Becker wants Accessory Dwelling Units or ADU's be allowed to be built on existing single family lots. This proposal completely undermines the single family philosophy that was successfully promoted by Mayor Wilson and takes us back to what previously plagued our community. In short, Mayor Becker wants to change the zoning laws that have allowed our neighborhood to prosper and in effect, promote the subdivision of houses and new construction of the same cheap rental prosperities that threatened our community in the past. The Mayor's office attempts to mask the monumental impact that this change will have on our neighborhood by promoting alleged benefits that a very small portion of our community may gain. The Mayor's plan increases population density, but does not provide for increased infrastructure or services; as if these additional people will be without need or will not put additional strain on existing service and dismisses the reality that they will have cars to park and trash to empty. The Mayor's plan proposes very vague concepts, backs them up with little if any substance, yet wants to implement this plan faster and more aggressively than any other city that has allowed ADU's. i The ADU proposal is not about existing rentals, it is about the encouragement of developing new, additional rentals. I have researched'other cities' ADU's and the Salt Lake City plan is vague and doesn't take neighborhood impact into consideration. Awn* These are my specific suggestions: Issues not addressed in this proposal: 1. Minimum lot size (5000sq ft) 2. Require formal review for design compatibility with adjacent properties and impact of privacy, light, air, solar access or adjacent property parking 3. Open space and landscaping requirements (would you like a cement covered lot?) 4. Minimize windows that impact privacy 5. Regulate the concentration of ADU's in specific neighborhoods 6. Power, water, sewer connections? Through current house? 7. Number of bedrooms tied to number of mandatory parking spaces (no waivers for proximity to bus, rail or business districts) Issues addressed in this proposal and my suggestions: D.2.a. Owner occupied property required • What is the definition of an owner? How far does this reach to extended family? • What defines owner occupied? 6 months a year?This should require a yearly certification. • If the owner does not occupy either unit, the ADU should be declared; a. non-habitable space, and b. may not be used as a dwelling ,and c. may not be used as a rented space D.2.c. Underlying Zoning applies. "if there is a conflict...the provisions of this section shall take precedence." • There should be additional restrictions in place in addition to the existing setbacks. • Currently: Max height (pitched) 28' and flat (20') (21A.24.070) Setbacks: -accessory building 10' from residential building on adjacent lot, located at least 1' from side property line (21A.34.020) -primary residence corner lot 4', interior lot 4' on one side and 10' on the other (24A.24.200) • Create decreased height allowances and increased distances from property line for the ADU • Max height for 1 story- 13', 1.5 or 2 story—22' at roof peak, o for ADU's higher than 1 story, increase setback additional 2-5' • Lot coverage of ADU count toward parcel maximum building coverage (40% of lot— also known as the 60/40 rule)—this should be reduced to 35% on lots with ADU's • Only allowed with existing single family primary residence onsite. D.3. Methods of Creation • Specifically prohibit trailers and mobile homes • Set a minimum size to 220-400 sq ft • Maximum size 500 sq ft for 5000 -7500 sq ft lot, 650 sq ft for larger lots • Demolition of existing unit not allowed for ADU construction • Require similar exterior wall materials, window types, door and window trim, roofing materials D.5 Ownership/-Number of residents "the total number of residents...may not [be] excecd[ed]...as defined in the zoning code" 2 • Limit the number of bedrooms to one (1) and define number of residents in ADU by number(2-3 people max), not by definition of family Zoning Ordinance limits occupancy through the definition of a family. Family is defined as blood relatives, a couple or legal guardians living together with their children, or a group of not more than three unrelated individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit. The definition controls occupancy regardless of the size of the unit. For example: 10 individuals could occupy a 650 sq ft ADU (myself, my husband, my parents, his father and 5 children) This ADU proposal as it stands is not well thought out and will have a significant impact on our communities as neighborhoods. I oppose this proposal. Ruthann Povinelli 1027 E Herbert Ave Salt Lake City, UT From: Leeann Sudbury [mailto:leeann.sudbury@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 9:30 AM To: mayor@slcgov.com; Michael.Maloy@slcgov.com Cc: Ann Maloy; CERT; CERT Amy Smith; CERT Annette Gillis; CERT Barr Christensen; CERT Ben Anjeweirden; CERT Bob and Judy Jaggi; CERT Brandon Howlett; CERT Eric Hull; CERT Eric Madsen; CERT Jean Robinson; CERT Jeff Yancey; CERT Jeremy Jackson; CERT Jessica Hill; CERT Karen Geertsen; CERT Kari Hull; CERT Kim Gills; CERT Kim Ventura; CERT Laurie Goodsell; CERT Lisa Marley; CERT Monica Ruegner; CERT Patrick Quinn; CERT Patty Henetz; CERT Penny Catanzaro; CERT Rhonda Parker; CERT Stacey Denison; CERT Stan Heaton; CERT Susan Helier; CERT Suzanne Hennefer; CERT Tara Daniels; CERT Tim Geertsen; CERT W.D. Robinson; Southers Subject: It is URGENT that you protect our neighborhood from allowing Accessory dwellings on our properties!! Years ago the East Liberty Park neighborhood worked with the city to make our area a single family neighborhood with the exception of those apartments that already existed. The city actually initiated the project until it got enough support from the neighborhood. At the time, they felt that keeping a neighborhood a non-rental neighborhood near the center of the city would actually help protect the city from being vulnerable and would increase the values of the neighborhood. Ted Wilson came to many back yard meetings and spoke, asking us to help the city to fight those developers who would want to break down the strength of the neighborhood by putting in accessory building units and turning the houses into multiple unit dwellings. It worked! Our neighborhood became a good, strong neighborhood with increasing property property values. Nothing has changed since then except that the neighborhood has become more appealing. By keeping the properties single family dwellings in this neighborhood, it has remained strong and has continued to hold property values. If people are allowed to do "whatever" and are allowed to build houses in the backyard or over the garage, our neighborhood will become like those to the west and north and south of us. We have a unique little niche and we do not want it destroyed or changed!! We have chosen to buy in this neighborhood because of its characteristics of stability and inner strength. Now it appears that someone wants to destroy that strength, by creating rental spaces under the guise of"taking care of elderly parents". 3 Suzanne Hennefer; CERT Tara Daniels; CERT Tim Geertsen; CERT W.D. Robinson; Southers Subject: It is URGENT that you protect our neighborhood from allowing Accessory dwellings on our properties!! 01 Years ago the East Liberty Park neighborhood worked with the city to make our area a single family neighborhood with the exception of those apartments that already existed. The city actually initiated the project until it got enough support from the neighborhood. At the time, they felt that keeping a neighborhood a non-rental neighborhood near the center of the city would actually help protect the city from being vulnerable and would increase the values of the neighborhood. Ted Wilson came to many back yard meetings and spoke, asking us to help the city to fight those developers who would want to break down the strergth of the neighborhood by putting in accessory building units and turning the houses into multiple unit dwellings. It worked! Our neighborhood became a good, strong neighborhood with increasing property property values. Nothing has changed since then except that the neighborhood has become more appealing. By keeping the properties single family dwellings in this neighborhood, it has remained strong and has continued to hold property values. If people are allowed to do "whatever" and are allowed to build houses in the backyard or over the garage, our neighborhood will become like those to the west and north and south of us. We have a unique little niche and we do not want it destroyed or changed!! We have chosen to buy in this neighborhood because of its characteristics of stability and inner strength. Now it appears that someone wants to destroy that strength, by creating rental spaces under the guise of"taking care of elderly parents". They feel that over the garage or in backyards is a perfect place for this type of space. I took care of all the elderly in my family, including older aunts and uncles, until they died. I brought them into my home because if the elderly are too old to live alone, they are too old to live alone over your garage. Elderly who cannot care for themselves are typically bought into your home or put in an assisted living center, not placed in a apartment over a garage or put outback in a shack. If people legitimately need more space, they should increase the space in what they already have by adding am""'s extra bedroom in the attic or the basement. Just as Ted Wilson asked us years ago to protect the strength of our neighborhood, we are now asking you to please help us. These accessory units will destroy the appeal and strength of our neighborhood. We would appreciate all you can do to prevent the breakdown of our neighborhood. We know that you are the people who have the power to keep our neighborhoods safe from these kinds of structures, and we are asking you to help us, please. (Others may express their opinions by writing mayor@slcgov.com and Michael.Maloy@slcgov.com, but we want you to know this is how we feel!!) Thank you, The Sudburys 1232 South McClelland Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 801-548-0543 4 . i !n, Public Meeting "� ° ' 1 PUBLIC COMMENT FORM v'% `- �" December 9 2010 t- ' ' '�N" ` -� -,,,C'' Iiih 4.\., Sustainability City Code Initiative Planning and Zoning Division Department of Community and Economic Development Name: J;j'�1'n ( .- ( . . is'i (,1 to ✓ I` -0(1 Address: ../)'-1 '\.hi%^(111 C 1 ��`-Q `s ,', -f--(, ( ) 1 Zip Code t-'i)0'21 Phone: e'`� ='5) -- cv--) ( , --) ', !) ' Please circle all that apply City Resident/Owner Practitioner Special Interest Please circle topics you are interested it Accessory Dwelling Unit �utdoor 'iting Housing Diversity Recycling Transportation Demand Managcment—'�Alp _ ._ Please provide of .e�..,,, Y` �1..,, your contact information so we can notify you other meetings or hearings on this issue. You may submit this sheet before the end of the Open House, or you can provide your comments via e-mail to cheri.coffey@slcgov.com or via mail at the following address: Cheri Coffey, Planning' Manager, Salt Lake City Planning Division, PO Box 145480, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5480. Please provide your comments by Friday December 31,2010. Other opportunities for public comment will be available as specific draft ordinances are process. Look for updates on this project by visiting our website at www.slcgov.com./CED/Planning Questions? Cheri Coffey 801-535-6188 Comments: 1— 6,4,,,l \l,o r-\1 C nv1 C-P(i\-n�i /. Ii�(�(.k:�1 r\1. li N I ail C,, 11,t(►. 1 i 1(' 1 )1 n . (.!')'17)0(l-'ir'',:` \-C..) (";J,, i 6•0\,_''. f i.'1) ;.' ;-2: '. i'i%Li 1,,i"-1 i g It,k,1/1 i. iC i 9.!r),:,,.. J ."1 '�..r-' - - 7, f�: , i __ A f 1 /i ;-., , r ,_ .(. i c, (. 1....,._ i-.r . „13 /f Continue comments on back Maloy, Michael From: Beth Bowman [bbowman@hsc.utah.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:41 PM To: Coffey, Cheri; Maloy, Michael Cc: angela.hansenberg@slcgov,com Subject: Acessory Dwelling Units Categories: Other To: Cheri Coffey Michael Maloy Planning Commission Members As a resident of an older (1920's) neighborhood, (not included in Yalecrest) I am not in favor of the proposed creation of zoning for accessory dwelling units. There are many requirements included in the the amendment project memorandum concerning Accessory Dwelling Units which seem to me to be impossible to enforce. Few other comments: 1) I do not have any confidence that any of the zoning and building code changes and requirements as listed in the fact sheet for ADU's could be adequately regulated by the city. From personal experience with construction projects on our street, current enforcement of the building codes does not work. 2) The older neighborhoods already have a population density that is consistent with sustainable living. There already is a mix in our older neighborhoods of varying size homes as well as numerous duplexes. It is the newer building projects that have not been required to include housing units for all incomes. This should include the new building in the downtown area as well as newer projects along the light-rail tracks. 3) How is the city able to regulate who buys property with an accessory dwelling? There is no way to prevent the dwelling from becoming two rental properties. The city cannot enforce the number of residents that reside in a unit. 4) There is an infrastructure concern. The old city sewer lines are already a problem. Parking is a problem as well. Most garages in our area are small and most residents already park on the street. The narrow streets are a concern for emergency vehicles when cars are parked on both sides of the street. Beth Bowman 1445 Harrison Ave SLC, Ut 84105 801-582-0708 r Maloy, Michael From: Mary Ann Wright[MAW@pbageo.com] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 11:45 AM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: ADUs Categories: Other I am writing in support of the ADUs ordinance -For Salt Lake City, This makes good sense in that it retains urban character but allows -For greater use of property within the city for living space. The idea of not gobbling up natural habitat -For more buildings is sound. I wish the county had a better handle on this idea -For commercial space. 1 Maloy, Michael From: cindy cromer[3cinslc@live.com] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:02 PM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: more on ADU's Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Other Michael-Thanks for your patience regarding my numerous objections to Clarion's proposal for ADU`s. I just spotted the following information in a much longer list of incentives for historic preservation that I proposed to Planning in January. Again, the City gives away development rights that it could use to leverage the kind of reinvestment it wants in housing. It is not getting enough benefit in the right places under Clarion's proposal. cindy excerpt from a list of proposed incentives for historic preservation, submitted to Planning in January 2010: Restrict ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS initially to historic properties (either as stand alone Register sites or in City Register Districts) located in multiple family zoning districts. Focus on RMF-30 and RMF-35 zones especially in the Capitol Hill, Avenues, and Central City Districts. Rationale: These zones are established for multiple unit occupancy. The current residents and property owners EXPECT tenants as neighbors. The Landmarks Commission is currently doing an excellent job of implementing the design guildelines and ordinances that are available. The regulatory process for infill in historic districts is working far better than the compatible infill ordinances for single family zoning districts. Structures in historic districts have higher maintenance costs and would benefit from the additional income that accessory dwelling units could provide.The majority of the City's surviving carriage houses are concentrated in the historic districts and on stand alone , Register sites ,.m, Provide DENSITY BONUSES for property owners who are reinvesting in historic Districts and stand alone historic sites. (This would be one way the City could create incentives for protecting excellent historic buildings that would qualify for stand alone status but are not surrounded by the critical mass of surviving historic buildings to be in a District). 1 • U,,, .e% f-ttj I ,,, ,,,,,,,,,, Public Forum COMMENT FORM October 21, 2010 Accessory Dwelling Unit—Draft Ordinance NAME ADDRESS 17C 2 (26 I J 0-4XL ZIP CODE / ().-) E-MAIL -;.\ COMMENT '=•• -3- -4' rr-,-,•/' NAME • U\J cji, a e/(--('' ADDRESS " ei ( ZIP CODE (')•\/4 60 (; - A E-MAIL k COMMENT ',? I -2-'6 0 "c„---) \,(2?-6 "Pric./Vv\ NAME c-) k;/\_(:\-\/--\\ ADDRESS ZIP CODE E-MAIL (/ ( COMMENT P6_0k,_)\ , \, _ ‘• . • - C>r\''<_?\ Maloy, Michael maw From: esther e. hunter[estherehunter@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 8:17 AM To: Coffey, Cheri; Maloy, Michael Subject: Re: ADU question Categories: Other Concerns: Does the sentence "If there is any conflict between the provisions of this section shall take precedence."not undo many protections in place to make sure the ADU do not negatively impact an area. This concern is based on my experience of code interpretations in Building Services when permits are actually pulled. Can this be clarified to avoid conflicts in the future. Experience has taught us that the review criteria utilized by various departments when the approve exceptions and plans is not specific and does not encompass neighborhood concerns. Specific criteria,for assessment for parking, infrastructure, etc. would make this ordinance more sellable. Right now many communities are mounting opposition. Those that have the strongest land use experience will be most vocal (ie GACC) and those that are not as organized or versed(le Central City) will not. Since the Mayor has stated we will start with a trial where this is wanted, I am concerned. Can something more be done to clarify parking? Exceptions given due to transit does not mean the current or future tenant does not own a car. I am sure transportation has some guidelines for if there is enough parking a street,for the housing units in the area. YG7iat is the break even point? Concern that people will pull up back yards to put in asphalt and additional flat surface parking which does nothing to keep the character of an area. Concern that parking pads will appear in the.f•ont of homes. Is this allowed and when? This ordinance and process needs to be integrated with the legalization process. Again since at one point leasing rooms in all homes during and alter the war was allowed in the UNC area, this does not establish a documented right for a duplex, triplex, etc. Since this is not clear, marry are obtaining approval by staff chid the BOA. What is realistic for an established neighborhood in terms of infrastructure, parking, density, enforcement, etc. when you take this process and the ADU plan into consideration. Should there be a limit to allow a neighborhood to be stable? The single family oTi'ners are loosing in this context what they thought they were acquiring in neighborhood feel if the density of these two programs is too high. Have not brainstormed how but let ale know if talking more about this could help clarify the issue. 1 think there are solutions. Maybe the community could help identify a trial area that agrees. To have buy in to be a trial area that agrees would be excellent. The community might form cr committee that gives monthly,feedback to the ,s•tciff and work jointly toform what can work city ivide. More as I have time. best, e From: esther e. hunter Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 7:29 AM To: Cheri Coffey ; michael.maloy©slcgov.com Subject: ADU question — Hi, 1 Maloy, Michael From: esther e. hunter[estherehunter@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 8:25 AM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: Re: ADU question Categories: Other Thank you Michael. Maybe this could be clarified in a Question and Answer type of added piece. Most in the community give the name design to all of the things in both. best, e From: Maloy, Michael Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 8:16 AM To: 'esther e. hunter' Subject: RE: ADU question Esther: Thanks for the question.Any compatible infill regulation would still apply under the proposed ADU ordinance. I think when we made the summary statement regarding"design guidelines"we were thinking more about aesthetic controls (i.e. material, architectural design, etc.) rather than height, bulk, or spatial relationships, which our infill regulations primarily address. . , Sincerely, Michael Maloy, AICP Principal Planner Salt Lake City Corp PO Box 145480 451 S State Street Rm 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5480 (801) 535-7118 Office (801) 535-6174 Fax michael.maloy@slcaov.com From: esther e. hunter [mailto:estherehunter@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 7:29 AM To: Coffey, Cheri; Maloy, Michael Subject: ADU question Hr, The fact sheet states that we do not have design guidelines for areas besides historic districts. Does the compatible infill guideline not apply? Thanks, e Esther Hunter 801.583.9804 1 Maloy, Michael From: esther e. hunter[estherehunter@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 9:40 AM To: Coffey, Cheri; Maloy, Michael Subject: ADU Pilot Idea Categories: Other Hi... Had an after thought...not sure if the goal right now is still attempting to go citywide or to have a 3-6 month pilot somewhere. Do you have any areas interested?All I am hearing is mounting opposition. If you are looking to pilot, how large-would the area have to be? Would 16 blocks be enough....thinking of the UNC. What about the idea of having a working committee from the community pilot area that works collaboratively to help sort out some solutions in a positive -wary for the issues listed in my previous email? Not sure I could sell my board but maybe? Right now they are opposed but they are reasonable and if they could have a hand it.forming a win win solution, I think they would be all over this. I know it would require the community committee with allov'cmce,f ur real team work like we did with IHC. IHC was ct terrific example. We were in and out of the PC'-within 10 minutes due to our.joint steering efforts yet this v as from a very long negative starting point. Besides..we love a challenge. Benefits of the (INC are; transit R 2 7or1C Historic next to UU Tons' of illegal units Have strong working committee that already speaks land use with extensive experience working/thinking win win Small area that has all issues in spades so we have realistic experience to work out what could work City wide. It could be a real win Will example of showing how the community can work together with the City in a pilot vs what has been going on in Yalecrest, etc. See what you think. best, e Esther Hunter 801.5 83.980-1 i Maloy, Michael From: esther e. hunter[estherehunter@hotmail.com] , Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 12:43 AM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: ADU's Categories: Other Hi Michael, I have just come back from a very long ECCC Executive Board meeting where ADU's were discussed at,great length. The interest in ow.council area is very high. However, this interest is being heightened due to Cindy's document has made it's way around several of the neighborhoods. As we wrote before, Gary and I are very interested in making sure that our council area is providing accurate and fair information to our members regarding this potential concept and have not had the opportunity to have a representative attend the special,focus groups. We believe the ECCC is one of the most impacted areas. We would very much appreciate your help in this area. The neighbors Gary and I have spoken with (this week alone) number in the low 50's. This is unusual high for an early policy discussion when the concept is not yet fully developed. The informal majority opinion is that neighbors are very concerned that this policy be inclusive and allow all residential zones the ability to earn this extra income for their building even if they are not historic or in a higher density zone. Many are also wanting to conform with City law since they have been illegal for many a year•. As you know, we have a very high rate of illegal duplexes. When you arc ready, we would greatly appreciate anything you can give us so that we can distribute it to our council area so they have a full picture of the concept. Or if you are able to attend a general meeting we would welcome this vet} much. Please let us know your suggestion and ideas. best, Esther Co-Chair, ECCC Esther Hunter 801.583.9804 • Maloy, Michael From: cindy cromer[3cinslc@live.com] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:45 PM To: Coffey, Cheri; Maloy, Michael Subject: ADU's Attachments: ADU71410.rtf Categories: Other Cheri and Michael-The Community Network asked me to talk about ADU's at the August meeting. I suggested that the Network invite Planning to talk about Clarion's proposal and I would talk about mine. I passed out the attachment this morning at the Network meeting and hope that the topic will be scheduled again next month with someone from Planning in attendance. The longer I consider Clarion's proposal, the more problems I see with it. The City could NEVER enforce the owner occupancy requirement. I cannot imagine a judge deciding against a property owner who had an ADU and could no longer live in the property. It would not happen. Maybe it would in Colorado but it wouldn't happen in Utah. EVER. The attachment is the same one I circulated in July with a few minor tweaks. c Maloy, Michael From: Allen Family[mecj@me.com] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 10:28 AM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: Complete-Sustainability and ADU's in R-2 district Categories: Other Mr. Maloy, I am writing to ask that zoning district R-2 be included in the ADU section of the proposed sustainablility ordinance. Living in a rental district and trying to rent out a duplex apartment in an owner occupied home is unnecessarily difficult. Zoning and code impose guidelines for renting that are outdated and outlandish. I would like to see restrictions such as lot size and -frontal space removed from city code. I would also like to see the R-2 district included in the upcoming ADU portion of the sustainability ordinance. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Liz Allen Accessory Dwelling Units What would it take to put them in Single-family zoning districts? Comments by Cindy Cromer July 14, 2010, revised August 18, 2010 Clarion has proposed that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) be allowed in single-family zoning districts, in owner-occupied housing. I want to start by identifying the prerequisites for such an approach to work. The City would have to have effective enforcement regarding violations of its zoning ordinance and permitting process. While there are effective employees who work in enforcement in Salt Lake, we do not have consistent and comprehensive enforcement. The City will not be able to enforce the "owner occupancy" requirement. The City would need a successful program for compatible infill to address design issues associated with ADU's. The current ordinance for infill has not been successful and is under revision. Logically there would need to be a demand for additional units, or the City would be undermining the efforts of existing landlords to fill their vacancies. As every landlord I know would atest, the last couple of years have been very challenging with higher vacancy rates, concessions, and stagnant rents in the face of rising taxes and utilities. The Clarion proposal restricts ADU's to one-bedroom apartments. That is the very part of the market that is the weakest right now, as people have downsized to studios or rented rooms or move in with someone to share expenses. There would need to be public support for unit legalization and expansion of housing in low density neighborhoods. The Board of Adjustment did an about face a year and a half ago and began approving unit legalizations that it would have denied previously. Public opinion has not made a similar shift. Recent cases on the Board's agenda in the University and Gilmer Park Neighborhoods indicate that property owners in low density areas do not always share the Administration's enthusiasm for additional units. It would make sense to have additional housing located in areas served by mass transit. Clarion's proposal to restrict ADU's to single family zoning districts introduces new units of housing in areas that typically have limited or no mass transit. In order to have safe housing as part of an ADU initiative, the City has to have a process for business licensing in single family structures. Currently, the City licenses buildings with 3 or more units. While the City has discussed requiring business licenses for rental properties that are single family and duplex structures, the City does not have a process in place to regulate rental housing already in single family structures, much less to regulate the additional units created as ADU's. Some of the deficits mentioned above are long standing and cannot be overcome by the Mayor' directive to improve/create the tool. The one involving public opinion is not under the Mayor's control. So what could the City do that would increase housing without aggravating existing problems and creating a firestorm of opposition? The City could begin the implementation of ADU's in the existing multiple-family zoning districts, RMF-30 and RMF-35. It could narrow the opportunity even further initially by restricting ADU's to the City's historic districts where there is a design review process that is working well. The residents in these zoning districts expect renters as neighbors. ' These parts of the City have much better service by mass transit, especially TRAX. The City is already licensing many of these buildings as businesses. Because of current market conditions, it is important that the City take an incremental approach. Starting in the multi-family zones within historic districts allows that. The City could start with the RMF-30 and -35 zones and then add the R-2 zone. Or, it could add properties within the National Register Historic Districts using guidelines similar to those used for additions in historic districts. Not only would this approach have a greater potential for success, the City would also be offering an incentive for historic preservation, which already has a longer approval process. The immediate risk of Clarion's approach is that it will create a nonproductive uproar of opposition from residents in some of the City's more exclusive neighborhoods. The long term risk is that it will create a mess on a City-wide level, which like so many previous bad ideas, the----- -. - Accessory Dwelling Units What would it take to put them in Single-family zoning districts? Comments by Cindy Cromer July 14, 2010 Clarion has proposed that Accessory Dwelling Units(ADU's) be allowed in single-family zoning districts, in owner-occupied housing. I want to start by identifying the prerequisites for such an approach to work. The City would have to have effective enforcement regarding violations of its zoning ordinance and permitting process. While there are effective employees who work in enforcement in Salt Lake, we do not have consistent and comprehensive enforcement. The City will not be able to enforce the "owner occupancy" requirement. The City would need a successful program for compatible infill to address design issues associated with ADU's. The current ordinance for infill has not been successful and is under revision. Logically there would need to be a demand for additional units, or the City would be undermining the efforts of existing landlords to fill their vacancies. As every landlord I know would atest, the last couple of years have been very challenging with higher vacancy rates, concessions, and stagnant rents in the face of rising taxes and utilities. There would need to be public support for unit legalization and expansion of housing in low density neighborhoods. The Board of Adjustment did an about face a year and a half ago and began approving unit legalizations that it would have denied previously. Public opinion has not made a similar shift. The case on the Board's agenda this coming Monday is likely to be another demonstration of how neighbors in low density neighborhoods feel about legalizations and rental units in general. Amok It would make sense to have additional housing located in areas served by mass transit. Clarion's proposal to restrict ADU's to single family zoning districts introduces new units of housing in areas that typically have limited or no mass transit. In order to have safe housing as part of an ADU initiative, the City has to have a process for business licensing in single family structures. Currently, the City licenses buildings with 3 or more units. While the City has discussed requiring business licenses for rental properties that are single family and duplex structures, the City does not have a process in place to regulate rental housing already in single family structures, much less to regulate the additional units created as ADU's. Some of the deficits mentioned above are long standing and cannot be overcome by the Mayor' directive to improve/create the tool. The one involving public opinion is not under the Mayor's control. So what could the City do that would increase housing without aggravating existing problems and creating a firestorm of opposition? The City could begin the implementation of ADU's in the existing multiple-family zoning districts, RMF-30 and RMF-35. It could narrow the opportunity even further initially by restricting ADU's to the City's historic districts where there is a design review process that is working well. The residents in these zoning districts expect renters as neighbors. These parts of the City have much better service by mass transit, especially TRAX. The City is already licensing many of these buildings as businesses. Because of current market conditions, it is important that the City take an incremental approach. Starting in the multi-family zones within historic districts allows that. The City could start with the RMF-30 and -35 zones and then add the R-2 zone. Or, it could add properties within the National Register Historic Districts using guidelines similar to those used for additions in historic districts. Not only would this approach have a greater potential for success, the City would also be offering an incentive for historic preservation, which already has a longer approval process. Maloy, Michael From: robert daniels [bipdaniels@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 8:38 AM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: ADU's Categories: Other Good morning Michael I am both pleased and interested in the city developing plans regarding ADU's. They are in integral part of this city's housing stock. I am,however, concerned that they will be inappropriately regulated. A foreseeable problem might be Mrs. Murphy's Exemption. I will not try to explain this outmoded loophole to you but I will say that it is a part of the Fair Housing law that has outlived its useful existence. I was a victim of it and know of others who were also adversely affected. It would be so simple for the city to create an ordinance to render it obsolete. I would appreciate your looking into that. Thanks, Bip • 1 Coffey, Cheri From: Gary Harding [garyh99©comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 1:40 PM To: Coffey, Cheri Cc: Yalecrest CC Chair Subject: RE: Comments---FW: Yalecrest Notice -Accessory Dwelling Units proposed by SLC Attachments: Accessory Dwelling Units Purpose and Background.pdf Ms. Coffey, I read the brief attachment. First I observe that the attachment has very little definition it just floats a broad concept. Deviating from the current residential zoning restrictions by allowing people to add ADU's is just that, a violation of the existing zoning concepts. I would oppose any broad based variance such as this. After the opposition stated above my thoughts on your General Questions are: 1. Yes on-site parking should be required along wiih any new dwellings. If an ADU is approved the owner should have to periodic:illy Snl)rrii; (say with property tax payments) a certification that they still have the required on- site parking 2. Definitely nor i i hi 3. Size should be 5rnousi,- t r; rind d.,finitely nut on par with a Principal Structure. 4. Any regulationsshould he sul,olcriri ateci co existiu ; IE gu;ellions and infill restrictions. 5. Yes, any strurtiur' (on or beyond thu- s,c.ale of a 2 a: ; uuage) on residential property in the city should he subject to design guidelines. 6. Businesses and Home Crc ctipations ;hould be p:ohibirecl in ADUs. Otherwise they would he built specifically as business Icr,n hats de_phe whatever uidelirie'i are elfan eil. 7. If ADU's are made av,elable the property owner should halve to submit with property tax payments a certification that the sr'ucture is not longer used as a Dwelling, or was vacant all year, or that the occupancy still complies with the ADIJ reouirenrents. As you can tell I think ibis initiative would just be used as a vehicle to increase population density and undermine the character of the reskler:ti,rl ui:ti,r t•; fur which the city is justifiably proud. From: dmaib@xmission,com [mailto:dmgib@xmission.comj Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 11:38 AM To: dmgib@xmissicn,com Subject: Yalecrest Notice - Accessory Dwelling Units proposed by SLC Neighbors, The Salt Lake City Planning Division is currently looking at creating an ordinance that, if approved, could greatly impact our neighborhood. The City is moving forward with a Sustainability Code Revision Project that includes, among other items, Allowing "Accessory Dwelling,Units". I encourage you to read the attached document and send your comments to the staff contact, Cheri Coffey, 801.535.6188, or (chcri.coiev'c_irslcgov,cons). The proposed ordinance is in the early stages and the City is eager to receive comments. You can sign up for SLC Planning notices at: htto://www.s1C20V.COM./CEDiplanning/navesibrojects.htm Reminder-NO Jan. 6 Yalecrest Meeting Happy Holidays! Lisette Gibson Yalecrest Neighborhood Council Chair day 801-583-9316 Accessory Dwelling Unit (definition): A residential unit that is located on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit, either internal to or attached to the single family unit or in a detached structure. The accessory dwelling unit shall be a complete housekeeping unit with a shared or separate entrance, kitchen, sleeping area, closet space, and bathroom facilities. Public Open House Notification Sustainability Code Revision Project. The Planning Division is currently working with Clarion Associates to develop various amendments to the City?s Zoning, Site Development and Subdivision Ordinances relating to sustainability regulations. The proposed changes include allowance for ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, Alternative Energy Systems (Solar Oriented Subdivisions, Small Wind Energy Systems, Solar Arrays, Solar Collection Systems); Urban Agriculture (Community Gardens, Seasonal Farm Stands, Community Supported Agriculture, hoophouses, greenhouses and coldframcs) and Street and Pedestrian Connectivity Standards for new development (Staff contact: Cheri Coffey at 801.535.6188 or cheri.coffey�slcoo\'.com). 2 Coffey, Cheri From: Dan Jones [djones7530@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 05,2010 6:17 PM To: Coffey, Cheri Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units Ms.Coffey, I am a resident at 1738 Yale Avenue in the "Harvard-Yale" area of the city. I have learned some news from our neighborhood council that has me quite concerned, to wit, that the city is considering rezoning fo allow "Accessory Dwelling Units" to be constructed in our neighborhood. My comments below refer to an information circular I received from ARCH giving the definition, background, and purpose statement of ADUs. My concerns fall into three areas: 1. This is already a high-density (small-lot) neighborhood with challenging parking. We don't need to increase the density by "increasing the housing stock of existing neighborhoods"! 2. It is a neighborhood with great charm. In the recent past the city has realized this and taken steps to prevent architectural monstosities from being built (in some cases, alas, too late.) This ordinance if passed could kick off another cycle of ugly remodelling. The picture shown in the ARCH circular of an attached ADY above-garage was anything but reassuring in this regard. 3. This is a very safe, family-oriented neighborhood. No matter how well-intentioned, these units once built will certainly turn into rentals that will forever change the historically stable character of our neighborhood. I would appreciate hearing from regarding any public fora that will be provided for feedback on this proposal. I am quite sure that if our neighborhood was canvassed in any manner, an overwhelming negative response would be turned in. Thank you in advance for your consideration of these comments. Dan Jones 1738 Yale Ave. SLC 84108 Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sian up now. 1 Coffey, Cheri From: dmgib@xmission.com Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 11:54 AM To: Warren Lloyd Cc: Coffey, Cheri; Hunter Esther; Oliver Anne; Schwemmer AIA Annie; Huffaker Kirk; Love, Jill; Garrott, Luke; Martin, JT; Simonsen Soren;Virginia Hylton home; GEORGE CATHY KELNER; Sally Patrick; Michael F. Jones; Jon Dewey; Yalecrest CC Chair Subject: Re:ADU Zoning Warren, Thank you for copying us on your email regarding the City's proposed idea of allowing Accessory Dwelling Units. Personally, I think this is a terrible idea and it should NOT be implemented city wide. The Yalecrest Executive Board is opposed to the idea. Here are my comments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit section that was included with the "Sustainability Code Revision Project". The Accessory Dwelling Unit section language should be removed from the Sustainability Project. It needs to stand alone as a separate ordinance as this is a huge issue that would have tremendous impact on our neighborhoods. These units would not work in the Yalecrest neighborhood. Yalecrest is a Single-Family Residential Neighborhood (R-1-5000 and R-1-7000)with the exception of two businesses (zoned -�-` CN). Allowing accessory dwelling units would essentially change the underlying zoning from single family to multi-family. Allowing these dwellings would eliminate the predictability of living (or moving into) a quiet single family neighborhood. We already have the problem in the Yalecrest area of"lack of privacy" when oversized new and existing garages and home additions loom over neighboring yards and homes. These units should NOT be allowed in R-1 zoned areas. Character-Yalecrest already has a huge problem in maintaining the character of our historic neighborhood due to historically insensitive new construction and additions. Encouraging this type of development would only add to the problem. The "worse case" has to considered. As with the Hubbard McMansion and the new detached garage at 1605 Princeton Avenue,people WILL take advantage of the City's ordinances and push the limits. The garage at 1605 Princeton has three dormers on the east side,has a sliding glass door on the southwest side and is almost as tall as the primary structure. An illegal sewer line was "caught" by the city and plugged. It is clear this detached garage was planned as a dwelling 40011" unit. Please drive by and see the garage for yourself! i • Don't apply this city wide. If it appears that this ordinance would be appropriate for a particular area of SLC (and you have the public Support),try it out and see how it goes first. This idea might work in some areas of SLC (possibly along existing public transit lines). UTA has eliminated a tremendous amount of public transportation in the Yalecrest area over the years and there are no nearby businesses to easily walk to (#7 and#8). • Lot coverage- how would these units impact the current lot coverage requirements? The lot coverage percentage was reduced in 2005 with the city-wide compatible infill zoning. Units and Occupancy- would there be a cap on units per lot?What about the rule of"no more than three unrelated adults living together"? How many occupants would be allowed in these units? Parking - As I mentioned, large out of scale garages are a huge issue for the Yalecrest area. And who would want to see parking pads added to our lots (and is getting rid of green space for asphalt or concrete parking pads sustainable)? I don't see how the parking could work. Most lots and garages in our area are small and a lot of :esidents already park one car on the street. Where would all the cars be parked? Off street parking has to be a requirement. This should NOT take precedence over other existing regulations. This section should NOT be rushed through. I moved into our neighborhood years ago with the assumption (and the zoning) that only single-family homes would be line our streets and garages (containing cars) would line most backyards. Thank you, Lisette Gibson, Chair- Yalecrest Neighborhood Council Quoting Warn Lloyd<warren@lloyd-arch.com>: > Cheri: > Thanks for your work on the Sustainability Code Project. > I am responding(in red) to the General questions with some brief > comments with a cc to several neighborhood advocates for their thoughts. 2 >Happy New Year! > Warren > General Concepts > Regulations to ensure mitigation of negative impacts > 1. Limit Size of Unit: Proposal is to limit the size of Accessory > Dwelling Unit to ensure it is subordinate of the principal structure. >2. Owner Occupancy: Require either the principal unit or the ADU to be >occupied by the owner of the lot. > General Questions > 1. Parking Requirement: Should an Accessory Dwelling Unit have to > include on-site parking? >In general I would be opposed to additional on-site parking > requirements for the ADU but would suggest a tool that would give >planning staff ability to respond to specific conditions where on- > street parking problems have been documented. > 2. Where to Allow: In what zoning districts should Accessory Dwelling > Units be allowed? > I would consider it in ALL residential zones > 3. Should the size of the structure conform to the regulations of > Principal Structures or Accessory Structures? > I would use the Accessory Structure standards > 4. Should these regulations take precedence over other existing > regulations if there is a conflict (such as those relating to > compatible infill or historic preservation regulations?) > No, but they should be a criteria for approving a special exception or > variance. > In H overlay districts, the ADU could be noted in a staff report as > mitigating or supporting condition to an application > Is there a way to confirm the intent of an applicant to provide " > additional housing? 3 >Have we now come full circle from requiring homeowners to verify that 'the accessory structure(ADU) WON'T be used for housing to requiring >that it WILL be housing? > 5. Should there be design guidelines for these types of structures > (where they are detached?) > Yes, There should be a Design guideline for detached ADU's > They could be developed from the patterns established in the > Compatible Infill Overlay and the Residential Design Guidelines from > the H Overlay. > 6. Should home occupations be allowed in Accessory Dwelling Units? > Yes > 7. Other > > Warren K Lloyd, AIA LEED AP > Principal > LloydArchitects > Salt Lake City + Seattle > 573 E 600 S, Salt Lake City UT 84102 >ph 801.328.3245 /fax 801.328.3246 >lloyd-arch.com 4 Coffey, Cheri Amok From: Warren Lloyd [warren@Iloyd-arch.com] Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 10:03 AM To: Coffey, Cheri Cc: Yalecrest CC Chair; Hunter Esther; Oliver Anne; Schwemmer AIA Annie; Huffaker Kirk; Love, Jill; Garrott, Luke; Martin, JT; Simonsen Soren Subject: ADU Zoning Cheri: Thanks for your work on the Sustainability Code Project. I am responding(in red)to the General questions with some brief comments with a cc to several neighborhood advocates for their thoughts. Happy New Year! Warren General Concepts Regulations to ensure mitigation of negative impacts 1.Limit Size of Unit:Proposal is to limit the size of Accessory Dwelling Unit to ensure it is subordinate of the principal structure. 2,Owner Occupancy:Require either the principal unit or the ADU to he occupied by the owner of the lot. General Questions 1.Parking Requirement:Should an Accessory Dwelling Unit have to include on-site parking? In general I would be opposed to additional on-site parking requirements for the ADU but would suggest a tool that would give planning staff ability to respond to specific conditions where on-street parking problems have been documented. 2.Where to Allow:In what zoning districts should Accessory Dwelling Units be allowed? I would consider it in ALI,residential zones 3.Should the size of the structure conform to the regulations of Principal Structures or Accessory Structures'? I would use the Accessory Structure standards 4,Should these regulations take precedence over other existing regulations if there is a conflict(such as those relating to compatible infill or historic preservation regulations?) No,but they should be a criteria for approving a special exception or variance. In H overlay districts,the ADU could be noted in a staff report as mitigating or supporting condition to an application Is there a way to confirm the intent of an applicant to provide additional housing? Have we now come full circle from requiring homeowners to verify that the accessory structure(ADl1)WON'T be used for housing to requiring that it WILL be housing? S.Should there be design guidelines for these types of structures(where they are detached?) Yes,There should be a Design guideline for detached ADU's They could be developed from the patterns established in the Compatible Infill Overlay and the Residential Design Guidelines from the H Overlay, 6.Should home occupations be allowed in Accessory Dwelling Units'? Yes 7.Other 1 Coffey, Cheri From: Owen & Deanna Lunt{odlunt@juno.com] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 4:52 PM To: Coffey, Cheri Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units I belong to the Yalecrest Community Council, and I oppose the "Accessory Dwelling Units" proposal by SLC. Deanna Lunt 1870 Harvard Ave. Salt Lake City, Ut 84108 Criminal Lawyer Criminal Lawyers - Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.luno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=3W1SwGVJ- yHzEg9nABsd8QAAJz1Gfldoot 8VPQSifp0F0tsYAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADN AAAAAAiFgAAAAA= Coffey, Cheri prom: vankays5@aol.com Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 10:39 AM To: Coffey, Cheri Subject: ADU'S As a resident of the Yalecrest community(residing at 1234 So. 1800 E.) I encourage making ADU's a viable option to our neighborhood. I think the economic advantages would make living in this area accessible to more people, and might make it possible for my wife and Ito stay here. Neil vanKeizerswaard 1 Coffey, Cheri From: Tom A. Lund [talund@tannerco.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 10:08 AM To: Coffey, Cheri Cc: Gretchen Lund Subject: "Accessory Dwelling Units" proposal Cheri, My wife, Gretchen, and I have lived in the Harvard/Yale area for almost 20 years. Even though most of the lots and houses are small, it's been a wonderful place to raise our children. We recently learned that the Salt Lake City Planning Division is considering an ordinance allowing "Accessory Dwelling Units", and we wanted to give you our input: We are against such an ordinance because we feel that our neighborhood already has a high density, old quaint density but density nevertheless. Simply put, one would be hard pressed to find another historical neighborhood, other than the avenues and central city, with the density that exists in the Harvard/Yale area. This proposed ordinance would create additional traffic and "new rental density" that would detract from, not add to, the quality of life in our area. The small lots in our area already don't have very much open space. At a time when we are hearing more and more about "open space", it is hard for us to understand why a proposed ordinance like this is even being considered! Thank you for taking our input. Please share our input with the SLC Planning Division. Please feel free to call us as well! Thank you. Tom & Gretchen Lund 1553 Laird Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 C-(801) 856-2005 This e-mail message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message from your computer. To ensure compliance with U.S. Treasury rules, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. Tax advice contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by the recipient for the purpose of 1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code, and 2) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed in this communication. Coffey, Cheri From: Coffey, Cheri Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 4:23 PM To: Coffey, Cheri Subject: ADU Public Comment Received a voice mail message today from Wayne Cannon at 1373 East Harvard Avenue. He is supportive of Accessory Dwelling Units if they require on-site parking(and they don't generate a parking problem)and they are built in a way that is compatible with the neighborhood (no garage mahals). He is not sure how regulations can address that but if they can he supports them. 12/22/09 1 Coffey, Cheri From: LYNN Pershing [ikpershing@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 2:39 PM To: Coffey, Cheri; dmgib@mission.com Subject: accessory dwelling units Dear Ms Coffey I implore you to stop the madness and continuous, aggressive destruction of one of SLC most charming neighborhoods (YaleCrest). I have read the accessory dwelling units and sustainability code revisions and have concluded it allows for rental additions to existing family dwellings. Provisions for consistency with existing architecture, etc are always "good speak" but have "no teeth to defend or protect" these provisions. Homes in Yalecrest neighborhood are small-medium sized single family dwelling units and a fair number of already existing rental duplexes. We don't need nor want to become rental units. It is important to the city that this neighborhood retains its property values. Rental additions will only decrease home values. Previous city approval of'megamansions' and new commercial business has surely been beneficial to the city's tax base, but is destroying the very charming fiber of this historic neighborhood that has been critical to its high real estate demand, excellent property values and high quality of life(walkability)which benefits the city's tax base. The City speaks of'improving our city neighborhoods'but doesn't interact with residents to identify how that might be best accomplished. Stop the Madness, the Greed and the Destruction of what is inherently good. Protect what is precious and so easily lost to good intentions. Go change something that is NOT working--the DOWNTOWN. Get the massive downtown projects completed, give free parking for year to re-establish downtown shopping behavior and get commerce rolling there again. Leave us alone--we're already a great neighborhood and doing our part to insure a "better Downtown living experience". DO NOT implement this proposed city ordinance/zoning change, It will DESTROY the YaleCrest neighborhood, its charm, congeniality and high quality of life. Respectfully, Lynn K. Pershing, Ph.D. Consultant Dermatopharmac eutics tel: 801/971-4959 email: lkpershin2 a.amail.com i • Coffey, Cheri From: Sally M Patrick[Sally.Patrick@utah.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 22,.2009 9:01 AM To: Yalecrest CC Chair; Coffey, Cheri Cc: Sally M Patrick Subject: RE: Accessory Dwelling Units Comments Cheri- Lisette did a great job of expanding on my initial comments to you-I second these 100% on behalf of Yalecrest. Sally M. Patrick 1413 Laird Circle YCC Secretary/Treasurer From: dmgib@xmission.com [dmgib@xmission.com] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 2:50 PM To: Coffey, Cheri Cc: dmgib@xmission.com Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units Comments Cheri, Here are my comments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit section that was included with the Sustainability Code Revision Project. I feel that the Accessory Dwelling Unit section language should be removed from the Sustainability Project. It needs to stand alone as a separate ordinance as this is a huge issue that would have tremendous impacts on our neighborhoods. These units would not work in the Yalecrest neighborhood. Yalecrest is an entirely single-family residential neighborhood (R-1-5000 and R-1-7000) with the exception of two businesses (zoned CN). Allowing accessory dwelling units would essentially change the underlying zoning from single family to multi-family. Allowing these dwellings would eliminate the predictability of living (or moving into) a quiet single family neighborhood. We already have the problem of "lack of privacy" when oversized new and existing garages and home additions loom over neighboring yards. These units should not be allowed in R-1 zoned areas. Character - Yalecrest already has a huge problem in maintaining the character of our historic neighborhood due to historically insensitive new construction and additions. Encouraging this type of development would only add to the problem. Don't apply this City-Wide. If it appears to be appropriate for a particular area of SLC (and you have the public support), try it out and see how it goes. This idea might work in some areas of SLC (possibly along existing public transit lines). UTA has eliminated a tremendous amount of public transportation in the Yalecrest area over the years and there are no nearby businesses to easily walk to (#7 and #8). Lot coverage - how would allowing these dwellings impact lot coverage requirements? The lot coverage percentage was reduced in 2005 with the city-wide compatible infill zoning. Units - would there be a cap on units per lot and what about the rule of "no more than three unrelated adults living together"? 1 Parking - As I mentioned, large out of scale garages are a huge issue for the Yalecrest area. And who would want to see parking pads added to our lots (and is getting rid of green space for asphalt or concrete parking pads sustainable)? I don't see how the parking could work. ' '4 ' Most lots and garages in our area are small and a lot of residents already park one car on the street. This should NOT take precedence over other existing regulations. This section should NOT be rushed through. I am in favor of the other sustainable measures. Thank you, Lisette Gibson Yalecrest Neighborhood Council Chair Yalecrest Compatible Infill Ordinance Committee 2 Coffey, Cheri From: k moncla [kmonc2003@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 8:49 AM To: Coffey, Cheri I am opposed to this, It seems that it would just increase rental units in our older neighborhoods, to which we have to many already. It would increase traffic and congestion and it is a terrible idca. 1 Coffey, Cheri Ad"A From: Michael F. Jones[mjones@mfjlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 7:44 AM To: Coffey, Cheri Cc: DeLaMare-Schaefer, Mary; Yalecrest CC Chair Subject: FW: Yalecrest Notice-Accessory Dwelling Units proposed by SLC Attachments: Accessory Dwelling Units Purpose and Background.pdf Cheri, You may recall that I was a member of the Board of Adjustment for 15 years starting in 1993, and Chair of the Board from 2001 to the end of my service in 2008. I noted this morning that you're the staff contact for this ADU idea, so I'm sending you my comment to Mary next below. In order not to be selfish and to look at this not just from the perspective of my own Yalecrest neighborhood but also the rest of the City, I must say that this is a terrible idea for much if not all of the City. It would change the scale and appearance of any neighborhood where it was permitted—destroying Federal Heights, the Avenues, Sugarhouse, and so on. The owner-occupancy aspect would be impossible to enforce. Please stop this terrible idea before it gains any traction at all. Respectfully, Mike Michael F. Jo•ies I Michael F. Jones, P.C. I Wells Fargo Center 1299 South Main Street, Suite 1300, Salt Lake City, Utah 841111 ,i00014" 801,582,24100 I F 301.582•4353 I mjones@mfjtaw.com I www.mfjlaw.com This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and immediately notify this law firm by replying to this message, and then delete the communication from any computer or network system. This e-mail does not create an attorney-client relationship with you if you are not already a client of this law firm. From: Michael F. Jones [mailto:mjones@mfjlaw.com] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 17:22 To: 'De La Mare-Schaefer, Mary' Cc: 'dmgib@xmission.com' Subject: FW: Yalecrest Notice - Accessory Dwelling Units proposed by SLC Hi Mary, This ADU idea is simply a terrible one as it relates to my Yalecrest neighborhood. Without doubt, it would result in even larger garages, and even more of a scale problem than my neighborhood already has, not to mention tearing asunder the historical fabric of the neighborhood once and for all. Respectfully, Mike Michael F. Jones I Michael F. Jones, P.C. I Wells Fargo Center 1299 South Main Street, Suite '1300, Salt Lake City, Utah 8l1'11 i 80'1.58?.241 )0 I F 501,582.,1353 I mjones@mfjlaw.com I www.mfjlaw.com .• r,o„ This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, please delete ' ,. the e-mail and any attachments and immediately notify this law firm by replying to this message, and then delete the 1 communication from any computer or network system. This e-mail does not create an attorney-client relationship will?you if you are not already a client of this law firm. From: dmgib@xmission.com [mailto:dmgib@xmission.com] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 11:38 To: dmgib@xmission.com Subject: Yalecrest Notice -Accessory Dwelling Units proposed by SLC Neighbors, The Salt Lake City Planning Division is currently looking at creating an ordinance that, if approved, could greatly impact our neighborhood. The City is moving forward with a Sustainability Code Revision Project that includes, among other items,Allowing "Accessory Dwelling Units". I encourage you to read the attached document and send your comments to the staff contact, Cheri Coffey, 801.535.6188, or (cheri.coffey@slegov.com). The proposed ordinance is in the early stages and the City is eager to receive comments. You can sign up for SLC Planning notices at: httn://www.slcgov.com/CED/planning/pa2es/projects.htm Reminder-NO Jan. 6 Yalecrest Meeting Happy Holidays! Lisette Gibson Yalecrest Neighborhood Council Chair Jay 801-583-9316 • Accessory Dwelling,Unit (definition): A residential unit that is located on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit, either internal to or attached to the single family unit or in a detached structure. The accessory dwelling unit shall be a complete housekeeping unit with a shared or separate entrance,kitchen, sleeping area, closet space, and bathroom facilities. Public Open House Notification Sustainability Code Revision Project. The Planning Division is currently working with Clarion Associates to develop various amendments to the City?s Zoning, Site Development and Subdivision Ordinances relating to sustainability regulations. The proposed changes include allowance for ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, Alternative Energy Systems (Solar Oriented Subdivisions, Small Wind Energy Systems, Solar Arrays, Solar Collection Systems); Urban Agriculture (Community Gardens, Seasonal Farm Stands, Community Supported Agriculture, hoophouses, greenhouses and coldframes) and Street and Pedestrian Connectivity Standards for new development (Staff contact: Cheri Coffey at 801.535.6188 or cheri.coffey@slccov.com). 2 Coffey, Cheri From: dmgib@xmission.com „ , Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 2:51 PM To: Coffey, Cheri Cc: Yalecrest CC Chair Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units Comments Attachments: Plaintext Version of Message; HTML Version of Message Cheri, Here are my comments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit section that was included with the Sustainability Code Revision Project. I feel that the Accessory Dwelling Unit section language should be removed from the Sustainability Project. It needs to stand alone as a separate ordinance as this is a huge issue that would have tremendous impacts on our neighborhoods. These units would not work in the Yalecrest neighborhood. Yalecrest is an entirely single-family residential neighborhood (R-1-5000 and R-1-7000) with the exception of two businesses (zoned CN). Allowing accessory dwelling units would essentially change the underlying zoning from single family to multi-family. Allowing these dwellings would eliminate the predictability of living (or moving into) a quiet single family neighborhood. We already have the problem of "lack of privacy" when oversized new and existing garages and home additions loom over neighboring yards. These units should not be allowed in R-1 zoned areas. Character- Yalecrest already has a huge problem in maintaining the character of our historic neighborhood due to historically insensitive new construction and additions, Encouraging this type of development would only add to the problem. Don't apply this City-Wide. If it appears to be appropriate for a particular area of SLC (and you have the public support), try it out and see how it goes. This idea might work in some areas of SLC (possibly along existing public transit lines). UTA has eliminated a tremendous amount of public transportation in the Yalecrest area over the years and there are no nearby businesses to easily walk to (#7 and #8). Lot coverage - how would allowing these dwellings impact lot coverage requirements? The lot coverage percentage was reduced in 2005 with the city-wide compatible infill zoning. Units - would there be a cap on units per lot and what about the rule of"no more than three unrelated adults living together"? Parking - As I mentioned, large out of scale garages are a huge issue for the Yalecrest area. And who would want to see parking pads added i to our lots (and is getting rid of green space for asphalt or concrete parking pads sustainable)? I don't see how the parking could work. Most lots and garages in our area are small and a lot of residents already park one car on the street. This should NOT take precedence over other existing regulations. This section should NOT be rushed through. I am in favor of the other sustainable measures. Thank you, Lisette Gibson Yalecrest Neighborhood Council Chair Yalecrest Compatible Infill Ordinance Committee 2 Coffey, Cheri From: GEORGE CATHY KELNER[kelnergeo@msn.com] Sent: Monday, December21, 2009 1:38 PM To: Coffey, Cheri Subject: accessory dwelling unit proposal Dear Ms. Coffey, We have taken the opportuity to review the information you sent out regarding the possiblity of creating regulations that would allow accessory dwelling units in existing residential neighborhoods. We live in the Yalecrest neighborhood and have been working to have it designated as a local historic district. While we appreciate the city's efforts to develop sustainable green policies, we absolutely and wholeheartedly oppose opening up the Yalecrest neighborhood or other city neighborhoods that are historically significant to the character of our city to accessory dwelling units. The character of our Yalecrest neighborhood has eroded significantly with teardowns and oversized out of character additions. The privacy of neighbors has been encroached upon, traffic has increased, parking problems have grown, property values have suffered and ill will has replaced neighborhood cohesion. We strongly believe that these problems would grow exponentially if our beautiful old neighborhoods would be subjected to accessory dwelling units. We urge the city to drop this proposal. George and Cathy Kelner 1000 Military Drive 1 Page 1 of 1 From: Virginia Hylton [virginiahylton@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 5:11 PM To: Coffey, Cheri; GEORGE CATHY KELNER; Sally M Patrick; Yalecrest CC Chair Subject: Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Ms. Coffey; While I completely support sustainability,I do not feel that wholesale zoning for accessory dwelling units throughout Salt Lake's residential neighborhoods is in the best interest of Salt Lake's residents, Thcrc arc many neighborhoods that have a well recognized development pattern and sense of place. My Yalecrest neighborhood is one example. We would like to be recognized for our architectural and historic contribution to Salt Lake City, as well as our quality of life. Allowing additions,remodels and construction of new detached structures to accomodate a second residential unit in a single-family neighborhood and the concomitant increase in traffic and parking pressure on our residential streets is contrary to our goals. Respectfully, Virginia Hylton file://\\slcinas2\Planning,\Common\Sustainabilitv\Accessory Dwelling, Units-Mike\Accessn 1 1/4/)n1 n Page 1 of 3 From: Sally M Patrick [Sally.Patrick@utah.edu] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 3:18 PM To: Coffey, Cheri Cc: GEORGE CATHY KELNER;Jon Dewey; Virginia Hylton home; Yalecrest CC Chair Subject: Accessority Dwelling Units Comment Hello Cheri- As Secretary/Treasurer of the Yalecrest Community Council, Lisette Gibson forwarded to several of us the Accessorily Dwelling Units Info on the agenda for the open house tonight. Here are my comments back to Lisette which I am also sending to you for tonight's discussion. I strongly support our YCC letter to the City Council requesting consideration for Historic District designation and expect those considerations to take precedence over other Accessorily Dwelling Unit considerations. This is indeed an important issue and could indeed be a Trojan horse > as a way to supersede the Historic District issues of compatible > design and size we are pushing. While I support the "green" and > aging population issues, I would not want allowances made to our > direction in order to allow for encroachment for accessory > structures-I've got one right next door! Sally Patrick 1413 Laird Circle (1210 South 1410 East) From: dmgib@xmission.com [mailto:dmgib@xmission.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 3:04 PM Amok To: Sally M Patrick Cc: Virginia Hylton home; GEORGE CATHY KELNER; Jon Dewey; sally.patrick@gmail.com Subject: RE: RE: Accessority Dwelling Units Info Good continents Sally! All,we need to get on this NOW! Everyone, please send your comments to Cheri Coffey. What do you think of me emailing it out to our distribution list? Thanks, Lisette Quoting Sally M Patrick<Sallv.Patrick(c utah.edu>: > Hi Lisctte- > This is indeed an important issue and could indeed be a Trojan horse > as a way to supersede the Historic District issues of compatible > design and size we are pushing. While I support the "green" and > aging population issues, I would not want allowances made to our > direction in order to allow for encroachment for accessory > structures-I've got one right next door! > My 2 cents > Sally > >PS all-please note new personal e-mail. sally.patrick(re <umail.com file:/n\slcinas2\Planning\Cormnon\Sustainability\Accessory Dwelling Units-Mike\Accesso... 11/4/2010 Page 2 of 3 >From: dmgib@xmission.com f mailto:dmgibn.xmission.coml > Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 1:08 PM >To: Virginia Hylton home; GEORGE CATHY KELNER;Jon Dewey; >sally.patrick(4mail.com;dmeib/ixmission.com > Subject: Fwd: RE: Accessority Dwelling Units Info > See attached from Cheri Coffey. Accessory Dwelling Units are just >one item that will be presented at the SLC Planning Open House >tonight that is included with other "Sustainability Code >Revisions". >Here is the Open House info and Cheri's contact info. I will try to >attend the open house tonight. I think this one is very important > and we should all send comments! What do you all think? >Thanks, Lisette > Sustainability Code Revision Project?The Planning Division is >currently working with Clarion Associates to develop various >amendments to the City?s Zoning, Site Development and Subdivision > Ordinances relating to sustainability regulations. The proposed > changes include allowance for Accessory Dwelling Units,Alternative > Energy Systems (Solar Oriented Subdivisions, Small Wind Energy > Systems, Solar Arrays, Solar Collection Systems); Urban Agriculture > (Community Gardens, Seasonal Farm Stands, Community Supported >Agriculture, hoophouses, greenhouses and coldframes) and Street and >Pedestrian Connectivity Standards for new development (Staff contact: > Cheri Coffey at 801.535.6188 or cheri.coffev @slceov.com). >Thursday December 17, 2009 > From 4:30 to 6:00 P.M. > FIRST FLOOR HALLWAY > SALT LAKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILIDNG > Forwarded message from Cheri.Colfev( sleaov.com > Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:36:32 -0700 > From: "Coffey, Cheri" <Cheri.Coffey((slcgov.com> >Reply-To: "Coffey, Cheri" <Cheri.Coffev0),slcgov.com> > Subject: RE: Accessority Dwelling Units Info > To: Yalecrest CC Chair<clmnib(/i xmission.com> > Lisette, > I have attached the open house materials. We don't have a finalized > version of the ordinance. We are taking the opportunity at >tonight's meeting to pose general questions to the public on the > issues to get a better understanding of what issues you may have. file:/A\slcinas2\Planning\Common\Sustainability\Accessory Dwelling Units-Mike\Accesso... 11/4/2010 Page 3 of 3 >Please send me your comments. We will use them to help us > finalize the draft ordinance. Once we get a draft ordinance, we >will send it back out for the public to comment on as and hold >meetings to receive public input. >Thanks for your interest. (Please forward to anyone who may be >interested.) >Cheri >From: dmgib@xmission.com jmailto:dmgib@xmission.coml > Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 12:24 PM > To: Coffey, Cheri > Subject: Accessority Dwelling Units Info >Hi Cheri, >I would like to know if there is any information you could email to >me on the Accessory Dwelling Units that will be presented at today's > Open House. I don't know if I will be able to attend the open >house. >Are you looking at proposing the Dwellings Units for all parts of the > City and in all residential areas (like the Yalecrest area)? > i >Any information would be appreciated. �.•� > Thanks! > Lisette Gibson > Yalecrest Neighborhood Council Chair > End forwarded message file://\\slcinas2\Planning\Common\Sustainability\Accessory Dwelling Units-Mike\Accesso... 11/4/2010 Comments to Historic Landmarks Commission Re draft Sustainability ordinances 12/2/09 , Speaking about the 4 draft ordinances in the sustainability initiative: These proposals are being fast-tracked and because of their potential impact on historic preservation are worth your attention. The draft ordinances address connectivity, urban agriculture, alternative energy, and accessory dwelling units. They were developed for other communities, in different economic times...communities that must not have the historic resources that ours does. A problem that a member of the ZAP group identified is the trumping of ALL other zoning regulations. So if there's a conflict between historic preservation and the.provisions of the urban agriculture ordinance, urban agriculture prevails. My greatest disappointment is the proposed ordinance for accessory dwelling units. More on that shortly. Here are some scenarios that could happen and could have a negative impact on historical resources. -private vegetable gardens in our historic parks with the associated maintenance issues, -connectivity requirements that disrupt the historical development pattern of our blocks, -the absence of any provisions for solar in multiple family or mixed use projects--and the failure to protect solar access in those parts of the City. The focus on single-and two-family dwellings reflects how disconnected the proposed ordinance is with Salt Lake and with our economic times. When do you expect to see a new subdivision with more than 25 single-family and twin-family dwellings on the Planning Commission's agenda? My greatest disappointment is the proposal to restrict accessory dwelling units to owner-occupied single family dwellings. The huge irony is that accessory dwelling units won't be allowed at all in the very parts of the City that retain most of the historic carriage houses. I had viewed accessory dwelling units as a possible incentive for historic preservation. The path that the consultant has chosen offers nothing for property owners in historic districts. In fact, accessory dwellings under this proposed ordinance offer nothing for me on any of my properties. • There is a significant opportunity for historic preservation here that is being lost as these proposals ignore structures that already have a history of being sustainable. Cindy Cromer c► 5 C� r�; err n: = Itttt By �� 'L f Greater Avenues Community Council i- q' SCANNED TO: a\° March 3, 2011 SC r+(JNED BY: '101� The Honorable Ralph Becker D/QTE' -� Mayor of Salt Lake City Greiner Avenges Cnrn»rrrrliti'Council kviN1) — r ` ! 451 South State Street Derive Van Langeveld, C'Ilairman I/ a21,k V22-Q Salt Lake City, UT 84111 807 Northcliffe Drive Dear Mayer Becker, Salt Lake City. UT 84103-3342 The Greater Avenues Community Council took an official position last evening in opposition to the proposed City Ordinance on Accessory Dwelling Units. This position was passed by a vote of 30 to 2. The vote was taken after months of discussion and input from residents as well as attendance at informational hearings on the subject. We also had city planning people attend meetings to explain the proposal in detail. Numerous points of concern were raised with the ADU proposal. A few of those concerns are: 1. The ordinance would go against the Master Plan created in and supported by our community for the last 30 years and as a City-wide mandate would subvert the whole Master Plan-based planning process. 2. The Avenues has worked for years to control deterioration of our neighborhoods. including gaining the adoption of SR1-A zoning for most of the Avenues. The ADU proposal would subvert the existing zoning. 3. The owner occupancy requirement would be very difficult to enforce and if it were enforced could lead to empty ADUs being used for business uses the area is not zoned for. 4, Most one bedroom units would add two vehicles to the already crowded streets and parking problems related to that crowding. 5. There already is an abundance of available housing of this size in the City currently with more being brought on-line in the near term. 6. Avenue residents have little if any confidence in the Planning and Zoning Office's ability to enforce the existing ordinances let a lone a new ordinance. Complaint based enforcement pits neighbor against neighbor and that is all we have known for years. It is for these and many other reasons that we have taken this action. We hope that the City Council will understand the depth of these concerns and not pass an ordinance allowing ADUs. Sincerely, av�n Langeveld, Chairman, GACC cc: Stan Penfold Eas side COMMUNITY COUNCIL 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 east.central@live.com page I 1 March 17, 2011 Michael Maloy, AICP Principal Planner Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake City Planning Commission c/o Angela Hasenberg, Senior Secretary Salt Lake City Corporation an eela.hasenberg(&slctaov.com Regarding: PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units Dear Planning Commissioners; . ,k Gary and I have been asked to write to you in behalf of the general membership and the Executive Board of the Eastside Community Council & East Central Planning District (formerly called East Central) to consider our recommendations for a successful pilot of the ADU policy. Our area represents from South Temple to 1700 South, 1365 East to 700 East or 9 neighborhoods, 3 business districts. First a thank you and also a plea for your ongoing support. Our community council area is not opposed to change or to growth. We have educated ourselves to clearly understand the many changes that need to take place to ready for the growth and housing options anticipated by 2040. On the other hand, this area is also uniquely fragile. It's location within walking distance to downtown, the University of Utah, Westminster and Sugar House, with transit intersecting the area and charming business districts such as Ninth and Ninth and the proposed Canal District makes it highly desirable. For the same reasons it is also at risk. It is a rich fabric with an extensive history and undisputed character(example please see the This Old House article included with this letter).A neighborhood where on the same block you see a 5 story apartment buildings, a group home, a medical clinic, duplexes, single family homes, neighborhood businesses such as a coffee shop and a yoga studio. In other words, we have organically grown the very sustainable and walkable community that the City hopes to encourage throughout Salt Lake. Eas ' side COMMUNITY COUNCIL 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 east.central@live.com page 12 A thoughtful approach to land use policy that takes into account our fully developed neighborhood can never be done in a broad paint brush manner or we end up loossing what we all cherish with unintended consequences. We believe detailed planning as well as extensive community vetting/buy in ensures that good growth can be realized. We do not simply fight for single family homes but instead for the full fabric of our council area. So next we would like to add our applause to the administsration for taking the added time to develop this particular land use policy. To date, we feel that the community involvement and the time invested to create a tailored ADU policy for Salt Lake City has been handled with good communication and care. We hope this continues. Last, we understand that this pilot may be restricted to areas with fixed transit such as ours. We believe better would be a pilot spread across the different areas of the City and the different zones which would give better data for when later the City opens this policy to all areas; would give equal access to this new and lucrative property right and instead of negatively "packing" our less affluent areas of the city, provide this option to areas with larger lots better able to absorb the impacts. However, long familiar with multiple units and mulitple uses in our area, in concept, the membership and the ECPD Executive Board are highly interested in andy fully supportive of the "idea" of ADU's. The following are what we believe we will need for a successful and supported pilot should you propose it be in our area. Please consider: 1. The owner occupied requirement be upheld. 2. These units be counted when calculating density. 3. The first time a unit is approved it include an on site inspection for both building and health/life/safety. (Could be administered through a third party.) Eas side COMMUNITY COUNCIL 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 east.central@live.com page 13 4. The program be fully self funding including all necessary enforcement. We encourage this same thought for the business licensing of existing units down to 2 units. 5. Design standards include the requirement to maintain the green, open space characteristics of the neighborhood in front, side and backyards rather than the wholesale tearing up of property frontage, side yards and back yards to install parking lots, parking pads, and asphalt instead of a yard. We ask that standards be included to protect this point. 6. We would need a targeted education/enforcement effort in this area. We have a disproportionately high amount of exisitng illegal duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, etc. that are causing both the City and neighborhood extensive impact/cost/deterioration. 7. Eliminate the special exception unit legalization process currently in place that bypasses the standards put in place in each zone and the master plan. Put in place as a 1-2 year temporary measure to protect property rights in 95 is being used to bypass the system now 16 years later. It more than any other program has caused significant problems in the area and between neighbors. Also, costs to City to administer this program are very high in staff and board time. 8. Implementation of the Good Landlord Program. Thank you for considering our thoughts and recommendations. In behalf of the Executive Board and General Membership Gary Felt Esther Hunter Co-Chairs East Central Planning District cc ECPD Executive Board Luke Garrott Jill Love Wilf Sommerkorn Eas side COMMUNITY COUNCIL 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 east.central@live.com page 14 http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/photos/0„20466527 20917999,00.html This Old Se Ten Best Old House Neighborhoods 2011: The West and Northwest By: Keith Pandolfi, Gillian Barth, Carole Braden,Amanda Keiser, Eric Hagerman, Sal Vaglica, and Danielle Blundell,This Old House online For the fourth year in a row, we've tracked down North America's most timeless neighborhoods—places where lovingly crafted old houses have extraordinary pasts and unarguably promising futures. With help from our friends at Portland, Oregon-based Pr eservationDirecao-y.com—who distributed our nomination forms to more than 14,000 historical societies, neighborhood groups, and preservation nonprofits—we've assembled our biggest-ever list of off-the-beaten-path places that are worth eyeing for a great old home. From quaint New England villages to bustling urban enclaves, here are a dozen places where you can find a perfect old house of your own along the northern Atlantic coast. Here are our picks for the perfect spots to buy a home in the land west of the Rockies. Eas side ' COMMUNITY COUNCIL. UNCIL 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 east.central@live.com page[ 5 University District, Salt Lake City, Utah R.i . _ �a +"' =f..l.-a.• -_. • ry �• � r l - t. ‘t - a r f '4' a ?'- 3E• f �+, t Amok _=may ,> ... t^.'"'- 4.4r. I. 41$. „ A 'Y� !. - • L ' < P`:.. C u.. Young families live alongside professors and college students in this Salt Lake City neighborhood between downtown and the University of Utah campus. Think of the University District as a perfect college town, where residential streets divided by grassy medians are within walking distance of locally owned pizza parlors and coffee shops; and where a sea of residents, donning their finest red and white, migrate to nearby Rice-Eccles stadium on autumnal Saturdays to watch their beloved Utes play football. "People love this neighborhood," says Realtor Celeste Council, whose clients are drawn to its progressive vibe and the close-set houses, which she says adds to the University District's sense of community. The neighborhood had a scare in the 1970s when developers started knocking down historic houses to make way for apartments and commercial buildings. But residents fought back, secured new zoning laws, and got a large chunk of the neighborhood listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Houses Amok Most are brick or clapboard Folk Victorians built for University of Utah professors and employees between 1900 and 1920. Other styles include Gothic Revival, Queen Anne, Eas "'`side COMMUNITY COUNCIL 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 east.central@live.com Page 16 Tudor, and Craftsman. You can get a modest two-bedroom Folk Victorian for less than $200,000, though larger homes are priced $500,000 and up. Why Buy Here? Preservation-minded buyers are purchasing and renovating an increasing number of the old houses here, ensuring that this historic neighborhood retains its classic architecture and character. Many smaller, low-carbon-footprint houses are also bringing eco-savvy buyers, who install solar panels, swap thirsty lawns for xeriscaping, and use rain barrels to collect water for gardens. University District residents are also eschewing cars, relying on bicycles and Salt Lake City's light-rail system to get to and from downtown. Gallery: Best Old House Neighborhoods 2011: EAST LIBERTY PARK COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION PO Box 520123 Salt Lake City, UT 84125 March 21, 2011 Ms. Jill Remington Love Salt Lake City Council Chair and District 5 Council Member 451 South State Street, Room 304 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Ms. Love, The East Liberty Park Community Organization (ELPCO) met Thursday evening, January 27, 2011 to discuss the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit portion of Mayor Becker's Sustainability Initiative. At the conclusion of the discussion, the members present voted overwhelmingly against adopting the Accessory Dwelling Unit portion of the Mayor's Sustainability ordinance. The vote was against ADU's being allowed in East Liberty Park. Specifically cited as concerns were (in no particular order): 1. Ultimately, ADU's will negatively affect the essential character of the East Liberty Park area. Several residents said they moved here for the `feel" of East Liberty Park. 2. There are already too many renters in this area anyway, and renters continue to display an "I don't care" attitude about the neighborhood. 3. The potential created for overcrowded and canyon-like alleys. The current condition and maintenance of the alleys was a related concern. 4. Concerns about parking, traffic, and the large number of already boarded up alley garages where the occupants/owners are parking on the street. 5. The failure in the past of the City to properly and thoroughly enforce current ordinances related to planning and housing issues. 6. The general vagueness of the actual ordinance and the lack of information about enforcement and administrative costs that might be associated with enforcement. 7. General concerns about the ability of the existing infrastructure to properly handle additional density. 8. Questioned whether the proposed ordinance would reduce driving and reliance on automobiles within East Liberty Park. As co-chairperson of ELPCO, and as a result of the vote taken Thursday, January 27, 2011, I advise you that as a neighborhood, the East Liberty Park Community Organization is against Accessory Dwelling Units in any form within East Liberty Park. Sincerely, Michael A. Cohn, Co-Chairperson East Liberty Park Community Organization (ELPCO) PO Box 520123 Salt Lake City, UT 84125 macohn9@comcast.net 801.521.9450 phone 801.770.2040 fax macohn9 skype Cc Honorable Ralph Becker, Mayor, Salt Lake City, UT Mr. David Everitt, Chief of Staff, Mayor's Office, Salt Lake City, UT Planning Department, Salt Lake City, UT Salt Lake Community Network & Community Council Chairs Ms. Marielle Siraa, Co-Chairperson, East Liberty Park Community Organization t`'Aet ola Anton). ; -Windows Internet Expioret - - v 0 https• , slcgrv•rom ' v1 ••`.1 •t es utah governments trust 1� File Ld,t View Favorites Tools !kip rr.nveit rlert •' Gu 8Ie va:1 Sean!,••• F:1• *• a Share• g.I• i » 4.1p• 0 rnkhae...• Favorites .1. '"?Suggested Sites • 4S_e,.,,,e,Holrnad d v.Yellow Pages&Online Pilo— Y'. Pecotder lime id fret more Add-ons • ,;� 0 Welcome to Salt... „I Salt Lake CityInt... Access Arnnrn... r'Ikon-Pianos-kg City f Pt locator L (Salt Lain Citye... . r7 ' ' leg Cage• 5arety• Tools• •If)• » �+� ... m Salt Late {d,,, (�. 09 -- 1'inTGllnv�-fu,l,ry CI C ? :`__ .'_•3..t.SiS PLIISU:2 0 0t0-001A Homestead Village Lct.Amended 01/ON2911 to Frogress 1',~ A _.! r I` Record ._ _. I ol,, ,e, , aka fiend ( Search 0 Now (IS Help Reports . _ „_• ❑ ci••iirinn„ p„vice!Typo ilpanal ihLmg._t [llr. r,r 5VeFln,rm.• Cirr:•tTyq rnstllNlry L, +ilrrrt,. R } My RepnrtK GtiP, m ? ['Wilding f] '•t r;:,-!: . 'i.0-.'1_' rlInning/Nanning Commisrion'_rriing G7,16+20LG Rnlph Becker .1Mendmen4PIA f•Business License. Z• CED rD } Engineering ...II> Finance .. _ .. , • Mee PETITION N:PLNPCM2010-00612 Ott Ci e. General Reports CD i-Ground Transportation �� �lerltt © Cancel help fa .!tA2E 4. Go To 'Ain,kilo..., rt J.Inapcdlons rt ixz L,i a'I,fnpm+r•r,m,I.,vie.• 3 q Woimiow Tasks e Parking Meter Assigned Date Due Date rD >Planning "f _J Staff assignment e3/07'20:1 03107;20:I e., ,•i !•la nnu„l re.1: Revs... Assignerllo Assigned to Department } Transportation —J o rwrdv g Drummond Engineering Engineer r .' _ r_uhl utilities I, J ic Ut Jity_Prv,e•.v Current Status Status Date 3 r Walk-In ai _1 LT,nu Review Ccniclete Q310712011 _j Eulldins Rev,rr,,v Action By Overtime; m'land,,..;rurnrr,roil rio !t1 ,] Cngin_ecrinq-Reyicw Continents Start Time: �' rlifickiinks :Is Iit in T,-incDor;•tycn Rean_,v tra.mu�l, o'c nrE^, to hr air impart cn the-n_hc',Nev.we have rg �,I Far r_o,1e Rrvi,•+v iCnrerrc ro.gardira tt•rc:•,^r r errs Amend-.,ant te,for z mina Cci1', _7 rod Time: (lours Spent: ;i1 _I r'plice Ravie'.v RdLtbie: Action by Department in Li Community Orcn Hc,.Iss rig Engineering Engineer Time Tracking Start nate Est.Completion Dale i. _] Community Co..,r,i1 Re'r,.T•s In Possession Dino lhts] I—Display Entail Address In ACA ;,i _] staff Review and Repo-t Display Coin meat In ACA Comment Display in ACA Tel J 'Iann,g Commission tie,sr,r,y all ACA Users preference _ in _I Transmittal Pact,nge Record Create" ..it J Cemneirity Dev e.evic.o Licensed Prcfessicnal !t; J City Council Onrfinrt Contact L—♦ Sutltnit c5 Reset ;ri _J City Council tien"n0 Owner Prot C hg r" ; • p: J Chief c•Final Cnlu.-mce Default Moduli: • Plannulg v There nn'reilly A'e no ail I cc.lasts defined. S. roan . Trusted rim.,a ,,:, . 4,ICO%> - Maloy, Michael enliok From: Spangenberg, Craig "4,011010 Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:29 AM To: Maloy, Michael Cc: Isbell, Randy Subject: ADU's Categories: Other Michael: As per your request, the following addresses concerns from an enforcement standpoint: E.2.a. Owner-occupied property required. Accessory dwelling units shall only be permitted when the property owner lives on the property within either the principal dwelling or accessory dwelling unit. During our normal enforcement activities, we sometimes find it necessary to confirm who actually resides at a particular dwelling. Many times, this can prove to be difficult. No matter how many utility bills or ownership records are provided showing the mailing address of the property owner, we have no proof that the individual actually resides at that location. The net result can be frustrated neighbors who say that the City will not enforce their ordinances, when in actuality we have no proof that what the neighbors allege is accurate regarding the occupancy of the property. In order to provide effective enforcement, the draft ordinance should contain specific, verifiable criteria to bey used in order to meet the owner occupied requirements. If the requirements are met, the property is considered to be owner occupied. If the criteria cannot be met, the property is not considered to be owner occupied and will not be eligible as an accessory dwelling unit. Maloy, Michael From: Walsh, Barry Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:28 PM To: Maloy, Michael Cc: Young, Kevin; Weiler, Scott; Itchon, Edward; Garcia, Peggy; Butcher, Larry Subject: PLNPCM2010-00612 ADU Categories: Other March 10, 2011 Michael Maloy, Planning Re: Petition PLNPCM2010-00612 to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Code to allow Accessory Dwelling.Units within single-family and multi-family residential districts. The division of transportation review comments and recommendations are for approval as follows: The Accessory Dwelling Units code suggest that this is not duplexes or apartments, but living units within a owner occupied controlled residence. Where parking is in compliance and the accessory unit will requiring one parking stall per ADU. As written,the parking would be required but the transportation division could modify the requirements (such as allow tandem parking or no parking)where certain factors are evident (such as where there is available on-street parking, parking is within 1/4 mile of a trax station,the unit is within walking distance to a business district areas, etc. and home occupations are limited to no visitors or parking generators etc.) Sincerely, Barry Walsh Cc Kevin Young, P.E. Scott Weiler, P.E. Ted ltchon, Fire Peggy Garcia, Public Utilities Larry Butcher, Permits File 1 Maloy, Michael sifts From: Ross, Michelle ,. Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 10:41 AM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: PLNPCM2010-00612 Categories: Other Michael, The PD has no issues. Thanks, Sgt. Michelle Ross Amok Maloy, Michael From: Stoker, Justin Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 12:48 PM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: FW:Accessory Dwelling Unit-Request for Comment Importance: High Categories: Other From: Vetter, Rusty Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 4:39 PM To: Stoker, Justin Cc: Garcia, Peggy; Stewart, Brad Subject: RE: Accessory Dwelling Unit- Request for Comment I talked to Michael and Paul Nielson about this. They are very happy to work with us and asked for proposed language from us. Michael just said he needs it by Wednesday morning. There is a provision in the proposed ordinance that a deed restriction be placed on the property to indicate that there is an owner-occupied requirement on the property. We could add in a provision also alerting people of the existence of a connection of sewer or water service through the primary residence. Here is some proposed language highlighted in yellow: b. Deed Restriction. A lot approved for development with an accessory dwelling unit must have a deed restriction filed with the county recorder's office indicating such owner-occupied requirement of the property prior to issuance of a final certificated occupancy for the accessory dwelling unity by the city. If sewer or water utility service will be connected through the primary residence and not connected through a separate connection to the sewer or water main,the deed restriction will also identify any sewer or water connections into or through the primary residence. Such deed restriction shall run with the land until the accessory dwelling unity is abandoned. Let me know if this works for you or what changes are needed and I'll send it to Michael. 1 Maloy, Michael From: Nielson, Paul Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:37 PM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units draft ordinance Categories: Other Michael: I have some brief comments regarding the draft accessory dwelling units ordinance. • Definition of"owner occupant" at paragraph 2(a)(2): how do we determine what the purpose was for creating a family trust? This is a rhetorical question as it can be safely assumed that all family trusts were done as part of estate planning, but the language of the draft makes it seem like this needs to be verified. Just my two cents on that. • E(2)(e) (Standards: General Requirements: Multi-Family Districts with Single Family Dwelling on Lot): what does "built out" mean. I have my guesses, but I shouldn't have to guess. • E(4): I assume that the size of an ADU is still restricted even if it is within the principal dwelling. • E(7)(a): last sentence re:adding entrances to principal dwelling front facade is confusing and probably contradictory. How can a new entrance be located on the front façade of a principal dwelling only if it is located at least 20 feet behind the front facade? • E(9): requiring a business license for an accessory dwelling unit may not work with SLC Code sec. 5.14.020,which only requires business licenses for 3+units. The attorney in my office for Business Licensing commented that this could present a significant increase in administrative efforts as all one (and possibly two-) unit apartments associated with a principal,single-family dwelling could require hiring of additional personnel to manage. The question also arose as to whether business licensing was the best choice to process applications for these. • In light of the prior comment, comments should be sought from Jamie Allred in Business Licensing on the proposed ordinance. PAUL C. r.IIELsO : SENIOR CITY ATTORNEY 801 .5"=:5.72 i IMPORTANT: E-mail from the City A orn ey's Office is I;ke:y tC contain Confidential and privileged material for the Sole use of the intended recipient. The use, distribution, transmittal r re-transmittaluC Cprohibited G of any such communication ion is wIthCu+the express approval of the City Attorney Cr a Deputy City Attor ney in writing or by e-mail. Ifyou are not the intended recipien`, please contact the sender and delete all copies .000114, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ,,,,, A• 'r I Accessory Dwelling Units ?01,frt3._ ,F t7e Zoning Text Amendment Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00612 • Planning Division June 22, 2011 Department of Community& Economic Development Applicant: I Request Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning text amendment to allow Staff: accessory dwelling units within the following single-family and multi-family Michael Maloy AICP at(801)535-7118 or residential districts: FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R- InichaArnalo ,;lc=,,..c 1/7,000, R-1/5 000 SR-1 SR-IA SR-3, R-2 RMF-30, RMF-35 RMF-45, and Tax ID: RMF-75. This request is part of the Sustainability City Code initiative and Citywide would affect areas City-wide. The Planning Commission's authority in this matter is advisory to the City Council, which has the legislative authority to Current Zone: make the final decision. Citywide Master Plan Designation: Recommendation Citywide Based on the findings listed in the staff report, it is the opinion of Planning Staff that overall the proposal meets the applicable standards and therefore, Council District: recommends the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation Citywide to the City Council relating to this request. • of Size: Potential Motions Lywide Consistent with Staff Recommendation: Based on the findings listed in the Current Use: staff report, testimony, and information presented, I move that the Planning Single-family dwellings Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council relating Applicable Land Use Regulations: to petition PLNPCM2010-00612 to permit and regulate accessory dwelling • Chapter 21A.24 Residential Districts units within the following single-family and multi-family residential districts: • Chapter 21A.40 Accessory Uses, FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, Buildings and Structures SR-I, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35. RMF-45, and RMF-75. • Chapter 21A.62 Definitions Not Consistent with Staff Recommendation: Based on public testimony, Notification: information received, and the following findings, I move that the Planning, • Notice published in Salt Lake Tribune on Commission transmit a negative recommendation to the City Council relating- March 9,2011 (for March 23,2011 hearing) to petition PLNPCM2010-00612 to permit and regulate accessory dwelling • Notice mailed to Community Councils units within the following single-family and multi-family residential districts: on June 9, 2011 FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000. R-1/7,000, R-l/5,000. • Agenda posted on the Planning Division SR-1. SR-IA, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35. RMF-45, and RMF-75. and Utah Public Meeting Notice ebsites on June 9, 2011 The Planning Commission shall make findings on the Zoning Text Attachments: Amendment standards as listed below: A. Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes. goals. B. Residential Districts Mapobjectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted C. Transit Overlay Maps planning documents; D. Sample Illustrations 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose E. APA Quick Notes statements of the zoning ordinance: F. News Article: Seattle Looks to Cottages 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and Dr. Arthur C. Nelson PowerPoint provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose • Public Input Chronology and Notes additional standards; and 1. Public Comments 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current. J. Community Council Comments K. Department Comments professional practices of urban planning and design. PLNPC\t2010-00612 Accessory D\\ellina Units 1 Published Date June 16.2011 Background Project Description Mayor Ralph Becker, in cooperation with the City Council, has initiated a series of administrative policies legislative petitions to encourage sustainable land use within Salt Lake City. The petitions address various city codes, including zoning. In support of this effort—which is generally known as the Sustainability City Code Initiative—the City retained the services of Clarion Associates, an experienced and respected land use planning and real estate consulting firm to research and produce draft ordinances. Petition PLNPCM2010-00612 proposes to permit accessory dwelling units in single-family and multi-family residential districts (see Attachment A — Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance). An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a residential unit that is established on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit, and may be located within a single-family dwelling, attached to a single-family dwelling (such as in an addition), or in a detached structure (such as in a garage or separate accessory structure). The accessory dwelling unit must be a complete housekeeping unit with a separate kitchen, sleeping area, closet space, bathroom facilities, and a shared or separate entrance. The proposed ordinance requires owner occupancy of the principal or accessory dwelling, additional parking, and compliance with current building codes. To ensure the accessory dwelling is subordinate to the principal dwelling, the draft ordinance establishes a maximum building square footage, a scalable building height limit, minimum building setbacks, and maximum lot coverage in compliance with the underlying zone. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have become an important component of the housing stock in many communities both large and small—in the United States. By providing housing on existing lots in developed neighborhoods, ADUs are a form of land use that makes good use of land and public infrastructure investm s,,, Accessory Dwelling Units, when located near employment and retail centers, help increase the use circulation alternatives—such as walking, cycling, mass transit—leading to a reduction in green house gas emissions and energy (fuel) use. Additionally, the changing face of the American public and its housing needs supports the inclusion of ADUs as a housing alternative. More people are aging, are "empty nesters," and desire to down-size. In addition, the work force continues to be challenged to find affordable housing and ADUs can help address that demand (see Attachment E — APA Quick Notes and Attachment F — News Article: Seattle Looks to Cottages). With respect to observable trends in sustainability, demographics, land use development, and economic conditions, the stated purposes for Petition PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units are: 1. Create new housing units while respecting the look and scale of single-dwelling development; 2. Increase the housing stock of existing neighborhoods in a manner that is less intense than alternatives; 3. Allow more efficient use of existing housing stock, public infrastructure, and the embodied energy contained within existing structures; 4. Provide a mix of housing options that responds to changing family needs and smaller households; 5. Offer a means for residents, particularly seniors, single parents, and families with grown children, to remain in their homes and neighborhoods, and obtain extra income, security, companionship, and services; 6. Promote a broader range of affordable housing; 7. Provide opportunity for workforce housing in developed and new neighborhoods, close to places of work, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing fossil fuel consumption through less car commuting; 8. Support transit-oriented development and reduce auto usage by increasing density near transit stops; and 9. Support the economic viability of historic_properties and the_city_'s historic preservation_goals by_allow accessory residential uses in historic structures. PLNPCM2010-00612 Accesson elling Units 2 Published Date.June 16,2011 Comments Public Comments ,ince December of 2009, the Planning Division has discussed the proposal in more than 20 public meetings (see Attachment H—Public Input Chronology and Notes). On March 23, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and afterward voted to table the petition until a future public meeting, and directed staff to research several issues, such as: • Increase parking requirement for an ADU. Staff reviewed this issue and has included a provision for two additional parking stalls for ADUs with two bedrooms or more. • Establish minimum lot size for a detached ADU. Staff reviewed this issue and has included regulation that requires a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet for detached ADUs. • Limit the number of residents allowed within an ADU. Staff reviewed this issue, and based upon legal council, staff does not recommend amending this section of the proposed regulation; which relies upon the following definition of a "family" as found within Salt Lake City Code, Section 21A.62.040, which is entitled Definitions of Terms: Family: A. One or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship, including foster children, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit; or B. A group of not more than three (3) persons not related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit; or C. Two (2) unrelated persons and their children living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. The term "family" shall not be construed to mean a club, group home, transitional victim home, substance abuse home, transitional home, a lodge or a fraternity/sorority house. On June 9. 2011, the Planning Commission received a briefing on accessory dwelling units by Presidential Professor of City & Metropolitan Planning, Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, from the University of Utah College of Architecture _ Planning. Professor Nelson delivered a PowerPoint presentation that included census data and demographic trends relative to accessory dwelling units (see Attachment G —Dr. Arthur C. Nelson PowerPoint). All public comments received to date have been included for review and consideration (see Attachment I — Public Comments). Based on a review of public comments received, staff has provided the following summary of issues: • Density. In 2010, the Unites States Census Bureau estimated the population of Salt Lake City at 186,440, which is up from 181,743 in 2000. Salt Lake City's population per square mile is 1,688. Because the development pattern of Salt Lake City is unique within Utah due to extensive commercial development, an international airport, and notable quantities of undeveloped land it is difficult to compare density with other communities. However, for reference purposes only, the Census Bureau in May of 2001 identified the City of Taylorsville as the most densely populated city in the state with 5,376.2 persons per square mile. Other densely populated Utah cities include Midvale (4,627.4), Orem (4,573.6), Washington Terrace (4,477.4), Roy (4,330.8), Sandy (3,961.5), and South Ogden (3,917.1). If approved, the proposed-ordinance will impact all single-family and multi-family districts within the City. The area contained within the impacted residential districts is 8,777 acres, which is approximately 12.42% of the total area of Salt Lake City. PLNPCN12010-00612 Accesson D\nelling Units 3 Published Date.June 16,2011 A significant element of density is the average household size. The Unites States Census Bureau defines household as: A household includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is a house, 'art apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building, or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements. Based on information gleaned from Census reports, the average household size within in Salt Lake City is declining: Census Year Salt Lake City Average Household Size United States Average Household Size 1950 3.38 persons 3.40 persons 1960 3.29 persons 3.29 persons 1970 2.93 persons 3.10 persons 1980 2.60 persons 2.76 persons 1990 2.33 persons 2.63 persons 2000 2.48 persons 2.59 persons 2010 2.50 persons 2.58 persons During the past 50 years, the decline in average household size is clear. However, the anomalous increase in the average household size in 2000 is in part due to the notable population growth among minorities. In 1990, minorities in Salt Lake City were 9.77% of the total population. In 2010, minorities in Salt Lake CA.4* form 20.8% of the total population. This issue is further explained in a report entitled Age and Fanifi Structure by Race, Ethnicity and Place of Residence published by the United States Department of Agriculture, minority groups have a larger average household size than other cohorts: Both household and family size declined between 1980 and 1990 in urban and rural areas. In 1990, average household size was 2.5 persons for Whites, 2.9 for Blacks, and 3.5 for Hispanics. Average family size in 1990, regardless of residence, was 3.1 for Whites, 3.5 for Blacks, and 3.9 for Hispanics. Both Whites and Blacks experienced declines in household and family size between 1980 and 1990. As declines were larger for the Black population, the racial gap contracted. Much of the decline in household and family size is due to decreased childbearing and a drop in the average number of children and other household members under age 18 (Hernandez, 1993). Large families usually reduce the amount of time and resources parents can devote to each child. Smaller family size implies improved educational, occupational, and economic opportunities for children. Minorities tend to have larger families and households than Whites, with Hispanics having the largest families. About 12 percent of Hispanic households in 1991 had 6 or more members, compared with 3 percent of non-Hispanic households (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991). Opponents of the proposal often cite the comprehensive 1995 zoning update that reduced development density in many Salt Lake City residential neighborhoods (see Attachment J — Community Council Comments). Opponents believe that ADUs represent a reversal of that previous legislative action. InAmm response, some residents have suggested that ADUs should be limited to zoning districts that permit mt family development. Within multi-family districts, the proposed ordinance will allow development of an accessory dwelling unit if compliant with all other applicable building and zoning regulations. PLI\IPCM2010-00612 ALLLsson D\cellina Units 4 Published Date. June 16,2011 • Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (citywide, limited to 25 permits per calendar year). Option 2. Modify regulation to restrict accessory dwelling units to zoning districts that currently allow more than one dwelling unit per lot, such as SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 (see Attachment B —Residential Districts Map). • Location. As previously described, the proposal is restricted to single-family dwellings within specific residential zoning districts. Some opponents of the proposal have recommended prohibiting ADUs within specific communities, such as the Avenues, or requiring ADUs to locate within a specified from a fixed public transportation line, such as TRAX or the future Sugar House streetcar line (see Attachment C — Transit Overlay Maps). To further illustrate the impact of this proposal, Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, from the University of Utah College of Architecture + Planning, provided a tabulation of single-family dwellings located within '/2 mile of current and proposed TRAX and street car stations. Streetcar Stations Number of Single-Family Dwellings within 1/2 Mile of Station 2100 South 210 State Street 236 300 East I 596 500 East 936 700 East 1,122 900 East 823 1040 East 664 Sub Total 4,587 Light Rail Stations Number of Single-Family Dwellings within 1/2 Mile of Station Ballpark 73 City Center ( 47 Gallivan Center 0 Temple Square 93 Delta Center 39 Courthouse 4 Library 113 Trolley I 579 900 East 909 Stadium ( 676 University South Campus 0 University Medical 101 Fort Douglas 0 900 South 22 Greektown 56 SLC Central 114 Planetarium 9 1 Cornell 142 800 West 599 500 West 178 Fairpark 430 Winifred 217 Sub Total 4,401 Grand Total 8,986 According to Dr. Nelson, the grand total represents (approximately) 25% of the total supply of single-family units within the City. • Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (citywide, limited to 25 permits per calendar year). • Option 2. Modify regulation to restrict ADUs to specific neighborhoods or areas. Y Option 3. Modify regulation to restrict ADUs to single-family dwellings within 'A mile of transit lines. PLNPCN12010-00612 Accessory D ellin,/Units 5 Published Dat: June 16.201 • Design. The proposal recommends compliance with all underlying zoning district requirements, including overlays such as the H Historic District. Additional development requirements are included to ensure compatibility with established development patterns, such as limitations on building height and placem of entrances. However, opponents remain concerned that the proposal will alter the character of sin family neighborhoods (see Attachment D — Sample Illustrations). Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (design subject to overlays, compatible with principal dwelling). Option 2. Modify regulation to include additional design and material regulations (to be specified). • Privacy. A common concern when dealing with residential infill development is privacy. Although privacy is an issue that is addressed within portions of City Code, assurance of privacy—within a rear a rear yard for example—is not listed within the Purpose and Intent Statement (21A.020.030) of Title 21A Zoning, and is only identified as a type of fence within the General Provisions (21A.24.010) of Chapter 21A.24 Residential Districts. In a 1961 landmark book on planning, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, famed author and urbanist Jane Jacobs offers the following comment on privacy: Architectural and planning literature deals with privacy in terms of windows, overlooks, sight lines. The idea is that if no one from outside can peek into where you live—behold, privacy. This is simple minded. Window privacy is the easiest commodity in the world to get. You just pull down the shades or adjust the blinds. The privacy of keeping one's personal affairs to those selected to know them, and the privacy of having reasonable control over who shall make inroads on your time and when, are rare commodities in most of this world, however, and they have nothing to do with the orientation of windows (p. 77). Amok Whereas the proposal requires compliance with all applicable yard and bulk regulations when located within the buildable area for a single-family dwelling—identical to limitations on a residential addition permitted under current regulations—staff does not recommend additional restrictions in response to this concern. However, when an ADU is located outside the buildable area for a principal dwelling, the Commission may consider additional regulations for the placement of windows, similar to the following standard for a "hobby shop" when located in a residential district: 21A.52.100: Specific Conditions for Special Exceptions: If the accessory building is located within ten feet (10') of a property line, no windows shall be allowed in the walls adjacent to the property lines. • Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (no additional criteria regulating privacy). • Option 2. Modify regulation to limit the placement of windows if the accessory dwelling is located outside the buildable area for a single-family dwelling and within ten feet (10') of a property line. • Owner Occupancy. Although there has been some support to remove the owner occupancy requirement, most comments recommend that this is an essential component of the proposal. The primary concern regarding owner occupancy is the city's ability to enforce the proposed regulation. The proposed owner occupancy regulation is derived from language used by Provo City for a similar ordinance, which has been successfully upheld by the Supreme Court of Utah (Case No. 20030679). Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (owner occupancy required): - -- -- - • Option 2. Modify regulation to reduce length of bona fide absence from three years to one year. PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling.Units 6 Published Date:June 16,2011 • Parking. The attached proposal requires one parking stall for a studio or one bedroom ADU, or two parking stalls for a two bedroom ADU, in addition to the required off-street parking for a single-family dwelling. However, under certain conditions the Transportation Division may modify the requirement if located within '/4 mile of a fixed transit line or an arterial street with a designated bus route (see Attachment C — Transit Overlay Maps). It is the opinion of Planning Staff, that earlier proposals which required only one parking stall for an ADU represented a balance between requiring on-site parking and discouraging additional pavement. Additional pavement increases storm water drainage—as well as the "urban heat island"—which impacts are contrary to sustainability. However, based on concerns expressed during the March 23, 2011 public hearing that insufficient off-street parking will increase on-street parking—which in some neighborhoods is severely limited—staff modified the proposal. With respect to concerns regarding vehicle damage and thefts, Police Sergeant Michelle Ross did not identify "car prowling" within residential neighborhoods as an issue (see Attachment K—Department Comments). • Option 1. Approve proposed regulation (one parking stall for studio or one bedroom unit, and two parking stalls with two or more bedrooms) with tandem parking. • Option 2. Modify proposed regulation (one parking stall for studio or one bedroom unit, and two parking stalls with two or more bedrooms) to exclude tandem parking. i Option 3. Modify proposed regulation to require two off-street parking stalls per ADU (without regard to the number of bedrooms) with tandem parking. • Option 4. Modify proposed regulation to require two off-street parking stalls per ADU (without regard to the number of bedrooms) without tandem parking. e Traffic. Whereas Salt Lake City is a significant source of employment and services, proponents of the proposal argue that permitting ADUs within the City—rather than forcing growth into suburban communities—will reduce the total amount of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Although the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) does not publish a report on traffic generation for ADUs, the ITE finds that a rental townhouse will generate (on average) 0.73 trips during the weekday a.m. peak hour, and 0.73 trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour. In comparison, a single-family detached house will generate (on average) 0.77 trips per a.m. peak hours, and 1.02 trips per p.m. peak hour. Although this issue, along with parking, has been a significant concern for opponents, the Transportation Division and Engineering Division did not identify traffic as a notable concern (see Attachment K—Department Comments). - Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (no restriction relative to street classification, encourages use of alleys). • Option 2. Modify regulation to restrict location of ADUs to parcels that are accessible from a City arterial or collector street. O Accessibility. On February 22, 2011. staff presented the proposed ADU ordinance to the Mayor's Accessible Services Advisory Council. In response, the committee prepared a statement in support of the proposal, with recommendations to modify the regulation to encourage development of visitable or accessible ADUs (see Attachment H—Public Input Chronology and Notes). Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (no requirement for visitable or accessible improvements, however accessible ADUs are exempt from annual permit allocation). • Option 2. Modify regulation to increase the square foot maximum for an accessible ADU by 150 square feet (specified amount may be modified). • Option_3. Modify regulation to require 20 percent_of ADU permits to meet accessibility standards. • Option 5. Modify regulation to reduce building permit fee for ADUs (amount to be specified). PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessor\ D\\ellin_Units 7 Published Date:June 16,2011 City Department Comments The comments received from pertinent City Departments / Divisions are attached to this staff report in Attachment K — Department Comments (which include comments from Building Services that were ARIA attached to the March 23, 2011 Planning Commission Staff Report). Although the Planning Division has received any comments from applicable City Departments/Divisions that cannot be reasonably fulfilled or that warrant denial of the petition, staff recommends discussion of the following issues: • Utilities. One of the arguments in favor of the proposal is its efficient use of existing public infrastructure, which reduces pressure to develop new streets and utility lines. However, opponents of the proposal have expressed concern regarding capacity of existing public utilities. In a 1981 report entitled Accessory Apartments: Using Surplus Space in Single Family Houses published by the American Planning Association (APA)the authors addressed the following question: How Many Units are Likely to be Built? Civic groups are frequently fearful about the number of units that may be created under an ordinance. A little guidance is provided by the experience of towns that have ordinances. When Portland, Oregon's Add-A-Rental went into effect in January, 1981, after considerable controversy, almost nothing happened. It was five months before Portland had its first three applications, and, by the end of the year, only five had come in. Babylon, Long Island (New York), estimated in 1979 that it had accessory apartments in 10-20 percent of its stock. Lyndenhurst, next to Babylon, has had an accessory apartment ordinance since 1955, and only 10 percent of its single-family stock has been converted legally. Weston, Connecticut, has about 10 percent of its housing stock in accessory apartments, even though it has had an ordinance since the early 1960s. Renton, Washington, with an ordinance since 1955, has conversions in about eight percent of its house. There is one lesson to be drawn: the presence of an ordinance permitting accessory apartments doe. necessarily stimulate conversion to accessory apartments, and the absence of one doesn't necessc« ,, discourage them (italics added for emphasis). Locally, Daybreak—a successful planned development community in South Jordan, Utah that is modeled after older Salt Lake City neighborhoods—includes provisions for accessory apartments. George Shaw, Community Development Director for the City of South Jordan, reported that there are approximately 20 detached accessory dwellings, and 6 attached accessory dwellings within Daybreak, which contains approximately 2,500 households and 9,000 residents. Based upon research, and upon receipt of a letter of recommendation from the Department of Public Utilities that did not identify utility capacity as a concern, staff finds that this issue is not a significant concern (see Attachment K—Department Comments). Another issue relative to utilities that has persisted throughout the development of the draft ordinance is whether to require separate utility meters for ADUs. Because an ADU may be attached to or detached from the principal dwelling, and construction of utility infrastructure will vary, the proposed ordinance allows for property owner preference (subject to compliance with City regulations). However, some have argued that prohibiting separate utility meters may encourage compliance with owner occupancy provisions. In response to this issue, Justin Stoker (Engineer V with the Department of Public Utilities) recommended approval of the proposed regulation with the following modification: If sewer or grater utility service will be connected through the primary residence and not connec> through cr separate_connection to the sewer_or water main,_ the deed restriction will also identify sewer or water connections into or through the primary residence. PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units S Published Date June 16,2011 > Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (limit number of permits issued per calendar year, separate utility meters for ADU are not required but may be installed by a licensed contractor upon approval of the City and utility company). > Option 2. Modify regulation to include deed restriction regarding utility services when connected through principal (or primary) residence. > Option 2. Modify regulation to require installation of separate utility meters for an ADU. > Option 3. Modify regulation to prohibit the installation of additional utility meters for an ADU. Enforcement. As a matter of legislative policy, Salt Lake City desires to preserve housing that "substantially complies with life and safety codes." Currently, Salt Lake City administrates a process to legalize existing dwelling units that were constructed before 1970 and have been continuously used. This process is known as "Legalization of Excess Dwelling Units" and is governed by Section 21A.52.100 of the Zoning Title. However, the unit legalization process is completely separate and independent from the proposed ADU regulation. A common concern is the City's ability to enforce the proposed ADU regulation. To address this issue, the City will require an annual business license for each ADU, which fee was recently approved by the City Council as part of the 2011-2012 City Budget (base license fee is S110.00, plus $342.00 per rental unit, or $20.00 per rental unit with Good Landlord Certification). In turn, the business license fee will be used to administrate inspection and enforcement of ADUs. Violation of business license regulations are specified in Article I of Chapter 5.04 of Title 5 Business Taxes, Licensing and Regulation. However, violators of the proposed ordinance would also be subject to the following zoning enforcement regulations: 21A.20.040: Fines for Violations: A. Violations of the provisions of this title or failure to comply with any of its requirements shall be punishable as a class B misdemeanor upon conviction (italics added for emphasis). B. This title may also be enforced by injunction, mandamus, abatement, civil fines or any other appropriate action in law or equity. C. Each day that any violation continues after the citation deadline shall be considered a separate offense_for purposes of the fines and remedies available to the city (italics added for emphasis). D. Accumulation of fines for violations, but not the obligation for payment of fines already accrued. shall stop upon correction of the violation. E. Any one or more of the fines and remedies identified herein may be used to enforce this title. 21A.20.050: Civil Fines: If the violations are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at went). five dollars (S25.00) a day per violation for properties in residential zoning districts and one hundred dollars (S100.00) per day per violation for properties in nonresidential zoning districts (italics added for emphasis). In response to the proposal. Craig Spangenberg, Civil Enforcement Manager, recommended that the "draft ordinance should contain specific, verifiable criteria to be used in order to meet the owner occupied requirement" (see Attachment K—Department Comments). Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed. Option 2. Modify regulation to improve capability of enforcement (recommendations to be specified). 'roject Review 0 Focus Group. On July 14, 2010,-the Planning Division conducted a "focus group' to review and discuss the proposed accessory dwelling units regulation. During the meeting, Chris Duerksen and Joyce Allgaier with Clarion Associates presented a comprehensive overview on the proposal, answered PLNPC\120 1 0-00 6 1 2 Accessory Dwelling Units 9 Published Date:June 16.2011 questions, and noted concerns for future consideration. The ADU focus group was comprised of the following individuals: NAME I • REPRESENTATION ATTENDANCE Cindy Cromer Property Owner Yes George Kelner Yalecrest Community Council No Gordon Storrs Fairpark Community Council Yes DeWitt Smith Liberty Wells Community Council No Jim Jenkin Greater Avenues Community Council No Philip Carlson Sugar House Community Council Yes David Richardson Capitol Hill Construction No Michael Mahaffey Contractor Yes Bryson Garbett Developer Yes Ed Sperry Realtor No Tim Funk Crossroads Urban Center No Maria Garciaz Neighborworks Salt Lake Yes Jon Lear Downey Mansion No Paul Smith Utah Apartment Association Yes Mike Ostermiller Utah Association of Realtors No Justin Allen Salt Lake Board of Realtors Yes Sonya Martinez Community Action Agency Yes Roger Borgenicht ASSIST Yes Philip Carroll Community Housing Services Inc Yes Arla Funk Historic Landmark Commission Yes Claudia O'Grady Utah Housing Corporation No Ashken Tanielian Housing Advocate No Dan Bethel _ Architect No Annalisa Steggell Holcombe Westminster College Yes Francisca Blanc I Utah Housing Coalition Yes • Revisions. The Planning Division and Clarion Associates have revised the proposed regulation numerous times during the past year. Primarily, changes in the draft ordinance addressed owner occupancy requirements, building height regulations, minimum setbacks, building design, limiting the number of ADU permits issued per calendar year, and parking requirements. Analysis and Findings Options Whereas the City Council has final legislative authority over the petition, the Planning Commission may: • Recommend approval of the proposal based on testimony and findings contained within the staff report; • Recommend approval with specific modifications; • Recommend denial of the petition based on testimony and findings; or • Table the proposal for further review. If the Commission votes to table the petiti Dn. the Planning Division respectfully requests the Commission provide specific direction to staff. Findings Section 21A.50.050. A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendme0iN a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any „ standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the city council should consider the following factors: PLNPCiM12010-00612 i\ccesso; D elline Units 10 Published Date June 16,2011 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Finding: Within the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan, which was prepared by the Housing and Neighborhood Division of Community and Economic Development Department and adopted by the Salt Lake City Council in April of 2000, the following policy statements and implementation strategies are applicable: • City Council Policy Statement. The City Council supports a citywide variety of housing units, including affordable housing and supports accommodating different types and intensities of residential development. (p. 8) • City Council Policy Statement. The City Council supports mixed use and mixed income concepts and projects that achieve vibrant, safe, integrated, walkable neighborhoods through a diverse mix of uses and incomes in areas with established services... (p. 19) • Affordable and Transitional Housing Implementation Strategy 1. Review "Best Practices" from other cities and establish new programs or expand existing programs that meet housing needs and maximize housing opportunities for all residents within Salt Lake City. (p. 24) • City Council Policy Statement. On a citywide basis, the City Council endorses accessory housing units in single-family zones, subject to restrictions designed to limit impacts and protect neighborhood character. (p. 32) • Action Step for Implementation Strategy 5. Define accessory housing units. Determine residential zones that could support such changes. Prepare necessary criteria and amendments for future ordinances on accessory units. (p. 33) In another policy document entitled Creating Tomorrow Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission, which was commissioned in February 1996 by former Mayor Ted Wilson and delivered to the City Council in March 1998 the following assertions, goals, and recommendations are applicable: • Assertion M: There is a mix of housing types, densities, and costs so that people of various economic groups can co-exist. Services for those less fortunate are seen as a positive attribute and are nurtured within our community. o Recommendation 1: Amend zoning laws to encourage mixed use in appropriate areas. Proposed Action: Adopt amendments to city zoning ordinances that allow mixed-use development in designated areas of the city. Identify areas to be included in ordinances, define types of mixed uses allowed (p. 13). • Goal B: The ideal neighborhood will be diverse. Neighborhoods will encourage persons of different incomes, ages, cultures, races, religions, genders, lifestyles, and familial statuses to be active community stakeholders. Families of various size and composition can be well served through a variety of programs and services. Service organizations will also be available to special-needs populations (p. 41). E Goal ll: The ideal neighborhood will be well maintained. Landlords, tenants, and homeowners will share responsibility for keeping properties in good condition. Home ownership will be encouraged where possible. Neighborhoods should contain a variety of housing types, but more units should be owner occupied than renter occupied. This leads to longer term residents and stabilizes property values. Owners of rental units will be responsible and will maintain their properties. Mechanisms need to be in place to address problems caused by owners/renters who fail to maintain their properties. Landlords must screen tenants to ensure that they will be responsible renters. Landlords must also make repairs to their housing units to keep-them as viable assets in the neighborhood. 1-Iousing should be designed for the changing needs of our current and future population(p. 43). PLNPC`12010-00612 Accessory D\\eI0ng Units 11 Published Date:,rune 16,2011 Based on a review of the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan, and the Creating Tomorrow Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission, which documents are applicable citywide, staff finds the proposal is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general pl of Salt Lake City. 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; Finding: Chapter 21A.02.030 of the Zoning Ordinance states: Purpose and Intent: The purpose of this title is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the city, and to carry out the purposes of the municipal land use development and management act, title 10, chapter 9, of the Utah Code Annotated or its successor, and other relevant statutes. This title is. in addition, intended to: a. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads; b. Secure safety from fire and other dangers; c. Provide adequate light and air; d. Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization; e. Protect the tax base; f. Secure economy in governmental expenditures; g. Foster the city's industrial, business and residential development; and • h. Protect the environment. Additionally. Section 21A.24.010 of the Zoning Ordinance provides the following `general provision" for all residential districts: Ativok Statement of Intent: The residential districts are intended to provide a range of housing choices to nivel the needs of Salt Lake City s citizens, to offer a balance of housing types and densities, to preserve and maintain the city's neighborhoods as safe and convenient places to live. to promote the harmonious development of residential communities, to ensure compatible infill development, and to help implement adopted plans. Although staff agrees with opponents that accessory dwelling units may marginally increase congestion and parking on neighborhood streets, permitting accessory dwelling units will: o Improve viability of public transit; • Improve property values; o Is an economical use of public and private infrastructure; o Protect the environment through reduction of vehicle miles driven within the region; o Provide a range of housing choices; and o Preserve and maintain neighborhoods as safe and convenient places to live. Therefore, staff finds that the proposal furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and Finding: As stated within the proposed text amendment, accessory dwelling units shall be subject compliance with the underlying zoning ordinance, which includes any applicable overlay zoning distri such as the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and the YCI Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District. Therefore, the proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning_ districts which may impose additional standard. PLNPCiM12 0 1 0-006 1'_Accessor\ Dscellinu Units 12 Published Date:June 16,2011 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Finding: The proposed text amendment was originally crafted after reviewing "best practices'. of various cities, such as Portland, OR; Santa Cruz and Chula Vista, CA; Seattle, WA; Lexington, MA; and Aspen, CO. As summarized within Attachment E — APA Quick Notes, the American Planning Association recommends that "...communities would do well to seriously consider adopting an approach that...allows ADUs by right with clear written conditions; does not require owner occupancy; prohibits condominium ownership on the basis that a condo could not be considered accessory; provides a simple procedure for legalizing preexisting or formerly illegal apartments provided the unit is inspected; provides a generous size standard; and provides a water and sewer adequacy standard." Although the proposed text amendment does not strictly achieve all of the recommendations provided by the American Planning Association, the proposal does reflect best practices tempered by local concerns, such as preference for owner occupancy requirements. Therefore, staff finds the proposal is consistent with this factor. PLNPCM2010-00612 Acccssor` D ,fling 1i its 13 Published Date June 16,2011 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS A. PURPOSE STATEMENT The purposes of the accessory dwelling unit provisions are to: 1. Create new housing units while respecting the look and scale of single-dwelling development; 2. Increase the housing stock of existing neighborhoods in a manner that is less intense than alternatives; 3. Allow more efficient use of existing housing stock, public infrastructure, and the embodied energy contained within existing structures; 4. Provide a mix of housing options that responds to changing family needs and smaller households; 5. Offer a means for residents, particularly seniors, single parents, and families with grown children, to remain in their homes and neighborhoods, and obtain extra income, security, companionship, and services; 6. Promote a broader range of affordable housing; 7. Provide opportunity for workforce housing in developed and new neighborhoods, close to places of work, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing fossil fuel consumption through less car commuting; 8. Support transit-oriented development and reduce auto usage by increasing density near transit stops; and 9. Support the economic viability of historic properties and the city's historic preservation goals by allowing accessory residential uses in historic structures. AMIN "4404ie B. APPLICABILITY An accessory dwelling unit may be incorporated within or added onto an existing house, garage, or other accessory structure, or may be built as a separate, detached structure on a lot where a single-family dwelling exists. Accessory dwelling units are allowed in the following residential zone districts: FR- 1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1 A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 subject to the provisions of this section. C. PERMIT ALLOCATION 1. The city shall limit the establishment of accessory dwelling units, pursuant to this ordinance, to twenty-five (25) units per calendar year, with the following exceptions; a. Accessory dwelling units located within a Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of Salt Lake City project area, or funded in part by RDA housing funds, shall be exempt from annual permit allocation limits; b. Accessory dwelling units that comply with all accessibility standards as contained within the current building code shall be exempt from annual permit allocation limits. 2. Building permit applications for an accessory dwelling unit shall be accepted and processed in order of date and time submitted, however order of approval shall be based solely on compliance with current building code. 401411.44 Salt Lake City 2 Accessory Dwelling Units June 2011 D. DEFINITIONS1 Accessory Dwelling Unit: A residential unit that is located on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit, either internal to or attached to the single family unit or in a detached structure. The accessory dwelling unit shall be a complete housekeeping unit with a shared or separate entrance, and separate kitchen, sleeping area, closet space, and bathroom facilities. Owner Occupant: 1. An individual who: a. Possesses, as shown by a recorded deed, fifty (50) percent or more ownership in a dwelling unit, and b. Occupies the dwelling unit with a bona fide intent to make it his or her primary residence; or 2. An individual who: a. Is a trustor of a family trust which: (1) Possesses fee title ownership to a dwelling unit; (2) Was created for estate planning purposes by one (1) or more trustors of the trust; and b. Occupies the dwelling unit owned by the family trust with a bona fide intent to make it his or her primary residence. Each living trustor of the trust shall so occupy the dwelling unit except for c: trustor who temporarily resides elsewhere due to a disability or infirmity. In such event, the dwelling unit shall nevertheless be the domicile of the trustor during the trustor's temporary absence. 3. Even if a person meets the requirements of Subsections 1 or 2 of this definition, such person shall not be deemed an owner occupant if the property on which the dwelling unit is located has more than one (1) owner and all owners of the property do not occupy the dwelling unit with a bona fide intent to make the dwelling unit their primary residence. a. A claim by the City that a person is not an owner occupant may be rebutted only by documentation, submitted to the Community and Economic Development Department, showing such person has a bona fide intent to make the dwelling unit his or her primary residence. Such intent shall be shown by: (1) Documents for any loan presently applicable to the property where the dwelling unit is located which name the person as a borrower; (2) Tax returns which show the person has claimed income, deductions, or depreciation from the property; (3) Rental documents and agreements with any tenant who occupies the dwelling unit, including an accessory apartment; (4) Insurance, utility, appraisal, or other contractual documents related to the property which name the person as the property owner; and (5) Documents which show the person is a full-time resident of Utah for Utah State income tax purposes. b. Any person who fails, upon request of the Community and Economic Development Department, to provide any of the documents set forth in Subsections 3a of this definition or who provides a document showing that ownership of a dwelling unit is shared among persons who do not all occupy the dwelling unit shall mean for the purpose of this Title that such person shall not be deemed an "owner occupant" of the dwelling unit in question. 1 Definitions will be inserted in Chapter 21 A62,Definitions,of the current zoning code.The definition of,"dwelling,single-family"is used intentionally in this section to exclude mobile homes,travel homes,and temporary housing to qualify as the principal dwelling for the purposes of accessory unit on the same lot. Salt Lake City 3 Accessory Dwelling Units June 2011 4. The provisions of Subsection 3 of this definition shall apply to any person who began a period of Amok owner occupancy after July 1, 2011, regardless of when the person purchased the property. E. STANDARDS Accessory dwelling units shall conform to the following purpose statement and requirements: 1. Purpose. These design and development standards are intended to ensure that accessory dwelling units are: a. Compatible with the desired character and livability of the residential zoning districts; b. Compatible with the historic district and landmark resources of the city; C. Compatible with the general building scales and placement of structures to allow sharing of common space on the lot, such as yards and driveways; and d. Smaller in size than the principal dwelling on the site. 2. General Requirements. a. Owner-occupied Property Required. Accessory dwelling units shall only be permitted when the property owner lives on the property within either the principal dwelling or accessory dwelling unit. Owner occupancy shall not be required when: (1) The owner has a bona fide, temporary absence of three (3) years or less for activities such as military service, temporary job assignments, sabbaticals, or voluntary service (indefinite periods of absence from the dwelling shall not qualify for this exception), or (2) The owner is placed in a hospital, nursing home, assisted living facility or other similar facility that provides regular medical care, excluding retirement living facilities or communities. e:31v' b. Deed Restriction. A lot approved for development with an accessory dwelling unit shall have a deed restriction, the form of which shall be approved by the City Attorney, filed with the county recorder's office indicating such owner-occupied requirement of the property prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the accessory dwelling unit by the city. Such deed restriction shall run with the land until the accessory dwelling unit is abandoned or revoked. C. One per Lot. One accessory dwelling unit is permitted per residential lot. d. Underlying Zoning Applies. Unless specifically provided otherwise in this section, accessory dwelling units are subject to the regulations for a principal building of the underlying zoning district with regard to lot and bulk standards, such as building and wall height, setbacks, yard requirements, and building coverage. (1) The requirements of Section 21 A.40.050, Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures, which govern all non-residential accessory structures, do not apply to accessory dwelling units. (2) Accessory dwelling units may have the same building setbacks as that allowed in the zoning district for the principal dwelling on the property. An existing accessory structure whose setbacks do not meet the setback requirements for a dwelling as noted above may be converted into an accessory dwelling unit but any non-complying setbacks may not become more non-complying. e. Existing Development on Lot. A single-family dwelling shall exist on the lot or will be constructed in conjunction with the accessory dwelling unit. Salt Lake City 4 Accessory Dwelling Units June 2011 f. Internal, Attached, or Detached. While accessory dwelling units are allowed only in conjunction with a principal dwelling on a lot, the unit may be built internal to, attached to, or as a separate unit detached from the principal dwelling. g. Minimum Lot Area. Within permissible zoning districts, the minimum lot area required for an accessory dwelling unit shall be: (1) Internal. For accessory dwelling units located within the principal single-family structure, no minimum lot area is required. (2) Detached. For accessory dwelling units located within a detached structure, a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet is required. (3) Attached. For accessory dwelling units located within an addition to the single-family structure, no minimum lot area is required. h. Building Code Compliance. Accessory dwelling units are subject to compliance with current building code at time of permit approval. i. Public Utilities. No structure that is not connected to the public water and sanitary sewer systems shall have an accessory dwelling unit. j. Multi-Family Districts with Single Family Dwelling on Lot. A lot located within a multi-family zoning district that is currently built out with a single-family detached dwelling and does not have the required minimum amount of land to add additional units pursuant to the multifamily zoning district requirement, one accessory dwelling unit may be permitted. k. Not a Unit of Density. Accessory dwelling units are not considered a unit of density and therefore are not included in the density calculation for residential property. I. Rooming House. Neither dwelling unit may be used as a rooming house as defined by Section 21 A.62.040 of this title. m. Home Occupations. Home occupations listed in Section 21A36.030 B, Permitted Home Occupations, may be conducted in an accessory dwelling unit. Those home occupations listed in this section under "Conditional Home Occupations" are explicitly not allowed in accessory dwelling units in order to maintain the residential nature of the dwelling unit. n. H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Accessory dwelling units located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District are subject to the applicable regulations and review processes of Section 21A.34.020, including the related guidelines and standards as adopted by Salt Lake City to ensure compatible building and preservation of historic resources. 3. Methods of Creation. An accessory dwelling unit may only be created through one of more of the following methods: a. Converting existing living area within a principal structure, such as a basement or attic space; b. Adding floor area to a principal structure; C. Constructing a new single-family detached dwelling unit structure with an internal or detached accessory dwelling unit; d. Converting or adding onto an existing accessory structure on a lot, such as to a garage or other outbuilding, where no required parking for the principal dwelling is eliminated by the accessory dwelling unit; and e. Constructing a new accessory dwelling unit within a separate detached structure in compliance with applicable lot coverage regulations. 4. Size of Accessory Dwelling Unit. The maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit may be no mere than 50% of the gross square footage of the principal dwelling unit or 650 square feet Salt Lake City 5 Accessory Dwelling Units June 2011 whichever is less. The minimum size of an accessory dwelling unit is that size specified and required ANN by the adopted building code of the city. 5. Ownership. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately or subdivided from the principal dwelling unit or lot. 6. Number of Residents. The total number of residents that may reside in an accessory dwelling unit may not exceed the number that is allowed for a family as defined in Section 21A.62.040, Definition of Terms. 7. Parking. An accessory dwelling unit that contains a studio or single bedroom, one additional on- site parking space is required. An accessory dwelling unit that contains two or more bedrooms,two additional on-site parking spaces is required. The City Transportation Director may approve a request to waive or modify the dimensions of the accessory dwelling unit parking space upon finding that the parking requirement for the principal dwelling is met and: a. Adequate on-street parking in the immediate vicinity is available to serve the accessory dwelling unit and will not cause congestion in the area; or b. The accessory dwelling unit is located within 1/4 mile of a fixed transit line or an arterial street with a designated bus route. Additionally, the City Transportation Director may allow tandem parking, within a legal location behind an existing on-site parking space, to meet the accessory dwelling unit parking requirement so long as the parking space requirement is met for the principal dwelling. 6. Location of Entrance to Accessory Dwelling Unit. a. Internal or Attached Units. Accessory dwelling units that are internal to or attached to a principal dwelling may take access from an existing entrance on a street-facing front facade ,' of the principal dwelling. No new entrances may be added to the front façade of a principal dwelling for an accessory dwelling unit unless such access is located at least twenty (20) feet behind the front facade of the principal dwelling unit. b. Detached Units. Accessory dwelling units that are detached from the principal dwelling: (1) May utilize an existing street-facing front façade entrance as long as the entrance is located a minimum of twenty (20) feet behind the front facade of the principal dwelling, or install a new entrance to the existing or new detached structure for the purpose of serving the accessory dwelling unit as long as the entrance is facing the rear or side of lot. (2) Shall be located no closer than thirty (30) feet from the front property line and shall take access from an alley when one is present and accessible. C. Corner Lots. On corner lots, existing entrances on the street-facing sides may be used for an accessory dwelling unit, but any new entrance shall be located facing toward the rear property line or interior side yard, or toward the back of the principal dwelling. d. H Historic Preservation Overlay District. When accessory dwelling units are proposed in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District, the regulations and design guidelines governing these properties in Section 21A.34.020 shall take precedence over the location of entrance provisions above. e. Side Entrance Exemption. Side entrance for an accessory dwelling unit shall not be subject to compliance with code 21 A.24.010.H Side Entry Buildings of this title. Salt Lake City 6 Accessory Dwelling Units June 2011 9. Exterior Design. a. Within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Accessory dwelling units located within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall meet the process, regulations, and applicable design guidelines in Section 21 A.34.020 of this title. b. Outside H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Historic Landmark Site. Accessory dwelling units shall be regulated by the following exterior design standards: (1) The maximum height of a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the principal structure. (2) An accessory dwelling unit shall be designed and constructed to be compatible with the principal structure. 10. Registration. Accessory dwelling units shall be registered with the city to evaluate whether the accessory dwelling unit initially meets applicable requirements; to ensure that the accessory dwelling unit meets health and safety requirements; to ensure that the property owner is aware of all city regulations governing accessory dwelling units; to ensure that the distribution and location of accessory dwelling units is known, to assist the City in assessing housing supply and demand; and to fulfill the Accessory Dwelling Units Purpose Statement listed above. To accomplish this, property owners seeking to establish an accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the following: a. Building Permit. Apply for and obtain a building permit for the proposed accessory dwelling unit, regardless of method of creation; b. Inspection. Ensure accessory dwelling unit is constructed, inspected, and approved in compliance with current building code; C. Business License. Apply for and obtain an annual business license for the accessory dweilin ; unit in accordance with the applicable provisions of the city. 11. Occupancy. No accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied until the property owner obtains a business license for the accessory dwelling unit from the city. Salt Lake City 7 Accessory Dwelling Units June 2011 Residential Zoning Districts n'+E S 1 i AO i i r. i 11I II I �i \Li - iTh - -- -- f i _ r '---....,_ _L -1,.„_ _:____., ,.,,,If ''''--,---. 1114.50.2"-- - ® `t • i. 1 . - i is,. • _l i::AT I ._ (\ I; ''.v ,q, _�.- , i j \ ,' J rill. ! — — .. 1 I C' I ....tee "giuXr 1.� �/ �'�jj I. t.. i I\ .I.�tt....1..r. ,r- • Legend �...J City Boundary likh .., FR Single Family Districts °' - gill R-1 Single Family Districts SR Single Family Districts MT R-2 Singly and Two-Family District RMF Multi-Family Districts • • Attachment C Transit Overlay Maps PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units 16 Published Date:June 16,2011 Residential Zoning Districts; a+E 4110 FA Rail Stations Zoning Streetcar(Proposed) FR Single Family Districts TRAX(Existing) R-1 Single Family Districts ) TRAX(Proposed) SR Single Family Districts IA Rail Lines R-2 Singly and Two-Family District FrontRunner _•!RMF Multi-Family Districts ma Streetcar(Proposed) m TRAX(Existing) m TRAX(Proposed) C • Residential Zoning Districts, a �E fA Rail Stations Zoning .� ) Streetcar(Proposed) FR Single Family Districts ) TRAX(Existing) R-1 Single Family Districts ) TRAX(Proposed) SR Single Family Districts (A Rail Lines R-2 Singly and Two-Family District r FrontRunner tA71.RMF Multi-Family Districts nu Streetcar(Proposed) ®TRAX(Existing) I TRAX(Proposed) 0 . • f . =tea '----„z.j.:1 ib .. ''' _:,—....- • ° ' —--- C ) MI if r . S _____ ______=_c , ___ A... ..._ 16 _ , 1 a. • • Attachment D Sample Illustrations PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling.Units 17 Published Date:June 16,2011 650 Sq Ft Max •5% of Lot Depth, 15' but <25' Rear Setback 28' Max Height at Roof Riclgeline .1' Side Setback �.�^ �� . t14%.' l.` .,-,.., .,,„--0,,, ,: ,, , , �� Buildable Area . , l',".-.- 1:.:1-t ,-,- 010166'.4A . % 1,- . I' I� - r� '` i: lt: 1 `�� etbdck `i�� `' . .aa .' Building Coverage up to 40% �N �� / Current Example: 310!0 ` /J Max 17' at Roof Ridgeline 1'-5' Rear Setback -- Up to 650 Sq Ft --- 1' Side Setback - • ��, Buildable Area 1.�i .' ti It i= t i tt� t t t .0l 1' Side Setback i4 pfr w •{,i,it.• ,, ' it.zj.•;;..„,:.,!t,; ary Structure �` " Building Coverage up to 40% ��`�r'Pt. ` � Y/C� - Current Example: 21% ,e, ::TSC+ - ' • L ' III 17'Max Height ar Roof Ridgeline 1'-5'Rear Setback 650 Sq Ft Max 1'Side Setback '1\ .:� 4'Setback from Primary Building i Buildable Area ' " .1.. - .e Setback �i �� J�ll 1 __,- Building Coverage up to 40% i �e 111 Current Example: 27% ��! '1 ii Jl�.Z,rli o'sr' 140' I Max 28' at Roof Ridgeline 1' 1 20' Rear Setback , Up to G50 Sq Ft '..,,•. 4' Side Setback :, •x . t • %/ `'•h,4,,,,:ts\i„:t;:,•• <. ''� %j�� .;>;,:,.,,,,,i,:pi;%,,,,...,4,,,,,:,‘,.",,,,,,ilioLt.lif:,,,,,,...fij.,;, ..to.. -4�: tom, ,:, 414,.. lir ss .,. S 4 'ri . .�• • s'� 1 `�. h.uilclable Area ,� • T'�8�''' ' 1� t'i, r 01,--i )it' -- 11I�'' ?'�Y, ' .."9.n Ill f•.J4'!H^ 1,..'• � �� 4r �."'' Setback '4444{l'1 1 ' [''..-;•''',..'' % r. ,,,,,,•*„..„::„....,,..., „. .. ... ,,, .,, _ „ ,..., I r .,„004'4,'t•tiW'I' • •"'-i • . e'''' • Building Coverage up to 40% ,' Current Example: 240/0 I` tl A r III 25%of lot depth, >15'but<30'Rear Setback 650 Sq Ft Max — - • Max 23'at Roof Ridgeline , .,._,..1,.•,.--.,. __„, 5'Side Setback .1.1,,,,,:,-1,04,,,,,,--6-4;,,e•-"P1-; '''..,,s1,,".-e-,," •_ .-...-„,o-,-....5„,-'?„.,--pr;:- t.e14-1:-•:'-'` 1 • ... '',.0.'eV'r--1,:et,''' 1 " •- ..,..,:. ?Ir ;le' ...,*„.„., AO:7f';•;,..27:*..,.;:".17::>41$1. .' Agosipor ., . , ,, ,,,,':::Z*,•,_\%';' 1•1 ),Z'=:.: l'''''' x-3.3..i4. 3..'•_,:i".'.?: "'‘,,:l.. r.:';',.;:?..c),,,,.,: ,--- S .:'''''' : .3%:::: . .., . . . ' .'s.' '.tt "''..,:r ..,:...'z:`..-..-.::•-• "--"-"Pc•:'>-. "•. , . " ...; • 1•••••- , --,f,..-•z,.,...... ...-is'::,,t..,,,....--,•:4;:..-,•.44...;:z.4..••....;;••.,•••••••'4. .: ,.....- I,,j -tbaCk I 0..%...V---z. - :::.•,,,,:-..;;P%...-4-;;;....,,,,,- -rii.--' _....--- ' ' n.. 1 ,.."-'...4.4...*- •. 3•:: 1,710 '' 1111 • .,-' , . 45t4.,+.-r• ',P. .'.., ,,, ,,,,,, tkl.,,,,. ...,- .0/c' ' -''• '',..;`,C''1/7:'•-,7*, ''\s, ''it' 1 1 ......., 140' 't.;..-•..--. 4z,; I i 1 ,1 0! ', ---. ..- ...- -,,r•;•-. ,--''' ,,./::,,.. .:..;%- Nil ,40P,,.,- ,7.e!"-.--- Building Coverage up to 400/0 of lot -4 Current Example:33°/o ye- 1 650 Sq Ft Max - z.", r Max 14' at Roof Ridgeline � f"'�4 . '• , =' x �'' 1'-5' Rear Setback 1' Side Setback �. r ;'"� .l'..,zi`' 7 ' Mr �Ky/ • .'kt' '!C �'• \ 1 i \ Buildable Area " { ,,` .=? ,i°:.�'�: s fLY%✓N3,�,' • t..1. ► ✓`" '{LV I e Setback • � , ,` � ' • ,;� pp���,v , ';, ' y�'"--,., IQ r •ck.from Primary Structure Fjf�X��3�7 • f l. ` r1�ri t,, `j S.• r 1°Gy�.; ;, bri • . , 4" "- - 40 /o of l o t �,, ., /_ _ Building Coverage up to •:� ` ~ ... Current Example: 33% 1 1 ., h ,b) 7' It S V • • • Attachment E APA Quicknotes PLNPCM20I0-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units IS Published Date:June 16,2011 °tanning fundamentals for public officials and engaged citizens • • 3 PAS v..7, • Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory dwelling units(ADUs)are small,self-contained living units that typically have their own • kitchen,bedroom(s),and bathroom space.Often called granny flats,elder cottage housing opportuni- ties(ECHO),mother-daughter residences,or secondary dwelling units,ADUs are apartments that can "Towns,cities,and be located within the walls of an existing or newly constructed single-family home or can be an addi- tion to an existing home.They can also be freestanding cottages on the same lot as the principal dwelling unit or a conversion of a garage or barn. counties across the The benefits to the home owner and the ADU occupant are many.For the home owner,ADUs provide the opportunity to offer an affordable and independent housing option to the owner's grown son or county have done daughter just starting out or to an elderly parent or two who might need a helping hand nearby.The y unit could also be leased to unrelated individuals or newly established families,which would provide the dual benefit of providing affordable housing to the ADU occupant and supplemental rental the right thing by income to the owner.Supplemental income could offset the high cost of a home mortgage,utilities, • and real estate taxes.Finally,leasing an ADU to a young person or family can provide an elderly home owner with a sense of security and an opportunity to exchange needed work around the house and proactively yard for a discount on rent. p Y Despite the benefits,some communities resist allowing ADUs,or allow them only after time-consuming amendinglocal and costly review procedures and requirements.Public resistance to ADUs usually takes the form of a perceived concern that they might transform the character of the neighborhood,increase density,add to traffic make parking on the street more difficult,increase school enrollment,and put additional pres- sureonfireandpoliceservice,parks,or water and wastewater.However.communities that have allowed zoning ordinances ADUs find that these perceived fears are mostly unfounded or overstated when ADUs are actually built. ADUs are a particularly desirable option for many communities today considering the current econom- to allow ADUs." is climate,changes in household size,increasing numbers of aging baby boomers,and the shortage of affordable housing choices.They provide a low-impact way for a community to expand its range of housing choices. LOCALITIES AND STATES GET INTO THE ACT Towns,cities,and counties across the country have done the right thing by proactively amending local zoning ordinances to allow ADUs.This is typically done either as a matter of right or as a special or con- ditional use.In either case,reasonable conditions may be imposed.Some states,including California, have enacted legislation that limits the ability of localities to zone out ADUs. In 2001 AARP retained APA's Research Department to write a guidance report for citizens interested in convincing local and state officials of the benefits of allowing ADUs and showing them how to do it. Entitled Accessory Dwelling Units:Model State Act and Model Local Ordinance,the monograph provides alternative statute and ordinance language useful to implementing all forms of ADUs. The Model Local Ordinance suggests recommendations for communities.Additionally,the intent of the ordinance describes the permitting process for eligibility and approval,and further outlines standards • for ADU approval pertaining to lot size,occupancy,building standards,parking and d traffic,public health,and how to deal-with nonconforming ADUs.The Model State Act provides findings and policies encouraging the approval of ADUs and names local governments as the entities entitled to authorize IAmerican Planning Association l Making GreatColman:yesHaaper A Publication of the American Planning Association I PAS QuickNores No.19 adoption of an ADU-statute.It specifies the limits to which local governments - - e may prohibit ADUs and outlines r^5 default permitting provisions if a locali- ' fir ®\ ®; i ty does not adopt an ADU ordinance. • - ---- It details optional approaches for `-1 % adopting ADU ordinances,certifying •')®i� �_ j.. local ADU ordinances,gathering data • ' 4>' d_ on ADU efforts,preparing reports and !' I - 7 1 recommendations,and forming a = ----.� statewide board overseeing ADUs. (l) ND it 0 SIC. 4 WHAT ISSUES ARISE WHEN A PROPOSED ADU ORDINANCE 3 IS CONSIDERED? l_` ' ADU ordinances offer a variety of ben- i0''' efts to local communities but the road '�.i® i ®__' to implementation may not be an I ®j. ' + easy process.While ADUs are more • ': - i widely accepted now than in years n r .. . I• .• • past,skeptics still remain and some still 4 oppose ADU zoning.The following ,.... _ • describes some issues or decision points that communities must address -- --------------------------- in order to successfully navigate the Single story ADU floor plan. rilous waters of public acceptance. 4111rThe approach that is right for your city or town will be unique,based on local physical,political,social,and economic conditions. :er a complete list of references ut hapJ/oe'ocpla-rooc.org/pas,:,cknotesr By-right Permitting.Should permits for ADUs be issued as a matter of right(with clear standards F' built into the ordinance)or should they be allowed by discretion as a special or conditional use after k• a public hearing? ! REFERENCES Occupancy.Should ordinance language allow an ADU only on the condition that the owner of the ; 1.Published by American property lives in one of the units? 4 Planning Association Form of Ownership.Should the ordinance prohibit converting the ADU unit into a condominium? Y.evesr:evs Planning Assnciarion-APordable !'Hocsinc Reader:Articles from Zoning Preexisting,nonconforming ADUs.How should the ordinance treat grandfathered ADUs?How do you treat illegal apartments that want to apply for an ADU permit? News and Zoning Practice.Available at hnpJimyapa.planningorg/afordatsleread Unit Size:Should the ordinance limit the square footage of the ADU to assure that the unit is truly . e+(members-only access). accessory to the principal dwelling on the property? '.American Planning Association.2006. Adequacy of Water and Sewer Services.How do you guarantee there is enough capacity in Poky Guide on Ha.:sing.Chicano:Ame,Ican sewer lines,pumping stations,and treatment facilities to accommodate ADUs? .•Flannng Association.Available a: --vrnw_.Janning org/policy/guides/pdJMu These are not easy issues.However,communities would do well to seriously consider adopting an sir gpdf approach that:allows ADUs by right with clear written conditions;does not require owner occupan- cy;prohibits condominium ownership on the basis that a condo could not be considered accessory; Banger,Sharon,Nancy Chapman,and provides a simpleprocedure for legalizing preexistingor formerlyillegal apartmentsprovided the I Deborah Howe-1994.Planning(o cn P o 9 9 P y..Agin Society Planning Advisory Service unit is inspected;provides a generous size standard;and provides a water and sewer adequacy stan- Po't M.e5l.Chicago:American dafd.❑ I Planning ASsociatbn. 41 ASQuickNotes is o publication of the American Plannin2Assxiation's Planning Advisory ServiceIPAS).Copyright O 2009.VS- . For mile informa:ionpn this topic visit PASoNioeauau'nAlaooing.argloaitafndcuthancPA.Sranuarkfncyvv.Aatm&'e MmrongAtmc ousrafl:br Paut_ vrmri.oleorW^.corg....... Former,NKR Executive Director and CEO;(St/tam R.idein,Asa,Direcrc,n" .,` .., ..-. - - OuickNores Editor;Tim Mennel,Senior Editor;Julie Von Bergen,Assn'::-- A Publication of the American Planning Association I PAS QuickNotes f.-o.: • • • ------------ ------ Attachment F News Article: Seattle Looks to Cottages PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units I k) Published Date:June 16,2011 Seattle Looks to Cottages for Affordable Housing 0 Cities are struggling to increase residential density without destroying single-family neighborhoods. That could mean the return of the backyard cottage. Zach Patton I May 2011 It's chilly,gray and raining. In other words,its an utterly unremarkable spring day in Seattle,as the city's urban planning supervisor Mike Podowski pulls up to a home in the Columbia City neighborhood southeast of downtown. The large clapboard-and-cedar house is a charming two-story Craftsman, but Podowski's not interested. Instead,he makes a beeline for a freestanding structure in the backyard."This is great!"he says,as the homeowner ushers him through a gate."It's an ideal set-up." Podowski has come to check in on one of Seattle's fastest-growing new modes of housing: the backyard cottage. Since 2006, the city has allowed homeowners to build stand-alone cottages -- officially known as"detached accessory dwelling units"--behind existing single-family homes.At first, the zoning change only applied to a few neighborhoods on the city's south side, including Columbia City. But in November 2009, Seattle expanded the pilot program throughout the city,to any residential lot of at least 4,000 square feet. In the 18 months following the expansion,57 backyard cottages have been permitted,and roughly 50 of those are either completed or nearly finished. Like other mid-size cities that came of age in the first few decades of the 20th century,Seattle is made up largely of compact neighborhoods filled with single-family bungalows. Today, almost two-thirds of the city is zoned for single-family homes, so it's harder for Seattle to accommodate its growing Opopulation--the city swelled from 563,374 residents in 2000 to 608,660 last year--without spreading farther and farther into the forests of the Pacific Northwest. That's partly why the city saw backyard cottages as an attractive new alternative,a way to add affordable housing options without a wholesale redesign of the city's signature neighborhoods. These structures are small: Seattle's code limits them to a footprint of 800 square feet, and they max out at 22 feet tall.Construction costs typically range from$50,000 to$80,000,although more elaborate units can cost upward of$140,000 to build.Some homeowners use the freestanding cottages as home offices, or as extra room for when relatives visit. Others are building them as in-law apartments for aging parents, or as crash pads for post-college children who can't yet afford their own place. But a large number of homeowners are actually renting the cottages to tenants. (City law requires that the homeowners live on the property at least six months out of the year.) In some cases, the owners themselves have moved into the backyard cottage in order to rent out the larger house facing the street. Seattle isn't alone in its experiment with accessory dwelling units(ADUs). Localities everywhere from California to Minnesota to Massachusetts are re-examining their zoning laws and considering the role that ADUs can play in the makeup of their urban design.To be sure,there are plenty of critics who say backyard cottages are a bad idea, that renting out tiny apartments to strangers will destroy the character of a neighborhood. "We're seeing both a continued resistance to [ADUs], but also a recognition that they provide a level of moderately priced housing," says John Mcllwain, a senior housing fellow at the Urban Land Institute.The"growing driver,"he says,are elderly parents who can't afford nursing care, or who simply would rather age in place with their families. "That's hard for a community to rally against,"he says."And once you cross that threshold,it's hard to exclude other uses for backyard cottages.We're going to be seeing a lot more of this style of housing in the next several 41k_years." Backyard cottages are actually a throwback. Stand-alone in-law apartments, or "granny flats," were common neighborhood features a century ago when multiple generations of a family lived together. By the 1950s,however,Americans were decamping for the suburbs,pursuing the dream of a single-family home on a large tract of land. Many urban zoning codes of the second half of the century essentially banned the construction of new backyard cottages. But as attitudes toward urban density have shifted in recent years-- and as affordable housing has become scarce in many places -- more and more cities have reconsidered the granny flat as an important part of a neighborhood. Portland, Ore., and Santa Cruz, Calif., both have strong backyard cottage programs. Chicago and Madison, Wis., have considered relaxing their prohibitions against ADUs.Denver last summer revamped its entire city zoning code and now permits stand-alone ADUs in certain neighborhoods. California in 2003 passed landmark legislation essentially forcing localities to allow ADUs. (However, because cities were allowed to design restrictions as narrowly as they wanted, the law hasn't had as much impact as it could have.Pasadena,for example,only allows ADUs on lots larger than 15,000 square feet, and mandates that an ADU have its own two-car garage. Only one backyard cottage has been built in Pasadena since the 2003 law took effect.) Not everyone is pleased. Critics say the additional residents put a crunch on available street parking. Some neighbors worry about privacy with a two-story cottage looming just over the property line. But the biggest concern tends to be the notion that allowing backyard rental cottages will irrevocably change the feel of a neighborhood.While Seattle was debating the cottages in 2009, one real estate agent called the city's proposal a"de facto rezone of the entire city,"adding, "There will no longer be single-family neighborhoods in Seattle." Podowski acknowledges that vocal objections from some critics made it "challenging to get the legislation passed. People are very protective of their single-family neighborhoods, and they weren't sure this was something that was going to fit in." But after the city's three-year experiment with ADUs in the southeast part of town, Podowski's office conducted a survey of residents living near a permitted backyard cottage to gauge the impact the unite had on neighborhoods. What the city found was something of a surprise. Eighty-four percent of the respondents said the ADUs hadn't had any discernible impact on parking or traffic.What's more,most people didn't even know they lived near an ADU, says Podowski."More than half of them didn't even realize there was a unit next door. It really helped us to show that a lot of the fears people had about these were not going to be realized." That positive feedback helped encourage the city to expand ADU zoning citywide. Council members also eliminated a cap on the number of backyard cottages that could be built in the city, and they rejected a proposed"dispersion"requirement,which would have limited the number of ADUs in a given neighborhood. The city prepared a design guide for homeowners, tips on being a good landlord and ideas for how to best respect neighbors'privacy.Since then,the 57 new permits for backyard cottages number"in the ballpark"of what the city had predicted, says Podowski, and they're evenly spread in neighborhoods across Seattle. To hear Podowski tell it,the benefits of an ADU are relatively prosaic:They're good for aging parents, or the rental income can help offset a homeowner's mortgage. But in some ways, backyard cottages represent a bigger shift than that."Cities are struggling with,'How on earth do you increase density in a suburban neighborhood of single-family homes?" says Witold Rybczynski, an urbanism professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of Makeshift Metropolis and other books on urban planning. "The backyard cottage is an easy first step toward densification," he says. Unlike high-rise residential towers or even mid-rise apartment buildings, Rybczynski says, backyard cottages "are an effective way to increase density without a radical change in neighborhood standards."With the twin challenges of accommodating an aging population and providing diverse housing options to an ever- growing pool of residents, an increasing number of cities may find a solution right in their owro backyards. This article was printed from:http://www.governing.com/seattle-looks-cottages-affordable-housing-options.html 0 0 Attachment G Dr. Arthur C. Nelson PowerPoint PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units 20 Published Date:June 16,201 I 6/13/2011 0 Today's lesson ... Accessory Dwelling Units Arthur C. Nelson, Ph.D. FAICP Presidential Professor University of Utah MOW 0 Changing Household Size SIC US Year NH Size HI1 Size 1950 3.38 3.40 1960 3.29 3.29 1070 2.93 3.10 1980 2.60 2.76 1990 2.33 2.63 2000 2.48 2.59 2010 2.50 2.58 (77777 1 6/13/2011 - - Salt Lake City Households Household Number Share Total HH 72k Family HH 38k 53% Single HH 26k 37% Nonfamily HH 8k 11% •Source:American Community Survey 2007-09.Excludes group quarters. Miff 40 _ - - - Salt Lake City Households by Tenure HH Type Rent Family 34% Single 54% Nonfamily 64% Source:American Community Survey 2007-09.Excludes group quarters. INK • 2 6/13/2011 People Turning 65 Each Year [Figures in 000s] 1 ._- Multi-Generational Households 0 3 J L g i.5 25 0 t 20 6 \ t 15 " Source:Adapted from The Return of the Multi-Generational Family Household(Pew)by 1 0 Arthur C.Nelson,Presidential Professor&Director of Metropolitan Research, Univ.of Utah. 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2008 Year • CIII) 6/13/2011 0 Change in HHs 2010-2020 150[0,030 , Low High 14,003,030 1:,000,aoo fo,om,aooLOOM 6,0do.000' 4,0aaaoo I toao,ow' • ' 0• _. ._ __ ■-- 1 Tay 0Mer75 2544 0N/ 5544 6S mid older Sourer: n Mdlwain,ULI,2010 0 Bu -Sell Rates b Ate Cohort AHS 1o.o 9.0 _ 8.0 7.0 — 6.0 — 5 0 Buy Rate _ 4.0- — A • 3.0 �d 2.0 - 0 t.o —0 Sell Rat o- 'o.o ° 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- 80+ 411 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 Source'Dowell Myer,B SuncHo Byu.-Arent Baby Boomers and the Generational Housing Bubble:Foresight and Mitiotion of an Epic 4 6/13/2011 °c a a, o o aaaa 0a°o o c°r a�c c a �Jo,o�c c��cSss aCo° es�cy�aa\�z��°e1s��a a�e a�ro VatAlk `°�a�aG°\0c,S a�eP��, �tia��Or��ti°'ii`�¢,EaS°J •,°;1-,eJ`2``'.F-e'trAt z'OFGe,,S-c5Sci°e Go.\-\eQ'cQ'C;istf`a?era \-\e'C 1.60 1.20- — --- -- — 0.80 0.40 E > EAT SENIOR IiL OFF ee��g®v®v® ItC� BUY ��+r �SiS Y^f: ^ ?� + 0.00 DEL 0.4 e; f.. 0.8G Set Source:Dowel!Myers&Sung-o Ryu,Aging 5aby 5cc^e:and t'e Generational Houzing Bubble:ForesgS:anti M^ga:icn of an'core Transition',Journal c;the American PIcrsnin;Assccie.ica 7:(1):1- 7(2D07).figures for ret buying o-selling rate age. 1.20 Relocation Choices of Seniors 4 ( Before Move After Move Yi Rental 20% 59% S Source:Arthur C. Nelson based on analysis of American Housing Survey 2005 2007, 2009. New movers means moved in past five years. Annual senior movers are about 3%of all senior households; 60%* of all seniors will change housing type between ages 65 and 85. 5 6/13/2011 New Housing Market Realities • Sub-prime mortgages are history. • 20% down-payments will become normal — But only 1/3'' of HHs paid 20%+ down • Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are history. • Meaning —Smaller homes 4 maybe more people per unit —Smaller lots 4 more attached units —More renters 4 including doubled-up renters ZNINE 0 QRM (as in squirm) Qualified Residential Mortgage Lenders will need a 5% reserve. 20% minimum down payment Only FHA-backed lending for low down payments. Anyone with a 60 day delinquency in their credit history in past 2 years will not qualify for a QRM.mar {I s. 6 6/13/2011 Effect of Higher Down Payment? Percent of purchase price Percent Cumulative l li No down payment 14% 14% I Less than 3 percent 8% 22% 3-5 percent 12% 34% 6-10 percent 16% 50% 11-15 percent 6% 56% 16-20 percent 13% 69% 21-40 percent 13% 82% t 41-99 percent 7% 90% Bought outright 10% 100% Source:Adapted by Arthur C.Nelson from American Housing Survey 2009(2010) Life-Stage Flexibility . Needed . 400 .iiskiiit 40 ' 4%0, NOV- . 1 ith Ith7 it 1' 2010 2020 2040 Accessory Dwelling Units the MI RENT 1 t Source:Graphic by Ryan Sullivan.http://nwrenovation.mm/green-remodeling/accessory- Sil. i1 dwelling-un,ts-%EP.680%94tan-granny-ftats-save-the-world/ „ilk,' 7 6/13/2011 What is an ADU? • An Accessory Dwelling Unit is a secondary housing unit on the same property as a main residence. • ADUs are also called accessory apartments, in-law apartments, family apartments, or ' secondary units, 'granny flats" etc. • ADUs are not duplexes: — AN.) is subsidiary to the main residence — Owner of AbU usually lives on the properly • ADUs are self-contained 0 Why consider an AbU Option? • Shrinking household size • Rising real estate costs • Aging population • Neighborhood stability • Character of neighborhoods • Environmental benefits C I 6/13/2011 0 Public ADU Benefits • Increases tax revenues • Minimizes subsidies for affordable units • Maximizes use of existing infrastructure and services • Keeps growing/aging families together • Preserves existing housing/historic structures • Promotes safer and stable neighborhoods 0 Private ADU Benefits • Homeowners - rental income • Local businesses - employee housing • Real estate firms - rental stock • Residential contractors - remodeling • Lending institutions - home improvement loans 0 9 6/13/2011 Who typically builds ADUs? • Older singles/couples • Middle-aged "empty nesters" • Younger singles/couples • Single working parents • People who travel often MEET How and where are AbUs built? • Apartments in single-family homes • Additions to homes • Conversion of garages/secondary structures • Free-standing cottages • Designed into new construction 10 6/13/2011 liaimitpi ri ,,i_,,,,. :i `0 j Mil _ ire,,„,---' last ! \�. Summary of AM) Benefits • Creates new housing using existing infrastructure and services • Reduces energy consumption • Generates community economic development • Reduces costs for the elderly • Preserves housing stock and neighborhood stability 0 11 6/13/2011 C US ADU Household Market All 65+ Households with HHs HHs Relatives other than spouse/children 21% 16% Nonrelatives 10% 5% Total other relatives or nonrelatives 31% 21% Source:American Housing Survey for 2009. j1 • Salt Lake City ADU Demand 2030? 250,000 Population 100,000 Households 50,000 Single & Nonfamily HHs 30,000 Demand for ADU-like options -2-sq. mi. of land saved from development "$100M saved from new infrastructure 12 6/13/2011 0 °,Residential Zoning Districts,1/2 Mile Buffer Around Stations —I- t uTA Rail Slalbns Imp " Cg�S,.W«�. fl SF..l,R.r.. (0� R,,.n F.,,o F.. I UTARalll jne. wr'?na*wF�+10a+ Olt4 4 :,'-:';) • '' ,-? 1. ,_.1. . • , l j r■ �_ oill 0 TODs and Energy Consumption l } Single Family Single Family Multi-Family I. Detached Attached Condo;TH i; 25C , r -4 200 _ t____. 1 4'I• J• 150 _- ff n l O 100 -57%• 1. 7 �.C • -60%• C _ • CSC TOD C SD TOD C SD TOD diElir Source:Adapted from Jonathan Rose Companies(2011)for EPA. 14 ---_; 0 13 Public Input Chronology Sustainable City Code Initiative—Accessory Dwelling Units December 2009 General Information about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Urbcrnus—the monthly Planning Division e-newsletter December 2009 Fact sheet and draft ordinance posted to Planning Division website December 17, 2009 Open House: all people on ListServe notified of open house, including all community council chairs July 1, 2010 Second article about ADUs in Urbanus—the monthly Planning Division e- newsletter July 14, 2010 Focus Group: Clarion met with Focus Group made up of community council chairs, citizens, housing builders and housing advocates July 15, 2010 Open House / Public Forum at Salt Lake City Library conducted by Clarion Associates September 1, 2010 Open City Hall forum began (20 comments as of November 4, 2010) September 2, 2010 Presented information to Community Council Chairs at Mayor's breakfast meeting with Community Council Chairs September 16. 2010 Presented information at Salt Lake Network meeting October 21, 2010 Public Forum—City Hall October 27, 2010 Wasatch Hollow Community Council November 10, 2010 Planning Commission Work Session December 9, 2010 Planning Commission Briefing. Clarion Associates and Mayor Becker attended meeting January 5, 2011 Presentation to the Utah Housing Coalition February 3, 2011 Presented information to Community Council Chairs at Mayor's breakfast meeting with Community Council Chairs February 9, 2011 Presentation at the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board Meeting February 17, 2011 Presentation at Housing Trust Fund Board Lunch February 17, 2011 Open House: all people on ListServe notified of open house, including all community council chairs February 22, 2011 Presentation at the Mayor's Accessible Services Advisory Council. February 23, 201 1 Planning Commission Work Session March 2, 2011 Historic Landmark Commission Work Session March 9, 2011 Follow-up meeting with Housing Advisory and Appeals Board March 23, 2011 Planning Commission Public Hearing June 8, 2011 Planning Commission Briefing by Dr. Arthur C. Nelon, University of Utah June 22, 2011 Planning Commission Public Hearing ADU Focus Group July 14, 2010 Present: Cindy Cromer-Property Owner/Landlord Roger Borgenicht-Assist Phil Carlson- Sugar House Community Council Chair Gordon Storrs- Fairpark Community Council Chair Phil Carroll- Community Housing Services and Avenues Community Council member Bob Lund-NeighborWorks Sonya Martinez-Community Action Program Francisca Blanc- Utah Housing Corporation Justin Allen- Salt Lake Board of Realty Paul Smith- Utah Apartment Association Annalisa Steggell Holcombe- Westminster College Michael Michaffey- Contractor Aria Funk- Landlord and East Central Community Council member Richard Welch- Garbett Homes Staff Cheri Coffey- Planning Staff Joyce Algiers-Clarion Associates Chris Duerkson-Clarion Associates Questions and Comments Richard Welch. The Accessory Structure with Dwelling Unit on Capitol Hill that was built by Bryson Garbett is much bigger than proposal would allow. It is basically a carriage house for the Wolfe Mansion. The regulation should allow the ADU to be larger if lot and structure can handle it. Requirement for a setback of a garage versus a setback for a residential setback is conflicting. The setback for the garage is too much (has to be within 5 feet of rear yard setback). Cheri Coffey- Should we only require a duplex to have a minimum of 6,000 square feet like we used to have, rather than the minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet that was put in place with the 1995 Zoning Rewrite Project? Phil Carlson- SHMP policy supports ADUs. The requirement for owner occupancy is important. Many ADUs already exist. Roger Borgenicht-The owner occupancy regulation is good to help manage problems but what if owner moves. Parking is not an issue. Do not pave more of the lot. Just allow them to park on street. Benefit of ADUs is that it provides more eyes in the neighborhood. Privacy in backyard may be an issue. Require them to be built so they don't overlook the neighbor's. (Regulate where windows can be, etc.) Michael Michaffey- Parking is an issue in Avenues and Sugar House. Should allow parking in front of the front wall of the house. Current regulations require the parking to be located behind the front wall of the house. Analissa Steggell Holcombe. It is good to have more housing options near the college. Young professionals(staff, faculty of college, etc) like to live near the college. An ADU would minimize the price of housing and allow them to reduce their commute times. Owner occupied-The regulation may not work well. Good landlords can result in the same benefit that an owner occupied rental would have (solving problems quickly). Arla Funk-The timing of the proposal is inappropriate. There currently are a lot of vacant apartments. Am*, Don't believe that everyone in an R-1 zone should be able to have an ADU. if you want to have two family,just rezone to R-2 and call them duplexes. Allowing a two story garage with ADU for a single- story home is conflicting. Don't allow Conditional Home Occupations where someone can come to the home. That would only increase the disturbance in the neighborhood. Don't allow someone to convert more than 650 square feet to an ADU. You need to specify a minimum size. You need to be very specific because enforcement doesn't work. Being able to address problems will be very difficult. Gordon Storrs-There are many benefits to ADUs: they increase housing options, keep people in the neighborhood, allows elderly to stay in the neighborhood. Allow younger married kids to get help when they are just starting out(help from parents); strengthens families and increases owner occupancy. How do you maintain an ADU if the owner sells the property(what happens to the tenant? Increases permanent housing in the City. Allow ADUs to be built within one foot of rear yards. The size should be geared to the size of the lot. Some lots are really deep. Allowing a use like this would help clean up rear yards that now are so deep,they just are unkempt. Paul Smith-Agrees with the requirement for owner occupancy. Landlords want to be good neighbors. One bedroom u7nits are hard to rent. May have a saturated market of one bedroom units. If they have more than one bedroom, you should require more parking. ADUs should be licensed. Justin Allen-The requirement for owner occupancy will be difficult because the owner may need to sell the property. Encourage them to be located near transit/streetcar. Good landlord program is a good idea. It may help with enforcement. Francisca Blanc. We support ADUs as an affordable housing type in single family neighborhoods. Utah Housing Corporation focuses more on multi-family. ADUs should be licensed to protect tenants. Perhaps you could have a pilot program relating to parking. If they are located near TRAX they aren't ku required to have parking. If not located near TRAX, they would need to met a parking requirement. Sonya Martinez. CAP's focus is on low income population. They support more choices for affordable housing. They support requiring a license for the units. They want to ensure they are inspected. They support allowing the owner to live in the ADU with the rental unit being the primary unit. They believe there needs to be some type of tenant protection. Allow the lease to transfer with the property if it is sold. What happens if the property goes in to foreclosure? Bob Lund-Large lots present a good opportunity for ADUs. Must address issues with how the ADU is placed on the lot to address privacy, egress windows etc. Must ensure they meet some type of health, safety code. Cindy Cromer-ADUs should be allowed where they are served by fixed mass transit. Requiring a license for single family and two family dwellings is being reviewed. The City is bad at enforcement. Allow more units when they are zoned multi-family but are on small lots that wouldn't otherwise allow for an additional unit. How does this relate to the Unit legalization process?How does it relate to compatible infill regulations? How do you enforce on ADUs if the criteria is not met?Need to allow these incrementally. Create a pilot program to see how it works. Try it in areas where the master plan supports it, near transit, and historic districts (as an incentive). ADUs will compete with landlords who are trying to rent small units in multi-family buildings. Phil Carroll-All rental units, including ADUs should be licensed. They should all meet minimum standards for health and safety. All ADUs should be accessible. Allow the person who develops these to determine how big they should be. Some larger units you can't rent. A two bedroom, two bath unit is usually 1100 square foot minimum. Need to overcome issues/problems with rental houses. ilk Accessory Dwelling Units: O"° Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Community Council Chairs September 1, 2010 Comments: Judi Short-Sugar House Land Use Chair- How are you going to address enforcement of illegal units. It is already an issue and the City's enforcement is not adequate. Christian Harrison- Downtown Chair-The requirement to have off-street parking is not square with the goals of the transportation to encourage walking and other non-private automobile forms of circulation. Christian Harrison-Downtown Chair As a phase li for ADUs, you should allow them as Condos so it addresses Downtown Housing. Sometimes you may buy two units, combine them and then separate them again to allow for a smaller unit (mother-in-law etc.) Phil Carlson-Sugar House Chair(I'm not sure if he said the regulations for parking are ok, or if it is ok if people park on the street. Jim Jenkin-Avenues Chair- in the SR-1A, there is a restriction on height for accessory structures. The reason for this is that you don't have a right to have your accessory structure impact your neighbor from a privacy issue. Therefore,you wouldn't be able to have a unit over a garage. How do you address that? Bill Davis-Ballpark Chair There should be design guidelines for Accessory Dwelling Units. The City needs to move more towards design guidelines. Christian Harrison-Downtown Chair; The City needs design guidelines and review in areas other than just in historic districts. Esther Hunter; East Central Chair-There are a lot of illegal units in East Central. There needs to be criteria for parking. There is a lot of transit in the area but people don't use it. They now address the lack of parking in the area with 45 degree on-street parking. How does the Transportation Division decide if there is enough parking on the whole block. Some uses were built without parking and aren't required to have it but their lack of parking, impacts the whole block and the on-street parking is used for those uses that are under parked. Other East Central Guy? If you allow on-street parking to meet the requirement and you can't park on the street for more than 72 hours at a time, what do you do with your car when you go on vacation? How do smaller lots deal with this? There are many lots in East Central that have back alleys. Ideally, you would put the ADU back there but if the lot is too small, can you still do it? How does this relate to Unit Legalization? ',,, INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM cn 3c cnrm�c ,••• ii •• Office of the Mayor • • TO: Mayor Ralph Becker FROM: Michael Stott,ADA Coordinator, on behalf of The Accessibility Services Advisory Council (ASAC) SUBJECT: Recommendation on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) in the Sustainability Initiative DATE: February 22, 2011 CC: David Everitt; Karen Hale; Cheri Coffey; Michael Maloy BACKGROUND On January 25, 2011, the Accessibility Services Advisory Council (ASAC), an advisory council to the mayor on disability and accessibility issues in Salt Lake City government, recommended the following to Mayor Becker: "ASAC recommends that City staff and decision-makers involved in the sustainability initiative evaluate various alternatives with consideration for how people with various types of disabilities (including but not limited to physical, cognitive, and sensory disabilities) will be able to participate in or benefit from the solutions implemented. We recommend incorporating to the extent possible principles of universal design and visitability to the benefit of not only the disability community but to people of all types of ability ranging from infants riding in strollers to senior citizens interested in `aging in place.' ASAC encourages and strongly recommends the assurance that ADA compliance be met and even exceeded in addressing all applicable focus areas of the sustainability initiative. ASAC will review the sustainability initiative in greater detail to determine if there are any opportunities for constructive feedback and specific suggestions." RECOMMENDATION On February 22, 2011, ASAC voted and unanimously approved the following specific recommendation to Mayor Ralph Becker and others involved in the sustainability initiative: Housing that is accessible should be an important consideration in the effort to promote a diverse and sustainable housing stock in Salt Lake City. In order to increase the availability of accessible housing in Salt Lake City, ASAC recommends incorporating a new concept called "Accessible ADU's" into the Accessory Dwelling Units ordinance in the following ways: 1. Add the following size exception for "Accessible ADU's": For ADU's that are "visitable" (that have a no-step entry, adequate doorways, and a usable bathroom) and that have "accessible living quarters," an exception would be granted on the maximum size of the ADU. For example, an additional 150 sqft could be added on top of the 50% or 650 sqft maximum size rule, resulting in a maximum size of 50% plus 150 sqft or 800 sqft, whichever is less. (The additional amount of 150 sqft seems reasonable to ASAC but the amount is negotiable.) a. Visitability Features: i. No-Step Entry: The dwelling unit can be accessed without having to step up or down. ii. Adequate Doorways: 32" clear opening, low threshold of 1/4" step or '/" ramp iii. Usable Bathroom: 30" x 48" clear space (outside of the door swing space) within the bathroom b. Accessible Living Quarters: A bedroom or sleeping area can be accessed without having to step up or down. 2. Modify the Permit Allocation section in the ordinance as follows: Require that 20°'0 of the maximum allowable number of ADU permits per year be "Accessible ADU's" that meet the Accessible ADU requirements. For example, 20% of the maximum 25 permits per year would mean that 5 out of 25 permits would be reserved for Accessible ADU's and not more than 20 ADU's that are not accessible would be permitted that year. .0004, ORION GOFF SALT' A\ � �-' " " "J© ��'O�fl1O"`I FRANK B. GRAY BUILDING OFFICIAL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION MARY DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER • DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR March 10, 2011 During the monthly Housing Advisory &Appeals Board meeting held on March 9, 2011, the HAAB unanimously voted that the following concerns should be taken into consideration regarding the Accessory Dwelling Unit Initiative. 1. Neighborhood issues are, infrastructure's ability to handle additional density, parking, a lack of market demand and change of neighborhood character. 2. More information should be compiled from other cities regarding the success of their ADU programs. 3. Parking issues should be addressed in the ordinance to meet the needs of the neighborhoods. 4. Limit ADU's to certain zoning districts. Also limit ADU's to a specific number during the test period. 5. Exactly what constitutes owner occupied? This is especially relevant due to the complexities of ownership such as LLC's, trusts, partnerships etc. Criteria should be established that would be used to substantiate the owner occupied status and to assist in any enforcement action that may become necessary. 6. Consider allowing ADU's in multi-family zoning districts first. 7. The ADU initiative should address the area master plan. During the same meeting the HAAB unanimously voted their support for the Proposed Housing Diversity Sustainability Ordinance, provided there is a mix of housing types in multi-family housing developments. However a specific number of each type of unit should not be mandated. Instead the ordinance should be more market responsive. The ordinance should also address the need for open space and other amenities near more dense housing developments. Sincerely, / I is ( Diana Hansen, Secretary Housing Advisory and Appeals Board 4E1 SOUTH STATE STREET. ROOM 405, PD BOX 14S4S1, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 641 14-5451 TELEPHONE: 601-53E-722E F.4`:: 601-535-513 . W W.S LC D OV.COh1 • Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? Public comments as of June 21 , 2011 , 9:12 PM All Participants around Salt Lake City 4� tia t o 0,41 ,,,N.% t\ � ' j } } s •4l '.1 .f N. r Al' f' A_ * EivPi ;R : 5 ' .. ; .• I. 1�. — ., .-r t. , ..!.. , - ; *74-:: r r.,... R •. .. ;.;, .i.. . . . , F.--1T-S:.-7 '100.44. - a. _ - [ 11 .g y .J ir.d;ice "r. r . mil _� _-.. La.r.�~ ` ...- r 1 ' .'i; ,:' 1 1 .. ., ', % ' ' altN... '4, } - rIT • .0.N. } N. '- ,is with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? Introduction As part of the Sustainability Code Amendment Project, the Planning Division is currently working with Clarion Associates to propose regulations which would allow accessory dwelling units in Salt Lake City. The Planning Division is currently working to obtain public feedback on the proposed regulations prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission. The proposed regulations would be a text amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance. Public comments as of June 21,2011. 9.12 PM http thwwv peakdemocracycom/512 Page 1 of 15 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) ''Vhat do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Participants around Salt Lake City Total: 0 As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. As of June 21 , 2011 , 9:12 PM, this forum had: Attendees: 424 Participants around Salt Lake City: 35 Hours of Public Comment: 1 .8 Public comments as of June 21,2C11, 9 12 PM http//wvnv peakdemocracy com/512 Page 2 of 15 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Participants around Salt Lake City Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City June 20, 2011, 9:38 AM The proposed ADU ordinance is a benefit to the city and community in many ways.These smaller living units provide an excellent alternative for the many consumers who need access to the U., Research Park and the Central Business District without the need for long trips via auto.Various transit options as well as walking and biking are convenient to these places from this neighborhood. Additionally, many of these consumers, single, married no children, empty-nesters have no need for a large living space. Several cities have already modified their zoning to allow for micro-houses, starting at 325 sq. ft., to provide a viable option to this new consumer demand. The increase in foreclosures might also benefit people on the edge to gain some needed income to keep their homes. The decrease in rental vacancies attest to the fact that many homeowners have walked away from private home ownership in favor of apartment living. Finally, these units support the extended family tradition of keeping families closer together. Whether the young graduate coming home to live to save their money to eventually buy their own home or the grandparents who might need some assistance from their children and who in turn help with the raising of their grandchildren. Vincent Oles Architect AIA Salt Lake City Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City May 8, 2011, 3:24 r I oppose the ADU proposal. Every neighbor I have spoken to thinks it is a bad initiative.There may be places in town where it is useful and beneficial but certainly not in the smaller R-1 areas. The city will not enforce the owner occupancy requirement after initial approval any more than they seek out the thousands of existing illegal appartments. Further the city will not be sensitive to the parking congestion and find the will to deny permits to owners who don't have unblocked offstreet parking space.This will just let everyone feel that they have the right to convert their R-1 into an R-2 everywhere in the city. Since the Mayor won't, the City Council should kill this bad idea. Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City February 24, 2011, 9:32 AM I oppose implementation of ADU in the areas outlined by Mayor Becker and his plan. Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City February 20, 2011, 7:47 AM I am against ADU's. Time and time again, during our local historic district discussions, many of us have been saying we do not want a sea of rentals. Is the City listening? ADU's will increase the number of rentals and end up lowering our property values. It takes away from the style and charm of Yalecrest. Brad Bartholomew inside Salt Lake City February 16, 2011, 2:04 AM I think that this is fantastic and would be beneficial to the Rose Park area.The owner occupancy is a MUST and I'm not sure if I agree with the exceptions. ADU's could be an incentive to bring more home ownership into the westside neighborhoods and fewer absentee rentals. I'm not sure why the, _ is a square foot size limit - it should just be a percentage of the lot, 50%. Set backs shouldn't be any Public comments as of June 21,2C1,, 9 12 PM http//www peakdemocracy com/512 Page 3 of 15 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Participants around Salt Lake City • different from conforming principle dwelling. I don't see the need of the entrance requirements, its also a burden on corner lots that already have smaller usable lots. Exterior design should be required to match the existing residence. If you do decide with a test area first, I hope that it is the westside of SLC. Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City February 1, 2011, 12:48 PM Some years ago the home owners of our surrounding neighborhoods worked in conjunction with then Mayor Ted Wilson to change our communities zoning back to single family residential (R1).This change was motivated by the fact that this section of the city was in bad shape and deteriorating. Crime rates were high and low property values lured developers to target our vintage neighborhoods to build apartment units or divide existing homes into duplexes. At that time, the Mayor's office deemed this downward trend unacceptable and believed that the preservation of single family homes and strong neighborhood communities were in the vital interest of Salt Lake City. As a result of this zoning change, our quaint and quiet neighborhoods have flourished. New families have moved in, pride in ownership has soared, homes have been restored, and our property values have appreciated. Our neighborhoods are amongst the most desirable to live in the Salt Lake valley. Unfortunately, Mayor Ralph Becker is proposing an initiative that will circumvent our current zoning ,ws, posing a direct threat to our neighborhoods as they currently exists. Mayor Becker wants Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADU's, be allowed to be built on existing single family lots.This proposal completely undermines the single family philosophy that was successfully promoted by Mayor Wilson and takes us back to what previously plagued our community. In short, Mayor Becker's proposed change to the zoning laws that have allowed our neighborhood to prosper, will, in effect, promote the subdivision of houses back to the same cheap rental properties that threatened our community in the past. The Mayor's office attempts to mask the monumental impact that this change will have on our neighborhoods by promoting alleged benefits that a very small portion of our community may gain. The Mayor's plan increases population density, but does not provide for increased infrastructure or services; as if these additional people will be without need or will not put additional strain on existing services and dismisses the reality that they will have cars to park and trash to empty.The Mayor's plan proposes very vague concepts, backs them up with little substance, yet wants to implement this plan faster and more aggressively than any other city that has allowed ADU's. The ADU proposal is not about existing rentals, it is about the encouragement of developing new, additional rentals. I have researched other cities'ADU's and the Salt Lake City plan is vague and doesn't take neighborhood impact into consideration. These are my specific suggestions: sues not addressed in this proposal: i. Minimum lot size 5000sq ft 2. Require formal review for design compatibility with adjacent properties and impact of privacy, light, Public comments as of Jur.e 21,22, 1. 5 12 P\: http//www peakdemocracy com/512 Page 4 of 15 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Participants around Salt Lake City air, solar access or adjacent property parking 3. Open space and landscaping requirements (would you like a cement covered lot?) 4. Minimize windows that impact privacy - Little or no direct view into neighbor's property 5. Regulate the concentration of ADU's in specific neighborhoods 6. Power, water, sewer connections should be through current house 7. Number of bedrooms tied to number of mandatory parking spaces (no waivers for proximity to bus, rail or business districts) 8. Require review process similar to variance procedures Issues addressed in this proposal and my suggestions: D.2.a. Owner occupied property required • What is the definition of an owner? How far does this reach to extended family? • What defines owner occupied? 6 months occupancy? a year? This should require a yearly certification. • If the owner does not occupy either unit, the ADU should be declared: a. non-habitable space, and b. may not be used as a dwelling ,and c. may not be used as a rented space D.2.c. Underlying Zoning applies. "if there is a conflict...the provisions of this section shall take precedence." • There should be additional restrictions in place in addition to the existing setbacks. • Currently: Max height (pitched) 28' and flat (20') (21A.24.070) Setbacks: -accessory building 10'from residential building on adjacent lot, located at least 1'from side property line (21A.34.020) - primary residence corner lot 4', interior lot 4' on one side and 10' on the other (24A.24.200) • Create decreased height allowances and increased distances from property line for the ADU • Max height for 1 story- 13', 1.5 or 2 story — 22' at roof peak, • for ADU's higher than 1 story, increase setback additional 2 to 5 feet • Lot coverage of ADU count toward parcel maximum building coverage (40% of lot — also known as the 60/40 rule) — this should be reduced to 35% on lots with ADU's • Only allowed with existing single family PRIMARY residence D.3. Methods of Creation • Specifically prohibit trailers and mobile homes • Set a minimum size to 220-400 sq ft • Maximum size 500 sq ft for 5000 to 7500 sq ft lot, 650 sq ft for larger lots • Demolition of existing unit not allowed for ADU construction Amok • Require similar exterior wall materials, window types, door and window trim, roofing materials to existing home Public comments as of June 21,2011, 9 12 PM 1 http I sw w peakdemocracy com/512 Page 5 of 15 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Participants around Salt Lake City D.5 Ownership/ Number of residents "the total number of residents...may not [be] exceed[ed]...as defined in the zoning code" • Limit the number of bedrooms to one (1) and define number of residents in ADU by number (2-3 people max), not by definition of family Zoning Ordinance limits occupancy through the definition of a family. Family is defined as blood relatives, a couple or legal guardians living together with their children, or a group of not more than three unrelated individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit. The definition controls occupancy regardless of the size of the unit. For example: 10 individuals could occupy a 650 sq ft ADU (myself, my husband, my parents, his father and 5 children) This ADU proposal is not well thought out and will have a significant impact on our communities as neighborhoods. ' oppose this proposal. Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City January 27, 2011 , 12:57 PM I DO NOT Support ADU's. I do not support and increased number of rental apartments in my neighborhood. I am opposed to someone legally building an overlooking apartment into my back yard. Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City January 14, 2011 , 10:54 PM Great idea, with owner occupancy required no harm done to neighborhoods. Size restrictions should also prevent "Monster ADU's" from becoming a problem. Great way to utilize additional available land while respecting the traditional nature of our neighborhoods. Paige Pitcher inside Salt Lake City January 11 , 2011, 1:13 PM I am in strong support of the ADU ordinance, so long as the application and adoption is sensitive to the valid concern of residents like those below. ADU's need not be an allowed use in every zone. There are some communities that they are obviously not compatible with. On this matter, I am sympathetic to the wise observations of Beverly Nelson. So far, only the neighborhoods of Federal Heights and Avenues have cried out in opposition, saying-- 0! Not Here! But just because they don't want it in their backyards doesn't mean that ADU's don't have a purpose and place somewhere in SLC. One of the questions the fact sheet posed, that no one has yet answered, was, "Where?" My suggestions are next to transit, business districts, Pub!c comments as of June 21.2C 11, 9 12 P:1 http I/wv w peakdemocracy corn/512_ Page 6 of 15 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Participants around Salt Lake City employment centers, educational institutions, and other draws where a mix of housing types makes sense. Locating some appropriate spots for a pilot program would be a great approach and example. May I also entertain some other applications of ADU's for neighborhoods in need. Neighborhoods that want to increase home ownership might be the same neighborhoods to implement ADU's in order to reward people who choose to buy and live in the area. Coupled with home ownership incentives this might be one way to create a diverse, cohesive community while rewarding home owners. ADU's are an important part of housing choices, and the legalization of this legitimate housing option needs to be addressed. As our demographic continues to shift, the demand for centrally located, attainable housing will continue to be raised by our aging boomers, young professionals and families. This flexible option will help us respond to demographic shifts before they become an issue. So long as design and quality standards for ADU's remain high, I believe they can be integrated into our existing amenities, community fabric, and public infrastructure systems to increase our resiliency, sustainability and unity. Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City January 10, 2011, 3:23 PM I live in the Fremont Heights neighborhood of Salt Lake City. Having been raised in a California community with legal and illegal "mother-in-laws" adjacent and included in existing homes I must register my opinion on this proposal as I believe I have adequate experience with the consequences. Allowing carve-out rental units in existing houses and permitting the construction of "stand-alone" apartment-type units on developed lots simply increases population density and facilitates a more transient character in a residential neighborhood. Parking is always a problem, as is noise, street activity, and conflict between neighbors. Additional garbage collection is required, as is additional utilities maintenance, adding a burden to the delivery of city services. Additional people draw additional services.The frequency of delivery vehicles in the neighborhood rises, as does the traffic generated by gardeners, housekeepers, baby sitters, and visiting medical, mechanical maintenance and repair people, and a multitude of "soft" services. In short, the character of the neighborhood radically changes over time and the long-term residents find that they now live in a neighborhood they would never have chosen had the "mother-in-laws" not been permitted in the first place.This leads to an embittered, hostile population that becomes "super- sensitive" to any changes in the neighborhood, even positive ones that benefit everyone. Legal "mother-in-laws" are not a win-win situation. I have lived in an older neighborhood sandwiched in between two properties with legal mother-in-laws and have personally experienced the helplessness of watching my neighborhood become an indifferent, transient, "I don't care, it doesn't effect me" kind of place.The homeowners on either side were generally embarrassed by their indifferent tenants and avoided others in the neighborhood, ignoring our common concerns and removing themselves from cooperative projects and issues. I hope Salt Lake City does not want this kind of atmosphere to take hold in its greatly-varied, generally well-maintained and pleasant older Public comments as of June 21 2C11, 9 12 P1.1 http//www pea9democracy com/512 Pace 7 of 15 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Participants around Salt Lake City neighborhoods. Despite all the altruistic arguments in favor of ADUs, my direct experience has been that such an ordinance would allow those who want to squeeze additional revenue from their real property, at the expense of those living around them, to do so without restriction. Permitting sand-alone and carve-out "mother-in-laws" degrades residential property values and the quality of life in R1 residential neighborhoods. Such an ordinance would create an underclass of renters in a residential neighborhood with little political power and likely no interest in the rational development and quality of life in the neighborhood as a whole. I feel that permitting ADUs in R1 neighborhoods is a very bad idea. Also, please note that Mike Kephart, who has posted a comment here and has promoted ADUs in other discussions on this site, designs stand-alone ADUs and lives in Colorado. He would obviously personally benefit from the passage of this ordinance. I strongly recommend that Salt Lake City reject this proposed ordinance. Michel Weekley inside Salt Lake City January 7, 2011, 10:51 PM agree with Susan Fisher's November 1 posting completely. . am against ADUs in the already crowded & densely populated Avenues neighborhood. As an Avenues homeowner, I am shocked & saddened that this proposal is even being considered.The proposal would undo all the good that years of work to get the Avenues back to a "single-famliy dwelling" atmosphere have achieved.There are very few aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods in the Salt Lake Valley, and encouraging more development in and around many "historic" and beautiful Avenues homes is an unwise choice. I believe we can work toward "sustainability" in Salt Lake, not by more development & the building of ever more structures....but rather by filling the plethora of empty homes & rentals currently available en masse. A "sustainability" topic that gets very little attention these days is to encourage the creation of smaller families....NOT the continuing accomodation of huge ones! Fewer people in the first place equals less pollution, less development, less crowding....and a better quality of life for everyone. Responsible population growth could alleviate many of our societal challenges, both locally & globally. Matt Johnson inside Salt Lake City December 8, 2010, 4:12 PM I like the general idea but I have a few concerns. Why 650 sqft? Is that the difference between a duplex and an ADU? If a lot is big enough could the ADU not be bigger? What about new home construction? Can a new home be built with an ADU included in the plans? 'here would the door be? What about end of life scenarios? The plan says that it must be an owner occupied situation, but what if the home is sold, the tenants are kicked out and the new owners now have extra living space Publi:comments as of June 21.2011, f 12 PM bttp/iwwm peakdemocracy com/512 Pace 8 of 15 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Participants around Salt Lake City that they get taxed extra for? And if the tenants decide to move out, does that mean I now have an above-the-garage shop where I couldn't have one before? I also agree that we should allow businesses similar accommodations as ADUs like an in-home office, but for someone else. Mike Kephart outside Salt Lake City November 28, 2010, 2:59 PM ADUs use resources very efficiently compared to many other types of residential development.They require no additional land for development and use existing infrastructure (such as water, sewer, roads, and other utilities), so they increase the supply of affordable housing without promoting sprawl or requiring the construction of expensive new infrastructure. Clarion, your code consultant, helped us here in Denver as well. As unbelievably contentious as the subject was for us the atmosphere immediately cooled upon passage of the ordinance by our city council. The fear of a rush to build is a red herring that has not proven real in any of the 20 or 30 cities in Colorado that have passed similar ordinances in the last few years. It was over two years before the first ADU was built in Arvada, CO after they passed their ordinance without major public debate. I believe ADUs are a legitimate housing type that over time can do much to diversify our neighborhoods economically. I support your efforts to include provisions for ADUs in your neighborhoods. The excitement will quickly dissipate. Mike Kephart, Denver, CO Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City November 10, 2010, 11 :17 AM Owner occupancy, owner occupancy, owner occupancy, strict enforcement of owner occupancy. Otherwise this is a carte blanch for house flippers, and slumlords. Occupancy of one unit must be full time by the actual living person with majority interest listed on the ownership deed. Do not allow ownership by "trusts","corportations" or any other entitiy. Otherwise they will always claim that their family trust allows them to rent to "family" with different last names (aka, someone who isn't family at all, but the true owner is willing to bet that the city will never check because it is too expensive and time consuming) Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City November 7, 2010, 9:10 AM I support ADU's Susan Fisher inside Salt Lake City November 1, 2010, 3:09 PM As a 41-year resident of the Greater Avenues, I have some perspective on their history. First, let me say that the quality of the Avenues as a place to live and raise a family is far better now than it was even twenty years ago, and one of the principle reasons is that residents have fought to limit densit often by re-converting apartments back into single-family structures. Furthermore, the few apartments that existed in lower Federal Heights from the Depression era have been phased out over the years. Public comments as of June 21,2C 11, 9 12 PM http//www peakdemocracy com/512 Page 9 of 15 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Participants around Salt Lake City One can scarcely argue that residents found an additional apartment in their home a desirable thing. We appreciate R-1 zoning precisely because it disallows multiple-family dwellings. There are two density issues in this proposed ADU ordinance, and they are not clearly and separately addressed: building density and population density. I was astounded to read in the proposed ordinance that an ADU is expressly interpreted as NOT increasing density! Clearly, only structural density is considered here at all, and adding an additional structure would increase even that parameter. Common sense indicates that increased population density means more cars, more traffic, more ambient noise, more school children (in already overcrowded schools), increased use of already overburdened parks, less play area at home per child, etc.The proposed ordinance even stipulated that additional off-street parking space provisions can be waived, thus adding to street congestion. I cannot see that this would improve quality of life in any respect. I saw the dramatic results of decreased population density and noise — and increased resident satisfaction — in my own neighborhood when the Pi Kappa Alpha house burned and the fraternity was relocated. Furthermore, the implied altruism for assisting an aging population is weak. As an older resident, I cannot believe that having a separate apartment in my home would provide me with increased "companionship and services." No renter is legally bound to watch out for the landlord. In addition, it "ould be a long time before the cost of creating an apartment would be amortized by rental income; �ven a reverse mortgage would be faster and less demoralizing for both resident and neighborhood. The proposed ordinance does not offer any protection at all for the character of the existing neighborhood. It is inappropriate to force such a far-reaching ordinance change upon us when Historic District designation for Federal Heights is under consideration.The City Council should consider carefully the vested interests of those who propose to change the integral character of a single-family district. I think the respondent who proposed high-rise apartments (with underground parking) on already existing parking lots is on the right track. The truth of the matter is that one of the first things people buy is privacy, and this is usually expressed first in the space they can place between themselves and their neighbors. Federal Heights has larger lots, and the coverage is far less than the city-allowed 40%. Indeed, even the smallest lots in this zone average only 25-30% coverage, while on the larger lots the coverage is even less.This lower density is directly correlated to house prices and the increased taxes they generate. People consistently demonstrate they are willing to pay for privacy and what it brings: less traffic, less noise, more space — and the joy of more big trees. This proposed ordinance would degrade our quality of life. Beverly Nelson inside Salt Lake City October 28, 2010, 12:41 AM An ordinance allowing homeowners to build accessory dwelling units on their property could provide benefits to homeowners, families, the elderly and renters in some Salt Lake communities. But ADUs should not be considered to be a panacea for every neighborhood in Salt Lake. There are eighborhoods in Salt Lake where accessory dwellings would not be appropriate, particularly those where high density is already an issue, where crime is high, and where schools already suffer from over-population. To allow residents to built accessory dwelling units on properties in these Public comments es of June 21.22 1 S'2 P51 http'J ewAi peandemocrac,com;512 Page 1C of 15 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Participants around Salt Lake City neighborhoods would only serve to exacerbate the problems they are already dealing with and would be detrimental to the entire community. In regard to my own community, I live in lower Federal Heights in close proximity to University fraternities and sororities. My community already suffers from lack of parking, traffic congestion, excessive noise and crime. We already have problems with duplexes that started out as mother-in- law apartments 20 or 30 years ago, but that now house University students who, unfortunately, think it is cool to disrespect the community in which they live. I would not support an ordinance that allowed my neighbors, or residents in areas of the City that are experiencing the problems I have listed to build accessory dwellings on their properties. Gene Fitzgerald inside Salt Lake City October 27, 2010, 9:32 AM As president of the Federal Heights Neighborhood association and a member of the board of the GACC I think I can say that in general we oppose the move toward allowing accessory dwelling units. In our neighborhoods especially (Butler ave, Federal way etc) over the years we have had many rental units that were merely extensions of Greek housing and the problems that accompany those organizations. In the past 20 years or so, we have been moving toward and achieving more restrictive zoning rather than moving toward rental units in family homes. The ADU would significantly change that dynamic and open up homes in the area to the sort of abuse that we haves seen in the past. We feel this way despite the restrictions the ADU has put on renting--people have,..x way of skirting those restrictions especially when we do not see an adequate oversight by the city to enforce them. So that is my feeling at this point and I sense that many neighbors agree with me Esther Hunter inside Salt Lake City October 26, 2010, 8:24 PM I believe there is a justified need for the ability to legalize accessory dwelling units in the City. This can be useful and helpful to many. I support the owner occupied requirement. Having said that, I also believe that this ordinance is not yet ready for prime time. This is a significant change. While we need to step forward, a blanket approach rather than a carefully planned, appropriately applied approach will further exacerbate many city issues and problems such as our failing and underfunded infrastructure especially evident in many older neighborhoods. The benefit of not being first is that we can learn from and avoid the long term problems this type of change has created in other cities. This ordinance needs to be built on a firm foundation. The foundation should come first. In Salt Lake the very zones/properties that could best absorb additional density due to their size and stature will not likely be utilized in this manner but instead it will be the older already more dense, smaller lots that will be further compromised. This is not socially responsible. This type of significant change should be carefully trialed, have a great deal more thought out criteria Public comments as of Jure 21,2011, 9 12 PM http I/omen peakdemocracy com/512 Page 11 of 15 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Participants around Salt Lake City (ie design guidelines), correlation with other ordinances (ie the duplex legalization process), and have more details developed that give specific criteria for approval. Is it near transit, what does the master plan say, how much density already exists, how much parking is available, is there a lit street lamp, impact to property values, what is the crime rate, roads/water/sewer impacts to name but a few. What exactly tips the balance into the negative for a particular block face, a neighborhood? Instead, we could begin by having the ordinance trialed through a one off review process such as conditional use or Board of Adjustments rather than implemented in a blanket fashion. Maybe where the least negative impact is likely but where a thoughtfully assessed minimum criteria has been met (ie new Sugar House streetcar line). While the manpower to prepare a case for review is staggering, the ability of the City to manage/enforce/police this ordinance city wide as written is not likely feasible at all. If a more restricted/one off trial run proves successful, this gate can always be widened. As Dr. Chris Nelson (UU FAICP Presidential Professor City and Metropolitan Planning) has stated, ALL of the Cities anticipated growth could be absorbed by utilizing the many existing flat surface ,arking lots which also coincides with one of the goals of the Downtown Community Council. ,icentives for this type of development would meet the need for additional tax base, density/growth while at the same time enriching the City without disrupting existing neighborhoods. I sincerely hope the administration will take the additional time to develop this into a win-win approach that does not harm some areas while protecting others.This is doable. quinn mccallum-law inside Salt Lake City October 25, 2010, 6:26 PM I think this plan has great potential to both preserve existing buildings and create new housing opportunities. I currently live in an owner occupied legal triplex and it works well for my wife and I but I think we could take it further as a city.What about "ABU's" or accessory business units as well on owner occupied properties? I am aware of home-occupation permits but within many area's of the city this could contribute to the liveliness of up and coming areas as well as create places for people to actually walk to, something that is still lacking in SLC albeit growing. I see so many of these buildings around the city going to waste because the current owners see no value in commercial space, yet, seemingly, are disinterested in selling them (I've found 1 for sale publicly in the last five years.) So letting others build businesses as well would be as or more beneficial than the ADU's. I am still all for the ADU ordinance in the interim. Kelly Stevens inside Salt Lake City October 25, 2010, 9:37 AM I am a 15 year resident of the Avenues. I have owned two owner-occupied duplexes and have been working with the city to legalize a triplex that was non-conforming. I am absolutely opposed to ADU's. esidents of the Avenues have protected this neighborhood for decades, working hard to make it a safe, live-able community. When rampant development of apartment complexes and creation of non- conforming apartments was the norm for the Avenues, it was a dangerous, drug-ridden neighborhood Public comments as of June 21,2011, e 12 PM http//www.peakdemocracycom/512 Page 12 of 15 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? Amok All Participants around Salt Lake City on the decline. With the hard work of many citizens, regulations have made it difficult to add apartments and break up single-family dwellings.This trend has protected our neighborhood and created a GREAT place to live. The avenues can be seen as an at-risk neighborhood in SLC. Crime is relatively high within our boundaries. With more apartments and a more transient population, the scale could be tipped. Parking is another complicated issue with negative implications from allowing ADU's especially with an allowance for 'limited' exemptions. The requirement for an owner-occupied house seems very tenuous and difficult to regulate down-the-line. Stephanie Churchill Jackel outside Salt Lake City October 23, 2010, 1:32 PM I'm concerned that the "fact sheet" and the draft ordinance don't agree as to the size of ADU allowed. The fact sheet says 50% of sq. ftg. of primary structure or 650 sq.ft., whichever is GREATER, while the ordinance says 50% or 650 sq.ft., whichever is LESS.This is a serious discrepancy. I also think strict design guidelines should apply wherever the ADU is located, historic district or not. Dana Schaffer inside Salt Lake City October 16, 2010, 4:51 PM I'm an Avenues Homeowner. This is a city and neighborhoods closest to the city should become more dense. Also, I agree with this proposal because it is environmentally friendly to increase density within the city and limit sprawl. The more the merrier. I think this will allow our neighborhood to be diverse and it will keep it so that people providing services within the community and others like teachers, can afford to live in the neighborhood in which they are contributors. Since we are experiencing severe property tax increases, I imagine this move may allow many people (e.g. fixed incomes) who are a valuable part of the neighborhood to keep their homes. Also, if our neighborhood becomes more dense, we might actually be able to support some more small businesses. I for one would like a few more restaurant options within walking distance and perhaps a store other than Smith's. Someone brought up parking. I'm not really worried about that, having lived in San Francisco and Seattle. The more dense it becomes, the more people will take public transit and hopefully those people won't need cars at all, if there are businesses within walking distance and transit to the U and downtown. I do hope they will consider adding traffic lights and enforce the speed limit so that we can be pedestrian friendly, even if we increase density. However, even recent requests for those services/changes have fallen on deaf ears. Jon Parrish inside Salt Lake City October 8, 2010, 12:41 PM Highly in favor of ADU. What a great way to stimulate economy, provide low cost housing to grad students, young couples, and young families; not to mention bringing extra taxes in which will keep my taxes lower! Let's ask the business owner who just shut down due to the lack of business, the school teacher who just got laid off due to the lack of students, or the student who just took the semester off to pay for the gas it takes to drive from out of town if they are in favor of infill. I vote yes. linda burr outside Salt Lake City October 6, 2010, 8:16 AM As a former Avenues resident for over twenty years, I think having Accessory Dwellings are not goir}p„� to detract from the neighborhood.There are many already being used. I know the area had a bad period where many Victorians were split up as apartments, but now that many are single family dwellings again, a small cottage for students or for working singles/couple residences would be great Public comments as of June 21,2011, 9 12 PM http//v,mv.peakdemocracy.com/512 Page 13 of 15 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? All Participants around Salt Lake City infill. Of course there would be zoning still in place for fire safety, noise, parking, etc. We have the countries' worst air pollution partly because people drive to get downtown for work and school. I'm sure many would like to have a closer, quiet, residential, more affordable place to live. Hilary Verson inside Salt Lake City October 1 , 2010, 5:12 PM I support ADU. As long as these rentals are on owner-occupied property, they will be well-maintained. ADU's will increase the population density & increase property tax without causing duress. Additionally, I suggest a small annual rental unit tax for apartment dwellers to help maintain infrastructure and services, perhaps $25/year. I think this would provide about $750,000/year without raising residential property tax. Jim Ferguson inside Salt Lake City October 1 , 2010, 3:54 PM This is a terrible idea. It will turn back years of work making the Avenues one of the nicest places in the city to live. We have all worked for years to get rid of Accessory Dwelling Units. There is no rational reason, other than greed, to bring back the blight. James Ferguson. -lax Rasmussen inside Salt Lake City September 24, 2010, 11:58 PM I strongly support this ordinance. I keep hearing about the 'inevitability' of growth in the valley, and it makes me sick.There really is only so much space, not to mention water. And the more we sprawl, the worse the already terrible air gets. Instead of dinking around with ideas like the northwest quadrant, we should focus on INFILL. I find the comment referring to Tokyo offensive: To that commenter, I ask, "Would you prefer Tokyo or L.A.?" Because L.A. is the direction we're headed. If you don't like density, move to the country. Up to a point, the denser the city, the better—the city becomes more walkable, more supportive of independent, locally-owned business, and more community-oriented. Hurrah for the ADU! Mike Kephart outside Salt Lake City September 22, 2010, 7:25 AM Here in the city of Denver we included ADUs in our new zoning ordinance adopted recently. I would suggest letting the maximum size of an ADU increase with the size of the lot. We included this provision in our code. I would also suggest that you ask families to tell their stories rather than trying to appeal to the populace with logic and reason. This is a change and people generally fear change unless they can personalize it. We failed in this respect and it became a divisive issue when it could have been seen as good for families. bruce beck inside Salt Lake City September 20, 2010, 7:51 AM I agree with Alysa K semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City September 15, 2010, 9:08 PM if this can be accomplished without creating mega houses or mega barns then go for it along with the following: I believe a ratio between property size and house foot print needs to be established. There Public comments as of Jure 21,2011 9 12 PL1 http//www peakdemocracy com/512 Page 14 of 15 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units? Aiimok All Participants around Salt Lake City should also be a limit on number of people based on family relation and total number per square foot. Kathryn Fitzgerald inside Salt Lake City September 10, 2010, 4:25 PM I am concerned about the parking consequences of this ordinance in the University area, especially near the blocks zoned for Greeks.The Greek houses are already allowed virtually unlimited parking permits while single family homes are limited to three permits.This should not be a blanket citywide ordinance. It must examine the differences among neighborhoods and differing consequences of the change. Philip Carlson inside Salt Lake City September 2, 2010, 3:58 PM I hope this moves along! We need more residents in the City. This will not likely increase density dramatically, but even a slight increase will be good for our community. The owner occupation requirement is an important part of the proposal. Really, I would hope that few houses are divided, but that accessory units would be detached keeping the main house intact for larger families. Units above garages or even separate buildings would be best. Aoimok Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City September 1, 2010, 8:39 I am opposed to this proposed ordinance as it will increase population density in already crowded areas. We are already suffering from crime, congestion, transportation problems, lack of privacy and other intrusions to a calm and peaceful life. Is Tokyo really the city we want to morph into? Alyssa Kay inside Salt Lake City September 1, 2010, 6:30 PM This is a positive move for Salt Lake City. Accessory Dwelling Units will allow extended families to live closer together, provide rental income and increase the city's density (without significant impact on character) to mitigate urban sprawl. I am in favor of this ordinance. Some of the specifics of the ordinance, however, are unnecessarily restrictive such as the Owner- Occupied Property requirement. There are many renters who would benefit from this kind of living arrangement. This section seems to be prejudiced against renters. Section 7.b.(1) is unclear. If the accessory unit is detached how/why would an existing entrance be used? Why would a new entrance be required to face away from the street? In my opinion that would create a mass that would be unattractive from the streetscape. Overall, this is a good start. Thanks! Public comments as of June 21,2211, 9:12 PM http//vn,vw peakdemocracy com/512 Page 15 of 15 Maloy, Michael 'rom: Elizabeth Giraud [egiraud@utah.govj ent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:23 PM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: PLNPCM2010-00612 Categories: Other Hi Michael. Thank you for talking with me today regarding the parking requirements for the proposed ADU ordinance. I have no issue with allowing accessory dwelling units in the zones addressed in the Administration's petition; however, I have an issue with the requirement of additional parking. I live on a street zoned SR-1 and there are numerous homes with adus. My husband and I have a one-car garage and three vehicles (it's my husband that has the 2 vehicles, which he purchased before we got married,just for the record). We can't always park in front of our house, but we don't own the street, and 99 percent of the time, it's not a big deal. But enough about me. I would appreciate it if you could convey my observations and concerns regarding the requirement of additional parking to the Planning Commission: 1. Requiring parking for adus in neighborhoods with older homes (and most of the residential stock in SLC is older) will result in hard-surfacing of yards, which in turn will render it much more likely that the homes will never convert back to single-family uses. This is an important historic preservation issue in neighborhoods such as S. Temple, the Avenues, University, Capitol Hill and Central City. For decades, architecturally significant homes have been carved into apartments, and while I'm glad they're still there, once they become an investor's income stream they are less likely to he maintained and the interiors cease to resemble their original appearance. Bluntly stated, it doesn't take long before iey are ratty. 2. It's more environmentally more sound for people to park on the street, which is already hard-surfaced, rather than to force people to create additional heat islands of asphalt or concrete. 3. I understand from our conversation that some proponents of the parking requirements believe that they are necessary to keep neighborhoods viable, but older neighborhood (such as those I included in the above text), became established long before automobiles prevailed, and they continue to be some of the city's most valuable real estate. The residences in these neighborhoods have lacked one-car/one-space parking amenities for decades, and they continue to be desirable. 4. Also, as you mentioned, some proponents are fearful that the zoning code is reverting back to the pre-1995 zoning rewrite days, before the City had zoning codes better suited to many of the small lots in older neighborhoods. But the push to require more parking is a throwback to what the Planning Division tried to assuage by creating the variety of residential zones the city now has. When the zoning code was re-written in 1995, officials were rightly worried about the lack of housing and the conversion of housing into commercial uses in many areas, namely Central City and East Central. Part of the reason that housing dried up, beginning the 1960s through the 1980s, was due to parking requirements. Property owners wanting to convert "carved up" buildings back to single-family residences, who wanted to slowly reduce the number of units as they renovated their homes, were still stuck with the parking requirement. Those in higher density zones wanting to build apartments or condos needed to amass so much land to provide parking that their plans became financial unviable. Reducing the number of spaces required was a huge step forward for preservation, both in the historic sense and for maintaining viable housing. I appreciate the chance to give my viewpoint, and I would attend the Planning Commission tonight but I have other plans. Thank you. Sincerely, 1 From: jeffreywhite@msn.com .0114+, To: michael.maloy@slc9,ov.com _ ' Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:58 AM Subject: ADU Comment for Public Record To: Michael Maloy, Principal Planner c/o Salt Lake Planning Commission Re : Accessory Dwelling Units Dear Michael: I am a professional Real Estate broker who has been selling homes in Salt Lake City for the past 26 years. In addition I am also a 30 + year resident living in the 9th and 9th area, where we have a significant number of Mother in Law units and have since the end of World War II. I am also a lifetime volunteer on a weekly basis for 25 + years at Crossroads Urban Center. I can tell you of the many benefits of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and why we need to allow such a valuable commodity. The most striking things about in-law flats is how varied and flexible they are, wither you call them mother in laws ,granny flats, out-law apartments or in the more affluent areas of our city, an au pair apartment, servant quarters, etc. It still can help a person become more economically secure, whether you want to save money for retirement or use the rental income to help defray mortgage payments and property taxes. An in- law apartment is a tangible asset you can keep an eye on. An ADU can allow an elderly or in-firmed parent to live independently on your property, thus enhancing their quality of life— and yours. Giving children a chance to get to know their grandparents is one of the most frequently cited benefits on in- law or multi- generational housing. It can also provide a safe landing place for an adult child who's changing careers, going through a life change or who can't yet afford a place of his or her own. The right,configuration will create enough space , support and privacy for everyone. For first time home owners, the projected income from an in-law unit will enable them to purchase a house they otherwise could not afford. Many accessory dwellings double as home offices, allowing owners to spend more time with their loved ones and less time commuting, which is particularly appealing to those who want to live in an environmentally responsible manner. Inviting relatives and out of town friends for an extended stay is another popular use of in-laws, particularly if you can't travel because of new babies, a busy schedule or mobility issues, companionship is beneficial to all ages. Some homeowners will rent out their main house and travel, while leaving a tenant to keep an eye on the house and also a place to store belongings. ADUs are modestly sized and because of that inherently among the greenest ways to live, especially when built with green materials and energy star rated appliances. We need to allow these types of dwelling units to help preserve the ownership of housing in Salt Lake City and I encourage you and the Planning Commission and the City Council to support this amendment with the change not to limit its location to a predetermined distance to a light rail stop. We have relied on UTA bus service for decades. With such a restriction, areas such as Rose Park ,Glendale, Poplar Grove, Sugarhouse and numerous other areas that need such units for their multi-generational households will not meet the required 4 block distance to a light rail stop. Respectfully, Jeff White Maloy, Michael -rom: Tarbet, Nick ,ent: Friday, June 10, 2011 10:34 AM To: Maloy, Michael Cc: Coffey, Cheri; Jardine, Janice; City Council Liaisons Subject: Comments regarding ADU Proposal--D5 Categories: Other Hi Michael- Council Member Love received the following comment regarding the ADU proposal. The citizen mentioned he has commented on Open City Hall, but I just wanted to make sure you received them. Thanks- From: Gary Harding [mailto:garyh99©comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 5:35 PM To: 'iill.love T slccov.com' Subject: ADU Proposal I just submitted comments on Open City Hall and then an email request of the City Council to oppose the ADU proposal. In the latter I asked the Council not to vote for any proposal lacking specific on 5 points. Would you please ask the appropriate City people to either include the following in the ADU proposal or explain to you why they cannot do so? Code that unambiguously defines the following: • A mechanism stronger than a business license (perhaps something tied to property tax payment process) to assure that owners certify that they remain compliant with the ADU requirements each year or that they officially forfeit the ADU designation on the property. Gary C Harding (c) 801 870 8410 Nick Tarbet Sal, Lake City Council Office Policy Analyst / Constituent Liaison (801) 535-7603 nick tarbetslccov'.com To Cl�.1ll''�'!)/•O/).. (i11J;:'!/(1,'. o o: c'iiii/ii pi 1�. '/V(7)/1. to _Ill i): !i:c'il/ ' / ) lC�. A Ai 1'.con? oi. ' Li.l(l;•c'yc /iil( 01l/1 .) !i 1 i)!i 11'0)!i/c/ //,=., /'. /'�'t'.';l'_ t'i%.' 1:. u' ,/a/c cln(ui !/!;' u;lcl;l.' 'i� v)1,' )' )lii' ) 1, / . _ � !(l' �'1'�'i, ilil�i 1 .1 %�'i ii.' l'� << lii 'i � ); 1(.'/)l1' IO lily C/%',"/ l) JL'[li! Ill,' OR ( '(')(1,' 1('li/1 l'()ll''!'/,()/?'_'. 1 Maloy, Michael From: Sean Clark[slingshot8@yahoo.com] / +r Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 2:14 PM guy ; To: Maloy, Michael Subject: ADU? Categories: Other Hi Michael, I spoke with Mikaela yesterday and she said that i would not be allowed to put a bathroom in my Carriage house. I was just reading up on the proposal regarding allowing ADU's by Mayor Becker, and I am in favor of allowing them with no restrictions. Beyond that, I was hoping to get some calrification if my plan to put a bathroom with a place to wash my hands, maybe even shower after working in the yard etc. qualifies as an ADU. It is not my intention to create a stand alone living space. It is not my intention to rent space to anyone, though I have plenty of space in the main house as it is just me, my wife, and our son in a 5500 sq ft home. Seems silly to restrict my ability to make a bathroom based on legislation aimed to deter high population density and renting rooms Is it your understanding that the restrictions on ADU's would proclude me from having running water in the garage? Also, there appears to be a drain pipe in the Carriage House, and according to our research, quarters were used in the Carriage House for laundry early in the century. . . .so our theory is that it is still connected to the sewer system. Not sure if that would also affect how the current condition is defined or if the presence of a sewer drain allows me to restore running water to the building. Amok Thanks for your guidance, appreciate your efforts to allow ADU's as the right of a property owner. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help in getting the legislation passed. Thanks again, Sean Clark 801-599-9065 1 To Members of the Planning Commission From Cindy Cromer Re ADU's March 23, 2011 I have had plenty of experience with the Administration's proposal for ADU's: First as a member of the ZAP Committee almost 2 years ago, then as a participant in the ADU Task Force last summer, and on numerous occasions since then in various community meetings. You received a copy of the memo I wrote for the Task Force meeting at your December discussion and it is included in the materials in the packet for tonight's hearing. The theme of that memo is that the City's lacks the skills to make the proposal as drafted by Clarion a success. Clarion's proposal does not consider the uniqueness and diversity of Salt Lake City's neighborhoods. I want to make a few points tonight in the two minutes allowed. 1. As a community, we do not need another divisive issue. Parley's Historic Nature Park and Yalecrest were enough to last us for a long time. The proposal as drafted by Clarion has armor that is almost impenetrable. Despite my constructive and critical comments for almost two years, the proposal has changed very little. I implore you to make recommendations to the City Council which will move the proposal to a place where it can be supported by more people, and vigorously opposed by few. 2. What would such a proposal look like? What would I be willing to support? I could support a proposal that allowed ADU's in the RMF-30 and RMF-35 zones in single-family dwellings regardless of lot size and which were also within 4 blocks of fixed transit. There are lots of reasons to emphasize those criteria for ADU's, including the fact that all residents and business owners in those parts of the City expect to have tenants as neighbors. 3. It has become clear to me that the people ultimately responsible for this decision have little understanding of the complex relationship between current market forces, enforcement, unit legalization, the Good Landiord Program, business licensing, housing inspections, and the building code. Please ask for a briefing that would clarify the relationships between these influences before you proceed. By staff estimate, there are still 1000 units in the unit legalization process. The map in front of you shows the number of nonconforming properties with 3 and 4 units within the single-family zoning district of East Liberty alone. There is already far more density in the City's older neighborhoods than the Administration has acknowledged. All of my own properties are nonconforming with respect to density except my personal residence. I would not have invested in them without the additional units. 4. The compatible infill ordinance isn't working well but it does not apply to the RMF zones AT ALL. There is no compatibility process for ADU's in the RMF zones outside an historic district. 5. The first person to bring up the issue of accessiblity was one of the housing advocates at a Task Force meeting. Now the Mayor's Advisory Council has suggested some incentives for accessible ADU's. While the TRAX may be accessible, most of the housing around it is not. The City should certainly provide substantial incentives to increase this type of housing. It is more expensive to construct. 6. The Administration has misrepresented ADU's as"affordable." They may cost less per square foot because of the absence of additional land costs, but ADU's are market-rate housing. The use of the word "affordable" is inappropriate and misleading. ARCHITECT ERI1111 SILVA ASSOCITTIrS 115 SOUTH 1100 LAST, #505, SALT LAKE CIIT, UTAH 04102, O01-551-3400 „oak March 20, 2011 Mayor Ralph Becker Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake Planning Department Members of the Salt Lake City Planning Department, During the late 1990s, in response to changing national demographics, changing economics and changing community goals,AARP engaged in national research analyzing fifty local accessory dwelling unit ordinances. The organization then drafted the Model State Accessory Dwelling Unit Act and the Model Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance.* In the forward to this publication,the following conclusion was reached: "Reductions in the size of American households, along with changes in their composition and economic circumstances,warrant consideration of zoning policies that encourage the more efficient use of the nation's infrastructure and supply of single-family homes to meet current and future housing needs. States and localities are also seeking ways to assure the independence and security of older residents with a minimum of public investment. ADUs provide a potential resource for addressing these issues by making more effective use of existing housing stock and providing older homeowners with a potential source of income to maintain their independence." In the document's Introduction, it is pointed out that,the American family is, "... growing in number but shrinking in size...In some communities,the need for housing, especially for people with special physical and financial needs, has become acute. Underused space in single-family houses in one of the nation's largest untapped housing resources."The document goes on to suggest that, "As the population ages, many older people find themselves living in their family homes alone. They may need additional income to pay for health care services,cover home maintenance costs,or make mortgage payments. Others may want a family member or a caretaker to live nearby,while maintaining privacy for both parties." The document's Introduction further observes that across the United States, local communities, "...have recognized the need to stabilize or increase population densities in certain areas in order to maintain the existing public infrastructure, services, and tax base. In addition, many communities have sought to concentrate population density in specific areas in order to encourage public transit service and reduce urban sprawl. These communities do not, however, necessarily want their single-family neighborhoods to become structurally more dense." The Introduction goes on to point out that accessory dwelling units offer, "...the potential for assisting older homeowners and other in maintaining their independence while increasing the supply of affordable rental housing within a community." It further states that, "Income from an ADU can offset rising property taxes, maintenance and repair costs, and other housing expenses that are often a burden for older homeowners. ADUs can also make it easier for households with children to afford the housing they need. In some situations, an ADU may provide enough additional income so that a family can afford Amok, to buy a house in a preferred neighborhood that is safer, has better schools, or is closer to work." As the document observes, it should come as no surprise that what is now called an accessory dwelling unit is nothing new. Before World War II, it was a very common living arrangement in our nation's cities, including Salt Lake City. Difficult economic times during the Great Depression made it necessary for families to find affordable housing and for widows and single seniors to supplement their incomes by taking in roomers and boarders who could not afford their own homes. But the post-war housing and economic boom,and subsequent development of sprawling suburbs,essentially put an end to this common practice. As a result, most cities wrote their zoning ordinance to not allow ADUs. However, the post war building boom has now come to an end,and with our current economic reality,which some are calling our new reality,families are once again forced into seeking affordable housing. The AARP document quoted above is over ten years old, and written well before the current economic crisis that has put millions of Americans out of work,and in the most extreme cases, has caused them to become homeless. Moreover, scientific research on the environment has made it clear that we cannot resume building far-flung suburbs at the neglect of our urban neighborhoods. So the nationwide pendulum of allowing accessory dwelling units in city neighborhoods has now swung in the other direction,and it is high time for Salt Lake City to follow suit. I fully support Mayor Ralph Becker,the Salt Lake City Council,and the Salt Lake City Planning Department in their efforts,with the retained professional help of Clarion Associates,to implement the Sustainable City Code Initiative,which provides changes in our city zoning ordinance to allow, among many other sustainable and reasonable measures, accessory dwelling units in our city. Respectfully, Erin R Silva Architect Erin R Silva,RA Architect Erin R Silva&Associates 115 South 1100 East,4505 Salt Lake City,UT 84102 801-557-3400 erinrsilva@comcast.net Adjunct Faculty,College of Architecture+Planning Leap Faculty,College of Undergraduate Studies University of Utah silvaer@arch.utah.edu *AARP,Accessory Dwelling Units,Model State Act and Local Ordinance,A Publication of the Public Policy Institute,American Planning Association,by Rodney L.Cobb and Scott Dvorak,American Planning Association, 02000,AARP III St<;'..: I.;;nii February 23, 2011 Utah Department of Agriculture and Food supports ADUs and Salt Lake City's Sustainable Code The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food would like to offer its support for the creation of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Salt Lake City. With regards to our Utah agricultural food production system, our consumers, and our environment, we view ADUs as a tool that can help benefit these interests. • We support the concept that by adding ADUs to a city's dwelling mix there will be reduced demand to develop suburban farmland into residential subdivisions. • We support the concept that housing units located closer to employment centers will increase participation in public transportation and decrease automobile traffic on our interstate freeways and arterial highways. • We support the concept that during this economic downturn, families may need to reside closer together, and ADUs can meet these families' needs. With regard to the City's Sustainable City Code Initiative; • We fully support code provisions that enable citizens to grow, consume and even sell raw produce from their private or community gardens provided that reasonable qualifying provisions are offered to protect the health of neighbors and children. • We encourage EVERY Utahn to embrace agriculture and become more aware of the food system and the role our 16,000 farmers and ranchers play in their lives. • The energy savings associated with backyard or community gardens can be significant. • We support organized educational efforts that disseminate growing and harvesting techniques that protect food supply and safety interests. A moment to reflect on the historical importance of agriculture. This July 24`h will be the 164th anniversary of our pioneer forefathers' entrance into the Salt Lake valley. Even before Brigham Young uttered his famous statement, "This is the Place"the pioneers were already digging up the soil and planting crops just one block north of Salt Lake City Hall. Agriculture came first for them. We would like to work with you to make agriculture first AGAIN for our citizens and leaders. Sincerely,_ _ - - - - Leonard M. Blackham, Commissioner Utah Department of Agriculture and Food \.i1i .:b._ it, l x:ll , •I.'.,itn,i::< ti -L: •f l:i• Maloy, Michael 7rom: Ruthann Povinelli [rpov@comcast.net] ,ent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 12:30 PM To: 'Leeann Sudbury'; Mayor; Maloy, Michael Cc: 'Ann Maloy'; 'CERT Amy Smith'; 'CERT Annette Gillis'; 'CERT Barr Christensen'; 'CERT Ben Anjeweirden'; 'CERT Bob and Judy Jaggi'; 'CERT Brandon Howlett'; 'CERT Eric Hull'; 'CERT Eric Madsen'; 'CERT Jean Robinson'; 'CERT Jeff Yancey'; 'CERT Jeremy Jackson'; 'CERT Jessica Hill'; 'CERT Karen Geertsen'; 'CERT Kari Hull'; 'CERT Kim Gillis'; 'CERT Kim Ventura'; 'CERT Laurie Goodsell'; 'CERT Lisa Marley'; 'CERT Monica Ruegner'; 'CERT Patrick Quinn'; 'CERT Patty Henetz'; 'CERT Penny Catanzaro'; 'CERT Rhonda Parker'; 'CERT Stacey Denison'; 'CERT Stan Heaton'; 'CERT Susan Helier'; 'CERT Suzanne Hennefer'; 'CERT Tara Daniels'; 'CERT Tim Geertsen'; 'CERT W.D. Robinson'; 'Southers'; stacey.denison@hotmail.com; tom.denison@hotmail.com; annlschmidt@gmail.com; 'Dianne Fuller'; Douvilles@comcast.net; 'Julie S Steele'; 'Julie Personal Email'; 'Gillian Tufts'; 'Leissa Roberts'; 'Michael Povinelli' Subject: RE: It is URGENT that you protect our neighborhood from allowing Accessory dwellings on our properties!! Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Other Some 15 years ago the home owners of our surrounding neighborhoods worked in conjunction with then Mayor Ted Wilson to change our communities zoning back to single family residential (R1). This change was motivated by the fact that this section of the city was in bad shape and deteriorating. Crime rates were high and ,w property values lured developers to target our vintage neighborhoods to build apartment units or divide existing homes into duplexes. At that time, the Mayor's office deemed this downward trend unacceptable and believed that the preservation of single family homes and strong neighborhood communities were in the vital interest of Salt Lake City. As a result of this zoning change, our quaint and quiet neighborhoods have flourished. New families have moved in, pride in ownership has soared, homes have been restored, and our property values have appreciated. Our neighborhoods are amongst the most desirable to live in the Salt Lake valley. Unfortunately, Salt Lake City's current Mayor does not apparently value strong neighborhood communities based on single family homes. To the contrary, Ralph Becker is proposing an initiative that will circumvent our current zoning laws, posing a direct threat to our neighborhood as it currently exists. Mayor Becker wants Accessory Dwelling Units or ADU's be allowed to be built on existing single family lots. This proposal completely undermines the single family philosophy that was successfully promoted by Mayor Wilson and takes us back to what previously plagued our community. In short, Mayor Becker wants to change the zoning laws that have allowed our neighborhood to prosper and in effect, promote the subdivision of houses and new construction of the same cheap rental prosperities that threatened our community in the past. The Mayor's office attempts to mask the monumental impact that this change will have on our neighborhood by promoting alleged benefits that a very small portion of our community may gain. The Mayor's plan increases population density, but does not provide for increased infrastructure or services; as if these additional people will be without need or will not put additional strain on -xisting service and dismisses the reality that they will have cars to park and trash to empty. The Mayor's plan .oposes very vague concepts, backs them up with little if any substance, yet wants to implement this plan faster and more aggressively than any other city that has allowed ADU's. i The ADU proposal is not about existing rentals, it is about the encouragement of developing new, additional rentals. I have researched other cities' ADU's and the Salt Lake City plan is vague and doesn't take neighborhood impact into consideration. These are my specific suggestions: Issues not addressed in this proposal: 1. Minimum lot size (5000sq ft) 2. Require formal review for design compatibility with adjacent properties and impact of privacy, light, air, solar access of adjacent property parking 3. Open space and landscaping requirements (would you like a cement nt covered lot?) 4. Minimize windows that impact privacy 5. Regulate the concentration of ADU's in specific neighborhoods 6. Power, water, sewer connections? Through current house? 7. Number of bedrooms tied to number of mandatory parking spaces (no waivers for proximity to bus, rail or business districts) Issues addressed in this proposal and my suggestions: D.2.a. Owner occupied property required • What is the definition of an owner? How far does this reach to extended family? * What defines owner occupied? 6 months a year?This should require a yearly certification. • if the owner does not occupy either unit, the ADU should be declared: a non-habitable space. and b. may not be used as a dwelling .and c. may not he used as a rented space Amok D.2.c. Underlying Zoning applies. "if there is a conflict...the provisions of this section shall take precedence." « There should be additional restrictions in place in addition to the existing setbacks. Currently: � l.x height (pitched) 28 and fiat (20') (21 t:..2-..070) Setbacks: -2cccssorc buildiii_ 10 from residential huildine an t:d acem lot. located at least t From side property line (21A.34.020) - k;"im _i- residence corner lot 4'. interior lot 4' on one Side and 1O. on the other • Create decreased height allowances and increased distances from property line for the ADU • Max height for 1 story- 13', 1.5 or 2 story —22' at roof peak, • for ADU's higher than 1 story, increase setback additional 2-5' • Lot coverage of ADU count toward parcel maximum building coverage (40% of lot — also known as the 60i40 rule)—this should be reduced to 35% on lots with ADU's • Only allowed with existing single family primary residence ensile. D.3. Methods of Creation • Specifically prohibit trailers and mobile homes • Set a minimum size to 220-400 sq ft • Maximum size 500 sq ft for 5000-7500 sq ft lot, 650 sq ft for larger lots • Demolition of existing unit not allowed for ADU construction • Require similar exterior wall materials, window types, door and window trim, roofing material D.5 Ownership/Number of residents "the total number of residents...may not [be] exceed[ed]...as defined in the zoning code" 2 Limit the number of bedrooms to one (I) and define number of residents in ADU! by number(2-3 people max), not by defnit on of famiuy ✓caning Ordinance limits occupancy through the definition of family. Family is defined as blood relatives, a couple or legal guardians living together with their children. or a group of not more than three unrelated individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit. The definition controls occupancy regardless of the size of the unit. For example: 10 individuals could occupy a 650 set' ft ADU (myself. my husband, my parents. his father and 5 children) This ADU proposal as it stands is not well thought out and will have a significant impact on our communities as neighborhoods. I oppose this proposal. Ruthann Povinelli 1027 E Herbert Ave Salt Lake City, UT om: Leeann Sudbury [mailto:leeann.sudbury@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 9:30 AM To: mayor@slcgov.com; Michael.Maloy@slcgov.com Cc: Ann Maloy; CERT; CERT Amy Smith; CERT Annette Gillis; CERT Barr Christensen; CERT Ben Anjeweirden; CERT Bob and Judy Jaggi; CERT Brandon Howlett; CERT Eric Hull; CERT Eric Madsen; CERT Jean Robinson; CERT Jeff Yancey; CERT Jeremy Jackson; CERT Jessica Hill; CERT Karen Geertsen; CERT Kari Hull; CERT Kim Gillis; CERT Kim Ventura; CERT Laurie Goodsell; CERT Lisa Marley; CERT Monica Ruegner; CERT Patrick Quinn; CERT Patty Henetz; CERT Penny Catanzaro; CERT Rhonda Parker; CERT Stacey Denison; CERT Stan Heaton; CERT Susan Helier; CERT Suzanne Hennefer; CERT Tara Daniels; CERT Tim Geertsen; CERT W.D. Robinson; Southers Subject: It is URGENT that you protect our neighborhood from allowing Accessory dwellings on our properties!! Years ago the East Liberty Park neighborhood worked with the city to make our area a single family neighborhood with the exception of those apartments that already existed. The city actually initiated the project until it got enough support from the neighborhood. At the time, they felt that keeping a neighborhood a non-rental neighborhood near the center of the city would actually help protect the city from being vulnerable and would increase the values of the neighborhood. Ted Wilson came to many back yard meetings and spoke, asking us to help the city to fight those developers who would want to break down the strength of the neighborhood by putting in accessory building units and turning the houses into multiple unit dwellings. It worked! Our neighborhood became a good, strong neighborhood with increasing property property values. Nothing has changed since then except that the neighborhood has become more appealing. By keeping the properties single family dwellings in this neighborhood, it has remained strong and has continued to hold property values. If people are allowed to do "whatever" and are allowed to build houses in the backyard or over the garage, our ighborhood will become like those to the west and north and south of us. We have a unique little niche and we do not want it destroyed or changed!! We have chosen to buy in this neighborhood because of its characteristics of stability and inner strength. Now it appears that someone wants to destroy that strength, by creating rental spaces under the guise of "taking care of elderly parents". 3 Suzanne Hennefer; CERT Tara Daniels; CERT Tim Geertsen; CERT W.D. Robinson; Southers Subject: It is URGENT that you protect our neighborhood from allowing Accessory dwellings on our properties!! Years ago the East Liberty Park neighborhood worked with the city to make our area a single family neighborhood with the exception of those apartments that already existed. The city actually initiate ` the project until it got enough support from the neighborhood. At the time, they felt that keeping a neighborhood a non-rental neighborhood near the center of the city would actually help protect the city from being vulnerable and would increase the values of the neighborhood. Ted Wilson came to many back yard meetings and spoke, asking us to help the city to fight those developers who would want to break down the strength of the neighborhood by putting in accessory building units and turning the houses into multiple unit dwellings. It worked! Our neighborhood became a good, strong neighborhood with increasing property property values. Nothing has changed since then except that the neighborhood has become more appealing. By keeping the properties single family dwellings in this neighborhood, it has remained strong and has continued to hold property values. If people are allowed to do "whatever" and are allowed to build houses in the backyard or over the garage, our neighborhood will become like those to the west and north and south of us. We have a unique little niche and we do not want it destroyed or changed!! We have chosen to buy in this neighborhood because of its characteristics of stability and inner strength. Now it appears that someone wants to destroy that strength, by creating rental spaces under the guise of"taking care of elderly parents". They feel that over the garage or in backyards is a perfect place for this type of space. I took care of all the elderly in my family, including older aunts and uncles, until they died. I brought them into my home because if the elderly are too old to live alone, they are too old to live alone over your garage. Elderly who cannot care for themselves are typically bought into your home or put in an assisted living center, not placed in a apartment over a garage or put outback in a shack. If people legitimately need more space, they should increase the space in what they already have by addinc+^'"N, extra bedroom in the attic or the basement. Just as Ted Wilson asked us years ago to protect the -..t., strength of our neighborhood, we are now asking you to please help us. These accessory units will destroy the appeal and strength of our neighborhood. We would appreciate all you can do to prevent the breakdown of our neighborhood. We know that you are the people who have the power to keep our neighborhoods safe from these kinds of structures, and we are asking you to help us, please. (Others may express their opinions by writing mayor@slcgov.com and Michael.Maloy@slcgov.com, but we want you to know this is how we feel!!) Thank you, The Sudburys 1232 South McClelland Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 801-548-0543 4 Maloy, Michael -rom: phenetz@xmission.com sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:15AM To: Maloy, Michael Cc: leannsudbury©yahoo.com Subject: ADUs Categories: Other Mr. Maloy: Thanks for your explication. I have been interested in ADUs as a newly single person who can't =20 afford her mortgage without assistance. While a certain kind of =20 supplementary support may be possible for a short period, in the =20 long-term, if I want to keep my home, creating a studio apartment in =20 my home's second story would be a good way to offset my financial =20 burden, especially as I am so close to retirement. I believe allowing ADUs only if the property owner also lives on the =20 premises makes good sense -- better, certainly, than being forced to =20 sell in a down market and move to a less-desirable location. I am =20 quite fond of where I live, like my neighbors and would like to stay. Sincerely, ratty Henetz 1 Maloy, Michael From: Sommerkorn, Wilford Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:20 PM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: FW: accessory dwelling units Categories: Other Wi1f Sommerkorn Director Salt Lake City Planning, Division From: Gale, Amy Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 3:22 PM To: Sommerkorn, Wilford Cc: Langan, Helen; Mayor Subject: FW: accessory dwelling units FYI for you guys. From: drholladay@msn.com [mailto:drholladay@msn.com] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 9:20 AM To: Mayor Subject: accessory dwelling units Mayor Becker, I would like to wholeheartedly support your plan to allow accessory dwelling units, when appropriate, in residential neighborhoods. I have lived in a number of cites where these units enhance the life of the community; New Orleans, Tucson, Santa Cruz. Last night I attended a neighborhood council meeting of Elpco, of which I am past chair. Michael Kohn, the current chair conducted a session in which he made it clear that he opposes the plan and took vote which came out as opposed. Michael will present his findings at the Mayor's breakfast next week. I have done straw poll of residents on my block (Ninth East between Belmont and Yale) and find that all of the resident property owners are in favor 1 of the amendment. 'his vote is not representative of the residents of the area. Only those who shared his views were invited, with the exception of myself and two others. I felt that the presentation was biased and based on other personal motives (such as a depressed rental market) Dan Bethel, an acquaintance of yours, and I have discussed this issue at some length and would like to lend our support to it. Most of the objections being raised are smoke screens for something else. Keep up the good work Randolph Holladay 1014 South 900 East 84105 .,01 322-0832 drholladay@msn.com 2 Maloy, Michael From: Judi Short[judi.short@gmail.com] , Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 3:29 PM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: Re: ADU's Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Other And I think it is on the HAAB board as well coming up. without a draft of whatever you are working on, it is hard to get input. I have several concerns - one is that to apply it city-wide without a trial period could create problems, I know the Avenues folks are pretty clear they don't want it in their area, because they have spent a lot of time cleaning up illegal units to the point that the area is more livable. The second is that the ordinance does not have a lot of specifics in it, and can be interpreted to create a lot of problems. Are you going to the East Liberty Community Council meeting on Thursday? They have a lot of concerns and good examples. Most of Sugar House might be ok with it, but my Emerson neighborhood wouldn't work except maybe on two or three lots, lots are too small. When might you have the next draft? On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Maloy, Michael <�iichael.M'Ialov a slc«ov.com> wrote: 1 Lid i: You arc correct_ v:e did brief-the Plannin r Commission on the draft ADU ordinance on November 15. and thought «e would hake had the official public hearing br nov%. But follo«ing the briefing and another round of internal discussions. thought the AD'J ordinance needed more \\orlk before proceeding. Right nog'.. \\e are \\orking on the Item draft \\ith the idea that it ntav he ready for a Plannin(2 Commission public hearing_ in 1\larch or April. Also for r our information. Ill Chu e\nres,ed interest in hci `7 briefed on the ordinance. v hich \ill Prohabi:: happen on ��l arch happen Sincerely. Mich aci M:i r . .\ICP Principal Planner Sa!: Lal.c ('it Corr PO Bo\ 1454S0 451 S State Street km-106 S4I I-1-54S0 1 Public Meeting �' ' ` ' y //// PUBLIC COMMENT FORM '►�-` � _,�- ten► ✓- December 9, 2010 �� Sustainability City Code Initiative Planning and Zoning Division Department of Community and Economic Development Name: • n. ` ' jt• I r.1( r • Address: frr,°7 IV%;.i ! i; , Zip Code Phone: E-mail i - Please circle all that apply City Resident/Owner') Practitioner pecial Interest) Please circle topics you are interested id Accessory DweT Iling-Units cutdoorL htinb Housing Diversity Recycling Transportation Demand Management-- `All Please provide tact t f 1 l_ 1, 1 .�. ,'C lr �vit�u�l information 3o we can notify you of UUIGI ii1L L111gS or tieailug5 vii this issue. You may submit this sheet before the end of the Open House, or you can provide your comments via e-mail to cheri.coffey@slcgov.com or via mail at the following address: Cheri Coffey, Planning Manager, Salt Lake City Planning Division, PO Box 145480, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5480. Please provide your comments by Friday December 31, 2010. Other opportunities for public comment will be available as specific draft ordinances are process. Look for updates on this project by visiting our website at www.slcgov.com/CED/Planning Questions? Cheri Coffey 801-535-6188 Comments: !> ;'t /,� ._ t r�, , • - i - • Continue comments on back Maloy, Michael From: Beth Bowman [bbowman@hsc.utah.edu] "'"** Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:41 PM To: Coffey, Cheri; Maloy, Michael Cc: angela.hansenberg@slcgov.com Subject: Acessory Dwelling Units Categories: Other To: Cheri Coffey Michael Maloy Planning Commission Members As a resident of an older (1920's) neighborhood, (not included in Yalecrest) I am not in favor of the proposed creation of zoning for accessory dwelling units. There are many requirements included in the the amendment project memorandum concerning Accessory Dwelling Units which seem to me to be impossible to enforce. Few other comments: 1) I do not have any confidence that any of the zoning and building code changes and requirements as listed in the fact sheet for ADU's could be adequately regulated by the city. From personal experience with construction projects on our street, current enforcement of the building codes doe„ , not work. 2) The older neighborhoods already have a population density that is consistent with sustainable living. There already is a mix in our older neighborhoods of varying size homes as well as numerous duplexes. It is the newer building projects that have not been required to include housing units for all incomes. This should include the new building in the downtown area as well as newer projects along the light-rail tracks. 3) How is the city able to regulate who buys property with an accessory dwelling? There is no way to prevent the dwelling from becoming two rental properties. The city cannot enforce the number of residents that reside in a unit. 4) There is an infrastructure concern. The old city sewer lines are already a problem. Parking is a problem as well. Most garages in our area are small and most residents already park on the street. The narrow streets are a concern for emergency vehicles when cars are parked on both sides of the street. Beth Bowman 1445 Harrison Ave "`* SLC, Ut 84105 801-582-0708 1 Maloy, Michael -om: Mary Ann Wright[MAW@pbageo.com] ant: Friday, November 05, 2010 11:45 AM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: ADUs Categories: Other I am writing in support of the ADUs ordinance for Salt Lake City, This makes good sense in that it retains urban character but allows for greater use of property within the city for living space. The idea of not gobbling up natural habitat for more buildings is sound. I wish the county had a better handle on this idea for commercial space. 1 Maloy, Michael From: cindy cromer[3cinslc@live.com] Amok Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:02 PM ,. To: Maloy, Michael Subject: more on ADU's Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Other Michael-Thanks for your patience regarding my numerous objections to Clarion's proposal for ADU's. I just spotted the following information in a much longer list of incentives for historic preservation that I proposed to Planning in January. Again, the City gives away development rights that it could use to leverage the kind of reinvestment it wants in housing. It is not getting enough benefit in the right places under Clarion's proposal. cindy excerpt from a list of proposed incentives for historic preservation, submitted to Planning in January 2010: Restrict ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS initially to historic properties (either as stand alone Register sites or in City Register Districts) located in multiple family zoning districts. Focus on RMF-30 and RMF-35 zones especially in the Capitol Hill, Avenues, and Central City Districts. Rationale: These zones are established for multiple unit occupancy. The current residents and property owners EXPECT tenants as neighbors. The Landmarks Commission is currently doing an excellent job of implementing the design guildelines and ordinances that are available. The regulatory process for infill in historic districts is working far better than the compatible infill ordinances for single family zoning districts. Structures in historic districts have higher maintenance costs and would benefit from the additional income that accessory dwelling units could provide. The majority of the City's surviving carriage houses are concentrated in the historic districts and on stand alon Register sites Provide DENSITY BONUSES for property owners who are reinvesting in historic Districts and stand alone historic sites. (This would be one way the City could create incentives for protecting excellent historic buildings that would qualify for stand alone status but are not surrounded by the critical mass of surviving historic buildings to be in a District). 1 .,,, Public Forum COMMENT FORM October 21, 2010 Accessory Dwelling Unit—Draft Ordinance NAME ' ADDRESS ' • J '-I ZIP CODE E-MAIL . • COMMENT . NAME • 4.%- 1,�-� j ,,�`, art Li, ADDRESS - ', _ ' 11 n ;` • ZIP CODE •'j; ri i =l E-MAIL -.r _ ` F� t~ .."'� L L , , COMMENT •• • I 0 NAME < • _, ADDRESS ZIP CODE E-MAIL COMMENT 1_" • . . Maioy, Michael From: esther e. hunter[estherehunter©hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 8:17 AM To: Coffey, Cheri; Maloy, Michael Subject: Re: ADU question Categories: Other Concerns: Does the sentence "If there is any conflict between the provisions of this section shall take precedence. rr not undo many protections in place to make sure the ADU do not negatively impact an area. This concern is based oil my experience of code interpretations in Building Services when permits are actually pulled. Can this he clarified to avoid conflicts in the future. pxperici:ce has taught 11.E that the review criteria utili e(i by various departments when the approve exceptions and plans is not specific and does not encompass neighborhood concerns. Specific criteria lbr assess111eiht for parkin?, infrastructure, etc. ii'ould make this ordinance more sellable. Right now many communities are mounting opposition. Those that have the Shang st land use experience will be Jno.s'! vocal (a' G.-1('Cv and t1i0SP. that are not as organized or versed (le Central City) will not. Since the _Ital'or has slated It c' will start with a trial where this is lt'clntcci, 1 am concerned. r Can soz7 ell:lng more he done to clarife parkin'? Exceptions Kil'e: cl'il.' !() 17Ot iileaih the current or a' /1'titre tenant does 1:o: o',l'Il a cat. I am sure transportation has some guidelines,for if there is enough parking U street the housing units in the area. Uhat is the break even poi t.' Concern that people will pull tip back lards. to pa! i11 asphalt and additional flat surface parking which does no.>i11ng to keep the character 0 Clll area. Concern that pc;r i;m pads ILO appear in the front of homes. Is this allowed and when? This ordinance and process needs to be integrated with t. le�a =Ulloii pi )CCi�, 1 rU i 1 J'lihcc at O11eIJOlIlI leasing rooms in all I:oines during and after the war was aliou cc lii li:C 1..A( Lire(\, tills dot's not eStabllsh a documented right for (1 duplex, triplex. etc. .Since this a no! clear, many are obtaining approval by staff and the BOA. TiIlat is realistic JOr an established neighborhood in terms of infi'astrueturc, r- l' T packing. deirc tl', e'11Toreenlelil, etc. when t oil take this process. and the .;DL plan into consideration. Should there he a limit to allot' a neighborhood to be stable./ The si;:,,lc f11;;;:il' on;le7.1 are 100si11g in this context what they thought they it ere lheighho;1700( fee'I if the density of these two programs is too high. Have not brainstormed how but let me knob if talking more about this could help clarity the issue. I think there are solutions. i T _11uyt e the communitycould hell) identify U trial area that agrees. To have bill' in to he a trial area that agrees would he excellent. The community might fbrin a committee that gives owntthll' lee'dbuck to the stet/fund work vDinav' to litrizz what can work city wick'. .\fore as I have time. best, e From: esther e. hunter Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 7:29 AM „, k To: Cheri Coffey ; michael.malovaslcoov.com Subject: ADU question Malcy, Michael From: esther e. hunter[estherehunter©hotmail.com] '"""" Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 8:25 AM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: Re: ADU question Categories: Other Thank you .1,lic11a01. Maybe this could be clarified in a Question and 11pe ql added piece. .AIosi in the cominunitl give the none design to all of.the things in both. hest, e From: Maloy, Michael Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 8:16 AM To: 'esther e. hunter' Subject: RE: ADU question Esther: Thanks for the question. Any compatible infili regulation would still apply under the proposed ADU ordinance. I think when we made the summary statement regarding "design guidelines" we were thinking more about aesthetic controls (i.e. material, architectural design, etc.) rather than height, bulk, or spatial relationships, which our infill regulations primarily address. Sincerely. Michael Maloy, AICP Principal Planner Salt Lake City Corp PO Box 1454E0 451 S State Street Rrn 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-54:0 (801) 535-7118 Office (801) 535-61 7 4 Fax michael malov slccnv.com From: esther e. hunter [mailto:estherehunter@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 7:29 AM To: Coffey, Cheri; Maloy, Michael Subject: ADU question II i, J11.' fUl't sb.'et suites that l!'e do not have cLsiail glflLi'lll'te ti)r oreah besides historic districts. Uoe the compatible 1l1`111 gllidcli le not appI1'.' Thanks, c Esther Hunter <<0I. 5).3.9,y'(1' 1 Maloy, Michael •om: esther e. hunter[estherehunter@hotmail.com] ant: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 9:40 AM To: Coffey, Cheri; Maloy, Michael Subject: ADU Pilot Idea Categories: Other Hi... Had an alter thought...not sure firths: goal right now iv still attempting to go city wide or to have a _5-6 month pilot .s0/77C11 here. Do vou have any areas interc.vted.' _ill I am hearing IS mounting opposition. arc looking la pilot, how large would tit,: arca hair to be? 16 block, be ctunigh....thinking of the 1, C U hat about the idea of having a working committee from the community pilot area that work.s collaborativelv to help sort out some solution.v in Cl positive wav for ilk' ivsucs listed in my previous email? Not sure I could se!: no board but maybe? Right now they arc opposed but thei arc icasonable an,:( could have a hand ill UiUii1 U it in Win .00,111110n, I 1,1:L'1 would hc all over thi.s. I knoiv it ir1)u!a7reattirc corn/um/iv coininiticc with 1(1.7014',./i7CC (0/ i•C(./.1 /CW/F it(irk hhc WC ilk/With MC. "TC ll'aS a terrific example. UU Iverc am"out of the within 10 Ininillt!c (Inc to ottijoini CffinV.S yCi it(15 fiymi vcr). startiiig PCSicik.!.\..11V loin a ChaliCng,'. BL'i7,!%11.\ al 111C transit R2:onc heal of illegal units Have strongit orking committee that alreadv spL)aks Ian,/ use it ill exten.sivc exp,!rienee working thinkinct- win it in .S.m,J11 arca that hasC . issuesf spaLics so it have reall\t!:: oil,: out U hat ci.)uldit orr': ( 7 ty 11 id:. It coubl bc a red' wii.".+ c.i.-amplc shoiying cor:r..unity Lan it tog.th.'rIt lb thc City Cuit Co hero o;: Yo1cci-cci. , cc what you think, best, C Maloy, Michael From: esther e. hunter[estherehunter@hotmail.com] '" " Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 12:43 AM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: ADU's Categories: Other Hi.Michael. I hare just co;nc backfrom cl very long ECCC Executive Board meeting where ADh"s were discussed at great length. The interest in our council area is fell'high. flowerer, this interest is being heightened due to Cindll''1 doc1111icnt has made it's u r'around several of the netohborltood . iS 1?'e wrote before, (jail' and I are very interested in making sure that our council area is providing accurate Clnc/fair informations to our members regarding tins potential concept and have not had the opportunity to have a representative attend the special focus groups. We believe the ECCC is one of the most impacted areas. We would verb' munch appreciate your help in this area. The neighnors Gun and I have spoken with (this week alone) number in the loll' O.s. This is unusual high for an earl 'policy discussion when the concept is not yet fully developed. The informal majority opinion is that neighbors are very concerned that this policy he inclusive and allow all residential=o11es the ahllit}' to earn this extra income fin- their building even if they are not historic or in a higher density:one. Alalir are also wanting to conform with City law since they have been illegal jOr many a , rear. you know, we have a very high rate of illegal duplexes. When you are ready, we'e !'oulc/greatly appreciate anything you can give icy so that lie can distribute it to our council area so they have a jtill picture of the concept. Or if-roll arc able to cltte'11d a general meeting- we would welcome this vei'i' much. Please let us k1r'ow your suggestion and ideas. best. Esther C o-Cluilr, EC C C Esther Hunter cO1.5,1' .9 t')-t i Maloy, Michael rom: cindy cromer[3cinslc@live.com] ,ent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:45 PM To: Coffey, Cheri; Maloy, Michael Subject: ADU's Attachments: ADU71410.rtf Categories: Other Cheri and Michael-The Community Network asked me to talk about ADU's at the August meeting. I suggested that the Network invite Planning to talk about Clarion's proposal and I would talk about mine. I passed out the attachment this morning at the Network meeting and hope that the topic will be scheduled again next month with someone from Planning in attendance. The longer I consider Clarion's proposal, the more problems I see with it. The City could NEVER enforce the owner occupancy requirement. I cannot imagine a judge deciding against a property owner who had an ADU and could no longer live in the property. It would not happen. Maybe it would in Colorado but it wouldn't happen in Utah. EVER. The attachment is the same one I circulated in July with a few minor tweaks. c • Maloy, Michael From: Allen Family[mecj@me.com] 'ink, Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 10:28 AM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: Complete-Sustainability and ADU's in R-2 district Categories: Other Mr. Maloy, I am writing to ask that zoning district R-2 be included in the ADU section of the proposed sustainablility ordinance. Living in a rental district and trying to rent out a duplex apartment in an owner occupied home is unnecessarily difficult. Zoning and code impose guidelines for renting that are outdated and outlandish. I would like to see restrictions such as lot size and frontal space removed from city code. I would also like to see the R-2 district included in the upcoming ADU portion of the sustainability ordinance. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Liz Allen 1 Accessory Dwelling Units What would it take to put them in Single-family zoning districts? Comments by Cindy Cromer July 14, 2010, revised August 18, 2010 Clarion has proposed that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) be allowed in single-family zoning districts, in owner-occupied housing. I want to start by identifying the prerequisites for such an approach to work. The City would have to have effective enforcement regarding violations of its zoning ordinance and permitting process. While there are effective employees who work in enforcement in Salt Lake, we do not have consistent and comprehensive enforcement. The City will not be able to enforce the "owner occupancy" requirement. The City would need a successful program for compatible infill to address design issues associated with ADU's. The current ordinance for infill has not been successful and is under revision. Logically there would need to be a demand for additional units, or the City would be undermining the efforts of existing landlords to fill their vacancies. As every landlord I know would atest, the last couple of years have been very challenging with higher vacancy rates, concessions, and stagnant rents in the face of rising taxes and utilities. The Clarion proposal restricts ADU's to one-bedroom apartments. That is the very part of the market that is the weakest right now, as people have downsized to studios or rented rooms or move in with someone to share expenses. There would need to be public support for unit legalization and expansion of housing in low density neighborhoods. The Board of Adjustment did an about face a year and a half ago and began approving unit legalizations that it would have denied previously. Public opinion has not made a similar shift. Recent cases on the Board's agenda in the University and Gilmer Park Neighborhoods indicate that property owners in low density areas do not always share the Administration's enthusiasm for additional units. It would make sense to have additional housing located in areas served by mass transit. Clarion's proposal to restrict ADU's to single family zoning districts introduces new units of housing in areas that typically have limited or no mass transit. In order to have safe housing as part of an ADU initiative, the City has to have a process for business licensing in single family structures. Currently, the City licenses buildings with 3 or more units. While the City has discussed requiring business licenses for rental properties that are single family and duplex structures, the City does not have a process in place to regulate rental housing already in single family structures, much less to regulate the additional units created as ADU's. Some of the deficits mentioned above are long standing and cannot be overcome by the Mayor' directive to improve/create the tool. The one involving public opinion is not under the Mayor's control. So what could the City do that would increase housing without aggravating existing problems and creating a firestorm of opposition? The City could begin the implementation of ADU's in the existing multiple-family zoning districts, RMF-30 and RMF-35. It could narrow the opportunity even further initially by restricting ADU's to the City's historic districts where there is a design review process that is working well. The residents in these zoning districts expect renters as neighbors. These parts of the City have much better service by mass transit, especially TRAX. The City is already licensing many of these buildings as businesses. Because of current market conditions, it is important that the City take an incremental approach. Starting in the multi-family zones within historic districts allows that. The City could start with the RMF-30 and -35 zones and then add the R-2 zone. Or, it could add properties within the National Register Historic Districts using guidelines similar to those used for additions in historic districts. Not only would this approach have a greater potential for success, the City would also be offering an incentive for historic preservation, which already has a longer approval process. The immediate risk of Clarion's approach is that it will create a nonproductive uproar of opposition from residents in some of the City's more exclusive neighborhoods. The long term risk is that it will create a mess on a City-wide level, which like so many previous bad ideas, the Accessory Dwelling Units *"ok What would it take to put them in Single-family zoning districts? Comments by Cindy Cromer July 14, 2010 Clarion has proposed that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) be allowed in single-family zoning districts, in owner-occupied housing. I want to start by identifying the prerequisites for such an approach to work. The City would have to have effective enforcement regarding violations of its zoning ordinance and permitting process. While there are effective employees who work in enforcement in Salt Lake, we do not have consistent and comprehensive enforcement. The City will not be able to enforce the "owner occupancy" requirement. The City would need a successful program for compatible infill to address design issues associated with ADU's. The current ordinance for infill has not been successful and is under revision. Logically there would need to be a demand for additional units, or the City would be undermining the efforts of existing landlords to fill their vacancies. As every landlord I know would atest, the last couple of years have been very challenging with higher vacancy rates, concessions, and stagnant rents in the face of rising taxes and utilities. There would need to be public support for unit legalization and expansion of housing in low density neighborhoods. The Board of Adjustment did an about face a year and a half ago and began approving unit legalizations that it would have denied previously. Public opinion has not made a similar shift. The case on the Board's agenda this coming Monday is likely to be another demonstration of how neighbors in low density neighborhoods feel about legalizations and rental units in general. It would make sense to have additional housing located in areas served by mass transit. Clarion's proposal to restrict ADU's to single family zoning districts introduces new units of housing in areas that typically have limited or no mass transit. In order to have safe housing as part of an ADU initiative, the City has to have a process for business licensing in single family structures. Currently, the City licenses buildings with 3 or more units. While the City has discussed requiring business licenses for rental properties that are single family and duplex structures, the City does not have a process in place to regulate rental housing already in single family structures, much less to regulate the additional units created as ADU's. Some of the deficits mentioned above are long standing and cannot be overcome by the Mayor' directive to improve/create the tool. The one involving public opinion is not under the Mayor's control. So what could the City do that would increase housing without aggravating existing problems and creating a firestorm of opposition? The City could begin the implementation of ADU's in the existing multiple-family zoning districts, RMF-30 and RMF-35. It could narrow the opportunity even further initially by restricting ADU's to the City's historic districts where there is a design review process that is working well. The residents in these zoning districts expect renters as neighbors. These parts of the City have much better service by mass transit, especially TRAX. The City is already licensing many of these buildings as businesses. Because of current market conditions, it is important that the City take an incremental approach. Starting in the multi-family zones within historic districts allows that. The City could start with the RMF-30 and -35 zones and then add the R-2 zone. Or, it could add properties within the National Register Historic Districts using guidelines similar to those used for additions in historic districts. Not only would this approach have a greater potential for success, the City would also be offering an incentive for historic preservation, which already has a longer approval process. Maloy, Michael From: robert daniels [bipdaniels@gmail.com] ""* Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 8:38 AM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: ADU's Categories: Other Good morning Michael I am both pleased and interested in the city developing plans regarding ADU's. They are in integral part of this city's housing stock. I am, however, concerned that they will be inappropriately regulated. A foreseeable problem might be Mrs. Murphy's Exemption. I will not try to explain this outmoded loophole to you but I will say that it is a part of the Fair Housing law that has outlived its useful existence. I was a victim of it and know of others who were also adversely affected. It would be so simple for the city to create an ordinance to render it obsolete. I would appreciate your looking into that. Thanks, Bip Amok Coffe , Cheri gym: Gary Harding [garyh99@comcast.net] .nt: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 1:40 PM To: Coffey, Cheri Cc: Yalecrest CC Chair Subject: RE Comments---FW Yalecrest Notice -Accessory Dwelling Units proposed by SLC Attachments: Accessory Dwelling Units Purpose and Background.pdf Ms. Coffey, I read the brief _,tt::._i ,., :i'. _i._,t e att c ;:i,:: t t•a•, very little definition it just floats a broad concept. Deviating from :l,e t nt _ . zoning restriction= ! •,,l:cv;in•, people to add ADU's is just that, a violation of the existing zoninr. as this. After the opposition stated above my thoughts on yc,n; 1. Yes oil-s,tf• Dr." r-,, r,,w l!in;=.. If an ADU is approved the owner should have t _ r: ceriufication that they still have the required on- sit; ;,: 2. Defin,,; , . 3. Size • ' , :r. :. . ..., . .b a Principal Structure. 4. Arc,' YE': •.n',, O C?. ".r _Ui1I 'Mill restrictions. J. Yes, .. ,_ ._. of re'-i;i ntial property in the city should be subject to 11E'_ 6. Bl.!sint es hr lia :ius Ofterwise they would be built specifically as buss n; l: I_ • ilt.. _ .. " 7. If ADU , !.: c .. py, i ,.d:if lii i „ ' iu sc:bmit with properly tax payments a certiti atio:1 `. t ' = I i' -: i il_ r L' 11c:•:Fain;, or was vacant all year, or that the occupancy still As you can teL : ; >' i' ._, _ ::cr; ..cE_ population density and undermine the character off;,. -.. , • . . - l From: dmgib@xmission.com [mailto:dmgib@xmission.com] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 11:38 AM To: dmgib@xmission.com Subject: Yalecrest Notice - Accessory Dwelling Units proposed by SLC Neighbors, The Salt Lake City Planning Division is currently looking at creating an ordinance that, if approved, could greatly impact our neighborhood. The City is moving forward with a Sustainability Code Revision Project that includes, among other items. :Allowing "Accessory Dwelling Units". 1 encourage you to read the attached document and send your comments to the staff contact, Cheri Coffey, 801.535.6188. or (c a ' .collcv u slcgo .co ). The proposed ordinance is in the early stages and the City is eager to receiv c comments. You can sign tip for SI.0 Planning notices at: 'ip://wvyw.slceov .cum%C L[)•nlanning'm g_es'proiccts.htm Reminder - NO Jan. 6 Yalecrest Meeting Happy Holidays! Lisette Gibson Yalecrest Neighborhood Council Chair day 801-583-9316 Amok, Accessory Dwelling Unit (definition): A residential unit that is located on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit, either internal to or attached to the single family unit or in a detached structure. The accessory dwelling unit shall be a complete housekeeping unit with a shared or separate entrance, kitchen, sleeping area, closet space, and bathroom facilities. Public Open House Notification Sustainability Code Revision Project. The Planning Division is currently working with Clarion Associates to develop various amendments to the City?s Zoning, Site Development and Subdivision Ordinances relating to sustainability regulations. The proposed changes include allowance for ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, Alternative Energy Systems (Solar Oriented Subdivisions, Small Wind Energy Systems, Solar Arrays, Solar Collection Systems); Urban Agriculture (Community Gardens, Seasonal Farm Stands, Community Supported Agriculture, hoophouses, greenhouses and coldtiames) and Street and Pedestrian Connectivity Standards for new development (Staff contact: Cheri Coffey at 801.5 35.6188 or cheri.cofiev(rr slc<<rv .Com). 2 Coffey, Cheri .om: Dan Jones [djones7530@hotmail.com] ,nt: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 6:17 PM To: Coffey, Cheri Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units Ms.Coffey, I am a resident at 1738 Yale Avenue in the "Harvard-Yale" area of the city. I have learned some news from our neighborhood council that has me quite concerned, to wit, that the city is considering rezoning fo allow "Accessory Dwelling Units" to be constructed in our neighborhood. My comments below refer to an information circular I received from ARCH giving the definition, background, and purpose statement of ADUs. My concerns fall into three areas: 1. This is already a high-density (small-lot) neighborhood with challenging parking. We don't need to increase the density by "increasing the housing stock of existing neighborhoods"! 2. It is a neighborhood with great charm. In the recent past the city has realized this and taken steps to prevent architectural monstosities from being built (in some cases, alas, too late.) This ordinance if passed could kick off another cycle of ugly remodelling. The picture shown in the ARCH circular of an attached ADY above-garage was anything but reassuring in this regard. 3. This is a very safe, family-oriented neighborhood. No matter how well-intentioned, these units once built will certainly turn into rentals that will forever change the historically stable character of our neighborhood. T would appreciate hearing from regarding any public fora that will be provided for feedback on this )posal. I am quite sure that if our neighborhood was canvassed in any manner, an overwhelming negative response would be turned in. Thank you in advance for your consideration of these comments. Dan Jones 1738 Yale Ave. SLC 84108 Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now. 1 Coffey, Cheri From: dmgib©xmission.com ogook, Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 11:54 AM To: Warren Lloyd Cc: Coffey, Cheri; Hunter Esther; Oliver Anne; Schwemmer AIA Annie; Huffaker Kirk; Love, Jill; Garrott, Luke; Martin, JT; Simonsen Soren; Virginia Hylton home; GEORGE CATHY KELNER; Sally Patrick; Michael F. Jones; Jon Dewey; Yalecrest CC Chair Subject: Re: ADU Zoning Warren, Thank you for copying us on your email regarding the City's proposed idea of allowing Accessory Dwelling Units. Personally, I think this is a terrible idea and it should NOT be implemented city wide. The Yalecrest Executive Board is opposed to the idea. Here are my comments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit section that was included with the "Sustainability Code Revision Project". The Accessory Dwelling Unit section language should be removed from the Sustainability Project. It needs to stand alone as a separate ordinance as this is a huge issue that would have tremendous impact on our neighborhoods. These units would not work in the Yalecrest neighborhood. Yalecrest is a Single-Family Residential Neighborhood - (R-1-5000 and R-1-7000) with the exception of two businesses (zoned .„eo CN). Allowing accessory dwelling units would essentially change the underlying zoning from single family to multi-family. Allowing these dwellings would eliminate the predictability of living (or moving into) a quiet single family neighborhood. We already have the problem in the Yalecrest area of"lack of privacy" when oversized new and existing garages and home additions loom over neighboring yards and homes. These units should NOT be allowed in R-1 zoned areas. Character - Yalecrest already has a huge problem in maintaining the character of our historic neighborhood due to historically insensitive new construction and additions. Encouraging this type of development would only add to the problem. The "worse case" has to considered. As with the Hubbard McMansion and the new detached garage at 1605 Princeton Avenue, people WILL take advantage of the City's ordinances and push the limits. The garage at 1605 Princeton has three dormers on the east side, has a sliding glass door on the southwest side and is almost as tall as the primary structure. An illegal sewer line was "caught" by the city and plugged. It is clear this detached garage was planned as a dwelling unit. Please drive by and see the garage for yourself! 1 Don't apply this city wide. If it appears that this ordinance would be appropriate for a particular area of SLC (and you have the public support), try it out and see how it goes first. This idea might work some areas of SLC (possibly along existing public transit lines). UTA has eliminated a tremendous amount of public transportation in the Yalecrest area over the years and there are no nearby businesses to easily walk to (#7 and #8). Lot coverage - how would these units impact the current lot coverage requirements? The lot coverage percentage was reduced in 2005 with the city-wide compatible infill zoning. Units and Occupancy - would there be a cap on units per lot? What about the rule of"no more than three unrelated adults living together"? How many occupants would be allowed in these units? Parking - As I mentioned, large out of scale garages are a huge issue for the Yalecrest area. And who would want to see parking pads added to our lots (and is getting rid of green space for asphalt or concrete parking pads sustainable)? I don't see how the parking could work. Most lots and garages in our area are small and a lot of sidents already park one car on the street. Where would all the cars be parked? Off street parking has to be a requirement. This should NOT take precedence over other existing regulations. This section should NOT be rushed through. I moved into our neighborhood years ago with the assumption (and the zoning) that only single-family homes would be line our streets and garages (containing, cars) would line most backyards. Thank you. Lisette Gibson, Chair - Yalecrest Neighborhood Council Quoting Warren Lloyd <warren@lloyd-arch.com>: > Cheri: > Thanks for your work on the Sustainability Code Project. I am responding (in red) to the General questions with some brief > comments with a cc to several neighborhood advocates for their thoughts. 2 > Happy New Year! > > Warren > > General Concepts > Regulations to ensure mitigation of negative impacts > 1. Limit Size of Unit: Proposal is to limit the size of Accessory >Dwelling Unit to ensure it is subordinate of the principal structure. > 2. Owner Occupancy: Require either the principal unit or the ADU to be > occupied by the owner of the lot. > General Questions > 1. Parking Requirement: Should an Accessory Dwelling Unit have to > include on-site parking? > In general I would be opposed to additional on-site parking > requirements for the ADU but would suggest a tool that would give > planning staff ability to respond to specific conditions where on- > street parking problems have been documented. > 2. Where to Allow: In what zoning districts should Accessory Dwelling > Units be allowed? > I would consider it in ALL residential zones > 3. Should the size of the structure conform to the regulations of > Principal Structures or Accessory Structures? > I would use the Accessory Structure standards > 4. Should these regulations take precedence over other existing > regulations if there is a conflict (such as those relating to > compatible infill or historic preservation regulations?) >No, but they should be a criteria for approving a special exception or > variance. > In II overlay districts, the ADU could be noted in a staff report as > mitigating or supporting condition to an application ''' IN > Is there a way to confirm the intent of an applicant to provide > additional housing? 3 > Have we now come full circle from requiring homeowners to verify that > the accessory structure (ADU) WON'T be used for housing to wiring that it WILL be housing? > 5. Should there be design guidelines for these types of structures > (where they are detached?) > Yes, There should be a Design guideline for detached ADU's > They could be developed from the patterns established in the > Compatible Infill Overlay and the Residential Design Guidelines from > the H Overlay. > 6. Should home occupations be allowed in Accessory Dwelling Units? > Yes > 7. Other > Warren K Lloyd, AIA LEED AP > Principal > LloydArchitects > Salt Lake City + Seattle > 573 E 600 S, Salt Lake City UT 84102 > ph 801.328.3245 /fax 801.328.3246 > lloyd-arch.com 4 Coffey, Cheri From: Warren Lloyd [warren©Iloyd-arch.com] Amok Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 10:03 AM To: Coffey, Cheri Cc: Yalecrest CC Chair; Hunter Esther; Oliver Anne; Schwemmer AIA Annie; Huffaker Kirk; Love, Jill; Garrott, Luke; Martin, JT; Simonsen Soren Subject: ADU Zoning Cheri: Thanks for your work on the Sustainability Code Project. I am responding(in red)to the General questions with some brief comments with a cc to several neighborhood advocates for their thoughts. Happy New Year! Warren General Concepts Regulations to ensure mitigation of negati\c impacts I.Limit Size of Unit:Proposal is to limit the size of Accessory Dwelling Unit to ensure it is subordinate of the principal structure. 2.Owner Occupancy: Require either the principal unit or the ADU to be occupied by the owner of the lot. General Questions I.Parking Requirement: Should an Accessory Dwelling Unit ha\e to include on-site parking? I: r.l I wc•u!d he c;•,i•.rd tod'.i:i: al r a i i _ ect ir. .e us f.: t. AD i .,. ., p1,1,111 _s:a'7„,:!i. to to speci!..L corditi_.._r.^e; cr.- tre p.:. i;_ r:.:,_ .:_ i t e bee 2.Where to Allow: In what zoning districts should Accessory Dwelling Units be allowed? I .. .;d cor. i'rri' it 3. Should the size of the structure conform to the regulations of Principal Structures or Accessory Structures? 4.Should these regulations take precedence over other existing regulations if there is a conflict(such as those relating to compatible intill or historic preservation regulations?) \ ee l li c e;.,t ::. . ....1it Al). cou.d he '' in a. re, .as -t: _ .. _z,. . t c; :o y, r:..;.., . .i_ i ite: rfan ;ice:: t,• o ii _ ,...'.,.:or,..Fro. I1.t'..\ke we en „ !uil ei•c e e.:urirr Fo: .Jw::er to r l'...l:-e..I'Ce On ( \','i')G O\'i be fr, Fz•t:-:n_ ; .ln . : ., ,• \\I1. be!:;,,.h 5.Should there he design guidelines for these types of structures(where they are detached?) `es. sh:t:!?he a I). er ':ii,.. f. '?ctaeite?ADl . he co':'?be de e,e:e?' .tin'the p.lt.,... .,. he?I: the C•cf;'ie r'F.. at,. ti,e R.-L..i...... 1;: Ci....,...... I:. I I (1,... - 6.Should home occupations be allowed in Accessory Dwelling Units? Yes 7.Other 1 Coffey, Cheri From: Owen & Deanna Lunt[odlunt@juno.com] Ask Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 4:52 PM :ter To: Coffey, Cheri Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units I belong to the Yalecrest Community Council, and I oppose the "Accessory Dwelling Units" proposal by SLC. Deanna Lunt 1870 Harvard Ave. Salt Lake City, Ut 84108 Criminal Lawyer Criminal Lawyers - Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=3W1SwGVJ- yHzEg9nABsd8QAAJz1G-ildoot8yPQSjfg0F0tsYAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAiFgAAAAA= 1 Coffey, Cheri gym: vankays5@aol.com nt: Thursday, December 24, 2009 10:39 AM To: Coffey, Cheri Subject: ADU'S As a resident of the Yalecrest community (residing at 1234 So. 1800 E.) I encourage making ADU's a viable option to our neighborhood. I think the economic advantages would make living in this area accessible to more people, and might make it possible for my wife and Ito stay here. Neil vanKeizerswaard 1 Coffey, Cheri From: Tom A. Lund [talund@tannerco.com] A , Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 10:08 AM To: Coffey, Cheri Cc: Gretchen Lund Subject: "Accessory Dwelling Units" proposal Cheri, My wife, Gretchen, and I have lived in the Harvard/Yale area for almost 20 years. Even though most of the lots and houses are small, it's been a wonderful place to raise our children. We recently learned that the Salt Lake City Planning Division is considering an ordinance allowing "Accessory Dwelling Units", and we wanted to give you our input: We are against such an ordinance because we feel that our neighborhood already has a high density, old quaint density but density nevertheless. Simply put, one would be hard pressed to find another historical neighborhood, other than the avenues and central city, with the density that exists in the Harvard/Yale area. This proposed ordinance would create additional traffic and "new rental density" that would detract from, not add to, the quality of life in our area. The small lots in our area already don't have very much open space. At a time when we are hearing more and more about "open space", it is hard for us to understand why a proposed ordinance like this is even being considered! Thank you for taking our input. Please share our input with the SLC Planning Division. Please feel free to call us as well! Thank you. Tom & Gretchen Lund 1553 Laird Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 C-(801) 856-2005 This e-mail message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message from your computer. To ensure compliance with U.S. Treasury rules, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. Tax advice contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by the recipient for the purpose of 1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code, and 2) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed in this communication. 1 Coffey, Cheri om: Coffey, Cheri .nt: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 4:23 PM To: Coffey, Cheri Subject: ADU Public Comment Received a voice mail message today from Wayne Cannon at 1373 East Harvard Avenue. He is supportive of Accessory Dwelling Units if they require on-site parking(and they don't generate a parking problem) and they are built in a way that is compatible with the neighborhood (no garage mahals). He is not sure how regulations can address that but if they can he supports them. 12/22/09 1 Coffey, Cheri From: LYNN Pershing [Ikpershing@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 2:39 PM To: Coffey, Cheri; dmgib@mission.com Subject: accessory dwelling units Dear Ms Coffey I implore you to stop the madness and continuous, aggressive destruction of one of SLC most charming neighborhoods (YaleCrest). I have read the accessory dwelling units and sustainability code revisions and have concluded it allows for rental additions to existing family dwellings. Provisions for consistency with existing architecture, etc are always "good speak" but have "no teeth to defend or protect" these provisions. Homes in Yalecrest neighborhood are small-medium sized single family dwelling units and a fair number of already existing rental duplexes. We don't need nor want to become rental units. It is important to the city that this neighborhood retains its property values. Rental additions will only decrease home values. Previous city approval of'megamansions' and new commercial business has surely been beneficial to the city's tax base, but is destroying the very charming fiber of this historic neighborhood that has been critical to its high real estate demand, excellent property values and high quality of life (walkability) which benefits the city's tax base. The City speaks of'improving our city neighborhoods' but doesn't interact with residents to identify how that might be best accomplished. Stop the Madness, the Greed and the Destruction of what is inherently good. Protect what is precious and so easily lost to good intentions. Go change something that is NOT working--the DOWNTOWN. Get the massive downtown projects completed, give free parking for year to re-establish downtown shopping behavior and get commerce rolling there again. Leave us alone--we're already a great neighborhood and doing our part to insure a "better Downtown living experience". DO NOT implement this proposed city ordinance/zoning change. It will DESTROY the YaleCrest neighborhood, its charm, congeniality and high quality of life. Respectfully, Lynn K. Pershing, Ph.D. Consultant Dermatopharmaceutics tel: 801/971-4959 email: lkpershino0mail.com Coffey, Cheri om: Sally M Patrick [Sally.Patrick@utah.edu] .;nt: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 9:01 AM To: Yalecrest CC Chair; Coffey, Cheri Cc: Sally M Patrick Subject: RE: Accessory Dwelling Units Comments Cheri- Lisette did a great job of expanding on my initial comments to you-I second these 100% on behalf of Yalecrest. Sally M. Patrick 1413 Laird Circle YCC Secretary/Treasurer From: dmgib@xmission.com [dmgib@xmission.com] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 2:50 PM To: Coffey, Cheri Cc: dmgib@xmission.com Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units Comments Cheri, Here are my comments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit section that was included with the Sustainability Code Revision Project. I feel that the Accessory Dwelling Unit section language should be removed from the ",stainability Project. It needs to stand alone as a separate ordinance as this is a huge sue that would have tremendous impacts on our neighborhoods. These units would not work in the Yalecrest neighborhood. Yalecrest is an entirely single-family residential neighborhood (R-1-5000 and R-1-7000) with the exception of two businesses (zoned CN) . Allowing accessory dwelling units would essentially change the underlying zoning from single family to multi-family. Allowing these dwellings would eliminate the predictability of living (or moving into) a quiet single family neighborhood. We already have the problem of "lack of privacy" when oversized new and existing garages and home additions loom over neighboring yards. These units should not be allowed in R-1 zoned areas. Character - Yalecrest already has a huge problem in maintaining the character of our historic neighborhood due to historically insensitive new construction and additions. Encouraging this type of development would only add to the problem. Don't apply this City-Wide. If it appears to be appropriate for a particular area of SLC (and you have the public support), try it out and see how it goes. This idea might work in some areas of SLC (possibly along existing public transit lines) . UTA has eliminated a tremendous amount of public transportation in the Yalecrest area over the years and there are no nearby businesses to easily walk to (#7 and ##8) . Lot coverage - how would allowing these dwellings impact lot coverage requirements? The lot coverage percentage was reduced in 2005 with the city-wide compatible infill zoning. _,nits - would there be a cap on units per lot and what about the rule of "no more than three unrelated adults living together"? 1 Parking - As I mentioned, large out of scale garages are a huge issue for the Yalecrest area. And who would want to see parking pads added to our lots (and is getting rid of green space for asphalt or concrete parking pads sustainable)? I don't see how the parking could work. Most lots and garages in our area are small and a lot of residents already park one car on the street. This should NOT take precedence over other existing regulations. This section should NOT be rushed through. I am in favor of the other sustainable measures. Thank you, Lisette Gibson Yalecrest Neighborhood Council Chair Yalecrest Compatible Infill Ordinance Committee 40 2 Coffey, Cheri •om: k moncla [kmonc2003@yahoo.com] ,nt: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 8:49 AM To: Coffey, Cheri I am opposed to this, It seems that it would just increase rental units in our older neighborhoods, to which we have to many already. It would increase traffic and congestion and it is a terrible idea. i Coffey, Cheri From: Michael F. Jones [mjones@mfjlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 7:44 AM To: Coffey, Cheri Cc: DeLaMare-Schaefer, Mary; Yalecrest CC Chair Subject: FW: Yalecrest Notice-Accessory Dwelling Units proposed by SLC Attachments: Accessory Dwelling Units Purpose and Background.pdf Cheri, You may recall that I was a member of the Board of Adjustment for 15 years starting in 1993, and Chair of the Board from 2001 to the end of my service in 2008. I noted this morning that you're the staff contact for this ADU idea, so I'm sending you my comment to Mary next below. In order not to be selfish and to look at this not just from the perspective of my own Yalecrest neighborhood but also the rest of the City, I must say that this is a terrible idea for much if not all of the City. It would change the scale and appearance of any neighborhood where it was permitted—destroying Federal Heights, the Avenues, Sugarhouse, and so on. The owner-occupancy aspect would be impossible to enforce. Please stop this terrible idea before it gains any traction at all. Respectfully, Mike mjones@mfjtaw.com ' www.mfjtaw.com 1 . ..'!;;a'1G?7 tr?6t is rrimi,'0C72cl or confidenti'i /1 , :(: 'iI Cri�c"ice (�,�lr.t6 ,..,d I Ih;?; > c it;'- lay/ ri7`, -, i,,.l 6,-1.'7.71 l�� r, '�..,r•_....: ' _ _ . ,-'�^'r`l„�i - l;r�''i ::i From: Michael F. Jones [mailto:mjones@mfjlaw.com] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 17:22 To: 'De La Mare-Schaefer, Mary' Cc: 'dmgib@xmission.com' Subject: FW: Yalecrest Notice - Accessory Dwelling Units proposed by SLC Hi Mary, This ADU idea is simply a terrible one as it relates to my Yalecrest neighborhood. Without doubt, it would result in even larger garages, and even more of a scale problem than my neighborhood already has, not to mention tearing asunder the historical fabric of the neighborhood once and for all. Respectfully, Mike mjones@mfjtaw.com www.mfjtaw.com chat l."-,i/ ,f;C.'C co;7fidou:ml. if )�! i c, I pi �..r. �'' i' 'i_ c1;. ii1 d�1 i'if� �'� 'ri � �u:. ,.. .. ,.;L...,,, ,._.. .i a!).-.','i7 rll L�:Ji"J•t ll✓.',I'v .��I.,,_ .. 1 t:l by le!Ji yiiJ a ,..._ iJ <, r. d.,. ,e �r • 1 I• ! any �t 1- te; �ti; c ( e-mail doesnot Vim _ ^' r•`.li_ •iiur` e' l -hip `-0t��1rLr1 'ativr7 from G t1_'ii: G' f7„ JOrI<,iV„t�'+'.'1 Tr]i_ C•� o:_ �;r crri',..r ., ,. ��t;,cil;�l7b• ,j� yo._1 if you are not aireadv a client of this law fi[m. )m: dmgib@xmission.com [mailto:dmgib@xmission.com] ant: Monday, December 21, 2009 11:38 To: dmgib@xmission.com Subject: Yalecrest Notice - Accessory Dwelling Units proposed by SLC Neighbors, The Salt Lake City Planning Division is currently looking at creating an ordinance that, if approved, could greatly impact our neighborhood. The City is moving forward with a Sustainability Code Revision Project that includes, among other items, Allowing "Accessory Dwelling Units". I encourage you to read the attached document and send your comments to the staff contact, Cheri Coffey, 801.535.6188, or(cheri.coffev.c slceov.com). The proposed ordinance is in the early stages and the City is eager to receive comments. You can sign up for SLC Planning notices at: http://www.slceov.com/CED/planning,/paces/projects.htm Reminder-NO Jan. 6 Yalecrest Meeting Happy Holidays! Lisette Gibson "alecrest Neighborhood Council Chair .y 801-583-9316 Accessory Dwelling, Unit (definition): A residential unit that is located on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit, either internal to or attached to the single family unit or in a detached structure. The accessory dwelling unit shall be a complete housekeeping unit with a shared or separate entrance, kitchen, sleeping area, closet space, and bathroom facilities. Public Open House Notification Sustainability Code Revision Project. The Planning Division is currently working with Clarion Associates to develop various amendments to the City?s Zoning, Site Development and Subdivision Ordinances relating to sustainability regulations. The proposed changes include allowance for ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, Alternative Energy Systems (Solar Oriented Subdivisions, Small Wind Energy Systems, Solar Arrays, Solar Collection Systems); Urban Agriculture (Community Gardens, Seasonal Farm Stands, Community Supported Agriculture, hoophouses, greenhouses and coldframes) and Street and Pedestrian Connectivity Standards for new development (Staff contact: Cheri Coffey at 801.535.6188 or 'ieri.coffevnslcgov.com). 2 Coffey, Cheri From: dmgib@xmission.com Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 2:51 PM To: Coffey, Cheri Cc: Yalecrest CC Chair Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units Comments Attachments: Plaintext Version of Message; HTML Version of Message Cheri, Here are my comments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit section that was included with the Sustainability Code Revision Project. I feel that the Accessory Dwelling Unit section language should be removed from the Sustainability Project. It needs to stand alone as a separate ordinance as this is a huge issue that would have tremendous impacts on our neighborhoods. These units would not work in the Yalecrest neighborhood. Yalecrest is an entirely single-family residential neighborhood (R-1-5000 and R-1-7000) with the exception of two businesses (zoned CN). Allowing accessory dwelling units would essentially change the underlying zoning from single family to multi-family. Allowing these dwellings would eliminate the predictability of living (or moving into) a quiet single family neighborhood. We already have the problem of "lack of privacy" when oversized new and existing garages and home additions loom over neighboring yards: ' These units should not be allowed in R-1 zoned areas. Character - Yalecrest already has a huge problem in maintaining the character of our historic neighborhood due to historically insensitive new construction and additions. Encouraging this type of development would only add to the problem. Don't apply this City-Wide. If it appears to be appropriate for a particular area of SLC (and you have the public support), try it out and see how it goes. This idea might work in some areas of SLC (possibly along existing public transit lines). UTA has eliminated a tremendous amount of public transportation in the Yalecrest area over the years and there are no nearby businesses to easily walk to (#7 and #8). Lot coverage -how would allowing these dwellings impact lot coverage requirements? The lot coverage percentage was reduced in 2005 with the city-wide compatible infill zoning. Units - would there be a cap on units per lot and what about the rule of"no more than three unrelated adults living together"? �' Parking - As I mentioned, large out of scale garages are a huge issue for the Yalecrest area. And who would want to see parking pads added i to our lots (and is getting rid of green space for asphalt or concrete parking pads sustainable)? I don't see how the parking could work. Most lots and garages in our area are small and a lot of residents eady park one car on the street. This should NOT take precedence over other existing regulations. This section should NOT be rushed through. I am in favor of the other sustainable measures. Thank you, Lisette Gibson Yalecrest Neighborhood Council Chair Yalecrest Compatible Infill Ordinance Committee 2 Coffey, Cheri From: GEORGE CATHY KELNER [kelnergeo@msn.com] Amok Sent: Monday, December21, 2009 1:38 PM To: Coffey, Cheri Subject: accessory dwelling unit proposal Dear Ms. Coffey, We have taken the opportuity to review the information you sent out regarding the possiblity of creating regulations that would allow accessory dwelling units in existing residential neighborhoods. We live in the Yalecrest neighborhood and have been working to have it designated as a local historic district. While we appreciate the city's efforts to develop sustainable green policies, we absolutely and wholeheartedly oppose opening up the Yalecrest neighborhood or other city neighborhoods that are historically significant to the character of our city to accessory dwelling units. The character of our Yalecrest neighborhood has eroded significantly with teardowns and oversized out of character additions. The privacy of neighbors has been encroached upon, traffic has increased, parking problems have grown, property values have suffered and ill will has replaced neighborhood cohesion. We strongly believe that these problems would grow exponentially if our beautiful old neighborhoods would be subjected to accessory dwelling units. We urge the city to drop this proposal. George and Cathy Kelner 1000 Military Drive 1 Page 1 of 1 From: Virginia Hylton [virginiahylton@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 5:11 PM To: Coffey, Cheri; GEORGE CATHY KELNER; Sally M Patrick; Yalecrest CC Chair Subject: Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Ms. Coffey; While I completely support sustainability, I do not feel that wholesale zoning for accessory dwelling units throughout Salt Lake's residential neighborhoods is in the best interest of Salt Lake's residents. There are many neighborhoods that have a well recognized development pattern and sense of place. My Yalecrest neighborhood is one example. We would like to be recognized for our architectural and historic contribution to Salt Lake City, as well as our quality of life. Allowing additions, remodels and construction of new detached structures to accomodate a second residential unit in a single-family neighborhood and the concomitant increase in traffic and parking pressure on our residential streets is contrary to our goals. Respectfully, Virginia Hylton Page 1 of 3 From: Sally M Patrick [Sally.Patrick@utah.edu] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 3:18 PM To: Coffey, Cheri Cc: GEORGE CATHY KELNER; Jon Dewey; Virginia Hylton home; Yalecrest CC Chair Subject: Accessority Dwelling Units Comment Hello Cheri- As Secretary/Treasurer of the Yalecrest Community Council, Lisette Gibson forwarded to several of us the Accessorily Dwelling Units Info on the agenda for the open house tonight. Here are my comments back to Lisette which I am also sending to you for tonight's discussion. I strongly support our YCC letter to the City Council requesting considerat:on for Historic District designation and expect those considerations to take precedence over other Accessorily Dwelling Unit considerations This is indeed an important issue and could indeed be a Trojan horse > as a way to supersede the Historic District issues of compatible > design and size we are pushing. While I support the "green" and > aging population issues, I would not want allowances made to our > direction in order to allow for encroachment for accessory > structures-I've got one right next door! Sally Patrick 1413 Laird Circle (1210 South 1410 East) From: dmgib©xmission.com [mailto:dmgib@xmission.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 3:04 PM 44 , To: Sally M Patrick " Cc: Virginia Hylton home; GEORGE CATHY KELNER; Jon Dewey; sally.patrick@gmail.com Subject: RE: RE: Accessority Dwelling Units Info Good comments Sally! All, we need to get on this NOW! Everyone, please send your comments to Cheri Coffey. What do you think of me emailing it out to our distribution list? Thanks, Lisette Quoting Sally M Patrick<Salk.Patrick a utah.cdu>: > Hi Lisette- > This is indeed an important issue and could indeed be a Trojan horse > as a way to supersede the Historic District issues of compatible > design and size we are pushing. While I support the "green" and > aging population issues, I would not want allowances made to our > direction in order to allow for encroachment for accessory > structures-I've got one right next door! > > My 2 cents > Sally > PS all-please note new personal e-mail. salk.natricl:a gmail.com Page 2 of 3 > From: (!111L'11) ,<1',li.colli xmi io11.C1)1111 > Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 1:08 PM > To: Virginia Hylton home; GEORGE CATHY KELNER; Jon Dewey; > dinaib a xfl i si 11tcon1 > Subject: Fwd: RE: Accessority Dwelling Units Info > See attached from Cheri Coffey. Accessory Dwelling Units are just > one item that will be presented at the SLC Planning Open House > tonight that is included with other "Sustainability Code > Revisions". > Here is the Open House info and Cheri's contact info. I will try to > attend the open house tonight. I think this one is very important > and we should all send comments! What do you all think? > Thanks, Lisette > Sustainability Code Revision Project?The Planning Division is > currently working with Clarion Associates to develop various > amendments to the City?s Zoning, Site Development and Subdivision > Ordinances relating to sustainability regulations. The proposed > changes include allowance for Accessory Dwelling Units, Alternative > Energy Systems (Solar Oriented Subdivisions, Small Wind Energy > Systems. Solar Arrays; Solar Collection Systems); Urban Agriculture > (Community Gardens, Seasonal Farm Stands, Community Supported > Agriculture, hoophouses, greenhouses and coldframes) and Street and > Pedestrian Connectivity Standards for new development (Staff contact: > Cheri Coffey at 801.535.6188 or > Thursday December 17, 2009 > From 4:30 to 6:00 P.M. > FIRST FLOOR HALLWAY > SALT LAKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILIDNO > Forwarded message from (.I i.C,-,t;cv s1, -cc, .12,);1, > Date: Thu. 17 Dec 2009 12:36:32 -0700 > From: "Coffey. Cheri" <C i eri.t.'nt't'�< sicgoy.co:-.1> > Reply-To: "Coffey. Cheri" << 1121-i.( o11C\ .1 sleg,)\.;,,:..> > Subject: RE: Accessority Dwelling Units Info > To: Yalecrest CC Chair < 1 ,i}, xmi,<ion.c�)ai> > Lisette. > I have attached the open house materials. We don't have a finalized > version of the ordinance. We are taking the opportunity at > tonight's meeting to pose general questions to the public on the > issues to get a better understanding of what issues you may have. > Page 3 of 3 > Please send me your comments. We will use them to help us > finalize the draft ordinance. Once we get a draft ordinance, we > will send it back out for the public to comment on as and hold > meetings to receive public input. > Thanks for your interest. (Please forward to anyone who may be > interested.) > Cheri > From: xmission.com f mailto:dm«ih a xmission.coml > Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 12:24 PM > To: Coffey. Cheri > Subject: Accessority Dwelling Units Info > Hi Cheri, > I would like to know if there is any information you could email to >me on the Accessory Dwelling Units that will be presented at today's > Open House. I don't know if I will be able to attend the open > house. > Are you looking at proposing the Dwellings Units for all parts of the > City and in all residential areas (like the Yalecrest area)? > Any information would be appreciated. > Thanks! > Lisette Gibson > Yalecrest Neighborhood Council Chair > End forwarded message Comments to Historic Landmarks Commission Re draft Sustainability ordinances 12/2/09 Speaking about the 4 draft ordinances in the sustainability initiative: These proposals are being fast-tracked and because of their potential impact on historic preservation are worth your attention. The draft ordinances address connectivity, urban agriculture, alternative energy, and accessory dwelling units. They were developed for other communities, in different economic times...communities that must not have the historic resources that ours does. A problem that a member of the ZAP group identified is the trumping of ALL other zoning regulations. So if there's a conflict between historic preservation and the provisions of the urban agriculture ordinance, urban agriculture prevails. My greatest disappointment is the proposed ordinance for accessory dwelling units. More on that shortly. Here are some scenarios that could happen and could have a negative impact on historical resources. -private vegetable gardens in our historic parks with the associated maintenance issues, -connectivity requirements that disrupt the historical development pattern of our blocks, -the absence of any provisions for solar in multiple family or mixed use projects--and the failure to protect solar access in those parts of the City. The focus on single-and two-family dwellings reflects how disconnected the proposed ordinance is with Salt Lake and with our economic times. When do you expect to see a new subdivision with more than 25 single-family and twin-family dwellings on the Planning Commission's agenda? My greatest disappointment is the proposal to restrict accessory dwelling units to owner-occupied single family dwellings. The huge irony is that accessory dwelling units won't be allowed at all in the very parts of the City that retain most of the historic carriage houses. I had viewed accessory dwelling units as a possible incentive for historic preservation. The path that the consultant has chosen offers nothing for property owners in historic districts. In fact, accessory dwellings under this proposed ordinance offer nothing for me on any of my properties. There is a significant opportunity for historic preservation here that is being lost as these proposals ignore structures that already have a history of being sustainable. Cindy Cromer i , r _,__= Greater Avenues Community Council " --- =___ — _- SCR TO: g'�� _-iai:e= 1� 'F n till:-�i`d tL D �•,. 11111, =1`•1 —` Y March 3 2011 SCANNED BY: ,(2.j DACE: gC; . ' The Honorable Ralph Becker r j ; I Mayor of Salt Lake City 451 South State Street Greater Avenues Community Council ,\IJ4 iv h ,G � ( l``,z_-_, Dave Van Langeveld, C'�1a11'771C(!1 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 807 No✓yhcliffe Drive Dear Mayor Becker, Sall Lake City, UT 84103-3342 The Greater Avenues Community Council took an official position last evening in opposition to the proposed City Ordinance on Accessory Dwelling Units. This position was passed by a vote of 30 to 2. The vote was taken after months of discussion and input from residents as well as attendance at informational hearings on the subject. We also had city planning people attend meetings to explain the proposal in detail. Numerous points of concern were raised with the ADU proposal. A few of those concerns are: 1. The ordinance would go against the Master Plan created in and supported by our community for the last 30 years and as a City-wide mandate would subvert the whole Master Plan-based planning process. 2. The Avenues has worked for years to control deterioration of our neighborhoods, including gaining the adoption of SR1-A zoning for most of the Avenues. The ADU proposal would subvert the existing zoning. 3. The owner occupancy requirement would be very difficult to enforce and if it were enforced could lead to empty ADUs being used for business uses the area is not zoned for. 4, Most one bedroom units would add two vehicles to the already crowded streets and parking problems related to that crowding. 5. There already is an abundance of available housing of this size in the City currently with more being brought on-line in the near term. 6. Avenue residents have little if any confidence in the Planning and Zoning Office's ability to enforce the existing ordinances let a lone a new ordinance. Complaint based enforcement pits neighbor against neighbor and that is all we have known for years. It is for these and many other reasons that we have taken this action. We hope that the City Council will understand the depth of these concerns and not pass an ordinance allowing ADUs. Sincerely, (r--- av�n Langeveld Chairman, GACC cc: Stan Penfold Las side COMMUNITY COUNCIL 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 east.central@live.com page I 1 March 17, 2011 Michael Maloy, AICP Principal Planner Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake City Planning Commission c/o Angela Hasenberg, Senior Secretary Salt Lake City Corporation angela.hasenberQ(Islctizov.com Regarding: PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units Dear Planning Commissioners; .,0 Gary and I have been asked to write to you in behalf of the general membership and the Executive Board of the Eastside Community Council & East Central Planning District(formerly called East Central) to consider our recommendations for a successful pilot of the ADU policy. Our area represents from South Temple to 1700 South, 1365 East to 700 East or 9 neighborhoods, 3 business districts. First a thank you and also a plea for your ongoing support. Our community council area is not opposed to change or to growth. We have educated ourselves to clearly understand the many changes that need to take place to ready for the growth and housing options anticipated by 2040. On the other hand, this area is also uniquely fragile. It's location within walking distance to downtown,the University of Utah, Westminster and Sugar House, with transit intersecting the area and charming business districts such as Ninth and Ninth and the proposed Canal District makes it highly desirable. For the same reasons it is also at risk. It is a rich fabric with an extensive history and undisputed character(example please see the This Old House article included with this letter). A neighborhood where on the same block you see a 5 story apartment buildings, a group home, a medical clinic, duplexes, single family homes, neighborhood businesses such as a coffee shop and a yoga studio. In other words, we have organically grown the very sustainable and walkable community that the City hopes to encourage throughout Salt Lake. Eas side COMMUNITY COUNCIL 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 east.central@live.com page 12 A thoughtful approach to land use policy that takes into account our fully developed neighborhood can never be done in a broad paint brush manner or we end up loossing what we all cherish with unintended consequences. We believe detailed planning as well as extensive community vetting/buy in ensures that good growth can be realized. We do not simply fight for single family homes but instead for the full fabric of our council area. So next we would like to add our applause to the administsration for taking the added time to • develop this particular land use policy. To date,we feel that the community involvement and the time invested to create a tailored ADU policy for Salt Lake City has been handled with good communication and care. We hope this continues. Last, we understand that this pilot may be restricted to areas with fixed transit such as ours. We believe better would be a pilot spread across the different areas of the City and the different zones which would give better data for when later the City opens this policy to all areas; would give equal access to this new and lucrative property right and instead of negatively "packing" our less affluent areas of the city, provide this option to areas with larger lots better able to absorb the impacts. However, long familiar with multiple units and muliiple uses in our area. in concept, the membership and the ECPD Executive Board are highly interested in andy fully supportive of the "idea" of ADU's. The following are what we believe we will need for a successful and supported pilot should you propose it.be in our area. Please consider: 1. The owner occupied requirement be upheld. 2. These units be counted when calculating density. 3. The first time a unit is approved it include an on site inspection for both building and health/life/safety. (Could be administered through a third party.) Eas ide COMMUNITY COUNCIL 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 east.central@live.com page 13 4. The program be fully self funding including all necessary enforcement. We encourage this same thought for the business licensing of existing units down to 2 units. 5. Design standards include the requirement to maintain the green, open space characteristics of the neighborhood in front, side and backyards rather than the wholesale tearing up of property frontage, side yards and back yards to install parking lots, parking pads, and asphalt instead of a yard. We ask that standards be included to protect this point. 6. We would need a targeted education/enforcement effort in this area. We have a disproportionately high amount of exisitng illegal duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, etc. that are causing both the City and neighborhood extensive impact/cost/deterioration. 7. Eliminate the special exception unit legalization process currently in place that bypasses the standards put in place in each zone and the master plan. Put in place as a 1-2 year temporary measure to protect property rights in 95 is being used to bypass the system now 16 years later. It more than any other program has caused significant problems in the area and between neighbors. Also, costs to City to administer this program are very high in staff and board time. S. Implementation of the Good Landlord Program. Thank you for considering our thoughts and recommendations. In behalf of the Executive Board and General Membership Gary Felt Esther Hunter Co-Chairs East Central Planning District cc ECPD Executive Board Luke Garrott Jill Love Wilf Sommerkorn East side COMMUNITY CC)UNC€!. 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 east.central@live.com page 14 http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/photos/0„20466527 20917999,00.html This Old House Ten Best Old House Neighborhoods 2011: The West and Northwest By: Keith Pandolfi, Gillian Barth, Carole Braden,Amanda Keiser, Eric Hagerman, Sal Vaglica, and Danielle Blundell, This Old House online For the fourth year in a row, we've tracked down North America's most timeless neighborhoods—places where lovingly crafted old houses have extraordinary pasts and unarguably promising futures. With help from our friends at Portland, Oregon-based Pres riationDirecto;y.com—who distributed our nomination forms to more than 14,000 historical societies, neighborhood groups, and preservation nonprofits—we've assembled our biggest-ever list of off-the-beaten-path places that are worth eyeing for a great old home. From quaint New England villages to bustling urban enclaves, here are a dozen places where you can find a perfect old house of your own along the northern Atlantic coast. Here are our picks for the perfect spots to buy a home in the land west of the Rockies. Eas side COMMUNITY COUNCIL 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 east.central@live.com page 15 University District, Salt Lake City, Utah w 41. -4,4`___,a-vic-4 :.- :: iiizt, ::-,,,..: ' ,, ...7,41i.A.,:-.. - `.i i g`+r-!r.x ti 7Y: M F. . \ Young families live alongside professors and college students in this Salt Lake City neighborhood between downtown and the University of Utah campus. Think of the University District as a perfect college town, where residential streets divided by grassy medians are within walking distance of locally owned pizza parlors and coffee shops; and where a sea of residents, donning their finest red and white, migrate to nearby Rice-Eccles stadium on autumnal Saturdays to watch their beloved Utes play football. "People love this neighborhood," says Realtor Celeste Council, whose clients are drawn to its progressive vibe and the close-set houses, which she says adds to the University District's sense of community. The neighborhood had a scare in the 1970s when developers started knocking down historic houses to make way for apartments and commercial buildings. But residents fought back, secured new zoning laws, and got a large chunk of the neighborhood listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Houses Most are brick or clapboard Folk Victorians built for University of Utah professors and employees between 1900 and 1920. Other styles include Gothic Revival, Queen Anne, Eas side COMMUNITY COUNCIL 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 east.central@live.com page 16 Tudor, and Craftsman. You can get a modest two-bedroom Folk Victorian for less than $200,000, though larger homes are priced $500,000 and up. Why Buy Here? Preservation-minded buyers are purchasing and renovating an increasing number of the old houses here, ensuring that this historic neighborhood retains its classic architecture and character. Many smaller, low-carbon-footprint houses are also bringing eco-savvy buyers, who install solar panels, swap thirsty lawns for xeriscaping, and use rain barrels to collect water for gardens. University District residents are also eschewing cars, relying on bicycles and Salt Lake City's light-rail system to get to and from downtown. Gallery: Best Old House Neighborhoods 2011: EAST LIBERTY PARK COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION ;, PO Box 520123 Salt Lake City, UT 84125 March 14, 2011 Ms. Jill Remington Love Salt Lake City Council Chair and District 5 Council Member 451 South State Street, Room 304 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Ms. Love, The East Liberty Park Community Organization (ELPCO) met Thursday evening, January 27, 2011 to discuss the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit portion of Mayor Becker's Sustainability Initiative. At the conclusion of the discussion, the members present voted overwhelmingly against adopting the Accessory Dwelling Unit portion of the Mayor's Sustainability ordinance. The vote was against ADU's being allowed in East Liberty Park. Specifically cited as concerns were (in no particular order): 1. Ultimately, ADU's will negatively affect the essential character of the East Liberty Park area. Several residents said they moved here for the "feel" of East Liberty Park. 2. There are already too many renters in this area anyway, and renters continue to display an "I don't care" attitude about the neighborhood. 3. The potential created for overcrowded and canyon-like alleys. The current condition and maintenance of the alleys was a related concern. 4. Concerns about parking, traffic, and the large number of already boarded up alley garages where the occupants/owners are parking on the street. 5. The failure in the past of the City to properly and thoroughly enforce current ordinances related to planning and housing issues. 6. The general vagueness of the actual ordinance and the lack of information about enforcement and administrative costs that might be associated with enforcement. 7. General concerns about the ability of the existing infrastructure to properly handle additional density. 8. Questioned whether the proposed ordinance would reduce driving and reliance on automobiles within East Liberty Park. As co-chairperson of ELPCO, and as a result of the vote taken Thursday, January 27, 2011, I advise you that as a neighborhood, the East Liberty Park Community Organization is against Accessory Dwelling Units in any form within East Liberty Park. Sincerely, • Michael A. Cohn, Co-Chairperson • East Liberty Park Community Organization (ELPCO) PO Box 520123 Salt Lake City, UT 84125 macohn9©comcast.net 801.521.9450 phone 801.770.2040 fax macohn9 skype Cc Honorable Ralph Becker, Mayor, Salt Lake City, UT Mr. David Everitt, Chief of Staff, Mayor's Office, Salt Lake City, UT Planning Department, Salt Lake City, UT Salt Lake Community Network & Community Council Chairs Ms. Marielle Siraa, Co-Chairperson, East Liberty Park Community Organization Accela Automatio '' dows Internet Explorer ....,,, :i. -„,: a• - • . ----- - , - 4 - !1 huip, ,1go./.corn . v1-r ! _:`, •'" n li utah local uDvernments:rust In Ejit 'ie...••., F..yofite.:: Took -1.ela s?;..C......nvert - r:F. le:t I..() z.,1k, No;•1 -..?,Erch • it!, •• • a Share- g_);.,• . ,, A„.- 0 rrichae...• ' Favorites .:. 'ti'•Si igge•J-ec.Sites- "e Fine fiorri-i.:11 (1 'ellow pages P•Online Pho. "te Pecorder florre. k."._Get Hive Pid I.-ens , - a V../F.,Icerne,o Sat... Sat L:51:.e CR./Int... nAccet.3 Autorri.. 'el lorne-Pl3nninc... 1:1 Sall 1..a•e.fit';(ci.„ fdPZ Locatoi Lo3 (Soft 4.51/o City Se„, '`1 i:ke, - Page,- Safety- look- it.)••• ), ;.„ V/4)-kII,)A 11e,N.ry I ] '''- J(' ,,..,.... rl.rlaI52'.'1fl-13.)I! '4 II'111,Valf.111 %.11:,10.Ill, l',,I+1,k1,,,,J r0.'',13.2C"."_ Ici C.',c•ry o•...., Wt , 1 P,tIVIII,, 1 I 1 PI t,viti•', '..ti,lit;',:r"v , , l't,,...1,1,1 'Jo•,, 13N7ortl .t , ... tionn ,..+1,,. Seardi 1), flow lig GIS Imp Popoff o . . l'.,11irvi ly;•• ,11',1 ,(1 !ItiM,I, !II .-ijii r! !,,. , t j`1m,! !:ti t.('1 T3,)t! fi10.11111, lint,1,1111o: , I.; i‘ ".,. try Re Ildt ports III Z .,. Building I i . ,'•1 D!.37,nir.c.,,t=la,r,irv: Ccr.-r-.-055:•::-!:, -,.7,5 O...1. .7..7•_, Palph E•sc:o.or , 00 ... BuEinEss License :..illOI, 4Or "I.i —• = :•• CED i- ruginterinj --6 ,- nnenee Z fire PETI-101,1#:Pt tdrCM2010-001;12 CAI 2. ., Ge_neral Reports m FT-- "icon 0 Cancet Help ... Ground Transportation "0 0) :- II/12E f Go To ',Voi-1,1!,ci ?.. Iosocactions /S-h;'a,•a.y.,7"rah% TAsGt,C.4et,cij C11,,4••I'i r.,4 at 3 .. Parkino Mete- l • ' s Aon3ete Due (D .2SfiC17,e.r,: n .,- rf.,:ni,,,3 e3-07..,..2ot I 03/0712011 , ' I 1,,iiiroq 4- 1-.! P,..1.,,,. ASS q1111din Assijiteel to Departrrent Trans.portation n 7.?.r.:1*,'Col inIn1711,4. Engineenne Eniin....- 0 4,- Ukilitics 4. . 1.-i 11,10., 1..,-..4•••• t mriont Status status Date 3 , vved..,-I,, ,_ci-m.7.t.2,e. Acti:mBy Orertirne; 3 + • -,.,i!,,,, r—,,,. (1) • — r,,,DnivC7.•-urnm:•ni No = +. ' EnOneering 1leVil21,/ Comm ants Start Twno: • .... Otuck:m11_, 5_ ! 1/1 inort- tr•-n.Ant-Aar,rr• "...,:1,'impart first-he.f:11!-Iir 51.'n•,•,,,,N n.,,rn 7-a,,Et-c- 5.r1 r-,..T..,1,E2.,. nom no h ,-c,ncpror,-,..-p,irc.lirri -.hi:r-,-T,,,,,,-1 arie.,.-k1.-rt-r-,,P rf,-,er..1 C.7.-1,,. • +. " 1r,,•, , 1:-_ ...i.••., rid TIfIle: !lours Spent: + ' I,•Ii•,:I r-.,•1•,:vv., 134Ilotale Action by Department i Tfr; Engineering E-nginee- • Cror.rniJr.../itr,.1- P-1:•,. T me Tule:011g Start Doto Est.CompIet on Date , ,,, • Co:,-nr,..,-ity C.C,..,Oil R1V t,..., In Pos5eEsion Time:hrril i' Eisplai Email Address in ACA • . -,- ' .,:trifF 1"-;' -vie..,., and;ei:crt , Pi nplly Crw-imfr*ir;VA C.)MMetlt 011431w In ACA •+,• ' ;a:.riir-g Ceramics Cr HE:tr;230 P.II Aca liserr. To'norlictol Paa Refsrd Creator • 1'100(41c,, , • + • ' Ccr,-irrurr:,,,'..:,:e.%,'..e.;: ;., Liceilsz-d Pecftssic:131 , +'• CITA..C-_-.....^,:i E'.:iet,rg Corta,:t . .-..o MI1IM1 (21 liefiCt + ' rIty,1"-:;rci Harir,9 C.AI,C, • P-or 11111 P',7 + ' Clcf.-_. :(1-tr.n1 ,7•,.-d;‘,"-c.r. 1 Ddault.l.lodu.a . no•or ,,or tno'oo r'FF:n.•'. v : ". Trty.ted cites - f 100'.4:. • • Maloy, Michael From: Spangenberg, Craig Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:29 AM To: Maloy, Michael Cc: Isbell, Randy Subject: ADU's Categories: Other Michael: As per your request, the following addresses concerns from an enforcement standpoint: E.2.a. Owner-occupied property required. Accessory dwelling units shall only be permitted when the property owner lives on the property within either the principal dwelling or accessory dwelling unit. During our normal enforcement activities, we sometimes find it necessary to confirm who actually resides at a particular dwelling. Many times, this can prove to be difficult. No matter how many utility bills or ownership records are provided showing the mailing address of the property owner, we have no proof that the individual actually resides at that location. The net result can be frustrated neighbors who say that the City will not enforce their ordinances, when in actuality we have no proof that what the neighbors allege is accurate regarding the occupancy of the property. Amok In order to provide effective enforcement, the draft ordinance should contain specific, verifiable criteria to used in order to meet the owner occupied requirements. If the requirements are met, the property is considered to be owner occupied. If the criteria cannot be met, the property is not considered to be owner occupied and will not be eligible as an accessory dwelling unit. Amok Maloy, Michael -rom: Walsh, Barry ent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:28 PM To: Maloy, Michael Cc: Young, Kevin; Weiler, Scott; Itchon, Edward; Garcia, Peggy; Butcher, Larry Subject: PLNPCM2010- 00612 ADU Categories: Other March 10, 2011 Michael Maloy, Planning Re: Petition PLNPCM2010-00612 to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Code to allow Accessory Dwelling Units within single-family and multi-family residential districts. The division of transportation review comments and recommendations are for approval as follows: The Accessory Dwelling Units code suggest that this is not duplexes or apartments, but living units within a owner occupied controlled residence. Where parking is in compliance and the accessory unit will requiring one parking stall per ADU. As written, the parking would be required but the transportation division could modify the requirements (such as allow tandem parking or no parking) where certain factors are evident (such as where there is available on-street parking, parking is within 1/4 mile of a trax station, the unit is within walking distance to a business district areas, etc. and home occupations are limited to no visitors or parking generators etc.) ..Ancerely, Barry Walsh Cc Kevin Young, P.E. Scott Weiler, P.E. Ted Itchon, Fire Peggy Garcia, Public Utilities Larry Butcher, Permits File 1 Maloy, Michael From: Ross, Michelle Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 10:41 AM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: PLNPCM2010-00612 Categories: Other Michael, The PD has no issues. Thanks, Sgt. Michelle Ross 1 Maloy, Michael From: Stoker, Justin Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 12:48 PM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: FW:Accessory Dwelling Unit-Request for Comment Importance: High Categories: Other From: Vetter, Rusty Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 4:39 PM To: Stoker, Justin Cc: Garcia, Peggy; Stewart, Brad Subject: RE: Accessory Dwelling Unit - Request for Comment I talked to Michael and Paul Nielson about this. They are very happy to work with us and asked for proposed language from us. Michael just said he needs it by Wednesday morning. There is a provision in the proposed ordinance that a deed restriction be placed on the property to indicate that there is an owner-occupied requirement on the property. We could add in a provision also alerting people of the existence of a connection of sewer or water service through the primary residence. Here is some proposed language highlighted in yellow: b. Deed Restriction. A lot approved for development with an accessory dwelling unit must have a deed restriction filed with the county recorder's office indicating such owner-occupied requirement of the property prior to issuance of a final certificated occupancy for the accessory dwelling unity by the city. IE sewer or water utility service will be connected through the primary residence and not connected through a separate connection to the sewer or water main, the deed restriction will also identify any sewer or water connections into or through the primary residence. Such deed restriction shall run with the land until the accessory dwelling unity is abandoned. Let me know if this works for you or what changes are needed and I'll send it to Michael. 1 Maloy, Michael From: Nielson, Paul Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:37 PM To: Maloy, Michael Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units draft ordinance Categories: Other Michael: I have some brief comments regarding the draft accessory dwelling units ordinance. • Definition of"owner occupant" at paragraph 2(a)(2): how do we determine what the purpose was for creating a family trust? This is a rhetorical question as it can be safely assumed that all family trusts were done as part of estate planning, but the language of the draft makes it seem like this needs to be verified. Just my two cents on that. • E(2)(e) (Standards: General Requirements: Multi-Family Districts with Single Family Dwelling on Lot): what does "built out" mean. I have my guesses, but I shouldn't have to guess. • E(4): I assume that the size of an ADU is still restricted even if it is within the principal dwelling. • E(7)(a): last sentence re: adding entrances to principal dwelling front façade is confusing and probably contradictory. How can a new entrance be located on the front façade of a principal dwelling only if it is located at least 20 feet behind the front façade? • E(9): requiring a business license for an accessory dwelling unit may not work with SLC Code sec. 5.14.020,which only requires business licenses for 3+ units. The attorney in my office for Business Licensing commented that this could present a significant increase in administrative efforts as all on (and possibly two-) unit apartments associated with a principal, single-family dwelling could require hiring.of additional personnel to manage. The question also arose as to whether business licensing was the best choice to process applications for these. • In light of the prior comment, comments should be sought from Jamie Allred in Business Licensing on the proposed ordinance. PAUL C. NILLSON SENIOR CITY Aio OR7-:= 801 .535.7216 IMPORTANT: E-mail„ from the City Attorney's Office is likely to contain confidential and privileed material for the sole use of the intended recipient The use, distribution, transmittal or re-transmittal of any Such communication is prohibited without the express approval of the City Attorney or a Deputy City Attorney in writing' or by e-mail If you are not the �� er recipient. contact the sender ' e i intended re„ip i,. please S..;l..,i and C..let.. all copies. 1 Butcher, Larry To: Maloy, Michael subject: RE: Department Comment on ADU Ordinance? .. . O ., , _ - - i . .. . I _ ' E_ r'` SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m. in Room 126. Work Session: No worksession is scheduled. Regular Meeting: 5:30 p.m. • Approval of Minutes • Report of the Chair and Vice Chair • Report of the Director Public Hearing Legislative Petitions 1. PLNPCM2011-00004 - Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation - A request by Salt Lake Community College for an Alley Vacation at approximately 123 East 1700 South that runs north to south from 1700 South to approximately 1650 South. The adjacent properties are zoned I (Institutional), R-1-5000 (Single Family Residential) and C-C (Corridor Commercial). Located in Council District 5 represented by Jill Remington Love. (Staff Contact John Anderson at 801-535-7214 or john.anderson`slcgov.com 2. PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units — A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning text amendment to allow accessory dwelling units within the following single-family and multi-family residential districts: FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R- 2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75. This request is part of the Sustainability City Code Initiative and would affect areas City-wide. (Staff contact: Michael Maloy at 801.535.7118 or michael.malov©slcaov.com) 3. PLNPCM2010-00614 Sustainability Development Code for Recycling and Waste Management — A request initiated by Mayor Ralph Becker to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to facilitate recycling and construction waste management. Proposed regulations will apply to new development, expansions and demolitions throughout the City. (Staff contact: Ana Valdemoros at (801) 535-7236 or ana.valdemoros@slcgov.com) Administrative Petitions 4. PLNPCM2011-00032: The Southeast Apartment & Retail Building at the Sugar House Loop Conditional Building and Site Design Review — A request by Mecham Management, Inc. for building and site design review for a mixed-use project (commercial & residential) located at approximately 2130 South Highland Drive. The subject property is in the Sugar House Business District Zone (CSHBD-1) and in Council District 7, represented by Soren D. Simonsen. (Staff: Lex Traughber at (801) 535-6184 or lex.trauohberc slcgov.com) PLNSUB2011-00053 Public Safety Building Planned Development - a request by Mayor Ralph Becker and Salt Lake City Corporation for approval of a planned development proposal for the Public Safety Building project. The property is located at approximately 475 South 300 East, in Council District 4 represented by Luke Garrott. (Staff contact: Casey Stewart at 801-535-6260 or casev.stewart©slcaov.com) The files for the above items ore available in the Planning Division offices, room 406 of the City and County Building. Please contact the staff planner for information, Visit the Planning Division's website at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning for copies of the Planning Commission agendas,staff reports, and minutes.Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17, past meetings are recorded end archived, and may be viewed at www.slctv.corn SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, March 23, 2011 Present for the Planning Commission meeting were Chair Michael Fife, Commissioners, Kathleen Hill, Michael Gallegos, Charlie Luke, Susie McHugh, and Mary Woodhead. Commissioners Angela Dean, Babs De Lay, Mathew Wirthlin and Emily Drown were excused. A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were: Michael Fife, Michael Gallegos and Kathleen Hill, Staff members in attendance were Joel Paterson, John Anderson and Lex Traughber. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:45 p.m. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. Planning staff members present at the meeting were: Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Manager; Casey Stewart, Senior Planner; Michael Maloy, Principal Planner; Lex Traughber, Senior Planner; John Anderson, Principal Planner; Ana Valdemoros, Associate Planner; Paul Nielson, Land Use Attorney; and Angela Hasenberg, Senior Secretary. FIELD TRIP NOTES: 00 PLNPCM2oli-oo004',+. — Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation — Staff described the proposed alley vacation and pointed out the exact location of the alley which is located in the south parking lot of the campus. Staff noted that the alley includes an over-head power line that provided power to a property recently purchased by the College. The building has since been demolished and no longer needs power from the overhead line. Staff noted that Qwest would likely have a representative attend the public hearing. They have concerns about obtaining an easement for its lines within the alley. PLNPCM2o11-00022 — Southeast Apartment &Retail Building at the Sugar House Loop — Staff described the proposed project and the differences between this application and an earlier project that the developer proposed,which was approved by the Planning Commission. The Commission asked questions regarding the subterranean canal, its location and possibilities of developing a trail along the canal. The Commission asked about the on-site access to the proposed underground parking structure and the access from Highland Drive. The Commission asked questions regarding the proposed architecture, building height, mix of uses and type of housing units proposed. 5:35:58 PM Approval of the Minutes for the February 23, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2011 Page 1 Commissioner Woodhead made a motion to approve the minutes for February 23, 2011 as corrected. Commissioner Luke seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Gallegos, Luke and Woodhead all voted "aye". Commissioners Hill and McHugh abstained from the vote. The motion passed. 5:36:58 PM Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Chairperson Fife stated he had nothing to report. 5:36:58 PM Report of the Director Mr. Sommerkorn stated the Council would be taking action on proposals from the Planning Commission at the April 5th meeting. He suggested anyone wanting to see how the proposals are addressed and handled should attend the meeting. 5:37:57 PM PUBLIC HEARINGS LEGISLATIVE PETITIONS PLNPCM2oi1-00004: Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation - A request by Salt Lake Community College for an Alley Vacation at approximately 123 East 1700 South that runs north to south from 1700 South to approximately 165o South. The adjacent properties are zoned I (Institutional). R-1-5o00 (Single Family Residential) and C-C (Corridor Commercial) located in Council District 5 represented by Jill Remington. Mr. Anderson stated this was a request from Salt Lake Community College to vacate a north to south running alley located at approximately 123 West 1700 South. He said it may sound familiar to the Commission because there was another alley vacated on the same property in July of 2010. Mr. Anderson stated the east/west alley vacation was heard by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council in February. He stated the reason Salt Lake Community College put off vacating both alleys at the same time was because the owners of the Baxter Building were still using the alley to access their property. Mr. Anderson explained the Baxter Building as well as the billboard had been removed. He stated the only comment he received was from Qwest. They had some issues with the vacation. Mr. Anderson explained Qwest was working with Salt Lake Community College to figure out how to accommodate the power lines. Mr. Anderson stated Staffs recommendation was for the Planning Commission to forward this petition to the City Council with a positive recommendation. Chairperson Fife asked the Applicant if he would like to speak. The Applicant stated they had nothing to add to Mr. Anderson's comments. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 2 5:40:26 PM Public Hearing Chairperson Fife opened the public hearing seeing there was no public in attendance that wanted to speak on the issue the public hearing was closed. 5:40:34 PM Mr. Rob Vigil, Right of Way Engineer -Qwest Corporation, stated Qwest was currently working with Salt Lake Community College to relocate the aerial and cross box facilities in the area. Mr. Vigil reviewed the reasons vacations are generally not opposed by Qwest and the issues that would arise if the vacation was granted today before the equipment was moved. He asked that there be some sort of suspension on the vacation until the matter was resolved. Chairperson Fife asked if anyone was being served by the line other than the college. Mr.Vigil stated there are other customers to the North that receive services from the line as wells as customers along 1700 South. Commissioner McHugh said Salt Lake Community College was one of the customers serviced by the line therefore it would be in their interest to be accommodating. Mr. Vigil stated the college was working to accommodate Qwest. He said the issue was not that Salt Lake Community College was unwilling to work with Qwest rather the issue was the access '*"*�' to the equipment for maintenance purposes if the vacation was granted prior to the relocation of the equipment. Commissioner McHugh asked how long the relocation would take. Mr. Vigil stated once Salt Lake Community College paid the bill to relocate the facilities, the job would be drawn up, drafted and issued for construction. He estimated a minimum of 90 days from the date of payment. Chairperson Fife clarified the Community College was paying to have the lines moved. Mr.Vigil stated that was correct. Chairperson Fife asked why Qwest would anticipate a problem. Mr. Vigil stated Qwest did not anticipate a problem but experiences have taught them this was a better route to take to avoid legal issues. Commissioner McHugh asked what was being moved. Mr.Vigil stated poles, aerial cables and a distribution cabinet would need to be moved. Chairperson Fife asked if Qwest could refuse service to the college if they did not grant Qwest an easement. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 3 Mr.Vigil stated no, Qwest could not deny the College services. Commissioner Hill asked who would pay if the vacation was approved at the meeting. Mr. Vigil stated basically Qwest had the right to be on the property so whoever triggered the move would pay for it. He said Qwest's concern was that in the event the College decided they did not want the equipment moved then Qwest would be left with limited ability to access, maintain and replace the equipment. Commissioner Woodhead asked if the College did not want the equipment moved did Qwest need to move it. Mr.Vigil stated no, it would not need to be moved. Commissioner Woodhead stated then the issue was the access to the equipment and right now an easement by necessity of access existed. Mr.Vigil stated Qwest would have an easement by the public way. Mr. Sommerkorn stated the request was premature. He said the best way to take care of the issue was to see if the College had any objection to granting an easement for the utility purposes. Commissioner Woodhead asked if the Planning Commission could make that part of the motion. Mr. Sommerkorn stated yes that was acceptable. Mr. Frank Baker, Salt Lake Community College, stated Salt Lake Community College had entered into contracts with Rocky Mountain Power and Qwest and had paid $23,088 to move the equipment. He explained the issues with the easement to the south of the College and what was being done to solve the issues. Mr. Baker stated the College did not use the subject poles Chairperson Fife clarified the college does not need the poles. Mr. Baker stated no, Salt Lake Community College planned to have the poles removed by Rocky Mountain Power and had already paid for that as well. Mr. Sommerkorn asked if Mr. Baker would have any objection to granting any kind of utility easement for access to the utility lines. Mr. Baker stated not at all. Chairperson Fife asked if a condition stating an easement would be granted should be added to the potential motion. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 4 Mr. Nielson stated yes and advised the Commission to be specific with the language in order to not allow Qwest to have an easement over the entire property only necessary access for Qwest to accomplish the purposes they are pursuing. Chairperson Fife asked for a motion adding the condition. Commissioner Hill stated she would make the motion but she wanted to be clear about the conditions. She said she was inclined to go with staff recommendation for the motion, not allow for any easement and let Salt Lake Community College work it out with Qwest themselves. Commissioner Gallegos stated Salt Lake Community College did not have an objection to an easement. Commissioner Hill stated she understood that but it seemed if Salt Lake City was vacating the alley and giving the property to Salt Lake Community College, Salt Lake City should not be allowed to make the decision. She said she would not want to bind Salt Lake Community College in any way. Mr. Nielson stated whenever the City vacates an alley they always do so subject to existing easements and although this easement was not necessarily expressed in a written document it existed by prescription. He said adding it to the motion would prevent anyone from having to go through any litigation caused by the vacation of the alley. Commissioner Hill stated the condition needed to state subject to the existing easement. Mr. Nielson stated that was correct. 5:49:14 PM Motion Commissioner Hill made a motion in regard to PLNPCMao11-00004 Salt Lake Community College Alley Vacation; the Planning Commission to forward a motion to the City Council recommending approval with the following conditions: Compliance with all departmental comments Subject to all existing easements Commissioner Luke seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Hill, Gallegos, Luke, McHugh, and Woodhead all voted "aye". The motion passed unanimously. 5:50:22 PM PLNPCM2oio-oo612 Accessory Dwelling Units - A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning text amendment to allow accessory dwelling units within the following single-family and multi-family residential districts: FR-1/43,56o, FR-2/21,78o, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R- -*" 1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 5 Mr. Maloy reviewed the history of the Accessory Dwelling Unit Text Amendment as outlined in the Staff Report. He stated the Staff Report reflected some key concerns that needed to be addressed. Mr. Maloy said Staff recommended the Public Hearing because it would be informative and gave the recommendation that the issue be tabled because Staff was looking for specific policy direction from the Planning Commission before continuing with the ordinance. He reviewed the issues with detached accessory dwellings throughout the City and how they apply to the new ordinance. Mr. Maloy said these accessory dwelling units would be located within single family and multifamily zones and restricted to only single family land uses. He gave the example that if someone had a twin home within a single family or multifamily zone they would not be eligible to add a third unit or accessory dwelling unit it would also not be allowed for a condominium therefore, only a detached single family home would have the ability to add an ADU. Commissioner McHugh asked what if there was already a mother-in-law apartment in the structure. Mr. Maloy asked if she is presuming the mother-in-law apartment was legal or illegal. Commissioner McHugh stated either way. Mr. Maloy stated if it was legal it could continue operating under present terms. Commissioner McHugh stated under this ordinance another building could not be added in the back yard. Mr. Maloy stated that was correct, if there all ready was a recognized mother-in-law apartment another unit could not be added. He reviewed how parking could be addressed and the modifications that may be allowed for an accessory structure. Mr. Maloy explained the suggested distances of a quarter-mile or half a mile from transit stations and indicated the amount of residences that would be included in the ordinance within those distances. He explained this restricted the location of ADU's if the Planning Commission supported this option. Chairperson Fife stated if bus stops were included that would cover the whole City. Mr. Maloy stated yes and that because bus stops can be moved, community members wanted the stand to be fixed rail not bus stops. Mr. Gallegos stated some of the comments, to stay with fixed rail, may be the result of UTA cutting back services. Mr. Maloy reviewed the illustrations included in the packet and emphasized the idea of an ADU within the buildable area of the single family structure. He indicated the allowable placement of a single family dwelling and the addition of an accessory dwelling unit after all the setbacks and regulations were applied. Mr. Maloy reviewed illustrations of ADUs that were attached and detached to the principle existing structure as well as over a detached garage. He explained the Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 6 feedback on ADUs above a detached garage were not supported by many in the community as most people do not like the over height accessory building at the rear of the yard. Mr. Maloy stated one of the largest changes to the proposed ordinance was the definition of owner occupancy. He explained this was modeled after Provo City's ordinance that was upheld in the State Supreme Court. Mr. Maloy said it had been reviewed with the City Council Attorney, Neil Lindberg, who recommended some additional changes which were not included in the packet. He reviewed the changes indicating what a property owner would have to provide to the City to demonstrate whether or not they own and occupy the property. Mr. Maloy stated the language was confusing so it will be changed and brought back to the Commission for approval. He said language about design guidelines outside of Historic Districts was added requiring the accessory dwelling unit to be compatible with the existing home and that a detached cottage could not be taller than the primary structure. Mr. Maloy stated the concern with privacy was addressed by subjecting accessory dwelling units to the same provisions for hobby shops (no windows on certain sides of the structure). Commissioner McHugh asked if a new ADU was required to have a business license, would the existing legal ADUs have to get a business license because the City wanted to know what was out there. Mr. Maloy stated if a unit was legal under the separate provisions of the good landlord program and the business licensing requirement they would need to come in and get a business license. He said they would not go through the ADU process because they would be treated as a legal land use. Mr. Maloy reviewed the issues and questions regarding the fees associated with the good landlord program and the licensing indicated that the ADU ordinance was tied very closely to the implementation of that program. He stated that ordinance could precede the ADU ordinance but the ADU ordinance cannot be put into effect until after the other program was up and running. Commissioner McHugh stated in the ADU Staff Report it was stated, a number of times, that it was less intense then alternatives. She asked what the alternatives would be that were more intense. Would it be that the zoning could be changed and apartments built in the Ri zones? Mr. Maloy stated the idea of increasing density within the urban core was more sustainable then encouraging sprawl within the valley. Up zoning properties to the point where redevelopment of single family homes into something denser would lead to more intensive development then establishing an ordinance to allow ADUs. Commissioner Gallegos asked if the City had an idea of how many illegal mother-in-law apartments there were or if an estimate had been made. Mr. Maloy stated he did not have the exact figure however, through this process he learned that the Buzz Center and the Building Permits Division kept records of unresolved inquiries regarding multi unit structures which was around 2500. He said the Planning Division had approved several hundred since the beginning of the unit legalization program and there are about ioo different cases pending right now. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 7 Commissioner Gallegos stated if right now there are about 250o illegal units with mother-in-law apartments or accessory dwelling units that are possibly not up to code or following requirements, do we think it best to create an Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance and risk having other illegal accessory dwelling units that would now be even more difficult to find. He started if anything it seemed it could exacerbate the problem with illegal ADUs. Mr. Maloy referred to the study published by the American Planning Association concluding that illegal units already exist so whether or not an ADU regulation was in place was not going to change that fact. He also stated he did not believe because there was an ADU ordinance in place that it would incite further infraction. Commissioner Luke stated it seemed that if the law was a lot looser or accessory dwelling units were more acceptable there would be individuals that would go ahead and build them without having the units up to code. He stated it would cause the same types of issues that are going on now just on a much larger scale. Mr. Maloy stated that was not Staffs conclusion from the data received. 6:16:10 PM Commissioner Woodhead asked what experiences other cities had with owner occupancy requirements. It seemed to her that people have a lot of questions as to whether it was necessary and enforceable. Mr. Maloy stated he mentioned in the staff report that the best practice guideline from the American Planning Association was not to require owner occupancy. He explained he did not really explore that issue in his report because the community had indicated if the provision was adopted the supporters would rather have the owner occupancy standard. Mr. Malay explained Provo City had problems but when the City conducted follow up inspections the owners had gone through the process to show owner occupancy. He stated they had not had a single appeal or legal challenge on that specific provision. Mr. Malay explained when the code was applied, Provo City did not have any issues and it had been very effective in eliminating the ADU or proving the owner occupancy. Chairperson Fife asked what happened when the property was sold. Mr. Malay stated the ADU license would not be transferable and the new owner would need to go through the process to permit the unit and apply for a business license. He stated that a note on the deed indicating an ADU would need to be included. Mr. Malay said this would appear on the transfer of the title and would be conveyed to the new property owner. Commissioner Woodhead asked whether Portland and Seattle generally have owner occupancy requirements. Mr. Malay stated he did not recall that specifically and he did not really look into that issue because he believed if Salt Lake City were to have ADUs, the owner occupancy requirement was a necessary element. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 8 Commissioner McHugh asked what Staff thought about the comments to trial run this in some zones and not all zones. Mr. Maloy stated Staff introduced the idea of limiting the number of permits per year to 25 and prior to the December draft this was not included. He explained it was city wide with no limitation. Mr. Malay stated rather than only allowing it in certain neighborhoods and then later on trying to broaden the geography of where they are allowed, he would rather recommend starting city wide and if necessary narrow it down. He said the public hearing noticing referred to it as a city wide regulation but the option to limit the areas could be listed as an alternative in the Staff Report. He explained if the provision was to start out in small areas if it is to be broadened later, the process would have to start again. Mr. Malay stated most of the comments he received stated that the 25 permits per year seemed to reduce the unintended consequences and fear that there would be a landslide of ADUs in the city. He said that according to the few figures in the staff report other cities had not had a huge increase of ADUs but that the ADUs tended to scatter when the program was implemented. Mr. Malay said he thought that was because of the number of restrictions that go along with the ADU such as having to adhere to current building code which would not be easy to meet and possibly unaffordable. Commissioner Woodhead asked if there had been any thought to instead of doing 25 for the whole city maybe 5 per City Council District, something smaller and wide spread so that the effects in the areas can be seen. Mr. Maloy stated that was another option but he thought the 25 city wide was very limited --- already. He stated Planning Division Management was worried about the fluidity of some of the boundaries, Community Council boundaries change from time to time so maybe City Council boundaries could be used. Commissioner Luke asked whether there was much discussion on whether or not to start out with an ADU within and existing structure like a mother-in-law apartment and not having a separate structure. Mr. Maloy stated no, that conversation had not taken place. Planning Staff was trying to find a balance between having ADUs, at all, versus having so many restrictions that it became virtually unusable and could not be used within an existing home. Commissioner McHugh stated that before 1995 the units were legal because in 1995, the zoning changed from R-2 to R-1 in many areas of the City. Mr. Maloy stated that was correct under certain provisions. Commissioner Hill asked about the Historic Overlay Districts. There was a lot of push back with some of the constraints that happened in those neighborhoods and she had noticed several places where the provision stated in the Historic Overlay where an ADU may be possible that the Historic Overlay guidelines take precedence. She asked with regards to design are there going to be places created where people could not afford to build a 650 square foot accessory dwelling unit within the provision that would also comply with the Historic Overlay standards. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 9 Mr. Maloy stated that particular issue had not been discussed with the Historic Landmark Commission. He said they were more concerned with design compatibility and not changing the character of the neighborhoods. Commissioner Hill stated there was more than just the way the design looked on paper. It showed up in the landscape and those ordinances are pretty specific with materials. Mr. Maloy stated it had been his experience with the Landmark Commission that if anyone were to try and create an exemption within the Historic District regulations it would create a significant departure from the regulations currently applied. Commissioner Hill stated she was worried about the cost of materials and would hate to price out someone in a historic district just because of the codes. Mr. Maloy stated that issue would be something the Historic Landmark Commission would explore. He explained they did talk about the idea of a new ADU in a Historic District, although it may be compatible with the historic character, should reflect current construction. Commissioner Hill stated the provision as stated in the staff report that the Historic District regulations override the provision. Mr. Maloy stated the provision for new construction was already in place regarding materials and designs. Commissioner Luke clarified Mr. Maloy was referring to developments or neighborhoods that had restrictive ordinances that would override the proposed ordinance. Mr. Maloy stated private requirements such as CC&R's would have to have an active HOA enforcing it but that was an entirely private requirement. 6:27:07 PM Chairperson Fife opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone from the Community Council that would like to speak on the issue. 6:27:41 PM Mr. Dave Van Langeveld, Greater Avenues Community Council, stated the Council had major concerns over the propos .1 and had discussed the issue as a community council a number of times. He thanked Mr. Sommerkorn and Councilman Penefold for attending their January meeting and presenting the proposal to them. Mr. Van Langeveld stated in March the Council took a position in opposition to the proposed ADU ordinance which was relayed to Major Becker's office and to Mr. Maloy. Commissioner Woodhead stated the Commission reviewed the submitted letters and was very familiar with the concerns. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 10�� Mr. Van Langeveld stated with all they had tried to accomplish in the Avenues over the decades such as trying to upgrade buildings and make the homes into single family homes the proposal was completely contrary and basically shoves aside the idea of a Master Plan. He stated they also felt that it undid some of what the community was trying to put in as part of the SR-1A Overlay in the Avenues. Mr. Van Langeveld stated it was kind of like passing an ordinance that undid all of the zoning put in place over the years. Commissioner Woodhead asked if Mr. Van Langeveld felt there was a bright line separating single family, one house that was it and apartments because it seemed to her that he was looking at the past history of apartments. She stated she lived in different apartments in the Avenues when she was in college and knew how much the area had changed for the better since then. Mr. Van Langeveld stated he recognized there were mother-in-law apartments that should be legal. He stated the question was, as part of the legalization do they have to go through the requirements as they become ADUs and are they limited to a number that can be legalized within a year. Mr. Van Langeveld stated the other issue was the parking where are people going to park because there are already parking issues. He stated the letters addressed each of the issues in depth and there were proposals in the Staff Report that offered better options that should be looked at. Commissioner Woodhead stated some of her favorite accessory dwelling units are in the Avenues, there are a number of old houses with little cottages on their property. She said the structures were good examples of accessory dwelling units that are detached from the principle structure. Mr. Van Langeveld stated some of the old carriage houses would be adequate for that kind of dwelling but the concern then became if garages were turned into dwelling units. He stated he didn't know if that issue had been addressed by anyone. 6:33:42 PM Mr. George Kelner, Yalecrest Neighborhood Community Council, stated he too wanted to speak in opposition to the proposed ordinance because it had not been presented to the communities properly. He stated the City was asked to attend meetings in order to present the proposal to the neighborhood which they have not done. He stated he felt the ordinance would cause a significant change to the neighborhood. Mr. Kelner stated was also told there would be a video available on the Planning Division Website that could be shown at the meetings. He said had not seen nor been able to find the video. He stated he thought a lot more people would have attended the meeting if they would have known about it but there was nothing on the web for this meeting until Monday. Mr. Kelner stated he didn't think people had the notice to be aware of the issue. He said his neighborhood had the same issues as the Avenues such as traffic and parking they have worked for many years to clean up illegal mother-in-law apartments, to deal with privacy issues and try to preserve the character of the neighborhood. He said many people in his area are concerned and opposed to the provision. Mr. Kelner said it frightened him to think those with garages on the property lines could turn the garage into a dwelling unit and affect his privacy. He said they strongly opposed the way the provision was currently written and to have a vote when the public had not been informed of what this does would be inappropriate. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 11 Ms. McHugh stated on Staffs behalf the Commission received a lot of letters from the Yalecrest Neighborhood. Mr. Kelner stated they tried to get the information to the neighborhood. He stated he asked Cheri Coffey if someone could attend a meeting and she told him that if Planning Staff attended one meeting they would have to attend all the meetings in the city and Planning didn't have the staff to do that. Ms. McHugh stated according to what she had, Staff did attend the meeting. Mr. Kelner said no, no one from the City came to the Yalecrest Council meeting to discuss the proposition. Mr. Maloy stated what Staff typically did when a city wide ordinance was proposed was conduct Open Houses and they have done that on more than one occasion. Mr. Kelner stated the Open Houses go from 4:3o p.m. to 6:0o p.m. when people are not able to come all the way down town and attend a meeting. He stated he didn't think it was a very user friendly way of getting information out. Mr. Sommerkorn explained it was one of the methods used. He said in regard to going to the Community Council meetings there are 24 Community Councils in Salt Lake City and for someone to attend all of the meetings it would be a full time job. He stated however if a Planner was requested specifically by City Council member to attend a meeting with them and that was what happened in a couple of cases. Chairperson Fife asked if the proposed ordinance was on the Open City Hall website. Mr. Sommerkorn stated yes it was. Commissioner Woodhead stated there were a lot of comments from the Yalecrest area. She asked Mr. Kelner, in his opinion, would his view be different if the accessory dwelling was limited to the existing home and not something like the garage or another building. Mr. Kelner stated it would be somewhat different he would still be concerned with the traffic and parking problems it would create. He stated he lived on a narrow street and parking was a major problem now, the addition of more dwelling units would make it worse. 6:39:28 PM Ms. Esther Hunter, East Central Community Council, explained the Councils name change and how it affected the layout of the East Central Community Council. She explained it was mainly an R-2 zone with either multi family or single family homes. Ms. Hunter said it was nothing for the area to have duplexes, triplexes and up, a huge amount of those are illegal. She explained they believe ADUs will happen anyway, people get creative. Ms. Hunter said one of the concerns had been about the guidelines and enforcement. She stated she appreciated the changes that had been made she had personally heard the information on the proposed ordinance at different Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 12 community meetings and had many opportunities to give impute. She said they are concerned that if the 25 units a year idea was put into only the fixed transit zone it would pack the old neighborhoods and small lots which are already impacted with a lot of the illegal things. She said other lots in the City would not be affected as much. Ms. Hunter said if it can be dispersed across the entire city it not only gives data about different areas of the City, how it was applied and what could be modified but it wouldn't pack and impact the older neighborhoods. She explained the parking problems that occur when ADUs are add to smaller areas. Ms. Hunter stated they asked that if there were exceptions made by the Transportation Department, because they were near transit, that something be held to keep the green space. She stated people know that Salt Lake City would grow and many changes would happen but the ability to keep the neighborhood feel was necessary. Ms. Hunter stated their number one concern was to eliminate the special exception process for unit legalization because people are using it to bypass the existing Master Plan and the existing zoning. She stated 25 ADUs would be a small number compared to what was in place in their area. Chairperson Fife asked if she was in support or opposition to the provision. Ms. Hunter stated they felt that a lot had all ready been refined and they supported the proposition if in fact some of the things outlined in their letter were included. 6:44:35 PM Ms. Cindy Cromer stated she had a lot of experience with the proposal beginning two years ago and she outlined in her letter what the experience had been. She stated she wanted to emphasize °^'14+ that the Clarion proposal did not consider the uniqueness and diversity of Salt Lake City's neighborhoods the diversity was one of the treasures. She said Christian Harrison once said in a meeting that "our neighborhoods just want to be more vibrant versions of what they are." Ms. Cromer stated one of the ways neighborhoods differ was in lot size which effected this proposal. She stated most importantly as a community there was no need for another divisive issue Parley's Canyon Nature Park and Yalecrest were enough to last a very long time. Ms. Cromer said the proposal that Clarion had drafted had an armor that was almost impenetrable despite her constructive and almost critical comments for almost two years the proposal had changed little. She said although the present Staff Report was the best version she had seen yet. She said she implored the Commission recommend the proposal to the City Council moving the proposal to a place where it could be supported by more people and vigorously opposed by very few people. She explained the idea as to what a proposal like this would be and what she could support such as a proposal that would allow ADU's in the RMF- 30 and RMF-35 zones in single family dwellings regardless of the lot size and which was also within four blocks of mass transit. She stated that basically described her investment properties everything except her personal property. 6:47:11 PM Mr. David Gibson, 1764 Hubbard Avenue, stated he was here to discuss detached structures becoming dwelling units. He said he was a member of the Yalecrest area and was opposed to allowing detached dwelling units in the Yalecrest area specifically. He expressed his concern over the proposed height in the ordinance being equal to the height of the principle structure he was heavily involved with the Yalecrest infill ordinance the most common complaint they received from residents was that the accessory structures were too tall and to large. Mr. Gibson Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 13 said in response to the impute, the YCI changed the height from 17 feet to 15 feet the ordinance would reverse that and ignore residents concerns regarding the scale of detached accessory structures. Mr. Gibson said second the owner occupancy was a requirement in the current proposal. He said he believed it would only be a matter of time before owner occupancy requirement was removed effectively turning Yalecrest into an R-2 Zone. Mr. Gibson said the Yalecrest area has become the favored area for developers and has experienced more teardowns than any other area in the City were accessory dwelling units, that were not owner occupied, allowed in the area the incentive to develop by means of tearing down the existing structures would be greatly increased. He said his family moved into the area partly because it was zoned single family dwelling units; had they wanted to be in a multi-family zone they would have moved into one. Mr. Gibson stated he would like to say the proposal had been available for three days and that was not enough time to properly react, he requested that the Public Hearing were extended to next month. 6:49:09 PM Mr. Gary Harding, 1170 South 1700 East, stated he was opposed to the current plan as it was stated. He said Mr. Maloy's statements seemed to be amending the published draft on the fly. He said he read the staff report with great care a lot of things that were presented were changed and were not in the published draft. Mr. Harding said without owner occupancy this just becomes a seedy way to change zoning. He said he thought even if this was considered the R-1/5,000 zone should be excluded from consideration as those areas are small enough. Mr. Harding said the 25 per year for two years was just a way to start the ball rolling and it would only be a short period of time before it was everywhere. He said he made a proposal earlier that suggested including a clause stating no ADU could be created that caused the existing lot coverage regulations to be violated. Mr. Harding stated the Planning Commission didn't put that in and he had to think they didn't add it because they want to let people violate it. He stated his concerns about parking and it being limited with the addition of accessory dwelling units. Mr. Harding said lastly the document had no real provision for enforcement and it would only be a matter of time before it got out of control. Commissioner McHugh stated didn't it say that with the fees charged, the extra 25 dollars, would pay for an enforcement agent specifically for the proposed ordinance. Mr. Maloy stated that was correct the fees would go to pay for additional enforcement. 6:52:27 PM Ms. Sheila O'Driscall, 1888 South 180o East, explained her neighborhood was designed with duplexes and single family homes mixed together. She stated a number of the single family homes had mother-in-law apartments she lived next door to one that was legalized 12 or 13 years ago. She said the home on the other side had the same type of space in the basement and until two years ago it was strictly used as a single family home. Ms. O'Driscall said now a family with 6 children lived on the main floor with multiple renters in the basement and had caused but problems. She said she lived next door in between both the structures in a duplex that has always been a duplex. She said what she saw happening over the years was that many of the homes in the area had been changed to rentals and used for multiple renters at a time including college kids. She said that had caused parking and traffic issues but there was no enforcement of Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 14 the existing zoning with the regard to renting mother-in-law apartments for income. Ms. O'Driscall said she thought the ordinance needed more public input before a decision was made. 6:54:41 PM Ms. Judi Short, 862 Hanson, stated she felt this was a good idea on the surface but the devil was in then details. She said she was wondering how many of individuals had been to a Board of Adjustment meeting recently and have seen the stuff that people have to supply in order to get a unit legalization. Ms. Short stated the gentlemen from the Avenues talked about parking and she explained about the Board of Adjustment case where a parking pad was installed in the front yard because parking was not available in another place. She said she could see that sort of thing multiplying if the provision went forward. She said she was worried about enforcement even though the fees would be used to hire a new agent but with current budgets that was not a guarantee. Ms. Short said she thought it may work in some zones but not in the R-1/5,000, Avenues, East Central, Liberty, Emerson and East Liberty those are all small lots built right to the edges. She stated on the other hand there are places in Sugar House that have deep lots where it might be possible. Ms. Short said this should be included in the sustainability but seemed to be going against Major Becker's green space initiative. She stated she would like to see Staff pick one option and conducted a test case for a year to see how it worked then make necessary adjustments. Commissioner Woodhead stated a few individuals said to choose one zone and test it but she wondered how testing in Popular Grove or Sugar House would teach us a lesson about the Avenues. Commissioner Woodhead stated she did not agree with Ms. Short but she thought each area had different problems and wondered if the provision was restricted to one neighborhood what would be learned from the test that would be useful. Ms. Short stated maybe Staff could write the ordinance to allow multiple areas to be sampled at one time or different ones for different sized lots. 6:58:22 PM Mr. Phil Carroll explained he lived in the lower avenues and had lived there for about 3o years. He explained he had been involved with this process for about two years. Mr. Carroll said his first concern was that the community had worked to create a manageable housing stock. He said the neighborhoods are very eclectic with a lot of different housing types. Mr. Carroll stated his main concern was the enforcement issue and the regulation of landlord and tenant. He said he didn't think it was time for this type of provision and it should be rejected straight away. He said the provision did not address accessibility which was a big issue in the City and the proposal would add and legalize units that are not accessible add to the other issue of parking in the neighborhoods. 7:01:04 PM Mr. Rawlins Young, Transportation Chairman for Sugar House Community Council, stated he didn't realize this was being proposed parallel to the trolley in Sugar House. He stated the reason he was concerned was that in the early 8o's he was one of the people that down zoned '"� Sugar House and East Central. Mr. Young said when they down zoned the area they also put in a • Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 15 program, because this was a low income CDBG eligible area, to provide loans to fix up the houses and also provide new public sidewalks. He explained the area was no longer a low income neighborhood. Mr. Young said there was concern about the proposal and it seemed that Planning wanted to develop something that would make certain Salt Lake City would be the capitol to the low income type residences. He stated it was contrary to the work and process gone through to clean up these areas. 7:03:19 PM Ms. Margaret Tennant, Yalecrest resident, stated she opposed the project. She stated she didn't think there was any amount of infill, overlay or changes to the provision that would make it palatable to her. Ms. Tennant reviewed the parking issues and restrictions that came with a historic district. She stated federal government does not restrict what can be done in a historic district. Ms. Tennant said the proposition would not work in her neighborhood but may work in others. Commissioner Woodhead asked other than the fear of large families moving into the units and parking issues what were the other reasons for opposition to ADUs. She asked if the way families functioned was different didn't people need places for aging parents or siblings, where do those people go. Commissioner Woodhead stated was it that people in Yalecrest have money and they will all be in nursing homes. Ms. Tennant stated she only lived in a 2,000 square foot, one story home and she raised two children in that home but there was not room for more. She stated there were restrictions on parking right now and because of the snowplows parking was not available on the street. Ms. Tennant stated there was not any room on most of the lots for accessory structures other than maybe garages. Commissioner Woodhead clarified the issue that space was not available for people in Yalecrest. Ms. Tennant stated there just wasn't room on the lots in that neighborhood. 7:06:22 PM Ms. Barbara Madsen stated she was opposed to it and confessed she had not read most of the document. She explained she wanted to know more specifically what kind of positive impact this would have on reducing urban sprawl. Ms. Madsen said she supported reducing urban sprawl, but she didn't know that sacrificing green space in some of the traditional neighborhoods that they are trying to protect and preserve was acceptable. She stated she was definitely in favor of denser dwellings but she thought the city would be better served if they included it in a well planned Master Planned area. She stated she thought planning had all ready been moving in that direction in Salt Lake City which was notable and very much more well received by people who lived in residential areas where green space was being created or at least preserved. She said that if people want to choose to live in a dense dwelling area most of them are not seeking green space. Ms. Madsen said she thought the City should look at trying to create dense urban dwellings in appropriate areas. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 16 7:08:19 PM Chairperson Fife Closed the Public Hearing. 7:08:21 PM Discussion Ms. McHugh asked if the Public Hearing was closed would it be able to be opened at a future meeting. Chairperson Fife stated that was at his discretion depending on whether the Commission voted or continues. Commissioner Woodhead stated she would make a motion to continue but she wondered if Staff wanted some guidance from the Commission first. Mr. Maloy stated he did want guidance from the Commission. He also made a note of the key points in the hearing and asked if the Commission wanted him to respond to some of the comments. The Commissioners discussed the restrictions a small lot would be subject to if an ADU was proposed for it. It would have to meet the lot coverage standards and the setbacks requiring the ADU to be in the principle structure and not in an accessory structure. The Commission discussed their experiences in living around multifamily units and how parking was °" accommodated in the areas. It was stated that there needed to be at least two spaces per unit at this point one space was just unreasonable. They discussed the size of family that would fit into some of the units. Commissioner Hill stated there was a way to address all of the fears and concerns and work with the language to cover every base. She suggested tabling the issue and addressing the issues brought up by the public. Commissioner Luke asked what it would do if the R-1/5,000 and R-1/7,00o were excluded. Mr. Maloy said he could include provisions to limit ADUs to certain lot sizes by indicating smaller lots would only have the ability to have ADUs within the principle structure and not a detached ADU. He stated rather than restrict it on a zone it could be based on individual lot size. The Commission stated there were a lot of good ideas and suggestions that need to be examined closely. Commissioner Woodhead stated maybe Staff could draft language that indicated the size of the lot that would allow for a detached ADU and which lot sizes would only allow ADUs within the principle structure. The Commission discussed the issue of parking and possibly encouraging tandem parking even though it was difficult but was something that needed to be addressed if the ADUs were going to be allowed with large amounts of vehicles in some of these areas. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 17 Mr. Sommerkorn stated it was part of the sustainability proposals that the Planning Commission would hear about in the future. Commissioner Luke asked Mr. Maloy to look at an option starting out with ADUs in an existing structure and not in a separate structure. Commissioner McHugh and Commissioner Hill stated they disagree with having that as an option. Commissioner Luke asked if they disagreed with it as a whole or as an option. Commissioner McHugh stated felt if the language regarding lot size was included this information was not needed. Commissioner Luke stated he would like it added as an option and investigated. Mr. Maloy stated this could be added as one of the options in the Staff Report if the Commission would like. Commissioner McHugh asked this could be made a condition or a mandatory requirement stating an extra enforcement agent would be hired and that having this person was necessary. Mr. Sommerkorn stated it could be recommended but it was really up to the City Council. Commissioner Hill asked if there was a way to fine property owners heavily for violations enough to alleviate some of the fear that people had regarding multiple people living in small units. Mr. Maloy stated that issue had not been discussed among the Planning Division however, the current fines for violating the zoning ordinance was indicated in the Staff Report. He stated how the per day violation fees accrue and can become a very serious issue. Mr. Maloy said perhaps another way to address the issue would be with some provisions to limit the number of people that can live in an ADU perhaps no more than three. The Commissioners discussed the appropriate number of people that would be considered maximum occupancy for a 65o square foot home. They felt 2 or 3 people could live in a home of this size comfortably. The Commissioners discussed the issues of limiting the number of people allowed and how to enforce the occupancy. It was stated that the public only wanted the Planning Commission to help enforce and create beautiful safe neighborhoods. 7:19:15 PM Motion Commissioner Woodhead made the motion regarding petition PLNPCM2o10- 00116 regarding accessory dwelling units she moved that the Planning Commission table the matter and continue the Public Hearing until a date when Staff was Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 18 prepared to come back with a revised ordinance. Commissioner Luke seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Gallegos, Luke, Hill, McHugh and Woodhead all voted "aye". The motion passed unanimously. 7:20:04 PM PLNPCM2o10-00614 Sustainability Development Code for Recycling and Waste Management — A request initiated by Mayor Ralph Becker to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to facilitate recycling and construction waste management. Proposed regulations will apply to new development, expansions and demolitions throughout the City. Ms. Ana Valdemoros, Associate Planner, presented a one minute video regarding recycling and the new proposal for recycling in Salt Lake City. She reviewed the different options for community recycling programs as outlined in the Staff Report and asked the Planning Commissioners for their direction and suggestions. Commissioner McHugh stated the code states up to 75% of a home could be demolished without the requirement for a demolition permit. She said that was a lot of waste and would be difficult to enforce because there was no way of knowing what percentage of material was being removed. Mr. Sommerkorn asked if this requirement only applied to demolition permits. Ms. Valdemoros stated yes it did apply to demolition permits and to new construction. The Commissioners discussed the possible costs to homeowners if it was required for them to recycle materials that removed from their homes during a remodel. They said it could become very expensive for small projects. They discussed the options of having the material sorted onsite or offsite and the issues with each such as the cost, the possibility that the hauler may not sort the materials and just take them to the landfill, the issues with contamination onsite causing entire loads to be un-recyclable and the possible requirement of evidence that the materials were being recycled. Mr. Sommerkorn stated it would be better to allow people to do either on-site or off-site sorting and leave it up to them. Commissioner McHugh asked if an exception could be applied for if a hauler did not offer off-site sorting. Mr. Sommerkorn stated that could be an option. Commissioner Luke stated this option may not even exist and staff may want to request information from individuals in the industry as to what options were available. Commissioner Woodhead asked what the benefit of sorting on-site was. Mr. Sommerkorn stated it was to make sure it was done. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 19 Commissioner Woodhead asked if the down side to this could be that the materials would stay on-site longer and overflow more often. Commissioner Luke stated that was an issue as well as contamination when dealing with contractors that don't know exactly what was being recycled and throw it in the closest bin. He explained once non-recyclable material was put in a recyclable material bin it contaminated the whole load which was problematic. Commissioner Woodhead stated that was why sorting on-site should be required. Commissioner Luke stated no that was why off-site sorting was preferred because the hauler would take the refuse to a place where it would be sorted correctly and lessen the chances for contamination. The Commissioners discussed the options for on-site and off-site sorting and allowing the contactor to decide which best accommodated the development. Commissioner Hill asked if staff had talked with some of the leading contractors about the proposal and received comments and feedback. Ms. Valdemoros stated she had talked to a lot of contractors and were in close contact with a sustainability representative who was in contact with all of the haulers. Commissioner McHugh stated Staff just needed to move forward and work on the ordinance. She said she would like option number two, the neighborhood recycling stations, deleted. The Commissioners agreed the option requiring a centralized recycling station in neighborhoods should be deleted as it would be very unsightly, difficult to use and a great place for graffiti. The Commissioners agree getting people to recycle from their homes was a step in the right direction. Ms. Valdemoros asked if the Commission had a direction on the threshold for expansions, at what point should recycling be mandatory and should it be regulated by the square footage of the development. Commissioner Luke stated he felt that recycling should be mandatory for commercial buildings, multi-family apartments or condo units. Commissioner Luke stated Staffs recommendation was to table the issue and for it to be heard in April. He asked if there was any reason why Staff was pushing to have it heard in April and the timeline for the ADU issue was open. Mr. Sommerkorn stated no, the Planning Division was just trying to move things forward. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 20 7:44:17 PM Public Hearing Chairperson Fife opened the public hearing. He stated there were no cards from people wanting to speak on the issue therefore he closed the public hearing. 7:44:36 PM Motion Commissioner McHugh made a motion in regard to petition PLMPCM2o10-oo614 she recommended that the Planning Commission table the petition with their recommendations to staff to fine tune the ordinance until an April meeting and continue the public hearing if need be. Commissioner Luke seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Gallegos, Luke, Hill, McHugh and Woodhead all voted "aye". The motion passed unanimously. 7:45:29 PM ADMINISTRATIVE PETITIONS PLNPCM2o11-000 2: The Southeast Apartment & Retail Building at the Sugar House Loon Conditional Building and Site Design Review - A request by Meacham "'- Management, Inc. for building and site design review for a mixed-use project (commercial & residential) located at approximately 2130 South Highland Drive. The subject property is in the Sugar House Business District Zone (CSHBD-1). Mr. Lex Traughber reviewed the proposal as outlined in the Staff Report. He reviewed the location, layout of the structure and site plan for the proposal. Mr. Traughber explained the structure would be retail on the first floor at approximately 44,00o square feet and five stories above with approximately 204 apartment units. He reviewed the height, underground parking, ingress and egress for the parking structure, the number of bedrooms in the apartments, the materials the building would be constructed from, and explained that what was being proposed was consistent with the Sugar House Master Plan and development standards for the Zone. Mr. Traughber discussed the canal that runs under a portion of the site and the need to move the canal to accommodate the development. Commissioner McHugh asked if the project was being held up due to the issue that the canal could only be moved in the winter. Mr. Traughber deferred the question to be answered by the Applicant. He stated this project was submitted to the Community Council on March 2nd and he had forwarded all of the public comment to the Commission. Mr. Traughber said this was a Conditional Building and Site Design Review, the use of the building was not under review as it was consistent with the Zone. He reviewed the language from the zoning ordinance for the area stating that no new building or continuous group of buildings shall exceed a continuous length of 300 feet. The proposed project exceeded the limit by approximately 6o feet. Mr. Traughber stated the Planning • _...af u._r.Y._xa•1.._,i i:..e.�r�tr.:.w�.=..s.,,..:.c...m_. ...[W+�a.r..+.iLs_a+s.... ...=e�w.^.,�La N.v.m-..s—.. ,an...-.ten �s 2n..aA ye v.e`zee ri c__...T-�'7 Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 21 Commission has the authority to modify that standard as they see fit. He explained Planning Staff suggested the standard could be modified for a couple reasons; first the previous building was an uninterrupted length greater than 300 feet. Second, Mr. Traughber said the facade relates to the smaller business facades typically seen in the Sugar House area. He reviewed the proposed west elevation stating that if the property on that side were to come available there could be a trail put in at which time the applicant would also open up retail along the west side. Mr. Traughber stated the Applicant was asking the Planning Commission to review both facades and allow an option for either facade dependent upon what happened with the trail property. Chairperson Fife clarified that if the other property owner donated the property for the trail the Applicant would like to take advantage of the other property owner's donation. Mr. Traughber stated that the Applicant was not proposing any sort of donation of property, but if another property owner donated property they would like to take advantage of it. 7:54:31 PM Mr. Craig Mecham, property owner, introduced Mr. Russell Callister, Mr. Jeff Byers and Mr. Michael Neilson his partners in the project. Mr. Jeff Byers stated they were excited about the project. He explained the architecture and experience they would like to achieve including walkable sidewalks and outdoor dining. He reviewed the access into the parking structure and stated there will be 362 parking stalls. Mr. Byers said they are providing parking a little over 2 stalls per retail unit and on an average of 1.25 cars per apartment which addresses the one car per bedroom requirement. Commissioner Gallegos asked if the Applicant had taken into consideration the trolley that would possibly be located fairly close allowing for lower parking requirements. Mr. Byers stated they had taken that into consideration. Commissioner Luke said he read the concerns regarding the elimination of some street parking spots and asked where those were located. Mr. Bvers indicated that three spots, at most, would be eliminated around the entrance to the parking garage. Mr. Byers reviewed the different views of the structure, landscape and other positive aspects of the project that would make it user friendly. He stated the project was wonderful, exciting and they felt it would be a great addition to the area. Commissioner Luke asked if the units were proposed as apartments rather than condos because of the current market. Mr. Mecham stated that was correct. Chairperson Fife asked if affordable units would be included. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 22 Mr. Mecham stated that there are not any affordable units included as they are having issues with financing and the lenders are very skeptical of affordable housing. Commissioner McHugh stated having affordable housing in the current market was not a good idea because of the risk, and banks would not lend for that type of project. Chairperson Fife stated there could be assistance to help with the funding through the City Housing Trust Fund or the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Mecham stated they had looked into that and were skeptical of it. Chairperson Fife asked if they thought they would not receive the funding if they were to ask for it. Commissioner Hill explained her experience with financing. She said that a lot of the funding available was being constrained because the money was at a high risk and with development projects like the proposed the banks were actually putting restrictions on the money stating they won't lend if there was affordable housing components in high-end projects that potentially may affect the ability to rent out the units. Mr. Mecham stated that was correct. Mr. Dyers stated that the market survey they conducted indicated that was not an option for this .� market. Chairperson Fife stated he did not agree. Commissioner Hill explained it had been her experience with a similar project in Washington that the developers had the same issues with acquiring financing. Commissioner Woodhead asked about the west elevation, stating the original elevation showed something that looked like three big garages at the north end. Mr. Byers stated those were not garages just articulated panels to help break up the blank wall. Commissioner Woodhead asked if there were reasons retail could not be offered on the west elevation without the trail. Mr. Byers stated they do not have access to that property and it was owned by someone else. 8:05:28 PM Public Hearing Chairperson Fife opened the Public Hearing. 0.44 _ - Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 23 8:05:58 PM Ms. Judi Short, Sugar House Community Council, stated the Council liked the project. She explained one of the concerns was affordable housing, and she understood what was said about the money although she did not agree. Ms. Short said they would like to see a mid-block, north/south walkway, through the Granite Block. She felt it was critical to the project and expressed the hope of the Council that the parcel could be acquired and the trail established so the corridor could happen. Ms. Short said she thought it would be really cool if there could be retail on the west side and people could walk around the whole area. Ms. Short said the Open Space Master Plan called for recognizing the loss of connection, physically and physiologically, between the urban and natural systems. She said the Master Plan used a system of liner parks and no motorized transportation corridors to re-establish the connections between the natural landforms through the urbanized areas of the City. She explained the Sugar House Master Plan called for pedestrian connections between open space parks and the Business District. She discussed the canal and the hope that the construction would not interrupt the success of the Sugar House farmer's market hosted on the monument. Ms. Short stated the Council was worried about the entrance to the parking terrace on Highland Drive. She stated it removed street parking and reduced the width of the sidewalk directly in front of the entrance to the apartments. She said the Council would really like to see that reconfigured and she heard that Mr. Young had a plan to open Elm Avenue up from the east through the block which could potentially be a way to enter the parking terrace. Ms. Short said if the canal corridor cannot be opened then the trail needed to follow along Highland Drive. She stated the sidewalk probably was not wide enough to accommodate pedestrians, rollerblades or other traditional trail users and at the north end of the block the sidewalk was barely wide enough for two people to pass, a trail needs to be wider. Ms. Short stated there are many items that need to be taken into consideration when determining the width of the sidewalk. She said if the Johnson parcel was not obtained, the way the current proposal reads there would become a dead end area behind the Rockwood Building creating the perfect place to for undesirable activities and individuals. She said the community would like to see small local business located in the building and Mr. Mecham had said he would give a discount to small local retailers. Ms. Short stated the project should obtain LEED Gold certification as specified in the RDA documents. She explained that the applicant stated he may put solar panels up on the roof even if they are not activated and they felt it should to be an active LEED Certified building. Ms. Short stated in the Staff Report, Transportation recommended the removal of the mid-block crosswalk because the entrance to the parking terrace. She said the mid-block cross walk was very valuable with all of the pedestrian traffic walking across, it may need to be moved but they didn't want it to go away completely. 8:11:40 PM Ms. Laurie Bray, 1064 East 2100 South, stated she had a photography studio in the Rockwood Building owned by the Johnsons who also own the parcel next door. She states she was concerned about the canal that runs under her building. Ms. Bray explained the size of the canal and the problems with flooding she has experienced in the past. She was concerned that if the south end of the canal was moved what would happen with the section under her building. Ms. Bray stated there was some speculation that the reason it flooded was that when the demolition occurred the building fell and the ground shifted. She stated she talked with the Director of Public Utilities and he said he was not even sure what the plans were regarding the canal. Ms. Bray stated there needed to be more communication about what was planned for the canal. She Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 24 stated she was also concerned about the sidewalks being closed during construction. She explained that during the demolition the piles of snow were so tall that people had to walk down the middle of the street and nothing was done by the City to correct the problem. Ms. Bray said the walks needed to stay open during construction and be monitored. She said her other concern was traffic and no one has addressed it. She was excited for the project and happy to have something right next door but she was concerned that her customers would not have parking. Ms. Bray stated there was already so much traffic in the area and a solution needed to be found. 8:14:03 PM Ms. Elaine Brown stated she had lived in the Sugar House area for 58 years. She told of when she used to shop at the old Sugar House stores with her mother. She said she was sad when the shops closed up and the property deteriorated and she was very excited for the proposed construction. Ms. Brown stated things change, the whole nature of shopping had changed and she thought the concept of retail with residential was a great ideas. She stated she felt Mr. Mecham had done a wonderful job of putting the plan together; she was excited for him and hoped the Planning Commission would approve and support his plan. 8:15:48 PM Ms. Grace Sperry stated she lived on Highland Drive and thanked Mr. Traughber for getting her email to the Commissioners. She stated she looked forward to the project being completed. Mrs. Sperry stated the sidewalks are narrow and have been for years because of the changes to the street providing bike lanes and right and left turn lanes. She stated the Urbana Apartments, and Wilmington Gardens have affordable housing and there was affordable housing all around Sugar ""*, House. Ms. Sperry explained the issues with parking around the Monument and the commons area and stated parking would always be a problem that would get worse but in the end be positive in the area. 8:17:54 PM Mr. Rawlins Young, Transportation Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, stated he would like to see the Planners use the master plans as they were intended to be used. He discussed how to get walkability in downtown Sugar House by using plans like City Creek in Downtown Salt Lake City. Mr. Young explained the connections that should be made with streets in Sugar House to make the transportation plan more effective. He stated one idea would be to take Elm Street and bring it through the block to Highland Drive, which would be on the south side of the proposed building, that way the parking could be accessed off a local street instead of a main thoroughfare. Commissioner Woodhead clarified Elm Street was the street located near the south end of the project. Mr. Young stated it was on the west side and would create the walkability and take care of the parking access problem. Chairperson Fife stated to do that the City would have to condemn the land and build a street. Mr. Young said condemn the land and build the street then. He said generally what a city would do was require the developer to develop the street system as part of the project. Mr. Young Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 25 explained how access walks and sidewalks should be parallel to each other to form wider sidewalks. He said the Master Plan states the sidewalks should be io feet and incorporated in to all developments then there would not be the bottlenecks created by of 4 foot sidewalks. Commissioner Woodhead asked if the sidewalk width was outlined in the ordinance. Chairperson Fife stated it was not. Mr. Young stated the problem was that the Planners did not read the Master Plan as part of the planning process. He stated when developers give extra land they should be allowed to develop up and have the ability to add more floors possibly up to seven stories. Mr. Young stated the problem with the building was that because it was apartments and no business there was no employment opportunities in the area and no reason for the general public to visit the area. He said this was supposed to be the Center of Sugar House but it was dead and boring. 8:23:20 PM Chairperson Fife read the comments from Scott Kisling. Mr. Kisling wrote the following: He supported the project with the conditions that the Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan calls for regarding the north-south McCelland Trail. If this proposal does not include the McCelland Trail on its west side, space should be allocated in the form of a wide sidewalk on its east side especially between the building's parking entrance and the building itself. Space for the trail should not be left up to other property owners. Mr. James Brown wrote he supported the Mecham development as proposed with Staff recommendations. 8:24:13 PM Chairperson Fife closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Hill asked the Applicant to comment on the width of the sidewalks. 8:24:35 PM Mr. Byers stated the sidewalk from the back of the curb to the property line was exactly 10 feet. Commissioner Luke asked whether or not the structure abutted the existing building on the west side, north corner. Mr. Byers stated no, that space exists there. Commissioner Luke asked how wide the space was. Mr. Byers stated it approximately 30 feet. Commissioner Luke asked if there was a sidewalk along that area Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 26 Mr. Mecham stated there was not a sidewalk along the building but there was a sidewalk in the front of the area. He explained the reason the building sat the way it did for so long was because the building was built with a shared wall. Commissioner Woodhead asked if different options were considered when the parking access was designed to come off Highland Drive. She stated that was the one thing about the project she was uncertain about. Mr. Byers stated a curb cut would automatically interrupt pedestrian traffic along Highland Drive. The proposed access from Highland Drive used a ramp to go under the sidewalk. This design was approved two years ago. Commissioner McHugh stated that the access was only an entrance and not an exit. Mr. Traughber stated when the project originally came through in 2008 the developer had proposed an entrance that was basically in front of the Monument which was opposed by the public. He explained the option before the Commission was designed in response to that opposition. Commissioner Woodhead stated the Highland Drive entrance was Plan B. Mr. Traughber stated yes it was plan B and was approved last time. Commissioner Hill stated she really liked the way the ramp in that location created a small _. barrier between the housing component and the pedestrian flow. She stated the developers had done a brilliant job with the permeability of the access to all of the retail spaces and the well laid out potential for every side to be a front side. Commissioner Hill said she is excited for the project and looks forward to the addition. Mr. Byers explained the proposed parking entrance would help drive traffic to the retailer. He stated if the access was off of Elm Street it would not have the same effect which would make it hard for the retail space to be viable. Mr. Byers stated they had redesigned the west side of the project so that even the entrance goes under the sidewalk, they have created what they thought was as walkable a retail area as possible. The Commissioners agreed with Mr. Mecham that it was a good entrance under the sidewalk for both ingress and egress. 8:29:16 PM Chairperson Fife stated we have one person that did not hear the Public Hearing was closed therefore, he reopened the Public Hearing. 8:29:29 PM Mr. Robert Williams stated his concern was with the soil under the building that the canal has possibly affected. He stated he would like to know if there had been geologic studies conducted to ensure there will not be issues with the building and the soil. Mr. Williams said he was Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 27 worried about the stability of the soil. He said he did not think RDA should be putting money into the project and the developer should be putting forth all of the money required. Commissioner Woodhead asked the Applicant if they would like to come forward and address the soil issue. She explained the Planning Commission could not do anything about the RDA. Mr. Byers stated that issues such as the soil was the kind of question that kept him up at night and that was why they hired the best structural engineers and geotechnical engineers to make sure the building stood up. He stated that the portion of the canal being added would be pristine, brand new and hopefully last another ioo years. Chairperson Fife stated the developer could not do much about the section of canal under someone else's property. Mr. Byers stated exactly, but they will have control over the rebuilt section. 8:32:43 PM Chairperson Fife closed the Public Hearing 8:32:52 PM Motion Commissioner Luke made a motion regarding the Southeast Retail/Apartment Building at the Sugar House Loop, Conditional Building and Site Design Review, petition PLNPCM2011-00032 based on the analysis of the standards for the Conditional Building and Site Design Review process the testimony heard and the findings noted in the Staff Report that the Planning Commission approve the request subject to the seven conditions listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion. Commissioner Woodhead asked to propose an amendment to condition number six referencing the approval of the West facade. She said there should be language indicating if the trail property became available that the Planning Commission had a preference for the alternate version. The Commission agreed this should be added to the motion. Commissioner Luke stated on condition number six the Planning Commission delegates the final approval of the west facade of the proposed building to Planning Staff should property become available for trail development with the noted preference for the alternate west elevation. Commissioner Hill seconded the amendment. Vote: Commissioners Gallegos, Luke, Hill, McHugh and Woodhead all voted "aye". The motion passed unanimously. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 28 8:35:19 PM PLNSUB2o11-00053 Public Safety Building Planned Development - a request by Mayor Ralph Becker and Salt Lake City Corporation for approval of a planned development proposal for the Public Safety Building project. The property was located at approximately 475 South 300 East. Mr. Stewart, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition for the Public Safety Building as outlined in the Staff Report. He explained the application was referred to as the plan development part of the project. Mr. Stewart explained this petition was specifically looking at building setbacks and grade changes in the front and corner side yard areas. He stated this plan development was actually reviewed based on a zoning of PL-2 which was considered as part of the previous application. Mr. Stewart stated the City Council was still in the process of considering the PL-2 zone as well as the stipulation on the communication tower. He said they had no objection, as indicated at City Council meeting, to the PL-2 zone but it would not likely be adopted until the April 5th meeting. Mr. Stewart stated the City Council was still in discussion regarding how to deal with the height of the communication tower which was a concern from the public. He reviewed the site plan and explained the changes to the parking for large vehicles, green public areas, parking under the building, ingress and egress to the parking garage, the extension and narrowing of forth street through the block to fifth south and onsite solar panels. Commissioner Luke asked, in regards to the solar energy and the net zero effect, was the energy created on-site going to be consumed at the site or was it going to flow into the grid. He asked if the building would be pulling energy from the grid and the solar panels feeding it back in. , , Mr. Stewart stated that would be a question for the Architect. Mr. Sommerkorn stated he recalled, from the last presentation, that there was going to be some off-site panels that were going to feed into the building and help even out the amount used versus the amount created. Mr. Stewart stated that was correct there would be an off-site area, out west, for solar panels. He stated the Architect/ Project Manager was there and could give more details regarding the issue. Mr. Stewart reviewed the concerns from the different departments such as the number of parking stalls required for the site and what Blair Street would be dedicated as have been resolved. Chairperson Fife asked if the walkways would still tie in together from the library as proposed. Mr. Stewart stated there would be a raised crosswalk that will come right into the plaza from Library Square. He said the two main issues that needed to be addressed were the setbacks and the grade changes. Mr. Stewart indicated the areas in question and explained that the PL-2 zones require a 20-foot setback from the property line. He said the applicant was requesting a 15-foot encroachment into the front and corner setbacks for ventilation shafts from the parking garage with terraced landscaping up to the grates. Mr. Stewart explained the grade changes were in regards to one foot increment steps to accommodate the landscape terraces that could total 6 feet of grade change in the yard area. The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of two feet for a grade change. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 29 Chairperson Fife asked if the parking was available for public use. Mr. Stewart stated at this point it would be secured parking. Commissioner McHugh stated there was public parking on Blair Street. Mr. Stewart stated there was surface parking as well as parking under the library available to the public. Chairperson Fife asked if 30o East was being narrowed. Mr. Stewart stated 300 East will be narrowed down to one lane in each direction with a landscaped median and a bike lane. He explained the federal setback requirements of 50 feet from curb causing 300 East to be narrowed. Commissioner Gallegos stated when the Planning Commission first started talking about the project there were two buildings, a Public Safety Building and an Emergency Operations Center, are both in the same building now. Mr. Stewart stated both would be housed in the same building. Commissioner Woodhead clarified that the building design was not part of what was in front of the Commission. Mr. Stewart stated that was correct this was not a conditional building and site design review so they were not looking at the design of the building. He stated they could look at the layout and placement of certain features but materials were not being reviewed. 8:51:32 PM Mr. David Hart, Architect/Project Manager, stated he did not have anything to add. 8:51:39 PM Public Hearing Chairperson Fife opened the Public Hearing. 8:51:38 PM Ms. Cindy Cromer stated she was not happy with the project and was dismayed at the late breaking news about the mono pole. She thanked Mr. Stewart for attending the Community Council and telling people about the pole. Ms. Cromer said that was really the first anyone heard about the huge mono pole. She stated maybe it was common sense that given the number of communication devises around the City there might have to be something rather large for this particular building however, the proposed pole was very, very large and extends above the building. Ms. Cromer said she would have liked to have known about the pole sooner and was extremely disappointed at the late notice. .P.�._. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 30 Chairperson Fife stated the Planning Commission talked about the mono pole the last time a petition for the project was presented to the Planning Commission therefore, the information had been public for at least a month or so. Ms. Cromer stated it was a very short time relative to the length of this project. 8:53:06 PM Chairperson Fife closed the Public Hearing. 8:53:11 PM Motion Commissioner Luke stated, related to PLNSUB2o11-00053, based on the Staff Report he recommend the Planning Commission approve the application subject to the conditions as outlined in the Staff Report. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Gallegos, Luke, Hill, McHugh and Woodhead all voted "aye". The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Woodhead stated her hesitation was due to not having more information about the building before making the decisions about the advantages of the setbacks and how they related to the street. 8:54:20 PM Meeting adjourned This document, along with the digital recording, constitute the official minutes of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held on March 23, 2011. Michelle Moeller Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 31 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, June 22,2011 at 6:00 p.m. or immediately following the Work Session The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m. in Room 126. Work Session: 5:30 in Room 326. During the Work Session the Planning Staff will brief the Planning Commission on pending projects, discuss project updates and minor administrative matters. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. Briefing: A discussion regarding the Special Exception process and transferring the review authority from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission and other text amendments related to special exceptions. Discussion Only. (Staff contact: Maryann Pickering at 801-535-7660 or maryann.pickering@slcgov.com) PLNPCM2011-00783 Conditional Building and Site Design Review - A request to update the zoning code to eliminate conflicts and to streamline the Design Review process. The changes are applicable citywide. (Staff contact: Doug Dansie at (801) 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com). Approval of Minutes: June 11,2011 • Report of the Chair and Vice Chair • Report of the Director • Public Hearings 6:30 or immediately followin;the work session Public Hearing Legislative Petitions 1. PLNPCM2010-00784 Code Maintenance Noticing Text Amendment - A request by Mayor Ralph Becker to amend sections 21A.10.020, 21A.14.060 of the zoning Ordinance to require all public hearings to be noticed in a similar manner using the most stringent of the existing noticing requirements. The proposal will remove signature requirements for routine and uncontested special exceptions and replace with an official notice of application. Related provisions of Title 21A- Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact: Michaela Oktay at (801) 535-6003 or michaela.oktay@slcgov.com). 2. PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Unit - A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning text amendment to allow accessory dwelling units within the following single-family and multi-family residential districts: FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R- 2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75. This request is part of the Sustainability City Code Initiative and would affect areas City-wide. (Staff contact: Michael Maloy at 801-535-7118 or michael.maloy@slcgov.com). Administrative Petitions 3. Petition 410-07-57 Rio Grande Office Conditional Use Planned Development - A request by the Boyer company for clarification to the approval of an office building, located at approximately 50 North Rio Grande. The building was approved with a dome height of 90 feet, however the mechanical equipment is now proposed to be enclosed, resulting in more square footage of the roof being at 90 feet. This change is being presented to the Planning Commission for their concurrence with the proposed change. The subject property is located in a GMU (Gateway Mixed-Use) zoning district and is located in Council District 4, represented by Luke Garrott. (Staff contact: Doug Dansie at (801) 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com). The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices, room 406 of the City and County Building, Please contact the staff planner for information, Visit the Planning Division's website at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning for copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes.Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17;past meetings are recorded and archived, and maybe viewed at www.slctv.com SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, June 22, 2011 Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Acting Chair, Matthew Wirthlin, Commissioners Babs De Lay, Emily Drown, Charlie Luke, Susie McHugh, and Mary Woodhead. Chair Michael Fife, Vice Chair Angela Dean, and Commissioners Michael Gallegos and Kathleen Hill were excused. The Field Trip was cancelled. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. Planning staff members present at the meeting were: Joel Paterson, Planning Manager; Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner; Doug Dansie, Senior Planner; Michaela Oktay, Principal Planner; Mike Maloy, Principal Planner; Paul Nielson, Land Use Attorney; and Angela Hasenberg, Senior Secretary. 5:35:20 Work Session A discussion regarding the Special Exception process and transferring the review authority from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission and other text amendments related to special exceptions. Discussion Only. (Staff contact: Maryann Pickering at 801-535-7660 or maryann.pickering@slcgov.com) Ms. Pickering gave a presentation that was recorded as part of the Channel 17 broadcast of the Planning Commission meeting. The following points were made by Ms. Pickering: Primary Purpose: To transfer the Approval authority of all special exceptions from the Board of Adjustments to the Planning Commission. Minor Modifications: Change the approval process for special exceptions Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 1 o Notify property owners of the request for special exceptions and they will have a time to comment. • Removing the Routine and Uncontested Matters Chapter entirely. • Give the Historic Landmark Commission approval authority for Special Exceptions. • Basic cleanup of chapter 52, fixing incorrect references to the Utah State code. • Creating consistency. Questions from the Commissioners: Commissioner De Lay asked about signs and what types of signs the document was referring to. Ms. Pickering responded that there might at times, be signs in Historic Districts that need special exceptions. Commissioner De Lay referred to page 25 and asked about unit legalization wording. Ms. Pickering stated that the wording was the current wording and had not been updated. Commissioner McHugh asked for clarity of word usage on the memo. Ms. Pickering stated that she would make the appropriate changes. 5:40:19 Senior Planner Doug Dansie led a discussion on Billboards and signs. Mr. Dansie stated that there had been a briefing regarding this issue on May 25, 2011. He asked the Commissioners the following questions: 1) Should billboards be allowed to move with state law being the default, or should the City still have some receiving zone beyond state law? If the City has a receiving zone, where should it generally be located (industrial areas, neighborhood areas, etc.)? (At the May 25 meeting the Planning Commission indicated that they were interested in not letting State law be the default) a) Allow movement to any non-residential zone? b) Receiving zone in CG General Commercial or M Manufacturing zones? c) Move to CG or M zones with conditions? d) Other? Mr. Dansie stated that whatever decision that would be made would not be a replacement for State Law. The City Ordinance would determine location and would allow relocation without having to negotiate the individual board. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 2 2) Should electronic conversions be allowed? If so where? a) Allowed? b) Allowed only in non-residential zones? c) Allowed only in CG and M zones? d) Allowed with conditions (i.e. removal of non-conforming or other boards)? e) Other? Commissioners' response: Commissioners McHugh and Wood head both felt that d would be their preference to allow boards in certain zones and under certain conditions. Commissioner Luke stated that he preferred b, allowed in non-residential zones. Commissioner Wirthlin stated that he would like to see honest input from the industries if incentives would have made a difference. 3. Should conversion be based upon one to one square footage ratio or based upon a higher ratio; or a combination of the two, depending on what boards are being converted? a) One to one? b) Two to one? c) Higher than two to one? d) One to one if the board is being removed from residential (or neighborhood commercial) zones and higher if being removed from other zones? e) Other? Commissioners' response: Commissioner De Lay stated that she did not feel that there had been enough information regarding a square foot ratio trade off to make a decision. Mr. Dansie asked for clarity on what level of trade the Commissioners would be comfortable with. Commissioners Wirthlin and Woodhead suggested that a 2: 1 ratio would be a good start. Commissioner Drown asked if when something is converted, theoretically from the standard billboard to an electronic billboard, the billboard would be taxed at a higher rate. Mr. Dansie responded that if the value of the structure went up, it would be. Commissioner Drown asked if the tax was based on the fact that an electronic billboard can change multiple times, which would increase its profitability. Mr. Dansie replied that it was based on the value of the structure. e*, , Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 3 Planning Manager Joel Paterson added that the structure for an electronic board would be more expensive than a regular board and clarified that billboards are taxed as personal property and not real property. Mr. Dansie made it clear that the industry does pay income and sales tax. 4.)Should boards that are non-conforming for specific reasons (spacing, residential location, etc.) be allowed to convert? a) Allow all to convert? b) Do not allow non-conforming boards to convert? c) Other? Commissioners' response: Mr. Dansie clarified that this was for electronic conversion. Commissioner Woodhead stated that the answer should be "b", no. She stated that was the point of non conforming. That would be contravention of what the City though the policy was, about where they should be and allowing them to convert made them more likely to stay where they were. Commissioner Wirthlin agreed. 5.)Should Gateway provisions be preserved as is or should they be modified to more effectively encourage the removal of certain boards (such as those on 500 and 600 South)? Should movement and/or conversion be targeted or at least be "like for like"? a) Eliminate gateways? b) Allow conversion on freeways if non-conforming or on-ramp boards are removed? c) Other? Commissioners' response: Commissioner Wirthlin asked if the Planning Commission still was in favor of Gateways. Commissioner Woodhead asked if it would be possible to trade Gateways to the West side of the freeway. Mr. Dansie responded that staffs intention was to trade Gateways for Gateways, to trade "like" for "like". Commissioner Wirthlin stated that this had been long standing City policy, and he did not see the City walking away from the Gateway idea. •- s..;,..ez...si�,..=.......X___.r9�.��._��. .e_.+caa.a_s�.a++ „i_c'ae+vss.en v,..k.e-JF.Yes.cvi9a-�.. w.. .�s..a_._uw�-c ei.a.+. -Ei. _ _ .. . .1' Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,June 22, 2011 Page 4 Commissioner De Lay and Wirthlin suggested that "b" allowing conversions on freeways if non-conforming or on boards removed from freeway ramps was the best suggestion. Commissioner Wirthlin asked Mr. Dansie asked if there were other high priority billboards to remove that could be added to the suggestions of 500 and 600 South. Mr. Dansie responded that 600 North 900 South off ramp, residential boards, or CN boards could be added. He asked the Planning Commission if they would want to see a non-conforming board on a crowded commercial street. Commissioner De Lay stated that if there were fewer boards on residential streets then absolutely. Commissioner Luke said he felt the chances of compromise were greater if the industry had more options. Mr. Dansie responded that out of the six residential billboards in the City, four were located on land owned by the billboard company, and one was for sale. Therefore, if the billboard company owns the sign and the land there would be less incentive for them to move. Commissioner Luke offered that if there were other incentives, through conversion or otherwise, then the industry would potentially still change their mind. Mr. Dansie clarified that conversions, particularly on the freeway in exchange for removal of specific things elsewhere would be a good balance in order to remove the signs that they truly want removed, as opposed to just removing anything. Commissioner De Lay stated that she believed that the conversion to electronic boards would definitely be incentive enough for the billboard companies to move the residential signs. Mr. Dansie asked if the idea of moving billboards and allowing them to convert to electronic based upon a ratio and a priority system based on what signs are the most desirable to move first, would be acceptable. Commissioner De Lay asked if there was a list. 6.)Should urban design and/or removal of impediment to development be used as an incentive to the conversion process (require to be part of building architecture, etc.)? a) Do nothing? b) Allow conversion in Downtown or on Special Gateways if the new electronic board is part of the architecture? c) Allow conversion to electronic only if boards (residential, non-conforming, etc.) are removed first? Atlel,,, d) Other? Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 5 Commissioners' response: Mr. Dansie explained that his intention was that if a billboard was part of the architecture, they would allow an existing sign to convert to electronic. Commissioner Wirthlin stated that he felt that had possibilities and asked for a draft to look at. 7.)Direction regarding electronic signage in general (interactive, timing, size, location, etc.) a) Should there be limits on size depending on zoning district? b) Should the percentage of the sign that is electronic be limits? c) Should there be limits on motion - animation? d) Limits on lettering size for readability - are there legal issues? e) Other? Mr. Dansie stated that whatever decision that would be made would not be a replacement for State Law. The City Ordinance would determine location and would allow relocation without having to negotiate the individual board. Commissioner response: Commissioner De Lay stated that in regard to "a" there should be limits on size, regarding "b" seemed to be that they should be entirely electronic or not electronic. Mr. Dansie stated that in fact, there were signs that had a large percentage that were fixed images, adding that this applied to on and off premise signage. He clarified that in CN zones, there could possibly be percentage restrictions on fixed versus electronic portions of signs. Commissioner De Lay asked if in regard to "c" was there not a prior ban on motion/animation. Mr. Dansie replied that that the issue was mostly in regard to on premise signs and that the ban needed to be explicitly stated. Commissioner Drown asked if there was a limit to how many electronic billboards could be within 500 feet. Mr. Dansie stated that there can only be one billboard every 500 feet, however, there is no limit to how many on premise signs that could be between them. He stated the issue would be the possibility of too many electronic signs with too much animation. Commissioner McHugh asked if animation could include live feed. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 6 Mr. Dansie stated that it was very limited to a television station. Mr. Dansie asked if the Planning Commission would be interested in limiting the size of lettering and readability. The Commissioners asked if there were any complaints regarding lettering size being distracting. Mr. Dansie responded that there had been and stated an example of a hospital sign in Sandy that said "look closer" forcing driving to look at small text. Commissioner Wirthlin stated that he appreciated the hard work that Mr. Dansie had put into this issue. Commissioner De Lay said that she hoped that there were methods being created to ensure enforcement on the new rules, and suggested that the City made sure that the billboard companies were paying accurate taxes. 6:30:31 Mr. Dansie led a discussion regarding Chapter 21A.59 Conditional Building and Site Design Review process. Mr. Dansie gave a presentation that was recorded as part of the Channel 17 broadcast o,.,.= the Planning Commission meeting. The following points were made by Mr. Dansie: ® 1995 Salt Lake City rewrote the zoning code. Form based zoning was used where the zoning code defined what a building would look like and focused less on the use. • 2005 a Walkable Communities Ordinance that included more design issues. • Present intent, to remove anything that was not a "use" and create a new section and new process for site design. 6:32:42 Public Hearing 6:32:45 Approval of Minutes from June 8: Motion: Commissioner Woodhead moved to approve the minutes of June 8, 2011. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,June 22, 2011 Page 7 Second: Commissioner McHugh seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Emily Drown, Babs De Lay, Charlie Luke, Susie McHugh and Mary Woodhead all voted "aye". The motion passed unanimously. Report of the Vice Chair: Acting Chairperson Wirthlin had nothing to report. Report of the Director: PLNPCM2010-00188 - Time Extension for Al Auto Parts Conditional Use - A request by Mike Vanikiotis for a one-year time extension for a conditional use to operate an outdoor auto salvage and recycling facility at approximately 5 South 5100 West. The project was originally approved by the Planning Commission on June 23, 2010. The subject property is located in the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district in City Council District 2, represented by Van Turner. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at 801-535-6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Planning Manager, Joel Paterson, stated that there was a request for a time extension for a period of one year. As part of the project the applicant was required to relocate the drain, because of the weather it has been too damp to complete the work and need an extension. Motion: Commissioner De Lay made the motion to approve the one year extension. Second: Commissioner Woodhead seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Emily Drown, Babs De Lay, Charlie Luke, Susie McHugh and Mary Woodhead all voted "aye". The motion passed unanimously. 6:33:51 Public Hearing Acting Chairperson Wirthlin made a change to the order of the agenda. Petition 410-07-57 Rio Grande Office Conditional Use Planned Development - A request by the Boyer company for clarification to the approval of an office building, located at approximately 50 North Rio Grande. The building was approved with a dome height of 90 feet, however the mechanical equipment is now proposed to be enclosed, resulting in more square footage of the roof being at 90 feet. This change is being presented to the Planning Commission for their concurrence with the proposed change. The subject property,is located in a GMU (Gateway Mixed-Use) zoning district and is located in Council District 4, Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 8 represented by Luke Garrott. (Staff contact: Doug Dansie at (801) 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com). Acting Chairperson Wirthlin recognized Doug Dansie as staff representative. Mr. Dansie stated that this was a request to clarify a planned development that was proposed at 50 North Rio Grande. Mr. Dansie gave a PowerPoint presentation that illustrated the change to the original design. The change included the addition square footage to the 90 foot dome. Commissioner Wirthlin asked who was responsible for the need to change the original plan. Mr. Dansie explained that the original plan was conceptual and that the applicant had more mechanical equipment than expected and wanted to screen it and cover it. Commissioner Woodhead made the statement that she was disappointed that Rio Grande Street would be blocked by this project. Comment from the Applicant: Rob Cottle, Architect from Babcock Design Group clarified that the applicant wanted to 0. be a LEED Silver design and therefore went with a more efficient mechanical system thz required a cooling tower. He stated that the ordinance allowed them to have mechanical equipment on the roof and not be in violation. He added that it was their intent to have it blend in more with the architecture. 6:40:25 Open of Public Hearing Acting Chairperson Wirthlin opened the public hearing, seeing no one chose to speak, he closed the public hearing. 6:40:31 Motion: Commissioner De Lay made the motion regarding Petition 410-07-57 Rio Grande Office Conditional Use Planned Development after testimony heard tonight, that the Planning Commission approve the item. Second: Commissioner McHugh seconded the motion. z.,,,_ - - < _ Fri, curvws'.rs�.• .u:mm�- c+n.emsa�y.et..,w,..r'^.w.ti.��^ass+_w+.rx.�ra.+y.:.nPva>.ta....s.wssz.ct_........xaMes.z..3 Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 9 Vote: Commissioners Emily Drown, Babs De Lay, Charlie Luke, Susie McHugh and Mary Woodhead all voted "aye". The motion passed unanimously. 6:41:23 PLNPCM2010-00784 Code Maintenance Noticing Text Amendment - A request by Mayor Ralph Becker to amend sections 21A.10.020, 21A.14.060 of the zoning Ordinance to require all public hearings to be noticed in a similar manner using the most stringent of the existing noticing requirements. The proposal will remove signature requirements for routine and uncontested special exceptions and replace with an official notice of application. Related provisions of Title 21A- Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact: Michaela Oktay at (801) 535-6003 or michaela.oktay@slcgov.com). Acting Chairperson Wirthlin recognized Michaela Oktay as staff representative. Ms. Oktay stated that this was a request by Mayor Ralph Becker to amend sections 21A.10.020, 21A.14.060 of the zoning Ordinance to require all public hearings to be noticed in a similar manner. Ms. Oktay added that there were three major changes in the proposal. 1. Clean up the language and standardize the public hearing requirements a. Eliminates the need to amend the chapter every time we need to list another process. b. Allows for more clarity and consistency. c. Shortens the chapter and makes it clearer. d. Changes and outlines the specifics and ensures that noticing is carried out using the correct predictable manner for staff and citizens. e. Increases the neighbor notification to 300 feet 2. Change the appeal period for the Board of Adjustment from 30 days to 10 days to make it more consistent to the other Boards. a. Consistency with State Law. State Law requires 10 days. b. Consistency with other Boards. c. Provides the citizens consistent and predictable appeal periods. 3. To remove the signature gathering requirement for routine and uncontested matters and replaces it with a modified process that would be called the Notice of Application Process. a. Technically is an administrative special exception authorized by the Board of Adjustment. b. Staff is not able to verify authenticity of signatures c. Creates animosity between neighbors. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 10 �� Ms. Oktay said that the new process would be called Notice of Application Process for . Special Exceptions and staff believes that this new process would increase transparency,,„ of our process and provide predictable, consistent processes that would include official notification. Neighbors would know and be able to inspect the exactly the project that is being reviewed by the City staff and neighbors will be able to learn about the appeal process. 6:45:53 Questions from the Commissioners: Commissioner De Lay asked about the language referring to "including owners and tenants if held in condo ownership" she asked if the language could be changed to any tenants. Ms. Oktay stated that it was the current City process to notice all tenants. Commissioner Woodhead stated that she appreciated the removal of the sign gathering requirement. 6:47:08 Open of Public Hearing Acting Chairperson Wirthlin opened the public hearing, seeing no one chose to speak, he closed the public hearing. 6:47:21 Motion: Commissioner Woodhead made the motion as to PLNPCM2010-00784 Code Maintenance Noticing Text Amendment, moved that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed ordinance text amendment based on the information in the staff report, the discussion during the meeting and the presentation by staff. Second: Commissioner Drown seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Emily Drown, Babs De Lay, Charlie Luke, Susie McHugh and Mary Woodhead all voted ` aye". The motion passed unanimously. 6:48:04 PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Unit - A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning text amendment to allow accessory dwelling units within the 404, following single-family and multi-family residential districts: FR-1/43,560, FR- 2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 11 R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75. This request is part of the Sustainability City Code Initiative and would affect areas City-wide. (Staff contact: Michael Maloy at 801-535-7118 or michael.maloy@slcgov.com). Acting Chairperson Wirthlin recognized Michael Maloy as staff representative. Mr. Maloy gave a brief overview Public Hearing Issues and Comments • Density • Property values • Neighborhood character • Design quality • Location restrictions • Occupancy restrictions • Parking (on-site and off-site) • Fees and penalties Mr. Maloy stated that he had a conversation with the chairman of the Avenues Community Council because they specifically said that this item was contrary to the Avenues Master Plan. Mr. Maloy stated that he reviewed the Master Plan looking specifically for language that dealt with Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and found none. Mr. Maloy stated that an issue for the Mayor was that the City had removed the opportunity for an over-garage ADU that would be serviced by an alley. He stated the reason for that was that ADU structure height requirements were for buildings up to 17 feet, and an average over-garage unit would be 19 feet. However, Mr. Maloy stated that the Mayor was aware of the public input and therefore the language had not changed. Mr. Maloy stated that he researched what other communities were doing to assess best practices and found that there were not many design guidelines and was not a common practice to add them to ordinances. Mr. Maloy stated that a suggestion had been made by citizen Cindy Cromer that the ADU ordinance could be linked to transportation. The decision was made to have the ordinance be linked to mixed rail, and be within a half mile of station location. The result was that west side did not benefit from this proposal. Commissioner Woodhead made the point that transit locations changes, and thusly would put the decisions in the hands of Utah Transit Authority instead of the City. Commissioner Luke added that with fixed rail transit it would be different, that there would not be too much movement. 7:02:14 Questions from the Commissioners: Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 12 Commissioner McHugh stated that Mr. Maloy accommodated those who were worried , about parking by saying that a one bedroom unit would have to have one onsite parkin, spot, however in another place in the ordinance it stated that the Department of Transportation could waive it if it became difficult. Mr. Maloy responded that the opportunity to modify the parking requirement was actually in prior drafts and was introduced by Clarion and Assoc. He added that the stand would be that an applicant would have to meet the onsite parking requirement, but if on-street parking was available they would have to go to the Transportation Division to demonstrate the availability and have them modify the onsite parking requirement for the ADU Commissioners discussed the pros and cons of on street parking. 7:10:04 Public Hearing: Esther Hunter, Co-Chair of East Central/Side Community Council spoke in favor of the ordinance. She stated that after extensive research about what really concerns them in their area in terms of density, they determined that their concerns were with illegal duplexes, triplexes and out of state landlords. Some options that they requested the City look at were: • Implementation of Good Landlord program and taking them down to one unit. • Consideration of doing away with the special exception process that legalizes the units. Ms. Hunter stated that their Community Council felt that the Ordinance should be across all zones and not limited to the transit zones. She stated that in the East Central Community they have nine neighborhoods and three business districts. Of those nine, four of them are CDBG eligible. She stated that without extending the area, five of their neighborhoods would not be able to take advantage of the Ordinance for the student or aged population. The East Central Communities do believe that the ADU's should be owner occupied. Ms. Hunter stated that she felt that Mr. Maloy did an excellent job with community outreach and really appreciated the work he put into this Ordinance. 7:20:20 Motion: AimoiN Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 13 Commissioner De Lay made the motion in regard to PLNPCM2O1O-00612 Accessory Dwelling Unit based on the findings listed in the staff report, testimony and information presented I move that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. to allow accessory dwelling units within the following single-family and multi-family residential districts as listed on page one of the staff report. Second: Seconded by Commissioner Woodhead. Commissioner Luke made a substitute motion. Commissioner Luke made the motion that based on public testimony, information received in the following findings, I move that the Planning Commission transmit a negative recommendation to the City Council relating to petition PLNPCM2O1O-00612 to permit and regulate accessory dwelling units within the following single-family and multi-family residential districts as listed on page one of the staff report. Seeing no second to the substitute motion, Acting Chairperson Wirthlin went back to the original motion. Discussion on the motion: Commissioner McHugh asked if the motion would include the 25 units, and will it include a year end review. Mr. Maloy stated that previous drafts of this ordinance did included that after two years, the City Council shall review the impact of the ordinance. Mr. Maloy stated that he was advised that the City Council could amend the text language at any time, and the review would then be useless. Land Use Attorney Nielson suggested that a "sunset" could be placed on the ordinance with the intent that the City Council could revisit the ordinance; however he felt that it would add complications to the ordinance. Commissioner Woodhead stated that there was negative feedback from the public, and it was her sense that after listening to the information through the presentations and through the reading materials, that the ADU ordinance could go forward without damaging the single family nature of the Avenues, Yalecrest and others. She felt like the ordinance provides a mechanism for those neighborhood to maintain their integrity and reflect the way families function now. She felt the ordinance would be a positive thing. Commissioner Luke stated that he read the ordinance differently. Land Use Attorney Nielson asked if the 25 units per year would be after the adoption of the ordinance or if it would be within the calendar year. Mr. Maloy responded that it was within the calendar year. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 14 Vote: Commissioners Emily Drown, Babs De Lay, Susie McHugh and Mary 0.00001, Woodhead all voted "aye". Charlie Luke voted "nay". The motion passed. 7:23:35 Meeting adjourned This document, along with the digital recording, constitute the official minutes of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held on June 22, 2011. Angela Hasenberg Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 15 i'L)V CIO-DO h, z ti ,,,,, ���all' slit, t�"1d Petition Initiation LIM6itabt h ^ J : ii' Planning Division Community&Economic Development Department To: File From: Cheri Coffey` ssistant Planning Director Date: September 16, 2010 CC: David Everitt, Chief of Staff; Frank Gray, Community and Economic • Development Director; Mary De La Mare-Schaefer, Community & Economic Development Department Deputy Director; Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director; file Re: Sustainability Code Amendment Project: Accessory Dwelling Unit proposed regulations. As part of the Sustainability Code Amendment Project,this memo identifies a topic from the Bundle I amendment list that is the next to be processed. Chapter 21A.40, Accessory Structures and Uses, (as well as possibly other sections of the Zoning Ordinance) is proposed to be amended to implement sustainability goals relating to allowing Accessory Dwelling Units and applicable requirements. The purposes of the accessory dwelling unit provisions are to: 1. Create new housing units while respecting the look and scale of single-dwelling development; 2. Increase the housing stock of existing neighborhoods in a manner that is less intense than alternatives; 3. Allow more efficient use of existing housing stock, public infrastructure, and the embodied energy contained within existing structures; 4. Provide a mix of housing that responds to changing family needs and smaller households: 5. Offer a means for residents, particularly seniors. single parents, and families with grown children, to remain in their homes and neighborhoods, and obtain extra income, security, companionship, and services; 6. Promote a broader range of accessible and more affordable housing; 7. Provide opportunity for workforce housing in developed and new neighborhoods, close to places of work, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing fossil fuel consumption through less car commuting; o Page 1 S. Support transit-oriented development and reduce auto usage by increasing density near transit stops; and 9. Support the economic viability of historic properties and the city's historic preservation goals by allowing accessory residential uses in historic structures. As part of the process,the Planning Division will follow the City adoption processes including citizen input and public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council. AN 0 Page 2 Or- 10-11-11 Walkability Checklist How walkable is your community? Take a walk with a child .44 and decide for yourselves. <.. Everyone benefits from walking.These benefits �.r..t ' :` include:improved fitness,cleaner air, reduced risks - of certain health problems,and a greater sense of community. But walking needs to be safe and easy. Take a walk with your child and use this checklist to decide if your neighborhood is a friendly place to walk.Take heart if you find problems,there are ways you can make things better. 1 t, 4 Getting started: jr, 45, First,you'll need to pick a place to walk,like the route to school,a friend's house or just somewhere a t1111 fun to go. The second step involves the checklist.Read over the checklist before you go,and as you walk,note the locations of things you would like to change. At the end of your walk,give each question a rating.Then add up the numbers to see how you rated your walk overall. f `\ After you've rated your walk and identified any s. i�• ` problem areas,the next step is to figure out what tr �n f you can do to improve your community's score. Ti� , IA You'll find both immediate answers and long-term t _+ solutions under"lmprovingYour Community's t Score..."on the third page. • Partnership fora _,-1� U.S.Department �� WalkabWalkableAm.rlAmerica01 Transportation k ranapORet on , UI/fJ i pa Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center 4 ai�^ �;. Take a walk and use this checklist to rate your neighborhood's walkability. How walkable is community?your - Location of walk Rating Scale: i 2 3 4 56 awful many some good very good excellent problems problems 1. Did you have room to walk? 4. Was it easy to follow safety rules? ❑Yes ❑ Some problems: Could you and your child... ❑ Sidewalks or paths started and stopped ❑ Yes ❑No Cross at crosswalks or where you could ❑ Sidewalks were broken or cracked see and be seen by drivers? ❑ Sidewalks were blocked with poles,signs, ❑ Yes ❑No Stop and look left,right and then left shrubbery,dumpsters,etc. again before crossing streets? ❑ No sidewalks,paths,or shoulders ❑ Yes ❑No Walk on sidewalks or shoulders facing ❑Too much traffic traffic where there were no sidewalks? ❑ Something else ❑ Yes ❑No Cross with the light? Locations of problems: Locations of problems: Rating: (circle one) Rating: (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. Was it easy to cross streets? 5. Was your walk pleasant? ❑Yes ❑ Some problems: L 1 Yes ❑ Some unpleasant things: ❑ Road was too wide ❑ Needed more grass,flowers,or trees ❑ Traffic signals made us wait too long or did ❑ Scary dogs not give us enough time to cross ❑ Scary people ❑ Needed striped crosswalks or traffic signals ❑ Not well lighted ❑ Parked cars blocked our view of traffic ❑ Dirty,lots of litter or trash ❑Trees or plants blocked our view of traffic El Dirty air due to automobile exhaust ❑ Needed curb ramps or ramps needed repair ❑ Something else ❑ Something else Locations of problems: Locations of problems: Rating: (circle one) Rating: (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. Did drivers behave well? How does your neighborhood stack up? o Yes ❑ Some problems: Drivers... Add up your ratings and decide. ❑ Backed out of driveways without looking CIDid not yield to people crossing the street 1. 26-30 Celebrate! You have a great CITurned into people crossing the street 2• neighborhood for walking. CI Drove too fast 3. 21-25 Celebrate a little.Your 4 neighborhood is pretty good. ❑ Sped up to make it through traffic lights or 16-20 Okay,but it needs work. drove through traffic lights? 5. CI Something else 11-15 It needs lots of work. You deserve better than that. Locations of problems: Total 5-10 It's a disaster for walking! Rating: (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Now that you've identified the problems, go to the next page to find out how to fix them. Now that you know the problems, you can find the answers.• ,. -C � Mi ,. community ' s score . . . -.,..,, . Gui,: . What you and your child What you and your community can do immediately can do with more time 1. Did you have room to walk? Sidewalks or paths started and stopped • pick another route for now • speak up at board meetings Sidewalks broken or cracked • tell local traffic engineering or • write or petition city for walkways Sidewalks blocked public works department about and gather neighborhood signatures No sidewalks,paths or shoulders specific problems and provide a • make media aware of problem Too much traffic copy of the checklist • work with a local transportation engineer to develop a plan for a safe 2. Was it easy to cross streets? walking route Road too wide • pick another route for now • push for crosswalks/signals/parking Traffic signals made us wait too long or did not • share problems and checklist with changes/curb ramps at city meetings give us enough time to cross local traffic engineering or public • report to traffic engineer where Crosswalks/traffic signals needed works department parked cars are safety hazards View of traffic blocked by parked cars,trees, • trim your trees or bushes that block • report illegally parked cars to the or plants the street and ask your neighbors to police Needed curb ramps or ramps needed repair do the same • request that the public works • leave nice notes on problem cars department trim trees or plants 3. Did drivers behave well? asking owners not to park there • make media aware of problem Backed without looking • pick another route for now • petition for more enforcement G Did not yield • set an example:slow down and be • request protected turns Turned into walkers considerate of others • ask city planners and traffic engineers Drove too fast • encourage your neighbors to do for traffic calming ideas Sped up to make traffic lights or drove the same • ask schools about getting crossing through red lights • report unsafe driving to the police guards at key locations • organize a neighborhood speed 4. Could you follow safety rules? watch program Cross at crosswalks or where you could see and be seen • educate yourself and your child • encourage schools to teach walking Stop and look left,right,left before crossing about safe walking safely Walk on sidewalks or shoulders facing traffic • organize parents in your • help schools start safe walking Cross with the light neighborhood to walk children to programs school • encourage corporate support for flex schedules so parents can walk 5. Was your walk pleasant? children to school Needs grass,flowers,trees • point out areas to avoid to your • request increased police enforcement Scary dogs - child;agree on safe routes • start a crime watch program in your Scary people ......•- •- 4---.. • ask neighbors to keep dogs leashed neighborhood Not well lit14_ • -"r!~,:'_! or fenced • organize a community clean-up day Dirty,litter _ • report scary dogs to the animal • sponsor a neighborhood beautification Lots of traffic 't. control department or tree-planting day • report scary people to the police • begin an adopt-a-street program r ti• • report lighting needs to the police or • initiate support to provide routes with • appropriate public works department less traffic to schools in your • take a walk wih a trash bag community(reduced traffic during am • plant trees,flowers in your yard and pm school commute times) • select alternative route with less A Quick Health Check traffic Could not go as far or as fast as we wanted • start with short walks and work up • get media to do a story about the Were tired,short of breath or had sore feet or muscles to 30 minutes of walking most days health benefits of walking Was the sun really hot? • invite a friend or child along • call parks and recreation department Was it hot and hazy? • walk along shaded routes where about community walks possible • encourage corporate support for • use sunscreen of SPF 15 or higher, employee walking programs wear a hat and sunglasses • plant shade trees along routes • try not to walk during the hottest • have a sun safety seminar for kids time of day • have kids learn about unhealthy ozone days and the Air Quality Index(AQI) Need some guidance? These resources might help... Great Resources WALKING INFORMATION PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center(PBIC) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration UNC Highway Safety Research Center Traffic Safety Programs 730 Airport Road,Suite 300 400 Seventh Street,SW Campus Box 3430 Washington,DC 20590 Chapel Hill,NC Phone:(202)662-0600 27599-3430 www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/ped Phone:(919)962-2202 •01.1111111111111111*s www.pedbikeinfo.org •. ' National SAFE KIDS Campaign www.walkinginfo.org " 1301 Pennsylvania Ave.NW . Suite 1000 National Center for Washington,DC 20004 Bicycling and Walkingler 10 Phone:(202)662-0600 Campaign to Make Fax:(202)393-2072 • America Walkable www.safekids.org 1506 21st Street,NW Suite 200 Washington,DC 20036 WALKING AND HEALTH Phone:(800)760-NBPC US Environmental Protection Agency www.bikefed.org Office of Children's Health Protection(MC 1107A) Washington,DC 20460 Phone:202-564-2188 WALK TO SCHOOL DAY WEB SITES Fax:202-564-2733 USA event:www.walktoschool-usa.org www.epa.gov/children/ International:www.iwalktoschool.org www.epa.gov/airnow/ www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/ozone/what.html www.epa.gov/sunwise/uvindex.html STREET DESIGN AND TRAFFIC CALMING www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/comchoic/ccweb.htm Federal Highway Administration Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Program President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and HSR-20 Safety Risks to Children 6300 Georgetown Pike www.childrenshealth.gov McLean,VA 22101 www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/index.htm Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity Institute of Transportation Engineers Phone:(888)232-4674 www.ite.org www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/readyset www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/kidswalk/index.htm Surface Transportation Policy Project www.transact.org Prevention Magazine 33 East Minor Street Transportation for Livable Communities Emmaus,PA 18098 -, www.ticnetwork.org www.itsallaboutprevention.com -4lb s Shape Up America! r f WALKING COALITIONS 6707 Democracy Boulevard P 1, ; • y Suite 306 a h America Walks ` • r P.O.Box 29103 Bethesda,MD 20817 Portland,Oregon 97210 www.shapeup.org Phone:(503)222-1077 ;•1011‘ 0 www.americawalks.org ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALKS Partnership for a Walkable America • US Access Board National Safety Council 1331 F Street,NW 1121 Spring Lake Drive �` Suite 1000 Itasca,IL 60143-3201 — t Washington,DC 20004-1 1 1 1 •'• • Phone:(800)872-2253; Phone:(603)285-1121 ...,.-� "!' It.: . (800)993-2822(TTY)r� ' ( TY) www.access-board.gov ITEM A - 7 SEE ITEM A -4 FROM 10 /4/ 11 ITEM A- 8 SEE ITEM A -4 FROM 10 /4/ 11 i Attachment 1 Salt Lake City Council Capital and Debt Management Policies Pages 22-24—Salt Lake City Council Policy Manual A.25 GENERAL BUDGET POLICY a.When possible,Capital Improvement Projects are not delayed nor eliminated in order to balance the budget.The Council also avoids using one time revenues to balance the budget. A.26 CAPITAL AND DEBT MANAGEMENT(1/04) On December 14, 1999,the Council adopted a resolution relating to capital and debt management policies.The resolution states: THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City: Capital Policies 1. The Council intends to define a capital project as follows: "Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings,parks,streets or other physical structures.A capital improvement must have a useful life of five or more years.A capital project must also have a cost of$50,000 or more unless its significant functionality can be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project.A capital improvement is not a recurring capital outlay item(such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine)or a maintenance expense(such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches).Acquisition of equipment is not a capital project unless it is an integral part of the cost of a capital project." 2. The Council requests that the Mayor's Recommended Annual Capital Budget be developed based upon the Five- Year Capital Plan and be submitted to the City Council for tentative approval no later than March 1 of each fiscal year. 3. The Council requests that the Administration prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts which correspond to the capital program period as well as an analysis of the City's financial condition and capacity to finance future capital projects,and present this information to the Council with the presentation of each biennial budget. 4. The Council intends that no less than nine percent of ongoing General Fund revenues be invested annually in the Capital Improvement Fund. 5. The Council requests that the Administration submit an updated proposed five-year capital improvement plan to the Council along with the Mayor's Recommended Budget. 6. The Council intends that the City will maintain its physical assets at a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance and replacement costs. 7. The Council intends to give priority consideration to projects which preserve and protect the health and safety of the community are mandated by the state and/or federal government provide for the renovation of existing facilities,resulting in a preservation of the community's prior investment, •result in decreased operating costs or other significant cost savings,or improve the environmental quality of the City and its neighborhoods. 8. The Council intends to give fair consideration to projects where there is an opportunity to coordinate with other agencies,establish a public/private partnership,or secure grant funding,all other considerations being equal. 9. The Council intends to follow a guideline of approving construction funding for a capital project in the fiscal year immediately following the project's design wherever possible. 10. The Council intends that all capital projects be evaluated and prioritized by the CIP Citizen Advisory Board. 11. The Council does not intend to fund any project that has not been included in the Five-Year Capital Plan for at least one year prior to proposed funding,unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified. 12. The Council requests that any change order to any capital improvement project which equals or exceeds twenty percent of the approved project budget be brought to the Council for review in a formal budget amendment. 13. The Council requests that the Administration submit a budget amendment request to the Council no later than September 1 each year identifying those Capital Improvement Program Fund accounts where the project has been completed and a project balance remains.It is the Council's intent that all account balances from closed projects be recaptured and placed in the CIP Contingency Account for the remainder of the fiscal year,at which point any remaining amounts will be transferred to augment the following fiscal year's General Fund ongoing allocation. Debt Management Policies 1. The Council intends to utilize long-term borrowing only for capital improvement projects that are included in the City's 5-Year Capital Program and 20-Year Capital Inventory of Needs,or in order to take advantage of opportunities to restructure or refund current debt. 2. The Council requests that the Administration provide an analysis of the City's debt capacity,and how each proposal meets the Council's debt policies,prior to proposing any projects for debt fmancing.This analysis should include the effect of the bond issue on the City's debt ratios. 3. The Council requests that,when borrowing is recommended by the Administration,the source of funds to cover the debt service requirements be identified. 4. The Council requests that the Administration provide an analysis of the effect of any proposed bond issue on the City's ability to finance future projects of equal or higher priority. 5. The Council requests that the Administration analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City's operating budget and coordinate this analysis with the budget development process. 6. The Council requests that the Administration provide a statement from the City's financial advisor that each proposed bond issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed,including an indication of requirements or circumstances that the Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue. 7. The Council does not intend to issue debt that would cause the City's debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate ranges as indicated by the municipal bond rating industry. 8. The Council does not intend to issue debt if such debt will damage the City's current AAA general obligation bond rating or cause the City's lease revenue bond ratings to fall below current ratings. 9. The Council requests that the Administration fully disclose and the Council intends to consider the impact of all debt that has a net negative fiscal impact on the City's operating budget. 10. The Council requests that the Administration structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the issue unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or if the useful life of the financed project(s)suggests a different maturity schedule. �* SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYsis— FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: October 4, 2011 BUDGET FOR: 10 YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN • Initial Briefing—May 31,2011 • Briefing—September 6,2011 STAFF REPORT BY: Karen Halladay, Budget and Policy Analyst cc: David Everitt, Gina Chamness, Gordon Hoskins, Frank Gray, Mary De La Mare-Schaefer, Luann Clark, Mike Akerlow, Sherrie Collins Council Priorities-September 2011 At the Council's mid-year retreat,held on September 9th,the Council discussed their vision and ideas for Salt Lake City. Seven main themes or priorities resulted from their discussion(listed alphabetically): • Arts and Culture • Economic Health of the City • Local/Neighborhood Business • Neighborhoods/Schools • Parks and Open Space • Sustainability • Transportation and Mobility The Council,along with their staff,will further clarify these priorities in the coming months. The Council and Administration,in collaboration,could use the Council and Administration priorities,to guide,plan,develop, and implement projects and plans for Salt Lake City. There are various mechanisms or tools the Council and Administration can use to further their goals and vision for the City. One of these tools is the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan(CFP),formerly known as the 10- Year Capital Improvement Program Plan. This plan,presented by the Administration,is now before the Council for their consideration. As mentioned during the September 6th briefing,the initial list of departmental needs over the next ten years was nearly$415 million-$300 million of the funding projected to come from the General Fund. It should be noted that this list does not include several large capital projects: parking pay stations,Sugar House streetcar, Utah Performing Arts Center,East Side/Liberty Precinct,Salt Lake City Public Market,Salt Lake City Convention Hotel,Downtown streetcar,Central Plant Upgrade/Hydrogen Cell Co-Generation,or phase 2 of the Regional Sports Complex. Also,the Administration's plan indicates that several projects are deferred until other revenue sources become available: Jordan River Trail and 100 South Railroad Crossing,Parley's (PRATT) shared use pathway,and the Surplus Canal shared use pathway. The original list of needs exceeded the estimated or projected financial resources identified and available for capital projects. Given the amount of funding available,the Administration,along with the Consultant and City departments,re-evaluated and modified the original list and submitted a fiscally constrained plan of$151 million. The following chart presents department allocations as a percentage of the total for the unconstrained,fiscally constrained,and Mayor's recommendations: 1 Dept%of Total Dept%by 1st lot Dept%of Total Unconstrained Total Constrained Constrained Mayor's Mayor's Ca• I Pro ect De dined Needs Unconstrained Ust Ud !boommendstl.ns Roam m'iodations DATE PREPARED Mar-11 11 11-Ma Fire 20,250,000 4.9% 20,250,000 8.4% 12,400,000 8.2% Police 9,080,000 2.2% 9,080,000 3.8% 9,140,000 6.1% Parks and Open Space 70,773,811 17.1% 70,773,811 28.4% 43,356,200 28.8% Streets 242,000,000 58.4% 74,360,000 30.9% 61,860,000 41.1% Transportation 39,460,000 9.5% 33,280,000 13.8% 12,1160,000 8.5% Facilities On-going 30,835,971 7.4% 30,835,971 12.8% 9,198,604 6.1% CIP/impact Fee Study 44,600 0.0% 44,600 0.0% 44,600 0.0% Percent brAR 1,000,000 0.2% 1,000,000 0.4% 1,000,000 0.7% Cost Orarruns 800,000 0.2% 800,000 0.3% 600,000 0.4% Total Need 414,244,382 100.0% 240,404,362 100.0% 150,459,304 100.0% The Mayor's recommendation assumes that 7percent of eligible General Fund revenues or$15.3 million be allocated to the capital improvement program each year. Although the Council's policy is to allocate at least 9 percent of on-going General Fund revenue,the actual yearly CIP allocation is closer to 7 percent. Assuming the same General Fund revenue,the yearly CIP allocation at 9.00 percent would be$19.7 million. This is a difference of$4.4 million more than if 7 percent of on-going revenues were allocated to CIP. If the Council wanted to fully fund the articulated needs of the City's departments,excluding the large capital projects not induded in the$415 million,the funding allocation would be 13.7 percent of General Fund revenues,nearly twice that being proposed. (Note: The proposed plan includes a debt service placeholder of$2.5 million for future projects. A debt service payment of$2.5 million calculated at 4.5% interest over 10 years would fund a $19.6 million bond project. If the bond were extended to 20 years,a$32.2 million project could be funded.) In other words,the Council could allocate 13.7 percent to CIP each year for the next ten years and still not have adequate financial resources to dedicate to the following projects if the focus were on other identified priorities,such as: • Parking pay stations • Sugar House streetcar • Utah Performing Arts Center • East Side/Liberty Precinct • Salt Lake City Public Market • Salt Lake City Convention Hotel • Downtown streetcar • Central Plant Upgrade/Hydrogen Cell Co-Generation • Phase 2 of the Regional Sports Complex • Jordan River Trail and 100 South Railroad Crossing • Parley's (PRATT)and Surplus Canal shared use pathways Assuming these projects are important to the Council and the Community,the Council may need to limit or further defer replacement,maintenance,and standard CIP expenditures. It is also important to keep in mind that the amount of the annual CIP allocation decreases when the General Fund revenues decrease.This has happened over the past couple of years with the reduction of the annual operating budget It should be noted that on average over the past eight years,less than one-half of the amount of CIP and CDBG requests are able to be funded with the resources that are available. Funds available are not adequate to meet the current maintenance or capital needs of the City. The challenge of balancing the many needs of the City 2 could end up costing more due to deferring maintenance on existing assets(assets may have to be replaced if not properly maintained)or missing opportunities that would benefit the City in the future. Next Steps-Capital Facilities Plan(CFP) The list of City needs over the next ten years,the 10-Year CFP,is now before the Council for their review, discussion,possible modification,and approval. At the last briefing,the Council requested the$415 million fiscally unconstrained list of capital projects. This information is included on the attached spreadsheet. (See Attachment-3). To aid the discussion,Council Staff has included columns on the attached spreadsheet for the following questions: 1. Is the item a Council priority? If so,which one? 2. Is the item a non-discretionary item or a discretionary item? a. How does the item impact level of service? b. Level 1-Level of service remains the same. c. Level 2-Level of service is enhanced. d. Level 3-Level of service is new. The following graph presents how the extensive list of City projects could be evaluated and selected for funding. This is one method the Council could use to review and develop the 10-Year CFP for fiscal years 2012 thru 2021. Consider Projects for Funding: • Addresses Council Priorities Must 4e gofiripll40 for the City • Funding Source •` Becomes •0 Available or Identified d • Other V Consider Projects for Funding: • Public Safety G • Maintain Existing V ° Level of Service • Other Non-discretionary Discretionary (Not Optional) (Optional) Spending ► Since this is such a significant issue and opportunity to guide City investment over the next 10 years does the Council wish to have staff,perhaps working with Council Members individually or in small groups, identify which of the items on the 10-year Capital list link directly with Council priorities and which are essential as opposed to discretionary? This could further inform the Council's decision making process. 3 Questions for the Council's Consideration The Council may wish to consider the following policy questions during their capital needs discussion: Financial Management and Bonding 1. The proposed plan appears to be a significant departure from the Council's previously adopted Capital and Debt Management policies (See Attachment—1). a. Does the Council wish to review and discuss these policies prior to their review of the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)? b. The Council may wish to update, rescind, or revise the previously adopted policies. 2. Given the recent bond discussions for the Library, Golf, special projects,and the 10-Year CFP, the Council may wish to ask the Administration for a follow-up briefing on the City's bonding capacity, and the requirements or criteria needed to maintain the City's AAA bond rating. (See Attachment—2). 3. Given the many needs of the City - maintaining existing assets, funding previous priorities, responding to neighborhood and community quality of life requests, and investing in economic development opportunities for the City - does the Council wish to discuss additional funding mechanisms? Examples, include projects that could be partially or fully funded or completed with: a. Private Donations b. Partnerships c. Issuance of Bonds,including General Obligation Bonds d. Organized Volunteer Efforts 4. Does the Council wish to verify that its policies, rules of thumb, or patterns of appropriation of funds have been considered in the development of the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan? Examples include, set amount for local street reconstruction, amount or percentage for sidewalk ramps, sidewalks Special Assessment Areas, 1 percent for Art, etc. Note: The Council has had a policy to use 1 percent of the CIP allocation for Art. The amount set aside in the Mayor's proposed plan indicates this percent to be less than the desired 1 percent. 5. Does the Council wish to set a policy on the annual amount or percentage of funds that need to be used for existing City infrastructure and/or for new projects? 6. Does the Council wish to establish or clarify its policies regarding the understanding of annual impacts to City operations when capital projects are completed or not completed? For example, what are the financial implications of not upgrading irrigation systems, energy-saving traffic lights, etc. Another example would be to understand the annual operating costs of adding new facilities. 7. Does the Council wish to establish a policy about the use of a. Funds anticipated from increased sales tax due to particular developments? b. Increased property tax anticipated due to end of initial commitments? c. Funds to account for inflation in operating costs(without increasing property tax)? d. Funds available after retirement of debt service? Projects 8. Mentioned above - Since this is such a significant issue and opportunity to guide City investment over the next 10 years does the Council wish to have staff, perhaps working with Council Members individually or in small groups, identify which of the items on the 10-Year CFP list link directly with Council priorities and which are essential as opposed to discretionary? This could further inform the Council's decision making process. 9. During the September 27th Council Meeting, the Council passed a legislative intent to discuss the East Side/Liberty Precinct in context of the 10-Year CFP. Are there other items the Council wishes to understand with regard to shifts in policy, priority, or strategy that are represented by the absence of items on the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan list? Such as, the East Side/Liberty police facility,mentioned here. 4 10. There are several projects (current and future) being considered by the Administration and the Council that are not included on the Capital Facilities Plan. Does the Council wish to define a strategy,process, and timeline to fund and develop these projects in a manner that maximizes the City's resources? 11. Does the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan fully fund issues the Council has raised or recognized previously? For example, the 1300 South bridge, a major east-west connection in the City, to meet the necessary earthquake standards? 12. Case law related to sidewalk trip and fall cases has been evolving and may impact how the City administers its sidewalk replacement program. Does the Council wish to discuss these changes with the Administration? Process and Policy 13. Does the Council wish to establish a policy that requires that capital projects be considered in the context of all current and future City needs,and that all capital projects be vetted through a public process? 14. Does the Council wish to consider appropriating CIP funds bi-annually, rather than annually? Adopting the CIP budget every two years could result in time and cost savings by reducing the time spent determining the allocation. Additionally, cost savings may be possible in the bidding and construction process. Such a process would need to be timed with terms of office to avoid problems with binding future elected officials. 15. Capital Asset Management (CAM) Projects Set Aside- $2,700,000- The Administration is proposing to set aside a portion of the CIP funds in order to accumulate and fund future (CAM) projects. These projects, not yet specified, are defined by the Administration as major infrastructure projects that cost $5.0 million or more, require other funding sources, such as bonds,grants,private and public funding,and generally have a useful life of over five years. 10-Does the Council wish to establish a policy to define the criteria or requirements for use of these funds? ► Given there are many unfunded City projects, including capital repair, maintenance, and replacement needs, does the Council wish to have a policy discussion about setting aside funds for major future projects when needs associated with current City assets,including infrastructure,facility,and park needs are not being met? 16. The 10-year Capital Facilities Plan is typically a key place for the Mayor and Council to make generational decisions. What is the most effective way to make these large capital decisions for the City and its residents? 17. Several projects, including the 200 South and 900 South projects, and some Council suggested projects, were never vetted through the CIP process, should the policy be modified to reflect this approach? Other 18. The Council may wish to ask for information regarding current best practices regarding level of service standards for cities that are similar to Salt Lake City. Some level of service examples are amount of parks and open space per resident, response times for fire departments, and number of sworn officers per 1,000 residents. 19. Sometimes the City makes major capital investments in order to 'grow the economic development pie' among other reasons. Sometimes the numbers that are used to justify the investment are later used to justify a subsidy to a group to encourage them to come to Salt Lake City or another locale. Recent examples include: 1) Salt Palace expansion for Outdoor Retailers, that organization is now requesting financial assistance for tents; 2) Salt Palace expansion has significant vacancy, convention hotel investment is less of a risk than current known loss due to vacancy (D-News quote of Cony and V Bureau Director); 3) Sandy's Rio Tinto Stadium is not meeting projected number of concerts; and 4) First soccer tournament appears to be interested in City/County sponsorship. Does the Council wish to develop or clarify its policies regarding its investments in economic growth for Salt Lake City? a. Is the City's role to invest in capital infrastructure? b. Is the City's role to invest in the infrastructure and subsidize the events? c. What is this just an economic reality? 5 Attachments Amok The following paperwork(See Exhibits)has been submitted by Consultant,Anne Wescott,since the September briefing: • Exhibit A-Process for Constraining CFP Project List-Narrative,including steps taken to constrain the City's list of articulated needs. • Exhibit B-Parks Division Inventory • Exhibit C-Summary of Parks Priorities • Exhibit D-50 Highest Priority Streets • Exhibit E-Ten-Year Priority Plan for Capital Facility Repair and Replacement Needs • Exhibit F-Projects Identified as Priorities Based on Available Funding for Parks Prepared by Council Staff: • Attachment 1- Salt Lake City Council Capital and Debt Management Policies • Attachment 2-Bond Options for General Purpose Financing(Lewis Young Robertson and Burningham,Inc) • Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet The below information was provided for the September 6, 2011 briefing on the 10- Year Capital Facilities Plan. Council Action Needed • The Administration, with the help of consultant, Anne Wescott of Galena Consulting, has prepared a new 10-year Capital Facilities Plan. After discussion, possible modification, and approval the Council will need to adopt the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan. • Once adopted,the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan will be used to prepare the City's Impact Fee Facilities Plan(IFFP). Developing the Plan With the assistance of the consultant, departments went through a process to identify future capital needs, which included projects that would be necessary to serve growth, upgrade and maintain the City's current facilities. The initial plan represents the fiscally unconstrained capital projects totaling$415 million. Department projects were further constrained and prioritized based on additional factors,including alignment with Mayoral direction,community input,public safety,ability to serve new growth, and availability of other funding sources, such as Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) and Class C Funds. The cost of the proposed fiscally constrained plan is$242 million. After considering the yearly CIP allocation, assumed and calculated at 7% of general fund revenues, and the annual debt service needs, the amount available to fund the Capital Facilities Plan was reduced to reflect the amount available to fund the City's capital needs. There are two items regarding debt service that should be noted: • During FY 2015-16 debt service will increase by approximately $5.3 million due to the transfer of the SARR(Steiner Ice Sheet)obligation from the City's Redevelopment Agency(RDA)to the General Fund. • The Capital Facilities Plan includes the CAM (Capital Asset Management) Set Aside of $2.5 million. During the FY 2011-12 CIP budget, the Administration recommended setting this amount aside to provide a funding source for major capital asset projects, which could include the Sugar House and Downtown Streetcars, Utah Performing Arts Center, and/or Salt Lake City Public Market. (Note: A debt service payment of$2.5 million calculated at 4.5% interest over 10 years would fund a$19.6 million bond project. If the bond timeline was extended to 20 years at the same interest rate, a $32.2 million bond project could be funded. Both project amounts are net of issuance costs.) 6 Fiscally Fiscally Unconstrained Constrained FY 2011-12 to FY 2011-12 to FY 2020-21 FY 2020-21 Capital Needs: Identified 10-Year Capital Needs of $415 million $242 million Salt Lake City Note: Large Capital Projects are not included,only $2.5 million as a placeholder in the analysis. Sources of-FUndif Total General Fund CIP Allocation $153 million $153 million Assumption: 7%of General Fund Revenues Other Funding Sources Identified(10 Years)-Class $92 million $92 million C,CDBG,Open Space Bond Revenue,Impact Fees, Fleet Facility Bond Proceeds,Federal Highway Funds,Sales Proceeds-Public Safety and Police Evidence Facility Funding Available $245 million million Debt Service: General Fund CIP Allocation Needed $94 million $94 million to Fund Debt Service(10 years) Funding Available for Capital Needs after Debt $151 million $151.million Service Unfunded Capital Needs $264 million $91 million Capital projects had to be reduced by an additional $91 million in order to keep the revenue sources and capital project expenditures in balance. According to the Administration, department projects, mostly in current asset repair and improvements were cut from the Capital Facilities Plan. The Administration indicates that there will be an impact on the condition of these assets and the future costs to replace them. Details about the department projects eliminated can be found on page 3 and 4 of the report prepared by Galena Consulting. (See Attached.) Anne Wescott,Galena consultant, is scheduled to brief the Council at the September 6th work session meeting. Next Steps The Council may want to review and discuss their policies and processes regarding the City's capital needs and projects. This discussion could be scheduled for a future Council briefing or be a topic at the scheduled September 9th Council retreat. The following information related to capital projects is included later in this report: • General Obligation Debt Service payments for FY 2011-12 and Maturity Date • 2011 Council Goals and Priorities-Identified at Council Retreat • Capital Improvement Program Budget Process • Council Policies Regarding Capital Improvement Program • "Special" Items-Class C and Impact Fees- within the CIP Budget 7 Questions for the Council's Consideration Council Staff has also prepared questions the Council may wish to consider during their capital needs discussion. 1. The Council may wish to consider a process for adopting this plan,and whether or not the CFP should be adopted or considered in greater detail. Further, the Council may wish to consider the full list of potential CIP projects and unmet capital needs prior to consideration of the 10-Year CFP. As the Council will recall, the plan presented to the Council has been "fiscally constrained" by the consultant in collaboration with City Departments. The Council may wish to confirm that the policy budget decisions that have been made are consistent with the Council's policy and budget views. 2. Capital Asset Management (CAM) Projects Set Aside - $2,700,000-The Administration is proposing to set aside a portion of the CII'funds in order to accumulate and fund future (CAM) projects. (Note: The Administration recommends that a portion,$2.4 million,comes from City and County Building debt being paid in full during FY 2011.) These projects, not yet specified, are defined by the Administration as major infrastructure projects that cost $5.0 million or more, require other funding sources, such as bonds,grants,private and public funding,and generally have a useful life of over five years. ►In FY 2011-12 budget amendment #1, the Administration is proposing to use the CAM set aside of$2.7 million to fund a portion of the electronic parking pay station system being proposed by the Administration. Does the Council wish to establish a policy to define the criteria or requirements for use of these funds? Given that project(s) and details have not been specified, the Council may wish to make the spending of these funds contingent upon final Council approval. ► Given there are many unfunded City projects, including capital repair, maintenance, and replacement needs, . does the Council wish to have a policy discussion about setting aside funds for major future projects when current City assets,including infrastructure,facility,and park needs are not being met? 3. There are several projects (current and future) being considered by the Administration and the Council that are not included on the Capital Facilities Plan. Does the Council wish to define a strategy or process and timeline to fund and develop these projects in a manner that maximizes the City's resources? 4. Does the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan fully fund issues the Council has raised or recognized previously? For example, the 1300 South bridge, a major east-west connection in the City, to meet the necessary earthquake standards? 5. Does the Council wish to verify that its policies, rules of thumb, or patterns of appropriation of funds have been considered in the development of the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan? Examples include, set amount for local street reconstruction,amount or percentage for sidewalk ramps,sidewalks Special Assessment Areas,etc. 6. Does the Council wish to set a policy on the annual amount or percentage of funds that need to be used for existing City infrastructure and/or for new projects? 7. Does the Council wish to understand shifts in policy, priority, or strategy that are represented by the absence of items on the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan list? For example, the east side police facility. 8. The 10-year Capital Facilities Plan is typically a key place for the Mayor and Council to make generational decisions. What is the most effective way to make these large capital decisions for the City and its residents? 9. Does the Council wish to establish a policy about the use of a. Funds anticipated from increased sales tax due to particular developments? b. Increased property tax anticipated due to end of initial commitments? :n, c. Funds to account for inflation in operating costs(without increasing property tax)? d. Funds available after retirement of debt service? 8 10. Should we go back to the CityGate study and policies adopted after that so that we can determine whether the CIP plan and recent practices are in keeping with that? 11. 200 South and 900 South and some Council suggested projects were never vetted through the process, should the policy be modified to reflect new practice? 12. Will main projects, such as street car, theatre, convention hotel, etc. be vetted through the CIP process? If not, should we address that in the policy too? The County has just shifted to have significant projects vetted. 13. Sometimes the City makes major capital investments in order to 'grow the economic development pie' among other reasons. Sometimes the numbers that are used to justify the investment are later used to justify a subsidy to a group to encourage them to come to Salt Lake City or another locale. a. Salt Palace expansion for Outdoor Retailers, that organization now requesting financial assistance for tents. b. Salt Palace expansion has significant vacancy, convention hotel investment is less of a risk than current known loss due to vacancy(D-News quote of Cony and V Bureau Director) c. Sandy's Rio Tinto Stadium is not meeting projected number of concerts. d. First soccer tournament appears to be interested in City/County sponsorship. 14. Is the City's role to invest in capital infrastructure, or to invest in the infrastructure and subsidize the events? Is this just an economic reality? GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS FOR FY 2011-12 AND MATURITY DATE Change in GO Debt Service Accounting - Last year, the Administration changed how General Obligation (GO) Bond Revenue and Debt Service transactions are accounted for. Now, Debt Service is allocated directly to the Debt Service Fund, a legally-separate fund, which handles the payment for each of the City's debts. In the past, Debt Service revenue and expense transactions flowed through the City's General Fund. ►The Council may wish to continue the practice of reviewing these GO Bond projects (and amounts)in conjunction with the overall CIP budget. The following table is a schedule of the City's GO Debt Service payments for FY 2011-12: Summary of GO Bond Debt Service Payments-FY 2012 Project *Debt Service Amount Maturity Date Library-Series 1999 $ 33,200 June 2019 Library-Series 2002 $ 6,794,294 June 2019 Zoo/Aviary-Series 2004a $ 857,325 June 2024 Open Space-Series 2009a (partial Issuance) $ 103,224 December 2018 Leonardo-Series 2009b $ 731,775 June 2029 Public Safety-Series 2010a (Tax-exempt) $ 1,124,738 June 2016 Public Safety-Series 2010a (Taxable) $ 932,613 June 2030 Public Safety-Series 2010b $ 6,423,764 June 2031 *Regional Sports Complex-Series 2011a (Estimate) $ 1,084,349 TBD Total Yearly GO Bond Debt(including estimates) $ 18,085,281 **Includes principal and interest payments,and other costs. *Note-as these bonds have not yet been finalized,the amount for debt service is an estimate only. 9 2011 COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES—IDENTIFIED AT COUNCIL RETREAT Process of Public Engagement -Council commurication efforts -Channel 17 interviews -mailing lists/listsery -Weekly council meeting reports -Website Neighborhood/Quality of Life -Small Neighborhood Business -New Libraris -Street lighting Zones -Conditional Use text amendments -Resident/Neighborhood Donatio -Parleys Historic Nature Park -Pan-handling -Historic Preservation Plan -Demolition Ordinance Budget&Capital Planning -10 Year CIP Plan • -Public Safety Building -Council Oversight -Impact Fee Study -Open Space Policy -Internal Controls -North Temple -Emergency preparation -Streamlining/Efficiency -Regional Sports Complex -City Benefits Plan/Health Insurance Walkability&Transportation -Street Cars/Trolleys -Sidewalk snow removal(complete) -Concrete/Sidewalk audit -Bicycle&Transportation Projects -Electric Vehicles -Traffic Calminyl'Pedestrian Safety -Ground Transportation ,0104, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET PROCESS The Capital Improvement Program is a multi-year planning program that uses two main planning documents: a 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan (formerly known as the Capital Improvement Plan) and each fiscal year's capital budget. After a lengthy administrative process to identify the most critical and realistic projects that need to be funded over the next decade, the Council will consider adopting a new 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan later this year. It should be noted that the proposed overall amount to transfer from the general fund in order to pay for the proposed 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan over the decade,is 7.0% per year. Following the Mayor's presentation of his recommended budget on Tuesday May 3rd, the Council received a schedule of the proposed capital projects for FY 2011-12 with ranking information from the Community Development and Capital Improvements Program (CDCIP) Board and the Mayor. The schedule identifies all of the projects that were submitted for funding with the Mayor's recommendations and the priority rankings of the Citizens Advisory Board and Administrative Staff. The City Council makes the final determination of projects to be funded. Council Staff will project the schedule on the screen during the work session to facilitate discussion and funding decisions. The Administration accepts applications for capital projects from citizens and City departments each year. These applications are reviewed,considered and then recommended for funding by the CDCIP Board and the Mayor. The Council considers these recommendations when deciding which CIP projects get funded. Copies of each project application are available if Council Members desire. During the past several years, the Council has appropriated funds for debt service and "time sensitive projects" during the annual budget process and waited until later in the summer to make other appropriations. , ► The Council may wish to determine whether it wants to pursue this same course of action or whether the Council wishes to appropriate the entire amount of CIP funding for specific projects during the annual budget process. 10 COUNCIL POLICIES REGARDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM On April 6, 1999 the City Council adopted a resolution entitled "Council Policies Regarding Salt Lake City's General Fund Capital Improvement Program." This resolution specifically stated the Council's intentions that the Administration regard the resolution as the Council's policy objectives for the City's General Fund CIP Program. In December 1999 the Council adopted a resolution entitled "Salt Lake City Council Capital and Debt Management Policies" which set forth the capital and debt-management policies that were intended to guide the City in addressing the deferred and long-term infrastructure needs of the City. In December 1999, the Council also adopted an ordinance (which was amended in May 2000, and again in 2006 - see section on impact fees below)establishing impact fees on new development within the City. Revenue from these fees are dedicated to fund those capital projects which are directly attributable to growth. Some of the Council's capital improvement program policies are highlighted as follows: • Establish a formal multi-year capital program. • Link the 10-year needs list and the annual capital budget. • Identify the extent and cost of deferred maintenance. • Utilize condition information to select and prioritize capital projects. • Focus attention on the long-term implications of capital decisions. • Identify full life cycle project costs. • Prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts. • Give priority to capital improvement projects that reduce current City maintenance requirements. • Continue taking advantage of one-time opportunities to supplement base budget CIP (i.e. one-time revenues,particularly from the sale of real property). • Maintain a capital improvement prioritization process that allows citizen and community input. • Provide ongoing funding to address capital improvement needs of the City. (Council's policy is that at least 9% of on-going General Fund revenue be allocated to the CIP Fund. Class C, federal funds, impact fees,and one-time monies are all in addition to the 9%. Since FY 2005, the City has funded CIP at a level closer to 7%.) ➢ In January 2006,the Council adopted a fiscally constrained 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan,in which each department was asked to identify the most crucial and realistic projects,in order to arrive at a plan that was more likely to be executed to completion. A new 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan is expected to be adopted by the Council later this year. ➢ In the past, consultants hired to form the plan noted that in order to fully pay for the fiscally constrained 10 Year list of projects, the Council would need an average of 9% to 7.95% of the General Fund per year allocated to CIP. The proposed new 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan recommends the General Fund portion be 7.0% of General Fund revenues. "SPECIAL" ITEMS WITHIN THE CIP BUDGET Impact Fees Impact fees are a financing tool that enables the City to address some of the infrastructure necessitated by new growth without further deferring current infrastructure needs. Impact fees cannot be assessed to address issues of deferred capital infrastructure. Revenue collected from impact fees must be expended or encumbered within six years after receipt, unless the Council identifies, in writing, an extraordinary and compelling reason to hold the impact fees longer. Under such circumstances, the Council must establish an absolute date by which the impact fees will be expended. Impact fees are determined based on future projects 11 in the 10-Year Plan that relate to new growth. It should be noted that as the Administration and Council revise the 10-Year Plan,Impact Fees may be adjusted to reflect new projects. Class C funds Class C funds are generated by the Utah State Tax on gasoline. The state then distributes these funds to local governments on a mileage basis. The following are permissible uses for Class C funds(as defined by Utah Code): 1. All construction and maintenance on eligible Class B&C roads(Utah Code 72-3-103 to 72-3-104) . 2. Enhancement of traffic and pedestrian safety including but not limited to:sidewalks,curb and gutter (on all eligible B&C roads and state highways),safety features,traffic signals,traffic signs,street lighting and construction of bicycle facilities in the highway right-of-way. (Utah Code 72-8-101 to 72-8- 105) . 3. Investments for interest purposes(interest to be kept in fund). 4. Equipment purchases or equipment leases and rentals. 5. Engineering and Administration costs. 6. Future reimbursement of other funds for large construction projects. 7. Rights of Way acquisition,fencing and cattle guards. 8. Matching Federal Funds. (Utah Code 72-2-110). 9. Equipment purchased with B&C funds may be leased from the road department to another department or agency using schedule of Equipment Rates posted on the FEMA website at http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/p a/egrates_2005.shtm. 10. Construction of road maintenance buildings,storage sheds,and yards.Multiple use facilities may be constructed by mixing funds on a proportional basis. 11. Construction and maintenance of alleys(see definition of alleys in Section 11-1) 12. B&C funds can be used to pay the costs of asserting,defending,or litigating RS 2477 issues per HB 278 (2009). ►The Council may wish to review all CIP projects to determine if they are eligible for Class C funding. 12 Police Civilian Review Board Appointment: Roger D. Sandack INTRODUCTION: Mayor Becker is recommending Roger D.Sandack,a resident of District 6,to be appointed to the Police Civilian Review Board.If appointed,Mr.Sandack will fill a vacancy on the board and serve a term extending through September 1,2014. APPLICANT INFORMATION: As an attorney whose professional activities include being a past board member of Law Related Education and Legal Services of Utah,Mr. Sandack would be ideally equipped for further involvement with local community activities. RESPONSE DEADLINE: If you have any objections to this appointment,please let Amber know by Thursday,September 22,2011. CURRENT COMPOSITION OF BOARD: Current members include:Robb Terrell Benns,District 1;Calvin John Noyce, District 1;Joanne Lovejoy,District 2;Anne Albaugh,District 3;Kim Thronson,District 3; Ginger Lee Fletcher,District 4,Allison Wright,District 5;Daniel C.Cannon,District 6; Ronald(Ron)Bartee,District 7;and Ralph Petty,District 7. BOARD STRUCTURE: The Police Civilian Review Board is to provide civilian oversight of certain complaints and internal police investigations regarding conduct of the police.Audit and review cases in which it is claimed that a police officer used excessive force and other cases the board may request.There must be two members from each Council District on the board.Terms expire the 1st Monday in September after a three(3)year term. APPLICATION SALT LAKE CITY POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD Office of the Mayor 451 South State Street, Room 345 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 PLEASE ATTACH A RESUME Full Name ROGER D. SANDACK Street Address 2337 East 1300 South City Salt Lake City, Utah Zip 84108 Council District 6 Home Phone 801-582-9601 0ffice801-746-4909 Ce11801-971-4700 E-mail Address rouerc )sandacklaw.com /'" • Occupation Attorney Reason for your interest in serving on the Police Civilian Review Board: To continue my service to the community. Are you currently serving on any other City committees? Yes No X If so, which committee, board, commission or authority? have you had previous contact with the Police Civilian Review Board? Yes No X If so, when and under what circumstances? 1 Are you at least 21 years of age? Yes X No Ethnic Group (to assure fair and equal representation - answer optional): Jewish Community Service Activities {past and present): Past president and Board Member of the Salt Lake Public Library 2000- 2009 Professional Activities: Past Board member of Law Related Education (Utah Board of Education); Legal Services of Salt Lake. Civic/Professional Organization Memberships: American Bar Ass'n- Utah Bar Ass'n ,�, r Please list three references and their phone numbers: I. Tony sweet Rn 1_7111-51 S 1 2. Nick-Colessides Qn 1-521-4441 3. John Snow 532-3333 I have (1) no felony convictions, pending indictments or informations, or(2) misdemeanor convictions,pending indictments or informations in cases involving violence or moral turpitude. I hereb nsent to Salt Lake City conducting a criminal background check on me. ure Date 2 BOARDS &, COMMISSIONS CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT This statement is to be filed by all applicants for positions on regular or special committees, boards, authorities, and commissions of Salt Lake City. I, Roger D. Sandack , being first sworn, certify that I am applying to (Name) serve on the Salt Lake Police Civilian Review Board and that the following statements of my financial interests are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. A. EMPLOYMENT Section 2.44.050, Salt Lake City Code, requires that every person holding any position with Salt Lake City Corporation who is also an officer, director, or employee of any other (non-city) business entity disclose such position and the nature of such position or employment. A "business entity" means a sole proprietorship, partnership, association,joint venture, corporation, firm, trust, foundation, or other organization or entity used in carrying on a business. The following questions refer to your primary non-city job: 1. Are you presently employed? Yes X No If you answered "yes" to the above question, please list each of your employment interests: a. The name of the business entity: Roger D. Sandack b. The address of the business entity: 170 South Main #500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84I01 c. The principal activity engaged in by the business entity: Legal d. Your job title in the business entity: Attorney e. The length of time employed by the business entity: Legal career spans 42 years. If you answered "no" to the above question, please state if you are retired, unemployed, etc (Attach additional sheets if necessary) (Over) ,n e B. BUSINESS INTERESTS Section 2.44.050, Salt Lake City Code,requires that all substantial interests you may have in any (non-city) business entity be disclosed. Please fill out only if separate from the above employment information, unless self-employed. 1. Do you engage in a business in which you are the sole proprietor (owner)? X_ Yes No 2. Do you, your spouse or your children own stock in any corporation which, when considered in any combination, comprises ten percent(10%) ownership of the outstanding shares of said corporation? Yes No X 3. Do you, your spouse, or your children have any interests in any limited partnerships or other business entity which, when considered in any combination, exceeds a ten percent (10%) interest in such business? Yes No X 4. Do you own any interest in any business for which Salt Lake City issues a business license, i.e., a restaurant, an apartment building with three or more units, tavern, etc.?_ Yes X No 5. If you answered "yes" to question 4, does the business entity have a Salt Lake City Business License? Yes No If you have answered "yes" to any of the above questions, please state for each business interest: a. Name of the business: Roger D. Sandack b. Address of the business: 170 South Main #500, SLC, Ut 84101 c. The principal activity engaged in by the business: legal d. The nature of your interest in the business: attorney e. The length of time associated with the business: 42 years f. If you answered "yes" to question 4 above, state whether the value of your interest is: Under$25,000 Over$25,000 (attach additional sheets if necessary) I certify that no conflicts of interest exist or that all conflicts have been disclosed in writing on this statement. Dated this 1 day of A , 20 li (Signature of Applicant or Board Member) STATE OF UTAH ) :ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me by tz+D 4 ro- , • /J I ,kt K on this 2I5'1` (Applicant or Board Member) day of ACPP-1 L.- , 20 11 b •ia. 4 Notary Public, residing in Salt Lake County, Utah ' Notary Public I ,''r' WANE M FERRANDO r Ng 4 ,gin Q commiielon0582309 P,'+l f.l,;y;i,i MyCammledonF�cplras * r Apo 12 2014 I !« State of Utah (This is a conflict of interest disclosure statement only. Additional disclosures or restrictions may Aniitt apply if your financial, business, or professional activities conflict with your city responsibilities.) „� 1 Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee Appointment: Charlotte Miller INTRODUCTION: Council Member Love is recommending that Charlotte Miller be appointed to the Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee.If appointed,Ms.Miller would serve a term extending through August 31,2013. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Charlotte Miller is the Senior Vice President of People and Great Work for O.C. Tanner Company.In this role,she oversees human resources,benefits and compensation, security,occupational health,outside maintenance and café.O.0 Tanner is a world-wide organization with 1700 employees. Ms.Miller has served as the Utah State Bar President,on the Utah Task Force on Racial and Ethnic Fairness,and as the first woman from Utah in the American Bar Association House of Delegates. RESPONSE DEADLINE: If you have any objection to this appointment,please let Amber know by Tuesday,October 4,2011. CURRENT COMPOSITION OF CITIZEN'S COMPENSATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE: The Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee is to have three members appointed by the Mayor and three by the City Council;one is appointed by the other six appointed members. Representation should be from a broad cross-section of occupational, professional,employee and management interests,including persons from academia, business,community councils and organized labor,and persons with compensation expertise. Committee members are not required to be City residents but have traditionally been either residents or work within Salt Lake City. Current members are: Drew Clark,Mayor Appointee;Debbie Cragun,Mayor Appointee;Kerma Jones,Mayor Appointee;Connie Spyropoulos-Linardakis,Council Appointee;Paul Jones,Council Appointee and John Campbell,Committee Appointee. CITIZEN'S COMPENSATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE: The Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee evaluates and makes recommendations to the Mayor and City Council regarding compensation levels for the city's elected officials and employees. APPLICATION Salt Lake City Boards & Commissions OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 451 S.STATE STREET,ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 NOTE: PLEASE C( ATTACH YOUR� RESUME. Name: (?1h /O C7 -e 4 ` P? 'l/-e r Home /305 Egz5 -i- 4 q i (-GA Av- Address: Street City) c 2 (�-� Zipip s� Council District,A Phone: 2l J �3 1903 O 4' I ! /6 ��/h, Ckc r Io (c. I„ :6 (t°t''� Home Work Cellular# E-Mail Address ` I C9 C-f-a rt n e r, edp.t Occupation: . v . e. 4lo.,�ytO.-yk. 72 .A-ertd4; rommittee(s),Board(s), Commission(s)or Authority in which you are interested: Reas for your interest in this particular committee/board/commission or authority: ieyn. 0,,,,&„).-A,..A. ita-a-t.4-4-49-/ Are you currently serving on any other City committees? If so,which committee(s)/board(s)/commission(s)/authority? —n 0 Have you had previous c)ntact with the committee/board/commission/authority for which you are making application? '1 0 If so,when,and the circumstances? (OVER) Co munity (past and present): L q-st.r t . " That t it i- --e ` e-4-) C A (A ttiL .t 0 a� f1g41A t -et 144.41.._.. Professional Activities: PAida . tA4-cut . 6440450 -ate., Civic/Professional Organization Memberships: eS N-12.VvL (A4-a 4 64,4.4 041.4-- Ethnic Group (to assure fair and equal representation —answer optional): - Other Pertinent Information: Please list three references and phone numbers: 1) VtLa___,41,4.43,... P.....iwt. 2-0 I -ss)- P .3c2 747/ 2) 4-421,14 grtf2ei 50/ --- 5C3 P -Aso e) 3) kL Stk..J 43 ut. 20 / 2 17 cctPCL DATE: 'et/( -O illlor $ ,....\ SIG ATURE g$,. 01/00 ry . CHARLOTTE L. MILLER 1305 Laird Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 801712-4414 Professional Experience O. C. Tanner Company, current Senior Vice President of People and Great Work Responsible for human resources, benefits and compensation, security, occupational health, outside maintenance and cafe. Member of the senior executive team reporting to the Chief Executive Officer. 0. C. Tanner is a world-wide organization with 1700 employees. Kirton & McConkie, Salt Lake City, Utah,2008 to 2009 Human Resources Director, Firm Administrator and Of Counsel Oversee administrative functions of firm, and provide legal services to clients. Administrative focus on organizational development, human resources, and also includes, information technology, finance and facilities. Legal services to clients has primarily focused on employment law and human resource matters. Unishippers Association, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah, 2002-2007 Vice President of Human Resources and General Counsel Led executive tea n in developing and implementing systems for hiring, retaining, developing and evaluating employees. Developed succession plans, development plans, and training programs for managers and employees. Revised evaluation and salary systems. Trained managers on a variety of issues including diversity, leadership, communication and problem solving with employees. Provided creative solutions to employee conflicts. Provided guidance to approximately 300 franchisees regarding employee issues. Provided legal guidance in areas of employment, corporate, transactional, contract and franchise law. Iome_a Cor ora ion Ro Utah 1998-2001 Vice President o Human Resources Leader of Human Resources Department of$1.5 billion dollar worldwide corporation with about 6,000 employees. Posit on included developing and overseeing compensation plans, employee relations, recruiting, benefi . and employee services. Developed employee communication strategy, implemented diversity initiative, directed development of new compensation plans, created organizational development dep.rtment that initiated process to create synergy between employee development and corporate strateg . Served on executive staff and reported to the CEO. Developed and implemented a plan to restructure the Company resulting in the loss of about 3,000 employees worldwide. The plan included systems or engaging remaining employees in strategy planning for the future. Also served as Vice President an. Acting General Counsel for a portion of the time with Iomega. Assistant Gener.l and Acting General Counsel Responsible for anaging international litigation and consumer class actions. Provided legal support for customer rela' ons and human resources groups. Trained in Six Sigma for administrative executives and revised custo ter rebate programs. Reviewed contracts, analyzed customer disputes and managed legal staff. Charlotte L. Miller, resume, page 2 Star Buffet,Inc and Summit Family Restaurants Inc. (formerly JB's Restaurants, Inc.), " ~ 1992-1998 and 1985-1988 Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer, General Counsel Directly responsible for Human Resources and Legal Departments. Provided human resource, legal and business advice fc r public company with 5,000 employees. Trained managers regarding management skills and employment development. Implemented programs to integrate employees as part of mergers and acquisitions. Participated in executive committee,developed and implemented operational policies and assisted in for g-range planning. Provided service to training, operations, accounting and development departments. Assisted in sale of the company to CKE Restaurants, Inc. Following sale was named Chief Administrative Officer and managed Salt Lake City office, directing human resources, construction, franchising, maintenance, purchasing, real estate and legal departments. Watkiss & Saperstein, 1988-1991 Practiced in Business and Employment sections of the firm. Represented a variety of small business, large business anc individual clients. JB's Restaurants, Inc., 1985-1988 (See above under Summit Family Restaurants Inc.) Moyle& Draper, 1984-1985 General transaction practice for a variety of clients, including JB's Restaurants, Inc. Utah Supreme Court, 1983-1984 Law Clerk for Justice I. Daniel Stewart Education University of Utah College of Law,Juris Doctor Degree, 1983 Central Missouri State University, Bachelor of Science in Education (English and Social Science), 1979 Leadership and Professional Activities American Bar Association, State Delegate to House of Delegates Leadership Award from Association of Corporate Counsel of America Named one of 50 Most Powerful Women in Business in Utah President, Utah State Bar American Bar Association Commission on Women Gubernatorial appointee to the Third Judicial District Nominating Commission Utah Task Force on Racial and Ethnic Fairness Trustee, Utah Bar Foundation Adjunct Professor, University of Utah College of Law Chair, Ethics Panel, Utah State Bar Pro Bono Lawyer of the Year SEE ITEM A - 8