The URL can be used to link to this page

10/25/2011 - Work Session - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2011 The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, October 25, 2011, at 3 : 00 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street . In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Stan Penfold, Soren Simonsen, JT Martin, Luke Garrott, Jill Remington Love and Van Turner. Also In Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Mayor Ralph Becker; Bianca Shreeve, Assistant Chief of Staff; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Vicki Bennett, Office of Sustainability and Environment Director; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; John Anderson, Principal Planner; Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner; Wilford Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; Jason Mathis, Executive Director of the Downtown Alliance; Emy Maloutas, Director of Parks and Public Lands; Leslie Chan, Open Space Coordinator; Jennifer Bruno, Deputy Council Director; Karen Halladay, Council Policy Analyst; Karen Hale, Mayor' s Communications Director; Jim Baehr and Molly Mesolini, Infinite Scale Design Group; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Love presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 3 : 20 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. 3 : 06:28 PM 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; e) FOR ATTORNEY- CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 78B-1-137, 11 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2011 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 Garrott moved and Councilmember Turner seconded to enter into Closed Session for the reason of Attorney/Client privilege, which motion carried. A roll call vote was taken with Council Members Garrott, Simonsen, Penfold, Turner, Christensen and Love voting aye. Councilmember Martin was absent for the vote . See File M 11-2 for Sworn Statement . #2 . 3 : 36:45 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. See File M 11-5 for Announcements . #3 . 4 :30 : 59 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON POTENTIAL MOTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE ENACTING CHAPTER 12 .58, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PROHIBITING IDLING OF VEHICLES WITHIN CITY LIMITS. THE ORDINANCE WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS FOR IDLING OF VEHICLES. View Attachments Russell Weeks, Mayor Ralph Becker, Bianca Shreeve, Rick Graham and Vicki Bennett briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Councilmember Love asked if any Council Members wanted to move the idling limit from two minutes to three minutes besides Council Members Christensen and Turner. All other Council Members were in favor of the two minute idling limit . Councilmember Love asked if Council Members were ready to vote on this issue. Council Members Christensen, Turner, Martin, Penfold and Simonsen were in favor of voting. Councilmember Love said this item would be moved forward. #4 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM SALT LAKE CITY TO KCPW RADIO FOR ITS OPERATIONS. KCPW RADIO IS APPLYING FOR A LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $250, 000 . View Attachments This item was pulled from the agenda. Item Nos. 5 and 6 were discussed together. #5. 6 : 15: 02 PM DISCUSS PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CITY CODE INCLUDING THE CITY' S ZONING REGULATIONS TO ELIMINATE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE LAND USE APPEALS BOARD AS LAND USE APPEAL AUTHORITIES AND REPLACING THE BOARDS WITH AN APPOINTED PROFESSIONAL HEARING OFFICER. THE HEARING OFFICER WOULD REVIEW AND MAKE DECISIONS RELATING TO VARIANCE APPLICATIONS, APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE, PLANNING COMMISSION AND HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISIONS. THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE A MORE STREAMLINED AND CONSISTENT APPEAL PROCESS FOR LAND 11 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2011 USE DECISIONS AND REDUCE THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS AND STAFFING RESOURCES PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. PLNPCM2010-00312 . RELATED PROVISIONS OF TITLE 21A, ZONING, MAY ALSO BE AMENDED AS PART OF THIS PETITION. (PETITIONER MAYOR RALPH BECKER, SUSTAINABLE CITY CODE INITIATIVE) View Attachments Nick Norris, John Anderson, Maryann Pickering and Wilf Sommerkorn briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Councilmember Love said this was a concept the department was bringing to the Council . She said if Council was interested then an ordinance could be prepared and they would have an opportunity to consider the ordinance . Council Members were in favor of having an ordinance prepared for more discussion. #6. DISCUSS PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CITY' S ZONING REGULATIONS TRANSFERRING THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION (FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS LOCATED IN A HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT. ) THE ZONING REGULATIONS DEFINE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AS A USE THAT IS INCIDENTAL TO OR IN ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPAL USE (SUCH AS A HOME OCCUPATION OR OUTDOOR DINING AS PART OF A RESTAURANT) , OR AN ADJUSTMENT TO A SPECIFIC DIMENSION STANDARD (SUCH AS MODIFICATIONS TO HEIGHT, YARD AREA OR FENCE HEIGHT) THAT HAVE LESS IMPACT THAN A CONDITIONAL USE, BUT WHICH REQUIRE A CAREFUL REVIEW OF BUILDING LOCATION, DESIGN OR POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. PLNPCM2010-00785 . RELATED PROVISIONS OF TITLE 21A, ZONING, MAY ALSO BE AMENDED AS PART OF THIS PETITION. (PETITIONER MAYOR RALPH BECKER, SUSTAINABLE CITY CODE INITIATIVE) View Attachments #7 . 5:41:34 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12 . 56. 170, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO PARKING METER RATES, TO WAIVE PARKING METER CHARGES DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE ALSO MAY CLARIFY A SCHEDULED 50-CENT PER HOUR INCREASE IN PARKING RATES WHEN THE HOLIDAY SEASON WAIVER ENDS. (THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS A REQUEST FROM THE ADMINISTRATION TO WAIVE PARKING METER FEES FROM THANKSGIVING DAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2011 TO SUNDAY, JANUARY 1, 2012 TO ALLOW TWO-HOUR FREE PARKING DOWNTOWN. THE ADOPTED BUDGET FOR THE CITY' S 2011-2012 FISCAL YEAR INCLUDES A 50-CENT PER HOUR INCREASE IN PARKING METER RATES STARTING JANUARY 1, 2012 . ) View Attachments Russell Weeks and Tim Harpst briefed the Council from the attached handout . #8. 3 :39 : 13 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM JASON MATHIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE AND INFINITE SCALE DESIGN GROUP, 11 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2011 REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING DOWNTOWN "WAYFINDING" SIGNS. (THE SIGNS PROVIDE DIRECTION FOR PEDESTRIANS AND MOTORISTS TO DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY DESTINATIONS AND PARKING FACILITIES. ) View Attachments Karen Hale, Jason Mathis, Jim Baehr, Molly Mesolini and Russell Weeks briefed the Council from the attached handouts and a power point presentation. #9. 5 : 06 : 33 PM & 5: 15 : 08 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE RESTORATION, USE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR WASATCH HOLLOW OPEN SPACE. THE GOAL OF THE PLAN IS TO PROTECT NATIVE VEGETATION, WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT OF EMIGRATION CREEK WHILE PROVIDING APPROPRIATE ACCESS AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PUBLIC. View Attachments Emy Maloutas, Leslie Chan and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council from the attached handouts and a map. #10 . 5 :43 :40 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE CITY' S 10 YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AND IMPACT FEES. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVOLVE THE CONSTRUCTION, PURCHASE OR RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS, PARKS, STREETS OR OTHER PHYSICAL STRUCTURES. GENERALLY, PROJECTS HAVE A USEFUL LIFE OF FIVE OR MORE YEARS AND COST $50, 000 OR MORE. View Attachments Karen Halladay and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council from the attached handouts . #11. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A JOINT RESOLUTION WITH THE MAYOR ADOPTING WASTE REDUCTION AND DIVERSION GOALS FOR SALT LAKE CITY AND DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO DEVELOP A ZERO WASTE STRATEGIC PLAN TO ACHIEVE THE CITY' S GOALS. THE ZERO WASTE RESOLUTION FORMALLY ESTABLISHES WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING GOALS. View Attachments This item was not discussed. #12 . HOLD A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION ON THE PRIORITIES IDENTIFIED AT THEIR SEPTEMBER RETREAT, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF A PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT ON ARTS AND CULTURE. (THE OTHER PRIORITIES IDENTIFIED WILL BE DISCUSSED AT FUTURE COUNCIL MEETINGS AND INCLUDE ECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE CITY, NEIGHBORHOOD AND SCHOOLS, LOCAL/NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, SUSTAINABILITY AND TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY. ) View Attachments This item was not discussed. 11 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2011 #13 . 6 :10 : 55 PM INTERVIEW POTENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY REDISTRICTING WORK GROUP PRIOR TO BEING APPOINTED. MAYOR' S RECOMMENDATIONS: • MARIA TORRES, DISTRICT 4; AND • STEPHEN L. NELSON, DISTRICT 7 . Councilmember Love said Ms . Torres' and Mr. Nelson' s names would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda for final approval . The meeting adjourned at 6 : 36 p.m. l\di ./a/P,. T 3' COUNCIL CHAIR 4tiq �%^'` ITY ECO R �Cl - JRA This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held October 25, 2011 . bj 11 - 5 City Council Announcements October 25, 2011 A. Information Needed by Council Staff (None) B. Grants for Council's Review - The Administration has forwarded information about the following grant opportunities that they are pursuing. Following is a quick list of the items.A memo with more information is attached. If the Council does not have any objections, and the City is awarded the grant, these will come back through the Consent and Budget Amendment process. 1. Assistance to Firefighters (AFG Operations) a. Purpose/Goal of the Grant: assist in equipment replacement purchases for the Salt Lake City Fire Department—equipment to be purchased includes Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) and ground communications equipment. b. Grant amount: $214,972 through FEMA. c. Match Requirement: 20% = $54,743 in cash to bring the total funds to $268,715 available for the purchases. This match amount will be met with funds in the Department's existing budgets. 2. Assistance to Firefighters (AFG Vehicle/Apparatus) a. Purpose/ Goal of the Grant: assist in vehicle and apparatus replacement purchases for the Salt Lake City Fire Department—vehicle to be purchased is a platform firefighting vehicle with a 100-foot ladder and bucket. This will replace an aging vehicle. b. Grant amount: $760,000 through FEMA. c. Match Requirement: 20%= $190,000 in cash to bring the total funds to $950,000 available for the purchase. This match amount will be met with funds in the Fleet Fund's existing budgets. 3. Victim Advocate Program—SLCPD (VAWA grant application) a. Purpose / Goal of the Grant: continue partial funding for the Police Department's grant-funded Victim Advocate position, and provides some cash allowance to purchase necessary items for victims. Other involved agencies: YWCA/Family Justice Center, SLC Prosecutor's Office, Rape Recovery Center, Legal Aid Society. b. Grant amount: $18,963.83 from the Utah Office for Victims of Crime —Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). c. Match Requirement: 25% in salary & benefits from the Victim Advocate Program Coordinator. Cont. 1 4. Unity Computer Center (Kennecott Fund) ,,mok a. Purpose/Goal of the Grant: to purchase additional adaptive computer equipment for use by the Unity Center's adult patrons with disabilities or limitations on fine motor skills. b. Grant amount: $2,000 from the Kennecott Utah Copper Charitable Foundation community grant. c. Match Requirement: none 5. Education for lst Responders and their Families (Motorola) a. Purpose/Goal of the Grant: to provide training and assistance to first responders with life coaching resources and trauma support. The SLC Policy Mutual Aid Charity has sponsored the application. b. Grant amount: $8,400 from Motorola Solutions Foundation—2011 Local Public Safety Grant. c. Match Requirement: none -Amk 2 • • • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING — FINAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY OCTOBER 25, 2011 • . • 1tiT 'v : • .t` • z • IN • • • • 0 ., I' ''''' ..-`47-1 4‘.. .. itrimi. ,: .'i.iii.l'6'.' ,.• 7'.4.; W-.4, . .% .... . ,---: \.,,i, 4.414: i. - t 1.:.:::i4i}: ',,,, 7 4 1 :',.i. '-:\'''''-' • 2,• - Oi 0 Wil, 1A-....,,q1 _ of . __,,,i , : . vp- - . .i. , itti,„„! , • . , .,,,....„..... %,,,....... 41 . :Ir. , • k.fekiolif• ci k • ..a' • ~ { .`', Illkovr 4r' jet �. 1. .•� 1, , ,t, ' 1 . +,,., .... 1 s. .• r, .4 i. tiv..4. , , irs, __ _ ,4 opt ‘ • \Ii - ,. / . ‘. II: .a' :11'-'' .:.' . emi, .14" • Y i k :� • ! it•� • r,1: • Prepared by • • INFINITE SCALE DESIGN GROUP • 16 Exchange Place ..� r l7i,it ©©©© „'.„". 411 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 ..r s_ RDA SALT LAKE S LC 801 363 1881 f 1841 a 0 � ..v; ao' • www.infintescale.com ALLIANCE • • Printed on:10/24/11 1:39 PM • • • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING-FINAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOBER 25, 2011 • PURPOSE dIP PURPOSE • • • REVIEW AND ANALYZE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF ALL SIGN TYPES INSTALLED AS • PART OF THE SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING PROGRAM. • • • • THROUGH ANALYSIS, PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY FOR WAYS TO REINFORCE • AND ENHANCE THE SALT LAKE CITY BRAND AND VISITOR EXPERIENCE VIA WAYFINDING SIGNAGE • • AND PLACEMAKING CONCEPTS. • � • SUPPORT THE OPENING OF CITY CREEK CENTER IN MARCH 2012. • • • • • • • •• WHAT IS WAYFINDING? • "Wayfinding encompasses all of the ways in which people orient "Wayfinding is the act of finding your way to a destination. • themselves in physical space and navigate fromplace toplace. Wayfinding design, by extension, is the art of helping• p y p g y g g p g people find • their way. It provides support through speech, touch, print, signs, • In the context of architecture and urban planning, wayfinding is the architecture, and landscape." • user experience of orientation and choosing a path within the built • environment, and the set of architectural and/or design elements that Craig Burger • aid orientation." Director of Education • • The Society for Environmental Graphic Design Wikipedia.org • • • Copyright©2011 Infinite Scale Design Group pv; • • • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING-FINAL ANALYSIS& RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOBER 25, 2011 • ANALYSIS • WAYFINDING SIGN FAMILY 44110 EXISTING WAYFINDING SIGN FAMILY • • • c SJt P•lau V P O (:apitol • Z Thrmter ••••,•• 4i.4 , 3 T Stauc•pitol Public • O Parking 'Rowtt:1gr A. lhthcrsity _ Pcrlormingr _ of Utah frt.. \rl,l enter • M: 4 • ., e ,� w • _ _ _ J RF„ . DO1ti•Icnntrto 4. I :::::' r Ed ��'NTOWN1 AAA It e:A 1: • CITY ',.,' . i .f.';',:,r,......,. ...ND COUNTY BUILDING • ; • 1 iii6nimill . ..... ..-_,... '.• '''. ' • SIGN TYPED SIGN TYPED SIGN TYPED SIGN TYPED SIGN TYPE© SIGN TYPES SIGN TYPED • Vehicular Directional—Wide Vehicular Directional—Narrow Pedestrian Directional Parking ID Area ID Facility ID—Double Post Facility ID—Single Post • • • • M . • II f • V ,• . .:xxf u':. • I wtr..,• DONTlION-- ' •• • ` 4 L__.} • sio SIGN TYPE© SIGN TYPE 0 • Directory Kiosk • • Copyright Oa 2011 Infinite Scale Design Group Page 2 • • • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING — FINAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOBER 25, 2011 • ANALYSIS • DESTINATION LOCATION PLAN 4410 DESTINATION LOCATION PLAN , a 0. • (DOWNTOWN DETAIL) II . .. . ., w. ° ' - 4 f ! • ( 'lI mow._. . . .......... • NOWARD JOHNSONI EXPRESS - CREEX +.. e' 11 EXPRESS •"' • ,. .... INN a aww. r.._ - s.r trw.... uw .suuw.u.oJ.wFuw...........u•Iyywn..A..nw.nrniWytwwyaynn.nuin...wsDsw..nwm•affn.n.Yn.d.iiii.S""a° ww..ar° wx.w x... .......... a i.sr..* • , _ i ...:.• t.i.1 IE SDI a..,r - e ° ... ° V ' ....... • -. _ • r ' . i- EAI 4Y XIS'ilY ,:.. • o ,. ' % bAddusy/contusing or ental on for { Sail Palace exiling BRAY -•` ! • Hoarsectioning *v Sall west € ; - _ A ! .• intersection -ate n ( y- ,... IMiER '- .w• • • r / � 7.4flA01550N SQUARE .CJUILTOM- __ THE _GATEWAY ENERGY SOLUTIONS If SQUARE } • A$ w ARENA 8 A A LIIICREEX CENTER j C'ROIEK'S�-. MARRIOTT Direct Dept traffic Lir • - FDGEDL^ • € • -' leaving City in 51, NARMONS - € Inn on Main Street(tJ��'�,�) W ..s .�.. '• �.. n sue. ( Y e ' AM. -e . .... ^ . „.. PIAtJ�f1M j n..... u �,J Nairn ns come may ......,. • e ._.._ ( E SALT PALACE IM point Alogical orlenlatlon +. 6yA� °_ CONVENTION CENTERCENiEI ppinl for petl ilpnage • • • W� Wv .j PofnINlEtenlaone r • 5 U Y [ , • .- n " s, �. r tOrnew/Iran OiEflEl .,".. nT + • r wa n n • % 43....'b G..`....hyf.....R-..' tir •- rww ,,., ....... _ ...... {{ • + e . g. E e eeran i '"e 2 Anh a'�S. n Ile \\ �.,.. n--- n dim Info INN HOT• ,..I • \\ - Fesriend block is al E far petli- . MONA. - as �•� fed lrlentllY MARRIOI • \ ... PIERPONI AYERCE- -PIflLPOt11 AYEdItE •HILTON tar .-..n `l Om ri .x.. ... ...... .0 -.brew.; - ` A- ...-, :- GDlfl•n�._..w,,,•. t .... ( ,•A ,u ;Y9h1fa1J4AV .j ,p•F„ .,,.T• F wore._ A•e. • II h\ GRAND HOMEW00D i ...""_, f ..et6r -` -._Vey - _ ... ..,. g.« ,�•4 L\1\. SUITES - M • IIII 1\\ T • }RESIDENCE . .._..I' - (EF T � • I)11 f... _J 3 a c a7 ..... II milli' ` • 'e n w ° la. ° 2251 _ 1Ldf ..um `_ , ' w.. wrAl• wager ..�° '°°' ° M. ra.=_- - i'03FD7.is �' -�--,Mike. IirR4nwsr..r.T..n'Rr., .0 yA IIIIIIIlll 111 y, QO" S .. ..-. t ... • LEGEND mutllnllil II ti`_.. a `CIA• NPNOI. -•i 1 d {� a �: • • • a .. SHERATON Ws—on (II: \ directories PEDESTRIAN TIUFFIC 0111111,1111 II ` s sT otl SltL Y LI '9 CITY HALL •IIBRRRY SQUARE = j IIII IIIIMII II ( ".. - INN a SS IS q DIYDer Is _ CRYSTAL • VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IIIIIII�Iy II _ . 1jE( wASHINGTOH SQUARE a , .. E, E. • Inlilltgl, 1J - oar ow.ar Op ®wags _ cw...sr e • • ° N elta.s® war...... +wr .. gss s ° ww • KEY AREAS ._. _ .....�• KEY STREETS a SHOPPING '=+nAl II =--- - . "l a Da .... % mow El A - ... i .S a .....-::::• PARKS A PLAZAS AIRPORT TAX LINE • I „I _ A '[Sr E —a. i • 11111, IIt I e j e9_.. i LITRE AMERICA GRAND AMERICA r_ ...- Y • HOTELS wt xlrtalx l.ixi., UNIVERSITY LINE 1IIIfI II• ; E HILTO. HOTEL r HOTEL J r MOTEL IIII + GARDENINNA EMBASSY • SALT LIKE 7RAX LINE . I : E �' . e .:.,=5.ES u. •«.aw... ..a.....r...,r,. - a ....a... Aw.s IMEIN DESTINATIONS i .u.uu..nuuu�u •:"' ..'...u.n... ..0 lL lm^u.n.uu..uuu.w.uuu.uuuA.0 a aww•wwN.ww. ...i- u.m.Yp.„u.u.u.,,un u u u �,uu.. ,�,.gw BEYOND MAP ; 1 I - a ',.,;,-,• n o ile IIII I - RED LION .... N _ HOTEL • -. 11 IIII Y. f .a E .. —�-_ ,.., w Q..,P v s. j u .. i 1 . a pa _. s....._ v tea.." I • • Copyright©2011 Infinite Scale Design Group Page 3 • • • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING —FINAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOBER 25, 2011 • SUMMARY OF FINDINGS :0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS • • • SIGNAGE SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED IN 1999 AND INSTALLED MORE THAN 10 YEARS AGO; � IS IN NEED OF SIGNIFICANT REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE AND UPDATED MESSAGES • • • SYSTEM SHOWS NO SIGNS OF EVER BEING REPAIRED OR MAINTAINED • � • LOCATIONS ARE NO LONGER CONDUCIVE TO PROPER DECISION MAKING • • • SIGNS ARE OFTEN OBSTRUCTED BY TREES AND OTHER IMPEDIMENTS • • • • SYSTEM IS OF A "STOCK" DESIGN WITH NO BRANDING OR CONNECTION TO THE COMMUNITY :4, • MESSAGES ARE SEVERELY OUTDATED • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Copyright®2011 Infinite Scale Design Group Page 4 • • • • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING - FINAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOBER 25, 2011 • • •• RECOMMENDATIONS • • • • • • • • • • • 40 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • so • • • Page 5 • • • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING — FINAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOBER 25, 2011 • RECOMMENDATIONS WAYFINDING—OPTION 1 •35' WAYFINDING IMPLEMENTATION • OPTION 1 • .��. �i��i�•i�•i�•i►•I\•I�•i�•i r :r r r \r \♦ \I \• \► \I \I \I \ • MESSAGE UPDATES TO HIGH-PRIORITY SIGNS • gl,, 1t, ,- City Creek • AND REMOVE ALL OTHER SIGNS ($100K) Center • • REPLACE OUTDATED MESSAGES • • • • REMOVE DAMAGED OR MISPLACED SIGNS !:•.' _ T Arena 1!1.k • , • • REPAIR / TOUCH-UP DAMAGED POSTS AND FOOTER COVERS AS NEEDED 0I Salt Palace • • FOR MARCH 2012, FOCUS ON PEDESTRIAN WAYFINDING • AND DIRECTORIES ftlll�?IC 4c�u tr Temple Square .r' • • YESCO BID FROM 2009 : $128K TO REPAIR AND UPDATE ALL SIGNS CV Il fbAi �1 mm1 N • CONSULTANT MUST BEGIN BY NOV 2011 - e + - • IMPLEMENTATION MUST BEGIN BY FEB 2012 `At r • • " - � - • 1 III• !,.. • • • • • • • fam Or • BEFORE AFTER • • Copyright®2011 Infinite Scale Design Group NOTE:ALL PRICES SHOWN ARE ESTIMATES THAT ARE NOT BASED ON VENDOR QUOTES PRICES DO NOT INCLUDE DESIGN FEES AND ARE MEANT TO GIVE A ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ONLY. Page 6 • • • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING—FINAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOBER 25, 2011 • RECOMMENDATIONS :0 WAYFINDING—OPTION 1 • WAYFINDING IMPLEMENTATION • OPTION 1 • • MESSAGE UPDATES TO HIGH-PRIORITY SIGNS • • AND REMOVE ALL OTHER SIGNS ($100K) • • • PROS CONS • • • • FIXES CONFUSION CAUSED BY OUTDATED • BUDGET GOES TO REPAIRS AND UPDATES • MESSAGES WITH NO IMPROVEMENT TO FUNCTIONALITY OR • AESTHETICS OF SALT LAKE WAYFINDING SYSTEM • • • MOST COST-EFFECTIVE SOLUTION ii• • MESSAGE UPDATES WILL BE VISIBLE AS "PATCHES" • • POSSIBLE TO COMPLETE CRITICAL UPDATES ON EXISTING SIGNS • • BY MARCH 2012 • • DEPENDING ON BUDGETING, PUSHES A BRAND NEW SYSTEM • TO A LATER DATE BY 3-5 YEARS • • • • • • • • • • ilgo • • Copyright®2011 Infinite Scale Design Group NOTE:ALL PRICES SHOWN ARE ESTIMATES THAT ARE NOT BASED ON VENDOR QUOTES.PRICES DO NOT INCLUDE DESIGN FEES AND ARE MEANT TO GIVE A ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ONLY Page 7 • • • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING— FINAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOBER 25, 2011 • RECOMMENDATIONS WAYFINDING—OPTION 2 2. • WAYFINDING IMPLEMENTATION NM • OPTION 2 , • • PHASE 1 — REFURBISH EXISTING SYSTEM ($450K) O © Temple Square > Shopping State Capitol • • REUSE EXISTING POSTS AND PANELS • , District • • REPAIR DAMAGED POSTS AND FOOTER COVERS; REPAINT ALL POSTS . Z University of • t Delta Cente — I Utah • • REMOVE PANELS TO RESURFACE AND UPDATE MESSAGES; I UPDATE DESIGN (NEW COLORS, TYPEFACE, etc.) O © Airport • ,i Salt Palace • • POTENTIALLY ADD NEW EMBELLISHMENTS TO SIGN STRUCTURES • • RELOCATE AND ADD/REMOVE SIGNS AS NECESSARY Temple Square Z • • ADD NEW SIGN TYPES AS NECESSARY r- 4,' SLC • FOR MARCH 2012, PRIMARY FOCUS ON PEDESTRIAN WAYFINDING e • AND DIRECTORIES, SECONDARY FOCUS ON VEHICULAR WAYFINDING SIGNS • THAT DIRECT TRAFFIC TO CITY CREEK CENTER f. • • MASTER PLANNING MUST BEING IMMEDIATELY _ '''I i, � •• • DESIGN, PROGRAMMING AND PROTOTYPING NOV 2011-JAN 2012 - - r. • NEEN • INSTALLATION FEB 2012 IMMO • ■■■■ MUM • MINN • PHASE 2 — FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ($200K) • NEW SIGNAGE DESIGN AND MASTER IMPLEMENTATION PLAN • • • NEW, COMPREHENSIVE SIGNAGE PROGRAM • • • IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO SECURE SUPPORT AND FUNDING • Oalk • INCLUDES FABRICATION DOCUMENTATION, LOCATION PLANS AND MESSAGE SCHEDULE • BEFORE AFTER BEGINS UPON SIGNOFF OF PHASE 1 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN JAN-JUNE 2012 • • Copyright®2011 Infinite Scale Design Group NOTE:ALL PRICES SHOWN ARE ESTIMATES THAT ARE NOT BASED ON VENDOR QUOTES,PRICES DO NOT INCLUDE DESIGN FEES AND ARE MEANT TO GIVE A ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ONLY. Page 8 • • • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING — FINAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOBER 25, 2011 • RECOMMENDATIONS WAYFINDING—OPTION 2 211° WAYFINDING IMPLEMENTATION • • OPTION 2 • • PHASE 1 - REFURBISH EXISTING SYSTEM ($450K) • • PHASE 2 - FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ($200K) • • • PROS CONS • � • REFRESHES THE LOOK OF DOWNTOWN WAYFINDING • DEPENDING ON BUDGETING, PUSHES A BRAND NEW • SYSTEM WHILE REUSING AS MUCH EXISTING SYSTEM TO A LATER DATE BY 5-10 YEARS • INVENTORY AS POSSIBLE • • LIMITS POSSIBILITIES FOR A COMPLETELY REFRESHED LOOK • ALLOWS FOR EXPANSION, UPDATES AND • IMPROVEMENTS TO MASTER SYSTEM • SIGNIFICANT COST, YET COMPROMISE IN TERMS OF • VISUAL IMPACT • • OFFERS BEST BALANCE OF UPDATES AND COST • • • • REFURBISHMENT OF HIGHEST PRIORITY SIGNS • POSSIBLE BY MARCH 2012 • • • ALLOWS FOR CREATION OF AN ACTION PLAN • • TO DESIGN, FUND AND INSTALL A NEW • SIGNAGE PROGRAM • • • 411 • • Copyright OD2011 Infinite Scale Design Group NOTE:ALL PRICES SHOWN ARE ESTIMATES THAT ARE NOT BASED ON VENDOR QUOTES PRICES DO NOT INCLUDE DESIGN FEES AND ARE MEANT TO GIVE A ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ONLY. Page 9 • • • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING -FINAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOBER 25. 2011 • RECOMMENDATIONS WAYFINDING—OPTION 3 • WAYFINDING IMPLEMENTATION ,`��I � tiTsT • , �i • • OPTION 3 � 1 poR\ --- m •• COMPLETE REDESIGN ($1.5-2M) 4 ��T t;_: y / T I • • DESIGN A NEW SYSTEM, WITH NEW SIGN TYPES AND LOCATIONSv l I� _ • THAT FITS THE PRESENT STATE AND FUTURE VISION FOR OUR CITY ACC I I , iiiii • • IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO SECURE SUPPORT AND FUNDING __ '7►_ • i_ • • INCLUDES FABRICATION DOCUMENTATION, • LOCATION PLANS AND MESSAGE SCHEDULE i ,,•�� Z. t • rru - • DESIGN, PROGRAMMING AND PROTOTYPING SPRING—SUMMER 2012 e NE , � : ®, / I +� • (ASSUMES DESIGN COMPLETION IN OPTION 2, PHASE 2) + ei1j; •— r • FABRICATION WINTER 2012 ,L' • INSTALLATION SUMMER 20134i 4 • , gt:IL I 6 • t j . , .�' *? 't • i vr- — • _ ____ • e , .. _: .-- .. .,.., ,,,,,,,,„„:„,:,:., •,, ...::.. • . ,,,,.::::::: ,. ... ... ... ... .. • F',, _ _ ' ''. it 1:tit'. i ' t u1yIIIifL r<1tn tiled ••' Nncs• s i f sn, 4' King Historic District • i t n,chester1 ♦ Midtown t..• nseY I Pew ... • ow' Bomberryouse ♦ SoNo District ::. .In .• r Sossea5e r' r•," • ►Car Par.i - .... .,�, ` • 1 # 1 r rr • - '=1 - IIII - '+` �. • • Copyright®2011 Infinite Scale Design Group NOTE.ALL PRICES SHOWN ARE ESTIMATES THAT ARE NOT BASED ON VENDOR QUOTES.PRICES DO NOT INCLUDE DESIGN FEES AND ARE MEANT TO GIVE A ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ONLY. Page 10 • • • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING — FINAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOBER 25, 2011 • RECOMMENDATIONS • WAYFINDING—OPTION 3 • WAYFINDING IMPLEMENTATION • • OPTION 3 • • COMPLETE REDESIGN ($1.5-2M) • • • • • PROS CONS • • • • HIGHEST LEVEL OF IMPACT ON DOWNTOWN SLC • LARGER SCOPE WILL REQUIRE FULL PROCESS, • WHICH WILL PUSH ANY VISIBLE RESULTS BY 2+ YEARS • • ALLOWS FOR FUTURE-ORIENTED, EXPANDABLE • •� DESIGN SYSTEM • NOT POSSIBLE TO COMPLETE BY MARCH 2012 s • • MOST LONGEVITY OF ALL SOLUTIONS • • • • MORE TIME NEEDED FOR PLANNING, RFQ, RFP, • DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION MEANS MORE TIME • • TO SECURE FUNDING • • • • • • • • 44,0 • • Copyright IS 2011 Infinite Scale Design Group NOTE:ALL PRICES SHOWN ARE ESTIMATES THAT ARE NOT BASED ON VENDOR QUOTES.PRICES DO NOT INCLUDE DESIGN FEES AND ARE MEANT TO GIVE A ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ONLY. Page 11 • • • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING — FINAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOBER 25, 2011 • RECOMMENDATIONS MAINTENANCE • MAINTENANCE • ANNUAL COST • 0,'0: :•::•::•::•:Aro::•: • ltii,,:.:to ' • HARDWARE FIXES, PAINT TOUCH-UPS, DOWNTOWN • GRAFFITI REMOVAL, ETC. ($10K) . .• • ° � a l °. . • OBJECTIVES " o =e. 0 • • KEEP THE SIGN SYSTEM LOOKING NEW AND FRESH • FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE ' • • PLAN FOR MINIMAL ANNUAL UPDATES TO MESSAGES , : .„• , AND MAPS (WHEN NEEDED)• w E0 41i"Ei b a 0 �• • • MONITOR SIGNS LOCATED NEAR TREES TO ENSURE - • THAT THEY DON'T BECOME COMPLETELY OBSCURED • OVER TIME Y —`�= 46/ LtFee> e�irztei i • • • • l�. • A • • .,.‘ . • t t .� l4 , ciil • • • Copyright C 2011 Infinite Scale Design Group NOTE.ALL PRICES SHOWN ARE ESTIMATES THAT ARE NOT BASED ON VENDOR QUOTES.PRICES DO NOT INCLUDE DESIGN FEES AND ARE MEANT TO GIVE A ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ONLY. Page 12 • • • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING — FINAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOBER 25, 2011 • RECOMMENDATIONS PLACEMAKING • PLACEMAKING • SOFT GRAPHICS CAMPAIGN • • STREET BANNER AND 'I II I' II II • • SUPERGRAPHIC PACKAGE ($70K) II II II IIII • SIMILAR IN SCOPE TO "DOWNTOWN RISING" CAMPAIGN. II II 11 II II • DESIGNED TO CAPITALIZE ON INCREASED DOWNTOWN % I • TRAFFIC DURING CITY CREEK CENTER OPENING 0 II II r • THROUGH USE OF BRIGHT, COLORFUL SYSTEM. II II II II RN, li�nana` • • OBJECTIVES 11� �11., I II II II II • • DRAW PEOPLE SOUTH ON MAIN STREET AND TO ,k 111 II II II II II_ 7 - 7 ii • EAST AND WEST BROADWAY IN ORDER TO PROMOTE ++ 1i II II II II II ` J I • PRIMARY DOWNTOWN DESTINATIONS OUTSIDE OF �. Pil • CITY CREEK CENTERp. -- _I -I (�II A s� I, ,� • BEGIN TO INTRODUCE NEW DESTINATIONS THAT • ARE NOT PRESENT ON CURRENT WAYFINDING SIGNS ' . • (CENTRAL STATION, LIBRARY SQUARE, etc.) 1 Al rl , 't6=;«- • '1 .� .r1: t• • • CREATE A DESIGN PACKAGE THAT CAN BE PAIRED WITH i!lIllpla ... • ANY OF THE PERMANENT WAYFINDING OPTIONS • 0 y J - 4 1100,11 • • CI-` ~' • • 1 • , 0. • • • slOP iiiis • • Copyright©2011 Infinite Scale Design Group NOTE:ALL PRICES SHOWN ARE ESTIMATES THAT ARE NOT BASED ON VENDOR QUOTES.PRICES DO NOT INCLUDE DESIGN FEES AND ARE MEANT TO GIVE A ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ONLY. Page 13 • • • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING - FINAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOBER 25, 2011 • RECOMMENDATIONS III WAYFINDING — OPTIONS SUMMARY WAYFINDING OPTIONS SUMMARY • • • • • OPTION 1 ($180K) OPTION 2 ($730K) OPTION 3 ($ 1 . 58 -2 . 08M ) • • MESSAGE UPDATES TO HIGH-PRIORITY SIGNS PHASE 1 - REFURBISH EXISTING SYSTEM ($450K) COMPLETE REDESIGN ($1.5-2M) • AND REMOVE ALL OTHER SIGNS ($100K) PHASE 2 - FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ($200K) MAINTENANCE ($10K ANNUALLY) • MAINTENANCE($10K ANNUALLY) MAINTENANCE($10K ANNUALLY) SOFT GRAPHICS CAMPAIGN ($70K) • SOFT GRAPHICS CAMPAIGN ($70K) SOFT GRAPHICS CAMPAIGN ($70K) • • • \ _ • • CI , 0 Temple Square N"3owr- • z I - City Creek G State Capitol 110 Center O Z University of • ° Z...' i His Arena ! —i Utah • 0 ©Airport LIMA • 0 ,r Salt Palate • • z r ` • , /1 • `L� 100 — , . • I, I.; • e: • H • °�3 • 1� Allr :� fi4 • • • Copyright®2011 Infinite Scale Design Group NOTE:ALL PRICES SHOWN ARE ESTIMATES THAT ARE NOT BASED ON VENDOR QUOTES.PRICES DO NOT INCLUDE DESIGN FEES AND ARE MEANT TO GIVE A ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ONLY. Page 14 • • • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING —FINAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOBER 25, 2011 • RECOMMENDATIONS :IPIMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE • IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE • • • • : OPTION 1 $100K • • • FUNDING MESSAGE SCHEDULE + PLANNING (12 WEEKS) INSTALL (6 WEEKS) • • • • • T : OPTION 2 —Phase 1 $450K • • Phase 2 $200K • EFUNDING REFURB DESIGN + PLANNING (12 WEEKS) FAB + INSTALL 16 WEEKS) GLOBAL REDESIGN + MASTER PLAN (6 MONTHS) • r_..:: Z • • GI • • • • OPTION 3 $1.5-2M : • • FUNDING GLOBAL REDESIGN + MASTER PLAN (6 MONTHS) FABRICATION (WINTER 2012) INSTALLATION (SUMMER 2013) • • • • ' • NOW / �/ MARCH 22, 2012 i" 'li GRAND OPENING FUTURE • CITY /^� CREEK • C, • r : CD • MAINTENANCE ($10K ANNUALLY) • n • • • o • •-13 • Z SOFT GRAPHICS CAMPAIGN ($70K) • m • Z • • —I • • cn • • • • • Copyright 1D 2011 Infinite Scale Design Group NOTE:ALL PRICES SHOWN ARE ESTIMATES THAT ARE NOT BASED ON VENDOR QUOTES.PRICES DO NOT INCLUDE DESIGN FEES AND ARE MEANT TO GIVE A ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ONLY. Page 15 • • • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING—FINAL ANALYSIS 8 RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOBER 25, 2011 • RECOMMENDATIONS WAYFINDING—CONCEPTUAL DIRECTIONS •:IP WAYFINDING - CONCEPTUAL DIRECTIONS (OPTIONS 2+3) • •• it ' ' :.. ,s © Av. < O - riC ` a .. -.es- - • �—RALEIGH• , _ a: ,O � ',At, f 1 0 `.r !p_, sL-c�._ • s T • 4 fr — .. � IIIr a • ■i ill' .. ��'1 e t., I = M I .314 i• I iR CTf:• 0 • S. • • O • — . • _,. • • TRADITIONAL CITY MODERN CITY CUTTING-EDGE CITY • 01 FORMAL CONSTRUCTION WITH ELABORATE DETAILS ®"SLICK" MATERIALS + CONSTRUCTION: ®1 VARIED MATERIALS + LAYERS OF COMPLEXITY; • STAINLESS STEEL/ALUMINUM, ENAMELED PANELS, SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS • ®NEUTRAL IN THE ENVIRONMENT MINIMAL FOOTERS, FEW EMBELLISHMENTS • ()UNIQUE OR UNEXPECTED SHAPES CONTRAST WITH 03 "HISTORIC"ACCENT COLORS: GOLD/COPPER/BROWN 02 SIMPLE, BOLD SIGN SHAPES THAT ARE ENVIRONMENT; SIGN FORMS MAY BE SCULPTURAL • EASILY RECOGNIZABLE IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LESS RIGID • ®SERIFED TYPOGRAPHY • ®STRAIGHTFORWARD PRESENTATION ©BOLD ACCENT COLORS OS BOLD COLORS • OF MAPS + INFORMATION ®SANS-SERIF TYPOGRAPHY ®SANS-SERIF TYPOGRAPHY OR UNIQUE, CUSTOM TYPEFACE 80 ®CLEAN PRESENTATION OF MAPS + INFORMATION ()STYLIZED PRESENTATION OF MAPS + INFORMATION • ©CONNECTIVE TO WEB/MOBILE PRESENCE ©CONNECTIVE TO WEB/MOBILE PRESENCE • • Copyright®2011 Infinite Scale Design Group Page 16 • • • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING -FINAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS _ OCTOBER 25 2011 I RECOMMENDATIONS CASE STUDIES:TRADITIONAL •:110 TRADITIONAL: ATLANTA, GA RALEIGH , NC • • w• -..,;;Al +°1 i ;� 1 Qtlelcom, RALEIGH �. a,w, ,'1 N; '':It AI'.i. 111. - - DOWNTOWN it ' • Peach RALEIGH 0 Soft f1 • ", ♦ to tree Stre �,r,�m,w JO Ip • „ , et ` t om 'I 6[ d Stat = • t UtylllpIl PcIIK Aled CENTENNIAL i hQ�rn1 IG • ♦ Downtown OLYMPIC PARK feyh 'I n` • '+King Historic District �G COOP • ♦ Midtown ; • •_Ilt ♦ Olympic Park Area • nICIpa ♦ Soh• o District - �,� 4, college • ,�-: '� T peace • , I RAI CIGI l • ~• - 1 • slit\ STORY CULTUREa�a "" . • c,Lr! : 1s °�rhe,r,ra �� ".. _ ,.. J: 1 • .,. J i /� — — PUBIIC �: killi • — AllittO - pf '� 1 i an�ic,+ Were �' : /IR11NG' `I II,. • WIDE T �' cn 5 CIr. • ♦Piedmont Park -r- >s .,,� O OPEN Slad t., y , , )_� }}tt�rrre ♦ Amtrak Station �' t* _ ? here5t Y C~ • — — W. P. . Q to � • cr • t, Buckhead .�. _ ' R me �''� Q f ' Woodruff Arts Center - = U • — I Ixwu I E • �" -.. U .., r� • , a ,I ' c 0 <-Convention Center �R - Y 1�1- '•8 • ©a le`sl y, e ^Iem ; F County Courthouse �' = • ": ' •©sit hms T Federal Courthouse 1,. �. a ,I':� A{uy�� - • - �`- �-�z •Ill Ii C ' wal� Dobbs to • ©It e: King Gen zn -s Nit.'. '--- .e.' f Fr,pair' ems., M - w • ©ifoof'ol;Pad ell -©.,eE"° , ,� _-� /N1 i D T 0 W N E I _` • --.... ..._... • Copyright©2011 Infinite Scale Design Group • • • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING - FINAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOBER 25, 2011 • RECOMMENDATIONS CASE STUDIES:MODERN •= MODERN: PORTLAND, OR LONDON • , • "'�++w owN IP I 11 , � 1 ... .......- k ,e,e, • PEARL 4 �oa.r�M'mi��'* a DISTRICT y l D^Ws1<a. �a.,,,M`a",�," �,.� . 2 • ivetwil,yr .."a" i III `' 7222 Powell'City of Books F e.� r �� _ I • Girding Theater E .....,• ,,h.,h w .._. .1- 1 2'1 OLD TOWN/CHINATOWN -j "_ - t • q Classical Chinese Garden # I • • 1 + 'I III I ,4_;_,,:_,..; , ., , . ‘,11\‘‘. 1 70,,, i • r — •_ ` • Transit: • Com, �. 4- - r '-. (9� MAX Light Rail Lines • 4 Cr.a le ' • Penland l Streetcar F _ a r:�'._ • •'A-- i M, - prim.. j.�: • Transit Mall Oa ` • •.rlO Y. ` `• a- • . - T� r I a a 5 st°,,e'la' ,. To NIN r. I P. �1 -. •• T 23ro e. 4*--a: - _ my 0 t 0 �! ji - Avery Row-3 • :oF • ?F "4 ' i Lancashire Court t , ki ,.. • Copyright©2011 Infinite Scale Design Group Page 18 • I • SALT LAKE CITY WAYFINDING — FINAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOHER 25, 201t • RECOMMENDATIONS q-, CASE STUDIES: CUTTING-EDGE CUTTING-EDGE: MIAMI BEACH CABOT CIRCUS, UK • • II ft tA AI A ii ''''''," ei-47 • WELCOME W tLLuML `, _ N i , L 4 • 0 , r k , �:., Y : , ire p L It1101111H0 • 1 i 1 --:,_ . 1 }I JI 1 ilk" 1 •• 4 • 41st5 ppir\IG 1Al SNIP HIA ORICT a� • ,.,, �� .III , :. *•l,,.. • iii \ • / 4 .., . _ • • , .. , ...., .„. • _<.t, .....\'' I' "'- J • , ,,,,, ... y", , t • 1 p, \if HISTORIC S1 ‘• ' • ART DECO SI• DISTRICT , • MIAMIBEACH d 4 • • • Copyright ee 2011 Infinite Scale Design Group Page 19 • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Parking Meter Rates) An ordinance amending Section 12.56.170 of the Salt Lake City Code,relating to the parking meter rates. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 12.56.170 of the Salt Lake City Code,relating to the parking meter rates, be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows: 12.56.170: PARKING METERS; RATES: A. Parking meter rates shall not exceed twenty five cents ($0.25)per fifteen(15)ten (10) minutes of parking within any parking meter zone. A parking meter token may be used in parking meters installed by the city at a rate not to exceed one hour of parking per token. Parking meter tokens shall not be used as legal tender to satisfy any debt to the city and shall only be used in connection with a downtown parking and transit token program. B. The foregoing notwithstanding, all parking meter charges shall be waived during the period of November 235, 20110, through December 296, 20110. However, during said period, no person shall park or permit any vehicle to remain parked in any parking meter space adjacent to a meter for a continuous period longer than two (2)hours. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 2012. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah this day of , 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER 1 , , .1, . , . , alt Lake Ci Consolidated Fee Schedule ,E, Avi ...._-,. %"4. . arc". ; " oft CO ''.77 1' L"c,_:'LI !ri 11.119..',....iiiik."—"FIL.:--I 17-1""....11 gis =i=_t& if 1 -..\\41, diiiiik 1411 �+�L� 111 its C fiti gli It I rf 00 fix stilt s __.. . _ - Adopted 06/14/2011 Page 1 Area Seasonal Parking Permits ' 5-8 months $18 12.64.090 9- months : .:...: •. ..: :.;...: ` • . Barricade Permit $27.50 14.32.418 rase Freight Curb.Loading Zone Permit ' business . .Annual,plus sticker`fee :12.56 330: .. license fee. .. • . Vehide sticker $35 Annual 12.56.330 .. . . . ..... . Vehicle ticker.replkement: :. :. _ : :•$3 .: ': :.. : . 42 56 3$0: Vehide sticker transfer of vehicle $5 12.56.330 House.Number:Certificate-::(poblicwuorks):. ,$10: - . $1.50/half Library Parking Fees hour or First half hour Is free 12;56.580 $12/day Loading,tone&Restricted.Parking • Loading Zone&Restricted Parldng $25/vehide For provisions and 12.56.325 per 325 . .:;. • $70%of icin.` For Proyi5 0 exemptibns see a nil.; ., • ......:.12.56 �`i2:56:325'. . events , • . .•:• :per day exemptions,see:Se�lon:12:56:325 .. _ Filming (movie,television series or commercial) $10/vehide For ons and 12.56.325 per day exemptions see Secion 12.56.325 Shall.not . ParkingMeter Rates exceed ' �12.56170: . `$0.25 per . 0`minut�. Street Name Change Application $250 14.08.015 Traffic.School: : .: . , : : : . . ... :. ::$50 :. . Per course 12.081 t50:::: Temporary Closure—Parking Meters $25 Per meter,per day 14.12.130 Tem Parking•Meters $27.50 Per clay ` . .P :12:5G:210:: o -rilyPlacing of Bags on: During filming of a movie/television series/commercial $11 Per day 12.56.210 ‘• : . • ' • ' -Per day 1:MUstsignlffcantly foster area : ':: :,-":`,, For an event.that.continues for:not less.than 3..days• , $11•; business:prb,KnOtion.aiid have en : ::12.56:210 ttendan g 5,000 • . ;, expected a ce.exoeedin , For a religious or charitable organization No charge Limited to 30 days per calendar year 12.56.210 For use under the.direction afthe city in:connection a. Norge ` .. • 12.56.220 with a City:Spansored event: : • . . PARKS AND RECREATION i.. : S.. :_s0L91:47100 for,�uestio.�s: gard�ng-Parksa��i';R. ... atjo��fQes:Co��a.- l . Service Fee I Additional Section Information 'After;Sdiodi:Programs - ;:formula:8ased:.,,:. ::.See;Section`1.5.16:090 15'16 090 Athletic Fadlity Reservations , : > Recreational ' - :$1 • Per:hour/two.hour 15:16rO2O : Organized league use $15 Per week 15.16.010 TaumamentS with"sew niiservatron:• .: ,•$`1,OQ Per day. . . .151f A10 Tournaments without season reservation $200 Per day 15.16.010 - Any leaning�uir,'ed after usage. . : ' $35. . : Per staff hour 151f;p10 Film Classes Not more than$20 15.16.090 f reeforpression Activity.'Permit ' . .- . : ..$5: .:... .• : 3.50. .070 Picnic Facility Reservations Resident No resident I Groves,boweries and terraces. : $40 • . $50 • 115:16.020 Adopted 06/14/2011 Page 25 POTENTIAL MOTIONS . IDLING VEHICLE ENGINES DATE: October 20, 2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Proposed Ordinance to Limit Time a Driver May Idle a Vehicle Engine 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 The following are potential motions to the proposed ordinance that would enact a prohibition on drivers idling vehicle engines in Salt Lake City. After the City Council briefing October 11, the Council suggested staff prepare motions that addressed how long a vehicle could idle and a housekeeping measure involving language in Exemption No. 5 in Section 12.58.030 Paragraph A. In addition the City Council and the Administration discussed potential legislative intents. The following motions are divided into two categories: motions/amendments and legislative intents. The amendments category contains three potential motions. The first motion would retain in the ordinance the two-minute limit that a driver could idle a vehicle engine. It also would amend Exemption No. 5 in Section 12.58.030 Paragraph A. The second motion would increase in the ordinance the limit that a driver could idle a vehicle engine as well as amend Exemption No. 5 in Section 12.58.030 Paragraph A. The motions are based on two things: First, Philadelphia appears to be the only other city nationwide that limits idling vehicle engines to two minutes. Second, a number of other cities, counties and states, including Park City; Minneapolis, Minnesota;New York City; St. Louis County, Missouri; the states of Connecticut, Delaware, and New Jersey; and the District of Columbia, limit idling vehicle engines to three minutes. The third motion is the option the City Council always has—not to enact an ordinance or amendment. The legislative intents follow the motions so the City Council can consider each intent separately. 1 MOTIONS/AMENDMENTS I. 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 amendment:That 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." II. 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." III. I move the City Council consider the next item on the agenda. LEGISLATIVE INTENTS '* • It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration look at other ways traffic congestion can be relieved and air quality improved in Salt Lake City. • 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. 2 POTENTIAL MOTIONS . IDLING VEHICLE ENGINES 0 DATE: October 20,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Proposed Ordinance to Limit Time a Driver May Idle a Vehicle Engine 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 The following are potential motions to the proposed ordinance that would enact a prohibition on drivers idling vehicle engines in Salt Lake City. After the City Council briefing October 11, the Council suggested staff prepare motions that addressed how long a vehicle could idle and a housekeeping measure involving language in Exemption No. 5 in Section 12.58.030 Paragraph A. In addition the City Council and the Administration discussed potential legislative intents. The following motions are divided into two categories: motions/amendments and legislative intents. The amendments category contains three potential motions. The first motion would retain in the ordinance the two-minute limit that a driver could idle a vehicle engine. It also would amend Exemption No. 5 in Section 12.58.030 Paragraph A. The second motion would increase in the ordinance the limit that a driver could idle a vehicle engine as well as amend Exemption No. 5 in Section 12.58.030 Paragraph A. The motions are based on two things: First, Philadelphia appears to be the only other city nationwide that limits idling vehicle engines to two minutes. Second, a number of other cities, counties and states, including Park City; Minneapolis, Minnesota;New York City; St. Louis County, Missouri; the states of Connecticut, Delaware, and New Jersey; and the District of Columbia, limit idling vehicle engines to three minutes. The third motion is the option the City Council always has—not to enact an ordinance or amendment. The legislative intents follow the motions so the City Council can consider each intent separately. 1 MOTIONS/AMENDMENTS I. 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 amendment:That 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." II. 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." III. I move the City Council consider the next item on the agenda. LEGISLATIVE INTENTS • It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration look at other ways traffic congestion can be relieved and air quality improved in Salt Lake City. • 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. 2 Item A4 please See Item A3 ( Oct 11th ) RALPH BECKER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY D..J. BAXTER CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER O F SALT LAKE CITY EXECUTIVE OPIECTOR DATE: October 7,2011 ITEM: 8.A. RE: CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF A LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN WASATCH PUBLIC MEDIA, INC., AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY PROJECT AREA: Central Business District PREPARED BY: Jill Wilkerson-Smith EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The RDA has been approached by Wasatch Public Media, Inc. ("WPM")with a loan request in an amount not to exceed$250,000 to pay off a $400,000 loan that will be due on October 31,2011 with National Cooperative Bank("NCB"), a lending institution in California. KCPW, one of WPM's flagship stations, is currently conducting its fund drive, and will utilize these funds to pay down the loan. However, it is unlikely KCPW will raise adequate funds during the fund drive to pay its loan balance in full. Therefore, WPM is seeking gap funding from the RDA to pay its outstanding loan obligation, and may request another loan in the near future to pay off an additional $1.8 million loan obligation due in September 2012. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Agree to enter into a Loan Agreement with WPM in an amount not to exceed$250,000, and direct staff to proceed with processing the loan as further described below. 2) Agree to enter into a Loan Agreement with WPM in an amount not to exceed $250,000, and direct staff to proceed with processing the loan with modifications as directed by the Board at the meeting. 3) Reject WPM's loan request. FUNDING: Revolving Loan Fund: Amount to be determined. LOAN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:The Loan Committee will meet on October 10, and staff will convey the Loan Committee recommendation at the Board Meeting. ANALYSIS AND ISSUES: Background: Two weeks ago,the RDA was approached by WPM with a request to assist in paying off one of two loans with NCB by securing a loan through the RDA for the remaining NCB loan balance. The loan is due on October 31, 2011. 451 SOUTH STATE.ROOM 415 PO AOX 14S$105 MALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 54114 TELEPNONEI 001•531P7240 FAX'AOl.535-7E411 W W W.1<LQ*pMGWQ ®,aa+e.w ww• Currently, WPM has three loans outstanding,the balance and additional information are as follows: Lender Loan Due Date Purpose Amount NCB ' 9 . } '4 <'r NCB ("Loan B") $1,800,000 September 30, 2012 KCPW Station Purchase PO*R 7 �� z In 2008, KCPW was purchased by WPM for$2.4 million to prevent the station from being purchased by a large radio holdings company.At the same time, WPM secured a third loan through Public Radio Fund,LLC,to hold in escrow and use to make interest payments to NCB for Loan A and Loan B. WPM makes monthly interest payments to Public Radio Fund in the amount of$3,605. WPM is requesting the RDA commit to funding a loan of up to $250,000,the amount of which would be more specifically determined after its current fund drive. WPM is 0060 proposing that a portion of its October fund drive donation proceeds be used to pay down NCB Loan A, and that the RDA loan will fund the gap. The loan would carry a term of six months. WPM anticipates that a second donation drive later this fall will generate sufficient proceeds to repay the RDA loan within this timeframe. Staff has reviewed financial information provided by WPM for its loan request. Below is a synopsis of WPM's financial status: WPM Sources& Uses: Attached to this memo is a Sources and Uses statement for WPM for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. WPM's gross profit for 2010-2011 was $1,176,531,which was largely derived from corporate and private contributions,and grants. Other sources of income were received through special events sales and miscellaneous revenue. WPM's expenses for the year totaled $909,917, comprised mostly of payroll and programming expenses. WPM is billed either quarterly or annually for programming from National Public Radio,Public Radio International, and The Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In reviewing its 90-day aging report, most obligations were paid,with the exception of payments to the above mentioned institutions. WPM has explained that a few other outstanding obligations, including its tenant improvement costs and website 2 development expenses,are partially paid as donations are received. The vendors have agreed to certain payment structures proposed by WPM in advance. In 2010-2011, WPM also paid$195,151 in loan and interest payments to Public Radio Fund, LLC, and NCB. WPM Balance Sheet: Below is a synopsis of WPM's Balance Sheet for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. WPM Balance Sheet Summary:July 1,2010-June 31,2011 rs <.. , , .., e g.• + �b Tti�. Acco r �xa. per „'a�°; ��'� , >r, g� - ,* "� .a � � x 1`60,43 ® F� � � �`ck �3�"r � �t;, •i, r a, ''ham � .lid her 58,1 16 V v 4�' '4' ,,'Ea. '� �_ 6 . P,. . ,1 - 1 .. ".' 472,988 Fixed Assets: Long Term Liabilities: License for 88.3 17 7, I13" -= N 1,800,000 License for 105.3 250,000 PRF Loan 618.000 2418,000 Total Fixed Assets: 2,567,054 Temp.Restricted Net 25,000 Assets ,...` 137 717 Net Income 71,464 �:. - ,�,£x ;>,�9 TOTAL ASSETS: 3,125,169 TOTAL LIABILITIES& 3,125,169 EQUITY WPM's most valuable assets are its two FCC licenses. The appraisal reports for both FCC licenses suggest that valuation is derived from a measurement of listenership. KCPW just received a new appraisal for its 88.3 frequency that states its value at$2.9 million, $722,817 higher than its stated book value. The appraised value of its 105.3 frequency was determined to be valued at$250,000 in November 2010. WPM's June 2011 Balance Sheet indicates a more recent valuation of the 88.3 station frequency at $2,177,183. Staff used the latter value to determine WPM's loan-to-value calculation. 3 To better understand WPM's liquidity, staff calculated a quick ratio using WPM's 2011 current assets and current liabilities. A quick ratio of 1.1 or higher demonstrates a company has adequate capability to pay its debts. WPM's quick ratio is 1.18. Ratio Analysis: Staff has performed a loan analysis,which is attached to this memo. WPM's loan-to- value is 85%,which falls into the RDA's allowable maximum of 95%. Staff has determined WPM's current debt coverage ratio is 1.37,which is above the RDA's 1.1 minimum requirement. Proposed Loan Structure: WPM has expressed its willingness to undertake a short-term loan with the RDA,with the goal of paying off the loan after its holiday fund drive this December. Staff recommends the loan be structured as an interest-only, 6-month loan with a 5%annual rate. Future Projections for KCPW: WPM has provided the RDA with budget proformas for 2012-2014,which are attached ' to this memo. These proformas forecast a substantial increase in revenue in 2012-2013. WPM has explained this increase by indicating it has obtained additional expertise for the purpose of increasing its donations. Expenses increase slightly due to additional staff needs.. WPM projects a net income of$491,139 in 2012-2013, $426,922 in 2013-2014, and $438,278 in 2014-2015. On each projected cash flow sheet, WPM lists a payment plan below its net income calculation. In 2012-2013,they intend to pay PRI and NPR programming balances in full. They will also pay off Loan A (to be financed through the RDA), as well as pay principal on Loan B to NCB. In 2013-2014, they indicate they will pay down an additional $431,328 in principal toward Loan B. . This assumes WPM has refinanced its $1.8 million loan with another lending institution. WPM's projection for 2014-2015 has a similar debt payment strategy as the previous year. Factors to Consider: If the RDA Board elects to grant WPM a loan,the RDA will be in a third position behind two outstanding obligations totaling$2,418,000. While WPM meets the debt coverage and loan-to-value ratio requirements set forth by the RDA, it has minimal cash assets to claim.NCB's loan is in a first position,with a security agreement that claims rights to a wide range of collateral, including WPM's FCC licenses.PRF is in second position, and holds second claim to the sale of WPM's FFC licenses, as well as UCC-1 filings on equipment. 4 In order to preserve WPM's future as owner of KCPW, it has expressed an interest that the RDA assist them in paying off Loan B, in the amount of$1.8 million. The Board may wish to ask WPM about details regarding its long-term strategy for handling this debt. BACKGROUND: Wasatch Public Media is a Utah non-profit corporation formed on September 12,2007 for the sole purpose of acquiring KCPW from Community Wireless of Park City("CW"), a Utah non-profit corporation. WPM began operating KCPW on May 1, 2008 through an operating agreement with CW. The purchase of KCPW was completed on September 24, 2008. ATTACHMENTS: 1. WPM Sources&Uses Statement 2. WPM Balance Sheet 3. WPM Projected Cash Flow Budget, 2012-2014 4. KCPW Request 5 July 2010-June 2011 Sources&Uses Statement:Wasatch Public Media,Inc. INCOME EXPENSE Gross Profit: 1,176,531.87 Grants: Business Expenses: Other Types of Expenses: Less Ordinary Expenses: 909,917.37 Governmental Grants 179.866.85 Estimated Bad Debt 16,000.00 Advertising/Help Wanted 201.50 Less Mortgage interest*: ,195,150.81 Subtotal 179,866.85 Busines Registration Fees 100.00 Insurance 6,648.12 NET ORDINARY INCOME: 71,463.69 Subtotal: 16,100.00 Interest Expense 3.26 Public Support: Memberships and Dues 14,106.00 Foundations/Non-Profit 58,175.00 Programming Expenses: Other Costs 1,862.99 •Indudes Interest payments to PRF and NCB. Business/Industry 340,558.60 Program Acquisition 215,128.22 Staff Development 76.00 Colleges/Universities 17,163.73 Production Costs 73.71 Volunteer Expenses 693.58 Gifts In-kind(Goods) 15,736.78 Subtotal: 215,201.93 Bank&Financial Fees 464.59 Individual Contributions 37,933.02 Other 1.909.01 Restricted Contributions 12,489.00 Contract Services: Subtotal 25,965.05 Contr.Ind.-Capital Phase 2 47,665.00 Accounting Fees 23,310.00 Pledge Drive Contributions 407,832.41 Fundraising Fees 2,424.14 Payroll Expenses: Subtotal 937,553.54 Legal Fees 2,472.85 Wages and Salaries 380,166.89 Outside Contract Services 18,339.56 Employer FICA 28,442.43 Indirect Public Support: Credit Card Processing 14.642.44 SUI 1,749.89 United Way 779.21 Subtotal 61,188.99 Employer-paid Emp Insurance 34,463.67 Subtotal: 779.21 Workers Comp 5,862.53 938,332.75 Facilities&Equipment: Payroll Expenses-Other 304.00 Investments: Amotization 14,151.96 Subtotal 450,989.41 CD 653.47 Depreciation 23,804.71 Subtotal: 653.47 Janitorial&Maintenance 71.11 Travel&Meetings: Rent,Parking&Utilities 16,439.00 Meals&Entertainment 141.00 Other Income: Other 336.00 Converences/Conventions 104.95 Inventory Sales 847.00 Subtotal 54,802.78 Travel 62.00 Misc.Revenue 1,452.00 Mileage/Local Transportation 67.48 Special Events Sales(Non-gift) 55.545.20 Equipment Rental&Maintenance: Subtotal: 375.43 Subtotal 57,844.20 Tower Site Rental 22,947.23 Rental&Maintenance 4,786.03 TOTAL EXPENSES 909,917.37 TOTAL INCOME 1,176,697.27 Equipment Purchase>$500 643.44 57,678.80 Subtotal 28,376.70 Less:COGS Cost of Goods Sold:Inventory Sales 165.40 Operations: Gifts In-Kind Expense 230.78 GROSS PROFIT 1,176,531.87 Website/Internet 149.99 Books/Periodicals 1.49 Postage/Mailing 5,392.85 Printing&Copying 11,784.57 Supplies/Minor Equipment 3,875.59 Telecommunications/Phone 28,997.13 Software licenses&Fees 6.484.68 Subtotal 56,917.08 KCPW Assets(as of 6-30-2011) KCPW Liabilities&Equity(as of 6-30-2011) CURRENT ASSETS FIXED ASSETS CURRENT LIABILITIES EQUITY Cash&Cash Equivalents: Furniture and Equipment 50,522 Accounts Payable 160,437 Temp.Restricted Net Assets 25,000 Bank Balance as of 9/30/2011 83,306 License:88.3 FM 2,177,183 Payroll Liabilities 6,046 Unrestricted Net Assets 137,717 Restricted Cash 172,724 License:105.3 250,000 NCB Capital Loan(Loan A) 306.505 Net Income 71,464 Total Cash 256,030 Leasehold Improvements 8,975 Total Current Liabilities: 472,988 Satellite 48,619 Accounts Receivable: Tower Equipment 71,400 LONG TERM LIABILITIES Underwriting Receivable 177,000 Translator Equipment 10,287 Capital Pledges Receivable 90,634 Start up Costs 54,051 Notes,Mortgages&Leases: Allowance for Doubtful Pledges -17,000 Accum Dep:FF&E,Tower,LH -50,923 NCB Capital Loan(Loan B) 1,800,000 Other §2,2 Accum Amort:Start up Costs -53,070 PRF Capital Loan 618.000 Total Accounts Receivable 251,260 Security Deposits Asset 11) Total Long Term Liabilities 2,418,000 Other Current Assets: TOTAL FIXED ASSETS 2,567,054 TOTAL LIABILITIES 2,890,988 TOTAL EQUITY 234,181 Allowance for Doubtful Underwriting/Piet -31,000 Sales Tax Receivable 420 Pledge Drive Receivable 46,181 Undeposited Funds 27,109 Inventory Asset 2,833 Prepaid Insurance 2,014 Prepaid Employee Parking 410 Prepaid Dental 342 Prepaid Medical -133 Ufe,ADD,LTD 65 Prepaid Workers Comp 1,752 Other Prepaid Expenses 833 1 Total Other Current Assets 50,826 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 558,116 TOTAL ASSETS 3,125,169 TOTAL LIABILITIES&EQUITY: 3,125,169 KCPW Cash Flow Budget-FY2012 TOTAL -mut. Beginning Cash Balance $ 60,000 Revenue <'-ar.':t._:. iT. :s:a Grants $ 147,374.• -Underwriting _ $ 432,600 Sponsorship-SL Matters $ 126,000 Contributions-pledge drives $ 380,722 Contributions-general $ 39,961 Contributions-capital phase 2 $ 320,000 $ ,,r x= United Way/CFC/Community Shares $ 2,687 F s ` Online auctions $ 50,000 1{t fi' �t �1 Retail $ 891 t; f Other $ 2,400 x , Interest (most earned on capital escrow) $ 840 '` •TAL INCOME 5 1,503,475 Expenses A ' ' `4&14 - ; � Programming(current) $ 221,323 rj Payroll I $ 530,700 Contract services $ 18,057 Accounting $ 14,400 Audit $ 10,950 Legal $ 1,569 Credit card fees $ 13,013 Auction fees $ 5,000 Occupancy $ 16,800- Tower site&satellite rent $ 24,216 a Equipment rental/maintenance $ 4,080 Postage $ 6,400 Printing $ 14,940 Supplies _ $ 8,400 Telephone $ 26,400 Software $ 19,728 Insurance $ 7,200 Travel and meetings $ 900 Other(includes annual NPR& DEI) $ 25,000 Loan interest-PRF $ 43,260 Satellite $ - TOTAL CURRENT EXPENSES $ 1,012,336- NET INCOME $ 491,139. Total Cash Available $ 551,139 Payment plans ' ti-:" a ll PRI $29k balance from prior year $ 29,000 NPR $96k balance from prior years $ 96,000 Other NCB Loan A-Principal $ 320,000 NCB Loan B-Principal $ 40,000 TOTAL PAYMENT PLANS $ 485,000 Ending Cash Balance $ 66,139 , Beginning Interest Reserve Balanc $ 165,864 Loan interest-NCB Loan A $ 11,950 Loan interest-NCB Loan B $ 127,750 Ending Interest Reserve Balance $ 26,164 KCPW Cash Flow Budget-FY2013 TOTAL Beginning Cash Balance $ 66,139 Revenue , _•.,i.'•' it VAT Grants $ 147,374 Underwriting $ 454,230 Sponsorship-SL Matters $ 126,000 Contributions-pledge drives $ 399,758 Contributions-general $ 39,961 Contributions-capital phase 2 $ 320,000 United Way/CFC/Community Shares $ 2,821 Online auctions $ 52,500 Retail $ 891 Other I $ 2,400 Interest $ 420 OTAL INCOME 5 1,546,355 fr Expenses 1�=' t!�C Programming(current) $ 227,963: Payroll $ 546,621' Contract services $ 18,057. Accounting ' $ 14,400• Audit $ 11,498. Legal $ 1,569• Credit card fees _ $ 13,664. Auction fees $ 5,250• Occupancy $ 16,800' Tower site &satellite rent $ 24,216. Equipment rental/maintenance ' $ 4,080 Postage $ 6,400. Printing $ 14,940. Supplies $ 8,400. Telephone - $ 26,400. Software $ 19,728. Insurance $ 7,200t Travel and meetings $ 900. Other(includes annual NPR&DEI) S . 25,000. Loan interest-PRF $ 43,260 Loan interest-NCB Loan B $ 83,48( TOTAL CURRENT EXPENSES $ 1,119,833 NET INCOME $ 426,522, Total Cash Available $ 492,661 Payment plans 4•.x alii4. 434.4 NCB Loan B-Principal from donations $ 320,000 NCB Loan B-Principal(P&I 30 yr amort) $ 11,328 NCB Loan B-Prin.Annual balloon in Apr $ 100,000 TOTAL PAYMENT PLANS $ 431,328 Ending Cash Balance $ 61,334 Beginning Interest Reserve Balanc $ 26,164 Loan interest-NCB Loan B $ 26,164 Ending Interest Reserve Balance $ - KCPW Cash Flow Budget-FY2014 TOTAL . Beginning Cash Balance $ 61,334 Revenue P.:;.,,r.a:'. : {,,•, Grants $ 147,374 Underwriting $ 476,942 Sponsorship-SL Matters $ 132,300 Contributions-pledge drives $ 419,746 Contributions-general $ 39,961 Contributions-capital phase 2 $ 320,000 United Way/CFC/Community Shares $ 2,962 Online auctions $ 55,125 Retail $ 891 _ Other I $ 2,400 • Interest $ 210 OTAL1NCOME 5 1,597,911 Expenses tip'•WIA%. Programming(current) $ 239,361 Payroll $ 563,020 Contract services $ 18,057 Accounting $ 14,400 Audit $ 12,072 Legal $ 1,569 Credit card fees $ 14,347 Auction fees $ 5,513 Occupancy $ 16,800- Tower site &satellite rent _$ 24,216 Equipment rental/maintenance $ 4,080 Postage $ 6,400 Printing $ 14,940 Supplies $ 8,400 Telephone $ 26,400 Software $ 10,000 Insurance $ 7,200 Travel and meetings $ 900 Other(includes annual NPR& DEI) • $ 25,000 Loan interest-PRF $ 43,260 Loan interest-NCB Loan B $ 103,698 • TOTAL CURRENT EXPENSES $ 1,159,632 NET INCOME $ 438,278 Total Cash Available $ 499,612 Payment plans --ifrAneGZSZ NCB Loan B-Principal from donations $ 320,000 NCB Loan B-Principal(P&I 30 yr amort) $ 16,056 NCB Loan B-Prin.Annual balloon in Apr $ 100,000 TOTAL PAYMENT PLANS $ 436,056 Ending Cash Balance $ 63,556 Loan Analysis Worksheet Loan Applicant: Wasatch Public Media,LLC Property Address: Library Square, SLC,UT RDA Loan Amount Requested: $250,000 NOI Calculation Total Sources: $ 1,176,532 Total Uses: $ 1,105,068 Net Operating Income $ 71,464 Loan to Value Calculation Outstanding Debt: NCB Loan B 1,800,000 Public Radio Fund Loan 618,000 RDA Loan 250,000 Total Outstanding Debt: 2,668,000 Asset Value: 3,125,169 Loan-to-Value: 85% 95%maximum Debt Coverage Ratio Calculation Net Ordinary Income 266,615 Annualized Debt Payments: 195,151 Debt Coverage Ratio: 1.37 1.1 minimum DRAFT October 3, 2011 RDA Emergency Fund Request Wasatch Public Media, Inc.,a Utah non profit corporation ("WPM") is seeking an emergency short term loan ("RDA Loan") from the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City("RDA") for the limited purpose of helping WPM payoff a loan that is due and owing on October 31, 2011. The loan is one of three loans taken out by WPM in September of 2008 to purchase KCPW public radio located at Library Square in Salt Lake City. The amount of the RDA Loan will not exceed$250K. The intent is to pay the RDA Loan within 180 days. Why the Request for an RDA Loan? KCPW was purchased in September of 2008 by WPM,a newly formed Utah non-profit corporation. The purchase price was$2.4M,plus WPM had to cover the cost of operating the Station for six months during the period of time it took WPM to get approval from the FCC to transfer the 88.3 and 105.3 licenses to WPM and to complete all of the due diligence A . required by the purchase agreement("Purchase Agreement"). "" WPM was given a little over a four months to purchase the Station or it would be sold to a conservative national religious radio chain. During that time period WPM raised over $828,083 in pledges and paid donations and obtained financing to cover the costs of purchasing KCPW. There were three loans to the financing component totaling$2.8M.The first two loans equaled$2.2M covering the purchase price not including the $200K down payment made by WPM and a third loan in the amount of$618K used to pay the interest on the$2.2M loans through September of 2012. The first loan of$400K is due no later then October 31, 2011. The second loan of$1.8M is due September 30, 2012. The lender, National Cooperative Bank("NCB"),is not interested in refinancing the two loans. NCB has indicated that if the first loan is not paid in full by October 31 it will place WPM in default and declare not only the first loan due but the second loan due and owning. The net effect would be to take KCPW off the air.The third loan,due September 30 of 2012 comes from a non-profit foundation. It has indicated it will work with WPM if the two other loans are either paid off or refinanced. Why wasn't the$400k loan paid off by the due date? There were$236,000 of pledges raised during the four month period that could have been used to pay off the first loan but have not been paid. Every attempt has been made to collect those pledges. As late as January 31, 2011 the largest unpaid pledge donor($175K) assured WPM the pledge would be honored. Every effort had been made to raise the funds 1 for the first loan without using KCPW's airwaves so we would not be mixing messages for both the debt reduction and annual operating support It did not work. What is WPM doing to pay off the first loan prior to October 31. 2011? WPM has made the decision to use its regularly scheduled Fall 2011, 12 day on-air Pledge Drive to not only ask for operating funds ($200K)but also to help cover the$250K balance on the first loan. In addition,WPM has put into place an accelerated fund-raising strategy through October 31,2011,and will continue to use the airwaves to pay off of the first loan. If the first loan is paid by October 31,2011 (with or without the help of the RDA Loan) KCPW will continue to aggressively fund-raise through the end of the 2011 calendar year. WPM has retained the services of a seasoned and highly recommended out-side consulting firm,John Sutton and Associates. Sutton specializes in working with public radio stations to enhance their fund-raising capabilities in the areas of on-air drives, Email, direct mail and the use of other social media outlets. Is KCPW worth the investment? We believe the answer is,yes. KCPW went on-air in Salt Lake City in November of 1992. KCPW was launched as an all news and information format with no music or talk shows and was licensed to Community Wireless of Park City,a Utah non-profit corporation.All broadcast and office functions came from Park City.It was not until 2004 that the original broadcast studio was opened at the then new Salt Lake City Public Library at Library Square. In a little over three years since the purchase KCPW has increased its average weekly listenership to over 60,000 (an increase of more then 100 percent) and has secured new long-term lease terms on its current space at Library Square as well as the locations for its new satellite dish (on Library Square) and two towers. It's underwriting and fund-raising continues to increase even during difficult and challenging economic times. KCPW is the only independent public radio voice covering the greater Salt Lake metropolitan area that focuses on local issues that impact the every day lives where listeners live,work and recreate. For example, KCPW has launched two local programs aired daily,Politics Up Close (Friday at 9AM with host Jeff Robinson) and CityViews Monday through Thursday at 9AM with host Jennifer Napier-Pearce. In addition KCPW continues to give non-profit organizations twice a day,aired on KCPW's Community Calendar,an opportunity to broadcast upcoming fund-raising events. Funding Sources to Operate KCPW KCPW receives a$147K annual grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The FCC allows KCPW to air paid underwriting messages of support for either public radio or KCPW. It is a charitable contribution and not paid advertising. The FCC has very strict policies and procedures on what those messages can say or not say. Stations are subject to 2 monetary damages if they are found to be in non-compliance. KCPW is unique in that rather then using professional radio voices,most of its underwriting messages are voiced in the first person by the underwriter. And,most all of the underwriters represent businesses or organization headquartered in Salt Lake City. The FCC allows KCPW to use its airwaves to fund-raise for the Station. Currently KCPW does two on-air 12 day pledge drives per year. It also does two on-line and on-air auctions per year. Like other non-profits KCPW uses direct mail, Email and special events to raise funds. The FCC allows KCPW to do on-air and website messaging as trade for services. Currently KCPW charges$50 for 20 to 30 second on-air trade messages. KCPW does a significant amount of trade for services with the Salt Lake City Public Library(rent),and Kennecott (rent). KCPW partners with non-profits by providing on-air messaging for events in exchange for recognition as a sponsor of the event. For example, Farmer's Market, People's Market, Twilight Concert Series, Utah Arts Festival and Museum of Natural History lecture series. 3 Company Name: to.s -JJ(ac. Contact Person(s): t C 4{� - Phone: Fo! -3S01_ S'c.-3-R k 2 2.74` Phone: C-01—St: - 6 7?:> Business Address: Mailing Address: P• 0. 7 S i G "7?r.'S J L..( c s f l c (if different from Business Address) Email: e,. • Website: w w w• Type of Business: /,. 1•c 7 Rom,.a,a, r4.4 New Business: (not yet opened) Start-up: (less than three years) Existing: (three years or more) If a New Business,when will the business open? If a Start-up or Existing Business,when was the business established? ere- A, E 7 f 20 7 Type of Business Entity: _COl C c-)L3) ❑ Corporation Date of Incorporation ❑ Limited Liability Company _S Corporation C Corporation ❑ Partnership ❑ Sole Proprietor Employer Identification Number: cF7, —0 t 6 -2- Current number of employees: ( I Average salary or wage: 4 (-to a Is the business currently registered as an e2 Business with Salt Lake City's Sustainability Department? (for more information on becoming an e2 Business visit www.slcgreen.com) If the loan is approved: Number of employees to add immediately: 0 Number of employees to add within 5 years: Projected number of employees in 5 years: I rr ! to daft*, Complete this section for any person who owns 20%or more of the business. Use additional sheets if necessary. Name: 4k,/A' Home Address: Home Phone: Work Phone: Mobile Phone: Email: Position in Business: Percentage of Ownership: Name: Home Address: Home Phone: Work Phone: Mobile Phone: Email: Position in Business: Percentage of Ownership: Name: Home Address: Home Phone: Work Phone: Mobile Phone: Email: Position in Business: Percentage of Ownership: Name: Home Address: Home Phone: Work Phone: Mobile Phone: Email: Position in Business: Percentage of Ownership: Please complete the following questionnaire. 1. Have you previously received a loan from Salt Lake City? Yes ❑ No 2' If so,from whom and for what amount? 2. Did your business make a profit last year? Yes ❑ No 2"" 3. Are you current on all business and personal taxes? Yes a No ❑ 4. Have you or any officers of your company ever filed bankruptcy?If yes,explain below. Yes 0 No a If yes,has the bankruptcy been discharged? Date: 5. Have any personal or business bank accounts had checks returned NSF in the last 3 months? Yes 0 No [� 6. Do you owe any outstanding child support? If yes,explain below. Yes ❑ No 2" 7. Will your credit report show that you have been current with creditors for the past year? Yes ❑ No ❑ 44- If no,explain below. 8. Have you addressed any derogatory statements on your credit report?If no,explain below. Yes ❑ No 0 At/ 9. Are you,any guarantor,or your business involved in any pending or current lawsuits? Yes ❑ No a If yes,explain below. 10. Do you or any officers of your company have any outstanding police,public,or legal issues? Yes 0 No Ei If yes,explain below. Explanations Please number your explanations so that they correspond with the items above. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Item# Explanation ; I Fir, Collateral is required for most loans. Please review the loan options chart on page 2 for collateral requirements. ''•.!!ayE,l;c etG}. E_s :;y a dao ;""a`Fiv Real Property $ x 100% - $ = $ Vehicles(Used) $ x 50% - $ _ $ Vehicles(New) $ x 80% - $ = $ Equipment $ x 50% - $ = $ Cash $ x 100% - $ = $ Investments $ x 100% - $ = $ Other(describe) $ x - $ = $ Total Collateral $2, )ZS" 16 cf Please describe your collateral below. & et Real Property Include a legal description and recent mortgage statement. Street Address,City,State: Street Address,City,State: Vehicles Make,model,year and purchase price(title is required upon closing the loan). Equipment Name,model#,serial#,purchase price and date of purchase or attached paid invoices. Inventory Description and number of items,estimated value,and location of items. Other Describe in detail other items you are pledging as collateral. Please indicate value. E 1 `J i Loan Collateral Current Assets Cash $ 256,030 Accounts Receivable $ 251,260 Other $ 50,825 Total Current Assets $ 558,115 Fixed Assets License for 88.3 $ 2,177,183 License for 105.3 $ 250,000 le Other $ 139,871 Total Fixed Assets $ 2,567,054 Total Assets $ 3,125,169 The following is to review all other business obligations that your company has. Do not include any personal obliga- tions in this section. Those should be listed on the Personal Financial Statement. Use additional sheets if necessary. Creditor: A/G ,,i Original Date: q/7- &- Original Amount: 1#Ko6), a-7,7)ss Present Balance: g z Sb1 600 Interest Rate: 7 '7,7 Monthly Payment: 4'3-, 33 3, Maturity Date: 10 1 3! 1 IA 4-rr w o.s t y e 0.1 Collateral,if any: ri r._.:_, a Status(C or D): Creditor: A !3 , 4 .' Original Date: / Original Amount: ' l� tool 4 Present Balance: � o U o o Interest Rate: .7 v/0 Monthly Payment: AI t�^n, Maturity Date: 1" / I I '`- Te 6U Collateral,if any: Sett, At"•,e— Status(C or D): Creditor: !Pi L - x (1 Original Date: � (2-(- re- , Original Amount: It., ao?, Present Balance: # 6 /6� 6 0 0 Interest Rate: 7 p/' Monthly Payment: 4 3, Sao Maturity Date: < ( f Z Collateral,if any: e...P >��.`.� t r_,- �:�:_„ i.-K r-,P', •� Status(C or D): , P le,e. :eK, nJ z�r-ss o � ‘de I-t G/&-,ao0/ 4...t Z not 4(( o(Le.. .[ss Creditor: Original Date: Original Amount: Present Balance: Interest Rate: Monthly Payment: Maturity Date: Collateral,if any: Status(C or D): Creditor: Original Date: Original Amount: Present Balance: Interest Rate: Monthly Payment: Maturity Date: Collateral,if any: Status(C or D): �qr 12 i �. ,- `i ,1 Salt Lake City Revolving Loan Fund Application PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT ai 4,1 a/- 4 ipp f'�,«f b:l4. As of Complete this form for:(1)each owner,or(2)each general partner,or(3)each limited partner who owns 20%or more interest,or(4)each shareholder owning 20%or more of the stock,or(5)any person or entity providing a guaranty on the loan. Name Business Phone Residence Address Residence Phone City,State,and Zip Code Name of Business ASSETS (Omit Cents) LIABILITIES (Omit Cents) Cash on hand&In Banks $ Accounts Payable $ Savings Accounts $ Notes Payable&Installment Accounts... $ Accounts&Notes Receivable $ (Describe in Section 2) (Describe in Section 6) Loans on Life Insurance $ Life Insurance—Cash(Surrender Value Only) $ Mortgages on Real Estate $ Stocks and Bonds $ (Describe in Section 4) (Describe in Section 3) Unpaid Taxes $ Real Estate $ (Describe in Section 7) (Describe in Section 4) Other Liabilities $ Automobile—Present Value $ (Describe in Section 8) Other Personal Property $ Total Liabilities $ (Describe in Section 5) Other Assets $ Net Worth $ (Describe in Section 6) Total $ Total $ Section 1.Source of Income Contingent Liabilities Salary $ As Endorser or Co-Maker $ Net Investment Income $ Legal Claims&Judgments $ Real Estate Income $ Provision for Federal Income Tax. $ Other Income(Describe Below) $ Other Special Debt $ Description of Items Listed In Section 1. Section 2.Notes Payable and Installment Accounts(Including Credit Cards) Name of CreditorOriginal Current Payment Amount Terms How Secured or Endorsed Type of Balance Balance (Monthly,etc.) Collateral f ?3 1 Section 3.Stocks and Bonds Number of Name of Securities Name of Exchange Current Quotation Date of Quotation Market Value Shares Section 4.Real Estate Owned (List each parcel separately. If necessary,attach supplemental sheets and date and sign.) Type of Property/ Title in Date Purchased Original Cost Present Value Mortgage Balance Payment Amt. Address of Property Name of Current?(Y/N) Section 5.Other Personal Property (Describe) Section 6.Other Assets (Describe) Section 7.Unpaid Taxes (Describe as to type,to whom payable,when due,amount,and if any liens have been filed) Section 8.Other Liabilities (Describe) Section 9.Life Insurance Held (Give face amount of policies,name of company and beneficiaries) I/We hereby certify that all statements in this application are true and complete and are made for the purpose of obtaining credit.I/We fully understand that It is a federal crime punishable by fine or imprisonment or both to knowingly make any false statements concerning any of the above facts,as applicable under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code,Section 1014. I/We authorize and request all persons listed and all credit reporting agencies to furnish Salt Lake City Corporation opinions and credit information on or affecting me for this application,and I/we authorize Salt Lake City Corporation to report opinions and credit information on or affecting me to all credit reporting agencies or other financial institutions,and I/we agree to hold Salt Lake City Corporation harmless from any claims,direct or indirect,that may result from receiving or reporting such Information. Signature: Date: Social Security Number: Signature: Date: Social Security Number: 2E (I ! i. • Please thoroughly read and sign the following: 1. The Borrower is responsible for the following costs at the time of closing. These costs can be paid in full by the Borrower or deducted from the loan amount: loan origination fee of 1.5%of the loan amount;appraisal cost, title insurance,recording fees,title company closing costs if the loan is being secured by real property. 2. The Applicant authorizes Salt Lake City Corporation to make inquires as necessary to verify the accuracy of the statements made and to determine the Applicant's creditworthiness(including,but not limited to, regular and investigative reports, credit reports, financial statements and other documents submitted by Applicant(s) in connection with this application). The statements made herein are made for the purpose of either obtaining a loan or guaranteeing a loan. By signing below, Applicant(s) understand that false statements may result in forfeiture of benefits and possible prosecution by the U.S.Attorney General(Reference 18 USC 1001). 3. Applicant understands that this completed and signed application is only an application and does not consti- tute a commitment on part of Salt Lake City Corporation to extend credit. 4. The Borrower agrees to comply with Federal and State laws which prohibit discrimination based on race,color, sex culture,social origin,sexual orientation,condition,or political or religious ideas. 5. The undersigned agrees to notify Salt Lake City Corporation immediately in writing if any of the information contained in this application becomes inaccurate or misleading in any respect. 6. As a condition of considering the application and at any time once the loan is approved,Salt Lake City Corpora- tion and its agents are granted the right to inspect the business facilities. 7. If the loan is approved,Salt Lake City Corporation may use photographs of facilities in its Annual Report, news- letters,slide presentations,or other materials. 8. All information in this application and the attached exhibits is true and complete to the best of my/our knowl- edge and is submitted so Salt Lake City Corporation can decide whether to extend financing to the business. Applicant(s): Guarantor(s): Signature Date Signature Date Signature Date Signature Date Signature Date Signature Date Signature Date Signature Date Complete the following checklist to assemble items for loan consideration. 1. Preliminary Evaluation Approval 2. Completed and signed pages 7-16 of this application. � 3. Business Plan � 4. Required Financial Documents o Business tax information � o Personal tax information o Location Complete the following evaluation scoring yourself on a scale from 1(lowest)to 10(highest). 1. Does your business have a clear objective and realistic short and long-term goals? I 2. Based on tax returns,financial statements,and projections, does your company have the ability to cover all of its business debt obligations? a c:( 3. Does your business create or retain jobs? 1.6 4. Do you meet the collateral requirements? 5. If required,do you provide private investment into your company? 6. Does your business meet a need or provide a service that is not currently available in your area? o 7. How would you rate the financial strength of your business? Of the officers,partners,or owners? l 8. Does your business plan clearly address your objectives, marketing, management,and financial assessment of the business? !r) - _ I I. October 20,2011 Council Work Session—Changes to the City Code including the City's zoning regulations to eliminate the Board of Adjustment and the Land Use Appeals Board as land use appeal authorities and replacing the boards with an appointed professional hearing officer. • The hearing officer would review and make decisions relating to variance applications,appeals of Administrative,Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission decisions. • The intent is to provide a more streamlined and consistent appeal process for land use decisions and reduce the expenditure of City funds and staffing resources. Petitioner—Mayor Ralph Becker-Petition PLNPCM 2010-00312 • A Council staff report was not prepared for this item. • COUNCIL PROCESS:The Council is scheduled to receive a briefing from the Administration at the October 25`h Work Session. Zoning regulation changes require public hearing advertising a minimum of 12 days prior to the hearing. If the Council is comfortable moving this item forward,Council staff has identified the following tentative dates: • November 1,2011 Set public hearing date • November 22,2011 Council public hearing • December 6,20111 Council action .ra,'`��, v�i�i��'1@MI f RALPH BECKER FRANK B. GRAY % DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT '31V`Q /eil{/ /, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER DEPUTY DIRECTOR :AEI EI Q3NN �1S „ 7►�{�J :0103NNVOSr-o ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR • CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED VECW1111 Date Received: M1 I David eritt, Chie of Staff SLC COUNCIL OFFICE / By ,.__._......�— Date Sent to City Council: . w`irii�- TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 28, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Frank Gray, Communi & Economic Development Department ' ector RE: Petition PLNPCM2011-00312: Mayor Ralph Becker initiated a petition requesting amendments to the Salt Lake City Code that would eliminate both the Board of Adjustment and the Land Use Appeals Board as the city's land use appeal authorities. It has been proposed to further amend the code to allow the appointment of a professional hearing officer to make decisions on appeals of administrative decisions, appeals of Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission decisions and on variance requests. STAFF CONTACTS: John Anderson, Principal Planner(801) 535-7214 or iohn.anderson@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing. DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: Planning Director Wilf Summerkorn prepared a preliminary budget analysis in anticipation of a proposed text amendment to make changes to the appeal authority for land use decisions. Currently, the Board of Adjustment meets monthly and the members receive dinner and are paid $10.00 per member, per meeting. The cost of public notices for public hearings, when necessary, should also be factored in. The average cost is $23.00 per case and there were an average of 2 cases per month in the recent past. This does not include Special Exceptions, which have been proposed to be decided by the Planning Commission in the future. The approximate total cost to the city for the Board of Adjustment is $3,600.00 per year. The Land Use Appeals Board meets only when necessary. In the Planning Director's analysis, it 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CED ♦�i r nccvcco a.acn was assumed that the board would meet four times per year. Each member is paid $75.00 per "mix meeting and there are generally three members in attendance. Dinner is not served and there is no public hearing held so the noticing costs are nominal. The approximate total expenses for the Land Use Appeals Board are $1,000.00 per year. It is anticipated that a hearing officer would be a licensed attorney or professional hearing officer. The cost of paying a hearing officer was estimated at $100.00 per hour and that each case would take approximately one hour. Based on the 2010 case load, the number of cases would be twenty-three cases. Nineteen of those cases would come from the Board of Adjustment and four from the Land Use Appeals Board. This would equate to $2,300.00 needed for a hearing officer per year. If the proposed text amendment is approved the budget analysis did not anticipate any recommended changes to the budget for FY 2012. DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: The Utah State Municipal Code requires that all municipalities that have adopted a land use ordinance must, by ordinance, also establish one or more appeal authorities to hear and decide requests for variances, appeals from decisions applying the land use ordinances and appeals from any fees charged related to the approval process of developments or tied to the development itself. Prior to 2005, it was required by the State that a Board of Adjustment be appointed by each municipality to hear these appeals and variance requests. State law has been amended to require that each municipality establish one or more appeal authorities, but the law does not specify a certain body to be the land use appeal authority. Since changes were made in 2005, several municipalities in the State have made changes to their land use appeal authority and have eliminated their Boards of Adjustment. It has been common in smaller municipalities to appoint their existing Planning Commission or City Council to act as the appeal authority. Other municipalities have appointed an administrative hearing officer to act as their appeal authority. ANALYSIS: The petition is requesting to appoint a professional hearing officer to act as the land use appeal authority for the city and is based on the following logic: 1. The infrequent necessity of a land use appeal authority, 2. The difficulty in filling vacancies on the boards and forming a voting quorum for each meeting. 3. The lack of professional legal expertise and inconsistent decisions that has been found in the past. 4. The quasi-judicial nature of appeals and variances. In conducting research, it has been found that most municipalities that have eliminated their RE: Petition PLMPCM2011-00312: Citywide Text Amendment Page 2 of 7 Boards of Adjustment in order to appoint a hearing officer have done so based on similar rationale. Unlike Salt Lake City, most communities do not have multiple appeal authorities. Infrequent Use of the Appeal Authorities For the vast majority of municipalities in the state of Utah, the Board of Adjustment or other appointed land use appeal authority rarely meets. The Salt Lake City Board of Adjustment has generally met on a monthly basis because there are continually applicants requesting to be placed on their agenda. The city has given the Board of Adjustment the authority to hear and review requests for Special Exceptions. These exceptions currently make up approximately 62% of the cases reviewed by the Board. The review of these exceptions is primarily focused on design, location or configuration, and the specific impacts of allowing the exception in a certain location. As decisions of use and design are generally made by the Planning Commission, Mayor Ralph Becker initiated a petition to transfer the authority to approve Special Exceptions from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. On July 13, 2011 the Salt Lake City Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for that transfer of authority. If the City Council approves the petition to make that transfer of authority to the Planning Commission. the case load of the Board of Adjustment will drop sharply as 62% of the their cases were requests for Special Exceptions. This would create a situation similar to most municipalities where the board would only need to meet on an infrequent basis. When boards meet on an infrequent basis, it is difficult to perform basic but necessary administrative functions. such as approving minutes or electing a chair and vice-chair. The Land Use Appeals Board (LUAB)meets infrequently as they only hear appeals to decisions made by the Historic Landmarks Commission and the Planning Commission. This board has only met eight times since 200$. The potential lack of future meetings may also lead to a difficulty in finding individuals willing to volunteer their time and carry out basic but necessary administrative duties related to the function of the Board. Difficulty in Filling Vacancies It has become increasingly difficult to find qualified individuals to fill vacancies on these boards. In some instances. positions have sat vacant for years or existing board members have been willing to continue to serve after the expiration of their terms. It is required by law that these boards not conduct business without a quorum. There have been times when the Board could not form a quorum. which means that applicants are forced to wait for a future meeting to receive a decision on their specific matter. Because the Board of Adjustment only meets monthly. this would require an applicant to wait at least one additional month for an opportunity to be heard. The Board of Adjustment currently has four members and one alternate. Three members terms will expire at the end of 2011. The Land Use Appeals Board, which is supposed to be a five member body currently. only has three members. The city. despite active advertisement, has not RE: Petition PLMPCM201 1-00312: Citywide Text Amendment currently received any interest from qualified individuals to fill these vacancies. Professional Expertise The Board of Adjustment and the Land Use Appeals Board serve as the City's appeal authority. The BOA and LUAB have the difficult task of reviewing the appeals of decisions made by City Administration (BOA), the Planning Commission (LUAB), and the Historic Landmarks Commission (LUAB). The BOA also has the.responsibility of hearing requests for variances. These decisions cannot be taken lightly due to the nature of variances, and may have long-lasting repercussions to neighborhoods. Variances, as they are legalized exceptions to the zoning ordinance, are intended to ensure that the zoning ordinance does not create unreasonable hardships that diminish a property right. Variances may only be approved if they can fit a specific set of standards that have been outlined by State law. The interpretation and application of these standards should occur in a fair manner, without bias. According to Utah State Law, the appeal authority of a municipality shall act in a quasi-judicial manner and serve as the final arbiter of issues involving the interpretation or application of land use ordinances prior to filing with district court. Staff believes that it is vital that the land use appeal authority for the city have sufficient expertise in legal matters to ensure that. as they act in a quasi-judicial manner, business is conducted professionally and in the most accurate manner. Asik. Furthermore, the decisions made by an appeal authority may carry some liability for the city. Therefore, the city has some interest in ensuring legal decisions are made. The appeals process in the city would also be streamlined and consistency improved with having only a single appeal authority rather than two. It would help to avoid any confusion that may occur during the limited appeal time available to applicants or residents. Because the appeals and variance requests that the land use appeal authority must review may vary greatly, it is the opinion of staff that it will continue to be difficult to find volunteer citizens who have sufficient expertise to make these important and tough decisions. Public Hearings In the past. the Board of Adjustment has held public hearings to coincide with variance requests and requests for Special Exceptions. The Land Use Appeals Board has never held public hearings in conjunction with their meetings. It is not required by State law to hold a public hearing in the appeals process because the land use appeal authority is acting in a quasi-judicial manner. Part of the reason for doing this is to avoid public clamor from interfering with the decision making process. As in a regular courtroom, the general public may be present during the proceedings. but may not make public comment. It is proposed that. with the elimination of the Board of Adjustment and the Land Use Appeals " '' Board and the appointment of a hearing officer, those meetings would continue to be held as public meetings, but would not be held as public hearings. The applicant would be allowed to RE: Petition PLMPCM201 1-00312: Citywide Text Amendment Pate 4 of 7 speak as well as representatives of the applicant and the city, but the general public would not be allowed to make comment. With the assumption that the Board of Adjustment will no longer have the authority to review requests for Special Exceptions, the Board of Adjustment will only hear appeals of decisions and requests for variances. They will no longer make decisions on the allowance of certain activities or uses at a property, or adjustments to a fixed dimension standard that is allowed as an exception to the regulations, such as additional building, height. In these situations public comment may lead to better decisions by the decision-making bodies. The decisions made by the land use appeal authority should be based on facts and clear evidence; not on opinion. In the meeting, the hearing officer would hear evidence provided by the applicant and also the evidence provided by city staff By allowing the public to speak, it may create a false sense that the decision of the hearing officer could be influenced by their comments. This may be especially evident in requests for variances. As was mentioned earlier, variances require a very specific protocol in their review. If the applicant cannot meet all of the required standards, the request must be denied. On the contrary, if the applicant has adequately met all of the required standards, the request must be approved. The hearing officer should ensure that their decision is fair and just. based solely on the required standards and not the views of the general public. The appeals process is not simply for those who may not agree with the decisions made by the Administration. Planning Commission or Historical Landmarks Commission. The appeals process is intended to determine whether or not procedural due process was followed, the ordinance was interpreted correctly, or the ordinance was applied correctly. The public will continue to have the ability to appeal the decisions made by the land use appeal authority. An appeal of any decision would be filed with district court. Master Plan Considerations: Community Master Plan land use policies generally define neighborhood. community and regional land use locations and characteristics. They do not specifically address the level of detail that code maintenance addresses. In Salt Lake City. the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance have been the main tools used to implement the goals and objectives of the adopted land use planning documents. All of the proposed changes to the text. as outlined, are intended to clarify or further advance the purposes. goals, objectives and policies of the adopted General Plan of Salt Lake City. PUBLIC PROCESS: An Open House was held to receive public comment on August 18, 2011. There were no comments submitted at the open house. but one comment was vocalized in support of retaining the Land Use Appeals Board and eliminating the Board of Adjustment. Some public comments were emailed prior to the Planning Commission Public IIearing. These comments can be found in Attachment A of the Planning Commission Staff Report (see RE: Petition PL\1PCM20 1 1-00 312: Citywide Text Amendment P10P of 7 Attachment 4B). :.,, The Planning Commission was schedule to hold a Public Hearing on August 24, 2011. Due to a lack of a quorum, the item was postponed. The Planning Commission was later scheduled on September 14, 2011 to hold a public hearing. The item was discussed by the Commission at that meeting, after a public hearing, but they were unable to pass a motion to forward a recommendation to the City Council. The initial motion was to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning text amendment, which would allow for the appointment of a hearing officer to act as the city's sole land use appeal authority. This was also the staff recommendation. The motion failed, with three commissioners in favor of the motion and four against. The second motion was to again forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning text amendment, which would appoint a hearing officer to act as the city's land use appeal authority in replacement of the Board of Adjustment. The motion further moved that the Land Use Appeals Board would remain in place and would maintain their roles and responsibilities. The motion failed. with three commissioners in favor of the motion and four against. The third and final motion was to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning text amendment. This is a recommendation to keep both the Board of Adjustment and the Land Use Appeals Board in place with their current roles and responsibilities. The final motion failed with three commissioners in favor of the motion and four against. The Planning Commission specifically stated that they could not come to an agreement on the proposal. They further stated that the petition should still be moved on to the City Council, with the knowledge of their lack of agreement on a recommendation. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 21A.50.050: "A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does, however, list five standards, which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property (Section 21A.50.050 A-E). The five standards are discussed in detail starting on page 5 of the Planning Commission Staff Report (see Attachment 4B). Due to the fact that the terms. "Board of Adjustment- and "Land Use Appeals Board" are found throughout the Salt Lake City Code there are numerous sections of the code where changes would be required. Below is a list of all affected sections of the Salt Lake City Code: c 2.26 Urban Forestry 2.62 Recognized or Registered Organization Notification Procedures RE: Petition PLM•1PCi1201 1-00312: City\\ide Text Amendment Pace 6 of 7 • 2.88 Land Use Appeals Board • 14.32 Construction, Excavation and Obstructions in the Public Right of Way • 18.20 Permits and Inspections • 18.72 House Movers and House Moving • 18.76 Mobile Home Parks • 20.16 Preliminary Plats • 20.20 Minor Subdivisions • 20.31 Subdivision Amendments • 20.32 Modifications and Appeals • 21A.02 Title, Authority, Purpose and Applicability • 21A.06 Decision Making Bodies and Officials • 21A.08 Zoning Certificate • 21A.10 General Application and Public Hearing Procedures • 21 A.12 Administrative Interpretations • 21 A.16 Appeals of Administrative Decisions • 21A.18 Variances • 21A.20 Enforcement • 21A.34 Overlay Districts O 21 A.36 General Provisions • 21 A.38 Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures • 21 A.42 Temporary Uses • 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers O 21A.54 Conditional Uses O 21A.55 Planned Developments O 21A.58 Site Plan Review O 21A.59 Conditional Building and Site Design Review O 21A.62 Definitions RE: Petition PL1.1PCM201 1-00312: Citywide Text Amendment TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. MAILING LABELS 4. PLANNING COMMISSION A) ORIGINAL HEARING NOTICES AND POSTMARK B) STAFF REPORT C) MINUTES September 14, 2011 —Planning Commission 5. ORIGINAL PETITION PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition PLNPCM2011-00312 June 2, 2011 Petition initiated by Mayor Ralph Becker. June 15, 2011 Petition submitted and assigned to John Anderson, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. June 29, 2011 Planning staff sent request to various departments and divisions for their feedback on the proposed zoning text amendment. August 9, 2011 Planning Commission public hearing notice submitted to the newspaper to advertise for August 24, 2011 meeting August 18, 2011 An Open House was held to receive public comment. August 24, 2011 Planning Commission was scheduled to hold a public hearing but the meeting was canceled due to the lack of quorum. August 31, 2011 Planning Commission public hearing notice submitted to the newspaper to advertise for September 14, 2011 meeting. September 14, 2011 Planning Commission held a public hearing and failed to reach a recommendation to submit to the City Council. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLNPCM2011-00312 Zoning Text Amendment to Change the Land Use Authority- A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a Zoning Text Amendment to Title 21A.02 that would eliminate the Board of Adjustment and the Land Use Appeals Board and would appoint a Hearing Officer to act as the city's land use appeal authority. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning, Title 2 Administration and Personnel, Title 20 Subdivisions, Title 14 Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places and Title 18 Buildings and Construction may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply citywide if adopted by the City Council. 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 John Anderson at 801-535-7214 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at john.anderson4 r slcgov.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 . Laser/Ink Jet Labels 11111111111111 wvv .avery.com Q AVERY®48460TM Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY Erin Youngberg Elke Phillips Cabot Nelson 1910 Bridge Crest Circle 839 S. Washington St 984 E Simpson Avenue Salt 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 D. Christian Harrison R. Gene Moffitt Community Council Chair 336 W. Broadway, #308 1410 Chancellor Way Last update from CC website 5.11.1' Salt Lake City UT 84101 Salt Lake City UT 84108 Remit to: P.O.Box 704005 ghe �1l ake(Tribune MEDIAgoe Deseret News West Valley City,UT 84170 Order Confirmation for Ad #0000721871-01 Client SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISI Payor Customer SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISI Ad Content Proof Actual Size PLICTICE Client Phone 801-535-7214 Payor Phone 801-535-7214 Sal'Lake Ci yU7c ira ee A el ck'ert' Cr Sep-er-ber I4, 2011, rte Sul"Lake Cry Plarriry Ccr- rrrr,cr will told a pcblic reality•c awider rlakirg le:cc- Account# 9001397145 Payor Account 9001397145 rverda r! •c re CryCcLr;J regar d,ry Se folic irg pe •i(r, Ccicr•rnr Cccr' POD Zcrirg Arerclrer• arc! N,rcr Address 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406 Payor Address 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 4 stbcr.a,v-A regcer by Ertitlr RIeylccrd L.C.for a 2cr- irg Arcc-ely r- and a N.icor cbdrvlrlcr cares urea a-op- SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 USA SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 proaro'e!y 700 N. Ccltrbcr Cart it to rR 2;21,7R0 Irectill Resider-cal)acrir dir•lic•. Ire propene! are It- cued It Ccc rail Dim:' reprerer•ed by S'ar Perfc Id. IS-off zeta:':All aela Okay cc(E01)535-6003 ci rilcx Ordered B iu.cirbyC rI:,Jcr.cer•I. Fax y ACct.Exec PP:PCN.201 I-0031 2 Clare! rc rre Lard Use Appeal Ac. •rcil-e-A regcesr by Mayor Ralix Be:ker fc r a 2cr irg Ter EMail angela hasenberg©slcgcv cornAngela mfu tz Amerek er t Tile 214.02 nar wttld el,r•ir ore:he Dowd cf Adµrmer cod;re Lard Like Ap;rall Bauld and world op- pc in'a clear irg Offi:er•c a:•as to cry'I lard ere appeal arrclry.Relied prcvi!rcrr cf Trle 21 A- 2crir g, Tile 2- Total Amount $156.20 Ad-�irc_I crricr Sidewalk! Pe scrrel, Tile 20 scbdivirurs, Ile and Pcbli: Plu:er arc! Ile Payment Amt $0.00 1 b—BLildirytvd Cora^icr ray alto be anerdecl a1 part cf'n'pe•ibcr. Cr:Aar(It!wctcl apply cry,ide if ackp•- Tear Sheets Proofs Affidavits ed by ie C'y Cctr:il. All retort irerered crd prerer• ill be Ulcer Cr cppercriy •e be heard ,r tit rci''er. Amount Due $156.20 0 0 1 IL•off coat:Jar Arclerrci a•e01-5352'214 n Ictr.crde i:crL.•I:ycv.ccm) for Plate Zcrirg Ar•er cl-er•and Plcr red :^,e.elc peer - a Payment Method PO Number Iecr--r• 1.;;; Salie Ciercr fu o Lair...) Ar•erck-er• crd a City Zoning Plwrecl +e'cpr•e,' Cl' app,cxcr'a'el! 545 and 555 v.er 500 rscrr red: e.IL-le Cccr•it;re SP-IA Of SR-2 Spe- Confirmation Notes: :,u1 Dektu;x'a Po-ell R-<.,:lrr',Cl Zr 1 icy Di!'nc-1. Tte 2,CT%e-, i! Ic:cl'cd a Cr;Ccvc,l D11•I17 3,represer•ed by Text: r Oct' Per 1Cd. (S-elf:era:-:<cr,a Pose cr E01 535 6354 Ci, Zonine 1•,pu;:.:1cr.1i,.J w,ll be J,r cr 5•45 p.m. a I CC, 326 cf .re C,-+rccr-i Loa ,,•J, 451 Sc c-I Sa'e Sae,', Sal'Lake Ad Type Ad Size Color Crs,L1 fu re,:i,fnrmc, c1 ill spe:101 A-.'A cr.ccr•r•c- d:r,crr, wt."! rev i,:lcc{ ark-If-cr., Iclrcrr• ,relpre•ers, Legal Liner 2.0 X 45 Li <NONE> t, d rl ca,.l,a:y md: rr adclr,r9 01 Irfu rcnCr, plea.: ;cr:,:• 2:Icr::,l oc.• a- E01.535-976 cr :a11 TDJ E01- 72)&7'; LPA\.-r Product Placement Position Salt Lake Tribune:: Legal Liner Notice-0998 Public Meeting/Hear-ing Notices Scheduled Date(s): 09/02/2011 Product Placement Position Deseret News:: Legal Liner Notice-0998 Public Meeting/Hear-ing Notices Scheduled Date(s): 09/02/2011 Product Placement Position sltrib corn:- Legal Liner Notice-0998 Public Meeting/Hear-ing Notices Scheduled Date(s): 09/02/2011 Product Placement Position utahlegals.com:. utahlegals.com utahlegals.com Scheduled Date(s): 09/02/2011 Remit to: P.O. Box 704005 The*nit gnkeFirib tin r MEDIA' e Deseret News West Valley City,UT 84170 Order Confirmation for Ad #0000716510-01 Client SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISI Payor Customer SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISI Ad Content Proof Actual Size Client Phone 801-535-7214 Payor Phone 801-535-7214 c•i:e cf Ptb r.reunny Ce e ciretCIUy,At TX 24,2011,re Salt Lake Cry Plarrvg C cr'rtidier will tcld a pc alit rear irg'C cc rcickr rokiry le:- crr'erdcricrc rc tie Cry Cccr:il re yauhrg tee iclIcwir j pe- Account# 9001397145 Payor Account 9001397145 'h'icr: PL•.PCM201 1-0021 2 Gorge! cc tee Lard Lire Appeal At• Address 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406 Payor Address 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 4 'rcri-r-A reciter by moycr Rol,*Beaker 1cr o Zcrirg Ter Arend ter.•c Tile 21A.02 rra:wctld elixir a•e rre Beard cf SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 USA SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 aditrrer•arc!ire Lard Use Appeal!Bcard ord wctld op- pcir a hearing Officer rc 0.7 at rre cry's lord tie appeal at•rcri'y.Rela'ed provilicrc ci Trle 21 A- zcrirg, Tile 2- Adriris'rvier and Perscrr el,Trle 20 Stbclivisicrc,Tile 14- Ordered B . S:ree-r, Sidewalk! crcl Ptbli: Plo:es and Tile 1 B-Btildirgs y Acct.Exec and Ccrrrtcicr ray allc be arercled as par cf tilt pe'i- Fax 't r. Tie:target wctld apply cry Alcle if edc p•ecl bf'Fe John Anderson mfultz ry cctr.ail. A11 pence ieres-ed crd refer,ill be ppcnry•c be teard a 'hi!r.a•-er. U EMail NONE Or c ier Tie bible_teary will beytr cr 5,45 pr. it leer!226 cf Total Amount $75.00 're Cry Ccury Fit il diiy 451 Scc•r Y(re S'ree-,Sal•Lake Cry,UT.Fcr rune irfcrra'icr cr fu speciol ADA cr:(r•r•c- dm(cc, 'Ai ict ray irdt de area ere 1[1 r'crc, ir'erpi e'er!, Payment Amt $0.00 ord [•ter at ciliary arck cr addric ral it fc merle r, plecce Tear Sheets Proofs Affidavits ccr•cr= Mime! S•c•' a• e01-525-7976 cr :all TDD 601- s25 6220. Amount Due $75.00 0 0 1 '16510 ppg,,p Payment Method PO Number PLNPCM2011-00312 Confirmation Notes: Text: Attn: Deb Martin Ad Type Ad Size Color Legal Liner 2.0 X 28 Li <NONE> Product Placement Position Salt Lake Tribune:: Legal Liner Notice-0998 Public Meeting/Hear-ing Notices Scheduled Date(s): 08/24/2011 Product Placement Position sltrib.com:: Legal Liner Notice-0998 Public Meeting/Hear-ing Notices Scheduled Date(s): 08/24/2011 Product Placement Position utahlegals.com:: utahlegals.com utahlegals.com Scheduled Date(s): 08/24/2011 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 21A.06.040 ':• ':s =x To Eliminate the Board of Adjustment and the Land Use =�' ��' ' w ;. Appeals Board and to Appoint a Hearing Officer to Act as the "-•..�' - ,: ;.•� Appeal Authorityfor Land Use Decisions pp Planning and Zoning Case #PLNPCM2011-00312 Division 24 August 2011 Department of Community and Economic Development Applicant Mayor Ralph Becker REQUEST Staff John Anderson john.anderson u,slcgo .com On May 27, 2011, Mayor Ralph Becker initiated a petition requesting (801)535-7214 amendments to the Salt Lake City Code that would eliminate both the Board of Adjustment and the Land Use Appeals Board as the city's land use appeal Applicable Zone N/A authorities. It has been proposed to further amend the code to allow the appointment with a professional hearing officer to make decisions on appeals Master Plan Designation of administrative decisions, appeals of Planning Commission and Historic N/A Landmark Commission decisions and on variance requests. Council District Cit. Wide Lot Size STAFF RECOMMENDATION N/A Current Use Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed N/A modifications to the Salt Lake City Code to remove the existing language that authorizes the Board of Adjustment and the Land Use Appeals Board as the Applicable Land Use Regulations land use appeal authorities for the city, and forward a positive Title 2--Administration and Personnel recommendation to the City Council for a zoning text amendment that would Title 14--Streets.Sidewalks and allow for the appointment of a hearing officer as the land use appeal authority Public Places Title 18--Buildings and Construction for the city. Title 20--Subdivisions Title 21A--Zoning Notice • Notice mailed on August 11.2011 • Published in the Newspaper August 9,2011 • Posted on City&C State\Websites August 11,2011 Attachments A. Public Comments B. 1'roposed Ordinance PLNPCM201 1-00312 Land Use Appel Au lion',Te% Amendment Api Background The Utah State Municipal Code requires that all municipalities that have adopted a land use ordinance must by ordinance also establish one or more appeal authorities to hear and decide requests for variances, appeals from decisions applying the land use ordinances and appeals from any fees charged related to the approval process of developments or tied to the development itself. Prior to 2005, it was required by the state that a Board of Adjustment be appointed by each municipality to hear these appeals and variance requests. The state law has been amended to require that each municipality establish one or more appeal authorities but the law does not specify a certain body to be the land use appeal authority. Since the changes were made in 2005 several municipalities in the state have made changes to their land use appeal authority and have eliminated their Boards of Adjustment. It has been common in smaller municipalities to appoint their existing Planning Commission or City Council to act as the appeal authority. Other municipalities have appointed an administrative hearing officer to act as their appeal authority. Public Participation This application was reviewed at the Public Open House on August 18, 2011. Due to time constraints information from the Public Open House was not available prior to the publication of this document. Any information received at the meeting will be shared with the Planning Commission at the regular meeting. Some written comments have been received and can be found in Attachment B. Issue Analysis If adopted, the Board of Adjustment and the Land Use Appeals Board would be eliminated and the city would appoint a professional hearing officer to act as the land use authority. Below is a summary of the section proposed for removal along with analysis and rationale for the amendments: Affected Code Sections Title 2 -- Administration and Personnel, Title 14 -- Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places, Title 18 -- Buildings and Construction. Title -- 20 Subdivisions and Title 21A -- Zoning. Qualifying Provisions A complete list of affected portions of the Salt Lake City Code can be found in Attachment C. Analysis The petition is requesting to appoint a professional hearing officer to act as the land use appeal authority for the city is based on the following logic: 7 PLNPCAL01 1-0031'_ Land Use Appeal Author':•Text Amendment 1. The infrequent necessity of a land use appeal authority, 2. The difficulty in filling vacancies on the boards and forming a voting quorum for each meeting. 3. The lack of professional legal expertise that has been found in the past. In conducting research, it has been found that most municipalities that have eliminated their Boards of Adjustment in order to appoint a hearing officer have done so based on similar rationale. Infrequent Use of the Appeal Authorities For the vast majority of municipalities in the state of Utah the Board of Adjustment or other appointed land use appeal authority rarely meets. The Salt Lake City Board of Adjustment has generally met on a monthly basis because there were continually applicants requesting to be placed on their agenda. The city has given the Board of Adjustment the authority to hear and review requests for Special Exceptions. These exceptions currently make up approximately 62%of the cases reviewed by the board. The review of these exceptions is primarily focused on design, location or configuration, and the specific impacts of allowing the exception in a certain location. As decisions of use and design are generally made by the Planning Commission, Mayor Ralph Becker initiated a petition to transfer the authority to approve Special Exceptions from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. On July 13. 2011 the Salt Lake City Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for that transfer of authority. If the City Council approves the petition to make that transfer of authority to the Planning Commission the case load of the Board of Adjustment will drop sharply. This would create a situation similar to most municipalities that the board would only need to meet on an infrequent basis. The Land Use Appeals Board (LUAB) meets very infrequently as they only hear appeals to decisions made by the Historic Landmarks Commission and the Planning Commission. This board has only met eight times since 2008. The potential lack of future meetings may also lead to a difficulty in finding individuals willing to volunteer their time. Difficulty in Filling Vacancies It has become increasingly difficult to find qualified individuals to fill vacancies on these boards. In some instances positions have sat vacant for years or existing board members have been willing to continue to serve after the expiration of their terms. It is required by law that these boards may not conduct business without a quorum. It is not uncommon to have difficulties forming a quorum each month which means that applicants are forced to wait for a future meeting to receive a decision on their specific matter. Because the Board of Adjustment only meets monthly this would require an applicant to wait at least one month for an opportunity to be heard. The Board of Adjustment currently has four members and one alternate. Three members terms will expire at the end of 2011. The Land Use Appeals Board which is supposed to be a five member body currently only has three members. The city, despite active advertisement, has not currently received any interest from qualified individuals to fill the vacancies. 3 PLNPC\1201 1-003 1 2 Land Use Appeal Authority Te\:A:nendn ent Amok Professional Expertise The land use appeal authority for the city has the difficult task of reviewing the appeals of decisions made by city administration, the Planning Commission, and the Historic Landmarks Commission; it also has the responsibility of hearing requests for variances. These decisions cannot be taken lightly and can have long lasting repercussions to neighborhoods. Variances, as they are legalized exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance, can have far reaching impacts to neighborhoods and further development within them. Variances may only be approved if they can fit a specific set of standards that have been outlined by state law. The interpretation and application of these standards should occur in a fair manner without bias. According to Utah State Law the appeal authority of a municipality shall act in a quasi-judicial manner and serve as the final arbiter of issues involving the interpretation or application of land use ordinances prior to filing with district court. Staff believes that it is vital that the land use appeal authority for the city have sufficient expertise in legal matters to ensure that as they act in a quasi-judicial manner that it is conducted professionally and in the most accurate manner. Staff also believes that with a hearing officer a higher degree of consistency would be achieved. Because the appeals and variance requests that the land use appeal authority must review may vary greatly it is in the opinion of staff that it will continue to be difficult to find volunteer citizens that have sufficient expertise to make these important and tough decisions. Public Hearings In the past, the Board of Adjustment has held public hearings to coincide with variance requests and requests for Special Exceptions. The Land Use Appeals Board has never held public hearings in conjunction with their meetings. It is not required by state law to hold a public hearing in the appeals process because the land use appeal authority is acting in a quasi-judicial manner. As in a regular courtroom, the general public may be present during the proceedings but may not make public comment. It is proposed that with the elimination of the Board of Adjustment and the Land Use Appeals Board and the appointment of a hearing officer that those meetings would continue to be held as public meetings but would not be held as public hearings. The applicant would be allowed to speak as well as representatives of the applicant and representatives from the city but the general public would not be allowed to make comment. With the assumption that the Board of Adjustment will no longer have the authority to review requests for Special Exceptions, the land use appeal authority will only hear appeals of decisions and requests for variances. They will no longer make decisions on the allowance of certain activities or uses at a property or adjustments to a fixed dimension standard that is allowed as an exception to the regulations such as additional building height. In these situations public comment may have been useful to the decision making bodies. Amok PLNPCM2O I I-00312 Land Use Appeal Au:hc nv Te't Amendment The decisions made by the land use appeal authority should be based on facts and clear evidence and not on opinion. In the meeting, the hearing officer would hear evidence provided by the applicant and also the evidence provided by city staff. By allowing the public to speak at the meeting it may create a false sense in the public that the decision of the hearing officer should be influenced by their comments. This may be especially evident in requests for variances. As was mentioned earlier, variances require a very specific protocol in their review, if the applicant cannot meet all of the required standards than the request must be denied. On the contrary if the applicant has adequately met all of the required standards than the request must be approved. The hearing officer should ensure that their decision is fair and just based solely on the required standards and not on the views of the general public. The appeals process is not simply for those who may not agree with the decisions made by the Administration, Planning Commission or Historical Landmarks Commission. The appeals process is intended to determine whether or not procedural due process was followed, the ordinance was interpreted correctly, or the ordinance was applied correctly. The public will continue to have the ability to appeal the decisions made by the land use appeal authority. An appeal of any decision would be filed with district court. STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AMENDMENTS A decision to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance or the Zoning Map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment. the City Council should consider the following- factors: 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; Discussion: None of the existing Salt Lake City master plans or other adopted planning documents specifically address the land use appeal authority of the city. Staff does not believe that the elimination of these sections of the Zoning Ordinance will be in conflict with any of the citv's master plans. Finding: The proposed text change is consistent with adopted master plans or other adopted planning documents. 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Analysis: Staff finds that the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance will have no effect on the overall purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and in the specific purpose statements for each district as demonstrated above. Finding: The proposed text amendment meets this standard. PLNPCN20l 1-Q03l2 Land Use Appeal Autho-i:y Tee Amendment 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The proposed text amendment is not associated with any specific overlay zoning districts. Finding: The proposed text amendment meets this standard. 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Discussion: If the petition to remove the Board of Adjustment as the body that hears Special Exceptions is approved by the City Council, then the land use appeal authority of the city will no longer make any decisions that would affect the urban design of the city. Staff believes that by utilizing a hearing officer that has professional expertise in acting upon requests for appeals or variances, it will only help the city to better implement the best current and professional practices of urban planning by ensuring that sound decisions made by the city are not inappropriately or unfairly overturned. It also protects a constitutional right for due process for an aggrieved party. Finding: The proposed text amendment meets this standard PLN Pcnl201 1-00312 6 Land Use Appeal Author. Text Amendment Anderson,John From: Jim Bennion[jbennion@landdynamics,com] Sent: Monday,August 15,2011 8:45AM To: Anderson,John Subject: Elimination of two land use boards John Please put me down as very opposed to eliminating the boards proposed by the Mayor. It is never good to put the power and on to one person without checks a balances. J Bennion 9 PLNPCM2011-00=1 Land Use Appeal Atahori:) Test Amendment Anderson,John From: JOHN A GARDINER[johngardiner1234@msn.comj Sent: Monday,August 15,2011 11:39 AM To: Anderson,John Subject: Change of Land Use Authority John, I am interested In the reasoning behind what is proposed here. Perhpas you can provide some background and thinking behind it. We develop high density condominiums and apartments In Salt Lake City(urbanaoneleventh.com is our Sugar House condos). We are starting 70 apartment units in Sugar House in early September. We have worked extensively with the planning department and building services on these projects. Without knowing much about what It is proposed, it would appear to me that appointing a City hearing officer in place of the Land Use Appeals Board would be a big mistake. The Planning Commission does not always apply the law correctly and the Land Use Appeals board is a much needed objective third party group that serves as a vital check to The Planning Commission. Replacing this with a city hearing officer would appear to be a big mistake by severely diluting the objectivity and land owner protections in the land use appeal process. Essentially you could be denied by the City and then appeal back to the City which makes no sense. To be fair,there must be an objective third party board that consists of more than one city appointed person. It looks like an attempt to limit fairness to land owners In an appeal process. I am interested to hear more about this but if it is what it looks like,we will mobilize an effort among developers to defeat such a measure at The Planning Commission and The City Council. Thanks John A.Gardiner President Gardiner Properties, LLC 1075 East 2100 South Salt Lake CO,Utah 84106 (801)487-2012(Office) (801)487-2093(Fax) (801)971-6151(Mobile) 10 PLNPCN12011-90312 Land Use Appeal Autho;is Te,.Amendment •Gik�ab Chapter 2.26 URBAN FORESTRY 2.26.220: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: Where an application for a conditional use is filed with the board of adjustment planning commission on zoning and the board of adjustment planning commission deems it appropriate,the urban forester shall review the landscape improvement design of any conditional use application and make recommendations to the board.(Ord.75-88§ 1, 1988) CHAPTER 2.62 RECOGNIZED OR REGISTERED ORGANIZATION NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES 2.62.030(B): REQUIRED NOTICES: B. Board of adjustment Appeals hearing officer agendas shall be sent to all organizations recognized pursuant to subsection 2.60.020C of this title or its successor. CHAPTER 2.8P LAND USE APPEALS BOARD 2.88.010: CREATION: section 10 9 107 of the Utah Code Annotated,or its succescor.(Ord.77 03§5, 2003) 2.88.020: JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY: r forth in subsection 21A.34.020F2h of this code; pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in title 20 of this code; and from decisions mad°by the planning commissi r 21A.51 150 of this code. (Ord. 17 0 ; 11,2001: Ord.77 03§5, 2003) ? AQy . o211. rt1AGhARFRCI.JID• The land use appealsa 4 f v°(5)members appointed by the m..yor with the advice and cons...-` ct f1 nt^ ` . ' t e given to indivlduafs-with legal-or-land use experience. ^embers ma..se m m of two(2)consecutive full terms of three(3)years each.The terms of all members shall be staggered sc that the term of at!east one member will expire each year.Appoi-tmMts t^f-1 vacan^ios elf members shall h` e` ded in the determination of any nligibilit, e,heo(2)r ll e,+army (Or.+ 77 n3 § G 2nno) 2.88.010: OFFICERS: • board shall be designated-b e-zeinng-administrator. (Ord.77 03§5, 2 ) They land n eals board shall meet-. + id ^ r7't' s enrl'n e cls rnr.J 77 03 s F 2003) _.... ...,_ °rr_..,., ..�...., ...,.,_......., „_.,_.,.lull ,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,, ,,,, �.;.,. lou�ly resolve.. 2.88.060: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS: The-preceeding of coch meeting and hearing shall be recorded on audio equipment. Records of confidentici executive sessions shall be kept in compliance with the government records access and^ n gement Th ^ d d f ^ h t h ll be kept 12 PLNPCN13011-00312 Land Use Appeal A.Ithont\ Text Amendment for a minimum of sixty(60)days. Upon the written request of any interested person,such audio recording shall be kept for a reasonable period of time beyond the sixt'(60)day period as determined by the land use appeals board. Copies of tho tapes of such proceedings may be provided, if requested,at the-expanse-ef-the-requesting party.The board shall keep written minutes of its proceedings and records of all its examinations and official actions.Tho land use appeals board may,at its discretion, have its proceedings contemporaneously transcribed by a court reporter. (Ord. 77 03§5,2003) 2,88470QUORLIM-AND-VOT-E-4 No business shall be conducted at a meeting of the land use appeals board without a quorum of three(3)members.A simple majority of the voting members present at a meeting at which a quorum is pros 4t-s4a11-19e-required-fer-anl,L-astion,-DeGiS4041S-of-the-lapd-use appeals board shall become effective on the date that the vote is taken. (Ord.77 03§5, 2003) 2,88,0804-14EARING& A.Appeals filed shall specify any al!eged error(s) made in connection with the decision being appealed. B.The appeal shall be considered by the land use appeals board on the record made below. No new evidence will be heard by the land use appeals board unless such evidence was improperly excluded from consideration below C.The land use appeals board shall roviev.'ar,d decide the appeal according to the applicable standards for such decision,The land use appeals board may, in its diocretion,choose to consider an appeal on the basis of the record-of-the proceedings below: 1.Without any additional hoy.ar'4g:or 2.With a formal hearing altwing both the•sppel'ant ad4ho respor,rdeet-to-oreseat-o- ral-argumeat-oe-the-evidenoe-th-the-reoor.d O.The land use appeals board shall uphold the decision below unless the land use app els board finds thet-a-oreju4roral-oseraed‘irel error occurred or that the-desisioie-g--eppealod-was-r,-G4-eupperted by the findings of fact based upon the apptioable standards of app.rovaj4G,r_d___7_7_003), 20-9-0--NOTICE4 At least-fourteen( )calendar days in advance of each hearing held before the land use appeals board the city shall publish a notice af-&uoh-hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Salt Lake City and the city will send notice of the hearing by first class mail to the-appellant(s),the respondent(s)and to all other parties' 'ho attended the hearing below. (Ord. 77 03§5, 2003) REST4 No member of the land use app ols board shall participate in the hearing or disposition of any matter in,.vhich,that member has any conflict of interest prohibited by chapter 2 4/1-of this-title.The appeals board may, by majority vote of the members present, allow a member bthe'wise required to leave due to a conflict,to be present if required by special er unusual circumstances (Ord 77 03§5, 2003) 2,88,140REMOVAL OF A MEMBE-R Any-member of the-land-use-appeals-board-reay-be-removed-Oy-the-mayoe-for violation of title 21A of this code of any policies and praceedres-adopted-by-tho and use appeals board following receipt by the mayor of a written complaint filed against the member. If requested by the member,the mayor shall provide the member with a public hearing conducted by a hearing officer appointed by-the mayor. (Ord. 77 03§5, 2003) 2,88.120: POLICIES-AN D-P-ROCE D U RE& The-land use-appeals beard shall adopt policies and procedures for the conduct of its-meetrage,to-peoseos appeals,and for c•-,y-other p-urpeses-oeneessapy4or--its-oroper functioning (Ord.77 02 §5, 2003) 2.88.130: COMPENS-AT-1-0-N- E-aoh member-of-the land-use-appeats-boaro'-obatl-be-r,ompeoseted in-the-amouet-ofseventy five-dollars- 0)-for-•eaoh-rneetieg attended by that-ntember--(0 -77-03-§-52003) 1 3 PLNPCN12011-0012 Land Us,:Appeal Au.,!•,.):i..). Amene'.raent 2.88.140-: APPEALS: with the district court within thirty(30)days after the decision is rendered.(Ord.77 03§5,2003) CHAPTER 14.32 CONSTRUCTION, EXCAVATION AND OBSTRUCTIONS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY 14.32.350(E): DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION: E. Denial For Dangerous Conditions:Where, in the opinion of the city engineer, upon recommendation of the transportation engineer, it would be dangerous because of traffic,or because a driveway conflicts with any permanent improvements or waterway, the city engineer may refuse to issue the requested driveway permit.Such denial by the city engineer shall be final unless the applicant appeals the matter to the appeals hearing officer.The appeals hearing officer shall have the authority and discretion to either affirm the city engineer's decision or specify the conditions and location upon which a driveway may be permitted. CHAPTER 18.20 PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS 18.20.020(A)(2): EXEMPT WORK DESIGNATED: A.A building permit shall not be required for the following: 1. Playhouses and similar uses; 2. Fences not exceeding height limitations or requiring variances by the boerv-e d;ustment appeals hearing officer; CHAPTER 18.72 HOUSE MOVERS AND HOUSE MOVING 18.72.120(c): PERMIT ISSUANCE CONDITIONS: — C. In cases where a nonconforming use is to be converted to a conforming use and in determining architectural harmony with neighboring structures, both the building official and the planning director shall examine the plans submitted,and if in their opinion it is desirable the matter may be referred to the board of adjustment appeals hearina officer for hearing.The decision of the board o` adjustment appeals hearina officer shall be final. (Prior code§5-10-4) CHAPTER 18.76 MOBILE HOME PARKS 18.76.020: COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING PROVISIONS: The board of adjustment appeals hearing officer may permit the use of land in any district for a mobile home park provided that in all cases there is compliance with the conditions in title 21A of this code.(Prior code§5-13-5) 18.76.140: RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AREA APPROVED WHEN: Where the mobile home park has direct access to a major highway,the board of adjustment appeals hearing officer may approve the use of a portion of the park as a recreational vehicle park,provided the same design standards are maintained. (Prior code§5-13-6) CHAPTER 20.16 PRELIMINARY PLATS 20.16.130: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Any person adversely affected by any final decision made by the planning commission under this chapter may file a petition for review of the decision with the land use appeals board appeals hearing office r within thirty(30)days after the decision is rendered. (Ord.77- 03§1,2003: Ord. 7-99§ 8, 1999) CHAPTER 20.20 MINOR SUBDIVISIONS 20.20.090: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: The petitioner,or any person who is aggrieved by a finding of the planning commission concerning the approval of a proposed minor subdivision and who objected to the administrative consideration, may appeal the finding of the planning commission by filing a written notice of appeal to the land use appeals board appeals hearing officer within thirty(30)days of the planning commission's decision becoming final. (Ord. 77-03§2, 2003:Ord. 7-99§ 15, 1999:Ord. 71-94§ 1, 1994) CHAPTER 20.31 SUBDIVISION AMENDMENTS 20.31.320: APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Amok Any person adversely affected by any final decision made by the planning commission under this chapter may file a petition for review PLNPC\1201 I-00310 14 Land Use Appea'.A,riiar:n Te\t Amendment of the decision with the appeals_hearing office r within thirty(30)days after the decision is rendered. (Ord.77- 03§3,2003:Ord.7-99§23, 1999) 20.31.330: APPEALS FROM LAND USE APPEALS BOARD APPEALS HEARING OFFICER AND CITY COUNCIL DECISIONS: Any person adversely affected by any final decision made by the land use appeals board appeals hearing officer or the city council under this chapter may file a petition for review of the decision with the district court within thirty(30)days after the decision is rendered.(Ord.7-99§23, 1999) CHAPTER 20.32 MODIFICATIONS AND APPEALS 20.32.030: APPEALS: B.Any person adversely affected by any final decision made by the planning commission under section 20.32.020 of this chapter, concerning modifications to a subdivision involving a planned development,may file an appeal with the appeals hearing officer within thirty(30)days after the decision is rendered.(Ord.77-03§4,2003: Ord.7-99§26, 1999: prior code§42-9-3) CHAPTER 21A.02 TITLE,AUTHORITY, PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY 21A.02.060: TRANSITION RULES: To avoid undue hardship, nothing in this title shall be deemed to require a change in the plans, construction or designated use of any building for which a complete building permit application and appropriate fees were received prior to the effective date hereof,April 12, 1995, or any amendment hereto,unless the permit is allowed to expire. If the applicant allows the permit to expire, the applicant shall be subject to the provisions of this title.If such building permit pertains to a phase of development only,any subsequent phase for which a building permit is required shall comply with the parking and landscaping requirements of this title. Any complete application for a development project that has been filed with either the board of adjustment appeals hearina officer, planning commission, historical landmark commission or city council shall be allowed to comply with the zoning regulations in effect at the time that the complete application was filed.At the conclusion of the applicable process, an applicant shall file for the appropriate permits and pursue them to completion. If the applicant allows the permit to expire,the applicant shall be subject to the provisions of this title. (Ord.26-95§2(1-8), 1995) CHAPTER 21A.06 DECISION MAKING BODIES AND OFFICIALS 21A.06.040: APPEALS HEARING OFFICER: A Creation:The board-o`a+-j strnent appeals hearing officer is created pursuant to the enabling authority granted by the municipal land use development and management act,section 10-9a-701 of the Utah Code Annotated. B. Jurisdiction And Authority: The board of ad;ustmcnt appeals hearina officer shall have the following powers and duties in connection with the implementation of the title. 1. Hear and decide appeals from any administrative decision made by the zoning administrator in the administration or the enforcement of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.16,"Appeals Of Administrative Decisions", of this title with the exception of administrative reviews of certificates of appropriateness which shall be appealed to the historic landmark commission, as set forth in subsection 21A 06 050C3 of this chapter; 2.Authorize variances from the terms of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.18, "Variances", of this title; 3. Hear and decide appeals from decisions made by the historic landmark commission pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in subsection 21A.34.020F2h of this code 4. Hear and decide appeals from decisions made by the planning commission concerning subdivisions or subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in title 20 of this code: and 5. Hear and decide appeals from decisions made by the planning commission regarding conditional uses, conditional site plan reviews for sexually oriented businesses.or planned developments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in section 21A 54 160 of this code. (Ord. 17-04§11 2004:Ord.77-03§5. 20031 15 PLNPC:\1201 1-0031 Land Use Appeal Acthori:\ Te\:Amendment C. Membership:The board of adjustment appeals hearing officer shall consist of five(5)members be appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the city council from among qualified electors of the city,' representation in terms of geographic, professional, neighborhood and community interests. Members may serve a maximum of two(2)consecutive full terms of five(5)years each.The terms of all members shall be co arranged that the term of one member the board of adjustment for a term not to exceed five(5)-years,to-serve in the abeeaoe-ef a-member er term of an alternate member who subsequently becomes a full time membe any persons eligibility to serve two(2)full consecutive terms. The appeals hearing officer shall serve for a term of two years.The appeals hearing officer shall either be law trained or have siginificant experience with the requirements and operations of administrative hearing processes. chair or the vice chair may be elected to serve consecutive terms in the same office.The secretary of the board of adjustment shall be designated by the zoning administrator. F.E.Record Of Proceedings:The proceedings of each meeting and public hearing shall be recorded on audio equipment. Records of confidential executive sessions shall be kept in compliance with the government records access and management act. The audio recording of each meeting shall be kept for a minimum of sixty(60)days. Upon the written request of any interested person, such audio recording shall be kept for a reasonable period of time beyond the sixty(60)day period,as determined by the beard--of adjustment appeals hearing officer.Copies of the tapes of such proceedings may be provided, if requested, at the expense of the requesting party.The board h aring officer shall keep written minutes of its proceedings and records of all of its examinations and official actions shall be taken.The board of adjustment appeals hearina officer may, at its discretion, have its proceedings contemporaneously transcribed by a court reporter. /M t `t ` m of at least three(3) members,consisting of either three(3)regular memboys,or one regula e a f effect:yo H. Public Heat t^ r chapter 21-A 10 "Coaoral-Applicatien And Public Hear ng Proced of this-till 1-F. Conflict Of Interest:No member of the board of adjustment The appeals hearing officer shall not participate in the hearing or disposition of any matter in which that member the hearing officer has any conflict of interest prohibited by title 2, chapter 2.44 of this code. ` due to a ccnf'ict, to be present if required by special or unusual circumstances. G. Removal Of A Member The Hearing Officer:Any member of the board of adjustment The appeals hearing officer may be removed by the mayor for violation of this title or any policies and procedures adopted by the board of adjustment appeals hearing officer following receipt by the mayor of a written complaint filed against the member. If requested by the member,the mayor shall provide the member hearing officer with a public hearing conducted by a hearing officer appointed by the mayor. PLNPCM201 1-003 1216 Land Use Appeal Authority Te I Amendment t H Policies And Procedures:The board of adjustment appeals hearing officer shall adopt policies and procedures for the conduct of its meetings,the processing of applications and for any other purposes considered necessary for its proper functioning. (Ord.69- 09§2,2009) I.Appeals:Any person adversely affected by any final decision made by the appeals hearing officer may file a petition for review of the decision with the district court within thirty(30)days after the decision is rendered. 21A.06.050: HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION: (C)7. Make recommendations when requested by the planning commission, the board of adjustment or the city council, as appropriate, on applications for zoning amendments,conditional uses and special exceptions involving H historic preservation overlay districts and landmark sites; CHAPTER 21A.08 ZONING CERTIFICATE 21A.08.050: WAIVER OF REQUIREMENTS: The zoning administrator shall waive any or all of the submittal requirements of section 21A.08.040 of this chapter, if information necessary to create a zoning certificate exists in existing city records including, but not limited to, building permit, business licensing and board of adjustment appeals hearing officer records.(Ord.26-95§2(4-5), 1995) 21A.08.060: REVOCATION OF ZONING CERTIFICATE: D.Appeal: Revocation of a zoning certificate by the zoning administrator may be appealed to the board of adjustment appeals hearina officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title.(Ord.26-95§2(4-6), 1995) CHAPTER 21A.10 GENERAL APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES 21A.10.020(A): PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Providing all of the information necessary for notice of all public hearings required under this title shall be the responsibility of the applicant and shall be in the form established by the zoning administrator and subject to the approval of the zoning administrator pursuant to the standards of this section A. ecial Exception Permits,Variances And Appeals Of Zoning Administrator Decisions. Planning Commission Decisions and Historical Landmarks Commission Decisions:The board of adjustment appeals hearing officer shall hold at least one pub}o hearing to review,consider and approve, approve with conditions,or deny an application for a special exception or for a variance, or to consider an appeal from a decision of the zoning administrator. Such hearing shall be held after the following public notification: CHAPTER 21A.12 ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS 21A.12.040(D): PROCEDURES: D Appeal.Any person adversely affected by an interpretation rendered by the zoning administrator may appeal to the boa,d cf agent appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A 16 of this title (Ord 24-11, 2011) 21A.12.050: STANDARDS FOR USE INTERPRETATIONS: The following standards shall govern the zoning administrator, and the board c-f-a-d s-tme.nt appeals hearing officer on appeals from the zoning administrator, in issuing use interpretations: CHAPTER 21A.16 APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS 21A.16.010: AUTHORITY: As described in section 21A.06.040 of this title,the board cf adjustment appeals hearing officer should hear and decide appeals alleging an error in any administrative decision made by the zoning administrator or the administrative hearing officer in the administration or enforcement of this title (Ord.90-05§2(Exh. B), 2005: Ord 26-95§2(8-1), 1995) 21A.16.030: PROCEDURE: 17 PLNPCiLOI -CCEII2. I and Use.Arne:I Te\: An:en.d;nea: oologok Appeals of administrative decisions to the board of adjustment appeals hearing officer shall be taken in accordance with the following procedures: C. Stay Of Proceeding:An appeal to the board of adjustment appeals hearing officer shall stay all further proceedings concerning the matter about which the appealed order,requirement,decision,determination or interpretation was made unless the zoning administrator certifies in writing to the board of adjustment appeals hearing officer,after the notice of appeal has been filed, that a stay would,in the zoning administrator's opinion, be against the best interest of the city. D. Public Hearing; Notice: Upon receipt of the notice of appeal,the board of adjustment appeals hearing officer shall give notice and hold a public hearing in accordance with the requirements of chapter 21A.10 of this title, E.Action By The Board of adjustment appeals hearing officer: Following the hearing,the board of adjustment appeals hearing officer shall render its decision on the appeal.Such decision may reverse or affirm,wholly or in part,or may modify the administrative decision.The board of adjustment appeals hearing officer may reverse or materially modify the zoning administrator's or the administrative hearing officer's decision of such an action.A decision by the board of adjustment appeals hearing officer shall become effective the date the vote is taken. F. Notification Of Decision: Notification of the decision of the appeals hearing officer shall be sent by mail to all parties of the proceeding within ten(10)days of the board of adjustment's appeals hearing officer's decision. (Ord. 24-11, 2011) 21A.16.040: APPEAL OF DECISION: Any person adversely affected by any decision of the board of adjustment appeals hearing officer may,within thirty(30)days after the decision is made, present to the district court a petition specifying the grounds on which the person was adversely affected. (Ord.26- 95§2(8-4), 1995) 21A.16.050: STAY OF DECISION: Anott By a hvo thirds el;)majority veto at the time of any decision,the board cf adjustme aooeals hearing officer may stay the issuance of any permits or approvals based on its decision for thirty(30)days or until the decision of the district court in any appeal of the decision. (Ord.26-95§2(8-5), 1995) CHAPTER 21A.18 VARIANCES 21A.18.020: AUTHORITY: As described in section 21A.06.040 of this title,the board of adjustment appeals hearing officer may grant variances from the provisions of this title only in compliance with the procedures set forth in section 21A.18.040 of this chapter and only in accordance with each of the standards enumerated in section 21A.18 060 of this chapter. (Ord.26-95§2(9-2), 1995) 21A.18.040: PROCEDURES: C. Public Hearing: Upon receipt of a complete application for a variance, the board of adjustment aooeals hearing officer shall hold a public hearing with notice in accordance with the requirements of chapter 21A.10 of this title. D.Action By Board of adjustment Appeals hearina officer: Upon the close of the public hearing the beard c`a_'jus`m t appeals hearina officer shall render its decision,granting, granting with conditions,or denying the variance. 21A.18.050: PROHIBITED VARIANCES: The board-of-ad ir&1maairt aooeals hearing officer shall not grant a variance that: 21A.18.060: STANDARDS FOR VARIANCES: Subject to the prohibitions set forth in section 21A.18.050 of this chapter,and subject to the other provisions of this chapter, the board c' ;,tt aooeals hearing officer may grant a variance from the terms of this title only if: B. Circumstances Peculiar To Property: In determining whether or not enforcement of this title would cause unreasonable hardship under subsection A of this section, the-board of adjustment appeals hearing officer may not find an unreasonable hardship unless: PLNPCN12011-003 I'_ 18 Land Use Appeal Ahorinr Tex:Amendment C.Self-Imposed Or Economic Hardship: In determining whether or not enforcement of this title would cause unreasonable hardship under subsection A of this section,the board of adjustment appeals hearing officer may not find an unreasonable hardship if the hardship is self-imposed or economic. D.Special Circumstances:In determining whether or not there are special circumstances attached to the property under subsection A of this section,the board of adjustment appeals hearing officer may find that special circumstances exist only if. 21A.18.080: CONDITIONS ON VARIANCES: In authorizing a variance,the board of adjustment appeals hearing officer may impose such conditions regarding the location, character and other features of the proposed structure or use as it may deem necessary in the public interest to mitigate any harmful effects of the variance or that will serve the purpose of the standard or requirement that is waived or modified.The board of adjustment appeals hearing officer may require a guarantee or bond to ensure that the conditions imposed will be followed. These conditions shall be expressly set forth in the board of adjustment's appeals hearing officer's motion granting the variance. Violation of any condition or limitation on the grant of a variance shall be a violation of this title and shall constitute grounds for revocation of the variance. (Ord. 26-95§2(9-8), 1995) 21A.18.110: APPEAL OF DECISION: Any person adversely affected by any decision of the board of adjustment appeals hearing officer may within thirty(30)days after the decision of the board of adjustment apoeals hearing officer,present to the district court a petition specifying the grounds on which the person was adversely affected. (Ord.26-95§2(9-11), 1995) 21A.18.120: STAY OF DECISION: Sy-a-two thirds(`la)majority vctc at the time of any decision, the board of adjustment appeals hearing officer may stay the issuance of any permits or approval based on its decision for thirty(30)days or until the decision of the district court in any appeal of the decision. (Ord. 26-95§2(9-12), 1995) CHAPTER 21A.20 ENFORCEMENT 21A.20.100: APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION: The decision of the supervisor cf zoning enforcement regarding the existence of the zoning violation shall be deemed an administrative decision which may be appealed to the board of adjustment apoeals hearing officer within thirty(30)days of the date of the first notice. (Ord.35-99§ 10, 1999) CHAPTER 21A.34 OVERLAY DISTRICTS 21A.34.020: H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT: (E)(2)h.Appeal Of Historic Landmark Commission Decision To Land use app als board Appeals hearing officer:The applicant,any owner of abutting property or of property located within the same H historic preservation overlay district, any recognized or registered organization pursuant to title 2.chapter 2.62 of this code,the Utah State Historical Society or the Utah Heritage Foundation, aggrieved by the historic landmark commission's decision, may object to the decision by filing a written appeal with the land use appeals board appeals hearing officer within ten(10)calendar days following the date on which a record of decision is issued. The filing of the appeal shall stay the decision of the historic landmark commission pending the outcome of the appeal, except that the filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the historic landmark commission if such decision defers a demolition request for up to one year pursuant to the provisions of subsections L and M of this section. i. Review By City Attorney:Following the filing of an appeal to the land use appgals board apoeals hearina officer of a decision of the historic landmark commission to deny or defer a certificate of appropriateness for demolition,the planning director shall secure an opinion of the city attorney evaluating whether the denial or deferral of a decision of the demolition would result in an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation under the Utah and United States constitutions or otherwise violate any applicable constitutional provision, law, ordinance or regulation. j.Appeal Of Land use appeals board Appeals hearina officer Decision To District Court.Any party aggrieved by the decision of the lad-ase appeals board appeals hearing officer may appeal that decision to the district court within thirty(30)days following the decision of the land use appca's board appeals hearina officer.The filing of an appeal of the land use appeals board appeals hearina officer decision snail stay the decision of the land usa appeals board appeals hearing officer pending the outcome of the appeal, except that the filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the land uec appeals board appeals hearing officer if such decision defers a demolition request for up to one year pursuant to the provisions of subsections L and M of this section 21A.34.060: GROUNDWATER SOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT: PLNPC\Lul 1-09312 j Land Use Appeal Au:ho:av Te i.-\r.ercimznt (1)13. Disputes;Appeals: a. Persons objecting to the configuration of the recharge area and protection zone map,or the inclusion of specific property within any recharge areas or protection zones, or to the denial of a permit or the conditions attached hereto, or any rulings of the public utilities department under this subsection I,may make appeal to the land use appeals board appeals hearing officer by filing a written notice of appeal with such board not later than thirty(30)days following the action appealed from. b.The written appeal shall contain: (1)Documentation of compliance, or (2)(A)Response to specific violations cited in the cease and desist order and the remedial actions planned in order to bring the facility into compliance; and (B)A schedule for compliance. (I)(13)c. Upon receipt of the written appeal,the land use appeals board appeals hearing officer shall review the appeal within ten(10)days of its receipt and respond to the appellant. If the land use appeals board appeals hearing officer determines that the written response from the appellant is adequate and noncompliance issues are addressed,the appellant will be notified by mail and no further action is required. If the land use appeals board appeals hearing officer determines that the appeals response is inadequate,the appellant may request a hearing before the land use app als board appeals hearing officer.This hearing shall be held within thirty(30)days of receiving the cease and desist order.The cease and desist order shall remain in effect until the hearing is conducted. CHAPTER 21A.36 GENERAL PROVISIONS 21A.36.130: CHILD DAYCARE: (C)(2)(c)(3)No Variances: The planning commission shall not approve a childcare conditional use pursuant to this section if the board of adjustment appeals hearing officer would be required to grant a variance from any zoning condition. CHAPTER 21A.38 NONCONFORMING USES AND NONCOMPLYING STRUCTURES 21A.38.140: APPEAL: Any person adversely affected by a decision of the zoning administrator on a determination of the status of a nonconforming use or noncomplying structure may appeal the decision to the board of adjustment appeals hearing officer pursuant to the provisions in chapter 21A.16 of this title.(Ord. 15-05§ 1,2005) 21A.38.150: TERMINATION BY AMORTIZATION UPON DECISION OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEALS HEARING OFFICER: The beard of adjustmcint appeals hearing officer may require the termination of a nonconforming use, except billboards, under any plan providing a formula establishing a reasonable time period during which the owner can recover or amortize the amount of the owner's investment in the nonconforming use, if any,as determined by the zoning administrator.The appeals hearing officer may initiate a review for amortization of nonconforming uses upon a petition filed by the mayor or city council, in accordance with the following standards and procedures and consistent with the municipal land use development and management act, title 10,chapter 9,of the Utah Code Annotated and shall mail written notice to the owner and occupant of the property: A. Initiation Of Termination Procedure:Board of adjustment Appeals hearing officer review of a use determined to be nonconforming pursuant to the provisions of this section,for the purpose of establishing an amortization plan for termination of the use, shall first require a report from the zoning administrator to the board of adjustment appeals hearing officer. The zoning administrator's report shall determine the nonconforming use, provide a history of the site and outline the standards for determining an amortization period. B. Notice To Nonconforming User. Upon receipt of the report of the zoning administrator, recommending the establishment of an amortization plan for a nonconforming use,the board of adjustment appeals hearing officer shall mail the report and plan to the owner and occupant(s)of the nonconforming use,giving notice of the board of adjustment's appeals hearing officer's intent to .0041 hold a public hearing to consider the request in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in chapter 21A.10 of this title. 7Q PL\PC.\12011-O0 l2 Land Use Appeal Al:th.onZ b et Amendment C.Board of adjustment Appeals hearing officer Review:The board of adjustment appeals hearing officer shall hold a noticed public hearing within a reasonable time,following the procedures established in chapter 21A.10 of this title, on the request for amortization of the nonconforming use. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the board shall determine whether the nonconforming use should be amortized within a definite period of time. D.Standards For Determining Amortization Period:The board of adjustment appeals hearing officer shall determine the appropriate amortization period upon the consideration of evidence presented by the zoning administrator and the owner of the nonconforming use that is sufficient to make findings regarding the following factors: 1.The general character of the area surrounding the nonconforming use; 2 The zoning classification and use(s)of nearby property; 3.The extent to which property values are adversely affected by the nonconforming use; 4.The owner's actual amount of investment in the property on the effective date of nonconformance, less any investment required by other applicable laws and regulations; 5.The amount cf loss,if any,that would be suffered by the owner upon termination of the use; and 6 The extent to which the amortization period will further the public health,safety and welfare. E.Appeal:Any person adversely affected by the decision of the board cf adjustment appeals hearing officer may,within thirty(30) days after the decision, present to the district court a petition specifying the grounds on which the person was adversely affected. (Ord. 15-05§ 1, 2005) CHAPTER 21A.42 TEMPORARY USES 21A.42.060: TEMPORARY USE PERMIT REQUIRED; SPECIAL STANDARDS FOR ISSUANCE AND REVOCATION: G.Appeal:Any person adversely affected by the decision of the zoning administrator, may appeal the decision to the board-of ad;us'.mor'appeals hearina officer pursuant to the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title.(Ord 24-11, 2011) CHAPTER 21A.48 LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERS 21A.48.160: APPEAL: Any person adversely affected by a decision of the zoning administrator on a landscaping or buffer requirement may appeal the decision to the board of.4djustmont appeals hearing officer pursuant to the provision in chapter 21A 16 cf this title.(Ord.88-95§ 1 (Exh.A), 1995 Ord. 26-95§2(24-16), 1995) CHAPTER 21A.54 CONDITIONAL USES 21A.54.070: SEQUENCE OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR BOTH A CONDTIONAL USE AND A VARIANCE: Whenever the applicant indicates pursuant to subsection 21A.54.060A9 of this chapter that a variance will be necessary in connection with the proposed conditional use(other than a planned development),the applicant shall at the time of filing the application for a conditional use. file an application for a variance with the board of-adjustment appeals hearing officer. A. Combined Review.: Upon the filing of a combined application for conditional use and a variance, at the initiation of the planning commission or the boar-1 a~,ctrent appeals hearing officer,the commission and the board officer may hold a joint session to consider the conditional use and the variance applications simultaneously. 21 PLNPCsl2011-0O312 Land Use Appeal Au:henry"Fe\t Aden:ment B.Actions By Planning Commission And Board Of Adjustment Appeals Hearing Officer: Regardless of whether the planning commission and board of ad, stment appeals hearing officer conduct their respective reviews in a combined session or separately, the appeals hearing officer shall not take any action on the application for a variance until the planning commission shall first act to recommend approval or disapproval of the application for the conditional use.(Ord.26-95§2(27-7), 1995) 21A.54.160: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission on an application for a conditional use may file an appeal to the land use appeals board appeals hearing officer within ten(10)days of the date of the decision.The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, unless the planning commission takes specific action to stay a decision. (Ord.23-10§20,2010) 21A.54.170: APPEAL OF LAND USE APPEALS BOARD APPEALS HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Any party adversely affected by the decision of the land use appeals board appeals hearing officer on appeal from a decision of the planning commission may appeal to the district court within thirty(30)days of the date of the land uec appeals board appeals hearing officer decision.(Ord.83-96§7, 1996) CHAPTER 21A.55 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS 21A.55.120: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission on an application for a planned development may file an appeal to the land use appeals board appeals hearing officer within ten(10)calendar days of the date of the record of decision.The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, unless the planning commission takes specific action to stay a decision (Ord.23-10§21,2010) CHAPTER 21A.58 SITE PLAN REVIEW 21A.58.080: PROCEDURES FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: (C)2.Appeal Of Zoning Administrator Decision:Any appeal of the zoning administrator's denial of a site plan shall be made to the beard cf adjustment Appeals and Variance Hearing Officer, pursuant to chapter 21A.16 of this title. Amok CHAPTER 21A.59 CONDITIONAL BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN REVIEW 21A.59.070: PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN REVIEW: (C)2.Appeal Of Planning Commission Decision:Any appeal of the planning commission decision shall be made to the lead use appeal& Beard appeals hearina officer, pursuant to title 2.chapter 2.88 of this code within ten(10)calendar days of the date on which a record of decision is issued. CHAPTER 21A.62 DEFINITIONS 21A.62.040: DEFINITIONS OF TERMS: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: The board of adjustment of Salt Lake City. Utah- APPEALS APPEALS HEARING OFFICER: The appeals and variance hearina officer of Salt Lake City. Uta'r. 77 PLNPCM20I 1-00312 Lend Use Appeal Auth :ny Te\:Amendment 5:5 6:3 0 ''""'° PLNPCM2011-00312 Zoning Text Amendment to Change the Land Use Authority- A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a Zoning Text Amendment to Title 21A.02 that would eliminate the Board of Adjustment and the Land Use Appeals Board and would appoint a Hearing Officer to act as the city's land use appeal authority. Related provisions of Title 21A- Zoning, Title 2- Administration and Personnel, Title 20 Subdivisions, Title 14—Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places and Title 18—Buildings and Construction may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply citywide if adopted by the City Council. (Staff contact: John Anderson at 801-535-7214 or john.anderson@slcgov.com) Chairperson Fife recognized Mr. John Anderson as staff representative. Mr. Anderson gave the history of the request. O State law prior to 2005, any city that had land use ordinance had an appeal board, i.e. a Board of Adjustment. c State law after 2005 stated that an appeal authority, but it did not define what an appeal board would need to be. O Options: o appointing the Planning Commission or the City Council as the appeal authority. o Maintain the Board of Adjustment. o Hearing Officer o Combination of any thereof. Currently, the City has two appeal authorities, the Board of Adjustment and the Land Use Appeal Board. Justification: G Lack of use. o The Appeal Authority had already been removed from the Board of Adjustment. Special Exceptions were 62% of the cases that the BOA would hear. o Difficulty in filling vacancies. o Administrative Officers could have professional expertise. Staff proposes that the City use an Administrative Hearing Officer, who would be appointed by the Mayor with the consensus of the City Council. It would be required that the individual have a legal background, or have worked as an Administrative Hearing Officer in the past. Mr. Anderson stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the changes that would change the Land Use Appeal process for the City to an Administrative Hearing Officer. Staff also recommended that the Attorney's Office should be given authority to make small technical changes to the ordinance. 6:02:10 Questions from the Commissioners: Commissioner Woodhead asked if the Administrative Hearing Officer would be a full time City employee. Planning Director Sommerkorn responded that it would be on a contract basis, somewhat like a justice court judge. Commissioner De Lay asked who would pay for the Administrative Hearing Officer, would it be the applicant. Planning Director Sommerkorn answered that it would be the City, but the applicant would pay an application fee. Commissioner Luke clarified that it would be only one person making the decision. Commissioner Woodhead wondered if the City had reached out to young lawyers to fill the position. Mr. Anderson said that it was an open position and no one had applied. Commissioner Woodhead added that while she can see the elimination of the Board of Adjustment, the Land Use Appeal board had very specific items that were worthwhile. She noted that she felt that Citizens liked to come before a board, and wondered if there was a way to make the Land Use Appeals Board stay in play, but have it function better. Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Nielson if the proposed authority given to the Legal Office would only apply to grammatical errors. Commissioner Wirthlin asked Commissioner Woodhead if she felt decisions made by the Land Use Appeals Board if made better because the decisions were made by more than one person. He asked if there were many split decisions. Commissioner Woodhead replied that there were some lively discussions and there Amok had been, on occasion, some split decisions. Commissioner De Lay said that she thought the community would like to have a "quasi judge" to hear their cases. 6:10:18 Public Hearing: Chairperson Fife opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one chose to speak, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Woodhead asked for opinions regarding whether or not the other Planning Commissioners agreed with the idea of dismantling the Board of Adjustment and maintaining the Land Use Appeals Board. Commissioner Dean responded that she felt that the perception of the public would be that if the Hearing Officer was an employee of the City, then he or she would have a bias toward the City, where as a Board of volunteers, that perception would not be there. Commissioner Luke stated that he had a problem eliminating a board and replacing them with one individual person, it creates a precedence, regardless of the merits. Planning Manager Nick Norris said that a reason to eliminate these boards were in the nature of what they are hearing. They are hearing appeals of decisions that were made by someone else, and those appeals are very limited in what could have been heard, they are to verify that due process was followed and that ordinances were applied correctly, not to see if the right decision had been made. He noted that the Board of Adjustment and the Land Use Appeals board have the right to overturn a decision. He said that it would fall upon the administration to ensure that the hearing is handled in a fair and neutral way. 6:13:27 Motion: Commissioner De Lay made a motion in regard to PLNPCM2011-00312, Zoning Text Amendment to change the Land Use Authority based on the information presented tonight, and the testimony heard and the staff report, she recommends that Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for a zoning text amendment that would allow for the appointment of a hearing officer as the Land Use Appeal Authority for the City, and that the Salt Lake City's Attorney's office have the authority to correct grammatical or punctuation errors in this ordinance as found. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Wirthlin, Gallegos and De Lay all voted "aye", Commissioners Drown, Luke, Woodhead and Dean all voted "no". The motion failed. Motion: Commissioner Woodhead made the motion as to PLNPCM2011-00312 Zoning Text Amendment to chapter 21A.06.040 she moved that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for a Zoning Text Amendment as attached, but changing the proposed amendment to remove all references to removing the Land Use Appeals Board but retaining references to removing the Board of Adjustment and that the Attorney's office have the authority to correct grammatical or punctuation errors in this ordinance as found. Commissioner Dean seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Drown, Woodhead and Dean all voted "aye", Commissioners Luke, Wirthlin, Gallegos and De Lay all voted "no". The motion failed. Chairperson Fife asked Planning Director Sommerkorn for direction. Mr. Sommerkorn responded that they would send the petition to the City Council with no recommendation from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Woodhead asked what would happen if it were sent with a negative recommendation with a paragraph explaining the way they were split. Motion: Commissioner Luke made a motion regarding amendments to chapter 21A.06.040 to eliminate the Board of Adjustment and the Land Use Appeals Board and to appoint a hearing officer to act as an Appeal Authority, case number PLNPCM2011-0031, he moved that the Planning Commission send a negative recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Woodhead seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Drown, Luke, and Woodhead all voted "aye". Commissioners Wirthlin, Gallegos, Dean and De Lay all voted "no". The motion failed. Planning Manager Norris asked the Planning Commission for direction on other ways to address the concerns the Planning Commission had. � ,,,, , i,/,,,r�': Petition Initiation 1t 'Cf2.}: t '�'r J1 7 iF ,, , i rf ••• Request ,,, ,,,,, ,o" Planning Division RECEIVFinCommunity&Economic Development Department MAY 2 0 2011 To: Mayor Becker SaltLake CityMayor From: Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director CA NN E;.) f0: 4r SCANNED BY: Date: May 27, 2011 # r= Si2(oh CC: David Everitt, Chief of Staff; Frank Gray, Community and Economic Development Director; Mary De La Mare-Schaefer, Community & Economic Development Department Deputy Director; Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director; file Re: Amending the Zoning Ordinance and City Code to appoint an Administrative Hearing Officer to act as the City's Appeal Authority for Land Use Decisions This memo is to request that you initiate a petition directing the Planning Division to analyze the appropriateness of amending the City Code and Zoning Ordinance relating to the appeal authority for land use decisions. The analysis would be to determine whether the City should eliminate the Board of Adjustment(BOA) and Land Use Appeals Board(LUAB) and instead consider the use of contracted professional hearing officer to make decisions on Appeals of Administrative Decisions, Appeals of Planning Commission'and Historic Landmark Commission decisions and on Variances. State Law In 2005, State Law was amended to allow a municipality to establish an Appeal Authority and specific language about a Board of Adjustment was deleted. Since that time, sPveral cities in Utah have eliminated their Boards of Adjustment and have appointed another entity to hear appeals. Some cities have appointed the City Council as the appeal authority, some have given 1 the duties to an administrative hearing officer and others have retained their Boards of Amok Adjustment. Special Exceptions In most jurisdictions in Utah,the Board of Adjustment or Appeal Authority does not meet on a regular basis. Salt Lake City's BOA meets monthly mainly because the City has authorized the BOA to hear Special Exceptions. A Special Exception is an activity or use incidental to the principal use(s)permitted in a zoning district or an adjustment to a fixed dimension standard permitted as exceptions to the regulations. The review usually deals with design location, configuration and/or impacts to deteuliine the desirability of authorizing its establishment on any given site. The Planning Division is currently working on a petition that would remove Special Exceptions, from the purview of the BOA and transfer the authority for approval to the Planning Commission since Special Exceptions are based on use and design, which is generally the expertise of the Planning Commission. Currently, Special Exceptions make up approximately 62%of the cases reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. If the City Council approves that petition to transfer Special Exceptions to the Planning Commission,the case load of the Board of Adjustment would decrease substantially and therefore, like typical Boards of Adjustment, the Board would meet on a very infrequent basis. Aoro". The City's other appeals body for land use decisions is the Land Use Appeals Board. This Board was set up in 1995, during the Zoning Rewrite Project to alleviate the City Council from acting as the appeal authority. The LUAB meets very infrequently. From 2008-2010, the LUAB met eight times. Difficulty in Filling Board Vacancies it has become increasingly difficult to find individuals who are willing-to volunteer their time on our Boards and Commissions. In some instances, positions sit vacant for a number of years or existing members are willing to continue to serve after their terms have expired, because there is no one to take their place and without them,there may be a problem filling a quorum which is required to conduct business. Without a quorum, applicants have to wait for another meeting to get a decision on their request and continue with their development proposal. Currently, the BOA has five members and 1 alternate. Three member's terms will expire at the end of December. In addition, the Land Use Appeals Board, which is supposed to be made up of five members, currently has only three. The Planning Staff is of the opinion that it will become even more difficult to find individuals to serve on Boards that rarely meet. 2 As part of the analysis, the Planning Staff will evaluate how other jurisdictions in Utah handle their Appeal Authority, as well as analyze whether public hearings are appropriate for appeal cases since the BOA currently conducts public hearings and the LUAB does not. The Planning Staff will also compare the financial costs of using the Boards vs. contracting with a Hearing Officer. As part of the process, the Planning Division will follow the City adoption process for amending the City Code and Zoning Ordinance which includes citizen input and public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. g=1 6/2/11 Ralph Becker, Mayor Date 3 � k � Appeal Authorityz. _ =Ti �: i s . 1,,,, Changes ,,„/„„IRECEIVED Planning Division MAY2011 Community&Economic Development Sal Lake City Mayor Department To Mayor Becker .{ ';.�'i 1 t,:bt,�, „�, `id' �_.;. ,,\, -Jr\! ly) o...� 3 ILL✓✓✓ From: Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director rk/ 3126, /tt Date May 27, 2011 CC: David Everitt, Chief of Staff; Frank Gray, Community and Economic Development Director; Mary De La Mare-Schaefer, Community & Economic Development Department Deputy Director; Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director; file Rea Preliminary Budget Analysis of Changing Appeal Authority for Land Use Decisions. This memo is submitted to provide information to you relating to the request that you initiate a petition directing the Planning Division to analyze the appropriateness of amending the City Code and Zoning Ordinance relating to the appeal authority for land use decisions. This memo includes preliminary budget analysis relating to eliminating the Board of Adjustment and Land Use Appeals Authority and instead contracting with a hearing officer to make decisions on appeals of Land Use decisions. Budget Implications Currently,the Board of Adjustment meets once a month. The cost of operating the Board includes the nominal pay for each member who attends a meeting ($10 per member per meeting), the cost of dinner(averages approximately$165 a month for members and staff) as well as the public notices for hearings (which averages$23 per case and in 2010 there were on average 2 cases per month (not including Special Exceptions). O Stipend $40 average per month ® Dinner $165 O Notices $46 O Packets $50 Total per meeting: $300 (approximately)per meeting Total per year $3600(approximately) The Land Use Appeals Board meets when necessary, which is approximately four (4) times per year. Each member is paid$75 per meeting and there are usually three members hn attendance. Dinner is not served and there is no public hearing so the noticing costs are nominal. O Stipend $225 o Packets $25 Total per meeting: $250 (approximately) per meeting Total per year $1000 It is anticipated that the total expenses per year for BOA and LUAB would be approximately rr• $4,600 per year (not including staffing g expenses.) It is anticipated that a Hearing Officer would be a licensed attorney in the State of Utah. The cost of paying a Hearing Officer would be app roxi`,ie'_y$100.00 per hour and each case would take about one hour to review and decide. If appeals were not public hearings (consistent with the current Land Use Appeals Board procedures), it is anticipated that each case would cost approximately$100. Based on the 2010 case load, the number of cases would be nineteen (19) BOA appeals / variances and four(4) LUAB appeals,the case load would be approximately 23 cases. This would equate to approxirimtely$2,300 needed for a hearing officer. This type of change would require a text amendment which usually takes a minimum of six months to process. It is anticipated,that a budget increase would not be needed this year if the amendment were to occur(luting the FY 2012. If the City Council approved the amendment, the Planning Staff would monitor the cost of using `d hearing f�7 -andnecessary, c. office-1- if would request r suf icient budget in subsequent years. have let me know if you ha ire any questions. Thank nk You Remarks: � Petition No: PLNPCK82011-00312 By: Planning Division Zoning Text Amendment [)ate Filed: 05/27/2011 Address: Citywide -- -- -- October 20,2011 Council Work Session—Changes to the City's zoning regulations transferring approval authority for Special Exceptions from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission or the Historic Landmark Commission(for Special Exceptions located in a Historic Preservation Overlay Zoning District). Special Exceptions are defined as a use that is incidental or in addition to the principal use(such as a home occupation or outdoor dining as part of a restaurant),or an adjustment to a specific dimension standard(such as modifications to height,yard area or fence height)that have less impact than a conditional use,but require a careful review of building location,design,or potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Petitioner—Mayor Ralph Becker-Petition PLNPCM 2010-00785 • A Council staff report was not prepared for this item. • COUNCIL PROCESS:The Council is scheduled to receive a briefing from the Administration at the October 25`h Work Session. Zoning regulation changes require public hearing advertising a minimum of 12 days prior to the hearing. If the Council is comfortable moving this item forward, Council staff has identified the following tentative dates: • November 1,2011 Set public hearing date • November 22,2011 Council public hearing • December 6,20111 Council action FRANK B.GRAY m2 Amour v ��n vi RALPH SECKER DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ,+^raw ARY DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT FARRINGTON,JR. RECEIVED OEPUTV DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL SEP 0 8 2011 SMaor Date Receiveei : U ake q I 0/i i f REV r f'""p tt,Chief of Staff Date Sent to City Council: 01/nk/ 2v/ SLC COUNCrt:OFf10E TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 8,2011 Jill Remington Love,Chair FROM: Frank Gray,Community Economic Development Department irector RE: Petition PLNPCM2010-00785:Zorn ndment by Mayor Becker to transfer the approval authority for special exceptions from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. In addition to transfer of approval authority,the Petition will address several minor fine tuning text amendments in various sections of Title 21 that reference special exceptions, including the removal of Chapter 21A.14. Applicable text from 21A.14 will be moved into Chapter 21A.52. STAFF CONTACTS: Maryann Pickering,Principal Planner(801)535-7660 or maryann.pickering@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing. DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: The City adopted a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in April 1995. At that time, it was understood that adjustments to the Zoning Ordinance would be necessary once it had been implemented and people had an opportunity to work with it. Salt Lake City intermittently processes ordinance adjustments to provide code maintenance for the City's ordinances. At times,code changes are processed due to land use policy changes adopted by the City or because State enabling regulations are changed. It is then beneficial for Salt Lake City to make minor code revisions that lead to a greater ease of use and understanding. SCANNED 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 404 SCANr (a/pa- P.O.SOX 145456,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 54114-S406 SCANNED C/P TELEPHONE:501.535-6230 FAX:501-535-6005 www.3LC5oY.�oH,�Eo DATE: i s/i, The City's zoning ordinance identifies special exceptions as a use that is incidental to or in addition to the principal uses(such as a home occupation or outdoor dining),or an adjustment to a fixed dimension standard(such as modifications to the compatible infill requirements or fence heights) which have less potential impact than a conditional use, but which require a careful review of such factors as location,design,configuration or impacts to determine the desirability of authorizing its establishment on any given site. The Planning Division believes that because special exceptions deal with design and use, it would be more appropriate for the Planning Commission to address these types of requests rather than the Board of Adjustment. The Planning Division is also in the process of transmitting a petition that would eliminate the Board of Adjustment and replace it with an Administrative Hearing Officer. The Administrative Hearing Officer would have decision making authority over appeals and variances. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinances in regards to special exceptions meet the following objectives: • Allow the Historic Landmark Commission to use their expertise in addressing special exceptions in designated historic districts. • Clarify the review process for special exceptions. • Codify the Zoning Administrator or ZA List. • Improve the clarity and usability of the Zoning Ordinance without changing the intent behind the specific regulation in questions. • Clarify wording that may be open to interpretation. ,,,,,,,, • Address ongoing problems with administration of existing ordinance language,and may result in a minor policy change of low significance. Although amendment is a fine tuning amendment, it is more substantial than most fine tuning amendments. Various sections of the Title 21 will be changed as there are multiple references all throughout the title. However, despite the multiple proposed changes, the administration of special exceptions by the Planning Division will be a simpler and smoother process for applicants and staff members. ANALYSIS: 1. Chapter 21A.06—Decision Making Bodies The duties and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and Historic Landmark Commission will be modified. The primary change and purpose of the petition to transfer the approval authority will be in this chapter. In addition, language has been added to have the Board of Adjustment convene meetings as needed throughout the year. In addition to the transfer of the approval authority,the Historic Landmark Commission will now have the authority to approve certain special exception for projects located within a historic preservation overlay zone. The specific items include: building wall height, garage height, garage square footage, fence height, overall building height and RE: Petition PLMPCM2010-00785:Citywide Text Amendment Page 2 of 5 signs. Currently, applicants in a historic preservation overlay zone would need to obtain approvals from two separate bodies. This will streamline the approval process for applicants. 2. Chapter 21A.14 —Routine and Uncontested Matters This chapter will be completely removed from the Zoning Ordinance. Planning staff has found there is confusion on how these items relate to special exceptions and there has never really been a clear process or comprehensive list of routine and uncontested matters. The existing chapter discusses how these items have been delegated to the Zoning Administrator (ZA) for an administrative review, but the items were never codified into the Zoning Ordinance and instead were found on a list commonly known as the "ZA List". By removing this chapter and changing the way that special exceptions are reviewed, the process will be clear to our applicants. The list of items on the ZA List will be codified into Chapter 21A.52, of which there will be more discussion later in this report. 3. Chapter 21A.24 —Residential Districts Changes to this chapter are cleanup items. The references to the Board of Adjustment are replaced with the Planning Commission. The administrative hearing officer function has been removed as a part of the special exception process. Modifications to the process will be found in both Chapters 21A.10 and 21A.52. 4. Chapter 21A.26 —Commercial District A modification has been made to the approval authority for additional height on commercial buildings. 5. Chapter 21A.34—Overlay Districts The approval authority for the special exceptions for properties the Yalecrest Compatible Infill district have been changed to the Planning Commission. In addition, Section 21A.34.120(H) is being deleted since a property owner's right to apply for a special exception or variance is already established in the code and it is unnecessary to repeat it in this section. 6. Chapter 21A.36 —General Provisions In the current Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Adjustment has authority to review certain home occupations. These changes will transfer that authority to the Planning Commission. RE: Petition PLMPCM2010-00785: Citywide Text Amendment Page 3 of 5 7. Chapter 21A.38 —Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Buildings Ask Similar to the previous section, the two changes in this chapter are only changing the approval authority from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. 8. Chapter 21A.40 —Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures One section of this chapter has been entirely removed. Planning staff felt that the items relating to the regulation of automatic amusement devices was no longer necessary at this time. This section of the code was most likely added into the Zoning Ordinance in the 1980's and carried over into the 1995 rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance when stand alone arcades were a popular business. Considering that most residents have some type of gaming device in their home, there will most likely not be a large demand for standalone arcades in the near future. Current businesses that have one or two amusement devices should not be required to apply for a special exception because there is minimal impact. This change does not affect any the standards or requirements for automatic amusement devices located within a sexually oriented business. The other changes in Chapter 21A.40 are related to the approval authority for difference types of fences and walls. 9. Chapter 21A.44—Off Street Parking and Loading A new section has been added to Chapter 21A.44. The section addresses and provides regulations for vehicle and equipment storage in certain zoning districts. This is an item that was previously located on the ZA List. Staff felt that the regulations were appropriate for the vehicle and equipment storage, but that the item did not need to have a special exception approved for the use. Any business desiring to have a vehicle and equipment storage lot in the CG, M-1, M-2 and EI zoning districts that does not have a hard surface will simply need to comply with the standards in this chapter. 10. Chapter 21A.46—Signs This section has been changed to allow the Historic Landmark Commission to approve signs located within a historic preservation overlay. It further implements the changes in Chapter 21A.06 related to duties of the commission. 11. Chapter 21A.52—Special Exceptions A majority of the changes proposed in this text amendment are located within this chapter. Changes include the ability of the Planning Director to review and approve and items administratively, definition of a special exception, list of all special exceptions and any standards specific to each special exception, process, general standards, amendments, extensions of time, and an appeal process. RE: Petition PLMPCM2010-00785: Citywide Text Amendment Page 4 of 5 One subsection in Chapter 52 proposed to be removed is the subsection which contains all of the regulations for unit legalizations (currently 21 A.52.100(E). Staff has removed this process as a special exception due to the recently adopted Good Landlord Program. It is anticipated that a petition will be initiated around September 1 to consider new regulations for unit legalizations. Master Plan Considerations: The community master plan land use policies generally define neighborhood. community and regional land use locations and characteristics. They do not specifically address the level of detail that code maintenance addresses. In Salt Lake City, the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance have been the main tools used to implement the goals and objectives of the adopted land use planning documents. All of the proposed changes to the text, as outlined, are intended to clarify or further advance the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. PUBLIC PROCESS: The following is a list of public meetings that have been held related to the proposed project: • Open House held on January 20, 2011. There were no comments received at the open house meeting. • A briefing with the Salt Lake City Board of Adjustment was held on January 24, 2011. An excerpt of the meeting minutes can be found in Attachment 5C. • The Planning Commission held a briefing on the item on June 22, 2011. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on July 13, 2011. The Planning Commission passed a motion to forward a favorable recommendation for approval to the City Council. The vote was unanimous. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 21A.50.050: "A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does, however, list five standards, which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property (Section 21A.50.050 A-E). The five standards are discussed in detail starting on page 5 of the Planning Commission Staff Report (see Attachment 5B). RE: Petition PLMPCM2010-00785: Citywide Text Amendment Page 5 of 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION A) ORIGINAL HEARING NOTICES AND POSTMARK B) STAFF REPORT Attachment A: Proposed Ordinance Amendments Attachment B: Department Comments Attachment C: Public Input C) MINUTES July 13, 2011 —Planning Commission 6. ORIGINAL PETITION PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition PL.NPCM2010-00785 November 16, 2010 Petition submitted and assigned to Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. December 28, 2010 Planning staff sent request to various departments and divisions for their feedback on the proposed zoning amendment. January 20, 2011 Community Open House held. February 28, 2011 Board of Adjustment briefing held. June 22, 2011 Planning Commission briefing held. July 1, 2011 Newspaper (Deseret News) publication of Planning Commission public hearing notice for July 13, 2011 hearing. July 13, 2011 Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. July 14, 2011 Ordinance requested from City Attorney's office. August 10, 2011 Planning Commission expected to ratify minutes of July 13, 2011 meeting. August 26, 2011 Planning staff receives ordinance from the City Attorney's Office. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to special exception review procedures) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00785 to transfer the decision-making authority of special exceptions from the board of adjustment to the planning commission. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission("planning commission") held a public hearing on July 13, 2011 to consider a request made by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker (petition no. PLNPCM2010-00785) to amend the text of chapters 21A.06 (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials); 21A.14 (Zoning: Routine and Uncontested Matters); 21A.24 (Zoning: Residential Districts); 21A.26 (Zoning: Commercial Districts); 21A.34 (Zoning: Overlay Districts); 21A.36 (Zoning: General Provisions); 21A.38 (Zoning: Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures); 21A.40 (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures); 21A.44 (Zoning: Off Street Parking and Loading); 21A.46 (Zoning: Signs); 21A.52 (Zoning: Special Exceptions); and 21A.62 (Zoning: Definitions) of the Salt Lake City Code; and WHEREAS, at its July 13, 2011 hearing, the planning commission voted in favor of recommending to the Salt Lake City Council that the city council amend 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.06.030.B. That section ,— 21A.06.030.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Planning Commission), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: B. Jurisdiction And Authority: The planning commission shall have the following powers and duties in connection with the implementation of this title: 1. Prepare and recommend to the city council for adoption, a comprehensive, general plan and amendments to the general plan for the present and future needs of the city and the growth and development of the land within the city or any part of the city; 2. Make comprehensive surveys and studies of the existing conditions and trends of growth and of the probable future requirements of the city and its residents as part of the preparation of the general plan; 3. Initiate amendments to the text of this title and to the zoning map pursuant to the provisions of section 21A.50.020 of this title; 4. Review, evaluate and make recommendations to the city council on proposed amendments to this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in sections 21A.50.030 and 21A.50.040 of this title; 5. Review, hear and decide applications for conditional uses, including planned developments, pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.54, "Conditional Uses", of this title; Auk 6. Hear and decide appeals from administrative hearing decisions of the planning director; and 7. Hear and decide applications for subdivision amendments and approvals pursuant to the municipal land use development and management act, title 10, chapter 9 of the Utah Code Annotated. 8. Authorize special exceptions to the terms of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.52, "Special Exceptions", of this title; 9. Make determinations regarding the existence, expansion or modification of noncomforming uses and noncomplying structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set.forth in chapter 21A.38, "Nonconforming Uses And Noncomplying Structures", of this title. SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.06.040.B. That section 21A.06.040.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Board of Adjustment), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: B. Jurisdiction And Authority: The board of adjustment shall have the following powers and duties in connection with the implementation of this title: 1. Hear and decide appeals from any administrative decision made by the zoning administrator in the administration or the enforcement of this title pursuant to the °" ° procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.16, "Appeals Of Administrative Decisions", of this title with the exception of administrative reviews of certificates of appropriateness which shall be appealed to the historic landmark commission, as set forth in subsection 21A.06.050C3 of this chapter; 2. Authorize variances from the terms of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.18, "Variances", of this title; 3. Authorize special exceptions to the terms of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.52, "Special Exceptions", of this title; d. Make determinations regarding the existence, expansion or modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, "Nenc Structures", of this title. SECTION 3. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.06.040.E. That section 21A.06.040.E of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Board of Adjustment), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: E. Meetings: The board of adjustment shall meet at least once a month. The board of adjustment shall convene meetings as needed throughout the year. SECTION 4. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.06.050.C. That section 21A.06.050.0 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Historic Landmark Commission), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: C. Jurisdiction And Authority: In addition to carrying out the general purposes set forth in subsection B of this section, the historic landmark commission shall: 1. Conduct surveys of significant historic, architectural, and cultural landmarks and historic districts within the city; 2. Petition the city council to designate identified structures, areas or resources as landmark sites or H historic preservation overlay districts; 3. Review and approve or deny an application for a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to the provisions of chapter 21A.34 of this title; 4. Develop and participate in public education programs to increase public awareness of the value of historic, architectural and cultural preservation; 5. Review and approve or deny applications for the demolition of structures in the H historic preservation overlay district pursuant to chapter 21A.34 of this title; 6. Recommend to the planning commission the boundaries for the establishment of an H historic preservation overlay district and landmark sites; 7. Make recommendations when requested by the planning commission, the board of adjustment or the city council, as appropriate, on applications for zoning amendments, conditional uses and special exceptions involving H historic preservation overlay districts and landmark sites; 8. Review and approve or deny certain special exceptions for properties located within an H historic preservation overlay district. The certain special exceptions are listed as follows: a. Building wall height; b. Garage height; c. Garage square footage; d. Fence height; e. Overall building height; and f. Signs. g9. Make recommendations to the city council concerning the utilization of state, Ask federal or private funds to promote the preservation of landmark sites and H historic preservation overlay districts within the city; 910. Make recommendations to the city council regarding the acquisition of landmark structures or structures eligible for landmark status where preservation is essential to the purposes of sectionchapter 21A.347029, "H Historic Preservation Overlay District", of this title, and where private preservation is infeasible; -1-011. Make recommendations to the planning commission in connection with the preparation of the general plan of the city; and 4-1-12. Make recommendations to the city council on policies and ordinances that may encourage preservation of buildings and related structures of historic and architectural significance. SECTION 5. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code chapter 21A.14. That section 21A.14 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Routine and Uncontested Matters), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: Chapter 21A.14 [Deleted] ROUTINE AND UNCONTESTED MATTERS 21A.14.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: board f adjustment p nt t„ section 21 n 1 n 030 of th;s chapter t„ b„ d termined V VIAl I.t Vl 1161J uJL1111.11L 1,J lAl JI.lCL11L LV accvrda ce wi+h the procedures set forth in section 21A.11.060 of this chapter. 21A.14.015: DEFINITION: Areutine-;ter uncent d er" is-a-special exception which the board of adjustment has a criteria that the board of ✓ad ust, t ,l.a e f determiningY 1 p t' v aJ 21A.14.020: AUTHORITY: provisions of this chapter. 21 A 1 A 030: DESIGNATION OF: ROUTINE A Nil LLNCONTESTED M A TTEtIS_ �i1 a.l�.vvii. aiuvl vi\a�iavi, va aavviii\i L V1\�V1\11JIJ1L11-S11T1-1 l�Z� Th� �h�aru d „f„j stm nt r adopt a a of classes of matters brought before it as 111 21A.14060 of this chapter. '' desig.,atio., ,.b the board of adjustment pursuant to section 21A.11.030 of this chapter shall a a kept on file in the office of the zoning administrator. b s„hmitte to the office of'the nfl,-,-,in + at Juvaau�wu Lv L1 aG. B. Abutting Property Owners' Signatures: Application must include signatures of approval of all abutting property owners on a form provided by the zoning au 1ministrato, Ifthe admi„jstrat a + it to be appropriate, due to the nature of the application, signatures of approval of property owners across the street(s) may also be required. 1. If all of the required signatures cannot be obtained, the zoning administrator shall refer the application to the administrative hearing officer to be considered special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 2. If all required signatures are obtained, the zoning administrator will approve, ith „ai+ions deny ref r the , rlication to the .,,1.�.;nist..atiye a1,i,r.,,., .,1L11 vvlluluvuJ, u.,uy yr 1 opeN of this title. C. Notification Of Decision: Within to decision. D. Records: A record of l +' a tte sh l b ke+on in r. "a 21A.14.070: APP Any person adversel hearing officer ted matter may appeal the SECTION 6. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.24.010.P.2. That section 21A.24.010.P.2 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: General Provisions: Special Foothills Regulations), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2. Height Special Exception: The planning commission board of adjustment, as a special exception to the height regulations of the applicable district, may approve a permit to exceed the maximum building height but shall not have the authority to grant additional stories. To grant a height special exception the planning commission board of adjustment ''" ^ must find the proposed plan: a. Is a design better suited to the site than can be achieved by strict compliance to these regulations; and b. Satisfies the following criteria: (1)The topography of the lot presents difficulties for construction when the foothill height limitations are applied, (2) The structure has been designed for the topographic conditions existing on the particular lot, and (3) The impact of additional height on neighboring properties has been identified and reasonably mitigated. c. In making these considerations the planning commission board of adjustment can consider the size of the lot upon which the structure is proposed. d. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to submit sufficient data to persuade the planning commission board of adjustment that the criteria have been satisfied. e. The planning commission board of adjustment may deny an application for a height special exception if: (1) The architectural plans submitted are designed for structures on level, or nearly level, ground, and the design is transposed to hillside lots requiring support foundations such that the structure exceeds the height limits of these regulations; (2) The additional height can be reduced by modifying the design of the structure through the use of stepping or terracing or by altering the placement of the structure on the lot; (3) The additional height will substantially impair the views from adjacent lots, and the impairment can be avoided by modification; or (4) The proposal is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. SECTION 7. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.24.050.D.6. That section 21A.24.050.D.6 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District: Maximum Building Height), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 6. a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission er an administrative hearing officer subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The planning commission administrative hearing officer will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request or refer the pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. A y peL o ad rJ l} UffL cted b ^ de of the administrative hearing officer may appeal the decision to the of adjustment. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be reviewed by the historic landmarks commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 8. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.24.060.D.6. That section 21A.24.060.D.6 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District: Maximum Building Height), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 6. a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission er an administrative hearing officer subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The planning commission administrative hearing officer will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request orefer the A.0 pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. adjustment. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be reviewed by the historic landmarks commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 9. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.24.070.D.6. That section 21A.24.070.D.6 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District: Maximum Building Height), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 6. a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission or an administrative hearing officer subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the Auk development pattern on the block face. The planning commission administrative hearing officer will approve;approve with conditions, or deny the request or refer the pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. of the administrate b ^��ff „„.,f"f"o^l the ae"sion to the board of adjustment. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be reviewed by the historic landmarks commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21 A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 10. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.24.080.D.6. That section 21A.24.080.D.6 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: SR-1 and SR- lA Special Development Pattern Residential District: Maximum Building Height), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 6. a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission or an administrative hearing officer subject to the special exception standards in chapter age* 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The planning commission administrative hearing officer will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request or refer the "cation to the board of adjustment to be considered as a special exception aYYii�.uuvu �v--cx pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title.f Any person adversey ffw.�..�a..0 ly a d a il o the-a€1t inistrµtive hearing-efffr er may µppeal th d + t1, L d f adjustment. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be reviewed by the historic landmarks commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 11. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.24.100.D.6. That section 21 A.24.100.D.6 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District: Maximum Building Height), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 6. a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission or an administrative hearing officer subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The planning commission administrative hearing officer will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request or refer the application to the board of adjustment to be considered as a special-exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. Any person adversely affected by a decision of the arm; strati. e he offcer,� a th d + tl b d f .....,.�.,......., .......��:;5 ...��..... ��.,�y wrN�u� .. .,"�.�ivai �v cnc-vvurcrvr adjustment. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be reviewed by the historic landmarks commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 12. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.24.110.D.6. That section 21A.24.110.D.6 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District: Maximum Building Height), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 6. a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission or an administrative hearing officer subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The planning commission administrative hearing officer will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request or refer the application to the-beard of adjustment to be considered al pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. Any person adversely affected by ^ `'e^" "" adjustment. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be reviewed by the historic landmarks commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 13. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.26.010.J.1.a. That section 21A.26.010.J.1.a of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: General Provisions: Modifications to Maximum Height), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 1. Modifications Of Ten Percent Or Less Of Maximum Height: a. The planning commission bdard of adjustment may approve, as a special exception, additional height not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the maximum height pursuant to the standards and procedures of chapter 21A.52 of this title. Specific conditions for approval are found in chapter subsection 21A.52.100G of this title. SECTION 14. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.34.120. That sections 21A.34.120.G and 21A.34.120.H of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District), shall be, and hereby are, amended (the remainder of chapter 21A.34.120 is not affected by this amendment)to read as follows: G. Special Exception For Garages: A garage built into a hillside and located forward of the front line of the building may be allowed as a special exception granted by the planning commission board of adjustment, subject to the following standards: 1. The rear and side yards cannot be reasonably accessed for the purpose of parking. 2. Because of the topography of the lot it is impossible to construct a garage and satisfy the standards of the YCI. 3. The ceiling elevation of the garage is below the elevation of the first or main floor of the house. 4. The garage meets all applicable yard requirements. H. IDeleted] Authority To Modify Regulations Through Variance Or Special Exception: The board of adjustment may consider applications from property owners seeking to change, district in which the subject property ;s located through the . e (chapter r this title) or special exception (chapter 21A.52 of this title) processes. No such change, alteration, modification or waiver shall be approved unless the board of adjustment finds that the proposal: 1. Will achieve the purposes of the Yalecrest compatible infill overlay district described in subsection A of this section; and 2. Will not violate the general purposes, goals and objectives of this title and of any plans adopted by the city. SECTION 15. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.36.020.B. That note 2 to Table 21A.36.020.B appearing in section 21A.36.020.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Obstructions in Required Yards), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2. Below grade encroachments (encroachments which are completely below grade where the surface grade remains intact and where the below grade encroachment is not visible from the surface) into required yards shall be treated as a special exception tine and uncontested matter in accordance with the procedures set forth in chapter 21A.52-14 of this title. SECTION 16. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.36.030.D. That section 21A.36.030.D of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Home Occupations: Conditional Home Occupations), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: D. Conditional Home Occupations: 1. The following home occupations, which either require a client to come to the home or which may result in neighborhood impacts if not properly managed, may be authorized by the planning commission board of adjustment as an accessory use only by special exception pursuant to standards specified in this section as well as the provisions of chapter 21A.52 of this title: a. Barbers, cosmetologists, manicurists; b. Consultant services; c. Physicians, therapists, massage therapists; d. Home instruction of musical instruments, voice, dance, acting and educational subjects; e. Small appliance/electronics/equipment repair or service (items which can be carried in 1 individual's arms); f. Dressmaker/tailor where there is no cleaning, dyeing or pressing by mechanically operated equipment; g. Contractor, "handyman", and landscape or yard maintenance contractor; subject to the special conditions that no construction materials or equipment will be stored on the premises; h. Artists, photographers; and i. Other similar personal or professional services where the client comes to the home. 2. The planning commission board of adjustment may delegate authority to the planning directorzoning administrator to handle special exceptions for conditional home occupations. The planning directorzoning administrator will review and approve applications in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.52-I-4 of this title. SECTION 17. Arnendinn text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.36.030.I. That section 21A.36.030.I of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Home Occupations: Decision by Board of Adjustment or Zoning Administrator), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: I. Decision By Planning Commission Board Of Adjustment or Planning DirectorZoning Administrator: The planning commission board of adjustment or planning directorzoning administrator shall issue a permit for the home occupation if the planning commissionboard of adjustment or planning directorzoning administrator finds that: 1. The provisions of this title are satisfied; 2. The home occupation will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and will not adversely affect the desirability or stability of the neighborhood; 3. The home occupation does not diminish the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties or create an adverse parking impact on adjacent streets or properties; 4. The home occupation will not negatively impact the future use of the property as a residence; 5. The home occupation will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare; and 6. The home occupation conforms with all fire, building, plumbing, electrical and health codes. SECTION 18. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.36.030.K. That section 21A.36.030.K of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Home Occupations: Appeals), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: K. Appeals: 1. Any termination of a home occupation may be appealed pursuant to the provisions of title 5, chapter 5.02 of this code as if the termination were a business license revocation. 2. Any person adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a permit for a home occupation may appeal that decision to the land use appeals board board of adjustment pursuant to chapter 21A.5216 of this title. SECTION 19. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.38.080.E.2.b. That section 21 A.38.080.E.2.b of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures: Moving, Enlarging or Altering Nonconforming Uses of Land and Structures), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: b. Nonconforming Nonresidential Uses: The planning commission board of adjustment may authorize as a special exception the reconstruction and reestablishment of a legal nonconforming nonresidential use structure subject to consideration of the following: (1) Reconstruction plans shall be reviewed to consider the feasibility of site redesign to better meet underlying zoning district standards without a reduction in type or intensity of use of the property; (2) Compliance with all other current, local or state development standards (e.g., ,,, floodplain hazard protection, fault line hazards, ground water source protection, airport flight path protection, environmental performance standards, and hazardous waste prohibition); (3) The reconstruction and reuse of the structure would not change the character of the neighborhood by using construction materials which did not exist previously on the building. Other building materials should not be used, unless the materials are compatible with the neighborhood; and/or (4) Consideration of the enforcement history of the property regarding any continual public nuisance generated by the nonconforming use activity. SECTION 20. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.38.090.C.2.b(2). That section 21A.38.090.C.2.b(2) of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures: Noncomplying Structures: Damage or Partial Destruction of Noncomplying Structure), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: (2) Nonconforming Nonresidential Uses: The planning commission board of adjustment may authorize as a special exception the reconstruction and reestablishment of a legal noncomplying structure with a nonconforming nonresidential use subject to Nwoo consideration of the following: (A) Reconstruction plans shall be reviewed through the site plan review process to consider the feasibility of site redesign to better meet underlying zoning district standards without a reduction in type or intensity of use of the property; (B) Compliance with all other current, local or state development standards (e.g., floodplain hazard protection, fault line hazards, ground water source protection, airport flight path protection, environmental performance standards, and hazardous waste prohibition); (C) The reconstruction and reuse of the structure would not change the character of the neighborhood by using construction materials which did not exist previously on the building. Other building materials should not be used, unless the materials are compatible with the neighborhood; and/or (D) Consideration of the enforcement history of the property regarding any continual public nuisance generated by the nonconforming use activity. SECTION 21. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.40.110. That section 21A.40.110 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Automatic Amusement Devices), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.40.110-1DeletedJ-NutematieAmusement-Deviees Automatic amusement devices, as defined in chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be subject to the following standards and limitations: max—imam—number—allowed indicated in subsection B of this section. 1. CN district: Up to two (2); • e eptisn; �o c-h-apt .52 of this f a' adjust., .,t that+ho mho rd l ati + d tl J rr r b following standards: Character ote . ghb u. fh ha.� rl.stance f rim n n..aenti n]' ' • r The princin 1 itt .7 .a •t 1 +' „ to the . t ,a Y Y Y u w iau�ro terms--af-fice ee-and dollaar-v olume;a c Eh—Th +n f+ho •t- e-�t-ii�teri-scs-�Tr-crn, ^c'n� C, C6i Prcial Video A Cade In the-r CS, part of a commercial video arcade principal use. SECTION 22. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.40.120.E.2.g. That section 21A.40.120.E.2.g of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: g. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission or historic landmark commission board of adjustment may approve taller fencing if it is found that the board finds that the extra height is necessary for the security of the property in question as defined in chapter section 21 A.52.104 of this title. SECTION 23. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.40.120.I. That section 21A.40.120.I of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Barbed Wire Fences), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: I. Barbed Wire Fences: 1. Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1, M-2 and D-2 districts. 2. Special Exception: Barbed wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, in all zoning districts except for those listed above as permitted uses. The planning commission board of adjustment may approve as special exceptions, the placement of barbed wire fences, for security reasons, or for the keeping of animals around nonresidential properties, transformer stations, microwave stations, construction sites or other similar publicly necessary or dangerous sites, provided the requested fence is not in any residential district and is not on or near the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. 3. Location Requirements: Barbed wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front yard setbacks nor along frontages on streets defined as gateway streets in Salt Lake City's adopted urban design element master plan. 4. Special Design Regulations: No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than six feet(6') high. No more than three (3) strands of barbed wire are permitted. The barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than sixty degrees (60°) from a vertical line. No barbed wire strand shall project over public property. If the barbed wire proposed slants outward over adjoining private property the applicant must submit written consent from adjoining property owner agreeing to such a projection over the property line. Amok 5. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission beard-e€ adj-ustment may approve, as a special exception, the building permit for a barbed wire fence if it is found that the zoning administrator finds that the applicant has shown that the fence is reasonably necessary for security in that it protects people from dangerous sites and conditions such as transformer stations, microwave station or construction sites. SECTION 24. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.40.120.J. That section 21A.40.120.J of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Razor Wire Fences), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: J. Razor Wire Fences 1. Special Exception: Razor wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, in the A, CG, D-2, M-1 and M-2 zoning districts. The planning commission board of adjustment may approve as a special exception the placement of razor wire fences, for security reasons, around commercial or industrial uses, transformer stations, microwave stations, or other �ryt<✓F similar public necessity or dangerous sites; provided,that the requested fence is not on the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. 2. Location Requirements: Razor wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front or corner side yard setback. 3. Special Design Regulations: No strand of razor wire shall be permitted on a fence that is less than seven feet (7') high. Razor wire coils shall not exceed eighteen inches (18") in diameter and must slant inward from the fence to which the razor wire is being attached. 4. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission bear of adjustment may approve razor wire fencing if the commission board finds that the applicant has shown that razor wire is necessary for the security of the property in question. SECTION 25. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code to adopt subsection 21A.44.020.F. That section 21A.44.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking and Loading: General Off Street Parking Requirements), shall be, and hereby is, amended to adopt subsection 21A.44.020.F, which shall read as follows: F. Vehicle and equipment storage: In CG, M-1. M-2 and EI zoning districts, vehicle and equipment storage may be allowed without hard surfacing as a special exception provided:. a. The lot is used for long term vehicle storage, not for regular parking and/or maneuvering. b. The vehicles stored are large and/or on tracks that could destroy normal hard surfacing. c. The parking surface is compacted with six inches of road base and other semi-hard material with long lasting dust control chemical applied annually. d. A hard surfaced wash bay is installed to wash wheels to prevent tracking of mud and sand onto the public way. e. A minimum of 50 feet paved driveway from the public street property line. f. City Traffic Engineer's approval. SECTION 26. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.46.070.V. That section 21A.46.070.V of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: General Standards: Historic District Signs), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: V. Historic District Signs: The historic landmark commissionboard of adjustment may authorize, as a special exception, modification to an existing sign or the size or placement of a new sign in a historic district or on a landmark site if the applicant can demonstrate that the location, size and/or design of the proposed sign is compatible with the design period or theme of the historic structure or district and/or will cause less physical damage to the historically significant structure. SECTION 27. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code chapter 21A.52. That chapter 21A.52 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Special Exceptions), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: Chapter 21A.52 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 21A.52.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: A speci permitted in a zoning district or an adjustment to a fixed dimension standard permitted as „tions t the nts f this title of�i less-potential impact than a conditional use but which requires a careful review of such factors as location, design, configuration and/or impacts to determine the desirability of authorizing its establishment on any given site. A special exception may or may not be appropriate in a particular location depending on the Ask lereal-impaet-s7and-eensideratierrenimi-ze-adverse-impaets-threugii-speeial-aite *to, planning and development techniques. 21A.52.020: AUTHORITY: Pursuant to its authority under the municipal land use development and management act, section 10 9 703 of the Utah Code Annotated, the board of adjustment shall have the following authority in connection with the spe ' A. Approval-Of Special Exceptions: The board of adj-ustment may approve the special exceptions authorized by this title in accordance with the procedures and standards set out in this chapter and other regulations applicable to the district in which the subject property is located. B. Authorization Of Approval Of Special Exception Under Procedures For Routine And Uncontested Matter: The board of adjustment may, by motion, designate any special exception authorized by this title as a routine and uncontested matter for decision by the zoning administrator or the administrative hearing officer pursuant to the procedures found in chapter 21 A.1/ of this title, but subject to the general standards for deciding special exceptions and such specific conditions on special exceptions as may be applicable pursuant to section 21A.52.100 of this chapter. 21A.52.030: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AUTHORIZED: In addition to any other special exceptions authorized elsewhere in this title, the following special exceptions are authorized under the provisions of this title: A. n dditio.,al f nee height (subse tior. t i n 52 i 00 r�[z�-:crravrrm�-rcricczrcr�rrc�uo�cccrori-crrr.Tczvm-rvT-crrro- ..µYt.,.). B Additional height in commercial districts (subsection 21A.52.100G of this chapter). C. Additional building height in foothills districts (subsection 21A.21.010P2 of this title). D. Alternative parking (section 21 A.41.030 of this title). E. Amusement devices (section 21A.40.110 of this title). F. Barbed wire fences (subsection 21A.10.120I of this title). G. Repealed. H. Conditional home occupations (subsection 21A.36.030D of this title). I. Access for persons with disabilities (subsection 21A.52.100C of this chapter). J. Amateur("ham") radio antennas (subsection 21A.10.090D of this title). 21 A.52.100D of this chapter). L. Legalization of excess dwelling units (subsection 21A.52.100E of this chapter). M. Modifications to maximum height in commercial districts (subsection 21 A.26.010J of this title). N. Operation of registered home daycare or registered home preschool facility in residential districts (subsection 21A.36.130B of this title). O O„td, r d; e . ra (s„bsect 21 n 52 100 f'thi 1, t yr vr .rri.`i-crrrapierJ. P. Razor wire (subsection 21 A.10.120J of this title). fi y percen ° ectio 21A.8$g0E2b an 2� n 34 090C2b ofthis t;tle) R. Front yard parking (subsection 21A.14.050B of this title). S. Routine and uncontested matters (chapter 21A.14 of this title). T. Window mounted refrigerated air conditioners and evaporative "swamp" coolers located s t rt o feet (2') f o lot line (table 1A.36-020B, "Obstructions In Require Yards", of this title and subsection 21A.52.100H of this chapter). U. Ground mounted central air conditioning compressors or systems, heating, ventilating, pool and filtering equipment located less than four feet (1') from a lot line (table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required Yards", of this title and subsection 21A.52.100I of this chapter). V. Additional building height in the R 1 districts, R 2 districts and SR districts (subsections 21 A.21.050D6, 21 A.21.060D6, 21A.21.070D6, 21 A.21.080D6, 21 A.21.100D6, and 21 A.24.110D6 of this title). W. Alternate location for accessory structures in the R 1 districts, R 2 districts and the SR districts (subsection 21A.10.050A3d(3) of this title). 21A.52.040: PROCEDURE: An applicant for a special exception shall be processed-in accerdance with the following procedures: A. Application: An application may be made by the owner of the subject property or the owner's authorized agent to the zoning administrator on a form or forms provided by the zoning administrator, which shall include at least the following information, unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: 1. The applicant's name, address and telephone number and interest in the subject property; 2. The owner's name, address and telephone number, if different than the applicant, and the owner's signed consent' th fling fthe appli a y • b `, 3. The street address and legal description of the subject property; 1. The Salt Lake County property tax number; property; 6. A vicinity map with north arrow, scale and date, indicating the zoning classifications and current us efpreperties w ;thin ghty five eet (4�'; (exclusive of interve '1 Th a t•tl f'th ct ,•,rl them d a t 1 h h • � Y r rY�.i of tl. hit 4 1 hitect pl- eer on fife proj ct; ,Sr. A complete description of the proposed special exception; 9. A plan or drawing drawn to a scale of one inc " — ' largerh' h ' 1 .l th following i formation• a. Actual dimensions of the lot, b. Ex t size- and l c do -f ill - t' V n r 1 ea build; ^tether structures, c. Driveways, d. Parking spaces, c. Safety curbs, f. Landscaping, ^ r t' f t, sh ro ptaclo „a h. Drainage features; 11. Such other and further informationa tat s the , administrator a JYYYeYto for a f it l and,r,.�,�o sideration a,,d ,-, disposition of the particular application. B. Determination Of Completeness: Upon receipt of an application fer a special exception, the zoning administrator shall make a determina 21A.10.010 of this title, and that the applicant has submitted all of the information on the fee schedule, chapter 21A.61 of this title. D. Staff Report: A staff report c ' t th ecial- c tion Pncatie n shall be po Ya.te.. by the zoning administrator unless, nt t„ subsection 21 n Sza20B o this chapter uncontested matter for decision pursuant to the procedures of chapter 21 A.11 of this title. E. Public Hearing: The board of adjustment_hall? _cheel to and h_ol a public hearing o the completed application in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth in chapter 21 A.10 of this title. F. Board Of Adjustment Decision: The staff repot shall he considered at the bo.,...1 of adjustment's public hearing. Following the conclusionof the rublic he.,rino the boar of additional information. 21 A 52 n5n COODDIN A TE,D DT[7TT W A 1�TTl A PPROV A 7 O A Dl)T IC A T IONS: Whenever an application for a special exception requires a variance, the applicant shall adjustment. Both l ti be side,-ea by the board of adju tment at the µme schedule, chapter 21 A.6'l of this title. Tr XG PTIONS: No application for a special exception shall be approved unless the board of adjustment shall determine that the proposed special exception is appropriate in the location proposed based upon its consideration of the general standards set forth below and, where applicable, the speeif nrl it; ert. a pt; r,c t See-sent; 2 A 52 1 00 of th c1, pter l A. Compliance With Ordinance And District Purposes: The proposed use and development and-fer-whieh4he-regulations-ef-the-distriet--were-established. B. 1 o Substantia14mprairmen opei a e: The r sod„ „rl de„el pment will not substantially diminish or impair the value of the property within the neighborhood in which it is located. �Ne-thidue vet t: The proposed „se and development will not have a material adverse eff + th ch cto „f the r the „blic health,safety anid general welfare. Compatible With cur•-^unding Development: The proposed special exception will be f hbert, rd ;tl, the pl; able d str ct r lat; .,.... .b r=�r---� ---�------------ ---- ---- err--n----- -------- -�o`---------- E. No Destruction Of Significant Features: The proposed use and development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of natural, scenic or historic features of significant importance. F. No Material Pollution Of Environment: The proposed use and development will not cause material air, water, soil or noise pollution or other types of pollution. G. Compliance With Standards: The proposed use and development complies with all additional standards imposed on it pursuant to section 21A.52.100 of this chapter. 21A.52.070: CONDITIONS ON SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: The board of adjustment-may-impose conditions and limitations as may be necessary or appropriate to prevent or minimize adverse effects upon other property and improvements in may include, but are not limited to, conditions cencerning use, construction, operation, special exception. 2-1 080 VIO ATION OF CONDITIONS: Violation of any such condition or limitation shall be a violation of this title and shall constitute grounds for revocation of the special exception. 21A.52.090: GENERAL CONDITIONS TO BE APPLIED TO ALL SPECIAL The following conditions shall apply to all special exceptions granted by the board of adjustment. These conditions shall be in addition to any other conditions set by the board of this chapter.) A. Special Exceptions: Subject to an extension of time granted upon application to the zoning administrator, no special exception shall be valid for a period longer than one year unless a building permit is issued or complete building plans have been submitted to the division of building services and licensing within that period. The planning director may grant an extension of a special exception for up to one additional year when the applicant is able to demonstrate no change in circumstance that would result in an unmitigated impact. Extension requests must be submitted to the planning director in writing prior to the expiration of the exception. B. Authority To Inspect: The zoning administrator shall have the authority to inspect all properties for compliance with special exception conditions as often as necessary to assure continued compliance. 21A.52.100: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS FOR CERTAIN SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: amok The following special exceptions shat be s b;ect+o t e partic,,l.,r n ^i f^ ^ nditions set forth below: grant a special exc . chapter 21A.110 of this title. The board of adjustment shall consider the established character of the affected neighborhood and streetscape, maintenance of public and private views, and matters of public safety. The board of adjustment shall evaluate the application for compliance with the following approval standards and conditions: 1. Approval Standards: a. Fences, walls or other similar structures which exceed the allowable height limits; provided, that the fence, wall or structure is constructed of wrought iron, tubular steel or other similar material, and that the open, spatial and nonstructural area of the fence, wall or other similar structure constitutes at least eighty percent (80%) of its total area; b. Fences, walls or other similar structures which exceed the allowable height limits within thirty feet (30') of the intersection of front preperty lines on any corner lot; provided, that upon consideration of existing traffic control devices, topographic circumstances, it is determined by the board of adjustment, with the recommendation of the city transportation engineer, that additional height may be granted and still provide for adequate safety; c. Fences, walls or other similar structures incorporating ornamental features or architectural enhancements which extend above the allowable height limits; '""`_ height considerations; or h 1 + f ffensi-ve levels ofnois „lluti,,, 1;ght encroachments on ttS�to i �J t rit nd sthetics 2. Standards For Denial Of Height Exceptions: The board of adjustment may deny +t e tho ho „hts for f 11 th it structures upon finding: a. That it is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and urban design of the city; b T'hat t t „la eate . ,alled in-effect in the front yard of any property in a residential district where the ' ter of the ghb rhood in f ont . and ar-as is one of open spaces from property to property; or, c. Where there is a driveway on the petitioners p n 1 tructure tha+ t� fety r'kdiaEerit-t$-the�0�36$eEl-fe�3c�wz.rrr-vr�nTnzursa-ucTar�crrcr�Fe�c�i�-u�uzcc� hazard. limitations f__ fen-e_, walls ra other ^ milar structures, the board of adjustment any other element which will in the opinion of the board of adjustment diminish the impact efthe additional height on neighboring properties, or that make the neighborhood in which it is located. B. Conditional Home Occupations: Repealed. C. Access For Persons With Disabilities: For persons with physical disabilities for whom strict compliance with the standardsgover ing yard-ehstraEtions- chapters 21 n 36 .,na 21A.41 of this title, substantially impairs their ability to access their single family or an uncovered access ramp-with with disabilities including, but not limited to, covered ramps, side yard or parking area modifications or similard'f t' deter„-,ining that: the needs of the applicant; 2. The proposed special exception would have no substantial adverse impact upon the neighborhood; and 3. The obstruction to accommodate acce.,s for persons with disabilities will be removed when the person with a disability moves or no longer needs special access. D. Hobby Shops, Studios And Other Noncommercial Uses In Accessory Structures: The board of adjustment may approve as a special exception a private study art studio hobby in an accessorystructure, subject t„ the f clewing , ne itions: 1. The height of the accessory structure shall not-exceed the height limit established in subsection 21A.4n.nc fthis title Iles, a special-exception llowing additiornal height is obtained. 2. If the accessory building is located within ten feet (10') of a property line, no ,,us,,, windows shall be allowed in the walls adjacent to the property lines. 3. If the accessory building is detached it must be located in the rear yard. /1. The total covered area for accessory buildings cannot exceed fifty percent (50%)of the r-ar yard area. Legalization of Excess Dwelling Units: The board of adjustment may grant a special exception legalizing an excess number of residential dwelling units in accordance with the-following application requirements and standards: 1. Applications: Applicants for legalization of excess dwelling units are subject to-the specific requirements set below. a. Application For Excess Dwelling Units Constructed Without A Permit Before 1970: The application shall state: (1) The same requirements as listed „bsectio,, 2, n 5 nnnn (this chapter. and (2) The date of construction of the excess dwelling units and evidence of the construction at that date. b. Application For Excess Dwelling Units Constructed Without A Permit After 1969 And Before January 1, 1980: The application shall state: ; and (2) The date of construction of the excess dwelling units and evidence of the construction at that date; and Ai% (3) The party responsible for constructing the excess dwelling units; and ('1) The relationship between the present owner and the person constructing the excess dwelling units. c. Application For Excess Dwelling Units With Implied Permit: The application shall state: (1) The same requirements as listed in subsection 21A.52.0'I0A of this chapter; and (2) The date of construction of the excess units and evidence of such construction; and (3) Evidence of the implied permit. 2. Required Findings: The board of adjustment may authorize a special exception legalizing the excess number of dwelling units applied for upon making findings that support the following conclusions: a. Required Findings For Excess Dwelling Units Constructed Without A Permit Before 1970: (1) The excess dwelling units were constructed before 1970 and have been continuously used as dwelling units; and (2) The building services and licensing division has certified: (A)That the building and units substantially comply with life and safety codes or will be brought into substantial compliance pursuant to building permits which have been applied and paid for, and (B)That off street parking hash h^ d s ,,.fced ana fu he t„ the extent space is available on the rt• the 1970 parking standa,.ds have been complied with. An alternative parking requirement, as o f red in-sectio 1 n n n n3 n f t .st-itl'e, `•l,.,ll 1-.0 , video , r to satisfy the parking that was requires t th t th + created, and (C)Th t ll d a iol t; h. be ted;(3) The owner has applied for an apartment license if the building contain three (3) or more dwelling units. b. Required Findings For Excess Dwelling Units Constructed Without A Permit A f+ 1 969 A d R f T 1 1 980 For U„•ts Not Constr„cted By - e i"sr ��-z�� r�rr'lTs-rro-rccrrs�rucrc�r�j 1 alp Owner Or An Immediate Family Relative Of Owner O, A Corporat:o,, Or Partnership With Similar Ownership And/Or Control: (1) The number of units of excess-.dwelhng-units-of-the-buikling-wnu14-have h 11 !1 b. th n cl s:f;c t; sting at the time of construction and the units have been continuously so used; (2) Th .1;.-1 of st, et the xcess d, elll nits of iJ not immediate family relative or, in the easesf-a corporation or partnership, dwelling units; and P±Th h 'ldi- U :' g o n.] 1; d sion haJ le p d: Z4f-tla (A)Th t tl b. ilding nd, ,nits substantially comply with life a„!1 safety codes or will be brought into compliance pursuant to building permits issued and paid for by applicant, space is available,the rL stan and „l; ahle at the time of construction of the excess dwelling units has been complied with. An It 1 o ent „tline ; ect;on 21 A I.030 of this title, shall be provided prior to the approval of any unit legalization application if the applicant cannot satisfy the parking that was required t th t th t .1 a (C)That all nondimensional zoning violations have been corrected; ('I) The owner-has-applied for an apartment-license if the building contains three (3) or more dwelling units; �Z.L3 Vll U117 lUl lull Lll1Ji .l t' 1 h. ode def;, aff inn the h, ildi it. rl + .1 b th .late s ,ah o s dwelling , ,nits . nstructed , be recorded with the county recorder as a certificate of nonconformance. After any sale or other transfer of the property the certificate of neneenf shall l be effecti. ,,d the cit. ,fn e a ry t' v ide t;al ho ode olationc nclud g th fa fl , lv Jc. i1.lc,riila.a.ix iil the certificate of nonconformance. After 1969 And Before January 1, 1980 For Units Constructed By The Owner Or An Immediate Family Relative Of Owner Or A Corporation Or Partnership ,, 014, With Similar Ownership And/Or Control: (1) The number of excess dwelling units of the building would have been s .w allowed by the zoning classification existing at the time of construction te , „ ts ve een nt ,,uousl uanah ihb i ,d;, . d (2) The building n l censing .division has certified: `Ll 1 lll. V Li13Y..LII1 0 , (A)That the building and units substantially comply with life and safety codes or will be brought into compliance pursuant to building permits issued and paid for by applicant, (B)That off street parking has been hard surfaced and that, to the extent space is available, the parking standard applicable at the time of construction of the excess dwelling units has been complied with. An alternative parking requirement, as outlined in section 21 A.44.030 of this title, shall be provided prior to the approval of any unit legalization application if the applicant cannot satisfy the parking that was required at the time the excess units were created, and , ++Ja v++K LViii 1b YiV K 1V11J KYV VVVll liVlllJV Llitl, (3) The oy er h s plied for p.Yrtment lice se i f tL b 'ld' + �.�, i+av vY♦+ivi a+K�r KYra+vu iV+ K++a�wr Ki LiiiviiL iivvii.l� ii l.i1V Vulll.{llis vV11Lu1I1J three (3) or more dwelling units; (1) For legalizations permitted pursuant to this subsection E2c, a certificate of nonconf shall be Y ordeal witL, the n+ .der f f rt4 +av+avva1iv11tiLaiivv J11K11 Vv iVV Vli YY 1L11 1V VV Kll L}' 1liVC)l�L existing residential housing code deficiencies affecting the building or ,,:t. s ,determi„e.d by the dates ,c o s dwelling, 'tom mok Klll LJ, aJ ua,.Y.y constructed, and any further parking or zoning deficiencies. After any sale "' , or other transfer of the property the certificate of nonconformance shall no 1V 11�,Lil Vlr lill\,..VL1 Vli , � parking-violations,including those referenced in the certificate of neneenformanee, d. Required Findings For Excess Dwelling Units With Implied Permit: (1) The nits . v „st,.,,cted �,,d ntintlettel< + ,d b f n 'l 1'� �., +a-v »a+a�� vav vv++��+..av�vw K++w vV++..a++KVK 1' Vr�.i KLVK l/V1ll1V L 1rJ111 1L, 1995, with an implied permit; and (2) The building services and licensing division has certified: (A)Substantial compliance with life and safety codes, (B)That all nonrlim l l +ions ha b + ,d ,d ��., e'+-"l-Sr oTmr cBirrirg^�zoracrorr�-rrcr-v e�ccrr-cvrrcccccrzrncc (C)That off street parking has been hard surfaced and that, to the extent the d to of the implied er it hu e b l' ,d 'tl n It t' r -�d'� VV"V'Ll VVlllrllltu VV1Z parking r nt, utlined in section 21A.41.030 of this title, shall be provided prior to the approval of any unit legalization at the time the excess units were created. 3. Appeals: The El of the bu ld: d l' d' „� n o L1 Jllls ul y 1 substantial compliance with life and safety codes may be app algid to the prof� clu d; th i do at:.,,,, oft .,l b a he I b. The decision of the board of adjustment regarding legalization may be appealed to the district court pursuant to section 21 A.16.0'10 of this title. > n to Di g I v o e,a v r,l n r . The b, rd f ad;ustr, + �___ -___��a _____ _1_.____. - _-__- _ _ _.._. J ZST.111Uy Uii1V,tU special exception outdoor dining in required front, rear and side yards if the board of adjustment finds that: licensed indoor restaurant, private club, tavern, market, deli, and other retail sales establislument-that-sell-feed-ruf-drink-srin-the-RB -MU-and R MU zones or any zone allowing such uses where the outdoor dining does not comply with chapter 21A.18 or subsection 21A.36.020B of this title; 2. All required business, health and other regulatory licenses for the adjoining indoor restaurant have been secured; 3. A detailed site plan demonstrating the following: a. All the proposed outdoor dining activities will be conducted on private property owned or otherwise controlled by the applicant and that none of the activities will occur on any publicly owned rights of way unless separate approval for the use of any such public rights of way has been obtained from the city, > > other table covers or barriers surrounding the area, and odl ,tdo r l; ill not ; ede edestr n or vehicular tr_?ffic 4. The proposed outdoor dining complies with all conditions pertaining to any existing variances, conditional uses or other approvals granted for the property; 5. Live music will not be performed nor loudspeakers played in the outdoor dining area unless the decibel level is within conformance with the Salt Lake City noise control ordinance, title 9, chapter 9.28 of this code; and activities. Shared parking is allowed. G. Additional Height In Commercial Districts: The board of adjustment may approve additional height in commercial districts s„b ect to the f flowing conditio s. 1. The building exceeds twenty thousand(20,000) square feet on the first floor; 2. The additional height will not exceed ten percent (10%) of the maximum height for the commercial district; 3. The additional height will not permit additional stories greater than allowed in the commercial district; and T e�7 W t7,� Two Feet O f The Propert Lin • Window,Y .,ted ref igorated �v�t�tt-YY-rttriiiTw'o-rc line must comply= thh�lic-ablo Salt T ake Vall y ealth departmen+ ta„dard� c�urcicnc�. ru . zcurcrra urcrrrcrrriroi�c�Tarrcrcrra�-. I. Ground Mounted Central Air Conditioning Compressors Or Systems, Heating, Ventilating, Pool And Filtering Equipment Located Within Four Feet Of The Property Line: Ground mounted central air conditioning compressors or systems, heating, ventilating, pool and filtering equipment in the side yard located closer than four feet(4') from the-lot-line must comply with standards. 21A.52.110: REVOCATION OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION: If the zoning administrator determines that the conditions of a special exception or other applicable provisions of this title are not met, the zoning administrator may initiate action to revoke a special exception. given pursuant to the requirements ofchapter 21 ^ 1-O this-title-The-netice-shal-infe-r-m date. 21A.10 of this title. C. Board Of Adjustment Decision: Following the hearing, the board of adjustment shall decide whether or not to revoke th pt;on; erdan e with the fndings and decisions in subsection 21A.10.030F of this title. 21A.52.120: RELATION OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION: A special exception shall be deemed to relate to, d b f th" b fit f th d lot in question rather than the owner or operator of such use or lot. 21A.52.130: AMENDMENTS . s„b eet to the standardo rl l '+ t' i rl Lth chapter f its a1 pl, 21A.52.140: APPEAL OF DECISION: Any party adversely affected by the decision of the board of adjustment may, pursuant to section21 n i 04 n f th;s tits o appeal to the-district ceurt within thirty (30)days of the date a dookk of-the decision. 21A.52.010—Purpose Statement The planning commission or historic landmark commission may delegate its authority as necessary to the planning director to make a determination regarding special exceptions. The planning director may approve the special exceptions authorized by this title in accordance with the procedures and standards set out in this chapter and other regulations applicable to the district in which the subject property is located. 21A.52.020—Definition A special exception is an activity or use incidental to or in addition to the principal use(s) permitted in a zoning district or an adjustment to a fixed dimension standard permitted as exception to the requirements of this title of less potential impact than a conditional use but which requires a careful review of such factors as location, design, configuration and/or impacts to determine the desirability of authorizing its establishment on any given site. .21A.52.030—Special Exceptions Authorized In addition to any other special exceptions authorized elsewhere in this title, the following special exceptions are authorized under the provisions of this title: 1. Accessory building height, including wall height, in excess of the permitted height '°""* provided: a. The extra height is for architectural purposes only, such as a steep roof to match existing primary structure or neighborhood character. b. The extra height is to be used for storage of household goods or truss webbing and not to create a second level. c. No windows are located in the roof or on the second level unless it is a design feature only. d. No commercial use is made of the structure or residential use unless it complies with the accessory dwelling unit regulations in chapter 21 A.XX. 2. Accessory structures in the front yard of double frontage lots, which do not have any rear yard provided: a. The required site visibility triangle shall be maintained at all times. b. The structure meets all other size and height limits governed by the zoning ordinance. 3. Additional height for fences, walls or similar structures may be granted to exceed the height limits established for fences and walls in chapter 21A.40 of this title if it is determined that there will be no negative impacts upon the established character of the affected neighborhood and streetscape, maintenance of public and private views, and matters of public safety. Approval of fences, walls and other similar structures may be granted under the following circumstances subject to compliance with other applicable requirements. a. Exceeding the allowable height limits; provided, that the fence, wall or structure is constructed of wrought iron, tubular steel or other similar material, and that the open. spatial and nonstructural area of the fence, wall or other similar structure constitutes at least eighty percent (80%) of its total area; b. Exceeding the allowable height limits within thirty feet(30') of the intersection of front property lines on any corner lot; unless the City's traffic engineer determines that permitting the additional height would cause an unsafe traffic condition. c. Incorporation of ornamental features or architectural embellishments which extend above the allowable height limits; d. Exceeding the allowable height limits, when erected around schools and approved recreational uses which require special height considerations; e. Exceeding the allowable height limits, in cases where it is determined that a negative impact occurs because of levels of noise,pollution, light or other encroachments on the rights to privacy, safety, security and aesthetics. f. Keeping within the character of the neighborhood and urban design of the city; g. Avoiding a walled in effect in the front yard of any property in a residential district where the clear character of the neighborhood in front yard areas is one of open spaces from property to property; or h. Posing a safety hazard when there is a driveway on the petitioners' property or neighbor's property adjacent to the proposed fence, wall or similar structure. 4. Additional building height in commercial districts are subject to the standards in chapter 21A.26. ANN 5. Additional foothills building height, including wall height, shall comply with the standards in chapter 21A.24. 6. Additional residential building height, including wall height, in the R-1 districts, R-2 districts and SR districts shall comply with the standards in chapter 21 A.24. 7. Alternative parking requests shall comply with the standards and considerations of chapter 21.44. 8. Barbed wire fences may be approved subject to the regulations of chapter 21A.40. 9. Conditional home occupations subject to the regulations and conditions of chapter 21A.36. 10. Dividing existing lots containing two or more separate residential structures into separate lots that would not meet lot size, frontage width or setbacks provided: a. The residential structures for the proposed lot split already exist and were constructed legally. b. The planning director agrees and is willing to approve a minor subdivision application. c. Required parking equal to the parking requirement that existed at the time that each dwelling unit was constructed. ANN 11. Front yard parking shall comply with the standards found in chapter 21A.44. 12. Grade changes and retaining walls are subject to the regulations and standards of chapter 21.36. 13. Ground mounted central air conditioning compression or systems, heating, ventilating, pool and filtering equipment located in required side and rear yards within four feet of the property line. The mechanical equipment shall comply with applicable Salt Lake County Health Department noise standards. 14. Hobby shop, art studio, exercise room or a dressing room adjacent to a swimming pool. or other similar uses in an accessory structure, subject to the following conditions: a. The height of the accessory structure shall not exceed the height limit established by the underlying zoning district unless a special exception allowing additional height is allowed. b. If an accessory building is located within ten(10') feet of a property line, no windows shall be allowed in the walls adjacent to the property lines. c. If the accessory building is detached, it must be located in the rear yard. d. The total covered area for an accessory building shall not exceed fifty (50%) percent of the building footprint of the principal structure, subject to all accessory building size limitations. ANN. 15. Inline additions to existing residential or commercial buildings, which are non- complying as to yard area or height regulations provided: a. The addition follows the existing building line and does not create any new noncompliance. b. No additional dwelling units are added to the structure. c. The addition is a legitimate architectural addition with rooflines and exterior materials designed to be compatible with the original structure. 16. Operation of registered home daycare or registered home preschool facility in residential districts subject to the standards of chapter 21A.36. 17. Outdoor dining in required front, rear and side yards subject to the regulations and standards of chapter 21A.40. 18. Razor wire fencing may be approved subject to the regulations and standards in chapter 21A.40. 19. Replacement or reconstruction of any existing non-complying segment of a residential or commercial structure or full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure provided: a. The owner documents that the new construction does not encroach further into any required rear yard than the structure being replaced. b. The addition or replacement is compatible in design, size and architectural style with the remaining or previous structure. 20. Underground building encroachments into the front, side, rear and corner side yard setbacks provided the addition is totally underground and there is no visual evidence that such an encroachment exists. 21. Window mounted refrigerated air conditioner and evaporative swamp coolers located in required front, corner, side and rear yards within two feet of a property line shall comply with applicable Salt Lake County Health Department noise standards. 21A.52.040—Procedure A. An application for a special exception shall be processed in accordance with the following procedures: 1. Application: An application may be made by the owner of the subject property or the owner's authorized agent to the planning director on a form or forms provided by the planning director, which shall include at least the following information, unless deemed unnecessary by the planning director: a. The applicant's name, address, telephone number, email address and interest in the subject property; b. The owner's name, address and telephone number, if different than the applicant, ,mok and the owner's signed consent to the filing of the application; c. The street address and legal description of the subject property; d. The Salt Lake County property tax number; e. The proposed title of the project and the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the architect, landscape architect, planner or engineer on the project; f. A complete description of the proposed special exception; g. A plan or drawing drawn to a scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1"=20') or larger which includes the following information: (1) Actual dimensions of the lot, (2) Exact sizes and location of all existing and proposed buildings or other structures, (3) Driveways, (4) Parking spaces, (5) Safety curbs, (6) Landscaping, f 7) Location of trash receptacles, and (8) Drainage features; h. Traffic impact analysis; i. Such other and further information or documentation as the planning director may deem necessary or appropriate for a full and proper consideration and disposition of the particular application. 0044 2. Determination of Completeness: Upon receipt of an application for a special exception, the planning director shall make a determination of completeness pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title, and that the applicant has submitted all of the information necessary to satisfy the notification requirements of chapter 21A.10 of this title. 3. Fee: The application for a special exception shall be accompanied by the fee established on the fee schedule, chapter 21A.64 of this title. 4. Notice: A notice of application for a special exception shall be provided in accordance with chapter 21A.10. 5. Approval Process: The approval process for a special exception as listed in this title is a two tiered process as follows: A. Review and Decision by the Planning Director: On the basis of written findings of fact, the planning director or the planning director's designee shall either approve, deny or conditionally approve an application for a special exception based on the standards in this chapter. The decision of the planning director shall become effective at the time the decision is made. B. Referral of Application by Planning Director to Planning Commission: The planning director or the planning director's designee may refer any application to ,0604, the planning commission due to the complexity of the application, the significance in change to the property or the surrounding area. 21A.52.050 —Coordinated Review and Approval of Applications Whenever an application for a special exception requires a variance, the applicant shall indicate that fact on the application and shall first file a variance application with the board of adjustment. The special exception shall then be reviewed after a public hearing by the board of adjustment on the variance request. 21A.52.060 —General Standards and Considerations for Special Exceptions No application for a special exception shall be approved unless the planning commission or the planning director determines that the proposed special exception is appropriate in the location proposed based upon its consideration of the general standards set forth below and, where applicable, the specific conditions for certain special exceptions. A. Compliance with ordinance and district purposes: The proposed use and development will be in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which this title was enacted and for which the regulations of the district were established. B. No substantial impairment of property value: The proposed use and development will not substantially diminish or impair the value of the property within the neighborhood in which it is located. C. No undue adverse impact: Theproposed use and development will not have a material adverse effect upon the character of the area or the public health, safety and general welfare. D. Compatible with surrounding development: The proposed special exception will be constructed, arranged and operated so as to be compatible with the use and development of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable district regulations. E. No destruction of significant features: The proposed use and development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of natural, scenic or historic features of significant importance. F. No material pollution of environment: The proposed use and development will not cause material air, water, soil or noise pollution or other types of pollution. G. Compliance with standards: The proposed use and development complies with all additional standards imposed on it pursuant to this chapter. 21A.52.070— Conditions on Special Exceptions Conditions and limitations necessary or appropriate to prevent or minimize adverse effects upon other property and improvements in the vicinity of the special exception or upon public facilities and services may be imposed on each application. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, conditions concerning use, construction, operation, character, location, Amot landscaping, screening and other matters relating to the purposes and objectives of this title. Such conditions shall be expressly set forth in the approval record of the special exception. 21A.52.080—Relation of Special Exception A special exception shall be deemed to relate to, and be for the benefit of, the use and lot in question rather than the owner or operator of such use or lot. 21A.52.090—Amendments to Special Exceptions A special exception may be amended, varied or altered only pursuant to the procedures and subject to the standards and limitations provided in this chapter for its original approval. 21A.52.100—Extensions of Time Subject to an extension of time granted upon application to the planning director, no special exception shall be valid for a period longer than one year unless a building permit is issued or complete building plans have been submitted to the division of building services and licensing within that period. The planning director may grant an extension of a special exception for up to one additional year when the applicant is able to demonstrate no change in circumstance that would result in an unmitigated impact. Extension requests must be submitted to the planning director in writing prior to the expiration of the exception. 21A.52.110—Authority to Inspect The planning director or their designee shall have the authority to inspect all properties for Au compliance with special exception conditions as often as necessary to assure continued "° compliance. 21A.52.120—Appeal of Decision A. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning director may appeal the decision to the planning commission pursuant to the provisions in chapter 21A.16 of this title. B. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission on an application for a special exception may file an appeal to the land use appeals board within ten (10) days of the date of the decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, unless the planning commission takes specific action to stay a decision. 21A.52.130—Revocation of Special Exceptions Violation of any such condition or limitation shall be a violation of this title and shall constitute grounds for revocation of the special exception. If the planning director determines that the conditions of a special exception or other applicable provisions of this title are not met, the planning director may initiate action to revoke a special exception. A. Notice: Notice of a hearing by the planning commission to consider revocation shall be given pursuant to the requirements of chapter 21A.10 of this title. The notice shall inform the holder of the special exception of the grounds for the revocation and set a hearing date. "" B. Public hearing: The scheduled hearing shall conform to the requirements of chapter 21A.10 of this title. C. Planning Commission decision: Following the hearing, the planning commission shall decide whether or not to revoke the special exception in accordance with the findings and decisions in chapter 21A.10 of this title. 21A.52.140—Effect on Denial of Special Exception No application for a special exception shall be considered by the planning commission or the planning commission's designee within one year of a final decision upon a prior application covering substantially the same subject on substantially the same property if the prior application was denied and not appealed. SECTION 28. 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 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to special exception review procedures) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00785 to transfer the decision-making authority of special exceptions from the board of adjustment to the planning commission. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission("planning commission") held a public hearing on July 13, 2011 to consider a request made by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker (petition no. PLNPCM2010-00785) to amend the text of chapters 21A.06 (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials); 21A.14 (Zoning: Routine and Uncontested Matters); 21A.24 (Zoning: Residential Districts); 21A.26 (Zoning: Commercial Districts); 21A.34 (Zoning: Overlay Districts); 21A.36 (Zoning: General Provisions); 21A.38 (Zoning: Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures); 21A.40 (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures); 21A.44 (Zoning: Off Street Parking and Loading); 21A.46 (Zoning: Signs); 21A.52 (Zoning: Special Exceptions); and 21A.62 (Zoning: Definitions) of the Salt Lake City Code; and WHEREAS, at its July 13, 2011 hearing, the planning commission voted in favor of recommending to the Salt Lake City Council that the city council amend 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.06.030.B. That section 21A.06.030.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Planning Commission), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: B. Jurisdiction And Authority: The planning commission shall have the following powers and duties in connection with the implementation of this title: 1. Prepare and recommend to the city council for adoption, a comprehensive, general plan and amendments to the general plan for the present and future needs of the city and the growth and development of the land within the city or any part of the city; 2. Make comprehensive surveys and studies of the existing conditions and trends of growth and of the probable future requirements of the city and its residents as part of the preparation of the general plan; 3. Initiate amendments to the text of this title and to the zoning map pursuant to the provisions of section 21A.50.020 of this title; 4. Review, evaluate and make recommendations to the city council on proposed amendments to this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in sections 21A.50.030 and 21A.50.040 of this title; 5. Review, hear and decide applications for conditional uses, including planned developments, pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.54, "Conditional Uses", of this title; 6. Hear and decide appeals from administrative hearing decisions of the planning director; and 7. Hear and decide applications for subdivision amendments and approvals pursuant to the municipal land use development and management act, title 10, chapter 9 of the Utah Code Annotated. 8. Authorize special exceptions to the terms of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.52, "Special Exceptions", of this title; 9. Make determinations regarding the existence, expansion or modification of noncomforming uses and noncomplying structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, "Nonconforming Uses And Noncomplying Structures", of this title. SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.06.040.B. That section 21A.06.040.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Board of Adjustment), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: B. Jurisdiction And Authority: The board of adjustment shall have the following powers and duties in connection with the implementation of this title: 1. Hear and decide appeals from any administrative decision made by the zoning administrator in the administration or the enforcement of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.16, "Appeals Of Administrative Decisions", of this title with the exception of administrative reviews of certificates of appropriateness which shall be appealed to the historic landmark commission, as set forth in subsection 21A.06.050C3 of this chapter; 2. Authorize variances from the tennis of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.18, "Variances", of this title; SECTION 3. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.06.040.E. That section 21A.06.040.E of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Board of Adjustment), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: E. The board of adjustment shall convene meetings as needed throughout the year. SECTION 4. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.06.050.C. That section 21A.06.050.0 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Historic Landmark Commission), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: C. Jurisdiction And Authority: In addition to carrying out the general purposes set forth in subsection B of this section, the historic landmark commission shall: 1. Conduct surveys of significant historic, architectural, and cultural landmarks and historic districts within the city; 2. Petition the city council to designate identified structures, areas or resources as landmark sites or H historic preservation overlay districts; 3. Review and approve or deny an application for a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to the provisions of chapter 21A.34 of this title; 4. Develop and participate in public education programs to increase public awareness of the value of historic, architectural and cultural preservation; 5. Review and approve or deny applications for the demolition of structures in the H historic preservation overlay district pursuant to chapter 21A.34 of this title; 6. Recommend to the planning commission the boundaries for the establishment of an H historic preservation overlay district and landmark sites; 7. Make recommendations when requested by the planning commission, the board of adjustment or the city council, as appropriate, on applications for zoning • amendments, conditional uses and special exceptions involving H historic ,do►a preservation overlay districts and landmark sites; 8. Review and approve or deny certain special exceptions for properties located within an H historic preservation overlay district. The certain special exceptions are listed as follows: a. Building wall height; b. Garage height; c. Garage square footage; d. Fence height; e. Overall building height; and f. Signs. 9. Make recommendations to the city council concerning the utilization of state, federal or private funds to promote the preservation of landmark sites and H historic preservation overlay districts within the city; 10. Make recommendations to the city council regarding the acquisition of landmark structures or structures eligible for landmark status where preservation is essential to the purposes of chapter 21A.34, "H Historic Preservation Overlay District", of this title, and where private preservation is infeasible; ANN 11. Make recommendations to the planning commission in connection with the preparation of the general plan of the city; and 12. Make recommendations to the city council on policies and ordinances that may encourage preservation of buildings and related structures of historic and architectural significance. SECTION 5. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code chapter 21A.14. That section 21A.14 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Routine and Uncontested Matters), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: Chapter 21A.14 [Deleted] SECTION 6. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.24.010.P.2. That section 21A.24.010.P.2 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: General Provisions: Special Foothills Regulations), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2. Height Special Exception: The planning commission, as a special exception to the height regulations of the applicable district, may approve a permit to exceed the maximum building height but shall not have the authority to grant additional stories. To grant a height special exception the planning commission must find the proposed plan: a. Is a design better suited to the site than can be achieved by strict compliance to these regulations; and b. Satisfies the following criteria: (1) The topography of the lot presents difficulties for construction when the foothill height limitations are applied, (2) The structure has been designed for the topographic conditions existing on the particular lot, and (3) The impact of additional height on neighboring properties has been identified and reasonably mitigated. c. In making these considerations the planning commission can consider the size of the lot upon which the structure is proposed. d. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to submit sufficient data to persuade the planning commission that the criteria have been satisfied. e. The planning commission may deny an application for a height special exception if: (1) The architectural plans submitted are designed for structures on level, or nearly level, ground, and the design is transposed to hillside lots requiring support foundations such that the structure exceeds the height limits of these regulations; (2) The additional height can be reduced by modifying the design of the structure through the use of stepping or terracing or by altering the placement of the structure on the lot; (3) The additional height will substantially impair the views from adjacent lots, and the impairment can be avoided by modification; or (4) The proposal is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. SECTION 7. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.24.050.D.6. That section 21A.24.050.D.6 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District: Maximum Building Height), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 6. a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The planning commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be reviewed by the historic landmarks commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 8. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.24.060.D.6. That section 21A.24.060.D.6 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District: Maximum Building Height), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 6. a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The planning commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be reviewed by the historic landmarks commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this ,,.mi,, title. SECTION 9. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.24.070.D.6. That section 21A.24.070.D.6 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District: Maximum Building Height), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 6. a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The planning commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be reviewed by the historic landmarks commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 10. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.24.080.D.6. That section 21A.24.080.D.6 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: SR-1 and SR- 1 A Special Development Pattern Residential District: Maximum Building Height), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 6. a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The planning commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be reviewed by the historic landmarks commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 11. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.24.100.D.6. That section 21A.24.100.D.6 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District: Maximum Building Height), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 6. a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the plarming commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The planning commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be reviewed by the historic landmarks commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34,020 of this title. SECTION 12. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.24.110.D.6. That section 21A.24.110.D.6 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District: Maximum Building Height), shall be, and hereby is, 40111114, amended to read as follows: 6. a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The planning commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be reviewed by the historic landmarks commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 13. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.26.010.J.1.a. That section 21A.26.010.J.1.a of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: General Provisions: Modifications to Maximum Height), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: xsook 1. Modifications Of Ten Percent Or Less Of Maximum Height: a. The planning commission may approve, as a special exception, additional height not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the maximum height pursuant to the standards and procedures of chapter 21A.52 of this title. Specific conditions for approval are found in chapter 21A.52 of this title. SECTION 14. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.34.120. That sections 21A.34.120.G and 21A.34.120.H of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District), shall be, and hereby are, amended (the remainder of chapter 21A.34.120 is not affected by this amendment) to read as follows: G. Special Exception For Garages: A garage built into a hillside and located forward of the front line of the building may be allowed as a special exception granted by the planning commission, subject to the following standards: 1. The rear and side yards cannot be reasonably accessed for the purpose of parking. 2. Because of the topography of the lot it is impossible to construct a garage and satisfy the standards of the YCI. 3. The ceiling elevation of the garage is below the elevation of the first or main floor of the house. 4. The garage meets all applicable yard requirements. H. [Deleted] SECTION 15. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.36.020.B. That note 2 to Table 21A.36.020.B appearing in section 21A.36.020.B of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning: General Provisions: Obstructions in Required Yards), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2. Below grade encroachments (encroachments which are completely below grade where the surface grade remains intact and where the below grade encroachment is not visible from the surface) into required yards shall be treated as a special exception in accordance with the procedures set forth in chapter 21A.52 of this title. SECTION 16. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.36.030.D. That section 21A.36.030.D of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Home Occupations: Conditional Home Occupations), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: D. Conditional Home Occupations: 1. The following home occupations, which either require a client to come to the home or which may result in neighborhood impacts if not properly managed, may be authorized by the planning commission as an accessory use only by special exception pursuant to standards specified in this section as well as the provisions of chapter 21A.52 of this title: a. Barbers, cosmetologists, manicurists; b. Consultant services; c. Physicians, therapists, massage therapists; d. Home instruction of musical instruments, voice, dance, acting and educational subjects; e. Small appliance/electronics/equipment repair or service (items which can be carried in 1 individual's arms); f. Dressmaker/tailor where there is no cleaning, dyeing or pressing by mechanically 0004, operated equipment; g. Contractor, "handyman", and landscape or yard maintenance contractor; subject to the special conditions that no construction materials or equipment will be stored on the premises; h. Artists, photographers; and i. Other similar personal or professional services where the client comes to the home. 2. The planning commission may delegate authority to the planning director to handle special exceptions for conditional home occupations. The planning director will review and approve applications in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.52 of this title. SECTION 17. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.36.030.I. That section 21A.36.030.I of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Home Occupations: Decision by Board of Adjustment or Zoning Administrator), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: I. Decision By Planning Commission or Planning Director: The planning commission or planning director shall issue a permit for the home occupation if the planning commission or planning director finds that: 1. The provisions of this title are satisfied; 2. The home occupation will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and will not adversely affect the desirability or stability of the neighborhood; 3. The home occupation does not diminish the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties or create an adverse parking impact on adjacent streets or properties; 4. The home occupation will not negatively impact the future use of the property as a residence; 5. The home occupation will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare; and 6. The home occupation conforms with all fire, building, plumbing, electrical and health codes. SECTION 18. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.36.030.K. That section 21A.36.030.K of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Home Occupations: Appeals), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: K. Appeals: • 1. Any termination of a home occupation may be appealed pursuant to the provisions of title 5, chapter 5.02 of this code as if the termination were a business license revocation. 2. Any person adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a permit for a home occupation may appeal that decision to the land use appeals board pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. SECTION 19. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.38.080.E.2.b. That section 21A.38.080.E.2.b of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures: Moving, Enlarging or Altering Nonconforming Uses of Land and Structures), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: b. Nonconforming Nonresidential Uses: The planning commission may authorize as a special exception the reconstruction and reestablishment of a legal nonconforming nonresidential use structure subject to consideration of the following: (1) Reconstruction plans shall be reviewed to consider the feasibility of site redesign to better meet underlying zoning district standards without a reduction in type or intensity of use of the property; (2) Compliance with all other current, local or state development standards (e.g., floodplain hazard protection, fault line hazards, ground water source protection, airport flight path protection, environmental perforrrrance standards, and hazardous waste prohibition); (3) The reconstruction and reuse of the structure would not change the character of the neighborhood by using construction materials which did not exist previously on the building. Other building materials should not be used, unless the materials are compatible with the neighborhood; and/or (4) Consideration of the enforcement history of the property regarding any continual public nuisance generated by the nonconforming use activity. SECTION 20. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.38.090.C.2.b(2). That ,, ok section 21A.38.090.C.2.b(2) of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures: Noncomplying Structures: Damage or Partial Destruction of Noncomplying Structure), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: (2) Nonconforming Nonresidential Uses: The planning commission may authorize as a special exception the reconstruction and reestablishment of a legal noncomplying structure with a nonconforming nonresidential use subject to consideration of the following: (A) Reconstruction plans shall be reviewed through the site plan review process to consider the feasibility of site redesign to better meet underlying zoning district standards without a reduction in type or intensity of use of the property; (B) Compliance with all other current, local or state development standards (e.g., floodplain hazard protection, fault line hazards, ground water source protection, airport flight path protection, environmental performance standards, and hazardous waste prohibition); (C) The reconstruction and reuse of the structure would not change the character of the neighborhood by using construction materials which did not exist previously on the building. Other building materials should not be used, unless the materials are compatible with the neighborhood; and/or (D) Consideration of the enforcement history of the property regarding any continual public nuisance generated by the nonconforming use activity. SECTION 21. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.40.110. That section 21A.40.110 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Automatic Amusement Devices), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.40.110 [Deleted] SECTION 22. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.40.120.E.2.g. That section 21A.40.120.E.2.g of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: g. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission or historic landmark commission may approve taller fencing if it is found that the extra height is necessary for the security of the property in question as defined in chapter 21A.52 of this title. SECTION 23. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.40.120.I. That section 21A.40.120.I of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Barbed Wire Fences), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: I. Barbed Wire Fences: 1. Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1, M-2 and D-2 districts. 2. Special Exception: Barbed wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, in all zoning districts except for those listed above as permitted uses. The planning commission may approve as special exceptions, the placement of barbed wire fences, for security reasons, or for the keeping of animals around nonresidential properties, transformer stations, microwave stations, construction sites or other similar publicly necessary or dangerous sites, provided the requested fence is not in any residential district and is not on or near the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. 3. Location Requirements: Barbed wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front yard setbacks nor along frontages on streets defined as gateway streets in Salt Lake City's adopted urban design element master plan. 4. Special Design Regulations: No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than six feet (6') high. No more than three (3) strands of barbed wire are permitted. The barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than sixty degrees (60°) from a vertical line. No barbed wire strand shall project over public property. If the barbed wire proposed slants outward over adjoining private property the applicant must submit written consent from adjoining property owner agreeing to such a projection over the property line. • 5. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission may approve, as a special exception, the building permit for a barbed wire fence if it is found that the applicant has shown that the fence is reasonably necessary for security in that it protects people from dangerous sites and conditions such as transformer stations, microwave station or construction sites. SECTION 24. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.40.120.J. That section 21A.40.120.J of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Razor Wire Fences), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: J. Razor Wire Fences 1. Special Exception: Razor wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, in the A, CG, D-2, M-1 and M-2 zoning districts. The planning commission may approve as a special exception the placement of razor wire fences, for security reasons, around commercial or industrial uses, transformer stations, microwave stations, or other similar public necessity or dangerous sites; provided, that the requested fence is not on the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. 2. Location Requirements: Razor wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front or corner side yard setback. 3. Special Design Regulations: No strand of razor wire shall be permitted on a fence that is less than seven feet (7') high. Razor wire coils shall not exceed eighteen inches (18") in diameter and must slant inward from the fence to which the razor wire is being attached. Amok 4. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission may approve razor wire fencing if the commission finds that the applicant has shown that razor wire is necessary for the security of the property in question. SECTION 25. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code to adopt subsection 21A.44.020.F. That section 21A.44.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking and Loading: General Off Street Parking Requirements), shall be, and hereby is, amended to adopt subsection 21A.44.020.F, which shall read as follows: F. Vehicle and equipment storage: In CG, M-1, M-2 and El zoning districts, vehicle and equipment storage may be allowed without hard surfacing as a special exception provided: a. The lot is used for long term vehicle storage, not for regular parking and/or maneuvering. b. The vehicles stored are large and/or on tracks that could destroy normal hard surfacing. c. The parking surface is compacted with six inches of road base and other semi-hard material with long lasting dust control chemical applied annually. d. A hard surfaced wash bay is installed to wash wheels to prevent tracking of mud and ,,, sand onto the public way. e. A minimum of 50 feet paved driveway from the public street property line. f. City Traffic Engineer's approval. SECTION 26. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.46.070.V. That section 21A.46.070.V of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: General Standards: Historic District Signs), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: V. Historic District Signs: The historic landmark commission may authorize, as a special exception, modification to an existing sign or the size or placement of a new sign in a historic district or on a landmark site if the applicant can demonstrate that the location, size and/or design of the proposed sign is compatible with the design period or theme of the historic structure or district and/or will cause less physical damage to the historically significant structure. SECTION 27. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code chapter 21A.52. That chapter 21A.52 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Special Exceptions), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: Chapter 21A.52 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 21A.52.010— Purpose Statement The planning commission or historic landmark commission may delegate its authority as necessary to the planning director to make a determination regarding special exceptions. The planning director may approve the special exceptions authorized by this title in accordance with the procedures and standards set out in this chapter and other regulations applicable to the district in which the subject property is located. 21A.52.020 —Definition A special exception is an activity or use incidental to or in addition to the principal use(s) permitted in a zoning district or an adjustment to a fixed dimension standard permitted as exception to the requirements of this title of less potential impact than a conditional use but which requires a careful review of such factors as location, design, configuration and/or impacts to determine the desirability of authorizing its establishment on any given site. 21A.52.030—Special Exceptions Authorized In addition to any other special exceptions authorized elsewhere in this title, the following special exceptions are authorized under the provisions of this title: 1. Accessory building height, including wall height, in excess of the permitted height provided: a. The extra height is for architectural purposes only, such as a steep roof to match existing primary structure or neighborhood character. b. The extra height is to be used for storage of household goods or truss webbing and not to create a second level. c. No windows are located in the roof or on the second level unless it is a design feature only. d. No commercial use is made of the structure or residential use unless it complies with the accessory dwelling unit regulations in chapter 21A.XX. 2. Accessory structures in the front yard of double frontage lots, which do not have any rear yard provided: a. The required site visibility triangle shall be maintained at all times. b. The structure meets all other size and height limits governed by the zoning ordinance. 3. Additional height for fences, walls or similar structures may be granted to exceed the height limits established for fences and walls in chapter 21A.40 of this title if it is determined that there will be no negative impacts upon the established character of the affected neighborhood and streetscape, maintenance of public and private views, and matters of public safety. Approval of fences, walls and other similar structures may be granted under the following circumstances subject to compliance with other applicable requirements. a. Exceeding the allowable height limits; provided, that the fence, wall or structure Ammikik is constructed of wrought iron, tubular steel or other similar material, and that the open, spatial and nonstructural area of the fence, wall or other similar structure constitutes at least eighty percent (80%) of its total area; b. Exceeding the allowable height limits within thirty feet (30') of the intersection of front property lines on any corner lot; unless the City's traffic engineer determines that permitting the additional height would cause an unsafe traffic condition. c. Incorporation of ornamental features or architectural embellishments which extend above the allowable height limits; d. Exceeding the allowable height limits, when erected around schools and approved recreational uses which require special height considerations; e. Exceeding the allowable height limits, in cases where it is determined that a negative impact occurs because of levels of noise, pollution, light or other encroachments on the rights to privacy, safety, security and aesthetics. f. Keeping within the character of the neighborhood and urban design of the city; g. Avoiding a walled in effect in the front yard of any property in a residential district where the clear character of the neighborhood in front yard areas is one of open spaces from property to property; or h. Posing a safety hazard when there is a driveway on the petitioners' property or neighbor's property adjacent to the proposed fence, wall or similar structure. 4. Additional building height in commercial districts are subject to the standards in chapter 21A.26. 5. Additional foothills building height, including wall height, shall comply with the standards in chapter 21A.24. 6. Additional residential building height, including wall height, in the R-1 districts, R-2 districts and SR districts shall comply with the standards in chapter 21A.24. 7. Alternative parking requests shall comply with the standards and considerations of chapter 21.44. 8. Barbed wire fences may be approved subject to the regulations of chapter 21A.40. 9. Conditional home occupations subject to the regulations and conditions of chapter 21A.36. 10. Dividing existing lots containing two or more separate residential structures into separate lots that would not meet lot size, frontage width or setbacks provided: a. The residential structures for the proposed lot split already exist and were constructed legally. b. The planning director agrees and is willing to approve a minor subdivision application. c. Required parking equal to the parking requirement that existed at the time that each dwelling unit was constructed. 11. Front yard parking shall comply with the standards found in chapter 21A.44. 12. Grade changes and retaining walls are subject to the regulations and standards of chapter 21.36. 13. Ground mounted central air conditioning compression or systems, heating, ventilating, pool and filtering equipment located in required side and rear yards within four feet of the property line. The mechanical equipment shall comply with applicable Salt Lake County Health Department noise standards. 14. Hobby shop, art studio, exercise room or a dressing room adjacent to a swimming pool, or other similar uses in an accessory structure, subject to the following conditions: a. The height of the accessory structure shall not exceed the height limit established by the underlying zoning district unless a special exception allowing additional height is allowed. b. If an accessory building is located within ten (10') feet of a property line, no windows shall be allowed in the walls adjacent to the property lines. c. If the accessory building is detached, it must be located in the rear yard. d. The total covered area for an accessory building shall not exceed fifty(50%) percent of the building footprint of the principal structure, subject to all accessory building size limitations. 15. Inline additions to existing residential or commercial buildings, which are non- complying as to yard area or height regulations provided: a. The addition follows the existing building line and does not create any new noncompliance. b. No additional dwelling units are added to the structure. c. The addition is a legitimate architectural addition with rooflines and exterior materials designed to be compatible with the original structure. 16. Operation of registered home daycare or registered home preschool facility in residential districts subject to the standards of chapter 21A.36. 17. Outdoor dining in required front, rear and side yards subject to the regulations and standards of chapter 21A.40. 18. Razor wire fencing may be approved subject to the regulations and standards in chapter 21A.40. 19. Replacement or reconstruction of any existing non-complying segment of a residential or commercial structure or full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure provided: a. The owner documents that the new construction does not encroach further into any required rear yard than the structure being replaced. b. The addition or replacement is compatible in design, size and architectural style — with the remaining or previous structure. 20. Underground building encroachments into the front, side, rear and corner side yard setbacks provided the addition is totally underground and there is no visual evidence that such an encroachment exists. 21. Window mounted refrigerated air conditioner and evaporative swamp coolers located in required front, corner, side and rear yards within two feet of a property line shall comply with applicable Salt Lake County Health Department noise standards. 21A.52.040 —Procedure A. An application for a special exception shall be processed in accordance with the following procedures: 1. Application: An application may be made by the owner of the subject property or the owner's authorized agent to the planning director on a form or forms provided by the planning director, which shall include at least the following information, unless deemed unnecessary by the planning director: a. The applicant's name, address, telephone number, email address and interest in the subject property; 0011110, b. The owner's name, address and telephone number, if different than the applicant, and the owner's signed consent to the filing of the application; c. The street address and legal description of the subject property; d. The Salt Lake County property tax number; e. The proposed title of the project and the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the architect, landscape architect, planner or engineer on the project; f. A complete description of the proposed special exception; g. A plan or drawing drawn to a scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1"=20') or larger which includes the following information: (1) Actual dimensions of the lot, (2) Exact sizes and location of all existing and proposed buildings or other structures, (3) Driveways, (4) Parking spaces, (5) Safety curbs, (6) Landscaping, (7) Location of trash receptacles, and (8) Drainage features; h. Traffic impact analysis; i. Such other and further information or documentation as the planning director may deem necessary or appropriate for a full and proper consideration and disposition of the particular application. 2. Determination of Completeness: Upon receipt of an application for a special exception, the planning director shall make a determination of completeness pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title, and that the applicant has submitted all of the information necessary to satisfy the notification requirements of chapter 21 A.10 of this title. 3. Fee: The application for a special exception shall be accompanied by the fee established on the fee schedule, chapter 21A.64 of this title. 4. Notice: A notice of application for a special exception shall be provided in accordance with chapter 21 A.10. 5. Approval Process: The approval process for a special exception as listed in this title is a two tiered process as follows: A. Review and Decision by the Planning Director: On the basis of written findings of fact, the planning director or the planning director's designee shall either approve, deny or conditionally approve an application for a special exception based on the standards in this chapter. The decision of the planning director shall become effective at the time the decision is made. B. Referral of Application by Planning Director to Planning Commission: The planning director or the planning director's designee may refer any application to the planning commission due to the complexity of the application, the significance in change to the property or the surrounding area. ,, 21A.52.050 — Coordinated Review and Approval of Applications Whenever an application for a special exception requires a variance, the applicant shall indicate that fact on the application and shall first file a variance application with the board of adjustment. The special exception shall then be reviewed after a public hearing by the board of adjustment on the variance request. 21A.52.060 —General Standards and Considerations for Special Exceptions No application for a special exception shall be approved unless the planning commission or the planning director determines that the proposed special exception is appropriate in the location proposed based upon its consideration of the general standards set forth below and, where applicable, the specific conditions for certain special exceptions. A. Compliance with ordinance and district purposes: The proposed use and development will be in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which this title was enacted and for which the regulations of the district were established. B. No substantial impairment of property value: The proposed use and development will not substantially diminish or impair the value of the property within the neighborhood in which it is located. C. No undue adverse impact: The proposed use and development will not have a Au material adverse effect upon the character of the area or the public health, safety and • general welfare. D. Compatible with surrounding development: The proposed special exception will be constructed, arranged and operated so as to be compatible with the use and development of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable district regulations. E. No destruction of significant features: The proposed use and development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of natural, scenic or historic features of significant importance. F. No material pollution of enviromnent: The proposed use and development will not cause material air, water, soil or noise pollution or other types of pollution. G. Compliance with standards: The proposed use and development complies with all additional standards imposed on it pursuant to this chapter. 21A.52.070 — Conditions on Special Exceptions Conditions and limitations necessary or appropriate to prevent or minimize adverse effects upon other property and improvements in the vicinity of the special exception or upon public facilities and services may be imposed on each application. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, conditions concerning use, construction, operation, character, location, landscaping, screening and other matters relating to the purposes and objectives of this title. Such conditions shall be expressly set forth in the approval record of the special exception. 21A.52.080—Relation of Special Exception A special exception shall be deemed to relate to, and be for the benefit of, the use and lot in question rather than the owner or operator of such use or lot. 21A.52.090 — Amendments to Special Exceptions A special exception may be amended, varied or altered only pursuant to the procedures and subject to the standards and limitations provided in this chapter for its original approval. 21A.52.100 — Extensions of Time Subject to an extension of time granted upon application to the planning director, no special exception shall be valid for a period longer than one year unless a building permit is issued or complete building plans have been submitted to the division of building services and licensing within that period. The planning director may grant an extension of a special exception for up to one additional year when the applicant is able to demonstrate no change in circumstance that would result in an unmitigated impact. Extension requests must be submitted to the planning director in writing prior to the expiration of the exception. 21A.52.110 — Authority to Inspect The planning director or their designee shall have the authority to inspect all properties for compliance with special exception conditions as often as necessary to assure continued compliance. 21A.52.120— Appeal of Decision A. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning director may appeal the decision to the planning commission pursuant to the provisions in chapter 21A.16 of this title. B. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission on an application for a special exception may file an appeal to the land use appeals board within ten (10) days of the date of the decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, unless the planning commission takes specific action to stay a decision. 21A.52.130— Revocation of Special Exceptions Violation of any such condition or limitation shall be a violation of this title and shall constitute grounds for revocation of the special exception. If the planning director determines that the conditions of a special exception or other applicable provisions of this title are not met, the planning director may initiate action to revoke a special exception. A. Notice: Notice of a hearing by the planning commission to consider revocation shall be given pursuant to the requirements of chapter 21A.10 of this title. The notice shall inform the holder of the special exception of the grounds for the revocation and set a hearing date. B. Public hearing: The scheduled hearing shall conform to the requirements of chapter ,,,, 21A.10 of this title. C. Planning Commission decision: Following the hearing, the planning commission shall decide whether or not to revoke the special exception in accordance with the findings and decisions in chapter 21A.10 of this title. 21A.52.140 —Effect on Denial of Special Exception No application for a special exception shall be considered by the planning commission or the planning commission's designee within one year of a final decision upon a prior application covering substantially the same subject on substantially the same property if the prior application was denied and not appealed. SECTION 28. 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 Amok ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM (SEAL) Salt Lake. ity Attorney's Office S L.) Bill No. of 20l 1. Published: By '' aul C.Niel or City Attorney HB_ATTY-#19190-v2-Ordinance_amending_special_exception_provisions.DOC NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing regarding Petition PLNTPCM2010- 00785 a request by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker to transfer the approval authority in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance for special exceptions from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. In addition to the transfer of approval authority, the Petition will address several minor fine tuning text amendments in various sections of Title 21 that reference special exceptions, including the removal of Chapter 21A.14. The applicable text of Chapter 21A.14 will be moved into Chapter 21A.52. Related provisions of Title 21A — Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply citywide if adopted by the City Council. As part of its 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 Council Chambers)* Salt Lake City and County Building 451 S. State Street Salt Lake City, UT *Please enter building from east side. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the petition on file, please contact Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner, at (801) 535-7660 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at maryann.pickering@slcgov.com. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodations no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public hearing. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the City Council Office at (801) 535-7600, or TDD (801) 535-6021. Erin Youngberg Elke Phillips Cabot Nelson 1910 Bridge Crest Circle 839 S. Washington St 984 E Simpson Avenue t 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 ,. 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 faience(SALT LAJ(E CLTT i LANNIN'^C2l5'eiiii S53 fd RiAT '�ll�]G ACEI3'2A En Aoout 326 of the City& Cott. ty ailclisg al'iS:t South Stste St:'eet L'ed:tesdcy,,July 13,2011 at 6:00 p.m.or immediately following the Work Session The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. >ginner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m.in Room 126. Work Session: 5:30 in Room 326. The Planning Commission will hold a work session from approximately 5.30-6 00 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: PLNPCM-2009-00615:Small Neighborhood Business Amendment. A discussion regarding the Small Neighborhood Business Amendment Present report and proposed text amendments Discussion Only (Staff contact'Nole Walkingshaw at S01-535-7128 or .ul;r•:!11:'i 5o, coin) Approval of Minutes:lone 22,2011 • Report of the Chair and Vice Chair • Report of the Director ▪ Public Bearings 6:00 or immediately following,the work session Public Hearing Legislative Petitions 1. PLNPCM2010-00785:Special Exceptions--a request by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker to transfer the approval authority in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance for special exceptions from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission In addition to the transfer of approval authority,the Petition will address several minor fine tuning text amendments in various sections of Title 21 that reference special exceptions,including the removal of Chapter 21 A.14. The appiicabie text of Chapter 21A 14 will be moved into Chapter 21 A.52 Related provisions of Title 21 A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition, the changes would apply citywide if adopted by the City Council (Staff contact:Maryann Pickering at(801)535-7660 or mar\sin pickcrina6i slcgov cum.) Administrative Petitions • 2. PLNSUB20t1-00137:Salt City Plaza-A request by Jeff Stockert of Salt City Plaza LLC for a planned development located at approximately 154 W 600 South in the D-1 Central Business District.The purpose is to construct multiple hotels and a shared parking structure located in Council District 4 represented by Luke Garrott (Staff contact Doug Dansie at 801- 535-6182or do,:g dansie'iticgor corn) 3. Swaner Business Park Planned Development--a request by New Concepts Construction to amend a subdivision plat to create a new lot located at approximately 1303 South Swaner Road in the M-1 Light Manufacturing Zoning District.The property is located in Council District 2 represented by Van Turner(Staff Contact:John Anderson at S01-535-7214 or lone':r d r:;inch.s1c_'liv coin). a.PLNSCB2011-00099-a request to amend Lot 2 of the Cambridge Industrial Park Subdivision b.PL NSUB2011-00278-a request for a Planned Development.The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission waive the requirement for perimeter parking lot landscaping 4 PLNPCM2011-00207:Olivera Alley vacation--a request by Baldomero and Lourdes Olivera,property owners,represented by Pamela Wells,are requesting that the City vacate a portion of the alley located adjacent to the applicant's property at approximately 1370 E.Bryan Avenue. The alley runs north to south and abuts a total of three properties. The subject property is zoned R-1/5,000(Single Family Residential)and is located in City Council District 6 represented by 3.T.Martin (Staff-Lea Traughber,(801)535-6184 or lea uaa:liber'u,slcgo\ coin). 5. pLNSU32011-00320:Tannacli Properties LLC Planned Development-A request byTannach Properties,LLC for a planned development approval located at approximately 245-265 South State Street in the D-1 Central Business District.The purpose is to allow two principal buildings on one lot;to exclude parking calculations for the galleria common corridor and residential restricted use spaces within the commercial ground floor,and to allow signage on a restored water tower and additional general building signs that reflect historic facades on the State Street elevation for a mixed-use development at 247-2655 South State Street.Council District 4,Luke Garrott (Staff Contact-Everett Joyce at 801-7930 or err:ett,a t- ;dr'aoa coin). 6. View Street Mixed Use Planned Development—A request by Rinaldo Hunt for Baron Real Estate to construct a mixed use planned development located at approximately 1325-1339 E 2100 South,and 2004-2012 View Street(1345 East).The property is primarily zoned CN Neighborhood Commercial District,and partially zoned R-I/5,000 Single-Family Residential District.The property is located within Council District 6,represented by J.T.Martin (Staff contact Michael Maloy at 801- 535-7118 or michael malm.:idslcnov corn) a. PL NSUB201?-00196 View Street Mixed Use Subdivision—A preliminary subdivision request to combine five parcels into one parcel. b. PLNSUB2D11-00307 View Street Mixed Use Planned Development—A planned development request to construct two buildings that contain approximately 30 residential apartments,along with commercial office and retail space. The flies for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices,room 406 of the City and County Building. Please contact the staff plais ter for infa'mattat, Visit the Planning Dn'isran's webstte at www.slcgov.com/CED/planting for copies of the Planning Coinnussrort 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 rat fled, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Conunissron. Planning Commission Adeetsngs may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17;past meetings are recorded and archived,and may be viewed or weals.slrvy.crnst SALT LAKE CITY I PLANNING COMMISSION :/70 S 5600\';. y {{_ 7. ZONING ORDINANCE P.U.BOX i0.}005 Om R ] .I> `O �E Lt1 A/t$.' " e _l L•• \,�',,';c; TEXT AMENDMENT _.':1-�< 1�it U.1'11 l�ltt i ? r, . HEARING \\EST VALLEY CITY.UEAl1 Sa 1;0 • On EPD.TAX 1.D.:-S7-021766; 201 W 1,Wednesday, dsday,:45 JuP.ly ly 13, at PROOF OF PUBLICATION CUSTOMER'S COP the Salt Lake City ! a , Planning Commission will hold a public hearing CUSTOMER NAME AND ADDRESS I ACCOUNT NUMBER I DATE to take comment and consider Petition PLANNING COMMISSION 10014-4'7002 7/1/201 1 PINPCM2010-0O7e5, a request by ATTN: ANGELA HASENBERG Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker to transfer PO BOX 11 1S5 the approval authority in SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5455 the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance for special ACCOUNT NAME exception's ns from the the Adjustment ?LPlannin Commission, In PLANNING COMMISSION! additiion-otheliansferof approval authority,the • TELEPHONE ADORDERJi / INVOICE NUMBER Petition will address several miner fine tuning 0015357757 — text an er dments in various se ons ifffit1e21 I 000070:5'i 33 / _ that reference s ecial SCHEDULE exceptiotgrtarr�Iu��d� q ,the , remo ~l44..tii,d"tef '_ 21A:?-0.-" .tca.,.. ble . 7/1/2011 7/1/2011 Star[ End will`he,��tto�,`v'edaittbr• Chc'pleTMT 2" Relatectpp oylsleris of Title OUST;REF.NO. 21 A-2'oti ng.nay'Oise be amendedas,part of this OI ISD630 would apply g citywide if adopted ay the City CAPTION Council./11L'persons interested..at1.c(present will SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ZONING ORDINANCE be given•at $Opportunity o`be.heard.Iri thii matter. The hearing wllPbe held SIZE in Room 326,uf Me Salt --- - - - - - - - -- - Lake.Clt�yyattd/Caunty 72 Lines 1.00 Building'WS4; oiilfl'State Columns Street. ACCes£(b"le-, arkIng I and entrarlcaare located TIMES - RATE on the..ecat,ildRlof the bulldlrt `Nearing, impdired ma Mdua'Is who wish to':aftehra'iffiii meeting should*tad oarTDb MISC.CHARGES _ AD CHARGES service numberr:(801) 535.6220,14r days in advance-sothatan .11I� interp"refer can be-- - '3 provided,;F.orfurther �.` TOTAL COST information regarding this hearing of-to obtain • a detailed-copy of the 473.00 changes, call Mary'annfickering at 1801)535-7660 or ma ry anri.plck'e ring @ slcgov.com, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 705133 UPAXLP AS NEWSPAPER AGENCY COMPANY.LLC dba MEDIAONE OF UTAII LEGAL BOOKER.I CERTIFY TI-IAT THE ATTACHED ADVERTISEMENT OF I SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ZONIIFOR I PLANNING COMMISSION I WAS PUBLISHED BY THE NEWSPAPER AGENCY COMPANY.LLC dba MEDIAONE OF UTAH,AGENT FOR THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE AND DESERET NEWS, DAILY NEWSPAPERS PRINTED IN THE ENGLISI-I LANGUAGE\WTI-I GENERAL CIRCULATION IN UTAH,AND PUBLISHED IN SALT LAKE CITY. SALT LAKE COUNTY IN THE STATE OF UTAII.NOTICE IS ALSO PUBLISHED ON UTAHLEGALS.COM ON THE SAME DAY AS THE FIRST NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION DATE AND REMAINS ON UTAHLEGALS.COM INDEFINATELY. PUBLISHED ON .fit', /01/20'11 End 07/01/20'11 LNoIaryPubhc0tUt8SIGNATURE I h �l��. ..,�;°° Cornmissian 9 SS?409 DATE I 7/1/2011'1 �i,;. ,t,'11'1'.` My Cr,Inmis.,ion F ,pireS THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT BUT A"PROOF OF PUBLICATION" 1,.._..•___ PLEASE PAY FROM BILLING STATEMENT ". 1 a•, ', t ,i,• 1,i,;, _.I I..i,_ I nAJI►, n S T� 0,i � , a p.. PLANM NG COM SS Oykl A;'F V?,',H;,, c+ Legislative .i;asp : > ;:0 y i aspecial Excepton ; � e6idnie 'i: (p=5,:L I7t Ia; t� 2 I ` ' fking TextArndr 1+: 3 , � �. lz Ct r� • t I T ,Ctpd 9 "1,,,,,,,,, I Planning Division ' JL y 4i , 2011 Department of Community i and Economic Development -, liw Z"i.. -�- ,..-c.. _ . ^.�'.— -.,..�_.:.��'E.-" ;_�._..,;�.._._:�_.�_ -++fs -z"f...•^u..'9P:.' :.: YI3.e��.�'�.�.w..s "�'. - ..... .sxx. Applicant: Mayor Ralph Becker Request Staff: Maryann Pickering Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker is requesting a Zoning Text Amendment to 801-535-7660 transfer the approval authority in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance for special marvann.pickeringeslcsov.com exceptions from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. In Tax ID: n/a addition to the transfer of approval authority, the Petition will address several Current Zone: n/a amendments in various sections of Title 21 that reference special exceptions, including the removal of Chapter 21A.14. The applicable text of Chapter 21A.14 Master Plan Designation: Citywide will be moved into Chapter 21A.52. Related provisions of Title 21A — Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. Changes would apply citywide if Council District: Citywide adopted by the City Council. The Planning Commission is required to transmit a Community Council:Citywide recommendation to the City Council for Zoning Text Amendment requests. Applicable Land Use Regulations: Recommendation Review Standards: Based on the findings listed in the staff report, it is the Planning Staff's opinion 21A.50.050 Standards for that overall the project generally meets the applicable standards and therefore, General Amendments Affected Text: recommends the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to 21 A.06—Decision Making the City Council relating to this request. Bodies and Officials 21A.14—Routine and Recommended Motion Uncontested Matters 21A.24—Residential Districts Based on the findings listed in the staff report, testimony and plans presented, I 21A.26—Commercial Districts move that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the 21 A.34—Overlay Districts City Council relating to this request to transfer the approval authority for special 21A.36—General Provisions exceptions from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission based on 21A.38—Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures the following findings: 21A.40—Accessory Uses, 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, Buildings and Structures 21 A.44-Off Street Parking and objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted Loading planning documents; 21A.46—Signs 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements 21 A.52—Special Exceptions of the zoning ordinance; 21A.62—Definitions 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and Attachments: provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose A. Proposed Ordinance additional standards; and Amendments 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, B. Department Comments p C. Public Input professional practices of urban planning and design. PLNPCM2010-00785.Special Exceptions Text Amendment Published Date. July 7,2011 1 P ofec: Oescrip`�:dor The City adopted a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in April 1995. At that time, it was understood that adjustments to the Zoning Ordinance would be necessary once it had been implemented and people had an opportunity to work with it. Salt Lake City intermittently processes fine tuning ordinance adjustments to provide code maintenance for the City's ordinances. At times, code changes are processed clue to land use policy changes adopted by the City or because State enabling regulations are changed. It is then beneficial for Salt Lake City to make minor code revisions that lead to a greater ease of use and understanding. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinances meet the following objectives: o Have all administrative items reviewed by the sr.me appointed body. • Allow the Historic Landmark Commission to use their expertise in addressing special exceptions in designated historic districts. O Clarify the review process for special exceptions. • Codify the Zoning Administrator or ZA List. O Improve the clarity and usability of the Zoning Ordinance without changing the intent behind the specific regulation in questions. Clarify wording that may be open to interpretation. > Address ongoing problems with administration of existing ordinance language, and may Amok result in a minor policy change of low significance. Proposed Code Changes The Salt Lake City Planning Division is processing specific adjustments to the Zoning Ordinances. The changes proposed are discussed below in the order that they would appear on the ordinance. �. CImpter 21A.06—Decision Making Bodies The duties and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and Historic Landmark Commission will be modified. The primary change and purpose of the petition to transfer the approval authority will be in this chapter. In addition, language has been added to have the Board of Adjustment convene meetings as needed throughout the year. In addition to the transfer of the approval authority, the Historic Landmark Commission will now have the authority to approve certain special exception for projects located within a historic preservation overlay zone. The specific items include: building wall height, garage height, garage square footage, fence height, overall building height and signs. Currently, applicants in a historic preservation overlay zone would need to obtain approvals from two separate bodies. This will streamline the approval process for applicants. PLNPCM2010-00785,Special Exceptions Text Amendment Published Date: July 7,2011 0 2, Chap: .. 2,1E .,1 —Routine and U;eo: ist r1 Nini:ers This chapter will be completely removed from the Zoning Ordinance. Planning staff has found there is confusion on how these items relate to special exceptions and there has never really been a clear process or comprehensive list of routine and uncontested matters. The existing chapter discusses how these items have been delegated to the Zoning Administrator (ZA) for an administrative review, but the items were never codified into the Zoning Ordinance and instead were found on a list commonly known as the "ZA List". By removing this chapter and changing the way that special exceptions are reviewed, the process will be clear to our applicants. The list of items on the ZA List • will be codified into Chapter 21A.52, of which there will be more discussion later in this report. 3. Chapter 21A.24—Residential Districts Changes to this chapter are cleanup items. The references to the Board of Adjustment are replaced with the Planning Commission. The administrative hearing officer function has been removed as a part of the special exception process. Modifications to the process will be found in both Chapters 21A.10 and 21A.52. �.�•. Chapter 21A.26—Commercial District strict A modification has been made to the approval authority for additional height on commercial buildings. 3. Chapter 21A.34—Overlay Districts The approval authority for the special exceptions for properties the Yalecrest Compatible InfiIl district have been changed to the Planning Commission. In addition, Section 21A.34.120(H) is being deleted since a property owner's right to apply for a special exception or variance is already established in the code and it is unnecessary to repeat it in this section. 6. Chapter 21A.36—General Provisions In the current Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Adjustment has authority to review certain home occupations. These changes will transfer that authority to the Planning Commission. 7. Chapter 21A.33—Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Buildings Similar to the previous section, the two changes in this chapter are only changing the approval authority from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. PLNPCM2010-00785,Special Exceptions Text Amendment Published Date July 7,2011 3 3. Chapee,21A.410—A.eeessory .Uses,Buildings "'= Ce:"caertau•. :.s One section of this chapter has been entirely removed. Planning staff felt that the items relating to the regulation of automatic amusement devices was no longer necessary at this time. This section of the code was most likely added into the Zoning Ordinance in the 1980's when stand alone arcades were a popular business. Considering that most residents have some type of gaming device in their home, there will most likely not be a large demand for standalone arcades in the near future. Current businesses that have one or two amusement devices should not be required to apply for a special exception. This change does not affect any the standards or requirements for automatic amusement devices located within a sexually oriented business. The other changes in Chapter 21A.40 are related to the approval authority for difference types of fences and walls. 9. Chapter 21A.d4—Off Street Parking and Loading A new section has been added to Chapter 21A.44. The section addresses and provides regulations for vehicle and equipment storage in certain zoning districts. This is an item that was previously located on the ZA List. Staff felt that the regulations were appropriate for the vehicle and equipment storage, but that the item did not need to have a special exception approved for the use. Any business desiring to have a. vehicle and equipment storage lot in the CG, M-1, M-2 and EI zoning districts that does not have a Asomilk hard surface will simply need to comply with the standards in this chapter. 10. Chapter 21A.46—Signs This section has been changed to allow the Historic Landmark Commission to approve signs located within a historic preservation overlay. It further implements the changes in Chapter 21A.06 related to duties of the commission. 111. Chapter 21A.52—Special]Exceptions A majority of the changes proposed in this text amendment are located within this chapter. Changes include the ability of the Planning Director to review and approve and items administratively, definition of a special exception, list of all special exceptions and any standards specific to each special exception, process, general standards, amendments, extensions of time, and an appeal process. One subsection in Chapter 52 proposed to be removed is the subsection which contains all of the regulations for unit legalizations (currently 21A.52.100(E). Staff has removed this process as a special exception due to the recently adopted Good Landlord Program. It is anticipated that a petition will be initiated around September 1 to consider new regulations for unit legalizations. Attachment A shows all of the proposed changes in a legislative format. PLNPCM20I0-00755,Special Exceptions Text Amendment Published Date: July 7,201 4 j\,/ fl1c=>, '7I.9eting The following is a list of public meetings that have been held related to the proposed project: Open House held on January 20, 2011. There were no comments received at the open house meeting. a A briefing with the Salt Lake City Board of Adjustment was held on January 24, 2011. An excerpt of the meeting minutes can be found in Attachment C. The Planning Commission held a briefing on the item on June 22, 2011. Notice of the public hearing for the proposal includes: Public hearing notice posted in newspaper on July 1, 2011. > Public hearing notice posted on City and State websites on June 30, 2011. ,, Public hearing notice emailed to the Planning Division list serve on June 30, 2011. Ciby e. .,;d :. Comments The comments received from pertinent City Departments / Divisions are attached to this staff report in Attachment B. The Planning Division has not received comments from the applicable City Departments / Divisions that cannot reasonably be fulfilled or that warrant denial of the petition. irdSl I SLI and J ylndin Ylos 2.1:N.01050 StandEwe e'orGeneral Amendments. 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. A. In making its decision concerning a proposed text 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; Analysis: The proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the City. The process will be more streamlined than how it is currently administered. In addition to the process being streamlined, the ability for an applicant to submit a petition for a special exception still exists. The major difference is the appointed bodies that oversee the process. By allowing staff to review the application initially, applicant may have their approvals quicker than they would by following the process that currently exists. inding: The proposed text revisions are for the purpose of maintaining, updating, and clarifying the Zoning Ordinance, and as such are consistent with adopted City planning documents. PLNPCM2010-00755,Spec,al Exceptions Text Amendment Published Date. July 7,2011 5 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of -40000 the zoning ordinance; A.: niysis- Not all of the sections which are proposed to be changed contain purpose statements. Those that do have purposes statements contain language that is specific for each of the zoning districts, overlay districts, accessory uses, off-street parking and nonconforming or noncomplying uses. The changes in each of these chapters are specific to the change of the approval authority for special exceptions from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. References to other chapters or sections of the ordinance are being completed. Changes to the Special Exception chapter are more substantial than the rest of the chapters. Chapter 21.A_.52 — A new purpose statement has been written for Chapter 52. The new statement states that both the Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission have the ability to review certain exceptions and that they can delegate their authority for review of special exceptions to the Planning Director. The remainder of the section discusses how the process is to be completed. Finding: Transferring the approval authority for special exceptions and adding an administrative process will be a positive change for both staff and applicants. Those who may be affected by a project will still have the opportunity to express Amok their concerns. But by changing the language of the purpose statement in Chapter 52, the Planning Director will be able to make determinations at an administrative level regarding special exceptions. If the Director feels that they cannot make the administration determination, it will be forwarded to either the Planning Commission or Historic Landmark Commission for their review and decision. 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 Arzaiysis: The proposed text amendment will affect one overlay district. Within this district, the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay, the proposed language is to transfer the review and approval from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission for special exceptions relating to garages height and remove the redundant language granting a property owner due process that already exists elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. Finding: There will be in impact on the purposes and provisions of the overlay district by this proposal. Amok PLNPCM2010-00785,Special Exceptions Text Amendment Published Date: July 7,2011 6 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Aaaiysis: The intent of this petition to have administrative items heard by the Planning Commission who is more accustomed to hearing administrative items such as conditional uses. The role of the Board of Adjustment is to hear quasi- judicial items which follow different regulations and are often confused during public hearings for special exceptions. The framework and structure of Salt Lake City's zoning regulations and development standards are sound and do not require wholesale restructuring. However, at times code changes are processed due to land use policy changes adopted by the City or because of State enabling regulation changes. It would be beneficial for Salt Lake City to make minor code revisions that lead to a greater ease of use and understanding. inding: The proposed changes are a matter of code maintenance and as such implement the best current,professional practices of urban planning and design. A VG If it is determined that these proposed changes should not be made, the current process will remain unchanged. I-Iowever, the proposed changes outlined above and shown in the Attachment A provide for a streamlined process will assist in clarifying for staff and the applicants what regulations and standards are for special exceptions. Recommending that these changes are made will also incorporate the items on the ZA List which is currently not codified as part of the ordinance. Having those items specifically listed in Chapter 52 along with the standards and process for approval make it very clear how a request can be processed and reviewed. 1h.3B igm1+s 3u aTH .;;c 'ion a If the Planning Commission agrees with the recommendation of staff, the item will be forwarded to the City Council for their review and decision. If the Planning Commission agrees with staff, but determines that changes need to be made to this request, the modified request will be forwarded to the City Council Should the Planning Commission that the changes are not appropriate, a negative recommendation can be forwarded to the City Council stating why the Planning Commission believed that the changes were not appropriate. F otentia9 irlo'dons Consistent with Staff Recommendation: Based on the findings listed in the staff report, testimony and plans presented, I move that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council relating to this request to transfer the approval authority for special exceptions from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. PLNPCM2010-00785,Special Exceptions Text Amendment Published Date. July 7,2011 7 fdsr Cor�sis,:>> '; .-.7311 Stall seti mmendn io 1: Based on the testimony, plans presented and the following findings, I move that the Planning Commission transmit a negative recommendation to the City Council relating to this request to transfer the approval authority for special exceptions from the L.oarcl of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. The Flannin7, Commission shall make findings on the Zoning Text Amendment standards as listed below: 5. 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; 6. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; 7. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and 8. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. ANN • PLNPCM2010-00785,Special Exceptions Text Amendment Published Date: July 7,201 1 8 Ch of or 2 L A.Cf3.O3O('-: r Planning Comm?:�:, 8. Authorize special exceptions to the terms of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.52, "Special Exceptions", of this title; 9. Make certain determinations regarding the existence, expansion or modification of noncomforming uses and noncomplying structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, "Nonconforming Uses And Noncomplying Structures", of this title. 21A.O'.04O(b) Board of djus'ilii li • u " • , ; a Neffeemplyinotivetures" t A.C9.U4O( ) — Board of Adjust,m nt Ei The board of adjustment shall convene meetings as needed throughout the year. • — Historic Landman; Commis ion 8. Review and approve or deny certain special exceptions for properties located within an H historic preservation overlay district. The certain special exceptions are listed as follows: a. Building wall height; b. Garage height; c. Garage square footage; d. Fence height; e. Overall building height; and f. Signs. 89. Make recommendations to the city council concerning the utilization of state, federal or private funds to promote the preservation of landmark sites and H historic preservation overlay districts within the city; 010. Make recommendations to the city council regarding the acquisition of landmark structures or structures eligible for landmark status where preservation is essential to the purposes of section chapter 21A.34:$28, "H Historic Preservation Overlay District", of this title, and where private preservation is infeasible; Revised:July 6,2011 • Page 1 oalook 4011. Make recommendations to the plannikg commission in connection with the preparation of the general plan of the city, and .1412. Make recommendations to the city council on policies and ordinances that may encourage preservation ci'builclkigs and related structures of historic and architectural significance. Chapter 441‘44 UNCONTESTED MATTERS 24A7144141-PURPOSE,STATEMENT4 The purpose of this chapter is to enable routine and uncontested matters as designated by-the-boacd-of-adjustment-oufsuont-te-sestion-24,444,030-of-this-ohopter4o-be determined administratively by the zoning administrator as a routine and uncontested mattor, in accordance with the pr000durec cot forth in section 21A.14.060 of thi& • chapter. 21A.14.015: DEFINITION: A "routing and uncontested matter is a special exception which the board of adjustment has delegated to the zoning administrator to bo doterminod administratively because of its routine and uncontested nature. Routing and uncontested matters shall be decided using the came criteria thattho board-of adjustmont would use for determining special Amok exceptions. 24A714420;-AUTHORI-W4 Pursuant to the municipal land use development and management act, section 10-0- 705, of the Utah Cede Annotated, the zoning • • is authorizeddecide adjustmentroutine and uncontested matters brought before the board of with4he-pf0v4640116-Of-this-ehaptec, 24A714:030DESIGNATION-OF-ROUTINE-AND-UNCONTESTED MAI iERS: The board of adjustment may adopt a designation of classes of matters brought before it-as-reutine-and-uneentested-matters-for-deolsien-by-the-zoning-asiministfator-pufseant to-sestion-24,444,060-Gf-th4s-shoptef, 2-1A7147040 -GUIDELINES-FOR-DEGISIONi. A-designation-by-the-board-0-adjostment-pomuant-te-sestion-244,14410-of-this-ohapter shalt be accompanied by a statemont of guidelines with which the zoning administrator shall-somply-in--deoiding-the-inatter, 24A440. rsA-REGORD-OF-DESIGNATED-MA-TrER& A list of routing and uncontoctod matters as-designated by the board of adjustment shall be kept on file in the office of the zoning administrator. - ora*. Revised:July 6,2011 Page 2 PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW .D DECISIION • • • • • 21A 14070 APPEAL OF DECISION:• • Chapter 21A.24 RESIDEN 1AL DISTRICTS 21A.24.fti0(P) -- General Provihions 2. Height Special Exception: The planning commission beard-a-adjustment, as a special exception to the height regulations of the applicable district, may approve a permit to exceed the maximum building height but shall not have the authority to grant additional stories. To grant a height special exception the planning commission -must find the proposed plan: c. In making these considerations the planning commission-beard-ef adjustment can consider the size of the lot upon which the structure is proposed. Revised:July 6,2011 Page 3 rl The f is upon thesufficient to burden of proof ,, ui� applicant to submit �:,z,iricierrc data co ;.persuade the planning commission that the criteria have been satisfied. a. The planning commission „s;;y deny an application for a height special exception if: 2`1A.24.e50 D `i1`i2,000 ':3iii e Family Rani °tor', ;J DIst ;; 6. a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, • additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 or this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The planning commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the requestoc-r-efec-the exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 1A.2,1..060(D) — R-1/7,O0o i le- ail y F ,3ideru ed District 6. For properties outside of the I-1 historic preserv.;ti4on overlay district, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 2'I A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The planning commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the requester refer the exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 2 iA.24•.070(D) -- R-1/5,000 Single-Farniiy R sidentiF.a District' 6. a. For properties outside of the I-I historic preservation overlay district, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The planning commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the requester refer the • exce tonpti pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. Revised:July 6,2011 Page 4 AND r:f ;. `LA Deveio96,1:C3nt Pattern R.z8:Jentiol 6. a. ,t; pmperiies outside of the I-i historic preservation overlay district, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission ' ' subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 or this title and it the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the: block race. The planning commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the requester-fefer-the exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. Anypersen-adversely 21 .: ,0...1 0 (;ii= ) 3�R"3 Special Development v'utt a Residential 6. a. For properties outside of the 1 historic preservation overlay district, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.62 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The planning commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the requester refer-the exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 21 \.24.`i`i (L) -- R.2 Single- and livo4 i ily Residential District 6. a. For properties outside of the I-I historic presentation overlay district, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission ' ' subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The planning commission " ' will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the requestor refer tho exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. Anype moon "dn aQve�y Revised:July 6,2011 Page 5 Chapter spy c apter 21dA.26 ifl01VIMERC AL DISTRICTS 21A.26.010(J) Oeneriii Provisicti3 i . Modifications Of Ten Percent Or Less Of Maximum Height: a. The planning commission may approve, as a special exception, additional height not exceeding ten percent ('10%) of the maximum height pursuant to the standards and procedures of chapter 21A.52 of this title. Specific conditions for approval are found in chapter sulaseetien-_2.1 A.52.100C of this title. Chapter 21A.34 OVERLAY DISTRICTS 21A.34.120(G) YOi Yalecres : Compatibi , hifiitl Overlay District G. Special Exception For Garages: A garage built into a hillside and located forward of the front line of the building may be allowed.as a special exception c rantecl by the planning commission , subject to the following standards: 24A-3. 4 0(H) • Chapter 21A.36 GENERAL PROVISIONS Table 21A.36.030(B) _ Obstructions in Required Yards Notes: 2. Below grade encroachments (encroachments which are completely below grade where the surface grade remains intact and where the below grade encroachment is not visible from the surface) into required yards shall be treated as a special exception in accordance with the procedures set forth in chapter 21A.5244 of this title. Amok Revised:July 6,2011 Page 6 21k36.O3 (0) Hor i Conditional Home Occupations: i. The following home occupations, which either require a client to come to the home or which may result in neighborhood impacts if not properly managed, me',i be authorized by the planning commission-board-of adjustment aS an accessory use only by special exception pursuant standards specified in this section as well as the provisions of chapter 211A.52 of this title: >. The planning commission may delegate authority to the planning directo to handle special exceptions for conditional home occupations. The planning directo will review and approve applications in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A 521-4 of this title. 21 A.36.0300 Decision By Planning Commission or Planning Director : The planning commission or planning directo shall issue a permit for the home occupation if the planning commission or planning directo finds that: 21A.36.O3O(k) K. Appeals: 2. Any person adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a permit for a home occupation may appeal that decision to the land use appeals board pursr;`nt to chapter 21A.5246 of this title. Chapter 2`A. 8 NONCONFORMING USES AND NONC MPLY N STRUCTURES 21A.38.08O(C)(2)(a)(2) — Moving, Enlarging 0 it Altering Nonconforming Uses of Lad and Structures b. Nonconforming Nonresidential Uses: The planning commission board-of adjustment-may authorize as a special exception the reconstruction and reestablishment of a lernl nonconforming nonresidential use structure subject to consideration of the following: 21A.33.o o(c)(2)(a)(1)(B) -- Noncomplying Structures (B) The reconstruction will not increase the number of units. (2) Nonconforming Nonresidential Uses: The planning commission_board-o€ went may authorize as a special exception the reconstruction and reestablishment of a legal noncomplying structure with a nonconforming nonresidential use subject to consideration of the following: Revised:July 6,2011 Page 7 Auk Ch apteF 21 b . 0 !:�.1 a '�'Z,9 yr- .`• ..9 3 � i; Ind�'{{n '�•."'9 '1y Ia'I i�'•i ,-' ._i"t,', tt 'J ,�'p a 3 s 0 {� � j J �'.._��1 L:,�.=�J i1 � .�3 `3�1`'.�t_� .,.. IS �l`3.',ty,l"r_% Jl �I ' E 21 A.40. • Goshen- 1. CN district: Up to two (2); , a. Character-of-the-neighborhood; propeFtiesi c. The principal permitted use and its relation to the oni Vie;and d. The best interests of the city. C. Commercial Video Arcade: In the CC, CS, CSHBD, CG, D 1, D 2, D 3, All 21 A.4,0 120(E)(2)(g) - t eg u la o i of Fences, Wall3 and d Hedges g. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission or historic landmark commission board of adjustment-may approve taller fencing if it is found that the extra height is necessary for the security of the property in question as defined in chapter section-21A.524-09 of this title. 21A.4O.12O(l)(2) • 2. Special Exception: Barbed wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, in all zoning districts except for those listed above as permitted uses. The planning commission may approve as special exceptions, the placement of barbed wire fences, for security reasons, or for the keeping of ai limals around nonresidential properties, transformer stations, microwave stations, construction sites or other similar publicly necessary or dangerous sites, provided the requested fence is not in any residential district and is not on or near the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. Amok, Revised:July 6,2011 Page 8 Special F..xc pJon Approval Standards: The planning commission beard-of adjustment may approve, as a special s. ception, the building permit tor a barbed %Afire fence if it is found that the . plie ti it has shown that the fence is reasonably necessary for security in that it p,ttlects people from dangerous sites and condrtious such as transformer stations, microwave station or construction Sites. I. Special r„ception: Razor wire fencing rosy be approved for nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, in the A, CG, D-2, NI-1 and ?MM1-2 zoning districts. The planning commission may approve a special exception the placement of razor wire fences, for security reasons, around commercial or industrial uses, transformer stations, microwave stations, or other similar public necessity or dangerous sites; provided, that the r requested fence is not on the property line of a lot which is occupied as a plac of residence. 21 <!.. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission bear-of adjustment may approve razor wire fenci:ag if the commission-beard tinds that the applicant has shown that razor wire is necessary for the security of the property in question. Chn1 ' ;: r 2'1k,44 OFFS g REE _� PARKING AND LOADING 21A.44.020(F)(9)— General Off Street Parking Requirements Vehicle and equipment storage: In CG, M-1, M-2 and El zoning districts, vehicle and equipment storage may be allowed without hard surfacing as a special exception provided: a. The lot is used for long term vehicle storage, not for regular parking and/or maneuvering. b. The vehicles stored are large and/or on tracks that could destroy normal hard surfacing. c. The parking surface is compacted with six inches of road base and other semi-hard material with long lasting dust control chemical applied annually. d. A hard surfaced wash bay is installed to wash wheels to prevent tracking of mud and sand onto the public way. e. A minimum of 50 feet paved driveway from the public street property line. f. City Traffic Engineer's approval. Revised:July 6,2011 Page 9 Ch: Pte' 2,1 ` SIGNS 2. 1n ,46.O7O0,1General Stan da do v. Historic District Signs: T_he historic landmark commission may authorize, as a special exception, modification to an existing sign or the size or placement or a new :sign in a historic district or on a landmark site if The applicant can demonstrate that the location, size and/or design of the proposed sign is compatible with the design period or theme of the historic structure or district and/or will cause less physical damage to the historically significant structure. Chapter 74 A 57 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 21 A 52 A1A• PI IRPOSE STATEMENT• r r AAr 21 a 52 02n• AI ITL1�1Q1TY: , this-shaker. 21 A 52 A3A• SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS A I ITHORIZED: A. Additional fence height (subsection 21A.52.100A of this chapter). Revised:July 6,2011 Page 10 title), E. Amusement devices (section 21A.10.110 of this title). C. Ropoaled. L. Legalization of excess dwelling units (subsection 21A.52.100E of this chapter). P. Razor wire (subsection 21A.10.120J of this title). 0 title). R. Front yard parking (subsection 21A.14.050B of this title). S. Routine and uncontested matters (chapter 21A.11 of this title). • „ „ , , subsection 21 A.52.100l- +s-chapter). W. Alternate location for accessory structures in the R 1 districts, R 2 districts and ction 21 A.10.050A3d(3) of this title). 21A.52.040: PROCEDURE: precccccd in a procedures: A. Application: An application may be made by the owner of the subject property or , Revised:July 6,2011 Page 11 subjpeftYi elaesifieatioRer , .. pro ; n , a. Actual dimensions of the lot, c. Driveways, d. Parking spaces, o. Safety curbs, ANN f. Landscaping, g. Location of trash receptacles, and h. Drainage features; 10. Traffic impact analysis; the procedures of chapter 21A.14 of this title. oalkek Revised:July 6,2011 Page 12 ef-adjustmengs-pub.lie-heacingRtaikiWil9-the-Geaskisien-ef-the-publis-heaciAgr the Anal ia#eamation. Whenever-are SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: established-: development-will-net substalair-tha-valtie-ef-the-paveFty andg ralwelfare feg• ulatitns. • No Destruction Of Significant Features•Then ed, nd develenment will F. Ne• "Material Poll, ien Ofof En.i�nt.The-primes and developmeat. ll ✓ Compliance With Standards:Then sed, nd development complies .with all additional standards im sed on it p ant to section 21 A 52 100 of this 71 A 1:7• 07A•CONDITIONS ON SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS• appr-opfiate top ent or minimize adverse effect... other property and Revised:July 6,2011 Page 13 ANN 21 A 52 Ann• GENERAL CONDITIONS TO BE APP IED TO AI 1 excel- A.106, 2 CIFIC CONDITION-FOR CERTAIN SPECML EXCEPTION& forth below- 1. Approval Standards: and-that-the-openi-spatial-and-nonstruotufal-area-af-the-fenoer wall eyof b. Fences, walls or other similar structures which exceed the , Amok Revised:July 6,2011 Page 14 safet nc s c. Fences, walls or other similar structures incorporating ornamental d. Fences, walls or other similar structures which exceed the e Fence w ll or ether similar structures which exceed the b. That it would create a walled in effect in the front yard of any , is-located. • chapters 21A.36 an 2 , r Revised:July 6,2011 Page 15 Atiook special-assess, conditions: (500 Adak of thi chapter• and , shall-state:: (1) The same requirements as listed in subsection 21A.52.040A of th s chapter; and (4) The relationship between the present owner and the person .••� Revised:July 6,2011 Page 16 (1) The came requirements as listed in subsection 21A.52.0'10A ter; aed . 2. Required Findings: The board of adjustment may authorize a special A Permit Before 1970: beerl-alaPlied-and-Pai4-fer-r awl fufther--te-thefaY—That-eff-stFeertent-scirlg4pIss-beea-4afd-su4aGeei-ase-is--available-sn4he REIT outlined •n seGt oil 21T.-1141 0'30-offthis title, hall be created, and corrected; • Anc4/44-GentrB1: (1) The number of units of excess dwelling units of-the building have been (2) The owner did not construct the excess dwelling units or is not an immediate family relative or, in the case of a (3) The building services and licensing division has certified: Revised:July 6,2011 Page 17 7 thet/ ! 1 f and Gefreetedi f 1 An€14444 used; and 1 Revised:July 6,2011 Page 18 corrected (1) For legalizations permitted pursuant to this subsection E2c, 4Geer"Ge4 jecierenr744eiettrer,,r_ang_the_bu4d4449.4f4mher_sysai.444ausi- d. Required Findings For Excess Dwelling Units With Implied Permit: and (C) That off street parking has been hard surfaced and 3. Appeals: a. The decision of the building cervices and licensing division the appeal by a hearing officer. b. The decision of the board of adjustment regarding legalization may be appealed to the district court pursuant to section 21A.16.010 of this-rifle. F. Outdoor Dining In Required Yard Areas: The board of adjustment may approve Revised:July 6,2011 Page 19 , We--titer; pfivate.wopecty_oweed.4f.etheFwise_contfolle44ay 4hea„want and the-area-rand vehicular-traffic; PFepeftyi floor: 0 , , Revised:July 6,2.011 Page 20 2•l a• •11 O• REVOCATIO 1 OF SSPECI A 1 EXCEPT revocation nd e.et a hearing d B. Public Hearing: The scheduled hearing shall conform to the requirements of chapter 21A.10 of this title. 7 2. 120 • • DCI ATION OF SPECIAi EXCEPTIr'1Al_ 21 A • • 52 •14A A 1IACAII MENTS TO SPECI A I EXCEPTION • aRproval, 21A.52.110: APPEAL OF DECISI^N: • . . , date of the decision. Chapter 21A.52 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 21A.52.010— Purpose Statement The planning commission or historic landmark commission may delegate its authority as necessary to the planning director to make a determination regarding special exceptions. The planning director may approve the special exceptions authorized by this title in accordance with the procedures and standards set out in this chapter and other regulations applicable to the district in which the subject property is located. 21A.52.020 — Definition A special exception is an activity or use incidental to or in addition to the principal use(s) permitted in a zoning district or an adjustment to a fixed dimension standard permitted as exception to the requirements of this title of less potential impact than a conditional use but which requires a careful review of such factors as location, design, configuration and/or impacts to determine the desirability of authorizing its establishment on any given site. Revised:July 6,2011 Page 21 Amok 21A.52.030— Special Exceptions Authorized In addition to any other special exceptions authorized elsewhere in this title, the following special exceptions are authorized under the provisions of this title: 1. Accessory building height, including wall height, in excess of the permitted height provided: a. The extra height is for architectural purposes only, such as a steep roof to match existing primary structure or neighborhood character. b. The extra height is to be used for storage of household goods or truss webbing and not to create a second level. c. No windows are located in the roof or on the second level unless it is a design feature only. d. No commercial use is made of the structure or residential use unless it complies with the accessory dwelling unit regulations in chapter 21A.XX. 2. Accessory structures in the front yard of double frontage lots, which do not have any rear yard provided: a. The required site visibility triangle shall be maintained at all times. b. The structure meets all other size and height limits governed by the zoning ordinance. 3. Additional height for fences, walls or similar structures may be granted to exceed the height limits established for fences and walls in chapter 21A.40 of this title if it is determined that there will be no negative impacts upon the established character of the affected neighborhood and streetscape, maintenance of public and private views, and matters of public safety. Approval of fences, walls and other similar structures may be granted under the following circumstances subject to compliance with other applicable requirements. a. Exceeding the allowable height limits; provided, that the fence, wall or structure is constructed of wrought iron, tubular steel or other similar material, and that the open, spatial and nonstructural area of the fence, wall or other similar structure constitutes at least eighty percent (80%) of its total area; b. Exceeding the allowable height limits within thirty feet (30') of the intersection of front property lines on any corner lot; unless the City's traffic engineer determines that permitting the additional height would cause an unsafe traffic condition. c. Incorporation of ornamental features or architectural embellishments which extend above the allowable height limits; d. Exceeding the allowable height limits, when erected around schools and approved recreational uses which require special height considerations; e. Exceeding the allowable height limits, in cases where it is determined that a negative impact occurs because of levels of noise, pollution, light or other encroachments on the rights to privacy, safety, security and aesthetics. Revised:July 6,2011 Page 22 • f. Keeping within the character of the neighborhood and urban design of the city; g. Avoiding a walled in effect in the front yard of any property in a residential district where the clear character of the neighborhood in front yard areas is one of open spaces from property to property; or h. Posing a safety hazard when there is a driveway on the petitioners' property or neighbor's property adjacent to the proposed fence, wall or similar structure. 4. Additional building height in commercial districts are subject to the standards in chapter 21A.26. 5. Additional foothills building height, including wall height, shall comply with the standards in chapter 21A.24. 6. Additional residential building height, including wail height, in the R-1 districts, R- 2 districts and SR districts shall comply with the standards in chapter 21A.24. 7. Alternative parking requests shall comply with the standards and considerations of chapter 21.44. 8. Barbed wire fences may be approved subject to the regulations of chapter 21 A.40. 9. Conditional home occupations subject to the regulations and conditions of chapter 21A.36. 10. Dividing existing (ots containing two or more separate residential structures into separate lots that would not meet lot size, frontage width or setbacks provided: a. The residential structures for the proposed lot split already exist and were constructed legally. b. The planning director agrees and is willing to approve a minor subdivision application. c. Required parking equal to the parking requirement that existed at the time that each dwelling unit was constructed. 11. Front yard parking shall comply with the standards found in chapter 21A.44. 12. Grade changes and retaining wails are subject to the regulations and standards of chapter 21.36. 13. Ground mounted central air conditioning compression or systems, heating, ventilating, pool and filtering equipment located in required side and rear yards within four feet of the property line. The mechanical equipment shall comply with applicable Salt Lake County Health Department noise standards • Revised:July 6,2011 Page 23 .41444. 14. Hobby shop, ad studio, exercise room or a dressing room adjacent to a swimming pool, or other similar uses in an accessory structure, subject to the following conditions: a. The height of the accessory structure shall not exceed the height limit established by the underlying zoning district unless a special exception allowing additional height is allowed. b. If an accessory building is located within ten (10) feet of a property line, no windows shall be allowed in the walls adjacent to the property lines. c. If the accessory building is detached, it must be located in the rear yard. d. The total covered area for an accessory building shall not exceed fifty (50%) percent of the building footprint of the principal structure, subject to all accessory building size limitations. 15. Inline additions to existing residential or commercial buildings, which are non- complying as to yard area or height regulations provided: a. The addition follows the existing building line and does not create any new noncompliance. b. No additional dwelling units are added to the structure. c. The addition is a legitimate architectural addition with rooflines and exterior materials designed to be compatible with the original structure. 16. Operation of registered home daycare or registered home preschool facility in residential districts subject to the standards of chapter 21A.36. „APO** 17. Outdoor dining in required front. rear and side yards subject to the regulations and standards of chapter 21A.40. 18. Razor wire fencing may be approved subject to the regulations and standards in chapter 21A.40. 19. Replacement or reconstruction of any existing non-complying segment of a residential or commercial structure or full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure provided: a. The owner documents that the new construction does not encroach further into any required rear yard than the structure being replaced. b. The addition or replacement is compatible in design, size and architectural style with the remaining or previous structure. 20. Underground building encroachments into the front, side, rear and corner side yard setbacks provided the addition is totally underground and there is no visual evidence that such an encroachment exists. 21. Window mounted refrigerated air conditioner and evaporative swamp coolers located in required front, corner, side and rear yards within two feet of a property line shall comply with applicable Salt Lake County Health Department noise standards. ,. Revised:July 6,2011 Page 24 21A.52.040 -- Procedure A. An application for a special exception shall be processed in accordance with the following procedures: 1. Application: An application may be made by the owner of the subject property or the owner's authorized agent to the planning director on a form or forms provided by the planning director, which shall include at least the following information, unless deemed unnecessary by the planning director: a. The applicant's name, address, telephone number, email address and interest in the subject property; b. The owner's name, address and telephone number, if different than the applicant. and the owner's signed consent to the filing of the application; ' c. The street address and legal description of the subject property; d. The Salt Lake County property tax number; e. The proposed title of the project and the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the architect, landscape architect. planner or engineer on the project; f. A complete description of the proposed special exception: g. A plan or drawing drawn to a scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1"=20') or larger which includes the following information: (1) Actual dimensions of the lot, (2) Exact sizes and location of all existing and proposed buildings or other structures, (3) Driveways, (4) Parking spaces, (5) Safety curbs, (6) Landscaping, (7) Location of trash receptacles, and (8) Drainage features; h. Traffic impact analysis; Such other and further information or documentation as the planning director may deem necessary or appropriate for a full and proper consideration and disposition of the particular application. 2. Determination of Completeness: Upon receipt of an application for a special exception, the planning director shall make a determination of completeness pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title, and that the applicant has submitted all of the information necessary to satisfy the notification requirements of chapter 21A.10 of this title. 3. Fee: The application for a special exception shall be accompanied by the • fee established on the fee schedule, chapter 21A.64 of this title. Revised:July 6,2011 Page 25 4. Notice: A notice of application for a special exception shall be provided in accordance with chapter 21 A.10. 5. Approval Process: The approval process for a special exception as listed in this title is a two tiered process as follows: A. Review and Decision by the Planning Director: On the basis of written findings of fact, the planning director or the planning director's designee shall either approve. deny or conditionally approve an application for a special exception based on the standards in this chapter. The decision of the planning director shall become effective at the time the decision is made. B. Referral of Application by Planning Director to Planning Commission: The planning director or the planning director's designee may refer any application to the planning commission due to the complexity of the application, the significance in change to the property or the surrounding area. 21A.52.050 — Coordinated Review and Approval of Applications Whenever an application for a special exception requires a variance, the applicant shall indicate that fact on the application and shall first file a variance application with the board of adjustment. The special exception shall then be reviewed after a public hearing by the board of adjustment on the variance request. 21A.52.060 — General Standards and Considerations for Special Exceptions No application for a special exception shall be approved unless the planning commission or the planning director determines that the proposed special exception is appropriate in the location proposed based upon its consideration of the general standards set forth below and, where applicable, the specific conditions for certain special exceptions. A. Compliance with ordinance and district purposes: The proposed use and development will be in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which this title was enacted and for which the regulations of the district were established. B. No substantial impairment of property value: The proposed use and development will not substantially diminish or impair the value of the property within the neighborhood in which it is located. C. No undue adverse impact: The proposed use and development will not have a material adverse effect upon the character of the area or the public health, safety and general welfare. — Revised:July 6,2011 Page 26 D. Compatible with surrounding development: The proposed special exception will be constructed, arranged and operated so as to be compatible with the use and development of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable district regulations. E. No destruction of significant features: The proposed use and development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of natural, scenic or historic features of significant importance. F. No material pollution of environment: The proposed use and development will not cause material air, water, soil or noise pollution or other types of pollution. G. Compliance with standards: The proposed use and development complies with all additional standards imposed on it pursuant to this chapter. 21A.52.070—Conditions on Special Exceptions Conditions and limitations necessary or appropriate to prevent or minimize adverse effects upon other property and improvements in the vicinity of the special exception or upon public facilities and services may be imposed on each application. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, conditions concerning use, construction, operation, character, location, landscaping, screening and other matters relating to the purposes and objectives of this title. Such conditions shall be expressly set forth in the approval record of the special exception. 21A.52.080 - Relation of Special Exception A special exception shall be deemed to relate to, and be for the benefit of, the use and lot in question rather than the owner or operator of such use or lot. 21A.52.090 —Amendments to Special Exceptions A special exception may be amended, varied or altered only pursuant to the procedures and subject to the standards and limitations provided in this chapter for its original approval. 21A.52.100 — Extensions of Time Subject to an extension of time granted upon application to the planning director, no special exception shall be valid for a period longer than one year unless a building permit is issued or complete building plans have been submitted to the division of building services and licensing within that period. The planning director may grant an extension of a special exception for up to one additional year when the applicant is able to demonstrate no change in circumstance that would result in an unmitigated impact. Extension requests must be submitted to the planning director in writing prior to the expiration of the exception. Revised:July 6,2011 Page 27 Aim 21A.52.110 -- Authority to Inspect The planning director or their designee shall have the authority to inspect all properties for compliance with special exception conditions as often as necessary to assure continued compliance. 21A.52.120 — Appeal of Decision A. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning director may appeal the decision to the planning commission pursuant to the provisions in chapter 21A.16 of this title. B. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission on an application for a special exception may file an appeal to the land use appeals board within ten (10) days of the date of the decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, unless the planning commission takes specific action to stay a decision. 21A.52.130 — Revocation of Special Exceptions Violation of any such condition or limitation shall be a violation of this title and shall constitute grounds for revocation of the special exception. If the planning director determines that the conditions of a special exception or other applicable provisions of this title are not met, the planning director may initiate action to revoke a special exception. A. Notice: Notice of a hearing by the planning commission to consider revocation shall be given pursuant to the requirements of chapter 21A.10 of this title. The notice shall inform the holder of the special exception of the grounds for the revocation and set a hearing date. B. Public hearing: The scheduled hearing shall conform to the requirements of chapter 21A.10 of this title. C. Planning Commission decision: Following the hearing, the planning commission shall decide whether or not to revoke the special exception in accordance with the findings and decisions in chapter 21A.10 of this title. 21A.52.140 — Effect on Denial of Special Exception No application for a special exception shall be considered by the planning commission or the planning commission's designee within one year of a final decision upon a prior application covering substantially the same subject on substantially the same property if the prior application was denied and not appealed. Amt.. Revised:July 6,2011 Page 28 ?4A.62.Oh!.0 _,.;ini.io6 o`Tec.. For ii"Ie,JL:'OoO ' ARCHITECTURAL EMBELLISHMENT "Architectural embellishment"means a nonhabitable design element atop a building's roof,including but not limited to minor cupolas,towers,and monitors. accessible only for maintenance purposes,intended as a decorative, nonfunctional feature. Elements that function as part of a roof over habitable space,such as a rotunda,are not considered architectural embellishments. INLINE ADDITION: "Inline addition'means en addition to a structure that continues the wall plane of the existing structure and does not encroach any further into a required setback,or yard.' LOT,DOUBLE FRONTAGE: "Double Frontage Lot'means an interior lot having frontage one more than one street. The frontage which the lot is addressed shall be considered the front yard. Revised:July 6,2011 Page 29 pm`,' Rm.mmen To: Pk�u.Mawaml subjecu RE: pu,iecpuuzu-0oros nv rue�uoy,December 28, 201012:/4:22nw Maryann. The Police Department has not issues regarding this change. Thanks, Sgt. Michelle Ross Vrnomn; Pickehng, Naryann Sent: Tuesday, DecemberZ8, 2010 12:07PM To: Walsh, Barry; Drummond, Randy; Garcia, Peggy; ltchon, Edward; Ross, Michell(,.; Butcher, Larry; Limburg, Garth; Cpcncar, ]ohn Subjact; PLNPCI2010'00785 The Planning Division is requexiinig o zoning ordinance text amendment to change the approval authoriiyforSpecia| Excoptionsfrom !he 8oard uf �djus�menL �ntheP!aonin�Comm\ssion� The City'szoning ordincnce identifies special exceptions as u use that is incidental to nr in addiiion to the principal use or Ln adjustment to 0xed dimension standard which have less potential impaci than u condidona! �se, but which require m careful review uf such bctoo as location, design, configuration or ii�' /cts to deLernnine �he desirabi|\iy of authorizing its ez�ab|ishme/�t on any given site. The P|onnin5 :;_-�|vision believes that because Special Exceptions deal with ded'pn and use, ii would be more xVprop/iaie for 'Che Planning,Commission to address these types of requests rather �hon-the Board ofAdjusUnent, whose specialty relates more to appeals. Please review the attached petition and respond with comments by January 12, 2011. |/ | dono� receive a response by this date, |will assume thu1 you have no comments or concerns regarding ihe proposal. Thank you. Mar annP;c!,�or'n 1\l/—P Principal Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 Snu-(h State Street, #4O0 PO Box 14548O Salt Lake,City, UTU4111'5480 (801)535'7650 Prom: Brown.Ken To: Pickering.Maryann H_. Dutcher.Larry :?:inject: RE: PLrdPCM2010-00705 Date: Tuesday,July 05,201 i:3:21:01 PM Attachments: jrnaae001.onq Maryann, It appears that Footnote#2 to Table21A.36.020B Obstructions In Required Yards was overlooked, where it states .....in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.14 of this title. Ken Brown Senior Development Review Planner From: Butcher, Larry Sent: Thursday,June 30, 2011 LI:56 PM To: Brown, Ken; Hardman, Alan; Michelson, Alan; Stonick, Anika; Larsen, Nannette Cc: Pickering, Maryann Subject: FW: PLNPCM2010-00785 Please read and send your comments to Maryann. • Thanks, onoiht From: Pickering, Maryann Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 8:52 AM To: Walsh, Barry; Drummond, Randy; Garcia, Peggy; itchon, Edward; Ross, Michelle; Bucher, Larry; Limburg, Garth; Spencer, John Subject: PLNPCM2010-00785 Hello. Please see the attached regarding a petition for which we are asking you to comment on. Let me know if you have any questions and thank you in advance. Maryann Maryann 1 ickering, ACID Principal Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 South State Street, #406 PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-5480 (801)535-7660 if you could change anything in Salt Lake City what would it be? Scan the code below with your phone: , � • E� x_� ` •. • ■ -' http:/ /aoc al/PHmPv From: nor Rlrhardc To: Pickerina.Maryann Subject: Re: Petition PLNPCM2010-00785:Zonis Orciih,ance Amenth ient Date: Thursday,January 06,2011 5:56:22 PM Maryann,, Now I remember, the bike relei'en€ e _ it. Shows where my mini.: is at. The change to the PC makes sense to me. As far as the process for special exceptions, it's worked pretty well in the past for my projects. I can't think of any specific suggestions right now. If anything comes to mind, I'fi forward my comments to you. Dave DAVE RICHARDS ARCHITECTS dave nchards, aia dave richards architects, inc. p.o. box 526064 1399 south 700 east, suite 17-0 sic, Ut 84152 801.466.1396 voice 801.466.6810 fax daveC daveri ch ards-arch itects.com On Jan 6, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Pickering, Maryann wrote: Hi Dave. i think we have met. My husband is the one who wants a Trek Madone.... Also, I had the three cases in December with the wall, detached garage and sign on the Indian grocery store. As for the changes to special exceptions, we are proposing to change the approval authority to Planning Commission from Board of Adjustment. The Planning Division believes that because special exceptions deal with design and use, it would be more appropriate for the Planning Commission to address these types of requests rather than the Board of Adjustment, whose specialty relates more to appeals. There is no proposed change to the process itself. It is simply changing the approval authority. However, if you have suggestions on how we could change the process, we would be open to what insight you may have. We are planning have a discussion with BOA this month and hope to have the amendment before Planning Commission in March. Please let me know if you have further questions. Thanks, Maryann l:rom: Dave Richards [mailto:dave@daverichards-architects.com] Sent: Thursday,January 06, 2011 12:40 PM To: Pickering, Maryann Subject: Petition PLNPCM201.0-00785: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Maryann, I'm not sure if we've met yet. I sit on Landmarks, but I can't remember if you've presented cases to us. Not surprising on my end, it seems like I can't remember last week these clays ;) At any rate, I saw the notice on the proposed change in how special exceptions Am* are handled in the Urbanus. Could you give me some background on reasons for this proposed change? I'd also like to know how the special exception process itself will be modified Thanks, Dave <image001.jpg> dove richards, aia dave richards architects, inc. p.o. box 526064 '1399 south 700 east, suite 17-D sic, ut 84152 801.466.1396 voice 80'1.466.6810 fax dave©daverich ards-arch itects.com R / 1D 11` T1 _J ryrr'I'/ E ImoI• r1 The regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment on Zoning for Salt Lake City, Utah, was held on Monday, February 28, 2011 at 5:45 p.m. at the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in Room 326. Members present were Edward Radford (Chairperson), Torn Berggren (Vice Chairperson), Catherine Dunn and Rod Julander. Cheri Coffey (Assistant Planning Director), Nick Norris (Planning Manager), iViicheela Oktay (Principal Planner), Michael Maloy (Principal Planner), Anna Anglin (Principal Planner), and Paul Nielson (Senior Attorney for Salt Lake City Attorney's Office) were also present. Board member ,yen Bullock was not present. Chairperson Radford called the meeting to order and explained the procedures of the meeting. He informed those present that the Members of the Board have visited the properties and the testimony given during the meeting is recorded. Mr. Radford further explained a simple majority vote (or three concurring votes in some cases) is necessary to pass or defeat a motion. All decisions of the Board of Adjustment are made effective immediately and mey be appealed to the I hird Judicial District Court. The appeal must be filed within. 30 days from the day the Notice of Decision is posted on the City's website the following day of the meeting. Admini tra'dve 3ses on 5:49:13 PM Chairperson Radford stated petition PLNBOA2008-00944 VVarren Unit Legalization it has been postponed and would not be addressed Mr. JU° 1nder nnacte a roa:icn 'fof' the Board of Adjustment to approve the December 13, 2010 minutes. Ms. Dunn seconded the motion; Nir. Julander and Ms. Dunn voted aye. Chairperson Radford and Mr. Berggren did riot vote. The motion passed with 2-0 vote Director's '.":spo;t Special lE;;Ceptions: A discussions regarding the Special ia.:ception process and transferring the review au:hori'sy from the Board o' Adjuetmsn: tc the Pie;innirj Commission Mr. Nick Norris, Planning Manager, stated Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner, would address the item. Mr. Norris stated the intent of the discussion was to gather input from Board Members regarding potential issues the proposed change could cause. He explained it was the Planning Division's recommendation to modify the review and approval processes for • 13os,d ofArdj7..st:-nent {e'b3as y23,2©1 special exceptions and move these items from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. Ms. Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner, reviewed the discussion held during the dinner session regarding the viability of the proposal. She explained the reasoning behind tie proposal stating It was more the Planning Commission's role to hear issues regarding land uses and design. Ms. Pickering stated the main purpose and specialty of the Board of Adjustment was to hear and decide appeals and exceptions to the ordinance. She stated the primary change was to give the special exception approval authority to the Planning Commission and modify several sections of the ordinance as outlined in the presented memo. Ms. Pickering explained other minor changes would include cleanup of sections addressing special exceptions and codifying routine and uncontested matters not currently located within the ordinance. She stated the Planning Division was also looking to create a tiered review system containing standards for each of the special exceptions; meaning every special exception would have standards associated with the use. Ms. Pickering explained the approval process for a special exception as outlined in the proposal. She asked the Board Tor questions and comments on the process and the issue. Mr. Berggren asked if there were standards for unit legalizations covered under this proposal. Ms. Pickering stated unit legalizations are included however; the Planning Division has a proposed text amendment regarding Accessory Dwelling Units that may cover unit legalizations. She stated Staff assumed most unit legalizations would be covered. .Ms. Pickering asked Nick Norris to comment on the Accessory Dwelling Unit proposal. Mr. Norris stated the Planning Division needed to clarify how the text amendment and unit legalizations will co-exist. Fie stated he didn't have a refined solution to report for the meeting. Mr. Berggren stated the most contentious part of unit legalizations was all the evidence required to determine whether or not excess illegal units had been occupied by people for decades. He explained the Board of Adjustment had been asked to make determinations on these issues. Mr. Berggren explained he was not certain the Planning Commission would historically look at these types of issues, as Planning Commission issues are more orientated for the future. Mr. Berggren said he was generally supportive of the Planning Division's effort regarding special exceptions however; he was hesitant on the Planning Commission's thorough review of unit legalizations. Mr. Berggren stated unit legalizations may be covered by the new Accessory Dwelling Unit language but he would like information on how evidence and proof would be addressed as they are critical parts of the process. He explained the Board of Adjustment proves the property was continually and historically used for a multi unit dwelling therefore, not changing the use of the property dramatically. Mr. Berggren stated if the _ afar t1 F-213 ':,`dry%L,2,0.'l1 acceptable standard for an application was changed there might be more ramifications then a simple procedural process. Ms. Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Di ector, stated the Planning Division noted the comments and would look to see if unit legalizations could be tabled at this point while still allowing the proposal to move forward, She explained unit legalizations could still come to the Board of Adjustment until a more comprehensive approach was determined to address unit legalizations. Mr. Julander stated one of the statements made earlier was that this proposal would shift the responsibilities of the two Boards, making the Board of Adjustment: more of a quasi judicial board and the Planning Commission more judgmental. He stated unit legalization cases are certainly quasi judicial in nature. Mr. Norris stated the City Council adopted general standards for all special exceptions and some have specific additional standards that apply. He explained the proposal would codify, in ordinance, the zoning administrator list so the standards applied to specific routine and uncontested matters would also apply to future special exceptions. Mr. Norris stated that meant those standards would have to be met and if not met the request would not be approved. He said the standards for review of conditional uses are very similar to the standards of review for special exceptions therefore, the Board of Adjustment has conducted judicial reviews but the Planning Commission uses issue identification and community input to determine whether or not the standards have been met. Mr. Norris stated under the proposal, only the deciding body would change. He explained the Planning Commission focuses on the physical environment and use issues which most of the special exception requests the City receives refer to. Ms. Catherine Dunn stated the Pianning Division was saying that by virtue of the training and/ or occupation a Planning Commissioner may have puts them in a better position to determine special exceptions. Mr. Norris stated yes and the size of the Commission gives a broader background to review different types of issues. He stated it was more within the Planning Commission's normal realm then what the Board of Adjustment was initially created to do which was to hear variances and appeals. 3 From: pmennsMaryann To: Subject: RE: puvpcnmzu'noms: Special Exceptions- Date- Friday,Jv|vn1'znzzzz:zz:uoAM vttacom:.`L'z Oo'zo'x1puvpowanm*o7osmnoveo Text cnanws.umx Hello Richard. Please see the attached document of the changes. This is currently under review bv other city departments/divisions so some minor changes may occur before the Planning Commission meeting. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Thank you, Maryann From: oteele09 [mai|to:rscee|e09gDcomcastnet] Senb Thursday, June30\ 2011 7:42PM T,): Pickering, Maryann PLNPCMZO1O'8O78S: Special Exceptions— Would you please email aoopy of the changes touzc Ibunkyou, llinbmd Sioclo �-~ �� Pickering,Maryann To: "C.Mirhael Foster" Cc: Julia Robertson:ether Hunter;Gary Felt Subjec_'; RE: Proposal PLNPCM2010-00785 Date: Wednesday,July 06,2011 4:13:00 PM Hello. As you may know, this item is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission next week on July 13. Some changes have been made and I encourage you to review the staff report and proposed changes when the item is posted on our webpage in the next day or so. I will be including your letter of February 15 in the packet for next week. To answer some of your questions from your last letter. • - There will not no impact to scheduling items before the Planning Commission. They will be placed on the agenda in a timely manner. - The notice section has been moved in Chapter 21A.10. If you are familiar with this text amendment that was heard last month by the Planning Commission, the new notice requirements are in there. In summary we will be notifying property owners and tenants 'adjacent to and contiguous with the land subject to the application.' In some cases this will be less than 85 feet and it will sometimes be more. - The entire process for special exceptions has been modified. There are now general and specific standards tied to each request. Each application will need to meet those standards in order to be approved in accordance with the notice requirements in Chapter 21A.10 by the Planning Director. If the application cannot meet those standards or the Planning Director feels that the issues are too complex,the item will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review and approval. It is very similar to the process currently used for certificate of appropriateness's and the historic landmark commission. - Routine and uncontested matters have been eliminated. If you were familiar with the list developed by the Board of Adjustment that staff was using (also known as the ZA List),that is gone too. We have reviewed the items on the ZA List and made changes as necessary and all remaining items will now be codified into Chapter 52—Special Exceptions. There will no longer be a list that is not adopted by Council. I understand that you may have additional questions and I would be happy to answer those for you. I will be in the office tomorrow and then next week. 'rem: C. Michael Foster [mailto:c.michael.foster@gmail.com1 Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 12:17 PM To: Pickering, Maryann Cc: Julia Robertson; Esther Hunter; Gary Felt Subject: Proposal PLNPCM2010-00785 Could you please include the attached letter in your packet for your meeting on February 28th? Vlaryann Pickering, Principal Planner Planning Division Community , Economic Development Department Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84103 February 15, 2011 Dear Ms. Pickering, During the February 9th meeting of the Douglas Neighborhood Association (DNA), concerns were raised regarding proposal PLNPCM2010-00785 — Change in the approval for the Special Exceptions from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. DNA has the following questions and concerns: Will there be any impact in an applicant's ability to get issues on the Planning Commission's agenda in a timely manner due to the substantial increase in items to be heard before the Planning Commission? Will affected neighbor concerns be heard when notice of hearings is reduced to eighty- five feet(85')of die applicant's property? Concern must be raised when hearings are eliminated and decisions are made by an `administrative hearing officer'. There is no definition in the documents of`officer'. A description of the `zoning administrator' should be included as well. What types of matters will constitute "routine and uncontested matters". Will it be the same list currently used by the Board of Adjustment? These routine and uncontested matters must be defined in the document. Neighbors in the DNA suggest a hold be placed on the proposed changes until further discussions have occurred and impacts on Salt Lake citizens are better known. Sincerely, C. Michael Foster, Chair, Louglas Neighborhood Association cc: Eastside Community Council— Gary Felt and Esther Hunter Report of the Director: Planning Director Wilf Sommerkorn stated that the City Council had been briefed on the change in the ordinance that would, in certain zones the maximum setback requirement for accessory structures of five feet. The City Council would be meeting in the near future to approve the change. Mr. Sommerkorn added that in the following week the City Council would be briefed on the Wal-Mart rezone petition. Planning Manager Nick Norris referred to the June 22, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting where the change in noticing requirements was addressed. Mr. Norris stated that there was a section that was omitted from the staff report that referred to conditional use requirements. He stated that the noticing requirements for all other public meetings would be the same for the conditional use requirement. 6:10:10 PLNPCM2010-00785: Special Exceptions--a request by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker to transfer the approval authority in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance for special exceptions from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. In addition to the transfer of approval authority, the Petition will address several minor fine tuning text amendments in various sections of Title 21 that reference special exceptions, including the removal of Chapter 21A.14. The applicable text of Chapter 21A.14 will be moved into Chapter 21A.52. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition; the changes would apply citywide if adopted by the City Council. (Staff contact: Maryann Pickering at (801)535-7660 or maryann.pickering@slcgov.com.) Chairperson Fife recognized Maryann Pickering as staff representative. Ms. Pickering stated that this item was a request from Mayor Ralph Beck request a zoning text amendment to transfer the approval authority within the Zoning Ordinance for special exceptions from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. In addition to the transfer of approval authority, it would address several minor amendments of various sections of title 12 where ever special exceptions are referenced. Ms Pickering said that at the briefing of June 22, 2011 a brief overview was given and presented some proposed text. Staff had modified the information. The modifications are part of the routine fine tuning amendments and maintenance to the code. Staff was working to create a more streamlined process for the special exceptions to make it easier for applicants. Planning Commission Minutes,July 13, 2011 Page 4 Amok Ms. Pickering addressed the following section of the code as found on page 2 of the staff report. Ms. Pickering stated that there would also be instances where the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) would be authority to approve special exceptions when they are reviewing a project within a Historic Overlay District. Ms. Pickering further addressed the next section: "Chapter 21A.14 — Routine and Uncontested Matters Ms. Pickering stated that this section would be entirely eliminated. Staff has found that there was no clear process and is confusing. Staff had evaluated the uses listed and have removed certain sections, and other sections will be moved to section 21A.52. Ms. Pickering addressed the following section "Chapter 21A.24 — Residential Districts Ms. Pickering stated that this was a "clean-Up" section that transfers approval authority. Chapter 21A.26 — Commercial District Ms. Pickering stated that there was a section that allowed for additional height on commercial districts and the authority would be transferred. Chapter 21A.34 — Overlay Districts ,,,.,s Ms. Pickering stated that the effected item was located in the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay district. She added that there was a duplicate section in another section of the ordinance that specifically stated that anyone within that Compatible Infill District has the right to apply for a variance or a special exception on their property. Chapter 21A.36 — General Provisions In the current Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Adjustment has authority to review certain home occupations. These changes will transfer that authority to the Planning Commission. Chapter 21A.38 — Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Buildings Ms. Pickering stated that it would deal with home occupations and would be another transfer of approval authority. Chapter 21A.40 — Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures Ms. Pickering stated that staff had removed the requirement for special exception for automatic amusement devices. Chapter 21A.44 — Off Street Parking and Loading Planning Commission Minutes, July 13, 2011 Page 5 Mr. Pickering noted that currently there was a routine and uncontested matter where people have to get approval to create an unpaved parking lot within certain zoning districts, the change would make that issue an approved use if you are within the four zoning districts that are listed in the staff report. Chapter 21A.46 — Signs This change allows the Historic Landmark Commission to give approval for signs. Chapter 21A.52 — Special Exceptions Ms. Pickering explained that section 52 had been re-written and one major change would be the process for special exceptions, people will apply for it and based on the noticing text amendment the City will send out a notice of application to the effected property owners and tenants and make them aware of the application and inform them that they can submit comments of objection or support. If there are no comments received and staff feels that the application meets all requirements that are contained in chapter 52, the application can be approved administratively. If the issue is too complex and staff feels that they could not make a proper decision at that point it will be forwarded to the Planning commission. Another change addresses unit legalizations. The Good Landlord program and the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance make it unnecessary to list this item with another approval process. Ms. Pickering stated that with the analysis and findings Staff believed that the proposed text amendments are for the purpose of maintaining, updating and clarifying the zoning ordinance and was consistent with the current City policy. Ms Pickering addressed Purpose Statements and stated that a new Purpose Statement was only being written for Chapter 52 which was the special exception chapter. The changes will impact one overlay zone, and the is the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay. Ms. Pickering stated that the proposed changes were a matter of code maintenance. She added that should the Planning Commission reject the changes, there would be no changes to the process as they exist today, the routine and uncontested matters and special exceptions would still be in effect. 6:17:09 Questions from the Commissioners: Commissioner Wirthlin asked what effect, if any, would these changes have regarding the length of the Planning Commission Meetings. Ms. Pickering responded that she did nat believe there would be an impact because more applications could be approved administratively. Planning Commission Minutes,July 13, 2011 Page 6 Commissioner Woodhead asked if the changes would eliminate the need for the Board of Adjustment. Planning Manager Nick Norris responded that it was a separate matter. 6:18:17 Public hearing Chairperson opened the public hearing, seeing no on chose to speak he closed the public hearing. 6:18:26 Motion: Commissioner De Lay made the motion in regard to PLNPCM2010- 00785 Based on the findings listed in the staff report, testimony and plans presented, I move that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council with conditions 1-4 as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Luke seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Dean, Wirthlin, Hill, De Lay, Luke, Woodhead and , Gallegos all voted "aye", the motion passed unanimously. 6:20:19 PLNSUB2O11-00187: Salt City Plaza - A request by Jeff Stockert of Salt City Plaza LLC for a planned development located at approximately 154 W 600 South in the D-1 Central Business District. The purpose is to construct multiple hotels and a shared parking structure located in Council District 4 represented by Luke Garrott (Staff contact: Doug Dansie at 801-535-6182or doug.dansie@slcgov.com). Chairperson Fife recognized Doug Dansie as staff representative. Mr. Dansie stated that this was request for a planned development for multiple hotels on a single site. Mr. Dansie stated that this issue had come before the Planning Commission before and had been granted approval. Mr. Dansie stated that this site was presently a Quality Inn, the proposal would be to demolish the Quality Inn portion and redevelop the area into three hotels. Mr. Dansie gave a PowerPoint presentation that described the previous plans and showed the area the proposal would encompass. Planning Commission Minutes,July 13, 2011 Page 7 P(iIic/r? ,f2Ar 6,0 1111 ,,,, Petition Initiation (r)i ikt,.fiA 7', ji Request Planning Division Community Sz Economic Development Department To: Mayor Becker From: Wilt Sommerkorn, Planning Director Date: November 17, 2010 cc: Frank Gray, Community and Economic Development Director; Mary De La Mare-Schaefer, Community& Economic Development Department Deputy Director; Cheri Coffey, A(CP,Assistant Planning Director;file Re: Change approval authority for Special Exceptions from Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission .[he Planning Division requests that you initiate a petition to change the approval authority for Special Exceptions from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. State Law is silent on Special Exceptions. The City's zoning ordinance identifies special exceptions as an use that is incidental to or in addition to the principal use(s) (such as a home occupation, or outdoor dining,) or an adjustment to a fixed dimension standard (such as modifications to the compatible infill requirements or fence heights)which have less potential impact than a conditional use but which requires a careful review of such factors as location, design, configuration and/or impacts to determine the desirability of authorizing its establishment on any given site. The Planning Division believes that because Special Exceptions deal with design and use, it would be more appropriate for the Planning Commission to address these types of requests than the Board of Adjustinent, whose specialty relates more to appeals. The Planning Division is of the opinion that this amendment, may help clarify the roles of these decision making bodies. It is not anticipated that administrative approval process that are currently in place for Special Exceptions would be changed. The only change is the final approval authority for any administrative approval that is appealed or for requests that are in conflict with thREr WEI) SCANNED TO. I A_ NOV 1 8 2010 SCANNED BY . -) • Page 1 DATE: Salt Lake City Mayor 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. If you have any questions, please contact Cheri Coffey, x618 . Thank you. Concurrence to initiating the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. Ralph Becker, Mayor Date amok, • • Page 2 MEMORANDUM• DATE: October 20,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Proposed Ordinance:Holiday Parking Meter Fee Waiver CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Ed Rutan,Neil Lindberg,Gina Chanmess,Frank Gray,Tim Harpst,Gordon Hoskins,Jennifer Bruno,Karen Halladay This memorandum pertains to a proposed ordinance that,as written,would do two things:It would waive all Salt Lake City parking meter charges for the winter holiday season running from November 24 through January 1,2012,and it would increase parking meter rates from$1 per hour to $1.50 per hour effective January 1,2012. The proposed ordinance is scheduled for a briefing on October 25 during the City Council work session in Room 326 of the City&County Building,451 South State Street. KEY POINTS o The proposed ordinance would continue the practice of waiving parking meter fees through the traditional winter holiday season. o The proposed ordinance would extend the waiver one week more this year. o The proposed ordinance contains language that would enact a 50-cent per hour increase on parking meter fees after the waiver expires.However,the language appears to duplicate the effect of ordinances adopted when the City Council adopted the Salt Lake City Budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012? OPTIONS o Adopt the proposed ordinance. o Do not adopt the proposed ordinance. o Amend the proposed ordinance. POTENTIAL MOTIONS o I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance amending Section 12.56.170 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to parking meter rates. o I move that the City Council consider the next item on the agenda. o I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance amending Section 12.56.170 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to parking meter rates.(Council Members may propose any amendments they deem appropriate.) 1 • ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION o According to records of the City Council meeting June 14,2011,the adopted City budget for the 2011-2012 fiscal year included an increase in parking meter fees from$1 per hour to$1.50 per hour.'According to City Council staff and the attached draft ordinance from budget documents,the effective date of the amended ordinance is January 1,2012? Given that,does language in the proposed ordinance to increase parking meter fees duplicate the amended ordinance adopted June 14,2011,as part of the budget? o The ordinance adopted June 14,2011,waived parking meter fees from November 23, 2011,to December 29,2011.The proposed ordinance would waive parking meter fees from November 24,2011,through January 1,2012. The latter set of dates are those preferred by The Downtown Alliance as part of the downtown's holiday observances, according to a letter dated September 1,2011,that is included in the Administration transmittal. o According to a City Council staff memorandum dated May 10,2011,"The Administration also notes that some of this(parking meter increase)could be used to help offset the cost of installing a new parking meter system in the future(although currently the revenue is budgeted to overall general fund purposes)."The City Council has yet to review or discuss again revenue sources for the city-wide installation of parking pay stations,but preliminarily two options include either extending hours the pay stations operate or increasing parking meter rates. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City Council traditionally has adopted ordinances waiving parking meter fees in Salt Lake City during the winter holiday season.Last year,the Council waived the fees from Thanksgiving through December 26,2010,due to budget constraints.The proposed ordinance would extend the waiver through New Year's Day again.The Downtown Alliance requested the extension because waiving the fees is considered an effective holiday gesture on behalf of Salt Lake City businesses. In discussing parking pay stations with the City Council on September 6,Finance Director Gordon Hoskins said the 50-cent per hour increase was part of the City budget for the current fiscal year. The increase would add about$300,000 in revenue from parking meters and bring the total projected revenue from parking meters to about$1.4 million for the fiscal year.' Draft attached ordinance,Ordinance No.44 of 2011 plus attached Page 25 of City Consolidated Fee Schedule. 2 Draft attached ordinance 'City Council work session,September 6,2011. 2 SAI .,.w;,�.i,�S�a� T,IY�Cap:FRANK B. GRAY -- RALPH BECKER DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC ,,/ F+ MAYOR . .I tY DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR h,-- J DEPUTY DIRECTOR SEP 2 0 2011 ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. DEPUTY DIREC CITY COUNCIL TRANSNUTIA-a °an1. • Date ReceivaicANNED BY; Q€uLi (i i,, David en , Chie of Staff DATE: SLC COUNCIL OFFIC.,E / c/'/� Date Sent to City Council: C q /22/ ZO 4l TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 19, 2011 Jill Remington-Love, Chair FROM: Frank Gray, Community kEconomic w — Development Department 1i for —� RE: Request to waive parking meter fees from Thanksgiving Day, November 24, 2011 to Sunday, January 1, 2012, inclusive, to allow two-hour free parking as a means of encouraging additional visitors in the Downtown area during the holiday season STAFF CONTACT: Tim Harpst, Transportation Director, at 535-6630 or tim.harpst@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the accompanying ordinance change waiving the meter fees during the specified period. DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None. The current city budget was adopted anticipating a reduction in meter coin and fine revenue associated with this request. DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: City Council has approved waiving meter fees and bagging all parking meters during the holiday season since 2003. The Downtown Alliance is again requesting meter fees be waived this year from Thanksgiving Day, 24, 2011 to New Years Day, Sunday, January 1, 2012, inclusive. Analysis: This incentive to shop and enjoy Downtown during the holiday season has been well received by retailers, the Downtown Alliance, the Downtown Retail Merchants Association, Chamber of Commerce and the public. The current fiscal year budget anticipated that this incentive would be approved this year through New Year's Day and reflects a reduction in meter 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: B01-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CED Is � aEcrcco nwncw coin and citation revenue based on the previous years'experience of providing this free parking during the holidays. The reduction in revenue,although highly dependent on weather and shopping conditions,is anticipated to be approximately$100,000 in meter coin revenue and $50,000 in fine revenue for the period between Thanksgiving and New Years Days. In their accompanying letter,the Downtown Alliance expresses its appreciation for this consideration. The bags will display a 2-hour free parking time limit which is what has been successfully used in prior years. The Downtown Alliance covers the cost of the bags and bows. Thanksgiving Day,New Years Day,and weekends are normally free parking days. To implement this proposal,City Council will need to adopt an ordinance waiving the meter fees for the designated period. This action is requested now in order to provide sufficient time to acquire the materials and provide merchants and the Downtown Alliance sufficient time to prepare advertisements of the program. Master Plan Considerations: Not specifically applicable,but this request is a key element in the effort to keep downtown active and"open for business"during this time of major reconstruction. PUBLIC PROCESS: The Downtown Alliance has provided the accompanying letter requesting the holiday meter bagging,see Attachment A. If their request is approved,the Downtown Alliance and the Downtown Retail Merchants Association intend to advertise it as part of their holiday advertising campaign. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Ordinance 12.56.170 Parking Meters—Rates will need to be modified to waive the meter fees during the specified period. The appropriate wording is shown in Paragraph B of the accompanying draft ordinance,Attachment B. RE:Free Holiday Parking Meters-2011 Page 2 of 2 DEMO on©© SLC September 1,2011 Jill Remington Love,Chair Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Dear Councilwoman Love; The Downtown Alliance would like to thank the Salt Lake City Council for providing free on-street parking during past holiday seasons.We respectfully request that you continue the practice this holiday season from Thanksgiving Day,November 24,2011 to New Years Day,January 1,2012. Allowing free parking for two hours at city meters during the holiday shopping season is a highly anticipated tradition that helps to keep downtown Salt Lake City vibrant.Free holiday parking is a valuable public relations tool that we plan to feature in our holiday marketing efforts.We have received feedback from downtown merchants who benefit from this practice.And their customers very much appreciate this annual gesture. We are very aware of the budget constraints currently felt by local governments,including Salt Lake City.We are dedicated to ensuring that any resources used to support holiday activities in the downtown area provide the greatest benefits to our community at the lowest possible cost.As Salt Lake City prepares to launch a new parking pay station system,we plan to work with Salt Lake City's Transportation Department and Community and Economic Development Department to evaluate the continuation of this program for the 2012 holidays.We hope to develop an even more strategic and innovative approach to holiday parking in the downtown area for future years. Thank you again for your support of this important program. Cordially, Kent Gibson Jason Mathis Chair Executive Director Downtown Alliance Downtown Alliance SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Waiving parking meter charges for holidays) An ordinance amending Section 12.56.170, Salt Lake City Code, relating to parking meter rates, to waive parking meter charges during the holiday season. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 12.56.170, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to parking meter rates be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 12.56.170 Parking Meters-Rates: A. Prior to January 1, 2012, parking meter rates shall not exceed one dollar($1.00) per hour of parking within any parking meter zone. Effective January 1, 2012, parking meter rates shall not exceed one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) per hour of parking within any parking meter zone. A parking meter token may be used in parking meters installed by the city at a rate not to exceed one hour of parking per token. Parking meter tokens shall not be used as legal tender to satisfy any debt to the city and shall only be used in connection with a downtown parking and transit token program. B. The foregoing notwithstanding. all parking meter charges shall be waived during the period of November 24, 2011. through January 1. 2012. However, during said period, no person shall park or permit any vehicle to remain parked in any parking meter space adjacent to a meter for a continuous period longer than two (2) hours. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect 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 ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL.) Bill No. of 2011. Published: HB_AITY#19892-'I-.Amendine_Parking Meter_Ordinance_(Feas) 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake CI Attor s Office Date By SALT LAKE.CITY ORDINANCE No. of 20110 (Waiving parking meter charges for holidays) An ordinance amending Section 12.56.170,Salt Lake City Code,relating to parking meter rates,to waive parking meter charges during the holiday season. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City.Utah: SECTION I.That Section 12.56.170,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to parking meter rates be,and the same hereby is,amended to read as follows: 12.56.170 Parking Meters-Rates: A. Prior to January I.2012.pharking meter rates shall not exceed twenty five centsone dollar($10.007)per hour 4+ft on(4-5-}+-11-4-k-fi of parking within any parking meter zone.Effective January I.2012.nuking meter rates shall not exceed one dollar and fifty cents (51.50)per hour of parking within anv parking meter zone._A parking meter token may be used in parking meters installed by the city at a rate not to exceed one hour of parking per token. Parking meter tokens shall not he used as legal tender to satisfy any debt to the city and shall only be used in connection with a downtown parking and transit token program. B. The foregoing notwithstanding,all parking meter charges shall he waived during the period of November 2_.56,201 1L49,through Ja+vtiarv- t)e e-rah- _oJ it u s sI,_a 12—W-0. However,during said period,no person shall park or permit any vehicle to remain parked in any parking meter space adjacent to a meter for a continuous period longer than two(2)hours. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect on the date of its first publication. Auk Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah this day of 20110. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: _Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR • ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 201 10. Published: 2 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 19,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Briefing:Downtown Way-Finding Sign System and Budget Allocation CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Ed Rutan,Neil Lindberg,D.J.Baxter,Jennifer Bruno,Gina Charmless,Frank Gray,Rick Graham,Karen Hale,Tim Harpst,Gordon Hoskins,Robert Farrington, Karen Halladay,Lehua Weaver,Downtown Alliance Executive Director Jason Mathis This memorandum pertains to a scheduled briefing October 25 of options to update downtown Salt Lake City's system of signs designed to guide pedestrians and motorists in and around the downtown.Two of the options would refurbish existing signs in time for the planned opening of the City Creek Center Mall in March 2012. Downtown Alliance Executive Director Jason Mathis,Karen Hale of the Mayor's Office,and Jim Baehr of Infinite Scale Design Group are scheduled to brief the Council on updating the sign system at the Council's briefing session October 25.The briefing session is scheduled to start at 2 p.m.in Room 326 of the City&County Building,451 South State Street. A potential allocation for a portion of the sign system will be part of Budget Opening No.2 which is scheduled for a briefing November 1. KEY POINTS o Infinite Scale Design Group and The Downtown Alliance recommend that if the Council supports updating the downtown sign system that it support an option estimated to cost about$450,000 to refurbish the existing system. o It should be noted that Salt Lake City Wayfinding—Final Analysis and Recommendations published September 7 by Infinite Scale with the support of Salt Lake City,the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency,The Downtown Alliance,and Visit Salt Lake indicates that all prices mentioned in the publication"are estimates that are not based on vendor quotes."The publication also notes the"prices do not include design fees and are meant to give a rough order of magnitude only." o The Administration suggests in a transmittal about Budget Opening No.2 that$250,000 could be allocated to the project.The Redevelopment Agency potentially could contribute$100,000 and The Downtown Alliance and other private parties also could contribute$100,000.The Administration indicated in the transmittal that a potential source of funds for the$250,000 allocation could be about$913,000 from"completed and closed general fund,Class"C"and impact fee capital improvement projects." 1 O The Wayfinding—Final Analysis divides the downtown into six sections roughly bordered by North Temple,300 East,500 South and 500 West Streets.A seventh section roughly bordered by 600 South,Main,800 South and 300 West streets also is part of the analysis. OPTIONS Based on the Wayfinding—Final Analysis there are three proposed options pertaining to the proposed project: o Repair and update the existing system at a projected cost of$190,000. o Refurbish the existing system at a projected cost of$450,000. o Completely redesign the system at a projected cost of$1.5 million to$2.5 million. A fourth option available to the City Council is to leave the sign system as it is. POTENTIAL MOTIONS Council staff has prepared no motions for the briefing because formal Council consideration of the proposal will occur during consideration of Budget Opening No.2. ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION • The project appears to have the support of the Administration,The Downtown Alliance, and Visit Salt Lake(the Convention and Visitors Bureau).Redevelopment Agency staff recently have discussed the need for improving downtown wayfinding signs. • How much would the potential cost be lessened if improvements in the area designated as Zone 7 were deferred?Is the most immediate need in Zone 7 existing signs along 600 South Street? • How much should the scheduled opening of the City Creek Center mall be considered in evaluating the proposed project? • Are there other capital improvement projects that would provide a greater public benefit? • The Council recently indicated a desire to reaffirm many of the components in its previously adopted Capital Improvement Policy. The Administration's proposal of using $250,000 recaptured from"completed and closed general fund,Class"C"and impact fee capital improvement projects"may not be in keeping with aspects of the policy for which the Council supported. Aspects include: o The Council intends that all large or new capital projects(costing more than $50,000)be evaluated and prioritized by the Capital Improvements Program Citizen Advisory Board. o 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. 2 o 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 or federal government,provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in a preservation of the community's prior investment,in decreased operating costs or other significant cost savings,or improve the environmental quality of the City and its neighborhoods. • If the City Council decides to allocate funds for the project,would signage be useful that indicates to pedestrians that they are within the downtown free-fare transit zone? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Salt Lake City Wayfinding—Final Analysis and Recommendations is the result of a concern that the signage system providing guidance to pedestrians and motorists about how walk or drive through downtown and information about locations of note and where to park is outdated and aging. The Downtown Alliance, with the support of agencies listed earlier,commissioned Infinite Scale Design Group to evaluate the signage system and recommend steps, if any were needed,to improve the signage system. Infinite Scale returned with three options outlined below.' Option No. 1 would: .. o Not change the design of existing signs and use existing posts and"footer covers." o Repair and touch up damaged post and footer covers. o Remove or replace outdated messages. o Remove signs that were completely obscured by trees,or prune trees so the signs could be seen. The design group said three benefits of the option would be to eliminate confusion caused by outdated signs;to create a short-term solution within budget; and the project would be possible to complete by March 2012. The downsides to the option would be: old messages would remain visible on some faded sign panels; a significant portion of funds would be used to repair signs,but no aesthetic improvements would be made to the sign system; and"depending on budgeting"installing a new sign system could be delayed two to five years. Option No. 2 would: o Reuse existing sign posts and panels. o Repair damaged posts and footer covers and repaint all posts. o Remove panels to resurface and update messages and update design. o Relocate and add signs as necessary. o Add new sign types as necessary. The design group said benefits of the option would be: a refreshed look to the downtown wayfmding system while reusing as many of the existing signs as possible; a way to allow for expansion, 3 updates,and improvements to the system;the best balance of cost and sign updates;and the refurbishment of highest priority signs by March 2012. The downsides to the option would be:installation of a new sign system could be delayed five to 10 years depending on budgeting;limited possibilities for a"refreshed look";and although the cost is significantly higher than Option No.1,there is a compromise in terms of the signage system's visual impact. Option No.3 would: Completely redesign the system with new sign types and locations...for about$1.5 million to$2 million. The design group said the benefits of the option would be:the highest level of impact on the downtown;a capability for a future-oriented,expandable system;the most longevity of the three options; and the provision of more time to secure funding during the time needed for planning,bidding contracts, designing and implementing the option. The downsides to the option would be the delay of any visible results by two years or more, making certain that the project would not be finished by March 2012. All language in the section is taken from Salt Lake City Wayfinding—Final Analysis and Recommendations,September 7, 11 2011. 4 ,... SCANNED TO: RALPH BECKER ` �� 1jj�� A` Q SCANNED BY:Littecre MAYOR r►w�ii �Ii. �vy��`.Q�� j . OFFICE OF THE MAYOR DATE. A//, CITY COS��E O TRANSMITTAL OAT 1 1 2011 Date Receive David . Britt, C. of of Staff SLC COUNCIL OFFJ; te sent to Coun T.�±�G fr 0.1 .� TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 11,2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Budget Opening#2 for Fiscal Year 2011-12 STAFF CONTACT: Gina Chamness(801)535-7766 Gordon Hoskins(801)535-6394 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council set a public hearing date to discuss the budget amendment#2 for Fiscal Year 2011-12. BUDGET IMPACT: General Fund 3,996,647.00 Fleet Fund 1,214,000.00 CIP Fund (149,553.44) Misc.Grant Fund 23,950,275.89 Donations Fund 1,871,608.44 E-911 Fund 289,000.00 Housing Fund 2,682,072.01 Special Revenue Fund 665,720.74 CDBG Operating Fund 1,791,102.44 Total 36,310,873.08 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Attached is a revenue forecast for the General Fund based on revenues through the end of September. This forecast shows the City essentially on-track to meet its revenue targets this year. As of the end of September,we are expecting a shortfall of less than one-half of one percent of the overall budget, or approximately$550,000. The majority of this 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 .FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com shortfall is associated with a continued decrease in the number of parking tickets issued. `*foe We would caution, however,that these projections reflect only one month of sales tax revenues, and while the overall trend in this category has been positive,we are not revising our projections in this category until more data is available. In addition, the majority of our largest single category of revenue,property tax, will be reflected in the second quarter of the fiscal year. As has been the practice for the past few years,we would be happy to discuss multi-year revenue trends through FY 2010-11 projects actuals with the Council if requested. The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling$36,310,873. The vast majority of this request consists of encumbrance carry-overs from FY 2010-11. The Administration is proposing to use $552,470 from the General Fund fund balance for five separate items. More detail on each of these items, as well as other items is provided in the attached narrative summary. In addition, a summary spreadsheet document, outlining proposed budget changes, is also attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Amending the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2011-2012) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 50 of 2011 Which Adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City,Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2011 and Ending June 30,2012. PREAMBLE On August 9, 2011,the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document,for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2011 and ending June 30,2012, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6, Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated, and said budget, including the employment staffing document, was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. The City's Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer,prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget,including the employment staffing document as provided above,have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: walk SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City,including the employment staffing document,as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No.50 of 2011. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments,including amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein,attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be,and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah,including the amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2011 and ending June 30,2012,in accordance with the requirements of Section 128,Chapter 6,Title 10,of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document,in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. 2 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of , 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office DateBY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2011. Published: I3B ATIY-k15990-v1-Budget AmendmentFY11-12.DOC 3 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget Amendment#2 Expenditure Revenue On-going or One Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Amount time FTEs Section A:New Items 1 Fleet Replacement Budget Adjustments:Sales and Make Ready Fleet 345,000.00 351,000.00 one-time 0 2 Vehicle Replacement:Undercover Cars GF 47,000.00 - one-time 0 2 Vehicle Replacement:Undercover Cars Fleet 75,000.00 75,000.00 one-time 0 3 Parking Pay Stations CIP 1,814,298.00 - one-time 0 3 Parking Pay Stations GF 292,770.00 - on-going 0 4 Wayfinding CIP 250,000.00 250,000.00 one-time 0 5 Equipping Fire Apparatus GF 128,700.00 - one-time 0 6 Replacement in lieu of Repair of Fire Ladder Truck OF 54,000.00 - one-time 0 6 Replacement in lieu of Repair of Fire Ladder Truck Fleet 794,000 00 794,000.00 one-time 0 7 Good Landlord Electronic Training(On-line and DVDS) GF 30,000.00 - one-time 0 Section B:Grants for Existing Staff Resources ' ' ..- e.:.. - 1 State of Utah,VOCA Victim Assistance Grant Misc.Grants 59,750.49 59,750.49 one time 0 2 State of Utah,Department of Public Safety 911 Dispatch Equipment Misc.Grants 1,522,324.00 1,522,324.00 one time 0 3 State of Utah,Federal Office of National Drug Control Rocky Mountain HIDTA Grant Misc.Grants 67,314,00 67,314.00 one time 0 4 Initiative(tB-4 Withdrawn prior to Council submittal 5 State of Utah,Department of Workforce Services Multicultural Teen Grant Misc.Grants 70,000.00 70,000.00 one time 0 6 State of Utah,Public Safety Emergency Management Performance Grant Misc.Grants 20,000.00 20,000.00 one time 0 7 US Dept.of Health Drug Free Communities Grant Misc.Grants 125,000.00 125,000.00 one time 0 Section C:Grants for New Staff Resources - - - u- - - 'r Section I):Housekeeping 1 US Dept.of Interior,Water Conservation Grant Increase Misc.Grants 39,032.00 39,032.00 one time 0 2 State of Utah,Homeland Security Terrorism Prevention Grant Increase Misc.Grants 50,979.60 50,979.60 one time 0 ' 3 State of Utah,Department of Public Safety Emergency Management Program Income Misc.Grants 8,244.00 8,244.00 one time 0 4 US Dept.of Energy Solar Salt Lake Grant Increase Misc.Grants 20,000.00 20,000.00 one time 0 5 CIP Grant Tower Budget Increase CIP 379,441.58 - one time 0 6 CIP Recapture Completed and Closed Projects(GF,Class C and Impact Fees) CIP (913,025.54) - one time 0 6 CIP Recapture Completed and Closed Projects(SF,Class C and Impact Fees)Recapture CIP 913,025.54 - one time 0 6 CIP Recapture Completed and Closed Projects(Sub budgets) CIP (2,593,29302) - one time 0 7 Grants Completed Budgets Recapture Misc.Grants (993,498.66) - one time 0 7 Grants Completed Budgets Recapture Misc.Grants 993,499.00 - one time 0 8 Carryover Budget from the E-911 Fund E-911 289,000.00 - one time 0 9 General Fund Carryover Budget for Prior Year Encumbrances GF 3,288,969.00 - one time 0 10 Grants and Other Special Revenue Carryover Housing 2,682,072.01 2,682,072.01 onetime 0 10 Grants and Other Special Revenue Carryover CDBG Operating 1,791,102.44 1,791,102.00 one time 0 10 Grants and Other Special Revenue Carryover Misc.Grants 21,277,997.46 21,277,997.46 one time 0 10 Grants and Other Special Revenue Carryover Spec.Revenue 665,720.74 665,720.74 one time 0 11 Donations Fund Carryover Budget Donations 1,871,608.44 1,871,608.44 one time 0 12 Additional General Fund Interest Income and Expense GF 155,208.00 155,208.00 one time 0 1 4 ) Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget Amendment#2 Expenditure Revenue On-going or One Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Amount time FTEs Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources 1 State of Utah,Juvenile Justice Drug Public Awareness Grant Misc.Grant 250,000.00 250,000.00 one time 0 2 US Dept.of Justice,Justice Assistance Grant Misc.Grant 421,634.00 421,634.00 one time 0 3 State of Utah,Dept.of Environmental Quality Wetland Redesign Grant Misc.Grant 18,000.00 18,000.00 one time 0 Section F: Donations Section G: Council Consent Agenda--Grant Awards Section I: Council Added Items Total of Budget Amendment Items 36,310,873.08 Total by Fund,Budget Amendment#2: General Fund 3,996,647.00 Fleet Fund 1,214,000.00 CIP Fund (149,553.44) Misc.Grant Fund 23,950,275 89 Donations Fund 1,871,608.44 E-911 Fund Housing Fund 289,000.00 2,682,072.01 Special Revenue Fund 665,720.74 CDBG Operating Fund 1,791,102.44 Total of Budget Amendment Items 36,310,873.08 Current Year Budget Summary,provided for information only FY2011-12 Budget,Including Budget Amendments FY 2011-12 Adopted Budget BA#1 Total BA 42 Total BA#3 Total BA#4 Total Total To-Date General Fund $195,154,853 3,996,647.00 $199,151,500 Fleet Fund $16,716,891 CIP Fund 1,214,000.00 $17,930,891 E-911 Fund $19,618,798 (149,553.44) $19,469,245 $2,524,801 289,000.00 $2,813,801 Housing Fund $9,877,616 2,682,072.01 $12,559,688 Special Revenue Fund $0 665,720.74 CDBG Operating Fund $2,663,167 $665,721 Misc.Grant Fund 1,791,102.44 $4,454,269 $8,630,249 23,950,275.89 $32,580,525 Donations Fund $200,000 1,871,608.44 $2,071,608 2 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget Amendment#2 Expenditure Revenue On-going or One Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Amount time FTEs Certification I certify that this document is a full and correct copy of Ordinance of 2011,amending Salt Lake City Ordinance of 2011,which adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City Utah for the fiscal year beginning lune 12011 and ending lune 30,2012. Budget Director Deputy Director,Clty Council 3 ) S, ) Salt Lake Cl FY 2011-12 Bud•et Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Section A:New Items A-1:Fleet Replacement:Sales and Make Ready for FY 2010-11 Fleet $345,000.00 Replacement Vehicles The majority of vehicles approved for replacement in FY 2010-11 were not ordered until late in the fiscal year,and as a result most of the vehicles from that list are being received and prepared for use by various city departments during FY 2011-12. Because of the delay,the budget for supplies for these purchases dropped to the Fleet fund balance at the end of FY 2010-11. Sales of vehides that were to be replaced by the FY2010-11 planned purchases were also delayed because of the delay in ordering. We are therefore requesting to re-establish expenditure authority in the current fiscal year for supplies needed to equip purchases made with FY 2010-11 funds that are being delivered in FY 2011-12,as well as a revenue budget for planned vehicle sales from those vehides that are being replaced. A-2:Vehicle Replacement: Undercover Vehicles GF $47,000.00 Fleet $75,000.00 The Police Department maintains a number of vehicles that are used by undercover officers. These cars need to be routinely turned over for safety purposes.Due to turnover in staff,the adopted FY 2011-12 Fleet budget and the FY 2011- 12 Vehicle Replacement Plan did not anticipate the need to replace these vehicles,nor did it anticipate the sale of existing vehicles to replace existing stock. Because of potential officer safety issues associated with these vehides,we are requesting a one-time increase of the non-departmental transfer to fleet line item of$47,000 to be used in combination with estimated sales proceeds of$28,000 from existing stock to purchase 7 vehicles.The Fleet Fund budget will be increased by a total of$75,000 to accommodate both the transfer from the General Fund,expected vehicle sales,and vehicle replacement purchases. The General Fund portion will come from Fund Balance. A-3:Pay Station Parking Meters Installation CIP $1,814,298.00 GF $292,770.00 As part of Budget Amendment#1,discussed by the City Council in work session on September 6,2011,the Administration requested an appropriation to proceed with both a test period for and the purchase of parking pay stations.As part of this original proposal,we proposed using a combination of funds for this program. As part of the adoption of Budget Amendment#1 on September 27,2011,the Council provided funding of$291,771 from the$2.7 million placeholder in the CIP Program,which funds the initial test period of the system. In addition,the Council asked through a legislative intent statement that"the Administration forward a recommendation on moving forward with the Parking Pay Stations,that the proposal would include a recommendation for a fee structure that would make both the ongoing and capital costs of implementation of the pay stations revenue neutral or"revenue-positive"over a five year term." The Administration has provided this information in a separate communication to the Council,and included options for a five,seven and ten-year plan. In order to move the project forward and have the majority of the system operational by March 1,the Administration is now requesting the full cost of the pay stations be approved as part of Budget Amendment#2. This budget amendment proposes to use the remainder of this amount($2,408,229)plus$1,814,298 in lease proceeds to enter into a contract for parking pay stations. In addition,we are requesting$292,770 in operating expenses for the remainder of FY 2011-12. This amount is being requested from General Fund fund balance. If the Council were to choose to delay approval of funding for the overall project until the test period is completed, implementation of the pay stations would happen 3 rh to 4 months from the date of approval. For example,approval of the overall project at the end of January would mean the program could not be operational until the middle to end of April. The overall cost of the project remains the same,and the amount previously approved will be applied to the total cost of the project. The following information regarding the overall cost of the project,including what options are not being proposed at this time,was provided as part of Budget Amendment#1,and is provided again below. 1 Salt Lake CI FY 2011-12 Bud•et Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Auk Provided as part of Budget Amendment#1: The follow is a breakdown of the proposed system costs: Multi-space pay stations 344 @$8,944 $3,076,788 Plate recognition vehicle and equip 2 @$115,000 230,000 Installation and Configuration costs 357,492 Ticket Manager 144,380 Handheld Ticket Units 20 @$5,980 119,600 Signage 223,458 Ambassador Personnel(2) 25,000 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 5 @$5,500 27,500 Installation of Unit Platforms(Salt Lake City Portion) 110,080 Contingency 200,000 Total $4,514,298 These estimates do not include street sensors,but instead two vehicles equipped with a plate recognition system for tracking vehicles. The street sensors(50)will be tested in phase I of the implementation. These 50 sensors will be sunk costs for the units are not reusable. The cost of these units are in the total costs presented above.If the option of street sensors is selected it would add to the cost an additional$1.2 million. $600,000 for the purchase and$600,000 for maintenance. The yearly operating costs for communication software,licensing,central management and ticket manager communication is$270,262 per year. The ongoing maintenance cost for warranty,parts and software for years 1 to 3 would be$38 per month per pay station. An option of an additional$38 would cover the total maintenance costs of the stations. The costs would go up to$48 for years 4 to 10 and the additional costs of total maintenance would stay at$38. The first year would be$313,728 for a `"'" total maintenance free system. The yearly operating costs of the five electric vehicle charging stations is$509 each for a total of$2,545 per year. The total operating costs is$585,535 for a full year and$292,770 for the remainder of the fiscal year 2012. This amount is being requested from the General Fund Balance. The system will have an option that will allow a merchant the ability to pay for a customer's parking stall. The option is a yearly cost of$1,188 per merchant. There will be approximately three stations per block face. One at each end and one in the middle of the block. A-4:Wayfinding CIP $250,000.00 In 2011,a group induding representatives of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City,the Downtown Alliance,the Mayor's Office and Visit Salt Lake began meeting to a)review and analyze existing conditions of all sign types installed as part of the Salt Lake City Wayfinding program,b)provide recommendations to the City for ways to reinforce and enhance the Salt Lake City brand and visitor experience via wayfinding signage and placemaking,and c)support the opening of the City Creek Center in March 2012. The group engaged Infinite Space,who reviewed and documented all wayfinding signs in the City. Infinite Space provided three options for wayfinding. Level 1,at a cost of$190,000 would update and repair the existing system. This option is not recommended by Infinite Scale,as a significant portion of the budget would be used for repairs. Old messages would be visible on some signs,and there would be no aesthetic improvement to the system. Level 3,with an estimated cost of $1.5-$2 million,would create an entirely new system,with new sign types and locations that fit both the city as it is now as well as the future vision of the City. Because of both the timeframe involved(at least 2 years)as well as the overall cost,this option is not recommended. 2 Salt Lake Cit FY2011-12 Bud'et Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount The group is instead recommending Infinite Space's Level 2 recommendation, which would refurbish the existing wayfinding system. This option reuses existing posts and panels, repairs and repaints all posts, removes and resurfaces all panels, updates messages and design of all panels, and relocates and adds signs as necessary. Infinite Space estimates the cost of this project at$450,000. We anticipate that the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City will contribute $100,000 to this project, and the Downtown Alliance and other private contributors will contribute $100,000, therefore we are proposing a $250,000 contribution from recaptured CIP funds. For more information on recaptured funds, see item D-6 of this budget amendment. A-5: Equipping Fire Apparatus GF $128,700.00 These engines will be delivered to the Fire Department late in this fiscal year. Generally, when fire apparatus purchases are anticipated, one-time funds to equip these purchases are added to the Fire Department's budget as part of the development of the Mayor's recommended budget. Because of staff changes, this year's replacement list was not prepared until this summer, after the Council had approved the FY 2011-12 budget, and the cost of equipping these apparatus were not included in the budget. The Fire Department is therefore requesting funding to purchase the necessary emergency response equipment. Engines are sold without equipment so each Department can outfit the apparatus to their specifications. Each apparatus will need to be equipped with fire hose, nozzles, power tools, hand tools and other firefighting equipment. The cost to equip a single engine is $42,900 with the total cost for the three apparatus being $128,700. We are requesting the use of General Fund fund balance for this one-time expense for necessary equipment. A-6: Replacement in Lieu of Repair of Fire Ladder Truck GF $54,000.00 Fleet $794,000.00 The Fleet Vehicle Replacement List reviewed by the City Council in September includes three pumpers needed by the Fire Department to be replaced in FY 2011-12. Since this list was developed and approved, a fire ladder truck(#139) has become in need of serious repairs of approximately$400,000. The Fire Department wishes to continue with the planned purchase of the three pumpers on this year's replacement list and also buy a replacement for the truck needing the substantial repairs. The cost of a fire ladder truck is approximately$740,000. This truck is vital to respond to the airport operations and serve as a backup for the downtown corridor. This $740,000 unit is a Quint which is a hybrid that functions both as a fire engine and a ladder truck. It has dual axles and a 100 foot ladder. This unit is for Station 9, but will also serve as a backup to another quint that is the front-line unit for downtown Salt Lake City. It is prudent that the City have such a backup unit in its inventory. lime is critical for this purchase. Fortunately, a vendor has a demo unit that is approximately 1 year old. This unit can be ready for the City within a short time, most likely ready for service within a month. (Another unit, a single axle with a 75-foot ladder is also available.) A legislative intent approved by the City Council on September 27, 2011 requests that all purchases over$75,000 not on the Vehicle Replacement List be brought to the City Council for approval. We therefore request the addition of this vehicle to the FY 2011-12 Vehicle Replacement List. In addition, we are requesting the addition of$54,000 to the Non- Departmental Transfer to Fleet line item to fund a partial year's debt service payment on this new vehicle. Finally, we are requesting that the Fleet budget be increased by$794,000 to accommodate the overall purchase of the vehicle and the transfer amount from the General Fund for debt service. The General Fund amount will be from fund balance. A-7: Landlord Tenant Initiative Electronic Training (On-line and DVDs) GF $30,000.00 Beginning this year, all landlords who wish to participate in the Landlord Tenant Initiative are required to take a training class. The City has not directly provided this required training and currently only one group offers training to meet this component of the Landlord Tenant Initiative. Business Licensing would like to create a program that will not hinder anyone that wants to participate in the Landlord/Tenant Program due to lack of available options for participation. Business Licensing sees a great need for other training options and requests the use of General Fund fund balance to create a DVD and online training course. 3 Salt Lake Ci FY2011-12 Bud•et Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Section ;Gran r lsffing Staff sources B-1: Utah State VOCA Victim Assistance Program Misc Grants $59,750.49 The Police Department applied for and received $59,750.49 from the State of Utah, Office of Crime Victim Reparations under the Victim of Crime Act(VOCA) grant program,for the continuation of the Mobile Response Team Victim Advocate Program. These funds will be used to pay 1040 hours of wages and benefits of two (3)victim advocate positions who provide 24-7, onrscene crisis counseling and resource services to victims of any violent crime. Of these funds, $56,291.49 is allocated for twelve (12) months of an hourly wage of$16.76 per hour plus FICA of the three part-time victim advocate positions; $1,559.00 will be used for mileage when personal vehicles are used to attend conferences, conference registration, hotel and per diem to attend the Statewide Advocates for Victims Organization (SWAVO)training and National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) conferences; $400.00 will be used to purchase Traumatic Death handbooks for victims; and $1,500 will be use as emergency funds to assist victims with immediate needs. A$14,951.14 match is required which will be satisfied by the payment of an hourly rate of$14.00 per hour x 104 hours to a volunteer advocate and 270 hours of the salary and benefits of another full-time victim advocate position. These funds are budgeted for within the Police Departments general fund budget. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. B-2: Utah State Dept of Public Safety 911 Committee Dispatch Misc Grants $1,522,324.00 Equipment The Police Department applied for and received $1,522,342 grant from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety,to purchase 911 dispatch equipment needed for the new Salt Lake City Public Safety Facility. The new 911 center will be a 30 position consolidated center which will provide police,fire and medical dispatching. The estimated cost of the 911 phone system is approximately$1,549,443 and consists of the 911 phone system and 3 year maintenance on the equipment. The grant requires a 30% match of$456,702 which is budgeted within the PD's Public Safety Answering Point(PSAP) fund. The match will be used to pay the balance of the equipment/maintenance cost's, and other related costs associated with the equipment. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. B-3: Federal Office of National Drug Control Rocky Mountain HIDTA Misc Grants $67,314.00 Grant The Police Department applied for and received a $67,314 Rocky Mountain HIDTA grant from the Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control. The SLCPD receives this grant on an annual basis. The funds will continue to fund the salary and benefits of one (1) K-9 Law Enforcement Officer assigned to the Metro Narcotics/Drug Enforcement Task Force to address drug issues throughout the Valley. The purpose of this grant is to support the national drug control strategy of reducing drug use in the nation. Specifically, the RMHIDTA's grant funding is allocated to jurisdictions to facilitate cooperation and coordination among federal, state and local drug enforcement efforts to enhance combating drug trafficking organizations locally, regionally and nationally. This is accomplished through intelligence-driven joint multi-agency drug task forces sharing information and working cooperatively with other drug enforcement initiatives. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. 4 Salt Lake Cit FY2011-12 Bud.et Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount B-5: Utah State Workforce Services Multicultural Teen Grant Misc Grants $70,000.00 The Public Services Division of YouthCity applied for and received a $70,000 grant from the Utah State Department of Work Force Services under the Federal Grant for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). These funds have been awarded to continue the Teen Program for middle,junior and high school aged children at the Central City YouthCity site and implement the Teen Program at the Northwest Multicultural Center. The Teen Programs must provide at least two risk-prevention components that includes career exploration, healthy body/lifestyles, financial literacy, healthy interpersonal relationships, prevention of tobacco/drug/alcohol abuse, prevention of violence/gang affiliation, pregnancy/sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention and must include a parent involvement component. Of these funds, $37,514 will be used to pay four Group Facilitators II hourly wage and FICA; $2,782 will fund the fiscal grant monitors time for fiscal oversight and grant management; $900 will be used for transportation of youth at Northwest Multicultural Center; $1,140 will be used for copying and printing STD prevention flyers for parents; $2,900 will be used for sports equipment and some furniture at Northwest Multicultural Center; $4,704 will be used for supplies, maintenance and snacks; $960 will be used for community activity fees for the youth; $200 will be used for educational training of staff; and $18,900 will be used to pay for contractual activity instructors. A 100% match is required which will be satisfied with 8% of the Youth Programs Manager's salary and benefits and 100% of the Teen Program Coordinator's salary and benefits. Matching funds are budgeted for within the YouthCity general fund budget. The City Council adopted the necessary Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the Work Force Service grant award and to sign any additional agreements or awards as a result of the initial grant. B-6: Utah State Public Safety Emergency Management Performance Misc Grants $20,000.00 Grant The Emergency Management Services Division received a $20,000 FY2011 EMPG project based grant from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety. This grant is awarded on an annual basis to jurisdictions to help offset costs of planning and updating emergency preparedness plans, conduct emergency preparedness exercises and produce materials and other media for public educational outreach and training pertaining to emergency preparedness. SLC's population increases from 180,000 to an estimated 310,000 each workday. Should a disaster occur during the workday, employees become a part of the SLC emergency response, but are not trained to assist themselves or others. These funds will offset costs in providing National Incident Management System (NIMS)training to SLC staff with emergency response responsibilities during a disaster or other significant event. The funds will be used to purchase training materials, supplies and equipment including books, brochures, handouts, etc. The grant requires a 50% match which will be satisfied with the Community Preparedness Coordinator's time. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept Utah Department of Public Safety grants and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. B-7: US Dept of Health Drug Free Communities Grant Misc Grants $125,000.00 The Mayor's Office applied for and received $125,000 of grant funding from the Department of Health and Human Services for continuation of the Mayor's Drug Free Communities Support program. This program supports the Mayor's Coalition on Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs in the reduction and prevention of substance abuse in Salt Lake City. This is year three of the grant which has been awarded for an additional 5 year period. Of these funds, $70,167 has been awarded for the salary and benefits of the Coalition Coordinator, who coordinates and supports the coalition strategy in program implementation and activities that include training, data collection, dissemination of findings, and liaising between the Coalition, the Mayor's Office and the community, and $5,371 will fund the Grant Monitors time for the fiscal monitoring and oversight of the grant. In addition, $13,745 has been awarded for travel and training of the Coalition Coordinator, a coalition member, four(4) students and one (1) advisor to four (4) 5 Salt Lake Cl FY2011-12 Bud.et Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount mandatory conferences that include the grantee meeting,and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of American(CADCA) trainings and Youth Leadership Initiative;$7,640 will be used for memberships,registration for conference's listed above, printing,photocopying and postage;and$28,077 will be used for other contractual components to include continuation of program evaluation and needs assessment data collection and analysis for the Coalition,Salt Lake IMS web-site domain,a contractual strategic planning facilitator to assist the Coalition in its annual strategic planning process,stipends paid to high school teachers who serve as school advisors for Governing Youth Councils,and graphic design costs for brochures, posters mailings,etc. The grant requires a$297,319 in-kind match which will be met with the Mayor's Office staff,IMS staff time for Community Forum tapings,a portion of the consultants time for the evaluation services and data collection,Coalition members time and SLC Public Utilities expense related to the production and mailing of four publications of the Salt Lake City News with articles featuring Coalition prevention messages and is included in the City's water bill. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. on :Housekeeping D-1:US Dept of Interior Additional to the Water Conservation Grant Misc Grants $39,032.00 The US Department of the Interior,Bureau of Reclamation awarded the Public Utilities(PU)Department a$30,535 grant to develop a suite of on-line landscape water conservation tools that will provide commercial contractors and private property owners with quantitative methods to assess landscape water-use demands,to make informed decisions regarding water use in landscapes and to educate the public of proper weed identification and control. This grant was brought in during budget amendment#1 FY 2012. The Department of the Interior has recently informed PU that the grant allocation has been increased to$69,567 which reflects an additional$39,032. The additional funding will be used to secure the services of a local DVD manufacturing company to record and press .^► 50,000 copies of the DVD-5s containing the 13 water conservation best management practices instructional videos with four-color art work sleeve and mailer boxes. The grant requires a 50%match which also increase's PU's match by an additional$39,032 for a total grant match of $70,176. The entire match will be satisfied with the salary and benefits of the associated time spent by the Water Conservation Program Coordinator,the IMS Video Production staff,the mailing of promotional brochures,SLC TV 17 airtime,production of a instructional video and 1 year of web license fees which is budget for within the Public Utilities enterprise fund. This request is to increase the grant cost center budget by$39,032,for a total grant budget of$69,567. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept Bureau of Reclamation Agreements and to sign any agreements or awards that stem from the original Agreement. D-2:Utah State Additional to Homeland Security Terrorism Prevention Misc Grants $50,979.60 Grant During FY 2010,the Emergency Management Services(EMS)Division received a 2009-Homeland Security SHSP and LETPP grant from the State of Utah Department of Public Safety,in the amount of$148,486. These funds were brought in during budget amendment#4 FY 2010. The grant is awarded on an annual basis to local jurisdictions to purchase equipment and provide training opportunities as necessary to prepare in the event of a terrorist,weapons of mass destruction attack or natural disaster. The County is the lead agency and reimburses the City for eligible expenses as outlined in the grant award. The EMS Division was recently notified by the County that the grant allocation had increased by, $50,979.60 to purchase emergency 72 hour preparedness kits for emergency responders. The kits include water,food,sanitary supplies,etc. They will be distributed to EOC locations,and the City's 4 Task Force fire stations. At this time the cost of the kits has not 6 Salt Lake Ci FY2011-12 Butt,et Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount been determined. This request is to increase the grant cost center budget by the$50,979.60,for a total grant budget of$199,465.60. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. D-3:Utah State Dept of Public Safety Emergency Management Misc Grants $8,244.00 Program Income The Emergency Management Services Division received a$12,500 project based grant from the Utah Department of Public Safety,Division of Homeland Security. This grant is awarded on an annual basis to jurisdictions to help offset costs of planning and updating emergency preparedness plans,conduct emergency preparedness exercises and produce materials and other media for public educational outreach and CERT training pertaining to emergency preparedness. The EMS Division charges fees for costs associated with the kits and trainings for the CERT program. As of Aug.30,they have collected total program income fees in the amount of$15,434,have remaining cash in the amount$13,184,and remaining budget of$4,940. Fees collected due to the nature of the program are considered program income and must be spent in accordance with the grant. This request is to increase the current budget to match the available cash of $8,244,enabling the EMS Division to expend the CERT fees received. The funds will be used to purchase additional kits at approximately$42.00 each and trainings. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept Utah Department of Public Safety grants and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. D-4:US Dept of Energy Solar Salt Lake Grant Increase Misc Grants $20,000.00 In FY 2008,the U.S.Department of Energy(DOE)awarded the Mayor's Sustainability Division a$197,286 grant under the DOE's Solar America Initiative. These funds were awarded to meet the Administrations"Solar Salt Lake Goals"by developing a full-scoped city and county -level implementation plan that facilitated at least an additional ten megawatts of solar photovoltaic installation in government,commercial,industrial,and residential sectors by 2015. To achieve this goal,the program strategy included a combination of barrier identification,research and policy analysis that utilized the input of various stakeholders. The stakeholders include Salt Lake City,Salt Lake County,the State of Utah,Utah Clean Energy,Kennecott Land,Rocky Mountain Power,and Rio Tinto. The grant was originally awarded for a two(2)year period but has since been extended until 4/30/2012 and the DOE has awarded the City an additional$20,000. The funds will be used to continue the contract with Utah Clean Energy for the continued development of the"Solar Salt Lake"program and comprehensive city and county-wide solar implementations plan. The grant requires a 100%match. The City has already met the 197,286 match and the additional$20,000 will be satisfied with in-kind time of the Sustainability Directors salary and benefits,and Clean Cities will also donate additional time to the project. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept Utah Department of Public Safety grants and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. D-5:CIP Grant Tower Budget Increase CIP $379,441.58 In FY 07,the City awarded$400,000 for expenses related to the Grant Tower project. These funds were and are being used for property appraisals,watering of the properties,legal expense and other project related expense. In FY 2010,$379,441.58 of unspent bond proceeds from the Grant Tower Project funded by Sales Tax Revenue Bonds were moved to the Local Street Reconstruction project. The Local Street Reconstruction Project would have been eligible for tax-exempt financing and qualified to receive unspent bond proceeds from the Grant Tower Project. In return, $379,441.58 of general fund monies were moved from the Local Street Reconstruction project to the general fund Grant Tower Project. 7 Salt Lake Cl FY2011-12 Bud,et Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount This request is to increase the budget in the FY 2007 CIP cost center by the$379,441.58 so that cash and budget match. D-6:CIP Recapture Completed and Closed Projects CIP -$2,593,293.00 This request decreases the remaining budgets of twenty-three(23)completed and closed general fund,Class"C"and Impact Fee CIP projects totaling$912,985.54,and increases the cost over run accounts of the respective programs for future reprogramming. Of these projects,fifteen(15) are general fund CIP projects totaling$392,747.17;six(6)are Class"C"CIP projects totaling$478,063.79;and two(2)are Impact Fee projects totaling$42,174.58. In addition,there are three SAA budgets totaling$2,593,293.02 which need the remaining budgets reduced to zero. These budgets were established for collection of the property owners portion of the SAA but are completed/dosed with remaining budgets that are no longer needed. There is no cash involved in the SAA projects. D-7:Recapture of Grants Completed Projects Misc Grants -0- This request decreases the remaining budgets of twenty-seven(27)completed and/or dosed US Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)programs/projects totaling$993,498.66,and increases the cost overrun accounts of the respective programs for future reprogramming as per HUD Federal Guidelines. Programs/projects and amounts indude twenty-two(22)CDBG programs totaling$932,770.61;one(1)ESG program totaling$287.94;and four(4)HOPWA programs totaling$60,440.11. D-8:Carryover Budget For E-911 Fund E-911 $289,000.00 This is a request for carryover budget for the E-911 fund(60)for the Versaterm,which provided a CAD system for the Salt Lake City Police Department. The purpose of the contract is to include the Salt Lake City Fire Department on the CAD system as the first step in combining the Police and Fire Departments'into a single dispatch center. The request is to carry forward the remaining encumbrance of$289,000 to be spent in the current fiscal year. This budget requests additional expense budget from the E-911 fund to upgrade of the CAD system to add the Fire Department dispatchers. D-9:General Fund Carryover Budget for Prior Year Encumbrances GF $3,288,969.00 General Fund departments comparison to budget indudes encumbrances that are outstanding at fiscal year end. Historically,the Council has appropriated fund balance to provide a means to"hold harmless"the General Fund departments'prior year encumbrances.Without Council action,the General Fund departments'Fiscal 2012 appropriation will be forced to fund encumbrances outstanding at fiscal year end.It is recommended that the Council approve the budget for the outstanding encumbrances in the General Fund. D-10:Grants and Other Special Rev Carryover Budgets from Prior Year Housing $2,682,072.00 CDBG Op. $1,791,102.00 Misc.Grants $21,277,997.00 Spec Rev. $665,721.00 City Coundl has in the past approved carryover budgets in these funds in order to complete the started projects.After June 30,2011,the spending authority of any remaining amounts held by these funds lapsed.Without Council action,the City cannot finish the started projects.It is recommended that the Council approve the carryover budgets for these grants and other spedal revenue funds. D-11:Donations Fund Carryover from Prior Year Donations $1,871,608.44 City Council has in the past approved carryover budgets in these funds in order to continue the use of funds for which they were donated.After June 30,2011,by state law,the spending authority of any remaining amounts held by these funds lapsed.Without Council action,the City cannot continue these programs.It is recommended that the Council approve the net cash balance carryover budgets for these donations special revenue funds. 8 Salt Lake Ci FY2011-12 Bud•et Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount D-12:Additional General Fund Interest Income and Expense GF $155,208.00 On June 14, 2011 the City Council adopted a Resolution authorizing the issuance and confirming the sale of$19 million of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes for fiscal year 2012. The Tax Notes were sold on June 22, 2011 using the competitive method of sale, and awarded to JP Morgan Securities, Inc. As a result of this issuance, the Notes will have a coupon of 2.5% and General Fund interest expense for FY 2012 will be $455,208.33. This is $155,208.33 more than the $300,000 that appears in the Adopted Budget for FY 2012. However, the Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes were sold at a premium sufficient to cover the additional interest expense. Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: Utah State Juvenile Justice Drug Public Awareness Grant Misc Grants $250,000.00 The Police Department applied for and received a $250,000 continuation grant from the State of Utah, CCJJ, under their Utah Pharmaceutical Drug Crime Project(UPDCP) Public Awareness grant program. In 2010, SLCPD working with COJ staff formed the UPDCP Committee which includes prevention, treatment, law enforcement,judiciary, environmental quality, health specialists, medical providers, prosecutors, faith-based and Tribal Nations members. This committee was formed to bring together federal, state and local law enforcement and drug education/prevention specialists to develop a comprehensive, statewide program to address Utah's pharmaceutical problem. At that time, the City also received a $250,000 grant from CCJJ to contract with a qualified advertising, marketing, and public relations agency to create and implement a direct public awareness campaign to heighten awareness and serve as a "call to action" to Utah's citizens to become involved in efforts to eliminate non-medical pharmaceutical use in Utah. At that time, the City contracted with R&R Partners. The 2012-$250,000 grant award will be used to continue the contract with R&R Partners and further the Use Only as Directed public awareness campaign. R&R Partners will utilize TV, radio, print and other non-traditional media. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the State of Utah COJ grant funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. E-2: US Dept of Justice—Justice Assistance Grant Misc Grants $421,634.00 The Police Department applies for and receives this grant annually. It is awarded to provide operational support and services in the eligible areas of law enforcement, crime prevention and drug courts. The City received $421,634 which includes $138,750 of the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office funding. The City acting as the lead agency, will provide fiscal management and grant reporting. The City's portion of the grant is $282,884. The police Department will use$100,000 of the funds allocated to fund officer over-time @ $45 per hour x 2222.22 hours, for direct Community Policing; $60,000 for training of both sworn and civilian personnel; a $12,000 contractual component with Salt Lake Peer Court; and $110,884 of equipment which includes digital crime scene scanner, aerial video system, media room equipment and camera and equipment necessary to upgrade the Pioneer Precinct security system. No match is required. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the US Department of Justice,JAG funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. E-3: Utah State Dept of Environmental Quality Wetland Re-design Misc Grants $18,000.00 Grant The Public Utilities Department applied for received an $18,000 grant from the State DEQ under the Water Quality Hardship Grant Fund for the re-design of the Jordan River Wetland at 900 South 900 West, the Jordan River, and the Jordan River Parkway to conserve soil, water or other natural resources and to help reduce the number of water bodies not achieving water quality standards. The project is expected to improve water quality in the Jordan River through the re-engineering/design of a vegetative, one acre wetland, to reduce storm water pollution and fine particulate matter flowing into the Jordan River. 9 Salt Lake Ci FY2011-12 Bud•et Amendment#2 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount The funding will be used to develop construction and engineering documents for implementation and maintenance of a wetland system. The documents will include specifications for increasing water flow and increasing the surface area of the wetland, re-design of the sediment forebay to increase sediment filtration, and will address stagnation and vegetative growth issues. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. 10 FY 2011-12 Variance Annual Revised Favorable Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable) Total General Fund 195,114,853 194,559,704 (555,149) Selected Discussion Items Total Property Taxes 63,175,537 63,175,537 0 Discussion: Total Sales and Use Tax 45,622,655 45,622,655 0 Discussion: Total Franchise Tax 28,434,888 28,366,228 (68,660) Discussion: Franchise Fee for Public Utilities is lower than budgeted due to a cooler and wetter summer. License and Permits: 18,452,058 18,379,780 (72,278) Discussion: Intergovernmental Revenue 5,426,994 5,426,994 0 Discussion: interest income 780,000 780,000 0 Discussion: Total Fines& Forfeiture 10,988,815 10,567,259 (421,556) Discussion: Parking Ticket revenue is down due to parking ticket issuance being down. Parking Meters 1,651,000 1,651,000 0 Discussion: Charges and Services 4,118,852 4,126,197 7,345 Discussion: Miscellaneous Revenue 3,020,641 3,020,641 0 Discussion: Interfund Reimbursement 9,907,993 9,907,993 0 Discussion: Transfers 3,535,420 3,535,420 0 Discussion: 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 financing. 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 DATE: October 25,2011 SUBJECT: Wasatch Hollow Open Space Restoration,Use and Management Plan STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District 6 ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: AND CONTACT PERSON: Emy Maloutas,Parks and Public Lands Director UPDATED INFORMATION Council Members Remington-Love and Martin met with Administrative staff to go over the plan in more detail and discuss concerns about sufficient areas for"free play" as mentioned by a number of constituents during the public hearing. Another issue discussed was the process for establishing an access point at Kensington Avenue,and how that should be reflected in the plan. As a result of this meeting,the Administration has prepared an alternative to the original plan that is very similar,but contains the following differences and/or clarifications: 1. There will be two maps-an"interim management map" showing what can/should be accomplished in the next few years,where funding for improvements will be scarce,and a "final management map",showing improvements once all funding can be secured. The Administration has also prepared a"Final Use Map" to illustrate where different types of recreation can occur in the hollow once improvements are complete (see attached maps). 2. Kensington Avenue entrance- a. The interim map will show no entrance at Kensington Avenue. b. The final map will show a"minor entrance" at Kensington Avenue, contrasted with"main entrances" at the other access points. c. A "minor entrance" will consist of no signage,benches,or other amenities encouraging people to stay,but will have a gate so that the public open space can be accessed from the public street. d. The plan will state that this entrance will not be established until a residential parking permit program is established for that block of Kensington. This will allow citizens who live in the area around 1600 East,north of Kensington,to more easily access the park on foot. e. It is important to note that this access point cannot be established until restoration work (the purple area on the West side of the park) can be paid for and completed,and a passage through that area can be constructed to connect it to the main Wasatch Hollow trail. 3. Areas for more unrestricted"Free Play" -the plan will designate the area inside the two southern"loops" created by the main trail,as"Free Play areas" with minimal restrictions. a. In these areas it will be ok for users to go off trail. b. These areas will be open for users to explore. At some point various trees and other natural elements may be introduced to these areas to encourage exploration. 1 c. Users will be required to stay on trail in northern half of the overall park,as this area contains more sensitive restoration and protection areas. 4. Bus Parking-some raised concerns that buses would be allowed to park and unload on 1700 East,near Logan Avenue,creating traffic issues. The plan would be amended to clarify that bus loading and parking can only occur in the existing Park Parking lot on 1700 South. The Administration has provided three revised maps for the Council's consideration-there are two management maps(interim and final).The Final Use Map is probably the most relevant document for the Council to discuss,as this shows the areas that are designated for on-trail use, and the areas designated for free play. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: 1. I move that the Council adopt the Resolution adopting the Restoration,Use,and Management Plan for Wasatch Hollow Open Space,as illustrated in the Recommended Concept Map as originally presented by the Administration; OR 2. I move that the Council adopt the Resolution adopting the Restoration,Use,and Management Plan for Wasatch Hollow Open Space,with the clarifications and changes as noted in the revised maps. Changes include: a. The Kensington Avenue entrance will not be made available until a residential parking permit program is established and all of the necessary adjacent restoration work in the park is paid for and complete. b. The two southernmost loops created by the main trail system will be areas identified as"Free Play"areas where users will be allowed to go off-trail. c. Bus loading/parking will be limited to the existing park Parking lot along 1700 South. OR 3. I move that the Council not adopt the plan. The following information was provided for the Council briefing on September 13,2011. It is provided again for reference. COUNCIL PROCESS: A. The Administration has presented a resolution and attached plan,for the Council's consideration and adoption. 1. The Council has not historically formally adopted management or use plans for City Open Space,although it has funded the creation of these plans to be used administratively,and in the requesting of CIP funds. 2. The adoption of a restoration and management plan was listed as a criterion for the receipt of reimbursement funds from the County(See Key Element A). 3. The Council formally adopted a use and management plan for Parley's Historic Nature Park,due to an expressed desire to review and approve it,as stated in a previous Council action. B. Public Process Options: 1. No public process is required by City code to adopt this plan. 2 2. This plan has been reviewed by the Open Space Lands Advisory Board,but has not been reviewed by the Planning Commission,although planning staff did hold an open house. Additionally,as a part of the consultant's creation of the plan,a series of 13 stakeholder meetings were held in the surrounding neighborhoods,including meetings with children in the neighborhood and Uintah Elementary,to identify a vision for the property,and to develop decision making criteria. 3. Public Hearing/Notice-The Council may wish to discuss holding a public hearing, and potentially mailing notice of the proposed plan to surrounding property owners. 4. The Council may wish to establish a policy for how the City reviews and adopts these plans in the future,and whether an official Council action is required. KEY ELEMENTS: A. Wasatch Hollow Open Space(WHOS)is a 10-acre parcel of publicly-owned open space along Emigration Creek,located north and East of 1700 South 1600 East. In 2009,the City spent$1.38 million from the City's Open Space bond to acquire adjacent property and form the current WHOS. The County has agreed to reimburse the City for$475,000 once the City adopts a management and restoration plan,and the conservation deed is given to the County. Once the reimbursement is made the City's contribution to this property will be $950,000. B. Overall Guiding Principle-The stated goal of the City,County,and Utah Open Lands partnering in this property is to"provide stewardship of the Wasatch Hollow Open Space area in a manner that protects native vegetation,water quality and aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat of Emigration Creek while providing appropriate access and educational opportunities for the public." The City's consultant has expanded on this guiding principle in their report,and developed the following fundamental goals and objectives: 1. Restore and Protect Emigration Creek Riparian Corridor and open space area by improving water quality,providing habitat for wildlife,and restoring and protecting native vegetation; 2. Establish Clearly Defined Boundaries to Prevent Encroachment and Foster Respect for Public and Private Lands; 3. Provide Controlled Public Access that is informed by ecological goals; 4. Increase Safety by reducing risks on both public and private land; 5. Foster cooperation and collaboration among stakeholders in stewardship of the WHOS to ensure sustainable long term management. C. The City's consultant has authored an extensive Comprehensive Restoration,Use and Management Plan(included in the attached transmittal),with the above stated goal in mind, and after a public input process to identify community values,balanced with best management practices. The Administration has provided the Council a resolution to adopt this document and its recommendations as the official plan for the WHOS. This document contains the following: 1. Documentation of current conditions including natural and cultural resources(pages 1-18 of the plan,summarized graphically in the attached map); 2. Guiding principles for the development of the plan; 3. Detail of public engagement involved in the authoring of the plan(pages 43-44); 4. Recommended implementation and phasing of improvements; 5. A matrix of recommended restoration and management strategies that provide varying degrees of emphasis in preservation,restoration,public access,education, 3 and conservation(see page 24 of the plan or matrix attached to this report),and corresponding Concepts A-E(maps on pages 25-29 and attached to this report). 6. A"Recommended Concept Map"which blends these concepts,analyzes the trade- offs,and attempts to balance all goals(page 34 in the plan and attached to this report). D. The recommended alternative contains the following key elements(see attached map),in general order of recommended phasing. The total estimated cost of these recommendations could range from$660,000-$1,024,000: Recommendation Cost Notes 1 Close and re-vegetate unauthorized $10,000- Staff note-this reduces the network of footpaths. Limit public access solely to $20,000 trails and unauthorized footpaths from authorized footpaths and restrict dogs to the tangled and redundant network of designated areas,on-leash(See dashed- 7,345 feet of paths to a single,4,145 foot red line on map. No dogs would be long footpath,looping in sections. allowed on the trail marked by the Participants in the facilitated meetings nearly unanimously agreed that dashed-yellow line). unrestricted dog access would run counter to restoration goals,expressed by all participants,for the property. 2 Access points would be reduced from six $45,000- This recommendation includes to three(potentially four) $80,000($15- wayfinding signs and informational $20k per transitions. Four access points is location) possible only if parking concerns on Kensington can be addressed. The plan recommends working with residents on this element before making a determination. 3 Establish Bicycle Use Guidelines n/a Bicycle use will be limited only to the proposed on-leash footpaths(red- dashed lines)within the WHOS to allow for bicyclists to traverse the property. Bicycle and BMX activities will be prohibited in the remainder of the park to ensure preservation of footpath and vegetative integrity. 4 Re-establish Riparian floodplain $80,000- Remove artificial fill material and re- $120,000 grade to establish natural floodplain along creek. Focus on central area of Wasatch Hollow so as not to be influenced by backwater effect of culvert downstream. 5 Re-connect Wasatch Hollow Spring(if $10,000- Remove fill material to expose natural feasible) $15,000 spring 6 Establish Restoration Areas-Install $40,000- "Restoration Areas"as identified in the restoration area fencing $60,000 map will need to be prohibited from public access until native vegetation is established(2-5 years) 7 Remove/Control Invasive Species $33,000- The existing conditions section of the (phased),and re-plant native vegetation $45,000 plan goes into detail regarding the numerous invasive and non-native plant species found in the hollow.This recommendation would mitigate that concern and re-establish more native 4 vegetation. 8 Purchase or Accept land donations from $0-$30,000 There are sections of Emigration Creek willing neighbors that meander outside of the WHOS property along the eastern boundary, particularly along the eastern boundary of Wasatch Hollow Park. If the stream were encompassed fully in the WHOS property,this would help alleviate some trespassing concerns by making property boundaries more logical and enforceable. There is approximately 1 acre that fits this category. _ 9 Establish Clear Property lines $25,000- Approximately 45%of the current $35,000 WHOS property is fenced. The plan recommends fencing or other natural barriers or signage to prevent trespassing. 10 Site Amenities $90,000- Site Amenities could include art, $120,000 benches,and/or signage. 11 Small-scale educational facility(one-room, $200,000- Some members in the community LEED Silver as per City ordinance) $300,000 suggested that a small-scale educational facility would serve the site well. (see black box marked"ED"located in the Natural Area of the Recommended Concept Map) 12 Raze Abandoned House and Associated $40,000- There is currently an abandoned Infrastructure $80,000 dilapidated house on the WHOS property. The Council approved the Administration's budget amendment request in June 2011 for$50,000 in order to demolish this building. 13 Enhance existing footpaths and develop $30,000- This element would establish a new footpaths $50,000 hierarchy of footpaths-8-10 ft wide for those more heavily traveled,2-3 feet wide for those less traveled. 14 Install new bridge $30,000- This element would connect footpaths $50,000 from the south area of the WHOS to the footpaths in the central area,across Emigration Creek. Salt Lake City currently owns a railroad flat-car bridge that can be re-used at this location for this purpose. The Administration has applied for a grant from the LeRay McCallister Fund to complete this element(City will be notified of decision in late September 2011). 15 Establish Outdoor Classrooms(3) $25,000- These could be designated learning $30,000 spaces to protect vegetation from harm caused by off-trail impromptu gathering. 16 Install Interpretive Signage $30,000- This would serve as an educational $45,000 feature in the park. 17 Stream Cleanup $1,000- This involves organizing a stream $1,500 clean-up event with volunteer labor. 5 18 Reduce Wildfire Hazards-conduct $1,000- The assessment would be conducted in wildfire hazard assessment/implement $2,500 coordination with the Unified Fire mitigation if necessary Authority. Homeowner education and training could be a component. The Council may wish to ask that the study also be conducted in conjunction with the SLC Fire Department. 19 Coordinate with Rocky Mountain Power The City will coordinate with RMP to relating to management of vegetation ensure that RMP will target non-native near overhead power lines invasive trees below power lines for removal and phase in replacement of native species. E. The City has applied for a grant from the LeRay McAllister fund in the amount of$26,500 to help defray the costs identified above. The grant funds would be used to coordinate and design a pedestrian footbridge to allow for safe access across Emigration Creek,as well as to hire a riparian restoration design/engineering consultant to supply engineering specifications to restore the riparian area and springs. F. As of the printing of this staff report,no other City or outside funds have been identified to help defray the costs of implementing the recommended alternative. The Administration indicates that their intent is to pursue additional grants once the plan is finalized. MATTERS AT ISSUE: A. Dog access-The Recommended Concept Map indicates that dogs will only be allowed on designated areas of the trail,on-leash. Dogs would not be allowed at all on the trail marked by the yellow-dashed line in the Recommended Concept map. They would only be allowed on-leash on the trail marked by the red dashed line. The designated area is predominantly the southern end of the proposed footpath,connecting 1600 East and 1700 East. Currently, many members of the public use the southern section of the open space area for dog activity (both on and off leash). The Council may wish to discuss this matter further,including potential enforcement needs. B. Budget-the restoration plan includes cost estimates for the various components identified in the plan. The plan states that these cost estimates to not include design/engineering costs or future monitoring and maintenance. Future monitoring and maintenance has been identified as a crucial step in other City natural-open-space projects(Jordan River,Parley's Historic Nature Park). a. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to estimate any future budget needs that may result from this project. b. The Council may wish to ask the Administration about which recommended project elements will be requested to be funded in the immediate future. c. The Council may wish to identify recommended project elements that should be addressed earlier rather than later. d. The Council may wish to discuss phasing budgeting for the project in the order recommended by the consultant. C. Educational Facility-The Council may wish to consider the practicality of constructing a City building on this property. While the plan indicates that this building would not be staffed or occupied at all times,it would have to be secured,maintained,and heated/cooled during occupation. It would also need to be ADA accessible. Future maintenance and accessibility costs may be a complication to this component of the recommended plan. 6 r ` 4 ' Wasatch Hollow i .�, • air - _ Open Space Z -'+•Ar '" -; ,,,`...I l I i I __ • Roosevelt w r- ! •, • `" f . — R Final Use Plan Ifi 2/0 . r p , 3.„'_,- t Legend Iri ,-,:Jr • . v: ,. •, . } (� Access Location Potential Access Location t . 1 /. ._ .l t• Emigration Creek ' .L� y t , • Proposed Footpaths(Dogs Prohibited) ^p 9 •d r Proposed On-leash Footpaths ,., .'�• -, 4 'r,_.. . F f, Proposed Bridge '- '` ••wd y� -* El Proposed Education Facility 1 E �r, r. Kensington _ P ti y < nsnicit.>n : : • r' A 1� Wasatch Hollow Open Space Boundary``= ' 1) ' •: • � ri ._'`a,_ } ' -I'ia + r7 Wasatch Hollow Park Boundary itiLL1 M • .�b Use Areas 3 w ' . i X _-4.. E Riparian Corridor Ad �to y� ♦ • . ` Bryan,_. I ' •' .'f '"�`' - Passive Recreation 1. Bryan �; .•.• • N 11. •. ^P !, ` II• •„ C Nature Play t` i T • . • f r — _ _,Q ••' • NOTE: Contours are at 3'intervals Stabilized^Stream- • Maintenance-Access • L t . '' , ' " _ I - II: T ,Logan iA;041, - dm i lO r� M 1 r 0 200 400 800 Feet _ 1 ,'L. ..-e ,.1.,- -,-,-;fv.=: r: \-. t, , . lirr.- - 741 ! . > : 41iBcRsn i•700 South t TT c-'� Vw 1 , l - � -s, BIO-WEST, Inc. . , - ,211mi*.,. tit 1 vI. r _ 1 I :-d 3� � ! ' 7 ® �'i f...T. J 's1 - T1 .owl, ■i ..r% .' t • 'A 1 1 r Yrr, , ' 1 . !1 . + Lal. • Harrison Ave • V' Roosevelt • 4 i 1_ r rt .. - -„ `s •• �/ max' iji , •:;,,,, _ i _) • ^ , L: {•-----,,.— {_..1,_... r; ' r a • • J ) • wF ,11 • 1 i - E ,�,�7 i • s mers'on • / t 8, i _ 0 4I.__�-ff x •••• • • .♦ ,>� i �j i1 1 * r ,. _r. .ds.t:„ lY- I WS!, till,i' , �, �: • ;� I. K ' ,>inc,[on Wasatch Hollow Open Space rC n,nrJten ; . ,.. • T Restoration, Use, & Management Plan Pik • T• 'Li h,. .tom . ♦♦ I! !ill t L; y :1. 4,411 ..:'_ , Q CRSA ••'' •. ; Bryan , -} „ �` ¢ r, • ° BIO-WEST, Inc. • .1 -.-1 : . .1 1 ii . '..:- lig I, , 1 : ,. �. S:t• Interim Manangement Plan Stab111zed.Strearn •sr_ ' 1 j` r i Legend Maintenance"Ac,cess r © Access Location 111 L•og.tn Emigration Creek N- • rl- i Proposed Footpaths(Dogs Prohibited) Logan •�` - /� . '- d�','' PI •• .i1 i.'.f. �. Proposed On-leash Footpaths _.p; .I _ _ _ - -. '/.� 4,.. �� r — 1. ; - (� �t..� ,�, , r Proposed Bridge y "' — y eo Proposed Education Facility :.:�; 1 Prescriptive T WC' i. . Management Areas Wasatch Hollow Open Space Boundary k " r _ rr ti' Wasatch Hollow Park Boundary • 44144 « l -Restoration Area g all �i [ NOTE:Contours are at 3'intervals i r fit.-'. .' 1 .__ Protection Area 1.700•South : .: d -NaturalArea 0 200 400 800 Feet - a ., i•1---"-- - • ' ( El i (1 �. x� f, 1_ 1 t 1 1 1 I i 1 I ' - t - I,' . -I . \. -A�' (( y s * s � ( : I..... Harrison•Avc , r L. 91-roil _tit . f T 1—C. , // 3i �' h' j .., d_Y_ _ 1_, 7 Emerson • • LI I n i••..• ♦ S`` 4 ] p �, s _ . ; ,e \. \1 y Kin inniton Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 "S (,w. Kensington ' ' • • ` -J,i, _ _ __it:11P ti ig ' 1,, . i i j .ii �: * Restoration, Use, & Management Plan ar • • r am all • ■ f in el •'• •a ."". -'.w 'Bryant- ." l� 271 � �' ICJ A ;� • . [f ; BIO-WEST, Inc. • •2. 1 r { r ♦•°r ' 7_°E _ I° Final Management Plan o • r' . j - * Legend "Stabllizeci•Stream ;? Maintenance Access r • II, ,i ... ?I'., ` i,, /1-) Access Location Potential Access Location ilf, Logan _ Emigration Creek N a1¢; sty... _ 1.1.`r I — Proposed Footpaths(Dogs Prohibited) _� L-ogaf � _ . 'i �Y,, �, Ii �t.,.t Proposed On-leash Footpaths • 7 f 1 , =. 1<r _ Proposed Bridge 4 ; - �4 IIi -= lltrimo, Eo Proposed Education Facility A 4.. Prescriptive ' n Wasatch Hollow Open Space Boundary 4Iti s. 1,1, ! f Management Areas !I _ r '' ,. 1- . -illa +' Wasatch Hollow Park Boundary� Restoration Area , iliF , `,F 1_ - � NOTE:Contours are at 3'intervals _ 1.700.South ME Protection Area 700~S uth f. -- r 9 r- 0 200 400 800 Feet _ i I Natural Area -II mum mamia I i i i I 1 1 1 I Existing Conditions Highlights of the Existing Conditions Map ▪ Rex Lider:1.24Acres • Cottonwood:1.31 Acres • Lmigration Creek:1,93S I cet • Cambel Uak:1.38 Acres • Lxisting Footpaths:1.345 Feet • Introduced Herbaceous:1.18 Acres • Lxisting Fence:2,600 F eet • Russian Olive:0.39 Acres • Siberian Lim:1.61 Acres rA c . i .Igo *.,AL,4. ',.• .j-:_.,,. .! :-•; . : L.,* . -4. - ,,E., : -..,- • • fir', 7 ' 7..----71—'5\' 'I. - if.. Tot . _, ti, r it,- *,(111 4IP- I ,.. , -3 , I ' 4 4.7 • t c, t ii_ •c • ' OPAL K,ntiau t • Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 �' , 0 (t •,' -� •t , "` Restoration, Use, & Management Plan .4111. °la.; : ii;ii 1 ii? ' - . 'C 1 li 1 . /C.A..' .i". ‘ . ilt 611111.1AC A. -"- ''' 4:'. ,-101 I-4 _44.171r - 4 1 t`' n iffk4A6 C R S A "`. i '' �" / i` '•1 -41 I 1 A• J j-J 1 aIM ' o � , 4 .+ ii . - Existing Conditions Map .: © • • s , _ _ ._ v d_; 1 1 Legend t�� • Y. `-- t , 1 PolenUel 7 Eusing A[CO55 t.ocaton 1�I -- •t - -- r--•.-. _i_u_ __ ti , *a y Dominant Canopy Species/ ExtsUng Emigration Creel i ' trIt /° .,. ■ 'T 1 Vegetation Type w -�c Ex Fence .• t"�' S.. ,�- ` - .�Y 11' Bo.Ewe. n Wasatch Hollow Open Space Boundary • , � -- f—J CaOor'"OOd Wasatch Hollow Park Boundary '" Tr' 'wait _�Gornto'oatiii, 1rWduceE rlerDaceaus 4 NOTE Contours are at 3 intervals .:-.1 a 'Ruswn ONe -__-_ ' . { �r sq. i ,__I St.nan Eta ' 0 200 400 9'!`:r... Matrix of Concept Alternatives 24 Wasatch Hollow Open Space Table 1. Summary Comparison of WHUS Comprehensive Restoration. Use.and Management Pan Alternatives. DESK PTA: coNCEPre: CONCEPTC: CONCEPT El: — e 4 C ICEPTE: _ N PRESERVATION EMPHASIS RESTORATION EMPHIWS PUBLIC ACCESS EMPHASIS CONSERVATION EMPHASIS EDUCATION EMPHASIS PERFORMANCE Central Central Central Central Central MEASURES North Area Are11 South Arta North Area A1ea South Area North Area Area South Area North Area Atea South Area North Area Alen South Area Public Aoces, Prohibited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited L.nnteA L.tCIUnC L,tcIsooC Prohibited Limited Laersi.c Prohibited Limited Limited Research Research ,wtoetl•,s None Single Loop Single Loop Single Loop Single Loop Single Loop Network Nctworh Nemork Only Single Loop Network OnlySingle Loop Single Loop Footbridge None None None One One tine One One Two None Line Two None One None North. _ _ North. Boundary North.lExtensivere Last. Last Where Where Where Last Where Last F min)F Extensive Extensive ExIUIYC and West and West Necessan' Necessary Necessary Lkrell)IrC and West Necessan Evtcnsrve and West South. and Last and Last Restoration Both Sires Both Sides Outside Both Sides Both Sides Where Where Where Both Skies Where Both Sides Both Sides Fencing None None Stream of Stream of Footpath of Stream of Stream Necessary Necessary Necessary of Stream NecessaryNone of Stream of Stream Access to Dogs Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Unleash On-leash Unleash Prohibited Prohibited Unleash Prohibited Prohibited Unleash Property Last Last Last Last Last Last Last Last of Acquisition of Strum of Stream Last of park of Strum of Stream Last of Park None None None NoneStream of Stream Last of Park of Stream Stream Invasive Species Aggressive Aggressive Aggressive Phased Phased Phased Annual Annual Annual Aggressive Phased Annual Aggressive Phased Phased Control Where Where Where Where Where Where Removal ofIill 100i 100% 100e N/A NA NA 100% NA 100' Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate 5 Streamraank Where Where Where Where Where Where Where Where Where ~ GradingYes Yes Ycs Yes Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate A ro rate Ycs Yes PPP prAppropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Restore c> Yes 1'c> Yes Yes NA NA NA NA Yes Yes NA res Yes Yes F loo iplain Remove Yes Yes Yes Yes NA NA N/A NA NA Ycs NA NIA Ye; NA NA Encroachments llabrtat Aggressive Aggressive Aggressive Aggressive Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Aggressive Moderate Moderate Aggressive Moderate Moderate Restoration Lsist.ng Iluuse Nr'.A Rcn0iaval NIA NA Rare NA N A Raic N A N A, Raic N A NA Raic •,A LELDLdu.atiun \;A None NA NA None \'A N A. Sc_ N A N A None N A NA None lcs Center Outdoor RC,carch Rcsear.h Resear.I. None None None Yes None Nnrc Ycs NnnC Yes Yes les :e, Classroom Uri, 0n1v Onl' Interpretive Elements None Minimal Minimal Minimal Moderate Moderate L.re o, c Lxtensive Extensive None Moderate Extensive None Moderate Extensive Passive NA NA N/A 0.83 Acre 1`M 0.83 Acre(9) Recreation Area Natural Area N/A NA 7.00 Acres(73`e) 1.25 Acres(135) 1.25 Acres(13b) Protection Area 2.72 Acres(28%l S.89 Acres 161 ti! N/A 0.64 Acre 16Al 0.64 Acre(6�r Restoration Area 3.71 Ades(394,1 3.?1 Acres 139+) 2.60 Acm(27w) 3.71 Acres(399a 1.71 Acres 139%1 Preserve Area 1.17 Acres(33b1 NA NA 3.17 Acres(33%'1 3.17 Acres 133*i Concept.B — Restoration Emphasis Highlights of Concept B:Restoration Lmphasis Reestablish Wasatch Hollow Spring iffeasible • Install restoration fencing along both sides ofstream to discourage access • Prohibit dogs and limit public access to"loop"footpaths in all areas • Raze existing house but maintain pedestrian and maintenance access • Define property boundaries to prohibit encroachments and discourage trespass.'g • Establish outdoor classrooms for educational uses • Acquire property east of stream and east of Wasatch Hollow Park from willing sellers • Close and re-vegetate duplicate footpaths • Implement phased invasive species eradication efforts • Install interpretive signs focusing on history,habitat restoration.and nature education • Implement riparian and upland habitat restoration efforts t . J • .....q ' .. _s. - , • +S I SFr.• w,1 I .� • t y fr ' 1 '&1/_ 4 I ;` ( , j• • is ± 1 • { O,. . ,•t l ( Wasatch Hollow Open Space • w _ Restoration,Use, &Management Plan i I, g • , ' `. r rT 9. . C R Sn vl i• ►., I id 1 ! . s«" .i � II i I • - �1 �r srawtsr,rac. t °� r • �_ l Concept B Map vi . . •a © El + r p1 Legend { ( m N . 1.; 1 ,, _f ; J i•• PamaaE Access txaoon • lr '• i y • - s"•.^ Asik i. {' . Emgauon Creels x. `� • r s� _ {°� Proposed Footpaths E+ ,Y �� • o:t r Prod 4. °`' yi` .•p ,i _ ,:. . M-. - wv ' Q Wasatch Ebbw Open Span'BarWaY - '= Prescriptive i�I Wasatch Ebbw Park Boundary 4�r e _ Mana ementAreas r, RaQ +, + 4 __ g A NOTE:Corraorrs ate et S Mcrvals :. 1... ' ..._ r. 't�SoutE =Rest abort Area a . Protection Area 0 200 !Oo 800 Feet 1 Figure 7. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept B Map. Concept D — Conservation Emphasis ,dtilh Hulltn+ Open Spdtt High lights of Concept D:Conservation Emphasis • Acquire property east of stream and cast of Wasatch Hollow Park from willing sellers • Implement aggressive riparian and upland habitat restoration efforts • Prohibit all public access to North Area and manage fbr scientific research and education only • Re-establish Wasatch Hollow Spring if feasible • Prohibit dogs and limit public access to"loop"footpath in Central Area • Install restoration fencing along both sides of stream to discourage access • Allow dogs on-leash only and limit public access to designated footpaths in South Area • Raze existing house but maintain pedestrian and maintenance access • Define property boundaries to prohibit encroachments and discourage trespassing • Lstablish outdoor classrooms for educational uses • Implement aggressive invasive species eradication effort.in North Area • Close amid re-vegetate duplicate footpaths • Implement phased invasive species eradication efforts in Central Area • Install interpretive signs focusing on history of Emigration Creek.pioneer culture,habitat • Implement annual invasive species eradication efforts in South Area restoration,and nature education • • I ( -• .: �.is R` ._� l .t js I 4 "Y — { an . ,; , a r . , ! , Wasatch Hollow Open Space i x r 1, ', 1 r Restoration, Use. &Management Plan i r I • . ,� _ P �: • �., C R S n 41 •• 1 .1 1 ;AI voi.,�.� ', , t. 1110-WEST. r� � o f 1 Concept D Map • re -y r ; ! 1i • I Legend it.tr ©, '"� .- ! -!- - a �}�-_ ---.- � .-1•f V.- T. Poeed Access 1-ocalton • a• •_ _ ar►..• I' I r I�i1 1•s1' PrcposedFootpad's Prescriptive •• Proposed Reserve Footpath t d ,� �. Management Areas R , r -. -• s + .. Q Wasatch Hollow Open Space Boundary Area- S =Rasloraoa+r ..�Wasatch Hollow Park Brxadary ' ! w MilPtalae`on Area ® NOTE:Corvtotrs are at 3 rtr.evah P1.Urd Area kit IL k Q Passive Recreaoan Area 0 ?CO 400 B00 Feet I igure 9. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept D Map. SCANNED TO: S /'' SCANNED BY: DATE: 3 bill RICHARD GRAHAM MORON- ON-O Imik Ec H D PLIRLIC RERVICER DIRECTOR �7y '��i��...iii...ddd ��.,� r, y DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTORS OFFICE MAR 0 3 2011 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Salt Lake City Mayor Date Received: kgkowriBrNl Y411'OVeb 3l o1 t I David veritt, _ief of Staff Date sent to Council: S 1 ii 1 sal TO: Jill Remington Love, Chair DATE: March 1,2011 Salt Lake City Council FROM: Public Services,Parks and Public Lands Division SUBJECT: Wasatch Hollow Open Space Restoration,Use and Management Plan STAFF CONTACT: Emy Maloutas 972-7804 Open Space Lands Program Manager Rick Graham 535-7774 Pk/ Public Services Director RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Wasatch Hollow Open Space Restoration,Use and Management Plan. BUDGET IMPACT: TBD DISCUSSION: Wasatch Hollow Open Space (WHOS)is a 10-acre open space along Emigration Creek. Salt Lake City,in cooperation with Utah Open Lands and Salt Lake County, has partnered on acquisition and developed an adaptive restoration,use and management plan that will ensure the following goal; stewardship of the Wasatch Hollow Open Space area in a manner that protects native vegetation,water quality and aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat of Emigration Creek while providing appropriate access and educational opportunities for the public. The City solicited citizen input through a structured decision making process to gather articulated opportunities and issues of concern held by citizens,adjacent property owners and community organizations. Community values were interpreted through carefully organized analysis to create multiple management strategies and conceptual alternatives that are focused on achieving the overarching goals stated above. The proposed Comprehensive Restoration,Use and Management Plan has been prepared by a consultant for the Open Space Lands Program, who based these recommendations on public input,professional judgment,best management practices and criteria identified below: 1. Scientific study of available water quality data,riparian corridor conditions,wetlands, LOCATION: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 1315 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 641 1 1-31 D4 MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 145469, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 14.5469 TELEPHONE: S01.535-7775 FAX:SO1.535.7963 www.RLDDay.DDM L'RECYCLED PAPER wildlife,vegetation and weeds, soils,cultural features,and observations of recreation behavior. 2. Review and compliance with existing City,County, State and federal policies, 3. Best management practices for protecting,restoring and maintaining open space areas. Alternatives were reviewed in public meetings and refined based on input and an analysis of trade-offs.Through this process a final recommendation has been developed. DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE: • Implement phased invasive species eradication efforts in all areas • Implement riparian and upland habitat restoration efforts • Define property boundaries to prohibit encroachments and discourage trespassing • Limit public access to designated footpaths in all areas • Close and re-vegetate unauthorized footpaths • Re-establish Wasatch Hollow Spring if feasible • Install restoration fencing along both sides of the riparian corridor to discourage access • Work with residents on Kensington Street to address parking issues before considering designating this as a pedestrian access location • Raze existing house and remove associated infrastructure,but maintain pedestrian and maintenance access • Prohibit dogs except on designated on-leash footpaths • Allow for future development of a LEED certified educational facility • Establish outdoor classrooms for educational uses • Acquire property east of stream and east of Wasatch Hollow Park from willing sellers • Install interpretive signs focusing on history of Emigration Creek,pioneer culture,habitat restoration,and nature education • Conduct a wildfire hazard assessment and implement appropriate mitigation measures PUBLIC PROCESS: Following the extensive opportunities for public input the Administration is forwarding the WHOS Plan to Salt Lake City Council for consideration and adoption. Listed below are the meetings that took place: 7/29/2009 Introduction of the WHOS Planning Process 8/31/2009 Stewardship Training Program 10/10/2009 Wasatch Hollow Open Space Community Cleanup 1/19/2010 3 Strategic Decision Making Process Meetings 1/20/2010 4 Strategic Decision Making Process Meetings 1/21/2010 2 Strategic Decision Making Process Meetings 1/22/2010 Strategic Decision Making Process Meeting 1/26/2010 Strategic Decision Making Process Meeting 2/22/2010 Kids Meeting to Identify Vision • 4/20/2010 Potential Management Alternatives Presentation 4/23/2010 Uintah Elementary School Presentation 5/6/2010 First Review of Conceptual Management Alternative Drafts 6/22/2010 Second Review of Conceptual Management Alternative Drafts 9/16/2010 Presentation of Draft Restoration,Use and Management Plan 10/21/2010 Planning Open House • NEXT STEPS: Both the Open Space Program and adjacent neighbors request approval to expedite razing the existing house and other existing infrastructure within this open space. The Program has requested$50,000 in a budget amendment for this work. City staff has explored and would recommend considering the demolition be done in partnership with the Division of Sustainability to create a model for salvage of materials and reusable items. The demo should be planned to protect the garage and large covered carport for future use for volunteer events and staging of equipment for restoration and future on-site projects. RESOLUTION NO. 2011 (Adopting the Restoration,Use and Management Plan for Wasatch Hollow Open Space) A resolution adopting the Restoration,Use and Management Plan for Wasatch Hollow Open Space. WHEREAS, Wasatch Hollow Open Space(the"Open Space")is a ten acre open space area located along Emigration Creek that is used by city and county residents for a variety of nature-related and recreational purposes; and WHEREAS, the Open Space is owned by Salt Lake City, and is located within Salt Lake City boundaries; and WHEREAS,the Plan addresses a multitude of land use issues, including: recommendations on long-term conservation opportunities,protection of wildlife habitat and environmentally sensitive areas,protection and restoration of the riparian area, remediation and clean-up of noxious weeds and debris,identification of access and use areas in the Open Space, management and enforcement solutions, and recognition that the Open Space has multiple public benefits; and WHEREAS,the Plan will utilize an adaptive management approach to making decisions and changing management actions to adapt to future conditions; and WHEREAS,the City has hired a consultant to work with City staff,with public input from stakeholders, open space advocates and adjacent property owners,to prepare the Plan; and WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the Plan is in the best interest of the City and community residents; and NOW, THEREFORE,be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: SECTION 1. The Restoration,Use and Management Plan for Wasatch Hollow Open Space, a copy of which is attached hereto, shall be and hereby is adopted. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of 2011. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: SENIOR/SALT LAKE ITY ATTORNEY HB_ATTY-#l7117-v2-Resolution_adopting_Wasatch Hollow Open_Space_Use_and_Management Plan_2011.DOC _ �, 01--) • { ,' 1"+ -iamb cji ,-...__,,tgrfc -,. __., ,� 'f � + ` , 4 Tibil ',$. ,. '' " `�i i ' '` _ .ram`.. ,, ._ ..,..,_.-___- „le,- -- -ter; 1 ' , i -*— Tell > 4 4t, 4 , ii '4 '` ,' r "I- - , t.-• , • • ,,Let7.. . i it- I & 1 ° � - 1017 �.,g N. • If it - 1i 1 . 8 . ,_.-1,fit.,7.-,'..; .. , p r kr :.•.-, , 4-' ', ' •-‹ . ... . .. P. t. ^ - .t�_C ` , t pit A•I - K.1-.7 • ),.1.40 pI _. d; ' '�" '[•R- .per ' ' 1 n L fa , - �,;. I; _. • �" it E f a• ►w.'. iit - r • - ' r., ,_ - 1 'i E W _ fl,'. .- a 4L RN 0 r U '`- a-0 : •'- •?..‘'?•."' ___,;%... J4 I ,. I-- i_ 4- illt .n�.wN - ._ i t_ .. .. 1•._,a:'u I- _ .+ewe.. 0 Acknowledgments Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker Salt Lake City Staff Emy Maloutas, Open Space Lands Program Manager Brandon Fleming, Open Space Lands Program Analyst Vicki Bennett, Division of Sustainability and the Environment Director Rick Graham, Public Services Director Salt Lake County Julie Peck-Dabling, Open Space Program Manager Utah Open Lands Wendy Fisher, Executive Director Arthur Morris, Ecologist Prepared for Salt Lake City Corporation, . Open Space Lands Advisory Board Open Space Lands Program Brad Bartholomew Parks and Public Land Division ;�,; ; ;! �,_ Lydia Berggren Public Services Department ''=,tic' `r ►-lra Sharen Hauri 451 South State Street, Room 148 Kyle LaMalfa Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Donna Maldonado Benjamin Jordan Prepared by Eric McCulley BIO-WEST, Inc. 1063 West 1400 North B Logan, Utah 84321 BIO-WEST, Inc. 435-752-4202 www.bio-west.com CRSA 649 E South Temple CRSA Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 801-355-5915 www.crsa-usa.com O 4 + 4 Comprehensive Restoration.Use.and Management Plan Spectrum of Conceptual Management Alternatives 23 Table of C to nts Management Strategies that are Common Q to All Conceptual Management Alternatives 30 Management Strategies that May Vary between Conceptual Management Alternatives 32 Introduction 1 Recommended Comprehensive Restoration,Use, and Management Plan 33 Existing Conditions 4 Natural Resources 4 Management Strategies 35 Geology and Soils 4 Adaptive Management 35 Hydrology 6 Applicable Plans and Policies 35 Water Quality 6 Summary of Adaptive Management Strategies 36 Stream Channel Conditions 7 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Vegetation 8 Design(CPTED) 42 Fish and Wildlife 9 Natural Surveillance 42 Cultural Resources 9 Natural Access Control 42 Visitor Experiences 10 Natural Territorial Reinforcement 42 Potential Access Locations 10 Built and Natural Amenities 13 Public Involvement and Input 43 Active and Passive Recreational Opportunities 19 Structured Decision-Making Process 43 Guiding Principles 15 Stakeholder Meetings 44 Wasatch Hollow Open Space Goals and Objectives 15 Public Workshops 44 Planning Constraints 15 Conservation Easement 16 Implementation and Phasing 45 Eliminate Unauthorized Footpaths 45 Decision Making 17 Develop Access Locations 45 Criteria for Evaluating Conceptual Re-establish Riparian Floodplain 46 Re-connect Wasatch Hollow Spring 46 Management Alternatives 17 Other Considerations 18 Install Restoration Area Fencing 46 Invasive Species Removal and Control 46 Re-plant and Restore Vegetation 47 Comprehensive Use Planning 21 Purchase or Accept Land Donations Open Space Management 21 from Willing Neighbors 47 Prescriptive Management Area Designations 21 Establish Clear Property Boundary Lines 47 • Wasatch Hollow Open Space Site Amenities 48 Figure 3. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Existing One-Room Educational Facility 48 Conditions Map 5 Remove Abandoned House and Associated Figure 4. Monthly flows at Salt Lake County's gauge Infrastructure 48 at Rotary Glen Park 6 Develop New Footpaths 48 Figure 5. Surveyed stream channel cross section plots Install New Bridge 49 illustrating the variability in channel shape Establish Outdoor Classrooms 49 within the WHOS property. 7 Install Interpretive Signage 49 Figure 6. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept A Map 25 Stream Cleanup 49 Figure 7. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept B Map 26 Reduce Wildfire Hazards 50 Figure 8. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept C Map 27 Coordinate with Rocky Mountain Power 50 Figure 9. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept D Map. 28 Bycicle Usage 50 Figure 10. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept E Map 29 Figure 11. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Recommended References Cited 52 Concept Map 34 Appendix A Structured Decision-Making Report Appendix B Baseline Documentation Report List of Tables Table 1. Summary Comparison of WHOS Comprehensive Restoration, Use, and Management Plan Alternatives. 24 Table 2. Summary of Adaptive Management Strategies for the WHOS Comprehensive Restoration, Use, and Management Plan. 37 Table 3. Summary of Public and Agency Outreach and Involvement. 43 List of Figures Figure 1. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Study Area Map 2 Figure 2. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Planning Process 3 0 o 0 Comprehensive Restoration.Use,and Managemem PI.I Introduction The Wasatch Hollow Open Space(WHOS)is an approximately 10-acre undeveloped open space located along Emigration Creek within Salt Lake City between 1600 East Street and 1800 East Street and between 1700 South Street and Harrison Avenue (Figure 1). The WHOS property encompasses several parcels of land that were acquired in segments over a period of several _ years through both acquisition and donation. These lands - will be protected through conservation easements which will identify conservation values to be protected,including scenic, historic,ecological,wildlife,and public education and use,while preventing commercial or residential development. The purpose 6 .-. of this Comprehensive Restoration,Use,and Management Plan is to provide stewardship of the WHOS area in a manner The WHOS planning process was completed in five stages over that protects native vegetation,water quality,and aquatic and an approximate 12-month period. Major steps in the planning terrestrial wildlife habitat of Emigration Creek while providing process are described below and shown on Figure 2. appropriate access and educational opportunities for the public. • Structured Decision Making Process: facilitated a For planning purposes,the WHOS property has been divided deliberative,structured decision process to accurately into three segments:(1)North Area,(2)Central Area,and(3) identify stakeholder values and objectives to help ensure South Area(see Figure 1). The North Area is approximately 3.9 that both near-term and long-term management reflects these acres in size and primarily encompasses the property donated by values and objectives. the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints(LDS Church) and the northern portion of the 1700 East Street easement. The • Existing Conditions Inventory: inventoried existing Central Area is approximately 2.5 acres in size and includes the resource conditions at the site using scientific and expert properties acquired using Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County personnel and a review of existing decisions,policies,and Open Space Program funds and the central portion of the 1700 practices that have helped to shape the evolution of the East Street easement. The South Area is approximately 3.2 WHOS property. acres in size and includes an undeveloped portion of the original Wasatch Hollow Park and the south portion of the 1700 East • Conceptual Alternative Plans Analysis: developed Street easement. alternative concept plans using defined management el vasatch Hollow Open Space Highlights of the Study Area Map • PotentiaVExisting Access Location 1:Wasatch Hollow Park North • PotentiaVExisting Access Location 2:Wasatch Hollow Park East • North Area:3.9 Acres • PotentiaVExisting Access Location 3:1700 East Street/Logan Street • Central Area:2.5 Acres • PotentiaVExisting Access Location 4:Kensington Street • South Area:3.2 Acres • PotentiaVExisting Access Location 5:Emerson Street • Wasatch Hollow Park:3.5 Acres • PotentiaVExisting Access Location 6:LDS Church Property • Wasatch Hollow Open Space:9.6 Acres w , { �� ,i. f e r r ' 1O . ' — psi ;�. 1 l i � '11: • o k try 1•1t'- a. --- - li'- _. 1 _ b0 4",1 l� a + . Wasatch Hollow Open Space k ,,, , • Restoration,Use,&Management Plan 4J4. ! r �,, Jr j ,,,,y -1. in +i CRSA Yr . , a'e` J - ) ,, l i.' : i ` r t,`1 gw.wEsr.Inc. ' e• �s a 'el t'i P , r IS l'', - I -° P1 a I Study Area Map Js ' a-r I Legend n _- ,0 0 - i t-'Ii }... f 1 ,-(:.a L _.J n pw.ra Existing ACe„tow0o„ Emllretlon Creak s1 l -e '_� *1 —fi N y RS, A. •d k 1*.t, r ou i A R'. 4 e4 9 �'Mealch Hollow Open Space 9aurMary i. f ".� y .` �. ..�1^_* - r • - `Wesel.Haow Perk eouWery ‘IP¢Iw APe t y, - LL - Norte Ma �Y if V � central Area '3.x SaM Area L e `M -1"..' �_ si4.ee.; ' 1 x-- 1+ -t'I I'. i."'� ►- me.Wasatch Haow Perk ,l•,P•J :"...•• {4 -r" 9.. I_ k ! 1 o xao ♦oo eoo Feat `tI'._ -:.d''7�v t`iY '--- :t`�i I' Ilad I.. v �. n :.. l r t � I Figure 1. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Study Area Map • A C. 1 Comprehensive Restoration.Use,and Management Pl.oi prescriptions and analyzed how each alternative achieved the I desired resource protection priorities and stated management objectives. • Management Strategies Development: developed guidelines for management,maintenance,and monitoring of the WHOS - property that highlights best management practices and site -�, -- - _ilk. specific strategies.- + ^ • Implementation Plan Creation: created an action plan of -. "3• , 4"' recommended capital improvement projects,maintenance _ priorities,and research needs to achieve the stated goals and objectives. (,: '_ BFollowing public review and comment on the WHOS Draft 1 0 Comprehensive Restoration,Use,and Management Plan, I the recommended plan will be forwarded to Salt Lake City © J_�_, Administration for consideration. An implementation plan and """"1 associated cost estimate will be drafted after the administrative ••- I review,revision,and approval process. This document is —► 0 considered a draft until stakeholders,the public,and city Stakeholder I administration complete their review and input on the plan. Mee Mg SW[IrN DwW,Mtlg EMWan d �•,'"' MI— Wasatch Hollow ► cuwqu+ —s r •y Mw•.u.., aycrrn open Space Planning Process Figure 2. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Planning Process 0 Wasatch Hollow Open Space • vital habitat for nearly 80%of mammal and bird species in Existing Co nd iti o nsthe western United States (Krueper 1993). The importance of Emigration Creek and other above-ground stream corridors in Salt Lake City is amplified due to their proximity to the Great The WHOS portion of the Emigration Creek riparian corridor is Salt Lake, an ecosystem of hemispheric significance in terms of environmentally valuable as an unusually large and contiguous providing resting, nesting and staging habitat for migratory bird section of riparian corridor with significant remnants of natural populations. stream conditions and native plant communities (Morris 2007). Much of the Emigration Creek riparian corridor both upstream Geology and Soils and downstream from the WHOS property has been fragmented by settlement and urbanization over the last 150 years. The Within the North Area and part of the Central Area of the WHOS property is unique for its large size, remaining natural WHOS property, Emigration Creek is mapped as flowing habitats, and proximity to adjacent residential neighborhoods through Holocene-age alluvium. Within the South Area and and schools (e.g.,Westminster College, Highland High School, the remaining part of the Central Area, the stream is mapped Clayton Middle School, and Uintah Elementary School). as flowing through artificial fill material (Utah and Wyoming 1990). The WHOS property is bordered by Pleistocene-age Lake The WHOS property is home to a diverse assemblage of Bonneville deposits that consist primarily of sand and gravel native wildlife and vegetation, important water resources, and material to the west of the property and silt and clay material recreational opportunities. Used by hikers, dog walkers, and to the east. Streambank soil material within the upstream half wildlife enthusiasts today, the WHOS property has also played a of the WHOS property includes a significant amount of coarser significant role in the settlement history of the Salt Lake Valley. gravel and some cobble material, while streambank material This section provides a summary of the many resources that generally consists of finer-grained sand and silt within the make the WHOS property so unique. downstream portion of the property (BIO-WEST 2010). Within the South Area, the streambanks are subject to inundation and Natu ra I Resources deposition of fine-grained sediments due to the backwater effect of the culvert inlet located at the downstream end of the property. This culvert regularly clogs during high flow conditions, and The WHOS property includes Emigration Creek, its riparian the portion of the stream within the South Area is intended to corridor, and adjacent uplands. Much of the property's serve as a flood control facility that traps sediment and reduces ecological value is associated with its unique free-flowing downstream flow velocities. The large number of user-created stream channel and riparian corridor. Riparian areas occupy footpaths within the WHOS property (Figure 3) also impacts soil only a small portion (less than 3%) of the land area in Utah condition and quality. (USU 2003) and comprise only 1.2% of the land area of Salt q y Lake City. Despite their small size, riparian zones provide • Comprehensive Restoration.Use.and Management Plan Highlights of the Existing Conditions Map • �xElae 1.24Arms • Cottonwood:1.31 Acres • Emigration Creek:1,935 Feet • Gambel Oak:1.38 Acres • Existing Footpaths:7,345 Feet • Introduced Herbaceous:1.18 Acres • Existing Fence:2,600 Feet • Russian Olive:0.39 Acres • Siberian Elm:1.61 Acres 1 .rym IA ., i� t t = r-t .mkt af,;>r ; 1 , Wasatch Hollow Open Space - j. 0 '''}' ' *r '� } "I,'� Restoration,Use,&Management Plan yII ,L x n o CRS/� .„ J / �x y 1-s tr. rr } \r elo-WEST,urc. %�i a 7 r ,c2..r, e o . t Existing Conditions Map R. 1 l- al . n o b -��:;.} r._ lI ' Jy Legend N 1 ® Pewee i Exhaig Access Loc.. Ming Fealpaels �y, —E.yaeen Creek s { *.. DWI.Fence w S \ - ME Pam BlearO 1Fak Mee aftel Open Space Boundary r_79 caw* r� k ...woo l 1 ••Itlr lbBoundaryw Perk Boundary . -4 _. _ '- r- kweaa.Ba..ra, - MOTE:carver. are at l'Mervah i' 1.1 L l !"-- a200 400 r I l 7 Figure 3. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Existing Conditions Map 45 Wasatch Hollow Open Space Hydrology 1st,on average(SLCO 2009). Average annual high flow is 55 cubic feet per second(cfs)with typical base flows near 2.5 cfs. Base flows within Wasatch Hollow may be supplemented by Emigration Creek has its headwaters at the top of Emigration inputs from natural springs. Canyon and has a total drainage area of 15,370 acres. The WHOS property is located in the Lower Emigration Creek With no streamflow gauge located closer to the WHOS property, subwatershed,which is classified by Salt Lake County as a no quantitative data are available to characterize hydrology after "perennial-reduced"stream,indicating that flows are artificially the stream flows through the urbanized areas between Rotary reduced by stream diversions(SLCO 2009). Emigration Creek's Glen Park and the subject property. Storm events generally hydrology is characterized by a distinct springtime peak typical affect stream flows differently in urban areas than in natural of snowmelt-driven systems(Figure 4). Salt Lake County areas. In the upper,more natural,portions of Emigration operates a streamflow gauge at Rotary Glen Park at the mouth Creek storm events result in slower,more gradual changes in of Emigration Canyon,approximately 3.5 miles upstream of the stream flow volume. However,with a proportional increase in subject property. Based on analysis of flow data collected at this impervious surfaces such as roads,parking lots and buildings, gauge from 1980-2005,average monthly flow is highest in May urban stream segments respond more quickly to storm events and peak daily flow occurs on May and experience more rapid,`flashy'increases in flow volume. Field observations of Emigration Creek near the Wasatch Hollow indicate that the creek does experience this"flashy"hydrologic Enepallon Mak Awn.Morn Now a response during storm events. 30 a _ No significant water storage reservoirs are present on Emigration —,__ _ Creek but sediments that would normally supply the valley m portions of the creek are intercepted by the Emigration Creek a debris basin located in Rotary Glen Park. Originally constructed 10 in 1985,the debris basin is maintained by the county. The basin u ■ . , A__ — � , traps the bulk of coarse sediment loads and requires dredging about every two years. — - Water Quality Figure 4. Monthly flows at Salt Lake County's gauge at Rotary Glen Park. The subject property is located on the portion of Emigration Creek below Foothill Drive. In this segment,the creek is assigned the default beneficial use classifications of 2B (secondary contact recreation)and 3D(waterfowl/shorebird • 0 () Comprehensive Restoration.Use,and Management PL,, protection)by the Utah Division of Water Quality(DWQ). The L0.00 Emigration Creel Ruch ticc o..He o DWQ has listed a segment of Emigration Creek above Foothill On North Am 410105 groMrlY) Drive as impaired for E.coli bacterial contamination(DWQ +06 2006). Residential septic systems in the upper subwatershed 10e are most likely a significant contributing source of E.coli to the stream(SLCO 2009). 101 ,00 Below Foothill Drive,the stream is not listed by DWQ as y sa exceeding state standards for any specific water quality b 9E constituents at this time. However,no established DWQ water quality monitoring stations are present on Emigration Creek downstream from Rotary Glen Park,and the creek is subject to 92 a variety of potential nonpoint contamination sources. These s0 include urban runoff,hydrologic modification,habitat alteration, 0 s 10 to 20 25 30 x 40 45 00 construction runoff and managed golf courses and parks(SLCO oel.nga..am LEgbREP NMI 2009). Lower Emigration Creek Rncl,10 Cross Section Central Ms of WOOS poparryi Stream Channel Conditions 96 After Lake Bonneville receded approximately 16,000 years ago, sz it left a series of old shoreline deposits that now form prominent g ` "benches"along the edges of Salt Lake Valley. To reach its I modern base level at the Jordan River,Emigration Creek had 88 to carve through these deposits. In part because of the natural 106 geologic history,stream gradient tends to be relatively steep,and a e,, the creek is typically entrenched between tall slopes that extend �� up to the Bonneville bench levels. Human-induced alterations Bz such as fill placement,channel straightening,and erosive flows B0 so „ 40 46 a -20 associated with urbanization have further contributed to the Mimeo km LEPb REP Rnt0 16 10 Mimeo0 entrenched shape of the channel. - Figure 5. Surveyed stream channel cross section plots Within the WHOS property,wetted channel width ranges illustrating the variability in channel shape within the WHOS from about 7 to 10 feet at low flow and from about 15 to 26 property. feet at high flow(Figure 5). Gradient is about 1 to 2%. Flat, e CO 'Nasdich Hollow Open Space hydraulically-connected floodplain surfaces and depositional bars are occasionally present,but in some areas are limited by naturally steep banks as well as fill material on the west bank in portions of the Central and South Areas. Channel substrate in dominated by gravel-sized particles,with some cobble also present in riffles and finer sand and silt present in slower-velocity areas. Within much of the North Area,streambed material and Y bank shape are influenced by a clay shelf/root mat feature(BIO- 4 WEST 2010). High amounts of bank erosion are evident within the WHOS property. wg ¢e f � Vegetation $` Within the North Area,box elder is the dominant near-stream tree species,with Gambel oak forest and introduced herbaceous vegetation comprising the majority of the upland plant communities(Figure 2). Within the Central Area,Russian olive 20%in the North Area and consists primarily of non-native reed (an invasive non-native species)forms the dominant near-stream canarygrass,while near-stream understory is lacking within the canopy species and Siberian elm(also an invasive non-native Central and South Areas. Streambank understory vegetation species)is the dominant tree within upland areas west of the is likely impacted by compaction from foot traffic and by silt stream. In the South Area,Siberian elm remains the dominant deposition associated with the backwater/sediment deposition upland tree species to the west of the stream,while upland areas effect from the downstream culvert. to the east primarily consist of introduced herbaceous vegetation (BIO-WEST 2010). Near-stream canopy vegetation in the South The habitat value of the existing vegetation within the WHOS Area is dominated by cottonwood,with box elder and crack property is reduced due to the high proportion of invasive willow also present. weed species present. Within the property,the upland areas surrounding the immediate stream corridor generally have Near-stream shrub cover is generally good(between 26-75%) weed species classifications of"high"or"majority",indicating within the North Area and the upstream half of the Central Area. a percent weed cover of greater than 25%(BIO-WEST 2010). Common species include twinberry,honeysuckle and red-osier A total of 13 different invasive species listed on State or City ' dogwood. Within the South Area and the downstream half of noxious weed lists are present within the property including: the Central Area,near-stream shrub cover is only about 10% Dalmatian toadflax,field bindweed,jointed goatgrass,lesser and consists primarily of twinberry honeysuckle. Near-stream burdock,Scotch cottonthistle,whitetop,houndstongue,Myrtle understory cover follows a similar spatial pattem. Cover is about spurge,puncture vine,quackgrass,Siberian elm,Russian olive. 0 0 Comorehensive Restoration.Use.and Management Plan Fish and Wildlife Cultural Resources Quantitative data on fish and wildlife populations within the Wasatch Hollow formed as the waters of Emigration Creek urban portion of Emigration Creek are limited. However, eroded alluvial fill from the mouth of Emigration Canyon populations of Bonneville cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarki through the Salt Lake Valley. When the Mormon pioneers Utah)and introduced rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss) entered the Salt Lake Valley,they reported that Emigration Creek are known to be present within upstream portions of the creek. was flowing in a steep-sided ravine that gradually moderated During riparian corridor studies conducted in 2008,trout(species further west in the valley(Morris 2007). Wagons of the first unknown)were observed in a pool at the outlet of the culvert group of pioneers of the LDS Church followed the Donner- under 1900 East,about 1,200 feet upstream of the WHOS Reed route along the southern side of the Emigration Creek property(BIO-WEST 2010). Many species of wildlife have been corridor through what is now Wasatch Hollow before camping observed to occur within the WHOS study area(Morris 2007). at approximately 1700 South and 500 East on their first night in Lists of mammals,birds,reptiles,and fish observed within the the valley(July 22,1847). On the 24'"of July 1847,the LDS study area during baseline documentation visits are provided in Church leader Brigham Young and the last of the initial pioneer Appendix A. Nearby residents have also reported observations company entered the valley along the same route,traveled along of fish,deer,fox,and wide variety of bird species,including a the south side of the Emigration Creek corridor through Wasatch bald eagle,in the study area. Hollow,crossed the creek(thought to be at about 1100 East),and then continued north to the established City Creek camp(Dixon The WHOS property encompasses approximately 2,000 linear 1997) feet of the Emigration Creek stream channel. It is connected to an additional 1,200 linear feet of open-channel stream north of Housing development surrounding Wasatch Hollow began the property. As part of a 3,200 foot-long continuous riparian primarily in the early 1900's and the subdivision of land occurred corridor uninterrupted by roads-the longest such corridor on until approximately the 1970's. By 1930,there were several lower Emigration Creek--the property provides important houses on the bluffs above the riparian corridor,as well as one corridor habitat for mule deer and other animals to allow travel farm where Wasatch Hollow Park now exists. Fruit orchards between habitat patches. The property is also unique because it extended into the corridor as well. In the early 1900's,an includes a relatively wide extent of undeveloped corridor width underground pipeline was constructed from springs in Wasatch that encompasses a range of habitat types including lowland Hollow to the Utah State Penitentiary. This source of fresh water riparian,mountain shrub,and meadow communities. was utilized by the penitentiary until about 1950. Apparently the pipeline still exists,although it has been abandoned. The springs have been covered by fill from adjacent residential development (Morris 2007). Wasa[o,Hollow Osen Space been included in this planning process and is now known as the South Area in the WHOS property. ` = Other man-made developments within the WHOS property include a series of Rocky Mountain Power overhead powerlines, chain-link fencing along many of the WHOS property boundaries,user-created paths throughout the study area,a detention basin and debris tower where Emigration Creek is piped at Wasatch Hollow Community Park,and primitive vehicular access locations for maintenance and utility uses. Visitor Experiences Potential Access Locations There is an existing home located within the Central Area of There are several potential points of access to the Wasatch the WHOS property which comprises the only building within Hollow Open Space study area that currently exist. These the study area. This home was built in 1964 and much of the potential access locations,outlined on Figures 1 and 2,may be property was raised and leveled by filling with soil and other classified as either formal or informal. Formal access locations material. This fill material is thought to have covered springs are those that are generally considered accessible from existing and is known to have constrained the stream channel through this public rights of way. Informal access locations are those that area(Morris 2007). The house has been uninhabited and secured may require trespass through private property. Many informal from occupation since it was purchased by the City in 2008. access locations may also serve as private access points to the site by adjacent property owners. For the purpose of this The Wasatch Hollow Community Park forms the southwestern document only formal access locations will be considered as it boundary of the WHOS property and adjacent to the Wasatch is not the intent of this plan to encourage tresspass or the use of Presbyterian Church. The park was planned to be completed prohibited access points by the general public. in three phases. Phase I was completed in 1993 and included development of a parking area,playground,restrooms,drought- Access to the WHOS study area is generally good from the south tolerant demonstration gardens,and a grassy park area. Phase and west sides of the property. Access from the east and north is II was completed in 1994 and included development of paths, somewhat limited. Outlined in more detail below,and as shown lighting,benches,and irrigation system(Morris 2007). Phase III on Figures 1 and 2,there are no formal access locations on the was planned as a natural area but never completed.This area has north side of WHOS,and only one formal access location on the © t Comprehensi a Restoration,Use.anti V inu,temen: 1 east side. Where formal access exists, the quality of the access is Although the road is currently gated near the border between varied. ADA standards have not been implemented at any of the the South and Central Areas, this access location potentially potential access locations, although in some cases ADA access is provides ADA access into large portions of the study area potentially possible. Management plan suggestions may address without significant retrofit. Also,this potential access this concern at one or more locations. Additionally, potential location does not suffer from flooding or safety issues. This access locations do not provide universal access to all portions of potential access location is near formal park facilities and the WHOS property. Current conditions make it difficult to enter there is sufficient space for additional amenities such as site the site at one location, move through the property, and exit the orientation signage. site at a different access location. This may also be remedied by management plan suggestions. 2. Wasatch Hollow Park East Potential Access Location: The adjacent Wasatch Hollow Park is the primary formal access Generally accepted potential access locations are listed below, location for the WHOS study area. Visitors to the park each with a summary of the existing conditions of the access from outside the adjacent neighborhoods are most likely to point. An additional formal access location is available behind discover WHOS from this access location due to the adjacent the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints chapel north of formal park off street parking facilities. Access into this park Kensington (shown as potential access location #6 on Figures is also available from 1600 East near Bryan Avenue, although 1 and 2). Although this is well graded access road, it is not off street parking is not available at this location. currently publicly available as it is only accessed through private property. It is not considered as a public access location in this From the formal park a paved path leads visitors to the analysis. southwestern edge of the WHOS study area. On the east side of the creek an informal path has been established in the open 1. Wasatch Hollow Park North Potential Access space area. This path is heavily used and has a compacted Location: The adjacent Wasatch Hollow Park is the primary surface. Except in times of flood in the spring it may be the formal access location to the WHOS study area. On the west most heavily used route into the WHOS. Although this is side of the creek a paved pathway leads visitors from formal a heavily used path,the spring flooding issue may make it paths to a fairly well delineated compacted earth maintenance difficult for this route to remain a primary access location access. This maintenance access continues through the South without significant retrofit. This access point would not be Area of WHOS study area to the Central Area (see Figure considered ADA accessible. The west side of the creek is 1). The Central Area is primarily the abandoned home site also accessed from Wasatch Hollow Park, and described in and is a large open flat plateau above the creek. The Central more detail in access point#1 above. Area is elevated significantly above the adjacent creek limiting access to other portions of the WHOS study area. This access point provides convenient access to the creek, Additionally the home site is gated and fenced. as well as most of the South Area of the site as outlined on Figure 1. Access to the Central and North areas is currently (Pik ,, Wasatch hollow Open Space limited as there is no formal crossing of the creek. Of all defined paved road beginning at the east end of Kensington the access locations, this one is closest to the only existing Avenue. It provides good access into the abandoned home amenities in Wasatch Hollow Park. See the section below for site. Visitors to the WHOS study area who currently use a description of existing amenities in WHOS. For example this access location are primarily from within the adjacent there is sufficient space at this location for site orientation neighborhood. There is no off street parking in the area, and signage. the dead end street is not highly used by non residents. Thus this should be considered a secondary site access location 3. 1700 East Street/Logan Street Potential Access and primary maintenance access location. Current access Location: The 1700 East Street potential access location is limited by gates, although little limits pedestrian access is heavily used and provides the only access to the WHOS into the site at this location. A moderate number of visitors study area from the east side. Neighborhoods to the north use this access location. Although well delineated with an along Kensington Avenue to 1800 East and Rosecrest Drive asphalt driveway, this potential access location may not meet have no formal access locations. The access from 1700 accessibility standards for grades (i.e., slope). However, it East Street down to the WHOS study area is fairly steep. is feasible that this point of access could be brought up to Although it appears somewhat well maintained as a gravel standard, although with significant effort. path, its slope and surfacing is not generally considered as accessible. There is no off street parking at this location and This potential access location provides the only direct access it is primarily used by local neighborhood residents. to the Central Area (see Figures 1 and 2). Amenities are described in more detail in the following section, however the The existing footpath provides access to the South Area of Central Area provides different opportunities for use than the the WHOS study area. Limited access is available to the rest of the WHOS study area due to the large and open nature Central and North areas as the creek currently is not easily of the meadow. There are no convenient amenities near this crossed. A simple foot bridge across Emigration Creek could potential access location. Private property directly adjacent remedy this situation by providing easy access to the Central to the WHOS study area at the end of Kensington Street may Area. Existing amenities are described in more detail in make site orientation signage difficult. the section below. However, this potential access location may lend itself to the addition of some amenities, if desired, 5. Emerson Street Potential Access Location: The Emerson as there are considerable non riparian lands in the area. Street potential access location is a steeply eroded path that Although there are no convenient amenities at this potential drops quickly into the WHOS study area. This potential access location, there is available space for site orientation access location is not as heavily used for this reason, and signage at the street level. is considered a secondary access point. There is little opportunity to make this access point more accessible 4. Kensington Street Potential Access Location: The without significant site modifications. There is no city Kensington Street potential access location is a well owned off street parking available. Parking does exist at the 0 0 omprehensive Restoration.Use.and Management Plan adjacent Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints chapel, although no arrangement exists for this to be available for visitors. This potential access location is primarily used by the adjacent residents. This potential access location is the only formal access to the North Area(see Figures 1 and 2). Recommendations of the management plan may call for foot bridges across Emigration Creek from the Central or South Areas which may rectify this issue. There is no convenient access to amenities at this potential access location. At the street level,there is little space for site orientation signage. Built and Natural Amenities • Much of the WHOS study area is primitive with few formal amenities. The adjacent Wasatch Hollow Park provides appeal for most visitors. Once access into the site is obtained, restrooms(although not always operable),picnic tables and the study area is fairly quiet and removed from the busy shelters,and a playground. Manicured lawns are also available surrounding city. It is fairly easy to access the stream,although for use in the park area. The only formal amenity that may be at the expense of native vegetation,to experience the water. described for the WHOS study area is a fairly well delineated Heavy tree cover provides deep shade along Emigration Creek. user created footpath(no signage or maintenance)system. That Additional detail about amenities in each of the areas follows. being said,this footpath is only well developed near the formal Wasatch Hollow Park and becomes less useable the further north 1. South Area: The South Area of WHOS,as do all areas, one travels through the WHOS study area. Access from the includes a portion of Emigration Creek. In this location, South Area to the Central and North Areas from this footpath however,the creek runs through the center of the area rather system is only available by crossing through Emigration Creek at than along an edge of the property. Access is available on one or more locations. These creek crossings are not developed both sides of the creek. Along much of the creek,the west and in some locations crossing requires some significant effort to side is elevated by man-made fill making a safe crossing obtain safely. Existing crossings and uncontrolled stream access challenging without significant retrofit or restoration. are causing extreme erosion issues along the streambanks. However,ADA accessible access on the west side near Wasatch Hollow Park provides a safe access location that Beyond the existing footpath system,some built and natural may be a compelling reason for a stream crossing to be amenities do exist. The natural setting of the site is the primary considered in the South Area. ADA access to the bulk of the 0 Wasatch Hollow Open Space South Area on the east side could provide the visitor access to the non riparian areas at this location. The area on the Active and Passive Recreational east side is open(i.e.,elevated above the riparian area)and Opportunities possibly useable for a different type of visitor experience than what is found along the riparian area footpaths. Casual hiking and exploration is the primary active recreational Current recreational activities are outlined in the following opportunity in the study area,although this takes place on user section. Future use of the South Area will be dictated by the created footpaths. No formal recreational facilities exist. There management plan recommendations. Currently the area is are few other active recreation opportunities,with the exception not well vegetated. of the east side of the WHOS study area near the 1700 East Street potential access location. This area is elevated above the 2. Central Area: The Central Area of the WHOS study area riparian corridor and is void of vegetation. There are some user includes significant riparian areas. However,the bulk of created mountain bike trails and jumps,which account for the the area is comprised of the abandoned home site and the lack of vegetation in the area. This portion of the study area adjacent meadow made from man-made fill activities. This (see Figure 2)is also large enough for other active opportunities open and flat topographic area is a different type of amenity such as tossing a Frisbee or a game of catch. This may not be than found elsewhere in the WHOS property. This area is a common use of the area however as the ground plane is fairly currently fenced and not easily accessible for visitor use. The rough and the ground cover is not manicured or well suited for fence will remain throughout the duration of the planning this type of activity. This activity may not be recommended in process and will be open to public use once this plan is the final management plan guidelines. adopted. Although the management plan will suggest the appropriate uses for this area,there is significant area here for The North Area of the WHOS site is not heavily frequented by safe activities that will not damage existing riparian habitats. visitors. Those who access the area may find themselves fairly isolated. The Central and North Areas may lend themselves to 3. North Area: The North Area may be best described as an quiet contemplation,as a form of passive recreation. However, area of passive amenities. Emigration Creek is not easily these areas must not be too distant from active areas for safety accessible in this area,and the space itself is difficult to considerations. access. There is significant upland area outside the riparian corridor,but it is not readily useable by visitors. Much of the area is populated by invasive species. 0 0 Comnrehensi:e Restoration.Use,and Management Plan 15 2. Establish Clearly Defined Boundaries to Prevent C u i d i n Pr i n c i I e s Encroachmend Foster Respect for Public gp and Private Lands: • Protect Open Space Property • Regular Monitoring of Violations Wasatch Hollow Open Space • Protect Private Property Goals and Objectives 3. Provide Controlled Public Access that is Informed Primarily by Ecological Goals: The goals and objectives developed for the WHOS • Provide Public Access Comprehensive Restoration, Use, and Management Plan were • Provide Educational Access derived from the participatory planning process initiated by Salt • Provide Access for Research Lake City and known as a "structured decision making process" (Arvai and Wilson 2010). Given the diverse and strong interests 4. Increase Safety by Reducing Risks on Both Public of various stakeholders in the planning process, it was important and Private Land: to utilize a deliberative and structured decision making process • Enhance Public Safety to accurately identify stakeholder values and objectives, and to • Reduce Risks From Liability ensure the plan reflects these values and objectives. A series of stakeholder meetings and public workshops were facilitated 5. Foster Cooperation and Collaboration Among Stakeholders during this process to identify goals and objectives, performance in Stewardship of the WHOS to Ensure Sustainable measures, and potential design and management alternatives. A Long-Term Management: report was prepared and is included as Appendix B. • Promote Community Stewardship and Co-Management • Improve Partnerships Between the City and Stakeholders Participants in the structured-decision making process were nearly unanimous in their identification of five fundamental Planning Constraints goals and their associated means objectives for the design and management of the WHOS property (Arvai and Wilson 2010). The fundamental goals and primary means objectives include: The WHOS property is managed within a framework of accepted policies and standards, in addition to current Salt Lake City 1. Restore and Protect the Emigration Creek Riparian and Salt Lake County ordinances and management plans. The Corridor and Adjacent Open Space Area: needs of utility providers, resource agencies, and adjacent • Improve Water Quality neighborhoods are understood and respected. The following is a • Provide Habitat for Wildlife list of basic agreements and entities that define and reinforce the • Restore and Protect Native Vegetation key planning constraints for the WHOS property: L 0 0 ut'asatih Hollow Open Space 1. Because there are no existing plans for management of study area lands, any previous agreements or precedents regarding ^ f; ; I the WHOS property are subject to reconsideration. '. �� , 4 ;,..;••;;„i�� 2. The conservation easement will require management as a i • '111/4 ,; / r � natural open space with appropriate standards and goals. ' ' tit, `3. Access will be evaluated in light of the important goals of _ resource protection, visitor experience, and public safety. -° <'''' - . NI - 4. The City's Riparian Corridor Ordinance (e.g. development setbacks from stream) and the Emigration Creek Riparian ,'-' '_, Corridor Study will be followed. * • ` a - I 5. All stakeholder concerns are respected and considered t equally, and are balanced with the fundamental goals established for the WHOS property. property will be retained in a predominantly natural and open space condition and to prevent any use of the property that will 6. An adaptive management framework will be implemented to significantly impair or interfere with the conservation values of guide long-term monitoring, management, and maintenance. the property. The public benefits of the easement will include 7. Facility and management costs will be prioritized within preventing future conversion of open land to urban development, protecting and enhancing water quality and quantity, protecting funding levels for successful maintenance and stewardship. wildlife habitat and maintaining habitat connectivity, protecting 8. The city will actively coordinate with entities having riparian areas, maintaining and restoring natural ecosystem jurisdiction over portions of the WHOS property, such as functions, and maintaining the sustainability of resources. Rocky Mountin Power and Salt Lake County Flood Control Activities that would be prohibited are likely to include subdivisions, significant building structures or improvements, mineral development, significant topography modification, waste Conservation Easement disposal, game farming, non-native species, commercial feed lots, and large signs or billboards. Activities that are likely to be • The WHOS property will be encumbered by Deeds of permitted include low intensity recreation, habitat enhancement Conservation Easement held by Salt Lake County and Utah Open and management, limited buildings or facilities, irrigation Lands. The purpose of the easement will be to assure that the improvements, fire protection, and noxious weed control. • • Comprehensive Restoration,Use.and Management Plan 17 Decision Making511. - - . Criteria for Evaluating --1. : Conceptual Management 3 is • -- ---:•,-„,---w .AlTJ. �" 4 Alternativess M T •" :h° 4� i r,: Ply t = e'r t,' -, The following list of near-term design performance measures r , °i� .. "X" ,, ";,c� ,,,-4 that were developed through the structured decision-making y * 4 = r ' \» ,..- ,. process (Arvai and Wilson 2010) are relevant for evaluating each _ " C. r 5 ttAt. . of the conceptual management alternatives developed during the WHOS planning process. They are organized by the established fundamental goal categories. Salt Lake City, in cooperation with Utah Open Lands and Salt Lake County,will ensure stewardship 2. Establish Clearly Defined Boundaries to Prevent of WHOS in a manner that protects the native vegetation, water Encroachment and Foster Respect for Public quality, and aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat of Emigration and Private Lands: Creek while providing appropriate access and educational • number and placement of access points and footpaths opportunities for the public. • size of buffer between private property and open space 1. Restore and Protect the Emigration Creek Riparian area Corridor and Adjacent Open Space Area: • extent of restoration activities and resultant benefits • number and placement of natural barriers at property boundaries • BMPs for water quality,wildlife and habitat protection 3. Provide Controlled Public Access that is Informed Primarily by Ecological Goals: • number and location of access points and footpaths • Inclusion of historical, cultural, and educational signage 0 . Wasatch Hollow Open Space 4. Increase Safety by Reducing Risks on Both Public and Private Land: .4111," • fire risk assessment . ., '" • BMPs for enforcement • BMPs for limiting trespassing 5. Foster Cooperation and Collaboration Among Stakeholders - in Stewardship of the WHOS to Ensure Sustainable Long- ^0 Term Management: t • Implement shared management plan between City,Salt Lake County,Utah Open Lands,and community Other Considerations The goal of the structured decision-making process(Arvai and It was also suggested that"splitting"WHOS into different Wilson 2010)was to work closely with members of the City to management clusters would provide ecologists with an organize information obtained from stakeholder meetings into opportunity to study the effects of human impacts on riparian components of possible conceptual management alternatives areas. Characterizing the northern portion of WHOS as a for WHOS. The following components derived from this restricted use area may help the site better achieve some of its process should also be considered when evaluating conceptual restoration goals. management alternatives. 2. Access by Dogs: There was nearly unanimous agreement, 1. Alternative Open Space"Clusters": The structured even among the most ardent dog owners,that allowing decision-making process defined"clusters"as different open unrestricted access to the WHOS site by dogs would likely space management strategies implemented in different areas stand as an affront to the restoration goals expressed by all of of the 10-acre WHOS site. There was widespread agreement the participants. Alternatives plans should explore different among participants in the workshops that it may be beneficial dog policies with the impacts of these policies studied in to open the southern reaches of WHOS to wider public access terms of achieving the stated goals and objectives expressed while maintaining a stricter stance on access in the northern during the planning process. It has been suggested that portion. Many feel that limiting access would likely offer a the planning process should explore the option of heavily greater sense of security to adjacent private property owners. restricting(i.e.,strictly-enforces on-leash regulations)or () ( 1 Comprehensive Restoration.Use.and Management Pia. 19 prohibiting dogs in the active restoration areas of the open in some form is likely to occur in order to be consistent with space. the Open Space Program goals and mission, it has been suggested that various passive forms of use be considered 3. Buffer Zones: Buffer zones are essentially widened for implementation (e.g., walking, wildlife viewing, quiet boundary lines that increase the proverbial "no man's land" reflection). Another benefit of encouraging appropriate, between public and private property. Buffer zones could, passive use of the WHOS property would be the potential for in many places, be built into the existing 10-acre open such use to drive out elicit or illegal activities that currently space property. In other cases, it may be possible to acquire occur. slivers of land from adjacent private landowners who are willing to sell or donate these lands for the specific purpose 6. Footpaths: Alternative designs (e.g., looped trails, the of increasing the buffer zone and/or improving restoration presence or absence of bridges), placement (within the opportunities. WHOS property), and number (single or multiple) of footpaths should be considered in terms of their influence on 4. Abandoned House: Some participants suggested that the meeting some of the five fundamental goals. house located in the Central Area be renovated and used as an educational or nature center, perhaps providing permanent 7. Rope Swings: Rope swings currently located within the space for a non-profit organization or full-time WHOS WHOS property pose problems for many of the fundamental docent. Many who supported this idea felt that it would goals developed by workshop participants(e.g., significant be a shame to tear down a structure if there was a way to erosion of the stream bank). Also, use of the swings has incorporate it into future management of the study area. prompted noise complaints from neighbors and likely poses a However, many who shared this opinion also recognized significant risk of liability for the City. It has been suggested that if it was not financially feasible then perhaps such a that proposed management alternatives not include any rope center could be built elsewhere on the property. The costs swings over Emigration Creek. associated with restoring the existing house, as well as those associated with removing the house, should be communicated 8. Utilities,Drainage, and Flood Control: Some participants through the planning process. discussed issues surrounding access to utilities, drainage points along the creek, and the need to provide adequate 5. Types of Uses: Some groups were clearly in favor of flood control within the WHOS property. It has been prohibiting access while others were supportive of providing suggested that alternative management options explore the some public access through a variety of uses. However, possibility of moving utilities out of the WHOS property, or even those who would prefer no access indicated support for perhaps burying power lines during any restoration efforts. limited access and use, if that access and the types of uses Alternative management strategies should also explore the were informed by restoration goals and perhaps limited to possibility of moving culverts and drainage points to protect certain segments of the property. Given that public access the ecology of Emigration Creek. In addition, it has been 0 0 Wasatch Hollow Open Space suggested that natural flood control mechanisms be explored as aspects of potential alternatives. ` ^, � • r `;} 14 -4 ' A y lie " 1 ! 9. Educational and Research Partnerships: Workshop a. ,, - 7., .P ' r i " , participants were very supportive of partnering with local ►3/4, ,. v s " ,t ,. .k ,L 0 ,. educational institutions to both provide research opportunities 'rs •` ',- •, " ` 1t,. r z•_,., . s for graduate students and to help monitor conditions in the T -{ G'= "'~ tt. WHOS property. Alternative management strategies should ' y .T:''-t:�,` n `_ . •g g , , incorporate means of reaching out to and working with ►,,; :,-' i colleges, universities, and agencies to encourage t;'"- , ' '- g governmentgi. 1 6k ti" collaborative research in the WHOS and at surrounding sites. ., °;. / ; 4r �4+. _ t r 10.Enforcement: Almost all workshop participants shared ��, may' ,.,, •, f concerns about enforcement, whether it was in regard to ,'. -.': 3 ;,z ' public safety, trespassing across private-public property _Lit . ._ �� lines, or appropriate uses within the WHOS property. As a / > •-• �. • ^t result, it has been recommended that the various conceptual - I management alternatives explore the effectiveness and cost -- t - r•� ,` , of alternative enforcement regimes (e.g., increased police ' E f „- ,; patrols, private security, community-based initiatives). '; M; *. ,; r • tioY :afy 4 i,k -. T � as a ? .. f• • `\ - y1+- ., .... .- ";*- • 0 Comprehensive Restoration.Use,and Management Plan 21 Comprehensive Use .. 1. Planning / . • --OPE SPACE AREA - . f : „ man erri wn unemow , •'}•rv' va aun oa va tea.. - Open Space Management ,., r,-pE{t f f: it. •-. Salt Lake City owns and manages a variety of land parcels for r y�} public use, ranging from traditional parks to preserved open � ' spaces. Some properties, such as the adjacent Wasatch Hollow Community Park, have many features of a traditional park ;j1. including turf areas, playground equipment, picnic shelters, concrete footpaths, and restrooms. Other properties, such as T WHOS or Parleys Historic Nature Park,were acquired and planned as natural open space with little more than footpaths. critical to avoiding additional restoration expenditures. The Salt Lake City is continuing to purchase open space lands, City's Open Space Lands Program is committed to managing expanding trail networks, and protecting resource sensitive for standards that are focused on natural resource protection as areas. The new and evolving demands of an expanding urban well as user experience. This may require trade-offs between population require a new management framework that can be performance measures. applied to all city properties where resource preservation and Area restoration are encouraged. Prescriptive Management A re a While the North and Central Areas of WHOS were acquired Designations or donated as natural open space, they have, along with the South Area, not been actively managed or maintained for a Prescriptive Management Areas help to define and establish number of years which has allowed for unrestricted use. This a range of land use and management prescriptions that can has resulted in significantly degraded portions of the study area be applied to suit the unique resource and user needs for a where vegetation is non-existent and soils are actively eroding. particular zone within the WHOS property. Designated use Restoration to a more sustainable and healthy condition will areas, footpaths, and barriers help to clearly define appropriate take substantial investment. Defining appropriate uses and uses to improve public safety, minimize maintenance, and implementing active management and oversight of WHOS is 0 0 0 Wasatdi Hollow Open Space protect sensitive resources. Each alternative concept is mapped • Self directed activities, like hiking or orienteering, on according to the following zones where applicable. designated footpaths 1. Footpaths: • Moderately maintained to minimize resource degradation • Applies only to the use on the footpath (e.g., weed and erosion controls, native plantings) • Self directed activities like hiking and walking as directed 4. Protection Area: by footpath signs • Promotes and supports a light level of use in a natural setting • Moderately maintained and monitored to promote safety and reduce user conflicts • Self directed activities focused on the protected resources, such as hiking, education, interpretation, and wildlife • Lands adjacent to the trail are managed to the standard of watching on designated footpaths their prescriptive management area • Maintained to enhance natural systems (e.g., protecting • Dogs are prohibited throughout the property except on sensitive habitats, restoring natural hydrology, restoring designated footpaths upland habitat, and adapting to natural changes over time) 2. Passive Recreation Area: 5. Restoration Area: • Promotes and supports a moderate level of use in a • Discourages or restricts access and use from natural areas managed setting under restoration • Self directed activities, such as reading, painting, • Actively restored, maintained, and monitored to improve learning, or informal leisure activities degraded natural resources or cultural features • Moderately maintained and manicured • Involves removal of fill or spoils, streambank grading, floodplain restoration, and habitat restoration • Facilities may include education center, outdoor classroom, or interpretive elements 6. Preserve Area: • Restricts and discourages access and use in sensitive 3. Natural Area: resource area • Promotes and supports a moderate level of use in a natural setting • Suitable for occasional use for stewardship or education © O 4 Comprehensive Restoration,Use,and Manm_emen,Ph,: 2.3 • • Moderately maintained and monitored to conserve unique, high-quality natural resources or cultural features t f (e.g., restoring natural hydrology, restoring upland habitat, and adapting to natural changes over time) Spectrum of Conceptual 44r- Management Alternatives < 'r. a A range of conceptual alternatives was developed to meet .> ,:, •;3 varying goals of providing natural resource protection and ; , improving the visitor experience. A total of five alternatives •• Y were developed and presented to the public before a final preferred alternative was refined. The alternatives generally reflected a range of resource protection levels,which were shaped by many local, state, and federal policies that must be followed. The alternatives were adjusted to accommodate recommendations made by the public in a series of workshops. A summary comparison of the alternatives is provided in Table 1. Figures 6 through 10 are maps of the various conceptual alternatives developed during the planning process. 4111 . Wasatch hollow Open Space Table 1. Summary Comparison of WHOS Comprehensive Restoration,Use,and Management Plan Alternatives. t;:s ::CONCEPTW CONCEPT CI CONCEPTb: CONCEPT. '.. �i a:>v r TION EMPW%SIS PUIWCACCESS EMPHASIS CONSERVATION EMPHASIS EDUCATION • RFOR Central Central Centza Central Central MEASURES Norm Area South Arta NoMArn Aft. `smith Area North Area Atea Sooth AR North Are. Area. South Area Norm Area Arn South Area, Public Access Prohibited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Extensive Extensive Prohibited Limited Extensive Prohibited Limited Limited Footpaths None Single Loop Single Loop Single Loop Single Loop Single Loop Network Network Network Research Single Loop Network Research Single Loop Single Loon Only Footbridge None None None One One One One One Two None One Two None One None N Boundary North.East, East North. Where Where Where East Where East North, Fencing Extensive Extensive Extensive and West and West _and Necessary Necessary Necessary Extensive and West Necessary Extensive and West MSMhrt Restoration None Both Sides Both Sides Outside Roth Sides Roth Sides Where Where Where Non Both Sides Where Non Roth Sides Roth Sides Fencing ofStream of Stream of Footpath of Stream of Stream Necessary Necessary Necessary of Stream Necessary of Stream of Stream Access by Dogs Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited On-leash On-leash On-leash Prohibited Prohibited On-leash Prohibited Prohibited Owleash Property Ean Eas[ Ean East East East East East of Acquisition of Stream of Stream East of Park of Stream of Stream East of Park None Note Non &Stream of Stream None of Stream Stream East of Park Invasive Species Aggressive Aggressive Aggressive Phased Phased Phased Armoal Annual Annual Aggressive Phased Annual Aggressive Phased Phased Control Removal of Fill 100% 100% 100% Where Where Where WA WA WA 100% Where Where Where WA 100% Z Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate o Streambank Where Where Where Where Where Where Where Where Where F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes S Grading Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate 3 Res[aodpleain Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes WA WA N/A WA Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes o�. Fla Remove Yes Yes Yes Yes WA WA WA WA WA Yes N/A WA Yes WA WA Encroachments Habitat Aggressive Aggressive Aggressive Aggressive Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Aggressive Moderate Moderate Aggressive Moderate Moderate Restoration Existing House WA RemOmal WA WA Raze WA WA Raze WA WA Raze WA WA Raze N/A LIED Education WA None WA WA None WA WA Yes WA WA None WA WA None Yes Center iOutdoor Research Research Research W Classroom Only Outdoor None None Yes None None Yes None OnlyYes Yes Only Yes Yes Interpretive None Minimal Minimal Minimal Moderate Moderate Extensive Extensive Extensive None Moderate Extensive Non Moderate Extensive Elements Passive WA WA N/A 0.83 Acre 19V 0313 Acre(9%1 Recreation Area pNatural Area WA WA 7.00 Acresl73%) 1/5 Acres CIA 1.25 Acres(13%) $$$ Protection Area 2.72 Acresl2tM 5.89 Acres161%) WA 0.64 Acrel6%7 0.64 Acre(EN Restoration Area 3.71 Acres 139%) 3.71 Acres(39%) 2.60 Acres 127%1 3.71 Acres(39W 3.71 Acres(39M Preserve Area 3.17 Acresl3314 N/A WA 3.17 Acres(3R) 3.17 Acres(33lp e if Comorehensive Restoration,Use.and Management Pia., .7.5 Highlights of Concept A: Preservation Emphasis • Implement aggressive riparian and upland habitat restoration efforts • Re-establish Wasatch Hollow Spring • Prohibit all public access to North Area and manage for scientific research and education only • Install restoration fencing along both sides of stream to discourage access • Prohibit dogs and limit public access to"loop"footpaths in Central and South Areas • Obliterate existing house and re-grade to natural contours • Establish property boundaries to prohibit access and encroachments from adjacent properties • Close and re-vegetate duplicate footpaths • Implement aggressive invasive species eradication efforts • Install interpretive signs focusing on habitat restoration and nature education • Acquire property east of stream and east of Wasatch Hollow Park from willing sellers 'ND '' '1,.. "i''' .- i `L.,,,:- ',',41:iiii."1 ...-",1 IA- -"v....Cr'i'• 4,11r-vt4-.-.* _,i-;,=.7-14, 4.!,':---,,___;,-.:,.-----7-::. r., ,fi -: .• _ 1._ ..1.• .1, .. - ,-. .., ix,7,...1 { •-V .�-.+al 1 s- 1 ,, .-11,- . : ir r '4 ....ir. . " .1 -2 M' 1 - . , . - - - 1,-;-• . : -, 1 Hioi . .., , . --. ' • 4 L, g. ' - _ ,71 4 ., :-.7:- (t t I i ;r- ! * _ .;t _ _ , �� • t — Wasatch Hollow Open Space ti-+ ' Fr ` r - , ._ _ ', ` All � ` �, "r ir. Restoration, Use, &Management Plan sit ii r, Rr l<, • s , ( �'t, i •t tio --. i � . fey CRSA N� ,�. ;: =# Ini'l t mr `v V- '- K 1 7 f :•. :f BIO•WEST.Inc. - lit , 6, o 1 .a. , Concept A Map Y{ r ... ate -it rI r * kiF Y A A 1 ,q , , .al" Legend l r • . ` •i rl ( 74, _ f N H �� - F_ 1O Potential Access Location a _'' +arty, _- II- '. t Ji] t ,t r a -Emigration Creek ,, t J i':A- k,t f' F r ` Proposed Footpaths '��{ ' 1 .- ;I .. ~-- { r ., �. - - i n Wasatch Hollow Open Space Boundary 21' • • Ii N • t, Prescriptive Wasatch HoAow Perk Boundary ,, ,L.,--11r I + Management Areas _'t �i_ i, .p4.r - r- .. (, I mi.' i t '1 : '4 �r NOTE:Contours are at 3'intervals �,�, l r Imo',Restoration Area 1� N, , i 1 - :f-' ,i �., :� -r- -- -- -$� r-. Preserve Area Y ��aa++---�� -- - j . +�P' ]• MN Protection Area c P ' ....--- I a r , 1 � r. �._ -1,901..*mi t. : d-Nisi lei vial —a>e— ..1 n 200 100 H I Feel l r r r 1 r r r I Figure 6. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept A Map. • Wasatch Hollow Open Space Highlights of Concept B: Restoration Emphasis • Re-establish Wasatch Hollow Spring if feasible • Install restoration fencing along both sides of stream to discourage access • Prohibit dogs and limit public access to"loop"footpaths in all areas • Raze existing house but maintain pedestrian and maintenance access • Define property boundaries to prohibit encroachments and discourage trespassing • Establish outdoor classrooms for educational uses • Acquire property east of stream and east of Wasatch Hollow Park from willing sellers • Close and re-vegetate duplicate footpaths • Implement phased invasive species eradication efforts • Install interpretive signs focusing on history,habitat restoration,and nature education • Implement riparian and upland habitat restoration efforts cry 1- x e. � y _ _— lit.; . ,'�i' ,4-lit ,`r I f y y, • t 1 z ' -•' l- i-- t :ace -•�-. i• .. \ 31, Wasatch Hollow Open Space : #-� b - , I•_-� / 1 ..,:.mi . _ _ V Restoration, Use, &Management Plan - 10,1 iii ''''.."-' i • l• k- ••••., a 1 4T' f ,444. 0 R s A t Li-. i. 1 r ;:1 ' f.1 ‘� f,,;t l 110-WEST,Inc. . • so PI o' -• Concept B Map = r t . ;Li 1 • © -.© lti �r. T t i , a Legend A' . r :f •' - r J _ r•_kJ. . • O Potential Access Localbn N �'S t l• . , e P I r.r.' Al .' ;� {}r' f'-' Emigration Creek ire onia__r tc.. 1 If! og*e a-ir/r', v3.A L t f•a Proposed Footpaths I. +,'` � - .. . _ 't -. ?_ t. ..).p�.•. . .- - I ..•� ,r Proposed Bridge • r8� td ° 7 v 1.,. M <. - '_ [ l Wasatch Hollow Open Space Boundary 1� + Wasatch Hollow Park Boundary •fit• .� , -ot,,. Prescriptive t-/40 • {1 , 1' In r, • ? . Management Areas ' , yi i � � 9 R NOTE:Contours are at 3'Intervals j , __ _ "'" i,ip_ Restoration Area i m Protection Area r 0 200 400 800 Feet _I �1 t llllT t•.f R +Mil c• ..+[I�.:o��, I I 1 t I I t t Figure 7. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept B Map. o © f Comprehensive Restoration.Use,and Management Ran Highlights of Concept C: Public Access Emphasis • Raze existing house but maintain vehicular access for educational purposes • Allow for development of LEED certified educational facility and outdoor classrooms in • Allow dogs on-leash only and limit public access to designated footpaths in all areas Central Area • Define property boundaries to prohibit encroachments and discourage trespassing • Close and re-vegetate duplicate footpaths • Implement annual invasive species eradication efforts • Install interpretive signs focusing on history of Emigration Creek,pioneer culture,habitat • Implement riparian and upland habitat restoration efforts restoration,and nature education • Install restoration fence where necessary to discourage access to sensitive areas ei.Cik a- T, Id .! .�i ty, RrP+ - Y.0 • Oil:-. ` •+--_ .. ! , ._..;.._;ii -I ; aF• A -� • t / i ant a,-. -., ,. . . . 41, . i_ _ a rt . . tti-Ql 4. �, ti 3 '_ . fj _� ` Wasatch Hollow Open Space "' x} ;� i'r Restoration, Use, &Management Plan r. , ,. ,.., r • ;•• •io WEST,inc. • _ }b- it 4V , i s° i> - 1 1 r' , 7r• I t— o "• • i ..ia = Concept C Map s I — ._ $a._ ..© 1 I ': l i:j tia frir, i Legend 7: _ir T_ `� a3 .. .r.. ,7 r . it O Potential Access Location f �/, L`. �, �" t —Emigration Creek --_ -+- _.'� - ---- . ti - ...iftot • ■ ,• i-_i 7 7 'tin. Proposed Footpaths :' � /�" - - • , ,, I. ' . Proposed Bridge ..- r .+i -I 5-', ,,,;,, °. , ' '_ . - n Wasatch Hollow Open Space Boundary 'a,-.. _ F• i�, f, II Prescriptive Wasatch Hollow Parts Boundary kr_w t1 i' ti! a� f Mana en t Areas -! i ,r .-�- ;' 9eT q NOTE:Contours are at 3'Intervals !!! !! _ •. / ..{�.,,}:,,,,;° _ _„��_ 4 Restoration Area i t Natural Area 0 200 400 !00 Feet Figure 8. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept C Map. 0 . Wasatch Hollow Open Space Highlights of Concept D:Conservation Emphasis • Acquire property east of stream and east of Wasatch Hollow Park from willing sellers • Implement aggressive riparian and upland habitat restoration efforts • Prohibit all public access to North Area and manage for scientific research and education only • Re-establish Wasatch Hollow Spring if feasible • Prohibit dogs and limit public access to"loop"footpath in Central Area • Install restoration fencing along both sides of stream to discourage access • Allow dogs on-leash only and limit public access to designated footpaths in South Area • Raze existing house but maintain pedestrian and maintenance access • Define property boundaries to prohibit encroachments and discouragetrespassing • Establish outdoor classrooms for educational uses • Implement aggressive invasive species eradication efforts in North Area • Close and re-vegetate duplicate footpaths • Implement phased invasive species eradication efforts in Central Area • Install interpretive signs focusing on history of Emigration Creek,pioneer culture,habitat • Implement annual invasive species eradication efforts in South Area restoration,and nature education •` J ,'r ' 'Oi li t l -f.I 'I� �`+ I a. _. li , ._.,.,:g __..._......T., p,, II I l 11 _—_. l.:tli a f y I ply. ii: b p•-:„• t lo � `-:�f� r c •�h3 I ;.��. `i •y — Wasatch Hollow Open Space - , i . -e Restoration,Use,&Management Plan ' � u, i t _ f ' C R SA s , m r f alo-wEsr,Inc. r1''4�- o t Concept D Map ' © e O r--_-..I k 't -L.Ef_.'-; fi 7.10-_I:-. 1 . co Paaueiucceestaew.r N :! - __ 1 e r ; r� —Emigration Creek Sr - ♦ k r. �4.t'r s .m,vl- Proposed Footpaths Pre•eeve Footpath '.i�- • r • Prescriptive r ---Proposedw 'i1 wa Management Areas ProposedBridge " -:4.• I. I - n Wu."Hobe Open Space Boundary ti • �+ Restoration Area I Wasatch Haber Perk Bound =r" ';13 _ Reserve Area n et arY `y .•.. — Ir Prq Uon Mee " NOTE:Contours are l'InterIntervalsery J'-J_ •_�-I..._ -_. I -1.r - NeheMAree I" Passive Recreation Area r 0 ...e. . L 9 - 1 r _, i 41 1.l.:MIi .l i p9 fi nit. ..., ..o."..—. i i r 20p i a0D r r c 7 Fear Figure 9. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept D Map. 0 0 0 Comprehensive Restoration,Use,and Management Plan '« Highlights of Concept E: Education Emphasis • Implement riparian and upland habitat restoration efforts • Re-establish Wasatch Hollow Spring if feasible • Prohibit all public access to North Area and manage for scientific research and education only • Install restoration fencing along both sides of stream to discourage access • Prohibit dogs and limit public access to"loop"footpath in Central Area • Raze existing house but maintain pedestrian and maintenance access • Allow dogs on-leash only and limit public access to designated footpaths in South Area • Allow for development of LEED certified educational facility and outdoor classrooms in South • Define property boundaries to prohibit encroachments and discourage trespassing Area • Implement aggressive invasive species eradication efforts in North Area • Close and re-vegetate duplicate footpaths • Implement phased invasive species eradication efforts in Central and South Areas • Install interpretive signs focusing on history of Emigration Creek,pioneer culture,habitat • Acquire property east of stream and east of Wasatch Hollow Park from willing sellers restoration,and nature education :Nt 4w t - • - gi a i. t f� - I ! .b Y 'TAT_'. _ _ Q1 r .. ,r1 r I > > -`'° Wasatch Hollow Open Space 40 - r r N ; I Restoration, Use, &Management Plan IIYY�� `�Nyl#.. tit ,fY +i t 3 1 MI ` l\r a.,tit 8 O-WEST,Inc. � ��, , - - cRsn • T.. � �� } • o- - a Concept E Map ' 11 x 4 � 1 , ,° �t : Legend 7 k s.ti tp © -0 ;i. '. -! r• a 0__- �k Li;' ; - ,_ Potential Access Location h-, { 1 s, \ 9 A I ibl,aal'. —Emigration Creek ICss 1 a p —#r 6- r �t __-�+ - ._ ,I .. 1 '`'{ { 'le t _,O.. 1: �. Proposed Footpaths y ;,`:: _ Proposed Preserve Footpath ` }i # _ � Prescriptive 1- •I? ( '` ) 1 Management Areas NM Proposed Bridge • �� r .._ '' P .. tA, F r. - Q Wasatch Hollow Open Space Boundary t+ _ `, EallA Restoration Area : �+t .. I 1� Preserve Area r.-1 Wasatch Hollow Park Boundary r 'y'�• !s 7 I - ,r !" 1 Protection Area NOTE:Contours are at 3'intervals �� Natural Area ur,,,l afar j iv�,, - .- g6 , a�}}QQ'' Passive Recreation Area 0 200 400 000 Feet a. .wrc..{no••—>, $'!�8 � �' l i i.ci.4. .Itr•'Effi{ �•r=s•r, �w:1 m r rra� r.� I 1 , 1 I , , r I Figure 10. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept E Map. 0 \^,'es,,tcn Hollow Open Spac• Management Strategies that are Common to All Conceptual "Ir.` .r:;,.it 4 ter' r• 'g: g 111 Mana ementAlternatives { • The followinglist of management strategies developed through - - g g P g � r ,; , • the structured decision-making process (Arvai and Wilson 2010) _--t are common to each of the conceptual management alternatives r � developed during the WHOS planning process. They are organized by the established fundamental goal categories. 1. Restore and Protect the Emigration Creek Riparian a} , Corridor and Adjacent Open Space Area: • establish conservation easements, r._ ' • promote "leave no trace" ethic, 2. Establish Clearly Defined Boundaries to Prevent Encroachment and Foster Respect for Public • address culverts and drains to creek, address runoff and and Private Lands: sedimentation (e.g., prevent bank erosion), • reduce risks from liability (e.g., non- permitted activities), • re-establish de-silting meadows, • prevent trespassing, protect private property values (e.g., protect aesthetic values, limit noise, allow only natural • focus on species most likely to thrive, open space compatible activities), • restrict and prevent disruptive uses (e.g., limit pollution • prevent annexation of private property, from lights/noise, paintball/air soft, dumping of refuse, tree cutting for"fort"building, campfires, camping or • prevent encroachment of private property onto WHOS squatting), (e.g., no dumping of refuse), • control and eliminate invasive species, • provide adequate enforcement (e.g., personnel, penalties for violations). • restore natural forest processes. O Comprehensive Restoration,Use,and Management Plan 41 4. Increase Safety by Reducing Risks on Both Public and Private Land: • curtail illegal activity (e.g., drugs, squatting), • provide adequate enforcement (e.g., regular walkthroughs, more patrols), • reduce risk of injury.in WHOS (e.g., remove rope swing), • reduce risks to private landowners (e.g., establish clear boundaries, discourage trespassing and encourage 400 property owners to participate in private property protection). 5. Foster Cooperation and Collaboration Among Stakeholders in Stewardship of the WHOS to Ensure Sustainable Long- 3. Provide Controlled Public Access that is Informed Term Management: • involve neighboring property owners, local community, Primarily by Ecological Goals: youth organizations, visitors, educational institutions, • close WHOS to public after dark, neighboring churches, and easement holders (e.g., promote installation of native plants on private land, • increase historical awareness, regular wildlife counts, regular clean-up days, research open space as an "open classroom" (e.g., seating for opportunities, regular walkthroughs, community docent • reflection and wildlife viewing, single loop footpath, only and interpreters, manage in perpetuity) for passive activities, limit lights and noise, exploration by all age groups, partner with schools colleges), • improve communication, foster transparent decision making, and facilitate decision making partnerships with Inclusion of historical, cultural, and educational easement holders, across city offices, between city and • community, between community residents, and with interpretative elements (signage and art). experts and other stakeholders (e.g., Community Council newsletters, website, regular meetings, acquire expertise • create awareness of detrimental behavior, in decision making, information sheet at entrance, hire a monitor conditions over time (e.g., citizen science, WHOS docent). • graduate theses). 0 0 0 32 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 3. Provide Controlled Public Access that is Informed Management Strategies that Primarily by Ecological Goals: • limit access in northern portion (e.g., research and May Vary between Conceptual education only, no footpath) Management Alternatives • wider access in southern portion (e.g., limited/no access by dogs) The following list of management strategies developed through the structured decision-making process (Arvai and Wilson 2010) • open space as an "open classroom" (e.g., interpretive art, may or may not be included in one or more of the conceptual markers, signs, create an education center) management alternatives developed during the WHOS planning process. They are organized by the established fundamental goal 4. Increase Safety by Reducing Risks on Both Public categories. and Private Land: 1. Restore and Protect the Emigration Creek Riparian • provide adequate enforcement (e.g., volunteer or staff Corridor and Adjacent Open Space Area: for education and enforcement, enhance public access, • address septic field at acquisition site consider CPTED in certain areas) • reconnect Wasatch Hollow Spring • remove abandoned house • allow creek to meander • reduce risk of injury in WHOS (e.g., dogs on leash or restricted, reduce wildfire risk) • limit public access (e.g., natural barriers vs. fences, limit access by dogs, minimize number of paths, curtail • reduce risks to private landowners (e.g., establish buffer encroachment, create "low impact" area) zones between OS and private property) 2. Establish Clearly Defined Boundaries to Prevent 5. Foster Cooperation and Collaboration Among Stakeholders Encroachment and Foster Respect for Public in Stewardship of the WHOS to Ensure Sustainable Long- and Private Lands: Term Management: • establish buffer zones between WHOS and private • keep City website related to WHOS project up to date property (e.g., purchase land from neighbors) • establish clear boundary lines (e.g., improve signage, implement natural barriers) I ® 0 Comprehensive Restoration.Use.and Management Plan ;3 • Work with residents on Kensington Street to address parking Recommended Comprehensive issues before considering designating this as an access Restoration, Use, and location • Prohibit dogs except on designated on-leash footpaths Management Plan • Define property boundaries to prohibit encroachments and The recommended plan is a blend of several key components discourage trespassing from the five alternative concepts that were developed during the • Acquire property east of stream and east of Wasatch Hollow WHOS planning process and described in the previous section. Park from willing sellers The recommended plan reflects the input received during public and stakeholder meetings, as well as recommendations from • Implement phased invasive species eradication efforts in all both City and consultant staff. Figure 11 shows the proposed areas locations of prescriptive management areas, footpaths, and access locations for the recommended concept. • Implement riparian and upland habitat restoration efforts • The recommended plan allows for limited public access to all Re-establish Wasatch Hollow Spring if feasible three areas of the WHOS property on designated footpaths. A • Install restoration fencing along both sides of the riparian substantial portion of the upland and riparian habitats will be corridor to discourage access restored and educational opportunities are maximized through installation of interpretive signage, outdoor classrooms, and a • Raze existing house and remove associated infrastructure, potential educational facility. Minimal site amenities will be but maintain pedestrian and maintenance access provided to improve safety, reduce risks, and discourage illegal activities. • Allow for future development of a LEED certified educational facility The recommended plan includes the management strategies • Establish outdoor classrooms for educational uses that are common to all conceptual management alternatives as described in the previous section. Detailed management • Close and re-vegetate unauthorized footpaths strategies, policies, standards, monitoring,and action items are described in the following sections. Highlights of • Install interpretive signs focusing on history of Emigration the Recommended Comprehensive Restoration, Use, and Creek, pioneer culture, habitat restoration, and nature Management Plan include the following: education • Conduct a wildfire hazard assessment and implement • Limit public access to designated footpaths in all areas appropriate mitigation measures t. O 34 Wasatch Hollow Open Space - r — '. I) h I R•t -a;r ,,Ar. ..,;,„-1:' tl"....tue i.r. 1---; (` -- .jkr7j:•;7'v-i21.- -V .. ...% . ,, • ,-.1,- . ' .„ if • !..„,r1_,.i.:-...t.:‘ 1. .41_ ,x..i., , „. , - :...,, ta„,_ .-,, ,,.,;:<___. .,.. _ . _ s_.-. . ._ , , ,„ , ,, P- 0 ,.,PC1'.111F,le., 1/4. ..„).„ , , liki'o.ri7. , t ‘ ' ., •,,,ss I.:•;.t. -,- -l'---_.. ti__ , , .:(-- -----:" ' *' 1 . -'',' .i- 1 4 -% , -liti. •`:•r-1.„„„:41 ' •• : ''', ,. 1 Jim 1 , ka .. . - } :_fIr.. . -E a...-¢ x Wasatch Hollow Open Space '. ri Restoration, Use, &Management Plan . •;, -'7;1- = —*tit-6;" ' ; i' ...-r( -/-:, • r ! L__t Ir-a:�' .<< 1. t. s { 1� \l'\, y# BIO WEST.Inc. t 7- . -7 • �rh T w��,,, '��,� , �� .. r . `� �•�^ � �-•� � - Recomended Concept Map - \ St {bllliccl tr dr, t �.,. ; • i t• , �' J. 1 itw Legend M nuh'nu r.cI if a . f �3�r 1i1 COi s _ - _ J. � CO Access Location 0 Potential Access Location -„ - ' °l' Y Y• .,_,I'"• ' -,-" + a er Emigration Creek D t ': a. ., t }}t�� r r: r Proposed Footpaths(Dogs Prohibited) a t '.`tla,T '. , i v. Vr _a Proposed On-leash Footpaths _ �, • 'Ilillia 'T,,... 1 -"3'•D '' 4 c =Proposed Bridge ..e ,'. - �� V� y eo Proposed Education Facility j i Prescriptive 1 r -- �a _ `• I Wasatch Hollow Open Space Boundary t' r II. r Management Areas m I. iii ' 1141, Wasatch Hollow Park Boundary r �� ' •...it_ �;: -4" ,;-�r}-;�-�--/ �Restoration Area � - a-. - NOTE:Contours are at 3'intervals --- - t Protection Area �`_ i' 0 1 i,.,,E .• L__'Natural Area t ♦:I.{�i •a, E47t T ! r i' 4•I.1 �. a r : _ -....a,-•-. ,1 i 200i400 8I Feet � .'1D.'..,_ �n i i r r 1 r i r I Figure 11. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Recommended Concept Map 0 0 r Comprehensive Restoration.Use,and Management Plan ;5 • Management f ic ..-,- i., ., , Strategies 'N Adaptive Management !, i �k„i , �apF ice' '-may �+',^.. The Comprehensive Restoration, Use, and Management Plan n R "�, for the WHOS will utilize an adaptive management approach to . , 4.^. r .a.,, ; -a making decisions and changing management actions to adapt to 7� �1 T. r` n}; �.`r �arit .,,4.-x eACt�'ti,��.. ra, ayF' future conditions. Adaptive management is a structured, iterative ;, z 7 x , .,,6. ' ;� .: ''''''''"1"' "' process of decision-making that uses ongoing monitoring to guide , the process. Monitoring, such as surveys of visitors, samples of water quality, or measuring the extent of damaged vegetation, is used to understand current conditions and whether or not the As adaptive management is applied at WHOS, managers may existing management actions are successfully achieving park decide to open or close certain use areas, change an area's goals. Adaptive management is essentially"learning by doing." prescriptive management designation, and initiate or complete restoration projects. Monitoring of conditions is essential, and Salt Lake City plans to use adaptive management at WHOS to the City will likely enlist volunteer stewards when possible to help address changing conditions such as: help achieve these goals. • Increased visitation and recreation use Applicable Plans and Policies • Implementation of restoration projects Recommended actions within this plan support the WHOS long- term sustainability, minimize maintenance costs, and implement • Responding to natural acts(e.g., drought,flood,fire, natural or enforce existing policies. A number of key adopted plans and disaster) policies have influenced recommended actions. Several of the • • Controlling noxious weeds, erosion, and vandalism key adopted plans relevant to WHOS are listed below: 1. Salt Lake City Zoning and General Plan o 0 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 2. Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan 3. Salt Lake City Sustainability Plan Recommendations w _.if-,,► ` ` :V"' • 4. Salt Lake CountyNatural Areas Land Management Plan ,a Emigration Creek RiparianStudy Management Corridor Plan �' ' _ " -001 5. Emi g Pl4 041 AIL . tip,. ,� • 6. Wasatch Hollow Community Park Master Plan ' �; - ;� ' , Several of the key adopted standards and policies relevant to '° j ` ' ,� WHOS are listed below: I _ 1. Existing Wasatch Hollow Community Park Rules . •s_• j '' . 2. Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County Animal Control Ordinances 3. Salt Lake City Riparian Corridor Ordinance Summary of Adaptive Management Strategies 4. Salt Lake City Open Space Lands Ordinance Table 2 summarizes the fundamental goals and relevant 5. Salt Lake County Water Quality Stewardship Plan policy standards for the plan, as well as outlines the adaptive management strategies and monitoring activities required to 6. Salt Lake County Open Space Management Plan achieve the stated goals. 7. Utah State Water Quality Standards 8. U.S. Clean Water Act 9. U.S. Endangered Species Act 10. U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Historic Preservation © ( U Comprehensive Restoration.Use.and Management Plan 37 Table 2. Summary of Adaptive Management Strategies for the WHOS Comprehensive Restoration,Use,and Management Plan. nagefit S " meat Standards Monitoring Adaptive Management Action Goal 1:Restore and Protect the Emigration Creek Riparian Corridor and Adjacent Open Space Area. A. Improve Water Quality • No disturbance within 25 feet of AHWL(excludes designated bridges). 1. Collaborate on all proposals for 1. Education,signage,and soft patrol • Limited structures between 25-50 feet restoration,management,and with information on water quality of AHWL such as interpretive signs, maintenance practices within WHOS. and discouraging non-compliant trails,boardwalks,and benches. 1. Meet Riparian Corridor Ordinance. 2. Staff observation of vegetation uses. • Reduce compaction and bank 2. Meet the Best Management Practices conditions and user-created trails 2. If not successful,setup fines and erosion by eliminating user-created and implementation projects with weekly spot checks. formal permitting process for WHOS. duplicate footpaths. recommended in the Emigration 3. Staff maintenance monthly to 3. Redesign trails and access points • Develop designated access locations Creek Riparian Corridor Study address problem spots. and use education,signage and soft and close/restore all other access Management Plan. 4. Reporting by trained volunteers at patrol to guide behavior towards points. 3. Support intent of Open Space Lands least 4 times per year(quarterly). compliance. • Address culverts and drains to creek, Master Plan. 5. Measure changes in water quality 4. If not successful,ticket violators and as well as runoff and sedimentation. 4. Meet Utah State water quality (e.g.,turbidity,temperature,e-coli, increase enforcement. • Re-establish riparian floodplain and standards. coliform,and dissolved oxygen). 5. If not successful,redesign trail, de-silting meadows. 6. Use data to identify target areas for fencing,or access points. • Eliminate existing septic system at restoration,protection,signage,or 6. If not successful,consider closing acquisition site. enforcement operations. trails or access points. • Re-connect Wasatch Hollow Spring. • Allow Emigration Creek to meander. 1. Easement shall protect the purpose of WHOS and its conservation values. B. Provide Habitat for Wildlife 2. Correct easement violations 1. Staff observations of compliance • Establish Conservation Easement immediately. with easement using weekly spot Documents. 3. Establish 2010 Baseline Conditions checks. • Restore natural ecological processes. for wildlife. 2. Staff maintenance monthly to • Restrict and prevent disruptive 4. Maintain viable populations of address problem spots. uses(e.g.,light and noise pollution, indicator species for fish,migratory 3. Staff monitoring report 4 times a 1. Assess limiting factors and mitigate paintball/air soft,dumping of neo-tropical birds,and desirable year(quarterly)at problem spots. as needed,which may include refuse,tree cutting/fort building, terrestrial species that are likely to 4. Monitoring report of easement increased buffer,improved controls, campfires,camping,squatting). thrive. compliance by easement holder or seasonal/permanent closures. • Focus on species most likely to 5. Achieve no visible trace of previous annually. thrive. conditions. 5. Monitoring report 4 times a year • • Promote"leave no trace"ethic. 6. Follow restoration and maintenance (quarterly)by trained volunteers • Improve habitat to increase diversity recommendations of the Salt Lake 6. Consider conducting extensive of permanent and seasonal wildlife. County Open Space Management Plan breeding bird survey. and the Emigration Creek Riparian Corridor Study Management Plan. 0 0 0 38 Wasa,ch Hollow Open Space • Management Strategy Policy and Management Standards Monitoring Adaptive Management Action C. Restore and Protect Native 1. Meet the Best Management Practices 1. Allow access on designated trails and 1. Staff observation of corridor Vegetation recommended in the Emigration use permeable fences(such as split conditions with weekly spot checks. • Close sections of the Emigration Creek Riparian Corridor Study rail)for restoration closures. Creek riparian corridor for Management Plan,Salt Lake County 2. Staff maintenance monthly to 2. If not successful,consider closing address problem spots. restoration projects with fencing and Natural Areas Land Management access. warning/education signs. Plan,and the Salt Lake County Water 3. Staff monitoring report 4 times a 3. If successful,consider removing year(quarterly)at problem spots. • Control and eliminate noxious and Quality Stewardship Plan. fence. Leave restoration fence in 4. Monitoring report 4 times a year invasive species. 2. Support the intent of the Open Space place if necessary. (quarterly)by trained volunteers. • Limit public access to sensitive areas Lands Ordinance. 5. Include weed reporting with 4. Education,signage,and soft patrol. (e.g.,use natural barriers or fences, 3. Reduce noxious and invasive weeds 5. Enforcement and ticketing of vegetation plot monitoring. limit access by dogs,minimize each year from previous year's level. violations. Increase enforcement if 6. Use data to identify target areas for footpaths,curtail encroachments). 4. Meet standards and maintenance education,signage,or enforcement conditions deteriorate. • Replant understory and overstory recommendations of the Salt Lake 6. Increase weed management efforts operations. riparian vegetation. County Weed Abatement Program. until conditions are sustainable. Goal 2.Establish Clearly Defined Boundaries to Prevent Encroachment and Foster Respect for Public and Private Lands. A. Protect Open Space Property • Reduce risks from liability(e.g.,non- permitted activities). • Prevent encroachment of private property onto WHOS(e.g.,no 1. Legal enforcement of open space 1 Staff observations of compliance dumping of refuse). rules,animal control ordinance,and Establish buffer zones between all applicable laws and regulations. using weekly spot checks. 1. Include recommendations in annual • 2. Annual reporting of enforcement report until objectives are met. WHOS and private property 2. Uphold new regulations as identified (e.g.,purchase land from willing and adopted. efforts and results. neighbors). • Establish clear boundary lines(e.g., improve signage,implement natural barriers). 1. Gather baseline data of crime and B. Regular Monitoring of Violations 1. 95%compliance with local laws and nuisance reports. Provide adequate enforcement(e.g., open space regulations. 2. Track ticketing and law enforcement 1. Include recommendations in annual • personnel,penalties for violations) 2. 90%neighbor satisfaction with in database. report until objectives are met. conditions. 3. Monitoring report 4 times a year (quarterly)by trained volunteers. .omprelhensive Restoration,Use,and Management Plan ,? Q<. ", Man • Monitoring Adaptive Management Action C. Protect Private Property • Prevent trespassing and protect private property values(e.g.,protect aesthetic values,limit noise,allow 1. 95%compliance with local laws and 1. Gather baseline data of crime and 1. Education,signage,and soft patrol. only natural open space compatible open space regulations. nuisance to neighbors. 2. If not successful,ticket violators and activities). 2. 90%neighbor satisfaction with 2. Track ticketing and law enforcement increase enforcement. • Prevent annexation of private conditions. in database. 3. If not successful,redesign or property. 3. Prevent measurable damage to 3. Monitoring report 4 times a year reallocate access. Install perimeter fencing where properties. (quarterly)by trained volunteers. 4. If not successful,consider closing • necessary to prevent trespass. access point or area. • Post open space rules at each access location. Goal 3.Provide Controlled Public Access that is Informed Primarily by Ecological Goals A. Provide Public Access 1. Manage types of use,areas of use, 1. Education,signage,and soft patrol. • Close WHOS to public after dark. and user numbers to maintain no 2. If not successful,ticket violators and • Prohibit dogs and limit public access 1. Staff observations of compliance degradation of resources. increase enforcement. to"loop"footpath in North and 2. 95%compliance with local laws and using weekly spot checks. 3. If not successful,redesign or Central Areas. 2. Track ticketing and law enforcement open space regulations. reallocate access. • Allow dogs on leash only and 3. 90%neighbor satisfaction with in database. 4. If not successful,consider closing limit public access to designated 3. Monitoring report 4 times a year conditions. access point or area. footpaths in South Area. (quarterly)by trained volunteers. • Close and re-vegetate duplicate 4. 100%compliance with conservation 5. Include recommendations in annual footpaths. easement document. report until objectives are met. B. Provide Educational Access • Utilize WHOS as"outdoor classroom"(e.g.,interpretive art, markers,signs,education center, 1. Write interpretive strategy to partner with schools and colleges). provide sufficient media and Allow development of a LEED programs to encourage proper • stewardship. 1. Revisit interpretive strategy and certified educational facility and 2. Require one education/outreach 1. Survey partners annually to gauge apply new interpretive methods outdoor classrooms in the South effort annually from partnership effectiveness of interpretation. annually. Area. • Increase historical awareness. groups. • Install historical,cultural,and 3. Provide regular opportunities for educational interpretive elements. nature interpretation. • Create awareness of detrimental behavior. o 0 0 40 Wasatch Hollow Open Space lir and cote! fc '•"' ' meat Strategy iN�nag Adaptive nt on C. Provide Access for Research • Monitor conditions over time(e.g., 1. Establish 2010 Baseline Conditions 1. Perform at least one comprehensive citizen science,graduate theses, for vegetation,wildlife,and water monitoring event annually 1. Use results to identify priority class projects). quality. (preferably quarterly). projects and recommendations. • Complete habitat health assessment to identify threats and opportunities. Goal 4.Increase Safety by Reducing Risks on Both Public and Private Land • A. Enhance Public Safety • Curtail illegal activity(e.g.,drugs, 1. Gather baseline data of crime and 1. Education,signage,and soft patrol. squatting). 2. If not successful,ticket violators and 1. 95%compliance with local laws and nuisance to neighbors. • Provide adequate enforcement(e.g., increase enforcement. regular walkthroughs,more patrols, open space regulations. 2. Track ticketing and law enforcement 3. If not successful,redesign or 2. 90%neighbor satisfaction with in database. volunteer or staff for education and conditions. 3. Monitoring report 4 times a year reallocate access. enforcement,enhance public access, 4. If not successful,consider closing consider CPTED in certain areas). (quarterly)by trained volunteers. access point or area. • Remove abandoned house. 1. Install regulation and interpretation B Reduce Risks from liability 1. Staff observations of compliance • Reduce risk of injury on WHOS signs and maintain in readable using weekly spot checks. condition and good repair. property(e.g.,remove rope swings, 2 Update signs to include new 2. Survey users about knowledge dogs on leash or restricted,reduce of information on signs to gauge 1. Change the number of signs, fire risks). regulations and information to effectiveness. location,design,or readability. support stewardship goals. • Reduce risks to private landowners 3. Legal enforcement of open space 3. Survey partnership groups annually 2. Include recommendations in annual (e.g.,establish clear boundaries and to see if signs are addressing their report until objectives are met. rules,animal control ordinance,and buffer zones,discourage trespassing, concerns and issues. all applicable laws and regulations. encourage private property 4. Annual reporting of enforcement 4. Uphold new regulations as identified protection). and adopted. efforts and results. 1. Coordinate with the Unified Fire Authority. C Reduce Risks from Wildfire 2. Identify fire-prone conditions. 1. Implement fuels modification as appropriate. • Conduct a wildfire hazard assesment. 3. Mentify fuel breaks 1. Perform a wildfire hazard assessment 2. Develop a fire response and • Implement mitigation measures to 4. Locate adjacent structures monitoring event annually. evacuation plan as necessary. reduce wildfire hazards and risks to 5. Identify emergency access adjacent properties. 6. Identify water sources 3. Educate homeowners to implement 7. Determine appropriate mitigation defensible space concepts. strategies. Comprehensive Restoration.Use,and Management Plan Management Strategy Policy and Management Standards Monitoring Adaptive Management ACNon Goal 5.Foster Cooperation and Collaboration Among Stakeholders in Stewardship of the WHOS to Ensure Sustainable Long-Term Management A. Promote Community Stewardship and Co-Management • Involve neighboring property owners,local community youth 1. Revisit partnership agreements 1. Meet Salt Lake City standards for organizations,visitors,educational annually to set current year's goals. managing boards and volunteers. institutions,neighboring churches, 2. Conduct annual partnership survey 1. Rewrite partnership agreements and and easement holders(e.g.,promote 2. Stewardship partners must meet to gauge satisfaction with programpark privileges if expectations are all conditions of their agreement g g p g p g p installation of native plants on and overall open space management. not met. private land,regular wildlife counts, annually to continue their use 3. Build tracking database of partners regular clean-up days,research privileges. and use for reminders. opportunities,community docent and interpreters,manage in perpetuity) B. Foster Relationships Between the City and Stakeholders • Improve communication,foster transparent decision making, 1. Meet regularly(quarterly)with and facilitate decision making stakeholders. partnerships with easement holders, 1. Regular ranger/docent visits to 2. 100%concurrence between partners. across City offices,between City and observe conditions and to interact 3. Design and install restoration,use, community,between community with visitors. residents,and with experts and and management improvements as 2 Weekly volunteer steward presence. 1. Focus efforts on priority issues. agreed upon. other stakeholders(e.g.,Community 4. Build Public and Private Partnerships 3. Monitoring report by trained Council newsletters,website,regular volunteers. for Stewardship,Education,Funding, meetings,acquire expertise in decision-making,information sheet and Implementation. at entrances) • Consider creating a full or part-time WHOS docent. © r --? Wasatch Hollow Open space • Crime Prevention Through �h y, '' • _ ,i0 y ' 'Iiii0cee.„'”3":;4,1U.� �� " � ` ? �� f` �j �"` -`-Environmental De i n (CPTED) ..-, A 4� The term "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design" sK' ., (CPTED) describes a series of recommendations that when implemented in a physical space generally make that space safer for its users. Defensible space is the most important factor in developing CPTED principles. When visitors have a defensible +,. _ space to use, this limits the opportunities for detrimental acts - to take place. However, implementing CPTED principles will need to be carefullybalanced with the purposes for protecting .1'� �+. " w4.{ a P rP .- .',F .* ,. , y this natural area. Where feasible, CPTED principles should be implemented when they promote appropriate uses and do not conflict with prohibited uses as defined in the conservation Natural Access Control easement. The following principles of CPTED are recommended for the WHOS study area. Natural access control refers to the differentiation of public and private spaces. When appropriate access locations are delineated Natural S u ry e ill a n ce it removes the need for trespass through inappropriate spaces. This also increases legitimate uses in these areas. Examples may Natural surveillance refers to the design of a space that increases include using clearly identifiable points of entry and constructing the opportunities to see spaces and their surroundings. Not only built or natural structures to divert persons to appropriate places does this allow a visitor to see if potential risks might exist by of use. minimizing hiding places, it also encourages positive use of the space by many visitors. Having many legitimate visitors in a Natural Territorial Reinforcement space makes it safer for all. Examples may include clearing of invasive and non-native species that create hiding spaces and Spaces that are well designed and maintained present a sense providing safe access for all visitors into a wide variety of areas that a space is being consistently occupied. Although this often (may also include ADA access). applies to private spaces, the concept can be applied to public spaces as well. Examples may include placing amenities such as seating to help attract users to an area and programming or scheduling spaces to increase legitimate uses. 0 ( C Comprehensive Restoration,Use.and Management Plan -3 • workshops, all of which are described in detail below. A detailed Pu b l i e I n v o I v e m e n t list of public and agency outreach efforts is included in Table 3. and I np ut Structured Decision-Making Process The planning process for the WHOS Comprehensive Restoration, Use, and Management Plan relied on regular review and input This effort is the result of a participatory planning process from City staff, the consultant team, agency representatives, initiated by Salt Lake City to inform the design and management community stakeholders, and the general public. These efforts of the 10-acre WHOS property (Arvai and Wilson 2010). Given included implementation of a strategic decision-making process, the diverse and strong interests of various stakeholders in the facilitation of stakeholder meetings, and facilitation of public planning process, it was important to utilize a deliberative and structured decision making process to accurately identify Table 3. Summary of Public and Agency Outreach and Involvement. Date Meeting Location Attended 7/29/2009 Introduction of the WHOS Planning Process Foothill Anderson Library 20 8/312009 Stewardship Training Program Salt Lake City PD 7 10/10/2009 Wasatch Hollow Open Space Community Cleanup Wasatch Hollow Open Space 23 1/19R010 Strategic Decision Making Process 3 Meetings City and County Building 14 1 1 1/20/2010 Strategic Decision Making Process 4 Meetings City and County Building 12 8 2 5 1/21/2010 Strategic Decision Making Process 2 Meetings City and County Building 13 14 1/22/2010 Strategic Decision Making Process 1 Meeting City and County Building 3 1/26/2010 Strategic Decision Making Process 1 Meeting City and County Building 2 2/22/2010 Kids Meeting to Identify Vision Foothill Anderson Library 16 4/20/2010 Potential Management Alternatives Presentation Foothill Anderson Library 13 4R32010 Uintah Elementary School Presentation Uintah Elementary School 500+ 5/6/2010 First Review of Conceptual Management Alternative Drafts Foothill Anderson Library 14 . 6/22/2010 Second Review of Conceptual Management Alternatives Drafts Foothill Anderson Library 43 9/16/2010 Presentation of Draft Restoration,Use,and Management Plan Foothill Anderson Library 40 10/21/2010 Planning Open House for Final Draft Plan City and County Building 5 0 0 0 44 Wasatch Honot,Open Space stakeholder values and objectives, and to ensure the plan reflects • Representatives of the Salt Lake City Open Space Lands these values and objectives. A list of stakeholder groups was Advisory Board, Salt Lake County, and Utah Open Lands created and included City staff, community members living near the WHOS property, neighboring churches and schools, Salt • Content area experts (e.g., ecologists, ornithologists, Lake City Open Space Lands Advisory Board members, and planners, and engineers) content area experts (e.g., ecologists). A series of stakeholder meetings and public workshops were facilitated by the consultant Public Workshops team to help identify planning goals and objectives, design performance measures, and potential design and management alternatives for the WHOS property. A report was prepared and A series of public workshops were facilitated by City staff and is included as Appendix B. the consultant team during the planning process. Public input was sought during issues identification, goals and objectives development, design performance measures creation, and Stakeholder Meetings conceptual alternative management strategies review. A draft of the Comprehensive Restoration, Use, and Management Plan was Stakeholder meetings were held throughout the planning process prepared and presented to the public at the final public workshop. as needed. A majority of these meeting occurred during the strategic decision-making process, while others were held during the development of management alternatives. The various '------"' stakeholder groups that were utilized included the following: �. "01111111111 • Representatives of Salt Lake City Corporation (e.g., Salt Lake City council, Office of the Mayor, Police, Parks, and '- Open Space Lands Program) r„ lo,; a 1 Ride:`" ' ' r:.. -' • Community members living around the WHOS property , i i� (including members of the Wasatch Hollow Community \ , ,; Ilt- Council) � ";% ik. M • Representatives of neighboring institutions (e.g., Westminster " •!IN' _ ' College, Clayton Middle School, Rocky Mountain Power, ," * the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Wasatch Presbyterian Church) © C 0 Comprehensive Restoration,Use,and Management Pia; 45 Eliminate Unauthorized Footpaths Implementation and This J ro'ect involves the closure and landsca a rehabilitation P P P 1 1 a 5 i ng of unauthorized and duplicate footpaths throughout the WHOS property. Closure would include implementing the necessary pedestrian traffic controls to prevent re-use, such as boulders, Organizing improvement projects into phases is an integral brush piles, signage, and fencing (if necessary). Any required element and strategy for implementation of restoration and fencing should be a natural finished two or three-rail wood type management solutions proposed in this master plan. This (e.g., split-rail) or temporary welded wire fencing on t posts. approach is beneficial for fundraising of proposed facility Rehabilitating the landscape would include grading, drainage, improvements and restoration activities,which when divided seeding, planting, and mulching activities. There are a total of into smaller sub-projects are responsive to budgeting constraints approximately 3,200 feet (0.6 miles) of redundant secondary and allow for pilot testing of proposed measures when necessary. and user created trails that are recommended for closure within Effective recommendations can then be replicated in subsequent and adjacent to WHOS property. Estimated costs for designing phases. This phased implementation strategy works hand-in- and implementing the unauthorized footpath closure and hand with the adaptive management nature of the WHOS master rehabilitation project: $10,000 to $20,000. plan,thereby protecting the property's current value to citizens and wildlife while acknowledging that its potential far exceeds Develop Access Locations ,f current conditions. Controlled access locations are important to guide visitors to This section provides approximate quantity and cost information appropriate locations to enter the WHOS property. This will for the capital improvement projects identified as part of prevent trespass onto neighboring properties as well as protect the recommended plan. These estimates are for materials sensitive vegetation and wildlife habitats. Development of an and installation costs only. Implementation of these capital access location includes the following potential amenities. It improvement projects will entail expenses for site-level plan is recommended that an informational kiosk with wayfinding design, engineering, permitting, monitoring, and maintenance in information, with a concrete pad to provide a location for the addition to the costs provided below. These additional expenses kiosk and act as a transition between the sidewalk and the WHOS may add 20 to 30 percent to the costs presented. Additionally, property be provided. Seating and artwork may also be located it is anticipated that quantities and approaches may vary once at these access points and are discussed as part of other capital site-specific design work is initiated for a given project. All cost improvement projects within this section. estimates are given in 2010 dollar values. For safety and security, decorative fencing to guide visitors to the appropriate access location is also suggested. The estimated ® 0 0 Wasatch Hollow Open Space costs listed below allow for one (1) signage kiosk, thirty (30) feet outflow point and Emigration Creek. The restored tributary of decorative fencing (may vary by location), and one (1) trash channel would be planted with native vegetation appropriate for and recycling receptacle at each location. Also included in the seep/spring areas that would enhance overall habitat diversity estimate is up to 300 square feet of concrete. It is also expected within the WHOS property. Costs for this project are difficult to that new plantings will be necessary to re-vegetate any disturbed estimate given that the precise location and depth of the spring area while the above items are installed. The estimate includes outlet are not currently known. Assuming a large quantity of fill twenty five (25)five gallon shrubs for that purpose. Estimated (about 500 cubic yards) will need to be removed and assuming costs of developing up to four access locations: $15,000 to about 100 feet of tributary channel would be restored, estimated $20,000 per location. costs for re-connecting Wasatch Hollow Spring: $10,000 to $15,000. If this project is implemented in conjunction with the Re-establish Riparian Flood p l a i n riparian floodplain re-establishment project described above, costs may be much lower because most of the fill would already This project would involve removal of artificial fill material and have been removed. streambank re-grading to establish a wider active floodplain along Emigration Creek. Such efforts would enhance vegetation Install Restoration Area Fencing and habitat diversity, improve water quality by creating areas of natural sediment deposition, and restore dynamic channel During active restoration projects, it will be necessary to prohibit processes. It is anticipated that these efforts would focus public access in these areas while vegetation is becoming primarily on the western bank within the Central Area of the established (usually 2 to 5 years). Construction of a decorative WHOS property, upstream of the area influenced by the backwater fence, such as a split rail fence, would fit the natural vernacular effect of the downstream culvert. Estimated costs for floodplain of the WHOS property. Welded wire fencing and metal re-establishment (assuming approximately 2600 cubic yards of t-posts can be used for more temporary fencing applications. earthwork and installation of bank stabilization and grade control Constructed in key areas, the fence could limit access to sensitive measures along 600 linear feet of stream): $80,000 to $120,000. areas and help control access at trail heads. Signs explaining the purpose of the temporary closure are also recommended and can Re-connect Wasatch Hollow Spring help educate the public about restoration activities. Estimated costs for installing restoration area fencing: $40,000 to $60,000. This effort entails removing fill material in the vicinity of Wasatch Hollow Spring in order to locate the natural spring Invasive Species Removal and Control outflow point. Assuming the spring outflow can be found, and that water rights are not encumbered, additional steps would This improvement measure involves phased control and removal involve ensuring the abandoned pipeline is completely capped of invasive plant species within the WHOS property using an and restoring a tributary channel between the natural spring integrated weed control strategy. Techniques include a mix of ® 0 Comprehensive Restoration,Use,and Management P1a+1 4 physical, chemical, and cultural controls. Physical (mechanical) planting efforts (assuming 6 acres of re-seeding and installation controls involve hand pulling, disking, cutting, or mowing to of 300 containerized plants): $30,000-$40,000. remove plants or portions of plants. Chemical controls involve applying herbicides to weed infestations or cut woody stems Purchase or Accept Land Donations using best management practices. In areas near Emigration Creek, only herbicides approved for use near water would be from Willing Neighbors used. Cultural controls involve establishing vigorous, desirable plant species that are able to out-compete the invasive or noxious Emigration Creek and its associated riparian corridor meander weed species. The costs associated with cultural control re- in and out of the WHOS property along the eastern property planting efforts are described below under the "Re-plant and boundary, as well as along the east side of the Wasatch Hollow Restore Vegetation" project. Invasive species management Park property boundary. Without collaboration from adjacent within the WHOS property would be implemented in a phased property owners on restoration projects, restoration in these approach so that large areas are not left devoid of vegetative areas will be limited to only one side (the west side) of the cover. Estimated costs for one year (three separate treatments stream. In some cases, adjacent property owners in these areas per year) of mechanical/chemical invasive species removal may be willing to donate or sell a portion of their property that work over 3.3 acres (one-third of the WHOS property): $3,000 contains existing or potential riparian habitat. This would help to $5,000. Multiple years of treatment will be required for prevent trespass in these areas, as well as help make property long-term success. Long term weed management should focus boundaries more logical and enforceable. The City should work on early detection and rapid response to avoid future costs of with property owners in these areas in order to achieve more controlling infestations. comprehensive restoration projects. There is approximately one (1) acre of existing or potential riparian habitats adjacent to the Re-plant and Restore Vegetation WHOS eastern property boundary and approximately 0.5 acre of upland buffer adjacent to the Wasatch Hollow Park eastern This project involves re-establishment of native plants in existing property boundary. Estimated costs for purchasing or accepting disturbed areas, areas that currently lack shrub or understory land donations from willing neighbors: $00 to $30,000. cover, and areas where invasive plants have been removed. Re-vegetation efforts should generally be implemented in Establish Clear Property conjunction with other projects such as access control or bank Boundary Lines stabilization to ensure that the underlying cause of disturbance (e.g. uncontrolled foot traffic)has been addressed. Steps involved in revegetation projects include: adding or preparing Currently, approximately 45 percent (2,000 feet) of the WHOS topsoil; planting native vegetation using seed, containerized property boundary is fenced. Nearly all of the existing fencing is plants, and/or live stakes; and protecting the area with mulch or 6-foot high chain link and was constructed by adjacent property owners. Clearly designated property boundary lines are needed biodegradable erosion control blanket. Estimated costs for re- o ( o Wasatch Hollow Open Space in those areas lacking fencing to prevent encroachments onto needed to teach school groups about environmental aspects of WHOS property and to protect private property from trespass. the WHOS property (e.g., vegetation, wildlife, water quality). It Where fencing is not needed or desired, natural barriers and perhaps could also include educational exhibits and interpretive signage should be implemented. Where fencing is required, tools and materials for both indoor and outdoor use. This facility a decorative fence, such as a split rail wood fence, should be is likely a one-room, single level facility with simple furnishings. considered. Estimated costs for establishing clear property For estimation purposes, the proposed educational facility is boundaries: $25,000 to $35,000. assumed to be a 12' story height constructed with fairly standard materials. The estimated cost for the facility includes the costs Site Amenities associated with design services and LEED certification(Salt Lake City requires that all new city buildings be LEED certified Site amenities such as artwork, benches, and directional signs at the silver level). Estimated costs for providing a one-room should be installed throughout the WHOS property, where educational facility at approximately 1,000 square feet: $200,000 appropriate. These items provide a comfortable user experience to $300,000. by providing places of rest and important directional information. The estimate for the benches and signs is based on high quality Remove Abandoned House materials that, perhaps while slightly more expensive initially, and Associated Infrastructure have a lower lifetime cost due to their ability to successfully withstand weather and wear and tear. Well maintained This project involves the removal of the abandoned house and equipment is an important factor in maintaining a property associated infrastructure within the Central Area. Infrastructure that has a perception of being safe. Artwork can be added to to be removed would include the existing septic system, gazebo, access locations and throughout the site to help develop a sense of identity and educational opportunities. Often artwork is irrigation system, lighting, sidewalks, patios, garage, and respected and deters vandalism; however artwork is usually more outbuildings. Existing utility infrastructure (e.g., water, power) connections that service the site would be preserved in case effective in helping to showcase a place as a well maintained they are needed during restoration projects. The existing house and often used space. A cost estimate for artwork is difficult to would be demolished and disposed of following applicable accurately estimate as the price for each piece will vary widely on the scale and materials used. Estimated costs for providing regulations. Estimated costs for removing the abandoned house appropriate site amenities: $90,000 to $120,000. and associated infrastructure: $40,000 to $80,000. One-Room Educational Facility Develop New Footpaths Many have suggested that a small-scale educational facility may Properly constructed footpaths are essential in controlling be a nice amenity for the site. This facility could be staffed as- access and impacts throughout the WHOS property. Many of the proposed footpaths follow existing user created trails that 0 0 Comprehensive Restoration.Use,and Management Pin �? were not properly constructed. A hierarchy of footpaths should vegetation, boulders, and other amenities will vary depending on be established for the WHOS property. In general, a primary the location of the classroom. Estimated costs for three outdoor footpath (e.g., the proposed on-leash footpath) may handle classrooms: $25,000 to $30,000. most of the foot traffic through the WHOS property with a recommended 8 to 10 foot-wide tread. Primary footpaths should Install Interpretive Signage have a crusher-fines type of tread surface and also provide maintenance vehicle access to the WHOS property. Secondary As the majority of WHOS visitors will not be a part of a formal footpaths provide safe opportunities for visitors to explore the WHOS property with a recommended 2 to 3 foot-wide native soil group, interpretive signage is an important educational feature. or crushed fines if appropriate. Estimated costs for 1,300 feet of The signs can help visitors learn about the natural features of primary footpath and 3,700 feet of secondary footpath: $30,000 the WHOS and why it is important to restore and protect them. to $50,000. Well built and well maintained signs are important to providing a positive experience for users. Each interpretive sign is proposed as one 36" x 24" sign mounted on a pedestal. Final costs per Install New Bridge sign may vary greatly depending on the number of signs ordered, as generally the cost per sign will decrease with larger orders. One single-span footbridge is proposed to cross Emigration This estimate also includes design fees for an overall interpretive Creek to connect footpaths from the South Area to footpaths in plan and for graphic design of each individual sign. Estimated the Central Area. Salt Lake City has a railroad flat-car bridge costs for installing ten (10) interpretive signs mounted on that can be refurbished and re-located to the WHOS property. pedestals: $30,000 to $45,000. The bridge will require installation of railings, signage, decking, and abutments. There are opportunities to work with local artist Stream Cleanup and stakeholders for fabrication of artistic or interpretive siding. Estimated costs for refurbishing and relocating the 80 foot-long This measure involves organizing a group of people to pick up pedestrian bridge: $30,000 to $50,000. trash along the Emigration Creek riparian corridor within the WHOS property. Planning a cleanup event involves selecting a Establish Outdoor Classrooms date, publicizing the event and recruiting volunteer help, making arrangements for proper disposal and recycling of the collected Outdoor classrooms will provide locations for small groups to trash, and obtaining supplies via purchase or donations (trash learn more about the natural features of the WHOS within its bags, first aid kits, waders, water/refreshments, etc.). Estimated context. Designated gathering spaces will protect vegetation and costs for a one-time stream cleanup event: $1000-$1500. habitat from harm that may otherwise be caused by impromptu off trail congregating. Each outdoor classroom includes seating for up to twenty (20) people. Other costs such as earthwork, re- 0 50 Wasatch Hollow Open,Space power lines that traverse the property. The City and RMP have Reduce Wildfire Hazards identified species to target for removal, as well as the desirable vegetation that will be compatible underneath the power lines. Wildfire management is an important component of managing The City has agreed that RMP will target the fast growing and and maintaining the WHOS property as a natural area. Wildfire nonnative invasive trees beneath the power lines for removal and is a natural process that is often necessary to maintain healthy phase in a replacement process over time with compatible native ecosystems, but it also presents a hazard to nearby residents. trees conducive to the long term master plan. Appropriate management strategies will include maintenance of vegetation and public education. The first step will be to The City and RMP have discussed and will implement best conduct a wildfire hazard assessment for the WHOS property management practices (BMP's) for access locations, vegetation in coordination with the Unified Fire Authority. Follow-up clearing crews, ways that RMP can reduce the amount of heavy steps will include implementing proposed mitigation measures equipment that enters the WHOS property, and the number of such as fuels modification,fire response and evacuation visits to conduct maintenance work. These BMP's will minimize guidelines, and homeowner education. Fuels modification visual impacts and promote leaving brush on site, lopped and could consist of removing non-native species, thinning of trees scattered,to block use of areas identified for closure. This will and shrubs, removing dead fuels, developing fuel breaks, and/ also incorporate trail feathering and baffling or staggering the or mechanical treatments. Estimated costs for annual wildfire brush to break up any unnatural edges or to block other forms of hazard assessments and homeowner education activities: $1,000 access where needed. The City and RMP have also discussed the to $2,500. Costs for implementation of proposed mitigation notification process for the next time RMP is in the area and that measures will depend upon the results of the wildfire hazard both parties could meet to do a thorough site review to identify assessments. and explain any necessary work before crews begin. The City and RMP agreed on the importance of communicating to the Coordinate with Rocky Mountain public all proposed vegetation management activities within the WHOS property to allow for feedback and opportunities to Power discuss any concerns or questions. Costs for this effort are part of regular staff management budgets. The City acknowledges its working relationship with Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) on the WHOS property. The City Bicycle U s e understands that RMP has an obligation to ensure delivery of power to its customers and is willing to work with RMP in In general, bicycle use will be limited to the primary footpaths regard to management of vegetation within its easement on WHOS property. The City also understands that RMP follows a (e.g., the proposed on-leash footpath) within WHOS to allow 3-year cycle approach to managing vegetation for the overhead for neighborhood residents to traverse the property safely or power lines and achieving basic clearance requirements for the to access Wasatch Hollow Park.The primary footpaths are recommended to have an 8 to 10 foot-wide tread of crusher-fines • 0 Comprehensive Restoration,Use.and Management Plan 51 that can support this type of use. Bicycle use and BMX activities will be prohibited in all other areas of the WHOS property to protect sensitive resources and to preserve footpath integrity. Costs for this effort are part of regular staff management budgets. 410 e Wasatch Hollow Open Space References Cited Arvai J.Wilson R.2010.A structured approach for involving .,+t local stakeholders in design and management decisions for the Wasatch Hollow Open Space area.33 p. * BIO-WEST,Inc. 2010. Salt Lake City riparian corridor study—final Emigration Creek management plan.81 p.plus attachments • Dixon R.W.1997.From Emigration Canyon to City Creek: Pioneer Trail and Campsites in the Salt Lake Valley in 1847. I 'K ' 3 ; tot ', Utah Historical Quarterly 65(2):155-164. • ` 6 '•-" [DWQ]Utah Department of Environmental Quality,Division of [USU]Utah State University,Water Quality Extension.2003. Water Quality.2006.Utah 2006 integrated report volume I— Utah State University cooperative extension.Utah stream 305(b)assessment.Salt Lake City(UT):DWQ.342 p. team water education and water quality monitoring program manual.Logan(UT):USU.294 p. Krueper D.J.1993.Effects of land use practices on western riparian ecosystems in status and management of neotropical Utah and Wyoming.1990.Geology of the Salt Lake City 30' migratory birds.In:Finch D.M.,Stangel P.W.,editors.Status x 60'quadrangle,north-central Utah and Uinta County, and management of neotropical migratory birds.General Wyoming.Bryant B.Salt Lake City(UT):U.S.Geological technical report RM-229.Fort Collins(CO):U.S.Forest Survey.Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1944. Service.p.331-338. scale 1:100,000. Morris A.E.L.2007.Wasatch Hollow Emigration Creek corridor baseline documentation.Salt Lake City(UT):Utah Open Lands 31 p. • [SLCO]Salt Lake County.2009.2009 Salt Lake countywide water quality stewardship plan.Salt Lake City(UT):Salt Lake County. • • o Comprehensive Restoration.Use,and Management Plan Appendix A Appendix Structured Decision-Making Report • 1 ra a Lel i c a n O c 0 x s ti ti H 0 .omprehensive Restoration.Use.and ManagemenT Plan Appendix 6 Appendix B Baseline Documentation Report O � a a 0 0 • c c v 2 L kiNNtU I U: SCANNED By: —17 `T `+� �� " DATE:DATE: s h u n RICHARD GRAHAM S("1LjI1 \ J RT lY/ ,.aa•'.a,jQi1 RALPH BECKER MAYOR PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTORS OFFICE RECEIVED CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL AUG 2011 RECEIVED Salt La e City Mayor R Date Received: I 1 ( Davi veritt, Chief of Staff `. Date sent to Council: 15 ( ( SLC COUNCIL OFFICE TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 11, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Rick Graham, Director of Public Services SUBJECT: Zero Waste Resolution STAFF CONTACT: Debbie Lyons, Recycling Program Manager, 535-7795 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution establishing waste reduction and recycling goals. BUDGET IMPACT: No funding required. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Zero Waste Resolution is an important step forward in acting on the City's commitment to sustainability by formally establishing waste reduction and recycling goals. Zero Waste is a sustainability principle that goes beyond recycling, taking a whole system approach to the flow of resources and waste through society and moving in logical increments to eliminate waste. Instead of seeing used material requiring disposal, under Zero Waste principles, discards are seen as valuable resources. Discards represent raw material for new products, which means more jobs and increased financial opportunity. Salt Lake City has already taken steps toward promoting sustainable use of resources and materials, which includes programs to recycle materials that would otherwise be disposed of as waste. The City recycled and composted 33%of the residential waste stream in Fiscal Year 2011. LOCATION: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 138, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1-3104 MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 145469, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 14.5469 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7775 FAX: B01.539.7963 WWW.SLCGOV.COM Zero Waste strategies will be required to achieve aggressive waste reduction and recycling goals. The resolution directs staff to prepare a Zero Waste Strategic Plan for Salt Lake City by December 2012. Key Zero Waste strategies may include: • Enhancing the residential yard waste program by developing an organic waste infrastructure capable of processing food waste; • Enhancing commercial waste and recycling services, including services for businesses, multi-family and construction/demolition projects; • Evaluating anaerobic digestion and energy conversion technologies; • Supporting development of markets for recoverable and reusable materials; • Continuing to educate the public about benefits of reducing wasteful consumption, recycling and composting; and • Funding recommendations. The City's Waste Characterization Study is expected to be completed in the summer of 2012. The Study will include recommendations for meeting the City's waste diversion goals, which will be evaluated for inclusion in the Strategic Plan. PUBLIC PROCESS: Public engagement for Zero Waste initiatives will be fundamental in the development of the Strategic Plan. As portions of the Plan are being developed, stakeholders will be solicited for input through individual meetings and interviews, surveys, and presentations. Information will be gathered on current practices, barriers to waste reduction and recycling and suggestions for meeting the City's goals. Stakeholders may include: residents, business owners, property managers, and haulers. JOINT RESOLUTION NO. OF 2011 (Waste reduction and diversion goals and zero waste strategic plan) A joint resolution of the City Council and the Mayor of Salt Lake City adopting waste reduction and diversion goals for Salt Lake City and directing City staff to develop a zero waste strategic plan to achieve the City's goals. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has taken steps toward promoting sustainable use of resources and materials, including programs and policy goals to reduce, reuse, and recycle materials that would otherwise be disposed as waste; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City recycled or composted 30 percent of its residential waste in Fiscal Year 2011; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is conducting a baseline Waste Characterization Study that is expected to be completed by June 2012; and WHEREAS, the Waste Characterization Study is expected to provide data on types and quantity of waste from our entire community currently being recycled, composted and disposed as waste; and WHEREAS, the Waste Characterization Study is also expected to provide recommended strategies to improve recycling and waste reduction in Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, the placement of materials in landfills can cause damage to human health, wastes natural resources, and wrongly transfers liabilities to future generations; and WHEREAS, waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting are material management options that conserve resources while reducing environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, Zero Waste principles promote the highest and best use of materials to eliminate waste and pollution, emphasizing a close-loop system of production and consumption, and moving in logical increments toward the goal of zero waste through principles of: • Managing resources instead of waste; • Conserving natural resources through waste prevention and recycling; • Turning discarded resources into products with the highest and best use; • Stimulating local workforce and economic development through reuse of discarded resources; • Promoting products and materials that are durable and recyclable; • Discouraging products and materials that can only become trash after their use; and WHEREAS, a Zero Waste Strategic Plan will be necessary for the City to reach its sustainability and waste reduction goals. THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED by the City Council and the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. The City Council and the Mayor hereby adopt Zero Waste as a guiding principle for all City operations and for outreach and actions within the community; 2. The City Council and the Mayor hereby adopt a goal to recycle 50 percent of waste by 2015, 70 percent of waste by 2025, and eliminate waste by 2040; 3. The City Council and the Mayor hereby direct the City's Department of Public Services to prepare a Zero Waste Strategic Plan for Salt Lake City by December 2012; and 4. The Mayor and the City Council will consider and appropriate resources to implement these strategies in the course of planning and adopting the City's annual budget, and approve and consider policies that will implement these strategies. Passed and Adopted this day of , 2011. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER SALT LAKE CITY MAYOR ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: SENI ALT 1_,PcN.E CITY ATTORNEY HB_ATTY-#19094-v 1-Joint_Resolution_adopting_waste_reduction_and_diversion_goals.DOC SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM TO: Council Members SUBJECT: Retreat Follow-up: General Discussion&Review of the"Arts& Culture"priority topic DATE: October 4, 2011 FROM: City Council staff—policy analysts: Janice Jardine, Jennifer Bruno, Russell Weeks, Karen Halladay, Brady Wheeler, Jan Aramaki,Nick Tarbet, Dan Weist,Neil Lindberg, Lehua Weaver During the Council's September 9th retreat,the following topics were discussed as the Council's priority interests: 1) Arts &Culture 2) Economic Health of the City 3) Local/Neighborhood Businesses 4) Neighborhoods& Schools 5) Transportation&Mobility 6) Parks &Open Space 7) Sustainability The Chair and Vice Chair requested that staff schedule each of the seven topics on Work Session agendas in order to continue the Council's discussion and review of the items before the end of the year. Since the Council's retreat, staff has focused on using the flip charts and notes from the Council's discussion to develop Philosophy Statements for the Council's review. The first item scheduled for discussion is the Arts&Culture priority topic, and a quick first draft of a Philosophy Statement is attached for the Council's conversation. Since the term"Philosophy Statement" is relatively new in Council jargon, staff has first provided an operating definition on Attachment A. The Council may wish to confirm or adjust staff's direction. Attachments: A: Components of a Philosophy Statement B: Copy of the 2003 Council Policy Statement on Downtown&Economic Development C: List of Arts & Performance venues around Salt Lake City 1 PRIORITY: ARTS & CULTURE DEFINITION Supporting "Arts&Culture"as a priority means that the City Council supports creating an environment where event organizers, artists,performers,residents,businesses, and visitors can provide and participate in a wide variety of artistic expressions. The Council believes that vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural events in Salt Lake City add to the City's Quality of Life for residents and visitors. Arts and Cultural events may include,but are not limited to: • Celebrations of cultural diversity, celebrating all communities • Diverse types of visual or performance art ranging from casual or impromptu performances to formal pre-planned events in venues around the City. • Presence of Public Art pieces • Musical events—concerts, symphonies, festivals,many genres, sizes, locations,paid and free • Independent film • Educational opportunities • Access to a variety of events for all residents Supporting Arts &Culture as a priority also means that the Council intends for the City to continue fulfilling a role for the valley and state as"the focal point of arts, culture, and entertainment in Utah." (Excerpt from the current Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown, Attachment B.) ➢ Are these statements an accurate way of representing why the topic of'Arts & Culture' is a priority to the Council? ➢ Are there any components that should be added to more accurately reflect the Council's interests? VALUES/GOALS • We encourage events that celebrate cultural diversity&celebrate all communities. • We value all genres of music, art, and performance and want it to be accessible to all of our communities—not only Downtown,but city-wide. • We want to create an environment where a wide range of theater options and performance venues can thrive. • We support quality public art that is complementary to surroundings, and is strategically placed around the City. • We support local talents and artists and educational opportunities. ➢ Do these statements accurately reflect the Council's values and goals for Arts&Culture in Salt Lake City? 2 > Are there any components that should be added to more accurately reflect the Council's interests? INTENTS/PROJECTS • We look forward to the discussion about a Utah Performing Arts Center. • We also look forward to continuing the conversation and review of the Salt Lake County study about a Convention Center Hotel to provide more hotel rooms for visitors who may also enjoying the arts and cultural opportunities. • We support a review of ordinances for amendments that would create a more welcoming environment for people to perform on City sidewalks, and for the review to involve outreach and engagement with business and property owners in the Business Districts to enhance an arts &cultural environment for the City. ➢ There are more projects for the Council's consideration under the second question below. QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. Does any Council Member have an item or interest that is not reflected? 2. Specific Tasks/Projects: Based on the Council's discussion at the retreat and Council staff brainstorming, following is a list the Council may wish to consider adding to the"Intents/ Projects" category above? a. We would like Council staff to explore the saturation of different types of theater venues in Downtown. b. We would like to hold a policy discussion regarding the pros and cons of creating an Arts (or Cultural Core)District. c. We would like to consider and explore opportunities to support private organizations in providing more arts education. d. We would like to explore how to expand opportunities for private organizations, including Community Councils and churches, to host neighborhood events. e. We would support a review of ordinances for amendments that would make it easier for people and organizations to hold events—including more assistance through the City's permit process and/or changes to the permitting process. f. We would like Council staff to review the January 2003 Council Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown and suggest updates specific to Arts &Culture in Downtown for the Council's review. (See Attachment B for a copy of the 2003 statement.) g. We would like Council staff to review other related plans(Downtown Rising, Futures Commission Report, R/UDAT study, Cultural Necklace/Cultural Campus Plan)to identify key components. h. We would like to request that the Arts Council staff prepare a briefing and present to the Council the current process for considering Public Art pieces around the City, 3 including the Percent for Art program, location, type, other budgetary considerations, etc. i. We would like to request a briefing with Chief Burbank regarding the public safety costs associated with supporting Special Events and safety issues that are involved with Special Events. j. Public Engagement/Communication Opportunities i. We would like to request exploration of ways to better coordinate and advertise all events within the City(expand for non-City sponsored events). ii. We would like to request that the Special Events website have an expanded, more-user friendly presence on the City website. iii. We would like Council staff to include the City's Arts& Cultural component in the educational information about the benefit SLC provides to the valley. 3. Tools for Implementation-the Council may wish to consider whether to apply any Legislative tools to assist in moving the Council's values for Arts& Culture ahead. For example: a. Budget $$ - including allocation or removal of funds b. Ordinances -revision, development or removal c. Oversight/Audits d. Partnerships (government,private, others) e. Hire Consultant f. Land Use Planning g. Efficiencies h. Public Education i. CDBG Funds j. Public Engagement k. 10-Year CIP 1. Policies m. Other 4 ATTACHMENT A Philosophy Statement The Arts&Culture Philosophy Statement was drafted based on this outline of components. The Council may wish to provide feedback or different direction to Council staff. A Philosophy Statement is a document that provides: a) Definition-what the topic means to the Council. For example, does Parks & Open Space only relate top programmed parks with recreational equipment or something broader or more narrow? b) Values - List of the Council's identified values relating to the topic, and what specifically makes the topic a priority, and perhaps lists a goal or vision for the topic. The values are generally more broad than the intent(Item c below). For example, is Parks & Open Space a priority topic because the Council envisions acquiring more or less open space based on certain factors; maintaining a certain level or type of open space; etc. c) Intent- Outlines the intent of the Council on the topic. The intent of the Council may get to more specific interests of the Council and may be more narrow than the values (Item b above). For example, the Council may have specific ideas or tasks that relate to the priority topic and would like to collaborate with the Administration on certain projects, or request that Council staff complete a project or research, etc. 5 ATTACHMENT B Aft Council Policy Statement re: Downtown (excerpt from Council Policy Manual) D.9 COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING DOWNTOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The following statement was adopted by the City Council in January of 2003: Salt Lake City Council Policy Statement on The Future Economic Development of Downtown INTRODUCTION By most objective measures, downtown Salt Lake City is healthy and doing well. Yet, even though there is much "good news" about downtown, City leaders and residents share a concern about its future. At the beginning of 2002,the City Council named the future of downtown, and in particular, Main Street, as its top policy priority for the year. While downtown is much more than Main Street, Main Street is at the center—it is the heart—of downtown. The challenge facing Salt Lake City policymakers as we move forward after hosting the Olympics and into the 21st Century is how to build upon downtown's many strengths, and further enhance the vibrancy and vitality of the downtown. The City Council's role is to provide policy direction and to ensure that its efforts support the City's policy goals. The Council's tools are its authority to allocate city resources, including those of the Redevelopment Agency; to make zoning decisions; and to adopt ordinances. To help focus on how the Council could best fulfill its responsibilities, it held hearings in March and April. Over one hundred citizens including representatives from various interest groups,provided comments and suggestions. A draft policy statement was circulated in November, and a Public Hearing was held on December 3. Council members have also,throughout the year, individually and in small groups, had many meetings with downtown stakeholders and citizens to deepen their understanding of the issues and forces shaping downtown. As a result,the City Council's overarching policy regarding downtown is this: The City Council recognizes that Main Street is the core of our downtown commercial,tourist, and convention activity. To encourage the relocation of retail or other commercial businesses or other key "anchors" away from Main Street will undermine these activities to the long-term detriment of downtown, including the Gateway and other developments. The continued vitality of Main Street is essential to the economic and cultural health of our great city. Downtown, defined generally as the area from Temple Square on the north, to The Gateway on the West, to Trolley Square on the east,to the hotel district along the 600 South Street entrance to the city from Interstate 15, is important to Salt Lake City residents for a variety of reasons. Historically it has Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 1- been the business, fmancial,retail, and government center of the City, County,region, state, and in many ways the entire Intermountain West. The health and vitality of Salt Lake City's downtown is important to city residents and people throughout the region. Business and commerce; institutional uses; local government and related public facilities; arts, culture and entertainment;tourism, and housing are all vital to the health of Salt Lake City's downtown. A brief listing of the downtown's strengths shows what downtown Salt Lake City means to Utah: Business and Commerce Salt Lake City is Utah's commercial and financial center. • The Central Business District within the downtown contains 28.8 percent of the total square footage of office space in Salt Lake County. When office space on the CBD's periphery is included the figure rises to 42.8 percent. (1) • Downtown Salt Lake City contains the corporate offices of the two largest banks in Utah, and 10 commercial banks operate in the Central Business District. Retail Services Although it contains 10 to 15 percent of the total space leased for retail in Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City's downtown is perhaps the only downtown in the nation to have four destination malls within its borders: The Gateway, the Crossroads Plaza,the ZCMI Center and Trolley Square. • Salt Lake City's downtown workforce grew by nearly 25 percent to 61,000 people between 1990 and 2001, leaving a significant daytime population to support retail services. • According to a May 2002 survey conducted by the Downtown Alliance, 32 percent of Salt Lake County's population said they had visited the downtown"within the past week" to dine, shop, or seek entertainment. Institutional As Utah's capital, Salt Lake City is the seat of state government including state and local courts, and the local presence of the Federal Government. • Near downtown are the State Capitol and the University of Utah,providing further opportunities to attract people to the core of the city. Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 2- • As the World Headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City's __ downtown is a magnet to members of that faith worldwide, as well as a draw to tourists from throughout the world. Temple Square and other LDS sites downtown including the world- renowned Family History Center draw more than five million visitors per year. • Downtown is also home to several religious communities including the Roman Catholic and Episcopal dioceses, a number of historic churches—the Cathedral of The Madeleine,the Cathedral Church of St. Mark, the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church, the historic First Presbyterian and First United Methodist churches, and the Buddhist Temple, each of which attracts people to the downtown area. Local Government and Related Public Facilities Maintaining Salt Lake City's downtown has been a major concern of city government for decades. • Since 1975 the City's Redevelopment Agency has allocated a substantial amount for downtown public improvements, land purchases and sales, and loans to businesses to renovate buildings. • Salt Lake City voters approved bond issues of$30 million and up to $84 million respectively to renovate the City&County Building and build a new main library and public plaza. • Salt Lake City elected officials also have been instrumental in encouraging the construction of the state's only operating light rail lines, and the location of the State Courts Complex in the Scott M. Matheson Courthouse. Arts/Culture/Entertainment Downtown remains the focal point of arts,culture and entertainment in Utah. • It is the home of Utah's premier performing arts organizations and Utah's only major league sports franchise. • The Capitol Theater,Abravenel Hall, and the Delta Center serve as venues for a wide variety of special events. The Days of'47 parade, the Utah Arts Festival and the New Year's Eve First Night celebration identify Salt Lake City as a core activity center for the region. Tourism Downtown is the focal point of Utah's convention business. • It is home to the Salt Palace Convention Center and more than 5,000 hotel rooms. (2) Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 3- • In terms of square footage, downtown contains 67 percent of the top meeting space in Utah. It contains the two top facilities for meeting space, three of the state's top five facilities for meeting space, and five of the state's top ten facilities for meeting space. (3) • Salt Lake City also attracts ski visitors from out of state to stay in downtown hotels while enjoying several world-class resorts within a one-hour drive of downtown. Housing Downtown living is on the rise in Salt Lake City, and housing is an increasingly important component of downtown. • Partly due to the concerted efforts of the City Redevelopment Agency, housing stock in downtown has increased substantially during the past decade,to where it is now estimated that 4,500 residents live in the downtown's core. • Downtown is bordered on the east by a neighborhood that has the highest density of any neighborhood in the state and on the west by a neighborhood that is projected to ultimately be the home of 13,000 residents. (4) Downtown is not in decline. According to a recent economic study conducted by the University of Utah's Bureau of Business and Economic Research for the Downtown Alliance, in the 1990's every major economic indicator for downtown has been positive, including: • 24% increase— 12,000 more employees—working in the CBD • 69% increase in housing units • 30%increase in office square footage,with the lowest vacancy rates in a decade. • 45% increase in retail square footage • 54% increase in wages • 35% increase in commercial bank deposits • 25 new restaurants and 15 new private clubs • 6% increase in retail sales The only major indicator that has been a disappointment, however, is one that is among the most visible—retail sales. While retail sales increased a slight 6% from 1990 to 2001, sales peaked in 1996, and then declined by 21%. The loss of retail business from downtown to the suburbs and other retail outlets such as the Internet, coupled with the empty storefronts of South Main Street have led policymakers, the news media, and citizens to be concerned about the viability and vibrancy of Main Street. To further focus and shape City policies to enhance the success of downtown and Main Street, the City Council adopts these statements of principle: Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 4- 1. City's Leadership Role .0000 The City can and should be a vigorous advocate of downtown,encouraging business investment, working to retain as well as attract businesses to downtown, and making it easy to do business in the City. The City's advocacy should include being proactive to make businesses feel welcome in and a part of Salt Lake City. The City Council recognizes that many decisions affecting the fate of downtown must be made by the private sector. There is much City government can and should do to encourage a healthy downtown. And yet it must be remembered that the City,through the tools available to it, is a catalyst and coordinator,not a wealth-creator in and of itself. City government should provide focus and leadership to encourage and support private efforts leading to downtown investment. It should make sure that its roles—including but not limited to infrastructure,business licensing,regulation, zoning and code enforcement and public safety —are done efficiently, effectively, and in a way that encourages rather than discourages private investment. The City should encourage and facilitate communication and cooperation among the various private and public interests who have a stake in downtown, such as the Downtown Alliance, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development Corporation of Utah, the Downtown Merchants Association,the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau, and County, State and Federal governments. The City should leverage its resources as much as possible by encouraging, utilizing, and not duplicating, the services of private non-profit organizations including the Downtown Alliance, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, and the Economic Development Corporation of Utah, in furthering the City's goals for downtown. 2. Build Upon Downtown's Strengths and Uniqueness People will come downtown when it provides an experience or opportunity they can't fmd in their own neighborhoods. Salt Lake City must distinguish itself from the suburbs by building upon what is unique to downtown—things that cannot be experienced anywhere else. The City Council supports a greater emphasis on leveraging historic preservation as an economic development tool by working more closely with the Utah Heritage Foundation to fmd opportunities to use Salt Lake City's historic buildings in new and exciting ways, for office, cultural, retail, and institutional uses. Despite numerous efforts to promote downtown, for too long Salt Lake City too often has assumed that downtown will attract people just because it exists. The time is long past when people will come to downtown because it is the only place to shop, eat at a restaurant, or see a movie. The City Council encourages greater efforts to market downtown to people where downtown is geographically the closest retail shopping area. Marketing campaigns should Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 5- target Salt Lake City residents,the daytime population,particularly office workers, University of Utah employees and students,visitors, and the suburban population,particularly residents of South Davis County. • The City Council supports encouraging the Downtown Alliance and Downtown Merchants associations to promote joint marketing opportunities, such as seeing the Utah Symphony and enjoying a dinner or staying the night in downtown hotels. The Council supports marketing campaigns targeting University of Utah employees and students to come downtown for restaurants, entertainment and shopping and to our own residents who shop in suburbs rather than coming downtown. • The City Council supports the development of other anchors to Main Street, in addition to retail,that will attract people to the City's core. Anchors could include museums, a Broadway-style theater, Olympic legacy or other similar attractions that would provide unique"draws"to downtown. 3. Take the long view rather than focusing on quick fixes While there are some immediate steps that should be taken during the next one to three years, City policy-makers must resist the temptation to think short-term and instead take a long-range view of how decisions now will impact the City five, ten, even twenty years into the future. The City Council believes that the elements of sound development and marketing strategies for the downtown already exist in available plans and studies. The Council believes that the time for additional plans and studies have past, and the time for implementing a coherent, rational, and achievable program is now. The City Council urges the Mayor and his administration to fashion an implementation program based on existing plans and strategies and carry out the implementation. To keep the City Council and general public involved and informed of specific program steps taken and tied to long-term priorities with measurable benchmarks,the City Council supports having the Administration provide updates to the Council and the public on the program's implementation. Regularly,the Administration should share, on a confidential basis as needed, its efforts with a subcommittee of the Council that will include representatives of Council and Redevelopment Agency leadership. 4. Support All facets of Downtown Development Too often the focus on downtown is on just one aspect of downtown—such as nightlife or retail —while failing to recognize that a successful downtown is made of several important elements. Each element is important in its own right,but, like an ecosystem,the success of each is intertwined and interdependent. These elements can be summarized as follows and measured by the criteria listed under each section: Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 6- • Business center,providing the premier location for a variety of businesses, in particular, local, regional, and where possible national headquarters. o Indicators of success include: • Square footage and type of office space in the downtown inventory • The vacancy rate • The number and size of"headquarters" located in the downtown. • New businesses relocating to the Central Business District. • Existing businesses expanding at their present locations in the Central Business District. • Existing businesses renewing their leases. • Retail, supporting the retail needs of daytime population and drawing people to the downtown. o Indicators of success include: • Number of jobs generated • Square footage of retail • Total retail sales and retail sales per square foot at each of the major retail destinations. • Sales tax revenue generated. • Institutional Center o Indicators of success include: • Increased presence of county, state and federal offices • Presence of educational facilities available to the public • Local government and related public facilities o Indicators of success include: • Well-maintained public infrastructure • Continued development of efficient public transportation systems with easy access to homes and businesses and connected to a wider area Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 7- • Arts, culture, entertainment and nightlife,providing unique entertainment and cultural opportunities for residents throughout the region and visitors o Indicators of success include: • Sales generated • Number of nights of entertainment offerings • Location of new entertainment and cultural facilities including theater for Broadway productions and museums • Tourism including convention visitors o Indicators of success include: • Convention bookings • Hotel occupancy rate • Housing—available at all ranges of income levels—will further enhance the livability and vibrancy of downtown o Indicators of success include: • The number of housing units • Vacancy rates • Population • The mix of market rate, middle income, affordable and low income housing units FIRST STEPS Based on the quantity and quality of public input the City Council has received resulting from its focus on Main Street and Downtown, the Council suggests the following areas be considered immediately relating to the seven elements of a successful downtown: • Business Center o Administration should identify major corporate presences in downtown, ascertain their satisfaction, and make appropriate efforts to ensure that they will remain downtown and not relocate to the suburbs. Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 8- o Administration, in cooperation with EDCU, should target businesses to locate corporate or regional headquarters downtown. o The City should encourage greater cooperation between the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Alliance, and EDCU. o The Administration should meet with major landowners of property fronting Main Street between 600 South and South Temple,to ascertain plans for development and to encourage appropriate development as supported by market conditions. o The City should endorse legislation to be presented to the Utah Legislature extending historic preservation tax credits—that currently exist only for residential properties—to commercial properties. o The City should utilize the assistance of the Utah Heritage Foundation in identifying key vacant or underutilized historic buildings and all financial incentives available to encourage appropriate development as supported by market conditions. o The City should strongly consider encouraging legislation to extend the expiration date of the Central Business Redevelopment District to enable the City to continue to use RDA tools in the future to bolster the center of downtown. • Retail o The City should continue to support and encourage retail on Main Street, with complimentary retail at The Gateway, Trolley Square, and in East Downtown in an effort to generate economic growth in the broader downtown area. o The City and RDA, in conjunction with local businesses and landowners, should actively promote and market our downtown's opportunities to national, regional and local retailers,using existing plans and studies to identify and recruit potential retailers for the downtown area. o Perceived parking problems continue to be a major obstacle to retail activity downtown. The City should continue to support the Parking Token initiative of the Downtown Alliance,but also look at more aggressive marketing of existing downtown parking to Salt Lake residents. Such marketing efforts could include advertising the availability of parking but also the advantages of covered parking at a mall versus parking in a flat parking lot in the elements of sun and snow. Marketing efforts also should dispel misperceptions that no parking is available downtown. Updated: September 18,2009 -Page 9- o The City should also consider additional free parking downtown, such as that provided on a pilot basis on 300 South. The cost-benefit of parking meters should be studied. o The UTA Free Fare zone should be advertised by the City and downtown merchants. The UTA, the City, and downtown merchants should evaluate and implement ways, including small buses and possible expansion of the Free Fare Zone, to link the Gateway, Main Street,the future Intermodal Hub, and Trolley Square in such a fashion as to make movement around the downtown simple and easy for any visitor. o The City should encourage and support the owners of the ZCMI Center and Crossroads Plaza in undertaking significant renovations and upgrading of both mall properties including making the retail spaces more accessible to the streets. o RDA dollars should go toward supporting additional retail in all the CBD with a primary focus on filling vacant Main Street locations. o The Downtown Alliance and Downtown Merchants Association should be encouraged to develop more joint marketing opportunities with conventions being hosted in downtown to attract more tourists to stores and restaurants. o Given the proximity to downtown of communities in South Davis County, those communities should be targeted in a special marketing campaign. Emphasis should be on helping Davis County residents feel welcomed to and appreciated by Salt Lake City. o Efforts to make Main Street more pedestrian friendly should continue by creating elements that generate interest along the length of Main Street. Elements could include public art, window decorations and benches where people can relax. o 100, 200, and 300 South streets, along with South Temple Street, are important links between Main Street and West Temple Street,where much of the convention and tourist traffic flows. Efforts should continue to be made to make these links as inviting as possible to pedestrians. • Institutional Center o The City should meet with the State Building Board and/or its executive director to fmd opportunities to work together to enhance state offices or locating state cultural centers downtown. Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 10- o The City should meet with officials of the University of Utah to find areas where the City and University can work together to locate functions that attract people and activities downtown, including classrooms,museums and galleries. o The City should meet with officials of Salt Lake Community College to ascertain the success of their downtown classroom building and to see if there is anything the City can do to aid its success. o The City should meet with officials of the LDS Church to ascertain any plans for expansion of office space,use of properties (such as State Street and First South) in the downtown area. • Local government and related public facilities o The City Council will continue to support making downtown more friendly to pedestrians,the disabled, and bicyclists. o The City should pursue ways to move the future construction of a light-rail connection to Salt Lake City International Airport—including completion of the downtown light-rail loop—further up the list of projects on the Wasatch Front Regional Council's long-range transportation plan. o The City Council is committed to support the installation of Olympic legacy memorabilia in a prominent location downtown. • Arts, Culture, entertainment, and nightlife o The City should focus on offering several successful events, such as"First Night,"rather than putting efforts into weekly activities that are less likely to be successful. o The City should consider current alcohol policies and monitor any changes in state laws that may be proposed in 2003. o In partnership with Salt Lake County—the owner of downtown arts facilities— consider the feasibility and advisability of constructing a Broadway-style theater on or near Main Street, capable of presenting full-scale productions. o The City Council will support marketing efforts to dispel misperceptions that "there's nothing to do" downtown. • Tourism o The City should support a feasibility study regarding further expansion of the Salt Palace to keep Salt Lake City competitive in attracting conventions. Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 11- o The City should cooperate with the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Utah Travel Council in attracting convention business and tourists to Salt Lake City. • Housing o The City should continue to encourage downtown housing for a full spectrum of income levels throughout the downtown area. o The City should conduct an inventory of land within two blocks of the new main library that could be used for housing sites and study the feasibility of purchasing the sites for housing uses. o The City should explore ways to protect further multifamily housing units on 300 East Street between South Temple and 400 South streets and encourage in- fill development of multifamily housing along 300 East Street. o The City should encourage retail services, especially grocery stores, necessary to support an increased residential population as well as services that cater to downtown workers. Notes Except where noted, all factual statements were taken from the Downtown Alliance's Economic Change in Salt Lake City's Central Business District— 1991 to 2001 prepared by James A. Wood of the University of Utah's Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Noted exceptions follow: 1. Collier's CRG. 2. City Council staff estimate. The Economic Change in Salt Lake City's Central Business District— 1991 to 2001 study defined the Central Business District's borders as North Temple, 300 East, 500 South and 500 West streets. The borders do not appear to include hotels between 500 South and 600 South streets including the 850 rooms in the Little America Hotel or the 775 rooms in the Grand America Hotel. Other hotels south of 500 South Street contain at least 375 rooms. Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 12- Attachment C: List of Art Venues in the City Arts in the Capital City Type I Address I Additional Information Art Galleries 3W Gallery at W Communications 159 West 300 South,Suite 200 - »»» » » » » » »» »»» 15th Street Gallery 1500 East 1500 South Art Access Gallery ».»µ 230 S 500 W,#125 Arts for persons with disabilities Art at the Main 210 East 400 South Supports beginning artists Blonde Grizzly _ 15 East 400 South - ...._.....�.�.. _._... .. H._. .�W._._._._ »». _...._._........».. »___....»._.__.. . _..»».»»».»._._._..»....»_._._.._.......__.._».»._._.._...._._. City Creek Antiques 169 East Broadway - _._.. _._... _._ _._...._._.._._._._._.._._...._...._.._._.__....._...._........_._._...._._.._._.__._........_._._....._._._. David Ericson Fine Art 418 South 200 West Gallery at Library uare 210 East 400 South,Level 4 Exhibit space is integral part of Main Library building Graywall_Gallery»_______ »_»_351 W. Pierpont Ave.STE 2B - Hellenic Cultural Museum 279 South 300 West - .»._........_._._.».._.HoQ..Gallery.._._._._....._...._._....._._._._....151 South Main Street_._._._._._._._...._._..__.»_..»_.._._.._._»_._._._._- House Gallery 29 East 400 South _— •--•_._..». ._._._.._._ ._._..__.».». Kayo Gallery 177 East Broadway Supports Local Artists___ ____ ____ Ken Sanders Rare Books and Gallery 268 South 200 East Carries rare books,documents Marble Gallery 44 East Exchange Place Museum of Church History and Art 45 North West Temple _ » » _ Displays historical artifacts ._ .».. _ _ » »Repartee Gallery Downtown20 East South Temple��_._._._».»_...._._.._.».»._.__..».».»._._.._...._»...._._.».».»._._._....»....._._._._._»».».»_. Rio Gallery 300 South 455 West(Rio Grande St.) In the historic Rio Grande depot building Rose Wagner Art Gallery 138 West 300 South Permanent Art installations and Rotating Art galleries »» »»» »Salt Lake Art Center _. _»»._»»_.» 20 South West Temple »»�» ��_ .»_. ._.»» Supports Youth and Local artists ��» » Social Hall Heritage Museum 51 South State Street - Southam Gallery 50 East Broadway - TP Gallery 252 South Main Street - Utah Artist Hands 61 West 100 South Supports Local Artists Utah Arts Alliance Gallery 127 South Main 3 locations,supports Youth and Local artists (Quick 1st Draft) Attachment C: List of Art Venues in the City I've 1 Address I Additional Information Williams Fine Art 200 East South Temple,Suite 100_ Supports Local Artists FAm Broadway Centre Cinemas 111 East 300 South - Center for Documentary Arts _»µ 243 East 400 South,Suite 301 __.._._._._. .._._._._ ._._._._.-.»._._._. .-_._. ._ Clark Planetarium 110 South 400 West at The Gateway - -__Legacy Theater _=__._._.__ _._._._.__15 E.South Temple ^_._._ _.___.Y�._». _ __.__ ._ "__ ___ _.___ Salt Lake Film Center 122 S. Main St. - Performing Arts Ballet West 50 West 200 South - » � Children Theatre _._._.._._ _.�_ � 3605 South State_._..� _._._.._._ » _ ...Seating Capacity= 185+__.._ ._.»._.._._._.». .».» . Off Broadway Theatre 272 South Main Street �Seati parity=250 w» __._.._._Plan B Theatre Company 133 West 300 South - Repertory Dance Theatre 13S West 300 South - Salt Lake Acting Company 16B West 500 North - Utah Opera.._.»._._.».._._.».».»..»._._._._.�123 W.South Temple - Utah Symphony 123 W South Temple - Museurnsiteaservetery Clark Planetarium 110 South 400 West - Daughters of the Utah Pioneers 300 North Main Street : Discovery Gateway ._._..__.__ _.»_._ 444 West 100 South ._._ _._._ - Family History Library 35 N.West Temple - Family History Search Center 15 E.South Temple - . .Fort Douglas Military _ .».»..»._._.»»..».» 32 Potter Street �_..».»»..»._. .»._._.».. ».» ... ..».».»._ : Governor's Mansion 603 East South Temple - Red Butte Gardens ..._.».µ_._.»._.300 Wakara Way_.___._._...».._._.__._....._....»._. - The Beehive House 67 East South Temple 11 - . The Leonardo 209 East 500 South - _. .._Utah Museum of Fine Arts _. .._ 410 South Campus Drive .. _ .� ._........ . . Utah Natural History Museum Along Bonneville Shoreline Trail - (Quick 1st Draft) 4 Attachment C: List of Art Venues in the City e Address Additional Information Performance Venues Abravenel Hall MMw 123West South Temple MSeating Capacity 2,768 _.__..»._ ..».. Assembly Hall on Temple Square 50 W. North Temple.........................................._...._....... ._._._.. . M...:... _...._. ....»...._._....._. ._._. Capitol Theatre MM 50 West 200 South Seating Capacity 1,876 MM M Dumke Recital Hall 1376 East President's Circle Seating Capacity=114 (University of Utah) Dumke Student Theatre 1840 S 1300 E(Westminster College) Seating Capacity=150,Black Box proudctions Edgar J.Thompson Chamber Music 1375 East President's Circle Seating Capacity=300 »» Hall (University of Utah) Energy Solutions Arena _._._._.._._._._ 301 W.South Temple Seating Capacity=20,000 Gallivan Center 239 S. Main Street Holds Summer Concert Series In the Venue 219 South 600 West - Kingsbury Hail_ _ _ ._T1395 Presidents Circle$190__ _ Seating Capacity= 1,992 - _ LDS Conference Center 60 W. North Temple � - Seating Capacity=21,333 Libby Gardner Concert Hall 1377 East President's Circle Seating Capacity=680 (University of Utah) Library Square 210 East 400 South Holds Festivals and Concerts during the Summer Pioneer Park 350 S 300 W Holds Twilight Concert Series max attendance 52,000 people for final concert of Summer 2011 Red Butte Garden Ampitheate r 300 Wakara Way _-_M Holds Summer Concert Series Rose Wagner Theatre ._-138 West Broadway Seating Capacity=501 �. Salt Lake City&County Building 451 South State Street Summer Festival Series Tabernacle on Temple Square 50 West North Temple Holds weekly performance of Mormon Tabernacle Choir The Depot 13 North 400 West - Urban Lounge 241 South 500 East - Vieve Gore Concert Hall 1250 E 1700 S(Westminster College) Seating Capacity=285 (Quick 1st Draft) {J !Ici.ii gni •►� �' RECEIVED RALPH BEOCB NM� (r( ().1*-' SEP 3 3 2u 11 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR SLC COUNCIL OFFICE September 1,2011 Salt Lake City Council Jill Remington-Love,Chair 451 South State Street,Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City,Utah 84114-5476 Dear Council member Love, Listed below are my recommendations for the Salt Lake City Redistricting Work Group. These recommendations represent one member from each council district while balancing political affiliation and promoting diversity of the group. District 1 —Mike Christensen District 2—Nan Weber District 3—Margith Maughan District 4—Maria Torres District 5—Eliot Sykes District 6—James Guilkey District 7—Stephen L.Nelson I appreciate your support and consideration of these recommendations. With warmest regard, "Ii) Ralph Becker,Mayor cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson,City Council Executive Director David Everitt,Chief of Staff 4S1 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH B4114.5474 TELEPHONE:801.53S-7704 FAX:801 53S-i331 www.skgov.can This form can be filled out online at www.sicgoucom/redistricting Return completed applications to the following address by August 15,2011: Salt Lake Mayor's Office Re: Redistricting Working Group Application PO Box 145474 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,Utah 841115474 Salt Lake City Redistricting Working Group Application The Salt Lake City Mayor's Office will be organizing a Working Group to serve in an advisory role during the City Council redistricting process. Selected members will be expected to 1)meet at least once a month from September until Council adopts new boundaries (Council hopes to conclude process in December of 2011),2)attend meetings to gather concerns,ideas,and input,and 3)present suggestions and/or maps for City Council and School Board boundaries. Qualifvine Questions: 1) Are you currently serving on any other City committees?Yes If so,which committee(s)/board(s)/commission(sUsuthority? Pm interested in participating in my cities committees but would need a list to see which I'd make the best contribution to. 2) Are you a registered voter in Salt Lake City? Yes Answering"yes"to any of the questions below would cause you to be ineligible to be selected for the Salt Lake City Council Working Group. Have you in the last three years been: 3) An immediate family member of a City Council or School Board representative? No 4) A candidate for any elected office? No 5) Appointed or elected to any public office? No 6) An officer of a political party? No 7) A registered lobbyist with Salt Lake County or the State of Utah? No 8) An officer of any candidate's campaign committee? No if eligible after completing the above questions,please complete and submit your application for the Council's consideration. Name:Maria Torres Application Date:8/16/2011 2:43:44 PM Home Address:639 S 500 E City,State,Zip:Salt Lake City,UT84102 How long have you resided at your current address?3 years Email address:mariaktorres@gmail.com Primary Phone#:801-897-4724 Secondary Phone#: Occupation:Administrator/Manager in which Salt Lake City Council District do you reside?4 To view current Council boundaries,see httn://sic nan2.sicaay.comlwebsite%unit distrlcts/vlewer.htn or call801535-760a Please Indicate any political party affiliation-Democrate Unique qualifications and/or perspectives you would bring to the Working Group: I'm a college educated Mexian American with a low to moderate income who owns her own home In an partially owned/rented neighborhood In Central City.I have experience in negotiation,writing and have networks with the many communities intruding Historians,Universities/Professors,Ethnic Communities,and Neighbors. Note: You may attach your resume to this application form. Past and Present Community Service/Activities(if not indicated on resume): American Heart Association,Wasatch Gardens,Utah Cultural Alliance,Utah History Fair. Professional Activities(if not indicated on resume): I'm employed by a cultural,state-wide,non-profit organization and conduct business with with all ethnktties,income levels,and organizations who have desires to meet various community needs across the state.I have experience reviewing,discussing,and making recommendations to complicated,multi-faceted community based proposals. Civic/Professional Organization Memberships(if not indicated on resume): Utah Cultural Alliance,Utah History Fait,Utah State History Other Pertinent Information: Please list three references and phone numbers: 1) Cynthia Buckingham 801359-9670 2) Jack Newell (801)556-1008 3) Beth Jones 801-359-9670 DATE: Submit SIGNATURE Maria K. Torres • 639 S 500 E, Salt Lake City,UT 84102 • 801.897.4724 •7nariaktorresC?g.gmail.com PROFILE Extremely organized administrative professional with extensive experience in grant management, grant writing, project management,budget analysis,problem solving, and customer service. Extensive experience collaborating with and advising University faculty and staff on grant applications and program development. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Grants and Program Manager 2004-Present Utab Humanities Council • Works with universities, state agencies,organizations,and businesses to develop competitive grant applications by reviewing and editing proposals, analyzing budgets, and recommending potential collaborating partners • Provides grant management training to staff • Administers all awarded grants and contracts to ensure compliance with organization guidelines and federal standards as well as solve problems related to the administration of the awards • Generates and analyzes statistical reports to ensure programs meet organization and program objectives, and stay within budget • Instrumental in the development of the organization's database using Microsoft Access;currently provides oversight with the development of an online grants program using Microsoft SQL • Prepares reports for National Endowment for the Humanities ($635,000), the State of Utah ($65,000),and Zoo,Arts,and Parks Fund ($91,000) • Manages Book Buzz from program development and design to implementation • Leads a team in the development of internal protocols, and the revision of policies and procedures in grant management • Researches,writes, and designs monthly e-newsletter using Dreamweaver and HTML • Meets strict deadlines and responds to grant inquiries quickly Marketing Assistant 2003-2004 Centex Homes • Assisted with the editing,writing,and designing of marketing materials for media kits, newspapers,press releases, magazines,and website • Researched and prepared proposals for the marketing department ADDITIONAL EXPERIENCE 2010-Current,Substitute Library Assistant,Salt Lake City i ib*aty,Salt Lake City,UT 1996-2002,Supervisor/Specialist,Home Depot,West Valley,UT 2002 2005,Part-time Sales Associate,Ann Taylor Loft,Suga:house,UT 1998-1999,Production Intern/Air Controller,PBS/KUED,Salt Lake City,UT 1998-1999,Student Vice-Chair,University of Utah University Union,Salt Lake City, UT RELATED EXPERIENCE Maria K.Torres,801.897.4724 Page 1 Expert in Word,F4,and Access;average experience with Power Point,HTML and Dreamweaver Member of the planning committee for Association of State and Local History (ASLH) EDUCATION 2010,Fieldstone Foundation Professional Development Program Completed 6-month professional education aafficatlon prndrum in project management and leadership 2007-2011,University of Utah Continuing Education,Technology Education Completed training:in Excel,Access, Html,and Dreamweaver 2007,University of Utah Continuing Education, Professional Education Cerhfrcation in Development Fund 1998, University of Utah Completed four-week intensive Spanish language course in Oviedo,Spain 1999,B.A.,English Uaiversitj of Utah,Salt Lake City, UT Maria K.Torres,801.897.4724 Page 2 • This form can be filled out online at www.slcgov.com/redistricting RECEIVED Return completed applications to the following address by August 15,2011: Soft Lake Mayor's Office Re: Redistricting Working Group Application -_: 0 PO Box 145474 451 South State Street SLC COUNCIL OFFICE Salt Lake City,Utah 84111-5474 Salt Lake City Redistricting Working Group Application The Salt Lake city Mayor's Office will be organizing a Working Group to serve in an advisory role during the city Council redistricting process. Selected members will be expected to 1)meet at least once a month from September until Council adopts new boundaries (Council hopes to conclude process in December of 2011),2)attend meetings to gather concerns,Ideas,and input,and 3)present suggestions and/or maps for City Council and School Board boundaries. Qualifvkw Questions: 1) Are you currently serving on any other City committees?No if so,which committee(s)/board(s)/commission(s)/authority? 2) Are you a registered voter in Salt Lake City? YeS Answering"yes"to any of the questions below would cause you to be ineligible to be selected for the Salt Lake City Council Working Group. Have you in the last three years been: 3) An immediate family member of a City Council or School Board representative? No 4) A candidate for any elected office? No 5) Appointed or elected to any public office? No 6) An officer of a political party? No 7) A registered lobbyist with Salt Lake County or the State of Utah? No 8) An officer of any candidate's campaign committee? No If eligible after completing the above questions,please complete and submit your application for the Councils consideration. Name:Stephen 1.Nelson Application Date:8/5/2011 8:35:51 AM Home Address:2548 Pasadena Street City,State,Zip:Salt Lake City,Ut84109 How long have you resided at your current address?16 Months Email address:snelson@slco.org Primary Phone p:8019182304 Secondary Phone tl:8015314178 Occupation:Prosecutor and Adjunct Professor In which Salt Lake City Council District do you reside?7 To view current Council boundaries,see htto://slcimop2.s/caov.com/website/Council districts/viewer.htm or call 801-535-7600. Please indicate any political party affiliation-Other Unaffiliated Unique qualifications and/or perspectives you would bring to the Working Group: 1 am an attorney,end I hold a Ph.D.to Political Science frail the University of Utah.i being a perspective.in short,that is both practical and theoretical As the author, lead-author,and co-author of several scholarly Journal artdes,t am very c farqble with mofesskinal writing.!have also chaired over 6D felony jury test,,,and ant, thus,very comforbeble speaking in public. Note: You may attach your resume to this application form. Past and Present Community Service/Activities(if not indicated on resume): I was the student body president at Westminster College in 1998-1999.I am the Chair of the Data Collection Working Group of the National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children,looted in Denver,Colorado. Professional Activities(if not indicated on resume): I ems career prosecutor.Asa Deputy DIstrkt Attorney.with the Salt take County District Attomey's Office,and a Spedal Assistant United States Attorney,with the United States Attorneys Ms for theflstrkt.of Utah.I protrude felony gang and drug cases,as well as homidde cases.l also teach both undergraduate and graduate students as an adjunct professor at the Untverskyof Utah. Civic/Professional Organization Memberships(If not indicated on resume): I am a member in good standing of the Utah State Bar Assodation. Other Pertinent Information: I am essentially a lifelong Sak Lake City resident(I have lived hi the Capitol Hill-area,the Amities,Sugaefiouss,and now the East Bench/Country atrb crest),a graduate of Salt take City public schools(Ensign Elementary,Bryant Jr.High,West High,Westminster College,and the University of Utah),and i am,therefore,deeply interested in and committed to the well-being of Salt Lake City.I would welcome the opportunity to serve on this Working Group. Please list three references and phone numbers. 1) Nell Abercrombie 8017126555 2) Robert Forbis 8016387839 3) Richard Green 8015816223 DATE: Submit SIGNATURE • • STEPSEN L.NELSON 2548 Pasadena Street Salt Lake City,Utah 84109 (801)918-2304 shnlaw@yahoo.com ducation: University of Utah,Department of Political Science,SLC,UT Ph.D.,2010 Fields:American Government and Public Administration Dissertation:Me King's Wrongs and the Federal District Courts: Understanding the Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act" - Chair:Dr.Richard Green University of Utah,8..1:Quinney College of Law,SLC,UT Juris Doctor,2002 Staff Member,Utah Law Review Westminster College,t3LC,UT Bachelor of Arts(Ec:onomics),1999 Student Body President 1998-1999 Supplemental Instructor,Introduction to Macroeconomics, 1998-1999 Employment: Deputy District Attorney,Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office,SLC,UT Homicide Team,2008-Present Special Assistant United States Attorney,District of Utah,2008-Present Organized Gang Prosecution Team,2007-Present Narcotics Enforcement Team,2005-2007 General Felonies Them,2005 Misdemeanor Team,2005 Assistant Attorney General,Utah Attorney General's Office,SLC,UT , Children's Justice Division,2002-2005 University of Utah,Center for Public Policy and Administration,SLC,UT Graduate Research Assistant;,2001-2002 Law Cleric,Utah Attorney General's Office,SLC,UT Public Affairs/State Agency Counsel Division,2000-2002 kublications: "The King's Wrongs and the Federal District Courts:Understanding the Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act,"Nelson, Spa L.,South Texas Law Review,Vol.51,pp.101-147(Fall 2010). 1 "Families in Crisis,Challenges for Poliaymalcera Rxamining the Troubled Lives of Drug Endangered Children,"Nelson,Stephen L.,l(.Prince,&M.Seamy, Ohio Northern Law Review,Vol.36,No.1,pp.81-114(2009). "Snapshots of Suspects and Defendants:A Discussion of Arrest and Prosecution Outcomes in Drug Endangered Children Cases,"Nelson, Stephen L.,K.Prince&M.Seamy,Ouln nlpiac Law Review.Vol.27,No.4,pp. 837480(2009). "The Attraction to At-Will Employment in Utah Governments" • Green,Richard,Fortis,L Robinson,S.Nelson,l:Seelig,&A.Stefaniak Intanatioacal Journal of Publc,�Administration.April 2008,Vol.31,Issue 5,pgs. 535-551. "On the Ethics of At-Will Employment Relations in the Public Sector" Green,Richard,R.Forbis,A.Golden,S.Nelson,&J.Robinson Public Integrity.Fall 2006,Vol.8,No.4,pgs.305-327. "The Attraction to At-Will Employment in Utah Governments" Green,Richard,R.Forbis,J.Robinson,S.Nelson,r Seelig,&A.Stefaniak In American Public Service:Radical Reform and the Merit System(2006). James Bowman&Jonathon West eds.,pp. 175-191.New York:CRC Press. U'nfversity/College Courees Taught: University of Utah,Salt Lake City,UT: Fall 2011:Administrative Theory(Poli-Sci 6300) Fall 2011:Environmental Politics(Poll-Sd 3390) Summer 2011:State and Local Government(Poll-Sd 3030) Summer 2011:Introduction to American Government(Poli-Sci 1100) Spring 2011:Advanced American Government(Poll-Sci 5100) Spring 2011:Administrative Theory(Poll Sd 6300) Fall 2010:Administrative Theory(PolSci 6300) Summer 2010:Introduction to American Government(Poli-Sci 1100) Spring 2010:Administrative Theory(Poll-Sd 6300) Spring 2010:Introduction to American Government(Poli-Sd 1100) Fall 2009:Administrative Theory(Pali-Sci 6300) Fall 2009:Introduction to American Government(Poll-Sci 1100) Summer 2009:Introduction to American Government(Poll-Sci 1100) Spring 2009:introduction to American Government(Poll-Sc!1100) Fall 2008:Introduction to America.Government(Poli-Sol 1100) Summer 2008:Introduction to American Government(Poll-Sci 1100) Spring 2008:Introduction to American Goverment(Poll Sci 1100) Fall 2007:Introduction to American Government(Poll-Sci 1100) Spring 2007:Introduction to Public Administration(Poli-Sci 3300) Fall 2006:Introduction to Public Administration(Poll Sti 3300) Spring 2006:I troduction to Public Administration(P`oli-Sci 3300) 1 Fall 2004:Introduction to Public Administration(Poll-Sol 3300) • 2 • Salt Lake Community College,Tayloravitle,UT: Fall 2011:Economic History of the United States(Soon 1740) Fall 2011:Introduction to Macroeconomics(Econ 2020) Spring 2010:Introduction to Macroeconomics(Boon 2020) Spring 2009:Introduction to Macroeconomics(Boon 2020) Fall 2008:Introduction to Macroeconomics(Boon 2020) Summer 2008:Economics as a Social Science(Even 1010) Spring 2008:Introduction to Macroeconomics(Boon 2020) Fall 2007:Introduction to Macroeconomics(Boon 2020) Summer 2007:Economics as a Social Science(Boon 1010) Spring 2007:Introduction to Macroeconomics(Boon 2020) Pall 2006:Introduction to Macroeconomics(Boon 2020) Westminster College,SLC,UT: Fall 2002:Introduction to Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties(Poll-Sci 355) Conference Presentations: 36s'National Organization for Victim Assistance Conference,`families in Crisis, • Challenges for Policyrnake rs:Examining the Troubled Lives of Drug-Endangered Children,"August 22,2010,Salt Lake City,UT. 59e Annual Session of the University of Utah School on Alcoholism and Other Drug Dependencies,"A Retrospective Study of Drug Endangered Children and Caregivers," June 22,2010,Salt Lake City,UT. • 2009 Utah Drug Endangered Children Conference,"Salt Lake County Drug Endangered Children Cases Research Project,"August 5,2009,Salt Lake City,UT. 58t Annual Session of the University of Utah School on Alcoholism and Other Drug Dependencies,"A Retrospective Study of Drug Endangered Children and Caregivers," June 23,2009,Salt Lake City,UT, 2008 National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children Con ce,"Evaluated Programs: the Comprehensive Approach to Drug Endangered Children,"October 7,2008,Salt Lake City,UT. 2008 International Family Violence and Child Victimization Conference,"Working Together to Protect Cli7d Victims:Identifying Gaps in Services to Those Who Endanger Children in Utah,"July 28,2008,Portsmouth,NIL 2007 National Drug Endangered Children Conference,"Child Endangerment Prosecutions:What Happens to These Cases and Why?,"October 11,2007,Kansas City, MO. 2007 Utah Drug Endangered Children.Conference,`From Charges to Convictions:A Collaborative Approach,"August 9,2007,SLC,UT. 2006 Utah Drug Endangered Children Conference,"Collecting Evidence for a Prosecutable Child Endangerment Case,"August 18,2006,SLC,UT. 3 1 Service: Chair,Needs Assessment and Data Collection Work Group,National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children,2011-Present Member,Needs Assessment and Data Collection Work Group,National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children,2007-2011 Law Enforcement Subcommittee Chair,Salt Lake City Police Department COPS Methamtphetamine Initiative,2006-Present Community Involvement Boy Scouts of America,Troop 234:Merit Badge Counselor for Citizenship in the World,Citizenship in the Nation,and Citizenship in the Community Merit Badges Awards: 2008 Gang Prosecutor of the Year,Utah Gang Investigator's Association 2007 Outstanding Achievement Award, 18a`Annual Utah Gang Conference 2003 Robert H.Beckley Gradual),Scholarship,University of Utah,SLC,UT 2002-2003 Scott M.Matheson Fellowship in Public Policy;University of Utah,SLC,UT 1999 Communicator of the Year,Westminster College 4